FEATURED COMMENT – Keys to success in establishing effective policing

Re: THE COST OF POLICING – Evaluating Kamloops’ law enforcement

Good day all. Having policed New Westminster in the mid-80’s to early 2000’s, our use of both community policing initiatives and downtown foot patrols paid favorable dividends. I was told–early in my career–that some the RCMP in northern communities were sometimes referred to being “police officers without legs.”

The inference being made here is that the police drove around in their police cars but were rarely seen getting out of them and actually walking. This suggested that, with the exception of pure enforcement activities where face-to-face contact was/is a must, that the police were seen to be otherwise aloof, uncaring, and otherwise not fully engaged in the community.

In the early to mid 1980’s, some referred to New Westminster as “The Wild-wild Westminster,” as Friday and Saturday nights brought some 5,000 bar patrons into New Westminster (this was roughly the total number of bar seats in a city of less than 60,000) with the result being numerous and ongoing incidents of public drunkenness, bar fights, and impaired driving. Add to this, a total of five SkyTrain stations that brought their fair share drug dealers, thieves, and other ne’er-do-wells, and the street crime in the city was staggering.

Four things made a significant impact in policing the City of New Westminster:

1. Community Policing. This included initiatives like: Crime Watch (where there were citizens with radios on patrol on Friday and Saturday nights); the Crime-free Multi-Housing Program (that addressed personal safety, security, and screening best-practices); and, the Police in the Schools program (where officers volunteered to teach students/teachers about safety, personal security, and the law) and provided an opportunity for friendly face-to-face interactions with police officers. To name but a few….

2. Downtown Foot Patrols. The police provided regular face-to-face interaction with police—including the use of several Community Policing offices. Additionally, the regular presence of police officers in and around the downtown, deterred would-be thieves and other criminals—especially drug dealers—as the close proximity of the police and the threat of apprehension resulted in a significant reduction in street crime.

3. The Police Board. Chaired by the Mayor, with the Chief of Police as well as prominent members of the city on the Board (often business leaders), the Board met each month to learn about—and address—crime statistics and other policing initiatives. They provided input and suggestions to the Chief who then decided what to do about addressing any concerns they may have had.

4. The Courts. This is perhaps the most important element in the overall effectiveness in addressing crime. The Crown Counsel (prosecutors), judges, justices-of-the-peace, and others in the court system played a vital role in the success of dealing with criminals—especially repeat-offenders—and were instrumental in providing effective sentences and release conditions that significantly impacted the success of dealing with street crime. In short, the Crown Counsel were consistently “fair but firm” in dealing with crime, and without their positive influence, few of the above-mentioned initiatives would have found true success.

So, may I suggest, that regardless of the model that one chooses, these “keys to success” must be present to create and maintain effective policing. A multi-pronged approach is necessary that includes  enhanced face-to-face interaction between: citizens and the police; offenders/potential offenders; business leaders/proprietors; community groups; the Crown Counsel’s office; the Mayor and City Council; and other affected stakeholders in the community in order to make policing truly effective.

With 28-years of policing/law enforcement experience—retiring as a manager with the Vancouver Police Department—I hope that this helps!

GLEN RICHMOND