Police reform: a viewpoint

Mar 08, 2015 News

---

By Dale Andrews  

(Continued from last week…)
To expand and sustain the reform programme, the Guyana Police Force (GPF) needs

to develop and implement a communication strategy to promote the culture change goals. In addition to its standard institutional orders, sensible use of social media promoting development initiatives will go a long way in assuring the populace that the police organization and its actions reflect optimal resource usage.
Enhanced knowledge will generate sensitivity and wider acceptance across rank and file of the vision for the future, as well as community involvement in change efforts.  But this mode of communication should not be abused by being confused with personal profiles and image building, as is the order of the day in authoritarian cultures.  Outcomes must reflect changes in society’s perception of the police; how the police perceive their own role, and their relationship with the society.
When it comes to recruitment to the GPF, this has been a virtually insurmountable challenge in the absence of a clear recruitment strategy which attracts suitable candidates.  As alluded to above, salary remains the elephant in the room, right alongside safety and health issues, and corrupt and unethical practices that are not the exclusive preserve of any particular rank level.
The GPF needs to sell itself in a competitive environment where – as Dr. Victor Strecher The Environment of Law Enforcement, 1971 argues that no recruitment brochure can prepare one for an occupation where “…corpses, the homeless, inebriates, the tragedy of victimization, lower class subculture, or a steady stream of angry people” is all part of an “unsavory structural and social environment.”
And as Larry Hoover on Police Recruitment in a Booming Society (July 2001) declared “…there is no other occupation more unforgiving of mistakes, poor judgment, or misbehavior than law enforcement”, of course he could not have been referring to the GPF which seems to accept those traits as normal and par for the job.
Any intention to reform the local police, if it is to be taken seriously, must publicly demonstrate its abhorrence and intolerance of those undesirable characteristics beyond the veil of rhetoric. The rather inept handling of the torture duo retention and recent promotion by the GPF speaks volumes about any imminent departure from undemocratic norms.
At the risk of oversimplifying, let me briefly relate what Hoover offers as five “conundrums” which –  in his opinion are impediments to solving the problem of unsuitable applicants for recruitment to the GPF.
First conundrum says that “To increase the occupation’s prestige, we need to raise standards, but raising standards impedes recruitment even more.”  What this is saying basically is that if the GPF makes any significant effort to increase the physical or cognitive criteria for recruitment (or even retention) the selection pool will be constricted.  Please note the term “significant” as against “superficial” attempts in this regard.
Secondly we are told that “Police agencies should reflect the racial and ethnic composition of the communities they serve, but many selection standards have disparate impact upon ethnic minorities.”
Even the Disciplined Services Report mentioned the ethnic question which arises every so often.  The point being made is that the likely unintended consequences could impact negatively on applicant quality or the prestige of the Force.
The third puzzle which affects attracting and retaining suitable candidates to a police force states that “Preventing and ferreting out abusive police practices requires aggressive internal monitoring, but aggressive internal monitoring is a primary negative job characteristic”.
The suggestion Hoover makes is that although police administrations should root out or control unethical behaviour, “aggressive efforts” in that direction can “backfire” and affect the morale of the majority who may be quite uninvolved in such practices.
One aspect of policing that seems to be outside of the capabilities of the GPF administration and which must be urgently looked at, is that of deployment.  This should be a significant component of the reform programme judging from the negative publicity regarding police visibility and the time that they take to respond to calls for assistance.  It is not quite clear what deployment model the GPF employs, and whether it addresses the family and gender issues that are likely to be affected by attendant policies.
The foregoing is premised on the conundrum that “Family-friendly policies are needed to attract and retain quality personnel, particularly women, but family-friendly policies wreak havoc with responsive patrol deployment.”  In other words, Hoover makes it very clear that something must be sacrificed in the equation since “…there is a price to be paid in terms of attractiveness of the occupation to individuals more committed to family than to the profession”.
There is a truism in C.B. Saunders’ Upgrading American Police (1970) fundamental comment that “to improve policing, we must first improve the police.”  Although it might not be readily apparent, there have been various attempts to introduce reform in the security sector, albeit in a less formally structured and coherent fashion.  One of the more formal ones was the Disciplined Services Commission, which made a raft of recommendations.  However there does not seem to be any forward movement on those, apart from the somewhat vague assurance that works are in progress.
In that vein, Louis A. Mayo writing on Twenty Five Years of Policing: Successes and Failures”, in Police Forum (July 2001 – Michael S. Vaughn, editor) argues that “…there is still a general failure to implement many well known and proven concepts and commission recommendations, while adhering to disproven concepts”.
Noteworthy is the fact that apart from the Minister of Home Affairs’ brief reference during his 2014 annual review, nothing is known about whether the GPF is implementing the several recommendations coming out of the management audit of the GPF Strategic Management Department.
It is the prerogative of citizens to demand that the GPF deliver value for money from the national treasury.  The word out there is that suggestions of a progressive nature emanating from certain non-traditional quarters are shunted aside by the new powers that be at Eve Leary. The point has been made that a mediocre leader thrives and shines in an environment of pervasive mediocrity.
It may be beyond the remit of the politicians to mandate that the GPF change “the way disciplinary procedures are handled, internal affairs investigations are conducted, and media relations promulgated.”  But there really is no impediment to a GPF, serious about operational philosophy reform, to seek at all times to be cognizant of the views of the public whose mandate it is to serve and protect. Chief among the tools at its disposal is a communications strategy which utilizes citizen perception surveys, and other fora to give citizens the opportunity to provide valuable input.  Therefore, any initiative which requires community awareness and involvement must provide that time and space, since in any regard, everyone will be affected.
A final thought on the desirability of reforming the Guyana Police Force.  The continuous descent into the quagmire of corruption will not engender any feelings of empathy on the part of the citizenry on the salaries issue. Furthermore there is likely to be a general degeneration of morale and motivation, particularly in an environment characterized by poor leadership and bad communication.  Additionally, corrupt practices learned on the way up the hierarchical ladder will most likely be retained, thus completing an already vicious circle of pervasive corruption.
It is incumbent on the management of the GPF at all levels to foster a climate that facilitates culture change if the Force is to take off on a positive trajectory along its reform continuum.
I wish to express my thanks to the many persons both in and out of the Guyana Police Force (who for obvious reasons will remain unnamed), who contributed their thoughts and experiences to this series of articles.

---

---