Chapter 11: Police Programs and Homeland Security/Hometown Security
Chapter Abstract
An interesting feature to remember in this discussion is that Homeland Security cannot happen without Hometown Security (IACP, 2009). This sections material examines programs at the federal state and local level. A point of interest at this juncture in this discussion is to call upon your own knowledge as to who provides Homeland and Hometown Security. What may come to mind at first blush is the military and the police. Yet in reality there are several divisions within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) alone that support security efforts on a state and local parameter. Although it was initially conveyed that private information is considered personal, to what degree might one consider their personal information private, albeit it may have been cut loose though some form of social media.
Information
This remains a hot button topic in our courts. Information that is gleaned through some form of investigative work in the CJ system, it is also shared with the federal government. Local CJ systems are aided in control of terrorism and crime through information sharing. The federal programs like Fusion Centers assist local hometown security efforts across the United States. What are Fusion Centers? Fusion centers operate as state and major urban area focal points for the receipt, analysis, gathering, and sharing of threat-related information between federal; state, local, tribal, territorial (SLTT); and private sector partners (DHS.gov). This section serves to examine a few of the Hometown Security programs. How does ethical conduct aid or impede these functions. While someone may have the authority to gain private information without jeopardy does it mean they should? The old adage”Just because you can don’t mean you should” comes to the forefront in this section.
Information gathering/deciphering
Information that is freely bounding through the troposphere is literally at will for those that wish to mine it. Information that was given up through social media, cellular telephones, or the WEB. Key words or phrases that may be overheard through surveillance techniques may trigger additional scrutiny. Privacy issues are hotly contested over ownership and to what degree privacy rights should prevail is an ongoing question. An unintended consequence of technology is the abundance of information and its availability with little to no protection of privacy.
The federal government has been partners with local policing and correctional agencies under the Department of Justice COPS Programs. Another agency supporting state and local security functions is the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Provided is a link to the Organizational Chart of DHS and a link for a description of the DHS mission: https://www.dhs.gov/organization https://www.dhs.gov/our-mission
Support for intelligence gathering and analysis and information sharing may be viewed through DHS Fusion Centers. In addition to many DHS enforcement and investigative units, there are many Fusion Centers located throughout the United States and not to mention the numerous federal and state and local agencies that have Homeland Security operations within.
Fusion centers became reality resulting from 9/11. Information or intelligence was pigeon holed by a multitude of agencies and was never shared. The attack on the United States on 9/11 changed the intelligence landscape. As an example, if a terrorist fighter in Afghanistan was taken and he had a note in his pocket “Panel truck full of explosives, Anytown, USA, 4th of July” and you are the police chief in the community of Anytown, USA, you probably want that information. How the fighter was captured, is not pertinent, but the intelligence located on his person is critical (Should that fighter have been tortured to gain the information; does it remain pertinent?). The scenario may seem fictional beyond belief but it does illustrate the silo of information that once existed. What would possibly be the purpose for not sharing that information? The former establishes the necessity of fusion centers. The issue becomes have they overstepped their original authority.
The National Network of Fusion Centers (National Network) collects, collates, and analyzes data providing value to homeland security and law enforcement that no other federal or local organization can replicate. The below link provides DHS/Fusion Center description.
https://www.dhs.gov/state-and-major-urban-area-fusion-centers
Unique Information
Fusion centers are information sharing hubs that provide comprehensive and appropriate access, analysis, and dissemination that no other single partner can offer.
Unique Perspective
Independence from federal partners allows fusion centers to provide partners with a unique perspective on threats to their state or locality, contributing to the national threat picture.
Unique Role
Fusion centers are the primary conduit between frontline personnel, state and local leadership, and the rest of the Homeland Security Enterprise, filling a significant security gap identified by the 9/11 Commission. The foregoing is a description from DHS Fusion Center.
Barn sky (2015) writing in the Brookings reports that not all work performed by the centers are not readily accepted, nor are they free of civil liberty allegations of abuse.
Critics of Fusion Centers like the ACLU and Government Oversight Committee’s It argued that fusion centers provided low-quality intelligence to the federal government and were not contributing in a meaningful way to counterterrorism efforts (para 5). Further, more than 40% of the centers are not reviewing their analytical products for civil liberty infringements—a large enough number to raise eyebrows (para 9). Find the link to the full article below.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2015/03/17/fusion-centers-whats-working-and-what-isnt/
Information ownership has taken on new meaning and a reluctance not to share is eliminated to some extent. The handling of intelligence is a tricky wicket. The need for dissemination may be fundamentally sound when dealing with homeland security issues, while the method of discovery material may be questionable to some. Fusion centers have alleviated the fears of inaccurate or invalid information being circulated on a need to know basis. This has not been without issues and concerns. Although the centers became reality resulting from 9/11, the need of individual privacy protection remains at large. The attack on the United States on 9/11 changed the intelligence landscape and probably the mood toward strict privacy but remaining is the prevailing concept “just because you can don’t mean you should.”
Community Oriented Policing (COP) / Problem Oriented Policing (POP) Defined
COP is an acronym for community-oriented policing. POP is an acronym for problem-oriented policing. The tenets of each is to provide police with new partners and attacking problems outside the traditional way, hence, “Thinking outside the Box.” Before going forth, the term thinking outside the box is a sound bite that may conger up many interpretations. This drives me nuts! Why, would such an innocuous term drive a person of reasonable sanity over the edge? First, what is the box? This has several meanings and unless all concerned are on the same page then one may find herself/himself chasing their tail. Exactly what are the items of concern, who will it take to resolve the issue, how much additional resources are required, and when might you pull the trigger on a resolution rather than procrastination through planning. Second, the term is succinct but one cannot lead from sound bites. Third, the term is cute, but cute does not identify systemic issues and the hard work required to identify the issues. Vigor, imagination, dedication and innovation are the true tools required and not the proverbial box. The stakeholders (internal and external) associated with the problem need to be linked, ground rules established and get down to the hard work.
The basic precepts to each is that the community police relationships are fostered in order to achieve goals such as maintaining order, reducing crime, the fear of crime, and the quality of life in neighborhoods. Problem-oriented policing requires the use of a broad range of information, identification and analysis of information used in addressing specific crime and disorder issues through innovative strategies.
The Center for Problem-Oriented Policing was established in 1999 with funding from the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice, which supported the center through to the end of 2013. Hosting of the web site is currently supported by funding from The School of Criminal Justice, University at Albany, State University of New York (Center for Problem-Oriented Policing). Herman Goldstein (2001) defines POP as:
Problem-oriented policing is an approach to policing in which discrete pieces of police business (each consisting of a cluster of similar incidents, whether crime or acts of disorder, that the police are expected to handle) are subject to microscopic examination (drawing on the especially honed skills of crime analysts and the accumulated experience of operating field personnel) in hopes that what is freshly learned about each problem will lead to discovering a new and more effective strategy for dealing with it. Problem-oriented policing places a high value on new responses that are preventive in nature, that are not dependent on the use of the criminal justice system, and that engage other public agencies, the community and the private sector when their involvement has the potential for significantly contributing to the reduction of the problem. Problem-oriented policing carries a commitment to implementing the new strategy, rigorously evaluating its effectiveness, and, subsequently, reporting the results in ways that will benefit other police agencies and that will ultimately contribute to building a body of knowledge that supports the further professionalization of the police (Web).
Community Oriented Policing / Problem Oriented Policing
Policing is an establishment of fragmented systems consisting of over 18,000 local, county, state and federal agencies. Concurrently policing is undergoing a paradigm shift. One of the new models of police operations and court functions include programs such as Community Oriented Policing, Problem Oriented Policing, Compstat, and Community Courts and Corrections. These have been widely touted as an effective and efficient method of delivering police services and offender adjudication. In-spite of the public approval, several of the police programs have been critiqued and criticized by police scholars. Although methodologies have been criticized and real outcomes questioned relative to the police models, the thrust of the COP/POP Models is neighborhood livability. The quality of life issues are the essence of livability in a neighborhood and in turn the community (Walsh & Vito, 2004; Marion & Oliver, 2012:2006; & Kelling & Wilson, 1982). Livability encompasses factors such as but not limited to crime, corruption, housing, diversity, and equal justice.
The major problem existing in a highly technologically advanced society is that the reliance upon technology has buffered the reality of the data provided with the lack of partnerships required to make the new advances work appropriately. Specifically, no one program or process is a standalone process that is independent of the other (Walsh & Eck as cited by Walsh & Vito, 2004). The uses of the programs in order to achieve maximum benefit require development by a police department in concert with a plethora of neighborhood associations (residents) and governmental entities and not-for-profit organizations.
The following examples are strategies embraced by police agencies that were developed during my tenure as the Police Chief or Police Commissioner. These program strategies were used in differing cities in two separate states between the years of 1996-2010. The main impetus of the following programs was to perform CPR on identified neighborhoods. That is to first stop the bleeding and start the breathing within sections of the cities that impacted the remainder of the community. Targeted systemic issues were abandoned buildings, junk filled vacant lots, slum lord running amuck, crime reduction coupled with a policy of containment and abatement. The objective was to identify the systemic issues that initially eroded neighborhood livability that supplemented further blight and crime. The strategies were the result of best practices of other communities, neighborhood meetings of residents, and stakeholders in the community. The following are a few of the program strategies instituted with the gainful insight of neighbors, community leaders, not-for-profits, and government:
Nuisance Abatement
This program was enacted as a city ordinance; this legislation contains a host of civil and criminal activities that are considered nuisances. Included in the list of offenses are drug sales, litter, excessive noise, barking dogs, unlawfully dealing with children, and disorderly bars are but a few of the topics contained in this law. Each violation carries with it a set number of points. The list of offenses had points attached for each individual violation. A property owner or business owner was assessed points as a result of an enforcement action (arrest or citation issued). Points could not be assigned for an enforcement unit merely being dispatched to an address.
A property which receives 12 points in a 6-month period, or 18 points in a 12-month period, both the property and business owners (where separate) would be required to appear before an independent hearing officer. If the nuisance charge(s) were sustained, the mayor then would have the authority to close the business for up to one year, and revoke all of the business owner’s certificates to operate a business within the city. Also, the property is posted with signs that declare the location a nuisance, as well the period of closure. Important to note is that points expire one year after issuance. A closure can only be based on the previous 12 months.
Prior to the enactment of Nuisance Abatement legislation, a landlord would remain at arm’s length from any form of enforcement action. She/he would argue that once the property is rented, it then becomes the domain of the renter and they are responsible for all conduct therein. In short, the landlord would absolve them self of legal liability in this format. The landlord would simply remain collecting rent with impunity. Some landlords would provide minimal repair to a building required to meet the minimum code. One of the issues discovered through neighborhood meetings was that some tenants were held hostage by the landlord. Due to economic means a tenant was unable to complain of livability of the premise or exterior activity for fear of being evicted. This class of tenant may have had limited opportunities to rent due to economic barriers, immigration status, language barriers, or criminal record. Often it was easier to exist, rather than complain. The silence was deafening once investigators and neighborhood advocates began digging and uncovering the onslaught of systemic issues.
In many, if not most states in the U.S. have a form of licensing and regulations regarding landlord/tenant obligations. The landlord is issued a certificate of occupancy (generally through fire codes and may have other names for the occupancy) that specifies the dwelling or building has been inspected, meets specific standards, and is approved for occupancy. A certificate of Occupancy is a license to operate issued by a local, county or state agency. The certificate is issued much like a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, during periods of good behavior. The certificate also falls under administrative codes with the jurisdiction that issues the license. The agency that issues the license, may suspend or revoke the license, provided agency policy is followed. In other words, He who issues, is he who may take away. However, due process must be provided for as was the case in this legislation (Hearing Process).
The landlord was thusly held responsible for whom they rented to, conduct within the premise, they were provided notification of enforcement action at the property, and they were expected to take remedial action. A simple, “I told them to behave or I would evict them”, did not qualify as remedial. The action had to be documented, authentic, have repercussions for failing to heed the warning, and have some overt action on the part of the landlord. Landlords were under greater scrutiny and held to a higher standard. One which aided to raise the standard of living in a neighborhood, rather than add to its deterioration.
As one may imagine, the program was not embraced by all landlords. The stiff resistance was not only voiced at meetings of Landlord/Relator Associations that the Police Chief was required to present and address concerns of the association or meetings in the neighborhoods that tenant felt they would come under fire from landlords in some form of extortion or intimidation. I one location a landlord/tenant advisory panel was formed to address ongoing issues of real or perceived abuses (By landlords, government, tenants). At the conclusion of the first year a survey of landlords by the panel was conducted and the majority of landlords felt the legislation helped them with tenants, eviction processes due to violations, and provided the ability in some cases to renovate property and increase rent. Certainly the minority was equally vocal with disdain for the legislation. During the first year of operation generally two or three residential rental properties or a business was closed. Compliance with the legislation was prompted by enforcement.
One key components of the legislation was that the points for a violation are attached to a property, not the landlord. Regardless of the owner. For example, Person “A” gets close to a shut down due to point violations, he then sells the property to his spouse, Person “B” thinking the points dissipate at that juncture. Not so. The points follow the property until they reach the expiration date. In most states, Real Estate Laws require notice by the seller to a buyer of hazards and suits against the property.
Putting this piece of legislation into perspective, you Officer are called to a location in tough love neighborhood and you find several violations of civil codes. A single mother from Hatti with five small children reside therein. The mother rents the property from a known slum lord that has several properties in disrepair. You alert the mother that you are going to report the violations to code and take civil action against the slum lord. She immediately breaks down crying, begging you not to do so for fear of the landlord reporting her to the Immigration authorities. She is a contributing member of the community working three jobs and raising her five children in the American way. Her pleas are taking toll on your emotions. What are you going to do and how in the world can you justify your actions?
Neighborhood Enforcement
This is a proactive police program. A coordinated approach to improving the livability of neighborhoods by solving multi-faceted, persistent community problems that lowers the quality of life in the City’s neighborhoods. This is a proactive approach focusing on the prevention of crime, the proliferation and continued deterioration of exploited neighborhoods. A key goal of this approach is to increase the positive environments, which fosters neighborhood growth and positive perceptions of the City.
This approach supports a problem solving method relating to systemic issues impacting blocks of neighborhoods, rather than merely responding to a report after problems occur. The initiative uses traditional policing, combined with code enforcement, community policing, fire inspections, probation, parole, drug enforcement units, state liquor authorities and animal control to eliminate the enabling conditions of the problems. It calls upon other government resources and community partners to improve neighborhood livability. Neighborhood Enforcement develops innovative strategies, which combine civil law and criminal law remedies to address quality of life and crime problems.
Clean Sweep Detail
City workforce uses the clean sweep concept to target blighted neighborhoods to stop further deterioration while increasing the livability of that neighborhood. The Neighborhood Enforcement Unit prioritizes problem properties or neighborhoods using established criteria to address the concerns in the order of priority.
Generally, clean sweep details encompass several city blocks at one time. This process better utilizes limited resources from all departments at one time. Abandoned vehicles (previously ticketed or tagged as abandoned) are towed, notice of violations issued and citations where warranted are issued. Property owners are provided an opportunity to respond to the Mayor’s Office within five days of notice to discuss a plan to abate the violation.
Property owners are then provided a time line to complete the plan. If the plan is not provided or the violation abated prior to the re-inspection of the area, a citation is issued. Re-inspection of the neighborhood is scheduled within 10-15 days of the clean sweep detail. The properties that remain in violation or have not provided the city with a plan for abating the violation are cited and issued a complaint-tracking number and entered into the system. Nuisance Abatement points are assessed at this time and notification letters to the property owner is sent via the U.S. Mail.
A risk of implementing any innovative program is initially the buy-in. Buy-in by the identified partners requires ground up development; Mark Twain said’ “Everything is a Crank; until it works” and this is no stranger to local initiatives as everyone wants to support a winner, no one wants to be identified as associated with a loser. This is a mountain to overcome and requires resilience, stamina and deep belief on all participants but particularly from local leaders. The reliance of the politician upon the local police chief to bring home the winner is an enormous pressure and as soon as one innovation is brought home they expect the next one to follow right behind.
Finally, the quality of life enforcement activities stops further debilitation of the area, provides unification of needed partnerships, utilizes data driven enforcement, which in turn justifies actions to residents and is tempered with equal enforcement and positive rather than negative enforcement. In short, not only is enforcing the small stuff critical it is a foundation for all other forms of enforcement in order to build trust and momentum for eliminating crime (efficiently as possible) and not merely moving crime (Blumstein &Wallman; Eck & Maguire, 2006).
Intelligence Led Policing / CompStat a POP strategy
A definition of Intelligence Led Policing (ILP) is a strategic, future-oriented and targeted approach to crime control, focusing upon the identification, analysis and management of persisting and developing problems or risks. In essence, it is a model of policing in which intelligence serves as a guide to operations, rather than the reverse (McGarrell; Freilich; & Chermak, 2007). The most comprehensive of ILP is the CompStat strategy introduced most prominently in New York City by Commissioner Bratton. CompStat is short for Computerized Statistics that uses computerized information to develop statistical analysis of crime problems that form the basis of police action (Schick, 2004).
CompStat (Computerized Statistics) is a nationally recognized program originally introduced in New York City is a strategic problem-solving system that combines “state-of-the art management principles with cutting-edge crime analysis and geographic systems technology” (Willis, Mastrofski, & Weisburd, 2004). Compstat is a single POP strategy used in conjunction with other COP programs with the intended results of securing data driven results.
According to Walsh and Vito (2004, p.57) “CompStat is a goal-oriented, strategic –management process that uses information technology, operational strategy and managerial accountability to guide police operations…reduce crime and improve the quality of life.” Further bolstering my point that CompStat cannot be successful without collaboration with other tactics it is asserted in the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, four crime reduction principles that create the framework for the CompStat process are: accurate and timely date; effective tactics; rapid deployment of personnel and resources; and relentless follow-up (Shane, 2004). Technology has provided a closely associated by-product of the computer age. This is geographic mapping of crime. The combination of the two systems link maps of the agency jurisdiction with other computerized police records that replaces the old pin maps (LaVigne and Wartell, 2000). It is worthy of note that not all police agencies have access to either of these systems nor do they have the required resources to implement the procedures if they had.
Unlike traditional police bureaucracies, the CompStat is intended to streamline, create a sharper focus, greater knowledge base and agile (Willis et al., 2004). CompStat has proven itself, however it is posited here that CompStat enacted without simultaneous strategies is nothing more than another single tool in the agency toolbox. Weisburd, Mastrofski, McNally, Greenspan, and Willis, (2003) contends the purpose is to fight crime and improve the quality of life, while at the same time have the ability to overcome traditional bureaucratic irrationalities. This includes conquering parochial attitudes, meaningless boundary lines and turf battles, barriers that prevented cooperation and ability to cut through red tape.
Thus technology as noted here has some real benefits to the security of homeland and hometown security. However, the least suspicious of intent and good will still remain unnerved with personal information and a government mix. Past conduct of those that have charge of the benefit and the minority that has misused the trust have made the concern omnipresent, where once ignored. What remains unknown is how the courts will deal with privacy issues and the “Duty to preserve safety and security”.
Hometown Security means what to Homeland Security?
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sleeper/inside/profiles.html
The above link provides one example of the nexus between local law enforcement and Homeland security. A small cell located in the suburbs of Buffalo, NY. This enforcement was the combined effort of local and federal authorities. This illustrates that law enforcement, regardless of local, state or federal, must work in conjunction with each other to achieve security. Historically, enforcement efforts reserved for federal agencies have since been relegated to local law enforcement, such as auto theft, bank robbery, drug enforcement, and kidnapping. Information being the lifeblood of enforcement activities it is abundantly apparent that information sharing is required. This is not restricted to the law enforcement agencies but is the responsibility of community itself to authorities. The previously discussed strategies toward Community Policing are avenues for intelligence gathering and sharing opportunities. Ethically, how should one agency deal with the information? When a change in administrations occurs (Generally Federal Level) previously engaged programs are often scrapped for a newer, shinier model. In short, if it works, get rid of it because it is not ours. The COPS effort has surpassed this obstacle and remains intact today, but at what level and at what degree of efficiency?
Who is going to take over when the adults leave town?
Government resources are scarce even in good economic times. The COPS Office has received numerous reformations dependent on public policy. They began during the Clinton Administration (50,000 New COPS) a funding mechanism to bring new police officers into the profession during very difficult economic times. The Officers, depending on economic situation of the community, were funded by a formula that after a five year period they were funded in full by the local municipality. The COPS office remains in operation today but with differing programs, but remains dedicated to its original mission of supporting local police.
The purpose of programs may lose its meaning or because it was from a previous administration the public policy becomes tainted and may be bastardized. Webster defines bastardized as: to reduce from a higher to a lower state or condition. This means to debase, corrupt, contaminate or weaken or dilute “it is unthinkable that I would bastardize my values”. The COPS program remain relatively intact and is administered as a component within the U.S. Department of Justice dedicated to community policing. The ethics of public policy may not reside in the long term planning of communities as in this example of the COPS program. Albeit they remain in operation, as crime has reduced the money allocated to the program diminishes. Can crime increase as fast as it decreased? When public officials find themselves embroiled in public policy skirmishes over ownership or find a need to weaken something that works due to who may have originated the concept, often the public benefactors are the victims. Might short sightedness be an ethical violation of voluminous proportions?
Certainty, many of the COP/POP programs have intended remedial impacts both strategic and long-term. With limited resources facing communities of all size and particularly in policing, programs such as community based initiatives requires the public to afford maintenance when the storm and warn programs (Immediate pinpointed focus) and interactive programs (Police & Community) have achieved its goals. The police are hard pressed to maintain sufficient presence in all areas and must rely on a community response in the on-going maintenance effort. During this decade the political landscape has driven home the need for ethics, but also at the grassroots level. Ethical foundations is an expectation and responsibility of each citizen.
A legitimate question posed at this juncture may be; has sound thinking and programmatic ventures been scrapped for overzealous egos of a new administration? Has the ethical basis of the original idea been dissolved due to previous packaging and sale of the idea is not that of the new leader in town? Does the tax payer suffer by losing an effort that demonstrated sound results for the sake of a new ego in town? If it works, get rid of it!
References
Blumstein, A., Wallman, J., Eck, J., E., & Maguire, E., R. (2006). Have changes in policing reduced violent crime? An assessment of the evidence. The Crime Drop in America (p. 207-265, Chapter 7). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Barnosky, J. (2015). What’s working and what’s not. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2015/03/17/fusion-centers-whats-working-and-what-isnt/
Department of Homeland Security (2013). https://www.dhs.gov/state-and-major-urban-area-fusion-center
Fagin, J. A. (2007). Criminal Justice (2nd Ed.) Allyn and Bacon.
Goldstein, H. (2001). What is Problem-Oriented Policing? Center for Problem-Oriented Policing http://www.popcenter.org/about/?p=whatiscpop
Kelling, G.L., & Wilson, J.Q. (1982). Broken windows: The police and neighborhood safety. The Atlantic,
Marion, N.E. & Olive, W.M. (2012). The Public Policy of crime and Criminal Justice (2nd end). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall
McGarrell, E. F., Freilich, J. D., & Chermak, S. (2007) “Intelligence-led Policing as a framework for responding to terrorism,” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, Vol. 23, 2:142-158.
Walsh, W. F., & Vito, G. F. (February 2004). The meaning of CompStat. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 51-69.
Weisburd, D., Mastrofski, S. D., McNally, A. M., Greenspan, R., & Willis, J. J. (2003). Reforming to preserve: Compstat and strategic problem solving in American policing. Criminology & Public Policy, 2, 421-456.
Willis, J. J., Mastrofski, S. D., & Weisburd, D. (2004). CompStat and bureaucracy: A case study of challenges and opportunities for change. Justice Quarterly: JQ /, 21(3), 463-496.
