Dear Editor,
After a hiatus of some years, and at the urging of several persons who can best be described as concerned citizens, I am forced to go against my earlier conclusion that it makes absolutely no sense in sharing my thoughts on national issues since things will remain pretty much the same whether I write or not, and the safest (and sanest) thing to do is to do nothing. So here I am once again writing for whatever it is worth.
The Guyana Police Force which I first joined in September of 1974 was an institution that – like any other, had its own fair share of challenges. None – I hasten to add, quite like those facing the GPF today. Taken in context one may be forgiven for concluding that the situation seems to be on a downward spiral. I refer to the swirling allegations of police misconduct that seem to be occurring with increasing frequency over the years.
Editor notwithstanding the public commitment for police reform at the highest level of national life, the current challenges are compounded by a patent lack of concomitant action at several levels. Commissioner Leslie James ought not to be faulted for the apparent malaise either above or below him. He can only work with the tools provided including policy formulation, and those responsible for their execution. He is caught in the middle. What is to be done?
An Early Intervention System (EIS) which is practiced in other jurisdictions, is a system that supports the effective supervision and management of officers, other ranks and civilian employees. EIS identifies employees whose conduct indicates emerging problems affecting the quality of their work performance. Two instances of its use in the United States which – unarguably has a high rate of unprofessional police conduct, are outlined as follows:
The Christopher Commission which was appointed to investigate problems within the LAPD in response to the March 3, 1991 beating of Rodney King, identified a group of 44 officers with particularly serious performance records. The Commission after perusing departmental records recommended the creation of an EI system, since it was determined that the department took no effective action to either discipline or correct the behaviour of those officers.
The following year using a similar methodology the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD) identified 62 deputies who were responsible for the initiation of almost 500 use-of-force/harassment complaint investigations. Among them were seventeen deputies who were responsible for 22 civil lawsuits that resulted in damages awards or settlements of about $3.2 million against the County. The Kolts Commission like the Christopher Commission, concluded that the LASD had “failed to deal with officers who have readily identifiable patterns of excessive force incidents on their records.” Of particular concern was the fact that nearly all of the 62 deputies were still on patrol duty with many serving as Field Training Officers (FTO) thereby heightening the prospects of “imparting their ‘street wisdom’ to patrol deputies.”
I have always been impressed by Barrington Braithwaite’s passion and expectations of fair play and justice for all. It is also my belief that it is incumbent upon policy makers in all spheres to apply their best effort to ensuring that ranks at all level, are prepared to manage the complexities of policing. Gilmartin (2002) on “The emotional survival for law enforcement officers” offers that police work exerts particular physiological, emotional and psychological strain on law enforcement practitioners.
An early intervention system or early warning system is a data-based police management tool designed to identify officers whose behaviour is problematic, and provide some form of intervention to avoid or correct misbehaviour. As an early response, the system can alert the Force to these individuals, and warn the potential deviants, while providing counselling or training to help them change their problematic behaviour. Furthermore the Force would be expected to intervene before such an employee reaches a situation that warrants formal disciplinary action. The conclusion of Walker et al (2005) “Supervision and Intervention within Early Intervention Systems: A Guide for Law Enforcement Executives” instructs that “Early warning systems appear to have a dramatic effect on reducing citizen complaints and other indicators of problematic police performance among those officers subject to intervention.”
However for the EIS to stand a reasonable chance of success it must function to help identify and address problems before police (and army) personnel get into serious trouble and/or before their well-being is compromised.” It should not be thought that the established disciplinary framework (warts and all) is being replaced by intervention. However, I support the view that the EIS should be seen as a tool to reward positive police behaviour. Several guidelines are offered from the reading I have perused including:
A. All ranks must be able to recognise behaviours that indicate that they may be having problems coping with their occupational pressures. The Force Administration can provide the necessary assistance to help individuals address their problems and lead happy productive lives.
B. The early identification of potential miscreants with problems, and a menu of remedial actions can increase organisational accountability, and offer employees a better opportunity to meet the organisation’s values, vision and mission statements and to live a healthier life.
C. EIS is a problem-oriented approach which can alert management to undesirable behaviour patterns over a specified period of time, and can provide a way to provide non-disciplinary direction and training before the rank becomes a liability. These include assistance strategies for the specific issue(s) affecting a member.
D. Intervention should include counselling, retraining and psychological evaluation if warranted. It is not intended as the only way for ranks to address their problems, but rather as a tool to help subordinate officers, middle and senior managers, and the administration to determine if job stress or performance problems exist. The benefits of early intervention include helping ranks with problems or lower skill levels; controlling complaints and increasing public confidence; getting supervisors more involved with ranks’ development; identifying training needs; and supporting the termination of those who are unredeemable.
Editor, I try to be optimistic even in the face of the stark reality of small minds. Therefore I can only hope that this small contribution can serve to stimulate a more extensive search for solutions to police misconduct.
Yours faithfully,
Patrick E. Mentore
