Street Smart

In my last column, I discussed what I believe to be the problem with a numbers-based evaluation system for police officers in large cities calling for reforms. In my opinion, basing an officer’s performance using a numbers-based matrix creates the potential for all sorts of problems.

As an example, in the numbers-based system I worked under, picture the following scenario: An officer makes a stop for a simple traffic violation. Under that numbers-based system, the officer may feel compelled to write a citation for the violation, when a simple warning would suffice. The reason? In a numbers-based productivity system, a warning may or may not be counted. However, a citation definitely will. So, by writing the citation, the officer looks more productive in the eyes of the boss. However, that same officer may look petty in the eyes of the violator.

Now, picture this same scenario from a public safety perspective. People driving by see the officer engaged in traffic enforcement activity. Their immediate thought is, “The cops are out and writing tickets. I better pay attention to my driving.” That’s good for public safety, right? In the meantime, in a public safety rather than numbers-based system, the officer making the stop uses his/her discretion and decides a warning is appropriate for the situation and gives the violator a verbal warning instead of a citation. End result? The people driving by see that the cops are serious about traffic enforcement and pay attention. The violator sees the officer as reasonable rather than petty, respects that, and pays attention to his/her driving. In a numbers-based system, the officer might not feel free to use personal discretion and issue the warning instead of the citation.

None of what I wrote above is intended to minimize the importance of aggressive law enforcement. On the contrary, I think that aggressive and consistent law enforcement is absolutely critical. Also, I think some statistics, such as numbers of certain crimes, are important in terms of strategic planning. I’m just suggesting that, in a public safety-oriented system, officers would be encouraged and allowed the autonomy to use their discretion. Sometimes a citation or an arrest is the only appropriate outcome. Unfortunately, that happens quite often, and that’s just the way it is. However, I think that officers should be allowed to make their own decisions, based on the circumstances of the situation they face. After all, we hire these people because of their perceived ability to use proper judgment. Let’s let them exercise that judgment, and not kowtow to a system that dictates their actions because of numbers based productivity. Each contact is different. There shouldn’t be a “one size fits all” policy in law enforcement.

That brings up another thought. I think that a zero-tolerance policy on anything is dangerous. That sort of policy paints the organization into a corner. An approach like that also negates discretion. Another example using a traffic violation: Envision an agency with a zero-tolerance seat belt policy. An officer stops a lady for a seat belt violation. The officer learns that the lady simply forgot to buckle up because she was distracted by a crying toddler in the back seat and apologizes. The officer feels pressured to issue a seat belt ticket anyway because his/her department has a zero-tolerance approach on seat belt violations. He/she might actually face disciplinary action for not issuing a citation! What’s the upside in that scenario? Answer… there isn’t one. Instead, stop the lady, politely remind her to buckle up and be careful. Wave to the toddler and move on. Everyone wins.

So what would a large modern-day police department look like if I were made king for a day? I’d disregard the focus on numbers immediately and pay attention to my agency’s public safety impact. I’d reach out and learn exactly how the people we serve feel about the job we’re doing? I’d also encourage the officers to use their personal discretion in the field and place emphasis on building relationships. As I mentioned in the last column, I had a lot of experience as a supervisor. In the units I worked, I knew who was a worker and who was just marking time. I didn’t need to look at stats to see who was doing their job. The numbers game never really interested me after I became a supervisor. In my view it was always quality of effort over quantity. I’d go back to an old-school model of policing and focus on relationships like the friend I described in my last column. Make no mistake, I’m not promoting a “smile, wave and do nothing” style of law enforcement. I don’t believe in that style of policing at all. In my view, the large departments considering reforms would make huge progress in gaining public trust if they moved the focus away from numbers as a measure of productivity (I can’t speak to what happens in smaller departments). I’ve seen too that the numbers game allowed the supervisors I worked around to become lazy. They didn’t have to be in the field monitoring and training their officers. All they had to do was hang around the station and count!

It’s the relationships that matter, not the stats. Seeing any change as a result of the reforms I propose would take a considerable amount of time. Things won’t happen overnight. There’s no such thing as a quick fix, but I think the idea has merit.

Blaine Blackstone is a retired Los Angeles Police Sergeant who enjoys the simpler life in Thompson Falls.