Conversation With Anthony Thigpenn : Policing ‘Must Be Tailored to Each Community’

Question: How do you define community-based policing?

Answer: It would be a partnership between the police and the community working to increase public safety.

Q: How does your version differ from that being developed by the LAPD?

A: There are a number of differences. One, the program itself (should) be jointly designed by the community and the police as opposed to a program that’s been designed and brought out to the community. Second, it should include mechanisms from community people to select their own representatives on advisory boards. There should be input in deployment, tactics (and) some formal mechanism for monitoring issues of police brutality and misconduct. The contemporary debate (on) community-based policing has really come out of the reform movement of the last several years. To build the kind of trust, particularly (in) South L.A. given (the) historical relationships with the police, addressing issues of accountability, responsiveness, misconduct (and) brutality (cannot) be ignored but has to be dealt with up front.

Q: You’re just dealing with the South Bureau area. Do you see this plan being expanded to the entire city?

A: I think it should. Each neighborhood is different and the program has got to be tailored to the history, needs and dynamics of each community, which is why community organizations and institutions need to be involved in the specific design.

Q: Demographics in this city shift as fast as anywhere in the nation. Who defines community? Who sets the boundaries?

A: I think the natural boundaries--neighborhoods that have a self-identification, communities that identify themselves as a community--really have to be the basis, then integrate in other, more formal boundaries. But you have to pay attention to demographic changes to make sure that what you’re doing is representative of the different sectors of the community.

Q: Authority brings responsibility. Do you see active citizen participation of the kind you describe opening neighborhoods or their representatives to potential legal and financial liability?

A: No. Deciding what policies may be more appropriate, giving input into deployment patterns, those kinds of things, I don’t think opens participants up to legal culpability.

Q: Would your program end up with rivalries between communities vying for already scarce police resources?

A: I think it’s more cost effective. As you have neighborhoods organized and people really buying into a process--feeling ownership for it--many problems that normally they would call the police for they can solve themselves or participate in solving themselves. The other point is that right now in South Bureau the 30 senior lead officers (are) functioning essentially as community organizers--not doing what would be traditionally considered law enforcement. With the community taking the lead in organizing, it can be done broader and deeper and resources that rightfully should go to law enforcement, could, in fact, go to that.

Q: Any hope for a compromise between your view and LAPD’s?

A: Yes. Just to be clear: Our view is that all the “stake-holders”--all the people who have a stake in public safety--need to be brought together to craft the best possible policy. We have ideas on how this should be done. LAPD has ideas. I think (Deputy Chief Kroeker) is absolutely sincere in what he’s trying to do; and I think that reasonable people (can) differ. But it’s really a dynamic process that’s going to come up with the best public safety plan. It simply can’t be driven by one particular entity.