‘Muddling through’: Policing, research and innovation in a complex environment

Presentation by David Bruce – SAPS Research Colloquium, 7-9 February 2017, CSIR Conference Centre

Focus of input

▪ Key concern – In SA (and elsewhere) police work in an environment characterised by social,

political, institutional, intellectual and normative complexity. – Need for greater space for innovation and adaptation and learning from this.

▪ Will talk about two models of change in policing (in SA and the US).

▪ The SA policing environment is characterised by rigidity for various reasons. – Major factors inhibiting innovation – Fails to learn from innovation where it does take place.

▪ Will argue that research can be of most benefit in an environment that allows for more flexibility and innovation.

▪ Will raise questions about using research to support innovation in dealing with complex challenges such as domestic violence, alcohol and drugs.

2

A quote ... (Schon, The Reflective Practitioner, 1982 – in Loader & Sparks 2012)

‘The difficulty is that […] in the swamp are the problems of greatest human concern. Shall the practitioner stay on the high hard, ground, where [s/he] can practise rigorously, as he understands rigour, but where [s/he] is constrained to deal with problems of relatively little social importance? Or shall [s/he] descend to the swamp where [s/he] can engage with the most important and challenging problems if he is willing to forsake technical rigour? […] There are those who chose the swampy lowland. They deliberately involve themselves in messy but crucially important problems and, when asked to describe their methods of inquiry they speak of experience, trial and error, intuition, and muddling through.’

3

Models of change: SA (centralised)

▪ Legislation – Domestic Violence Act – Sexual Offences Act – Child Justice Act – Firearms Control Act – Legislation on Scorpions, Hawks – Legislation on Section 49 (use of lethal force by police).

▪ Consequence – Some changes shaped by civil society advocacy, others primarily politically driven – Change is driven by national imperatives - one size fits all – Some of these are ‘innovative’ – Nevertheless this approach not responsive to regional (provincial?) and local

dynamics – Change involves new ‘solutions’ as opposed to experimentation and lesson learning

4

Another model of change: US (decentralised) (PERF, 2016)

▪ There are approximately 18,000 policing agencies in the United States. They have a variety of policies and practices on use of force.

▪ In 1972, the NYPD adopted a prohibition on shooting at or from a moving vehicle, unless a person in the vehicle is using or threatening deadly force by means other than the vehicle itself. – The policy, resulted in an immediate reduction in use of lethal force in New York.

Police shooting incidents declined from nearly 1,000 a year in 1972 to 665 the following year. Have fallen steadily ever since, to fewer than 100 per year today.

– Many other police agencies have since adopted a similar policy. – And yet, many other departments have not adopted such a policy, and continue to

give officers much wider discretion to shoot at moving vehicles.

▪ Police led innovation in a decentralised system – More flexibility though – No centralised system ensuring conformity in this case (though US Supreme Court

and Department of Justice do have mechanisms for setting standards).

5

Factors inhibiting innovation: Constitutional framework

▪ Constitution, Section 206(1): A member of the Cabinet .. must determine national policing policy after consulting the provincial governments ….. (See also 206(2))

▪ In so far as ‘police policy’ is relevant to innovation the implication of the Constitutional framework is: 1. Provinces can only shape policy through attempts to impact on the national policy - have to follow

a circuitous route to try and ensure that national policy responds to their needs. 2. If policy developed at national level does not engage with issue on which there is a need for

provincial policy, provinces cannot develop policy to address the issue. 3. In practise policy framework is ‘one size fits all’. 4. A bottleneck in policy making which limits the scope for responsiveness and flexibility in how

police address the challenges that they are facing.

▪ Providing provinces with policy making power re policing could support responsiveness and innovation – Powers of provinces could be subject to a power of the National Minister to overrule provincial

initiatives e.g. if they threaten stability.

▪ ‘Political constraints’ – unlikely that police policy making powers of provinces will be extended in immediate future.

6

Factors inhibiting innovation: National Police Service

▪ SAPS – Bureaucratic authority based organisation – Tends to establish ‘fixed ideal type models’ for policing e.g. sector policing policy

which are issued as national instructions. – Focus on measuring conformity to national standards

▪ Devolution of powers and authority to clusters may encourage innovation – But SAPS does not have systems to recognise and learn the lessons of innovation

where it does take place.

▪ Countries with range of smaller police departments – more scope for experimentation with different types of approaches, learning and sharing lessons – UK has 45 regional police depts, US has 18 000: notably some of the larger ones have

been more innovative. – Individual police chiefs initiate relationships with local universities, researchers etc in

order to support police dept in understanding challenges that they are facing.

7

Factors inhibiting innovation: Performance measurement

▪ Performance measures: – Seen as key instrument for ensuring accountability.

– Create need to present a version of reality that is palatable to those that one is accountable to.

– Demand for quantification often with various unintended consequences.

▪ Performance information is of limited utility in understanding policing.

▪ Discourages flexibility and innovation.

▪ Doesn’t answer key questions: – What are police doing? Why they are doing it? What is the effect/impact of police

activities? Is there evidence that some things are working better than others? Considering available resources, are there other things that they could be doing? Are there other forms of support or resources available that could assist them?

8

Possibilities for innovation: Alcohol use and distribution?

▪ Identified as a major risk factor for violence and vehicle accidents.

▪ Attempts to regulate distribution – confront problem that sale of alcohol is a important source of income and employment – particularly in poorer areas. – ‘Sheebeen industry a major informal economic player – estimated to provide 130 000

direct and indirect jobs in the Western Cape alone (Charman, Petersen, 2012)

– Under the current conditions almost all township retailers (regardless of sector) break the law. Most township businesses (irrespective of the sector) contravene town planning regulations, permit requirements, signage rules, and operational requirements in conducting their day-to-day business. (Sustainable Livelihoods Foundation, 2016).

▪ NGO initiatives like Phuza Wise – based on creating models of good practices within industry ..

9

Possibilities for innovation: Domestic violence?

Key concern: How police intervention can best ensure the safety of the victim

▪ In US: Response in some states was ‘mandatory arrest’ policies: – But response to arrest not predictable: some may be deterred from future violence, some may

become more aggressive, and with others arrest may have no impact.

▪ South Africa: Domestic Violence Act (1998) key objective was to reduce vulnerability to abuse through Interim Protection Orders – PHd research published 2007 (Vogt) – did not demonstrate that IPO had contributed to reductions in

exposure to abuse ▪ Both victims and ‘control’ group showed similar declines in levels of abuse during period studied.

– Single study should not necessarily be regarded as definitive.

▪ US and UK - experiments with risk assessment tools – e.g. First, responding officers ask the apparent victim 3 questions calculated to reveal direct threats of deadly violence: – Has your partner [or whoever the aggressor is] ever used a weapon against you or threatened you

with a weapon? – Has he or she ever threatened to kill you or your children? – Do you think he/she might try to kill you?

10

Possibilities for innovation: drug enforcement?

▪ Era of ‘war on drugs’ in US and elsewhere: supported by cultural and religious disapproval of drug use. – In impoverished communities resulted in high rates of criminalisation , destructive impacts on social fabric

▪ Debates about public health vs criminal justice based response - Idea that government should focus on ‘harm reduction.

▪ Move towards decriminalisation – e.g. Portugal - 2001: decriminalisation of possession of all drugs (penalties are ‘administrative’ not ‘criminal’) – Canada – expected to decriminalise recreational use of dagga - new laws will provide for greater punishment of

those convicted of supplying to minors and impairment while driving a motor vehicle.

▪ South Africa National Drug Master Plan 2013-2017 speaks of: – Major regional and local differences in types of drugs used e.g. Western Cape – Devising solutions from the bottom up rather than from the top down;

– Shifting from a national to a community approach to devising strategy (from one size fits all to a community-specific solution).

– Strategy should involve combination of: demand reduction, supply reduction and a localised version of harm reduction.

– Calls for further investigation regarding legalisation of cannabis in

11

Conclusion – How can research help in an environment of complexity?

▪ Police can’t just enforce laws without paying attention to what the consequences of enforcement are.

▪ Considering the factors that encourage ‘one size fits all’ how can the SAPS accommodate innovation, experimentation and ‘learning organisation’ approach? – Part of what is needed is better ability to describe and understand (‘appreciate’)

current police practise

▪ Need for ‘conversations’ – Group areas with common characteristics and priorities to share ideas and

experiences with each other? – Podcasts as a relatively inexpensive alternative to document based information?

▪ Research may provide ‘answers’ in some cases - or simply support police in reflecting on experience and thinking more clearly as they struggle through the ‘swamp’ of complex society.

12

Acknowledgements:

▪ Presentation emerged from discussion with fellow panellists.

13