Committee Reports > List of Committees > Joint > 2005 > Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights > Report - Report on Community Policing

Tithe an Oireachtais

An Comhchoiste um Dhlí agus Ceart, Comhionannas, Cosaint agus Cearta na mBan

Tuarascáil maidir le Póilíniú Pobail

Aibreán 2005

Houses of the Oireachtas

Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women’s Rights

Report on Community Policing

April 2005

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chairperson’s Preface

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: List of Members of the Joint Committee

Appendix 2: The Orders of Reference of the Joint Committee

Appendix 3: Details of Hearings

Chairman’s Preface.

The Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women’s Rights chaired by Mr. Seán Ardagh T.D., decided to conduct a review of community policing in Ireland with particular reference to the issue of co-operation between An Garda Síochána, Local Authorities and local communities.

The review arose in the context of the work undertaken by the Joint Committee on the development of the criminal justice system in Ireland and the clear need to establish on a nationwide basis, a workable, flexible model of community policing in Ireland, which would involve all sectors of the community.

Having appointed Mr. Joe Costello T.D. as Rapporteur to the Joint Committee on the matter, the Joint Committee planned a series of hearings which were held over five days in March 2005. Prior to this, the Joint Committee decided to invite written submissions on the matter from the general public and all interested parties. Representatives of the main players in community policing, the criminal justice area, and also the community and business sectors were invited to appear before the Joint Committee during the hearings process.

A dominant aspect of the discussions held during the hearings was the contents of Chapter 4 of the The Garda Síochána Bill, 2004 which is currently under discussion in Dáil Éireann, having been passed by Seanad Éireann on 17^th December 2004, and which provides for the establishment of joint policing committees which will assume an active participatory role in community policing.

Having considered the draft report submitted by Deputy Costello as Rapporteur, the Joint Committee has now completed its Report. In the Report, the theory and practice of community policing in Ireland and abroad is examined. The Report reflects the views expressed to the Committee during its deliberations in the five days of hearings which were held.

The Report also considers the proposals of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Michael McDowell T.D., for community policing as set out in the Bill.

Finally, the Report makes recommendations for good practice and the establishment of a comprehensive system of community policing in Ireland for the twenty-first century.

The members of the Joint Committee are Deputies Seán Ardagh (Chairperson), Joe Costello, Máire Hoctor, Finian McGrath, Gerard Murphy (Vice Chairperson), Breeda Moynihan-Cronin, Seán O Fearghaíl, Jim O’Keeffe, Charlie O’Connor, Denis O’Donovan, Peter Power, and Senators Maurice Cummins, Tony Kett, Joanna Tuffy and Jim Walsh.

Invaluable assistance in the preparation of the Report was provided by Mr. Johnny Connolly, Research officer, the Health Research Board.

As always, Ms Mairéad McCabe and her staff at the Justice Secretariat worked most courteously and under great pressure to facilitate the Joint Committee in its tight schedule.

We commend this Report to the Houses of the Oireachtas.

JOINT COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE, EQUALITY, DEFENCE AND WOMEN’S RIGHTS

LIST OF MEMBERS

(Fianna Fáil Deputies)

Senators

Rapporteur’s Foreword

Community Policing

When the Garda Síochána was founded in 1922, Ireland was a rural, close knit society. The upheaval of the previous years had been largely of a political nature. For the new police force the crime rate was low and anti- social behaviour was sparse. Policing was simple then and remained relatively uncomplicated for most of the twentieth century.

With the onset of the Celtic Tiger and the rapid transformation of Ireland from a rural farming society to an affluent urban society it was inevitable that severe social and policing problems would arise. Now, there is more crime, more drug and alcohol abuse, more public order offences and more anti-social behaviour making life a misery for so many citizens.

It is important to research and develop new ways of problem solving, of crime prevention and ensuring that people receive a quality police service to protect their homes and their communities.

Community Policing has been around for a long time in an informal capacity. Now it is intended to place it on a formal statutory basis.

The idea is to bring the local community, the Garda Síochána and the Local Authority together in a new policing partnership. They will hold joint meetings to identify problems of anti-social behaviour and issues that give rise to crime. They will pool their resources and knowledge to solve problems and to prevent crime.

There will be a mechanism for reporting back on what action was taken to solve the various problems causing people grief in their communities.

In this Report the theory and practice of community policing in Ireland and abroad is examined. The Joint Committee on Justice invited the written views of the public. It held a series of hearings over five days in March 2005, to receive oral submissions from the leading players. The Report strongly reflects the views expressed to the Committee during its deliberations.

The Report also examines the proposals of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Michael McDowell T.D., for Community Policing as set out in the Garda Síochána Bill, 2004.

Finally, the Report makes recommendations of good practice for the establishment of a comprehensive system of Community Policing in Ireland for the twenty-first century.

Invaluable assistance in the preparation of the Report was provided by Mr. Johnny Connolly, Research officer, the Health Research Board.

As always, Ms Mairead McCabe and her staff at the Justice Secretariat worked most courteously and under great pressure to facilitate the Joint Committee in its tight schedule.

Mr. Joe Costello T.D.,

Rapporteur for the Joint Committee.

Report of Rapporteur to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women’s Rights on Community Policing.

A) Introduction

As part of its ongoing work on development of the criminal justice system in Ireland, the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women’s Rights conducted a review of community policing in Ireland. Also, in light of the provisions of Chapter 4 of the Garda Síochána Bill, 2004, which is currently under discussion in Dáil Éireann, the Joint Committee examined the need to establish on a nationwide basis, a workable, flexible model of community policing in Ireland, which would involve full participation by all sectors of the community. Deputy Joe Costello was appointed as rapporteur to the Joint Committee. The general public and interested parties were invited to make written submissions for consideration by the Joint Committee. More than 60 submissions were received. Five days of oral hearings were then conducted at which invited parties addressed the Joint Committee.

The Joint Committee hearings were held on the Wednesday 9^th and Thursday 10^th March and on Tuesday 22^nd, Wednesday 23^rd and Thursday 24^th March. The Committee heard submissions from interested groups and individuals, including Michael Mc Dowell T.D., Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform; Noel Ahern T.D., Minister of State with responsibility for Housing and the Drugs Strategy; the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána; Dublin City Manager; the County and City Managers’ Association; the Vice Chairman of the Northern Ireland Policing Board; the National Council on Ageing and Older People; the National Crime Council; Victim Support; the National Consultative Committee on Racism and Interculturalism; the Probation and Welfare Service; the Lord Mayor’s Commission on Crime and Policing;, the Association of Municipal Authorities in Ireland; the Local Authorities Members’ Association; the Confederation of European Councillors; the General Council of County Councils; the Irish Council for Civil Liberties; a number of Local Drugs Task Forces; Dr. Dermot Walsh, University of Limerick; and representatives of the Irish business community.

The purpose of this report is to examine the concept and practice of community policing and to put forward a series of recommendations based on the written submissions and oral hearings.

B) The Community Policing Idea

The development of community policing approaches derives from a recognition that traditional policing approaches have largely been ineffective at dealing with crime. In particular, policing as currently constituted in Ireland, often fails to enlist the potential of the public in the process of crime prevention. Community Policing schemes seek to build upon the recognition that the most effective way of addressing local crime problems is for agencies to work in an integrated way and to build upon the informal mechanisms of social control which already exist in communities. With regard to traditional policing approaches, among the problems which have been identified in the international literature are that:

•traditional policing tends to be reactive in character;

•most policework ignores the factors that most communities regard as a priority, in particular low level social disorder and quality of life issues;

•increasing the number of police or raising the police budget does not necessarily reduce crime rates or raise the proportion of crimes solved;

•the dominant police commitment to randomised motorised patrol does not appear to reduce crime, decrease the possibility of victimisation, increase the chance of catching victims or reassure the public enough to affect their fear of crime. Neither does it create greater trust in the police;

•mobile car patrols inhibit police officers from cultivating community contacts;

•traditional police approaches deal primarily with the symptoms of crime rather than with the causes.

Community policing requires a negotiation as to policing priorities. As community policing approaches partly draw upon the belief in the community as an informal structure for controlling crime, it is recognised that it is not the police who determine community priorities. In areas where there has traditionally been poor police/community relations, community policing schemes must try to address local crime concerns and priorities and the policing approach must be seen to make a difference to local quality of life. Often, for communities, the main concerns are not with crime per se but with persistent anti-social behaviour, which has a corrosive effect on community quality of life. This is described by the Lord Mayor’s Commission on Crime and Policing as:

‘a cumulative process that gradually undermines peoples’ confidence and belief in their neighbourhoods. Various incidents, such as open drug dealing, public consumption of alcohol and so on, weave together to present people with an unappealing vision of life in their neighbourhood’¹

A recent study in Dublin’s North Inner City revealed how persistent anti-social behaviour, much of it drug-related and often committed by a small number of people, can operate as a major disincentive for community involvement in local community activity or voluntary work². Addressing such fears and overcoming these obstacles is an important challenge for the development of police - community partnerships.

A related issue concerns the fear of crime and the concept of ‘reassurance policing’. This relates to the growing importance of the fear of crime as distinct from the actual likelihood of victimisation. Public perceptions in Ireland in recent years are of rising crime although statistics on reported crime have fallen over the period. This ‘reassurance gap’ involves the police in developing tactics to enhance feelings of safety, satisfaction with the policing provided and confidence in the police. A recent review of international approaches in the area has defined reassurance as being:

“the intended outcome(s) of actions taken by the police and other agencies to improve perceived police effectiveness (mainly confidence in, and satisfaction with, the police), and to increase feelings and perceptions of safety (including reducing fear of crime)”³

Many community policing approaches involve the police performing a role in addressing community problems which may not be directly related to crime. Problem-solving policing re-orientates the police role away from an exclusive focus on the crime. Problems, not crime, become the organising core of police activity. The concern is with preventing future harm. Similarly, solutions can be broader than simple law enforcement and involve the participation of other agencies such as housing or health agencies. Furthermore, the criminal law becomes only one means of addressing problems. Civil laws can also be utilised, planning regulations or, increasingly, mediation and restorative justice schemes can have a part to play⁴. Problem - solving policing requires analysis of the causes of the problem, identification of the options open to addressing it and then the development of a means of evaluation of the impact of the problem so as to assess performance.

Such an approach requires partnership between the police, the community and other relevant agencies. Through partnership structures, communities seek involvement in decision-making and problem solving. Community policing in this way involves community empowerment. It also has implications for the police in terms of structural change. To be effective such an approach requires devolution of power within the police organisation and the decentralisation of police authority to patrol officers and a far greater emphasis on collaboration between police and community. The community policing approach emphasises ideas of consumer service, flexibility, consumer feedback and negotiation. Finally, this change in the police role necessitates training to enhance police understanding of the nature of community problems and for the development of problem-solving techniques. This was described in The Report of the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland (The Patten report) as the need for ‘more focus on developing personal communication and negotiation skills, scenario-based problem-solving exercises, self assessment and peer assessment’⁵.

C) International Approaches

There is a very significant body of literature available on international community policing approaches⁶. A number of websites are dedicated to the topic⁷. Throughout the world, there is great variety in community policing models and approaches. Despite this variety, a number of common characteristics define the community policing approach. These are:

•Flexibility of police structure, devolution of authority within the police and the development of localised command structures;

•Creation of systems of local accountability;

•Community crime prevention schemes;

•An increase in the number of foot patrols;

•Cultivation of police - community relations through continuity of service by officers in a specific area over a prolonged period;

•Problem-solving of non-crime issues;

•Partnership between police and public;

•Power-sharing between community and police over police decision-making.

As international community policing approaches vary immensely the examples below should be seen as merely illustrative⁸. In recent years in the development of Irish criminal justice policy, there has been a tendency to focus on the United States for best practice examples. Here we will also consider lessons to be learned from other common law countries such as Canada, New Zealand and Australia. We will also consider the Japanese ‘Koban’ model. Also, there is a rich diversity of community policing practices within Europe, from which lessons can be learned. We will consider the various approaches under six specific categories:

Organisation

With regard to organisational command structure in North America, in the US cities of Detroit and Madison and in Edmonton, Canada, community policing departments report directly to the chief of police. The New York Community Policing Officers (CPOs) report to the patrol commander. In Savannah, Georgia, patrol activities are designated to four geographical areas headed by a captain. In Canada, a number of important features characterise community policing approaches. Community policing has emerged as the dominant ideology and organisational model. The approach taken includes a flexibility of police structure and a supportive leadership.

With regard to Europe, in Holland and Sweden community policing is the dominant philosophy. In Holland, where there are numerous police forces and jurisdictions, local police forces exercise a great deal of autonomy. In countries with different gendarmarie style policing traditions, such as France and Germany, or with more centralised systems such as the former Soviet bloc countries and Austria, community policing is quite underdeveloped.

In the United Kingdom (England and Wales), the tripartite structure of accountability involving a police authority made up of elected representatives and lay individuals, the secretary of state and the chief constable, has set the framework for public involvement in local policing⁹. Within the approximately forty-one local police forces, a variety of community policing schemes are in operation. These include area-based policing, Neighbourhood Watch Schemes and also the proliferation of multi-agency approaches. Area-based policing involves the allocation of a small team of officers to specific area to provide a full police service. Multi-agency approaches encourage the police to tackle problems with the help of other relevant agencies.

Personnel

With regard to the involvement of police personnel, in Newport News and Fenton, Texas, community policing is practised by all members of the force, irrespective of continual assignment. In New York City it is delegated to Community Police Officers (CPO’s). In Santa Barbara, the police department has a team of six officers or beat coordinators (BC’s) who focus their attention on specific problems within the six geographical areas that constitute the city. However, although they exist as a special unit, BC’s routinely deal with calls for service as part of their work shift. In Las Vegas, a decentralised special unit operates in police area commands throughout the city and they are proactive in addressing specific community problems.

In the UK, community constables who are allocated to an area on a semi-permanent basis and involved in prevention, deterrence and intelligence gathering functions are used widely.

Mode of deployment

The manner of deployment of community police officers also varies widely. In New York City and New South Wales, Australia, they are deployed on foot, in Boston on bicycles. In Fort Worth, Texas, they work from mobile police stations and in San Diego and Baltimore they are deployed in cars and vans.

In Canada, zone policing and foot beats characterise the deployment style. Foot patrols, home visits, storefronts and directed patrols also figure. In Toronto, there are also mobile police stations, and zone policing offered in a specific geographic area on a twenty-four hour basis.

In Denmark, a quarter of police officers function as community police, sometimes operating out of neighbourhood police stations. Scandinavian mini-police stations are described as ‘especially attractive, warmly furnished, inviting places where neighbourhood residents talk to the police about a variety of problems - a husband’s excessive drinking, a child’s failure to meet school obligations - that do not bear directly on crime’¹⁰.

The concept of reassurance policing described above also lays great emphasis on improving police visibility as a means of improving perceptions of police effectiveness. This is done through greater community engagement, foot patrols and beat policing for example¹¹. Other possible ways of alleviating public fear include improved street lighting, closed circuit television (CCTV) and street drinking restrictions for example.

Functions

With regard to the functions of community police personnel, in Edmonton and Ontario, Canada, community police officers respond to emergency calls. This is not the case in Detroit or in Seattle in the US. In Philadelphia, each police captain supervises a ‘five squad’, which consists of specialised officers in community relations, victim assistance, crime prevention, sanitation and abandoned vehicles. Each has a specialised responsibility to deal with community problems. In Savannah, (Texas) officers are encouraged to engage in problem-solving activities. Also, 95% of the force, including civilians, are provided with training in community policing philosophies and techniques.

In New Zealand, neighbourhood support groups tackle non-property local issues such as domestic violence, child abuse and incest.

The Japanese ‘Koban’ is a system of fixed police posts¹². It is generally a physical structure in the city accommodating between 2-12 officers. There is approximately one Koban for every 8,000 people. Foot patrol is a key feature of policing. Four fifths of officers are based in the Koban and one fifth in patrol cars. The Koban provides information to people about non-emergency issues, such as loss property or street directions for example. It has a limited crime control function, with serious matters being passed to specialised departments. Decisions to arrest are generally made in central police stations. Japanese police officers are addressed by the public as ‘Oawari-san’, or ‘Mr walkabout’.

The police in Holland have an accepted role in issues of public health, in economic matters and in quality of life issues. In Denmark, some officers engage in preventative policing by operating as ‘education’ police, whereby they develop positive relations with young people and teach courses in safety, crime prevention and drug prevention with schoolchildren. The city of Copenhagen employs fifteen specialised units within police stations to bring together schools, social workers and the police.

Public Participation

Consultation processes also vary greatly internationally. In New South Wales special community consultative committees exist in each station. Ontario Provincial police are told to interact with existing organisations or to create new consultative committees. In New York, CPOs are told to get to know their neighbourhoods by interacting with people they come across on the beat. Some police forces encourage public participation in policing. In Detroit and Houston, civilians have been used to staff neighbourhood police stations.

The Japanese Koban system is situated within a particular cultural context. This is characterised by a low crime rate and high levels of respect for and co-operation with the police and a broad societal acceptance that crime control is everyone’s business. Consequently, a large number of civic associations and lay volunteers participate in policing duties.

In the UK, Neighbourhood Watch Schemes involve the police collaborating with the community in crime prevention. Another formal arrangement in the UK is Police Consultative Committees. A recent initiative arose out of the Crime and Disorder Act, 1998 for England and Wales. This legislation places a duty on Local Authority Chief Executives and Police Borough Commanders, in partnership with other agencies, to work together to reduce crime and disorder in their borough. This legislation heralded the formation of Community Safety Partnerships located in local authority areas. These require Local Authority Chief Executives and Police Borough Commanders, in partnership with other agencies to:

•Conduct an audit of local crime and disorder;

•Analyse and report on the results of the audit;

•Publish the report and its findings and engage in a comprehensive public consultation process;

•Devise a three-year crime and disorder strategy based on the analysis of the audit and informed by the consultation process;

•Publish the strategy with priorities and targets.

Effectiveness and evaluation

The establishment of successful community policing approaches has the potential to bring benefits to local communities to state agencies and to the wider community. As far as the local community is concerned, it does not have the resources or the capability of resolving the problems it confronts without significant state support. On the other hand, with regard to policing, it is widely acknowledged within Policing Studies literature that successful policing is almost impossible without active public support. A number of studies based on crime survey data have led to the estimation that reports from the public make up 80 per cent of all recorded crime. The police are therefore dependant on the public as witnesses and in terms of reporting and investigating crimes. Also, the changing and complex nature of crime means that policing has become increasingly focussed on the need for adequate information and intelligence from the public. Poor police/community relations can operate as a barrier to the free flow of such information and therefore directly impact on the effectiveness of the police. Community policing models seek to address and overcome such barriers. More investigative type police work can benefit from the ties developed at a local level by community police officers.

However, expectations need to be realistic. A difficulty with assessing the effectiveness of community policing is that evaluations which have been conducted have generally been confined to particular places or schemes and they often do not measure effectiveness but rather provide descriptions of implementation processes. In particular, there has been no overall test of the crime prevention functions of community police. On the other hand, multi-scheme evaluations, have found that community policing schemes have, on balance, had a positive impact on the police and on citizens views of the police.

Also, community policing approaches require a change in the way police effectiveness is measured. The number of arrests or prosecutions are crude measurements and to fully assess community policing approaches requires more qualitative measurements such as problem resolutions. An important feature of Canadian approaches is that performance measures take into account not only clearance rates, crime statistics and enforcement quotas, but also community-oriented expectations and defined objectives. In the District of Columbia, community police officers reports require them to list the number of arrests made, how many households they had contacted, how many community meetings they had attended, the number of street lights replaced, abandoned cars towed away and the number of crack houses boarded up.

In Edmonton, Canada, community policing has three objectives: to reduce repeat calls for service, to improve user satisfaction and to increase job satisfaction for local foot patrol officers. Customer service centres were created throughout the city to encourage public reporting and increased interaction with the police. An impact evaluation of the Edmonton community policing scheme found that all three objectives had been achieved. In Toronto, because of the greater autonomy provided to police officers as a result of zone policing, compliance audit teams were established so as to ensure that foot patrol officers performed as expected.

In Japan, the patrol work central to the Koban system has a very low status within Japanese policing. A number of other criticisms have also emerged about the system. These include the lack of mobilisation of local people or communities, evidence that Koban police officers act arbitrarily against minorities, the lack of impact on burglary rates and a lack of training in dealing with community affairs.

Evaluations of multi-agency approaches in the UK have found that tensions can sometimes develop between representatives of different agencies. Problems related to differences in seniority of various agency representatives, different levels of commitment of individual committee members, that sometimes some agencies tended to dominate over others, and difficulties encountered by professionals (such as police and social workers in one example) in working together and perceptions that their independence and authority were being challenged. Another UK study of Neighbourhood Watch Schemes found that, although such schemes contributed to a reduction in fear of property crime, they had no impact on victimisation, on reporting rates of victimisation or on police clear up rates. A study on the use of community constables in the UK found that they are often withdrawn to other functions and that they spend only about ten percent of their time involved in community contact duties.

A study of UK Police Consultative Committees found that their members tended to be mainly middle-class and male and typically pro-police and that they rarely questioned police priorities in the use of resources.

D) Community Policing in Ireland

Policing developments in Northern Ireland

The Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 led to the establishment of the current policing structures in the North of Ireland. This followed on from recommendations of the Patten Commission on policing, which was established as a result of the Belfast Agreement¹³. The Patten Report represents a blueprint for best practice in terms of developing accountable policing. The report identified the development of community policing as central to its proposed reforms. This was defined as:

“Policing with the community... the police participating in the community and responding to the needs of that community, and the community participating in its own policing and supporting the police”¹⁴.

Among the structures established under the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 are the Policing Board and District Policing Partnership Boards (DPPs)¹⁵.

The Northern Ireland Policing Board is made up of nineteen members. Ten are members of the Northern Ireland Assembly and nine are independent members. All members are appointed by the UK Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The job of the Policing Board is to oversee policing and ensure that the service is effective and efficient. The Policing Board is not controlled by Government and has strong independent powers to carry out its work. The relevant specific responsibilities of the Policing Board include:

•to hold the Chief Constable to account for his actions and those of his staff;

•to set objectives and targets for police performance (following consultation with the Chief Constable) and to monitor progress against these;

•to monitor crime trends and patterns;

•to assess the level of public satisfaction with the performance of DPPs;

•to issue a Code of Practice on the exercise of the functions of the DPPs;

•to assess the effectiveness of DPPs.

On the 4^th March 2003, the Policing Board appointed 207 members to the DPPs. District Policing Partnerships are established in each district council area. The role of the DPP is to consult with the community, establish, in conjunction with the District Commander, policing priorities and monitor police performance against the local policing plan.

The main responsibilities of the DPPs are to:

•provide views to the District Commander on any matter concerning the policing of the district;

•monitor the performance of the police in carrying out the policing plan;

•make arrangements for getting the views of the public on matters concerning the policing of the district and gaining their co-operation with the police in preventing crime;

•act as a general forum for discussion and consultation on matters affecting the policing of the district.

In June 2004 the Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ) in Northern Ireland organised a conference to which all members of the DPPs were invited, as well as community and voluntary groups, to assess the performance of the DPPs. One-hundred and forty participants attended the conference. A number of positive developments in relation to the role of the DPPs were identified. Participants suggested that DPPs were;

•demanding change from the police and engaging in robust monitoring of police activity;

•increasing the level of policing information in the public domain and information exchange as well as confidence levels between the police and public;

•forcing the PSNI to change their local behaviour;

•ensuring greater emphasis on community policing leading to the creation of visible and successful community-centred police initiatives;

•providing a bridge between the police and the public;

•securing a reduction in PSNI absenteeism which was believed to be due to DPP monitoring;

•increasing dialogue on policing among people from differing political parties and ideologies;

In a recent conference, Mr. Dennis Bradley, Vice Chairman of the Northern Ireland Policing Board reported on progress in relation to the District Policing Partnerships:

“Our district commanders in Northern Ireland were reluctant initially about the monitoring aspect but if they were asked about that now, 90% of them would say they would not give up their district policing partnerships for anything. They find it much easier, they have better contact with people and it is a shared responsibility. Even people who had experience would go back to where they were. They welcome the new initiative. They were a little formal about it at the outset. It took about a year before people relaxed about it but they are now asking very tough questions. They are getting very knowledgeable and experienced and their relationships are much better under that type of regime than they were in the previous cosy situation, which was a case of ‘’m the guard, you are somebody else and while we might sit around the same table, we come from two different world’. That is our experience.”

The CAJ also made a number of recommendations for the improvement of the DPPs. These included the need to ensure that bodies are broadly representative of the local community; the need for a training audit to identify the generic and specialised training needs of DPP members and staff, particularly to enhance members’ meeting practice and capacity to hold the police to account; the need for improved communication between the policing board and the DPPs and between the DPPs and the public; the need for clear guidance to the DPPs on their roles, duties and powers in relation to other policing institutions.

The Joint Committee heard submissions in relation to the DPPs from the Confederation of European Councillors. Six of the nine Confederation board members from Northern Ireland are also members of DPPs. One of these who addressed the Joint Committee, Councillor Bertie Montgomery, stated of his experience on the DPP for Magherafelt:

“Being from the unionist community, this new set-up arising from Patten initially left me with a lump in my throat and I was a staunch supporter of the RUC. However, having gone through this procedure and observed its operation during the past two years, I do not wish to return to the previous set-up. This is much better as both sides of the community are involved, which was not the case previously. There is still some distance to go and we must get some more people on board. This issue is currently being used as a political football. This should not be the case and needs to be addressed. The establishment of the DPPs was one of the best things we have done in Northern Ireland for many years.”

Policing Developments in the Republic of Ireland

After Independence, the successful emergence of An Garda Síochána overcome the severe legitimacy crisis which then confronted policing in Ireland. However, the retention of an organisational structure based on a colonial policing model - with a highly centralised and hierarchical power structure - has hindered the development of community policing¹⁶. Dennis Bradley addressed this legacy in his submission to the Joint Committee:

“We have all suffered from a terrible centralism, where power is centralised, hierarchical and mostly male. No organisations in the world are more centralist, hierarchical and male than police services. This has only begun to change within recent years through ways and mechanisms being found to cut through that. Above all, they remain centralist, where most decisions are taken at the top or at the centre. They are predominantly male because women still only comprise a small part of policing. The third point is that they seldom devolve power if they can avoid it. They are incredibly hierarchical. This came from an old military tradition which stipulated that unless there were men and women on the ground who obeyed commands, one risked putting other people in difficult situations. That was true 100 years ago, but it is not true today.”

Many of the submissions to the Joint Committee highlighted the changes in the nature of Irish society over the past few decades in particular. The growth in crime, the impact of alcohol and illicit drugs on crime, the increased urbanisation of Irish society, the growth of the Irish economy and the consequent increase in disposable income, the ending of emigration which has contributed to a large youth population and the changing nature of authority. All of these factors, it was suggested, have altered the character of Irish society and created new demands on policing.

The principal community policing approaches which emerged in the mid-1980s are Neighbourhood Watch and its rural equivalent Community Alert. In recent years, we have seen a number of developments in community policing. The Joint Committee received a presentation about a police community consultation scheme currently being developed in County Mayo. Mr. Des Mahon, Chairman of the County and City Managers’ Association and Mayo County Manager, described the scheme:

“As a follow up from the strategic management initiative by the Garda Síochána, a pilot project was undertaken by the chief superintendents for the Mayo area with a district policing plan for 2004 where the Garda prioritised key strategic goals in prevention and detection of crime, public order, road safety and drugs and set out objectives, targets, performance indicators and audited and reviewed the programme at the end of the year. The Garda authorities met with the elected members of the town council in October 2004 and consulted on the process of drawing up the plans and the outcome, reviewed the programme put in place for 2004 and issued before and after reports, which are interesting. Of the four goals in crime investigation where the target reduction was between 20% and 25%, the reduction, in effect, was 40%. The prevention of public disorder, targeted at 20%, ended up being plus 6%, road safety, targeted at a 20% reduction, came out at minus 36%, and in the drugs area, the target reduction was 50% but came out at 32%. The effect of that report when reviewed by the Garda authorities with the elected members at the end of 2004 was that the community policing plan for 2005 was drawn up by the Garda and the elected members in consultation.”

Since the late 1990s we have also seen the emergence of Community Policing Fora in different parts of Dublin. These have been promoted primarily by Local Drug Task Forces, established in 1996 as part of the Government’s drug strategy.

a) Neighbourhood Watch and Community Alert

The Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors (AGSI) published a ‘Discussion Paper for a Scheme of Community Policing’ in 1982. This followed on from internal debate within the Association at the time. The following year, the Select Committee on Crime, Lawlessness and Vandalism recommended the early introduction of Neighbourhood Watch¹⁷. The first Neighbourhood Watch Scheme was established in Finglas in Dublin in 1984. The scheme provided essentially a medium of communication between the Gardaí and the community. The scheme was established on a national basis in 1985. The rural equivalent is referred to as Community Alert. This was established as a result of concerns following a number of attacks on elderly people. A rural community development, Muintir Na Tíre advocated for and is involved in the operation of this scheme. Although small-scale evaluations of specific NWS in certain locations have shown that the schemes have brought a greater sense of security to some participants, a national evaluation of Neighbourhood Watch concluded that there was no evidence participants felt safer than non-participants, nor was Neighbourhood Watch responsible for any increase in the reporting of suspicious activities to Gardaí¹⁸.

The Neighbourhood Garda programme, which gave police officers responsibility for a distinct area was developed in 1986. These schemes enabled the Garda member to negotiate their working hours to take account of local events. In urban/suburban areas community policing is essentially about assigning individual Gardaí or Garda teams to particular communities. Rural policing involves the division of the Garda district, which is managed by a Superintendent, into two key areas managed by a Sergeant. Each of these area administrators is allocated a number of stations. An evaluation of the Neighbourhood Garda scheme concluded that participating officers showed little enthusiasm for the practice although most officers involved showed a higher degree of job satisfaction¹⁹. It has been difficult to establish Neighbourhood Watch Schemes in areas that are not middle-class or where there has been a history of poor police-community relations.

In relation to Neighbourhood Watch and Community Alert, the AGSI in its submission to the Joint Committee states:

“These schemes are in themselves excellent in that they encourage rapport between police and civilians... However, once the initial enthusiasm has waned, the schemes tend to drift into oblivion.”

b) Community Policing Fora

Recently, we have seen the development of community policing fora, particularly in Dublin. These have largely grown out of community demands for improved policing in the context of the drugs crisis in many parts off the city. With the establishment of Local Drug Task Forces many of these fora have been established on a more formalised basis. The National Drugs Strategy 2000 - 2008 highlights the importance of Community Policing Fora to the development of Local Drug Task forces. Action 11 aims:

“To extend the Community Policing Fora initiative to all LDTF areas, if the evaluation of the pilot proves positive.”

The evaluation of the pilot in the North East Inner city was positive and the model is now being extended to other areas. Noel Ahern T.D., Minister of State with responsibility for the National Drugs Strategy made a submission to the Joint Committee in relation to the development of community policing fora within his remit. The Joint Committee also received submissions, both orally and in writing from representatives of a number of the existing fora, all of which are at various stages of development. This included representatives of the Dublin-based Community Policing Fora in Cabra, Blanchardstown, the North East Inner City and in Rialto.

The North Inner City Community Policing Forum (CPF) was established in 1999²⁰. It was formally launched by An Taoiseach Bertie Ahern T.D. in October 2002 ²¹. The primary purpose of the CPF is to co-ordinate a common strategy in response to drug dealing between the local community, the Garda Síochána and Dublin City Council.

The evaluation of the CPF, which incorporated a survey of the opinion of local participants’ attitudes, identified a number of concerns in the area in relation to drug dealing and drug-related crime. It also identified a number of positive outcomes which arose as a consequence of the development of the CPF, including regular and consistent attendance at local meetings held under the auspices of the CPF. This is particularly significant in an area where there are serious concerns about co-operating with Gardaí on drugs-related issues due to fears of reprisal from those involved in drug, a factor which was also identified in the survey. Significant progress was also identified as having been made in relation to a series of local drug-related incidents. The evaluation also reported increased cooperation between State agencies as a result of the CPF.

The main findings of the Community Policing Forum Panel survey were:

•70% of respondents believe that the service provided by An Garda Síochána has improved as a result of the CPF;

•60% believe that the service provided by Dublin City Council has improved as a result of the CPF;

•72 per cent stated that they would be more willing to co-operate with the Gardaí in relation to drug-related crime as a result of the CPF;

•59% stated that they would be more willing to cooperate with the Gardaí about non-drug-related crime as a result of the CPF;

•70% stated that they would be more willing to cooperate with Dublin City Council in relation to estate management issues as a result of the CPF;

•45 per cent stated that they were less worried about drug-related crime as a result of the CPF. However, 55 per cent stated that there was no change in this respect;

•All respondents wished to see the CPF continue into the future.

The Joint Committee also heard from representatives of the Blanchardstown Drug Task Force in relation to a proposal to establish a community forum in that area²². A report by Cabra Community Policing Forum presented to the Joint Committee detailed an intensive programme of local resident meetings and consultations with other stakeholders, organised in preparation for the establishment of a local community policing and estate management forum. The report also makes a number of recommendations to advance such a process, including; proposed terms of reference, aims and objectives, a schedule of meetings, and proposed membership of the forum²³.

The Joint Committee was also addressed by representatives of the Rialto Community Network about the Rialto Community policing Forum, which was suspended due to the absence of resources.

Noel Ahern T.D., Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Minister with special responsibility for the National Drugs Strategy 2001 - 2008 addressed the issue of community policing fora in the context of the National Drugs Strategy:

“On the mid-term review of the national drugs strategy, the community policing fora currently operate in three local drugs task force areas in Dublin - the north inner city, Cabra, and the south inner city. While slightly different approaches have been taken in the different areas, the model preferred by contributors to the mid-term review, particularly community groups, is the one that operates in the north inner city. This model involves the appointment of a civilian community co-ordinator who liaises between the Garda and the local community. There is a management committee, involving senior officials from the Garda and Dublin City Council and community representatives.”

c) The status of community policing in An Garda Síochána

A consistent issue raised in the written and oral submissions to the Joint Committee relates to the perceived low status of community policing in An Garda Síochána.

The Garda Síochána Strategic Management Initiative Steering Group (2004) concluded in relation to community policing that the role of community policing was not well defined and that ‘it is poorly organised, suffers from a diversion of resources and lacks performance management and planning’²⁴. Its key findings were:

•There is a requirement to refocus the role of community/rural Gardaí;

•Community/rural policing is to some extent dependent on the personal commitment of local management to this form of policing and the level of support provided;

•The diversion of resources to other duties would appear to vary significantly within the force. The lack of available records to quantify this is in itself an issue of concern;

•There is a considerable lack of supporting infrastructure for community/rural policing units;

•Overall, reporting structures in relation to community/rural policing units vary;

•The work and outcome of the work undertaken by community/rural Gardaí is inappropriately measured, if at all

Organisations and individuals raising concerns in this area included the AGSI, Dublin Neighbourhood Watch, The Lord Mayor’s Commission on Crime and Policing, representatives of the Local Drug Task Forces and serving and retired Gardaí. Issues raised included the following:

•There is no clear command structure;

•There is insufficient communication between the national community relations office and frontline community Gardaí;

•That the activities of community police or the community policing structures are not sufficiently formalised within the force;

•Community policing is under-resourced;

•It does not have a proper career path or equality of status with respect to working conditions and allowances;

•Community policing personnel are moved to other policing units when the need arises, such as for sporting events or temporary transfer deals in response to pressure on policing resources and this breaks down continuity in community police service;

•Community police receive different allowances than other police e.g. time-off-in-lieu rather than overtime;

•That the programme for recruiting suitable members to community policing is ill conceived;

•Community police do not receive adequate training, in conflict resolution, problem solving or communication skills;

•There is no specific office space to conduct meetings or receive telephone calls;

The Dublin Neighbourhood Watch Regional Committee, while citing the regular reports it receives of, ‘the re-assuring aspect... of highly visible community Gardaí on the street and of the value of bicycle patrols in reducing street crime’, highlights its regret at the:

“evident lack of status accorded to community policing as shown by the lack of a career structure that would encourage the retention of experienced community Gardaí within the community policing structures rather than forcing them to seek advancement in other policing areas.”

In response to a number of questions on this issue, Minister McDowell informed the Joint Committee:

“There is a perception that, in the past, some areas of law enforcement, such as road traffic matters and community policing, were residual. It was thought that when other issues required resources, traffic and community policing were effectively at the end of the queue. We must counter that perception by giving community policing a central role in planning how things are done. It is of great importance and no professional policeman or woman would dispute that fact. Therefore, community Gardaí will not be taken away from a particular district to fulfil other duties when and if the need requires it. The same applies to road traffic matters.”

The Garda Commissioner also addressed this issue:

“I am not sure of the numbers, nor could I state with certainty that 2,000 or 3,000 Gardaí will be devoted full-time to community policing... to devote between 2,000 and 3,000 Gardaí to full-time community policing would create major difficulties for me in the current circumstances. To allocated even 2,000 Gardaí for this purpose would mean closing a large number of Garda stations, which I do not believe people favour.”

The Commissioner stated that a current problem relates to the need for Garda members to spend a great deal of time inputting data into the new Garda data system PULSE, which takes them away from street-based duties:

“I am putting as many Gardaí on the street as possible. Again, we are examining initiatives related to PULSE, including the issue of data entry, to relieve our people in various parts of the country in which stations are not networked. At present, Gardaí travel up to 15 miles to input information. I hope this will change in the near future as a result of what is being done. In other words, I hope many more Gardaí will spend much more time with the public, dealing with issues such as anti-social behaviour, particularly public order issues. We are examining the possibility of establishing call centres where specialised staff can input data on foot of radio or telephone messages in order that Gardaí would not have to do the work themselves.”

The Commissioner also informed the Committee that it seeks to ensure that community policing officers remain in the same location for at least three years:

“When community Gardaí are assigned, we aim to ensure they are engaged for three years. Community policing must be made attractive to encourage the right people to become involved... In spite of what we might wish, it is important to create structures which offer movement for Gardaí assigned to community policing work. While personnel changes mean the learning process must be restarted and communities must find out about the new Gardaí assigned to their areas, new personnel can bring fresh ideas to bear. There are pros and cons and it is very difficult to strike the right balance on every occasion. From time to time we have to change personnel, having assigned the wrong person to an area. I am the first to admit that some officers are very good with people, while others are not.”

With regard to the appointment and training of Garda members for community policing duties, the Garda Commissioner informed the Joint Committee that individuals assigned to community policing would be assessed by the local district officer. He or she would decide if an individual was sufficiently competent and capable to go into this area of policing and that various in-service courses are held in divisions on an ongoing basis. These, suggested the Commissioner, provide the necessary skills for interacting with people and dealing with the issues that arise.

E) The Joint Committee Hearings

The Garda Síochána Bill 2004, which is before the Oireachtas at present, includes new provisions dealing with the organisation, management, performance and accountability of An Garda Síochána. Sections 30 - 34 of the Bill relate to Co-operation between An Garda Siochána and Local Authorities and Arrangements for Obtaining Views of the Public. We will now consider some of the issues raised before the Joint Committee.

(i)Guidelines:

Section 31(1) of the Bill provides for the issuing of guidelines following consultation between the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law reform²⁵. Given the establishment of community policing fora within the context of the national drug strategy 2001 - 2008, the responsibility for which lies within the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, it was suggested that this ministry should also have a role in the consultancy role above. Noel Ahern T.D., Minister of State with responsibility for the National Drug Strategy told the Committee:

“Based on my experience as a Deputy and in the Department, these two Departments (Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs) are key to this. Until lately we were involved only with the local drugs task forces which operated in Dublin, with one each in Bray and Cork. Since the creation of the regional ones, that involvement has extended. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform may have regarded this as affecting only certain areas and therefore we did not have the same statutory right to be involved as the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.”

It is important that the structures to be established by the Act build upon what is already in existence. The experience of the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, particularly in relation to the developments made in connection of the Drug Task Forces in Dublin would be invaluable in that regard. The Local Authority Members Association (LAMA) also suggested that it and other representative associations should have a role to play in the preparation of the guidelines and requested that a full consultation should take place with all representative associations of local public representatives prior to the issuing of guidelines.

Recommendation One

That the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs should also be included along with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in the consultation process outlined under s.31(1).

LAMA also suggested to the Committee that a time limit should be set with regard to the issuing of guidelines and that the operation of Joint Policing Committees should commence within twelve months from the passage of the Act.

(ii)Structure:

The Bill, as originally proposed, provided for the establishment of the Joint Policing Committee within the framework of a city development board or a county development board, as the case may be, or otherwise. Following its passage through the Seanad this section was amended to exclude reference to city or county development boards²⁶.

However, with regard to the appropriate structures within which to situate future community policing approaches, a number of submissions suggested that the structures of accountability and oversight envisaged in the Bill did not go far enough. A second theme related to the need to build upon and adequately resource the structures and processes already in place, particularly in relation to the community policing fora associated with the drug task forces. Thirdly, many submissions addressed the complex question of identifying suitable structures to cater for urban and rural policing needs.

Mr. Dennis Bradley, Vice Chairman of the Northern Ireland Policing Board raised questions as to the oversight capacity of the structures envisaged and called for the establishment of an independent police authority:

“One of the difficulties, from my reading of the Bill, is that the Garda will sit on all the overseeing committees. Why is that? The fact that oversight has been devolved to local authorities, which was not the original proposal, is an advancement. That is an improvement, but I cannot understand why the Garda will sit on the committees with the same power, authority and involvement as the local citizen or whatever political or civilian oversight is established. This means that cosy little cliques can be created, but it does not necessarily mean that any proper monitoring is going on or proper oversight.”

With regard to this issue, Minister McDowell responded:

“What is good for Northern Ireland is not necessarily good for a sovereign State. The Northern Ireland Police Authority has party political membership and is constituted as such. Some people in this State seem to think it is some kind of apolitical body which is great and good but it is not. It is a political process designed to deal with a divided community and to get everybody into the policing process. We do not have that exact problem. We have other issues such as the fact that the Garda Síochána is the national security force. As Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, I cannot surrender security to some group of people who are not directly accountable to the electorate.”

The Lord Mayor’s Commission on Crime and Policing envisages a three-tiered policing structure: a Joint Policing Committee, referred to as a community safety and personnel team, at city or county level, a second-tier at the level of Dublin’s five local authority area committees and a third local community safety forum at a more localised level or established on a temporary basis to deal with a particular problem.

Dr. Dermot Walsh of the Centre for Criminal Justice at the University of Limerick also questioned the conceptualisation of police oversight and accountability implicit in the Bill. Dr. Walsh proposed the establishment of police liaison committees at community level, with membership drawn from locally elected officials and representatives of relevant community groups with hands-on experience of local policing problems and concerns. These committees might, he suggested, meet on a monthly basis to discuss local concerns and to bring them to a meeting of local Gardaí with a view to finding solutions. This would allow Gardaí to offer their perspective in terms of their concerns about delivering an efficient policing service in the community. His proposal would envisage both community and police working together through an ongoing dialogue in promoting, developing and sustaining acceptable community policing services and practices.

Dr. Walsh proposed that such a process should be replicated on a national basis through the establishment of a national forum on policing. However, this body would include Garda and community representatives, and its function would be to meet at national level to discuss common aspects of policing concern in different areas and to engage with the Garda and Government in identifying how those concerns might be addressed. The Chamber of Commerce of Ireland also proposed the merits of a national oversight body.

A second area of concern related to the need to build upon and improve existing structural arrangements. This issue was raised by a representative delegation from the Fourteen Local Drugs Task Forces.

“Regarding structures and their coherence, our proposal is quite innovative. In many ways the drugs task forces and their experience have been unique in the intensity of a local structure dealing with policing issues. While the task forces deal with a wider level of issues, there is probably no similar experience taking place in this State with this level of intensity. The expectations which have grown locally have been based on that experience.... We are trying to make a connection between the existence of local development structures -drugs task forces, partnerships and other community development structures - which exist in Government-designated areas. Excluding the drugs task force agencies, there are 30 of those areas across every disadvantaged part of the State. Accordingly, there is an alternative structure to local authorities. We propose a more effective connection between the electoral system, in this case in the Dublin drugs task force context, and the elected representatives of the area committees which exist throughout Dublin and Cork, their agencies being the local authorities, and we propose a policing committee for each of the drugs task force areas. This would bring a coherence to structures already there. It would include the local authority and the Garda as well as a wider remit for a new type of structure. It does not depend merely on local authority structures.”

Michael McDowell T.D., Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, in his presentation to the Joint Committee, explained the amendment to structures envisaged under the Bill in the Seanad:

“I am not trying to denigrate the county development boards in any way. We need a flexible approach in different areas. I do not believe, for example, that the model used for a local policing committee in Fingal should necessarily be used for such a committee in County Mayo. I do not believe the same issues necessarily apply in two places....I have chosen those areas as examples. I am wary of the ‘one size fits all’ approach to local policing committees. We have to retain flexibility in the system.”

The appropriate framework within which to situate the Joint Policing Committees was an issue central to many of the submissions heard by the Joint Oireachtas Committee. A number of existing structures and partnership bodies were identified as relevant to the proposed community policing arrangements. These included:

City Development Board/ County Development Board/ County Community and Voluntary Fora/ Town and Borough Councils/ County and City Councils/ Local Authority Area Committees/ Local and Regional Drugs Task Forces/ Local Area Partnerships/ Areas designated within the RAPID Programme (Revitalising Areas by Planning, Investment and Development) or, with regard to rural developments, under the LEADER Programme (Links between Actions of the Rural Economy) and ADM process (Area Development Management).

A related factor was whether structures to be established in urban areas would necessarily be the most appropriate model for rural areas. Furthermore, it became clear that existing structures function at different levels of effectiveness in different parts of the country. Consequently, it is apparent that the need for flexibility, as mentioned by the Minister, will be required when identifying structural arrangements. Many of the presentations have suggested that models may need to reflect the different issues which arise in different areas.

In Dublin, the five Local Authority Area committees appear to have potential in relation to the Joint Policing Committees. Mr Phillip Maguire, Assistant Dublin City Manager, stated that much of the work of Joint Policing Committees would be done at area committee level. Mr. Padraic White, Chairman of the National Crime Council, pointed to the Local Drug Task Forces and the LEADER Programmes in rural areas as having a vast pool of knowledge and body of expertise which, he suggests, can be drawn upon. The Lord Mayor’s Commission urged that structures should be put in place so as to facilitate the contributions of various interest groups such as community representation, with the partnership models in Dublin and the LEADER Programmes in rural areas identified as potentially useful.

The Integrated Rural Development - Duhallow (IRD), a community-based rural development agency, is one of thirty-two community partnerships nationally implementing the Leader programme. The IRD, which currently holds the secretary’s position in the Leader groups, suggested that the integration of local government and local development is an ideal vehicle and that the Leader - Area Development Management (ADM) groups could have an involvement at sub-county level.

Ms Martina Moloney, County Manager for Louth, also highlighted the need to ensure structures were established to suit local circumstances. She pointed to the RAPID implementation team model which involves the local authority, various other interests, and the community and the Gardaí in looking at issues that affect local areas and estates. Regarding Area committees. She also highlighted how they vary in terms of their level of development. Such committees are strong in rural local authority areas but not so well developed in larger urban areas which are not as big as Dublin, for example Dundalk and Drogheda. Also, she pointed out that there was no area committee structure in Galway city.

The Association of Municipal Authorities of Ireland (AMAI) highlighted that the major criminal activity takes place in urban centres and proposed therefore that Joint Policing Committees should be based at town level and that all such committees would include the rural electoral areas contiguous to towns. This model, according to the AMAI, would ensure that the entire area of a county would be covered and that all electoral representatives would be eligible to serve on Joint Policing Committees. The AMAI also suggested that any model chosen would give rise to anomalies because of the local authority structures or the demographics of a county. It suggested however that any problems which might arise in such a context could be addressed in light of the ability to create local policing fora under s32(2)(d)²⁷.

The Local Authorities Members’ Association (LAMA) also pointed to the potential of the Area committees, which are representative of councillors and officials and which, it suggested, were the ideal structures for the establishment of Joint Policing Committees.

Similarly, Mr. Paul Maloney, Area Manager of Dublin City Council regarded the Area committee structure as forming a very important part of the overall structure. He also suggested that such a structure could develop a form of liaison with coordinators of local fora as currently established in the Drug Task Force areas so as to facilitate connections between the Joint Policing Committees and the local fora.

The delegation from the Local Drug Task Forces suggested that as task forces are established in government designated areas of disadvantage, the structure for the Joint Policing Committees should reflect this by ensuring that a Joint Policing Committee is set up in each of these areas.

Recommendation Two

That the Local Authority Area Committee is the most appropriate location within which to situate the Joint Policing Committees. Ministerial guidelines should allow for flexibility.

Another important structural issue relates to the need to reconcile local authority and Garda Síochána operational boundaries. The non-configuration of Garda boundaries with those of the local authorities has been identified as problematic.

Mr. John Fitzgerald, Dublin City Manager, raised the importance of addressing this issue in the context of a broader crime prevention policing approach:

“The Garda divisions are not coterminous with local government boundaries. If a chief superintendent could work closely with one of our area managers, for example, it would make operational matters much easier for all concerned. However, policing is as much about health and education and child care as it is about anything else. For example, the lack of coterminous boundaries between the association and the health service presents a serious problem, especially since the abolition of the Eastern Health Board. There were two opportunities missed to bring the boundaries into line. This would have been helpful in the areas of community care and drug treatment centres. It would make the provision of public services a lot easier if that opportunity was availed of.”

AMAI also addressed this issue and suggested the rationalisation of Garda divisions so as to align them with counties would also simplify the creation and working of the Joint Policing Committees. The Local Authority Members’ Association (LAMA) discussed the issue of boundaries and stated that the situation could not be allowed to continue whereby different boundaries exist in the form of Health Service Executive areas, educational divisions, policing units, local authorities.

Recommendation Three

That Garda Síochána and Local Authority boundaries should be aligned in so far as possible.

(iii) Membership:

Related to the question of structure is the issue of membership of the various community policing structures to be established. Prior to the passage of the Bill through the Seanad, there was no provision for the inclusion of elected representatives on the Joint Policing Committees. Michael McDowell T.D., Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, explained the changes in this regard:

“As the Committee will be aware, sections 31 and 32 of the Garda Síochána Bill, as passed by the Seanad, provide for the establishment at local authority level of joint policing committees comprised of elected representatives and Gardaí. The definition of a ‘local authority’ includes county, city and town councils. It is intended that these joint policing committees or JPCs would provide a forum whereby gardaí and local authorities can co-operate and work together to address local policing and other issues. The intention is to make those committees real workable institutions whereby local representatives and the communities they represent would deal with the gardaí on matters of local concern.

By way of background to this concept, I point out to Members of the Dáil in particular that when the Bill was initiated in the Seanad it was initiated with a slightly different model in mind, which arose from discussions during the drafting of a Bill between the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The latter seemed to favour a model along the lines of the county development board approach to local policing committees. That Department had in mind a system whereby economic and other interests would be dealt with on a county basis. It did not envisage town councils and the lower sector of local government being represented in this model. Rather than have a lengthy debate prior to publication and wrangle within Departments on this subject, I decided to publish the Bill on that basis. However, it was always my view that it was likely that when it reached the Oireachtas there would be a much stronger constituency, if I can use that term, for direct involvement of locally elected public representatives rather than, and I do not want to use this term dismissively “a qausi-automonous non-governmental organisation approach” - known in Britain ten years ago as quangos - to it. I wanted to have something which was directly accountable to local authorities.

It did not come as a surprise to me and it was a matter of some relief that the overwhelming consensus in Seanad Éireann, and I believe the position is the same in Dáil Éireann, was that the primacy of elected public representatives in this process should be reinstated and respected. The Bill was amended substantially in that direction as it went through Seanad Éireann.”

Following its passage through the Seanad, the Bill was amended to broaden the membership of the Joint Policing Committees. As per s31(2) membership of the committee can include members nominated by the local authority, members of the Garda Síochána nominated by the Garda Commissioner, members of the Oireachtas, persons nominated by other public authorities and ‘such other persons as may be provided for in the guidelines’²⁸.

In explaining the amendment to include Oireachtas members the Minister stated:

“This is important because one of the problems caused by the dual mandate abolition is that Members have been marginalised on this issue. The committee membership will also include persons nominated by other public authorities and such other persons as may be provided for in the guidelines. When the Bill was being drafted, health boards were still in place but the Health Service Executive will be included.”

A recurring theme throughout the hearings related to the inclusion of representatives of the community and voluntary sector on Joint Policing Committees. A large number of groups in their submissions to the Joint Oireachtas Committee called for membership of the Joint Policing Committees to be extended beyond those named above and that there should be an explicit reference within the guidelines for the inclusion of representatives of the community and voluntary sector. The Minister, in addressing this issue before the Joint Oireachtas Committee stated:

“While I will consider this, I do not want to pre-empt the debate on the legislation or create a quango...a delicate balance must be struck between the authority of local public representatives and their mandate to make decisions compared with other persons in the community. Obviously I am not inimical to business interests having their voice heard, or for that matter local community interests, so long as they are democratically mandated. The Deputy will understand that local groups without a mandate can spring up very quickly and this can be a problem.”

Mr. Padraic White, Chairman of the National Crime Council, highlighted the importance of specifically including the Community and Voluntary Sector on the Joint policing Committees as of right:

“Specifically, on the make-up of the joint policing committee, we have proposed that community based organisations should be specifically listed as a constituent member. There is an important underlying issue about the role of modern community based organisations which... are well established and many of which have adopted a highly professional approach. I have always seen them as complementary, rather than opposed, to the role of elected representatives. There is a complementary role for representative community based organisations and the council has advised that they are entitled to be listed specifically in the Bill. An amendment should be brought forward to provide that such organisations may be members by right... When one looks at the work that the voluntary and community sector is doing in local drugs task forces, community based projects, area partnerships in reducing unemployment and preventive education, they are making an enormous contribution in multiple ways to elements that affect crime. There is a great opportunity to make them a part of it, rather than exclude them. That is the central part of our case and the reason we are pressing that they should be legitimately recognised in the Bill as an important player.”

The National Crime Council highlights the importance of establishing a genuine partnership between elected representatives and the community and voluntary sector. The National Consultative Committee on Racism and Interculturalism proposed that Joint Policing Committees should be inclusive of civil society, including minority ethnic groups. In response to concerns as to whether the involvement of members of ethnic minorities on Joint Policing Committees may create an unwieldy situation, Mr. Phillip Watt of the National Consultative Committee on Racism and Interculturalism stated:

“We use the term ‘reasonable accommodation of diversity’. We would not take the view that a representative of somebody from a minority ethnic group should be on every committee but that a sensible approach should be taken, taking into consideration the problems in the local population. In the short term we see the major urban areas as the key place where things will happen.”

The Irish Senior Citizens’ Parliament, called for the involvement and representation of older people in the new policing structures, either through sub-committees, area or neighbourhood committees. The Lord Mayor’s Commission also called for partnership between local authorities and the community and voluntary sector. The Commission stated:

“This would enhance the legitimacy of any partnership, provide it with local insights and bolster its image in the community... This enormous resource (the community and voluntary sector) must be included.”

The Commission suggested that further consideration needed to be given as to how structures could be facilitated to create such inclusion but that to leave the community and voluntary sector on the sidelines would be a huge mistake. In this regard, Mr. Seán Hegarty from Community Alert raised the question as to who represented the communities. He outlined how Community Alert had spent time developing a model of elected voluntary representatives drawn from the different electoral areas within a parish in addition to representatives from local clubs and interest groups. The model was one, he suggested, which represented the community and which could be challenged to come forward with solutions to particular problems.

Ms Martina Moloney, County Manager for Louth, also highlighted the importance of community involvement which, she stated, has an important role to play in problem identification and problem-solving. She highlighted how important the community is as a resource in understanding local issues.

The Association of Municipal Authorities of Ireland (AMAI) however, proposed that Joint Policing Committees should consist of elected representatives and Garda members only but that the local policing fora would be the appropriate vehicle for the inclusion of the community and voluntary sector. Joint Policing Committees, AMAI contended, would be unworkable if they had too wide a remit. This position was also supported by the Local Authority Members’ Association.

The General Council of County Councils, which represents all of the county councils and the five largest boroughs in the country raised a number of concerns in relation to proposals to include the voluntary and community sector on the Joint Policing Committees. Councillor Albert Higgins addressed the issue on behalf of the General Council:

“We have been working with Strategic Policy Committees and county development boards but, at the end of the day, these fall back on the elected members who attend 100% of them. There seems to be a fall-off of the voluntary sector’s involvement in serving on these committees. Their composition (the Joint Policing Committees) must be mainly elected members. We are the ones at the coalface. People approach the elected members if there is a problem in the middle of the night. Upon examining this, there is a danger that JPCs will be diluted as elected members will form a very small part of them.”

Councillor Constance Hanniffy also raised a concern in this regard:

“If there are too many members, sub-comittees or fora, the whole board will become diluted. It will become hard to police the community policing authority. That could raise difficulties with confidentiality, as well as calling into question the role of this body. The more it is diluted with representative organisations, the more it will deal with specific issues rather than broader policies.”

The Rialto Community Network highlighted its concerns regarding the possible exclusion of the community and voluntary sector from the Joint Policing Committees:

“One of our fears is that the Joint Policing Committees will become one step removed from the community and that front-line people who are dealing with problems day-to-day in the flat complexes will not be involved...people involved at the grassroots need to be included, not just elected councillors.”

Mr.Fergus McCabe, a member of the board of management of the North Inner City Community Policing Forum, highlighted the importance of including the community and voluntary sector:

“We are lucky in Ireland that people are prepared to get involved in these types of initiatives in a voluntary capacity. Ireland is the envy of Europe in terms of how people from the voluntary and community sector have become involved in the drugs issue. The legislation offers us an opportunity and failure to change the relevant part of the Bill would be a tragedy.”

Representatives of the business community, the Chambers of Commerce of Ireland and the Irish Small and Medium Enterprise Association, also stated that they would be interested in representation on the Joint Policing Committees. The Irish Council for Civil Liberties in supporting calls for the inclusion of the community and voluntary sector, highlighted the importance of ensuring a transparent selection process:

“The key is to provide a transparent process and so avoid resentment about the people chosen who may be regarded as favoured by the local authority or the gardaí over people who may be perceived as difficult but who represent the needs and concerns of the community.”

In the North Inner City Community Policing Forum, community representatives are elected to the management board through the large forum meetings held every three months in the local police station. The delegation from the Confederation of European Councillors explained to the Joint Committee how representatives of the community and voluntary sector are appointed to the policing bodies in Northern Ireland:

“More than 1,500 people applied to sit on the partnerships alongside the political members, who were selected by their councils to reflect the balance of parties in their chambers. The policing board appointed 215 people to serve alongside the 241 elected members...Also, the chief executives of the councils, which would be the county managers in the South, have overall responsibility for setting up the DPP and ensuring its effective operation, while each council is obliged to commit 25% of reasonable expenses incurred by the DPP.”

Councillor Bertie Montgomery, Vice Chairperson of the Confederation and a member of the District Policing Partnership for Magherafelt, explained that on the District Policing Partnerships, the number of councillors must always exceed the representatives from the community and voluntary sector by one. Representatives from the business community and trade unions also sit on the policing partnerships. Councillor Montgomey also highlighted the role of private consultants Price Waterhouse in facilitating such appointments.

“Price Waterhouse was employed by the Government to run the process of appointing the community sector members. Subsequently, the councils appointed a chair and vice-chair to each DPP from both sides, unionist and nationalist, of the community. The community representative posts were advertised and applied for and the candidates were interviewed by the chair or the vice-chair and a representative from Price Waterhouse. Recommendations were sent to the Policing Board for approval. Occasionally, a recommended candidate was not approved but 99% of the selected candidates were approved.”

Recommendation Four

That there should be a two thirds : one third ratio of elected representatives in the membership of the Joint Policing Committees as far as is practicable.

Recommendation Five

That a transparent procedure should be put in place to facilitate the involvement of Community and Voluntary representatives.

The involvement of local government should also be reflected in the chairing of Joint Policing Committees.

Recommendation Six

That the Chairperson of the Joint Policing Committee should be a local public representative.

Other issues which arose in relation to the membership of the proposed policing bodies included the role of Oireachtas members on the Joint Policing Committees, the question of gender balance and the level of seniority of members of the Gardaí and the Local Authority on the committees.

The General Council of County Councils stated its opposition to the inclusion of Oireachtas members on the Joint Policing Committees on the basis that it would be inappropriate for T.D.s to be involved in local government activities and that the need to accommodate Dáil sittings would restrict the operation of the Joint Policing Committee²⁹.

Councillor Cáit Keane of LAMA and the Confederation of European Councillors highlighted the importance of ensuring gender equity in relation to the membership of the proposed policing bodies. A representative from the Confederation pointed out that the process of establishing the DPPs in Northern Ireland led to one of the largest single appointments of women to public bodies in recent years.

Recommendation Seven

That in the appointment of members of the various new policing bodies, gender equity should be ensured in so far as is practicable.

With regard to the seniority of members of the Joint Policing Committees, S31 (3) requires the Garda Commissioner to ensure such members are of ‘appropriate rank and seniority’³⁰. A concern raised in many of the submissions in this regard was the need to ensure that the Committees did not become mere ‘talking shops’ without sufficient decision-making power. The Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors proposed that Garda participation on the Committees should be at superintendent or higher level so as to ensure that they ‘reflect the status (of JPCs) as a leading communication channel between the police and the policed’. This position was also supported by the Local Authority Members Association (LAMA) contended that for Joint Policing Committees to be truly effective, the Garda Superintendent for the area should be a member of the committee.

It was also proposed that representatives from the local authority should be at area manager level.

Recommendation Eight

That the Garda representatives on the Joint Policing Committees should be of the appropriate rank and seniority.

Recommendation Nine

That Local Authority executive participation on the Joint Policing Committee should be at Area Manager or Director of Services level.

(iv) Role and function of Joint Policing Committees

Section 32 outlines the functions of the Joint Policing Committees. The Committee’s function is to serve as a ‘forum for consultation, discussions and recommendations’ on policing matters affecting the local area³¹. In particular, the Committee must review levels of crime and anti-social behaviour, advise the local authority and the Garda Síochána on how best to ‘prevent crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour within the area’. The Committee can also arrange and host public meetings concerning local policing matters. The Committees can also establish, ‘with the Garda Commissioner’s consent’, and must ‘co-ordinate the activities of’ local policing fora³².

With regard to assessing crime levels, the National Crime Council suggested that local crime surveys down to neighbourhood level could play and important role in identifying the real and perceived policing needs of local communities.

Recommendation Ten

That Local household crime surveys should be conducted annually throughout the jurisdiction of the Local Authority Area Committee to inform the Joint Policing Committee.

Many of the submissions to the Joint Committee highlighted the importance of placing crime prevention at the centre of the work of the Joint Policing Committees. The National Crime Council, Victim Support, the Probation and Welfare Service, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, the Local Drugs Task Forces and the Nenagh Community Reparation Project all highlighted the centrality of broadening the role of the Joint Policing Committees to incorporate crime prevention, problem solving, restorative justice and the promotion of non-custodial sanctions in criminal justice responses. Many of these groups also opposed criminal justice measures such as the proposed anti-social behaviour orders under the Criminal Justice Bill, 2004 which is currently before the Oireachtas, suggesting that such approaches were contrary to the principles underlying community policing. The Local Drugs Task Forces explained that the approach in local drugs task force areas has been to discourage such approaches and encourage investment in facilities and services for young people.

The Lord Mayor’s Commission recommended the establishment of community safety fora to develop and implement a crime reduction strategy and suggested that ‘a far more holistic approach is required...there is no point in addressing the end product alone’. Minister Noel Ahern T.D., addressed this issue in relation to the impact of environmental factors on crime prevention and he described how the Local Authority is now addressing this matter:

“As the Committee knows, there can be very complex interactions between the built environment, planning and the incidence of crime. It is very important that housing estates be laid out and designed properly. Architects designs are not reponsible for all problems but they can help to solve problems. In recent years there has been great attention to detail in trying to ensure that local authorities design estates in a way that eliminates, as much as possible, hang-around locations and other locations that create problems....Up to ten or 15 years ago, the design of local authority estates left a lot to be desired and in some cases was not very good. Even now, despite that the Department has strict guidelines for local authorities and voluntary bodies, some of the plans that are submitted are unsatisfactory because there are obvious spots where groups could congregate and will be destined for trouble later on. Through these guidelines the Department tries to avoid back lanes and areas that are out of sight. If there is to be a green area, it is best to have it out front where everyone is looking. Eyes are the best form of security. Open areas at the backs of houses will cause problems with drinking and drug taking later on.”

Michael McDowell T.D., Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform informed the Joint Committee of how he envisaged the Joint Policing Committees operating:

“What I have in mind is a two-way street in which, primarily, the Garda Síochána and local authority members will interact to ensure that they co-operate to bring about an adequate level of policing methods and a proper climate for policing in the areas where they are involved. The key matter is that by deciding on local strategies to deal with particular difficulties, the local community would become actively involved and have a stake in the solution. Therefore, it would have a better chance of being successful.”

The Confederation of European Councillors highlighted the broad role of the District Policing Partnerships in Northern Ireland in contributing to the formulation of local policing plans:

“The DPPs act as fora for discussion and consultation on matters affecting the policing of the district for which it is responsible, including for example, the prioritisation of policing issues on behalf of local people and contributing to the formulation of local policing plans. The strength of this system emanates from the fact that it provides a unique opportunity for local people to shape local policing and it is a good mechanism for facilitating dialogue between the police and the local community.”

Recommendation Eleven

That the Joint Policing Committees in consultation with the Garda authorities should identify the priorities of the local area, develop a comprehensive crime prevention strategy and formulate this into an annual policing plan for the area.

Another important issue raised during the hearings relates to the question as to whether meetings organised under the proposed reforms should occur in private or in public³³. A primary concern here related to the need to reconcile issues of confidentiality and the need for a degree of privacy in relation to sensitive issues being balanced with the need for public transparency and openness. The Confederation of European Councillors described the procedures of the District Policing Partnerships in Northern Ireland in this regard:

“We have 12 meetings per year, six in public and six in private. In addition, the chair, vice-chair and two other members meet the divisional commander in the interim. He or she gives updates about any local events that we believe require discussion. There is an expectation that each DPP hold at least six public meetings a year in different places and at different times to maximise the number of people that can take part. At each of these public meetings the district commander will present his or her report and the DPP will then question him or her on issues that have been raised in the report and will also ask the police questions that may have been forwarded to them by members of the public.”

Recommendation Twelve

That procedures should be put in place to ensure that a proportion of the Joint Policing Committee meetings are held in public.

Under the proposed legislation, local fora can be established by the Joint Policing Committees, but only with the consent of the Garda Commissioner. A concern which arose in this respect relates to the status of the fora already in existence and described above. Groups from the North Inner City, Cabra, Rialto and Blanchardstown all highlighted the importance of developing upon the experience already gained in such communities in relation to the existing fora and called for the adequate resources to be made available for these fora.

Concerns were also expressed in relation to the provision which necessitates the Garda Commissioner’s consent for the establishment of a local fora. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Mr. Michael McDowell T.D., explained the rationale behind this aspect of the Bill:

“The reason for the precondition of the Commissioner’s consent is fora will have to be serviced. There is no point in having an unserviced forum. I do not want a scenario where attendance at fora becomes so onerous that when the Commissioner has his officers out from behind their desks, they spend their evenings debating local policing conditions all the time. He must have control.”

Mr. Noel Conroy, Commissioner of An Garda Síochána, also addressed this issue before the Joint Committee:

“I have no difficulty with participation by the community as such participation is essential if we are to move ahead with policing plans. However, I have finite resources and if, for instance, fora were being set up in various places and I was unable to service their needs, I would have a major problem and communities would have a major problem with me in so far as I would be unable to deliver the type of service each different small section of the community might wish. I must take cognisance of my resources, while at the same time ensuring that whatever we decide to do is done professionally and we are able to deliver the service we set out to deliver.”

Mr. Fergus McCabe, speaking in his capacity as a member of the Management Board of the North Inner City Community Policing Forum stated his opposition to the provision:

“It is wrong that the Garda Síochána has a veto. In terms of the partnership approach, one of the good things about the north inner city has been the level of trust which has developed. Informing and consulting the community does not take away from the operational autonomy of Dublin City Council and the Garda, both of which still have statutory and legal responsibility for whatever they do. There is absolutely no need for that type of veto approach that is inimical to the partnership system. The community and voluntary sector should be represented on the joint policing committees at town, city and regional level as well as neighbourhood level.”

The National Crime Council called for a modification of the requirement to make the establishment of local fora subject to the consent of the Garda Commissioner and suggested that such a requirement would undermine the concept of partnership central to the proposed policing arrangements.

Recommendation Thirteen

That the decision to establish local fora should be made by the Joint Policing Committee in consultation with the relevant Chief Superintendent.

Regarding the membership of local policing fora, Minister McDowell suggested the need to allow for flexibility in this respect so as to allow for the particular circumstances of different areas:

“I cannot produce a blueprint for how people will be selected to serve in local policing fora, for example, in the inner city of Dublin. I could spend from now until the crack of dawn working out paper models for how that should be done. It may well be that what suits south inner city Dublin in the Chairman’s constituency might be wholly unsuitable for North Inner City Cork for localreasons. My aim is to provide a flexible model having regard to the realities of communities.”

The delegation from the Cabra Community Policing Forum proposed that fora membership could include an ‘agreed Chairperson, co-ordinator, senior Garda management personnel, senior estate management personnel from Dublin City Council, Local representatives (T.D.s, Senators, Councillors) members of local clubs and organisations, members of the local business community, local residents, representatives of relevant statutory agencies and any person with the relevant expertise identified by the forum.

Recommendation Fourteen

That membership of the Local Policing For a could include public representatives, senior Garda management, senior estate management personnel from the Local Authority and representatives from the community and voluntary sector.

Also, the experience of existing policing fora such as the one in the North Inner City suggest that the role of a coordinator who is resident in the local area is very important.

(v) Funding and Resources for Community Policing³⁴

Many of the submissions to the Joint Committee situated the issue of funding within the general context of the status of community policing, discussed above. The impact and effectiveness of new policing structures will be determined by the resources made available, which themselves will be a reflection of the status afforded to community policing in the future.

With regard to the issue of identifying a specific budget for community policing, as is proposed for road traffic, the minister responded:

“I do not know whether it would be more an illusion than anything else for me to ring-fence a pile of money for community policing. I do not wish to engage in a knee-jerk reaction and say, “I will do the same for community policing” because at the end of the day I would build an inflexible force. However, I recognise the danger that if I ring-fence road traffic in annual policing plans agreed by me with the Commissioner and following directions given by the Government, unless there is a countervailing value in the plans to ensure community policing is not residual, it will be vulnerable.”

A number of submissions addressed the issue of funding. The Association of Municipal Authorities of Ireland AMAI stated that important question related to how the funding would be rolled out.

“Every town council is strapped for cash. Most towns are not taking in sufficient amounts from rates. The Garda budget is also not sufficient and every town in Ireland is crying out for more Gardaí. Community policing will be labour-intensive and in order to put it into place the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform will need to invest more money. Councillors who will serve on joint policing committees will need training on certain aspects of the law. Gardaí dedicated to certain areas for a period of time will work with the local people and councillors. They will need training on how to do this... There are administration expenses. ... There will be conflict between the public, councillors and the Garda Síochána. Funding must be provided for a facilitation or mediation process.”

The submission from Rialto explained that the Community Policing Forum in that area had to be suspended due to lack of funding. The Cabra Community Policing Forum explained that resources came through the Finglas-Cabra Local Drugs Task Force. With regard to the future, the Cabra delegation suggested that for the future the policing forum should be funded through Dublin City Council, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and through the Local Drugs Task Force.

Mr. Paul Maloney, Area Manager of the area within the remit of Dublin City Council in which the Cabra Community Policing Forum is based also addressed the issue of funding and pointed out that the Local Authority would be very anxious to support policing initiatives.

“Policing fora have a manifest effect on our estates and how they are managed and, more important, on the prevention of anti-social behaviour and dealing with it. We are actively investing in those estates. Over €115 million has been invested in the inner city estates since 1990 and this includes community facilities. This investment will be continued. Community policing is complementary to this investment.”

Mr. Seán Murphy representing the Chamber of Commerce stated that funding for the proposed policing committees must be additional to the current budgets of local authorities due to a concern that the new policing arrangements would lead to an increase in rates.

“Funding needs to be ongoing and continual because yet another administrative function is being abrogated to county councils, which is not fair on them, and it will default to the business community, by way of rates, if it is not funded adequately for the future. We would add that, as the committee will probably be aware, the local business community contributes one euro in three in current expenditure and approximately one euro in five in capital expenditure by local authorities and we are sensitive about this.”

The representatives from the District Policing Partnerships in Northern Ireland explained that the councils provide 25% of the funding for the policing arrangements there, with the remainder coming from the Police budget.

Recommendation Fifteen

That funding for the new community policing arrangements should be shared between the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform; the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs with a specific heading provided in the annual Estimates for each Government Department.

Finally, an issue which was raised within many of the submissions and which has been discussed above concerns the importance of developing training programmes which can complement the new local policing arrangements. This is required so as to ensure that representatives of the relevant state agencies are adequately prepared to face the challenges posed by community policing. This change in the police role necessitates training to enhance police understanding of the nature of community problems and for the development of problem-solving techniques. Similarly, to facilitate the smooth operation of the new policing structures and processes, participants will require training in areas such as partnership and communication and conflict management for example.

Recommendation Sixteen

That an Assistant Garda Commissioner should be appointed with lead managerial responsibility for community policing.

Recommendation Seventeen

That a clearly defined and appropriately resourced community policing career structure should be developed within An Garda Síochána to reflect the importance placed on community policing.

Recommendation Eighteen

That training in the theory and practice of community policing should become a core aspect of training and development within An Garda Síochána and within the other relevant bodies. These training programmes should enhance understanding of the nature of community problems and develop problem-solving techniques and skills.

Recommendation Nineteen

That appropriate training should be made available for members of Joint Policing Committees and Local Policing Fora.

Recommendation Twenty

That each Joint Policing Committee shall place on its website, relevant submissions from the Community and Voluntary sector and consider those submissions as an item on the agenda of each meeting.

Recommendations of the Joint Committee on Community Policing.

The Joint Committee recommends as follows:

1. That the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs should also be included along with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in the consultation process outlined under s.31(1).

2. That the Local Authority Area Committee is the most appropriate location within which to situate the Joint Policing Committees. Ministerial guidelines should allow for flexibility.

3. That Garda Síochána and Local Authority boundaries should be aligned in so far as possible.

4. That there should be a two thirds : one third ratio of elected representatives in the membership of the Joint Policing Committees as far as is practicable.

5. That a transparent procedure should be put in place to facilitate the involvement of Community and Voluntary representatives.

6. That the Chairperson of the Joint Policing Committee should be a local public representative.

7. That the Garda representatives on the Joint Policing Committees should be of the appropriate rank and seniority.

8. That in the appointment of members of the various new policing bodies, gender equity should be ensured in so far as is practicable.

9. That Local Authority executive participation in the Joint Policing Committee should be at Area Manager or Director of Services level.

10. That Local household crime surveys should be conducted annually throughout the jurisdiction of the Local Authority Area Committee to inform the Joint Policing Committee.

11. That the Joint Policing Committees in consultation with the Garda authorities should identify the priorities of the local area, develop a comprehensive crime prevention strategy and formulate this into an annual policing plan for the area.

12. That procedures should be put in place to ensure that a proportion of the Joint Policing Committee meetings are held in public.

13. That the decision to establish local fora should be made by the Joint Policing Committee in consultation with the relevant Chief Superintendent.

14. That membership of the Local Policing Fora could include public representatives, senior Garda management, senior estate management personnel from the Local Authority and representatives from the community and voluntary sector.

15. That funding for the new community policing arrangements should be shared between the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform; the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs with a specific heading provided in the annual Estimates for each Government Department.

16. That an Assistant Garda Commissioner should be appointed with lead managerial responsibility for community policing.

17. That a clearly defined and appropriately resourced community policing career structure should be developed within An Garda Síochána to reflect the importance placed on community policing.

18. That training in the theory and practice of community policing should become a core aspect of training and development within An Garda Síochána and within the other relevant bodies. These training programmes should enhance understanding of the nature of community problems and develop problem-solving techniques and skills.

19. That appropriate training should be made available for members of Joint Policing Committees and Local Policing Fora.

20. That each Joint Policing Committee shall place on its website, relevant submissions from the Community and Voluntary sector and consider those submissions as an item on the agenda of each meeting.

¹ Lord mayor’s Commission on Crime and Policing (2005) Report The Lord Mayor’s Office, Mansion House, Dublin 2 page 16

² Connolly J (2003) Drugs, crime and community in Dublin -Monitoring quality of life in the north inner city’ North Inner City Drugs Task Force.

³ Dagleish D and Myhill A (2004) Reassuring the public - a review of international policing interventions Home Office Research Study 284, UK Home Ofice Research, Development and Statistics Directorate

⁴ The Joint Committee received a submission from the Nenagh Community Reparation Project, one of a number of restorative justice schemes in existence.

⁵ The Report of the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland (1999) A New Beginning: Policing In Northern Ireland; See also the US Community Policing Consortium, which is a partnership of five of the leading police organisations in the United States, encourages best practice in terms of implementing community policing strategies. See Bureau of Justice Assistance (1994) Understanding Community Policing -A framework for action United States Department of Justice. The US based Carolinas Institute for Community Policing provides community-based training and educational experiences. See http://www.cicp.org/ See also http://www.policing.com/

⁶ A bibliography available on http://www.concentric.net/ runs to 25 pages See also http://www.communitypolicing.org/eleclib/index.html

⁷ For the US see http://www.communitypolicing.org/ For Canada see http://www.athabascau.ca/ For New Zealand see http://www.police.govt.nz

⁸ The following review is derived largely from Brogden M and Nijhar S.K, (1995) A bibliography of community policing overseas -A review of origins, diverse practices and problems of implementation Institute of Criminology and Criminal Justice, The Queen’s University of Belfast, Northern Ireland Office. See also the National Institute of Justice (1989) Community Policing: Issues and practices around the world, Washington, National Institute of Justice.

⁹ See Reiner R ‘Policing and the police’, in Maguire M, Morgan, R and Reiner R eds., (1997) The Oxford Handbook of Criminology 2^nd edition, Oxford University Press, ppl028 - 1034 for an overview.

¹⁰ Quoted in Brogden M and Nijhar S.K (1995), p20.

¹¹ For a recent review see Dagleish and My hill, footnote 1 above.

¹² Bayley, D.H (1984) Community policing in Japan and Singapore, in J.Morgan (ed.), Community Policing Australian Institute of Criminology

¹³ See footnote 8.

¹⁴ Ibidp40.

¹⁵ More information on the Policing Board and the District Policing Partnerships see http://www.nipolicingboard.org.uk This site also publishes the regular DPP newsletters.

¹⁶ For an historical overview see Connolly J ‘Policing Ireland: past, present and future’ in Paul o’Mahony (ed), Criminal Justice in Ireland Institute of Public Administration, Dublin.

¹⁷ Select Committee on Crime, Lawlessness and Vandalism (1984) Neighbourhood Watch as a Scheme for Community Involvement in Policing First report. Dublin, Stationery office.

¹⁸ McKeown K and Brosnan M (2001) Police and Community: An Evaluation of Neighbourhood Watch and Communiity Alert in Ireland. Dublin: Stationery Office, Ch 50.

¹⁹ Boyle (1990), quoted in Brogden and Nijhar above p25

²⁰ Connolly J (2002) Drugs, crime and community policing - the north inner city community policing forum North Inner City Drugs Task Force, Dublin.

²¹ Connolly J Taoiseach launches Community Policing Forum. Drugnet Ireland, Issue 8. June 2003.

²² Connolly (2004) Developing integrated policing - towards the Blanchardstown community policing forum Blanchardstown Drugs Task Force

²³ Cabra Community Policing Forum (2004) Report 2003 - 2004

²⁴ Garda Strategic Management Initiative Implementation Steering Group (2004) Final Report page 24

²⁵ 31(1) As soon as practicable after the passing of this Act and after consulting with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, the Minister shall issue to local authorities and the Garda Commissioner guidelines concerning the establishment and maintenance of joint policing committees by local authorities and the Garda Commissioner

²⁶ As per S31(2) Guidelines issued under this section concerning a joint policing committee may include provision for - (a) the establishment of the committee.

²⁷ 32 (2) (d)with the Garda Commissioner’s consent, establish, as the committee considers necessary within specific neighbourhoods of the area, local policing fora to discuss and make recommendations to the committee concerning the matters referred to in paragraph (a) as they affect their neighbourhoods

²⁸ s31(2)(b)(v)

²⁹ s31 (1) (e) states that the guidelines should make provisions for ‘matters arising in connection with the attendance at committee meetings of members who are also members of the Oireachtas’,

³⁰ s31 (3) In nominating members of the Garda Siochána for appointment to a joint policing committee, the Garda Commissioner shall have regard to the need to ensure that such members are of appropriate rank and seniority.

³¹ 32(2) The joint policing committee’s function is to serve as a forum for consultations, discussions and recommendations on matters affecting the policing of the local authority’s administrative area and, in particular to - (a) keep under review - (i) the levels and patterns of crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour in the area (including the patterns and levels of misuse of alcohol and drugs), and (ii) the factors underlying and contributing to the levels of crime, disorder, and anti-social behaviour in the area, (b) advise the local authority concerned and the Garda Siochána on how they might best exercise their functions having regard to the need to do everything feasible to improve the safety and quality of life and to prevent crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour within the area.

³² 32 (2) (d) with the Garda Commissioner’s consent, establish, as the committee considers necessary within specific neighbourhoods of the area, local policing fora to discuss and make recommendations to the committee concerning the matters referred to in paragraph (a) as they affect their neighbourhoods

³³ As per s32(5) A statement that, in the course of a discussion at a meeting of a joint policing committee or any of its subcommittees, is made in any form and without malice by a member of the committee or subcommittee or by a person attending the meeting at the request of the committee or subcommittee is privileged for purposes of the law of defamation and so is any subsequent publication of the statement.

³⁴ s31 (1) (k) the funding of the committee and any subcommittees