Navigating Challenges in Front-Line Policing: Internal and External Factors

Introduction

Officers on front-line duties include response officers and traffic officers. They are usually the first contact between the criminal justice system and citizenry. This essay discusses the ever-increasing challenges of the these officers performing their duties and these challenges are related to external factors grounded in political and social circumstances as well as internal factors. There are two areas of discussion in this essay, first, the key issues relating to the complexity and challenges of operational policing; and second, the policies and procedures developed by the police to reduce the possibility of professional malpractice and increase community confidence. In democratic societies like the British society, policing and the actions of the police should conform with standards of legitimacy else there is mistrust in the community (Mawby & Wright, 2005). This increases the need to improve accountability of the police and ensure that actions and the behaviour of the police forces, including the frontline officers are legitimate. The first step to developing codes and standards for police officers is to identify the areas of concern and the social and political challenges that are involved in the frontline police work. In this essay, the two specific areas of stop and search operations and domestic violence first response situation are used to explain the kind of social and political issues are involved in the frontline police work.

Challenges involved in frontline police work; special areas of focus on stop and search and domestic violence

The challenges that the frontline officers face in the performance of their duties can be seen from the perspective of the challenges associated with policing communities, which include both social and political challenges. Many frontline officers are involved in the task of policing communities, due to which they come in regular contact with members of the community and this contact raises challenges that are both social and political. There are some ethical issues that are also raised in policing within communities including racism and gender equity. Some of these challenges are discussed in this essay with the use of the frontline officers’ engagement with civilians in stop and search operations and domestic violence cases. In recent times, the interactions between Black and Ethnic Minorities and the frontline officers involved in stop and search operations have come to become controversial where research indicates that the first contact between the individual and the criminal justice system which occurs through interactions with the frontline officers can often be traumatic and fraught with racism (Bowling, & Marks, 2015). In the UK, some of the social and political challenges of policing are related to policing in racially diverse communities; a study that collected data through interviews and observation of operational patrol officers found that there was evidence to show the impact of race, age, and socio-economic status on the decision making of frontline officers (Quinton, Bland, & Miller, 2000). This is the most relevant to stop and search operations of the police, which see the first contact between members of the public and frontline officers. Within racialised communities, stop and search operations have been generally perceived as racially influenced and have raised much controversy in the UK (Bland, Miller, & Quinton, 2000). Research has found that there is a perception that stop and search powers are used disproportionately against younger male members of Black and Ethnic Minorities (Bland, Miller, & Quinton, 2000). Another study has also found support for similar findings in East London Borough, where the study found that the younger people believed that the frontline officers involved in stop and search operations target them disproportionately (Hollsworth & Ransom, 2008, p. 38). The study also concluded that most participants now believed that stop and search operations were a normalised and consistent experience of their lives (Hollsworth & Ransom, 2008, p. 39). At the same time, most participants in that study believed that the frontline officers involved in these operations used their powers in unfair and arbitrary manner (Hollsworth & Ransom, 2008). Stop and search operations are usually the first and only contact between the police forces and the members of the community. For that reason, it becomes important to critically understand how this interaction can be improved and what the police forces themselves are doing to improve their policy and practice in this area. In the specific context of social and political issues related to this frontline activity of the police forces, it may be noted that the issue of race is the most important and visible issue in recent times. This was noted by Bowling and Phillips (2007) who also noted: “Police powers to stop and search individuals in public remain amongst the most contentious aspects of British policing. The issue was highlighted by both the Scarman and Stephen Lawrence inquiries into particular policing incidents. It became particularly controversial at the turn of the millennium when prominent people of African Caribbean origin, including the late Bernie Grant MP, Lord Taylor of Warwick, Lord Herman Ouseley and the Most Revd. and Rt. Hon. Dr John Sentamu Archbishop of York, disclosed their personal experiences of being unjustifiably stopped and searched” (Bowling & Phillips, 2007, p. 936). From the above, it can be noted that the particular social and political challenge associated with frontline police work is related to the issue of ‘institutional racism’. The Scarman inquiry (Lord Scarman, 1981) and Stephen Lawrence inquiry (Macpherson, 1999) are two seminal reports that have addressed the issue of racism and policing. The Stephen Lawrence inquiry reported absence of public trust and lack of confidence in exercise of stop and search powers (Macpherson, 1999). The issue of institutional racism then becomes an important issue as frontline officers may be perceived to be acting against minorities in ways that are arbitrary and racist, which then becomes controversial and leads to the dissatisfaction amongst the members of minority communities (Skogan & Frydl, 2004). Bradford (2011) notes that social perceptions about the police are important indicators of whether there is potential for partnerships between the police and community members and where the social perceptions are negative, the potential for successful partnerships between the members of the public and the police forces (Bradford, 2011). In the case of domestic violence, the first responders to the situation are response officers and they are the ones who have the first contact with the victims of domestic abuse (Hayes, 2012). Research has highlighted some key areas of concerns related to first responders’ approach to domestic violence. One of this is related to possible secondary victimisation by the frontline officers concerned, which may be attributed to the lack of appropriate training to the frontline officers in the context of domestic violence. Secondary victimisation relates to the revictimisation of domestic violence victims upon the contact with authorities or services, with the authorities or services displaying attitudes and practices that cause additional trauma to the victims; as such, victimisation in this context happens at the hands of the authorities including frontline officers when they display attitudes, behaviours and practices of victim-blaming (Campbell & Raja, 2005). When domestic violence victims first come in contact with the police through their contact with the frontline officers, secondary victimisation may happen due to the attitudes of the frontline officers where instead of showing sensitive approach towards the victims, the officers may by conduct or words, blame the victim for their exposure to domestic abuse (Gill, 2014). Lack of training has been blamed for such regressive frontline officers’ responses (Gill, 2014). In a dated study on frontline officers’ responses to domestic violence complaints, secondary victimisation was clearly concluded by the researchers (Hoyle & Sanders, 2000). In another study, the reearchers found that the frontline officers did not display sensitivity when they interviewed the victims of domestic violence (Watkins, 2005). A more recent study found that women victims of domestic violence were exposed to secondary victimisation by the frontline officers; the study found a link between structural and institutional problems and display of behaviours and attitudes amounting to secondary victimisation (Laing, 2016). Some of the problem areas that were reported by the victims in the study were that the police officers responding to the situation gave them skeptical responses, and that they were pressured to unsafe arrangements that made them feel more insecure (Laing, 2016). Another problem that is reported in another report on police first responders for domestic violence is that there is a wide variation in arrest practices (HMICFRS, 2017). There are cases where the frontline officers do not make arrests in domestic violence cases even where the force policies mandate such action (HMICFRS, 2017). In cases where the frontline officers do not arrest perpetrators of domestic violence they may refer them to voluntary interviews whereas in similar cases, other frontline officers may make arrests; such variations lead to uncertainty around police responses and is a practice that needs to be seen from a critical perspective. Widely varying police responses in similar cases and situations is problematic because it leads to ineffectiveness in domestic violence cases and such variations in the exercise of police powers has been considered to be a bad practice that needs correcting (HMICFRS, 2017). When frontline officers fail to make arrests in domestic violence cases, this may also compromise the protection that they are supposed to provide to the victims of domestic violence; it has been recommended that the police officers should exercise their power to arrest or issue a Domestic Violence Protection Order and refers the case to the Crown Prosecution Service (HMICFRS, 2017). Another area of concern regarding the responses of the frontline officers is that of their ineffective response to domestic violence because they believe that it is a family or domestic which is not supposed to traditionally be responded to by the police (Hayes, 2012). This also leads officers to not take the incidence of domestic violence seriously and may lead to responses like referral to voluntary interviews instead of arresting the perpetrator. Due to the sensitive and traumatic nature of such incidents, it has been recommended that frontline officers should be trained to respond to victims of domestic violence with support and sympathy as there has been some concern about frontline officers sometimes not responding with sympathetic attitudes and are lacking in training that will enable more empathetic responses to domestic abuse victims (HMIC, 2014). This is also noted by Watkins (2005) who writes that appropriate training to police officers, especially frontline officers, should emphasise on sensitivity and empathy for the victim (Watkins, 2005).Training has become a part of the response of the police force to enable frontline officers to have better responses to incidents of domestic violence as attested to by a 2017 report that notes that the responses of the frontline officers to domestic violence have improved since training on domestic abuse and improving understanding of coercive control has become more routine amongst the forces (HMICFRS, 2017, p. 6).

Community policing as a response to social challenges associated with policing communities through frontline activity

The challenges associated with policing communities in democracies led to the evolution of the idea of ‘community policing.’ This is defined as "philosophy of full service personalized policing, where the same officer patrols and works in the same area on a permanent basis, from a decentralized place, working in a proactive partnership with citizens to identify and solve problems" (Bertus, 1996). In the UK, the idea of community policing has been developed to enable better responses by the first responders and frontline police officers as much of their work involves policing communities. Community policing focusses on building relationships between the police and the community and improving the quality of the interactions between members of the public and the frontline officers (Mastrofski & Warden, 1995). John Alderson, the former Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall police was one of the first to recommend the use of community policing for improving interactions between the members of the community and the police forces (Alderson, 1979). The premise of this idea is based on the need of the police for cooperation from the public and the partnerships between communities and police that are useful for preventing as well as investigating crime due to the social networks that can be developed by community policing method (Alderson, 1979). The police forces have responded to the need for developing practices and policies for developing better responses to community interactions through different methods. These include giving talks at schools and forming neighbourhood watch groups as ways of increasing interaction and cooperation between the communities and the police (Watson, Stone, & DeLuca, 1998). In the context of frontline officers, different methods have been evolved over time for improving accountability as well as positive interactions with the community members. Thus, on foot or bicycle patrols have been included for patrolling the same beat or for designated neighbourhoods so that the accountability of the officers can be improved (Watson, Stone, & DeLuca, 1998). The UK police forces have also introduced the concept of neighbourhood policing for implementing community policing and improving the interactions between the frontline officers and the members of the community (Home Office, 2008). Neighbourhood policing for the most part involves use of frontline officers and concentrates on “initiatives that variously involved foot patrol, community engagement, problem-solving and partnership working in some combination” (Colover & Quinton, 2018, p. 6). The use of targeted foot patrol has seen positive outcomes with literature indicating that this led to higher community engagement and strong governance, accountability and support (Tuffin, et al., 2006). There was reduction in the foot patrols for some time, which led to concern within communities and demand for higher rates of foot patrols (House of Commons, 2018). This indicates that the use of community policing method through neighbourhood policing has had the positive outcome for the engagement between the frontline officers and community members. This example can be useful for developing other methods of improving the social interactions between the police and the members of the community.

Development of code of ethics

Some ethical issues have been identified in the above sections that have particular bearing on the interactions between frontline officers and the members of the community. The Code of Ethics has been developed keeping in mind the need to increase the accountability of police officers (Watson, et al., 1998). The Code of Ethics provides that the police service operate “on the basis of openness and transparency” because this is essential to “maintaining and enhancing a positive relationship between the policing profession and the community” (College of Policing, 2014, p. 5). As frontline officers are involved in what is called ‘covert policing’, their actions and conduct are visible to the communities within which they work and this raises the need to maintain the positive relationship between the police and the members of the community (College of Policing, 2014). The Code of Ethics specifies specific standards for covert policing, which also includes the standard that the police officer will always act in a way that conforms to the public expectations “to maintain the highest standards of behaviour” (College of Policing, 2014, p. 13). Furthermore, the Code of Ethics requires decision making of the officers to conform with the National Decision Model so that decisions are based on ethical reasoning and standards of behaviour (College of Policing, 2014). It may be noted here that reforms were made under Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, which also establishes a framework of factors that are relevant during arrest decision making (Pearson, et al., 2018). As per this framework, officers must have a reason to arrest, arrest must be necessary, and they must give ‘cursory consideration’ to alternatives. However, a study based on frontline officers from two forces in Northern England found that frontline officers are often confused about the necessity criteria and therefore at times are involved in making unlawful and non‐human‐rights‐compliant arrests (Pearson, et al., 2018). Therefore, at least in the context of the contact between frontline officers and the members of the public, some wrong decisions are being made by the officers when it comes to exercising their powers of arrest, which may be attributed to their inability to understand or apply the necessary arrest principle introduced in the reforms of 2005. The National Decision Model and the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2014 apply to the engagement between frontline officers and the members of the community. There are two important standards that are to be applied by the officers, which include ‘Authority, Respect and Courtesy’ and ‘Equality and Diversity’. The former requires that police officers should act with self-control and tolerance, and be mindful of respect and courtesy to the members of community, while the latter requires fairness and impartiality in their actions. The violation of the Code of Conduct and Code of Ethics by the police officers is considered to be misconduct (Prenzler, 2009). As frontline officers have different kinds of powers given to them, and at times these powers (like stop and search operations) can even be wide, which creates concerns for whether the powers are being misused and also increases the demand for accountability (Prenzler, 2009). Police accountability is also seen in the context of human rights because unwarranted exercise by the police can lead to violation of human rights of the members of the community as well (Mawby & Wright, 2005). Laws have also been enacted to respond to the issue of misconduct by police officers. These laws define actions and behaviours that amount to misconduct and also establish the accountability standards that are to be applied in interactions with the members of the public. With regard to police accountability, a tripartite structure is established under the Police Act 1964, with three levels being responsible for police accountability: the Home Office, the local police authority, and the chief constable of the force (Mawby & Wright, 2005). Other legislations that are relevant in this context include the Police and Magistrates Courts Act 1994, the Police Act 1996, and the Police Reform Act 2002. Accordingly, the Home Secretary is made accountable to the Parliament and the local police authorities are made accountable to local communities. The Chief Constables are accountable to the Home Office. The tripartite system was established to respond to incidents of police misconduct and to limit such incidents by fixing accountability.

Conclusion

Frontline officers are commonly those in the police force who are involved in the first response to the members of the communities or the first contact between the members of the community and the police force. As such, their work has social and political contexts. Some areas of concern in this area are impacts of potential racism and gender bias in how frontline officers respond to interactions with members of the public. Racism bias has been routinely reported in reference to the use of stop and search powers that are given to frontline officers wherein research after research has indicated that there are perceptions of racial bias in the way the frontline officers use stop and search powers disproportionately against young male members of the Black and Ethnic Minority communities. Similarly, there is research that shows that frontline workers sometimes fail to arrest perpetrators of domestic violence due to gender bias or perceptions of domestic violence being a family matter. This goes against the set policy that they are meant to follow in such cases. There is also incidence of secondary victimisation in some domestic violence cases by first responders. These problems have been attributed to lack of training in sensitive approach to domestic violence. There is a code of conduct that lays down standards to be maintained by frontline officers and those who violate these standards are considered to have committed misconduct. This is one method of controlling wrongful actions of frontline workers. The UK police forces have also undertaken training of frontline workers to make them more sensitive and adapt a better approach to dealing with the members of the community. This is showing positive results in domestic violence first responses as per research on this area. The UK police forces have also adopted community policing methods in order to engender conditions that make community and police partnership possible and also improves the interactions between police and members of the community. In this way, different methods have been adopted by the UK police forces to increase accountability and improve the quality of interactions between the police and the members of the community. Finally, it may be said that policing, especially, covert policing that is done by frontline officers, is something that is visible in the community and the behaviours and attitudes adopted by the frontline officers make a difference in how police is perceived by the general public. Therefore, it is important that frontline officers continue to engage with members of the public in a way that is respectful and tolerant as also provided in the Code of Ethics that is to be followed by frontline officers in their work.

References:

Alderson, J., 1979. Policing freedom : a commentary on the dilemmas of policing in western democracies. Estover: Macdonald and Evans.

Bertus, F., 1996. The Use and Effectiveness of Community Policing in a Democracy , Washington D.C.: Prod. National Institute of Justice.

Bland, N., Miller, J. & Quinton, P., 2000. Managing the Use and Impact of Searches: A review of force interventions, Police Research Series paper 132, London: Home Press.

Bowling, B. & Marks, E., 2015. Stop and Search: towards a transnational and comparative approach. In: Stop and Search: The Anatomy of a Police Power. London: Springer.

Bowling, B. & Phillips, C., 2007. Disproportionate and Discriminatory: Reviewing the Evidence on Police Stop and Search. The Modern Law Review, 70(6), pp. 936-961.

Bradford, B., 2011. Assessing the impact of police-initiated stop powers on individuals and communities: the UK picture. [Online] Available at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=E468A63DB00093E9C85CD1FC6C14E0EB?doi=10.1.1.367.9021&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Campbell, R. & Raja, S., 2005. The sexual assault and secondary victimization of female veterans: help‐seeking experiences with military and civilian social systems. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29(1), pp. 97-106.

College of Policing, 2014. Code of Ethics: A Code of Practice for the Principles and Standards of Professional Behaviour for the Policing Profession of England and Wales, Coventry: College of Policing Limited.

Colover, S. & Quinton, P., 2018. Neighbourhood policing: impact and implementation, London: College of Policing Limited.

Gill, A. K., 2014. Introduction: 'Honour' and 'Honour based violence': Challenging common assumptions. In: A. K. Gill, C. Strange & K. Roberts, eds. 'Honour' Killing and Violence: Theory, Policy and Practice . Basingstoke: Springer.

Hayes, B., 2012. Police domestic violence. Impaired driving update, 16(1), pp. 13-15.

HMIC, 2014. Everyone’s business: Improving the police response to domestic abuse, London : HMIC.

HMICFRS, 2017. A progress report on the police response to domestic abuse, London: HMICFRS .

Home Office, 2008. From the neighbourhood to the national: policing our communities together. London: The Stationery Office.

Hollsworth, S. & Ransom, J., 2008. From the Outside Looking In: Young People's Perception of Risk and Danger in an East London Borough. In: Globalizing the Streets: Cross-cultural Perspectives on Youth, Social . New York: Colombia University Press, pp. 31-44.

House of Commons, 2018. Policing for the future, London: House of Commons.

Hoyle, C. & Sanders, A., 2000. Police response to domestic violence: from victim choice to victim empowerment?. The British Journal of Criminology, pp. 14-36.

Laing, L., 2016. Secondary Victimization: Domestic Violence Survivors Navigating the Family Law System. Violence against women.

Macpherson, L., 1999. The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry , Report of an Inquiry by Sir William Macpherson of Cluny, London: Home Office.

Mastrofski, S. & Warden, R., 1995. Law Enforcement in a time of community policing. Criminology, pp. 539-63.

Mawby, R. & Wright, A., 2005. Police Accountability in the United Kingdom , s.l.: Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative.

Pearson, G., Rowe, M. & Turner, L., 2018. Policy, practicalities, and PACE s. 24: The subsuming of the necessity criteria in arrest decision making by frontline police officers. Journal of Law and Society , 45(2), pp. 282-308.

Prenzler, T., 2009. Police corruption: Preventing misconduct and maintaining integrity. Boca Raton : CRC Press.

Quinton, P., Bland, N. & Miller, J., 2000. Police Stops, Decision-making and Practice: Police Research Series. London: Home Office, Policing and Reducing Crime Unit.

Scarman Lord, 1981. The Brixton Disorders April 10-12, 1981: Report of an Enquiry, London: HMSO.

Skogan, W. & Frydl, K., 2004. Fairness and Effectiveness in Policing: The Evidence, Committee to Review Research on Police Policy and Practices, National Research Council. Washington DC: National Academy of Sciences.

Tuffin, R., Morris, J. & Poole, A., 2006. An evaluation of the impact of the national reassurance policing programme , London : Home Office.

Watkins, P., 2005. Police perspective: Discovering hidden truths in domestic violence intervention. Journal of Family Violence, 20(1), pp. 47-54.

Watson, E. M., Stone, A. R. & DeLuca, S. M., 1998. Strategies for Community Policing. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall Inc.

Bibliography

Alderson, J., 1979. Policing freedom : a commentary on the dilemmas of policing in western democracies. Estover: Macdonald and Evans.

Bertus, F., 1996. The Use and Effectiveness of Community Policing in a Democracy , Washington D.C.: Prod. National Institute of Justice.

Bland, N., Miller, J. & Quinton, P., 2000. Managing the Use and Impact of Searches: A review of force interventions, Police Research Series paper 132, London: Home Press.

Bowling, B. & Marks, E., 2015. Stop and Search: towards a transnational and comparative approach. In: Stop and Search: The Anatomy of a Police Power. London: Springer.

Bowling, B. & Phillips, C., 2007. Disproportionate and Discriminatory: Reviewing the Evidence on Police Stop and Search. The Modern Law Review, 70(6), pp. 936-961.

Alderson, J., 1979. Policing freedom : a commentary on the dilemmas of policing in western democracies. Estover: Macdonald and Evans.

Bradford, B., 2011. Assessing the impact of police-initiated stop powers on individuals and communities: the UK picture. [Online] Available at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=E468A63DB00093E9C85CD1FC6C14E0EB?doi=10.1.1.367.9021&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Bridges, L., 2015. The legal powers and their limits. In Stop and Search (pp. 9-30). Palgrave Macmillan, London.

Alderson, J., 1979. Policing freedom : a commentary onCampbell, R. & Raja, S., 2005. The sexual assault and secondary victimization of female veterans: help‐seeking experiences with military and civilian social systems. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29(1), pp. 97-106.

College of Policing, 2014. Code of Ethics: A Code of Practice for the Principles and Standards of Professional Behaviour for the Policing Profession of England and Wales, Coventry: College of Policing Limited.

Colover, S. & Quinton, P., 2018. Neighbourhood policing: impact and implementation, London: College of Policing Limited.

Gill, A. K., 2014. Introduction: 'Honour' and 'Honour based violence': Challenging common assumptions. In: A. K. Gill, C. Strange & K. Roberts, eds. 'Honour' Killing and Violence: Theory, Policy and Practice . Basingstoke: Springer.

Hayes, B., 2012. Police domestic violence. Impaired driving update, 16(1), pp. 13-15.

HMIC, 2014. Everyone’s business: Improving the police response to domestic abuse, London : HMIC.

HMICFRS, 2017. A progress report on the police response to domestic abuse, London: HMICFRS .

Home Office, 2008. From the neighbourhood to the national: policing our communities together. London: The Stationery Office.

Hollsworth, S. & Ransom, J., 2008. From the Outside Looking In: Young People's Perception of Risk and Danger in an East London Borough. In: Globalizing the Streets: Cross-cultural Perspectives on Youth, Social . New York: Colombia University Press, pp. 31-44.

House of Commons, 2018. Policing for the future, London: House of Commons.

Hoyle, C. & Sanders, A., 2000. Police response to domestic violence: from victim choice to victim empowerment?. The British Journal of Criminology, pp. 14-36.

Jefferson, B.J., 2018. Predictable policing: Predictive crime mapping and geographies of policing and race. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 108(1), pp.1-16.

Laing, L., 2016. Secondary Victimization: Domestic Violence Survivors Navigating the Family Law System. Violence against women.

Loader, I. and Mulcahy, A., 2003. Policing and the condition of England: memory, politics and culture. Oxford University Press.

Macpherson, L., 1999. The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry , Report of an Inquiry by Sir William Macpherson of Cluny, London: Home Office.

Mastrofski, S. & Warden, R., 1995. Law Enforcement in a time of community policing. Criminology, pp. 539-63.

Mawby, R. & Wright, A., 2005. Police Accountability in the United Kingdom , s.l.: Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative.

Pearson, G., Rowe, M. & Turner, L., 2018. Policy, practicalities, and PACE s. 24: The subsuming of the necessity criteria in arrest decision making by frontline police officers. Journal of Law and Society , 45(2), pp. 282-308.

Prenzler, T., 2009. Police corruption: Preventing misconduct and maintaining integrity. Boca Raton : CRC Press.

Quinton, P., Bland, N. & Miller, J., 2000. Police Stops, Decision-making and Practice: Police Research Series. London: Home Office, Policing and Reducing Crime Unit.

Scarman Lord, 1981. The Brixton Disorders April 10-12, 1981: Report of an Enquiry, London: HMSO.

Shiner, M. and Delsol, R., 2015. The politics of the powers. In Stop and Search (pp. 31-56). Palgrave Macmillan, London.

Skogan, W. & Frydl, K., 2004. Fairness and Effectiveness in Policing: The Evidence, Committee to Review Research on Police Policy and Practices, National Research Council. Washington DC: National Academy of Sciences.

Tuffin, R., Morris, J. & Poole, A., 2006. An evaluation of the impact of the national reassurance policing programme , London : Home Office.

Yesufu, S., 2013. Discriminatory use of police stop-and-search powers in London, UK. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 15(4), pp.281-293.

Watkins, P., 2005. Police perspective: Discovering hidden truths in domestic violence intervention. Journal of Family Violence, 20(1), pp. 47-54.

Watson, E. M., Stone, A. R. & DeLuca, S. M., 1998. Strategies for Community Policing. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall Inc.

Continue your exploration of The Politics of Race and Diaspora with our related content.