What next after Comfort Patrols?

On the one hand, while millions of dollars have been spent on this programme, it is unclear what role it has played within the overall architecture of the Ministry of National Security. It must be assumed that the Government’s decision to scrap the programme has come after a review of its merits. But since the patrols were always shrouded in secrecy, we are nowhere closer to understanding its aims and whether it met targets.

Will the programme be replaced with more community policing from the Police Service? Or will the municipal police step in to play a greater role in this regard? Is there a risk of creating an untenable gap in the interim? It would appear the patrols were not principally about arresting criminals, though officers were said to have these powers. Rather, the visibility of these patrols added to a feeling of comfort and security. But this was always a fragile thing.

The scrapping of the Community Comfort Patrols must lead us to question the efficiency of many other programmes that fall under the Office of Law Enforcement Policy (OLEP) as well.

How have other areas, such as the police clubs, been working? Are there enough programmes that help build trust in the police and that meaningfully engage youths, parents and stakeholders? It is reported the Comfort Patrols will be scrapped effective January 1.

What lessons have been learned? The Patrols were always in an untenable structure that opened the doors to allegations that they were a private political police force with no legislative backing — a kind of mini-SAUTT on a local level.

According to former minister of national security Carl Alfonso, officers employed in the programme reported to the director of the OLEP, not the Police Commissioner.

Further, private companies engaged in the programme reported directly to the Minister of National Security. Aside from whether this is an effective arrangement, it must also be asked whether it was lawful.

Alfonso said in July 2014, personnel were recruited through private security agencies which are responsible for recruiting officers and screening applicants. The qualification criteria for each post are determined by the private security companies and the OLEP “ensures that applicants possess a character suited for public safety.” Accreditation involves a cover letter, resume, electronic birth certificate, ID, passport photograph, letters of reference and a recent police certificate of good character. Did these specifications work in practice? In Parliament in February 2015, Alfonso said the patrol officers held rights of citizens’ arrest. How frequently were arrests made and what was the experience in relation to them? Alfonso said the patrols were conducted using private security companies approved by the Private Security Network Commission, a body comprising private security agencies registered with the Ministry of National Security and the Police Service.

He said the ministry engages private security companies, with OLEP being “the supervisory body for the programme.” Respective private security companies submit monthly reports to the minister and the permanent secretary.

There do not appear to be specifications for the scope of these reports as far as we can tell, since there is no statute governing the body of officers.

In 2015, annual expenditure of the Office of Law Enforcement Policy reached $7 million.

We note the unsatisfactory aspects of the programme appear to justify cancellation. The question is, what did we learn? And also, what comes next?