As explained by Deputy Commissioner of Police Jack Ewatski, the 21st-century policing method represents a more effective and efficient use of police resources. It is especially unfortunate, then, that after a year of operation in the Western Division, Mr Ewatski's explanation of the project is still needed.
On visiting the area and talking with residents, a Guardian reporter discovered many of them still had no idea what the initiative entailed. As for the police officers who are required to put the new system into practice, some of them were highly critical. But theirs is not a disinterested opinion.
In an interview with the Guardian, Mr Ewatski revealed some of the changes that the new system entails. "Police officers do not come into a station and spend the majority of time in the station in modern police organisations," he said. Instead, stations have been repurposed as service centres, and officers spend the majority of their time on patrol.
The obvious advantages of this approach-from the point of view of the public-are that officers are already mobile and can respond faster to calls from the public, and also that their more visible presence in itself acts as a deterrent to crime. In addition, patrol cars are being equipped with GPS systems, which will mean that officers' movements-and hence how they carry out their duties-can be tracked.
In the past, by contrast, officers would spend long periods based in stations, which were equipped with dormitories. But Mr Ewatski also said, "I am not aware of any police agency in a developed country that pays their officers to sleep." Mr Ewatski says the new system has had positive results and has reduced crime in the Western Division.
His argument that the Police Service must be modernised, using contemporary techniques, can hardly be denied. And yet the new approach has met with resistance from some officers. In some respects, it seems Mr Ewatski and his superior, Commissioner Dwayne Gibbs, have been tasked with bringing the Police Service into the 21st century not from the 20th century, but the 19th.
They and their local colleague, Deputy CoP Steven Williams, are the first appointed under the new arrangements that give them additional powers to organise and operate the service. Mr Gibbs and Mr Ewatski are both Canadians, and their tenure has been marked by culture shock-on both sides-and also some degree of xenophobia.
The new initiative must have meant a huge change from the routine of many decades, for officers set in their ways and unwilling to venture out of their comfort zone-literally. It must also be noted that while on the customary long spells of duty during which they slept at their stations, officers would be drawing overtime rates of pay.
Disgruntled officers are threatening legal action against CoP Gibbs over issues such as the hours they are now required to be behind the wheel, and rates of overtime. But while these matters must be ironed out, they are not reason enough to write off the entire 21st-century policing programme.
These officers might stand a better chance of attracting support for their cause, too, if the Police Service had a reputation for excellent customer service, quick response time or an outstanding record of suppressing crime. Nevertheless, they may have some grounds for complaint.
Part of the process of implementing the 21st-century initiative should have been to win support from the personnel who have to carry it out. Another crucial component should have been a public-awareness campaign so that it could achieve one of its objectives-to make the public feel safer.
The police hierarchy should have devoted more effort and energy to their handling of the change-management process. Change is always painful, even when it is change for the better.