Today, proponents of residency requirements advocate them because they are said to contribute to a local tax base while decreasing unemployment in the city. Some advocate residency requirements as a method of having more continual police present in a community and perhaps reducing crime. Residency requirements, in some cases, can contribute to achieving balanced racial/ethnic representation or it can result in exclusion. If a police department recruits strictly within the confines of its community, the demographic composition of the force is more likely to reflect that of the community. If the community, however, is not representative of the larger population, it is unlikely that the agency will select a sufficient number of people to reflect this diversity. Opponents of residency requirements argue that they restrict the applicant pool, thus reducing the overall quality of police selection. Most police officers dislike residency requirements. Residency requirements are perceived to affect the quality of life for police officers and their families, especially when they are required to reside in “undesirable neighborhoods.” Given the fact that the police institution is disproportionately made up of white males, one wonders if a “desirable neighborhood” is merely code language for racism. Alternatively, requiring officers to live in the communities that they serve can contribute to a more responsive police force. If officers live in the communities they police, they may be less likely to be seen as an occupation force. Victor E. Kappeler, Ph.D. Associate Dean School of Justice Studies Eastern Kentucky University Published on June 11, 2013courierpostonline/article/20130909/NEWS01/309080065/Camco-police-force-more-diverse-top-fewer-street-cops-minorities
Posted on: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 17:42:38 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015