Polícia preventiva: avaliação do processo de implementação do Grupo Especializado em Policiamento de Áreas de Risco no aglomerado Palmital em Santa Luzia Minas Gerais

Abstract

The study sought to evaluate to what extent the implementation process of the Grupo Especializado no Policiamento em Áreas de Risco (GEPAR) was directed to develop a form of preventive policing, similar to community policing, and the performance of the group is different in terms of philosophy, organizational strategy and use the tool for troubleshooting. Thus, we conducted semi-structured interviews with the officials who make up the cluster, their direct superiors and key community leaders of the cluster Palmital; Questionnaire was administered to young people who participate in the program workshops Staying Alive! held in the locality and documentary research. The period from 2005 to 2006 was not suitable for all phases of the process were established according to the prescribed protocol and there was no substantive change in the relationship between the group and the community. Unlike in 2007, the data show genuine change in the perception of police as to the action of the group in the community and the perception of actors who made up the Steering Group Staying Alive!/Palmital was that they worked in partnership with the officers of the group, relied on action and informed them about the criminal dynamics in the locality, and effectively participate in the operational planning group from the strategy of problem solving. Accordingly, during the implementation process GEPAR was directed to develop a method of policing along the lines of community policing. Thus, it was possible to highlight several advances in the group: positive correlation between the presence of the group in the locality and the increased feeling of safety of the representatives of major institutions in the area and young people who attend the workshops program Staying Alive!; Positive impact of police work GEPAR by the image that most institutions had representatives of the police and the perception that the police are working to improve the quality of life of residents; improvement in the perception of the police in relation to the difficulty in raising the GEPAR information in the community ; positive aspects in the reorientation of patrol activities to emphasize non-emergency services and decentralization of command. Notwithstanding the progress made during the stated period from the end of 2007, the actors involved in the deployment process highlighted a lack of continuity of the actions that have had positive results as a corollary to the location and pointed out different factors that hindered the continued effectiveness the community policing strategy such as mismanagement of equipment for the reverse split, the statement required by 02/2005 regarding the form of recruitment, selection and training of police officers GEPAR was not followed; high turnover of police the GEPAR; policing was not carried out only in the territorial area of responsibility of the group; strategic intervention meetings were interrupted for an extended period, beyond the fact that they do not incorporate discussions on issues not directly criminal. In summary, as conclusion, we have that the action of the group along the lines of community policing in Palmital varied over time, since the beginning of group work.