CHIEF CONCERNS; LAPD REORGANIZATION WILL HELP PUT RESOURCES WHERE THEY'RE NEEDED TO COMBAT CRIME IN THE VALLEY AND AROUND THE CITY.

WHEN Bernard C. Parks became the 52nd chief of the Los Angeles Police Department last month, he took over an agency that has been in turmoil for years, with declining morale and questions about its effectiveness.

For Parks, in succeeding former Police Chief Willie L. Williams, it was a matter of some vindication for being passed over for the top job five years earlier and ending years of frustration when he fell out of favor.

At the age of 53, Parks has served in the LAPD for 32 years and has indicated he wants to see a return to some of the department's principles of the past as he attempts to reshape it.

Last week, Parks met with Daily News editors and reporters to discuss the state of the department and what he hopes to accomplish.

Daily News: After five years, how are we going to be doing a better job of community-based policing?

Parks: There are several things I'm interested in as we really look to expand on the things I think we've done well.

The CPABs (Community Police Advisory Boards) are important, but I don't think they are the answer to what the community really thinks (about the LAPD).

I think we have to get into surveying what the community attitudes really are, what they think we ought to do. And then we have to get to see if they notice. That's where we've dropped the ball in the past. We have to turn the tide a little bit (on the perception of the LAPD).

We've had a tendency to invite people into our house and have them be involved in our programs. I think we have to turn around and get involved in community programs.

Q. One of the main concerns in the San Fernando Valley has been the issue of deployment and the number of officers assigned here. Do you plan any changes?

A. The department, for the first time in our history, has 100 percent deployment and roughly 40 percent (of officers) available for a shift. The deployment formula spreads what we have.

I would like to have it at 50 percent available and a six-minute response to crimes, but that will take several hundred more officers to move in that direction.

The issue is, everybody gets equally hurt. I don't think any part of the city is unbalanced where they are taking advantage of another part of the city. The fairest way I know to deploy is based on radio calls.

The one thing the Valley has that is different from anyplace else is the distance.

Q. If another police station is opened in the Valley, will there be new resources or will you just spread out what is already here?

A. You can't open a new station without adding resources. Someone's got to open the door, keep it open. There's an overhead.

When you look at our department, there are a number of fixed posts. You have to have a certain number of people just to open the door 24 hours a day. So the spreading of officers, the basic cars, would remain intact, but you need more (other resources) to keep it open.

When you think about the Valley and its 200 square miles, the rest of the city is about 250 square miles, with 13 stations and three bureaus, (while) the Valley has one bureau and five stations.

One of the things I've put in to the Police Commission is to split the Valley into two bureaus.

Q. There is a long-term concern that in the toughest areas of the Valley, where you have drug markets and prostitution, there are not enough cops to really clamp down to have a long-term impact. It seems as if we just move them from one area to another.

A. That's been our approach citywide. It's not just a Valley approach. We rarely have enough resources to maintain long-term attention on a problem, so we have a tendency to move it around in the city.

One of the things that will impact that positively is in the reorganization, where we've merged some forces. With that, we hope to get enough resources out there to have a citywide abatement. I would like to see the 15 or 20 areas that need abatement identified and begin to bring in (other) city resources to deal with it.

Most of the issues that deal with abatement, even to make eyesores go away, involve other city departments. That's why I keep talking about community-based government. In my judgment, this is where we should be going and not get hung up on community-based policing.

Q. That is an issue that resonates in the Valley. How do we get power to the community and get people more involved in solving the problems that won't go away?

A. No. 1, nowhere in the the city of Los Angeles other than the Valley do you have the strong structure, whether it's in the sense of the business community or church community or schools. The key is you have the wherewithal to bring that to the attention of the people who make decisions.

One of the positive things . . . is there have been six locations identified for community service centers. That, to me, is the best the city can do to bring services to the community.

What's interesting about police and fire (departments) is we're the only ones who work 24 hours, are decentralized and respond to the problems. Where you can have a mini-City Hall in parts of the city, that is what makes the city respond.

Q. How do you improve working with other city departments?

A. We're going to go back. Sometimes the things you do in history are better.

Back in 1993-94, we created what were called city services committees. We went to every city department we worked with. We found every boundary they had, a contact person with every department to deal with issues. We're going to re-create that.

Q. How has debate over the compressed work schedule interfered with your plans?

A. It's not affecting me at all. It's not slowing me at all. I think you always have to separate the view of the union board from the officers. This is very important, because you have a union board that has to be re-elected. It's not always representative of what officers think.

Everywhere I go, officers have been very responsive. They know they've been somewhat sedentary and need to move forward. I've answered 40 or 50 e-mails from officers who say they really love the compressed work schedule, but if it's not there, they will continue to work really hard.

Q. Touching on some of the issues of the past, what will it take to raise morale and the public image of the department as you weave policies and practices together?

A. The way I work every day, I think you work on three planes. I have to work on what I perceive is the reality, you have to work on the perceptions, and I certainly have to be aware of where I am and where I want to go.

You have to be aware at all times of where you are and why you're doing this. You have to recognize it may be the perception and not the real thing.

For example, most studies will tell you that fear of crime probably has no impact on numerical crime. The things that impact fear of crime - having visible numbers of officers, bicycles, officers walking foot beats - those are things that make people step out of their house and say they feel comfortable. It may not have an impact on a crime going away.

Q. How does community policing fit in with the new computer crime analysis programs being planned?

A. You can't do things randomly anymore. You have to be precise. What's interesting, and most people aren't aware of this, is the Los Angeles Police Department started the crime analysis craze in 1980-81 and other (cities) picked it up.

Community-based policing works on everything. We can't be narrow and say it's one thing. It's not foot beats. It's not police smiling. That's the perception of community-based policing.

That's the tragedy going on in New York (City). Four people committed a criminal act with police work. The thing is, no matter what policing you're in, they don't teach you to abuse people.

Q. But there is a culture where that happens.

A. That, in my judgment, may be a stereotype. The fact is you have 9,500 officers and one decides to do something. Is that a culture or an individual?

The fact is we hire people as police officers. It doesn't make them less than human.

Q. Didn't the Christopher Commission say there appeared to be a pattern where brutality wasn't dealt with as severely as technical infractions?

A. I disagree. We have fired officers routinely for what we thought they did was wrong. We have fired officers for brutality. The key to all of that stuff is you have to prove it.

In dealing with what people call brutality, there seems to be a direct connection where there's a belief that use of force and unnecessary force are the same. We have an obligation to use force if and when our lives are in danger or another citizen's life is. To combine those (use of force and unnecessary force) is unfair to officers.

With one exception (during the riots), use of force is involved in only about 1 percent of all cases.

CAPTION(S):

Photo

PHOTO Chief Bernard C. Parks