Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Dialogue policing in Columbus, Ohio

Dialogue policing in Columbus, Ohio
Getty Images

Dr. Johnson is a United Methodist pastor, the author of "Holding Up Your Corner: Talking About Race in Your Community" (Abingdon Press, 2017) and vice president of the Bridge Alliance, which houses The Fulcrum.

In recent years, the escalation of demonstrations and protests across the United States has highlighted the importance of ensuring that First Amendment activities remain safeguarded. One strategy gaining momentum in maintaining security and upholding these essential rights is dialogue policing.


With roots in the research of Clifford Stott and supplemented by my research on empathy transformation model, this approach shows considerable promise in fostering healthy engagement between activist, community, and socio-democratic groups.

Dialogue policing is not just a hypothetical concept. After protests in 2022, the Columbus Ohio police department created the Dialogue Officers Unit to explore new ways to build stronger relationships with the community.

Dialogue policing is a method of law enforcement that focuses on communication and engagement with the public to manage social conflicts and maintain order effectively. It emphasizes building trust between police and community members by creating open communication channels, fostering collaboration, and promoting understanding. The approach aims to reduce tension, prevent escalation of conflicts, and ultimately improve the relationship between law enforcement and the public.

Stott's extensive research on crowd behavior explored how crowd dynamics are positively instituted while minimizing aggression and violence. His studies indicate if the police communicate more effectively they will be perceived as facilitating peaceful expression rather than suppressing it resulting in less confrontation. The crux of dialogue policing promotes communication, mutual respect, and trust between protesting groups and law enforcement officers.

The combination of Stott's research that provides a strategic foundation for dialogue policing and my empathic transformation model enhances reduced tension and conflict during protests and demonstrations by citizens during First Amendment activities. This model revolves around the belief that empathetic exchanges can help bridge gaps between opposing parties by fostering an environment of trust and understanding.

Together, these frameworks outline an approach for interfacing the activist, community, the police and other socio-democratic groups during First Amendment activities:

  1. Establishing Open Lines of Communication: Policing officials need to prioritize open channels of communication between themselves and protest organizers to keep interactions honest, purposeful, and proactive.
  2. Humanizing Approach: Officers should avoid militaristic or overpowering tactics. Instead they should embrace a more compassionate posture that humanizes law enforcement officers and protesters.
  3. Contingency Planning: Police should collaborate with event organizers to identify potential risks or hazards while developing appropriate response plans that respect participants' rights.
  4. Empathy Training for Law Enforcement: Empathy training should be a fundamental component of police education programs in order to strengthen understanding and rapport between officers and protesters.
  5. Proactive Engagement: Regular meetings or forums between law enforcement, community members, and activists to address concerns or emerging issues are essential in promoting dialogue, establishing relationships, deterring miscommunication, and allowing for greater oversight.

Dialogue policing dares to better protect the rights enshrined in the First Amendment while fostering positive engagement between diverse groups. Dialogue policing represents an opportunity to rethink conventional law enforcement strategies and proactively support citizens in expressing their democratic rights safely and peacefully.

I am encouraged by the potential moving forward as the collaborative work of community stakeholders and a select group of Columbus Police Department Dialogue Officers is scaled and amplified through an intensive cohort-style community engagement initiative that is now underway and will continue for the next six months.

Stay tuned for updates in the coming months.

Read More

​DCF Commissioner Jodi Hill-Lilly.

DCF Commissioner Jodi Hill-Lilly speaks to the gathering at an adoption ceremony in Torrington.

Laura Tillman / CT Mirror

What’s Behind the Smiles on National Adoption Day

In the past 21 years, I’ve fostered and adopted children with complex medical and developmental needs. Last year, after a grueling 2,205 days navigating the DCF system, we adopted our 7yo daughter. This year, we were the last family on the docket for National Adoption Day after 589 days of suspense. While my 2 yo daughter’s adoption was a moment of triumph, the cold, empty courtroom symbolized the system’s detachment from the lived experiences of marginalized families.

National Adoption Day often serves as a time to highlight stories of joy and family unification. Yet, behind the scenes, the obstacles faced by children in foster care and the families that support them tell a more complex story—one that demands attention and action. For those of us who have navigated the foster care system as caregivers, the systemic indifference and disparities experienced by marginalized children and families, particularly within BIPOC and disability communities, remain glaringly unresolved.

Keep ReadingShow less
Framing "Freedom"

hands holding a sign that reads "FREEDOM"

Photo Credit: gpointstudio

Framing "Freedom"

The idea of “freedom” is important to Americans. It’s a value that resonates with a lot of people, and consistently ranks among the most important. It’s a uniquely powerful motivator, with broad appeal across the political spectrum. No wonder, then, that we as communicators often appeal to the value of freedom when making a case for change.

But too often, I see people understand values as magic words that can be dropped into our communications and work exactly the way we want them to. Don’t get me wrong: “freedom” is a powerful word. But simply mentioning freedom doesn’t automatically lead everyone to support the policies we want or behave the way we’d like.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hands resting on another.

Amid headlines about Epstein, survivors’ voices remain overlooked. This piece explores how restorative justice offers CSA survivors healing and choice.

Getty Images, PeopleImages

What Do Epstein’s Victims Need?

Jeffrey Epstein is all over the news, along with anyone who may have known about, enabled, or participated in his systematic child sexual abuse. Yet there is significantly less information and coverage on the perspectives, stories and named needs of these survivors themselves. This is almost always the case for any type of coverage on incidences of sexual violence – we first ask “how should we punish the offender?”, before ever asking “what does the survivor want?” For way too long, survivors of sexual violence, particularly of childhood sexual abuse (CSA), have been cast to the wayside, treated like witnesses to crimes committed against the state, rather than the victims of individuals that have caused them enormous harm. This de-emphasis on direct survivors of CSA is often presented as a form of “protection” or “respect for their privacy” and while keeping survivors safe is of the utmost importance, so is the centering and meeting of their needs, even when doing so means going against the grain of what the general public or criminal legal system think are conventional or acceptable responses to violence. Restorative justice (RJ) is one of those “unconventional” responses to CSA and yet there is a growing number of survivors who are naming it as a form of meeting their needs for justice and accountability. But what is restorative justice and why would a CSA survivor ever want it?

“You’re the most powerful person I’ve ever known and you did not deserve what I did to you.” These words were spoken toward the end of a “victim offender dialogue”, a restorative justice process in which an adult survivor of childhood sexual abuse had elected to meet face-to-face for a facilitated conversation with the person that had harmed her. This phrase was said by the man who had violently sexually abused her in her youth, as he sat directly across from her, now an adult woman. As these two people looked at each other at that moment, the shift in power became tangible, as did a dissolvement of shame in both parties. Despite having gone through a formal court process, this survivor needed more…more space to ask questions, to name the impacts this violence had and continues to have in her life, to speak her truth directly to the person that had harmed her more than anyone else, and to reclaim her power. We often talk about the effects of restorative justice in the abstract, generally ineffable and far too personal to be classifiable; but in that instant, it was a felt sense, it was a moment of undeniable healing for all those involved and a form of justice and accountability that this survivor had sought for a long time, yet had not received until that instance.

Keep ReadingShow less