Read Case Study 3, "Strategic Planning in Spokane, Washington" (the case study is located at the end of the weekly reading assignment). In narrative format with a minimum of 400 words discuss Chief Mangan's approach to organizational change to community p

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

CHAPTER 1 Introduction to Police Administration

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

• Cite the first two fundamental principles of Peelian reform. • Contrast the political, professional, and community eras of American policing. • Identify several reasons for the development of community policing during the last decade or two. • Briefly summarize the social, political, and legal contexts of American police administration. • Identify the four dimensions of community policing and the implications of each for police

administration.

Police administration has two primary concerns: (1) an internal one, the performance of management duties within police organizations; and (2) an external one, the imple- mentation of policies and programs designed to reduce crime and disorder and enhance public safety. Police administrators must focus internally on running their organizations and externally on problems in their communities. They must aim for efficiency in the performance of police duties and effectiveness in achieving the goals of policing. In their pursuit of efficiency and effectiveness, police administrators must abide by a variety of legal and ethical constraints, they must remain transparent and accountable for their actions and decisions, and they must strive for legitimacy in the eyes of the public.

Thus far in the twenty-first century, police administration seems to be getting more and more complicated and demanding. Most recently, a crisis of legitimacy has erupted over police use of deadly force following incidents in various cities around the coun- try, including Ferguson (Missouri), New York, Los Angeles, Albuquerque, Cleveland, Baltimore, and North Charleston (South Carolina). This crisis has dominated the

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

4 Basic Considerations

headlines, saturated social media, ignited public protests, generated demands that police be equipped with body-worn cameras, and led to the creation of a Presidential Task Force on 21st Century Policing.1 Along with this current crisis, three ongoing concerns that continue to dominate the agenda of police administrators are terrorism/homeland secu- rity, rapid changes in modern technology,2 and coping with difficult economic times.3

MODERN POLICING BLOG President’s task force—final report June 25, 2015

The final Report of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing is available here. It offers 64 recommendations plus 92 action items in six main topic areas: Building Trust & Legitimacy, Policy & Oversight, Technology & Social Media, Community Policing & Crime Reduction, Training & Education, and Officer Wellness & Safety.

Source: The above is a reproduction of a post from the Modern Policing blog. The link to the post is https://gcordner.wordpress. com/2015/06/25/presidents-task-force-final-report/. The hyperlink at “here” links to http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/taskforce/ TaskForce_FinalReport.pdf.

Over and above these very challenging contemporary issues, it is important to real- ize that police administration does not take place in a vacuum—it has a history and a context. Particularly in a free society, police administrators should be keenly aware of the historical, social, legal, and political frameworks within which they operate.

The Development of Police Administration

The development of police administration had to await the development of organized policing. The year 1829 marks the origin of organized, paid, civilian policing as we cur- rently know it. In that year, the Metropolitan Police Act became English law, concluding a long and emotional debate. Prior to that time, law enforcement in England and America had been the province of ordinary citizens, volunteers, night watchmen, private merchant police, soldiers, personal employees of justices of the peace, constables, sheriffs, and slave patrols. This informal and unorganized law enforcement approach, which had proved satisfactory for centuries, was overwhelmed by the Industrial Revolution, which spawned rapid urbanization and upwardly spiraling crime rates.

The Metropolitan Police Act of 1829 authorized Sir Robert Peel to establish a police force for the metropolitan London area, and 1,000 men were quickly hired. Where no police force at all had previously existed, there suddenly stood a large organization. The

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

1 Introduction to Police Administration 5

basic organizational and managerial problems faced by Peel and his police commissioners, Charles Rowan and Robert Mayne, were essentially the same as those faced by police chiefs today. How were they to let their officers know what was expected of them, how were they to coordinate the activities of all those officers, and how were they to make sure that directions and orders were followed?

Some of Peel’s answers to these questions can be found in the fundamental principles of his Peelian reform:

1. The police should be organized along military lines.

2. Securing and training proper persons is essential.

3. Police should be hired on a probationary basis.

4. The police should be under governmental control.

5. Police strength should be deployed by time and area.

6. Police headquarters should be centrally located.

7. Police record keeping is essential.4

The foundation of Peel’s approach to police administration is in his first two princi- ples. Although he believed strongly that the police and the military should be separate and distinct agencies, he turned to the military for his model of efficient organization. He also turned to many former military officers in recruiting his first police officers.

That Peel should borrow his organizational style from the military was not at all unusual. The military and the Church were actually the only large-scale organizations in existence at that time. Both were organized similarly, although their members bore different titles. Both were centralized; a few people held most of the power and made most of the decisions, whereas many people just did as they were told. In addition, both operated under a system of graded authority; for example, generals had full authority, colonels and majors had a little less, captains and lieutenants had less still, sergeants had only enough to direct their privates, and privates had none at all.

It was natural, then, that Peel should borrow the centralized organizational form of the military model. His personnel practices, though, were not copied from the military, which at that time was composed largely of debtors, criminals, and draftees, with officers drawn from the wealthy and aristocratic classes. The military was chronically in need of people and would accept anyone into its ranks. Peel, however, was highly selective in choosing his police. Only a small percentage of applicants was accepted, and a proba- tionary period was used to weed out those whose performance was unsatisfactory. The standards of conduct were very rigid, so many officers were dismissed, especially in the early years of organizational development.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

6 Basic Considerations

Peel’s approach to police administration can thus be summed up as follows: (1)  centralized organization with graded authority; and (2) selective and stringent per- sonnel standards. He fashioned his approach in 1829 and it stands up well even today.

The Political Era

One obstacle to the adoption of Peel’s approach in the United States was the enduring view of police work as essentially undemanding physical labor. This widely held belief prevented the establishment of the rigorous personnel standards advocated by Peel. As a result, the pay and status derived from police work were well below the middle-class level for many years, and the job, until fairly recently, attracted mainly those whose employ- ment prospects elsewhere were bleak.

Stringent personnel standards in the early days of American policing were also sub- verted by the influence of local politics (see “Politics and the New York Police,” Box 1.1). Local politics served as the vehicle for bringing immigrant groups into the American social structure, and police jobs were part of local political patronage. Initially, police work was the domain of certain politically powerful ethnic groups rather than a profes- sion of highly qualified people who could meet rigid standards. Consequently, police officers were likely to be dismissed by their agencies not because of unsatisfactory perfor- mance, but because they belonged to the wrong political party.

BOX 1.1 Politics and the New York Police

An important reason for the discrepancy between ideals and practice, in addition to public expec-

tations of the police, was the force’s involvement in partisan politics. Decentralization and political

favoritism weakened discipline. Before 1853, patrolmen looked to local politicians for appointment

and promotion. Consequently, they were less amenable to their superior officers’ orders, and fric-

tion developed which “soon ripened into the bitterest hatred and enmity, and which were carried

out of the department into the private walks of life.” Policemen participated in political clubs, often

resigning to work for the re-election of their aldermen, who left the positions vacant until they won

the election and could reappoint the loyal patrolmen. Chief Matsell said that this politicking kept

the department in “constant excitement.” Discipline improved somewhat under the 1853 commis-

sion, which cut the tie to local aldermen and prohibited participation in political clubs. However,

the commission had little chance to improve its effectiveness, for favoritism was rife under Mayor

Fernando Wood, elected in 1854. Captains were not promoted from the ranks but “taken from

the citizens, and placed over Lieutenants and Sergeants of ten years’ experience, depressing the

energies of the men.”

Source: Wilbur R. Miller. 1977. Cops and Bobbies: Police Authority in New York and London,

1830–1870. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p. 43.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

1 Introduction to Police Administration 7

During the political era of American policing, which continued well into the 1900s, decentralized organizational structures were favored over centralized ones.5 In big-city police departments, the real power and authority belonged to precinct captains, not to chiefs or commissioners. Detectives usually reported to these pre- cinct captains rather than to a chief of detectives at headquarters. The reason for this decentralized approach was to protect local political influence over the police. Local political leaders (“ward bosses”) picked their own precinct captains and expected them to be very responsive. A  strong  central headquarters might have interfered with this politically-based system.

The Professional Era

Although complaints about police abuses and inefficiency were common in the 1800s, widespread criticism of the political model of policing, including its decentrali- zation and acceptance of mediocre personnel, did not emerge until the beginning of the twentieth century.6 Since then, however, police practitioners, academics, and investigat- ing commissions have decried the poor quality of police personnel; pointed out the need for intelligence, honesty, and sensitivity in police officers; called for stricter organizational controls; and thus reaffirmed Peel’s philosophy.

Among the individuals most vocal and noteworthy in support of both centralized organization and higher police personnel standards were August Vollmer,7 Bruce Smith,8 and O.W. Wilson.9 Each of these pioneers strongly believed police work to be a demand- ing and important function in a democratic society, requiring officers able to deal flexibly and creatively with a wide variety of situations. They agreed that physical strength was an important attribute, but thought that good judgment, an even temperament, and other human qualities and skills were more important. They believed strongly in education, training, discipline, and the use of modern technology in policing. They and other leaders advocated a professional model of policing.

Supporting their views were the findings and recommendations of investigat- ing commissions, most notably the Wickersham Commission in the 1930s and the President’s Crime Commission in the 1960s. The Wickersham Commission found that the American police were totally substandard;10 the President’s Commission found that insufficient progress had been made from the 1930s to the 1960s.11 Both found that the quality of police personnel was low in terms of carrying out the job to be done and in comparison to the rest of the population, and both called for substantial upgrading of police personnel.

Through the mid-1960s the need for better police personnel and stricter organizational controls dominated the literature and practice of police administration. Since then, how- ever, other important issues have emerged—such as the poor state of police–community

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

8 Basic Considerations

relations, the need for a more diverse police workforce, the ineffectiveness of traditional police strategies, the need for more flexibility within police organizations, and today’s crisis of legitimacy over police use of force. These other issues have arisen because of both the successes and the failures of the professional model of policing.12

The Community Era

In most major jurisdictions today, the need for intelligent, sensitive, flexible people in policing has been accepted. More well-educated people are being hired as police officers than was the case 40 or more years ago.13 Over the long run, police salaries have been improving, along with occupational status. Police agencies are more selective when choosing their officers.

Quality is subjective, however. Many police departments, in their quest for higher-caliber personnel during the professional era, emphasized educational attainment, physical skills, appearance, conformity, abstinence from experimentation with drugs, and spotless police records. Use of such criteria sometimes made it more difficult for local people, women (with less upper-body strength, on average, than men), and members of minority groups (who, in some jurisdictions, are less likely to have attended college and more likely to have been arrested for minor offenses) to obtain police employment. The lack of these kinds of employees in turn created police–community relations problems for more than a few police agencies.

Questions also began to arise about the more centralized structures and stricter organizational controls that characterize the professional model.14 The rigid, military approach no longer seems to fit the demanding, unpredictable, discretion-laden nature of the police job. Nor does it seem appropriate for management of the better-educated, more knowledgeable police officers of today. Other kinds of organizations, in both the business and government sectors, have moved away from centralized, military forms of organization in favor of more flexible arrangements.

The professional model of policing has come under criticism on other fronts as well. The very idea of professionalism may encourage police officers to think of themselves as better than the average person. Separation of policing from politics, when taken to extremes, can result in police who are so independent of political control that they are no longer responsive or accountable to the public.

Perhaps most damaging to the professional model is the question of its effectiveness. During the model’s heyday in the 1960s and 1970s, crime was not reduced, but instead increased more than in any other time since we started collecting crime statistics. Also, the key strategies of the professional model (preventive patrol, rapid response, and follow-up investigations) have each been found to be far less effective than originally thought (as explained in Chapter 13).15

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

1 Introduction to Police Administration 9

Beginning in the 1980s, and achieving especial predominance in the 1990s, the community policing model came to dominate U.S. policing.16 The community-oriented model advocates, among other things, a less centralized organizational structure, closer ties to the community, a stronger focus on prevention, and a problem-solving approach to police work.17 This model supports the need for high-quality personnel, but emphasizes education and creativity over conformity, physical attributes, and unnecessarily rigid background characteristics.

Even the most fervent supporters of community-oriented policing (COP) see the continued necessity of some elements of the professional model, however. The need for high standards, thorough training, and sound organization and management in policing are widely accepted. The ideas and information presented throughout this text are equally important whether one is implementing the professional model, community policing, or any other strategic approach.

The Social Context of Police Administration

Just as current police administration can be explained in part by its past, so too can its form and substance be explained in part by the social context within which policing operates. We have already mentioned, for example, that the low status of police work in America helped to explain the unsatisfactory quality of police applicants and thus the inability of police administrators to implement stringent personnel standards.

The police seem perpetually to be the brunt of scathing criticism—this has been evident in the aftermath of such high-profile events as the Rodney King beating, the O.J. Simpson trial, the pepper-spraying of Occupy protesters at the University of California- Davis, and recent police shootings in Ferguson, North Charleston, and elsewhere. One reason for the apparently constant dissatisfaction with the police in American communi- ties is disagreement on the most important goals of policing, not to mention the means of attaining those goals.18

Diverse communities present special challenges for police. Not only do individual citizens differ in their opinions and preferences, but so do segments of the community. In Chicago, where community policing was implemented and systematically evaluated over the period 1994–2003, there were significant differences among whites, African Americans, and Latinos in the perceived seriousness of physical decay (graffiti, aban- doned cars, abandoned buildings, trash and junk) and social disorder (disruption around schools, groups of people loitering, public drinking) in their neighborhoods, with Latinos reporting the most serious problems. These groups also differed in their evaluations of police performance and responsiveness, with whites giving police the highest marks.19 Nationally as well, white Americans report having much more trust and confidence in the police than do black Americans.20

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

10 Basic Considerations

The social implications and environment of policing have been highlighted over the last 50 years in discussions and debates about police–community relations. Mass altercations in the 1960s between minority groups and the police, as well as between students and police, dramatically demonstrated that police relations with at least these communities were less than ideal. In urban areas, the estrangement of the police and the community extended beyond civil disorder to everyday policing, as many other groups seemed also to regard the police as an army of occupation.21 The problem of police relations with these and other segments of the community made it clear that the police operate in a social system that they can neither take for granted nor totally control. Different community groups view the police differently and have varying notions of the priorities and objectives of law enforcement and criminal justice (see “Police Role in the Ghetto,” Box 1.2).

Since the 1990s, police–minority relations have been brought to the forefront in discussions about “driving while black,” racial profiling, and biased policing.22 The fun- damental issue in these discussions is whether the police have been fair and equitable when using their authority to stop, and sometimes search, individuals and vehicles. From a civil liberties and minority group perspective, it sometimes seems that police power to stop and search is used disproportionately against people of color. In return, police officials often assert that they are simply trying to address problems of crime, drugs, and gangs, often in response to urgent requests from minority and low-income neighborhoods. Finding common ground between these opposing perspectives has not been easy.

BOX 1.2 Police Role in the Ghetto

Police work in the ghetto encompasses a series of roles and/or responsibilities. The various attrib-

utes of the job can appear, at times, to be working at cross-purposes but, under closer examina-

tion, the ambiguities of the police role in the ghetto bear definite societal intentions. On the one

hand, the police are expected to represent the strong arm of the law; they must do battle with the

ghetto’s rugged individualism. But, on the other hand, they must be able to show compassion and

understanding to the public being served: the mother of the lost child, the victim of a crime. As to

the other side of the ledger, ghetto residents may see the police as their oppressors, but at the

same time the residents cannot do without the social services the police provide. In the absence of

these services, the ghetto community would be hard-pressed to maintain social equilibrium. The

police may be in adversary relations with the ghetto, but they are also a necessary linchpin of the

community.

Source: Basil Wilson and John L. Cooper. 1979. “Ghetto Reflections and the Role of the Police

Officer,” Journal of Police Science and Administration 7, No. 1 (March): 35, with permission of the

International Association of Chiefs of Police.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

1 Introduction to Police Administration 11

The community policing model attempts to address such perplexing problems in sev- eral ways. Through closer contact with individual citizens and community groups, police are trying to stay attuned to the public’s changing needs and priorities. Departments are also seeking a more representative workforce, including increasing numbers of civilians and volunteers to augment sworn officers. In addition, police are varying their enforce- ment strategies and programs from one neighborhood to the next, instead of applying one uniform approach throughout the entire community. Despite these new efforts, however, it remains difficult in heterogeneous communities to police in a way that satisfies all citi- zens (see “Community Policing in Chicago,” Box 1.3). The same diversity that makes the United States such a vibrant and resilient country makes effective and responsive policing a major challenge. This challenge will only increase in the future as America’s population becomes even more diverse.

The Political Context of Police Administration

Part of the environment of police administration is the governmental and political system. We have already noted that, during its development, American policing was closely tied to local politics and that this relationship had important consequences for police decision making and police personnel standards. Although this undesirable polit- ical relationship is greatly diminished today, the political environment of police admin- istration is still an important factor to consider in understanding and explaining police behavior, practices, and organizations.23

In our junior high school civics classes, we all learned about the American govern- ment’s system of checks and balances and separation of powers. The Founding Fathers

BOX 1.3 Community Policing in Chicago

In the United States, the belief that elected leaders care “what people like me think” has been

on the decline since the 1950s. … Yet during the 1990s, Chicago bucked the trend. There

were positive shifts in views of policing, and support for the police grew among all major pop-

ulation groups. To be sure, there remained plenty of room for improvement. After more than a

half- decade of community policing, public perceptions of police job performance just hit the

50  percent mark among African Americans and Latinos, and their perceptions of police respon-

siveness did not rise much above that level. But a larger proportion of residents in all groups

reported that police were helpful, concerned, and fair, and the trend line for other aspects of their

jobs was in the right direction.

Source: Wesley G. Skogan. 2006. Police and Community in Chicago: A Tale of Three Cities.

New York, NY: Oxford University Press, p. 303.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

12 Basic Considerations

dispersed authority among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government in order to prevent any one person or branch from becoming all-powerful. The legislative branch was assigned the roles of enacting laws and appropriating funds. The executive branch was given the tasks of implementing and enforcing the laws. The judicial branch was directed to review the constitutionality of legislative enactments and to adjudicate alleged violations of the laws.

The police are a part of the executive branch of government. Their role, then, is to enforce the laws enacted by the legislature and to refer alleged violations of those laws to the judiciary. In actual practice, of course, policing is considerably more complex and less mechanical than this description suggests. Police officers utilize discretion in such a way that they do not enforce all of the laws all of the time; their efforts are not univer- sally reviewed by the courts; and many of their practices involve activities not related specifically to law enforcement. Nevertheless, it remains useful to keep in mind that the police make neither the laws nor the decision between the guilt or innocence of a suspect brought to court. These matters, though important to policing, are within the domain of other branches of the government.

Another important characteristic of our governmental system is federalism. Besides being distributed among different branches of government, power in our system is also dispersed through several levels of government. As a result, some functions are performed by the national government, some by the states, some by counties, some by municipali- ties, and some are shared.

Policing in America is predominantly a local function, although the states and the national government are also involved with law enforcement and cannot be ignored. Three-quarters of our nation’s one million-plus police protection employees work for local governments, and 90 percent of the 18,000 or so police agencies in this country are local police departments or sheriff’s departments.24 One consequence of the local character of American policing is that most of the country’s law enforcement agencies are small— one-half have 10 or fewer sworn employees. Therefore, police administration in the United States frequently involves organizing and managing fairly small  departments, a fact that is important to keep in mind, because the natural tendency when speaking of administration is to immediately think of large, complex organizations.

With respect to objectives, priorities, and budgets, police administrators deal pri- marily with city councils, city managers, mayors, and other local executive and legislative units. State and national law enforcement organizations deal with state and national exec- utive bodies, respectively. Even local police, however, have relationships with the state and national governments. The bulk of the law that most police enforce is state law enacted by state legislatures. Also, in many areas, the correctional and judicial systems, both of which are important to policing, are operated by counties and by states. Finally, since the 1960s, many local police administrators have had increased contacts with state and national government officials who control special anti-crime funds, drug enforcement

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

1 Introduction to Police Administration 13

Although the political environment of local police administration varies from agency to agency, some regional patterns can be discerned.25 In the Northeast, local city and town government is very strong and partisan. Police chiefs and other administrators are frequently changed after elections, and local partisan politics have a strong influence on day-to-day policing. In the West, by contrast, local politics are much more likely to be nonpartisan, with college-trained city managers who, like elected mayors in the East, exercise much of the authority. Police administrators in the West are more likely to be given authority and responsibility for everyday police operations, and “professional” police administration is more apparent. Moreover, in the West, and in the South, the county plays a larger role than elsewhere. In many rural areas, the elected county sheriff is the paramount law enforcement officer as well as one of the most prominent politi- cians. Some counties also have county-wide police agencies serving under an appointed chief who is responsible to a county executive or county council. In other areas, how- ever, particularly the Northeast, the county is an insignificant level of government, and frequently the sheriff is responsible only for serving civil court papers or running a county jail.

Thus, the political and governmental environment of police administration varies widely. Whatever the local circumstances, police administration is strongly influenced by these factors. Along with the historical and social contexts, the political context of police administration has important implications for the people, processes, and organization of policing.

MODERN POLICING BLOG Local elections and policing March 24, 2015

This article uses Albuquerque to illustrate how local elections and politics can affect a city’s policing, including selection of the chief, hiring practices, and, potentially, police behavior.

Source: The above is a reproduction of a post from the Modern Policing blog. The link to the post is https://gcordner.wordpress. com/2015/03/24/local-elections-policing/. The hyperlink at “This article” links to http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ the-watch/wp/2015/03/23/how-elections-affect-police-shootings/.

monies, and other federal funds used to augment local law enforcement budgets. In the 1990s, most of these federal funds were for the hiring of additional police officers to perform community policing duties in local communities. Since 2001, federal funding available to local police shifted substantially to homeland security, and for the most part was not available to support officer or civilian positions; much of this funding was for the purchase of specialized technology and equipment.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

14 Basic Considerations

The Legal Context of Police Administration

Although police work involves much more than just enforcing the law, police admin- istration is constrained and affected by the law in a number of ways. For example, the criminal law defines what acts are crimes and what actions police officers may legally take in a variety of situations. Each year legislatures define new criminal acts that fall within police jurisdiction, such as identity theft, computer crime, stalking, and hate crime. Legislatures also sometimes revise police authority, such as in permitting (or even mandating) warrantless arrests for misdemeanor spousal assault based solely on probable cause. In addition, the courts continuously interpret and redefine the law by their trial and appellate decisions.

One aspect of the law that is always in flux is constitutional law. At both the state and national levels, the courts interpret and reinterpret passages in constitutional law pertaining to limitations on police authority, such as search and seizure and interrogation of suspects. The courts also determine the precise meaning of individual rights that police officers must protect, such as the rights of assembly and free speech.

Police departments sometimes inherit new duties and responsibilities through leg- islation. Handgun waiting periods and registration laws, for example, frequently assign to police the task of checking the criminal records of handgun purchasers. Police are often required by new laws to conduct background checks on school bus drivers, day- care providers, and others entrusted with the safety and well-being of children. Revised domestic violence legislation sometimes requires police officers to provide protection and transportation to spousal assault victims.

Even more common is for police administration to be constrained and regulated by law. In the personnel area, federal legislation protecting the employment rights of women, minorities, older workers, and the disabled has sometimes left police administrators thoroughly confused about the types of hiring practices they can and cannot employ. Many traditional police practices related to roll calls, lunch breaks, on-call assignments, and special assignments have fallen afoul of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. Police departments’ internal disciplinary procedures in many jurisdictions are governed by a Police Officer’s Bill of Rights enacted into state law. Laws also regulate the use of radio equipment, the maintenance of documentary records, the disposal of found and seized property, and myriad other matters.

Over the last several decades, police administrators have become increasingly con- cerned with civil law, particularly civil liability.26 Many police trainers, supervisors, and managers are so worried about being sued that they suffer from “litigiphobia.”27 In the past, the police officer who made a false arrest, used excessive force, or failed to protect a crime victim might be sued; today, such a suit commonly includes others in the chain of command as defendants, alleging that they failed to properly train, direct, supervise, or

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

1 Introduction to Police Administration 15

control the officer. These kinds of civil suits are particularly effective if it can be shown that administrators encouraged or permitted a pattern of improper conduct to develop and continue.

Clearly, police administration takes place in a complex and changing legal environ- ment. Although it is not yet the case that police administrators must be lawyers, they certainly need access to sound legal advice. And although police executives need not develop phobias about their civil liability, prudent risk management is warranted. The best protection is provided by thorough and systematic application of the modern prin- ciples of police administration presented in this text.

The Challenge of Police Administration in a Democratic Society

In discussing the historical, social, political, and legal contexts of police administra- tion, we have skirted the most basic context of all: the democratic nature of our society. This one factor has tremendous implications for the ways in which we police our society, for the role of the police, and for police administration, since it introduces such funda- mental considerations as transparency, accountability, and legitimacy.

George Berkley best described the difficult position of the police in a democratic society.28 As he noted, democracy is based on consensus among the members of the society; but the police job starts when that consensus breaks down. In a democracy, the government is established to serve the people, to follow their demands, and to operate with their consent. Much of policing, however, involves making people behave against their wishes or prohibiting them from doing what they please. Related to this, a basic element of democracy is freedom, while much of the police job involves limiting or revoking freedom. An additional aspect of democracy is equality; however, citizens do not deal with the police on an equal basis: the police are armed and have the authority to demand cooperation from the public. So, in many ways, the exercise of policing is in direct conflict with the values of our democratic society.

These and other conflicts reflect our continuing pursuit of ordered liberty. In our society, we basically believe that all people should be free to do as they please. However, we also recognize that the exercise of total freedom by one person inevitably limits the freedom available to others. The problem, then, becomes one of defining the boundaries to individual freedom. We see that individual freedom must be limited, but we want to limit it as little as possible. We have not found a neat equation for determining just how much to limit individual freedom, and so all of us have our own opinions on the matter; plus, our opinions change over time. None of this helps the police, who must make difficult decisions every day about limiting the freedom of individuals. Although we (the people) accept that the police function has to be carried out, we reserve the right to criticize the police any time we disagree with what they have done.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

16 Basic Considerations

Police administrators are in an especially difficult position, because the public will hold them accountable for crime control while, at the same time, distrusting them for the functions performed by their organizations. This distrust will be reflected in numerous constraints being placed on the measures available to the police for controlling crime. The police are required to obtain arrest and search warrants from the courts, they must advise suspects not to incriminate themselves, their use of electronic surveillance is severely restricted, and so on. Despite these constraints, the public still expects the police to control crime and holds the police administrator accountable for accomplishing that objective.

The aspect of police accountability that has come dramatically to the forefront recently is accountability for the use of authority, especially when police use physical force against citizens. Thanks to cell phone videos and the Internet, the public has a greatly expanded opportunity to “see” police in action, and it is not always pretty. Moreover, controversial cases in which prosecutors and grand juries have chosen not to hold police officers criminally responsible for using force have given rise to claims that police are not accountable for their actions. Police administrators are often caught in the middle in these situations, trying to balance citizens’ rights, officers’ rights, and professional judgment in the midst of a media and political frenzy.

In a free society, it is crucial that the people regard the police as fundamentally legit- imate. Naturally, there will always be human errors, some with tragic consequences, but as long as the people believe that the police and their leaders can be trusted to use their authority fairly and effectively, the system works. When there is a crisis of legitimacy, however, such as the police seem to be experiencing following events in 2014 and 2015, the public becomes less trusting, the police job becomes more difficult, and the challenges facing police administrators become even more complicated and demanding.

Adding one more layer of complexity is the expectation in a democracy that gov- ernance should be transparent. People in a free society expect their public institutions, including the police, to act openly, and tend not to trust decisions made behind closed doors. Transparency is thought to enhance accountability and contribute to legitimacy. Needless to say, this presents some difficulties for police organizations, since they collect a lot of information that victims and others want kept private, they sometimes perform covert operations, and active investigations could easily be compromised by premature publicity. Also, when police officers are being investigated for possible misconduct, including abuse of authority, they have legal rights that might limit the degree of trans- parency that can be achieved.

These key components of democracy—accountability, legitimacy, transparency— create some rough seas that police administrators must navigate to be successful. As Winston Churchill famously commented just after World War II:

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

1 Introduction to Police Administration 17

been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.29

Community-Oriented Police Administration

In the modern era, the most promising and effective response to the difficult chal- lenges of policing in a free society has been community policing (COP). The COP strategy, which developed in the 1980s and spread widely in the 1990s, has some very important implications for police administration. To put it quite simply, if COP is a different way of doing policing, it may require a different approach to police adminis- tration—a different approach to both the internal role of running the police department and to the external role of dealing with the community and its problems.30 It is helpful to recognize four major dimensions of community policing,31 and then consider their impact on police administration:

1. the philosophical dimension;

2. the strategic dimension;

3. the tactical dimension;

4. the organizational dimension.

The philosophical dimension includes the central ideas and beliefs underlying COP, such as the necessity of citizen input, the broad nature of the police function, and the need for police to provide tailored and personal service to the public. The police admin- istrator’s responsibility in this realm is to articulate the agency’s philosophy of policing, communicate it to both employees and the community, persuade employees and citizens of its sensibility, and make sure that the philosophy really guides the actions of officers. This is a challenging mandate.

The strategic dimension provides the link between the broad ideas and beliefs that underlie COP and the specific programs and practices by which it is implemented. This dimension assures that agency policies, priorities, and resource allocation are consistent with the community-oriented philosophy. Three strategic elements of community polic- ing are: (1) alternative police operational strategies; (2) a sharper geographic focus; and (3) a stronger emphasis on prevention. Establishing strategic directions, and seeing that they really guide the police organization’s policies, priorities, and decisions, is one of the central responsibilities of any police administrator. Changing the organization’s priorities and allocation of resources is an important step in the process of implementing COP or any other new strategy.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

18 Basic Considerations

The tactical dimension of community policing ultimately translates ideas, philoso- phies, and strategies into concrete programs, practices, and behaviors. Three of the most important tactical elements of COP are positive interactions with the public, partner- ships, and a problem-oriented approach to police work. These nuts and bolts activities are primarily carried out by police officers, detectives, and other operational-level personnel, not by police administrators. Administrators, though, must ensure that these kinds of activities really get implemented, especially if they are different from traditional methods of policing in a department. This may simply require good, sound traditional police management practice, or it may require innovative and different approaches to police administration that correspond better with the new and different activities associated with community policing.

The organizational dimension directly addresses the changes in police organiza- tion, administration, management, and supervision that might be required to support and facilitate the implementation of COP. Such changes may be necessary in at least three areas: structure (how authority, responsibility, and tasks are arranged in the police organization); management (the process of running the organization and dealing with employees); and information (the types of data and information that are needed, and the systems for providing that information). Many police departments have already discovered that how they are structured, how they are managed, and how they use infor- mation does not correspond very well with their new COP philosophy, strategies, and tactics. These and other agencies are currently searching for, and experimenting with, alternative organizational practices that provide a better “fit” with the new way that they want to do business—i.e., community policing (see “Policing in a Free Society,” Box 1.4).

Throughout this text we present information and techniques that are consistent with a community-oriented approach to police administration. These approaches build upon many of the traditional and fundamental principles of police administration and are

BOX 1.4 Policing in a Free Society

We are in the early days of a social revolution driven by information technology and moving at

unprecedented speed. The old command and control strategies of police management will not

be adequate to withstand the buffeting of these far-reaching developments. There is a real need

to examine the tight web of structure and policy binding police services to the past and inhibiting

change. … The one thing that has not changed, and never will, is the need for inspired leadership,

motivated and committed to the betterment of policing in a free society.

Source: Robert F. Lunney. 2012. Parting Shots: My Passion for Policing. Toronto: Robert Lunney

Associates, p. 310.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

1 Introduction to Police Administration 19

consistent with the social, political, and legal contexts of policing discussed earlier in this chapter. In some cases, we explicitly use the community-oriented label, but mostly we just try to present the best information and practices that we have found for conducting the challenging responsibility of police administration in a free society.

Homeland Security

Post-September 11, 2001, and subsequently in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the new concept of homeland security introduced an additional mission for state and local law enforcement agencies and broadened the context of police administration even further. More than half of all state and local law enforcement agencies reported in 2004 that they were allocating more resources than in the past to security for critical infrastructure, security for special events and dignitaries, intelligence activities (gather- ing, analyzing, and sharing information), terrorism-related investigations, port security, and airport security.32 Also, a majority reported increased interaction with the FBI, ATF, and federal homeland security officials, while more than 40 percent had more frequent contact with immigration and customs authorities, FEMA, CDC, FAA, and the Coast Guard. At the local level, police departments are working much more closely with fire departments, public health officials, and emergency managers than ever before.

What seems to be happening is that the already broad traditional role of the police related to crime, disorder, and public service has taken on additional responsibilities more associated with safety and security. This has enlarged the context or environment of police administration, making it even more challenging and complex. The new homeland security mission of police is discussed in more detail in Chapter 14.

Ten Guiding Principles

Much of the remainder of this book is focused on the details of police administra- tion, on successfully running a police organization. Just as it is easy in the real world to get caught up in handling day-to-day problems and crises, however, it is easy when studying a subject to get lost in the details and lose one’s bearings. For that reason, we suggest that you periodically review the following ten principles of policing and police administration in a democratic society. These principles should provide you with a solid framework for the study and practice of modern police administration. They are timeless and impervious to trends and fads—these principles can still be used 20 years from now, whether at that time we say we are doing community policing, professional policing, intelligence-led policing, predictive policing, or just plain good policing for a democratic society.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

20 Basic Considerations

1. The police are a general-purpose government agency that provides a wide variety of services to the community, including but not limited to law enforcement and crime control.

2. The police get their authority from the law, the community, political superiors, and the police profession, and are ultimately responsible to each of these sources of authority.

3. The overriding objectives in every police action or decision must be the protection of life and property and the maintenance of order.

4. Protection of life is always the primary objective of policing; the relative importance of protecting property and maintaining order varies from place to place and from time to time.

5. Law enforcement is not an objective of policing; rather, it is one method that is some- times employed in the effort to protect life and property and maintain order.

6. The police are rightly constrained in the methods they can employ in pursuing their objectives; they must resist the temptation to employ unauthorized, illegal, or unethi- cal methods.

7. The police must treat each individual person and situation according to the particular circumstances encountered; but individualized treatment may not include discrimi- nation on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, gender, social class, or other improper criteria.

8. The police must be willing and capable of employing force when justified to achieve legitimate objectives, but the use of force should always be a last resort, and the police must strive to develop nonviolent methods of gaining cooperation.

9. Police must ultimately be guided by ethical and legal standards that may sometimes conflict with, and should supersede, organizational, community, and peer pressures.

10. The police are unavoidably associated with those in power; yet they have a special responsibility to protect those furthest from power and the democratic political pro- cess itself.

Summary

This chapter helps lay a foundation for the rest of the book. It presents the historical, social, political, legal, and democratic contexts of American policing, as well as some implications of community policing and homeland security and some timeless guiding principles so that you can gain a better appreciation of where police administration has

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

1 Introduction to Police Administration 21

been and what its present environment is like. These contexts exert important influences on the people, processes, and organization of policing. They make police administration in our society very challenging, to say the least.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. Do you agree that in our society there is a lack of agreement about the goals and objectives of policing? What do you think are or should be the goals and objectives of the police? List them in order of importance.

2. What do you think is the proper role of politics with respect to policing? 3. Policing in America is a fragmented, primarily local function. Do you think it should be? Would you alter this

arrangement in any way? What purposes does the fragmentation of policing serve? 4. The text says that, in large measure, policing conflicts with our democratic values. What is meant by that?

Do you agree? Is that the way things should be? As a police officer, how would you personally deal with this conflict?

5. What is your perception of community policing, and what implications do you think COP has for how police departments should be organized and managed?

Suggested Reading

Couper, D.C. 2011. Arrested Development: A Veteran Police Chief Sounds Off about Protest, Racism, Corruption, and the Seven Steps Necessary to Improve Our Nation’s Police. Indianapolis, IN: Dog Ear Publishing.

Lunney, R.F. 2012. Parting Shots: My Passion for Policing. Toronto: Robert Lunney Associates. Reisig, M.D. and R.J. Kane (eds). 2014. The Oxford Handbook of Police and Policing. New York, NY: Oxford

University Press. Skogan, W.G. 2006. Police and Community in Chicago: A Tale of Three Cities. New York, NY: Oxford

University Press. Weitzer, R. and S.A. Tuch. 2006. Race and Policing in America: Conflict and Reform. New York, NY:

Cambridge University Press.

Notes

1 President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. 2015. Final Report of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Online at: http:// www.cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/taskforce/TaskForce_FinalReport.pdf.

2 Police Executive Research Forum. 2012. How Are Innovations in Technology Transforming Policing? Washington, DC: author. Online at: http://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Critical_Issues_Series/ how%20are%20innovations%20in%20technology%20transforming%20policing%202012.pdf.

3 B.K. Melekian. 2012. “Policing in the New Economy: A New Report on the Emerging Trends from the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.” The Police Chief 79 (January): 16–19.

4 A.C. Germann, F.D. Day, and R.R.J. Gallati. 1969. Introduction to Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas, pp. 54–55.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

22 Basic Considerations

5 G.L. Kelling and M.H. Moore. 1988. “The Evolving Strategy of Policing.” Perspectives on Policing No. 4. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

6 See C.B. Saunders Jr. 1970. Upgrading the American Police: Education and Training for Better Law Enforcement. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

7 A. Vollmer. 1936. The Police and Modern Society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 8 B. Smith. 1940. Police Systems in the United States. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers. 9 O.W. Wilson. 1950. Police Administration. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. 10 National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement. 1931. Report on Police. Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office. 11 President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. 1967. Task Force Report:

The Police. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 12 R.M. Fogelson. 1977. Big-City Police. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 13 D.L. Carter, A.D. Sapp, and D.W. Stephens. 1989. The State of Police Education: Policy Direction for the

Twenty-First Century. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum. 14 G. Cordner. 1978. “Open and Closed Models of Police Organizations: Traditions, Dilemmas, and

Practical Considerations.” Journal of Police Science and Administration 6, no. 1 (March): 22–34; G. Cordner. 1989. “Written Rules and Regulations: Are They Necessary?” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin (July): 17–21.

15 See G. Cordner and D.C. Hale (eds). 1992. What Works in Policing? Operations and Administration Examined. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

16 M.H. Moore and R.C. Trojanowicz. 1988. “Corporate Strategies for Policing.” Perspectives on Policing No. 6. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

17 G. Cordner. 2014. “Community Policing.” In M.D. Reisig and R.J. Kane (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Police and Policing. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 148–171.

18 J.Q. Wilson. 1968. “Dilemmas of Police Administration.” Public Administration Review (September– October): 407–417.

19 W.G. Skogan. 2006. Police and Community in Chicago: A Tale of Three Cities. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

20 B. Drake. 2015. “Divide between Blacks and Whites on Police Runs Deep.” Pew Research Center (April 28). Online at: www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/28/blacks-whites-police/.

21 V.G. Strecher. 1971. The Environment of Law Enforcement: A Community Relations Guide. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

22 L. Fridell, R. Lunney, D. Diamond, and B. Kubu. 2001. Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.

23 K.D. Tunnell and L.K. Gaines. 1996. “Political Pressures and Influences on Police Executives: A  Descriptive Analysis.” In G.W. Cordner and D.J. Kenney (eds), Managing Police Organizations. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson, pp. 5–17.

24 B.A. Reaves. 2011. Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, 2008. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics; B.A. Reaves. 2012. Federal Law Enforcement Officers, 2008. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

25 G. Cordner. 2011. “The Architecture of U.S. Policing: Variations among the 50 States.” Police Practice & Research: An International Journal 12, no. 2: 107–119.

26 V.E. Kappeler. 2006. Critical Issues in Police Civil Liability, fourth edition. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

27 F. Scogin and S.L. Brodsky. 1991. “Fear of Litigation among Law Enforcement Officers.” American Journal of Police 10, no. 1: 41–45.

28 G.E. Berkley. 1969. The Democratic Policeman. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

1 Introduction to Police Administration 23

29 R. Langworth (ed.). 2008. Churchill by Himself: The Definitive Collection of Quotations. New York, NY: Public Affairs.

30 D.C. Couper. 2011. Arrested Development: A Veteran Police Chief Sounds Off about Protest, Racism, Corruption, and the Seven Steps Necessary to Improve Our Nation’s Police. Indianapolis, IN: Dog Ear Publishing.

31 G. Cordner. 2014. Community Policing, pp. 153–159. 32 C. Foster and G. Cordner. 2005. The Impact of Terrorism on State Law Enforcement: Adjusting to New

Roles and Changing Conditions. Lexington, KY: Council of State Governments.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

CHAPTER 2 The Nature of Police Work

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

• Identify several explanations for the development of paid, full-time police forces in the early 1800s. • Describe the evolution of police duties from the early 1800s to the present. • Explain why it is inevitable that police officers have discretion in their law enforcement duties. • Assess the evidence bearing on the question of whether police work is mainly crime control, order

maintenance, or social service. • Identify the core of the police role and the kinds of skills most relied upon by effective police

officers.

Some managers and authorities on management make the argument that “admin- istration is administration,” meaning that running a bakery, a steel mill, a law firm, a baseball team, a school, a church, and a police department all involve the same knowl- edge, skills, and abilities.1 This point of view has considerable merit. The bakery manager, school principal, and police chief all have to engage in planning if their organizations are to successfully achieve their objectives over a long period of time. The superintendent of a steel mill and a police chief both have to carefully organize resources and activities to be effective. The general manager of a baseball team, managing partner of a law firm, and police chief all must give generous attention to staffing in order to attract and retain the best possible personnel. The parish priest and the police chief both concern themselves with directing and controlling their employees, as well as influencing others who look to them for guidance and comfort.

Administration is administration, up to a point. All managers perform similar functions, as described later in this text. All administration can be guided by some general principles. All managers must deal with the complexities of human behavior in

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

2 The Nature of Police Work 25

organizations. It makes sense to have organizations such as the American Management Association and the American Society for Public Administration, because managers of all kinds of organizations share common tasks, problems, and information needs.

However, there is a limit to the universality of management and administration. Most managers are expected to know something about the substance of what they are in charge of, beyond simply the process of management. Many managers, in fact, have consider- able experience doing the kind of work that they now manage. Certainly, it is the rare police chief, sheriff, or police commissioner who does not have experience “on the street.” More generally, it has been argued that “[t]here can be no great leadership … without a deep substantive knowledge of the technological and bureaucratic characteristics of the specific setting in which leadership is expected.”2

It seems quite apparent that such administrative matters as the opportunity for real- istic planning, the form of organizational structure that is most efficient, the applicability of technical personnel practices, and the means by which employee behavior can best be directed and controlled depend significantly on the nature of the work that is performed in the organization.3 In other words, despite all the commonalities inherent in manage- ment of any kind, and thus the problems and tasks shared by bakery managers, steel mill superintendents, baseball team general managers, church pastors, and police chiefs, all of these administrators also have their own unique organizational situations that make their jobs somewhat different.

Our argument is that police administration is unique because police work is par- ticularly different from most other kinds of work. Such characteristics of police work as discretion, authority, variety, ambiguity, and danger distinguish it greatly from what most people do for a living. Moreover, these characteristics of the work have profound implica- tions for police organization and management. Thus, police administration is not merely a subtopic or branch of public administration or business administration, although it can borrow considerably from those disciplines; because the nature of the work performed by police organizations is unusual and distinctive, the separate and distinct study of police administration is warranted.

This chapter is about the nature of police work and its effect on the nature of police administration.

The Evolution of Police Work

In some respects, police work as we know it today is not very different from that performed by the first London bobbies in 1829 and the first New York cops in 1845. Police then dealt with alcoholics, wayward children, thieves, and smugglers, as they do now. In other respects, of course, police work has changed dramatically. While modern police ride in automobiles and are in direct radio communication with their superiors

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

26 Basic Considerations

at all times, the first police officers walked their beats and had only the most primitive methods of communication available, such as beating their nightsticks on the pavement or blowing their whistles.

Why were full-time, paid, organized police forces created in England and America in the early 1800s? It is clear that both countries were undergoing industrialization and urbanization, trends that were significantly changing social and economic conditions. Neighbor no longer knew neighbor. Most of the people one encountered were strangers. People worked long hours under the worst conditions in a factory for a low wage, instead of working the land for food to eat and barter. Many of the people who came to the cities looking for wage-paying jobs found an insufficient number of jobs available and remained unemployed. Parents working in factories no longer maintained the same level of supervision over children as they had back on the farm, and children in cities engaged in more serious mischief than those who had lived under more controlled conditions in rural settings.

One explanation for the formation of modern police forces sees them as the logical government response to the inevitable consequences of urbanization and industrializa- tion. In essence, police forces were a natural development in the march of civilization. A more cynical interpretation views the creation of the police as an action taken by ruling elites (those with money and power) to bring under control the working classes and other dangerous and subversive elements. In this view, the police are seen as the repressive arm of the capitalists, the owners of the means of production, who fostered and benefited from industrialization.4

Another factor in the development of the police was the failure of the military to handle civil disorder effectively. Food riots, draft riots, and race riots were not uncommon in London as well as in American cities in the early years of industrialization. Prior to the establishment of police forces, such riots and other civil disturbances had to be dealt with by the military. Too often, the military either failed to take action out of sympathy for the protesters, or it took oppressive action, treating the riot or disturbance as a military encounter and leaving extensive casualties.

Regardless of the reasoning behind the creation of organized police forces, it is clear that the first police were much more significantly engaged in maintaining order than in investigating crimes. Among the many duties performed by police in the 1800s were:

1. controlling alcoholics, inebriates, vagrants, the disorderly, and the homeless;

2. controlling gambling, prostitution, and other forms of vice;

3. controlling riots, disturbances, and crowds;

4. watching for fires;

5. maintaining basic public health standards in the streets and other common areas;

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

2 The Nature of Police Work 27

6. inspecting businesses, taverns, and lodging houses and;

7. licensing peddlers, transportation for hire, and other forms of commerce.

Prevention of crime was generally accepted as one function of the police, along with order maintenance and the provision of various government services. Police were expected to prevent crime by diligently patrolling their assigned beats so that wrongdoers would be deterred by the fear of police discovery. Police patrolling was expected to create a sense of police omnipresence, a sense that the police were, if not everywhere, at least right around the corner.

The early police did not devote a major portion of their time and resources to the investigation of crimes already committed, or to the apprehension of those responsible for committing serious crimes. Crime victims commonly offered rewards for the return of stolen property or the capture of assailants, and these rewards were largely the province of private detectives, informers, and, frequently, perpetrators themselves. There was a clear distinction between patrol work and detective work; patrol work was performed by the public police forces, while investigative work remained largely in the private domain.

Gradually, however, the police became more involved in crime investigation and criminal apprehension, to the point that, by the 1950s and 1960s, the public’s image of the police was that of crime fighters. Clearly, the police also came to see themselves as crime fighters. Exactly how and why the police function changed from being almost exclusively order maintenance to being dominated by crime fighting is open to debate, but these may be some of the reasons:

1. The public’s expectations with respect to order, safety, and protection increased. The public demanded that its police provide better and more comprehensive services, including protection from crime.

2. The legal system sought to gain greater adherence by the police to legal norms. The police became less influenced by community norms and more influenced by legal norms. This orientation naturally inclined the police toward a focus on crimes, which are the most clear-cut violations of legal norms.

3. Police evolution took place within the context of the reform era in American government.5 Police departments had to specify their functions and gather data to demonstrate their efficiency and effectiveness. Crime-related and enforcement- related activities were much easier to quantify and justify than more nebulous order- maintenance activities.

4. The police sought professional status. Investigating crimes seemed more professional than dealing with alcoholics, vagrants, and prostitutes. The police could claim spe- cial skills as well as the need for special training for investigating crimes, much more

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

28 Basic Considerations

so than for maintaining order. Special equipment and scientific methods were also part of criminal investigation and could be cited as evidence that police work was a profession.

5. Products of modern technology that the police were able to include in their work, such as automobiles, radios, telephones, and computers, are all more consistent with a crime-attack model of policing than with a more informal, order-maintenance model.

6. An action-oriented mandate such as crime fighting is more in keeping with American cultural expectations than a passive or reserved mandate tied to informal community norms for order maintenance.6 Thus, the evolution of American policing toward crime fighting may have been inevitable.

7. The influence of the media on the public’s perception of police work has contrib- uted to the crime-fighting image. Newspaper, radio, and television presentations on police emphasize crime fighting over order maintenance, because crime fighting is both more newsworthy and more entertaining than the more mundane aspects of order maintenance. Not only the public, but also the police themselves are greatly influenced by these portrayals.

In considering these points, it is important to note that the actual nature of police work and its popular image are not identical. While it is clear that police forces have become more involved in crime investigation and criminal apprehension than was originally the case, with crime fighting perceived by the public to be the cornerstone of the police image, the actual extent to which modern police work involves crime-related activity is less clear. We will address this issue shortly.

Some of the changes in police work since the mid-1800s are so obvious that they are frequently overlooked. Today’s police officer, for example, typically gives considerable attention to the traffic function, including traffic direction, enforcement, and accident investigation. It is not likely, though, that a police officer in 1870 spent time issuing traffic tickets or running radar. That officer may have been concerned with wagon and coach traffic jams but probably dealt with them as public order problems rather than as infractions of a traffic code requiring enforcement activity.

Numerous other changes in the nature of police work have occurred. Over the years, criminal law has expanded to meet new social and environmental demands; the police today have more laws to enforce than did their predecessors. In recent years, crime has become more organized, presenting new and different challenges and problems. In the last few decades, the problem of drug abuse has become widespread, and society has looked to law enforcement for a solution. Drug law enforcement requires special kinds of strategies and tactics, such as undercover work, controlled buys, and sting

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

2 The Nature of Police Work 29

operations that raise ethical dilemmas and risk “dirtying” the police image.7 In addition, drug law enforcement has made the police the enemies of many otherwise law-abiding middle-class citizens, a group whose support the police had traditionally been able to take for granted.

Community policing and problem-oriented policing have also affected the nature of police work. Some police officers now spend substantial time meeting with community groups, analyzing and solving problems, working in schools, and collaborating with other governmental agencies, and thus less time patrolling, responding to calls, and investigat- ing individual crimes. This leads to police work that is more visible and personal than bureaucratic, 911-style policing and tends to be associated with generalist, rather than specialist, approaches to policing.8 It may also raise the levels of education, social skills, analytical skills, and maturity needed by police officers to higher standards than in the past.

On the other hand, many aspects of police work seem relatively unchanged since the days of Sir Robert Peel. Husbands and wives continue to have quarrels, occasionally requiring police intervention. People drink too much alcohol and need help finding their way home. Some have no home and need assistance so that they will not freeze to death on cold nights. Children still run away from home, sometimes with tragic consequences. Loud parties still have to be quieted so that the family next door with the new baby can get a little sleep. Police work then and now is partly a matter of using common sense and good judgment to help sort out the kinds of problems that naturally arise between and among people with differing values, goals, and lifestyles.

Police Discretion

Typically associated with the crime-fighting view of police work has been the idea that police work primarily involves law enforcement. This approach sees policing mainly in terms of legal norms. Police officers are perceived as technicians trained to apply the law to problems of crime and disorder. Further, their law enforcement actions and activities are later reviewed by prosecutors and judges who, as legal experts, ensure that the law has been properly applied. This “civics” explanation of police work emphasizes that the police neither make the laws nor sit in judgment of law violators; they “merely” enforce the law.

When sociological and legal scholars began studying the police in the 1950s, how- ever, they discovered that police work, as actually practiced, differed substantially from this simplistic “mere enforcement” description. A major study by the American Bar Foundation found, for example, that police exercised considerable discretion in deciding whether to arrest and prosecute when a law is violated; that police develop methods other than law enforcement to deal with law violation situations; and that much of the

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

30 Basic Considerations

work that police do is never seen by the courts and, thus, is not reviewed by prosecutors and judges.9 Numerous studies since the 1950s have documented that police officers operate with considerable discretion; they do not simply enforce the law. In fact, over the wide range of circumstances and situations that the police confront, they actually enforce the law relatively infrequently.

In his pioneering study of policing in eight communities, James Q. Wilson found that a police officer’s discretion varied depending on the type of situation encountered.10 He found that police had great latitude in self-initiated law enforcement situations, such as traffic or drug violations, mainly because there is rarely a victim or complainant demanding that a certain kind of action be taken. In citizen-initiated law enforcement situations, however, the police have less discretion—partly because the police usually have no clues about who committed the crime and also because, if the offender can be identified, the preferences of the citizen-initiator will often influence the officer’s decision to arrest.

The police generally have considerable discretion in dealing with order- maintenance problems, whether police- or citizen-initiated, although their discretion is not totally unconstrained. When police officers discover a disorderly situation, they can react to it in many ways, ranging from ignoring the problem to arresting the disorderly person (see “Police Discretion,” Box 2.1). In this police-initiated situation, with no complain- ant and very possibly no witnesses, the police officers have great discretion in making a “low visibility decision.”11 When a citizen reports the disorder, the police officer is somewhat constrained by that citizen’s wishes. However, in many order-maintenance situations, both parties have legitimate claims, throwing the discretion in the police officer’s lap.

Police work involves selecting which of several options is the best solution to the problem at hand. If police work simply involved enforcing the law whenever a violation

BOX 2.1 Police Discretion

[S]ome cops will tell drinking youths to “call it an evening” because the neighbors are complaining.

Others will just tell them to move. Still others will tell the kids to move and then give them sugges-

tions on where to drink so they won’t be in the vicinity of households that might complain. How

an officer handles a call is very much a matter of his personal outlook. Some cops are very much

against drinking in public. One cop almost goes into hysteria at the sight of an open beer can. This

officer arrests for public drinking. Some officers think marijuana smoking is a step on the road to

heroin, and they will arrest people for possession of pot. Others, even if they get a complaint that

people are smoking marijuana, will not arrest. They’ll just tell the people involved to “knock it off.”

To them, marijuana smoking is no big deal.

Source: Stephen Francis Coleman. 1986. Street Cops. Salem, WI: Sheffield, p. 142.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

2 The Nature of Police Work 31

was observed, it would require no common sense, judgment, or wisdom, and very little education or training. It would also be easy to manage. However, police officers inevitably exercise discretion, for several reasons:

1. a police officer who attempted to enforce all the laws all of the time would be in the station house and in court all of the time and thus would be of little use when prob- lems arose in the community;

2. legislatures pass some laws that they clearly do not intend to have strictly enforced all of the time;

3. legislatures pass some laws that are vague, making it necessary for the police to inter- pret them and decide when to apply them;

4. most law violations are minor in nature (speeding one mile per hour over the limit, parking 13 inches from the curb) and do not require full enforcement;

5. full enforcement of all the laws all of the time would alienate the public and under- mine support for the police and the legal system;

6. full enforcement of all laws all of the time would overwhelm the courts and the cor- rectional system;

7. the police have many duties to perform with limited resources; good judgment must therefore be used in the establishment of enforcement priorities.

Of course, it is also true that police officers are human beings, with their own likes and dislikes, values, priorities, and susceptibilities. Thus, police officers may let law viola- tors go free out of sympathy, because they like them, because they hope to get something in return, or because they think a particular law is unimportant or ridiculous.12

Enforcement of the law is best understood as one means employed in police work, rather than as an end in itself.13 Ideally, the ends pursued by police work are its principal goals: the protection of life and property and the maintenance of order. When police officers confront problem situations in which these proper ends are in jeopardy, one means they might choose to employ as a remedy is law enforcement. In most instances, they will have other options as well, especially if they are skillful and resourceful police officers. They might, for example, use conflict resolution techniques or issue a warning. In some situations, they will choose to enforce the law by issuing a citation or making an arrest because that seems the best way to protect life and property and to maintain order. The law should not always be enforced simply because it is the law. Police officers have other choices, other solutions to problems that, in many situations, offer more goal attainment than would be achieved by enforcing the law.

The myth of full enforcement and the reality of discretion create ethical dilemmas for

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

32 Basic Considerations

the police. Most police officers promise to uphold the law when they are sworn to duty, and the laws of many states seem to mandate that officers shall arrest whenever they have sufficient evidence. Officers must recognize the legislative intent behind such language in order to avoid feeling that they are shirking their duties when they exercise their dis- cretion not to enforce the law. To assist officers in resolving this problem, police codes of ethics should emphasize service to the public and commitment to the primary goals of protection of life and property and maintenance of order, rather than emphasizing strict enforcement of the law.

Discretion introduces another ethical dilemma into police work. Police officers sometimes confront situations in which it seems that the protection of life and property or the maintenance of order can be achieved only through the use of illegal, immoral, or unethical methods.14 For example, the only way to save a kidnapping victim’s life might be to obtain information about his or her location from a suspect in custody through coercive means, as in the famous movie Dirty Harry. Police officers, sworn both to protect life and to obey rules and laws, are sometimes confronted by “no win” circumstances such as these, in which every option seems to carry ethical costs. We can guide officers in such situations by insisting that they always obey the law, but what if a life is at stake and, thus, the law that the officers are considering “bending” does not seem quite as serious?

There are no ready solutions to the ethical problems inherent in police work. It is important, however, that the existence of such problems be recognized by police officers and by the public. These ethical dilemmas illustrate the demanding nature of police work and the need for wisdom in police officers.

Crime Control, Order Maintenance, or Social Service?

When scholarly research on the police began in the 1950s, and when it came of age in the 1960s, the popular image of police work emphasized crime fighting and law enforcement. Because social science often amounts to exploring and debunking popular conceptions and misconceptions, it is not surprising that much of the early research focused on the extent to which police work actually did not involve crime fighting and law enforcement. Perhaps it could have been predicted that these results would challenge the popular image of policing.

The cumulative effect of several pioneering studies conducted between 1964 and 1971 was to change the scholarly view of police work.15 In textbooks, college courses, and police training programs, it became common to find police work described as pri- marily order maintenance, providing services, and/or social work. Although these studies performed a valuable function by challenging the crime-fighting image of police work, it was perhaps inevitable that their conclusions would be carried too far. By the late 1970s,

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

2 The Nature of Police Work 33

it had become common to find police chiefs and scholars downplaying and de-empha- sizing the crime-related and law enforcement aspects of police work. At least one of the pioneering researchers, James Q. Wilson, noted this disquieting development, confessing that he would “prefer the police to act and talk as if they were able to control crime”16 (emphasis in original).

In retrospect, these early studies had a number of serious shortcomings that seriously undermined their findings and contributed to their misinterpretation.17 In addition, it is important to recognize that much of police work takes shape in the eye of the beholder. A domestic argument between husband and wife, for example, might best seem to fit in the order maintenance category. However, if the responding officers are trained in crisis intervention or if they refer the couple for counseling, they arguably have provided a social service. On the other hand, if a husband is found to have assaulted his wife, it is a crime-related matter. If the police make an arrest or even just assist the wife in swearing out a warrant, the matter becomes a law enforcement issue. In these early studies, the category to which this incident would have been assigned varied greatly from researcher to researcher, making it difficult and tenuous to draw any solid conclusions from the research taken in its totality.

The most valid study of patrol work was the Police Services Study.18 This study examined patrol work in 60 different neighborhoods, with observers accompanying patrol officers on all shifts in 24 police departments. The observers collected information on each encounter between a police officer and a citizen, detailing nearly 6,000 encoun- ters in all. The fact that this study included so many different police departments, and police- initiated as well as citizen-initiated activity, makes it very persuasive. It found that 38  percent of police–citizen encounters dealt primarily with crime-related problems. Most of these were nonviolent crimes or incidents involving suspicious circumstances. The next most common kinds of encounters were disorder problems and traffic-related matters, each accounting for 22 percent of the total. Finally, 18 percent of the police– citizen encounters were primarily of a service nature.

Similar results were found in two later studies. In Minneapolis, 32 percent of calls handled by police were classified as conflict management, 30 percent as crime, and 19 percent as traffic.19 In Wilmington, Delaware, 26 percent of total patrol time was devoted to criminal matters, while 50 percent of patrol officers’ time spent on the com- bination of call handling and public contact was crime-related.20

Taking all of these studies into consideration, we think a middle-of-the-road posi- tion is advisable. It is obvious that police work is not so completely dominated by crime fighting as its public image and media misrepresentations would suggest. However, it is equally clear that crime-related matters occupy a significant portion of the police workload. The available research conclusively demonstrates that those who have argued that police work has little or nothing to do with crime know little or nothing about police work.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

34 Basic Considerations

The Core of the Police Role

Thus far in this chapter we have reviewed the evolution of police work, the discovery of police discretion, and the controversy over the crime-relatedness of modern police work. Some of the more important points made have been these:

1. Police work initially had much more to do with maintaining order than with crime investigation.

2. Police work became more involved with crime fighting, and today, crime-related matters make up a substantial part of police work.

3. Police officers have considerable discretion in performing their crime fighting, law enforcement, and order maintenance duties.

4. Law enforcement is best understood as one means employed by police officers to solve problems, rather than as an end in itself.

Although law enforcement is but one method used by the police to respond to the variety of problems that are encountered in police work, it is the method that we most tend to associate with the police. While we realize that the police let many lawbreakers go and that much of police work involves disputes that the police solve informally, we also know that enforcing the law is, and always will be, a useful and vitally important police tool.

Criminologists Clifford Shearing and Jeffrey Leon have discussed the centrality of law enforcement in the role or function of the police. They refer to the police “license and capability,” or, in other words, the authority and power vested in the police. They argue persuasively that:

any suggestion, on the basis of the fact that policemen seldom actually enforce the law or use physical force, that the police in reality serve a “social service” rather than a “law enforcement” function is clearly unfounded. Equally unfounded is any attempt to classify police activity into two classes, “social service” or “law enforcement.”

Because the symbolic backdrop of the police license and capability is always present whenever a police officer responds to a problem, he is always responding as a police officer and not as a social worker, whether amateur or professional. Indeed, the continual pres- ence of the police license and capability militates against his ever being able to play the role of a social worker, as everyone (including the police officer) will know that ultimately he has access to the means uniquely accessible to police officers.21

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

2 The Nature of Police Work 35

The argument presented here is an important one for our discussion of the nature of police work. When reviewing the findings of studies of police tasks, citizen calls for police service, and police–citizen encounters, we run the risk of not seeing the forest for the trees. We need to look at the bigger picture, the function that police perform in the social and political system. One approach to this is to ask what functions of the police are unique—functions that are not performed by other public agents.

According to Shearing and Leon, one of these functions is law enforcement. Egon Bittner has gone further and argued that the use of force is at the core of the police role. He notes that many kinds of public agents enforce laws, but it is the police we call when “something-ought-not-to-be-happening-and-about-which-something-ought-to-be-done- NOW!”22 In doing something about such conditions, it is the police who can ultimately force compliance (see “Police Work and the Meaning of Justice,” Box 2.2). They have the legal authority, the tools, the training, and the skills to coerce us into behaving differently. Stated more eloquently by Bittner, “the role of the police is best understood as a mecha- nism for the distribution of non-negotiably coercive force employed in accordance with the dictates of an intuitive grasp of situational exigencies.”23

It is very important to understand that Bittner’s argument does not imply that the police frequently use force against the public. The point is that the police “license and capability” to use force is always lurking in the background. In any particular situation,

BOX 2.2 Police Work and the Meaning of Justice

It may appear preposterous to assert that patrolmen have the power to determine the course of

justice; patrolmen obviously do not make the laws, nor do they set policy within a police depart-

ment. Indeed, the contemporary view holds that much of what patrolmen do is not connected with

law enforcement and justice at all; rather, they are all-around social workers who keep the peace

and provide services. Patrolmen direct traffic, manage domestic disputes, administer stern warn-

ings to wayward juveniles, find lost children, talk suicidal people down from rooftops and perform

a variety of incidental administrative chores. Such a view obscures their coercive role and the polit-

ical consequences of their decisions. Patrolmen make most of the arrests for major felonies, all

decisions to stop and interrogate, and decisions not to enforce the law or take action, particularly

in the context of assaults. If and when the police deny legal protection to individuals, abridge due

process, or employ distinctions of race and class, it is patrolmen who do so. In short, patrolmen

are profoundly involved with the most significant questions facing any political order: those per-

taining to justice, order, and equity. They necessarily trade in the recurring moral antinomies that

accompany political choice, and through the exercise of discretion patrolmen define and redefine

the meaning of justice.

Source: Michael K. Brown. 1981. Working the Street: Police Discretion and the Dilemmas of Reform.

New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation, pp. 6–7.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

36 Basic Considerations

the police may attempt to deescalate, counsel, refer, persuade, cajole, convince, or con citizens into changing their behavior, and in this respect they may seem to act as social workers. However, citizens reacting to the police know that, in the final analysis, the police can force them to cease and desist, if necessary by arrest; that is, police can use that ultimate power as leverage in gaining compliance (see “The Coercive Nature of Policing,” Box 2.3).

Bittner’s description of the role of the police contains some other important ingre- dients. “Non-negotiably coercive force” indicates that the police officer, not the citizen, decides whether to use force, and how much force to use. Bittner’s choice of the term “intuitive grasp” suggests that the police officer draws on common sense, judgment, and other personal resources when analyzing and acting on a situation, rather than on rules, training, or supervision. The officer considers primarily “situational exigencies,” that is, the nature of the specific situation at hand. The officer does not rely on a predetermined plan of action, because no such plan could possibly cover the variety and complexity of situations that might arise. Instead, the officer sizes up the situation and has discretion in deciding how to handle it.

To the ordinary citizen, common sense suggests that the function of the police may be defined very simply by reference to law enforcement and the use of force. As we have shown, maintaining order, providing social services, and responding to crime-related problems all account for a sizable share of police activity. Yet when we ask what sets the police apart from other government workers, it is their “license and capability”— their authority to enforce the law and their power to use force. As Shearing and Leon concluded, “the common sense view of the police as law enforcers and crime-fighters

BOX 2.3 The Coercive Nature of Policing

No one else besides police in our society has the authority to place their hands on us, restrain, or

arrest us, without our permission. That makes police unique in our society. There are few people

who can legally touch us without our consent and force us to comply with their orders. Police can.

They can stop us, ask us questions, put their hands on us, search us, arrest us, and put us in jail.

The force they use doesn’t have to be physical (though the threat of physical force is always there);

police can ask questions of us that no one else has the right to ask. And if we refuse to answer

them we could be arrested, handcuffed, put in the back seat of a patrol car, and taken to jail,

where we are strip-searched, photographed, fingerprinted, and placed in a cell until we can bail

out. If we can’t bail out because we don’t have the money, we will stay in jail overnight until we

appear before a judge in the morning.

Source: David C. Couper. 2011. Arrested Development: A Veteran Police Chief Sounds Off about

Protest, Racism, Corruption, and the Seven Steps Necessary to Improve Our Nation’s Police.

Indianapolis, IN: Dog Ear Publishing, p. 18.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

2 The Nature of Police Work 37

contains an important element of truth that has recently been obscured as a result of the  interpretations that have been made of the findings of studies analyzing police activity.”24

The Skill of Policing

Although the use of force is at the core of the police role, the police do not use force frequently. Similarly, although the police authority to enforce the law is an important factor in most situations that the police handle, the police have considerable discretion in deciding whether to invoke the law and, more often than not, they find other means for resolving problems.

The Police Services Study that was mentioned earlier in connection with the nature of police–citizen encounters also examined the specific actions that police officers took in those encounters.25 Remember that this study included almost 6,000 police–citizen encounters from 60 different neighborhoods. The figures below indicate the proportion of all encounters in which police officers took each kind of action. (The figures add up to more than 100 percent because officers often took more than one type of action in an encounter.)

57% Interviewed a witness or person requesting service

40% Interrogated a suspect

29% Conducted a search or inspection

28% Lectured or threatened (other than threat of force)

27% Gave information

MODERN POLICING BLOG The decline of real policing in Baltimore April 29, 2015

In this interview, David Simon (former crime reporter and creator of The Wire) reflects on the recent events in Baltimore, describing a police department that lost its way over the last 15 years under an ambitious mayor whose crime-reduction pressures led to mass arrests and manipulation of crime statistics.

Source: The above is a reproduction of a post from the Modern Policing blog. The link to the post is https://gcordner. wordpress.com/2015/04/29/the-decline-of-real-policing-in-baltimore/. The hyperlink at “this interview” links to https://www. themarshallproject.org/2015/04/29/david-simon-on-baltimore-s-anguish.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

38 Basic Considerations

23% Gave reassurance

14% Used force or threat of force

11% Gave assistance

9% Gave a ticket

8% Used persuasion

5% Made an arrest

2% Gave medical help

The police invoked the law relatively rarely, making arrests in only five percent of the encounters and issuing tickets in less than one of ten encounters. Officers used force or the threat of force in 14 percent of the encounters—and most of this involved threaten- ing to use force, not actually using it. An even bigger and more recent national study found that police used force in less than 2 percent of 40 million police–public contacts in 2008, with pushing and grabbing the most common forceful actions taken.26

Perhaps the most interesting characteristic of police work revealed by the Police Services Study is the importance of communication skills. Five of the six most common actions taken by officers consisted entirely of talking and listening. These five were inter- viewing, interrogating, lecturing or threatening, giving information, and giving reassur- ance. It is primarily by communicating that police officers determine what is going on in any given situation, and it is primarily through communicating that an amicable solution is reached. Enforcing the law and using force often come into play only after communi- cation tactics and informal solutions prove unsuccessful, although, of course, serious law violations sometimes require immediate enforcement and very dangerous suspects may warrant immediate use of force.

This brings us to what we think is a tremendously important synopsis of the police role in our society:

1. the core of the police role involves law enforcement and the use of coercive force;

2. the primary skill of policing involves effectively handling problem situations while avoiding the use of force;

3. skillful police officers avoid the use of force primarily through effective, creative communication.27

We give our police officers considerable authority in enforcing the law and using force. The nature of police work demands that officers be given discretion in exercising this authority. Good police officers understand that enforcing the law and using force are

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

2 The Nature of Police Work 39

means to an end, methods that may be used under some circumstances for solving prob- lems. Generally, they will search for other solutions first, mostly involving good commu- nication: talking and listening. These officers are neither afraid nor reluctant to do their duty, they simply know a means from an end and understand their role. As Carl Klockars put it, “using coercive force is never a good thing for professional police officers, but when they have used all their skills to avoid its use and something must be done, it is necessary.”28

While on Routine Patrol

An ironic feature of police work is that officers often seem to be doing nothing. Traditionally, officers patrolled (on foot and later in cars) for the purpose of preventing crime and disorder; the line between conscientious patrolling and just driving around (or just walking around) can be a fine one. After the introduction of two-way radios, patrolling often came to be regarded as downtime—that is, time that officers spent wait- ing to be dispatched to crimes and calls for service. Research indicated that officers varied greatly in their individual styles of patrol and that patrolling activity varied significantly by time of day.29 Early studies suggested that 60 to 70 percent of patrol officer time was available for patrolling; that is, not taken up with handling calls or other essential func- tions.30 More recently, patrolling time has reportedly been reduced in most departments by a combination of three or four factors: (1) increased calls for service over time, causing officers to become busier; (2) reduced staffing levels, due to budget cuts; (3) increased directed activities assigned to patrol officers by police managers; and (4) increased time committed to community policing activities.

Just how much the nature of patrolling has changed is debatable, however. A study in Indianapolis and St Petersburg in 1996–1997 found that regular patrol officers spent only about 25 percent of their time handling calls and encounters.31 A later study in Baltimore similarly found that patrol officers spent about 25 percent of their time on dispatched calls and/or backing up other officers on calls.32 Significantly, this study also found that a system was in place in Baltimore through which supervisors could assign additional directed activities to patrol officers, but that such activities accounted for a negligible por- tion of patrol officer time. It seems that today, as in the past, despite measurable increases in calls for service plus substantial changes in police strategy and management, routine patrol still accounts for a sizable part of police work.

Management Implications

Now that we have discussed some important aspects of the nature of police work, what does it all mean for police administration? While the rest of this book takes up that

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

40 Basic Considerations

question in some detail, we should consider a few important additional issues before we attempt to answer that question.

Perhaps more than anything else, the matter of police discretion complicates police administration. If police officers “merely” applied rules and laws in clear-cut situations, then police management would “merely” involve teaching those rules and laws and periodically checking to make sure that they were being applied correctly. Instead, police officers decide what action to take, based on what Bittner calls “an intuitive grasp of situational exigencies”; they use common sense and judgment to size up each problem situation and then choose a solution to the problem. Although they have rules and laws to draw upon, they are frequently expected to apply the rules and laws only as a last resort.

Adding to problems created by discretion, the situations that police are thrust into are often tense and dangerous. Decisions often have to be made quickly, with supervisors rarely present to give advice. Moreover, peoples’ families and reputations, and sometimes their freedom and their very lives are at stake; in other words, it really matters whether the officer makes a wise, intelligent, and compassionate decision.

The importance of the decisions that police officers make necessitates the establishment and enforcement of policies and procedures. There must be strict guidelines governing critical operational issues, such as, for example, the use of force (especially deadly force) and high-speed driving. At the same time, those “situational exigencies” referred to by Bittner necessitate that officers have some leeway to use judg- ment (discretion) because each situation is to some extent unique. Part of the skill of the police administrator is in the delicate balancing of these demands for rules versus discretion.33

The need to use discretion, coupled with the seriousness of the decisions that police officers make, has profound implications for police selection and training. Police agencies need to attract and hire the kinds of people who can be entrusted with such awesome responsibilities. Common sense, maturity, good judgment, wisdom, intelligence, com- munication ability, and command of emotions are as important as a strong back and, in many instances, much more important. Police training needs to address not only proce- dural rules and substantive laws, but also when and how to use them, when and how to avoid their use, and when and how to use force when force is appropriate. In addition, it needs to produce officers who can “innovate, solve problems, develop alliances, negoti- ate, and internalize the values of community policing.”34 Training needs to focus less on memorization and much more on “the particularities of police work as it is experienced by serving officers and … analyzing that experience and making it available to future police officers.”35

Even the best classroom training is unlikely to fully prepare a police recruit for the wise exercise of police discretion. Not every kind of situation can be simulated in training, nor can every nuance of police response be duplicated. Further, some of

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

2 The Nature of Police Work 41

the skills that officers might apply, especially creative communication skills, cannot be readily taught in brief classroom training sessions. For these reasons, much of police work has traditionally been learned on the job, usually from a skillful veteran police officer. This is one of the reasons James Q. Wilson refers to police work as a craft rather than a profession.36 Crafts are traditionally learned by way of apprenticeship, whereas professional  preparation primarily involves formal classroom training. Once professionals have mastered their body of knowledge, their work is a fairly straightfor- ward application of that knowledge. Craftsmen, however, always have to adapt their skills to the materials and situations with which they work, with each outcome being somewhat unpredictable and a little bit different from any other (see “Science or Craft?,” Box 2.4).

What organizational structure and management style are appropriate for such an enterprise? If we were to judge by the typical police department, our answer would be a hierarchical, centralized organization with an authoritarian, punishment- oriented management style.37 Some observers doubt, however, that this style of administra- tion is best suited to manage workers (police officers) whose jobs involve making momentous  life-and-death discretionary decisions, in unpredictable situations, without the benefit of supervisory advice,38 or workers who have a substantial amount of free patrolling time to use (or waste) largely at their own initiative. We agree with these observers.

As you read on in the book about principles of administration, management func- tions, styles of leadership, and subsequent topics, review them against the characteristics and peculiarities of police work as we have presented them in this chapter.

BOX 2.4 Science or Craft?

[F]rom the point of view of the patrol officer, policing is more like a craft than a science, in that

officers believe that they have important lessons to learn that are not reducible to principle and

are not being taught through formal education. These lessons concern goals—which ones are rea-

sonable; tactics—which ones ensure achievement of different goals in varying circumstances; and

presence—how to cultivate a career-sustaining personality. “Experience-tested good sense,” as

one officer said, is what police must learn over the years.

What has not been grasped, however, is that even as policing at the present time is more

craft than science, learning can take place, skills can be increased, and levels of expertise can be

discerned. Officers themselves recognize this point when they talk about how they “learned” to

become effective.

Source: David H. Bayley and Egon Bittner. 2001. “Learning the Skills of Policing.” In Roger G.

Dunham and Geoffrey P. Alpert (eds), Critical Issues in Policing: Contemporary Readings, fourth

edition. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland, pp. 96–97.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

42 Basic Considerations

Summary

This chapter has examined the nature of police work on the premise that police administration is different from other forms of administration, because police work is different from other forms of work. The evolution of police work from its early emphasis on peacekeeping to its more recent emphasis on crime fighting was discussed, along with the debate about the extent to which modern police work actually is crime- related. Research clearly indicates that police work involves a substantial amount of both crime-related and order-maintenance activities, as well as numerous traffic- and service-related functions.

The core of the police role revolves around law enforcement and the use of force, yet police officers have great discretion in enforcing the law and only infrequently use force. The skill of policing is in avoiding the use of force while still accomplishing the goals of protecting life and property and maintaining order. The principal means by which police officers get their jobs done without resorting to force involves communication: talking and listening, reasoning, reassuring, lecturing, persuading, convincing, and other- wise getting people to comply with the law and reduce their disorderliness. However, because  communication does not always produce the expected or hoped-for results, when police confront “something-that-ought-not-to-be-happening-and-about-which- something-ought-to-be-done-NOW,” they must be willing and able to use force when and if it is justified and necessary.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. The police have discretion when deciding whether to issue a ticket, whether to “check out” a suspicious person, and whether to arrest. Is this a good thing? Could police discretion be eliminated? Can it be controlled? How?

2. Do you agree with us that the media typically misrepresent the real nature of police work? What are the consequences of this misrepresentation? How does it affect the general public’s perception of the police? Police self-perception?

3. The police do not often use force, and yet the use of force is at the core of their role. How do you explain this apparent contradiction? Could the police role be changed? Should it be changed?

4. Skillful police officers use communication to get cooperation from victims, witnesses, suspects, and other citizens, thus avoiding the use of force except when absolutely necessary. By what methods would you select the best communicators from among applicants for police jobs? How would you teach communication skills to police recruits and develop those skills among current police officers?

5. Various authorities have classified police officers as bureaucrats, as professionals, or as practitioners of a craft. In which category do you think police work belongs? Why?

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

2 The Nature of Police Work 43

Suggested Reading

Bittner, E. 1970. The Functions of the Police in Modern Society. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Klinger, D. 2006. Into the Kill Zone: A Cop’s Eye View of Deadly Force. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Manning, P.K. 2010. Democratic Policing in a Changing World. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers. Moskos, P. 2008. Cop in the Hood: My Year Policing Baltimore’s Eastern District. Princeton: Princeton

University Press. Roberg, R., K. Novak, G. Cordner, and B. Smith. 2015. Police & Society, sixth edition. New York, NY:

Oxford University Press.

Notes

1 B.G. Peters. 1996. The Future of Governing: Four Emerging Models. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.

2 H.G. Frederickson and D.S.T. Matkin. 2007. “Public Leadership as Gardening.” In R.F. Morse, T.F. Buss, and C.M. Kinghorn (eds), Transforming Public Leadership for the 21st Century. New York, NY: Routledge, p. 39.

3 R.F. Lunney. 2012. Parting Shots: My Passion for Policing. Toronto: Robert Lunney Associates, p. 158; C. Perrow. 1986. Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay, third edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; J. Woodward. 1958. Management and Technology. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

4 P.K. Manning. 1997. Police Work: The Social Organization of Policing, second edition. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

5 R.M. Fogelson. 1977. Big-City Police. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 6 P.K. Manning. 1978. “The Police: Mandate, Strategies and Appearances.” In P.K. Manning and J. Van

Maanen (eds), Policing: A View from the Street. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear. 7 J.Q. Wilson. 1978. The Investigators: Managing FBI and Narcotics Agents. New York, NY: Basic

Books. 8 P.K. Manning. 2000. “Community-Based Policing.” In G.P. Alpert and A. Piquero (eds), Community

Policing: Contemporary Readings, second edition. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland, pp. 23–34. 9 W.R. LaFave. 1965. Arrest: The Decision to Take a Suspect into Custody. Boston, MA: Little, Brown. 10 J.Q. Wilson. 1968. Varieties of Police Behavior: The Management of Law and Order in Eight Communities.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 83–89. 11 J. Goldstein. 1960. “Police Discretion Not to Invoke the Criminal Justice Process: Low Visibility

Decisions in the Administration of Justice.” Yale Law Journal 69 (March): 543–594. 12 S.F. Coleman. 1986. Street Cops. Salem, WI: Sheffield. 13 H. Goldstein. 1977. Policing a Free Society. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger; E. Linn. 2008. Arrest Decisions:

What Works for the Officer? New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing. 14 C.B. Klockars. 1980. “The Dirty Harry Problem.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social

Science 452 (November): 33–47. 15 M. Banton. 1964. The Policeman in the Community. New York, NY: Basic Books; J.H. Skolnick. 1966.

Justice without Trial: Law Enforcement in a Democratic Society. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons;

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

44 Basic Considerations

Wilson. 1968. Varieties of Police Behavior; A.J. Reiss Jr. 1971. The Police and the Public. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; T. Bercal. 1970. “Calls for Police Assistance.” American Behavioral Scientist 13: 681–691; J.A. Webster. 1970. “Police Task and Time Study.” Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science 61: 94–100.

16 Wilson. 1978. Varieties of Police Behavior, p. x. 17 G.W. Cordner. 1979. “Police Patrol Work Load Studies: A Review and Critique.” Police Studies 2: 50–60;

J.F. Elliott. 1973. Interception Patrol. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas, p. 6; G.L. Kelling, T. Pate, D. Dieckman, and C.E. Brown. 1974. The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment: A Technical Report. Washington, DC: Police Foundation, p. 500.

18 G.P. Whitaker. 1982. “What is Patrol Work?” Police Studies 4: 13–22. 19 L. Sherman. 1987. Repeat Calls to Police in Minneapolis. Washington, DC: Crime Control Institute. 20 J.R. Greene and C.B. Klockars. 1991. “What Police Do.” In C.B. Klockars and S.D. Mastrofski (eds),

Thinking about Police: Contemporary Readings, second edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, pp. 273–284.

21 C.D. Shearing and J.S. Leon. 1977. “Reconsidering the Police Role: A Challenge to a Challenge of a Popular Conception.” Canadian Journal of Criminology and Corrections 19: 342.

22 E. Bittner. 1974. “Florence Nightingale in Pursuit of Willie Sutton: A Theory of the Police.” In H. Jacob (ed.), The Potential for Reform of Criminal Justice. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, p. 30.

23 E. Bittner. 1970. The Functions of the Police in Modern Society: A Review of Background Factors, Current Practices, and Possible Role Models. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, p. 46.

24 Shearing and Leon. 1977. “Reconsidering the Police Role.” p. 343. 25 Whitaker. 1982. “What is Police Work?” 26 C. Eith and M.R. Durose. 2011. Contacts between Police and the Public, 2008. Washington, DC: Bureau

of Justice Statistics. 27 Bittner. 1970. Functions of the Police; W.K. Muir, Jr. 1977. Police: Streetcorner Politicians. Chicago,

IL: University of Chicago Press; C.B. Klockars. 1985. The Idea of Police. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; Coleman. 1986. Street Cops.

28 C.B. Klockars. 1983. “Policing Everyday Life.” In C.B. Klockars (ed.), Thinking about Police: Contemporary Readings. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, p. 231.

29 G.W. Cordner. 1982. “While on Routine Patrol …: What the Police Do When They’re Not Doing Anything.” American Journal of Police 1, no. 2: 94–112.

30 Cordner. 1982. “While on Routine Patrol”; Kelling et al. 1974. The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment.

31 R.B. Parks, S.D. Mastrofski, C. DeJong, and M.K. Gray. 1999. “How Officers Spend Their Time with the Community.” Justice Quarterly 16, no. 3: 497.

32 C.N. Famega, J. Frank, and L. Mazerolle. 2005. “Managing Police Patrol Time: The Role of Supervisor Directives.” Justice Quarterly 22, no. 4: 549.

33 G.W. Cordner. 1989. “Written Rules and Regulations: Are They Necessary?” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin (July): 17–21; G.P. Alpert and W.C. Smith. 1996. “Developing Police Policy: An Evaluation of the Control Principle.” In G.W. Cordner and D.J. Kenney (eds), Managing Police Organizations. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Co., pp. 111–126.

34 F. Himelfarb. 1997. “RCMP Learning and Renewal: Building on Strengths.” In Q.C. Thurman and E.F. McGarrell (eds), Community Policing in a Rural Setting. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Co., p. 34.

35 D.H. Bayley and E. Bittner. 2001. “Learning the Skills of Policing.” In R.G. Dunham and G.P. Alpert (eds), Critical Issues in Policing: Contemporary Readings, fourth edition. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland, p. 83.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

2 The Nature of Police Work 45

36 J.Q. Wilson. 1968. “Dilemmas of Police Administration.” Public Administration Review 28: 407–417.

37 G.B. Sandler and E. Mintz. 1974. “Police Organizations: Their Changing Internal and External Relationships.” Journal of Police Science and Administration 2: 458; M.K. Brown, Working the Street: Police Discretion and the Dilemmas of Reform. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

38 R.A. Myren. 1960. “A Crisis in Police Management.” Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science 50: 600–604; Bittner. 1970. Functions of the Police; T.J. Cowper. 2000. “The Myth of the ‘Military Model’ of Leadership in Law Enforcement.” Police Quarterly 3, 3: 228–246; M.E. Buerger. 2000. “Reenvisioning Police, Reinvigorating Policing: A Response to Thomas Cowper.” Police Quarterly 3, 4: 451–464. F

O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

CHAPTER 3 Police Goals and Systems

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

• Identify three primary police goals. • Identify eight primary police objectives. • Explain the importance of efficiency, legality, equity, and accountability in guiding police actions

and decisions. • Identify the three primary characteristics of systems. • Define feedback, explain its role in differentiating between open-loop and closed-loop systems,

and explain the difference between open and closed systems.

One of the fundamental themes in this book is the systems approach to police administration. Basically, this approach emphasizes the interrelatedness that characterizes modern society and the necessity of viewing people, organizations, and processes as parts of larger systems. The systems approach, with its stress on interrelatedness, helps us to keep these external influencing factors in mind. And, as the forces of change, complexity, and interdependence in our society continue to grow stronger, the need for the systems approach to organizing and managing increases.

Any system, especially an organizational system, is created and maintained for a reason—to accomplish some kind of purpose. This chapter begins by discussing the purposes of police organizations—their missions, goals, and objectives—and then explains why we believe the systems approach to police administration is an extremely useful perspective from which to manage a police department. We hope this discus- sion will give you a useful framework for reading and thinking about the rest of the book, which deals with the behavior, processes, and organization involved in police administration.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

3 Police Goals and Systems 47

The Purposes of the Police

Organizations, including police departments, by their nature exist for a purpose. Schools have as their purpose the education of students; hospitals, the treatment of the sick and injured. The purpose of a private company in our capitalistic economic system is to make money for its owners. In a socialistic system, the same company’s purpose might be to provide employment or some kind of product or service that benefits the collective good.

In actuality, of course, most organizations have multiple purposes. The most general statement of an organization’s purpose is often called its mission. Slightly more specific purposes are termed goals; even more precise purposes are labeled objectives. These purposes should serve to guide the development of strategies, tactics, programs, tasks, policies, procedures, and rules, all of which in turn guide the behavior of members of the organization, as shown in Figure 3.1.

When this process works from left to right, as indicated by the arrows in Figure 3.1, management is following a rational and proactive path. If, on the other hand, the process works from right to left, management tends to be crisis-oriented and reactive. It is cru- cially important for any organization’s executives to continuously focus attention on the purposes of the enterprise and to design strategies and tasks that will accomplish those purposes—this is what is meant by the phrase “keep your eyes on the prize.” However, organizational strategies and tasks are often undertaken out of tradition or because they offer the path of least resistance. This tendency is common and must be resisted.

Another frequent source of misdirection arises because of the difference between official and unofficial (or explicit and implicit) purposes. For example, while the avowed purposes of a university might be the education of students and the production of new knowledge, the actual purpose might seem to be the accumulation of the maximum number of federal grants and contracts. Similarly, a hospital might officially exist for the purpose of treating the sick and injured but, in fact, it might serve primarily to provide interesting and profitable work for surgeons and other medical specialists.

Mission Goals Objectives

Strategies Tactics Programs Tasks Policies Procedures Rules

Behavior

Figure 3.1

The Relationship between Overall Mission and Specific Organizational Behavior

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

48 Basic Considerations

We point out this distinction between official and unofficial purposes as a kind of disclaimer. On the pages that follow, we present and discuss the mission, goals, and objectives of policing—these are the official purposes of the police, what police depart- ments and police officers are supposed to be trying to achieve. Needless to say, many police agencies and officers are also guided by unofficial purposes. Such unofficial purposes can be as mundane as simply avoiding hard work, or as deviant and dangerous as making life miserable for minorities, creating dossiers on political activists, meting out “street justice,” or collecting graft and corruption.1 Unofficial purposes are as inevitable in police depart- ments as in any other kind of organization. It is the police executive’s responsibility to ensure that official purposes remain supreme and that unofficial purposes do not distract the organization from pursuing its mission and goals (see “Values in Policing,” Box 3.1). This is a very important responsibility precisely because the official purposes of the police are so very important—the police are supposed to protect individuals and society from harm and help achieve “justice for all.”

The Police Mission The most general statement of the purpose of a police organization is usually its mis-

sion.2 The mission statement typically expresses the most important values that guide the department and the overall philosophy of the agency. The role of the mission statement is to “focus on the purpose of the organization, to call attention to what is important, and to set organizational goals to align practices with values.”3

Some police departments rely on very succinct mission statements such as “To Serve and Protect,” while others prefer lengthier and more elaborate statements. Most agencies do attempt to keep their mission statements reasonably brief so that officers can remember and be guided by them. There is no reason to expect or demand that all

BOX 3.1 Values in Policing

All organizations have values. One can see these values expressed through the actions of the

organization—the things that are taken seriously and the things that are rejected as irrelevant,

inappropriate, or dangerous. Jokes, solemn understandings, and internal explanations for actions

also express values.

Police departments are powerfully influenced by their values. The problem is that police depart-

ments, like many organizations, are guided by implicit values that are often at odds with explicit

values. This breeds confusion, distrust, and cynicism rather than clarity, commitment, and high

morale.

Source: Robert Wasserman and Mark H. Moore. 1988. “Values in Policing.” Perspectives on

Policing No. 8. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, p. 1.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

3 Police Goals and Systems 49

police agencies adopt the same formal mission statement, however: the core essence of policing may be constant throughout the country, but each community has different needs and each department has different capabilities.4 Three sample mission statements are presented below:

Portland, Oregon – The mission of the Portland Police Bureau is to reduce crime and the fear of crime by working with all citizens to preserve life, maintain human rights, protect property and promote individual responsibility and community commitment.5

Houston, Texas – The mission of the Houston Police Department is to enhance the quality of life in the City of Houston by working cooperatively with the public and within the framework of the U.S. Constitution to enforce the laws, preserve the peace, reduce fear and provide for a safe environment.6

Madison, Wisconsin – We, the members of the Madison Police Department, are com- mitted to providing high quality police services that are accessible to all members of the community. We believe in the dignity of all people and respect individual and constitutional rights in fulfilling this mission.7

These mission statements are not presented as ideal types, although they have much to recommend them. Rather, they are meant to illustrate the kinds of statements that police departments are adopting today to express their missions. For the benefit of both police employees and citizens, each police agency should carefully prepare its own mission statement that describes its unique role.

Police Goals and Objectives An organization’s goals and objectives, though more specific, should be consistent

with its mission and contribute to the accomplishment of its overall purpose. The number and variety of goals and objectives that a police department could adopt are almost limitless. The Portland Police Bureau, for example, identifies two community goals, two organizational goals, and five human goals under the umbrella of its mission statement.8 In this chapter, we simply want to highlight three primary goals and eight primary objec- tives that are universally applicable to all police departments.

The three primary goals of any police department are:

1. to protect life;

2. to protect property;

3. to maintain order.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

50 Basic Considerations

Protecting life, protecting property, and maintaining order are primary police goals, with protecting life clearly the single most important goal even among these three. A police department exists to guarantee to citizens that order will be maintained in society and that their lives and property will be protected by law. Unable and unprepared to take the law into their own hands, citizens look to the police for assistance in guarding themselves against unscrupulous elements that would disrupt and disturb their peace, violate their freedoms, threaten their existence, and steal or destroy their property. All citizens have the right to expect that their lives and property will be protected and that the community in which they live will be peaceful.

The right to peace and protection is a responsibility of government. The police department is the primary branch of government to which this responsibility is assigned. Therefore, it naturally follows that the maintenance of order and the protec- tion of life and property are primary goals of any police department. This means that police  departments must direct their energies and activities toward the accomplishment of these primary goals. To do less than this would be to neglect government’s responsi- bility to the citizens and the taxpayers of the community. See “Goals and Objectives,” Box 3.2.

In addition, there are eight primary objectives toward which police activities are directed in order to meet primary obligations:

1. to prevent and control conduct widely recognized as threatening to life and property;

2. to aid individuals who are in danger of physical harm;

3. to protect constitutional guarantees;

4. to facilitate the movement of people and vehicles;

5. to assist those who cannot care for themselves;

6. to resolve conflict;

BOX 3.2 Goals and Objectives

Standard 15.2.1 A written directive requires the formulation and annual updating of written goals

and objectives for the agency and for each major organizational component within the agency.

Established goals and objectives are made available to all agency personnel.

Source: Standards for Law Enforcement Agencies: The Standards Manual for the CALEA Law

Enforcement Accreditation Program, fifth edition, as amended. 2015. Gainesville, VA: Commission

on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

3 Police Goals and Systems 51

7. to identify problems that have the potential to become more serious;

8. to create and maintain a feeling of security in the community.9

Preventing and Controlling Threatening Conduct

A key objective of the police is to prevent and control serious crime and other forms of behavior that threaten life and property. One fundamental element of this objective is that it is not limited to crime. Thus, police attention to issues such as dangerous driving practices (e.g., dump trucks using a residential street) or handgun safety is justified and, in fact, recommended, because such matters involve threats to life and property, even if they are not in and of themselves serious crimes. Efforts to prevent crime and other forms of threatening behavior are just as important, and perhaps more important, than efforts at control after the fact. As necessary and satisfying as arrests and convictions are, citizens and the community as a whole benefit more when crimes are prevented.

Aiding Individuals in Danger of Harm

A second primary objective of the police is to aid people who have been crime victims or who are in danger of physical harm.10 In the past, police sometimes largely ignored the needs of crime victims, instead focusing solely on investigating crimes and apprehending offenders. But protecting lives and property includes helping people put their lives back together after being victimized. Moreover, protecting life requires that police proactively aid those in danger of harm, such as people who have been threatened, children suscep- tible to neglect or abuse, and people who have been victims of spousal assault or who fear for their safety. This objective reminds police that it is not satisfactory to wait until

MODERN POLICING BLOG Homeless Outreach in Houston November 25, 2014

Nice 26-minute video here that explains how Houston’s Homeless Outreach Team operates. The HOT team has been in place for several years now with numerous individual success stories as well as documented effectiveness in diverting individuals with substance abuse and mental health problems away from arrest and expensive hospitalization.

Source: The above is a reproduction of a post from the Modern Policing blog. The link to the post is https://gcordner. wordpress.com/2014/11/25/homeless-outreach-in-houston/. The hyperlink at “here” links to http://texasleftist.com/2014/11/ hpd-film-hightlights-new-methods-to-aid-houston-homeless/.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

52 Basic Considerations

a serious crime has been committed; protecting people means keeping them from harm, not just mopping up after the fact.

Protecting Constitutional Guarantees

The United States Constitution and the state constitutions spell out the basic frameworks of government and the inalienable rights of all Americans. One of the main objectives of the police is to protect the functioning of government and to safeguard individual liberties. Thus, police often provide protection for governmental leaders, security for legislative and judicial deliberations, and supervision of elections. It is equally important that police exercise self-control so that the use of police power does not violate the rights of citizens, and they must protect citizens who are legally exercising their constitutional rights, such as freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. Citizens exercising these  rights are frequently controversial, unpopular, and even hated. When popular opinion runs against such people, no one but the police can be counted upon to protect them and their liberties—a responsibility that underscores the importance of this primary police objective.

Facilitating the Movement of People and Vehicles

Although the freedom of movement is not to be found anywhere in the Bill of Rights, Americans certainly cherish their right to come and go as they please, without delay. As a primary police objective, this requires that police pay attention to pedestrian and vehicular traffic, not just from the standpoint of safety but also from the perspective of free and orderly movement. When the objective is met, citizens are able to go about their daily travels safely and smoothly. Thus, police must attend to various obstructions of sidewalks and roads, as well as traffic jams caused by excessive numbers of vehicles. In addition, police should involve themselves in zoning matters, development decisions, construction permits, site design, and traffic engineering so that land-use patterns and street layout are influenced by the objective of facilitating the safe movement of people and vehicles.

Assisting Those Who Cannot Care for Themselves

Because of the goals of protecting life and property and maintaining order, and because the police are open for business 24 hours a day in all kinds of weather, it is inevitable that the police are called upon to look after people who cannot or will not properly care for themselves. This includes young children, elderly citizens, the men- tally ill, the homeless, and people who are intoxicated or under the influence of drugs. Police assistance to these people can only go so far, of course—police cannot raise other

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

3 Police Goals and Systems 53

people’s children, cure the mentally ill, or build houses for all the homeless people in this country. However, police can and often do provide or arrange for temporary shelter and transportation for those in need. They also make referrals and provide informa- tion so that people can take advantage of programs and services available to them. During times when the economy is struggling, when social programs are underfunded, and when many citizens turn a cold shoulder to those less fortunate, police assistance is often the only option for those who cannot properly care for themselves. Thus, this objective becomes simply a humanitarian one, consistent with the police goal of pro- tecting life.

Resolving Conflict

Another primary objective of the police is to resolve various kinds of conflicts. These include conflicts between individuals, such as domestic disputes, disputes between neighbors, and landlord–tenant arguments, as well as more generalized conflicts, such as those between rival gangs, neighborhoods, and racial groups. Resolution of such conflicts helps police attain their primary goal of maintaining order and may also contribute to the protection of life and property, because conflicts sometimes escalate into crime and violence. Police attempt to resolve conflicts primarily through mediation and negotia- tion;11 enforcement of criminal laws is often an option, but unless a serious crime has been committed, arrest and trial rarely address the underlying conflict. Although some conflicts have such deep-rooted causes that police are unlikely to be able to resolve them, others are more superficial and amenable to negotiation. When police adopt the role of neutral arbiter and devote some time to conflict resolution, they often attain this impor- tant objective and prevent more serious harm from occurring.

Identifying Potentially Serious Problems

This objective also emphasizes the preventive role of policing. Police should always be on the lookout for problems and conditions that have the potential to become more seri- ous and thus to jeopardize lives, property, and order. The range of such situations is very broad: trees and shrubs that obscure traffic signs or the visibility of drivers, short-duration walk lights that catch elderly pedestrians in the middle of the street, volunteer firefight- ers who drive too fast to the fire station when the siren goes off, real estate agents who are too casual in lending out keys to rental properties, day-care providers who fail to conduct careful background checks on their employees, and so on. Whenever police identify such potentially serious problems and conditions, they have the responsibility to monitor them, correct them if possible, or refer them to the officials who can correct them. Sometimes police may even find it necessary to publicize such problems in order to garner public support to resolve them.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

54 Basic Considerations

Creating and Maintaining a Feeling of Security

In addition to various objectives related to protecting life and property and main- taining order, the police also have the objective of making people feel safe. Why is this important? Many studies have shown that because of their fear of crime, people often stay home, avoid downtown areas, and greatly restrict their children’s activities. Their quality of life is substantially affected because they do not feel safe.12 Up to a point, these feelings may be based on real danger, in which case such precautions are wise and rational. Often, however, these fears far exceed the real danger—when they do, people suffer unnecessar- ily, as do their communities. Thus, in addition to efforts to prevent and control crime and other threatening behavior, aid individuals in danger of harm, and identify potentially serious problems, police should take steps to create and maintain a well-informed sense of safety and security in the community. Creating such a feeling of security can reap further dividends if residents thereby increase their use of, and surveillance over, the community’s sidewalks, streets, parks, and other common areas.

Important Values Police work and police administration should be guided by the primary goals and

objectives described above, as well as by a statement of the overall mission of the police department. The activities of police officers and police administrators should contribute either directly or indirectly to the attainment of the organization’s mission, goals, and objectives. Whenever it is found that resources are being expended or efforts are being undertaken that are not connected to the department’s mission, goals, and objectives, hard questions should be asked, because those resources and efforts may not be contrib- uting to the true effectiveness of the agency.

Many of the most important values that should guide policing are explicitly or implic- itly expressed in the police organization’s mission, goals, and objectives. Nevertheless, many police departments today also identify important values that they want to serve as guides for the actions taken by police officers in the performance of their duties.13 For example, the Portland Police Bureau highlights Integrity, Compassion, Accountability, Respect, Excellence, and Service.14 The Madison Police Department refers to the core values of Human Dignity, Service, Community Partnership, Integrity, Proficiency & Continuous Improvement, Diversity, and Leadership.15

Four values that we think deserve special emphasis at this point, because they were not directly discussed above in conjunction with mission, goals, and objectives, are effi- ciency, legality, equity, and accountability.

It goes without saying that police departments should strive to be effective—they should vigorously attempt to attain their primary goals and objectives. However, they must also use their resources wisely, getting the biggest possible bang for their buck—in

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

3 Police Goals and Systems 55

other words, they should strive for efficiency too. As taxpayers, we are all interested in seeing that government spends our money carefully and without waste. We want our lives and property protected and our order maintained as economically as possible. This does not mean that police administrators must be shortsighted in their financial planning or that they must operate on a shoestring, but it does require an honest concern for efficiency in the expenditure of public funds.

Police officers and administrators must also exercise great care in ensuring the legality of their actions. This can be difficult, given the incredible maze of criminal and civil law within which the police operate, as well as the frequent pressures from political leaders and the public to ignore the law in order to accomplish an objective more quickly or conveniently. In the long run, however, society and the police are best served when the police carefully operate within the law. Symbolically, as well, it is important that those who enforce the law are seen to abide by it.

It is also quite important that police actions be fair and that police services be distributed in an equitable manner. Equity can be difficult to prove, of course, and to some extent it is subjective. It does not necessarily follow that all people or all neigh- borhoods must be treated equally, for example—that might require officers to treat armed felons and lost children exactly the same, or require police departments to devote the  same amount of attention to high-crime and crime-free neighborhoods. Instead, equity requires that all actions be guided by principles of fairness so that decisions are equitable in light of the circumstances in each case. In addition, equity demands that actions taken in one instance be reasonable in comparison to actions taken in other instances.

Finally, in our constitutional and democratic system of government, the ultimate accountability of the police to the courts, political leaders, and the public must be unchallenged. In the short run, as discussed above with regard to legality, the police may sometimes need to resist improper external pressures. In the end, though, the police must answer for their actions and decisions. After all, the police are merely government officials appointed to carry out certain functions. They are not elected by the people or appointed for life, nor do they have the final authority of the judiciary or the people. The people may entrust the responsibility for policing to appointed officers and administrators and delegate substantial and awesome authority to them but, in a constitutional democracy, final authority for police matters remains with the courts and the people.

This can sometimes be a bitter pill to swallow, especially if judges and citizens seem to lack common sense and basic intelligence with regard to crime problems and police issues. Police officers and administrators would do well, though, to ask themselves whether they would really rather live in a society in which the police were not accountable for their use of power and authority. Such societies exist, and most of their citizens seem mainly interested in escaping to countries with more freedom and more control over their police. Police officials would also do well to take every opportunity to inform and educate the

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

56 Basic Considerations

public about crime and police issues, and then to develop a healthy trust and respect for the public’s long-term reasonableness and good sense.

The Systems Concept

Having identified the most important goals, objectives, and values of policing, we can now say that the business of police administration is figuring out how to design and operate a police organization so that it most effectively protects lives, protects property, maintains order, and achieves the additional and more specific primary objectives of policing, in a manner that is consistent with such important values as efficiency, legality, equity, and accountability. The rest of this text is about how to do this.

First, in this chapter we want to introduce the systems approach, because “the adop- tion of systems principles results in a superior model of policing that eclipses conven- tional management practice in every respect.”16 Systems thinking should permeate every aspect of police administration because a police department is a kind of system, one that is comprised of component parts that interact with and affect each other. Making the component parts and the agency as a whole work most effectively requires an approach that recognizes the organization as a system and focuses on its continuous improvement.

A system is “a network of interdependent components that work together to try to accomplish the aim of the system.”17 All things are systems. The more parts and func- tions they have, the more complicated they are. For example, an automobile engine is a system. Because it has more parts that interact and are interdependent, a jet engine is more complicated than an automobile engine. Almost anything you can think of is a system. The human body, General Motors, American Airlines, the government of South Korea, Indiana University, the Hilton Hotel chain, the National Broadcasting Company, McDonalds restaurants, the Knights of Columbus, the Kentucky Derby, the Oshkosh Public Library, the Methodist Church, and the New York City Police Department are all systems. There are records systems, thoroughbred handicapping systems, health-care systems, and global economic systems.

Because systems imply interaction or interdependence between or among two or more objects or functions, all systems have subsystems. The United States is a system made up of 50 subsystems (i.e., states). Each of the 50 subsystems is also an individual system made of subsystems (counties, cities, towns, and villages), which also may be viewed as separate systems. Each of these units of government has subsystems: the leg- islative, executive, and judicial branches. The executive branch, when looked upon as a system, has several subsystems (e.g., the public works department, the water department, the sewer department, the recreation department, the school department, the health department, the fire department, and the police department). Each of these subsystems can also be studied as an individual system. The police department, for example, is a

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

3 Police Goals and Systems 57

system made up of bureaus, divisions, units, squads, teams, and shifts. These subsystems interact and are interdependent. They are established to help the department meet its goals and objectives, just as the department is established to meet the goals and objectives of the executive branch of government.

This explanation of the systems concept is an oversimplification, of course. When one considers that the subsystems of a police department are themselves systems made up of both human and inanimate components (people, rules, regulations, policies, desks, chairs, radios, telephones, police cars, chemical sprays, jail cells, weapons, records, com- puters, Breathalyzers, laboratories, booking desks, radar guns, first aid kits, cutting tools, cameras, helicopters, resuscitators, and much more), it becomes clear that police systems are extremely complex and involved. A single change in any one factor of the system will bring about changes in other factors. An action taken by an individual in the system will inevitably result in reactions by other individuals. Systems, therefore, are always chang- ing. It is vital to the stability of any system that any changes within it contribute to its capabilities to meet its goals and objectives.

In any system, such as a police department, in which people are assigned tasks within subsystems of the parent system, it must be recognized that these people, as individuals, are themselves also subsystems of the parent system. This complicates matters, because people must be dealt with not only as workers in subsystems, such as operations bureaus, detective divisions, and drug units, but also as individuals having different backgrounds, ideals, religious beliefs, values, philosophies, viewpoints, tolerances, and educations. Each individual, therefore, must be looked upon as a system. For example, think of yourself as a system. Your nervous system, skeletal system, digestive system, circulatory system, and respiratory system are all subsystems of the total system of you as an individual. You are also part of numerous parent systems: your family, your church, the organization for which you work, the college or university you attend, your government, and your neigh- borhood. Whatever you do affects one or more of your subsystems or parent systems.

Consider the chain reaction of processes that take place in your body when you eat food, have three alcoholic drinks, or run a mile. Consider the impact on your family if you were to be arrested, break your back in an automobile accident, or flunk out of col- lege. What you do as a system has a tremendous impact on one or more of your parent systems and on one or more of your subsystems. But you, as a system, are much more complicated than your stomach, brain, heart, veins, and lungs might suggest. You are a human being with your own goals and objectives. You are also unpredictable. You and your fellow human beings therefore tend to complicate systems in ways that are difficult to predict. In systems in which people, as well as things, are system components, the job of systems management is an especially demanding, difficult, and challenging task.

Even the best systems builders make mistakes, often because they fail to anticipate all the consequences of their actions and fail to appreciate the interdependencies among system components. Consider the case of Montana ranchers who, having been convinced

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

58 Basic Considerations

that coyotes were menacing their grazing livestock, set out to destroy the animals by poisoning them. The coyotes, which were subsystems of the ranch operations, were pre- venting the ranchers from achieving system goals and objectives: raising livestock and earning a living. Yet aside from destroying cattle and sheep, the coyotes were making contributions to the balance of nature, unbeknownst to the ranchers, by keeping down the gopher population. Once the coyotes were destroyed, the number of gophers on the ranches increased astronomically. Herds of gophers burrowed all through the ranchers’ grazing land, which then became overgrown with sagebrush. Because grazing livestock do not eat sagebrush, their food supply was diminished significantly, and they suffered accordingly, as did the ranchers.18

We may conclude that systems have three primary characteristics:

1. they are comprised of subsystems that may be looked upon as systems in and of themselves;

2. they are made up of factors that interact and/or are interdependent;

3. they are established for the purpose of meeting specific goals and objectives.

Inputs, Processes, Outputs, and Feedback In addition to their primary characteristics, systems can also be described in terms of

what they do. For example, many green plants take sunlight and water (inputs), perform photosynthesis (process), and produce oxygen and food (output). Similarly, a construc- tion company takes various inputs (labor, lumber, brick, cement, and nails), processes them (carpentry and masonry), and produces an output (a house).

Besides inputs, processes, and outputs, most systems are also characterized by feed- back. Feedback may be described as an input about how the output is doing. A foreman who criticizes a mason for bricking over a window space is delivering feedback (input) about the mason’s results (output). Similarly, when a professor grades an examination and gives it back to a student, the professor is providing the student with information or feedback (input) about the quality of the student’s work (output).

This process of feedback is essential to the proper functioning of any system. Without feedback, the system cannot know whether its outputs are good or bad, satisfactory or unsatisfactory, productive or unproductive. When a system continues to perform poorly, it must be assumed that feedback is not being provided to those in control, or it is being ignored.

Feedback is what differentiates a closed-loop system from an open-loop system. In an open-loop system, no provision is made for feedback. The system functions in a one-way, cause-and-effect relationship, as shown in Figure 3.2. In a closed-loop system, by contrast, provision is made for feedback (see Figure 3.3). In other words, a closed-loop system

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

3 Police Goals and Systems 59

provides for the introduction of information about how well or how poorly the system is working, information that can be used to correct problems and fine-tune performance.

Types of Systems Any system can be described in terms of the interrelatedness and interdependence of

its subsystems; its functions of inputs, processes, and output; and whether it provides for feedback (closed-loop system) or does not (open-loop system). In addition to varying in these characteristics, systems may be described as being open or closed.19

Open and closed systems are distinctly different from one another. An open system is in contact with its environment; input and output are not restricted to factors directly related to the process involved. (Some additional characteristics of open systems are described in “Principles of Open Systems,” Box 3.3.) For example, in the construction illustration cited above, the weather, an external input, can either help or hinder the process, but it cannot be easily controlled. The output of the construction process, the house, might affect drainage in the area, the habitat of wildlife, or the social relationships of other people living in the neighborhood.

A closed system, by contrast, is not influenced by its environment, or at least is influenced very little. The solar system, which is a static structure in an ordered universe, is a good example of a closed system. Typhoons, atomic explosions, and intrusions by humans do not change its processes and outputs, although an intergalactic catastrophe might. Many machines, such as a wristwatch, are essentially closed systems, although most would certainly be affected by extreme events. If you have an old-fashioned watch with a winding stem, though, it is an example of an open system. Without external input (winding), it will run down and stop working.

Inputs Processes Outputs

Inputs Processes

Feedback

Outputs

Figure 3.2

Open-Loop System

Figure 3.3

Closed-Loop System

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

60 Basic Considerations

In this book we will be concerned with police organizations as systems. Because these systems are in part made up of people who are responsive to and influenced by their environments, they may be considered living systems. All living systems are open systems.20

Organizations as Systems In 1956, Kenneth Boulding identified nine different levels of systems.21 As adapted

from his research, the nine levels, in order of their increasing complexity, are:

1. static systems – frameworks;

2. simple dynamic systems – machines;

3. cybernetic systems – thermostats;

4. self-perpetuating systems – cells;

5. genetic–societal systems – plants;

6. animal systems – animals;

7. human systems – people;

8. social systems – organizations;

9. transcendental systems – unknowns.

Boulding maintained that beyond the second level we had little understanding of what really goes on in systems. Since 1956, however, much has been learned about the

BOX 3.3 Principles of Open Systems

Homeostasis: an open system seeks a steady state through self-regulation based on feedback.

Negative entropy: an open system sustains itself by importing energy from its environment.

Requisite variety: the internal regulatory mechanisms of an open system must be as diverse as

the environment with which it is trying to deal.

Equifinality: in an open system there may be many different ways of achieving any particular goal.

System evolution: the capacity of an open system to evolve depends on an ability to move to

more complex forms of differentiation and integration.

Source: Adapted from Gareth Morgan. 2007. Images of Organization, updated edition. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 40–41.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

3 Police Goals and Systems 61

third and fourth levels—cancer research, for example, is at the fourth level, while human genome research going on today promises to advance our understanding of levels 5, 6, and 7.

Our efforts, though, to study organizations as systems (level 8) will be incomplete. Studying the control of organizations from a systems standpoint is four levels more complex than studying the control of cancer. This is not to say that we should not attempt the effort, but we must understand at the outset that we simply do not under- stand all of the interrelationships and factors that govern organizations as systems. The best we can do is depend on the confidence expressed by Felix Nigro that open-systems theory “represents an analytical framework believed to be the most effective for adequately describing what an organization is, how it functions and how it should function.”22

The Police Organization as a System

Police departments are systems no more or less complex than other organizational systems. Police organizations consist of numerous involved, interdependent subsystems. The investigations division, or subsystem, for example, depends on the records division for arrest records, the patrol division for backup, the intelligence division for information on organized crime, the laboratory for scientific investigative assistance, the property unit for storage of evidence, the detention unit for the holding of prisoners, the maintenance division for servicing its vehicles, the communications division for radio contact, the supply unit for weapons and ammunition, the training division to keep up with the latest investigative techniques, the planning division to isolate high-crime areas, and the payroll unit to distribute paychecks. The work of the detectives who are assigned to the investi- gations division is made much more difficult, and sometimes impossible, when one or more of these other divisions performs poorly or works in a way that is inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the organization.

The subsystems of police organizations may be studied from three different perspectives:

1. the traditional, structural perspective;

2. the human perspective;

3. the strategic management perspective.

The traditional, structural perspective sees the organization from the top, looking down. The subsystems in this perspective are those found on the traditional organization chart: for example, the patrol division, the investigations division, the traffic division,

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

62 Basic Considerations

the communications division, and all other component parts of the organization. This perspective is also quite concerned with principles of administration and functions of management.

The human perspective views the organization from the bottom, looking up. Some subsystems involved in this perspective are leadership, individual police officers and their various characteristics (such as attitudes and motivation), and groups of officers, includ- ing the police subculture.

The strategic management perspective focuses more on the technology of the organization (its techniques for performing basic functions) and its connection to the attainment of goals and objectives. In some ways, this perspective takes a view of the organization from the side, looking across. Its subsystems are the flow of information, the flow of orders, the flow of communications, and the methods of performing and processing the organization’s work.

All three perspectives are important. They are, in effect, vantage points from which to examine the organization. This text utilizes all three of these perspectives in order to provide the most comprehensive and thorough understanding of police organizations possible.

As with other systems, police organizations can be discussed in terms of inputs, pro- cesses, and outputs. Inputs include police officers, civilian personnel, equipment (such as patrol cars and two-way radios), rules and regulations, the law, and community values.

Outputs consist largely of organizational products intended to contribute to attaining primary and secondary goals and objectives. These include arrests, tickets, prosecutions, problems identified, conflicts resolved, and services delivered. The processes involved in police organizations are numerous and relate directly to particular inputs, inasmuch as each input must be processed. Consider, if you will, the single input of police officers. Processing includes such activities as recruiting, selecting, training, equipping, assigning, supervising, paying, and evaluating.

Many police departments fail to recognize as essential one of the most important aspects of the systems approach to police organizations: feedback. For example, police chiefs occasionally initiate a new procedure. If they make no effort to determine whether their officers understand the new procedure, and if they fail to ascertain whether their officers are following it as a guideline in their work, they will lack feedback as to how their input (the new procedure) is actually being used (process) and whether it is having the desired result (output). Lack of feedback within an organization results in lack of organizational control. If chiefs fail to make provision for feedback, they will soon lose control over their entire organization. Feedback is that important.

Police management consultants have found that many police departments lack regu- lar feedback and therefore are open-loop systems characterized by a one-way cause-and- effect relationship. The effective delivery of police services (output) demands, however, that police organizations be administered on a closed-loop basis.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

3 Police Goals and Systems 63

A specific example of input, process, output, and feedback may help to illustrate. Suppose that a police communications division receives a call from a citizen that a fight is in progress at Joe’s Hot Dog and Hamburger Emporium. The call from the citizen is the input. The process is the communications division’s receiving and evaluating the call and assigning one or more officers to service the complaint. The output is the arrival of the officer or officers at the scene and the actions they take to break up the fight. The feedback is the information the communications division receives about the disposition of the matter: there is no fight in progress at Joe’s; there never was a fight; more help is needed to break up the fight; the fight has been broken up; or an arrest has been made. Figure 3.4 shows this sequence of events from a systems perspective.

This one illustration emphasizes the importance of feedback. Without feedback, the communications division would have no way of knowing if the processing of the call was correct, and no information would be available as to whether the output was appropriate. If many people had been injured in the fight, and if the communications division sent only one car to service the call, the process involved in evaluating calls of this nature should perhaps be modified through the introduction of new or different input into the system.

It is essential that the output (what happens at the scene) be described to the com- munications division (feedback) for consideration and study. It might be determined that the communications division failed to obtain sufficient information from the person who reported the fight. An effort could then be made to develop better procedures by which information is taken from people who register complaints over the telephone, thus

Citizen reports a fight

Call is received and evaluated; a car is dispatched

to service the complaint

Officers advise Communications

Division about situation

Officers arrive at the scene

and take action

INPUT PROCESS

FEEDBACK

OUTPUT

Figure 3.4

A Police Action from a Systems Perspective

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

64 Basic Considerations

improving input. It is through feedback that corrective action is taken, thus providing more effective output in the future.

In summary, police organizations are open systems in constant contact with their environments. They can be studied from structural, human, and strategic management perspectives, and they have inputs, processes, and outputs that can be identified. Like many other organizations serving the public, police organizations have a disturbing ten- dency to disregard the importance of feedback. In order to deliver services effectively, they must be constructed as closed-loop systems. Police organizations also have numerous sub- systems that interact and are interdependent. These are discussed in detail in Chapter 4.

The Police in the Larger System Earlier in this chapter we mentioned that police systems are subsystems of the exec-

utive branch of government. Equally important is the fact that police systems are also subsystems of the criminal justice system, which also has two other major subsystems: the courts and corrections. The fact that these three subsystems have often failed to consider their interdependence has been widely noted, even though each affects the others in a profound way.

The backlog of cases in the courts contributes significantly to increased police prob- lems: serious offenders not held in jail because so many others are already there awaiting trial; physical evidence that must be stored for longer periods; witnesses whose memories fade, thus weakening cases; victims who become increasingly frustrated; and defendants who are allowed to plea bargain to greatly reduced charges and light sentences in order to dispose of their cases. Jail and prison overcrowding forces the courts to resort more readily to the use of probation, home detention, and other remedies when incarceration would be more appropriate. Similarly, police departments that are particularly successful in apprehending drug offenders or zealously enforcing minor traffic offenses are likely to overburden the courts and place severe strains on correctional systems, which are already bulging at the seams with clientele they are incapable of servicing properly. The courts respond by further delaying cases, and correctional systems respond by increasing the use of parole to make room for newly sentenced offenders. The assembly line and revolving door images fit nicely.

Clearly, police departments need to become more adept at collaborating with their fellow components of the criminal justice system, in order for the entire system to function more effectively. The development of community-oriented policing (COP) in recent years has encouraged some progress in this direction. In part, this has been because collaboration with all kinds of public and private organizations is seen as an important aspect of COP.23 In addition, police officers and police departments have dis- covered that working more closely with juvenile services, probation, parole, community courts, drug courts, pretrial release, and other elements of the criminal justice system can

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

3 Police Goals and Systems 65

contribute substantially to problem solving and crime control in specific neighborhoods and communities.24

Police departments are parts of other systems as well—for example, they are parts of the mental health, social services, and public safety systems. The latter system is a particularly important arena for police organizations, as it overlaps with the criminal justice  system, but also includes fire protection and emergency medical agencies, plus,  under certain circumstances, the military. Also, in recent decades, the line between public and private responsibilities for, and authority over, safety, security, and crime prevention has become increasingly blurred.25 This is very significant because it makes public/private cooperation and collaboration a more and more important con- cern for police departments. This makes the police agency’s environment even more complex than it already was and demonstrates again that police organizations are open systems.

Since September 11, 2001, police departments have also begun to realize that they are part of an important new system—the homeland security system. This system overlaps the criminal justice and public safety systems mentioned above, as well as emergency management, public health, civil defense, military, and intelligence systems. Among the most glaring challenges facing homeland security in the twenty-first century are inter-organizational information sharing, coordination, and collaboration.26 For police departments and police systems, this has meant an even more complex environment and even greater interdependence.27

Summary

The purposes of the police—mission, goals, objectives, and other important values— were discussed in detail in this chapter. These purposes should guide police officers in the performance of their operational duties as well as police executives in conducting their administrative duties. Three primary goals of protecting life, protecting property, and maintaining order, and eight primary objectives were described, along with the important concerns of efficiency, legality, equity, and accountability. It is a major challenge for the police in a free society to remain efficient, legal, equitable, and accountable, while striving for effectiveness in the achievement of primary goals and objectives.

This chapter has also introduced the concept of systems and has demonstrated how the concept applies to police organization and management. One overriding theme of the systems concept is interdependence among subsystems—everything tends to affect everything else. Systems are also characterized by their relationships with their environments—police organizations are open systems because they react to environ- mental inputs and affect their environments with their outputs. Input, process, output, and feedback were stressed as being essential elements of system design. Feedback, in

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

66 Basic Considerations

particular, is crucial to the successful performance of any system, including a police department.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. Which of the three police mission statements presented in the text do you prefer? Why? How are the three different?

2. How would you prioritize the eight primary police objectives presented in the text? Is it necessary to prioritize them? If you were a police chief, how would you go about prioritizing them for your community?

3. Feedback is a key concept in the study of systems. What forms of feedback are utilized in the classroom? On the job? In your personal relationships?

4. Why do you think that many systems, including organizations, fail to provide for and utilize feedback?

5. How is a police department influenced by the larger systems of which it is a part? How are those larger systems influenced by the police department? Would you say that police departments are more or less interdependent on other systems than most organizations?

Cases

One of the case studies in the back of this text (Case 3: Strategic Planning in Spokane, Washington) describes an effort to establish departmental values and a vision statement in a police agency. You might want to compare that to the sample missions, goals, objectives, and values presented in this chapter.

Suggested Reading

Cordner, G. 2010. Reducing Fear of Crime: Strategies for Police. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

Delattre, E.J. 2011. Character and Cops: Ethics in Policing. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Goldstein, H. 1977. Policing a Free Society. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Guilfoyle, S. 2013. Intelligent Policing: How Systems Thinking Methods Eclipse Conventional Management

Practice. Devon, UK: Triarchy Press. Morgan, G. 2007. Images of Organization, updated edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Notes

1 V.E. Kappeler, R.D. Sluder, and G.P. Alpert. 1998. Forces of Deviance: Understanding the Dark Side of Policing, second edition. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

3 Police Goals and Systems 67

2 G.J. DeLone. 2007. “Law Enforcement Mission Statements Post-September 11.” Police Quarterly 10, no. 2: 218–235.

3 D.C. Couper and S.H. Lobitz. 1991. Quality Policing: The Madison Experience. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum, p. 24.

4 M.H. Moore and D.W. Stephens. 1991. Beyond Command and Control: The Strategic Management of Police Departments. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum, p. 29; A.Y. Jiao. 2001. “Degrees of Urbanism and Police Orientations: Testing Preferences for Different Policing Approaches across Urban, Suburban, and Rural Areas.” Police Quarterly 4, no. 3 (September): 361–387.

5 Portland Police Bureau. 2015. “Mission, Values and Goals.” Available online at: www.portlandoregon. gov/police/article/28214.

6 Houston Police Department. 2015. “Mission Statement.” Available online at: www.houstontx.gov/ police/mission.htm.

7 Madison Police Department. 2015. “Mission Statement.” Available online at: www.cityofmadison.com/ police/about/mission.cfm.

8 Portland Police Bureau. 2015. “Mission, Values and Goals.” 9 H. Goldstein. 1977. Policing a Free Society. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, p. 35. 10 L.J. Moriarty (ed.). 2002. Policing and Victims. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. 11 H. Goldstein. 1990. Problem-Oriented Policing. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, pp. 111–114. 12 G. Cordner. 2010. Reducing Fear of Crime: Strategies for Police. Washington, DC: Office of Community

Oriented Policing Services; M.H. Moore and R.C. Trojanowicz. 1988. “Policing and the Fear of Crime.” Perspectives on Policing No. 3. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

13 R. Wasserman. 2013. “Agency Mission and Values, Changes in.” In K.J. Peak (ed.), Encyclopedia of Community Policing and Problem Solving, Los Angeles, CA: Sage, pp. 1–3.

14 Portland Police Bureau. 2015. “Mission, Values and Goals.” 15 Madison Police Department. 2015. “Mission Statement.” 16 S. Guilfoyle. 2013. Intelligent Policing: How Systems Thinking Methods Eclipse Conventional Management

Practice. Devon, UK: Triarchy Press, p. 1. 17 W.E. Deming. 1994. The New Economics for Industry, Government, Education, second edition.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, p. 50. 18 P.B. Sears. 1971. “Ecology, the Intricate Web of Life.” In As We Live and Breathe: The Challenge of Our

Environment. Washington, DC: National Geographic Society, as adapted in N. Greenwood and J.M.B. Edwards. 1973. Human Environments and Natural Systems: A Conflict of Dominion. North Scituate, MA: Duxbury Press, pp. 62–63.

19 G. Morgan. 2007. Images of Organization, updated edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 20 R. Chin. 1961. “The Utility of System Models and Developmental Models for Practitioners.” In W.G.

Bennis, K.D. Benne, and R. Chin (eds), The Planning of Change: Readings in the Applied Behavioral Sciences. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pp. 201–214.

21 K.E. Boulding. 1956. “General Systems Theory: The Skeleton of Science.” Management Science 2, no. 3 (April): 197–208.

22 F.A. Nigro. 1965. Modern Public Administration, second edition. New York, NY: Harper & Row, p. 100.

23 M.S. Scott and H. Goldstein. 2005. Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for Public Safety Problems. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

24 N.G. La Vigne, A.L. Solomon, K.A. Beckman, and K. Dedel. 2006. Prisoner Reentry and Community Policing: Strategies for Enhancing Public Safety. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

25 The Law Enforcement-Private Sector Consortium. 2009. Operation Partnership: Trends and Practices in

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

68 Basic Considerations

Law Enforcement and Private Security Collaborations. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

26 G. Cordner and K. Scarborough. 2010. “Information Sharing: Exploring the Intersection of Policing with National and Military Intelligence.” Homeland Security Affairs Journal 6, no. 1. Online at: www. hsaj.org/?article=6.1.5.

27 C. Foster and G. Cordner. 2005. The Impact of Terrorism on State Law Enforcement: Adjusting to New Roles and Changing Conditions. Lexington, KY: Council of State Governments.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

CHAPTER 4 Police Organizational Tasks

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

• Identify the three major subsystems of the police organization. • Identify the relationship among operations, administration, and auxiliary services. • Characterize police operational tasks and identify 10 such tasks. • Characterize police administrative tasks and identify 10 such tasks. • Characterize police auxiliary services tasks and identify 10 such tasks.

If you were asked to list police tasks as they are portrayed in the media, you would probably think only of those that are closely related to apprehending criminal offenders. These are the tasks on which YouTube videos, television shows, and movies focus. They are certainly the most exciting and interesting tasks that police officers perform, yet they represent only a small percentage of what police actually do. Who would want to watch a video about directing traffic, planning, or maintaining police vehicles? Despite the relatively uninteresting nature of these and many other kinds of tasks, however, police organizations depend on them in order to accomplish their goals and objectives.

This chapter briefly discusses 30 basic police organizational tasks. The exact number of tasks that police departments perform is really not very important; we have identi- fied 30 that we believe are essential and should be discussed. The number is significant, though, in that it suggests that there is a multitude of tasks that must be performed in any police organization.

Some police departments are so large that separate units have been established to per- form each task; others are so small that all tasks are performed by one person, usually the chief. The remaining police departments fall somewhere in the middle; for them, a major

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

70 Basic Considerations

challenge is developing a logical and effective approach for grouping similar functions together. (This management function, termed organizing, is discussed in Chapter 6.) But it is important to stress that every police department, no matter how small, has to ensure that all of the tasks are performed as needed. The smallest agencies may perform some of these tasks less frequently than larger agencies, or even rely on others to perform them. None can be ignored, though, no matter how small the community.

The three major subsystems of the police organization are:

1. operations;

2. administration;

3. auxiliary services.

These three subsystems provide the framework for our discussion of the 30 basic police organizational tasks. The list below shows the tasks arranged within these three subsystems.

Operations Administration Auxiliary Services

Patrol Personnel/Human resources Records

Traffic Training Communications

Criminal investigation Planning and analysis Property and evidence

Vice and drugs Budget and finance Laboratory

Organized crime Legal assistance Detention

Special operations Information systems Crime scene/Identification

Crime prevention Public information Alcohol testing

Juvenile services Inspections Facilities

Community services Internal affairs Equipment and supply

School services Intelligence Maintenance

The Operations Subsystem

Operations are activities that directly assist the public. The operations subsystem is the part of police work with which most people are familiar. Through the operations sub- system, police officers are deployed to take action, fight crime, and provide services to the public. The other two subsystems (administration and auxiliary services) exist to provide day-to-day and long-term services to personnel working within the operations subsystem.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

4 Police Organizational Tasks 71

The goals of the operations subsystem are identical to those of the entire police agency—primarily, maintaining order and protecting life and property. All work in which operations personnel are involved is directed toward the accomplishment of these primary organizational goals and the eight primary objectives discussed in Chapter 3. The tasks included within the operations subsystem are aimed directly at achieving one or more of these goals and objectives. These operations tasks are patrol, traffic, criminal investigation, vice and drugs, organized crime, special operations, crime prevention, juvenile services, community services, and school services.

Patrol Patrol is commonly referred to as the backbone of the police service. Patrol officers

are normally the first to respond to crime scenes, accidents, and calls for service. In some instances, patrol officers handle the entire matter with which they are confronted; in others they stabilize and assess the situation, protect the crime scene, and/or conduct a preliminary investigation before turning the matter over to specialized personnel. Patrol officers are expected to be alert for crimes in progress, traffic violations, suspicious per- sons and circumstances, public property in need of repair, and anything else out of the ordinary. Patrol is also intended to prevent crime through its omnipresence, to keep in touch with the community, and to be responsive to citizen needs and problems. One of the most important aims of patrol is to provide law-abiding citizens with a feeling of security so that they can conduct their affairs without fear of criminal interference. The patrol function maintains order and protects life and property on a continuous basis.

Patrol is “the act of moving about an area especially by an authorized and trained person or group, for purposes of observation, inspection, or security.”1 The police use several methods of patrolling or “moving about an area,” such as foot patrol, motorized patrol (cars, motorcycles, scooters, golf carts, Segways), bike patrol, horse patrol, aircraft patrol, and marine patrol. Circumstances in each situation usually dictate the means employed, constrained of course by resources (costs) and also affected by new develop- ments in transportation technology.

The patrol task must be organized by time and location; that is, patrol personnel work shifts and are assigned to beats (patrol areas) so that the entire jurisdiction receives patrol coverage. Unfortunately, many police administrators assign personnel to patrol times and locations on the basis of tradition or whim; as a consequence, patrol personnel in many communities are not allocated to maximize their effectiveness. Patrol personnel should be assigned according to patterns of crime and requests for service in the community they serve.2 This is their business, and they should work when and where their business occurs. To do otherwise is to waste tax dollars and reduce the effectiveness of the police.

A celebrated study conducted in Kansas City, Missouri, raised some serious questions concerning the true value of motorized police patrol.3 The experiment, conducted by the

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

72 Basic Considerations

Police Foundation and the Kansas City Police Department, could find no real evidence that routine patrol deters crime, improves the delivery of services, or affects citizen feel- ings of security. These findings, although highly controversial, spurred further research into the effectiveness of police patrol and resulted in a rethinking of the patrol function.4 Directed patrol and foot patrol gained some backing as effective supplements to motorized preventive patrol, while the evolving strategies of community policing, problem-oriented policing, and intelligence-led policing suggest replacing random patrolling with more focused activity.5 We will look more closely at patrol research and tactics in Chapter 13.

Traffic The traffic task includes several subtasks relating to different police activities vis-à-vis

motor vehicles. These subtasks include intersection control (traffic direction), traffic law enforcement, parking law enforcement, and traffic accident investigation.

Except for unusual situations at accident scenes or large gatherings, the task of intersection control is ordinarily a major concern only in urban or highly congested suburban areas. In such situations, the demands of intersection control can cause severe drains on police personnel. Many police departments employ civilian traffic controllers, school crossing guards, fire police, and other auxiliary personnel for intersection work as a cost-saving measure.

The traffic law enforcement subtask involves issuing citations for various motor vehi- cle violations; this activity is directed toward the reduction of accidents and the injuries and fatalities caused by accidents. Because many citizens come in contact with the police only as a result of having violated a traffic law, this activity has serious implications for the relationship between the police and the community; consequently, it must be performed with considerable care and courtesy. Traffic law enforcement should be based on careful analysis of traffic accident patterns so that the kinds of violations that cause accidents in certain locations at certain times are suppressed. This approach, which should be the basis for every police department’s traffic law enforcement activities, is called selective traffic enforcement.

One aspect of traffic law enforcement that has come to the forefront in recent years is the enforcement of drinking and driving laws. While many police departments had a fairly lax attitude toward driving under the influence (DUI) 30 to 40 years ago, DUI enforcement is now a high priority in most communities, and it is obvious today that such enforcement directly contributes to the protection of life and property. It took pressure from such groups as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and Students Against Drunk Drivers (SADD) to get legislatures, courts, and police agencies to take the DUI problem more seriously.

The use of radar by the police has proven to be an extremely effective deterrent to speeding. Radar gives the police a scientific tool for the strict enforcement of speed laws.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

4 Police Organizational Tasks 73

Another technological development now gaining wider acceptance is the use of auto- mated cameras for speed enforcement and intersection surveillance. This technology is controversial, particularly when its use seems primarily designed to generate revenue. The technology does cause motorists to drive more safely, though, so it is probably here to stay.

The enforcement of parking laws is designed to keep traffic moving, to keep fire hydrants clear of obstructions, to keep intersections unclogged, and to ensure turnover at meters and in front of businesses. In some large jurisdictions, this activity is performed primarily by civilians assigned exclusively to the task; in other jurisdictions, police officers perform the task as a part of their generalist patrol function.

The subtask of traffic accident investigation is designed to determine the causes of motor vehicle accidents. In cases in which fault can be established, traffic accident investigators issue citations. Accident investigation, therefore, is an enforcement task. The task also provides input to the process of insurance claim settlement in jurisdictions where insurance claims are based on fault. Traffic accident investigation can also focus on criminal law violations ranging from assault to manslaughter to murder. Finally, accident investigations can help identify types of driving behaviors that need to be discouraged through education and enforcement, as well as dangerous roadway conditions that need to be corrected. It is an extremely important, specialized task that requires considerable training and expertise.

In a small police department, intersection control, traffic law enforcement, parking law enforcement, and traffic accident investigation may all be performed by officers serving as generalist patrol officers. In a large department, each of these subtasks may be handled by a separate subunit of a traffic division. Some of these tasks can easily be performed by civilians at a much lower cost. Any decision to create a specialized traffic division and/or to employ specialized civilian personnel should be based on the size of the organization and on the volume and patterns of traffic-related business.

Criminal Investigation Criminal investigations, the actions taken by the police to identify and apprehend

perpetrators of crimes, include such activities as crime scene investigations, interviewing, and interrogation. Ideally, they culminate in the criminal conviction of suspects, but most often they do not. Year in and year out, the American police are successful in clearing by arrest (not conviction) only about 20 percent of the serious crimes called to their atten- tion (see Figure 4.1).6

Detectives are the specialists in criminal investigation; they are not, however, its only practitioners. As a rule, officers assigned to the patrol function conduct all preliminary and minor investigations. Because police departments have more officers assigned to patrol than to criminal investigation, patrol officers routinely shoulder a major part of

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

74 Basic Considerations

investigative activity. Many police departments have adopted a policy stipulating that uniformed patrol officers should conduct investigations of all minor crimes, referring them to detectives only when they have reached a dead end in their efforts. This policy, which embodies the generalist patrol theory, allows detectives to concentrate on more serious crimes and, at the same time, provides for the handling of investigations of less serious offenses, for which most criminal investigation divisions have little time.

Most police departments with 10 or more sworn officers, no matter how committed to the generalist theory, find it necessary to assign some personnel solely to criminal investigation. The number of officers to assign to investigative activities is a point of contention in many municipal police agencies; 10 to 15 percent of sworn officers is a common rule of thumb.

Another common point of controversy is the degree of specialization needed within the criminal investigations division. Departments with the least specialization might use the general assignment approach, with all detectives handling all types of investiga- tions; highly specialized departments might have a Crimes Against Persons Unit, with separate squads handling homicides, assaults, sex offenses, and robberies. A Crimes Against Property Unit might have specialized squads handling burglaries, auto thefts, and larcenies. The degree of specialization in any police agency must be based on local

Figure 4.1

Crimes Cleared by Arrest, 2013

Source: FBI. n.d. Crime in the United States 2013. Online at: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/ cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/ clearances/clearancetopic_final.

Percent of Crimes Cleared by Arrest or Exceptional Means, 2013

Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter 64.1

40.6

Aggravated Assault 57.7

Violent Crime

Property Crime

13.1Burglary

1009080706050403020100

14.2Motor Vehicle Theft

Larceny-theft 22.4

Rape (revised definition)

40.0Rape (legacy definition)

29.4Robbery

CLEARANCE FIGURE

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

4 Police Organizational Tasks 75

circumstances, taking into consideration such factors as the size of the department, the skills of its personnel, the patterns and amounts of its activities, and prevailing policies.

The actual effectiveness and productivity of detectives has been called into question by research over the last several decades. Studies have found that most crime clearances can be attributed to information supplied by witnesses and patrol officers more than to contributions by detectives.7 In addition, it has been established through research that detectives spend most of their time in the office, on the telephone and on the computer, or doing routine paperwork, rather than out on the street meticulously searching for clues or interviewing informants, victims, and witnesses. The “detective mystique” seems highly overrated.8

As part of community policing, many larger police departments have decentralized their investigative units over the past decade or two. Following this approach, detectives are assigned to work under precinct captains or other area commanders rather than under a chief of detectives at headquarters. The aim of this approach is to help detectives become more knowledgeable about local neighborhood problems and to encourage them to work more closely with neighborhood residents and patrol officers.9

Vice and Drugs The responsibility for vice regulation and drug enforcement has caused the police

innumerable problems, largely because vice laws declare illegal a host of goods and ser- vices (i.e., gambling, prostitution, pornography, drugs) that are intensely desired by many citizens. The rationale for these laws is not that some unsuspecting stranger might be victimized, but rather that people must be protected from their own wants and desires. Of course, it is true that gamblers and drug abusers may also cause harm to family mem- bers, not just themselves, and they may commit other crimes, such as theft and burglary, to finance their addictions. Additionally, it is becoming more apparent today that many prostitutes are actually victims of human trafficking, and therefore not engaging in their crimes willingly.

Because there is so little consensus about the desirability and importance of vice laws, the enforcement of those laws places the police in a difficult position. The police under- stand that many people desire the goods and services prohibited by vice laws; they see that society in general is frequently indifferent to violations of these laws. The police are not often sought out by aggrieved victims, as they are in the cases of rapes, robberies, and bur- glaries. They observe that the courts usually deal leniently with vice offenders (although harsh sentences for drug offenders have become more common since the 1980s). They further observe that vice and drugs generate large sums of money.

It is for these reasons that vice regulation and drug enforcement are at the heart of much of the public animosity toward the police and at the core of much police corrup- tion. If the police strictly enforce all vice laws, the public as well as the purveyors of illegal

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

76 Basic Considerations

goods and services become upset. If the police are lenient toward vice or simply put their priorities elsewhere, the public assumes that they have been corrupted. In many cases, this suspicion has proven to be well founded; whether well founded or not, however, the damage in terms of public support and respect is the same.

As long as vice and drug laws remain on the books and as long as vice regulation and drug enforcement remain the responsibility of the police, the police administrator will have to deal with these problems. Even in police circles, there is considerable debate about the best methods to use in dealing with vice and drug problems. In recent years, though, it has become common to involve ordinary patrol officers in vice and drug enforcement rather than relegating it strictly to specialists. Police today frequently work closely with neighborhoods in identifying and combating vice and drug problems. Police have also become creative in their use of such innovative techniques as sting operations, reverse stings, asset seizure, multiagency task forces, and civil nuisance abatement procedures.10

Organized Crime Organized crime has always caused difficult organizational problems for the police,

in part because of the extent of organized crime. Gambling, prostitution, pornography, narcotics, hijacking, and loan-sharking are the bread and butter of organized crime. However, the need to control the marketplace also gets organized crime involved with such crimes as murder, assault, robbery, theft, and extortion. Moreover, the process of laundering dirty profits involves various kinds of frauds and swindles, some of which affect legitimate business. Because each kind of criminal offense committed by organized crime may be investigated by a separate police subunit, the police often fail to see the big picture of organized crime at work.

In addition to the wide variety of offenses involved, the structure of organized crime acts to thwart traditional police efforts. The people who collect the bulk of the profits and who direct the operations of organized crime rarely commit observable offenses. Usually they order someone who orders someone else who orders someone else to commit a crime. Everything is done covertly through layers of organization designed to protect the leadership. These layers are reinforced by money, legal services, loyalty, and force. Despite numerous arrests of organized crime figures, the police are rarely able to bring syndicate bosses to the bar of justice.

One form of organized crime that gained increased attention in the 1990s was criminal gangs.11 As of 2007, about one-half of police agencies with 250 or more sworn officers had established some type of gang unit.12 Gangs tend to be composed of youthful members, though not necessarily juveniles, and they are often territorially based, but not always. Some gangs exist simply to meet their members’ social or protection needs, but most engage in some form of organized criminal activity, whether it be drug dealing, burglary, theft, or robbery.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

4 Police Organizational Tasks 77

The task force or strike force approach has had some success in combating organized crime and gangs.13 This approach is usually multijurisdictional, often taking in metropol- itan areas, states, and regions. It involves investigators and prosecutors from local, state, and federal agencies. The approach is usually quite sophisticated and often makes use of financial and tax records, on the valid assumption that profits from organized crime are not usually reported to the Internal Revenue Service. Increased use has also been made of grand juries and of immunity, two techniques that, when used in concert, can force syndicate leaders and their underlings to choose between telling what they know or going to jail. In addition, the resources of the combined agencies at different levels of government make more credible the assurances of protection offered informants and prosecution witnesses.

Special Operations One clear trend in modern policing has been the development of special capabilities

to deal with particularly difficult situations. Prior to the 1970s, even the most compli- cated and dangerous situations were handled by regular patrol officers without the advan- tage of specialized training or equipment. The most these patrol officers could expect in the way of organizational assistance in the handling of a hostage situation, for example, would be the presence of a supervisor or commander at the scene.

Today, many police agencies have specially trained personnel for handling these kinds of situations, and all have access to such personnel, if only through their state police organizations. The range of situations calling for special operational capabilities is quite broad, but should probably include the following at a minimum:14

• armed confrontations;

• hostage situations;

• barricaded persons;

• suicide threats;

• bomb threats;

• bomb disposal;

• executive protection;

• disaster response;

• search and rescue;

• riots and civil disturbances;

• civil defense;

• terrorist acts.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

78 Basic Considerations

Police agencies of different sizes arrange for the availability of special operations in different ways. Small departments may rely almost completely on larger neighbors (e.g., their county sheriff’s department and the state police) or they may have a few officers with some special training and mutual aid agreements to fill in the gaps. Larger agencies are more likely to have full complements of specially trained officers for handling the entire range of situations that might occur. Even in most larger departments, though, these specially trained officers will probably have regular assignments in patrol or other units, while being subject to call-out when situations requiring their expertise occur. Only the very largest police organizations have the demand and resources to justify full-time special operations units that do nothing but handle special situations.

Crime Prevention Preventing crime is one of the primary objectives of the police service. It was tradi-

tionally thought that crime prevention was accomplished by having uniformed police officers in marked vehicles driving about the community to give the impression of police  omnipresence. Statistics, however, would seem to prove otherwise. Traditional police methods have not been very successful in preventing crime.

Techniques developed in recent years mandate that the police concentrate on high-crime risks in order to increase the effort, increase the risk, or reduce the reward associated with crime.15 In many instances, dramatic decreases in crime rates can result. These techniques, referred to collectively as situational crime prevention and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED), include improving security, locking devices, and construction; screening or barring doors and windows; providing more and better alarm systems and lighting; and teaching citizens and businesspeople how to secure their premises more effectively. Many police departments loan marking tools to the general public so that citizens can mark valuable property in their homes and businesses; such programs increase the chances of recovering stolen property. Some police departments even provide special officers as security consultants to business and industry in an effort to prevent or reduce crime.

Another approach to crime prevention relies on mobilizing community support. Neighborhood Watch programs enlist the eyes and ears of residents, encouraging and training them to look out for each other and report suspicious activity to the police. Safe homes in each block are also designated and marked for the benefit of children who may be frightened, lost, or in the process of escaping from an attacker. Some communities have even established citizen patrols that attempt to deter crime and report suspicious activity.

The idea of crime prevention as a specialized activity is still relatively new in police circles. The police have traditionally been more prosecution-oriented than prevention-oriented. They have gauged their success on the basis of clearances by arrest and successful prosecutions and, except for traditional preventive patrol, have placed

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

4 Police Organizational Tasks 79

little emphasis on preventing crimes. Learning from the successful experiences of security administrators, whose private-sector companies are much more interested in preventing thefts than in prosecuting offenders, the police have slowly come to realize that prosecu- tions alone are not an adequate measurement of police success. Controlling, reducing, and preventing crime are more viable yardsticks for measuring police effectiveness in dealing with crime. Citizens are far less interested in numbers of prosecutions than in controlling crime rates. Police success in crime-related activities, therefore, should be predicated on crime reduction and not, as has been the traditional practice, on numbers of crime clearances and prosecutions.

It should be pointed out that the police are limited in what they can do to control crime. The police are not responsible for the social and economic conditions that breed crime. They have no control over poverty, bad housing, poor health care, discrimination, child neglect, and inadequate education. The responsibility of the police is to prevent crime to the degree that they reasonably can, and to refine their techniques for preventing crime in the milieu that breeds it.

Juvenile Services Police services for juveniles constitute a separate task because of the special legal and

practical aspects of dealing with children. Juveniles are a clear and distinct subgroup of society, and their offenses are ordinarily handled more informally and with more leniency, although the tendency in recent years has been to become stricter. In addition, juveniles are usually dealt with by the criminal justice system as parts of family units rather than as free and responsible citizens. They are often tried in juvenile courts by special judges; when incarcerated, juveniles are placed in special institutions apart from adult offenders. There were 875,000 arrests of persons under 18 years of age in 2013, representing 9.7 percent of all arrests made in the United States. In that year, juveniles accounted for 16 percent of property crime arrests, 11 percent of violent crime arrests, and 8 percent of drug arrests.16

Most large police departments have separate juvenile or youth divisions, which are essential because of the factors outlined above and because of the scale of the juvenile crime problem. In addition to getting referrals from other departmental divisions and units, the juvenile division may take a special interest in matters of child abuse and neglect, children in need of supervision, runaways, and truants. The juvenile division will also ordinarily coordinate relations among the police department, the juvenile courts, juvenile detention centers, and social service programs for juveniles.

The focus of the juvenile division is decidedly more on social welfare than on crime; for this reason, the juvenile division is often denigrated by police officers who fail to understand the importance of having some police officers involved in social welfare activities, especially as these relate to children. Yet if the police fail to become involved in helping children in trouble, even if only by referring them to appropriate social

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

80 Basic Considerations

welfare agencies, the children will probably receive no help whatsoever. See “Juvenile Operations,” Box 4.1.

Three of the most pressing problems confronting police departments today are the often-related problems of child abuse, missing children, and human trafficking. While most police officers have always taken allegations of child abuse seriously, it is clear that society has only relatively recently awakened to the problem. On the other hand, many police officers often callously grumbled about taking a runaway child report, and some agencies even required that the child be missing for 24 hours before an investigation would commence. Public pressure has now caused police agencies to take missing chil- dren reports more seriously, including activating Amber Alerts when appropriate.

Community Services There is a general recognition today that the police have a key role to play in the

delivery of a variety of services to the community. By default, society has given to the police much of the routine, day-to-day responsibilities that were once considered solely within the province of social service agencies. What traditional social service agency operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year? The police department is the only such agency in the community and, unlike many other social service agencies, police service is free and the police still make house calls.

Depending on the nature of the service needed, the skills of individual police officers, and the policies of the departments in which they serve, the role of the police may be to: (1) provide the service themselves; (2) assist others in providing the service; or (3) refer the matter to another agency. If the appropriate social service agency is not open, it becomes the responsibility of the police to handle such matters. Police officers’ qualifications to handle the wide variety of situations that come to their attention is secondary to the need

BOX 4.1 Juvenile Operations

Standard 44.1.1 A written directive describes the agency’s juvenile operations function.

The intent of this standard is to establish agency accountability for the juvenile function in writ-

ing. The agency should make a firm commitment to develop and perpetuate programs that are

designed to prevent and control juvenile delinquency, while emphasizing that participation or sup-

port in the juvenile operations function is shared by all relevant components and personnel. Law

enforcement agencies can also take an active leadership role in developing community recrea-

tional programs for juveniles.

Source: Standards for Law Enforcement Agencies: The Standards Manual of the CALEA Law

Enforcement Agency Accreditation Program, fifth edition, as amended. 2015. Gainesville, VA:

Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

4 Police Organizational Tasks 81

to handle all matters that cannot immediately be referred to a social service agency. People who would completely divorce the police from all social welfare activities often fail to recognize that if such activities are not handled by the police, they will not be handled at all. Whether they like it or not, social workers who work 40 hours a week leave the other 128 hours for the police to service. At the very minimum, then, police probably handle two-thirds of all threshold social work in this country; when one considers that human trauma occurs more frequently at night, and often on weekends, that percentage undoubtedly rises. When people need immediate help, regardless of the circumstances, they call the police. Furthermore, they expect the police to respond right away and to alleviate the problem.

In addition to the kinds of services provided by individual patrol officers responding to calls from citizens, many agencies have created special programs to address critical needs in their communities. Among the kinds of formal community service programs that police departments frequently provide are school-based programs (such as Drug Abuse Resistance Education – DARE), recreational programs (such as Police Activities Leagues – PAL), victim–witness programs, domestic violence programs, and mental health crisis intervention teams.

Referral is a practice that even the smallest police department can adopt. All depart- ments come in contact with various kinds of social problems that do not require arrest but that cry out for help and treatment. Such situations often involve people with sub- stance abuse problems, people with mental illness, or homeless people.17 If police officers know what social services are available in their communities and the kinds of assistance programs they offer, they have a viable and productive alternative to arrest. They do not, of course, have the authority to require participation in treatment programs, but their recommendations can be critical to troubled individuals who need help but do not know where to find it.

School Services One of the biggest growth sectors for policing in the past two decades has been school-

based services and programs.18 In response to concerns about youth violence, school safety, drug abuse, and gangs, many police departments and school systems have begun working much more closely together than ever before. At least five different types of approaches can be identified. These are sometimes used separately, sometimes in combination.

Perhaps the most long-standing approach is to involve police officers in educational programs for youths. Since the 1950s, some police departments have presented Officer Friendly, Stranger Danger, and a variety of safety-oriented programs (household safety, pedestrian safety, bicycle safety) at the elementary school level and had officers give law-related talks to middle school and high school classes. More recently, the DARE program and GREAT (Gang Resistance Education and Training) have become popular.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

82 Basic Considerations

Police also sometimes participate with teachers in presentations on anger management and conflict resolution.

Another model has been for the police to establish special programs within schools aimed at reducing crime and disorder problems on school grounds. For example, many jurisdictions have implemented special versions of the popular Crime-stoppers and Crime Watch programs within their schools. Some schools have also worked with police to establish drug tip hotlines and Police Explorer programs.

A third approach is simply to create closer connections between regular police officers and schools. Some police departments use the Adopt-a-School program, in which individual patrol officers and detectives “adopt” a school to which they will pay special attention, in addition to their regular duties. These officers spend extra time in the school, perhaps by eating lunch in the school cafeteria on a regular basis, and generally serve as the police department’s liaison to that school. Alternatively, many departments that are implementing community policing by giving patrol officers regular beat assignments insist that these officers treat any schools within their beats as particularly important clients. Following the adage that “police should be where the people are,” these agencies encourage their officers to spend considerable time in their schools.

Yet another approach, and one that seems to have become very popular, is the utili- zation of School Resource Officers (SROs).19 These are police officers who are assigned full-time to work in the schools. SROs may participate in educational programs and other special programs in the schools but, in addition, the school is their “beat.” That is, they provide all regular police services within the school, including patrol, investigation, and juvenile services, as well as special school-based programs. Proponents of this approach like the fact that these officers act like “real police,” not just Officer Friendly, and that they provide a significant police presence in the school. That is, SROs do not just drop in to give a talk; they are on the premises during the entire school day.

Finally, a few police departments are attempting to engage school students directly in community policing and problem-solving activities.20 This approach takes the view that the school is a community and that the students are its most numerous “residents,” so it is important to involve them in improving the quality of life and level of safety. In some ways, this is the most far-reaching model, because it tries to overcome the inherent limita- tions of a police-focused approach by harnessing the energy and talents of students while, at the same time, preparing those students for later life, when they will also be expected to shoulder some of the responsibility for keeping their communities safe and orderly.

The Administration Subsystem

The tasks that constitute the administration subsystem (personnel/human resources, training, planning and analysis, budget and finance, legal assistance,

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

4 Police Organizational Tasks 83

information systems, public information, inspections, internal affairs, and intelligence) are performed not in direct assistance to the public, but for the benefit of the police organization as a whole. In addition, the tasks of the administration subsystem have a more long-term application than do those of the auxiliary services subsystem. One way to differentiate administration tasks from auxiliary services tasks is to ask: “Does this task need to be performed around the clock?” Tasks that do not, such as planning and budget preparation, are generally considered administrative tasks; non-operational tasks that do need to be performed continually, such as communications and identification, are usually categorized as auxiliary service tasks. Both types of tasks are of benefit, or service, to the  department as a whole; both types are primarily performed internally. Operational tasks, on the other hand, are performed externally. They are for the direct benefit of the public.

Personnel/Human Resources The personnel or human resources function (including recruitment, selection,

assignment, transfer, promotion, termination, and labor relations) has to do with who gets what jobs when and, very often, who gets what pay. It is, therefore, an extremely important task. In addition, modern personnel units have not been content in confining themselves to these activities and have become involved with management development, organization planning, personnel development, and personnel research.21

Police personnel development practices have often come under close scrutiny with respect to minority recruitment, selection, assignment, and promotion.22 In numerous instances, federal courts have found entrance-level tests and job qualifications to be discriminatory against blacks, women, and Spanish-speaking Americans. More recently, attention has also focused on older citizens and disabled persons. Patterns of discrimina- tion have also been identified in promotion and transfer practices.

Police personnel activities are frequently constrained not only by equal opportunity law but also by civil service systems, local government personnel departments, and state laws and regulations. Many police agencies have little or no control over their personnel systems, with hiring criteria, processes, and decisions administered by merit boards or civil service commissions. This kind of structure helps reduce the amount of bias, per- sonal influence, and political interference affecting police personnel matters, but it also interferes with efforts by police executives to ensure that personnel decisions contribute positively to the accomplishment of the overall police mission. A healthy balance should be sought between external regulation and police input to the police personnel function. See “Standard 13.3 Minority Recruiting,” Box 4.2, and “Standard 13.6 Employment of Women,” Box 4.3.

An enduring police personnel issue concerns the desirability of higher education for police officers. Police reformers have advocated the hiring of college graduates for

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

84 Basic Considerations

decades, and many police officers today have degrees or at least some college credits. Attempts to prove that college-educated police officers perform better have not univer- sally succeeded, but most observers believe that the college experience makes officers more tolerant, more flexible, more understanding of different cultures, and more adept at problem solving.23 Only one percent of police departments require higher education for police employment,24 but many agencies give applicants extra points for college; moreover, when final hiring decisions are reviewed, it seems clear that having a college degree is frequently an advantage in getting hired even when no formal reward for higher education is offered.

Training The police training task can be broken down into a number of different approaches,

including in-class and on-the-job training, academic and skills training, and recruit and in-service training. Instructors can be police personnel assigned to a training unit, general police personnel, supervisory personnel, command-level personnel, professional trainers, or college professors. The training can be conducted at a departmental or regional training

BOX 4.2 Standard 13.3 Minority Recruiting

Every police agency immediately should insure that it presents no artificial or arbitrary barriers (cul-

tural or institutional) to discourage qualified individuals from seeking employment or from being

employed as police officers.

Every police agency should engage in positive efforts to employ ethnic minority group mem-

bers. When a substantial ethnic minority population resides within the jurisdiction, the police

agency should take affirmative action to achieve a ratio of minority group employees in approxi-

mate proportion to the makeup of the population.

Source: National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals. 1973. Police.

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, p. 329.

BOX 4.3 Standard 13.6 Employment of Women

Every police agency should immediately insure that there exists no agency policy that discourages

qualified women from seeking employment as sworn or civilian personnel or prevents them from

realizing their full employment potential.

Source: National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals. 1973. Police.

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, p. 342.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

4 Police Organizational Tasks 85

academy, in roll-call sessions, on the street, in patrol cars, online, or at a college or univer- sity. The training might be for newly hired recruits, newly promoted officers, experienced officers, or even for a police chief.

Most small departments depend on the services of nearby larger departments or regional or state training academies. Almost all states require by law that recruits and newly appointed officers receive minimum amounts of training either before assuming their duties or during the first several months they are on the job.25 Such requirements, and the training commissions developed to satisfy them, have contributed significantly to upgrading police services, especially in small communities.

Unless new police officers are thoroughly trained before they are on the job for any considerable length of time, they are likely to develop rigid habits and attitudes that will be difficult to alter. After recruit training, officers should be assigned to field train- ing officers who will teach and rate them on the job, showing recruits how their initial training is related to their work on the street.26 Field training officers (FTOs) should be carefully chosen from among the best officers in the department. The early days of a new officer’s career are crucial; they should be devoted to internalizing what he or she has learned from recruit training and reinforcing principles of good police practice.

When patrol officers are promoted to supervisory positions, they are usually unpre- pared for their new responsibilities. Just because they are capable police officers with considerable street experience and are well trained for police work does not necessarily mean that they will make good supervisors. The same holds true for administrative and management positions; a good supervisor does not automatically become a good admin- istrator. The higher a police officer ascends in the hierarchy of the police department, the more training he or she needs to meet increased responsibilities. The training at each level must necessarily be different and must be designed to prepare officers for the work they will be expected to do on the level to which they have been advanced.

In-service personnel, whether generalists or specialists, need regular refresher train- ing. Some police departments conduct daily roll-call training sessions. Others insist that their officers undergo one week of in-service training every year. Some departments do both, and others are implementing online and distance learning approaches to training. Regardless of how in-service training is accomplished, it is a must in a field as complex and involved as police work. How well or how poorly a police officer is trained relates directly to the success or failure of the entire organization in meeting its goals and objectives. See “Field Training,” Box 4.4.

Planning and Analysis Planning is preparing for the future in the hope that anticipation and preparation

will lead to more effective coping with future events. Planning is a much underrated func- tion in most police departments. Many police departments do no planning whatsoever;

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

86 Basic Considerations

others, through their budgets, plan only for the coming year. The philosophy of “we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it” is prevalent throughout the police field.

It is essential, however, that police organizations plan for such eventualities as civil disorder, natural disasters, and rises in crime and accident rates. They must also plan for change and the effects of such trends as energy depletion, rapid technological advance- ment, and population shifts. Everyday planning for personnel requirements, police officer deployment, and patrol concentration is also important in the planning process.

In order to plan effectively and to make informed decisions about operations, admin- istration, and auxiliary services, police departments need to perform at least three types of analyses. One type is crime and problem analysis.27 Departments must collect and analyze data on crime and related problems in the community in order to allocate officers to shifts, deploy them to beats, develop effective tactics, assign special units to problem areas, and generally to respond to the crime problem as effectively as possible. The data that must be collected on each crime include location, time, and very specific information on method of operation (MO). Analysis of these data mainly involves looking for patterns and trends. The most important aspect of crime and problem analysis is communicating findings to operational personnel for use in performing their work.

A second type of analysis crucial to police effectiveness is operations analysis. Operations analysis examines patrol, investigations, and other operational tasks and seeks to improve their effectiveness. For example, operations analysis uses crime analysis data

BOX 4.4 Field Training

Standard 33.4.3 A written directive establishes a field training program for all newly sworn officers

with a curriculum based on tasks of the most frequent assignments with provisions for the

following:

a. field training of at least four weeks for trainees, during and/or after the required classroom

training;

b. a selection process for field training officers;

c. supervision of field training officers;

d. liaison with the academy staff, if applicable;

e. training and in-service training of field training officers;

f. rotation of recruit field assignments;

g. guidelines for the evaluation of recruits by field training officers;

h. reporting responsibilities of field training officers.

Source: Standards for Law Enforcement Agencies: The Standards Manual of the CALEA Law

Enforcement Agency Accreditation Program, fifth edition, as amended. 2015. Gainesville, VA:

Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

4 Police Organizational Tasks 87

and data on other aspects of patrol workload (such as service calls, investigations, arrests, and auto accidents) to determine whether patrol resources are allocated in proportion to workload. Operations analysis also includes examinations of traffic accidents and traffic citations in order to establish a selective traffic enforcement program designed to reduce accidents.

The third category of analytical activity is administrative analysis. This involves the study of internal procedures and practices for the purpose of identifying problem areas and making improvements. For example, many police departments have had to analyze their recruitment, selection, and training in order to eliminate practices that discrim- inated against women and minorities. Many departments have performed studies to determine whether to deploy Tasers, whether to switch from simultaneous to sequential line-ups, the most effective soft body armor to purchase, and the most cost-efficient type of automobile for patrol work. The variety of administrative analyses that might be per- formed is nearly boundless.

Budget and Finance This task involves the administration and handling of departmental money matters.

It includes such activities as payroll, purchasing, budgeting, billing, accounting, and auditing.

Depending on the size of the department and local governmental practice, some of these activities are handled by the parent system. However, the police are involved, to a greater or lesser degree, in all of these functions. In the case of budgeting, the police depart- ment usually has full responsibility for development of its budget. The budget is important in that it outlines police activities and programs for a given period of time, usually one year.

Many police administrators have little understanding of the budgeting process; their budgets tend to be the same each year, with minor increases or decreases, depending on the state of the treasury. This kind of copycat budgeting provides for no evaluation of the actual desirability of various programs and budget categories and leaves no room for innovation. No effort is made to determine what kinds of expenditures might bring the organization closer to achieving its goals and objectives. As a rule, only incremental changes are made.

Two progressive approaches are programmatic budgeting and zero-based budgeting (ZBB). These two systems attempt to force administrators to identify the goals and objectives of their organizations and then to move toward achieving goals and objectives on the basis of intelligently allotting available funding resources. They make budgeting an ongoing process that mandates the continuing evaluation of programs to determine their effectiveness and usefulness.

Neither programmatic budgeting nor ZBB is a panacea; most administrators find it difficult to evaluate their own programs objectively and resist change even in the face

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

88 Basic Considerations

of facts. The true relevance of programs to departmental goals and objectives is often difficult to determine. In addition, budget review and appropriation committees of the parent governmental system, accustomed to working with traditional budgets, are fre- quently unimpressed with what they often view as the overly sophisticated nature of these more innovative approaches. Despite these shortcomings, however, performance-based and zero-based budgeting are helpful because they force police administrators to ask themselves whether they are making the best possible use of the public’s tax dollars. These systems force administrators and reviewers to consider financial requests in light of actual goals and objectives and allow them to manage their organizations systematically through their budgets.

Legal Assistance The legal assistance function within a police department includes, depending on the

jurisdiction, training of personnel in legal matters, legal advice in policy formulation and planning, liaison with legislatures and the courts, departmental representation in civil proceedings, advice and direction for internal administrative hearings, and counsel on specific problems arising out of criminal cases.28

Additionally, in some jurisdictions, the police prosecute their own cases in the lower courts without any assistance from a district attorney or a state’s attorney. In such instances, legal assistance is of the utmost importance and is concerned primarily with aiding officers in the prosecution of misdemeanor criminal cases and traffic cases. A police department may designate a police officer who has had legal training as its prosecutor and legal advisor, or it may hire an attorney specifically for this purpose.

Because most police departments are not large enough to employ a full-time attorney, many small departments band together on a regular basis to hire a legal advisor who is available to all of them on a full-time basis. Other departments retain counsel on a part- time basis and/or rely on advice from their parent government’s legal office.

Information Systems Information is the lifeblood of most organizations, especially police departments.

The task of processing information within police agencies includes a variety of secretarial, clerical, and data-processing duties. Today, computers and other information technology (IT) systems are typically utilized for information processing in police organizations, although much information is still processed verbally or in handwritten form.

Police communications and records systems are discussed in the next section on the auxiliary services subsystem, because they are needed to provide ongoing information and support to police officers in the field. Police departments also need internal mechanisms that provide and process administrative information, however. Letters, memoranda,

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

4 Police Organizational Tasks 89

training bulletins, personnel orders, schedules, policies, procedures, and rules must be prepared and disseminated. Systems are also needed to keep track of expenditures, vehicle maintenance, officer training, departmental equipment and supplies, found property, evidence, and numerous other matters. In addition, police administrators need systems that provide them with information about how well the department is doing in meet- ing its primary goals and objectives—that is, with feedback to establish a closed-loop management system that corrects mistakes and keeps the organization on track toward efficiency and effectiveness.

The technology of information processing changes ever more rapidly in today’s elec- tronic age. In some police agencies, a significant amount of internal information sharing is now accomplished via e-mail, Internet mailing lists, and an organizational intranet. More and more, of course, external information sharing is also electronic, utilizing e-mail, Web pages, social media, and the Internet.

Public Information Both public relations and press relations come under the subtask of public infor-

mation. Keeping the public informed about police activities includes news about crime, media relations, features on police officers and programs, information on crime pre- vention and how to avoid being victimized by crime, public lectures on policing, and explanations of policies and procedures that affect the public. The public information function is important to the police because it gives them the opportunity to tell their story, to explain their position on controversial issues, and to respond in a meaningful way to public concerns.29

New methods of disseminating public information include the agency’s Web page or home page and social media. Most police agencies today have their own home pages that can be used to post the latest information about crimes, wanted persons, and new police programs, as well as to solicit public input on important police-related issues. If police departments devote sufficient time and energy to keeping their home pages fresh and current, many citizens will avail themselves of this method of obtaining public infor- mation. Police agencies have also begun to make extensive use of social media, including Facebook and Twitter. These media are excellent vehicles for disseminating brief bits of information to the public, soliciting input (such as crime tips), and drawing citizens to the agency’s Web page where more detailed information can be obtained.

Unfortunately, many police officials find it difficult to relate to the news media. Because of poor experiences with newspapers and television stations, some police officials see members of the media as enemies or, at the very least, antagonists. As a result, they make it difficult for reporters to get the news and sometimes exhibit open hostility toward the press. This creates a negative attitude on the part of media representatives toward the police and contributes to the development of what can easily become a vicious cycle of

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

90 Basic Considerations

open warfare between the police and the press. Such a relationship works to the detriment of everyone concerned and negatively affects the image of the police.

It is essential for police administrators to cultivate good relations with the press.30 Whether this is done through the formal establishment of a public information division, as in large departments, or through the careful handling of media relationships by the chief or a designated officer in smaller departments, it is important to understand that a positive policy needs to be developed within every police department for the handling of public information. Whoever is responsible for public information should make every possible effort to provide news on police activities as accurately and as quickly as possible. The designated public information officer should also encourage feature stories about the police department and cooperate fully in their development.

The responsible police administrator cultivates healthy media relations not only because the media enhance the flow of news and information but also because they pro- vide a line of communication between the police and the public that the police cannot afford to jeopardize. Media institutions are essential to the democratic process and serve to moderate government power. In the United States, they are as much a part of the system of checks and balances as are any of the branches of government; as such, they must be respected and treated fairly. See “Public Information,” Box 4.5.

Inspections The aim of the inspections function is to ascertain compliance with agency directives

and standards. People handling this task systematically check the organization to deter- mine how well policies, procedures, rules, and regulations are being followed.

Although larger departments need to establish specialized inspections units, it should be understood that, in all police departments, regardless of size, every adminis- trator and supervisory officer has inspection responsibilities. Each must attempt to learn how well subordinates adhere to directives and to control subordinates in this adherence.

MODERN POLICING BLOG Police–press relations February 19, 2015

This article discusses the evolving relationship between the police and the news media. The official press itself faces many challenges today thanks to social media, bloggers, and ubiquitous cell-phone cameras, plus police–press frictions flared in the post-Ferguson environment.

Source: The above is a reproduction of a post from the Modern Policing blog. The link to the post is https://gcordner.wordpress. com/2015/02/19/police-press-relations/. The hyperlink at “This article” links to http://thecrimereport.s3.amazonaws. com/2/3a/b/2726/krajicek_case_study_chilly_peace_final_2-13-15_djk-2.pdf.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

4 Police Organizational Tasks 91

In departments large enough to have a specialized inspections unit, the persons responsible for this function are not directly involved in the controlling process. That is, they merely inspect the organization and report their findings, both good and bad, to the chief. If they discover any lack of adherence to directives, it is the chief who exercises the controlling function, not them. It is important to understand that, in large departments, the inspections function and the controlling function are different functions performed by different people. In departments not large enough to have an inspections unit, both the inspections and controlling functions are usually performed by the chief or by some- one designated to do this on a part-time basis.

It is essential that the inspections function be administered on a totally profes- sional, objective, and impartial basis. Under no circumstances should those assigned to inspections go about their work in a clandestine fashion. Officers should be advised that inspections is an ongoing function within the department and that all operational, administrative, and service subsystems will be examined to determine compliance with directives. It should also be understood that all positive as well as negative findings will be reported.

The inspections function will serve the chief as a secondary source of information to supplement information received through the regular chain of command. Many impor- tant matters that the chief should be aware of will, either purposely or inadvertently, never come to the attention of anyone at the command level. Some of these problems will be of such significance that they will negatively affect the entire organization if they are not identified and solved. A good inspections program will identify them so they can be solved.

BOX 4.5 Public Information

Standard 54.1.1 The public information function shall include, at a minimum:

a. assisting media personnel in covering news stories at the scenes of incidents;

b. preparing and distributing agency media releases;

c. arranging for, and assisting at media conferences;

d. coordinating and authorizing the release of information about victims, witnesses, and suspects;

e. coordinating and authorizing the release of information concerning confidential agency investi-

gations and operations;

f. developing procedures for releasing information when other public service agencies are

involved in a mutual effort.

Source: Standards for Law Enforcement Agencies: The Standards Manual of the CALEA Law

Enforcement Agency Accreditation Program, fifth edition, as amended. 2015. Gainesville, VA:

Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

92 Basic Considerations

Officers who perform the inspection function are in a sense the chief ’s internal patrol unit. Whereas the regular patrol unit keeps an eye on the general public’s adherence to criminal and traffic laws, the inspections unit checks for violations of the department’s internal laws, i.e., policies, procedures, rules, and regulations. Just as the personnel of the regular patrol unit must be regarded as fair and honest to be successful at their jobs and respected by the public, so too must inspections personnel have a reputation for fairness and integrity if they are to perform their function effectively and without creating exces- sive internal strife.

Internal Affairs Internal affairs personnel investigate specific allegations of police misconduct and

criminality. If inspections personnel are the “internal patrol officers” of the department, then internal affairs personnel are the “internal detectives.” Internal investigations ema- nate from information received from the public, from within the police department, and from independently developed sources. The internal affairs function should always be a specialized function in large departments. In small departments, the chief should be responsible for internal affairs.

The need to have the internal affairs function performed by the chief of police in small departments should be obvious. In such departments, the chief is, as a general rule, the only sworn officer in the department who will not be reduced in rank and reassigned. The chief, therefore, is the only logical candidate; only the chief can handle such an assignment without having to fear its consequences at a later date. In highly politicized police departments, in which police chiefs change with the election of a new mayor or with the appointment of a new city manager, it is virtually impossible to establish viable internal affairs programs. This is especially the case if police chiefs are recycled back into the organization with every change in political administration. Consequently, many departments, especially small ones, rely on an outside agency, such as the state police, to conduct particularly sensitive or serious internal investigations.

Several years ago, a presidential commission noted that “if the police are to maintain the respect and support of the public, they must deal openly and forcefully with mis- conduct within their own ranks whenever it occurs.”31 This can be accomplished only through the establishment of an internal affairs component that is designed to meet its obligations fully. In some situations, this may even require proactively seeking out corrupt officers rather than merely sitting back and waiting for allegations to investigate.32 The people who “guard the guards” must be skilled investigators of unquestionable integrity.

A practice that has become more common in the last few decades is external or “civilian” review of complaints against the police. A variety of models are now in existence, from ones in which non-police personnel conduct the investigations all the way to models in which the external board serves only as an avenue of appeal for those

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

4 Police Organizational Tasks 93

complainants who are not satisfied with the police handling of their case.33 While still somewhat controversial among police officials, these external mechanisms for respond- ing to police misconduct seem to be gaining popularity, probably because they offer the public some assurance that its complaints against the police will be taken seriously and not swept under a rug.

Intelligence For the most part, the intelligence function within a police department involves col-

lecting and analyzing information that relates to the existence, scope, and impact of gangs, organized crime, drug trafficking, and terrorism. See “Criminal Intelligence,” Box 4.6.

Most intelligence units operate through the extensive use of informants and under- cover employees. Officers assigned to the intelligence function usually serve in a staff capacity and rarely become involved operationally. In most departments, intelligence personnel report directly to the chief, who makes tactical and strategic decisions based on the information and analyses provided.

Officers assigned to the intelligence function should be selected very carefully and should possess qualities of integrity that are completely above reproach. They should

BOX 4.6 Criminal Intelligence

Standard 42.1.6 A written directive addresses the collection, processing, and sharing of suspicious

incidents and criminal intelligence relating to criminal and homeland security activities with appro-

priate entities, to include:

a. a description of the function;

b. the responsibilities of all agency personnel;

c. training of personnel;

d. procedures for safeguarding, securing, and storing information

e. procedures for ensuring that information collected is limited to criminal conduct or relates to

activities that present a potential threat to the jurisdiction

f. legal and privacy requirements

g. documentation, reporting, and dissemination of information

h. procedures for purging out-of-date or incorrect information

i. an annual review of procedures and processes.

Source: Standards for Law Enforcement Agencies: The Standards Manual of the CALEA Law

Enforcement Agency Accreditation Program, fifth edition, as amended. 2015. Gainesville, VA:

Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

94 Basic Considerations

be experienced police officers who have served their apprenticeships as departmental investigators.

With the emergence of domestic and international terrorists openly dedicated to the violent overthrow of the government and to the destruction of the democratic process, the police intelligence function has become increasingly important and con- troversial. Many police departments are now linked to state-wide fusion centers as well as regional  and national intelligence and information systems operated by the U.S. Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security. Collection, analysis, and sharing of intelligence have come to occupy a central role in the new homeland security mission.34

That the government and the society have a right and an obligation to defend them- selves from violent criminal and terrorist groups is not usually questioned, but of great and legitimate concern are decisions about which groups to investigate and what means of investigation should be used. A few decades ago, many police agencies closely monitored groups whose suspected “crimes” seem to have been nothing more than support for civil rights and opposition to the Vietnam War. More recently, since 9/11, police and national security agencies have greatly expanded their electronic surveillance of phone calls and e-mails. We risk forgetting that it was the efforts of earlier political dissenters, such as John Adams, Thomas Paine, and George Washington, that made political dissent legal and, indeed, important in our system of government. Police administrators must have a strong appreciation of this. They must be careful to differentiate between dissenters and truly violent opponents of the democratic process. The latter, but not the former, are worthy targets of police intelligence activity.

The Auxiliary Services Subsystem

We have described operations as activities performed in direct assistance to the public and administration as activities that are likely to be of long-term benefit to all units within the organization. The remaining activities constitute the auxiliary services subsystem. It should be noted that these activities also benefit other units within the department, but on a more regular and ongoing basis than administrative activities. Auxiliary services functions are usually available to assist operational police officers on a 24-hour-a-day, 365-day-a-year basis; administrative functions are usually available only eight hours a day, five days a week. Although it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between these two types of activities, it is useful to think of administrative services as long-range services available on a limited basis and of auxiliary services as direct services available on a continuing basis. The tasks included within the auxiliary services subsystem are records, communications, property and evidence, laboratory,  detention, crime scene/ identification, alcohol testing, facilities, equipment and supply, and maintenance.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

4 Police Organizational Tasks 95

Records The records task, a vitally important one for the police organization, furnishes the

agency with a memory, enabling it to retrieve information long forgotten. It can provide information on wanted persons, unpaid parking tickets, last year’s traffic accidents, crime patterns, and activity statistics.

The foundation of the records task is the reporting system. Some departments use one report form for almost all types of complaints; others have separate forms for different types of complaints. Regardless of the system used, each complaint should be assigned a unique complaint number for use in case control. All initial and follow-up reports on a given complaint should bear this number, enabling the records unit to maintain individ- ual files on all investigations.

In addition to files of complaint reports, the records unit should ordinarily maintain files on arrests, warrants, traffic tickets, summonses, methods of operation (MOs), ali- ases, and mug shots. The records unit should also maintain cross-index files for the quick retrieval of information.

Most police departments now have computerized Records Management Systems (RMS). Many departments have refined this process to the point of installing computers in patrol cars and providing officers with laptop computers, tablets, and/or smart phones, thus giving individual officers the opportunity to immediately check on such matters as suspicious persons and stolen vehicles they might come across in the course of their duties. The computerization of records has made police work vastly more effective and efficient.

Access to departmental records must be available 24 hours a day. For the small depart- ment with limited personnel, this sometimes poses a serious problem, especially from a security standpoint. Because of the need to control access, the records room—where orig- inal, official, and sometimes confidential documents are stored—cannot be left open and unsecured, nor can confidential electronic records. Therefore, small departments must assign records officers who will be responsible for records for control purposes during given shifts. A strict system of accountability should be enforced in all such instances.

Communications The communications function (call taking and dispatching) is integral to both oper-

ations and auxiliary services. In many instances, communications personnel handling incoming telephone calls are able to satisfy callers’ needs directly, without having to refer matters further. When such services are provided to the public directly in this way, they are operational. But for the most part, communications personnel provide internal services that benefit police officers and assist them in their work. The bulk of their work is directed toward helping officers perform their tasks, and therefore they are generally looked on as being auxiliary service personnel. See “Telecommunications,” Box 4.7.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

96 Basic Considerations

As a vitally important police function, communications provides the link between the police and the public for the delivery of police services to the community at large. It should go without saying that people assigned to the communications task should be effective communicators who are receptive to and concerned about the public interest. When answering telephones, communications personnel must obtain as much accurate information as possible about complaints, so that appropriate responses can be chosen and responding units can be prepared for what is likely to await them. As dispatchers, communications personnel must be aware of the seriousness of all calls and assign appropriate numbers of officers and vehicles to accommodate needs and ensure officer safety.

The communications unit is the brain or central nervous system of every police department; it receives information, processes it, and sends signals out into the system to be acted on. Not surprisingly, the work of communications personnel is more and more assisted by computers and other modern technology integrated into what are called Computer-Aided Dispatching (CAD) systems. Personnel in the communications center typically have access to multiple databases and information systems, and often monitor surveillance camera systems and even gunshot detection sensors. More and more, they can receive “calls” from the public via text, e-mail, Twitter, and Facebook as well as the traditional telephone call. Finally, regional and county-wide communication/9-1-1 centers are increasingly common, which helps spread the cost of equipment and 24-hour staff across multiple police and other public safety agencies.

Property and Evidence This task encompasses the handling of all property for which the police are responsi-

ble (e.g., prisoners’ property, recovered stolen property, lost/found property, confiscated property, departmental property, abandoned and towed vehicles, and evidence). See “Property Management,” Box 4.8.

BOX 4.7 Telecommunications

Standard 81.1.2 The agency has current Federal Communications Commission (FCC) or applica-

ble regulatory agency licenses and has access to the regulatory agency’s current rules and regula-

tions.

Standard 81.2.1 The agency provides 24-hour, toll-free voice and TDD telephone access or an

equivalent system for emergency calls for service.

Source: Standards for Law Enforcement Agencies: The Standards Manual of the CALEA Law

Enforcement Agency Accreditation Program, fifth edition, as amended. 2015. Gainesville, VA:

Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

4 Police Organizational Tasks 97

The handling of property, thought by some to be a simple warehouse operation, can be complicated and burdensome for the police administrator. In all cases, prop- erty must be protected in a systematic way. Although some items need to be stored for only  short  periods, others, such as perishable goods or narcotics evidence, need special care and continual surveillance. Honest attempts must be made to find owners of lost property; departmental property and equipment must be accounted for and maintained.

Special procedures must be devised for the control of all property, and records must be maintained so that any single piece of property can be easily located. A rigid system of security for the property storage area is essential for the protection of all property, and great pains must be taken to control property in the possession of the police.

Handling evidence is an especially difficult and important task, as the American public learned during the infamous O.J. Simpson murder trial. In order for evidence to be admissible in court, it must be maintained within a chain of custody that guarantees that it is in the same condition as when it was seized by police. Each time a piece of evidence is passed, for whatever reason, from one person to another, the person taking

BOX 4.8 Property Management

Standard 84.1.2 All in-custody and evidentiary property is stored within designated, secure areas

with access limited to authorized personnel.

Standard 84.1.6 In order to maintain a high degree of evidentiary integrity over agency controlled

property and evidence, the following documented inspections, inventory and audits shall be com-

pleted:

a. an inspection to determine adherence to procedures used for the control of property is con-

ducted semi-annually by the person responsible for the property and evidence control function

or his/her designee;

b. an inventory of property occurs whenever the property and evidence custodian is assigned to

and/or transferred from the position and is conducted jointly by the newly designated property

and evidence custodian and a designee of the CEO to ensure that records are correct and

properly annotated;

c. an annual audit of property and evidence held by the agency is conducted by a supervisor not

routinely or directly connected with control of property and evidence;

d. unannounced inspections of property storage areas are conducted, as directed by the agency’s

chief executive officer, at least once a year.

Source: Standards for Law Enforcement Agencies: The Standards Manual of the CALEA Law

Enforcement Agency Accreditation Program, fifth edition, as amended. 2015. Gainesville, VA:

Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

98 Basic Considerations

possession becomes a link in the chain of custody. Staff responsible for property within a given police department must maintain records indicating the chain of custody and describing the purposes for which evidence has been passed from one person to another. Property custodians must establish a system to maintain the integrity of evidence, always exercising caution that it is not altered or contaminated.

Laboratory Sophistication in investigative activities requires the use of technology and science.

Instead of relying solely on confessions to obtain convictions, which had been the tra- ditional approach, the police now often rely on the development of scientific evidence through techniques such as DNA analysis and Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems (AFIS).35 Physical evidence such as fibers, tool marks, tire tracks, bloodstains, and fingerprints are considered the most reliable of all forms of evidence; the examination and classification of such evidence rests with the laboratory.

Few police departments have the financial resources to maintain their own laboratories. Most police departments rely on the facilities of regional, state, or in some cases federal laboratories for the scientific analysis of evidence once it has been collected. In departments that do not have their own laboratories, one person is often designated as laboratory coordinating officer and given the responsibility for coordi- nating physical evidence examinations. It is important for this individual to carefully track evidence processing so that cases get resolved and evidence is available for court proceedings when needed. Unfortunately, in part because crime labs are overwhelmed, evidence often gets backlogged or misplaced, as indicated by the hundreds and thou- sands of untested rape kits currently sitting in storage in multiple jurisdictions around the country.36

Detention For most police departments, the detention task involves the temporary confinement

of arrested persons for short periods after their arrest. If the accused person is not released by the court after his or her arraignment or cannot raise the necessary bail for release, he or she is usually taken to a holding facility (jail), often administered by the county, until trial. Incarceration in police lockups, therefore, is usually for short periods, and police detention populations are generally very transient.

Because our system of justice presumes the innocence of all persons charged and because our culture dictates that all human beings be treated with dignity, arrested per- sons in the custody of the police deserve fair and just treatment. Separate quarters for juvenile and female detainees must be provided. Detention areas should be clean and should give prisoners the opportunity to rest, wash, and use toilet facilities. Prisoners

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

4 Police Organizational Tasks 99

should be fed and housed in accordance with their needs; they should be protected from other prisoners, as well as from themselves at times. All personal property, including belts, shoelaces, neckties, matches, and cigarettes, should be temporarily confiscated. In order to prevent prisoner suicides, cells should be constantly monitored by closed-circuit television and by sound systems, and all cells should be constructed or reconstructed to be suicide-proof. Prisoners should also be checked periodically to prevent them from doing bodily harm to themselves. If prisoners need medical attention, it should be provided immediately. In short, in attempting to meet the needs of prisoners, the police should act responsibly.

Detention facilities should be secure and should be designed to prevent escape as well as any danger to police personnel. One officer should be placed in charge of all prisoners and held accountable for their care while in custody.

Crime Scene/Identification The crime scene/identification task, which involves evidence collection at crime

scenes, fingerprinting, and photography, relates most notably to detention, records, and criminal investigation. Prisoners should be fingerprinted and photographed immediately following arrest. Fingerprints are maintained as permanent records in local, state, and federal files. Photographs are usually maintained locally for future reference. Both are extremely useful in criminal investigations for identification purposes. Photographs are used to identify suspects and to record crime scenes in vivid detail; they are often useful in the prosecution of cases. Fingerprints also serve to identify suspects, sometimes pro- viding the only link between a crime and a criminal. Modern AFIS systems have greatly improved the value of fingerprints, both for positive identification of prisoners using aliases and for suspect identification using latent fingerprints found at crime scenes.37

Large police departments usually have crime scene/identification experts who are skilled in all aspects of evidence collection, fingerprinting, and photography. Some  departments equip all of their police vehicles with inexpensive cameras and require their patrol officers and detectives to do their own photographing. In this regard, digital photography has become standard, in part because it saves substantial cost that formerly went toward film and film processing. Some small departments also train one or more officers on each shift to handle fingerprinting, photography, and other techni- cal crime scene services as a part of their normal patrol or investigative activities as the need arises.

For the proper investigation of major crimes, it is essential for all police departments to have available to them the resources of truly professional crime scene technicians and police photographers. If such experts are not locally available, the department should depend on the services of personnel available from regional facilities or state police agencies.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

100 Basic Considerations

Alcohol Testing Because drunk driving causes so many automobile-accident injuries and fatalities,

many police departments consider the apprehension and conviction of intoxicated drivers to be one of their highest priorities. In addition to an officer’s observations of a defendant’s driving behavior and condition, the results of an alcohol test can be compelling evidence of intoxication.

Several different methods can be used to test for the degree of intoxication, including the examination of the breath, blood, and urine. Because the breath test can be admin- istered by a police officer trained in the operation of the testing equipment, it is the test most commonly used by police departments. Blood and urine tests involve laboratory analysis and are more difficult methods for the police to use, although they are standard practice in some jurisdictions.

It is the policy of most police departments, both small and large, to train a number of officers on each shift to administer breath tests. The process is simple and can be learned in a short period. All police departments should be equipped for alcohol testing or should have the facilities for such testing available to them immediately.

Facilities The police facilities task involves all aspects of the building or buildings in which

a police department is housed. It encompasses the allocation and efficient use of space. The facilities task is designed to make the best possible use of available space, with full consideration given to the goals and objectives of the organization.

Because most police chiefs are not qualified as building superintendents or archi- tects, the police facilities task has been poorly handled over the years. Yet the way space is used is of supreme importance in the implementation of police programs and in get- ting the work done. To this day, many police departments are cramped in abandoned city halls or in station houses built in the early 1900s. These ancient edifices often lack proper security, sanitary facilities, and rooms for lockers, roll calls, and interviews. Very often their layouts expose communications rooms to the public and necessitate the location of cell blocks down flights of stairs in basements that lack ventilation and over the years have become moldy and dirty. On the positive side, though, design of police facilities has become a recognized specialty within architecture, and several firms that have experience and expertise in designing or redesigning police facilities can easily be located on the Internet.

The structural grouping of related police functions is one of the most important aspects of the facilities task. Subsystem components that depend on each other or are similar in nature should be located in close physical proximity. The communications and records sections, for example, should be close together, with consideration given

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

4 Police Organizational Tasks 101

to the necessity of locating records in an area accommodating public access while at the same time sealing off communications from the range of public view and hear- ing. Similarly, offices used for operational purposes, such as patrol and investigations, should be separate but, at the same time, near each other. In order to enhance prisoner safety, detention facilities should be located in or near an area that is staffed 24 hours a day.

Equipment and Supply There is an almost endless variety of police equipment and supplies. Police equipment

includes vehicles, bullhorns, searchlights, first aid kits, computers, firearms, cameras, uni- forms, riot gear, radios, dogs, horses, microscopes, aircraft, boats, motorcycles, scooters, and bicycles. Supplies include items such as paper, forms, pens, gasoline, tires, fingerprint powder, bullets, bandages, thumb drives, and flashlight batteries.

Personnel responsible for the equipment and supply task are involved from pur- chasing through installation and disposal. They monitor equipment performance and evaluate departmental needs for new equipment. One of their more important functions is to develop an inventory system by which equipment and supplies can be controlled, replenished, and prevented from being lost or stolen. Every police department should calculate the rate of usage of each kind of supply item and flag items for repurchase when stocks have dwindled. Because good equipment and supplies are essential in the operation  of every police department, this function must be looked on, as it often- times  is  not, as an important function requiring constant attention. As with all the other tasks discussed in this chapter, this function is likely to be specialized in a large police agency, or combined with a few other auxiliary services and administrative tasks in a medium-sized agency, while in a small agency it will probably be one of many tasks shouldered by the chief of police.

The personnel in charge of this responsibility should attempt to purchase equipment and supplies at the lowest possible cost. It is their obligation to establish bidding pro- cedures, to put items out for bid, and to supervise the bidding process. In addition, to the degree possible, they should enter into regional or state-wide purchasing compacts or price contracts in order to purchase equipment and supplies in quantity and therefore obtain the lowest possible unit costs.

Maintenance Keeping police facilities clean and equipment repaired and functioning properly

has a positive impact on the effectiveness of every police agency. Those who perform the maintenance task have this responsibility.

There is nothing more frustrating for a police officer than to be forced to work out

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

102 Basic Considerations

of a dirty police facility with equipment that works only occasionally. In departments in which maintenance of facilities and equipment holds a low priority, the morale of police officers is likely to be low. In fact, one of the most frequent complaints voiced by police officers concerns the poor maintenance of the vehicles they drive.

Because most police chiefs do not regard maintenance as a police function per se, they rarely use good judgment in ensuring its performance at an acceptable level. Thus, in city after city, police cars operate at less than full horsepower and have dented fenders, broken mirrors, and nonfunctioning lights. Very often, one finds cameras with dead  batteries, fire extinguishers in need of recharging, and first aid kits without bandages.

Many police chiefs find that it is more cost-effective to have maintenance service performed by outsiders on a contract basis. Some departments, for example, hire custodial services to maintain their buildings and hire private auto repair shops to main- tain their vehicles. Because such services are provided on a competitive basis, outside service agencies are often found to perform them significantly better than departmental personnel assigned to this task. Most departments cannot afford full-time radio and computer technicians, mechanics, and custodians. They can, however, afford to assign the responsibility for maintenance to someone within the department and hold that person accountable for the performance of the function. Although the maintenance function is not glamorous, it is nonetheless vital to the proper functioning of the organization.

Interdependence of Subsystem Tasks

The 30 basic police subsystem tasks discussed in this chapter must be performed in every police agency. If any of these tasks is neglected or not performed, the job of pro- viding good police services to the community will be impaired, often to a great degree. Inasmuch as each task is an integral part of the police system as a whole, the system itself as well as component subsystems will be affected adversely if any one of the subsystem tasks is performed poorly or not at all.

From an organizational standpoint, all these subsystem tasks are interdependent. Each relies on all of the others being performed well. When an organization fails to meet its goals and objectives, the failure can always be attributed to a breakdown in one or more subsystem tasks. Understanding the importance of these tasks is the first step in understanding the organization itself (i.e., the system). All of the organization’s subsystem tasks are parts of the machinery that make the system run. Just as a bald tire, clogged fuel injector, or worn brakes reduce the efficiency of an automobile, an inept patrol supervisor, an inadequately equipped laboratory, or a poorly planned budget reduces the efficiency of a police department. When all component parts of a system are working together in

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

4 Police Organizational Tasks 103

good order, the total system works in good order. Take away or damage one component part of the system, however, and you damage the whole system; it begins to break down. Systems that are put together poorly to begin with or lack the necessary parts to function stand little or no chance of achieving their goals and objectives.

Summary

In this chapter, we have examined the most important basic police subsystem tasks, tasks that must be performed if police departments are to be viable. To suggest that these subsystem tasks are the only ones that police perform would be naive. Each subsystem task could in fact be looked on as an individual system in and of itself, with each task comprising numerous additional subsystems.

You should be aware that operations, administration, and auxiliary services are the three major subsystems of the police organization and that each comprises several additional important subsystem tasks that are essential to the system as a whole if it is to function properly. We have examined 30 of these subsystem tasks and have explained their importance and interdependence. In the last analysis, it is how well these tasks are performed that will determine a police department’s success or failure.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. When the subject of police work comes up, what kinds of activities come to mind? What are the implications for police work of the glamorized, fictional presentations seen by the public on television, in the movies, and in novels?

2. Juvenile services, community services, and crime prevention are often looked down on by police officers as not being “real police work.” What is real police work? As a police manager, how would you go about elevating the status of such tasks?

3. When police recruits leave the training academy and hit the streets, they are frequently advised by more experienced officers to forget everything that they were taught, because it is not applicable to the real world. The recruits then learn from the “old salts” such things as sleeping on the job, accepting gratuities, quickly disposing of non-emergency service calls, and padding their activity reports to make themselves look busier than they really are. How can this cycle be broken? How can the department guarantee that the proper procedures taught in training classes are actually implemented?

4. An age-old problem concerns the responsibility for police abuses. If the investigation of police corruption and brutality is left to the police themselves, how can the public be sure that proper action is taken? If the responsibility is placed elsewhere, such as with a civilian review board, how can the police be convinced that they will be dealt with justly?

5. The police must collect intelligence about certain groups. Experience suggests that the police often exceed their proper role and use illegal means or collect intelligence on legal and nonviolent groups. How can these problems be resolved? Who should decide what means are proper and what groups should be investigated?

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

104 Basic Considerations

Suggested Reading

Carter, D.L. 2009. Law Enforcement Intelligence: A Guide for State, Local, and Tribal Law Enforcement Agencies, second edition. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

Jurkanin, T.J., L.T. Hoover, and V.A. Sergevnin (eds). 2007. Improving Police Response to Persons with Mental Illness: A Progressive Approach. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.

Katz, C.M. and V.J. Webb. 2006. Policing Gangs in America. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Phillips, P.W. 2005. Policing and Special Units. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Walker, S. 2005. The New World of Police Accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Notes

1 The American Heritage Dictionary. 2009. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, as cited in The Free Dictionary. Available online at: www.thefreedictionary.com/patrol.

2 M. Levine and J.T. McEwen. 1986. Patrol Deployment. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. 3 G.L. Kelling, T. Pate, D. Dieckman, and C.E. Brown. 1974. The Kansas City Preventive Patrol

Experiment: A Summary Report. Washington, DC: Police Foundation. 4 G.W. Cordner and R.C. Trojanowicz. 1992. “Patrol.” In G.W. Cordner and D.C. Hale (eds), What

Works in Policing? Operations and Administration Examined. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson, pp. 3–18. 5 J.H. Ratcliffe. 2008. Intelligence-Led Policing. Devon, UK: Willan; G.L. Kelling and M.H. Moore. 1988.

“The Evolving Strategy of Policing.” Perspectives on Policing No. 4. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

6 Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2014. Crime in the United States, 2013: Uniform Crime Reports. Online at: www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law- enforcement/clearances/clearancetopic_final.

7 P.W. Greenwood and J. Petersilia. 1975. The Criminal Investigation Process. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

8 J.E. Eck. 1992. “Criminal Investigation.” In What Works in Policing? pp. 19–34. 9 C. Cosgrove. 1999. “Investigations in the Community Policing Context.” In C.S. Brito and T. Allan

(eds), Problem-Oriented Policing: Crime-Specific Problems, Critical Issues, and Making POP Work, Volume 2. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum, pp. 151–176.

10 A. Harocopos and M. Hough. 2005. Drug Dealing in Open-Air Markets. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services; D.W. Hayeslip Jr. and D.L. Weisel. 1992. “Local Level Drug Enforcement.” In What Works in Policing? pp. 35–48.

11 S.H. Decker. 2008. Strategies to Address Gang Crime: A Guidebook for Local Law Enforcement. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services; Gang Violence: The Police Role in Developing Community-Wide Solutions. 2010. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.

12 L. Langton. 2010. Gang Units in Large Local Police Agencies, 2007. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

13 C.M. Katz and V.J. Webb. 2006. Policing Gangs in America. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; P.W. Phillips (ed.). 2005. Policing and Special Units. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

14 Standards for Law Enforcement Agencies, fifth edition, as amended. 2015. Gainesville, VA: Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Chapter 46.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

4 Police Organizational Tasks 105

15 R.V. Clarke (ed.). 1997. Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies, second edition. Guilderland, NY: Harrow and Heston, pp. 3–21; D.M. Robinson (ed.). 2002. Policing and Crime Prevention. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

16 Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2014. Crime in the United States, 2013, Table 38. Online at: www.fbi. gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-38/table_38_arrests_ by_age_2013.xls.

17 G. Cordner. 2006. People with Mental Illness, Problem-Specific Guide No. 40. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services; P. Finn and M. Sullivan. 1988. “Police Response to Special Populations.” Research in Action. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

18 B. Raymond. 2010. Assigning Police Officers to Schools. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

19 J. Rosiak. 2015. “How SROs Can Divert Students from the Justice System.” Community Policing Dispatch 8, no. 5 (May). Online at: http://cops.usdoj.gov/html/dispatch/05-2015/sros_and_students. asp.

20 D.J. Kenney and T.S. Watson. 1999. Crime in the Schools: Reducing Conflict with Student Problem Solving. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.

21 B.E. Kaufman. 2007. “The Development of HRM in Historical and International Perspective.” In P. Boxall, J. Purcell, and P. Wright (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Human Resource Management. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 19–47.

22 L.K. Gaines and V.E. Kappeler, “Selection and Testing.” In What Works in Policing? pp. 107–123. 23 D.L. Carter, A.D. Sapp, and D.W. Stephens. 1989. The State of Police Education: Policy Direction for the

Twenty-First Century. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum. 24 B.A. Reaves. 2010. Local Police Departments, 2007. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, p. 11. 25 For state by state requirements, see the International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement

Standards and Training (IADLEST), online at: www.iadlest.org; also see B.A. Reaves. 2009. State and Local Law Enforcement Training Academies, 2006. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

26 PTO: An Overview and Introduction. 2004. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Online at: http://ric-zai-inc.com/Publications/cops-w0150-pub.pdf; M.S. McCampbell. 2001. “Field Training for Police Officers: State of the Art.” In R.G. Dunham and G.P. Alpert (eds), Critical Issues in Policing: Contemporary Readings, fourth edition. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland, pp. 107–116.

27 R.V. Clarke and J.E. Eck. 2005. Crime Analysis for Problem Solvers in 60 Small Steps. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

28 President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. 1967. Task Force Report: The Police. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, pp. 63–65.

29 G. Cordner and E.B. Perkins. 2013. E-cop: Using the Web to Enhance Community-Oriented Policing. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Online at: http://ric-zai-inc. com/Publications/cops-w0706-pub.pdf; D.W. Stephens, J. Hill, and S. Greenberg. 2011. Strategic Communication Practices: A Toolkit for Police Executives. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

30 M. Motschall and L. Cao. 2002. “An Analysis of the Public Relations Role of the Police Public Information Officer.” Police Quarterly 5, no. 2 (June): 152–180; J.E. Guffey. 1992. “The Police and the Media: Proposals for Managing Conflict Productively.” American Journal of Police 11, no. 1: 33–51.

31 President’s Commission on Campus Unrest. 1970. Report of the President’s Commission on Campus Unrest. Chicago, IL: Commerce Clearing House, pp. 5–8.

32 L.W. Sherman. 1978. Scandal and Reform: Controlling Police Corruption. Berkeley, CA: University of California.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

106 Basic Considerations

33 Building Trust between the Police and the Citizens They Serve: An Internal Affairs Promising Practices Guide for Local Law Enforcement. 2009. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services and International Association of Chiefs of Police; S. Walker. 2005. The New World of Police Accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

34 D.L. Carter. 2009. Law Enforcement Intelligence: A Guide for State, Local, and Tribal Law Enforcement Agencies, second edition. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

35 G. Cordner. 2013. “Science Solves Crime: Myth or Reality.” In R.M. Bohm and J.T. Walker (eds), Demystifying Crime and Criminal Justice, second edition. New York, NY: Oxford, pp. 157–165.

36 “Untested Evidence in Sexual Assault Cases.” 2015. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Online at: www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/investigations/sexual-assault/Pages/untested-sexual- assault.aspx.

37 D.J. Klug, J.L. Peterson, and D.A. Stoney. 1992. Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems: Their Acquisition, Management, Performance, and Organizational Impact. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

482 Case Studies

5. If you were a sergeant in charge of the patrol shift to which Pasternak, Fishbaum, and Mickehaus were assigned, what would you do to direct and control their behavior?

6. If Chief Eager retired and you were appointed police chief in Rixton, what would you do to reduce the size and influence of the minority police subculture?

Case 3: Strategic Planning in Spokane, Washington

Spokane, a city of approximately 190,000 residents, is nestled in a valley on Washington’s western border with Idaho. The largest city between Minneapolis and Seattle, the greater Spokane area is home to almost 1 million people.

This case study describes some of the key features of the strategic planning process used by Chief Terry Mangan to accomplish positive change in the Spokane Police Department (SPD). When Mangan became Spokane’s Chief of Police he did not have, nor did he ever create, a long-term “master plan” which spelled out, step-by-step, how the department would move to community policing. Instead, he sought to create an environment in which many different players—both inside and outside the department—could bring different ideas and plans to the table. While Mangan wanted to move the department closer to the community, as an outsider who needed to win the trust and respect of the department, his first goal was to improve the department’s morale by upgrading equipment.

It became very evident to me that we weren’t going to go anyplace in this depart- ment with any kind of community efforts unless we addressed some real funda- mental needs. When I came here … people were working out of a basement with steampipes overhead, World War II surplus lockers … and old, smelly towels hanging over them. No exercise or work-out rooms, broken toilets, radios that didn’t work. Crummy equipment and not enough people. Lowest staff level in the state for a city of this size. You can’t tell people their job is important unless you address their [basic] needs. So we focused internally on getting them the stuff and the equipment and the working conditions that would say, “You really are important.”

During his first year in Spokane, Mangan attended more than 400 community meetings. At these meetings, Mangan spoke about the need for a new partnership with the community. Mangan told Spokane’s citizens that

this is a good police department, but it’s a police department that has severe restrictions in terms of the number of people we have. Here’s what we want to do as a police department. … we are the lowest staffed police department in the state, that’s an officer safety issue. We need to build this department up and we

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Case Studies 483

need your help to do it. More importantly, we need partnerships with the com- munity. We need people to come in and be volunteers.

Within two years he was ready to turn his attention to changing the department itself. While Mangan was open about his goal of opening up the SPD to the community, and adopting a more community-based, proactive approach to policing, he needed to transmit this mission throughout all levels of the organization. As a chief from outside the department, Mangan also needed to gain support and trust from its members. After accepting the position, Mangan began speaking with numerous individuals inside the department and in the community in an attempt to identify the natural leaders, from all sworn ranks and civilian titles, whose support would be critical if change was going to occur. Before taking command, Mangan wrote these leaders and invited them to a series of open discussions about the organization. Soon after Mangan took command, he gathered these individuals into an informal advisory group that met several evenings each week to discuss the organization’s strengths and weaknesses and make recommendations for improving the department. This group was a vehicle for Mangan to both send his ideas to the department, and to receive feedback about how the organization perceived itself. “They were not going to be making decisions,” Mangan explained. “The purpose of this [was] to brainstorm where we are, where we are trying to go, how we’re going to get there, and what do we need to do it.” Equally important, by bringing in all levels of the department into this “think tank,” Mangan gained support for his change efforts and was not seriously challenged by old-guard personnel.

Soon after these meetings began, Mangan formally turned the group into a strategic planning committee, and increased its membership. Committee members described a process that improved communication throughout the department. “Everybody had an opportunity to talk without fear of repercussions, and there were a lot of things said in those meetings that just needed to be said so that people could air them out,” a committee member explained. A patrol officer who participated said that he enjoyed the opportunity to hash out ideas with members of other units in the department, and gain a broader perspective about the organization. Knowing that the chief was actually listening to their ideas was very important to committee members, most of whom had never previously been given such an opportunity. Mangan, who ensured that the group’s decisions were consistent with his broader visions, described his role in the group as the “sounding board” or the “mirror.” “I would tweak it and push it a little bit here and little bit there, and incorporate the best of this group’s ideas and that group’s ideas,” Mangan said.

While the planning committee discussed numerous issues facing the department, Mangan tasked them with a critical project: defining the department’s values. “Every agency has a unique culture, an organizational culture that is part of its history and its traditions,” Mangan said.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

484 Case Studies

I felt it was really important to take that organizational culture and examine it, and that history, and say who were are and what we stand for and why. To make that work, people have to have ownership of it, and to have ownership of it means that everybody in the department … has to have a crack at it.

Mangan first gathered several values statements from other police departments and presented them to the strategic planning committee. The committee drafted a values statement that was presented to the rest of the department for feedback and revised. After a final draft was approved, Mangan assigned the committee to create a “hook” for the two-page values statement. When devising the hook, Mangan told his committee to use the FBI as a model. “Anybody that works in that Hoover building, from the janitor  on up, will tell you that FBI stands not just for Federal Bureau of Investigation, but it stands for Fidelity, Bravery, and Integrity, the three values of the FBI,” Mangan said. Using the initials SPD as a starting point, the planning committee decided on “Service, Pride, and Dedication,” from which all of the department’s values would flow.

The strategic planning committee also designed a patrol manual that helped oper- ationalize community policing into concrete responsibilities within the patrol division. While the stated purpose of the plan was to provide “direction and purpose for the man- agement” of the patrol division, it explicitly encouraged “all personnel to take risks and innovative approaches to problem solving.” Working closely with the community was another expressed goal for the patrol division. “The Patrol Division exists to … improve police/community relations through the quality and quantity of contacts between citizens and members of the division.” This model fit Mangan’s goal of encouraging innovation at all levels of the department. “We said to the [patrol officers and supervisors] the best ideas come from you folks, so you figure out what’s going to work and what’s not going to work,” Mangan said.

As a manager, Mangan was described by many in the department as an “idea guy.” He was receptive to new ideas, and would sometimes give his staff the broad vision for a program, without filling in many details. While Mangan was the source of some new ideas, and final decision-making authority still rested with the chief and his command staff, he wanted to empower supervisors and line officers to develop ideas and programs on their own. As was previously discussed, the newly developed patrol manual expressly encouraged this bottom-up development of new programs, by assigning the patrol divi- sion commander, shift lieutenants, and sergeants to develop programs that identified and addressed long-term problems within their sectors. In order to facilitate this, all shift commanders were required to work with sergeants and patrol officers and create yearly management plans that identified and analyzed problem areas and proposed solutions. (These goals and objectives became the basis for a new annual report that the department submitted to the city manager and city council.) The patrol managers

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Case Studies 485

were also directed to “develop and maintain communication” with citizen groups and neighborhoods.

These new tasks were added to the supervisors’ standard set of oversight and per- sonnel management responsibilities. While Mangan expanded the managerial duties, because civil service regulations controlled promotion throughout all levels of the depart- ment except for the assistant chief and chief positions, he had little authority to replace supervisors who were not up to these new roles. As a result, Mangan identified individuals in the department who were innovators and gave them authority to design new programs, regardless of their rank.

Some supervisors welcomed this new ability to innovate and experiment. Yet, accord- ing to some department members, this model of empowerment created some tension within the organization. “That really kind of disturbed the table or organization. … We had sergeants that were given responsibilities and … the captains and lieutenants … sometimes weren’t even aware of things that were going on in their units. … Some management people realized that they had been kind of … identified … as maybe non-producers or road-blocks … and they were simply being bypassed,” a department member said. And, while some supervisors thrived in this new environment, because supervisors were not given much explicit training about their new role, others were unsure how to do their jobs in this new era. This created a situation in which some officers were receiving dual messages from the organization: the chief wants me to work more closely with the community, but my sergeant wants me to collect stats.

Source: Adapted from Peter M. Sheingold. n.d. “National COPS Evaluation: Organizational Change Case Study—Spokane, Washington.” Online at: www.ncjrs.gov/nij/cops_casestudy/ spokane.html.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. Chief Mangan’s approach to organizational change in Spokane relied on developing departmental values and a vision statement. Compare the values that were developed in Spokane to the sample missions, goals, objectives, and values presented in Chapter 3. In what ways are these various expressions of organizational purpose different? Why do they differ? Which are most important, and why?

2. This case study begins by describing how a new chief took an “inside-out” approach to changing the police department (see “The Inside-Out Approach to Quality Policing” in Chapter 10). Compare Chief Mangan’s approach in Spokane to Chief Couper’s approach described in Chapter 10. What are the circumstances in which such an inside-out approach might be recommended, or not recommended?

3. Compare Chief Mangan’s management and leadership styles to those discussed in Chapters 9 and 10. Which styles and techniques did he most exemplify? In your opinion, how well did his style fit the needs of the situation in the Spokane Police Department at the time?

4. What were the strengths and weaknesses of the approach that Chief Mangan used to improve the Spokane Police Department?

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S