1. Read Case Study 2, "Rixton" (the case study is located at the end of the weekly reading assignment). In narrative format give an overview of the facts and issues of this case study.
camkai3
https___dftj9wb4gc6c5.cloudfront.net_Bethel_Courses_CCJ_3600_Unit_2_read11.pdf
CHAPTER 5 Principles and Policies in the Police Organization
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
• Define the authority-level principle. • Define the principle of chain of command. • Define the principle of unity of command. • Define the principle of span of control. • Cite three criteria by which functions may be examined for similarity. • Explain why organizational guidelines are especially important in policing, but also difficult to
apply. • Compare policies, procedures, and rules and regulations in terms of specificity. • Identify the four sources of organizational policy. • Identify the five key stages in the development of originated policy.
This chapter addresses two related issues: (1) principles that guide the structure of the police organization; and (2) policies and procedures that guide police employees in their decision making and actions. The information in this chapter lays the foundation for the discussion of the functions of police management presented in Chapter 6.
Authority, Responsibility, and Accountability
Any organization in which someone has authority over someone else is a hierarchy. Governments, corporations, fraternities, universities, and police departments are all hier- archies. Most organizations are hierarchical in some respects; some are more hierarchical
F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S
110 The Traditional Perspective
than others. The greater the number of levels of supervisors or administrators an organi- zation has, the more hierarchical the organization is. For example, Figure 5.1 shows that police department A is more hierarchical than department B, even though both have the same number of employees.
Typically, larger organizations are more hierarchical than smaller ones, simply because more employees require more supervisors, more supervisors require more mid- level managers, and so on. If too many levels of hierarchy are created, however, many different kinds of organizational problems can arise, such as delays in communication from the top of the organization to the bottom and lack of feedback at the top of the organization. Many organizations today, including police departments, are trying to become “flatter” by eliminating unnecessary levels of hierarchy.1 As with most elements of organizational structure, balance is required—in this case, balance between the need
Sergeant
Police Officer
Lieutenant
Police Department A
Police Department B
Chief
Police Officer
Police Officer
Police Officer
Chief
Police Officer
Police Officer
Police Officer
Police Officer
Police Officer
Police Officer
Figure 5.1
Two Seven-Member Police Departments. Department A is more hierarchical than Department B
F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S
5 Principles and Policies 111
for sufficient supervision and the desire to streamline the organizational structure as much as possible. See “Authority and Responsibility,” Box 5.1.
When we say someone is a person’s boss, we generally mean that he or she has the authority to give the person orders. In terms of authority, the boss is the supervisor and has the power to command the subordinate. If the boss has the power to command the subordinate, it follows that the boss has the right, as well as the responsibility, to com- mand the subordinate.
Besides bestowing on the boss the right and the responsibility to command, author- ity also gives the boss the right to make decisions and take actions. A police sergeant, for example, has the right as supervisor to approve a patrol officer’s request to leave an assigned patrol area. The sergeant makes such a decision based on the responsibility to exercise delegated authority. The patrol officer, who by departmental policy is man- dated to remain within a designated patrol area, has no authority to leave it without permission.
Authority and responsibility should be balanced in each position in the organization. It would not be fair to make an employee responsible for a function without also provid- ing sufficient authority to make decisions and take actions in carrying out the function. By the same token, employees should not be given authority without commensurate responsibility, because of the possibility of abuse of that authority.
Police chiefs should never make the mistake of assuming that those to whom they have delegated authority will use it wisely. In order to minimize the ever-present possi- bility that delegated authority will be misused or abused, chiefs must institute a formal system for monitoring the activities of all officers who have been delegated authority. Such a system is based on the principle of accountability.
The principle of accountability means that all individuals to whom authority has been delegated must be held accountable for its use. It demands that action be taken if and when individuals exercise their authority improperly or irresponsibly. Further, it requires that a conscious effort be made to identify organization members who fail to use their authority, use too much authority, or use their authority improperly.
BOX 5.1 Authority and Responsibility
Standard 11.3.1 A written directive requires that:
a. responsibility is accompanied by commensurate authority;
b. each employee is accountable for the use of delegated authority.
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
112 The Traditional Perspective
The police chief can monitor the use of authority by organization members in several ways. The basic way is through supervision within the chain of command. In addition, the inspections and internal affairs subsystem tasks described in Chapter 4 provide informa- tion (feedback) about the use of authority throughout the department. The organization’s information system should be designed to aid in monitoring performance, including use of authority. The performance appraisal process by which each employee’s performance is periodically reviewed and evaluated is another important source of information.
The principle of accountability is put into effect through swift and certain action that is uniformly and fairly administered. All individuals should be treated alike, regardless of rank or position, and no favoritism should be shown in implementing the principle. Therefore, an action must be taken in every instance in which authority is misused or when it becomes apparent that an individual is shirking responsibility or not doing the job as assigned. Distinctions must be made, of course, between intentional acts and honest mistakes made by employees trying to do their jobs properly.
If a chief does not use the principle of accountability as a control device and takes no action, everyone tacitly understands that the department will condone certain improprie- ties and misbehavior. When officers realize that they can misuse their authority or neglect their responsibilities with impunity, authority will be misused and responsibilities will not be met on a continuing basis throughout the organization.
In departments in which functions are poorly defined and little or no authority is delegated, it is impossible to put the principle of accountability into effect. In such organizations, authority, which is the glue that holds an organization together, becomes an administrative tool by which friends are rewarded and enemies are punished. Personalities, rather than organizational principles, take over the department and become the focal point around which the organization is administered. In such departments, an officer gets ahead by siding with the right people politically, not by doing the job. The job becomes incidental to personal priorities and prerogatives. The department becomes self-centered rather than community-centered.
Delegation of Authority
In a properly organized police department, the chief delegates authority for decision making to people at all levels within the organization. Authority is the power to make decisions or to perform tasks. The ultimate authority in a police department lies with the chief, who must wisely and widely delegate authority to others so that decisions can be made and tasks performed.
Every person within an organization who is expected to perform a specific task should be delegated the necessary amount of authority to perform it well. In police departments in which chiefs do not understand this necessity, there will be few operational decisions
F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S
5 Principles and Policies 113
made and little work accomplished. For example, when the chief of one small department was first appointed, there was only one other member of the department. Thirty years later, the department had more than 20 members. Although the chief was well inten- tioned and had the best interests of the department and the town at heart, the department had grown so much that he was not able to adjust to the fact that he could no longer retain all authority and make all decisions in the department. He gave the one lieutenant and three sergeants little authority to make decisions and to assume command and super- visory responsibilities. As a result, the patrol officers’ work was totally unsupervised. The sergeants were little more than patrol officers with three stripes on their sleeves and greatly resented the fact that the chief would not give them the authority to do their job. Both the town and the department suffered because of the chief ’s unwillingness to delegate his authority to others who needed it to do their work and meet their responsibilities.
The failure to delegate authority is not at all uncommon in police organizations. In many instances, police chiefs simply do not understand the mechanics of the delegation process. In other cases, chiefs are unwilling to delegate authority, fearing that it will be abused by subordinates and reflect negatively on both the department and themselves. Many chiefs are aware that ultimate responsibility is theirs and, accordingly, are extremely cautious about allowing others within their organizations the opportunity to make mistakes that could prove to be embarrassing. Often, though, police chiefs are the least qualified people within their organizations to make decisions, because they are generally furthest removed from the people and the situations their decisions will affect.
The ironic aspect of this unwillingness to delegate authority is that it affects admin- istrative matters more than operational matters. Police chiefs often refuse to delegate the authority for such actions as purchasing a tire to keep a patrol car on the road, issuing flashlight batteries, switching from summer-weight to winter-weight uniforms in the autumn, or making minor work schedule alterations. Yet the authority to use force or to take away a person’s freedom is delegated to the lowest-ranking members of the organi- zation, almost without a second thought. Perhaps it is because police chiefs realize that such awesome legal authority is so widely delegated that they jealously guard the limited administrative authority they have.
In delegating authority, chiefs should make absolutely certain that everyone within their departments has a precisely defined understanding not only of the authority he or she has been delegated, but also of the circumstances under which that authority may be used. In order to be sure that the person receiving delegated authority thoroughly understands it, it should be delegated in writing. Except for emergency situations, a chief of police should never delegate authority using only the spoken word. Confusion, forget- fulness, and misunderstandings can quickly dissipate authority that is not in writing. It is imperative then, that any delegation of authority be put in writing.
Just as the chief has total authority over the entire police department, officers in high-ranking positions have more authority than those in lower ranks. Captains generally
F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S
114 The Traditional Perspective
would have more authority than lieutenants; lieutenants, more authority than sergeants. A captain in charge of an operations bureau, for example, should have the authority to decide what priorities will be assigned to various types of investigations. The captain exer- cises authority by establishing these priorities responsibly in terms of a number of factors, which might include workload, seriousness of the offense, current crime problems, and availability of personnel. The captain might reasonably choose to delegate the authority to establish the priorities to the lieutenant in charge of the investigations division or retain the authority and establish the priorities personally. As a good administrator, the cap- tain should probably delegate the authority to the lieutenant in writing. The lieutenant, however, should not delegate this authority to investigative sergeants. The lieutenant, with an overview of the entire investigations division, is in a much better position than the sergeants to establish investigative priorities because he or she knows the work of the entire division.
Whenever feedback within a police system indicates that authority is being abused or that officers to whom authority has been delegated are not using it responsibly, that authority must be recovered or taken back. When they delegate authority, police chiefs must be fully aware that the delegation is never permanent. This must also be understood by everyone to whom authority is delegated. When a department is reorganized, when duties are rearranged or reassigned, and when departmental objectives, policies, and pro- grams are modified, authority will inevitably be recovered.2 The delegation of authority and the recovery of authority are continuing processes by which the organization is made more responsive to the interests of its clientele (citizens, in the case of a police depart- ment) and more productive in terms of its output (services).
If the concepts of authority, responsibility, and accountability are fully understood by everyone within a police department and if the chief follows some simple principles of organization in administering the agency, there should be no difficulty in using authority delegation as an organizational device to increase departmental efficiency and effectiveness.
The Authority-Level Principle
The authority-level principle is based on the premise that authority exists within an organization at all levels and only decisions that cannot be made at a given level because of lack of authority should be referred upward for resolution. It is based on the assumption that within an organization there will be problems everywhere that must be solved on an ongoing basis if the organization is to meet its goals and objectives. Further, it dictates that “all decisions should be made as low as possible in an organization.”3
In police departments in which functions have been improperly grouped, in which the chain of command is not in effect, and in which individuals at various ranks lack the authority to do their jobs, departmental personnel tend to ignore problems or rely on
F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S
5 Principles and Policies 115
the chief to make most of the decisions. Ignoring the problems is the easier of the two alternatives; the chief, lacking a viable chain of command, will in all likelihood never be advised that problems exist.
The authority-level principle is perhaps the most difficult principle of organization to put into effect. Weak command-level personnel and inept supervisors can be expected to avoid their problem-solving responsibilities and allow problems to increase in number and severity. Insistence that problems that cannot be solved at lower levels be communicated upward is, therefore, essential. In police departments, this insistence should be procedur- ally formalized, with officers and managers at all levels required to write regular reports on problems that have surfaced that they lack the authority to solve themselves. This proce- dure was developed as a result of the work of Hrand Saxenian, a management consultant and former Harvard Business School professor who successfully applied it in working with business and industry. By writing down their problems and passing along their reports to the person within the organization to whom they report and from whom they receive their authority through the chain of command, they are in fact referring the problems upward for solution. When superiors receive reports outlining problems from subordi- nates, it is incumbent on them, if they have the necessary authority, to solve the problems themselves. If they lack the authority to solve the problems, they, too, are obliged in their regular reports to their superiors to list the problems that they lack the authority to solve personally. If such a system is put into effect, and if reports are kept by the department, accountability can be placed on officers, supervisors, and managers who are shirking their problem-solving responsibilities.
Most problems in a majority of departments will probably be solved more infor- mally. For example, a patrol officer who is having mechanical difficulties with a patrol vehicle should only need to mention this to the sergeant in order to have arrangements made for the vehicle’s repair. If this problem is then solved, it would not be listed among the problems the sergeant outlined in his or her regular report. On the other hand, if the sergeant refuses to make arrangements to have the vehicle repaired, thereby refusing to make a decision on the matter, it would be the patrol officer’s responsibility to list this as a problem in his or her report. By insisting that the patrol officer commit this problem to writing, and by keeping the reports for at least a year, it will be a relatively easy matter for the lieutenant in charge of the shift, or for the captain in charge of operations, to place accountability on the sergeant for not dealing with a problem for which authority had been delegated. Both the captain and the lieutenant should, by departmental policy, be required to make periodic spot checks on reports in an effort to find problems that their subordinates may be attempting to keep from them.
Although this example may seem to be a rather inconsequential matter, it should be understood that when combined with a number of other little problems, this problem can seriously impede the effectiveness of the patrol division. In one police department that was studied, minor problems similar to the one above seriously affected the morale
F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S
116 The Traditional Perspective
of police officers and stood in the way of achieving departmental goals and objectives. Almost no problems were solved at the operating level, and no systems existed for refer- ring problems upward. Although the department consisted of almost 200 police officers, it had a very loosely knit chain of command and no organization chart. If the chief was aware of the principle of accountability or of the authority-level principle, he was cer- tainly not applying them to the management of the department. As a result, portable radios were in varying stages of disrepair, and many were missing. Police vehicles were poorly equipped and maintained. Several would have had difficulty passing state inspec- tion; one car had a nonfunctioning front headlight, another had a blown muffler. A patrol vehicle was once out of service for five days because no one assumed the responsibility of cleaning vomit from its rear floor rug. Patrol cars had no fire extinguishers or first aid kits. These and other problems remained unsolved because no one had the authority to solve them and because the chief was either unaware of or chose to ignore their existence. He simply did not know how to apply the basic principles of police organization to his department. He, the officers in his department, and the citizens in his community all suffered as a result of his inability to manage.
The authority-level principle, if it is applied consistently throughout the organiza- tion, will help to solve many problems that would otherwise go unsolved. It is a device that all police chiefs should utilize to the fullest extent if they expect their departments to meet their goals and objectives.
Key Organizational Principles
This section discusses several fundamental organizational principles: chain of com- mand; unity of command; span of control; and grouping like functions. Along with the concepts of authority, responsibility, and accountability, these principles are used to help guide the structure of police organizations.
Chain of Command Chain of command, also referred to as the scalar principle, is an organizational mech-
anism that establishes formal lines of communication within a police department. It is founded on the premise that the clearer the line of authority from the chief executive to every subordinate, the more effective decision making and organizational communica- tion will be. It establishes a vertical flow of information, directives, and orders downward through an organization. The chain of command establishes a direct path between every person in the department and the chief. The path may also be viewed as a two-way street whereby information may flow upward through the organization from subordinates through superiors and ultimately to the chief.
F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S
5 Principles and Policies 117
The schematic design that establishes the chain of command is the organization chart. Organization charts may be very simple or very complex, depending on department size. Regardless of their simplicity or complexity, however, they all show the relative positions of all subsystems within the police department. The organization chart in Figure 5.2, for example, shows a chain of command from chief to operations lieutenant to shift sergeant to patrol officer. In the same chart, the chain of command links the crime prevention officer and the chief directly.
The chain of command is an invaluable organizational tool because it estab- lishes formal communication links. If a department is to be properly organized, these
Crime Prevention
Officer Secretary
Operations
Lieutenant
Administration and Services
Lieutenant
Records and Communications
5 Clerk/Dispatchers
Chief
Shift 1
Sergeant 4 Patrol Officers
Shift 2
Sergeant 4 Patrol Officers
Shift 3
Sergeant 4 Patrol Officers
Detective
Figure 5.2
Organization Chart for a 26-Member Police Department
F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S
118 The Traditional Perspective
communication links must be used by everyone within the organization to commu- nicate formally. If the chain of command is not used for all formal communicating, serious organizational difficulties can be anticipated. For example, a chief of police who disregards the chain of command and bypasses supervisors and managers by issuing an order directly to a patrol officer is breaking the chain and dissipating the authority of all those within the chain who have varying degrees of authority over what the patrol officer does. If the chief makes a habit of issuing orders directly to patrol officers, they quickly learn that the chain of command is inconsequential in internal communications and that they, too, may disregard it in their efforts to communicate upward in the organization.
In applying the chain of command to the organizing of a police department, a chief should consider the fact that there are various levels of management, each with somewhat different functions. (In a small police department, of course, all three levels may simply be combined in the chief ’s position.) For our purposes, we can group these levels of management into three categories:
1. chief administrative level;
2. command level;
3. supervisory level.
The chief administrative level, always the top level within the organization, con- sists of the chief and the chief ’s staff. The command level generally is comprised of all officers of the rank of lieutenant and above who have authority and overall responsibility for line or staff functions. The supervisory level consists of ranking officers below the rank of lieutenant who are assigned to supervisory duties. Most departments have ser- geants, and many have corporals who also fall into this category.
Ranking officers who neither command nor supervise line or operational functions are generally referred to as staff personnel. Although they hold rank and often perform important functions, they do not have command or supervisory authority over anyone. Most often staff personnel are assigned to higher levels of management. A lieutenant, for example, who is assigned to the operations bureau as legal advisor is in a staff position, not a command-level position, even though the work is performed at the command level. Another lieutenant assigned to the operations bureau might have the overall responsibil- ity for running a patrol shift. Because the assignment would involve command responsi- bilities, this lieutenant would be considered to be in a command-level position.
Unity of Command The principle of unity of command insists that the reporting relationship between
subordinate and superior be on a one-to-one basis. A subordinate should not be expected
F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S
5 Principles and Policies 119
to report to more than one superior or take orders from more than one superior.4 See “Unity of Command,” Box 5.2.
If a person is expected to take orders from more than one superior, tremendous con- fusion can result. A young boy whose father tells him to mow the lawn and whose mother tells him to wash the dishes instead will be wrong regardless of what he does. His parents have violated the principle of unity of command. They have both given the youngster orders, and they both expect him to follow through.
The consequences of this situation in a family setting are not disastrous. However, consider the case of a patrol officer who receives three different patrol assignments from the sergeant, lieutenant, and chief, respectively. Both the sergeant and the lieutenant will be upset by the chief ’s action, and the patrol officer will be totally frustrated: which of the three superiors’ orders should be followed?
This kind of problem must be taken into consideration when a police department is organized; departmental policy must stipulate that each officer takes orders from and reports directly to only one person: his or her immediate superior in the chain of com- mand. If the chief wants to issue an order to a patrol officer, it must be understood by everyone that this can be done only through the chain. In this instance, the chief would tell the lieutenant how to assign the patrol officer, the lieutenant would tell the sergeant, and the sergeant, as the patrol officer’s immediate superior, would issue the order to the officer.
The principle of unity of command is a simple device that helps to avoid confusion
BOX 5.2 Unity of Command
Standard 11.2.1 Each employee is accountable to only one supervisor at any given time.
Standard 12.1.2 A written directive establishes the command protocol for the following situations,
at a minimum:
a. in the absence of the chief executive officer;
b. in exceptional situations;
c. in situations involving personnel of different functions engaged in a single operation;
d. in normal day-to-day agency operations.
Standard 12.1.3 A written directive requires employees to obey any lawful order of a superior,
including any order relayed from a superior by an employee of the same or lesser rank. The direc-
tive must also include procedures to be followed by an employee who receives a conflicting or
unlawful order.
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
120 The Traditional Perspective
in the issuance of orders. It makes all personnel within the organization more comfortable in their roles and more secure in terms of reporting relationships.
Practical necessities sometimes complicate unity of command, however. In the 26-member police department described in Figure 5.2, for example, the five clerk/ dispatchers report to the lieutenant in charge of administration and services. Because they work shifts, though, the lieutenant frequently will not be on duty when they are. In this department, the on-duty clerk/dispatcher would typically be directly supervised by the on-duty patrol shift sergeant. Out of necessity, the clerk/dispatchers would be required to take orders from these patrol sergeants regarding, for example, when they could take their meal breaks. Ultimately, though, they would remain responsible to their superior in the chain of command, the lieutenant in charge of administration and services.
In situations such as these, which often arise in police agencies because they provide 24-hour-a-day service, two adjustments to the unity of command principle are required: (1) it must be clear to employees which supervisors have the authority to command them under what circumstances; and (2) at any given time, the employee should be expected to take orders from only one superior. With these adjustments, the principle of unity of command can be made compatible with the practical realities of police work.
Span of Control The total number of subordinates reporting to a single superior is referred to as that
superior’s span of control. The chief who commands three captains has a span of control of three. The patrol sergeant who supervises the activities of nine patrol officers has a span of control of nine. The operations lieutenant in Figure 5.2 has a span of control of four—the three shift sergeants and the detective.
Early theorists believed that the proper number of persons within a span of control could be precisely established. Formulas were developed to “prove” that six or seven or some other number of people was the optimum number that could be supervised with ease. Over the years, however, it became apparent that the complexities of tasks and responsibilities, the skills of subordinates, and the talents of supervisors make it impos- sible to establish an ideal span of control. Rather, determining a given span of control is based on a subjective evaluation of the number of people a given supervisor can supervise effectively. Peter F. Drucker even suggests that a supervisor’s span include a few more persons than he or she can closely supervise, thus making it impossible for a supervisor to do subordinates’ work for them.5
It is useful to think of a span of control as narrowing progressively toward the top of the organization. Thus, a police chief has the smallest span of control. A good rule of thumb is that the span should be devised according to the degree of responsibility and authority that exists at a particular level in the hierarchy. The greater the degree of author- ity and responsibility that exists, the narrower the span of control.
F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S
5 Principles and Policies 121
Depending on circumstances, however, this general guideline need not always be followed. It is possible, for example, that a chief might have a span of control consisting of four captains, whereas a lieutenant who is in charge of a patrol shift in that depart- ment has responsibility over only three sergeants. As Pfiffner and Presthus point out, “there is no constant number applicable to every situation.”6 In short, span of control is an organizational supervisory tool that, if used with care and revised through experience, can contribute significantly to organizational solidarity.
Grouping Like Functions Police officers have many basic responsibilities and work in a variety of ways. They
direct traffic, intercede in family disputes, counsel youths, make arrests, drive patrol vehi- cles, conduct surveillances, enforce laws, write reports, maintain records, interrogate sus- pects, interview complainants and victims, testify in court, enforce parking regulations, investigate accidents, supervise subordinates, prepare budgets, provide for the safety of schoolchildren, give first aid, inspect liquor establishments, book prisoners, check doors and premises at night, collect and preserve evidence, perform Breathalyzer tests, deliver babies, and engage in myriad other functions that come within the purview of their mis- sion. Their duties are many and are often conflicting.
Because a police organization cannot have a separate unit to perform each of the tasks listed above, it becomes necessary to combine them in some systematic way. The most useful way of grouping functions is through application of the principle of functional definition which, in police circles, is usually referred to as grouping like functions. This common-sense principle holds that functions that are similar should be grouped together organizationally. Functions are similar when:
1. the same level of authority is required for their execution;
2. responsibility for them is executed at the same time or in the same place;
3. they require the same amount of training and/or degree of skill to be performed.
It is through the grouping of similar functions that the various units within a police organization are formed. Chiefs of police should make a concerted effort to group similar tasks together logically within the organizational framework.
The chief should be guided not only by similarities in functions but also by the size of the department. In a department with one chief and four patrol officers, the chief would in all likelihood perform all administrative and auxiliary service functions as well as numerous operational tasks. The patrol officers would probably be assigned exclusively to operational responsibilities. In departments with more personnel available to perform specialized functions, any number of possibilities exists for grouping like functions.
F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S
122 The Traditional Perspective
You should note that the organization chart for a 26-member police department depicted in Figure 5.2 does not have a box for each and every one of the 30 police organ- izational tasks described in Chapter 4. Still, those tasks must be performed within this department, as in any other. Many of the 20 administrative and auxiliary services tasks, for example, would probably be performed by the chief or the lieutenant in command of administration and services. With respect to these and the operational tasks, the chief should be careful in delegating authority so that it is clear which tasks are the responsi- bility of which personnel.
Unless a conscious effort is made to group like functions in some systematic, logical way, officers within the department will eventually become confused about how they should perform assigned tasks. In one department, a sergeant assigned to the day shift was given responsibility for the safety of children as they traveled to and from school. In this position, the sergeant served as supervisor for more than 50 school crossing guards who assisted youngsters across busy city streets. That the sergeant and the crossing guards were placed organizationally in the same division was an appropriate grouping of similar functions.
The sergeant, however, was also assigned the task of inspecting the operations divi- sion’s police vehicles at 8:00 a.m. Monday through Friday. These inspections usually lasted between 15 and 30 minutes. With schools opening at 8:30 a.m., the half hour between 8:00 and 8:30 was critical in terms of the sergeant’s major responsibilities. His assignment to vehicle inspection at that time meant that he had to neglect his pri- mary functions in order to perform a task very different from his major responsibilities.
In assigning the sergeant to dissimilar functions, the chief violated the principle of functional definition; it was a serious violation because it put youngsters walking to school at risk. Although important, the vehicle inspection function should have been performed by someone else, logically by someone assigned to the operations division. School safety and vehicle inspections are dissimilar functions and should not, unless the department is a small one, be performed by the same person or by the same group of persons. Although, depending on circumstances, the same level of authority may be required for their execution, the two tasks are not executed in the same place and do not require the same degree of skill or training to be performed.
A good rule of thumb in organizing a department is to group all operational duties, all administrative duties, and all auxiliary service duties separately. If a department is not large enough to accommodate these groupings, a distinction should be made organiza- tionally between line and staff duties. Line duties are departmental functions that are operational in nature; staff duties are those performed within the administrative and auxiliary service components of the organization.
Over the last few years, in conjunction with growing interest in community policing, the criterion of “place,” or geography, has become more important in grouping similar functions together. Departments that once gave greater emphasis to “time” in organizing
F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S
5 Principles and Policies 123
patrol units (making the shift the primary building block of patrol operations) are now emphasizing place by creating beat teams and similar geographically-focused units. In addition, departments that once organized largely on the basis of function (due to skill and training requirements of different specialized jobs) are now organizing more on the basis of geography. Under this model, for example, detectives report to an area com- mander rather than to a chief of detectives based at headquarters. Some departments have also reduced the number of functionally specialized jobs (detectives, traffic officers, etc.), arguing that neighborhood-based patrol officers can perform many of these func- tions, and can perform them more effectively due to their in-depth knowledge of their geographic areas of responsibility.
Grouping like functions inevitably raises the issue of specialization. In a five-member police agency, the patrol and investigative functions must be grouped together as similar functions and performed by the same people. A 30-member department, on the other hand, might lend itself to the establishment of both a patrol division and an investigations division. In a much larger department, where the availability of personnel would suggest further specialization, the patrol division might be subdivided into a number of subsys- tems to include a tactical unit, an emergency operations unit, a family crisis intervention unit, a helicopter unit, a mounted unit, and a bomb unit. Similarly, the investigation division in the larger department could be subdivided into a vice unit, a narcotics unit, an auto theft unit, a fraud unit, a homicide unit, a burglary unit, a robbery unit, and a cybercrime unit.
Care should be taken in determining the degree of specialization that should be introduced in any police department. Although traditional organization theorists tend to believe that effectiveness increases with specialization, this is not necessarily so. It was originally believed that the more concentrated the talents and energies of a worker, the greater the worker’s productivity. The assembly line, the logical manifestation of this belief, revolutionized the manufacture of goods. In time, however, problems arose. Many workers became bored with the repetitiveness of their routine. As boredom increased, so too did absenteeism and labor problems. Thus, it is necessary to find a balance between specialization and adequate assignment of personnel. In other words, it is probably acceptable to have someone specialize in a certain type of crime in the investigative unit, but the amount of time that the person spends in the unit should be taken into consider- ation as well. While it is desirable to have individuals who have specialized areas in which they are proficient, it is also desirable to have individuals who are versatile and can work effectively in more than one area.
In police departments, specialization tends to deflect efforts away from meeting total organizational objectives and to concentrate efforts on attaining the narrower goals of the specialist’s subunit. If a narcotics detective, for example, is paying an addict-informant for information, a real possibility exists that the informant may be committing burglaries to support his or her drug habit. Although the objectives of the narcotics detective may
F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S
124 The Traditional Perspective
be satisfied by the information provided by the addict-informant, the overall goal of the department to decrease crime is not. The narcotics detective is, in fact, working against the overall goals and objectives of the department because the goals and objectives of the special unit seem to demand it. The tendency of subunits in an organization to pursue their own narrow objectives, regardless of the effect on overall organizational goals, is sometimes called suboptimization.
A related problem caused by specialization is that if some activity or function is assigned to a specific officer or unit, then the rest of the organization often believes that it is no longer responsible for that function. This happened in many police departments in the early stages of implementing community policing and problem-oriented policing.7 Moreover, specialized officers and units can easily become isolated from the rest of the organization, which can impede communication, reduce effectiveness, and lead to mis- understandings and stereotyping.
Decisions about how much specialization there should be in organizing a police department are vitally important because they will directly influence the department’s overall effectiveness. In departments with many specialized subunits, the chain of com- mand becomes a less effective communication device. These units tend to work inde- pendently of one another. Information tends to be guarded on a unit-proprietary basis and not shared with the rest of the department. Detectives in some departments have been known to pocket arrest warrants in anticipation of making a major arrest them- selves. Specialization tends to increase unit competition and negate overall departmental cohesiveness.
The problem of specialization versus generalization does not lend itself to an easy solution. Perhaps the best advice on the use of specialization in police organization came from Thomas Reddin, former chief of the Los Angeles Police Department. Reddin sug- gested that when specialization is considered to be absolutely necessary, personnel should be rotated frequently through specialized positions: “a good general rule to follow is to specialize if you must, generalize if you can.”8 This proposal seems to be an excellent rule to follow in organizing any size police department.
Written Guidelines
In the police field, policies, procedures, and rules and regulations are extremely important.9 These are, in effect, statements that define role expectations for police officers. As previously pointed out, the police officer is given powers not granted to the ordinary citizen. Because they possess extraordinary powers, the police represent a potential threat to freedom. It can therefore be argued that the police need to be restrained by explicit and carefully defined directions that will guarantee they will perform in accordance with departmental rather than personal expectations. At the very least, the police in a democratic
F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S
5 Principles and Policies 125
society should be expected to perform within the confines of legal constraints; they must certainly be expected to abide by the laws they are committed to enforce. In addition, because police departments are service-oriented public agencies that significantly affect public safety and public protection, they must work according to well defined, specific guidelines designed to ensure that police officers will conform consistently to behavior that will enhance public protection (see “Establishment of Policy,” Box 5.3).
One must also consider the fact that the police task is characterized by an enormous degree of discretion afforded individual officers in the exercise of their duties. The incred- ible variety of situations that police officers encounter, the omnipresence of danger in their work, their need to settle problems informally, and the variable personal skills that individual officers bring to their work all mitigate against narrow, unbending behavioral requirements.
The goal of any police chief must be to find the middle ground between unlimited discretion and rigid standardization (see “Police Discretion,” Box 5.4). This is not an easy task, but it can be accomplished through an understanding of the proper applications of policies, procedures, and rules and regulations.
The case for clear behavioral guidelines in police organizations has been made time and again. In 1967, the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and
BOX 5.3 Standard 2.2 Establishment of Policy
Every police chief executive immediately should establish written policies in those areas of oper-
ations in which guidance is needed to direct agency employees toward the attainment of agency
goals and objectives.
1. Every police chief executive should provide written policies in those areas in which direction is
needed, including:
a. general goals and objectives of the agency;
b. administrative matters;
c. community relations;
d. public and press relations;
e. personnel procedures and relations;
f. personal conduct of employees;
g. specific law enforcement operations with emphasis on such sensitive areas as the use of
force, the use of lethal and nonlethal weapons, and arrest and custody;
h. use of support services.
Source: National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals. 1973. Police.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, p. 53.
F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S
126 The Traditional Perspective
Administration of Justice recommended that “police departments should develop and enunciate policies that give police personnel specific guidance for the common situa- tions requiring exercise of police discretion.”10 Soon after, the American Bar Association asserted that “police discretion can best be structured and controlled through the process of administrative rulemaking by police agencies. Police administrators should there- fore give the highest priority to the formulation of administrative rules governing the exercise of discretion.”11
Throughout the 1970s, many police departments promulgated policies and proce- dures in response to national and state efforts to establish standards for the law enforce- ment profession. The National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals published a lengthy volume in 1973.12 Some of the Commission’s standards were controversial. One standard, for example, established a college education requirement for police officers. Because of the controversial nature of some of the Commission’s standards and because of the diversity of police practices around the country, some states formed their own commissions to establish police standards. Since that time, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) has also developed numerous model policies.13
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, two additional stimuli for the development of stand- ardized police guidelines appeared. One was the legal doctrine of civil liability, and the other was the creation of the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA). Under the vicarious liability doctrine, police supervisors, administrators, and
BOX 5.4 Standard 1.3 Police Discretion
1. Every police agency should acknowledge the existence of the broad range of administrative
and operational discretion that is exercised by all police agencies and individual officers. That
acknowledgment should take the form of comprehensive policy statements that publicly estab-
lish the limits of discretion, that provide guidelines for its exercise within those limits, and that
eliminate discriminatory enforcement of the law.
2. Every police chief executive should establish policy that guides the exercise of discretion by
police personnel in using arrest alternatives.
3. Every police chief executive should establish policy that limits the exercise of discretion by
police personnel in conducting investigations, and that provides guidelines for the exercise of
discretion within those limits.
4. Every police chief executive should establish policy that governs the exercise of discretion by
police personnel in providing routine peacekeeping and other police services that, because of
their frequent recurrence, lend themselves to the development of a uniform agency response.
Source: National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals. 1973. Police.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, pp. 21–22.
F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S
5 Principles and Policies 127
departments can be held financially liable if it can be demonstrated that a police officer has abused his or her authority as a result of not having been properly directed and/or controlled.14 Police departments have thus been encouraged to develop precise guidelines addressing operational activities that could result in lawsuits.
CALEA was established through the efforts of four major police professional organ- izations: the IACP; the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE); the National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA); and the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF). The Commission produced a lengthy set of standards by which agen- cies could become accredited. Most of the standards are stated in such a way that they identify procedures that must be covered by agency guidelines.15 For example, Standard 35.1.6 states, “A written directive requires that non-probationary employees be advised in writing whenever their performance is deemed to be unsatisfactory and that the writ- ten notification be given to them at least 90 days prior to the end of the annual rating period.”16
As a result of these stimuli and the general evolution of police administration, most police departments today have extensive and well developed policies and procedures, although some small agencies still lack adequate written guidelines. An additional chal- lenge is that policies and procedures must be regularly updated to reflect changes in the law and professional practice—too often, agencies adopt policies but then fail to keep them current and relevant. Good sources of up-to-date policies include CALEA, IACP, and PERF.17
The police role is much too ambiguous to become totally standardized, but it is also much too important to be left completely to the discretion of individual officers. The following discussions of policies, procedures, and rules and regulations should shed some light on the manner in which police chiefs can guide and restrain, but not completely restrict, their employees.
Organizational Policy Policies are more general than procedures, rules, or regulations. Policies are primar-
ily guides to thinking rather than to action. They are especially important as guides to decision making. Therefore, policies should reflect the purpose and philosophy of the organization and help interpret that purpose and philosophy for its members. Koontz and O’Donnell identified four sources of organizational policy:
1. originated policy; 2. appealed policy; 3. implied policy; 4. externally imposed policy.18
F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S
128 The Traditional Perspective
Originated policy emanates from within the organization itself, usually from top management, but often from other levels of management as well. Most of the policies found in a police department’s policies and procedures manual are originated policies. Loen identified five key stages in the development of originated policy:
1. define long-range purpose;
2. define managing philosophy;
3. define policies in areas in which repeated decisions are made;
4. determine how policy will be enforced;
5. specify how exceptions to policy will be handled.19
Appealed policy also comes from within the organization. Somewhat like the common law, appealed policy develops haphazardly as decisions are appealed or simply passed up the chain of command. As with the law, unwritten and written precedents that gather force with time and use are established. These appealed policies are often confus- ing, conflicting, and uncoordinated.
Implied policy derives from the impression given by the organization’s actions rather than its words. For example, if the expressed policy of a police department is that promotions are based on merit when in fact only the chief ’s friends get promoted, the implied policy is that it is not what you know that counts, but who you know. Similarly, if a police department’s official policy strictly limits the use of force by officers, but officers are informally encouraged to rough up prisoners, the implied policy creates a different impression and, indeed, dictates a different behavior than the originated policy.
Externally imposed policy originates outside of the organization. Three major sources of externally imposed policy for police departments are the courts, other gov- ernmental agencies, and employee organizations. The courts have imposed a variety of policies on police departments over the years, such as the requirement that employees accused of wrongdoing be treated according to due process considerations. The federal government has imposed the policy that personnel selection, assignment, and promo- tion will be made without discrimination according to race or sex. Employee unions are instrumental in establishing policy with respect to hours of work, pay, and grievance procedures. Such policies are all externally imposed.
Another important source of external input to police organizational policy is the community. Some police officials are inclined to resist such community input, but they should recognize that in a free and democratic society, the public is supposed to have a substantial say in how their government, including the police, operates.20 A balance has to be struck between appropriate citizen input and improper interference in day-to-day
F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S
5 Principles and Policies 129
operations. Allowing, and in fact encouraging community input at the policymaking level is a good way of achieving the right balance, because policies are broad statements of purpose and philosophy rather than narrow operational dictates.
In order for an organization to develop coherent policy, the four types of policy must be consolidated. To this end, appealed policy must be recognized and then incorporated into originated policy. Implied policy should be minimized through the simple act of honoring originated policy. If originated policy is carefully adhered to by management, the development of implied policy will be significantly hindered. Finally, the impact of externally imposed policy can be minimized by having comprehensive originated policy. When imposed, it must be accepted as binding and included in organizational policy. The police agency accreditation process, with its emphasis on self-study and continuing oversight, provides a highly effective mechanism for developing and maintaining coher- ent written policy (see “Written Directives,” Box 5.5).
With regard to the actual development of policies, several considerations are impor- tant.21 Policies should reflect organizational goals, objectives, and plans. Under no cir- cumstances should any policy exist that does not serve a useful purpose. Inasmuch as
BOX 5.5 Written Directives
Standard 12.2.1 The agency has a written directives system that includes, at a minimum, the fol-
lowing:
a. agency values and mission statement;
b. a statement that vests in the agency’s chief executive officer the authority to issue, modify, or
approve agency written directives;
c. identification of the persons or positions, other than the agency’s chief executive officer, author-
ized to issue written directives;
d. a description of the written directives system format;
e. procedures for indexing, purging, and revising directives;
f. statements of agency policy;
g. rules and regulations;
h. procedures for carrying out agency activities;
i. procedures for review of proposed policies, procedures, rules, and regulations prior to their
promulgation to ensure they do not contradict other existing agency directives or applicable law.
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
130 The Traditional Perspective
policies are guidelines for clear thinking and decision making, they should be consistent. They should also be flexible so that they may be applied to varying situations and chang- ing times.
Policies must be carefully distinguished from procedures and rules and regulations. Policies should also be committed to writing as a prerequisite, although not a guarantee, of clear thinking and understanding. All policies should be thoroughly explained to all personnel, and feedback should be sought to ensure understanding. Finally, policies should be controlled, added to, adjusted, and deleted according to the requirements of changing circumstances.
Organizational Procedures Procedures are more specific than policies. As the means for carrying out policy, pro-
cedures are, in effect, guides to action. According to Wilson and McLaren, a procedure is “more specific than a policy but less restrictive than a rule or regulation …. (It) describes a method of operation while still allowing some flexibility within limits.”22
Most organizations abound in procedures. Police organizations, for example, have investigative procedures, patrol procedures, booking procedures, arrest procedures, radio procedures, roll-call procedures, sick-leave procedures, promotional procedures, evidence handling procedures, reporting procedures, and many more procedures that describe spe- cific methods of operation. These procedures are action plans or designs for implementing policy. They are not totally inflexible, but they do describe rather detailed methods for carrying out policy.
The need for new procedures can arise for a variety of reasons. If a police depart- ment installs body-worn or in-car video cameras, for example, it will need to imple- ment procedures that tell officers when to activate the cameras, when to turn them off, and what to do with recordings at the end of each shift. If a department implements a Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) for handling calls involving persons with mental illness,23 it will need to specify procedures for calling out the team, for patrol officer responsibilities until the team arrives, and for CIT liaison with mental health agencies. Sometimes procedures are externally mandated. After the U.S. Supreme Court issued the Miranda decision, police departments had to develop procedures that outlined how officers should advise suspects of their constitutional rights to remain silent and to be represented by legal counsel.
Koontz and O’Donnell noted that, in most organizations, procedures generally multiply and become more exacting at lower organizational levels.24 They ascribe this to the need for closer control, the advantages of detailed instructions, the reduced need for discretion, and the applicability of the idea that there is one best way to accomplish routine tasks. Although this theory may hold true in business organizations, it does not quite fit the same way in police organizations. Police patrol officers operate at the lowest
F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S
5 Principles and Policies 131
organizational level, yet their work is far from routine and requires enormous discretion. Because of this unusual characteristic of police organizations, James Q. Wilson, for one, concluded that precise, positive guidance in the form of detailed procedures cannot real- istically be made available in many circumstances.25
Loen further pointed out that, in general, an abundance of standardized proce- dures tends to discourage initiative and imagination.26 Procedures that appear useless can unnecessarily complicate jobs and make it difficult to attract and keep capable and enterprising employees. On the other hand, procedures can decrease the time wasted in figuring out how to accomplish tasks and thereby increase productivity. They can also ensure a continuing level of quality output. Finally, good procedures can help cut training costs because they describe in an explicit way what actions an employee is expected to take. Again, finding a balance with regard to procedures may result in more efficient and effective performance.
As with policies, a middle ground must be sought in procedure development. One option is to think in terms of three categories of police activity: (1) those requiring strict procedural controls; (2) those requiring structured guidelines; and (3) those requiring only summary guidance.27 The types of situations requiring strict controls are those that pose the greatest risk, such as the use of force and pursuit driving.28 In these situations, very serious harm can result if poor decisions are made. Both police officers and other subjects, including innocent bystanders, can suffer injury or death, and the department could incur lawsuits and negative publicity. Therefore, strict controls that attempt to minimize the chances of poor decision making are certainly justified, even though they limit police officer discretion and flexibility in decision making.
The types of situations requiring structured guidelines are primarily those in which police officers have discretion in solving problems and enforcing the law. In these situa- tions, officers need to retain substantial discretion in order to fashion tailor-made solu- tions to the wide array of unpredictable problems they are asked to handle. Without such discretion, officers would be too restricted in their options, and many citizens would be disappointed in the services that they received. Guidelines are still needed, however. In domestic violence cases, for example, the department may strongly prefer that officers use the arrest option, unless very unusual circumstances are found, and may also mandate cer- tain options, such as transporting the victim to a shelter whenever requested. An excerpt of structured guidelines from the Kentucky Model Domestic Violence Law Enforcement Policy is provided in Box 5.6.29
Situations requiring only summary guidance are those that are low risk and relatively routine. They may still involve some use of discretion, but the range of options is smaller to begin with and less is at stake. Examples of such situations might include parking enforcement and telephone contacts with the public. Officers and other police depart- ment employees who engage in these activities need guidance in order to perform them correctly, but that guidance need not be overly detailed or restrictive.
F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S
132 The Traditional Perspective
BOX 5.6 Guidelines from the Kentucky Model Domestic Violence Law Enforcement Policy
Introduction Domestic violence is a serious crime against the individual and the community. The failure of any
law enforcement officer to properly respond [to] and handle a domestic call, no matter how fre-
quent, will expose individuals and the community to danger up to and including death. Because
domestic violence can and does result in the death of individuals, every response to a domestic
call, no matter how often, shall be treated the same as any other crime against a person.
Policy Every officer shall:
• make an arrest when authorized by state law as the preferred response, instead of using dispute
mediation, separation or other police intervention techniques;
• treat all acts of domestic violence as criminal conduct;
• respond with the same protection and sanctions for every domestic violence incident, regard-
less of race, religion, creed, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and socio-
economic status, including cases where any of the alleged parties may be a law enforcement
officer, public official or prominent citizen;
• immediately report all known or suspected cases of domestic violence and abuse, adult abuse,
or child abuse as required by state law;
• receive training on domestic violence as required by state law.
Procedures Whether or not an arrest has been made, if the officer has reason to suspect that a family member,
member of an unmarried couple, or household member has been the victim of domestic violence,
the officer is required to use all reasonable means necessary to prevent further domestic violence,
including but not limited to:
• remaining at the scene as long as the officer reasonably suspects there is danger to the physical
safety of the individuals present without the presence of a law enforcement officer;
• assisting the victim to obtain medical treatment, including offering to transport, or arranging
transportation of the victim to the nearest medical treatment facility capable of providing the
necessary treatment;
• advising the victim of rights and services available.
Organizational Rules and Regulations Rules and regulations are specific managerial guidelines that leave little or no room for
discretion. They either require or prohibit specific behavior on the part of organizational
F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S
5 Principles and Policies 133
employees. Whereas policies are guides to thinking, and procedures are guides to action, rules and regulations are mandates (or prohibitions) to action.
The requirements that uniformed officers wear their hats whenever they get out of their patrol vehicle, that they not smoke on the street, that they be in court 30 minutes prior to the opening of sessions to confer with prosecutors, that they not accept gratui- ties, and that they appear for roll call are a few examples of rules and regulations. These requirements leave no room for discretion and mandate that specific actions be taken. There will, of course, always be instances in which some rules or regulations may be waived; however, these are limited. A regulation specifying that all officers appear for roll call, for example, might be waived by a commanding officer or a supervisor who, for whatever good reason, believes it is necessary for certain officers to report directly to fixed assignments rather than to roll call. Officers handling an emergency call during the 30 minutes prior to the opening of court should not be expected to leave the emergency situation before it is resolved just because rules and regulations require them to be in court 30 minutes prior to the opening of court. Most of the time, however, rules and regulations are mandates that police officers must follow.
Rules and regulations must be fair, reasonable, pertinent, and in keeping with the times. Therefore, they must be subject to change and must be updated periodically. The police department must be careful not to allow rules and regulations to interfere materi- ally with an officer’s use of discretion in unpredictable situations. They must apply only to specific situations that are essentially unchanging and predictable. Unless they are so limited, officers will be hampered in the performance of their duties and will come to regard rules and regulations as bothersome and invalid.
Furthermore, the number of rules and regulations should be kept to a minimum because of their unbending and coercive nature.30 If rules and regulations are allowed to proliferate unchecked, management is, in effect, saying to its employees, “We are telling you exactly what and what not to do because we do not have confidence in your abili- ties to act responsibly.” If such a message is transmitted to employees, they must either acquiesce or rebel; in neither instance will they remain active partners in the effort to accomplish organizational goals and objectives.
Once again, that elusive middle course must be sought. Some rules and regulations are obviously necessary. These should be confined strictly to nondiscretionary matters in which no behavioral latitude whatsoever can be granted. It should be the function of policies or procedures to govern activities in which behavioral latitudes are allowed and in which interpretive discretion is essential. Management, then, must be careful not to overdo it when it comes to restrictive rules and regulations. On the other hand, it must be equally careful to establish precise, dogmatic canons affecting behavior that should, under all circumstances, be restricted. The achievement of a delicate balance between the two is essential to departmental stability. Whenever possible, management must allow for individual discretion and thus professional growth. As Thomas Reddin so aptly puts it:
F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S
134 The Traditional Perspective
Certainly we must have rules, regulations, and procedures, and they should be followed. But, they are no substitutes for initiative and intelligence. The more a man is given an opportunity to make decisions and, in the process, to learn, the more rules and regulations will be followed.31
Formulation of Organizational Guidelines
The formulation of policies, procedures, and regulations for a police department has an important effect on not only the department, but also individual police officers and the community in general. The manner in which these guidelines are developed can be as crucial as the guidelines themselves.
Several sources of organizational policy have already been noted. These reflect the fact that police departments are open systems, are affected by their environments, and receive inputs from external systems. Any given police department receives inputs from its parent governmental system, the community, the courts, employee groups, professional police organizations, and many other special and general interest groups.
Because the police administrator receives inputs from so many different quarters, it is unwise to develop policies, procedures, and rules and regulations without giving serious consideration to both external and internal constraints. There are three good reasons guidelines should not be formulated as if the police administrator were operating in a vacuum (see “Method of Policymaking,” Box 5.7 and “Police Officer Contribution to Police Policy,” Box 5.8).
First, the police administrator must recognize that the police department is a part of the executive branch of a democratic government. People who are intensely involved in the selection of those who make the law can be expected to show tremen- dous interest in those who enforce it and to demand that police officers be responsive to their interests. Aware that their tax dollars pay police salaries, citizens expect some consideration in return. The police administrator must therefore take into consideration community input in the formulation of policies, procedures, and rules and regulations.
BOX 5.7 Standard 4.5 Method of Policymaking
In its development of procedures to openly formulate, implement and re-evaluate police policy as
necessary, each jurisdiction should be conscious of the need to effectively consult a representa-
tive cross-section of citizens in this process.
Source: American Bar Association Project on Standards for Criminal Justice. 1973. The Urban
Police Function, approved draft. New York, NY: American Bar Association, p. 9.
F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S
5 Principles and Policies 135
Second, the police executive should seek employee “buy in” as guidelines are being developed. The only effective way of doing this is to involve those who will be affected by the guidelines in their development. This kind of democratic, participative involvement can help considerably in promoting guideline acceptance. This gives the members of the department a better understanding of the rationale behind the guidelines and a stake in their successful application.
Third, the involvement of numerous concerned parties in the formulation of guidelines is likely to result in better guidelines. Community involvement in policy for- mulation, for example, will almost invariably result in better policy, because it is much more likely to be universally accepted than is policy developed by the police alone. The involvement of organizational employees in the development of procedures will result in better procedures, because the people who actually do the work know the most about how it can best be done.
Police administrators should not be concerned that the involvement of the commu- nity and of organizational employees will be considered an abdication or usurpation of their authority. Their authority originates in the community, and they are expected to use it in the community’s best interests. The community should have input in determining what these interests are. Police administrators accomplish the goals and objectives they establish for their organizations through their employees, who should also have input in how these are best achieved. Meeting responsibilities by sharing authority is an indication of strength and wisdom, not weakness.32
It is not sufficient to simply formulate policies and other types of guidelines—in fact, this can be thought of as just the first step in a four-step process that also emphasizes implementation, accountability, and review:33
1. establish policies that guide the most critical decisions made by personnel; 2. make certain that personnel are trained in what these policies mean and how they
apply to them;
BOX 5.8 Standard 6.2 Police Officer Contribution to Police Policy
Policemen, as individuals and as a group, have a proper professional interest in and can make
significant contributions to the formulation and continuing review of local law enforcement policies
within individual communities. Methods should be developed by police administrators, therefore,
to ensure effective participation in the policymaking process by all ranks, including the patrolman
who, because of his daily contact with operational problems and needs, has unique expertise to
provide information on law enforcement policy issues.
Source: American Bar Association Project of Standards for Criminal Justice. 1973. The Urban
Police Function, approved draft. New York, NY: American Bar Association, p. 12.
F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S
136 The Traditional Perspective
3. hold personnel accountable for abiding by policy;
4. continually review policies to ensure that they are responsive to community needs and that they hold personnel properly accountable as new problems are identified.
Discipline
Who will investigate acts of misfeasance and malfeasance by the police? As the Romans put it 20 centuries ago, “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” (“Who will guard the guardians?”), a question that has plagued governments since they were first organized.
If guidelines are established for the purpose of controlling personnel in their official operational duties, then routine supervision, as well as uncompromising inspections and internal affairs programs, must be designed to identify those who would willfully or incompetently violate fundamental organizational commandments. We discussed the inspections and internal affairs functions in Chapter 4, as well as civilian review options, but did not emphasize the importance of discipline in their implementation. These all-important functions are needed to ensure compliance with official organiza- tional guidelines, and discipline is needed to put teeth into compliance enforcement. See “Disciplinary Procedures,” Box 5.9.
Traditionally, discipline in law enforcement agencies was confined to the exercise of seven possible options: oral reprimand; written reprimand; punishment duty (work without pay); transfer; suspension; termination; and prosecution. Officers could be disciplined with little or no consideration for their constitutional rights and, in many instances, were disciplined in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Because of some outra- geously unfair disciplinary practices, the courts and the National Labor Relations Board outlawed numerous unfair labor practices and provided officers relief in the courts.34
MODERN POLICING BLOG Broken discipline system in Oakland CA April 17, 2015
A court-appointed investigator has identified serious flaws in Oakland’s police discipline process, resulting in a high proportion of cases overturned in arbitration as well as a general failure to hold supervisors/managers accountable. The report is critical of the police department but also blames the Office of the City Attorney and City Hall.
Source: The above is a reproduction of a post from the Modern Policing blog. The link to the post is https://gcordner.wordpress. com/2015/04/17/broken-discipline-system-in-oakland-ca/. The hyperlink at “has identified” links to http://www.eastbayexpress. com/SevenDays/archives/2015/04/16/court-appointed-investigator-slams-oaklands-broken-police-disciplinary-process.
F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S
5 Principles and Policies 137
Many states also passed “Police Officer Bill of Rights” statutes. The establishment of new and rather restrictive legal constraints on a police chief ’s previously unilateral disciplinary prerogatives sent a signal to police managers throughout the nation that, in the future, great care should be taken to exercise their disciplinary responsibilities within solidly established legal parameters designed to ensure an absolute guarantee of fairness, equity, and constitutional protection.
This mandated change in disciplinary procedure forced police administrators to adopt a more positive and constructive attitude toward the disciplinary process, with an emphasis on training, guidance, and correction as being just as, if not more, important than punishment.35 This kind of change has also been encouraged by police unions and fraternal associations.
It is also becoming more common in police discipline decisions to distinguish between errors and rule violations that are inadvertent or well intentioned and those that are intentional and committed for personal or malicious reasons.36 Police departments have even gone so far as to promise their officers that honest, reasonable mistakes will not be punished. Certainly, an agency that wants to encourage extra effort and creativity from its officers will quickly negate any enthusiasm and trust if it punishes minor rule violations or those that have been made in good faith.
In considering disciplinary measures, the police manager must now carefully weigh disciplinary objectives and employee relations as well as legal issues and constraints before taking disciplinary action. In all but the most blatantly serious situations, every effort should be made to emphasize redemption, rehabilitation, and reform, not punishment. When punishment is required, departments generally follow the principle of progres- sive discipline, with specified ranges of punishment for first and subsequent violations of various rules. The objective is to treat individual employees fairly while, at the same time, sending a convincing message throughout the organization that failure to follow directives will not generally be tolerated.
BOX 5.9 Disciplinary Procedures
Standard 26.1.4 A written directive establishes a disciplinary system, to include:
a. procedures and criteria for using training as a function of discipline;
b. procedures and criteria for using counseling as a function of discipline;
c. procedures and criteria for taking punitive actions in the interest of discipline.
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
138 The Traditional Perspective
Summary
This chapter has presented the basic principles of police organization. It should be noted that these principles are means to ends (meeting departmental goals and objectives) and are not ends in themselves. They are not all intended to be universally applicable within all organizations all of the time. Therefore, their use should be situational and dependent on the character of the police organization and the quality of its personnel. Just as build- ers need blueprints to build houses, so too do police chiefs need organizational principles to build police departments. If they judiciously use these basic principles in organizing their departments, they can be certain that their organizations will be constructed in solid fashion, capable of meeting their responsibilities and achieving their goals and objectives.
There is a great need for clear policies, procedures, and rules and regulations in police departments. Conformity to such guidelines is important, and therefore they must be well defined and understandable. Much of police work is routine and easily standardized. Parts of the job that are not routine are much too important to be left completely to the discretion of the individual police officer. On the other hand, discre- tion is inevitable and therefore must be structured and controlled. Deciding what parts of the job are routine and what parts of the job are not becomes critical for the police administrator. The administrator’s overall success may very well be predicated on his or her ability to make such decisions and to deal with disciplinary matters in a constructive manner within established legal parameters.
Another way to think about this situation is to recognize that police managers need to control their employees and, at the same time, empower them. Striking the right balance between control and empowerment is a big part of the police manager’s job. Erring too far in either direction is likely to cause severe organizational problems. As a device for empowering employee decision making without abdicating responsibility or accountabil- ity, the Carrollton (Texas) Police Department created the following template:37
1. Is it ethical?
2. Is it legal?
3. Is it the right thing to do for the community?
4. Is it the right thing for the Carrollton Police Department?
5. Is it within our policies and values?
6. Is it something you can take responsibility for, and be proud of?
If the answer to all of these questions is yes, then it is a good decision and it should be implemented.
F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S
5 Principles and Policies 139
D I S C U S S I O N Q U E S T I O N S
1. Think of the organizations to which you belong—for example, family, school, employment, voluntary, and others. Are any of them not hierarchical? Which are the most, and the least, hierarchical?
2. Many managers never learn how to delegate authority. Because they have no confidence in their subordinates, they try to do everything themselves and become worn out in the process. Do you know managers like this? How do their subordinates react to the unwillingness to delegate? How would you explain such managerial behavior? How would you change it?
3. Many organizations use specialization to create units and positions through which they can rotate personnel. This is thought to be pleasing to employees, because they can transfer from one position to another when they get bored. On the other hand, specialized jobs may become boring more quickly than generalist jobs because they are so narrowly defined. So in one respect specialization contributes to boredom, and in another respect it seems to combat it. How do you explain this apparent contradiction? How would you resolve it as chief of police?
4. The authority-level principle seeks problem resolution at the organizational level where authority exists for such resolution. It is a principle that attempts to overcome both buck- passing and problem-hiding. It seems simple, and yet it is very difficult to implement. Why?
5. We recommend that police administrators seek input from the community and police employees when developing organizational guidelines. Do you agree with this recommendation? How would you carry it out? How can a police administrator, when developing organizational guidelines, take community interests into consideration and yet remain impartial and objective?
Cases
Two of the case studies in the back of this text (Case 1, Cod Bay and Case 2, Rixton) describe situations in which some officers perform improperly. You might consider how their behavior could be improved by using the basic principles of police organization as well as policies, proce- dures, rules, regulations, and discipline.
Suggested Reading
Alpert, G.P., D.J. Kenney, R.G. Dunham, and W.C. Smith. 2000. Police Pursuits: What We Know. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.
Geller, W.A. and M.S. Scott. 1992. Deadly Force: What We Know—A Practitioner’s Desk Reference on Police- Involved Shootings. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.
Kappeler, V.E. 2006. Critical Issues in Police Civil Liability, fourth edition. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland. 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.
Walker, S. 2003. Early Intervention Systems for Law Enforcement Agencies: A Planning and Management Guide. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.
F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S
140 The Traditional Perspective
Notes
1 G.W. Cordner. 2010. “Community Policing: Elements and Effects.” In R.G. Dunham and G.P. Alpert (eds), Critical Issues in Policing: Contemporary Readings, sixth edition. Long Grove, IL: Waveland, pp. 432–449.
2 H. Koontz and C. O’Donnell. 1968. Principles of Management: An Analysis of Managerial Functions, fourth edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, pp. 69–70.
3 R. Townsend. 1970. Up the Organization. New York, NY: Knopf, p. 45. 4 O.W. Wilson and R.C. McLaren. 1977. Police Administration, fourth edition. New York, NY: McGraw-
Hill, pp. 80–81. 5 P.F. Drucker. 1954. The Practice of Management. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers, p. 139. 6 J.M. Pfiffner and R. Presthus. 1967. Public Administration. New York, NY: Ronald Press, p. 190. 7 E.F. McGarrell, E. Langston, and D. Richardson. 1997. “Implementation Issues: The Specialized Unit
or Department-Wide Community Policing.” In Q.C. Thurman and E.F. McGarrell (eds), Community Policing in a Rural Setting. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson, pp. 59–64.
8 T. Reddin. 1966. “Are You Oriented to Hold Them? A Searching Look at Police Management.” The Police Chief 33, no. 3 (March): 12–20.
9 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.
10 President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. 1968. The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society. New York, NY: Avon Books, p. 267.
11 Advisory Committee on the Police Function of the American Bar Association Project on Standards for Criminal Justice. 1973. The Urban Police Function, approved draft. New York, NY: American Bar Association, p. 8.
12 National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals. 1973. Police. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
13 National Law Enforcement Policy Center, International Association of Chiefs of Police. 2015. Online at: www.theiacp.org/Model-Policy.
14 V.E. Kappeler. 2006. Critical Issues in Police Civil Liability, fourth edition. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
15 S.D. Mastrofski. 1986. “Police Agency Accreditation: The Prospects of Reform.” American Journal of Police 5, no. 2 (Fall): 45–81.
16 Standards for Law Enforcement Agencies, fifth edition, as amended. 2015. Gainesville, VA: Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc.
17 See www.calea.org, www.iacp.org, and www.policeforum.org. 18 Koontz and O’Donnell. 1968. Principles of Management, pp. 178–188. 19 R.O. Loen. 1971. Manage More by Doing Less. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, pp. 86–89. 20 Cordner. 2010. “Community Policing.” 21 Koontz and O’Donnell. 1968. Principles of Management, p. 88. 22 O.W. Wilson and R.C. McLaren. 1972. Police Administration, third edition. New York, NY: McGraw-
Hill, p. 130. 23 M. Reuland. 2007. “Law Enforcement Policy Recommendations.” In T.J. Jurkanin, L.T. Hoover, and
V.A. Sergevnin (eds), Improving Police Response to Persons with Mental Illness: A Progressive Approach. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas, pp. 61–74.
F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S
5 Principles and Policies 141
24 Koontz and O’Donnell. 1968. Principles of Management, p. 88. 25 J.Q. Wilson. 1968. Varieties of Police Behavior: The Management of Law and Order in Eight Communities.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 278–279. 26 Loen. 1971. Manage More by Doing Less, pp. 91–92. 27 Alpert and Smith. 1996. “Developing Police Policy.” 28 G.P. Alpert, D.J. Kenney, R.G. Dunham, and W.C. Smith. 2000. Police Pursuits: What We Know.
Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum. 29 “Model Domestic Violence Law Enforcement Policy.” 1996. Frankfort, KY: Governor’s Council on
Domestic Violence. 30 G.W. Cordner. 1989. “Written Rules and Regulations: Are They Necessary?” FBI Law Enforcement
Bulletin (July): 17–21. 31 Reddin. 1966. “Are you Oriented?” p. 17. 32 L.P. Brown. 1985. “Police–Community Power Sharing.” In W.A. Geller (ed.), Police Leadership in
America: Crisis and Opportunity. New York, NY: Praeger, pp. 70–83. 33 J.J. Fyfe, J.R. Greene, W.F. Walsh, O.W. Wilson, and R.C. McLaren. 1997. Police Administration, fifth
edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, p. 490. 34 L.G. Bender. 2005. Critical Issues in Police Discipline: Case Studies. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas. 35 G.W. Garner. 1984. “The Supervisor’s Role in Discipline.” Law and Order (March): 41. 36 D.W. Stephens. 2011. “Police Discipline: A Case for Change.” New Perspectives in Policing. Washington,
DC: National Institute of Justice. 37 D.L. Carter and G.W. Cordner. 1998. “Merging Community-Oriented and Crime-Specific Policing:
Problem-Oriented Approaches.” TELEMASP Bulletin. Huntsville, TX: Law Enforcement Management Institute.
F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S
480 Case Studies
He was told that if he did not leave the station, he would be arrested. Finally, he was taken bodily from the station by the patrol officer, who pushed him down a flight of steps to the sidewalk. The man regained his equilibrium and quietly walked off into the night, beaten by the system. He returned later, paid the fee, and reclaimed his car.
D I S C U S S I O N Q U E S T I O N S
1. If you were the sergeant in this situation, what would you have done? 2. If you were the chief of police of this police department and this situation came to your attention, what
would you do? 3. In your opinion, what caused the Cod Bay Police Department to get into this situation of having a dominant
police subculture that supports such actions by officers and supervisors?
4. How widespread do you think this kind of behavior and police subculture are today?
Case 2: Rixton
Rixton is a small community of 16,000 people and has a police force of 36 officers. Police Chief Walton Eager came up through the ranks and is a pleasant man, but he has little administrative ability. He promulgates all policy and procedures by tacking notices to a bulletin board already overcrowded with memorabilia dating back several years. He makes no effort to determine whether his officers understand his policies and procedures, and officers feel no need to pay any attention to them.
The department has many excellent officers who, despite poor leadership, conduct themselves in exemplary fashion. A small minority of six, however, causes some severe problems. These six officers, 17 percent of the force, have their own police subculture and peculiar role expectations. The dominant police culture in Rixton, although not predicated on officially established rules and regulations, is generally accepted by most of the police officers and dictates role expectations that are consistent with democratic processes. The minority subculture is in conflict with the dominant culture; each group thinks that the other is ineffective.
The officers in Rixton refer to the two groups as cliques. Each clique operates according to its own role expectations, with neither clique particularly constrained by Chief Eager’s policies and procedures. The minority clique perceives the police role as being largely militaristic. The following situations, involving minority clique mem- bers, provide some interesting data on how role expectations and perceptions affect behavior.
1. Patrol Officer Luigi Pasternak, a former marine who collects guns and believes that most people are criminals, received a radio call to mediate an argument at a gas
F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S
Case Studies 481
station. On receiving the call, Pasternak said, “Good. Maybe I’ll get a chance to crack someone’s head.”
2. Patrol Officer Brodie Fishbaum, when asked what changes he would recommend to make the Rixton Police Department more professional, remarked, “I’d make it more military, have them all get haircuts, and have them wear combat boots.” Commenting on his role, he said, “I like this [police work]. This is just like being in the military. At least I think so. Pasternak and I think we are.”
3. Patrol Officer Moody Mickehaus, commenting on the fact that Brodie Fishbaum and Luigi Pasternak had been transferred to his shift, said, “Now that Fishbaum and Pasternak are back, you’ll see a lot of arrests. We try to outdo each other.”
These three conversations were typical of the way minority clique members felt about themselves. Their attitudes and behavior were dictated by their own subcultural role expectations and were reinforced by the members of their small, but influential, peer group. The fact that the dominant police culture behaved differently based on different role expectations had very little effect on what they did.
Members of the minority clique were disturbed, however, that their group consisted of so few officers. Moody Mickehaus, for example, was forever comparing his own pro- fessionalism with that of other members of the department; he was terribly disturbed that they were not as professional as he perceived himself to be. He once remarked that he gets so upset about societal degeneration and his department’s inability to deal with it that he sometimes has to drink himself to sleep. Although Mickehaus considered himself to be professional, he was looked on by officers subscribing to the dominant police culture as being dangerous.
The Rixton Police Department, with its two cliques of patrol officers, illustrates a department in which there is more than one set of role expectations. The fact that the dominant police culture in Rixton was service-oriented and not militaristic was a fortu- nate quirk of fate. The minority clique, however, caused tremendous problems for the chief and a great amount of internal disharmony within the ranks of those officers who were trying their best to do their jobs properly.
D I S C U S S I O N Q U E S T I O N S
1. How (and why) does a minority police subculture develop in a police organization? 2. How can two such different cliques (the dominant culture and the minority subculture) coexist within one
small police organization? 3. In your opinion, why has Rixton been so fortunate in developing a fairly positive dominant police culture? 4. If you were an officer in this police department and got assigned to the same patrol shift as Pasternak,
Fishbaum, and Mickehaus, what would you do?
F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S
