Compare The Values And Vision Statement That Were Developed In Spokane

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

CHAPTER 1 Introduction to Police Administration

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

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

administration.

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

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

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

4 Basic Considerations

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

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

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

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

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

The Development of Police Administration

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

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

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

1 Introduction to Police Administration 5

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

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

1. The police should be organized along military lines.

2. Securing and training proper persons is essential.

3. Police should be hired on a probationary basis.

4. The police should be under governmental control.

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

6. Police headquarters should be centrally located.

7. Police record keeping is essential.4

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

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

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

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

6 Basic Considerations

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

The Political Era

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

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

BOX 1.1 Politics and the New York Police

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

energies of the men.”

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

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

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

1 Introduction to Police Administration 7

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

The Professional Era

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

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

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

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

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

8 Basic Considerations

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

The Community Era

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 Introduction to Police Administration 9

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

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

The Social Context of Police Administration

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

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

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

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

10 Basic Considerations

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

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

BOX 1.2 Police Role in the Ghetto

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

community.

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

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

International Association of Chiefs of Police.

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

1 Introduction to Police Administration 11

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

The Political Context of Police Administration

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

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

BOX 1.3 Community Policing in Chicago

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

jobs was in the right direction.

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

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

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

12 Basic Considerations

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 Introduction to Police Administration 13

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

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

MODERN POLICING BLOG Local elections and policing March 24, 2015

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

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

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

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

14 Basic Considerations

The Legal Context of Police Administration

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 Introduction to Police Administration 15

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

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

The Challenge of Police Administration in a Democratic Society

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

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

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

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

16 Basic Considerations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 Introduction to Police Administration 17

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

Community-Oriented Police Administration

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

1. the philosophical dimension;

2. the strategic dimension;

3. the tactical dimension;

4. the organizational dimension.

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

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

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

18 Basic Considerations

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

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

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

BOX 1.4 Policing in a Free Society

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Associates, p. 310.

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

1 Introduction to Police Administration 19

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

Homeland Security

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

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

Ten Guiding Principles

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

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

20 Basic Considerations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary

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

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

1 Introduction to Police Administration 21

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

D I S C U S S I O N Q U E S T I O N S

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

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

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

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

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

Suggested Reading

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

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

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

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

Cambridge University Press.

Notes

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

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

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

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

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

22 Basic Considerations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 Introduction to Police Administration 23

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

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

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

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

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

CHAPTER 2 The Nature of Police Work

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

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

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

officers.

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

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

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

2 The Nature of Police Work 25

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

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

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

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

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

The Evolution of Police Work

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

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

26 Basic Considerations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. controlling riots, disturbances, and crowds;

4. watching for fires;

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

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

2 The Nature of Police Work 27

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

28 Basic Considerations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 The Nature of Police Work 29

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

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

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

Police Discretion

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

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

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

30 Basic Considerations

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

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

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

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

BOX 2.1 Police Discretion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To them, marijuana smoking is no big deal.

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

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

2 The Nature of Police Work 31

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

32 Basic Considerations

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

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

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

Crime Control, Order Maintenance, or Social Service?

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

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

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

2 The Nature of Police Work 33

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

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

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

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

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

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

34 Basic Considerations

The Core of the Police Role

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 The Nature of Police Work 35

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

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

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

BOX 2.2 Police Work and the Meaning of Justice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the meaning of justice.

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

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

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

36 Basic Considerations

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

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

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

BOX 2.3 The Coercive Nature of Policing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

appear before a judge in the morning.

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

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

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

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

2 The Nature of Police Work 37

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

The Skill of Policing

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

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

57% Interviewed a witness or person requesting service

40% Interrogated a suspect

29% Conducted a search or inspection

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

27% Gave information

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

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

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

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

38 Basic Considerations

23% Gave reassurance

14% Used force or threat of force

11% Gave assistance

9% Gave a ticket

8% Used persuasion

5% Made an arrest

2% Gave medical help

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 The Nature of Police Work 39

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

While on Routine Patrol

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

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

Management Implications

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

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

40 Basic Considerations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 The Nature of Police Work 41

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

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

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

BOX 2.4 Science or Craft?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

become effective.

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

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

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

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

42 Basic Considerations

Summary

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

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

D I S C U S S I O N Q U E S T I O N S

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 The Nature of Police Work 43

Suggested Reading

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

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

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

Oxford University Press.

Notes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

44 Basic Considerations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 The Nature of Police Work 45

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

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

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

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

CHAPTER 3 Police Goals and Systems

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

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

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

and explain the difference between open and closed systems.

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

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

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

3 Police Goals and Systems 47

The Purposes of the Police

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

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

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

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

Mission Goals Objectives

Strategies Tactics Programs Tasks Policies Procedures Rules

Behavior

Figure 3.1

The Relationship between Overall Mission and Specific Organizational Behavior

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

48 Basic Considerations

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

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

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

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

BOX 3.1 Values in Policing

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

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

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

also express values.

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

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

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

morale.

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

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

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

3 Police Goals and Systems 49

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The three primary goals of any police department are:

1. to protect life;

2. to protect property;

3. to maintain order.

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

50 Basic Considerations

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

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

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

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

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

3. to protect constitutional guarantees;

4. to facilitate the movement of people and vehicles;

5. to assist those who cannot care for themselves;

6. to resolve conflict;

BOX 3.2 Goals and Objectives

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

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

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

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

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

on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc.

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

3 Police Goals and Systems 51

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

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

Preventing and Controlling Threatening Conduct

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

Aiding Individuals in Danger of Harm

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

MODERN POLICING BLOG Homeless Outreach in Houston November 25, 2014

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

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

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

52 Basic Considerations

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

Protecting Constitutional Guarantees

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

Facilitating the Movement of People and Vehicles

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

Assisting Those Who Cannot Care for Themselves

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

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

3 Police Goals and Systems 53

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

Resolving Conflict

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

Identifying Potentially Serious Problems

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

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

54 Basic Considerations

Creating and Maintaining a Feeling of Security

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 Police Goals and Systems 55

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

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

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

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

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

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

56 Basic Considerations

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

The Systems Concept

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

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

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

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

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

3 Police Goals and Systems 57

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

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

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

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

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

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

58 Basic Considerations

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

We may conclude that systems have three primary characteristics:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 Police Goals and Systems 59

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

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

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

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

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

Inputs Processes Outputs

Inputs Processes

Feedback

Outputs