Management: Police Work and Law Enforcement (Research Paper Sample)

Running Head: CRIMINAL LAW 1
Management
Student`s Name:
Professor`s Name:
Submission Date:
Management
“Management must recognize that the strength of the organization is dependent
on the attributes of the people within it. These human strengths are in part
dependent on the ability to satisfy the human needs of the members of the
organization and the need for effective communication” (Wilson, 1977, p. 149).
Police managers are key to implementing and instituting change. The need for changes in police management practices is becoming more urgent. Poor judgment, misconduct, and abuse of power by law enforcers along with increasing grassroots community protests by citizens greatly intensify this need. All these requires a change that is far more innovative than that which has been previously implemented. Important changes in leadership and management of law enforcement agencies suggested by Goldstein (1990) are:
“Police managers must articulate the basic values with which they approach the police task and which influence their management techniques. More broadly, police managers must make fundamental changes in the most common type of relationship that exists between leadership and the rank and file in a police agency” (p. 152).
This research paper examines management within the broad dimensions of police work and the environment of law enforcement. First, it is necessary to briefly review the historical development of American law enforcement before we can fully identify and understand the significance of management issues faced by contemporary police executives. As the adage states, "We must know where we have been if we are to understand where we want to go" (Sparrow, 1990). As this research will demonstrate, historical accounts describe management style in the public sector as being determined in large part by the prevailing governmental philosophy of our country.
Historical Development of American Law Enforcement Management
Police management as we know it today had its beginnings in American cities in the mid- 1800's. This early period was identified as the Political Era of Policing (Kelling & Moore, 1988). During the Political Era, managers were expected to comply with the existing demands of locally elected officials. Police responsibilities included a wide variety of services such as crime prevention, crime control, order maintenance, running soup lines, providing lodging for the homeless, and even finding employment for the rapidly growing immigrant population. Law enforcement officers experienced a very close and personal relationship with the political structure and the communities they served. Foot patrols were the primary mode of service and face-to-face contacts with citizens was an everyday experience (Kappeler, 1995). Limited, if any, training was provided to both police officers and managers during this period, and both of these positions were appointed and removed at will by the political power structure. As a result, this period was characterized by both direct and indirect political influence, corruption, patronage, and nepotism (Wrobleski & Hess, 1997).
Fortunately, many citizens and practitioners did not accept the organizational conditions and corruption that represent this period of policing. Attempts were made to curtail many of the arbitrary and inappropriate uses of police authority (Alpert & Dunham, 1997). In the early twentieth century, a new reform movement emerged led by police administrators motivated by their desire to make policing a more respected profession. These reformers placed great emphasis on tight control by the police executive; the development of comprehensive policies and procedures; the reduction of police officer discretion; increased training; and new selection standards for police officers. During this reform period, the primary function of policing shifted to that of crime control and criminal apprehension. Police executives of this era became professional bureaucrats who attempted to make their role separate and distinct from the corrupting influences of both politicians and citizens. They became control oriented managers whose primary function was to develop and maintain an ideal form of police professionalism. The model sought to achieve a higher level of efficiency and control. But it also created a professionally remote relationship with the community. Today this model still dominates policing in the United States (Gaines, Kappeler, & Vaughn, 1994).
However, since the mid-1980's many departments in the United States have begun to transition from the professional model of policing to a community/problem solving model of policing. The Community Era of policing began evolving as a result of troubled times our country experienced in the 1960's and 1970's. Problems experienced in the civil rights movement, the large riots which occurred in most of our major cities, increasing crime rates, and fear of crime all contributed to this evolvement. Strategies of policing developed during the professional model of policing had not produced the results they had promised (Goldstein, 1990). In addition, police began to realize that they alone could not provide safety and security to the community. Police also realized that citizens fear of crime was equally as important as actual criminal events such as Part One Crimes. At the same time law enforcement executives were striving to professionalize policing in America, citizens began to demand that the police be more responsive to their quality of life needs.
As a result of these factors, the function of law enforcement began to move beyond pure crime control to a greater emphasis on crime prevention, citizen fear, and problem-solving. The police began to experiment with a number of operational strategies that reflect the following common sets of characteristics:
* Decentralization of patrol units by geographical assignment
* Selection of a certain number of sworn personnel as community police officers to patrol and manage the beats
* Selection of a line supervisor to oversee the community officers
* Directed and structured patrol activities which focused on closer relations with the community
* Citizen-police joint efforts in problem solving
* Enhanced communications between the department, the community, and other support agencies (Fyfe, et.al., 1997).
This new operational direction involves a major redefinition of not only patrol operations but also the mission, functions, and administrative/personnel practices of policing. This model represents a major shift from a control-oriented management to community-oriented leadership. As such, it provides us with the major point of examination for this study. The following discussion will distinguish between traditional management practices common during the Professional Eras of Policing and demonstrate the shift toward leadership as a product of the Community Era of policing.
The Management Function
There is ample literature describing the management functions of the police executive. Internally, these include the responsibilities of planning, organizing, directing, staffing, coordinating, reporting, and budgeting. These works also strongly emphasize the control function of the police executive. Internally, the executive is considered to be ultimately responsible for all actions occurring within the organization. Their primary function is to appropriately manage the agency resources as well as the employees. Appropriate management is defined as those administrative practices that are both efficient and effective. Although direct management of all employees is not the exclusive responsibility of the executive in medium or large police organizations, all police executives must at a minimum provide support of this type to command their staff (Sheehan & Cordner, 1995).
However, law enforcement agencies operate in a demanding, complex, and dynamic environment. Externally, managers must respond to a variety of community needs such as reports of crime and disorder, fear of crime, protection of constitutional rights, the establishment of prevention and education programs, and other quality of life issues that are unique to each individual community (Holden, 2000). Further, Holden (2000) defines the manager's primary responsibility as one of designing controls to achieve organizational goals. Roberg & Kuykendall (2002) describes management as a process of working with people in a humane way in achieving goals and objectives as efficiently and effectively as possible.
All of these definitions include similar functions and responsibilities. Bennett and Hess (2010) have summarized the management function as the process of combining resources to achieve organizational goals. While this definition seems simple, the management responsibility of the police executive is in reality extremely complex. The challenges inherent in managing the operation of the agency include the funding, training and development, community relations, personnel systems, policy and producers, individual and agency evaluation, media relations, recruitment, and discipline, to name just a few.
A key point in the definition of management by Bennett and Hess (2010) is that resources must be combined to achieve organizational goals. This recognizes the important linkage between the internal and external organizational environments. For example, internally managers utilize personnel resources such as sworn officers and civilian personnel to staff units that provide vital services to the public. Externally, police managers have cultivated a set of new resources that are currently being engaged through the transition to community-based policing. These resources may include private citizens as members of advisory councils, planning groups, sources of ...