Answer each question minimum of 300 words. Use provided material (PDF book) as well one additional source to answer each question. Remember to use in-text citations in each new paragraph. Reference/cite in APA format. DO NOT PLAGIARIZE. Here is the reference for the PDF: Cordner, G. W. (2016). Police administration (9th
ed.). New York: Routledge.1.) Read Case Study 3, “Strategic Planning in Spokane, Washington” (the case study is located at the end of the weekly reading assignment). In narrative format with a minimum of 400 words discuss Chief Mangan’s approach to organizational change to community policing.2.)Complete the values and vision statement that were developed in Spokane under Mangan’s leadership to the sample mission statements presented in Chapter 33.)In what ways are the various expressions of organizational purpose from the Spokane, Portland, Houston, and Madison Police Departments different? Why do they differ?4.)If you were appointed as a new Chief of Police in your hometown, which missions and values are most important to you and why?
Unformatted Attachment Preview
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
Police administration has two primary concerns:
(1) an internal one, the performance
of management duties within police organizations; and (2) an external one, the implementation of policies and programs designedYto 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, police5 administrators must abide by a variety of
legal and ethical constraints, they must remain
6 transparent and accountable for their
actions and decisions, and they must strive for
8 legitimacy in the eyes of the public.
Thus far in the twenty-first century, police administration seems to be getting more
T recently, a crisis of legitimacy has erupted
and more complicated and demanding. Most
over police use of deadly force following incidents
in various cities around the counS
try, including Ferguson (Missouri), New York, Los Angeles, Albuquerque, Cleveland,
Baltimore, and North Charleston (South Carolina). This crisis has dominated the
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 security, rapid changes in modern technology,2 and coping with difficult economic times.3
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 E
in six main topic areas: Building Trust & Legitimacy, Policy
& Oversight, Technology & Social Media,
L 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.
, The hyperlink at “here” links to http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/taskforce/
MODERN POLICING BLOG
Over and above these very challenging contemporary issues, it is important to realI
ize that police administration does not take place in a vacuum—it has a history and a
F police administrators should be keenly aware of the
context. Particularly in a free society,
historical, social, legal, and politicalFframeworks within which they operate.
The Development of Police
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 cur1
rently know it. In that year, the Metropolitan
Police Act became English law, concluding
a long and emotional debate. Prior to
law enforcement in England and America
had been the province of ordinary citizens, volunteers, night watchmen, private merchant
police, soldiers, personal employees6of justices of the peace, constables, sheriffs, and slave
8 law enforcement approach, which had proved
patrols. This informal and unorganized
satisfactory for centuries, was overwhelmed
by the Industrial Revolution, which spawned
rapid urbanization and upwardly spiraling crime rates.
The Metropolitan Police Act ofS1829 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
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
2. Securing and training proper persons is essential.
3. Police should be hired on a probationaryDbasis.
4. The police should be under governmental
L and area.
5. Police strength should be deployed by time
6. Police headquarters should be centrally located.
7. Police record keeping is essential.4
The foundation of Peel’s approach to police
T administration is in his first two principles. 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
F 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 fewNpeople held most of the power and made
most of the decisions, whereas many people Y
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
1 had none at all.
only enough to direct their privates, and privates
It was natural, then, that Peel should borrow
5 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
8 The military was chronically in need of
drawn from the wealthy and aristocratic classes.
people and would accept anyone into its ranks.
T Peel, however, was highly selective in
choosing his police. Only a small percentage of applicants was accepted, and a probationary period was used to weed out those S
whose performance was unsatisfactory. The
standards of conduct were very rigid, so many officers were dismissed, especially in the
early years of organizational development.
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 personnel standards. He fashioned his approach in 1829 and it stands up well even today.
The Political Era
One obstacle to the adoption ofLPeel’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
D police work were well below the middle-class level
result, the pay and status derived from
for many years, and the job, until fairly
D recently, attracted mainly those whose employment prospects elsewhere were bleak.
Stringent personnel standards in the early days of American policing were also subL (see “Politics and the New York Police,” Box 1.1).
verted by the influence of local politics
Local politics served as the vehicleLfor 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 profession of highly qualified people who could meet rigid standards. Consequently, police
officers were likely to be dismissed by
T their agencies not because of unsatisfactory performance, 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 expecA
tations of the police, was the force’s involvement in partisan politics. Decentralization and political
favoritism weakened discipline. BeforeN
1853, patrolmen looked to local politicians for appointment
and promotion. Consequently, they were less amenable to their superior officers’ orders, and fricY
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 commission, 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.
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 precinct 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
The Professional Era
Although complaints about police abuses and inefficiency were common in the
1800s, widespread criticism of the political L
model of policing, including its decentralization and acceptance of mediocre personnel,
L 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
F believed police work to be a demandand O.W. Wilson.9 Each of these pioneers strongly
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
N They believed strongly in education,
human qualities and skills were more important.
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 investigat1
ing commissions, most notably the Wickersham
Commission in the 1930s and the
President’s Crime Commission in the 1960s.5The 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 terms8of carrying out the job to be done and in
comparison to the rest of the population, and
T both called for substantial upgrading of
Spolice personnel and stricter organizational
Through the mid-1960s the need for better
controls dominated the literature and practice of police administration. Since then, however, other important issues have emerged—such as the poor state of police–community
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,
I the need for intelligent, sensitive, flexible people
in policing has been accepted. More well-educated people are being hired as police
D years ago.13 Over the long run, police salaries have
officers than was the case 40 or more
been improving, along with occupational
D 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 theL
professional era, emphasized educational attainment,
physical skills, appearance, conformity,
L 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
T 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 ariseFabout 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 officersNof today. Other kinds of organizations, in both the
business and government sectors, have
Y 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.
1 encourage police officers to think of themselves
The very idea of professionalism may
as better than the average person. 5
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 8
professional model is the question of its effectiveness.
During the model’s heyday in the 1960s
T and 1970s, crime was not reduced, but instead
increased more than in any other time since we started collecting crime statistics. Also, the
S (preventive patrol, rapid response, and follow-up
key strategies of the professional model
investigations) have each been found to be far less effective than originally thought (as
explained in Chapter 13).15
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
Even the most fervent supporters of community-oriented
policing (COP) see the
continued necessity of some elements of theI professional model, however. The need for
high standards, thorough training, and sound organization and management in policing
D presented throughout this text are equally
are widely accepted. The ideas and information
important whether one is implementing the D
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 F
brunt of scathing criticism—this has been
evident in the aftermath of such high-profileF
events as the Rodney King beating, the O.J.
Simpson trial, the pepper-spraying of Occupy protesters at the University of CaliforniaA
Davis, and recent police shootings in Ferguson, North Charleston, and elsewhere. One
N with the police in American communireason for the apparently constant dissatisfaction
ties is disagreement on the most important goals
Y of policing, not to mention the means
of attaining those goals.18
Diverse communities present special challenges for police. Not only do individual
1 but so do segments of the community.
citizens differ in their opinions and preferences,
In Chicago, where community policing was5implemented 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, aban8 and social disorder (disruption around
doned cars, abandoned buildings, trash and junk)
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
S whites giving police the highest marks.19
police performance and responsiveness, with
Nationally as well, white Americans report having much more trust and confidence in
the police than do black Americans.20
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
L of the community made it clear that the police
relations with these and other segments
operate in a social system that they
I can neither take for granted nor totally control.
Different community groups view …
Purchase answer to see full