'I'I'IIIIIII'III'I—IIIIII'I . ,

"125's lllllllllllllllll

2m)

 

LIBRARY

Michigan Stat.
University

 

 

 

Th?“ is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

The Challenges of Implementing Successful
Organizational Change: A Case Study
of Community Policing

presented by
Joseph Andrew Schafer

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degree in Interdisciplinary
Social Sciences (Crimlnal Justice)

 

 

“ z'

Major professor‘

Date )L‘l WlCQ/lzw C)

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

6!

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

g; l} films M1°79280i

 

it:

, "m3 4 233
C?

 

’1
3

 

MAY’Q 5 2&“5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mm mm.“

 

THE CHALLENGES OF IMPLEMENTING
SUCCESSFUL ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE:
A STUDY OF COMMUNITY POLICING
By

Joseph Andrew Schafer

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fiilfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
School of Criminal Justice

2000

ABSTRACT
THE CHALLENGES OF IMPLEMENTING
SUCCESSFUL ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE:
A STUDY OF COMMUNITY POLICING
By

Joseph Andrew Schafer

In recent decades, advocates of community policing have attempted to instill this
philosophy in American police agencies. Experience has shown that the process of
integrating a community policing philosophy in an organization is truly challenging. Police
organizations which are attempting to adopt a community policing philosophy must do more
than change their rhetoric. Using data from a case study of the implementation of
generalized community policing in a medium-sized police agency, this study attempted to
consider the various challenges which might serve as barriers to organizational change.
Specifically, the author examined how individual socialization, organizational culture, and
organizational determinism may intersect to prevent successfill change in police
organizations.

The major findings of the study indicate that supervisors, females, and officers with
CPO experience held more positive attitudes about community policing. The respondents’
evaluations of community policing as instituted in the study agency were affected by their
general attitudes about community policing and their perceptions of the organization’s
culture. Beliefs about how the department Should organize community policing in the future
were affected by perceptions of organizational culture, evaluations of community policing

as implemented in the study agency, and attitudes about community policing as a philosophy.

Officers who supported the idea of community policing, supported how it had been
implemented, and perceived of the organizational culture as “healthy” believed that the study
department should continue to organization community policing using the system under
consideration. Extensive qualitative findings illuminate other salient issues relating to these
major findings.

These findings indicate that change in police organizations is a complex process
which requires attention to a litany of issues. The success of a planned organizational change
depends upon both these structural and humanistic elements. The study highlights a variety
of diverse issues which police planners Should take into account in seeking to change the

structure and/or philosophy of their parent organization.

Copyright by
Joseph Andrew Schafer
2000

To my parents,
who loved enough to give me strong roots
and then had the courage to give me wings.

And to Shelby,
my companion and colleague in all that truly matters.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

To acknowledge all of the people who have influenced the direction and development
of this dissertation, as well as my graduate career, is a formidable task. The process of
pursuing my graduate degrees has been aided by more people than I could possibly recognize
in this short passage. The exclusion of some of these individuals in these pages in no way
diminishes my appreciation for their influences.

Dr. Dennis Payne has offered guidance and assistance throughout my graduate
career. His support, insights, and advice have been invaluable. Dr. Chris Vanderpool and
Dr. Daniel Kruger graciously served on both my guidance and dissertation committees. In
the limited contact we had, they have taught me a tremendous amount about their disciplines.

Dr. Timothy Bynum and Dr. Stephen Mastrofski directed me in the project which
generated the data used in this dissertation. They always treated me as a colleague rather
than a subordinate, allowing me to learn more than I realized at the time. They originally
suggested I use this data as the basis for my dissertation and have kindly allowed me access
to the project data. The original project was funded by the National Institute of Justice and
I received generous financial support from the Robert Trojanowicz Community Policing
Endowed Fund. I hope my work contributes to the ideas Dr. Trojanowicz believed in so
deeply. I would also be remise if I did not thank the men and women of the Lansing Police
Department for their cooperation, candor, and time.

Countless peers have made my graduate education a richer and more enjoyable
experience. I am particularly indebted to Elizabeth Bonello, Todd Brisker, Tracy O’Connell,

and Sean Varano for their senses of humor, collaboration and comradery. Beth Huebner has

been both a good friend and thoughtful critic in reviewing sections of this text.

The men and women of the Ames (IA) Police Department must be thanked for all
they taught me during my formative years. More recently, Geoff Hufl” and Jeff Hale have
helped me keep my feet on the ground while I pursued lofiier goals (who’s up for a little ID
BBQ?) My esteemed colleagues from Pour Richard’s in Cedar Falls (especially Canon,
Grady & Jody) started me on this road and have periodically helped me relieve a little stress
along the way. Now when you say it, it will be for real. “Long may you run...”

I am greatly indebted to Dr. Clem Bartollas who has been tireless in serving as a
mentor and fi’iend, offering essential encouragement, guidance and advocacy; it has meant
more to me than you may know. I look forward to more visits by the roses in the years to
come. It looks as if R.T. Lewis was right after all.

The countless prayers and endless online encouragement and “ego-boosts” provided
by my aunts, uncles and cousins have helped light the darker days of this journey. . .know that
it is appreciated. Ben and Katie, the harassment and torment you subjected me to while
growing up undoubtedly prepared me for the rigors of graduate school. I am grateful that you
now ofi’er love and support, and wish you both success in your future endeavors.

My graduate education has been greatly enhanced through my association with Dr.
David Carter. David encouraged me to pursue a Ph.D. when I was a first-semester master’s
student. Since that time, he has been a mentor, advocate, sounding board, counselor, co-
author, and (most importantly) a good friend. He has been instrumental in my professional
development and survival. I am honored to have been associated with him and am truly

indebted for all he has done for me.

vii

Finally, I dedicate this dissertation to the three people who have been most
instrumental in my life. My parents, John and Grace Schafer, never allowed me to place
limits on what I could achieve through dedication and persistence. My wife, Shelby, has
tolerated the selfish lifestyle of a graduate student and has sacrificed so much to help me
realize this goal. Although I know they have not always agreed with the choices I have
made, they have given me unwavering support, love and encouragement in this and all other
endeavors I have pursued. I find words on paper inadequate to convey what I feel in my
heart for you all.

Thank you.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................. xii
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem .......................................................................................................... 3
Purpose of the Study .................................................................................................................. 4
Identifying Individual Socialization Factors ................................................................. 5
Identifying Organizational Culture Factors .................................................................. 5
Identifying Organizational Determinism Factors ......................................................... 6
Definition ofTerms .................................................................................................................. 7
Delimitations .......................................................................................................................... 10
Basic Assumptions ................................................................................................................. 12
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................................... 14
Traditional and Community Policing Paradigms ................................................................... 1 5
A BriefNote on Traditional Policing and Organizational Structure ........................... 1 5
ABrief Overview of Community Policing .................................................................. 20
ABriefNote on Thoughts Against Community Policing ........................................... 28
Summary of Traditional and Community Policing Paradigms .................................... 33
Individual Socialization ........................................................................................................... 34
Race, Ethnicity, & GenderinPolicing ........................................................................ 3 5
Age& Seniority .......................................................................................................... 37
The Role ofEducation ................................................................................................ 39
The Psychological Contract ........................................................................................ 41
Distrust ofManagement .............................................................................................. 43
Perception of ChangeasaThreat ................................................................................ 44
Employee Attitude ...................................................................................................... 46
Individual Socialization and Community Policing ..................................................... 48
Organizational Culture ........................................................................................................... 49
What is Organizational Culture? ................................................................................. 49
The Transmission of Organizational Culture .............................................................. 52
The Role of Organizational Culture in Change .......................................................... 53
Key Elements of Organizational Culture in the Context of Police Organizations ...... 56
Labor-Management Tensions .......................................................................... 58
Image .............................................................................................................. 60
Traditional Police Operations ......................................................................... 6]

ix

Police Organizational Culture and Community Policing ............................................ 64

Organizational Determinism ................................................................................................... 65
Planning for Change ................................................................................................... 66
Planning Organizational ChangeinPolice Agencies ................................................. 68
Clarity .......................................................................................................................... 71
Unions and Key Actors ............................................................................................... 75
Accountability, Evaluations, & Reward Allocation Systems ...................................... 77
Changing the Role of Supervisors ............................................................................... 80
Summary of Organizational Determinism and Community Policing .......................... 8 1

Methodological ConsiderationsinEvaluation Research ........................................................ 82
Focus Groups .............................................................................................................. 83
Qualitative Research Interviews ................................................................................. 87
Survey Research ......................................................................................................... 91
The Case Study Approach to Organizational Research ............................................... 95
Analyzing Survey Data ............................................................................................... 98

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 101

CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................... 105

The Original Evaluation Project ........................................................................................... 105

Instrument Construction ....................................................................................................... l 1 1

Population ............................................................................................................................. 1 13

Procedures ............................................................................................................................ 1 l4

Hypotheses ............................................................................................................................ 1 16

Data Analysis& Key Variables ............................................................................................ 117

Summary ............................................................................................................................... l 19

CHAPTER FOUR

ANALYSIS OF DATA ........................................................................................................ 121

AHistory of Community Policing inLansing ...................................................................... 121
Early Community Policing Efi’orts ........................................................................... 122
The Team-Based System .......................................................................................... 123
The Role of the Union .............................................................................................. 134
Concerns with Continuity ......................................................................................... 135
Resocialization ......................................................................................................... 13 7
The Effects of Community Policing on Officers ...................................................... 138

Survey Response Rate & Respondent Characteristics .......................................................... 141

Level of Community Policing and Problem Solving ............................................................ 146

Univariate and Bivariate Results and Qualitative Study Findings ........................................ 1 56
Individual Socialization & Organizational Culture .................................................. 1 5 6

Psychological Contract ................................................................................. 159
Distrust ofManagement ................................................................................ 162
Perception of Change as aThreat ................................................................. 164
Community Policing versus Traditional Policing ......................................... 166
Employee Attitudes Toward Community Policing ........................................ 169
Organizational Culture and Climate .............................................................. 180

Communication and Relationships with Supervisors .................................... 186

Supervisors aSChange Agents ...................................................................... 187

The Union and Key Actors ............................................................................ 189

Organizational Determinism ...................................................................................... 191

General Implementation and Reorganization Issues ..................................... 192

Stafling .......................................................................................................... 195

Clarity ............................................................................................................ 197

Team Integrity and GuidanceinProblem Solving Activities ........................ 199

Accountability, Evaluations and Rewards ..................................................... 201

Inferential Analysis ............................................................................................................... 205

Development of the Factors ...................................................................................... 205

Analysis onypotheses ............................................................................................ 210

Individual Socialization ................................................................................ 21 1

Organizational Culture ................................................................................. 215

Organizational Determinism ......................................................................... 222

Summary ............................................................................................................................... 229
CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................... 23 1

Summary of the Research Findings ...................................................................................... 231

Implications of the Research Findings ................................................................................. 239

Implications for Organizational ChangeinPolice Agencies ..................................... 239

Implications for the Implementation of Generalized Community Policing .............. 244

Implications for Future Studies of Organizational Change in Police Agencies ........ 248

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 25 1

Appendix A Methodology for Systematic Social Observation Data ..................................... 254

AppendixB Officer Survey Cover Letter .............................................................................. 259

Appendix C Officer Survey Instrument ................................................................................ 262

Bibliography .......................................................................................................................... 284

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 . Contrasted elements of traditional and community policing .................................... 29
Table 2. Sample Characteristics ........................................................................................... 144

Table 3. Frequency with which officers used various sources to obtain
information about problemsintheir assigned beat .................................................... 149

Table 4. Length of time Since respondent last completed a problem
solving efi’ort; all respondents and by precinct .......................................................... 1 50

Table 5. Percent of shift time officer spent in assigned team area by shift .......................... 152
Table 6. Percent of encounters in which officers exhibited problem-oriented approach ..... 15 5
Table 7. Level of agreement with statements about police work ......................................... 1 67

Table 8. Perception of importance of goals for patrol officers in the

opinion of precinct management by precinct ............................................................. 169
Table 9. Perceived advantages of a CPO assignment by experience .................................... 1 75
Table 10. Perceived disadvantages of a CPO assignment by experience ............................. 1 76

Table 11. Percentage of respondents agreeing with statements about

community policing by experience ............................................................................ 178
Table 12. The best way for LPD to organize community policing by experience ................ l 80
Table 13. Rating of supervisor by respondent rank .............................................................. 182
Table 14. Respondents’ assessments of their team sergeants ............................................... 1 83
Table 1 5. Perceptions of departmental leaders by respondent rank ..................................... 1 8 5

Table 16. Issues relating to community policing as organized in LPD; percent
of respondents agreeing with items by rank .............................................................. 193

xii

Table 17. Views on LPD efforts to implement generalized community policing ................ 195
Table 18. Factors contributing to the development of problem solving skills ..................... 200

Table 19. Factor composition: Attitudes about community policing
asaphilosophy (CPATT) .......................................................................................... 207

Table 20. Factor composition: Evaluation of community policing as
Instituted in LPD (CPINLPD) ................................................................................... 208

Table 21. Factor Composition: Perceptions of organizational
cultureinLPD (ORGCULT) ..................................................................................... 210

Table 22. Regression of Individual Socialization on Attitude About
Community Policing as a Philosophy (CPATT) ....................................................... 2 1 1

Table 23. Regression of Individual Socialization on Evaluation of
Community Policing as Instituted in LPD (CPINLPD) ............................................. 213

Table 24. Regression of Individual Socialization on How the Lansing
Police Department Should Organize Community Policing ....................................... 214

Table 25. Regression of Demographics on Perceptions of Organizational
CultureinLPD (ORGCULT) .................................................................................... 216

Table 26. Regression of Perceptions of Organizational Culture on Evaluation
of Community Policingasit Was Instituted in LPD ................................................. 218

Table 27. Regression of Perceptions of Organizational Culture on Beliefs About
How LPD Should Organize Community Policing in the Future ............................... 220

Table 28. Regression of Perceptions of Organizational Culture on
Attitudes About Community Policing as a Philosophy ............................................. 222

Table 29. Regression of Attitude About Community Policing as a Philosophy
on Evaluation of Community Policing as Instituted in LPD ..................................... 224

Table 30. Regression of Attitude About Community Policing as a Philosophy
on Belief About How LPD Should Organize Community Policing in the Future. . . .226

Table 31. Regression of Evaluation of Community Policing as Instituted in Lansing
on Belief About How Community Policing Should Be Organized in the Future ...... 228

xiii

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Any organization seeking to change its form and/or function is likely to face a
number of internal and external challenges. Internally, organizations must be able to manage
the needs of their employees, the logistics of planning, and finite resources. Externally,
organizations exist in a broader environment which limits and constrains how they operate.
Police agencies are not immune to such challenges when they seek to make major
organizational changes. When police planners seek to bring change within their
organization, they must negotiate a mine field of employee needs and motivations, structural
and organizational restrictions, budgetary and personnel constraints, legal obligations,
political obstacles, and community desires and demands.

Community policing represents the most significant change to American policing
Since the professionalization movement emerged in the first half of the twentieth century.
Community policing is a major transformation in how the police interact with the public
which they serve. Under traditional policing paradigms, the police maintain a distance from
their community; the police are viewed as the experts on crime and, as such, take the lead in
addressing issues of crime and community order. Community policing is a philosophy which
turns this traditional paradigm on its head. The police work to empower citizens in order to
allow them to address neighborhood problems; the public is placed in the proverbial driver’s

seat as the citizens are given a voice in determining what the police role and agenda will be

within their community.

Community policing is a philosophy, not a program. Police organizations which wish
to “do” community policing must do more than just create a small unit of officers who will
be charged with working closely with the citizenry. Agencies which firlly embrace
community policing must undergo a major transformation in terms of their structure, agenda,
role orientation, and organizational culture. Adopting a community policing philosophy
requires most agencies to rethink how they operate and to reorient their employees. While
management and policing literature are replete with rhetoric on how organizations can
empower their employees through organizational change, in reality, it may be very difficult
to successfully change an organization in a positive direction.

If community policing is ever going to become the dominant philosophical paradigm
in American policing, it will be necessary to have an understanding of the common obstacles
which may emerge during this transformation. Once obstacles have been identified and
understood, it will be possible to develop more effective means by which community
policing might be implemented. The proposed study will not explore the merits of
community policing as a program or a philosophy. Instead, it will focus on those obstacles
which might impede organizational change in police agencies attempting to implement
community policing. Specifically, the study will be focused on a medium-sized police

agency seeking to change fi'om a traditional to a community policing paradigm.

Statement of the Problem

There is a tendency for criminal justice scholars and practitioners to disagree as to
whether the transformation to a community policing paradigm represents a firndamental shift
in how police officers have historically performed their duties. This debate aside, in the past
decade it has become apparent that police organizations wishing to adopt a community
policing philosophy must undergo a certain degree of structural and cultural transformation
in order to achieve this objective. While much has been written detailing the wonderful
potential community policing may have for generating positive transformations in police-
community relations and the quality of life in American cities, experience has shown that
bringing this lofty vision to fruition has been a substantial challenge.

A police organization which is seeking to adopt a community policing philosophy
must do more than simply change itself on paper. Such a reorientation requires an
organization to conduct a self-examination. Such introspective examination might indicate
how the agency’s structure, organizational inertia, and employee culture, selection, and
training might need to be altered if effective change is to be realized. Simply changing an
organization’s rhetoric (its mission statement, alleged philosophy, goals, and motto) is
insufiicient to ensure that a proposed change will become a reality.

Thus, the problem is that if police organizations are to undergo a successfirl
transformation to a community policing paradigm, police planners and executives need to
have a clear understanding of the barriers to such an organizational change. Having a
knowledge of the most common barriers to change does not guarantee that a new program,
initiative, or philosophy will ultimately succeed. On the other hand, such knowledge will

allow police planners to understand that successful change requires attention to a myriad of

issues on all levels of an organization (structure, culture, socialization, operations, etc). This
study seeks to identify the most salient factors which might impede organizational change
in police agencies seeking to shift their operational and philosophical orientation from a

traditional to a community policing paradigm.

Purpose of the Study

The study seeks to identify barriers to successful organizational change through the
use of data from an evaluation of an attempted community policing implementation in a
medium-sized police organization‘. The primary source of data is a self-administered survey
completed by police ofiicers who were most affected by this planned organizational change.
Survey results are supplemented by other findings from this case study, including field
observations, semi-structured interviews, and focus group discussions. Specifically, the
researcher will seek to: (1) identify those factors in the individual socialization of employees
which might generate resistance to organizational change; (2) determine how organizational
culture (collective values, tradition, and beliefs) might contribute to employee resistance to
planned change; and (3) define the role organizational determinism might play in how a
police agency adapts to change. The author draws upon quantitative and qualitative research
findings to identify such factors in the context of a planned organizational change in a

medium-Sized police force. Utilizing the results of this research, police executives may be

 

‘ This study analyzes data originally collected through a Locally Initiated Research
Partnership grant funded by the National Institute of Justice (Grant no. 951] CX0093). Points
of view or opinions expressed in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily
represent the official position or policy of the Institute for Law and Justice, the National

Institute of Justice, or the US. Department of Justice.

4

able to plan organizational changes in a more efficacious manner.

Identifig'ng Individual Socialization Fagtors: Perhaps the greatest challenge facing
managers planning organizational change is confronting the prior socialization of individual
employees. An individual’s socialization is the product of a complex network of the
employee’s personal values and beliefs, their background and past experiences, and their
orientation toward the occupation, organization, and work environment. These factors are
operationalized using the results of a survey of police officers in the study agency.
Specifically, consideration is given to the backgrounds, demographics, and occupational
orientations and beliefs of the respondents, and how these factors might relate to support for
community policing in general and community policing specifically as it was implemented
in the study agency. The available data does not allow for easy determination of the personal
values and beliefs of respondents, making this potential factor very difficult to assess.

Identifying Orglmgationflulmre Factors: In addition to being influenced by their
own personal values and beliefs, employees may also be influenced by the culture of the
organization in which they work. This culture may be composed of the attitudes of other
employees, organizational tradition and beliefs, and the way in which new employees are
selected, trained, and socialized. These factors are operationalized in two manners to
determine the role organizational culture plays in the outcome of planned organizational
change. The primary source of information about these factors is derived from focus group
discussions, semi-structured interviews, and field observations. Second, to a lesser degree
data from the survey of police officers is used to identify various aspects of the
organizational culture at the time of the survey, in particular examining those collective

beliefs and values toward both community policing and community policing as it was

operationalized in the study organization. Combining these various sources allows for the
development of a general picture of the organizational culture during the period of time
immediately proceeding and during the planned change being studied.

Identifydng Organizational Determinism Factors: Data were analyzed to assess in
what way, if any, organizational determinism played a role in the outcome of the planned
change under study. This analysis emphasizes the way in which the change was planned,
introduced, and implemented in the study agency. Similar to the approach used in assessing
organizational culture, organizational determinism is operationalized in two manners.
Organizational determinism is evaluated using findings from the both the quantitative and
qualitative aspects of the available data. In particular, attention was given to the role the
implementation process may have played in the level of acceptance of the proposed change.
In addition, these qualitative findings were complemented with data on employee attitude
toward the implementation process derived from the patrol officer survey.

The study relies on data from a case study made of a medium sized police force
attempting to change from a traditional to a community policing philosophy. Two objectives
will be of paramount interest. First, survey data provided by officers affected by an
organizational change are used in order to assess how individual level concerns and attitudes
may have acted as impediments to securing organizational change. Second, qualitative data
(from focus groups, semi—structured interviews, and field observation) aid in the assessment
of how organizational culture, as well as organizational action and planning, may have
impeded successfiil organizational change.

Findings from this research will allow police planners to be better informed as they

begin to consider initiating planned organizational change. Knowing the factors which might

impede successful change does not ensure that planned organizational change will be
effective. However, by understanding that successful change requires attention to a variety
of considerations existing on a number of levels in an organization, planners will be able to
design programs which may be more responsive to the needs created by these various issues.
The identification of the most salient obstacles to organizational change will enable police

executives to be better informed as they seek to reorient their organizations.

Definitions of Terms

The following terms are operationally defined as applicable to the study and,
therefore, require definition at the onset.

Community Policing Officer (CPO). An officer assigned to coordinate and
administer all community policing activities in a geographic area (significantly smaller than
a normal patrol beat). This officer is general exempt from handling any call outside of
his/her assigned neighborhood. In the Lansing Police Department (LPD), CPO’s were
members of a unit outside of the Patrol Division. In the context of the officer survey, “CPO”
refers to an ofiicer, sergeant, or lieutenant from the Patrol Division who was or had held a
Community Policing Officer assignment.

Evaluation of Community Policing as Implemented in the LysinLPolice
Department. An oflicer’s view of how generalized community policing was operationally
defined and implemented throughout the Lansing PD. This refers not to the presence of a
community policing unit, but to the development of the team-based problem solving

approach. This may be distinct from an individual officer’s perceptions of community

policing as a philosophy.

Line Officer. The base of an organization’s hierarchy; in police agencies “the line”
is composed of employees holding the rank of “police officer.”

Non-CPO. An officer, sergeant, or lieutenant assigned to the Patrol Division who had
never held an assignment as a Community Policing Officer.

Non-Supervisor. A sworn police employee holding the rank of “officer”; in most
cases refers to an officer working in either a patrol or community policing capacity.

Perceptions of Community Policing. How an officer views community policing as
wigsophy;_ These perceptions may be separate from an oflicer’s attitude toward the use
of CPO’s or other forms of community policing in the Lansing Police Department. They
relate to the individual’s general reaction to the theory and practice of community policing.

Road officer. A Lansing PD term for a sworn employee holding the rank of “police
officer” and assigned to the Patrol Division.

Shift Sergeant. A road officer’s immediate supervisor on a daily basis. Shift
sergeants had temporal responsibility for a squad of patrol ofiicers assigned to a particular
precinct. They were one of the two supervisors to whom an officer was accountable. In
addition to their temporal responsibility for a squad of officers working the same shift, shift
sergeants also had joint responsibility for officers assigned to a geographic area (a Team
Area).

Supervisor. A sworn police employee holding a rank above “officer”; in most cases,
refers to a sergeant or lieutenant.

Team Area. A geographic subdivision of the City of Lansing. Each member of the

patrol division was assigned to a team area. While on duty and in service, this officer had

primary responsibility for any calls for service in the team area (although the officer might
handle calls for service throughout their precinct or the city). The long-term quality of life
concerns and neighborhood problems in the team areas were addressed by a “team” of police
officers under the supervision of a patrol sergeant.

Team Sergeant. A supervisor from the Patrol Division with the responsibility of
coordinating problem solving activities within a team area. Team sergeants had the dual
responsibility of supervising road officers on a given Shift and overseeing their team area’s
overall quality of life. The team sergeant was expected to facilitate problem solving
endeavors using the team of officers who policed the team area around the clock.

Temporal and Geggr_aphic Responsibility & Accountlability. The ideas that patrol
officers and patrol sergeants might hold obligations based on both time and location. Patrol
officers were temporally responsible to the sergeants who routinely supervised their shift and
were geographically responsible to the sergeant who supervised their team area. Officers
were also temporally responsible for handling calls for service throughout their precinct (and
on occasion, the city) on a daily basis, while also being geographically responsible for the
long-term problems in the team area to which they were assigned. Patrol sergeants were
temporally responsible for a squad of officers on a given shift and were geographically
responsible for a group of officers assigned to their team area. Sergeants were temporally
responsible for making sure operations ran smoothly and that calls were handled during the
course of their daily shift; they were also geographically responsible for the long-term quality

of life in the team area they supervised.

Delimitations

The following limitations in the research design and analysis used in this study may
limit the author’s results. While every effort has been made to minimize their repercussions
upon the research findings, they may still have an unforseen impact.

1. The study Site was not selected using any form of probability sampling;
rather, it was chosen out of convenience. These research findings may not be
automatically generalized to other settings.

2. It is difficult to determine the degree to which the organization being used
(the Lansing, Michigan, Police Department) represents what might be
experienced in other police organizations. Lansing may not be atypical due
to the size, diversity, economy, and geography of the community. In
addition, the experiences in Lansing may not be found in agencies which
differ in size, composition, or organizational culture

3. The data were collected during the course of a two and a half year research
project. Consequently, the experiences in Lansing may be explained to some
degree by history. While the study was being conducted, the Department was
in the center of a number of controversies relating to the actions of officers
and the general attitude and performance of the agency. It is possible that the
attitudes of individual oflicers may have been shaped to an unknown degree
by these controversies, rather than by the organizational change with which
this study is concerned.

4. The time frame of this study may have been too narrow to reflect success

with the organizational change. Data was collected within the first 24 months

10

after the change was initiated. It is not clear how practices and attitudes may
have changed after this time. While success did not emerge during this 24-
month study period, it may have been achieved later in time.

The available data is not a perfect match with the conceptual framework
developed through the literature review. It is difficult to determine the true
strength of portions of the conceptual framework because ideal measures are
not always available.

Data are heavily reliant upon self-reported attitudes (thus the strength of the
data is limited by the quality of the instrument and administration
methodology) and qualitative research (which is subject to interpretive bias
on the part of the research team). While steps were taken to maximize the
integrity of the data, flaws may still exist to some degree.

The survey data was only gathered at one point in time, limiting the findings
and making them susceptible to a variety of validity threats. Furthermore, the
survey instrument was developed and tested in part using a focus group of
purposively selected officers; important dimensions may have been
overlooked.

Lansing had a long history of experimenting with various forms of
community policing; a department attempting an analogous reform from a
“fresh” starting point might not have faced an organizational culture with
such deeply ingrained attitudes (be they good or bad) toward this philosophy.
In the interest of protecting survey participants, participants were not

identified, preventing follow-up inquiries of non respondents. While the

11

response rate was strong, the response distribution may still inject a degree
of bias into the survey results.
10. Although the survey instrument was subject to a modified form of pretesting,

it was not a validated instrument.

Basic Assumptions

The process of conducting social inquiry invariably requires that the researcher make
certain basic assumptions. It is crucial that the researcher recognize and acknowledge those
assumptions made in order to understand how they may modify or mitigate the research
findings. In developing the conceptual and methodological framework for this study, the
following assumptions were made:

1. That the LPD experience was a failure in the sense that the organization’s
attempt to implement a structure compatible with a broad community
policing philosophy was not successful. This conclusion was not empirically
derived from outcome measures; rather, it was based on the overwhelming
sentiment from within the organization that “this is not working.”

2. That the barriers and impediments identified in the LPD experience can be
inferred to represent other settings and/or other forms of organizational
change.

3. That the research methodology was able to accurately identify and diagnose
the most salient issues in the organization.

4. That the primary survey instrument, although never systematically validated,

12

was an accurate and reliable means by which to assess employee opinions,

experiences, and attitudes.

13

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

This study examines the role three concepts, individual socialization, organizational
culture, and organizational determinism, play in the process of organizational change. The
salient literature pertaining to these concepts will be reviewed and discussed in this section
both in general terms and in the context of policing. It should be noted that while
conceptually these ideas are each distinctive, analytically they may be difficult to separate.
In particular, the socialization of individual employees and an organization’s culture may be
linked in a nearly inextricable manner. These two concepts are part of a complex network
of social phenomena which help to determine an individual’s work ethic, work-related
behavior, occupational personality, etc.

The relationship between the concepts of individual socialization and organizational
culture may be strongly reciprocal in terms of how they impact an individual’s work-related
attitudes, beliefs and values. AS such, separate analysis of their individual influences on such
attitudes may be very difficult. Assessing the individual influences of these dimensions was
not the objective of the evaluation project which generated the data used in the present study.
The instrument used to collect attitude and opinion data was not designed to distinguish
between these concepts. Therefore, the analysis will often treat their impact as a combined
factor in shaping employee values, beliefs and attitudes. For the purposes of this literature

review organizational culture and individual socialization will be treated and discussed as

14

distinctive concepts.

This literature review is divided into five major sections. First, a brief discussion of
traditional and community policing paradigms in law enforcement is provided to properly
orient the reader with the type of organizational change examined in this study. Next, the
three major concepts of importance in the study will be individually examined. The fifth
section will provide a justification for the methodologies employed in the evaluation research
project which generated the data used in this analysis. The literature review will conclude
with a brief summary that will reiterate the major concepts and describe the theoretical

framework guiding the analysis.

Traditional and Community Policing Paradigms

Although the instant study examines issues with broad implications for the process
of change in any organizational setting, it is particularly interested in the process of
implementing of community policing. Prior to examining the important dimensions of
organizational change, it is necessary to provide a brief overview of the traditional structure
found in American police agencies. It is also necessary to briefly describe community
policing and how it differs from traditional modes of policing. The consequences of both

traditional and community policing on the front-line police officer will also be described.

A Brief Note on Traditiogtl Policinggnd Organizational Structure
Police departments in the United States have traditionally been very close to purely

mechanistic organizations (Kuykendall & Roberg, 1982). These authors note that

15

mechanistic organizations are characterized by:

specialization: tasks and activities are compartmentalized so that they are

only performed by employees in specific positions.

hierarchy: status and rank differences are emphasized.

authority: knowledge and influence are derivations of one’s organizational

position.

rule orientation: rights, obligations, and methods of operation are attached

with each role; means are emphasized over ends.
position orientation: accountability and rewards are based upon following
directions, using accepted means, and displaying loyalty.
Others have characterized traditional police organizations as bureaucratic, hierarchical,
paramilitary organizations (Bittner, 1970; (Cordner, 1978; Franz & Jones, 1987; Jermier &
Berkes, 1979; McNamara, 1967).

This traditional organizational structure was not always in place. It has been
suggested that during the early decades of their existence, American police officers enjoyed
a close relationship with the citizenry they served (Fogelson, 197 7; Walker, 5., 1977). This
close relationship is rooted in the core principles of law enforcement espoused by Sir Robert
Peel (Radelet & Carter, 1994). Included in these core principles were the ideas that the
police must seek public support, cooperation, and compliance. These principles are generally
regarded as the ideals upon which early American policing was also based.

Unfortunately, all too often this close relationship between the police and the
community resulted in graft, misconduct, abuse and corruption. Efforts to reform corruption
in police organizations, as well as politics in general, began to emerge during the latter
decades of the nineteenth century. Consequently, during the first decades of the twentieth
century there was a push to “professionalize” police officers and to remove them, at least

symbolically, from the community they served. The traditional structure of police

organizations emerged during this era. According to S. Walker:

16

By the end of the 19305 the dominant feature of modern American police
administration had taken shape, large bureaucratic structures organized along
hierarchical, semi-military lines, increasingly drawn into a tight knit
subculture. Almost no new ideas or techniques were introduced in police
administration from 19205 through the mid-19603. (1977, p. ix).
This separation fi'om the community was reinforced by historical circumstances, including
the development and proliferation of automobiles, telephones, and two-way radios.

Supervisors in these traditional organizations sought to maintain a high degree of
internal control by creating detailed policies to define what officers Should and should not
do, and to control their discretion (W eisburd, McElroy, & Hardyman, 1988). One reason
for these strict policies and rules was the widely scattered nature of a police work force.
Unlike a factory setting, employees were not in one central location where their actions could
be closely monitored. Because of this, supervisors employed written policies, procedures,
directives and rules in an attempt to control officer conduct and action.

Patrol officers make up the “backbone” of traditional police organizations
(Trojanowicz, Kappeler, Gaines, & Bucqueroux, 1998; Walker, 8., 1999). They have
traditionally been viewed as being on the front line in the “war on crime.” On a daily basis,
patrol officers have more direct contact with the public than any other member of a police
organization (Crank, 1998). Despite media images and public impressions to the contrary,
patrol work tends to be highly routinized and mundane. Extensive studies with widely
varying methodologies have been employed to study police activities. The net result of these
research endeavors is that their findings “in no way lend support to the headline news vision
of police work as a violent running battle between police and criminals” (Greene & Klockars,

1991:283)

Patrol officers in traditional police organizations spend most of their time waiting for

17

a call for service (Payne & Trojanowicz, 1985). While waiting to be sent somewhere to do
something, officers typically engage in preventive patrol (Reiss, 1971); officers attempt to
spot some Sign of trouble, be it a traffic violation or suspicious activity. When officers are
given a call for service, they are typically sent to “take a complaint” from a citizen. All too
often, police officers find themselves cast as the adversary in their contact with citizens
(Wilson, 1968). When the police are called to intervene in a situation, the result is often that
someone will be arrested or given a citation. The person on the receiving end of this sanction
may feel animosities toward the officer, even though the officer is only doing his or her job
by enforcing the law. AS a result, Officers often feel a sense of isolation from, and
antagonism toward, the community they serve (Manning, 1997b; Rubinstein, 1973; Skolnick,
1994)

Notable police scholars such as David Bayley, Egon Bittner, Carl Klockars, Peter
Manning, Albert Reiss, Jerome Skolnick, and William Westley (to name just a few) have
spent their careers attempting to describe the consequences of this tension between the police
and the citizenry they serve. The elaboration of their writings is not fully germane to the
instant study. Sufiice it to say that this tension may be a powerful force in socializing
officers to adopt particular attitudes and behavioral patterns. By virtue of their social role,
police oflicers are granted unique powers and rights which tend to set them apart from other
members of society (Bittner, 1970; Kobler, 1975). This status also tends to reinforce the idea
among police officers and organizations that the police have a monopoly on expertise about
crime and community safety (Trojanowicz, Kappeler, Gaines, & Bucqueroux, 1998).

The structure of traditional police organizations may have a negative impact on police

officers and the quality of work they produce. Traditional police organizations are

18

paramilitary bureaucracies. AS such, patrol officers are at the bottom of the power hierarchy.
Paramilitary bureaucracies stifle innovation among their members (Angell, 1977). Individual
members are expected to conform to the organization’s expectations; rewards are enjoyed
by those employees who engage in the activities supported by the bureaucracy (traditionally
focused on the quantity of outputs in the form of arrests, citations, and calls for service
handled). Supervisors at the top of the organization’s hierarchy focus on controlling and
directing their subordinates, rather than supporting autonomy and innovation (Trojanowicz,
Kappeler, Gaines, & Bucqueroux, 1998).

The impact of this traditional structure on employees may lead to the emergence of
a number of feelings which might prove to be counterproductive for the organization. As
Cordner observed: ‘

Among these feelings are demoralization and powerlessness in the lower

ranks, a conception of top command as arbitrary, a growing cynicism among

supervisory and middle-management personnel, and the subsequent

development of a we/they attitude toward top management. . .Ideas are stifled,

officers are not confident of the support of top management, and the CYA

syndrome takes hold (1978: 30).
Suspicion is engendered between the ranks. Communication slows to a trickle. Distrust
begins to grow, particularly of higher echelons in police departments. Morale problems
emerge at all levels of the organization, most prominently among front-line officers (Franz
& Jones, 1987). AS the educational level of employees increases, they experience a greater
desire to be involved in the decision-making process of their organization (Angell, 1971).
The traditional model does not allow for such autonomy and input, leaving officers
frustrated, alienated, and resentful.

Most people pursue a career in policing out of a sense of benevolence; they wish to

help others in times of need (Meagher & Yentes, 1986). Unfortunately, this noble concept

19

may be stifled by the very nature of the occupation and organization which the individual
wishes to join. The new employee soon finds that many of those people they wish to help
are less than appreciative, despite good intentions and noble concepts. On a daily basis they
work with peers, many of whom have become cynical and jaded. Rather than supporting
their efforts, these peers may insist that callous indifference is the only way to survive the
rigors of their occupation.

This is compounded by an organizational structure which seeks to control their
discretion, stifle their creativity and innovation, and demand their conformity. The once
idealistic officer is trapped between a seemingly ungratefiil citizenry and an organization
devoid of compassion and support. The essence of this Situation may be best captured by
Trojanowicz, Kappeler, Gaines, & Bucqueroux (1998), observing that “thwarted idealists
may struggle against becoming cynics, but cynicism toward the community and toward the

police hierarchy may be so potent that few can resist” (p. 269).

A Brief Overview of Community Policing

If traditional policing approximated a purelyflmeclLanggiflcyorganization, community
policing approximates a purely prgapig‘organization (Kuykendall & Roberg, 1982). These
authors suggest that mechanical organizations are characterized by:

generalization: Specialized jobs and tasks are de-emphasized.

collegiality: Interactions between members of the organization (both
horizontally and vertically) are informal and de-emphasize
differences in status and rank.

power: Personal status and influence are determined largely by one’s ability
and reputation.

situation-orientation: All members of the organization contribute to solving
problems; ends are emphasized over means.

goal-orientation: Accountability and rewards are linked to quality
performance; commitment to the organization and its goals are

20

emphasized over personal goals and achievements.
Although not limited to these characterizations, the organizational structure necessary for
successful community policing is far more organic than the traditional police organizational
structure. Before elaborating on the principles and outcomes of community policing, it is
necessary to examine the history which surrounded its development.

The first three-quarters of this decade saw several substantial efforts to modify police
operations and practices. Despite attempts to professionalize policing, to improve police-
community relations and to promote crime prevention, crime rates and public perceptions of
safety seemed to move independently of these efforts. In the aftermath of the President’s
Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice of 1967, police
practitioners and scholars had begun to question the fundamental assumptions upon which
traditional police operations were based. The result of these inquiries was that the “research
had shown repeatedly that traditional police strategies were not working effectively”
(Skolnick & Bayley, 1986: 3).

Although some have raised issues regarding the methodologies of individual studies,
the overall message of this research was that it was difficult (if not impossible) to prove that
those core policing methods were effective. Skolnick and Bayley (1986) reviewed the most
prominent evaluative studies and identified what they believed to be the most Significant
findings of these research endeavors:

First, increasing the number of police does not necessarily reduce crime rates

or raise the proportion of crimes solved...Second, random motorized

patrolling neither reduces crime nor improves chances of catching

suspects. . .Third, two-person patrol cars are no more effective than one-person

cars in reducing crime or catching criminals...Fourth, saturation patrolling

does reduce crime, but only temporarily, largely by displacing it to other

areas...Fifth, the kind of crime that terrifies Americans most- mugging,
robbery, burglary, rape, homicide— is rarely encountered by police on

21

patrol...Sixth, improving response time to emergency calls has no effect on

the likelihood of arresting criminals or even in satisfying involved

citizens...Seventh, crimes are not solved— in the sense of offenders arrested

and prosecuted— through criminal investigations conducted by police

departments. (pp. 4-5).

If the accuracy and validity of these findings are accepted, the tried-and-true methods of
policing employed by virtually every law enforcement agency in the county in the mid- 1970's
were doing nothing to reduce crime or foster a feeling of safety among the public.

A redefinition of American policing occurred during the last quarter of the Twentieth
Century. Community policing has emerged on the tail end of this effort. In this time frame
there has been a growing realization that professional policing inadvertently “left people out
of policing” (Trojanowicz & Carter, 1988: 1), both in terms of the people police
organizations served and the people they employed. Police-community relations, crime
prevention, team policing...all attempted to reintegrate people into the process of policing.
Each of these successive efforts have also moved police organizations closer to an organic
structure. In addition, each effort was less programmatic and more philosophical than the
preceding efforts.

Community policing is a reform innovation which finally moved beyond a program
and crossed over to the realm of organizational philosophy. In its pure form, community
policing is carried out by an organization, not by select members. It is integrated into the
beliefs, values and actions of all members of an organization. While community policing
holds the promise to bring about a positive transformation in American policing, some View
it with skepticism because it has emerged froma line of otherfai‘led evolutiong ‘(fl'llojanowicz
& Carter, 1988). Perceived as the latest installment for managers who subscribe to the

“paradigm of the month club,” many line-level officers do not take this philosophy seriously.

22

It is perceived as a temporary phase which will pass in favor of the next wave of innovative
policing. This has made it difficult for many agencies to shift to a community policing
paradigm, regardless of good intent on the part of police executives.

Despite the abundance of attention it has received in the last 25 years, community
policing is still a concept which many do not firlly understand. Wilkinson & Rosenbaum
(1994) observe that:

community policing represents a fundamental change in the basic role of the

police officer, including changes in his or her skills, motivations, and

opportunity to engage in problem-solving activities and to develop new

partnerships with key elements of the community (p. 110). (Emphasis in

original).
Community policing is based on the concept that police officers and private citizens can
work together to creatively solve community problems (Trojanowicz, Kappeler, Gaines, &
Bucqueroux, 1998). While these problems may relate to crime, they may also relate to the
fear of crime, neighborhood disorder (either social or physical), or quality of life conditions.
Rather than viewing themselves as the resident experts on crime, community policing
requires police organizations and officers to take a more democratic approach; organizations,
officers, and community residents collaboratively identify problems, establish priorities, and
develop and enact solutions.

Community policing epitomizes a new organizational strategy which allows police
agencies to decentralize services and realign the patrol function (Skogan & Hartnett, 1997).
While police organizations have historically placed an emphasis on staffing specialized units
(often at the expense of the patrol division), community policing places a renewed emphasis

on the patrol division. By reallocating personnel from specialized functions into the more

generalized patrol division, agencies engaging in community policing are able to support

23

more community-based efl‘orts (Greene, Bergman, & McLaughlin, 1994).

The focus of this strategy is on supporting the line officer who is assigned to work
closely with people and problems in a designated geographic area (Trojanowicz, Kappeler,
Gaines, & Bucqueroux, 1998). Community policing may place a heavy emphasis on
“establishing geographic responsibility and accountability to police officers, establishing
relatively permanent Shifts and beats for personnel assignments, and limiting cross-
dispatching of officers away from assigned areas” (W eisel & Eck 1994: 65). It is a way for
the police to strengthen their ties with the citizens and community they serve (Greene,
Bergman, & McLaughlin, 1994).

Perhaps the late Robert Trojanowicz did more than any other scholar or practitioner
to define what constitutes “true” community policing and to firrther the cause of community
policing. According to his work (see generally, Trojanowicz & Carter, 1988 and
Trojanowicz, Kappeler, Gaines, & Bucqueroux, 1998) , community policing is:

v A philosophy and an organizational strategy, not just a tactic or a
program: True community policing is reflected in the attitudes and
actions of all officers in a police organization, not just a select few
who are relegated to a specialized unit. It shapes all aspects of police
operations, not just narrow tasks in limited geographical areas.

> Problem-oriented: The police proactively seek out long-term
solutions to the conditions which are contributing to crime and
disorder. This problem focus cannot occur without input and
involvement from the community.

> Working together and sharing power: Citizens are viewed as partners
in the process of bringing about positive change within a community.

As such, they have knowledge and resources which can make
cooperative efforts more successful than police efforts alone.

v Developing trust: Incidents of corruption and abuses of power, no
matter where they occur, can harm to image of the police in their

community. Community policing gives a name and a face to the
police so that residents will feel that the police are people they can

24

trust and work with.

v Creativity and innovation: Community policing is not a static
program; it is a fluid response to dynamically changing needs and
issues. To be successfiil, it must seek out new and different ways to
address these problems.

> Broadly focused: While traditional policing was focused strictly on
quantitative outputs (response time, arrests made, crimes reported,
crimes cleared), community policing also considers qualitative
outputs (the fear of crime, the level of neighborhood disorder, the
quality of community life, the degree of citizen satisfaction).

v Geographically focused: By placing officers in the same geographic
area every time they work, it is expected that officers will come to
know the people and problems in that area and will develop a feeling
of ownership. As an officer becomes involved in the life of a
neighborhood on a day-to-day basis, she will come to be more
invested in that area and its quality of life.

Despite the vast amount of literature which has been written about community policing in
the last quarter century, there is still a great deal of confusion over what it is and is not. In
addition to define what community policing is, Trojanowicz, Kappeler, Gaines and
Bucqueroux (1998) also defined what it is not:

> Community policing is not a technique: “Community policing is not
a technique that departments can apply to a specific problem, but an
entirely new way of thinking about the role of the police in the
community” (p. 15).

> Community policing is not public relations: Although improved
relations with the public is a welcome by-product of community
policing, it is not a conscious objective. Prior attempts at improving
police-community relations were largely appearance, while
community policing is substance.

> Community policing is not soft on crime: Community policing does
not restrict officers from making arrests or enforcing the law.
Officers involved in community policing may make fewer arrests than
their traditional counterparts, but this is because they are dealing with
a broad range of community concerns and issues, not all of which are
criminal in nature.

25

Community policing is not an independent entity within a police
department: Although not every officers in a community policing
organization will work an assigned beat area every day, they may still
operate in a manner consistent with the philosophy.

Community policing is not cosmetic: “Community policing broadens
the police mandate to focus on proactive efforts to solve problems”
(p. 17-18). Officers concern themselves not just with matters of
crime, but also non-criminal matters of concern to the community
they serve.

Community policing is not just another name for social work: The
police already perform a wide variety of services which have little to
do with serious crime. Government as a whole has a moral obligation
to serve its constituents; as the only government social agency in
operation 24 hours a day, seven days a week, the police must be
responsive to requests for information and service which are non-
criminal in nature.

Community policing is not a panacea: Social problems are dynamic,
making it difficult to correct them with simple solutions. Although
it will not fix every problem, community policing is the most
responsive policing philosophy developed to date.

In its ideal form community policing would be a generalized function within a police
department. Every officer would have an assigned beat area which they would service every
time they worked. Unfortunately, this is Simply not feasible in all but the smallest police
organizations. Instead, agencies are forced to develop a strategy to integrate community
policing Specialists with other organizational divisions (Trojanowicz, Kappeler, Gaines, &
Bucqueroux, 1998). Specialization has a tendency to reduce communication between parts
of an organization. It also tends to alienate officers who are removed from the mainstream.
Experience has shown that officers working in community policing units tend to feel

marginalized from the remainder of the organization because of the false perception that they

are not engaged in “real police work” (Eck, 1992; Sadd & Grinc, 1994).

This gives rise to a firndamental paradox of community policing. Where it is a

26

Specialized function, such community policing units may provide “fertile ground for the
growth of resentment between traditional patrol officers and [community policing] officers”
(Sadd & Grinc, 1994338). Pragmatically, however, it may not be possible to design a police
department in which every member holds geographic responsibility. There will always need
to be a certain number of patrol officers providing rapid-response emergency services. The
challenge for police planners and executives is to find the balance within their organization
which minimizes tension and foster a sense of cooperation. Within this challenge, showing
every police officer that they have an obligation to operate with a community policing mind-
set, regardless of their assignment, may be the most daunting.

Despite periodic criticism of community policing by uninvolved officers, those who
spend time working in such an assignment often find it to be a rewarding experience and may
be more supportive of community policing as a philosophy of policing (Trojanowicz,
Kappeler, Gaines, & Bucqueroux, 1998). Officers may find that a community policing
assignment increases their overall job satisfaction (Wycoff & Skogan, 1994). Officers also
report that they enjoy developing relationships with the community, appreciate the flexibility
offered by community policing, and feeling that they have time to address problems they
encounter (Trojanowicz & Pollard, 1986). Officers working in community policing
assignments report that they get to know the “good people” on their beat and felt that they
had better relationships with the community (Skogan & Hartnett, 1997).

Relationships within police departments may also be enhanced by community
policing (More, 1998). Cooperation and communication may increase between various units
within a department as these units all work together to respond to neighborhood problems

and community concerns. Supervisor-subordinate relationships may also improve. Line

27

officers may feel that they have a voice in their organization and may begin to feel that their
contributions are being recognized. Community policing also affords the opportunity to
exercise creativity and innovation, while developing a sense of ownership; however, it
should be noted that not all police officers want to be creative or innovative. Based on
evaluative and descriptive studies by others, it is generally expected that officers who have
held a community policing assignment view this philosophy more favorably than do those
who have only performed traditional policing duties.

The professional model of policing dominated American policing for the majority of
this century. Despite its virtues, this model had serious negative consequences for those
officers on the receiving end of its command and control. Community policing has emerged
as an alternative way for police organizations to operate. Table 1 contrasts elements of
traditional policing with elements of community policing. The major differences between
these two paradigms are clear. While it has been defined and operationalized differently
from agency to agency, a community policing philosophy emphasizes partnership,
prevention, and problem solving. Police officers with experience in community policing
typically report greater sense of satisfaction in the job they perform and view citizens as

partners rather than adversaries.

A Brief Note on Thoughts Against Community Policing

Support for community policing has been far from universal in both police and
academic circles. This criticism can be divided into two camps: those who are critical of
community policing as a theory and those who are critical of community policing in practice.

While the theory behind community policing would seem to be sound, some have questioned

28

Table 1.
Contrasted elements of traditional and community policing.

Element of Traditional Policing

Enforcing the law if the key end
ofiicers/agencies pursue.

Element of Community Policing

Enforcing the law is one means to the
ends.

 

Paramount goal is enforcing the law.

Paramount goal is improving quality of
life in the community.

 

Reactive.

Proactive.

 

Short response time is critical.

Short response time is less important.

 

Officers spend as little time as possible
handling assigned calls for service.

Officers invest as much time as is
reasonably necessary to handle a call for
service by “getting at” the root problem.

 

Line officers must be controlled and
directed.

Line officers must be given freedom and
discretion.

 

Supervisors encourage obedience and
conformity.

Supervisors encourage creativity and
innovation.

 

No capacity to accept failure.

Capacity to accept failures made in good
faith.

 

Evaluations quantitatively driven (arrests,
citations, calls handled).

Evaluations qualitatively driven (citizen
satisfaction, problems addressed).

 

Supervisors are there to command and
control line officers.

Supervisors are there to support efforts of
line officers.

 

Police view themselves as experts on
crime in the community.

Police view citizens as experts on crime
in the community.

 

Police limit information given to the
public.

Police share knowledge with the public.

 

Police distrust the public.

Police seek to work cooperatively with the
pubhc.

 

Police officers view themselves as crime
fighters, law enforcers, and crook
catchers.

Police officers view themselves as
community organizers, community
activists, and providers of vital
community services.

 

Police agencies are closed systems.

Police agencies are open systems.

29

its veracity. Community policing assumes that citizens want to work cooperatively with their
police (Sadd & Grinc, 1994) and want their police to focus attention and resources on non-
criminal matters (Gaines, 1993). Conversely, it might be argued that citizens pay taxes in
order to fund police departments so that they themselves do not have to expend energy
actively fighting crime and disorder. Community policing is also concerned with the extent
to which citizens fear being the victims of crime in their community. While reducing fear
of crime may be a noble endeavor, it is not necessarily correlated with a reduction in actual
crime (Mastrofski, 1993).

It has also been suggested that not only do communities need more responsive police
agencies, but also more responsive municipal governments (Taylor, F ritsch, & Caeti, 1998).
The police do not always have the necessary expertise to deal with certain types of
neighborhood problems. At some point, they need other agencies to address some of these
non-criminal matters. Agencies engaged in community policing often find that they must
struggle to convince other government service providers to work with the best interests of
the community in mind. With this being the case, the police may not be the proper arm of
the government to spearhead these improvements. It has been observed that in many areas
where community policing has been implemented “the police had to take the lead and [hope
that] other agencies might follow along” (Sadd & Grinc, 1994:50) (emphasis in the original).

Riechers and Roberg (1990) drew upon the works of a number of authors, as well as
their own observations, to develop a list of ten underlying assumptions of community
policing. These authors believed that these issues still need to be discussed and resolved
before community policing was fully embraced by academicians practitioners. These

assumptions include that (p. 107):

30

10.

The point of this and other Similar arguments is not that community policing is implicitly a
bad idea which Should be rejected (Hoover, 1992). Instead, these authors content that the

assumptions which drive community policing have not been adequately debated on a

The presence of the police through increased visibility reduces the
public’s fear of crime.

The public is of one mind, a homogeneous populace whose
satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the police can be readily measured.

The police should be responsible for actively helping to define and
shape community norms.

Public fear stems more from disorder than crime.

Signs of neglect and decay in neighborhoods invite crime.
Community policing programs are started at the initiative of the
police with the aim of improving service, not to give influential

citizens control over police services.

Community policing can be done without violating the political
neutrality of the police.

Police organizations, given their current mechanistic characteristics,
can readily adapt to a more organic model required to effectively
implement community policing.

Police organizations, given their current quality of personnel, can be
responsive to the demands of community policing.

The police are the proper agency to attempt to fillfill the goals of
community policing.

philosophical level.

From an evaluation perspective, some contend that the vote is still not in on the
effectiveness of community policing.
supports the idea that community policing has a positive impact on community perception

of the police or crime reduction” (Taylor, Fritsch, & Caeti, 1998: 3). In addition, those

31

“There is precious little empirical evidence that

benefits which have been measured have been relatively modest and frequently come at a
great monetary cost (Findley & Taylor, 1990). In all fairness, many evaluations are linked
with community policing experiments firnded through federal grants; agencies might be more
judicious when they are paying for community policing out of their operating budget.

Another school of thought regarding community policing is composed of those who
question the way in which community policing is often practiced. Manning (1997b) refers
to community policing as the “Rhetorical Giant” and writes that community policing “is yet
another ‘presentation strategy,’ a means of selectively highlighting some changes in urban
policing while suppressing information about others” (p. 15). Klockars (1991) contends that
community policing is merely another attempt by the police to obscure the reality of what
they do— use force and coercion to deal with citizen problems. Kraska and Kappeler (1997)
see part of the rise in police militarization as veiled under the legitimacy of community
policing efforts. By relaxing control over police officers and reintegrating them into the
community they serve, some fear that agencies may invite a return to the corruption police
departments worked so hard to overcome during the first half of the twentieth century
(Walker, 8., 1993; Wycofii 1991).

The purpose for providing a brief review of literature critical of community policing
is to illustrate that, even in the academic community, support for this innovation is by no
means universal. This lack of a consensus does not appear to be hampering the idea of
community policing from taking hold in American policing to any serious degree. It should
be noted, however, that if community policing is going to transform American policing, there

may come a time when some of these issues will need to be more firlly resolved.

32

Summgy of Traditional and Comqu Policing Paradigms

During the past two decades, countless books, articles, and reports have been written
about the community policing philosophy (see generally, Goldstein, 1990; Greene &
Mastrofski, 1988; Rosenbaum, 1994; Skolnick & Bayley, 1986; Skolnick & Bayley, 1986;
Sparrow, Moore & Kennedy, 1990; Trojanowicz, Kappeler, Gaines, & Bucqueroux, 1998).
Various “flavors” of community policing have been studied in cities throughout the country,
including: Baltimore, Maryland; Boston, Massachusetts; Denver, Colorado; Detroit,
Michigan; Flint, Michigan; Houston, Texas; Madison, Wisconsin; Newark, New Jersey;
Oakland, California; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and San Diego, California...to name just
a few. Many of these studies have been focused on how community policing was received
and perceived by the local citizenry. Others have examined how community policing has
impacted crime rates and quality of life in those neighborhoods in which is has been
implemented. Still more studies have examined how community policing affects the
perceptions of police officers charged with carrying it out, usually in a Specialized unit.

What is absent from the overwhelming majority of these studies is an examination
of how police organizations experience the implementation of community policing. This is
typical of evaluation research in policing, which tends to focus on change outcomes (crime
reduction, response time, clearance rates, etc.) while overlooking the change process itself
(Greene, 1981). More attention needs to be given not just to the outcomes of community
policing (i.e., greater citizen satisfaction with police services, enhanced quality of life, job
enhancement and enrichment among police officers), but also to the process of change and
implementation within the police organization. In other words, how is the shift from a

traditional to a community policing organizational structure and philosophy experienced by

33

the agency and the oflicers most directly affected by this change?

The instant study attempts to fill this void by examining such an organizational
change. Specifically, it examines how three dimensions of a police organization (the
individual employee, the collective culture, and the organization’s structure) may mitigate
the success of community policing. The following review of literature will establish the
conceptual framework within which the study’s analysis will occur. By looking at the
problem in multiple dimensions, it is expected that the challenges facing community policing

may be better understood.

Individual Socialization

There are a number of important dimensions of the individual socialization and
experiences employees bring with them to their job which might mitigate how they behave
in their occupational role and as a member of an organization. Traits of individual
socialization are brought to an organization by an employee. These traits might include an
employee’s: values and beliefs; expectations of what their occupation role will/should be;
expectations of how they will/ should be treated within the organization; and, attitudes toward
co-workers, supervisors, and the people being serviced by the organization (where
applicable). An employee’s traits are a product of a complex blend of education, race,
ethnicity, gender, family traditions and upbringing, age, and life experiences. As such,
individual socialization is a very abstract phenomena, making its complete operationalization
and measurement challenging, time consuming, expensive, and, perhaps, ultimately elusive.

The following analysis will discuss some of the most basic elements of individual

34

socialization. Attention will first be given to elements which readily lend themselves to
measurement, such as an employee’s race, ethnicity, gender, education, and seniority.
Consideration will also be given to other aspects of an employee’s personality (the
psychological contract, distrust of management, perceptions of change, and attitudes) which
might be particularly salient in determining how individuals respond to change within their
employing organization. Finally, a brief discussion of the possible relationship between

individual socialization and community policing is provided.

Rafice. Ethnicity and Gender in Policing

Research on the gender-specific attitudes of police officers is relatively limited in
light of the fact that females have only become active in all areas of policing in recent
decades. Much of this literature focuses on how female police officers experience their
occupation (Bartollas & Hahn, 1999), in particular examining sexism and the “glass ceiling”
which may confront female officers in some police organizations. Anecdotally, many of the
barriers which confronted early female police officers have disappeared in most departments;
.many female police officers report that they are treated as equals by the majority of their
peers (Fletcher, 1995).

While these studies offer important insights, less abundant is research which
examines job-related attitudes held by female police oflicers. Carpenter and Raza (1987)
found little psychological difference in the attitudes expressed by male and female police
recruits. Upon entering their new career, these officers had Similar outlooks on what their
role and duty ought to be in the community they serve. Meagher & Yentes (1986) found that

both genders pursued a career in policing for common reasons: job security and the desire

35

to help society. This limited body of literature would suggest that although female police
officers may experience their career in a fashion somewhat different from their male
counterparts, both genders hold Similar attitudes about what it does (or Should) mean to be
a police officer. While specific components of such attitudes may be gender-specific, the
overall outlook differs little between male and female officers.

The last quarter century has also witnessed an increasing amount of literature into
possible differences between white and minority police officers. As is the case in studies of
attitudes held by female police officers, this body of literature is somewhat limited as truly
meaningful career opportunities have only been extended to nonwhite police officers in
recent decades. Buzawa (1981) found significant differences in the work attitudes of Afiican
American and Caucasian police officers. The specific issues she explored included: pay and
benefits, social prestige of policing as an occupation, job stress, quality of supervision,
opportunities for advancement, and overall job satisfaction. Studies of attitudes of police
officers toward community policing, however, have found no relationship between such
attitudes and an officer’s race/ethnicity or gender (W eisel & Eck, 1994). “Neither race nor
sex was more likely to be identified with support of community policing. . .White, black, and
other persons of color were equally likely to feel positive about the future of community
policing in their agencies” (p. 68-9).

After conducting a review of the available literature on the Subject, Dantzker (1995)
observes that “it would appear that there is little difference in attitude between genders before
and after entering law enforcement” (p. 249). Similar conclusions are made by Bartollas and
Hahn (1999) based upon their assessment of existing studies. Both sets of authors also find

that based upon the works of other researchers there is not a significant difference in

36

attitudinal patterns among officers of different racial and ethnic backgrounds. While officers
may hold different views or attitudes on narrow topics based upon their race or gender, the
evidence does not suggest that race or gender affects an officer’s overall occupational
personality, or policing-specific attitudes. Furthermore, there is no evidence that an officer’s
race or gender has an impact on how an officer does their job as a whole, although there may
be differences based on certain dimensions (i.e., the handling of certain types of calls, injury
rates, accident rates, etc.) (Bartollas & Hahn, 1999). As a result of the studies reviewed by
Dantzker and Bartollas & Hahn, there is no reason to expect that police ofiicers would hold

differing views of organizational change based upon their gender, race, or ethnicity.

Age and Seniority

Anxiety over proposed organizational change may be more acute among employees
who are older and/or have been with an organization for a longer period of time (Johns,
1973). Older and more senior employees have more invested in their occupation and their
employing organization. They have spent longer periods of time attempting to be good
employees with the expectation that they will be rewarded with advancement, raises, and
continued employment. They have invested more time and energy into their employing
organization than have their more junior counterparts.

Older and more senior employees also have Spent a longer period of time growing
accustom to the traditional way in which things were done in the organization. It may not
be that you “can’t teach and old dog new tricks”; rather, the “old dog” may be content with
the tricks they have done for so long. In addition, these older employees might be more

likely to have a family, a Spouse with an established career, and established roots within their

37

community. They have more invested in their career, the organization, and the community
in which they reside. If a proposed change threatens their job stability, these older
employees are more likely to offer resistance than their younger counterparts because they
potentially have more to lose.

It should be noted that the change from traditional to community policing structures
in police organizations probably produces less anxiety among employees than other more
“typical” forms of corporate change. Typical corporate change, such as downsizing, may
pose a very real threat to the fixture employment status of employees. Those workers who
cannot demonstrate their worth and value to the corporation may be eliminated. Community
policing does not really pose a threat to an officer’s future employment with his or her
department. Many police officers are protected by civil service and/or union standards which
make dismissal unlikely in the absence of criminal conduct or major rule infractions. While
it may create doubts about future promotions or specialized assignments, the change to
community policing does not create doubts that officers will still have a job next week,
month, or year.

In terms of community policing, an officer’s age and length of service may play a
major role in their support for or opposition to community policing (Carter, Sapp, &
Stephens, 1989; Skolnick & Bayley, 1988). Weisel and Eck (1994) surveyed officers in six
police departments to determine their views on community policing. They found that
officers’ attitudes toward community policing were significantly different based upon their
seniority. Specifically, they found that “support for community policing is higher among

newer or younger officers and declines for personnel in subsequent years of service” (p. 68).

38

The Role of Eduga‘tio_n

One outgrowth of the President’s CommissiOn on Law Enforcement and
Administration of Justice was a number of programs aimed at promoting college education '
for police officers. Calls for college education for police officers were first issued in the
193 0'5 by reformist administrators such as August Vollmer (Carte & Carte, 1975; Klockars,
1985), but this idea gained little inertia during the professionalization movement during the
middle of this century. In the 1960's and 1970's, the number of university programs in
criminal justice and criminology began to increase dramatically. In addition, from the late
1960's through the early 1980's, the federal Law Enforcement Education Program helped to
fund college educations for thousands of active police officers (Skolnick & Fyfe, 1993).
Although this program was Short-lived, its legacy fundamentally transformed educational
standards in American policing. Although few departments currently require a fiill four-year
college degree (more than 70 percent require only a high school diploma), in many areas it
has become the unofficial norm (Dantzker, 1995).

Researchers and police executives soon began to question if education did, in fact,
make a difference among police employees. In other words, were there clearly identifiable
difi’erences between officers with only a high school diploma and officers with some college
experience? Subsequent research determined that significant differences can be found on a
number of different outcome measures. In particular, a college education seems to provide
officers with skills and attitudes which make them better able to function in an organization
which has adopted a community policing philosophy.

Officers with a college education tend to have the ability to see the “big picture”

when they respond to a call for service. They may be better prepared to perceive the

39

underlying “illness” (lack of supervision during after-school hours) which is causing the
“symptoms” they observe (delinquent behavior in teenagers). These officers also tend to
seek out greater challenges, to fimction more independence, to behave more responsibly, and
to exhibit greater innovation and flexibility in dealing with complex problems (Carter, Sapp,
& Stephens, 1988). Ingaddition, college-educated police officers tend to generate fewer
citizen complaints, perhaps because they are more likely to explore nonphysical options
(whenever possible) when confronted with a challenge (Kappeler, Sapp, & Carter, 1992).

A To accomplish these ends, research has Shown that an officer needs a college
experience which goes beyond the traditional “nuts and bolts” of police training. Officers
are best served when they take classes from a broad curriculum emphasizing exposure to the
social sciences (sociology, psychology, anthropology, political science, etc), as well as
principles of economics, management, and administration (Carter, Sapp, & Stephens, 1988).
Such a curriculum exposes officers to a wide variety of ideas and expands their knowledge
of how the “real world” operates. Furthermore, this broad curriculum helps the student to
become a critical thinker, a problem solver, and a more open-minded individual. The college
experience in general also develops important Skills, such as self-discipline, task
management, improved communication skills, and more analytical thinking abilities. The
result is an officer who may be more responsive to an organization which expects him or her
to operate in support of a community policing philosophy.

Research literature would suggest that education may play a major role in whether
an officer supports community policing (Carter, Sapp, & Stephens, 1988; Skolnick & Bayley,
1986). In at least one study, however, an officer’s level of education was not found to impact

support for community policing (W eisel & Eck, 1994). “Those personnel with a high school

40

degree were as likely to support community policing as were those with additional years of
education, perhaps debunking the popular myth that officers with college educations might
be more likely to embrace community policing” (p. 68). Although there is variation from
one department to another, most research has indicated that officers with college education

tend to be more supportive of community policing.

The Psychological Contract

An employee’s psychological contract is the set of beliefs that they hold “regarding
promises made, accepted, and relied on between themselves and another” (Rousseau, 1995:
9). It specifies “what the individual and the organization expect to give to and receive from
each other in the course of their working relationship” (Schermerhorn, Hunt, & Osborn,
1994: 51). A psychological contract consists of the expectations employees have regarding
what they will contribute to an organization and what they will receive fi'om the organization
in return (Moorhead & Griffin, 1998). Psychological contracts are subjectively defined by
an individual and are best understood from the perspective of the employee, not the
organization (Guzzo, Noonan, & Elron, 1994).

The psychological contract is an implicit relationship between employees and
employers and is essential in the functioning of an organization. “It materializes immediately
upon the person’s joining the police department and affects his morale, motivation, job
satisfaction, and job performance” (Trojanowicz, 1980: 245). While individuals may not
always explicitly understand the elements of their own psychological contract, such
expectations are held by all employees. For example, a police officer may be willing to

contribute loyalty, Skills, time, effort, and expertise to the performance of her duties. In

41

return, she might expect pay, benefits, job security, career opportunities, and promotional
opportunities.

Surprisingly, the vast majority of the elements found in the psychological contracts
of employees are pon monetary in nature. While employees seek pay and benefits, they also
seek recognition for their achievements and contributions, security, respect, and a voice in
their organization. Because the psychological contract is not explicit, identifying individual
elements of importance to an employee may present a challenge for managers in an
organization. An action which fulfills the contract of one employee may violate the contract
of another. Unfortunately, it is all too common for employers to violate the psychological
contracts of their employees with some frequency. These violations promote mistrust, anger,
and attrition within organizations (Robinson & Rousseau, 1994); in extreme cases, violations
might result in increased litigation from employees (Bies & Tyler, 1993).

Employers must always be mindful of the psychological contracts held by their
employees. Organizations must be constantly cognizant of the fact that their employees are
human beings with human needs, desires, and motivations. Understanding the psychological
contract can make a manager more effective. In addition, an employee’s commitment “may
change rather abruptly as the result of a reevaluation of the psychological contract, a
reevaluation precipitated by a change in work-related conditions” (Guzzo, Noonan, & Elron,
1994: 625). When organizations change, employees may change what they are willing to
give and what they wish to receive. Those proposing organizational changes (for example,
implementing community policing) should make efforts to incorporate such considerations

into their plans.

42

Distrust of Management

Currently, a key element of most organizational innovations is an attempted reduction
in the tension existing between managers and line-level employees (Schermerhorn, Hunt, &
Osborn, 1994). Such innovations seek to improve relationships, to foster a sense of team,
and to solicit line-level input for upper-level decision making. American police departments
have historically been characterized by a chasm between “street cops” and “management
cops” (Reuss-Ianni, 1983). Line officers traditionally are accustomed to following orders
and to having the sense that their superiors are out of touch with the realities they experience
on the street (Crank, 1998; Rubinstein, 1973).

Much of the tension and distrust between management and employees may have its
roots in where each group Sits in the organization and the communication (or lack there of)
between these two levels. Because they hold different positions in the organization, with
different responsibilities, expectations, and demands, line employees and top management
officials may not see eye-to-eye on many operational matters. Failing to understand the
reasoning behind decisions made by “the boss,” a line-level employee may perceive such
decisions as a reflection of how “out of touch” their boss is with employees. By not
explaining the reason for their decisions, the actions of managers may seem capricious or
whimsical (Blau, 1963). Bear in mind that this cuts both ways; employees might also try to
contemplate a Situation fi'om the perspective of their manager in an attempt to better
understand the logic behind the decision.

Existing tendencies on the part of employees to distrust managers may be reinforced
through the change process itself. It is a simple reality that some employees dislike being

given orders (Johns, 1973); by its very nature, the change process has a tendency to increase

43

the flow of orders to employees. The very essence of planned organizational change is that
managers tell subordinate employees how to do their job. The process of change “achieves
the uncomfortable (and doubtless unintended) objective of emphasizing the subordinate
status of subordinates” (Johns, 1973: 45). Employees who dislike managers, and orders in
general, may feel increasingly hostile toward management during times of organizational

change.

Perception of Change as a Threat

It is common for employees to resist organizational change (Barkdoll, 1998). Despite
the fact that organizations are in a constant state of flux, employees often attempt to preserve
the status quo, for better or for worse. Change threatens stability and patterns of conduct to
which employees have become accustom (Greene, 1981); employees may resist change out
of “fear of the unknown” (Johns, 1973). This resistance to change is separate from employee
attitudes and perceptions of the proposed alterations. It is not a matter of employees resisting
a particular proposed change within their organization; rather, it is the tendency of employees
to resist change in general. It should be noted that this resistance, while common, is not an
automatic response to changes in the status quo (Blau, 1963). In the context of the instant
study, it may not be that officers tend to resist the principals of community policing (which
they do), but officers may also tend to resist any change which deviates from traditional
policing practices and operations (Sadd & Grinc, 1996).

Individuals may enter policing with certain career aspirations (promotion and
specialized assignments) and with certain expectations about the type of work they will be

doing (fighting crime). The traditional police department, like most organizations, has

44

historically chosen to “select personnel to meet role requirements, train them to fill specific
roles, and socialize them with sanctions and rewards to carry out prescribed patterns” (Katz
& Kahn, 197 8: 714). When community policing is introduced into a traditional
organization, employees may believe that they role requirements are being modified,
regardless of whether this is actually the case. Consequently, officers may resist the
implementation of community policing out of the belief that it is not the type of work they
want to do, were hired to do, or have been trained to do.

Because it represents a shift toward an organic organizational structure, community
policing is said to “flatten” an organization’s hierarchy and decrease specialized
assignments(Steinman, 1986). Officers may feel threatened by the implementation of
community policing based on the perception that it might limit their fiiture prospects for
promotion (W eisel & Eck, 1994) and/or special duty. Officers may also feel that community
policing threatens their ability to do “real police work” as they assume new duties with the
“grin and wave squad.”

Any organizational change may also require that employees engage in a “relearning”
process (Johns, 1973). Employees must “relearn” how to do their job, how to interact with
their superiors, their peers, and their customers, and how they will be evaluated and rewarded
under the new organizational structure. This relearning may generate feelings of anxiety and
uncertainty, and also requires extra work on the part of employees. For these reasons, they
may resist change in order to avoid having to relearn how to do their job and how to fiJnction
in their organization. Although these perceptions of community policing as a threat may be
a product of organizational culture, the beliefs of individual employees may also play an

important role.

45

Perceiving community policing as a threat to the nature of one’s job or career
ambitions are not limited to patrol officers (Skogan & Hartnett, 1997). “Changes in
organizational patterns may threaten the expertise of Specialized groups. . . [or] the established
power relationships in the system” (Katz & Kahn, 197 8: 714). Command staff may also feel
that community policing threatens the power and territory they have acquired. Such
emotions recall prior failures in innovative policing, in particular experiences many
departments had with team policing during the 1970's (W ycoff & Kelling, 1978). Research
on the efficacy of team policing indicated that one reason for the failure of such programs
was that supervisory and middle-level managers felt that team policing reduced their power
and control. Because this innovation modified the traditional hierarchical, command-and-
obey relationship found in the study departments, passive and active sabotage efforts on the

part of middle-level managers were not uncommon (Gaines, 1993; Walker, 8, 1993).

Employee Attitude

It has been suggested that employee attitudes and the organizational culture are the
greatest obstacle to police innovation (Sparrow, Moore, & Kennedy, 1990). Police officers
tend to view organizational change with a healthy dose of skepticism; community policing
is in no way immune from this tendency. Management strategies, organizational structures,
and department philosophies seem to come and go in police organizations. It is likely that
employees with more tenure are likely to have picked up on such trends. It is common for
officers to label community policing as the “management reorganization of the week” (Sadd
& Grinc, 1994: 39). Given this labeling, many ofiicers see community policing as another

“phase” which management is going through and which will pass with time.

46

Due to the structure of community policing units, the distribution of community
policing responsibilities, and the lack of understanding of the goals of community policing,
it is common for officers to View these programs with distrust. When community policing
is conducted through a specialized unit, such units are seen as elite and engaging in tasks
other than “real police work” (Eck, 1992; Wilkinson, Stemen, & Allen, 1997). Specialized
units often grant officers the ability to flex their work hours, select their leave days, and work
at their own direction, without being interrupted by routine calls for service (Wilkinson &
Rosenbaum, 1994). Given this arrangement, other officers perceive community policing as
a “flpfl’f assignment; the units are viewed with disdain and, in all likelihood, a healthy dose
of jealousy by other officers within the organizations (Walker, S., 1993).

Community policing requires police officers to make firndamental changes in their
skills, motivations, and opportunities, and in their willingness to develop partnerships with
the community which they serve (Sparrow, 1988; Wilkinson & Rosenbaum, 1994).
Agencies which ignore personnel attitudes in planning an organizational change run the risk
of ensuring failure. Officers forced to accept a new innovation without an understanding of
the innovation are likely to respond with apathy, fi‘ustration, resentment, fear, and other
factors which might impede successfirl change (Lurigio & Rosenbaum, 1994). Many police
officers went into policing to be a “law enforcer” and a “crook catcher” (Gaines, 1993); as
such, they may have difficulty adapting to the “service role” created by community policing.

Until the beliefs, perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors of officers are transformed to
levels more compatible with community policing, resistance is likely and its success will be
limited (Lurigio & Rosenbaum, 1994). Planners and managers must attempt to predict the

employees’ response to proposed change and to determine the best course of action in light

47

of such a response. Possible ways in which employee cooperation can be improved are
through participation from those most likely to be affected (Wycoff & Skogan, 1994b),
training, clarity (of goals and means), and education. Officer attitudes can shift from a
traditional orientation to an orientation more consistent with community policing (Wycoff

& Skogan, 1994a); however, such a transition takes time, forethought, and patients.

Individual Socialization and Community Policing

A number of demographic variables may mitigate how employees respond to change,
including police officers being asked to embrace community policing. In addition, the ways
in which employees have traditionally viewed their occupation and their employing
organization may generate automatic responses to certain organizational initiatives. Police
officers may resist community policing not because they disagree with this philosophy, but
rather because it is a “knee-jerk” reaction to distrust managers, to be apprehensive over
modifications in the status quo, to perceive change as a threat, and to fear the unknown
elements (how do I do my job, to whom am I accountable, how will I be evaluated, how to
I work cooperatively, etc.) which accompany major organizational change.

Data in the present study only allow for limited assessment of the role individual
socialization might play in organizational change. The quantitative findings provide the race,
level of education, gender, and age (in this case, operationalized as years of service) of a
group of police officers. These elements have been statistically examined to determine what,
if any, affects they have on attitudes toward community policing. Additional insights into
the role which individual socialization plays in organizational change may be obtained from

various qualitative data sources, including field observations, focus group interviews, and

48

semi-structured interviews.

Organizational Culture

Scholars have given much attention to the idea of police culture and the “police
subculture” in recent decades. Most of these studies have emphasized the extreme elements
of police work, such as the use of force, coercion, danger, and corruption (Bittner, 1970;
Kappeler, Sluder, & Alpert, 1998; Klockars, 1985; Skolnick, 1994; Skolnick & Fyfe, 1993).
While these issues may be of great interest to social scientists, policy makers, and police
planners, they overlook the broader themes which define the occupational culture of policing
(Crank, 1998). Studies of police culture have tended to view this phenomenon in a
pejorative fashion. Because they have been focused upon the “dark side” of policing, they
have not emphasized that police officers, like virtually every occupational group, have an
occupational culture. At its core, the organizational culture of policing differs little from that
of most other occupations.

This section will define and explore organizational culture as a concept important to
the Social scientific study of organizations. Considerations will be given to the challenges
associated with changing organizational culture. The culture of police organizations as it

relates to community policing will also be discussed.

What is Organizational Culture?

Any organizational culture consists broadly of long standing rules of thumb,
a somewhat special language and ideology that help edit a member’s
everyday experience, shared standards of relevance as to the critical aspects
of the work that is being accomplished, matter-of-fact prejudices, models for

49

social etiquette and demeanor, certain customs and rituals suggestive of how

members are to relate to colleagues, subordinates, superiors, and outsiders,

and a sort of residual category of some rather plain “horse sense” regarding

what is appropriate and “smart” behavior within the organization and what

is not (Van Maanen & Schein, 1977: 1-2).

In the past two decades there has been an explosion of research into the role of
organizational culture in the study of organizations and their behavior. Despite the
emergence of interest in organizational culture across disciplinary lines, there is not a broadly
accepted definition of this concept (Moorehead & Griffin, 1998). The quote from Van
Maanen and Schein (197 7) at the opening of this section provides one possible definition.
Other authors have opted for more succinct definitions of organizational culture.

Ouchi defines it as “a set of symbols, ceremonies, and myths that communicates the
underlying values and beliefs of that organization to its employees” (1981: 41). Peters and
Waterman state it is “a dominant and coherent set of shared values conveyed by such
symbolic means as stories, myths, legends, slogans, anecdotes, and fairy tales” (1982: 103).
Schein provides that it is “the pattern of basic assumptions that a given group has invented,
discovered, or developed in learning to cope with its problems of external adaptation and
internal integration” (1985: 14). Deal and Kennedy simply suggest that it is “the way we do
things around here” (1982: 4).

In an attempt to provide a broader definition of organizational culture, Moorehead
and Griffin (1998) examined the existing definitions and identified three comment attributes.
Fifi}, definitions generally refer to the values held by individual members of an organization;
these values delineate what is good and bad, right and wrong, and acceptable and

unacceptable behavior within the context of the organization. Second, values comprising an

organization’s culture tend to be taken for granted. In other words, the values are not

50

explicitly written; rather, they are “an implicit part of an employee’s [occupational] values
and beliefs” (p. 511). Finally, organizational values are typically communicated through
symbolic means; they are transmitted through stories, anecdotes, myths and legends.
Merging these three attributes, Moorehead and Griffin offer that:

Organizational culture is a set of shared values, often taken for granted, that

help people in an organization understand which actions are considered

acceptable and which are considered unacceptable. Often, these values are
communicated through stories and other symbolic means. (1998: 513-514).

Another important element of organizational culture is its tendency to endure (Trice
& Beyer, 1993). Organizational cultures tend to exist independently of individual
employees; it is a tradition which transcends the duration of an individual’s employment with
the organization. While organizational cultures are not entirely static (they do transition in
response to external pressures, changes in the law, changes in markets and industries, etc),
sweeping cultural changes are difficult to realize in short periods of time. This differentiates
organizational culture from organizational climate.

An organization’s climate refers to “current situations in an organization and the
linkages among work groups, employees, and work performance” (Moorehead & Griffin,
1998: 516). Organizational climate is more analogous to individual socialization; it refers
to how individuals approach their occupation and interact with others. Organizational
culture refers to how work is done in an organization and how employees interact in the
context of their job. Through changes in recruitment and selection, organizational climate
can be altered in a short period of time, while persons seeking to change an organization’s

culture overnight are likely to encounter strong resistance.

51

The Transmission of Organizational Culture

Organizational culture persists because it perpetuates itself from generation to
generation. AS new employees enter an organization, they are “socialized” to adopt a
particular role and operational style within the context of the work environment (Goodman,
Bazerman, & Conlon, 1980). According to Van Maanen and Schein, “organizational
socialization is then the process by which an individual acquires the social knowledge and
skills necessary to assume an organizational role” (197 7 : 3). Socialization is the process by
which an individual learns the customary, correct, and desirable behaviors, practices, and
interactions for an organization. It is through this process that organizational culture may be
transmitted from one generation of employees to the next. The socialization process may
occur through both formal (educational and training programs) and informal (peer
influences) mechanisms (Trice & Beyer, 1993).

New police officers are in no way immune to socialization as they begin their career.
From the academy to their field training program to the briefing room, officers are exposed
to images and ideas about what it means to be a police officer in their organization. Police
academies “continue to be psychological crucibles in which occupational identities are
forged” (Bahn, 1984: 392). New officers are expected to dress and behave in a uniform
manner. It quickly becomes apparent that the best way to survive the experience is to
maintain a low profile (i.e., avoiding any behavior which will draw attention from
instructors). New officers entering “the field” are then paired with more experienced peers
who serve as mentor, instructor, guidance counselor, and critic. This field training process
might firrther reinforce a set of occupational expectations in the new employee (Van Maanen,

1974). Once the officer has completed their training and probation, socialization is

52

reinforced by informal interaction with peers during pre-shift briefing, in the locker room,
in the station house, on meal breaks, and outside of work (Pogrebin & Poole, 1988).

While it is necessary to train and socialize employees (to teach them “how we do
things around here”), efforts to change an organizational culture may to some degree be
thwarted by these processes. A manager seeking to change an organization’s culture may
initiate certain structural changes, such as instituting new policies or procedures, or making
changes in the organization’s goals, mission, or philosophy. To reinforce these Structural
changes, modifications might be made in the recruitment, selection, and (formal) training of
new employees in an effort to bring “new blood” to the organization. Unfortunately, the
success of these efforts may be tempered when this new blood mixes with the “old guard”
and is taught “how we do things around here.” In the context of the implementation of
community policing, new officers with a college education may be open to the idea of
community collaboration and problem solving endeavors. If it is easier for these new
employees to fit in with their peers by utilizing traditional police practices they may be less

inclined to operate in a manner consistent with the philosophy of community policing.

The Role of Culture in Organizational Change

It should be remembered that organizational culture is not always a bad phenomenon.
Culture in the workplace may create a sense of solidarity among employees; it may serve to
strengthen an organization’s productivity and level of service. Most modern management
books are filled with examples of how culture has improved organizations in all sectors of
employment (see generally, Moorehead & Griffin, 1998; Peters & Waterman, 1982; Trice

& Beyer, 1993). In many organizations, the work culture might be viewed as positive by

53

managers; in such a case, the goal of management would be to identify ways in which to
reinforce and support the existing culture. At other times, organizational culture is viewed
as something which must be altered in order to improve productivity and service.
Organizational culture can be both an aid and a barrier in efforts to enact broader \/

organizational change (Moorehead & Griffin, 1998; Trice & Beyer, 1993). First, /
organizational change might be realized through taking advantage of the existing
organizational culture. Recognizing that an organization’s culture is deeply intrenched and
resistant to change, a pragmatic manager might seek to work within this culture in order
bring about change (although this only will work when the change is not contrary to the
culture). Second, managers might bring about change by capitalizing on the informal
socialization process. Once again, by recognizing that an embedded culture exists, a
manager might attempt to ensure that new employees receive much of their socialization
from certain co-workers. An example of this in policing is the use of Field Training Officers.
New officers are assigned to work with experienced officers to receive fiirther formal training
after the completion of a police academy. By carefirlly selecting training officers, police

managers might be able to limit the negative socialization influences to which new

employees are exposed.

J

,1-

At times a planned organizational change might require not only adjustments to an
organization’s policies, procedures, and structures, but also to its culture. If a planned
change runs contrary to the existing culture, managers have no choice but to attempt to bring
about a change in this culture. Such cultural change may be the most difficult in which to
realize success. Moorehead and Griffin note that:

Culture resists change for all the reasons it is a powerful influence on
behavior— it embodies the basic values in the firm, it is often taken for

54

granted, and it is typically communicated most effectively through stories or

other symbols. When managers attempt to change a culture, they are

attempting to change people’s basic assumptions about what is and is not

appropriate behavior in the organization (1998: 530).

For these reasons and more, changing an organization’s culture is a long, drawn out, slow,
and difficult process (Trice & Beyer, 1993).

Organizational culture plays a Significant role in organizational change. Ott (1989)
identifies five basic assumptions about organizational cultures:

1) Organizational cultures exists; 2) each is relatively unique; 3) it is a

socially constructed concept; 4) it provides organization members with a way

of understanding and making sense of events and symbols; and 5) it is a

powerful lever for guiding organizational behavior. (P. 52).

These assumptions, if accepted as truth, demonstrate the powerful nature of organizational
culture in the change process. Viewed in this manner, organizational change is not just about
changing structure, policy, and process; it is also about changing the assumptions, beliefs,
and attitudes of members of the organization. As such, culture may be one Of the most
significant stumbling blocks on the road to successful change. An organization’s structure,
policy, and process are tangible elements which can be identified, enumerated, and altered.
An organization’s culture is intangible and far more resistant to attempted change.

It Should be noted that there is not a consensus among scholars regarding resistance
to organizational change. Blau (1963) examined change in the context of bureaucratic
organizations. Based on his research, he concluded that “bureaucratic conditions engender
favorable attitudes toward change, and not necessarily resistance to change, as is often
assumed” (p. 232). While “ritualistic conformity” to traditional practices may be common,

Blau found that resistance to change was not an automatic response in the organizations he

observed.

55

Key Elements of Organizational Culture in the Context of Police Organizations

AS noted earlier, much has been written about the various dimensions of police
culture, in particular the “dark side” of policing (issues of force, coercion, deviance, and
corruption). It is important to distinguish between these studies of the culture of police
oflicers, and the instant study, which in part explores the organizational culture of police
agencies. At times it may be difficult to distinguish between these two elements as they have
a reciprocal relationship and a mutual dependence.

Studies of the culture of police organizations tend to be focused on social elements
which might be found in any organization. The instant study examines elements of
organizational culture in the context of a police organization (i.e., the tension between line
officers and managers, the image of policing, the way police officers perform their duties,
etc). These elements might be generally observable in all members of a specific
organization. They are also not limited to police organizations and analogous elements
might be observed in studying the culture of virtually any organization.

In contrast, studies of the culture of police officers tend to focus on behavioral traits
and qualities which tend to be more unique to police officers (i.e., rationalizing the use of
force, coercion, or authority in the pursuit of specific outcomes). The culture of police
officers may also vary within an organization. While some “pockets” of a large police
agency may be more accepting of these behavioral patterns, the larger agency may view them
with disdain. Studies of the organizational culture of police officers may be concerned with
a small subset of employees, rather than an entire organization.

Certain dimensions of the culture of police officers carry over into the organizational

culture of police agencies (i.e., socialization); the converse is also true. While studies of

56

police culture may hold important implications in a broader context, for the purpose of this
study it is necessary to focus upon those facets of police organizational culture which relate
most directly to organizational change.

The shared occupational culture of a set of employees can represent the greatest
barrier to enacting change within an organization (Stamper, 1992; Sparrow, Moore &
Kennedy, 1990). Because elements of an organizational culture can be so deeply ingrained
in the basic assumptions of employees (i.e., that as a police officer I am a law enforcer),
organizational change can be very difficult to realize (Sparrow, 1988). When proposed
change runs contrary to the organization’s culture, it may fail in any organization (a police
force, Microsoft, GM, etc), regardless of intent, benevolence, and implementation strategies.
While there is no one organizational culture for all police officers (Harrison, 1998), certain
general observations may be made; most of these generalizations are not limited to police
ofiicers or organizations. Some of the elements which may be most problematic might
include:
employee beliefs about their key function (law enforcer, public
servant, community activist, etc.)
beliefs and assumptions management and line personnel hold about
one another
employee orientation toward an organization’s “customers” (i.e.,
citizens)
employee beliefs about how a particular occupational situation is best

handled (i.e., domestic violence, public intoxication, or drug use)
perceptions of a proposed change (be they accurate or incorrect)

DDDDU

Police agencies, as any other organization, have a rich and complex organizational
culture. A discussion of this culture could fill a book in its own right. The following is a

brief discussion of the key themes in the organizational culture of police agencies. This list

57

is not exhaustive; rather, it highlights the facets of this culture which are most important in
the proposed study. While these themes may manifest themselves in the actions and conduct
of individual employees, they are (at least to some extent) a product of the organizational

culture of policing.

Labor-Management Tensions

A characteristic found in many organizations is a tension between line-employees and
managers (Moorhead & Griffin, 1998). Police organizations are no exception as agencies
struggle to deal with the tension between “street cops” and “management cops” (Reuss-Ianni,
1983). Social science research has yielded a substantial body of literature detailing the
organizational culture of police agencies and how this culture plays out in the management
and administration of these agencies (Manning, 1997b; Reuss-Ianni, 1983; Rubinstein, 197 3;
Van Maanen, 1974; Wilson, 1968). These works have demonstrated the “ease with which
rank-and-file officers dismiss efforts to influence their behavior” on the part of their
supervisors (Goldstein, 1990: 29).

Caught in the middle of this tension is the patrol sergeant, who becomes a defacto
mediator between these two components of the organization (Trojanowicz, 1980). Street
cops tend to express confirsion over the actions taken by “the bosses” (Reuss-Ianni, 1983).
Faced with different pressures, obligations, and responsibilities, street and management cops
develop different interests; in some situations, these differing interests can bring about
competition (Steinman, 1986). The tension and “distance” between street cops and
management cops tend to be proportional with the size of the agency (Greene, Alpert, &

Styles, 1992). Larger organizations tend to have larger hierarchies, more centralization, and

58

more specialization, all of which can contribute to labor-management tensions.

Harrison (1998) notes that “...tension played out due to the management vs. street
cultural characteristic can be significant. It can become the root cause of distrust of new
initiatives by the rank and file oflicers” (emphasis added). Because tension can lead to
distrust, change may be impeded through the reflexive action of line personnel. Change fails
not because it is change, but because it is proposed by management and is, therefore,
automatically suspect. Considering the animosity and distrust which exist between “street
cops” and “management cops,” the prospects for change can seem rather daunting. Within
this setting, “many of the exhortations for change in policing do, indeed, look naive”
(Goldstein, 1990: 29).

Changing this relationship becomes particularly problematic with programs that seek
to encourage participatory management or creativity by patrol officers. Traditionally, the role
of police managers has been to stifle creativity and nonconforrnity among line personnel
(Kelling & Bratton, 1993). Community policing may require supervisors to loosen the
control they have held over the personnel they supervise. One possible way to overcome
employee resistance and to loosen supervisory control is through employee participation. By
integrating line personnel in the planning and decision making process, resistance due to
labor-management tension may be minimized (Harrison, 1998).

Such employee involvement is not always seen in police organizations (Weisel &
Eck, 1994). Traditional managers may be uncomfortable with the idea of sharing their
authority and control with subordinates (Moorhead & Griffin, 1998; Swanson, Territo, &
Taylor, 1998). Despite the common perception that “participatory management” is an empty

concept, research has Shown that this is not always the case. “When they are included,

59

officers can emerge as motivated planners and problem solvers” (Wilkinson & Rosenbaum,
1994: 124). Although police organizations have traditionally been oriented toward strictly
one-way management, it may be possible for agencies to move toward a structure in which

decision making and management are shared processes.

Image
I have repeatedly found that the greatest barrier in opening the minds
of police officers to problem-oriented policing is that they continue to cling to

notions of policing that have been abandoned by more progressive police
agencies and officers (Goldstein, 1990: 178-179).

One of the barriers in implementing community policing is the perception by police
officers that this approach is “soft” on crime and that it does not involve “real” police work
(Sadd & Grinc, 1996). This concern may be especially acute where community policing is
a specialized firnction. Members of the specialized unit may become marginalized from the
department as a whole; they may be viewed as “empty holsters” or the “grin and wave squad”
by their peers (Skogan & Hartnett, 1997). From this perspective, community policing may
only gain legitimacy among police officers where it is perceived as effective in controlling
and preventing crime (Sadd & Grinc, 1994)

Individualsflcommepc‘e. a career with a set of expectations about the work they will
be doing and the role they will fulfill (Bahn, 1984). These expectations are a product of their
early socialization and cultural images of what that career will entail (Katz & Kahn, 197 8).
In the case of policing, individuals may have been acculturated, selected, and trained to fill
a more traditional “crime fighting/crook catching” occupational role (Gaines, 1993; Lurigio

& Rosenbaum, 1994). When their organization attempts to reorient itself toward community

60

policing, the role expectations of the individual employee may no longer be fulfilled.
Officers might rebel against programs or policies which they perceive to place them in the
roll of “social worker” rather than “crime fighter.”

Many of the expectations neophyte employees hold about their new career are
inaccurate and unrealistically high (W anous, 1977). Policing as an occupation is certainly
not immune to this situation. It has long been noted that the image of police officers
portrayed by the media is far different from the realities of this occupation (Haney &
Manzolatti, 197 7). Police officers in the media spend the majority of their time investigating
major cases as a vigilant “crime fighter.” To the contrary, research has shown that the vast
majority of the work done by police officers is not related to crime (Reiss, 1971, Skolnick,
1994; Wilson, 1968). Even after a new employee has come to understand that the reality of
their job is far from the image they had when they began their career, they may Still cling to
the notion that they are a “crime fighter” and nothing else. Any task which does not fall

under the classification of fighting crime is viewed with disdain (Manning, 1997a).

Traditional police operations

Earlier sections of this literature review have discussed police operations at length
under traditional and community policing paradigms. Nonetheless, it may still be helpful to
briefly reiterate the tension between these two orientations in the context of the
organizational culture of police agencies. Traditional police operations were reactive and
call driven. When a call for service was received, police oflicers responded rapidly and then
spent as little time as possible handling the situation so that they could be available for the

next call for service. When officers were not handling a call, they were expected to patrol

61

their assigned area in order to prevent crimes from occurring. Police officers viewed
themselves as crime fighters, law enforcers, and crook catchers. AS such, they were the
experts on crime and had little need for input from the community they served. Because they
were hired, trained, and paid to enforce the law, police officers did not need citizens telling
them how to perform their duties.

Police agencies were closed systems; while some information may have flowed in
from the community, very little information was ever released back out to the community.
Agencies were structured in a bureaucratic and hierarchical fashion. Employees observed
a strict command and control relationship between the ranks. Within the organization,
communication followed up the chain of command, but rarely back down or across divisions.
Police supervisors and executives viewed their subordinates as liabilities which needed to
be controlled and managed. Policies and procedures were cumbersome and detailed in order
to minimize the discretion exercised by line-level employees. Front line officers were
expected to obey orders and follow established procedures in carrying out their duties; there
was little room for creativity or innovation.

Community policing does not completely eliminate some of these characteristics of
traditional police operations. By its very nature, policing will always require a certain degree
of deference to ranked officers and police agencies will always need to have the capacity to
rapidly respond to emergency situations. Despite these factors, community policing alters
some of the firndamental dimensions of how police officers and organizations operate.
Community policing requires officers to proactively identify problems and quality of life
issues in the neighborhood they patrol. Where there are numerous problems or issues,

officers may turn to local residents to help them establish priorities (in effect, admitting that

62

the police are not always the experts on crime and safety). Once problems and issues have
been identified, police officers are expected to collaborate with citizens and other
governmental agencies to seek out and enact permanent solutions. Enforcing the law
becomes a means, not an end, toward the goals the police are pursuing.

Organizational structure must also be altered if community policing is to work. Most
prominently, front-line officers need to exercise creativity and innovation in generating
solutions to community problems. To do this, officers must also be given the freedom to
exercise discretion and organizations must develop a capacity to accept some failure from
their oflicer’s efforts. While supervisors still maintain authority over officers, the
relationship becomes more reciprocal as officers look to superiors for support and guidance
in their community policing endeavors. Communication ideally travels uniformly across all
levels and divisions of the organization’s hierarchy. In addition, informagtiopyisppenlymshared
Wimgmgsaétysrssideafi. ..

The rub is this— if community policing is to succeed, there must be a dramatic change
in the occupational culture of police organizations. Prospective employees will need to fully
understand the nature of the job they wish to enter. Selection practices must be modified to
ensure that new employees possess Skills which are complementary for the success of
community policing. Formal training and informal socialization must be modified so that
officers learn how to carry out community policing and come to accept that is it a better way
for them to serve their community. Relationships with supervisors must shift from
adversarial to collegial. Some of the firndamental dimensions of what it means to be a police
officer must be redefined. For all of these reasons, implementing community policing

requires attention to more than just the “nuts and bolts” of redesigning deployment plans and

63

altering the wording of an agency’s philosophy and mission statement.

Police Organizatiorle Culture a_r_r_d Comrpunitv Policing

AS one would find in any organization, police organizations have distinct cultures
which help define how employees behave, interact, and carry out their occupational
responsibilities. While this culture may be a benefit in general, it can present a significant
obstacle in the pursuit of organizational change. “Police organizations have been some of
the most intractable of public bureaucracies, capable of resisting and ultimately thwarting
change efforts” (Greene, Bergman & McLaughlin, 1994: 93). The organizational culture of
police departments is one of the greatest contributors to the resistance observed by Greene
and his colleagues.

Ideally, studying organizational culture as it relates to organizational change would
be conducted using data from multiple agencies. This would allow the researcher to assess
the culture in each agency and test if/how it impacted the subsequent success of
organizational change. The instant study is limited because it only includes data from a
single agency; this does not allow for such a comparison to be made. In the absence of data
from multiple agencies, the role organizational culture plays in organizational change can
still be assessed to a degree.

Respondents in this study answered items which indicated their perceptions of the
culture in their police agency (i.e., level of participatory management, degree of positive
relations between rank and file, strength of management objectives). Respondents who
report a “healthy” organization culture can be contrasted with those who report an

“unhealthy” organizational culture. The researcher can determine if a respondent’s

64

assessment of the agencies organizational culture in any way predicts attitudes toward
community policing. In this way, the relationship between these factors may be assessed and
illuminated.

Some scholars have contended that changing organizational culture is a relatively
easy process if it is simply planned and carried out in a rational manner (Deal & Kennedy,
1982; Ouchi, 1981; Peters & Waterman, 1982). Despite these claims, others have asserted
that when organizational culture changes (through either intentional efforts or as a result of
unforseen circumstances), conflicts, firings, retirements, and power struggles often occur
(Haught, 1997). These events are not adequately addressed by the “planned change”
proponents.

In reality, changes in organizational culture may be more accurately attributed to
attrition, rather than a “sanitary” re—socialization process. As Kilmann, et al., note (1986):
“Because they are unwilling to part with their own beliefs and submit to the ideology of the
new leaders— hence relinquishing their power— the old guard is more often purged than
socialized to a new set of beliefs” (p. 225). Weisel and Eck (1994) quote German physicist
Max Plank, who observed that: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its
opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die,

and a new generation grows up” (p. 72).

Organizational Determinism
Although elements such as individual socialization and organizational culture may

be largely outside of the control of planners seeking to bring about change, there are certain

65

issues which may be determined and controlled. If proper attention is given to these
deterministic issues, police organizations may exercise a certain degree of control over the
outcome of change efforts. Prior sections of the literature review have reviewed the most
salient “human” factors which might impede successfirl organizational change. This section
will examine those factors within an organization’s structure, and the process it uses in
implementation, which might also serve as a barrier to successful change. Specifically, it
will examine those deterministic elements which experience has shown to be most

problematic for police organizations trying to implement community policing.

Planning for Change

With any sizeable programmatic or organizational change there is always the
risk of serious setbacks or delays in achieving the optimum level of
implementation due to poor planning, employee or community resistance, or
other factors (Wilkinson & Rosenbaum, 1994: 110).

Organizational change can be seen as taking the form of either planned change or
adaptation (Goodman & Kurke, 1982). Planned change occurs when an organization’s
leaders intend to alter a specific facet of policy, procedure, structure, or operation. The
impetus behind such change is internal. Hudzik and Cordner (1983) note that:

The most important aspect of planning is that it takes place in advance of

action. This may appear so evident as to be trivial, yet the need to act is often

so compelling that we act before sufficient information and thought have

been brought to bear on the issue. (p. 10)

The pre-action thought referred to by Hudzik and Cordner would be the hallmark of planned

organizational change. Adaptation, on the other hand, is “a purposive response by an

organization to its external environment” (Zhao, 1996: 14). While internal planning may

66

occur, the impetus for the change is external.

Research literature from the past fifteen years is replete with anecdotal examples of
successful planned organizational change in police agencies in major American cities such
as Madison (Wycoff& Skogan, 1994), Chicago (Skogan & Hartnett, 1997), Newport News
(Eck & Spelman, 1987), Flint (Trojanowicz, Kappeler, Gaines, & Bucqueroux, 1998), and
other large communities (Skolnick & Bayley, 1986). Despite these success stories,
organizational change in American policing is more accurately characterized by adaptation
(Zhao, 1996). While it may be better if the impetus for organizational change is internal,
purposive organizational change always runs the risk of falling into the trap laid out by
Hudzik & Cordner (1983); too often, agencies may still be planning when a change has
already commenced. Furthermore, police agencies exist in a very tenuous environment in
which planned organizational change (or even well-formulated planned adaptation) is not
always possible.

Even where there is suflicient time and resources, pre-action planning may not be
sufiicient to ensure effective organizational change. In the 1970's the Dallas Police
Department initiated a comprehensive overhaul of its organization in an attempt to improve
the quality of service it provided. The project was characterized by pre-action planning,
implementation planning, financial support, expert consultants, and a relatively long (five
years) time line for completion. Despite these beneficial characteristics, “[t]he Dallas
department encountered problems at every stage of the innovation process” (Wycoff &
Kelling, 197 8:76). In the final analysis, the principal investigators concluded that although
the efi’orts had been admirable, there were still numerous human and organizational factors

which had not been accounted for in the planning process.

67

Planning Organizational Change in Police Agencies

There are a number of general reasons why planned organizational change may fail
in police agencies. ,First,;even when agencies are attempting to decentralize authority and
empower individual officers, they often plan the transition to such ideas using traditional
methods. By relying on existing mechanisms of centralized planning, agencies may restrict
officer input, thus creating resentment and withdrawal by those most likely to be affected by
the change (Wilkinson & Rosenbaum, 1994). Analogously, when management handpicks
employees to be involved in the planning process, the remainder of the workforce may
mistrust those involved and view management’s efforts at involving employees as
disingenuous (Polzin, 1997).

Second, even where affected employees are allowed to participate in the planning
process, there must be a sufficiently long implementation phase before results may
reasonably be expected to materialize. Generally, the more rigid the organization and the
more radical the change, the longer the implementation phase should be (Wilkinson &
Rosenbaum, 1994). Seagrave (1996) surveyed police executives in Canada to assess their
views toward community policing. She found that while leaders were supportive of the shift
toward community policing, they argued for a gradual, slow, and incremental change process.
When an organization and its personnel have a long history of operating in a specific fashion,
it may take a great deal of time to change this manner of operation. The larger an
organization (Greene, Alpert & Styles, 1992) and the more formal and complex its
bureaucracy, the longer it may take for change to be realized (Wilkinson & Rosenbaum,
1994). In writing about organizational inertia, Sparrow (1988: 2) notes that “...a huge ship

can nevertheless be turned by a small rudder. It just takes time, and it requires the rudder to

68

be set steadfastly for the turn throughout the whole turning period.”

A third reason planned change may fail is simply because the proposed change cannot
result in a realistic attainment of the desired outcomes. Planners may overestimate the
outcomes their programs might achieve (Eck, 1992). Administrators may miscalculate how
much they can produce with their resources and personnel. As Merton (193 6) noted, social
action often yields unanticipated consequences (some good and some bad). Such
unanticipated consequences may overshadow those results which had been intended by a
planned organizational change.

The question police agencies must ask themselves is: “How do we as an organization
define success in the context of our planned community policing implementation?” The
answer to this question is not clear and may be unique in each agency. Herman Goldstein
suggests that an agency making even limited efforts toward long-term problem resolution is
better than an agency which does nothing, writing that: “Any movement toward increased
concern with substantive problems is better than none at all” (19902177). Perhaps the
standard by which success is measured should not be the successful implementation of
community policing (however an agency chooses to define this concept); perhaps it is more
realistic to be satisfied if officers carry out their duties with a greater concern for substantive
problems in the neighborhood which they police.

A fourth reason change is difficult in American policing is a product of crime and
justice in the 1990's. According to many police executives (Zhao, Thurman & Lovrich,
1995) and scholars (Goldstein, 1990; Kelling & Moore, 1988), organizational change is a

more pressing issue now than at any other time during the history of modern policing.

Unfortunately, in the current era of falling crime rates, it may be difficult to see the need for

69

such change. Police executives may have a difficult time convincing their officers that
change is necessary; why should we redefine “the way we do things around here” when we
seem to be experiencing some measure of success? City leaders and community residents
may be reluctant to see the need to finance proposed change requiring the allocation of
additional financial resources; again, why allocate additional money when there is no
apparent need? For those who wish to believe that the police can have such a dramatic
impact on crime rates, it might appear that there is no need for organizational change in
American policing.

Finally, community policing innovations fi'equently give rise to a fifth reason why
organizational change fails: lack of clarity. A common complaint heard from patrol officers
in agencies attempting to implement some form of community policing is that their
organization has not been sufficiently clear about what the nature of their new job, how they
will be evaluated, to whom they are accountable, and how they are to carry out their duties
(Sadd & Grinc, 1996). Police agencies need to provide their officers with a clear idea of how
they are operationalizing community policing in their organization.

The operational parameters of community policing are intentionally vague in order
to allow agencies sufficient latitude to determine the style most appropriate for the agencies.
Unfortunately, this often leaves line officers with an insufficient understanding of their role
and responsibility under a community policing paradigm. Officers affected by the
implementation of community policing need to understand this concept, both in theory and
in practice. They need to understand community policing goals and how they fit into the
future of the organization (Walker, S., 1993). Agency structure needs to be designed to

support community policing efforts. Accountability, performance measures, and reward

70

systems need to be fashioned to encourage officers to perform their duties in a manner which
is consistent with community policing objectives.

Changing police organizations is difficult and complex. “It is complex because
alteration of a department’s philosophy of policing will simultaneously affects numerous
other variables” (Oettmeier & Brown, 1988: 128). Change is difficult because it affects the
Skills employees will use, the organization’s management style, and the values expressed by
officers. Experience suggests that the process of planning for and implementing community
policing is not an easy undertaking. There is no magic formula for successfully bringing
about change in an organization; each agency will experience unique successes and failures
(Goldstein, 1990). The key is for managers, planners, and executives to be prepared to
encounter barriers to their efforts. They must also have realistic visions of what their efforts

will accomplish and be prepared to deal with unforseen challenges and opportunities.

It is also frequently the case that throughout transitional periods for
organizations, police at all levels lack a clear understanding of the new role
called for by community policing. Departments that are adopting community
policing are likely, at the outset, to be uncertain or still experimental about
many aspects of what they are doing, giving officers and their sergeants, at
best, mixed messages. (Skogan & Hartnett, 1997: 73)

Officers new to a community policing work environment are often critical of the lack
of clarity by their organization in relation to the missionpgoals, and objectives of such
innovations. Officers consistently reflect little understanding of the goals and means
associated with community policing innovations; this lack of understanding can result in

resistance as officers struggle to understand exactly what they are supposed to be doing (Sadd

71

& Grinc, 1996). Such confusion is common in the context of a changing organization
(Trojanowicz, Kappeler, Gaines, & Bucqueroux, 1998); problems arise when this confusion
is not clarified in a reasonably timely manner. Officers who feel discombobulated due to
insufiicient clarity may resist change or simply may be unable to carry out new
responsibilities because they do not know how to do so.

Officers need to have a sense of clarity about a number of key points: they need to
understand community policing in theory and in practice; they need to be aware of resources
and support which will enable them to operate in a community policing environment; they
need to understand the nexus between their conduct and evaluations of their performance;
and, they need to understand why their organization is adopting a community policing
orientation (Sadd & Grinc, 1996; Skogan & Hartnett, 1997; Trojanowicz, Kappeler, Gaines,
& Bucqueroux, 1998; Walker, S., 1993).

In the absence of clear objectives and sufficient training in problem-solving methods,
community policing officers tend to revert to the traditional operational styles with which
they are most comfortable (Sadd & Grinc, 1996). “In general, firture behavior is predicted
by past behavior; that is, circumstances being equal, people will go on doing what they have
always done...This picture is neither cynical nor pessimistic; it is simply reality” (Territo,
1980: 396-3 97). Problems arise when officers attempt to use traditional strategies (citations,
arrests, etc.) to solve community problems. Such strategies may be incongruent with the
philosophical underpinnings of community policing. In addition, a perceived lack of clarity
may generate confusion, resentment, resistance, and/ or apathy on the part of those employees
afiected by an organizational change. Even though planners, managers, and executives may

believe that sufficient clarity has been provided, if employees affected by change do not share

72

this sentiment, successfirl organizational change may prove to be elusive (Sadd & Grinc,
1996)

Goffman (1959) describes how individuals learn “routines,” or procedures to handle
complex situations. Routines are used by individual in an effort to negotiate uncertain social
encounters in a predictable manner; they also assist the “performer” in presenting the desired
image to the “audience.” Through the formal and informal socialization processes, new
officers learn a set of routines which will guide them in performing their duties on a daily
basis. Under a traditional policing paradigm, examples of such routines might include
making a traffic stop, making an arrest, handling a neighborhood or family disturbance, and
taking a report (Manning, 1997a).

Problems arise when there is a shift from a traditional to a community policing
paradigm within an organization. New routines must be developed in order to guide officers
through salient community policing activities, such as planning and leading a neighborhood
meeting, networking with employees in other agencies, critically analyzing a situation, and,
perhaps most elusive, solving a community problem. If officers are not provided with
adequate training and socialization (i.e., the SARA method, best practices, leadership by
example), it may be very difficult for them to develop these new routines. If these new
routines are not developed, the ofiicers might continue to use those routines with which they
are the most familiar: £dm9jg_htiaa militate-

At times, police executives and planners may wish to be somewhat ambiguous in
describing the full nature of their plans; doing so gives them some flexibility as they “feel
out” the specifics of an innovation. While innovation must preserve some flexibility to allow

for fine-tuning, this must not be done at the expense of those officers most affected by

73

change. If oflicers are expected to produce under a new system, they must understand the
goals, objectives, and mission of the innovation. Officers also need resources and training
to support their efforts, and an understanding of for what, and to, whom they will be
accountable. It is not reasonable to expect employees to change their work habits if the
employees do not understand the “why, what, how, & for whom” of said change.

Several authors have likened the transition to community policing to a battle for the
very “hearts and minds” of the ordinary patrol officer (Lurigio & Skogan, 1994; Sadd &
Grinc, 1994). It is a daunting task to take employees selected, trained, and socialized to
perform one task, and to tell them they must now perform in a manner which firndamentally
changes how they will operate and the ends they are to pursue. If community policing is to
be successful in an organization, managers must truly win over the hearts and minds of their
patrol officers. They must win their employee’s hearts so that officers have the desire to
pursue goals associated with community policing (problem solving, collaboration with
citizens, cooperative goal determination, etc).

One way to do this may be to make sure employees understand why community
policing is a better alternative to traditional policing practices and how it still allows them
to be a “crime fighter” (Goldstein, 1990). Mangers must win their employee’s minds so that
officers understand what community policing entails and how it is going to be
operationalized within their department. Agencies must make it a priority to educate their
officers in the theory and practice of community policing if they expect implementation
efforts to succeed. “One of the primary reasons for the lack of support for...community
policing in general among patrol offices was a simple lack of adequate knowledge” (Sadd

& Grinc, 1994: p. 36).

74

Unions and Key Actors

While police unionization is not universal, where unions are present, they pose a
significant force with which organizations must reckon in planning for change. Originally,
police unions were established to address concerns over wages, hours, benefits, and
retirement (Guyot, 1991). In more recent years, unions have become increasingly concerned
with grievance procedures and memos of understanding (More, 1998), as well as
organizational policy and job bidding (Hewitt, 1978). Police unions can have tremendous
impact on the efficacy of organizational change. One way to ensure program failure is to
exclude unions from the planning process and to give no attention to whether or not a
proposed change is consistent with the union contract (Skogan & Hartnett, 1997).
Surprisingly, based on the limited available information, there is “little evidence of
significant labor (or employee/supervisor) involvement in the design and implementation of
community policing” (Polzin, 1997: 1).

Police unions can be a blessing and a curse in organizations proposing change.
Unions are adamantly opposed to some forms of change. For example, communities
attempting to implement civilian review boards often face tough opposition from the local
police union (Swanson, Territo, & Taylor, 1998). On the other hand, police unions can be
a driving force to assist organizations in initiating change and securing officer support
(Skogan & Hartnett, 1997). While involving a union in planning and implementing
organizational change does not guarantee that management will receive union support,
bypassing a union may ensure resistance and opposition from both the union and the
employees which it represents. If an organizational change runs contrary to the desires of the

union, or appears to violate a contractual right of employees, the union may have a legitimate

75

right to require that the change be resolved in the course of the collective bargaining process
or by a third-party neutral. In police organizations with strong unions, managers must be
constantly cognizant of the support (or lack there of) which their proposed change may
receive from the union. Without such support, planned change may fail before it can be
implemented.

Employers must also be aware of the “key actors” within their organization. Like the
“champions” discussed by Peters and Waterman (1982), key actors can help mitigate the
disruption associated with the change process. Regardless of the presence or absence of a
union, most organizations have employees who are viewed by their peers as leaders (whether
or not they are manager/ supervisors). Other employees may look to these key actors to know
how to react to management initiatives (Barker, 1999; Guyot, 1991). If these key actors can
be involved in the planning process and/or brought “on board” with an organizational
change, it may ease any difficulty in the implementation process. If the bulk of an
organization sees key actors accepting a new policy, program, or initiative, they may be more
likely to follow suit. If a department’s leaders work to ensure that key actors understand and
support the implementation of community policing, they may mediate some degree of
employee resistence among their work force (Territo, 1980).

By taking a joint labor-management approach to the development of organizational
change it is possible for police agencies to achieve greater success (Polzin, 1997). Working
closely with unions makes it is possible for police executives to develop good relationships,
to enforce their policies, and to secure organizational change (Hewlett, 1978). Unfortunately,
labor-management relations are more often characterized by distrust and hostility (Guyot,

1991; More, 1998). This relationship does not have to be filled with animosity or tension.

76

If police organizations accept unions as partners and involve key actors, police managers may
be able to function more effectively. Polzin’s assessment of labor involvement in the
implementation of community policing is equally poignant for other forms of organizational
change:
Community policing is a process of organizational change that is most
effective when it has the commitment and involvement of its key
stakeholders. Employees are the stakeholder group most critical to the
initiative’s success. Unionized police departments have a unique opportunity
to make the use of the workforce’s knowledge and expertise through the
collective voice of the union. A joint labor-management committee using a

systematic approach. . .offers the greatest opportunity for community policing
success (p. 5).

Accountability, Evaluations. & Rewafl Allocation Systems

As public employees, police officers have always been accountable for what they do
and what they produce. Early officers and organizations were accountable to the political
machine which they served (Fogelson, 1977; Walker, 8., 197 7). Evaluations were virtually
nonexistent, but as a general rule, as long as the elected party maintained their control, the
police were doing a good job. The bureaucratic model of police organizations removed
accountability from political influence and vested it within the police agency. Under a
hierarchical structure, each employee was held accountable to their immediate supervisor;
for the average patrol offrcer, accountability started with their sergeant. Evaluations were
quantitative measures which could be quickly and easily computed. Typically, officers were
given numerical or Likert ratings which assessed their quantitative performance (citations,
arrests, calls for service handled), their demeanor and appearance, their ability to follow
orders, and their compliance with policies and procedures.

Organizations implementing community policing will find that traditional

77

accountability patterns and evaluation techniques are no longer sufficient to meet their
changing needs. Because it believes in community partnership, accountability under
community policing becomes more complex than it has been in the past (Trojanowicz,
Kappeler, Gaines, & Bucqueroux, 1998). Under community policing, officers and
organizations accept a level of accountability to the public. Greater consideration is given
to incorporating the community in the process of formulating policy and action plans (More,
1998). There are few clear models for how agencies may ensure that officers remain
accountable under a community policing system. One of the greatest challenges to police
managers and planners who seek to implement community policing is how they might ensure
accountability that goes beyond simple rhetoric.

Closely related to accountability and evaluation is the concept of the reward
allocation system. Ideally constructed, such a system has the same effect on employee
behavior as does accountability and evaluation. These all serve to push employees toward
a specific pattern of behavior. Accountability and evaluation achieve this end by delineating
the parameters of acceptable behavior and then measuring how well an employee is doing
at living up to these standards. A reward allocation system achieves this end by providing
extra benefits to employees who do an exceptional job operating within the parameters of
acceptable behavior within their organization. For example, an officer working in an
organization adopting a community policing philosophy may be recognized for a particularly
innovative and successful problem solving endeavor. The reward given to the officer is not
necessarily tangible; it may just be a certificate designating him or her as “problem solver of
the month.” The important facet of this scenario is not on the tangibility of the reward, but

on the fact that the organization took the time to recognize the contributions of the employee.

78

It is important to note that as organizations are in transitional phases, reward
allocation systems may need to be redefined (Goodman, Bazerman, & Conlon, 1980). The
type of behavior which the organization may choose to reward may be different from what
it was during earlier times (i.e., from recognizing the officer who made the “bust of the
mon ” to the officer who initiated the “problem solving activity of the month”). In addition,
old rewards may no longer motivate employees to go “above and beyond the call of duty.”
Unlike the evaluation process, which is really based on trying to coerce individuals to exhibit
certain behavioral patters, the reward system serves as a way to motivate and compensate
officers who do more than their peers; in this way, the reward system does not have a
negative stigma.

Organizations experiencing change must ensure that reward systems continue to
recognize desirable behavior and provide a proper incentive. In making alterations to the
reward system or in initiating organizational change, it is important to bear in mind the
following warning from Katz and Kahn (1978): “changes may threaten those groups in the
system that profit from the present allocation of resources and rewards. This applies not only
to vertical strata of workers and supervisors but also to horizontal divisions of function” (p.
715). Planners must be conscious of the multitude of ways in which prosed change may
pose a threat to employees through an organization. In addition, organizations experiencing
change must also rethink accountability patterns and evaluation procedures. In the absence
of changes in these latter dimensions, employees have little incentive to alter their behavioral

patterns to support a new program or organizational philosophy.

79

Changing the Role of Supervisors

Traditionally, supervisors in police organizations have been concerned with the
prospect that their subordinates have been engaged in some form of misconduct (W eisburd,
McElroy, & Hardyman, 1988). They have focused on ensuring that subordinates were not
engaged in any forms of graft, corruption, or vice, and that they were obeying organizational
policy. Perhaps this focus is an outdated response to the early years of American policing,
when many officers were engaged in such inappropriate behavior. After more than a century
of reform efforts, police supervisors must ensure that they have updated the issues upon
which they are focused. In order for community policing to work, police supervisors must
shift their attention from concerns over the legality of their subordinate’s conduct to the
workmanship of their efforts (Bittner 1990).

One of the primary objectives of supervisors under a community policing paradigm
is to work to help their subordinates. Supervisors, especially front-line supervisors, can best
serve their organization by ensuring that their subordinates are knowledgeable of, and
involved with, the community they serve. In addition to focusing on whether officers have
an adequate knowledge of laws and organizational policies, these supervisors might need to
focus on the adequacy of the problem solving activities in which officers engage (W eisburd,
McElroy, & Hardyman, 198 8). AS long as police officers are treated as employees who must
be closely monitored and directed, they cannot be expected to develop the skills and values
necessary to engage in successfirl community policing (Bittner, 1990). While supervisors
must still be concerned with the legality of officer conduct, under community policing they
must also concern themselves with the quality of the workmanship these officers exhibit.

This workmanship “involves the maintenance of minimally acceptable levels of

80

knowledgeable, skilled and judicious performance” (Bittner, 1990: 350).

If police officers are going to develop and execute the Skills necessary to solve
community problems, their supervisors need to grant them sufficient flexibility and
autonomy. “Allowing officers the fi'eedom to be creative problem solvers and resource
facilitators will require a less rigid, less hierarchical organization with a new set of
performance standards and rewards” (Wilkinson & Rosenbaum, 1994). Police supervisors,
particularly those on the “front line” (such as patrol sergeants), can be an asset or a liability
in the process of organizational change. When they understand community policing, why
it is important, how it works, and how they can support the community policing endeavors
of their subordinates, supervisors have the potential to mitigate some resistance in the
implementation process. When they do not understand community policing and how its
implementation changes their role within the organization, supervisors may revert to their
traditional organizational role (Territo, 1980) rather than effectively doing their job

(Trojanowicz, 1980).

Summg of Organizational Determinism and Community Policing

...for community policing to become a central feature of American law
enforcement, the institutional framework and organizational apparatus of
police organizations must be altered if they are to accommodate the sweeping
changes implied by community policing proponents. The success or failure
of community policing, then, is in large measure affected by the
organizational structures and processes that characterize modem-day policing
(Greene, Bergman, & McLaughlin, 1994: 93).

The success of an organizational change may also be mediated by certain facets of

the organization’s existing structure, the degree of planning undertaken before the change

81

is initiated, and the process by which the change is implemented. All else held constant, the
more a proposed change departs from an organization’s current structure or culture, the
greater the likelihood that it will encounter resistance. When more time and energy are
invested into planning for change, resistance may be minimized. This is in part because
many “bugs” can be worked out of the system, providing for a smoother transition; when
employees perceive that there are faults in a proposed change or a new policy/program, they
may be more likely to develop an incredulous attitude. The process by which change is
implemented may also play a key role in its success. When the logic behind a change is
clearly explained to those it affects, when these employees are given proper training to meet
new demands accompanying change, and when accountability and rewards are modified to

support/encourage adaptation, it is more likely that change will succeed.

Methodological Considerations in Evaluation Research

Innovative police executives, such as August Vollmer, attempted to apply scientific
principles to policing during the early decades of this century (Carte & Carte, 1975). Despite
their efforts, social research endeavors have a relatively short history in criminal justice,
dating back to the initiatives which emerged in the wake of the President’s Commission on
Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice in 1965 (Walker, S., 1999). AS a result of
the Commission’s preliminary findings, federal funding was made available to conduct
evaluation research in criminal justice agencies. The subsequent policing research by
innovative scholars such as Albert Reiss, Jerome Skolnick, and George Kelling, still stand

as some of the seminal pieces of evaluative research in the field of criminal justice.

82

This study uses data derived in the process of conducting an evaluation of the
reorganization of a police agency. The original analysis of this data was carried out in a
manner consistent with the tenets of evaluation research, which Hagan (1997: 383)
categorizes as “measurement of the effects of a program in terms of its specific goals,
outcomes, or particular program criteria.” The research team used a number of outcome
measures (in particular, attitudes and opinions of employees and citizenry, analysis of official
data and documents, and field observation) to determine whether a planned reorganization
yielded the expected/desired results. This study will move beyond a strict evaluative
approach to analyzing the data generated by this evaluation. Using portions of the data
derived in the original study the author develops a model detailing the barriers to effective
change in police organizations.

This section examines those methodological considerations most salient to the data
under consideration. In particular, the author examines the strengths, weaknesses, and
applications of focus groups, qualitative research interviews and survey data. The case study
approach to social scientific inquiry is also discussed. The section concludes with a

discussion of analyzing survey data using the statistical tests employed in this study.

Focus Groups

Focus groups, a tool used for years to assist in marketing research and political
planning, are gaining increasing attention as a method to aid in social research. Conventional
focus groups were designed to assess public reactions to a new product or a dimension of a
political campaign by “testing” them before a group of people who were felt to represent the

target audience of a product or issue (Hagan, 1997). A focus group is similar to a group

83

interview, but not in a traditional sense, where a researcher’s questions alternate with a
participant’s response (Morgan, 1997). Organizers of focus groups bring together a
purposively selected group of volunteers or participants (Kruger, 1994). These individuals
are selected for a variety of reasons, including their demographics, personal beliefs, and
willingness to share their ideas. A group moderator meets with the participants in an
informal setting and guides them through a semi-structured discussion/interview about a
designated topic (Carey, 1994).

The defining characteristic of focus groups as a research tool is the use of group
interaction to produce ideas and information which would be inaccessible in the absence of
the interaction (Morgan, 1997). Focus groups are not intended to be a more efficient way of
interviewing large numbers of people (although they may be). Rather, researchers use them
as a way to both collect data from a large number of people and to find out information
which might not emerge in a one-on-one interview. Carey (1994) provides one of the best
descriptions of the underlying rationale of focus groups, describing it as the belief that:

...with proper guidance from the focus group leader, group members can

describe the rich details of complex experiences and the reasoning behind

their actions, beliefs, perceptions, and attitudes. The impact of the group

setting can enhance the quality of the data elicited. (p. 226)

Although focus group administrators may seek to direct the general flow of the dialogue, the
analytical emphasis is placed on the interactions of the group members as well as their
responses to particular questions. In other words, the focus group is intended to simulate a
real life “bull-session” (Babbie, 1992) which citizens might have with one another about a
topic.

For the purposes of the original evaluation research project which generated this

study’s data, focus groups have two important uses. First, they can be used as a means to

84

clarify matters and explore issues which emerged during preliminary individual interviews
(Morgan, 1997). In other words, informal and semi-structured interviews can be used to
generate early insights into the topic under examination. These preliminary individual
interviews can generate ideas and information which can be invaluable in structuring
subsequent focus groups. Individual interviews might also create seemingly contradictory
information and insights which will require resolution (Carey, 1994). The focus group gives
the researcher the opportunity to present contradictions for clarification and to delve deeper
into matters of interest which might have emerged during the preliminary interviews. In
addition, the focus group might be used as a self-check by a researcher; participants can
verify that the researcher has “gotten to the root” of the social phenomena being examined.

A second important use of focus groups is to develop and/or refine an interview or
survey instrument. Group members may ensure that the instrument’ s vocabulary is culturally
appropriate for the target population (Carey, 1994). Participants may review the issues an
instrument addresses to ensure that the researchers are targeting the appropriate matters for
further inquiry (in the appropriate fashion). Participants can also ensure that questions are
worded in such a fashion that they will “effectively convey the researcher’s intent to the
survey respondent” (Morgan, 1997: 25).

In this way, thefpcp’sgrppppan be used as a check on both the validity and reliability
of an interview or survey instrument. As a result, the integrity of subsequent data may be
improved before the time and energy are devoted to an instrument’ s firll-scale administration.
Instrument validity is enhanced (particularly in organizational research) because the
researcher can be assured that the key issues are being addressed by the instrument.

Instrument reliability is enhanced because the group review process helps the researcher

85

ensure that “differences in how the respondents interpret the questions” have been minimized
(Morgan, 1997: 26).

According to Kruger (1994), focus groups are appropriate tools in social science
research when: the researchers are interested in developing preliminary or exploratory
information about a subject; researchers are seeking information about complex behavior or
motivations; the ideas generated by a group cannot be achieved by individuals alone (i.e.,
groups offer a unique synergy); capturing open-ended comments is of great value; and,
researchers need information and insights in preparation for a large-scale study.

Despite the strengths and merits of focus groups, they are not always appropriate.
Kruger (1994) also stipulates that there are many circumstances under which focus group
W should not be used, including: when research is being carried out in an
emotionally charged environment (especially when conflict may be intensified through the
interview process); when a researcher loses the ability to control critical aspects of the study
(i.e., participant selection, question development, analysis protocol, etc); where a Study
requires strong statistical projections (focus groups usually do not involve sufficient numbers
of participants and their purposive nature makes their generalizability highly questionable);
and where other methodological approaches can produce information which is either of a
better quality and/or more economical.

Focus groups are not without their limitations. The purposive nature of participant
selection in focus group interviews may preclude researchers from generalizing their findings
(Kruger, 1994). The intent of this research approach is to provide exploratory knowledge
which may illuminate the appropriate direction to be taken during firrther analysis. In

addition, while group dynamics may be synergistic, they also limit the researcher’s ability

86

to control the flow of the interview as compared to the control offered in individual
interviews. Data derived from focus group interviews may be difficult to analyze, creating
the risk of comments being taken out of context and/or interpreted incorrectly. Focus groups
may also present logistical problems, as it may be dificult to assemble a desired group of
participants in an environment which is conducive to open conversation.

In summary, focus group interviews may be a valuable research tool in certain
situations and this methodology may offer advantages which outweigh potential limitations
and weaknesses. Focus groups may be an efficient and economical way in which to gather
information which can serve as a foundation for further exploration. The social dynamics
of the interview process may also result in important findings which might be difficult to
obtain via other methodologies. In the case of the instant Study, this approach is particularly
appropriate because it allowed the researchers to refine and test survey instruments before
they were administered to an entire population. It is expected that this enhanced the overall

validity and reliability of the survey findings.

Mative Research Interviews

Because the term “interview” may be used to refer to a number of slightly different
methodologies for obtaining data, it is necessary to begin this section by defining the term
as it applies to this study. For the purposes of this project, the interview method to be used
is best termed the “qualitative research interview” (King, 1994). This approach differs from
other forms of interviews in that it relies on open-ended questions, probing by the
administrator, and a freely-flowing interview dialogue. The type of interview approach used

in social scientific research is largely dependent upon the nature of the research question to

87

be addressed.

According to King (1993) there are a number of Situations in which the qualitative
research interview is most appropriate as a means of social inquiry. Chief among them is
where “exploratory work is required before a quantitative study can be carried out” (p. 16).
The qualitative research interview generally relies on a loose interview guide, rather than a
formal schedule of questions asked verbatim in a Specified order during each interview
session. The interviewer has a list of questions or general issues which might be addressed
during the course of the interview. As sessions are conducted, the interview guide may be
modified (i.e., adding probes to address issues as they emerge, dropping or reformulating
items which are poorly worded or irrelevant, etc).

Interviewing, like any other research methodology, offers a distinctive set of
advantages and disadvantages for the collection of social data. A key concern is that the
interviewer maintains the ability to remain neutral (Babbie, 1973). Much like field research,
the interviewer must be conscious of how his or her actions, comments, or demeanor might
influence the interviewee. If the interviewer is not conscious of this possibility, the
interviewee may feel compelled to provide a socially acceptable answer to a question.
Interviewers must also use care to avoid unintentionally “leading” the interviewee to provide
certain answers (Hagan, 1997; Maxfield and Babbie, 1998). Interviewers must make sure
that their appearance and mannerisms are appropriate for the group being studied (Hagan,
1997). In addition, the interviewer must be prepared to deal with interviewees who are too
talkative, not talkative enough, wander OE topic, or attempt to turn every question back onto
the interviewer. Although experience may best prepare interviewers to deal with difficult

interviews, “classroom” practice may assist in the development of helpful interview

88

management skills (Babbie, 1992).

There are a number of practical issues related specifically to qualitative research
interviews (King, 1994). Interviewers must have the ability to operate flexibly as this is the
key to the qualitative research interview process. Although interviews may begin with a few
common questions, each session tends to be unique and the interviewer must be able to adapt
and identify appropriate follow-up questions to probe for further information. The phrasing
of the questions must be on the level of the interviewee; this may be particularly challenging
when the interviewer is asking probing questions.

Interviewers must also be prepared to deal with difficult interviews with subjects who
do not wish to participate, become emotionally upset over the subject of the interview, or are
Simply not responsive to open-ended questioning. Finally, the interviewer must make sure
proper deference is shown to high-status interviewees. This final point is of particular
importance in conducting evaluation research in organizations when interviews may be
conducted with members of an organization’s leadership. Such individuals may be
accustomed to being treated with a certain degree of deference and formality in their
occupational role. An interviewer whose approach is too fiiendly and informal may offend
the interviewee, unintentionally restricting the resulting information.

Interviews, as any other form of social inquiry, must be conducted in such away to
maximize reliability and validity. Reliability may be particularly problematic with the
qualitative research interview. A reliable interview format would result in roughly the same
interview data being obtained by any interviewer because the interview guide is consistent
and the interviewer’s tone, appearance, and demeanor are (hypothetically) neutral factors in

the process. Because they do not have a firm interview format that is consistent across all

89

interview sessions, qualitative research interviews can be particularly weak in terms of their
reliability. Each researcher’s subjective determination of exact issues to be discussed and
probing questions to be asked makes it unlikely that the same interview conducted by
different interviewers would yield similar findings. The best remedy for this situation is to
only use data obtained in these interviews for exploratory purposes. In light of this
limitation, the data may not be appropriate for theory testing or other forms of rigorous
qualitative data analysis (Miles & Huberrnan, 1984).

In quantitative research, validity is a reflection of how well a measurement device
actually measures what it claims to measure (Maxfield & Babbie, 1998); validity may be
defined analogously in qualitative research (King, 1994). While quantitative research
validity focuses on method, qualitative research validity focuses on interpretations. In valid
qualitative research, a researcher’s conclusions and interpretations are accurate reflections
of “reality.” One way to enhance validity in interpreting data obtained in a qualitative
research interview is to engage participants in “feedback loops” (King, 1994). The
researcher returns to interviewees with interpretations and conclusions to verify that they
have correctly captured the “world” of the participants.

The qualitative research interview can be a powerful exploratory tool in the process
of conducting social research. These interviews enable researchers to obtain insights into
meanings which are not available through quantitative approaches or other forms of
qualitative techniques. Researchers may sort out complex patterns and develop firll
understandings of contextual issues surrounding organizations and relationships between
individuals. In an organizational setting, the qualitative research interview has an additional

advantage because research participants might be open to engaging a researcher in such a

90

dialogue because “most people like talking about their work— whether to share enthusiasm
or to air complaints— but rarely have the opportunity to do so with interested outsiders”

(King, 1994: 33-34).

Survey Resea_rc_hl

The purpose of using a survey in social inquiry is very basic. Moser and Kalton
write that “[t]he purpose of many surveys is simply to provide someone with information”
(197 2: 2). Survey research allows for “systematic measurements [to be] made over a series
of cases yielding a rectangle of data” (Marsh, 1982: 6). Babbie notes that although survey
research is not an appropriate means to study many topics, survey methods “can be especially
effective when combined with other methods” (1973: 45). In examining survey research, it
is important to remember that “surveys record either expressed attitude or claimed behavior
and seldom the behavior itself” (Hagan, 1997: 141).

According to Babble (197 3) there are a number of characteristics which define survey
research. Survey research is logical— it is aimed “at the rational understanding of social
behavior” (p. 28). Through the use of logic and rationale, it is believed that complex
propositions may be effectively tested through empirical means. Survey research is
deterministic; researchers attempt to use survey results “to explain the reasons for and

sources of observed events, characteristics, and correlations” (p. 46). When a survey is used

 

1Strictly speaking, the original evaluation study conducted a census of community policing
officers and lieutenants, sergeants and officers assigned to the Patrol Division of the Lansing
(MI) Police Department in the spring of 1997. Every member of this narrowly defined
population was given the opportunity to complete the questionnaire. Although this was a
census in the technical sense, it will be referred to as a survey. The instrumentation and
methodological issues used in a census and survey are largely the same; the primary
difference is whether a sampling scheme is used.

91

to elaborate a logical model, cause and effect may be determined in order to explain the
observed phenomena. Survey methods are especially usefirl in the “academic quest for
knowledge and understanding” because they allow for the collection and analysis of data of
“immediate policy relevance” (p. 359).

Survey research is general. Coupled with rigorous sampling techniques, researchers
hope to draw conclusions about an entire population, while only dealing with a portion of its
members. Survey research is parsimonious; unlike other research methods, a survey
researcher can “construct a variety of explanatory models and then select the one best suited
to his aims” (Babbie, 1973: 47). Finally, survey research is specific. By their very nature,
research results are very explicit and generally quantitative, lending themselves to highly
detailed results and great specificity in analysis.

Surveys may be administered in a number of different fashions (generally either face-
to-face, via telephone, or self-administration). For the purposes of this study it is necessary
to give extra attention to self-administration, as this approach is most relevant. Self-report
surveys gather data by asking respondents to disclose their attitudes, opinions, and behavior.
Self-report surveys have the advantage of being efficient (requiring far less personnel than
telephone or face-to-face surveys), cost effective, and less sensitive to biases introduced
through survey administration (Salant & Dillman, 1994). An additional advantage of this
approach is that “respondents make critical comments and report the less socially acceptable
responses somewhat more readily” than they might in responding to other forms of surveys
(Moser & Kalton, 1972: 258).

Despite these merits, there are disadvantages to using self-administered surveys; this

study may be most affected by two specific categories of disadvantages. First, because

92

respondents generally complete the survey instrument without any assistance (although this
might not always be the case), reliability of the responses may be weakened. In the absence
of qualified assistance, respondents encountering a question they do not understand are
forced to guess as to the question’s meaning (Maxfield & Babbie, 1998; Reynolds &
Sponaugle, 1982). Consequently, different respondents may interpret a question in differing
manners, resulting in answers which are not entirely congruent with one another (Hagan,
1997). Second, validity is always a problem with any form of survey research. People may
not provide correct responses due to blatant lying, subtle exaggeration, a faulty memory, or
the desire to provide socially acceptable answers to sensitive or controversial inquiries
(Hagan, 1997; Reynolds & Sponaugle, 1982).

Although a researcher may never completely overcome these threats to validity and
reliability, steps may be taken to minimize their impact. The reliability of an instrument may
be enhanced through the use of focus groups (Carey, 1994; Morgan 1997; Salant & Dillman,
1994) and/or the pretesting of an instrument (Babble, 1973). The merits of focus groups as
a means to enhance reliability were discussed previously in this manuscript. Pretesting an
instrument allows a researcher to work the “bugs” out of the survey and its planned
administration before firll-scale administration is initiated. Difi’erent drafts of a question may
be used to see which version is the most “readable” to the target population. Contradictory
or confirsing questions may be identified and corrected. Ambiguous terms may be properly
defined to ensure consistent interpretation by respondents. In general, pretesting allows the
researcher to maximize the reliability of their survey by ensuring that it is both written in a
manner which will allow for maximum consistency in interpretation and administered in a

manner which will maximize the response rate.

93

The validity of an instrument can be improved when that instrument is administered
through some form of self-completion. When a survey is in some way administered by
someone other than the respondent, undesirable reactions may occur, particularly when the
survey is dealing with sensitive or controversial material. Respondents may provide the
answer they think the administrator wants to hear or the answer they think they ought to
provide in order to be socially correct. In addition, administrators may unintentionally offend
the respondent or in some other way bias their answers (Reynolds & Sponaugle, 1982). Self-
administration may overcome this potential validity threat by partially removing the
respondent’s self-imposed desire to alter how they are presenting themselves to the
administrator; there is no need to embellish or lie, particularly when anonymity has been
extended to respondents.

Basic social research ethics might have the unintended consequences of bolstering
survey validity. One of the most basic principles of ethical research is protecting the interests
of research participants (Babbie, 1992). If revealing survey responses may result in harm or
injury to participants, anonymity or confidentiality ought to be offered to participants. This
is certainly true when conducting research in organizations, where a participant might face
negative repercussions if they speak out against certain ideals, beliefs, programs or people
(King, 1994). Survey responses are anonymous where the researcher is unable to match a
particular response with a particular respondent; responses are confidential when is able to
match a respondent with a response, but promises not to do so (Babbie, 1992; Hagan, 1997).
When respondents know that their identity is being protected by the researcher, they may be
more likely to provide truthful answers, thus enhancing validity. While respondents may still

choose to lie in answering a question or may still make a human error, self-administered

94

surveys using either confidentiality or anonymity offer the greatest protection against other

threats to the validity of survey responses.

The Case Study Approach to Organizational Reswh: Merging Qpalitative and Quantitative
Approaches to Social Inguig

Case study research is a valid form of social inquiry “when the phenomenon under
study is not readily distinguishable from its context” (Yin, 1993: 3). Examples of such
phenomena might include projects or programs being examined in an evaluation study. Yin
contends that using the case study method under such circumstances has advantages,
including the ability to have a broader focus, the capacity to include contextual conditions
related to the phenomena in question, and the capability of using multiple sources of
evidence. He also notes that these advantages may become a proverbial double-edged sword
for the researcher. The broad focus of such studies may result in an overload of data, making
it difficult to extract the contextually relevant information. The richness of the findings may
necessitate the use of multiple sources of evidence, making a simple data collection protocol
out of the question. It is worth noting, however, that the case study technique allows the
researcher to blend qualitative and quantitative forms of data collection, which may enhance
the validity and reliability of the research findings.

Case study research, like qualitative research, may be subject to criticism because
data collection may be undertaken prior to the development of the study questions and
hypotheses (Yin, 1993). Some view this approach as sloppy, unstructured, and unscientific.
Unfortunately, there are times when not enough is known about the phenomena researchers
seek to study. When this is the case, “qualitative methods can be used to uncover and

understand what lies behind any phenomenon about which little is yet known” (Strauss &

95

Corbin, 1990: 19). Thus, an exploratory case study may use flexible approaches in order to
obtain firrther descriptive information about a phenomenon; this information may then be
used to structure a more rigorous research project (Ogawa & Malen, 1991).

Strong similarities may be noted between exploratory case study research and
“grounded theory” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) approaches to social scientific inquiry. Both
approaches allow a researcher to generate hypotheses using a flexible strategy, loosely
structured methodologies, and descriptive accounts. Both may also rely on qualitative
findings to aid in the generation of knowledge which may then be used to develop controlled,
structured techniques through which assumptions may be systematically tested. These initial
qualitative methods may not yield findings with the objective precision of quantitative
methods. These qualitative approaches, however, may provide significant insights into a
phenomenon and may serve as the foundation for the identification of critical variables, the
generation of hypotheses, and the construction of theory (Dey, 1993; Miles & Huberman,
1984; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Advocates of grounded theory warn that researchers must
avoid using existing theoretical or conceptual models in approaching a new study (Glaser &
Strauss, 1967). Although it is helpfirl to have a working knowledge of the relevant literature
relating to the area of study, this knowledge should not cloud the researcher from seeing
emergent issues in the study at hand.

Properly designed, exploratory case study research may lend itself to the inductive
construction of knowledge. An initial broad exploratory approach to a social phenomenon
allows for the emergence of important research questions. Again, this approach is much like
grounded theory, which Strauss and Corbin (1990) describe as follows:

A grounded theory is one that is inductively derived from the study of the
phenomenon it represents. That is, it is discovered, developed, and

96

provisionally verified through the systematic data collection and analysis of

data pertaining to that phenomenon. Therefore, data collection, analysis and

theory stand in reciprocal relationship to each other. One does not begin with

a theory, then prove it. Rather one begins with an area of study and what is

relevant to that area is allowed to emerge. (p. 23)
A similar approach was used to develop the data under consideration in the instant study.
A research project was initiated to explore a very broad topic (how well is a planned
organizational change working in the Lansing Police Department?) Initial research efforts
were exploratory and descriptive in nature (field observations, informal and formal
interviews, analysis of official records, etc). This allowed for the emergence of the most
relevant issues. Once identified, these issues could be clarified (through the use of focus
groups) and then addressed in a more systematic manner (self-administered surveys) to allow
for quantitative analysis in order to further understand the phenomena. AS this illustrates,
when done properly, the case study method may be a valid scientific approach to
understanding a social phenomenon.

One of the reasons the case study method has such a high degree of utility is because
it allows for improved reliability through the use of multiple modes in inquiry (Blau, 1963).
Individual modes of inquiry each have their own strengths and weaknesses (Hagan, 1997);
the use of an assortment of research methods in examining a social phenomenon allows a
researcher to maximize the overall integrity of their research findings (Babbie, 1973). While
Survey methodologies allow for the quick and easy collection of data, they tend to be rather
one-dimensional; where possible, such approaches should be used with other methods to
provide greater depth to research findings. As Babbie wistfully notes “few researchers

employ a variety of methods in their inquiries” (p. 361). By its very nature, the case Study

approach encourages the use of multiple methods and provides an overall picture of a social

97

phenomenon which has greater depth and, perhaps, greater accuracy.

Because case study research may utilize both qualitative and quantitative methods
and because it is a scientific approach to understanding a social phenomenon, reliability and
validity are issues which must be addressed by those employing this method. Reliability can
be preserved by using standardized protocols whenever possible; for example, interviewers
might be required to ask the same questions every time. Validity can be strengthened by
using multiple indicators to assess specific issues (thereby compensating for weaknesses in
individual approaches to collecting data) and by ensuring that instruments are properly
constructed. Because case study research may be based upon findings in only one setting,
the generalizability of the findings may still be an issue; it is difficult to know if the findings
would be the same in a similar environment. It should be noted that proponents of the case
study method do not view generalizability as a limiting characteristic of this methodology

(Yin, 1993).

Analyzing Survey Data

The survey data collection process can produce either open-ended or close-ended
responses (Maxfield & Babbie, 1998). For the purposes of data analysis, closed-ended
responses allow for more efiicient analysis as the possible responses are finite in nature.
Even where researchers use open-ended responses, it is usually necessary to go through the
data and classify responses into a finite number of categories. The categorical nature of
survey results lends these data to a wide range of statistical analysis. One of the most basic
ways in which to analyze a single variable is through examining its frequency distribution.

Through the use of contingency tables (or cross-tabs) it is possible to examine the basic

98

relationship between two or more variables. This relationship may be elaborated upon
through the use of tests of significance and measures of association “to verify the existence
and strength of any apparent relationship between variables” (Rea & Parker, 1997: 166).

This study makes use of a number of descriptive and inferential techniques for
quantitative data analysis. Descriptive techniques include frequency analysis and
contingency tables. Frequency analysis provides a simple count of individuals in each
response category for a given variable. Although this information may seem simplistic, it
provides important insights about the distribution of responses for the given variable, which
can then be used as a guide for conducing firrther analysis. Contingency tables order the
frequency distribution of two or more variables. For example, we might want to know how
many survey respondents had served as a community policing officer cross-tabulated with
the respondent’s rank. The cells of the contingency table would reflect how many
respondents had expressed a co-occurrence of these two variables (i.e., how many sergeants
had never served as a community policing officer).

In addition to these descriptive measures, this study will also employ a number of
inferential statistical measures. In most cases involving survey data, the variables are
measured at the nominal or ordinal level (Rea & Parker, 1997). In cases where a survey
variable is measured at the ordinal level, the Independent Samples Test may be used to
compare responses between two groups of respondents (Bachman& Paternoster, 1997). The
Independent Samples Test determines if the “mean of a single variable for subjects in one
group differs from that in another” (SPSS, 1997: 103). For example, the mean evaluations

respondents gave of their supervisors may be compared based upon the respondents’ gender.

This test allows a researcher to determine if observed variation in responses between

99

different groups is statistically significant.

One limitation of survey data is that it may not measure the firll range of concepts of
interest to a researcher, For a variety of reasons, some important concepts may not be
measured either because they do not lend themselves to assessment through a survey
instrument or the authors of a survey instrument were not concerned with such concepts.
There may be situations, however, when elements of such concepts have been estimated
through survey questions. Factor analysis allows such elements to be merged.

Factor analysis is a “combination of a group of variables (items) combined to
represent a scale measure of a concept” (Walker, J .T., 1999: 234). This scale measure may
then be examined through other statistical tests to examine the relationship between the
concept and other salient variables. Factor analysis is a form of data reduction which allows
a researcher to create a single variable to reflect a number of other theoretically and/or
mathematically related items. Where necessary, factors are developed in this study to
measure social phenomena which were not directly measured by the existing variables.

Where data are measured at the ordinal, interval or ratio level, analysis of variance
may be used to measure the amount of variability of the dependent variable that can be
attributed to differences among categories of the independent variable (Rea & Parker, 1997;
SPSS Inc, 1997). In this study, analysis of variance is used in conjunction with regression
analysis to determine to what extent (if any) the independent variable(s) values of a particular
case might be used to predict the value of the dependent variable (Vito & Latessa, 1989).
In this way, relationships between multiple variables may be better understood by
determining the extent to which an independent variable predicts a dependent variable (while

controlling for the effects of other variables).

100

This study will employ a variety of statistical measures to test for relationships
between data derived through a survey instrument. In examining complex relationships
between multiple variables it is necessary to employ a variety of statistical tests. By
analyzing data through a variety of statistical means (some basic and descriptive, others
complex and inferential), the researcher is best able to balance the risks of committing either

a Type I or Type 11 error (Bachman & Paternoster, 1997).

Conclusion

The literature on community policing has largely overlooked the implementation
process as it relates to contemporary change in American police organizations. “Such an
oversight has resulted in the tendency to focus on ‘Successful’ programs (defined as those
which demonstrate efiicient service delivery) rather than acquire important knowledge about
the process of COP implementation” (Zhao, Thurman, & Lovrich, 1995: 12). If community
policing is going to become an innovation which redefines American policing, planners and
executives need to have a better understanding of the various issues which must be addressed
in the implementation process.

While existing literature may be correct in suggesting that community policing has
tremendous potential, it has often been misleading by not portraying this simple reality:
implementing community policing is very difficult. The instant study examines the
implementation process in order to develop a more firll understanding of associated
challenges as they relate to three key concepts: individual socialization, organizational

culture, and organization determinism. This conceptual framework provides robust insights

101

into the change process by examining the dynamics behind change and resistance on multiple
levels (such as planning, socialization, and demographics).

Individual socialization is the “baggage” an employee brings with them to their job.
It is a complex web of demographics, life experiences, education, upbringing, and prior
socialization. It impacts upon how employees view their job, their peers, their supervisors,
and their organization. Organizational culture consists of the traditions, values, beliefs and
attitudes collectively held by an organization’s employees. It is distinct from individual
socialization because it generally endures with few alterations across generations of
employees. Together, these concepts form the “human” issues which must be dealt with
during the change process. The biases, perceptions, opinions, attitudes, and fears of
employees must be confronted and addressed, regardless of how irrational they may seem to
planners and executives. These concepts lead to some of the most challenging dimensions
of the implementation process which planners must confront. They may be most difficult
to deal with because they are intangible and often seem outside of an organization’s control.

Other elements that make change a daunting process are more deterministic in nature.
Issues of training, clarity, policy, procedure, structure, accountability, and evaluation are
clearly within a planner’s control. These are the “bread and butter” of the police planner’s
world. Hypothetically, if a planner pays enough attention to the detail of these deterministic
elements, they should not serve as a barrier to successfirl organizational change. What makes
these elements difficult is that they are simultaneously linked to more human elements. For
example, involving select employees in the planning process may help produce important
ideas and insights; at the same time, it may make management’s efforts to instill participatory

management seem ingenious and hollow to those employees who are not given a voice.

102

Thus, while these three core ideas are conceptually distinct, they are all analytically
interrelated. The goal of this study is to merge qualitative and quantitative measures to
develop a more holistic understanding of the challenges to effective organizational change.
The author uses data derived through a variety of methodologies to better understand these
experiences in the context of the conceptual framework derived in this literature review.
Specifically, examining how individual socialization (demographics, the psychological
contract, distrust of management, perceptions of change as a threat, and employee attitudes),
organizational culture (tensions between labor and management, the image of traditional and
community-oriented policing, and attitudes toward change), and organization determinism
(planning, clarity, accountability, evaluations, rewards, unions, key actors, and the changing
role of supervisors) may intersect to create barriers to effective organizational change in
police agencies.

In the context of the proposed study it is important to remember that an officer’s
attitudes toward community policing may be distinct from their evaluation of how
community policing was instituted in the Lansing Police Department. Much of the resistance
encountered in the LPD may not have been because officers resist the principals of
community policing, but that officers tend to resist any change which deviates from
traditional policing practices and operations. The change process forces employees to
“relearn” how to do their job, how to interact with their superiors and peers, and how they
will be evaluated and rewarded. This relearning may generate feelings of uncertainty and
also requires extra work on the part of employees.

Perhaps one of the greatest challenges in studying issues of police practice and

operation is created by the very nature of the occupation. Although this challenge will not

103

be directly addressed in the proposed Study, its impact should be recognized. In an
occupation in which uncertainty, ambiguity, confrontation, and animosity are daily staples,
many endeavors designed to enhance police services and modify occupational practices seem
horribly “academic” in nature. Herman Goldstein best described the dilemma when he noted
that: “One takes on a heavy burden in exploring theories, principles, and organizing concepts
in a field in which there is an ever-present, urgent need to provide immediate relief from

threatening problems” (1990: xi-xii).

104

CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

The literature review provided justification for the various methodologies employed
to gather data in the original evaluation research project. The primary research methods used
for the quantitative analysis portion in the study will be described in this section.
Descriptions of the research methodology employed to obtain other data used in this analysis
may be found in Appendix A. In keeping with the case study method, the study draws upon
data gathered through a number of different means to reach its conclusions. The first portion
of this section will describe how these data were derived. Quantitative analysis will be
focused upon data gathered through a survey of police officers, therefore those portions

describing the research methodology will be focused upon this particular process.

The Original Evaluation Project

This study performs secondary analysis on existing data derived through a research
partnership between the School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University and the
Lansing (MI) Police Department. The project was conducted under the joint direction of Dr.
Timothy Bynum and Dr. Steven Mastrofski. In January of 1996, the Lansing (MI) Police
Department (LPD) was awarded a Locally-Initiated Research Partnership (LIRP) grant from

the National Institute of Justice. The School of Criminal Justice (SCJ) at Michigan State

105

University was the research partner on the project. LIRP grants were designed to encourage
collabOration between police agencies and local research institutes by awarding monies to
allow the two parties to study matters of mutual interest. The intent of the Lansing LIRP
project was for the School of Criminal Justice to provide insight and guidance pertaining to
recent organizational changes initiated by the LPD.

Specifically, LPD was in the process of attempting to make the transition from
specialized to generalized community policing. Lansing had been one of the first police
departments in the country to experiment with community policing and they had continued
their efforts for more than five years. They were now seeking to generalize community
policing and problem solving so that all road officers would be involved in these activities.
To that end, the city had been divided into twenty patrol areas and each officer was assigned
to a team of officers who were responsible for addressing the long-term quality of life issues
in that geographic area. In addition, these officers were supposed to be the primary providers
of emergency services within that area.

On the surface, the responsibilities held by LPD employees did not change
dramatically, despite the restructuring. Patrol officers still answered routine calls for service
and answered to the sergeant(s) who happened to be in charge of their Shift in their precinct
on any given day. The teams were, in essence, secondary responsibilities for all of the parties
involved; officers were still focused on handling emergency calls for service. AS a team, the
members were expected to address medium and long-term neighborhood problems within
their geographic area. It was believed that by bringing together members of different units
(investigations, canine, traffic, CPO and patrol), neighborhood level problems could be

addressed in a more efficient and effective manner.

106

The research team from SC] consisted of four faculty members and a graduate
assistant who would handle the day-to-day operation of the project; the author was selected
to serve as the project graduate assistant. During the next two and a half years, the research
team collaborated with key planners and managers from LPD to assess how the
organizational change was perceived by line officers, to study the “state of affairs” in the
Department, and to determine how the community viewed the agency and its employees. A
wide array of research methodologies was employed to carry out this research initiative.
Initially, key leaders in the Department were interviewed about changes within the
organization’s structure and operational style. These oflicials also provided insight into the
state of the Department (from a management perspective) and where the Department
envisioned itself in the future. These findings were augmented by the analysis of basic call-
for-service data.

This initial research efi’ort allowed the research team to develop a loose set of issues
and questions which seemed to be particularly salient to the state of affairs in LPD. Armed
with this information, the graduate assistant was sent on the streets to conduct field
observations/interviews with the patrol officers, CPO’S and sergeants in a purposive sample
of the twenty team areas. LPD research partners selected two areas in each precinct for
closer study. These areas were selected not because they represented the “best” or the
“worst” adaptation to the organizational change, but because LPD partners believed the
personnel working these areas would be particularly open and honest with the graduate
assistant.

The SC] research team felt that it was best to use the graduate assistant to conduct

these field observations/interviews for two reasons. First, it was believed that the officers

107

would be more open and honest with someone adopting the role of “student” as opposed to
the role of “expert” (a role into which officers might automatically cast a professor).
Perceptions of the student would minimize reactivity among the research subjects. Second,
it was more pragmatic to utilize a graduate assistant. The life of a student was more
conducive to working varied hours in order to conduct all of the necessary “ride along”
sessions. Faculty members had less flexibility and fewer hours to devote to conducting field
interviews and observations.

The field observations/interviews provided the research team with invaluable insights
and information about those issues which were most salient to the research project. The
observer’s duties were twofold: to note how officers did their job in the context of the
organizational change and to talk with officers to better understand their opinions, attitudes,
and experiences as they related to the change. Using a loose set of interview questions,
augmented by questions probing key issues as they emerged, the next step of the research
project began to clarify itself. The field observations allowed for the collection of
information about both attitudes and actions of the officers assigned to the four study teams.
Once initial suspicions had subsided, officers began to open up to the graduate student. The
informality of loose interview questions and casual conversation “in the field” enhanced the
level of honesty by the officers being studied. In addition, by accompanying officers in the
field for ten hour blocks of time, the researcher was able to also interact with countless other
officers. This allowed the researchers to identify key issues based on the attitudes and
actions of a far larger group of officers.

The insights gained during the field observation/interview period allowed the SCJ

research team to identify those issues which required further systematic elaboration. The

108

research team wanted to conduct a survey of those officers most affected by the
organizational change to ascertain their attitudes, beliefs, opinions, and experiences.
Specifically, the research team wished to target those sworn police employees holding the
ranks of officer, sergeant and lieutenant who were assigned to perform patrol and community
policing functions. To aid in the process of developing a research instrument, two sessions
of focus groups were conducted with a purposive group of patrol officers and sergeants.
Again, participants were purposively selected; this was not done to exclude the bad or
include the good, but to ensure that participants would be vocal (and constructive) about their
beliefs, opinions, attitudes, and experiences.

The first focus group sessions were used to ensure that the SCJ research team had
accurately assessed the “big picture” of how the change had affected LPD officers. With this
knowledge, the SCJ team developed a self-administered survey instrument; focus group
participants were asked to review this instrument. During the second set of focus group
sessions, participants provided feedback about wording, instrument construction, and
administration procedures. It is believed that these focus group sessions greatly enhanced
the validity and reliability of the officer survey. This second iteration of the survey
instrument was the version which was ultimately administered.

The research team also conducted a series of systematic field observations using 17
undergraduate and graduate students from MSU. These students were being trained to carry
out systematic social observations in conjunction with another grant held by SCJ. This
process was facilitated by one faculty member from the SCJ research team; the graduate
assistant participated as a student observer. Observers took brief field notes and used these

notes to write a detailed and structured narrative account of what they witnessed. The

109

students then used their narrative accounts to answer a fixed set of questions about the
encounters and activities officers engaged in, and the citizens with whom officers interacted.
Thus, each student produced in-depth qualitative and quantitative data for each “ride along”
they performed. Because the students were Still being trained to use this highly customized
systematic technique, analysis of the data was limited. These findings were primarily used
to assess how patrol officers in Lansing spent their time while on duty. In addition to these
two major data sets (the officer survey and observation data), a community survey and a
limited number of departmental records were examined to further augment the research
findings.

The officer survey was ultimately administered to approximately 140 patrol officers,
sergeants, lieutenants, and CPO’s. Participation was voluntary and responses were
anonymous; the response rate was nearly 85 percent. Despite the wealth of information
collected from this survey, it was subjected to only minimal descriptive analysis (primarily
frequencies, with a few crosstabs). The same was true for the other sources of information
used by the research team. The evaluation project was primarily conducted to provide LPD
administrators and City officials with descriptive information about the state of the
Department. The “consumers” of the research results were not interested with in—depth
causal analysis; instead, they just wanted to know if the organizational change was
succeeding in terms of employee attitudes and citizen perceptions.

The study results were provided through a series of written reports and oral
presentations. Consequently, this data set contains a wealth of information which has been
largely untapped. The author believes that the methodology employed during the initial

evaluation project gives the data sets a high level of validity and reliability. The instant

110

project re—analyzes portions of the data derived in the original study using a conceptual
framework heretofore ignored.

Primarily, the results of the officer survey have been subjected to analysis in order
to provide descriptive insights. The survey data have also been used to test hypotheses about
the possible relationships between variables deemed important in light of the study’s
conceptual framework. The author seeks to understand the relationship between
organizational culture, individual socialization, and organizational determinism, and attitudes
toward community policing both specifically (as instituted in LPD) and generally (as a
philosophy). Qualitative findings from structured interviews, field observations/interviews
and focus group sessions are used to provide supplemental information about the
implementation process in LPD. These findings are also used to make sense of the results
of the tested hypotheses. Other data sources derived in the original study have been used as

need, primarily to provide further elaboration of the qualitative results.

Instrument Construction

The officer survey instrument was developed in collaboration with officers who
participated in the focus group sessions. Based upon interviews, field observations/
interviews, data analysis, and the first session of focus groups, the SCJ research team
developed a draft instrument. This instrument was provided to the focus group participants
prior to the second session of meetings. This allowed the participants to review the wording
of questions and response options; in addition, they provided feedback to ensure that the

instrument addressed the most salient issues in the department relating to the organizational

lll

change. In effect, this review by the focus group participants was very similar to a pretest,
strengthening the reliability, face validity, and construct validity of the survey instrument.
Specifically, the officer survey instrument was designed to gauge a number of factors,

including the respondents’:

> attitude toward the principles of community policing

> attitude toward the process by which the organizational change was
structured and implemented in LPD

> views on the proper role of police officers and what constitutes a
“good” police officer

> opinion on citizen-police cooperation V

r involvement in problem solving efforts and other endeavors
supportive of a community policing philosophy

> stance on the proper role of supervisors

> opinion on the current role of supervisors in LPD

> belief about what departmental priorities ought to be

Respondents also provided demographic information (years of service, education, gender,
and race) and experiential information (rank, CPO experience).

Critical survey construction techniques were used in the process of designing all of
the instruments used in the evaluation project. This was done to gather data which would
be both valid and reliable (making this data suitable for the testing of hypotheses) and to
ensure an adequate response rate (thereby maintaining external validity). Among the most
important survey construction techniques employed were:

1. The use of closed-ended questions (to the extent possible) and
response options which were both mutually exclusive and exhaustive.

2. Utilizing common wording and terminology.

3. Ensuring that questions and their associated responses were neutral
and did not “lead” the respondent.

4. Ordering questions to avoid asking questions which might affect
response to subsequent questions.

112

5. Asking only those questions which were germane to the research
objectives.

6. Limiting the amount of demographic information requested and
avoiding questions which might allow for the identification of

individual respondents.

7. Providing simple and sufficient instructions on how to complete and,
where relevant, return the survey.

8. Ensuring that it was convenient and confidential for participants to
respond and that doing so required a minimal investment of time.

Population

The officer survey was administered approximately one year after the organizational
change was initiated in LPD. During this year, it became apparent that several groups of
personnel assigned to the team area were not active members of these units. Because their
duties required them to work on a precinct or city level, officers assigned to the canine and
traffic units were never able to focus their thinking on a smaller area. In addition, members
of the detective unit had actively resisted being assigned to handle all of the investigations
in their assigned team area; this required employees accustom to working as a specialist (i.e.,
auto theft, burglary, domestic assault, etc.) to operate as a generalist (handling all but the
most serious crimes in their area). While there were isolated exceptions, as a rule members
of these three units never became integrated members of their teams.

AS a result of these historical events, officers assigned to these three units were
excluded from participating in the survey. The survey was administered to every officer,
sergeant and lieutenant assigned to the Patrol Division, and also every officer currently

designated as a Community Policing Officer. Therefore, the population is defined as all

113

CPO’s and all road officers, sergeants, and lieutenants assigned to the Patrol Division of the
Lansing Police Department. This definition targeted the survey at those employees most
affected by the organizational change initiated by LPD. Because the population was finite
and relatively small (approximately 140 individuals), a sampling protocol was not deemed
to be necessary. Every member of the population was given the Opportunity to complete the
instrument, in effect making the “survey” a “census.” Because a sampling protocol was not

used, the data resulting fi'om this endeavor is free of errors associated with sampling.

Procedures

The instrument was constructed based upon the findings of earlier research efforts,
on the prior experiences of the SCJ research team, and, to a small degree, drawing upon other
efforts to assess similar issues in agencies experimenting with community policing. Upon
completing the instrument construction and taking steps to enhance its reliability (via focus
group review), data collection commenced. The officers who participated in the focus
groups were given a set of survey packets and a list of officers to whom they were to deliver
the packets. These lists were carefirlly checked to ensure that no members of the population
were either omitted or double counted. Officers were given the names of other officers
working in their precinct and on their own shift; this was done to maximize the likelihood
that they would see everyone on their list without going to any extra trouble.

The packets consisted of the survey instrument (see Appendix C) and a cover sheet
(see Appendix B) which: (1) explained the purpose of the study; (2) provided them with

assurance that their responses were anonymous and that individual responses would not be

114

provided to LPD to firrther protect their identity; (3) provided the name and phone number
of an SCJ research team member whom they could contact if they had any questions or
concerns; (4) provided instructions for completing and returning the survey. These items
were in an unsealed standard manilla envelope. Upon completing the survey, the respondent
was to seal it in the envelope. The sealed envelop was then returned to the officer who had
given them the survey (the survey was not to be completed in the presence of this
administrating officer). Completed surveys were given to a specific patrol lieutenant who
was a member of the LPD research team. Surveys were picked up periodically from the
lieutenant by the SCJ research team.

The logic behind this unusual administration process was as follows. Members of
the LPD research team expressed concern over providing officers with their surveys via
traditional departmental channels (i.e., placing them in each officer’s mailbox). They
preferred that each officer be given the survey in person. For this reason, it was necessary
to develop a way to deliver the survey packets so that every member of the population
received one and only one packet. In addition, it was believed that the focus group
participants were generally respected by their peers. This respect might lead to an increased
response rate because respondents would be receiving the survey from a respected peer who
explained the purpose of the study and encouraged the respondent to participate.

The focus group participants did not keep track of who had returned the surveys.
They were instructed to refrain from aggressively following-up to ensure instruments were
completed and returned. Although this would have enhanced the response rate by making
sure surveys were completed and returned, it would also appear that officers had to respond.

Participation was voluntary and it was felt that officers should not be coerced into

115

completing the survey. No member of LPD was allowed to view completed copies of the
survey and they were not provided a copy of the coded data file. The survey responses were
entered into the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) by the project’s graduate
assistant. All subsequent reports to LPD consisted only of aggregated responses to protect

the identity of individual respondents.

Hypotheses
Based upon the review of critical issues derived from literature review, the following

hypotheses have been tested in the instant study:

Individual Socialization

Hol: Measures of individual socialization will not significantly affect the
respondents’ attitude about community policing as a philosophy.

H02: Measures of individual socialization will not significantly affect the
respondents’ evaluation of community policing as it was instituted in
the Lansing Police Department.

H03: Measures of individual socialization will not significantly affect the
respondents’ belief about how the Lansing Police Department should
organize community policing in the future.

Organizational Culture

H04: Respondent demographics will not significantly affect perceptions of
the organizational culture in the Lansing Police Department.

Hos: Perceptions of the organizational culture of the Lansing Police
Department do not have a significant effect on the respondents’
evaluation of community policing as it was instituted in the Lansing
Police Department.

116

H06: Perceptions of the organizational culture of the Lansing Police
Department do not have a significant effect on the respondents’
beliefs about how LPD should organize community policing in the
fixture.

H07: Perceptions of the organizational culture of the Lansing Police

Department do not have a significant effect on the respondents’
attitude about community policing as a philosophy.

Organizational Determinism

H08: Attitude about community policing as a philosophy does not have a
significant effect on the respondents’ evaluation of community
policing it was instituted in the Lansing Police Department.

H09: Attitude about community policing as a philosophy does not have a
significant effect on beliefs about how the Lansing Police Department
should organize community policing in the future.

How: Evaluations of community policing as instituted in the Lansing Police
Department Perceptions do not have a significant effect on the belief
of how LPD should organize community policing in the future.

In addition, these and other salient issues illuminated by the literature review will be

considered in the context of qualitative research findings.

Data Analysis & Key Variables

Data analysis consists of both descriptive and inferential statistics conducted using
the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Frequency distributions and contingency
tables are used to provide descriptive information about select variables. In addition, the
Independent Samples Test was used to compare mean responses between categories of
respondents. Predictive relationships have been tested using regression analysis. Because

some conceptually relevant variables were not directly measured in the survey instrument,

117

factor analysis was used to construct appropriate scales.

The original evaluation research project which generated the data used in this study
was evaluative/descriptive in nature. This study has subjected the original survey research
data to inferential testing to determine if the results might be generalized to other settings.
In addition to the quantitative analysis, qualitative research findings are discussed within the
conceptual framework established in the literature review. Descriptive results of other
quantitative methodologies (described in Appendix A) are employed throughout the study
to illuminate salient points.

Critical variables have been identified for each of the hypotheses proffered above.
These independent variables (IV) and dependent variables (DV) have been derived based
upon the review of prior research literature. Control variables (CV) are included where

relevant. The following list identifies the salient variable for each hypothesis:

H01: IV- Attitude about community policing as a philosophy
DV- CPO experience, rank, gender, years of service, education,
race/ ethnicity
CV- Precinct

H02: IV- Evaluation of community policing as instituted in LPD
DV- CPO experience, rank, gender, years of service, education,
race/ ethnicity
CV- Precinct

H03: IV- Belief about how LPD should organize community policing
DV- CPO experience, rank, gender, years of service, education,
race/ ethnicity
CV- Precinct

H04: IV- Perceptions of the organizational culture in LPD
DV- CPO experience, rank, gender, years of service, education,
race/ ethnicity
CV- Precinct

118

H06:

H08:

Hog:

How:

Summary

IV- Evaluation of community policing as instituted in LPD

DV- Perceptions of organizational culture in LPD, CPO experience,
rank, gender

CV- Precinct, years of service, education, race/ethnicity

IV— Belief about how LPD should organize community policing

DV- Perceptions of organizational culture in LPD, CPO experience,
rank, gender

CV- Precinct, years of service, education, race/ethnicity

IV- Attitude about community policing as a philosophy

DV— Perceptions of organizational culture in LPD, CPO experience,
rank, gender

CV- Precinct, years of service, education, race/ethnicity

IV- Evaluation of community policing as instituted in LPD

DV- Attitude about community policing as a philosophy, CPO
experience, rank, gender

CV- Precinct, years of service, education, race/ethnicity

IV- Belief about how LPD should organize community policing

DV- Attitude about community policing as a philosophy, CPO
experience, rank, gender

CV- Precinct, years of service, education, race/ethnicity

IV- Belief about how LPD should organize community policing

IV— Evaluation of community policing as instituted in LPD, CPO
experience, rank, gender

CV- Precinct, years of service, education, race/ethnicity

This chapter described the methodology (description of the original evaluation

project, instrument construction, survey procedures, etc.) used to develop the data used in

this study. These data are the focus of the most rigorous quantitative analysis undertaken in

the instant study. Other relevant methodological approaches are described in Appendix A.

Data obtained through these alternative means are used as needed to provide a descriptive

and contextual setting for the study findings. Hypotheses which are most relevant in light

119

of the review of the literature have been presented with their respective independent,
dependent and control variables. The next chapter will provide the results of the analysis of

this data and the hypotheses testing.

120

CHAPTER FOUR

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The analysis of data incorporates both quantitative and qualitative data to provide a
more thorough understanding of barriers to effective change in police organizations. This
chapter is divided into several sections to organize the results it presents. The first section
provides the reader with a history of community policing in Lansing. This is followed by a
description of the survey response rate and respondent characteristics. The third section
examines the level of community policing and problem solving occurring within the Lansing
Police Department. The fourth section presents relevant univariate and bivariate survey
results, along with key qualitative study findings. The final section details the development

of factors and tests the hypotheses proffered in the previous chapter‘.

A History of Community Policing in Lansing
This study is focused upon an organizational change initiated by the Lansing Police

Department in the mid-1990's. Prior to undertaking an analysis of data relating to the effects

 

1 It should be noted that, although this chapter may seem very critical, it is not the author’s
intent to besmirch the image or reputation of the Lansing Police Department. The
organization’s experiences with the challenges of implementing successfiil organizational
change were nearly universal. The Department serves as an example of the problems which
arise when planners and managers do not learn from the lessons of the past.

121

of this change, it is important that the reader have a basic understanding of certain preceding
events. The following history was developed using Annual Reports published by the Lansing
Police Department for the years I990-1996. Additional information was also obtained
through interviews with (current and former) LPD executives and patrol officers who had

been given early community policing responsibilities in the Department.

Early Community Policing Efforts

The Lansing Police Department began its community policing initiative in the fall of
1990. At that time, a number of inner city neighborhoods were experiencing problems with
“crack” cocaine. The sale of crack took place largely from open air markets, which had a
disruptive and disturbing effect on community residents and the integrity of the affected
neighborhoods. The Department determined that they would deploy officers to work directly
with community residents in developing and implementing solutions to this rapidly emerging
crime problem. Initially, two small areas were chosen in which to pilot test the impact these
“community policing officers” (CPO’s) would have in the community.

The original CPO’s were embraced by the neighborhoods in which they worked.
Although the drug problem persisted, it improved a great deal in a short period of time. Over
the course of the next few years, one CPO working on the westside of Lansing was able to
“shut down” (have residents evicted or otherwise forced from a rented property) more than
150 drug houses. The crack problem still existed, but it had been disrupted and displaced.
As it became clear that the efforts of the CPO’s were successful, the Department began to
expand the community policing program by adding more officers in new areas throughout

the community. Each community policing officer was assigned to a specific area (usually

122

a fraction of a square mile) where they were given sole responsibility for improving the
quality of life for that neighborhood and its residents.

By the end of 1990, the Community Policing Program (CPP) consisted of five
officers and one sergeant (Lansing Police Department, 1990). In 1991, the CPP added two
more officers and established its first “network center” (a facility which brought various
police, government, and social services under one roof to facilitate communication and
cooperation) (Lansing Police Department, 1991). The CPP became the Community Policing
Unit (CPU) in 1992. The CPU was led by a lieutenant and a sergeant, who directed the
activities of twelve officers; a member of the investigations division (who was still under the
control of investigations division supervisors) was given the designation of “community
policing detective” with the responsibility of handling investigations within the community
policing areas (Lansing Police Department, 1992).

In 1993, CPO’s were once again moved within the organization. The CPU merged
with the former Community Services Unit (responsible for school education programs,
neighborhood watch, and senior citizen programs) to create the Community Bureau (CB).
The CB consisted of 23 officers (13 designated as community policing officers), three
sergeants, and a lieutenant (Lansing Police Department, 1993). The 1994 Annual Report
contains no record of how many officers held a community policing officer designation, nor
does it reflect where they were organized within the Department (Lansing Police Department,
1994)

Both the Department and the community believed that community policing was
making a difierence. Neighborhoods which received CPO’s generally welcomed them with

open arms. It was very common for strong ties to develop between neighborhood residents

123

and their CPO. One neighborhood was so enamored with their CPO that he became the
namesake for their neighborhood association (Fab Acres). All of these early CPO’s have
since moved on to other responsibilities within the Department. Despite this, even a decade
later, many still maintain ties with residents and organizations in the neighborhoods they
once served (ofien volunteering their free time to work with after-school programs,
neighborhood cleanups, and neighborhood association meetings).

Almost from the outset, those officers given community policing assignments were
granted flexibility in scheduling their hours and determining which tasks they would address
on a given day. This was done to enable officers to adjust their availability in order to best
serve the needs of their neighborhood. Officers in the Patrol Division, while assigned to a
specific beat, handled emergency situations, routine calls for service, and provided back up
for other officers throughout the city. In contrast, the CPO’s rarely handled any incident
occurring outside of their assigned neighborhood. This specialist approach to community
policing was one that was adopted by many law enforcement agencies around the county.
Although it kept the CPO’s in a fixed area during most of their working hours (which served
the ends of community policing), specialization tended to create tension between these
“specialists” (CPO’s) and “generalists” (road officers).

There was little stability in where these CPO’s were located within the organizational
structure. From 1990-1995, CPO’ s were housed in no less than four units/bureaus/programs
within LPD. This continual shifting only contributed to the perception that the community
policing initiative was in chaos. Regardless of the reason for these changes, the informal
message sent to patrol oflicers was that the Department did not know what it was doing with

community policing. Although there was logic behind each shifi, to road officers, it

124

appeared that upper management did not know what it was doing with community policing.
To officers working as CPO’s, the continual shifiing did not have an impact on day-to-day

operations, but made their duties less certain.

The Team-Based System

In late 1994, after pursuing this specialist approach to community policing for
approximately four years, it became apparent to the Department that many changes needed
to be made. The Department was organized in a manner which was typical for police
agencies in cities of Lansing’s size. There was a dense organizational hierarchy in a central
police headquarters; all officers and activities originated fiom this central facility.
Communication patterns were up and down the chain of command; request for information
“went through the channels.” Decision making was highly centralized and it was felt that the
Department was too far removed from the community which it served.

During this same time period (1994-1995), three significant events were taking place.
First, after a period of introspective evaluation, upper management was coming to the
realization that LPD was operating in a very inefficient fashion. There was a great deal of
redundancy as officers in various branches of the organization attempted to address the same
problems without any cooperation. The cliche description of the “right hand not knowing
what the left hand was doing” aptly described the state of affairs within the Department. For
example, the crack cocaine problem was being targeted by a multi-jurisdictional task force,
a Departmental drug enforcement unit, the Patrol Division, and Community Policing
Officers. All of these groups were working on the same problem at the same time, but with

little communication and coordination of effort.

125

Second, community policing had evolved to a point where the bulk of the department
viewed it as a “bastard child.” Given the nature of their duties, the CPO’s had little direct
supervision or accountability. In addition, they had been granted considerable flexibility in
making their own schedule and deciding how they would spend their work hours. These
issues were a source of contention for patrol oflicers, supervisors, and the union. Many
officers resented having to spend eight hours “running from call to call” and writing multiple
incident reports in order to allow CPO’s to spend eight hours “planting flowers” or taking
a group of children to watch a Detroit Tigers game.

The third significant event was a shift in the City’s leadership. A new mayor was
elected in 1992 and the city leadership was shifting from conservative to liberal tendencies.
Many oflicers saw the new mayor as the proverbial “bleeding heart liberal.” He was
perceived by many as a micro-manager who wanted to approve everything done by all city
departments. This was contrary to a long-standing tradition of allowing the police chief to
be the “king of his castle.” Persons employed by the city or active in city government began
to sense that there was a strong underlying tension between the Chief of Police and the
Mayor. It was common knowledge in certain sectors that community support was the only
thing which was keeping the Chief, an at-will employee, from being fired.

The Department was highly committed to their community policing strategy. The
Chief of Police and other top executives wanted to see all of the organization’s personnel
actively engaged in community policing endeavors. The Department believed that the CPO’ s
were effective and efficient in “cleaning up” their assigned neighborhoods and improving
police-citizen relations. Unfortunately, it was also becoming apparent that much of what the

CPO’s were accomplishing was achieved through displacement. Problems were migrating

126

out of CPO neighborhoods and into neighborhoods that had previously been safe and quiet.
LPD administrators began to realize that if community policing was ever going to be
effective on a broader scale (i.e., throughout Lansing), it could not just be delegated to
specialists operating in select areas of the city. Such an effect would only be realized through
the collective efforts of every officer in the Department.

A Reorganization Committee (consisting of officers and supervisors below the rank
of lieutenant) was formed to develop possible means by which the Department could be
realigned so that all officers were working together in order to target community problems.
The Committee was told that its recommendations would be reviewed by the Mayor and the
Department’s administration, who would ultimately decide upon the future structure and
operation of the Department. The Mayor gave his endorsement to the Committee and
promised to do his best to ensure that their recommendations would become a reality.
Efforts were made to keep the Committee’s activities “in the light” as much as possible by
publishing meeting minutes. The patrol officers’ union (a lodge of the Fraternal Order of
Police) and civilian staff representatives also sat on the Committee so that all voices in the
organization would be heard. After several months of research and debate the Committee
submitted three proposals to the administration for consideration.

In the end, the Department’s administration selected a plan that required them to give
patrol officers temporal and geographic responsibilities within the beat they policed. This
plan was also designed to strengthen the traditionally weak ties between the Detectives
Bureau and the Patrol Division. It was a large leap fiom where the Department was at the
time the Committee issued its report to where it would have to go to make the selected plan

a reality. LPD administrators formed another committee to facilitate this transformation

127

process. This Implementation Committee was not allowed to change the theme of the
reorganization. Instead, their task was to move the department from organizational structure
A (community policing as a specialized responsibility) to organizational structure B
(community policing as a generalized responsibility). Members from the lower ranks of the
Department made up the bulk of this Implementation Committee, with seats for civilian and
union representatives.

The Department instituted plans to adopt a strategy in which all officers would have
responsibilities as problem solving generalists (while keeping the designation of Community
Police Oflicer for some individuals). Patrol oflicers would still have responsibilities for
handling incoming calls for service in an assigned geographic area during the course of their
shift. At the same time, the officers were expected to develop collaborative ways in which
they could solve long-term neighborhood problems within this same area. Every officer
would be assigned to a “permanent” area which they would patrol each time they came to
work. Officers would respond to routine calls for service, while also seeking out more
informal and proactive ways to come into contact with the public.

One way in which officers would build ties with area residents was through attending
meetings of “neighborhood associations.” One by-product of the early community policing
efforts was an explosion in neighborhood associations— coalitions of area residents who
would meet periodically to discuss neighborhood events and issues. These neighborhood
associations were concerned not only with crime, but also with quality of life and community
building. While meeting topics might include drug dealing and wayward youth, they could
also involve neighborhood beautification and social activities. A high priority under the

team-based system would be to ensure that team officers routinely attended the meetings of

128

the various neighborhood associations within their area to facilitate improved communication
and relations between the Department and the community.

Thus, in addition to patrolling their area, officers would also work closely with area
residents to identify and solve neighborhood problems (both criminal and non-criminal).
These solutions would be the collective effort of a “team” of patrol officers and detectives
who were responsible for policing a given area around the clock. In other words, officers had
responsibilities to handle the immediate problems which occurred on their shift, as well as
the long-term problems which might occur in their assigned area at any time of the day. This
was the basis of, and impetus behind, the reorganization plan that was placed into effect in
March of 1995.

The purpose of the reorganization was to remove structural obstacles to the effective
and complete implementation of a community policing philosophy. This philosophy would
make community policing a generalized (something done by every employee), rather than
a specialized (something done by a select few) function within the Department. The
reorganization plan was based upon this new strategy of taking a team approach to
community policing. The plan specified that the Department was to be divided into two
precincts, North and South (each covering approximately 1/2 of the city). Rather than working
out of a centralized facility located in downtown Lansing, team members would be relocated
into new facilities located more centrally within each precinct. For deployment purposes,
each of the precincts was firrther subdivided into ten patrol districts, or team areas, for a total
of 20 team areas city wide.

This new configuration was a departure fiom the Department’s traditional way of

organizing and deploying personnel. Previously, the Department had deployed officers into

129

l4 patrol districts. Generally, senior officers were assigned to a specific patrol district on an
on going basis; every shift they worked would be in the same district. Officers with less
experience would work a different district every day, covering for co-workers who had the
day off. While there were informal and voluntary mechanisms through which officers
covering a patrol district could share information across shifts, such collaboration was not
the norm. The new organizational structure would improve upon this existing deployment
method (in which only senior officers policed the same area every time they worked), while
also requiring collaboration across shifts. In addition, communication would be improved
between patrol, investigative, traflic, canine, and community policing personnel.

The number of sergeant positions in the Patrol Division was increased to twenty so
that each sergeant could oversee the operations of one team area. The sergeants oversaw a
“team” of four to six officers from the Patrol Division, one (in rare cases, two) traffic
officers, one or two detectives, and, in some instances, an ofi'rcer from the canine unit. If a
team encompassed an area which had historically been serviced by a Community Policing
Officer, this situation was not modified. Although there was originally discussion of
removing all CPO’s from the neighborhoods, this idea met quick opposition from the
community and was abandoned. While team members outside of the Patrol Division (i.e.,
canine, traffic, detectives and CPO’s) still “answered” to the supervisors within their unit,
they were expected to work with their team sergeant to address long-term neighborhood
issues.

Patrol officers were responsible for providing primary policing services for their team
area during their hours of duty. Unfortunately, personnel limitations precluded having a team

officer actually working in each team area around the clock. This meant that officers would

130

still handle calls for service and provide back up in team areas other than their own. For
example, three adjacent team areas (A, B, and C) might each have an officer assigned to the
day shift. During any given shift, the officer assigned to team A might have the day off and
the officer assigned to team B might be in training, testifying in court, or handling a call for
service. This left the officer assigned to team area C with the responsibility of handling
incoming calls for service in not only her own team area, but also in team areas A and B.
This increase in the workload of officer C made it diflicult for her to find the time to engage
in long-term problem solving efforts. Despite this restriction, LPD administrators hoped that
officers would be able to spend much of their time in their assigned team area or at least a
smaller sector of their precinct (3 -4 team areas).

Under the supervision of the team sergeant, each team identified and targeted team-
specific problems which needed to be solved. Teams also worked closely with neighborhood
associations and a concerted effort was made to send officers to the meetings these
associations held. Each officer had a voice mailbox to facilitate communication within the
team, and between officers and citizens. These voice mailbox numbers were widely
advertised within the team areas. This was done to encourage residents to bring persistent
neighborhood problems directly to the attention of a member from the team which policed
their area.

Initially, teams also included detectives. Detectives in Lansing, as in most police
organizations, had historically been specialists, focusing most of their time on the
investigation of a specific category of offenses (i.e., robbery, auto theft, sex crimes, etc).
Under the new organizational plan, investigators would be assigned to a team area where

they would work as generalists, providing all investigative services needed in that area

131

(although homicides were still investigated on a city wide basis by a small group of
detectives). Even before the reorganization was officially implemented tension emerged
between the Detective Bureau and the Department’s administration.

Investigative personnel felt that it reduced the Bureau’s overall effectiveness to have
each detective focus their energy on a geographic area rather than a specific category of
offenses. The original logic for having one or two investigators handle the investigation of
incidents of a specific offense was twofold. First, to allowed investigators develop a degree
of specialization in the investigation and case formulation necessary to successfully arrest
and prosecute a certain type of offender. Second, it allowed the investigators to track serial
offenders who were committing crimes throughout Lansing. By having investigators focused
on handling all the investigations in a specific geographic area, these elements were lost.
Although the detectives may have simply disliked being involved in community policing,
there was a logical rationale behind their argument.

The detectives were worried that offending patterns (which rarely limit themselves
to a specific beat) would be lost because investigators handling different team areas would
not know that they were possibly tracking the same offender. In addition, detectives assigned
to “slow” team areas had little to do, while detectives assigned to “hot” team areas were
forced to select which cases would receive their attention and which would be ignored.
Although having the detectives working closely with the teams improved communication
between investigators and patrol officers, it was believed that this was occurring at the
expense of communication within the Detective Bureau (consequently compromising the
overall integrity and quality of criminal investigations). After a 12—month trial, it was

decided that this generalist approach to investigations was not yielding the expected results.

132

The detectives were relieved of team-based duties and were once again given responsibility
for the investigation of specific crimes.

Officers from the canine and traffic units were also assigned to teams. Even after
detectives were removed from the teams, this practice persisted, although these officers
generally had little involvement with team matters. Members of both units had duties that
required them to devote their efforts on a scale larger than a standard police beat. Although
at times members of the canine unit would spend a shift assigned to a particular beat, the
nature of their function necessitated that they travel throughout the precinct (and at times, the
City). Members of the traffic unit often had daily obligations which resulted in them
traveling throughout the entire City. Although these officers had some “free” time in which
they could engage in targeted traffic enforcement, many of their efforts were devoted to
special events and directing traffic. Consequently, most members of both of these units
never developed any type of psychological attachment to their assigned team area. Their
involvement was primarily on paper and team sergeants were generally reluctant to push
them to become more active in their assigned team area.

When the reorganization was implemented in 1995, there were twelve CPO’s in
Lansing. Seven were assigned to areas in the newly created North Precinct and the remaining
five served areas in the newly created South Precinct (Lansing Police Department, 1995).
The CPO’s were no longer a part of the Community Bureau (which was moved from the
Patrol Division to the Central Services Division), but they were not firlly integrated into the
precincts. Throughout the course of the original evaluation study there was confusion over
how CPO’s “fit” with the remained of the Department. While not a completely separate unit,

CPO’s were never firlly integrated into the team system. Each CPO served a neighborhood

133

within a larger team area. They worked with the supervisor and officers who policed this
area, but had few formal obligations to this team. In addition, because they were granted a
limited ability to “flex” their schedule, CPO’s were not accountable to a particular shift.
Given this arrangement, CPO’s were still on the fringe of the Department. They were
perhaps less integrated within the Department after the team system was implemented

because they were not formally a part of any larger unit within the organization.

The Role of the Union

LPD administrators made several efforts to work cooperatively with the police union
in negotiating changes in the process by which officers selected the precinct and shift they
wished to work. Traditionally, every third scheduling cycle (every twelve weeks) officers
were allowed to “bid” (based on seniority) for the shift they wished to work. By splitting the
Department into two precincts, it became necessary to allow officers to also select the
precinct in which they wished to work. This created a troubling situation in that an officer
could now switch both her shift and precinct every three months, which might seriously
erode the cohesion and integrity of the teams.

The union agreed to allow officers to continue to choose their shift on a quarterly
basis and consented to limit officers to one precinct change per year. In other words, once
an officer selected a precinct, he had to remain there for at least one year. The only
exceptions would occur if the officer were transferred to another unit within the Department
or if the Department needed to reassign him to balance the distribution of officers. In
exchange for this agreement, the Department consented to deploy officers on a “four & ten”

(four ten-hour shifts per week) schedule. Although the annual hours worked by an officer

134

were not significantly impacted, officers could now enjoy an extra fifty days off every year
(something which they found very desirable).

This agreement was reached in order to maintain stable team assignments. Allowing
officers to change shifts and precincts every three months would force the Department to
continually shuffle team assignments. Not only would they have to accommodate the
movements of senior officers, but a certain number of new officers, because of their low
seniority, would also have to be displaced to balance out personnel deployment. It was
recognized that this would make it much more difficult for oflicers to get to know the area
in which they worked. In addition, the active citizens in a neighborhood would be
continually learning the new names and faces of the officers policing their neighborhoods.

By keeping officers in a precinct for a year, a certain amount of movement across
shifts could occur without disrupting team assignments. It meant that two officers from a
given shift might be assigned to the same team, while another team might have no one from
that shift. The Department weighed the advantages and disadvantages of this approach and
felt that it was the best possible compromise. Although this agreement occasionally resulted
in a team which was rather “lopsided” for a few months, it seemed to be the best way to
balance the demands of the union with the needs of the Department. If the team deployment
plan was going to work, mechanisms had to be in place so that officers would be working

within the same geographic area on an ongoing basis.

Concerns With Continuig

Community policing is based upon the idea that an officer will work in the same

neighborhood on a daily basis. This allows the officer to get to know the “in’s and out’s” of

135

that section of the community. By attending the meetings of neighborhood associations and
working with community leaders, officers can build alliances with the citizens, while citizens
put a name and a face with their police department. Although they recognized the
contractual and pragmatic limitations which necessitated the shift/precinct selection
compromise, some team sergeants still felt the arrangement detracted fiom team
accomplishments. Every time officers bid for the shift they wanted to work, a small
percentage of officers would be reassigned to a new team or precinct. This had to be done
in order to balance where and when officers were working. While efforts were made to keep
changes to a minimum, a certain number of changes were always necessary.

This concern over continuity emerged repeatedly in interviews with command
officers and during focus group sessions with patrol sergeants. A patrol lieutenant remarked
that the turn over of officers (and, to a lesser extent, sergeants) hampered the progress of the
teams. Each time someone rotated out of a team, it was a small step backward. When the
turn over issue came up during the focus groups, sergeants expressed great concern over this
issue. They indicated that the rapid turn over eroded team stability and made it difficult to
foster a sense of continuity. Every time the teams shifted (typically every third month)
community residents had to develop a relationship with a new officer (and vice versa).

Just when things were beginning to work well within the team and within the area,
one or two officers would be shifted out and new replacements would arrive. Sergeants felt
that the situation forced them and their officers to continually devote time and energy into
developing relationships with the community. One sergeant reported that in the first year of
the reorganization he had eight officers rotate out of his team (in addition to several officers

who were permanent fixtures). Consequently, this sergeant was constantly introducing new

136

officers to neighborhood associations and community leaders, a task which he found
embarrassing. Concerns with stability were also expressed by officers. Some feared that
turn over allowed some officers to escape from team responsibilities. By shifting teams
every three months, officers could avoid becoming integrated into team efforts and sharing

in any of the extra work created by the team-based system.

Resocialization

The process of changing from a traditional to a team-based community policing
organizational structure and policing style involved two key elements. First, the
organizational structure of LPD had to change. Deployment, training, and supervision
structures would need to be modified in order to allow officers to function as a team to solve
on going problems in their assigned geographic area. Second, there would need to be a
resocialization process within the organization. Officers would have to learn how to “do”
community policing and why it was important to do so. While organizational structure can
“push” officers to do community policing, resocialization can “pull” them to do so. The
structural elements can force officers to do their duties in a certain manner, while
resocialization can make officers want to perform their duties in this fashion. Both elements
are important.

Officers needed to have a structure which supported team-based operations; at the
same time, they needed to have the desire to succeed in carrying out problem solving in a
team-based setting. Unfortunately, LPD made only half-hearted attempts at changing their
structure in support of team-based community policing; resocialization efforts, on the other

hand, were almost nonexistent. Examples of resocialization in support of the team-based

137

system might have included many elements; most important, changing the organizational
culture to place a collective value on successful problem solving and embracing a community
policing orientation in policing Lansing.

This resocialization could have occurred through a variety of mechanisms. The
Department might have solicited union support for efforts to bringing about organizational
change; this support could have served as one “seal of approval” to encourage officers to
accept the restructuring. Key actors could have been involved; if the organization had taken
the time and initiative to bring central employees “on board” with the changes, other
employees might have followed suit. Mid-level supervisors could also have played a key
role in the resocialization process. Sergeants and lieutenants could have become leaders
within the Department and within their own teams. Seeing their team sergeant embracing
a community policing orientation might have encouraged oflicers to take the reorganization
seriously.

In the process of bringing about successfirl organizational change, police planners
need to give due considerations to resocialization. Too often, police planners may focus their
energies on the structure of a change. While this structure can help “push” officers toward
new patterns of occupational behavior, it is only half of the change equation. Tactics aimed
at modifying officer behavior and attitude need to account for those elements which can

“pull” officers to exhibit desired occupational conduct.

The Effects of Communin Policing on Officers
The reorganization plan represented a major shift in the approach the Department was

taking toward community policing. Problem solving activities were no longer limited to

138

those officers holding CPO assignments and the small geographic areas which they policed.
Instead, problem solving activities were expanded to the whole Department and the whole
city. The Department hoped that the “team” approach would capitalize on the benefits of
task specialization (e.g., developing strong skills in “bonding” with the community, instilling
officers with a sense of ownership) without incurring the usual costs such specialization
brings (e. g., alienation of generalists from specialists and the marginalization of specialists
from the core functions of policing).

LPD’s prior history with specialization issues in community policing was typical of
many departments where such problems have arisen. Community policing had traditionally
been a specialized assignment which was not taken seriously by most line officers. The
constant shifting of community policing within the organization in the early 1990's
contributed to this situation. To line employees, the constant shifting was an indication that
community policing should not be taken seriously. Community policing was not viewed as
“real” police work and officers actively avoided CPO assignments. By the mid-1990's, few
officers were willing to volunteer for a CPO position; the Department had to “draft” rookie
officers to work as CPO’s.

CPO’ 3 reported that their peers often treated them differently (which was one reason
officers were reluctant to volunteer for the position). CPO’s were perceived as “glorified
babysitters” who planted flowers and took kids to amusement parks while “real cops arrested
dopers.” One newly appointed CPO remarked that her co-workers treated her differently as
soon as she began her CPO assignment (even though she had been “drafted” into the
position). According to this officer, it was not that her peers disliked her as a person, they

just disliked her current position within the organization. Her co-workers were not treating

139

her in an overtly hostile fashion— they simply ignored her.

The team approach was an attempt to create a community policing design which
would overcome these common, but persistent, problems with how community policing had
been organized. The Department hoped that the team approach would better serve the
community, while making the work experience for all police officers better than (or at least
as good as) the previous community policing system The Department also recognized that
the firll potential of community policing would only be realized by integrating community
policing into the organizational philosophy. It was felt that LPD’s success in integrating
specialists (CPO’s) with generalists (patrol officers) depended upon the ability to convince
personnel in all units of the interrelatedness and interdependency of specialized and
generalized operations.

The evaluation project which produced the data used in this study was initiated by
LPD administrators in order to better understand whether the change process was working.
The administrators were also seeking input on what they might do in order to successfirlly
make community policing a fiinction of every employee of the organization. The
reorganization took place in stages over the course of a year. The SCI research team first
began to study the change process near the end of this year when the final transitions were
being made. The project continued for approximately two and a half years. At that time, a
new Chief of Police entered the scene and altered the organizational structure (in a fashion
inconsistent with the research team’s recommendations).

The analysis that follows is based upon interviews, surveys, and observations made
by the SCJ research team during their two and a half year involvement with the Lansing

Police Department. The author will focus on data which relates to those barriers which

140

prevented the organization from successfirlly adopting a community policing philosophy.
Many of the issues addressed in this study were addressed in project reports that were
collaboratively prepared by the author and SCJ faculty members. However, the following
analysis is set in a conceptual framework independently developed by the author. Any errors,
conceptual short comings, or analytical faults are the sole responsibility of the author and

should not be imputed on the SCJ researchers involved in the original project.

Survey Response Rate & Respondent Characteristics

During the spring of 1997, the survey instrument (Appendix C) was administered to
all patrol officers, Community Policing Officers, patrol sergeants and patrol lieutenants in
the Lansing Police Department. Administration was carried out by those officers and
sergeants who had participated in the initial focus groups. These personnel were selected
because it was believed that they were respected by their co-workers and they represented
the broad range of beliefs and views held by the Department’s employees.

There still appeared to be a certain degree of paranoia within the agency in the
relationship between line officers and upper management. It was unclear how officers would
respond to a survey administered by SCJ staff. While it might not matter, an external
administration could be viewed as a way to identify officers who were not “on the band
wagon” with the new organizational structure. By utilizing internal personnel to administer
the survey, it was hoped that officers would be open in their responses and that the response
rate would be improved.

One hundred and forty-three officers were eligible to complete the survey at the time

141

of its administration. Participation was voluntary. Officers who administered the survey
were instructed not to pressure their co-workers into completing the survey. Respondents
were also supposed to be given the opportunity to complete the survey in private. Officers
not wishing to complete the survey were told to simply seal the blank instrument in an
envelope (provided with the survey) and return it to the administering officer. Using this
protocol allowed officers to “save face” by appearing compliant in the eyes of their co-
worker (if that was their desire).

The SCI research team received 128 surveys from LPD officers; eight blank surveys
were returned. One hundred and twenty (120) usable surveys were received, yielding a
response rate of 84 percent. In recent years there has been considerable debate among
criminal justice scholars about the adequacy of survey research response rates (Hagan, 1997;
Neuman & Wiegand, 2000). Hagan (2000) describes how response rates for survey research
have declined in the second half of this century, making the determination of adequacy more
complicated. Despite this growing uncertainty, most scholars categorize response rates
above 70 percent as “very good” (Babbie, 1992: 267) and those approaching 90 percent as
“excellent” (N euman & Wiegand, 2000: 23 9). The response rate in this study appears to be
well within the normal range for this approach to survey research (Hagan, 2000), particularly
in light of the limited amount of follow-up by the research team.

The characteristics of the survey respondents (years of service, gender, race/ethnicity,
assigned shift, assigned precinct) were in general proportion with the characteristics of the
eligible population. There is not an identifiable subsection of the population who declined
to participate in the survey process. Therefore, the author assumes the survey data is a

general reflection of the attitudes, beliefs, and characteristics of the eligible study population.

142

This section provides a brief description of the characteristics of the survey
respondents. This information also provides the best indicator of the overall individual
socialization in the Lansing Police Department. Although the conceptual framework
presented in the literature review presented a broader view of individual socialization, more
thorough information about employee backgrounds and experiences were not available.
Given this limitation, this research has relied on those measures (demographics, education,
years of service, etc.) more readily accessible through the survey data.

Table 2 provides univariate descriptions of the survey respondents. While many
survey respondents had been employed with the Lansing Police Department for a long time,
40 percent had less than five years of experience with the agency. Almost one quarter
(22.6%) had less than two years of experience. This verified the concern many officers
expressed about the relative youth of the Department. In particular, officers with more
seniority indicated concern that newer officers did not have the training and experiences to
be effective problem solvers without extra supervision and direction by their peers and
command officers.

The majority of all officers reported having worked for more than six months in the
area to which they were currently assigned. Approximately two-thirds (65.7%) of all patrol
officers and supervisors indicated that they had routinely worked in their present geographic
assignment for over a year. About one in six respondents had experience as a Community
Policing Officer (past or present assignment).

Respondents were well-educated. Consistent with the Department’ 3 minimum hiring
standards, all respondents had some level of college education. Over one-third (35.7%) had

a college education which had not (yet) resulted in being awarded a bachelor’s degree.

143

Table 2.
Sample Characteristics. 1
Years with LPD (n=115)

less than 1 year 4.3%
1-2 years 17.5%
3-5 years 16.7%
6—10 years 19.2%
11-15 years 17.5%
16 or more years 20.8%

How long assigned to current geographic area (n=108)

1-6 months 14.8%
7-12 months 19.4%
13-18 months 25.9%
19-24 months 39.8%

Ever been a Community Policing Officer (n=120)
Yes 17.5%
No 82.5%

Level of Education (n=1 15)

Some college (>bachelors) 35.7%

Bachelors 53 .0%

Some graduate/law school 2.6%

Graduate/law degree 8.7%
Rank (n=113)

Officer 80.5%

Supervisor (sergeant/lieutenant) 19.5%

Race/ethnicity (n=99)

White 86.9%
Black 7. 1%
Hispanic 3 .0%
Asian 1 .0%
Other 2.0%

Gender (n=106)
Female 10.4%
Male 89.6%
1 Figures in parentheses indicate the number of valid responses for each item.
Percentages are based upon the number of valid responses for the respective
item. Percentages for some items may not total to 100.0 due to rounding.

144

Over half (53%) had a bachelor’s degree. Approximately one in ten respondents had taken
courses in law school or a graduate program; most of those with graduate/law school
experience had been awarded an advanced degree.

It is interesting to note that newer officers were more likely to have a bachelor’s
degree, while older officers tended to have less college experience. Although the
Department only required the completion of 60 credit hours (the equivalent of an associate
degree), newer employees often had twice this level of education. It is not clear if this is due
to a high level of education among applicants or if the Department favored hiring those
candidates who surpassed this minimum standard. In addition, most officers with advanced
degrees were in the mid-career range (6-15 years with LPD). This would suggest that many
officers were entering the Department with a bachelor’s degree and then pursuing graduate
education (if they were so inclined) after they had obtained some experience.

The race/ethnicity, gender, and rank of the respondents were all approximately
proportional with the Department as a whole. As is common in American policing, the
Department was predominantly white and male. According to the 1990 census, Lansing was
73.9 percent white and 18.6 percent black; 7.5 percent of the residents were classified as
“other”. Although the Department was not entirely homogeneous with the City, these
demographic figures reflect a certain degree of racial/ethnic diversity. Census data also
indicate that only 47.4 percent of Lansing residents were males. Few American police
agencies reflect the race/ethnicity and gender distribution of the community they serve

(Walker, 8., 1999), therefore, these observed disparities do not necessarily reflect poor

 

2 Information found online through the Lansing Chamber of Commerce; accessed 12/04/99

at http://wwwlansingchamber.orgiecon/demograph.htm#rd.
1 45

 

recruitment, selection, or retention practices on the part of the Department.

Although not reflected in Table 2, respondents appeared to be distributed across the
precincts and shifts in the same proportions found in the population. These similarities
suggest that the survey respondents were representative of the eligible population in terms
of these demographic and experiential characteristics. Survey findings may be safely
generalized to represent the attitudes, beliefs and opinions of the entire population (patrol
officers, sergeants, and lieutenants, and community policing officers in the Lansing Police

Department).

Level of Community Policing and Problem Solving

An important question researchers must confront (but often ignore) in studying
community policing is whether agencies really “do” community policing. In other words,
are officers operating in the spirit of a community policing philosophy, or is community
policing just so rhetoric? This study is focused upon attitudes more than action. Therefore,
the level of community policing and problem solving in the Lansing Police Department does
not necessarily enhance or diminish subsequent research findings. Nonetheless, the degree
to which officers were involved in community policing and problem solving efforts serves
to set the context within which data were collected.

Patrol officers and sergeants issued frequent complaints about the difficulty of
engaging in problem solving activities. By its very nature, police work has an inherent
reactive element— police officers will always have to be prepared to respond to certain

emergency situations in a rapid fashion. While community policing may reduce this

146

necessity, it cannot be eliminated. Even in a police department attempting to focus on
proactive problem solving efforts, it is difficult to overcome this reactive, call-driven
approach. When an agency is oriented toward call-driven policing officers may find it
difficult to create time to engage in problem solving efforts during the course of their normal
working hours (especially when faced with staffing shortages, as discussed below).

Consequently, one of the greatest fi'ustrations LPD officers and sergeants expressed
was their inability to set aside time for problem solving efforts. The Patrol Division had a
strong orientation toward the notion that “the radio has to come first.” As long as the public
was calling upon the police to perform certain services, other efforts should be secondary
considerations’. Even when officers were attempting to engage in problem solving activities,
they often had to set aside their efforts to handle calls for service. Because they did not feel
that officers had been given the resources (sufficient personnel and time) to carry out
problem solving, sergeants did not seem to expect their officers to produce much in this area.
The common sentiment expressed throughout the evaluation project was that a team had to
produce enough to avoid drawing scrutiny fi'om Department administrators. Sergeants did
not push officers to produce any more than this “subsistence” level.

Elements of the officer survey attempted to determine whether LPD officers were
really “doing” community policing. Survey respondents were asked a series of questions
about their recent problem solving efforts and other activities which might indicate whether
officers were operating in a fashion consistent with a community policing philosophy.

Because community policing is uniquely operationalized in each organization, it is difficult

 

3 The author does not wish to imply that a call-driven approach is inappropriate. Rather, it
is suggested that such an approach may create certain tensions when an organization is also
attempting more proactive policing strategies.

147

to interpret the following results. Rather than providing a firm indication of whether LPD
officers were operationally committed to community policing, these findings simply set the
context within which data were collected.

The Lansing Police Department did not have predetermined quantitative goals which
would allow them to determine the effectiveness and success of the reorganization. In
addition, there are not absolute thresholds which indicate whether an agency and its
employees are “doing” community policing. Activity which might be viewed as “success”
by one organization may be viewed as “failure” by another. Rather than reflecting success
or failure, these results must be considered as a whole to indicate if community policing and
problem solving were actually integrated into the activities of patrol officers in the Lansing
Police Department.

A central tenet of community policing is the belief that the police should work with
citizens to identify and resolve neighborhood problems. Table 3 presents sources of
information which respondents used “often” or “sometimes” to find out about public safety
problems in their assigned beat. Caution must be used interpreting this table. Because the
data were collected at a “snapshot” point in time, there is no way to know how these
frequencies differ (if at all) with officer behavior before the reorganization. In addition, as
previously mentioned, these findings are neutral. There is no baseline for determining how
appropriate it is for patrol officers to rely on various information sources.

Table 3 suggests that officers tended to rely more on their co-workers and informal
contact with citizens to obtain information about problems in their beat. Less emphasis was
placed on using crime data and formal contact with community groups as a means to find out

about neighborhood problems. Analyzing the answers by respondents’ rank and experience

148

yields expected patterns. Respondents who were current or former CPO’s were more likely
to “often” use citizens and community groups as sources of information. Respondents
holding supervisory positions were less likely to obtain information from their own

supervisors and were far more likely to rely on crime data.

Table 3.
Frequency with which officers used various sources

 

 

 

 

 

 

to obtain information about problems in their assi ned beat. 1

Source Often Sometimes Rarely Never
Respondent’s supervisor (n=108) 30.6% 50.9% 15.7% 2.8%
Citizens living in beat (n=108) 48.1% 40.7% 10.2% 0.9%
Co-workers (n=108) 66.7% 31.5% 1.9% 0.0%
Crime statistics and other data 13.9% 43.5% 28.7% 13.9%
(n=108)

Community meetings (n=108) 25.9% 35.2% 30.6% 8.3%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 Figures in parentheses indicate the number of valid responses for each item.

The table reflects row percentages based upon the number of valid responses

for the respective item. Percentages for some items may not total to 100.0

due to rounding.

Respondents were asked how long it had been since they had completed a problem
solving effort. The distribution of results for this response yielded surprisingly polar
responses. Well over one-quarter (27.9%) of the respondents claimed not to have completed
a problem solving efl’ort. Alternatively, more than 40 percent reported completing such an
efi‘ort within the month preceding the administration of the survey. When these rates are
broken down between the two precincts, unexpected differences emerge. As Table 4

indicates, respondents working in the North Precinct were much more likely to report having

completed a problem solving effort within the month before the survey than were their

149

counterparts in the South Precinct (51.8% versus 33.4%, respectively). South Precinct

respondents were more likely to report having completed no problem solving efforts.

Length of time since respondent last completed a problem solving effort;

all respondents and by precinct. *

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All North South
Length of time respondents Precinct Precinct
(n=] 1 l) (n=58) (n=45)
Completed no problem solving efforts 27.9% 20.7% 35.6%
Within the last week 18.0% 19.0% 15.6%
Within the last month 24.3% 32.8% 17.8%
Within the last two months 9.9% 10.3% 6.7%
Within the last four months 3.6% 5.2% 0.0%
Within the last six months 9.0% 3.4% 17.8%
Within the last twelve months 7.2% 8.6% 6.7%

 

 

 

 

1 Figures in parentheses indicate the number of valid responses for each

column. The table reflects column percentages based upon the number of

valid responses for the respective item. Percentages for some items may not

total to 100.0 due to rounding.

The explanation for this disparity is not readily evident. Based on informal
interviews and focus groups, there was no indication of a significant disparity between the
problem solving activities in the two precincts. One possible explanation might lie in how
“problem solving” was defined in the survey instrument. Respondents were told that
problem solving meant “doing something to reduce the frequency or seriousness of an
ongoing problem in a given area” (see Appendix C, text box between items 63 and 64). It

is possible that officers in the two precincts interpreted this definition in different fashions,

resulting in their reporting analogous behavior in disparate fashions.

150

Officers who had recently completed a problem solving effort were asked a series of
questions to provide additional information about such endeavors. Respondents reported that
their most recent problem solving efforts were aimed at a variety of different problems, the
most common of which were drugs (35.7% of completed problem solving efforts).
Respondents reported spending anywhere from one to forty hours working on these most
recent problems during the average work week (the mean reported time was eight hours per
week). Most problem solving efforts involved the respondents doing much of the work
independently. Respondents indicated that on average they only spent about one third of
their time working closely with one or more officers. On average, four other officers made
significant contributions to the most recent problem solving effort. These latter indicators
suggest officers were working independently on an operational level, while coordinating their
overall efforts to address problems; tasks were presumably divided to address issues in the
most efficient manner.

Survey respondents overwhelmingly indicated that their most recent problem solving
endeavor was a success, with 48.8 percent classifying it as “somewhat successfirl” and 46.3
percent classifying it as “very successful.” The basis for these assessments was largely
informal. Almost half of the respondents (45.1 %) made the assessment based on their
personal impressions; other common sources included feedback from citizens (32.4%) and
feedback from supervisors (14.1%). Supervisors were far more likely to make “success”
assessments based on data or a study than were non-supervisors (30.8% versus 2.1%,
respectively). Although many respondents (39.7%) felt their project was as successful as
possible, one third (32.1%) believed it would have been more successful if additional time

and/or resources had been devoted to the problem. Among supervisors, there was a

151

noticeable perception that greater success would have been achieved if there had been more
participation from other government agencies.

As previously discussed, implicit in the reorganization plan developed by LPD was
the notion that officers would spend a good portion of their time patrolling and solving
problems in their designated team area. Despite this implicit assumption, the reality of how
officers spent their time was very much to the contrary. The student observers (see Appendix
A) recorded approximately how long officers spent in and out of their team area during the
course of the observation period. Table 5 displays the percent of shift time officers spent
within their assigned team area. The reader is reminded that the observation periods were
not random, that observer-officer assignments were not randomized, and that students might
not have always known the boundaries of an officer’s beat (see Appendix A for a through
discussion of the observation data and its limitations).

Table 5.

Percent of shift time officer spent in
assigned team area by shift.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Day Shift

(6:30 am - 4:30 pm) 64%
Special Shift

(11:00 am to 9:00 pm) 33%
Afternoon Shift

(4:30 pm to 2:30 am) 40%
Night Shift

(9:00 pm to 7:00 am) 37%

 

Source: Mastrofski, Schafer, DeJong & Bynum, 1997.

With the exception of oflicers on the Day Shift, officers were spending very little

time in their assigned team area. It cannot be stated for certain that officers were spending

152

time outside of their shift for official reasons, rather than personal choice. There are,
however, two indicators which would suggest that the former, rather than the latter, was the
case. The observational data suggest that officers had only a small amount of free time
during the course of their shift. The average officer spent about 20 percent of their shift
engaged in “general patrol” (Mastrofski, Schafer, DeJong & Bynum, 1997). Within the
operational parameters of the coding system used by the student observers, general patrol
would be a close analogy to “free time”; this was time when an officer was not handling a
call for service, engaged in directed activity, or handling adminiStrative manners. It must be
noted that this time would occur intermittently throughout an officer’s shift.

The second indicator was the daily staffing level for the two precincts. The SC]
research team reviewed all of the stafling records for 1997 for both precincts. Useable data
was obtained for 727 of the 730 “staffing days” in the department (365 days for each
precinct). These records were used to compute the number of hours each precinct was
staffed on a given day by officers in the patrol division. It must be remembered that LPD
executives never claimed that each team area would be staffed 24 hours a day. Ideally, each
precinct would staff 240 personnel hours each day (24 hours for each of the ten team areas
in each precinct). This would ensure that most calls for service would be handled by the
officer assigned to that beat. Put another way, most calls for service an oflicer handled
would be in their team area. The staffing analysis indicated that this was rarely the case.

The precincts only staffed 240 (or more) personnel hours on 12.9 percent of the days
in 1997. One-quarter (25.9%) of the time they were staffing less than 200 personnel hours,
meaning that during most of the day at least two beats were not staffed. While this analysis

may be somewhat convoluted, the implications are simple. Because it was rare for each beat

153

to be staffed at any given time, officers were frequently directed to handle calls for service
outside of their own team area. As a result, officers were spending less time in their team
area and had less discretionary time to devote to solving problems within their beat. This
staffing study does not take into account the time officers might spend involved in on—duty
court time or training, which would further diminish the number of officers working.

One final element indicates the degree to which community policing and problem
solving efforts were being carried out in the Lansing Police Department. In coding data from
their observations, student observers answered several questions relating to the degree to
which officers engaged in problem solving activities in encounters with the public. Although
there is not a baseline for “acceptable” levels of problem-oriented actions, Table 6 suggests
that few encounters with the public reflected a long-term orientation on the part of the police.
This table only accounts for encounters with citizens and not actions officers took outside
of the presence of a community member. In addition, some encounters may have fit one or
more of the following criteria without the observer being aware of that fact (i.e., no obvious
cues of that fact).

In the absence of a clear baseline defining high and low levels of problem solving
approaches, it is difficult to firlly assess the results in Table 6. These percentages may seem
to be rather low. It cannot, however, be assumed that every contact the police have with the
public relates to a long-term issue requiring a more complex police response. It is not clear
whether police officers could attempt a problem-oriented approach in a larger proportion of
their contacts with citizens. What this table does suggest is that the overwhelming majority
of encounters between the police and the public occur without apparent consideration for

underlying problems (assuming such conditions exist in most encounters).

154

Table 6.
Percent of encounters in which officers exhibited
problem-oriented approach.

 

Action taken by officer Percent of encounters in
which action was observed

 

Indicated situation was part
of a larger problem 7%

 

Tried to determine nature,
extent or causes of the 1%
larger problem

 

Tried to prevent a
recurrence of the problem 11%

 

Encounter was part of a
long-term plan or project 7%

Source: Mastrofski, Schafer, DeJong & Bynum, 1997.

 

 

 

 

The rub of this section on problem solving and community policing in the Lansing
Police Department is this: a) although most survey respondents were engaged in problem
solving, a sizeable number were not involved in this process; b) most officers developed
information about neighborhood problems through informal means; c) when oflicers were
involved in problem solving, they usually worked independently, but in coordination with
others; (I) oflicers had a limited amount of free time and spent a good portion of their
committed time outside of their assigned beat; e) an overwhelming proportion of police-
citizen encounters did not seem to involve any consideration of broader problems.

As indicated in the beginning of this section, it is difficult to truly determine when
an organization or employee is “doing” community policing or problem solving. Expected
outcomes are unique to individual organizations and few agencies give any forethought to
such desired outcomes in organizing for community policing. Taken as a whole, however,

these data do suggest that only a limited amount of problem solving activities were occurring

155

in the Lansing Police Department at the time of this study. Although many officers were
involved in these problem solving activities with some frequency, such considerations were
only reflected in a very small proportion of the calls for service they handled. Even those
officers wishing to engage in community policing and/or problem solving activities would
have to face very real restrictions on their ability to do so vis-a-vis a low amount of free time

in their beat.

Univariate and Bivariate Results and Qualitative Study Findings

Prior to testing the hypotheses laid out in the methodology chapter, it is necessary to
first consider univariate and bivariate responses to specific survey items, as well as salient
qualitative research findings. Responses and findings are divided into two categories:
individual socialization & organizational culture and organizational determinism. Although
individual socialization and organizational culture are conceptually distinct, the author
contends that they are analytically interrelated (especially in the context of this study’s data
sources). Both categories will be discussed in turn, with relevant qualitative findings
included in order to elaborate on the conceptual fiamework and to provide the reader with

a context for the survey responses.

Individual Socialization & Organizational Culture

The sample characteristics presented earlier in this chapter provide the best
quantitative indicators of the overall background and experiences of the survey respondents.

Although the available measures only offer a limited picture of individual socialization as

156

conceptualized in the literature review, no other measures are readily available. The author
has attempted to use qualitative findings to provide additional insights into the possible role
of individual socialization in the change process.

Ideally, in studying the effects of organizational culture on planned change, data
would be collected from multiple agencies. Using this procedure, organizations with
different cultures could be compared and contrasted to determine if such differences were
associated with different experiences in the change process. The single-agency used in this
study precludes such comparative analysis; however, an alternative approach still allows for
the assessment of organizational culture as a factor in the change process. By evaluating
each respondents’ perceptions of the culture in the organization being studied (i.e., was it a
“healthy” organization with open communication and little distrust between labor and
management), the attitudes, opinions and beliefs of respondents can be examined to
determine if these are affected by cultural perceptions. This latter approach will be used in
the instant study to account for organizational culture in the change process.

To reiterate the sample characteristics, respondents were mostly white males. Most
respondents had a Bachelors degree, although there were a variety of reported levels of
education. The respondents indicated having been employed with LPD for anywhere from
a few months to several decades. Overall, their years of service were (approximately) evenly
distributed, indicating survey respondents who were very new, to mid-career, to veteran
employees. Although years of service is not a perfect measure for age, it may serve as an
approximate representation; presumably respondents ranged in age from officers in their
early twenties to officers in their late fifties.

Many of the salient issues and concerns mentioned by the officers seemed to

157

transcend their demographic characteristics. Reactions to the attempted reorganization of
the Lansing Police Department seemed to be consistent across demographic attributes.
Officers seemed to have consistent reactions regardless of their race/ethnicity, age
(approximated by their years of service), and education. It is less certain if other elements
of individual socialization might have played a role in mollifying an employee’s response to
organizational change. The following sections discuss qualitative findings relating to
dimensions of individual socialization other than demographic characteristics.

In addition, select survey items and qualitative findings relate to the organizational
culture which existed in the Lansing Police Department at the time of the original evaluation
study. Dimensions of organizational culture can be divided into two categories. The first
category consists of the degree to which the organizational culture (as reflected by the survey
respondents) was oriented toward either a community policing or traditional policing
philosophy. The second category consists of elements which indicate the overall culture and
climate of the organization (relationship between labor and management, nature of
supervision, degree of communication, etc).

Elements of individual socialization and organizational culture are discussed in the
following sections. Consideration will be given to the psychological contract, distrust of
management, perceptions of change as a threat, the contrast between community policing and
traditional policing, employee attitudes toward community policing, organizational climate,
communication and changing relationships with supervisors, supervisors as change agents,
and unions and key actors. All of these discussions relate to individual socialization and

organizational culture as they pertain to change in the Lansing Police Department.

158

Psychological C ontract

As described in the literature review, an employee’s psychological contract specifies
what an employee expects to contribute to, and receive from, their employer. While
monetary considerations are important, many non-monetary elements are also crucial. These
elements might include an employee’s need for recognition, security, respect, and
involvement. The officers in the present study were never directly asked to identify the
elements of their psychological contract with the Department; however, based upon existing
literature it is possible to impute common elements onto these employees. Such an exercise
suggests that numerous violations of the psychological contract may be identified in the
course of this case study.

The structural processes of the reorganization resulted in numerous violations of the
psychological contracts existing between LPD and its line employees. Many employees felt
that the Department never clarified what it expected to achieve through the reorganization
and how officers were supposed to do their job under the team-based system. To the oflicers,
this lack of clarity (discussed more firlly later) could be viewed as a lack of respect by the
organization. The Department was not respecting their employees’ need to understand the
expectations being placed upon them. Officers felt that the Department’ 3 administration was
out of touch with the pressures and challenges confi'onting patrol officers. They believed
administrators did not understand what tools, resources, and training the officers needed in
order to do their job.

Employees felt that their voices were not being heard. Although the Department
made pretenses of involving employees in the change process, most officers felt that their

needs and opinions were being overlooked. Officers were not recognized for contributing

159

to the team-based system. There was no incentive to do any extra work to firrther the success
of problem solving or team-based community policing in the organization. Overall employee
morale appeared to be very low. Although every organization has problems, longtime
employees felt that morale had rarely been as low as it was during the time of the evaluation
study. Officers also felt that they were not being supported in the aftermath of critical
incidents. There had been several sensitive situations resulting in public/media scrutiny of
the officers and the Department. Some felt that during these trying periods they had not
received enough support from top Department leaders and the Mayor.

At the onset of the reorganization, many oflicers were led to believe that they would
have the time to do problem solving under the team-based system. Some employees felt that
the Department had implicitly promised to provide them with the resources they would need
to make a positive difference in their team area. These implicit promises had failed to
materialize. As a result, officers were disillusioned with the team-based system. The
organization had implied that the changes would make the Department a better place to work,
but the reality (at least in the early years) was far more harsh. Some questioned whether the
Department was also misleading the public about their efforts and outcomes within the
community. They believed that the Department and city were selling the public a lot of gloss
about enhanced community service and improved public safety, while there was little truth
or substance behind such images.

Employees were also disappointed with community policing as a whole. They saw
that the Department’s had been attempting community policing for more than five years,
while the rest of the city government had remained indifferent. The police had become the

defacto caretakers of all of Lansing’s ills, while support from the rest of the city was never

160

forthcoming. The fact that other branches of city government had not “jumped on the
bandwagon” left officers feeling very alone. While they indicated support for the overall
idea of community policing, they were disappointed that other service providers had not
taken a more active role in improving the quality of life in Lansing. Officers also questioned
whether the police (armed with “band aid” solutions) could address massive social ills
(which required surgery). While the Department could create an image of getting to the root
of crime problems, some believed the best they could do was displace crime problems.

Cumulatively, these violations of the psychological contract had left employees
feeling cynical about community policing and their job. They questioned whether any police
efforts could do anything more than displace crime. In looking at LPD’s organizational
efforts over time, many veteran officers felt that structure followed money; the Department
would claim to support the philosophy or program currently being funded by the federal
government. When money for one initiative dried up, the Department’s philosophy would
change to support the next “cash cow” philosophy.

In keeping with their belief that they did not have a voice in how the Department was
run, many officers questioned whether anything would come of the research and reports
prepared by the SCJ research team. Within the Department, they saw a historical pattern of
ignoring feedback from officers. Given this pattern, many questioned if the Department
would do anything to respond to the issues and concerns raised in the evaluation project.
Unfortunately, to some extent, their concerns that the feedback would be ignored were well
founded (although this was more a matter of a transition in LPD leadership, rather than a

product of systematically ignoring line employees).

161

Distrust of Management

The literature review described the common distrust of management exhibited by line
level employees in many organizations. There seemed to be no shortage of such distrust in
the instant study. It was very common for oflicers to indicate that t0p leaders were out of
touch with line employees. These patrol oflicers felt that top leaders did not understand the
general challenges and concerns which confronted them as police officers. In the context of
the team-based system, they believed that administrators did not appreciate how difficult it
was for officers to create time for problem solving efforts. They also felt top management
did not understand the training, resources, and support that would be required for the team-
based system to be successfirl and effective.

This perceived divide between management and line employees was enhanced by the
decentralization process. Historically, LPD had experienced the typical tensions between
“street cops” and “management cops” which are observable in many police organizations.
For officers working in the South Precinct, this sense of isolation from management was only
enhanced by their newfound physical separation“. While officers felt distant from top leaders
under the old system, they at least had some casual interactions with one another (the offices
of top leaders were on the same floor as the “briefing” room where officers began their
shifts). With the move to the South Precinct, even these informal contacts were lost for half
of the employees. For officers in the South Precinct, the divide with top management
became even more pronounced; the only “contact” they had was through one-sided orders

and paper memos which would periodically “trickle down” from headquarters. Top leaders

 

‘ Patrol and investigation operations for the South Precinct were moved out of police
headquarters in early 1996. 'North Precinct operations remained housed in police
headquarters until the fall of 1999.

162

rarely appeared in the South Precinct, making officers feel even more removed and
neglected, and reinforcing the notion that management could not be trusted.

Recent hiring, assignment, and promotion patterns also gave officers another reason
to distrust the actions and decisions of management. Officers questioned whether merit
mattered anymore within the organization. There was a perception that the Department was
so concerned with increasing diversity, that more qualified candidates were being
overlooked. Some felt that top administrators favored their “golden people” over the person
best suited for a position. It should be noted that although some oflicers felt the best
candidates were not always selected for promotion, officers rarely expressed dissatisfaction
with their supervisors.

Two final examples reflect the degree to which some officers distrusted the actions
and intents of management. During the initial observational interviews conducted by the
author, officers frequently questioned if the author was a “spy sent by the Chief.” Although
these comments were invariably made in a joking tone, there also seemed to be a legitimate
underlying concern. Officers feared being singled out as someone who was not a “team
player” in the team-based system. This was reinforced during the administration of the patrol
officer survey. Several respondents did not provide answers to demographic questions,
noting on the survey that they wondered if management was seeking to link officers with
responses (again, presumably to identify officers who were not team players for punishment
of “re-indoctrination”). This fear of “Big Brother” (top management) seemed very real for

those it affected.

163

Perception of Change as a Threat

Officers reflected traditional sentiments and perceptions that change was threatening,
although their comments were not so overt. Clearly, the intended structure of LPD under the
team-based system was a significant departure from the Department’s conventional way of
operating. Historically, LPD had been a traditional police organization, with quantitative
evaluation measures, separation from the community, and a merit-based system for making
promotion and special-assignment decisions. The team-based system, if fully adopted, would
have challenged and disrupted this status quo.

Employees no longer knew what mattered within the organization. Traditionally,
employees were evaluated using quantitative assessments; under the team-based system it
was unclear how employee conduct would be measured. Employees who were trying to be
a “good officer” were fi'ustrated when they saw people being promoted (presumably) because
of demographic traits rather than merit. Employees who exhibited the traits which
traditionally were valued in making decisions about promotions and specialized assignments
were fearfirl when such decisions were apparently made based upon other considerations.
Oflicers were left wondering what mattered to top leaders and whether or not members of
non-protected groups (white males) could compete in the promotional process.

Officers indicated a belief that the general trends in the Department in recent years
had adversely affected the quality of the organization. Officers felt that the increased desire
to work closely with the community had forced the Department to become too political.
They felt that the City (in particular, the Mayor) were too concerned with micro-managing
the Department and second-guessing the actions of officers. Some stated that certain

community policing specialists were working in neighborhoods that did not need a dedicated

164

officer, while more deserving neighborhoods were not receiving CPO’s. When the
Department tried to reassign CPO’s out of certain neighborhoods, the residents would
complain so much that the Department often simply left an officer in their area. The
proverbial squeaky wheel (the vocal and politically active neighborhood) got the grease (a
CPO), while other areas were left unserved, regardless of relative need.

Although there was no indication of intentional sabotage aimed at the team-based
system (as was observed with “team policing” in the 1970's), sergeants seemed to dislike
how the reorganization had modified the command structure. The rank of lieutenant had
traditionally been a position sought by many officers in the Department. In the Patrol
Division, a lieutenant helped run a shift and had a great deal of freedom and autonomy (in
other words, the proper balance of firn and work). The team-based system drastically
modified the roles and responsibilities of this position. Lieutenants held a great deal of
administrative responsibilities and enjoyed fewer “perks” than they had in the past.

When a promotional opportunity arose during the course of the SCJ evaluation
project, every lieutenant applied for a promotion to the rank of captain, while less than one-
quarter of the sergeants applied for a promotion to the rank of lieutenant. To many officers,
this signified that the rank of lieutenant was no longer desirable. The restructuring and
reallocation of responsibilities had diminished the luster of being a lieutenant within the
organizations. Again, although there was no indication of intentional sabotage on the part
of the supervisors, it was clear many sergeants and lieutenants were upset that this position
had lost so much of its original appeal.

In response to these perceptions of the change process, and community policing in

general, a few supervisors reported developing innovative ways of mollifying employee

165

resistance. One lieutenant believed that his officers had come to distrust anything labeled
as community policing. In order to get his officers to engage in problem solving, he believed
that alternative labels had to be applied to such activities. In developing a new program for
dealing with residences which were chronic problems in their precinct, a very traditional
label was developed for the program (C.O.P.P.E.R.). This lieutenant also worked very hard
to portray the program as “firn” out of fear that it would be rejected by officers if it was in

any way associated with community policing or problem solving.

Community Policing versus Traditional Policing

Respondents rated their level of agreement with a series of statements which
addressed a variety of general topics related to police work. The distribution of these
responses suggests that the organizational culture found in LPD had traditional elements, but
also reflected attitudes which might support a community policing philosophy (see Table 7).
Although officers indicated support for enforcing the law and active patrol tactics, these
elements are not necessarily incompatible with a community policing philosophy.
Furthermore, ofiicers showed high levels of support for assisting citizens and finding out
what neighborhood problems concern community residents. Officers also indicated modest
levels of distrust for citizens and low (but perhaps not low enough) support for overlooking
the law in the pursuit of just ends.

Reflections of the organizational culture can be seen in the goals respondents
identified as important for patrol officers and precinct managers. Respondents were provided
with a list of seven goals which sometimes are considered to be important for police officers

and organizations to accomplish. The respondents were first asked to choose the two goals

166

which they believed were most important for patrol officers. From the remaining five goals,

the respondents then chose the two which they believed were the least important for patrol

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

officers.
Table 7.
Level of agreement with statements about police work. 1
Agree Agree Disagree Disagre
Strongly Somewhat Somewhat e
Strongly
Enforcing the law if by far a patrol 42.0% 42.0% 15.1% 0.8%
oflicer’s most important responsibility
(n=119)
Police officers have reason to be 7.6% 28.8% 54.2% 9.3%
distrustfirl of most citizens (n=118)
A good patrol officers is one who 29.4% 57.1% 12.6% 0.8%
patrols aggressively by stopping cars,
checking out people, running license
checks, etc. (n=119)
Assisting citizens is just as important 59.3% 37.3% 3.4% 0.0%
as enforcing the law (n=118)
A good patrol officer will try to find 54.6% 41.2% 4.2% 0.0%
out what residents think the
neighborhood problems are (n=119)
In order to do their jobs, patrol 5.1% 10.2% 40.7% 44.1%
officers must sometimes overlook
search and seizure laws and other
legal guidelines (n=118)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1’ Figures in parentheses indicate the number of valid responses for each item.
The table reflects row percentages based upon the number of valid responses
for the respective item. Percentages for some items may not total to 100.0
due to rounding.

The most important goal identified by most officers was handling calls for service in

their assigned area. An overwhelming 7 1.8 percent of the respondents indicated that this was

one of the two most important goals for patrol officers. Tying for a distant second in

167

important were the goals of making arrests and issuing citations, and seizing drugs, guns, and
other contraband. Each of these goals were identified as one of the two most important for
patrol officers by 32.5 percent of the respondents. Respondents tended to identify three goals
as two of the least important for patrol officers. Almost two-thirds (60.7%) identified
reducing the public’s fear of crime as one of the two least important goals. Similar rankings
were given to involving the public in improving neighborhoods (identified by 46.2% of the
respondents as one of the two least important goals) and reducing the level of public disorder
(identified by 29.9% of the respondents as one of the two least important goals).

Officers were also asked to consider these seven goals and how important they were
to their precinct’s managers. Once again, respondents identified the two most important and
least important goals for patrol officers, this time from the perspective of their precinct’s
management. While the magnitude of individual items was slightly variable, officers in both
precincts tended to identify the same items as most/least important (see Table 8).
Respondents felt that managers in both precincts believed that important goals included
getting the public involved in improving neighborhoods, reducing the fear of crime, and
having officers handling calls in their beat. Less important goals included making arrests and
issuing citations, and seizing guns, drugs, and contraband.

Clearly these rankings indicate a disparity between the goals which were important
to patrol officers and the goals patrol officers thought were important to their precinct’s
managers. Officers identified with goals more traditionally associated with police work, such
as making arrests, issuing citations, seizing contraband, and handling the calls in their beat.
Oflicers believed their managers wanted them to identify with goals which were more

consistent with a community policing phiIOSOphy, such as reducing fear of crime and

168

involving the public in improving neighborhood conditions. The survey data does not
indicate which of the listed goals, if any, officers actually pursued in performing their duties

throughout the City of Lansing.

Table 8.
Perception of importance of goals for patrol officers
in the opinion of precinct management by precinct.

 

North Precinct South Precinct

 

Most Least Most Least

Handling the calls for their assigned area 36.2% 24.1% 32.7% 14.3%

 

 

Making arrests and issuing citations 13.8% 46.6% 16.3% 42.9%

 

Reducing the number of repeat calls to the 20.7% 8.6% 12.2% 16.3%
same address

 

Seizing drugs, guns, and other contraband 12.1% 25.9% 2.0% 30.6%

 

Reducing the level of public disorders 5.2% 27.6% 10.2% 28.6%

 

Getting the public involved in improving 51.7% 12.1% 71.4% 6.1%
the neighborhood

Reducing the public’s fear of crime 60.3% 19.0% 46.9% 28.6%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Employee Attitudes Toward Community Policing

One of the greatest barriers which may have prevented the successful development
and implementation of generalized community policing in the Lansing Police Department
was the attitudes held by its employees. Officers expressed all of the stereotypical beliefs
and perceptions about community policing: it was a waste of personnel, police officers are
not social workers, the police should not be doing the job of other governmental agencies,

community policing is not “real” police work. While some officers saw the value and

169

potential of community policing, the Department was never fully able to win over the “hearts
and minds” of its employees. Even those who were not opposed to community policing as
an idea questioned whether LPD’s approach was truly effective or merely “lip service.”

Officer survey respondents were invited to write any comments or concerns they had
at the end of the instrument. Several officers took this opportunity to voice concerns about
these points. On the subject of community policing in general, respondents wrote (unedited
comments):

“Community policing is a good idea, but most of the function is the ‘feel
good’ not to effectively use your manpower.”

“Community Policing in this City is a joke. Has never been done right.
Taking kids to pro sporting events is not the answer.”

“These problems are usually not police related and should be handled by
other departments in the city.”

Comments of this nature were common throughout the course of the evaluation project.
Many officers believed that community policing was not an effective way for the police to
allocate their resources. They believed that at best community policing displaced crime,
rather than really addressing root causes.

On the subject of community policing as implemented in LPD, different respondents
commented that (unedited comments):

“The Department has pushed upon the public the perception of being safe,
instead of making the public really safe.”

“I sometimes think that the Administration thinks that public perception of
the department, and the politicians, and our effect on crime, is more
important than the reality.” (emphasis in the original)

Even officers who supported the notion of community policing were critical of the way it was

being generalized in LPD. They felt that the main objective of the team-based system was

170

to create an image of a safe community, even though this may not have been a reality in
Lansing. The city/Department were viewed as selling the public on the idea of proactive,
problem solving police officers; however, the city/Department was not willing to “put its
money where its mouth is” by providing the resources to make this idea a reality.

A further problem omcers confronted was thinking both “vertically” and
“horizontally” about crime and safety issues. Traditionally, police officers were used to
confronting “horizontal” issues— problems they routinely encounter on their shift. To be
successfirl, the team-based approach required them to think “vertically”-— to think about
crime and safety problems that confronted their area around the clock. At best, this vertical
approach required officers to rethink how they performed their duties and what ends they
ought to pursue. Some officers challenged the idea that they could think vertically, insisting
that many crime and safety issues tended to be shift-specific, making a team response
impossible. In other words, the problems confronting a day shift officer (truancy and
speeding) differed from the problems confronting a night shift officer (drug dealing and
domestic violence). This incongruence made it difficult for these oflicers to work
cooperatively to resolve problems.

Sergeants were especially critical of the team-based system; their criticism was
especially salient because many of them were, in fact, among the original CPO’s in Lansing.
They understood how community policing worked, how to solve community problems, and
what community policing could achieve. At the same time, they saw inherent limitations in
LPD’s approach to organizing generalized community policing. These sergeants also
questioned why other government and social service agencies were not more active in

providing community services. One sergeant pointedly asked “why must we do everything

171

for everyone?”

Sergeants were also acutely aware of the complex nature of crime and the
displacement problem. They tended to believe that the problems they were confronting could
not be easily resolved with the resources at their disposal. The deep-rooted social ills could
not be addressed through a few hours of intervention by the police. As a result, all the teams
could really do was displace problems and this “get ‘em out” tactic became their key goal,
even when it created a new problem for another team of officers. As one sergeant remarked
during a focus group session: “we’re shitting on one another— we aren’t making Lansing any
better.” Sergeants expressed that displacement was perhaps the only achievable goal they
could pursue.

Officers clearly had deeply ingrained attitudes toward community policing in general
and the team-based system in particular. These attitudes seemed to go a long way in
determining an officer’s view of community policing and the firture directions the
Department ought to be taking. Despite the fact that these attitudes were readily apparent,
they were overlooked in the process of implementing the team-based system. Although only
speculation, it is possible that if the Department had confi'onted these attitudes more directly
and worked to educate offrcers more about community policing, some of the resistance
resulting from this barrier may have been mollified.

The officer survey asked respondents a variety of questions pertaining to their
attitudes toward community policing as a general philosophy. These questions were in
addition to the items discussed below, which were measures of opinions specific to
community policing as it was instituted in the Lansing Police Department. It was unclear to

what degree these opinions were distinct from one another (if at all). Conceptually, it is

172

possible that an officer’s views of community policing could be distinct from their views of
community policing as operationalized in LPD. An officer could support the basic
philosophy of community policing, while disliking the way in which LPD attempted to
generalize it in the Department.

Interesting disparities were found in the perceived workload of CPO’s based upon
whether the respondent had ever held a CPO assignment. Officers who had experience as
a CPO (either currently or formerly) tended to view the CPO workload as higher than other
officers. More than one-third (35.0%) of the CPO’s (current and former) felt that their
workload was greater than it should be; only 11.9 percent of non-CPO’s held such
perceptions. In contrast, half (52.7%) of the non-CPO’s felt that the workload of Community
Policing Officers was lower than it should be; only one-quarter of the CPO’s shared this
perception.

Respondents were asked how they would feel if they received a CPO assignment at
some point in the following year. One-quarter of both the CPO’s and non-CPO’s expressed
neutral feelings about such a prospect (23.8% and 22.4%, respectively). Most (57.1%)
respondents who were/had been a CPO indicated that they would feel positive about
receiving a similar assignment (versus 5.1% of non-CPO’s). In contrast, a majority (72.4%)
of non-CPO’s indicated that they would feel negative about receiving a CPO assignment
(versus 19.0% of CPO’s).

Respondents were given a list of possible advantages and disadvantages of being a
CPO in order to provide insights into specifically why they developed certain feelings about
these assignments. The lists were developed using prior research into perceptions of

community policing and based upon findings from the interviews and focus group

173

discussions. For each list, respondents were asked to indicate which items they believed
applied to having a CPO assignment. Tables 9 and 10 display the perceived advantages and
disadvantages of working as a CPO, separated based upon the respondent’s experience as a
community policing officer. The tables present the percentage of respondents in each
category (CPO or non-CPO) who indicated that a specific item was an advantage or
disadvantage of receiving a CPO assignment.

Table 9 indicates that non-CPO’s believed some advantages of a CPO assignment
included having a good work schedule, independence on the job, and leeway to try new
things. CPO’s also cited independence and leeway as advantages of a CPO assignment,
along with having time to work on long-term projects and the opportunity to work closely
with the public. The greatest disadvantages patrol officers cited included spending too much
time on work that isn’t police work, low job status, having to pay too much attention to
keeping the public happy, and inadequate training to fulfill job expectations. CPO’s
indicated that they felt low job status, insuflicient department directions about expectations,
and inadequate training were all disadvantages of their assignment.

Significant differences were found between the categories on six of the nine items
presented in Table 9. Officers who were or had been a community policing officer tended
to perceive these items as greater advantages of holding a CPO assignment. Respondents
with CPO experience were more likely to believe that advantages included: independence,
time to work on long-term projects, the opportunity to work closely with the public, leeway
to try new things, and getting positive feedback from the public. Those with CPO experience
were also far more likely to perceive that the diversity of tasks and skills required by

community policing were an advantage of being a CPO.

174

Table 9.

Perceived advantages of a CPO assignment by experience. 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advantages of working as a CPO: Non- CPO’s
CPO’s (n=21)
(n=99)
Independence to do the job as you see fit * 63.6% 81.0%
Good work schedule 74.7% 57.1%
Enough time to work on long-term projects ** 39.4% 66.7%
Opportunity to work closely with the public ** 41.4% 66.7%
Leeway to try new things to get the job done ** 46.5% 71.4%
Getting positive feedback from the public ** 27.3% 52.4%
High status of the job among other police 3.0% 0.0%
Diversity in the kinds of tasks and skills required *** 22.2% 61.9%
Opportunities for promotion and career advancement 35.4% 19.0%

 

l The value in each cell represents the percent of the category of respondents
(CPO’s or non—CPO’s) who indicated that the respective item was an
advantage of being a CPO. Differences between the categories were
significant at *p<.10, ** p<.05, and *** p<.01 using Independent Samples

Test.

Table 10 presents the percentage of respondents who perceived of select items as

disadvantages of being a CPO (presented by experience). Respondents with CPO experience

viewed many of the disadvantages of a CPO assignment as more profound than their non-

CPO counterparts. While both groups perceived that unclear expectations and inadequate

training were disadvantages, a significantly larger proportion of CPO’s expressed this belief.

In addition, significantly fewer CPO’s felt that working closely with the public and trying to

keep the public happy were disadvantages of a CPO assignment.
As Tables 9 and 10 indicate, there was little agreement between CPO’s and non-

CPO’s, perhaps reflecting the tension between perceptions and reality. The responses of

non-CPO’s paints an image of community policing far different from the image portrayed

175

 

Table 10.

Perceived disadvantages of a CPO assignment by experience. 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Disadvantages of working as a CPO: Non— CPO’s
CPO’s (n=21)
(n=99)
Insufficient department direction about expectations *** 41.4% 76.2%
Poor work schedule * 7.1% 28.6%
Not enough time to get the work done 81% 19.0%
Having to work closely with members of the public * 24.2% 9.5%
Inadequate training to do the job expected * 41 .4% 61.9%
Not enough leeway to get the job done 8.1% 19.0%
Having to pay too much attention to keeping public happy *** 70.7% 33.3%
Low status of the job among other police 75.8% 81.0%
Spending too much time on work that isn’t police work 74.7% 57.1%
Poor prospects for promotion or career advancement 4.0% 9.5%

 

1 The value in each cell represents the percent of the category of respondents
(CPO’s or non-CPO’s) who indicated that the respective item was a
disadvantage of being a CPO. Differences between the categories were

significant at *p<.10 and *** p<.01 using Independent Samples Test.

by CPO’s. Non-CPO’s felt that such an assignment provided a good work schedule and

independence, but also involved having to keep the public happy and spending too much

time on tasks other than police work. CPO’s liked working with the public, addressing long

term problems, and the independence and leeway of being a CPO, but disliked their low

status (among peers), lack of training, and insufficient direction. Non-CPO’s reflected

beliefs which are consistent with many of the stereotypes police officers tend to hold about

community policing. The beliefs and attitudes reported by the CPO’s reflected common

themes found in prior studies assessing how community policing officers feel about their job

(both the advantages and frustrations it entails).

I76

 

The respondents assessed various dimensions of the efficacy of community policing
and citizen involvement in the problem solving process. As exhibited earlier, respondents
with experience as a CPO tended to be more confident in the outcomes of the process. As
Table 11 indicates, although both CPO’s and non-CPO’s indicated that community policing
made important contributions, those with experience did so to a significantly greater
magnitude. It is interesting to note that those with CPO experience were also significantly
more critical of the willingness of citizens to involve themselves in improving their
neighborhoods. Because CPO’s are more intimately involved in problem solving and
attempts to improve the quality of life on the neighborhood level, they may have also
experienced more frustrations in attempting to work in collaboration with citizens.

A significant question which emerged during the initial stages of the research project
was whether members of neighborhood associations accurately reflected the concerns of the
area they represented. Some officers were concerned that associations were dominated by
only the most active and vocal residents of the community; some likened associations to a
“click” where only the privileged few were allowed any power. In part, this perception may
have emerged because there was not an established criterion for defining associations. A
group of fiiends living in close proximity could create their own association and define its
geographic parameters. The Department (and the City) attempted to work with these self-
identified groups without ever questioning if they actually represented the concerns of their
area.

Despite these early concern, both CPO’s and non-CPO’s felt that associations
accurately represented the views of most of their neighborhood in terms of the priorities that

the police should set in that area (see Table 1 1). CPO’ 8 indicated a higher level of agreement

177

on this item (71.4%) than did non-CPO’s (55.4%), although the difference did not achieve
statistical significance. This higher rating by CPO’s may indicate that this concern is
generally unsubstantiated in most associations. CPO’s would have a more intimate
knowledge of both neighborhood associations and neighborhood residents (including those

not active in the association). This knowledge could help them determine if association

goals were accurate reflections of the goals held by the neighborhood at large.

Table 11.

Percentage of respondents agreeing with statements about community policing

by experience. 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CPO’s Non-

CPO’s
CPO’s make an important contribution toward reducing crime and 85.7% 52.0%
disorder in the neighborhoods where they are assigned *** (n=21) (n=98)
CPO’s make an important contribution toward improving attitudes 90. 5% 71.4%
of neighborhood residents toward the police department *** (n=21) (n=98)
The neighborhoods that complain the loudest are the ones most 52.4% 74.5%
likely to receive a CPO *** (n=21) (n=98)
There are not enough citizens in my district who are willing to 85.7% 60.2%
exercise the necessary initiative to make their neighborhood a nicer (n=21) (n=98)
place to live **
Citizens in my district do not call upon the police nearly as much 52.4% 23.7%
as they should to solve neighborhood problems *** (n=21) (n=97)
Neighborhood associations accurately reflect the views of the 71.4% 55.4%
majority of citizens in my district have about police priorities (n=21) (n=92)
Doing community policing means officers will be unable to do 10.0% 66.3%
more important tasks *** (n=20) (n=92)

 

T The value in each cell represents the percent of the category of respondents
(CPO’s or non-CPO’s) who indicated that they “agree strongly” or “agree
somewhat” with the respective item. Differences between the categories
were significant at **p<.05 and *** p<.01 using Independent Samples Test.

178

 

The final item in Table 11 indicates a substantial (and significant) disparity in how
CPO’s and non-CPO’s prioritize their tasks and responsibilities. Despite the fact that they
believe community policing may make positive contributions in the community, non-CPO’s
indicate that there are more important things which officers could be doing. Respondents
with CPO experience expressed a very different View on this item. Only a small minority
(10%) of current and former CPO’s believed that “doing” community policing meant that an
officer could not do more important tasks.

A final item of importance in this section summed up the respondents’ overall
attitudes toward community policing and how it ought to be carried out in LPD. Officers
were asked what would be the best way to organize community policing in the Lansing
Police Department in the firture. Table 12 presents the distribution of their responses by
CPO experience. While approximately equal proportions of both groups agreed that
community policing should be the responsibility of specialists or general patrol officers,
strong disagreement emerged in the last two categories. The majority of CPO’s (52.6%)
believed community policing was being properly organized, with responsibilities being
shared by specialists and general patrol officers. Only 5.3 percent of the CPO’s felt that in
the firture LPD should not do community policing. Alternatively, over one-third of the non-
CPO’s felt that LPD should not do community policing at all. Only 14.6 percent of the non-
CPO’s felt that the existing system was the most appropriate way to organize community

policing in the Department.

179

Table 12.
The best way for LPD to organize community policing by experience. 1

 

 

 

“What would be the best way for the Lansing Police CPO’s Non-
Department to organize community policing?” (n=l9) CPO’s
(n=96)
Make it the responsibility of specialists 21.1% 28.1%
Make it the responsibility of all patrol officers 21.1% 21.9%

 

Make it the responsibility of both specialists and patrol officers 52.6% 14.6%

 

 

 

 

 

Do not do community policing at all 5.3% 35.4%

 

1 Numbers in parentheses indicate the number of valid responses for each

item. The table reflects column percentages based upon the number of valid

responses for the respective item. Percentages for some items may not total

to 100.0 due to rounding.
Organizational Culture and Climate

A substantial portion of the survey was devoted to asking respondents about their
perceptions and beliefs relating to supervision and leadership within the Lansing Police
Department. These items provide insight into the relationship between front line officers and
immediate supervisors, as well as the relationship between front line officers and upper
management. For the purpose of analysis, these questions can be divided into three
categories’: items about the respondent’s relationship with their shift supervisor, items about
the respondent’s relationship with their team supervisor, and items about the respondent’s

perceptions of upper management. Each category will be considered in turn.

The first group of questions probed the respondents’ assessment of the supervisor

 

5 The author ran extensive bivariate tests to determine if perceptions of elements of the
organizational culture differed based upon officer characteristics. Although significant
disparities were found on some specific items, consistent patterns were not evident. Findings
of these bivariate tests are not included in this manuscript in the interest of space. The
relationship between officer demographics and their overall perception of organizational
culture are considered more firlly in the hypotheses section of this chapter.

180

with whom they had the most contact. For patrol officers, this was the shift sergeant with
whom they interacted most fiequently. For sergeants and lieutenants, this was the immediate
supervisor with whom they interacted most frequently. Respondents were asked to rate their
supervisor on a number of criteria relevant to the typical relationship between a patrol officer
and his/her shift sergeant. Several items also reflect issues salient under the Department’s
reorganized structure. For comparison purposes, Table 13 presents these responses based
upon the rank of the respondent.

Some of the differences between the ranks may be explained by the nature of what
various police supervisors do and how different members of police organizations relate to
one another. The relationship between patrol officers and sergeants may be more formal and
distant than the relationship between various supervisors. Table 13 does reveal some
surprising differences between the rankings patrol officers and patrol supervisors gave their
supervisors. Patrol officers gave their shift sergeants higher marks for working with the
public and coordinating team-based initiatives. Supervisors, however, gave their own
supervisors better ratings for providing feedback on performance.

The second labor-management area examined in the survey dealt with the relationship
between officers and the sergeants who supervised their team. The respondents were asked
to assess their team sergeant”. These assessments were made based upon six criteria.
Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement to statements about their team

sergeant using a four-point scale. Table 14 presents the responses to these items.

6 A set of eight questions asked patrol officers to evaluate their team sergeant. Because
sergeants and lieutenants do not have an analogous supervisor, they were asked to assess the
immediate supervisor with whom they had the most contact. Because these latter ratings do
not pertain to this section, only the responses of patrol officers are included in Table 14.

181

Table 13.

Rating of supervisor by respondent rank. 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“How good a job is your supervisor doing on each of Non- Supervisors
the following criteria?” Supervisors
Being present at the scene when a subordinate is involved 87.8% 60.0%
in a potentially dangerous or difficult situation *** (n=90) (n=20)
Reviewing subordinates’ written reports *** 90.0% 40.0%
(n=90) (n=20)
Dealing directly with citizens who are complaining about 80.0% 59.1%
problems in their neighborhood (n=90) (n=20)
Dealing with personnel matters (paperwork, discipline, 82.0% 81.8%
counseling) (n=89) (n=22)
Attending meetings with the public and giving talks to the 64.4% 68.2%
public (n=87) (n=22)
Coordinating & scheduling the work of team members 72.4% 42.9%
*** (n=87) (n=21)
Getting other public and private organizations to cooperate 54.0% 54. 5%
with the police to solve community problems (n=87) (n=22)
Identifying projects for subordinates and monitoring their 62.5% 54.5%
progress with those projects (n=88) (n=22)
Evaluating the performance of individual officers and 53.4% 68.2%
giving them feedback (n=88) (n=22)

 

l The value in each cell represents the percent of the category of respondents
(supervisors or non-supervisors) who indicated that their supervisor was
“good” or “very good” at the respective item. Differences between the
categories were significant at *** p<.01 using Independent Samples Test.

 

As a whole, these results indicate that most respondents thought favorably of their
team sergeant. On the team level, officers felt that they knew what was expected by their
sergeants. Most also reported that the management approach taken by this supervisor was
not critical or discouraging. Team sergeants also received favorable ratings for their level

of experience and professionalism.

182

Respondents’ assessments of their team sergeants.

Table 14.

T

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agree Agree Disagree Strongly

Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Disagree
The decisions or judgements I make 69.3% 26.1% 3.4% 1.1%
are seldom criticized or modified by
my supervisor (n=88).
My supervisor lets officers know 46.6% 40.9% 11.4% 1.1%
what is expected of them (n=88).
My supervisor’s approach tends to 2.2% 7.9% 36.0% 53.9%
discourage me from giving extra
effort (n=89).
My supervisor has a lot of 56.8% 33.0% 9.1% 1.1%
professional experience to help
officers do their jobs (n=88).
My supervisor looks out for the 60.7% 31.5% 6.7% 1.1%
personal welfare of his/her
subordinates (n=89).
I have complete faith in my 56.3% 31.0% 10.3% 2.3%
supervisor (n=87).

 

 

 

 

 

1 Figures in parentheses indicate the number of valid responses for each item;
table only presents responses of non-supervisors. The table reflects row
percentages based upon the number of valid responses for the respective item.
Percentages for some items may not total to 100.0 due to rounding.

Two other survey items related to the evaluations patrol officers gave to their team

sergeants. An overwhelming majority (88.1%) stated that when they tried a new approach

to doing their job which results in failure, their team sergeant treats this as an honest effort

and does not discipline them. Respondents were also asked the following question: “When

your team has a problem that higher-ups could straighten out, how often is your supervisor

able to get those higher-ups to actually do something about the problem?” Responses

indicated that this was the case “much of the time” (40.5%) or “some of the time” (42.9%),

but that it “never” happened with some frequency (16.7%).

183

 

In considering the efficiency and efficacy of team sergeants, it is also important to
examine issues more closely related to the day-to-day management of a team. One issue
frequently raised during interviews and the focus groups was the challenge team sergeants
faced in coordinating, scheduling, and communicating with a team of officers working in a
variety of duty assignments around the clock. In considering their own team, two-thirds
(67.8%) of non-supervisors agreed with the statement that activities and projects were well
coordinated across shifts; over half (54.6%) of supervisors gave a similar rating to the team
they supervised. Alternatively, when asked how often their team sergeant provided adequate
guidance in problem-solving projects, most non-supervisors indicated that this was usually
(32.9%) or always (38.8%) the case.

Respondents were asked if they felt that, in general, sergeants were unable to
effectively supervise officers on another shift. Most non-supervisors (58.9%) and a majority
of supervisors (77.3%) agreed with this statement. These findings present an interesting
contradiction. On the one hand, oflicers indicated that there was adequate guidance and
coordination in their team. Alternatively, they felt that sergeants were not able to effectively
supervise across shifts.

To assess the level of communication between team sergeants and team members,
respondents were asked how often their team sergeant communicated with them about team
projects. Almost half (44.7%) of the non-supervisors reported such communication occurred
on at least a weekly basis; an additional 41.2 percent reported it occurred at least one or two
times a month. Although it is difficult to determine if such levels are adequate, these
findings do suggest that a moderate amount of communication is taking place between team

officers and sergeants.

184

The final organizational climate area addressed in the officer survey were items
which reflected how officers viewed upper management in the Lansing Police Department.
The percentage of respondents agreeing with statements relating to upper management are
presented by rank in Table 15. As would be expected, while the general direction of the
responses are similar, differences in magnitude were found based upon rank. In general,
responses suggest that rank-and-file officers felt detached fi'om top management and upper-
level decision making in LPD. Respondents also reported that expected outcomes of the
reorganization were unrealistically high and that priorities under the new structure had not

been made sufficiently clear.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 15.
Perceptions of departmental leaders by respondent rank. l
Non- Supervisors
Supervisors
Top department management has a good understanding of 27.5% 22.7%
what the work of the rank-and-file police oflicer is like (n=91) (n=22)
Rank-and-file officers do not have enough opportunity to 86.5% 68.2%
participate in developing policies and planning strategies (n=89) (n=22)
**
Rank and file oflicers are kept well-informed of 18.9% 36.4%
management’s policies and plans (n=90) (n=22)
Top department leadership has unrealistically high 89.0% 77.3%
expectations about how much the current organizational (n=91) (n=22)
strategies will reduce crime and disorder in the
neighborhoods
Top leaders have made the department’s priorities clear 41.1% 50.0%
(n=90) (n=22)

 

 

 

 

1 The value in each cell represents the percent of the category of respondents
(supervisors or non-supervisors) who indicated that they “agree strongly” or
“agree somewhat” with the respective item. Differences between the
categories were significant at ** p<.05 using Independent Samples Test.

185

 

Communication and Relationships with Supervisors

The interviews and observations indicated communication and changing relationships
with supervisors were a significant problem in the aftermath of the reorganization. The
transition to two precincts created tremendous communication problems for the Department.
Because officers were not routinely interacting with their peers in the opposite precinct (in
the locker room and at pre-shift briefings) there was a sense of separation. As one oflicer
noted on the officer survey: “Communication between officers of the north and south
precinct is practically non-existent.” Some oflicers “affectionately” referred to I-496 as the
“Great Wall of Lansing” because it effectively eliminated communication between the
precincts. It was common for officers to remark that they learned about major crimes in the
opposite precinct through the local news media.

Employees were also ill-prepared to deal with the dual supervision structure used in
the team-based system. This structure created “ghost supervisors” for many officers. Unless
an officer happened to work the same shift as their team sergeant, the two would rarely have
face-to-face contact with one another. Instead, sergeants had to supervise their employees
using voice-mail. For officers, this meant that on a daily basis their team supervisor was less
a person and more a disembodied voice giving them orders from the beyond. Sergeants were
equally frustrated by their inability to have regular interactions with their team members.

The loss of the “human” element of supervision presented a situation to which many
officers were not accustom. This was compounded by the confusion associated with the dual
supervision system. An officer’s team sergeant was not someone with whom they had
routine contact. As a result, officers seemed to work harder to satisfy the sergeant(s) who

supervised their shift. As a team sergeant, this limited what a supervisor could accomplish

186

within their own team. As a shift sergeant, this benefitted supervisors because the officers
whom they supervised on a daily basis were more eager to please them. The result was a
situation which encouraged officers to be more focused on pleasing their shift supervisors

(the traditional orientation for an officer).

Supervisors as Change Agents

Despite the general perception that the team-based system did not work, the story of
Lansing’s reorganization efforts does contain some successes. There were teams which
appeared to firnction very well and seemed to be improving the quality of life for the
residents of the area they served. Anecdotally, the original SCJ research team observed that
the degree to which a team exhibited behavior consistent with the team-based system seemed
to be dependent upon the attitude and actions of its sergeant. This matter was a general
observation, not a definite rule. Some teams exhibited problem solving productivity despite
the apparent apathy or indifference of their sergeant. Additionally, even productive teams
tended to have members who were not “team players” and who did little to contribute to the
team’s accomplishments. It must also be conceded that although these teams produced
outputs which were consistent with the team-based approach, the attitudes of individual
members were not necessarily pro-community policing.

The observation that team sergeants played a key role in setting the tone for their
team of oflicers has crucial implications. It appeared that team sergeants had the ability to
pacify some of the resistance exhibited by their team officers. In the case of Lansing, this
pacification did not appear to have involved threats of undesirable consequences for road

officers who did not work with their team. Rather, these select sergeants set a tone of

187

acceptance within their team. They did not spend a great deal of time bemoaning the
implementation problems or questioning the utility of a community policing philosophy.
Instead, they simply tried to “make do” with the little direction they were given and the
resources which were at hand.

Unfortunately, top leaders overlooked the key position team sergeants (and, to a
lesser extent, lieutenants) might have played in resocializing the road officers. These
supervisors were in a unique position given the routine contact they had with the officers
charged with carrying out generalized community policing. They had the capacity to “push”
officers to work within the team-based system. In addition, they could have opened channels
of communication between road oflicers and top leaders. Such communication could have
given top leaders feedback on the resources, structural changes, and clarification which might
have been needed for the reorganization to be a success.

There was little evidence that LPD leaders attempted to capitalize on the potential
benefits mid-level supervisors might have offered in the implementation process. If these
supervisors had been “brought on board” to understand the logic behind the reorganization
and the merits of taking a team-based approach to community policing, their support might
have “trickled down” into the front line of the organization. Mid-level supervisors were in
a unique position to help make the Department’s efforts more successfirl. While they did not
appear to impede the change process in Lansing, the potential benefits of using sergeants and

lieutenants as change agents was clearly overlooked.

188

The Union and Key Actors

As the literature review suggested, organizations may sometimes mollify resistance
to change through involving key actors and, where applicable, unions. In this case study, the
Lansing Police Department did involve representatives from the patrol oflicers’ union (a
local “lodge” of the Fraternal Order of the Police) throughout the planning phase. Union
representatives sat on both the Planning Committee and the Reorganization Committee
which provided the union with a voice in the change process through these mechanisms. The
researchers, however, found no other evidence of substantial union involvement in either the
formal implementation efforts or the informal resocialization process.

Although the author can only speculate, it might have been possible for the LPD to
use the union as a means to encourage road officers to embrace the change. Had the union
been vocal in its support of the reorganization effort, more officers might have accepted the
change as a good idea. The union’s neutrality did not prevent success in the implementation
process. But by not coming out in support of the change (or even against the change) the
union sent a silent message to its members. To some, the silence might have indicated that
the union felt the change was not even worth commenting upon; the transition to team-based
community policing was just a passing fad which would go away with time.

The union’ 3 apparent indifference implied that the restructuring was not a serious and
enduring issue in the Department. If the union felt that the reorganization would affect the
long-term occupational environment for its members, it certainly would have been more
visible in the aftermath of the reorganization. Its inactivity implied that it did not view the
change as an enduring issue. Therefore, union members may have been more likely to not

take the reorganization as a serious mandate for them to change how they performed their

189

duties. While union members had to do enough to avoid attracting attention, they did not
have to take the change effort seriously. Officers could simply “ride out” the restructuring
until the next “paradigm of the month” emerged to replace the team-based system.

Top LPD managers also failed to capitalize on the potential benefits key actors might
have offered in the implementation and resocialization process. Key actors are those
employees who are informal leaders within an organization. Although they might not hold
formal rank, their peers respect them and look to them for direction. In the context of the
LPD experience, key actors might have helped to mollify some of the resistance to change
and community policing in general.

The Department could have taken the time and initiative to sit down with key
employees and to explain why the team-based community policing system would allow the
Department to better serve the community. The employees could have been given a chance
to express concerns, provide ideas, and ask questions. Although not every actor might have
been “brought on board” in accepting community policing and the restructuring, it is possible
that many might have come to support management’s efforts. The support of such key
employees could have translated into broader support within the organization. Other
employees would see that these key actors endorsed the changes and believed that
community policing was a better way to serve Lansing. Again, although not every officer
would follow the lead of the key actors, it is possible that many might have done so, aiding
the resocialization process.

The idea of using key actors emerged during the field observations and interviews.
One mid-career female officer reflected the common sentiment about this issue. She

indicated that if the Department had taken the time to meet with key oflicers (she named

190

several specific officers) the reorganization might have been accepted by a larger segment
of the Department. She felt that the majority of her peers looked up to a small number of
officers on their shift. If the importance of the team-based structure and the utility of
community policing was proven to the key actors, she believed most other officers would
have come to embrace the changes. Because the key actors were not involved, restructuring
and resocialization was seen as coming from the top of the organization rather than from
within the line.

In the case of the Lansing Police Department’s efforts, the informal resocialization
of patrol officers could have been aided through both visible union support and the
involvement of key actors. It must be conceded that the author can only speculate as to the
impact such support and involvement might have had. The absence of such forces in the
instant study make their true impact uncertain; however, prior research and comments from
oflicers suggest that the resistance to change might have been mollified through these
resocialization mechanisms. Because these sources of direction where silent, the
reorganization was seen as coming from the top of the Department. Had these sources been
involved in the resocialization process, officers might have perceived that support for the
change was coming from within their own ranks, making them less likely to reject

community policing “just because” it was being pushed on them from above.

Organizational Determinism

A strong theme which emerged throughout the course of the study was frustration and
uncertainty with the organizational structure put in place by Lansing Police Department

leaders. There was a perception that top LPD leaders had not been sufficiently clear in

191

explaining how officers were supposed to operationalize community policing under the team-
based system. Officers felt that community policing and problem solving training were
largely inadequate or non-existent. Accountability, evaluation procedures, and the reward
system were not altered to encourage officers to adopt an occupational style consistent with
the expectations of LPD executives. The role of mid-level supervisors was not modified to
support the non-traditional policing practices which the team-based system would have
involved.

Officers indicated that the organization seemed to be floundering— that it had “lost
its rudder.” Even former CPO’s did not seem to completely understand the nexus between
the Department’ 5 previous community policing approaches and community policing/problem
solving under the team-based system. Although Department leaders believed that sufficient
direction had been provided, line officers and mid-level supervisors did not share this
perception. Criticism was primarily focused on several key issues, including: general
implementation and reorganization issues, staffing, clarity, team integrity and guidance in
problem solving activities, and accountability, evaluations, and rewards. Each issue is

considered individually.

General Implementation and Reorganization Issues

A number of issues addressed in the officer survey assessed the efficacy of problem
solving and supervision in the team-based organizational structure. The responses to these
items are presented in Table 16. Responses are reported by rank because prior research
suggests that an employee’s position within an organization may determine how that

employee views the organization and its management. Employees who hold supervisory

192

position may tend to be more supportive of management strategies and practices than non-

supervisory employees

Table 16.
Issues relating to community policing as organized in LPD;
percent of respondents agreeing with items by rank. 1

 

Non- Super-
Supervisor visor

 

There are not enough officers assigned to the patrol functions to 88.8% 86.4%
handle the demands for calls for service (n=112)

 

It is rare for the activities and projects of my team to be well 67.8% 54.6%
coordinated across shifts (n=112)

 

Sergeants working on another shift are unable to effectively 58.9% 77 .3%
supervise officers who work on this shift (n=112)

 

Decentralization to the precincts has improved communication 11.1% 36.4%
between patrol officers and detectives (n=] 12) **

 

 

 

 

 

Top leaders have made the department’s priorities clear (n=1 12) 41.2% 50.0%

 

1 Figures in parentheses indicate the number of valid responses for each item.

The value in each cell represents the percent of the category of respondents

(supervisors or non—supervisors) who indicated they “agree strongly” or

“agree somewhat” with the respective item. Difference between the

categories was significant at ** p<.05 using Independent Samples Test.

A critical concern frequently expressed during the focus groups and informal
interviews was that, regardless of the merits or promises of the team system, there were not
enough officers to staff such an endeavor at a level which would result in success. The logic
was that if there were not enough officers in the Patrol Division, there would not be any time
for problem solving. Those officers assigned to the Patrol Division would spend most of
their time answering calls for service throughout their precinct. There would be little free

time (and it would come intermittently throughout the course of their shift) so devoting

several hours to a specific problem simply would not be feasible. As the first item on Table

193

16 demonstrates, the overwhelming majority of the respondents felt that there were not
enough officers to handle calls service. Presumably, if staffing levels are not sufficient to
handle incoming calls for service, it is likely that they are too low to routinely allocate
officers for problem solving projects.

Although there were some differences in the magnitude of agreement expressed by
supervisors and non-supervisors, the direction of their attitudes were similar. The two
groups only differed significantly on one of the items reported in Table 16. Supervisors were
significantly more likely to think that decentralization had improved communication between
patrol officers and detectives (although both groups indicated relatively low levels of
agreement). Overall, supervisors were slightly more likely to view these issues relating to
community policing in LPD in a more positive fashion. One exception was that supervisors
were more likely to agree that it was difficult for sergeants to effectively supervise officers
working on another shift.

The dual supervision system (where officers were accountable to two sergeants and
sergeants supervised two sets of officers) led to a great deal of tension within the
Department. Both supervisors and non-supervisors believed that the dual supervision system
was flawed because sergeants could not effectively supervise officers working on other
shifts. Supervisors agreed with this issue at a rate nearly twenty percentage points higher
than non-supervisors, although this difference was not statistically significant. In addition,
both groups also agreed that it was rare for team activities to be well coordinated across
shifts.

Respondents rated efforts to implement generalized community policing made by the

Lansing Police Department using a 4-point Likert scale (Table 17). The distribution of

194

responses suggests that officers generally ranked implementation efforts as having been
“fair” or “poor.” On average, only about 20 percent of the officers rated the various
implementation efforts as having been “excellent” or “good.” Respondents gave higher
ratings to how well LPD had done providing officers the information they needed to engage
in problem solving (over 40% providing a rating of “excellent” or “good”). Lower ratings
were given to how well management had done in rewarding officers who engaged in problem

solvin 'ust over 10% rovidin aratin of “excellent” or “ ood”).
g P g g 8

Table 17.
Views on LPD efforts to implement generalized community policing. 1

How well has LPD done in... Excel- Good Fair Poor
lent

 

 

clarifying the role of regular patrol officers in 2.5% 19.5% 43.2% 34.7%
problem solving? (n=1 18)

 

distributing the workload fairly between problem 1.7% 17.2% 44.0% 37.1%
solving specialists and officers who are responsible
for taking calls? (n=116)

 

giving officers enough time for problem solving? 3.4% 22.2% 31.6% 42.7%
(n=117)

 

providing the information officers need on the 11.2% 31.0% 37.9% 19.8%
problems in their assigned areas? (n=l 16)

 

rewarding officers who do a good job with problem 2.6% 7.8% 27 .6% 62.1%
solving? (n=116)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TNumbers in parentheses are the number of valid responses for the respective
item. The table reflects row percentages based upon the number of valid
responses for the respective item. Percentages for some items may not total
to 100.0 due to rounding.

Stafling

As previously mentioned (see Table 16), a common complaint heard from officers

and sergeants was that the Patrol Division was insufficiently staffed to support the team-

195

based system. At the time of the reorganization, the Patrol Division was, on paper, allocated
approximately 110 patrol officers; this was a decrease over the staffing level from earlier
years. The authorized size of the Division had been slowly eroded during the 1980's and
1990's. Veteran officers reported that personnel were pulled from the Patrol Division to staff
new units created within the Department. For example, as the community policing program
was expanded many of the CPO positions were taken from positions allocated to the Patrol
Division. As a result, the overall number of officers working in the Patrol Division had
diminished in the decades leading up to the reorganization.

Officers also estimated that the Patrol Division was understaffed by approximately
twenty-five officers. On paper the Division was allocated more than one hundred and ten
officers, but only eighty to ninety were typically available to work the road during any
scheduling cycle. Some of this shortage was a result of officers who were on light duty (due
to injury or pregnancy). In addition, the Department experienced a large number of
retirements during the 1990's and had trouble training and replacing officers to fill these
positions. Also, when an officer retired from a specialized unit or command position, they
were immediately replaced from within the organization. This eventually resulted in officers
from the Patrol Division being shifted into other parts of the organization. Consequently,
while other units were always at or near a 100 percent staffing level (meaning there was an
actual officer working for every allocated position), the Patrol Division was continually at
a 70 to 80 percent staffing level.

The net result of these diminished staffing levels (both on paper and in reality) was
a genuine shortage of officers available to share in handling calls for service and problem

solving initiatives. As discussed elsewhere in this chapter, officers spent only a small portion

196

of their shift working in their team area and typically had only a small amount of free time
during the course of their shift. It was common for oflicers to complain that there were not
enough “bodies” to handle all of the calls for service. Based upon the available data sources,
this complaint seemed to be well founded.

Although the Department had created a structure in which officers would
collaboratively address neighborhood problems, officers did not believe that they were being
provided with sufficient resources. There is not an absolute standard which dictates
appropriate staffing a team-based system, making it difficult to firmly evaluate whether LPD
had provided officers with sufficient resources to succeed. It is clear is that oflicers believed
that resources were inadequate. The Department provided only limited overtime budgets for
teams to engage in problem solving outside of their regular working hours. In addition,
observational and deployment data support that officers were spending much of their shift
outside of their team area. These findings would tend to support the idea that it was difficult

for officers to find time for problem solving during the course of their regular shift.

Clarity

A final issue of importance contained in Table 16 is the clarity of the department’s
goals. If an organization expects a reorganization to be successfirl, it is important that
employees understand why the changes are being made, what the organization’s new
priorities are, and, through the reorganization, what outcomes will be achieved. These issues
needed to be clarified at the beginning of the change process and elaborated upon (as needed)
with the passage of time. Only half of the respondents (41.2% of non-supervisors and 50.0%

of supervisors) agreed that priorities had been made clear by LPD leaders. Although there

197

is no absolute for evaluating these results, the fact that only half of the respondents reported
that sufficient clarity had been provided could serve as a “red flag” for LPD management.

A persistent complaint throughout the course of the evaluation study was that top
leaders had provided insufficient direction on the specifics of the team-based system. In
brining about organizational change, it is common for planners to be intentionally vague in
certain aspects of planning and implementation. This leaves planners with a certain amount
of “wiggle room” to define issues and confront emerging challenges. In this case study,
officers indicated that the lack of clarity was a tremendous stumbling block in the
implementation process.

Officers felt that the team system had created a high degree of ambiguity within the
Department. There seemed to be no consensus on several key issues, including: what is
community policing? What is successful problem solving? How are neighborhood problems
defined and identified? How should problems be resolved? There was a lack of a coherent
understanding of what the Department was trying to achieve through the generalized
community policing approach. Veteran officers were confused by the “team” label. For
them, calling the new structure a “team-based” system harkened back to earlier failures with
“team policing.” The distinction was never made clear by the organization.

Officers did not firlly understand what they were expected to achieve, how they were
to do so, or what management want from them. They had not been consistently trained in
the philosophy or methods of community policing or problem solving. Many officers
indicated they did not know how to recognize a successful problem solving effort or a
properly functioning team of officers. Officers were never told how to balance the temporal

and geographic responsibilities and demands created by the team-based system. They did

198

not understand for whom they ultimately worked under a system of dual supervision.

Sergeants had not been told how to operate under the dual supervision system. They
did not know whether the wishes of a team sergeant came before the wishes of a shift
sergeant. They were never told how to supervise officers with whom they had very limited
human contact. They were never told how to evaluate officers performance on non-
traditional measures, nor were they given the tools to do so. There were dramatic
inconsistencies in how active teams were based upon the actions of sergeants.

This lack of clarity was a tremendous barrier preventing the success of the team-based
system. Even if all other barriers (attitudes, culture, resources, etc.) were eliminated, this
matter was so pronounced in LPD that it is uncertain if the reorganization could have
succeeded. This issue was persistently visible throughout the SCJ research team’s
involvement with the Department. The problem emerged during the first interviews and was
still evident when the team was making its final reports. Although readily evident, the matter

was never directly resolved by Department leaders.

Team Integrity and Guidance in Problem Solving Activities

Despite criticisms of the team system, the problem seemed to lie outside of the
individual teams. While officers were occasionally critical of a particular team member or
(in rare cases) their team sergeant, most survey respondents provided positive feedback about
their team. The majority of both non-supervisors (85.7%) and supervisors (82.3%) stated
that they could depend on all or most of their team members to contribute to problem solving
efforts. Nearly three-quarters (71.7%) of non-supervisors stated that their team sergeant

always or usually provided adequate guidance for problem solving projects. Supervisors

199

(sergeants and lieutenants) rated their supervisors (lieutenants and captains) slightly lower
on this item, with 56.3 percent providing such a rating.

A number of survey items asked officers to report the degree to which various factors
had contributed to the development of their problem solving skills. This is an important
issue as it reflects whether officers felt that their problem solving skills were being developed
through formal means (training) or informal means (through interaction with peers). The
distribution of responses speaks to how well the Department was doing in providing formal
instruction in problem solving to members of the Patrol Division. As reflected in Table 18,
most officers felt that their problem solving skills had developed through more informal
means. It should be noted that only those oflicers who reported completing a problem

solving effort answered these items.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 18.
Factors contributing to the development of problem solving skills. 1
Very Somewhat Not Not

Factor Helpfirl Helpfirl Helpful Received
Formal training in department (n=82) 9.8% 35.4% 6.1% 48.8%
Formal training outside department 14.6% 22.0% 8.5% 54.9%
(n=82)

College coursework (n=81) 3.7% 43.2% 32.1% 21.0%
Field Training Officer (n=80) 20.0% 38.8% 10.0% 31.3%
Supervisor (n=82) 22.0% 58.5% 6.1% 13.4%
Informal from other officers (n=81) 23.5% 55.6% 6.2% 14.8%
Personal experience (n=82) 63.4% 34.1% 2.4% 0.0%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

T Figures in parentheses indicate the number of valid responses for each item.
The table reflects row percentages based upon the number of valid responses
for the respective item. Percentages for some items may not total to 100.0
due to rounding.

200

Personal experience, informal contact with co-workers, supervisors and Field
Training Officers all appeared to contribute to the development of problem solving skills.
More formal means, such as training and college coursework, were either not very helpful
or never received. In other words, officers felt that their problem solving skills had been
developed through various informal mechanisms, rather than through structured training
programs. Because the officers were relying on these informal means to develop their skills,
it is less certain if they were using consistent and successfirl means to address community
problems.

Table 18 also holds important implications which relate to how community policing
was operationalized in Lansing. The SCJ research team often heard protestations by some
administrators that officers had received sufficient training in problem solving and
community policing issues. Based on the interviews and focus groups, as well as the survey
responses, those officers who had received problem solving training felt that it was at least
somewhat helpful in the development of their skills. Unfortunately, around half of the survey
respondents reported that they had not received training relevant to the development of their
problem solving skills. Clearly, officers indicated a lack of training in problem solving

methods, contradicting the management belief that enough training had been provided.

Accountability, Evaluations and Rewards

In the process of bringing about change, organizations need to provide employees
feedback about performance. Such assessments benefit both the employer and the employee.
They allow the employer to assess the status of a transition and may provide insight into

areas requiring improvement on the part of management. They also benefit employees

201

because they help them better understand what is expected of them under the new
organizational structure. This process of accountability and evaluations can be enhanced
through the use of rewards. While evaluations serve as a warning to those employees who
need to be doing a better job, rewards are a way to recognize exemplary service.

Accountability patterns were complicated by the transition to the team-based
organizational structure. Police officers are generally held accountable only within their
organization, with responsibility vested in their immediate supervisor. Traditionally, officers
have focused their energies on producing the outputs demanded by their organization (arrests,
citations, field contacts, parking tickets); little consideration has been given to the outputs
desired by others. Officers had a responsibility to follow the orders of their immediate
supervisor. While an officer must ultimately answer to any superior officer, on a daily basis
they strive to please those supervisors directly above them in the organization (typically a
sergeant). A primary concern for line officers is pleasing their supervisor.

As discussed in the literature review, community policing complicates accountability
patterns in police organizations; this complication was even more pronounced in LPD.
Under a community policing philosophy, officers are accountable not only within their
organization (to their superiors) but also within a broader context (the community they
serve). Officers must work to satisfy the demands of a variety of individuals; contradictions
may arise as these various demands may be in conflict with one another. The team-based
structure developed by LPD made accountability even more complicated. As discussed
elsewhere, officers (and supervisors) had trouble with the dual supervision created by the
team-based system because it bifurcated accountability. The challenge of this bifurcation

was complicated by the organization’s failure to delineate whether one supervisor (shift

202

versus team) superceded the other.

The Lansing Police Department had historically used quantitative means to evaluate
their employees. The traditional outputs demanded of employees (arrests, citation, field
contacts) allowed supervisors to make simple assessments of ofiicer productivity.
Unfortunately, these traditional quantitative measures are insufficient for evaluating
employees operating under a community policing philosophy. A community policing
philosophy makes it far more difficult for agencies to evaluate their employees; qualitative
measures must often be incorporated with quantitative indicators.

Faced with a need to restructure their evaluation mechanisms, leaders in the Lansing
Police Department simply ceased providing officers with regular evaluations. One survey
respondent noted that they “haven’t had an evaluation in ms” (emphasis in original). In
the summer of 1999 one mid-career officer related to the author that she had not been
evaluated since well before the initial stages of the reorganization (in early 1995). She
indicated that she believed this was the norm among most of her veteran peers. For reasons
which were never completely clear to the SCJ research team, evaluations simply fell by the
wayside in LPD in the mid-1990's.

In implementing the team-based system, LPD did not attempt to devise a reward
system that would recognize officers for exemplary service. Several respondents made note
of this on the officer survey. Unedited comments relating to rewards included:

“Officers are not formally recognized for doing a good job on some incidents
as much as they should be.”

“They want to reward their ‘golden children’ and do not recognize others.”

“There is no reward.”

203

“Few rewards can be provided except informally through supervisors on
shift.”

Agencies are limited in their capacity to provide formal rewards (awards, monetary prizes,
etc.) to their employees. However, agencies can do a great deal at virtually no cost by taking
the time and initiative to recognize officers for their contributions.

In the context of this case study, the Department could have published periodic “best
practices” bulletins which might have highlighted innovative problem solving strategies
employed by officers. Such bulletins would have served a twofold purpose. First, they
would have provided a mechanism by which the Department could have recognized
commendable behavior by employees. Second, they would have demonstrated successful
problem solving, which would have been an important learning tool and training resource
given the difficulty the Department was facing in these areas.

Supervisors were especially fi'ustrated that top leaders were not doing more to
recognize those officers who were diligently trying to make the team-based system a success.
In focus groups and interviews they indicated the Department needed to be doing more to
recognize employees who were innovative in their problem solving initiatives. Lacking
evaluation protocols and in the absence of a reward system, mid-level supervisors had little
leverage in trying to modify the behavior of the officers on their team. As one lieutenant
observed, officers were paid the same amount no matter what they did on duty. Without an
impetus (evaluations) or incentive (rewards), what reason would there be for an officer to do

something extra to attempt to reduce problems within the community?

204

Inferential Analysis

Based upon the findings from the literature review and the results of qualitative and
(initial) quantitative analysis, it is possible to consider the survey data in a more systematic
manner. This final section of the analysis will use the results of the officer survey to test the
hypotheses proffered in the previous chapter. These hypotheses were developed to better
understand how the various elements of the study’s conceptual framework intersected in the
available data. This section will first discuss the development of those factors used in
hypotheses testing. Specifically, factors were developed to represent attitudes about
community policing as a philosophy, perceptions of organizational culture, and evaluations
of community policing as implemented in the Lansing Police Department.

Using these factors and other salient survey variables the hypotheses are individually
tested in the final portion of this chapter. These hypotheses are designed to assess how
measures of individual socialization, organizational culture, and organizational determinism
intersect in determining respondent attitudes toward three key issues. Specifically, the issues
being targeted are beliefs about how community policing should be organized in the future,
perceptions about how community policing was implemented in the Lansing Police

Department, and attitudes respondents held about community policing as a philosophy.

Development of the Factors

Prior to testing the hypotheses, it was first necessary to construct several factors for
use in the analysis. Several concepts of importance in this study (i.e., perceptions of
community policing as a philosophy) were not directly addressed through the survey

completed by the patrol officers. The authors of the officer survey instrument were

205

concerned about these concepts; however, the nature of the concepts was such that direct
measurement was deemed to be ill-advised. The authors felt that the controversial nature of
the concepts would cause respondents to provide answers based on emotions, rather than
their actual beliefs. Although the concepts were not directly measured in the survey,
important elements were reflected in select items. Through the use of factor analysis, a group
of variables may be combined to represent a single concept (\Valker, IT, 1999). Factor
analysis was used in this study to create measures of concepts not assessed through
individual survey items.

Given the emotional nature of the term “community policing,” the oflicer survey did
not ask the respondents to provide a direct evaluation of this concept. The officer survey
authors were concerned that respondents would not be able to separate their attitudes about
community policing from their evaluation of community policing as it was instituted in the
Lansing Police Department. Despite the absence of a direct measure of such attitudes,
several survey items asked officers to evaluate elements of community policing. Using these
elements, a factor was developed for use in the instant study.

Table 19 displays the variables (including their response options, means, and standard
deviations) used to create a factor to reflect attitudes about community policing as a
philosophy (CPATT). These four variables were used to create an overall community
policing attitude scale (Cronbach’s alpha = .8093). Factor scores ranged from -1.87 to 2.14;
higher scores indicated a more positive attitude about community policing as a philosophy.
Factor analysis produced one significant factor with an eigenvalue of 2.583; all remaining

factors had eigenvalues at or below .620.

206

Table 19.
Factor composition:
Attitudes about communitypolicing as a philosophy (CPATT).

 

 

 

 

Variable Response Options Mean SD.
Q58 How would you feel about receiving 1= Very negative 2.13 1.26
an assignment to work as a Community 2= Somewhat negative
Policing Officer during the coming year? 3= Neutral

4= Somewhat positive

5= Very positive
Q123 CPO’s make an important 1= Disagree strongly 2.57 .95
contribution toward reducing crime and 2= Disagree somewhat
disorder in the neighborhoods where they 3: Agree somewhat
are assigned. 4= Agree strongly
Q124 CPO’s make an important l= Disagree strongly 2.90 .86
contribution toward improving the 2= Disagree somewhat
attitudes of neighborhood residents 3= Agree somewhat
toward the police department. 4= Agree strongly
Q145 Doing community policing means 1= Agree strongly 2.68 .98

that officers will be unable to do more
important tasks.

2: Agree somewhat
3= Disagree somewhat
4= Disagree strongly

Once again, it is unclear if a respondent’s attitudes about community policing as a
philosophy are separate from their evaluation of community policing as it was instituted in
the Lansing Police Department. There was no single survey item which measured the
respondents’ evaluation of community policing in LPD. Despite the absence of a direct
measure of such evaluations, several survey items asked officers to evaluate elements of
community policing as it was instituted in LPD. Using these elements, a factor was
developed for use in the instant study.

The variables used to create a factor reflecting evaluations of community policing as
it was instituted in LPD (CPINLPD) are displayed in Table 20 (along with variable response

options, means, and standard deviations). These five variables were used to create an overall

207

community policing in LPD evaluation scale (Cronbach’s alpha = .7850). For this factor,
scores ranged fiom -1.50 to 3.27; higher scores indicated a more positive evaluation of
community policing as it was instituted in the Lansing Police Department. Factor analysis
produced one significant factor with an eigenvalue of 3.100; all remaining factors had

eigenvalues at or below .861.

Table 20.
Factor composition:
Evaluation of community policing as Instituted in LPD (CPINLPD).

 

 

 

 

 

Variable Response Options Mean S.D.
Q81 How well has LPD done in clarifying 4= Excellent 1.90 .80
the role of regular patrol oflicers in 3= Good
problem solving? 2= Fair

1= Poor
Q82 How well has LPD done in 4: Excellent 1.84 .77
distributing the workload fairly between 3= Good
problem solving specialists and officers 2= Fair
who are responsible for taking calls? 1: Poor
Q83 How well has LPD done in giving 4= Excellent 1.86 .88
officers enough time for problem solving? 3= Good

2= Fair

1= Poor
Q84 How well has LPD done in providing 4= Excellent 2.34 .92
the information officers need on the 3= Good
problems in their assigned areas? 2= Fair

1= Poor
Q85 How well has LPD done in 4= Excellent 1.51 .75
rewarding officers who do a good job 3= Good
with problem solving? 2= Fair

1: Poor

 

The officer survey did not attempt to directly measure perceptions of organizational

culture held by the respondents. For the purpose of the following analysis, it is important to

208

examine the relationship between perceptions of organizational culture and other variables
within the study’s conceptual framework. Specifically, are there significant differences on
community policing-related measures based upon a respondent’s perception of the
organizational culture (“healthy” or “not healthy”) in the Lansing Police Department.
Although direct measures of such perceptions are absent in the officer survey data, several
survey items reflected perceptions of organizational culture in LPD. Using these elements,
a factor was developed for use in the instant study.

Table 21 presents the variables (along with variable response options, means, and
standard deviations) used to create the factor reflecting perceptions of organizational culture
(ORGCULT). These five variables were used to create an overall perception of
organizational culture evaluation scale (Cronbach’s alpha = .7013). For this factor, scores
ranged from -1.49 to 2.99; higher scores indicated a more “healthy” perception of the
organizational culture in the Lansing Police Department. Factor analysis produced one
significant factor with an eigenvalue of 2.305; all remaining factors had eigenvalues at or
below .970.

These three factors (CPATT, CPINLPD, and ORGCULT) will be used to reflect their
underlying concepts in the following hypotheses testing. By combining variables which are
theoretically and mathematically related, the following analysis will allow for a better

understanding of the relationship between the study’s key concepts.

209

Table 21.
Factor Composition:
Perceptions of organizational culture in LPD (ORGCULT).

 

 

 

 

 

Variable Response Options Mean S.D.
Q127 Top department leadership has 1= Agree strongly 3.34 .74
unrealistically high expectations about 2= Agree somewhat
how much the current organizational 3= Disagree somewhat
strategies will reduce crime and disorder 4: Disagree strongly
in the neighborhoods.
Q138 Top department management has a 1= Disagree strongly 1.88 .90
good understanding of what the work of 2= Disagree somewhat
the rank-and—file police officer is like. 3= Agree somewhat
4= Agree strongly
Q139 Rank-and-file officers do not have 1= Agree strongly 3.17 .76
enough opportunity to participate in 2= Agree somewhat
developing policies and planning 3= Disagree somewhat
strategies. 4= Disagree strongly
Q140 Rank-and-file officers are kept 1= Disagree strongly 1.81 .86
well-informed of management’s policies 2: Disagree somewhat
and plans. 3= Agree somewhat
4= Agree strongly
Q143 Top leaders have made the 1= Disagree strongly 2.17 .92

department’s priorities clear.

2= Disagree somewhat
3= Agree somewhat
4= Agree strongly

 

Analysis of Hypotheses

The following section contains the data analysis of the hypotheses in each of the three
conceptual areas examined in the study. The reader is reminded that all hypotheses are
present in the null form. All of the regression models contained herein originally included
the respondents’ precinct. This variable was not found to be significant in any of the models.

It has been left out of the final models to ensure they were parsimonious.

210

Individual Socialization

H01: Measures of individual socialization will not significantly affect the
respondents’ attitude about community policing as a philosophy.

OLS regression was employed to estimate the efl’ects of individual socialization on
attitudes about community policing. The dependent variable was a four-item factor score
(CPATT); higher values on the factor reflected more positive attitudes about community
policing as a philosophy. Four measures of individual socialization (education, years of
service, race/ethnicity, and gender) were entered into the regression model as independent
variables. In addition, based upon their significance in prior research it was necessary to
control for rank and experience as a community policing officer.

A significant relationship was found between individual socialization and the attitude
about community policing held by the respondents. The analytical model was significant
with a moderate/ strong predictive value. The individual effects of the independent variables
are presented in Table 22. Table entries are unstandardized regression coefficients with

corresponding t—ratios.

Table 22.
Regression of Individual Socialization on
Attitude About Community Policing as a Philosophy (CPATT). I

 

Variable b t-ratio
CPO experience -1.3 74 -5 .700* * *
rank .760 2933*“
gender -.833 -2.888***
years ofservice -.155 -2.133**
education -.086 -.770
race/ethnicity -.047 -.461

 

TF= 8.336,ps .001, R2= .370
**p< .05, ***p< .01

211

Both of the control variables (CPO experience and rank) were significant at the p=. 01
level and were the strongest predictors in the model. Two of the four individual socialization
predictors were significant. Gender was significant at the p=.01 level and years of service
was significant at the p=.05 level. The respondents’ attitudes about community policing as
a philosophy were more favorable if the respondent had experience as a CPO, held a rank
(sergeant or lieutenant), was a female, or had fewer years of service with the Lansing Police
Department.

Based on the results of this analysis, the null hypothesis is rejected at the p<.001
level. Measures of individual socialization have a significant effect on attitudes about

community policing as a philosophy.

H02: Measures of individual socialization will not significantly affect the
respondents’ evaluation of community policing as it was instituted in
the Lansing Police Department.

OLS regression was used to estimate the effects of individual socialization on the
respondents’ evaluation of community policing as it was instituted in LPD. The dependent
variable was a five-item factor score (CPINLPD); higher values on the factor reflected
greater support for community policing as it was instituted in LPD. Four measures of
individual socialization (education, years of service, race/ethnicity, and gender) were entered
into the regression model as independent variables. Rank and experience as a CPO were
controlled for in the model based upon their significance in prior research.

A significant relationship was not found between individual socialization and the

respondents’ evaluation of community policing as instituted in LPD. The analytical model

was not found to be significant. The individual effects of the independent variables are

212

presented in Table 23.

corresponding t-ratios.

Table entries are unstandardized regression coefficients with

Table 23.
Regression of Individual Socialization on

Evaluation of Community Policing as Instituted in LPD (CPINLPD). 1

 

Variable b t-ratio *
CPO experience -.228 -.806
rank .112 .382
gender -.246 -.7 19
years of service -.048 -.582
education -. 1 17 -.943
race/ethnicity -. 1 15 .988

 

T1== .519,p= .792

i No values achieved p5 . 10

In addition to the regression model failing to achieve statistical significance, none of

the model’s independent variables were found to have significant values.

The level of

significance achieved with both the regression model and individual independent variables

still failed to achieve statistical significance, even when the model controlled for the

respondents’ precinct.

Based on the results of this analysis, the author fails to reject the null hypothesis. The

regression model is not significant at or below either the p=.05 level or the p=.10 level.

Measures of individual socialization (taken individually or collectively) do not appear to

influence the respondents’ evaluations of community policing as it was instituted in the

Lansing Police Department.

H03: Measures of individual socialization will not significantly affect the
respondents’ belief about how the Lansing Police Department should
organize community policing in the firture.

213

The effects of individual socialization on the respondents’ belief of how LPD should
organize community policing in the future were estimated using OLS regression. The
dependent variable was a single survey question; respondents were asked “what would be
the best way for the Lansing Police Department to organize community policing?” Possible
responses (recoded from lowest to highest support for the LPD approach to community

’3 (C

policing) were: “do not do community policing at all,” “designate specialists to do it, make
it the responsibility of all patrol officers” and “make it the responsibility of both specialists
and general patrol officers.”

The regression model consisted of four measures of individual socialization
(education, years of service, race/ethnicity, and gender) and two control measures (rank and
experience as a community policing officer). A significant relationship was found between
individual socialization and beliefs about how community policing should be organized in
the firture. The analytical model was found to be significant with a moderate predictive

value. The individual effects of the independent variables are presented in Table 24. Table

entries are unstandardized regression coefficients with corresponding t-ratios.

Table 24.
Regression of Individual Socialization on
How the Lansing Police Department Should Organize Community Policing. I

 

Variable b t-ratio
CPO experience -1 .264 -4.044***
rank .982 3.026***
gender -.611 -1.735*
years of service -.164 -1.790*
education .077 .568
race/ethnicity -.027 -.207

 

1F: 5.014,ps .001, R2= .266
*p<.10, ***p< .01

214

The two control variables (CPO experience and rank) were both found to be
significant at the p=.01 level; these variables were the strongest predictors in the model. Of
the four individual socialization predictors, none were significant at the p=.05 level; gender
and years of service were found to be significant at the p=. 10 level. The respondents’ belief
about how the Lansing Police Department should organize community policing in the future
was more supportive of the current strategy if the respondent had experience as a CPO or
held a rank (sergeant or lieutenant) and, to a lesser extent, if the respondent was a female, or
had fewer years of service with the Department.

Based on the results of this analysis, the null hypothesis is rejected at the p<.001
level. Measures of individual socialization do appear to influence beliefs about how the

Lansing Police Department should organize community policing in the firture.

Organizational Culture

H04: Respondent demographics will not significantly affect perceptions of
the organizational culture in the Lansing Police Department.

Using OLS regression, demographics were used to estimate perceptions of the
organizational culture in the Lansing Police Department. The dependent variable was a five-
item factor score (ORGCULT); as the value of the factor increases, the organizational culture
in the Department was perceived as being more “healthy.” The regression model consisted
of six independent variables which reflected the respondents’ demographic characteristics.
These measures were: level of education, years of service, race/ethnicity, gender, rank, and
experience as a community policing officer. Demographics were not found to have a

significant effect on respondents’ perceptions of organizational culture. The analytical model

215

was not found to be significant. The individual effects of the demographic measures are
presented in Table 25. Table entries are unstandardized regression coefficients with

corresponding t-ratios.

Table 25.
Regression of Demographics on
Perceptions of Organizational Culture in LPD (ORGCULT). *

 

 

Variable b t-ratio
CPO experience -.283 -l .040
rank .502 1728*
gender -. 362 -l .062
years of service -.124 -1.514
education .021 -.172
race/ethnicity . 145 1 .254

TF=1.165,p=.332

*p<.10

In addition to the regression model failing to achieve statistical significance, none of
the independent variables were found to have significant values at the p=.05 level. This is
consistent with the earlier findings which failed to yield consistent relationships between
individual demographic variables and elements of organizational culture. One variable
(rank) was significant at the p=. 10 level.

Based on the results of this analysis, the author fails to reject the null hypothesis.
Perceptions of the organizational culture in the Lansing Police Department are independent

of an individual’s demographic characteristics.

Hos: Perceptions of the organizational culture of the Lansing Police
Department do not have a significant affect on the respondents’
evaluation of community policing as it was instituted in the Lansing
Police Department.

216

A basic comparison of perceptions of organizational culture (ORGCULT) and
evaluation of community policing (CPINLPD) can be made by calculating their bivariate
correlation. The two factors were significantly related (p=.000) and highly correlated
(r=.659). These findings suggest a strong positive relationship between the variables.
Employees who perceived of the organizational culture as “healthy” gave a higher evaluation
of community policing in LPD. Employees who gave high evaluations to community
policing in LPD perceived of the organizational culture as “healthier.”

In order to determine if perceptions of the organization’s culture affected evaluations
of community policing in LPD, the factors were analyzed using OLS regression. In light of
the results of the first three hypotheses and prior research studies, three independent variables
were controlled for in the final regression model (CPO experience, rank, and gender). Initial
models included other measures of individual socialization (years of service, level of
education, and race/ethnicity); however, these variables were not significant predictors and
were eliminated to ensure that the final model was parsimonious.

The final regression model was run with the evaluation of community policing in
Lansing (CPINLPD) as the dependent variable. Perception of organizational culture
(ORGCULT) was the independent variable; the control variables were CPO experience, rank,
and gender. Analysis indicated that perceptions of organizational culture have an affect on
evaluations of community policing as it was instituted in LPD. The analytical model was
found to be significant with a strong predictive value. The individual effects of the
independent and control variables are presented in Table 26. Table entries are

unstandardized regression coefficients with corresponding t-ratios.

217

Table 26.
Regression of Perceptions of Organizational Culture on
Evaluation of Community Policing as it Was Instituted in LPD. l

 

 

Variable b t-ratio
ORGCULT .650 8.722***
CPO experience -.070 -.356
rank -.164 -.913
gender . 165 .63 8

T F= 19.092,ps .001, R2: .448

***IK .01

Evaluation of community policing as it was instituted in the Lansing Police
Department (CPINLPD) was strongly predicted by the respondents’ perception of
organizational culture. The three control variables (CPO experience, rank, and gender) were
not found to be significant predictors in this model. Respondents who perceived of LPD’s
organizational culture as “healthy” tended to provide higher evaluations of the Department’s
approach to community policing.

Based on the results of this analysis, the null hypothesis is rejected at the p<.001
level. Perceptions of organizational culture have a significant effect on how respondents

evaluated community policing as it was instituted in the Lansing Police Department.

H06: Perceptions of the organizational culture of the Lansing Police
Department do not have a significant affect on the respondents’
beliefs about how LPD should organize community policing in the
future.
Perceptions of organizational culture (a factor: ORGCULT) and beliefs about how
the Lansing Police Department should organize community policing in the future (a recoded
version of variable q63) can easily be compared by calculating their bivariate correlation.

The two items were significantly related (p=.001) with a low correlation (r=.304). These

218

findings reflect a strong positive relationship between the items. Employees who perceived
of the organizational culture as “healthy” believed that the Lansing Police Department should
continue to organize community policing in its current fashion (making it the responsibility
of both specialists and general patrol officers). Employees who believed that LPD should
continue to organize community policing in its current fashion also perceived of the
organizational culture as “healthier.”

In order to determine if perceptions of the organization’s culture affected beliefs
about how community policing should be organized in the future, the items were analyzed
using OLS regression. Based upon the outcome of the first three hypotheses and prior
research studies, three independent variables were controlled for in the final regression model
(CPO experience, rank, and gender). Initial models included other measures of individual
socialization (years of service, level of education, and race/ethnicity). These variables were
not found to be significant predictors and were eliminated to ensure that the final model was
parsimonious.

The final regression model was run with beliefs about how community policing
should be organized in the future as the dependent variable. The five-item factor score
reflecting perception of organizational culture (ORGCULT) was the independent variable;
the control variables were CPO experience, rank, and gender. Perceptions of organizational
culture affect beliefs about how LPD should organize community policing in the future. The
analytical model was found to be significant with a moderate predictive value. The
individual effects of the independent and control variables are presented in Table 27 . Table

entries are unstandardized regression coefficients with corresponding t-ratios.

219

Table 27 .
Regression of Perceptions of Organizational Culture on
Beliefs About How LPD Should Organize Community Policing in the Future. 1

 

 

Variable b t-ratio
ORGCULT .281 2.791***
CPO experience -1.101 4054*"
rank .661 2.685***
gender -.269 -.807

1 F: 8.501,ps .001, R2: .266

***p< '0]

Beliefs about how the Lansing Police Department should organize community
policing in the future were strongly predicted by experience as a community policing officer,
perceptions of organizational culture, and rank. Gender was the only control variable which
was not found to be a significant predictor in this model. Supervisors (sergeants and
lieutenants), those with CPO experience, and those who perceived of the organizational
culture as “healthy” tended to believe the Department should continue to organize
community policing in the contemporary manner (making it the responsibility of both
specialists and general patrol officers).

The null hypothesis is rejected at the p<.001 level based upon the results of this
analysis. Perceptions of organizational culture have a significant effect on beliefs about how

the Lansing Police Department should organize community policing in the future.

H07: Perceptions of the organizational culture of the Lansing Police
Department do not have a significant affect on the respondents’
attitude about community policing as a philosophy.

Calculating the bivariate correlation for these two factors (ORGCULT and CPATT)

allows for a simple exploration of their relationship. The two factors were significantly

220

related (p< .001) and moderately correlated (r=.409). This calculation reflects a strong
positive relationship between the factors. Employees who perceived of the organizational
culture as “healthy” evaluated community policing as a philosophy in a more positive
fashion. Employees who gave positive evaluations of community policing perceived of the
organizational culture as “healthier.”

OLS regression was employed to determine if perceptions of the organization’s
culture affected attitudes about community policing as a philosophy. Based upon the
outcome of the first three hypotheses and prior research studies, three independent variables
were controlled for in the final regression model (CPO experience, rank, and gender). Initial
models also included other measures of individual socialization (years of service, level of
education, and race/ethnicity). These variables were not found to be significant predictors
of attitudes about community policing as a philosophy. They were eliminated from the final
model to ensure that it was parsimonious.

The final regression model was run with respondents’ attitude about community
policing as a philosophy as the dependent variable. The factor reflecting perception of
organizational culture (ORGCULT) was the independent variable; the control variables were
CPO experience, rank, and gender. According to the regression analysis, perceptions of
organizational culture affect how respondents evaluate community policing as a philosophy.
The analytical model was found to significant (F=20.307, pg .001) with a strong predictive
value (R2: .461). Table 28 provides the individual effects of the independent and control
variables. Table entries are unstandardized regression coefiicients with corresponding t-

ratios.

221

Table 28.
Regression of Perceptions of Organizational Culture on
Attitudes About Community Policing as a Philosophy. 1

 

Variable b t-ratio
ORGCULT .368 4707*“
CPO experience -1.294 -6.480* a: *
rank .422 2.231**
gender -.575 -2.237**

 

I F= 20.307,ps .001, R2: .461
**p<.05, ***p< .01
Evaluations of community policing as a philosophy were strongly predicted by all of
the independent variables in this model. Experience as a community policing officer and
perceptions of organizational culture were the strongest predictors; both were highly
significant (pg .000). Gender and rank were also strong predictors and both were significant
at the p=.05 level. Respondents gave higher evaluations of community policing as a
philosophy when they were a supervisor (sergeants and lieutenants), had experience working
as a CPO experience, were female, or perceived of the organizational culture as “healthy.”
Based upon the results of this analysis, the null hypothesis is rejected at the p< .001 .
Perceptions of organizational culture have a significant effect on the evaluation of

community policing as a philosophy.

Organizational Determinism

Hog: Attitude about community policing as a philosophy do not have a
significant affect on the respondents’ evaluation of community
policing it was instituted in the Lansing Police Department.

The relationship between these two factors (CPATT and CPINLPD) may be explored

by computing their bivariate correlation. Calculation of the correlation indicated that the two

222

factors were significantly related (p= .001) with a low correlation (r=.318). This calculation
reflects a positive relationship between the factors. Employees who expressed a more
positive attitude about community policing as a philosophy were more favorable in
evaluating community policing as it was instituted in LPD. Employees who gave positive
evaluations of community policing as implemented in LPD held more positive attitudes
about community policing as a philosophy.

OLS regression was used to determine if attitudes about community policing affected
evaluations of community policing as it was implemented in the Lansing Police Department.
Given their significance in prior research studies and in earlier stages of this analysis, three
independent variables were controlled for in the final regression model (CPO experience,
rank, and gender). Initial regression models also included other measures of individual
socialization (years of service, level of education, and race/ethnicity) as control variables.
These variables were not found to be significant predictors of evaluation of community
policing as it was instituted in LPD. In order ensure a parsimonious model, these variables
were eliminated from the final analysis.

The final regression model was run with respondents’ evaluation of community
policing as instituted in the Lansing Police Department (CPINLPD) as the dependent
variable. The independent variable was the respondents’ attitude about community policing
as a philosophy (CPATT); control variables were CPO experience, rank, and gender.
Attitude about community policing affect how the respondents evaluated community policing
as instituted in LPD. The analytical model proved to be significant with a low predictive
value. Table 29 presents the individual effects of the independent and control variables.

Table entries are unstandardized regression coefficients with corresponding t-ratios.

223

Table 29.
Regression of Attitude About Community Policing as a Philosophy on
Evaluation of Community Policing as Instituted in LPD. l

 

 

Variable b t-ratio
CPATT .397 3.549***
CPO experience .417 1.461
rank -.235 -1.004
gender .143 .451
TF= 3.243,ps .05, R2= .124
***p< 0]

A respondent’s attitude about community policing as a philosophy was a strong
predictor of the evaluation of community policing as instituted in LPD. In this model, the
control variables (CPO experience, rank, and gender) did not exhibit a significant effect on
the dependent variable. Employees with a favorable attitude about community policing gave
more positive evaluations of the Lansing Police Department’s efforts to implement
generalized community policing.

The results of this analysis allow for the rejection of the null hypothesis at the p<.05
level. Perceptions of community policing as a philosophy have a significant effect on the

evaluation of community policing as instituted by the Lansing Police Department.

H09: Attitude about community policing as a philosophy do not have a
significant effect on beliefs about how the Lansing Police Department
should organize community policing in the future.
These two items (CPATT and community policing in the firture) may be compared
simply by calculating their bivariate correlation. The two items were found to be

significantly related (p< .001) and highly correlated (r=.611). This calculation reflects a

strong positive relationship between the items. Employees who expressed a positive attitude

224

about community policing as a philosophy tended to believe that LPD should continue to
organize community policing as it had been doing (making in the joint responsibility of
specialists and general patrol officers). Employees who believed that LPD should continue
with its contemporary approach to community policing tended to have a more positive
attitude about community policing as a philosophy.

OLS regression was used to determine if attitudes about community policing as a
philosophy affected beliefs about how community policing should be organized in the firture.
Based upon their significance in the first three hypotheses and prior research studies, three
independent variables were controlled for in the final regression model (CPO experience,
rank, and gender). Other measures of individual socialization (years of service, level of
education, and race/ethnicity) were included in initial models, but were not found to be
significant predictors of beliefs about how LPD should organize community policing in the
future. They were excluded from the final model to ensure that it was parsimonious.

The final regression model was run with the survey item measuring belief about how
LPD should organize community policing in the future as the dependent variable. The factor
reflecting attitude about community policing as a philosophy (CPATT) was the independent
variable; the control variables were CPO experience, rank, and gender. According to the
regression analysis, perceptions of organizational culture affect how respondents evaluate
community policing as a philosophy. The analytical model was found to be significant with
a moderate/strong predictive value. Table 30 provides the individual effects of the
independent and control variables. Table entries are unstandardized regression coefficients

with corresponding t-ratios.

225

Table 30.
Regression of Attitude About Community Policing as a Philosophy on
Belief About How LPD Should Organize Community Policing in the Future. *

 

Variable b t-ratio
CPATT .603 5 244* * *
CPO experience -.288 -.981
rank .414 1 .73 6*
gender -.061 -. 199

 

1F: 14.326,ps .001, R2: .386
*p<.10, ***p< .01

The respondents’ belief about how community policing should be organized in the
firture were strongly predicted by their attitude about community policing as a philosophy.
One control variable, rank, was also found to be significant at the p=.10 level; the other
control variables did not exhibit significant effects. Respondents were more likely to believe
that LPD should continue to organize community policing as it had been doing if they were
a supervisor (sergeant or lieutenant) or expressed a positive attitude about community
policing as a philosophy.

Based upon the results of this analysis, the null hypothesis is rejected at the p<.001
level. Attitude about community policing as a philosophy has a significant effect on the
respondent’s belief about how the Lansing Police Department should organize community

policing in the future.

How: Evaluations of community policing as instituted in the Lansing Police
Department Perceptions do not have a significant effect on the belief
of how LPD should organize community policing in the future.

Calculating the bivariate correlation for these two items (CPINLPD and how to

organize community policing in the future) allows for a simple exploration of their

226

relationship. The bivariate correlation indicates that the two items are not significantly
related (p=.375). A respondent’s evaluation of community policing as instituted in the
Lansing Police Department was independent of their belief about how LPD should organize
community policing in the future.

OLS regression was used to reconfirm that evaluations of community policing as
instituted in LPD did not affect beliefs about how LPD should organize community policing
in the future. Based upon the outcome of the first three hypotheses and prior research
studies, three independent variables were controlled for in the final regression model (CPO
experience, rank, and gender). Initial regression models also included other measures of
individual socialization (years of service, level of education, and race/ethnicity). These
variables were not found to be significant predictors of beliefs about how community
policing should be organized in the firture by the Department. They were eliminated from
the final analysis to ensure that the model was parsimonious.

The final regression model was run with belief about how the Lansing Police
Department should organize community policing in the future as the dependent variable. The
factor reflecting the respondents’ evaluation of community policing as instituted in LPD
(CPINLPD) was the independent variable; the control variables were CPO experience, rank,
and gender. A respondent’s evaluation of community policing as instituted in LPD did not
affect their belief about how LPD should organize community policing in the future. The
analytical model was found to be significant with a low predictive value; however, CPINLPD
did not have a significant effect on the respondents’ belief about how community policing
should be organized in the firture. Table 31 provides the individual effects of the

independent and control variables. Table entries are unstandardized regression coefficients

227

with corresponding t-ratios.

Table 31.
Regression of Evaluation of Community Policing as Instituted in Lansing on
Belief About How Community Policing Should Be Organized in the Future. 1

 

 

Variable b t-ratio
CPINLPD .043 .379
CPO experience -1.006 -3,393***
rank _727 2.800***
gender -.456 -1.296
TF= 5.282,ps .001, R2: .188
***p< .0]

Belief about how community policing should be organized in the firture was predicted
by experience as a community policing officer and rank. There was not a significant
relationship between this dependent variable and evaluation of community policing as
instituted in LPD (CPINLPD) or gender. Respondents tended to believe that the Lansing
Police Department should continue its current strategy for organizing community policing
(making both specialists and general patrol officers responsible for this activity) if they had
experience working as a CPO or if they were a supervisor (sergeant or lieutenant).

Based upon the results of this analysis, the author fails to reject the null hypothesis
at the p<.05 level. Although the overall analytical model was significant, evaluation of
community policing as instituted in Lansing does not affect beliefs about how the Lansing

Police Department should organize community policing in the firture.

228

Summary

The literature review was used to develop a three-prong conceptual framework
through which the “big picture” of organizational change in police agencies might be
examined. These analyses have considered data fi'om a planned change in a police
organization (specifically, fi'om a specialized to a generalized form of community policing)
in the context of this framework. Qualitative and quantitative data have been employed to
develop a more thorough understand of the complex nature of resistance to organizational
change. The variables and findings reported in this analysis Were selected to address both
the hypotheses being tested and other areas of interest which either supported these
hypotheses or were not suitable for statistical testing.

Police planners and administrators have historically focused their energies on
structural issues in initiating organizational change. More “human” considerations have
frequently been overlooked in the change process. Studies examining community policing
have tended to focus on the outcome of community policing efforts, rather than the process
of implementing such programs. In addition, community policing has typically been a
program, rather than a philosophy in American police agencies. As such, little is known
about how officers experience efforts to introduce generalized community policing in their
work environment.

This study has attempted to overcome these various limitations experienced by both
practitioners and members of the academy. It has tried to examine the process of
implementing community policing in a broader context. It has focused on an agency which
was seeking to make the transition from community policing as a program to community

policing as a philosophy. Because few studies have incorporated these elements together,

229

the efforts of the author are, in a sense, largely exploratory. This study has considered an
emerging problem (the transition to generalized community policing) in a broader context.
As such, the study holds important implications for both scholars and practitioners. The final
chapter of this text will provide conclusions, policy implications, and recommendations for

firture research in light of the results of this study.

230

CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter will consider the overall research findings and their implications in light
of the conceptual framework put forth in the literature review. It will first summarize the
most significant research results presented in the previous chapter. Implications of the
results will then be discussed in three distinct contexts. First, the author will address key
issues for organizational change in police agencies. Second, the author will describe key
issues which police planners and administrators should consider in implementing broader
variations of community policing. Finally, the author will discuss the implications this study
might have for future research endeavors relating to community policing and organizational

change in police agencies.

Summary of the Research Findings

Quantitative findings were developed from a survey administered to a large group of
Lansing Police Officers; this group was demographically representative of the Department
as a whole. The survey respondents were mostly white males. Most respondents had a
Bachelors degree, although the reported level of education varied from some college through
graduate degrees. The respondents had been employed with LPD for anywhere from a few

months to several decades. Approximately one in five was a supervisor (sergeant or

231

lieutenant) and nearly one in six had been or was a CPO.

Officers indicated dissatisfaction with their general work environment and their
relationship with their supervisors. Employees reported violations of their psychological
contracts through the Department’s failure to clarify goals/objectives, give employees a
voice, and provide employees with the training, resources, and support required for
generalized community policing to succeed. Many ofiicers seemed to distrust the
Department’s management. The transition to a two-precinct department had increased the
psychological (and physical) distance between line officers and top leaders. A few officers
demonstrated clear suspicion of the SCJ research team, suggesting that they were the Chief s
spies.

The reorganization left officers uncertain about the Department’s values and beliefs.
They felt that they no longer knew “what mattered” within the organization and were not
clear what behaviors were valued by the organization. Officers were uncertain how the
transition to generalized community policing would alter the criteria upon which promotion
and special assignment were allocated. Beyond the transition to team-based community
policing, some respondents were worried that the Department was becoming too political in
general. They were specifically concerned that the agency was catering too much to the
demands of the community and that decisions relating to promotions and specialized
assignments were being made based on diversification, rather than merit. Supervisors
recognized that certain structural changes had modified the roles and responsibilities of some
management positions, making them less desirable.

Both quantitative and qualitative data were concerned with assessing respondents’

attitudes toward community policing, both as a general philosophy and as implemented in

232

the Lansing Police Department. Some officers questioned whether community policing was
a valid firnction for the police. Others believed it was a valid function, but that it was not
being done “right” in the Lansing Police Department. There were also questions about the
capacity of community policing to alter entrenched social problems. Many officers,
including former CPO’s, felt that the Department was attempting to address serious
community ills (which required “surgery”) with overly simplistic responses (“band-aid”
solutions).

Disparities were observed between the attitudes of respondents based upon their
experience as a CPO. Although both CPO’s and non-CPO’s believed that community
policing officers made an important contribution in the neighborhoods they served, non-
CPO’s indicated that an officer could be spending their time engaged in more important
tasks. CPO’s and non-CPO’s also indicated diverse perspectives on the advantages and
disadvantages of having a CPO assignment. Non-CPO’s held perspectives which seemed
to be more “romantic” than those reported by officers with CPO experience. Overall,
officers felt that CPO’s were not being given sufficient direction or training, but did have the
advantage of working independently, addressing long-term problems, and working closely
with the public.

One of the most significant items from the oficer survey asked respondents how the
Lansing Police Department should organize community policing in the fixture. This provided
one of the most pointed assessments of community policing obtained in the evaluation
project. vaerall,rgne in three respondents felt that theDepartrnent should not do community,” V

policing in the firture. Those respondents with CPO experience were much less likely to hold

alt-”t

 

this sentiment, instead feeling that the Department’s current strategy was the best approach

233

for the future.

Respondents were critical, and at times contradictory, in their perceptions of the
organizational culture and climate in the Lansing Police Department at the time of the officer
survey. When asked to rate their immediate supervisors respondents provided positive
evaluations on both traditional and community policing criteria, including criteria which
were specific to the team-based system. On the other hand, both supervisors and non-
supervisors felt that sergeants were unable to effectively supervise officers on another shift.
Respondents were satisfied with the specific supervision they were receiving, but were
critical of the general ability of supervisors to be effective under the Department’s
contemporary structure.

Respondents were less positive in their perceptions of top LPD leaders. Their
responses to several items present an image of a Department which did not seem to exhibit
“health.” Respondents felt that top management did not understand rank and file employees.
They did not think that ofiicers had a chance to participate in making decisions and were not
kept informed of the rationale behind such decisions. In addition, respondents indicated that
the department’s priorities had not been made clear by top leaders.

Communication, both within teams and between precincts, generally received low
ratings. Respondents felt that there was poor communication between precincts and units
(i.e., patrol and detectives) within the Department. Many respondents felt there was
insufficient communication within their team. The communication which was occurring
took place through impersonal mechanisms, such as voice mail, rather than via face-to-face
interaction. On the whole, these assessments of the relationship between line employees and

top management indicate that the organizational climate and culture were not as “healthy”

234

as they might be.

The Lansing Police Department did not capitalize on the potential benefits key actors
and mid-level supervisors might have offered in the change process. Because not efforts
were made to incorporate these elements in the change process, it is difficult to conclusively
state that they would have helped facilitate change. Based on existing literature, it is possible
that they might have helped mollify some of the resistance officers exhibited. However, the
fact that they were overlooked does not appear to have had a deleterious effect on the change
process in the instant case study.

The mechanics of the team-based system also presented problems in the eyes of the
study participants. A critical issue was that staffing levels were perceived as too low to
support the team-based system. Oflicers and supervisors felt that there were not enough
personnel to handle reactive policing (calls for service), making it very challenging to
undertake more proactive efforts (problem solving). The analysis of various data sources
seemed to support the contention that oflicers had little free time during the course of their
shifts and spent little time in the team areas. This does not allow for a clear determination
of whether staffing levels were sufficient, but does indicate that ofiicers had few
opportunities to engage in problem solving during the course of their routine shifts.

The team system itself posed numerous problems for officers and supervisors.
Officers had to balance the temporal and geographic responsibilities which the team-based
community policing system created. Supervisors and officers had to deal with the tension
created by the dual supervision system. Survey respondents indicated that coordination,
communication and supervision across the shifts were difficult. The implementation process

itself was criticized on several levels. Respondents indicated that in the course of the

235

reorganization, top leaders had provided poor clarity and insuflicient information. They also
felt that the team-based system suffered from a poor distribution of the workload, insufficient
time for problem solving endeavors, and inadequate rewards.

Officers were unsure how to operate under the team-based system. They felt that top
leaders had not been clear about what the Department expected to achieve, how officers were
supposed to work under the system, how they were to balance their temporal and geographic
responsibilities, how they were to deal with the tension of dual supervision, and what criteria
would indicate “good” performance on their part. Respondents indicated that their problem
solving training was inadequate to prepare them to operate under the new system, forcing
them to rely on informal (and inconsistent?) means by which to learn these skills.

A final element of organizational determinism which was absent in the Lansing
experience was a modified system of accountability, evaluations, and rewards. Community
policing alters accountability patterns within police organizations; this alteration necessitates
a change in evaluation tools. The quantitative measures traditionally employed by
organizations to evaluate police employees do not assess the range of behaviors and actions
that need to be captured to make evaluations in a community policing setting. Alternative
reward mechanisms may also help encourage employees to make behavioral modifications.
In the case of the Lansing Police Department, these elements were largely overlooked in the
transition to team-based community policing. This makes it difficult to determine the role
they played in the process of change. Based on prior studies, it might be speculated that the
use of these three tools might have aided the Department in realizing a more successfirl
change within their organization.

The results of the review of the literature and these initial study findings facilitated

236

the development of ten hypotheses which were tested using the results of the officer survey.
These hypotheses were produced to allow for a better understanding of how the elements of
the conceptual framework intersected in the instant case study. The hypotheses were
designed to assess how measures of individual socialization, organizational culture, and
organizational determinism intersected in determining respondent attitudes toward three
issues. Specifically, the issues being targeted were beliefs about how community policing
should be organized in the future, evaluation of community policing as implemented in the
Lansing Police Department, and attitudes respondents held about community policing as a
philosophy.

The following observations and conclusions may be made based upon the results of
the hypotheses testing. The respondents’ attitudes about community policing as a philosophy
were affected by experience as a CPO, gender, and rank (and, to a lesser extent, years of
service). Females, supervisors, and those with CPO experience held more positive attitudes
(as did newer officers). In addition, respondents who perceived of the organizational culture
as “healthy” also had more positive attitudes about community policing as a philosophy.
Other measures of individual socialization were not found to have an impact on attitudes
about community policing as a philosophy.

Measures of individual socialization had an effect on beliefs about how community
policing should be organized in the future. EERQIMPB‘EFWQE QBQ.@§L€9¥...E§§§ significant

Egg-ctofiflwhile gender and years of service exhibited smaller effects. When other factors
were controlled for in regression models, the impact of these individual socialization

elements was less pronounced. When controlling for perceptions of organizational culture

or evaluation, of community policing as instituted in LPD, only CPO experience and rank

237

were found to be significant. When controlling for attitude about community policing, only

\rgnyk. was found to be significant (at a questionably low level). Taken as a whole, these
results suggest that beliefs about how community policing should be organized in the firture
were most closely related with attitudes about community policing as a philosophy.

Finally, measures of individual socialization were not found to be related with the
evaluation of community policing in the Lansing Police Department. Respondents’
evaluation was related with their attitudes about community policing and their perceptions
of organizational culture. As might be expected, this evaluation was correlation with
attitudes about community policing as a philosophy. Surprisingly, this evaluation was highly \
correlated with perceptions of organizational culture; respondents’ who perceived of the t
culture as “healthy” were more satisfied with how community policing was instituted in V
LPD. This might suggest that oflicers who were content with their work environment and
their relationship with top leaders were less critical of change. 1

Taken as a whole, supervisors, females, and officers with CPO experience held more
positive attitudes about community policing as a philosophy. Evaluations of community
policing as instituted in LPD were independent of individual socialization; instead, they were
affected by general attitudes about community policing and, more profoundly, by perceptions
of organizational culture. Officers who perceived of the organizational culture as “healthy”
were more supportive of community policing, both specifically (in LPD) and generally (as
a philosophy). Beliefs about how the Lansing Police Department should organize
community policing in the future were affected by perceptions of organizational culture,
evaluations of community policing as implemented in LPD, and attitudes about community

policing as a philosophy. Officers who supported the idea of community policing, supported

238

how it had been implemented, and perceived of LPD’s organizational culture as “healthy”
believed that the Department should continue to organization community policing using the
team-based system.

In conclusion, it should be noted that the problems experienced in the Lansing Police
Department should not be viewed as an indication that it was/is a “bad” organization. As the
literature review would suggest, the difficulties and barriers they encountered are extremely
common. Unfortunately, the Department did not learn from prior failures and incorporate

their lessons into their reorganization efforts.

Implications of the Research Findings

This study holds important implications for both practitioners and members of the
academy. These implications can be derived from two primary sources: (1) based upon the
analyses presented in the previous chapter; and (2) based upon the experiences of the SCJ
research team and the author. The implications of these research findings may be divided
into three categories. First, the study illuminates implications for general organizational
change in police agencies. Second, the research findings are of importance for the
implementation of generalized community policing. Third, the experiences of the SCJ
research team and this author hold implications for firture research in the area of community
policing and planned change in police agencies. Each category will be considered separately

in this section.

239

Implications for Organizational Change in Police Agencies

 

Care must be exercised in generalizing the findings of the instant study. The data
under consideration only represents the experiences of a single police agency. Issues which
were important in the Lansing Police Department may not be important in other agencies;
analogously, matters which were not important in LPD may be important elsewhere. There
are, however, a number of consistencies between these research findings and the results of
other studies presented in the literature review. These consistencies would suggest that it
might be possible to generalize these findings to other poliCe agencies (particularly those
agencies of similar size and composition serving similar communities).

Based upon the issues which emerged in the literature review and the results of this
study, it is possible to offer some tentative elements of a general model for organizational
change in police agencies. The following model is far from exhaustive, but should serve as
a starting point for firture planning and research efforts. The applicability of individual
elements will vary between agencies; however, on the whole, they would seem to be germane
in discussing organizational change.

1. Planners and administrators need to take employee attitudes and perceptions into
account in the process of planning and implementation organizational change. It is
not enough to focus on structural issues. While organizations may be able to “force”
change on employees (through strict accountability, evaluations, policies, procedures,
etc), there may be other alternatives to ensuring success. By taking employees into
account, employers may be able to ensure that employees embrace organizational
change, thus enhancing the likelihood of achieving success. By working with

employees so that they understand why a change is being initiated and by giving time

240

to hear their questions and concerns, organizations may be able to garner more
support from those most directly affected by change, thus mollifying one source of
resistance.

Prior research has shown (and this research supports) that employers tend to ignore
the psychological contracts held by their employees. It is important for employers
to note that many elements of the psychological contract are non-monetary in nature.
In other words, it will not cost an employer anything (other than time and effort) to
firlfill these expectations of their employees. While individual elements will
certainly vary between employees, general elements may be noted. Employers need
to legitimately listen to employee needs and concerns; they need to respect an
employee’s need for clarity, respect, involvement, and understanding. In the instant
study, the Department’s lack of clarity not only presented structural challenges, but
it was also viewed by some as a violation of their psychological contract. To some,
the Department’ 5 failure to clarify expectations, demands, and processes was viewed
as a sign that the agency did not respect the needs of its employees. In seeking to
bring about change, employers must be conscious of how such changes intersect with
the elements of their employees’ psychological contracts.

The preceding discussion of the psychological contract is closely related to
organizational culture. As the analysis revealed, employee perceptions of
organizational culture are closely related with their views on organizational change
(in the context of community policing). The exact reason is not indicated through
this analysis. It might be supposed that employees who feel that they have a good

relationship with their supervisors and are respected by their employer may be more

241

open to new approaches to doing their job. Employees who are less satisfied with
their employer may resist change simply because it is initiated by their employer.
Thus, agencies with a “healthy” organizational culture may have fewer barriers to> \/"
overcome in seeking to bring about change.

As evident in earlier experiments with team policing, change alters traditional reward
systems in organizations. Such rewards may include informal benefits granted to
officers exhibiting desirable conduct and formal patterns of promotions and
specialized assignments. Although this did not appear to make a significant
difference in the outcome of this study, there was evidence that this issue was of
concern to some oficers. The transition to the team-based system modified the role
and function of the patrol lieutenant, making this position less desirable. In a more
general sense, many officers reported that they no longer knew “what mattered” to
the organization. Many transitions in police organizations require agencies to rethink
how they will reward desirable behavior by their employees. While organizations
must allow time for employees to adjust to new reward patterns, they must also
recognize that such changes can be a powerfirl tool in resocializing employees to
adopt new patterns of behavior.

As a product of their excitement to initiate a transition in their organization, planners
and managers sometimes rush into and/or do not allow enough time to implement
change. The more dramatic the impact of a new program, structure, or philosophy,
the longer it will take for successful change to be realized. Change often challenges

the status quo within an organization. Given this fact it takes time to reorient

employees and to modify organizational structure. By giving sufficient forethought

242

to change, implementation, and their impact on an organization it may be possible
to avoid errors, contradictions, resistance, and mistakes.

Organizations should not expect overnight results in the process of implementing
change. Mangers need to have realistic expectations of what change will achieve.
Modification of individual socialization and organizational culture may take a great
deal of time. The more dramatic the change, the longer this process may take. As
some have suggested, the introduction of a new paradigm may take generations to
become firmly entrenched. Police managers need to be realistic in what they hope
to achieve in the short-term through change. By not setting standards which are too
high and by continuing to stay on track in pursuing change, police departments may
bring change to fiuition with time. If standards are unrealistic and/or change is
expected overnight, potentially successful and beneficial efforts may be abandoned
with too much haste. Success often takes time.

Police organizations need to do a better job involving key actors in the resocialization
process. By involving those employees who set a tone within an organization and
who are formal or informal leaders, other employees may support a new idea,
program, or philosophy. If employers take the time to identify key actors and help
these employees understand why change is necessary, broader support may be
realized within the organization. Too often, employers do not take the time to
explain the rationale for change to their employees. Armed with such an
understanding, employees may be more likely to support change. By targeting
employees who have the respect of their peers, employers may create general support

for their efforts with the least amount of effort. In addition, employees may View

243

support for change as having originated among their peers, rather than be forced upon
them from the top levels of an organizational hierarchy.

8. In attempting to modify officer behavior, actions and attitudes, employers need to
consider how they can incorporate methods which both “push” and “pull” employees.
Techniques for “pushing” employees to change their behavior might include
structural controls on behavior and actions (i.e., modified evaluation techniques,
articulated accountability patterns, new policies and procedures). Methods of
“pulling” employees to change their attitude focus on changing employee perceptions
and beliefs. In other words, how can an employer make their employee see the value
in change so that the employee wants to support that change? It is possible greater
success may be realized in implementing change by incorporating both these
“pushes” and “pulls” on employees. Not only will employees be compelled to

modify their behavior, but they will also want to do so.

Implications for the Implementation of Generalized Community Policing

The previous section outlined several key issues which ought to be considered in
implementing change in police organizations. Beyond these general issues, these research
results hold implications specifically for police agencies seeking to implement generalized
community policing. Community policing was conceptualized as a philosophy which should
influence how every officer in a police department performs their duties on a daily basis.
This generalized form of community policing is something few agencies have attempted to
achieve. Instead, American police departments have used community policing as a program

carried out by specific employees within their organization. If generalized community

244

policing is going to be realized in a law enforcement agency, the following issues (and

others) will need to be considered and addressed.

1.

Mid-level supervisors may be an important lynchpin in implementing generalized
community policing. By bringing sergeants and lieutenants “on board” with the
philosophy of community policing, departments may be able to overcome much of
the resistance offered by line employees. In many police agencies, these mid-level
supervisors are the only command officers with whom line officers have routine
contact; they represent the administration to the majority of the department. If these
supervisors exhibit pro-community policing behavior and set a problem solving tone
for the officers whom they supervise, success may be realized more readily. Mid-
level supervisors are in a position to not only enforce new policies and procedures,
but also to lead by example. As such, they have a unique capacity to facilitate change
in their agency.

One of the most important lessons from the Lansing experience is that organizations
need to take the time to explain change to their employees. Officers need to
understand why an agency is adopting a community policing philosophy, why
changes in structure are necessary, how employees should operate under the new
structure, and what the organization expects to achieve through its approach to
community policing. If officers do not understand why a change is being initiated
they have no reason to alter their behavior. If officers have not been told how to
operate under a generalized community policing paradigm then they are likely to
resort to traditional policing tactics to do their duties. If expectations are not explicit,

officers will not know what ends they are supposed to pursue. If success is not

245

defined prior to implementing a change, the department will not know how to assess
its progress and make structural adjustments. If sufficient explanation is not
provided on these and other issues, employees will have a difficult time operating
under a generalized community policing structure (even if they want to do so).
Agencies implementing generalized community policing need to first ensure that they
have sufficient resources to do so. Community policing can be a resource-intensive
endeavor. To be done well, it may tax a department’s personnel and financial
resources. Although community policing may reduce an organization’s workload in
the long run, in the short term it involves a high number of personnel hours. Beyond
these financial and personnel resources, agencies might also question if they have
suficient support resources to aid community policing activities. Examples of such
support resources might include crime analysis, employee training, active community
residents, and support fi'om other governmental and social service agencies. These
financial, personnel, and support resources provide oflicers with the time, facilities,
and tools to engage in successful community policing and problem solving efforts.
Prior to attempting to implement generalized community policing agencies need to
give advance consideration to their future structure and how to best bring about a
successful organizational change. As mentioned above, planned change should only
occur after sufficient planning and consideration; in addition, the process of actually
implementing change should not be rushed. If change is forced, resistance is more
likely. If change is slow and incremental, employees have the opportunity to learn
new techniques and skills over time while slowly acclimating to a new organizational

philosophy. Agencies might consider what types of employees will succeed under

246

their new philosophy. If these types of employees are not abundant within the
organization, this might modify how the agency chooses to go about recruiting,
selecting, and training employees in the firture.

Community policing requires that officers adopt new patterns of behavior; traditional
“scripts” and “routines” may not support the goals and objectives community
policing entails. Officers need sufficient training so that they can learn alternative
ways to perform their duties. In the absence of such training, officers must turn to
peer socialization. While peer socialization is not inherently bad, it may be
inconsistent across an organization. In LPD, in the absence of uniform and consistent
training, many officers indicated that they learned how to do problem solving
primarily fi'om their peers. Based on this and other studies, it does not appear that
community policing is something which police officers can effectively teach to
themselves. Agencies which wish to pursue generalized community policing need
to make sure that they provide their employees with sufficient training in the theory
and practice of community policing. Such training not only ensures that employees
are operating in an informed and consistent manner, but may help resolve issues of
clarity and misunderstanding which might further hamper the implementation.
Community policing requires that police agencies rethink their accountability
patterns, evaluation mechanisms, and reward structures. This is required both to
ensure that organizational structure is consistent with organizational demands and to
provide another means by which agencies may “push” officers to exhibit certain
behaviors in the performance of their duties. Community policing alters to whom

and it what ways police officers are accountable. It also modifies the criteria upon

247

which employee performance ought to be based. By rewarding and recognizing
officers who exhibit pro-community policing behavior, employers may be able to
encourage other employees to exhibit similar actions. These issues must be modified
so that they are consistent with the needs of a police organization operating under a
generalized community policing paradigm. Their modification may also serve to
help agencies encourage officers to embrace a community policing approach in the

performance of their duties.

Implications for Future Studies of Organizational Change in Police Agencies

This section will describe several implications for future research efl‘orts attempting

the study organizational change in police agencies, in particular, future studies of generalized

community policing. These implications are derived from two sources: (1) the experiences

of the SCJ research team in the initial evaluation research project; and (2) the experiences

of the author in attempting to assess the strength of the conceptual framework developed in

the literature review. This study has attempted to understand how a broad set of issues

intersects in the process of changing police organizations. Further research will be needed

to better understand this phenomenon.

l.

The data available in the present study were not a perfect fit with the conceptual
framework developed through the literature review. One of the greatest limitations
was the lack of a full range of measures which might reflect individual socialization.
Future research might attempt to better assess the role individual socialization might
play in the process of organizational change. Such efforts present practical

challenges to a researcher as it may be pragmatically difficult to separate

248

socialization on individual and organizational levels in studying police officers.
Despite this challenged, future research might consider how can elements of
individual socialization might be assessed in a more comprehensive manner.

As eluded to in the previous implication, firture research efforts using this conceptual
framework might consider how individual socialization and organizational culture
can be analytically separated to allow better understanding of their relative impact.
Simply assessing an employee’s expressed attitudes, beliefs, and values is not
sufficient to understand how these expressions have been molded through various
socialization processes. Ideally, a researcher could assess attitudes, beliefs and
values before an employee began a new job; such an assessment would provide the
most complete picture of individual socialization experiences. Pragmatically, this
would rarely be possible in this type of research. As an alternative, firture studies
could attempt to structure questions in such a way that a respondent’s individual
socialization could be separated from the impact of organizational socialization and
culture on attitudes, beliefs and values.

The method of operationalizing organizational culture in the present study allows one
way to assessing the impact of this factor on the process of change. Future studies
might seek to compare multiple agencies attempting analogous change. This would
allow for another way of assessing of the role of organizational culture. The
advantage of using a single agency is study organizational culture is that it limits
reliability concerns which may arise in a multiple-agency study. Using data from
difl’erent agencies does create methodological concerns as each agency will have a

different “starting point” for their culture, organizational climate, efforts to bring

249

about change, etc. By using only one agency there is not a question of whether the
way in which agencies move through the change process may complicate this
conceptual model.

Future research needs to give more consideration to how generalized community
policing is experienced by those charged with carrying it out? In the present study
it is not clear if Lansing Police Department officers were actually “doing”
generalized community policing. In agencies where this is not an issue, studies might
assess how this alternative philosophy affects how police officers experience their
jobs. Do these officers experience the same benefits reported by specialized
community policing ofiicers in prior research? What new challenges and stresses
might this paradigm create for officers operating under this approach to community
policing? How can agencies pursuing generalized community policing better meet
the needs of their employees? These and other issues will need to be addressed if
generalized community policing is going to take hold in American law enforcement
agencies.

A key implication of the SCJ research project was the need for researchers and police
organizations to engage in long-term projects to better understand the “big picture”
of organizational change. Outside evaluators cannot enter an organization, make a
quick assessment of select factors, and produce an accurate report about the “state of
affairs” in that organization. Although there was a time when this latter approach
was the norm, it is becoming evident that if academics are going to understand
organizations and the process of change, research involvements need to be longer in

duration. An enduring presence allows researchers to better understand the nature

250

and scope of problems, demonstrates commitment to employees, and provides a more
thorough and accurate understanding of the issues under consideration.

In pursuit of an understanding of the “big picture” of organizational change firture
research might consider attempting to assess changes in attitudes, beliefs and values
over time. The present study involved longitudinal interviews and focus groups, but
the quantitative data were gathered as a snapshot in time. Administering a variation
of this study’s officer survey several times during the course of a planned
organizational change might provide researchers with a more thorough understanding
of the change process. Such an approach would allow a researcher to understand
trends and changes in employee attitudes which might occur during the course of the
implementation process. Armed with a more thorough understanding of the
implementation of organizational change, managers might be able to mollify

resistance from their employees.

Conclusion

Based upon the findings of this study, the reader should not view the Lansing Police

Department pejoratively. While the Department and its leaders made mistakes, their

behavior was typical of managers planning for change. The agency’s most serious

shortcoming was its failure to learn from the lessons of the past. If more attention had been

payed to the issues illuminated by this research, it is possible the Department’s efforts to

implement generalized community policing might have been more successfirl.

Although the data used in this study were derived from a specific agency attempting

251

a specific change, the author suggests that the findings have broader implications.
Departments which are analogous to the Lansing Police Department (i.e., size of agency, size
and nature of jurisdiction, resources, etc.) may have similar experiences in the process of
attempting to introduce planned organizational change. In addition, these challenges may
create barriers in attempts to initiate other forms of change in police organizations. Above
all else, police planners and administrators need to understand the myriad of structural and
humanistic issues which must be addressed in the process of bringing about change. Failure
to give due consideration to these issues may result in the failure of future efforts.

Research which takes some of the preceding factors into consideration will greatly
contribute to the understanding of planned change in police organizations. The author is
realistic in understanding that it is difficult to study change in depth while accounting for
diverse elements such as individual socialization, organizational culture, and organizational
determinism. It may often be difficult to do so in the course of conducting research. If,
however, the issues addressed in this research are of genuine importance then this is a
challenge which researchers must bear in the firture.

Some might label community policing as a concept which is a “simple theory” but
a “harsh reality.” Although the ideas associated with the philosophy would seem to be
laudable goals for police organizations to pursue, realizing these ideas can be very difficult,
as the present study has demonstrated. For a variety of reasons, police officers tend to resist
efforts to implement community policing within their agencies; where implementation has
been attempted, true success if often illusive. If the promise of community policing is ever
to come to fruition in America, this study has attempted to identify those challenges and

barriers which must first be understood, confronted and overcome.

252

APPENDIX A

253

APPENDIX A

Methodology for Systematic Social Observation Data

Three instruments were used in the original LIRP study: the officer survey, systematic
social observation tools, and a community survey. The methodology section of this text
provided a detailed description of the processes used to obtain data in the officer survey.
This appendix provides a brief discussion of the methodologies used to develop the
systematic social observation data. The community survey is not used in the instant study.
While not providing the same depth found in the methodology section, it should orient the

reader with the means by which these data were derived.

Systematic Field Observations

Student observers were used to conduct a series of field observations of LPD road
officers during the course of their normal shifts. The central purpose of these observations
was to obtain data about where officers were spending the bulk of their time (in their team
area or in other team areas). Officers were not informed of this purpose as the issue of where
officers spent their time was of significant concern in determining if the team area idea
would be successful. A consistent complaint heard from officers was that they could not
support the problem solving needs in their team area because they were continually being
dispatched to handle calls for service in other portions of the City. Also of interest was

general information on what officers did during the course of their shifts and how they

254

interacted with the public.

Instrument construction

Student observers being trained for another research project operated by SCJ were
used to conduct systematic social observations of Lansing police officers. The student used
a customized data program and instruments developed for a separate research project being
operated in part by SCJ faculty (the Project On Policing Neighborhoods, firnded by the
National Institute of Justice). Based on decades of collective experience in conducting
systematic social observations of police officers in the field, researchers from the four
institutes operating POPNl had developed a standardized instrument which had been used
by project observers for over a year; no significant instrument modifications were made.
This instrument was designed to provide both quantitative and qualitative data about where
police officers spend their time, the types of activities in which they engage, with whom they

interact, and how they interact with citizens.

Population and sample

The population for this portion of the study was Lansing (MI) police officers assigned
to the patrol division. Due to logistical problems, it was not possible to establish a
systematic sampling protocol. Ideally, students would have been assigned to a random date,
shift, and officer to provide truly randomized sampling. Observations were being done

during the academic year, making it impossible to randomize the date and shifts during

 

‘ Albert Reiss at Yale University, Roger Parks at Indiana University, Robert Warden at the
State University of New York— Albany, and Stephen Mastrofski at Michigan State
University.

255

which students made their observations. In addition, the Department was not willing to
allow students to be assigned to random officers. Instead, they felt it would be better if
students were assigned to officers whom shift sergeants felt would be open to having a
student observer. These officers were not selected because of the area they worked, their
operational style, or their views or attitudes. They were simply selected because it was felt
that they would “be nice” to these neophyte observers who were not necessarily ready to deal

with difficult observees.

Procedures

At the beginning of each ride along, student observers provided their assigned officer
with a cover letter from the SCJ POPN director. This letter briefly explained the purpose of
the student’s presence and assured the officer that confidentiality would be maintained under
all circumstances. During the course of the ride along, the student observer took short-
handed field notes about where the officer went, what the officer did, with whom the officer
interacted, and how the officer carried out their duties. Students went with their assigned
officer on the vast majority of that officer’s activities, only “hanging back” when officers
were handling an activity which might have posed an imminent threat to the observer’s
safety. After the ride along was over, the observers used these field notes to write a detailed
narrative report describing what was observed.

This narrative report was then used to complete a computerized data entry program.
A customized program had been written for the POPN project to guide observers through a
series of questions for each activity, encounter, and citizen observed. The program prompted

students to provide specific information to ensure that the data were consistent and reliable.

256

For each citizen contacted, and for each activity or encounter engaged in, by the officer being
observed, the observer answered a series of questions which captured a vast amount of
information about how officers spend their time, do their job, and interact with the public.
Once completed, these narrative reports and data files were reviewed by senior project staff
(doctoral students at another institution) for accuracy. Observers were required to correct any

errors or deficiencies found in their work.

257

APPENDIX B

258

APPENDIX B

Officer Survey Cover Letter

LANSING POLICE DEPARTMENT
PATROL OFFICER SURVEY

Who is conducting the survey?

The survey is being conducted by Michigan State University’s School of Criminal
Justice for the Lansing Police Department. The study is firnded by the National Institute of
Justice, the research agency of the United States Department of Justice. It is being directed
by Professor Timothy Bynum. The survey questions were developed with the assistance of
a panel of police officers and sergeants of the Lansing Police Department.

Survey’s Purpose

This study is intended to obtain a comprehensive picture of the views and experiences
of Lansing Police Department’s patrol officers and their supervisors. It asks a wide variety
of questions about police work, the Lansing Police Department, and the community it serves.

Who is being surveyed?

The survey is intended for all police officers, sergeants, and lieutenants working in
the patrol division, both the North and South Precincts.

Survey Procedure

Your participation is completely voluntary. You may decline to participate entirely.
If you do participate, you may still decline to answer any questions on the survey. Please
keep this sheet for your information. Once you have completed the survey, place it in the
unmarked envelope provided and seal the envelope. Return the envelope to the person who
distributed it. He or she will deliver all of the surveys unopened to Lieutenant Kim
Lawrence. Lieutenant Lawrence will deliver the unopened surveys to the Michigan State
University research team. If you do not wish to participate, please place the blank survey
form in the envelope, seal it, and return it to the person who distributed it.

Confidentiality of survey responses is guaranteed.
All survey responses are anonymous and will be kept in confidence. Do not write

your name or any other identification number on the survey. The results of the survey will
be presented in statistical groupings. No individual’s responses will be singled out for

259

reporting. The data will remain in the possession of the research team. Only the summary
report will be given to the department.

Uses of the Survey

The survey will be delivered to the department to assist in assessing existing policies
and practices and to develop or modify new ones. A short summary of the report will be
prepared for all officers who participated.

Contact Persons

If you have any questions, call: Dr. Timothy Bynum (355-2197) or Dr. Stephen
Mastrofski (3 53-0765).

260

APPENDIX C

261

APPENDIX C

Officer Survey Instrument

First we would like to learn your views on topics about police work generally. For each
item, please check the box of the response that best indicates your opinion about the
statement.

 

1 2 3 4
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree
Strongly Some- Some- Strongly
j what what

 

1. Enforcing the law is by far a patrol
officer’s most important responsibility.

 

2. Police officers have reason to be
distrustful of most citizens.

 

3. A good patrol officer is one who
patrols aggressively by stopping cars,
checking out people, running license
checks, etc.

 

4. Assisting citizens is just as important
as enforcing the law.

 

5. A good patrol officer will try to find
out what residents think the neighborhood
problems are.

 

6. In order to do their jobs, patrol
officers must sometimes overlook search
and seizure laws and other legal
guidelines.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here are some different kinds of incidents or conditions citizens sometimes ask police
to handle. We’d like to know how often, in your view, patrol officers should be
expected to do something about each of these situations. For each one, please check the
box indicating how often patrol officers should be expected to do something about that
situation.

262

 

1 2 3 4
Always Much of Some- Never
the time times

 

7. Public nuisances

 

8. Neighbor disputes

 

9. Family disputes

 

10. Litter and trash

 

11. Parents who don’t control their kids

 

12. Nuisance businesses that cause lots of
problems for neighbors

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13. How frequently would you say there are good reasons not to make an arrest or issue
an appearance summons to someone who has committed a minor criminal offense?

1 often
2 sometimes
3 rarely
4 never

Here is a list of goals that police are sometimes expected to accomplish. Please look
these over and mark with an “X” the TWO that you believe are the MOST important
for patrol officers.

Then please mark with an “O” the TWO that you believe are the LEAST important for
patrol officers.

14. Handling the calls for their assigned area

15. Making arrests and issuing citations

16. Reducing the number of repeat calls to the same address
17. Seizing drugs, guns, and other contraband

18. Reducing the level of public disorders

19. Getting the public involved in improving the neighborhood
20. Reducing the public’s fear of crime

For the questions in this section please think about the district or other geographic area
in which you have worked the most in the last 6 months. If you were not assigned to
a district or other geographic area during the last 6 months, please skip this section and
go to Question 49.

263

21.

22.

What kind of geographic area are you referring to?

1 District
2 Team area
3 Other (Please describe)

 

Over the last 2 years, how many months have you routinely worked in this

geographic area?

Less than 1 month
1 - 2 months

3 - 4 months

5 - 6 months

7 - 12 months

13 - 18 months

19 - 24 months

\fChUt-wa—t

Here are some conditions that might be problems in some neighborhoods. For each
one, please check whether YOU think that it has been a major problem, a minor
problem, or not a problem in the geographic area you’ve routinely worked over the last

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6 months.
1 2 3
Major Minor Not a
Problem _
23. Theft or burglary
24. Litter and trash
25. Vandalism of cars & property
26. Drug dealing
27 . Gangs
28. Loitering
29. Abandoned buildings
30. Assaults in public
31. Domestic violence
32. Traffic violations

 

L—w

 

 

 

 

 

264

3 3. In this geographic area, what kind of reputation is it better for a patrol oflicer to have?

1 a reputation for being hard-nosed
2 a reputation for being approachable
3 don’t know

For each of the following, please indicate how many citizens in this geographic area
would fit the described action or situation.

 

How many citizens: Most Some Few None

 

34. Would call the police if they saw
something suspicious?

 

35. Would provide information about
a crime if they knew something and were
asked about it by police?

 

36. Are afraid to cooperate with the
police because of what other citizens
might do to them?

 

37. Are willing to work with the police
to try to solve neighborhood problems?

 

38. In most districts there are people

who repeatedly cause trouble or make

work for the police. How many of these
people in your geographic area could you
identify by name if you saw them on the
street?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here is a list of some ways to get information about public safety problems. For each
one, please check the number that best indicates how frequently you find out about
problems in your geographic area.

265

 

Often Rarely Some- Never
times

 

39.

From your supervisor

 

40.
and work there

By talking with citizens who live

 

41.

By talking with other officers

 

42.
and calls for service

By looking at statistics on crime

 

 

44.

45.

46.

43 .
community groups

By attending meetings of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On a typical busy shift, what portion of your work shift do you spend in your team
area?

1 0-20%
2 21 -40%
3 41 -60%
4 61 — 80%
5 81 - 100%

On a typical slow shift, what portion of your work shift do you spend in your team
area?

1 0-20%
2 21 -40%
3 41 -60%
4 61- 80%
5 81 - 100%

How many members of your assigned team do you know well enough to feel that
you can depend upon them when working on team projects?

1 All

2 Most
3 Some
4 A few
5 None

266

47. The supervisor for my team provides subordinates adequate guidance on problem-
solving projects:

1 Always
2 Usually
3 Sometimes
4 Rarely
5 Never
48. How often does your supervisor communicate with you about team projects?
1 Daily
2 One or two times a week
3 One or two times a month
4 Less than once a month
5 Never

Here are some questions about your work unit—the officers who work in your precinct
on your shift. For each item, please indicate the number that best indicates your
opinion.

49. Compared to other police shifts, how would you rate the job your shift does?

1 better than most others
2 about the same as most others
3 not as good as most others

For each of the following, please check the box that shows how many officers on your
shift best fit the description.

 

 

 

.1.—
l 2 3 4
How many officers on your shift: All or About A Few None
Most Half

 

50. Would you consider to be your
fiiend?

 

51. If you obtained some hard-to-get
information about the identity of an
offender causing a lot of trouble in your
precinct, with how many ofiicers on your
shift would you share this information?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

267

 

52. Would say that enforcing the law is
by far a patrol officer’s most important
responsibility?

 

53. Would say that police officers have
reason to be distrustfirl of most citizens?

 

54. Would say that assisting citizens is
just as important as enforcing the law?

 

55. Would say that in order to do their
jobs, they must sometimes overlook legal
guidelines?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here are some questions about the role of Community Policing Officers.

56. In your opinion, which of the following best describes the workload of Community
Policing Officers?
1 It is greater than it should be.
2 It is at about the level it should be.
3 It is lower than it should be.
4 Don’t know
57. Are you now or have you ever served as a Community Policing Oflicer?
1 yes
2 no
58. How would you feel about receiving an assignment to work as a Community Policing

Officer during the coming year?

1 Very positive
2 Somewhat positive
3 Neutral
4 Somewhat negative
5 Very negative
59. Below is a list of things which are sometimes mentioned as advantages of working

as a Community Policing Officer. Please place an “X” by any of these that you think
apply to those who receive assignments as Community Policing Officers in Lansing.
Check as many as apply.

268

60.

61.

62.

Independence to do the job as you see fit

Good work schedule

Enough time to work on long-term projects
Opportunity to work closely with the public

Leeway to try new things to get the job done
Getting positive feedback from the public

I-Iigh status of the job among other police

Diversity in the kinds of tasks and skills required
Opportunities for promotion and career advancement

Below is a list of things that are sometimes mentioned as disadvantages of working
as a Community Policing Officer. Please place an “X” by any of these that you think
apply to those who receive assignments as Community Policing Officers in Lansing.
Check as many as apply.

Insufficient department direction about what you are expected to do

Poor work schedule

Not enough time to get the work done

Having to work closely with members of the public as “partners”
Inadequate training to do the job expected

Not enough leeway to do the things that are necessary to get the job done
Having to pay too much attention to keeping the public happy

Low status of the job among other police

Spending too much time on work that is not really police work

Poor prospects for promotion or career advancement

When a crime problem is displaced from one neighborhood to another inside the city
of Lansing, what impact do you believe that has on the city of Lansing as a whole?

1

2

3

Reduces over all crime and related problems for a time by disrupting the
criminal activity

No effect on overall crime and related problems; it just moves the problem
from one area to another.

Makes it harder to monitor and track criminals for a while in the new
neighborhood

Where is the greatest need for coordination among police officers who are working
on a problem-solving effort?

1
2
3

Among officers working different shifts
Among officers working the same shift
About the same for both 1 and 2 above

269

63. What would be the best way for the Lansing Police Department to organize
community policing?

Designate specialists to do it

Make it the responsibility of all patrol officers

Make it the responsibility of both specialists and general patrol officers
Do not do community policing at all

AWN-d

Now we have some questions about your experiences with problem solving in the
Lansing Police Department.

By “problem solving,” we mean doing something to reduce the frequency or seriousness
of an ongoing problem in a given area. That area may be an address, a street or block,
a team area, or the entire precinct.

Please think about the last problem-solving effort you have completed. A completed
effort is one on which you are no longer working, regardless of how successful it was.
Do not select something that is currently under way. Answer each of the following
questions with this effort in mind.

64. How long ago did you complete this effort?

I have completed no problem-solving effort [GO TO Q-81]
Within the last week

Within the last month

Within the last two months

Within the last four months

Within the last 6 months

Within the last 12 months

Longer than 12 months ago

OO\)O\UIJ>-UJN'-*

65. How long a time period did this effort last?

1 A day

2 A week

3 2-3 weeks

4 A month

5 2-6 months

6 Longer than 6 months

270

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

What was the problem that this effort was aimed at? Select the one that best
describes the problem if more than one applies.

mQQMbWNv—I

Drugs
Burglary and Breaking & Entering (residential)
Burglary and Breaking & Entering (business)
Larcenies

Auto theft

Loud parties

Retail fraud

Physical deterioration of neighborhood

Traflic problems

Disorderly people in public places

Violent crime against strangers

Domestic violence
Other (Please describe):

 

In a typical work week, how many hours did you devote to working on this effort?

Number of hours:

 

What percent of the time that you worked on this effort did you work closely with
one or more other ofiicers?

Percent of project time:

 

To the best of your knowledge, how many other ofiicers made a significant
contribution to this effort?

Number of ofiicers:

 

What was the scope of this effort?

QMAWNI—d

Single address or streetcorner

Block

2-4 blocks

A quarter to half of your assigned district or area
More than half of your assigned district or area
An area larger than your district or assigned area

How would you assess the success of this effort?

1
2
3

Very successful
Somewhat successful
Not at all successfirl

271

72.

73.

On what basis do you form your view of the degree of effort success? Select the
most important if more than one applies.

GUI-AWNW

Personal impressions

Views of other officers

Feedback from supervisor or manager

Feedback from citizens

Feedback from public officials outside the department
Data or study

What would have made the effort more successfirl? Select the gig that would have
had the biggest effect.

OOHOM-bMN-d

More police time or resources devoted to it.

Better analysis of the problem before implementing solution
Different tactic for solving the problem

More citizen participation

More participation from other government agencies

Better coordination of police efforts

Clearer definition of project goals and objectives

None of the above. The project was as successful as possible

Please indicate how useful each of the following has been to you in developing problem-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

solving skills.
1 2 3 4
Not Not Some— Very
Received Helpfirl what Helpful
Helpfirl
74. Formal training in department
75. Formal training outside department
76. College coursework
77. Field Training Officer
78. Supervisor
79. Informal training from other
officers
80. Personal experience

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

272

Below are a few questions about Lansing Police Department’s efforts to implement
problem solving. For each item, please select the response that best reflects your view.

81. How well has LPD done in clarifying the role of regular patrol officers in problem

solving?

1 excellent
2 good

3 fair

4 poor

82. How well has LPD done in distributing the workload fairly between problem solving
specialists and officers who are responsible for taking calls?

1 excellent

2 good

3 fair

4 poor

83. How well has LPD done in giving officers enough time for problem solving?

1 excellent

2 good

3 fair

4 poor

84. How well has LPD done in providing the information ofiicers need on the problems
in their assigned areas?

1 excellent
2 good

3 fair

4 poor

85. How well has LPD done in rewarding ofiicers who do a good job with problem

solving?

1 excellent
2 good

3 fair

4 poor

Following is a list of functions that supervisors are sometimes expected to perform.
Please indicate how much effort you believe sergeants in the Lansing Police Department
should give each of these.

273

 

1 2 3 4
Much Some A None
Little

 

%

86. Being present at the scene when a
subordinate is involved in a potentially
dangerous or difiicult situation.

 

87. Reviewing subordinates’ written
reports.

 

88. Dealing directly with citizens who
are complaining about problems in their
neighborhood.

 

89. Keeping superiors advised of what
is going on during their shifts.

 

90. Dealing with personnel matters
(paperwork, discipline, counseling)

 

91. Attending meetings with the public
and giving talks to the public.

 

92. Coordinating and scheduling the
work of team members.

 

93. Getting other public and private
organizations to cooperate with the police
to solve community problems.

 

94. Identifying projects for subordinates
and monitoring their progress with those
projects.

 

95. Evaluating the performance of
individual officers and giving them
feedback.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FOR POLICE OFFICERS: Think about the sergeant on this shift with whom you have
the most contact. How good a job do you think that sergeant is doing on each of the
following things?

FOR SERGEANTS & LIEUTENAN TS: Think about the immediate supervisor with
whom you have the most contact. How good a job do you think that supervisor is doing
on each of the following things?

274

 

Very Good Fair Poor Very
Good Poor

 

96. Being present at the scene when a
subordinate is involved in a potentially
dangerous or difficult situation.

 

97. Reviewing subordinates’ written
reports.

 

98. Dealing directly with citizens who are
complaining about problems in their
neighborhood.

 

99. Keeping superiors advised of what is
going on in their shifts.

 

100. Dealing with personnel matters
(paperwork, discipline, counseling).

 

101. Attending meetings with the public
and giving talks to the public.

 

102. Coordinating and scheduling the work
of team members.

 

103. Getting other public and private
organizations to cooperate with the police to
solve community problems.

 

104. Identifying projects for subordinates
and monitoring their progress with those
projects.

 

105. Evaluating the performance of
individual officers and giving them
feedback.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FOR POLICE OFFICERS: Now we would like you to think about your team sergeant.
For each of the following statements, please check the box that best indicates your
experience or opinion about your team sergeant.

FOR SERGEANTS & LIEUTENANTS: Now we would like you to think about the
immediate supervisor with whom you have the most contact. For each of the following
statements, please check the box that best indicates your experience or opinion about
that immediate supervisor.

275

 

1 2 3 4
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree
Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly

 

106. The decisions or judgments I
make are seldom criticized or
modified by my supervisor.

107. My supervisor lets officers
know what is expected of them.

 

 

108. My supervisor’s approach
tends to discourage me from giving
extra effort.

109. My supervisor has a lot of
professional experience to help
officers do their jobs.

 

 

110. My supervisor looks out for
the personal welfare of his/her
subordinates.

 

111. I have complete faith in my
supervisor.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please check the box that indicates for each of the following how often the statement
is applicable to the supervisor you selected in the previous section.

 

1 2 3 4
Always Much of Some— Never
the time times

 

1 12. When you try a new approach to
doing your job and it doesn’t work, how
often does your supervisor treat it as an
honest efl’ort and not a disciplinary matter.

113. When your team has a problem
that higher-ups could straighten out, how
often is your supervisor able to get those
higher-ups to actually do something about
the problem?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

276

Now we have a few questions about your precinct’s management. First think about the
priorities of the precinct’s management here. Please look these over and mark with an
“X” the TWO that you think Precinct MANAGEMENT would say are the MOST
important for patrol officers.

Then please mark with an “O” the TWO that you think Precinct MANAGEMENT
would say are the LEAST important for patrol officers.

114. Handling the calls for their assigned area

115. Making arrests and issuing citations

116. Reducing the number of repeat calls to the same address
117. Seizing drugs, guns, and other contraband

118. Reducing the level of public disorders

119. Getting the public involved in improving the neighborhood
120. Reducing the public’s fear of crime

For the following items, please indicate how likely each is to occur.

 

1 2 3 4
Very Somewhat Somewhat Very
Likely Likely Unlikely Unlikely

 

121. When there is an alleged
rule violation, how likely is it that
an officer will be treated fairly?

 

122. When an officer contributes
to a team effort rather than look
good individually how likely is it
that top management here will

recognize it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Below are statements about a variety of issues concerning the Lansing Police
Department and the community of Lansing. For each one, please check the box that
best indicates your opinion.

277

 

1
Agree
Strongly

Agree
Some-
what

3
Disagre
e
Some-
what

4
Disagree
Strongly

 

123. Community Policing Ofiicers
make an important contribution toward
reducing crime and disorder in the
neighborhoods where they are assigned.

 

124. Community Policing Ofiicers
make an important contribution toward
improving the attitudes of neighborhood
residents toward the police department.

 

125. The neighborhoods that complain
the loudest are the ones mot likely to
receive a Community Policing Officer.

 

126. There are not enough officers
assigned to patrol functions to handle the
demands from calls for service.

 

127. Top department leadership has
unrealistically high expectations about
how much the current organizational
strategies will reduce crime and disorder
in the neighborhoods.

 

128. It is rare for the activities and
projects of my team to be well
coordinated across shifts.

 

129. Sergeants working on another
shift are unable to effectively supervise
officers who work on this shift.

 

130. A precinct lieutenant is usually
available when he/ she is needed on this
shift.

 

 

131. Precinct lieutenants do not have
enough contact with the officers and
sergeants on the street.

 

 

 

 

 

278

 

 

 

132. There are not enough citizens in
my district who are willing to exercise
the necessary initiative to make their
neighborhood a nicer place to live.

 

133. Citizens in my district do not call
upon the police nearly as much as they
should to solve neighborhood problems.

 

134. Most of the time, neighborhood
associations pretty accurately reflect the
views of the majority of citizens on my
district about what police priorities for
the district should be.

 

135. Decentralization to the precincts
has improved communication between
patrol officers and detectives.

 

136. The department should put more
resources into the general patrol firnction
and less into specialist functions.

 

137. Rookie officers should have their
assignments rotated through different
districts around the city before receiving
a permanent assignment.

 

138. Top department management has
a good understanding of what the work
of the rank-and-file police officer is like.

 

139. Rank-and-file officers do not have
enough opportunity to participate in
developing policies and planning
strategies.

 

140. Rank and file oflicers are kept
well-informed of management’s policies
and plans.

 

141. On the whole, the department’s
system of promotion to sergeant selects
the best qualified people.

 

 

 

279

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3 4
Agree Agree Disagre Disagree

Strongly Some— e Strongly
what Some-
what

 

142. On the whole, the department’s
system of promotion to lieutenant selects
the best qualified people.

 

143. Top leaders have made the
department’s priorities clear.

 

144. Commendations are given too
easily for tasks and accomplishments that
really do not contribute to improved
police service.

 

145. Doing community policing means
that officers will be unable to do more
important tasks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Finally, we have a few questions about your background. This information is for
statistical purposes only. Individual responses will not be reported.

146. How many years have you worked as a sworn officer for the Lansing Police

Department?

1 less than 1 year
2 1 - 2 years

3 3 - 5 years

4 6 - 10 years

5 11 - 15 years

6 16 years or more

147. How many years have you worked elsewhere as a sworn law enforcement officer?

1 not applicable - have only worked in LPD
2 less than 1 year

3 1 - 2 years

4 3 - 5 years

5 6 - 10 years

6 ll - 15 years

7

16 years or more

280

148.

149.

150.

151.

152.

153.

How important to you is getting promoted?

very important
somewhat important
somewhat unimportant
very unimportant

kwNfl

How important to you is moving from patrol to a specialized unit,
such as special operations, Metro, or motorcycle?

very important
somewhat important
somewhat unimportant
very unimportant

AWN-d

What is the highest level of formal education you have completed?

high school or lower (include GED)

some college, but did not earn a bachelors (4-year) degree
bachelors (4-year) degree

some graduate or law courses but did not earn a degree
graduate or law degree (masters, doctorate, J .D., L.L.D.)

MANNF‘

To what precinct are you assigned?

1 North
2 South

What shift are you currently working?

1 0630 - 1630

2 1100 - 2100

3 1630 - 0230

4 2100 - 0700

5 Other

What is your rank?

1 Police officer

2 Supervisor (sergeant or lieutenant)

281

154. What is your race/ethnicity?

White/Caucasian
Black/Afiican-American
Hispanic/Latino
Asian-American/Pacific Islander
Native American

Other

OMAUJNr—o

155. What is your gender?

1 Female
2 Male

Thank you very much for completing the survey. If you have any other comments to
make, please do so in the space provided below and on the reverse side. Then place the
questionnaire in the plain envelope, seal the envelope, and give it to your supervisor.

282

BIBLIOGRAPHY

283

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Angell, J.E. (1971). Toward an alternative to the classic police organizational
arrangements: A democratic model. Criminology, 9, 185—206.

Babbie, ER. (1973). Survey research methods. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Babbie, ER (1992). Practicing social research (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Bachman, R., & Paternoster, R. (1997). Statistical methods for criminology and
criminal justice. New York: McGraw-I-Iill.

Bahn, C. (1984). Police socialization in the eighties: Strains in the forging of an
occupational identity. Journal of Police Science and Administratiop, 12, 390-3 94.

Barkdoll, G.L. (1998). Individual personality and organizational culture or “let’s
change this place so I feel more comfortable.” Public Administration and Management: An
Integctive Journal. 3(2) [Online] Available:
http:www/hbgpsuedu/Faculty/jxrl l/barkdoll.html [1998, Aug. 15].

Barker, J .C. (1999). Danger, dugy, and disillusion: The worldview of Los Angeles
police officers. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

Bartollas, C., Hahn, LB. (1999). Policig in America; Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Bies, R.J., & Tyler, TR. (1993). The “litigation mentality” in organizations: A test
of alternative psychological explanations. Organizational Science, 4, 352-366.

Bittner, E. (1970). The function of police in modern society. Washington, DC:
National Institute of Health.

Bittner, E. (1990). Aspects of police work. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Blau, PM. (1963). The dypamics of bureaucracy: A study of integpersonal relations
in two government agencies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Butler, A.J.P., & Cochrane, R. (1977). An examination of some elements of the
personality of police officers and their implications. Journgl of Police Science and
Administratiop, 5, 441-450.

Buzawa, ES. (1981). The role of race in predicting job attitudes of patrol officers.
Journal of Criminal Justice 9 63-77.

 

284

Carey, MA. (1994). The group effect in focus groups: Planning, implementing, and
interpreting focus group research. In J .M. Morse (Ed), Critical issues in qualitative research
methods (pp. 225-241). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Carpenter, B.N., & Raza, SM. (1987). Personality characteristics of police
applicants: Comparisons across subgroups and with other populations. Journal of Police
Science and Administration 15 10-17.

 

Carte, G.E., & Carte, EH. (1975). Police reform in the United States: The era—of
August Vollmer. 1905-1932. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Carter, D., Sapp, A.D., & Stephens, D.W. (1988). The state of police education:
Policy direction for the 21" century. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.

Cordner, G.W. (1978). Open and closed models in police organizations: Traditions,
dilemmas, and practical consideration. Journal of Police Science and Administration 6 22-
34.

 

Crank, J .P. (1998). Understanding police culture. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

Dantzker, ML. (1995). Understanding today’s police. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.

Deal, T.E., & Kennedy, AA. (1982). Copporate cultures: The rites and rituals of
corporate life. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Dey, I. (1993). malitative data analysis. London: Routledge.

Eck, J. E. (1 992, June). Helpful hints for the tradition-bound chief. Fresh Perspectives,
1-8.

Eck, J.E., & Spelman, W. (with Hill, D., Stephens, D.W., Stedman, J .R., & Murphy,
GR) (1987). Problem-solving: Problem-oriented policing in Newport News. Washington,
DC: Police Executive Research Forum.

Findley, K.W., & Taylor, R.W. (1990). Re-thinking neighborhood policing. Journal
of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 6, 70-78.

Fletcher, C. (1995). Breaking and entering: Women cops talk about life in the
ultimate men’s club. New York: HarperCollins.

Fogelson, R (1977). Big-cig police. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Franz, V., & Jones, D.M. (1987). Perceptions of organizational performance in

suburban police departments: A critique of the military model. Journal of Police Science a_n_d
Administration 15 153-161.

 

285

Gaines, L. (1993). Community-oriented policing: Management issues, concerns, and
problems. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 10, 17-35.

Glaser, B.G. & Strauss, AL. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies
for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in eveggday life. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday Anchor.

Goldstein, H. (1990). Problem-oriented policing, New York: McGraw-I-Iill.

Goodman, P., & Kurke, L. (1982). Studies of change in organizations: A status
report. In P. Goodman & Associates (Eds), Change in organizations: New perspectives on
theory, research and practice (pp. 1-46). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Goodman, P.S., Bazerman, M., & Conlon, E. (1980). Institutionalization of planned
organizational change. In B.M. Straw and LL. Cummings (Eds), Researfich in
Organizational Behavior: Volume 2 (pp. 215-246). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

 

Greene, J .R. (1981). Organizational change in law enforcement. Journal of Criminal
Justice, 9, 79-91.

Greene, J .R., Alpert, G.P., & Styles, P. (1992). Values and culture in two American
police departments: Lessons from King Arthur. Journal of Contemporm Criminal Justice,
_8_, 183-207.

 

Greene, J .R., Bergman, W.T., & McLaughlin, E.J. (1994). Implementing community
policing: Cultural and structural change in police organizations. In D.P. Rosenbaum (Ed),

The challenge of community policing: Testing the promises (pp. 92-109). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.

Greene, J.R. & Klockars, C. (1991). What police do. In C. Klockars and S.

Mastrofski (Eds), Thinking About Police: Contemporary Readings (pp. 273-284). New
York: McGraw-Hill.

Greene, J .R., & Mastrofski, S.D. (Eds). (1988). Community policing: Rhetoric or
reality? New York: Praeger.

Guyot, D. (1991). Policing as though people matter. Philadelphia: Temple University
Press.

Guzzo, R.A., Noonan, K.A., & Elron, E. (1994). Expatriate managers and the
psychological contract. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 617-626.

Hagan, RE. (1997). Research methods in criminal justice and criminology (4‘h ed).
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

286

Hagan, RE. (2000). Research methods in criminal justice and criminology (5'h ed).
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Haney, C., & Manzolatti, J. (1981). Television criminology: Network illusions of
criminal justice realities. In S. Soronson (Ed), Readings about the social animal (pp. 125-
136). San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman & Co.

Harrison, SJ. (1998). Police organizational culture: Using ingrained values to build
positive organizational improvement. Public Administration and Management: An
Integctive Journal, 3(2) [Online] Available:
http:www/hbg.psu.edu/Faculty/jxr11/harrison.html [1998, Aug. 15].

Haught, L. (1997). Organizational change in a sheriff’s department: The
implementation of community oriented policing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Gonzaga University.

Hewitt, W.H., Sr. (1978). Current issues in police collective bargaining. In AW.
Cohn (Ed), The future of policing (pp. 205-223). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hoover, LT. (1992). Police mission: Anera of debate. In LT. Hoover (Ed), Police
management: Issues and perspectives (pp. 1-30). Washington, DC: Police Executive
Research Forum.

Hudzik, J .K., & Cordner, G.W. (1983). Planning in criminal justice organizations and
systems. New York: Macmillan Publishing.

Jermier, J.M., & Berkes, L]. (1979). Leader behavior in a police command
bureaucracy: A closer look at the quasi-military model. Administrative Science Quarterly.
a, 1-23.

Johns, EA. (1973). The sociology of organizational change. Oxford, UK: Pergamon
Press.

Kappeler, V.E., Sapp, A., & Carter, D. (1992). Police oflicer higher education,
citizen complaints, and departmental rule violations. American J ourn_al of Police, 11(2), 37-
54.

Kappeler, V.E., Sluder, R.D., & Alpert, GP. (1998). Forces of deviance:
Understanding the dark side of policing (2"‘1 ed). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R.L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2"d ed).
New York: John \Vrley & Sons.

Kelling, G.L., & Bratton, W.J. (1993). Perspectives on policing (no. 17):

Implementing communig policing: The administrative problem (N C] 141236). Washington,
DC: US. Department of Justice.

287

Kelling, G. & Moore, M. (1988). From political reform to community: The evolving
strategy of police. In J. Greene & S. Mastrofski (Eds), Community policing: Rhetoric or
realig? (p. ). New York: Praeger.

Kilmann, R.H., Saxton, M.J., Serpa, R., & Associates. (1985). Gaining control of
the corporate culture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

King, N. (1994). The qualitative research interview. In C. Cassell & G. Symon
(Eds), malitative methods in organizational research (pp. 14-3 6). London: Sage.

Klockars, CB. (1985). The idea of police. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Klockars, CB. (1991). The rhetoric of community policing. In C. Klockars and S.
Mastrofski (Eds) Thinking about policing (2"" ed.) (pp. 530-542). New York: McGraw-
Hill.

Kobler, A. (1975). Police homicide in a democracy. Journal of Social Issues, 31(1),
163-184.

Kraska, P.B., & Kappeler, VB. (1997). Militarizing American police: The rise and
normalization of paramilitary units. Social Problem_s. 44, 101-117.

Kruger, RA. (1994). Focus ggoups: A practical gpide for applied research (2“ ed).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kuykendall, J., & Roberg, RR. (1982). Mapping police organizational change.
Criminology, 20, 241-256.

Lansing Police Department. (1990). 1990 anmgl report. Lansing, MI: Lansing
Police Department.

Lansing Police Department. (1991). 1991 annual report. Lansing, MI: Lansing
Police Department.

Lansing Police Department. (1992). 1992 annual report. Lansing, MI: Lansing
Police Department.

Lansing Police Department. (1993). 1993 annual report. Lansing, MI: Lansing
Police Department.

Lansing Police Department. (1994). 1994 annual report. Lansing, MI: Lansing
Police Department.

Lansing Police Department. (1995). 1995 annual report. Lansing, MI: Lansing
Police Department.

288

Leflrowitz, J. (197 5). Psychological attributes of policemen: A review of research
and opinion. Jouml of Sociaflssuesj 1(1), 3-26.

Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemrrpg of the individual in public
services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Lurigio, A.J., & Rosenbaum, DP. (1994). The impact of community policing on
police personnel: A review of the literature. In D.P. Rosenbaum (Ed), The challenge of
community policipg: Testipgthe promises (pp. 147-163). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Lurigio, A.J., & Skogan, W.G. (1994). Winning the hearts and minds of police
officers: An assessment of staff perceptions of community policing in Chicago. Crime &

Delinguency,40, 3 15-330.

Manning, P.K. (1997a, July). Authority, loyalty, and communigy policing: An
organizational and dramaturgical analysis. Paper presented at the conference on crime and

social organization in honour of Albert J. Reiss, Jr., Rutgers University.

Manning, P.K. (1997b). Police work: The social organization of policing (2"d ed).
Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

Marsh, C. (1982). The survey method: The contributiona of surveys to sociological
explanation. London: George Allen & Unwin.

Mastrofski, S.D. (1993). Eyeing the doughnut: Community policing and progressive
reform [review of the book Beyon_d 911: A new era: for policing], American Joumal of
Police 12 1-21.

 

Mastrofski, S.D., Schafer, J.A., DeJong, C., & Bynum, TS. (1997). L_ansing officers
on patrol: Information from systematic observation of police (A report to the Lansing (MI)
Police Department). East Lansing, MI: School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State
University.

Maxfield, M.G., & Babbie, E. (1998). Research methods for criminal justice and
criminology (2"d edition). Belmont, CA: West/Wadsworth.

McNamara, J .H. (1967). Uncertainties in police work: The relevance of police
recruits’ backgrounds and training. In DJ. Bordua (Ed), The police: Six sociological essays
(pp. 163-252). New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Meagher, M. S., & Yentes, NA. (1986). Choosing a career in policing: A comparison
of male and female perceptions. J ourpal of Police Science and Administration 14 320-327.

 

Merton, R.K. (1936). The unanticipated consequences of purposive social action.
American Sociological Review, 1. 894-904.

289

Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1984). malitative data analysis. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.

Moore, M.H., & Stephens, D.W. (1991). Beyond comnaand and control: The strategic
management of police departments. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.

Moorhead, G., & Griffin, R.W. (1998). Organizationa behavior: Managing people
and organizations (5th ed). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

More, H.W. (1998). Special topics in policing (2“l ed). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

Morgan, D.L. (1997). Focus ggoups as qualitative research (2“ ed). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.

Moser, C.A., & Kalton, G. (1972). Survey methods in social investigation (2nd ed).
New York: Basic Books.

Mulder, A.E.R. (1993). Todav’s police chief: Baiancing organizational continaity
and change. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Golden Gate University.

Neuman, W.L., & Wiegand, B. (2000). Criminal justice research methods:
Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Oettmeier, T.N. , & Brown, LP. (1988). Developing a neighborhood-oriented policing
style. In J .R Greene and S.D. Mastrofski (Eds), Commqu policing: Rhetoric or reality
(pp. 121-134). New York: Praeger.

Ogawa, RT., & Malen, B. (1991). Towards rigor in review of multivocal
literatures: Applying the exploratory case study method. Review of Educational Research.
§_1_, 265-286.

Ott, IS. (1989). The organizational culture perspective. Pacific Grove, CA:
Brooks/Cole Publishing.

Ouchi, W.G. (1981). Theog Z: How American business can meet the Japanese
Challenge. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Payne, D.M., & Trojanowicz, R. (1985). Performance profiles of foot versus motor
officers. [Online] Available: http://www.ci.msu.edu/~people/cp/perform.html [1999,
September 16].

Peters, T.J., & Waterman, R.H., Jr. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from
America’s best-run companies. New York: Harper & Row.

Pogrebin, M.R., & Poole, ED. (1988). Humor in the briefing room: A study of the
strategic uses of humor among police. J oumal of Contemporary Ethnography, 17. 183-210.

290

Polzin, M.J. (1997). A labor-management approach to comqu policing.
[Online]. Available: http://wwwcjmsu.edu/~outreach/cp/labman.html 1998, October 12].

Radelet, L.A., & Carter, D.L. (1994). The police and the community (5"l ed). New
York: MacMillan College Publishing.

Rea, L.M., & Parker, RA. (1997). Desigping and conducting survey research: A
comprehensive gpide (2"1 ed). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Reiss, A.J., Jr. (1971). The police and the public. New Haven, CT: Yale.

Reuss-Ianni, E. (1983). Two cultures of policing: Street cops and management cops.
New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Reynolds, P.D., & Sponaugle, GO (1982). Aguide to survey research: How to plfl
a survey, estimate costs, and use a survey research service. Minneapolis, MN: Center for
Urban and Regional Affairs, University of Minnesota.

Riechers, L.M., & Roberg, RR. (1990). Community policing: A critical review of
underlying assumptions. Journal of Police Science and Administratiop, 17, 105-114.

Robinson, S.L. , & Rousseau, D.M. (1994). Violating the psychological contract: Not
the exception but the norm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 245-259.

Rosenbaum, D.P. (Ed). (1994). The challenge of community policing: Testing the
promises. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rousseau, D.M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Urgierstanding
written and unwritten agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rubinstein, J. (1973). Cigg police. New York: Farrar, Staus & Giroux.

Sadd, S., & Grinc, R. (1994). Innovative neighborhood oriented policing: An
evaluation of community policing in eight communities. In D.P. Rosenbaum (Ed), m
fillenge of community policing: Testing the promises (pp. 27-52). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.

Sadd, S., & Grinc, R. (1996). Implementation challenges in community policing:
Innovative Nagaborhood-Oriented Policing in eight cities. Washington, DC: National

Institute of Justice.

Salant, P., & Dillman, DA. (1994). How to conductgvour own survey. New York:
John Wiley & Sons.

Schein, EH. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership: A dynamic view. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

291

Schermerhorn, J .R., Jr., Hunt, J .G., & Osborn, RN. (1994). Managing organizational
behavior (5" ed). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Seagrave, J. (1996). Community policing: The views of police executives in British
Columbia. Policingand Society. 6. 163-180.

Skogan, W.G., & Hartnett, SM. (1997). Communng policing, Chicago style. New
York: Oxford University Press.

Skolnick, J.H. (1994). Justice without trial; Law enforcement in a democratic society
(3” ed). New York: Macmillan.

Skolnick, J .H., & Bayley, DH. (1986). The new blue line: Police innovation in six
American cities. New York: Free Press.

Skolnick, J .H., & Fyfe, J .J . (1993). Above the law: Police and the excesfl: use of
force. New York: The Free Press.

Sparrow, MK. (1988). Perspectives on policing (no. 9): Implementing community
policing (NCJ 114217). Washington, DC: US. Department of Justice.

Sparrow, M.K., Moore, M.H., & Kennedy, D.M. (1990). Beyond 911: A new erafg
policing. New York: Basic Books.

SPSS Inc. (1997). SPSSQ Base 7.5 applications gpide. Chicago: SPSS.
Stamper, NH. (1992). Removing managerial barriers to effective police leadership:

A study of executive leadership and executive management in big-cig police departments.
Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.

 

 

Steinman, M. (1986). Managing and evaluating police behavior. Journal of Police
Science and Administration 14 285-292.

 

Strauss, A.S., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory
procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Suchman, EA. (1967). Evaluation researgch: Principles and practice in public service
& social action programs. New York: Russell Sage.

Swanson, C.R, Territo, L., Taylor, R.W. (1998). Police administration: Structures.
processes, and behavior (4" ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ : Prentice Hall.

Taylor, R.W., Fritsch, E.J, & Caeti, T.J. (1998, May/June). Core challenges facing
community policing: The emperor still has no clothes. ACJ S Today, 17(1), 1-5.

292

Territo, L. (1980). Planning and implementing organizational change. Journal of
Police Science and Administratioa 8, 390-398.

Trice, H.M., & Beyer, J .M. (1993). The cultures of work organizations. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Trojanowicz, RC. (1980). The environment of the first-line police supervisor.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Trojanowicz, R.C., & Carter, D. (1988). The philosophy and role of community
policing. [Online] Available: http://wwwcj.msu.edu/~people/cp/cpphil.html [1999,
September 16].

Trojanowicz, R.C., Kappeler, V.E., Gaines, L.K., Bucqueroux, B. (1998).
Community policing: A contemporm perspective (2"1 ed). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

Trojanowicz, RC., & Pollard, B. (1986). Commpnity policing: The line officers’

perspective. [Online] Available: http://wwwcj.msu.edu/~people/cp/communit.html [1999,
September 16].

Van Maanen, J. (1974). Working the street: A developmental view of police

behavior. In H. Jacob (Ed), The potential for reform in the criminal iustice system. (pp.
83-130). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Van Maanen, J. (1978). The asshole. In P.K. Manning & J. Van Maanen (Eds),
Policing: A view from the street (pp. 221-23 8). Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear Publishing
Company, Inc.

Van Maanen, J. & Schein, E. (1977). Toward a theory of organizational
socialization. Cambridge, MA: Alfred P. Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.

Vito, G.F., & Latessa, E.J. (1989). Statistical applications in criminal justice.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Walker, IT. (1999). Statistics in criminal iustice: Analysis aad interpretation.
Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.

Walker, S. (1977). A critical histog; of police reform. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.

Walker, S. (1993). Does anyone remember team policing? Lessons of the team
policing experience for community policing. American Journal of Police. 12(1), 33-55.

Walker, S. (1999). The police in America: An introduction (3"1 ed). Boston:
McGraw-Hill.

293

Wanous, JP. (1977). Organizational entry: Newcomers moving from outside to
inside. Psychological Bulletin. 844 601-618.

Weisburd, D., McElroy, J ., & Hardyman, P. (1988). Challenges to supervision in
community policing: Observations on a pilot project. American Journal of Police. 7(2), 29-
50.

Weisel, D.L., & Eck, J .E. (1994). Toward a practical approach to organizational
change: Community policing initiatives in six cities. In D.P. Rosenbaum (Ed), The challenge

of community policing: Testing the promises (pp. 53-72). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publishing.

Wilkinson, D., Stemen, D., & Allen, M. (1997, March). The patrol ofiicer’s view of
community policing: Experiences from Aurora and Joliet, IL, from 1991-1996. Paper

presented at the annual meetings of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Louisville,
KY.

Wilkinson, D.L., & Rosenbaum, DP. (1994). The effects of organizational structure
on community policing: A comparison of two cities. In D.P. Rosenbaum (Ed), 13

challenge of community policing: Testing the promises (pp. 110-126). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publishing.

Wilson, J .Q. (1968). Varieties of police behavior: The management of law & order
in eight communities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wycoff, MA. (1991). The benefits of community policing: Evidence and conjecture.
In J .R. Green & S.D. Mastrofski (Eds), Community policing: Rhetoric or ream (pp. 103-
120). New York: Praeger.

Wycoff, M.A., & Kelling, G.L. (1978). The Dajas experience: Organizational
reform. Washington, DC: Police Foundation.

Wycoff, M.A., & Skogan, W.G. (1994). Community policing in Madison: An
analysis of implementation and impact. In D.P. Rosenbaum (Ed), The challenge of

community policing: Testing the promises (pp. 75-91). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Yin, RK. (1993). Applications of case study research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Zhao, J. (1996). Why police organizations change: A study of community-oriented
policing. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.

Zhao, J ., Thurman, Q.C., & Lovrich, NP. (1995). Community-oriented policing

across the U. S. : Facilitators and impediment to implementation. Amerfin J ourrfl of Police.
13(1), 1 1—28.

294

 

"llllllllllllllll