mnwu— —~———..-..- .u-uoa AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF CHANGES Accommmmd ' THE lMPLEMENTATlON’OF-A COMMUNITY-BASED; H _ PARTICIPATORY TEAM POLICE ORGAN'IZATlONALMODEL f F — - Dissertation for the Degree of Pb D + MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ‘ . JOHN. E. ANGELL 1975 . SN 3 1 1995 ‘ '5. ’4‘ 4+3 = Mr- ? Ah i ’ 9i > i“ 4 ' l9 , _ ‘ 1: ,z . l \ "g “ I “r" ‘ “”33 ":51 ABSTRACT AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF CHANGES ACCOMPANYING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A COMMUNITY-BASED, PARTICIPATORY TEAM POLICE ORGANIZATIONAL MODEL By John E. Angell This exploratory research examined the attitudes of (l) citizens, (2) police clientele, and (3) police in an area where a decentralized, participatory (collegial) Team Police operation was implemented, and compared these attitudes with Chase in a similar neighborhood policed by a Classical organizational structure and traditional pro- cedures. The Team Police Model of this study consisted basically of 15 generalist police officers who, with the participation of local citizens, were responsible for defining police goals, priorities and procedures and providing all police services in a precisely defined, low-economic, minority, residential area of Holyoke, Massachusetts for a test period of approximately nine months. The Team used collegial methods for decision John E. Angell making and task forces for performing management functions. The Team followed a "service", rather than "law enforcement" operational philosophy. The control neighborhood was policed by an organi- zation arrangement which was in general consistent with Classical tenets as stated by Max Weber. A traditional "law enforcement" philosophy was used in the Classical neighborhood. The basic assumption underlying this study was police effectiveness in crime prevention and order main- tenance is dependent on a supportive public. The primary problem researched was whether public and clientele atti- tudes toward the police were more supportive in the Team Police than a Classical Police area. 0f secondary concern was the impact of the Team Police experiment on police officers attitudes. The data for the study was obtained by specially prepared questionnaires and standardized personality tests administered to "experimental" and "control" samples. Pre and post-test administrations with citizens and police officers were accomplished. Police clients received only post tests. John E. Angell Among the findings and conclusions related to the general research questions were the following: 1. The attitudes of citizens in the Team neigh- borhood tended to be more favorable toward the Team Police than were those of citizens in the Classically Policed neighborhood to- ward their police. Citizen attitudes toward Team Police officers tended to either remain stable or change in a positive (supportive) direction between the pre and post-tests. Citizen attitudes toward Classical police either remained stable or changed in a nega- tive direction. The attitudes of police clientele in the Team Police neighborhood tended to be more favorable toward the Team Police than were the attitudes of clientele, who received services from Class- ically organized police, toward their officers. As a result of the police attention they re- ceived, police clients who received services from Team police officers reported only posi- tive attitude changes, whereas clients in the Classical neighborhood reported both positive and negative changes. Team Police officers (volunteers) reported a preference for involving themselves in a wider range of activities than did police officers in the Classical area. Team Police officers reported a preference to use less formal methods than arrest or standard operating procedures for resolving clientele problems than did police officers in the Class- ical area. Ethnocentrism scores indicated Team Police John E. Angell officers were significantly less prejudiced than police officers in the Classically or— ganized area. 9. Although Team Police officers'scores tended to reflect lower authoritarianism, more toler- ance for ambiguity, and more flexibility, the difference between Team Police and Classical Police mean scores were not significant at a p‘I.OS. Perhaps the most important conclusion to be de- rived from this study is that, contrary to conventional wisdom, the collegial Team Police Model as implemented in this project did not have a negative impact on any variable investigated. The positive impact of the project on most variables supports the value of further research with a community-based, collegial team organizational structure for police services. AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF CHANGES ACCOMPANYING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A COMMUNITY-BASED, PARTICIPATORY TEAM POLICE ORGANIZATIONAL MODEL By (2) = .33, 0 John E? Angell A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1975 Copyright by JOHN E. ANGELL 1975 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study could not have been completed without the support of many people. I am extremely grateful to my colleagues, Raymond Galvin, Fontaine Hagedorn, and Michael O'Neill who served with me as consultants on the Team Police Project. These men are good friends and most capable critics. Without their efforts, ideas, and assist- ance this study would never have been possible. Further, the research could not have occurred without the support of William Taupier, Jack G033, and the Holyoke Police officers. I sincerely appreciate the efforts of my Guidance Committee -- Professors Vandel Johnson, Chairman; Eldon Nonnemaker; Louis Radelet; and Max Raines. Among those to whom I am indebted for providing me with management experience which was valuable in analyzing the study results are Donald Clark, Neil Goldschmidt and Robert Igleburger. The progressive approaches of these public officials have been a source of inspiration to me. Others who helped with research methods, statistics, criticisms and editing are Steven Blatt, Ben Brashears, John Conley, Steven Edwards, Roger Steggerda and Tom Tortoriello. Finally, I am grateful to Arthur Brandstatter and John McNamara who were instrumental in providing funds for a portion of my study. The final preparation of this docu- ment was funded under Grant Number 74-N 199-1002 from the Office of Education and.Manpower Assistance, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, U.S. Department of Justice. This agency wants it made known: "Researchers undertaking such projects under Government sponsorship are encouraged to ex- press freely their professional judgment. Therefore, points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent the official position or policy of the U.S. Depart- ment of Justice." In fact, several of the above mentioned people may not support the opinions I express in this study. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS. LIST OF TABLES. Chapter I. INTRODUCTION. The Problem . Purpose of Study Methods of Study Limitations of Study . Definition of Terms Organization of Study. Footnotes -- Chapter I II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . General Criticisms of Bureaucratic Theory. . . . Criticisms of Police Application of Classical Theory Bureaucracy and Police Community Relations. . Bureaucracy and Police Attitudes and Behavior. . . . Police Modifications in Bureaucratic Model . . Aberdeen Team Police Salford Team Police Tucson Fluid Patrol . President's Commission Report . Richmond Team Patrol System. Syracuse Crime Control Team. Issue of Community Control iii ii iii 19 22 24 27 32 34 36 4O 43 44 46 SO Chapter Page II. continued Dutch Neighborhood Policing. . . 53 British Unit Beat Policing . . . 56 Detroit Beat Commander . . . . 60 Democratic Team.Police Model . . 66 Dayton Community Centered Team Police. . . . . . . . 70 Summary and Conclusions . . . . . 73 III. DESIGN OF STUDY . . . . . . . . . 86 Description of Holyoke Democratic TeamTApproach. . . . . . 92 Research Questions and Hypotheses . . 94 Citizen Attitudes Toward the Police . 94 Clientele Attitudes Toward the Police. ‘ 95 Police Officer Attitudes . . . . . 96 Research Design . . . . . . . . 96 Citizen Attitudes . . . . . . 99 Clientele Attitudes. . . . . . 101 Officer Attitudes . . . . . . 102 Conclusions . . . . . . . 103 Footnotes -- Chapter II . . . . . 104 IV. IMPLEMENTATION AND RESULTS . . . . . . 105 Team Selection . . . . . . . . 105 Team Training. . . . . . . . 107 Team Self-Organization. . . . . . 109 Citizen and Clientele Pre-test Problems . . . . . . . . . 114 Team Implementation. . . . . . 115 Administrative and Political . Environnznt . . . . . . . 123 Citizen Attitude Results . . . . . 128 Clientele Attitude Results . . . . 148 Police Officer Attitude Results. . . 159 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . 170 iv Chapter Page V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . 171 Background of Study. . . . . . . 171 Summary of Research Design and Problems . . . . . . . . 172 Problems Encountered in Implementing Research . . . . . 173 Conclusions About Research Problems . . . . . . . . . 174 Findings and Conclusions . . . . . 175 Citizen Attitudes . . . . . . 176 Clientele Attitudes. . . . . . 178 Police Attitudes. . . . . . . 181 Conclusions . . . . . . . . 185 Recommendations . . . . . . . . 187 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 Table III-1. III-2. IV-1. IV-2. IV-3. IV-4. IV-5. IV-6. IV-7. IV-8. IV-9. IV-lO. IV-ll. LIST OF TABLES Selected Demographic Character- istics of Wards I & II and Holyoke . Research Design Summary . Modified Research Design Summary . The Police in Our Ward Like People Police in Our Ward Are Polite . Police in My ward Tend to "Look Down" on People. . . Police in My Ward Are Anxious to Help People . . . . Police in My Ward Do Not Use More Force Than They Have To The Police in Our Ward Get a Lot of Help from Citizens . The Police in Our Ward Are Honest. The Police in Our Ward Are Better Than Police in Other Wards Estimated Response Time /What Was Officer Attitude Page 87 97 116 131 133 135 138 140 142 144 146 150 153 List of Tables.--Cont. Table IV-12. IV-13. IV-14. IV-15. IV-16. IV-17. IV-18. IV-19. IV-20. V-l. V-2. V-3. How Would You Characterize the Treatment You Received from the Police? Clients' Attitudes Toward Police Officers Before * After Police Service . . . . . Clients' Attitudes Toward Overall Quality of Service Rendered by Police. . . . . . . Police Activity Preference Police Formalism Preference . General Authoritarian . Ethnocentrism. Intolerance of Ambiguity . Rigidity Summary of Compariscn.of Citizen Attitudes . Summary of Comparison of Clientele Attitudes . Summary of Police Test Comparisons. Page 154 156 158 161 163 164 166 168 169 176 180 182 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION During the past century changes in society have been both rapid and extensive. They range from techno- logical developments such as the automobile and elect- ronic data processing to modifications of values con- cerning "good", "bad", "right" and "wrong." In the area of social relations, some scholars have expressed a belief that changes have been and are in the direction of democratization.1 They claim the changing environment of organizations from competitive to interdependent, stable to turbulant, and simple to complex ensure the inevitability of organizational de- signs more conducive to democracy.2 The consequences predicted for organizations which resist internal demo- cratization include high employee cynicism, low product- ivity, organizational ineffectiveness and possible organ- izational death.3 Although the validity of such observations and contentions still lacks conformation, organizations throughout the United States and the world have under- gone extensive democratization in recent years.4 Some school systems have been redesigned to facilitate in- creased student, teacher, and citizen influence. A number of manufacturing concerns such as General Motors and Texas Instruments have undergone organizational changes which give employees greater influence and de- cision making power. Most governmental agencies, in- cluding the armed forces, are more open and less auto- cratic than was formerly the situation. While evalu- ations of the impact of such democratization on these organizations are far from conclusive, some reports have reflected favorable results. The Problem As amply illustrated in literature, police agencies in the United States have been ineffective regardless of the criteria used for evaluation.5 Police contend their major responsibility is to prevent crime, yet the Uniform Crime Reports indicated that reported index crimes increased 157.6% between 1960 and 1973.6 Police frequently take pride in being responsible for apprehending law violators and providing evidence for their convictions. However, the police overall clear- ance rate for reported index crimes in major cities was approximately 21%* in 1973. Police effectiveness in maintaining order and protecting constitutional rights is more difficult to assess. However, if one considers the civil disorders in recent years that have occurred at the point of some police intervention and the accounts of police opposi- tion to constitutionally guaranteed rights there is room for reasonable doubt about police effectiveness in these areas.8 Some scholars believe that given contemporary attitudes and limitations on governmental agencies, im- provements in police effectiveness are directly related to the police ability to secure citizen c00peration. For the past twenty years, Professor Louis Radelet of Michigan State University has contended the effective- ness of police in a democratic society is heavily de- pendent on police being "... a part of, rather than *If estimated unreported crimes were added to the reported the apprehension rate would dr0p to app- roximately 10% since approximately 50% of the major crime goes unreported. In addition, if instead of "clearance rate", one were to consider the true appre- hension rate (total crimes/nflmber of apprehensions) the effectiveness of police agencies would appear even worse. apart from their community." Recently Professor Albert Reiss has been more specific in pointing out "... the capacity of the police to solve crime is severely limit- ed by citizens, partly owing to the fact that there is no feasible way to solve most crimes except by securing the cooperation of citizens to link a person to a crime."9 If the contentions of these authorities are valid, police organizations should be designed to facilitate communi- cation and cooperation among police officers and citi- zens. In other words, the structure of a police agency should ensure citizen access and influence in decision making about police goals, procedures, operations, and actions. I In spite of the social changes and tendencies of other social organizations toward more flexible, parti- cipatory structures,10 police agencies have resisted changes which would further democratize their operations.11 Except for adoption of technology such as radio communi- cations, automobiles, and electronic data processing, there have been few changes in the basic approach to police organization and management since Sir Robert Peel reorganized the London Police in 1829.12 Prior to 1970, Holyoke, Massachusetts had severe police and community relations problems in a low economic, minority area of the city.13 Police officers were reluct- ant to enter the area except in compliance to a specific dispatch. Citizens in the heavily Puerto Rican area at times would not communicate with police officers and even more frequently they refused to provide information concern- ing matters of interest to the pplice. According to police reports, assaults on police officers and resisting arrest incidents in the area were unusually high. Nearly any police attempt to regulate citizens in this area attracted a hostile crowd. The assumption underlying this study is that a supportive public is essential to maximizing police effect- iveness in crime prevention and order maintenance. In Holy- oke, the traditional organizational arrangements, based on Classical Theory, did not appear to be effective in reducing tension between police officers and citizens.14 A community- based, participatory, Democratic Team Police organizational model was developed and funded in an experimental effort to improve police and community relations. The basic problem researched inthis study is whether improvements in public attitudes toward the police occurred as a result of this experiment. Of secondary concern is the impact of this model on selected attitudes of the officers who were part of the Team. Purpose of Study The purpose of this study is to investigate changes which occurred after the implementation of a community-based, participatory Democratic Team Police organizational model in Holyoke, and assess the potential value of this arrange- ment as an alternative to the Classical bureaucratic app- roach to organizing for the delivery of police services. This study will evaluate three general research questions. 1. What changes in citizen attitudes toward the police appear to occur in a neighborhood where a Democratic Team Police arrangement is imple- mented? 2. What changes in clientele attitudes toward the police appear to occur in a neighborhood where a Democratic Team Police arrangement is ample- mented? 3. What changes in attitudes of police officers appear to occur when these officers are mem- bers of a Democratic Team Police arrangement? The conclusions from this study should provide in- formation concerning the potential value of continued exper- imentation with participatory team police organizational arrangements. Further, the study should identify organi— zational changes and research and that might prove fruitful in the future. Methods of Study This study involves two similar communities in Holyoke, Massachusetts. The police organization in one of these communities (Ward II) will be maintained as a Classical bureaucracy, while the organizational struc- ture and management procedures of the police in the second community (Ward I) will be changed to a community- based, participatory, Democratic Team Police Model. Pre and post project data for the evaluation of the experiment will be collected in both areas. The assessment of citizen attitudes will be based on a comparison of answers to structured interviews of citi- zens selected randomly from both communities. The assess- ment of police clientele attitudes will be based on a comparison of police clientele responses to a structured questionnaire. Several standardized instruments will be used to obtain information concerning police attitudes in both the experimental and control areas. In addition, unStructured observations and in- terviews will be used during the course of the experiment to obtain qualitative and illustrative data to supplement the quantitive findings. Limitations of Study This is an exploratory study of an action pro- gram. In spite of a need to maintain control over an experiment so as to ensure the integrity of a research design, in action programs decision-making officials frequently place a higher priority on political and administrative considerations than on research.15 In the final analysis, the research of this study is con- sidered a lower priority by decision makers than the action component of the project. Therefore, the action emphasis of the project may result in a less than per- fect implementation of the experimental organization model and the research design. In addition, the research project is too broad and complex for high confidence levels in statements about precise cause and effect relationships. While it should be possible to make accurate statements about changes which occur as a result of the overall experi- ment, it will not be possible to identify with confidence the precise variable that produced the change. In addi- tion to the organizational structure itself other variables that might produce significant changes include special training, increased training, publicity, the "Hawthorne" effect, changes in equipment, use of volun- teers, increased support of police by other social ser- vice agencies, increased information resources, and in- creased clerical and para-professional support for the Democratic Team Police Unit. In respect for these limitations, the interpre- tation of the results will be highly subjective and tenuous. Any findings should be subjected to more pre- cise and rigorous research before they are accepted as factual. The greatest value of the study may be the identification of areas where further research appears worthwhile. Definition of Terms For the purpose of this study operational de- finitions have been developed for a number of terms. The following are the unique definitions of terms which will be used most frequently. Beat Commander. A form of team police developed by the Detroit Police Department and based on the Unit Beat Police Model. The Beat Commander, a police sergeant, is responsible for organizing and managing police services in a specific 10 geographic area.16 British Team Policing. A.decentralized, team organizational plan which was used in Aberdeen, Scotland, and Salford, England, in the late 1940's and 1950's. This approach was discon- tinued in the early 1960's. 7 Bureaucrat. An employee of a bureaucracy. Bureaucrgcy. An organization based on Classical Theory.l Classical or Bureaucratic Organization Theory. Organizational theory based on as assumption of universally, good characteristics which appar- ently were first described by Max Weber and furtheEOrefined by sgih scholars as Urwick, White, and Wilson. Its basic character- istics are (a) an organization arrangement based on high specialization, (b) a monocrat- ically controlled hierarchy of personnel with authority increasing as closeness to the top decreases, (c) well defined, written functions and procedures which members of the organiza- tion must follow, (d) separation of lower lev- els of organization from politics, and (e) an established career system ranging from a bot- tom level entry point to the top organizational positions with selection and promotion based on job performance. Citizen. Any member of the public regardless of nationality who lives in an area served by the specific police under consideration. Collegial Organization. An organization char- acterized by group or colleague, as opposed to autocratic,authority and decision making. Community-based Organization Structure. An organizational design characterized by decent- ralization of policy and procedure development to a neighborhood level. The operations of the 11 organization is normally restricted to within defined neighborhood boundaries. Community Centered Team Police. A form of Team Police based on the Democratic Model as modified by the Dayton, Ohio, Police Department. It differs from the Democratic Model in that it retains formal sgpervisors with authority to manage the team. Crime Control Team. A form of team policing developed in Syracuse, New York. It was re- leived of community service responsibilities and assigned exclusive responsibility for crime in a well-defined geographic area. Democratic Team Police. An organizational design (Model) which is characterized by Team Police operations, citizen and police officer participation in the establishment of priorities operational procedures, and management, and flexible, situational lead- ership. Decentralized. Refers to lodging responsi- bility and authority at a low level in the organization. In this study it is used in reference to authority to make decisions normally about policy, management, proce- dures and actions of police. Fluid Patrol. A police patrol strategy developed and first utilized by the Tuscon, Arizona, Police Department in an effort to more effectively integrate data processing and personnel to reduce crime. It places the responsibility and authority for shift- ing patrol officers with crime problem changes on the sergeant. The sergeant has at his disposal increased information and a team of 5 to 8 police patrol officers. Generalist-Specialist. A police officer who performs all police responsibilities but also 12 is a highly competent Egecialist in a single aspect of police work. Police Client. Any person who seeks service from the police. Situational Leadership or Supervision. A form of flexible leadership, as opposed to formally appointed permanent leadership, where the lead- er is designated by his peers for a situation. Normally, a collegial group has the authority to appoint such a leader, formally or by con- sensus, and the leadership responsibility is flexible enough to facilitate changes as the group needs a leader with different skills or knowledge. Team Police. Any police organizational design which consists of 6 to 50 officers as a group assigned the responsibility of providing all or nearly all police services in a specifi- cally designated geographic area. Unit Beat Policing. A form of Team Policing developed in 1965 by the British which con- sists of two beat constables, an investigator, a motorized beat officer and a collator. 7 Organization of Study The general plan is to present this study in five chapters. Chapter two is a review of the litera- ture related to team police organizations and the re- ported effects of such organizational design. The third chapter describes the urban environment of the Holyoke Team Police experiment, characteristics of the Democratic Team Police organizational design, specific 13 hypotheses to be tested, and the research design of the study. Chapter four will both review the imple- mentation of the project and report the research re- sults. The summary, conclusions, and implications for further research appear in the final chapter. 14 Footnotes--Chapter I 1 Warren Bennis and Phillip Slater, "Democracy is Inevitable," Harvard Business Review, March-April, 1964, pp. 51-59. 2 Warren Bennis, "The Decline of Bureaucracies and Organizations of the Future," Transactigg, July, 1965; E.A. Johnson, "Introduction," Operations Re- search for Management (Baltimore: The John Hopkins Press, 1954); F.E. Emery and G.L. Trist, "The Causal Texture of Organizational Environments," Paper presented at International Congress of Psychology, Washington D.C., 1955. 3 Alvin Toffler, Future Shock (New York: Bantom Books, 1971). 4 "The Job Blahs: Who wants to Work," Newsweek, March 26, 1973, pp. 79-84,89. 5 Wickersham Commission, Report on Lawlessness in Law Enforcement, Vol. 11 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govern- ment Printing Office, 1931); and President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, Th3 Challenge of Crime in a Free Society_(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967). 6 Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports (washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973), p. 1. 7 Ibid., p. 118. 8 , Albert J. Reiss, Jr., The Police and the Public (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971). 15 9 Ibid., p. 105. 10 Robert Skole, "Brave New World at Volvo," ‘Master of Business Administration, March, 1975, pp. 39-42; Derek Norcross, "Sweden's Newest Export: Indus- trial Democracy," Parade Magazine, December 15, 1974, p. 15; and Arthur Kuriloff, "An Experiment in Management: Putting Theory Y to the Test," Personnel, November- December, 1963, pp. 8-17. 11 Lawrence Sherman, "Middle Management and Team Policing: A Reply to John E. Angell," Criminology, February, 1975, pp. 363-378. 12 J J.L. Lyman, "The Metropolitan Police Act," Journal of Criminal Law,_Criminology and Police Science, Vol. 55, No. l, 1964, pp. 88-106; President's Commission of Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, Op. Cit. 13 Lawrence Sherman, A Comparative Survey of Team Policing (Washington: An Unpublished Research Report for the Police Foundation, 1972); Joseph Fink and Floyd Seely, The Community and the Police: Conflict or Cooper- ation? (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1974) p. 184-187. 14 Ibid. 15 Peter Marris and Martin Rein, Dilemmas of Social Reform (New York: Atherton Press, 1967) pp. 200-201. 16 Patrick.Murphy and Peter Bloch, "Beat Commander," Police Chief, May, 1970, pp. 16-19. 17 J Desribed by Samuel Chapman, "British Patrol Experiments," Municipal Police Administration, edited by George and Ester Eastman (Chicago: International City Management Association, 1969) pp. 101-102. 16 18 See Max Weber, The Theory of Social and Econo- mic Organization, translated and edited by AuM. Hender- son and T. Parsons (New York: Free Press, 1947) pp. 328-340. 19 Lyndall Urwick, The Pattern of Management (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1956). 20 Leonard White, Introduction to the Study, 4th Edition (New York: Macmillan, 1955). 21 O.W. Wilson, Police Administration (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963). 22 See Robert Igleburger, "Team Policing Project," Dayton Police Public Information Bulletin (Dayton, Ohio: Police Department, 1969). 23 J.F. Elliott, Crime Control Teams (Syracuse, New York: General Electric Company, Undated). 24 John E. Angell, "Toward an Alternative to Classical Police Organizational Arrangements: A Demo- cratic Model," Criminolggy, November, 1971. 25 John Breglia, "Will the Aberdeen Patrol Plan Work in America," Law and Order, September, 1965. 26 Morton Bard and Bernard Barkowitz, "Training Police as Specialists in Family Crises Intervention," for the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Crim- inal Justice (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970). 27 A.F. Williams and F. Morris, Unit Beat Policing in Cheshire (Chesire, England: Cheshire Constabulary Headquarters, July 10, 1969), pp. 1-8. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE The structural model most frequently utilized by American police departments is a rational, hierar- chical arrangement patterned on the Classical Bureau— cratic deial type as promulgated by Max Weber. 1 The most salient characteristics of an organization based on this typology are: 1. 2 A formal structure defined by a hierarchy with centralized authority. A division of labor into functional spec- ialities. Written standardized operating procedures for the conduct of organizational activity. A formally defined career system with a common entry point for employees, career routes which follow the organizational hierarchy, and promotions based on imper- sonal evaluations of employees by superiors. Management conducted through a formal, mono- cratic system of routinized superior-subor- dinate relationships. A system of employee status which is dir- ectly related to their positions (jobs) and ranks rather than birthrights or family status . 17 18 Proponents of the Classical or Universalist School of Management believe an organization with these characteristics is the most effective possible structure.3 They believe such an organization design will result in well integrated employee efforts which make a maximum contribution to the achievement of the purposes of the organization. They feel the well-defined, and stable nature of a bureaucratically arranged organization enables employees to concentrate almost exclusively on assigned tasks. They support those aspects of the design that facilitate the impersonal treatment of clients and employ- ees. They view the handling of similar problems in a similar fashion as desirable and fair. Prescriptive authors of the police field have been among those who have lauded this Bureaucratic app- roach to organization and afforded it high esteem.4 However, in recent years an increasing number of people have questioned the utility of this organizational app- roach for police.5 19 General Criticisms of Bureaucratic Theory Criticisms of the Bureaucratic approach to police organization include the general criticisms of Classical Organization Theory as well as some criticisms which are specifically related to problems accompanying the appli- cation of Bureaucratic Theory to police operations. Mo- dern literature is filled with general criticisms of bureaucratic theory.6 The most frequent general criti- cisms fall into one of four categories. 1. 2. 7 The Cultural Bound Nature of Classical Bureau- cratic Theory. Weber's normative conclusions about organizations were founded on his obser- vations and studies on early military organi- zations, the Catholic Church, and the Prussian army. Therefore, his theorectical concepts quite naturally reflect the authoritarian biases of such systems. Classical Bureaucratic Theory Mandates Atti- tudes Toward Emplgyees and Clients be Incon- sistent with the Humanistic Democratic Values of the United States. Managers in organiza- tions adhering to Classical philosophy are expected to view employees and clients of the organization as "cogs" that can be relatively easily replaced. The individual value of each person, a fundamental assumption of American culture is foreign to such Classical Organi- zation concepts. Buregucratically Structured Organizations Demand and Support Employees who Demonstrate Immature Personality Traits. Employees of Classical Bureaucratic Organizations are ana- loguous to children in a family--they are ex- pected to obey orders and carry out assignments. 20 This situation is best illustrated by tradition- alists among military officers who are fond of telling their enlisted subordinates, "You're not paid to think, you're to do as you're ordered." Employees who do not question, but blindly obey every regulation and order are rewarded, whereas mature persons who raise legitimate questions about the organization and its activities are often ostracized and punished. Such behavior discourages attitudes of independence that are characteristic of a more adult personality. 4. Classical Bureaucratic Orggpizatigpgrare Unabl_ to C0pe with Environmental Changes; therefore, TheyrEventually Become Obsolete and Dysfunctional. The hierarchical organizational structure and related Classical Theory power arrangements stifle communications and restrict information about both the internal and external environ- ments of the organization; therefore, such organizations find it difficult to detect and. respond to changes. In addition, the emphasis upon routinization of organizational activities creates inflexibility in employee and organiza- tional behavior and reduces the organization's ability to adapt to change. One of the most comprehensive summaries of the early research findings concerning the requirements for effective management is offered by Rensis Likert:8 l. Supervisors and managers who are "employee- centered" rather than exclusively "job centered" tend to get better results. 2. Employees working under strong pressure for higher productivity, or strong pressure for acceptance of specific tasks, tend to per- form less well. 3. Close supervision tends to accompany poor performance rather than good performance. 21 4. Freedom to set one's own work methods and work pace, within broad limits, is connect- ed with good performance. 5. A high degree of mutual rather than one-way influence is associated with good performance. 6. Organizations with greater diffusion downward of control and influence, and wider partici- pation in decisions, tend to show better re- sults. 7. Better and poorer supervisors and managers are relatively undifferentiated with res- pect to fulfilling the task-centered as- pects of their responsibilities but are differentiated a great deal with respect to activities representing concern for subordinates' well-being, training and development, self-confidence, security, encouragement of free communication. 8. Supervisors and managers who are aware of and utilize group processes tend to achieve better results. In reaction to these findings, Likert concluded: Research findings, such as referred to briefly in (the preceeding) statements, show that there are important inadequacies in the organizational manag- erial theories upon which most American business organizations and governmental agencies base their present operating procedures. These inadequacies are clearly evident when the procedures used by the highest producing managers and supervisors are compared with the procedures called for by the standard practices of their organization. When this comparison is made, it becomes clear that the high producing managers and supervisors are deviating in important and systematic ways from those advocated by their company and from the underlying theory upon which these procedures are based. 22 10 that Classical Douglas McGregor contended Theory is based on a wholly inaccurate assumption about human nature and human behavior which in turn results in unproductive managerial strategies. This set of assumptions, which he called Theory X are: 1. The average human being has an inherent dislike of work and will avoid it if possible. 2. Most people must be coerced, controlled, direct- ed, threatened with punishment to get them to put forth adequate effort toward the achievement of organizational objectives. 3. The average human being prefers to be directed, wishes to avoid responsibility, has relatively little ambition, wants security above all. ".. so long as the assumptions He predicted}1 of Theory X continue to influence managerial strategy, we will fail to discover, let alone utilize, the potentials of the average human being." Criticisms of Police Application of Classical Theory Criticism of the bureaucratic model for police organizations is not restricted to contemporary litera- ture. William Tallock was critical of the police of Paris even before the start of the 20th century. He noted that the Parisian police were, by military (or Classical) standards, nearly a "perfect" system.12 23 ... The Parisian Police system has been ostenta- tiously held up, in some quarters, as a piece of executive machinery worthy of the admiration of the world. But, with all of this marvelous elab- oration, it has resembled a beautiful piece of clockwork, lacking in its chief function of keeping time. ... The murders, robberies, and other evils of Paris, which take place without detection, or punishment, are notorious throughout Europe. Tallock suggested the inadequacies of the Pari- sian Police could be attributed to the over reliance on the military model of organization:13 ... it is that mere military police, in Paris and other Continental cities, fail in the highest functions of first class organizations. Their anteceedents, as a body, have not qualified them for the lively independent exercise of their own intellects, in the double work of detection and prevention, but have positively unfitted them for such important service. In other words, the very foundation of military efficiency (the tendency to rely on rules and commands rather than think out and devise for oneself) is one of the chief sources of incompetency, as respects the highest of police functions. Modern critics of the police reliance on bureau- cratic theory frequently focus their attention on prob- lems, supposedly attributable to Classical Theory, in the areas of police and community relations and police morale and behavior.14 Possible relationships between Bureaucratic Theory and problems in these two areas merit further discussion. 24 Bureaucracy and Police-Community Relations In a democracy it is assumed that governmental agencies, including the police, will reflect the prior- ities and preferences of the citizens being served.15 However, the very features of bureaucracy that facili- tate stability, consistency, and predictability; and ensure impersonal, universal treatment for employees and clients may have a detrimental impact on the rela- tionship between citizens and police.16 Consider, for example, the impact of consolid- ating small police organizations and raising the level of ultimate control over them in a manner consistent with the tenets of Bureaucratic Theory. Theoretically such action should result in efficiencies of scale and increase organizational efficiency. In reality, it results in the development of a standard operating pro- cedure and the application of this procedure to a broader segment of the population. The possible conse- quences of such action is explained in the following illustration.l7 Assume that those who have the greatest economic advantage and the most political influence feel a need to eliminate inoperable vehicles from the city. Since they are politically powerful they have no difficulty impressing upon the equally 25 middle class police management the importance of strictly enforcing (a law to eliminate the inop- erable vehicles). In accordance with Classical Theory a uniform policy is developed for imple- menting the law and officers throughout the city are instructed to enforce the law in a "non- discriminatory" fashion (that is, they cannot make exceptions to the enforcement policy), and they carry out the policy in a highly impersonal manner. Although not blatantly apparent, this kind of enforcement is highly discriminatory. First, the lower income citizens are generally the only people who have inoperable vehicles where the police can detect them; second, lower in- come people cannot afford to maintain their cars in as good a state of repair as higher income people; and third, lower income people need the parts from their inoperable autos to repair the ones they are currently driving. In addition, an abandoned vehicle law has no social utility for people with lower incomes if they are not disturbed by the presence of inoperable cars. The value of having a vehicle may be of greater utility to them than a tidy backyard. Hence, while a policy may reflect the desires of many people in the community, it may also bring the police into conflict with a sizeable minority of the citizens who are less powerful. Therefore, rather than following the Bureaucratic typology, an organizational arrangement which would permit policy differentials so as to more closely reflect the preferences and needs of citizens from all socio-economic groups may create fewer tensions and better serve the needs of a broader range 26 of citizens. Classical Bureaucratic Theory supports central- ization of police decison making. As the police opera- tions become more centralized, they move further away from the basic goal of democracy--—guaranteeing every citizen access to and influence with governmental agencies.18 Under a highly developed police bureaucracy, many citi- zens, particularly minorities, View their police as essentially beyond their understanding and control. Often both the police and minority group members reduce their interaction and view each other with distrust and suspicion. Jeffrey Freund described the consequences:19 The mutual isolation and fear of the symbolic assail- ant by both blacks and the police can hardly help but lead to conflict between the two groups. Police in many black neighborhoods, in an effort to main- tain "law and order" while at the same time protect- ing themselves from danger, often abuse their dis- cretion when dealing with blacks. In return for this abuse, the urban black often manifests his hate and fear of the police, reinforcing the police belief that their acticns are justified. Highly centralized police organizations may be too inflexible to provide personalized attention to the problems of subgroups. The larger and more centralized a police agency beccmes the more impersonally its agents behave toward citizens. The more heterogenous the society 27 served by a centralized police agency, the more sub- groups that will be irritated by any single policy. The more highly centralized the police structure, the greater the probability of reduced communications be- tween police officers and citizens. These situations appear to impede the establishment of either a role consensus or mutual trust between minority groups and the police. Without the existence of such agreement and trust, the relationship between police and the public is likely to be strained. Bureaucracy and Police Attitudes and Behavior If employees in a democratic environment are to be satisfied, they must view themselves as valuable and making worthwhile contributions to society.20 Their jobs must be challenging and rewarding enough that they can have a sense of pride and self-importance from per- forming them.21 In some respects the Classical Bureau- cratic theory creates a.machine-like organizational model in that it encourages one to view employees as 22 Even Max Weber has been 23 easily replaceable cogs. quoted as condemning this aspect of bureaucracy. 28 ...it is horrible to think that the world could one day be filled with nothing but these little cogs, little men clinging to little jobs and striving toward bigger ones - a state of affairs which is to be seen once more, as in Egyptian records, playing an ever- increasing part in the spirit of our present adminis- trative system, and expecially of its offspring the students. This passion for bureaucracy is enough to drive one to despair. It is as if in politics we were deliberately to become men who need "order" and nothing but order, and helpless if they are torn away from their total incorporate in it. That the world should know men but these, it is in such an evolution that we are already caught up, and the great question is therefore not how we can promote and hasten, but what can we oppose to this machinery in order to keep a portion of mankind free from this parcelling out of the soul, from this supreme mastery of bureaucratic way of life. One of the factors which influence the attitudes of police employees is the promotion system. In accord- ance with Bureaucratic Theory, entry level police officers have to obtain promotions to supervisory level positions in order to receive increases in pay or status. Police employ- ees are hired for one type of job but they are expected to strive for promotions to completely different kinds of jobs in supervisory positions. Police agencies train an employ- ee to a high level of competency in job performance and then frequently the employee is promoted to a supervisory position where an entirely different set of skills and apti- tudes are needed. The fact 29 that a good police officer and a police manager may be equally important to an organization is not reflected in the salary or status arrangements of Classical con- cepts which make it improper to reward a patrol officer with a salary or status equal to a top administrator. A second factor which may contribute to negative attitudes among police employees is the conflict between generalists and specialists.24 Specialization in police organizations has resulted in the most important people in the organizations, the generalists or patrol officers, becoming report takers and servants for more specialized officers such as investigators, juvenile officers, and traffic officers. This situation causes tension between police generalists and specialists, and results in a lack of cooperation toward the accomplishment of common goals. The uniformed officer's duties mandate high skill and knowledge in handling a wide range of human behavior. However, the uniformed officer is accorded low status and pay in comparison with the specialist. Finally, some feel negative attitudes among police officers are caused by their frustration over an inability to affect their own working conditions. As the educational level of police employees rises, they 30 insist on recognition of their "right" to be involved in decision making processes of the police organization.25 Educated police officers seem to believe they have the ability to make sound decisions about their jobs. Conse- quently, police activism has increased and a number of jurisdictions have recognized the legitimacy of police employee groups and unions. Such activity is contrary to the tenets of monocratic, Classical Bureaucratic Theory, which rations decision making to top level administrators and managers. In regard to employee behavior, the Classical Bureaucratic arrangements should logically ensure observance of limitations on behavior by employees. Superiors are theoretically given adequate authority to ensure that subordinates stay within established rules and guide lines. However, in reality such has not been the case. Nearly every major study of American police in recent years has referred to police deviancy as a major problem.26 One hypothesis concerning the reason for this situation is that the hierarchy of authority through which communications travel distorts and filters infor- mation. The modification of information is both 31 deliberate and unintentional.27 The top administrators seldom get a true picture of how closely bottom level subordinates are following the expectations established for them.28 The Bureaucratic arrangement is such that when a t0p official issues a directive to correct a situation, which because of earlier information distor- tion has already been preceived inaccurately, the comm- unication will most likely be changed as it travels down through the hierarchy; therefore, it will not have the intended impact. Even with improved communica- tion, the assumption that formal authority to command is sufficient to obtain compliance from subordinates appears to be questionable. Years ago Chester Barnard29 speculated that authority actually rests with subordin- ates rather than supervisors. Therefore, if the sub- ordinates are not disposed to accept and comply with orders from superiors, these orders will have scant impact. The attempts at correcting this situation to ensure managerial control usually involve the estab- lishment of organizational devices which operate out- d.30 side the chain of comman These units are usually 32 referred to as Internal Affairs or Citizen Complaint Units. However, in spite of such mechanisms, in cer- tain types of situations deviancy among lower level police officers is wide-spread. This has caused some people to question whether in this society, traditional Bureaucratic principles can be used to achieve the ob- jective of adequate control of police behavior. Police Modifications in Bureaucratic Model In the police field, the most substantial or- ganizational modifications intended to address the pre- ceeding problems have been made under an organizational typology called "Team Policing.' The general charact- eristics of Team Police are: l. The concept is an open socio-technical syptems model as described by_Trist.3T This means the organization is designed to facilitate a "fit" between citizen needs, the police officers and the tech- nology available. The responsibilities of police officers are expanded and they are organized in teams to facilitate the formation of natural social groups. Police officers are placed in closer contact with citizens through decentralization of the organization and the use of neigh- borhood meetings. The communications, records and data processing technology is modified to better support the team. 2. The concept involves a small groppf(15-50) 33 of police officers who are expected to fqgm a cohesive social-work group. The police officers assigned to a police team are given relatively permanent, or at least long term assignments together in antici- pation of their forming a natural social group which will have an efficient comm- unications network, establish behavioral norms, and utilize peer-pressure for norm maintenance. 3. The Police Team is assigned the responsibility for providipg,all_police service in a well- defined gepgraphic area-normally defined as a neighborhood or communiry. This means that responsibility for decisions about goals, priorities, procedures, and pract- ices of the police are usually decentral- ized to the team leader or the entire team. Usually a team is assured of territorial integrity (i.e., no other police officers are permitted to work inside the team's boundaries without approval of the team leader or the team). 4. The Team members are given the authority to_participate in decisions about the best way to carry out their repponsibilities. This usually takes the form of team meetings. In some cases team members are given the latitude to select their own leaders and develop operational policies. The literature contains information about a number of different Team Police organizational experi- ments that have been conducted since 1946. The follow- ing is a review of the literature which describes, advocates, or evaluates Team Policing. 34 Aberdeen Team Police Apparently, the first experiment with Team Policing was initiated in 1946 in the Aberdeen, Scotland, Police Department.32 Samual Chapman describes this first project in MunicipalyPolice Administration.33 Team policing called for the dissolution of tradi- tional individual beats, and the areas covered by them were organized into large districts. A team of from three to nine constables (the number of men depending on time of day) was assigned to pat- rol each district. The sergeant in charge of each team was given great discretion in choosing the method of patrol as well as deciding where the available men were to be posted. It was a highly fluid, flexible patrol scheme whose success seemed linked to team spirit, the evaluation of data from police reports of the recent past, and the ser- geant's imagination and ability to assess current needs for police service. In essence, this experiment was designed to give sergeants greater respcnsibility. It also modi- fied the organization structure to facilitate more effective use of the radio and automobile. Although cars and wireless radios had great potential for im— proving police efficiency, police officials in the British Isles were reluctant to abandon walking pat- rols. This technique provided a method for maintaining limited foot patrols and increased use of the radio and automobile.34 35 The Oaksey Committee which evaluated this oper~ ation reported,35 clusions about the approac The 'Aberdeen' system is not a rival to the beat system but a variant development of it. The 'Aberdeen' system differs from the beat system in the fundamental respect that it abolishes the individual responsibility for a definite area and substitutes team responsibility of a group of men for a larger area. 1. The Oaksey Committee made the following con- h:36 The changes in the Sergeants responsibility . should increase his own and his men's work and therefore improve efficiency. We agree withthe opinion expressed that the psychological effect of being a member of a team is inclined to increase the efficiency of weaker members, as an officer is unlikely to shirk any of his responsibilities because of the possible reactions of other members of the team. Despite the removal of officers from walking beats, the constables knowledge of an area and its inhabitants was not diminished be- cause (1) constables were instructed to take every opportunity to talk with members of the public, (2) the constables pooled their know- ledge about the area at each change of shift, (3) constables were dispatched by "wireless" and transported by automobile to attend citi- zen complaints. The Committee in evaluating this approach failed to find sufficient evidence to justify strongly endorsing it. It concluded:37 36 From our enquiries on the spot, we consider that the efficiency of policing in Aberdeen has not been impaired by the scheme which may prove suit- able in the circumstance existing in that city - a good testing-ground because of its topograph. Aberdeen is a comparatively isolated city in a rural district; there is only a limited amount of industry and there are widespread residential areas. The literature does not contain sufficient in- formation for any evaluation of the experiment. Accord- ing to Sherman the experiment was discontinued in 1962.38 Salford Team Police Within a year of the release of the Oaksey Re- port on Aberdeen, Chief Constable Alex J. Patterson, who was in command in Aberdeen when the first team oper- ation was initiated, had implemented a similar arrange- ment in Salford, England. In a report39 dated on Nov- ember 13, 1950, Patterson, While not mentioning the Oaksey Report, concerned himself with proving that Team Policing would also improve police operations in a highly industrial urban area equally as well as in rural Aber- deen. In his report he points out:40 Salford is a highly industrialized, its industry ranging from heavy engineering to making of pre- cision tools and scientific instruments and from weaving of all classes to garment making on the largest scale. The City is heavily built up, and 37 it contains important railway marshalling yards and canals which criss-cross the City. It is also an inland port as the principle docks of the Man- chester Ship Canal lie within the City boundaries... within a radius of 10 miles from Salford, there are 8 separate Police Forces. Patterson claimed Team Policing was implemented in Salford in an effort to overcome personnel shortages. In 1946 Salford would have needed an additional 148 con- stables to maintain its traditional foot patrol beat structure. Patrol cars were superimposed over the walking beat system in 1947. Patterson felt this arrange- ment was ineffective and replaced it in one area of the City with a Team system of policing.41 were 2 His stated "principles" of this Team Policing To deploy or distribute personnel to the best advantage and with the greatest possible effect, i.e., to have constables available or posted in those positions or areas where their services are most likely to be required; To ensure, so far as practicable, that cons- tables get sufficient work to maintain their interest and eliminate any danger of boredom; To broaden the experience of the constables by giving them a wide variety of duties; To avoid routine unimaginative methods and to introduce an element of surprise so that wrong- doers cannot foretell when or where they may be confronted by a police officer or caught red handed; 38 5. To instill the ideals of team work and cooper- ation among all personnel of the Division as a whole and not merely his responsibility for some part of it; 6. To give the best and most expeditious service possible to the general public. As in Aberdeen, the sergeant's responsibilities were increased. The sergeant was given a team of app- roximately 9 constables for an 8 hour shift. Each Team was assigned to a designated section. It had one police vehicle equipped with "wireless." The Sergeant, who was the Team~leader or "Commander in the field," was responsible for deploying the Team members, assign- ing tasks, maintaining close contact with each constable, relaying communications between the constables, and assisting them in the performance of their jobs. A Sergeant was provided a variety of information about the crime situation in the area to increase his ability to perform his functions. Uniformed constables and Criminal Investigation Division (C.I.D.) officers were instructed to cooperate closely. C.I.D. officers would give informal chatty" talks to constables about current crime problems, per- sons suspected, the hazardous crime areas and ways con— stables could apprehend deviates. Uniformed constables 39 who detected a crime or apprehended a criminal were permitted to work with C.I.D. officers until the final disposition of the case. Patterson describes the affect of this team system:42 As happens with many other innovations the system was not an immediate success, and it did not get properly into 'gear' until May, 1949, by which time many operational difficulties had been mast- ered and the underlying principles assimilated. Experienced officers, bred in the tradition of the (foot) beat, who were strongly sceptical of , new methods of policing became converts and en- thusiasts, and from that moment the scheme gather- ed momentum guaranteeing its permanent adoption. Comradeship began to manifest itself and team spirit, coupled with friendly rivalry between the teams and resultant pride of achievement, became real. From this point efficient opera- tion was assured... In his 1951 report on the Salford Police, Patterson attempted to document his previous claims of increased efficiency by comparing crime statistics for a three year period (1946-47-48) before the Team System was implemented with the first three years of the Team System (1949-50-51). In spite of the fact that the Department had 12% fewer uniformed constables in the latter period, Patterson claimed that under the Team System "breaking in" offenses went down 23%; arrests by uniformed officers increased 109%; and 40 road fatalities went down 25%. Patterson attributes the changes in "product- ivity" to improvements in the willingness of officers to increase their efforts under the Team System. He writes:44 ... this (improved productivity) is due in large measure to the whole-hearted cooperation, keenness and tenacity of the officers and men without which no system, however theoretically sound, could oper- ate properly. The never-failing interest and en- thusiasm of the operating personnel have evoked very favorable comments from nearly all of the many police officers from other forces who have visited Salford to inspect the system. Our re- sources may be depleted, but this spirit and the effective crutch which the team system provides are more than compensatory. In spite of Patterson's glowing description of the Salford Team System, Chapman reports that system was discontinued in 1962 when Salford authorities be- lieved there were too many miscellaneous service de- tails and fixed duties cutting into a patrol officer's 45 time to permit further effective use of the system. Tucson Fluid Patrol In 1962 the Tucson, Arizona, Police Department began what appears to have been the first Team Police operation in the United States. In an article46 en- titled "Will the Aberdeen Patrol Plan Work in America," 41 Breglia explains that Tucson adopted the Aberdeen plan in an effort to meet the increasing crime problem. He describes the purpose of the plans as:47 ... a procedure by which we use selective enforce- ment for patrol the same way we do for traffic. Under this system we scrap the regular beat patrol system. ...It is designed to use selective enforce- ment by taking advantage of massive and rapid com- pilations of crime data through the use of modern business machines. A flexible or fluid patrol sys- tem is then utilized to concentrate the deployment of manpower wherever the latest data indicates the police can do the most good. An intent to improve police effectiveness by a better integration of police officers and technology is also reflected in Breglia's summary of the reason for using Fluid Patrol:48 The possibility of out-engineering the criminal and providing better police service at cheaper cost would be a monumental break-through for law enforcement. The trick is to harness the new computers in a way that will service police needs better. Therefore, it appears the "Fluid Patrol Plan" of Tucson was basically designed to reduce crime through (1) more extensive use of electronic data processing, (2) fluid patrol boundaries, and (3) decentralization of responsibility for personnel deployment to the team leader, a sergeant. The literature does not reflect 42 any intent to use fluid patrol to improve police and community relations nor the behavior of uniformed offi- cers. The literature about Tucson does not mention any notion of team responsibility rather than individual responsibility. It makes only brief reference to the fact that the concept might result in improvements in officers attitudes toward their jobs. Even though the officers were organized into a team under a single sergeant, there is no indication of Special efforts to increase patrol officers involvement in job related decisions. However, the increased res- ponsibility and authority given to first line super- visors was evaluated as having a positive impact on the work attitudes of sergeants. One sergeant is quoted as saying, "I now feel like a supervisor with a great res- ponsibility and also with wide authority and trust." The literature contains no reports of the impact of the Tucson experiment. Perhaps its most significant impact was the stimulation of further experimentation and research with the team approach in other North Ameri- can cities. 43 President's Commission Report The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society,49 a report of the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, provided the first major support for the implementation of the concept of team policing in the United States by recommending its own version of the idea. The recommendation involved placing three levels of police officers-Agent, Officer, and Community Service Officer-in a community area of an urban police jurisdiction under the command of one supervisor and charging the supervisor with responsi— bility for providing police services in the area. The Report states:50 The agent-officer-community service officer re- commendation made in this chapter has not only the improvement of the quality of police personnel as its objective, but also a change in the way the police work in the field. The concept, which might be called "team policing," is that all police work, both patrol and criminal investigation, in a given number of city blocks should be under unified com- mand. A "field supervisor" would have under his command a team of agents, officers, and community service officers. The team would meet at the beginning of a tour of duty and receive a briefing on the current situation in the neighborhood-- what crimes were unsolved, what suspects were wanted for questioning, what kinds of stolen goods to look out for, what situations were potentially troublesome and so forth. On this basis the mem- bers would be assigned to specific areas or duties. \ 44 If conditions warranted it, agents might be assigned to investigation. Community service officers might be delegated to help either. In specific investiga- tions or incidents, agents would be given authority over the actions of C803 and officers. If the con- ditions in the area changed during the tour, if a major crime was ccmmitted or a major disorder erup- ted, the assignments could be promptly changed by the field supervisor. This Report resulted in the decision of the Office of Law Enforcement Assistance to provide funds as an incentive for local police agencies to experiment with Team Policing. However, the logic of Team Policing would probably have been sufficient to pursuade police officials to experiment with the approach even of no federal funds had been committed to this end. Richmond Team Patrol System In 1968 Richmond, California, a city with app- roximately 82,000 population and problems between its 142 sworn officers and its substantial minority community, initiated a jurisdiction-wide team policing system.51 This team police effort appears to have been based more on research into police organizational problems than any previous team police experiment. In contrast to the Tucson Fluid Patrol, the Richmond plan also incorporated "contributions and suggestions" from uniform patrol 45 officers. The objectives of the Richmond Team Patrol System were broader than Tucson's simple objective of increasing arrests. Richmond police managers expressed an intent to improve both work attitudes of uniformed police officers and police and community relations. In regard to police and community relations, Phelps and Murphy wrote:52 Municipal police have been recently criticized for not maintaining more citizen-police contact. We hope to achieve increased contact by having one team member attend neighborhood council meetings. Our area and zone borders do not cut across neigh- borhood Group Council boundaries. The plan not only expanded the responsibility of supervisors, perhaps more importantly, it also initiated an expansion of the job of uniformed officers to include the responsibility for follow-up investigations. This function had traditionally been the exclusive responsi- bility of specialized investigators. In addition, taking the advice of the President's Commission on Law Enforce- ment, so called "para-professional" Community Service Officers were assigned to each team to assist the team members.53 Unfortunately Richmond did not initiate any systematic research to assess the impact of this system. 46 However, Phelps reports a subjective assessment of the effectiveness of the approach indicates it has sub- stantially improved officer work attitudes and police 54 In addition, it had, at the community relations. worst, no negative impact on the criminal apprehension ability of the Department. Syracuse Crime Control Team The Syracuse, New York, Police Department, supported by LEAA funds, initiated an experiment in 55 It was labeled Team Policing in the summer of 1968. the "Crime Control Team" (CCT) and consisted of a Cap- tain and eight uniformed police officers with the total responsibility for reducing crime in a specifically designated area of Syracuse. Perhaps the most impor- tant feature of this experiment was the removal of all previously established procedural rules and the allo- cation of broad discretionary authority for operational decisions to members of the Team. This appears to be the first time such latitude was given to Operational Team Police officers. The formulator of this experiment, James F. Elliott, describes it as differing in four ways from 47 the traditional approach to policing:56 1. The CCT officer is concerned only with crime and he is completely trusted to do his job. 2. The CCT is principally concerned with the future, not the past. 3. Investigations are carried to completion by the CCT officer. 4. The CCT is deployed to match the temporal vari- ations of the occurance of crime. The basic goals of the CCT were (1) crime pre- vention, (2) crime interception and (3) criminal invest- igations and apprehension. The organizational modifi- cation for achieving these goals was decentralization of responsibility for crime to the CCT. Team members were relieved of responsibility for all citizen services, public intoxication and automobile problems (traffic violations and accident processing) in the area. These responsibilities were left with other patrol officers who also worked in the same area. The CCT was responsible only for answering crime related dispatches. In another first, the Team Leader was made responsible for twenty-four hour a day deploy- ment of Team officers and he had authority to exercise discretion over the way officers handle investigative 48 matters. In addition, the Team Leader had a budget of $1,500 to spend in any manner he deemed appropriate. Further, the Department obligated itself to supply all vehicles requested by the Team Leader. Officers of the CCT were given the authority to exercise their own initiate and judgment in achieving the CCT goals. All of these features were innovations which had never pre- viously been operationalized. The Team's performance was guaged by (l) the extent to which it reduced crime and (2) the propor- tion of crimes cleared as compared to crimes reported.57 An assessment of the reduction of crime was made simply by comparing the number of crimes reported for a period of time immediately preceeding the experiment with a post experiment period of the same length in both experimental and control areas. After evaluation, Elliott and Sardino con- cluded:58 "...the experiment demonstrated that the Crime Control Team's mode of operation is superior ' However, they admitted to the conventional mode.' an inability to determine what aspects of the CCT caused it to be superior. Their observations stress 49 the apparent value of the increased police and community interaction to the overall improvement of police opera- tions. The evaluators admitted the influence of im- proved community relations was something they had not seriously anticipated at the outset of the experiment:59 Although the importance of community relations was recognized during the planning stages of the exper- iment, it was essentially viewed as a means of in- forming the beat population of the plans of the police. The possibility of obtaining the active cooperation of the citizens was not seriously considered... They seem to leave do doubt that the conclusion of others before them concerning the value of police and community cooperation was accurate:60 One of the reasons the Team became a part of the community was because the Team members could see how their community relations efforts were paying off in the very real sense of clearing crimes... Perhaps the most serious shortcoming of the re- searchers in the Syracuse project was their failure to recognize that the community service activities, which they removed from CCT responsibilities, can be extremely important to police and ccmmunity relations. The limit- ation of the CCT officers to criminal responsibilities may have reduced the ability of the Team to accrue 50 citizen support and further improve its overall effect- iveness. The Issue of Community Control The potential of a decentralized police Opera- tion to improving the ability of citizens in urban areas to influence the priorities and operational techniques of police did not go unnoticed by citizens concerned with police behavior. In 1968 The Center for Emergency Support in Washington, D.C., released a paper,61 ”The Police in Crises in Washington: Is Community Control the Answer?" This paper concluded that decentralization of police Operations in Washing- ton, D.C. could be expected to substantially reduce police misconduct and render the police operations more responsible to the preferences of local neighbor- hood people. It states:62 Under community control the police would presumably identify with the community and could become advo- cates of community causes, instead of unsympathetic or hostile to them as the Kerner Commission study indicates they now are. ...not only could the police function and the police attitudes be changed by community control, but also the manner of en- forcing laws. There is no reason why in areas where residents have backyards and air-conditioned living rooms for socializing the disorderly con- duct statute must be enforced in exactly the same 51 manner as in poor black communities where housing conditions are crowded and such socializing is nec- essarily done on the front steps. There is no rea- son why residents of these respective areas should not have a formal means of making their wishes known as to how they would like policemen to exer- cise their discretion. In 1969 a discussion conference co—sponsored by the Institute for Policy Studies and the Center for the Study of Law and Society of the University of Cal- ifornia at Berkeley focused on community control of the Police. 63 This conference concluded that improved mechanisms for citizen influence of police operations are in the best interest of a democratic society and suggested three models for proceeding: 1. 64 Neighborhood political control over on-the-beat policemen through elections, etc., of neighbor- hood commissions with full or considerable pow- er over the police, or the creation of new neighborhood based police. Creation of counter-police organizations (in effect, unions of those policed) with a poli- tical base and an ability to hear grievances and force change. Transformation of the police "profession" and role so as to end isolation of the police from the rest of the community, and thus to estab- lish fig facto community control by informed, rather than formal, means. Although the participants did not agree on the precise course of action which they would endorse, they 52 observed: Any of these approaches would require great energy and political support to create, almost certainly against the wishes of police departments. Two approaches to creating this support seem possible: Urging decentralization and community control as valuable to all American communities for the sake of their own direct relations with the police; and urging community control in black neighborhoods, either on the ground that black communities, as a result of the emergence of black peOple, are mor- ally and politically entitled to that control or on the ground that achieving it will be the only way to protect the peace and order of the whole city. Perhaps as a result of this conference an alli- ance of students and minority people in Berkeley began an ultimately unsuccessful movement to decentralize Berkeley police.66 Their plan, which was rejected by the voters, was to decentralize the Berkeley Police Department under elected Community Police Boards in three "communities" of the city. The legality and rationality of such an approach had been argued in the prestigious California Law Review in October, 1969. The author of the article had concluded?7 The only satisfactory method of assuring equal and satisfactory police protection in the ghetto is to establish a black police force, responsive to the problems and needs of the ghetto and ghetto resi- dents. It is only after this has been done that economic and educational programs can have the impact and results contemplated by their framers. 53 Such pressures for decentralization of police brought a vigorous response from no less than the Dir- ector of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, J. Edgar Hoover, who in an editorialin the FBI Bulletin wrote:68 Groups have been established to gain "community control" over police departments. Some, receiving financial support from well-meaning but misled organizations, have set up 'police watching' pro- grams. Some spokesmen advocate that each city ghetto be given public funds and authorized to form its own racially segregated police force. Others say college youths should not be subjected to contacts by police officers, and that only specially trained, highly paid, unarmed, elite police forces should be used to handle civil demonstrations. If these ideas and techniques seem half-baked, it is because they are. Dutch Neighborhood Policipg The Dutch, having traditionally utilized a policing system based primarily on walking beats staffed by uniformed police officers, enjoyed a close relation- ship between police and citizens. However, in the 1950's, pressures for increased operational efficiency motivated police officials in Arnheim to increase their utiliza- tion of motorized patrols.69 After initiating these patrols, the officials observed a reduction in police- citizen communications and they became concerned that this situation was reducing citizen confidence in the 54 police and overall police effectiveness. Mark Rand summarized the situation and the resulting changes.70 In some of the Dutch municipalities it was felt, as long ago as 1960, that owing to the increased use of police motor cars, the officers were losing touch with the public and, consequently efficiency was falling off and morale was low. Moreover, it was felt that petty offences were not being pro- perly dealt with and it was pointed out that it was upon the efficient detection of petty offences that the confidence of the public largely depended. It was noticed that different officers were on the same beat on different days and this led to a lack of uniformity of police action in given circum- stances. It was therefore decided to try a scheme whereby, one officer would reside in an area and be free to decide how he policed it - he would be, in effect, "Chief Constable" of his area. The municipality of Arnheim was divided into areas of 5,500 to 10,000 inhabitants and of between 237 and 1,284 acres. Every officer was supplied with a powerful Moped, a typewriter and a telephone at his home. He was expected to keep a modest card index. In general the more mature man was selected for the post of area officer. According to one source, the instructions to area officers were verbal and simple:71 See to it that you are master in your area; if you wish to caution offenders that is up to you, but keep the situation in hand. The first-line supervisOrs, sergeants, were instructed to use ”group theory" and hold weekly dis- cussions withtheir immediate subordinates. In addition, they were expected to:72 55 ... make good contacts with various municipal officers such as those concerned with parks and public gardens, the cleansing service, and social and housing; wherever possible, good contacts were to be made between police officers and equal rank- ing local officials; further, contact was sought with school principals, district associations, management committees of play areas, and with church authorities. According to Mark Rand, this experiment pro- duced positive results:73 It was found that the public were getting far better service in the matters of petty crimes and complaints. The area officer was able to identify the trouble-some teenagers on his beat and so, it was thought, there was a drop in such offenses as theft from automatic vending machines and hooliganism generally. The officers were seen to be well identified with their task and they seemed to adopt a more paternalistic attitude towards their resident populations as they be- came known as familiar local figures. Informa- tion began to flow from quarters where previously there had been none. The conclusion drawn from the experiment was that, for most municipalities the area officer scheme is the only effective method of making up for the disadvantages of motorisation. As with nearly all the previous Team Police experiments, this Dutch effort lacked hard data on its impact. However, the subjective appraisals of the oper- ation seem to have been sufficient to convince the top management of the British Police of the value of the basic approach.74 56 British Unit Beat Policing Although the Team Police arrangement of Aber- deen and Salford received a great deal of publicity in the 1950's, it was never given more than lukewarm supp- ort from high level British police officials. After the original projects were discontinued, police agencies in England used traditional walking beats almost pre- cisely as they were organized in the early 1800's. However, the increased cost of policing brought on by higher police salaries, reductions in the length of the work week, and the worsening economic situation in England was reducing the ability of the police to staff this policing structure. Further, improvements in communication and transportation presented an obvious potential for increasing police efficiency. The ration- ality of using this technology to improve police mobility and productivity was increasingly hard to ignore. Police officials appear to have been practically forced to ex- periment with new structures which would integrate this personnel and technology. Reluctant to reject the philosophy of citizen contact with police officers, officials prepared plans 57 which would maintain the walking beat structure and yet provide for the increased utilization of the auto- mobile and radio communications for rapid response to citizen requests. The English periodical, Police, reported on the resulting plan for Unit Beat Policing:75 It was in 1966 that the Research and Development Branch of the Police Department at the Home Office secured the cooperation of the Lancashire Constab- ulary in mounting the first experiment in Unit Beat Policing in Accrington. The force had already been Operating an experiment in the new town of Kirby using motorized patrols. This arose fnam the interest shown by the former Chief Constable, Sir Eric St. Johnston (now her majecty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary) in the success of a similar (mot- orized patrol) scheme introduced by Mr. Orlando Wilson when he was in command of the Chicago police. At the suggestion of the R. and D. Branch, Lan- cashire agreed to introduce the original idea of the Unit Beat Policing in one division. This em- bodied the principle of the residential policeman wholly responsible for one beat, with a "panda" car superimposed on two adjoining beats to make up each area team. The Accrington division was the one chosed for the experiment. An additional advan- tage determining the choice of Lancashire as the first force to try out Unit Beat Policing was the plentiful supply of personal radios which had been developed by the force's own radio unit. Thus, while ignoring their own British experience with Team Police, the Unit Beat Police scheme appears to have been based on both the Dutch Team Police experience, and O.W. Wilson's notion of conspicious motorized "pre- ventive" patrol. The expressed objectives of Unit Beat 58 Policing were:76 a. Cultivate a better understanding with members of the public, by having a closer contact with the man on the beat, b. provide a better immediate service by a swifter response to calls for assistance and complaints, c. raise detection rates by increasing and improving the information flow, d. overcome the shortage of police Officers by combining resources, and e. create a new challenge for the younger man by the introduction of a new method of beat working. Several new British innovations were also intro- duced in the Unit Beat Policing scheme. For instance, two beat constables were assigned each in one half of the unit area. These foot officers were given twenty- four hour responsibility for their beats and the dis- cretion to determine their own working hours. They had the authority to decide which eight hours out of twenty- four they would spend walking in their area. A detective was also assigned to each Unit Team. In addition to the traditional investigative role, the investigator was obligated to serve as an advisor on investigations to the uniform constables of the unit. In addition, a new position called a "collator" 59 was added to facilitate information dissemination and coordinate the criminal apprehension efforts of the police. This Officer was responsible for collecting, indexing, and disseminating information on criminal intelligence matters. Butler outlined the value of this operation to the Unit Beat Police Team:77 The advantage of this type of intelligence collect- ing is that it remains local, but is systematic and can be integrated into larger intelligence indexes. In many instances it is possible to take a street address and retrieve all the incidents that have been recorded against it. The collator is also responsible for publishing a 'daily bulletin.’ The bulletin contains details of all the incidents of interest that have occurred in the preceeding 24 hours, together with criminal intelligence. The bulletin is issued to all Operational personnel and circulated to surrounding divisions. The evaluations of Unit Beat Policing have been extensive, although generally methodologically weak.78 While most of evaluators have been careful to acknow- ledge that it is too early to reach any final conclusions on the efficiency of Unit Beat Policing, every evaluation- reviewed in the course of this study supported the follow- ing general conclusions:79 1. The arrangement has resulted in an improve- ment of the morale and of the job interest of police officers. 2. The efficiency of police has increased. 60 3. There is improved understanding between police officers and citizens (i.e. there is close contact between beat officers and the public and there is swifter response to requests for police assistance). 4. The quality and quantity of information within the police organization has im- proved; and 5. The police job is more challenging to officers than under the old beat system. Detroit Beat Commander Several recent Team experiments in the United States appear to have been patterned after the English Unit Beat Policing model. The most notable is a short- term experiment which was implemented in Detroit, Michi- 80 This team effort was called "The gan, in mid-1970. Beat Commander." An early monograph describing the Beat Commander idea contains a number of statements about the objectives of the experiment: 1. Our Objective is to make more effective use of police manpower. 2. These programs (basically public relations pro- grams included as part of the team responsibil- ities) should improve community relations. In addition, we hOpe they achieve the.even more important goal of reducing crime. 3. As we stated earlier, all too little is known 61 about crime control. One objective of this study is to assure that something more will be known in the future. 4. An object of our pilot plot is to use the policeman's wealth of information through regular conferences of the beat team. At these conferences traditional police action or more innovative non-traditional steps may be agreed upon. Although the initial literature related to this experiment emphasized its Operational potential for crime control, the research conducted to evaluate it relied primarily on officer attitudes. In reviewing the research techniques they intended to use to evalu- ate the experience, Murphy and Bloch said:82 During the eight month period, we will conduct before and after interviews of these men (Team members), to ascertain changes in their relation- ship to their supervisors, their attitudes toward the community and their methods of Operation. We will consult with them constantly, so that our idea will be given an effective operational form. After the initial eight month "demonstration project" the authors indicated they intended to expand the experiment and conduct further research:83 To get reasonable measures of the success of our experiment, we intend to interview people in eight squad car beats before, during and after the experi- ment. Our interviews will determine the frequency of victimization from serious crime, the level of fear of crime, the level of citizen respect and appreciation for their officers. These interviews 62 will be our principle measure of change because the only alternative would be to use statistics, and these statistics are likely to be affected by the Operational changes we will institute and by the motivations of participating police. The focus Of this experiment was on the first line supervisor who was given greater responsibility and authority so he would be the equivalent Of a "chief" of his own car beat. The "squad car beat, a high crime, minority residential area with tremendous police community relations problems, was policed by the Beat Commander and a team of approximately 25 patrolmen. Initially, the sergeant was responsible for twenty-four hour a day supervision, including the assignment of officers, but in the midst of the experiment the number of patrolmen was increased to 28. In addition, two more sergeants were added. In defense of the addition of the sergeants, Bloch and Ulberg state:84 This led to a ratio of 9.3 patrolmen for sergeant, smaller than the department ratio of about 12 to 1. But without the addition, the ratio would have 14 to 1. Further, for the first time, the Beat Comm— ander could have a sergeant in charge at almost all times of the day all days of the week. (For one month only, a fourth sergeant was assigned but then withdrawn.) Later in the course of the project, in another move apparently based on the English Unit Beat Police 63 Model, detectives were assigned to the Beat Commander "...to work almost ex- Team. These investigators were clusively in the area." They could seek assistance from other centralized investigators, but according to Bloch and Ulberg, they seldom did.85 In addition to the facts that the original eval- uation plans were lacking in specific design and the experiment was deluted by the addition of more super- visors and police officers, the police commissioner who initially helped develop and supported the project re- signed approximately four months after it was initiated. According to Bloch and Ulberg, even the geo- graphic integrity of the team area was frequently vio- lated, as dispatchers failed to cooperate in observing the team area boundaries when dispatching.86 They re- ported 75% Of the team assignments were to calls outside their areas. In addition, non-team officers were fre- quently assigned to handle problems in the Beat Commander area. Sherman observed: The major functional change brought about by the program was stability of beat and supervision. Whereas patrolmen could conventionally be assigned to different scout car territories and sergeants 64 have no fixed geographical or personnel assignments, the beat commander made both consistent and long ranged. In spite of the problems, the Police Foundation provided funding for the evaluation of the impact of the experiment. One aspect of the evaluation dealt with the impact of the experiment on crime,88 the reduction of which was a major Objective of the project. In a summary of the findings the researchers state:89 There is no clear indication that this brief pilot project affected crime rates. The rate of reported crime rose and then declined during the study period. Later in the report of the findings this conclu- sion was flarified by more specific information:90 The area's crime rose from about 16 percent of the precinct total to 23 percent in the first few months of the project, then leveled off and gradually de- clined to below 20 percent. The second area of evaluation was attitudes of the Unit Beat Commander officers as measured by a self- initiated post-test questionnaire. Bloch and Ulberg 91 summarize their findings based on this data: ..the police officers who were surveyed about the experiment agreed: - By more than 2 to 1 that they were more satisfied with their jobs. - By 3 to 1 that supervision was better. 65 - Almost unanimously that their new approach had a positive effect on crime patterns in their beat. - By a big majority that they Spent less time on runs and achieved more effective arrests because of unique aspects of their beat.. - Almost unanimously that they had far more contacts with citizens under the pilot project than in their previous precinct work. - By 2 to 1 that the Beat Commander approach won more cooperation from the community. Sherman, who visited the Unit Beat Commander Operation late in the program and subjectively evaluated it, appears to be somewhat skeptical of the researchers findings.92 The improved supervisory relationship and increased job satisfaction was determined by means of a ques- tionnaire distributed to Beat Command Team members (although this writer heard evidence of great job dissatisfaction when visiting the "dying" Beat Command project in June of 1971.) The evaluation report concluded:93 ...the decentralized semi-autonomous Beat Command system as tested in Detroit proved feasible to Op- erate and appeared to bring substantial benefits to the police and to the segments of the community it served. Given the problems which seem to have rendered the actual organizational changes insignificant, it is reasonable to suspect the favorable reaction to the 66 operation by Beat Command Officers was due to the Hawthorne effect or the officer's desire to show success for their efforts. Since this experiment was never operationalized in a way that would substantially modify the Classical organizational design, it's major importance lies in the fact that it was the first American police attempt at utilizing the Team features of the British Unit Beat Policing system. Although it fell short of expectations, the idea was later picked up by other cities including New York. Democratic Team Police Mgdel At a seminar entitled, "Inventing the Future in Police Organization" held at the National Institute on Police and Community Relations, Michigan State Univer- sity in May of 1959, the author of this study presented "An Alternative to the Classical Police Organizational Arrangements" which attempted to predict how police departments would be structured in 1980.94 The basic goal of this model was to improve the social utility and effectiveness of police operations. This was to be done through a collegial team organizational arrangement that will facilitate: l. 67 95 Improved police and community inaction and relations so the police actions will reflect the preferences and priorities of citizens. Improved communication and reduced con- flicts among police employees. Reductions in police behavior which offends citizens or violates individual rights. The characteristics of the team and the rationale behind these characteristics can be summarized as follows: 1. Decentralization of pperational responsi- biliry to the neighborhood level. The jurisdiction by police would be divided into homogenous neighborhoods and a police team would be assigned to each. Such de- centralization would permit variations in priorities, policies and priorities to en- sure the police functions are consistent with the preferences of local communities. Police priorities in one neighborhood might be different from those in other team areas. Teams of generalist:§pecialist police offi- cers with stable assignments to a specific community. The officers assigned to teams would be generalist-specialists with comp- lementary skills that would match community needs. A team would have complete respon- sibility for providing police services in its neighborhood. Included would be the responsibility for working with the public to define citizen preferences and priori- ties, developing procedures for the team operations, handling the management functions of the team, and carrying out police oper- ations in the area. The teams were to be limited to no more than 20 to 25 members to provide personnel for four to five on-duty 68 Officers around the clock and at the same time ensure an efficient natural communi- cation network. The limits Of effective interpersonal communication appear to be exceeded when the group gets above this figure. Establishment of ppecialized services. This support unit would include investigators, traffic officers, criminalists and crime prevention specialists who would assist team members upon request. Their relation- ship tO the generalist-specialist police officers would be changed to one of sub- ordination. They would simply perform their specialized function and turn the findings over to the generalist Who sought their assistance. This arrangement was designed to increase the status of the generalist police officers and reduce in— ternal organizational communication prob- lems caused by the traditional transfer of responsibilities from field officers to specialists. An expected result was im- proved self-image, attitudes and morale of generalist police officers. Establishment of an Inrprmatron and Coorg; ination Section of the Police Organization. This unit would be a depository of infor- mation and data processing. It would have the responsibility for defining neighbor- hoods; developing and assigning teams; establishing broad area-wide policies with- in which all teams would operate; assigning personnel to the teams; providing technical support such as records, communications, criminalistics services, and training; and evaluating team performance to maintain minimum standards. It would serve to coord- inate and support all police efforts. Substitution Ofrparticipatory, collegial group decision makingr situational leader- ship and functional supervisory arrangements 69 for the traditional bureaucratic authoriry hierarchy. Such a leadership arrangement should facilitate citizen influence on police operations, citizen-police coopera- tion in developing and implementing police Operational strategies, and place respons- ibilities for policing on an entire police team. It was expected to improve both in- ternal and external communications and en- hance police commitment to objectives and procedures. The involvement of citizens and police officers in decisions which affected the well-being of both was de- signed to reduce stereo-types and ensure that everyone would strive to meet mutually accepted behavior patterns. The situation- al leadership arrangement was planned to ensure that every problem undertaken by the police would have the most capable leader- ship available on the team. The functional supervision was directed at maximizing quality control over police operations in each area. While this Model incorporated many of the feat- ures of previous Team Police arrangements, it differed from most in several important aspects including: 1. Work orientation. The Democratic Model was designed primarily for the provision of general interpersonal services for citizens rather than improved criminal apprehension. Hopefully, crime reduction would be an eventual outcome, but such reduction would result from the improved conditions in the community rather than increased surveillance of citizens by the police, increased inform- ing by citizens, or higher apprehension and conviction rates. Changes in the organizational control mech- anism. The utilization of a rigid organiza- tional heirarchy for autocratic control of 70 employee behavior would be replaced by an interpersonal collegial system which would use citizen and peer pressures. This in- formal system would be buttressed by a sys- tem of checks and balances with the Infor- mation and Communication Section and the Specialized Support Section having a vari- ety of functional supervisory responsibilities. 3. Replacing the heirarchical supervision with a situational arrangement. Other team police arrangements put confidence in the ability of the first line supervisor, the sergeant, to structure, manage and supervise subord- inate Team members. In particular, those team experiments in Tucson, Detroit and Syracuse relied heavily on confidence in a formally appointed commander's abilities. The authors of these experiments stressed the fact that higher police officials would now have a single persontho they could hold responsible if crime in an area in- creased. The Democratic Model places res- ponsibility for providing police service on the team as a whole. The leadership chosen by the team under such an arrange- ment should be more capable because it can vary with the duties being performed and because those people with the most accurate information about the capabilities Of the team members are responsible for the sel- ection. This model was the basis for the Community Centered Police Team experiments in Dayton, Ohio, and Holyoke, Massachusetts. Dayton's Community Centered Team Police The Democratic Model was presented to the top commanders of the Dayton, Ohio, Police Department at a 71 management training program in Octover, 1969, and immediately thereafter Dayton develOped a proposal for LEAA discretionary funding of a "Community Centered Team Police (CCTP)" project.96 The overall objective 97 wa : stated in the Dayton proposal 5 '...to provide effective police service to a neighborhood while est- ablishing a positive relationship between neighborhood residents and the police." More specific major goals 98 were 3 1. Test the effectiveness of a generalist approach to police service as opposed to the specialist approach now utilized by all major police or- ganizations. 2. Produce a community-centered police structure that is responsive to neighborhood concerns and understanding of neighborhood life-styles, and 3. Alter the bureaucratic structure of the police organization away from the militaristic model toward a neighborhood oriented professional model. In presenting the rational behind this approach, Chief Robert Igleburger wrote:99 The success of the police will depend on development of a satisfactory role by the police; a role that can allow for neighborhood responsiveness while maintaining community respect. If crime is of con- cern to a neighborhood, so are the methods utilized by police departments to combat crime. While place- ment Of a police officer on every street corner may 72 drastically reduce street crime, it is neither economically or politically acceptable to do so if for no other reason than the result would be an army of occupation in a democratic society. Igleburger indicated he expected the model to improve the relationship between the residents and the team police officers and the morale of the police offi- cers in the team community. However, the ultimate re- sult which he wanted involved a far greater change:100 ...the beat police, having increased stature, will be able to act as citizen advocates in matters Of neighborhood concern, as well as be able to effect- ively manage community conflict. The general over- all result of this project should be a demonstration of a new role for the police; that of manager of community conflict. The Dayton Community Centered Team Police Unit was implemented in November, 1970 almost precisely the same time as the Holyoke Democratic Team Unit which is the subject of this study. Perhaps the weakest compo- nent of the Dayton project was the lack of a pre-deter- minded research methodology. In the administrative rush to Obtain funding, all action on evaluation was post- poned until near the end of the first year of operation. A few months after the preparation of the pro- posal, the Administrative Assistant to the Director of Police in Dayton assumed a position with the Governor's 73 Committee in Massachusetts, and based on his work in Dayton he encouraged the development of Team Policing experiments by Massachusetts Police agencies. The City of Holyoke, with the cooperation of the Police Depart- ment and the Model Cities Agency, developed a team poli- cing proposal consistent with the Governor's Committee 101 The proposal was approved and financed guidelines. by both the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Dev- elopment and the Governor's Committee (LEAA). The evaluation of this project is the subject of this study. Summary and Conclusions Dissatisfaction with police agencies is wide- spread. Most frequently mentioned as causes of the dissatisfaction are (l) the poor state of the relation- ships between police and the public, particularly min- ority peoples, (2) the negative attitudes and misbe- havior among operational police officers, and (3) the poor performance and low productivity of police organi- zations. The existing situation has been attributed to the police reliance on Classical Organization Theory. Police agencies have been structured and managed in ways 74 consistent with this theory and its assumptions for nearly a century. While social and technological con- ditions have undergone significant changes, the police have dogmatically adhered to this traditional adminis- trative approach. The more general management literature Offers suggestions about alternative organizational and mange- ment arrangements which might alleviate many of the police problems. Included among these suggestions are (1) de- centralization of decision making authority to the peo- ple affected by the decisions, (2) use of small work groups to improve communications, (3) increased use of peer pressures rather than autocratic hierarchical arrange- ments for control, and (4) reduction of specialization and expansion of job responsibilities. Within the police field, scholars of police mangement have also made suggestions about alternate organizational approaches which might reduce police prob- lems and criticisms of police. In addition to those changes advocated in the more general organizational literature, the police authorities have suggested, (1) stabilizing the assignments of police officers in well- defined neighborhood areas, (2) involving local citizens 75 with their police officers in the development of local police policies and procedures, and (3) changing the emphasis in the police role from crime to service functions. Since 1946, a number of police agencies have imp- lemented a variety of Team Police organizational arrange- ments which to varying degrees have tested these proposed organizational changes. However, most experiments have been designed simply to decentralize authority in such a way as to place responsibility for crime in a specific geographic area on first level supervisors, normally a sergeant. Implicit in this approach is the assumption that sergeants know what to do and if given broad dis- creation and held responsible for performing "police work" these supervisors will produce results. To facil- itate the sergeants' ability to handle their assignments, they often received additional resources such police officers, technical advice, data processing support, and equipment. In addition, they frequently have been relieved of the responsibility for observing minor de- partmental rules and regulations. Seldom have they been given guidance on how to perform in their new role-—-it is assumed they already have sufficient knowledge to 76 organize and manage to achieve their new responsibilities. In spite of the shortcomings of these initial ex- periments, the evaluations, which were basically subject- ive impressions, seem to support the hypothesis Of the scholars. The assessment reports contended that Team Police operations produced: 1. Improved police and community relations; 2. Improved police attitudes; and 3. Increased police productivity and effect- iveness. The Democratic Team Police organizational arrange- ments, which will be the concern of this study contains proposals that go beyond the more traditional Team Police arrangements. In addition to attaching a small group of police officers to a specific neighborhood and giving them the responsibility for handling the police prob- lems in the area, the Democratic Team Police is designed to: 1. Remove the team from the traditional chain of command and place the responsibilities for operational and management decisions on the entire team. 2. Use informal, situational leadership as an alternative to traditional, formally estab- lished and relatively permanent managerial and supervisory arrangements. 77 These features are based on a broader than usual interpretation of organizational research find- ings. They resemble the organizational arrangements that have in the past been used by some American Indian Tribes.102 78 Footnotes-~Chapter II 1 Examples of the characteristics of the Classical police organization structure are reflected in V.A. Leon- ard, Police Organization and Management (Brooklyn: The Foundation Press, 1964), and O.Wg Wilson and Roy McLaren, Police Administration (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1972). 2 See Max Weber, The Theory of Social and Econo- mic Organization, translated and edited by A. Henderson and T. Parsons (New York: Free Press, 1947), pp. 328-40. 3 Among the best known of the proponents of this school are H. Fayol, General Industrial Management (Lon- don: Patterson and Sons, 1949); Lyndale Urwick, The Patt- ern of Management (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1956); H. Koontz and C. O'Donnell, Principles of Manage- ment (New York: Knopf, 1959); and J. Mooney and A. Reiley, The Principles of Organization (New York: Harper-Rowe, 1939). 4 Wilson and McLaren, Op. cit.; V.A. Leonard, Tha . Police Enterprise (Springfield, Illinois: Charles C Thomas, 1971); George Eastman and Ester Eastman (Editors), Muni- cipal Police Administration (Chicago: Internation City Management Association, 1969). 5 See Joseph Kimble, "Daydreams, Dogma, and Dino- saurs," The Police Chief, April, 1969, pp. 12-15; Arthur Waskow, "Community Control of the Police," Transaction, December, 1967, pp. 4-7; Egon Bittner, The Functions of the Police in Modern Society (Wash., D.C.,U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969), pp. 52—62; Richard Myren, ”A Crises in Police Management," The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, June 1960, pp. 600-605; Albert Reiss, Jr., The Police and the Public (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971); Robert Pursley, "Traditional 79 Police Organization: A Portent or Failure,” Police, October, 1971); and John E. Angell, Gary Pence, and Robert Igleburger, ”Changing Urban Police: Practitioners' View," Innovations in Law Enforcement, edited by Martin Danziger (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, June, 1973), pp. 76-115. 6Chris Argyris, "The Individual and Organizations: Some Problems of Mutual Adjustment," Administrative Sci- ence Quarterly, June, 1957; Warren Bennis, "The Decline of Bureaucracy and Organizations of the Future," Transaction, July, 1965; Peter Blau and Richard Scott, Formal Organiza- tions (San Francisco: Chandler Publishing, 1962); Douglas McGregor, The Human Side of Enterprise (New York: McGraw- Hill Book Co., 1960); Robert Merton (Editor) Reader in Bureaucraay (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1952); Herbert Simon, Administrative Behavior, 2nd Edition (New York: The MacMillan Co., 1961); and John Pfiffner and Frank Sherwood, Administrative Organization (Englewood Cliffs: Morrow and Co., 1969). John E. Angell, "Toward an Alternative to Classi- cal Police Organizational Arrangements," Criminology, November, 1971. 8Rensis Likert, "An Emerging Theory of Organization, Leadership, and Management," a paper presented at a Symp- osium on Leadership and Interpersonal Relations, Louisiana State University, 1959. 9Ibid., p. 10. 10 . McGregor, Op. c1t., pp. 33-44. 11 Ibid. 2William Tallack, Penological and Preventive Principles (London: Pittman and Sons, 1889) p. 329. 131bid., pp. 330-331. 4 Reiss, Op. cit., and Bittner, 0p. cit. lCharles Press, The Cities Within a Great City: 80 A Decentralist Approach to Centralization (East Lansing: MSU Institute for Community Deveopment, 1963); Waskow, Op. cit.; John E. Angell, Fontaine Hagedorn, and Steve Egger, Portland-Multnomah County Police Consolidation: Staff Report (Portland, Oregon: City-County Printing, 1974); and George Washnis, Municipal Decentralization and Neighborhood Resources (New York: Praeger Publica- tions, 1972). Elinor Ostrom and Gordon Whitaker, "Does Local Community_Control of Police Make a Difference?" a paper presented at the Western Political Science Association ‘Meeting, Albuquerque, April 8, 1971; and Angell, Op. cit. 17Angell, Op. cit., pp. 281-2. 18Press, Op. cit., pp. 8-10. 19Jeffrey Freund, "Neighborhood Police Districts: A Constitutional Analysis," California Law Review, October, 1969, p. 917. 20Harold Sheppard and Neil Herrick, Where Have All the Robots Gone? (Glencoe: The Free Press, 1974). 21Chris Argyris, Integrating_the Individual and the Organization (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1964). 22Reinhard Bendix, Max Weber: An Intellecrual Portrait (Garden City: Doubleday and Company, 1962), pp. 463-465. 23Ibid, p. 464. 24Wilson and McLaren, Op. Cit., pp. 80-86. 25William Bopp, The Police Rebellion (Springfield, Illinois: Charles c Thomas, 1971). 26Wickersham Commission, Lawless in Law Enforcement: Report NO. 11 (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1931); The President's Commission on Law Enforce- ment and Administration of Justice, Task Force Raport: The Police (washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967). 81 Gordon Tullock, The Politics of Bureaucracy (Washington, D.C.: Public Affairs Press, 1965), pp. 137-141. 28Anthony Downs, Inside Bureaucraay (Boston: Little Brown and Co., 1967), pp. 30-56. 29Chester Barnard, The Functions of the Executive (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968). 30John E. Angell, The Adeqpacy of the Internal Processing of Complaints by Police Departments (East Lansing: Unpublished Masters Degree Thesis, 1967). 31 G.L. Trist, "Socio-Technical Systems," a paper presented at University of Cambridge, 1969. 32Oaksey Committee, Report of Working Party to Consider the "Aberdeen" System of Policipg(London: Her Majesty's Stationery Officer, 1949). 33 Eastman and Eastman (Editors) Op. cit., pp. 101-102. 34 Ibid. 35Oaksey Committee, Op. cit., p. 6. 36Ibid., p. 4. 37Ibid., p. 4. Lawrence Sherman, Catherine Milton, and Thomas Kelly, Team Policing: Seven Case Studies (Washington, D.C. Police Foundation, 1973), p. xiv. Alex Paterson, "The Salford Method of Team Pol- icing," Police Patrol Readinga edited by Samual Chapman (Springfield, Illinois: Charles C Thomas, 1965), pp. 253-. 271. 40 Ibid., p. 233. 41Ibid., p. 256. 82 42 Ibid., p. 255 43Alex Paterson, Report of the Chief Constable on the Police Establishment for the Year Ended December 31, 1951 (Salford: The Office of Constabulary, 1952), pp. 9-20. 44 , Ibid., p. 19. 45 . . Eastman and Eastman (Ed1tors), Op. Cit., p. 102. 46 John Breglia, "Will the Aberdeen Patrol Plan Work in America," Law and Order, September, 1965. 47Ibid., p. 23. 48 Ibid. President's Commission on Law Enforcement, Op. cit. 50 Ibid. 51Loren Phelps and R. Murphy, "Richmond Team Patrol System," The Police Chief, June, 1969, pp. 48-51. 2 5 Ibid., p. 48. 53 Ibid. 4 Loren Phelps and L. Harmon, "Team Policing: Four Years Later," FBI Bulletin, December, 1972. 5James Elliott and T.J. Sardino, Crime Contra; Team (Springfield, Illinois: Charles C Thomas, 1972). 6James Elliott, "An Experiment in Enforcement: The Crime Control Team," Law and Order, December, 1969. 57Elliott and Sardino, Op. cit., pp. 68-86. 58Ibid., pp. 98. 59Ibid., pp. 99. 83 60 Ibid. Center for Emergency Support, "The Police in Crises in Washington: Is Community Control the Answer?" (washington, D.C.: mimeographed, 1968). Other positions which are supportative of this paper can be found in Bruce Terris, "Program for Citizen Control of Two Police Precincts," memo from Chairman of Democratic Central Committee, Washington, D.C., June 20, 1968; John Karr and Michael Mussbaum, "Statement of Limited Community Control of the Police," position paper by D.C. Lawyers Committee to City Council, Washington, undated; and "Proposal for Neighborhood Control of the Police in the Black Community," position statement of Black United Front to Washington, D.C. City Council, undated. 62Center for Emergency Support, Op. cit., p. 14. 63Arthur Waskow, "Community Control of Police," report for Center for Study of Law and Society (Berkeley: University of California, 1970). 6['Ibid., pp. 4-7. 65Ibid., p. 7. 66A thorough review of the arguments of the pro- ponents of this decentralization can be found in "The Case for Community Control of Police," by the Red Family (Berkeley: March, 1971). 67Freund, Op. cit., p. 929. 68J.E. Hoover, "Message From the Director to All Law Enforcement Officials," FBI Bulletin, June 1, 1969, p. 2. 9"Appraisal of the New Area Policing Scheme," (Author unidentified: Available from the International Association of Chiefs of Police: Washington, D.C., dated 1964.) 70 Mark Rand, "Unit Beat Policing: Time for a Fresh Approach," The Criminolpgist, November, 1970, p.53. 84 71 "Appraisal of the New Area Policing Scheme," Op. cit., p. 8. 72Ibid. 73Rand, Op. cit., p. 53. 74Ibid. 75"Accrington," Police, August, 1969, p. 4. 76"Unit Beat Policing: An Assessment," A Survey of the Northwest Police Region, Reference NO. B (s) p. 12 (London: Police College Library, 1969), p. 1. 77A.J.P. Butler, Unit Beat Policing: An Assessment in 1974 (London, Police College Library, June, 1974) p. 1. 78For summaries see A.F. Williams and F. Morris, Unit Beat Policing in Cheshire (Chester: Cheshire Cons- tabulary Headquarters, July, 1969); and E. Gregory, gait Beat Policing; Reflections on the Experiments apg Implications of Widespread Adoprion of the System, Report NO. 11/67 (London: Home Office Planning Branch, July, 1967). 79Ibid. 80Patrick Murphy and Peter Bloch, "Beat Commander," The Police Chief, May, 1970, pp. l6-l9. 81 Ibid. 82Ibid., p. 18. 83Ibid. 84Peter Bloch and Cyrus Ulberg, "The Beat Commander Concept," The Police Chief, September, 1972, p. 56. 85Ibid. 86Ibid., p. 59. 7Lawrence Sherman, A Comparative Survey of Team 85 Policing (Unpublished manuscript prepared for The Police Foundation, Washington, D.C., 1972), p. 13. 88Bloch and Ulberg, Op. cit., p. 55. 89Ibid. 90 Ibid., p. 62. 91 Ibid., p. 55. 92 . Sherman, Op. c1t., p. 13. 93Bloch and Ulberg, Op. cit., p. 62. 94 Angell, Op. cit. 95Ibid., pp. 225-228. Joseph Fink and Floyd Sealy, The Community and the Police: Conflict or Cooperation (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1974), pp. 165-166. 97Robert Igleburger, "Team Policing Project," Dayton Police Public Information Bulletins (Dayton, Ohio: Police Department, 1969), p. 2. 98 Ibid., p. 3. 99Ibid. 100 Ibid. 101 "Team Police Development Proposal" (Holyoke: An LEAA Discretionary Grant Application, 1970). 102 Walter Miller, "Two Concepts of Authority," The American Anthrppolpgist, April, 1955, pp. 271-289. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF STUDY The City of Holyoke, MaSsachusetts, although not a major population center, has many of the characteristics of larger urban areas. Once a thriving industrial town, Holyoke has been losing both industry and population. In 1960, the United States Census Bureau indicated that there were 54,540 residents of Holyoke. However, in 1970, the Census Bureau reported a population of only 50,112 (See Table 111-1). As with many large cities, the complexion of the populous is also changing from middle and upper- low income white to lower income non-white. Even so, the overall ratio of minorities is still relatively low when compared to most urban areas. In 1970, two of the most significant minorities, Spanish speaking and Black citi- zens, accounted for only about five percent of the popu- lation. Holyoke is a charter city with a strong mayor form of government. The legislative functions of the City are performed by a Board of Aldermen who are 86 87 elected by wards. The Aldermen annually select one of their members as Chairman for Aldermatic sessions. TABLE III-l: Selected Demographic Characteristics Of Wards I & II, and Holyoke* AREA WARD I WARD II CITYWIDE # % # 0%7' #1 4—77' Population 4,666 9 4,184 8 50,112 100 Black 420 9 223 5 1,127 2 Puerto Rican 893 19 287 7 1,496 3 White 3,338 72 3,664 88 47,362 95 Families Below Poverty Level** 235 22 246 25 1,319 11 Average Family Income $8,189 6.421 9,963 *Source 1970 U.S° Census Reports **Based on 4.3 people per family The Mayor is elected at large and has the respons- ibility for the executive functions of government. In his position as City Executive, he is responsible for the police department. However, his authority is limited to the app- ointment of the police chief and the promotion of police Officers to fill vacancies. Actually he is restricted by charter in the exercise Of these powers by three limita- tions. First, any person appointed Police Chief must have been a resident of Holyoke for two years prior to the app- ointment, second, the Chief must be given a personal 88 services contract for one year, and third, vacancies in ranks must be confirmed by the Board of Aldermen. There- fore, while the Mayor is technically responsible for ad- ministering police, in reality his authority and ability is very restricted. The governmental environment in Holyoke is dyna- mic and highly political. The police department has traditionally been organized as a centralized bureaucracy roughly in accordance with Classical Bureaucratic Theory. However, it has frequently been in the midst of political hassles with elected city officials who are constantly competing for the favor of police officers. Attempts by the mayor to manage the police agency have often been Opposed by the police who like to present a public image of being "professional" police officers. Publicly, they claim to be experts at the police business and morally opposed to "political manipulation." Police seemed to view any effort by the Mayor to establish police policies, with which they disagree, as improper. Therefore, in the past, neither citizens nor their elected Mayor have substantially influenced the policies of the Holyoke police. 89 As with most cities, Holyoke is not well inte- grated in terms of race, nationality, religion or econ- omic status. Most minority people, primarily Black and first generation Puerto Rican, are residents of one area of the city. Wards I and 11 contain approximately 20% of the City's total pOpulation, but nearly 60% Of its Black and Puerto Rican minorities (Table III-l.) One- fourth of the families in this area had incomes below the poverty level in 1970. Most housing was multi- family, three and four story apartment buildings desig- nated by the local people as "flats.' Living conditions in these Wards were the worst in the city. True to the stereotype, the police and public relationship in Wards I and 11, particularly Ward I, was worst than any other area of Holyoke. A total of 70 assaults on police officers in Ward I was recorded in 1970. This was the highest assault per population rate of any Ward in the City. Some of these assaults, including the stabbing of one officer, the shooting of a second, and an attempt to strike a third with a flower pot thrown from a third story window, were serious. 90 As a result of the situation, Ward I was desig- nated a Model Cities neighborhood and the U.S. Depart- ment of Housing and Urban Development funded a variety of projects in the Ward. The seriousness of the police problems in 1969 and the spring of 1970 provided the impetus for city officials to authorize Model Cities planners to develop a police project to correct the situation. At the suggestion of the Massachusetts Governor's Commission on Law Enforcement, local planners modified the Dayton, Ohio, Community-Centered Team Police proposal for Holyoke. The Project was funded with a $40,000 grant from the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration of the U.S. Department of Justice and a $100,000 grant from Model Cities. The project was scheduled to start in September with Team implementation planned for December 1, 1970. Both Ward 1 and Ward II are located in the same part of Holyoke; separated from the rest of the city by a series of canals once used to transport materials to and from the local paper mills. The two Wards are divided by railroad tracks. These separations provided natural boundaries that made the area appear 91 ideal for social research. The similarities (Table III-1) between Ward I and Ward 11 also render these two areas suitable for a controlled Democratic Team Police experi- ment. They had approximately equal population. Ward I had a higher minority population (28%) than Ward II (12%). However, Ward II had a slightly larger proportion of families below the poverty level (Ward I-22%;_Ward II- 25%). Although no area size and street mileage figures were available, as Table III-2 reflects, these were approximately equal. Based on the conclusion that Ward I had the most serious police and community relations problems in the City, hence, was the most desparately in need of changes which might improve the situation, Ward I was selected to be an experimental area where the Democratic Team Policing Unit would be implemented. Ward II was desig- nated the control area which would maintain its Classical organizational design and receive the normal priorities and services from the Holyoke Police Department. The control area would, of course, provide comparison data for assessing the effect of the Team Policing Unit. 92 Description of Holyoke Democratic Team Approach The Democratic Team Police Operation in Ward I was to be independent Of the traditional control from the command hierarchy of the Holyoke Police Department. The Team was to be assigned to Ward I for the duration . of the Project and given the responsibility of providing all police services in the area. The precise goals it was to pursue and the methods that wculd be utilized were left to the Team. In arriving at the definition of the goals and the procedures, Team Officers were expected to work closely with members of the community and their organizations. The Team structure and opera- tions were to be flexible, insofar as possible, to en- able the Team to provide the kind of police service the people of Ward I preferred. The Team Model was to have the following characteristics: 1. Police operaticns in Ward I were to be decen- tralized with the police officers working out of a local storefront rather than the central police station. 2. The Team was to be given the authority to make decisions concerning their goals, pro- cedures, duty assignments, training needs, etc. Such authority was not given to regu- lar patrol officers. 3. Traditional formal supervisory assignments 93 were to be suspended in favor of situational, informal methods. 4. The Team.was to be evaluated by total results rather than individual procedures or activities. 5. The concept of autocratic management was to be dropped, and a democratic, collegial method of decision-making within the Team area was implemented. 6. The community was to be involved in policy making through periodic meetings with the Team. 7. If deemed necessary, Holyoke Police staff services and investigative support units could be called upon by the Team and its members. The structure and approach Of the Team was to be arranged to facilitate an interface of police goals and services with the citizen preferences and priorities. Further, it was to extend the police officers operational responsibilities and discretion to include the develop- ment of methods for job performance, acquisition of equipment, selection of leaders, establishment of peer evaluation methods, work assignments and development of work schedules. The limitation of Team size at 15 to 20 members was to ensure an equal number of personnel assigned to each area and to facilitate communication among Team members. 94 Research Questions and Hypotheses Hyptheses were developed which will provide answers to the following three general research questions. 1. What changes in citizen attitudes toward the police appear to occur in a neighborhood where a Democratic Team Police arrangement is imp- lemented? 2. What changes in clientele attitudes toward the police appear to occur in a neighborhood where a Democratic Team Police arrangement is implemented? 3. What changes in attitudes of police appear to occur when these officers are members of a Democratic Team Police arrangement? The following, each arranged by the research question to which it relates, are the specific hypotheses which the study was designed to answer. Citizen Attitudes Toward the Police_(desigpated "a"). Hal: A higher proportion of citizens in a Team Police neighborhood than in a Classical Police neighbor- hood will report the police in their respective neighborhoods like people. a2: A higher porportion of citizens in a Democratic Team Police neighborhood than in a Classical Police neighborhood will report the police in their respective neighborhoods are polite. Ha3: A lower proportion of citizens in a Democratic Team Police neighborhood than in a Classical Police neighborhood will report the police in their respective neighborhoods tend to look down on most people. H34: Ha63 H37: Hag: 95 A higher prOportion Of citizens in a Democratic Team Police neighborhood than in a Classical Police neighborhood will report the police in their res- pective neighborhoods are anxious to help people. A lower proportion Of citizens in a Democratic Team Police neighborhood than in a Classical Police neighborhood will report the police in their res- pective neighborhoods use unnecessary force. A higher proportion of citizens in a Democratic Team Police neighborhood than in a Classical Police neighborhood will report a willingness of citizens in their respective neighborhoods to assist police. A higher proportion of citizens in a Democratic Team Police neighborhood than in a Classical Police neighborhood will report the police in their res- pective neighborhoods are honest. A higher proportion of citizens in a Democratic Team Police neighborhood than in a Classical Police neighborhood will report the police in their res- pective neighborhoods are better than the police outside of their Ward. Clientele Attitudes Toward Police (designated "b”). Hbl: A higher proportion of the police clientele in a Democratic Team Police neighborhood than in a Classical Police neighborhood will report lower police response time. A higher proportion of the police clientele in a Democratic Team Police neighborhood than in a Classical Police neighborhood will report posi- tive police attitudes. A higher proportion of the police clientele in a Democratic Team Police neighborhood than in a Classical Police neighborhood will report they received courteous treatment from the police. Hb4: 96 A higher proportion of the police clientele in a Democratic Team Police neighborhood than in a Classical Police neighborhood will report more favorable attitudes toward the police after they received police service. A higher proportion of the police clientele in a Democratic Team Police neighborhood than in a Classical Police neighborhood will report satis- faction with the overall quality of service ren- dered by the police. Police Officer Attitudes (designated "c"). Hcl: ch: Hc6: Democratic Team Police officers will prefer to involve themselves in a wider range of activities than will Classical Police officers. Democratic Team Police officers will prefer to rely less on formal action for coping with their responsibilites than will Classical Police Officers. Democratic Team Police officers will be less authoritarian and more tolerant than Classical Police Officers. Democratic Team Police officers will be less pre- judiced toward minority people than Classical Police Officers. Democratic Team Police officers will have a higher tolerance for ambiguity than Classical Police officers. Democratic Team Police officers will be more flex- ible than Classical Police officers. Research Desigp This study is designed (See Table III-2) to com- pare Experiment (Ward 1) and Control (Ward II) areas 97 at pre and post implementation times. The Control Area (Ward II) will continue to be served by the traditional Classical policing arrangements for the duration of the experiment. The community-based, collegial "Democratic Model" of policing will be implemented in the Experimental Area (Ward 1). Preliminary or base-line (pre-test) data will be obtained from both the Experimental (Ward 1) and the Control (Ward 11) areas prior to the implementation Of the Team Model in Ward I. Following the collection of pre-test data, the Democratic Team Police Unit will be instituted on Dec- ember l, 1970, in Ward I and permitted to function for a period of approximately nine months at which time the post-test data collection will be initiated using instru- ments identical to those used in the pre-test. Such identical data collection techniques will facilitate an assessment of the degree to which changes in one area are similar to the changes in the other, as well as the difference between the two areas. This approach, while not sufficient to definitely establish specific cause and effect relationships, will 98 mew -oooa aooammo .o wdaoooe aooamwo .u Hmooz >O> mowaom Amowaom team coauomw HmOHmmmHo zm>usm cowuomm Hmowmmeov nmwumm ucmwao .m ucmuusu umwumm unmeao .m mmu¢ :fimucwmz Houucoo %O>unm xm>u5m monuwuu< owansm .< Hoz monuwuu¢ oanDm .< HH wcw -oooa pooaemo .0 weapons nooammo .o Amdaoaaom mm> EmoHv uqu coauomm Hmooz xm>u5m cowuomm mmum umHumm OCOHHU .m mowaom emOH nmwumm ucmwao .m Hmucoe uemEmHQEH nwummxm xm>udm xm>udm monuwuu< OHHQDm .< "mmw mosuwuu< OfiHan .< H Aummuuumomv Aummuumumv ZOHHUMAAOU H mum H QM<3 ma— .e. u up mod u «x ummuuumom m> umouumum H Om<3 .MOQEDO OHon3 ummummc Ono ou HMO noocdou mum mOHQmu “memo HHm new OHnmu mHnu OH mmwmucoouoms OOH OOH Om mm HOH NOH OOH Nm N N N N O O O O m m q a N N O O Hm Hm Om NN ON ON eN NN do OO mm mm Hm NN ON so N N N N N N N N ummuuumom umoutmum umouaumom ummuuoum HH Om<3 H Om<3 OHadmm mxHA Ohms HDO CH OOHHOH OSH uN1>H MAH amounmum H Qm<3 OOH OOH HoH mm HOH NOH OOH NO w w O m o o H H N N m N m m m m mm mm OH OH NH NH OH MH Nm Nm HN MO Hm Nm ON MN N a» N a» N a» N a» umouuumom umouuoum ummuapmom ummuumum HH QM<3 H QM<3 muHHOm Ohm UHmS MDO CH OOHHOH umu>H MHm H QM<3 WC N u up HHom 1'1 Nx umouuumom m> ummuuoum H Om<3 cOmHHmmaOO ooa ooa ooa om aoa Nos so No spoon N N a a a a a a pagoda oz we we ea as me me . em Nm depended em em em am am Nm NN mN Hoaopoz Na NH NH as e a ma as edema N a» N a N N N a ummuuuwom amounmum umounumom ummuumum HH nee: H nee: mHmOOm umoz GO .fisoa xOOH. Ou OOOH oum3.%z :H OOHHom H¢T>H MHm H Om<3 ma N u up :6 u Nx umouuumom m> umouumum H QM<3 OOH OOH OOH aw HOH NOH OOH Nm N N O O H H O O OH OH OH «H m O NH HH mq mq ON ON ON ON ON «N Ofi 0% HO mm NO OO NO NO N a.» N mi» N «H N «x umouuumom amounmum amounumom umouuoum HH QM<3 H QM<3 wHQmom mHom ou wuowxc< mum UMMKJNS CH ooHHom "ma>H m4m H Om<2 ummu-umom m> ammuumum H om<3 OCH OCH OCH mm OOH NOH OOH Nm H H o o o o o o NH NH NH mH HH HH OH «H mq mq mm Hm ON mN MN HN NO ON ON mq HO NO NO NO N N N N N N N N umouuumom ammunmum amouuumom ummuuoum HH nm<3 H nm<3 on 2 om: uoz on OHM3®NZ.GN moHHom 0H m>mmxwoa9 cmaH mouom uOn>H MHQ H Qmfiz m6 N u we B.~ u Nx umounumom m> umouuoum H Ohm: OOH OOH mm OO OOH NOH OOH Nm m O O O m m H H NH NH ON ON ON ON ON ON ad ON ON ON ON mm Om ON HO HO mm om mm Oq Hd Om N N N N N N N N “mouuumom amounmum ummuuumom umouumum HH QM<3 H Qm<3 mcoNHuHD Eouh 9H0: HO NOH < umo OHMS HDO CH moHHom mnH uNn>H MHO H nm<2 ”G N u MO ON.N " Nun ummuuumom m> ummuumum H nm<3 comHHOMEoo OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH NOH HOH NO Hmuoa N N O O O O O O OO3OO< 02 O O N O O O O O mmuOOOHO ON ON ON ON ON ON ON OH Hmuusmz mm mm OO Om OO ON NN ON OOOOO N N .N N N N N N ummuuumom ummuuoum ammuuumom ummuuoum HH OO<3 H ONO: uwmcom mu< Oum3.uso CH moHHom oak "On>H mHm H Qm<3 HOOOuNx .OO.V OO HOOOHOHOOHO N u HO MN.N H New ammunumom O> ammu-mnm H nm<3 OOH OOH OO OO HOH NOH OOH NO N N H H O O O O OH OH OH NH O O ON OH ON ON OO Om HO HO NO NO m O OH NH Nm Nm OH NH N N N N N N N N ummuuumom ummunmum umounumom ummuumum HH nm<3 H nm<3 mmums Homub CH ooHHom cmnHI Mouumm ou< Oumz H50 aH ooHHom one "OI>H MHONH somHHmQEoo kuOH Ho3mc< oz omnwmmHo Hmuunmz ooHO< 147 At the end of the experimental period, citizens who lived in the Team Police area had significantly higher opinions of the quality of their police than citi- zens who lived in Ward II had of their police (p<.001). These results confirm Ha8 is valid. In summary, the preceeding results reveal that the most salient trends in citizen attitude changes occurring during this study were: 1. In Ward I when interviewees attitudes toward their (Team) police did not remain stable, they tended to change slightly in a positive direction. 2. In Ward 11 when interviewees attitudes toward their (Classical) Police did not remain stable, they tended to change sharply in a negative direction. 3. Interviewees attitudes about the quality of Team Police changed in a distinctly positive direction. Further, it is important to recognize that none of the attitudinal data collected during the course of the study reveals more negative citizen attitudes toward the Team Police than toward the Classical Police. Similarly, only one (Honesty) of the attitudinal changes toward the police in the experimental Team area was in a negative direction. 148 Clientele Attitude Results The previously explained problem encountered in drawing a pre-test sample of police clientele forced the cancellation of the pre-test data collection in the area of clientele attitudes. Hence, the data on clientele attitudes are the result of post-tests in the experimental and control areas. This forces reliance on post-test comparisons which, particularly in light of the results from the citizen attitude study, produces less meaningful information than the original pre-test/post-test design. However, since the clientele data collection instrument is designed to obtain specific information—-from police clients, who have had personal experience--about the quality of police responses, and services, the results are less likely to have been influenced by the publicity surrounding the experiment than are the results of an opinion survey of citizens who in most instances have not personally received police services. None-the-less, the possibility of distorted data certainly exists. The data, obtained from clientele who received police services during the last month of the experiment (August, 1971) are summarized in Tables IV—lO through 149 IV-lS. Collectively these results will be utilized to answer the research question, "What changes in Clientele attitudes toward the police appear to occur in a neighbor- hood where a Democratic Team Police arrangement is imple- mented?" A simple Chi-square (X2) test will be used to assess the validity of hypotheses related to this research question. The significance level is p<.05. Hbl: A higher proportion of the police clientele in a Democratic Team Police neighborhood than in a Classical Police neighborhood will report lower police response time. Clientele impressions of police response time are important in this study for two reasons. First, some people doubt whether a Collegial organization can provide police services as rapidly as a Bureaucratic organization. Second, there is reason to believe that citizen perceptions of police response time influence their opinions concerning police efficiency. The data for comparing the response times of the Team with Classical Police was obtained by asking the clients served by each group, "How many minutes would you estimate lapsed between the time you called the police and an officer arrived?" The clientele responses are 150 summarized in Table IV-lO. The proportion of clients served by the Team~ Police who reported less than a 6 minute time lapse was over twice as large as the proportion in the Classical Police area (Team Police = 54%; Classical Police 8 26%). The difference between the reported response times of the two police groups is significant at p«<.05. Since Team Police clients reported a faster response time than Classical clients, Hbl is accepted as valid. TABLE IV-lO: Estimated Response Time Time Lapse WARD I WARD II # ‘2. # ‘7. Less than 6 minutes 25 54 13 26 7 - 11 minutes 7 15 12 24 Over 12 minutes 12 26 17 33 No answer 2 4 9 18 Total 46 99 51 101 Comparison WARD I VS WARD II x2 10.19 df 3 Significant (p (.05, X 2 = 7.81) 151 An attempt was made to compare these clientele impressions of police response time with the official time reported on police records. However, police records were inadequate for such a comparison. Therefore, re- gardless of the actual response time, 28% mgr; clients in Hard I than in Ward II felt that their police responded in less than six minutes. Hb2: A higher proportion of police clientele in a Demo- cratic Team Police neighborhood than in a Classical Police neighborhood will report positive police attitudes. Data for testing this hypothesis was obtained by asking police clients in the experimental Team Police and Control Classical Police areas, "What was the attitude of the officer (3) who responded to your request?" The client opinions were recorded in the categories of (1) anxious to do a good job, (2) concerned, (3) indifferent or bored, (4) sarcastic or hostile, and (5) no answer. Table IV-ll summarized the Clients' impressions of responding officers' attitudes. A higher proportion of the Team Police than the Classical Police clients had positive impressions of the attitudeds of officers who served them. Specifically, 35% of the Ward I interviewees 152 felt the police who provided them with service were anxious to do a good job, whereas 18% of the ward 11 clients interviewed reported this impression. On the other hand, 22% of the Classical Police clients, as compared to 9% of the Team Police clients, expressed impressions of negative attitudes on the part of officers who assisted them. A comparison of the responses of these two clien- tele groups by use of X2 shows the differences are signi- ficant at p<.05. Based on this data, Hb2 is accepted as valid. However, even though the clients in Ward I ex- pressed more distinctly positive attitudes than those in Ward 11, when the positive attitudes in Ward I are added together and compared with those in Ward 11, 83% of the clients in ward I and 79% of the clients in Ward II ex- pressed positive attitudes about the police in their respective ward. This similarity is grounds for a cautious interpretation of the data. Hb3: A higher proportion of the police clientele in a Democratic Team Police neighborhood than in a Classical Police neighborhood will report they receive courteous treatment from the police. 153 TABLE IV-ll: What Wa§;9fficer Attitude? WARD I WARD II Officer Attitude # ‘7. # 7. Anxious to do a good job 16 36 9 18 Concerned 22 48 31 61 Indifferent; bored 4 9 9 18 Sarcastic; hostile O O 2 4 No Answer 4 9 0 0 Total 46 101 51 101 Comparison WARD I vs WARD II x2 11.18 df 4 Significant (p<.05, x2 = 9.48) Table IV-12 contains the compiled responses to the question, "How would you characterize the treatment you received from the police?" Twenty-four percent of the Team Police clients, as compared to 6% of the Classical Police clients inter- viewed, felt the police who contacted them.were "except- ionally courteous." Ninety-four percent of the Team ‘— I-E" .. '¢ 154 Police clients indicated that the officers who handled their problem were either "courteous" or "extemely courteous.’ In the Classical Police area the data re- flects a more negative impression of the officers' manners. However, the difference between the two wards ”I is not significant at the p'<.05 level. Since the X2 is close to the pq<.05 level, the Team operation obvi- ously has not caused poorer attitudes or more discourtesy ‘ on the part of police officers. TABLE IV-12: How Would You Characterize the 1reatm€fif‘Y6fi‘R565iVEH‘fffim'ffie Police? WARD I WARD II Treatment # . % # % Exceptionally courteous ll 24 3 6 Courteous 32 70 41 80 Not courteous; not offensive 2 4 5 10 Discourteously O 2 1 2 No Answer 1 2 l 2 Total 46 100 51 100 Comparison WARD I vs WARD II x2 7.73 df = 3 ns (For significance at p (.05, X = 7.81) 155 Hb4: A higher proportion of the police clientele in a Democratic Team Police neighborhood than in a Classical Police neighborhood will report more favorable attitudes toward the police after they receive police service. To obtain data for testing this hypothesis, police clientele in the Ward I and Ward II areas were asked two questions, "What was your attitude toward the police officer before he handled your problem?" and "What was your attitude toward the police officer after he handled your problem?" Table IV-13 summarizes the responses to these two questions. The data reflects clientele attitudes in both wards moved from indifferent opinions to either more favorable or more unfavorable positions after police provided service. However, Ward II Classical Police clients changed from a neutral position to both more positive and more negative, whereas the Ward I Team Police clients reported consistently positive attitude changes. The change in Ward I attitudes before and after the provision of police service is significant at p<:.05 level. In addition, the difference between the ward I and Ward II ”After" scores are also significant at a v V 156 uaOuHOHaOHO N u HO :umum<: HH Om<3 m> :umum<: H ONO: HOOO u Nx .OOvOO OOSHHHOOHO N n HO ON O u Nx :Hmum<: m> :mhommm: H QM¢3 GOOHHMQEOU OOH Hm OOH Hm OOH OO OOH OO HOuoH O O O O O N O N Hozmc< 02 NH O O O N H O N oHOmuo>mmcD ON NH Om Om mH N NO OH ucmummmHOSH NO ON mm NH ON ON Om MN oHOmuo>mm N N N N N N N N NOOHHOO OOHHom MMHH< mmommm MMHM< mmommm 0:» OHw3Ou mownuHuum HH nm<3 H Om<3 mHoucoHHu «Mfl>um on o Hmu am who 0 Hmonmo ooHHom msu OHMBOH mmODuHuu¢ m.uGoHHU HmHn>H OHO H Qm<3 :OmHHmmEoo OOH Hm OO OO HOHOH O O O N Hmsma< oz OH O O O Own Nuo> OH O O m OmO HO OH ON OH OOO uo: - OOOO uoz NN OH mm OH Ooow OH O ON OH uCoHHmoxm N N N N ooH>umm Ho NuHHmao HHmum>o HH nm<3 H QMOS @UGNMWC_ me_ CH MUHHOM DIUQHMUGQM 0MH>H$W mo NHHHmnd HHmuw>o Oum3ofi mODuHuu< .wucmHHU HOH1>H MHde 159 1. Clients reported the Team Police responded faster than Classical Police to requests from citizens. 2. Team Police officers made a more favorable impression than Classical Police officers on every scale used to compare client atti- tudes toward the two groups. Due to the post-test limitation on the data evaluation, it is difficult to compare changes which occurred. However, if one assumes prior to the experi- ment clientele attitudes in both areas would have beem similar, then the Team experiment has been accompanied by positive changes in clientele attitudes. Police Officer Attitudes Results The way a police officer performs can be influenced by a variety of factors. The hypotheses te tested in this section of the study are designed to pro- vide information to answer the research question, "What changes in attitudes of police appear to occur when officers are members of a Democratic Team Police arrange- ment?" Each of these hypotheses was evaluated by scores on standardized tests administered to officers in the experiment Team and a random sample of 20 non-team officers. A t-test was used to assess differences (Q.= .05). 160 Hcl: Democratic Team Police officers will prefer to involve themselves in a wider range of activities than will Classical Police officers. The O'Neill Activity Scale1 was used to obtain data to evaluate Hcl' O'Neill developed this scale to compare the extent to which police officers report their prefer- ences to intervene or take action in situations where they normally have discretion. The higher the score on the scale, the more an officer prefers to initiate dis- creationary action. Table IV-15 summarized the data obtained from administrations of this instrument. The results of this test show that at the outset of the experiment the Team Police (Ward 1) officers were more willing to involve themselves in a broader range of activities than were the Classical Police (Ward II) officers(Significant: p41.05). While both groups changed in the direction of a preference for a broader range of activity performance during the experiment, only the upward shift in the ward II sample's mean activity scores were statistically significant at p4:.05. The upward change in the scores of the Classical Police sample resulted in no statistical significance between the scores of the groups in the post-test. Hence, Hcl is rejected. 161 no. .Nm ON.N m: .ON NO.H ms .Nm OO. 0.0HH OH O.N m.OHH OH ummuuumom mo. .mm OH.N N.OH H.OOH ON H.N O.mHH NH ammuumum O HO muoomuu HH OHMB O HO muoomnu H Oum3 ummuuumom m> ummuumum O HO muoomuu HH Oumz m> H Oum3 coOHumasoo GOHumH>mO Oumvamum came Hmnesz mHOEmm HH Oumz 50HumH>mO Oumwamum cmwe Hmnssz mHmEmm H Ouma NHMEESO mHmEmm mocmuommum1NUH>Huu< moHHom umHu>H MHO ummuumum O HO muoomuu HH Him; 3 H Hams GOmHummEoo GOHuMH>mO Oumvamum name HmOEDZ mHmemm HH Oumz GOHumH>mO OumOcmOm cmme Hmpesz mHOEmm H Oumz Numsaam mHmemm wodmmmmmum EmHHmEHom moHHom uOH1>H mHm UOOUIOHM NOO. NO. O .ON .mm HO OO.m OO.N muoumuu HH OHOz m> H Ohm: GOOHHOHEOU H.NH O.HH OOHHOH>OO OHOOOOHO O.NO O.NO cums .OH .ON Hanesz OHOEOO HH ONO; 0.0 0.0 OOHHOH>OO OHOOOOHO O.NN N.OH cams .OH .NH HBenz mHOEOO H ONO: ummuuumom ummuumum mmHHmEEdm mHmEmm GOHHmuHHo£uD< Hmumamw "NHI>H MHO ammunmnm HOO. O .OO OO OO.N muoomuu HH Oumz O> H ONO: GOmHHmQEoo o.OH coHumH>mO OHMOGMHO N.Hm cam: HH Oumz N.O COHumH>mO OHMOGMHO N.HO ammz H Oumz ammunmum meHMEEDO mHmamm OOHHOOOOOOOOO "OH->H HOOOO 167 The Budner Intolerance of Ambuigity Scale4 was used to obtain data about Hc5‘ The higher a respondents score on this scale, the higher the tolerance for ambig- uity. Table IV-l9 reports the results. The Democratic Team officers scored significantly (p<.0005) higher than the Classical Police officers mean score on the pre-test. However, the mean score of the Team Officers' shifted downward and the Classical officers' mean score shifted upward on the post-test cancelled the significance between the two groups at the post-test. Further while the Team officers mean score did not change significantly when the pre-test and post-test means were compared, the Classical police officers scores on the post-test were significantly higher (p<:.001). Based on this data, HC5 is rejected. Hc63 Democratic Team Police officers will be more flexible than Classical Police officers. The test of this hypothesis is based on data obtained from administrations of the Cough-Sanford Rigidity Scale? The lower the score on this scale, the more flexible the respondent. The results are presented in Table IV-20. The pre-test mean score of 168 m: .ON OO. v-lln LfiO mm ON In In ummuuumom HOO. .Nm OO.N OH.H .NN OO.H OOOOO. .mm HN.m ummu1mum O HO whoomnu HH Oum3 9 HO whoomnu H Ohms ummuuumom m> ummHanm O HO muoomuu HH Oum3 m> H Ouw3 GOOHHOQEOU 60HumH>mO Oumvcmum cam: HH Oumz GOHHMH>OO Oumwcmum cam: H Ohms mmHHmEESO mHQEmm NUHJOHOE< Ho moamumHoucH "OH1>H MHO ammuumum O HO muoomuu HH nun: m> H cum: COOHHOQEOU COHumH>mQ OHMOcmum cam: HH Oumz COHumH>mo OumOcmum cmmz Hmnszz mHmEmm H Oum3 mmHumEEDm mHmEmm OHHOHOHO "ON->H HHOOH 170 the Team Police officers was significantly lower (p< .05) than the Classical Police officers. However, the two group means were less distinct on post-test, where the means are statistically non-significant. Neither the Team Police nor the Classical Police mean score changed significantly from the pre-test mean on the post-test, although the Team mean dropped slightly and the Classical Officers mean increased. Based on the comparison of post-test means, Hc6 must be rejected. In summary, the data obtained from testing police attitudes reflects the existance of distinct differences between the Team Police officers and the Classical Officers at the outset of the experiment. The post-test scores of both groups are generally in the direction of the mean of a combination of the two groups. Conclusion This chapter has been devoted to a presentation of information related to the implementation of the project and the results obtained from the research. In some in- stances the results were unexpected. Such findings should increase the value of the final interpretative chapter. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS This chapter will be devoted to (l) a review of the study and its problems, (2) a summary of the findings and conclusions, and (3) a discussion of some implications for further research. Background of Study In a response to severe police and community re- lations problems in a low economic, minority, residential neighborhood, the City of Holyoke, Massachusetts, replaced the Classical Police arrangement with a Democratic Team Police operation. The Team consisted of 15 police officers and was assigned responsibility for providing all police services in the neighborhood. The Team organization was collegial rather than Bureaucratic, and it operated from a decentralized headquarters near the center of the neigh- borhood. Both citizens and Team officers participated in the development of the goals, priorities, and procedures used by the Team. The initial trial period for this experiment was nine 171 172 months, during which the program's effectiveness and impact was to be assessed. Summary of Research Design and Problems Prior to implementation of the community-based, Democratic Team, a research design was developed. The research was to determine the impact of the experiment on (1) citizen attitudes toward the police, (2) clientele attitudes toward the police, and (3) the police officers. Due to the complex action emphasis of the project, the study was to be exploratory, rather than experimental, in nature. However, to facilitate precision, the research design provided for the comparison of an "experimental" area policed by the Team, with a "control" area policed by traditional methods. In short, although the emphasis was on the action program, the research design provided for a high degree of control. Identical instruments were used for the collection of comparable data from both areas before and after the experiment. The data collection instruments for citizen and clientele attitudes were specially prepared 173 questionnaires. Standardized attitude and personality scales were used to obtain information about police officers. Problems Encountered in Implementing_Research The implementation of the study was not entirely consistent with the original design. The most signifi- cant deviations were: 1. The pre-test of citizen attitudes was de- layed until after implementation of the Team Police unit. Therefore, the pre-test data obtained may have been contaminated. 2. The pre-test of clientele attitudes was not conducted.'Therefore, there was no baseline data in this area. 3. Volunteers were used for the Team. There- fore, the accuracy of predictions about future Team Police units may have been effected. Extensive publicity about the Team Police operation may have reduced the value of the controls and created an unnat- ural situation which may not exist in future experiments with Team Police operations. Although these problems were not serious enough to render the study meaningless, the recognition of their existance is essential to a fair evaluation of the findings. Conclusions About Causes of Research Problems A review of the probable causes of the research 174 problems may be useful to researchers who conduct similar studies in the future. The situations which seemed to have the most substantial impact on the research were: 1. The political environment into which the Team Police project was thrusted consisted of numerous persons and groups with con- flicting interests, a variety of apprehen- sions and fears, competing philosophies, different levels of understanding of the project, and unsettled authority. The planners misunderstood the environment and the organization to be changed. The financial support for the project was shared by three separate organizations-- the City of Holyoke, the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (under the U.S. Dept. of Justice), and Model Cities (under the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Devel- opment). Acceptance of funds from each of these agencies required relinquishing some authority over the project. When considered individually, the influence of imposed con- ditions were usually insignificant, however, collectively they caused substantial modifi- cations in the initial project and research. The fragmentation of administrative respon- sibility for the project - particularly be- tween the Police Chief and the Model Cities Director. Not only were there differences in philosophy, but also competition for credit for the project. Inaccurate estimates of time requirements and the ability of the various agencies and consultants to prepare for and perform the procedures and tasks required for efficient implementation of the project and the research. 175 6. The desire of officials, who felt the would be held responsible, to make the project appear successful regardless of its actual impact. Strategies for eliminating many of these situations can be identified easily by future researchers. The prep- aration of future research should include consideration of ways to minimize the impact of these problems. Findings and Conclusions The exploratory nature of this study mandates caut- ion in the presentation and interpretation of findings. However, even the most cautious interpretation of the re- sults support the fact that community-based, participatory, Team Police organizational arrangements have potential for improving public attitudes toward the police. Further, such arrangements may have a positive impact on employee work attitudes. The following section provides a more precise summary of the results of this study. Citizen Attitudes The results of the study of citizen attitudes are summarized in Table V-l. Basically, in the experimental neighborhood, the attitudes of citizens toward the police 176 TABLE V-l: Summary_of Comparison of Citizen Attitudes* Summary of Accepted Direction of Attitude Change*** Hypotheses Hypotheses?** Ward I Ward 11 (Team Area)(Classical Area) Team is better. Yes + - Team is most honest. Yes - - Citizens more likely to help Team. No 0 0 Team uses less force. No 0 0 Team more anxious to help. Yes + - Team more likely to view people as equals. Yes + 0 Team is more polite. Yes 0 - Team more likely to like people. No 0 0 *Based on a comparison of pre-test and post-test. **Q=p<fli ***Positive change = +; no change = 0; negative change = -. 177 tended to remain constant or change in a positive dir- ection during the experiment. On the other hand, atti- tudes of citizens in the area policed by the Classical Police arrangements tended to remain constant or changed in a negative direction. However, a more detailed ex- planation is essential. First, it seems reasonable to assume the changes in citizen attitudes toward the Team Police were greater than reflected by the data. The consensus of opinion was that Ward I (where the Team was initiated) citizen atti- tudes toward the police were more negative than those of citizens in Ward II (the Classical area) prior to the experiment. However, since the pre-test data was not collected until over a month after the implementation of the Team Police unit, this situation was not reflected in the "pre-test" results. The possibility of contamin- ation was enhanced by a fire which destroyed the original Team Police neighborhood headquarters and the homes of many citizens. This fire resulted in the Team Police officers receiving extensive favorable publicity which cast them as both martyrs and "folk heroes." Second, the intensity of the favorable publicity 178 surrounding the Team throughout the project seems to have affected citizen attitudes toward the Classical Police in the control area. These attitudes toward the Classical Police tended to shift in a negative direction. In some instances the shifts were too distinct to have been the result of chance. While there is no sure way of establishing the cause of this shift, the publicity surrounding the experiment probably produced the change. Further evidence for this conclusion is reflected in the section on police attitudes. Although, as indicated in Chapter I, the method- ology of this study was not adequate for precise ident- ification of causal variables, the findings seem to support the general conclusions in other Team Police related literature. Even the most conservative inter- pretation of the citizen attitude results would find that the experiment did not have a negative impact on citizen attitudes. Clientele Attitudes The cancellation of the pre-test of clientele attitudes forced reliance on comparisons of the post- test clientele attitude results from the two Wards. 179 Since clientele have first hand experience with the police it is likely their attitudes about the police will be more accurate than those of citizens who have not had personal contact. Therefore, in spite of the lack of pre-test, it is likely the results of the client- ele post-test will more accurately reflect actual differ- ences between the Team Police and Classical Police than do the previously reported results of citizen attitude testing. Table V-2 summarizes the clientele post-test. These results show client attitudes toward the Team Police were more favorable than those toward Classical Police in every test area. In the single instance where it was possible to compare the direction of change in citizen attitudes, the citizens who received service from the Team Police officers reported only positive changes, whereas the Classical clients reported both positive and negative changes. Therefore, it appears the Team Police officers probably conducted themselves differently than the Classical officers. They seem to have had a more posi- tive impact on their clients attitudes than the regular police had on their clients. 180 TABLE V-2: Summary of Clientele Attitude Findings* Summary of Accepted Direction of Change*** Hypotheses Hypotheses?** ward I Ward II (Team.Area)(C1assical Area) Team responds faster. Yes NC NC Team attitudes better. Yes NC NC Team more courteous. No NC NC Clients more impressed by Team. Yes + From 0 to + and - Clients more satisfied with Team performance. No NC NC *Based on post-test comparison **a.- p<.05. ***Positive change = +; no change = 0; negative change = -; no comparison possible = NC. 181 This difference could be the result of a variety of specific variables .ranging from the Hawthorne effect, to training, to the fact that the Team Police officers had distinctly different personality characteristics than the Classical officers. Police Attitudes To obtain data for the assessment of the impact of the experiment on the attitudes and personality of police officers, a battery of previously validated psy- chological instruments was administered to the Team mem- bers and a control group, both before the actual imple- mentation of the experiment and at the end of the test period. The summary of the basic findings obtained are reflected in Table V-3. These findings seem to show that the volunteers for the Team Police unit preferred to involve themselves in a wider range of activities than the police officers in the Classical Police control area. The Team Police officers seem to prefer to rely less on the use of arrest and the standard operating procedures of the Holyoke Police Department, preferring instead less formal methods of resolving issues, than the officers in the Classical 182 TABLE V-3: Summary of Police Test Findings* Summary of Accepted Direction of Change Hypotheses Hypotheses?** Team Classical Officers Officers Team Police will prefer broader Broader Broader activity No Activity Activity Team Police will rely less on No No formal methods Yes Change Change Team Police will be less authori- tarian No Less ‘More Team Police will be less prejudice Yes Less Less Team Police will be more tolerant of ambiguity No Less More Team Police will No No be more flexible No Change Change *Based on a comparison of scores on (1) O'Neill Activity Scale, (2) O'Neill Formalism Scale, (3) California F Scale form 45,(4) California E Scale final form, (5) Budner Intolerance of Ambiguity Scale, (6) Cough-Sanford Rigidity Scale. **Post-test comparison;0_= p<.05. 183 area. At the outset of the experiment, the Team officers more than the Controls, felt the arrest to be a drastic course of action for use only when other alternatives have failed. The Team Police officers appear to confonm more to O'Neill's "Social Agent" category of policing in that they reported a preference for according social service responsibilities as much esteem as criminal apprehension activitiesi’ The control group tended to prefer to reject service functions in favor of apprehending law violators. These results are consistent with what one might predict for a group of police officers who would volunteer for a project which had been described as more flexible, less authoritarian, and more service oriented than the traditional approach to policing. Interpretation of the difference between the pre-test and post-test scores is difficult. .Although the mean scores of Team officers changed slightly, by- and-large the changes were not significant. However, on several scales the mean scores of officers in the control area changed significantly in the direction which it was expected the Team officers would change. 184 There are a number of reasons why such results may have occurred. Primary among them is the fact that the non-team officers may not have constituted an inter- action-free control group as originally anticipated. Though they did not participate as Team members, all Holyoke police officers were exposed to the existance of the Team Police philosophy and the Team Police Unit. The control area officers were aware of the increased status which Team officers received by virtue of their unorthodox operational approaches and the initiatives they took in serving their clients. Further, most non- team officers accepted as valid the rumor that becauSe of the Team officers' behavior they received more over- time pay, travel, opportunities, and training. Therefore, what may have resulted is an experi- ment in reverse-an observation which is also supported by the previously discussed citizen attitude results. The intended control group's change in the direction of the unrepresentive experimental group may have been caused by their perceptions of the success of the experimental group attitudes and methods. Conclusions 185 The research data obtained is inadequate as a basis for judging the success or failure of the Democratic Team Police Model. The precision of the research, which was not originally high, was further reduced by problems encountered in the course of implementing the research design. However, the results of this study support several conclusions which may be useful in future research. 1. Given the intensity of the publicity and political debate surrounding the experiment, the control area in this experiment probably was not adequately insulated from the experi- mental area. The approach to obtaining personnel for the experimental area by explaining the experi- ment and then accepting volunteers likely resulted in participants who are philosoph- ically in agreement with the goals and meth- ods being tested; conSequently, the results may not be typical. Future researchers should be aware of the significant differences in the control and experimental officers which was caused by this self selection. The experiment seemed to cause citizens attitudes toward the police to remain the same or change in a positive direction in the Team Police neighborhood and to remain the same or change in a negative direction in the area policed by the Classical organi- zational arrangement. The most significant variable in this experi- ment, given the nature and directions of the 186 changes, may have been the highly favorable publicity generated by the mass media. The planning of future Team experiments should include considerations of thepossible dual impact, positive on the experimental group and negative on the control group, which may have occurred in this study. The attitudes of police officers, who volun- terred for the Team Police unit, were more supportive of police performing discretionary social service functions and a wider use of discretionary actions than police who did not volunteer. Police officers who volunteered for the Team Police unit were initially and remained (a) less authoritarian, (b) less prejudice, (c) more tolerant of ambiguity, and (d) less rigid than police officers who did not volunteer. When the attitudes of police clients who received services from the Team Police offi- cers are compared to the attitudes of clients who received services from non-team officers, the clients who received service from the Team Police officers were significantly more favorable. None of the data collected could be inter- preted as an indication that decentralized, community-based Team Police organizational arrangements with collegial decision making and informal situational leadership is any less effective than the Classical Bureau- cratic Police organizational model. The bulk of the evidence supports the concept of decentralized, community-based, participatory Team Police arrangements as a viable approach to urban policing which should be subject to further testings. IF!“ 187 The measures of community opinion indicate the people served by the Team were generally pleased with its performance. The officers assigned to the Team appear to respond and handle client requests in a way which satisfied the clients. The reduced reliance on authority did not have a negative impact on the perfor- mance of the Team in those areas measured. In fact, if " one is to believe the expressions of the Team officers during informal discussions, these men have had marked improvements in their work attitudes as a result of the collegial Team arrangement. Recommendations Since the completion of the data collection.fdr this study several other studies of Team Police experi- ments have been initiated. It seems that each of these studies have been plagued by the problems similar to those encountered in this study. For example, Tortoriello and Blatt's study of Community-Centered Team Policing in Dayton is an extreme example of the conflict between an action program and research? They were not hired to design the research until the Team Police project was nearly'completed. 188 Bloch and Specht issued an evaluation report on a New York City Team Police experiment which was re— duced in value because of similar problems? Of this study, Sherman says, "The original notion of obtaining objective measures was largley abandoned. ...the action goals of the police department made the research goals unattainable." In perhaps the most expensive evaluation of a team policing experiment ever undertaken, Schwartz and his colleagues have issued several reports on their cont- inuing evaluation of the Cincinnati police? In spite of a Police Foundation investment of over $400,000 in re- search alone, the problems in Cincinnati appear strikingly similar to those encountered in Holyoke. For example, in the first interim evaluation report Schwartz acknow- ledges? During the period June 1972 - March 1973 (before Team implementation) the Cincinnati Police Department initi- ated an intensive ...information campaign through the newspapers, radio and TV. It resulted in several hund- red newspaper articles, including eight special features and a substantial number of spot announcements through electronic media plus several interviews with police officers. In addition, during that period, the CPD issued 75,000 flyers, mostly announcing meetings in District I, and 40,000 general information brochures were distributed. 189 If future research into Team policing is to provide more than reports of contaminated results, the experiments will probably have to be designed as low profile, non- controversial efforts. Administrators will have to avoid the temptation to present themselves as innovative managers at the outset of the experiments and withhold their judg- ments about the value of the innovation until the research has been completed. It may be that substantial organizational innova- tions of a highly controversial nature, such as a Demo- cratic Team Policing, may defy experimental testing. Researchers might reduce the problems by ensuring the political and administrative environment of future Team Police experiments is supportive. Further, the advantages of testing segiments of the Team Police Model should re- duce conflict and faciliate the research. As previously stressed, this study was an explor- atory assessment. As such, not only was the design in- adequate for high precision, the dependent variables evaluated -- citizen attitudes, clientele attitudes, and police attitudes -- were narrow. Future research should explore the impact of Team Police 190 arrangements on such factors as police morale and prod- uctivity, crime and disorder, community fear and the cost of police service. Aside from Holyoke, there does not appear to have been any previous Team police arrangements which have “‘ used a completely collegial model. When one considers the fact that. most police agencies are investing 30% to 50% of their resources in management and supervisory overhead, the potential value of a collegial model becomes apparent. If the collegial design could result in even a small reduction in this area it should greatly improve police operations. Therefore, future research should certainly be devoted to testing the value of the collegial organizational arrangement. A further area which this study reveals as needing research is the impact of the various police roles. The pOpular notion is that police should be crime fighters, yet the results of this study seem to indicate that the Team Police officers played more of a social agent role. Police officers who view themselves as social agents or community advocates may enjoy more public support and ultimately be more effective in other job areas such 191 as crime prevention. Finally, there needs to be further research on the areas explored by this study. In spite of the app- arently positive findings, the precise nature and causes of the changes accompanying a decentralized, participatory Democratic Police model have not been determined. Unless further sound research into team policing, specifically the Democratic Model, is initiated the organi- zational approach is likely to continue as an ambiguously defined police organizational fad. As such, it will un- doubtedly be a subject of controversy for years in the future, and its true potential will not be determined. 192 Footnotes--Chapter V 1 See Michael O'Neill, The Role of the Police-- Normative Role Egpectations in a Metropolitan Police Department (Albany, New York: SUNY doctoral dissertation, 1974.) 2Thomas Tortoriello and Stephen Blatt, Community Centered Team Policing (Dayton: Criminal Justice Center, 1973.) 3Lawrence Sherman, "Evaluation," A Comparative Survey of Team Policing (Washington, D.C.: Unpublished research report to Police Foundation, 1972.) 4 . Ibid, p. 17. 5Alfred Schwartz, et al., "Evaluation of Cin- cinnati's Community Sector Team Policing Program," Working papers 3006-4 (June 30, 1974), 3006-11 (October 8, 1974), and 3006-18 (March 17, 1975). New York: Urban Institute. 6Ibid, Working paper 3006-4, p. 18. BIBLIOGRAPHY Adorno, T.W., et al. The Authoritarian Personaliry. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950. Altshuler, A.A. Community Control: The Black Demand for Participation in Large American Cities. New York: Pegasus Books, 1970. Angell, J.E. "Toward an Alternative to Classical Police Organizational Arrangements: A Democratic Model." CriminologY, November-December, 1971. , F. Hagedorn, S. Egger. Staff Report: Police Consolidation Project. Portland, Oregon: City- County Printing, 1974. , R. Igleburger, G. Pence. "Changing Urban Police: Practitioners' View." Innovation in Law Enforcement (Marten Denziger, editor). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973. Arensburg, C.M.,D. MacGregor. "Determination of Morale in an Industrial Company." Applied Anthropology, January, 1942. Argyris, C. Integratingthe Individual and the Organization. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1964. "The Individual and Organization: Some Problems of Mutual Adjustment." Administrative SciencerQuart- erly, June, 1957. Arnstein, S.R. "A Ladder of Citizen Participation," Journal of American Institute of Planners, July, 1969. Babcock, R.F., F. Bosselman. "Citizen Participation: A Suburban Suggestion for the Central City." Journal of Law and Contemporary Problems, Spring, 1967. Bekrin, M., T. Meeland. "Socio-metric Effects of Race and Combat Performance." Sociometry, December, 1958. Bennis, W. "The Decline of Bureaucracy and Organization of the Future. Transaction, July, 1965. 193 , P.E. Slater. "Democracy is Inevitable," Harvard Business Review, March-April, 1964. Black United Front. "Proposal for Neighborhood Control of the Police.’' Washington, D.C.: Unpublished report to Washington City Council, 1969. Blake, R.R. et a1. Intergroup Conflict in Organizations. Ann Arbor: Foundation for Human Behavior Research, 1964. Blare, P.M., R. Scott. Formal Organizations. San Fran- cisco: Chandler Publishing, 1962. Bloch, P.B. "Comparison of the Beat Commander System to Ordinary Police Operations." Washington: The Urban Institute, 1970. , C. Ulberg. "Beat Commander Concept." The Police Chief, September, 1972. Boer, B.L., B.C. McIver. "Human Relations Training: Laboratories and Team Policing." Journal of Police Science and Administration, June, 1972. BOpp, W.J. (editor). Police Administration: Selected Readings. Boston: Holbrook Press, 1975. . The Police Rebellion. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C Thomas, 1971. Brashears, B. "Team Policing in the Louisville Model District." Louisville: unpublished report for Police Department, 1970. Breglia, J.E. "Will the Aberdeen Patrol Plan Work in America?" Law and Order, September, 1965. Bright, J.A. "Crime Prevention and Unit Beat Policing." Research Note Number 15167, London: Home Office, 1967. Brown, W. Explorations in Management. London: Tavistock Publications, 1960. Budner, S. "Intolerance of Ambiguity as a Personality Variable." Journal of Personality, June, 1963. 194 Burns, T., COM, Stalker. The Managgment of Innovation. London: Tavistock Publications, 1961. Campbell, D.T. "Leadership and Its Effect Upon the Group." Research Monograph (No. 83). Columbus: OSU Bureau of Business Research, 1953. Cann, W. "Our 4/40 Basic Team Concept," The Police Chief, December, 1953. Caplow, T. Principles of Organization. New York: Harcourt Brace and World, 1964. Carr, W. "Team Police Review." Dayton: Sinclair College Term paper, 1972. Center for Governmental Studies. "Public Administration and Neighborhood Control." Washington, D.C.: Unpublished report, 1970. Chapman, S. (editor). Police Patrol Readings. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C Thomas, 1964. "British Patrol Experiments." Municipal Police Administration (edited by Eastman and East- man). Chicago: International City Management Association, 1969. Clark, RJA. "Leadership in a Rifle Squad." Technical Report (No. 21). Washington, D.C.: George Wash- ington University Human Resources Research Office, 1955. Clark, T.M. "On Decentralization." Polity, Summer, 1970. Community Control oijolice. Oakland, California: Unpub- lished transcript of speeches by Bobby Seale, et a1, July 20, 1969. Cordey, J.B. Evaluation of Communiterentered Team Policing. Dayton: Community Research, Inc., 1972. Dalton, M. Men Who Manage. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1959. Davis, E. "Neighborhood Team Policing: Implementing the Territorial Imperative." Crime Prevention Review, October, 1973. 195 Downs, A. Inside Bureaucracy. Boston: Little, Brown, Brown and Company, 1967. Eastman, E., and G. Eastman (editors). Municipal Police Administration. Washington, D.C.: International City Management Association, 1969. Elliott, J.F. "Crime Control Teams." Syracuse: General Electric Electronics Laboratory Report, undated. "Crime Control Teams and the Police." Event, Spring, 1969. "Crime Control Team--Final Report." Syracuse: Police Department, undated. "An Experiment in Enforcement--The Crime Control Team." Law and Order. December, 1969. , and T.J. Sardino. Crime Control Team. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C Thomas, 1972. "Experimental Evaluation of the Crime Control Team Organizational Concept." Police, May-June, 1970. Emery, F.E. and E.L. Trist. "The Causal Texture of Organizational Environments." Washington, D.C.: Paper for International Congress of Psychology, 1955. Fayol, H. General Industrial Managgment. London: Pittman and Sons, 1949. Fink, J. and F. Sealey. The Community and the Police: Conflict or Cooperation. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1974. Freund, J.R. "Neighborhood Police Districts: A Consti- tutional Analysis." California Law Review, October, 1969. Fisher, C.J. and R.I. Smith. "Tampa Selective Deployment Patrol System." The Police Chief, June, 1969. Galvin, R. and H. Toch, and J.D. Grant. Agents of Change: A Study in Police Reform. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1975. 196 Georgoporilas, B. and F. Mann. The Community General Hospital. New York: MacMillan Publishing, 1962. Goodin, C.V. "Effective Personalized Patrol." The Police Chief, November, 1972. Gregory, E. "Unit Beat Policing." Research Report (No. 11/67). London: Home Office, 1967. , and P. Turner. "Unit Beat Policing in England." The Police Chief, July, 1968. Grusky, 0. "Organizational Goals and the Behavior of Informal Leaders." American Journal of Sociol- ogy, No. 65, 1959. Gulick, L. and L. Urwick (editors). Papers on the Science of Administration. New York: Institute of Public Administration, 1937. Hallman, H.W. Administrative Decentralization and Citizen Control. Washington, D.C.: Center for Governmental Studies, 1971. Hambleton, A. "Unit Beat Policing: Research by the Dorset and Bournemouth Constabulary." Police Research, London: Home Office, March, 1970. Hollander, E.P. "Authoritarianism and Leadership Choice in a Military Setting." Journal of Abnormal Prychology, June, 1949. Igleburger, RHM. "Team Policing Project." Dayton: Police Department Public Information Bulletin, 1969. "Program Report on Community Centered Team Policing." Dayton: Unpublished Police De- partment report, October 1, 1971. Itzkoff, S.W. "Decentralization: Dialectic or Dilemma." Educational Forum, November, 1969. Jenkins, W.O. "A Review of Leadership Studies with Par- ticular Reference to Military Problems." Psychological Bulletin, 44, 1947. 197 Katz, M. "Family Crises Training." Journal of Police Science and Administration, March, 1973. Kelland, J.W. "To U.B.P. or not to U.B.P." Police Research. London: Home Office, March, 1970. Kenney, J.P. Police Administration. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C Thomas, 1972. . "Team Police Organization: A Theoretical Model." Police, August, 1972. F! Kimble, J. "Daydreams, Dogma and Dinosaurs." The Police Chief, April, 1969. Koontz, H. and C. O'Donnell. Principles of Management. New York: Knopf Publishing, 1959. Kristol, I. "Decentralization for What?" The Public Interest, Spring, 1968. Kuriloff, A.H. "An Experiment in Management." Personnel, December, 1963. Leonard, V.A. Police Organization and Management. Brooklyn: The Foundation Press, 1964. Levinson, H. The Exceptional Executive. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1968. Likert, R. New Patterns of Maragement. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1961. Little, R-W. "A Study of the Relationship Between Collective Solidarity and Combat Performance." East Lansing: Unpublished MSU doctoral disser- tation, 1955. Lipsky, M. "Toward a Theory of Street-level Bureaucracy." Paper presented to Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, September 2, 1969. Lyman, J.L. "The Metropolitan Police Act." Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science. January, 1964. Lynch, R.G. The Police Manager. Boston: Holbrook Press, 1967. 198 March, J.G. and H.A. Simon. Organizations. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1958. Marris, P. and M. Rein. Dilemmas in Social Reform. New York: Atherton Press, 1967. Maslow, A. ‘Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper- Rowe Publishers, 1954. Eupsychian Management. Homewood: The Dorsey Press, 1965. Mayer, A. "A New Level of Government is Struggling to be Born." City, March-April, 1971. McArdle, E.C. and W. Betjemann. "Return to Neighborhood Police.” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletip, July, 1972. McGregor, D. The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1960. Merton, R.R. Reader in Bureaucracy. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1952. Metcalf, H.C. and L. Urwick (editors). Dynamic Adminis- tration: The Collected Papers of Mary Parker Follett. New York: Harper, 1942. Miller, W.B. "Two Concepts of Authority.’ The American Anthropplogist, April, 1955. Mooney, J.D. and A.C. Reiley. The Principles of Organi- zation. New York: Harper-Rowe Publishers, 1939. Morgan. T. and D. Rhode. "Team Policing in the Minneapolis Model City Program." Minneapolis: Unpublished Police Department report, 1970. Mougelis, N.P. Organization and Bureaucracy. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1967. Murphy,P.V. and P. Bloch. "Beat Commander." The Police Chief, May, 1970. Murphy, R. and L. Phelps. "The Team Patrol System." The Police Chief, June, 1969. Myren, R. "Decentralization and Citizen Participation in Criminal Justice Systems." Public Adminis- tration Review, Special issue, October, 1972. "A Crises in Police Management." The Journal of Criminal Lawr Criminology and Police Science, June, 1960. Norcross, D. ”Sweden's Newest Export: Industrial Demo- cracy." Parade, December 15, 1974. Oaksey Commission. "Report of the Working Party Setup to Consider the Aberdeen System of Policing." Report on Conditions of Police Service. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1949. O'Neill, M.W. The Role of the Police--Normative Kola Expectations in a Metropolitan Police Department. Albany, N.Y.: State University of N.Y. Doctoral dissertation, 1974. Ostrom, E. and G. Whitaker. "Does Local Commubity Control of Police Make a Difference?" Albuquerque: Paper presented to Western Political Science Association, April 8, 1971. "Black Citizens and the Police: Some Effects of Community Control.” Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, September, 1971. Patterson, A.J. "The Results of Team Policing in Salford." Report of Chief Constable for Year Ended December 31, 1951. Salford: Police Constabulary, undated. "The Salford Method of Team Policing." Police Patrol Readiags (edited by Chapman). Spring- field: Charles C Thomas, 1964. Pfiffner, J.M. and F. Sherwood. Administrative Organiza- tion. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1960. Pence, G. and J. Cordrey. "Analysis of Team Policing in Dayton, Ohio." The Police Chief, August, 1972. Phelps, L. and R. Murphy. "Richmond Team Patrol System." The Police Chief, June, 1969. 200 Phelps, L. and L. Harmon. "Team Policing: Four Years Later." FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, December, 1972. Piven, F.F. and RHA. Cloward. "Black Control of the Cities: Heading it Off by Metropolitan Govern- ment." The New Republic, September 30 and Oct- ober 7, 1967. Pondy, L.R. "Organizational Conflict: Concepts and Models." Administrative Science Qparterly. No. 12, 1967. Press, C. The Cities Within a Great City: A Decentralist Approach to Centralization. East Lansing: MSU Institute for Community Development, 1963. Pursley, R.D. "Traditional Police Organization: A Portent or Failure." Police, October, 1971. Quinn, R. "Holyoke's Police Team: New Roles for Police and Citizens.’I Boston: a report by Governor's Committee on Law Enforcement, March, 1971. Radelet, L.A. The Police and the Community. Beverly Hills: Glencoe Press, 1973. Reiss, A.J. Jr. The Police and the Public. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971. Sardino, T.J. "Crime Control Team." FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, May, 1971. Schein, E.H. Organizational Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1970. Schwartz, A. et al. "Evaluation of Cincinnati's Community Sector Team Policing Program." New York: Urban Institute Work papers 3006-4, 3006-11, and 3006-18; July 30, October 8, 1974, and March 17, 1975. Sherman, L.W. "Middle Management and Team Policing: A Reply to John Angell." Criminology, February, 1975. A Comparative Survey of Team Policing, Washington, D.C. unpublished research report to Police Foundation, 1972. 201 Sherman, L.W. et a1. Team Policing; Seven Case Studies. Washington, D.C.: Police Foundation, 1973. Skole, R. "Brave New World at Volvo." Master of Busi- ness Administration, March, 1975. St. Johnson, E. "The British Police Experiment." Minneapolis: Unpublished speech presented at University of Minnesota, 1969. Stouffer, S.A., et al. The American Soldier: Studiea. in Social Psychology in WW 11. Princeton: Prince- ton University Press, 1949. Strand, R. "Berkely Neighborhood Police Plan Stirs Protest." The State Journal, Lansing, Michigan: United Press International release, September 13, 1970. Tallack, W. Penological and Preventive Principles. London: Pittman and Sons, 1889. Terris, B.J. "Program for Citizen Control of Two Police Precincts." Washington, D.C.: Memo to City Council, 1968. The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society. Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967. Toffler, A. Future Shock. New York: Bantam Book, 1971. Tortoriello, T.R. and S. Blatt. "Client Service: Implications for Organizational Change." The Police Chief, November, 1974. Communiry Centered Team Policing. Dayton: Criminal Justice Center, 1973. Townsend, R. Up the Organization. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1970. Trist, G.L. ‘"Socio-technica1 Systems." Cambridge: Lecture given at University of Cambridge, November, 1959. Urwick, L.F. The Pattern of Management. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1956. 202 Washnis, C.J. Municipal Decentralization and Neighborhood Resources. New York: Praeger Publications, 1972. Waskow, A.I. "Community Control of Police.' Transaction, December, 1969. Whisenand, P.M. and R.F. Ferguson. The Managing of Police Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice- Hall, 1973. Whitaker, Gordon P. Urban Police Forces: Size and Scale in Relation to Service. Bloomington: University of Indiana Ph.D. dissertation, 1971. White, L.D. Introduction to the Study of Public Admin- istration (4th edition). New York: MacMillan,1955. Whitehouse, J.E. "Historical Perspectives on the Police Community Service Function." Journal of Police Science and Administration, March, 1973. Wickersham Commission. Report on Lawlessness in Law Enforcement (Report #11). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1931. Williams, A.F. and F. Morris. "Unit Beat Policing in Cheshire." Cheshire: Constabulary Report, July, 1969. Wilson, O.W. and R. McLaren. Police Administration. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1972. Yaden, D. Police Clientele Inventory. Portland, Oregon: City-County Printing, 1974. Zurcher, J.C. "Team.Management/Team Policing." The Police Chief, April, 1971. 203 APPENDIX POLICY AND PROCEDURE MANUAL MODEL CITIES POLICE TEAM PROJECT (1970) HOLYOKE, MASSACHUSETTS *This manual was developed by the team members, assisted by consultants, as they organized their 1970 operation. 204 PREFACE Although the Holyoke Model Cities Police Team has been established as an experimental project to test new methods, policies, and procedures; the following policies and pro- cedures have been developed by the Team members to provide a few basic guidelines for the Units operation. Any situation which is not covered in this policy and procedure manual should be decided in a manner consistent with the philoSOphy behind the Team Policing concept and the material recorded in this manual. Changes in or additions to this manual can be initiated by the members of the Team and they will become binding upon their acceptance by the Project Director. Questions concerning decision making authority should normally be decided in favor of the most decentralized level consistent with the achievement of the objective of effective police service for the Team's jurisdiction. In cases where provisions of this manual conflict with the general policies and procedures of the Holyoke Police Department, the provisions of this manual will be followed by the Team members except in emergencies when the Team con- trol is returned to the regular departmental chain of command. December, 1970. 205 GENERAL ORDERS 206 MODEL CITIES POLICE TEAM HOLYOKE, MASSACHUSETTS General Order 70-1 Internal Administrative Organization A. The Team Policing Unit (hereafter referred to as the Team) is a subdivision of the Holyoke Police Depart- ment that has been assigned the responsibility for providing police service in the area bordered on the North and East by the Connecticut River, on the South by the Boston and Maine Railroad tracks, the Northern- most section of the Second Level Canal, and a line parallel with said Canal to the Connecticut River. It shall consist of fourteen (14) police officers and a Project Director. B. The Team will be under the direction of and coordin- ated by the Team Director, who will be appointed by the Holyoke Chief of Police and responsible through the chain of command to the Chief and the Deputy Chief of Police. C. The Project Director will designate in writing a Team member or members who will assume command in the event of the Project Director's absence. D. A Police-Community Relations Council, chaired by the Team Director, will be established to assist and ad- vise the Team.with personnel selection, police-comm- unity relations matters, and such other law enforce- ment and crime prevention problems as its members deem appropriate. It shall be composed of six neigh- borhood residents and two regular Team members in addition to the Project Director. E. All members of the Team will be voting members of a Committee of the Whole. This Committee will meet at least twice monthly to provide a forum for consider- ing internal Team organization and management matters. It will be chaired by a Team member who will be elect- ed for a three-month term by the Team members. It will provide advice and assistance to the Project Director 207 and individual members of the Team. It has the auth- ority to evaluate and censor its own members when it deems such action appropriate. Six Standing Committees, consisting of representatives elected by the Team members, will be established to assist the Committee of the Whole with matters of con- ; tinual importance. The standing Committee that will 5 be designated initially are: State Liaison Committee Department Liaison Committee Personnel Committee Organizational Committee Training Committee Local Liaison Committee C‘U‘I-DLJONH Four Community Service Officer, (CSO's) who are resi- dents of the neighborhood area served by the Team, will be appointed to assist the Team with non-enforce- ment police duties. The CSO's will be responsible to the Project Director or his designated representative. They will be non-voting members of the Committee of the Whole. 208 MODEL CITIES POLICE TEAM HOLYOKE, MASSACHUSETTS General Order 70-2 Procedures Related to Police Team.Meetings A. Committee of the Whole: The Committee of the Whole will normally meet between the hours of 7 and 8 p.m. on the first and third Monday of each month. Special meetings can be called at the discretion of the Pro- ject Director. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole will be elected by Team members for a three-month term. The first Chairman will officially assume his office on December 1, 1970. The Chairman is responsible for developing an agenda of items for consideration and for distributing it prior to each meeting. All meetings shall be con- ducted in accordance with Roberts Rules of Order. A secretary for the Committee of the Whole will be appointed by the Chairman to record the minutes of each meeting. After the minutes are recorded and approved, they shall be filed in a specifically de- signated place for future reference. Only the sworn police officers who are Team members shall have the authority to vote on issues considered by the Committee of the Whole. CSO's and other per- sons related to the Team may attend the Committee of the Whole meetings and participate in discussion. Any person except the Project Director can be ex- cluded from a Committee of the Whole meeting by a two-thirds vote of the voting Team members present. The Committee of the Whole has broad authority to con- sider both Operational and managerial matters related to the Team's activities; however, decisions made by the Committee can be overruled by the Project Director. 209 Standing Committees: Standing Committee members shall be appointed by the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole with the consent of the Project Director. Members of Standing Committees shall serve at the discretion of the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole and the Project Director. The procedures and practices of Standing Committees shall be left to the discretion of the membership of each Standing Committee. Each Standing Committee shall have a Chairman who will be responsible for coordinating and reporting on the activities of his Committee. Any Standing Committee can be created or abolished by a two-thirds vote of the Team members and appro- val of the Project Director. Temporary Committees: The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole with the consent of the Project Director can appoint Temporary Committees for dealing with unusual or temporary situations. The membership and procedures of such committees shall be dependent on the circumstances. 210 MODEL CITIES POLICE TEAM HOLYOKE , MASSACHUSETTS General Order 70-3 Project Director The Project Director possesses the authority, duties, and responsibilities of his police rank, in this case those of a police captain. Further, for the purposes of this project, be: A. Administers all aspects of the team police- ing project contract. Of particular impor- tance are his fiscal management and data collection responsibilities. Serves as principal liaison officer between the team and the remainder of the Police Department. Possesses the ultimate authority and respon- sibility for the direction of the team's per- sonnel. Generally, however, the teams activ- ities will be carried out as a group effort extensively employing the techniques of par- ticipating management. 211 MODEL CITIES POLICE TEAM HOLYOKE , MASSACHUSETTS General Order 70-4 Relationship Between Team and Remainder of the Police Department A. The Team Policing Unit has been established by the Chief of Police as an experimental division of the Holyoke Police Department. It is under the direction of a Police Captain who has been designated Project Director by the Chief of Police. Although under the supervision of the Chief and the Deputy Chief of Police, the Project Director is responsible for the organization, coordination, and management of the experimental unit so as to, insofar as possible, en- sure a cooperative relationship between its members and the remainder of the Police Department. B. The Team Policing Unit has the responsibility for providing police service for the area designated as its jurisdiction. (See 70-IA). Except for unusually serious situations, members of the Teau1Policing Unit shall not be dispatched to handle activities outside of their area of responsibility. Likewise, except in response to serious situations, officers of the Police Department who are not assigned to the Team shall not be dispatched to handle activities or situations occ- urring within the Team's area of responsibility. C. Whenever possible in situations where a dispatcher is considering sending a non-Team member into a Team area, he should get permission from a Team member before proceeding. However, in instances where ob- taining such approval is difficult and it is the judgment of the dispatcher that a situation within the Team area needs immediate police attention, he may dispatch a non-Team member into the area. Routine dispatching of non-Team members of the Department into the Team area should never occur. Neither should non- Team patrols routinely enter the Team area. 212 With the exception of homicide cases, Team members have the authority to decide how far to pursue an investigation and if they need assistance from specialists such as investigators and juvenile offi— cers. In cases of homicide the Team members shall proceed as follows: secure the crime scene, obtain identification of witnesses, notify the Captain of Detectives, and turn the investigation over to the members of the Detective Bureau upon their arrival at the scene; they shall make all necessary reports and if possible arrest the perpetrator if still at the scene. No officer of the Holyoke Police Department shall refuse when requested to provide assistance to a- nother officer regardless of the area of assignment. The Project Director will be responsible for making periodic reports, through the Deputy Chief, to the Chief of Police concerning the activities and status of the project. 213 MODEL CITIES POLICE TEAM HOLYOKE , MASSACHUSETTS General Order 70-5 Genera] Procedures Related to Team Operations A. Disciplinary: 1. Complaints about misconduct on the part of Team members are to be recorded and investigated by the Project Director. The Project Director will present cases of offi- cer misconduct to the Committee of the Whole. The Committee of the Whole has the responsibility of reviewing such cases, interviewing witnesses, and making recommendations to the Project Direc- tor concerning disposition of case. Consistent complaints against any Team member or a single incident of gross misbehavior on the part of a Team member may be grounds for dis- missal from the Team. Except in cases where two-thirds of the voting members of the Committee of the Whole recommends dismissal from the Team, the Project Director has the power to ignore or overrule any advice given him by the Committee of the Whole. In any instance where two-thirds of the Team mem- bers recommend dismissal of a Team member the Project Director Shall reSpect their judgment and the officer shall be dropped from the Team. B. Work Assignment: 1. The authority to develop work schedules that are appropriate to the needs of the community lies with the Team members and the Project Director. Records on the work loads and personnel matters shall be maintained by the Project Director. 214 Twenty—four hour-a-day coverage shall be provided in the area. Team members will work the same number of hours per week required of other police officers on the Holyoke Police Department. ‘ Team members will receive the same amount of time for vacations, sick leave, and days off as other Holyoke Police Officers. 1 Community and Team Committee meetings are consid- ' ered part of the officers on-duty time and spent in these meetings will be considered as part of his police duty. Records and the administration of work, plans, holidays, days off, sick days, vacations, and. other personnel matters shall be administered by the Project Director who may delegate this responsibility to any Team member. The Project Director may at his discretion read- just work schedules or obtain alternative Team members to assist the Team in emergencies. Assignments shall be periodically evaluated by the Team of a Team Committee to, insofar as possible, insure that the manpower assignments coincide with the policing needs of the community. Financing: 1. The Project Director with the assistance of Team members shall be responsible for administering the budget of the Team Police Unit. The Team has a responsibility to assist the Pro- ject Director in obtaining additional funds for the support of the policing activities in their jurisdiction (e.g. Team members may prepare pro- posals for obtaining grants to improve their op- erations from private and governmental agencies). 215 The Team .houl? cooperate with and assist citi- zens, community groups and governmental agencies in their efforts to obtain financial support for programs related to reducing police problems and improving police services in the Team area. Cooperation with Communiry: 1. Team members are expected to establish a close relationship with the community within their area. The Team shall organize and attend open community meetings related to police problems. I The Team headquarters shall be open to the public for community members use and service. Team members are expected to serve all segments of the Community, protect the rights of people within the Community, and cooperate where ever possible with groups and individuals who are attempting to improve justice, social tranquility, and freedom. ' Team members have a primary responsibility to per- form their duties in a manner that will prevent crime and disorder from occurring. Team members are responsible for exercising wise discretion when they are carrying out their res- ponsibilities. Team members shall use negative law enforcement techniques and force only as a last resort. The Team Policing Unit should concentrate on a philosophy of service and prevention rather than suppression of crime and disorder. Community Service Officers: 1. Community Service Officers (CSO's) are under the control of the Project Director. 216 CSO work schedules and assignments are the res- ponsibility of the Project Director. CSO'S will assist Team members in carrying out the policing responsibilities in the Team area. The precise duties of CSO'S will be defined by the Team members. CSO'S will never be equipped with firearms. CSO'S will not be given assignments which are normally hazardous. CSO'S shall be permitted to participate in Team meetings; but they Shall not have a vote in the Committee of the Whole. Personnel Evaluation: The Team shall establish and assist with the Administration of a system for eval- uating the performance of the individual members of the Team. Methods of Performing Duties: 1. The basic methods which will be utilized by Team members in the establishment of work objectives and performance of their policing responsibility shall be left to the discretion of the Team mem- bers subject to the approval of the Project Dir- ector. Under no circumstance shall a Team member use illegal or unethical methods in carrying out his responsibilities. When Team members are confronted with.police problems which they cannot handle they are ex- pected to seek advice and assistance from fellow officers. 217 Ii. (homununication, Dispatching, and Records: 1.. ‘Whenever possible, officers will be dispatched by the local Team dispatcher; however, requests for police assistance which are in the area of the Team's responsibility but made to Police Head- quarters shall be dispatched by the Headquarters dispatcher. All requests for police service will be recorded on the Complaint Cards in accordance with the re- quirements of the Holyoke Police Report Manual. The records and filing procedures shall be under the direction of the Project Director. Daily reports initiated by Team members will be submitted to Police Headquarters prior to the end of the officer's duty tour. Copies of every re- port will be filed at the Teams substation. All data processing reports Shall be kept at the Team's office. Whenever possible, officers who are on duty will be equipped with a personalized portable radio. In the event of an emergency, all dispatching responsibilities will be assumed by the Police Headquarters Dispatcher in order to free all Team members for street duty. 1. ‘mfiforms: Team members will be permitted at the dis- cxetion of the Project Director to wear a variety of mfiform and non-uniform clothing. 218 SPECIAL ORDERS 219 MODEL CITIES POLICE TEAM HOLYOKE, MASSACHUSETTS §pec ial Order 70-1 AX. Formal Assignment of Team as Team The following personnel are considered to be permanent nmnnbers of the Team Policing Unit for this duration of the Team Policing experiment: Capt. George Burns, Project Director Herve Moreau John Griffin Harold Kennedy Randolph Jackson Robert Kotfila Alan Fletcher Stephen Donoghue Armand Chartier 10. Everett Reed 11. Gerald McMullan 12. William Gorham 13. James Sullivan 14. Eugene Meabon 15. Russell Labbe \DCDNJChU'l-DLOJNH The following members of the Police Department are considered to be intermittent members of the Team Policing Unit for the duration of the experiment: 1 Daniel McCarthy 2. Paul Cousineau 3 Tomy Maziarz finamembers of the Team are expected to COOperate and amfist their fellow officers in the organization, hmflementation and Operation of efforts in their area ofresponsibility. Tmmnmembers are encouraged to offer criticisms and swgestions that may be used to improve the quality ofpolice service and reduce police problems in their jurisdiction . 220 Problems and procedures related to the Team Policing Unit and its operation are the responsibility of the Project Director and the members of the Team. 221 MODEL CITIES POLICE TEAM HOLYOKE, MASSACHUSETTS Special Order 70-2 Assignment to Standing Committees Organizational Committee: Donoghue Gorham Jackson Personnel Committee: Cousineau Donoghue Reed Department Liaison Committee: Burns Griffin Kennedy Local Liaison Committee: Burns Donoghue Griffin State Liaison Committee: Donoghue Kennedy Training Committee: Chartier Labbe McMullan Meabon Moreau 222 MODEL CITIES POLICE TEAM HOLYOKE, MASSACHUSETTS Special Order 70-3 Assignment to Temporary Committees Communications and Records Committee: Kotfila McMullan Maziarz Uniform Committee: Griffin Kennedy Sullivan Vehicle Committee: Burns Chartier Gorham Jackson McCarthy Moreau Physical Location Committee: Chartier Kotfila McCarthy 223 HICHIGRN STATE UNIV. LIBRRRIES W WI WW "I ”W I1" I! W HI W "W l ill" WI 31293008429072