$pwwwrfi ;, g: QE 3 5: . 53" . v I511. ; . @n‘vufl. a gnaw} . i Kit-«f, ":3?! $4 Lu... :3. pair! . {I S In v. [I i -x I Jul-bliia. ll....>afir!a...s v lute-5 :. h .153: “In”? , 7.1...Jm .... 1.5.2:}... .. in!) E: IR is u 14.! gun“; u 2L .. It... w. ‘5‘?! "an 71¢... ‘29.! ‘ 5.9.1... 31.01:)“; 1 u u, r I! 4.. 17488:? NA saii815q This is to certify that the dissertation entitled The Influence of Organizational Socialization on Police Officer Acceptance of Community Policing: The Example of Korean Police presented by Byongook Moon has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for PhD degree in Criminal Justice Major professor Date Swoq MS U is an Affirmative Action/Eq ual Opportunity Institution 04 2771 Wi Michigan State University PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record. To AVOID FINE return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE I DATE DUE ‘ DATE’DUE it Hi". . “ELQ'Z Di“ 6/01 cJCIRC/DateDuepSS-sz THE INFLUENCE OF ORGANIZATIONAL SOCIALIZATION ON POLICE OFFICERS’ ACCEPTANCE OF COMMUNITY POLICING: THE EXAMPLE OF KOREAN POLICE By Byongook Moon A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY School of Criminal Justice 2004 ABSTRCT THE INFLUENCE OF ORGANIZATIONAL SOCIALIZATION ON POLICE OFFICERS’ ACCEPTANCE OF COMMUNITY POLICING: THE EXAMPLE OF KOREAN POLICE By Byongook Moon Since the end of 20th century, Korea National Police Agency (KNPA) has implemented a major reform, which emphasized the importance of the service roles the police play for the public, a positive relationship between the police and the public, and crime prevention rather than crime fighting. In successfully implementing community policing and accomplishing the transition toward that organizational goal, many studies indicate the crucial role line officers play. These line officers are the ones who directly contact with citizens and are responsible for carrying out the community policing programs and have been the object of study in Western police organizations’ transition to community policing. However, no empirical studies have ever been conducted to examine how Korean police officers perceive the transition to community policing, despite their prominence in carrying out community policing programs on the street. The present study, therefore, attempts to address this gap in the literature using the sample of 694 Korean police officers to explore officers’ attitudes towards community policing. As a theoretical framework for explaining the variation of police officers’ attitudes toward community policing, the current study uses an “organizational socialization” of police officers into police culture, which is known to be one of main sources of resistance among police officers for the implementation of community policing. The results indicate overwhelming support of community policing and a positive relationship between the degree of organizational socialization and officers’ attitudes toward community policing among Korean police officers, contrary to hypothesized directions. Police officers who report higher levels of socialization into the police culture are more likely to support the philosophy of community policing and line officers’ autonomy/participation in a decision-making process, and to perceive a positive relationship with citizens. These findings advance our understanding that police culture is not universal and homogeneous. They also raise questions about traditionally believed conception of a police culture and a conventional approach on understanding a police culture. The findings show that a police agency has developed its own distinctive police culture and style, influenced by its surrounding cultural, political, and social environment. Therefore, it is important to comprehend the police culture in the context of social, political, and cultural environment. ACHKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to acknowledge the support and advise of dissertation committee members: Dr. Carter, Dr. Hoffman, Dr. McCluskey, and Dr. Gold. They have provided me with guidance and direction for a dissertation as well as throughout my graduate programs. Dr. Carter, serving as a major professor and chair of dissertation committee, has always offered guidance, assistance, and support. Dr. Hoffman has taught the importance of understanding cultural differences between Korean and the United States and helped me to collect the data used in the dissertation. Dr. McCluskey has also provided valuable guidance and comments for upgrading the dissertation. Through interactions with Dr. Gold, I have learned the importance of multidisciplinary approaches in understanding complex issues. In addition to dissertation committee members, I would like to thank Dr. Morash and Dr. Maxwell for their support and guidance throughout my graduate programs. I also like to thank Korean police officers who willingly participated in a project and those (especially, Sunho Jo, Sangwon Lee, and Buigab Hwang) who have provided valuable insights and advice about the Korean police and helped me in collecting the data. Finally, I dedicate the dissertation to my parents (Juyoung Moon and Sunja Yoo), my wife (Eunj i Youn), and my daughters (Sandra Moon and Emily Moon) for their scarifies, support, and encouragement. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES INTRODUCTION CHAPTER I PROFESSIONAL REACTIVE POLICING VS. COMMUNITY POLICING PARADIGM The function and role of the police The relationship between citizens and the police Organizational structure of the police CHAPTER II HISTORY OF THE POLICE AND COMMUNITY POLICIN G IN SOUTH KOREA History of the Korean police Community policing in the Korean police The overview of the mini-police station system in South Korea CHAPTER III LITERATURE REVIEW Officers’ acceptance of community policing Predictors of the acceptance of community policing Individual demographic factors Occupational and organizational factors CHAPTER IV POLICE CULTURE AND SOCIALIZATION Definition of an organizational culture Police organizational culture and its characteristics Image as crime fighters viii 10 13 13 17 19 24 24 25 25 28 33 33 35 ’ 35 Isolation (us vs. others) and group solidarity Conflict between management and street cops Perpetuation of police culture Relationship between police culture and community policing Theoretical relevance to the Korean police Hypotheses CHAPTER V DATA AND METHODS Sample Dependent variables Independent variables Dimensions of organizational socialization Individual demographic and organizational variables CHAPTER VI STATISTICAL ANALYSES AND RESULTS Korean police officers’ attitude toward community policing Bivariate analyses between independent and dependent variables Multiple regression analyses Summary of findings CHAPTER VII DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION Discussion Policy implications Limitations of the current study and recommendations for future research Conclusion vi 36 37 39 4o 41 47 47 51 52 52 57 59 59 63 66 76 78 78 86 89 91 Appendix A. Scales used in the analyses 93 Appendix B. Comparison of number of murder and robbery between South 95 Korea and the United States Appendix C. Questionnaire 97 REFERENCES 107 vii Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Table 7. Table 8. Table 9. LIST OF TABLES Social demographic characteristics of police officers in the Sample Frequency of socialization dimensions Korean police officers’ acceptance of community policing Correlation matrix between independent and dependent variables Regression of philosophy of community policing on individual/organizational variables and dimensions of organizational socialization Regression of traditional reactive policing on individual/organizational variables and dimensions of organizational socialization Regression of line officers’ autonomy and participation on individual/organizational variables and dimensions of organizational socialization Regression of the relationship between citizens and the police on individual/organizational variables and dimensions of organizational socialization Summary of results about relationships between dimensions of socialization and community policing viii 50 55 6O 64 68 7O 73 75 77 INTRODUCTION Since the end of 20th century, Korea National Police Agency (KNPA) has implemented a major reform, mainly because of the urgent need of improving the relationship with Korean people in order to regain public trust and confidence in police. Influenced by the popularity and potential of “community policing” in the US, reform efforts have emphasized the importance of the service roles the police play for the public, a positive relationship between the police and the public, and crime prevention rather than crime fighting. The police have made concrete efforts to obtain residents’ concern and suggestion over crime prevention by creating a “crime prevention recall system” and holding local crime prevention seminars. A citizen police academy and a volunteer community patrol scheme have also been established to provide citizens with an opportunity to be involved with police activities and better understand police work. These concrete efforts to implement community policing are considered to be a significant departure from traditional police practices. Even though Korean police officers had been performing service roles and community members had been involved in crime prevention efforts in the past, the role of police officers was significantly limited to reactive law enforcement and the cooperation between the citizens and the police was nominal in most of cases. Particularly, due to the social and political unrest until 19905 and the significant increase of crimes, the Korean police had focused and stressed its social and crime control role, allocating significant portion of police personnel and resources on maintaining social control. In successfully implementing community policing and accomplishing the transition of an organizational goal, many studies indicate the crucial role line officers play (Lewis, Rosenberg, & Sigler, 1999; Lurigio & Skogan, 1994; Peak & Glensor, 1996; Seagrave, 1996; Travis & Winston, 1998; Trojanowicz & Bucqueroux, 1990; Wilson & Bennett, 1994; Winfree & Newbold, 1999; Yates & Pillai, 1996). These line officers are the ones who directly contact citizens and are responsible for carrying out community policing programs. Consequently, it is almost impossible to successfully and effectively implement community policing without line officers’ active support and understanding of the underlining concept of community policing. Some studies (Cordner, 1995; Sadd & Grinc, 1996; Trojanowicz & Bucqueroux, 1990; Travis & Winston, 1998), however, indicate that line officers tend to resist to community policing and their resistance becomes one of major obstacles in implementing community policing, since community policing requires a new definition of police officers’ role and new ways of doing jobs, which are contradictory of their traditional roles. Line officers often consider that community policing is not genuine policing or is soft on crime, consequently ignoring the importance of community policing (Cordner, 1995; Travis & Winston, 1998). They also believe that community policing is just one of many new initiatives implemented by top administrators, which are implemented, emphasized and eventually disappear without line officers’ involvement or input (Lurigio & Skogan, 1994). While the aforementioned body of research increased our understanding about the acceptance of community policing among police officers, there are, however, three major shortcomings on the previous research on this issue. First, despite the important role line officers perform in successfully implementing community policing, there are not many studies specifically focused on line officers’ perspective toward community policing and on their resistance to community policing (Travis & Winston, 1998; Wilson & Bennett, 1994; Winfree & Newbold, 1999; Yates & Pillai, 1996). Majority of studies on community policing focused on the philosophical aspect of community policing, mainly the development of concept and implementation of community policing (Travis & Winston, 1998). Second, the majority of these studies used a one-dimensional measure of community policing, even though the concepts of community policing are multidimensional (Lewis et a1., 1999). Third, these studies used a few demographic and occupational factors such as gender, race, shift, and ranking as independent variables, which have been found to have a limited explanatory power for the acceptance of community policing. Consequently, these studies were exploratory and not extensive, lacking theoretical foundation of why police officers are reacting differently to community policing. More importantly, no empirical studies have ever been conducted to examine Korean police officers’ attitudes toward community policing. Top administrators in the Korean police, unfortunately, tend to believe that line officers accept and follow any initiatives they plan to accomplish, however, previous studies in the United States indicate that line officers resist and oppose many initiatives which they do not understand the purpose of, resulting in the failure of new initiatives (Schafer, 2000). Consequently, it is important from a managerial point to examine whether Korean police officers support community policing and what factors affect the acceptance of community policing, in order to successfully implement community policing. The present study, therefore, attempts to address these limitations using a sample of 694 Korean police officers. Following the study by Lewis et al. (1999), the current study examines Korean police officers’ attitudes toward community policing, using four multidimensional scales; philosophy of community policing, traditional reactive policing, line officers’ autonomy and participation in a decision-making process, and relationship with residents. As a theoretical fi'amework for explaining the variation of police officers’ attitudes toward community policing, the current study uses an “organizational socialization” into police culture, which is known to be one of main sources of resistance among police officers to community policing. Literature on police culture indicates that as police officers are socialized into police culture, they see themselves different from general public. They view law enforcement (especially focusing on serious criminal activities) as a real police work, dismissing order-maintenance and service roles as non- police work or secondary duties, which are considered as the main roles of the police in community policing (Herbert, 1998; Paoline, Myers, & Worden, 2000). Consequently, the implementation of community policing is more likely to fail, without a proper understanding of the police culture and socialization process. Unfortunately, no studies had ever used “police organizational socialization” as a theoretical framework for examining the variation of acceptance of community policing among police officers. Thus, the present study examines the impact of organizational socialization into police culture on Korean police officers’ attitudes toward community policing. The study first examines the differences between traditional reactive policing and community policing models by focusing on (1) the role of police, (2) the relationship between citizens and the police, and (3) the structure of the police including the empowerment of patrol officers in Chapter One. In Chapter Two, the history of the Korean police and community policing is reviewed in order to better understand cultural and organizational background of the Korean police. A mini-police station system, which is unique to some eastern Asian countries, is also overviewed. Chapter Three examines prior research on officers’ acceptance and resistance to community policing in the United States and other countries. It also examines individual and organizational factors (i.e., age, education, gender, rank, seniority, experience of community policing), which have been found to be significant predictors of the acceptance of community policing in previous research. In Chapter Four, police organizational culture, which is used as a theoretical framework in the current study, is delineated, focusing on the definition, characteristics of the police organizational culture, and socialization process. The relationship between police organizational culture and community policing is discussed. Finally, the characteristics of police culture found in Western countries are compared to those of the Korean police. Chapter Five provides the detailed information about the data used for the dissertation, data collection procedure, independent and dependent variables, and statistical analyses employed to test the hypotheses. In Chapter Six, descriptive statistics and the results of bivariate and multivariate analyses are presented. In the Chapter Seven, summary of the findings and policy recommendation are discussed. Finally suggestions for future research are offered. CHAPTER ONE: PROFESSIONAL REACTIVE POLICIN G VS. COMMUNITY POLICING PARADIGM Since the 1970s, a new police model, called “community policing,” has been widely accepted and implemented in many police departments across the United States and throughout the world, facing with the limitations and frustration of the “professional police model” for effectively controlling social unrest, reducing violent crimes, and improving the relationship between the police and community (Kratcoski & Dukes, 1995; Oliver & Bartgis, 1998; Pelfrey, 1998; Rosenbaum, 1994; Skolnick & Bayley, 1986; Trojanowicz, 1993; Trojanowicz, Kappeler, Gaines, & Bucqueroux, 1998). Community policing is fundamentally different from professional reactive policing in many aspects and has led to significant changes in policing (Weisburd, Shalev, & Amir, 2002). For the purpose of the current study, a community policing paradigm is compared to a professional reactive policing model in three core areas: the role of the police, the relationship between citizens and the police, and the structure of the police including the empowerment of line officers. The function and role of the police Since the turn of the twentieth century in the United States, the emphasis of the police role had been shifted from order maintenance to law enforcement (crime fighting) in order to curb the rising crime rates, take out the political influences, and create a professional police (Carter & Radelet, 1999). The police have focused on reducing and solving serious crimes. In accordance to maximize the newly defined function of the police, a police organizational structure has been changed and human and financial resources have been reallocated. Motorized patrolling on beat areas has been popular and rapid responses to calls for service have been emphasized. The performance of each police officer and police department has been evaluated, based on reduction and clearance of crime, especially violent crimes (Schafer, 2002). All of these significant changes have led to the belief that reactive law enforcement is the only role the police play and other services are not “real police work”, thus should be avoided as much as possible. However, community policing stresses the preventive and proactive role of the police to identify causes of crimes and issues affecting the quality of life in the community (Goldstein, 1990; Schafer, 2000; Wilson & Kelling, 1982). Partially influenced by the important researches that traditional police approaches and tactics such as automobile random patrols, rapid responses to crime scenes, and reactive investigation were not effective in controlling and preventing crime and improving the relationship between citizens and the police, supporters of community policing have emphasized the need of redefining and expanding the role of the police into order maintenance, problem- solving, and the provision of services roles (Carter & Radelet, 1999; Goldstein, 1990; Wilson & Kelling, 1982). The order maintenance role of the police is emphasized in community policing on the premise that incivilities and minor disorders in a community may lead to serious crimes if unattended (Wilson & Kelling, 1982). According to Wilson and Kelling (1982), physical disorders (i.e., abandoned automobiles and broken windows) and human disorders (i.e., drug sales, public drinking, and prostitutions), which are the signs of community decay, can lead to serious crimes by dissolving a community and producing a sense that residents cannot exercise control over problems in their community. Therefore, the police need to refocus on order maintenance role in order to prevent minor crimes from leading to serious crimes (Wilson & Kelling, 1982). The other important role of the police in community policing is the problem solving. Contrary to a traditional belief that each crime is unique and separated from other crimes, consequently, solving each crime is the priority of the police, community policing argues that solving each crime reactively is only temporary solution because each crime is not necessarily separated from each other, instead there are underlying conditions that cause numerous crimes and disorders (Moore, Trojanowicz, & Kelling, 2000). Therefore, the police, with the corroboration of residents and other agencies in a community, need to proactively identify and resolve underlying conditions in order to accomplish long-term solutions (Carter & Radelet, 1999; Schafer, 2000: Trojanowicz & Carter, 1988; Trojanowicz, et al., 1998). The relationship between citizens and the police In a professional reactive policing, the police had made concrete efforts to separate themselves from the community they serve for several reasons. First, corruption, misconduct, and favoritism were widespread during a political era, because of the close relationship between the police and the community, consequently, there was a need of the separation between them in efforts to prevent corruption and maintain their impartiality (Moore et a1., 2000; Schafer, 2000). Second, a professional movement produced the belief that the police themselves are experts on dealing with crime because they were professionally trained to enforce the law, thus they did not need any help from the public, who do not have any knowledge about how to deal with crime. Third, widespread use of technologies in policing such as automobiles and two way radios had accelerated the separation between the police and the community (Schafer, 2000). However, the consequences of voluntary and involuntary separation between the community and the police have been the negative relationship between the police and the community, especially minority communities and inability of the police to effectively and efficiently reduce and prevent crime (Walker, 1994). In community policing, the cooperation between citizens and the police is the core concept (Moore et a1., 2000; Schafer, 2000; Trojanowicz & Carter, 1988; Trojanowicz et al., 1998; Wilkinson & Rosenbaum, 1994). Moore and Trojanowicz (l988:9) observed that: In community policing, community institutions such as families, schools, neighborhood associations, and merchant groups are seen as key partners to the police in the creation of safe, secure communities. The success of the police depends not only on the development of their own skills and capabilities, but also on the creation of competent communities. Community policing acknowledges that police cannot succeed in achieving their basic goals without both the operational assistance and political support of the community. In community policing, a community is believed to possess knowledge and resources which can significantly augment the police’ efforts in preventing and solving crime (Moore et a1., 2000; Schafer, 2000). Therefore, actively seeking public cooperation through the increased contacts with citizens and exchange of information, the police can significantly enhance their ability in reducing and preventing crime (Kelling, 1988; Moore et a1., 2000). The cooperation and close relationship between them can also help to develop mutual trust so that hostility among residents, especially minorities, toward the police can be significantly reduced (Kelling, 1988). Frequent contacts and partnership between them allow citizens and police officers to better understand each other, resulting in the mutual respect and increased legitimacy of the police. Organizational structure of the police Traditional policing can be characterized as a paramilitary structure with a centralized command system and limited discretion of patrol officers (Bittner, 1970; Franz & Jones, 1987; Jermier & Berkes, 1979; Schafer, 2000; Trojanowicz et a1., 1998; Weisburd et al., 2002). This semi-military and bureaucratic structure of the police has been adOpted throughout the United States since the 19303, on the basis of several assumptions. First, it is assumed that strict internal control and discipline can effectively control the discretion and behaviors of line officers, consequently maximizing conformity and reducing corruption (Weisburd, McElroy, & Hardyman, 1988). Second, it is assumed that the semi-military structure of the police can enhance the career of the police as a profession, which is well trained, disciplined and skilled (Meese, 1993). However, the paramilitary structure of the police, especially focusing on tight control of patrol officers’ discretion and behaviors, has had a negative impact on the police (Meese, 1993; Trojanowicz, et a1., 1998; Weisburd et a1., 2002). Numerous studies have found that patrol officers are frustrated, alienated, and not satisfied with their jobs, because the opportunities for them to exercise their discretion and provide their inputs in police management are eliminated in the semi-military structure of the police (Trojanowicz et aL,l998) 10 Conununity policing, however, emphasizes an open and organic system, providing line officers with a high level of independence, responsibility, and discretion, (Meese, 1993; Trojanowicz et a1., 1998; Weisburd et a1., 2002). In community policing, which emphasizes the preventive and proactive role of police officers and the cooperation between citizens and the police, it is required for line officers to have a significant level of discretion in order to perform their duties proactively (Meese, 1993). Line officers should be given the opportunity to participate in decision-making process in order to utilize line officers’ expertise and knowledge in making a policy and develop a strong sense of responsibility and commitment among line officers (Meese, 1993; Schafer, 2000). Therefore, community policing requires the development of a new police structure. The structure of a police department needs to be decentralized and a high level of discretion and responsibility should be delegated to line officers so that they can proactively and innovatively take action and make a better judgment in solving crime and improving the quality of life (Meese, 1993; Trojanowicz et a1., 1998). As comparisons between community policing and professional reactive policing in major areas indicate, community policing requires significant and fundamental changes in terms of the roles and structure of the police and the relationship with citizens. Considering that community policing is a significant innovation and the police are one of the most inflexible public organizations, it is natural to see that the police have faced numerous obstacles for successfully implementing community policing (Dicker, 1998; Schafer, 2000; Travis & Winston, 1998). One of the primary obstacles is the line officers’ resistance to community policing. Line officers tend to view law enforcement (especially focusing on serious criminal activities) as a real police work, dismissing 11 order-maintenance and service roles as non-police work or secondary duties (Herbert, 1998; Paoline et a1., 2000). Many police officers consider that community policing is not real police work and police officers who are involved in community policing programs are not real police officers. Detailed review of line officers’ attitudes toward community policing and factors affecting the acceptance of community policing is presented at the Chapter Three. The next chapter reviews the history of the Korean police from its origin of the modern Korean police to a major reform implemented in 2000. It then presents the relevance of community policing to the Korean police. These reviews will provide better understanding of the cultural and organizational background of the Korean police. 12 CHAPTER TWO: HISTORY OF THE POLICE AND COMMUNITY POLICING IN SOUTH KOREA History of the Korean police The Korean police have evolved over time and the origin of the modern Korean police can be traced back to 1894 when Japan forced King Kojong to modernize the police system as a step to colonize the Korean Peninsula (Hoffman, 1982; Myong, 1959; Lee, 1984; Pyo, 2001). The modernized police, called Kyongmukum (Bureau of Police Affair), was separated from the military and its duties included not only the maintenance of order and prevention and detection of crime, but also residence and birth registration, control of publication, immigration, sanitation, and the palace guard (Hoffman, 1982; Myong, 1959). When Japan formally annexed Korea, the police, under the control of a Japanese Governor General, actively controlled and suppressed the Korean people and society as a whole. Throughout the country, police stations and sub-stations (police boxes) were established, and important positions of the police were held by Japanese personnel (Hoffman, 1982; Myong, 1959; Nahm, 1988). During the Imperial Japanese occupation from 1910 to 1945, it was the darkest era for the Korean people in its history as the police brutally and violently suppressed Korean people, arresting and torturing numerous Koreans (N ahm, 1988). The police power infiltrated every aspect of Korean people’s lives and the power of the police was unbounded. The presumption of guilt was pervasive and the right of counsel denied (Myong, 1959). There were many cases where accused or suspected persons were detained and investigated in the police station for months until they admitted their (false) guilt or provided information the’police needed. 13 During the investigation, every imaginable physical or psychological torture tactic such as threats, deception, persuasion, electric shocks, beatings, and forced water intake were employed. Worse, the judiciary power was given to the police and more than 100,000 cases were tried in police courts each year (Myong, 1959). The brutality and suppression they experienced by the police for more than 30 years left a deep hostility toward the police from generation to generation until now. Some scholars and practitioners trace problems such as the loss of legitimacy, corruption, and brutality the Korean police face now to the Korea’s history of imperial domination (Lee, 2002; Pyo, 2001). After the Republic of Korea was established (1948) and the Korean War (1950- 53) was over, the subsequent South Korean governments from the First to Sixth Republics could be described as undemocratic and authoritative, even though the degree of dictatorial power varied among each regime (Hoffman, 1982). The political system was unstable and military personnel in politics were deeply involved for a long time. With a lack of legitimacy to govern the people, these regimes were heavily dependent on the criminal justice system, especially the police, to suppress anti-government demonstrations and restrain citizens and political opponents. For example, under the regime of the President Syngman Rhee (1948 to 1960), the police were even participated in manipulating the results of the presidential election in 1960 to reelect President Rhee. Angered over the illegal and corrupt election results, numerous citizens and students demonstrated and were confronted by the police, resulting in more than 100 fatalities and finally Rhee’s resignation on April 26, 1960 (Pyo, 2001). During the regimes of the Presidents Chun (1980 to 1988) and Rob (1988 to 1993) who were retired generals, the personnel and monetary resources of the police were heavily concentrated on intelligence 14 units, which were in charge of collecting information about political dissent, labor movements and student anti-govemment movements (Hoffman, 1982). Numerous police personnel had also been deployed to break up the demonstrators since public demonstrations for democratization of Korean society and against authoritative governments increased dramatically during the 19808. In most of the demonstrations, violent clashes between police and demonstrators involved thousands of tear gassings and aggressive tactics by the police, resulting in numerous injuries for both sides. Consequently, the negative police image of aggressiveness and being a political tool of supporting and maintaining the authoritative and illegitimate regimes (Lee, 1990; Lee, 2002). Under these undemocratic and authoritative regimes, abuse of human rights and acts of brutality by the police were pervasive. The police used various torture techniques and harsh maltreatment against political suspects, resulting in numerous human rights abuses and torture-related cases of death (Cohen & Baker, 1991). Unfortunately, frequent interventions in the elections, abuse of power, and the brutality and suppression of freedom by the Korean police have resulted in a deep antagonism of the Korean people toward the police (N ahm, 1988). Citizens have distrusted and hated the police and the career as a police officer had been unpopular. As a Korean society has been rapidly democratized with the establishment of civilian governments since 1993, the people have openly begun to question the fairness and legitimacy of the police. Some citizens have revealed their obvious hatred toward the police and the orders and directions of police officers have often been ignored. Consequently, the police have continuously been losing their authority to perform their 15 duties effectively to the point that officers are often kicked, struck and injured by drunken citizens. Facing the crisis of legitimacy and negative relationship between the public and the police, the Korean police had implemented a major reform called “Operation Grand Reform 100 Days” in 2000 under the former Commissioner General Lee (Pyo, 2001). The main goal of the reform movement was to emphasize the importance of the service roles the police play for the public, establish a positive relationship between the police and the public, and create a fair and trustworthy police image. A variety of efforts were initiated to accomplish it. Among them were: 1) the emphasis of citizen oriented policing and the partnerships between the citizens and the police; 2) an emphasis on crime prevention rather than crime fighting; and 3) the policy of non-use of CS gas to induce peaceful demonstrations. To improve the relationship between the police and citizens and create a friendly image of police, the police introduced programs such as a citizen police academy and a volunteer community patrol scheme to provide an opportunity for citizens to be involved with police activities and better understand police work. To ensure fair investigations and reduce police officers’ malpractice, the Korean police have established a separate unit, called “Chungmun Gamsagan” at every police station throughout the country to review and investigate the reported complaints from citizens of police malpractice and unfair case dispositions. 16 Community policing in the Korean police Even though the term, “community policing” has never been specifically used in a Korean society, the concept of community policing is neither new nor innovative to Korean people and the police. Korean police officers have kept close contacts with members of the community in order to control a community and understand the concerns of the community. They have enforced law as well as offering the diverse services to the members of the community. Throughout the country, numerous voluntary community organizations have been established with the cooperation of the police to assist police officers in preserving community order and control deviant and criminal behaviors among community members. These activities, which are very similar to community policing in many aspects, however, have not been out of a well-planned strategy and concrete efforts by the police or academics. Instead, many scholars (Ames, 1981; Bayley, 1991; Jiao, 1995; Parker, 2001) argue that the culture of collectivism, especially in East Asian countries, has significantly facilitated the development of a “kind of community policing” as an effective way to maintain social order and prevent crime. In a culture of collectivism, though the police are the primary and formal entity of maintaining social order and preventing crime, a community also plays a significant role in keeping harmony and order through informal social control mechanisms (Bayley, 1991; Dutton, 1992; Jiao, 1995). A community is given authority and has obligation to control and supervise individual members’ behaviors to maintain harmony and cohesion among members of a community, since individuals are considered as a part of a community rather than an independent being (Triandis, McClusker, & Hui, 1990). Illegal l7 and deviant behaviors of members of a community are usually handled by extensive community resources such as religious organizations, schools, and families of offenders and victims. Restoration of justice, reconciliation and harmony through informal control mechanisms is preferred to punishment of an offender(s) through formal control mechanisms. The formal arrest by the police has been considered as a last resort. Consequently, the police do not limit their roles to law enforcement. Rather, they are performing multiple roles such as service providers, mediators, and even counselors in sometimes in order to preserve the harmony and peace of a community. However, rapid industrialization, urbanization and political instability since 19608 have had significant impacts on transforming a Korean society, especially the roles of a community and of the police. During the 19705 and 19803, South Korea had achieved an unprecedented economic success, called “the Miracle of Han River”, resulting in rapid industrialization and urbanization of a Korean society. Majority of Korean people reside in metropolitan cities and individualism has been emphasized. Consequently, the traditional role of a community has been significantly weakened in controlling behaviors of community members through informal social control mechanisms. A political instability in Korea during this period had a direct effect on narrowing the role of the Korean police. The main role of the Korean police had been limited to intelligence gathering about anti-government demonstrations and strict reactive law enforcement, consequently, other vital roles such as crime prevention, order maintenance, and public service had been ignored. Increasing crime rates, especially violent and organized crime, had also limited to the role of the police to strict law enforcement in the name of “War on Crime” or “War on Organized Crime.” 18 Since the end of 20th, the Korean police have implemented a major reform, which can be considered as the turning point for the Korean police. Partially influenced fiom the success and potential of community policing movement in the United States, Korean police administrators have begun to make concrete eflorts in order to build and maintain a positive relationship between the people and the police, regain legitimacy and create a new image of the police. Crime prevention, public service, and citizen-oriented policing have been emphasized and a variety of efforts such as a citizen police academy and a volunteer community patrol scheme were initiated, as mentioned above. Consequently, the roles of police officers have been expanded to crime prevention, order maintenance, and public service. Though objective evaluation of the major police reform has not been conducted, an initial police report indicated significant decrease of police malpractices and improvement of police image (Pyo, 2001). The overview of the mini-police station system in South Korea With the introduction of community policing, a decentralized police system, called “a mini-police station” (MPS) has gained popularity and been adopted in several western counties in order to increase contacts with citizens and emphasize the service role of the police. Though it is not well known to western scholars, the very similar mini- police station system has been existed as the core division since the establishment of the modern Korea Police. The mini-police station system in South Korea is a highly decentralized police system to expand the presence of the police in neighborhoods. The origin of Korean mini-police station system can be traced back when Japan modernized the Korean police system. Unfortunately, the mini-police station system in 19 Korea has not been developed in order to better understand and serve the needs of citizens. The purpose of establishing mini-police stations (even in villages) throughout the country was to effectively control Korean people and the society as a whole during Japan’ colonization (Nahm, 1988: Rho, 2000). After the emancipation of Korea from Japan, the mini-police station system has been maintained and expanded. As of 2001, there are 2,928 mini-police stations throughout the country and average number of mini-police stations under the supervision of a police station is 12.7 (Korean National Police Agency, 2002). About 43.1 percent (39,148) of total police personnel are assigned to mini-police stations and average 13.4 police officers are working at each mini-police station (Korean National Police Agency, 2002). In KNPA, new police officers are usually assigned to a mini-police station for a certain period of time (around 2 years). Generally, the mini-police station is operating 24 hours a day on a three-shift system under the responsibility of a chief of the mini-police station. The rank of a chief is a lieutenant and the chief has some discretion in operating and managing it. However, the mini-police station is under the direct and tight control of the supervising police station. Regarding the roles of the mini-police station, the mini-police station performs multiple roles, contrary to those in other countries. Rho (2000) grouped the roles of the mini- police station into four categories. First, a mini-police station acts as a post of maintaining public order, preventing crime, and responding criminal activities in its beat areas. Police officers in a mini-police station regularly patrol their beat areas on foot or by patrol cars around the clock. Also, mini-police stations play important roles in the “112 Crime Reporting System” since more than 3,500 numbers of 112 Patrol Cars are 20 deployed to mini-police stations throughout the country. The 112 Crime Reporting System has been developed in order to arrive at the crime scene faster and effectively deal with crime. It is the emergency crime reporting system in which victims or witnesses report a crime by dialing 112 and is operated by each regional police headquarter. When an emergency call is received through 112 Crime Reporting System, operators (police officers) in the headquarter notify a “1 12 Patrol Car” who is in the nearest to a crime scene to arrive a crime scene and arrest a suspect. In 2001, around 45 percent of all arrested criminals were apprehended by 112 patrol cars (Korean National Police Agency, 2002). Second, the mini-police station acts as a post of establishing and managing public-police cooperation programs in order to receive residents’ voluntary assistance in maintaining order and preventing crime in a community. Among numerous programs, “Voluntary Patrol Organization” and “Crime Reporting Agents Program” are the most popular and successful programs. In 3 Voluntary Patrol Organization, a group of residents (usually 3 to 5) in a community voluntarily patrol their community with or without patrol officers during midnights. In addition to reporting crimes, they are also performing various activities such as helping female residents to safely arrive at home during a night. As of 2002, there are around 3,400 Voluntary Patrol Organizations and 92,000 numbers of citizens are members of these organizations. In 2002, more than 23,000 criminals were arrested with the help of Voluntary Patrol Organizations (Korean National Police Agency, 2002). In “Crime Reporting Agents”, more than 120,000 citizens who are more likely to witness crimes because of the peculiarity of their jobs (e.g., taxi drivers and workers at 24 hours convenient stores) are appointed as crime 21 reporting agents. These crime-reporting agents are working closely with a mini-police station. In 1999, 55,3 75 cases were reported by crime reporting agents and 26,316 criminals were arrested (Rho, 2000). Third, it functions as an outpost of directly contacting with residents and providing various services to community members. Patrol officers frequently visit and contact residents in their beat areas in order to understand their concerns and needs. It also provides road directions, lost and found information, and establishes an emergency contacting system with a hospital, a drug store, or a car repair shop so that residents can easily use them without difficulty during a holiday or a night (Korean National Police Agency, 2002). In some cases, students of low-income families are allowed to use the facility in a mini-police station as a study room. Fourth, as the name of a mini-police station indicates, a mini-police station performs in a small scale the same task a police station performs. Every police officer in a mini-police station is assigned to one of major duties such as investigation, crime prevention, traffic, and security. For example, officers who are assigned to traffic are expected to arrive at the scene of a traffic accident when a traffic accident has occurred. Officers who are assigned to criminal investigation have to fill out a report of criminal arrest and investigate whereabouts of those who have failed to pay penalties. Despite the important roles a mini-police station plays in KN PA, the mini-police station system has constantly been the subject of a hot debate among Korean scholars and practitioners over the effectiveness of the system and the need of significant modification or abolition of the system. Critics have argued that the mini-police station system has produced a more negative image of the police as corrupt and unprofessional. With the 22 lack of supervision of a police station and the intimate relationship with residents, it is argued, patrol officers are more likely to be involved corruption and receive gratuities from residents, and consequently, are less likely to enforce the law impartially. In addition, the Korean police have been suffering from the lack of manpower with the change of a shifting system from two to three-shift system to a mini-police station in 2000. Those who support for maintaining the mini—police station system, however, have argued that mini-police stations can perform crucial and effective roles in preventing crime and improving the relationship between people and the police, especially in the era of community policing. For the Korean police, which have made efforts to implement community policing in recent years, the mini-police station system is the only bridge connecting the police to citizens and if properly used, the benefits of the mini-police station system is far higher than costs. After internal reviews and surveys, KNPA has finally begun to modify a mini- police station system, significantly reducing the numbers of mini-police stations as well as officers assigned, since the end of 2003. The role of existing mini-police stations is limited only to community service, focusing on the provision of non-legal service and activities related to community policing. One to four officers are assigned to a mini- police station. Instead, three to five regional patrol stations are created in each police department to patrol large areas, which three to four mini-police stations previously patrolled. According to KNPA, the purposes of creating a regional patrol station are 1) rapid response to crime scenes and 2) effective use of manpower. 23 CHAPTER THREE: LITERATURE REVIEW Officers’ acceptance of community policing A number of studies have examined police officers’ attitudes towards community policing in the United States and other countries (Cordner, 1995; Dicker, 1998; Lewis et a1., 1999; Lurigio & Skogan, 1994; Sadd & Grinc, 1996; Schafer, 2000; Trojanowicz & Bucqueroux, 1990; Weisburd et a1., 2002; Weisel & Eck, 1994; Wilkinson & Rosenbaum, 1994; Wilson & Bennett, 1994; Wycoff & Skogan, 1993; Yates & Pillai, 1996). The majority of studies on police officers’ acceptance of community policing have found that police officers showed strong resistance and opposition to community policing (Breci, 1997; Cordner, 1995; Sadd & Grinc, 1996; Trojanowicz & Bucqueroux, 1990; Weisburd et a1., 2002; Winfree & Newbold, 1999). For example, Sadd and Grinc (1996) examined patrol officers’ attitudes toward community policing in eight police departments implementing a project “Innovative Neighborhood-Oriented Policing (INOP)” and found that many line officers opposed the “INOP” project and dismissed community policing officers as “grin and wave squad.” Cordner (1995) and Breci (1997) also found in their studies that line officers dismissed the importance of community policing, viewing community policing as a kind of “social work.” Weisburd et a1. (2002) examined the acceptance and resistance of community policing among officers in the Israeli National Police, which have begun to implement community policing since the middle of 19903. Similar to previous studies in the United States, the study found that majority of Israeli police officers showed doubt and disbelief about the effectiveness of community policing. Almost half of officers in the sample reported that “community 24 policing is a waste of time and personnel” and “community policing is not practical.” However, Weisel and Eck (1994) found positive views toward community policing among police officers in six police departments, which have implemented community policing. These departments are in Las Vegas, Nevada; Edmonton, Albert; Philadelphia; Santa Barbara, California; Savannah, Georgia; and Newport News, Virginia. For example, 80 percent of officers in the Las Vegas police department and 79 percent of those in the Philadelphia police department reported the positive attitude toward community policing. The study by Dicker (1998) also found the positive attitude toward community-oriented policing (COP) among officers in Michigan Department of Public Safety (KDPS). A majority of officers (58%) indicated the support of the community policing philosophy, while only 32 percent of respondents agreed with the statement “COP is just a fad that will go away,” showing the suspicion about COP. Predictors of the acceptance of community policing Regarding factors affecting police officers’ attitudes toward community policing, several factors are examined in the previous research as predictors and these factors can be categorized into two groups: individual demographic factors and organizational assignment factors. Individual demographic factors Among individual demographic factors, police officers’ gender and educational levels have been frequently examined as important predictors of police officers’ acceptance of community policing (Carter, Sapp, & Stephens, 1989; Skolnick & Bayley, 25 1986; Worden, 1993). With respect to the relationship between officer’ gender and acceptance of community policing, scholars and practitioners in policing argued that female officers might have more favorable attitude toward the philosophy of community policing than male officers, because of the difference of role orientations between women and men (Worden, 1993). As females are socialized to be “more compassionate, less aggressive, and less competitive,” compared to males, female officers may have a different attitude toward police roles; preferring broader police roles to a limited crime- fighting role (Worden, 1993; 209). Scholars also argued that female officers’ attitude toward police role differs from their counterpart, because of the their lack of exposure to traditional police subculture, which has been assumed to the source of resistance to community policing (Paoline et a1., 2000; Worden, 1993). Therefore, hiring more female officers may have a significant effect on the police overall, consequently changing the police roles and nature of the bureaucracy (Morash & Greene, 1986). Though few studies examined the relationship between officers’ gender and police roles (or acceptance of community policing), existing studies consistently showed no relationship between them (Dicker, 1998; Paoline et a1., 2000; Worden, 1993). Carpenter and Raza (1987) examined the difference of the attitude toward their roles and duties between male and female officers and found no difference across genders. Worden (1993) examined officers’ attitude toward the police roles in five different dimensions: acceptance of legal restriction, broad role orientation, acceptance of rules and authority, uniform enforcement, and noneconomic incentive. The results indicate that female officers’ acceptance of legal restriction and broad role orientation did not differ from those of male officers. More interestingly, female officers were more likely than male officers to believe the benefits 26 of having clear rules and orders to follow in a police department and enforcing the law with consistent and nonselective manner, contrary to traditional expectation. Paoline et al. (2000) also looked at the relationships between officers’ gender and outlooks toward law enforcement, order maintenance, community policing, aggressive patrol, selective enforcement, citizen cooperation, and citizen distrust. Consistent with previous research findings, the results show the remarkable similarity of their outlooks toward these areas across genders. However, Schafer (2000) found that female officers were more likely to have a favorable attitude toward community policing than their counterparts. Education has also been considered to have a significant impact on police officers’ attitudes toward community policing that higher levels of education might foster more support for community policing or less aggressive policing (Carter, Sapp, & Stephens, 1989; Paoline et al., 2000; Reuss-Ianni, 1993; Skolnick & Bayley, 1986). This is based on the premise that higher education (college degree) may broaden the understanding of the causes of social problems, multiple roles the police have to perform, and the importance of positive relationship between the police and citizens. However, the research shows little impact of higher education on the acceptance of community policing (Lewis et al., 1999; Paoline et al., 2000; Schafer, 2000; Weisel & Eck, 1994). The study by Weisel and Eck (1994) found no relationship between officer’ educational level and attitude toward community policing. Lewis et al. (1999) also examined the relationship between educational level and six attitudinal sub-components of community policing (i.e., organizational structure, community policing concepts) and found little relationship between officer’ educational level and the six components of community policing. The research by Paoline et al. (2000) has offers only mixed support for the 27 influence of higher levels of education on the acceptance of community policing. The study found that officers with at least some college experience are less likely to prioritize a law enforcement role. However, the results show that college educated police officers had negative attitude toward community policing, compared to officers with a high school diploma. Occupational and organizational factors The second domain of independent variables that are likely to predict the acceptance of community policing is occupational/organizational factors such as seniority, rank, involvement of community policing projects, and the location of a police department (urban vs. rural). Regarding the relationship between seniority and the acceptance of community policing, previous research shows that seniority plays a significant role in police officers’ acceptance of community policing. Paoline et al. (2000), examining police officers’ outlooks toward the police roles in the Indianapolis Police Department (IPD) and the St. Petersburg Police Department (SPPD), found the significant relationship between officers’ length of service and attitude toward the roles of the police. The results show that more experienced police officers in both departments were less likely to support “aggressive patrol” and more likely to support “selective enforcement,” and to have a positive perception of “citizen cooperation.” However, other studies (Lewis et al., 1999; Weisel & Eck, 1994) found the negative relationship between seniority and attitude toward community policing. Weisel and Eck (1994) found that newer and younger officers (less than 1 year of experience) are the ones who are most likely to support community policing, while older officers (more than 20 years of 28 experience) are least likely to support community policing. Interestingly, the support of community policing decreased until the 4-5 years of experience and steadily increased after the 6-10 years of experience except for more than 20 years of experience. Studies by Lewis et al. (1999) and Schafer (2000) also found the negative relationship between seniority and attitude toward community policing. Worden (1993), however, found no significant relationship between years of service and attitudes toward the police roles. With regard to the involvement of a community-policing project, researchers argued that the experience of involvement in a community-policing project might have a significant and positive impact on officers’ attitude toward the role of the police and community policing as the experience provides officers with more knowledge about community policing. As expected, previous studies (McElroy, Cosgrove, & Sadd, 1990; Schafer, 2000; Wycoff & Skogan, 1993) found that officers’ attitude toward community policing had been changed after involvement in community policing projects, showing more commitment to community policing. For example, Wycoff and Skogan (1993) found in their study of a neighborhood police project in Madison, Wisconsin that officers in an experimental police district were more likely to support community policing (citizen oriented and problem solving) and to be satisfied with their jobs, compared to those in a non-experimental district. In examination of attitudinal difference toward community policing between officers who were assigned to community policing and those who were in Lansing Police Department, Michigan, Schafer (2000) also found significant difference of attitudes toward community policing between them. Multiple regression results show that officers who were assigned to community policing were more likely to have a positive attitude toward community policing than those who were 29 not. However, Weisel and Eck (1994) found no significant impact of the experience of community policing on officers’ attitude toward community policing. The results indicate that 72 percent of officers who were assigned to a fixed beat and 75 percent of those who were not had positive attitude toward community policing. Regarding the relationship between officers’ rank and the acceptance of community policing, previous research (Lurigio & Skogan, 1994; Schafer, 2000) reports that supervisory officers have more favorable attitude toward community policing. Lurigio and Skogan (1994), examining Chicago’s community policing program (CAPA), found that supervisory officers (Sergeant and above) were more favorable in their orientation toward community policing. They had more positive attitude toward the effectiveness of community policing and showed more support for CAPA-related police activities than non supervisory officers. Schafer (2000) also found that sergeant and lieutenant had more favorable attitude toward community policing, compared to patrol officers. However, the study by Weisburd et al. (2002) shows the mixed results that 64 percent of command staff officers, compared to 56 percent of officers in the stations, believe that “community policing needs to be a part of police wor ” while 58 percent of command staff officers agreed the statement “community policing programs are necessary in police,” compared to 69 percent of officers in the stations. Another important organizational factor affecting police officers’ attitude toward community policing is the location of a police department (urban vs. rural or suburban). Researchers (Meagher, 1985; Weisheit, Wells, & Falcone, 1994; Winfree & Newbold, 1999) argued that officers in rural or suburban might view the role of the police and community policing differently, compared to those in urban areas, since police 30 departments in rural (or suburban) areas are different from those in urban areas in many aspects because of the unique characteristics of rural culture and environments. In rural areas, a community still plays an important role in keeping order through informal social control mechanisms, consequently, the close collaboration between the community and the police are necessary in maintaining social order. Police officers are also expected to provide diverse non-legal services to community members because they are sometimes only social service agency in rural communities. All of these differences might have significant impact on how officers in rural and urban areas perceive the role of the police and community policing differently (Winfree & Newbold, 1999). Empirical research shows that crime prevention and provision of non-legal services were the priorities for departments in rural or suburban areas, while crime control and law enforcement was the top priority for departments in urban areas (Meagher, 1985). Weisheit, et al. (1994) also found in interviews with about 70 sheriffs and police chiefs in rural areas that activities their police department and officers do regularly (providing diverse service and close relationship with residents) can be considered as the examples of community policing. As this chapter has indicated, line officers have showed the strong resistance of community policing. Since the implementation of community policing requires significant changes in terms of its roles and structure of the police, it is not surprising for line officers to resist community policing. To successfully implement community policing, however, it is important for police administrators to understand why line officers resist the implementation of community policing and find ways to overcome their resistance, because these line officers are those who eventually carry out the community policing programs on the street. Forcing police officers to accept a new way of policing 31 without changing their attitudes toward the role of the police and the ways they perform their duties is likely to result in apathy, fi'ustration, and job dissatisfaction which might impede successful implementation of community policing (Schafer, 2000). Many individual and organizational factors have been examined as predictors of the acceptance of community policing. Though some studies found that seniority, ranking, and a location of a police department are significantly related to officers’ attitude toward community policing, these individual and organizational factors explained little variance in officers’ attitude toward community policing. In order to better understand the source of line officers’ resistance to community policing, the next chapter examines police culture, which has been known to be a major source of resistance in implementing community policing. The definition and characteristics of a police organizational culture and organizational socialization process are discussed by reviewing the literature of police culture and socialization in the United States. It then examines the relationship between police culture and community policing. Finally, theoretical relevance of police culture found in the United State to the Korean police is also examined. 32 CHAPTER FOUR: POLICE CULTURE AND SOCIALIZATION Definition of an organizational culture The current study primarily use concepts and relevant factors of police culture identified and developed within other countries, especially, the United States, in understanding the relationship between organizational socialization and officers’ attitude toward community policing among Korean police officers for two reasons. First, there is no literature on organizational culture of Korean police. Second, previous research on police culture found the striking similarities of police culture across countries such as United States, Canada, and Australia (Bryett & Harrison, 1993; Chan, 1996; Ericson, 1982; Waddington, 1999; White & Alder, 1994). Even in socially, politically, and culturally different countries such as Japan and India, compared to western countries, studies found more similarities than differences in police culture such as machismo, us against them, or cynicism (Ames, 1981; Bayley, 1991; Miyazawa, 1992). Therefore, concepts of police culture identified in western countries not only allow a theoretical framework for the current study, but also test the relevance of these concepts to the Korean police. Because of the complexity of the organizational culture, there is no unified definition of the organization culture (Paoline, 2001; Schafer, 2000). One of the definitions by Moorhead and Griffin (1998: 513-514) is that “organizational culture is a set of shared values, often taken for granted, that help people in an organization understand which actions are considered acceptable and which are considered unacceptable.” Ouchi (1981: 41) defines the organizational culture as “a set of symbols, 33 ceremonies, and myths that communicates the underlying values and beliefs of that organization to its employees.” According Geertz (1973:89), “culture denotes an historically transmitted pattern of meanings embodied in symbols, a system of inherent conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means of which men communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about and attitudes toward life.” Van Maanen and Barly (1985: 33) defined it, as “culture can be understood as a set of solutions devised by a group of people to meet specific problems posed by situations they face in common.” Though these definitions of the organizational culture are different from each other, the common aspects can be inferred from these definitions of the organizational culture (Paoline, 2001; Schafer, 2000). One of the common aspects is that members of an organization share norms, beliefs, and values, which are used as guidelines how to properly perform their duties, solve problems, and interact among members. The other common aspect is that the organizational culture persists because it is continuously transmitted to newcomers through the process of organizational socialization (Goodman, Bazerman, & Conlon, 1980; Paoline, 2001; Schafer, 2000). The organizational culture plays very important and positive roles in training and educating employees, especially newcomers (Chao, O’Leary-Kelly, Wolf, Klein, & Gardner, 1994; Schafer, 2000). Through socialization processes, employees learn their specific roles in the context of an organization and successfirlly adjust to an organization. However, the persisting and enduring characteristic of the organizational culture can be a significant barrier to an organization during the period of organizational change (Moorhead & Griffin, 1998; Schafer, 2000; Trice & Beyer, 1993). 34 Police organizational culture and its characteristics Like other organizations, a police agency also possesses its own unique and distinct culture, which has positive as well as negative aspects (Paoline, 2001; Schafer, 2000). In the positive aspects, police culture helps new officers to well adjust to their career, which is considered as dangerous and unpredictable (Chan, 1996). A high degree of solidarity among officers also provides a sense of security, physically and emotionally and coping mechanisms, which can help to manage adversity and strains caused by the internal and external working environments (Chan, 1996; Paoline, 2003). However, in negative aspects, it is known to be one of the main sources of resistance to organizational change, especially the implementation of community policing, since norms and values of traditional police culture are not compatible to the philosophy of community policing. The following sections examine the characteristics of the traditional police organizational culture, especially focusing on an image as crime fighters, mistrust between management and line officers, and isolation/group solidarity. Image as crime fighters Generally, it is known that the police play multiple roles and these can be categorized into three functions: peacekeeping (order maintenance), crime fighting (law enforcement), and community service (Wilson, 1968; Yarmery, 1990). Though law enforcement is important aspect of police work, research has found that police officers spend most of their time during the duty on non-crime related activities such as helping and assisting citizens (Morris & Heal, 1981; Schafer, 2000). 35 Despite these multiple roles the police play in a society, the image of the police work has been mainly portrayed as “crime fighting.” Police officers often cited “law enforcement” as one of major reasons to choose the police as their career and tend to consider themselves as “crime fighters,” even after experiencing the reality of police jobs (Schafer, 2000: 61). A police department also emphasizes arrest made and clearance rate of crime and use it as a tool to evaluate individual officer’ performance. Consequently, police departrnents’ material and human resources have been invested on reducing and solving violent crimes, especially reducing response time to a crime scene. Media frequently portray police officers as “crime fighters” who chase criminals and investigate crime scenes, distorting the reality of police works and sustaining the image of “crime fighters.” Isolation (us vs. others) and group solidarity The other major characteristics of police culture are “isolation” from the public and “group solidarity.” These are caused by the unique characteristics of police job - being given authority to control people’s behaviors, being exposed to physical as well as psychological danger everyday, and being suspicious of everything (Carter & Radelet, 1999; Harrison, 1998; Paoline, 2003; Paoline et al., 2000; Waddington, 1999). Police research has found that police’ coercive authority, which can legally limit individual freedom and invade privacy, is the main source isolating the police from the public (Harrison, 1998; Klockars, 1985; Paoline et al., 2000; Paoline, 2003; Waddington, 1999). Police officers constantly face situations where they have to exercise and wield the coercive authority to their fellow citizens, and this puts them at the position of 36 marginality (Paoline, 2003; Waddington, 1999). Physical danger and hostility they face everyday during the duty are also known to separate the police from general public (Britz, 1994; Paoline, 2003). It is known that working environment of the police is filled with danger, hostility and risk, which cause police officers to be skeptical and suspicious of everything (Britz, 1994; Harrison, 1998; Herbert, 1998; Paoline, 2003). In these working environments, police officers tend to experience the difficulty of socializing with non- police friends/persons and isolate themselves from citizens, developing “us vs. others” attitude (Kappeler, Sluder, & Alpert, 1998; Paoline, 2003; Sparrow, Moore, & Kennedy, 1990; Waddington, 1999). Consequently, they are more likely to associate exclusively with their fellow police officers who understand and share unique roles of the police, developing a strong solidarity and loyalty among police officers (Britz, 1994; Paoline, 2003; Waddington, 1999). Conflict between management and street cops The other characteristic of the traditional police culture is the conflict and chasm between “management cops” and “street cops”(Crank, 1998; Manning, 1997; Reuss-Ianni, 1993; Schafer, 2000). Previously, it had been assumed that there was only one “monolithic culture” in the police, since every police officer started his/her career in the police as a patrol officer, experiencing and sharing the same values and norms (Reuss- Ianni, 1993). Several studies, however, have found that police culture is not monolithic and there are two (or three) different cultures in a department: management vs. street cops culture (Manning, 1997; Reuss-Ianni, 1993). 37 One of the reasons that there are two different cultures is the centralized paramilitary structure of the police, which can significantly obstruct effective and efficient communication between management and street officers (Schafer, 2000). Supervisory officers with significant management power usually impose strict internal control and discipline on street officers in order to effectively control the discretion and behaviors of street officers (Weisburd, et al., 1988). The other reason is that supervisory officers perceive differently from street officers in how to prevent and reduce crime and to insure security (Reuss-Ianni, 1993). Reuss-Ianni (1993:6—7), examining two precincts in New York City for two years, argued that management officers are more concerned with “package solutions” or “citywide” approach in reducing crime and consider that “law enforcement is rather a carefully planned, well-designed, and efficiently implemented program in which the individual officer and the unit are impersonal resources to be used.” Consequently, the ability of establishing “efficient and cost- effective procedures” is considered as an important aspect of “professional” administrators. However, street officers are more concerned with practical “day-to-day” and “immediate” solutions (Reuss-Ianni, l993:6). They place high values on “job experience” and “ability to recognize, identify, and respond to a situation” (Reuss-Ianni, 1993; 6-7). The negative aspect of the existence of these two distinctive cultures in the police is that it is known to cause the tension and distrust between management and street cops (Meese, 1993; Schafer, 2000: Trojanowicz, et al., 1998; Waddington, 1999: Weisburd et al., 2002). In a centralized paramilitary structure, police administrators usually implement organizational changes without inputs of street officers and expect street 38 officers to do what they are told without raising questions. Reasons are not provided to street officers why expected changes are needed. The opportunity for street officers to voice their opinions in managing the police agency are not given either. As a result, street officers become very skeptical about any organizational changes administrators attempt to make. They believe that management officers do not understand what is really going on the street and different management strategies come and go without real enforcement (Schafer, 2000). As street officers have different perceptions toward the professionalism of the police work from management officers and the police agency is itself “punishment-centered bureaucracy,” street officers become very reactive and defensive, avoiding any troubles as often as possible (Waddington, 1999: 301). Perpetuation of police culture Generally, organizational socialization can be divided into two categories: the formal and informal socialization. The formal socialization is the planned and intentional efforts of an organization to transform new recruits to fit into the organization. A police academy for training cadets and retraining for existing police officers can be considered as the main sources of the formal socialization (Fielding, 1988). The informal socialization occurs when new recruits have contact with existing members of the organization (Fielding, 1988). In some sense, the recruitment and selection processes are the first phase of socialization of police officers (Carter & Radelet, 1999). Among the many individuals who try to become police officers, one of primary reasons to join the police force is known to enforce law. Also, certain people who meet role requirements are intentionally 39 selected. The second process of socialization is occurred at a police academy, where cadets learn specific behaviors and formal cultural norms of the police (Carter & Radelet, 1999). Most of training and classes focus on law enforcement and service-related training is almost non-existent. This also strengthens the cadets’ beliefs that the primary police role is law enforcement. The third process of socialization, which has a far stronger effect on new officers in every aspect than an academic training, occurs when these new police officers are associated with fellow officers (informal socialization). New police officers are rapidly socialized through the frequent associations with senior officers and fellow officers, thus, come to learn a shared norms and behaviors. Through these processes, new police officers are fully absorbed into what is called “a police culture.” Relationship between police culture and community policing Since the philosophy of community policing is contrasting with the characteristics of the traditional police culture, police officers who are socialized into traditional police culture have become to resist the implementation of community policing, (Dicker, 1998; Travis & Winston, 1998; Sadd & Grinc, 1996: Schafer, 2000). In community policing, non-crime related works such as reducing fear of crime and the level of neighborhood disorder and increasing the quality of life and the degree of citizen satisfaction are equally emphasized as much as law enforcement (Schafer, 2000: Trojanowicz & Carter, 1988; Trojanowicz et al., 1998). Police officers are expected to take a proactive role rather than a reactive role, making efforts to find out long-term solutions to the conditions that are known to cause crime and disorder (Schafer, 2000: Trojanowicz & Carter, 1988; 40 Trojanowicz et al., 1998). However, police officers who are socialized into traditional police culture believe that law enforcement (crime fighting) is the most significant and satisfying role and is the only real job which they want to do (Copes & Forsyth, 1994; Perrott & Taylor, 1995). Second, the positive and cooperative relationship between the community and the police are stressed in community policing, however, many police officers become distrustful and even hostile toward the community through the process of socialization. Third, as community policing has been supported and embraced from the top of the police and reasons for necessity of implementation of community policing are not explained enough to street level officers, line officers consider community policing as one of programs, created without considering the reality and will disappear at any time (Schafer, 2000). Theoretical relevance to the Korean police As mentioned above, more similarities than differences in police cultures such as crime fighting image, isolation/solidarity, and conflict between management and street cops across countries have been noted in previous studies (Ames, 1981; Bayley, 1991; Bryett & Harrison, 1993; Chan, 1996; Ericson, 1982; Miyazawa, 1992; Waddington, 1999; White & Alder, 1994). In many aspects, the Korean police also show similar characteristics of police culture. Regarding the roles of the police, “crime fighting” has been considered as the primary role of the Korean police. People join the police, mainly because of the chance to fight crime and enforce law. A study by Moon and Hwang (2004), examining the motivation to become police officers among police cadets, found that “chance to fight 41 crime” was one of important reasons to select the police as their career. Moreover, the structure and financial and human resources of the Korean police has been organized and distributed to put emphasis on the role of crime fighting. For example, advantage points have been given to individuals who are good at martial arts, when selecting a police officer in South Korea, because a police job has been considered requiring physical strengths. Therefore, 98 percent of the Korean police are male officers and only two percent are female officers, as of 2003. Rapid responses to a crime scene and clearance rate of crime, which are main characteristics of reactive policing, have been used as important performance measures. Believing that rapid response to a crime scene may increase the chance to arrest offenders, significant financial resource has been invested to reduce response time to a crime scene. Clearance rate of crime is used as an important measure of individual officer’ as well as department’ performance. Lee (2002), in a comparative study of police between South Korea and the United States, found that clearance rate of crime is an important criteria for evaluating performance for the Korean police more than for the American police. Similar to its counterparts in other countries, the Korean police also suffer from the distrust and conflict between management and street cops and have two distinctive police cultures. One of the reasons of conflict between two groups is that the Korea National Police Agency (KNPA) has a highly centralized and vertical paramilitary structure. South Korea has maintained a centralized national police force, which is consisted of a national police headquarter, 14 provincial police headquarters, and 231 police departments. Virtually, all administrative power is concentrated on a national police headquarter. Important decisions made by a national police headquarter 42 directly affect every individual officer through a provincial police headquarter and police department. Opportunities are not given to subordinates to express their opinions and subordinate’s opinions are not valued even if there is opportunity. They have only been expected to perform their duties as ordered. Therefore, it is a very closed system from the top to the bottom. The other reason is that there are binary systems that supervisory and line officers are recruited separately in the Korean police: “Line Officer Course” and “Police Staff Candidate Course”/“Police College.” Through the Line Officer Course, majority of police officers start their career at the rank of a patrol officer, which is the lowest position in the police. Among these officers, only few (9 %) are promoted to managerial positions. However, those officers from “Police Staff Candidate Course” or “Police College” start their career at the rank of lieutenant (management position) without having experience of police works on the street. Around 170 new police officers (50 from the Police Staff Candidate Course and 120 from Police College) graduate from these courses, taking various managerial positions in the KNPA every year. As expected, the current binary recruiting system has created significant problems and one of them is the conflict and hostility between management and street cops. Considering the fact that there are two (or three) distinctive subcultures in the American police, even though virtually every officer shares the common experience of patrol works, it is not surprising to see two contrasting cultures in the Korean police because these two groups begin their career in the police at different ranks, not sharing any common police experiences. Regarding the relationship between Korean citizens and the police, previous research (Choi & Gy, 1997; Lee, 1984; Lee, 2002) has indicated the widespread mistrust and antagonism between them. For more than four decades (19503 to 19903), the Korean 43 police had been used as a political tool by illegitimate regimes to suppress democratic movements (Moon, 2004). Excessive use of force, brutality and violations of human rights by the Korean police had been pervasive (Heo, 1998; Nahm, 1988; Vreeland, Just, Martindale, Moeller, & Shinn, 1975). Consequently, both of groups have not trusted each other and the relationship between citizens and the police have become antagonistic. Citizens have distrusted and hated the police and the career as a police officer had been unpopular. For example, the study by Choi and Gy (1997) found that majority (79 percent) of citizens in the sample reported distrust of the police in handling cases fairly. A recent study, which was conducted after the implementation of the major reform of the Korean police, still found the negative relationship between citizens and the police. Lee (2002) found that majority (71 %) of the Korean police officers in the sample reported the negative relationship between citizens and the police. Moreover, 92 percent of them believed that Korean people do not trust the police. These percentages are far higher than those indicated by the American police. Hypotheses Based on the review of the literature on police culture and its relevance to the Korean police, the Korean police also show similar characteristics of traditional police culture in many aspects. Therefore, it is reasonable to consider the possible negative relationship between the degree of assimilation into police culture and the acceptance of community policing among Korean police officers, because police officers’ assimilation into traditional police culture has been known to be one of main sources of resistance among police officers for the implementation of community policing in Western studies. 44 The current study first examines the hypothesized negative relationships between the degree of socialization and Korean police officers’ acceptance of community policing. It then examines the relationship between the acceptance of community policing and other important demographic and organizational factors (i.e., gender, educational level, ranking, and seniority), which were found to be significant predictors of the acceptance of community policing in previous research (See Chapter Three). Assimilation to police culture and the acceptance of community policing Hypothesis 1: Officers who are socialized into organizational culture of the police are more likely to have negative attitude toward the philosophy of community policing. Hypothesis 2: Officers who are socialized into organizational culture of the police are more likely to prefer a traditional reactive police role. Hypothesis 3: Officers who are socialized into organizational culture of the police are less likely to support line officers’ autonomy and participation in decision-making process. Hypothesis 4: Officers who are socialized into organizational culture of the police are more likely to have negative attitude toward citizens. 45 Demographic and organizationaflactors and the acceptance at community policing Hypothesis 5: There are no relationships between demographic and organizational variables and police officers’ attitude toward the philosophy of community policing. Hypothesis 6: There are no relationships between demographic and organizational variables and police officers’ attitude toward a traditional reactive police role. Hypothesis 7: There are no relationships between demographic and organizational variables and police officers’ attitude toward line officers’ autonomy and participation in decision-making process. Hypothesis 8: There are no relationships between demographic and organizational variables and police officers’ attitude toward citizens. In testing these hypotheses, the data for the current study were collected from a sample of police officers working at three police stations in South Korea. The next chapter provides detailed information about a sampling procedure and characteristics of police officers in the sample. It also presents information about dependent and independent variables used in the current study. 46 CHAPTER FIVE: DATA AND METHODOLOGY Sample South Korea has maintained a highly centralized national police system. Under the supervision of a national police headquarter, each provincial police headquarter is in charge of administering police stations in its geographical district. As mentioned above, a national police headquarter has all administrative power and its decisions directly affect every police department through a provincial police headquarter. Consequently, police departments throughout the country are quite homogeneous in every aspect (i.e., structure, official regulations and rules, and roles). Currently, there are 14 provincial police headquarters and 241 police stations throughout the country. Regarding the type of police stations, there are three levels of police stations: First level police station, second level police station, and third level police station. Depending on the number of citizens within the jurisdiction of a police station, a police station is categorized as one of them. A police station is considered as the first level police station when the number of residents within its jurisdiction is more than 250,000. Majority of police stations (121 out of 241) in South Korea are belonged into this category since more than two third of Koreans reside in metropolitan cities. The number of employees in the first level police station varies between 500 and 700, depending on the number of residents within its jurisdiction. The second level police station is responsible for a medium sized city whose population is between 150,000 and 250,000. As of 2003, 36 police departments are categorized as second level police stations and the number of police officers in a second level police station is around 250. 47 The third level police station is responsible for a rural area where the number of residents is less than 150,000. Seventy-four police stations are third level police stations and the number of police officers in this category is around 150. In the summer, 2002, the data for this study were collected from police officers working at three police stations composed of a first, second, and third level police stations in South Korea, in order to represent the Korean National Police Agency. Three police stations were randomly selected among police stations in Taegu and KyungSang province. Taegu is the third largest city in the nation and KyungSang province consists of numerous medium sized cities and rural areas. Taegu and KyungSang province do not have any remarkable features in terms of poverty or concentrations of any particular demographic groups, compared to other cities and provinces. With the assistance of each police station, the current project was announced and questionnaires were distributed to all of police officers working in these three police stations. Anonymous and voluntary participation was stressed. Among 600 questionnaires distributed to a first level police station, 519 questionnaires were collected, a response rate of 87 percent. Of 300 questionnaires distributed to a second level police station, 229 questionnaires were collected, a response rate of 76 percent. One hundred forty questionnaires were distributed to a third level police station and 129 questionnaires were collected, a response rate of 92 percent. Overall, the total number of collected questionnaires was 887 and the response rate was 85 percent. However, 193 questionnaires were discarded because of numerous missing cases. Consequently, a total of 694 cases were used and analyzed. 48 In addition to a quantitative survey, an author conducted interviews with police officers assigned to mini-police stations about various issues from community policing to promotion. The author was also given the opportunity to patrol with officers their beat areas by car or on foot for two weeks. These personal interviews and patrol experiences have provided valuable insights in many areas such as line officers’ understanding about community policing, issues they have with supervisors and citizens, and the way they spend their time while on duty, which could not gained through a quantitative survey. These qualitative insights were used to provide information about the problems the Korean police face in successfirlly implementing community policing in a conclusion section. Of the sample’, fifty one percent of the respondents reported having a high school diploma, 25 percent having a two-year college degree, and another 24 percent having a four-year college degree or a higher education (See Table l). Ninety two percent of police officers in the sample indicated that they are line officers (patrol, senior patrol officer, or sergeants) and eight percent are supervising officers (those with managerial positions, ranking from lieutenant to superintendent). Regarding the units of assignment, more than half of police officers (65 percent) in the sample are assigned to a crime prevention unit, 14 percent to an investigation unit, and 11 percent to a traffic unit. Majority of police officers (56 %) in the sample reported that they worked 11 or more years as police officers and nine percent worked for three or less years. The average ' As a gender has been found to be an important predictor of the acceptance of community policing in previous research, a “gender” item was included in the questionnaire of the current study (See literature section about the relationship between gender and the acceptance of community policing). However, the gender variable was not included in the analysis because only 1 out of 694 respondents. 49 years of officers’ experience of working at a mini-police station are six. More than half of respondents (59 percent) indicate that they are working at the first level police station, 27 percent at the second level police station, and 15 percent at the third level police station. Table 1. Social demographic characteristics of police officers in the sample Number (%) Educational Level High school 352 (51) Two year college 173 (25) Four year college or higher 169 (24) Ranking2 Line officer 636 (92) Supervisor 58 (8) Current unit Administration 29 (4) Traffic 74 (11) Crime prevention (including mini-police station) 449 (65) Investigation 94 (14) Security 48 (7) Years of police experience 3 or less years 65 (9) 4 to 10 years 240 (35) 11 or more years 389 (56) Mean years of mini-police station experience 6.3 (4.8) Level of Police Station First 408 (59) Second 184 (27) Third 102 (15) Total Number = 694 2 In general, a sergeant in Korean police does not have any administrative power and performs the same duties a patrol officer conducts. Therefore, a rank of patrol officer, senior patrol officer, and sergeant was grouped together as a line officer. 50 Dependent Variables Four dimensions of officers’ attitudes toward community policing are used as dependent variables and these arel) philosophy of community policing, 2) traditional reactive policing, 3) line officers’ autonomy and participation in the decision-making process, and 4) relationship between citizens and the police. Items measuring these dimensions were partially adopted from a study by Lewis et al. (1999). The philosophy of community policing measures police officers’ attitude toward the important concepts of community policing such as solving non-crime problems, reducing fear of crime, and maintaining cooperation with citizens. It was created by the combined score of eight items such as “It is important for police officers to work with neighborhood residents, civic groups, and the local business to solve the non-crime problems,” “It is important for police officers to try to solve the non-crime problems,” and “Assisting citizens’ need is just as important as enforcing the law” (See Appendix A). Four point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree) were employed as response options. It was coded so that the higher score indicates greater support of the philosophy of community policing. The Cronbach’s reliability coefficient was .72. A traditional reactive policing index (Cronbach alpha = .51) was created by summing six items, measuring officers’ attitude toward the importance of law enforcement role of the police. These items were “All law should be fully enforced at all times,” “Enforcing the law is by far their most important responsibility,” and “Police officers should not handle personal problems where no crime is involved” (See Appendix A). It was coded so that the higher score of traditional reactive policing index indicate greater support of law enforcement role of the police. 51 An autonomy and participation index (Cronbach alpha = .75) measures officers’ attitudes toward line officers’ participation in managing a police department and their discretion and autonomy. It was created by summing five items such as “Supervisors have to actively seek inputs from their subordinates”, “Line officers have a considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how to do the work”, and “All members of the department should have an opportunity to influence the policies of the department”. It was coded so that a high score indicates officers’ support of line officers’ autonomy and participation in a decision-making process. The last dependent variable is the relation with citizens, which measures how police officers perceive the attitude of citizens toward the police. It was created by summing four items such as “Citizens respect police officers” and “Citizens have positive attitude toward law enforcement of police officers.” It was also coded so that a high score indicates the citizen’s positive attitude toward the police. The Cronhach’s reliability coefficient was .68. Independent Variables Dimensions of Organizational socialization Even though there are numerous studies examining police culture and socialization process, few studies in policing have systematically defined the dimensions of organizational socialization and conducted empirical research on the relationship between organizational socialization and the acceptance of community policing. Seniority or ranking were often used as proxies for the level of socialization in previous research, however, results indicated that these proxies only explained a little variance of a 52 dependent variable, whether the dependent variable was police officer’ deviance or acceptance of community policing (Huon, Hesketh, Frank, McConky, & McGrath, 1995; Youn, 2003). Considering that the socialization is a process continuously occurring throughout one’s career (Chao et al., 1994), seniority or ranking could not objectively measure the extent to which officers are socialized into a police culture. The current study attempts to fill the void by adopting the dimensions of organizational socialization identified and developed in the field of industrial and organizational psychology. Though a police force is different from other public and private industrial organizations in many aspects, some scholars (Smith, 1960; Wilson, 1963) indicates that principles and concepts developed and accepted in private industrial organizations can be applied to the police without significant modification. Moreover, police organizational culture is not firndamentally different from those of other organizations (Schafer, 2000). Research in organizational socialization has argued that organizational socialization is not a one-dimensional but multidimensional process which newcomers learn the values and goals of organization and their roles (Chao et al., 1994; F eldman, 1981; Fisher, 1986; Schein, 1968). Each of these dimensions of organizational socialization measures specific areas among organizational socialization (See Chao et al., 1994 for specific areas each dimension measures in detail). Therefore, four dimensions of organizational socialization identified by Chao et al. (1994) were adopted and these are: performance proficiency, politics, people, organizational goals/values. Some of items measuring these four dimensions were slightly rephrased to fit into a police organization (See Appendix A). The multidimensional examination of organizational 53 socialization is particularly important in policing, considering that previous research on police culture had examined on the limited dimensions of police culture, especially focusing on “negative” aspects (Crank, 1998; Schafer, 2000). Consequently, complex and broader dimensions comprising of police organizational culture have been ignored (Crank, 1998). Among items used to measure these dimensions of organizational socialization, the current study adopted 11 items, measuring four dimensions of organizational socialization. The dimension of performance proficiency measures “the extent to which the individual has learned the tasks involved on the job” 0). 731). The index of performance proficiency (Cronbach Alpha = .72) is consisted of two items such as “I have learned how to successfully perform my job in an efficient manner” and “I understand what all the duties of my job entail.” Each item was measured using four- point ordinal scale from 1 for “strongly disagree” to 4 for “strongly agree”. Results in Table 2 indicate that majority of police officers in the sample are highly socialized in dimensions of performance proficiency. For example, eighty-nine percent of respondents either strongly agreed or agreed the statement that “I mastered the required tasks of my job” and eight-four percent of them reported that they understand what all the duties the job entails. The dimension of politics measures “the individual’s success in gaining information regarding formal and informal work relationships and power structures within the organization” (p. 732). It (Cronbach’s alpha = .65) was created by summing two items such as “I have learned how things really work on the inside of the organization,” and “I have a good understanding of the motives behind the actions of 54 Table 2. Frequency of socialization dimensions Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Agree (%) (%) Disagree (%) (%) Dimension of performance proficiency l. I mastered the required tasks of my 9 80 12 0 job 2. I understand what all the duties my 10 74 16 0 job entail Dimension of politics 1. I learned how things really work 15 80 6 0 2. l have good understanding of the 9 71 20 1 motives behind the actions of others Dimension of people 1. I have been known as a good police 4 58 37 l officer 2. I join in informal networks or 2 29 57 12 gatherings 3. Most of coworkers like me 5 70 25 1 4. Most of my personal friends are 2 29 63 6 police officers 5. My fellow officer' Opinion about me 12 67 20 1 is important Dimension of organizational values and goals 1. I fit in well with the police 9 6O 30 l 2. I support the police' goal 6 65 29 l Total Number = 694 55 other people in the organization.” The results also show that majority of respondents are well socialized in the dimensions of politics (See Table 2). Ninety-five percent of them reported that they either strongly agreed or agreed the statement that “I learned how things really work” and eighty percent with the statement that “I have good understanding of the motives behind the actions of others.” The dimension of people (Cronbach alpha = .53) measures the extent to which the individual establish “successful relationship with organizational members” (p. 731). Five items were combined to create the dimension of people and these are: “I believe most of my coworkers like me,” “I usually join in informal networks or gatherings of people within this organization,” “Majority of my personal fiiends are police officers,” “My fellow officers’ opinion about me is important,” and “I am known to be a good officer by my fellow officers.” The results indicate that majority of police officers in the sample reported that they have been known as good police officers (62%) and their fellow officers’ opinion about them is important (79%). However, only around one third of the respondents indicate that they join in informal networks or gatherings and most of their personal friends are police officers (See Table 2). The dimension of organizational values and goals (Cronbach alpha = .52) measures the understanding of the rules, norms, and goals of the organization. It was created by summing two items such as “I believe I fit in well with my organization” and “I support the goals that are set by my organization.” The results show that two third of the respondents reported higher levels of socialization in the dimension of organizational values and goals (See Table 2). Sixty-nine percent of the respondents in the sample 56 either strongly agreed or agreed the statement that “I fit in well with the police” and seventy percent with the statement “I support the police’ goal.” Individual demographic and organizational variables Six individual demographic and organizational variables were used as additional independent variables: educational level, ranking, current unit, seniority, years of mini- police station experience, and the level of a police station. Regarding the level of education, police officers with a four-year college or higher education were used as a reference to compare with those with a high school diploma and to those with a two-year college degree. Ranking (supervisor vs. line officer) were dichotomized as a dummy variable. Supervising officers are defined as those with managerial positions, ranking lieutenant and above. For seniority, a group of officers with 11 or more years of working experience was used as a reference category to compare with those with 3 or less years and with those with between 4 to 10 years. The year of mini-police station experience is a continuous variable. For the level of police station, a group of officers working at the first level police station was used as reference to compare with those working at a second and with those at a third level police station. In a next chapter, descriptive statistics are first examined to understand how Korean police officers perceive community policing, focusing on the four dimensions of community policing. The study then examines bivariate relationships between independent variables (individual/organizational factors and dimensions of organizational socialization) and dependent variables (dimensions of community policing). In the last, multiple regressions (OLS) were performed to examine the impact of police 57 organizational socialization on the attitudes toward community policing among Korean police officers. 58 CHAPTER SIX: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS AND RESULTS Korean police officers’ attitude toward community policing To examine the degree to which Korean police officers accept community policing, the frequencies of items of each dimension of community policing (eight for philosophy of community policing, six for traditional reactive policing, five for line officers’ autonomy and participation, and four for the relationship with citizens) were examined and results are presented in Table 3. Contrary to findings of majority of previous studies in the United States, the results indicate that a majority of Korean police officers support the philosophy of community policing, even though the Korean police have officially initiated community policing since 2000. Eighty one percent of the respondents agreed that “Officers need to be familiar with the residents of the area they patrol” and eighty-nine percent agreed with the statement, “Assisting citizens in need is just as important as enforcing the law.” Eighty-nine percent of the officers in the sample agreed the statement that “Cooperation with residents helps to prevent crime.” Regarding traditional reactive policing, the results are somewhat mixed. Consistent with the support of community policing, majority of officers in the sample disagreed both statements that “officers should not concern the cause of crime” (64 percent) and “Officers should not handle personal problems where no crime is involved” (67 percent). Interestingly, the results show that a considerable number of the respondents, however, indicate the support of traditional reactive policing at the same time. Eighty-five percent of the respondents agreed the statement that “Enforcing the 59 Table 3. Korean police officers’ acceptance of community policing Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Agree (%) (%) Disagree (%) (%) Philosophy of Community Policing 1. Officers need to be familiar with the 15 66 18 l residents of the area they patrol 2. Officers need to make frequent 5 5 9 35 2 informal contacts with the residents 3. Officers need to work with 22 72 6 0 neighborhood residents, civic groups, and the local business 4. Officers need to try to solve non- 8 76 15 1 crime problems 5. Assisting citizens in need is just as 21 68 10 1 important as enforcing the law 6. Lowering citizen's fear of crime 15 71 12 1 should be just as high a priority for the police as cutting the crime rate 7. Crime can be solved and reduced by 11 78 11 1 cooperation with non criminal justice agencies 8. Cooperation with residents help to 18 71 11 I prevent crime Traditional Reactive Policing 1. All law should be fully enforced at 7 43 49 1 all times 2. Officers should not concern the 4 32 55 9 cause of crime 3. Enforcing the law is by far their 17 68 15 0 most important responsibility 4. Fewer restriction on use of force, 17 49 28 6 less serious crime 6O Table 2 (cont’d) 5. More effective if do not worry about suspects' right 6. Officers should not handle personal problems where no crime is involved Line Officers’ Autonomy and Participation l. Supervisors have to actively seek inputs from their subordinates 2. Line officers have a considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how to do the work 3. All members of the department should have an opportunity to influence the policies of the department 4. Officers decide on his own how best to do his job 5. The number of command lines should be shorten as much as possible to increase the communication between commanders and the officers Relationship between citizens and the police 1. Citizen is suspicious of police officers 2. Citizen respects police officers 3. Citizens have positive attitude toward officers’ law enforcement 4. Being abused by citizens in this community is very high 12 22 26 25 20 26 51 30 72 69 70 68 68 56 32 41 39 36 60 ll 39 6O 50 50 61 law is by far their most important responsibility” and fifty percent of those agreed the statement that “All law should be fully enforced at all times.” In line officers’ autonomy and participation in a decision-making process, majority of police officers in the sample support the line officers’ active participation in management and autonomy in performing their duties. For example, ninety-four percent of the respondents agreed the statement that “Supervisors have to actively seek inputs from their subordinates” and ninety-five percent agreed the statement that “All members of the department should have an opportunity to influence the policies of the department.” Ninety-five percent of the respondents also agreed the statement that “Line officers have to have a considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how to do the wor .” Regarding the relationship with citizens, majority of officers in the sample reported the negative relationship between citizens and the police, consistent with previous findings. Around sixty percent of the respondents believed that citizens are suspicious of police officers. Only one third of officers agreed the statement that “Citizens respect police officers” and forty three percent believed that citizens have positive attitude toward officers’ law enforcement. Overall, the results indicate that Korean police officers show positive attitude toward community policing, recognizing the importance of making frequent formal and informal contacts with citizen, of gaining cooperation with citizens, of performing diverse roles, and of concerning the cause of crime. The findings also indicate police officers’ strong support for providing line officers with active participation in management-decision process and autonomy in performing their duties on the street. 62 However, a majority of police officers in the sample reported the negative relationship with citizens. In next analyses, bivariate relationships between independent and dependent variables are examined. Bivariate analyses between independent and dependent variables Table 4 presents results of zero-order correlations among variables. The results show that ranking and seniority are significantly related to the degree of organizational socialization in the expected directions. Line officers were less likely than supervising officers to report higher levels of socialization in police organization, in all of dimensions of organizational socialization. However, ranking was not significantly related to any of four dependent variables. Seniority variables were also significantly related to some of organizational socialization dimensions. Officers who worked three years or less were less likely to be socialized in a police agency than officers with 11 or more years of experience in two of four organizational socialization dimensions (i.e., dimensions of performance proficiency and politics). The bivariate results show that officers with three or less years of experience are less likely to support traditional reactive policing than officers with 11 or more years of experience. The results also indicate that officers who worked between four and ten years were less likely to be socialized in a police agency than officers with more than 11 or more years of experience in the dimensions of performance proficiency and politics. Interestingly, officers with four to ten years of experience are more likely to support line officers’ autonomy and participation and less likely to report a positive relationship with citizens than those with more than ten years of 63 8:350 .23 Eggnog—ox 83 counfiofiaifiocofiax a: wEuEx— 3.588 8:02th 8 c 888 85.558 8 288:8 : c 82228» .288st G: 288 a c 888 3183828 85:55.. a a .8588 8:8 .26. 8.: a c 32588 8:8 .26. 888 2 : 88.585 82 Co as; 8: as.Ln 8. a sea 8 as; so. a 8.5 8 858m 6 58883 88 2.85 5 88.53553. :8 885. 5 80:8 .883 S .888 as: E ””202 838 u :- 88 u : 8. va u 132 9!. oo- _0. ”~- so. so. 5—. mm- . ac. a: 8: s: as. wu- on N— as c_. as. mm. 8: go. ON. .0. >— so N_. a: 8: .0. _N. Am_v '9. v— . Nor No. i. __ . «O. we: cor Nor no. .5 ~— O mo. we. we. 50. AN— . 8.- 8.- O 8. 8.- 8.- 8.- 8.- 8. 8.- 8. {do 8.- 8.- GO! 8.- v 2 c 8: 9 act a mo. war no. see mm: 5 cor as: __r 5 not no: not No. _o. o_. cor as N_r D} o_r nor 5 _O. a. o.- 00. l. c.- mfi .or .o. .59 e_r no. not I. __r 68 O Q. 8. 8.- 8.- 8.- 8. 88 8.- 8. 8. 8. 8.- a: 8. 8.- 8. 8. 8. a: 8.- 8. 8.- 8.- 8. Q: 8. 8.- 8.- 8. 8.- 8: _o. co. no: Nor co. Am_v in. O 8.- 8. 2.- 8.- 8. 8: .9 iii no. cor 0—: nor ~fi Am_v 8.- 8. 8. 8.- 8. a: as as» NO( NO. NO( m_. 5—K A__v s. so or. nor @Of hOf O—r. Om. Ao_v so» one son co. mo. mm. 0—. th Aav so one oo- hOf o_- No. mmf va so so a 8.- 8.- 8..- 8.- 2. 5 CC! 0 1.- 8.- 8.- 8.- 8. 88 8.- 8.- 8.- 8.- 5 8.- 8.- 8.- E 8. S.- 5 ll. 8.- 5 5 5 5 5 3 838:? 282838 28 85859285 59.23 x388 coca—9:00 .v 223. 64 experience. As for the level of the department, officers assigned to a third level of the police department (rural areas) are more likely to have a positive attitude toward community policing than those who were assigned to a first level of the police department (urban areas). For example, officers working at a rural police department are more likely to support the philosophy of community policing and line officers’ autonomy and participation and to report a positive relationship with citizens. Regarding the bivariate relationships between dimensions of organizational socialization and dependent variables, the results show that four dimensions of organizational socialization are significantly related to each of dependent variables, as expected. However, bivariate relationships between these variables were Opposite of the hypothesized directions, except bivariate relationships between dimensions of organizational socialization and traditional reactive policing. The results show that police officers who report higher level of socialization into each dimension of organizational socialization are more likely to have a positive attitude toward community policing, supporting the philosophy of community policing and line officers’ autonomy/participation. Though these are the results of bivariate analyses, it appears that dimensions of organizational socialization are significantly related to officers’ attitude toward community policing. Some of individual/organizational factors such as current units assigned, seniority, and the level of police departments also seem to affect officers’ attitude toward community policing. In the subsequent analyses, multiple OLS regressions are performed, especially to examine the impacts of the degree of 65 organizational socialization on the officers’ attitudes toward community policing, after controlling the effect of individual/organizational factors. Multiple regression analyses This section examines the hypotheses delineated above by conducting multiple OLS regressions”. Four tables are presented to examine predictors of each of four dependent variables. In each table, two different models were used in order to separately examine the amount of variation in each of the dependent variables that is explained separately by individual/organizational variables and the dimensions of organizational socialization. In Model 1, individual/organizational variables (i.e., educational level, ranking, seniority and level of police departments) were included and in Model 2, the four dimensions of organizational socialization were added. The results of regressions of the philosophy of community policing on individual/organizational variables and dimensions of organizational socialization are presented in Table 5. Two hypotheses - 1 and 5 - are tested here. Hypothesis 1 .' Officers who are socialized into organizational culture of the police are more likely to have negative attitude toward the philosophy of community policing. Hypothesis 5: There are no relationships between demographic and organizational variables and police officers ’ attitude toward the philosophy of community policing. 3 Regarding multicollinearity in models, VIP and Tolerance values were examined and checked. They indicate no problem with multicollinearity 66 Results in Model 1 indicate that only the level of police station is significantly related to philosophy of community policing (See Table 5). Police officers who are working at a third level police station are more likely to support the philosophy of community policing than those who are working at a first level police station. The R- square in Model 1 indicates that all individual/organizational variables explained little variance (4 percent) in the philosophy of community policing. In Model 2, where four dimensions of organizational socialization were added to Model 1, a level of police station is also the only organizational level variable that is significantly related to philosophy of community policing (See Table 5). Among four dimensions of organizational socialization, three dimensions of organizational socialization - performance proficiency, politics, and organizational values and goals — have significant effects on the philosophy of community policing. Interestingly, the results indicate that police officers who report higher levels of socialization are more likely to support the philosophy of community policing, contrary to the hypothesis 1. For example, police officers who are socialized into the dimensions of performance proficiency and of politics are more likely to support the philosophy of community policing. The results also show that officers who are socialized into the dimension of organizational values and goals are more likely to support the philosophy of community policing (See Table 5). The R- square (15 percent) in Model 2 shows that adding four dimensions of organizational socialization significantly add the explanatory power of the model (11 percent). Based on these results, Hypothesis 1 is rejected. Instead, the study found that officers who are socialized into three dimensions of organizational culture are more likely to have a positive attitude toward the philosophy of community policing. Regarding 67 Table 5. Regression of philosophy of community policing on individual/organizational variables and dimensions of organizational socialization Philosophy of Community Policing Model 1 Model 2 Individual/Organizational Variables Beta Beta Educational Level High School .06 .04 Some College .01 -.00 University or higher (Reference category) Ranking (line officer = 1) -.01 .03 Current Unit Administration .06 .07 Traffic -.01 -.01 Investigation .07 .05 Security -.07 -.05 Crime prevention (Reference category) Seniority 3 or less years -.07 -.O3 4 to 10 years -.03 .02 11 or more years (Reference category) Years of mini-police station experience -.08 -.05 Level of Police Station Second .00 .00 Third .12 ** .08 * First (Reference category) Dimensions of Organizational Socialization Performance Proficiency .13 ** Politics .15 *** People .06 Organizational Values and Goals .14 ** R2 .04 .15 Note: * = p<.05 ** = p<.01 *** = p<.OOl 68 Hypothesis 5, the results support for Hypothesis 5 that there is no relationship between individual/organizational factors and the philosophy of community policing, except the level of a police station. This same procedure was used to examine explanations for traditional reactive policing and the results are presented in Table 6. Two hypotheses — 2 and 6 — are tested here. Hypothesis 2: Oflicers who are socialized into organizational culture of the police are more likely to prefer a traditional reactive police role. Hypothesis 6: There are no relationships between demographic and organizational variables and police ofiicers ’ attitude toward a traditional reactive police role. In Model 1, the results show that a current unit assigned and seniority are significantly related to traditional reactive policing (See Table 6). Police officers who are assigned to a traffic unit are more likely than those who are assigned to a crime prevention unit to support traditional reactive policing. For the relationship between seniority and traditional reactive policing, the results indicate that police officers whose job experience is 3 or less years are less likely to support traditional reactive policing than those with 11 or more years of job experience. The R—square in Model 1 also shows that individual/organizational variables explained little variance (3 percent) in the traditional reactive policing (See Table 6). In Model 2 where four dimensions of organizational socializations were added to the regression model, a current unite and seniority variables were significantly related to traditional reactive policing. Consistent with the finding in Model 1, the results show that 69 Table 6. Regression of traditional reactive policing on individual/organizational variables and dimensions of organizational socialization Traditional Reactive Policing Model 1 Model 2 Individual/Organizational Variables Beta Beta Educational Level High School .06 .06 Some College .04 .04 University or higher (Reference Category) Ranking (line officer = l) .05 .06 Current Unit Administration -.04 -.04 Traffic .09 "' .09 * Investigation -.00 .00 Security .00 .01 Crime prevention (Reference Category) Seniority 3 or less years -.11 ** -.10 * 4 to 10 years -.08 -.07 11 or more years (Reference category) Years of mini-police station experience -.03 -.02 Level of Police Station Second .02 .02 Third .02 .01 First (Reference Category) Dimensions of Organizational Socialization Performance Proficiency .01 Politics -.01 People .10 * Organizational Values and Goals .06 R2 .03 .05 Note: * = p<.05 ** = p<.01 *** = p<.001 70 officers working at a traffic unit are more likely than those who are assigned to a crime prevention unit to support traditional reactive policing. The result also shows that police officers with 3 or less years of job experience are less likely to support traditional reactive policing than those with more than ten years of job experience (See Table 6). Of dimensions of organizational socialization, the dimension of people, which was not significantly related to the philosophy of community policing, is the only variable which has a significant effect on traditional reactive policing. Police officers who report higher levels of socialization into the dimension of people are more likely to support traditional reactive policing. The three dimensions of organizational socialization, which were significant predictors of the philosophy of community policing, were not significantly related to traditional reactive policing. Contrary to a previous result (See Table 5), the R- square (5 percent) in Model 2 indicates that adding four dimensions of organizational socialization did not add the explanatory power of the model. Overall, the results indicate the partial support for Hypothesis 2 that officers who are socialized into organizational culture of the police are more likely to prefer traditional reactive policing. The results also indicate the partial support for Hypothesis 6. The study found that only two organizational variables — current unit and seniority — have significant effects on traditional reactive policing. However, rankings, years of mini-police station experience, and a level of a police station were not significantly related to traditional reactive policing. Table 7 shows the results of regression of line officers’ autonomy and participation. Two hypotheses -— 3 and 7 — are tested here. The hypotheses are: 71 Hypothesis 3: Officers who are socialized into organizational culture of the police are less likely to support line officers ’ autonomy and participation in decision-making process. Hypothesis 7: There are no relationships between demographic and organizational variables and police officers ' attitude toward line officers ’ autonomy and participation in decision-making process. In Model 1, a unit assigned and a level of police station were significantly related to line officers’ autonomy and participation. The results indicate that police officers who were assigned to a traffic unit and a security unit are less likely to support line officers’ autonomy and participation than those assigned to a crime prevention unit. The results, however, show that police officers working at the third level police department are more likely to support line officers’ autonomy and participation, compared with those working at a first level police department (See Table 7). In Model 2 where four dimensions of organizational socializations were added to the regression model, a unit assigned and level of police station were also significantly related to line officers’ autonomy and participation in the same direction. Of the four dimensions of organizational socialization, the dimensions of performance proficiency and politics are significantly related to line officers’ autonomy and participation (See Table 7). Police officers who are socialized into the dimensions of performance proficiency and politics are more likely to support line officers’ autonomy and participation. The R-square (16 percent) in Model 2 shows that adding four dimensions of organizational socialization significantly add the explanatory power of officers’ autonomy and participation (10 percent). The findings reject Hypothesis 3 that police officers who are socialized into organizational culture of the police are less likely to support line officers’ autonomy and participation. The 72 Table 7. Regression of line officers’ autonomy and participation on individual/organizational variables and dimensions of organizational socialization Line Officers’ Autonomy/Participation Model 1 Model 2 Individual/Organizational Variables Beta Beta Educational Level High School .01 -.01 Some College .04 .02 University or higher (Reference Category) Ranking (line officer = 1) .02 .06 Current Unit Administration .02 .02 Traffic -.09 * -.08 * Investigation .07 .06 Security -.14 "* -.12 ** Crime prevention (Reference Category) Seniority 3 or less years -.06 -.00 4 to 10 years .01 .07 11 or more years (Reference category) Years of mini-police station experience -.07 -.04 Level of Police Station Second .06 .06 Third .14 ** .11“ First (Reference Category) Dimensions of Organizational Socialization Performance Proficiency .14 ** Politics .22 *** People .06 Organizational Values and Goals -.01 R2 .06 .16 Note: * = p<.05 ** = p<.01 *** = p<.001 73 findings, however, indicate the partial rejection for Hypothesis 7. A current unit assigned and level of a police station have significant effects on line officers’ autonomy and participation, though a educational level, ranking, seniority, and years of mini-police station experience were not significantly related to line officers’ autonomy and participation in a decision-making process. Lastly, Table 8 shows the results of regression of the relationship between citizens and the police. Hypotheses — 4 and 8 —are tested here. These are: Hypothesis 4: Oflicers who are socialized into organizational culture of the police are more likely to have negative attitude toward citizens. Hypothesis 8: There are no relationships between demographic and organizational variables and police officers ’ attitude toward citizens. Consistent with findings in Table 7, the study found in Model 1 that a unit assigned and the level of a police station significantly related to the relationship between citizens and the police (See Table 8). Police officers who are assigned to a traffic unit or are working at the third level police station are more likely to perceive a positive relationship between citizens and the police. The R-square in Model 1 indicates that all individual/organizational variables explained little variance (5 percent) in the relationship between citizens and the police. In Model 2, a unit assigned and the level of a police station are also significantly related to the relationship between citizens and the police in the same direction. Among four dimensions of organizational socialization, the dimensions of people and organizational values and goals are significantly related to the relationship between citizens and the police (See Table 8). Police officers who are 74 Table 8. Regression of the relationship between citizens and the police on individual/organizational variables and dimensions of organizational socialization Relationship with Citizens Model 1 Model 2 Individual/Organizational Variables Beta Beta Educational Level High School .01 .01 Some College -.07 -.07 University or higher (Reference Category) Ranking (line officer = 1) -.01 .02 Current Unit Administration -.03 -.02 Traffic .09 * .08 * Investigation .02 -.00 Security .00 .03 Crime prevention (Reference Category) Seniority 3 or less years -.00 .01 4 to 10 years -.09 -.08 11 or more years (Reference category) Years of mini-police station experience .00 .03 Level of Police Station Second .03 .04 Third .16 *** .13 ** First (Reference Category) Dimensions of Organizational Socialization Performance Proficiency .08 Politics -.04 People .11 ** Organizational Values and Goals .21 *** R2 .05 .13 Note: "' = p<.05 ** = p<.01 *** = p<.001 75 socialized into the dimensions of people and organizational values and goals are more likely to perceive a positive relationship between citizens and the police. The R-square (13 percent) in Model 2 shows that four dimensions of organizational socialization added 8 percent in explaining in the relationship between citizens and the police. Consistent with above findings, the results reject Hypothesis 4 that officers who are socialized into organizational culture of the police are more likely to have negative attitude toward citizens. The study found that officers who are socialized into the dimensions of people and organizational values and goals are more likely to have a positive attitude toward the relationship between citizens and the police. Regarding Hypothesis 8, the results indicate partial rejection for Hypothesis 5 that there is no relationship between individual/organizational factors and the relationship with citizens. The study found statistically significant relationships between a unit assigned and relationship with citizens as well as the level of a police station and relationship with citizens (See Table 8). Summary of findings Overall, the current study found that individual/organizational variables had minimal effects on the dimensions of community policing, though some organizational variables such as a unit assigned and level of a police station have significant effects on some of dependent variables. However, the results indicate that four dimensions of organizational socialization explained much of the variance in all dimensions of community policing. The results of findings are summarized in Table 9. 76 Table 9. Summary of results about relationships between dimensions of socialization and community policing Philosophy Reactive Autonomy/ Relationship of CP policing participation with citizens Performance proficiency +* - +* + Politics +* + +4. _ People + +* + +* Organizational values/goals +* + - +* Note: 1. + indicates the positive relationship and — indicates the negative relationship between a dependent and independent variable. 2. * means a significant relationship between a dependent and independent variable Contrary to hypothesized directions, overall the current study found positive relationships between the degrees of organizational socialization and four dimensions of community policing, except the relationship between a dimension of people and traditional reactive policing. In the conclusion, the overall research findings and its theoretical importance of police culture are discussed. The policy implication of its findings to the Korean police is also mentioned. Finally, the limitation of the current study and suggestions for future research are discussed. 77 CHAPTER SEVEN: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION Discussion Since 19703, community policing has been accepted and implemented in many countries as an alternative to traditional reactive policing. Influenced by the popularity and potential of community policing, the Korean police have officially begun to implement community policing since the end of 20th century, emphasizing the importance of a positive relationship with citizens, crime prevention, and service roles the police play. Community policing is fundamentally different from the professional policing in many aspects, significantly changing the ways police officers have performed their duties. Consequently, numerous studies in the United States found line officers’ strong resistance to community policing. Recognizing the crucial roles line officers play, efforts to understand the source of line officers’ resistance to the implementation of community policing have been made. Unfortunately, no empirical studies have ever been conducted to examine Korean police officers’ attitude toward community policing and factors affecting the acceptance of community policing. This study, therefore, examined how Korean police officers perceive the four key dimensions of community policing — philosophy of community policing, traditional reactive policing, line officers’ autonomy/participation, and the relationship between citizens and the police - using a sample of 694 Korean police officers. The results indicate that majority of Korean police officers support community policing, even though community policing has been officially emphasized and implemented by top administrators in recent years. Majority of officers indicate that 78 assisting citizen’s need is just as important as enforcing the law and that officers need to work with neighborhood residents, civic groups, and the local business. Only one third of the sample agreed the statement that officers should not concern the cause of crime. Regarding line officers’ autonomy and participation, majority of officers in the sample also supported line officers’ active participation in decision-making process and autonomy in performing their duties. One possible explanation of this overwhelming support of community policing among Korean police officers might be the result of the intensive reform in transforming the Korean police into a citizen-oriented and transparent police agency. As mentioned above, the Korean police itself had implemented a major reform, called “Operational Grand Reform 100 Days” in 2000. The primary purpose of the grand reform was to transform the culture and practice of the police, emphasizing on citizen-oriented policing, positive relationship between citizens and the police, and crime prevention (Pyo, 2001). Under the strong leadership of the former Commissioner General Lee, numerous workshops, seminars, direct meetings between Commissioner General Lee and rank and file officers were held around the country in order to change the existing police culture and practice (Pyo, 2001). Though the impact of the reform on the transformation of the police organizational culture need to be examined, initial evaluation of the reform movement by the police was positive, gaining strong support not only from majority of police officers but also from the general public. The other possible explanation for the strong support of community policing among the Korean police officers is that community policing has been a part of the Korean police since its creation, even though the term, “community policing” has never been specifically used in a Korean society. This is unique to some eastern Asian countries such as Japan, which has been 79 known having an oldest and ideal model of community policing (See Bayley, 1991; Skolnick & Bayley, 1988). As mentioned above, a mini-police station system, which is a highly decentralized police system to further increase the contacts with citizens, emphasize the service role of the police, has been existed as the core division since the establishment of the modern Korea police. Though a political turmoil until early 1990‘11 had a direct effect on narrowing the role of the mini-police stations, the mini-police station has generally performed multiple roles such as a post of maintaining public order, preventing crime, and responding criminal activities and as a post of establishing and managing public-police cooperation programs in order to receive residents’ voluntary assistance (Rho, 2000). Through personal observation on police works at mini-police stations for two weeks, the author also found that police officers at a mini-police station perform multiple roles. They not only first respond to scenes of crime and emergency and regularly patrol their beat areas, but also provide community members with various services such as provisions of road directions, lost and found information, and emergency numbers of a hospital and a drug store. Frequently, they also act as mediators of various non-legal problems. Considering that Korean police officers have been socialized to perform multiple roles, long before community policing begun to gain popularity in western countries, the overwhelming support of key concepts of community policing among Korean police officers may not be surprising. Regarding determinants of the four dimensions of community policing — philosophy of community policing, reactive traditional policing, officers’ autonomy/participation, and the relationship with citizens, the results indicate that individual and organizational variables were not significantly related to these four 80 dependents variables, except a unit of assignment, seniority, and the level of a police station. Educational level and rank, which have been known as important predictors of the acceptance of community policing in previous research in the United States, were not significantly related to any four dimensions of community policing. However, the study found that a unit of assignment was significantly related to some dimensions of community policing. For example, officers assigned to a traffic unit are more likely to support a traditional reactive policing and less likely to support line officers’ autonomy and participation than those assigned to a crime prevention unit. It might be possible that different types of police work they perform may result in these attitudinal differences. The main duties of officers assigned to a traffic unit are to investigate traffic accidents and monitor traffic violations with minimal contacts with citizens, while those of officers assigned to a crime prevention unit are to patrol their beat areas and provide various legal and non-legal services with maximum contacts with residents. Investigations of traffic accidents and violations are known to cause frequent disputes and tensions between the police and those citizens who are involved in. Especially, investigations of traffic accidents frequently entail numerous complaints not only from offenders but also from victims, depending on how cases are handled. Consequently, officers at a traffic unit may prefer a rigid enforcement of law and close supervision by their supervisors in order to fairly handle cases and avoid possible allegations of mishandling cases. Other interesting finding is that police officers with three or less years of working experience are less likely to support traditional reactive policing than those with 11 or more years of experience. This finding is consistent with some of previous findings in the United States that younger officers are less likely to support a reactive and 81 aggressive policing than more experienced officers. The finding might indicate that a major reform implemented in 2000 has affected new police officers’ perceptions of police roles. These young police officers have started their career as police officers during the peak of a reform movement. Being less absorbed to an existing police culture, they are more likely to be influenced by a reform movement, which emphasized on a citizen oriented policing and service role. The results also indicate that officers working at a police department in rural areas are more likely to support the philosophy of community policing and line officers’ autonomy/participation, and to perceive a positive relationship with citizens than those working at a police department in urban areas. This finding is consistent with previous studies in the United States that a rural police department is more likely to have a close relationship with residents and perform multiple roles, compared to a urban departments, because of the uniqueness of community factors in rural areas such as dense informal networks and low population (Decker, 1979; IACP, 1990; Meagher, 1985; Weisheit et a1., 1994) As expected, the study found that four dimension of organizational socialization have significant effects on officers’ attitude toward community policing. The results, however, show interesting and surprising findings. Contrary to hypothesized directions, the results indicate the positive relationship between the degree of organizational socialization and dimensions of community policing. Police officers who report higher levels of socialization into the organizational culture are more likely to support the philosophy of community policing and line officers’ autonomy/participation, and to perceive a positive relationship with citizens. One of possible explanations of this 82 unanticipated finding is that a reform movement implemented by top police administrators in recent years might have a significant effect on transforming and redefining the organizational culture of Korean police. As mentioned above, the reform movement implemented by a charismatic leadership of the former Commissioner General Lee was intensive and gained strong popularity among rank and file officers and the public. Some scholars have argued that changing and redefining organizational culture can be accomplished without much difficulty if it is implemented with top administrators’ strong and well-planned leadership (Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Harrison, 1998; Ouchi, 1981; Peters & Waterman, 1982). Many scholars on policing (Moorhead & Griffin, 1998; Schafer, 2000; Sparrow, 1988; Trice & Beyer, 1993; Weisburd et al., 2002; Wilkinson & Rosenbaum, 1994), however, insist that massive organizational change (i.e., implementation of community policing) and redefinition of organizational culture is ahnost impossible in a short period of time, because of the strong influence of a deep- rooted organizational culture on employees’ assumptions and attitudes. Without top administrators’ consistent and strong determinism and line officers’ active participation for an extensive period, massive organizational change of the police is doomed to fail and there are many examples of such cases in the United States and other countries (See Weisburd et al., 2002). Unfortunately, Korean police may be one of those who failed to successfully change organizational culture. In 2002, which the current project was conducted, the reform atmosphere was hardly felt. Through the interviews with line officers, the author found that the transformation of the police culture was not successfully implemented. Officers mentioned the significant disappearance of the reform spirit afier the replacement of Commissioner General Lee, returning back to the 83 ways the police used to perform their duties. One officer indicated that the reform movement did not have a lasting and significant effect on street level officers because of the fundamental disconnection and distrust between supervisors and street level officers. Overall, it seems that the reform movement had some initial positive impacts on the police; however, it failed to successfully implement structural and philosophical changes, transforming the existing police organizational culture. Other possible explanation is that previous research on police culture has focused exclusively on negative and narrow aspects of police culture and ignored broader dimensions consisting of police culture (Crank, 1998; Schafer, 2000), consequently probably misleading the relationship between police culture and various outcomes (i.e., officers’ attitudes toward community policing or excessive use of force). Research on police culture indicates that organizational culture is not necessarily negative. Instead, it helps organizational members, especially new members, to well adjust into its organization by providing a guideline how to perform their duties and interact with members. It also argues that organizational socialization is multidimensional and each dimension of socialization has unique effects on individual’ career (Chao et al., 1994). Chao et al. (1994) found that each dimension of organizational socialization had its own distinctive effect on various outcome variables such as job satisfaction, adaptability, and career involvement. Though recent research on police culture has raised questions about traditional assumptions of police culture (Paoline, 2003), few studies identified multiple dimensions of police organizational culture and conducted empirical research on their impacts on various outcomes. Consistent with findings by Chao et al. (1994), the current study also found that each dimension of police organizational culture has a unique effect 84 on officers’ attitudes toward community policing. For example, dimensions of performance proficiency, politics, and organizational values and goals are positively related to the philosophy of community policing. However, the dimension of people, which can be considered as group isolation/solidarity, has a positive effect on traditional reactive policing. Though the current research did not include some unique dimensions of police culture such as coercion and authority, it indicates the need of a comprehensive approach including diverse dimensions of organizational culture to better understand the relationship between each dimension of socialization and outcomes. Another possible explanation is that organizational culture of the Korean police may be fundamentally different from those of other countries, especially those in the United States, even though the Korean police share some common characteristics of organizational culture with its counterparts. One of major criticisms on the conceptualization of police culture is that police culture has been considered and treated as if it is homogeneous, unchanging, and universal (Chan, 1996). However, some scholars have argued that police culture is not universal and homogeneous and each police agency (or rural vs. urban agency) has its own distinctive police culture in the context of cultural, political, and social environment a police agency is situated into (Bayley, 1991; Chan, 1996; Harrison, 1998; Paoline, 2003; Waddington, 1999; Weisheit et a1., 1994). Considering that there are multiple police cultures among police agencies in the same country, it is not surprising to find that each country has developed its own distinctive policing style and structure, consequently unique police culture, influenced by its own social and culture context (Bayley, 1991; Chan, 1996; Harrison, 1998). As mentioned above, Korea has developed a culture of collectivism, which has facilitated to 85 the development of unique policing styles. As a community has played a significant role in controlling and supervising individual members’ (illegal or deviant) behaviors in a culture of collectivism, the police have worked together with community members and actively sought their cooperation for maintaining social order and preventing crime. Reconciliation has been preferred to punishment of an offender(s) in order to maintain and preserve the harmony of a community so that the roles of the police has not been limited to a strict law enforcement, but expanded to multiple roles such as conflict mediators and service providers. Consequently, the concepts and philosophy of community policing have always been a part of Korean police culture without being recognized. Policy implications The results show strong support of community policing among Korean police officers and the positive relationship between police culture and Korean officers’ attitude toward community policing, contrary to previous findings in the United States. Considering that it is essential to have officers’ active and strong support, the findings of the current study are encouraging to Korean police administrators who have begun to make concrete efforts to implement various community policing related programs in recent years. However, there are numerous obstacles and barriers and more structural reforms should have been made in order to successfully implement community policing. First, top administrators should demonstrate a clear and well-planned leadership, which is essential for massive organizational change. However, it seems that current top administrators do not possess a master plan and strong will to transform the Korean 86 police into a democratic and citizen-oriented police. First of all, the reform atmosphere was almost disappeared after the Commissioner General Lee’ resign. Moreover, the majority of reform initiatives have been introduced and implemented, based on traditional beliefs, which lack scientific examination. For example, KNPA has begun to modify a mini-police station system by significantly reducing the numbers of mini-police stations as well as officers assigned to a mini-police station. Instead, a regional patrol station system has been created to cover large areas, which three to four mini-police stations previously patrolled. It is, however, doubtful that a regional patrol station system, which has been developed to increase a rapid response to a crime scene and patrol large areas, can actually prevent and reduce crime. Ironically, the very system is the typical example of traditional reactive policing, which has been found to fail to reduce crime and citizen satisfaction in numerous previous research in the United State. Second, the structure of the Korean police should be modified. Under the current centralized national system in which all administrative power is concentrated on a national police headquarter, police works have been standardized without consideration of regional distinctiveness and concerns. In order to maintain the advantages of a centralized police system and add those of a decentralized system, a modified centralized police system needs to be adopted. A central police headquarter remains to be responsible only for coordinating the police work of local police headquarters, while each local police headquarter should be given authority and command to perform police works which are suitable to the needs of each community. Third, providing line officers with autonomy and participation is vital in the era of community policing. The current study also indicates that Korean police officers 87 strongly support line officers’ autonomy and participation in decision-making process. However, it does not mean that Korean police officers have enjoyed a great degree of autonomy and participation. Unfortunately, Korean police officers have rarely been given opportunities to exercise their autonomy and express their opinions in decision- making process. In a very closed centralized police system, line officers have only been expected to perform their duties as ordered from top administrators (or their supervisors). Though the reform movement had emphasized the creativity and responsibility among rank and file officers (Pyo, 2001), practical efforts to insure line officers’ autonomy and participation have never been followed. In order to effectively and successfully implement community policing, concrete efforts by top administrators should be made to decentralize the police and delegate a high level of discretion as well as responsibility to line officers. Fourth, the Korean police have to make sincere efforts to improve the relationship between citizens and the police because the positive relationship between them is essential in community policing. As indicated above, Korean police have not gained trust and respect from citizens because of the frequent violations of human rights and brutality by the police. Though the Korean police have made effort to create a “positive” image during a reform movement, studies still indicate a negative relationship between citizens and the police. The current study also found that majority of police officers reported the negative relationship with citizens. It seems that distrust and suspicion toward the police is a deep-rooted in minds of the Korean people. The other reason of continued distrust is that unethical traditional practices, human right violations, and corruptions of the police are still frequently reported in the media. Thus, in order to be reborn as a democratic and 88 a trusting police, the police need to continue its reform efforts and show genuine determination to reform. Limitations of the current research and recommendations for future research The current study was the first attempt to examine variation in officers’ attitude toward community policing by directly adopting dimensions of socialization developed in the discipline of organizational psychology by sampling Korean police officers. Though the study augments our understanding of police culture, there are several limitations and future research needs to be conducted to better understand police culture. First, the present study did not completely measure dimensions of organizational socialization in police. The literature on police culture indicates that some dimensions such as perception of danger and unpredictability are unique to a police organization and these factors are considered as important factors in police culture. More research needs to be conducted to identify the dimensions of socialization in police and their relationships with various outcomes (i.e., attitude toward community policing, excessive use of force and corruption). Future research also needs to examine whether dimensions of socialization used in the current study are significantly related to officers’ attitude toward community policing in traditionally hypothesized directions by sampling police officers in the United States. The second limitation is related to the use of the cross-sectional data. The study could not examine the possible change of officers’ attitude toward community policing over the time and potential factors causing the changes of attitudes toward community policing. A longitudinal research is necessary to understand possible changes of officers’ attitude toward community policing and factors affecting the changes. It will clarify the 89 process that a new officer is socialized into the existing police culture and the direct effect of police culture on officers’ attitudes toward various issues. Third, the study did not include personal disposition variables before starting one’s career as a police officer and examine their relationship with attitudes toward community policing. It might be useful to examine effects of personal dispositions on the acceptance of community policing, since personal dispositions are known to consistently affect individual behaviors and attitude toward various issues. Fourth, gender was dropped from the analyses because the number of female officers in the sample was too small to be analyzed. Therefore, the results of the current study may not generalize to female police officers. Since KN PA has recruited more female officers and has decided to significantly increase the proportion of female officer in the police force, future research need to examine the impact of recruiting more female officers on Korean police culture. Fifth, more research needs to examine the existence of multiple subcultures in the Korean police. Though previous research on police culture in the United States shows multiple subcultures within a police organization or across police agencies, the current study, however, shows mixed results about existence of multiple subcultures. While a ranking was not significantly related to any four dimensions of community policing, the level of a police department was significantly related to three dimensions of community policing, even after including dimensions of socialization. In order to better understand multiple subcultures in a Korean police, more quantitative and qualitative research is needed. Moreover, separate models for supervisors and line officers (and officers working at a police department in urban area vs. those at a police department in rural area) should be tested and compared to each other to better understand any differences. 90 Conclusion The results indicate strong support of community policing and positive relationships between police culture and officers’ attitudes toward community policing among Korean officers, contrary to findings in previous research. These findings advance our understanding of police culture that police culture is not universal and homogeneous and raise questions about traditionally believed conception of a police culture and a conventional approach on understanding a police culture. The findings show that a police agency has developed its own distinctive police culture and policing style, influenced by its surrounding cultural, political, and social environment. Therefore, it is important to comprehend the police culture in the context of social, political, and cultural environment. Consistent with previous research that indicates the existence of different cultures between urban and rural police in the United States, the results also indicate that a location of a police department (urban vs. rural) is significantly related to officers’ perceptions toward community policing, even though South Korea has maintained a highly centralized and standardized national police system. The study also augments our understanding of the police culture that a comprehensive approach measuring broader dimensions of the police culture should be employed to better understand the relationship between police culture and officers’ attitude toward community policing. As the study found that each dimension of socialization has a different effect on officers’ attitude toward community policing, it is necessary to identify distinctive and complete dimensions of socialization and understand the unique relationship between each dimension of socializations and various outcomes, 91 rather than focusing on the negative aspects of police culture and their impacts on various outcomes. 92 Appendix A. Scales Used in the Analyses Indexes Items Performance Proficiency 1. (alpha = .72 ) 2. Politics 1 . (alpha = .65) 2. People (alpha = .53) MAWNH Organizational values and goals (alpha = .52 ) Nu— Philosophy of 1. community policing (Alpha = .72) 2. 6. Traditional reactive policing (Alpha = .51 ) WNH 4. 5. 6. I mastered the required tasks of my job I understand what all the duties my job entail I learned how things really work I have good understanding of the motives behind the actions of others . I have been known as a good police officer . I join in informal networks or gatherings . Most of coworkers like me . Most of my personal fiiends are police officers . My fellow officer' opinion about me is important . I fit in well with the police . I support the police' goal Officers need to be familiar with the residents of the area they patrol. Officers need to make frequent informal contacts with the residents. . Officers need to work with neighborhood residents, civic groups, and the local business. . Officers need to try to solve non-crime problems. . Assisting citizen's in need is just as important as enforcing the law. Lowering citizen's fear of crime should be just as high a priority for the police as cutting the crime rate. . Crime can be solved and reduced by cooperation with non criminal justice agencies. . Cooperation with residents help to prevent crime. . All law should be fully enforced at all times . Officers should not concern the roots of crime . Enforcing the law is by far their most important responsibility Fewer restriction on use of force, less serious crime More effective if do now worry about suspects' right Officers should not handle personal problems where no crime is involved 93 Appendix A (Con’d) Autonomy/ Participation l. Supervisors have to actively seek inputs from their (Alpha = .75) subordinates 2. Line officers have a considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how to do the work 3. All members of the department should have an opportunity to influence the policies of the department 4. Officers decide on his own how best to do his job . The number of command lines should be shorten as much as possible to increase the communication between commanders and the officers M Relationship with 1. Citizen is suspicious of police officers Citizens 2. Citizen respects police officers (alpha= .68) 3. Citizen has positive attitude toward law enforcement from police officers 4. Being abused by citizens in this community is very high .94 Appendix B. Comparison of number of murder and robbery between South Korea and the United States The other major difference between South Korea and the United States is South Korea’ low rates of crime, especially violent and serious crime (i.e., murder and robbery), compared to those of the United States. Here are comparisons of number of violent and serious crime, focusing on murder and robbery, between South Korea and the United States. Comparision of number of murder between S.Korea and USA 24000 i— - * * - fl 7 l 1 8000 L l 1 2000 6000 r Afi ¢ + ¢ vL 4 O _ 1 997 1 998 1 999 2000 2001 2002 + S.Korea + USA 95 Comparision of number of robbery between S.Korea and USA 600000 .7-' W ____ - - - ,7 ,, LL 500000 400000 300000 * 200000 r 100000 i 0 1 T i r t OLE—L 1 997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 + S.Korea + USA Source: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius 02/xl/02tb 101 .xls http://www.police.go.kr/data/statistics/statisticsCriminal_0l . j 3p 96 Appendix C. Questionnaire Officer Survey Cover Letter Dear a Police Officer We are researchers at Michigan State University and are conducting a study about police officers in South Korea. There have been many studies in the United States about police officers but very few studies have looked at police officers in South Korea, even though each police officer plays important roles. Therefore, we believe that it is important to study police officers in South Korean institutions. In order to look at this issue, we need your participation in this study. We guarantee complete anonymity and we will keep your comments strictly confidential. We only want voluntagy participation in the study. We also should emphasize that while we had to receive permission to conduct this study, we are in no way associated with the Korean Police and the files will not be accessible to the Korean Police. We sincerely hope that you will participate in this effort. We think that your participation can go a long way toward understanding the attitude and circumstances of police officers in South Korea. We believe that this study will be beneficial to the Department of the Police in South Korea in helping administrators find and develop effective strategies and programs. Should you have any questions please feel free to contact with us. Our e-mail addresses are carterd@msu.edu and moonbyon@pilot.msu.edu. Our telephone numbers are 1-517-355-9964 or. If you have questions or concerns regarding your right as a study participant, or are dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact — anonymously, if you wish - Ashir Kumar, Chair of the University Committee on ucirhs@nsu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824 Thank very much. Sincerely, David Carter: Professor, School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University Byongook Moon: Ph.D. Student, School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University 97 Follow questions are asking about your job background. Please read each question carefully and circle or write down your answer. Your answers will be kept strictly confident. 1. Length of service in the police? years months 2. Rank 1) Patrol officer 2) Senior patrol officer 3) Sergeant 4) Lieutenant 5) Captain 6) Super-intendent 7) Other (be specific ) 3. What unit are you currently working at? 1) Bureau of police administration 2) Crime prevention 3) Traffic 4) Criminal affairs 5) Criminal Investigation 6) Intelligence 7) National security 8) Public safety 4. Name of the police department you are currently working for 5. How long have you been working on the current unit year months 6. Are you now or have you worked at a mini-police station? 1) Yes 2) No 6-a. How long have worked at a mini-police station? year months 7. The following questions ask about how much you are familiar with the police organization. Please circle a number that you believe is most appropriate about how you feel toward your job. If your not sure, please make best guess. These numbers are from 1, strongly disagree to 4, strongly agree. Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly disagree agree I am not familiar with the organization’s l 2 3 4 custom, rituals, ceremonies, and celebrations I know the organization’s long-held 1 2 3 4 traditions I have not mastered this organization’s l 2 3 4 slang and special jargon I have learned how things “really work” 1 2 3 4 on the inside of this organization 1 know who the most influential people 1 2 3 4 are in my organization 98 I am not always sure what needs to be done in order to get the most desirable work assignments in my area I have a good understanding of the motives behind the actions of other people in the organization Within my work group, I would be easily identified as “one of the gang” I am usually excluded in informal networks or gatherings of people of this organization I believe most of my coworkers like me A Most of my personal fiiends are also police officer .h What my fellow officers think about me is important Many of my old fiiends are uncomfortable around me now that I am a police officer The goals of my organization are also my goals I believe that I fit in well with my organization I do not always believe in the values set by my organization 1 support the goals that are set by my organization I have learned how to successfully perform my job in an efficient manner I have mastered the required tasks of my job I understand what all the duties of my job entail 99 8. The following questions ask about how you feel about yours job. Please circle a number that you believe is most appropriate about how you feel toward your job. These numbers are from 1, strongly disagree to 4, strong agree. Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree Law enforcement officers should not become personally familiar with the residents of the area they patrol. 1 2 4 All laws should be fully enforced at all times; otherwise people lose respect for the law Law enforcement officers should be sincerely concerned about the well-being of the citizens in the neighborhoods they patrol Law enforcement officers should make frequent informal contacts with the people in their patrol area Problem solving should not be part of an officer’s reslonsibility. Good law enforcement requires that officers concern themselves with the consequences of crime and not with its root causes. Law enforcement officers should try to work with neighborhood residents, civic groups, and the local business community to solve crime problems on their beat Law enforcement officers should try to solve the non-crime problems identified by citizens on their beat Law enforcement officers should not forget that enforcing the law is by far their most important responsibility. If law enforcement officers in high crime areas had fewer restrictions on their use of force, many of the serious crime problems in those areas would be significantly reduced. Law enforcement officers would be more effective if they didn’t have to worry about a suspect’s rights during interrogations. 100 Law enforcement officers should ask 1 2 3 4 citizens what types of services they want Crime is only one of several problems that 1 2 3 4 law enforcement officers should be concerned about Assisting citizen’s in need is just as l 2 3 4 important as enforcing the law. Many of the decisions by the courts 1 2 3 4 interfere with the ability of law enforcement officers to fight crime Law enforcement officers should not 1 2 3 4 handle calls that involve social or personal problems where no crime is involved Lowering citizen’s fear of crime should be 1 2 3 4 just as high a priority for the police as cutting the crime rate. Community crime problems can be solved 1 2 3 4 by cooperation between law enforcement and local non-criminal justice agencies. If law enforcement officers act in a service 1 2 3 4 capacity, it detracts from their ability to fight crime 9. The following questions concern how you think about the relationship with your supervisor. We want you to circle a number you agree to. These numbers are from 1, strongly disagree to 4, strong agree. As we stated earlier, answers will be kept strictly confidential. Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly disagree agree Supervisors actively seek input from their 1 2 3 4 subordinates. Officers have to have a considerable l 2 3 4 opportunity for independence and freedom in how to do the work Officers on the street require little 1 2 3 4 supervision or guidance Officers must follow the rules and do only 1 2 3 4 what supervisors ask Supervisors have to permit officers to 1 2 3 4 decide on his own how best to do hisflb A police officer does the best job by 1 2 3 4 following the orders of superior officers 101 Supervisors should be careful to fit rules and regulations to the situation rather than insisting that rules and regulations have to be followed regardless of the situation 10. The following questions ask about how you think about the structure of the police. Please circle a number you agree to. These numbers are from 1, strongly disagree to 4, strong agree. As we stated earlier, answers will be kept strictly confidential day-to-day operations of the police department. Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly disagree agree The command and discipline in a military 1 2 3 4 organization is a good model for the police department The department should operate only out of 1 2 3 4 one central headquarter The formal chain of command should be 1 2 3 4 adhered All members of the department should 1 2 3 4 have an opportunity to influence the policies of the department Police officers do a better job when they 1 2 3 4 have clear, precise guidelines to follow in handling incidents The number of command lines should be 1 2 3 4 shorten as much as possible to increase the communication between commanders and the officers on the street Officers should have more input in the l 2 3 4 102 11. The following questions ask about how you think about police boxes. Please read each question carefully and circle a number you agree to. These numbers are from 1, strongly disagree to 4, strong agree. As we stated earlier, answers will be kept strictly confidential. Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly disagree agree The police box makes an important 1 2 3 4 contribution toward improving the attitudes of neighborhood residents toward the police The police box makes an important 1 2 3 4 contribution for reducing the fear of crime among the residents The police box does not have any positive 1 2 3 4 effect on reducing crime There are too many officers currently 1 2 3 4 assigned to the police box There are too many police boxes in our 1 2 3 4 department Citizens support to the existence of police 1 2 3 4 boxes The police box assist police in becoming 1 2 3 4 aware of local community problems Working in a police box is a plum, cushy l 2 3 4 assignment Assigning officers to the police box 1 2 3 4 creates a drain on manpower on the street 12. The following questions ask about how you think about the attitude of citizens toward the police. Please read each question carefully and circle a number you agree to. These numbers are from 1, strongly disagree to 4, strong agree. As we stated earlier, answers will be kept strictly confidential. Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly disagree agree Generally speaking, the citizen is l 2 3 4 suspicious of police officers Most citizen in the community respect 1 2 3 4 olice officers Many citizens show negative responses 1 2 3 4 against law enforcement from police officers 103 Many citizens say that police services are 1 2 3 4 adequate and perfect Many citizens say that police services 1 2 3 4 have a lot to be corrected Most citizens are willing to report a crime 1 2 3 4 to the police when they are victimized Most citizens are willing to call the police 1 2 3 4 if they see something suspicious or a crime scene The likelihood of a police officers being 1 2 3 4 abused by citizens in this community is very high 13. The following questions ask about your beat areas. Please read each question carefully and circle a number you believe is most appropriate for questions. These statements only apply for police officers who have their own beat areas. Those who do not have, please skip these questions and go to questions 14. a. The population of your beat areas? thousands b. How wealthy your beat area i) Low income area ii) Middle income area 3) High income area c. What are the types of crime you mostly encounter in your beat area in general (Circle two most encounter) i) Theft ii) Burglary iii) Gangs iv) Domestic violence v) Vandalism vi) Sex offense vii) Embezzlement viii) Auto theft viiii) Robbery x) Assault xi) Juvenile related problem xii) others (be specific ) d. Do you think that in general crime is a serious problem in your beat area? i) Very serious problem 2) Mild problem 3) No problem e. Where is your main beat area? i) Residential area ii) Business area iii) Entertainment or shopping area iv) Other (be specific ) f. How do you patrol your beat area i) Car ii) Walk iii) Auto-bicycle iv) Other (be specific ) 104 g. How big your beat area? KM2 14. The following questions are about how you consider about you jobs. Please read each question carefully and circle a number you believe is most appropriate for questions. a. All in all, how satisfied would you say you are with your job? i) Not satisfied at all ii) Not too satisfied iii) Somewhat satisfied iv) Satisfied b. Before we talk about your present job, I’d like to get some idea of the kind of job you’d most like to have. If you were free to go into any type of job you wanted, what would your choice be? i) Prefer some other job to the job I now have ii) Want to retire and not work at all iii) Keep the job I now have c. Knowing what you know now, if you had to decide all over again whether to take the job you now have, what would you decide? 1) Decide definitely not to take same job ii) Have some second thoughts about taking my job iii) Decide without hesitation to take the same job (1. In general, how well would you say that your job measures up to the sort of job you wanted when you took it? i) Not very much like the job I wanted ii) Somewhat like the job I wanted iii) Very much like the job I wanted e. If a good friend of yours told you he (she) was interested in working in a job like yours for your employer, what would you tell him(her)? i) Advise my fiiend against taking this job ii) Have doubts about recommending this job iii) Strongly recommend the job. 105 The following questions ask about some basic demographic information about you. As we stated earlier, answers will be kept strictly confidential. Please fill in or circle the appropriate answer. 15. Age l6.Sex i) Male ii) Female 17. Education? i) high school or less ii) junior college iii) University iv) Graduate or above 18. Which of the following selection process did you become a police officer? i) Police academy for patrol officer ii) Police University iii) Police academy for lieutenant Thank you for your kind response. 106 REFERENCES Ames, W. (1981). Police and community in Japan. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Bayley, D. (1991). Forces of order: Policing modern Japan. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Bittner, E. (1970). Thefitnction of police in modern society. Washington, DC: National Institute of Health. Breci, M. (1997). “The transition to community policing: The departrnent’s role in upgrading officers’ skills”, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 20: 766-775. Britz, M. (1994). The police subculture revisited: Unique occupational characteristics & perpetuation of police solidarity in small & medium sized departments. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Michigan State University. East Lansing, MI. Bryett, K., & Harrison, A. (1993). An introduction to Policing. Sydney, AUS: Butterworths. Carpenter, B., & Raza, S. (1987). “Personality characteristics of police applicants: Comparisons across subgroups and with other populations”, Journal of Police Science and Administration, 15: 10-17. Carter, D., Sapp, A., & Stephens, D. (1989). The state of police education: Policy direction for the 21‘" century. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum. Carter, D., & Radelet, L. (1999). The police and the community. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Chan, J. (1996). “Changing police culture” British Journal of Criminology, 36: 109-134. Chao, G., O’Leary-Kelly, A., Wolf, S., Klein, H., & Gardner, P. (1994). “Organizational Socialization: Its content and consequences”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 79: 730-743. Choi, I., & Gy, K. (1997). A study on relationship between social class and crime. Seoul: Korean Institute of Criminology. 107 Cohen, J ., & Baker, E. (1991). US. foreign policy and human rights in South Korea, 171-220 in Shaw, W. (Ed), Human Rights in Korea: Historical and Policy Perspective, US: Harvard University Press. Copes, H., & Forsyth, C. “Behaviors and attitudes of police officers”, Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 10: 38 Cordner, G. (1995). “Community policing: Elements and effects”, Police Forum, 5: 1-8. Crank, J. (1998). Understanding police culture. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson. Deal, T., & Kennedy, A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Decker, S. (1979). “The rural county sheriff: An issue in social control”, Criminal Justice Review, 4:97-111. Dicker, T. (1998). “Tension on the thin blue line: Police officer resistance to community- oriented policing”, American Journal of Criminal Justice, 23: 59-82. Dutton, M. (1992). Policing and punishment in China: From patriarchy to ‘the People ’. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Ericson, R. (1982). Reproducing order: A study of police patrol work. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Feldman, D. (1981). “The multiple socialization of organizational members”, Academy of Management Review, 6:309-319. Fielding, N. (1988). Joining forces: Police training, socialization, & occupational competence. New York: Routledge. Fisher, C. (1986). “Organizational socialization: An integrative review”, Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, 4: 101-145. Franz, V., & Jones, D. (1987). “Perceptions of organizational performance in suburban police departments: A critique of the military model”, Journal of Police Science and Administration, 15: 153-161. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books. Goldstein, H. (1990). Problem-oriented policing. New York: Mc-Graw-Hill. 108 Goodman, P., Bazerman, M., & Conlon, E. (1980). Institutionalization of planned organizational change. In B.M. Straw and LL. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (pp. 215-246). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Harrison, S. (1998). Police organizational culture: Using ingrained values to build positive organizational improvement. Public Administration and Management: An Interactive Journal, 3. Heo, N. (1998), History of Korean police administration, Dongdowon, Seoul, Korea. Herbert, S. (1998). “ Police subculture reconsidered”, Criminology, 36: 343-70. Hoffman, V. (1982). “The development of modern police agencies in the Republic of Korea and Japan: A paradox”, Police Studies, 5: 3-16. Horne, P. (1975). Women in law enforcement. Springfield, ILL: Charles C. Thomas. Huon, G., Hesketh, 8, Frank, M., McConky, K., & McGrath, G. (1995). Perceptions of ethical dilemmas: Ethics and policing-study]. Payneham, Australia: National Police Research Unit. International Association of Chiefs of Police. (1990). Managing the small law enforcement agency. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Jermier, J., & Berkes, L. (1979). “Leader behavior in a police command bureaucracy: A closer look at the quasi-military model”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 24: 1- 23. Jiao, A. (1995). “Community policing and community mutuality: A comparative analysis of American and Chinese police reforms”, Police Studies, 18: 69-91. Kappeler, V., Sluder, R., & Alpert, G. (1998). Forces of deviance: Understanding the dark side of policing (2“ Ed. ). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland. Kelling, G. (1988). Police and communities: The quiet revolution: Perspectives on policing. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Klockars, C. (1985). The idea of police. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Korean National Police Agency. (2002). Korean police annual report 2002. Seoul, Korea: Korea National Police Agency. 109 Kratcoski, P., and Dukes, D. (1995). Perspectives on community policing. In P. Kratcoski and D. Dukes (Eds), Issues in community policing (pp. 5—20). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing. Lee, S. (1990). Morning calm, rising sun: National character and policing in South Korea and in Japan, Police Studies, 13: 91-110. Lee, W. (1984). Police and community relations in the Republic of Korea, Policy paper for master degree, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. Lee, Y. (2002). A cross-national comparative study of police: Criminal investigative policies and practices in the US. and South Korea. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. Lewis, S., Rosenberg, H., & Sigler, R. (1999). “Acceptance of community policing among police officers and police administrators”, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 22: 567-588. Lurigio, A., & Skogan, W. (1994). “Winning the hearts and minds of police officer: An assessment of staff perceptions of community policing in Chicago”, Crime and Delinquency, 40: 3 15-30. Manning, P. (1997). Police Work: The social organization of policing. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. McElroy, J ., Cosgrove, C., & Sadd, S. (1990). CPOP: The research — an evaluative study of the New York City community patrol officer program. New York, NY: Vera Institute of Justice. Meagher, S. (1985). “Police patrol styles: How pervasive is community variation?”, Journal of Police Science and Administration, 13:36-45. Meagher, S., & Yentes, N. (1986). “Choosing a career in policing: A comparison of male and female perceptions”, Journal of Police Science and Administration, 14: 320-327. Meese, E. (1993). Community policing and the police officer: Perspective on policing. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Miyazawa, S. (1992). Policing in Japan: A study on making crime. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. 110 Moon, B. (2004). “The Politicization of Police in South Korea: A Critical Review.” Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 27: 128- 136. Moon, 8, & Hwang, E. (2004). “The reasons for choosing a career in policing among South Korean police cadets”, Journal of Criminal Justice, 32:223-229. Moore, M., & Trojanowicz, R. (1988). Corporate strategies for policing. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Moore, M., Trojanowicz, R., & Kelling, G. (2000). Crime and policing. In W. Oliver (Ed.), Community policing: Classical readings (pp. 41-59). Upper Saddle River, NJ : Prentice Hall. Moorhead, G., & Griffin, R. (1998). Organizational behavior: Managing people and organizations (5“ ed. ). Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Morash, M., & Greene, J. (1986). “Evaluating women on patrol: A critique of contemporary wisdom”, Evaluation Review, 10: 230-255. Morris, P., & Heal, K. (1981). “Crime control and the police: A review of research”, Home Office Research Study, 6 7:71 Myong, C. (1959). The police system of the Republic of Korea. Unpublished master thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. Nahm, A. (1988), Korea: Tradition & Transformation: A History of the Korean People, Hollym International Corporation, Elizabeth, NJ. Oliver, W., & Bartgis, E. (1998). “Community policing: A conceptual framework”, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 21: 490-506. Ouchi, W. (1981). Theory Z: How American business can meet the Japanese challenge. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Paoline, E. (2001). Rethinking police culture: Officers ’ occupational attitudes. New York, NY: LFB Scholarly Publishing. Paoline, E. (2003). “Taking stock: Toward a richer understanding of police culture”, Journal of Criminal Justice, 31: l99-214. lll Paoline, E., Myers, T., & Worden, R. (2000). “Police culture, individualism, and community policing: Evidence from two police departments”, Justice Quarterly, 1 7: 575-605. Parker, C. (2001). The Japanese police system today: A comparative study. Annonk, N.Y: ME. Sharpe. Peak, K., & Glensor, R. (1996). Community policing and problem solving: Strategies and practices. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Perrot, S., & Taylor, D. (1995). “Crime fighting, law enforcement and service provider role orientation in community-based police officers”, American Journal of Police, 14: 173-195. Pelfrey, W.J. (1998). Precipitating factors of paradigmatic shift in policing: The origin of the community policing ear. In G.P. Alpert and AR. Piquero (Eds.), Community Policing: Contemporary readings (pp. 79-92). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland. Perlstein, G. (1971). An exploratory analysis of certain characteristics of policewomen. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida. Peters, T., & Waterman, R., Jr. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America ’s best-run companies. New York: Harper & Row. Pyo,C. (2001). “Policing: the present and future”, Crime & Justice International, 1 7: 7—8. Reuss-Ianni, E. (1993). Two cultures of policing: Street cops and management cops. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. Rho, H. (2000). “Efficient management of a mini-police station”, Journal of Korean Association of Public Safety and Criminal Justice, 10: 37-74. (In Korean) Rosenbaum, D. (1994). The challenge of community policing: Testing the promises. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sadd, S., & Grinc, R. (1996). Implementation challenges in community policing: Innovative neighborhood-oriented policing in eight cities. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Schafer, J. (2000). The challenges of implementing successful organizational change: A study of community policing. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Michigan State University. East Lansing, MI. 112 Schein, E. (1968). “Organizational socialization and the profession of management”, Industrial Management Review, 9: l- l 6. Seagrave, J. (1996). “Community policing: The views of police executives in British Columbia”, Policing and Society, 6: 163-180. Skolnick, J., & Bayley, D. (1986). The new blue line: Police innovation in six American cities. New York: Free Press. Skolnic, J ., & Bayley, D. (1998). Community policing: Issues and practices around the world. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Smith, B. (1960). Organization. In Bruce Smith, Police Systems in the United States (pp. 208-242). New York: Harper. Sparrow, M. (1988). Perspectives on policing: Implementing community policing. Washington, DC: US. Department of Justice. Sparrow, M., Moore, M., & Kennedy, D. (1990). Beyond 911: A new era for policing. New York: Basic Books. Travis, L., & Winston, C. (1998). “Dissension in the ranks: officer resistance to community policing, cynicism, and support for the organization”, Journal of Crime and Justice, 21: 139-56. Triandis, H., McClusker, C., & Hui, H. (1990). “Multimethod probes of individualism and collectivism”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59: 1006. Trice, H., & Beyer, J. (1993). The cultures of work organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Trojanowicz, R. (1993). Community policing survey of jurisdictions over 5 0, 000 people, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. Trojanowicz, R., & Bucqueroux, B. (1990). Community policing: A contemporary Perspective. Cincinnati,OH: Prentice-Hall. Trojanowicz, R., & Carter, D. (1988). The philosophy of role of community policing. [Online] Avaiable: http://www.cj.msu.edu/~people/cp/cpphil.htrnl Trojanowicz, R., Kappeler, V., Gaines, L., and Bucqueroux, B. (1998). Community policing: A contemporary perspective. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing. 113 Van Maanen, J., & Barley, S. (1985). “Cultural Organization: Fragments of a theory.” In Peter J. Frost, Larry F. Moore, Meryl Reis Louis, Craig C. Lundberg, and Joanne Martin (eds.). Organizational Culture. Beverly Hills: Sage. Vreeland, N., Just, P., Martindale, K., Moeller, P., & Shinn, R. (1975), Area Handbook for South Korea. Washington, DC: Foreign Area Studies. Waddington, P. (1999). “Police (Canteen) sub-culture: An appreciation”, British Journal of Criminology, 39: 287-309. Walker, S. (1994). “Broken windows and fractured history: The use and misuse of history in recent police patrol analysis”, Justice Quarterly, 1 : 75-90. Weisburd, D., McElroy, J., & Hardyman, P. (1988). “Challenges to supervision in community policing: Observations on a pilot project”, American Journal of Police, 7: 29-50. Weisburd, D., Shaley, 0., & Amir, M. (2002). “Community policing in Israel: Resistance and change”, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 25: 80-109. Weisel, D., & Eck, J. (1994). Toward a practical approach to organizational change: Community policing initiatives in six cities. In Rosenbaum, D (Ed), The challenge of community policing: Testing the promises (pp. 53- 72). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Weisheit, R., Wells, E., & Falcone, D. (1994). “Community policing in small town and rural America”, Crime & Delinquency, 40: 549-567. White, R., & Alder, C. (1994). The police and young people in Australia. Melbourne, AUS: Cambridge University Press. Wilkinson, D., & Rosenbaum, D. (1994). The effects of organizational structure on community policing: A comparison of two cities. In D. Rosenbaum (Ed.), The challenge of community policing: Testing the promises (pp. 110-126). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing. Wilson, J. (1968). Varieties of police behavior: The management of law & order in eight communities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wilson, D., & Bennett, S. (1994). “Officers’ response to community policing: Variations on a theme”, Crime and Delinquency, 40: 354-70. 114 Wilson, J .Q., & Kelling, G.H. (1982). “Broken windows: The police and neighborhood Safety”, Atlantic Monthly, 249: 29-38. Wilson, O.W. (1963). Organization guides. In O.W. Wilson, Police Administration (2nd edition) (pp. 34-45). New York: Oxford University Press. Winfree, T., & Newbold, G. (1999). “Community policing and the New Zealand police: Correlates of attitudes toward the work world in a community-oriented national police organization”, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 22: 589-617. Worden, A. (1993). “The attitudes of women and men in policing: Testing conventional and contemporary wisdom”, Criminology, 31: 203-241. Wycoff, M., & Slogan, W. (1993). Community policing in Madison: Quality from the inside out. An evaluation of implementation and impact. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Yarrney, A. (1990). Understanding police and police work: Psychosocial Issues. New York: New York University Press. Yates, D., & Pillai, V. (1996). “Attitudes toward community policing: A causal analysis”, Social Science Journal, 33: 193-209. Youn, I. (2003). A study of police officers ’ perceptions of police deviance: From an occupational socialization perspective. Unpublished Master Thesis. Michigan State University. East Lansing, MI. 115 l11111111114111111111