Police Administration - Essay Example

? Police Administration Question Managing Police Operation The first major similarity between NYPD Crime Control Model and theCommunity policing is that, both have a common premise in their dealing, and that is based on the presumption that by controlling severe crimes then law enforcement officials will be better balanced to control and solve various community issues when it comes to public safety (McDonald, 2002). Secondly, both of them emphasize on police-community relationship, whereby there is emphasis on communication through mutual understanding, even though such communication is practiced and projected on different levels in both programs. Thirdly, both programs deploy target hardening together with augmented community participation as part of their crime prevention initiative. This is evident through the assignment of specific officers and patrol officers in conducting security surveys (McElvain, Kposowa, & Gray, 2013). The major difference between NYPD Crime Control Model and the Community policing is that, community policing initiative focuses more so on the three Rs of decentralized policing (McDonald, 2002). That is rapid reactions, random patrols, as well as reactive investigations. However, NYPD Crime Control Model focuses on the refined three Rs principles, and which entails directing police resources to modern crime-control strategies, rather than just observing the three Rs principles alone (McDonald, 2002). In other words, the NYPD Crime Control Model key mission and duty of the police is to prevent crimes, while the key mission and responsibilities of police under community policing is to respond to crimes and which is pegged on numbers of arrests, clearance rates, in addition to response time (McDonald, 2002). CompStat emphasizes on risk taking instead of risk adversity through an accountability-focused strategies and management principles. Community policing has feel-good collaborative frameworks through its watered-down departmental versions, as the objective is to lessen policing to just standard regulations and routines (Walsh & Vito, 2004). Thus, the community-relation specialists under community policing are tasked in performing uncomplicated and repetitive functions, which requires no discretion. As such, the police role is to be law enforcers instead of also entailing crime prevention. In particular, success under community policing is measured by number of arrests made rather than the level and number of crimes being committed (McDonald, 2002). However, the NYPD Crime Control Model acknowledges long-term service delivery with specific objectives, like decreasing drug sales by a certain percentage of the in general crimes. Furthermore, the model focuses on attaining precise and timely intelligence, so as to direct resources and personnel to crime areas. Hence, the police officers, patrol officers and detectives are deployed more efficiently compared to community policing (McDonald, 2002). On the contrary, Community policing does not place a huge emphasis on crime data or even communication between principal law enforcers, but on making the public to feel that the police are existing. It is this difference that community policing is known for making police leaders together with their units to operate independently. As a consequence, the patrols are not held liable for crimes within their geographic regions since investigations are conducted by specialized units separately, in order to attain their own individual objectives (McDonald, 2002). However, NYPD Crime Control Model ensures that patrols are held accountable for crimes in their region, and that, investigators and specialized units support them in patrol activities, so as to attain a common objective under an accountability framework. The assumption in community policing is that commanders are better able to conduct decisions solely, as they are filled with wisdom and creativity in fighting crimes compared to their line officers (McDonald, 2002). As such, patrol commanders are central elevated figures, unlike under model whereby patrol commanders are more of managers and administrators, judged solely on management principles and performance, rather than status position. Furthermore, regular and mandatory meetings are essential components of the model, compared to community policing, since community policing meetings are multi focused in agenda arising from the existence of independence of units. Therefore, the decentralized decision making under CompStat ensures that police administrators are empowered to manage their commands, and at the same time ensure accountability for results. Even though both the Crime Control Model and community policing applies technology in their operations, particularly the Management Information System, the NYPD model effectively applies modern technology practices such as electronic pin mapping for visual description of crime hotspots and patterns (McDonald, 2002). Also, assessments, follow-ups and evaluations of strategies or tactics are critical the model compared to community policing. Hence, every decision or shift in tactics is recorded, and this then allows methodologies of evaluation, including the variables to be rooted in new developments, such as citizens’ complaints, new arrests, or development of new hotspots (Braga & Bond, 2008). The key philosophy that drives the model is based on Wilson and Kelling “Broken Windows” supposition or zero-tolerance methodology (McElvain, Kposowa, & Gray, 2013). This theory states that every minor offense will ultimately generate grave consequences when ignored. Thus, any community which permits addicts, muggers or gangs to freely operate will sets the stage for additional serious crimes. Therefore, the only solution is to police these minor offenses with a focus on prevention, so that violent crimes can be avoided. The belief is that successful communities are those which avert cycles of minor crimes from accelerating and perpetuating themselves into severe crimes (Braga & Bond, 2008). Therefore, the NYPD model of accountability and responsibility based on CompStat premise, takes place through executive oversight and anchored in the departmental heads and their designees, unlike under community policing which is based on civic leaders and police chief only (McDonald, 2002). Hence, their function is to reassess crime data, the trending patterns, and particularly rising crime patterns through a regular basis. The manager job is to ensure that administrators below them are on target and applying proper level of consideration pertaining to the geographic region problems. A key aspect of Crime Control Model is that it does not focus solely on specific crimes within a jurisdiction without attaching responsibilities to individuals and teams. Hence crime control becomes not just creative but effective especially due to strategy designs. The model is more of a learning curve for all stakeholders involved and reinforced through positive behavior role modeling as leaders are not permitted to pass on their detailed responsibilities when it comes to analysis, the tactical planning or coordination of resources (McDonald, 2002). Question 2: Refinement The refinement of rapid response is rather precarious, since such an approach calls for a reduction of and management of patrol workloads (Cordner & Scarborough, 2007). Therefore, any poor planning will result in excessive and overboard patrol apprehensions. When it comes to response time, people normally delay before calling the police, and this makes rapid response not to be clear-cut given that what matters is the time-span from occurrence of crime to police arrival, and not the time span from the call being made until the arrival of officers. By itself, the argument that response time is unnecessary as involvement in crime and discovery of crime are similar, is rather going overboard, and as such, the lack of immediate response to every report of crime will only serve to reduce the probability for arrest. However, the refinement ensures that patrols are not just directed but more resources and personnel are available for patrol investigations and prevention measures, since officers are able to react en-masse to a progressing crime or emergency (Weisburd, & et tal, 2003). The refinement of routine patrol to be part of a comprehensive crime-reduction strategy and community-based outreach initiative certainly helps to attain desired outcomes (Cordner & Scarborough, 2007). This is because unlike the directed patrol, it employs the utilization of committed patrolling-personnel and time. However, direct patrol can be effective only when there is the use of active and forceful strategies particularly in hotspots regions. Therefore, given that routine patrol entail high level of police intervention and apprehension, it should be applied specifically to boost police officers visibility, so as to intimidate potential criminals and prevent crime, but only as part of a wider crime-reduction policy (Cordner & Scarborough, 2007). On the other hand, refinements in investigations centers on enabling agencies to possess powerful investigative functions, while enhancing the investigations values through the connecting of such values with broader crime-solving measures (Cordner & Scarborough, 2007). However, there needs to be a combination of around the clock investigators, detectives and individual officers, since it is individual police officers who are part of the preliminary direct responses to incidents, and as such, the information they gather can be used to inform the entire crime-prevention initiative in that hotspot or region. For instance, when investigating a particular gang related incident, such information should help to feed initiatives that seek to understand not just the gang members or their affiliations, but also in understanding gang relationships so as to come up with comprehensive gang-reduction measures (McElvain, Kposowa, & Gray, 2013). Follow-up investigations should be the basis of refined investigations, and sound investigations methods will provide Information which can act as crucial resource towards feed-problem evaluation efforts. Thus, in the end aid in coming up with lasting solutions (Rosenfeld, Fornango, & Baumer, 2005). The key outcome of problem-oriented-policing refinements on police patrol, investigation and rapids response, is that the focus has been placed on additional targeted strategies (Cordner & Scarborough, 2007). This is evident through concentration of resources within specific hotspots, offenders, cases and even calls. However, the police authority including enforcement measures should place more emphasis on crime problems rather than particular incidents. Secondly, the POP as a refinement to preventive patrol is that an aggressive and apprehensive police patrols through elevated levels of intervention contains loopholes which when mishandled and illegally executed, can result in unnecessary imposition of the police to public limelight. This then generates an unsettling and tremendous intimidating outcome on law-abiding citizens regarding the entire police institution. Furthermore, such a refinement places the patrol officers frequently into dangerous and precarious position that can result in deaths or injuries, and when this becomes common it can overshadow the objective of the refinement (McElvain, Kposowa, & Gray, 2013). The best way to begin utilizing the refinements when designing changes is for the chief to begin providing his officers and staff proper message regarding the refinements, particularly messages regarding departmental directions, potential effectiveness and required professional knowledge (Cordner & Scarborough, 2007). The officers need to feel as part of it by creating or designing the new solutions. Moreover, other personnel should be assigned in arranging and coordinating meetings that will be tasked in formulating overall objectives. Secondly, the agency should initiate a situational crime-prevention plan, and this calls for extensive and special training, particularly on skilled communication approaches and differential responses (Cordner & Scarborough, 2007). It also entails redesigning the agency crime report, and focusing on crucial evidentiary issues, like solvability factors through the SARA model that entails scanning, then analysis, overall response baseline, and finally assessment (Kelling, Pate, Dieckman, & Brown, 2003). Thirdly, there should be the shaping of the agency responses to particular nature of crimes, by conducting a comprehensive analysis of the agency patrol allocation techniques and workload assessment. Thus, in instituting follow-up investigative strategy, the agency should assign not less than 20% of its personnel to both investigative and detective operations (Cordner & Scarborough, 2007). Moreover, there should be preliminary survey of the region active offenders, whereby the agency has to locate serious offenders before effecting decoys or sting-form techniques. Finally, the new refinement initiatives should be shared with the stakeholders outside the agency like city administrators, as they are the channel for disseminating the refinement information to the public. References Braga, A. A., & Bond, B. J. (2008). Policing crime and disorder hot spots: a randomized controlled trial. Criminology , 46 (3), 577–607. Cordner, G. W., & Scarborough, K. E. (2007). Police administration (7 ed.). New Providence, NJ: LexisNexis Publishing. Kelling, G. L., Pate, T., Dieckman, D., & Brown, C. E. (2003). The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment. Washington, DC: Police Foundation. McDonald, P. (2002). Managing police operations: Implementing the New York crime control model – CompStat. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing. McElvain, J. P., Kposowa, A. J., & Gray, B. C. (2013). Testing a Crime Control Model: Does Strategic and Directed Deployment of Police Officers Lead to Lower Crime? Journal of Criminology , 2013, 1-11. Rosenfeld, R., Fornango, R., & Baumer, E. (2005). Did ceasefire, Compstat, and exile reduce homicide? Criminology & Public Policy , 5, 419–449. Walsh, W. F., & Vito, G. F. (2004). The meaning of Compstat: analysis and response. Contemporary Criminal Justice , 20, 51–68. Weisburd, D., Mastrofski, S. D., McNally, A. M., Greenspan, R., & Willis, J. J. (2003). Reforming to preserve: compstat and strategic problem solving in American policing. Criminology & Public Policy , 2, 421–456. Read More