Police in America. Steven G. Brandl
today incorporate these five principles into their operations. As noted, larger departments typically do so to a greater degree than smaller ones. While there are arguments in favor of bureaucratic management and structure, there are also unintended negative consequences. These include lack of flexibility, resistance to change, inefficiency, and insensitivity to the needs of workers. In recent decades, some police departments have slowly begun moving away from the principles of scientific bureaucratic management and closer to more open and contemporary styles of management and organizational structure.
Police Agencies as Quasi-Military Organizations
When the first police departments were created in the early and mid-1800s, they were fashioned after the military. Indeed, there is still a clear reflection of the military in contemporary police departments, as evidenced by command and control orientation (i.e., supervisors giving orders, subordinates carrying out those orders); an emphasis on discipline; the top-down chain of command; the rank structure; the war-like mission of the organization; an emphasis on training; uniforms; weapons; and even the tactics that are used (patrol). Today, police departments are often described as being quasi-military. As we will explore in Chapter 15, some people argue that since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the police have become more military-like (paramilitary) and the military has become more police-like.5
Photo 3.2 Police departments are designed and function as quasi-military organizations. Sometimes the reflection of the military in police operations is very clear.
Mark Boster/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images
Police Agencies as Monopolies
A monopoly is a company or agency that does not have competitors, as there are no other providers of the same services or product in a particular jurisdiction or area. With a monopoly, customers have only two options: to use the services of that agency or company or do without the product. A monopoly does not compete for clients or customers, and it has the ability to raise the cost of services without much concern about demand for those services. In the private sector, regulators are not fond of monopolies and, as a result, there are not many of them. Consider the opposite of a monopolistic industry: restaurants. In most places, there are a plethora of restaurants that customers can select to patronize. If a restaurant provides poor service, has unreasonable prices, and/or serves food that is not well liked, chances are that restaurant will eventually go out of business.
monopoly: A company or agency that does not have competitors.
On the other hand, consider police departments. Normally, the police department that has jurisdiction over a community is the only police department that is available to citizens. If you live in Detroit and need the assistance of the police but you do not like the quality of service provided by the Detroit Police Department (DPD), you do not have any other options. You will need to call the DPD or call no police department at all. Therefore, the DPD needs not spend much time worrying about going out of business. If citizens did not report crimes to the police because of the perceived ineffectiveness of the police, the amount of reported crime would decrease. The irony is that a decrease in reported crime could be presented as evidence of a more effective police department!
However, it is important that this point not be overstated: Even though a department may be a monopoly, citizens can still demonstrate their dissatisfaction with the police. In extreme instances citizens can protest or riot in order to call attention to a poorly performing police department. And police departments are accountable to elected officials who have the power to change leadership in those departments. Also, in some instances the federal government—particularly the U.S. Department of Justice—has the authority to investigate the practices and policies of police departments and legally mandate changes in how they operate. So, while police departments are monopolies and are thus somewhat insulated from the demands and dissatisfaction of citizens, they are still accountable to citizens through the political process.
Good Policing
Warriors Versus Guardians
The quasi-military operations of police departments have the potential to create negative images of the police and, as such, can have negative effects on police-community relations. This is particularly the case when the police are dressed in military fatigues, armed with rifles, and deployed in armored vehicles to deal with citizen protests and riots. While such deployments may be warranted, the police need to be mindful of lessons learned during the riotous 1960s when the police became viewed as “an occupying army” in urban ghettos, which further strained police-minority relations. Especially important is that the “warrior” mindset not permeate the approach taken by officers during their more routine interactions with citizens. After all, if officers are at war, who then is the enemy? Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission Executive Director Sue Rahr and former Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey have suggested that the culture of police agencies needs to be transformed to reflect more of a “guardian” approach so that officers can more fully appreciate the value and importance of showing respect to the citizens they serve.6
Police Agencies as Street-Level Bureaucracies
Police departments have also been described as street-level bureaucracies.7 They have many features and problems in common with other agencies, such as public schools; public assistance agencies (e.g., homeless shelters, welfare agencies); municipal courts; legal service offices; public health offices; and so forth.
Specifically, these agencies all share the following characteristics:
They process people.
They provide services and/or sanctions.
They are public service agencies, and most rely on tax dollars for funding.
Most of their clientele are poor.
A large proportion of employees in street-level bureaucracies are street-level bureaucrats. Such bureaucrats are line-level workers in the agency (e.g., police officers, teachers, social workers).
Street-level bureaucrats use substantial discretion in processing people and providing services and/or sanctions. Their decisions are usually made on the spot.
Clients change as a result of the decisions of street-level bureaucrats (e.g., citizens become suspects, suspects are jailed, victims may get a sense of justice).
Sometimes, there is a tendency to focus on the aspects of police departments that make them unique. In actuality, they have many features in common with other public agencies, particularly with other street-level bureaucracies.
street-level bureaucracy: A public agency that serves primarily low-income clients and whose workers have substantial discretion in processing those clients.
The Challenges of Managing Police Organizations
Because police departments are bureaucratic, quasi-military, and operate at the street level, they have many management challenges. A few of the most significant are discussed here.
The Management of Discretion
Because officers can use their own judgment to make decisions, there is always the opportunity for that discretion to be misused or abused. Ultimately, police managers and administrators are responsible and accountable for their officers’ conduct. As such, much of the task of police management can be accurately thought of as the management of police discretion.
Street Cops Versus Management Cops
Unlike in the