Policing in the 21st Century

Guest Blogger: Richard C. Lumb, Ph.D. “The past four decades reveal a substantial effort to changing how police provide services to the community. The quest to discovering a magic bullet effectively reducing and preventing crime, while improving the quality of community life and well-being, is ongoing” Society has grown more complex and confounding in its very nature. Diversity, increased population growth, a widening gap in income and useable resources, substance abuse issues that in some places push the envelope to near collapse, unlimited demands for service, a storm of technology that allows access from a hundred points of cyber space has become, for many service providers, both a boon and boondoggle. Boon, as people can get to those individuals deemed necessary for a solution and boondoggle as the demands exceed the capacity to deliver at times, of a trivial purpose in many instances, and unnecessary only because “calling” and “handing off” to someone else, has become a way of life. Police, represented by municipal, county, state and federal agencies, along with a growing private security force, have numerous and varied duties, responsibilities, and clientele. Guided by law and policy, driven by demand and managed with varying oversight, all are engaged in responding to calls for service, self-initiated activities, and for some, a response modality bordering on personal preference and agenda. The complexity of today’s environment is exacerbated by details that range from total fabrication to fact. Keeping one’s finger on the pulse of a police department and taking into consideration the myriad of events and detail becomes overwhelming, if allowed to operate without parameters. But, what are those parameters and do they matter? The role and function of police must be clearly defined and every employee must understand how they apply to what they do in the organization. We work for the organization and as such must put forth our best effort to assist in achievement of its goals. Drift, or addressing personal agendas and interests within duty time, simply must be managed. I do not adhere to crushing innovation and robotic employees, rather I refer to meeting the organizations mission, vision, values and goals and performing ones duties within these parameters. There is room for innovation in method and process, but it must be part of the ongoing plan and with the input and support of supervisory staff. Guiding Foundational Components A Mission statement tells you the fundamental purpose of the organization. It defines the customer and the critical processes. It informs you of the desired level of performance. A Vision statement outlines what the organization wants to be, or how it wants the world in which it operates to be. It concentrates on the future and is a long-term view. It is a source of inspiration, provides clear decision-making criteria and gives direction to the organization’s future. Values are the qualities that are considered worthwhile and they represent what every employee should aspire to for priorities and which guide their actions and behaviors. They define how employees want to behave in their relationships with each other, customers, and the greater community they provide service to. They are the fundamental beliefs of people working in that organization. Goal statements say where you want to be at some future time. Goals should be few in number, concise and not too specific. Goals indicate where the organization wants to go. A timeline is important showing milestones for accomplishment and the beginning and ending dates. Objectives are specific, measurable targets for each goal. They are short-term in nature and allow you to gauge the project’s success. Objectives indicate what the organization expects to accomplish. Action steps are a step-by-step process by which an organization reaches the objectives developed to fulfill the goal. They typically are programs, events, operations, and projects for the organization to accomplish its objectives. Also known as strategies! Substantial opportunity exists for innovation and use of personal expertise and interest, but it must be managed and first represent the organization’s core function and service model. We (the collective employees) are not independent contractors hired by an organization to “Go forth and do what you do,” as that model is not sustainable. The decades old failure to effectively and sustainably address repeat calls for service, to solve “hot spot” places of persistent problems or to follow-up on earlier calls (e.g., a take the report and move on mentality), is not effective or efficient. So, what is being suggested? Base Steps: 1. Insure that all employees are familiar with the organization’s mission, vision, values and goals. Familiarity means the individual understands his or her job functions and is able to measure compliance and outcomes. Ongoing case review helps strengthen understanding and application of performance to organization mission et al. 2. Supervisors must have the authority and requisite responsibility to manage employee engagements and to determine how they utilize their time. To do this well, means the organization must strip the extraneous tasks and assignments often dumped on supervisors, many/most not germane to their core duties. This added layer of work is distracting and takes away from performing intended supervisory functions. 3. Eliminate a daily routine of waiting for the call for service response to a more proactive, problem-solving model. Between call time is generally left to the individual officer and he or she will do traffic work, ride around the patrol area to be seen, and other “free to choose” time fillers. There is a great diversity of how this time is used and it is not the best we can do. Control of the agencies resources to achieve effectiveness and efficiency and measure outcomes, is responsible. We can do more with existing resources, if we manage them well. Saved money is used to address those things that are in need for attention. 4. Let the drivers of the organization, the utilization of people and resources, emerge from a concept of “SMART” or information driven policing, not some haphazard response model that allows too much “less than focused and sustainable results” outcomes. We must begin to measure time and costs and determine how we are utilizing resources. Are we effective and efficient, and if not why and what must be done to fix the issues? 5. Initiate a technological system where individuals have access to information needed for their job execution, utilize existing and innovative programs to maximize data applicability and engage in routine and sustained maximization of people, systems, policy and technology. To set a lower bar is not responsible as the cost of services in today’s environment is not sustainable, unless efficiency and effectiveness measures are implemented. 6. Operating in isolation and not developing multiple public/private collaborations is totally outdated and must be changed. Harnessing the power of multiple partnerships stands to help address the totality of needs by all. 7. Educate administrators, managers and supervisors in more up-to-date model of organizational functioning. Batts, Smoot and Scrivner (2012, 2-3) state, “Thus, despite substantial gains by police in crime fighting, there is still a widespread tendency to adhere to outdated and ineffective management practices. For example, even the way a department’s overall effectiveness is traditionally measured and tracked — typically some aspect of response time or fulfillment of calls for service — lacks relevance to current expecta­tions of and for police.” 8. And, of great importance, involve all employees in establishing operational guidelines and planning and keep them informed honoring their experience, knowledge, motivations and support for it helps the organization many times over. The collective value of employees, when harnessed and utilized appropriately, is a powerful force for innovation and quality of services deployment. Dr. Richard Lumb is a former Associate Professor at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Northern Michigan University and he is Emeritus from the State University of New York at Brockport where he was chair of the Criminal Justice Department. He has served in several community organizations including two-term Board Chairman of the York County Counseling Services and Chairman of the Governor's Mental Health Advisory Council for the State of Maine. He served on the Board of Directors for Tri-County Mental Health Services in Maine and is engaged with Maine Resilience, a program that focuses on managing stress, adversity and trauma. Maine Resilience is working the FEMA, Region I to bring resilience train-the-trainer programs to individuals and communities. Richard's web site: Maine Woods Organizational Developmental Services. Reference: Batts, A., Smoot, S., & Scrivner, E. (2012) Police Leadership Challenges in a Changing World. In, New Perspectives in Policing. Harvard Kennedy School/NIH, July 2012.