The College at Brockport: State University of New York
|
2016 When the View of Change is Myopic Richard C. Lumb The College at Brockport, rclumb@gmail.com Follow this
and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/crj_facpub
|
|
Repository
Citation
Lumb, Richard C., "When the View of
Change is Myopic" (2016). Criminal Justice Faculty Publications. 21. https://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/crj_facpub/21
This Article is brought to you for free and
open access by the Criminal Justice at Digital Commons @Brockport. It has been
accepted for inclusion in Criminal Justice Faculty Publications by an
authorized administrator of Digital Commons @Brockport. For more information,
please contact digitalcommons@brockport.edu.
When the
View of Change is Myopic
By
Richard C. Lumb, Ph.D.
The State University of New York at
Brockport, Emeritus
I have given considerable thought to the process of change,
how to get people to engage, to do things differently, to commit and to stick
with it. These changes apply to teaching, organizations, family and other
applications. The attached study by the
National Institute of Justice (referenced below), while unique to a particular
program, applies conceptually to different issues we encounter on a smaller
scale. As thoughtful people, widening how we think seems important somehow.
https://www.crimesolutions.gov/ProgramDetails.aspx?ID=414&utm_source=emailgovdelivery&utm_medium=eblast&utm_campaign=program414-moving
The belief by some is that providing a "step-up"
to people will change them. Seldom have I found that giving without mutual
commitment, a means to change with equal or corresponding effort and
commitment, results are as anticipated. We do not respect that which we have no
investment in or internal need to protect it; the eventual loss is an ordinary
course that somehow fills anticipated philosophy and expectation. What does
this tell us?
Other than the
obvious, people have to initiate or commit to an idea and then figure out how
to achieve it, Yes, that involves others, but unless the core drive, the
motivation to see it through initiates from within, a half-baked or less
commitment follows. Not diminishing the need to bring people up, but it must
include a patience process with steps, a commitment by the individual who
realizes gains and ultimately a goal that is part of the person's experience
and hard work. Is that not true with most aspects of life?
The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department, a merger of Mecklenburg County Police and the City of Charlotte Police Department, found it grounded in the traditional model of law enforcement. Bringing in Chief Dennis Nowicki resulted in the implementation of community problem-oriented policing (CPOP), a substantial change in both philosophy and practice. It was a five-year conversion to include the education and training of police, residents, elected and appointed officials, and an active assembly of stakeholders whose engagement was critical.
Skeptics were in the majority at first read. As time
progressed and department and citywide knowledge increased, as programs rolled
out, as police officers and citizens from neighborhoods sat and talked (and
listened) to one another, change happened. New people were brought in, and my
direct experience with five bright, young and motivated Geographic Information
System Analysts was to change my thinking as well. Technology, smart policing,
engaged stakeholders and residents, innovative ideas explored and implemented
when found substantial, and importantly committed and focused people are making
appropriate change efforts successful was the key.
I would note that the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department
conversion to a Community Problem-Oriented Policing program, was an early full
partnership between a police department and a university, the University of
North Carolina at Charlotte and the Department of Criminal Justice. Not common during the middle 1990s.
The process included many individual requirements that
focused on reasons why the change was needed, individual and group motivation,
how different groups can find a middle ground and make positive change occur,
and to convert pessimistic thinking to a more optimistic approach, which led to
success. Not just by chance, it was a
conceptual model that provided many helpful programs and with the equal partnership
by the city government, public and private stakeholders, and individuals. It worked superbly well at that time, those
many years ago.
Controlling crime and criminals using punishment only works
while the individual is incarcerated. The present and continuing "War on
Drugs" is a failure of significant costs to taxpayers. Not to mention the many other variables that
go to loss of wages, health, crime, misery, and other things that make the
"using individual" a non-contributor to society, equates to social
costs for things they (citizens) do not control. That same concept applied to crime is to
question responsibility for reduction is limited only to the courts,
corrections, or enforcement perspective.
One side creates all manner of program and rule to control the other
factions (at considerable cost), but many simply ignore the divide for their
view and vision is different. Seems foolish somehow!
Moreover, in our business; social, fraternal, and
organizational lethargy exists. The dilemma in determining solutions is
unanswered questions and challenging solutions.
This situation presents a unique challenge at times.
The
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Experience.
Community change is difficult as the differences of
opinion, situations that people live in, the influences on their life and a
host of other variables work to slow the process, create diversions, and present
numerous issues requiring a solution.
One central focus for change to a massive project, such as community
problem-oriented policing begins with acceptance and willing participation of
the patrol officer. He or she is the foundation of the program, and it begins there and grows to include the entire
community over a period.
The following information relates to the
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department and the residents of the City of
Charlotte with the implementation of community problem-oriented policing. This focus is on the officers who gained the
respect and confidence of the public and members of the police department in
making this concept viable.
The individual
officer’s attitude toward his job and community is critical. Certain personality characteristics have been
tied to police job performance and efficiency.
Beginning with Diehl and his colleagues in 1933, police officers that
were ranked as efficient and effective by their supervisors were usually those
that were emotionally stable, self-sufficient, extroverted, and dominant in
face-to-face situations. Hogan and
Curtness (1975) using the California Psychological Inventory found that their
sample of American police was masculine, self-confident, and socially
effective. “Good police” were
characterized by what they referred to as useful intelligence, achievement
motivation, and social poise. They were
more assertive, had a more clear sense of self-worth and acceptance, and were
more efficient in social functioning than officers who performed less
well. George Pugh (1985) using the
California Psychological Inventory found that the predictability of police work
to personality variables changes over time.
At two years into the study, the capacity for status as a
predictor of high performance. After
four and a half years, however, the best predictors were those that indicated a
stable, responsible, and socially skilled individual. Pugh interpreted this to mean that during the
earlier phases of police work the main focus of the job involved becoming a
part of the police department and gaining the trust of other officers. As the new officer stabilizes in his/her
position the traditional work of police becomes focal, rather than simply fitting
into the police department, and maturity and responsibility become more
critical to job performance.
The Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF) has
also been used to identify reliable predictors of successful police
performance. Fabricatore, et al., (1978)
found that tough-mindedness and aggressiveness were consistent predictors of
superior police performance. He and his
colleagues interpreted this to support the suggestion of the homogeneity of
police personality. In 1984, Richard
Lawrence using the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire found that being
reserved, detached, critical, conscientious, persistent, practical, down to
earth, socially aware, self-sufficient, resourceful, and preferring one’s
decisions assisted officers in his study to cope with job demands and stress. However, in Charlotte, many of these same
traits were at work to help collaboration, experimentation, reaching out to the
community and a willingness to give the concept the opportunity to work.
The studies reviewed were conducted during the professional
era of policing. Practices developed
during the professional era attempted to control crime through:
(1) Patrolling
communities to detect crimes in progress and to promote general deterrence,
(2) Rapid
response to calls for services, and,
(3) Investigation
of crimes already committed to apprehend subjects and build evidence to be used for prosecution (Alpert and
Moore, 1993).
Most of these endeavors had strong reactive themes. The effectiveness of these reactive tactics
has been widely discussed in the literature on policing (Bayley, 1994; Kelling
et al., 1974; Sherman, 1995). Many of
these studies suggest that there is a severe limitation on what police can do
about crime in a reactive mode of operation.
To many, particularly the public, it becomes apparent that old ways had
not worked and that there was a need for a new approach. Community problem-oriented policing, a
relatively new concept, represented this new way and its success rested on the
shoulders of every member of the police department and citizens of the city.
Across the country, police chiefs, politicians, and the public alike accepted community policing. The shift from reactive policing in the professional model to pro-active policing by the community-policing model is nothing less than a revolution. Police now engage in the following programs:
(1) community crime prevention programs enhancing citizen awareness about what can be done to reduce the incidence of crime (Goldstein, 1978; Rosenbaum, 1986),
(2) pro-active patrols and the monitoring of high-risk persons and places (Sherman, 1995), and,
(3) problem-solving strategies designed to intervene in situations that appear to generate crime and disorder (Bayley, 1994), and (4) community outreach and fear reduction programs to increase citizen quality of life (Moore, 1992).
The CPOP project is about developing partnerships with the
community to solve problems, reduce and prevent crime, and improve the quality
of life of citizens. The philosophy was
also about organizational change, increased public accountability,
decentralized command, and empowerment of line officers. Coupled with this is the full use of
technology to support efforts, improved citizen access to crime trends and
statistics, and reorientation of police activities from reaction to prevention
(Brann, 1996; Seagrave, 1996; Vaughn, 1991).
Summary
Community problem-oriented policing focuses on the
development of a partnership between police and community, the establishment of
a problem-solving approach to crime and fear issues, and attempts to increase
public accountability, decentralized command, and empowerment to the individual
line officer. It re-orients police
activities from reaction to pro-action and prevention. Changing the police organization and its
employees was based on planning and a model of change, to guide the achievement of
the mission and goals of the project (Prochaska and DiClemente, 1986). Understanding and considering individual
officers' openness to change helped in the design of a more effective training
program. It also increased the
likelihood that officers, especially senior-level officers, bought in and
supported the program.
References:
Alpert, G. and Moore, M. (1993). Measuring police
performance in the new paradigm of policing. In: DiLulio, J.J. (ed.)
Performance Measures for the Criminal Justice System. Bureau of Justice
Statistics, Princeton University.
Bayley, D. H. (1994).
Police for the Future. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press.
Brann, J. (1996, spring). “COPS director Joe Brann welcomes
new community policing publication for Sheriffs.” Sheriff times,
1.
Diehl, H., Paterson, D., Dvorak, B. and Logstaff, H.
(1933). A personnel study of Duluth policemen. Bulletin, Employment
Stabilization Research Institute, University of Minnesota, 2(2), 24.
Fabricatore, J., Azen, S., Schoentgen, S. and Snibbe, H.
(1978). Predicting the performance of police officers using the sixteen personality
factor questionnaire. American Journal of Community Psychology, 6(1), 63–70.
Goldstein, H. (1978). Police policy formulation: a proposal
for improving police performance. In: Gaines, L. and Ricks, T. (eds) Managing
the Police Organization. West Publishing, St Paul, MN.
Hogan, R. and Kurtiness, W. (1975). Personological
correlates of police effectiveness. Journal of Psychology, 91(2), 289–295.
Kelling, G., Pate, A., Dieckman, D. and Brown, C. (1974).
The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment: Technical Report. Police
Foundation, Washington, DC.
Moore, M. (1992). Problem-solving and community policing.
In: Tonry, M. and Morris, N. (eds), Criminal Justice: A Review of Research,
Vol. 15, pp. 99–157. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Prochaska, J.O., and DiClemente, C. C. (1986). Toward a
comprehensive model of change. In R. Miller and N. Heather (eds.). Treating
Addictive Behaviors: Processes of Change,
(pp.3-27). New York: Plenum Press.
Pugh, G. (1985). The California Psychological Inventory and
police selection. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 13(2), 172–177.
Sherman, L. and Weisbund, D. (1995). General deterrent
effects of police patrol in crime ‘‘hot spots’’: a randomized controlled trial,
Justice Quarterly, 12(4), 625–648.
Rosenbaum, D. (ed.) (1986). Community Crime Prevention:
Does It Work? Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Seagrave, J. (1996). Defining community policing. American
Journal of Police. XV (1), 1-22.
Vaughn, J. r. (1991, June). Community-oriented policing . .
. You can make it happen. Law and Order, 35-39.
Comments
Post a Comment