bayley (1998) - policing in america- assessment and prospects

7/31/2019 Bayley (1998) - Policing in America- Assessment and Prospects

1/8

Ideas in

Amer icanPol icing

By D avid H . Ba yl ey

Policing in America: Assessment and Prospects

February, 1998

I deas in A merican Policing

presents commentary andinsight from leadingcriminologists on issues of interest to practitioners,scholars, and policymakers.The papers published in thisseries are from the PoliceFoun dation lecture series of thesame name. Points of view inthis document are those of theauthor and do not necessarilyrepresent the ofcial position of the Police Foundation.

1997 Police Foundation andDavid H . Bayley. All rights reserved.

D avid H . Bayley is Deanof the School of CriminalJustice at the StateU niversity of N ew York at Albany.

PO LIC EF O U N D AT I O N

Along with external defense,the maintenance of internal orderis one of the dening functions of government. The United States,like countries everywhere, hascreated a particular governmentalinstitution for doing so, namely,the police. In this short essay, Iintend to assess what the policeinstitution in the United Stateshas become and where it mightbe going. I will do so byanswering three questions: (1)What is distinctive aboutAmerican policing? (2) What arethe major changes that haveoccurred in American policingover the last 30 years? (3) Whatare the factors currently shapingAmerican policing?

The Distinctive

Characteristics of American Policing

Compared with othercountries, American policing hasthree distinguishingcharacteristics.

First, responsiveness to citizendemands. In the United States,anybody can pick up a phone,walk into a police station, or stopa police ofcer on the street andexpect that an ofcer, armed anduniformed, embodying the fullauthority of government, willattend to the private problems of that individual. This is aremarkable development in worldgovernment . American police


2/8

2

operationsthe work that policedoare determined over-whelmingly by requests fromindividual citizens. In many othercountries, and in almost allcountries historically, police werecreated by governments tosafeguard the interests of regimes.Police in the United States today,and in a handful of other stabledemocratic countries, go to greatlengths to respond to whatindividuals want. It has becomefashionable in writing about thepolice to complain about thedemands that the 911 system

places on police. However justied the criticism may befrom the point of view of workload, the political instincts of American police to remainresponsive to individual requestsfor service are surely correct andshould be encouraged.

Second, public accountability.The United States insists on

making the police accountablethrough multiple institutions

elected politicians, criminal andcivil courts, the press, and civilianreview of complaints. This is rarein a world where the press isoften censored by government,police misdeeds are subject onlyto the invisible discipline of thepolice themselves, and politiciansrely on the police to keepthemselves in power.

Third, openness to evaluation.American police believe thatpolicy must be based on accuratefactual information. This is partlya matter of managerial culture,where a show-me mentality

predominates. Senior ofcers areuncomfortable merely followingtradition; they want programs tobe demonstrably cost effective.American policing is also uniquelyopen to examination by peopleoutside the police. Scholars,management consultants,politicians, and members of thecommunity with a serious interest

in policing can get access toalmost any activity of any police

force. Only a handful of othercountries in the world can makethis claim. Indeed, my private testfor democraticness is whether aforeign government will give mea visa to study their police. Isubmit that this is not a trivialtest and that the United Statespasses with ying colors.

Judging the contemporaryAmerican police by internationalas well as historical standards,there is much to be proud of.This is easy to forget, especiallyamong those of us who study thepolice for a living. Our stock-in-

trade, after all, involves pointingout where the police can dobetter and, hopefully, show themhow. But we must never forgetthat compared with othercountries, there is a healthy babyin the police bath water.

Signicant Changes in

the American Police

The appointment of thePresidents Commission on LawEnforcement and the Admin-istration of Justice (1966) marksthe beginning of what is generallyconsidered to have been a periodof great change in Americanpolicing. What in fact are the

accomplishments of the past30 years, and to what extenthave they contributed to thedistinctiveness of contemporaryAmerican policing? I think therehave been seven great changes inAmerican policing during whatamounts to my working lifetime.

I think there have been

seven great changes in American policing duringwhat amounts to myworking lifetime.


3/8

3

(1) The intellectual caliber of the police has risen dramatically.American police today at all ranksare smarter, better informed, andmore sophisticated than police inthe 1960s.

(2) Senior police managersare more ambitious for theirorganizations than they used tobe. Chiefs and their deputies areno longer content to tendsomeone elses store; they wantto leave their own distinctivestamp on their organizations. Todo this, they now recognize thatmanagement is an important

specialized skill that must bedeveloped.

(3) During the last 30 years,an explicit scientic mindset hastaken hold in American policingthat involves an appreciation of the importance of evaluation andthe timely availability of information.

(4) The standards of police

conduct have risen. Despiterecent well-publicized incidentsof brutality and corruption, Ibelieve that American policetoday treat the public more fairly,more equitably, and less venallythan police did 30 years ago.

(5) Police are remarkablymore diverse in terms of race andgender than a generation ago.

This amounts to a revolution inAmerican policing, changing bothits appearance and, more slowly,its behavior.

(6) The work of the policehas become intellectually moredemanding, requiring an array of new specialized knowledge about

technology, forensic analysis, andcrime. This has had profoundeffects on recruitment, notablycivilianization, organizationalstructure, career patterns, andoperational coordination.

(7) Civilian review of policediscipline, once consideredanathema, has gradually become

accepted by police. Although thestruggle is not yet over, I believethat expansion is inevitable asmore and more senior policeexecutives see that civilian reviewreassures the public and validatestheir own favorable opinion of the overall quality of policeperformance. This revolution hasalready taken place in Australia,

Britain, and Canada, and SamWalkers recent work convincesme that the corner has beenturned in the United States(Walker and Bumpus 1991).

This, then, is my list of themost signicant changes that haveoccurred in American policing

over the past 30 years. It maysurprise and even astonish manyreaders that I have notmentioned changes in thestrategies of policing, especiallythe advent of communitypolicing. I have not done sobecause I am not convinced thatstrategic changes have been

widespread, nor that what iscommonly accepted as new is infact new at all.

I do not mean to suggest thatgenuine innovation is not goingon. Wherever I go, I amenormously impressed with thestrategic creativity of Americanpolice. Smart people are doingsmart things. But what they are

doing is so diverse that it is hardto describe. For example, EdwardMaguire and his colleaguesneeded 31 separate categories tocapture activities that areassociated with communitypolicing (Maguire et al. 1997)Robert Worden and I used 11

I am not convinced that strategic changes have beenwidespread, nor that whatis commonly accepted as

new i s in fact new at all.


4/8

4

programmatic indicators forcommunity policing in our recentsurvey (forthcoming). When oneadds quality-of-life enforcementprograms as well as problem-specic tactics to the list, strategicinventiveness becomes toocomplex to capture in thefashionable notions of community- or problem-orientedpolicing.

Moreover, the most commoninnovationsDARE, crime-prevention programs, and beatcopsvary enormously in theirquality and, even when done

well, are arguably not particularlynew.

Altogether, then, Americanpolice should be congratulatedfor trying new things, but exactly

what their strategicinventiveness consists of is hardto say. COP and POP havebeen wonderful philosophicsticks for encouraging thepolice to reexamine customarystrategies, but they are awkwarddescriptive terms for what hasbeen taking place. Proponentsof community policing, amongwhom I count myself, aresomewhat like the beaver in acartoon I saw some time ago.The beaver is talkingto a rabbit at the base of theenormous concrete face of

Grand Coulee dam and says,I wouldnt want you to think I built this, but it is based onan idea of mine. The amountof strategic inventiveness in

American policing can becounted as a major change overthe past 30 years. What isspecically new substantively isdifcult to pinpoint.

American Police andScholarly Research

One implication of thisobservation about strategicchange in American policing isthat research may not have madeas signicant, or at least ascoherent, an impression onpolicing as scholars like to think.

Indeed, the fortunes of policeresearch have been mixed andperplexing. The two studies thatchallenged the traditional corestrategies most directly, namely,the Kansas City Preventive PatrolExperiment (Kelling et al. 1974)and Greenwood-Chaiken-Petersilias examination of thecriminal investigation process

(1976), have had a curioushistory. The ndings of both areaccepted as being true, eventhough their research designshave been sharply criticized, theirimpact on police practice hasbeen very small, and neither hasbeen replicated. With respect tothe efcacy of patrol, the nearestone comes to replication is from

hot spots analysis (Shermanet al. 1989), and with respect tocriminal investigation, theresearch of John Eck (1982) andthe British Royal Commission onCriminal Procedure (1981).Perhaps Kansas City andGreenwood-Chaiken-Petersilia

One implication of this observation about strategic change i n American policing i s that research may not have made as

signicant, or at least as coherent, an impression on policing as scholars li ke to think.


5/8

5

have not been replicated becausethey conrmed the obvious. Butif that is the case, then whyhasnt their impact on operationsbeen greater?

Two other studies, however,have made a major impact onpolice policy and both have beenreplicatedthe efcacy of rapidresponse and police tactics incases of misdemeanor spousalassault. The irony here is that wenow wish the second study(Sherman and Berk 1984) hadnot had so dramatic an impact onpolice operations.

Although this review of policeresearch is hardly exhaustive, itseems to me that the connectionbetween policy research andpolicy is not close. Indeed, it isoften paradoxical in that criticismhas not led regularly toreplication, even when theresearch was awed and theimplications for policy were very

great. Nor has research led towidespread operational changeseven when it has been acceptedas true.

Factors ShapingAmerican Policing

Unhappily for my scholarlyself-esteem, I am beginning to

suspect that the future of American policing will not beshaped by research or strategicplanning. The role, function, andstrategies of police are more likelyto reect the impact of forcesthat are unseen by either scholarsor police practitioners. Based on

the historical record, I believethat the future of Americanpolicing will be shaped mostprofoundly by four factors.

First, privatization, meaningthe loss of market share by thepublic police in providing defenseagainst crime. There is a growing

dualism in policing in alldeveloped nations, with thepublic police providing securityfor the poor and private policeproviding security for the rich(Bayley and Shearing 1996).There is the additional threat thatas the afuent classes learn to relymore on private police, they willbecome less willing to be taxed

to provide policing for the poor.Just such a withdrawal of supportseems to be happening withrespect to public education.Alternatively, the afuent classesmight continue to support publicpolicing, but only on thecondition that its approach to

crime prevention among the pooremphasizes deterrence rather thanthe service approach characteristicof community policing.

Second, restructuring of government. A momentousdebate is occurring in Americanpolitics over the content and

appropriate location of governmental action. To whatextent should governmentsupplant or regulate marketforces, especially in providingsocial services, and which levels of government should beresponsible for administeringprograms, the so-calleddevolution revolution. This

debate has been reected directlyin policing through community-and problem-oriented policing.CO P/ POP call for changes inboth the content and location of policing. Under its philosophy,police functions expand as policedevelop partnerships with

The role, function, and strategies of police are morelikely to reect the impact

of forces that are unseen byeither scholars or police

practi tioners.


6/8

6

communities, and decisionmakingbecomes more decentralized.CO P/ POP is politicallycontradictor ymore liberal withrespect to police functions, moreconservative with respect to thelocation of authority.

Third, group violencestemming from the inequities of race, class, and ethnicity. Everylarge police force is concernedabout the threat of mass violence,especially in large cities. As Kraskaand Kappeler have shown (1997),many police forces have alreadymoved quietly to prepare for it.Group violence shapes policingmore profoundly than any othersingle factor (Bayley 1975,1985). If group violence in theUnited States becomes persistentor widespread, CO P/ PO P will bedead in the water and the quasi-military character of policing, sooften deplored, will intensify.

Fourth, growth in thedestructiveness of criminal

violence, especially with regard toterrorism and organized crime. Idont believe that people arebecoming more violent andbloodyminded than they havealways been. But technology hasraised the potentialdestructiveness of criminalactions. Like group violence, thistoo will encourage a warfaremindset among police, wherecrime prevention becomeclandestine and enforcementoriented rather than public andameliorative.

Conclusion

H aving argued that researchhas had only a small impact onthe strategies of policing and thatour ability to foresee and plan forthe future is probably limited,one might conclude that I believeresearch on the police is onlymarginally important. That is notmy view. Research on the police

is essential, but its impact isdifferent from what manyscholars think. Scholars cannotclaim credit for major strategicchanges, but they can claim creditfor reinforcing the uniqueinstitutional ethos of theAmerican police, whichincorporates fact-basedevaluation, openness toobservation, and responsivenessto diverse opinions. The inuenceof scholarship on policing isindirect rather than direct. Itsvalue should not be judged innarrow operational terms. The

development of police researchduring the last 30 years hasinstitutionalized the practice of critical reection within Americanpolicing. In so doing, it hasdeepened the most distinctiveaspects of American policingitsresponsiveness and accountability.This is no small accomplishment.

The development of police research during the last

30 years has insti tu- tionali zed the practice of cri ti cal reection wi thin American policing.


7/8

7

Bibliography

Bayley, David H . 1975. The policeand political development inEurope. In The formation of national states in western Europe.ed. Charles Tilly. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.

_____. 1985. Patterns of Policing.New Brunswick, NJ: RutgersU niversity Press.

Bayley, D avid H ., and C liffordShearing. 1996. The future o f the police. Law an d Society

R eview.

Bayley, D avid H ., and RobertWorden. Forthcoming. Federal

fundin g of police overtim e: Autilization study. Washington,DC : National Institute of Justice.

Eck, John E. 1982. Solving crimes:The investigation of burglary and robbery. Washington, DC: PoliceExecutive Research Forum.

Greenwood, Peter W., Jan M.Chaiken, and Joan Petersilia.1976. The criminal investigation

process. Washington, D C: U SGovernment Printing Ofce.

Kelling, George L., Tony Pate,Duane Dieckman, andCharles E. Brown. 1974. TheKansas City preventive patrolexperim ent : A sum mary report .Washington, DC: PoliceFoundation.

Kraska, Peter B., and Victor E.Kappeler. Militarizing Americanpolice: The rise and normal-ization of paramilitary units.Social Problems 44 (1): 118.

Maguire, Edward R., Joseph B.Kuhns, Craig D. Uchida, andStephen M. Cox. 1997. Patternsof community policing innonurban America. Journal of

R esearch in Crim e an d Delinquency 34:36894.

Presidents Co mmission o n LawEnforcement and Administration

of Justice. 1967. The challenge of crim e in a f ree society.Washington, D C: U SGovernment Printing Ofce.

Royal Commission on CriminalProcedures. 1981. R esearchStudy 17. Lond on: H er MajestysStationary Ofce.

Sherman, Lawrence W., andRichard A. Berk. 1984. Th especic deterrent effects of arrestfor domestic assault. A mericanSociological R eview 49 (2): 26172 .

Sherman, Lawrence W., Patrick R.Gartin, and Michael E. Buerger.1989. H ot spots of predatorycrime: Routine activities and thecriminology of place.Criminology 27 (1): 2755.

Walker, Samuel, and Vic W. Bumpus.1991. Civilian review of the

police: A nat ional survey of the 50largest cities. Omaha: U niversityof Nebraska Press.


8/8

12 01 C onnecticut Avenue, N W , W ashington, D C 20 03 6(202) 833 -1460 Fax: (202) 65 9-914 9 e-mai l: [email protected]

A BO U T TH EPO L IC E FO U N D ATIO N

The Pol ice Found at ion is a pr ivate ,independ ent , not- for-pro t organizationdedicated to supp ort ing innovat ion and

im provem ent in pol i c ing through i ts research,technical assistance, and com m unic at ionsprogram s. Established in 1 97 0, thefound at ion has cond ucted sem inal researchin po l ice behavior, pol ic y, and procedu re ,and w orks to transfer to lo cal agencies thebest new inform at ion about p ract ices fordeal ing effect ively w i th a range of imp ortantpol ic e operational and adm inis tra tivecon cerns. M otivat ing al l of the found at ionsefforts is the goal of efc ient, hum anepol ic ing that operates w i thin the f ram ew orkof dem ocrat ic pr incip les and the highestideals of the nation .

O FFICE O F RESEA RCH

D avid Weisburd , PhDSenior Research Scientist

Rosann G reenspan, PhDResearch Director

D av id G . O l son , PhDSenior Research Associate

Edw in E. Hami l t on , M ASenio r Research An alyst

Kel l ie Ann Bryant , M SResearch Associate

Justin Read y, M AResearch Associate

M ichael C l i f ton , M AResearch Assistant

Rachel Dadu sc , BAAd m inistrative A ssistant

BO ARD O F D IRECTO RS

ChairmanW il l i am H . W ebster

PresidentH u b e rt Wi l l i am s

D r. Freda Adl er

D r. Lee P. Brow n

Richard A . G rasso

W i l l i am H . H u d n u t II I

D r. W . W al te r M enninger

Victor H . Palm ier i

Stanley K. Sheinbaum

Al fred A . Sloc um , Esq.

Sally Suc hi l, Esq.

PO LICEF O U N D AT I O N

bayley (1998) - policing in america- assessment and prospects

Documents