textfiles/law/jan04.law

January 1990                                                     
                                                                 

                    The Future of Policing 

                              By

                    William L. Tafoya, Ph.D.                                            

                                                                  
      In August 1982, law enforcement executives gathered in the 
FBI Academy auditorium to hear Alvin Toffler speak. In his 
speech, Toffler suggested that because change was taking place so 
rapidly, tremendous social pressures were occurring and will 
continue to ferment and explode unless opportunities were created 
to relieve those pressures. (1)
                                      
     According to Toffler, law enforcement, like society, has two 
possible courses of action. The first is to cling to the status 
quo; the second, to facilitate social change. (2)  For law 
enforcement officers, this means not only protecting civil rights 
but also ensuring that all lawful means of dissent and 
petitioning of government concerning grievances are permitted and 
protected. (3)  This will help secure the ideals of democracy and 
facilitate an orderly transition into what Toffler has referred 
to as a ``third wave'' society. (4)                              

     In support of these ideals, this article addresses major
societal change from an historical perspective, ongoing social
norm and value shifts, periods of reform in policing, the
research that addresses the phenomenon of resistance to
organizational change, and the implications for law enforcement
of maintaining the status quo.
                                                       
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

     Historically, the role of law enforcement has been to 
maintain the status quo. However, this does not mean that this is 
what ``should be'' in the future. Reliance on current practices 
will not prepare law enforcement for the future. Therefore, to be 
able to deal with change, law enforcement must understand the 
process of change.                                                

     Toffler's comments offer a challenge to law enforcement and 
suggest that unless the police are viewed by the public as 
amicable, they will be perceived as adversaries. They must be 
viewed as integral to the neighborhood and as indispensable 
members of the community, not as an army of occupation.           

     One need only reflect back two decades to be reminded of how 
destructive civil unrest and social injustice can be. Law 
enforcement has made important and laudatory strides to heal 
those wounds, but there is more to be done. Law enforcement 
administrators must not allow themselves to be content with past 
achievements. If law enforcement stops to congratulate itself for 
the progress it has made thus far, it could drift backwards.      

     In addition, isolated and sometimes tragic events tend to 
dramatize and exaggerate the excitement of policing. For some 
police officers, the service function is something begrudgingly 
tolerated while waiting for the hot pursuit and in-progress 
calls. In fact, many police officers believe that the service 
function should not be part of their responsibilities. This 
belief is compounded by the lack of a concerted effort on the 
part of police administrators to give the service function a 
positive image. Therefore, systematically shifting public 
perception, and the self-image of the police themselves from 
``crime fighter'' to ``social engineer,'' seems appropriate. (5)
     
     If law enforcement administrators do not plan properly 
today, they may be forced to reassess the way their agencies 
carry out their responsibilities tomorrow. For example, 
California's 1978 Proposition Thirteen triggered a decade of 
so-called ``cutback management'' for law enforcement and other 
agencies nationwide.  Such reappraisals are likely to come about 
as a result of the kind of initiatives Toffler has called 
``anticipatory democracy.'' (6)
                                      
     Economizing measures, referenda, and trends, such as social 
norm and value shifts, accreditation, education and training, and 
consolidation, (7) will bear close scrutiny from now through the 
turn of the century. If changes in these areas continue at their 
present rate and direction, they are likely to lead to major, 
unanticipated changes in both the role and organizational 
structure of policing. Perhaps the most important, most subtle, 
and most likely to be overlooked by police administrators is the 
shift in social norms and values.                                 

CHANGES IN SOCIETY

     In his 1970 classic, Future Shock, Alvin Toffler discussed 
the world's major social norm and value shifts. (8) In 1980, he 
followed up with The Third Wave, in which he expanded his views 
and drew an analogy between the waves of the ocean and the three 
major changes of society: The Agricultural Revolution, the 
Industrial Revolution, and the Technological Revolution. (9)
      
     According to Toffler, the first wave, the Agricultural 
Revolution, swept aside 45,000 years of cave dwelling about 8,000 
B.C., and mankind shifted from a nomadic existence based on 
hunting and gathering to domesticating animals, farming, and 
settling on the land.                                             

     The second wave, the Industrial Revolution, began about 
1760, and mankind moved from the field to the foundry. The 
transition from plough to punch-press was filled with 
consternation. In fact, from 1811 to 1816, bands of workmen, 
called Luddites, destroyed machinery because they believed their 
jobs were at risk from the technology of the day. Machine power, 
they feared, would replace manpower. With the exception of a few 
Third World countries, the Industrial Revolution provided the 
economic base for second wave society.                            

     About 1955, the Technological Revolution began, signifying 
the third wave. Since that time, the American work force has 
shifted from blue collar to white collar. In barely three 
decades, a parade of high technology has marched into the home.   

     The driving force for this shift is information; the
economic base for third wave societies is the quest for
knowledge. The ubiquitous microcomputer, ushered in just over a
decade ago, has turned Western society inside out. In the wake
of this micro millennium, a new ``disease'' has been discovered,
cyberphobia fear of computers. Computer phobes today express
remarkably similar views about computers as 19th-century
Luddites expressed about mechanical devices.

CHANGES IN LAW ENFORCEMENT

     A rough correspondence to Toffler's wave analogy can be 
drawn with respect to the historical changes in law enforcement. 
Passage of the Metropolitan Police Act of 1829 in England marked 
the beginning of the ``first wave'' of major law enforcement 
reform. Robert Peel and Charles Rowan were two visionaries who 
brought order and the military model to policing.   

     A century later, in the 1930s, August Vollmer and O.W. Wilson, 
two American police pioneers, advanced the goal of 
``professionalizing'' law enforcement. Their efforts ushered in 
the ``second wave'' of major law enforcement reform. 
Standardization, specialization, synchronization, concentration, 
maximization, and centralization dominated law enforcement during 
this era. Toffler's ``Breaking the Code,'' in The Third Wave, for 
example, is almost a mirror image of the history of modern 
police administration. (10)                                          

     The civil unrest of the mid-1960s through the mid-1970s was 
the impetus for the advocacy of the ``third wave'' of major law 
enforcement reform. Change agents, such as Patrick V. Murphy and 
Quinn Tamm, began to question the value of the bureaucracy and 
the military model of policing.                                   

     Substantial improvements in law enforcement have taken place 
since the mid-1960s, (11) but most efforts to change have fallen 
short of their intended goals or have failed all together. (12)  In 
fact, law enforcement, being characteristically highly resistant 
to change and intolerant of organizational dissent, has been 
about as flexible as granite. (13)
                                   
ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
                                             
     There is a vast body of literature in organizational
behavior, (14) management, (15) and innovation (16) that
addresses the issue of resistance to change and reasons why so
many organizations are so unyielding. (17)  In general, an
inverse relationship exists in bureaucracies between
organizational size and receptivity to change. The bigger the
organization, the more rigidity and less affinity toward
innovation there is. (18)  As illogical as it may sound, in law
enforcement, it also appears to be the case that the smaller the
agency, the more resistance there is to change. Even though
positive, meaningful innovation is taking place, many police
administrators are unwilling to ``rock the boat.'' (19)
                                 
     However, a 1983 study revealed that a surprising number of 
police officers have begun to voice strong objections to the 
rigid organizational structure and autocratic management styles 
that typify so much of law enforcement. (20)  In effect, the study 
concluded that ``the traditional managerial methods are not 
serving to motivate officers.'' (21)  One reason for this 
phenomenon may be traced to a decline of unquestioned obedience 
to authority. (22)  Until about 15 years ago, most police recruits 
were men who had served in the Armed Forces. These men were 
accustomed to unquestioned response to command.  Today, however, 
few of the young men and women entering law enforcement have 
such experience. They often ask questions that are unsettling to 
traditionalist managers, who often believe that people need to  
be,  coerced, controlled, and threatened. (23)
                       
     In a more recent study, a panel of law enforcement
management experts discussed the future of law enforcement. (24)
One of the issues examined was leadership styles and the
phenomenon of resistance to change. One panelist, a law
enforcement executive, stated, ``The general perception is that
things have worked well as they are and that there is no need to
change.'' Another panelist, who is a criminal justice scholar,
admitted that ``police executives are not risk takers and police
departments are getting more, not less, defensive.'' (25)
            
     Today, there is ample evidence to indicate that insofar as 
dealing with people is concerned, the good ole days may best 
serve as memories, not models for future personnel practices. 
Between now and the turn of the century, law enforcement 
administrators will continue to be reminded that the 
organizational and managerial methods of the past even though 
enlightened for their time may no longer work. In the future, 
the number of disciplinary cases and the use of annual and sick 
leave will increase steadily under traditionalist managers. 
Unfortunately, many police administrators will be oblivious to 
these signs or will staunchly defend current personnel practices. 
However, the astute administrator will recognize these indicators 
for what they represent and will adjust accordingly.              

IMPLICATIONS

     What do such findings imply for law enforcement? For 
administrators, what one does not want to hear may be precisely 
what one needs to know. (26)  For operational officers, some may 
feel trapped and unable to leave; they will become cynics. (27) 
Others will leave to join less bureaucratic and militaristic 
organizations. The fact that many college   graduates leave law 
enforcement early because of autocratic management was recognized 
over two decades ago. (28)  But, the departure of personnel who 
rebel against authoritarianism will likely not be an exodus of 
college-educated personnel in terms of numbers, but of talent.    

     The discontinuity of social norms and values, which began 
more than two decades ago, (29) is still evident today. (30)  And, the 
trend will continue over the next 20 years and beyond. As a 
result, an effort has been made to highlight some issues viewed 
as central to our ability to police such a changing society. It 
is vital that law enforcement administrators understand that:
     
     * Powerful dynamics are transfiguring virtually every facet of 
       American society
                                                  
     * The forces that are recasting social institutions will also 
       alter law enforcement organizations                               

     * As society's values change, so will those of law enforcement 
       personnel
                                                         
     * To deal effectively with diversity, the process of change 
       must be understood
                                                
     * The role and goals of policing must be clearly and concisely 
       articulated.
                                                      

     If the professionalization of law enforcement is truly 
desirable, the fact that ``the reform movements may have 
succeeded to some extent in creating the appearance without the 
substance of fundamental reform'' must be faced. (31)  Only by 
``puncturing the myths and slaughtering the sacred cows'' (32) will 
we advance the substance of policing. This has not always been 
easy for law enforcement.                                     
    
      However, while the methodological rigor of past research 
continues to be debated, the Kansas City Preventive Patrol 
Experiment (33) represents a giant leap forward for police 
professionalism and has demonstrated that it is ``o.k.'' to 
question dogma. (34)  However, problem-oriented policing (35) and the 
Minneapolis domestic violence study, (36) for example, have been 
received with more reticence.            
                         
     Law enforcement is capable of substantive change, but this 
requires an objective examination of policy and a willingness to 
adjust and adapt. (37)  Unexamined are a number of visionary ideas 
that may have been ahead of their time. One such untested 
proposal that evidences a great deal of merit is John Angell's 
democratic model of policing, which calls for greater 
organizational and decisionmaking decentralization. (38)  He argues, 
for example, that rigid discipline and authoritarianism fosters, 
rather than discourages, corruption. (39)
                            
CONCLUSION

      Regardless of what lies ahead, law enforcement must 
anticipate tomorrow in an imaginative, analytical, and 
prescriptive manner.  This means that law enforcement 
administrators must not be seduced by the tried and true tenets 
of the past. When ``experience'' becomes dogma, it can be not 
only misleading but also dangerous as well.  Administrators 
should reflect on what has passed, not be driven by it.  Law 
enforcement administrators of today if they are to shape the 
course of tomorrow must look ahead.                               

     For 45,000 years, mankind huddled in the darkness of caves, 
afraid to take that first step into the light of day. Will 
history record each law enforcement agency's contribution as 
Luddite or luminary? Bold leadership is essential today to 
prepare for the ``fourth wave'' of law enforcement reform. 

FOOTNOTES

(1)  Alvin Toffler, Address before the 130th Session of the FBI 
National Academy, FBI Academy, Quantico, VA, August, 5, 1982.     

(2)  Ibid.                                                     

(3)  Ibid.                                                     

(4)  Alvin Toffler, The Third Wave (New York: William Morrow, 
1980).
                                                            
(5)  James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling, ``Broken Windows,'' 
Atlantic Monthly, March 1982, pp 29-38; James Q. Wilson and 
George L. Kelling, ``Making Neighborhoods Safe,'' Atlantic 
Monthly, February 1989, pp. 46-52.                                

(6)  Alvin Toffler, Future Shock (New York: Random House, 
1970); supra note 4.                                              

(7)  William L. Tafoya, ``A Delphi Forecast of the Future of 
Law Enforcement,'' unpublished doctoral dissertation (Criminal   
Justice and Criminology), University of Maryland, December 1986. 

(8)  Supra note 6.                                             

(9)  Supra note 4.                                              

(10) Supra note 4.                                             

(11)  Wayne A. Kerstetter, ``The Police in 1984,''Journal of 
Criminal Justice, Spring 1979, pp. 1-9.                           

(12)  Charles R. Swanson, Leonard Territo, and Robert W. 
Taylor, Police Administration:  Structures, Processes, and 
Behavior, 2nd ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1988), see especially 
``Success and Failure Patterns in Planned Change,'' pp. 545-547. 

(13) Dorothy Guyot, ``Bending Granite: Attempts to Change the 
Rank Structure of American Police Departments,'' Journal of 
Police Science and Administration, September 1979, pp. 253-284.  

(14)  Roy R. Roberg and Jack Kuykendall, Police Organization 
and Management: Behavior, Theory, and Processes (Pacific Grove, 
CA: Brooks/Cole, 1990), see especially ``Resistance to Change,'' 
pp. 383-388; Stephen J. Carroll and Henry L. Tosi, Organizational 
Behavior (Chicago, IL:  St. Clair, 1977); Chris Argyris, 
Interpersonal Competence and Organizational Effectiveness 
(Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, 1962).                           

(15) Rosabeth Moss Kanter, When Giants Learn to Dance:  
Mastering the Challenge of Strategy, Management, and Careers in 
the 1990s (New York:  Simon and Schuster, 1989); Thomas J. 
Peters and Robert H. Waterman, Jr. In Search of Excellence: 
Lessons from America's Best-Run Companies (New York: Warner, 
1982). Dilip K. Das, ``What Can the Police Learn from `Excellent 
Companies'?,'' Journal of Criminal Justice, vol. 13, No. 4, 
1985, pp. 381-385. Harry W. More, ed., Effective Police 
Administration: A Behavioral Approach (San Jose, CA:  Justice 
Systems Development, 1975).                                       

(16) John Sculley, Odyssey:  Pepsi to Apple...A Journey of 
Adventure, Ideas, and the Future (New York: Harper and Row, 
1987); Rosabeth Moss Kanter, The Change Masters: Innovations for 
Productivity in the American Corporation (New York: Simon & 
Schuster, 1983); Leonard Territo, ``Planning and Implementing 
Organizational Change,'' Journal of Police Science and 
Administration, December 1980, pp. 390-398.                       

(17) Terrence E. Deal and Allan A. Kennedy, Corporate 
Cultures:  The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life (Reading, MA: 
Addison-Wesley, 1982); Marilyn Ferguson, The Aquarian 
Conspiracy: Personal and Social Transformation in the 1980s (Los 
Angeles, CA: J.P. Tarcher, 1980); Gerald E. Caiden, Police 
Revitalization (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1977); Warren G. 
Bennis, ``Beyond Bureaucracy: Will Organization Men Fit the New 
Organizations?,'' Tomorrow's Organizations: Challenges and 
Strategies, edited by Jon S. Jun and William B. Storm (Glenview, 
IL: Scot, Foresman & Co., 1973), pp. 70-76.                       

(18) Anthony Downs, Inside Bureaucracy (Boston, MA: Little, 
Brown & Co., 1967).                                               

(19) J. Laverne Coppock, ``Police Management in Transition,'' 
Effective Police Administration: A Behavioral Approach, 2nd ed., 
edited by Harry W. More, Jr., (St. Paul, MN: West Publishing, 
1979), pp. 45-56.                                                 

(20) William F. Walsh, ``The Analysis of the Variation in 
Patrol Officer Felony Arrest Rates,'' unpublished doctoral 
dissertation (Sociology), Fordham University, 1984, and ``Patrol 
Officer Arrest Rates: A Study of the Social Organization of 
Police Work,'' Justice Quarterly, September 1986, pp. 271-290.    

(21) ``Police Officers Won't Tolerate Autocratic Management 
Style,'' ACJS Today, January 1984, p.6.                           

(22) Ibid.                                                     

(23) Douglas McGregor, The Human Side of Enterprise (New 
York: McGraw-Hill, 1960).                                         

(24) Supra note 7.                                             

(25) Supra note 7.                                             

(26) Donald Sanzotta, The Manager's Guide to Interpersonal 
Relations (New York: AMACOM, 1979), see especially ``The 
Ill-Informed Walrus,'' pp. 113-115.                               

(27) Arthur Niederhoffer, Behind the Shield: The Police in 
Urban Society, (Garden City, NY:  Doubleday, 1967).               

(28) Norman Pomrenke, ``Attracting and Retaining the 
College-Trained Officer in Law Enforcement,'' remarks made at the 
72nd Annual Conference of the International Association of Chiefs 
of Police, Miami, FL, October 2-7, 1965, proceedings published in 
The Police Yearbook (Washington, DC:  IACP, 1966), pp. 99-109.    

(29) Peter F. Drucker, The Age of Discontinuity (New York: 
Harper & Row, 1968).                                              

(30) Daniel Yankelovich and Sidney Harman, Starting With the 
People (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1988); Ian Miles, ``The 
New Post-Industrial State,'' Futures, December 1985, pp. 
588-617; Daniel Yankelovich, New Rules:  Searching for 
Self-Fulfillment in a World Turned Upside Down (New York: Random 
House, 1981).                                                     

(31) Gary W. Sykes, ``The Functional Nature of Police Reform:  
The `Myth' of Controlling the Police,'' Justice Quarterly, March 
1985, pp. 51-65.                                                  

(32) Louis A. Mayo, phrase coined as the theme for a 2-year 
series of monthly meetings co-sponsored by the Section of 
Criminal Justice Administration of the American Society for 
Public Administration (ASPA) and the Police Foundation, 
Washington, DC.                                                   

(33) George L. Kelling, et al, ``The Kansas City Preventive 
Patrol Experiment,'' technical report (Washington, DC: The Police 
Foundation, October 1974).                                        

(34) Ibid.                                                     

(35) Herman Goldstein, ``Improving Policing: A 
Problem-Oriented Approach,'' Crime and Delinquency, April 1979, 
pp. 236-258.                                                      

(36) Lawrence W. Sherman & Richard A. Berk, ``The Minneapolis 
Domestic Violence Experiment,'' report (Washington, DC: The 
Police Foundation, 1984).                                         

(37) Alvin Toffler, The Adaptive Corporation (New York: 
McGraw-Hill, 1985).                                               

(38) John E. Angell, ``Organizing Police for the Future: An 
Update on the Democratic Model,'' Criminal Justice Review, Fall 
1976, pp. 35-51;  ``Toward an Alternative to the Classic 
Organizational Arrangements: A Democratic Model,'' Criminology, 
August-November 1971, pp. 185-206.                                

(39) Carl B. Klockars, Thinking About Police (New York: 
McGraw-Hill, 1983).                                               



About the author:

     William L. Tafoya is an FBI Special Agent assigned to the 
     Behavioral Science Instruction/Research Unit at the FBI
     Academy at Quantico, VA.