Challenges for Law Enforcement 1

Running head: CHALLENGES FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT

Challenges for Law Enforcement: Moving from a Paramilitary Past to a Community

Oriented Future

Jake J. Koppenhaver

Criminal Justice Capstone

Professor Scott

July 24, 2007

Challenges for Law Enforcement 2

Challenges for Law Enforcement: Moving from a Paramilitary Past to a Community Oriented

Future

Law enforcement is similar to many other long-standing legacies. The members of its

community are proud that they take part in a field of service such as police work and its support;

Families of those involved are aware of the risks yet still support their officers in any way they

can; Its administration and ranks are highly resistant to change. Society is in a constant state of

flux, often forward-moving, and need their law enforcement agencies to adapt with them

socially. This is the only way that the needs of the community can be served by their law

enforcement agencies. Many believe that paramilitary structures do not cater to the community

as much as is required, and with focus in many agencies being turned toward the Community

Oriented Policing (also known as C.O.P.) one can see a looming question over the future of

police work: How does the current paramilitary structure cater to the philosophies of community

policing, and ultimately serve the community?

The organization of law enforcement agencies have been largely paramilitary-based in

their operation since they were formed, and understandably so. As far back as biblical times the

reigning government’s military was tasked with the general peacekeeping and enforcement

duties held by our modern law enforcement agencies. The most prominent of history’s law

enforcement bodies was that of the Roman Empire. It was not until the Fifth Century that

governing states in the Roman Empire were tasked with enforcement duties (Annely, 2006).

Only within the last few hundred years have law enforcement agencies departed from traditional

military powers. In 19th century Europe the first modern law enforcement agencies were formed

with the aid of Sir Robert Peel, however they kept much of the same philosophy from their

military roots which showed in their rank system, authorization to use force while performing

duties, etc. These philosophies, as is evident in all militaries of the world past and present, are

Challenges for Law Enforcement 3

designed to streamline operations by managing bodies scientifically and thereby increasing

efficiency, all through a hierarchical command network (Roberg & Kuykendall, 1997, p.29). The

traditional characteristics of the paramilitary control model include a central command structure

(rank scales with rigid differences which answer to the rank above and ultimately perform for the

governing body), terminology and procedures similar to that of the military with commands and

orders disseminated from higher ranks, strong focus on policy, procedure, and rules, and

resistance to challenge by the entire system (LaGrange, 1998, p. 318).

According to Roberg and Kuykendall (1997, p. 29) the adoption of such a system was an

effort to help produce more professional police agencies through previously successful control

means, however it became evident that it had more or less resulted in a highly bureaucratic

organization. Many find the paramilitary model to be a hindrance to law enforcement agencies

when it comes to serving the changing needs of their respective communities. Studies have found

that the model often fails in trying to promote open and constructive communication horizontally

(from outside sources) as well as laterally (from the lower ranks which comprise the agency).

The paramilitary model also has been known to stifle individual creativity within the

organization and promotes a lack of flexibility and resistance to change (Peak, 1997, p. 114).

It is important to note that while police agencies do not exhibit overly militaristic qualities in

each of their practices, that the military concept of efficiency and resource management is often

the source of those habits. Take for example the three main designs which agencies use to help

boost productivity: functional, place, and time. Functional design involves allocating resources

based on a specialized need. This characteristic is evident in most large agencies which typically

have several specialized units to combat certain crimes in the major metropolitan setting: Gang

units, SWAT teams, youth task forces, narcotics divisions, traffic enforcement and aggressive

driver apprehension teams, sex offender tracking detectives, and school resource officers

Challenges for Law Enforcement 4

(Hellriegel, Slocum, & Woodman, 2001, p. 489). Many smaller agencies which are not as highly

staffed usually cross train staff in multiple areas (for example, an officer normally serves on the

traffic unit yet is also a member of the youth task force). Other options include contracting with

larger agencies for specialized services such as a crime lab or dispatching. According to some

authors this method may cause employees to lose sight of police service as a whole by

encouraging only specific functions on a micro level (Hellriegel et al, 2001, p. 489). Place design

refers to the actual zoning of an agency’s jurisdiction in order to maximize its coverage. Many

police departments break up their cities into small areas which are covered by a specific amount

of officers, yet still hold to a functional design (Hellriegel et al, 2001, p. 489). This design helps

to ensure that officers are visible in all areas of the community and are readily available to

respond to emergency calls. Time design refers simply to the shifts that an officer works. They

are referred to as watches, tours, etc., depending on the agency, and work to provide round-the-

clock enforcement to municipalities.

The paramilitary police model, while retaining tried and true tactics in policing, conflict

with certain areas of what is decidedly the future of modern law enforcement. This future

involves a method of policing which focuses on not only the efficiency of the police agency and

its staff, but also the community as a whole. Community oriented policing has been defined as

“A law enforcement program that seeks to integrate officers into the local community to reduce

crime and gain good community relations (Siegel & Senna, 2006, p. 155).” While it may seem to

be a simple concept, some strategies for implementing programs include the decentralization of

command, civilianization, and community communications and reciprocity—philosophies that a

strict paramilitary agency operates opposite of. This form of policing has also prompted many

traditional management and enforcement practices to be challenged on account of the

increasingly educated officers which make up organizations to the new demands and focus of the

Challenges for Law Enforcement 5

criminal justice system (Roberg, Crank, & Kuykendall, 2000, p. 117). While the chain of

command is vitally necessary in the emergency situations faced by law enforcement agencies,

such as major crimes and natural disasters, often day-to-day situations and duties are being

placed in the hands of the individual officers. Officers must be able to consistently and

individually assess situations and react on behalf of their agency which requires creative thinking

and questioning of past, stricter principles. In contrast to the aforementioned qualities of the

traditional paramilitary organization, the modern police agency and the citizens they serve often

seek the following on an internal level (Skolnick & Bayley, 1986; Sparrow, Moore, & Kennedy,

1990; Toch & Grant, 1991; Cox & Fitzgerald, 1996): The support and nurturing of individual

officer discretion; using guidance and coaching versus strict punishment; open communications

with all ranks and between the agency and their community; constructive motivation and

reinforcement for staff; operational flexibility; less resistance to change; decentralized command;

the creation and dissemination of slid expectations for all levels. Officers are also encouraged to

lessen the distance between the communities and themselves: bike patrol units, school resource

officers, community storefronts, and officer participation in community events all help to bring

the members of a community and their sworn protectors closer to each other.

Civilianization is one unique concept in community oriented policing, and perhaps the

strongest in my opinion. Civilianization not only refers to opening positions that were once held

only by members of law enforcement rank to the public (such as dispatchers, clerical positions,

corrections officers, etc.), but also in allowing the community to assist in the overall directional

guidance of the department. Many agencies now have civilian review boards which assist

internal investigations, use of force reviews, and policy making decisions. They help to guide

governmental funding and are allowed to give input on what they want to see out of their police

officers. These techniques are monumental steps in a field which was for a great while very

Challenges for Law Enforcement 6

closed. This is not to say in any way that the thin blue line is in danger of extinction, but at no

point has the community and their police service been this tightly integrated.

Law enforcement agencies are at their hearts paramilitary organizations. This has been a

strong concept for quite a while. With the concept of community oriented policing sweeping not

only the country but the globe, it is easy to see that conflict will arise and obstacles will appear in

the transition of one to another. This is not to say that all law enforcement agencies must move

away from paramilitary concepts. Many agencies, and groups within an agency, perform

increasingly well under that type of command structure, such as tactical response teams, bomb

squads, honor guard units, etc. However it is clear that the general operations and image of a

department must change to suit the changing needs of their communities. Due to paramilitary

structures being somewhat conflicting with that concept many departments have had to

reexamine their stance on this issue and modify themselves in order to grow along with their

communities. In order for a law enforcement agency to successfully serve its community it must

evolve with it and alongside it, not against it, away from it, or in a different direction. No matter

the amount of negative publicity towards law enforcement—racism, excessive force, favoritism,

infringements on civil rights—the public still values and appreciates the service of their public

safety professionals. In order to maintain this favorable relationship and improve it in the future,

the law enforcement field must adopt to the changing needs of its citizens.

Challenges for Law Enforcement 7

References

Annely, Kristy. (2006, August 15). History Of Law Enforcement. EzineArticles. Retrieved July

19, 2007, from web site: http://ezinearticles.com/?History-Of-Law-

Enforcement&id=269224.

Cox, S.M., & Fitzgerald, J.D. (1996). Police in community relations: Critical Issues, 3rd ed.

Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark.

Hellriegel, D., Slocum, J.W., & Woodman, R.W. (2001). Organizational behavior, 9th ed.

Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing.

LaGrange, R.L. (1998). Policing American society, 2nd ed. Chicago: Nelson Hall.

Peak, K.J. (1997). Policing America, 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Roberg, R.R., Crank, J., & Kuykendall, J. (2000). Police and society, 2nd ed. Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth.

Siegel, L, & Senna, J (2006). Introduction to criminal justice. Mason, OH: Thomson

_____Wadsworth.

Skolnick, J.H., & Bayley, D.H. (1986). The new blue line: Police innovation in six American

cities. New York: Free Press.

Sparrow, M.K., Moore, M.H., & Kennedy, D.M. (1990). Beyond 911: A new era for policing.

New York: Basic Books.

Toch, H., & Grant, J.D. (1991). Police as problem solvers. New York, Plenum.