[CONTACT]

[ABOUT]

[POLICY]

The Future of Policing By William

Found at: 0x1bi.net:70/textfiles/file?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 
continue to ferment and explode unless opportunities were created 
to relieve those pressures. (1)
                                      
     According to Toffler, law enforcement, like society, has two 
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 
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
norm and value shifts, periods of reform in policing, the
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 
able to deal with change, law enforcement must understand the 

     Toffler's comments offer a challenge to law enforcement and 
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 
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 
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 
``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 
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 
unanticipated changes in both the role and organizational 
and most likely to be overlooked by police administrators is the 

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 
      
     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 

     The second wave, the Industrial Revolution, began about 
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 
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 

     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
of this micro millennium, a new ``disease'' has been discovered,
cyberphobia fear of computers. Computer phobes today express
Luddites expressed about mechanical devices.

CHANGES IN LAW ENFORCEMENT

     A rough correspondence to Toffler's wave analogy can be 
the beginning of the ``first wave'' of major law enforcement 
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 

     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 
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
nverse relationship exists in bureaucracies between
organizational size and receptivity to change. The bigger the
organization, the more rigidity and less affinity toward
nnovation 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
administrators are unwilling to ``rock the boat.'' (19)
                                 
     However, a 1983 study revealed that a surprising number of 
that typify so much of law enforcement. (20)  In effect, the study 
concluded that ``the traditional managerial methods are not 
to authority. (22)  Until about 15 years ago, most police recruits 
accustomed to unquestioned response to command.  Today, however, 
few of the young men and women entering law enforcement have 
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
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
            
     Today, there is ample evidence to indicate that insofar as 
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.              


     What do such findings imply for law enforcement? For 
administrators, what one does not want to hear may be precisely 
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 
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 
as central to our ability to police such a changing society. It 
s 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 
``puncturing the myths and slaughtering the sacred cows'' (32) will 
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 
question dogma. (34)  However, problem-oriented policing (35) and the 
Minneapolis domestic violence study, (36) for example, have been 
                         
     Law enforcement is capable of substantive change, but this 
adjust and adapt. (37)  Unexamined are a number of visionary ideas 
that may have been ahead of their time. One such untested 
organizational and decisionmaking decentralization. (38)  He argues, 
for example, that rigid discipline and authoritarianism fosters, 
                            
CONCLUSION

      Regardless of what lies ahead, law enforcement must 
anticipate tomorrow in an imaginative, analytical, and 
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 
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 
Luddite or luminary? Bold leadership is essential today to 

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, 
                                                            
(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, 

(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 

(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,'' 
Behavior (Chicago, IL:  St. Clair, 1977); Chris Argyris, 
(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. 
Lessons from America's Best-Run Companies (New York: Warner, 
Companies'?,'' Journal of Criminal Justice, vol. 13, No. 4, 
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, 
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, 

(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, 

(20) William F. Walsh, ``The Analysis of the Variation in 
Officer Arrest Rates: A Study of the Social Organization of 

(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 

(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 
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 
New Post-Industrial State,'' Futures, December 1985, pp. 
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 

(32) Louis A. Mayo, phrase coined as the theme for a 2-year 
Criminal Justice Administration of the American Society for 
Washington, DC.                                                   

(33) George L. Kelling, et al, ``The Kansas City Preventive 
Foundation, October 1974).                                        

(34) Ibid.                                                     

(35) Herman Goldstein, ``Improving Policing: A 

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

(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 
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.


AD: