SOLUTION: Citronelle High School Role of Police Officers Argumentative Essay

Get Custom Essay on SOLUTION: Citronelle High School Role of Police Officers Argumentative Essay

Let Our Team of Pofessional Writers Take Care of Your Paper.

reposing previous discussion i hope you understand i had a hard time with it to.
police Evaluations and Studies discussion 1
 
When we pull back the layers of government services, the most fundamental and
indispensable virtues are public safety and social order. —Hon. David A. Hardy,
Washoe County District Court, Reno, Nevada The police are the public and … the
public are the police. —Sir Robert Peel, 1829 (Peak, p.3).
In Chapter One of Policing America:
Challenges and Best Practices, you read that there were developments for
the police during the late 1970s and early 1980s. Foot patrols became more
popular, and many larger jurisdictions (such as Newark, New Jersey; Boston,
Massachusetts; and Flint, Michigan) even began to require this form of patrol.
In Newark, an evaluation led to the conclusions that officers on foot patrol
were easily seen by residents, produced a significant increase in the level of
satisfaction with police service, led to a significant reduction of perceived
crime problems, and resulted in a significant increase in the perceived level
of neighborhood safety.
 
Newark, New Jersey is not the only location in the United States where an
evaluation was completed to measure citizen satisfaction with the police. Visit
the National
Archive of Criminal Justice Data. In the search box, click on the Related Literature radial and
type “citizen satisfaction” or “evaluations” in the search field. Information
related to other studies involving citizen satisfaction with the police will
populate. Choose two additional studies/evaluations which have been conducted
in the United States as a means to measure the citizen satisfaction with the
police from the list.).
 
For your discussion, analyze the
results of the two studies you selected from the search result. How can
this information be used to further the effectiveness of policing in today’s
world? What are the advantages and disadvantages of being concerned with
citizen satisfaction?   
The first article
Community Policing in Madison,
Wisconsin: Evaluation of Implementation and Impact, 1987-1990 (ICPSR 6480)
Principal Investigator(s): Wycoff, Mary Ann, The Police Foundation;
Skogan, Wesley G., Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research, Northwestern
University
Citation
Wycoff, Mary Ann, and Wesley G. Skogan.
Community Policing in Madison, Wisconsin: Evaluation of Implementation and
Impact, 1987-1990. ICPSR06480-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium
for Political and Social Research [distributor], 1996.
http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR06480.v1
Funding
This study was funded by:
· 
United States
Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Unit
of Observation:  Individuals.
Universe:  Police officers in the Madison Police Department and
residents of the city of Madison, Wisconsin.
Methodology
Study Purpose:  This study sought to evaluate efforts
by the Madison, Wisconsin, Police Department to create a new organizational
design (both structural and managerial) to support community-oriented and
problem-oriented policing that would result in better, more responsive service
to the community. The department’s plan was a sequential one: internal
organizational changes were necessary before the external goal of improved
service could be accomplished. One-sixth of the organization serving
approximately one-sixth of the community was used as a test site for the new
approach. This Experimental Police District (EPD) was charged with implementing
“quality policing,” which emphasized quality of service delivery,
quality of life in the community, and quality of life in the workplace. The
first objective of the Madison Police Department was the implementation of
three conditions: (1) quality leadership, emphasizing the role of managers as
facilitators whose job was to improve systems, involve employees in decision-making,
employ data-based problem-solving approaches, promote teamwork, encourage
risk-taking and creativity, and give and receive feedback from employees, (2) a
healthy work environment, treating employees as “internal customers”
whose problems should be identified and resolved, and (3) physical
decentralization, creating a small work group to improve conditions in the
workplace and, at the same time, obtain closer physical proximity to citizens
to get to know them and become aware of their problems. The researchers’ task
was to: (1) document the process of developing the Experimental Police
District, (2) measure any attitude changes of the police personnel during the
experimental period, and (3) measure the effects of change on the community.
Study Design:  As the first part of the program
evaluation, attitude changes among officers working in the EPD were compared
with those of officers working in the rest of the police department. Written
surveys were administered by the Project Director to small groups of personnel
during normal working hours. Although the analysis was to be based on a panel
design, efforts were made to survey all commissioned personnel during each
survey administration period. Since the ultimate goal of the department was
change across the entire organization, changes for the organization as a whole
were also monitored. Part 1, Commissioned Personnel Data, Wave 1, contains
responses from 269 commissioned personnel surveyed in December 1987 before the
creation of the EPD. Part 2, Commissioned Personnel Data, Wave 2, consists of
responses from 264 police officers who completed a Wave 2 survey in December
1988, and Part 3, Commissioned Personnel Data, Wave 3, supplies responses from
230 police officers who completed a Wave 3 survey in December 1989. As the
second part of the program evaluation, attitude changes among residents served
by the EPD were compared with those of residents in the rest of the city using
a quasi-experimental design. These data are presented in Part 4, Residents
Data, Waves 1 and 2. A few days prior to contact, letters from the Office of
the Mayor were sent to the selected addresses. Interviewers who had been
recruited, trained, and supervised by Police Foundation personnel carried a
copy of that letter and presented photo identification cards at each residence.
Selection of the respondents was made by the interviewers at the selected
household, using a Kish selection table included in each questionnaire.
Individuals under the age of 18 were not included in the household listing.
Interviewers made a total of six attempts to interview the selected respondent
in each household. All refusals in which the respondent was not hostile were
reassigned to different interviewers. Twenty-five percent of all completed
interviews were validated by recontacting the respondent to verify that the
interview took place, that it had required the appropriate amount of the
respondent’s time, and that a few key questions were answered the same way
during the validation call as in the original contact. Data for Wave 1 consist
of personal interviews with a random sample of 1,166 Madison residents in
February and March 1988, prior to the opening of the EPD station. Since 97.6
percent of the respondents provided their telephone numbers, the decision was
made to conduct the Wave 2 survey by telephone. The telephone interviews were
conducted by the Wisconsin Survey Research Lab at the University of Wisconsin
in February and March 1990. In-person interviews were also attempted with about
70 percent of the Wave 1 respondents who did not provide telephone numbers. Of
the 772 completed interviews for Wave 2, 45 interviews contained substantial
mismatches between information provided in 1988 and 1990. These 45 respondents
were removed from the panel, leaving an analysis panel of 727 respondents.
Sample:  The EPD program site was not randomly selected, but was
selected by the department, based on several indicators of need. Police
officers were also not randomly assigned to work in the EPD, but were allowed
to bid for assignments in the EPD. Households for the resident survey were
randomly selected from the 1980 Census block statistics, excluding city blocks
that consisted primarily of business areas or student housing.
Data Source:
self-enumerated questionnaires, personal
interviews, and telephone interviews
Description of Variables:  Police personnel provided their
assessments on how successfully quality leadership had been implemented, the
extent to which the officers felt they worked closely with and received feedback
from other officers, the amount of their interaction with detectives, the
amount of time available for problem-solving, ease of arranging schedules,
safety of working conditions, satisfaction with working conditions, type of
work they performed, their supervisors, commitment to the department, attitudes
related to community policing and problem-solving, perception of their
relationship with the community, police views of human nature, attitudes toward
change, attitudes toward decentralization, and demographic information.
Residents provided their perceptions of police presence, frequency of
police-citizen contacts, quality of police-citizen contacts, estimates of the
magnitude of various problems in their neighborhoods, evaluation of the
problem-solving efforts of the police, perception of neighborhood conditions,
levels of fear of crime, personal experience of victimization, knowledge of
victimization of other residents, and demographic information.
Response Rates:  For the police personnel surveys, 97
percent of the total commissioned personnel in the Madison Police Department
participated in the employee survey in 1987, 97 percent participated in 1988,
and 86 percent participated in 1989. Of the respondents to the Wave I survey,
14 had left the department by the time of the third survey. Two hundred and two
persons participated in all three survey waves, resulting in a participation
rate of 79 percent for the panel. Some personnel changes occurred after the
first year of the evaluation period, resulting in an analysis panel equivalent
to 61 percent of the total sworn personnel at any one of the three survey
times. Participation rates are provided rather than response rates because at
each survey period, a very small number of individuals came to the survey site
and completed a survey identification form, but did not actually complete the
survey. For the resident survey, the response rate in the EPD area was 77.8
percent and 75.1 percent for the rest of the city. The 772 interviews completed
for Wave 2 resulted in a panel completion rate of 66.2 percent.
Presence of Common Scales:  Several Likert-type scales were used.
Extent of Processing: ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality
review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR
also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major
statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the
data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing
steps for this data collection:
· 
Checked for
undocumented or out-of-range codes.
second article
Project on Policing Neighborhoods in
Indianapolis, Indiana, and St. Petersburg, Florida, 1996-1997 (ICPSR 3160)
Principal Investigator(s): Mastrofski, Stephen D., George Mason University;
Parks, Roger B., Indiana University; Worden, Robert E., University at Albany;
Reiss, Albert J. Jr., Yale University
Summary:
The purpose of the Project on Policing
Neighborhoods (POPN) was to provide an in-depth description of how the police
and the community interact with each other in a community policing (CP)
environment. Research was conducted in Indianapolis, Indiana, in 1996 and in
St. Petersburg, Florida, in 1997. Several research methods were employed:
systematic observation of patrol officers (Parts 1-4) and patrol supervisors
(Parts 5-14), in-person interviews with patrol officers (Part 15) and
supervi… (more
info)
Citation for second article
Citation
Mastrofski, Stephen D., Roger B. Parks, Robert
E. Worden, and Albert J. Jr. Reiss. Project on Policing Neighborhoods in
Indianapolis, Indiana, and St. Petersburg, Florida, 1996-1997 [Computer File].
ICPSR03160-v2. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political Social
Research [distributor], 2007-06-01. http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03160.v2
Data Collection Notes:
(1) The narrative descriptions of the
ride-alongs are not available as part of this collection, (2) Following the
“rule of ten” guidelines used by the POPN researchers, users of the
data should make no attributions to an officer (or group of officers) with
specified characteristics unless at least ten officers in the sample share the
same characteristics.
Methodology
Study Purpose:  In the broadest sense, the purpose of
the Project on Policing Neighborhoods (POPN) was to provide an in-depth
description of how the police and the community interact with each other in a
community policing (CP) environment. Data were collected to facilitate studies
on the following issues: (1) how patrol officers spend their time, (2) how
officers use their authority to intervene in citizens’ lives, (3) how problem
citizens are controlled, (4) how civility and cooperation between police and
public is obtained, (5) what officer characteristics are associated with high
CP performance, (6) the role of first-line supervisors, (7) the context for
street-level performance set by management, and (8) how patterns of policing
vary among neighborhoods and the impact they have on neighborhood quality of
life. For this study, “neighborhood” in operational terms meant the
patrol beat. Indianapolis used the term “beat” and St. Petersburg
used the term “community policing area” (CPA) to define the smallest
geographical space to which an individual officer would be assigned patrol
responsibilities.
Study Design:  Research was conducted in Indianapolis,
Indiana, in 1996 and in St. Petersburg, Florida, in 1997. Several research
methods were employed: systematic observation of patrol officers (Parts 1-4)
and patrol supervisors (Parts 5-14), in-person interviews with patrol officers
(Part 15) and supervisors (Parts 16-17), and telephone surveys of residents in
selected neighborhoods (Part 18). Field researchers accompanied their assigned
officer during all activities and encounters with the public during the shift.
Field researchers noted when various activities and encounters with the public
occurred during these “ride-alongs,” who was involved, and what
happened. Back at the project offices, these field notes formed that basis for
narrative descriptions of the events, and observers also coded numeric data on
specific elements of the ride, events, and participants. Patrol observation
data are provided at the ride level, the activity level, the encounter level, and
the citizen level. Activity data focused on police activities that did not
involve interaction with citizens. These typically include administrative
duties, roll call, travel (en route to scene), general patrol, and personal
activities, such as meals. Activity records are nested within rides. Encounter
data contain events in which the officers interacted with citizens. Encounters
are subclassified into full, brief, and casual encounters. Encounters are
nested within rides. Citizen data describe the citizens involved in encounters
with the police. Citizen records are nested within encounters. In addition to
encounters with citizens, supervisors also engaged in encounters with patrol
officers. Patrol officers and patrol supervisors in both Indianapolis and St.
Petersburg were interviewed one-on-one in a private interviewing room during
their regular work shifts. The patrol officer and supervisor interview
instruments were similar, and interviews were normally completed in 20-25
minutes. Citizens in the POPN study beats were randomly selected for telephone
surveys to determine their views about problems in their neighborhood and other
community issues. Administrative records were used to create site
identification data (Part 19) and data on staffing (Part 20). This data
collection also includes data compiled from census records, aggregated to the
beat level for each site (Part 21). Census data were also used to produce
district populations for both sites (Part 22). Citizen data were aggregated to
the encounter level to produce counts of various citizen role categories and
characteristics and characteristics of the encounter between the patrol officer
and citizens in the various encounters (Part 23).
Sample:  Indianapolis and St. Petersburg were chosen according to
specific criteria. A sampling plan of the neighborhoods in each city was
designed to ensure variation in the service conditions of police, using
socioeconomic features of neighborhoods as proxies for those conditions.
Residents in the POPN study beats were randomly selected for the citizen
survey.
Data Source:
observations, personal interviews, telephone
interviews, administrative records, and data from the United States Census
Bureau
Description of Variables:  Ride-level data (Parts 1, 5, and 10)
contain information about characteristics of the ride, including start and end
times, officer identification, type of unit, and beat assignment. Activity data
(Parts 2, 6, and 11) include type of activity, where and when the activity took
place, who was present, and how the officer was notified. Encounter data (Parts
3, 7, and 12) contain descriptive information on encounters similar to the
activity data (i.e., location, initiation of encounter). Citizen data (Parts 4,
8, and 13) provide citizen characteristics, citizen behavior, and police
behavior toward citizens. Similarly, officer data from the supervisor
observations (Parts 9 and 14) include characteristics of the supervising
officer and the nature of the interaction between the officers. Both the patrol
officer and supervisor interview data (Parts 15-17) include the officers’
demographics, training and knowledge, experience, perceptions of their beats
and organizational environment, and beliefs about the police role. The patrol
officer data also provide the officers’ perceptions of their supervisors while
the supervisor data describe supervisors’ perceptions of their subordinates, as
well as their views about their roles, power, and priorities as supervisors.
Data from surveyed citizens (Part 18) provide information about their
neighborhoods, including years in the neighborhood, distance to various places
in the neighborhood, neighborhood problems and effectiveness of police response
to those problems, citizen knowledge of, or interactions with, the police,
satisfaction with police services, and friends and relatives in the
neighborhood. Citizen demographics and geographic and weight variables are also
included. Site identification variables (Part 19) include ride and encounter
numbers, site beat (site, district, and beat or community policing areas
[CPA]), and sector. Staffing variables (Part 20) include district, shift, and
staffing levels for various shifts. Census data (Part 21) include neighborhood,
index of socioeconomic distress, total population, and total white population.
District population variables (Part 22) include district and population of
district. The aggregated citizen data (Part 23) provide the ride and encounter
numbers, number of citizens in the encounter, counts of citizens by their
various roles, and by sex, age, race, wealth, if known by the police, under the
influence of alcohol or drugs, physically injured, had a weapon, or assaulted
the police, counts by type of encounter, and counts of police and citizen
actions during the encounter.
Response Rates:  The response rate for the patrol
officer surveys was 93 percent in Indianapolis and 98 percent in St.
Petersburg. For the patrol supervisor surveys the response rate was 93 percent
in Indianapolis and 100 percent in St. Petersburg. The response rate for the
citizen surveys was 53 percent in Indianapolis and 42 percent in St.
Petersburg.
Second article
Project on Policing Neighborhoods in
Indianapolis, Indiana, and St. Petersburg, Florida, 1996-1997 (ICPSR 3160)
Principal Investigator(s): Mastrofski, Stephen D., George Mason University; Parks, Roger
B., Indiana University; Worden, Robert E., University at Albany; Reiss,
Albert J. Jr., Yale University
Summary:
The purpose of the Project on Policing
Neighborhoods (POPN) was to provide an in-depth description of how the police
and the community interact with each other in a community policing (CP)
environment. Research was conducted in Indianapolis, Indiana, in 1996 and in
St. Petersburg, Florida, in 1997. Several research methods were employed:
systematic observation of patrol officers (Parts 1-4) and patrol supervisors
(Parts 5-14), in-person interviews with patrol officers (Part 15) and
supervi… (more
info)
Citation for second article
Citation
Mastrofski, Stephen D., Roger B. Parks,
Robert E. Worden, and Albert J. Jr. Reiss. Project on Policing Neighborhoods
in Indianapolis, Indiana, and St. Petersburg, Florida, 1996-1997 [Computer
File]. ICPSR03160-v2. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for
Political Social Research [distributor], 2007-06-01. http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03160.v2
ata Collection Notes:
(1) The narrative descriptions of the
ride-alongs are not available as part of this collection, (2) Following the
“rule of ten” guidelines used by the POPN researchers, users of the
data should make no attributions to an officer (or group of officers) with
specified characteristics unless at least ten officers in the sample share
the same characteristics.
Methodology
Study Purpose:  In the broadest sense, the purpose of
the Project on Policing Neighborhoods (POPN) was to provide an in-depth
description of how the police and the community interact with each other in a
community policing (CP) environment. Data were collected to facilitate
studies on the following issues: (1) how patrol officers spend their time, (2)
how officers use their authority to intervene in citizens’ lives, (3) how
problem citizens are controlled, (4) how civility and cooperation between
police and public is obtained, (5) what officer characteristics are
associated with high CP performance, (6) the role of first-line supervisors,
(7) the context for street-level performance set by management, and (8) how
patterns of policing vary among neighborhoods and the impact they have on
neighborhood quality of life. For this study, “neighborhood” in
operational terms meant the patrol beat. Indianapolis used the term
“beat” and St. Petersburg used the term “community policing
area” (CPA) to define the smallest geographical space to which an
individual officer would be assigned patrol responsibilities.
Study Design:  Research was conducted in
Indianapolis, Indiana, in 1996 and in St. Petersburg, Florida, in 1997.
Several research methods were employed: systematic observation of patrol
officers (Parts 1-4) and patrol supervisors (Parts 5-14), in-person interviews
with patrol officers (Part 15) and supervisors (Parts 16-17), and telephone
surveys of residents in selected neighborhoods (Part 18). Field researchers
accompanied their assigned officer during all activities and encounters with
the public during the shift. Field researchers noted when various activities
and encounters with the public occurred during these “ride-alongs,”
who was involved, and what happened. Back at the project offices, these field
notes formed that basis for narrative descriptions of the events, and
observers also coded numeric data on specific elements of the ride, events,
and participants. Patrol observation data are provided at the ride level, the
activity level, the encounter level, and the citizen level. Activity data
focused on police activities that did not involve interaction with citizens.
These typically include administrative duties, roll call, travel (en route to
scene), general patrol, and personal activities, such as meals. Activity
records are nested within rides. Encounter data contain events in which the
officers interacted with citizens. Encounters are subclassified into full,
brief, and casual encounters. Encounters are nested within rides. Citizen
data describe the citizens involved in encounters with the police. Citizen
records are nested within encounters. In addition to encounters with
citizens, supervisors also engaged in encounters with patrol officers. Patrol
officers and patrol supervisors in both Indianapolis and St. Petersburg were
interviewed one-on-one in a private interviewing room during their regular
work shifts. The patrol officer and supervisor interview instruments were
similar, and interviews were normally completed in 20-25 minutes. Citizens in
the POPN study beats were randomly selected for telephone surveys to
determine their views about problems in their neighborhood and other
community issues. Administrative records were used to create site
identification data (Part 19) and data on staffing (Part 20). This data
collection also includes data compiled from census records, aggregated to the
beat level for each site (Part 21). Census data were also used to produce
district populations for both sites (Part 22). Citizen data were aggregated
to the encounter level to produce counts of various citizen role categories
and characteristics and characteristics of the encounter between the patrol
officer and citizens in the various encounters (Part 23).
Sample:  Indianapolis and St. Petersburg were chosen according
to specific criteria. A sampling plan of the neighborhoods in each city was
designed to ensure variation in the service conditions of police, using
socioeconomic features of neighborhoods as proxies for those conditions.
Residents in the POPN study beats were randomly selected for the citizen
survey.
Data Source:
observations, personal interviews, telephone
interviews, administrative records, and data from the United States Census
Bureau
Description of Variables:  Ride-level data (Parts 1, 5, and 10)
contain information about characteristics of the ride, including start and
end times, officer identification, type of unit, and beat assignment.
Activity data (Parts 2, 6, and 11) include type of activity, where and when
the activity took place, who was present, and how the officer was notified.
Encounter data (Parts 3, 7, and 12) contain descriptive information on
encounters similar to the activity data (i.e., location, initiation of
encounter). Citizen data (Parts 4, 8, and 13) provide citizen
characteristics, citizen behavior, and police behavior toward citizens.
Similarly, officer data from the supervisor observations (Parts 9 and 14)
include characteristics of the supervising officer and the nature of the
interaction between the officers. Both the patrol officer and supervisor
interview data (Parts 15-17) include the officers’ demographics, training and
knowledge, experience, perceptions of their beats and organizational
environment, and beliefs about the police role. The patrol officer data also
provide the officers’ perceptions of their supervisors while the supervisor
data describe supervisors’ perceptions of their subordinates, as well as
their views about their roles, power, and priorities as supervisors. Data
from surveyed citizens (Part 18) provide information about their
neighborhoods, including years in the neighborhood, distance to various
places in the neighborhood, neighborhood problems and effectiveness of police
response to those problems, citizen knowledge of, or interactions with, the
police, satisfaction with police services, and friends and relatives in the
neighborhood. Citizen demographics and geographic and weight variables are
also included. Site identification variables (Part 19) include ride and
encounter numbers, site beat (site, district, and beat or community policing
areas [CPA]), and sector. Staffing variables (Part 20) include district,
shift, and staffing levels for various shifts. Census data (Part 21) include
neighborhood, index of socioeconomic distress, total population, and total
white population. District population variables (Part 22) include district
and population of district. The aggregated citizen data (Part 23) provide the
ride and encounter numbers, number of citizens in the encounter, counts of
citizens by their various roles, and by sex, age, race, wealth, if known by
the police, under the influence of alcohol or drugs, physically injured, had
a weapon, or assaulted the police, counts by type of encounter, and counts of
police and citizen actions during the encounter.
Response Rates:  The response rate for the patrol
officer surveys was 93 percent in Indianapolis and 98 percent in St.
Petersburg. For the patrol supervisor surveys the response rate was 93
percent in Indianapolis and 100 percent in St. Petersburg. The response rate
for the citizen surveys was 53 percent in Indianapolis and 42 percent in St.
Petersburg. look over both articles then answer the questions. list references thanks

Calculate the price for this paper
Pages (550 words)
Approximate price: -

Try it now!

Calculate the price for this paper

We'll send you the first draft for approval by at
Total price:
$0.00

How it works?

Follow these simple steps to get your paper done

Place your order

Fill in the order form and provide all details of your assignment.

Proceed with the payment

Choose the payment system that suits you most.

Receive the final file

Once your paper is ready, we will email it to you.

Our Services

Best Quality Essays has stood as the world’s leading custom essay writing services providers. Once you enter all the details in the order form under the place order button, the rest is up to us.

Essays

Essay Writing Services

At Best Quality Essays, we prioritize on all aspects that bring about a good grade such as impeccable grammar, proper structure, zero-plagiarism and conformance to guidelines. Our experienced team of writers will help you completed your essays and other assignments.

Admissions

Admission and Business Papers

Be assured that you’ll definitely get accepted to the Master’s level program at any university once you enter all the details in the order form. We won’t leave you here; we will also help you secure a good position in your aspired workplace by creating an outstanding resume or portfolio once you place an order.

Editing

Editing and Proofreading

Our skilled editing and writing team will help you restructure you paper, paraphrase, correct grammar and replace plagiarized sections on your paper just on time. The service is geared toward eliminating any mistakes and rather enhancing better quality.

Coursework

Technical papers

We have writers in almost all fields including the most technical fields. You don’t have to worry about the complexity of your paper. Simply enter as much details as possible in the place order section.