Crime Police departments and bureaucracies

In this report we will discuss about policing functions and below are the summaries point:- Police organizations in the United States have been characterized as bureaucracies, quasi-military organizations, and street-level bureaucracies. There are over 12,000 municipal, state, or police departments in the US. Community-oriented policing (COP) has been widely adopted in the US, with many agencies implementing it to resolve community issues and decrease crime. All three levels of policing (local, state, federal) are responsible for safeguarding citizens' rights and ensuring their safety within their areas of operation. Local law enforcement is selected by city governments, while state and federal law enforcement is typically managed by political appointees chosen from a team of experts. Federal institutions represent federal laws, while state police agencies operate under the laws established by their level of operation. Changes in laws and regulations directly influence the functioning of state and local law enforcement agencies. Until the federal government modifies the status of marijuana usage, the DEA will continue to enforce drug laws at the federal level.

Running head: CRIME
CRIME
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author note:

1CRIME
Introduction
Police Organizations have been characterized in several ways on the basis of the
attributes they share along with the procedures in which they operate. Explicitly, police
departments have been distinguished as being bureaucracies, quasi-military organizations, and
controls along with street-level bureaucracies (Williams, 2015). According to Swedler et al.
(2014), each of these labels offers significant insights into the characteristics of policing
functions and certain challenges related to them. Davis et al. (2015) have noted that while police
departments have been initially formed in the United States during the mid 1800’s, they had been
essentially formulated in order to be regulated by local citizens as well as individual
communities. These factors have led the U.S to constitute over 12,000 municipal, state or police
departments. The paper will evaluate policing function at the local, state, and federal
organizational levels in the United States. In addition to this, the paper will assess the way
organizational, management, administration, and operational police and law function at these
three organizational levels.
Discussion
Evaluation of Policing Functions in the United States
Reports of Williams (2015) have revealed that in 2013 there have been recorded around
12,500 local police departments which have recruited over 470,000 full time sworn officers and
more than 129,000 full time civilians. Carter, Phillips and Gayadeen (2014) have argued that the
major development in policing in the United States during the last five decades has been the
progress and the adoption of Community-Oriented Policing (COP) which has fundamentally

2CRIME
regulated modern perspectives related considering policing in role and functions in the U.S.
Several police agencies across the nation has reported the implementation of COP as a tool for
resolving community as well as neighborhood issues, crime decrease, crime apprehension along
with the formulation of proficient policing functions (Williams, 2015). Carter, Phillips and
Gayadeen (2014) have stated that according to recent national surveys, a majority of local-level
organizations in the United States have implemented few elements of COP along with over
110,000 additional full-time personnel have been executed in order to regulate COP functions.
Additionally, real and enduring changes ought to be essentially correlated with divergences in
community needs, resources as well as emergencies (Cordner, 2014). According to O'connor
(2017), these two premises have been regarded as highly unambiguous and fundamental tenets of
the COP model further considered as broadly identified and well-established truisms of good
policing. Furthermore, the third premise has been highly embedded thus comprising less
evidence but still has been highly basic to the use of COP as a tool.
Comparing three levels of policing functions (Local, State and Federal)
The three levels of policing functions draw similarities whereby all have been charged
with the liability of safeguarding rights and further guaranteeing the safety of the U.S citizens
which they serve within the areas of operations (Carter, Phillips & Gayadeen, 2014). Meanwhile,
Roberts et al. (2016) have found that law enforcement at local levels has been selected by
respective city governments with primary methods of employment which varies as per
legislations of city in the United States. Studies of Haake, Rantatalo and Lindberg (2017) have
stated that due to the characteristics of comprising several proficient policing agencies at the U.S
state level, the top hierarchical management has typically been comprised of political appointees
although have been chosen from team of experts. Furthermore, most of the similarities and

3CRIME
disparities between the organizational, governmental and operational functions at these three
vital organizational level, they all execute their performances in accordance to the laws and
regulations governing the regions in which they function (O'connor, 2017).
Vara (2016) has stated that federal institutions tend to stand for the federal laws whereas
US state police agencies perform under the laws primarily established by level of operations. On
the other hand, Rothstein and Finnigan (2015) have distinguished that policing functions of the
U.S have been primarily governed by the legislations of respective U.S municipalities.
Nonetheless, state and local law enforcements have been efficiently administered by federal
regulations whereas local agencies have been highly dependent on the laws of the U.S state
government that they fundamentally serve. For instance, Washington and Colorado in 2014 have
legalized the individualistic usage of marijuana (Haake, Rantatalo & Lindberg, 2017). However,
authors have witnessed over 22 states which have been supporting the marijuana or cannabis
usage. As a result as laws undergo significant changes in time, the functioning of the U.S
policing of both state as well as legal agencies have been directly influenced. Drawing relevance
to these evidences, Rothstein and Finnigan (2015) have noted that U.S state and local level
policing have no longer acknowledging rules of detention for possessing any small amount of
marijuana. However, as per the opinion of Vara (2016), until U.S federal organizational level has
modified the status of marijuana usage as unlawful, the U.S federal policing for the DEA (Drug
Enforcement Administration) will be required to accept the enforcement of drug laws at its
federal level.
Leadership characteristics and responsibilities
O'connor (2017) has stated that for law enforcement leaders to develop high proficiency
in executing their duties, U.S police leaders to constitute certain attributes of leadership.

4CRIME
Potential leaders have acknowledged the rapid erosion in the boundaries situated between local,
state and federal law enforcement agencies in the United States. Thus, potential leadership
involved in the policing functions essentially needs to persuade with the perspective that their
achievements depend greatly on the ability to censor the critical challenges of competing
interests and leaders must efficiently intend to falsify the alliances on the basis of support of
interests (Carter & Phillips, 2015). Furthermore, Davis et al. (2015) have stated that considering
the way bureaucracy primarily functions has been highly critical to the positive reception of
challenges and impediments experienced by police leaders. Thus, realizing processes though
which bureaucracy functions has been highly essential to support which leadership theory to
most efficiently fit for law enforcement agencies. However, authors at this juncture have stated
that U.S police executives and leaders have assessed business management theory specifically
transformational leadership theory and further implemented transformational styles to various
police bureaucracies. Drawing significance to these factors, Weber argued that there have been
certain forms of hierarchy of domination and power in policing agency whereby it serves to
determine that law enforcement leaders must execute order governing the organization (Carter,
Phillips & Gayadeen, 2014). Furthermore, Weber perceived that law enforcement agencies in the
United States have maintained their authority by dominance being concentrated in a ‘ruling
minority’. Cordner (2014) has stated that in policing, the leaders have been essentially leading
and liable to the public.
Comprehensive studies of Swedler et al. (2014) have mentioned that policing must
essentially institutionalize the analysis of criminal acts along with the formation of solutions at a
local and community level as the explanation to criminal acts has been typically considered as
task which must be regulated through various layers of discussion within communities. Thus,

5CRIME
police agencies must show high level of accountability for gathering as well as disseminating
information related to the efficacy of strategic programs along with the validity, equality as well
as righteousness of actions. Moreover, leadership competencies of U.S law enforcement
managers along with the variables affecting leadership has been broadly discussed by wide
ranging police leaders, law enforcement managers along with policymakers. According to
Williams (2015), as the role of police chief has facing significant demands, the U.S police
agencies have been possessing the talent to proficiently lead and enthuse the patrol officers
advancing the levels of hierarchy. Swedler et al. (2014) have stated the quality of police
leadership has been critically weakened whereby the expenses of having made insufficient
provision aimed for police leadership have been evident as one considers the generalized view of
policing in the U.S. As several law enforcement agents have the tendency to undergo regular
changes, they primarily act responsive to external pressures and often resort to provisional
expedients thus showing high incompetence of performing innovatively to newly developed
demands and new requirements.
Moreover, according to reports of Roberts et al. (2016), leadership challenge will sustain
at the core of the public policy agenda whereby it reverberated the after events of 9/11 and has
been thus debated as well as evaluated at the international stage. These challenges have caused
complexities to the role of the U.S law enforcement agents and the attrition between the three
vital organizational levels has significantly expanded the focus of the chiefs. Consequently,
Haake, Rantatalo and Lindberg, (2017) have shed light on the importance of skills to proficiently
supervise, enthuse and train the patrol officers advancing in the organizational hierarchy due to
the mounting level of media attention towards crime. Thus at the federal level, police in the U.S
necessitate the intellectual insight to respond with eagerness when presented with a crisis.

6CRIME
Conclusion
Hence to conclude, in majority of policing cases of the United States, crime prosecution
and legislation has been primarily handled at the state or local government level. In addition, the
federal government of the U.S can be implicated in a number of crimes which take account of
drug offences, transgressions which surpass in opposition to the national foundation such as
terrorism and human trafficking. Thus, the U.S federal government can further be concerned
with state level errands by guaranteeing that people of diverse ethnic backgrounds do not
encounter any forms of marginalization. However, the local, state and federal governments
primarily function jointly in order to enforce the law and provide justice to the U.S citizens.

7CRIME
References
Carter, J. G., & Phillips, S. W. (2015). Intelligence-led policing and forces of organisational
change in the USA. Policing and Society, 25(4), 333-357.
Carter, J. G., Phillips, S. W., & Gayadeen, S. M. (2014). Implementing intelligence-led policing:
An application of loose-coupling theory. Journal of criminal justice, 42(6), 433-442.
Cordner, G. (2014). Community policing. The Oxford handbook of police and policing, 148-171.
Davis, C. S., Carr, D., Southwell, J. K., & Beletsky, L. (2015). Engaging law enforcement in
overdose reversal initiatives: authorization and liability for naloxone
administration. American Journal of Public Health, 105(8), 1530-1537.
Haake, U., Rantatalo, O., & Lindberg, O. (2017). Police leaders make poor change agents:
leadership practice in the face of a major organisational reform. Policing and
society, 27(7), 764-778.
Kleck, G., & Barnes, J. C. (2014). Do more police lead to more crime deterrence?. Crime &
Delinquency, 60(5), 716-738.
O'connor, J. (2017). The fiscal crisis of the state. Routledge.
Roberts, K., Herrington, V., Jones, W., White, J., & Day, D. (2016). Police leadership in 2045:
The value of education in developing leadership. Policing: A Journal of Policy and
Practice, 10(1), 26-33.
Rothstein, R. A., & Finnigan, R. (2015). Marijuana & the Media: The Influence of Media
Narratives on Legalization Outcomes. UC Davis, 1-44.

8CRIME
Swedler, D. I., Kercher, C., Simmons, M. M., & Pollack, K. M. (2014). Occupational homicide
of law enforcement officers in the US, 1996–2010. Injury Prevention, 20(1), 35-40.
Vara, V. (2016). The Art of Marketing Marijuana. The Atlantic.
Williams, L. M. (2015). Beyond enforcement: Welcomeness, local law enforcement, and
immigrants. Public Administration Review, 75(3), 433-442.