ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE VERSUS BEHAVIORAL CHANGE IN COMMUNITY POLICING LEADERSHIP

Abstract

This paper advocates that community policing could become another institutionalized routine police operation, if those in police leadership don’t make some important structural adjustments in the ways it is presently run.  Past practices in reforming organizations, have mostly paid attention to changing the behavior of employees, instead of supportive structural changes, which are key to institutionalizing behavioral changes. According to Williams (2005), previous attempts to introduce modern changes to police organizations have largely failed, because they were not well understood by leaders that, unless you get the important supporting structures in place, necessary behavioral changes to the implementation of community policing, will not be possible. This paper tacitly articulated a number of structural changes that should be put in place, to standardize community policing as a composite part of regular police operations. It also provides a theoretical evaluation of how community policing is implemented and advanced scholarly argument why it should be restructured, if the aim is to exploit its full potentials.

Rationale for the Research

This research comes against the backdrop that with over $8 billion spent to implement community policing, and bridge the gap between the police and the communities, the rate of success of this program is poor. As the result of that, not only does this program run the risk of becoming just another regular police initiative, it could be discontinued if something is not immediately done to improve its effectiveness. This research will check to see whether the reason(s) for its poor performance, is due to implementation, organization structure, or behavioral change.

Introduction

In over a half century of policing, community policing is one of the most captivating programs that was introduced to reform the way police work is done in the community Trojanowicz & Burcqueroux (1990).  This research was triggered by genuine concern that community policing will be successful only if a number of structural changes are made both at the management and structural levels. The paper looked at the implementation of community policing and research demonstrated that it is poorly run. Reason for its colossal failure is largely structural. Community policing is defined as police and private citizens creatively working together to solve modern problems relating to crime, fear of crime, social and physical disorder, and conditions in the community (Trojanowicz et al., 1998a, p. 3).

However, the inability of police authority to run this program differently from traditional police programs jeopardizes the success of community policing. A review of the literature indicated that attempts to integrate the community policing program with other traditional police operations seem not to be working. According to Johnson and Cox (2005), a survey undertaken on local police agencies by the National Institute of Justice in 1995, discovered that about half of them have either incorporated or are about to include community policing into their regular programs.

In addition, another surveys discovered that community policing has been adopted in many municipal and county police agencies (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000).  Although Williams (2005) indicated that more than $8 billion of federal and local state money has been spent on the program, criminal justice practitioner stated that the continuation of community policing will mostly depend on how it is philosophically blended with normal police operations (Maguire, 2003).  Williams (2005) argued that very little is still known of the community oriented policing program (COP), in spite the large resources expended on it. Additionally, this paper examines the extent to which COP is implemented, and the factors that hinder its implantation, the relationship between (COP) and organizational structure, including those helpful leadership structures that will contribute to its success.

Literature Review

According to Zhao, Thurman, and Lovrich (1995), the roots of community policing models can be traced to the failure of other professional policing models that sought to address the concerns of communities. Despite its rejection and unpopularity in the law enforcement circle, community policing has not only grown over the years, but has become an accepted view for cops (Eck & Rosenbaum, 2000, p. 30).

Hafner (2003) stated that a number of police departments find it somehow difficult to have their officers embrace community policing. Most of these agencies normally embark on very expensive community policing programs, and only to realize in the end, that just a handful of their officers in reality participated in the change exercise, while the bulk continue to do police work the old way. The extent, to which COP was designed, is perhaps what contributes to its poor implementation. Efforts to put community policing into practice have ranged from foot patrol to cross-functional problem solving teams, town-hall forums, and including intensive efforts with large groups (Wilson & Donnermeyer, 2002). This analysis showed that all of these agencies implement their COP differently.

Wilson (2003, p. 20) held that there are no indications that changing the structure of the organization, such as decentralizing the decision making, or whether to leave it across the board to accommodate community policing, is the best practice. In view of this the study recommended that an empirical study to determine where additional planning and resources are required be undertaken. However, (Hafner, 2003; Williams, 2005) stated that studying the implementation of COP is a great way of linking implementation to result. Besides, Hafner (2003) recommended that police leaders should establish a unique organizational culture that articulates a way forward before allowing officers to implement COP. Failure to do so, may leave the agency with too many programs, with no fundamental organizational culture to link the community and the police—key element for community policing.

Some researchers have argued unless community policing is philosophically integrated with routine operational police work, it will continue to yield poor results (Maguire & Mastrofski, 2000; Goldstein, 1993).  One researcher noted that partial inclusion or making few structural changes to a police department’s operational structure to accommodate community policing is not significant either (Zhao, 1996). Taking the debate one step further, Metcalf (1981, p. 507) argued that relying on the previous successes of a program, and ignoring the relationship between the behaviors of employees as they relate to organizational structure, puts the program on a risky path to success.

Concurring with Metcalf’s argument, Maguire and Uchida (2000, p. 556) stated that police units that implement aspects of community policing void of making the needed structural adjustments, do not only lack the basic accommodations for the program, but create the opportunity to slip back into more traditional forms of policing. In support of this argument, Oliver (1998, p. 155) added, that changes are bound to be made at the top and within the organization itself, a position which is backed by Ramsey (1998, p. 1, para. 9) that, previous work habits of police organizations, have outlived modern police practices.

Besides, Yeager, Hildreth, Miller, & Rabin (2007) added a new impetus to the argument that the pressure exerted on police organizations by stakeholders, on the implementation of community policing, in and of itself, may be the reason for its failure. For instance, those police organizations on the West Coast may be expected to implement COP in a progressive manner, since that region of the United States is known to be politically progressive. But Green (1993) and recently, Carroll, Ben-Zadok, and McCue (2010) mentioned that very few studies have attempted to measure the level of success in the implementation of COP.

According to Wilson (2005, p.12), "instead of looking at COP as a means of solving crime, most of the studies have focused good deal of time looking at it both as a case study, and as an empirical study requiring explanation." In other words, it is a dependent variable that needs to be supported, or an independent variable that supports another policing concept. This is mostly evident on those studies which examined the impact of organizational structure on COP such as (Zhao, 1996; King, 2000), or the impact of COP on police structure (e.g., Maguire, 1998). Since the resurfacing of COP, as a program to breach the division between the community and the police, over $8 billion has been spent to localize COP (COPS, 2004).

As stated earlier, no matter how much money is spent on community policing, the inability to assess its implementation makes the program less meaningful. Research has attempted to measure the level of success of COP on crime in medium and large cities (Zhao, Scheider, & Thurman, 2002). However, the study indicated that grant funds that were provided for COP, was used to hire police officers who were subsequently carried out other traditional programs. Two subsequent research efforts found that people hired to perform COP were either not effective in reducing crime, or those hired were not adequate to effectively contribute to crime reduction (Muhlhausen, 2001; Davis et al., 2000). No matter the circumstance, there is need to directly measure the implementation of COP to see whether it is an effective strategy that reduces crime.

Owing to the fact that COP has yet to be measured since its reintroduction, makes it rife to scrutiny. In fact, studies have shown that community policing is still in its infancy (Rosenbaum, Yeh, & Wilkenson, 1994; Zhao, 1996). As stated earlier, one miscalculation that police managers continue to make is using traditional structure to accommodate COP. Besides, these same leaders are running their agencies, and hoping to change the behavior of the line officers, instead of the structure of their organization (Sykes, 1986; Alpert & Dunham, 1986, p. 292; Forero, Gallardo-Pujol, Maydeu-Olivares, & Andres-Peuyo, 2009). Spanning to the last several decades, studies on the dynamics of individuals on organization, have provided uncontested evidence that organizational structure impacts the behavior of employees (Burke, 2008; Wilson, 1989).

Further theoretical justification of this issue states that, the error that most leaders make, stem from structural flaws rather than the employees (Bolman & Deal, 2003, p. 365; Hickman, 2010, p. 510). In support of Sandler and Mintz (1974, p. 458), Wycoff and Skogan (1994) stated that this practice of structuring the behavior of people, rather than the institution, is more pronounced in law enforcement. The call was made after an assessment of the Madison, Wisconsin community policing program. However, against the backdrop that much resistance to structural changes may hamper future implementation of community policing initiatives, Wycoff and Skogan (1994) stated that the Madison, Wisconsin COP was structured to withstand such a resistance. Because of this, it is now known that, behavior change can be redirected or modified to a preferred position once you change the structured mechanisms that sustain the systemic behavior.

Additionally, it is now know that with appropriate structural designs in place, internal resistance to change is a non-issue (Burke, 2008, p. 105). As stated by Ledford, Mohrman, and Lawler (1989), organizational change can be incremental or innovative. When changes are incremental, activities like daily routines, policy or organizational patterns, are updated—very minor changes, which result to situations that strengthen the primary structure and core beliefs of the organization (Burke, 2008, p. 104; Tushman & Romanelli, 1985, p. 175).

In essence, incremental changes add new ideas upon existing philosophies; organizational plans, and leadership practices (Roberg & Kuykendall, 1993, p. 419; Hickman, 2010, p. 313; Burke, 2008). Whereas, innovative change is a sort of disorientation to introduce new practices, models of organization and behavior, and policies that signify transformational change (Egri & Frost, 1991, p. 181). The innovation level is where strategic changes to accommodate programs like COP, are made to offset power, structure and system, these are revolutionary changes, if you will (Tushman & Romanelli, 1985, pp. 173, 179).

Revolutionary change enables organizations to restructure their values and core beliefs, upon which they were initially built, and which subsequently led to the organizational cultural formation. According to Gersick (1991, p. 19), revolutionary change compels an organization to dismantle and rebuild its structure. For that reason, qualification for innovative change could be adapted by a unit within the organization, and may slowly spread out organizational-wide. For instance, in a law enforcement agency, this could take the form of an “add-ons”, such as police community liaison/outreach, foot patrols, neighborhood police teams, than fall with existing departmental structure (Walker, 1993, p. 40; Trojanowicz & Burcqueroux, 1990, p. 17).

According to Rosenbaum et al. (1994) and Goldstein (1993), few community policing initiatives around the United States serve as models to guide policy makers with the change process (e.g., Oregon, Madison, Baltimore, Newport News, New York, and a number of agencies that used innovative concept). In addition to these models, there are clear examples of “what not do”, (Wilson, 2005). COP efforts undertaken in Houston, Los Angeles, Philadelphia and others, but failed, may serve as examples that either failed or are not working as the result of not making the proper structural changes to accommodate the program.

Walker (1993, p. 78) stated that current police units that are performing community relations duties, neighborhood policing functions, foot patrols, and other outreach programs, are out of touch with modern day realities, if their rely on traditional organizational structure to be successful. As noted earlier, and as reemphasized by Bolman and Deal (2003), the records on previous attempts by leaders blending innovative and traditional approaches to community outreach programs, revealed some of the structural incompatibility that will guide contemporary leaders on the need of realigning roles and relationships. The Houston community policing initiative which started in 1982 serves as a clear example of the incompatibility in COP.

Researchers discovered that all of the theoretical frameworks, planning, implementation, and management that were to successfully guide the ten year program, were violated (Oettmeier & Brown, 1988; Skogan, 1990; CRESAP, 1991). In the Houston experiment, not only was the institutionalizing of COP violated, recruiting of officers for the program, was incremental and sorted out, this divided the agency, thus preventing the integration of COP (Wilson, 2005). All of these internal dynamics reduced the credibility of the program internally and externally. The failure of the Houston COP, clearly supported earlier finding of Heckscher and Applegate (1994, p. 10) that the primary purpose of innovative restructuring, is to improve performance. This argument is made on the notion that, the customer service aspect of community policing, goes against the model of traditional law enforcement.

Because the customer service aspect of community policing is alien to traditional police practices, those officers placed in charge of the program, must be granted the needed behavioral flexibility while risking or attempting to apply what may seem as a trial-and-error endeavor.  Those police agencies that are implementing community policing need to be restructured in ways that encourage learning and experimenting. Nonetheless, if a department decides to undertake structural changes before changing the behavior of employees, that agency creates the likelihood of remaining strict and rule driven, Braiden (1994). On the contrary, if the requisite structure is put in place to sustain behaviors that have made community policing successful in the past, then such an agency has achieved the necessary flexibility and dynamism. Wilson (2005) noted that given the uniqueness of each community, restructuring an agency on community policing basis, must be a customized process.

Criminal justice practitioners and police scholars have consented that if innovative changes that posit difficulties to the philosophy, basic principles and structural values to the engrained culture of traditional policing, succeed, then they are bound to become the norms of the profession (Trojanowicz & Burcqueroux, 1994) as cited in Hickman (2010). Based on historical findings in Gersick (1991, p. 34) that deep-seated change in an organization, cannot be gradual. In refuting Gersick (1991) as cited in (Burke, 2008), experts in police management, stated that in order to exploit success, implementing structural change, regarding community policing, that process, has to be gradual, Pennings (1992) as cited in Ortmeier and Meese (2010). However, Burke (2008) stated that when a change process is developed around a paramilitary top-down approach, or command and control incremental structure, those organizations which adopt such a change, as has been the case with community policing, are set up to fail.

McElroy, Cosgrove, and Sadd (1993) provided an outstanding assessment of the Community Policing initiative of New York, by describing the structural repercussion of using community policing strategy on a traditional policing agency like the New York Police Department. The incompatibility was such that, all departmental operations within the traditional policing agency had to modify all its programs just to implement community policing. Those areas affected as the result of attempting to implement community policing included, the agency’s mission, its basis for claiming legitimacy, the nature of its relationship to the political socialization, its services offered, its methods of delivering services, standards and procedures of allocating resources, means of assessing and rewarding performance, and the ideals, purpose, objective, and training procedures.

But if community policing is to be implemented through institutionalization, then it surely requires commitments from other key stakeholders, like city officials, heads of public and private agencies. The City of Portland, Oregon, for instance, executed its community policing initiative by enacting a resolution that compelled interagency coordination (Weisburd, Greenspan, Hamilton, Williams, Bryant, & Wills, 2006).  It is stated by Hafner (2003) that police agencies must have mission statements that incorporate the community’s desires and visions of what they would want their departments to undertake.  Similarly, Murphy (1988) as cited in Skogan (2004) stated that new mission statements for community policing must be socially broader to the level where it does not only define a much larger role for the police, but to include an enhanced role of the community as well, sort of a “walking your talk” concept. And the fact that community policing roles are nontraditional, those advocating change, must seek to explore a new mission that is nontraditional as well.

A number of past community policing initiatives have tended to overlook the consequences of paramilitary role on COP initiatives. According to Austin (1992) as cited in Skogan (2004), the focus should be on leadership, and paramilitary management structure should be deemphasized. As stated by Skogan (2004), it is implicit that it requires risk-taking to problem solve in creative thinking. Hence, those in supervisory roles must be retrained to lead the way. Trying to assume the role of a disciplinarian when your implied role, is to provide leadership to subordinate, don’t go hand in hand.  Attempting to do that, threatens to invoke the traditional expectation in which the belief is such that structural change influences behavior.

But regardless what one does to implement community policing, two guiding principles to organizational change are required to successfully institutionalize community policing: change in the design of the organization, and structural change itself. A typical example is one undertaken by the Portland Police Bureau where it changed typical annual line budget item, to biennial program-based budgeting, a top-down organizational change. Moreover, such a change is overarching, in that it does not only provide a supportive framework for community policing, it simultaneously puts the police on track to provide the actual needs of the community plus providing a bottom-up structural changes that address behavioral changes.

Conclusion

This paper advocated that unless police administrators make some important structural changes to how community policing is run, it will continue to yield unfavorable results. It further stated that in addition to its unsatisfactory results, community policing has not been institutionalized as normal police strategy, besides, it may likely be discontinued due to its unfavorable results. A number of examples on the interdependence of employees’ behavior and organizational structure were discussed at length. In addition, the research provided theoretical outlooks by leading authorities on policing and human behavior. For instance, one of those people, George Kelling as stated in Rosen (1999, p. 9, para. 10) stated that police agencies implementing community policing should institute dire changes to end the old ways of doing police work. By so doing, police authorities will avoid doing business the old way, and slip into innovative modern strategies that will become the new organizational norms for contemporary generation.

They also reminded police executives of the dynamism of community policing as opposed to traditional policing. Similarly, Fridell and Wyckoff (2004) added that because community policing is a process through which problems are resolved, its implementation strategies may have to change from time to time, with no one size to fit all situations. Doing so leaves you with a community policing initiative that monitors itself in the system. Moore (1999, p. 9) agreed that indeed appropriate to reach for an collective performance measuring system when undertaking institutional change.

References

1.      Alpert, G.P. & Dunham, R.G. (1986). Community policing. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 14(3) : 212-222.

2.      Annie E. Casey Foundation (2004). Community policing: Common impediments to success, in Lorie Fridell and Mary Ann Wyckoff (eds.), Community policing: The past, present and future. Washington, DC: The Annie E. Casey Foundation and the Police Executive Research Forum,159-168.

3.      Austin, D. (1992). Community policing: The critical partnership. Public Management, 74(7) : 3-9.

4.      Bolman, L.G, & Deal, T.E. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership . San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.

5.      Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2000). Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics, 1999.  Conducted by the U. S. Census Bureau, edited and maintained by the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. Ann Arbor, MI. 

6.     Burke, W. (2008). Organization change: theory and practice. California: sage

7.      publications, Inc.

8.      COPS (2001). Data on grantees [provided per request].  Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

9.      COPS. (2004). Office of Community Oriented Policing Services [online].  Available from World Wide Web: http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/Default.asp?Item=65. 

10.  CRESAP. 1991. Houston Police Department: Draft final report . Washington, DC: Cresap Management Consultants.

11.  Daft, R. L. (2001). Organization theory and design. (7 ed.) Cincinnati: South-Western College Publishing. 

12.  Davis, G., Muhlhausen, D. B., Ingram, D. & Rector, R. (2000). The Facts about COPS: A Performance Overview of the Community Oriented Policing Services Program. Report No. CDA00-10.

13.  Delattre, Edwin J. (2006). Character and cops: ethics in policing. 5^th Edition, published by AEI Press.

14.  Eck, J. E., & Rosenbaum, D. P. (2000). The new police order: Effectiveness, equity, and efficiency in community policing. In R. W.  Glensor, M. E. Correia, and K. J. Peak (Eds.), Policing Communities: Understanding Crime and Solving Problems (pp. 30-45). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Company. 

15.  Egri, C.P. and Frost, J.P. (1991). Shamanism and change: Bringing back the magic in organizational transformation. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 5: 175-221.

16.  Gersick, C.J. 1991. Revolutionary change theories: A multilevel exploration of the punctuated equilibrium paradigm. Academy of Management Review , 16(1) : 10-36.

17.  Greene, H. T. (1993). Community-oriented policing in Florida. American Journal of Police, 12, 141-155.

18.  Greene, J. R. (2000). Community policing in America: Changing the nature, structure, and function of the police. In J. Horney (Ed.), Criminal justice 2000 (Vol. 3) : Policies, processes, and decisions of the criminal justice system [NCJ 182410] (pp. 299-370). 

19.  Haberfeld, M. (2006). Police Leadership: Upper Saddle River, NJ. Pearson, Prentice Hall.

20.  Hafner, M. R. (2003). Changing organizational culture to adapt to a community policing philosophy perspective. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. Find Articles. Retrieved from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2194/is_9_72/ai_110395566/

21.  Hickman, J. R. (2010). Leading teams: Imperatives for leaders. In Leading organizations: Perspectives for a new era (2nd ed., pp. 209-226). Sage Publications Ltd. 

22.  Hickman, M.  J. & Reaves, B. A. (2001). Community policing in local police departments, 1997 and 1999. Bureau of Justice Statistics: Special report [NCJ 184794].  

23.  Kettunen, P. (2000). Implementation approach: The political scientists' perspective. Policy Currents, 10, 3-5. 

24.  King, W.  R. (2000). Measuring police innovation: Issues and measurement. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategy and Management, 23, 303-317.

25.  Kuykendall, J. 1997. Police management (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Roxbury.

26.  Larrabee, A.K.(2007). Law Enforcement: Sir Robert Peel’s concept of community policing in today’s Society. Curled from, http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/435980/law_enforcement_sir_robert_peels_concept.html?cat=17.

27.  Ledford, G., Mohrman, S.A., Mohrman, A.M. and Lawler, E.E. 1989. The phenomena of large scale organizational change. In A.M. Mohrman and S.A. Mohrman (Eds.), Large scale organizational  change (pp. 1-31). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

28.  Lester, J. P. (2000). Back to the future in implementation research: A response. Policy Currents, 10, 2-3.

29.  Maguire, E. R. & Mastrofski, S. D. (2000). Patterns of community policing in the United States. Police Quarterly,  3, 4-45.

30.  Maguire, E. R. & Uchida, C. D. (2000). Measurement and explanation in the comparative study of American police organizations. In D. Duffee (Ed.), Criminal justice 2000 (Vol. 4) : Measurement and analysis of crime and justice [NCJ 182411] (pp. 491- 557). 

31.  Maguire, E. R. & Uchida, C. D. (2000). Measurement and explanation in the comparative study of American police organizations. In D. Duffee (Ed.), Criminal justice 2000 (Vol. 4) : Measurement and analysis of crime and justice [NCJ 182411] (pp. 491- 557).

32.  Maguire, E. R. (2003). Organizational structure in American police agencies: Context, complexity, and control. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. 

33.  Maguire, E. R., & Katz, C. M. (2002). Community policing, loose coupling, and making sense in American police agencies. Justice Quarterly, 19, 503-536. 123.

34.  Maguire, E. R., Uchida, C. D., Kuhns, J. B., & Cox, S. M. (1999). Measuring community policing at the agency level. Unpublished manuscript. 

35.  Maguire, E. R., Zhao, J., & Lovrich, N. (1999). Dimensions of community policing. Unpublished manuscript. 

36.  McElroy, J.E., Cosgrove, C.A. and Sadd, S. (1993). Community policing: The CPOP in New York. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

37.  McEwen, T. (1995). National Assessment Program: 1994 survey results. In Research in brief . Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

38.  Metcalf, L. (1981). Designing precarious relationships. In P.C. Nystrom and W. Haynes (Eds.), Handbook of organizational design (pp. 503-530). New York: Oxford University Press.

39.  Moore, M. (1999). June 19. How far has criminal justice really come in 10 years? Law Enforcement News , 9.

40.  Moore, M. H., & Trojanowicz, R. C. (1988). Corporate strategies for policing; perspectives on policing no. 6. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

41.  Muhlhausen, D. B. (2001). Does community oriented policing services grants affect violent crime rates? Report No. CDA01-15. Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation (Center for Data Analysis). 

42.  National Institute of Justice. (1995 November). Community policing strategies. Research Preview.

43.  Oettmeier, T. N., & Brown, L. P. (1988). Developing a neighborhood oriented policing style. In J.R. Greene and S. Mastrofski (Eds.), community policing: Rhetoric or reality (pp. 121-152). New York: Praeger.

44.  Oliver, W. M. (1998). Community oriented policing: A systematic approach to policing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

45.  Oliver, W.M. 1998. Community oriented policing: A systematic approach to policing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

46.  Ortmeier, P. J., & Edwin Meese, III.  (2010). Leadership, ethics, and policing: challenges for the 21^st Century. Published by Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

47.  O'Toole, L. J. Jr. (2000). Research on policy implementation: Assessment and prospects. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 263-288. 

48.  Pennings, J.M. 1992. Structural contingencies theory: A reappraisal. Research in Organizational Behavior, 14: 267-309.

49.  Portland Police Bureau. (1990). Community policing strategic plan . Portland, OR: Portland Police Bureau.

50.  Portland Police Bureau. (1993). Portland Police Bureau Transition Team briefing for Mayor-elect Vera Katz and the Public Safety Transition Team: Goals and objectives 1993-1994. Portland, OR: Portland Police Bureau.

51.  Portland Police Bureau. (1999). Community policing strategic plan - 1999 . Portland, OR: Portland Police Bureau.

52.  Ramsey, C. (1998). Law Enforcement News, 12(488): 1, 9.

53.  Roberg, R.R. and Kuykendall, J. 1993. Police management. Los Angeles: Roxbury. Roberg, R.R. and Rosen, M.S. (1999). Interview with Professor George Kelling. Law Enforcement News , 9-10.

54.  Rosenbaum, D.P., Yeh, S. and Wilkenson, D.L. 1994. Impact of community policing on police personnel: A quasi experimental test. Crime & Delinquency, 40(3) : 331-354.

55.  Sandler, G.B. and Mintz, E. (1974). Their changing internal and external relationships. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 2(4) : 48-463.

56.  Skogan, W.G. 1990. Disorder and decline: Crime and the spiral of decay in American neighborhoods. New York: Free Press.

57.  Trojanowicz, R. & Burcqueroux, B. (1998a). Community policing: How to get started (2nd ed.). Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing.

58.  Trojanowicz, R., Kappeler, V. E., Gaines, L. K., & Burcqueroux, B. (1998b). Community policing: A contemporary perspective (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing.

59.  Trojanowicz, R.C. and Burcqueroux, B. (1990). Community policing: A contemporary perspective. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

60.  Tushman, M.L., Newman, W.H. and Romanelli, E. (1986). Convergence and upheaval: Managing the unsteady pace of organizational evolution. California Management Review, 29(1) : 29-44.

61.  Weiss, A. (1997). The communication of innovation in American policing. Policing:  An International Journal of Police Strategy and Management, 20, 292-310. 

62.  Williams, E. (2005). Structuring in community policing: Institutionalizing innovating change. Police Practice and Research, 4(2), 119-129. Retrieved from EBSCO Publishing. 

63.  Wilson, J. M. & Donnermeyer, J. F. (2002). Problem-solving teams in the Columbus Division of Police: A final report. Columbus, OH: Franklin County Justice Programs Unit, Office of Criminal Justice Services. 

64.  Wilson, J. M. (2003). Measurement and association in the structure of municipal police organizations. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 26, 276-297. 

65.  Zhao, J., Thurman, Q. C., & Lovrich, N. P. (1995). Community-oriented policing across the U.S.: Facilitators and impediments to implementation. American Journal of Police, 1, 11-28.

66.  Zhao, J., Thurman, Q. C., & Lovrich, N. P. (1995). Community-oriented policing across the U.S.: Facilitators and impediments to implementation. American Journal of Police, 1, 11-28.