July 1998

There are few things that I enjoy more than having coffee with my friends in law enforcement and discussing, or most likely debating, the issues of the day. There is one universal truth about cops--they will have an opinion on almost everything. Sharing our thoughts with others, in mostly friendly banter, is something we rarely avoid. Since most of us are extroverts, conservative, and overly macho it is not unusual to have to raise the voice an octave or two, or invent colorful language, just to be able to make a point once in a while. To an observer these conversations might seem a bit loud, boisterous, and filled with raucous laughter.

Actually, these discussions are one of the principle methods by which law enforcement officers learn the job. Since I love to analyze trends in law enforcement I thought, as only a former instructor would, it might be constructive to take a look at current trends in law enforcement with the thought that it would give the conversations over coffee, or in the patrol car, some new topics to discuss. My only regret is that I won’t be able to hear the sage comments, opinions, and laughter.

About one-half of the law enforcement officers in the United States are represented at the bargaining table by the Fraternal Order of Police, or by unions such as the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the Teamsters, the National Coalition of Public Safety Officers, or the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. Overall for the past fifteen years, there have not been any serious job actions taken by these organizations in their quest for better wages, working conditions, or work rules. There are many reasons for this harmony.

First, real wages and benefits have increased significantly over this period of time. This has been largely due to an unparalleled growth in the national economy, which has resulted in increased tax revenues for most jurisdictions. Second, I would argue that the quality of police management has also significantly improved during this period. In this regard, police management changed from a strictly autocratic to a more democratic, open-to-suggestion organization. Police management actually began to listen to the troops and quite often involved them in the decision-making process.

The third reason for the harmony is that both union leaders and police managers became more knowledgeable and sophisticated in their negotiations with one another. This resulted in fewer misunderstandings and less confrontations. Fourthly, police officers in traditional southern states continue their cultural opposition to union activity. This philosophy reduces association membership and tends to limit confrontational activities on the part of the association. This resistance continues even though salaries and benefits in the South continue to lag behind law enforcement salaries in the rest of the United States.

Additionally, police labor organizations have become much more sophisticated, learning how to play politics. They have discovered that getting people elected to office who have sympathy for police officers and their causes is far more productive than confrontations with police managers and governing bodies over which they have had less influence. A good example of this was the endorsement of President Clinton by a host of law enforcement labor organizations. Regardless of what one thinks of the President, I would argue that he has done more for law enforcement during his administration than any other President in my memory. I think there is a strong correlation between the various police associations’ endorsement of Mr. Clinton and the benefits and access law enforcement has had with his administration during the past five years.

I recommend that you read the book, Police Association Power, Politics, and Confrontation (Charles Thomas, 1997) by John Burpo, Ron Delord, and Michael Shannon. This is a straightforward, sometimes blunt and impolite, primer for police labor leaders. While most police managers will be aghast over some of the recommended tactics, the simple fact is that power is the primary issue between labor and management. As these authors know quite well, most employee benefits are a byproduct of political power.

Personally, I have no quarrel with the basic premises of the authors. However, I would like to see police associations raise more concern over officer safety and poor, inadequate, or non existent equipment. Officer safety should be a prime objective of any employee association. I also believe police associations should always uphold, and attempt to enhance, the professionalism of the law enforcement profession. Consideration should always be given to using negotiation tactics that do not subvert the values, honor, and reputation of the department, and its individual members. There is absolutely no reason a police association cannot adopt the same values as a police department in the operation of the association. Anyone who says that you have to play the game of police labor/management relations down and dirty, with tactics that are mean spirited, is wrong. Both labor and management need to rise above this mentality.

Looking forward to the next five years, or so, I think the period of harmonious relations between law enforcement labor and management is going to end. Our economy is the principle reason for a return to a more confrontational relationship. In simple terms, our national economy is in the best shape of this century. However, there is no question that our good times will eventually change for the worse. When this will occur cannot be predicted with any accuracy, but I think most economists would agree the chance for a major recession in the next three years is quite high.

I would argue that our present booming economy is precisely the reason why associations must move quickly to gain better wages, benefits, and resolve workplace issues. The time for substantial pay raises is at hand if the association is willing to make modifications in those present work rules that management finds onerous. This strategy supposes that an economic downturn is probable and that with a shrinking economy budgetary surpluses will disappear. Needless to say when revenues are short, bargaining over these issues will become most difficult and confrontational. If our associations and management can avoid the usual ad hominum attacks on one another’s virtues while still engaging in tough negotiations, then both the police and the public will be well-served.

The crime rate for most law enforcement jurisdictions in the United States has shown a relatively significant decrease in the last several years. Even juvenile crime rates have dropped. According to most criminologists, including myself, juvenile crime rates during this period of time were to have risen. I thought the 15% increase in the juvenile population from 1996-2006 would ensure that juvenile rates would continue to rise. So far I have been wrong! I guess the basic question to be answered now is, "Why have crime rates fallen?"

Smart chiefs of police will claim the rates have fallen because the department is doing a better job--and that community-based policing is really working! Some might even suggest that the 70,000 extra police officers hired during the Clinton administration have turned the tide. While I think this is both good public relations and politics, it does fall a bit short of being convincing evidence.

As you might expect there are many reasons, some of which may be subtle, such as community-based policing, and yet other reasons are just as self-evident. Other parts of the criminal justice system--finally bowing to public pressure--have realized that the best place for criminals is in jail. A great example of this is found in Richmond, Virginia, where through the collaboration of law enforcement, prosecutors, and the courts, persons committing crimes with firearms are assured of spending a minimum of five years in jail. The program, Project Exile, is credited with significantly reducing the homicide rate in Richmond in the past two years. If we can maintain this tough attitude towards criminals, and have the will to make it even tougher, then I suspect the recent crime rates will continue to subside. Please do not conclude that crime is not a problem. Even considering the significant reduction in the rates--crime and drug abuse remain the most serious problems facing the United States. Crime is a problem that still has the potential to lessen, and perhaps even destroy, the quality of our lives through the generation of fear.

Criminal behavior has its roots in the family. In North America a disturbingly high percentage of families are clearly dysfunctional. Law enforcement agencies, and the many government agencies involved in handling social problems, are nowhere near finding a solution. We have drug problems, youth gangs proliferate, many parents fail to raise children properly, and some school administrators and teachers have completely forgotten the relationship between discipline, order, and learning.

The entertainment industry continues to ignore the relationship between media violence and violence on our streets. Continuing--if you will--their pursuit of profit to satisfy their greed. This of course is at the expense of young and immature minds which gobble up the violence and the parental disrespect they see portrayed on television, in the movies, in the lyrics of their music, or in their mindless video games. We are all victims of the entertainment industry’s greed. Although, to be fair, we must share the blame as we are the customers of violence as entertainment. If we want to influence the youth of our country to shun violence, then the adults must first set the example. This means, as both groups and individuals, we cannot patronize movies or television that portrays gratuitous violence or sex, nor should we patronize the sponsors of such entertainment. Lord knows we shouldn’t let movie or television crews use police resources, our advisors, or our uniforms as props to produce shows which glorify violence, sex, or criminality. Why American law enforcement continues to cooperate with production companies of this type is beyond my comprehension.

As a society we have a tendency to look for easy answers to our problems, a silver bullet solution if you will, to the tough question as to what causes criminal problems. Thus, liberals call for strict controls on firearms. Conservatives want to expand the death penalty to include a wide range of crimes--as if the death penalty was a valid deterrent to others. Some inane politicians even suggest we put the jaywalkers in jail. I don’t question the motives, sincerity, or integrity of either liberal or conservative individuals making these proposals. I am sure they mean well. However, most people deeply involved with the actual social programs know these suggestions are but silver bullet ideas, which have been used for years to deflect attention from the more credible solutions that are unpleasant to face, difficult to implement, and inconsistent with the easy way out.

While there are many conditions in the human experience that lead to crime, two factors do stand out as being primary causes. These are an individual’s decisions and the decisions of his or her parents. All other causes are secondary. Yet, as a society we have tended to avoid placing too much blame on the individual, and virtually none on the parents. Rather, many social commentators prefer to blame our crime problem on an imperfect society, poverty, race, drugs, or a host of other factors that are also ethereal and impossible to quantify, but are more politically correct. Until we face the truth of the matter and make individuals and parents responsible for their actions, or lack thereof, we will never find an adequate solution to the problem of criminal behavior. Historically, all nations have struggled to control the dark side of human nature--a few have been successful, but most cultures have not. Few though have failed as miserably as we have in the last fifty years. It is also interesting to note that the programs that are being hailed as successful in welfare reform, excellence in schools, and in crime control--such as the Richmond project--all have as their cornerstone to hold individuals responsible for their actions.

Perhaps the real question regarding crime control is whether or not the American people are tough enough, and have the will, to handle the solution. They have been tough enough in most of the generations of our history and I suspect they still are, but it will take at least another decade for individuals and policy makers to finally realize that holding people responsible for their actions is both correct and just. When social policies, schools, families, and other institutions, begin to act in concert with this relatively simple concept, I expect we will begin to see a change in individual’s behavior for the better. I realize this solution is the most painful one we can choose. Nonetheless, if our society is to flourish through the 21st century then we all have to swallow the bitter pill of responsibility.

In a recent Supreme Court case, County of Sacramento et al vs. Lewis, the Court delivered a unanimous opinion that a police officer does not violate substantive due process by causing death through deliberate or reckless indifference to life in a high speed automobile chase aimed at apprehending a suspected offender. The Court rejected the claim that Lewis’ rights had been violated under the 4th and 14 Amendments. This decision makes it much more difficult to file future claims under 42 USC 1983, and forces petitioners to make claims under relevant state laws. It should be noted that California laws governing police chases protect officers from liability for civil damages in a lawful pursuit.

In this opinion, the Court did not make any comment, or ruling, on the efficacy of high speed pursuits. The Court only noted that laws enacted by various states, similar to California’s, concerning the liability of officers involved in lawful pursuits must be used by petitioners instead of taking their claim to the federal courts.

While this is a welcome and correct decision by the Supreme Court, it is one decision I hope police administrators will ignore when it comes to developing, changing, or implementing pursuit policies for the department. There is no question that some high speed pursuits are necessary. Using pursuit to stop an individual in an automobile who has potential to harm others is a correct decision by an officer. However, over the past ten years when high speed pursuits resulted in a number of liability law suits against police organizations, the policy regarding pursuits was changed by many organizations to be much more restrictive. The troops resisted the changes, they hated having to get a sergeant’s approval to start or continue a pursuit, and thought that the chief who made the policy change was a wimp!

Slowly, the officers accepted the changes in pursuit policy by many departments. Thankfully we began to realize that pursuits were more dangerous for us than for the kid, or violator, we were chasing. With but few exceptions, we realized it didn’t make a whole lot of difference if we decided to break off the chase. Eventually, we would get them for something.

As a young agent I vividly remember chasing a deserter across his backyard only to see him disappear into a Florida swamp. Just as I began to follow the guy into the swamp a seasoned agent grabbed my arm and said, "Whoa, we’ll get him tomorrow!" Boy was I pissed. I was ready to sacrifice the wingtips, white shirt, and suit I wore for the glory of the badge. How dare that pip-squeak deserter thumb his nose at the US of A, and me! Well we did finally catch the guy, but it took me several more years before I began to understand and accept the advice of the older agent. He was right! There is always tomorrow, and that is when we’ll get the guy. The world isn’t going to fall apart just because we decide to play it cool. We are not going to turn into wimps if we decide to break it off.

There is absolutely no question that when a cop turns on the lights and siren, he/she has just entered into the most dangerous aspect of law enforcement. I won’t argue that it is not fun--because it is. Man, the adrenaline rush, the feeling that you are doing God’s work, and the satisfaction of finally stopping the bum are great for the ego and make up for all of the normal boredom of the job. If the guy is drunk, afflicted with road rage, a sadist killer of children, or you are on the way to help a fellow officer, then the danger you have placed yourself in by the chase is reasonable, and by definition, part of the job. If it is some goofy kid joyriding, however, or some dude not wanting to get caught with someone other than his wife, or your making a run to an routine accident, then you have placed yourself in harm’s way to the detriment of yourself and your family. They don’t pay us enough money to be that dumb!

I know from experience that young police officers will read these words and roll their eyes to the ceiling. That’s okay. I admire them for their idealism, courage, and driving skills. Unfortunately, they just don’t know the value of a good pair of wingtips.

Shortly after the end of World War II, the United Kingdom began the process of consolidating the hundreds of small police agencies throughout England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. At present, there are only 43 constabularies in the United Kingdom and plans to shrink this number to about 28 departments. These constabularies employ between 1,500 and 5,000 constables, with metropolitan London having over 40,000 officers. During the same period of time in the United States, we were consolidating schools. Within a decade, most of the one-room schoolhouses from one end of the country to the other were closed. Now we consider a high school of about 1,500 students to be a desirable size. In my opinion, the consolidation efforts in the United Kingdom and in our local school systems have produced excellent results for everyone concerned.

We have about 17,000 police agencies in the United States and they employ approximately 600,000 officers. This would average 35 officers per department, but as we know this number is not accurate. Actually, about 75% of the police organizations in the United States have less than 15 officers.

I harbor no illusions that law enforcement in the United States is going to rush out and embrace the concept of police force consolidation to form regional police forces of at least 2,000 officers. Not only are they not going to embrace this idea, they will resist it for all they are worth. Why then would anyone in their right mind even consider bringing up such an unpopular idea? There are two reasons: first, it’s a good idea and second, it’s a good idea!

The consolidation of police forces to create large regional police forces will not be less expensive, nor will it make our present law enforcement efforts necessarily more effective. I do not know of any consolidation effort in the United States that would make this claim. The successful efforts of consolidation in Jacksonville, Las Vegas, and the concept of contracting out police service--as is done in Los Angeles county--have produced very effective law enforcement organizations, but not necessarily at a cost savings to the taxpayer.

There are two reasons why I think consolidation of forces is an idea whose time has come. First, the cost and utilization of technology, such as computer services, radio transmission, and laboratory services is very high. Yet new technology has the capacity to serve extremely wide areas and very large numbers of people. As you know, Michigan is just finishing a state-wide radio system that will allow every public safety officer in Michigan to use the same system. Computer systems can be built to handle the arrest, fingerprint, and DNA records of an entire state. A corresponding system could be constructed to handle intelligence information, provide e-mail services, and on-line education and training programs.

So I would argue that if we create larger departments that covered much larger areas, law enforcement would be in a position to use high technology much more than we do. As we all know our larger police organizations presently use these various bells and whistles, while the rest of law enforcement tries to make do with technology within their budgetary means. Many states have begun to provide technological resources for smaller departments and often provide manpower services as well. I think these innovations in large departments and the assistance presently provided to smaller departments is evidence of a beginning trend to this concept of consolidation. I would argue that states like North Dakota need only one law enforcement organization. Illinois could get by with ten such regional police forces and Florida might need twenty. I wouldn’t set those numbers in stone, and only mention them to give you a feel for the idea. With the technology we have, including the automobile, helicopters, and mobile crime labs, we could cover vast amounts of square miles without much difficulty.

I think my second reason for proposing consolidation is the strongest. A large police organization, say 1,500 officers or more, has the capacity to offer police officers more opportunity for professional growth. I would not argue that large departments are currently better than smaller police forces, nor would I say that small departments are not doing a good job of effective law enforcement. Both of these arguments would be very difficult to make. My point is that bigger is most likely to be better, particularly, for opportunities to raise our level of professional growth.

My reasons for advocating bigger departments revolves around the fact that larger organizations have more opportunities and resources to commit to areas where professional growth occurs. For example, it is far more difficult to get time off for training and educational pursuits in a small department than it is in a larger department. Larger forces would offer many opportunities for officers to specialize in particular areas, such as computer-based crime and international organized crime. Yet few departments, including federal agencies, are moving quickly enough in these areas. Specialization in a particular area, such as explosives, terrorism, or special tactics have a tendency to create a highly professional attitude among those officers assigned to the specialty. This increases both the skill levels and opportunities for research if the department is large enough to afford the time and required expense.

Larger departments offer more opportunity for promotion and assignment rotation--both of which are essential for personal growth. Another significant advantage would be in the pay increase for officers from smaller departments, which would be absorbed into a regional department. An increase in the base level pay for these officers is long overdue, but under our present system it is most likely not possible.

Many police officers will argue that police officers in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and other large metropolitan areas are not demonstrably better than those found in suburbs, or small towns throughout the United States. I would not dispute this argument at all. However, I would point out that almost all of the advances in law enforcement over the past 100 years have come out of larger departments. Hostage negotiations, special weapons and tactics, the utilization of technology, patrol and investigative techniques, and a large amount of the information on labor/management relations are but a few of the areas in which larger departments have created knowledge that has been incorporated into all police operations and management. Simply put, large organizations, such as the FBI, have the time and resources to spend on law enforcement operations outside the scope of their normal duties.

In conclusion let me say that from a political and economic standpoint the United States is not yet ready to embark on wholesale law enforcement consolidation. Still, I cannot help but wonder what the implication of reducing our current 17,000 departments to 1,700 would have on the future of our profession. There is no question in my mind that this tantalizing possibility will soon be one of law enforcement’s most interesting challenges.

Unfortunately there is no one voice that speaks for the entire spectrum of law enforcement in the United States. The International Association of Chiefs of Police, (IACP) is the closest thing we have to a national spokesman. While the IACP is a fine organization it basically reflects the positions of police management. While it would be nice for law enforcement to speak with one voice about illegal drugs, violence portrayed in the entertainment industry, or about salaries and benefits it will not happen anytime soon. This is regrettable because we do have a need to have a professional body to set standards and take positions on those aspects of our culture that have an impact on our job.

One such problem is what the educational qualifications should be for police officers. Whether one agrees or not entry standards are being raised across the United States to require a college degree as a minimum educational qualification. This trend will undoubtedly continue. What has not been stated, however, is what type of degree is best suited for an officer. Many law enforcement officers, and police managers, would argue that it should be a degree in Criminal Justice. God save us from degrees in Criminal Justice! I am hopeful that law enforcement organizations will not adopt either a two or four year degree in Criminal Justice as a qualification for employment. In my review of Criminal Justice programs throughout the United States, I must say I have been impressed with just a few. The programs at Florida State and Michigan State are impressive. Most of the others, however, reflect the capture of this curriculum by sociology departments that have directed most of their offerings to people interested in careers in prisons, probation, and parole. I am quite sure the offerings are great for those careers, but I think they fall considerably short in preparing an individual to be a police officer. I would also add that furnishing an individual who wants to be a police officer with a typical two or four year degree in Criminal Justice, with the claim that the program is relevant, is not what I would call serving the best interest of the student.

Personally, I would recommend that persons interested in a successful career as a cop take at least 75% of their courses in the general liberal arts curriculum, with heavy emphasis on English, ethics, public speaking, history, science, and literature. The remaining 25% of the curriculum, but only in the third and fourth year of study, can certainly be courses that have been tailored specifically around law enforcement topics. What we need in law enforcement is a degree program that will prepare an individual for life first, and police officer second. What we need, both as students and police officers, is to be able to talk, listen, and write exceptionally well. We need to broaden our viewpoints, understand our culture and history, and have a deep appreciation for the rule of law. Let us first educate an individual to be a literate, law-abiding citizen and then, after an extensive background investigation, worry about making him/her a good cop.

I suspect many people will disagree with my views on this subject, just as I disagree with them. Until we resolve this debate our efforts to gain professional status will be stymied. Until leaders step forward the least we can do for the foreseeable future is to send a message locally that we will not be overly influenced, or impressed, by the efficacy of the current Criminal Justice degree programs offered throughout the United States. Until our thinking crystallizes on this issue, and law enforcement officers provide quality recommendations for what type of degree is best suited for law enforcement officers, my recommendation would be to hire high school graduates with at least five years of work experience, including some military service, and thereafter institute a program which would enable them to obtain a relevant degree at the department’s expense.

Without being gloomy, and with great pride in what law enforcement has accomplished over the past thirty years, I would predict that difficult and challenging days lie just ahead of us. As you know, our society is in a state of rapid change driven to a great degree by technological advances, a continuing debate over values by liberals and conservatives, and an economy increasingly sensitive to the world economy and world events. By any historical measure, we are living in tumultuous times. By virtue of the nature of law enforcement work, we often find ourselves trying to maintain civility between competing ideas, or if you will, standing between the rock and the hard place.

Those in political power want to use us to maintain the status quo. Those attempting to gain power want to use us as the whipping boy, or scapegoat, for all they perceive is wrong with the world. While law enforcement has always tried to occupy a relatively neutral position, it does seem as if our present political and social environment is rather shrill, lacking in civility, and common sense. Observe if you will the current debates over tobacco, abortion, gun control, or family values and try and find moderate voices--it is very hard to do.

Within this environment, law enforcement still has to contend with a continuing and troubling problem with the use illicit drugs and the containment of drug distribution. Violent crime, while lessening, is still exceedingly high and often punctuated by violent acts by juveniles which beggar the imagination. These acts continue to feed the fear of crime on the part of our citizens, regardless of whether the overall rate is lower or not.

Over the past fifty years the number of dysfunctional individuals, as a percentage of the population, has risen. From this dysfunctional population we can expect a continuing stream of serial killers, pedophiles, paranoids involved in workplace violence, suicides by cop, and the formation of radical cults, hate groups, and criminal gangs. In other words, no matter what happens for the good in the next few years, we still have a pipeline full of problem-people waiting to play out their insanity as their final act. Unfortunately, though, on a stage under our management.

Given the anticipated difficult times and problems, I would foresee that if all goes reasonably well in all other aspects of our culture in the next decade, law enforcement officers will emerge from these trying times bruised, but not beaten. Hopefully, in the process of trying to maintain law and order, we will not lose our neutrality, our focus on increasing the professionalism of law enforcement, and our desire to make our communities a better place to live.

I am hopeful that the above issues will give law enforcement officers some different topics to discuss over coffee. Hopefully the discussions will be lively, but not overly heated. After all there are other important issues to discuss such as, "Will Michael return to the Bulls; will McGwire hit 60 homers; or is fly fishing more macho than using worms?"

The National Executive Institute Associates Leadership Bulletin editor is Edward J. Tully. He served with the FBI as a Special Agent from 1962 to 1993. He is presently the Executive Director of the National Executive Institute Associates and the Major City Chiefs. You can reach him via e-mail at tullye@aol.com or by writing to 308 Altoona Drive, Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401