Excerpt from author\u27s book, “Issues in Policing and Requisite Challenges” (2016), ISBN-13: 978-1540375841, first published in LinkedIn

Lumb, Richard C.

English

The College at Brockport, State University of New York: Digital Commons @Brockport

The College at Brockport: State University of New York
Digital Commons @Brockport
Criminal Justice Faculty Publications Criminal Justice
2016
When the View of Change is Myopic
Richard C. Lumb
The College at Brockport, rclumb@gmail.com
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/crj_facpub
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Criminal Justice at Digital Commons @Brockport. It has been accepted for inclusion in
Criminal Justice Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @Brockport. For more information, please contact
kmyers@brockport.edu.
Repository Citation
Lumb, Richard C., "When the View of Change is Myopic" (2016). Criminal Justice Faculty Publications. 21.
https://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/crj_facpub/21
1 
 
When the View of Change is Myopic 
By 
 
Richard C. Lumb, Ph.D. 
The State University of New York at Brockport, Emeritus 
 
I have given considerable thought to the process of change, how to get people to engage, 
to do things differently, to commit and to stick with it. These changes apply to teaching, 
organizations, family and other applications.  The attached study by the National 
Institute of Justice (referenced below), while unique to a particular program, applies 
conceptually to different issues we encounter on a smaller scale. As thoughtful people, 
widening how we think seems important somehow. 
https://www.crimesolutions.gov/ProgramDetails.aspx?ID=414&utm_source=email-
govdelivery&utm_medium=eblast&utm_campaign=program414-moving 
The belief by some is that providing a "step up" to people will change them. Seldom have 
I found that giving without mutual commitment, a means to change with equal or 
corresponding effort and commitment, results are as anticipated. We do not respect that 
which we have no investment in or internal need to protect it; the eventual loss is an 
ordinary course that somehow fills anticipated philosophy and expectation. What does 
this tell us? 
Other than the obvious, people have to initiate or commit to an idea and then figure out 
how to achieve it, Yes, that involves others, but unless the core drive, the motivation to 
see it through initiates from within, a half-baked or less commitment follows. Not 
diminishing the need to bring people up, but it must include a patience process with 
steps, a commitment by the individual who realizes gains and 
ultimately a goal that is part of the person's experience and 
hard work. Is that not true with most aspects of life? 
The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department, a merger of 
Mecklenburg County Police and the City of Charlotte Police 
Department, found it grounded in the traditional model of law 
enforcement.  Bringing in Chief Dennis Nowicki resulted in the 
implementation of community problem-oriented policing 
(CPOP), a substantial change in both philosophy and practice. It was a five-year 
conversion to include the education and training of police, residents, elected and 
appointed officials and an active assembly of stakeholders whose engagement was 
critical.  
Skeptics were in the majority at first read. As time progressed and department and city-
wide knowledge increased, as programs rolled out, as police officers and citizens from 
neighborhoods sat and talked (and listened) to one another, change happened. New 
2 
 
people were brought in, and my direct experience with five bright, young and motivated 
Geographic Information System Analysts was to change my thinking as well. 
Technology, smart policing, engaged stakeholders and residents, innovative ideas 
explored and implemented when found substantial, and importantly committed and 
focused people are making appropriate change efforts successful, was the key. 
I would note that the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department conversion to a 
Community Problem Oriented Policing program, was an early full partnership between 
a police department and a university, the University of North Carolina at Charlotte and 
the Department of Criminal Justice.  Not common during the middle 1990s. 
The process included many individual requirements that focused on reasons why the 
change was needed, individual and group motivation, how different groups can find a 
middle ground and make positive change occur, and to convert pessimistic thinking to a 
more optimistic approach, led to success.  Not just by chance, it was a conceptual model 
that provided many helpful programs and with equal partnership by the city 
government, public and private stakeholders, and individuals.  It worked superbly well 
at that time, those many years ago. 
Controlling crime and criminals using punishment only works while the individual is 
incarcerated. The present and continuing "War on Drugs" is a failure of significant costs 
to taxpayers.  Not to mention the many other variables that go to loss of wages, health, 
crime, misery, and other things that make the "using individual" a non-contributor to 
society, equates to social costs for things they (citizens) do not control.  That same 
concept applied to crime is to question responsibility for reduction is limited only to the 
courts, corrections or enforcement perspective.  One side creates all manner of program 
and rule to control the other factions (at considerable cost), but many simply ignore the 
divide for their view and vision is different. Seems foolish somehow! 
Moreover, in our business; social, fraternal and organizational lethargy exists. The 
dilemma in determining solutions is unanswered questions and challenging solutions.  
This situation presents a unique challenge at times.  
The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Experience. 
Community change is difficult as the differences of opinion, situations that people live 
in, the influences on their life and a host of other variables work to slow the process, 
create diversions and present numerous issues requiring a solution.  One central focus 
for change to a massive project, such as community problem-oriented policing, begins 
with acceptance and willing participation of the patrol officer.  He or she is the 
foundation of the program, and it begins there and grows to include the entire 
community over a period. 
The following information relates to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department and 
the residents of the City of Charlotte with the implementation of community problem-
oriented policing.  This focus is on the officers who gained the respect and confidence of 
the public and members of the police department in making this concept viable. 
3 
 
 The individual officer’s attitude toward his job and community is critical.  Certain 
personality characteristics have been tied to police job performance and efficiency.  
Beginning with Diehl and his colleagues in 1933, police officers that were ranked as 
efficient and effective by their supervisors were usually those that were emotionally 
stable, self-sufficient, extroverted, and dominate in face-to-face situations.  Hogan and 
Curtness (1975) using the California Psychological Inventory found that their sample of 
American police was masculine, self-confident, and socially effective.  “Good police” 
were characterized by what they referred to as useful intelligence, achievement 
motivation, and social poise.  They were more assertive, had a more clear sense of self-
worth and acceptance, and were more efficient in social functioning than officers who 
performed less well.  George Pugh (1985) using the California Psychological Inventory 
found that the predictability of police work to personality variables changes over time.    
 
At two years into the study, the capacity for status was a predictor of high performance.  
After four and a half years, however, the best predictors were those that indicated a 
stable, responsible, and socially skilled individual.  Pugh interpreted this to mean that 
during the earlier phases of police work the main focus of the job involved becoming a 
part of the police department and gaining the trust of other officers.  As the new officer 
stabilizes in his/her position the traditional work of police becomes focal, rather than 
simply fitting into the police department, and maturity and responsibility become more 
critical to job performance.   
 
The Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF) has also been used to identify 
reliable predictors of successful police performance.  Fabricatore, et al., (1978) found 
that tough-mindedness and aggressiveness were consistent predictors of superior police 
performance.  He and his colleagues interpreted this to support the suggestion of the 
homogeneity of police personality.  In 1984, Richard Lawrence using the Sixteen 
Personality Factor Questionnaire found that being reserved, detached, critical, 
conscientious, persistent, practical, down to earth, socially aware, self-sufficient, 
resourceful, and preferring one’s decisions assisted officers in his study to cope with job 
demands and stress.  However, in Charlotte, many of these same traits were at work to 
help collaboration, experimentation, reaching out to the community and a willingness to 
give the concept the opportunity to work. 
 
The studies reviewed were conducted during the professional era of policing.  Practices 
developed during the professional era attempted to control crime through: 
 
(1) Patrolling communities to detect crimes in progress and to promote general 
     deterrence,  
 
(2) Rapid response to calls for services, and,  
 
(3) Investigation of crimes already committed to apprehend subjects and build evidence 
      to be used for prosecution (Alpert and Moore, 1993).   
 
Most of these endeavors had strong reactive themes.  The effectiveness of these reactive 
tactics has been widely discussed in the literature on policing (Bayley, 1994; Kelling et 
4 
 
al., 1974; Sherman, 1995).  Many of these studies suggest that there is a severe limitation 
on what police can do about crime in a reactive mode of operation.  To many, 
particularly the public, it becomes apparent that old ways had not worked and that there 
was a need for a new approach.  Community problem-oriented policing, a relatively new 
concept, represented this new way and its success rested on the shoulders of every 
member of the police department and citizens of the city. 
 
Across the country, police chiefs, politicians, and the public alike accepted community 
policing.  The shift from reactive policing in the professional model to pro-active 
policing by the community-policing model is nothing less than a revolution.  Police now 
engage in the following programs: 
 
(1) community crime prevention programs enhancing citizen awareness about what can 
be done to reduce the incident of crime (Goldstein, 1978; Rosenbaum, 1986),  
 
(2) pro-active patrols and the monitoring of high-risk persons and places (Sherman, 
1995), and, 
  
(3) problem-solving strategies designed to intervene in situations that appear to 
generate crime and disorder (Bayley, 1994), and (4) community outreach and fear 
reduction programs to increase citizen quality of life (Moore, 1992). 
 
The CPOP project is about developing partnerships with the community to solve 
problems, reduce and prevent crime, and improve the quality of life of citizens.  The 
philosophy was also about organizational change, increased public accountability, 
decentralized command, and empowerment of line officers.  Coupled with this is the full 
use of technology to support efforts, improved citizen access to crime trends and 
statistics, and reorientation of police activities from reaction to prevention (Brann, 
1996; Seagrave, 1996; Vaughn, 1991). 
 
Summary 
 
Community problem-oriented policing focuses on the development of a partnership 
between police and community, the establishment of a problem-solving approach to 
crime and fear issues and attempts to increase public accountability, decentralized 
command, and empowerment to the individual line officer.  It re-orients police activities 
from reaction to pro-action and prevention.  Changing the police organization and its 
employees was based on planning and a model of change, to guide achievement of the 
mission and goals of the project (Prochaska and DiClemente, 1986).  Understanding and 
to consider individual officer openness to change helped in the design of a more 
effective training program.  It also increased the likelihood that officers, especially 
senior level officers, bought in and supported the program. 
 
 
 
 
5 
 
References: 
 
Alpert, G. and Moore, M. (1993). Measuring police performance in the new paradigm of 
policing. In: DiLulio, J.J. (ed.) Performance Measures for the Criminal Justice System. 
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Princeton University. 
 
Bayley, D. H. (1994).  Police for the Future.  New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press. 
 
Brann, J. (1996, spring). “COPS director Joe Brann welcomes new community policing 
publication for Sheriffs.”  Sheriff times, 1. 
 
Diehl, H., Paterson, D., Dvorak, B. and Logstaff, H. (1933). A personnel study of Duluth 
policemen. Bulletin, Employment Stabilization Research Institute, University of 
Minnesota, 2(2), 24. 
 
Fabricatore, J., Azen, S., Schoentgen, S. and Snibbe, H. (1978). Predicting performance 
of police officers using the sixteen personality factor questionnaire. American Journal of 
Community Psychology, 6(1), 63–70. 
 
Goldstein, H. (1978). Police policy formulation: a proposal for improving police 
performance. In: Gaines, L. and Ricks, T. (eds) Managing the Police Organization. West 
Publishing, St Paul, MN. 
 
Hogan, R. and Kurtiness, W. (1975). Personological correlates of police effectiveness. 
Journal of Psychology,  91(2), 289–295. 
 
Kelling, G., Pate, A., Dieckman, D. and Brown, C. (1974). The Kansas City Preventive 
Patrol Experiment: Technical Report. Police Foundation, Washington, DC. 
 
Moore, M. (1992). Problem-solving and community policing. In: Tonry, M. and Morris, 
N. (eds), Criminal Justice: A Review of Research, Vol. 15, pp. 99–157. University of 
Chicago Press, Chicago. 
 
Prochaska, J.O., and DiClemente, C. C. (1986). Toward a comprehensive model of 
change. In R. Miller and N. Heather (eds.).  Treating Addictive Behaviors: Processes of 
Change, (pp.3-27). New York: Plenum Press. 
 
Pugh, G. (1985). The California Psychological Inventory and police selection. Journal of 
Police Science and Administration, 13(2), 172–177. 
 
Sherman, L. and Weisbund, D. (1995). General deterrent effects of police patrol in crime 
‘‘hot spots’’: a randomized controlled trial, Justice Quarterly, 12(4), 625–648. 
 
6 
 
Rosenbaum, D. (ed.) (1986). Community Crime Prevention: Does It Work? Sage, 
Beverly Hills, CA. 
 
Seagrave, J. (1996). Defining community policing.  American Journal of Police. XV (1), 
1-22. 
 
Vaughn, J. r. (1991, June). Community oriented policing . . . You can make it happen.  
Law and Order, 35-39. 
 


When the View of Change is Myopic

https://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=crj_facpub

When the View of Change is Myopic

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

The College at Brockport, State University of New York: Digital Commons @Brockport