Reform efforts of the 1960s have lead, in the 1970s, to proposals to modify the organizational structure of police agencies, to increase police responsiveness to the community' and to enhance the job satisfaction of the increasinglv well-educated police officers. This paper discusses four such organizational models and critiques a notion (peer accountability' as a primary control mechanism) central to these proposals in the light of recent research.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Angell, I'rosard an alternatise to the classical police organizational arrangements A democratic modelCriminology. 1971. 9185-194
2.
Angell J.Organizing police for the future An update of the democratic model
. (Criminal Justice Review, 1976, 135-51
3.
Bittner, F.The function of the police in mordern society. Washington. D. C.: U S. Government Printing Office. 19711
4.
Cohen. B
& Charken. JPolice background characteristics and performance. Lexington. Mass.: D. C. Heath. 1973
5.
Ford, R.Meeker. J.
& Zellner. RPolice, students and racial hostilityJo Journal of police science and administration, 1975. 59-14
6.
Fricdson E.Doctoring together: A study of professional control. New YorkElsevier Scientific Publishing Company. 1975
7.
FreCnch. R P
& Raxen. BThe bases of social power In D. Cartssright & A Zander(Eds.) Group dynamics. Nes YorkHariper and Rosk. 1961.
8.
Goldstein HPolice corruption: A perspective on its nature and control. Washington. I) C.Police Foundaiton. 1975
9.
Goldstein HPolicing in a free society. Cambridge. Mass.Ballinger Publishing Compans. 1977
10.
Guyot D.The organmiation ot police departments changing the model from the arms to the hospitalcriminal Justice Abstracts. 1977, 9, 231-257.
11.
Jacobs, J.
& Magdovitz, S.At LEEP's end?: A review of the law enforcement education program. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 1977, 5, 1-18.
Kirkham, G.Signal zero. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1976.
14.
Munro, J.Administrative behavior and police organization. Cincinnati: W. H. Anderson Company, 1974.
15.
National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals. Police. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973.
16.
Perrow, C.Complex organizations: A critical essay. Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1972.
17.
Pate, T.
, McCullough, J. W., Bowers, R.A. & Ferrar, A.Kansas City peer review panel: An evaluation report. Washington, D.C.: Police Foundation, 1978.
18.
President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967.
19.
Reppetto, T.Bachelors on the beat: Organizational design of the educated police department
. Journal of Police Science andAdministration, 1979, 7, 1-11.
20.
Smith, D.Empirical studies of higher education and police performance. Washington, D.C.: Police Foundation, 1978.
21.
Tifft, L.Control systems, social bases of power and power exercise in police organizations
. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 1975, 3, 66-76.
22.
Toch, H.
, Grant, J. & Galvin, R.Agents of change: A studi of police reform. New York: J. Wiley and Sons, 1975.
23.
Weiner, N.The effect of education on police attitudes
: Journal of Crinminal Justice, 1974, 2, 319-328.
