Content deleted Content added
m Date maintenance tags and general fixes |
|||
Line 23:
== Political issues and conflicts between actors ==
In the last decade the problem-oriented approach has become a popular one among police administrators and high-ranking city officials. There are two main reasons for this: First, it is an innovation readily accepted and approved by the public, which by and large welcomes the opportunity to be heard and to become more involved{{Source Needed|date=June 2009}}.
Public favor translates into job security for administrators and elected officials. The second reason is the opportunity to collect substantial sums of money through federal grants. In 1995, a federal grant of $327 million from the [[U.S. Department of Justice]] was divided up among police departments implementing POP programs in the state of [[Arizona]]{{Source Needed|date=June 2009}}. The availability of federal grant money creates a real incentive for police agencies to use POP.
Because POP policy may require considerable organizational restructuring, administrators can justify applications for inordinately large funds. A possible third reason is that POP usually represents a revolutionary change in procedures, and this can provide those who implement it with provocative material for books and speaking engagements{{Source Needed|date=June 2009}}.
The rank-and-file officers, however, often do not share their administrators' enthusiasm{{Source Needed|date=June 2009}}. One of the reasons for this may be a lack of clarity with respect to organizational goals. Poorly defined or ambiguous goals can lead to stress and frustration. Another possible source of rank-and-file discontent is the conflict between the administration's community policing mandate and the continuing need to respond to calls for service{{Source Needed|date=June 2009}}.
== Significant impacts of POP policy ==
| |||