Content deleted Content added
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
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]]. The availability of federal grant money creates a real incentive for police agencies to use POP{{Verify source|date=June 2009}}.
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{{Verify source|date=June 2009}}.
The rank-and-file officers, however, often do not share their administrators' enthusiasm{{Verify source|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{{Verify source|date=June 2009}}.
== Significant impacts of POP policy ==
| |||