|
Jon M. Shane Associates |
|
Research Interests |
|
Criminological Theory Social Disorganization Theory —Social disorganization refers to the failure of social institutions or social organizations (e.g., schools, business, policing, real estate, group networking) in certain communities to regulate community behavior. Regulation means having the collective will and ambition to intervene when disorderly or other conditions threaten the peace and tranquility of the neighborhood. The theory is rooted in the study of ecology, which examines the relationship between an organism and its environment. Among the many aspects of society believed to contribute to social disorganization include concentrations of unemployment, poverty, residential mobility, single-headed households, a large proportion of people under age 25 and the school drop-out rate.
Police systems are adversely affected because these persistent social problems produce stress and strain in the people experiencing them, which may lead to crime. Because the police are constantly exposed to people embedded in these conditions, they may adopt a cynical attitude, which affects performance including corruption. When cynicism takes hold police officers may not respond to problems with the vigor necessary to correct or slow the problems. Various policing strategies can be used to stabilize socially disorganized environments as the part of the parent government’s larger strategy to reverse the systemic effects of this social phenomenon.
Environmental Criminology and Opportunity Theory (Situational Crime Prevention, Problem-Oriented Policing, Broken Windows, Routine Activity Theory and Rational Choice)—Environmental criminology is the study of crime, criminality and victimization as they relate to specific places, general spaces and the way individuals and organizations interact with their environment. By studying spatial patterns of crime and criminality, offender movements can be predicted. These predictions can help police implement strategies that increase the perceived risk of apprehension, increase the perceived effort to a commit a crime and reduce anticipated awards. The implication is that police departments should adopt new crime control strategies including crime mapping, aoristic analysis, performance measures and the CompStat management process.
Increasing the perceived risk of apprehension is embedded in Cohen and Felson’s (1979) concept of guardianship, a principle component of routine activity theory (Painter and Tilley, 1999). Routine activity theory suggests when there is an absence of capable guardians, crime is more likely. Strategies that help extend guardianship (e.g., video surveillance) help strengthen formal social control leaving criminals with an invisible sense of omniscience.
Increasing the perceived effort is a way to reduce offender motivation by disrupting criminals from their comfort zone. The disruption makes it more difficult to commit a crime and remain anonymous, which creates an apprehensive feeling. In places where criminals would normally operate because natural or formal surveillance is reduced, strategies that uproot entrenched or embryonic criminal activity serve as a deterrent before crime can establish a foothold.
Reducing the anticipated rewards of committing a crime is rooted in Cornish and Clarke’s (1985) rational choice theory, which suggests offenders are always seeking to benefit from crime. The benefits are not only material (i.e., money) but also excitement or thrill, relief from boredom (e.g., stealing a car, committing a burglary) and peer respect or influence (e.g., graffiti/tagging). Various police strategies can help remove the incentive to commit crime.
The wider environment often contributes to the perception that crime and disorder are “more acceptable” in certain places than others. When physical and social conditions deteriorate to the point where the surrounding environs imply “no one cares,” crime may increase. The police, together with other government services, can reduce the antecedents to crime so people “feel” safer, use public space more and share a collective sense of empowerment to reclaim their neighborhoods.
Evaluation Police Policies and Programs—How police agencies are organized and the social programs they deliver should be evaluated to ensure they meet predefined standards of excellence. Effective programs should continue and perhaps be expanded; ineffective ones should be discarded and the resources reapportioned for another use. Discarding outmoded policies is not only fiscally responsible but socially prudent particularly when the policy results in a disparate impact on a segment of society. For evaluation purposes, programs can be conceptualized in two ways: 1) as a social service delivered by the agency, or 2) as a functional area depicted on the agency’s organizational plan. Both have implications for social expectations, quality of life and budget. The programs implemented by police departments often revolve around broader social and political mandates in society.
Policies that regulate police practices such as use of force, stop and frisk, motor vehicle pursuit, K9 deployment, recruitment, and minimum staffing all have implications for the public. Movements in social policy and public administration as well as court decisions have placed greater demands on public officials to account for their actions. Evaluation as an enterprise promotes legitimacy, trust and transparency by systematically determining the value, worth or merit of police activities. Evaluation consists of two independent components: 1) process evaluation, which determines how well a program is operating and 2) impact evaluation, which determines the extent to which a program achieved its intended outcome and whether any unintended consequences resulted.
Police Performance—Measuring “how well” the police are meeting established standards or community expectations is at the core of efficient and effective service delivery and community satisfaction. The public is entitled to a responsive and accountable police force, but gauging “success” must be reliably evaluated through valid indicators of police work. Singular measures of police performance such as crime control are wholly inadequate, yet many police administrators see crime control as their sole function . In fact, the majority of police work is not devoted to crime control. Instead, it is devoted to service-related tasks.
Police performance measurement consists of qualitative and quantitative aspects that characterize a physical or functional attribute of the agency as it relates to executing a mission, operation or function. It is accomplished through a clear division of labor and by assigning responsibilities that contribute to the organization’s goals, including behavior, professional demeanor (Actions, attitude, and manner of performance) and the quantity of employee output as demonstrated by the employee’s approach to completing their work assignments. Taking periodic measurements ensures the agency’s goals are being achieved. Comparing those measures to predefined standards is an essential public management function that can reveal success, or failure. Defining a multidimensional performance system allows top police administrators to capture an accurate portrait of what the agency says it does and how well it does it. It also acts as a framework to guide evaluation. |
Current Theoretical and Evaluative Interests |
|
Phone: 973-226-4003 |
|
If you wish to participate in research with Jon M. Shane, or have a specific program or policy evaluated please contact: |