The United States law enforcement is a remarkably complex and large area involving more than 23, 000 federal, state and local agencies working together with security service providers, and sector that contracts over one million people. Over 90, 000 among them are police personnel, 74% belong to the local law enforcement agencies, 13% are contracted by state or special agencies, and another 13% are hired by the federal agencies. The law enforcement agencies are charged with different responsibilities and roles, with the key goal of society protection. Some of the responsibilities and duties include crime prevention, public service and maintenance of order and law. The bodies are divided into local, state and federal agencies. However, they function together towards preventing and controlling crime, even though in particular circumstances, each body may operate separately from the others. Additionally, all the three law enforcement levels are managed by defined responsibilities, procedures and set of rule (Schaible & Sheffield, 2012).
This paper aims to identify, compare and contrast the policing function at the federal, state and local organizational levels. Furthermore, it will also provide an analysis of how the organizational, operational, operations and management functions at the three levels of organizations are different or similar.
The Federal Police Agencies
The federal police agencies refer to police agencies that are regulated by the government and are responsible for the role of tackling security and enforcement issues that are beyond the boundaries of state and those that impact the different regions in the country or the entire America. They include the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Border Patrol and Bureau of Tobacco, Alcohol, Firearms, and Explosives. These bodies tackle matters related to threats and internal security such as terrorism, immigration, drug sales, weapon and arms regulation. Their jurisdiction is above that of state and law enforcement bodies (Schaible & Sheffield, 2012).
At the level of the state, it is likely to find specialized police units that carry out special police functions. For instance, game and fish wardens are charged with the enforcement of hunting, fishing, and boating laws. Various states have also contributed in sovereign policing bodies such as the Motor Vehicles Department, Criminal Investigation Department, and Alcohol Beverage Control. These bodies are charged with conducting investigations and law enforcement, which must be according to the powers allocated to them by the state. In performing their functions, they operate together with other police bodies. Other examples of special police segments include SWAT, K-9 units and HAZMAT (Phythian, 2012).
Local Police Agencies
They are composed of sheriff’s department, campus police, local police as well as the park and municipal police. They are responsible for providing needs of the society such as traffic duties, patrol work, provision of general assistance to the public and response to calls for service. They are also responsible for law enforcement, in particular, towns or cities that they serve. Moreover, they are also charged with enforcement of ordinances. However, it must be implemented according to the jurisdiction area (Burn & Kornfield, 2011).
Based on the policing culture, particularly at the state and local state law enforcement levels, the officers who are out in the field on patrols usually act separately without the need for supervision or consultation. A greater portion of their responsibilities and duties involve low visibility decisions or particularly when these decisions do not require making any reports or arrests to the office or supervisors, something that requires review (Schaible & Sheffield, 2012).
Similarities and Differences
The three organizational levels of law enforcement agencies have similarities and also differences. They are similar in that they are all responsible for protecting the rights and ensuring the safety of Americans that they serve in their operation areas. They also perform other common functions such as enforcing laws, making arrests, protecting and serving the citizens in specific areas where they are assigned to work.
On the other hand, one of the differences between the police bodies includes the way in which they hire. In various towns and cities, local police officers are appointed by their respective city governments, with varying recruitment methods from one city to another based on the regulations and rules. Due to the nature of having different specialized bodies at the state level, the top management is usually composed of political appointees, even though they are selected from a team of experienced professionals. The middle-level managers are then appointed from within the force, a process based on merit or performed by civil service Most of the people who hold managerial positions apply paramilitary ranks and title such as inspector. However, appointments in the federal law bodies particularly the senior management are performed by the president. Nevertheless, the process must be performed with the advice and consent of the Senate. The mid-level management in the federal bodies is composed of civil servants or internal officers who have been promoted on the merit basis. The three agencies are also different in the roles that they perform, and also their jurisdiction areas.
Furthermore, the three organizational levels function according to the regulations and laws governing the areas in which they operate. Local agencies are governed by the regulations and rules of their cities or municipalities while state police bodies abide by the laws set out by their operation statutes. Federal bodies, on the other hand, operate under the federal laws. However, it is also important to note that local and state policing agencies are also controlled by the federal laws while local agencies are governed by the state government laws that they serve (Phythian, 2012).
Leadership Characteristics and Responsibilities
For the leaders of police to be effective in carrying out their responsibilities and duties, they must possess some leadership characteristics. For example, a police leader regardless of the organizational level should have technical skills, implying that they must have analytical ability and knowledge in the application of techniques and tools to their specific responsibilities and duties. Some of the duties that require the use of technical skills include the application of computers, budgeting and basic knowledge of using some specialized tools such as the breathalyzer machines. Human skills are also critical and basic for the leaders of the three different organizational levels. These skills are related to the executive ability to perform effectively as a team member and enhance cooperation. A police leader should be sensitive to the people’s needs, who in this case happen to be the general public that they serve and their colleagues.
Leadership responsibilities among the three organizational levels include those of the supervisors, the middle managers, and CEO. The CEO as the overall head of the police service is responsible for overseeing the whole organization; efficacy and operations of the entire police fraternity. Some of the responsibilities of the CEO include formulation and communication of clear vision for the organization. Additionally, they make sure that there is a management team that is committed to translating the visions of the organization into action (Roberg, Kuykendall & Novak, 2010).
On the other hand, middle managers are responsible for developing systems, supporting mechanisms and resources towards ensuring that all the officers achieve the best outcomes for their activities. They include lieutenants and captains who also act as the bridge between top management and junior police officers. Finally, the line supervisors work directly with the patrol officers who are answerable to them. Some of the responsibilities of the line supervisors include staff, time and other resources management; promoting teamwork amongst the officers; understanding and solving problems and making sure that officers have constant timely feedback and support (Burn & Kornfield, 2011).
References
Burn, O., & Kornfield, S. (2011). Police administration and management. Journal of Criminal Justice, 7(4), 372.
Phythian, M. (2012). Policing Uncertainty: Intelligence, Security and Risk. Intelligence and National Security, 27(2), 187-205.
Roberg, R., Kuykendall, J., & Novak, K. (2010). Police management. Los Angeles, Calif.: Roxbury Pub. Co.
Schaible, L., & Sheffield, J. (2012). Intelligence led policing and change in state law enforcement agencies. Policing, 35(4), 761-784.
