Assignment Prompt & Instructions
[>Criminal homework help](https://www.sweetstudy.com/fields/law-criminal)
**files (1)**
– ## week5replies.docx
**## week5replies.docx**
100 words each reply
526 d1 reply Daniel
Small businesses should design a strategic pay schedule because compensation literally affects their capacity to entice, inspire, and keep talented employees. Although smaller companies may have more occasional financial resources than large companies, they still require a uniform process for determining how workers will be paid. Without a structured program, compensation determinations may become unstable, forming perceptions of bias, internal pay unfairness, low enthusiasm, and employee turnover.
A strategic pay strategy starts with job study and job evaluation. Job analysis determines the tasks, duties, operating requirements, and talents needed for each assignment. Job evaluation specifies the comparative value of each job to the association. These procedures permit a small business to designate appropriate salary ranges founded on job duties, internal value, and external labor-market conditions. Dessler (2023) explains that “strategic compensation should connect employee pay with organizational objectives while maintaining internal and external fairness.” Clear salary scopes can also support institutions in reducing pay unfairness and creating more amazing consistency in compensation determinations.
References
Dessler, G. (2023). Human resource management (17th ed.). Pearson.
526 d1 reply heather
The size of the organization does not matter. Strategic pay plans are needed. Smaller firms, though, need them more urgently. It influences their ability to attract and retain top talent, as well as control labor costs. A smaller company may not have the brand recognition that larger ones do. They may also lack the same career pathways. Having a clear pay strategy allows them to compete for qualified individuals. A structured pay plan leads to the perception of fairness and lower turnover rates. Small organizations must control costs associated with payroll. Having a pay plan allows them to prevent overpaying people or underpaying them, leading to turnover. Small companies can use sources such as O*NET and jobdescription.com to ensure pay rates are comparable (Dessler, 2023, p. 362). As with any employer, small firms must also comply with FLSA and other labor laws. A structured pay plan ensures compliance. It must support organizational goals, be equitable internally, and competitive externally.
A real-world example of a small publicly traded company is Starbucks. Their compensation strategy showcases an introductory competitive advantage. Starbucks offers employees benefits (even to part-time workers), equity compensation, and market-competitive wages. Offering health insurance to part-time and full-time workers sets them apart from many smaller firms. Starbucks’ “Bean Stock” allows employees to have a stake in the company. They also ensure they remain competitive with pay in the retail industry. Something Starbucks has done for its employees recently is convert from biweekly pay to weekly pay. This has become not only a perk, but a retention strategy (Barth, 2026, para. 4). They were able to use their strategic pay plan to scale into a global brand. Starbucks shows that pay strategy can boost organizational culture, customer service quality, and support long-term growth.
**References**
Barth, J. (2026, April 7).
_Starbucks adds barista bonuses, weekly pay and expanded tips in_
_frontline compensation push_. HR Executive. https://hrexecutive.com/starbucks-adds-barista-bonuses-weekly-pay-and-expanded-tips-in-frontline-compensation-push/
Dessler, G. (2023).
_Human Resource Management_ (17th ed.). Pearson Education
(US). https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9780137927357
526 d2 reply Lisa
Merit pay is a pay increase an employee receives based on their individual performance and becomes part of their salary. Merit pay is an incentive that links employee salary growth directly to the employee’s evaluated performance (Dessler, 2023, p. 383). In theory, merit pay assumes that employees will work harder and remain more productive when they see a clear connection between their contributions and compensation. Merit pay has been found to have meaningful incentive effects, meaning it can motivate employees to improve performance, and sorting effects, meaning it can help organizations attract and retain employees who value performance-based awards (Park & Sturman, 2016). When implemented effectively, with effective appraisals, rather than bias or favoritism, an organization can maximize performance and profits while retaining competent and contributing employees. It can be beneficial and a good idea because it motivates employees to exceed expectations and shows that the organization values individual contributions. I personally think it is a good idea to award merit raises because an employee can showcase their individual work ethic and continue to advance based on their own effort and results rather than being held back by the performance of others. Merit pay plans do have potential downfalls. Merit pay relies on performance evaluations which can be unfair and make merit-based decisions unfair (Dessler, 2023, p. 384). If this is the case or even if employees perceive the process as unfair, merit pay can reduce morale and performance rather than improving it and unintentionally foster an unhealthy work environment where employees are unmotivated and unwilling to work together.
Dessler, G. (2023). Human Resource Management (17th ed.). Pearson Education (US). https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9780137927357
Park, S., & Sturman, M. C. (2016). Evaluating Form and Functionality of Pay-for-Performance Plans: The Relative Incentive and Sorting Effects of Merit Pay, Bonuses, and Long-Term Incentives. Human Resource Management, 55(4), 697–719. https://doi-org.proxy.ccis.edu/10.1002/hrm.21740
526 d2 reply Tammy
Merit pay is a salary increase awarded to an employee based on their individual job performance rather than an automatic raise that everyone receives. “Unlike a bonus, which is usually a one-time payment, a merit raise becomes part of an employee's base salary, making it a long-term reward for strong performance” (Dessler, 2023, pg. 383). The purpose of merit pay is to encourage employees to perform at a higher level by recognizing and rewarding their individual contributions to the organization. From a strategic human resource management perspective, merit pay is designed to align employee performance with the organization's overall goals, helping companies attract, motivate, and retain high-performing employees.
Overall, I believe merit pay is a good idea when it is implemented fairly and supported by a strong performance management system. Employees are generally more motivated when they know their hard work and accomplishments are recognized. Rewarding employees based on performance can increase job satisfaction, productivity, and engagement because employees see a direct connection between their efforts and their compensation. Merit pay can also help organizations retain top performers by showing that exceptional work is valued and rewarded. According to Dessler (2023), awarding raises based on merit rather than providing across-the-board increases encourages employees to maintain high levels of performance because compensation is linked to individual contributions.
Although merit pay offers several advantages, it also has potential drawbacks. One of the biggest challenges is ensuring that performance evaluations are accurate, consistent, and free from bias. If managers use subjective criteria or fail to evaluate employees fairly, employees may view the process as unfair, which can damage trust and reduce motivation. Employees who believe raises are based on favoritism instead of actual performance may become disengaged or even begin looking for employment elsewhere. This concern is especially important because performance evaluations often influence not only compensation but also promotions and career development opportunities.
Another potential issue is that merit pay may unintentionally discourage teamwork. Many organizations rely on collaboration to achieve strategic goals, but employees who are focused primarily on earning an individual raise may become less willing to share knowledge, help coworkers, or contribute to team success. For this reason, organizations should balance individual performance measures with team or organizational performance goals. Research also suggests that performance-based pay systems are most successful when organizations establish clear performance expectations, provide employees with regular feedback, and ensure managers receive training on conducting fair and objective performance evaluations (Society for Human Resource Management, 2024). Without these practices, merit pay can lose its motivational value and create dissatisfaction among employees.
With that being said, I believe merit pay can be an effective human resource strategy because it rewards employees for their contributions and encourages continuous improvement. However, the success of a merit pay system depends on whether employees trust the evaluation process and believe raises are based on measurable performance rather than personal opinions or bias. When organizations combine fair performance appraisals, transparent communication, and consistent feedback, merit pay can support both employee motivation and long-term organizational success.
Dessler, G. (2023). Human resource management (17th ed.). Pearson.
Society for Human Resource Management. (2024). Performance management. https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/topics/performance-management
543d1 reply eugenia
Effective policy-making is one of the most critical roles of criminal justice leaders since policies are directives for employee behavior, provide consistency, and aid in minimizing civil liability. While a police chief or sheriff can develop policies independently, using a policy development committee provides a more collaborative approach. The two have pros and cons, but I think the most effective is a policy development committee, and final action by the police chief or sheriff. There is one benefit to a chief of police or sheriff making a policy decision on his own, and that's the efficiency.
In an emergency, with a law change or new public safety concerns, a single decision-maker can make a quick decision to revise or implement policies. This also means that there is clear accountability, as it is the leadership's job to be responsible for the policy. These are all different jobs, however. Sheriffs are usually holders of elected office, directly responsible to the voters, while police chiefs are usually appointed by a mayor, city manager, or governing body. This can put sheriffs under more political pressure from the citizens and can give police chiefs more political leverage from the municipal leaders in managing expectations of the public while staying within the rules of proper police work.
While there are good things about policy development, there are also some drawbacks. One person might miss out on legal or operational considerations, or the views of the people working on the ground. The absence of input from supervisors, legal counsel, training personnel and community members in the development of policies may make it harder to effectively implement them and make an agency more vulnerable to civil liability. Ross (2023) stresses that agencies minimise liability through the creation of legally effective policies, sufficient training and supervision. Similarly, in City of Canton v. Harris (1989), the Supreme Court ruled that agencies could be liable if the lack of adequate training is a conscious choice to disregard an individual's constitutional rights. This is another reason why training and implementation personnel should be involved in policy development.
There are a number of benefits to employing a policy development committee. Members of a committee may consist of command staff, legal counsel, training personnel, supervisors, and subject-matter experts who offer different points of view prior to finalizing a policy. This team effort ensures that any concerns with the constitution, any operational issues, and training needs are identified before implementation. Multiple stakeholder involvement also boosts employee buy-in as officers are likely to support policies if they know how they are developed. The main drawback is that the development process can be longer with a committee. Members can have different views on the text of policies, delaying action, especially if agencies are pressed for time to adapt to changing conditions.
A good example of committee-based policy development can be seen after the death of George Floyd in 2020. In many jurisdictions throughout the United States, law enforcement agencies established policy review committees that included command staff, legal counsel, training officers, community members, and other outside experts to review and update use of force policies, duty to intervene standards, and de-escalation training. These collaborative efforts were designed not only to make the process more transparent but to build trust in the process, and thus lessen the potential for future constitutional challenges.
I am more comfortable with a policy development committee and final approval by the police chief or sheriff. This involves the use of teamwork along with effective leadership. The committee helps to make policies legal, practical, and considerate of several viewpoints; the chief/sheriff holds the responsibility for the policy decision. This balance lowers organizational risk and enhances the effectiveness of a policy.
There are several legal cases that back this up. In Monell v. Department of Social Services (1978), the U.S. Supreme Court determined that municipalities can be held liable when the constitutional violations are due to an official policy or custom. Additionally, the Court in Connick v. Thompson (2011) held that agencies may be held liable when the policymakers are “deliberately indifferent” to inadequate training or supervision. These decisions align with Ross' (2023) view that sound policies supported by adequate training and accountability are critical in minimizing civil liability and safeguarding the interests of agencies and communities.
In general, there are advantages and disadvantages to each way of forming policies: committee-based policies offer legal review and expertise while taking time to develop, but individual policy development offers faster response. In my view, having a collaborative development process with final input from agency leaders is best for today's agencies facing tremendous liability in the event of failure.
References
Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (2011).
City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989).
Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978).
Ross, D. L. (2023). Civil Liability in Criminal Justice (8th ed.). Taylor & Francis. https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9781000844719
**less**
543 d2 reply Stephanie
**Compare and contrast the advantages and disadvantages of individuals developing policy (e.g., a police chief or sheriff) versus using a development committee or similar group.**
As we know per Ross, civil liability can happen when agencies don’t have clear policies, effective training and supervision, and there isn’t accountability (2023). Policy development is probably one of the most important responsibilities of a law enforcement administrator. A policy guides the behavior of an officer, outlines expectations, and protects both the officers and the general public. Of course, there are advantages and disadvantages to individuals developing a policy or using a committee. If a police chief or sheriff develops a policy you can almost bet there will be efficiency. More than likely you are dealing with someone who has been on the front lines (in the field), so they will know what that looks like and what items need to be addressed in the policy. If you have a single decision maker that individual can respond quickly to emerging issues without delays or lengthy debates. This is very important due to rapidly changing situations such as implementing new guidance after a critical incident. Additionally, the chief or sheriff has the authority and responsibility to ensure policies align with the agency’s mission, values, and community expectations. There is another disadvantage to a single policy maker, limitations. These limitations can consists of unintentionally overlook important perspectives, operational concerns, or unintended consequences. Another disadvantage is not having input from employees who have to carry out the policies might not support it. When writing a policy it is best practice per PowerDMS to “form a policy development team” by thinking about “who needs to be involved” (2026). A committee approach will provide more input from possible stakeholders, command staff, supervisors, officers, training personnel, and/or legal advisors. This collaborative process provides different experiences or perspectives but can help identify potential issues prior to implementation. One disadvantage is that committees are slower to respond and disagreements can delay the process. Another disadvantage is there might be too many perspectives that cause complications that would cause a failure in providing clear directions.
**Which do you prefer in the development of policy? Why? Cite past or current examples and/or cases that support your discussion points.**
Cases such as
_City of Canton v. Harris_ show how agencies can be held accountable legally if there is a failure to train shows a deliberate indifference to an individual’s rights. I prefer a committee approach but final approval from the police chief. The chief should be the one who has final say of the policy his officers will be implementing. The chief should also be responsible for ensuring the policy aligns with the agency’s mission; however, an effective policy requires perspectives and inputs from others especially those who are familiar with the operations of the agency.
**References**
_City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989)_
PowerDMS. (2026, June 17).
_Writing Effective Law Enforcement Policies and Procedures: Best Practices._ https://www.powerdms.com/policy-learning-center/writing-effective-policies-and-procedures-in-law-enforcement
Ross, D. L. (2023).
_Civil Liability in Criminal Justice_ (8th ed.). Taylor & Francis. https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9781000844719
**## week5replies.docx**
100 words each reply
526 d1 reply Daniel
Small businesses should design a strategic pay schedule because compensation literally affects their capacity to entice, inspire, and keep talented employees. Although smaller companies may have more occasional financial resources than large companies, they still require a uniform process for determining how workers will be paid. Without a structured program, compensation determinations may become unstable, forming perceptions of bias, internal pay unfairness, low enthusiasm, and employee turnover.
A strategic pay strategy starts with job study and job evaluation. Job analysis determines the tasks, duties, operating requirements, and talents needed for each assignment. Job evaluation specifies the comparative value of each job to the association. These procedures permit a small business to designate appropriate salary ranges founded on job duties, internal value, and external labor-market conditions. Dessler (2023) explains that “strategic compensation should connect employee pay with organizational objectives while maintaining internal and external fairness.” Clear salary scopes can also support institutions in reducing pay unfairness and creating more amazing consistency in compensation determinations.
References
Dessler, G. (2023). Human resource management (17th ed.). Pearson.
526 d1 reply heather
The size of the organization does not matter. Strategic pay plans are needed. Smaller firms, though, need them more urgently. It influences their ability to attract and retain top talent, as well as control labor costs. A smaller company may not have the brand recognition that larger ones do. They may also lack the same career pathways. Having a clear pay strategy allows them to compete for qualified individuals. A structured pay plan leads to the perception of fairness and lower turnover rates. Small organizations must control costs associated with payroll. Having a pay plan allows them to prevent overpaying people or underpaying them, leading to turnover. Small companies can use sources such as O*NET and jobdescription.com to ensure pay rates are comparable (Dessler, 2023, p. 362). As with any employer, small firms must also comply with FLSA and other labor laws. A structured pay plan ensures compliance. It must support organizational goals, be equitable internally, and competitive externally.
A real-world example of a small publicly traded company is Starbucks. Their compensation strategy showcases an introductory competitive advantage. Starbucks offers employees benefits (even to part-time workers), equity compensation, and market-competitive wages. Offering health insurance to part-time and full-time workers sets them apart from many smaller firms. Starbucks’ “Bean Stock” allows employees to have a stake in the company. They also ensure they remain competitive with pay in the retail industry. Something Starbucks has done for its employees recently is convert from biweekly pay to weekly pay. This has become not only a perk, but a retention strategy (Barth, 2026, para. 4). They were able to use their strategic pay plan to scale into a global brand. Starbucks shows that pay strategy can boost organizational culture, customer service quality, and support long-term growth.
**References**
Barth, J. (2026, April 7).
_Starbucks adds barista bonuses, weekly pay and expanded tips in_
_frontline compensation push_. HR Executive. https://hrexecutive.com/starbucks-adds-barista-bonuses-weekly-pay-and-expanded-tips-in-frontline-compensation-push/
Dessler, G. (2023).
_Human Resource Management_ (17th ed.). Pearson Education
(US). https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9780137927357
526 d2 reply Lisa
Merit pay is a pay increase an employee receives based on their individual performance and becomes part of their salary. Merit pay is an incentive that links employee salary growth directly to the employee’s evaluated performance (Dessler, 2023, p. 383). In theory, merit pay assumes that employees will work harder and remain more productive when they see a clear connection between their contributions and compensation. Merit pay has been found to have meaningful incentive effects, meaning it can motivate employees to improve performance, and sorting effects, meaning it can help organizations attract and retain employees who value performance-based awards (Park & Sturman, 2016). When implemented effectively, with effective appraisals, rather than bias or favoritism, an organization can maximize performance and profits while retaining competent and contributing employees. It can be beneficial and a good idea because it motivates employees to exceed expectations and shows that the organization values individual contributions. I personally think it is a good idea to award merit raises because an employee can showcase their individual work ethic and continue to advance based on their own effort and results rather than being held back by the performance of others. Merit pay plans do have potential downfalls. Merit pay relies on performance evaluations which can be unfair and make merit-based decisions unfair (Dessler, 2023, p. 384). If this is the case or even if employees perceive the process as unfair, merit pay can reduce morale and performance rather than improving it and unintentionally foster an unhealthy work environment where employees are unmotivated and unwilling to work together.
Dessler, G. (2023). Human Resource Management (17th ed.). Pearson Education (US). https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9780137927357
Park, S., & Sturman, M. C. (2016). Evaluating Form and Functionality of Pay-for-Performance Plans: The Relative Incentive and Sorting Effects of Merit Pay, Bonuses, and Long-Term Incentives. Human Resource Management, 55(4), 697–719. https://doi-org.proxy.ccis.edu/10.1002/hrm.21740
526 d2 reply Tammy
Merit pay is a salary increase awarded to an employee based on their individual job performance rather than an automatic raise that everyone receives. “Unlike a bonus, which is usually a one-time payment, a merit raise becomes part of an employee's base salary, making it a long-term reward for strong performance” (Dessler, 2023, pg. 383). The purpose of merit pay is to encourage employees to perform at a higher level by recognizing and rewarding their individual contributions to the organization. From a strategic human resource management perspective, merit pay is designed to align employee performance with the organization's overall goals, helping companies attract, motivate, and retain high-performing employees.
Overall, I believe merit pay is a good idea when it is implemented fairly and supported by a strong performance management system. Employees are generally more motivated when they know their hard work and accomplishments are recognized. Rewarding employees based on performance can increase job satisfaction, productivity, and engagement because employees see a direct connection between their efforts and their compensation. Merit pay can also help organizations retain top performers by showing that exceptional work is valued and rewarded. According to Dessler (2023), awarding raises based on merit rather than providing across-the-board increases encourages employees to maintain high levels of performance because compensation is linked to individual contributions.
Although merit pay offers several advantages, it also has potential drawbacks. One of the biggest challenges is ensuring that performance evaluations are accurate, consistent, and free from bias. If managers use subjective criteria or fail to evaluate employees fairly, employees may view the process as unfair, which can damage trust and reduce motivation. Employees who believe raises are based on favoritism instead of actual performance may become disengaged or even begin looking for employment elsewhere. This concern is especially important because performance evaluations often influence not only compensation but also promotions and career development opportunities.
Another potential issue is that merit pay may unintentionally discourage teamwork. Many organizations rely on collaboration to achieve strategic goals, but employees who are focused primarily on earning an individual raise may become less willing to share knowledge, help coworkers, or contribute to team success. For this reason, organizations should balance individual performance measures with team or organizational performance goals. Research also suggests that performance-based pay systems are most successful when organizations establish clear performance expectations, provide employees with regular feedback, and ensure managers receive training on conducting fair and objective performance evaluations (Society for Human Resource Management, 2024). Without these practices, merit pay can lose its motivational value and create dissatisfaction among employees.
With that being said, I believe merit pay can be an effective human resource strategy because it rewards employees for their contributions and encourages continuous improvement. However, the success of a merit pay system depends on whether employees trust the evaluation process and believe raises are based on measurable performance rather than personal opinions or bias. When organizations combine fair performance appraisals, transparent communication, and consistent feedback, merit pay can support both employee motivation and long-term organizational success.
Dessler, G. (2023). Human resource management (17th ed.). Pearson.
Society for Human Resource Management. (2024). Performance management. https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/topics/performance-management
543d1 reply eugenia
Effective policy-making is one of the most critical roles of criminal justice leaders since policies are directives for employee behavior, provide consistency, and aid in minimizing civil liability. While a police chief or sheriff can develop policies independently, using a policy development committee provides a more collaborative approach. The two have pros and cons, but I think the most effective is a policy development committee, and final action by the police chief or sheriff. There is one benefit to a chief of police or sheriff making a policy decision on his own, and that's the efficiency.
In an emergency, with a law change or new public safety concerns, a single decision-maker can make a quick decision to revise or implement policies. This also means that there is clear accountability, as it is the leadership's job to be responsible for the policy. These are all different jobs, however. Sheriffs are usually holders of elected office, directly responsible to the voters, while police chiefs are usually appointed by a mayor, city manager, or governing body. This can put sheriffs under more political pressure from the citizens and can give police chiefs more political leverage from the municipal leaders in managing expectations of the public while staying within the rules of proper police work.
While there are good things about policy development, there are also some drawbacks. One person might miss out on legal or operational considerations, or the views of the people working on the ground. The absence of input from supervisors, legal counsel, training personnel and community members in the development of policies may make it harder to effectively implement them and make an agency more vulnerable to civil liability. Ross (2023) stresses that agencies minimise liability through the creation of legally effective policies, sufficient training and supervision. Similarly, in City of Canton v. Harris (1989), the Supreme Court ruled that agencies could be liable if the lack of adequate training is a conscious choice to disregard an individual's constitutional rights. This is another reason why training and implementation personnel should be involved in policy development.
There are a number of benefits to employing a policy development committee. Members of a committee may consist of command staff, legal counsel, training personnel, supervisors, and subject-matter experts who offer different points of view prior to finalizing a policy. This team effort ensures that any concerns with the constitution, any operational issues, and training needs are identified before implementation. Multiple stakeholder involvement also boosts employee buy-in as officers are likely to support policies if they know how they are developed. The main drawback is that the development process can be longer with a committee. Members can have different views on the text of policies, delaying action, especially if agencies are pressed for time to adapt to changing conditions.
A good example of committee-based policy development can be seen after the death of George Floyd in 2020. In many jurisdictions throughout the United States, law enforcement agencies established policy review committees that included command staff, legal counsel, training officers, community members, and other outside experts to review and update use of force policies, duty to intervene standards, and de-escalation training. These collaborative efforts were designed not only to make the process more transparent but to build trust in the process, and thus lessen the potential for future constitutional challenges.
I am more comfortable with a policy development committee and final approval by the police chief or sheriff. This involves the use of teamwork along with effective leadership. The committee helps to make policies legal, practical, and considerate of several viewpoints; the chief/sheriff holds the responsibility for the policy decision. This balance lowers organizational risk and enhances the effectiveness of a policy.
There are several legal cases that back this up. In Monell v. Department of Social Services (1978), the U.S. Supreme Court determined that municipalities can be held liable when the constitutional violations are due to an official policy or custom. Additionally, the Court in Connick v. Thompson (2011) held that agencies may be held liable when the policymakers are “deliberately indifferent” to inadequate training or supervision. These decisions align with Ross' (2023) view that sound policies supported by adequate training and accountability are critical in minimizing civil liability and safeguarding the interests of agencies and communities.
In general, there are advantages and disadvantages to each way of forming policies: committee-based policies offer legal review and expertise while taking time to develop, but individual policy development offers faster response. In my view, having a collaborative development process with final input from agency leaders is best for today's agencies facing tremendous liability in the event of failure.
References
Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (2011).
City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989).
Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978).
Ross, D. L. (2023). Civil Liability in Criminal Justice (8th ed.). Taylor & Francis. https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9781000844719
**less**
543 d2 reply Stephanie
**Compare and contrast the advantages and disadvantages of individuals developing policy (e.g., a police chief or sheriff) versus using a development committee or similar group.**
As we know per Ross, civil liability can happen when agencies don’t have clear policies, effective training and supervision, and there isn’t accountability (2023). Policy development is probably one of the most important responsibilities of a law enforcement administrator. A policy guides the behavior of an officer, outlines expectations, and protects both the officers and the general public. Of course, there are advantages and disadvantages to individuals developing a policy or using a committee. If a police chief or sheriff develops a policy you can almost bet there will be efficiency. More than likely you are dealing with someone who has been on the front lines (in the field), so they will know what that looks like and what items need to be addressed in the policy. If you have a single decision maker that individual can respond quickly to emerging issues without delays or lengthy debates. This is very important due to rapidly changing situations such as implementing new guidance after a critical incident. Additionally, the chief or sheriff has the authority and responsibility to ensure policies align with the agency’s mission, values, and community expectations. There is another disadvantage to a single policy maker, limitations. These limitations can consists of unintentionally overlook important perspectives, operational concerns, or unintended consequences. Another disadvantage is not having input from employees who have to carry out the policies might not support it. When writing a policy it is best practice per PowerDMS to “form a policy development team” by thinking about “who needs to be involved” (2026). A committee approach will provide more input from possible stakeholders, command staff, supervisors, officers, training personnel, and/or legal advisors. This collaborative process provides different experiences or perspectives but can help identify potential issues prior to implementation. One disadvantage is that committees are slower to respond and disagreements can delay the process. Another disadvantage is there might be too many perspectives that cause complications that would cause a failure in providing clear directions.
**Which do you prefer in the development of policy? Why? Cite past or current examples and/or cases that support your discussion points.**
Cases such as
_City of Canton v. Harris_ show how agencies can be held accountable legally if there is a failure to train shows a deliberate indifference to an individual’s rights. I prefer a committee approach but final approval from the police chief. The chief should be the one who has final say of the policy his officers will be implementing. The chief should also be responsible for ensuring the policy aligns with the agency’s mission; however, an effective policy requires perspectives and inputs from others especially those who are familiar with the operations of the agency.
**References**
_City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989)_
PowerDMS. (2026, June 17).
_Writing Effective Law Enforcement Policies and Procedures: Best Practices._ https://www.powerdms.com/policy-learning-center/writing-effective-policies-and-procedures-in-law-enforcement
Ross, D. L. (2023).
_Civil Liability in Criminal Justice_ (8th ed.). Taylor & Francis. https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9781000844719