writiing need help please
Assignment.
Week One Case Studies
Answer the questions in “A Case Study in Change: Hayward, California,” from Police Supervision and Management in an Era of Community Policing (p. 21). Then, choose one of the case studies in Chapter Two (pp. 43-45) and one from Chapter Three (pp. 76-78). Answer the “Questions for Discussion” of the case studies you have chosen. The answers to your discussion questions will help you write your Case Study Analysis.
Writing the Case Study Analysis:
- Must be at least four double-spaced pages in length (exclusive of title and reference pages), and formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.
- Must include a title page with the following:
- Title of paper
- Student’s name
- Course name and number
- Instructor’s name
- Date submitted
- Must begin with an introductory paragraph that has a succinct thesis statement.
- Must address the case study question with critical thought.
- Individual Case Study Review: Analyze each individual case study separately and use headings for each of the articles
- Analysis Paragraph: Provide an analysis paragraph following the individual review of each of the case studies that addresses the concepts highlighted in your chosen case studies. (Be sure to relate your analysis to the case study discussion question.)
- Must end with a conclusion that reaffirms your thesis.
- Must use at least two scholarly resources (at least one of which can be found in the Ashford Online Library).
- Must document all sources in APA style, as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.
- Must include a separate reference page, formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.
Carefully review the Grading Rubric for the criteria that will be used to evaluate your assignment.
Required Text
Kenneth J. Peak, Larry K. Gaines and Ronald W. Glensor. Police Supervision and Management for Ashford University. 3rd Edition. Pearson Learning Solutions, Bookshelf.
“A Case Study in Change: Hayward, California,” from Police Supervision and Management in an Era of Community Policing (p. 21).
Case Study in Change: Hayward, California
A good example of a police organization that modified its structure to adapt to COPPS is Hayward, California (Kocher, 1998). First, after determining that the city had a diverse ethnic composition, changes were made in the department’s recruiting, hiring, training, and evaluation processes. The city’s personnel and police departments began exploring the following questions:
1. Overall, what type of candidate, possessing what type of skills, is being recruited?
2. What specific knowledge, skills, and abilities reflect the COPPS philosophy—particularly problem-solving abilities and sensitivity to the needs of the community?
3. How can these attributes best be identified through the initial screening process?
Next, all personnel, both sworn and civilian, received training in the history, philosophy, and transition to COPPS. The department’s initial training was directed to management and supervisory personnel to ensure they understood the agency’s values, modifying the existing police culture, moving the organization from traditional policing to the new philosophy, and focusing on customer relations.
Performance and reward practices for personnel were also modified. Emphasizing quality over quantity (e.g., arrest statistics, number of calls for service, response times), new criteria included an assessment of how well a call for service was handled and what type of problem-solving approach was used to reach a solution for the problem. The department’s promotional process was retooled, and a new phase was added to the department’s promotional test (the “promotability” phase) to evaluate the candidate’s decision-making abilities, analytical skills, communication skills, interpersonal skills, and professional contributions.
2122
Collaborating with residents to resolve neighborhood problems is the foundation of community policing.
(Courtesy Charlotte, North Carolina, P.D.)
Top of FormCase Study #2
Adapting to the Role: The Laissez-Faire Supervisor (p44).
Sgt. Tom Gresham is newly promoted and assigned to patrol on the graveyard shift; he knows each officer on his shift, and several are close friends. Sgt. Gresham was an excellent patrol officer and prided himself on his reputation and ability to get along with his peers. He also believed this trait would benefit him as a supervisor. From the beginning, Sgt. Gresham believed that he could get more productivity from his officers by relating to them at their level. He made an effort to socialize after work and took pride in giving his team the liberty of referring to him by his first name. Sgt. Gresham also believed that it was a supervisor’s job to not get in the way of “good” police work. In his view, his team responded tremendously, generating the highest number of arrest and citation statistics in the entire department. Unfortunately, his shift was also generating the highest number of citizen complaints—yet, few complaints were sustained by internal affairs. It was Gresham’s opinion that complaints are the product of good, aggressive police work. He had quickly developed the reputation among subordinates as being “a cop’s cop.” One Monday morning, Sgt. Gresham is surprised when he is called in to his patrol captain’s office; the internal affairs lieutenant is also present. They show Gresham a number of use-of-force complaints against his team over the past week while Sgt. Gresham was on vacation. Despite his captain’s efforts to describe the gravity of the situation, Gresham failed to grasp the seriousness of the complaints, and how his supervisory style may have contributed to them.
1. What do you think are some of Sgt. Gresham’s problems as a new supervisor?
2. As his captain, what kind of advice would you give to Gresham?
3. What corrective action must Sgt. Gresham take immediately with his team of officers?
Case Study #3 Where to Begin When a Veteran Comes In
Officer Maria Sanchez has 17 years of experience, mostly as a detective in undercover narcotics and vice. She is a capable officer with numerous departmental commendations and awards for her work. As a result, Sanchez was selected to be a member of an elite multi-agency vice and narcotics task force. On the first day of her new assignment, Sanchez met with her new supervisor, Sgt. Webster. He is from a neighboring agency and does not know Sanchez outside the selection interview process and review of her personnel file. Sgt. Webster was also recently assigned to the unit from patrol division where he gained the reputation of being somewhat of a perfectionist and detail person. Webster assumed responsibility for breaking in all new team members to ensure they knew exactly what, when, where, and how they should perform their tasks. Webster had developed a four-week orientation for all new members. After two weeks of basic orientation, including an elementary review of drug law, raid procedures, vice laws, and so on, Sanchez becomes extremely frustrated with Sgt. Webster and asks why she is not being allowed to participate in drug and vice raids with the rest of her team. She argues that she has worked with the task force on many occasions, is very familiar with operational procedures, and could demonstrate her abilities if Webster would only allow her to work with the rest of the team. Webster denies her request, saying she has to finish the orientation just the same as everyone else does. The next day, Sanchez submits a memo to the lieutenant in charge of the task force, requesting to be reassigned back to her agency. In the memo, Sanchez states that she believes Sgt. Webster is treating her differently from other people in the unit and does not have any respect for her past experience and work. She does not believe she can work under these conditions, in which she is “being treated like a child.”
Top of Form
1 . Could this problem have been avoided? If so, how?
2. What situational style of leadership was Sgt. Webster employing?
3. How would you assess the maturity level of Officer Sanchez?
4. What style of situational leadership would be more appropriate for this situation?
WHat our points will be graded on
Total Possible Score: 9.00
Introduction Paragraph, Thesis, and Conclusion
Total: 1.80
Distinguished – Paper is logically organized with a well-written introduction, thesis statement, and conclusion.
Proficient – Paper is logically organized with an introduction, thesis statement, and conclusion. One of these requires improvement.
Basic – Paper is organized with an introduction, thesis statement, and conclusion. One or more of the introduction, thesis statement, and/or conclusion require improvement.
Below Expectations – Paper is loosely organized with an introduction, thesis statement, and conclusion. The introduction, thesis statement, and/or conclusion require much improvement.
Non-Performance – The introduction, thesis statement, and conclusion are either nonexistent or lack the components described in the assignment instructions.
Analysis: Case Study #1
Total: 1.80
Distinguished – Comprehensively analyzes all major concepts highlighted in the case study with critical thought. The analysis relates to the case study discussion questions and is supported with specific and relevant examples.
Proficient – Analyzes the major concepts highlighted in the case study with critical thought. The analysis relates to the case study discussion questions and is supported with relevant examples. Minor details are missing.
Basic – Briefly analyzes the major concepts highlighted in the case study with some critical thought. The analysis is loosely related to the case study discussion questions and is somewhat supported with examples. Relevant details are missing.
Below Expectations – Attempts to analyze the major concepts highlighted in the case study; however, the analysis conveys little critical thought, is unrelated to the case study discussion questions, and/or is missing significant details.
Non-Performance – The analysis of the case study is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.
Analysis: Case Study #2
Total: 1.80
Distinguished – Comprehensively analyzes all major concepts highlighted in the case study with critical thought. The analysis relates to the case study discussion questions and is supported with specific and relevant details.
Proficient – Analyzes the major concepts highlighted in the case study with critical thought. The analysis relates to the case study discussion questions and is supported with relevant examples. Minor details are missing.
Basic – Briefly analyzes the major concepts highlighted in the case study with some critical thought. The analysis is loosely related to the case study discussion questions and is somewhat supported with examples. Relevant details are missing.
Below Expectations – Attempts to analyze the major concepts highlighted in the case study; however, the analysis conveys little critical thought, is unrelated to the discussion questions, and/or is missing significant details.
Non-Performance – he analysis of the case study is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.
Analysis: Case Study #3
Total: 1.80
Distinguished – Comprehensively analyzes all major concepts highlighted in the case study with critical thought. The analysis relates to the case study discussion questions and is supported with specific and relevant details.
Proficient – Analyzes the major concepts highlighted in the case study with critical thought. The analysis relates to the case study discussion questions and is supported with relevant examples. Minor details are missing.
Basic – Briefly analyzes the major concepts highlighted in the case study with some critical thought. The analysis is loosely related to the case study discussion questions and is somewhat supported with examples. Relevant details are missing.
Below Expectations – Attempts to analyze the major concepts highlighted in the case study; however, the analysis conveys little critical thought, is unrelated to the discussion questions, and/or is missing significant details.
Non-Performance – he analysis of the case study is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.
Critical Thinking: Explanation of Issues
Total: 0.23
Distinguished – Clearly and comprehensively explains in detail the issue to be considered, delivering all relevant information necessary for a full understanding.
Proficient – Clearly explains in detail the issue to be considered, delivering enough relevant information for an adequate understanding.
Basic – Briefly recognizes the issue to be considered, delivering minimal information for a basic understanding.
Below Expectations – Briefly recognizes the issue to be considered, but may not deliver additional information necessary for a basic understanding.
Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.
Integrative Learning: Connections to Experience
Total: 0.23
Distinguished – Creates meaningful correlations among experiences outside of the classroom to deepen understanding of field of study and to broaden own viewpoints.
Proficient – Compares life experiences and academic knowledge to distinguish differences and similarities while acknowledging perspectives other than own.
Basic – Recognizes correlation between life experiences, academic texts, and ideas perceived as similar and related to own interests.
Below Expectations – Briefly comments about connections between life experiences and academic texts.
Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.
Reading: Relationship to Text
Total: 0.22
Distinguished – Analyzes texts for scholarly significance and pertinence within and across the various disciplines, assessing them according to their contributions and consequences.
Proficient – Utilizes texts in the context of scholarship to expand a foundation of disciplinary knowledge and to raise and discover significant inquiries.
Basic – Employs texts with the intent and expectation of increasing knowledge.
Below Expectations – Approaches texts only within the context of assignment.
Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.
Written Communication: Context and Purpose for Writing
Total: 0.22
Distinguished – Demonstrates methodical application of organization and presentation of content. The purpose of the writing is evident and easy to understand. Summaries, quotes, and/or paraphrases fit naturally into the sentences and paragraphs. Paper flows smoothly.
Proficient – Demonstrates sufficient application of organization and presentation of content. The purpose of the writing is, for the most part, clear and easy to understand. There are some problems with the blending of summaries, paraphrases, and quotes. Paper flows somewhat smoothly.
Basic – Demonstrates a limited understanding of organization and presentation of content in written work. The purpose of the writing is somewhat evident, but may not be integrated throughout the assignment. There are many problems with the blending of summaries, paraphrases, and quotes. Paper does not flow smoothly in all sections.
Below Expectations – Organization and presentation of content is extremely limited. The purpose of the writing is unclear. There is little or no blending of summaries, paraphrases, and quotes. Paper does not flow smoothly when read.
Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.
Written Communication: Control of Syntax and Mechanics
Total: 0.23
Distinguished – Displays meticulous comprehension and organization of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains no errors, and is very easy to understand.
Proficient – Displays comprehension and organization of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains only a few minor errors, and is mostly easy to understand.
Basic – Displays basic comprehension of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains a few errors, which may slightly distract the reader.
Below Expectations – Fails to display basic comprehension of syntax or mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains major errors, which distract the reader.
Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.
APA Formatting
Total: 0.23
Distinguished – Accurately uses APA formatting consistently throughout the paper, title page, and reference page.
Proficient – Exhibits APA formatting throughout the paper. However, layout contains a few minor errors.
Basic – Exhibits basic knowledge of APA formatting throughout the paper. However, layout does not meet all APA requirements.
Below Expectations – Fails to exhibit basic knowledge of APA formatting. There are frequent errors, making the layout difficult to distinguish as APA.
Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.
Page Requirement
Total: 0.22
Distinguished – The paper meets the specific page requirement stipulated in the assignment description.
Proficient – The paper closely meets the page requirement stipulated in the assignment description.
Basic – The paper meets over half of the page requirement stipulated in the assignment description.
Below Expectations – A fraction of the page requirement is completed.
Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.
Resource Requirement
Total: 0.22
Distinguished – Uses more than the required number of scholarly sources, providing compelling evidence to support ideas. All sources on the reference page are used and cited correctly within the body of the assignment.
Proficient – Uses required number of scholarly sources to support ideas. All sources on the reference page are used and cited correctly within the body of the assignment.
Basic – Uses less than the required number of sources to support ideas. Some sources may not be scholarly. Most sources on the reference page are used within the body of the assignment. Citations may not be formatted correctly.
Below Expectations – Uses inadequate number of sources that provide little or no support for ideas. Sources used may not be scholarly. Most sources on the reference page are not used within the body of the assignment. Citations are not formatted correctly.
Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions
I included the case studies the questions from each case study are in bold, also included the grading rubic and instructions.