495 Week 4 Discussion Responses
Here are 4 discussion posts by class mates from the 495 class that need responses. Responses must be APA format, 150 200 words, must have at least 1 verifiable/legitimate source per response, in text citations. Per response Due by Friday November 15, 2019 @ 11:59 24 hours.
Discussion #1
Discussion Post #1
Gilberto Cabrera
The use of technology has been the most suitable solution to the problems faced by law enforcement. Currently, officers are surrounded by technology that helps increase the efficiency of the agency and productivity as well. For instance, through technology, communication in a police department can be improved dramatically. Police vehicles can be equipped with advanced computer-aided dispatch systems and police radio to enhance their response to calls for service (Sadulski, 2017).
However, technology may not work as a possible solution because of the lack of resources to train and equip the officers. There is always a huge amount of stress associated with learning and applying the numerous technologies embraced by police departments. Police officers are expected to welcome new technology, but due to insufficient resources, they do not get the appropriate training (Sadulski, 2017). Also, the technology may be too sophisticated for them to understand and remember all the things they learned.
Moreover, the technology can be used by law enforcement for cellphone surveillance. This involves bugging, tracking, interception, monitoring, and recording text messages and conversations on mobile phones. Cellphone surveillance can help to detect criminal and terrorist activities (Sadulski, 2017). However, the citizens may not accept this approach as it interferes with their privacy.
Furthermore, technology can cause new problems for law enforcement. For instance, computer-aided dispatch systems, cell phones, and other forms of communication may be distractive to police officers, especially where their attention is needed in a single situation. As a result, this may put police officers at an increased risk of road accidents (Schaub & West, 2014).
References
Sadulski, J. (2017). Unintended consequences of technology in policing. Retrieved from https://inpublicsafety.com/2017/07/unintended-consequences-of-technology-in-policing/
Schaub, H., & West, D.M. (2014). How emerging technology affects law enforcement. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2014/10/28/how-emerging-technology-affects-law-enforcement/
Discussion Post #2
Rachel Crouch
The use of seat belts is often neglected by public safety personnel. According to NCBI, “Despite national regulations and departmental guidelines aiming to improve safety on fire apparatuses, belt use among firefighters remains dangerously low” (Donoughe, 2012). Fire and EMS risk management departments have implemented several solutions to enforce compliance with seat belt use, including implementing seat belt alarms in apparatus, installing cameras in apparatus, and disciplining personnel for the neglect of seat belt use. Although the resources are available, acceptance is often difficult. Personnel argue that it is difficult to perform patient care in the back of an ambulance with a seat belt on, and that they are unable to get dressed in their fire gear when driving to a call with a seat belt on. However, it is important that personnel are compliant with the use of seat belts. NCBI reports that between 2000 and 2009, “rollovers are the most common crashes that result in firefighter deaths (66% of all fatal firetruck crashes), and a majority of those fatalities were unrestrained occupants” (Donoughe, 2012). Although acceptance of the use of seat belts creates challenges for public safety administrators, it is important that compliance is enforced to keep personnel safe in the event of an accident.
Donoughe, K. (2012). Analysis of firetruck crashes and associated firefighter injuries in the United States. NCBI. Retrieved from:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3503424/
Discussion #2
Discussion Post #1
Melanie Bialous
A process model for analysis that could be used in addressing public safety administration challenges is a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) (Kaltoft, Cunich, Salkeld, & Dowie, 2014).
More specifically, a Structured Decision Making process could prove beneficial (Compass Resource Management Ltd, 2013):
Step 1 – Decision Context: this step involves defining what question or problem is being addressed and why, identifying who needs to be involved and how, establishing scope and bounds for the decision, and clarifying the roles and responsibilities of the decision team.
Step 2 Objectives: a set of well-defined objectives and evaluation criteria. Together they define what matters about the decision, drives the search for creative alternatives, and becomes the framework for comparing alternatives.
Step 3 Alternatives: a range of creative policy or management alternatives designed to address the objectives is developed. Alternatives should reflect substantially different approaches to the problem or different priorities across objectives, and should present decision makers with real options and choices.
Step 4 Consequences: involves estimating the consequences of the alternatives with respect to the evaluation criteria using available knowledge and predictive tools.
Step 5 – Trade Offs: involves evaluating trade-offs and making value-based choices.
Step 6 – Implement & Monitor: identify mechanisms for on-going monitoring to ensure accountability with respect to on-ground results, research to improve the information base for future decisions, and a review mechanism so that new information can be incorporated into future decisions.
References
Compass Resource Management Ltd (2013). Structured Decision Making. Retrieved from https://www.structureddecisionmaking.org/steps/
Kaltoft, M., Cunich, M., Salkeld, G., & Dowie, J. (April 2014). Assessing decision quality in patient-centred care requires a preference-sensitive measure. Journal of health services research & policy, 19(2), 110117. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4025621/
Discussion #2
Jonathan Wagner
Develop a process model for analysis in addressing public safety administration challenges.
Step 1 Identify the problem / receive the problem
· This can be done in a few ways. It can be handed down from higher bosses. It can be identified within the team or organization, or it could be from collaborative work with another agency.
· Identify if the problem is a problem or a symptom.
· If necessary, take in any instructions from leadership on how the challenge/problem should be approached.
Step 2 Analyze / understand the problem
· Define the problem statement if necessary
· Evaluate resources/personnel available
· Identify facts and assumptions
Step 3 Develop plans or courses of action
· Develop at least three different plans that are feasible to act on
· Incorporate leaderships intent or left and right limits
Step 4 Analyze plans
· Compare and evaluate plans against each other
· The Army calls this war gaming where plans are played out in order to determine second and third order effects of problem solving
Step 5 Plan comparison
· Pit plans and solutions against each other to determine which has the most desirable outcome.
Step 6 Plan / solution approval from leadership
· Present solutions and plans to leadership team with the analysis of each plan. Leadership will decide on final solution or
Step 7 Produce products and disseminate solution
· This is the action step where any solution, or plan towards a solution, is implemented through production of products, disseminating to the organization, and supervising the process.
References
Business Dictionary. (n.d.). Process analysis. Retrieved from http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/process-analysis.html
Department of the Army. (2019). ADP 5-0: The operations process. Retrieved from https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN18323_ADP%205-0%20FINAL%20WEB.pdf
