CRJ 101 Week 4:
Modern-Day Policing, Society & the Future
A student guide for Strayer’s CRJ 101 Week 4 β covering community policing, police-community relations, use of force, technology in law enforcement, diversity and inclusion in policing, and how to approach your Week 4 discussion posts and written assignment with an analytical argument, not just a summary of what police do.
π Struggling with your CRJ 101 Week 4 assignment? Our criminal justice specialists can help.
Get Expert Help βWhat CRJ 101 Week 4 Is Actually Testing β and Why Students Struggle With It
Week 4 of Strayer’s CRJ 101 moves the course from criminal justice system basics into the messy, contested realities of modern policing β where the law as written meets public expectations, community trust deficits, political pressure, and rapid technological change. The week asks you to engage with policing not as a procedural system but as a social institution embedded in complex relationships with the communities it serves. The assignments typically ask you to evaluate reforms, analyse tensions, and take a position β not just describe what police do.
Most CRJ 101 Week 4 assignments fall into one of two formats: a discussion post where you respond to a prompt about a policing challenge, or a short essay where you argue for or against a particular reform or policy direction. Either way, the key skill being tested is the same. Can you move beyond “police protect and serve” and engage with the real tensions β between crime control and civil liberties, between community policing ideals and operational realities, between technological efficiency and privacy rights?
This guide maps each major topic area in Week 4, explains what the course material is asking you to think about, and shows you how to build an argument rather than just recite facts.
The Core External Resource for This Week
The President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing Final Report (2015) β available through the Office of Justice Programs (ojp.gov) β is the most cited policy document on modern police reform and directly informs the vocabulary Strayer’s CRJ 101 course uses for Week 4. It covers the six pillars of policing reform: building trust and legitimacy, policy and oversight, technology and social media, community policing and crime reduction, training and education, and officer wellness. Referencing it in your assignment signals engagement with actual policy, not just textbook summaries.
Community Policing: What It Is, What It Claims, and What the Evidence Says
Community policing is the framework almost every modern discussion of police reform starts from. It is also one of the most misunderstood concepts in criminal justice. It is not just “police being nice to people.” It is a philosophical reorientation of the police role β from reactive incident response to proactive partnership with communities to co-produce public safety.
Partnership
Police and residents work together to identify and solve problems, not just respond to 911 calls after the fact
Problem-Solving
SARA model (Scanning, Analysis, Response, Assessment) β addressing root causes of crime, not just arresting offenders
Organisational Transformation
Decentralising decision-making, giving officers discretion to develop neighbourhood-level solutions
Foot Patrols
Officers assigned to beats they know, building relationships before incidents happen β the “broken windows” patrol concept
Evidence-Based Practice
Using data to identify crime hotspots, high-risk individuals, and effective interventions β not just tradition
Legitimacy
Community policing is argued to increase perceived police legitimacy β which research shows predicts compliance and cooperation better than fear of enforcement
Criticisms
Net-widening (expanding police reach into communities that may not want it); co-optation (intelligence gathering under community cover); resource-intensive and difficult to sustain
Implementation Gap
The gap between community policing rhetoric and actual departmental practice is well-documented. Many agencies claim community policing but operate as traditional reactive departments
The Analytical Point Your Assignment Should Make
Do not just describe community policing as a positive reform. The strongest CRJ 101 Week 4 responses engage with the tension between community policing’s stated goals and its actual implementation. Ask: what are the conditions under which community policing works, and what are the conditions under which it fails or produces unintended harms? That analytical move β identifying the conditions of success and failure β is what distinguishes an A assignment from one that just summarises the model.
Police and Society: Trust, Legitimacy, and the Accountability Gap
The relationship between police and the communities they serve is not neutral. It is shaped by history, by demographic disparities in enforcement, by high-profile use-of-force incidents, and by the gap between how police see their role and how communities experience it. Week 4 typically asks you to think about police legitimacy β the degree to which citizens accept police authority as rightful β and how it is built or eroded.
Procedural Justice β Why How Police Act Matters as Much as What They Do
Tom Tyler’s research on procedural justice finds that people evaluate police based on how they are treated (voice, neutrality, dignity, trustworthiness) as much as on crime outcomes. Police who treat people with respect β regardless of outcome β generate higher legitimacy and more voluntary compliance. This framework underlies most current community policing and reform thinking and is worth referencing directly in your assignment.
Race and Policing: The Data, the Debate, and What Your Assignment Should Address
Research consistently documents racial disparities in traffic stops, searches, arrests, and use of force. Whether these disparities reflect bias, differences in crime rates, or deployment patterns is actively debated. The National Academy of Sciences 2018 report on proactive policing is the most systematic review of the evidence. Your assignment should engage with the evidence rather than simply asserting a position.
Civilian Oversight, Early Intervention Systems, and the Accountability Infrastructure
Police accountability mechanisms include civilian review boards, early intervention systems (EIS β flagging officers with patterns of misconduct), body-worn cameras, independent prosecutors for officer-involved deaths, and pattern-or-practice investigations by the Department of Justice. Each has evidence for and against effectiveness β and each involves trade-offs between accountability and officer morale or operational effectiveness.
People are more likely to comply with the law when they feel the institutions that enforce it are legitimate β and legitimacy is built through fair treatment, not just effective crime control.
β Tom Tyler, Why People Obey the Law, Yale University Press (1990; updated 2006)Use of Force: The Legal Framework, Reform Debates, and How to Write About It
Use of force is the most politically charged topic in Week 4 β and the one where students most often write opinion-driven responses that lose marks because they lack analytical structure. Here is how to approach it with framework.
| Force Type / Framework | What It Is | Reform Debate | Key Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Continuum of Force | A graduated scale from verbal commands through physical restraint to lethal force β officers are trained to use the minimum force necessary | Whether force continuums adequately constrain officer discretion; whether they provide real-world guidance in fast-moving situations | Research shows large departmental variation in force policies; departments with detailed force policies show lower force complaint rates |
| Graham v. Connor (1989) | Supreme Court established the “objective reasonableness” standard for force β judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, not hindsight | Whether “objective reasonableness” sets the bar too low; whether a “necessity” standard (force used only when necessary) would better protect civilians | Most officer-involved shooting litigation turns on Graham; reform advocates argue the standard is nearly impossible to meet for plaintiff liability |
| Chokeholds and Restraint | Physical restraint techniques; several (chokeholds, carotid holds) banned by many departments following high-profile deaths | Whether banning specific techniques without broader cultural change reduces force or just displaces it to other methods | NYPD data post-chokehold ban showed continued use in some cases; suggests policy alone insufficient without training and supervision |
| De-escalation Training | Training officers to reduce conflict intensity before force becomes necessary β verbal communication, tactical repositioning, waiting tactics | Whether de-escalation is effective in truly dangerous situations; time and resource requirements; evidence base still developing | Louisville Metro PD evaluation showed de-escalation training reduced use-of-force incidents by 28%; results vary across departments |
| Qualified Immunity | Legal doctrine protecting officers from personal liability unless they violated “clearly established” law β effectively blocking most civil suits against officers | Whether qualified immunity prevents accountability; whether removing it would have chilling effect on officer decision-making | Colorado and New Mexico have limited qualified immunity at state level; early data suggests no significant reduction in police activity |
Avoid the Opinion-Only Trap on Use of Force
CRJ 101 assignments on use of force frequently receive lower marks because students write purely from opinion β “I think police use too much force” or “police have a dangerous job and need to protect themselves.” Both positions may be defensible, but neither is an academic argument without evidence. Structure your response around the legal framework (what is permissible), the policy context (what training and accountability systems exist), and the reform evidence (what research shows about which interventions reduce harmful force outcomes). Opinion without evidence is not analysis β it is a statement.
Technology in Modern Policing: Body Cameras, Predictive Policing, and the Surveillance Debate
π¬ Key Technology Issues Your Week 4 Assignment May Ask You to Evaluate
Body-worn cameras (BWCs) are now used by most large departments. The evidence on whether they reduce complaints and force is mixed β effectiveness depends heavily on activation policies, footage review practices, and officer buy-in
Algorithms that forecast where crime will occur (place-based) or who is likely to offend (person-based). Critics argue person-based systems encode historical bias; advocates argue they reduce crime more efficiently than random patrols
Several jurisdictions have banned or restricted police use of facial recognition following evidence of higher error rates for darker skin tones and documented wrongful arrests. A live civil liberties vs. investigative effectiveness debate
Police agencies monitor social media for threats, gang activity, and event intelligence. Raises issues of First Amendment activity being subject to law enforcement scrutiny and disproportionate monitoring of minority communities
Automated license plate readers (ALPRs) create databases of vehicle location history. Courts have split on whether long-term aggregate ALPR data requires a warrant; raises the “mosaic theory” of privacy
Police use of drones for surveillance, crowd monitoring, and suspect tracking raises Fourth Amendment questions about aerial surveillance that the Supreme Court has not fully resolved since Carpenter v. United States (2018)
Acoustic gunshot detection systems that alert police to shots fired in real time. Raises questions about accuracy (high false positive rates documented), disproportionate deployment in minority neighbourhoods, and cost-effectiveness
AI systems that prioritise and route 911 calls. Raise issues of algorithmic transparency, accountability when recommendations lead to harm, and the appropriate role of automated systems in life-safety decisions
The Framework Your Essay Needs: Effectiveness + Civil Liberties + Equity
For any policing technology question in CRJ 101, evaluate it across three dimensions: Does it work? (What does the evidence say about crime reduction or investigative effectiveness?) At what civil liberties cost? (What privacy, First Amendment, or due process interests does it implicate?) Is it equitable? (Does it operate fairly across racial and economic lines β or does it concentrate its effects and its errors in already over-policed communities?) An assignment that engages all three dimensions is analytically complete. One that only addresses effectiveness β or only addresses civil liberties β will score lower.
Diversity and Inclusion in Law Enforcement: Why Representation Is a Policy Issue
CRJ 101 Week 4 typically addresses the composition of police forces and whether increased diversity reduces racial disparities in policing outcomes. This is a policy debate with a real evidence base β and it requires nuance.
Key Questions on Diversity in Policing
What the research says β and what it does not resolve
Does Racial Diversity in Police Forces Reduce Disparities in Use of Force?
Research findings are mixed. Some studies find Black officers use less force against Black civilians than white officers; others find force disparities persist regardless of officer race. The strongest predictor of individual officer behaviour appears to be departmental culture and supervisory oversight β not officer demographics alone.
Approach: Evaluate the evidence on both sides, identify what conditions mediate the relationship between officer diversity and outcomes, and avoid the claim that “simply hiring more diverse officers will fix policing.”Recruitment Challenges and the Pipeline Problem
Many departments struggle to recruit Black, Hispanic, and female candidates β because of distrust from communities with negative policing experiences, competition from private sector employers, and physical/background requirements that screen out some candidates. The pipeline problem means diversity goals cannot be achieved by hiring will alone β they require upstream recruitment investment and policy changes.
Approach: Connect the recruitment challenge to the broader police-community trust deficit β communities with the worst relationships with police are also the hardest to recruit from, creating a self-reinforcing cycle.Gender Diversity and Officer Behaviour
Research consistently finds that female officers use less force, generate fewer complaints, and are more effective at de-escalating confrontations. This evidence base is stronger and more consistent than the racial diversity research β and is relatively uncontroversial in the policing research literature.
Approach: Use this as a concrete example of how demographic composition affects operational outcomes β and connect it to the argument for diversity as a policy lever, not just an equity goal.Cultural Competency Training vs. Structural Change
Many departments respond to diversity concerns with implicit bias training or cultural competency programmes. The evidence for these interventions changing officer behaviour is weak. Research suggests structural changes β accountability systems, supervisor oversight, clear use-of-force policies β have larger effects than training alone. Your assignment should distinguish between what feels like a response and what the evidence suggests actually works.
Women and Minorities in Leadership Positions
The effect of diversity is strongest when it reaches supervisory and leadership levels β where it influences departmental culture, policy decisions, and officer performance expectations. Diversity in rank-and-file without representation in command structure has limited institutional impact. This point β that representation needs to be at every level β is analytically important for any diversity argument.
The Future of Policing: Reform Models, Civilian Alternatives, and What Evidence Supports
The “future of policing” section of Week 4 typically asks you to evaluate reform proposals. This is where many students write aspirational but analytically weak responses β describing what they hope policing will look like without engaging with the evidence base or the political and operational feasibility of different approaches.
Mental Health Co-Response Models: CAHOOTS and Beyond
The CAHOOTS model in Eugene, Oregon (mental health workers and medics responding to non-violent calls without police) handles approximately 24% of 911 calls that would previously have gone to police. Denver’s STAR programme showed similar results with zero arrests or uses of force in its first 6 months. These models represent the most evidence-supported reform in the “reimagining public safety” space β and are analytically much stronger to cite than generic “defund police” claims.
Hot Spots Policing and Focused Deterrence: What the Research Actually Shows
Hot spots policing β concentrating patrol resources in small, high-crime micro-locations β has the strongest evidence base of any police tactic: a 2016 Campbell Collaboration systematic review found consistent crime reduction effects. Focused deterrence programmes (like David Kennedy’s Group Violence Intervention) show sustained violence reductions. These are the reforms with actual randomised or quasi-experimental evidence β worth citing over reforms that are popular but under-evaluated.
“Defund,” “Reform,” and “Reimagine” β What Each Actually Means
“Defund the police” is routinely misrepresented in CRJ 101 assignments. The policy position ranges from reallocation of some police funding to social services (the mainstream reform position) to abolition of police as an institution (the abolitionist position). Your assignment should define which version you are discussing β conflating them produces an analytically imprecise argument. Most evidence-based reform advocates are in the reallocation camp, not the abolition camp.
| Reform Proposal | What It Involves | Evidence Strength | Main Counter-Arguments |
|---|---|---|---|
| Community policing expansion | Dedicated community liaison officers, foot patrols, co-production of safety with residents | Moderate β builds legitimacy, but crime reduction effects are inconsistent | Resource-intensive; difficult to sustain; implementation gap between rhetoric and practice |
| De-escalation training mandates | Requiring de-escalation training for all officers; shifting tactical culture toward conflict reduction | Moderate and growing β Louisville, Las Vegas evaluations show positive results | May not apply in genuinely dangerous situations; requires cultural as well as training change |
| Civilian co-response programmes | Mental health workers, social workers, or medics responding to non-violent calls instead of or alongside police | Strong for appropriate call types β CAHOOTS, STAR, RIGHT Care have consistent results | Scope limited to non-violent calls; funding challenges; officer resistance |
| Body-worn camera mandates | All officers required to wear and activate cameras during public contacts | Mixed β reduces complaints in some contexts; depends entirely on policy and oversight | Cost; footage access policies; limited effect without accountability for non-compliance |
| Civilian oversight boards (with subpoena power) | Independent civilian bodies with authority to review use-of-force incidents and recommend discipline | Limited direct evidence on outcomes; stronger boards associated with faster accountability responses | Opposition from police unions; jurisdictional conflicts with civil service rules |
| Predictive policing restriction | Banning or limiting algorithmic place or person prediction in police operations | Equity concerns are evidence-based; effectiveness of bans on outcome data is limited | Some place-based tools have good crime-reduction evidence; ban may reduce tool effectiveness |
How to Approach Your CRJ 101 Week 4 Assignment Without Just Summarising the Textbook
Read the Prompt Carefully β It Is Not Asking for a Description
Most CRJ 101 Week 4 prompts ask you to “evaluate,” “analyse,” “assess,” or “argue.” These verbs require an analytical position β not a description of what community policing is or what body cameras do. Identify the question, form a position before you write, and structure your response as an argument backed by evidence.
Evaluate β Analyse β Argue β Take a positionUse the Legitimacy and Procedural Justice Framework
Almost every Week 4 topic connects back to police legitimacy β the idea that policing works best when communities accept it as rightful. Community policing builds legitimacy. Racial disparities erode it. Use-of-force incidents damage it. Technology raises questions about it. Using “legitimacy” and “procedural justice” as analytical organising concepts gives your assignment theoretical coherence.
Tyler Β· Procedural justice Β· Trust Β· Voluntary complianceCite Actual Evidence β Not Just Examples
The difference between an intro-level and a strong response in CRJ 101 is often just one thing: citing research rather than just examples. “Studies show body cameras reduce complaints in some departments” (citing Ariel et al.) is stronger than “For example, in Chicago, body cameras were introduced and complaints went down.” Identifying the evidence and its limitations is what the course is training you to do.
BJS data Β· PERF reports Β· NIJ studies Β· DOJ reportsAddress Counter-Arguments β Then Respond to Them
The strongest Week 4 responses do not just state a position β they acknowledge the strongest objection to it and explain why their position still holds. “While community policing faces implementation challenges, departments that have sustained it with dedicated resources show consistent legitimacy gains β suggesting the problem is implementation, not the model itself.” That move β concede and respond β is the difference between opinion and argument.
Concede Β· Qualify Β· Distinguish Β· Still holds because…Connect Your Argument to Policy Reality
CRJ is a professionally-oriented field β your instructors want you to think about what works in the real world, not just what seems right in theory. Ground your arguments in policy examples: specific departments, specific programmes, specific legislation. “The 21st Century Policing Task Force recommended…” is more analytically grounded than “I believe police should…”
Task Force on 21st Century Policing Β· COPS Office Β· PERFStructure Discussion Posts as Mini-Arguments
Even a 200-word discussion post should have a structure: position statement (what you argue), reasoning (why), evidence (what supports it), and a closing that connects to the larger course theme or the specific prompt question. One paragraph of “here are some facts about community policing” is not a discussion post β it is a note to yourself.
Position β Evidence β Significance β Engage peersThesis Statement Builder for CRJ 101 Week 4 Assignments
Strong vs. Weak Examples β With the Formula Behind Each
What an argumentative position looks like in a CRJ 101 assignment vs. what most students submit
Key Sources for CRJ 101 Week 4 β What to Actually Use
21st Century Policing Task Force (2015)
The most important policy document on modern police reform. Six pillars framework. Directly cited in most CRJ courses. Available free at ojp.gov. If your assignment asks about reform, this is your primary policy source.
ojp.gov Β· 21st Century Policing Β· Six PillarsBureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)
The federal statistical agency for criminal justice data. Use for statistics on police contacts, use of force, arrests, officer demographics, and complaints. Data is authoritative and directly citable. bjs.gov.
bjs.gov Β· Police-Public Contact Survey Β· LEMASNational Institute of Justice (NIJ)
The research arm of DOJ. Funds and publishes peer-reviewed research on policing interventions β body cameras, de-escalation, hot spots policing, diversity. nij.gov. Use for evidence-based claims about what works.
nij.gov Β· Evidence-based policing Β· Research summariesPolice Executive Research Forum (PERF)
Leading policing think tank producing practitioner-focused research and policy guides. Reports on use of force, de-escalation (ICAT training), technology, and reform are widely cited and practically grounded. policeforum.org.
policeforum.org Β· ICAT de-escalation Β· Use of force reportsYour Strayer Library Database
Strayer students have access to ProQuest, EBSCOhost, and other academic databases through the Strayer library portal. Search “community policing effectiveness,” “procedural justice policing,” or “police use of force reform” to find peer-reviewed journal articles for your assignments.
ProQuest Β· EBSCOhost Β· Criminal Justice AbstractsNational Academies of Sciences Reports
The 2018 NAS report “Proactive Policing: Effects on Crime and Communities” is the most systematic research review on policing strategies β covering evidence on stop-and-frisk, hot spots, predictive policing, and their effects on communities. Free at nap.edu.
nap.edu Β· NAS Proactive Policing Report Β· 20188 CRJ 101 Week 4 Mistakes That Cost Points β and Their Fixes
| # | β Mistake | Why It Costs Points | β The Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Describing community policing without evaluating it | The assignment asks you to engage analytically, not summarise a model you read about. | Take a position on whether community policing works, under what conditions, and what evidence supports your view. |
| 2 | Writing “I believe” or “I think” without evidence | Personal opinion without supporting evidence is not academic writing at any level. | Replace “I believe police need better training” with “research on de-escalation training (e.g., Louisville Metro PD evaluation) suggests⦔ |
| 3 | Conflating “defund” with “abolish” police | These are distinct positions; conflating them misrepresents the actual policy debate and shows imprecise reading. | Define your terms at the outset. “Defund” most commonly means reallocation β specify which version you are engaging with. |
| 4 | Only citing your Strayer textbook | The textbook is a starting point. CRJ instructors expect you to demonstrate awareness of current events and policy evidence beyond the assigned reading. | Add one BJS statistic, one NIJ study, or one PERF report to ground your argument in current evidence. |
| 5 | Treating technology as purely positive or purely threatening | Both positions are one-dimensional. Technology has genuine benefits and genuine risks β the analytical question is how to realise the benefits while managing the risks. | Use the effectiveness + civil liberties + equity framework. Acknowledge what a technology does well before arguing for how it should be constrained. |
| 6 | Arguing diversity alone will fix policing | The evidence does not support this claim at the individual officer level. Departmental culture and supervision matter more. | Argue that diversity is a necessary but not sufficient condition β and identify what structural changes must accompany it for diversity gains to affect outcomes. |
| 7 | Not answering the actual discussion prompt question | Discussion posts that address policing generally without engaging the specific prompt question receive partial credit at best. | Re-read the prompt before writing, identify the specific question being asked, and make sure your opening sentence addresses it directly. |
| 8 | Writing in passive “policing needs to change” vague mode | Vague prescriptions without specific content (“police need to do better,” “there needs to be more accountability”) suggest the student has not thought carefully about mechanism. | Specify: what specific change, by whom, through what mechanism, with what evidence? “Departments should mandate body-camera activation policies with third-party review of non-compliance” is specific. “Police need to be more accountable” is not. |
Pre-Submission Checklist for CRJ 101 Week 4
- Your response takes a specific, arguable position β not just a description of what policing is
- You cite at least one source beyond your textbook (BJS, NIJ, PERF, or 21st Century Policing Task Force)
- You have defined any contested terms (community policing, defund, use of force continuum) precisely
- You have engaged with at least one counter-argument or limitation to your position
- You have not used “I believe” or “I feel” without immediately following with evidence
- Your assignment directly answers the specific prompt question in the first paragraph
- You connect your argument to the legitimacy or procedural justice framework where relevant