A new era: How chiefs became the center of American policing

Across the country, police leaders have faced a tidal wave of change: public trust eroding, staffing systems breaking, politics polarizing and responsibilities expanding beyond agencies’ original scope. These weren’t failures of leadership; they were failures of systems to evolve.

America’s police chiefs have found themselves navigating a rapidly shifting landscape — one shaped by public outcry, political demands, media scrutiny and organizational strain. While some have portrayed chiefs as either heroes or villains in today’s justice debates, the reality is far more complicated. Chiefs are not the architects of the systems they lead. Many have inherited complex institutions and expectations that often pull them in opposing directions. [1]

But today’s chiefs have a rare opportunity to lead their departments through these pressures and reshape public safety from the inside out. This article is the first in a five-part series exploring Chief-Oriented Policing, a framework that examines how the structure and culture of modern policing has, in many ways, come to revolve around the chief executive. The aim is not to cast blame, but to offer a clearer picture of the forces at play and begin outlining a pathway toward leadership models that are sustainable, collaborative and community-anchored.

American policing has changed. Not just in its tactics or technology, but in its structure and its center of gravity. For much of the 20th century, police departments were defined by their rank-and-file officers or by the communities they were meant to serve. Today, however, a new model is emerging, one in which police chiefs stand at the very center.

Welcome to the era of Chief-Oriented Policing, a time when the police chief has become the institution’s most visible symbol, strategic architect and political lightning rod.

| DOWNLOAD: 26 on 2026: A police leadership playbook

The expanding role of the chief

Today’s police chief is not just a public safety professional. They are a public figure, a political actor, a cultural interpreter, a labor negotiator, a strategist and often a scapegoat. They are expected to be visible and vocal after critical incidents, present at community events, savvy with media and simultaneously manage the internal operations of departments, often spanning hundreds or thousands of employees. Add to that the unique dynamics of serving at the pleasure of elected officials, and you begin to understand how impossible the job can feel.

Many chiefs express a quiet frustration: they are held accountable for outcomes they cannot fully control, whether it be community trust, officer behavior, crime trends or budget constraints. This is not a failure of character or competence; it is a signal that the system itself needs to evolve.

This is not a change that most chiefs asked for. Rather, it is a product of shifting political dynamics, organizational demands and social pressures. Understanding this moment requires looking at how we got here and what it means for the future.

A brief history of policing eras

The evolving role of the police chief can be traced through a lineage of reformers who each left their mark on the profession. To understand this new era, it’s helpful to look back at previous phases in American policing.

The political era (1840s–early 1900s) was marked by close ties between police and political machines. Officers were often selected for their loyalty, not professionalism. Their work reflected the interests of city hall more than the rule of law. They were appointed based on political connections and often lived in the communities they served. Corruption was rampant, but police were accessible and personal to neighborhoods.

In the late 19th century, Theodore Roosevelt served as president of the New York City Police Commission, laying early groundwork for civil service reform and the professionalization of the police. Roosevelt’s tenure emphasized integrity, discipline and insulation from political machines — an early nod toward executive-led standards. [2]

The reform era (1930s–1970s) aimed to professionalize policing and remove political influence. Led by figures like August Vollmer and J. Edgar Hoover, it emphasized professionalization, hierarchy and distance from politics. Police became more bureaucratic and focused on crime control, but often lost touch with local communities. The emphasis was on law enforcement over service.

O. W. Wilson, a protégé of August Vollmer and a leading figure in the Reform Era, helped solidify the model of the police chief as a professional administrator. As chief in Wichita and later superintendent in Chicago, Wilson emphasized centralized control, data use and managerial efficiency. His work institutionalized the idea that police chiefs should be trained experts, not political appointees, a shift that strengthened top-down authority and administrative distance from community concerns. [3]

The community policing era (1980s–2010s) shifted focus again, this time toward partnerships with the public, problem-solving strategies and the idea that public safety was co-produced by residents and officers. It emerged as a response to strained community relations, especially in urban areas. Officers were encouraged to be proactive and community-focused, building trust through visibility and engagement. Chiefs in this period were often facilitators of dialogue and decentralized decision-making.

The community policing Era was symbolized by leaders like Lee Brown, the first Black police chief in Houston and later commissioner in New York City. Brown championed “neighborhood-oriented policing,” emphasizing partnerships, problem-solving and diversity in leadership. This marked a significant effort to root legitimacy not just in technical competence but in public trust.

Today, those earlier models are giving way to something new. Bill Bratton, serving in multiple cities including Boston, New York and Los Angeles, began the transition to a new model combining data-driven management (through CompStat) with public-facing leadership. Bratton’s era introduced the idea of the chief as a media-savvy reformer, capable of projecting command authority while engaging in visible public messaging. The modern chief, in many ways, stands at the intersection of these historical threads: administrative technocrat, public communicator and political operator. [4]

The rise of the chief as central figure

Over the past decades, several trends have converged to place chiefs squarely at the center of modern policing:

Media management and public narrative control: Chiefs are now expected to serve as the public face of their departments, shaping how events are framed and understood, not just locally, but nationally. A single statement can go viral; a single incident can lead to days of press conferences. Press conferences, social media accounts and strategic communication plans reflect a focus on image management rather than community dialogue. Crisis response is often carefully orchestrated to protect institutional legitimacy rather than to acknowledge or repair community harm. [5]

Strategic centralization: Departments increasingly rely on executive teams for data-driven strategies, crisis planning and policy reform. Chiefs are expected to not only manage operations but also guide vision, coordinate change and execute political will. Strategic priorities, whether reducing violent crime stats, managing civil unrest or rolling out tech solutions, often originate in leadership offices and are implemented department-wide. Officers may have limited discretion or incentive to pursue meaningful community partnerships if they don’t align with departmental metrics. Technology and data-driven policing (e.g., CompStat) feed into hierarchical control rather than distributed problem-solving. [5, 6]

Political expectations and chief-city dynamics: Chiefs are increasingly political figures, appointed and removed based on elected official or city management satisfaction. Mayors, city councils and advocacy groups have placed intense expectations on police leadership. Chiefs are asked to reduce crime, build trust, manage labor relations and respond to national crises — often simultaneously. Chiefs must balance being responsive to elected officials with managing officer morale and public opinion. This dynamic incentivizes risk-averse behavior and alignment with political goals rather than neighborhood needs. [7]

Dual demands on police executives: A key feature of Chief-Oriented Policing is the intense, and often contradictory, demand for access to the chief executive. From the public, there is a growing expectation that the chief will personally respond to crises, attend town halls, explain policies and embody the department’s values. In many cities, public trust is now more closely tied to perceptions of the chief, rather than to the department as a whole. From within the department, rank-and-file officers, unions and mid-level supervisors increasingly expect the chief to advocate for their interests, address grievances and visibly support them in contentious political climates. Chiefs are caught between reform-oriented public pressure and internal demands for loyalty and protection. [8, 9, 10]

This “CEO-as-access-point” model creates a bottleneck in communication and leadership, where all significant concerns, conflicts and aspirations are funneled toward a single executive. It leaves little room for distributed problem-solving or localized decision-making. In this context, the modern police chief is no longer just a manager of systems. They are a symbol, a strategist and sometimes a scapegoat.

Chiefs in the crossfire

This transition has not been smooth or entirely fair. Many chiefs have found themselves caught between competing demands: elected officials who want quick fixes, communities demanding accountability and internal stakeholders resistant to change. The shift toward Chief-Oriented Policing is not the product of individual ambition. Rather, it reflects the vacuum left by institutional uncertainty, political fragmentation and a society that increasingly seeks leadership from visible figures rather than from systems. [11]

It is critical to see chiefs not as the cause of all challenges, but as leaders navigating an era of extraordinary complexity. It’s often a result of the institution being reshaped to meet the needs of survival: keeping the chief in power, maintaining public legitimacy, avoiding scandal and responding to media cycles. In such systems, reforms are often calibrated to optics, not outcomes. Strategy becomes reactive. Innovation is stifled by risk aversion. Community relationships become more performative than participatory. [13]

Over time, departments become overly reliant on the vision and charisma of a single executive, leaving them vulnerable to leadership transitions, political turnover or chief departures. Without a deep bench of trusted, empowered leaders, departments struggle to sustain reforms or adapt to new challenges. [12]

Again, this is not an indictment of individual leaders. Rather, it reflects the mounting, often conflicting pressures that chiefs are expected to manage. This is something happening to them, as much as it is being driven by them. Left unaddressed, these dynamics can burn out even the most committed leaders.

Looking forward: Toward chief-supported, not chief-centered, policing

Chief-Oriented Policing reflects a natural outgrowth of bureaucratized, politically responsive policing structures. But it risks leaving behind the very communities the police are supposed to serve. The goal is not to remove the chief from the equation, but to better support and structure leadership so that it doesn’t all fall on one person’s shoulders. Police departments need leadership systems, not just strong leaders. [15, 16]

To move forward, departments must reconcile strong, competent leadership with genuine community collaboration — not just in rhetoric, but in practice. Chiefs deserve room to lead thoughtfully, supported by trusted teams, insulated from the tyranny of daily crisis and grounded in shared purpose with their communities. The future of policing depends on finding a balance between strategic direction and grassroots engagement, where chiefs are not just figureheads or bureaucrats, but facilitators of trust, equity and public safety. [11]

| COMING NEXT: Part 2 – The pressure cooker. How chiefs became policymakers, negotiators and symbols of reform all at once — and why it’s unsustainable.

References

1. Brown J, Li X. Police executive leadership: an empirical and theoretical exploration of police chief performance.
2. Walker S. Popular Justice: A History of American Criminal Justice. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press; 1998.
3. Kelling GL, Moore MH. The evolving strategy of policing. Perspectives on Policing. National Institute of Justice; 1988;(4).
4. Eterno JA, Silverman EB. The Crime Numbers Game: Management by Manipulation. CRC Press; 2012.
5. Wexler C. Critical Issues in Policing: Responding to the Crisis of Legitimacy. Police Executive Research Forum; 2020.
6. Weisburd D, Braga AA, eds. Police Innovation: Contrasting Perspectives. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press; 2019.
7. Ratcliffe JH. Reducing Crime: A Companion for Police Leaders. 2nd ed. Routledge; 2021.
8. Skogan WG. Why reforms fail. Policing & Society. 2008;18(1):23-34.
9. Rojek J, Alpert GP, Smith HP. The utilization of research by the police. Police Practice and Research. 2012;13(4):329-341.
10. Gill C, et al. Strengthening police–community relationships: a review of promising policies. Journal of Criminal Justice. 2018;55:22-31.
11. Weisburd D, Neyroud P. Police Science: Toward a New Paradigm. New Perspectives in Policing Bulletin. US Department of Justice; 2011.
12. Sklansky DA. Democracy and the Police. Stanford University Press; 2008.
13. National Police Foundation. Voices of Policing: Leadership in Crisis. National Police Foundation; 2021.
14. Oster CV, Strong JS, Zorn CK. Analyzing aviation safety: problems, challenges, opportunities. Research in Transportation Economics. 2013;43(1):148-164.
15. Sklansky DA. Democracy and the Police. Stanford University Press; 2011.
16. The Curve. What’s the role of middle management? The Curve website. https://www.thecurve.org/insights/what-s-the-role-of-middle-management. Accessed May 20, 2025.