the abuse of police authority · the abuse of police authority this edition of the abuse of police...

THE ABUSE OF POLICE AUTHORITY

A National Study of Police Officers’ Attitudes

2

The Abuse of Police Authority

This edition of The Abuse of Police Authority: A National Study of Police Officers Attitudes has been

formatted for the Web in PDF format; the pagination differs from the printed version.

Copyright restrictions apply.

3

Police Foundation

THE ABUSE OF POLICE AUTHORITY

A National Study of Police Officers’ Attitudes

David Weisburd

Rosann Greenspan

Edwin E. Hamilton

Kellie A. Bryant

Hubert Williams

4


The Police Foundation is a private, independent, nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting

innovation and improvement in policing. Established in 1970, the foundation has conducted semi-

nal research in police behavior, policy, and procedure, and works to transfer to local agencies the

best new information about practices for dealing effectively with a range of important police

operational and administrative concerns. Motivating all of the foundation’s efforts is the goal of

efficient, humane policing that operates within the framework of democratic principles and the

highest ideals of the nation. The Police Foundation’s research findings are published as an infor-

mation service.

The research findings in this publication were supported by Grant Number 97–CK–WX–0047,

awarded on behalf of Community Oriented Policing Services, US Department of Justice. Findings,

recommendations, and conclusions of the research reported here are those of the authors and do

not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the US Department of Justice.

©2001 by the Police Foundation. All rights, including translation into other languages, reserved

under the Universal Copyright Convention, the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and

Artistic Works, and the International and Pan American Copyright Conventions. Permission to

quote is readily granted.

ISBN 1–884614–17–5

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 2001–130311

Police Foundation1201 Connecticut Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20036-2636(202) 833–1460E-Mail: [email protected]

5

Police Foundation

Contents

Foreword ................................................................................................................... 9

Acknowledgments ................................................................................................... 11

I Introduction ............................................................................................................. 12

II Methodology ............................................................................................................ 15

III Characteristics of the Sample .................................................................................. 19

IV Main Survey Results ................................................................................................. 23

Abuse of Authority and the Use of Force 23

Code of Silence 25

Social Factors 29

Departmental Response 31

Controlling Abuse 32

Community-Oriented Policing 35

Subgroup Analysis 39

Race 39Rank: Supervisors and Nonsupervisors 42Region 46Agency Size 48Gender 50

V Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 52

Endnotes ........................................................................................................................... 56

References ........................................................................................................................ 62

Authors ...................................................................................................................... 66

6


Illustrations

Tables3.1 Officers’ Current Rank ...................................................................................... 20

3.2 Education Level of Officers .............................................................................. 21

3.3 Racial Background of Officers .......................................................................... 22

3.4 Hispanic vs. Non-Hispanic Officers ................................................................. 22

4.1 Officers’ Attitudes Toward Limitations on Useof Force .............................................................................................................. 24

4.2 Officers’ Perceptions of Use of Force Behaviorin Their Department ......................................................................................... 25

4.3 Code of Silence: Attitudes ................................................................................. 27

4.4 Code of Silence: Perceptions of Behavior ....................................................... 27

4.5 Scenario of an Unruly Suspect ......................................................................... 28

4.6 Perceptions of the Effects of Extra-Legal Factorson Police Behavior ........................................................................................... 29

4.7 Police Perceptions of the Public’s AttitudeToward the Police ............................................................................................. 30

4.8 Perceptions of Media and Citizens’ ConcernsToward Police Abuse ....................................................................................... 31

4.9 Departmental Responses to Abuse of Authority ............................................. 32

4.10 The Role of Supervision in Controlling Abuse ................................................ 33

4.11 Officers’ Perceptions of the Effects of Trainingon Abuse of Authority ...................................................................................... 34

4.12 The Community-Police Partnership ................................................................. 35

4.13 Perceptions of the Effects of Community Policingon Abuse of Authority ...................................................................................... 36

By Race

4.14 Police officers often treat whites better than they doAfrican Americans and other minorities .......................................................... 40

4.15 Police officers are more likely to use physical forceagainst African Americans and other minorities thanagainst whites in similar situations. .................................................................. 41

7

Police Foundation

4.16 Police officers are more likely to use physical forceagainst poor people than against middle-class peoplein similar situations ........................................................................................... 41

4.17 Community-oriented policing increases, decreases,or has no impact on the number of incidentsof excessive force .............................................................................................. 41

4.18 Community-oriented policing increases, decreases,or has no impact on the seriousness of excessiveforce incidents. .................................................................................................. 42

4.19 Citizen review boards are effective means for preventingpolice misconduct. ............................................................................................ 43

By Rank: Supervisors and Nonsupervisors

4.20 Good first-line supervisors can help prevent policeofficers from abusing their authority. .............................................................. 43

4.21 If a police chief takes a strong position against abusesof authority, he or she can make a big difference inpreventing officers from abusing their authority. ............................................ 43

4.22 Most police abuse of force could be stopped by developingmore effective methods of supervision. .......................................................... 44

4.23 Whistle blowing is not worth it. ....................................................................... 45

4.24 The code of silence is an essential part of the mutual trustnecessary to good policing. ............................................................................. 45

4.25 It is sometimes acceptable to use more force thanis legally allowable to control someone who physicallyassaults an officer. ............................................................................................. 45

4.26 Police department rules about the use of force shouldnot be any stricter than required by law. ........................................................ 46

4.27 Community-oriented policing increases, decreases,or has no impact on the number of excessive force incidents. ..................... 47

4.28 Community-oriented policing increases, decreases,or has no impact on the seriousness of excessiveforce incidents. .................................................................................................. 47

8


By Region

4.29 Frequent friendly contact with local residents and merchantsincreases the likelihood that police officers will acceptfree lunches, discounts, or gifts of appreciation foreffective service. ................................................................................................ 47

4.30 It is sometimes acceptable to use more force than islegally allowable to control someone who physically assaultsan officer. ........................................................................................................... 48

4.31 Police officers always report serious criminal violationsinvolving abuse of authority by fellow officers. .............................................. 49

By Agency Size

4.32 If a police chief takes a strong position against abusesof authority, he or she can make a big difference inpreventing officers from abusing their authority. ............................................ 49

4.33 Good first-line supervisors can help prevent officersfrom abusing their authority. ............................................................................. 49

4.34 Most police abuse of force could be stopped by developingmore effective methods of supervision. ......................................................... 50

4.35 Police administrators concentrate on what police officersdo wrong rather than what police officers do right. ...................................... 51

Figures3.1 Officers’ Gender ................................................................................................ 22

3.2 Officers’ Satisfaction With Career ..................................................................... 22

9

Police Foundation

ForewordWhen the police fail to meet our expectations, we react with dismay, anger, andadditional demands. Police corruption and abuse of authority have persistedsince the beginning of policing, and were exacerbated late in the twentieth cen-tury by America’s drug epidemic. Every year, incidents of police abuse of author-ity cost local communities tens of millions of dollars in legal damages. Tax dollarsare wasted. Careers are destroyed. The public trust is compromised.

Virtually every police department has policies prescribing officer conduct andregulating use of force. No police department or police chief should knowinglycondone conduct that runs counter to either department policy or constitutionalstandards. While there is accountability for acts of corruption and other forms ofwrongdoing in most police departments, there is little or no accountability forthose who tolerate such an environment. How, for example, were a few officersable to brutalize Abner Louima within sound if not sight of first-line supervisorsand other department officials in New York’s 70

th Precinct?

Even good people, placed in the wrong situation, will do the wrong thing. Badsupervision, intense peer pressure, and an organizational culture that sends un-clear signals can cause honorable men and women to behave in dishonorableways. The key moral problem for police departments is the same as it is forcorporations, universities, labor unions, and government agencies: how can youcreate a culture that will induce members to strike the right balance betweenachieving an organizational goal and observing fundamental principles of de-cency and fairness?

Values in police agencies come not just from documents that describe them butalso from traditional police culture. Too often, there is a disconnect betweenpolicies and practices, a failure of police management to monitor behavior andto respond appropriately. If police leadership does not assume an aggressive rolein ensuring that the police culture is one of integrity and accountability, officerswill continue to cultivate their own culture in their own way.

We expect our police “…to have the wisdom of Solomon, the courage of David, the patience ofJob and the leadership of Moses, the kindness of the Good Samaritan, the strategy of

Alexander, the faith of Daniel, the diplomacy of Lincoln, the tolerance of the Carpenter ofNazareth, and, finally, an intimate knowledge of every branch of the natural, biological,

and social sciences. If he had all these, he might be a good policeman.”

—August Vollmer, 1936

10


As this study reaffirms, commitment by the chief and command staff to upholddemocratic values and eradicate discriminatory practices is key. Police adminis-trators should proactively institute and enforce strong policies governingconduct, as well as systems to collect and analyze data relative to police-citizencontacts such as complaints, use of force incidents, and traffic stops. Suchefforts would inform policy, guide recruitment and training, and build account-ability necessary to restore and maintain public trust in the police. It is the lack ofinternal, systemic controls, and not “a few rotten apples,” that perpetuates prob-lems of misconduct and abuse by police. Most of America’s police officers arehonest, dedicated, hard-working public servants, and it is they, as well as thepublic they serve, who are victims of the “bad” cop.

Because of the nature of their responsibilities, the police have the power tointervene and become involved at very basic levels within the lives of Americancitizens. The nature of the police response—the manner in which officers inter-act with citizens and the methods by which they enforce the law—have criticalimplications for our democracy and the quality of life of our citizens. As JeromeSkolnick writes in his thoughtful essay, On Democratic Policing, “Order achievedthrough democratic policing is concerned not only with the ends of crimecontrol, but also with the means used to achieve those ends.”

Are police abuses inevitable in our efforts to control crime? What are policeofficers’ views on the code of silence, whistle blowing, and the ways in whichrace or class influence police behavior? What are effective means of preventingabuse of authority by police? This report provides a nationwide portrait of whatAmerica’s police officers think about these and other important questions ofabuse of police authority.

Hubert WilliamsPresident

Police Foundation

11

Police Foundation

AcknowledgmentsAs in any large-scale project, we owe a debt of gratitude to many people whohelped in developing our work. At the outset, we received much advice, encour-agement, and support, which continued throughout the project, from Dr. DavidHayeslip (now at Abt Associates) and Joseph Kuhns from the Office of Commu-nity Oriented Policing Services.

We would like to thank Mathematica Policy Research Inc. for setting and meetingthe highest standards in survey research, especially project director Rhoda Cohen,senior statistician John Hall, telephone supervisor Deborah Reese, survey associ-ate Phyllis Schulman, and all the telephone interviewers. We also thank EdwardMaguire of George Mason University for sharing his police agency database and forassisting in developing the sampling frame, and we thank Colleen Cosgrove and BillMatthews for assisting in selecting police departments for our focus groups.

A number of policing scholars contributed greatly at various stages of the project,from initial design of the sample frame, through development of the surveyinstrument, and by participation in our focus group of police scholars and execu-tives. Our gratitude goes to Carl Klockars, Peter Manning, Ramiro Martinez, StephenMastrofski, Albert Reiss, Jerome Skolnick, Alfred Slocum, and Robert Worden.

We appreciate as well the contributions of Commissioner Thomas Frazier, ChiefJerry Oliver, Chief Jerry Sanders, and Director Robert Pugh in our focus group ofscholars and executives.

We learned a tremendous amount from the generous participation of the un-named officers who took part in our focus groups of rank-and-file officers andsupervisors. We thank the officers who participated in the pretest, and especiallythe 925 officers from across the country who volunteered their cooperation incompleting the survey interview. Finally, our thanks go to Fred Wilson, ChrisTutko, Rachel Dadusc, and Michael Clifton, formerly of the Police Foundation,and Kenneth Brunk of the Police Foundation, and especially to Mary Malina,Communications Director of the Police Foundation, who supervised theproduction of this report.

12


I

INTRODUCTION

American society has long entrusted toits police the authority to use force inthe pursuit of justice, law, and order.This authority is often glorified inbooks, television, and movies, wherethe police are seen as constantlyresponding to violent felons withequally violent reactions. But the real-ity of police use of force is much lessdramatic and the boundaries of legiti-mate police use of force are much moreconstrained than defined in popularculture. The police indeed havediscretion to use violence when it isrequired. However, the potential abuseand actual abuse of such authorityremain both a central problem for po-lice agencies and a central public policyconcern.

Extreme examples of police abuseoften spark major public debate.Videotapes of Rodney King beingbeaten by Los Angeles police offic-ers, as well as reports of the tortureof Abner Louima by New York Citypolice, capture public attention andraise troubling questions about po-lice abuse of force in a democraticsociety. Are such events isolated ab-errations in American policing, or arethey extreme examples of a moregeneral problem that plagues Ameri-can police departments? Does the factthat such events often involve minori-ties suggest important inequities oflaw enforcement against particular ra-cial, class, or ethnic groups? Whatmeasures can be taken to constrainpolice abuse, and which are likely to

…[P]otential

abuse and

actual abuse

of [police]

authority

remain both

a central

problem

for police

agencies and

a central

public policy

concern.

13

Police Foundation

be most effective? Such questions havebeen raised and debated in the media,by our politicians, and by police schol-ars and administrators. However, thevoices of rank-and-file police officersand supervisors have not been heard.

This silence is particularly important,given the vast changes in organization,tactics, and philosophy that haveoccurred in American policing over thepast three decades. At the forefront ofthose changes has been the transitionfrom the use of traditional military andprofessional models of policing to thecreation of innovative models ofcommunity policing. While the policehad earlier defined professionalizationas limiting the role of the communityin American policing, today police seekto work closely with the public indefining and responding to problemsof crime and disorder. In turn, the mili-tary model of police supervision thatgave little autonomy or authority tostreet-level officers has begun to bereplaced by more flexible modes ofsupervision that allow rank-and-fileofficers the freedom to develop con-tacts with the public and to defineinnovative problem-solving strategies.The police and the community are seenas partners in emerging models of com-munity policing. Rank-and-file police—as those closest to the public—have,in turn, become central actors in themovement toward community-orientedpolicing. The views of rank-and-filepolice have special significance in thisage of community policing, which has

sought to tighten the bonds betweenpolice and community and to empowerboth groups to act effectively againstcommunity problems.

With the support of the Office of Com-munity Oriented Policing Services ofthe U.S. Department of Justice, thePolice Foundation undertook toconduct a representative nationalsurvey that would uncover the attitudesof American police about sensitivequestions of police abuse of authority.How do contemporary police viewabuses of police authority? Do policesee them as an inevitable by-productof increased efforts to control crime anddisorder? What forms do they take?How common do police believe themto be? What strategies and tactics dopolice view as most effective inpreventing police abuses of authority?Given the importance of the movementtoward community-oriented policing,we sought to define whether commu-nity-oriented policing is seen to encour-age or constrain the boundaries ofacceptable use of police authority. Hascommunity policing enhanced themovement toward police respect forthe rights of citizens, or has it fosterednew police skepticism about the ruleof law in a democratic society?

The following is our report on a tele-phone survey of a representativesample of more than 900 police offic-ers who were drawn from an estimatedpopulation of 350,000 American mu-nicipal and county police.

1 Ours is the

first national study of this type and,

…[V]iews of

rank-and-file

police have

special

significance

in this age

of community

policing, which

has sought to

tighten the

bonds between

police and

community

and to

empower

both groups to

act effectively

against

community

problems.

14


therefore, has particular significance forunderstanding the attitudes of Ameri-can police toward abuse of authorityin the age of community policing. Thereport examines the questions raisedabove using the survey responses ofpolice officers, as well as the insightsgained from focus groups conductedearlier in the study (see Appendices B,C, and D). The major findings of thestudy are as follows:

• American police believe that extremecases of police abuse of authorityoccur infrequently. However, a sub-stantial minority of officers believethat it is sometimes necessary to usemore force than is legally allowable.

• Despite strong support for normsrecognizing the boundaries ofpolice authority, officers revealedthat it is not unusual for police toignore improper conduct by theirfellow officers.

• American police believe that train-ing and education programs areeffective means of preventing police

from abusing authority. They alsoargue that their own departmenttakes a “tough stand” on the issueof police abuse. Finally, they arguethat a department’s chief and first-line supervisors can play an impor-tant role in preventing abuse ofauthority.

• Police officers believe that the pub-lic and the media are too concernedwith police abuses of authority.

• American police officers supportcore principles of community polic-ing; they generally believe thatcommunity policing reduces or hasno impact on the potential forpolice abuse.

• A majority of African-Americanpolice officers believe that policetreat whites better than AfricanAmericans and other minorities, andthat police officers are more likelyto use physical force against minori-ties or the poor. Few white policeofficers, however, share these views.

…[T]he first

national study

of this

type …has

particular

significance

for under-

standing the

attitudes

of American

police toward

abuse of

authority in

the age of

community

policing.

15

Police Foundation

II

METHODOLOGY

Our findings are based on a telephonesurvey that was conducted byMathematica Policy Research Inc. ofPrinceton, New Jersey, under the di-rection of the Police Foundation. Thesurvey instrument was developed bythe Police Foundation’s staff after con-sulting a wide range of earlier studiesand after conducting a series of focusgroups composed of police scholars,police managers, and rank-and-filepolice.

2 The survey itself took an av-

erage of 25 minutes to complete andwas carried out with careful concernfor protecting the anonymity, privacy,and confidentiality of participants.

3

As the sample design was developed,background research revealed that al-though a number of studies have ran-domly sampled police departments,

only one previous national survey—a1985 study of police officers’ attitudestoward issues related to rape—used arandomly selected sample of policeofficers (LeDoux and Hazelwood,1985). In selecting our sample, we hada basic requirement to obtain a repre-sentative sample of police officers na-tionwide.

4 We designed a two-step pro-

cess. First, we sought the most accuratelisting of police agencies throughout thecountry. Second, after selecting a sampleof participating agencies, we began ourtask of procuring lists of officers fromthose agencies.

A recent study by Maguire, Snipes,Uchida, and Townsend (1998) concludedthat the sources generally relied uponfor national-level information aboutpolice agencies are inadequate. Maguire

…[W]e had

a basic

requirement

to obtain a

representative

sample of

police officers

nationwide.

16


et al. explained the limitations of anddiscrepancies between the FBI UniformCrime Reports and the 1992 Census ofLaw Enforcement Agencies that had beencompiled by the Bureau of Justice Statis-tics with the Census Bureau, as compre-hensive lists of all police agencies in theUnited States. Their study developed amore reliable list of police agencies bycombining the information contained inthe Uniform Crime Reports, the 1992Census of Law Enforcement Agencies,and a third list of police departments pro-vided by the Office of Community Ori-ented Policing Services. This newlycreated list, with further corrections byMaguire, served as the universe ofpolice departments for the PoliceFoundation study.

The Police Foundation, in consultationwith several policing experts and stat-isticians, identified criteria for inclusionin the sampling frame. The criteriaestablished were as follows:

• The police department has primaryresponsibility for providing policeservices to a residential population(thus eliminating special policeforces).

• The department has a minimum of10 full-time sworn officers.

• The department is either a munici-pal or county police agency (statepolice and sheriff departments, withtheir wide range of responsibilitiesthat may or may not include polic-ing residential populations, wereexcluded from the sampling frame).

The sampling frame, as thus defined,consisted of 5,042 police departmentsthat employ between 91.6 percent and94.1 percent of all full-time swornofficers who serve in local police agen-cies in the United States. Applying theregional classification system used inthe FBI Uniform Crime Reports (FBI,1994), we see that the officers repre-sented 1,377 departments from theNortheast, 1,547 from the South, 1,383from the North Central, and 735 fromthe West.

5 Maguire (1997) estimates

the number of officers in these 5,042departments at about 350,000.

We followed a method of multistage,or clustered, sampling, whereby thesampling frame was divided into sam-pling units that were based on depart-ment size.

6 Those units were then dis-

tributed into three strata, or groups, bysize of department and organized bygeographic region. One stratum (the“certainty” stratum) consisted of thenine largest departments. The secondstratum contained 84 randomly selecteddepartments with 25 or more full-timesworn officers (the “midsize” stratum).The third group included 28 randomlyselected departments with at least 10,but no more than 24, full-time swornofficers (the “small” stratum).

To draw the random samples of offic-ers of all ranks from each of the 121departments, and then to contact theofficers selected to be interviewed, thePolice Foundation contacted the 121selected departments and requested thefollowing information:

The sampling

frame…

consisted of

5,042 police

departments

that employ

between

91.6 percent

and

94.1 percent

of all full-time

sworn offic-

ers who serve

in local police

agencies in

the United

States.

17

Police Foundation

• A roster with the names and ranksof all full-time sworn personnel,

• A badge or employee identificationnumber for each officer,

• A phone number at the departmentwhere each officer could be con-tacted,

• An address at the department whereeach officer could be contacted, and,

• If possible, the shift each officer isassigned to.

As each department’s list became avail-able in the form necessary, the randomsamples were drawn, advance letterswere sent to the selected officers, andthe process of phoning and conduct-ing the surveys was carried out.

Of the 121 departments contacted, 113ultimately agreed to participate, for anoverall departmental participation rateof 93.4 percent. The eight departmentsthat declined were from all three strata.Thus, we lost (a) one department (fromthe nine) in the certainty stratum, for aparticipation rate of 89 percent; (b) sixfrom the 84 in the midsize stratum, fora participation rate of 93 percent; and(c) one from the 28 in the small stra-tum, for a participation rate of 96.5percent. The participating departmentscooperated by submitting rosters of allfull-time sworn personnel, with rank,contact address, and telephone num-bers.

7 From those lists, 1,112 officers

were randomly selected. As initialcontacts were made, it was determinedthat 60 officers were ineligible to

participate for a number of reasons (i.e.,were not full-time sworn officers, wereon suspension, were on long-term dis-ability, etc.). They were, therefore,removed from the sample. Their elimi-nation left a final sample size of 1,060.

Response rates in social science re-search are often used as the benchmarkfor evaluating the representativeness ofthe sample and for determining thedegree to which one can generalizefrom the survey results to the surveypopulation. A generally accepted ruleof thumb is that response rates of 70percent or above are viewed as “verygood” (see Babbie, 1990; Babbie, 1992;Maxfield and Babbie, 1995). Of the1,060 eligible officers in the sample,925 completed the survey, for acompletion rate of 87.3 percent. Thisrate is one of the highest achieved insurveys of police, whether on the na-tional or state level (see, for example,LeDoux and Hazelwood, 1985; Pateand Fridell, 1993; Martin and Bensinger,1994; McConkey, Huon, and Frank,1996; and Amendola, Hockman, andScharf, 1996). Even when we combinethe departmental participation rate of93.4 percent with the officer comple-tion rate of 87.3 percent, the combinedoverall response rate of 81.5 percent isstill well above the accepted standard.

In survey research, it is traditional toreport the level of statistical confidence,sometimes referred to as sampling error,that can be applied to the estimatesreported. For our study, that level of con-fidence was very high for percentages

Of the

1,060 eligible

officers,…

925 completed

the survey….

This rate [87%]

is one of the

highest…

in surveys

of police,

whether on

the national

or state level.…

18


relating to the full sample. The 95 per-cent confidence intervals for responsesin the survey were generally between2 and 4 percent.

8 This figure suggests

that we can be very confident that thepopulation characteristics associated withthe survey responses were generallywithin plus or minus 2 to 4 percent ofthose reported. If we were hypotheti-cally to observe repeated samples likethat drawn in our study and to calculatea confidence interval for each, then onlyabout 5 in 100 would fail to includethe true population percentage (seeWeisburd, 1998). This statistic is some-times defined as the margin of error orthe sampling error of a study. Confidenceintervals for subsamples in the study,such as women or minorities, were larger.In those cases, we generally comparesubgroups and report significance lev-els. It should be noted that the standarderrors used for calculations of confidence

intervals and significance statistics wereadjusted according to the samplingprocedures we used.

9

Because of the stratified and clusteredsampling procedures used in the study,it is necessary to include a correctionwhen reporting survey responses. Thiscorrection is based on weighting eachdepartment and police officer accord-ing to the proportion of the actualpopulation of American police thateach represents.

10 In practice, weight-

ing in the survey does not greatly alterthe majority of estimates that wereport. Nonetheless, the weightedestimates provide a more accuratepicture of the true population ofresponses than that provided by theraw estimates. We report only weightedpercentages in the discussion andtables below.

19

Police Foundation

III

CHARACTERISTICSOF THE SAMPLE

The survey represents a broad popula-tion of officers and reflects the diversecomposition of American police. Forexample, 56 percent of the officers sur-veyed defined themselves as “patrolofficers.” Another 16 percent were de-tectives, criminal investigators, andcorporals. Sergeants constituted about15 percent of the sample, and another13 percent held the rank of lieutenantor above (see Table 3.1).

11 About 3 of

10 officers in the sample noted that theyserved as “supervisors.” While morethan 2 of 10 officers were under30 years old, more than 8 percent wereover 50 years old. Officers ranged inage from 22 to 66 years old. Regardingmarital status, almost three of four (74percent) were either married or livingwith someone as if married.

The length of service of the sworn po-lice officers in the sample ranged fromless than 1 year to 35 years, with about25 percent at 5 years or less. One in fiveofficers had served from 6 to 10 years,almost one in five had served from 11 to15 years, and more than one-third hadserved 16 years or more. Most officershad patrol responsibilities (60 percent).Some 30 percent were involved in otherfield operations such as gang, juvenile,robbery, and homicide, including 7 per-cent who identified themselves as as-signed to community policing. More than10 percent did not have field assign-ments, but served in administration, com-munications, technical support, and otherjobs. This proportion is similar to thatreported in the 1993 Law Enforcement

The survey

represents

a broad

population

of officers

and reflects

the diverse

composition

of American

police.

20


Management and Administrative Statis-tics (LEMAS) survey of agencies with100 or more officers, where 11 percentof county police and 9 percent ofmunicipal police did not have fieldassignments (BJS, 1995).

Many scholars and policy makers haveemphasized the importance of educa-tion in developing a modern police (seeNational Advisory Commission onCriminal Justice Standards and Goals,1973; Carter and Sapp, 1990; Worden,1990; Travis, 1995). Almost one-thirdof the sample had a bachelor’s degreeor higher (see Table 3.2). Additionally,52 percent had a two-year degree orsome college education, and almost15 percent had graduated from highschool (or had a GED). Only five ofthe officers surveyed had only somehigh school education. Reflecting the

growth in professional police educa-tion, more than half of those who hadattended college reported that they hadmajored in criminology, criminaljustice, or police science. Some 15 per-cent of the weighted sample werecontinuing their education in pursuitof a degree.

This survey reinforces earlier studiesthat suggest that American policingreflects the racial and ethnic composi-tion of the U.S. population (seeBJS, 1995). In the weighted sample,80.8 percent of the officers were white,as compared with 80.3 percent of thepopulation (Bureau of the Census,1991), and 10.7 percent were AfricanAmerican, as compared with 12 per-cent in the national population (seeTable 3.3).

12 Also, 9.6 percent of the

weighted sample, compared with

Tab

le 3

.1Officers’ Current Rank

Number PercentageRank of Officers of Officers

Patrol Officer 514 55.7

Detective/Criminal Investigator 110 12.0

Corporal 36 4.0

Sergeant 142 15.3

Lieutenant 56 6.1

Captain 17 1.7

Inspector 2 0.2

Major 3 0.3

Deputy Chief 6 0.6

Chief 14 1.5

Other 24 2.4

N = 924

This survey

reinforces

earlier studies

that suggest

that American

policing

reflects the

racial and

ethnic

composition

of the U.S.

population.

21

Police Foundation

8.8 percent of the U.S. population, iden-tified themselves as of Hispanic, Latino,or Spanish origin (see Table 3.4).

While the racial composition of Ameri-can policing may reflect the nation fromwhich it is drawn, American policingremains a predominantly male profes-sion. Only 8.5 percent of the samplewere women (see Figure 3.1). Othersources provided similar estimates.According to the National Center forWomen and Policing (1998), “Womencurrently make up less than 10 percentof sworn police officers nationwide.”This figure was also consistent with the1993 LEMAS survey, which reportedthat 8 percent of officers in municipalpolice departments and 10 percent ofofficers in county police departmentswere women (BJS, 1995).

Despite the controversies that surroundAmerican policing, our survey shows thatAmerican police officers are generallysatisfied with their career choice. Indeed,almost all of the officers we surveyed(94 percent) indicated that they weresatisfied and over half of those said thatthey were “extremely” satisfied with theirchoice of policing as a profession (seeFigure 3.2). Only two officers describedthemselves as extremely dissatisfied withtheir career choice. Even when askedabout their satisfaction with their currentassignment, more than 90 percent of thesample indicated that they weresatisfied, of whom 40 percent were“extremely” satisfied. Nevertheless,46 percent of police officers describedtheir work as extremely stressful (16 per-cent) or quite stressful (30 percent).

Tab

le 3

.2

Education Level of Officers

Number PercentageHighest Level Attained of Officers of Officers

Some High School 5 0.5

High School Graduate/GED 133 14.7

Some College 303 33.1

Associate’s Degree (2 year) 174 18.6

Bachelor’s Degree (4 year) 258 27.6

Some Graduate School 19 2.0

Master’s Degree 29 3.2

Doctoral Degree or Law Degree 3 0.3

N = 924

While the

racial

composition

of American

policing may

reflect the

nation…,

American

policing

remains a

predominantly

male

profession.

22


Racial Background of Officers

Number PercentageRace of Officers of Officers

White 748 80.8

African American 94 10.7

American Indian or Alaskan Native 8 0.8

Asian 8 0.8

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 3 0.3

Other 36 4.3

Mixed Race 24 2.4

N = 921

Tab

le 3

.3Ta

ble

3.4

Hispanic vs. Non-Hispanic Officers

African-White American OtherOfficers Officers Officers TOTAL

Hispanic 44 (6.2%) 2 (1.8%) 38 (51.6%) 84 (9.6%)

Non-Hispanic 703 (93.8%) 92 (98.2%) 41 (48.4%) 836 (90.4%)

N = 920

Fig

ure

s3.

1 &

3.2

Officers’ Satisfaction With CareerOfficers’ Gender

Male 848 (91.5%)

Satisfied 871 (94.4%)

Female 76 (8.5%)

Dissatisfied 52 (5.6%)

Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2

23

Police Foundation

IV

MAIN SURVEYRESULTS

Abuse of Authorityand the Use of ForceThe use of force may be a relativelyrare occurrence in American policing(Worden and Shepard, 1996), but thoseincidents that do occur escalate toooften to the level of excessive force.

13

In trying to understand why, we askeda series of questions that address theattitudes that police officers havetoward the use of force and theirperceptions of the behavior of theirfellow officers.

Our survey shows that most policeofficers in the United States disapproveof the use of excessive force. Nonethe-less, a substantial minority believe thatthey should be permitted to use moreforce than the law currently permits, andthey consider it acceptable to sometimes

The survey consisted of more than 80

questions that relate to the problem of

abuse of authority (see Appendix A).

Below, we summarize the main find-

ings of the study. First, we examine re-

sults across the entire sample, focus-

ing on six central concerns: (a) abuse

of authority and the use of force, (b)

the code of silence, (c) social factors,

(d) departmental responses, (e) con-

trolling abuse, and (f) community

policing. We then turn to comparisons

of subgroup responses according to re-

gional variation, size of department,

supervisory status, racial variation, and

gender variation. For example, are the

perceptions of white officers different

from those of African Americans or

other minorities? Does it matter if the

officer is from the Midwest or the South?

…[M]ost police

officers in the

United States

disapprove

of the use

of excessive

force.

24


use more force than permitted by thelaws that govern them. The officers re-vealed this attitude in their responses toseveral questions that were presented tothem. More than 30 percent of the sampleexpressed the opinion that “policeofficers are not permitted to use as muchforce as is often necessary in makingarrests” (see Table 4.1). Almost 25 per-cent felt that it is sometimes acceptableto use more force than legally allowableto control a person who physically as-saults an officer. A very substantial mi-nority, more than 4 of 10, told us thatalways following the rules is not com-patible with getting the job done (seeAppendix A, a19).

Most officers are not interested in hold-ing themselves to higher standards than

required by law. More than 65 percentof the sample officers were content thatpolice department rules about the useof force not be stricter than requiredby law. Still, almost 35 percent did feelthat departmental rules should bestricter than required by law. And whenasked whether police officers shouldbe allowed to use physical force inresponse to verbal abuse, a very smallnumber, only 7 percent, thought thatthis clear violation of current normsshould be allowed.

Although a substantial minority ex-pressed the view that the police shouldbe permitted to use more force, theoverwhelming majority of the sampledid not believe that officers do engagein an excessive use of force on a

Tab

le 4

.1Officers’ Attitudes Toward Limitations on Use of Force

It issometimesacceptable

Police to use more Police Policeare not force than department officerspermitted is legally rules about should beto use as allowable to the use of allowed tomuch force control some- force should use physicalas is often one who not be any force innecessary physically stricter than responsein making assaults an required to verbalarrests. officer. by law. abuse.(N=912) (N = 912) (N = 915) (N = 920)

Percent

Strongly Agree 6.2 3.3 6.7 0.4

Agree 24.9 21.2 58.9 6.6

Disagree 60.5 55.2 32.3 67.6

Strongly Disagree 8.4 20.3 2.1 25.4

…[T]he…majority

…did not believe

that officers

...engage in

an excessive

use of force

on a regular

basis.

25

Police Foundation

regular basis. A mere 4 percent thoughtthat police officers regularly used morephysical force than was necessary inmaking arrests (see Appendix A, a10).And almost everyone (97 percent) agreedthat serious cases of misconduct, suchas the Rodney King case in Los Angelesand the Abner Louima case in NewYork, are “extremely rare” in their de-partments (see Appendix A, a40).

Still, they did not give their fellow offic-ers a completely clean report. Whenasked about their perceptions of thebehavior of officers in their own depart-ments, almost 22 percent of the weightedsample suggested that officers in theirdepartment sometimes (or often, oralways) use more force than necessary,

and only 16 percent reported that theynever did so (see Table 4.2). Althoughthe large majority of respondents feltthat it is inappropriate to respond to ver-bal abuse with physical force, almost15 percent thought that officers in theirdepartment engaged in such behaviorsometimes (or often, or always).

Code of SilenceSome of the most strongly held andvaried responses addressed the trou-bling area of whether officers shouldtell when they know that misconducthas occurred. The responses suggestthe possibility of a large gap betweenattitudes and behavior. That is, officersdo not believe in protecting wrong-doers; nevertheless, they often do notturn them in.

Tab

le 4

.2

Officers’ Perceptions of Use of Force Behavior in Their Department

Police officersin your

Police officers departmentin [city] use respond tomore force than verbal abusenecessary to with physicalmake an arrest. force.(N = 922) (N = 922)

Sometimes, Often, or Always 196 (21.7%) 137 (14.7%)

Seldom 581 (62.4%) 497 (53.5%)

Never 145 (16.0%) 288 (31.8%)

…[O]fficers

do not believe

in protecting

wrongdoers;

nevertheless,

they often

do not turn

them in.

26


The survey shows that more than 80percent of American police do notaccept that the code of silence is anessential part of the mutual trust nec-essary to achieve good policing (seeTable 4.3). However, about a quarterof the sample told us that whistle blow-ing is not worth it, and more than two-thirds reported that police officers werelikely to be given a “cold shoulder” byfellow officers if they reported incidentsof misconduct. A majority felt that itwas not unusual for police officers toturn a “blind eye” to improper conductby other officers (see Table 4.4). Evenwhen it came to reporting serious crimi-nal violations, a surprising 6 in 10report that police officers did not al-ways report serious criminal violationsinvolving abuse of authority by fellowofficers.

During the focus groups, officers re-sisted the notion of a code of silence,but agreed in the end that the codestands except in the case of criminalviolations. For instance, one supervi-sor suggested, “I don’t think there’s acode of silence at all when we are talk-ing about criminal conduct. And if itis, those people are part of a criminalmind.” Another said, “I think that thewall of silence, as far as criminal things,is a thing of the past. I hear a lot ofcops saying they are not going to lose

their house because of you.” However,they admitted that in individual cases,it is very difficult to betray fellowofficers even when those officers areinvolved in criminal matters.

In the survey we presented several sce-narios involving misconduct, and weasked the officers a series of questionsabout the seriousness of the conduct,the consequences that should andwould follow that conduct, andwhether they or others in the depart-ment would report such conduct. Inone scenario, “An officer has a hand-cuffed suspect sitting at his desk whilehe fills out the necessary paperwork.With no provocation from the officer,the suspect suddenly spits in the faceof the officer. The officer immediatelypushes the suspect in the face causingthe suspect to fall from the chair ontothe floor.” There was wide variation inperception of the offense’s seriousness,from 15 percent of the sample consid-ering it not serious at all to 16 percentconsidering it very serious (see Table4.5). But would respondents report anofficer who engaged in this behavior?Only 3 in 10 stated that they woulddefinitely report. Even fewer, only11 percent of the sample, thought thatmost officers in their agency woulddefinitely report the offense.

…[M]ore than

80 percent

of American

police do not

accept that the

code of silence

is an essential

part of the

mutual trust

necessary to

achieve good

policing.

27

Police Foundation

Tab

le 4

.3

Code of Silence: Attitudes

An officer whoreports another

The code of officer’s mis-silence is an conduct isessential part likely to beof the mutual given thetrust necessary Whistle blowing “cold shoulder”to good policing. is not worth it. by fellow officers.(N = 905) (N = 904) (N = 908)

Percent

Strongly Agree 1.2 3.1 11.0

Agree 15.7 21.8 56.4

Disagree 65.6 63.5 30.9

Strongly Disagree 17.5 11.7 1.8

Code of Silence: Perceptions of Behavior

It is not unusualfor a police Police officersofficer to turn always reporta blind eye serious violationsto improper involving abuseconduct by of authority byother officers. fellow officers(N = 908) (N = 899)

Percent

Strongly Agree 1.8 2.8

Agree 50.6 36.2

Disagree 43.3 58.5

Strongly Disagree 4.4 2.5

Tab

le 4

.4

28


Tab

le 4

.5Scenario of an Unruly Suspect: “An officer has a handcuffed suspectat his desk while he fills out the necessary paperwork. With noprovocation from the officer, the suspect suddenly spits in the faceof the officer. The officer immediately pushes the suspect in the facecausing the suspect to fall from the chair onto the floor.”

How serious do you consider the officer’sbehavior to be?(N = 914)

Very Serious 135 (15.6%)

Quite Serious 188 (20.2%)

Moderately Serious 249 (27.3%)

Not Very Serious 201 (21.7%)

Not Serious at All 141 (15.3%)

Do you think you would report a fellow officerwho engaged in this behavior?(N = 914)

Definitely Yes 262 (28.9%)

Possibly Yes 207 (22.6%)

Probably Not 254 (27.7%)

Definitely Not 191 (20.8%)

Do you think most officers in your agencywould report a fellow officer who engagedin this behavior?(N = 908)

Definitely Yes 94 (10.8%)

Possibly Yes 270 (29.7%)

Probably Not 378 (41.3%)

Definitely Not 166 (18.3%)

29

Police Foundation

Social FactorsThe question of the role of extralegalfactors in law enforcement has longbeen a concern among criminologists.Although sociologists since the 1950s(Westley, 1953) have suggested that acitizen’s demeanor affects police be-havior, recently some authors havecalled into question the importance ofbeing “in contempt of cop” and haveargued for a more precise definition ofthe term “demeanor,” one that limitsits meaning to verbal behavior (Klinger,1994; Lundman, 1994). However, evenwith a more careful definition of terms,the consensus seems to have returnedto the view that a disrespectful or hos-tile demeanor displayed by a citizenwill affect the police-citizen encounter

and will increase the likelihood of anarrest (Klinger, 1996; Lundman, 1996;Worden and Shepard, 1996). Our sur-vey shows that police in the U.S. arealmost evenly divided in their opinionsof whether a police officer is more likelyto arrest a person who displays what heor she considers to be a bad attitude.Some 49 percent of the sample thoughtthat a bad attitude could affect the likeli-hood of arrest, while 51 percent dis-agreed (see Table 4.6).

Do other extralegal factors, such aswhether citizens are African Americanor white, or poor or middle class, makea difference in the treatment theyreceive from the police? The crimino-logical literature is split on the extent

Tab

le 4

.6

Perceptions of the Effects of Extra-Legal Factors on Police Behavior

Policeofficers are Police

A police more likely to officers areofficer is Police use physical more likely tomore likely officers force against use physicalto arrest a often treat African force againstperson who whites better Americans poor peopledisplays what than they and other than againsthe or she do African minorities middle-classconsiders Americans than against people into be a and other whites in sim- similarbad attitude. minorities. ilar situations. situations.(N=917) (N = 914) (N = 916) (N = 918)

Percent


Agree 46.7 15.8 9.4 12.2

Disagree 45.1 57.8 55.6 57.9


…[P]olice…are

almost evenly

divided in

their opinions

of whether a

police officer

is more likely

to arrest a

person who

displays…

a bad attitude.

30


to which race affects everyday polic-ing (Mastrofski, Parks, DeJong, andWorden, 1998), the likelihood of beingarrested (Tonry, 1995; Black and Reiss,1970; Lundman, Sykes, and Clark, 1978;Smith and Visher, 1981; Smith, Visher,and Davidson, 1984; Worden, 1996;Lundman, 1996), and the use of exces-sive force (Adams, 1996; Worden, 1996;Reiss, 1971; Walker, Spohn, andDeLone, 1996; Ogletree, Prosser, Smith,and Talley, 1995). According to oursample, almost 2 in 10 police officersin the U.S. believe that whites aretreated better than African Americansand other minorities (see Table 4.6).More than 1 in 10 said that there ismore police violence against AfricanAmericans than against whites.

14 More-

over, 14 percent of the sample believedthat police use physical force against poorpeople more often than against middle-class people in similar situations.

What were the police officers’ viewsof how the public perceives thepolice? More than 75 percent did notfeel that “most people do not respectthe police” (see Table 4.7). Put morepositively, more than 75 percent ofofficers felt that most people respect thepolice. Indeed, 88 percent of police inour sample described the relationshipbetween the police and the citizens intheir locality as very good. However,more than half of our sample thoughtthat the “public is too concerned withpolice brutality” (see Table 4.8), andmore than 80 percent of police officerstold us that the newspapers and TV inthis country are too concerned withpolice brutality (see Table 4.8). As oneofficer in the focus group of policesupervisors noted in regard to themedia, “They are absolutely ruthlesswhen it comes to police officers.”

Tab

le 4

.7Police Perceptions of the Public’s Attitude Toward the Police

The relationshipbetween the

Most people do police andnot respect the citizens in [city]police. is very good.(N = 924) (N = 923)

Percent


Agree 19.1 69.4

Disagree 65.2 9.9


…Eighty-eight

percent…

described the

relationship

between the

police and

the citizens

in their

locality as

very good.

31

Police Foundation

Supervisors and rank-and-file officersalike complained that they are judgedon the sensational misdeeds of offic-ers from cities far away from their own.As one said, “We’re judged on RodneyKing, Fuhrman.” Another officer put itthis way, “And as far as the Detroit deal,yeah, we caught heat behind that; L.A.,we caught heat behind that; and NewYork, yeah, we caught heat behindthat.” Still another presented the mi-nority view that the media do treat themfairly, “Our department has a great dealof credibility and respect from themedia.”

Departmental ResponseWe polled the officers for their viewsof how their departments handle casesof abuse of authority. Officers in thesample overwhelmingly (93 percent)reported that their departments take avery tough stance on improper behav-

ior by police (see Table 4.9). And theyoverwhelmingly (94 percent) disagreedwith the suggestion that investigationsof police misconduct are usually biasedin favor of the police.

When asked about the effectiveness ofdifferent institutional procedures foraddressing abuses of authority, mostpeople considered internal affairs unitseffective (79 percent), while a muchsmaller percentage (38 percent) con-sidered citizen review boards an effec-tive means for preventing police mis-conduct. This preference for internalreview was consistent with views ex-pressed during the focus groups. Onerank-and-file officer argued that law-yers and doctors police themselves sowhy shouldn’t police, “Who is on thebar association? Who is on doctors’ as-sociations? Doctors judging doctors;doctors policing doctors. We arespecial[ists]; we’ve got training; we deal

Tab

le 4

.8

Perceptions of Media and Citizens’ Concern Toward Police Abuse

The newspapersand TV in this

The public is too country are tooconcerned with concerned withpolice brutality. police brutality.(N = 918) (N = 920)

Percent


Agree 41.6 44.2

Disagree 42.5 19.0


Supervisors

and rank-

and file…

complained…

they are

judged on the

sensational

misdeeds of

officers from

cities far

away from

their own.

32


with other people just like them. Why

are we different?” One supervisor sug-gested, “Internal affairs works. Civilian

review authority—as soon as you men-

tion civilian review, the knee-jerk re-

action is no way; yadda yadda, they

go on and on. If they only knew, civil-

ian review authority is nothing morethan a toothless tiger. They’re easier on

cops than the departments are them-selves. Bottom line.” Another supervi-sor agreed, “I think internal affairs ismore threatening because we’re policeofficers. We’ve all been out there. Sowe know how to play the game.”

Controlling AbuseCan leadership make a difference inpreventing police officers’ abuse of

authority? American police overwhelm-ingly told us that leadership makes adifference. Eighty-five percent of theofficers said that a police chief’s tak-ing a strong position against abuses ofauthority can make a big difference inpreventing officers from abusing theirauthority (see Table 4.10). Policingscholars have long recognized theimportance of the chief’s role. Skolnickand Fyfe (1993, p. 136) for exampleargue, “ [T]he chief is the mainarchitect of police officers’ street be-havior. This is so because the strengthand direction of street-level police peerpressures ultimately are determined byadministrative definitions of good andbad policing and by the general tonethat comes down from the top.”

Tab

le 4

.9Departmental Responses to Abuse of Authority

Your police Investiga- Internal Citizendepartment tions of affairs units reviewtakes a police are not boards arevery tough misconduct effective effectivestance on are usually means for means forimproper biased preventing preventingbehavior in favor police policeby police. of police. misconduct. misconduct.(N = 921) (N = 914) (N = 910) (N = 872)

Percent


Agree 57.4 5.1 19.0 34.7

Disagree 6.6 72.4 66.2 48.4


Eighty-five

percent…said…

a police chief’s

…strong position

against abuses

…can make a

big difference

in preventing

officers from

abusing their

authority

33

Police Foundation

Elsewhere, Skolnick and Bayley (1986,p. 220) suggest that executive leader-ship might be even more important inpolice departments, with their “tradi-tional paramilitary character,” than inother organizations: “Police depart-ments are not democratically run orga-nizations. Everyone within them is ei-ther aware or attuned to the chief’spreferences, demands, and expecta-tions.” Skolnick and Bayley (1986,p. 6) argue, “[A]dministrative leadership,an animating philosophy of values, canindeed effect change.”

As important as the role of the chief maybe in preventing abuse, an even greatermajority—90 percent of police in thesample—told us that good first-line su-

pervisors can help prevent police offic-ers from abusing their authority (seeTable 4.10). As an officer who partici-pated in one of the focus groups ex-pressed it, “The supervisor, the first-linesupervisor, the sergeant, is so criticallyimportant in how he sets the tone, theexpectations. How he says things andsupports department programs or doesn’tsupport them. If not by what he says,then by body language and tone of voice.How he sells it or doesn’t sell it. Thatsort of thing, I think, is real.” It is thesupervisor as “role model” who surfacesas the critical aspect in good first-lineleadership. Following this, 55 percentof those surveyed thought that develop-ing more effective means of super-vision would prevent abuse of force.

Tab

le 4

.10

The Role of Supervision in Controlling Abuse

If a policechief takes astrong positionagainst abusesof authority,he or she can Most policemake a big Good first-line abuse of forcedifference in supervisors could be stoppedpreventing can help prevent by developingofficers from police officers more effectiveabusing their from abusing methods ofauthority. their authority. supervision.(N = 920) (N = 921) (N = 913)

Percent


Agree 60.3 66.9 48.0

Disagree 13.8 9.3 39.5


It is the

supervisor

as “role

model” who

surfaces as

the critical

aspect in

good first-line

leadership.

34


In the focus group of chiefs of policeand policing scholars, concern was ex-pressed over the changing role of thesupervisor in community policing.Chief Jerry Sanders of San Diego sug-gested that by creating “teams” andreducing “spans of control all of a sud-den we find the sergeants are closer tothe team members, the officers, thanthey are to the department. They areso close to the people on the team thatit creates problems.”

Commissioner Thomas Frazier of Bal-timore and Chief Jerry Sanders agreedthat the management dynamics of thedepartment had been changed, and alieutenant with 24-hour responsibilitymight not see his or her sergeants for aweek or two at a time. Professor CarlKlockars suggested that communitypolicing officers operate independently,almost without supervision, and Profes-sor Alfred Slocum suggested that the lack

of supervision was “conducive tocorruption.” The opinions expressed bythe officers in our survey—about the dif-ference that good supervisors can makein controlling abuse of authority—sug-gest that such concern by police execu-tives and academics is well placed. Theybelieved that good supervision matters.

Contrary to the traditional view thatmost important policing lessons areobtained through experience in thefield and not in the academy (Bayleyand Bittner, 1984), scholars and policeprofessionals have recently emphasizedthe importance of changing models ofpolice training. This has led to arenewal of commitment to training ef-forts and to exploring vastly differenttraining curricula (e.g., see Grant andGrant, 1996; Scrivner, 1994; Goldstein,1979; Trojanowicz and Bucqueroux,1994). The good news is that policeofficers who have received training inethics, in interpersonal skills, and in

Tab

le 4

.11

Officers’ Perceptions of the Effects of Training on Abuse of Authority

Do you thinkDo you think interpersonal Do you thinkethics in law skills or interper- human diversityenforcement sonal relations or cultural aware-training is training is ness trainingeffective in effective in is effective inpreventing abuse preventing abuse preventing abuseof authority? of authority? of authority?(N = 576) (N = 674) (N = 807)

Yes 472 (82.2%) 544 (80.3%) 603 (74.9%)

No 104 (17.8%) 130 (19.7%) 204 (25.1%)

…[O]fficers

who have

received

training in

ethics, in

interpersonal

skills, and in

cultural

sensitivity

report…such…

training can

play a role in

controlling

abuses….

35

Police Foundation

cultural sensitivity report that suchspecialized training can play a role incontrolling abuses of police authority.

A substantial majority (82 percent) ofthose officers in the sample who havereceived training in law enforcementethics either in the academy or sincebecoming a police officer told us thatsuch training prevents abuse of author-ity (see Table 4.11). A similar majority(80 percent) who have received policetraining in interpersonal skills orinterpersonal relations felt that thistraining prevents abuse of authority.And 75 percent of officers who reportedreceiving training in human diversity,cultural differences, cultural awareness,or ethnic sensitivity said that thistraining prevents abuse of authority.

Community-OrientedPolicingThe study provides strong evidence ofthe penetration of the community

policing idea into policing in the U.S.The survey shows that police todayoverwhelmingly support a philosophythat looks to the public for advice andcooperation. Several statements formeda group designed to measure officers’opinions of the police-communitypartnership that is generally considereda necessary component of community-oriented policing. Respondents over-whelmingly agreed that working withcitizens was an important and effec-tive means of solving neighborhoodproblems. For example, nearly allagreed that “[c]itizens can be a vitalsource of information about the prob-lems in their neighborhood,” that“[p]olice should work with citizens totry and solve problems on their beat,”and that “[p]olice should make frequentinformal contact with people on theirbeat” (see Table 4.12).

But what of the relationship betweencommunity policing and abuse of au-

Tab

le 4

.12

The Community-Police Partnership

Citizens can bea vital source of Police should work Police should makeinformation about with citizens to frequent informalthe problems try and solve contact within their problems on their people on theirneighborhood. beat. beat.(N = 924) (N = 924) (N = 921)

Percent


Agree 20.7 34.3 42.0

Disagree 0.1 0.4 1.2


…[P]olice

today over-

whelmingly

support a

philosophy

that looks

to the public

for advice and

cooperation.

36


thority? Police in our sample generallyindicated that a close relationship withthe community does not increase therisk of police corruption. We asked thisquestion in two ways. Without referringto community policing, we asked all of-ficers whether they agreed that “[f]requentfriendly contact with local residents andmerchants increases the likelihood thatpolice officers will accept free lunches,discounts, or gifts of appreciation for ef-fective service” (see Appendix A, a34).Although one in five officers agreed withthe statement, almost 80 percentdisagreed. Almost all the officers in thesurvey were familiar with the concept ofcommunity-oriented policing (98 per-cent). We asked those officers whetherthey thought that community policingincreases, decreases, or has no impacton the risk of corrupt behavior. Only

7 percent of the officers told us theythought community policing increasesthe risk of corruption. Over a thirdthought it decreases the risk of corrup-tion, and another 57 percent thought ithad no effect (see Table 4.13).

Some scholars have suggested that com-munity policing may decrease the likeli-hood of gross forms of corruption, suchas extortion, while increasing the temp-tations toward softer forms of corrup-tion, such as the free lunch, the “profes-sional” discount, or the gift of apprecia-tion for effective service (Weisburd,McElroy, and Hardyman, 1988). Otherssuggest that community policing has nodiscernible impact on corrupt behavior(McElroy, Cosgrove, and Sadd, 1990).

In the focus groups, there was consen-sus among the officers that community

Tab

le 4

.13

Perceptions of the Effects of Community Policing on Abuse of Authority

Do you think Do you think Do you thinkthat community that community that communitypolicing increases, policing increases, policing increases,decreases, or decreases, or decreases, orhas no impact has no impact has no impacton the risk on the number on the seriousnessof corrupt of excessive of excessivebehavior force incidents? force incidents?(N=883) (N = 885) (N = 884)

Increases 63 (7.1%) 17 (2.0%) 32 (3.4%)

Decreases 316 (35.8%) 450 (50.9%) 373 (42.2%)

Has no impact 504 (57.1%) 418 (47.1%) 479 (54.4%)

…[A] close

relationship

with the

community

does not

increase the

risk of police

corruption.

37

Police Foundation

policing does not lead to corruptbehavior, and there was concern amongofficers that chiefs are inappropriatelyconcerned about this possibility. Onesupervisor explained why communitypolicing is not a return to the day of thecorrupt beat officer:

But I think we’re in a different day

and age, and I’m not so sure we’re

going to get community-oriented

policing to lead us into the corruption

that we saw back then, and the rea-

son why I think [so] is we’ve had things

like Rodney King and what’s happened

in Chicago and what happened there

and what’s described as happening in

many cities. I think there is a different

emphasis on morality and ethics in law

enforcement than we saw back 40, 50

years ago. I don’t think even the pub-

lic has a tolerance for the corruption

that was a fact of daily life in New

York 50 years ago.

In the panel of police scholars andexecutives that we convened at thebeginning of the study, concern wasexpressed about the potential for cor-ruption under community policing. AsBaltimore’s Commissioner ThomasFrazier said, “One of the things thattroubles me about community polic-ing is you talk about establishing rela-tionships. The longer the relationshipexists, I think the more opportunity forcorruption.” Professor Klockars pointedout the irony of some situations, “So ifyou run a McDonald’s and you give acop a free meal, that’s corruption.But if you give a whole booth, that’s

community policing.”

Chief Jerry Sanders of San Diego said,

I think it’s just much more subtle now

than it was before. And it’s hard to

talk in those shades because the of-

ficers get invited to dinner at people’s

houses because they create friend-

ships. The friendships are created,

which is what we’re trying to do. And

when is it not? And when is it a gratu-

ity to go into a friend’s business and

get a cup of coffee and when is it not?

I mean, I just think these are

really difficult issues for not only the

police officers but for police manage-

ment. Where do we draw the line? Is

it, as O. W. Wilson said, “The first cup

of coffee you take for free is the start

of corruption,” or is it we need to be a

little bit more understanding about the

motives that we’re talking about?

While such concerns are expressed bypolice scholars and executives, they arenot seen as significant by the vastmajority of American police.

What do officers think is the relation-ship between community policing andexcessive force? Almost no one told usthat community policing would increasethe amount (2 percent) or seriousness(3 percent) of excessive force incidents(see Table 4.13). A majority saidthat community policing decreasesthe incidents of excessive force(51 percent), and 42 percent thought itwould decrease the seriousness of ex-cessive force incidents. Many thought ithad no impact on either the amount

…[C]ommunity

policing does

not lead

to corrupt

behavior, and…

chiefs are

inappropriately

concerned

about this

possibility.

38


of excessive force (47 percent) or theseriousness of excessive force incidents(54 percent).

The community policing partnershipcan be complicated. Almost all officers(97 percent) told us that “[p]olice offic-ers sometimes have to explain to indi-viduals and groups of citizens that thepolice are prohibited by law from us-ing some of the tactics that citizensencourage them to use” (see Appendix A,a32). But 21 percent felt that they coulduse more aggressive tactics than theyotherwise would if the community hadasked them to do so (see Appendix A,a33). Whether they might sometimescross the line to tactics prohibited bylaw remained unanswered.

We presented the officers with one oftwo versions of a scenario that ad-dressed, among other issues, whetherthey would feel justified in using moreaggressive tactics if asked by the com-munity (see p. 61). In one version, arandomly assigned half (438) of the of-ficers responded to a set of questionsbased on the following scenario:

While patrolling his beat, an officer

notices several youths standing on a

corner smoking cigarettes and talking

to one another. The officer tells the

youths to break it up and leave the

area. The youths say, “We’re not

doing anything. Why are you hassling

us?” The officer gets out of the car

and orders the youths to place their

hands up against the wall of a build-

ing. They refuse. The officer throws

them against the wall and searches

them. Finding nothing, the officer uses

demeaning language, then tells them

that this “will teach you to respect the

law” and “I’d better not see you here

again” and gets in his patrol car and

drives off.

In the other version (see p. 63), theother half (482) of the officersresponded to a set of questions basedon the following scenario:

In a community meeting, citizens told

police that they were very concerned

about groups of rowdy youths hang-

ing out on street corners. After the

meeting, an officer who participated

in the meeting notices several youths

standing on a corner smoking ciga-

rettes and talking to one another. The

officer tells the youths to break it up

and leave the area. The youths say,

“We’re not doing anything. Why are

you hassling us?” The officer gets out

of the car and orders the youths to

place their hands up against the wall

of a building. They refuse. The officer

throws them against the wall and

searches them. Finding nothing, the

officer uses demeaning language, tells

them that this “will teach you to re-

spect the law” and “I’d better not see

you here again,” and gets in his

patrol car and drives off.

With these scenarios, we could cap-ture whether officers felt justified intaking certain questionable actionswhen they had been asked by the com-munity to do so. Interestingly, the

“…[P]olice

officers

sometimes

have to explain

to individuals

and groups

of citizens that

the police are

prohibited

by law from

using some

of the tactics

that citizens

encourage

them to use.”

39

Police Foundation

answers of the two randomly assignedgroups of officers were virtually iden-tical to the series of questions that fol-lowed the scenarios. Most officers toldus that a verbal or written reprimandwould and should follow such an inci-dent. A substantial minority thoughtthe discipline would and should besuspension without pay. Slightly morethan one in three said they definitelywould report a fellow officer whoengaged in this behavior, whereas only1 in 10 believed that most officers intheir agency would report such an in-cident. These results suggest thatpolice officers do not feel justified inusing more aggressive tactics if askedby the community to do so.

Subgroup Analysis:Race, Rank, Region,Agency Size, GenderThus far, we have described what thesurvey suggests about the attitudes ofpolice generally toward abuse of au-thority. But the data can also revealsomething about how different sub-groups within American policing viewsuch issues. An analysis of subgroupdifferences is presented in cross-tabu-lations below. In reporting on differ-ences in responses among differentsubgroups of police officers, we noteagain that our statistics were adjustedaccording to the sampling procedureswe used.

RaceBy far the most striking differences wediscovered among subgroups in our

survey were among police officers ofdifferent racial groups. Although weoriginally grouped the officers in twocategories (white and non-white) so wecould have larger numbers in each cat-egory, when strong differences accord-ing to race emerged, we re-examinedthe data, peeling back the non-whitecategory into two subcategories: blacksor African Americans, and other minor-ity officers. In so doing, the significanceof the results increased, indicating thatAfrican-American officers hold the mostdistinctive positions on these issues.Without meaning to overstate thegeneralizability of our findings beyondAmerican policing, the survey tends tocorroborate the view that there is aracial divide between whites and Afri-can Americans in our society that is nottranscended even by a culture as ap-parently strong as the culture of polic-ing. Not that those differences emergedacross every item in our survey, butwhen they did occur, the relationshipswere strong, and the kinds of ques-tions in which they emerged groupedtogether in meaningful configurations.

Earlier we reported that almost 2 in 10officers in the weighted sample agreedthat police officers often treat whitesbetter than they do African Americansand other minorities. When we consid-ered this issue broken down by race,we found that more than half of the Af-rican-American officers felt this way (seeTable 4.14).

15 By comparison, fewer than

one in four among other minoritiesagreed with the statement, and fewer

…[T]here is a

racial divide

between

whites and

African

Americans in

our society

that is not

transcended

even by a

culture as…

strong as the

culture of

policing.

40


than one in eight white officers agreed.16

The divergence in views of AfricanAmericans and other officers continuesand grows when we examine whetherthey felt that police officers were morelikely to use physical force against Af-rican Americans and other minoritiesthan against whites in similar situations.While only 1 in 20 white officers inthe sample thought that African Ameri-cans and minorities received thisunfair treatment from police, well overhalf of the African-American officersthought unfair treatment was morelikely. Other minorities were more inagreement with the white officers (seeTable 4.15).

17

African-American officers did not seeunequal treatment by police as

determined only by race. While only2 percent of white officers in thesample thought that police officerswere more likely to use physicalforce against poor people thanagainst middle-class people in simi-lar situations, 54 percent of the Afri-can-American officers felt that way(see Table 4.16). Again, other minori-ties held a position between thewhite and African-American officers,but closer to the perspective of thewhite officers.

18

While the survey suggests that African-American officers may not trust theirfellow officers to treat minority and poorcitizens fairly, they did tend to respondmore positively to the role of commu-nity policing in reducing police abusesof authority. For example, we

Tab

le 4

.14

Police officers often treat whites better than they do African Americansand other minorities (by race). (N = 912)

Strongly StronglyAgree Agree Disagree Disagree

Percent

White Officers 0.7 11.2 60.5 27.7

African-American Officers 4.6 46.7 39.8 8.9

Other Minority Officers 2.4 21.0 53.8 22.9

x2 = 41.78 df = 6 p < .001

African-

American

officers

did not see

unequal

treatment

by police as

determined

only by race.

41

Police Foundation

Police officers are more likely to use physical force againstAfrican Americans and other minorities than against whites

in similar situations (by race). (N = 914)


Percent

White Officers 0.6 4.5 58.0 37.0



x2 = 86.80 df = 6 p < .001

Tab

le 4

.15

Tab

le 4

.16

Police officers are more likely to use physical force against poor peoplethan against middle-class people in similar situations (by race). (N = 916)


Percent

White Officers 0.8 8.0 60.1 31.1



x2 = 85.42 df = 6 p < .001

Tab

le 4

.17

Community-oriented policing increases, decreases, or has no impacton the number of incidents of excessive force (by race). (N = 883)

Has NoIncreases Decreases Impact

Percent

White Officers 1.2 49.2 49.6

African-American Officers 6.6 65.4 28.1

Other Minority Officers 3.9 50.1 46.0

x2 = 20.92 df = 4 p < .001

42


found a statistically significant relation-ship between race and support for theview that community-oriented policingdecreases the number of incidents ofexcessive force (see Table 4.17).

19

Although fewer than half of whiteofficers believed this to be the case,almost two-thirds of the African-Ameri-can police officers surveyed agreedwith this position. African-Americanpolice officers are also more likely tosay that community policing decreasedthe seriousness of incidents of exces-sive force (see Table 4.18). AmongAfrican-American police officers, 63percent expressed this view, as con-trasted with only 39 percent of whitepolice officers. Finally, African-Ameri-can officers also had more faith incitizen review boards as an effectivemeans for preventing police miscon-

duct. Almost 7 in 10 African-Americanofficers in the sample believed in theeffectiveness of citizen review,compared with one-third of white of-ficers (see Table 4.19). For such rela-tionships, other minority officers onceagain fell somewhere between African-American and white police officers.

As we continue to discuss relationshipsamong other subgroups in the weightedsample, it will become clear that—whileother interesting differences occur—no differences were as large as thosefound among these racial groups.

Rank: Supervisors andNonsupervisorsWhile most officers in the sample—those who were supervisors and thosewho were not—believed in the impor-

Tab

le 4

.18

Community-oriented policing increases, decreases, or has no impacton the seriousness of excessive force incidents (by race). (N = 882)

Has NoIncreases Decreases Impact

Percent

White Officers 3.2 39.0 57.9

African-American Officers 7.2 63.4 29.3

Other Minority Officers 1.0 46.8 52.3

x2 = 27.13 df = 4 p < .001

…[W]e

found a

…relationship

between race

and support

for the view

that

community-

oriented

policing

decreases

the number of

incidents of

excessive

force

43

Police Foundation

Citizen review boards are effective means for preventingpolice misconduct (by race). (N = 868)


Percent

White Officers 2.5 30.8 52.2 14.6



x2 = 32.04 df = 6 p < .001

Tab

le 4

.20

Good first-line supervisors can help prevent police officersfrom abusing their authority (by rank). (N = 921)


Percent

Nonsupervisors 16.5 70.2 12.4 0.9

Supervisors 38.5 58.8 1.9 0.8

x2 = 76.12 df = 3 p < .001

Tab

le 4

.19

Tab

le 4

.21

If a police chief takes a strong position against abuses of authority,he or she can make a big difference in preventing officers

from abusing their authority (by rank). (N = 920)


Percent


Supervisors 39.6 54.6 5.0 0.8

x2 = 71.15 df = 3 p < .001

44


tance of supervision to good policing,that belief was particularly strongamong the supervisors themselves.Thus, while more than 87 percent ofnonsupervisors in the survey (primarilypatrol officers) said that good first-linesupervisors could help prevent policeofficers from abusing their authority, 97percent of supervisors felt that way (seeTable 4.20).

20 Similar relationships are

found in other questions directly relatedto supervision. More than 80 percent ofnonsupervisors and almost 95 percentof supervisors believed that if a policechief took a strong position againstabuses of authority, he or she could makea big difference in preventing officersfrom abusing their authority (see Table4.21).

21 And 50 percent of nonsupervisors

and 68 percent of supervisors were likelyto believe that most police abuse of force

could be stopped by developing moreeffective methods of supervision (seeTable 4.22).

22

Still in keeping with their role as su-pervisors, but less predictable, was aseries of questions that suggested thatsupervisors were very serious in theirattitudes about reporting misbehaviorand that they held police officers to avery high standard. Well over 80 per-cent of supervisors believed in thevalue of blowing the whistle on mis-behavior by fellow officers, com-pared with just over 70 percent ofnonsupervisors (see Table 4.23).

23

Similarly, supervisors were much lesslikely to believe in the efficacy of thecode of silence (see Table 4.24),

24 and

supervisors disagreed to a muchgreater extent than non-super-visors that it is sometimes accept

Tab

le 4

.22

Most police abuse of force could be stopped by developingmore effective methods of supervision (by rank). (N = 913)


Percent


Supervisors 9.9 58.5 26.7 4.9

x2 = 33.01 df = 3 p <. 001

…[G]ood

first-line

supervisors

could help

prevent police

officers from

abusing their

authority.

45

Police Foundation

Tab

le 4

.23

Whistle blowing is not worth it (by rank). (N = 904)


Percent


Supervisors 1.1 15.6 68.4 15.0

x2 = 24.99 df = 3 p < .001

Tab

le 4

.24

The code of silence is an essential part of the mutual trustnecessary to good policing (by rank). (N = 905)


Percent


Supervisors 0.3 7.3 68.8 23.5

x2 = 28.46 df = 3 p < .001

Tab

le 4

.25

It is sometimes acceptable to use more force than is legally allowable tocontrol someone who physically assaults an officer (by rank). (N = 912)

Strongly Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Disagree

Percent


Supervisors 1.8 14.6 56.8 26.9

x2 = 21.09 df = 3 p < .001

46


able to use more force than is legallyallowable to control someone whophysically assaults an officer (see Table4.25).

25 They were more interested than

nonsupervisors in having departmen-tal rules about the use of force that arestricter than required by law (see Table4.26).

26 Supervisors in our sample were

also more likely to note that commu-nity-oriented policing could decreasethe number and the seriousness of ex-cessive force incidents (see Table 4.27

27

and Table 4.28).28

RegionAs Professor Carl Klockars stated dur-ing the focus group of police scholarsand executives at the outset of thisstudy, “There are right answers in dif-ferent places.” During an untranscribedbreak in our rank-and-file focus group,

one officer explained that in her partof the country, it would be consideredan affront if a community policingofficer refused to accept an offer of acup of coffee. Those regional culturaldifferences might explain why officersfrom the southern region of the coun-try were more likely to offer an opin-ion that frequent friendly contact withlocal residents and merchants increasedthe likelihood that police officers wouldaccept free lunches, discounts, or giftsof appreciation for effective service (seeTable 4.29).

29

While regional differences did not showup as clearly as one might have expectedfor many questions in the survey,we did find a consistent differencebetween the western region of the coun-try and others on some specificindicators. Police officers from the

Tab

le 4

.26

Police department rules about the use of force should not be anystricter than required by law (by rank). (N = 915)


Percent


Supervisors 4.9 49.6 41.4 4.1

x2 = 24.90 df = 3 p < .001

…[W]e did

find a

consistent

difference

between the

western

region of the

country and

others….

47

Police Foundation

Tab

le 4

.27

Community-oriented policing increases, decreases, or has no impacton the number of excessive force incidents (by rank). (N = 885)

Has NoIncreases Decreases Impact TOTAL

Nonsupervisors 14 (2.3%) 285 (45.7%) 323 (52.1%) 622

Supervisors 3 (1.4%) 165 (63.5%) 95 (35.1%) 263

x2 = 22.91 df = 2 p < .001

Tab

le 4

.28

Community-oriented policing increases, decreases, or has no impacton the seriousness of excessive force incidents (by rank). (N = 884)

Has NoIncreases Decreases Impact TOTAL

Nonsupervisors 22 (3.3%) 244 (38.6%) 358 (58.1%) 624

Supervisors 10 (3.7%) 129 (50.9%) 121 (45.4%) 260

x2 = 10.96 df = 2 p < .05

Tab

le 4

.29

Frequent friendly contact with local residents and merchants increasesthe likelihood that police officers will accept free lunches, discounts,

or gifts of appreciation for effective service (by region). (N = 916)


Percent

North Central 1.0 18.2 60.4 20.3

Northeast 0.4 14.1 67.8 17.8

South 2.8 25.2 55.4 16.7

West 0.2 15.6 58.1 25.5

x2 = 23.08 df = 9 p < .001

48


West tended to have a more profes-sional outlook about policing or tendedto view policing as constrained by thelaw. Officers in the West were less likelyto agree that it is sometimes accept-able to use more force than is legallyallowable to control someone whophysically assaults an officer (see Table4.30).

30 And they are more likely to state

that police officers always report seri-ous criminal violations involving abuseof authority by fellow officers (seeTable 4.31).

31

Agency SizeAgency size also appeared relevant topolice officers’ concerns about policeabuse of authority. Officers from smalldepartments believed more strongly inthe efficacy of good supervision andin the authority of the chief to influ-

ence behavior. Officers in the largestdepartments more frequently demon-strated what arguably was a morecynical or alienated attitude about lead-ership in policing, although even inthose departments it was distinctly aminority viewpoint. The relationshipsdescribed were quite strong.

While 94 percent of officers from smalldepartments believed that if a policechief took a strong position againstabuses of authority, he or she couldmake a big difference in preventingofficers from abusing their authority,only 68.2 percent of officers from thelargest departments agreed (see Table4.32).

32 Similarly, while 97 percent of

officers from small departments agreedthat good first-line supervisors couldhelp prevent officers from abusing theirauthority, only 80 percent of officers

Tab

le 4

.30

It is sometimes acceptable to use more force thanis legally allowable to control someone who physically assaultsan officer (by region). (N = 912)

Agree Disagree TOTAL

North Central 40 (20.4%) 149 (79.6%) 189

Northeast 67 (29.4%) 163 (70.7%) 230

South 82 (26.8%) 229 (73.2%) 311

West 32 (17.7%) 150 (82.3%) 182

x2 = 8.76 df = 3 p < .05

Officers

from small

departments

believed more

strongly in

the efficacy

of good

supervision

and in the

authority

of the chief

to influence

behavior.

49

Police Foundation

Tab

le 4

.31

Police officers always report serious criminal violations involving abuseof authority by fellow officers (by region). (N = 899)

Agree Disagree TOTAL

North Central 63 (33.5%) 124 (66.5%) 187

Northeast 79 (35.1%) 145 (64.9%) 224

South 121 (40.0%) 189 (60.1%) 310

West 83 (48.6%) 95 (51.4%) 178

x2 = 9.81 df = 3 p < .05

Tab

le 4

.32

If a police chief takes a strong position against abuses of authority,he or she can make a big difference in preventing officersfrom abusing their authority (by agency size). (N = 920)


Percent

Small Departments 37.6 56.2 6.2 0.0

Medium Departments 24.9 62.7 11.3 1.1

Large Departments 14.0 54.2 28.4 3.4

x2 = 54.37 df = 6 p < .001

Tab

le 4

.33

Good first-line supervisors can help prevent officers fromabusing their authority (by agency size). (N = 921)


Percent




x2 = 25.93 df = 6 p < .001

50


Tab

le 4

.34

Most police abuse of force could be stopped by developing moreeffective methods of supervision (by agency size). (N = 913)


Percent




x2 = 16.44 df = 6 p < .05

from the largest departments agreed(see Table 4.33).

33 Following this pat-

tern, 71 percent of officers from smalldepartments agreed that most policeabuse of force could be stopped bydeveloping more effective methods ofsupervision, compared with 45 percentof officers from the largest departments(see Table 4.34).

34 Almost 8 in 10

officers from the largest departmentsbelieved that police administrators con-centrate on what police officers dowrong rather than what they do right,while just over half of the officers fromthe small departments agreed (seeTable 4.35).

35

GenderThe survey did not reveal meaningfuldifferences in the responses of officersaccording to gender. While several sta-

tistically significant results were found,the sizes of the differences were small,and no consistent theory or idea linked

them or suggested that they were

meaningful. We could argue that this

finding suggested that women adapt

to the dominant culture of policing or

that women who self-select to enter

policing are more like men in polic-

ing. However, this conclusion may be

premature. As the National Center for

Women and Policing (1998) reports,

“Women police perform better than

their male counterparts at defusing

potentially violent situations and

become involved in excessive use of

force incidents less often.” We think it

is possible that we did not ask ques-

tions in our survey that would reveal

specific differences between male and

female police officers in regard to the

problem of police abuse of authority.

…[O]fficers

from the largest

departments

believed…

police

administrators

concentrate on

what police

officers do

wrong rather

than what they

do right.

51

Police Foundation

Tab

le 4

.35

Police administrators concentrate on what police officers do wrongrather than what police officers do right (by agency size). (N = 920)


Percent




x2 = 32.92 df = 6 p < .001

52


V

CONCLUSION

Over the past three decades, Americanpolicing has gone through vast changesin its organization, tactics, and philoso-phy. At the forefront of such changeshas been the transition from traditionalmilitary and professional models ofpolicing, to innovative models ofcommunity policing. Our surveyfocused on the attitudes of Americanpolice toward abuse of authority in thisage of community policing. It isthe first truly representative study ofpolice attitudes in many years, and thusit provides an important set of findingsfor understanding American police andfor developing public policy.

It is clear from the survey that centralcomponents of the community po-

licing idea have filtered down to rank-and-file police officers. Police today over-whelmingly support a philosophy thatlooks to the public for advice and coop-eration in confronting problems of crimeand disorder. The survey was unambigu-ous in this regard. Nearly all who weresurveyed believed that citizens are vitalto good policing and that police mustwork with citizens in solving crime prob-lems. In turn, contrary to what some havefeared about community policing, offic-ers were more likely to state that com-munity policing reduces the potential forpolice abuse than increases that poten-tial. This finding, of course, does notmean that community policing has actu-ally reduced the level of abuse in

Police…support

a philosophy

that looks to

the public for

advice and

cooperation

in confronting

problems of

crime and

disorder.

53

Police Foundation

American policing, but rather thatpolice officers believe this to be the case.

Our portrait of attitudes toward policeabuse is much more ambiguous. Onthe one hand, we have much positiveevidence regarding the attitudes ofAmerican police officers and their viewsabout their colleagues. Most police wesurveyed do not agree that it is accept-able to use more force than is legallynecessary, even to control someonewho physically assaults an officer. Thevast majority identified extreme brandsof police abuse such as that reportedin the Rodney King and Abner Louimacases as being isolated and very rareoccurrences. Most police surveyed toldus that their police departments alwaystook a tough stand on the issue ofpolice abuse of citizens.

On the other hand, the survey suggeststhat police abuse remains a problemthat must be addressed by policy mak-ers and police professionals. Whilethe survey suggests that most policeofficers in the United States disapproveof the use of excessive force, a sub-stantial minority consider it acceptableto sometimes use more force than per-mitted by the laws that govern them.They also believe that they should bepermitted to use more force than thelaw currently permits. The code ofsilence also remains a troubling issuefor American police. It is still the casethat about a quarter of the police wesurveyed told us that whistle blowingis not worth it, and two-thirds reportedthat police officers were likely to be

given a “cold shoulder” by fellowofficers if they reported incidents ofmisconduct. Most police officers in thestudy reported that it is not unusualfor police officers to turn a “blind eye”to improper conduct by other officers.

These findings suggest that the cultureof silence, which has continuallyplagued reform in American policing,continues. But it must be recognizedthat from the perspective of police, theconcern of the public with problemsof police abuse is not proportional toits incidence. The survey shows thatmost American police believe that thepublic is too concerned with policeabuse. An even larger number believethat the media have paid too muchattention to this question. From theperspective of police, the public andthe press have placed too much of theirconcern on police abuse. At the sametime, the police we studied believedthat the relationship between policeand community is a good one, and isone in which the community overallhas respect for the police.

The survey suggests that race continuesto be an issue for American police. Onein five of those surveyed told us thatwhites are treated better by police thanAfrican Americans and other minorities.We cannot say whether this result rep-resents a change in attitudes either in amore positive or negative direction.However, we can conclude that a sub-stantial number of police in the U.S. seerace as an important factor in understand-ing abuses of police authority.

…[P]olice

officers

were likely

to be given a

“cold shoulder”

by fellow

officers if

they reported

incidents of

misconduct.…

[and] it is not

unusual for

police officers

to turn a

“blind eye”

to improper

conduct by

other officers.

54


It is particularly troubling that this per-ception was far more prevalent amongAfrican-American police officers thanamong others. Comparing African-American officers’ views about policeabuse with those of white and otherminority officers, we found significantand substantial differences. While asmall minority of white officers in thesample believed that police treat whitecitizens better than African-Americanor other minority citizens in similar situ-ations, a majority of African-Americanpolice officers held this view. Similardifferences were found between Afri-can-American and other policeofficers in their views on the likelihoodof using physical force against minori-ties and the poor. The magnitude ofsuch race-based differences suggests alarge gap between African-Americanpolice officers and other officers. Sucha deep divide was not predicted at theoutset of the study.

The survey also provides some surpris-ing and important lessons regardinghow police think abuses of policeauthority can be controlled. Consistentwith the suggestions of certain schol-ars and police professionals (Grant andGrant, 1996; Scrivner, 1994), mostofficers believed that training andeducation are effective methods forreducing police abuse. A substantialmajority of those who have experi-enced training in interpersonal skills,or have taken courses in ethics ordiversity, said that such education andtraining is effective in preventing

misbehavior. While those responses didnot tell us whether indeed such pro-grams are effective, they did tell us thatAmerican police themselves view theprograms as important and useful.

Police we surveyed also emphasizedthe importance of police managementin preventing police violence and otherforms of abuse. A large majority ofpolice believe that when the chief ofpolice takes a strong stand againstpolice violence, other police officerswill follow his or her lead. Similarly,police officers told us that good first-line supervision is an effective methodfor preventing police abuse. These find-ings reinforce the long-held view ofscholars and police professionals that de-veloping effective methods of supervi-sion and effective supervisors should bea first priority in efforts to control andprevent abuses of police authority.

While American police recognized theimportance of supervision in prevent-ing abuses, they continued to see atension between getting the police jobdone and controlling misbehavior.Almost half of the police surveyed toldus that “always following the rules” isnot compatible with “getting the jobdone.” More than half believed that su-pervisors focus too much on what theyare doing wrong and not enough onwhat they are doing right.

Abuse of police authority continues tobe a major public policy concern. Thissurvey adds the voices of rank-and-filepolice and supervisors to the debate

Comparing

African-

American

officers’ views

about police

abuse with

those of white

and other

minority

officers,

we found

significant

and

substantial

differences.

55

Police Foundation

over the nature of the problems that

American police face and the potential

solutions that can be brought. Our

study suggests that most police in the

United States understand the impor-

tance of limits to police authority, and

are sensitive to the dangers of corrup-

tion and abuse of force. Nonetheless,

police abuses of authority are a

continuing reality in American polic-

ing, as is the “code of silence” that

shields those who do abuse their

authority. What can be done to

prevent such abuses? According to

America’s police, education and train-

ing are effective means of preventing

police abuse. They also recognize the

continuing importance of effective

supervision, and the central role that

police executives play in sending

the message that police abuses of

authority cannot be tolerated.

…[P]olice

abuses…are a

continuing

reality…as is

the “code of

silence” that

shields those

who do

abuse their

authority.

56


ENDNOTES

1. Details regarding the sample areprovided in Chapter II of this report. Thesampling frame of the survey as estimatedby Maguire (1997) is 351,480 officers.

2. A number of questions wereadapted from two previous Police Foun-dation surveys (Pate and Hamilton, 1992;Wycoff and Oettmeier, 1993). We used sev-eral questions from a survey on ethicalconduct and discipline from Queensland,Australia (Criminal Justice Commission,1995). We adopted the question structure(although not the content) for presentinghypothetical scenarios from the survey in-strument on police integrity by Carl B.Klockars, Sanja Kutnjak-Ivkovic, and Will-iam E. Harver (no date). Scenarios wereprovided by Chief Jerry Oliver during theexpert focus group (see Appendix B) andby Earl Hamilton of the Police Foundationstaff. Some of the demographic questionswere developed with assistance from mem-bers of Mathematica Policy Research Inc.,who also assisted with editing the surveyquestions.

We also consulted a number of survey in-struments that addressed police ethics.They did not provide specific questionsbut assisted us in our thinking. The instru-ments included the Royal Barbados PoliceForce survey by Richard R. Bennett (1994),the Illinois Police Behavior Survey (Martinand Bensinger, 1994), an Australian sur-vey on police ethics (McConkey, Huon,and Frank, 1996), and a Police Founda-tion survey of Oregon State Police officers(Amendola, Hockman, and Scharf, 1996).

We conducted three focus groups, whichprovided a range of viewpoints from rank-and-file officers to chiefs and academics:The first group combined the knowledgeand experience of academic experts andpolice chiefs (for a full report, see Appen-dix B). The second group was composedof rank-and-file police officers from depart-ments across the country (see Appendix Cfor a full report, including selection crite-ria). The third group consisted of sergeantsand lieutenants from departments nation-wide (see Appendix D for a full report,

57

Police Foundation

including selection criteria). In addition tothe important contributions of the policescholars, chiefs, and officers who partici-pated in our focus groups, as well as theofficers who participated in the pretest, weconsulted with a number of police research-ers as we developed the survey instrument.Professors Carl Klockars, Peter Manning,Stephen Mastrofski, Albert Reiss, JeromeSkolnick, and Robert Worden providedvaluable criticism that impelled us to keepa sharp focus.

3. Care was taken to protect the con-fidentiality and anonymity of all officersparticipating in the survey, from the de-sign of the selection process through datacollection and analysis. Selected depart-ments were requested to provide to thePolice Foundation a list of the names of alltheir full-time, sworn personnel. From thisroster, officers were randomly selected forparticipation. This methodology enabled usto keep the names of the selected officersconfidential from their chief and other de-partmental personnel. (There was somevariation in this procedure. In two cases,the department generated the randomsample in their own computers in the pres-ence of Police Foundation researchers. Intwo others, departments provided serialnumbers from which we generated the ran-dom samples, and only then were we pro-vided names and contact information. Still,every effort was made to protect the pri-vacy of the officers in each situation.)

All information received by the Police Foun-dation from the departments, as well as in-terview and survey data, was kept in lockedfile cabinets. Access to such information waslimited to key project personnel.

Under the terms of a subcontract, all infor-mation furnished by the departments wasmade available to Mathematica Policy Re-search Inc. for the selection of officers andfor subsequent interviews. MathematicaPolicy Research Inc., in compliance withPolice Foundation policy, agreed to main-tain strict procedures designed to protect

the confidentiality of selected officers. Inaddition to restricting access to this infor-mation to key personnel at Mathematica,the Police Foundation withheld theidentity of selected officers from projectpersonnel.

Interviewing staff members at Mathematicasigned a confidentiality pledge prior to thesurveying period. In signing this pledge,interviewers agreed not to divulge any pri-vate, project-related information to any per-son not authorized to have access to suchinformation.

Serial numbers were assigned to selectedofficers before creating a machine-process-ing record and identifiers (i.e., name, ad-dress, telephone number, etc.). Those num-bers were not included in the machinerecord nor in the resulting database. Sur-vey data containing identifiers or potentialidentifiers were kept secured and were de-stroyed by Mathematica Policy ResearchInc. within 10 days of sending the data setto the Police Foundation.

4. We sought at the outset to gain anaccurate list of all U.S. police officers. How-ever, attempts to acquire names of currentpolice officers on a state-by-state basis fromstate licensing boards, although promisingat first, were ultimately frustrated and un-successful. As a result, we turned to thetwo-step process defined here.

5. The Northeastern region includesthe states of Connecticut, Maine, Massa-chusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, NewYork, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, andVermont. The South includes Alabama,Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia,Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Okla-homa, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas,Virginia, and West Virginia. The North Cen-tral region includes the states of Illinois,Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minne-sota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota,Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. Andthe Western region includes Alaska, Ari-

58


zona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho,Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon,Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

6. This method was developed in con-sultation with and conducted by John Hall,senior sampling statistician withMathematica Policy Research Inc.

The sample was selected using a stratifiedmultistage design. The sample initially in-cluded 121 police departments that wereselected by using probability proportionalto size (PPS) methods. To use PPS selec-tion, each department was assigned a mea-sure of size based on an estimate of itsnumber of full-time sworn officers.

Departments that were so large that theywere certain to be sampled using PPS meth-ods were selected with probability 1.0 andare called “certainty selections.”

Selection was made from a machine-read-able file (the sampling frame) that includedone record for each of the 5,014 eligiblepolice departments in the study. Eachrecord contained department identification,department type, region, and the estimatednumber of officers who were employedby the department and were eligible forthe survey. The estimated number of offic-ers was used as a measure of size in se-lecting the sample.

Before selection, the sample frame wasstratified by size and region. The size cat-egories were (a) certainty selections, (b)other departments with 25 or more full-time sworn officers, and (c) other depart-ments with 10–24 full-time sworn officers.The sample included nine certainty selec-tions: 84 from the middle-size group and28 from the smallest group.

The Police Foundation contacted sampleddepartments and, from each cooperatingdepartment, obtained a list of all officerseligible for the survey. Those lists containedidentifying information that enabled inter-viewers to contact sampled officers.

The sample selected from those lists wasof adequate size to allow completion of925 to 950 interviews. In certainty depart-ments, the number of officers selected wasbased on the proportion of the total popu-lation of officers represented by the de-partment. For noncertainty departmentswith 25 or more officers, we sampled 10per department. For the departments with10 to 24 officers, we sampled an average of4.5 (a random half of the sample was allo-cated 5 selections, and the other half, 4).

7. As noted in endnote 3, there wassome variation in this procedure. In twocases, the departments generated the ran-dom sample from their own computers inthe presence of Police Foundation re-searchers. In two others, departments pro-vided serial numbers from which we gen-erated the random samples; only then werewe provided names and contact informa-tion.

8. When the confidence interval ex-ceeds plus or minus 4 percent, we pro-vide the exact interval in the endnotes.

9. Because of the multistage samplingprocedure used in our study, we could notrely on standard estimates of standard er-rors or statistical significance. Adjusted stan-dard errors and observed significance lev-els were estimated using the statisticalanalysis program Sudaan (see Babubhai,Barnwell, and Bieler, 1997), after specify-ing the specific sampling model used inour study.

10. The weighting procedure was de-veloped by John Hall of Mathematica PolicyResearch Inc. The weights for the PoliceFoundation Survey account for differencesin (a) probabilities of selection among of-ficers responding to the survey, (b)nonresponse at the department level, and(c) response rates among groups ofofficers. Without the weighting adjust-ments, some groups of officers would beoverrepresented (and others under-represented), leading to potentially biasedsurvey estimates.

59

Police Foundation

Weighting took place in seven steps: (a)each sampled department was assigned aninitial weight equal to the inverse of itsprobability of selection; (b) cells wereformed for department-level nonresponseadjustment; (c) department-level non-response weights were computed; (d) eachsampled officer was assigned an initialweight, which was the product of theofficer’s department’s weight and the in-verse of the officer’s probability of selec-tion within the department; (e) new cellswere formed for officer-level nonresponseadjustments; (f) officer-level nonresponseweights were computed; and (g) eachofficer’s final weight was the product ofthe initial officer weight and the officer-level nonresponse weight.

Initial Department Weights: Initially weight-ing departments by the inverse of the prob-ability of selection was required becausedepartments were sampled with probabil-ity proportional to size. Thus the initialdepartment weight (IDW) is

IDW(dept) = 1/P(dept)

where P (dept) is the department’s prob-ability of selection.

When department-level nonresponseadjustments were made, the initial depart-ment weight allowed each department torepresent its appropriate share of thepopulation.

Department Nonresponse Adjustment: Onelarge department (selected with certaintyfor the sample survey) chose not to re-spond. Because of this, we defined onecell for department-level nonresponse toinclude all sampled departments withinthose departments having at least 400 full-time sworn officers (FTSW). Other cellswere defined by the intersection of regionand major stratum (selected with certainty,noncertainty with more than 24 FTSW and10–24 FTSW). Departments assigned to thefirst cell described above were not also as-signed to other cells. The departmentalnonresponse adjustment, DNRA (dcell), for

a cell is the ratio of the sum of IDW for alldepartments in the cell to the sum of IDWfor responding departments in the cell, andthe final department weight is

FDW(dept) = IDW(dept) x DNRA(dcell)

Each officer was then assigned an initialweight (IWO), where

IWO(officer) = FDW(dept) x 1/P(officer|dept)

where P (officer dept) is the probability ofan officer being selected for the samplewithin the department.

Officer Nonresponse Adjustment: Compu-tation of the officer nonresponse adjust-ment (DNRAO) was similar to that for de-partments, except the cells were defineddifferently. For adjustments at the individuallevel, one cell comprised four departmentsselected with certainty within a region. Onecell included three certainty departmentsin two neighboring regions. One cell com-prised a certainty selection and two otherlarge departments within a region. Eightother cells were defined by the intersec-tion of region and the two majornoncertainty strata.

ONRA (ocell) for a cell is the ratio of thesum of IWO (officer) for all sampled offic-ers in the cell to the sum of IWO (officer)for responding officers in the cell, and thefinal weight is

Finalwt(officer) = IWO(officer) x ONRA(ocell).

11. The survey instrument and re-sponses, including raw frequencies andweighted percentages, are provided inAppendix A. Throughout this report, un-less otherwise indicated, percentages pre-sented in the text are weighted percent-ages.

12. Officers could identify themselvesas belonging to more than one racial cat-egory.

13. For example, in their re-examina-tion of 5,688 cases in the 1977 Police Ser-vices Study data, Worden and Shepard

60


(1996) found that reasonable force wasused in 37 cases, and improper force wasused in 23 cases. We note that improperforce was thus used in 38 percent of en-counters that involved force. Similarly, inhis re-analysis of 1,565 cases in AlbertReiss’s 1967 data, Friedrich (1980) foundthat reasonable force was used in 52 cases,and excessive force was used in 28 cases.Excessive force was thus used in 35 per-cent of encounters that involved force.

14. These issues are revisited later,when we take up questions of differencesamong subgroups of officers and considerwhether police officers of different raceshave differing views of racial bias by po-lice officers.

15. We are beginning to examinewhether the influence of race might beexplained by other factors, such as theconcentration of minority police officers inspecific parts of the country. Our findingssuggest that the importance of race is main-tained even when controlling for other rel-evant demographic characteristics.

16. In Table 4.14, confidence intervalsranged from ±4.61 percent to ±13.43 per-cent for African Americans, and from ±5.86percent to ±13.74 percent for other minori-ties. We remind the reader that we reportconfidence intervals only if they are greaterthan ±4 percent.

17. Confidence intervals ranged from±5.86 percent to ±10.76 percent for Afri-can Americans and from ±9.8 percent to±11.19 percent for other minorities.

18. Confidence intervals ranged from±6.02 percent to ±10.94 percent for Afri-can Americans and from ±10.49 percent to±12.23 percent for other minorities.

19. For the number of incidents of ex-cessive force (Table 4.17), confidence in-tervals for white officers were ±4.12 per-cent for “decrease” and ±4.19 percent for“no impact.” For African-American officers,

confidence intervals were ±5.21 percent for“increases,” ±9.88 percent for “decreases,”and ±8.31 percent for “no impact.” Forother minority officers, confidence inter-vals were ±4.29 percent for “increases,”±11.37 percent for “decreases,” and ±11.76percent for “no impact.”

20. For Table 4.20, confidence intervalsrange from ±5.53 percent to ±5.84 percentfor supervisors.

21. For Table 4.21, confidence intervalsrange from ±5.88 percent to ±6.03 percentfor supervisors.

22. For Table 4.22, confidence intervalsrange from ±5.25 percent to ±6.50 percentfor supervisors

23. For Table 4.23, confidence intervalsfor supervisors ranged from ±4.98 percentto ±5.57 percent.



26. For Table 4.26, confidence intervalsfor supervisors were ±5.55 percent.

27. For Table 4.27, confidence intervalsfor supervisors were ±6.08 percent for “de-creases” and ±6.35 percent for “no impact.”For nonsupervisors, confidence intervalswere ±4.27 percent for “decreases” and±4.31 percent for “no impact.”

28. For Table 4.28, confidence intervalsfor supervisors were ±6.25 percent for “de-creases” and ±6.35 percent for “no impact.”For nonsupervisors, confidence intervalswere ±4.29 percent for “no impact.”

29. For Table 4.29, confidence intervalsfor the North Central region ranged from±4.50 percent to ±6.30 percent. For the

61

Police Foundation

Northeast they ranged from ±4.50 percentto ±5.70 percent. For the South they rangedfrom ±4.30 percent to ±5.70 percent, andfor the West they ranged from ±7.90 per-cent to ±8.00 percent.

30. For Table 4.30, confidence intervalsfor the North Central region were ±5.70percent. For the Northeast they were ±6.02percent. For the South they were ±6.31percent, and for the West they were ±6.31percent.

31. For Table 4.31, confidence intervalsfor the North Central region were ±8.57percent. For the Northeast they were ±5.88percent. For the South they were ±5.57percent, and for the West they were ±7.02percent.

32. In Table 4.32, confidence intervalsranged from ±5.00 percent to ±8.00 per-

cent for the largest departments and from±6.00 percent to ±8.00 percent for the smalldepartments.

33. In Table 4.33, confidence intervalsranged from ±5.50 percent to ±7.50 per-cent for the largest departments.

35. In Table 4.34, confidence intervalsranged from ±4.82 percent to ±7.93 per-cent for the largest departments and from±5.02 percent to ±11.56 percent for thesmall departments.

35. In Table 4.35, confidence intervalsranged from ±7.29 percent to ±8.02 per-cent for the largest departments, ±3.39 per-cent to ±4.25 percent for the mediumdepartments, and ±7.56 percent to ±7.80percent for the small departments.

62


REFERENCES

Adams, Kenneth. 1996. “Measuring thePrevalence of Police Abuse ofForce,” in Police Violence: Under-standing and Controlling PoliceAbuse of Force, ed. William A.Geller and Hans Toch. NewHaven, CT: Yale University Press.

Amendola, Karen, Cielle Hockman, andPeter Scharf. 1996. Assessing LawEnforcement Ethics: TechnicalReport on the Study Conductedwith the Oregon Department ofState Police. Washington, DC:Police Foundation.

Babbie, Earl. 1992. The Practice of SocialResearch, 6th ed. Belmont, CA:Wadsworth.

———. 1990. Survey Research Methods,2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Babubhai, Shai V., Beth G. Barnwell, andGayle S. Bieler. 1997. Sudaan Re-lease 7.5: User’s Manual. ResearchTriangle Park, NC: Research

Triangle Institute.

Bayley, David H., and Egon Bittner. 1984.“Learning the Skills of Policing.”Law and Society Review 30(3):585–606.

Bennett, Richard R. 1994. Royal BarbadosPolice Force Survey. (Not pub-lished.)

Black, Donald, and Albert J. Reiss, Jr. 1970.“Police Control of Juveniles.”American Sociological Review 35:63–77.

Bureau of the Census. 1991. Census ofPopulation and Housing, 1990:Summary Tape File 3. Washington,DC: Bureau of the Census.

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). 1995. LawEnforcement Management andAdministrative Statistics, 1993.Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Justice, Bureau of JusticeStatistics.

63

Police Foundation

Carter, David L., and Allen D. Sapp. 1990.“The Evolution of Higher Educa-tion in Law Enforcement: Prelimi-nary Findings From A NationalStudy.” Journal of Criminal JusticeEducation 1(1): 59–85.

Criminal Justice Commission. 1995. Ethi-cal Conduct and Discipline in theQueensland Police Service: TheViews of Recruits, First YearConstables, and ExperiencedOfficers. Brisbane, Australia:Criminal Justice Commission.

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). 1994.Crime in the United States:Uniform Crime Reports, 1993.Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office.

Friedrich, Robert J. 1980. “Police Use ofForce: Individuals, Situations, andOrganizations.” The Annals of theAmerican Academy of Political andSocial Science 452 (November):82–97.

Grant, J. Douglas, and Joan Grant. 1996.“Officer Selection and the Preven-tion of Abuse of Force,” in PoliceViolence: Understanding andControlling Police Abuse of Force,ed. William A. Geller andHans Toch. New Haven, CT: YaleUniversity Press.

Goldstein, Herman. 1979. “ImprovingPolicing: A Problem-Oriented Ap-proach.” Crime and Delinquency25(2): 236–58.

Klinger, David A. 1996. “More on Demeanorand Arrest in Dade County.”Criminology 34(1): 61–82.

———. 1994. “Demeanor or Crime? Why‘Hostile’ Citizens Are More Likelyto Be Arrested.” Criminology 32(3):475–93.

Klockars, Carl B., Sanja Kutnjak-Ivkovic andWilliam E. Harver. (no date).Police Integrity Survey.

LeDoux, John C., and Robert R. Hazelwood.1985. “Police Attitudes and BeliefsToward Rape.” Journal of PoliceScience and Administration 13(3):211–21.

Lundman, Richard J. 1996. “Demeanor andArrest: Additional Evidence fromPreviously Unpublished Data.”Journal of Research in Crime andDelinquency 33(3): 306–53.

———. 1994. “Demeanor or Crime? TheMid-West City Police-CitizenEncounters Study.” Criminology32(4): 631–56.

Lundman, Richard, Richard E. Sykes, andJohn P. Clark. 1978. “Police Con-trol of Juveniles: A Replication.”Journal of Research in Crime andDelinquency 33: 306–353.

Maguire, Edward R. 1997. “The PoliceFoundation Use of Force Study:Sampling Frame Design Issues.”Memorandum prepared for thePolice Foundation, 20 October1997.

Maguire, Edward R., Jeffrey B. Snipes,Craig D. Uchida, and MargaretTownsend. 1998. “Counting Cops:Estimating the Number of PoliceDepts and Police Officers in theUSA” Policing: An InternationalJournal of Police Strategies andManagement. 21(1): 97–120.

Martin, Christine, and Peter B. Bensinger.1994. Illinois Municipal Officers’Perceptions of Police Ethics. Chi-cago: Illinois Criminal Justice In-formation Authority.

Mastrofski, Stephen D., Roger B. Parks,Christina DeJong, and Robert E.Worden. “Race and Every-Day Po-licing: A Research Perspective,”paper delivered at the Twelfth In-ternational Congress on Criminol-ogy, Seoul, Korea, August 24–28,1998: 14.

64


Maxfield, Michael G., and Earl Babbie.1995. Research Methods for Crimi-nal Justice and Criminology.Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

McConkey, Kevin M., Gail F. Huon, andMark G. Frank. 1996. Practical Eth-ics in the Police Service: Ethics andPolicing—Study 3. Payneham,South Australia: National PoliceResearch Unit.

McElroy, Jerome, Colleen A. Cosgrove, andSusan Sadd. 1990. CPOP: The Re-search, An Evaluative Study of theNew York City Community PatrolOfficer Program. New York: TheVera Institute of Justice.

National Advisory Commission on Crimi-nal Justice Standards and Goals.1973. The Police. Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office.

National Center for Women and Policing.[electronic bulletin board]; [cited13 April 1998]; available from(www. femin i s t .o rg/po l i ce/ncwpAbout.html); INTERNET.

Ogletree, Charles J. Jr., Mary Prosser, AbbeSmith, and William Talley Jr. 1995.Beyond the Rodney King Story: AnInvestigation of Police Misconductin Minority Communities. Boston:Northeastern University Press.

Pate, Antony M., and Edwin E. Hamilton.1992. The New York City Police Ca-det Corps Technical Report. Wash-ington, DC: Police Foundation.

Pate, Antony M., and Lorie A. Fridell. 1993.Police Use of Force: Official Re-ports, Citizen Complaints, and Le-gal Consequences. Washington,DC: Police Foundation.

Reiss, Albert J. Jr. 1971. The Police andthe Public. New Haven: YaleUniversity Press.

Scrivner, Ellen M. 1994. The Role of PolicePsychology in Controlling Exces-sive Force. Washington, DC: USDepartment of Justice, Office ofJustice Programs, National Instituteof Justice.

Skolnick, Jerome H., and David H. Bayley.1986. The New Blue Line: PoliceInnovation in Six American Cit-ies. New York: The Free Press.

Skolnick, Jerome H. 1999. On DemocraticPolicing. Ideas in American Polic-ing series. Washington, DC: PoliceFoundation.

Skolnick, Jerome H., and James J. Fyfe.1993. Above the Law: Police andthe Excessive Use of Force. NewYork: The Free Press.

Smith, Douglas A., and Christy A. Visher.1981. “Street-Level Justice:Situational Determinants of PoliceArrest Decisions.” Social Problems29(2): 167–77.

Smith, Douglas A., Christy A. Visher, and LauraA. Davidson. 1984. “Equity and Dis-cretionary Justice: The Influence ofRace on Police Arrest Decisions.” Jour-nal of Criminal Law and Criminol-ogy 75(1): 234–49.

Travis, Jeremy. 1995. “Education in LawEnforcement: Beyond the CollegeDegree.” Criminal Justice of theAmericas 8: 1–6.

Trojanowicz, Robert, and BonnieBucqueroux. 1994. CommunityPolicing: How to Get Started. Cin-cinnati: Anderson Publishing.

Tonry, Michael. 1995. Malign Neglect—Race, Crime, and Punishment inAmerica. New York: OxfordUniversity Press. p. 71.

Walker, Samuel, Cassia Spohn, and MiriamDeLone. 1996. The Color of Justice:Race, Ethnicity, and Crime inAmerica. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

65

Police Foundation

Weisburd, David. 1998. Statistics in Crimi-nal Justice. New York: Wadsworth.

Weisburd, David, Jerome McElroy,and Patricia Hardyman. 1988.“Challenges to Supervision inCommunity Policing: Observationson a Pilot Project.” AmericanJournal of Police, 7(2): 29–50.

Westley, William A. 1953. “Violence andthe Police.” American Journal ofSociology, 59: 34–41.

Worden, Robert E. 1990. “A Badge and aBaccalaureate: Policies, Hypotheses,and Further Evidence.” JusticeQuarterly 7(3): 565–92.

Worden, Robert E. 1996. “The ‘Causes’ ofPolice Brutality: Theory andEvidence on Police Use of Force”in Police Violence: Understandingand Controlling Police Abuse ofForce. Ed. William A. Geller andHans Toch. New Haven, CT: YaleUniversity Press.

Worden, Robert E., and Robin L. Shepard.1996. “Demeanor, Crime, and Po-lice Behavior: A Reexamination ofthe Police Services Study Data.”Criminology 34(1): 83–105.

Wycoff, Mary Ann, and Timothy N.Oettmeier. 1993. Evaluating PatrolOfficer Per formance UnderCommunity Policing: The HoustonExperience. Washington, DC:Police Foundation.

66


AUTHORS

David Weisburd, PhD, is Senior Fellow,

and formerly Senior Research Scientist, at

the Police Foundation. He also is a profes-

sor of criminology at the Hebrew Univer-

sity Law School in Jerusalem, and a Senior

Research Fellow in the Department of

Criminology and Criminal Justice at the Uni-

versity of Maryland, College Park.

Rosann Greenspan, PhD, formerly research

director at the Police Foundation, is Assis-

tant Director and Visiting Scholar at the Cen-

ter for the Study of Law and Society at the

University of California at Berkeley, where

she also teaches in the Legal Studies Pro-

gram. Dr. Greenspan continues to collabo-

rate on foundation research projects.

Edwin E. Hamilton, MA, is Senior Research

Analyst at the Police Foundation. Since com-

ing to the Police Foundation in 1983, Mr.

Hamilton has worked on dozens of

foundation research projects, and co-authored

several foundation research reports.

Kellie A. Bryant, MS, formerly a research

associate at the Police Foundation, is a

Deputy Marshal with the United States

Marshals Service.

Hubert Williams, JD, has been President

of the Police Foundation since 1985. In

1962, he joined the Newark, New Jersey,

Police Department, was later promoted to

sergeant, then lieutenant, and was granted

a leave of absence from 1972 to 1974 to

direct the Newark High Impact Anti-Crime

Initiative. In 1974, Williams was selected to

head the Newark Police Department, and

served as its director until 1985. During his

career with the Newark Police Department,

Williams’s assignments included undercover

narcotics, patrol, field operations, commu-

nity relations, and the office of the chief.

the abuse of police authority · the abuse of police authority this edition of the abuse of police...

Documents