Journal of the Institute of Justice & International Studies

Transcription

1 Journal of the Institute of Justice & International Studies 2013 Number 13 ISSN Articles for the special issue on: Professionalism and Legitimacy for Criminal Justice Copyright 2013 Institute of Justice & International Studies Department of Criminal Justice University of Central Missouri Warrensburg, MO USA i

2 Journal of the Institute of Justice & International Studies Editorial Board: Fiona Brookman, Centre for Criminology, University of South Wales, UK Gerard De Jonge, Faculty of Law, University of Maastricht, Netherlands Tim John, Centre for Criminology, University of South Wales, UK Roddy Nilsson, University of Vaxjo, Sweden Paul O Mahoney, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland Eva Rieter, Faculty of Law, Radboud University Nijmegen, Netherlands Rick Sarre, School of Commerce, University of South Australia Issue Editor: Donald H. Wallace, Criminal Justice Department, University of Central Missouri The Journal of the Institute of Justice & International Studies is published annually. Subscription rates within or outside the United States: $50.00USD per year for institutions, $25.00USD per year for individuals. Journal articles are reproduced in EbscoHost, Hein Online, ProQuest, and Westlaw. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors. Opinions expressed do not necessarily represent the opinions or views of the editors, Director, or publisher of The Journal of the Institute of Justice & International Studies. All rights reserved. No part of this journal may be reproduced, stored in a retrieved system, or transmitted in any form or by any means without written permission from the Institute of Justice & International Studies. The authors warrant that the work is the product of his or her original effort and to the best of the author's knowledge and ability, does not defame any individual or entity or infringe upon any individual's or entity's rights, including intellectual property rights, and includes proper citation to other published works. For information about the Journal of the Institute of Justice & International Studies, write or call: Director Institute of Justice & International Studies Criminal Justice Department Humphreys Building 300 University of Central Missouri Warrensburg, MO USA 660/ Copyright 2013 by the Institute of Justice & International Studies Criminal Justice Department University of Central Missouri Printed by: University Copy Center, Printing Services University of Central Missouri ii

3 CONTENTS Preface.. v Author Information..... viii Featured Articles: POLICING YOUNG PEOPLE: CAN THE NOTION OF POLICE LEGITIMACY PLAY A ROLE? Rick Sarre and Colette Langos TOWARD A NEW PROFESSIONALISM IN POLICING Christopher Stone and Jeremy Travis 11 Accepted Articles: STORING THE LOST HOPE: A MULTIDIMENSIONAL APPROACH FOR BUILDING PUBLIC TRUST IN THE POLICE Francis D. Boateng THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FAIRNESS AND POLICE-CITIZEN HOSTILITY Jennifer C. Gibbs & Eileen M. Ahlin 47 POLICE PROFESSIONALISM IN INTERVIEWS WITH HIGH VALUE DETAINEES: CROSS-CULTURAL ENDORSEMENT OF PROCEDURAL JUSTICE Jane Goodman-Delahunty, Kate O Brien & Thea Gumbert-Jourjon 65 PROCEDURAL JUSTICE VIOLATIONS IN POLICE-CITIZEN INTERACTIONS: INSIGHTS FROM COMPLAINTS ABOUT POLICE Jane Goodman-Delahunty,Hielkje Verbrugge, Chantal Sowemimo-Coker, Jessica Kingsford, & Mira Taitz 83 DON T TRUST THE POLICE: STOP QUESTION FRISK, COMPSTAT, AND THE HIGH COST OF STATISTICAL OVER-RELIANCE IN THE NYPD Peter Hanink 99 DEMOCRATIZING POLICE PROFESSIONALIZATION AND DIVISION OF LABOR Jerry Joplin & Sanjay Marwah 115 THE EVOLUTION OF THE NEED FOR ESTABLISHING A NATIONAL CERTIFICATION PROGRAM FOR CRIMINOLOGY/CRIMINAL JUSTICE MAJORS iii

4 Vicki Lindsay & Martin Alan Greenberg 129 MANAGING MISCONDUCT: PRISON MANAGEMENT MEETS INMATE BEHAVIOR Kristen Maziarka 141 DEALING WITH PROFESSIONALISM AND ACQUIRING AND MANAGING LEGITIMACY IN A CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRATIC POLICING IN NIGERIA: WHERE GOES THE PROCEDURAL JUSTICE APPROACH? Smart. E. Otu & Gilbert C. Aro 149 LEGITIMACY OF CORRECTIONS AS A MENTAL HEALTH CARE PROVIDER: PERSPECTIVES FROM U.S. AND EUROPEAN SYSTEMS Daniela Peterka-Benton & Brian Paul Masciadrelli 171 VICTIM INJURY, EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AND SATISFACTION WITH THE POLICE: EVIDENCE FOR A VICTIM- CENTERED, EMOTIONALLY-BASED POLICE RESPONSE Chad Posick & Christina Policastro 185 ATTORNEY ATTITUDES REGARDING JUDICIAL SELECTION METHODS: THE IMPACT ON POTENTIAL REFORMS Melinda R. Roberts 197 DOES INCREASING POLICE PROFESSIONALISM MAKE THE FOURTH AMENDMENT UNNECESSARY? Roger Roots 219 THE JOURNAL OF THE INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE & INTERNATIONAL STUDIES is a multi-disciplinary, peer-reviewed journal devoted to the dissemination of information regarding a wide variety of social issues, both national and international, and a wide variety of research and presentation techniques. MANUSCRIPTS Manuscripts are typically the outcome of a presentation by the author at the academic conference hosted by the Institute each year. These manuscripts should be submitted via to cjinst@ucmo.edu. Only original, unpublished manuscripts not under consideration by other journals will be considered. Submissions should follow the style from either the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association or the Uniform System of Citation. iv

5 PREFACE For this issue the Journal of the Institute of Justice & International Studies (JIJIS) invited manuscripts for publication consideration that would engage the theme of Professionalism and Legitimacy for Criminal Justice. There are conceptual obstacles to an agreement on what is included under the rubric of such a topic. Observers of professionalism have differed on whether this is represented by traditional operational goals of a sector of the system as opposed to more recent innovations. Some observers emphasize reforms in the education, training, and supervision of justice professionals and improved internal review procedures and oversight functions to deal with official misconduct. Operationally the legitimacy of justice organizations may be constructed in numerous ways to serve a variety of institutional purposes that may invoke considerations of the role of the rule of law. Debates on current transformations and challenges to a nation s criminal justice system open up questions about its professionalism, its fundamental tasks, and what aspects provide legitimacy both within and outside it. The overall aim of this special issue of JIJIS is to discuss the nature and changing traits of Professionalism and Legitimacy for Criminal Justice. The call for manuscripts anticipated that a wide variety of disciplines and approaches to the topic from many perspectives and methodologies would be represented in the submissions for consideration for possible publication. Submitted manuscripts could be theoretical, methodological, or empirical in their scope. The reader will see this wealth of variety in this special issue. Authors were informed that if selected their articles would be published with the invited article by Professor Rick Sarre that examines how legitimacy theory might be the link between crime prevention and resilience and traditional social crime prevention. This article highlights the most recent work being developed in the field of police legitimacy and the public policy imperatives that emerge. Additionally, Dr. Christopher Stone and Dr. Jeremy Travis provided the Journal an opportunity to reprint their article, Toward A New Professionalism In Policing, which examines the principles of accountability, legitimacy, innovation, and coherence that underscore developments in policing during the last 20 years that distinguishes the policing of the U.S. in the present era. Their article was originally published as part of a series of papers titled New Perspectives in Policing by the National Institute of Justice. v

6 The selected articles cover many aspects of the broad topic of Professionalism and Legitimacy for Criminal Justice. A majority of the authors in this issue examined various aspects of policing from the lens of the special theme of this issue. Jennifer C. Gibbs and Eileen M. Ahlin examine whether increasing police legitimacy or fairness may be one method for reducing threats to officer safety. Peter Hanink discusses how the practice of stop, question, and frisk was implemented in New York City along with the CompStat management system that uses statistics to inform police decisionmaking and assesses how a practice that is, on its face, race-neutral may have become race-based in practice. Jerry Joplin and Sanjay Marwah make a needed contribution to the literature in their conceptual piece, which observes that building the capacities of individual police officers to exercise discretion and support democratic police bureaucracies has significant potential to advance policing in democratic societies. Roger Roots observes that the lower success rates associated with warrantless police searches as compared to searches made with warrants do not justify the notion that in light of a perceived greater police professionalism America s criminal courts should abandon oversight regarding search-and-seizure practices. The systematic empirical analysis by Jane Goodman-Delahunty, Hielkje Verbrugge, Chantal Sowemimo-Coker, Jessica Kingsford, and Mira Taitz of the content of 2,910 citizen complaints confirmed the centrality of concerns about police disrespect and untrustworthiness in police-community interactions; the focus of citizen complaints on procedural justice components in the treatment citizens experienced in their interactions with police, rather than concerns about direct outcomes following these interactions, demonstrates the importance that citizens place on the relational aspects of their interactions with police. In addition to this examination of citizen complaints against the New South Wales Police Force, Australia, other authors demonstrate that concerns of police legitimacy is not at all a unique U.S. phenomenon. Francis D. Boateng discusses studies conducted in Ghana that have shown that citizens' trust in the police is significantly low and examines methods by which that confidence can be restored. Also from that continent Smart. E. Otu and Gilbert C. Arg consider the challenges in dealing with professionalism and acquiring and managing legitimacy for constitutional democratic policing in Nigeria. The piece by Jane Goodman-Delahunty, Kate O Brien, and Thea Gumbert-Jourjon make a significant contribution to the dearth of research in their examination of practices regarding procedural fairness in investigative interviews and variations in different cultures and jurisdictions. Further assessing encounters between police and individuals, Chad Posick and Christina Policastro explore victim satisfaction with the police using the British Crime Survey focusing on how emotional distress, a common reaction to victimization, is related to satisfaction with the police. Other articles demonstrate that legitimacy and professionalism issues are not limited to law enforcement in a criminal justice system. Kristen Maziarka examines the effects of strain in the context of prison management and discusses how both inmates and management influence each other, what types of prison policies evoke negative inmate behavior, and how theory may help predict what kind of prison environment leads to the most nonviolent institution. Daniela Peterka-Benton and Brian Paul Masciadrelli consider the problem of the incarcerated mentally ill in terms of whether or not the correctional setting is an ethically legitimate place to house and vi

7 treat these individuals, examining the problem today in the U.S. and comparatively in European nations. Melinda R. Roberts discusses the attitudes of attorneys in Washington State regarding the method by which state judges are selected in the context of the national phenomenon of the increasing expense and contentiousness of judicial elections, where a number of states have explored adopting merit selection based systems of selecting judges. A need for legitimacy and professionalism of actors in the system requires an examination of educational credentialing of these individuals; these aspects are considered by Vicki Lindsay and Martin Alan Greenberg in their call for a new program of individual certification in higher education. The depth and breadth of these remarkable articles underscore the many perspectives of the important theme of this special issue of the Journal. Hopefully the reader will agree that the efforts of these authors make no small contribution to the necessary conversation on the important topic of Professionalism and Legitimacy for Criminal Justice. Don Wallace, Issue Editor vii

8 AUTHOR INFORMATION Eileen M. Ahlin, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice in the School of Public Affairs at Penn State Harrisburg. Currently, Dr. Ahlin is working on research in the areas of violence, social cognition, and community corrections. Her publications appear in journals such as Journal of Community Psychology, Journal of Criminal Justice, Journal of Experimental Criminology, and American Journal of Public Health. Gilbert Chukwu Aroh studied Political Science and International Relations at both Bsc and Msc levels at the University of Nigeria, Nsuka, Nigeria. Worked briefly with the Nigerian security agent before joining the university system. Aroh is currently a doctoral candidate in the department of political science, Ebonyi State University, Nigeria. Francis D. Boateng is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Criminal Justice & Criminology at Washington State University. His research interests include comparative criminal justice, comparative policing, police legitimacy, international security, sexual assault against women, crime, law, and justice. Jennifer C. Gibbs, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice in the School of Public Affairs at Penn State Harrisburg, where she studies terrorism, policing, violence and victimization, and the scholarship of teaching and learning. Her dissertation, The Relationship between Legitimacy, Terrorist Attacks and the Police, completed at the University of Maryland, College Park, won the Homicide Research Working Group 2012 Richard Block Outstanding Dissertation Award. Jane Goodman-Delahunty (JD, Ph.D.) is a Research Professor at Charles Sturt University in the School of Psychology and Australian Graduate School of Policing and Security. Her empirical legal studies foster evidence-based decisions to promote social justice within organisations and the community. She has published over 150 scholarly books and articles. Thea Gumbert-Jourjon (M Psychol Forensic) is a practicing psychologist in Sydney, and Ph.D. student at Charles Sturt University. Her research interests include patterns and public perceptions of intra- and extra-familial child viii

9 sexual abuse, and juror comprehension of forensic and expert evidence. Martin Alan Greenberg is the director of research and education for the New York State Association of Auxiliary Police, Inc. He was formerly a chair or director of several different criminal justice programs at a variety of colleges and universities including: Point Park University (Pittsburgh, PA), and the State University of New York at Ulster. He holds three graduate degrees in criminal justice, including a Ph.D. from the City University of New York. He is the past chair of the Security and Crime Prevention Section of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences and holds lifetime board certification in security management from the American Society for Industrial Security. His experiences also include service as senior court officer, probation officer, and judicial clerk. He is the author of four books and received an honorable discharge recognizing 12 years of service in the NYPD, having obtained the volunteer rank of auxiliary deputy inspector. Peter Hanink is a Ph.D. student of Criminology, Law & Society at the University of California, Irvine. He earned a J.D. from Brooklyn Law School and an M.P.A. from New York University. His research interests include race, poverty, and the phenomenology of police violence. Jerry W. Joplin is Professor of Justice and Policy Studies at Guilford College in Greensboro, NC. Dr. Joplin has scholarly interests in police discretion and applying legal theory to law enforcement. He has co-authored an introductory text for criminal justice for Oxford University Press, Foundations of Criminal Justice. He has taught criminal justice courses in liberal arts colleges for more than thirty years. Dr. Joplin also has ten years experience in corrections including probation, and administrative experience in medium and maximum-security institutions. Jessica Kingsford (BSc Hons) was a Research Assistant at Charles Sturt University from She is currently a Ph.D. student at the University of Sydney examining the emergence of moral identity during childhood. Prior to undertaking studies in Psychology, Jess was a theatre director, during which time she wrote and directed plays in Melbourne, Sydney and London. Vicki Lindsay, Ph.D., currently is an Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice for Troy University. Since her time with the University, she has helped forge the Master s Program in Criminal Justice at the Dothan Campus and has created the Forensic Science Summer Program for area high school students. Prior to this, Dr. Lindsay has gained national recognition with her work with Substance Abuse Prevention; gained recognition with the State of Mississippi advocating for tougher laws preventing underage drinking; and has been awarded grants to initiate evidence based approaches against the use of illegal substances by children. Her main research is in substance use by police officers where she is widely published. Lindsay has been interested in the field of substance use since her work as a Sr. Agent with the Mississippi Alcoholic Beverage Control. She also believes strongly in the professionalism and education of individual police officers. Sanjay Marwah is Assistant Professor of Justice and Policy Studies at Guilford College in Greensboro, NC. His research and teaching interests include democratic policing and law, suburbanization, criminological theory, Mertonian ix

10 sociological theory, and cultural political economy. He has numerous publications and professional presentations. Training and substantive experience in public policy, environmental planning, political science, economics, and sociology culminated with a Ph.D. in Public Policy from George Mason University. Brian Paul Masciadrelli is Associate Professor of Social Work and Director of the Social Work Program at the State University of New York at Fredonia. He received an undergraduate degree in psychology from Westfield State College followed by his M.S.W. from the Simmons College School of Social Work and his Ph.D. from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Prior to his academic post, Dr. Masciadrelli worked in community mental health services. His research focuses on mental health systems, as well as human development and mental health. Kristen D. Maziarka is a second-year graduate student at the University of Missouri-Kansas City in the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology's Master of Science program. She received her Bachelor of Science in Psychology from the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse. Her research interests are community corrections, correctional programming, and law and society. Currently she is finishing her thesis entitled, "From top to bottom: Rhetoric in the hierarchy of focused deterrence stakeholders". In the future, she hopes to pursue a Ph.D. and continue research in the area of community corrections. Kate O'Brien (B. Adv. Sc.) is a Candidate at Monash University completing a Doctorate of Clinical & Forensic Psychology. She has been a Research Assistant at Charles Sturt University since 2010, and a Research Fellow with the Centre for Forensic Behavioural Science at Monash University since Her previous research investigated amenability for treatment in violent offenders, developed a treatment program for gang affiliated juvenile offenders, and examined juror responses in criminal trials. Smart E Otu graduated from University of Port Harcourt (B.Sc),University of Ibadan (M.Sc), D.Litt.Phil (Criminology), University of South Africa, D.Phil (Sociology) The University of the Western Cape, Cape Town. He is a fellow of West Africa Research Association (WARA); former intern of Drug Policy Research Centre, RAND Corporation Santa Monica, Ca. Dr. Otu had taught at the University of Western Cape, Ebonyi State University Abakaliki, Nigeria and is currently with The Federal University, Ndufu-Alike, Abakaliki, Ebonyi State. His speciality is in the areas of Illegal drugs trafficking and use, armed robbery, corruption, theory deconstruction and reconstruction among other things. He has published several articles and book chapters in these areas. Daniela Peterka-Benton is an Assistant Professor and Program Director for Criminal Justice at SUNY Fredonia. Mrs. Peterka-Benton received a M.Ed. from the University of Vienna (Austria), a M.Sc. in Criminal Justice from the University of Cincinnati and a PhD. in Sociology/Criminology from the University of Vienna (Austria). Dr. Peterka-Benton worked in the field of Diplomatic Security for six years before starting her academic career. Her current research is focused on three areas including transnational crime (with a special emphasis on transnational smuggling operations such as human smuggling/trafficking, arms trafficking etc.), crime and x

11 media and corrections, with specific interest in mentally ill inmates in jail and prison populations. Dr. Peterka-Benton has also served on the advisory board for the Chautauqua County re-entry program for county jail inmates, of whom many deal with mild to severe mental health problems. Christina Policastro is an Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice and Criminology at Georgia Southern University. She received her Ph.D. in Criminal Justice and Criminology from Georgia State University in Her dissertation applied lifestyles/routine activities theory to the victimization experiences of younger and older adults. Her primary research interests are in the area of victimization with a specific focus on elder abuse and intimate partner violence. Her most recent research focuses on the effects of social ties and risky behavior on intimate partner violence victimization among young adults, and the effects of victimization on the learning experiences of college students. She has published articles on diverse topics including college students perceptions of domestic violence victims, preprofessionals knowledge of elder abuse, and durable medical equipment fraud. Chad Posick, Ph.D., is an assistant professor in the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology at Georgia Southern University. His research interests include the victim-offender overlap, the role of emotions in behavior, and measurement issues in criminological research. His recent research also focuses on how social context influences behavior and moderates the effects of individual-level factors on crime and victimization. Melinda R. Roberts is an Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at the University of Southern Indiana in the Sociology, Anthropology and Criminal Justice Studies Department. She received her Ph.D. and M.A. in Criminal Justice from Washington State University in Spokane, Washington. Her research interests are in the areas of courts, law, and violence against women. She recently published a book entitled Gender Attitudes and Violence Against Women. Melinda serves on several boards including the Evansville Police Department s Promotional Board, WillowTree (a sexual assault and domestic violence victim advocacy organization), and Churches Embracing Offenders (an offender reentry organization). She has received several awards including the Chancellor s Award for Excellence from Washington State University and several research awards from the University of Southern Indiana including the Liberal Arts Research Award. Melinda can be reached at mrroberts1@usi.edu. Roger I. Roots, J.D., Ph.D., is an assistant professor of Sociology and Criminal Justice at Jarvis Christian College in Hawkins, Texas. He is the author of numerous articles on criminal procedure issues and political sociology, including Unfair Rules of Procedure: Why Does the Government Get More Time?, 33 American Journal of Trial Advocacy (2010), and The Originalist Case For the Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule, 45 Gonzaga Law Review 1-66 (2009), and several entries in the Encyclopedia of the Fourth Amendment (Sage 2013). He is currently working on a book on the subject of adversarial justice systems. Chantal Sowemimo-Coker (MSc Forensic Psychology) has been a Research Assistant at Charles Sturt University since Currently working in the financial xi

12 sector in New York City, Chantal is applying for doctoral positions in Clinical Psychology in the United States. She is interested in continuing research on procedural justice and therapeutic jurisprudence themes, and their role in alternatives to incarceration. Christopher Stone is the president of the Open Society Foundations. He is an international expert on criminal justice reform and on the leadership and governance of nonprofits. Prior to joining Open Society, he was the Guggenheim Professor of the Practice of Criminal Justice at Harvard University s John F. Kennedy School of Government and director of the Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations. Before that, Stone spent a decade as director of the Vera Institute of Justice. He founded the Neighborhood Defender Service of Harlem and served as a founding director of the New York State Capital Defender Office and of the Altus Global Alliance. Stone received his BA from Harvard, an MPhil in criminology from the University of Cambridge, and his JD from Yale Law School. He was awarded an honorary Order of the British Empire for his contributions to criminal justice reform in the United Kingdom Mira Taitz (MA Social Anthropology) was a Research Assistant at Charles Sturt University from She currently works as a Legal Educator for a Community Law Centre in Auckland, New Zealand. Jeremy Travis is president of John Jay College of Criminal Justice at the City University of New York. Prior to his appointment, he served as a Senior Fellow in the Urban Institute s Justice Policy Center, where he launched a national research program focused on prisoner reentry into society. From , Travis directed the National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the U.S. Department of Justice. Prior to his service in Washington, he was Deputy Commissioner for Legal Matters for the New York City Police Department ( ), a Special Advisor to New York City Mayor Edward I. Koch ( ), and Special Counsel to the Police Commissioner of the NYPD ( ). Before joining city government, Travis spent a year as a law clerk to then-u.s. Court of Appeals Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He began his career in criminal justice working as a legal services assistant for the Legal Aid Society, New York s indigent defense agency. He has taught courses on criminal justice, public policy, history and law at Yale College, the New York University Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, New York Law School and George Washington University. He has a J.D. from the New York University School of Law, an M.P.A. from the New York University Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, and a B.A. in American Studies from Yale College. He is the author of But They All Come Back: Facing the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry (Urban Institute Press, 2005), co-editor (with Christy Visher) of Prisoner Reentry and Crime in America (Cambridge University Press, 2005), and co-editor (with Michelle Wail) of Prisoners Once Removed: The Impact of Incarceration and Reentry on Children, Families, and Communities (Urban Institute Press, 2003). He has published numerous book chapters, articles and monographs on constitutional law, criminal law and criminal justice policy. xii

13 Hielkje Verbrugge (MPsychol Forensic) is a Research Assistant at Charles Sturt University. She is currently based in London working for the National Health Service in the community and in prison. She has a keen interest in minority groups and their experience of the healthcare and justice system. xiii

14 xiv

15 POLICING YOUNG PEOPLE: CAN THE NOTION OF POLICE LEGITIMACY PLAY A ROLE? Rick Sarre & Colette Langos * University of South Australia In the eyes of the public, police play an important role in combating crime and maintaining law and order. Yet, according to normative models of behavior, obedience to law is built more upon one s trust in the agents of law enforcement than fear of police and the likelihood of their detecting one s criminal activity. This article reviews recent findings relating to the theory of police legitimacy. It applies the theory to police-youth practises. It speculates upon which means of police-youth communication are likely to be most effective in fostering legitimacy, and offers strategies that may best advance it. It concludes that policy-makers ought to consider redirecting a portion of police resources away from practises, which have traditionally been regarded as crime fighting and towards developing policies, that are aimed at enhancing value-based motivation in young people and developing their communication skills. It posits the view that building trust in the legal system and agents of the law from a young age can be a key to crime control in both the short term (youth offending) and long-term (adult offending). M odern policing is predominantly focused on responding to crime. Although some proactive initiatives have been implemented to form part of the current policing framework, reactive strategies (focused on improving efficiency, shortening response times and enhancing clear-up rates) continue to play the primary role in police practises. The defined functions of police typically focus upon responding to emergency situations and preventing crime thereby. A reactive paradigm fits principally with what is understood as an instrumentalist approach to crime reduction. Gary Becker (1974, 9) was a prime figure in instrumentalism. He theorized, for example, that a person will be more likely to commit an offense if the result of the crime (such as riches, or satisfaction arising out of an assault on another person) exceeds the expected result of directing his or her time and resources towards more law-abiding activities. Becker was also of the view that the probability of being caught and convicted has a much greater impact upon this weighing up of options than does the threat or severity of punishment (Becker, 1974, 11), a view that predominates in current discourse as well (see Balko, 2013). There is a corollary in broader policymaking too. Political strategies that see value in promising the implementation of tough on crime policies continue to predominate to this day. They are based essentially on instrumentalist perspectives, and their attendant reactive approaches (Sarre, 2011). * 2014 by authors, reprinted here by permission. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to rick.sarre@unisa.edu.au

16 One should not forget, of course, that proactive strategies have a role in policing too. For example, the South Australia Police (SAPOL) core functions include crime prevention objectives (Police Act 1998 (SA), section 5(c)), which will, presumably, involve the use of situational crime prevention tools such as target hardening and designing out crime (Sarre, 1997; 2003). Those training Victoria Police, too, have been instructed to ensure that proactive approaches to crime prevention are spliced into probationary training (Victorian Parliament, 2012, 126). If one looks internationally, one finds that there is no shortage of evidence that the most effective crime prevention-focused policing requires police to take a proactive approach (ICPC, 2011, 21). However, social crime prevention strategies, such as providing community outreach schemes and pursuing educational and welfare objectives as a prophylactic against anti-social conduct, are not seen as predominant aims, or, indeed, may not be commonly within the bailiwick of police at all. In other words, proactive crime prevention strategies are rarely in the forefront of the minds of police, nor are they typically, one might assume, in the minds of the public when they are asked to consider the police function. Hence these strategies do not become the focus of police performance measures. It is easy to see why this might be the case. For a start, reactive measures are easier to quantify and measure. It is far more difficult to count what hasn t happened. There is often political interference, too; that is, governments keep an eye out for reactive policing responses and highlight them when police feature in them, because politicians know that they need to keep voters happy, and voters are a lot happier, by and large, when policing is immediate and visible. Thus, in reality, reactive strategies remain the dominant approaches employed by police in the fight against crime. Planning and training continues to be devoted primarily to improvements in police efficiency, response times and clearance rates. Moreover, where there is police proactivity in crime prevention, it is far more likely to be of the situational variety than the social or structural variety. It should not be forgotten, too, that the impact of policing on crime reduction is relatively small. Some twenty years ago David Bayley (1993) made the observation that 90% of the variation in crime rates among population aggregations of substantial size can be predicted by factors other than police strength, such as population density, ethnic heterogeneity, unemployment levels, income levels, school leaving rates, and single-parent households. A recent New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) study reinforces this notion. Its results illustrate the minor roles that police intervention and the likelihood of imprisonment have on rates of crime, certainly when compared with a key demographic variable, namely household income levels (Wan, Moffatt, Jones, & Weatherburn, 2012). The BOCSAR researchers reviewed data from across all Local Council areas in New South Wales from They examined the effect on violent crime and property crime of changes in the probability of imprisonment and the likelihood of arrest, and then reviewed correlations between the rates of crime and income levels. In relation to violent crime, the researchers determined that a 10% increase in imprisonment risk produces a 2% reduction in crime; while a 10% in arrest risk produces a 3% reduction in crime. In relation to property crime, the results were slightly different but with the same disparity, namely a 1% and 1.5% reduction in crime respectively. That is, there is - 2 -

17 evidence that the risk of apprehension is, indeed, a more predictive factor in crime trends (for both violence and property) than the severity of punishment. However, the study revealed to the researchers that the strongest relationship influencing crime reduction was found not to be as a result of instrumentalist policies (of likelihood of police detection and deterrent punishment) but to household income. A 10% increase in household income correlates with a 15% reduction in violent crime, and a 19% reduction in property crime. These results should not be surprising. In 2005, Pratt and Cullen reviewed 214 aggregate-level studies published between 1960 and 1999 for their evidence of effectiveness in reducing crime (Pratt & Cullen, 2005). They concluded from their meta-analysis that police expenditure, police numbers, and increases in penalties were among the weakest macro-level predictors of crime rates. That is, police have a necessary but not sufficient role in crime prevention and reduction. The outlier, they noted, was the incarceration rate, although they found some difficulty distinguishing between the deterrent effect of the threat (or certainty) of imprisonment and its obvious incapacitation effects (Pratt & Cullen, 2005, p. 417). There is another thread in this argument, i.e. the growing inventory of compellingly argued work that details the criminality wrought by inequality and social destruction over which police have, arguably, little control. Not only are there strong correlations between lower crime rates and higher household income, as shown by Wan, Moffatt, Jones, and Weatherburn (2012), but there are strong correlations between high crime rates and rates of generational unemployment, mental illness, child neglect, family breakdown, and poverty. For example, Elliott Currie (2008) has written on the links between child abuse and violent crime, and between school failure and crime (Currie, 2013). Don Weatherburn and Bronwyn Lind (1998) found that juveniles who reside in low socioeconomic neighborhoods are more likely to become involved in crime than those (matched on age, ethnicity, social class and gender) who do not reside in such neighborhoods. Poor child development, too, is a strong predictor of crime (Manning, Homel & Smith, 2010). Drawing on the work of Marmot and Wilkinson (2006), Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett (2009) found that economic impediments to citizens feeling valued (impediments such as low wages, low social security benefits and low public spending on housing and education, for example) are strong precursors of crime. What does this mean for police? Surely one would assume that there is no place for police in driving social crime prevention, given all of the emphasis upon reactive policing and the helplessness that police might feel when confronted with dysfunctional families, poor educational outcomes, Indigenous peoples disadvantage, poverty and generational unemployment. On the other hand, a case can be made out that police could and should be involved in fostering societal conditions that make it less likely for people to engage in criminal activity. This is because we now know more about why people don t commit crime (rather than why they do), and it is linked to police and people s trust in them

18 With this premise the next section of this article examines how to use this information to enhance the police role in crime prevention. In this context there discussion focuses on the policing of young people. Police Legitimacy The Key to Crime Reduction? Police legitimacy is one example of institutional legitimacy. Institutional legitimacy is the property that a rule or an authority has when others feel obliged to defer voluntarily (Tyler, 2003, p. 307). It is a social value-based motivation a normative feeling to obey a particular authority or institution (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003). The driving force behind the legitimacy of institutions is policies which shape an individual s voluntary deference and which builds trust in the institution/system. Police legitimacy relates to the obligation members of a community feel towards complying with the law and the decisions law enforcers (police) make. There is a growing body of research concluding that police legitimacy is correlated with greater public respect for and compliance with the law (Tyler 1990; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler 2003). U.S., British, and European studies observe that police legitimacy has an independent influence on compliance, even when controls are placed on estimates of the risk of a person being caught and punished, peer disapproval, the morality of law breaking, performance evaluations of authorities, and demographic characteristics (Tyler & Huo, 2002; Tyler, 2003; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler, 2007; Hough, Jackson, &Bradford, 2013a, 2013b; Bradford, Jackson, & Hough, 2013). Findings from studies examining the association between police legitimacy and compliance suggest that procedural justice (fair and just processes along with respectful treatment of individuals) is fundamental to fostering public perceptions of police legitimacy (Tyler, 2003). These findings are supported by a recent European study examining public trust. The fifth European Social Survey (ESS) was conducted in 28 countries in 2010/2011 (Hough, Jackson, & Bradford, 2013b). The study found that trust in police procedural justice is the strongest and most consistent predictor of a felt obligation to obey, the association being positive and significant in relation to all 26 countries for which a data set became available in 2012 (Hough et al., 2013b). On this view when people view the law and enforcers of the law as acting lawfully and being procedurally fair, they are more likely to defer to rules and to police decisions, and to self-regulate (Sarre, 2012; Tyler, 2003, Tyler & Fagan, 2008; Tankebe, 2013; Hough et al., 2013b). One way to establish positive beliefs regarding the fairness of police practises is to ensure that police are making consistent decisions rather than arbitrary and capricious judgments. According to Tyler, the quality of police decisionmaking improves when members of the public have the opportunity to be heard by police and when police explain their decisions in a frank and open manner (Tyler, 2003). Where police appear neutral and unbiased and their decisions are perceived as objective, the perceptions of fairness are enhanced (Tyler & Lind, 1992). The experience of being (and perception that one would be) treated with respect and dignity by police assists in building trust between the public and the police. Compliance and co-operation flows therefrom. This fosters police legitimacy, and, in turn, leads to less crime

19 What does this mean for our reliance upon instrumentalist policies and reactive policing? Should there be a new emphasis? There is an argument that the answer to this question is yes because the results of surveys show that Australians do not rate police highly in terms of fairness and reliability. Recent data suggest that only 13.2 % of adults (over the age of 18) strongly agree that police can be relied upon and only 16.8 % of adults strongly agree that the police treat people fairly (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2013). Whilst around 60 % of Australia adults agree that police treat people fairly and can be relied upon, 20.2 % of adults either strongly disagree, disagree or have no opinion, and 26.2 % of adults either strongly disagree, disagree or have no opinion that police can be relied upon (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2013). Given that perceived trust in police, fair treatment and quality of decisionmaking are predictors of police legitimacy (Jackson, Bradford, Hough, & Murray, 2012) it may be concluded that this is problematic and priorities may need to be realigned. Tyler posits the view that policy-makers ought to consider redirecting a portion of resources allocated to crime-fighting to developing initiatives focused on building the required trust (Tyler, 1990). He argues that motive-based voluntary compliance based upon perceptions of legitimacy is more economical and more effective over time than compliance based on instrumentalist strategies. That is, crime reduction will be more sustainable in the long term if we make policy choices that favor a broader normative approach over a narrower instrumentalist approach (Tyler 2003, p. 307). This will happen without policy-makers having to increase police numbers (which is an expensive justice option) or to enhance police powers. The difference between the two approaches is simple: legitimacy functions on normative values supported by policies based on why people comply with the law. Instrumentalist strategies, in contrast, are driven by policies based on why people choose to defy the law, and seek to punish and deter them from such defiance. The argument for the former view was well expressed by Antonio Buti (2011) in narrating the tale of the police verballing of the Mickelberg brothers in the socalled Perth Mint swindle in Western Australia in the 1980s: Police officers are society s protectors. It is imperative for a civil society, for a just society, that the police do not deny members, all members of the society, their basic human rights and engage in behavior that is corrupt and an abuse of processes. To do so runs the real risk of eroding public confidence in the policing institution necessary for a functioning civil society and for the proper and effective operation of the judiciary and government. Police officers, and prosecutors, who contemplate immoral and corrupt shortcuts to get the job done must remember the reason why, in criminal trials, our system of justice demands juries be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. (Buti, pp. 228, 229) Police Legitimacy and Young People - 5 -

20 Young people continue to have consistently higher rates of offending than older people (Commonwealth of Australia, 2010). The rate of juvenile offending (youth aged between 10 to 17 years) was consistently higher than that of adult offending for the period (Australian Institute of Criminology, 2013). Moreover, recent data suggest young Australians aged between 15 to 19 years of age are more likely to be processed by police for the commission of a crime than any other age group (Australian Institute of Criminology, 2013). Given these trends, it is imperative that the policing of young people is accomplished correctly. The current Australian National Youth Policing Model aims to promote strong and immediate responses to problem behaviors and advocates police participation in prevention and diversion strategies such as education and awareness programs (Commonwealth of Australia, 2010). A multitude of community engagement projects such as Victoria Police Assertive Youth Outreach Service; Northern Territory Police Youth Diversion Scheme; Western Australia Police Youth at Risk Diversion Programs); Northern Territory Police School Based Policing; South Australia Police Crime Prevention Education Program (Commonwealth of Australia, 2010) all have the potential to foster trust and respect in the law and police. One could theorize that this might advance police legitimacy in the eyes of young people. Will this work to reduce juvenile crime? The argument is that if there are more young people who comply with the law (because they view police as being legitimate agents of the state), there will be less youth offending. Moreover, if young people are receptive to externally-driven values during their developmental years especially at transition points in their lives (France & Homel, 2006) then it is possible to instil legitimacy in the day to day relationships that children of any age have with police officers. Values education has been successfully applied in schools in relation to various social problems (Starratt, 1994). For example, acceptable behavior campaigns (anti-aggression; anti-bullying; cyberbullying campaigns) aim to instil a normative value of respect in school children (by influencing their perceptions as to what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior), which, in turn, may influence a student s voluntary deference to comply with school behavior policies. The argument is that campaigns directed at fostering a positive perception towards police at a young age might instil normative value-based compliance with the law and its agents. So, what are the most effective strategies for relaying information and communicating messages to young people? One idea emerged from an Australian Human Rights Commission study conducted by the Child Health Promotion Research Centre, Edith Cowan University (Perth, Western Australia). It was designed to identify the most effective strategy to be used to undertake a marketing campaign aimed at encouraging cyberbullying bystanders to take positive action when they witness the conduct (Thomas, Falconer, Cross, Monks and Brown, 2012). Findings from focus groups consisting of over 100 students from Catholic and Independent schools in Western Australia conducted between July 28 and 1 August 2011 identified YouTube (videos and trailers), television advertisements, a combined approach using YouTube and television advertisements, Facebook campaigns, and school-based activities (presentations) as most effective (Thomas et al., 2012). The findings shed new light on which strategies young people generally consider the most effective communication channels. Policies aimed at building trust in police are likely to be - 6 -

21 most influential when information is presented through these predominantly digital means of communication. In light of the above discussions, key strategies for building trust in police practises are offered below: 1. Police should be developing online campaigns, including YouTube presentations and Facebook campaigns, aimed at building trust between police and young people by communicating that all people will be treated fairly, that police understand challenges young people face, that young people will be heard and that young people and adults alike will be treated with respect and courtesy. 2. Police should be encouraging further active engagement between themselves and school communities. This may be achieved by increasing the number of police presentations given at schools, including those aimed at encouraging the use of non-violent dispute resolution (Centre for Restorative Justice, 2009). Frequent school/community engagement is likely to assist young people to feel more comfortable with police, which, in turn, may encourage feelings of trust. It may be instructive to involve as presenters young people who have already come into contact with police and the justice system. The process of a young person relaying his or her lived experiences to other young people can be a powerful means of validating police messages. These peer-based intervention strategies can act as pivotal drivers for changing student norms (Willard, 2012). 3. Police should provide further training for all officers to improve their ability to communicate effectively with young people. A recent UK trial study published by the College of Policing reported that police officers who undertook classroom-based learning (focused on developing specific communication techniques broadly linked to procedural fairness) and scenario-based role play exercises improved officer attitudes and behaviors and victim perceptions of treatment by police (Wheller, Quinton, Fildes, & Mills, 2013). Although this study was conducted in relation to adults, employing a like model with the additional focus on teaching communication techniques known to be particularly effective in relation to youths could positively influence interactions police officers have with young people. 4. Long-term solutions should be developed to turn around the lives of vulnerable young people who are caught in the system to minimize the number of youths who are simply passed between police and any number of institutions/care services. Policies should be designed to strengthen relationships between police and professionals who have regular association with vulnerable youths (e.g. social workers; mental health professionals; child protection officers and children s court lawyers); these should be designed to increase trust and respect for all appropriate government and non-government agencies

22 Conclusion They key issue is not whether police have a role to play in reducing crime (which of course they do), but to what extent they can best use their resources for greater crimereductive effects. Justice policy-makers have traditionally and predominantly favored short-term answers to crime problems such as more police and enhanced police powers. Models of policing built upon costly, populist solutions, however, have been shown to be inadequate in maintaining law and order and reducing the rate of crime. It is perhaps time to seek a new involvement for police in crime prevention (especially around young people) by reference to legitimacy theory. It is argued here that young people are more likely to comply with the law if they view police as being legitimate agents of the state. If that legitimacy can be encouraged, then fewer offenses will be committed and fewer resources will be needed to fight crime in the short-term (youth offending) and in the long-term (adult offending). Fostering a positive perception of police at a young age is particularly important. To that end it would be prudent for policy-makers to adopt modern channels of communication to ensure policy messages enhancing police legitimacy reach as many young people as possible. These approaches and channels warrant further exploration, debate, and consideration. References Australian Bureau of Statistics (2013). Crime Victimisation, Australia (Catalogue ). Canberra. Australian Institute of Criminology (2013). Australian crime: facts and figures Canberra. Balko, R. (2013). Rise of the Warrior Cop, Public Affairs Books, excerpts under title They throw kids on the ground, put guns to their heads The horrors unleashed by police militarization, viewed July 16, Bayley, D. (1993). Back from Wonderland, or toward the rational use of police resources, in Dobb, A.N. (Ed.), Thinking About Police Resources. Toronto: Centre of Criminology Research Report No. 26, Becker, G (1974). Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach in G. Becker and W. Landes (eds) Essays in the Economics of Crime and Punishment, Ann Arbor MI, UMI, Bradford, B, Jackson, J. and Hough, M. (2013 forthcoming). Police futures and legitimacy: Redefining good policing in Brown, J (ed.), The Future of Policing: London: Routledge. Buti, A. (2011). Brothers: Justice, Corruption and the Mickelbergs, Fremantle, WA: Fremantle Press. Centre for Restorative Justice (2009). Effectiveness of Restorative Justice Implementation in South Australian Schools. Adelaide. Commonwealth of Australia. (2010). National Youth Policing Model. Canberra. Currie, E. (2008). The Roots of Danger: Violent Crime in Global Perspective. Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice Hall. Currie, E. (2013). Crime and Punishment in America: Why the Solutions to America s most Stubborn Social Crisis Have Not Worked and What Will. (Revised edition), New York: Metropolitan Books

23 France, A. and Homel, R. (2006). Pathways and prevention: Concepts and controversies. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 39, Hough, M., Jackson, J. and Bradford, B. (2013a). Legitimacy, Trust and Compliance: An Empirical Test of Procedural Justice Theory Using the European Social Survey, in Tankebe, J. and Liebling, A. (eds.) Legitimacy and Criminal Justice: An International Exploration, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hough, M., Jackson, J. and Bradford, B. (2013b in press). Trust in justice and the legitimacy of legal authorities: topline findings from a comparative European study, in Gendrot, S., Hough, M., Levy, R., Kerezsi, K., and Snacken, S. (Eds.), European Handbook of Criminology. London: Routledge. ICPC (2011). Public-Private Partnerships and Community Safety: a guide to action. International Centre for the Prevention of Crime, Montreal, Canada. Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Hough, M., and Murray, K. H. (2012). Compliance with the Law and Policing by Consent: Notes on Police and Legal Legitimacy, in Crawford, A. and Hucklesby, A. (Eds.), Legitimacy and Compliance in Criminal Justice. London: Routledge. Manning, M., Homel, R., and Smith C. (2010). A meta-analysis of the effects of early developmental prevention programs in at-risk populations on non-health outcomes in adolescence. Children and Youth Services Review 32, Marmot, M and Wilkinson, R. (Eds.) (2006). Social Determinants of Health (2 nd ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pratt, T., and Cullen F. (2005). Assessing Macro-level Predictors and Theories of Crime: a Meta-Analysis. Crime and Justice 32, Sarre, R. (1997). Crime Prevention and Police, in P. O Malley and A. Sutton (eds), Crime Prevention in Australia: Issues in Policy and Research, Annandale: Federation Press, Sarre, R. (2003). Some Thoughts on the Relationship Between Crime Prevention and Policing in Contemporary Australia, in S.P. Lab and D. K. Das (eds), International Perspectives on Community Policing and Crime Prevention, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Sarre, R. (2011). We get the crime we deserve: Exploring the political disconnect in crime policy, James Cook University Law Journal, 18, Sarre, R. (2012). Police, Legitimacy and Crime Prevention: what are the intersections? Australasian Policing: A Journal of Professional Practice and Research, 4(2), Starratt, R. J. (1994). Building an ethical school, a practical response to the moral crisis in schools. London: The Falmer Press. Sunshine, J. and Tyler T. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law and Society Review 37, Tankebe, J. (2013). Viewing Things Differently: The Dimensions of Public Perceptions of Police Legitimacy. Criminology 51, Thomas, L., Falconer, S., Cross D., Monks H., and Brown, D. (2012). Cyberbullying and the Bystander: Research Findings and Insights Report. Sydney: Australian Human Rights Commission. Tyler, T. (1990). Why People Obey the Law. New Haven, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Tyler, T. (2003). Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and the Effective Rule of Law. Crime and Justice 30, Tyler, T. (2007). Legitimacy and Criminal Justice: International Perspectives. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Tyler, T. and Fagan J. (2008). Legitimacy and Cooperation: Why do people help the police fight crime in their communities. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 6,

24 Tyler, T. and Huo Y.J. (2002). Trust in the Law: Encouraging Public Cooperation with the Police and Courts. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Tyler, T. and Lind, E.A. (1992). A Relational Model of Authority in Groups. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 25, Victorian Parliament (2012) Inquiry into locally-based approaches to community safety and crime prevention. Final report. Drugs and Alcohol Prevention Committee, Parliament of Victoria, Melbourne. Wan, W-Y., Moffatt, S., Jones, C., and Weatherburn, D. (2012). The Effect of Arrest and Imprisonment on Crime. Crime and Justice Bulletin No. 158, Weatherburn, D. and Lind B. (1998). Poverty, Parenting, Peers and Crime-Prone Neighbourhoods. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, No 85. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. Wheller, L., Quinton, P., Fildes, A., and Mills, A. (2013). The Greater Manchester Police Procedural Justice Training Experiment: The impact of communication skills training on officers and victims of crime. UK: College of Policing. Wilkinson, R., and Pickett, K. (2009). The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger. London: Allen Lane. Willard, N. (2012). Cyber Savvy: Embracing Digital Safety and Civility. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press

25 TOWARD A NEW PROFESSIONALISM IN POLICING Christopher Stone, President of the Open Society Institute & Jeremy Travis, John Jay College of Criminal Justice * Introduction A cross the United States, police organizations are striving for a new professionalism. Their leaders are committing themselves to stricter accountability for both their effectiveness and their conduct while they seek to increase their legitimacy in the eyes of those they police and to encourage continuous innovation in police practices. The traffic in these ideas, policies and practices is now so vigorous across the nation that it suggests a fourth element of this new professionalism: its national coherence. These four principles accountability, legitimacy, innovation and coherence are not new in themselves, but together they provide an account of developments in policing during the last 20 years that distinguishes the policing of the present era from that of 30, 50 or 100 years ago. Many U.S. police organizations have realized important aspects of the new professionalism and many more have adopted its underlying values. The ambitions for accountability, legitimacy and innovation unite police organizations in disparate contexts: urban, suburban and rural, municipal, county, state and federal. With approximately 20,000 public police organizations in the United States, national coherence in American policing would be a signal achievement. 1 We do not see this new professionalism fully realized in any single department. We know how difficult it can be to narrow the gap between these ambitions and many deeply ingrained routines and practices. Much policing in the United States remains, in these terms, unprofessional, but professional ambition is itself a powerful force and it is at work almost everywhere. We hear similar ambitions for accountability, legitimacy, innovation and coherence in other countries, from the state police organizations in Brazil and India to the South African Police Service, the French Gendarmerie and the Chilean Carabineros. A global police culture with these same four elements increasingly defines the ambitions of police leaders in most countries. In this paper, however, we focus on the trend in the United States. To describe and illustrate the elements of this new professionalism, we draw on our own experiences working in and studying police organizations and on the deliberations of two Executive Sessions on Policing, both convened by the National * This article was previously published as part of a series of papers titled New Perspectives in Policing by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and Harvard Kennedy School: Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management, March by authors, reprinted here by permission. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to ebalazon@jjay.cuny.edu. 1 According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, as of September 2004, 17,876 state and local law enforcement agencies with the equivalent of at least one full-time officer were operating in the United States. Reaves, B. (2007). Census of Law Enforcement Agencies, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics,

26 Institute of Justice and Harvard University s Kennedy School of Government: the first from 1985 to 1992 and the second commencing in 2008 and continuing today. Why a New Professionalism? We offer the New Professionalism as a conceptual framework that can help chiefs, frontline police officers and members of the public alike understand and shape the work of police departments today and in the years ahead. Even as it remains a work in progress, the New Professionalism can help police chiefs and commissioners keep their organizations focused on why they are doing what they do, what doing it better might look like, and how they can prioritize the many competing demands for their time and resources. On the front lines, the New Professionalism can help police officers work together effectively, connect their daily work to the larger project of building a better society, and share their successes and frustrations with the communities they serve. In communities everywhere, the New Professionalism can help citizens understand individual police actions as part of larger strategies, and assess the demands and requests that police make for more public money, more legal authority and more public engagement in keeping communities safe. From all of these vantage points, the New Professionalism helps all of us see what is happening in policing, how we got here and where we are going. Each of the four elements of the New Professionalism accountability, legitimacy, innovation and national coherence has something to offer police and the communities in which they work. By a commitment to accountability we mean an acceptance of an obligation to account for police actions not only up the chain of command within police departments but also to civilian review boards, city councils and county commissioners, state legislatures, inspectors general, government auditors and courts. The obligation extends beyond these government entities to citizens directly: to journalists and editorial boards, resident associations, chambers of commerce the whole range of community-based organizations. By a commitment to legitimacy we mean a determination to police with the consent, cooperation and support of the people and communities being policed. Police receive their authority from the state and the law, but they also earn it from the public in each and every interaction. Although it is important to derive legitimacy from every part of the public, those citizens and groups most disaffected by past harms or present conditions have the greatest claims to attention on this score because their trust and confidence in the police is often weakest. Fortunately, research we discuss later in this paper suggests that police departments can strengthen their legitimacy among people of color in the United States and among young people of all races and ethnicities without compromising their effectiveness. 2 Indeed, effectiveness and legitimacy can be advanced together. By a commitment to innovation we mean active investment of personnel and resources both in adapting policies and practices proven effective in other departments and in experimenting with new ideas in cooperation with a department s local 2 See the discussion at note 33, infra, and the sources referenced therein

27 partners. Empirical evidence is important here. Departments with a commitment to innovation look for evidence showing that practices developed elsewhere work, just as they embrace evaluation of the yet unproven practices they are testing. By national coherence we mean that the departments exemplifying the New Professionalism are participating in national conversations about professional policing. They are training their officers, supervisors and leaders in practices and theories applicable in jurisdictions across the country. Not long ago, it was common to hear police officers insist that they could police effectively in their city, county or state only if they had come up through the ranks there: good policing was inherently parochial. Such a belief belies a true professionalism. Inherent in the idea of the New Professionalism in policing is that police officers, supervisors and executives share a set of skills and follow a common set of protocols that have been accepted by the profession because they have been proven to be effective or legally required. That is not to say that local knowledge and understanding are unimportant they are vital. But they are not everything. There is vital knowledge, understanding and practice common to good policing everywhere, and this common skill set defines police professionalism. There are many definitions of professionalism and some debate about what it means for policing to be a profession. We take these up at the end of this paper, after putting the New Professionalism in historical context. For now, suffice it to say that for any profession to be worthy of that name, its members must not only develop transportable skills but also commit themselves both to a set of ethical precepts and to a discipline of continuous learning. A look back in history reveals how this meaning of professional contrasts with another use of the word employed in the early debates over community policing. The New Professionalism embraces and extends the best of community policing, whereas the old professionalism said to characterize policing in the 1960s and 1970s was seen as antithetical to community policing. Community Policing and the New Professionalism Twenty-five years ago, when the elements of the New Professionalism began to emerge in urban American police departments, community policing was the organizing framework advanced to describe the new approach and new priorities. To most Americans who heard of the idea, community policing summoned up images of police walking the beat, riding on bicycles, or talking to groups of senior citizens and to young children in classrooms. These images adorn countless posters and brochures produced by individual police departments to explain community policing to local residents. They picture community policing as a specialized program: a few carefully selected officers taking pains to interact with good citizens while the rest of the police department does something else. Inside police departments, however, and at the first Executive Session on Policing, community policing was being described as far more than the next new program. It was promoted as the organizing framework around which police departments were going to change everything they did. Community policing might look like a specialized program when a police department first adopts it, but that is Phase One, as Lee Brown, who led police departments in Atlanta, Houston and New - 3 -

28 York City before becoming mayor of Houston, wrote in a 1989 paper for the first Executive Session. Brown explained that Phase Two : involves more sweeping and more comprehensive changes. It is the department s style that is being revamped. Although it is an operating style, community policing also is a philosophy of policing (emphasis in original). 3 Brown went on to explain how, in Phase Two, community policing requires changes to every part of policing, including its supervision and management, training, investigations, performance evaluation, accountability and even its values. True community policing, Brown wrote, requires a focus on results rather than process; it forces decentralization, power sharing with community residents, the redesign of police beats, and giving a lower priority to calls for service. Malcolm Sparrow, a former Detective Chief Inspector in the English police service on the faculty of the Harvard Kennedy School, made the same point in even more dramatic language: Implementing community policing is not a simple policy change that can be effected by issuing a directive through the normal channels. It is not a mere restructuring of the force to provide the same service more efficiently. Nor is it a cosmetic decoration designed to impress the public and promote greater cooperation. For the police it is an entirely different way of life. It is a new way for police officers to see themselves and to understand their role in society. The task facing the police chief is nothing less than to change the fundamental culture of the organization. 4 In this grand vision, the advent of community policing marked an epochal shift, replacing an earlier organizing framework: professional crime-fighting. And this, finally, is why the field today needs a new professionalism, for the original professionalism was as an organizing framework at least discarded in favor of community policing. In their promotion of community policing and a focus on problem solving, the proponents of reform roundly criticized what they saw as the professional crime- 3 Brown, L. (1989, September). Community Policing: A Practical Guide for Police Officials. Perspectives on Policing, no. 12. Washington, D.C.; Cambridge, Mass.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice; & Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management. Hereinafter, publications in this series are identified by their number in the series, Perspectives on Policing. The entire set is available at: criminaljustice/executive_sessions/policing.htm. 4 Sparrow, M. (1988, November). Implementing Community Policing. Perspectives on Policing, no. 9. Washington, D.C.; Cambridge, Mass.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice; & Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management,

29 fighting model, or simply the professional model of policing. 5 They saw the professional model as hidebound: too hierarchical in its management, too narrow in its response to crime and too much at odds with what police did. Led during the first Executive Session on Policing by the scholarship of three academics Professors Mark Moore of the Harvard Kennedy School, George Kelling of Northeastern University and Robert Trojanowicz of Michigan State University the champions of community policing contrasted their principles and methods to this traditional, classical, reform or, most commonly, professional style of policing. 6 The criticisms made by Moore, Kelling and Trojanowicz of the then-dominant form of policing in U.S. cities were right on the mark, but by labeling this dominant form professional crime-fighting, they needlessly tarnished the concept of professionalism itself. 7 Looking back on these debates, it is easy to see that this socalled professional model of policing was at best a quasi-professionalism and at worst an entirely false professionalism. At the time, however, the critique from Moore, Kelling, Trojanowicz and others succeeded in giving professional policing a bad name, so much so that reformers in countries where policing was still entirely a matter of political patronage and a blunt instrument of political power began to ask if they could skip the professional stage of police evolution and proceed directly to community policing. 8 Community policing was an important improvement on the style of policing it challenged in American cities, but it is time to correct two distortions inherited from that earlier debate. First, what community policing challenged in the 1980s was not a 5 See, for example, Kelling, G.; &Moore, M. (1988, November). The Evolving Strategy of Policing. Perspectives on Policing, no. 4. Washington, D.C.; Cambridge, Mass.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice; & Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management, 6 (where the authors write specifically of the professional model ). 6 The first Executive Session on Policing convened 31 officials and scholars, but its 16 published papers were authored by only 13 participants. Mark Moore and George Kelling were authors or co-authors on six papers each; Robert Trojanowicz was co-author on three; Malcolm Sparrow, Robert Wasserman and Hubert Williams were authors or co-authors on two each. No one else appeared on more than one. Of the first six papers issued, all were authored or coauthored by Moore, Kelling and Trojanowicz, with no other co-authors; and through the end of 1992, the Executive Session published only three papers that were not authored or co-authored by Moore, Kelling or Trojanowicz. Other scholars played at least as great a role in the formulation of community policing during these years, including Herman Goldstein (who was a member of the first Executive Session) and David Bayley (who is a member of the second Executive Session), but neither wrote for the first Executive Session on Policing. 7 More recently, the Committee to Review Research on Police Policy and Practices convened by the National Research Council of the National Academies recounted the story in the same way, although choosing in its own analysis to refer to the professional model of policing as the standard model. See National Research Council, Fairness and Effectiveness in Policing: The Evidence, Committee to Review Research on Police Policy and Practices, Wesley Skogan and Kathleen Frydl, editors, Committee on Law and Justice, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education (Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2004), p. 85. (Community policing is characterized as something that transforms the professional model of policing, dominant since the end of World War II. ) 8 Police officials in Kenya, eager to implement a version of community policing, put this question to one of the authors of this paper in 2000, as did a leader in the military police of Rio de Janeiro in

30 truly professional model of policing, but rather a technocratic, rigid, often cynical model of policing. Moreover, it reinforced pernicious biases deeply entrenched in the wider society. Both good and bad police work was performed in that mode, but it was hardly professional. Second, community policing was only part of the new model of policing emerging in the 1980s, with contemporaneous innovations occurring in technology, investigation and the disruption of organized crime. By reinterpreting the rise of community policing as part of a larger shift to a New Professionalism, we hope simultaneously to rescue the idea of professional policing from its frequently distorted form in the mid-20th century and to show how the elements of this New Professionalism might anchor a safer and more just society in the decades ahead. The So-Called Professionalism of Mid-20th-Century Policing Proponents of community policing in the 1980s labeled its mid-century predecessor as professional crime-fighting, but what sort of policing were they describing? What were the characteristics of the mid-century policing they hoped to replace? First, in its relationship to citizens, the previous mode of policing was deliberately removed from communities, insisting that police understood better than local residents how their communities should be policed. As George Kelling described it in the first paper in the Perspectives on Policing series, the police had long been seen as a community s professional defense against crime and disorder: Citizens should leave control of crime and maintenance of order to police (emphasis added). 9 Or, as a separate paper explained, The proper role of citizens in crime control was to be relatively passive recipients of professional crime control services. 10 In contrast, explained Kelling, under community policing, the police are to stimulate and buttress a community s ability to produce attractive neighborhoods and protect them against predators. 11 Second, in terms of tactics, the previous mode of policing relied on a limited set of routine activities. As another 1988 paper in the series explained, Professional crime-fighting now relies predominantly on three tactics: (1) motorized patrol; (2) rapid response to calls for service; and (3) retrospective investigation of crimes. 12 Third, the management structure of professional crime-fighting was centralized and top-down. Its management technique was command and control, aiming principally to keep police officers in line and out of trouble. As one paper described it, the more traditional perspective of professional crime-fighting policing 9 Kelling, G. (1988, June). Police and Communities: The Quiet Revolution. Perspectives on Policing, no. 1. Washington, D.C.; Cambridge, Mass.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice; & Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management, Kelling, G., & Moore, M. The Evolving Strategy of Policing (note 5). 11 Kelling, G. Police and Communities: The Quiet Revolution (note 9), Moore, M., Trojanowicz, R., & Kelling, G. (1988, June). Crime and Policing, Perspectives on Policing, no. 2. Washington, D.C.; Cambridge, Mass.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice; & Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management

31 emphasizes the maintenance of internal organizational controls. 13 And as another paper explained in more detail: In many respects, police organizations have typified the classical command-and-control organization that emphasized top-level decisionmaking: flow of orders from top-level executives down to line personnel, flow of information up from line personnel to executives, layers of dense supervision, unity of command, elaborate rules and regulations, elimination of discretion, and simplification of work tasks. 14 This mid-century model of policing can be criticized as technocratic and rigid, but it was not all bad. The elevation of technical policing skills, the introduction of hiring standards, and the stricter supervision and discipline of police officers improved some police services and helped some police chiefs put distance between themselves and political ward bosses, corrupt mayors and local elites demanding special attention. Prioritizing 911 calls at least allocated police services to anyone with access to a telephone rather than only to those with political connections or in favor with the local police. But these were incremental gains, and policing remained (and remains) closely tied to politics. 15 Moreover, each of the three elements of so-called professional policing described here its claim to technical expertise, its tactics and its management strategy failed to produce adequate public safety. Rising crime and disorder in the 1960s and 1970s belied the technical expertise of the police, as did the repressive response to the civil rights and peace movements and the persistence of brutality on the street and during interrogations. A growing body of research evidence demonstrated the ineffectiveness of random patrol, the irrelevance of shortened response times to the vast majority of calls for service, and the inability of retrospective investigation to solve most crimes. As for command-and-control management, the work of frontline police officers, operating outside of line-of-sight supervision, proved ill-suited to this form of supervision. 13 Wasserman, R. & Moore, M. (1988, November). Values in Policing, Perspectives on Policing, no. 8. Washington, D.C.; Cambridge, Mass.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice; & Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management, Kelling, G.; Wasserman, R.; & Williams, H. (1988, November). Police Accountability and Community Policing, Perspectives on Policing, no. 7. Washington, D.C.; Cambridge, Mass.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice; & Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management, Daryl Gates, then-police Chief in Los Angeles, explained more fully: Chiefs today are unfortunately deeply tied to politics and politicians. It s a very sad commentary on local policing. How do chiefs refer to their mayor? My mayor. Is your mayor going to win this election? And if they do not, that is the last time we see that commissioner or chief. Gone, because of political whim, not his or her performance as a chief. So, if you do not think politics are tied into policing today, you are being very, very foolish. See Hartmann, F.; ed. (1988, November). Debating the Evolution of American Policing, Perspectives on Policing, no. 5. Washington, D.C.; Cambridge, Mass.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice; & Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management,

32 Ironically, the command-and-control management techniques identified with professional crime-fighting were the antithesis of the practices generally used to manage professionals. Instead of depending on continuous training, ethical standards and professional pride to guide behavior, command-and-control structures treated frontline police officers like soldiers or factory workers, yet most of the time the job of policing looked nothing like soldiering or assembly-line production. Even then, the advocates for community policing recognized that mid-century policing was hardly professional in its treatment of the officers on the street. They minced no words here, explaining that by the 1960s and 1970s, line officers were still managed in ways that were antithetical to professionalization patrol officers continued to have low status; their work was treated as if it were routinized and standardized; and petty rules governed issues such as hair length and off-duty behavior. the classical theory [of command-andcontrol management] denies too much of the real nature of police work, promulgates unsustainable myths about the nature and quality of police supervision, and creates too much cynicism in officers attempting to do creative problem solving. Its assumptions about workers are simply wrong. 16 Of all the problems created by terming mid-century policing professional, none was more glaring than its dissonance with the experience of African-Americans and other racial and ethnic minorities. Former New York City Police Commissioner Patrick Murphy and former Newark (NJ) Police Director Hubert Williams coauthored a 1990 essay in which they argued that for black Americans, the so-called professional model was infused with the racism that had biased policing since the organization of the police during slavery: The fact that the legal order not only countenanced but sustained slavery, segregation, and discrimination for most of our Nation s history and the fact that the police were bound to uphold that order set a pattern for police behavior and attitudes toward minority communities that has persisted until the present day. That pattern includes the idea that minorities have fewer civil rights, that the task of the police is to keep them under control, and that the police have little responsibility for protecting them from crime within their communities. 17 Indeed, as Williams and Murphy pointed out, blacks were largely excluded from urban police departments in the same years that professional policing was 16 Kelling, G. & Moore, M. The Evolving Strategy of Policing (note 5), 9, Williams, H. & Murphy, P. (1990, January). The Evolving Strategy of Policing: A Minority View, Perspectives on Policing, no. 13. Washington, D.C., and Cambridge, Mass.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, and Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management, 2. The significance of this particular publication is especially great as Murphy had served as president of the Police Foundation from 1973 to 1985, succeeded by Hubert Williams, who continues in that position today

33 taking hold, and those African-Americans who were hired as police officers were often given lesser powers than white officers. In New Orleans, the police department included 177 black officers in 1870, but this number fell to 27 by 1880, further fell to five by 1900, and to zero by New Orleans did not hire another black officer until Even by 1961, a third of U.S. police departments surveyed still limited the authority of black police officers to make felony arrests. By the end of that decade, anger at racial injustice had fueled riots in more than a dozen cities, and a Presidential commission had concluded that many of these riots, as Williams and Murphy underscored, had been precipitated by police actions, often cases of insensitivity, sometimes incidents of outright brutality. 18 Today it is clear that the rise of community policing did not mark the end of professional policing, but rather its beginning. Little about policing in the mid-20th century was professional. Its expertise was flawed, its techniques crude, its management techniques more military than professional, and it reinforced rather than challenged the racism of the wider society. Community policing, with its emphases on quality of service, decentralization of authority and community partnership, was more professional than the style of policing it attempted to displace. The phrase community policing does not, however, adequately describe what replaced mid-century law enforcement and what continues to propel the most promising developments in policing today. What began to emerge in the 1980s was a new, truer, more robust professionalism of which community policing was and remains a part. The proponents of the term community policing were, in the 1980s, already aware of this problem with their language. They knew their community policing framework was merely a partial replacement for mid-century policing. Yet they resisted the broader labels suggested by their colleagues, clinging to their banner of community policing. Why? The Attorney General and the Professors Among the participants in the first Executive Session on Policing was Edwin Meese, then- Attorney General of the United States. Two years into the session, during the discussion of a paper by Professors Moore and Kelling tracing the evolution of policing strategies over the previous 100 years, an exchange between the Attorney General and Professor Moore captured not only the state of the debate in the policing field, but the reason that Moore and his academic colleagues adopted the phrase community policing to describe the broad changes they were both charting and championing. Emphasizing the historical significance of these changes, Kelling and Moore had argued in their paper that American policing since the 1840s had begun in a political era in which policing and local politics had been intimately connected and in which police carried out a wide range of social and political functions, only some of which related to law enforcement. Policing had then passed through a reform era, reaching its zenith in the 1950s, in which professional crime-fighting became the dominant organizational strategy. Then, just as the many failures of professional 18 Ibid., pp. 9,

34 crime-fighting became apparent in the 1960s and 1970s, police departments, according to Kelling and Moore, were achieving new successes with the reintroduction of foot patrol and with experiments in problem solving. Foot patrol proved both effective at reducing fear of crime and politically popular with residents, merchants and politicians, so much so that voters were willing to increase taxes to pay for it. At the same time, problem solving appeared to capture the imagination and enthusiasm of patrol officers, who liked working more holistically in partnership with residents to resolve neighborhood concerns. This led Kelling and Moore to the principal claim in their historical account: foot patrol, fear reduction, problem solving and partnerships with local residents were not merely new police tactics. Instead, they constituted a new organizational approach, properly called a community strategy. 19 Although some departments were introducing foot patrol or problem solving as mere add-ons to professional crime-fighting, their implications were far broader: We are arguing that policing is in a period of transition from a reform strategy to what we call a community strategy. The change involves more than making tactical or organizational adjustments and accommodations. Just as policing went through a basic change when it moved from the political to the reform strategy, it is going through a similar change now. 20 Attorney General Meese was sympathetic but skeptical. I think the paper is good, but perhaps a shade grandiose, he told its authors. Suggesting that we have a whole new era to be compared with the reform era is too grand an approach. Community policing, the Attorney General insisted, is only one component of the whole picture. 21 The then-director of the National Institute of Justice, James K. Chips Stewart, suggested a different term, problem-oriented policing, because police were taking many initiatives, not merely creating community partnerships, to affirmatively identify and solve problems rather than waiting to respond to reports of crime. 22 Attorney General Meese suggested strategic policing because the term 19 Kelling, G. & Moore, M. The Evolving Strategy of Policing (note 5), Ibid., p Quoted in Hartmann, F. Debating the Evolution of American Policing (note 15), Problem solving was discussed frequently at the Executive Session, often as a component of community policing, but its importance as an independent thrust in police reform has been more widely recognized since then. Herman Goldstein, who coined the term problemoriented policing, was careful to write at the time of the Executive Session that it connects with the current move to redefine relationships between the police and community. Goldstein, H. (1990). Problem-Oriented Policing. New York: McGraw Hill, 3. Looking back on these discussions in 2003, Goldstein explained that in the years of the Executive Session, the community policing movement grew rapidly in policing. One element of that movement supported the police becoming less legalisticallyoriented: that police should redefine their role in ways that sought to achieve broader outcomes for those, especially victims, who turned to the police for help. Beat-level problem solving was seen as supporting these efforts and therefore often incorporated into the community policing movement. As community policing and problem-oriented policing evolved alongside each other, the two concepts were intermingled. I contributed to some of the resulting confusion. Goldstein, H. (2003). On Further Developing Problem-Oriented Policing: The Most Critical Need, The Major Impediments, and a Proposal, Crime Prevention Studies 15: 13-47, 45, note 2 (citation omitted), available at

35 embraced not only the work in communities but also the support that community work was going to require (especially the intelligence, surveillance and analysis functions) and the specialist services that are going to focus on homicide, citywide burglary rings, car theft rings, and organized crime and terrorism. The Attorney General said that his concerns would disappear if the professors talked about community policing as a part of a new era of policing, rather than defining the era itself. If they did that, he concluded: Everybody would realize that this [community policing] is a very important contribution which, along with other things happening in the police field, marks a new era of strategic policing in which people are thinking about what they are doing. 23 Not only did the professors continue to insist on using community policing to define the new era and its strategy, but they soon persuaded the field to do the same. Community policing became the slogan around which reformers rallied, eventually including President Bill Clinton, who put community policing at the heart of his national strategy to deal with crime and to provide unprecedented federal assistance to local police. In response to Attorney General Meese s suggestion that the professors substitute the term strategic policing, Professor Moore responded with a four-part argument. First, he agreed that the many elements of strategic policing and problem solving were an important part of the new era. Second, he predicted that most of these new strategies would take hold even without encouragement from leaders in the field or academics. Third, he predicted that police would find most uncomfortable the building of true partnerships with communities. He concluded, therefore, that labeling the entire package of innovations as community policing would give special prominence to the very aspect that would be most difficult for the police to adopt. In short, the name was a dare. As Moore said to the Attorney General: Let me say why we keep talking about this phrase community policing. Let us imagine that there are two different fronts on which new investments in policing are likely to be made. One lies in the direction of more thoughtful, more information-guided, more active attacks on particular crime problems. Some are local crime problems like robbery and burglary, and some turn out to be much bigger [including] organized crime, terrorism, and sophisticated frauds. That is one frontier. In many respects it is a continuation of an increasingly thoughtful, professionalized, forensic, tactical-minded police department. The other front is how to strike up a relationship with the community so that we can enlist their aid, focus on the problems that turn out to be important, and figure out a way to be accountable. The first strand is captured by notions of strategic and problem-solving policing. The second strand is captured by the concept of community policing. My judgment is that 23 Quoted in Hartmann, F. Debating the Evolution of American Policing (note 15),

36 the problem solving, strategic thing will take care of itself because it is much more of a natural development in policing. If you are going to make a difference, you ought to describe a strategy that challenges the police in the areas in which they are least likely to make investments in repositioning themselves. That is this far more problematic area of fashioning a relationship with the community. 24 The dare worked. Not everywhere, and not completely, but many American police departments took up the banner of community policing and found it possible to varying degrees to create partnerships with the communities they policed. 25 The successful marketing of community policing was solidified in the first presidential campaign and then the presidency of Bill Clinton, whose signature policing initiative federal funding to add 100,000 cops to U.S. police departments was managed by the newly created Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office). With those funds, local police departments pursued hundreds of varieties of community partnerships, and the public came to understand that modern policing was community policing. But Attorney General Meese was right. Community policing was only one part of the new era in American policing, and police departments did not, indeed could not, transform their entire organizations in service of local community priorities. There were too many things to do that did not fit neatly within that frame. Instead, departments began to change on many fronts at once: incorporating new forensic science technology and new surveillance capabilities, building new information systems that allowed chiefs to hold local commanders accountable almost in real time for levels of crime in their districts, expanding the use of stop-and-search tactics, responding to criticisms of racial profiling, and managing heightened concern about terrorism. And every one of these innovations raised problems, at least in some departments, beyond the guidance that community policing principles provided. As federal funding for community policing diminished after 2001, police leaders found themselves without a single organizing framework that could allow them to make sense of all of these developments. Soon the labels were proliferating: intelligence-led policing, evidence-based policing, pulling levers, hot-spot policing and predictive policing. 26 Some still argued that community policing, rightly understood, was a vessel capacious enough to contain all of these developments, but others believed that many of these tactics and strategies had become divorced from community engagement and participation. Community policing, in short, lost its 24 Ibid., p. 5. In a later paper, Moore suggested, likely in jest, that one could term the new strategy professional, strategic, community, problem-solving policing. Moore, M. & and Trojanowicz, R. (1988, November). Corporate Strategies for Policing. Perspectives on Policing, no. 6. Washington, D.C.; Cambridge, Mass.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice; & Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management, See, for example, Skogan, W. (2006). Police and Community in Chicago: A Tale of Three Cities. New York: Oxford University Press. 26 See, for example, Weisburd, D.; Braga, A.; & eds. (2006). Police Innovation: Contrasting Perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press

37 power as a comprehensive, organizing concept and again became a single element in the complex and contentious field of policing. Moreover, even in the Clinton years, community policing succeeded as a political slogan and provided a framework for important changes in police practice, but did not serve as the transformative paradigm that Moore and others thought was needed. Police leaders remain uncertain even to this day what they should ask of their communities. Despite books, trainings, conferences and countless new community policing initiatives, police departments became only marginally better at building broad, trusting, active partnerships with community residents, especially in high-crime neighborhoods. By the time of Barack Obama s election in 2008, community policing had not only lost most of the federal funding and priority it had enjoyed in the 1990s, but the power of the slogan to focus police attention, catalyze public support for police reform, and serve as an overarching philosophy was exhausted as well. The New Professionalism can restore to the field an overarching, organizing framework. It brings together the strategic, problem-oriented, community partnership strands from the 1980s and 1990s, and incorporates many additional developments in policing in the new century. Still, the exchange between Attorney General Meese and Professor Moore is worth recalling, for it reminds us that some elements of reform are easier than others for police to integrate into their tradition-bound organizations. As the New Professionalism advances, reformers inside and outside police departments should focus on those aspects that will be most difficult for those departments to embrace. The New Professionalism in the 21st Century All four elements of the New Professionalism are already apparent in the values espoused by many police leaders in the United States and in the operations of several of their departments: accountability, legitimacy, innovation and national coherence. Indeed, the fourth is why the first three define a true professionalism: a collection of expertise, principles and practices that members of the profession recognize and honor. Increased Accountability Police departments used to resist accountability; today, the best of them embrace it. Twenty years ago, the term police accountability generally referred to accountability for misconduct. To speak of police accountability was to ask who investigated civilian complaints, how chiefs disciplined officers for using excessive force, and so on sensitive topics in policing. Police chiefs did not generally feel

38 accountable for levels of crime. 27 The change today is dramatic, with increasing numbers of police chiefs feeling strong political pressure to reduce crime even as they contain costs. The best chiefs speak confidently about the three C s : crime, cost and conduct. Police departments today are accountable for all three. Consider accountability for crime. Originating in the New York Police Department (NYPD), the CompStat accountability process, in which chiefs in headquarters hold precinct and other area commanders accountable for continuing reductions in crime and achievement of other goals, is now a staple of police management in most large departments. The CompStat process focuses most intensely on index crimes : homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny and motor vehicle theft. At the same time, neighborhood residents in local community meetings question police commanders most commonly about other problems, such as open-air drug markets, disorderly youth, vehicle traffic and noise. In still other forums with more specialized advocates, police executives are expected to account for their responses to domestic violence complaints and hate crimes. In these and other ways, police agencies are now routinely accountable for their ability or inability to reduce the volume of crime. Accountability for cost is hardly new, but the costs of policing are receiving intense scrutiny across the United States as state and local governments cut their budgets. Although some police departments are resorting to familiar cost-cutting strategies reducing civilian staff, slowing officer recruitment, limiting opportunities for officers to earn overtime and eliminating special programs others are urging a more fundamental re-examination of how police departments are staffed and what work they do. 28 In Los Angeles, Chief of Police Charles Beck eliminated an entire citywide unit of 130 officers known as Crime Reduction and Enforcement of Warrants (CREW), used for tactical crime suppression. This allowed the department to maintain patrol officer levels in local police districts during a time of budget cuts, even though it deprived his executive team of a flexible resource for responding quickly to new crime hot spots. More than cost cutting, this is a serious bet on the value of districtlevel leadership, entailing a public accounting of how the department is managing costs in a tight fiscal environment. 29 Finally, police leaders are taking responsibility for the conduct of their personnel: not only apologizing promptly for clear cases of misconduct, but also taking the initiative to explain controversial conduct that they consider legal and 27 See Kelling, G.; Wasserman, R.; & Williams, H. Police Accountability and Community Policing (note 14), 1. ( Rising crime or fear of crime may be problematic for police administrators, but rarely does either threaten their survival. ) 28 See Gascón, G. & Foglesong, T. (2010, December). Making Policing More Affordable: Managing Costs and Measuring Value in Policing. Washington, D.C.; Cambridge, Mass.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice; & Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management, NCJ Beck disbanded the Crime Reduction and Enforcement of Warrants task force (CREW), weathering criticism that this vital unit comprised quick-strike troops that former Chief William Bratton used to focus on problem gangs and neighborhoods. Beck also reduced the size of other specialized, central units focused on gangs and drugs by 170 officers to maintain patrol levels in the districts. See Romero, D. (2010, February). LAPD s Beck Shuffles Cops To Deal With Budget Crisis: No New Cars, No Unused Vacation Pay Possible. LA Weekly, available at: com/ladaily/city-news/lapd-metro-transfers

39 appropriate. For example, when the Los Angeles Police Department employed excessive force on a large scale at an immigrants-rights rally in MacArthur Park in May 2007, then-police Chief William Bratton publicly confessed error within days, and followed up with strict discipline and reassignment of the top commander at the scene, who later resigned. 30 Perhaps a less obvious example is the NYPD s annual report on all firearms discharges, in which the department reports the facts and patterns in every discharge of a firearm by any of its officers. In the 2008 report, for example, the NYPD reported on 105 firearm discharges, the fewest in at least a decade. These included 49 discharges in adversarial conflict in which 12 subjects were killed and 18 injured. The report takes pains to put these police shootings in context, providing accounts of the incidents, information on the backgrounds of the officers and the subjects shot, and comparisons with earlier years. 31 The embrace and expansion of accountability is likely to continue as part of the New Professionalism in policing, as it is in most professions. On crime, for example, we expect to see more police agencies conducting their own routine public surveys, as many do now, holding themselves accountable not only for reducing reported crime, but also for reducing fear and the perception that crime is a problem in particular neighborhoods or for especially vulnerable residents. The police department in Nashville has engaged a research firm to conduct surveys of residents and businesses every six months since 2005, tracking victimization as well as the percentage of respondents who consider crime their most serious problem, and sharing the results publicly. 32 To decrease costs, police departments will likely accelerate the shifting of work to nonsworn, and therefore less expensive, specialist personnel, especially in crime investigation units that are currently staffed mostly with detectives. A range of new specialists, including civilian crime scene technicians, data analysts and victim liaisons, might well replace one-half or more of today s detectives. A wide range of new civilian roles could emerge, boosting the prominence of civilian police careers in much the same way that nurses and technicians have taken on many of the roles traditionally played by doctors within the medical profession. This move is already under way, but it proceeds haltingly and with frequent reversals because of the politics of police budgets in periods of fiscal constraint, when retaining sworn officers becomes an especially high priority for elected officials. On issues of conduct, the New Professionalism may bring substantial reductions in the use of force already apparent in several jurisdictions as police departments become more proficient in analyzing the tactical precursors to use-offorce incidents. Already, some departments are reviewing uses of force not only to determine if the officers were justified in the moment that they pulled their triggers or struck a blow, but also to discern earlier tactical missteps that may have unnecessarily 30 See Board of Police Commissioners. (2007, October). Los Angeles Police Department, An Examination of May Day Three police officers were injured by subject gunfire, and none were killed in those incidents. See New York Police Department, 2008 Annual Firearms Discharge Report, Personal communication from then-police Chief Ronald Serpas, November A copy of the June 2009 survey report is on file with the Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management at the Harvard Kennedy School

40 escalated a situation to the point where force was legitimately used. By moving beyond a focus on culpability and discipline to smarter policing that relies less on physical force, more departments can demonstrate their professionalism and better account for the force that they deploy. Finally, we see a growing appreciation among police executives for their own accountability to frontline officers and other members of the organization. This is the least developed form of accountability, with too many police managers still speaking about doing battle with their unions and too many unions bragging about their control over chiefs. This familiar, bruising fight between labor and management obscures the beginnings of a more professional, constructive engagement between police unions and police executives, where leaders at every level are committed to disciplinary systems that are fair and perceived as fair, the development of rules with robust participation of frontline officers and staff, and codes of ethics and statements of values that speak to the aspirations of men and women throughout policing and are grounded in a participatory process. Legitimacy Every public-sector department makes some claim to legitimacy, and policing is no exception. In their account of professional crime-fighting of the mid-20th century, Professors Kelling and Moore identified the sources of legitimacy for policing as the law and the professionalism of the police. They contrasted these sources of legitimacy with early sources of legitimacy in urban politics. To free themselves from the corruptions of political manipulation, the police of mid-century America, the professors explained, claimed their legitimacy from enforcing the law in ways that were properly entrusted to their professional expertise. By contrast, community policing emphasized the legitimacy that could be derived from community approval and engagement. The legitimacy of policing under the New Professionalism embraces all of these, recognizing that legitimacy is both conferred by law and democratic politics and earned by adhering to professional standards and winning the trust and confidence of the people policed. The New Professionalism, however, puts a special emphasis on the sources of earned legitimacy: professional integrity and public trust. The last of these public legitimacy extends a long-established principle of democratic policing and a tenet of community policing: policing by consent of the governed. In recent decades, police have had only the weakest means to measure erosion of public legitimacy, mostly derived from the numbers of civilian complaints against the police. As every police officer and police scholar can agree, counting formal civilian complaints produces highly problematic statistics. Relatively few people who feel aggrieved in their encounters with the police make a formal complaint, so the complaints received are unlikely to be representative of wider patterns. Moreover, the police discount complaints from at least two categories of civilians: persistent offenders who use the complaint process to deter police from stopping them, and persistent complainers who file literally dozens of complaints annually. These complainants may be relatively few, but the stories about them circulate so widely among police officers that they undermine the ability of police commanders or outside

41 oversight bodies to use numbers of civilian complaints as a credible measure of public dissatisfaction. Finally, adjudicating civilian complaints is so difficult that most complaints remain formally unsubstantiated, further undermining the process. The problem is with the use of civilian complaints as the leading measure of public legitimacy, not with the goal of public legitimacy itself. Research conducted by New York University Professor Tom Tyler and others over the last two decades demonstrates that rigorous surveys can reliably measure legitimacy, and that doing so allows police departments to identify practices that can increase their legitimacy among those most disaffected: young people and members of ethnic and racial minority groups. Tyler and others demonstrate that police can employ even forceful tactics such as stop-and-frisk in ways that leave those subject to these tactics feeling that the police acted fairly and appropriately. 33 It is through the pursuit of public legitimacy, guided by repeated surveys that disaggregate results for specific racial, ethnic and age groups, that the New Professionalism can directly address the persistent distrust between ethnic and racial minorities and the police in the United States. As the New Professionalism develops further, police departments will be able to use better surveys than are common today to measure public legitimacy, allowing them to make more appropriate and modest use of civilian complaints statistics. In 2007, then-senator Barack Obama underscored the importance of this pillar of the New Professionalism when he promised that, as President, he would work for a criminal justice system that enjoyed the trust and confidence of citizens of every race, ethnicity and age. 34 Public surveys that capture the satisfaction of people in these discrete groups in their encounters with police and in their broader confidence in the police can help measure progress toward that goal. 35 Continuous Innovation One complaint about the old professionalism of mid-century policing is that it stifled innovation at the front lines of policing. Police managers were so concerned about the dangers of corruption and a loss of discipline that they suppressed the 33 See, for example, Tyler, T. (2004). Enhancing Police Legitimacy, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 593 (10) (2004): See also Tyler, T.; ed. (2007). Legitimacy and Criminal Justice: International Perspectives. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. 34 See Obama, B. (2007, September). Remarks at Howard University Convocation.Available at com/2007/09/28/remarks_of_senator_barack_ obam_26.php, accessed October 14, At a national level, the Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics annually reports levels of confidence in the police as an institution by age, income, racial and ethnic group, and political affiliation. The results in 2009 showed that 63 percent of white adults had a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in the police, in contrast to 38 percent of black adults. If individual departments track the exact language of these national surveys, they can compare themselves with these national benchmarks. See Pastore, A. & Maguire, K.; eds. (2009). Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, Table , available at t pdf, accessed August 2,

42 creative impulses of frontline officers who wanted to try new ways of solving crime problems and eliminating other conditions that caused people grief. Conversely, a complaint about community policing in the 1990s was that it left problem solving to the variable skills of frontline officers, with only rare examples of senior management investing in departmentwide problem solving or developing responses beyond the generic solutions of patrolling, investigating, arresting, and prosecuting without benefit of rigorously derived knowledge about the effectiveness of what they do. 36 Today, innovation at every level is essential for police agencies charged with preventing crimes and solving problems from terrorism to youth violence, vandalism, mortgage fraud, Internet gambling, drug dealing, extortion, drunk driving, intimate partner violence and so on. The last decade has seen innovation in the strategies, tactics and technologies that police employ against all of these, and in ways that police develop relationships within departments and with the public. Films and television series popularize innovations in forensic sciences, but equally dramatic are innovations in less-lethal weaponry, the use of verbal judo to control unruly people without physical force, direct engagement with neighborhood gangs and drug dealers to reduce crime, and recruiting techniques that can rapidly diversify the pool of applicants for police jobs. Other innovations boost attention to customer service at police stations, help supervisors identify officers at greater risk of engaging in misconduct, improve the outcomes of confrontations with mentally disturbed individuals, and provide more effective service to victims of persistent domestic violence and spousal abuse. It is a dizzying array. The challenge of the New Professionalism is to encourage innovation within the bounds not only of the law but also of ethical values. The use of value statements to guide police behavior in place of the strict enforcement of detailed regulations continues to gain acceptance in the field, driven first by community policing and problem solving and more recently by reforms to disciplinary processes and closer collaborations between union leadership and police executives. As police departments reward innovators with recognition, resources and promotion, that trend will continue. As part of the New Professionalism, departments can expand the range of incentives for innovation and build structures that encourage innovation as part of the routine work of police officers and senior management teams. These might include community partnerships that go beyond the neighborhood activities of community policing, and joint ventures with other government departments, national and international nonprofit organizations, and private-sector companies. Such partnerships encourage police to see crime and crime problems in new forms and new places, well beyond the narrow confines of those reported to the police and recorded in the Uniform Crime Reports. But innovation alone will not prove valuable without a way to learn from the process. All professions are distinguished from mere trades by their commitment to continuous learning through innovation, whether it is experimentation in medicine, the development of the common law, or the application of engineering breakthroughs in architecture. As Herman Goldstein wrote a few years ago in urging the importance of developing knowledge as part of police reform, The building of a body of 36 Goldstein, H. On Further Developing Problem-Oriented Policing (note 22),

43 knowledge, on which good practice is based and with which practitioners are expected to be familiar, may be the most important element for acquiring truly professional status. 37 Knowledge its creation, dissemination and practical application is essential to genuine professionalism. Police organizations need not only to encourage innovation but also to measure their outcomes, and reward and sustain innovations that succeed. They should encourage independent evaluations of their policies and tactics. Working with researchers, they should design experiments that rigorously test new ideas. Police organizations must then communicate the reasons for their successes widely and quickly throughout the profession. Formal partnerships with universities and nonprofit think tanks can help, and many departments have already built such partnerships. All this suggests a new way of learning within policing. The pace of innovation and knowledge development today is simply too fast for police organizations to rely on recruit training and occasional specialized courses. Rather, police departments need to become learning organizations of professionals. For example, analysts in police agencies should not only be studying crime patterns but also analyzing what the police are doing about them and to what effect, informing the development of tailor-made strategies to deal with the underlying problems, and then sharing their analyses widely within the department in forms that busy frontline officers and supervisors can easily digest, retain and apply. Another example: frontline officers and rising managers should be rewarded for the professional habits of reading, learning and actively contributing to the expansion of knowledge in the field. 38 National Coherence Achieving accountability for crime, cost and conduct; public legitimacy across social divisions; and continuous innovation and learning at every rank would mark a watershed in policing. These first three elements build on efforts begun with community policing, elevating them to a New Professionalism that infuses all of what police organizations do. To make that New Professionalism worthy of the name, however, requires one more step: achieving national coherence in this radically decentralized business. This element has not yet developed as far as the first three, but it has begun to grow. Policing in the United States is notoriously parochial, entrusted to something close to 20,000 police departments the precise number changes so quickly that there is no reliable count. Yet in the last three decades, policing has begun to develop features of a coherent field of professional work. The Police Foundation and Police Executive Research Forum have helped by nurturing national conversations among 37 Ibid., p. 46, note 3. Goldstein here describes it as especially troubling that the 20th century professionalization of policing had not included this element. 38 The idea of a learning organization goes well beyond what we expect of all professional organizations. For more about learning organizations, see Garvin, D. (2000). Learning in Action: Putting the Learning Organization to Work. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press

44 practitioners and researchers. These conversations took on greater intensity in the first Executive Session on Policing, and they became far more public when Bill Clinton, campaigning for the presidency in 1992, argued for using federal resources to spread community policing to every state. Since then, national discussions and debates about police practices and strategies have become commonplace, thanks in large part to the efforts of the COPS Office, the Office on Violence Against Women and the Office of Justice Programs all within the Department of Justice and the conversations hosted by the Major Cities Chiefs Association and other professional associations. 39 Many of the best-known brands in policing practices CompStat Meetings, Fusion Centers and even older brands like Weed and Seed programs are national in name only, with each manifestation so different from the others that they contribute little to national coherence. Still, even these widely differing practices can create an appetite for more truly coherent practices in an extremely decentralized field. Most other countries achieve at least some national coherence through a national police agency or a limited number of state police services. England, with only 43 local police services, has recently created the National Police Improvement Agency to assume a variety of shared functions and bring a greater degree of national coherence to policing. Canada uses a mixed model, in which municipalities and provinces contract with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) to provide local or provincial police services according to local specifications aiming to achieve locally negotiated goals. Large jurisdictions, such as the provinces of Ontario and Quebec and the cities of Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, still choose to field their own police services, but the other provinces and many smaller cities contract with the RCMP. Local control over local policing is deeply ingrained in American political culture, and we do not expect that to change. Some consolidation among the 80 percent of police agencies with fewer than 25 police officers could help residents of those communities receive more professional police services, but such consolidation will not do much for national coherence. Indeed, further progress toward national coherence through the New Professionalism may be necessary for this consolidation to be attractive. Greater mobility among police departments for officers and professional staff could do more than consolidation to advance national coherence. True professionals are mobile across jurisdictions, even across national boundaries. Engineers, doctors and even lawyers can practice their professions and apply their skills and training almost anywhere. Many professions have local testing and licensing requirements, but reciprocity arrangements recognize that the training and skills of these licensed professionals are portable, and both individuals and organizations take advantage of 39 The Major Cities Chiefs Association comprises the chiefs of the 63 largest police departments in the United States and Canada (56 of the departments are in the United States; seven more are in Canada). Members include the chief executive officers of law enforcement agencies in U.S. cities with populations greater than 500,000, the chief executive officer of the largest law enforcement agency in each U.S. Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area with a population greater than 1.5 million, and the chiefs of police in the seven largest Canadian cities. For more information about the association, see the association s website,

45 this portability. Local experience has value in every profession, but local expertise can be balanced with wider knowledge and experience. Only in the last few decades has it become common for big-city police chiefs to be recruited from outside of their departments and states, though even today most chiefs have spent their entire careers in the departments they lead. That trend needs to deepen, and the profession needs to find ways to encourage greater movement from place to place and across state lines at every stage of police careers. The obstacles are substantial. Police pension rules can create powerful disincentives for officers to move. In some states, such as California, the pension system does not block movement within the state, but creates disincentives for wider moves. In Massachusetts, state laws and contracts make it difficult for veteran officers and supervisors to move even within the state without loss in rank. If the values of policing are really professional, not local, then departments need not worry that a workforce enjoying geographic mobility will become unskilled or undisciplined. Officers who have worked in the same community for a decade or more and who know the local people and their customs will be invaluable members of any police service, but that is true in many professions. What is needed is a genuine national coherence in the skills, training and accreditation of police professionals. 40 At stake here is much more than the ability for some police officers to move from one department to another. Citizens should be entitled to professional performance from U.S. police officers wherever they find them. Not only should the definition of professional performance be constantly evolving, but the public itself mobile across the country should expect police officers everywhere to keep up with these developments. This kind of coherence implies the development of national norms of how the police respond to situations, particularly to criminal activity, public disorder, political dissent or even a traffic infraction. Consider, for example, a routine traffic stop. This can be a tense moment for a police officer who does not know if the car s occupants were merely speeding or escaping the scene of a crime, just as it is an anxious moment for most drivers. A common protocol for how the police approach the vehicle, what they require of the driver, and how they respond as the encounter proceeds could not only save the lives of officers, but could help motorists as they drive from state to state avoid inadvertently alarming any officers who stop them. Such protocols have already begun to spread, but they could usefully be developed for a much wider range of situations. The concept of a protocol, familiar in the medical field, could prove useful in professional policing. Some may become standard because of research findings, others because of judicial decisions, still others because of advances in forensic science. As in medicine, the danger is that protocols will, in the hands of busy police 40 The issues of national coherence and professionalism can raise questions about minimum standards for police, especially educational standards. Should police officers be required to have a college degree? Should there be educational qualifications for promotion? In light of racial and ethnic differences in formal educational attainment, standards might be more appropriately focused on knowledge rather than years of schooling or formal degrees. Many professions allow apprenticeships to substitute for formal classroom education. The issues also raise questions of pension portability for line officers, which some states are beginning to address with the support of police unions. In general, we have been impressed that many police unions share the ambitions of the New Professionalism

46 professionals, replace nuanced diagnosis and a plan to address the problems at hand. Careful analysis of local problems and the custom crafting of solutions continue to be necessary. Still, once a tool becomes part of that solution, its use according to standard protocols can save lives, improve effectiveness, reduce costs and let everyone benefit from the accumulation of professional knowledge. Just as systematic evaluation and rigorous research can discipline innovation, they can strengthen national protocols. 41 Increased mobility and stronger protocols are only two ways in which national coherence can advance. The attraction of the new professionalism is likely to feed a flowering of specialist professional associations, bachelor s and master s degree programs, professional journals and other features of professional infrastructure. Is the New Professionalism Really New? We return, finally, to the definitional question: What is professionalism? When an earlier generation of reformers described the police strategy of the mid20th century as professional crime-fighting, they may have been using the term professional merely as the opposite of amateur. Perhaps they thought of professional police much as people think of professional athletes or professional actors. Through more rigorous selection, better training and tighter command, they had left the ranks of mere amateurs. It is also likely that this earlier generation wanted to put distance between the police and partisan elected officials. Police departments live with a constant tension between serving the government leaders of the day, whether mayor, county executive or governor, and remaining independent of partisan politics. In the mid-20th century, reformers deployed the language of professionalism to help manage that tension, hoping to hold the local political machine at arm s length. That aim was laudable, but the claim was false. These departments were not professional. We describe today s genuine police professionalism as new to distinguish it from the earlier rhetoric that mistakenly equated professionalism with an overreliance on technology, centralization of authority and insulation from the public. These features, found in much policing in the second half of the 20th century, do not define true professionalism. Consider the parallel with the practice of medicine as a profession. In the 1960s and 1970s, U.S. doctors were often criticized as overly reliant on technology and distant from the patients whom they treated. A wave of reformers in medicine developed new specialties in family practice and championed medical education that trained doctors to communicate with patients respectfully, engaging patients more meaningfully in their own treatment. New roles for nurse practitioners and other health workers made the practice of medicine more humane. Family practice and other 41 The recently created National Network for Safe Communities, which links more than 50 jurisdictions that are implementing a gang violence reduction strategy piloted in Boston and a drug market reduction strategy piloted in High Point, N.C., represents one such effort to move police practice from experimentation to application and adaptation of common, national protocols. See A similar national effort, the Policing Research Platform Project, is collecting comprehensive data from new recruits, supervisors and entire police agencies to expand understanding of the career paths of police professionals and of quality policing. See

47 reforms aimed to build good relationships between medical practitioners and patients, just as community policing aimed to build good relationships between police and the people they served. But no one seriously suggests that doctors and nurses should abandon their identity as professionals. Instead, professionalism in medicine has come to embrace the respect for patients, accountability and innovations that are improving practice. Medicine has discovered its own new professionalism. So, too, has legal practice, in part through law school clinics that teach the importance of respectful client relationships alongside legal doctrine. Similarly, in law enforcement, the New Professionalism embraces the respectful engagement of citizens and communities that lies at the core of community policing. Those who continue to champion the aspirations of community policing should understand the New Professionalism as aligned with their ambitions. 42 Moreover, the New Professionalism is clear about its expectations, whereas community policing has become so vague a term that it has lost its operational meaning. As Moore advised two decades ago, the New Professionalism focuses police attention on the very things that are most difficult to achieve: accountability, legitimacy, innovation and national coherence. Community engagement is essential at least to the first two of those and perhaps all four. Much can be gained from a truer police professionalism. For the public, policing promises to become more effective, more responsive to the opinions of residents and less forceful, less brusque. For members of the police profession themselves, the work promises to become more stimulating with a greater emphasis on learning, innovation, ethics and professional mobility. But the greatest gains are for democratic societies generally and the American experiment in democracy more specifically. A certain amount of force will always be a part of police work; a degree of coercion is necessary to keep order and enforce the law. What matters is whether policing when it forcefully asserts its authority makes democratic progress possible or impedes it. Professional policing enhances democratic progress when it accounts for what it does, achieves public support, learns through innovation and transcends parochialism. That is the promise of the New Professionalism. 42 See, for example, Sklansky, David, The Persistent Pull of Police Professionalism, to be published in this series. [National Institute of Justice (NIJ). BiblioGov (August 13, 2012)] Sklansky continues to identify professionalism in policing with the desire to centralize police authority, make use of the latest technology, and keep the public at a distance. He decries such professionalism and longs to engage police in questions of genuine partnership with communities. We agree with his ambition but disagree that he needs to strip police of their professional identity to achieve it. We believe the New Professionalism is a more accurate and more attractive banner for this effort than his advanced community policing

48 RESTORING THE LOST HOPE: A MULTIDIMENSIONAL APPROACH FOR BUILDING PUBLIC TRUST IN THE POLICE Francis D. Boateng, * Washington State University Public trust is a necessary condition for police effectiveness. A deficit of trust renders police institutions incapable of performing their duties. Studies conducted in Ghana have shown that citizens' trust in the police is significantly low. Hence, the need for a pragmatic approach to building and maintaining of trust in the police. The current paper adopts a multidimensional framework for restoring and maintaining trust in the Ghanaian police. The framework assumes that, there is no single most effective way of building citizens' trust in the police. Instead, there should be a constellation of strategies that work together to build trust. Broad recommendations including implementation of fear reduction strategies, increasing citizens' satisfaction, adherence to professional standards, institutional involvement, police-community partnership, and police-researcher collaboration are discussed. S everal studies have documented the importance of public trust in policing, especially in democratic societies where policing by consent is paramount (Boateng, 2012; Hough & Roberts, 2004; Jackson & Bradford, 2010; Mazerolle Antrobus, Bennett, & Tyler, 2013; Murphy & Cherney, 2012; Rosenbaum et al., 2005; Tyler, 2005). These studies have collectively shown that trust in the police leads to citizens' voluntary cooperation with law enforcement, as well as voluntary compliance with the laws being enforced. Citizens who trust the police willingly cooperate with police officers by either reporting crimes they witness or providing vital information leading to the apprehension of individuals who have violated criminal law (Flexon & Greenleaf, 2009). Prior studies have found evidence suggesting that public trust influences police effectiveness and legitimacy (Goldsmith, 2005; Hough, Jackson, Bradford, & Myhill, 2010; Hough, 2012; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003), and have argued that public trust legitimizes police actions (Hough et al., 2010). A legitimate police force faces minimal to no challenge to its authority and enjoys citizen cooperation (Tankebe, 2013; Resig, Tankebe, & Mesko, 2012). It is therefore apparent that public trust in the police is a vital ingredient to police operation and police effectiveness. An absence of trust can make police institutions ineffective and incapable of performing their duties. A police force suffering from the lack of trust faces difficulties in securing public cooperation and compliance (Memmo, Sartor, & di Cardano, 2003). Moreover, researchers have argued that without citizens approval and consent, law enforcement agencies cannot fulfill their mission to police and consequently, public safety suffers (Frazier, 2007). Recognizing the need for the police to build and maintain public trust, this article discusses strategies to enhance public trust and confidence in the Police. It * 2014 by author, reprinted here by permission. Correspondence concerning this paper should be addressed to Francis.boateng@ .wsu.edu. The author is grateful to Drs. Otwin Marenin and Aaron Roussell, Washington State University for their helpful comments on the earlier version of the paper. The author however accepts responsibility for the views and opinions expressed in this paper

49 needs to be mentioned that, though the article uses Ghana as a case study, the recommendations offered can be applied to other contexts, especially developing nations. The Ghana Police Service has suffered from public distrust and a lack of legitimacy for several years. Citizen trust in the police is currently very low, with only about 35% trusting the police to a great extent (Boateng, 2012). The low trust can be partly explained by excessive police misconduct, abuse, and corruption (Tankebe, 2010). This paper adopts a multidimensional framework perspective towards restoring and maintaining Ghanaians trust in the police. The framework is based on the assumption that there is no single most effective way of building citizens trust in the police; instead, a constellation of strategies must work together to build trust. This article is structured in the following way: It begins by discussing policing in Ghana from a historical perspective, followed by a discussion on the contemporary relationship between the police and the public. The article then presents an analysis of the levels of trust in the police and the factors that influence these levels. Based on this literature, the paper develops an integrated model for explaining trust in the police. Recommendations for building and maintaining public trust follow, and the article concludes by recapping salient points and suggesting directions in which police can move to enhance legitimacy. Policing in Ghana: From Colonialism to Present Professional policing in Ghana was first introduced by the British colonial authorities to the then Gold Coast in 1831; the police force was called Gold Coast Constabulary. Prior to that, social control was organized by traditional authorities led by local kings or chiefs. Policing during British colonial rule essentially had two goals. First, to enforce and maintain security for trade in European goods and to serve as a vanguard for colonial expansion into the hinterland for increased exploitation of agricultural and mineral resources (Ward, 1948, p. 184). The second aim of policing during the colonial era was to protect the ruling and propertied class. Thus, in 1896 George Maclean, who was the governor at the time, instructed that no police should be stationed where there were no Europeans (Gillespie, 1955, p. 36). During the colonial era, concerns were raised by the public about the moral standing and efficacy of the police. Gillespie (1955) contended that successive governors and police commissioners variously described the police as worse than inefficient. This observation underscored the apparent ineffectiveness of the colonial police in maintaining colonial government machinery. When the country attained political independence, the nature and character of post-colonial policing did not change much from that of colonial policing. Tankebe (2008a) argued that the colonial militaristic orientation to policing with its quintessential lack of accountability and respect for the fundamental rights of citizens remains strong and visible. Since Ghana s independence from colonial rule, the Ghana Police Service has remained a centralized organization structured into 12 administrative regions, 51 divisions, 179 districts, and 651 stations across the country. The strength of the police service increased progressively from the few years prior to independence until At that time, the police force numbered 19,410 personnel and served a population of - 2 -

50 about 8.5 million people (Aning, 2002). Currently, the police force numbers approximately 23,702 and serves a population of about 25 million. Ghana police today perform both crime-related and service-related duties. The crime-related functions of the force are stipulated in Section 1 of the Police Force Act, 1970 (Act 350). The Act emphatically states it shall be the duties of the Police Force to prevent and detect crime, to apprehend offenders and to maintain public order and safety of persons and properties (Police Force Act, 1970, Art. 350). The servicerelated functions which are not stated by the Act include; performing motor traffic duties, vetting and issuing of police criminal record certificates, and helping women cope with traumatic and psychological problems as a result of sexual abuse ( To strengthen the capacity of the police to perform these service duties, a five-year Strategic National Policing Plan was launched in 2010 with the following objectives: 1. To increase the level of protection of life and property, increase the ability to prevent and detect crime and speed up the apprehension and prosecution of offenders to enhance public confidence and satisfaction. 2. To enhance the capacity of the force by improving its human resources through training and development and by recruiting the best candidates. 3. To acquire relevant and modern information and communication technologies that would enable the force to perform its services. 4. To establish closer and mutually beneficial working relationships with external stakeholders to improve the partnership and public image of the Police Service. Police administrators believe that this plan will positively impact crime reduction and improve the relationship between the police and Ghanaian citizens. Police-Citizen Relationship in Ghana Relationship between police and citizens in Ghana has been marked by suspicion, hatred, discontent, and mistrust. These negative feelings are largely due to the brutal character of the Ghana police force under British colonialism (Atuguba, 2003; Tankebe, 2008a). To understand the present nature of police-citizen relationship in Ghana, a brief discussion of the relationship that existed during the colonial period is necessary to provide historical context. During the colonial era, the police, as noted above, were ineffective especially in protecting the indigenous Ghanaians. Ineffectiveness was not the only issue confronting the police, equally important was the extreme public distrust in the police as a result of massive police brutality. The brutal nature of the Gold Coast Constabulary was not a mistake, but rather a calculated attempt by the British colonial authorities who believed that the only means of developing a conducive atmosphere for successful trade was to have a police force that would brutalize indigenous citizens. The aim was achieved through the recruitment of the Hausas, mostly from - 3 -

51 Northern Nigeria, who were charged to enforce colonial laws through brutalization. Historians have long contended that this brutal and alien character of the force made the police unpopular among the citizenry (Killingray, 1991; Gillespie, 1955; Ward, 1948). Today, though the Ghana Police Service is composed of only Ghanaians, the police remain excessively corrupt and brutal (Atuguba, 2003; Tankebe, 2008a), which mars the force's relationship with the public. Researchers have argued that police misconduct appears to even be worse than during the colonial period (Tankebe 2008a). A 2010 report on human rights practices in Ghana remarked that police brutality, corruption, negligence, and impunity were problems facing the police. The report added that the police extorted money by acting as private debt collectors, setting up illegal checkpoints, and arresting citizens in exchange for bribes from disgruntled business associates of those detained. These are all evidence of police misconduct, which has contributed to public mistrust of the police. The most high profile act of police brutality, which threw the whole country into a state of mourning, and has since left an indelible mark in the minds of citizens, occurred on May 9, On this day, 126 soccer fans were crushed to death and several hundred spectators were injured when the police used tear gas in response to soccer hooliganism during a local match. The incident received worldwide attention and has been considered the worst stadium disaster in Africa, further undermining the level of trust between Ghanaians and police. Today, according to Aning (2006), though the public welcomes the new service orientation of the police, there remains an underlying sense of mistrust and discomfort. An analysis of the current levels of trust in the police is offered in the next section. Current Levels of Trust in the Police There is a deep sense of mistrust and discontent between the police and the citizenry of Ghana. Recent surveys conducted in Ghana have documented low citizen trust in the police. For instance, research shows that more than half (53%) of Ghanaians do not trust the police at all (Boateng, 2012). Similarly, surveys by the Afrobarometer, a regional public attitude survey organization, do not only indicate that Ghanaians have low trust in the police but also indicate that trust in the police continues to decline. For instance, in 2005, almost 38% of Ghanaians trusted the police a lot. This declined to 28% in 2008, and 18% in 2012 (see Figure 1)

52 Source of data: Afrobarometer Surveys , 2008, 2012 Figure 2 compares trust in the police among Ghanaians to citizens of two other African countries with similar economic circumstances to further demonstrate the negative attitudes of Ghanaians toward the police. About half (50%) of Malawians and 45% of Burkinabes trusted the police a lot in 2012 compared to only 18% of Ghanaians

53 Source of data: Afrobarometer Surveys 2012 To explain why Ghanaians have lower trust in the police, the answers lie in the extreme levels of police corruption and brutalities in Ghana. Police corruption is endemic and takes many forms (Tankebe, 2010). According to Tankebe (2010), corrupt police practices in Ghana include failures to arrest, investigate, or prosecute offenders because of family and friendship ties, and bribe-taking from suspects. To buttress Tankebe's assertion, observations made by the author suggest that some police officers mount road barricades to extort money from law-abiding commercial drivers. The magnitude of police corruption in Ghana has been evidenced in recent survey findings. For instance, the 2008 Afrobarometer survey found that about 78% of Ghanaians perceived the police to be corrupt. Pervasive police brutality also explains Ghanaians' low trust in the police. Police officers beating suspects during arrest and interrogation as well as manhandling innocent citizens during demonstrations are common practices among police personnel in Ghana (US Department of State Human Rights Report, 2010). Since it has now been established that Ghanaians have low trust in the police and some plausible explanations have been offered, the next task is to elucidate, based on evidence, the factors that influence citizens' trust in the Ghanaian police. The following section discusses this issue. However, it needs to be mentioned that, little empirical research exists in the literature that has examined factors influencing public trust in the Ghanaian police. Determinants of Ghanaians Trust in the Police As noted, few studies have examined the factors that influence variation in levels of trust in the police among Ghanaians. These studies have collectively found several predictors of public trust in the Ghana police service. In two separate studies, Tankebe (2008b, 2010) found that perceptions of police effectiveness, procedural fairness, personal encounters, and vicarious experiences with police corruption affect trust in the Ghana police service. In his 2008 study, Tankebe argued that public perceptions of police effectiveness exercise a direct impact on perceived police trustworthiness. A trustworthy police force is one adjudged by the public to have the interests of the public at hand rather than personal or political interests. Hence, citizens who perceive the police not only as effective in controlling crime but also as effective in meeting citizen expectations and interests will correspondingly consider the police to be trustworthy. Further, Tankebe (2008b) found that Ghanaians who considered the police to be procedurally fair in dealing with citizens would be more likely to trust the police than those who considered the police to be unfair. The effect of procedural fairness on trust has been widely studied and similar conclusions have been found in other societies (Mazerolle et al, 2012; Mazerolle et al., 2013; Murphy & Cherney, 2012). Research on public trust in the police has also found that vicarious experiences of police corruption influence Ghanaians levels of trust in the police - 6 -

54 (Tankebe, 2010). This study found that Ghanaians who have indirectly experienced police corruption by witnessing the police taking bribes from other persons or refusing to investigate, arrest, or prosecute because of friendship or family ties would be less likely to trust the police. However, Tankebe (2010) did not find any effect for personal experiences of police corruption. This was rather surprising considering the frequency of police corruption in Ghana, according to the 2010 human rights report. His inability to find an effect may be due to the nature of the questions asked or some inherent limitations with the data such as the study's failure to fragment personal experiences of police corruption into its two components, i.e. citizen-initiated and police-initiated, and test each effect independently since they may have opposing effects on trust in the police. For instance, citizen-initiated police corruption, which involves citizens voluntarily paying bribes to officers to overlook their criminal acts, may possibly result in positive attitudes toward the police or will have no effect at all. However, police-initiated corruption, which involves solicitation of bribes from citizens in order to render a service or perform a requested task is likely to result in negative ratings by citizens of the police. Therefore, combining these two variables to form a single variable of direct or personal experience of police corruption will obscure the true effect of corruption on citizens' ratings of the police. Boateng (2012) conducted a study to examine factors that shape Ghanaians trust in the police and found that fear of crime and satisfaction with police work have significant influence on trust in the Ghanaian police. Fear of crime had a negative relationship with trust, indicating that when fear of crime is high, trust in the police will be low. Ghanaians decide where to live, shop and socialize based on their perceptions of relative safety (Boateng, 2012). As a result, persons who fear attack or victimization anywhere in the city or neighborhood will consider the police ineffective, and consequently will demonstrate low levels of trust in the police. Furthermore, Boateng (2012) found that when citizens are satisfied with the work of the police in their respective neighborhoods, they tend to have higher trust in the police than when they are not satisfied, a finding that has also been observed in other social contexts (Reynolds, Semukhina, & Demidov, 2008; Wu & Sun, 2009). Discussions of factors that influence Ghanaians trust in the police would be incomplete without considering the effect of perception of corruption among other government institutions. This variable was found to have a negative effect on public trust in the Ghanaian police (Boateng, 2012). Ghanaians who considered other government officials, not necessarily the police to be corrupt, tend to have low trust in the police as well. The effect is possibly due to the fact that the police is viewed not as an organization operating in a vacuum but rather in an institutional setting which interacts with other institutions such as the courts, corrections, and the government on a continuous basis. Therefore, any act of misconduct that occurs in other institutions undoubtedly affect public ratings for the rest of the institutions. Political affiliation only influenced trust at the bivariate level. The influence was negative, suggesting that Ghanaians who have affiliations with political parties demonstrate lower trust in the police than those with no such affiliations. Still, this effect disappeared when accounting for multiple variables. These latter findings demonstrate that, there are some factors that exist outside the police organization but contribute significantly to variations in citizens' - 7 -

55 trust in the police. Based on this observation, scholars have argued that, determinants of public trust in the police can be classified into two categories: organizationspecific, which include factors over which police have control, and non-organizationspecific, which include factors that the police have little control over but greatly influence public trust in the police (Boateng, 2012). It is based on this categorization that the current paper develops an integrated model for trust in the police (see Figure 3). This model takes into account the effects of both organization-and nonorganization-specific variables on trust in the police. Figure 3: Integrated Model of Trust in the Police Perception of effectivenes s + + Satisfaction with Police Work Citizens Compliance + Procedural Justice Police Corruption - Fear of Crime Trust in the Police Legitimacy Overall Police Performanc e + Corruption in Gov't inst. Political Affiliation Note: Lines (broken and unbroken) indicate relationship; Arrows indicate direction of influence; + sign indicates positive effect; - sign indicates negative effect. Recommendations for Building Trust in the Police It is clear that the Ghana Police Service, an institution charged with the protection of lives and property, suffers from massive public distrust. Trust literature suggests that public trust is a valuable asset to police organizations mainly because it is crucial for voluntary citizen compliance, legitimacy, and enhanced police performance. Due to this, it is necessary that the police and their stakeholders must develop strategies of building and maintaining public trust. It could be argued that citizens play a marginal role or no role in building this trust. To suggest ways of building and maintaining trust in the Ghanaian police that will have practical utility, based on the integrated model presented above, this paper adopts a multidimensional - 8 -

56 approach. This approach reflects the idea that there is no single most effective way of building citizen trust in the police. Instead, a constellation of approaches can collectively result in sustained public trust in the police. Further, the multidimensional approach requires other agencies to be involved in building public trust. Based on this perspective, the author recommends that the following strategies be adopted by Ghana police administrators. Fear reduction strategies It has widely been documented that fear of crime is a major factor influencing citizen confidence and trust in the police (Reynolds et al., 2008). As a result, reducing fear of crime is an indispensable consideration for improving trust. High fear of victimization prevents citizens from leaving their homes as well as isolating them from community engagement. At present, the majority of the Ghanaian population is either directly afraid of crime in their neighborhoods or worried they may become victims of crime (Boateng, 2012). The burden of reducing fear among this crosssection of the population therefore rests on police administrators of the Ghana Police Service. To reduce fear, police administrators must consider fear reduction as their ultimate responsibility and explicit police priority. Police administrators must consider incorporating the following fear reduction strategies into the daily routines of the police service: increasing police presence in the neighborhoods; ensuring constant patrolling in the neighborhoods; reducing disorderly behavior; and ensuring rapid response to calls for service (Cordner, 2010). These strategies are aimed at reducing fear of victimization and insecurity and when properly adopted will restore a sense of security and safety and eventually lead to greater trust in the police. Increasing citizen satisfaction Citizen satisfaction with police work is a positive indicator of trust in the police (Reynolds et al., 2008; Wu & Sun, 2009). Therefore, dissatisfaction with the services provided by the police will have severe implications for police work. Dissatisfaction simply implies that the public is not satisfied with police services partly because of apparent ineffectiveness or nonperformance on the part of the police. A lack of police services in the neighborhood can also result in citizen dissatisfaction with the work of the police. Currently in Ghana this is a major issue because the majority are deprived of police services. Police stations in the urban areas are mostly located far from residences and accessing them for the purpose of reporting criminal conduct becomes a problem. This situation is even worse in the rural areas of Ghana, where police stations are hardly found. To enhance police performance and increase public satisfaction, police administrators must develop effective and reliable communication systems that will ensure increased public accessibility to the police. Quick response to citizens when called for help as well as fair treatment of citizens during encounters would be great steps in improving public satisfaction with police work

57 Adherence to Professional Standards Public trust must be built on the foundation of a strong police culture that values integrity and holds officers accountable for their behavior. Police misconduct e.g., bribe-taking and extortion of money, plays an important role in eroding public trust (Goldsmith, 2005; Sabet, 2012). Therefore, the Police Service must strive to maintain high ethical and accountability standards. Individual police officers, irrespective of rank, must be held accountable for what they do on the street or in the station/department. The Internal Affairs Unit of the Service will have to play an important role in this pursuit. The unit must institute stringent disciplinary and accountability measures, punish officers who behave unethically, and reward those who behave pro-socially or ethically. Punishments could include but are not limited to demotion, dismissal, unfavorable transfer, and prosecution whereas rewards could take the form of promotion, increase salary, bonuses, and open recognition at special police ceremonies or events. Institutional Involvement To reiterate, building and maintaining citizen trust in the police requires the involvement of other governmental agencies because factors that contribute to eroding trust in the police are not solely caused by the police. Inter-agency collaboration is necessary to ensure trust in the police. In Ghana, agencies like the Electricity Company of Ghana (ECG) can team up with the police to reduce fear of crime among the citizenry. Specifically, the police, as the agent of security in the country, can negotiate with the government for the provision of streetlights in unlighted areas where crime rates and fear of crime are considered to be high. Once this is done, quick response from the electricity company would be necessary to ensure that such areas are provided with streetlights. It is worth mentioning that the police cannot provide lights in these areas without the custodians of power in the country getting involved. Similarly, external controls are needed to ensure proper behavior of police officers in Ghana. The courts can play a significant role in several ways, including facilitating the prosecution of officers charged with misconduct as well as restraining the police from engaging in unwarranted acts, especially during arrests and interrogations. Likewise, citizens review boards charged with hearing complaints about police misconduct and unlawful behavior, and endowed with the powers of subpoena, can significantly build citizens' trust in the police by ensuring professional standards of behavior among officers. Further, it is recommended that other government officials be subjected to similar ethical scrutiny, since their behavior indirectly affects citizens rating for the police. Police-Community Partnership To build and maintain citizen trust in the Ghana Police Service, the author recommends that the police foster positive relationships with the communities they serve. Apart from eschewing unethical behavior, which undoubtedly destroys their

58 good relationship with the community, police administrators should also hold open meetings and seminars with the public to mutually discuss issues of relevance. These types of meetings will allow the public to express their grievances and feelings about the police and their activities, while the police attempt to address such complaints. In addition to organizing meetings and seminars, the police must also properly train their officers to equip them with skills necessary in ensuring positive interaction with citizens. Good communication skills are essential for ensuring positive encounters with citizens. Citizens can easily form negative views of the police based on the outcome of their interaction with a single officer. Therefore, police must do what they can to avoid negative encounters with the public. Police-researcher collaboration Researchers and academicians play an indispensable role in building and maintaining trust in the police. Their role is crucial because researchers can help the police gauge the extent of public satisfaction with police services. This will enable the police to boost their performance when public dissatisfaction is high. Similarly, through extensive surveying, researchers can provide the police with vital information about specific areas of the community where fear of crime is high, whether fear of crime is increasing or diminishing, and how to reduce fear of crime among community members. Based on this, it is recommended that, to maintain citizen trust in the police, police administrators should foster a strong collaborative relationship with researchers. Such collaboration will be useful and vital to the police organization given the nature of information researchers can provide to enhance their performance and relationship with the public. Conclusion This paper has demonstrated that citizens' levels of trust in the Ghana Police Service are low and that there is a need to build and maintain trust in the police. It outlined a multidimensional approach to building and enhancing citizen trust in the police. The approach is based on the assumption that there is no single most effective way of building trust; instead, a constellation of strategies must be used together. The police, other governmental institutions, and researchers all have significant roles to play in the pursuit of sustaining citizens' trust in the police. However, police have the greatest responsibility in this pursuit. The police must reduce citizens' fear of being victimized as well as ensuring public satisfaction with the numerous services they now provide. Reducing fear of crime calls for putting more officers on the street and in the neighborhoods to patrol day and night by car, bicycle or foot. Increasing the police presence in neighborhoods by putting more officers on the street may seem costly to implement. However, this is not entirely so, especially in Ghana. The implementation of this strategy will only call for a change in the attitudes and practices of the police. Today, a large percentage of officers assigned to carry out police duties as stipulated by the Police Force Act of 1970 end up performing nonpolice duties during their entire shift. Most of these officers are assigned to work as

59 "errand boys" or "gatemen" in senior officers residences. As noted by Atuguba (2003), one senior officer (the rank of assistant superintendent or above) may have as many as two police personnel in his/her house at any given time. The same can be said about those who hold political positions in Ghana. According to Atuguba (2003), most members of the political class today have one or two police officers (sometimes a whole platoon) at their service. Ministers of state and their deputies, the Speaker of Parliament, judges and other political appointees appropriate this disproportionate amount of public security at the expense of the citizenry (Atuguba, 2003:15). Therefore, if the police stop assigning personnel to senior officers' and other individuals homes and assign more officers to the neighborhoods, it would be a positive step toward reducing the fear of crime among citizens and achieving a positive public-police relationship in the long term. References Afro barometer Survey (2012). Retrieved from Aning, E. K. (2002). An Historical Overview of the Ghana Police Service in K. Kariakri (Ed.) The Face and Phases of the Ghana Police, pp Accra: Media Foundation for West Africa. Aning, E. K. (2006). An Overview of the Ghana Police Service. Journal of Security Sector Management, 4, Atuguba, R. A. (2003). Police Oversight in Ghana', Paper presented at a Workshop on Security Sector Governance in Africa, Organized by African Security Dialogue and Research (Unpublished). Boateng, F. D. (2012). Public Trust in the Police: Identifying factors that shape trust in the Ghanaian Police. IPES Working Paper Series, No Cordner, G. (2010). Reducing Fear of Crime: Strategies for Police. U.S Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS). Flexon, J. L., Lurigio, A. J., & Greenleaf, R. G. (2009). Exploring the dimensions of trust in the police among Chicago juveniles. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, pp Frazier, L. S. (2007). The Loss of Public Trust in Law Enforcement. Retrieved Gillespie, W. H. (1955). The Gold Coast Police: Accra: The Government Printer. Goldsmith, A. (2005). Police Reform and the Problem of Trust. Theoretical Criminology 9(4): Hough, M. (2012). Researching trust in the police and trust in justice: a UK perspective. Policing and Society: An International Journal of Research and Policy, 22:3, Hough, M., Jackson, J., Bradford, B., & Myhill, A. (2010). Procedural Justice, Trust, and Institutional Legitimacy. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, Vol. 4, pp Hough, M., & Roberts, J. V. (2004). Youth crime and youth justice: public opinion in England and Wales. Criminal Policy Monograph. Bristol: Policy Press. Jackson, J. & Bradford, B. (2010). What is Trust and Confidence in the Police?. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, Vol. 4, pp Mazerolle, L., Antrobus, E., Bennett, S., & Tyler, T. (2013). Shaping Citizen Perceptions of Police Legitimacy: A Randomized Field Trail of Procedural Justice. Criminology, Vol. 51, No.1,

60 Mazerolle, L., Bennett, S., Antrobus, E., & Eggins, E. (2012). Procedural justice, routine encounters and citizen perceptions of police: Main findings from the Queensland Community Engagement Trial (QCET). Journal of Experimental Criminology, 8, doi: /s Memmo, D., Sartor, G., & di Cardano, G. Q. (2003). Trust, Reliance, Good Faith, and the Law In Nixon, P., Terzis, S. (eds.). Proceedings of the First International Conference on Trust Management. LNCS 2692, Heraklion, Crete, Grece. Murphy, K. & Cherney, A. (2012). Fostering cooperation with the police: How do ethnic minorities in Australia respond to procedural justice-based policing?. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 44: Police Force Act, 1970 (Act 350). Functions. The Ghana Police Service. Resig, M. D., Tankebe, J., & Mesko, G. (2012). Procedural justice, police legitimate, and public cooperation with the police among young Slovene adults. Journal of Criminology and Security, 14: Reynolds, K. M., Semukhina, O. B., & Demidov, N. N. (2008). A Longitudinal Analysis of Public Satisfaction with the Police in the Volgograd Region of Russia International Criminal Justice Review 18: Rosendaum, D. P., Schuck, A. M., Costello, S. K., Hawkins, D. F., & Ring, M. K. (2005). Attitudes toward the police: the effects of direct and vicarious experience. Police Quarterly, 8(3), Sabet, D. M. (2012). Corruption or Insecurity? Understanding Dissatisfaction with Mexico's Police. Latin American Politics and Society, 55(1), Sunshine, J., & Tyler, R. T. (2003). The role of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy in Shaping Public Support for Policing. Law & Society Review 37: Tankebe, J. (2008a). Colonialism, Legitimation and Policing in Ghana. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice 36(1): Tankebe, J. (2008b). Police effectiveness and police trustworthiness in Ghana: An empirical appraisal. Criminology & Criminal Justice 8: Tankebe, J. (2010). Public Confidence in the Police: Testing the Effects of Public Experiences of Police Corruption in Ghana. British Journal of Criminology, 50, Tankebe, J. (2013). Viewing things differently: The dimensions of public perceptions of police legitimacy. Criminology, Vol. 51,No.1, Tyler, R. T. (2005). Policing in Black and White: Ethnic Group Differences in Trust and Confidence in the Police. Police Quarterly 8(3): U.S Department of States (2010). Human Rights Report. Retrieved at Ward, W.B.F. (1948). A History of Ghana. London: G. Allen & Unwin. Wu, Y., & Sun, I. Y. (2009). Citizen Trust in Police: The Case of China. Police Quarterly 12:

61 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FAIRNESS AND POLICE-CITIZEN HOSTILITY Jennifer C. Gibbs and Eileen M. Ahlin * School of Public Affairs at Penn State Harrisburg The procedural justice literature has demonstrated that police fairness leads to many desirable outcomes, including citizen cooperation with the police. Police fairness also should decrease citizen resistance-behaviors, including confrontational behavior during contacts with the police. Using the 2008 Police-Public Contact Survey (PPCS), several questions asking respondents whether they believe the police acted fairly during the contact they had with the police are compared with whether respondents reported using a variety of resistance-behaviors during this contact. Findings suggest that perceptions of police fairness are connected to whether citizens defy the police and policy implications are discussed. T he ability of the police to maintain formal social control over situations is largely dependent on citizens perceptions of their legitimacy. Whether the public perceives the police to have the legitimate authority to act on behalf of the government is a crucial factor in obtaining their compliance. Gaining and maintaining cooperation is particularly important during police-public contacts to ensure officer and public safety. Fortunately for the police and public, violence against the police and other citizen resistance-behaviors are relatively rare. Recent estimates show that very few (about 17%) citizens have direct or frequent contact with the police (Eith & Durose, 2011), and most of these interactions are without incident. In fact, according to Mastrofski, Snipes, and Supina (1996), 78% of citizens having face-to-face encounters with the police are compliant with police directives. The 22% who are noncompliant and resist police directives, however, pose a danger to the police and, consequently, the ability of law enforcement to protect the public. Increasing police legitimacy or fairness may be one way to reduce such threats to safety. In this article, two research questions are explored: (1) Do perceptions of police illegitimacy or unfairness influence citizen resistance against the police; and (2) Are citizens more likely to use resistance-behaviors during specific types of police-public contacts? These questions are important for several reasons. Foremost, it will inform policy, as results may persuade police departments to incorporate training on police fairness especially encouraging individual officers that following the tenets of legitimacy is personally beneficial by increasing their safety. Second, studying this topic is important because if the police are incapacitated in large numbers through citizen resistance, there is no Plan B aside from sending reinforcement officers whose directives also may be ignored by resisting citizens. Reducing such behavior is important for law enforcement officer and public protection. * 2014 by authors, reprinted here by permission. Correspondence concerning this paper should be addressed to: jengibbs@psu.edu

62 This article begins by reviewing the literature on citizen behavior during police-public contacts and framing the research questions in legitimacy theory, which is typically discussed in the criminal justice literature through procedural justice and distributive justice. Next, the Police-Public Contact Survey (PPCS) is described in detail; the PPCS is the Bureau of Justice Statistics data used to explore the research questions that perceived police illegitimacy is linked to citizen resistance-behaviors. Finally, results are discussed, limitations of the PPCS for testing this relationship are addressed, suggestions for future research are presented and policy implications are discussed. Citizen Behavior during Police-Public Contacts A great deal of research on police-public encounters focuses on police behavior toward citizens (e.g., Engel, Tillyer, Klahm, & Frank, 2012; Mastrofski, Reisig, & McCluskey, 2002). However, citizen behavior can generate reciprocal reactions from police, and studies of citizen behavior can be important for police policy especially studies indicating what helps police remain safe and keep the peace by encouraging citizens to comply. Data on citizen behavior indicate that the majority of people conform to the law and to police directives most of the time. For example, similar to the 78% compliance without resistance reported by Mastrofski and colleagues (1996) in their Richmond, VA sample, 76% of citizens in Dai et al. s (2011) Cincinnati sample complied with police directives. On the other hand, few citizens are noncompliant. The most recently available PPCS data indicate that even when police use force against citizens, less than one-quarter of citizens engage in some form of resistance behavior such as arguing with the police (Eith & Durose, 2011). That said, correlational studies have shown that citizens are less likely to be compliant if the officer uses force or officers are more likely to use force when citizens are noncompliant (Dai et al., 2011; Hickman, Piquero, & Garner, 2008; Mastrofski et al., 1996). But, use of force is not the only factor related to citizen resistance. Citizen demeanor during police-public contacts may depend on demographic, situational and even officer characteristics. There is evidence that impoverished citizens are more likely to resist police directives (Mastrofski et al., 1996), and female citizens are more likely to be disrespectful toward police (Engel, 2003). From police officers perspectives, regardless of the officer s race, drivers who self-identified as Black were more likely to be considered disrespectful, non-complaint or resistant to the officers directives (Engel et al., 2012). Engel and colleagues (2012) reported that some officers particularly White officers were more likely to view citizens as disrespectful. Indeed, police-citizen race dynamics may influence noncompliance, but the evidence on this is mixed: Mastrofski and colleagues (1996) found that a minority citizen was more likely to comply with the directives of a White officer while Engel (2003) reported the opposite; Mastrofski et al. (1996) also found an officer who identifies with a minority racial group was less likely to elicit compliance from a White citizen. However, citizens seem more likely to comply with older officers (Mastrofski et al., 1996; but see Engel, 2003) and officers who adopt a community policing perspective - 2 -

63 (Mastrofski et al., 1996). Perhaps most important, police behavior especially whether police act with fairness or legitimacy may affect citizen compliance (Dai et al., 2011; Mastrofski et al., 1996). Police Legitimacy and Citizen Compliance The literature suggests that legitimacy leads to many desirable outcomes, such as citizens voluntary obedience to the law (i.e., reduced crime) and, by extension, citizens cooperation with the police. Tyler (2004) views police legitimacy as an important component of maintaining social order. Expanding on this idea, the Committee to Review Research on Police Policy and Practices (2004) writes that police legitimacy is: defined by the public s beliefs about the police and their willingness to recognize police authority. [L]egitimacy means the degree to which citizens recognize the police as appropriate and justified representatives of the government. [T]he more lawful police are, the more likely the outcomes produced by their actions will be accepted and embraced by the public. Lawful policing increases the stature of the police in the eyes of citizens, creates a reservoir of support for police work, and expedites the production of community safety by enhancing cooperation with the police. (pp. 5-6) Police cannot effectively maintain public safety without the cooperation of the public as reporters of crime, as witnesses in criminal investigations, and as compliant citizens during police-public contacts. This increased cooperation with police officers, who are the most visible agents of formal social control, provides essential support for the basic tenets of the social contract where citizens sacrifice some personal freedoms for the good of society as a whole (e.g., Hobbes, 1651) in this case, public safety. However, voluntary cooperation becomes strained when citizens do not believe the police are legitimate or fair (Jackson, Bradford, Hough, Myhill, Quinton, & Tyler, 2012; LaFree, 1998). Police illegitimacy has many negative consequences for the police during face-to-face contacts with the public: When they are not viewed as legitimate, their actions are subject to challenge, their decisions are not accepted, and their directives are ignored (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003, p. 517). In short, the public they serve does not support them and citizens do not cooperate with them when their presence and authority are not viewed as legitimate. Specifically, citizens may retaliate against police whose purpose, behaviors and or actions are perceived as illegitimate (Umoja, 1999; see also Tankebe, 2009). In the criminological literature, police legitimacy is most often discussed in the framework of its precursors: distributive justice fairness of outcomes and procedural justice fairness of process. These two antecedents of legitimacy are important to understanding the relationship between police-citizen hostility

64 Distributive Justice Citizens perceived treatment by state agents may affect their attitudes toward the police in particular, whether police are legitimate. Treatment consists of both the outcomes received and the police-citizen interaction itself; the former is the focus of this section and the latter (procedural justice) will be discussed below. Distributive justice refers to fairness of outcomes in comparison with others or with earlier experiences. According to distributive justice, people are more likely to accept outcomes regardless of whether those outcomes are what they want as long as those outcomes are perceived as fair (i.e., comparable to those outcomes received by similarly situated others or to those outcomes received earlier). Police legitimacy is boosted in the public s eyes when outcomes are viewed as distributed fairly. Distributive justice impacts people s satisfaction with the criminal justice system (Casper et al., 1988) and, more importantly, there is some (mixed) evidence that fairness of outcome affects police legitimacy (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003). Distributive justice may impact compliance with the law (but see Freeman, Liossis, & David, 2006), but perhaps only through legitimacy (see Figure 1). Further, distributive justice is only one precursor to legitimacy. Another is procedural justice. Figure 1. Causes and consequences of police legitimacy (adapted from Sunshine & Tyler, 2003) Distributive Justice Procedural Justice Police Performanc e Police Legitimacy (trust + obligation to obey the law) Voluntary compliance with the law Cooperation with police Support for authorities Procedural Justice The procedural justice literature stems from distributive justice research (Blader & Tyler, 2003b), but the two concepts are different. Whereas distributive justice is concerned with outcomes (whether services are delivered equally across communities and whether citizens are stopped, frisked, cited, arrested, etc. by the police), procedural justice focuses on the fair and consistent process by which criminal justice sanctions are applied, as perceived by citizens (Blader & Tyler, - 4 -

65 2003b; Tyler, 2006). Thibaut and Walker (1975) found that, while a desired outcome certainly is important to people, the process by which the outcome is generated is more important than the outcome itself. Fair procedures are important in part because people believe that fair procedures generate fair outcomes (Thibaut & Walker, 1975, 1978). As Colbert, Paternoster and Bushway (2001) explain, Fair treatment shapes [citizens ] view that authorities are acting not just with power, but with legitimacy (p. 1744). Procedural justice emphasizes the process of the police-citizen interaction, which, according to theory, is at least as important as the favorability of the outcome. In the area of policing, procedural justice is usually operationalized by respondents perceived quality of treatment by police and respondents beliefs about the quality of police decision-making (Blader & Tyler, 2003a, 2003b; Casper et al., 1988; Reisig, Bratton, & Gertz, 2007; Reisig & Lloyd, 2009; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Wells, 2007), and procedural justice often leads to police legitimacy. Summary Police legitimacy stems, in part, from fairness of outcomes (distributive justice) and fair procedures (procedural justice; Tyler, 2004; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003). Fairness is thought to generate trust and voluntary obligation to obey the law (Jackson et al., 2012; Tyler, 2004) that is, the two components that typically define police legitimacy in the literature. Taking this one step further, police legitimacy or fairness should not only affect obedience to the law, but it also should be related to whether citizens resist police directives (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003). The scant research attempting to assess this has several limitations. First, most of the studies reviewed above (e.g., Dai et al., 2011; Engel et al., 2012; Mastrofski et al., 1996) focus only on one or a few cities, limiting generalizations to other jurisdictions. Second, the data in the few studies that do use national-level data tend to be outdated (e.g., Engel, 2003), which do not offer a clear picture about the current relationship between legitimacy or fairness and citizen resistancebehaviors or changes in that relationship since those data were collected. Third, many of the studies are based on systematic observation of police-citizen interactions (e.g., Mastrofski et al., 1996; Dai et al., 2011); while this method offers the unbiased observations of third parties and these data are rich, they do not give us the necessary information to assess whether the citizen involved in the contact viewed the police actions as legitimate. Survey data are necessary to tap into citizens perceptions of police encounters especially citizens views of police fairness. Police fairness can be quantified by asking citizens questions about their perceptions of legitimacy and indirectly by asking about precursors to legitimacy namely, the distributive and procedural justice during their encounter with the police. Engel (2003), for example, examined antecedent measures of police legitimacy as they related to citizen resistance-behaviors and later compared direct measures of police legitimacy with use of police force (Engel, 2005) but was unable to evaluate the relationship between legitimacy and citizen resistance because of data limitations. While these and other studies using survey data to collect citizen viewpoints contribute to the state of knowledge about the relationship between legitimacy and citizen resistance-behaviors, - 5 -

66 they tend to focus on traffic stops instead of using all police-citizen encounters. The present study attempts to overcome these limitations. Current Study Using a nationally representative sample of citizens, the current study explores the relationship between various types of resistance-behaviors toward police and citizens perceptions of police legitimacy (or fairness), distributive justice and procedural justice. First, the prevalence and types of police-public contacts are explored. Then, whether citizens perceptions of police fairness are associated with citizen resistance-behaviors and the types of police-citizen contacts that may be more prone to the use of resistance-behaviors are examined. Methods The current study uses data from the 2008 Police-Public Contact Survey (PPCS). Collected by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) as a supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), the PPCS is comprised of a nationallyrepresentative sample of English-speaking people at least 16 years old living in the United States; interviews are conducted in-person (38.5% of interviews for the 2008 survey) or by telephone (61.5% for the 2008 survey) by the U.S. Census Bureau (Bureau of Justice Statistics, n.d.). While some scholars have taken advantage of these questions from earlier iterations of the PPCS that uniquely measure citizens perceptions of police legitimacy (e.g., Engel, 2005), to date, most scholars have studied other topics using these data (see, e.g., Engel & Calnon, 2004; Gibson et al., 2010). Engel (2005) specifically notes that citizen behavior toward officers was not included in her statistical models using the 1999 PPCS because this information was asked only whether respondents indicated police used force (see endnote 15), and force was used in less than 1% of the cases (p. 455; 458). This limitation is not present in the 2008 survey; all citizens having contact with the police were asked about their behavior towards police. However, because citizen resistance-behaviors are infrequent, the data available only allow for an exploratory descriptive analysis of the relationship between citizens perceptions of police fairness on resistance-behaviors against police and a cursory look at which police-citizen contacts are more likely to elicit citizen resistancebehaviors. Dependent Variable The 2008 PPCS asks respondents about their contact with police officers, including: At any time during this contact, did you argue with, curse at, insult, or verbally threaten the police? ; At any time during this contact, did you Disobey or - 6 -

67 interfere with the officer(s)? ; Try to get away? ; Push, grab, or hit the police officer(s)? and Resist being handcuffed, arrested, or searched?. Violence and other resistance against the police are rare; however, resistance-behaviors can be combined into an index to better capture their occurrence. Here, the number of resistancebehaviors reported by each respondent was summed. Because only 14 respondents admitted to two forms of resistance-behavior and six respondents reported three forms of resistance-behavior, these categories were collapsed to create the dichotomous dependent variable, RESISTANCE (0=no resistance-behavior reported; 1=any form of resistance-behavior reported). Independent Variables Turning to the independent variable of interest, several questions on the PPCS are uniquely able to measure citizen perception of fairness specifically, the PPCS includes questions tapping into two key predictors of legitimacy: distributive justice and procedural justice. In fact, Engel (2005) used the 1999 PPCS to study citizens perceptions of distributive and procedural justice in traffic stops, using two PPCS questions: 1. Distributive justice. Legitimate traffic stop: Would you say that the police officer(s) had a legitimate reason for stopping you? ; response options were 1= yes; 2= no; 3= don t know 2. Procedural justice. Looking back on this contact, do you feel the police behaved properly or improperly? ; response options were 1= properly; 2= improperly; 3= don t know The second question also is asked outside the context of traffic stops in the 2008 PPCS data, used here. Additionally, there are several items in the 2008 PPCS questionnaire that ask respondents if they believe the police had a legitimate reason for their actions during respondents last encounter with the police adding another dimension to prior research on this topic: 3. Distributive justice. Legitimate vehicle search: Do you think the police officer(s) had a legitimate reason to search the vehicle? ; response options were 1= yes; 2= no; 3= don t know 4. Distributive justice. Legitimate search/frisk/pat down: Do you think the police officer(s) had a legitimate reason to search you, frisk you, or pat you down?; response options were 1= yes; 2= no; 3= don t know 5. Procedural justice. Respectful treatment: Looking back on this contact, do you feel the police treated you respectfully or disrespectfully? ; response options were 1= respectfully; 2= disrespectfully; 3= don t know The latter two questions are asked for traffic-related and non-traffic-related police-citizen contacts. Taken together, these questions measure the citizens perceptions of police fairness

68 Other Important Variables Prior research suggests that those living in poverty (Mastrofski et al., 1996), female citizens (Dai et al., 2011; Engel, 2003; Mastrofski et al., 1996), and minority citizens (Engel et al., 2012) are more likely to resist the police. Accordingly, to tap into these factors demographic variables were examined: (1) WORK (1= respondent had a job or worked at a business in last week; 0= respondent did not have a job or work at a business in last week); (2) MALE (1= male; 0= female); (3) RACE (1= White only; 2= Black only; 3= American Indian or Alaskan Native only; 4= Asian only; 5= other); and (4) HISP (1= Hispanic origin; 0= non-hispanic). Because police use of force also may play a role in resistance-behaviors (Dai et al., 2011; Hickman et al., 2008; Mastrofski et al., 1996), FORCE, measuring whether police used or threatened force during the most recent contact (1= yes; 0= no), also is included. Results Inherent in analyses with these data is that the questions used to operationalize legitimacy may have few cases because of the varying contexts during which face-to-face police-public contact may take place and the different legitimacy questions asked about these encounters. Police-citizen contacts are typically limited to interactions during traffic stops, traffic accidents, or reporting a crime (Eith & Durose, 2011). For example, while 9,549 respondents had contact with the police during 2008, only a subset will have had this contact during the context of a traffic stop. Specifically, previous analyses using these data show that only about 5% of traffic stops result in a police search (Eith & Durose, 2011). This will further reduce the sample size. Table 1 identifies the number of participants who responded to each question of interest. Table 1. Number of responses available for each measure Item n Yes No Resistance-behavior (summed) 9, ,379 Distributive justice questions about traffic stops Q22: Would you say that the police officer(s) had a legitimate reason for stopping you? Q31: Do you think the police officer(s) had a legitimate reason to search the vehicle? Q32: Do you think the police officer(s) had a legitimate reason to search you, frisk you, or pat you down? 3,907 3,

69 Procedural justice questions about traffic stops Q42: Looking back on this contact, do you feel the police behaved properly or improperly? Q44: Looking back on this contact, do you feel the police treated you respectfully or disrespectfully? 4,071 3, ,083 3, Distributive justice questions about other contacts/non-traffic stops Q50: Do you think the police officer(s) had a legitimate reason to search you, frisk you, or pat you down? Procedural justice questions about other contacts/non-traffic stops Q51: Looking back on this contact, do you feel the police behaved properly or improperly? Q53: Looking back on this contact, do you feel the police treated you respectfully or disrespectfully? 5,288 4, ,298 4, Looking at these data, it appears that a small proportion of cases are available for analyses using each legitimacy measure. Because the dependent variable, RESISTANCE, is a dichotomous variable, and given the small sample size, a series of crosstabs with Pearson chi-square tests for significance (where appropriate) were used. Also, because assumptions about temporal ordering cannot be made, models cannot be used to predict the outcome of interest; instead, where there is adequate variation, partial correlations were employed to assess the relationship between RESISTANCE and the independent variables described above while controlling for other relevant factors (see Bachman & Paternoster, 2004). Accordingly, the results reported here should be considered exploratory. There are 72,566 cases in the 2008 PPCS data; these cases represent all eligible persons to be interviewed (Bureau of Justice Statistics, n.d.). Of these eligible cases, 57,978 individuals were interviewed, leaving 14,588 non-respondents (Bureau of Justice Statistics, n.d.). Approximately 16.5% of these interviewed respondents had contact with the police. Specifically, one of the first survey questions asks, During the last 12 months, that is, any time since, 2007, did you have any face-to-face contact with a police officer? ; only 9,549 participants responded affirmatively, meaning 48,429 respondents claimed no face-to-face contact with the police during the past year. People may have had contact with the police in the following circumstances: 1) traffic accident; 2) traffic stop; 3) reporting a crime; 4) police provided assistance; 5) police investigating crime; and 6) the police suspected - 9 -

70 the respondent of wrongdoing. Of the respondents who reported face-to-face contact with the police, 136 (1.4%) admitted some form of resistance during the contact. Demographics and Descriptive Statistics Descriptive statistics are listed in Table 2. The sex of the respondents was almost evenly split. Of the 9,549 respondents who reported contact with the police in 2008, 50.85% (n= 4,856) were male and 49.15% (n= 4,693) were female. Most respondents who had contact with the police were White only (85.91%) and most (90.26%) were non-hispanic. While the respondents who had contact with the police ranged in age from 16 to 90 years, most (91.50%) were 65 or younger. The average age of the respondents who had contact with the police was about 42 years (s= 16.05). Most respondents had a job (71.06%; n= 6,771), and police officers used force in a small percentage of encounters (1.27%; n= 121)

71 Table 2. Descriptive statistics of citizen characteristics, n= 9,549 Percent Sex Race Ethnicity or mean Male 50.85% Female 49.15% White only 85.91% Black only 8.85% Asian 2.96% Other 2.28% Hispanic 9.74% Non-Hispanic 90.26% Age Work (16.05)* Respondent employed 71.06% Respondent unemployed 28.94% Police use of force Force used 1.27% Force not used 98.73% *Standard deviation Contrary to findings from other studies, men were more likely than women to 2 report resistance-behaviors ( = 4.40, p= 0.036), with 1.6% of men reporting at least one resistance-behavior compared with 1.1% of women. Following the racial composition of the sample, the most resistance-behaviors were committed by Whites

72 (72.1%; n= 98), followed by Blacks (16.2%; n= 22) and Asians (0.3%; n= 4). 43 However, compared to those who were of a similar race/ethnicity, a larger percentage of Black respondents reported resistance-behaviors (2.6%) than Whites (1.2%) or Asians (1.4%). A larger percentage of Hispanics reported the use of resistancebehaviors (1.7%) than non-hispanics (1.3%). Those who reported engaging in resistance-behaviors tended to be younger, on average, than those who did not report resistance-behaviors ( x = 37.6 years versus x = 41.1 years, respectively). Those who were employed were more likely than those who were unemployed to report resistance-behaviors (64.4% versus 35.6%, respectively), but this difference only 2 approached significance ( = 2.95, p= 0.086). Citizen resistance and police use of force co-occurred in 26.7% of cases, compared to citizen resistance when police did not use force (1%). However, in most encounters where police used force (73.3%) 2 citizens reported no resistance-behaviors ( = , p= 0.000). Of course, because the survey lacks temporal ordering, it may be that police force was more often used when people resisted the police. Citizen Resistance during Traffic-Related Contacts Turning to the comparisons between the fairness measures and RESISTANCE, approximately 46.39% (n= 4,430) of respondents reported their contact with police resulted from a traffic stop. Five measures can be used to assess the perceived fairness of police actions during the stop and whether this may be associated with resistance-behaviors. First, respondents were asked whether they believed the traffic stop was legitimate. Most (74.72%; n= 3,310) believed it was. Forty-one respondents who answered this question also reported engaging in at least one form of resistance-behavior, half of whom thought the stop was legitimate. (See 2 Table 3.) Pearson s chi-square indicated that the cells were not independent ( = 36.55, p= 0.000), demonstrating a relationship between the use of resistance-behaviors and perceptions of legitimacy of the police stop. Of the 129 respondents who reported that their vehicle was searched, about one-quarter (n= 31) believed the search was legitimate, while the majority (n= 90) did not. While only eight respondents reported engaging in a resistance-behavior, 75% (n= 6) of those who resisted did not believe the vehicle search was legitimate. (See Table 3.) One hundred twenty-two people answered the PPCS question asking whether the police officer(s) had a legitimate reason to search you, frisk you, or pat you down?. The majority (60%) of the respondents did not believe so, but these respondents reported only one more resistance-behavior (n= 6) than respondents who thought the search was legitimate 2 (n= 5). This difference was not statistically significant ( = 0.55, p= 0.457). Respondents who were in contact with police via a traffic stop also were asked whether they believed the police exhibited proper behavior. Most (91.2%) 43 These do not add up to 136 total resistance behaviors reported above because two resisters were of mixed races

73 believed the police acted properly; however, those who did not reported resistancebehaviors more often (n= 30) than those who did (n= 19) a statistically significant 2 difference ( = , p= 0.000). Finally, each respondent was asked whether police treated him/her with respect during the traffic stop. Consistent with the previous questions, most (92.5%) believed they did; here, though, resistancebehaviors were almost evenly split between those who thought the police were respectful during the stop (n= 24) and those who thought the police were disrespectful during the stop (n= 27). Pearson s chi-square indicated that the cells here were not 2 independent ( = , p= 0.000), again demonstrating a relationship between resistance-behaviors and perceptions of police fairness

74 Table 3. Distribution of legitimacy items and percentage of citizens who exhibited resistance-behaviors during traffic stops Citizen resistance-behaviors Q22 (legit traffic stop) No Yes Total (N) Yes 99.36% 0.64% 3,310 No 96.61% 3.39% 590 Q31 (legit vehicle search) Yes 93.94% 6.06% 33 No 93.75% 6.25% 96 Q32 (legit search/frisk/pat down) Yes 88.37% 11.63% 43 No 92.40% 7.60% 79 Q42 (proper police behavior) Yes 99.48% 0.52% 3,681 No 92.19% 7.81% 384 Q44 (respectful treatment) Yes 99.36% 0.64% 3,747 No 91.82% 8.18% 330 Again, the reader is cautioned about the small sample sizes. Because there were so few resistance-behaviors in traffic-related contacts reported, there is very little variation in the dependent variable (fewer than 2% reported Resistance-behaviors in traffic-related contacts) and multivariate analyses are inappropriate here. All analyses in this section are informative but should be considered preliminary. Citizen Resistance during Non-Traffic Related Contacts Contact with police did not only occur during the context of a traffic stop. For example, citizens may have interacted with the police as witnesses to traffic accidents, witnesses to crimes, victims in need of police assistance, as suspects to

75 crimes police were investigating, or other reasons. An initial comparison of policecitizen interactions in non-traffic related contexts (see Table 4) with traffic-related contexts (see Table 3) shows a greater proportion of respondents reported some form of resistance-behavior during non-traffic related contexts than traffic-related contexts. During a non-traffic stop related contact with police, 149 respondents reported being searched, frisked or subject to a pat down. Of these respondents, 37.6% thought the search was legitimate, while the majority (62.4%) did not. Resistance-behaviors, however, were almost evenly split, and Pearson s chi-square test did not reach 2 statistical significance ( = 0.50, p= 0.479). (See Table 4.) Interestingly, the same pattern was observed during traffic contexts (see Table 3); in the other contexts mentioned in this section, though, a greater proportion of citizens reported resistancebehaviors. The PPCS also asks whether respondents believed police acted properly during other contact. While the majority (90.6%) again agreed that the police acted properly, those who thought the police acted properly exhibited fewer (n= 29) resistance-behaviors than those who believed the police acted improperly (n= 47) a 2 statistically significant difference ( = , p= 0.000). Similarly, citizens were asked whether the police treated them respectfully during other types of contacts, and, again, most (93.4%) thought so. Similar to proper police behavior, fewer people (n= 30) who believed that the police were respectful reported resistance-behaviors than those who believed that the police were disrespectful during the contact (n= 46). The results of the Pearson s chi-square indicated this difference is statistically 2 significant ( = , p= 0.000). Table 4. Distribution of legitimacy items and percentage of citizens who exhibited resistance-behaviors during contact with police other than traffic stops Citizen resistance-behaviors Q50 (legit search/frisk/pat down) No Yes Total Yes 84.85% 15.15% 66 No 88.57% 11.43% 105 Q51 (proper police behavior) Yes 99.39% 0.61% 4,739 No 91.23% 8.77% 536 Q53 (respectful treatment) Yes 99.39% 0.61% 4,

76 No 88.24% 11.76% 391 Looking at the non-traffic related contacts, again there is little variation in the outcome of interest (1.00%, 0.71% and 3.11% of respondents reported at least one form of resistance-behavior when encountering police to report a crime, when police provided assistance, and when police were investigating a crime, respectively); therefore multivariate analyses are inappropriate here. One exception is when the police-citizen encounter stemmed from the police suspecting the respondent of wrongdoing. Of the 205 interactions where police were suspicious of the respondent, 17 (8.29%) respondents reported at least one form of resistance-behavior. To test whether the bivariate relationship between perceptions of police fairness and resistance-behaviors holds, other potentially relevant factors were incorporated into the analyses, focusing only on police-citizen encounters where police suspected the respondent of wrongdoing. As mentioned earlier, several factors may be related to citizen resistancebehavior. Given the bivariate relationships between fairness and resistance-behaviors explored here, legitimacy, distributive justice and procedural justice are likely important indicators of citizen resistance. With these data and focusing on the suspicious encounters, citizens perceptions of police fairness can be revealed by using two procedural justice variables: (1) PROPER whether the respondent thought police behaved properly or improperly (recoded to 1= properly; 0= improperly for ease of interpretation); and (2) RESPECT whether the respondent thought the police treated him/her respectfully or disrespectfully (recoded to 1= respectfully; 0= disrespectfully). Factors potentially related to resistance described in the methods section also were included: (1) WORK; (2) MALE; (3) RACE; and (4) HISP; and (5) FORCE. As mentioned earlier, because temporal ordering of police and citizen behavior cannot be determined, regression models are inappropriate. Here, partial correlations were used as an alternative to assess the relationship between key variables of interest while controlling for other relevant factors (see Bachman & Paternoster, 2004). Specifically, two tests were conducted: one assessing the relationship between citizen resistance-behaviors and PROPER and the other assessing the relationship between citizen resistance-behaviors and RESPECT, controlling for other relevant factors. As anticipated, citizen perception of police fairness remains an important correlate of citizen resistance-behavior. Specifically, citizen resistance-behaviors were significantly correlated with both PROPER (r= 0.152, p= 0.000) and RESPECT (r= 0.163, p= 0.000), while controlling for other relevant factors. Discussion Public perception of the police as legitimate enforcers of formal social control is an important goal of policing. Police who are viewed as legitimate or fair by the public are more likely to garner cooperation during police-public contacts and protect

77 themselves against potentially violent resistance-behaviors by embodying the tenets of legitimacy theory in their work. This study provides a look at this phenomenon by exploring the relationship between citizen perceptions of police fairness during several police-public contacts and citizen use of resistance-behaviors. Several findings emerged in these analyses. First, citizen perception of police fairness is associated with citizens reported use of resistance-behaviors in several contexts. Citizens who thought police acted illegitimately more often reported using resistance-behaviors. In police-citizen contact during traffic stops, respondents more often reported exhibiting resistance-behaviors in four of the five situations used to measure citizen perception of police fairness. Specifically, resistance-behaviors were more likely exhibited when citizens thought the stop was illegitimate, more often when the vehicle search was perceived as illegitimate, more likely when citizens believed the police acted improperly, and when respondents reported the police acted disrespectfully (but resistance-behaviors were almost evenly split when personal searches, frisks or pat downs were considered legitimate or not). In non-traffic-related police-citizen contacts, citizens were more likely to exhibit resistance-behaviors when they believed police acted improperly and disrespectfully (but not when they believed a search, frisk or pat down was illegitimate). And, the relationship between legitimacy and citizen resistance-behaviors was upheld when other relevant factors (i.e., citizen demographics, police use of force) were included e.g., during policecitizen contacts where police suspected the citizen of wrongdoing. That said, the reader is again reminded to interpret these findings with caution as these data cannot make any causal claims because temporal order cannot be controlled. However, assessing the relationship between citizen perceptions of police legitimacy while also obtaining temporal ordering could prove challenging and would require data from an independent observer of the police-citizen interaction: a difficult feat for a National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) supplemental data collection. In short, illegitimacy was related to resistance-behaviors in many contexts with the exception of personal searches/frisks/pat downs. In these cases, those who thought the police were legitimately searching their persons were more likely to resist than those who thought the police were illegitimately searching them. This is contrary to expectations. Perhaps these citizens resisted legitimate searches because they possessed contraband and the search may have led to additional criminal charges or resisting offered the possibility to escape existing charges, while citizens who were searched illegitimately believed that they would not be charged anyway and were less motivated to resist the police contact. That said, this relationship also could work the other way: citizens who resisted police, upon reflection, may later have viewed police actions as legitimate. Also interesting, a higher percentage of citizens reported resistance-behaviors during contexts other than traffic stops. Future research should explore the dynamics of a traffic stop to determine why these encounters are associated with increased citizen compliance with police. The results also illustrate that resistance-behaviors are consistent with citizen attitudes toward police presented in the literature. A higher percentage of Black or Hispanic respondents reported resistance-behaviors than Whites and non-hispanics, even though more Whites and non-hispanics reported contact with police and resistance-behaviors, overall their proportions were lower than Blacks and Hispanics

78 but this association disappears when other factors are taken into consideration. This suggests that, even though they reported fewer contacts with the police and reported fewer resistance-behaviors, specific racial groups seem to view and interact with the police differently. Nevertheless, whether these findings highlight the need for police to improve minority citizens perceptions of police fairness is for future research to determine. Additional research is needed to investigate the role of race/ethnicity on citizen use of resistance-behaviors against police. Limitations These results, though, should be considered preliminary, as there are several inherent limitations to this study. First, and perhaps most important, temporal order of police and citizen behavior cannot be controlled so causality cannot be addressed here. The resistance index includes reported behaviors that occurred at any time during the police-citizen contact. Accordingly, whether police use of force, for example, precedes or follows citizen resistance-behaviors is unknown. If citizens believe police use force first, they may be more likely to resist police directives and to perceive the police action as illegitimate rather than if police use force in response to citizen displays of resistance. Additionally, these data rely on citizens reporting behaviors after the fact; perhaps up to 12 months after their interaction with police. It is possible that citizens perceptions of police fairness may have changed as a result of the encounter. Alternatively, citizens may want to portray themselves in a more favorable way to researchers, introducing bias into survey responses. Further, citizen resistance-behavior is rare. In the 2008 PPCS data, less than 2% of respondents reported defying the police in a variety of contexts. This is problematic for advanced statistical analyses, especially because this prohibited incorporating more than one independent variable at a time. In the unlikely case that future iterations of the PPCS have a larger proportion of resistance-behaviors, perhaps this research can be extended. Considering the rarity of resistance-behaviors, though, future survey research on police legitimacy should incorporate resistance-behaviors as questionnaire items. Indeed, a larger sample size could support an exploration of the reason(s) for the unexpected finding of citizens resisting personal searches they believed to be legitimate. Another area for future research to consider is incorporating police use of excessive force into the study of the relationship between citizen perceptions of police fairness and citizen resistance-behaviors. Some scholars have investigated legitimacy and citizen resistance or compliance as it relates to officer use of force. However, these studies, using observational data (Mastrofski et al., 1996; Dai et al., 2011), do not capture perceptions of officer legitimacy from the citizen s perspective. Those studies that do include citizen attitudes lack one of the components of the legitimacyforce-resistance triad. For example, Hickman and colleagues (2008) compared officer use of force with citizen resistance-behaviors using survey data, but did not include police legitimacy measures. The current study was able to assess this during only one type of police-citizen contact: when police suspected the citizen of wrongdoing. Without being able to control for additional variables due to the low number of persons reporting the use of resistance-behaviors in other types of police-citizen

79 encounters, whether resistance is due to citizen perceptions of police fairness or another factor, like excessive force, cannot be determined. This is left to future research to explore. References Bachman, R., & Paternoster, R. (2004). Statistics for criminology and criminal justice (2 nd ed.). New York City, New York: McGraw Hill. Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2003a). A four-component model of procedural justice: defining the meaning of a fair process. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(6), Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2003b). What constitutes fairness in work settings? A fourcomponent model of procedural justice. Human Resource Management Review, 13, Bureau of Justice Statistics. (undated). Police-Public Contact Survey (PPCS). Retrieved August 6, 2012 from Casper, J. D., Tyler, T., & Fisher, B. (1988). Procedural justice in felony cases. Law & Society Review, 22(3), Colbert, D. L., Paternoster, R., & Bushway, S. (2001). Do attorneys really matter? The empirical and legal case for the right of counsel at bail. Cardoza Law Review, 23, Committee to Review Research on Police Policy and Practices (W. Skogan & K. Frydl, Eds.). (2004). Fairness and effectiveness in policing: the evidence. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Dai, M., Frank, J., & Sun, I. (2011). Procedural justice during police-citizen encounters: The effects of process-based policing on citizen compliance and demeanor. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, Eith, C., & Durose, M. R. (2011). Contacts between Police and the Public, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Engel, R. S. (2003). Explaining suspects resistance and disrespect toward police. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, Engel, R. S. (2005). Citizens perceptions of distributive and procedural injustice during traffic stops with police. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 42(4), Engel, R. S., & Calnon, J. M. (2004). Examining the influence of drivers characteristics during traffic stops with police: Results from a national survey. Justice Quarterly, 21(1), Engel, R. S., Tillyer, R., Klahm, C. F. IV, & Frank, J. (2012). From the officer s perspective: A multilevel examination of citizens demeanor during traffic stops. Justice Quarterly, 29(5), Freeman, J., Liossis, P., & David, N. (2006). Deterrence, defiance and deviance: An investigation into a group of recidivist drink drivers self-reported offending behaviours. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 39(1), Gibson, C. L., Walker, S., Jennings, W. G., & Miller, J. M. (2010). The impact of traffic stops on calling the police for help. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 21(2), Goldsmith, A. (2005). Police reform and the problem of trust. Theoretical Criminology, 9(4), Herbert, S. (2006). Tangled up in blue: conflicting paths to police legitimacy. Theoretical Criminology, 10(4),

80 Hickman, M. J., Piquero, A. R., & Garner, J. H. (2008). Toward a national estimate of police use of nonlethal force. Criminology & Public Policy, 7(4), Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Hough, M., Myhill, A., Quinton, P., & Tyler, T. R. (2012). Why do people comply with the law? Legitimacy and the influence of legal institutions. British Journal of Criminology, 52(6), LaFree, G. (1998). Losing legitimacy: Street crime and the decline of social institutions in America. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Lichtenberg, I. (2007). Contacts between the police and the public: Three tests of convergent validity. Police Practice and Research, 8(1), Mastrofski, S.D., Reisig, M.D., & McCluskey, J.D. (2002). Police disrespect toward the public: An encounter-based analysis. Criminology, 40, Mastrofski, S.D., Snipes, J.B., & Supina, A.E. (1996). Compliance on Demand: The Public s Response to Specific Police Requests. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 33(3), Reisig, M. D., Bratton, J., & Gertz, M. G. (2007). The construct validity and refinement of process-based policing measures. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, Reisig, M. D., & Lloyd, C. (2009). Procedural justice, police legitimacy, and helping the police fight crime: results from a survey of Jamaican adolescents. Police Quarterly, 12(1), Sunshine, J. & Tyler, T. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law and Society Review, 37(3), Tankebe, J. (2009). Policing, procedural fairness and public behavior: a review and critique. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 11(1), Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: a psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum. Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1978). A theory of procedure. California Law Review, 66, Tyler, T. (2004). Enhancing police legitimacy. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 593, Tyler, T. (2006). Why do people obey the law? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Umoja, A. O. (1999). Repression breeds resistance: the Black Liberation Army and the radical legacy of the Black Panther Party. New Political Science, 21(2), Wells, W. (2007). Type of contact and evaluations of police officers: The effects of procedural justice across three types of police-citizen contacts. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35,

81 POLICE PROFESSIONALISM IN INTERVIEWS WITH HIGH VALUE DETAINEES: CROSS-CULTURAL ENDORSEMENT OF PROCEDURAL JUSTICE Jane Goodman-Delahunty, * Kate O Brien & Thea Gumbert-Jourjon Charles Sturt University Procedural fairness has received widespread attention in policing but is under-researched in investigative interviews. In simulated interviews in the laboratory, authorities were more focussed on just outcomes than fair processes, but little research has been conducted in the field to examine practices regarding procedural fairness and variations in different cultures and jurisdictions. This study examined these issues in a sample of experienced police and military practitioners in Australia, Indonesia, the Philippines, South Korea, and Sri Lanka. In semi-structured interviews probing effective practices, 123 practitioners with expertise in criminal investigative and HUMINT interviews described the strategies they used to (a) build rapport; (b) elicit reliable information; and (c) achieve interview goals. Responses to these questions were coded by trained raters for the importance of four procedural justice components: respectful treatment, trust, neutrality and voice. Consensus emerged on the importance of procedural fairness to establish rapport, secure reliable information and achieve interview objectives. The majority of practitioners endorsed strategies respectful of suspect rights and police trustworthiness; less priority was accorded to interviewee voice and police neutrality. Differences in emphasis on voice and neutrality emerged between jurisdictions in relation to cultures High versus Low in Context and cultural variations in individualism, power-distance and uncertainty avoidance. Examples are cited reflecting police professionalism that employs procedural justice to enhance interviewing expertise and police legitimacy. R eports of abusive interrogation methods such as those at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay have damaged police reputations in many jurisdictions. In part, this public controversy has been fuelled by the lack of transparency about police procedures (Bradford, Jackson & Hough, 2014; Schafer, 2013) and interview methods (Dixon, 2010). In some jurisdictions, in cases that have proceeded to court, evidence gathered using coercive methods has been excluded, diminishing public trust and confidence in law enforcement officers (e.g., Nolan, 2009). Although most police and military interviewers receive training in rapport-building, harsh treatment of suspected violent extremists and other high value detainees may be exacerbated by cultural * 2014 by authors, reprinted here by permission. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to jdelahunty@csu.edu.au, Charles Sturt University Manly Campus, Sydney, Australia. This research was funded by a grant from the US Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation High- Value Detainee Interrogation Group through the Centre for Law and Human Behavior at the University of Texas at El Paso (Grant Number: J-FBI ). Statements of fact, opinion and analysis are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the FBI or the US Government. We are grateful to Samara Barchet, Loene Howes, Melissa Martin, Ida Nguyen and Jessica Kingsford for assistance in coding interview transcripts. 1

82 differences and retributive motives (Carlsmith & Sood, 2009), leading to use of interrogation strategies that are counterproductive and culturally ineffective. Research has repeatedly shown that suspects who have experienced physical abuse during interrogations are more likely to make false confessions (Leo, Constanzo, & Shaked- Shroer, 2009), which reduced public confidence in the criminal justice system. Mistreatment of suspects during interviews results in loss of perceived legitimacy of police, and diminishes community cooperation and support (Roberts, 2011). Accordingly, law enforcement agencies and police practitioners are motivated to identify interview techniques that are effective, but do not involve torture or lead to inadmissible evidence and public controversy (Borum, Gelles & Kleinman, 2009). Yet little is known about practitioner views on effective interview methods and strategies and the extent of consensus between jurisdictions. Whether less controversial methods are in fact more widely used and perceived as effective is a topic that has remained unaddressed, as has the extent to which cultural differences may influence the use and perception of different methods. The current study sought information from seasoned interviewers from a variety of cultural backgrounds about strategies and methods of interrogation that they regarded as effective. In a systematic review of research on police interviewing, Meissner, Redlich, Bhatt, and Brandon (2012) examined studies that compared the efficacy of accusatorial (guilt-presumptive) vs. information-gathering interview methods in eliciting confessions. Information-gathering methods emphasise rapport-building and use of open-ended, nonconfrontational questioning (Walsh & Bull, 2012). Results of laboratory-based interview simulations revealed that while both accusatorial and information-gathering interview methods yielded confessions, information-gathering strategies had greater diagnostic value, i.e., increased the number of true confessions, while reducing the number of false confessions. Whether practitioners in the field endorse the use of less coercive practices to enhance the reliability of the information secured in interviews is unknown. Procedural Justice and Police Legitimacy Insights from social psychological theory and research are helpful in addressing some gaps between police and public perceptions of police performance. Research has revealed that negative personal encounters with police have between four and fourteen times more impact upon citizen ratings of confidence in police than do positive encounters (Skogan, 2006). Moreover, effect sizes were larger for citizen-initiated encounters than for police-initiated encounters, suggesting the importance of customer service during interactions with citizens, as well as fair treatment of suspects, in promoting police legitimacy (Skogan, 2006). In the wake of negative publicity about police practices, interest has increased in factors that influence perceptions of police legitimacy (Brown, 2014). Police legitimacy refers to public acceptance of, and respect for police authority, as well as the level of citizen obedience (Mazerolle, Bennett, Davis, Sargeant, & Manning, 2013; Tyler, 1997, 2001, 2006). A primary influence on public perception of police legitimacy is the extent to which police are perceived as trustworthy, enabling policing by consent (Her Majesty s Inspector of Constabulary, 2011; Goldsmith, 2005) rather than coercion. Citizens who view the police as legitimate are intrinsically motivated to self-regulate their behaviour to cooperate and comply with police (Tyler & Fagan, 2008). A substantial body of research has demonstrated that the primary means for promoting perceptions of fairness and police legitimacy is adherence to components of procedural justice (PJ) (Murphy, Hinds & Fleming, 2008; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler, 1989). A recent meta-analysis confirmed 2

83 that police-led interventions promoting PJ dialogue significantly improved public perceptions of police legitimacy (Mazerolle et al., 2013). PJ theory is founded on the idea that building trust, treating people with fairness and neutrality, and allowing them the opportunity to express their viewpoint results in greater satisfaction, cooperation and compliance with authority (Tyler, 1989). The primary model of PJ theory, the Group Value Model (GVM; Lind & Tyler, 1988) posits that perceptions of PJ are directly influenced by an individual s sense of belonging to a group or community. The GVM is comprised of four key elements or components: respectful treatment, trustworthiness, neutrality and voice (Goodman-Delahunty, 2010; Mazerolle et al., 2013) and has received extensive empirical support (Hinds and Murphy, 2007; Naumann & Bennett, 2000; Tyler, 1989, 1990, 2001, 2006). Respectful treatment is demonstrated by the extent to which authority figures afford citizens dignity and fairness. Trustworthiness reflects the extent to which individuals perceive that authority figures are acting in their best interests. Neutrality refers to transparency, and a lack of bias by authorities (Tyler, 2008). Voice refers to an individual s ability to be heard and to express their opinion and viewpoint in legal proceedings (Goodman-Delahunty, 2010). Limited research has addressed the application of the GVM and PJ theory to police interviewing. Previous studies demonstrated that individuals who perceived authority figures as trustworthy showed compliance with and commitment to that authority (Tyler, 1989), while those who mistrusted interviewers were less likely to cooperate and comply with the authority s requests and procedures (Gudjonsson, 2003). A psychologist has speculated that investigative interviews will be more successful when authority figures demonstrate interest in their subjects, and avoid aggressive challenges (Roberts, 2011). By acknowledging suspects as valued members of society through a display of respectful treatment, individuals acceptance of authoritative decision making should increase (Henderson, Wells, Maguire & Gray, 2010). Behaviours by authority figures such as police interrogators demonstrating respectful treatment may include attention to the individual interviewee s cultural and religious needs, such as prayer times and dietary restrictions (Roberts, 2011). Voice is particularly important to procedural fairness as acknowledgement of individual viewpoints suggests that authority figures value those individuals as members of the community (Tyler & Lind, 1988). Police interviewers can promote voice by allowing suspects to give complete accounts of their experiences, and by avoiding interruptions, which may increase interviewee anxiety and impact the accuracy of accounts (Gudjonsson, 2003). Prior social justice research demonstrated that fairness of police and court procedures was more important than performance outcomes (such as crime reduction) in promoting perceptions of police trustworthiness and legitimacy (Canada & Watson, 2013; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003a; Tyler, 1989, 1990, 2001, 2006). Some recent experimental studies revealed what the researchers referred to as an authority-subordinate disparity between values espoused by authority figures, such as judges, law enforcement officers and military personnel, and the recipients of their decisions, such as members of the public, or detainees, regarding procedural fairness. While the police emphasised the importance of fair outcomes, such as solving crimes, the citizens and suspects (decision recipients) gave more emphasis to respectful treatment (Heuer, Penrod, & Kattan, 2007). In the context of police interrogations, this disparity would lead police interrogators who value outcome-based concerns more highly than process-related concerns, to endorse coercive interrogation procedures as an acceptable means to achieve a fair investigative outcome (Sivasubramaniam & Heuer, 2011). To date, most procedural justice research has examined the views of community members rather than authorities, and this issue has not been examined outside of the laboratory. The current study is one of the first to test 3

84 this theory in the field from the perspective of a group of law enforcement authorities, i.e., police and military interviewing practitioners. The Influence of Cultural Values on Interview Methods and Procedures The issue of cultural differences in interview practice and procedures remains under-researched. A series of laboratory studies revealed that the use and effectiveness of different police interview techniques was influenced by the culture of both the interviewer and interviewee (Beune, Giebels, Adair, Fennis & Van Der Zee, 2011; Beune, Giebels & Sanders, 2009; Beune, Giebels & Taylor, 2010; Giebels & Taylor, 2009). Whether the same issues are important to police and military interviewers working in different jurisdictions and cultures remains largely unexplored. To date, few empirical studies have examined police interviewing practices in the Asia Pacific jurisdictions. The current study examined whether (1) police endorsements of procedural fairness varied among interviewers from different cultures in the Asia Pacific, and (2) police showed greater concern with interview outcomes than interview procedures. Based on the findings of Sivasubramanian and Heuer (2011) we hypothesized that interviewers would emphasise outcome-related over process-related concerns, i.e., they would be willing to sacrifice procedural justice in order to achieve desired outcomes, such as securing a confession from a suspect to solve a crime. A useful paradigm for analysing cultural differences developed in the 1970s by organisational psychologist, Geert Hofstede, has been widely adopted in cross-cultural research (Minkov & Hofstede, 2011). The model proposes that cultures vary on five key dimensions, three of which are particularly salient to cross-cultural investigative interviews, namely individualism, power distance, and uncertainty avoidance. These three cultural dimensions were investigated in the current study as they pertained to interviewing practices in Asian Pacific cultures and jurisdictions. The level of individualism or collectivism in a society determines the degree to which its members act independently or are integrated within groups (Hofstede, 1980, 2001). For instance, Australia is a highly individualistic culture. Authorities in individualistic cultures expect people to act for themselves, their immediate family, and to show initiative. On the other hand, many other countries in the Asia-Pacific, including Indonesia, the Philippines, South Korea and Sri Lanka are collectivist societies (Hofstede, 1980, 2001). People in these societies form strong relationships, where everyone takes responsibility for members of their group, and there is a greater focus on maintaining harmonious relationships between group members. The dimension of power distance refers to the degree to which individuals within a culture accept and expect that power is distributed unequally among its members (Hofstede, 1980, 2001). Countries with high power-distance scores reflect a high level of acceptance that power is distributed unequally, whereas low scores indicate lower levels of acceptance of inequality. Australia scores low on power-distance, since within Australian organizations, hierarchy is established for convenience, information is shared frequently, and communication tends to be informal, direct and participative. In contrast, power-distance scores are high in Indonesia, the Philippines, South Korea, and Sri Lanka (Hofstede, 2011). In these cultures, hierarchy within organisations reflects inherent inequalities; leaders are more inaccessible and authoritative, while subordinates expect to be told what to do (Hofstede, 2011, p. 107). Although there are some exceptions to the general finding that high power distance orientations are correlated with collectivist 4

85 cultures, these were not applicable to the current study (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010). Uncertainty avoidance refers to the extent to which members of a social group feel comfortable or uncomfortable in ambiguous and uncertain circumstances (Hofstede, 1980, 2001), and is observed in the degree to which a society endeavours to control the uncontrollable. Australia, Indonesia, Sri Lanka and the Philippines have mid- to low scores on this cultural dimension, indicating a more relaxed attitude, in which deviance from the norm is more readily accepted (Hofstede, 1980, 2001). In contrast, South Korea has one of the highest uncertainty avoidance scores in the world. In South Korea, people observe strict moral codes and social norms, and security is an important element of individual motivation. Culture also influences communication styles, and is therefore an important consideration in selecting investigative interviewing methods. Anthropological research on cultural differences in communication styles distinguished communications as either low or high in context, based on the extent to which the communication was selfexplanatory or highly embedded and contextually dependent (Samovar, Porter & McDaniel, 2009; Hall, 1976). In Western, individualistic cultures, such as Australia, communication is generally more direct and content-oriented, whereas in non-western, collectivist cultures such as Indonesia, the Philippines, South Korea and Sri Lanka, communication is more indirect and context-oriented, emphasizing relational harmony (Beune et al., 2011; Copeland & Griggs, 1986; Kim, Pan & Park, 1997). Consistent with theory that interpersonal relationships influence satisfaction with outcomes for participants from collectivist cultures (Hall, 1976), a study of simulated interviewer-suspect communication strategies (Beune et al., 2009) revealed that the use of rational persuasion yielded more admissions by suspects from low context (LC) than high context (HC) cultures. Conversely, treating suspects with kindness enhanced the quality of interviewer-suspect relationships in HC cultures more than it did in LC cultures. Analyses of videotaped police interviews (Beune et al., 2010) revealed that kindness to suspects from HC cultures elicited more suspicion and negative responses, while the use of rational arguments was most effective with suspects from LC cultures. Other research demonstrated that voice was more central to PJ reasoning in cultures lower on the Hofstede variable of power distance (Van den Bos, Brockner, Van den Oudenalder, Kamble, & Nasabi, 2013). Conversely, police interviewers who employed active listening techniques (to operationalize voice) elicited more information from suspects in collectivist than individualistic cultures, which tend to be lower in power distance (Beune et al., 2011). Together, the foregoing studies revealed cross-cultural differences in communication and interview strategies, and that the success of strategies varied depending on the cultural affiliation or membership of the interviewee or suspect. However, aside from Beune et al. (2010), most studies have addressed cross-cultural differences in police interviewing practices in role-paying simulations by university students in the laboratory (e.g., Beune et al., 2009; Rotman, 2011) and there is a paucity of research from the perspective of practitioners in the field. In the present study, we hypothesised that cultural differences would manifest as differences in the extent to which investigative interviewers endorsed procedural justice strategies in conducting interviews. Since voice is generally more central to PJ reasoning in low than high power-distance cultures, rapport-building techniques may be viewed as differentially effective when employed in interviews in high versus low power-distance cultures (Van den Bos et al., 2013). Furthermore, interviewers from cultures higher in uncertainty avoidance may be more willing to approve coercive interview techniques and compromise PJ in order to 5

86 achieve certainty of outcome. Accordingly, we hypothesised that interviewers from HC, high uncertainty avoidance, high power distance cultures would be more likely than those from LC, low uncertainty avoidance and low power distance cultures to value outcome concerns over process-based concerns, approve coercive interview techniques and place less emphasis on rapport-building and PJ. In particular, it was hypothesised that cultural differences would impact attitudes towards the importance of interviewee voice. Participants Method Participants were 123 experienced interviewing practitioners working in one of five Asian Pacific countries: Australia, Indonesia, the Philippines, South Korea, and Sri Lanka. The majority of the participants were men (92%); ten were women (8%). Participants had experience conducting counter-terrorism interviews and investigative interviews with high value detainees in their capacity as a police or military officer (28%), as a criminal investigator or special agent (32%), during intelligence operations (20%) or across a range of capacities (20%). This purposive convenience sample was recruited via their employers, including the Australian Defense Forces, Australian Federal Police Force, Australian Security and Intelligence Organization, Indonesia Republic National Police, Korean National Police Agency, Korean National Intelligence Service, New South Wales Police Force, Philippine National Police, Sri Lanka Police Service and State Intelligence Service, and the Victorian Police Force. One half of the sample was Australian (counter-terrorism police 28.5%; military officers 15.4%). One third of the sample was comprised of police officers from the Philippines (12.2%), Indonesia (8.1%), South Korea (8.1%), and Sri Lanka (8.1%). One fifth of the sample (19.5%) consisted of international agents from Australia, India, Sri Lanka, Indonesia and the United Kingdom. Most participants reported that interviewing was one of multiple primary duties (73%), or their primary duty (12%). On average, they had been conducting interviews for more than ten years (71%). Two-thirds of the sample was very experienced, having conducted in excess of 100 investigative interviews; one third were either moderately experienced ( interviews), or were comparative novices (7% had conducted fewer than 20 investigative interviews). Materials A set of semi-structured, open-ended questions addressed rapport-building; interview techniques that produced reliable information; and definitions of successful interviews. 44 Notably, none of the questions directly probed uses of PJ components. 44 Data reported in this study were drawn from responses to 56 questions developed by Russano, Narchet, Meissner, & Kleinman (2013) to address interviewer training, experience, and practices in an interrogation with a high value target. Interview questions that yielded data reported in this study were: a. Take a moment to think about the role that developing rapport plays in an interview. How would you describe rapport within the context of an interview? Do you believe that developing rapport is important during an interview? If yes, why, and to what extent? If no, why not? How do you develop rapport with an interviewee? 6

87 Procedures Interviews were conducted in person by one of seven trained interviewers, based on the location of and language spoken by the participants; 2% were conducted by telephone. The full interviews lasted over one hour (M = 68 mins; range = mins), in the course of which the foregoing questions were included. Interviews were audiorecorded and professionally transcribed. Data Coding and Analysis In responding to the target questions, many participants spontaneously mentioned the importance of one or more of the four procedural justice components (Respectful treatment, Trustworthiness, Voice and Neutrality) as key considerations in rapport building, eliciting reliable information and achieving the interview objectives. Interview transcripts were coded by trained researchers for any mention of the four PJ components regarding (a) rapport-building; (b) procedures for eliciting reliable information; and (c) interview outcomes (whether an interview was successful or unsuccessful). Where participants mentioned the PJ components, the content was scrutinized to determine (i) whether that component was (i) important to apply and observe in the interview, or conversely, (ii) whether the participant affirmatively avoided its implementation. A third code was used when the component was not mentioned. Across the 12 categories of responses, only 3% of the 123 interviewees (range 0% - 6.5%, n = 0-8) reported that purposive avoidance of the PJ component. This category of responses was too small to analyse separately, thus for this study, those responses were combined with the absent category. The four components (Respect, Trust, Voice, and Neutrality) were analysed as important and present (score = 1) or absent/purposively avoided (score = 0). A randomly selected sample of 20% of participant responses was dual coded by a second rater, blind to the classifications of the first coder. Comparisons yielded a high degree of consistency in classifications (Krippendorff s alpha = 0.96; Cohen s kappa = 0.96). Analyses allowed a comparison of the extent to which participants from different cultures and jurisdictions emphasized PJ component in describing their interview procedures and outcomes. Mean scores for the importance of each PJ component within each interview stage were compared by summing the scores for each component. Dimensions of individualism-collectivism, power-distance and uncertainty avoidance were coded as suggested by Hofstede (1980, 2001). For cross-cultural analyses of cultural communication style, individualism-collectivism, power distance and uncertainty avoidance (UA), participants were grouped as: (1) High Context (non-western, high Are there facets of your personality or physical presence that you use and consider useful when establishing rapport? If yes, please explain. Are there facets of your personality or physical presence that you feel you have to overcome in order to establish rapport? If yes, please explain. How do you know when rapport has been achieved (or not) with a detainee/suspect/source (i.e., what evidence or indicators do you look for)? What strategies for developing rapport do you find to be most effective? What strategies for developing rapport have you found to be least effective? b. In your experience, what interview techniques or approaches do you believe are most effective in eliciting reliable information from an interviewee? In your experience, what interview techniques or approaches do you believe are least effective in eliciting reliable information from an interviewee? c. Let s talk for a moment about effective practices in interview. How would you define a successful interview? How would you define an unsuccessful interview? 7

88 power-distance, collectivist countries, n = 51) vs. Low Context (Western, low powerdistance, individualistic countries, n = 72); and (2) Low UA (n = 16, scores 64-93) vs. Moderate UA (n = 81, scores 51-53) vs. High UA (n = 26, scores 8-48). International agents were allocated to one of the cultural groups based on their self-reported nationality/country of origin. Results The Importance of Procedural Justice in Investigative Interviews Regarding the first hypothesis, that interviewers would tend to value outcomes over processes and place little emphasis on PJ, a comparison of mean PJ scores revealed that PJ was most likely to be mentioned as an important feature in the rapport-building stage of an interview (M = 2.4, SD = 1.0, n = 121), in comparison with techniques used in the course of an interview to elicit reliable information (M = 1.6, SD = 1.1, n = 116), or with regard to interview outcomes (M = 1.9, SD = 1.3, n = 122). In the overall study sample, across all jurisdictions, the PJ component mentioned most frequently as an important consideration at all stages of the interview was Respectful Treatment, followed by Trust, Voice and Neutrality (Table 1). Table 1. The Importance of Procedural Justice Components in Investigative Interview Procedures and Outcomes (percent) Procedural Justice Component Interview Stage Respect Trust Voice Neutrality Rapport-building Eliciting reliable information Interview objectives Examples of the interview responses reflecting the consideration by practitioners of procedural justice components from which these quantitative outcomes were derived are provided below, respectively regarding rapport-building, information reliability, and interview outcomes. The Importance of Procedural Justice in Establishing Rapport The strong support shown by participants for Respectful Treatment of interviewees as an aspect of rapport-building was apparent in practitioner comments on this topic, as shown in the following excerpts: My approach is very much I respect you being here. This is not about personal likes and dislikes. This is my job. My job is to talk to you about what you have done. I am hoping that, you know, we can have a conversation about this. (International Agent 72) 8

89 Several practitioners reported the need to adapt interview procedures to demonstrate Respect for cultural and religious practices of detainees in order to establish a more comfortable and cooperative setting for an interview: You have to respect some customs that they practice, otherwise they will become antagonistic to you, and they will not cooperate with you after all. For the Muslims, we have to respect prayer time, the right food that you should offer them while in custody. (Filipino Practitioner 15) We have to make sure that they ve prayed, that they re fed, that they ve eaten the right food, and if they have a prayer time coming up. We ve got to deal with all those issues. (Australian Practitioner 70) Practitioners suggested that the perception of an open and Trusting relationship with an interviewee was important, especially during the rapport-building stage of the interview. Some practitioners held the view that concern about the interviewee had to be sincere, while others did not, as demonstrated in the following interview excerpts: If you are genuinely interested in what they want to say, which you should be if you re there in the first place, well then you should show that rapport-building and that respect to them. Everyone wants to feel wanted. (Australian Practitioner 3) If I m treating them openly, and just pretending I m caring, at that point hopefully I ll get that reflected in their attitude, and they might feel safe enough to open up a little bit more. (International Practitioner 29) Although participants were less likely to spontaneously endorse the importance of Voice and Neutrality than Respectful Treatment and Trustworthiness, many interviewers offered interviewees the opportunity for Voice. For example, practitioners recommended active listening techniques, and allowed interviewees sufficient time to provide their version of events uninterrupted and unchallenged. One of my big ones is appearing friendly and trying to smile, and I guess maintaining eye contact, and showing an interest in what the other person says, and actively listening and then questioning the individual on things that they ve said, just to continue that flow of conversation, and to get the other individual talking and feeling comfortable. Me doing less talking, and them doing more talking. (Australian Practitioner 2) To establish rapport, a Neutral stance implied that You have to be willing to pursue an avenue that someone s interested in talking about and the importance of avoiding a biased, judgmental attitude: I m never going to get anywhere if I m going to call him a criminal (Australian Practitioner 1). The Importance of Procedural Justice in Eliciting Reliable Information The majority of practitioners endorsed noncoercive methods to elicit more reliable information in interviews. Torture s not one of them (International Practitioner 9

90 73). Observations that there was a relationship between procedurally fair methods and more reliable information included the following: If we can elicit information from the suspect without force, then the information given was based on facts, based on the truth. (Indonesian Practitioner 7) To secure reliable information, some practitioners aligned the absence of coercion and fair procedures, with Respectful Treatment. For example, an Australian Practitioner recommended no use of force or aggression, treatment with Respect, no good cop bad cop techniques, and no direct contradictions of statement by the detainee. Another practitioner defined Respectful Treatment more simply: "Make it so they understand what you are talking about." (Australian Practitioner 15) The establishment of a relationship of Trust was cited as an important component to obtain reliable information from an interviewee: A certain amount of trust has to be built up between you and the interviewee (International Practitioner 13). Trustworthiness was conveyed in multiple ways, for example: You ve got to obviously make yourself be open to the information, not only through the questioning techniques but the way that you may sit, or the way that you may interact with them. (International Agent 47) The significance of interviewer Neutrality in securing reliable information was expressed as keeping in mind the detainee s right to presumption of innocence (Indonesian Practitioner 8), which might require the practitioner to be willing to pursue an avenue that someone s interested in talking about (Australian Practitioner 1). Denial of the detainee s Voice was identified as one of the least effective methods to elicit reliable information, as was noted by one participant: Probably not letting them talk about a certain topic.let them fill in rather than you think you know everything and just get them to confirm what you think you already know. (Australian Practitioner 65) Some practitioners advised that the interviewer should not cross-examine detainees or challenge their recollection of facts (Australian Practitioner 14). The Importance of Procedural Justice in Achieving Interview Goals In responding the questions about properties of a successful interview, practitioners kept broad goals and the wider context in mind, e.g., A successful interview would mean that lives are saved and the government did not lose its credibility (Filipino Practitioner 1). Many practitioners reflected on the procedural strategies employed in the interview. Across all jurisdictions, the use of force was generally opposed. For example, one practitioner defined a successful interview as one in which you are able to extract information without force or intimidation (Filipino Practitioner 4); another said Violence is counterproductive (Indonesian Practitioner 7). In line with this, tactics that confronted the detainee were associated with unsuccessful outcomes: In your face interviews don't work (Australian Practitioner 38), and; 10

91 It s always good where the interviewee is a participant, rather than forced to provide information, or believing they are being forced to provide information. Waterboarding is inappropriate. (Australian Practitioner 37) The absence of a show of force was also associated with Respectful Treatment in securing a successful interview outcome, as shown in these comments: Respect, no pressure, force, or coercion, (Indonesian Practitioner 3) and Provide food, no violence, heart-toheart, look for truth (Indonesian Practitioners 9). In defining a successful interview, some practitioners emphasised both Respectful and Trustworthy procedures as the keys to success: Explain interview procedure, focus on achieving aims, and listen with genuine interest (Australian Practitioner 3); and Firstly the setting must be very comfortable. You must always treat the detainee with utmost friendship and respect, with food, with tea, coffee, juice -- whatever he needs to make him feel comfortable. I feel that if you don t do that, then you don t build a good connection with the detainee. That relationship is at the heart of a good interview. (Sri Lankan Practitioner 10) The integrity of police methods and approaches was a critical feature of Trustworthiness, which some practitioners cited as a pre-requisite of interview success that the interviewer should not step outside legal and moral boundaries as the objective was to find information, not to secure confessions (Australian Practitioner 12). In other cultures, honesty to the interviewee was paramount: You don't lie, can never lie. (Sri Lankan Practitioner 9) Several practitioners highlighted the importance of Neutrality in their approach as well as fair and even-handed treatment of the interviewee to achieve a successful outcome. For example, practitioners advised against investigative bias: The worst thing you can do is go in wanting to believe something. (International Agent 29) If you prejudge a situation it increases the chance of getting error in the information you gather, so it must be done naturally When a trust relationship called rapport in psychology, is formed, as naturally as possible, lightly inquire, trying to make them talk about the information you are looking for. (S. Korean Practitioner 2) Conversely, an unsuccessful interview was defined as unfair or biased interview: An unsuccessful interview is one where through your manner or your processes you ve put someone off-sides (Australian Practitioner 57) Where my emotions have run away with me and I haven t been fair (Australian Practitioner 72). Neutrality was also prominent in the following definitions of successful interviews. One agent described a successful interview outcome as establishing the truth without a 11

92 particular hypothesis (Australian Practitioner 1). Australian Military Practitioners emphasised the importance of the treatment of the detainee in an unbiased manner, by preventing other agency staff from looking in on the interview, being culturally sensitive, and using neutral methods such as presenting facts and asking for an explanation or seeking additional information without an authoritarian manner, without any accusations of lying, threats or use of harsh techniques. The emphasis on Voice in achieving interview goals was evident in the following responses: You listen, so you know that there s a relationship built, and it s a human bond. So, even with the terrorists, or whoever, it s that human bond (Sri Lankan Practitioner 7). But I would feel that an interview is successful if the interviewee will express his, whatever views, or what he is thinking, spontaneously, without any duress. So, talking freely. (Filipino Practitioner 5) Cultural Variation in the Importance of Procedural Justice by Power Distance and Uncertainty Avoidance To test the hypotheses that cultural differences would impact upon use and endorsement of PJ and rapport-building, correlational analyses were carried out using Hofstede s scores for individualism, Power Distance and Uncertainty Avoidance for each of the five countries included in the study Overall, consistent with hypotheses, the results revealed that power distance scores were significantly negatively correlated with ratings of PJ importance in relation to rapport-building (rho = -.28, p =.002), interview techniques for eliciting reliable information (rho = -.23, p =.014), and interview outcomes (rho = -.36, p <.000). A similar pattern emerged for uncertainty avoidance scores on rapport-building (rho = -.20, p =.030), interview techniques for eliciting reliable information (rho = -.24, p =.010), and interview outcomes (rho = -.32, p <.000). In contrast, Hofstede individualism scores showed a significant positive relationship with the importance of PJ in rapport-building (rho =.25, p =.024), eliciting reliable information (rho =.21, p =.010), and interview outcomes (rho =.40, p <.000). Interviewers from highly individualistic countries were more likely to mention PJ when discussing interview procedures and outcomes. Conversely, participants from countries with high power-distance (indicating a high level of acceptance that power is distributed unequally) and participants from countries with greater uncertainty avoidance were less likely to discuss PJ in regard to interview procedures and outcomes. Variation in the Importance of Procedural Justice in High vs. Low Context and Uncertainty Avoidant Cultures To further explore how cultural dimensions impacted approaches to investigative interviews, a series of chi-square analyses were conducted to investigate whether participants classified as working in High versus Low Context countries, or countries with Low, Moderate or High Uncertainty Avoidance held different perspectives regarding the importance of PJ components in investigative interviews. Table 2 presents the results of these analyses. 12

93 Table 2. The Importance of Procedural Justice Components in Investigative Interview Procedures and Outcomes, by Cultural Dimensions (percent) Cultural Context Uncertainty Avoidance Interview Stage Low Context High Context Rapport-building Low Moderate High Respect Trust Voice * Neutrality *** ** Eliciting reliable information Respect Trust Voice ** * Neutrality * Achieving interview objectives Respect * * Trust Voice *** *** Neutrality *** *** Note: Significance of chi-square test: * p <.05, ** p <.01, *** p <.001 Overall, there were very few differences between groups regarding the importance of Trust and Respect in investigative interviews. That is, contrary to our hypothesis, participants from both High and Low Context countries rated Trust and Respect as very important to build rapport with suspects, and moderately important in eliciting reliable information from interviewees. Perspectives in the two groups were similar regarding the importance of Trust for interview outcomes, however, in partial support of our hypotheses, some differences emerged regarding Respect in that more participants working in Low Context countries (78%) rated Respect as an important consideration in achieving their interview objectives, compared to participants from High Context countries (56%, χ²=6.53, df=1, p =.011, Φ = -.23). Additionally, more participants from countries with Low (69%) and Moderate (76%) Uncertainty Avoidance 13

94 rated Respect as important in achieving interview outcomes, compared to participants from countries High in Uncertainty Avoidance (46%, χ²=8.29, df=2, p =.016, Φ =.26). As hypothesised, a number of differences between groups emerged in the ratings of the importance of Voice in investigative interview procedures and outcomes. Participants from Low versus High Context countries were more likely to specify that Voice was important in building rapport (55% vs. 31%, χ²=6.65, df=1, p =.010, Φ = -.23), in eliciting reliable information (41% vs. 15%, χ²=8.9, df=1, p =.003, Φ = -.28), and in achieving interview objectives (54% vs. 18%, χ²=16.17, df=1, p <.001, Φ = -.36). Cultural differences also emerged regarding the importance of Neutrality. Participants from Low versus High Context countries were more likely to regard Neutrality as important for building rapport (44% vs. 14%, χ²=12.40, df=1, p <.001, Φ = -.32) and achieving their interview outcomes (53% vs. 14%, χ²=19.06, df=1, p <.001, Φ = -.40). Similarly, a number of differences emerged for Voice and Neutrality, based on the Hofstede uncertainty avoidance (UA) groups. Participants from countries with Low (44%) or Moderate (38%) UA were more likely to rate Neutrality as important for rapport-building, compared to participants from High UA countries (4%, χ²=11.73, df=2, p =.003, Φ =.31). A similar pattern of results emerged for interview techniques and interview outcomes. That is, participants from countries with Low or Moderate UA were more likely to discuss Voice and Neutrality as important for interview techniques (voice: χ²=7.90, df=2, p =.019, Φ =.26; neutrality: χ²=7.61, df=2, p =.022, Φ =.26) and for interview outcomes (voice: χ²=18.10, df=2, p <.001, Φ =.39, neutrality: χ²=19.07, df=2, p <.001, Φ =.40), compared to countries with High UA. Discussion Overall, the foregoing findings demonstrated that practitioners valued PJ in investigative interviews processes and outcomes. Rather than coercive or accusatorial approaches, participants reported use and reliance upon respect and politeness to secure the cooperation of interviewees and to develop rapport to achieve their interview objectives. Contrary to our hypothesis that these law enforcement officers would replicate the authority-subordinate disparity by placing greater emphasis upon interview outcomes than interview procedures, most practitioners from all jurisdictions and cultures expressed opposition to using coercive, accusatorial interview techniques. Procedural justice techniques were seen to foster the goal of eliciting reliable information and achieving interview goals. As hypothesised, some cross-cultural differences emerged in the emphasis accorded by interviewers in different jurisdictions to certain PJ components. Overall, all Asian Pacific participants acknowledged the importance of PJ in both the interview process and the interview outcomes. Trust and Respectful Treatment were rated as particularly important aspects of interview procedures and outcomes, and varied the least by culture. Differences between cultures emerged more prominently in relation to the importance accorded to interviewee Voice and interviewer Neutrality. As hypothesised, participants from Low Context cultures, and countries with Low/Moderate uncertainty avoidance were more likely to rate PJ principles, particularly Voice and Neutrality, as important in interview procedures and interview outcomes, compared to their counterparts in High Context cultures and high uncertainty avoidant countries. Although correlational analyses showed greater endorsement of PJ principles by practitioners in low- than high power-distance cultures, contrary to our hypothesis, no significant differences in use and endorsement of PJ components emerged as a function of differences in power distance orientation. 14

95 Limitations of the Study One limitation of the study was potential sample bias, as a result of purposive and convenience sampling. While these sampling methods were necessary in order to access interviewers in different jurisdictions, they did not generate a representative sample of practitioners in the field. Further research is needed to examine the generalizability of these findings. Results of a subsequent online survey of a larger sample of 324 interviewing practitioners in the same Asian Pacific jurisdictions confirmed that these practitioners favoured less coercive approaches and implemented procedural justice components in their interviews (Goodman-Delahunty, Sivasubramaniam, & Gumbert- Jourjon, 2014). A second limitation of both interviews and online surveys is reliance on self-reports, which may be susceptible to social demand characteristics and not accurately reflect the participants actual practices. The fact that in these interviews, participants were not questioned directly about the use of procedural justice components may have minimized the socially desirable demand characteristics of those methods, but may also have led to under-reporting because the questions on that topic were not direct. Controlled experimental field investigations with practitioners are needed to ensure that findings derived from self-report measures are not susceptible to under or over-reporting. A follow-up controlled experimental study of Asian-Pacific investigative interviewing practitioners that addressed this concern yielded parallel outcomes, confirming that results reported in this study were robust (Goodman-Delahunty & Sivasubramaniam, 2013; Sivasubramaniam & Goodman-Delahunty, 2014). A noted limitation of the cross-cultural comparisons is their reliance on correlational evidence which limits the empirical strength of the findings (Van Den Bos et al., 2013). Future research should be informed by analyses of behavioural evidence of interview approaches gathered from observations or recorded interviews, although research access is difficult. Cross-national comparisons supplemented by individual measures of cultural values may yield more nuanced assessments of the influence of cultural variables in multicultural communities and settings. The manipulation of independent or intervening variables and the addition of control conditions is recommended. Implications for Policy and Practice The foregoing findings indicated practitioner consensus that implementing components of procedural fairness was integral to secure cooperation from interviewees, to elicit reliable information in the course of an interview, and to achievement of interview goals. Across all Asian-Pacific jurisdictions, rapport-based interpersonal relationships between interviewer and interviewee were perceived to facilitate suspect cooperation and enhance the accuracy of information obtained. Future research should examine the extent to which this emphasis may differ between practitioners who conduct suspect interviews for criminal investigations and practitioners who interview sources for intelligence purposes. While interviewers frequently endorsed the PJ values of trustworthiness and respectful treatment in interviews, they were less likely to refer to the values of neutrality and voice. It will be beneficial for interviewer training programs to place greater emphasis on these values, particularly in high context cultures, high uncertainty avoidance and high power-distance cultures where they were less frequently endorsed. Interviewer training in neutrality should emphasise that interviewers respect and act in 15

96 accordance with legal components, ensuring that rules are enforced fairly and consistently, and that interviewees are not singled out, targeted, or treated differently on the basis of race, religion, gender, or other personal background factors. To promote voice, interviewers should be trained to refrain from interrupting, talking over or ignoring interviewees, and to avoid unjustified accusations of deceit. Rather, interviewers should be trained to ask interviewees to explain their version of events in their own time and their own words, promoting PJ and enhanced perceptions of police legitimacy. Conclusion Adherence to the four elements of PJ was rated as important by experienced police and military interviewers across five discrete Asia Pacific jurisdictions. Consensus emerged on the importance of noncoercive strategies and tenets of procedural fairness to establish rapport, secure reliable information and achieve interview objectives. The majority of practitioners endorsed strategies respectful of suspect rights and police trustworthiness; less priority was accorded to the voice of the suspect and police neutrality. Differences in emphasis between jurisdictions emerged in relation to cultural variations in individualism, power-distance and uncertainty avoidance. The study findings reflected positive trends in police professionalism, and emphasis on use of noncoercive, procedurally-just interview procedures that have been shown to increase public perceptions of police legitimacy by promoting confidence in interrogation and interview procedures (Mazerolle et al., 2013). References Beune, K., Giebels, E., Adair, W. L., Fennis, B. M., & Van Der Zee, K. I. (2011). Strategic sequences in police interviews and the importance of order and cultural fit. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, doi: / Beune, K., Giebels, E., & Sanders, K. (2009). Are you talking to me? Influencing behavior and culture in police interviews. Psychology, Crime & Law, 15, doi: / Beune, K., Giebels, E., & Taylor, P. J. (2010). Patterns of interaction in police interviews. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, doi: / Borum, R., Gelles, M. G., & Kleinman, S. M. (2009). Interview and interrogation: A perspective and update from the USA. In R. Milne, S. Savage, & T. Williamson (Eds.), International developments in investigative interviewing (pp ). Cullompton, UK: Willan. Bradford, B., Jackson, J., & Hough, M. (2014). Police futures and legitimacy: Redefining good policing. In J.M. Brown (Ed.). The future of policing (pp ). Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Brown, J.M. (2014). The future of policing. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Canada, K.E., & Watson, A.C. (2013). Cause everybody likes to be treated good : Perceptions of procedural justice among mental health court participants. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(2), Carlsmith, K.M., & Sood, A, M, (2009). The fine line between interrogation and retribution. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(1),

97 Copeland, L., & Griggs L. (1986). Getting the best from foreign employees. Management Review, 75(6), Dixon, D. (2010). Questioning suspects: A comparative perspective. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 26, Giebels, E., & Taylor, P. J. (2009). Interaction patterns in crisis negotiations: Persuasive arguments and cultural differences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), Goldsmith, A.J. (2005). Police reform and the problem of trust. Theoretical Criminology, 9(4), Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2010). Four ingredients: New recipes for procedural justice in Australian policing. Policing: A Journal of Policing and Practice, 4, Goodman-Delahunty, J., & Sivasubramaniam, D. (2013). Investigative and intelligence interview practices: an Australasian experimental study. Report to US Federal Bureau of Investigation High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group. School of Psychology and Australian Graduate School of Policing and Security, Charles Sturt University, Manly, Australia. Goodman-Delahunty, J., Sivasubramaniam, D., & Gumbert-Jourjon, T. (2014). Information gathering in law-enforcement: Interview practice by HUMINT and criminal investigators. Manuscript submitted for publication. Gudjonsson, G. H. (2003). The psychology of interrogations and confessions: A handbook. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Garden City: Anchor Press. Henderson, H., Wells, W., Maguire, E. R., & Gray, J. (2010). Evaluating the measurement of procedural justice in a correctional setting. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 37(4), doi: / Her Majesty s Inspector of Constabulary of England, Wales and Northern Ireland (HMIC; 2011), Without fear or favour: A review of police relationships. London: The Stationery Office. Heuer, L., Penrod, S., & Kattan, A. (2007). The role of societal benefits and fairness concerns among decision makers and decision recipients. Law and Human Behavior, 31, doi: /s Hinds, L., & Murphy, K. (2007). Public satisfaction with police: Using procedural justice to improve police legitimacy. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 40(1), Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture s consequences: Comparing values, behaviours, institutions and organisations across nations. London: Sage Publications. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J., & Minkov, M. (2010), Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York: McGraw Hill. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture s consequences: Comparing values, behaviours, institutions and organisations across nations (2 nd ed.). London: Sage Publications. Kim, D., Pan, Y., & Park, H. S. (1998). High- versus low-context culture: A comparison of Chinese, Korean and American cultures. Psychology and Marketing, 15, Leo, R. A., Costanzo, M., & Shaked-Schroer, N. (2009). Psychological and cultural aspects of interrogations and false confessions: using research to inform legal decision-making. In D. A. Krauss & J. D. Lieberman (Eds.), Psychological expertise in court: Psychology in the courtroom (pp ). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press. Mazerolle, L., Bennett, S., Davis, J., Sargeant, E. & Manning, M. (2013). Procedural justice and police legitimacy: a systematic review of the research evidence. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 9, Meissner, C.A., Redlich, A.D., Bhatt, S., & Brandon, S. (2012). Interview and interrogation methods and their effects on true and false confessions. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 13, 4-52, doi: /csr Minkov, M., & Hofstede, G. (2011). The evolution of Hofstede s doctrine. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 18(1), 10-20, doi: / Murphy, K., Hinds, L. & Fleming, K. (2008). Encouraging public cooperation and support for police. Policing and Society, 18(2),

98 Naumann, S.E., & Bennett, N. (2000). A case for procedural justice climate: Development and test of a multilevel model. The Academy of Management Journal, 43(5), Nolan, M. (2009). Counter-terrorism interviewing and investigative interoperability: R v ul-haque [2007] NSWSC Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 16(2), Roberts, K. A. (2011). Police interviews with terrorist suspects: Risks, ethical interviewing and procedural justice. The British Journal of Forensic Practice, 13, doi: / Rotman, L. H. (2012). How culture influences the telling and detection of lies: Differences between low- and high-context individuals. (Unpublished master s thesis). University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands. Russano, M. B., Narchet, F. M., Meissner, C. M., & Kleinman, S. (2013). Structured interviews of experienced intelligence and military interrogators. Manuscript submitted for publication. Samovar, L.A., Porter, R.E., & McDaniel, E.R. (2009). Intercultural communication: A reader. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning. Sivasubramaniam, D., & Heuer, L. (2011). Procedural fairness evaluations in interrogations. In B. Cutler (Ed.), Conviction of the innocent: Lessons from psychological research (pp ). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press. Sivasubramaniam, D., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2014, March). An experimental survey of investigative and intelligence interview practices in Australasia. Presentation at the Annual Conference of the American Psychology-Law Society, New Orleans. Schafer, J.A., (2013). The role of trust and transparency in the pursuit of procedural and organisational justice. Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism, 8(2), Skogan, W.G. (2006). Asymmetry in the impact of encounters with police. Policing & Society, 16(2), Snook, B., Luther, K., Quinlan, H., & (Milne, R. (2012). Let 'em talk! : A field study of police questioning practices of suspects and accused persons. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, Sunshine, J., & Tyler, T.R. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy on shaping public support for policing. Law & Society Review, 37(3), Doi: / Snyder, S. (1999). Patterns of negotiation in a South Korean cultural context. Asian Survey, 39, Tyler, T. R. (1989). The psychology of procedural justice: A test of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, doi: / Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Tyler, T. R. (1997). The psychology of legitimacy: A relational perspective on voluntary deference to authorities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, Tyler, T.R. (2001). Public trust and confidence in legal authorities: What do majority and minority group members want from the law and legal authorities? Behavioural Science and Law, 19, Tyler, T.R. (2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, Tyler, T. R., & Fagan, J. (2008), Legitimacy and cooperation: Why do people help the police fight crime in their communities? Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 6, Van den Bos, K., Brockner, J., Van den Oudenalder, M., Kamble, S. V., & Nasabi, A. (2013). Delineating a method to study cross-cultural differences with experimental control: The voice effect and countercultural contexts regarding power distance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, Walsh, D., & Bull, R. (2012). Examining rapport in investigative interviews with suspects: Does its building and maintenance work? Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 27,

99 PROCEDURAL JUSTICE VIOLATIONS IN POLICE-CITIZEN INTERACTIONS: INSIGHTS FROM COMPLAINTS ABOUT POLICE Jane Goodman-Delahunty, * Hielkje Verbrugge, Chantal Sowemimo-Coker, Jessica Kingsford, & Mira Taitz Australian Graduate School of Policing and Security and School of Psychology, Charles Sturt University A substantial body of research examining factors that influence levels of public cooperation and compliance with law enforcement agencies has identified the importance of public satisfaction with the relational or procedural components of interactions between the public and the police. Accordingly, the prevalence of four components of Procedural Justice (PJ), namely a perceived lack of police trustworthiness, respectful treatment of citizens, police neutrality, and opportunities to be heard, in the content of complaints against the New South Wales Police Force, Australia, was expected to be high. Systematic empirical analysis of the content of 2,910 complaints lodged in a 12-month period confirmed the centrality of concerns about police disrespect and untrustworthiness in police-community interactions. Variations in the prevalence of PJ components were observed depending on who initiated the contact, whether the complainant was a suspect or nonsuspect, and the nature of the police conduct leading to the complaint. P olice are no longer charged solely with keeping order and enforcing laws; they are seen as agents of change with far-reaching responsibilities (Brown, 2013). Police are expected to enforce the law, reduce crime rates, and to achieve these outcomes by consent (Her Majesty s Inspectorate of Constabulary, 2011; Tyler & Fagan, 2008), treating each person they encounter in a fair and sensitive manner (Rosenbaum et al., 2011). A substantial body of literature has explored the dynamics in maximising successful law enforcement. Citizen compliance and cooperation consistently emerged as necessary components of effective policing. Levels of cooperation and compliance appeared to be mediated by public attitudes towards and perceptions of police (Bradley, 1998; Murphy, Hinds, & Fleming, 2008). Two dominant theories emerged to explain the relationship between policing citizen cooperation and compliance, namely the procedural and instrumental justice theories of policing (Murphy et al., 2008; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003a). These theories are * 2014 by authors, reprinted here by permission. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to jdelahunty@csu.edu.au, Charles Sturt University Manly Campus, Sydney, Australia. We are grateful to the New South Wales Police Force Associate Degree in Policing Practices Research Development Advisory Committee and Charles Sturt University for funding this study, and to the New South Wales Police Force Advisory Group for support and assistance. We acknowledge the contribution of Victoria Herrington and Karl Roberts while based at the Australian Graduate School of Policing and Security in proposing this research. 1

100 not mutually exclusive, but emphasize different aspects of the same process: the former focuses on fair policing procedures and the latter on fair policing outcomes. Instrumental and Procedural Justice Theories The instrumental or social control theory of policing asserts that public cooperation and compliance are regulated through external factors, such as coercion, the fear of apprehension and punishment. Instrumental justice theory suggests that people are motivated to cooperate and comply with law enforcement agencies to the degree that the outcomes from these processes are perceived to be fair and equitable (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003a). Scant empirical evidence exists to support instrumentally-based approaches to enhancing public perceptions of police and by extension, citizen compliance and cooperation (Nagin, 1998; Skogan & Frydl, 2004). Procedural justice (PJ) theory, on the other hand, focuses more on the interpersonal dynamics between the public and police than on policing outcomes. Integral to PJ theory is the notion that public perceptions of police legitimacy are themselves a social control mechanism (Tyler, 1997). Police legitimacy refers to the acceptance of, and respect for, the authority of the police force and to the level of citizen obedience toward police initiatives (Tyler, 1997). Citizens who view the police as legitimate are purported to be intrinsically motivated to comply and cooperate with the police, effectively negating the need for external social control mechanisms, such as the risk of imprisonment, as they will self-regulate their behavior (Tyler & Fagan, 2008). Research has indicated that the public is more likely to cooperate with police and obey the law when they view the police as legitimate authorities (Tyler 1990, 1997; Tyler & Fagan 2008; Tyler & Huo, 2002). In line with this perspective, public opinions of the police force and public cooperation with the police force depend more on how police officers treat people than on police performance outcomes (Goodman-Delahunty, 2010). Underpinning PJ theory is the Group Value Model (GVM). In this model, the behavior of an authority figure is evaluated in terms of what it communicates regarding the social relationship between the individual citizen and the authority, in this case, the police (Goodman-Delahunty, 2010; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003a). Interactions with the police are more likely to be considered just and fair if they leave the citizen feeling valued and respected (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003a). The GVM draws on four central attributes: trustworthiness, respectful treatment, neutrality and voice. Trustworthiness refers to the public perception of police openness, sincerity, and motivation to serve the best interests of the community. Respectful treatment refers to the treatment of citizens with professionalism and respect. Neutrality is the perceived absence of biased treatment. Voice refers to citizens sense of being heard and having their input valued (Goodman-Delahunty, 2010; Tyler & Huo, 2002). At its core, legitimacy requires public consensus that police officers are trustworthy, honest, and concerned about [the public s] well-being (Tyler, 2011). When police were viewed as legitimate authorities, the public reported higher levels of satisfaction in the police and viewed the police as more effective (Tyler, 2004). By contrast, widespread anger and frustration at the police due to a lack of respect shown by officers, were critical factors that sparked the 2011 riots in the United Kingdom (Millie, 2013). PJ theory and the GVM have received extensive empirical support (Lind, Kanfer & Earley, 1990; Naumann & Bennett, 2000; Tyler, 1989, 1990, 2001, 2006), emerging as the leading evidence-based theory of citizen compliance and confidence in policing (.Mazerolle, Bennett, Davis, Sargeant & Manning, 2013a, 2013b; Roberts & Herrington, 2

101 2013). The notion that the more fair a process is, the more satisfaction it will elicit amongst its participants has been so consistently replicated that the fair process effect is regarded as one of the most robust findings in the justice literature (Brockner et al., 2001). The current study is one of the first to extend PJ theory to investigate citizen perceptions that motivate complaints lodged against the police. Complaints as Indicators of Public Satisfaction with Police Using complaints as an evaluative tool of public perception is a method derived from organisational psychology and consumer research on customer service that has, in recent years, been extended to policing (Rosenbaum et al., 2011; Goodman-Delahunty, Verbrugge, & Taitz, 2013). Although the number of submitted complaints is presumed to under-report public dissatisfaction (Bell & Luddington, 2006; Woods, 2006), complaints are nevertheless useful indicators of public satisfaction with police (Gorst, Kanji & Wallace, 1998; Nyer & Gopinath, 2005). From Russia to the United States, negative experiences with police have been shown to exert 4 to 14 times the impact of a positive experience on perceived police legitimacy and confidence (Skogan, 2006). Within a well-run complaints system, they can illuminate issues that matter to people who interact with law enforcement agents. If, as PJ theory and the GVM suggest, fair processes in public and police relations elicit public satisfaction with police, then conversely, customer dissatisfaction as evidenced by customer complaints to police agencies, should expose concerns about fair process in police-community interactions, that is, about a lack of respect, trust, neutrality or voice by police officers. The aim of the present study is to identify the prevalence of PJ concerns in a sample of customer service complaints lodged against the largest police force in Australia, the New South Wales Police Force (NSWPF). Late in 2007, the NSWPF implemented a Customer Service Project (CSP) to place new emphasis on customer service and victims of crime (Burn, 2010). All NSWPF staff, sworn and unsworn, completed mandatory Customer Service Excellence Training in the 12 months following August The CSP was devised to fit within existing legislation that governs complaints about the NSWPF. A broad range of police conduct is covered, including actions and inactions by police: all allegations about police misconduct, from the most minor managerial matters (e.g., customer service issues) to the most serious criminal allegations, (New South Wales Police Act of 1990, p. 1). Section 126 of the NSW Police Act of 1990 allows any person to make a complaint against the police, and complaints can be anonymous. By law, all complaints must be reduced to writing, including oral complaints to the NSWPF complaint hotline, and all written complaints must be investigated (Professional Standards Command, 2012). Accordingly, members of the NSWPF staff generate an electronic record that reflects the content, in narrative form, of every reported complaint, and associated details, such as complainant gender, incident date, location and the local area command where the incident arose. This database, known as the NSWPF Customer Assistance Tracking System or C@TSI, is a comprehensive repository of all recorded complaints prior to their investigation. It is accessible to the NSWPF and the NSW Ombudsman, which are the agencies responsible for investigating and responding to those complaints. For this study, 3,131 discrete complaint narratives following policecitizen interactions were obtained from C@TSI for a 12-month period (May 1, 2009 to 3

102 April 30, 2010). 45 This dataset contained all written records of complaints from community members within that period, prior to any formal review to determine their sustainability. Since the focus of the current study was community perceptions of PJ, no claim about the ground truth of the complaint contents is made. 46 Research design Method A descriptive, cross-sectional, mixed-methods design was employed to investigate the prevalence of procedural justice concerns in citizen complaints against police. Qualitative and quantitative methods were applied to identify patterns in the complaint data. 47 Due to the exploratory nature of the research, no a priori hypotheses were tested. Procedures A preliminary review of the complaint content revealed that 6.7% of the cases (n = 211) lacked sufficient information to code, leaving a total of 2,910 codable records for analysis. In approximately one quarter of the complaints (26.8%) complainant gender was not specified. 48 Of those where complainant gender was disclosed, most were from men (61%) and two-fifths (39%) were from women. Complaint narratives were coded for whether (a) the event was police or customer initiated, (b) the complaint pertained to an act of omission or commission by police, and (c) the presence of four essential components of PJ, namely, Trust, Respectful Treatment, Neutrality and Voice. Complaint events were classified as communityinitiated or police-initiated depending on whether the community member approached the police first or vice versa. For example, the following narrative described a policeinitiated event: On 26 April 2009, the complainant alleges that he and some friends were in the Kings Cross area outside the Sugarmill Hotel when they were approached by plainclothes police, one of which was Constable K (P ). Police conduct was coded as undesirable actions or undesirable failures to act. Systematic thematic content analysis of complaint narratives yielded seven major types of conduct, four of which were acts of commission (mistreatment, misconduct, discriminatory treatment and public incidents to the detriment of the police image), and three were acts of omission (i.e., police failure to provide adequate service, to communicate or to provide care). An eighth category, harm sustained by the complainant, was reserved for narratives where the consequences experienced by the complainant were the focus (i.e., property damage, monetary losses, psychological distress, and physical injuries), irrespective of whether this was the result 45 The present study was part of a larger research program (Goodman-Delahunty, Verbrugge, & Taitz, 2011; 2013). To focus on police-citizen relations, data from internal complaints by NSWPF employees were excluded from analysis. 46 The decision to treat complaints as equal was supported by findings that only a small proportion of complaints are vexatious (Woods, 2006) or nonmeritorious (Porter, Prenzler & Fleming, 2012). Moreover, in NSW, stringent criminal penalties apply to complaints against police that are not brought in good faith (Police Act 1990). 47 Quantitative analysis was conducted using SPSS (version 19; IBM); qualitative coding was done with NVivo (version 9; QSR International). 48 The current study did not include in-person contact with citizens who complained about the NSWPF, nor in-person contact with the officers who were the targets of those complaints. 4

103 of police action or inaction. The research team anticipated that individual PJ components might co-occur within a complaint narrative, i.e., a disrespectful officer might also be perceived as untrustworthy. A coding guide differentiated between each PJ component and identified specific manifestations of each component. For instance, Respectful Treatment was conceptualised broadly as a complainant s interest in treatment with dignity and appropriate legal rights. One instantiation of this component was Politeness, elaborated in the coding guide in the following way: Complainant reported bad language or sarcastic or disrespectful comments. Similarly, the PJ component Voice was conceptualised as a complainant s interest in expressing his or her viewpoint when interacting with police. One manifestation of this component was Failure to Listen to Complainant, exemplified in the guide as: Not allowing complainant to explain, not asking the complainant what happened; talking over complainant, interrupting or ignoring what the complainant said. Two independent coders were trained on the broad definitions of the four PJ components and uses of the coding guide to recognize manifestations of those components. Each component was coded (1 = dominant concern; 2 = secondary concern; 3 = not present; 0 = uncodable). Where more than one component occurred within a single complaint narrative, decisions about dominance were based on the following criteria: (a) repetition of the component within the narrative; (b) examples or elaborations of the component; (c) proportion of the narrative devoted to that component; and (d) chronology within the narrative, i.e., whether it was mentioned first or listed as supplementary, suggesting secondary importance. Where more than two PJ components occurred in a single narrative, the two most prominent elements were encoded. Reliability of the coding scheme was determined by independent dual coding of a subsample of 15% (n = 469) of randomly selected cases. Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) assessed the correlation and consistency between raters, yielding excellent inter- and intra-rater reliability for Respectful Treatment, and good reliability for Trustworthiness, Neutrality, and Voice (respectively; ICC =.84, p <.001; Cronbach s α =.91; ICC =.66, p <.001; Cronbach s α =.79; ICC =.68, p <.001; Cronbach s α =.81; ICC =.74, p <.001; Cronbach s α =.85) (Fleiss, 1986). Results The majority of the complaints (84%, n = 2450) described events in which the complainant was a direct recipient of the unsatisfactory service. Approximately 15.8% (n = 460) of the complaints were made by a third party on behalf of the affected person. In relatively few instances, 10% (n = 291) of the cases, the narrative reported an event in which the complainant was not directly involved, and did not know the affected person. In a few instances, 3.1% (n = 90), complaints were submitted by solicitors or other agents of the complainant, and 1.3% (n = 39) of the narratives reflected the involvement of the NSW Ombudsman. No significant differences of any kind emerged based on whether the complainant was an observer or participant in the complaint incident. Relational Concerns in Customer Complaints Analysis of the prevalence one or more of the components of PJ in the content of the complaint narratives demonstrated that a substantial majority of complainants (86.2%) expressed concerns about relational issues in their interactions with the police, and many raised concerns about more than one PJ component. Significantly more citizens 5

104 mentioned conduct that implicated at least one PJ component (86.2%) (χ 2 (1, 2910) = , p <.001, d = 1) than did not, confirming that perceptions of PJ accounted for a substantial proportion of citizen dissatisfaction leading to complaints against the police. Complaints about a lack of Respectful Treatment were the most prevalent, mentioned in approximately one half of the complaint narratives (48.8%) and were the primary concern in more than one third (37.8%) of the cases. Lack of Trustworthiness was specified in two-fifths of the complaints (40.6%), and was the primary concern in 30.8% of the complaints. By comparison, police bias or lack of Neutrality received less emphasis, mentioned in about one quarter (23.5%) of the complaints. Voice was rarely the main concern expressed (3.4% of the complaints). Figure 1. displays the prevalence of each PJ component as the primary concern in police-citizen interactions. Figure 1. Prevalence of procedural justice components in complaints (percent) Trust Respectful Treatment Neutrality Voice No mention of PJ Perceived Lack of Respectful Treatment in Police-Citizen Relations Overall, a lack of Respectful Treatment emerged as the dominant relational or PJ concern expressed in the complaint narratives. Case examples illustrated how disrespect was conveyed and perceived, both verbally and nonverbally, ranging from interpersonal rudeness, such as failure by an officer to stand while speaking to a customer to unprofessional conduct, such as use of undue force, as shown in Table 1. Table 1. Examples of Complaints about Disrespectful Treatment by Police Officer Conduct Case Examples 6

105 Rude and abusive: Rudeness and mistreatment: Failure to engage and dismissive: Rudeness and undue force: Failure to respond: Complainant felt bullied by the conversation with officer attending the matter. Officer attitude rude, arrogant, and derogatory and totally unprofessional (LMI ). After issuing complainant with Traffic Infringement Notice, officer rude and swore at him. Officer slammed a car door on the complainant s thigh (LMI ). Complainant reported that subject officer inappropriately belched, also failed to listen to her and failed to respond to subsequent messages left by her (LMI ). Complainant witnessed mistreatment of a taxi driver: Officer yelled, was rude and pushed/twisted the driver's wrist (LMI ). Failed to respond to parking complaint call, Complainant had to wait outside in the cold for over five hours despite numerous requests for assistance (LMI ). Some complainants who objected to disrespectful treatment included an admission of wrongdoing on their part. An example of an admission of wrongdoing was provided in the following complaint narrative: The complainant indicates that he swore at the police and said a few things he shouldn't have but he doesn't believe the police were justified in throwing him to the ground as they did. The complainant said he would have been happy to have answered any questions the police had wanted to ask him and they could have left him standing to do this. The complainant said that a paddy wagon attended the scene and the subject officers then got off him. He was placed in the back of the paddy wagon and originally driven to Blacktown Police Station before being taken home and dropped off. The complainant doesn't feel what the original officers did to him by throwing him to the ground was justified as he'd done nothing wrong. The complainant suffered from a sore neck and back the next day and would like an apology for the way the officers behaved (LMI ). The complainant in the foregoing narrative objected to the undue aggression by police but nonetheless admitted that he had not behaved appropriately. He sought an apology, not dismissal of the charges against him or compensation. Similarly, the complainant in the following narrative included an admission of wrongdoing on his part (offensive language): The complainant indicates that on he was issued with penalty notice No and wants to raise the issue that he was not excluded from the licensed premises of Cheeky Monkeys, his friend was. He alleges the subject officer's communication skills were poor and her demeanour was hostile. Both himself and the others involved were cooperative in providing their details, even though they did not have to by law, and were not threatening in any way. Numerous requests for them to catch a taxi home were ignored and the officer's attitude and poor communication skills increased to the point that he felt harassed and intimidated. This was obviously frustrating and lead to minor offensive language at the end of the incident. He is happy to take responsibility for his actions in 7

106 relation to his language due to the situation. He has chosen not to challenge the matter at the local court on advice from his Solicitor (LMI090359). The citizen in the foregoing narrative complained about disrespectful treatment but also a failure by police to listen to him (denial of Voice) while he owned up to his own disrespectful use of foul language. Perceived Lack of Police Trustworthiness in Police-citizen Relations In general, complaints about police trustworthiness involved perceptions that the police officers in question failed to perform their duties as expected, and rather than evoke confidence that the officer was acting in the best interest of the public, the conduct demonstrated a betrayal of that trust. Complaints about police trustworthiness encompassed numerous types of police behaviors, from inaction to failure to provide care to citizens. Examples illustrating how Trustworthiness was a dominant concern are shown in Table 2. 8

107 Table 2. Examples of Complaints about Conduct Diminishing Police Trustworthiness Officer Case Examples Conduct Police inaction and negligence; assault Detainee mistreatment: Unlawful conduct: Undue force: Unlawful conduct: Failure to provide care: Failure to provide care; belittling Complainant attended to assist at a street brawl. 000 calls were only responded to after 40 minutes. Officers took no control of the situation and officer called complainant a 'dickhead' several times. Complains that all police just stood around like stunned mullets whilst the offenders left. Complainant observed one male who was trying to explain what was happening get punched in the head and slapped in the face by the officer because the officer stated he failed to move on. Complainant typed this information after a severe panic and anxiety attack and breaking down in tears (LMI ). While in police custody complainant was stripped of his clothing and had to sleep naked all night. Complainant was humiliated during the removal of his clothing by officers watching this occurrence and laughing at him. Complainant was traumatised (LMI ). Complainant alleges that officer conversation on Facebook said Mate... save yourself a court matter. Do what I use to do. Turn the ICV [in car video] off... get $50 off them and send them on their way. Is that wrong of me? I hope no-one can read this?... ha (P ). Complainant reported that Blacktown Police do not treat her with respect and are rude to her. She further states that Blacktown Police caused bruising by throwing her into the back of a police van (LMI ). Off duty officer lied to the insurance company by giving an untrue version of the collision (that the car he was driving was stationary when it happened) (P ). Complainant reported police searched the complainant's vehicle, made her four children stand by the side of the road at night, in the rain. Did not tell them the reason for searching the vehicle (LMI ). Police took a phone call relating to the 13-year-old son of the complainant being plied with alcohol and exposed to drugs. The officer allegedly showed contempt for the complainant, her concern, and even laughed at her and hung up (LMI ). Perceived Police Bias in Police-Citizen Relations Complaints about a lack of police Neutrality encompassed differential treatment of persons based on demographic characteristics such as their race, gender, religion, young age, and also their affiliation with certain organisations. Examples illustrating the range of groups perceived as targets of police bias are included in Table 3: 9

108 Table 3. Examples of Complaints about Lack of Police Neutrality Officer Conduct Victimisation Age bias Religious discrimination Bias against Allianz employees Racism and age bias Racism and gender bias Case Examples Complainant made comment about the poor display of driving by police and was immediately pulled over and investigated. Treatment was an act of retribution for his comment and obviously designed to inconvenience and denigrate (LMI ). SC A verbally expressed his frustration at having to chase mini bike riders then stepped towards [complainant s son], punching him with a jab to his mouth (P ). Complainant pulled over. Officer was extremely rude and aggressive, opened the door to her vehicle, removed the ignition key without her permission, broke the ignition key, accused her of not pulling over when signalled to do so, issued her an infringement notice for not moving out of the path of the police vehicle and picked on her because she was wearing a head scarf. Three separate members of the public stopped and berated the Subject Officer for the manner in which he was speaking to the Complainant. Triage Officer and [in car video] record confirmed that [Senior Constable] M did approach and open the driver s door and did remove the female driver (wearing headscarf) from the vehicle. He is then seen to take hold of both of the driver's arms and place them behind her back before directing her out of camera view. None of these actions are recorded in the Computerised Operational Policing System Event] (LMI ). Senior Constable K called Allianz employee a dickhead and commented to another citizen, "Us Cops we hate Allianz so much. If you ever get pulled over, don't ever say you work for Allianz because we'll run you off the road" (LMI ). Officer arrogant, condescending and dismissive in his attitude and remarks concerning young persons at the new skate park at Goonellabah. Spoke in a reprimanding fashion, made disparaging comments about young indigenous community members and spoke in racist generalisations about young people and their families (LMI ). Officer called complainant black slut, motherfucker, and a black bitch repeatedly. When complainant went to help brother, grabbed by [Senior Constable] H by the collar and then grabbed by the neck and lifted off the ground. Complainant voiced that physical contact was unwarranted and excessive, and that she was being harassed. Complaint included further examples of harassment (P ). 10

109 Perceived Denial of Voice in p-police-citizen Relations Complaints about denial of Voice included events in which the complainant did not feel heard or did not feel as if their opinion was valued. Failure to allow Voice can hinder the progress of an investigation or clearing a false accusation. Failure by the police to listen to complainants was often distressing for community members, and had negative consequences for the effectiveness of police procedures. Illustrative examples of the context of complaints centred on a failure to allow customers Voice are shown in Table 4, by type of complaint. Table 4. Examples of Complaints about Denial of Voice Officer Conduct Failure to explain: Failure to listen: Verbal abuse; failure to listen: Accused complainant of lying; verbal abuse; failed to listen: Case Examples Officer said something that she could not understand and shoved the machine in front of her face. She did not know what to do and went to ask. The officer then interrupted her and told her to 'do it now'. She still did not understand what to do (LMI ). The complainant was arrested for allegedly stealing frying pan. [Constable] Q would not listen to her and kept on telling her to be quiet and at one stage raising his voice. [Constable] Z agreed to take her to K-Mart, where it was verified by a shop assistant that the complainant had in fact purchased it (LMI ). Officer told complainant "pack up your family and move out of Deniliquin if you can't deal with it". Officer behaved as a five-yearold chucking a temper tantrum as she stormed across the lawn yelling at the complainant in an angry tone, and didn't want to listen to what the complainant had to say (P ). Officer alleged that complainant had provided false information in relation to an assault. Officer yelled in his face and was not interested in listening to him. Officer failed to investigate subsequently. Complainant fears for his safety and has lost confidence in Police (LMI ). Further analyses conducted by gender of the complainant, suspect status, and initiator of the interaction revealed little variation by gender, but significant differences in the prevalence of PJ components with regard to other variables. Procedural Justice Concerns in Complaints by Suspects versus Nonsuspects Overall, the prevalence of PJ components in complaints reported by suspects versus nonsuspects yielded more similarities than disparities, as shown in Figure 2. However, the prevalence of particular components varied significantly by type of complainant (χ 2 (4, 2671) = 70.11, p <.001, d =.31). Specifically, nonsuspects were more likely than suspects to complain about violations of police Trustworthiness (34.4% vs. 22.4%); χ 2 (1, 2651) = 35.76, p <.001, d =.23) whereas suspects were more likely than nonsuspects to have reported incidents of lack of Respectful treatment (50% vs. 33.5%); χ 2 (1, 2653) = 62.32, p <.001, d =.31), as illustrated in Figure 2. 11

110 Figure 2. Prevalence of procedural justice concerns in complaints by suspects versus nonsuspects (percent) Fewer, but equivalent proportions of complaints about police lack of Neutrality and denial of Voice were made by suspects and nonsuspects. Procedural Justice Concerns in Community versus Police-Initiated Encounters Police-initiated encounters were significantly more likely than citizen-initiated encounters ((90.7% vs. 79.8%) to lead to concerns about one of the four PJ relational components (χ2(1, 2360) = 57.34, p <.001, d =.32). In addition, significant differences in the prevalence of each of the four components emerged in community versus policeinitiated complaints (χ2(4,2360) = 237.8, p <.001, d =.67), as shown in Figure 3. 12

111 Figure 3. Prevalence of procedural justice components by initiator of contact (percent) 50% 40% 30% 20% Community-initiated Police-initiated 10% 0% Respectful Treatment Complaints following police-initiated contact were significantly more likely to include perceived lack of Respectful Ttreatment (44.5%) and Neutrality (22.5%); (χ 2 (1, 2324) = , p <.001, d =.43) whereas community-initiated encounters were significantly more likely to entail perceived lack of police Trustworthiness (42%); χ 2 (1, 1613) = 97.24, p <.001, d =.51). See Figure 3. Procedural Justice Components by Type of Police Conduct in Issue The different types of police conduct identified in the complaint narratives were examined with regard to the prevalence of PJ components. A minimum of at least one PJ component was identified in 95% of all complaints in which alleged mistreatment by police occurred; 98.5% of complaints alleging failure by police to provide care; 97.1% of complaint regarding a detriment to the reputation of the police force following public incidents; 94.7% of complaints alleging police failure to communicate; 92.9% of allegations of discriminatory treatment; 91.2% of complaints of conduct resulting in negative consequences to complainants; 91% of alleged police misconduct; and 84.1% of alleged inadequate service. Most complaints about police followed acts of commission (75%); substantially fewer were for omissions or failures to act (44%). One in every 5 complaints (19%) included allegations of both acts of commission and omission. A lack of Respect for police customers (45.1%) was the dominant concern in complaints stemming from police acts of commission, followed by a lack of trustworthiness (35.2%). This pattern was reversed when police acts of omission generated a complaint, i.e., perceived lack of police Trustworthiness (50.9%) was the main relational concern, followed by lack of Respectful Treatment (35.1%), as shown in Figure 4. Figure 4. Prevalence of PJ components in complaints of police acts of commission versus omission (percent) 7 Trust Neutrality Voice

112 Note. Based on 2910 complaints; categories not mutually exclusive. Relational issues of police untrustworthiness and disrespectful treatment predominated in the complaints about all but two types of police behavior, namely alleged discriminatory treatment and public incidents damaging to the reputation of the police force. In complaints reporting those behaviors, perceived police bias was more dominant (44.3% and 35.9%, respectively), as shown in Figure 5. Complaints of discriminatory treatment included allegations that the police treated certain community members more harshly because of their age, religion, or other demographic features. Figure 5. Prevalence of procedural justice components by type of police conduct (percent) Note. Based on 2910 complaints; categories not mutually exclusive 14