Police Leadership, Supervision, and Public Accountability: New Measures of Agency Performance in the 21st Century
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Police Leadership, Supervision, and Public Accountability: New Measures of Agency Performance in the 21st Century

on

  • 840 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
840
Views on SlideShare
773
Embed Views
67

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
16
Comments
1

1 Embed 67

http://www.icjia.state.il.us 67

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • A lot of this stuff I have been talking about for too long. It looks good. Now to move forward. For insight and direction, take a look at “Arrested Development: A Veteran Police Chief Sounds Off About Protest, Racism, Corruption and the Seven Steps Necessary to Improve Our Nation’s Police.” It can be found on Amazon. And the blog is “improvingpolice” on Wordpress where other police improvement issues are discussed. Remember, great policing is accomplished by police who are well-trained, restrained in their use of force, honest, and courteous to every citizen.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • “Policy succeeds or fails at the first-line supervisor.” (Platform Chief, David Romine) Critical to advancing top leadership’s priorities
  • This is Steve 14-15;
  • Implications: some agencies difficult to play large role in selection; but if key aspiration for mgt is to have supervisors work toward leadership’s goals, needs to work on developing support of first line supervisors;
  • [presented as one aspect of supervision we can look at] Guided by organizational and leadership/management literature/theoriesLots of different schema for classifying supervisor (or leadership, management style)
  • Developed score for each supervisor; 2nd set of data at snapshot 18, n = 26; reduced mix – they solidify their style; higher transformational;
  • Small n panel; have completed snapshot 17; n = 29
  • Not huge, e.g., 8% is greatest; Small n panel; have completed snapshot 17; n = 29
  • Sample: Studied three organizations (law firm, financial firm, and consulting firm)Method: Individual interviews and meeting observationsFocus: Examined the relationship between work group diversity perspectives, diversity in cultural identities, and workplace functioning.
  • Q1-Q25
  • Very positive findings – more than 8 in 10 are satisfied with their recent encounter with an officer in Boston and Chicago.
  • See very small race/ethnicity differences in overall satisfaction with encounters in Boston and Chicago. Younger adults, however, are much less satisfied with the way they were treated by the police. Something to work on.
  • Percent “Very Satisfied” and “Satisfied” with the way they were treated. Among all ticketed drivers, they reported considerably more satisfaction with the encounter when the judged that the officer listened to them, provided emotional support, remained neutral, and provided useful information.
  • Percent “Very Satisfied” and “Satisfied” with the way they were treated. Among all ticketed drivers, they reported considerably more satisfaction with the encounter when the judged that the officer was trustworthy, respectful, and exhibited a positive demeanor.
  • -

Police Leadership, Supervision, and Public Accountability: New Measures of Agency Performance in the 21st Century Police Leadership, Supervision, and Public Accountability: New Measures of Agency Performance in the 21st Century Presentation Transcript

  • Police Leadership, Supervision, and Public Accountability: New Measures of Agency Performance in the 21st Century Dennis P Rosenbaum, Ph.D. Professor of Criminology, Law, and JusticeDirector, Center for Research in Law and Justice University of Illinois at Chicago
  • The National Police Research Platform Funded by National Institute of Justice Office of Justice Programs U.S. Department of Justice
  • Key Researchers and AdvisorsCo-Principal Investigators: Technical Review Team: Gary Cordner  Chief Jim Bueermann  Robert Langworthy Lorie Fridell  Chief Ronal Serpas Susan Hartnett  Lawrence Travis William McCarty  Chuck Wexler Stephen Mastrofski Jack McDevitt National Institute of Justice: Dennis Rosenbaum  Brett Chapman Wesley Skogan Key Advisors:Key Researchers:  Chief Edward Davis Megan Alderden  Chief Charles Ramsey Amy Farrell  Chief Darrel Stephens Tom Tyler  Chief Rick Tanksley Samuel Walker
  • Main Components of Platform Dynamics and Life Course of Police Organizations Public Satisfaction Surveys Life Course of New police officers Life Course of New supervisors Feedback and capacity building (“Translational criminology”)
  • 10 Unique Features of the Platform1. New data on organizations and individuals2. Standardized data across a large number of law enforcement agencies3. Includes agencies of all sizes4. In-depth and representative findings5. Includes civilian employees
  • 10 Unique Features (continued)6. Timely, efficient and “green”methods7. External performance indicators8. Vehicle to rigorously evaluate innovation9. Vehicle to support basic and translational criminology -feedback10. Longitudinal framework
  • Organizational Survey Topics • Health, Stress & • Accountability, Integrity Satisfaction & Discipline • Communication & • Technology Innovation • Training • Leadership & • Police Culture Supervision • Civilian Role in Policing • Police & Community • Departmental PrioritiesSelected on the basis of focus groups with executives, trends, issuesthat are in flux, innovations underway and knowledge of the field
  • Managing Innovationand Change
  • Employees Upset about Change Agency Size How did employees feelwhen it occurred? Small Large TotalMany were upset 27.0% 49.1% 47.6%
  • Employees Resisted Change Agency SizeDid employees resist the change? Small Large Total Many resisted 10.3% 28.3% 27.0% Some resisted 25.6% 29.2% 28.9%
  • Perceptions of organizationalenvironment for innovation Management‟s role Employee involvement Benefits and risks of initiative and innovation Influence of scientific evidence
  • Management’s role in fostering change Leaders work hard to inspire acceptance of change Mgt tries to build consensus on Dept A important changes Dept BDept quick to fix problems caused by change 0 20 40 60 80 % agree
  • Employee involvement in changeEmployees are involved in planning & implementing change Reason for change communicated Dept A to employees Dept B Employees are informed of developments affecting them 0 20 40 60 80 % agree
  • Consequences of innovation and creativity Creativity & innovation rewarded in this department Dept A Dept BNegative consequences likely from creativity and innovation if it doesnt turn out well 0 20 40 60 80 % agree
  • Relevance of science for organizational changeChange is driven by scientific Dept Aevidence of what Dept B works 0 20 40 60 80 % agree
  • Management’s Facilitation ofInnovation 4 3.5Facilitation of innovation 3 2.7 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.4 2.1 2.0 2.1 2 1.8 1.6 1.5 1 0.5 0 3 6 7 15 19 28 27 22 24 Department
  • Information is the Life Blood ofSuccessful InnovationCommunication effectiveness within thedepartment (ability to move informationup and down) was the best predictor ofthe department‟s success in facilitatinginnovation
  • Perceptions of need foradministrative change Disciplinary practices Employee performance appraisal and promotion Officer recruitment strategies Training methods Supervisory practices
  • Need for new administrative approaches Disciplinary practicesPerformance appraisal and promotion Dept ARecruitment strategies Dept B Training methods Supervisory practices 0 20 40 60 80 % saying department "needs new approach"
  • Supervision
  • Significant Predictors of Subordinates’ rating of their Supervisor 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 Beta 0.3 0.2 0.1 0Not Significant -0.1 Sup. supports Sup insufficiently Sup. too directive Rater Latino Rater male subordinate directiveBlack officer -0.2Other race -0.3Education levelSupervisor rank Predictor variablesYrs police experienceRater commitment to Officer-level model R2 = .71 department Officer + department R2 = .72
  • Supervisor “always” engages in thesebehaviors by overall rating of Supervisor60.0% 54.1% 51.7%50.0% 44.9%40.0% 29.5%30.0% 7 to 1020.0% 15.7% 1 to 610.0% 5.4% 3.3% 3.3% 0.0% Expresses clear Monitors Uses effective Is fair when vision performance face-to-face evaluating closely communication performance
  • Detective vs. Patrol Supervisors Detective supervisors emphasize:  better service to victims  fair and equal treatment to citizens  citizen satisfaction Why?
  • Why Study First-line Supervisors (FLS)? FLS’s are key to an agency’s performance Weak professional development by US police agencies Very little known via research about these important personnel Ultimately: We want to produce information that will strengthen the FLS role/performance.
  • The Importance of Studying Supervision, View of Chiefs Chiefs‟ interviews: Asked about the quality and effectiveness of their first- line supervisors (sergeants). Just six in 10 offered a “satisfied” or “very good assessment” (compared to 8/10 for command staff)
  • Chiefs Concerns/Comments Several: FLS need more education/training to do jobs better Need to “get the big picture” of management‟s perspective The most common complaint: Not transitioning quickly/well from being follower to leader  Not directing their subordinates  Constantly seeking direction from above  Trouble supervising their friends.
  • Quality of Supervisor Training Excellent 4 3.5 Good 3 10-item scale (alpha = .96) • Organizing employees 2.5 • Evaluating employees • Applying discipline Average 2 • Employee personal probs • Handling citizen complaints • Getting employees 1.5 committed to dep‟t goals • Maintaining employeePoor/no training integrity 1 • Motivating employees to 5 8 11 28 25 24 22 perform • Reports & record keeping • Dealing with public ---Small--- -------Medium-------- ---Large---
  • For which set of Tasks did they Feelmore Prepared? People managing Across 10 PEOPLE MANAGEMENT items, an average of 77% of respondents rated their training as “excellent” or “good.” Across 5 MANAGERIAL TASK items, average was 57%
  • Views of Supervision Measure at various points in time As example, “The best police supervisors are those who get their subordinates to work hard at achieving top management’s major goals.” This is major expectation/hope of agency leadership.
  • At T1: “The best supervisors arethose….. achieve top mgt’s goals” Percent Agree, Neutral, Disagree70% 60%60%50%40%30% 22%20% 18%10%0% Agree Neutral Disagree
  • Impact of Training90%80% 77%70% 60%60%50% Before40% After30% 22% 19% 18%20%10% 4%0% Agree Neutral Disagree
  • Supervisors must believe in Leadersbefore they will get others to follow them  When supervisors are supportive of the direction that agency management is taking the organization  They are more inclined to encourage their subordinates to work hard at achieving top management‟s major goals.  Implications
  • “How frequently do you coach yoursubordinates?” Coaching Frequency in % 23.4 27.7 Nearly every day Every week Once a month 48.9
  • Importance of Coaching Importance70% 63%60%50%40%30% 26%20% 9%10% 2%0% Most important Important, but Fairly important Not very thing I do not most critical important
  • Supervisory Styles: Some Questions What are supervisors’styles and how do they vary? What causes a supervisor to adopt one style over the others? Do styles change over time? What are the consequences of style for the supervisor and the work unit? 36
  • Transactional v. Transformational(Bass, 1990) Transactional: Clear communication of expectations, rewards for complying, more autocratic Transformational: Look to higher purpose to motivate; they “transform” their subordinates; highlight importance of objectives (beyond personal rewards); do it for the sake of team, organization, community.
  • Measurement T1 and 18 months later Asked what they would do if a new policy introduced and officers reluctant to follow it Scored styles as more transactional or translational Question: Would agency/leadership legitimacy predict supervisory style?
  • Change over time (preliminary data!)50%45%40%35%30% Transactional25% Mixed20% Transformational15%10%5%0% Baseline 18 months
  • Using qualitative data to explorethese shifts, e.g., One supervisor who measured transformational at baseline  Month 1: Biggest challenge was “getting new people to trust me and follow my orders”  Month 5, asked if anything changed the way he thinks about his job: “I found more effective ways to deal with problem employees.” Transactional at 18 months. “Situational leadership”
  • New Supervisors’ Views of theCommunity? How much cynicism? Variation across agencies, demographics? Change over time?
  • Community Cynicism Measure,Sample Items “Residents do not understand the problems that we face as police officers” “In general, the news media treat the police unfairly” “In certain areas of the city, it is more useful for an officer to be aggressive than to be courteous.” etc.
  • Community Cynicism at Baseline (Means)4.5 43.5 32.5 21.5 10.5 0
  • 10 Percent Change in Cynicism86420-2-4-6-8
  • Predictors of Community Cynicism Perceptions of procedural justice within the agency are negatively related to community cynicism (controlling for demographic variables) That is, when sergeants‟ hold negative views of their agency‟s fairness, they are more likely to hold negative views of community.
  • Work Environmentand Police Culture
  • Job Burnout (Emotional Exhaustion) 50 45% more than 1/week 40 4-item scale 35 (alpha = .90): 30 • Used up at end of day 25 • Burned out from work 20 • Frustrated by job 15 • Emotionally drained from work 10 5 0 5 8 4 9 12 10 11 18 25 23 24 22 ------Small--------Medium--------Large------
  • Major Sources of Stressamong Recruits4.5 4 3.963.5 3.08 3.19 3 2.82.5 21.5 10.5 0 Work-Life Danger Procedural Unsupportive Balance Injustice Supervisor
  • Cynicism toward the community ishigher among officers who… Hold a negative view of the disciplinary process Believe officers‟ input is not valued Only socialize with other officers View loyalty as a high priority Have fewer years on the job Are in Non-supervisory position Work for larger agency
  • “The department needs a new approach to disciplinary practices for employees” 80 70% officers agree e 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 6 3 7 15 17 19 28 27 24 22 ------Small------ -----Medium--------- ---Large---
  • “This will teach you not to hit people”
  • Fairness of Discipline Percent Agree Small Agencies Large AgenciesOfficers treated withrespect during disciplinary 80% 41%investigationsDisciplinary process is fair 58% 20%Own discipline was fair 76% 46%Coaching & counseling are 73% 30%used for minor mistakes
  • Diversity and Job Satisfaction Ely and Thomas (2001)  Discrimination and Fairness Perspective  Diversity is about making things equal  Minorities and women must assimilate into existing workplace culture  Access and Legitimacy Perspective  Diversity is needed to legitimize relationship between organization and community  Cultural identity is good for interfacing with community, otherwise assimilation is necessary  Integration and Learning Perspective  Diversity is needed to change organizations and their external relationships, encourage innovation, and organizational learning  Different cultural identities are valued and considered legitimate sources of knowledge
  • “Learning Index” is best predictor ofJob Satisfaction “There is a lot of open and honest dialogue” “Personal experiences and opinions are often dismissed by other officers or my supervisors” “I am encouraged to share my ideas about ways in which the Department can improve” “People support each other when things get tough at work”
  • Civilian Employee Job Satisfaction Elements of Job Satisfaction 78% 79% 79% 78% 80 66% 60 54%percentage 40 20 0 pa se my co pr d y& nio su -w ork es en as epa be ra dm pe e re ta a w rtm ne fits ini r vis s& ss ho ent str or ign le satisfied ato pe me very satisfied rs ers nt
  • Best Predictors of Civilian JobSatisfaction: Accepted and Valued Civilians do not feel accepted in the workplace (40%) Feel constant need to prove themselves (60%) Not accepted as a professional Lack of respect for diversity Lack of sense of “teamwork and accomplishment”
  • Organizational Support, Employee Satisfaction, and Commitment
  • The Life Course ofNew Police Officers 58
  • “The day the new recruit walks through thedoor of the police academy, he leaves societybehind to enter a profession that does morethan give him a job, it defines who he is. Hewill always be a cop." Ahern (1972) Police in Trouble 59
  • Research Questions What happens in the life course of a police officer? What factors lead officers to experience different outcomes on the job? 60
  • Practical Benefits ofLongitudinal Study Identify predictors of behavior that have implications for recruitment, training, intervention, retention Identify key periods when changes occur where agency intervention or prevention might be effective Help to define “organizational excellence” and “good policing” by the evidence 61
  • Factors Influencing the Development of New Police OfficersBackground Agency FactorsFamily, friends, neigh TrainingPersonality and skills AssignmentsExpectations, attitudes Supervisors and FTOsEducation, religion, SES Co-workersRace, ethnicity, gender Critical events (e.g. trauma)Life experiences Management policies/procedures Organizational cultureFamily and FriendsFamily stability Community ExperiencesSpouse/partnerChildren Encounters with the publicFriends Encounters with other agencies 62
  • Officer Outcomes• Productivity• Quality of work and conscientiousness• Relations with peers and supervisors• Mental and physical health• Decision-making (proper response to situations; risk-taking and safety)• Job satisfaction/feelings about department• Stress and burnout• Retention and commitment to the job• Relations with the public 63
  • Top Reasons for Becoming an OfficerOverall Large Small Agencies Agencies#1 – Desire to serve the community #1 #2#2 – Desire to have a professional career #4 #1#3 – Interest in police work #3 #3#4 – Desire for job security #2 #5#5 – Excitement of police work #4#6 – Desire to work with people #5 64
  • Relations with the Publico Attitudes toward communityo Communication skillso Desire to use force to solve problems 65
  • Justice and Sympathy for Others Agree Neutral Disagree"In life, people usuallyget what they deserve and 30% 44% 26%deserve what they get""Life is simply not fair for 33% 32% 36%many people""Overall, minorities havebeen mistreated by 25% 40% 35%society""Overall, women havebeen mistreated by 23% 40% 37%society" 66
  • Communication Style Agree Disagree"I like to be in control of 26% 67%the conversation""When I am with myfriends I do most of the 32% 62%talking""I like to take charge in 56% 41%social situations""I like action, not talking" 39% 54% 67
  • Emotional Expression or Emotional Control? Agree Disagree"I dont hide my feelingsor emotions from 41% 49%people""When I am angry,people know it" 30% 65% 68
  • Use of Force Attitudes(Agree-Disagree 1-5 Scale) “Some people can only be brought to reason the hard, physical way” (44%) “Sometimes forceful police actions are very educational for civilians” (27%) “If officers dont show that they are physically tough, they will be seen as weak” (35%) 69
  • Attitudes about Use of Force to solveproblems is stronger among: Male officers Younger officers (25-28 vs. older officers) White/AA officers (vs. Latinos) 70
  • Changes in Attitudesabout Force (Pre/Post) Higher scores = More positive attitudes toward force 3.06 3.02 2.983.10 2.88 2.74 p<.001 p<.001 p<.05 71
  • Changes in Communication Style:Pre-Post Training Academy3.5 3.2 3.08 3.05 2.99 3 2.542.5 2.33 2.18 2.07 21.5 Pre-Training Post-Training 10.5 0 Active Machismo Argue Use of Force Listening
  • Increases in Recruit Cynicism –Three points in Time3.5 2.97 3.07 3 2.82 2.62 2.67 2.482.5 2 Pre-training1.5 Post-Training 1 On the Job0.5 0 Community Attitudes Officer Attitudes toward toward Police Community
  • Chicago Quality InteractionsProgram (QIP): Recruit Training Quality Communication Emotional Resilience Control Improved Interactions Decision Competence & Making Confidence
  • Training can make a Difference 2 Pre-Post Changes in Responses to Youth 1.541.5 1.44 1.18 1.04 1 0.79 Exper.0.5 0.38 Control 0 Do Diffuse Yell -0.2 Use Force Arrest-0.5 Nothing Situation Everyone -0.51 -0.51 -0.51 -1
  • Measuring Police- Community Interactions andOrganizational Legitimacy
  • “Beer Summit” at White House
  • Legitimacy Defined"The quality possessed by an authority, a law, or an institution that leads others to feel obligated to obey its decisions and directives." (Skogan & Frydl, 2004, p. 297, interpretation of Max Weber).
  • Nature of Police Legitimacy Police authority is not defined entirely by the night stick or gun Police action must be authorized by the consent of the public--Legitimacy is not immutable characteristic of the police Can be conferred and removed over time Defined by the hearts and minds of the public
  • Undermining Legitimacy:The Chronic Problems Corruption, scandals, and reform attempts Causing/mishandling civil disorder Excessive force (“brutality”) Race discrimination and profiling History of poor relations with minority communities, from slave patrols forward
  • Without Legitimacy Police CannotAchieve their Goals Lack the support, trust, and confidence of the public Face community fearful of mistreatment Face less cooperative witnesses, victims, suspects, bystanders, and callers Officers are less safe Face a cynical community that doesnt respect the law or feel a need to obey it Face unpredictable resources ($) and predictable interference by external
  • Public Opinion and the Police Most Americans have a positive attitude toward the police (88% express confidence) Racial and ethnic minorities consistently rate the police less favorably than whites. Young people rate the police less favorably than older people. Poor people, less educated people, and crime victims tend to rate the police lower than others. There are significant differences in opinions about the police in different cities. 83
  • Attitudes about Police Use of Force Hispanics and African Americans are twice as likely to believe the police will use excessive force in their communities In a survey of Cincinnati residents, 46.6% of African Americans indicated they had been personally “hassled” by the police  Compared to only 9.6% of whites 84
  • Police Rudeness During Stops Percent residents report “big” or “some” problem
  • Voices from African Americans“…as a black man, I think in the back of my head, „I hope they don‟t bother me today.‟ So I‟m pretty sure a lot of other young black men feel the same way I do. Regardless of what profession they are, it doesn‟t matter. ”(Male African American adult interviewee; Rosenbaum, 2006) 86
  • Age: Young People and the Police Age consistently ranks second to race and ethnicity as a factor in public attitudes toward police A 2008 survey found that 17% of people between the ages of 18-29 had little to no confidence in the police  Compared with only 8% of people between 30-49 87
  • NYPD: Stopped, Frisked and Angry(photo by Photo by EKavet, via Flickr)
  • What Not to Do:A 3-Minute Teachable Moment The Baltimore Skateboarding Incident http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GgWrV8TcUc
  • Other Demographic Factors that affectAttitudes toward Police  Agency difference in style of policing  Neighborhood differences in levels of crime  Perceptions of police effectiveness in fighting crime  Personal experience with victimization  Level of education 90
  • Complexity of Trust and Confidence Priorities: Whether people feel that the police share their concerns about the neighborhood Competence: Whether people feel that the police have the knowledge and skills to achieve their objectives Dependability: Whether people feel that the police can be counted on to fulfill their promises Respect: Whether people feel that the police treat them with respect 91
  • Procedural Justice Theory:Fair Process Voice: Listen to public? Paid attention? Respect: Treat public with respect/dignity? Neutrality: Treat public objectively, based on the facts, not characteristics? Concern: Show concern for their welfare? Explain: Explain the process and what to expect? 92
  • Reach beyond the TraditionalPerformance Measures:o Reported Crimeo Number of Arrestso Clearance Rateso Response Times
  • Decide what is Important to your Agency “If you don‟t measure it, nobody cares – Measure what matters!” Quote from: Professor Rosenbaum, Sept. 17, 2012
  • In 21st Century, we should Measure:o The processes of policingo The quality of policingo What matters to the public
  • Advantages of the Police-CivilianInteraction Survey (PCIS) Provides validated measures of the quality of police-citizen encounters and organizational legitimacy Independent and credible process Evidence-based – scientific foundation Capacity to monitor changes over time Provides regular feedback to improve performance Allows for benchmarking and standardization of performance indicators Efficient, timely and flexible
  • The Illinois Police-Community Interaction Survey Measures Officer acted in procedurally just manner (voice, neutral, fair, concerned) Was responsive to emotional and informational needs of victims (e.g. empathy, non-judgmental, referrals) Acted professionally – knowledgeable and responsive Department – effective, responsive, overall satisfactory
  • Officer‟s Citizen‟s ExpectedActions Perceptions Outcomes Officer is Increase Officer Respectful I‟m Safety Follows SatisfiedProcedural with Increase Compliance Justice Encounter with RequestsPrinciples Officer is Fair Increase I trust Investigative this Information Address Officer Officerthe Needs Listened Reduce Citizenof Victims to me Complaints I trust Officer the Increase Job cares Dept. Satisfaction about my Wellbeing
  • Test Sites Small: River Forest, IL – Citywide Medium: Oak Park, IL – Citywide Large: Boston - Two districts/Citywide Large: Chicago - 10 districts
  • Survey Methodologyo Letter from Chief mailed to citizens with police contact in the past 10 dayso Letter Invites Citizens to Complete Satisfaction Survey by: o Web-based survey or o 1-800 automated telephone surveyo University collects data independently and provides feedback to the participating departments
  • Characteristics of the Sample Sample Size= 2446 Female 50.4% Minority 52.6% Homeowner 58.2% Age Mean 48.30 Incident Type Traffic Stop 12.4% Traffic Crash 30.8% Crime Report 56.8% Survey Type Phone Survey 55.9% Web Survey 44.1%
  • Overall Satisfaction with the WayYou were Treated by the Officer 84.4%
  • Satisfaction and Citizen Characteristics White Black Hisp. Other ≤ 49 ≥ 50 Race Age
  • Crime Victim’s Recovery(Percent Strongly Agree and Agree)
  • Victim’s Recovery Affected by Officer’s Behavior High Level Exhibited by Officer Low Level Exhibited by Officer
  • Victim’s Recovery Affected by Officer’s Behavior (cont.) High Level Exhibited by Officer Low Level Exhibited by Officer
  • Outcome Does Matter: Getting a Ticket 100 94% 90% 87% 90 80 70 62% 57% 60 42% 50 40 30 20 10 0 Did this officer handle How satisfied with Do you trust the the situation well? way you were treated police department to make decisions? Not Issued a Traffic Ticket Issued a Traffic Ticket
  • Satisfaction with TicketDepends on Officer’s Behavior High Level Exhibited by Officer Low Level Exhibited by Officer
  • Satisfaction with TicketDepends on Officer’s Behavior High Level Exhibited by Officer Low Level Exhibited by Officer
  • Gender Expectations Women outperform men on emotional intelligence Female officers will be evaluated more positively than male officers Female officers will receive highest evaluations from male citizens and the lowest evaluations from female citizens
  • Public Satisfaction as function of Officer and Citizen Gender Overall Satisfaction Male Officer Female Officer Male Respondent 4.39 4.24Female Respondent 4.35 4.29 1=Very Dissatisfied, 2=Somewhat Dissatisfied, 3=Neutral, 4= Somewhat Satisfied, 5=Very Satisfied
  • Odds Ratios: Effects of Officer’s Gender on Satisfaction with the Encounter Listened 1.43 Polite 1.35 Treated Objectively 1.01 Concerned about feelings 1.14 Took Matter Seriously 1.10 Knew what they were doing 1.18 Answered Questions well 1.24 Explained next steps 1.33 0 1 2 Female MaleModel: Officer Age, Officer Gender, R‟s Age, R‟s Gender, R‟s Race,Residency, Homeownership, Incident Type
  • Conclusions about Police-Community Interaction Survey (PCIS) Feasible – It can be done Cost effective – Very inexpensive Produces valid responses Attractive to local agencies - feedback Provides external indicators of organizational performance on local, state and national scale
  • Building a Strong Bridge between Police Science and Police Practice Police PoliceScience Practice
  • Advancing Practice: Building Organizational Capacity New measurement and feedback systems Standardized diagnostic tools and benchmarks Sharing ideas across agencies Testing innovation on a large scale Paradigm shift: from bean counting to quality of policing; evidence-based If you measure it, it will matter!
  • Agency Feedback: “Translational Criminology” in Practiceo Standardized Reports for each Agencyo Interagency Comparisons: Your Similar All Agency Agencies Agencieso Technical assistance with interpretation
  • Agency Use of the Findings Conceptual use – change their thinking about the problem/issue Instrumental use - change their programs and policies Examples of use – Recruit training, In- service training, public awareness
  • Process Also Matters When Getting a Ticket (% Very Satisfied and Somewhat Satisfied)100 90 80 70 62.0% 59.8% 60 +20 +18 50 40 30 -33 -37 20 10 8.5% 4.9% 0 Officer Did not Officer Not Listened Listen Polite Polite
  • The Illinois Police-CommunityInteraction Survey Program (IL-PCIS)o Selecting 40 law enforcement agencies throughout Illinoiso Training agency staff in PCIS procedureso Beginning surveys in Octobero Providing feedback in Januaryo Providing technical assistance - use the findings to improve police services[If your agency has been invited, I amavailable to answer questions later]
  • THANK YOUFor more information about theNational Police Research Platform:www.nationalpoliceresearch.org