Dennis P. Rosenbaum, DirectorCenter for Research in Law and Justice

University of Illinois at Chicago

National Institute of JusticeApril 21, 2014

Portions of the research described here were supported by grant No. 2008-DN-BX-0005 awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this presentation are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Justice.

Building Trust Inside and Out: The Challenge of Legitimacy

Facing Police Leaders

Big picture view of legitimacy in policing from leadership perspective

External legitimacy issues Internal legitimacy issues National Police Research Platform as a

tool for understanding and reforming

Today’s Agenda

Inside: Budget cuts, changing workforce, new crime threats, new technologies

Outside: Negative encounters, image management with stakeholders

Pressure to innovate, pressure to reform, pressure to be transparent/accountable

Need better “knowledge management” and “information management”

Difficult Time to Lead

Science, Information, Knowledge

Policing Policies, Practices

Building a Bridge between Science and Practice

5

What type of knowledge is needed, but sorely lacking?

Wake up call: Policing is no longer just about crime control

Policing in 21st century multi-ethnic society is largely about legitimacy and fairness in service delivery and leadership

Effective crime fighting requires a healthy organization

Beyond Evidence-based Crime Control: Fairness and Legitimacy

Beyond numeric outcomes to policing processes:

External processes – Officer decisions and interactions with community members (Procedural Justice)

Internal processes – Management decisions and interactions with employees (Organizational Justice)

Evidence-based Processes

Building Capacity: The National Police Research Platform Provide standardized diagnostic tools

and benchmarks for evidence-based decision making and self-assessment

Advance knowledge of organizational behavior via cross-agency comparisons

Encourage a paradigm shift: from bean counting to evidence-based management/organizational health

Measuring what matters to the employees and the public – and what affects organizational legitimacy

Internal Quality of Policing: How are employees treated? (Organizational justice)

External Quality of Policing: How is the public treated? (Procedural justice and more)

Quality of Policing inside and Outside the Organization

“A psychological property of an authority, institution, or social arrangement that leads those connected to it to believe that it is appropriate, proper, and just.” (Tyler, 2006, p. 375).

What is “Legitimacy?”

Police authority is not defined entirely by the badge, gun, and arrest powers

Police action must be authorized by the consent of the governed

Legitimacy is not an immutable characteristic of the police --It can be conferred and removed over time

It is defined in the hearts and minds of those being asked to follow

“Consent of the Governed”

Corruption, scandals, and reform attempts

Causing/mishandling civil disorder Excessive force Race discrimination and profiling History of poor relations with various

communities (minorities, youth, mentally ill, LGBT)

Undermining Legitimacy: The Chronic Problems

Less willing to cooperate (e.g. "no snitch culture”)

Less willing to comply with requests Less willing to obey the law More likely to file complaints, lawsuits,

and generate negative media coverage

Consequences of Weak Legitimacy: Unhappy Citizenry

13

Respect: Treat people with respect/dignity

Neutrality: Treat people objectively, based on the facts, not personal characteristics

Voice: Listen to people - pay attention Concern: Show concern for their

welfare....

How to achieve Legitimacy?Procedural Justice

Victimization can be traumatic: Show sensitivity to victim’s experience

– empathy, compassion, emotional support

Show competence – answering questions, explaining actions, following procedures, making decisions

Appropriate Response to Victimization

FollowsProcedural

Justice Principles

Addresses the Needs of Victims

Officer’s Actions

Officer is Fair

Officer Listened to me

I’m Satisfied

with Encounter

Officer is Respectful

Citizen’s Perceptions

Officer cares

about my Wellbein

g

I trust this

Officer

I trust the Dept.

Increase Compliance with Requests

Increase Officer Safety

Expected Outcomes

Increase Investigative Information

Reduce Citizen Complaints

Increase Job Satisfaction

Measure what is important to the community – the quality of service

If you measure something, it begins to matter. Otherwise, who cares?

Use the National Police Research Platform as a starting point and paradigm shift…

How do we get there?“Measure what Matters”

Problems with Existing Data

Police management has weak data to judge the quality police-citizen contacts (citizen complaints? Police surveys?)

Community surveys don’t tell us about recent police services

Contact surveys (Bureau of Justice Statistics) provide only national estimates

Provides local, jurisdictional data for police management purposes (Advancing practice with feedback and “reactive measurement”)

Provides local, regional and national standardized data for research purposes (Advancing science by providing contextual data for explanation)

Added benefit: Democratizes policing by giving the public a voice in evaluating police services

Measures the desired behaviors that matter

Benefits of Police-Community Interaction (PCI) Survey

What does the PCI Survey Measure?

Overall satisfaction with the encounter Procedural justice – Quality of treatment and

decision making Victim-focused measures: Empathy and

emotional support, concern, explain, provide information

Agency legitimacy – trust and confidence Agency performance overall – effective and

responsive to problems, concerns Intentions to cooperate, comply, obey the law

Survey Methodology Letter from Chief/Sheriff mailed to

citizens with police contact in the past 10 days

Letter Invites Citizens to Complete Satisfaction Survey by:

Web-based survey or 1-800 automated telephone survey

University collects data independently and provides feedback to the participating departments

“How satisfied are you with the way you were treated by the officer in this case?”

Very

Satis

fied

Som

ewha

t Sat

isfied

Neu

tral

Som

ewha

t Dissa

tisfied

Compl

etel

y Dissa

tisfied

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

69%

14%4% 6% 7%

83.2%

Predictable differences in satisfaction by: Racial/ethnic group Age Type of incident (police-initiated or not) Agency

Known Groups Validation

Electronic vs. Conventional Telephone Survey: Randomized Control Trial

Response Rate

Letter A- Telephone Interview

34.41%

Letter B- PCI Electronic Surveys

11.10%

Electronic vs. Conventional Telephone Survey: RCT Results

Satisfaction Mean Scores by Mode

Electronic

Telephone

Interview

Significance

Overall 2.72 2.67t(373) = .66, p

= .51

Gender (female) 2.63 2.63

Interaction B = .052, p =.534

Race (minority) 2.71 2.57

Interaction B = 0.97, p = .163

Age (over 40) 2.73 2.75Interaction B

= .058, p = .371

Feasible – It can be done Cost effective - $5 vs. $82 per survey Acceptable validity of responses Attractive to local agencies -feedback Provides external indicators of

organizational and officer performance Provides database for advancing knowledge

about factors that contribute to procedural justice in diverse settings

Preliminary Conclusions about Electronic PCI Surveys

Roll out with national sample of agencies in Phase 2 of the Platform

Explore differences between agencies Test the potential utility for police

management

Next Steps with PCI Survey

Differences between 12 Agencies in Satisfaction with Traffic stops

(% Very Satisfied and Somewhat Satisfied)

Agency

“Respectstat” Comparisons by District or Area Mapping “Hot spots” District trends over Time Hourly Trends Institutionalization

Ways of Utilizing PCI data for Internal Accountability

30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 5140%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

5255

6164 64 64 65 65 66 68 69

72 72 72 74 75 76 77 77 78 7880

Percent "Somewhat" or "Very" Satisfied with Police Encounter

Police Districts (De-identified)

District Comparisons(Traffic stops and Crime reports)

23 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 220%

1000%

2000%

3000%

4000%

5000%

6000%

7000%

8000%

9000%

10000%Nights Days Evenings

Satisfaction By hour/shift (Percent)

Survey is in the field – ongoing data collection

Expect between 50 and 75 agencies to participate (out of 83)

100 to 500 surveys per agency Today – Quick peak at data from 43

agencies

Preliminary Look at PCI Data from the National Police Research

Platform

AllSmall

(100 to 199)

Medium (200 to 599)

Large (600 to

999)

Very Large (over 1,000)

#Agencies 43 19 11 6 7

#Resp. 10,821 1,541 1,832 3,323 4,125

NPRP Police-Community Interaction (PCI) Survey Sample, March 31, 2014

Females 46%

White 63%

Age Mean 49%

Resident 72%

Traffic Stops 41%

Traffic Accidents 22%

Crime Incidents 35%

Survey Demographics

Small Medium Large Very Large

50

60

70

80

90

79.383.3

74.5

68.6

Overall Satisfaction (%) by Agency Size

Small Medium Large Very Large

2.60

2.75

2.90

3.05

3.20

3.35

3.50

3.26 3.31

3.133.02

Total Procedural Justice Index

Small Medium Large Very Large

2.60

2.75

2.90

3.05

3.20

3.35

3.503.39

3.45

3.27

3.16

Respectful Index

Small Medium Large Very Large

2.60

2.75

2.90

3.05

3.20

3.35

3.50

3.34 3.37

3.22

3.10

Unbiased Index

Small Medium Large Very Large

2.60

2.75

2.90

3.05

3.20

3.35

3.50

3.30 3.35

3.15

3.03

Trustworthy Index

“During the encounter, the officer…”

listened to what I had to say.

seemed concerned about my feelings.

seemed to believe what I was saying.

comforted and reassured me.

Office Empathy and Emotional Support

Small Medium Large Very Large

2.60

2.75

2.90

3.05

3.20

3.35

3.50

3.10 3.15

2.932.84

Empathy Index

Small Medium Large Very Large

40

50

60

70

8073 72.7

66.860.5

"Did the officer greet you by saying hello and stating

his/her name?"

Small Medium Large Very Large

1

2

3

4

5

2.8

1.8

2.6

4.9

"Did the officer threaten to use physical force against

you?" (% yes)

Series10%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

25.9%

89.7%

27.9%

91.4%

21.3%

88.8%

12.3%

82.2%

RespectfulVery LargeLargeMediumSmall

Percent Satisfied when ticketed during traffic stops

NoYes

Citizen Satisfaction as a function of Procedural Justice and other FactorsStep Variable Beta1 Beta2 Beta3

1 Percent minority -.123 -.106 -.020

Percent poverty .329 -.030 .032

Rate of violence -.335 -.128 -.029

2 Agency size xxx -.949 -.024

% Contacts with citations

xxx 7.30*** .035

3 Procedural justice

xxx xxx .980***

R-squared .290 .833 .964

Procedural justice is a strong predictor of citizen satisfaction with police contacts, controlling for agency size, community characteristics and decision making outcomes (traffic citations).

For the PCI Survey, more work is needed to reduce costs, improve response rates, and test alternative survey modalities

Relative to the history of the Uniform Crime Report (UCR), we are living in 1929. National and local politics and competing research agendas stand in the way, but can be overcome!

Quick Conclusions

Strategies for Change – What works? Employee commitment to organizational

goals is essential Where employees are satisfied with work,

they are more committed to the organization’s goals…

Leadership ChallengesInside the Organization

Job Satisfaction and Commitment

to the Organization (r=.68)

Cynical about the administration, about the public, and resistant to change

Similar to the community, we argue that officers are concerned with justice, especially inside the agency where they work: Want to be treated fairly and respectfully Want input into decision making Want to trust that management will make good

decisions that are fair and equitable…

What keeps employees from giving their best performance?

< 30 92-199 200-599 600-1999 5000-13000

05

101520253035404550

15.6

31.636.5

49.8 48.7

How often the agency head “encourages input from employees when important decisions must be made” (% who said “rarely” or “never”)

Agency Size (Sworn)

< 30 92-199 200-599 600-1999

5000-13000

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2639.3 43

58.1 58.5

“In this agency, the disciplinary process is fair” (% “disagree” or “strongly disagree”)

Agency Size (Sworn)

“The perception held by employees that they are being treated fairly, respectfully, and compassionately by those in authority positions; that they have some input and control over decision making in their work environment; that they are kept informed of, and given explanations for, the decisions that affect their lives; and that they have opportunities for professional growth and job enrichment.”

Organization Justice in Policing(Conceptually defined)

Dimensions of Organizational Justice

 

Rotated Component Matrix1

Overall2

Superv.3

Leader4 Race/Gender

Q12_3R .761      Q12_2R .736      Q12_1R .717      Q13_8R .641      Q16_6R .640      Q15_13R .610      

Q16_15R .594      

Q15_14R .566      

Q12_4R .518      Q10_9R   .889    Q10_10R   .847    Q10_8R   .846    Q9_4R   .823    Q5_2R     .836  Q5_1R     .827  Q5_3R     .820  Q6_2R     .682  Q14_11R       .867Q14_10R       .856

Just Organization (9 items, alpha=.869)=Fair discipline, fair assignments, fair opportunities, fair accountability for actions, and respectful treatment

Just Leadership (4 items, alpha=.902)=Head of agency sets clear expectations, encourages input, sets a good example, and inspires employees

Dimensions of Organizational Justice

Just Supervision (4 items, alpha=.895)=Supervisor sets clear expectations, encourages input, is fair and consistent in decisions, and stands up for employees

Just Treatment of Women/Minorities (2 items, alpha=.866)= Employees are treated the same regardless of gender [regardless of race]

Dimensions of Organizational Justice (cont.)

Just organization .45*

Just leader .46*

Just supervisor .24*

Just environment for women and minorities

.38*

Correlation between dimensions of Org. Justice and Org. Commitment

* p < .05

ModelR-squared = .294

F (12, 11685) = 405.67 p < .0001

Unstd. Coeff Std. Coeff

t Sig.

b Std. Error

Beta

(Constant) 2.171 .037   58.675 .000Just Leader .136 .006 .251 23.768 .000Just Organization .178 .011 .183 15.927 .000Just Supervisor .025 .005 .041 4.780 .000Just for Women and Minorities .108 .006 .168 17.964 .000

Supervisor .106 .011 .086 10.134 .000Age -.002 .001 -.036 -4.322 .000Gender .032 .013 .019 2.433 .015College Graduate -.023 .010 -.019 -2.293 .022Some Graduate Classes .044 .014 .027 3.181 .001Black; African American .088 .017 .042 5.252 .000Latino/Hispanic .094 .017 .043 5.527 .000

Predicting Org. Commitment from Organizational Justice

Concentrated disadvantage in community Rate of index crime in community (avg. of

2011 & 2012) Agency type (Sheriffs vs. PDs) Total number of sworn officers in agency

Analyzing Community and Organization Characteristics – HLM

Unstd. Coeff t Sig.

b Std. Error

Level-1 (individual)Just Leader .135 .007 18.191 .000Just Organization .179 .014 12.131 .000Just Supervisor .025 .007 3.807 .000Just for Women and Minorities .113 .008 13.532 .000Supervisor .100 .011 8.782 .000Age -.002 .001 -3.823 .000Gender .028 .012 2.284 .022Some Graduate Classes .062 .018 3.374 .000Black; African American .057 .016 3.617 .000Latino/Hispanic .086 .018 4.871 .000

Level-2 (Organization)

Concentrated Disadvantage .012 .006 2.135 .036Index Crime (2011 & 2012) <-.001 <.001 -0.408 .684Agency Type (Sheriffs Office) .060 .023 2.554 .012Total Sworn Officers <-.001 <.001 -0.444 .659Constant 3.38 .015 217.136 .000

HLM Results- Org. Commitment

Legitimacy inside the organization is driven by organizational justice considerations

Employees feel obligated to obey and support administrators whom they view as legitimate authorities

Managers can achieve legitimacy by interacting in just ways: engaging employees, valuing their ideas, protecting them, treating them fairly and respectfully, and giving them opportunities for advancement

Management needs to achieve and maintain Legitimacy Internally

“You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar”

“Treat people the way you want to be treated”

What I learned from my Mom

Work with law enforcement community to address new information needs

Continue panel of agencies – periodic data collection

Expand nonrandom sample of agencies Develop translational interventions and

randomized trials

Next Steps

THANK YOU