Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) is a component
within the U.S. Department of Justice dedicated to
community policing.
from Community Policing Dispatch, the e-newsletter of COPS
The Case for Procedural Justice: Fairness as a Crime
Prevention Tool
Today's criminal justice leaders have a number of promising and evidencebased practices to draw upon when implementing new public safety efforts.
CompStat and hot spot policing have revolutionized the way data is used in
crime prevention. Public health approaches to community violence have
helped to reduce shootings and homicides. And community policing and
other community collaborations have reshaped how law enforcement
organizations interact with the neighborhoods they serve.
Among these reforms is a frequently practiced but often overlooked
approach that has increasingly been identified by researchers as an
evidence-based and cost-effective way to reduce crime: procedural justice.
Procedural justice (sometimes called procedural fairness) describes the
idea that how individuals regard the justice system is tied more to the
perceived fairness of the process and how they were treated rather than to
the perceived fairness of the outcome. In other words, even someone who
receives a traffic ticket or “loses” his case in court will rate the system
favorably if he feels that the outcome is arrived at fairly.
Leading researchers on this topic, including Professor Tom Tyler of Yale
Law School, have identified several critical dimensions of procedural
fairness: (1) voice (the perception that your side of the story has been
heard); (2) respect (perception that system players treat you with dignity
and respect); (3) neutrality (perception that the decision-making process is
unbiased and trustworthy); (4) understanding (comprehension of the
process and how decisions are made); and (5) helpfulness (perception that
system players are interested in your personal situation to the extent that
the law allows).1
Underlying procedural justice is the idea that the criminal justice system
must constantly be demonstrating its legitimacy to the public it serves. If
the public ceases to view its justice system as legitimate, dire consequences
ensue. Put simply, people are more likely to comply with the law and
cooperate with law enforcement efforts when they feel the system and its
actors are legitimate. For example, a recent study examined the impact of
police officers' use of a procedural justice script during randomized breath
test checkpoints—with language geared toward conveying key elements
such as decision-making neutrality, voice, and respect.2 Would drivers'
perceptions of fairness and compliance with law enforcement directives
improve? The script explained the officer's motives for conducting the stop,
gave the driver an opportunity to suggest other crime prevention tactics,
and conveyed respect by addressing the drivers at eye level and thanking
them for their time. In fact, drivers who participated in the study were
more likely than the control group to report satisfaction with the
interaction and to be compliant with police orders. Indeed, these findings
are comparable to those seen in a range of other criminal justice settings,
from courts to corrections to re-entry.
Notions of fairness and respect are relatively uncontroversial aims for the
criminal justice system, but implementing practices that support these
ends can be challenging. The Center for Court Innovation—in partnership
with the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance and the
National Judicial College—has spent the past two years developing and
piloting a curriculum to help judges and other court players to translate the
precepts of procedural justice into daily practice. The initiative has relied
upon the expertise of judges, court administrators, legal theorists, and
communications experts to develop and test improved communication
strategies and create practical “how to” recommendations for court staff.
To date, project activities have included the convening of a national
working group, the development and piloting of a one-day training, issuing
a national solicitation for additional training sites, and the development of
an online learning system based on the curriculum.
The unfortunate reality is that court proceedings—like other stages in the
criminal justice process—can be confounding and dehumanizing
experiences. Courtroom actors do not deliberately attempt to cause
confusion or undermine confidence in the system, of course—they are
simply trying to communicate complex, technical information as quickly as
possible. There are numerous real-world obstacles to effective
communication, including overwhelming caseloads and increasing cultural
and linguistic diversity among court participants.3 Similar challenges exist
during routine traffic stops, probation intake sessions, parole board
hearings—the list goes on and on.
Procedural justice provides a platform to begin addressing some of these
shortcomings. In courts, among other things, this takes the form of
rethinking how courtroom rules are posted, explained, and enforced, or
how court clerk or court officers provide information while court is in
session.
There are countless analogs from the court environment that are applicable
to other justice system players, including law enforcement. Below are a few
strategies for implementation that can be applied by police departments to
enhance procedural justice:
• Humanize the experience: Appearing approachable and accessible is a
key component of procedural justice. When interviewing suspects or
witnesses, make eye contact and use body language to convey
respect. Thank citizens for their cooperation with the process as a
means of yielding increased cooperation in the future.
• Explain what you're doing and why: For many individuals, a routine
traffic stop or other interaction with law enforcement can be a
traumatic event. The legal jargon and procedures (familiar to
practitioners in the field) can be confusing and intimidating to the
average person. Whenever possible, use simple terms to explain your
actions, the legal and/or practical reasons for doing so, and any
consequences they may have for the person. For example, when
issuing a summons, clearly explain the process for appearing in court
to resolve the matter—including providing directions to the
courthouse, if and how a lawyer will be provided, and whether there
are options to resolve the matter by mail or online. These strategies
can help promote compliance.
• Create opportunities for individuals to be heard: Giving people an
opportunity to speak and have their concerns heard can add a few
extra minutes to the average interaction, but it is time well spent.
Research shows that having your voice heard increases perceptions
of fairness, even when the person is told that his views will not
influence the ultimate decision or outcome. Consider how to
maximize the citizens' voice in contexts where it may be limited,
such as traffic and street stops or walk-in inquiries.
• Consider environmental factors: Criminal justice facilities—like many
government buildings—can be difficult to navigate for those
unfamiliar with their halls. As an exercise, try to examine your
facility with fresh eyes from the perspective of a new user. In hightraffic areas, ensure that building rules and instructions for getting
assistance are clearly posted, easy to read, and provided in
commonly spoken languages other than English, if necessary.
• Use research to show the value of procedural justice: As with any new
approach, there will be skeptics, but the research that supports the
concept is compelling. Providing colleagues with the research on the
impact of procedural fairness can offer a concrete and focused
foundation for trainings and other implementation efforts, helping
to counteract knee-jerk skepticism.
Law enforcement professionals are typically the first point of contact for
people processed through the justice system. Procedural justice strategies
like the ones listed above—when delivered early in the process—can help
shape an individual's perception of the system and improve compliance.
With budget cuts and the resulting pressure on the justice system to do
more with less, procedural justice offers an evidence-based approach that
can help law enforcement agencies—as well as the system as a whole—
enhance legitimacy and reduce crime: the proverbial win-win.
Emily Gold
Deputy Director of Planning and Development at the Center
for Court Innovation In collaboration with Melissa Bradley
COPS
Office
T. R. Tyler, Why People Obey the Law. (New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press, 1990). See also M.S. Frazer, The Impact of the
Community Court Model on Defendant Perceptions of Fairness: A
Case Study at the Red Hook Community Justice Center. (New
York: Center for Court Innovation, 2006).
2 L. Mazerolle, S. Bennett, E. Antrobus, and E. Eggins,
“Procedural justice, routine encounters and citizen perceptions of
police: main findings from the Queensland Community
Engagement Trial (QCET),” Journal of Experimental Criminology
8 (2012): 343 –367.
3 T. R. Tyler, Why People Obey the Law. (New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press, 1990). See also M.S. Frazer, The Impact of the
Community Court Model on Defendant Perceptions of Fairness: A
Case Study at the Red Hook Community Justice Center. (New
York: Center for Court Innovation, 2006).
1
The Importance of Legitimacy in Hot Spots Policing
The lessons learned from the community policing movement of the 1980s
and 1990s offer many important insights for the proper implementation of
hot spots policing initiatives. We believe that these lessons suggest that
police departments should move away from simple, enforcement-based
approaches to controlling crime hot spots and toward more collaborative,
community problem-solving approaches to address crime hot spots. If the
community is engaged appropriately, we believe that hot spots policing
programs can enhance the legitimacy of the police in the eyes of the people
they seek to protect and serve. In general, broad-based community policing
initiatives have been found to reduce fear of crime and improve the
relationships between the police and the communities they serve (Skogan
and Frydl 2004; Weisburd and Eck 2004). Community policing strategies
that entail direct involvement of citizens and police—such as police
community stations, citizen contract patrol, and coordinated community
policing—have been found to reduce fear of crime among residents and
decrease individual concern about crime in neighborhoods (Brown and
Wycoff 1987; Pate and Skogan 1985; Wycoff and Skogan 1986).
In contrast to the methodologically rigorous evaluation research on the
crime control efficacy of hot spots policing (Braga and Weisburd 2010), the
research evidence on community perceptions of appropriate police
behavior, procedural fairness and police legitimacy, and related topics
presented here is still developing and, as such, not as scientifically strong.
However, few observers of American policing would disagree with the
statement that police-minority relations remain stressed by ongoing issues
involving unwarranted stops, verbal abuse, brutality, and police
corruption. As such, we feel that it is important to develop a normative
dimension to our discussion of hot spots policing practices. Overly
aggressive and indiscriminating police crackdowns tend to produce some
undesirable effects, such as increased resentment and fear of police, in
targeted hot spot areas. The potential for negative effects needs to be
drawn into our broader analysis of hot spots policing initiatives precisely
because community reactions to police practices have normative
significance to wider society. Indeed, the National Research Council’s
Committee to Review Research on Police Policy and Practices concluded
that police practices need to be evaluated in terms of their impact on the
legitimacy of the police as well as their crime control effectiveness (Skogan
and Frydl 2004).
Legitimacy is linked to the ability of the police to prevent crime and keep
neighborhoods safe. If the public’s trust and confidence in the police is
undermined, the ability of the police to prevent crime will be weakened by
lawsuits, declining willingness to obey the law, and withdrawal from
existing partnerships (Tyler 1990, 2004). The political fallout from
illegitimate police actions can seriously impede the ability of police
departments to engage innovative crime control tactics. While residents in
neighborhoods suffering from high levels of crime often demand higher
levels of enforcement, they still want the police to be respectful and lawful
in their crime control efforts (Skogan and Meares 2004; Tyler 2004).
Residents don’t want family members, friends, and neighbors to be
targeted unfairly by enforcement efforts or treated poorly by
overaggressive police officers. It is, however, important to recognize that
legitimate policing is not limited to the fair and respectful treatment of
“good” community members.
Studies of personal encounters with the police consistently document that
post-experience feelings are determined by the fairness in which the
problem was handled (Tyler 2001). The Committee to Review Police Policy
and Practices identifies four dimensions of fairness in police–citizen
interactions (Skogan and Frydl 2004). First, the citizens need to have
meaningful participation in interactions. Importantly, citizens must have
the ability to explain situations and communicate with the police. Second,
citizens need to feel that the police officers are neutral in their assessments
of situations by using objective indicators to make decisions rather than
personal views. Third, citizens must feel that they are being treated with
respect and dignity by the police during interactions. Fourth, police officers
need to inspire trust in the citizenry. If people believe authorities care
about their well-being and are considerate of their needs and concerns,
they view procedures as fairer. Police can encourage the public to view
them as trustworthy by explaining their decisions and accounting for their
conduct.
Regardless of the specific approach employed or tactics engaged, hot spots
policing will generate an increased amount of police-citizen contacts in
very small areas. Police behavior in these areas will greatly influence the
amount of support and involvement from the affected community
members. To maximize their ability to manage crime problems in these
places, police managers should strive to ensure fair police-citizen
interactions and the development of strong partnerships with community
members. While the work is difficult, long-term community engagement
efforts can pay large dividends in improving the quality of policecommunity relationships and collaborative crime prevention efforts.
The concentration of crime at specific hot spot locations within
neighborhoods provides an important opportunity for police to make
connections with those citizens who are most vulnerable to victimization
and experience fear and diminished quality of life. Regrettably, these
community members are often the same people who view the police with
suspicion and question the legitimacy of police efforts to control crime in
their neighborhoods. In this sense, residents and business owners in highactivity crime places represent “hot spots” of community dissatisfaction
with and mistrust of the police. If police departments are concerned with
improving their relationships with community members, these residents
and business owners seem like a logical place to start. Like crime, poor
police-community relationships are not evenly spread throughout city
environments. If the police can win the hearts and minds of long suffering
community members in hot spot areas, it seems likely this will produce
larger impacts on the overall legitimacy of police departments in the city
than developing stronger relationships with community members in more
stable neighborhoods who are more likely to already have generally
positive perceptions of police services.
The potential impact of police crime prevention efforts in problem places
on citizen perceptions of legitimacy may depend in good part on the types
of strategies used and the context of the hot spots affected. Unfocused and
indiscriminate enforcement actions will likely produce poor relationships
between the police and community members residing in hot spot areas. We
believe that the police should adopt alternative approaches to controlling
hot spots that do not rely solely on one-dimensional intensive enforcement.
Of course, arresting criminal offenders is a central part of the police
function and should remain an important tool in an array of responses to
crime hot spots. Our reading of the available research evidence suggests
situational problem-oriented policing actions that engage community
members and alleviate disorderly conditions can generate both crime
prevention gains and positive citizen perceptions of the police. Hot spots
policing programs infused with community and problem-oriented policing
principles hold great promise in improving police legitimacy in the eyes of
community members living in places suffering from crime and disorder
problems.
David L. Weisburd is the Walter E. Meyer Professor of Law and Criminal
Justice at Hebrew University Law School and Distinguished Professor in
the Criminology, Law and Society Department at George Mason University.
Anthony A. Braga is the Don M. Gottfredson Professor of Evidence-Based
Criminology in the School of Criminal Justice at Rutgers University and
Senior Research Fellow in the Program in Criminal Justice Policy and
Management at Harvard University.
REFERENCES
Braga, A.A., and D.L. Weisburd. 2010. Policing Problem Places: Crime Hot
Spots and Effective Prevention. New York: Oxford University Press.
Brown, L., and M. Wycoff. 1987. “Policing Houston: Reducing Fear and
Improving Service.” Crime and Delinquency 33:71–89.
Pate, A., and W. Skogan. 1985. Coordinated Community Policing: The
Newark Experience. Technical Report. Washington, DC: Police
Foundation.
Skogan, W., and K. Frydl, eds. 2004. Fairness and Effectiveness in
Policing: The Evidence. Committee to Review Research on Police Policy
and Practices. Committee on Law and Justice, Division of Behavioral and
Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press.
Skogan, W., and T. Meares. 2004. “Lawful Policing.” Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science 593:66–83.
Tyler, T.R. 1990. Why People Obey the Law: Procedural Justice,
Legitimacy, and Compliance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Tyler, T.R. 2001. “Public Trust and Confidence in Legal Authorities: What
Do Majority and Minority Groups Members Want from the Law and Legal
Institutions?” Behavioral Sciences and the Law 19:215–235.
Tyler, T.R. 2004. “Enhancing Police Legitimacy.” Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science 593:84–99.
Weisburd, D.L., and J. Eck. 2004. “What Can Police Do to Reduce Crime,
Disorder, and Fear?” Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science 593:42–65.
Wycoff, M., and W. Skogan. 1986. Storefront Police Offices: The Houston
Field Test. In Community Crime Prevention: Does It Work? ed. D.
Rosenbaum. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
The Importance of Procedural Justice
The city of Sioux Falls, South Dakota, has been very fortunate over the
years. We are a friendly, family orientated community. We have a low
crime rate and our city continues growing each year. Economically, Sioux
Falls is on solid ground, even during this last national economic downturn.
The Sioux Falls Police Department has established a very good relationship
with our citizens. Things are going well here, and as our city grows our
department wants to continue this great relationship with our citizens. Our
community is also becoming more diverse and we want to make sure that
we are addressing the needs of everyone in our community.
Over the last two years, our police department has revamped the Patrol
Division. We have migrated to a team-based style of policing and have
encouraged a more pro-active approach. We divided the city into areas—
called quadrants—and assigned teams of officers to work those areas. The
officers have made numerous contacts within their assigned
neighborhoods and have partnered with community members in resolving
problems and enhancing the rapport between police and citizens. We have
seen some very promising results from these changes and feel that we are
heading in the right direction.
Recently, a proposal was made to implement procedural justice in our
department. The proposal was accepted and has received the full
endorsement of our Chief Doug Barthel, Assistant Chief Patti Lyon, and the
rest of the command staff. This article is about why procedural justice is so
important to our department and why it should be to yours.
During my 26-plus years as a law enforcement officer, I have been
privileged to observe and work with officers who rarely enter into
altercations with anyone. They are able to defuse tense situations and
convince people to do what they want them to do. They have the ability to
speak to anyone, regardless of age, race, gender, or culture. These officers
are able to gain information from people who would otherwise refuse to
talk with officers. They are able to do this because of their superior verbal
skills. But what exactly are those skills? What is it that causes those they
interact with to react so positively to them? Are these skills innate to those
officers or can we teach these skills to other officers?
In 2011, I attended the COPS Office conference in Washington, D.C., where
I was introduced to the concept of procedural justice. At the conference
there were several speakers that spoke on the subject, including Dr. Tom
Tyler and Dr. Lara Kunard. They provided answers on the subject of
procedural justice to questions that I have always had.
Procedural justice is not a new trend or a new way of policing. What
procedural justice does for policing is validate what most of us already
knew: how we treat people and how we talk to them does matter.
Procedural justice also tells us why it works, how it works and what we can
expect in return. How can this affect the future of policing?
First, there is empirical research1 that shows procedural justice delivers
positive results. In reviewing this research, we get a clear picture of how
and why people view the police the way they do and how and why they may
or may not comply with the law or the directives and decision of police
officers. This is not a theory. The research backs up a way of policing that
has been used by many officers throughout history.
Procedural justice does not necessarily require substantial changes to any
other training or procedures that are currently practiced. For example,
Defensive Tactics training would remain the same. Procedural justice is not
meant to be a replacement for Defensive Tactics or even reduce the need or
the importance of this training. It is, however, another tool that can be
used by officers to avoid being in a situation that would require the use of
force. Using procedural justice as the foundation of police training will not
lessen or eliminate the need for the training that we currently do. What it
will do is enhance most of our training and learned police skills.
For police officers, procedural justice amounts to four basic
actions:
• Treat people with respect.
• Listen to what they have to say.
• Make fair decisions.
• Explain your actions.
These are not—or should not be—difficult things for officers to do. I know
that most officers in my department are already doing these actions most
of the time. With those officers it is important to emphasize that these
actions work, reinforcing their good practices or fine tuning what they are
already doing.
There are also those officers who have difficulty in performing some of
these actions, or are reluctant in doing so. Changing these officers can be a
challenge. They may not want to change their style of communication, and
may see some aspects of procedural justice as showing weakness—such as
explaining their actions. These officers are used to “doing” not “talking.”
When selling procedural justice to these officers it is important to stress
that this is not a new trend. Emphasize that history and research supports
this method and skillset. Talking about the benefits of procedural justice
will also help. One benefit that is especially important to officers is the
safety aspect. Even if they don't buy into all of the other benefits of
procedural justice, if you can get them to understand that it will make them
safer, they may be more likely to give it a try.
By having our officers do these simple things (treat people with respect,
listen to what they have to say, make fair decisions, and explain their
actions) we become more legitimate in the eyes of the public. This
legitimacy has some very positive and beneficial payouts for law
enforcement officers and the communities we serve. Legitimacy builds
trust and confidence in the police and acceptance of police authority.
Legitimacy also enhances the publics' perception that police actions are
morally correct and appropriate. If the community views their officers as
being legitimate they are more likely to comply with the law. They are also
more likely to agree with police decisions and less likely to be
confrontational or hostile toward us.
Procedural justice is vital to a successful and sustainable community
policing program. The three pillars of community policing: Partnerships,
Problem Solving, and Organizational Transformation, illustrate this
importance. The first two pillars rely heavily on having the trust,
confidence, and cooperation of the community. If you want to have a
strong community policing program you need to have a department that
believes and practices procedural justice.
Procedural justice is not just for the community. It is also important to
remember that it should be practiced within our agencies. It is important to
treat our officers and civilian employees in the same manner that we expect
them to treat the public. Management has to be open to the idea that there
is always room for improvement. A clear message needs to be sent from the
top down of what is expected from the officers and the supervisors. Again,
we should model the actions internally that we want our officers to
demonstrate to the community. Simply, we treat them respectfully, listen
to them, make fair decisions, and explain our actions.
As I mentioned before, I don't view procedural justice as anything new. It is
the foundation for successful police work. It involves some very simple
things that successful officers have been doing since the beginning of
policing and it provides a roadmap for all of us in law enforcement to be
effective in our interactions with our community and within our agency.
Captain Rich (Skip) Miller
Uniformed Services Division
Sioux Falls
(South Dakota) Police Department
See T.R. Tyler, L.W. Sherman, H. Strang, G.C. Barnes, and D.J.
Wood, “Reintegrative shaming, procedural justice, and recidivism:
The engagement of offenders' psychological mechanisms in the
Canberra RISE drinking and driving experiment,” Law and Society
Review 41, no. 3 (2007): 553–586.
1
Procedural Justice: High Expectations
The concepts of community oriented policing have long been engrained in
the culture of the King County Sheriff’s Office. As an agency, we are proud
of our tradition of “doing more with less” and have been able to accomplish
our policing goals by proactively building strong community partnerships
and by employing creative problem-solving strategies that address
underlying issues, instead of just reactively responding to symptoms.
Unfortunately, due to dwindling resources and subsequent budget cuts, we
have had to shift back toward being a reactive agency. In an attempt to save
money, we have had to gut the infrastructure that supports our patrol
deputies. We have made deep cuts to equipment, facilities, support
services, and training, in an attempt to off-set budget shortfalls. Our
agency has resorted to employing what I describe as “duct tape and superglue” to fix problems instead of having the luxury of investing in organized,
long-term, problem-solving strategies. Our average patrol deputy and the
members of the community they directly serve have been the ones who
have felt the most pain from these cuts. Trust and legitimacy—within the
agency and with the public—have subsequently eroded.
In 2012, the King County Sheriff’s Office obtained a grant from the COPS
Office to develop procedural justice training for line staff officers. The
academic research-based concepts of procedural justice can be boiled down
to four “pillars” that impact the public’s perception of police legitimacy: 1)
a voice in the process, 2) transparency in the decision-making process, 3)
neutrality in the decision-making process, and 4) respect for the person’s
rights and dignity. In the King County Sheriff’s Office, we have high
expectations that making these concepts of procedural justice a part of our
agency’s culture will help us build legitimacy in our communities and make
us more effective.
Most of our employees have intuitively figured out through trial and error
how to use the concepts of procedural justice to gain voluntary compliance.
As an agency, we are attempting to use training as a means to intentionally
make procedural justice a part of our agency culture. Unfortunately, even
though the concepts are rather simple to teach, “Procedural Justice” is not
always an easy sell. Those who have already figured it out on their own are
easily convinced of the merits. Our problem is that those few who most
need to hear the message are also the most resistant. Some employees feel
as though they will not be supported by the agency when they have to make
tough decisions. Particularly in the areas of use of force and citizen
complaints, many patrol deputies feel as though they do not have a voice,
the process is not transparent, decisions are not neutral, and the process
feels disrespectful or undignified. They are often distracted by challenges
and stressors, on the job and off, and have trouble seeing the benefits of
procedural justice.
In order to make procedural justice a part of our culture, we must first
convince our officers that the concepts have been embraced at all levels of
the organization and that they will be supported even when they get a
complaint or when they must use appropriate force to overcome resistance.
Before we can ask our officers to go out in the field and apply the concepts
of procedural justice to all interactions with citizens, we must practice
what we preach as an agency. We must actively engage employees in
setting expectations and we must address employee performance concerns
through student-centered training whenever possible—instead of using the
disciplinary system as our go-to management tool. We must focus our
efforts on hiring, training, and promoting the people who embody the
principles of procedural justice. Finally, our training, policies, and
procedures must give employees a clear roadmap to accomplishing their
policing goals the right way—by focusing on procedural justice as a means
to improve officer and citizen safety.
We are starting by using the procedural justice training as a way of setting
clear expectations for how we communicate and interact with each other
and with the public. Our agency has decided to use the “L.E.E.D.” model
(Listen and Explain with Equity and Dignity) as a way to train employees
on how to apply the key principles of procedural justice. We use scenarios,
discussions, and group exercises to show officers that this model can be
applied to all interactions—internal and external—as a means to establish
legitimacy and improve citizen and officer safety. We show that the
L.E.E.D. model is typically applied as a means to gain voluntary
compliance from the outset of an interaction, but we acknowledge that
sometimes voluntary compliance is not possible. In those cases, the
L.E.E.D. model is applied after the “dust” settles. We believe that the key is
to make L.E.E.D a routine, expected, and measurable part of all
interactions.
Our challenge as police trainers has been to convince all of our employees
to apply the concepts of procedural justice to all interactions, so that even
in their darkest hour they are still able to rise to the occasion. The
academic ideals and research-based concepts of procedural justice can
seem rather distant and unrealistic to a cop who is out on the street—cold,
alone, at night, facing down a violent armed felon—and yet, it is in those
moments that legitimacy becomes the most important. We have high
expectations that legitimacy just might save a life.
By Sergeant Andrew McCurdy
King County Sheriff’s Office Advanced
Training Unit
In Collaboration with Melissa Bradley
COPS Office
“That’s not fair!”
Policing and perceptions of
fairness
Employees of law enforcement agencies—both sworn and civilian—are
more likely to view their organizations as legitimate and to comply with
workplace policies and procedures when the agency exhibits a culture
where transparency, impartiality, fairness, and voice are embraced and
modeled through internal decision-making, policy, and overall treatment
of personnel. We all want to be valued, we all want to be heard, and we all
want to be respected.
When looking at the internal issues of many organizations, however, you
can usually find division among staff. This can be especially true when
there is a perception of different treatment between classifications of
employees. Such internal polarization within the police department may
demoralize sworn and civilian employees, and can foster discontent by
certain groups within the organization who feel disproportionately or
unfairly treated. A counterbalance to discontent is satisfaction and
collaborative relationships within an agency that can prove advantageous
to its overall effectiveness.
Procedural justice provides a framework for organizational transformation
within law enforcement agencies. It provides a structure for developing
sustainable organizational practices and procedures by internally
promoting the principles of procedural justice through fairness and
transparency in resolving disputes, making decisions, and allocating
resources. Employees become collaborators by providing opportunities for
the employee voice to be heard through an exchange of ideas and by
demonstrating respect.
Police executives and supervisors must become more effective in fostering
an environment where procedural justice principles become a standard
practice within their agency. Where the core principles of procedural
justice are valued and practiced within the entire agency there will be:
• Positive organizational transformation
• Improvement in the work culture
• Decrease in the internal polarization of the staff
Perceptions of fairness are not only driven by outcomes. They may also be
influenced by the fairness and consistency of the process used to reach
those outcomes.1 This suggests that if executives and supervisors are fair
and consistent in the allocation of internal resources, in decision-making,
and in resolution of disputes, officers and civilian employees will view the
agency and fellow employees as more legitimate and therefore will be more
supportive of agency goals and policies.
An expert on procedural justice at Yale University, Professor Tom Tyler’s
research has demonstrated how organizations that do not implement the
pillars of procedural justice create an environment where staff often
becomes demoralized. In such an environment, a subversive tone might
exist that detracts from organizational performance and ultimately
manifests itself the same way in officers’ interactions with the public.
Internal respect for one another can translate to a more engaged work
environment and a higher level of collaboration among colleagues and with
members of the community. When an organizational culture demonstrates
procedural justice values, employees are more likely to incorporate them
into their interactions with the public.
When procedural justice is embedded into the very fabric of the policing
culture, beginning with the chief and continuing down through the ranks of
sworn and civilian personnel, it will ultimately have an impact on the way
front-line officers and civilian personnel interact with individual
community members. In order for the community to view the law
enforcement agency and its personnel as legitimate, the principles of
procedural justice must be a part of the agency’s organizational culture.
How an officer responds to a situation will impact the community’s
perception and level of trust of the agency. The COPS Office has supported
the creation of a curriculum, entitled Procedural Justice for Law
Enforcement Organizations: Organizational Change through Decision
Making and Policy, which aims to instill the importance of procedural
justice at the organizational level. The curriculum was designed to be
delivered to the leadership of law enforcement organizations, encouraging
the examination of policy and procedures in light of the pillars of
procedural justice.
The curriculum emphasizes the importance of embracing the pillars of
procedural justice at the organizational level, setting the right tone for the
organization as a whole. As officers and civilian employees of law
enforcement agencies experience a culture of fairness, transparency,
impartiality, and voice, their behavior will ultimately shift, reflecting in the
ways that they treat one another as well as members of the public.
Adoption of procedural justice principles from the top of the agency on
down and also modeling fair behavior are both important to transforming
the culture of an agency.
To date, the COPS Office Procedural Justice for Law Enforcement
Organizations course has been delivered in five states and well received by
all agencies. One course participant commented, “The entire course was
outstanding. My favorite part was the leadership principles. We were all
reminded of the reasons we became leaders of our organization.” The
movement from a community reaction of “that’s not fair” to “I understand”
often rests within the individual police officer–community member
interaction, but is often rooted in the deeper culture of the law enforcement
agency. Procedural justice aims at the heart of an organization’s culture to
create fundamental change toward more fair processes and outcomes.
In Collaboration with Melissa Bradley, COPS Office
See R. Hollander-Blumoff, and T.R. Tyler, “Procedural Justice in
Negotiation: Procedural Fairness, Outcome Acceptance, and
Integrative Potential,” Law & Social Inquiry 33 (2008): 473–500.
doi: 10.1111/j.1747-4469.2008.00110.xTom Tyler, 2008.
1