Excessive Use of Force: Policy Analysis
by
Eli Huven & Tia Orr
A Paper Submitted to
Dr. Leora Waldner
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
PA 6622 Public Policy
Term IV 2015
Troy University
Atlanta Campus
May 17, 2015
Table of Contents
A. Steps in the Policy Analysis Process ...........................................................................................4
B. Policy Issue Introduction .............................................................................................................4
C. Reasons for Government Involvement ........................................................................................4
D. Instruments of Public Policy .......................................................................................................5
E. Policy Typology ..........................................................................................................................5
F. Theories of Politics and Public Policy - Political Systems Theory ..............................................5
G. Policy Alternatives.......................................................................................................................5
I. Officer Training ............................................................................................................................................. 5
II. Independent Monitoring Organization ............................................................................................... 6
III. Occupational Liability Insurance ......................................................................................................... 6
H. Evaluative Criteria ......................................................................................................................6
I. Effectiveness .................................................................................................................................................. 6
II. Cost .................................................................................................................................................................. 6
III. Political Feasibility .................................................................................................................................... 6
IV. Ease of Implementation ........................................................................................................................... 6
I. Alternatives Assessment: Compare and Contrast method ............................................................6
I. Effectiveness .................................................................................................................................................. 7
II. Cost .................................................................................................................................................................. 7
III. Political Feasibility .................................................................................................................................... 7
IV. Ease of Implementation ........................................................................................................................... 7
V. Comparing Alternative #1 vs. Alternative #2 ................................................................................... 7
VI. Comparing Alternative #1 vs. Alternative #3 .............................................................................. 7
J. Alternative Selection and Justification .........................................................................................8
K. Method of Policy Analysis ..........................................................................................................8
L. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................8
M. References ..................................................................................................................................9
A. Steps in the Policy Analysis Process
Kraft & Furlong (2013) suggest using a five-step policy analysis process when making a
policy decision. This policy analysis process is also referred to as the rational decision making
model. The five-step policy analysis process involves defining and analyzing the problem,
constructing policy alternatives, developing evaluative criteria, assessing the alternatives, and
drawing conclusions (Kraft & Furlong, 2013, p. 118). An additional sixth step in the policy
analysis process coming from Bardach (2000) includes communicating your analysis by
developing an abstract or executive summary.
To complete step one of the policy analysis process we must think about the problem
definition. How the problem is defined will have an affect on the potential policy solutions. The
problem definition should clearly state the problem without putting the solution into the problem.
The stakeholders included in the problem definition should not involve any inherent bias.
Politically, the problem definition should be favorable to lawmakers so that it can be “framed” to
favor the view of any proposed policy solution. In addition, part of step one is to analyze the
problem by gathering information to determine what is causing the problem. Research should be
conducted to search for any existing alternatives to the problem that could affect the problem
definition (Kraft & Furlong, 2013).
Step two involves constructing policy alternatives that can be considered for potential
solutions. Policy alternatives can be constructed by doing a literature review, researching best
practices, interviewing the stakeholder, creating brand new alternatives, and using the
instruments of public policy. The policy alternatives should provide ideas for how to deal with
the problem that was stated in the problem definition (Kraft & Furlong, 2013).
Step three involves choosing the evaluative criteria that are most appropriate to help
analyze the policy alternatives. The most fitting criteria for any policy usually always include
effectiveness, cost and political feasibility. Effectiveness is one of the most important criteria
because in order to fully analyze the possible alternative you would want to know the overall
affect it will have on the policy issue. Some additional criteria to be considered are ease of
implementation, equity, and legality. There are several other criteria that can be applied
depending on the policy alternatives provided (Kraft & Furlong, 2013).
Step four involves analyzing each alternative and comparing one against the other, using
the evaluative criteria to determine which alternative is best. During this step in the policy
analysis process each alternative should be assessed to determine how one or all of the
alternatives will resolve the problem (Kraft & Furlong, 2013).
Step five should culminate steps one through four and draw a conclusion of what was
found through completing the policy analysis process (Kraft & Furlong, 2013). Drawing a
conclusion that states the best alternative to resolve the problem will lead us to step six, which is
the presentation of the findings. An abstract or executive summary should be provided to give the
policy decision makers an overview of why the recommended alternative is the best possible
solution to the problem (Bardach, 2000).
B. Policy Issue Introduction
The COPS U.S. Department of Justice website states that the International Association of
Chiefs of Police (IACP) defines use of force as, “The amount of effort required by police to
compel compliance by an unwilling subject” and “whether the police officer reasonably believed
that such force was necessary to accomplish a legitimate police purpose” (“Use of Force,” n.d.).
According to his interview on Here and Now, Dr. Phil Stinson indicated that if an officer has a
reasonable apprehension of imminent force against themselves or others, the officer is reasonably
justified to use deadly force (Stinson, 2015). According to a study conducted in multiple cities
around the United States, researchers found that excessive force “is typically but not necessarily
associated with more severe forms of force that could or do result in injury or death” (Garner &
Maxwell, 2001).
The most widely covered cases by the media in 2014 were of Michael Brown, an 18year-old black male shot and killed by police officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri; and
Eric Garner, a 43-year-old black male in Staten Island, New York who was put into a choke by
police officer Daniel Pantaleo until he lost consciousness and stopped breathing (Nelson & Staff,
2014). Overuse of force or use of excessive force can lead to riots and other disturbances, such as
those seen in Ferguson, MO (Perez, Berg, & Myers, 2003). These cases brought attention to the
seriousness of police brutality and the curiosity of how often it occurs (Brown, 2015). As
researchers began looking for surface data on police brutality cases it was determined that there
is no central database for record keeping of excessive force incidents (Johnson, Hoyer, & Heath,
2014). This has made it increasingly difficult to gather statistical data on this subject and provide
concrete findings on the number of excessive force incidents (Johnson et al., 2014).
Also, it is important to note that media coverage of the events of Ferguson, Missouri and
Staten Island, New York (along with various other incidents); can lead to a sense of
oversaturation of such events. According to the Justice Department, in 2008, only 1.4% of
encounters with the police that were reported indicated, “force [was] used or threatened against
them” (Eith & Durose, 2011). The department also notes that actual encounters with the police
by US residents 16 years old or older have dropped from 21% in 2002 to 16.9% in 2008.
According to the FBI Director James B. Comey, in a speech in February 2015,
“But, again, reporting [justifiable homicides] by police departments is voluntary and
not all departments participate. That means we cannot fully track the number of
incidents in which force is used by police, or against police, including non-fatal
encounters, which are not reported at all.” (Comey, 2015).
In this speech, he is just speaking on “justifiable homicides”, which interpreted from the
beginning of this briefing, does not encompass all of “excessive use of force”. However, he
states, “We simply must improve the way we collect and analyze data to see the true nature of
what’s happening in all of our communities” (Comey, 2015).
Researchers have found that there are numerous variables that can contribute to use of the
excessive force. Police officers are in need of better training on procedures and policies (Alpert
& Dunham, 1997). Abigail Hall and Christopher Coyne note that since the late 1970’s through
today, “domestic law enforcement has taken on the characteristics of armed forces by engaging
in military-style training, acquiring military weapons, and utilizing military tactics” (Hall &
Coyne, 2013). Younger and more inexperienced officers tend to have more excessive force
complaints brought against them (Brandel, Stronshine, & Frank, 2001) (Lersch & Knuzman,
2001) (McElvain & Kposowa, 2004). Female officers are less likely to use excessive force than
male officers (Brandl, Stroshine & Frank, 2001). The race of the officer has no affect on the use
of excessive force (Hassell & Archbold, 2010). Police officers with high school diplomas are
statistically significantly more likely to use force than police officers with a bachelor’s degree or
higher (McElvain et al, 2008). DePillis (2014) states that increasing the number of black police
officers in black neighborhoods will not resolve the issue of police brutality entirely. Research
has shown that black police officers have also been known to use excessive force against black
subjects and are in some cases more aggressive than white police officers (DePillis, 2014).
Johnson (2012) finds that there is no correlation between the color of police officers uniforms
and the use of excessive force. Stinson (2015) finds that officers are more likely to use excessive
force when they encounter instances of situational risk. Research also finds that the number of
arrests made by an officer is directly related to the number of citizen complaints reported
regarding excessive force (Brandl et al, 2001).
The political context of public policy focuses on the election of public officials and how
different political parties resolve conflicts (Kraft & Furlong, 2013). Issues, such excessive force,
that draw the attention of the general public also draw the attention of policymakers. Public
outcry about an issue can often result in the creation of a new law to address or resolve the issue.
Over the past few years the public has become more focused on excessive use of force by police
officers. Protests and riots against police brutality are drawing attention to the issue and interest
groups such as, “hands up, don’t shoot” have become their own political context. Public outcry
against excessive use of force may result in a new policy being created by state politicians
because they must address the needs of the public to continue to receive citizen support on their
other agenda items.
The economic context of public policy focuses on the state of the economy and how the
current budget affects federal and state policymakers (Kraft & Furlong, 2013, p.10). Financial
resources are an intricate part of implementing new public policy. As it relates to excessive force,
limited financial resources will mean there is no money to fund body cameras, additional
training, counseling or other policy solutions that are proposed. Limited resources is a popular
excuse to justify doing nothing about a policy issue, because limited funding results in
discussions about increasing taxes.
The cultural context of public policy focuses on the public’s opinion about government
officials and the political process (Kraft & Furlong, 2013, p.14). Political cultures about
government can vary by state or even by city. Differences in political culture may make it
difficult to pass nation wide policies related to excessive use of force, because red states are
usually more conservative and side with the police, while blue states are usually more liberal and
side with the community. There is lack of trust in government as it relates to excessive force,
which is often due to feelings of inequality based on past experiences with police or the historical
context of racially motivated police brutality.
Finally, from a historical context, one would hope that policy makers would review cases
from the past and attempt to see if previous policies had been instituted to deal with the issue of
excessive force. If they do come across older policies, how well did those policies deal with the
problem? By reviewing historical occurrences of excessive use of force (Rodney King, Los
Angeles Riots), policy makers can try to pinpoint common factors in excessive force and address
them in their policies.
C. Reasons for Government Involvement
The primary reason the government should be involved in creating or altering excessive
use of force policies is because of economic and market failures. Externalities, which are a type
of market failure, are interactions between two parties that affect a third party, either negatively
or positively (Kraft & Furlong, 2013, p.17). Excessive force incidents result in negative
externalities, because the interaction that takes place between the police officer and the suspect
negatively affects the perception of all other police officers. Also, some of the excessive force
incidents that have taken place resulted in riots and protests. Riots are negative externalities
because they affect local businesses by destroying property, which causes local businesses to lose
money or consider relocating. Protests affect the community by blocking roads and causing
traffic. Another externality is the cost associated with making a policy change related to
excessive force. The economic context of public policy may result in external costs to taxpayers
to fund new policies, such as body cameras and additional training. These negative externalities
are some of the reasons why government should be involved in creating excessive use of force
policies (Kraft & Furlong, 2013).
While it could be argued that there is a market failure for policing in Ferguson, in the
context that the police seemingly are incapable of protecting and serving (emphasis on serving)
the public, there is a slightly different type of action that needs to be taken in the public sector
when it comes to market failure. In the private sector, government can step in and clear the slate
or “normalize” a market to ensure competition and that the best possible product or service is
being supplied to the customer. In the public sector, there isn't really the possibility of
“competition”, and nor should there be. At this level, we are talking about functions that allow
society to function and as such they should be pursued with the utmost care and professionalism.
But if we view this as a failure of the states and local governments to properly serve their
citizenry, there could be an argument that the federal government needs to step in. Stronger
federal regulations as to how local police conduct themselves could be warranted after the most
recent excessive use of force events.
D. Instruments of Public Policy
Five instruments for public policy are discussed in Kraft & Furlong’s textbook. Kraft &
Furlong (2013) define instruments for public policy as the tools policymakers “use to address a
particular issue or problem” (p. 104). The first instrument discussed is regulation, which refers to
laws that tell citizens what they can or cannot do (Kraft & Furlong, 2013). An example of a
regulation that could be used to address excessive use of force would be a law, forbidding
citizens from recording police officers with their cell phones when they are making an arrest.
The regulation would then require some form of sanction for those citizens that failed to comply.
The second instrument for public policy is government management, which refers to the
goods or services provided by the government either directly or indirectly (Kraft & Furlong,
2013). In reference to excessive force, police officers are a form of government management
because they provide protection services to the community.
The third instrument for public policy is taxing and spending, which refers to the taxes
that citizens are required to pay for goods and services (Kraft & Furlong, 2013). Taxes are used
to reduce consumption for a good or service to decrease demand (Kraft & Furlong, 2013).
Spending refers to when the government provides funding or a subsidy to citizens to encourage
increased consumption of a good or service (Kraft & Furlong, 2013). A spending policy that
lawmakers could consider is a subsidy provided to police officers to earn a post-secondary
degree, because research shows that officers with more education are less likely to use excessive
use of force.
The fourth instrument for public policy is market mechanisms, which encourages nonmarket services to act as a market (Kraft & Furlong, 2013). Market mechanisms provide an
incentive for non-market services to reduce consumption by providing the ability to buy and sell
the rights to do something (Kraft & Furlong, 2013). For example, each police department may be
allowed to purchase up to 200 body cameras. If one police department finds that they only need
150, they can then sell the other 50 body cameras to another police department that needs them.
This will reduce overspending and keep both police departments in line with the regulation.
The fifth instrument for public policy is education, information, and persuasion. Kraft &
Furlong (2013) define this instrument as “educating citizens while attempting to persuade them
to behave in a certain way” (p. 106). As it relates to excessive force, citizen police academies are
used to educate citizens on what police do, inform them on how to properly interact with police,
and persuade them to have a better relationship with police officers and to follow the law.
E. Policy Typology
Policies can be looked at in three different “typologies”. Essentially, it groups how the
policies move resources and efforts around through the actions of the government, into the three
different groups. According to our text, Theodore Lowi created the best known and most
frequently cited of the typologies. The three he identifies are distributive policies, redistributive
policies, and regulatory policies (which are subdivided into competitive regulation and protective
regulation) (Kraft & Furlong, 2013).
Distributive policies focus along the lines of funds and resources flowing from
governmental actions into the private sector or an organization other than the government.
Essentially, one group benefits, while the other doesn’t (well, not directly). Examples are
research grants, weapons procurement, building highways and bridges, and public construction
projects. One of the downsides associated with this type of policy, is the potential for abuse
through “pork barrel” or earmark programs; “projects designed to please…and win votes” (Pork
barrel, n.d.). These programs are usually designed specifically to benefit specific politicians
constituencies, or in the worst of cases, friends and contributors.
Redistributive policies differ from distributive policies in that some people gain, but at
the expense of others which typically leads to conflict of some type. While this does sound
similar to distributive policies, it is different in the sense that distributive policies means that the
losing party only looses the opportunity to gain from the policy change. For a redistributive
policy, resources, funds, or services are being taken away from one group and given to another
(Kraft & Furlong, 2013). Taxes are an excellent example of this. Funds are taken from the
population as a whole, and given (through government programs such as welfare or social
security) to a smaller part of the population.
Finally, regulatory policy is essentially “government policy based on government’s
ability to pass laws and enact regulations” (Regulatory policy, n.d.) upon various actions that
may be considered outside of acceptable limits. These can take the form of protective regulation,
in which the government seeks to protect the population from some undue events (environmental
regulations, consumer protection laws, etc.) and competitive regulation which ensures that the
private sector maintains healthy competitive action and does not initiate anti-trust actions (such
as colluding, price fixing, or monopolistic intentions) (Kraft & Furlong, 2013).
F. Theories of Politics and Public Policy - Political Systems Theory
Policies can be looked at through a myriad of potential analysis theories. Group theory
(focuses on public policy as a struggle between interest groups), institutional theory (which is
more focused on the government itself), and rational choice (focuses on statistics and data
analysis) are all potential theories to apply to policy analysis (Kraft & Furlong, 2013).
However, political systems theory focuses on the interactions between demands by the
public (and interest groups) and the governmental institutions and agencies (Kraft & Furlong,
2013). The study of these systems allows a policy analyst to see how the responses to issues
brought up by the public are addressed and to see how the policy outputs actually help solve
issues. These can lead to a “total awareness” of the macrocosm that the policy lives in, and
focuses on how each part of the political landscape reacts to changes in environment.
Pertaining to excessive use of force, this is inherently a political systems issue. While it
would be simple to just blame the actions of police officers in these cases, the entire picture
should be looked at to try to treat not just the symptom of excessive force, but the disease itself –
if it even is one. Lack of data compels researchers in this field to look not only at what little
statistics there are in the area of study, but also all aspects of the issue. Police departments,
training, the civilians the officers are involved with, the local community as a whole and the
individual cases, the local, state, and federal political institutions involved, the historical aspects
of all of these, and several other areas should be assessed to understand why excessive use of
force is occurring and what can be done to solve the problem.
G. Policy Alternatives
I. Officer Training
One potential policy solution would be “changing the standard” for use of
excessive force. In this case, it seems that officers are too quick to jump to using lethal force to
subdue an individual. By highlighting de-escalation techniques (COP-KIDO and the Memphis
Crisis Intervention Team training), focusing on non-lethal tools, and ingraining proper trigger
discipline in our officers through enhanced officer training; we should be able to avoid cases of
excessive force. Many groups have called for these types of enhanced training. David Klinger,
former officer and now criminology professor at the University of Missouri says that officers
should not be held guilty of a crime, but “held accountable for not following procedures”
(Freivogel, 2014). CIT training focuses primarily on officers dealing with mentally challenged
individuals, but its lessons could be used in normal interactions with civilians with minor
alterations. Memphis indicated that the program was more effective “with regard to meeting the
needs of people with mental illnesses in crisis, keeping these individuals out of jail, minimizing
the amount of time officers spend on these types of calls, and maintaining community safety”
(Compton, Bahora, Watson & Oliva, 2008). COP-KIDO is one form of non-violent de-escalation
technique. Created by Shawn Marano, a former police officer and Hapkido student, he created
COP-KIDO as “a system of non-violent self-defense developed for first responders” (Marano,
2015). Their courses focus on ways for officers to retain control of a situation or a person,
without putting that person in a potentially fatal position. Also, it focuses on proper use of nonlethal devices, such as pepper sprays and Tasers.
This leads us into a second potential training solution, the use of non-lethal devices. In an
article for Policeone.com, Greg Meyer articulates “the aggressive use of available non-lethal
weapons early in standoff confrontations predictably results in fewer and less severe injuries to
suspects and officers” (Meyer, 2006). Research finds the Taser, pepper spray, and stun guns can
all be used to effectively retain a suspect without the use of force. White & Ready (2007) find
“the TASER was effective, as 85% of suspects were incapacitated and taken into custody without
further incident.”
Finally, rigorous training in proper trigger discipline (when and when not to shoot) is key
to reducing the amount of gun fatalities in cases of excessive use of force. The Japanese police
“receive more training than their American counterparts, are forbidden from carrying off-duty (as
to comply with the strict gun control laws in Japan), and invest hours in studying martial arts”
(Fisher, 2012). Perhaps extensive training like this would be a boon to our current law
enforcement officers, as in Japan there were only 2 fatal gun incidents in 2011.
Familiarization training with all of these techniques will lead to a more agile force, able
to use the correct technique and the best tool to gain control of an encounter without loss of life.
The recent report by the Justice Department dealing with the incidents in Cleveland, Ohio,
revealed that “many officers...do not receive enough training, especially scenario-based training
and training on appropriate techniques to control subjects” (Geiselman, 2014). Not to mention
the financial benefit of better training to the local and state governments. If there are less cases of
excessive force, there will be a lower amount of court cases, media attention, and payouts to
victims of excessive force.
The greatest weakness in proposing additional officer training as an alternative is the
cost. The cost of increased training is massive, and most average police departments just do not
have the funding. In an interview with The American Prospect, Maria Haberfeld of the John Jay
College of Criminal Justice outlines the issue quite succinctly: “Ninety percent of the police
budget goes to salaries in any department. So, whatever is left is allocated to equipment and
some other stuff, and nothing is left for training. The majority of police departments around the
country don't have in-service training. So if you don't have the money, you're not going to reexamine [training]… [Most] police departments in the United States are not NYPD or LAPD.
Police departments in the United States are exactly what we're seeing—the Ferguson police
department, fifty cops. This is the average size of a police department in the United States. So
you can understand that a department of that size is not going to get any resources… policing is
not just about the high-profile incidents, it's also about how they perform on a daily basis vis-àvis the public. But this requires skills, this requires education, this requires training. An average
police department, all they care about is whether you have a GED, and you didn't use drugs in
the last three years.” (Waldman, 2014).
II. Independent Monitoring Organization
The second recommended alternative is to implement independent monitoring
organizations. Calls for external oversight organizations to “police the police” have been
proposed and/or implemented in some cities. Denver, Boise, San Jose, and Portland all have
Independent Monitor organizations that are “armed with subpoena power” to assess the work of
the cities respective police departments (Jacobs, 2008). Independent monitoring organizations
will be effective because they can provide police with best practices to implement that can
reduce the use of force. The US Commission on Civil Rights conducted an updated investigation
into police practices in 2000 named, Who is guarding the guardians. Their extensive review of
external controls highlighted civilian review boards, which are similar in style and function to
Independent Monitoring Organizations. The only major difference is that they do not hold the
legal ability to subpoena officers or take legal action that IMO’s enjoy. Their overall findings and
recommendations were that for cities where police brutality was prevalent (New Jersey, southern
West Virginia, and Tampa, Florida), civilian review boards that were put in place were
exceptionally helpful at eliminating police brutality and suggests that all municipalities
implement such a system (USCCR, 2000). The similar relationship between civilian review
boards and IMO’s would leave us to believe that IMO’s would be an effective alternative in
helping to reduce the use of excessive force. However, implementation of oversight can be costly
and time consuming, requiring additional paid employees to keep up with excessive force
reporting, which may decrease their effectiveness.
III. Occupational Liability Insurance
The third recommended alternative would require police officers to obtain
occupational liability insurance and be held financially accountable for the costs incurred when
their actions result in the use of force (Otu, 2006). Essentially, it would be similar to having
doctors carry malpractice insurance. In this case, instead of having the city pay out settlements
for cases of police brutality, the officer’s insurance company would cover it. Being able to
maintain the insurance would be a key factor to determining if that officer is able to patrol a beat,
or be relegated to a desk job (Syrmopoulos, 2014).
Some insurance companies, such as Travelers, already offer law enforcement liability
insurance (Travelers.com, 2015). The city of Minneapolis is already working to amend the city
charter and require officers to carry occupational liability insurance, as taxpayers have paid over
$20 million in settlements in the last seven years (Syrmopoulos, 2014). Occupational liability
insurance would be effective because it would help to provide accountability for the action of
officers who have abused their power by holding them financially accountable. It would also
relieve the burden of having to pay out settlements from the local or state governments
(ultimately the tax payer), and put the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the officers. In
the long run, officers who are found to be ineligible for insurance coverage will be dropped from
either patrol duty, or let go from the force completely. We believe this would increase the
effectiveness of this alternative because it would leave a police force of officers who know when
to properly use force when it is justified, and when it is not.
By moving the ultimate financial responsibility from the local and state governments
directly to the officers, the police might feel restrained in their ability to respond to life and death
situations. This could decrease the effectiveness of this alternative because it could put officers in
the position of potentially not being able to respond to a situation with enough force and put lives
at risk as a downside. Not to mention the likely political fallout from police unions if liability
insurance was made mandatory. Most officers pay are in no way comparable to the medical
profession, so having to carry the insurance might be an unfair burden placed upon the officers.
H. Evaluative Criteria
I. Effectiveness
Effectiveness is one of the most important criteria and refers to how well the
policy solution would reduce the number of excessive force incidents. This criterion is one of the
most important because in order to fully analyze the possible alternative you would want to
know the overall effect it will have on the policy issue. The purpose of the alternative would be
for it to address the problem of excessive force by reducing the number of incidents that occur.
There unfortunately is no silver bullet solution to this issue, but something that we need to stay
aware of in determining effectiveness is if we are treating a symptom or the issue itself.
Throwing potential patches on the high profile results of the problem does nothing to solve the
problem itself. The goal of the policy alternative is to see a reduction in the use of excessive
force.
II. Cost
Cost is another criteria that would apply to excessive use of force. It measures
how costly the alternative policy solutions would be. Cost is an important factor because
typically when you are dealing with a policy issue that is centered on public administration, the
stakeholders that are impacted by the cost are taxpayers and government agencies, so you would
want to choose the least costly alternative if possible.
III. Political Feasibility
Political feasibility addresses who is impacted by the alternative and how those
that are politically involved can affect the policy solution from being passed. Policy decision
makers need to be in favor of an alternative for them to pass it. Not only are politicians involved
in political feasibility, unions and the community are also involved if voting impacts the decision
making process.
IV. Ease of Implementation
Ease of implementation focuses on how difficult it is to carry out the alternative.
This is important because excessive use of force is a hot topic right now due to the recent
incidents that have occurred, so we would want to choose a policy solution that is easy to
implement so that changes can be made quickly to address the problem.
I. Alternatives Assessment: Compare and Contrast method
The compare and contrast method will be used along with a decision matrix to analyze
the recommended alternatives. The four criteria that will be used to assess the alternatives are
effectiveness, cost, political feasibility, and ease of implementation. Each of the alternatives will
be assessed based on a score of 1 to 3. A score of 3 will represent the most favorable alternative
for a particular criterion, while a score of 1 will represent the least favorable alternative for a
particular criterion. For example, the most effective alternative will receive a score of 3, the
somewhat effective alternative will receive a score of 2, and the least effective alternative will
receive a score of 1.
Criteria
Alternatives
Effectiveness
Cost
Political
Feasibility
Ease of
Administration
TOTAL
#1: Officer
Training
3
1
3
2
9
#2: Independent
Monitoring
Organizations
2
2
2
1
7
#3: Occupational
Liability
Insurance
1
3
1
3
8
I. Effectiveness
Alternative #1, officer training, will be the most effective in reducing the number of
excessive force incidents among police officers. Research finds the Taser, pepper spray, and stun
gun can all be used to effectively retain a suspect without the use of deadly force. White &
Ready (2007) find “the TASER was effective, as 85% of suspects were incapacitated and taken
into custody without further incident.” Training police officers to properly use the non-lethal
weapons that are already available to them will help them be more effective in containing
suspects without the use of deadly force. Even more importantly, Dennis Kenney, a professor at
the John Jay College of Criminal Justice and a former police officer believes, “the best way to
decrease the use of deadly force by the police, he said, is to improve training so that officers
learn not just how to shoot but when to shoot” (Newcombe, 2015). Also, the Japanese police
“receive more training than their American counterparts, are forbidden from carrying off-duty (as
to comply with the strict gun control laws in Japan), and invest hours in studying martial arts”
(Fisher, 2012). Research shows that increased training in Japan resulted in only 2 fatal gun
incidents occurring in 2011. Therefore, we can make the assumption that similar levels of
increased training will reduce the number of excessive force incidents in the U.S.
Alternative #2, independent monitoring organizations, was scored as somewhat effective
because independent monitoring organization have already been proposed and/or implemented in
some cities. Denver, Boise, San Jose, and Portland all have Independent Monitor organizations
that are “armed with subpoena power” to assess the work of the cities respective police
departments (Jacobs, 2008). Independent monitoring organizations will be effective because
subpoena power give them the right to seek evidence or require a police officer or department to
appear in court. Since many excessive force incidents never make it to court, implementing
independent monitoring organizations in every city will provide oversight that can focus on
reducing the number of excessive force incidents.
Alternative #3, occupational liability insurance, was scored the least effective mainly
because there have not been any cities to implement this alternative so there is no data to show
how effective it would be. Some insurance companies, such as Travelers, already offer law
enforcement liability insurance (Travelers.com, 2015). Also, the city of Minneapolis is already
working to amend the city charter and require officers to carry occupational liability insurance
(Syrmopoulos, 2014). We would assume that this alternative would be effective because being
able to maintain the insurance would be a key factor to determining if that officer is able to patrol
a beat, or be relegated to a desk job (Syrmopoulos, 2014). However, since we do not have
research data supporting the effectiveness of this alternative, we do not know if requiring officers
to carry this insurance will put them in the position of potentially not being able to respond to a
situation with enough force and put lives at risk as a downside.
II. Cost
Alternative #3, occupational liability insurance, was scored a 3 because it is the least
costly alternative, making it most favorable in regards to cost of implementation. Requiring
police officers to purchase occupational liability insurance will be as simple as amending the city
charter and coordinating with different insurance companies to provide a list of rates. Officers
will not receive an increase in pay to cover the cost of the insurance, because that would take the
responsibility away from the police officer, which would defeat the purpose. However, some cost
may be incurred if there is political fallout from police unions and lawsuits are filed.
Alternative #2, independent monitoring organizations, was scored as somewhat costly
because there will need to be a liaison within each police department that communicates with the
independent monitoring organizations. This may require the police department to hire additional
staff to be responsible for answering requests and ensuring compliance with the independent
monitoring organization. However, the cost associated with hiring a few additional staff or
reallocating current staff to work with the independent monitoring organization will be less than
the cost of offering additional training to the entire police department.
Alternative #1, officer training, was scored a 1 because it will be the most costly
alternative. The cost of increased training is massive, and most average police departments just
do not have the funding. In an interview with The American Prospect, Maria Haberfeld of the
John Jay College of Criminal Justice outlines the issue quite succinctly: “Ninety percent of the
police budget goes to salaries in any department. So, whatever is left is allocated to equipment
and some other stuff, and nothing is left for training.” (Waldman, 2014).
III. Political Feasibility
Alternative #1, officer training, will be the most politically feasible because the rapid
wave of recent excessive force events will make it very difficult for policymakers to deny the
need for additional officer training. The recent report by the Justice Department dealing with the
incidents in Cleveland, Ohio, revealed that “many officers...do not receive enough training,
especially scenario-based training and training on appropriate techniques to control subjects”
(Geiselman, 2014). Riots and protests along with the widespread media coverage of multiple
incidents of police brutality require policymakers to act on this issue because it is current and
relevant.
Alternative #2, independent monitoring organizations, was scored as somewhat
politically feasible. Research finds that cities where police brutality was prevalent (New Jersey,
southern West Virginia, and Tampa, Florida), civilian review boards that were put in place were
exceptionally helpful at eliminating police brutality and suggests that all municipalities
implement such a system (USCCR, 2000). Comparing that data to the implementation of
independent monitoring organizations, that will be similar but hold more power, should be
favorable to most voters and policymakers who are concerned with excessive force.
Alternative #3, occupational liability insurance, will be the least politically feasible. Most
officers pay are in no way comparable to the medical profession, so having to carry the insurance
might be an unfair burden placed upon the officers. Police unions may get into an uproar over
this new mandate and file lawsuits against the state. Politicians will recognize the possibility of
political fallout and be less likely to vote for this alternative.
IV. Ease of Implementation
Alternative #3, occupational liability insurance, is scored the highest for this criterion
because it will be the easiest to implement. Once again, if this alternative were passed as a new
policy, a simple amendment to the city charter and a deadline for payment from officers would
be what is required. There would also need to be a designated employee to oversee the
implementation of the insurance and keep track of claims and lapses in insurance. However, out
of the three proposed alternative this would be the easiest to implement.
Alternative #1, officer training, will be somewhat easy to implement. Since there is
already supporting research and training guides available from other police departments that
offer more extensive training, those resources can be used to implement additional training
across the U.S. Implementing additional officer training would take more time than
implementing occupational liability insurance, but it would still be relatively easy to implement
if police departments mimic others who have been successful.
Alternative #2, independent monitoring organizations, will be the most difficult to
implement. Starting an independent monitoring organization for every police department would
require several people and a great amount of time to get those people informed on the specifics
of each department. It will be difficult to assess the needs of the police department without fully
understanding the history and current events going on within the department. Independent
monitoring organizations will take the most time to start up, making it the most difficult to
implement.
V. Comparing Alternative #1 vs. Alternative #2
Alternative #1, increased officer training, is a better choice than Alternative #2,
Independent Monitoring Organizations on effectiveness, political feasibility, and ease of
administration. However, Alternative #2 is a slightly better choice for cost. While both
alternative are exceptionally good policy solutions, with historical examples of the benefits, we
are trying to “treat the disease, not the symptom” as it were. By attacking the problem of police
use of force early in training, we should be able to avoid long-term difficulties rather than trying
to patch problems with Independent Monitoring Organizations. If it were possible, of course, it
would be suggested to do both. However, overall Alternative #1 outperforms Alternative #2.
VI. Comparing Alternative #1 vs. Alternative #3
Alternative #1, increased officer training, is easily the best choice as compared to
Alternative #3, occupational liability insurance. Only in cost and ease of administration does
Alternative #3 perform better, and in that case we have a caveat where the cost is. In this case,
cost is cost to the state or local municipality. Since the primary payer for the insurance will be
the officers themselves or their unions, cost to the state or local municipality will be fairly low.
Same idea for ease of administration. Only enforcement of having insurance would fall on the
state, which should be fairly easy for them to find out. In our opinion, effectiveness is the most
important criterion because the purpose of the chosen alternative is for it to be effective in
reducing the number of excessive force incidents, even it is does cost more and is more difficult
to implement. Effectiveness and political feasibility push Alternative #1 so far ahead that the
other factors are almost negligent. Alternative #1 is the best choice.
J. Alternative Selection and Justification
As we can see, the best policy solution to deal with the issue of excessive use of force by
police is Alternative 1, increased officer training. Through more training, officers will be able to
gain essential skills required for dealing with specific situations and people. It will put an
emphasis on a broader skill base and help them in decision making for critical situations. Indeed,
without properly trained officers, the peace cannot be kept and the officers have to “guess” or at
least depend on what they think is the right course of action. In a heated riot, officers may resort
to less than acceptable means to disperse a crowd, unless they have been trained to do so. Not to
mention what could happen at a routine traffic stop. Tempers flare, heated discussions, and
perceived acts of defiance can lead to an officer making a poor decision. However, these issues
can be mitigated with extensive simulation based training, and learning the proper amount of
force that is necessary to stop offenders. It is the training and regimentation of the police that
elevate them to a law enforcement group instead of a governmental band of criminals.
K. Method of Policy Analysis
Even though an alternative has been selected, an analysis of whether it meets the intended
goals is required. There are numerous types of policy analysis; cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness,
risk assessment, forecasting, impact assessment, political feasibility, implementation analysis and
program evaluation, even ethical analysis (Kraft & Furlong, 2013). However, as noted above in
section F, the analysis method used should take into account multiple factors to include political
situation. It should be a true “big picture” method, similar to “total quality management” used in
business administration.
As such, implementation analysis and program evaluation seems that it will meet these
requirements. Implementation analysis would be key to ensuring that any policies adopted by the
police departments to combat excessive use of force are actually put to use (Kraft & Furlong,
2013). It can also evaluate potential issues within the implementation process, and adjust as
needed. This gives any potential policy a wide ability to adjust to unforeseen issues. This could
involve a best and worst case scenario for each policy alternative, along with a most likely
outcome. The main key to this is to try and think systematically through the policy process,
identify problems, and develop actions (even if they are nebulous) to take if these scenarios play
out. For excessive use of force, this could take the form of contingency plans if departments
cannot get funding for training, or if a state is unwilling to help the local departments in their
efforts. It could also lead to alternatives such as joint training programs or contracting out
support rolls to the private sector. It really depends on the situation.
Related to implementation analysis, program evaluation focuses on the end results of a
policy that has been implemented (Kraft & Furlong, 2013). This is the report card of a program.
Did it meet the goals that it set out to meet? Did it fail and why? Also a systematic form of
analysis, it is used to demonstrate program effectiveness to all those involved, can help to
manage limited resources, and in many cases is used to justify current program funding. This last
one is key to programs, as evaluations of this nature give concrete (usually) proof that a program
is working and justifies its existence through documentation. It also creates a formal mechanism
to pass on lessons learned and best practices to other organizations (Kraft & Furlong, 2013).
However, there is a problem here in the case of excessive force. Obviously any changes
made will take time to reflect throughout the police departments that adopt any of the policies
noted above. It could be many years or decades before any type of formal academic evaluation of
their efforts can come to light with any meaningful data to point to. Not to mention, there is no
real “end” to these policy changes. Any program evaluations would occur while the
implementation process is occurring.
L. Conclusion
It is easy to consider the topic of excessive force by police to be a complicated issue with
not a lot of deep research. Be this from lack of data, or the complicated nature of the issue itself
is irrelevant. It is apparent that, with recent events across the US, something must be done.
Excessive use of force is an issue requiring government intervention, because externalities have
caused the issue to negatively affect the entire population (Kraft & Furlong, 2013). The nature in
which officers have responded to situations that they have been placed in reflects the poor nature
of police training in the country. Some officer training is heavy on the application of firearms,
self-defense, criminal law, and health and fitness training but typically does not go into depth on
how to apply these measures through community policing, hate and bias crimes, or problem
solving. It is clear that the human element is missing, which can lead to an “us-vs-them” attitude.
It is fairly clear that the failure of local and state governments to direct a training plan is a
major issue. This issue needs to be resolved because police officers are a form of government
management, which is one of the key instruments of public policy (Kraft & Furlong, 2013).
Therefore, there either needs to be a national coalition of departments or federal effort to create
an agreed upon minimum training with the states and municipalities adjusting it for their specific
needs. While this will obviously anger some, the organization of training efforts can only allow
the flow of best practices between departments at the least. Also, extensive training will expose
officers to multiple situations in a safe environment with emphasis on non-lethal techniques and
tools.
As said before, this is an issue that needs to be addressed. There are many potential
policy solutions, but we feel that the best would be additional officer training. Experience is the
greatest teacher and exposure gives a person a strong foundation to base their actions off of in an
unfamiliar situation. The earlier and the more often a person practices and is exposed to these
lessons, the better they become. Hopefully, we can help our law enforcement agencies better ply
their trade in protecting and serving all US citizens.
M. References
Alpert, G., & Dunham, R. (1997). The Force Factor: Measuring Police Use of Force Relative to
Suspect Resistance. Use of Force. Retrieved from
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/176330-2.pdf.
Bardach, E. (2000). A practical guide for policy analysis the eightfold path to more effective
problem solving. New York, N.Y.: Chatham House, Seven Bridges Press.
Brandl, S., Stronshine, M., & Frank, J. (2001). Who are the complaint-prone officers? An
examination of the relationship between police officers' attributes, arrest activity,
assignment, and citizens' complaints about excessive force. Journal of Criminal Justice,
29, 521-529.
Brown, S. M. (2015, January). Police brutality top 2014 legal cases. Washington Informer.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1645906323?accountid=38769.
Compton, M. T., Bahora, M., Watson, A. C., & Oliva, J. R. (2008). A comprehensive review of
extant research on Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) programs. Journal of the American
Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 36(1), 47-55.
Comey, J. (Director) (2015, March 27). Hard Truths: Law Enforcement and Race. Speech
conducted from Georgetown University, Washington D.C.. Retrieved from
http://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/hard-truths-law-enforcement-and-race
DePillis, L. (2014, August 23). Do diverse police forces treat their communities more fairly than
almost-all-white ones like ferguson's? Washington Post – Blogs. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1555601730?accountid=38769.
Eith, C., & Durose, M. (2011). Contacts between police and the public. Bureau of Justice
Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpp08.pdf
Fisher, J. (n.d.). The Japan lesson: Can America learn from the country that has almost zero gun
deaths? Retrieved April 7, 2015, from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/the-japan-lesson-canamericans-learn-from-the-country-that-has-almost-zero-gun-deaths/
Freivogel, W. (n.d.). Why It's So Hard To Hold Police Accountable For Excessive Force.
Retrieved April 7, 2015, from http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/why-its-so-hard-holdpolice-accountable-excessive-force
Garner, J. H., & Maxwell, C. D. (2001). Measuring the amount of force used by and against the
police in six jurisdictions, 1996-1997. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for
Political and Social Research. Retrieved from
http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/NACJD/studies/03172
Geiselman, B. (2014, December 5). Cleveland police lack training and technology, Justice
Department finds. Retrieved April 7, 2015, from
http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/12/cleveland_police_lack_training.html
Hall, A., & Coyne, C. (2013). The militarization of U.S. domestic policing. The Independent
Review, 17(4), 485-504.
Hassell, K., & Archbold, C. (2010). Widening the scope on complaints of police misconduct.
Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 33(3), 473-489.
Jacobs, D. (2008, Oct 22). The best way to curb police abuse. The Star-Ledger. Retrieved from
https://www.aclu-nj.org/files/9013/1540/4577/CurbPoliceAbuse.pdf
Johnson, K., Hoyer, M., & Heath, B. (2014, August 15). Local police kill 400 a year. USA
TODAY. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1553432121?accountid=38769.
Johnson, R. (2012). An Examination of Police Department Uniform Color and Police–Citizen
Aggression. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40, 228-244.
doi:10.1177/0093854812456644.
Kraft, M., & Furlong, S. (2013). Public policy: Politics, analysis, and alternatives. Washington,
D.C.: CQ Press.
Lersch, K., & Knuzman, L. (2001). Misconduct allegations and higher education in a southern
sheriff's department. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 25(2), 161-172.
Marano, S. (2015). Copkido, the solution to excessive force. Retrieved April 8, 2015, from
http://www.copkido.com/#!about/c66t
McElvain, J., & Kposowa, A. (2004). Police officer characteristics and internal affairs
investigations for use of force allegations. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 265-279.
Meyer, G. (2006). Nonlethal weapons: Early use means fewer deaths and injuries. Retrieved
April 8, 2015, from http://www.policeone.com/less-lethal/articles/134658-Nonlethalweapons-Early-use-means-fewer-deaths-and-injuries/
Nelson, S., & Staff. (2014, August 20). Policing the police: Stop excessive brutality. University
Wire. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1554889286?accountid=38769.
*Newcombe, T. (2015, April 15). Have Non-lethal Weapons Reduced Deadly Police Force?
Retrieved May 14, 2015, from http://www.governing.com/columns/tech-talk/gov-nonlethal-weapons-police.html
Otu, N. (2006). The police service and liability insurance: Responsible policing. International
Journal of Police Science & Management, 8(4), 294-315.
Perez, A. D., Berg, K. M., & Myers, D. J. (2003). Police and Riots, 1967-1969. Journal of Black
Studies, 34(2), 153-182.
Pork barrel, n. (n.d.). Oxford English Dictionary. Retrieved April 23, 2015, from
http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/147985?redirectedFrom=pork barrel#eid
Regulatory policy. (n.d.). Economic Glossary. Econguru.com. Retrieved April 23, 2015, from
http://glossary.econguru.com/economic-term/regulatory+policy
Stinson, P. (2015). Police Crime: The Criminal Behavior of Sworn Law Enforcement Officers.
Sociology Compass, 7-8. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Syrmopopulos, J. (2014, September 18). Here’s How to Force Police Accountability in Your
City. Retrieved April 7, 2015, from http://thefreethoughtproject.com/force-policeaccountability-city/
Travelers.com. (2015). Public sector insurance services – law enforcement liability insurance.
Retrieved from https://www.travelers.com/business-insurance/specializedindustries/public-sector/law-enforcement-liability-insurance.aspx
Use of Force. (n.d.). Community Oriented Policing Services. U.S. Department of Justice.
Retrieved from http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/default.asp?Item=1374.
USCCR. (2000). Revisiting Who is Guarding the Guardians? A report on police practices and
civil rights in America. USCCR.gov. Retrieved from
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/guard/main.htm
Waldman, P. (2014, August 27). Expert: U.S. Police Training in Use of Deadly Force Woefully
Inadequate. Retrieved April 7, 2015, from https://prospect.org/article/expert-us-policetraining-use-deadly-force-woefully-inadequate
White, M. D., & Ready, J. (2007). The TASER as a less lethal force alternative. findings on use
and effectiveness in a large metropolitan police agency. Police Quarterly, 10(2), 170-191.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1098611106288915