Dennis P. Rosenbaum, Director
Center for Research in Law and Justice
University of Illinois at Chicago
National Institute of Justice
April 21, 2014
Portions of the research described here were supported by grant No. 2008-DN-BX-0005 awarded by
the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions,
findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this presentation are those of the authors
and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Justice.




Big picture view of legitimacy in policing
from leadership perspective
External legitimacy issues
Internal legitimacy issues
National Police Research Platform as a
tool for understanding and reforming




Inside: Budget cuts, changing workforce,
new crime threats, new technologies
Outside: Negative encounters, image
management with stakeholders
Pressure to innovate, pressure to reform,
pressure to be transparent/accountable
Need better “knowledge management”
and “information management”
Science,
Information,
Knowledge
Policing
Policies,
Practices




What type of knowledge is needed, but
sorely lacking?
Wake up call: Policing is no longer just
about crime control
Policing in 21st century multi-ethnic society
is largely about legitimacy and fairness in
service delivery and leadership
Effective crime fighting requires a healthy
organization
5



Beyond numeric outcomes to policing
processes:
External processes – Officer decisions
and interactions with community
members (Procedural Justice)
Internal processes – Management
decisions and interactions with
employees (Organizational Justice)




Provide standardized diagnostic tools
and benchmarks for evidence-based
decision making and self-assessment
Advance knowledge of organizational
behavior via cross-agency comparisons
Encourage a paradigm shift: from bean
counting to evidence-based
management/organizational health
Measuring what matters to the
employees and the public – and what
affects organizational legitimacy


Internal Quality of Policing: How are
employees treated? (Organizational
justice)
External Quality of Policing: How is the
public treated? (Procedural justice and
more)
“A psychological property of an
authority, institution, or social
arrangement that leads those
connected to it to believe that it is
appropriate, proper, and just.”
(Tyler, 2006, p. 375).




Police authority is not defined entirely by
the badge, gun, and arrest powers
Police action must be authorized by the
consent of the governed
Legitimacy is not an immutable
characteristic of the police --It can be
conferred and removed over time
It is defined in the hearts and minds of
those being asked to follow





Corruption, scandals, and reform
attempts
Causing/mishandling civil disorder
Excessive force
Race discrimination and profiling
History of poor relations with various
communities (minorities, youth, mentally
ill, LGBT)




Less willing to cooperate (e.g. "no snitch
culture”)
Less willing to comply with requests
Less willing to obey the law
More likely to file complaints, lawsuits,
and generate negative media coverage




Respect: Treat people with
respect/dignity
Neutrality: Treat people objectively,
based on the facts, not personal
characteristics
Voice: Listen to people - pay attention
Concern: Show concern for their
welfare....
13



Victimization can be traumatic:
Show sensitivity to victim’s experience –
empathy, compassion, emotional
support
Show competence – answering
questions, explaining actions, following
procedures, making decisions
Officer’s
Actions
Follows
Procedural
Justice
Principles
Citizen’s
Perceptions
Officer is
Respectful
I’m
Satisfied
with
Encounter
Officer
is Fair
Addresses
the Needs
of Victims
Officer
Listene
d to me
Officer
cares
about my
Wellbeing
I trust
this
Officer
Expected
Outcomes
Increase Officer
Safety
Increase Compliance
with Requests
Increase
Investigative
Information
Reduce Citizen
Complaints
I trust
the Dept.
Increase Job
Satisfaction



Measure what is important to the
community – the quality of service
If you measure something, it begins to
matter. Otherwise, who cares?
Use the National Police Research Platform as
a starting point and paradigm shift…
Police management has weak data to
judge the quality police-citizen contacts
(citizen complaints? Police surveys?)
 Community surveys don’t tell us about
recent police services
 Contact surveys (Bureau of Justice
Statistics) provide only national
estimates





Provides local, jurisdictional data for police
management purposes (Advancing practice
with feedback and “reactive measurement”)
Provides local, regional and national
standardized data for research purposes
(Advancing science by providing contextual
data for explanation)
Added benefit: Democratizes policing by
giving the public a voice in evaluating police
services
Measures the desired behaviors that matter






Overall satisfaction with the encounter
Procedural justice – Quality of treatment and
decision making
Victim-focused measures: Empathy and
emotional support, concern, explain, provide
information
Agency legitimacy – trust and confidence
Agency performance overall – effective and
responsive to problems, concerns
Intentions to cooperate, comply, obey the law


Letter from Chief/Sheriff mailed to
citizens with police contact in the past
10 days
Letter Invites Citizens to Complete
Satisfaction Survey by:
 Web-based survey or
 1-800 automated telephone survey

University collects data independently
and provides feedback to the
participating departments
100%
90%
80%
70%
83.2%
69%
60%
50%
40%
30%
14%
20%
10%
4%
6%
7%
Neutral
Somewhat
Completely
0%
Very
Somewhat
Satisfied
Satisfied
Dissatisfied Dissatisfied





Predictable differences in satisfaction by:
Racial/ethnic group
Age
Type of incident (police-initiated or not)
Agency
Response Rate
Letter ATelephone
Interview
34.41%
Letter B- PCI
Electronic
Surveys
11.10%
Satisfaction Mean Scores by Mode
Electr Telephone
onic Interview
Overall
Gender
(female)
Race
(minority)
Age (over 40)
2.72
2.63
2.71
2.73
2.67
Significance
t(373) = .66, p =
.51
2.63
Interaction B =
.052, p =.534
2.57
Interaction B =
0.97, p = .163
2.75
Interaction B =
.058, p = .371






Feasible – It can be done
Cost effective - $5 vs. $82 per survey
Acceptable validity of responses
Attractive to local agencies -feedback
Provides external indicators of organizational
and officer performance
Provides database for advancing knowledge
about factors that contribute to procedural
justice in diverse settings



Roll out with national sample of agencies in
Phase 2 of the Platform
Explore differences between agencies
Test the potential utility for police
management
(% Very Satisfied and Somewhat Satisfied)
Agency






“Respectstat”
Comparisons by District or Area
Mapping “Hot spots”
District trends over Time
Hourly Trends
Institutionalization
Percent "Somewhat" or "Very" Satisfied
90%
with Police Encounter
85%
80%
75%
70%
61
65%
60%
55%
52
65 66
65
64
64
64
68 69
77 77 78 78
76
75
74
72 72 72
80
55
50%
45%
40%
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Police Districts (De-identified)
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
100%
Nights
Days
Evenings
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
23
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22




Survey is in the field – ongoing data collection
Expect between 50 and 75 agencies to
participate (out of 83)
100 to 500 surveys per agency
Today – Quick peak at data from 43 agencies
All
#Agencies
#Resp.
Small Medium Large
(100 to (200 to (600 to
199)
599)
999)
Very
Large
(over
1,000)
43
19
11
6
7
10,821
1,541
1,832
3,323
4,125
Females
46%
White
63%
Age Mean
49%
Resident
72%
Traffic Stops
41%
Traffic Accidents
22%
Crime Incidents
35%
Overall Satisfaction (%)
by Agency Size
90
80
79.3
83.3
74.5
68.6
70
60
50
Small
Medium
Large
Very
Large
Total Procedural Justice Index
3.50
3.35
3.26
3.31
3.13
3.20
3.05
3.02
2.90
2.75
2.60
Small
Medium
Large
Very
Large
Respectful Index
3.50
3.39
3.45
3.35
3.27
3.16
3.20
3.05
2.90
2.75
2.60
Small
Medium
Large
Very
Large
Unbiased Index
3.50
3.35
3.34
3.37
3.22
3.20
3.10
3.05
2.90
2.75
2.60
Small
Medium
Large
Very
Large
Trustworthy Index
3.50
3.35
3.30
3.35
3.15
3.20
3.03
3.05
2.90
2.75
2.60
Small
Medium
Large
Very
Large
“During the encounter, the officer…”
 listened to what I had to say.
 seemed concerned about my feelings.
 seemed to believe what I was saying.
 comforted and reassured me.
Empathy Index
3.50
3.35
3.20
3.10
3.15
3.05
2.93
2.90
2.84
2.75
2.60
Small
Medium
Large
Very
Large
"Did the officer greet you by
saying hello and stating
his/her name?"
80
73
72.7
70
66.8
60
60.5
50
40
Small
Medium
Large
Very Large
"Did the officer threaten to use
physical force against you?"
(% yes)
5
4.9
4
3
2.8
2.6
1.8
2
1
Small
Medium
Large
Very Large
100%
89.7%
91.4%
88.8%
80%
82.2%
60%
40%
20%
0%
25.9%
27.9%
21.3%
Small Medium
12.3%
Large Very Large
Respectful
No
Yes
Step
1
2
3
Variable
Beta1
Beta2
Beta3
Percent minority
-.123
-.106
-.020
Percent poverty
.329
-.030
.032
Rate of violence
-.335
-.128
-.029
Agency size
xxx
-.949
-.024
% Contacts with
citations
xxx
Procedural justice xxx
R-squared
.290
7.30***
xxx
.833
.035
.980***
.964



Procedural justice is a strong predictor of citizen
satisfaction with police contacts, controlling for
agency size, community characteristics and
decision making outcomes (traffic citations).
For the PCI Survey, more work is needed to
reduce costs, improve response rates, and test
alternative survey modalities
Relative to the history of the Uniform Crime
Report (UCR), we are living in 1929. National and
local politics and competing research agendas
stand in the way, but can be overcome!



Strategies for Change – What works?
Employee commitment to organizational
goals is essential
Where employees are satisfied with work,
they are more committed to the
organization’s goals…


Cynical about the administration, about the
public, and resistant to change
Similar to the community, we argue that
officers are concerned with justice,
especially inside the agency where they
work:
 Want to be treated fairly and respectfully
 Want input into decision making
 Want to trust that management will make good
decisions that are fair and equitable…
50
40
30
20
10
31.6
36.5
49.8
15.6
0
Agency Size (Sworn)
48.7
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
26
39.3
43
58.1
Agency Size (Sworn)
58.5
“The perception held by employees that they
are being treated fairly, respectfully, and
compassionately by those in authority
positions; that they have some input and
control over decision making in their work
environment; that they are kept informed of,
and given explanations for, the decisions that
affect their lives; and that they have
opportunities for professional growth and job
enrichment.”
Dimensions of Organizational Justice
1
Overall
Q12_3R
Q12_2R
Q12_1R
Q13_8R
Q16_6R
Q15_13R
.761
.736
.717
.641
.640
Q16_15R
.594
Q15_14R
.566
Q12_4R
Q10_9R
Q10_10R
Q10_8R
Q9_4R
Q5_2R
Q5_1R
Q5_3R
Q6_2R
Q14_11R
Q14_10R
.518
Rotated Component Matrix
2
3
Superv.
Leader
4 Race/
Gender
.610
.889
.847
.846
.823
.836
.827
.820
.682
.867
.856
Just Organization (9 items, alpha=.869)
=Fair discipline, fair assignments, fair
opportunities, fair accountability for actions,
and respectful treatment

Just Leadership (4 items, alpha=.902)
=Head of agency sets clear expectations,
encourages input, sets a good example, and
inspires employees

Just Supervision (4 items, alpha=.895)
=Supervisor sets clear expectations,
encourages input, is fair and consistent in
decisions, and stands up for employees

Just Treatment of Women/Minorities
(2 items, alpha=.866)
= Employees are treated the same regardless
of gender [regardless of race]

Just organization
.45*
Just leader
.46*
Just supervisor
.24*
Just environment for
women and minorities
.38*
* p < .05
Model
R-squared = .294
F (12, 11685) = 405.67
p < .0001
Unstd. Coeff
b
Std.
Error
(Constant)
Just Leader
Just Organization
Just Supervisor
Just for Women and Minorities
2.171
.136
.178
.025
.108
.037
.006
.011
.005
.006
Supervisor
Age
Gender
College Graduate
Some Graduate Classes
Black; African American
Latino/Hispanic
.106
-.002
.032
-.023
.044
.088
.094
.011
.001
.013
.010
.014
.017
.017
Std.
Coeff
t
Sig.
Beta
.251
.183
.041
.168
58.675
23.768
15.927
4.780
17.964
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.086
-.036
.019
-.019
.027
.042
.043
10.134
-4.322
2.433
-2.293
3.181
5.252
5.527
.000
.000
.015
.022
.001
.000
.000




Concentrated disadvantage in community
Rate of index crime in community (avg. of
2011 & 2012)
Agency type (Sheriffs vs. PDs)
Total number of sworn officers in agency
Unstd. Coeff
b
t
Sig.
Std.
Error
Level-1 (individual)
Just Leader
Just Organization
Just Supervisor
Just for Women and Minorities
Supervisor
Age
Gender
Some Graduate Classes
Black; African American
Latino/Hispanic
.135
.179
.025
.113
.100
-.002
.028
.062
.057
.086
.007
.014
.007
.008
.011
.001
.012
.018
.016
.018
18.191
12.131
3.807
13.532
8.782
-3.823
2.284
3.374
3.617
4.871
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.022
.000
.000
.000
Level-2 (Organization)
Concentrated Disadvantage
Index Crime (2011 & 2012)
Agency Type (Sheriffs Office)
Total Sworn Officers
Constant
.012
<-.001
.060
<-.001
3.38
.006
<.001
.023
<.001
.015
2.135
-0.408
2.554
-0.444
217.136
.036
.684
.012
.659
.000



Legitimacy inside the organization is driven by
organizational justice considerations
Employees feel obligated to obey and support
administrators whom they view as legitimate
authorities
Managers can achieve legitimacy by
interacting in just ways: engaging employees,
valuing their ideas, protecting them, treating
them fairly and respectfully, and giving them
opportunities for advancement
“You can catch more flies
with honey than with vinegar”
“Treat people the way
you want to be treated”




Work with law enforcement community to
address new information needs
Continue panel of agencies – periodic data
collection
Expand nonrandom sample of agencies
Develop translational interventions and
randomized trials
THANK YOU