Annotated Bibliography for research proposal

Supervisory influences on officers’ perceptions of less lethal force policy: a multilevel analysis

Jason Robert Ingram Department of Criminal Justice Sciences, Illinois State University,

Normal, Illinois, USA

Robert R. Weidner University of Minnesota-Duluth, Duluth, Minnesota, USA

Eugene A. Paoline III Department of Criminal Justice, University of Central Florida,

Orlando, Florida, USA, and

William Terrill Michigan State University, Lansing, Michigan, USA

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of sergeants’ less lethal force policy perceptions on subordinate officers’ policy perceptions. Sergeants are a critical level of supervision in police departments with respect to policy administration, particularly in regard to the use of force. Little empirical research, however, has been conducted on either officer policy perceptions or this aspect of the supervisory role. Design/methodology/approach – Surveys of 765 patrol officers and 146 patrol sergeants served as the data source. Multilevel modeling procedures were used to test for supervisory influences on officer force policy perceptions while controlling for relevant officer-level variables. Additional analyses were conducted to examine potential moderating effects for this sergeant-officer attitudinal relationship. Findings – Findings revealed that sergeant policy perceptions, views of top management, and their level of support had a significant impact on officers’ force policy perceptions. Furthermore, post hoc analyses revealed that sergeant support moderated the sergeant-officer force policy perception relationship. Research limitations/implications – The results indicate that officers’ force policy perceptions are associated with the attitudinal dispositions of sergeants. Future work could expand the focus on administrative attitudinal outcomes beyond less lethal force policies as well as other perceptions of the work environment. Practical implications – For police leaders, the findings illustrate the need to pay attention to mid-management levels and the organizational climate, as negative orientations can impact additional domains (i.e. policies and procedures) and other organizational members (i.e. subordinates). Originality/value – The study adds to the limited body of research on two accountability mechanisms of departments: administrative rulemaking and frontline supervision.

Keywords Policy, Frontline supervision, Less lethal force, Officer attitudes, Sergeants

Paper type Research paper

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1363-951X.htm

Received 26 May 2013 Revised 4 September 2013

Accepted 4 September 2013

Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management

Vol. 37 No. 2, 2014 pp. 355-372

r Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1363-951X

DOI 10.1108/PIJPSM-05-2013-0051

This research is based on data from the National Institute of Justice Grant No. 2005-IJ-CX- 0055NIJ. Points of view expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of NIJ or the US Department of Justice. The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and guidance in the preparation of this paper.

355

Perceptions of less lethal force policy

Introduction Less lethal force policies serve as accountability mechanisms within police departments as ways to control officers’ use of force behaviors. It has been recommended that force policies be clearly written and have the capacity to guide officers’ decision making in situations that call for force to be used (McEwen, 1997; Walker, 2007). As a result, officers’ perceptions of their departments’ less lethal force policies have emerged as an outcome for assessing the effectiveness of this administrative process as it provides insight into the potential benefits of policy approaches (Terrill and Paoline, 2013b). Departmental policies, however, are not implemented in a vacuum. Frontline supervisors, particularly sergeants are tasked with administering and monitoring officer adherence to policies. Sergeants represent the first administrative layer that reviews, checks, and, in some cases, reports force usage by their patrol officers. In essence, frontline supervision plays a critical role in communicating policies to subordinate officers (Manning, 1997; Skogan, 2008; Walker, 2007).

Despite the importance of less lethal force policies and the role that supervision plays in administering these policies, research has not examined the impact that frontline supervisors have on officers’ policy perceptions. Using survey data from five municipal police departments, the purpose of the current study is to empirically examine the extent to which sergeants influence subordinate officer perceptions of their less lethal force policy. We begin with a review of the role of administrative rulemaking in the area of less lethal force followed by extant research on the impact of frontline supervisors in the administration of policy as well as officers’ attitudes. Next, study data and methodology are presented. We then discuss the results of multilevel analyses modeling the influence of sergeants on officer policy perceptions. Finally, research and policy implications are discussed.

Less lethal force policy A central concern of criminal justice administrators is effectively controlling the discretion of criminal justice agents. One primary method used to control discretionary decisions is the use of administrative rulemaking, or written policies (Walker, 2010). Within policing, one area that has received considerable attention is the use of force. In theory, written policies are designed to provide explicit directions on when officers can use force, the types of force that are allowed, and review and reporting requirements. Furthermore, administrative policies are often based on a continuum that outlines the types of force officers are permitted to use in relation to the varying types of citizen resistance encountered (McEwen, 1997; Terrill and Paoline, 2013a; Walker, 2007).

The importance of such policies is based on the rationale for administrative rulemaking in general. In relation to criminal justice decision making, the use of administrative rules was first popularized by Kenneth Culp Davis (1969) who outlined the process of confining, structuring, and checking discretionary decision making through the use of policy. At the time, such an approach fit nicely within the evolving professional model of policing that began some 50 years earlier (Goldstein, 1990). By the early 1990s, Walker (1993, p. 23) noted that the importance of administrative policy was so well entrenched that it served as the primary instrument in “[y] which law enforcement agencies attempt to control officer discretion.”

With respect to force, the beneficial effect of administrative policy is best illustrated when looking at the case of lethal force. Led by James Fyfe’s (1978, 1980, 1982)

356

PIJPSM 37,2

pioneering research, this body of work ultimately proved to be influential in establishing the legal framework for lethal force where the USA Supreme Court (Tennessee v. Garner, 1985) set a defense of life standard. The role of policy in terms of less lethal force, however, is not as straightforward as it must take into account a wide range of physical and weapon based tactics as they play out over the course of encounters with suspects (Walker, 2007, 2010). Moreover, while lethal force policies incorporate a defense of life standard, the only legal guidance for less lethal force must be interpreted through what the Supreme Court (Graham v. Connor, 1989) deems “objective reasonableness.”

Researchers have pursued various avenues to better understand less lethal force policy. An early line of research centered on the structural composition and procedures associated with various administrative policies including force definitions, the purpose of using force, when various forms of force are and are not permitted, and various report and review requirements (McEwen, 1997; Pate and Fridell, 1993, 1995). More recent research has expanded this area of inquiry to explore the tremendous variation in the manner in which agencies across the country specify less lethal force policy, particularly those policies drawing on the use of a force continuum (Terrill and Paoline, 2013a). In addition, researchers have examined where the use of less lethal weapons, such as chemical sprays and conducted energy devices, may fit into policies (Alpert and Dunham, 2010; Adang and Mensink, 2004; Kaminski et al., 1999; Smith et al., 2007; Taylor and Woods, 2010; Thomas et al., 2010, 2012; White and Ready, 2007).

A less developed, but important area of research focusses on police officer perceptions of less lethal force. Officers are the ones tasked with applying force policies as street-level bureaucrats (Lipsky, 2010), and so examining their perceptions of these policies is beneficial. In this regard, there are key dimensions where assessing officers’ perceptions would be useful. Beyond the aforementioned ability to provide guidance and assist decision making, another important policy aspect is clarity. McEwen (1997, p. 40) has noted that “without clear policies, officers may develop their own rules on force.” If officers perceive their policies to be unclear, the policies will be less likely to effectively guide discretionary force decisions. Force policies also serve as accountability mechanisms with reporting and review procedures, and so incorporating these policy components is also important.

A number of researchers have surveyed line-level officers regarding varying viewpoints toward force, mostly in the form of officer beliefs toward what constitutes appropriate or inappropriate (e.g. excessive) force (Brodsky and Williamson, 1985; Carter, 1976; Corbett et al., 1979; Micucci and Gomme, 2005; Paoline and Terrill, 2011; Weisburd et al., 2000). Yet, despite the importance of such studies, they do not directly investigate officer views of their department’s administrative force policy. To date, only a few studies have focussed on how these policy aspects were perceived by front line personnel. Terrill et al. (2008) surveyed patrol officers on their attitudes toward policy assistance and guidance. The majority of officers agreed that their agency’s policy properly assisted and guided them in their decision making which was attributed to the flexibility that the agency policy provided. Attention has also been given to officers’ perceptions of policy guidance (Terrill and Paoline, 2013b). Here, it was found that officers operating under linear- type continuum designs were more likely to believe that their policies offered adequate guidance on the use of force relative to officers operating under non-linear type designs.

357

Perceptions of less lethal force policy

Frontline supervision and less lethal force policy Frontline supervisors, especially sergeants, are inherently tied to the administrative rulemaking process in police organizations. Sergeants are tasked with ensuring that subordinate officers follow policy directives and complete use of force reports. In addition, sergeants may review officers’ force behaviors and, in some cases, respond to the scene of force incidents to serve as oversight mechanisms. Research has found that departments with such mechanisms in place have lower rates of force usage by officers (Alpert and MacDonald, 2001; Walker, 2007). More generally, sergeants also communicate policy directives implemented by top administrators to subordinate officers (Skogan and Hartnett, 1997; Skogan, 2008).

As such, sergeants play an active role in the implementation of less lethal force policies. To a certain degree then, sergeants’ perceptions of departmental policies may be expected to have an influence on their subordinate officers’ policy perceptions. Sergeants have been found to generally hold positive less lethal policy perceptions in the areas of clarity, assistance, and guidance. However, these perceptions varied across different policy types. Furthermore, sergeants’ views on the appropriateness of various less lethal tactics (e.g. OC spray and CEDs) were not always aligned with what was allowed by their policy (Ingram and Weidner, 2011).

Despite this potentially important aspect of frontline supervision, there has been limited research examining supervisory influences on officers in general (Walker, 2007). Furthermore, there are competing perspectives regarding the level of influence that sergeants might plausibly have on the officers under their command. Muir (1977, 2008) has argued that sergeants have the potential to exert a substantial influence on subordinate officers. Sharp (1982, p. 169) also noted that sergeants have the ability to “mold their squad of officers to their own image of good policing.” On the other hand, Brown (1988) submits that it is difficult for sergeants to have much control over officers, especially their beliefs, due to the autonomous nature of police work.

Although research has compared supervisor attitudes to officer attitudes on use of force issues (Micucci and Gomme, 2005; Weisburd et al., 2000) or has examined supervisor attitudes and officer behavior (Engel, 2000; Johnson, 2011), few studies have examined the extent to which supervisor attitudes influence officer attitudes. Engel and Worden (2003) examined the relationship between supervisor and officer occupational attitudes in the context of problem solving but found the relationships to be consistently weak. Ingram (2013) found that sergeants had the capacity to attenuate or amplify officers’ understanding of the police role. Specifically, role ambiguity was lowest among officers supervised by sergeants with a broader acceptance of order maintenance type activities. In sum, prior studies have produced mixed results and offer limited insight into the extent and nature of supervisory influences on officers’ attitudes, especially in the area of use of force.

Current study The aim of the current study is to empirically examine the extent to which sergeants influence subordinate officer perceptions of their less lethal force policy. Because sergeants are the ones who monitor, administer, and communicate force policy directives, they should represent key departmental mechanisms for this aspect of administrative rulemaking, making their policy perceptions particularly relevant for officers under their command. Sergeants who believe their force policy to be clear, to provide assistance and guidance, and to have fair review requirements should communicate these sentiments to officers. On the other hand, any negative perceptions

358

PIJPSM 37,2

of force policies by sergeants could lead subordinate officers to perceive their policies negatively. As such, the study adds to the limited body of literature on supervisory influences on officers’ attitudes. While some research has found evidence of supervisory influences on officer attitudes (Ingram, 2013; Johnson, 2011), others have concluded that “supervisory influence is negligible” (Engel and Worden, 2003, p. 158). Furthermore, the study adds insight to the growing area of research on officers’ attitudes toward use of force issues.

Methodology Data and study departments Data for the study comes from the National Institute of Justice funded project, “Assessing police use of force policy and outcomes.” This project was designed to examine use of force issues within municipal departments across the USA. Surveys were administered to both patrol officers and patrol sergeants in five of the participating departments: Albuquerque, New Mexico (APD); Portland, Oregon (PPB); Colorado Springs, Colorado (CSPD); Fort Wayne, Indiana (FWPD); and Knoxville, Tennessee (KPD)[1]. The departments were chosen, in part, based on their force policies and reporting practices. At the time of the study, each department had a written policy and reporting requirements in place for at least a two-year period without change. All of the departments employed some type of use of force continuum, but the tactical placement of force options and weapon authorization varied across policies.

With respect to supervisory review, frontline supervisors were also required to review and approve all use of force reports filed by subordinate officers. Frontline supervisors in Albuquerque were also charged with filling out force reports in instances where a subordinate officer did not complete one. Finally, two department policies required supervisors to go on-scene when officers used force. In Portland, supervisors needed to respond when an impact weapon was used or unintentionally discharged. In Colorado Springs, supervisors had to respond to all encounters where reportable force was used to serve as an oversight mechanism. In addition to force policies and reporting requirements, the study departments were also selected because they were comparable with respect to jurisdictional size, workloads, socioeconomic characteristics, and structure (see Table I).

Survey design The survey instrument contained 116 questions measuring a variety of attitudes toward departmental force policy, work environments, and background characteristics. It was group-administered to patrol officers and sergeants during roll calls or in-service training sessions after being pre-tested. Overall, the survey was administered to approximately 70 percent of patrol officers (1,022 of 1,460) and 68 percent of sergeants (146 of 217) with a response rate of approximately 95 percent (1,022 of 1,051 officers and 146 of 154 sergeants in attendance). These administration results suggest representativeness of the patrol population for each department[2].

Officers were matched with their respective sergeant. For officers in Albuquerque, Fort Wayne, and Knoxville, officers were matched with the sergeant who was assigned to the same squad or team. Officers in Colorado Springs and Portland were matched with the sergeant with the same work schedule (i.e. the same days on duty, work times, shift, and precinct). For these two sites, this matching approach is similar to prior studies that have matched officers’ attitudes and behaviors with their direct

359

Perceptions of less lethal force policy

supervisors (Engel and Worden, 2003). On average, each sergeant supervised approximately seven subordinate officers. In all, there were 765 officer/sergeant matches across the five study departments (i.e. cases in which both officer surveys and sergeant surveys were available).

Officer force policy perceptions Officers’ views toward their respective department’s less lethal force policy serve as the outcome of interest. Drawing on prior work, seven survey items based on four-point Likert scales were used to tap into important characteristics of use of force policies; clarity, assistance in decision making, guidance in how and when to use force, guidance for reporting requirements, and supervisory review (McEwen, 1997; Walker, 2007). Officers were asked the extent to which they agreed that their policy represented each of these characteristics (see Table II for the exact questions used). An additive index, officer force policy perceptions, was created with higher values reflecting more positive policy perceptions. Exploratory factor analysis and reliability analysis indicated that the seven items used to form the index represented a single, reliable construct (eigenvalue¼3.43; loadings40.55; a¼0.82). Descriptive statistics for this variable as well as all variables used in the study are reported in Table II.

Officer-level variables Additional patrol officer measures were also included in the study. The following four officer demographic characteristics commonly used in use of force research were included; gender (1¼male), race (1¼white), highest educational level attained (1¼ less than high school to 8¼graduate degree), and years of experience. From Table II, the majority of officers were male (89 percent) and white (78 percent). On average, officers had approximately eight years of experience in their respective departments and had some level of college education (median¼more than two years, no degree).

Prior research has suggested incorporating officers’ attitudinal dispositions into the study of police use of force (Community Oriented Policing Services, 2012).

Characteristics Albuquerque

(APD) Portland

(PPB) Colorado Springs

(CSPD) Fort Wayne

(FWPD) Knoxville

(KPD)

City Population 513,124 538,133 374,112 248,423 182,337 % non-white 28.4 22.1 19.3 24.5 20.3 % female headed households 8.0 6.3 7.1 9.8 8.0 % below poverty 10.0 8.5 6.1 9.6 14.4 % unemployed 3.8 4.5 3.1 4.3 3.9 UCR Part I crimes/ 1,000 pop. 66.98 65.57 49.55 43.65 81.38

Department No. officers/1,000 residents 1.92 1.84 1.78 1.84 2.09 UCR Part I/officer 34.86 35.67 27.71 23.73 39.05 Calls for service/officer 339.89 222.28 428.30 400.25 589.17 Part I arrests per/ officer 3.48 7.16 6.88 5.46 7.75

Table I. Description of study departments

360

PIJPSM 37,2

V a ri

ab le

s n

M ea

n S

D M

in .

M a x

. D

es cr

ip ti

o n

D ep

en d en

t O

ff ic

er fo

rc e

p o li

cy p

er ce

p ti

o n

s 7 5 6

2 1 .3

9 3 .4

6 8 .0

0 2 8 .0

0 A

d d

it iv

e in

d ex

o f

7 q

u es

ti o n

s: o v

er a ll

, m

y d

ep a rt

m en

t’ s

fo rc

e p

o li

cy :

(1 )

Is cl

ea r?

(2 )

A ss

is ts

d ec

is io

n -m

a k

in g

? (3

) H

in d

er s

d ec

is io

n -m

a k

in g

? (4

) S

u p

er v

is o

ry re

v ie

w is

fa ir

? (5

) P

ro v

id es

g u

id a n

ce o n

h o w

to u

se fo

rc e?

(6 )

P ro

v id

es g

u id

a n

ce o n

w h

en to

u se

fo rc

e? a n

d (7

) P

ro v

id es

g u

id a n

ce o n

w h

en to

fi le

a fo

rc e

re p

o rt

? (a ¼

0 .8

2 ).

E a ch

it em

w a s

co d

ed so

th a t

h ig

h er

v a lu

es in

d ic

a te

m o re

p o si

ti v

e v

ie w

s to

w a rd

p o li

cy O

ff ic

er -l ev

el G

en d

er 7 6 2

0 .8

9 0 .3

1 0 .0

0 1 .0

0 M

a le ¼

1 ;

fe m

a le ¼

0 R

a ce

7 5 8

0 .7

8 0 .4

1 0 .0

0 1 .0

0 W

h it

e ¼

1 ;

n o n

-w h

it e ¼

0 E

d u

ca ti

o n

le v

el 7 5 6

4 .6

8 1 .6

3 1 .0

0 8 .0

0 O

ff ic

er ’s

h ig

h es

t le

v el

o f

ed u

ca ti

o n

ra n

g in

g fr

o m

1 (l

es s

th a n

H S

) to

8 (g

ra d

u a te

d eg

re e)

E x

p er

ie n

ce 7 6 2

7 .7

1 6 .4

6 0 .1

7 3 4 .5

8 O

ff ic

er ’s

y ea

rs o f

ex p

er ie

n ce

D ir

ec t

su p

er v

is o

r 7 5 8

3 .5

9 1 .4

6 2 .0

0 8 .0

0 A

d d

it iv

e In

d ex

o f

2 it

em s:

(1 ) M

y su

p er

v is

o r

lo o k

s o u

t fo

r th

e p

er so

n a l

w el

fa re

o f

su b

o rd

in a te

s, a n

d (2

) M

y su

p er

v is

o r’

s a p

p ro

a ch

d is

co u

ra g

es ex

tr a

ef fo

rt (a ¼

0 .6

8 ).

E a ch

it em

w a s

co d

ed so

th a t

h ig

h er

v a lu

es in

d ic

a te

m o re

n eg

a ti

v e

v ie

w s

to w

a rd

d ir

ec t

su p

er v

is o

rs T

o p

m a n

a g

em en

t 7 4 5

8 .5

9 2 .1

1 3 .0

0 1 2 .0

0 A

d d

it iv

e In

d ex

o f

3 it

em s:

(1 ) W

h en

a n

o ff

ic er

d o es

a p

a rt

ic u

la rl

y g

o o d

jo b

,t o p

m a n

a g

em en

t w

il l

p u

b li

cl y

re co

g n

iz e

h is

/h er

p er

fo rm

a n

ce , (2

) W

h en

a n

o ff

ic er

g et

s w

ri tt

en u

p fo

r m

in o r

v io

la ti

o n

s o f

th e

ru le

s, h

e/ sh

e w

il l

b e

tr ea

te d

fa ir

ly b

y to

p m

a n

a g

em en

t, a n

d (3

) W

h en

a n

o ff

ic er

co n

tr ib

u te

s to

a te

a m

ef fo

rt ra

th er

th a n

lo o k

g o o d

in d

iv id

u a ll

y ,

to p

m a n

a g

em en

t w

il l

re co

g n

iz e

it (a ¼

0 .7

8 ).

E a ch

it em

w a s

co d

ed so

th a t

h ig

h er

v a lu

es in

d ic

a te

m o re

n eg

a ti

v e

v ie

w s.

C it

iz en

d is

tr u

st 7 5 2

4 .9

2 1 .5

2 2 .0

0 8 .0

0 A

d d

it iv

e In

d ex

o f

2 it

em s:

(1 )

O ff

ic er

s h

av e

a re

a so

n to

b e

d is

tr u

st fu

l o f

ci ti

ze n

s, a n

d (2

) O

ff ic

er s

h a v

e re

a so

n to

b e

su sp

ic io

u s

o f

ci ti

ze n

s (a ¼

0 .8

0 ).

E a ch

it em

w a s

co d

ed so

th a t

h ig

h er

v a lu

es eq

u a l

g re

a te

r d

is tr

u st

o f

ci ti

ze n

s E

x p

er ie

n ce

D if

fe re

n ce

7 6 2

9 .2

2 6 .5

4 0 .0

0 4 2 .7

5 A

b so

lu te

v a lu

e o f

th e

d if

fe re

n ce

b et

w ee

n th

e o ff

ic er

’s y

ea rs

o f

ex p

er ie

n ce

a n

d h

is /h

er re

sp ec

ti v

e se

rg ea

n t’ s

y ea

rs o f

ex p

er ie

n ce

(c o n ti n u ed )

Table II. Description of

study variables

361

Perceptions of less lethal force policy

V a ri

ab le

s n

M ea

n S

D M

in .

M a x

. D

es cr

ip ti

o n

P o li cy

ty p e

C S

P D

7 6 5

0 .1

8 0 .3

8 0 .0

0 1 .0

0 C

o lo

ra d

o S

p ri

n g

s o ff

ic er ¼

1 ;

a ll

o th

er s ¼

0 P

P B

7 6 5

0 .2

0 0 .4

0 0 .0

0 1 .0

0 P

o rt

la n

d o ff

ic er ¼

1 ;

a ll

o th

er s ¼

0 A

P D

7 6 5

0 .3

1 0 .4

6 0 .0

0 1 .0

0 A

lb u

q u

er q

u e

o ff

ic er ¼

1 ;

a ll

o th

er s ¼

0 F

W P

D 7 6 5

0 .2

2 0 .4

1 0 .0

0 1 .0

0 R

ef er

en ce

d ep

a rt

m en

t K

P D

7 6 5

0 .0

9 0 .2

9 0 .0

0 1 .0

0 K

n o x

v il

le o ff

ic er ¼

1 ;

a ll

o th

er s ¼

0 S

er g ea

n t-

le v el

S er

g ea

n t

fo rc

e p

o li

cy p

er ce

p ti

o n

s 1 3 7

2 1 .2

9 3 .7

0 1 2 .0

0 2 8 .0

0 A

d d

it iv

e in

d ex

o f

th e

sa m

e 7

it em

s u

se d

fo r

th e

re sp

ec ti

v e

o ff

ic er

m ea

su re

(a ¼

0 .8

4 ).

E a ch

it em

w a s

co d

ed so

th a t

h ig

h er

v a lu

es in

d ic

a te

m o re

p o si

ti v

e v

ie w

s to

w a rd

p o li

cy G

en d

er 1 4 6

0 .8

8 0 .3

3 0 .0

0 1 .0

0 M

a le ¼

1 ;

fe m

a le ¼

0 R

a ce

1 4 6

0 .8

2 0 .3

8 0 .0

0 1 .0

0 W

h it

e ¼

1 ;

n o n

-w h

it e ¼

0 E

d u

ca ti

o n

le v

el 1 4 1

5 .3

8 1 .5

9 2 .0

0 8 .0

0 S

er g

ea n

t’ s

h ig

h es

t le

v el

o f

ed u

ca ti

o n

ra n

g in

g fr

o m

1 (l

es s

th a n

H S

) to

8 (g

ra d

u a te

d eg

re e)

E x

p er

ie n

ce 1 4 6

1 5 .9

2 7 .2

2 5 .0

0 4 8 .0

0 S

er g

ea n

t’ s

y ea

rs o f

ex p

er ie

n ce

T o p

m a n

a g

em en

t 1 4 5

8 .1

7 2 .2

5 3 .0

0 1 2 .0

0 A

d d

it iv

e in

d ex

o f

th e

sa m

e 3

it em

s a s

th e

o ff

ic er

m ea

su re

(a ¼

0 .7

9 ).

E a ch

it em

w a s

co d

ed so

th a t

h ig

h er

v a lu

es in

d ic

a te

m o re

n eg

a ti

v e

v a lu

es to

w a rd

to p

m a n

a g

em en

t C

it iz

en d

is tr

u st

1 4 5

4 .4

9 1 .5

3 2 .0

0 8 .0

0 A

d d

it iv

e in

d ex

o f

sa m

e 2

it em

s a s

o ff

ic er

m ea

su re

(a ¼

0 .8

8 ).

E a ch

it em

w a s

co d

ed so

th a t

h ig

h er

v a lu

es eq

u a l

g re

a te

r d

is tr

u st

o f

ci ti

ze n

s S

u p

p o

rt 1 4 6

7 .6

1 0 .6

7 4 .0

0 8 .0

0 A

d d

it iv

e in

d ex

o f

2 it

em s:

(1 )

I lo

o k

o u

t fo

r th

e p

er so

n a l

w el

fa re

o f

m y

su b

o rd

in a te

o ff

ic er

s, a n

d (2

) I

te a ch

su b

o rd

in a te

o ff

ic er

s h

o w

to p

er fo

rm th

ei r

d u

ti es

(a ¼

0 .5

2 ).

E a ch

it em

w a s

co d

ed so

th a t

h ig

h er

v a lu

es in

d ic

a te

se rg

ea n

ts a re

m o re

su p

p o

rt iv

e

Table II.

362

PIJPSM 37,2

Furthermore, research has found officers’ views toward police leadership and citizens to be salient in understanding their perceptions of force policy guidance (Terrill and Paoline, 2013b). As such, indices measuring these aspects of officers’ work environments were also included. Direct supervisor (two-items, a¼0.68) and top management (three-items, a¼0.78) were included to examine officers’ attitudes toward police leadership. For both indices, higher values signify more negative attitudes. The final index, citizen distrust (a¼0.80), was included to account for officers’ views toward citizens. Higher index values indicate more distrust of citizens. Descriptive statistics and question items for these measures are included in Table II.

Two final variables were also included in the study as controls at the officer level. The variable, experience difference, was calculated to represent the absolute difference in years of experience between the officer and his/her sergeant. The amount of time officers have been supervised by their respective sergeant might influence officers’ policy perceptions. The cross-sectional design of the current study prohibited an exact measure of this; however, the absolute difference in experience levels is included as a proxy for time and has been used by prior research in this area (Ingram, 2013)[3]. We also control for the type of policy the officer operated under using a series of four dummy variables for each study site (i.e. CSPD, PPB, APD, and KPD with FWPD serving as the reference department).

Sergeant-level variables The primary sergeant-level variable of interest is sergeants’ perceptions of their force policy. An additive index, sergeant force policy perceptions, was created for sergeants using the same seven questions used to comprise the officer force policy perception variable. Again, exploratory factor analysis revealed that the seven items reflected a single construct (eigenvalue¼3.58; loadings40.62; a¼0.84). In addition, we also included sergeant demographic characteristics: gender, race, highest education level attained, and years of experience. Sergeant attitudes toward their work environments were also included for views toward top management (three-item index, a¼0.79) and citizen distrust (two-item index, a¼0.88). Higher values on these indices reflected more negative perceptions of management and citizens. Additionally, the variable, support (two-item index, a¼0.52), was created to measure the extent to which sergeants’ reported looking out for subordinates’ well-being and teaching them how to perform their duties[4]. Higher values on this index indicated that sergeants provided more support to their officers.

Analysis and results Due to the nested nature of the data, a one-way, random effect ANOVA model was conducted first in order to assess whether officers working under the same sergeant held similar views toward their force policy. Results from the model revealed significant variation in force policy attitudes across groups of subordinate officers. The between-group variance component was statistically significant ( po0.001) and the intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.128, indicating that approximately 13 percent of the variation in officers’ force policy attitudes may be attributed to being supervised by the same sergeant, providing support for further examining multilevel supervisory influences on force policy attitudes.

Multilevel regression results Based on the ANOVA model results, a two-level model was estimated with officer variables at level 1 and sergeant variables at level 2. Since the focus of the current

363

Perceptions of less lethal force policy

study is on supervisory effects, officer variables remained fixed in the model. Furthermore, all officer variables were grand-mean centered which allows for the estimation of supervisory effects on officers’ force policy perceptions after controlling for the influence of officer demographics, organizational and occupational attitudes, individual-level sergeant-officer experience differences, and policy types (e.g. Raudenbush and Bryk, 2002)[5].

Model 1 in Table III presents the results of the multilevel regression model predicting officers’ force policy perceptions. This model was based off of 672 officers and 128 sergeants after listwise deletion of cases with missing information. With respect to the officer-level variables, two demographic characteristics are worth noting. More experienced officers held negative policy perceptions, while the effect of gender was significant at the po0.10 level with male officers reporting more positive policy perceptions. In addition, all three of the officer attitudinal variables were significantly related to force policy perceptions. Officers who held more negative views of their supervisors, top management, and citizens held negative perceptions of their use of force policies. Finally, when compared to FWPD officers, PPB ( po0.05) and CSPD ( po0.10) officers held more negative perceptions of their department’s force policy. Overall, the officer-level variables included in the model explained approximately 32 percent of the variation in force policy perceptions.

Model 1 Model 2 Variables b (SE) b b (SE) b

Officer-level Gender 0.63 (0.35)**** 0.06 0.66 (0.35)**** 0.06 Race 0.21 (0.26) 0.02 0.21 (0.26) 0.02 Education 0.12 (0.08) 0.06 0.12 (0.08) 0.06 Experience �0.07 (0.02)** �0.13 �0.07 (0.02)** �0.13 Direct supervisor �0.57 (0.08)*** �0.24 �0.57 (0.08)*** �0.24 Top management �0.47 (0.06)*** �0.29 �0.47 (0.06)*** �0.29 Citizen distrust �0.24 (0.08)** �0.11 �0.23 (0.08)** �0.10 Experience difference �0.04 (0.03) �0.08 �0.04 (0.03) �0.08 CSPD �0.53 (0.32)**** �0.06 �0.43 (0.31) �0.05 PPB �2.28 (0.33)*** �0.26 �2.23 (0.32)*** �0.25 APD �0.10 (0.34) �0.01 �0.07 (0.33) �0.01 KPD 0.50 (0.61) 0.04 0.68 (0.61) 0.06 Sergeant-level Intercept 20.71 (1.55)*** – 23.22 (0.97)*** – Force policy �0.09 (0.04)* �0.51 �0.08 (0.04)* �0.44 Gender �0.60 (0.39) �0.32 �0.59 (0.38) �0.31 Race 0.41 (0.29) 0.26 0.24 (0.28) 0.14 Education �0.08 (0.07) �0.22 �0.07 (0.07) �0.19 Experience 0.01 (0.03) 0.13 0.01 (0.03) 0.16 Top management �0.13 (0.06)* �0.48 �0.13 (0.06)* �0.45 Citizen distrust �0.03 (0.09) �0.07 �0.03 (0.09) �0.08 Support 0.56 (0.15)*** 0.62 0.31 (0.18)**** 0.33 Force policy � support – – �0.11 (0.04)** �0.44 Model results R

2 officer level 0.32 0.33

R 2

sergeant level 0.78 0.83

Notes: n¼672 officers; 128 sergeants. **** po0.10; *** po0.001; ** po.01; * po0.05

Table III. Multilevel regression results predicting officer force policy perceptions

364

PIJPSM 37,2

With respect to supervisor effects, three of the sergeant-level relationships were statistically significant after controlling for the officer-level variables. First, officers with more negative perceptions of their force policies were supervised by sergeants who had more favorable policy perceptions. This is counter to what was hypothesized and additional attention is given to this finding in the next section. Second, officers also reported more negative force policy perceptions when they were supervised by sergeants with negative perceptions of top management. Third, officers supervised by more supportive sergeants had more positive perceptions of their force policies. Of all the sergeant-level variables, this effect was the strongest. It should be noted that the level 2 portion of the model accounted for approximately 78 percent of the between-level variance (or approximately 10 percent of the total variation in officers’ policy perceptions).

Post hoc analysis: the moderating influence of sergeant support The sergeant-officer policy perception ran counter to expectations. An inverse relationship is certainly plausible as it is consistent with research reporting a negative relationship between sergeant priorities and officers’ traffic enforcement practices ( Johnson, 2011). Furthermore, a common aspect of frontline supervision entails punishing officers for violations of department policy, and so supervision is often viewed negatively by officers (Skogan and Hartnett, 1997). In this regard, officers supervised by sergeants who held favorable attitudes toward departmental force policies may have viewed such policies unfavorably due to the role that sergeants play in the accountability process. It should be noted that a model with five-item policy measures, dropping the supervisory review and reporting items, was estimated to see if these two items accounted for the negative relationship. Results from this model also produced a significant, negative effect[6].

Another possibility, however, is that certain sergeant characteristics, particularly supervisory styles, may also affect the nature of the observed sergeant-officer policy relationship. Engel (2001) has argued that supportive supervisors may act as buffers between their subordinate officers and upper management and might be more inclined to protect officers from accountability mechanisms perceived to be unfair. As such, sergeant support and views toward top management may moderate the sergeant-officer policy relationship.

To examine this possibility, we tested for the presence of interaction effects for sergeant force policy perceptions and support levels as well as views toward top management. Each of these variables was mean-centered, cross-product terms were calculated, and additional models were estimated. The results revealed a significant interaction effect for policy perceptions and support, but not for policy perceptions and top management. As a result, Model 2 in Table III reports the results with the force policy and support interaction term. It should be noted that the inclusion of the interaction term explained a significant amount of variation in the level 2 portion of the model (DR2¼0.05, F¼50.0, po0.001). The significant cross-product term (b¼�0.11, po0.05) in the model indicates that the relationship between sergeant and officer policy perceptions is moderated by sergeant support.

In order to assess the nature of the interaction, the simple regression slopes for the sergeant-officer policy effect were plotted at three different values of sergeant support, the mean (i.e. medium support), one standard deviation above the mean (i.e. high support), and one standard deviation below the mean (i.e. low support). Figure 1 displays the nature of these plots, and three interesting findings emerge. First, sergeant

365

Perceptions of less lethal force policy

support had little impact on the sergeant-officer policy relationship when sergeants held overly positive perceptions of their force policy[7]. Second, when sergeant support was low, their policy perceptions had no effect on their officers’ policy perceptions as evidenced by the dashed line (simple slope¼�0.00, SE¼0.04, p40.05). Third, the simple slope for high levels of sergeant support was significant, but negative (simple slope¼�0.15, SE¼0.04, po0.001). Overall, officers supervised by sergeants who were highly supportive yet held unfavorable policy perceptions, actually held the most favorable perceptions of their force policy.

Discussion The aim of the current study was to examine the impact of sergeants on patrol officer perceptions of their less lethal force policies. Based on multilevel analyses, our results indicated that certain sergeant attitudinal dispositions were associated with officers’ policy assessments. For example, officers working under supportive sergeants were more likely to believe that their policies were clear, provided guidance, and were fair. On the other hand, officers tended to hold more negative perceptions when supervised by sergeants who held more favorable force policy perceptions or who viewed top management negatively. In this respect, an interactive effect was also found whereby officers held more positive views toward their force policy when supervised by supportive sergeants who viewed the policy in a less favorable manner.

Cumulatively, the results of this study have implications for police managers. An important implication is that sergeants have the capacity to influence subordinates’ views of use of force either positively or negatively. Although this notion has been promoted anecdotally or based on limited observational research, empirical research examining supervisory influences on officers’ attitudes in general have been limited and mixed (Engel and Worden, 2003; cf. Johnson, 2011). The current study is one of the first to examine supervisory influences in the area of less lethal force systematically across a large number of officers and sergeants.

In terms of positive influences, supportive sergeants matter in the eyes of their subordinates. Officers working for sergeants who take the time to teach them how to

22.2

22.4

22.6

22.8

23

23.2

23.4

23.6

23.8

24

24.2

highmed

O ff

ic e

r P

o lic

y P

e rc

e p

tio n

s

Sergeant Policy Perceptions

Sergeant Support

high

med

low

low

Figure 1. The moderating effect of sergeant support on the sergeant-officer policy perception relationship

366

PIJPSM 37,2

perform their job and who look out for their welfare have a more clear and beneficial assessment of their organization’s use of force direction. The nature of the interaction effect also lend credence to the notion that supportive sergeants act as buffers or protectors of their subordinate officers when they believe that accountability mechanisms, such as departmental force policies, are inadequate, unclear, or perceived to be unfair. Although this can be problematic (see Engel, 2001), in the current context it implies that officers may benefit from such support. As such, promoting and encouraging this form of supervisory style by upper administration can have favorable organizational outcomes. On the other hand, the inverse officer-sergeant force policy relationship indicates that sergeants can also have a negative impact on officers. Since patrol officers (not sergeants) are the ones who apply policies, as street level bureaucrats (Lipsky, 2010), and serve as the face of the department to the community, this is concerning. To the extent that this finding is due to sergeants’ roles as accountability mechanisms, perhaps departments should examine how policy aspects are communicated to subordinates by supervising officers.

The implications of this work also suggest that the broader organizational climate matters in determining patrol officers’ assessments of policies. Interestingly, the role of the sergeant in shaping the views of their subordinates had little, if anything, to do with their gender, race, education, or experience. For police leaders interested in sergeants filtering organizational policies to the front-line, this suggests that it is not so much who is in the supervisory role, but how they orient themselves toward the department and their subordinates. Thus, decisions to promote to this first-level supervisory position should not be taken lightly, as officers occupying this rank are ultimately responsible for directly overseeing the majority of a police agency’s sworn personnel.

While the findings highlighted here offer one of the few empirical investigations of the role that sergeants play in predicting patrol officers’ force policy perceptions, certain limitations should be considered. First, the study was conducted in mid to large agencies. While, the results should generalize to police departments of similar size and structure, they may be less applicable to small or very large agencies where relational distance and supervisory oversight between sergeants and patrol officers might differ. Another limitation of the current study concerns the nature of frontline supervision in mid to large size departments. For a variety of potential reasons (e.g. overlapping shifts, covering another sergeant’s assignment, availability) officers may be exposed to the supervisory practices of more than one sergeant. While assuming a one-to-one relationship between officers and sergeants is a common approach for research in this area (Engel, 2000; Engel and Worden, 2003; Johnson, 2011), it does not capture the extent to which other supervisors might play a role in shaping officers’ policy perceptions.

Finally, the cross-sectional nature of our data limited our ability to tease out the specific process by which supervisors were influencing their officers’ views of less lethal policies. Future work incorporating alternative data designs (i.e. longitudinal) and methodologies (i.e. extended qualitative interviews and structured observations) would work to remedy this limitation. The use of alternative approaches would also allow for a more precise examination of the relevance of time served between sergeants and police officers. Such approaches may also help to identify additional officer and supervisor characteristics important for understanding force policies.

Beyond addressing the aforementioned limitations, future research could extend this work in a number of important ways. First, researchers should expand the focus of

367

Perceptions of less lethal force policy

supervisory influences on attitudinal outcomes beyond less lethal force policies to other types of organizational policies, such as suspicion stops, vehicle pursuits, or arrests, as well as other perceptions of the work environment (e.g. job satisfaction, citizen suspicion, etc.). It could be that sergeants are exerting influence over subordinates’ orientations toward use of force policies because of the fact that these discretionary behaviors are amongst the most highly supervisory scrutinized decisions in the police organization. In addition, future work should address the extent to which the sergeants’ influence on patrol officers’ views of less lethal policies impacts the behavioral application of force. In answering this question, research could examine whether positive (or negative) patrol officer policy orientations affect their overall decisions to use force, the levels of force utilized, and/or the appropriateness of their force actions. These are all additional questions worthy of empirical answers.

Notes

1. Three additional departments participated in the larger NIJ project. However, one department did not allow the portion of the survey measuring the work environment to be administered. The survey collection process for the other two agencies did not allow for consistent administration of sergeant surveys. As such, these three departments were excluded from the current study.

2. The goal was to survey every patrol officer and sergeant within each of the study departments. In order to accomplish this, a standardized protocol was implemented to ensure that the survey was administered consistently across sites. Departmental master rosters listing all sworn officers and their current work assignments were obtained, and a survey schedule was created for each site that allowed for the opportunity to survey every assigned patrol officer and sergeant. During administration, trained research staff provided officers with a brief description of the research project, gave instructions for survey completion, and informed officers of confidentiality protections.

3. Unfortunately, we were unable to systematically capture the exact length of time officers and sergeants had worked in their current assignments across all sites. On average, 83 percent of responding sergeants reported working in their current supervisory assignment for approximately 29 months at the time of the survey. In APD and KPD, officers reported working the same squad assignment an average of 18 months at the time of the survey. Although these descriptive results only represent a partial overview of the total sample, they do provide some insight into the amount of time officers and sergeants had worked in their current assignments.

4. Although the reliability coefficient for the sergeant support index was below the suggested threshold of 0.70, a coefficients are influenced by the number of items in the scale (Schmitt, 1996). As such, two item scales may produce lower a coefficients. We conducted a factor analysis containing all of the work environment items for sergeants, the results provided support for three separate factors (i.e. top management, citizen distrust, and support). Furthermore, the two support items loaded on a single factor (loadings40.65). As such, we retained and used the two-item support measure in the analyses (see also Terrill and Paoline, 2013b).

5. Inclusion of the policy type measures as level 1 control variables that are grand mean centered rather than as level 2 covariates may seem counterintuitive. Here, the decision was made to ensure the stability of parameter estimates at level 2 due to the number of level 2 cases and variables. To ensure that this approach did not change the results substantively, two preliminary models were conducted with only the sergeant-level attitudes at level 2 and all of the level 1 officer characteristics. One model included the policy type measures as level 1 controls (grand mean centered) and the second included them as level 2 controls. In both

368

PIJPSM 37,2

models, the sergeant level attitudes (level 2) estimates were the same, and so the results were not affected (see also Enders and Tofighi, 2007).

6. Multicollinearity diagnostics were also conducted with no evidence suggesting that it was an issue in the final model. OLS regression models were also conducted treating sergeant-level measures as level 1 variables. These results also indicated a significant, negative relationship between sergeant and officer force policy perceptions.

7. This also helps illustrate the reason why the conditional effect of sergeant support in Model 2 becomes nonsignificant at the po0.05 level. When sergeant policy perceptions were average (i.e. at the mean) or higher on the attitudinal scale, their level of support had no bearing on officers’ policy perceptions.

References

Adang, O. and Mensink, J. (2004), “Pepper spray: an unreasonable response to suspect verbal resistance”, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 206-219.

Alpert, G.P. and Dunham, R.G. (2010), “Policy and training recommendations related to police use of CEDs: overview of findings from a comprehensive national study”, Police Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 235-260.

Alpert, G.P. and MacDonald, J.M. (2001), “Police use of force: an analysis of organizational characteristics”, Justice Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 393-409.

Brodsky, S.L. and Williamson, G.D. (1985), “Attitudes of police toward violence”, Psychological Reports, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 1179-1180.

Brown, M. (1988), Working the Street: Police Discretion and the Dilemmas of Reform, Russell Sage Foundation, New York, NY.

Carter, D.L. (1976), “Police brutality”, in Blumberg, A.S. and Niederhoffer, E. (Eds), The Ambivalent Force, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York, NY, pp. 321-330.

Community Oriented Policing Services (2012), “Emerging use of force issues: balancing public and officer safety”, report from the International Association of Chiefs of Police/COPS Office Use of Force Symposium, US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, May 4, 2011.

Corbett, M., Meyer, F., Barker, R. and Rudoni, D. (1979), “Conflict, consensus, and perceptions of support among the police”, Journal of Police Science and Administration, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 449-458.

Davis, K.C. (1969), Discretionary Justice: A Preliminary Inquiry, University of Louisiana Press, Baton Rouge, LA.

Enders, C.K. and Tofighi, D. (2007), “Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: a new look at an old issue”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 121-138.

Engel, R.S. (2000), “The effects of supervisory styles on patrol officer behavior”, Police Quarterly, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 262-293.

Engel, R.S. (2001), “Supervisory styles of patrol sergeants and lieutenants”, Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 341-355.

Engel, R. and Worden, R. (2003), “Police officers’ attitudes, behavior, and supervisor influences: an analysis of problem solving”, Criminology, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 131-166.

Fyfe, J.J. (1978), “Shots fired: an analysis of New York city police firearms discharges”, doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Albany, Ann Arbor, MI and University Microfilms.

369

Perceptions of less lethal force policy

Fyfe, J.J. (1980), Philadelphia Police Shootings, 1975-78: A System Model Analysis, Report for the Civil Rights Division US Department of Justice, Washington, DC.

Fyfe, J.J. (1982), “Blind justice: police shootings in Memphis”, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 73 No. 2, pp. 707-722.

Goldstein, H. (1990), Problem-Oriented Policing, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Graham v. Connor (1989), Graham v. Connor, 490 US 386.

Ingram, J.R. (2013), “Supervisor-officer fit and role ambiguity: re-assessing the nature of the sergeant-officer attitudinal relationship”, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 375-398.

Ingram, J.R. and Weidner, R.R. (2011), “Frontline supervisors’ perceptions of less-lethal force policies: examining the ‘transmission belts’ of police departments”, Journal of Crime and Justice, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 221-233.

Johnson, R.R. (2011), “Officer attitudes and management influences on police work productivity”, American Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 293-306.

Kaminski, R.K., Edwards, S.M. and Johnson, J.W. (1999), “Assessing the incapacitative effects of pepper spray during resistive encounters with the police”, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 7-29.

Lipsky, M. (2010), Street Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services, (Expanded Edition) Russell Sage, New York, NY.

McEwen, T. (1997), “Policies on less-than-lethal force in law enforcement agencies”, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 39-59.

Manning, P.K. (1997), Police Work: The Social Organization of Policing, 2nd ed., Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, IL.

Micucci, A.J. and Gomme, I.M. (2005), “American police and subcultural support for the use of excessive force”, Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 487-500.

Muir, W.K. (1977), Police: Streetcorner Politicians, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Muir, W.K. (2008), “Police and social democracy”, Policing and Society, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 18-22.

Paoline, E.A. III and Terrill, W. (2011), “Listen to me! Police officers’ views of appropriate use of force”, Journal of Crime and Justice, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 178-189.

Pate, A.M. and Fridell, L.A. (1993), Police Use of Force: Official Reports, Citizen Complaints, and Legal Consequences, Vol. 1. Police Foundation, Washington, DC.

Pate, A.M. and Fridell, L.A. (1995), “Toward the uniform reporting of police use of force: results from a national study”, Criminal Justice Review, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 123-145.

Raudenbush, S. and Bryk, A. (2002), Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Schmitt, N. (1996), “Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha”, Psychological Assessment, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 350-353.

Sharp, E. (1982), “Street-level discretion in policing: attitudes and behaviors in the deprofessionalization syndrome”, Law and Policy Quarterly, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 167-189.

Skogan, W. (2008), “Why reforms fail”, Policing & Society, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 23-34.

Skogan, W. and Hartnett, S. (1997), Community Policing, Chicago Style, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

Smith, M.R., Kaminski, R.J., Rojek, J., Alpert, G.P. and Mathis, J. (2007), “The impact of conducted energy devices and other types of force and resistance on officer and suspect injuries”, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 423-446.

370

PIJPSM 37,2

Taylor, B. and Woods, T.J. (2010), “Injuries to officers and suspects in police use-of-force cases: a quasi-experimental evaluation”, Police Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 260-289.

Tennessee v. Garner (1985), Tennessee v. Garner, 471 US 1.

Terrill, W. and Paoline, E.A. III (2013a), “Examining less lethal force policy and the force continuum: results from a national use of force study”, Police Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 38-65.

Terrill, W. and Paoline, E.A. III (2013b), “Less lethal force policy and police officer perceptions: a multisite examination”, Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 40 No. 10, pp. 1109-1130.

Terrill, W., Paoline, E.A. III and Ingram, J.R. (2008), “Non-lethal use of force policy: perceptions from the front-line”, Law Enforcement Executive Forum, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 7-19.

Thomas, K.J., Collins, P.A. and Lovrich, N.P. (2010), “Conducted energy device use in municipal policing: results of a national survey of policy and effectiveness assessments”, Police Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 290-315.

Thomas, K.J., Collins, P.A. and Lovrich, N.P. (2012), “An analysis of written conducted energy device policies: are municipal policing agencies meeting PERF recommendations”, Criminal Justice Policy Review, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 399-426.

Walker, S. (1993), Taming the System: The Control of Discretion in Criminal Justice, 1950-1990, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

Walker, S. (2007), “Police accountability: current issues and research needs”, paper presented at the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) Policing Research Workshop: Planning for the Future, Washington, DC, November 28-29, 2006.

Walker, S. (2010), “Police accountability and the central problem in American criminal justice”, in McCoy, C. (Ed.), Holding Police Accountable, The Urban Institute, Washington, DC, pp. 1-25.

Weisburd, D., Greenspan, R., Hamilton, E.E., Williams, H. and Bryant, K.A. (2000), Police Attitudes Toward Abuse of Authority: Findings from a National Study, National Institute of Justice Research in Brief, Washington, DC.

White, M.D. and Ready, J. (2007), “The TASER as a less lethal force alternative”, Police Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 170-191.

About the authors

Dr Jason Robert Ingram is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Criminal Justice Sciences at the Illinois State University. His research examines police officer attitudes and behaviors, police organizations, departmental policies, and multilevel theory and methods. He earned his PhD from the School of Criminal Justice at the Michigan State University. Dr Jason Robert Ingram is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]

Dr Robert R. Weidner is an Associate Professor and the Head of the Department of Sociology Anthropology at the University of Minnesota Duluth. He has published in the areas of sentencing, criminological theory, program evaluation and media portrayals of crime. He received his PhD from the School of Criminal Justice at the Rutgers University, Newark, NJ.

Dr Eugene A. Paoline III has a sole appointment in the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Central Florida, where he is an Associate Professor. He holds a PhD in Criminal Justice from the University at Albany, State University of New York. His research interests include police culture, police use of force, and occupational attitudes of criminal justice practitioners.

Dr William Terrill is an Associate Professor in the School of Criminal Justice at the Michigan State University. His research centers on police behavior, with an emphasis on police

371

Perceptions of less lethal force policy

use of force policies and practices. He has published numerous scholarly articles, chapters, and reports, as well as two books entitled Police Coercion: Application of the Force Continuum (2001, LFB Scholarly Publishing) and Police Culture: Adapting to the Strains of the Job (2013, Carolina Academic Press). Dr Terrill recently completed a National Institute of Justice (NIJ) grant geared toward examining the variation in American less lethal use of force policies and the various outcomes associated with the different policies, as well as a private foundation grant involving an observational study of the police. He earned his PhD in 2000 from the School of Criminal Justice at the Rutgers University, Newark.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

372

PIJPSM 37,2

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.