Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 11:49 pm
Time: 11:49 pm
Results for evaluative procedures
1 results foundAuthor: Terrill, William Title: Final Technical Report Draft: Assessing Police Use of Force Policy and Outcomes Summary: While force continuum policies are frequently discussed in the policing literature by academics and practitioners alike, little is known concerning how many agencies actually use a continuum. Moreover, given potential variation in both continuum design (e.g., linear, matrix, wheel, etc.) and tactical placement (e.g., OC spray, CED, etc.), even less is known with respect to whether differences in continuum policies matter, and if so, in what way. Within this context, this project set two separate, but interrelated goals: to identify the extent of variation in use of force policies being used by police agencies throughout the country, and determine whether certain types of policies offer more beneficial outcomes to police practitioners. Stated more directly, the project sought to (1) identify existing variation in use of force policies, particularly those employing a force continuum approach and (2) determine which types of policies offer more beneficial outcomes to police practitioners, which are measured in terms of the degree to which varying policies: (a) provide officers assistance and guidance with respect to force decision-making, and (b) are associated with less force (i.e., by amount and type), injuries to suspects and officers, citizen complaints, and lawsuits levied for improper force. As one reads through this executive summary (and the 200 plus pages of the final report) undoubtedly, like ourselves, there may be a sense of letdown. Ideally, one would want to walk away from this study knowing which use of force policy (or policies) is the best and which policy (or policies) should be avoided. Unfortunately, one of the greatest strengths of the empirical approach taken (i.e., examining multiple outcomes) is also potentially its greatest weakness. As such, we cannot unanimously endorse or condemn one use of force policy over another. What is abundantly clear from the many analyses and rankings conducted is that there is no ideal (or flawed) policy approach across all outcomes. The good news is that we provide empirical evidence of various strengths and weaknesses across many important police outcomes. We leave it to police executives to consider those outcomes most important or relevant to them and their constituents, and see which policy approaches performed more favorably in those respects. As just a single example, if one is looking to reduce citizen injuries and complaints as top policing concerns, St. Petersburg’s approach may be worth considering. However, one has to also be cognizant that officers generally did not view St. Petersburg’s policy in a favorable light. A “cop’s cop” police leader may thus prioritize such officer-related concerns and dismiss St. Petersburg’s policy, and instead endorse Knoxville’s approach that received outstanding feedback from patrol officers (irrespective of the fact that Knoxville patrol officers were injured at the highest rate of all cities). Any number of other examples could be given as well with other cities. In the end, one must weigh the advantages and drawbacks of each policy approach against various desirable (or undesirable) outcomes. Of course, readers must also use caution interpreting the findings presented throughout this summary and the full report. Although this is the most comprehensive less lethal use of force study conducted to date, as one astute reviewer accurately points out - we have just begun to scratch the surface with respect to how varying types of policies may influence varying types of outcomes. Details: Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, 2011. 287p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 28, 2012 at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/237794.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/237794.pdf Shelf Number: 124306 Keywords: Evaluative ProceduresPolice BehaviorPolice Policies and ProceduresPolice Use of Force (U.S.) |