Organizational correlates of police deviance. A statewide analysis of misconduct in Arizona, 2000-2011

• Date: 13 August 2018
• Published date: 13 August 2018
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-08-2017-0092
• Pages: 465-481
• Author: Jessica Huff,Michael D. White,Scott H. Decker
• Subject Matter: Public policy & environmental management,Policing,Criminal justice,Juvenile/youth crime,Police studies,Health & social care,Criminology & forensic psychology,Criminology & criminal justice

Organizational correlates of

police deviance

A statewide analysis of misconduct in

Arizona, 2000-2011

Jessica Huff, Michael D. White and Scott H. Decker

School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Arizona State University,

Phoenix, Arizona, USA

Abstract

Purpose –Many examinations of police misconduct involve case study methodologies applied to a single

agency, or a handful of agencies. Consequently, there is little evidence regarding the types of misconduct

across agencies, or the impact of department-level characteristics on the nature and prevalence of officer

deviance. The purpose of this paper is to address this research gap using statewide data of over 1,500 charges

of police misconduct filed with the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board (AZPOST)

from 2000 to 2011.

Design/methodology/approach –This study examines variation in the prevalence and forms of

misconduct across 100+agencies based on agency type and size. Difference scores were calculated for every

agency in the state to determine whether an agency’s level of misconduct was proportionate to the number of

officers employed by that agency. AZPOST data were supplemented with Law Enforcement Management

and Statistics data to identify organizational correlates of misconduct in agencies generating

disproportionately low and high levels of misconduct.

Findings –Results identify variation in officer misconduct across different types of agencies. Tribal agencies

generally experience higher rates of domestic violence and drug/alcohol-related incidents. Smaller agencies

have more misconduct allegations involving supervisors. Organizational characteristics including pre-hiring

screening, accountability mechanisms and community relationships are associated with lower levels of

agency misconduct.

Originality/value –The use of AZPOST data enables a statewide examination of misconduct while

accounting for organizational context. This study identifies organizational features that might serve to

protect agencies against disproportionate rates of officer misbehavior.

Keywords Police organizations, Police accountability, Police misconduct, Police deviance, Police oversight

Paper type Research paper

Any criminal activity, within a police department or elsewhere, cannot thrive unless all of its

participants are able to maintain confidence in each other (Knapp Commission, 1972, p. 11).

More than 20 LAPD officers witnessed King’s beating, which continued for nearly two minutes.

Those who administered it assumed that their fellow officers would not report the misconduct and

were prepared to lie on their behalf. In this respect, police brutality is like police corruption- there

may be some rotten apples, but usually the barrel itself is rotten. Two cops can go berserk, but

twenty cops embody a subculture of policing (Skolnick and Fyfe, 1993, p. 12).

A well-functioning accountability system is the keystone to lawful policing. In combination with

effective supervision, a robust accountability system is required in order to identify and correct

inappropriate uses of force and other kinds of misconduct—with discipline, training, and

counseling as appropriate—which in turn helps prevent misconduct. But Chicago seldom holds

officers accountable for misconduct (Civil Rights Division, 2017a, p. 46 (Findings Letter- Chicago

Police Department)).

Despite significant advances in strategies and tools overthe last 40 years, policing continues

to be defined by a persistent undercurrent of officer misconduct (White and Fradella, 2016).

For example, since 1994 the Civil Rights Division of the US Department of Justice has

Policing: An International Journal

Vol. 41 No. 4, 2018

pp. 465-481

© Emerald PublishingLimited

1363-951X

DOI 10.1108/PIJPSM-08-2017-0092

Received 2 August 2017

Revised 29 December 2017

Accepted 15 May 2018

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/1363-951X.htm

465

Organizational

correlates of

police deviance

conducted nearly 70 “pattern or practice”investigations of police agencies, most recently in

Ferguson, Baltimore and Chicago (see quote above) (Civil Rights Division, 2017b). In 2014,

then PresidentObama created the President’s TaskForce on 21st Century Policing to identify

recommendations for enhancing trust between police and citizens, and for improving police

accountability. In May–June 2017 alone, prosecutions concluded for five officers accused of

killing citizens, including Michael Slager (Walter Scott), Betty Shelby (Terence Crutcher),

Ray Tensing (Samuel DuBose), Dominique Heaggan-Brown (Sylville Smith) and Jeronimo

Yanez (Philando Castile) (Park, 2017)[1]. Cases of police misconduct can have far-reaching,

severe consequences for both the communityand police department—frompsychological and

physical traumaexperienced by victims to expensivecivil judgments and compromisedpolice

legitimacy (Skolnick and Fyfe, 1993).

Researchers have devoted significant attention to the causes and correlates of police

deviance, and this work has advanced our understanding of the individual-level

predictors of misconduct (Harris, 2010; Kane and White, 2013; Waugh et al., 1988).

However, nearly all examinations of police misconduct involve case study methodologies

of one or a couple of agencies (Cohen and Chaiken, 1972; Harris, 2010; Kane and White,

2009; Rojek et al., 2015). There are few examinations of police misconduct across multiple

agencies (Eitle et al., 2014), and virtually no studies at the state level. Consequently, little

is known about the prevalence and types of misconduct across police agencies, and

there is a dearth of empirical evidence on how department-level characteristics might

contribute to (or protect against) officer deviance. This research gap is especially

troubling because most prevailing theoriesofpolicedevianceprominentlyfeature

department-level correlates (Kappeler et al., 1998), and current accountability mechanisms

often target organizational deficiencies as the source of misconduct (Civil Rights Division,

2017b; Walker and Archbold, 2014). The quotes at the beginning of this paper emphasize

these points and highlight the importance of a focus on organizational features of police

agencies to control misconduct.

This study addresses this research gap through an examination of more than 1,500

charges of police misconduct filed with the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training

Board (AZPOST), from 2000 to 2011. We examine variation in the prevalence and forms of

police misconduct across agencies, and use a case study approach to assess organizational

correlates of misconduct among agencies that experience disproportionately low and high

levels of officer deviance. The paper concludes with implications of our findings for the

continued study of police officer misconduct.

Literature review

Defining misconduct

There are numerous and sometimes overlapping definitions of police deviance (the terms

“deviance”and “misconduct”are used interchangeably in the paper) (Kane and White, 2009).

For example, some offenses committed by officers have nothing to do with their police

status. Kane and White’s (2009, p. 745) classification of misconduct is useful for this study:

(1) Profit-motivated crimes: all offenses, other than drug trafficking, whether on duty or

off duty, in which the end or apparent goal of officers’wrongdoing doing was profit.

(2) Off-duty crimes against persons: all assaultive behavior, except for profit-motivated

robberies, by off-duty officers.

(3) Off-duty public order crimes: all offenses, other than drug trafficking or possession,

against public order, including driving while intoxicated and disorderly conduct.

(4) Drugs: possession and sale of drugs, and related conspiracies, as well as failing or

refusing to submit to departmental drug tests.

466

PIJPSM

41,4