Police Leadership, Supervision, and Public Accountability:

New Measures of Agency Performance in the 21st Century

Dennis P Rosenbaum, Ph.D.

Professor of Criminology, Law, and JusticeDirector, Center for Research in Law and Justice

University of Illinois at Chicago

The National Police Research Platform

Funded byNational Institute of JusticeOffice of Justice ProgramsU.S. Department of Justice

Key Researchers and AdvisorsCo-Principal Investigators: Gary Cordner Lorie Fridell Susan Hartnett William McCarty Stephen Mastrofski Jack McDevitt Dennis Rosenbaum Wesley Skogan

Key Researchers: Megan Alderden Amy Farrell Tom Tyler Samuel Walker

Technical Review Team: Chief Jim Bueermann Robert Langworthy Chief Ronal Serpas Lawrence Travis Chuck Wexler

National Institute of Justice:

Brett Chapman

Key Advisors: Chief Edward Davis Chief Charles Ramsey Chief Darrel Stephens Chief Rick Tanksley

Main Components of Platform

Dynamics and Life Course of Police Organizations

Public Satisfaction Surveys Life Course of New police officers Life Course of New supervisors Feedback and capacity building

(“Translational criminology”)

10 Unique Features of the Platform

1. New data on organizations and individuals2. Standardized data across a large number

of law enforcement agencies3. Includes agencies of all sizes4. In-depth and representative findings5. Includes civilian employees

10 Unique Features (continued)

6. Timely, efficient and “green”methods 7. External performance indicators8. Vehicle to rigorously evaluate innovation9. Vehicle to support basic and translational

criminology -feedback10. Longitudinal framework

Organizational Survey Topics

• Health, Stress & Satisfaction

• Communication & Innovation

• Leadership & Supervision

• Police & Community

• Accountability, Integrity & Discipline

• Technology• Training• Police Culture• Civilian Role in

Policing• Departmental

Priorities

Selected on the basis of focus groups with executives, trends, issuesthat are in flux, innovations underway and knowledge of the field

Managing Innovation and Change

Employees Upset about Change

How did employees feel

when it occurred?

Agency Size

Small Large Total

Many were upset 27.0% 49.1% 47.6%

Employees Resisted Change

Did employees resist the change?

Agency Size

Small Large TotalMany resisted 10.3% 28.3% 27.0%

Some resisted 25.6% 29.2% 28.9%

Perceptions of organizational environment for innovation

Management’s role Employee involvement Benefits and risks of initiative and

innovation Influence of scientific evidence

Management’s role in fostering change

0 20 40 60 80

Dept quick to fix problems causedby change

Mgt tries to build consensus onimportant changes

Leaders work hard to inspireacceptance of change

% agree

Dept ADept B

Employee involvement in change

0 20 40 60 80

Employees are informed ofdevelopments affecting them

Reason for change communicatedto employees

Employees are involved in planning& implementing change

% agree

Dept ADept B

Consequences of innovation and creativity

0 20 40 60 80

Negative consequences likely fromcreativity and innovation if it

doesn't turn out well

Creativity & innovation rewardedin this department

% agree

Dept ADept B

Relevance of science for organizational change

0 20 40 60 80

Change is drivenby scientific

evidence of whatworks

% agree

Dept ADept B

Management’s Facilitation of Innovation

3 6 7 15 19 28 27 22 240

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

1.8

2.72.5

2.1 2.0 2.12.3

1.6

2.4

Department

Fa

cil

ita

tio

n o

f in

no

va

tio

n

Information is the Life Blood of Successful Innovation

Communication effectiveness within the department (ability to move information up and down) was the best predictor of the department’s success in facilitating innovation

Perceptions of need for administrative change

Disciplinary practices Employee performance appraisal and

promotion Officer recruitment strategies Training methods Supervisory practices

Need for new administrative approaches

0 20 40 60 80

Supervisory practices

Training methods

Recruitment strategies

Performance appraisaland promotion

Disciplinary practices

% saying department "needs new approach"

Dept ADept B

Supervision

Significant Predictors of Subordinates’ rating of their Supervisor

Sup. supports subordinate

Sup insufficiently directive

Sup. too directive Rater Latino Rater male

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Predictor variables

Be

ta

Officer-level model R2 = .71

Officer + department R2 = .72

Not Significant

Black officerOther raceEducation levelSupervisor rankYrs police experienceRater commitment to department

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

44.9%

29.5%

51.7% 54.1%

3.3%

15.7%

3.3% 5.4%

7 to 101 to 6

Supervisor “always” engages in these behaviors by overall rating of Supervisor

Detective vs. Patrol Supervisors

Detective supervisors emphasize: better service to victims fair and equal treatment to citizens citizen satisfaction

Why?

Why Study First-line Supervisors (FLS)?

FLS’s are key to an agency’s performance Weak professional development by US police

agencies Very little known via research about these

important personnel Ultimately: We want to produce information

that will strengthen the FLS role/performance.

The Importance of Studying Supervision, View of Chiefs

Chiefs’ interviews: Asked about the quality and effectiveness of their first-line supervisors (sergeants).

Just six in 10 offered a “satisfied” or “very good assessment” (compared to 8/10 for command staff)

Chiefs Concerns/Comments Several: FLS need more

education/training to do jobs better Need to “get the big picture” of

management’s perspective The most common complaint: Not

transitioning quickly/well from being follower to leader Not directing their subordinates Constantly seeking direction from above Trouble supervising their friends.

Quality of Supervisor Training

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

5 8 11 28 25 24 22

Poor/no training

---Small--- -------Medium-------- ---Large---

Average

Good

Excellent

10-item scale (alpha = .96) • Organizing employees• Evaluating employees• Applying discipline• Employee personal probs• Handling citizen

complaints• Getting employees committed to dep’t goals• Maintaining employee integrity• Motivating employees to perform• Reports & record keeping• Dealing with public

For which set of Tasks did they Feel more Prepared?

People managing Across 10 PEOPLE MANAGEMENT

items, an average of 77% of respondents rated their training as “excellent” or “good.”

Across 5 MANAGERIAL TASK items, average was 57%

Views of Supervision

Measure at various points in time As example, “The best police

supervisors are those who get their subordinates to work hard at achieving top management’s major goals.”

This is major expectation/hope of agency leadership.

At T1: “The best supervisors are those….. achieve top mgt’s goals”

Agree Neutral Disagree0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%60%

22%18%

Percent Agree, Neutral, Disagree

Impact of Training

Agree Neutral Disagree0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

60%

22%18%

77%

19%

4%

BeforeAfter

Supervisors must believe in Leaders before they will get others to follow them

When supervisors are supportive of the direction that agency management is taking the organization They are more inclined to encourage their

subordinates to work hard at achieving top management’s major goals.

Implications

27.7

48.9

23.4

Coaching Frequency in %

Nearly every dayEvery weekOnce a month

“How frequently do you coach your subordinates?”

Importance of Coaching

0%

20%

40%

60%

26%

63%

9%2%

Importance

Supervisory Styles: Some Questions

What are supervisors’styles and how do they vary? What causes a supervisor to adopt one style over

the others? Do styles change over time? What are the consequences of style for the

supervisor and the work unit?

36

Transactional v. Transformational (Bass, 1990)

Transactional: Clear communication of expectations, rewards for complying, more autocratic

Transformational: Look to higher purpose to motivate; they “transform” their subordinates; highlight importance of objectives (beyond personal rewards); do it for the sake of team, organization, community.

Measurement

T1 and 18 months later Asked what they would do if a new

policy introduced and officers reluctant to follow it

Scored styles as more transactional or translational

Question: Would agency/leadership legitimacy predict supervisory style?

Change over time (preliminary data!)

Baseline 18 months0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

TransactionalMixedTransformational

Using qualitative data to explore these shifts, e.g.,

One supervisor who measured transformational at baseline Month 1: Biggest challenge was “getting

new people to trust me and follow my orders”

Month 5, asked if anything changed the way he thinks about his job: “I found more effective ways to deal with problem employees.”

Transactional at 18 months. “Situational leadership”

New Supervisors’ Views of the Community?

How much cynicism? Variation across agencies,

demographics? Change over time?

Community Cynicism Measure, Sample Items

“Residents do not understand the problems that we face as police officers”

“In general, the news media treat the police unfairly”

“In certain areas of the city, it is more useful for an officer to be aggressive than to be courteous.”

etc.

Fem

ale

Mal

e

Agen

cy 2

2

Agen

cy 2

4

Agen

cy 3

0

Blac

k

Hispa

nic

Whi

te

Patro

l

Detec

tives

Other

Ass

ign.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Community Cynicism at Baseline (Means)

Fem

ale

Mal

e

Agen

cy 2

2

Agen

cy 2

4

Agen

cy 3

0

Blac

k

Hispa

nic

Whi

te

Patro

l

Detec

tives

Other

Ass

ign.

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

Percent Change in Cynicism

Predictors of Community Cynicism

Perceptions of procedural justice within the agency are negatively related to community cynicism (controlling for demographic variables)

That is, when sergeants’ hold negative views of their agency’s fairness, they are more likely to hold negative views of community.

Work Environment and Police Culture

Job Burnout (Emotional Exhaustion)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

5 8 4 9 12 10 11 18 25 23 24 22

% m

ore

than

1/w

eek

------Small--------Medium--------Large------

4-item scale (alpha = .90):

• Used up at end of day• Burned out from work• Frustrated by job• Emotionally drained from work

Major Sources of Stress among Recruits

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

2.8 3.08 3.193.96

Cynicism toward the community is higher among officers who…

Hold a negative view of the disciplinary process

Believe officers’ input is not valued Only socialize with other officers View loyalty as a high priority Have fewer years on the job Are in Non-supervisory position Work for larger agency

“The department needs a new approach to disciplinary practices for employees”

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

6 3 7 15 17 19 28 27 24 22

% o

ffic

ers

agre

e e

------Small------ -----Medium--------- ---Large---

“This will teach you not to hit people”

Fairness of Discipline

Percent Agree

Small Agencies Large Agencies

Officers treated with respect during disciplinary investigations

80% 41%

Disciplinary process is fair 58% 20%

Own discipline was fair 76% 46%

Coaching & counseling are used for minor mistakes

73% 30%

Diversity and Job Satisfaction Ely and Thomas (2001)

Discrimination and Fairness Perspective Diversity is about making things equal Minorities and women must assimilate into existing workplace

culture Access and Legitimacy Perspective

Diversity is needed to legitimize relationship between organization and community

Cultural identity is good for interfacing with community, otherwise assimilation is necessary

Integration and Learning Perspective Diversity is needed to change organizations and their external

relationships, encourage innovation, and organizational learning Different cultural identities are valued and considered legitimate

sources of knowledge

“Learning Index” is best predictor of Job Satisfaction “There is a lot of open and honest

dialogue” “Personal experiences and opinions

are often dismissed by other officers or my supervisors”

“I am encouraged to share my ideas about ways in which the Department can improve”

“People support each other when things get tough at work”

Civilian Employee Job Satisfaction

0

20

40

60

80

pe

rce

nta

ge

satisfiedvery satisfied

Elements of Job Satisfaction

79%78% 78%79%

54%

66%

Best Predictors of Civilian Job Satisfaction: Accepted and Valued

Civilians do not feel accepted in the workplace (40%)

Feel constant need to prove themselves (60%)

Not accepted as a professional Lack of respect for diversity Lack of sense of “teamwork and

accomplishment”

Organizational Support, Employee Satisfaction, and Commitment

58

The Life Course of New Police Officers

59

“The day the new recruit walks through the door of the police academy, he leaves society behind to enter a profession that does more than give him a job, it defines who he is. He will always be a cop."

Ahern (1972) Police in Trouble

60

Research Questions

What happens in the life course of a police officer?

What factors lead officers to experience different outcomes on the job?

61

Practical Benefits of Longitudinal Study

Identify predictors of behavior that have implications for recruitment, training, intervention, retention

Identify key periods when changes occur where agency intervention or prevention might be effective

Help to define “organizational excellence” and “good policing” by the evidence

62

Background

Family, friends, neighPersonality and skillsExpectations, attitudesEducation, religion, SESRace, ethnicity, genderLife experiences

Agency Factors

TrainingAssignmentsSupervisors and FTOsCo-workersCritical events (e.g. trauma)Management policies/proceduresOrganizational culture

Community Experiences

Encounters with the publicEncounters with other agencies

Family and Friends

Family stabilitySpouse/partnerChildrenFriends

Factors Influencing the Development of New Police Officers

63

Officer Outcomes• Productivity• Quality of work and conscientiousness• Relations with peers and supervisors• Mental and physical health• Decision-making (proper response to

situations; risk-taking and safety)• Job satisfaction/feelings about department• Stress and burnout• Retention and commitment to the job• Relations with the public

64

Top Reasons for Becoming an Officer

Overall Large Agencies

Small Agencies

#1 – Desire to serve the community #1 #2

#2 – Desire to have a professional career

#4 #1

#3 – Interest in police work #3 #3

#4 – Desire for job security #2 #5

#5 – Excitement of police work #4

#6 – Desire to work with people #5

65

Relations with the Public

o Attitudes toward communityo Communication skillso Desire to use force to solve

problems

66

Justice and Sympathy for Others

Agree Neutral Disagree "In life, people usually get what they deserve and deserve what they get"

30% 44% 26%

"Life is simply not fair for many people"

33% 32% 36%

"Overall, minorities have been mistreated by society"

25% 40% 35%

"Overall, women have been mistreated by society"

23% 40% 37%

67

Communication Style

Agree Disagree

"I like to be in control of the conversation"

26% 67%

"When I am with my friends I do most of the talking"

32% 62%

"I like to take charge in social situations"

56% 41%

"I like action, not talking" 39% 54%

68

Emotional Expression or Emotional Control?

Agree Disagree

"I don't hide my feelings or emotions from people"

41% 49%

"When I am angry, people know it"

30% 65%

69

Use of Force Attitudes(Agree-Disagree 1-5 Scale)

“Some people can only be brought to reason the hard, physical way” (44%)

“Sometimes forceful police actions are very educational for civilians” (27%)

“If officers don't show that they are physically tough, they will be seen as weak” (35%)

70

Attitudes about Use of Force to solve problems is stronger among:

Male officers Younger officers (25-28 vs. older officers) White/AA officers (vs. Latinos)

71

Changes in Attitudes about Force (Pre/Post)

Higher scores = More positive attitudes toward force

2.883.06

2.743.02 2.983.10

p<.001 p<.001 p<.05

Changes in Communication Style: Pre-Post Training Academy

Active Listening

Machismo Argue Use of Force

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.53.2

2.33

2.07

2.993.05

2.54

2.18

3.08

Pre-TrainingPost-Training

Increases in Recruit Cynicism – Three points in Time

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

2.482.822.62

2.972.673.07

Pre-trainingPost-TrainingOn the Job

Chicago Quality Interactions Program (QIP): Recruit Training

Improved Interactions

Quality Communication

Emotional Control

Competence & Confidence

Decision Making

Resilience

Training can make a Difference

Do Noth-ing

Diffuse Situation

Yell Use Force Arrest Everyone

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

-0.51

1.44

-0.2

0.380000000000002

-0.51

0.79

-0.51

1.04

1.541.18000000000

001

Pre-Post Changes in Responses to Youth

Exper.Control

Measuring Police-Community Interactions

and Organizational Legitimacy

“Beer Summit” at White House

Legitimacy Defined

"The quality possessed by an authority, a law, or an institution that leads others to feel obligated to obey its decisions and directives." (Skogan & Frydl, 2004, p. 297, interpretation of Max Weber).

Nature of Police Legitimacy

Police authority is not defined entirely by the night stick or gun

Police action must be authorized by the consent of the public--Legitimacy is not immutable characteristic of the police

Can be conferred and removed over time Defined by the hearts and minds of the

public

Undermining Legitimacy: The Chronic Problems

Corruption, scandals, and reform attempts

Causing/mishandling civil disorder Excessive force (“brutality”) Race discrimination and profiling History of poor relations with minority

communities, from slave patrols forward

Without Legitimacy Police Cannot Achieve their Goals

Lack the support, trust, and confidence of the public

Face community fearful of mistreatment Face less cooperative witnesses, victims,

suspects, bystanders, and callers Officers are less safe Face a cynical community that doesn't

respect the law or feel a need to obey it Face unpredictable resources ($) and

predictable interference by external authorities

Public Opinion and the Police

83

Most Americans have a positive attitude toward the police (88% express confidence)

Racial and ethnic minorities consistently rate the police less favorably than whites.

Young people rate the police less favorably than older people.

Poor people, less educated people, and crime victims tend to rate the police lower than others.

There are significant differences in opinions about the police in different cities.

Attitudes about Police Use of Force

84

Hispanics and African Americans are twice as likely to believe the police will use excessive force in their communities

In a survey of Cincinnati residents, 46.6% of African Americans indicated they had been personally “hassled” by the police Compared to only 9.6% of whites

Police Rudeness During Stops

Percent residents report “big” or “some” problem

Voices from African Americans

86

“…as a black man, I think in the back of my head, ‘I hope they don’t bother me today.’ So I’m pretty sure a lot of other young black men feel the same way I do. Regardless of what profession they are, it doesn’t matter. ”

(Male African American adult interviewee; Rosenbaum, 2006)

Age: Young People and the Police

87

Age consistently ranks second to race and ethnicity as a factor in public attitudes toward police

A 2008 survey found that 17% of people between the ages of 18-29 had little to no confidence in the police Compared with only 8% of people between 30-49

NYPD: Stopped, Frisked and Angry(photo by Photo by EKavet, via Flickr)

What Not to Do: A 3-Minute Teachable Moment

The Baltimore Skateboarding Incident

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GgWrV8TcUc

Other Demographic Factors that affect Attitudes toward Police

90

Agency difference in style of policing Neighborhood differences in levels of crime Perceptions of police effectiveness in

fighting crime Personal experience with victimization Level of education

Complexity of Trust and Confidence

91

Priorities: Whether people feel that the police share their concerns about the neighborhood

Competence: Whether people feel that the police have the knowledge and skills to achieve their objectives

Dependability: Whether people feel that the police can be counted on to fulfill their promises

Respect: Whether people feel that the police treat them with respect

Procedural Justice Theory: Fair Process

92

Voice: Listen to public? Paid attention? Respect: Treat public with respect/dignity? Neutrality: Treat public objectively, based

on the facts, not characteristics? Concern: Show concern for their welfare? Explain: Explain the process and what to

expect?

Reach beyond the Traditional Performance Measures:

o Reported Crime o Number of Arrests o Clearance Rateso Response Times

Decide what is Important to your Agency

“If you don’t measure it, nobody cares – Measure what

matters!”

Quote from:Professor Rosenbaum, Sept. 17, 2012

In 21st Century, we should Measure:

o The processes of policing o The quality of policingo What matters to the public

Advantages of the Police-Civilian Interaction Survey (PCIS) Provides validated measures of the quality

of police-citizen encounters and organizational legitimacy

Independent and credible process Evidence-based – scientific foundation Capacity to monitor changes over time Provides regular feedback to improve

performance Allows for benchmarking and

standardization of performance indicators Efficient, timely and flexible

The Illinois Police-Community Interaction Survey Measures

Officer acted in procedurally just manner (voice, neutral, fair, concerned)

Was responsive to emotional and informational needs of victims (e.g. empathy, non-judgmental, referrals)

Acted professionally – knowledgeable and responsive

Department – effective, responsive, overall satisfactory

FollowsProcedural

Justice Principles

Address the

Needs of Victims

Officer’s Actions

Officer is Fair

Officer Listened

to me

I’m Satisfied

with Encounter

Officer is Respectful

Citizen’s Perceptions

Officer cares

about my Wellbeing

I trust this

Officer

I trust the

Dept.

Increase Compliance with Requests

Increase Officer Safety

Expected Outcomes

Increase Investigative Information

Reduce Citizen Complaints

Increase Job Satisfaction

Test Sites

Small: River Forest, IL – Citywide Medium: Oak Park, IL – Citywide Large: Boston - Two districts/Citywide Large: Chicago - 10 districts

Survey Methodology

o Letter from Chief mailed to citizens with police contact in the past 10 days

o Letter Invites Citizens to Complete Satisfaction Survey by:

o Web-based survey oro 1-800 automated telephone survey

o University collects data independently and provides feedback to the participating departments

Characteristics of the SampleSample Size= 2446

Female 50.4%

Minority 52.6%

Homeowner 58.2%

Age Mean 48.30

Incident TypeTraffic Stop 12.4%

Traffic Crash 30.8%

Crime Report 56.8%

Survey TypePhone Survey 55.9%

Web Survey 44.1%

Overall Satisfaction with the Way You were Treated by the Officer

84.4%

Satisfaction and Citizen Characteristics

White Black Hisp. Other

Race Age

≤ 49 ≥ 50

Crime Victim’s Recovery(Percent Strongly Agree and Agree)

Victim’s Recovery Affected byOfficer’s Behavior

High Level Exhibited by Officer

Low Level Exhibited by Officer

Victim’s Recovery Affected byOfficer’s Behavior (cont.)

High Level Exhibited by Officer

Low Level Exhibited by Officer

Outcome Does Matter: Getting a Ticket

0102030405060708090

100

Did this officer handle the situation well?

How satisfied with way you were treated

Do you trust the police department to

make decisions?Not Issued a Traffic Ticket Issued a Traffic Ticket

94%

57%

90% 87%

62%

42%

High Level Exhibited by Officer

Low Level Exhibited by Officer

Satisfaction with Ticket Depends on Officer’s Behavior

Satisfaction with Ticket Depends on Officer’s Behavior

High Level Exhibited by Officer

Low Level Exhibited by Officer

Gender Expectations

Women outperform men on emotional intelligence

Female officers will be evaluated more positively than male officers

Female officers will receive highest evaluations from male citizens and the lowest evaluations from female citizens

Public Satisfaction as function of Officer and Citizen Gender

Overall Satisfaction

Male Officer Female Officer

Male Respondent 4.39 4.24

Female Respondent4.35 4.29

1=Very Dissatisfied, 2=Somewhat Dissatisfied, 3=Neutral, 4= Somewhat Satisfied, 5=Very Satisfied

Explained next steps

Answered Questions well

Knew what they were doing

Took Matter Seriously

Concerned about feelings

Treated Objectively

Polite

Listened

0 1 2

Female Male

Odds Ratios: Effects of Officer’s Gender on Satisfaction with the Encounter

Model: Officer Age, Officer Gender, R’s Age, R’s Gender, R’s Race, Residency, Homeownership, Incident Type

1.43

1.35

1.14

1.24

1.33

1.01

1.10

1.18

Conclusions about Police-Community Interaction Survey (PCIS)

Feasible – It can be done Cost effective – Very inexpensive Produces valid responses Attractive to local agencies - feedback Provides external indicators of

organizational performance on local, state and national scale

Building a Strong Bridge between Police Science and Police Practice

Police Science

Police Practice

Advancing Practice: Building Organizational Capacity

New measurement and feedback systems

Standardized diagnostic tools and benchmarks

Sharing ideas across agencies Testing innovation on a large scale Paradigm shift: from bean counting to

quality of policing; evidence-based If you measure it, it will matter!

Agency Feedback: “Translational Criminology” in Practice

o Standardized Reports for each Agencyo Interagency Comparisons:

o Technical assistance with interpretation

Your Agency

Similar Agencies

All Agencies

Agency Use of the Findings

Conceptual use – change their thinking about the problem/issue

Instrumental use - change their programs and policies

Examples of use – Recruit training, In-service training, public awareness

Process Also Matters When Getting a Ticket(% Very Satisfied and Somewhat Satisfied)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

62.0%

8.5%

59.8%

4.9%

OfficerListened

Did not Listen

Not Polite

Officer Polite

+20 +18

-33 -37

The Illinois Police-Community Interaction Survey Program (IL-PCIS)

o Selecting 40 law enforcement agencies throughout Illinois

o Training agency staff in PCIS procedureso Beginning surveys in Octobero Providing feedback in Januaryo Providing technical assistance - use the

findings to improve police services

[If your agency has been invited, I am available to answer questions later]

THANK YOU

For more information about theNational Police Research Platform:

www.nationalpoliceresearch.org