A Practice-based Evidence Approach in Florida

8/18/2019 A Practice-based Evidence Approach in Florida

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-practice-based-evidence-approach-in-florida 1/8

This article was downloaded by: [York University Libraries]On: 10 November 2014, At: 20:07Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Police Practice and Research: An

International JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors and

subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gppr20

A practice‐based evidence approach in

FloridaRachel Boba

a

a School of Criminology and Criminal Justice , Florida AtlanticUniversity , Boca Raton, FL, USA

Published online: 20 Apr 2010.

To cite this article: Rachel Boba (2010) A practice‐based evidence approach in Florida, Police

Practice and Research: An International Journal, 11:2, 122-128, DOI: 10.1080/15614261003593021

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15614261003593021

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions





http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15614261003593021

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/15614261003593021

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gppr20



Police Practice and Research

Vol. 11, No. 2, April 2010, 122–128

ISSN 1561-4263 print/ISSN 1477-271X online

© 2010 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/15614261003593021

http://www.informaworld.com

RESEARCH ARTICLE

A practice-based evidence approach in Florida

Rachel Boba*

School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USATaylorandFrancisGPPR_A_459811.sgm10.1080/15614261003593021PolicePractice&Research:AnInternationalJournal1561-4263(p rint)/1477-271X (online)ResearchArti cle2010Taylor&Francis112000000April [email protected]

I have been asked by the editors of this issue to comment on the paper by David Bradley

and Christine Nixon (2009) titled ‘Ending the “Dialogue of the Deaf”: Evidence and Polic-

ing Policies and Practices, an Australian Case Study,’ and then to describe my experiences

with police/researcher partnerships and how they confirm and/or identify solutions to the

problems set forth in that paper. In an effort to do so, I first present comments and additionalthoughts on the ‘Dialogue of the Deaf’ paper, and then describe factors I believe are impor-

tant for successful police and research partnerships. The opinions and arguments I make in

this paper are my own and do not reflect those of the members of the police organizationswith whom I have worked.

In their paper, I think David Bradley and Christine Nixon do an excellent job of

structuring the types of research that are conducted in policing and the impact each has had.

Although I do not see myself as part of the ‘critical tradition of police research,’ I have

worked closely with researchers in this tradition. I agree with Bradley and Nixon’s assess-ment that police leaders are often very defensive as a consequence of this type of research,

and I have seen, first hand, the negative reactions of police chiefs and commanders toresearch in general and researchers themselves. No one argues that this level of research is

necessary, but its consequences are felt by those of us who are part of the ‘police policyresearch tradition.’

The ‘police policy research tradition’ is accurately depicted by the authors as being

‘founded to provide the theories, ideas and evidence through the application of which the

police might be improved.’ As researchers, we work closely with police to implement poli-

cies and practices in an attempt to make police organizations more effective and evaluate both their process and impact. One of the most important points the authors make in this

discussion is that researchers ‘must acknowledge the importance of practitioner knowledge

and experiences … this knowledge and experience is belittled or ignored, with seriousconsequences for the advance of police reform.’In this vein, I would like to add a consideration to the discussion of these police research

traditions that is reflected in the complementary ideas of ‘evidenced-based practice’ and

‘practice-based evidence.’ Evidence-based [practice] policing is ‘the use of the best

available research on the outcomes of police work to implement guidelines and evaluateagencies, units, and officers’ (Sherman, 1998, p. 3). Instead of relying on anecdotal

evidence, opinions, favorite programs, or political agendas to drive crime policy and polic-

ing practices, rigorous testing and evaluation based on theoretical constructs provides

results of ‘what works’ in crime prevention and police practice (Sherman, 2002).

*Email: [email protected]



Police Practice and Research: An International Journal 123

Practice-based evidence shares the basic idea with evidence-based practice that policy

and practices should be directed by theoretical constructs and systematic evidence;however, the difference is that ‘practice’-based evidence is collected from routine practice

and not from artificially constructed research studies. This perspective has recently been

introduced in the medical field, specifically psychiatry, as a consideration to balance

evidence-based practice methodology. Results of a cursory search of the literature reveal

that doctors in the psychiatry field have taken to advocating the need for evidence to begathered in the environment in which the therapy occurs in addition to being gathered in an

academic clinical setting where the real-world circumstances of therapy are not taken into

account (Hellerstein, 2008; Marginson et al., 2000; McDonald & Viehbeck, 2007). More

specifically, Marginson et al. (2000) assert that although randomized control trials (RCTs)are important for testing treatments, results of meta-analysis of this research reveal a lack

of evidence instead of evidence for or against a particular treatment. They maintain that

often this is due to the problems with RCTs such as differential attrition, non-comparability

of comparison groups, psychometric problems with outcome measures, inconsistency of

treatment delivered, and contamination by other treatments in trials of long-term therapy.They argue that to complement these academic studies, evidence based on good quality data

collected from routine psychiatry practice may provide direction for implementation of

treatments as well.

In translating this idea of practice-based evidence from psychiatric to policing research,I see it also as a complementary approach to evidence-based policing, in that it does not

examine ‘what works’ through the evaluation of an artificial implementation of a program

or strategy, but from the continuous study of routine practice. To be precise, practiced-based

evidence in policing research is the examination of processes and strategies implemented ina comprehensive way by police agencies of their own accord, not programs or strategies

implemented haphazardly or temporarily by the agency for the sake of research. To illus-trate this distinction, let’s take the case of problem-oriented policing (POP). There are

numerous evaluations and examples of how POP has been implemented into individual

units in agencies and applied to specific problems, and a review of the existing researchindicates that POP shows the most promise for effective policing (Weisburd & Braga, 2006;

Weisburd & Eck, 2004). Yet, POP has not been institutionalized into police organizations

or policing overall as Goldstein intended (Goldstein, 2003; Scott, 2000).

In a recently published article, John Crank and I speculate, based on our experience, whyPOP has not been fully implemented into any one agency or policing overall. Our argument

is that POP has not provided a successful direction for adjusting the organizational structure

of a police agency or how to make the day-to-day jobs of police different (Boba & Crank,2008). Instead, police have taken the ideas of POP and reshaped them into manageable

processes within the current policing model (Boba & Crank, 2008; Cordner & Biebel, 2005;Weisburd & Braga, 2006).

Consequently, I maintain that a practiced-based evidence approach is necessary to truly

understand why POP has not been fully implemented. This approach would not focus on

evaluating the quality of POP units or responses to individual problems as most POP eval-uative research does, but on examining the entire agency to determine which aspects of POP

have been incorporated in the day-to-day operations of a police organization, which have

not, and why. For example, Bradley and Nixon assert that research has found that police

appear ‘to have serious deficits in knowledge and skills, particularly in regard to their ability

to grasp problem-oriented policing principles.’ I would argue that with a shift in perspec-tive, these issues can be effectively understood. More simply, instead of examining the lack

of implementation of POP by looking at what is deficient in policing, the practice-based



124 R. Boba

evidence approach would examine the lack of implementation by looking at what is defi-

cient with POP that makes it difficult to implement in the practical police environment. Thisis the approach I have taken in my research which I believe has fostered important research

and meaningful partnerships.

In their paper, Bradley and Nixon advocate a third police research tradition that centers

on the development of ‘intimate and continuous partnerships’ between police and the

university system. I would also argue that these partnerships cannot succeed without theresearch being carried out from a practice-based evidence perspective. One reason is that in

a partnership both partners need to feel they are equal contributors to the process. In an

evidence-based model, police are encouraged to implement programs developed and eval-

uated by researchers, often becoming the laboratories for quasi-experiments of programsand practices. This is not to say experimental research is not important, only that it does not

encourage intimate and continuous partnerships between police and researchers.

In a practiced-based approach, at least in theory, researchers and practitioners are collab-

orators in the development and implementation of policies and programs because they are

seeking to impact routine practice and continually assess the results. As Bradley and Nixonstress, research does not define the goals of police and how they should be pursued, but in

policing there should be a ‘greater emphasis on the role of robust theory and evidence to

formulate policies and endorse official operational practices we had in the past.’ That is,

policies and procedures should be developed from theory and do not have to come from practitioners themselves, but they should be implemented collaboratively with input and

consideration from the organization. Of course, this can cause the research to take more

time, be less systematic, and become more ‘messy,’ but the resulting partnerships can be

more intimate and long-lasting.Although I agree with Bradley and Nixon that this third tradition is important for the

future of policing, I think overcoming the gap between police practitioners and researcherslies in understanding how to truly develop ‘intimate and continuous’ partnerships. Speaking

to intimacy, the issue is not whether intimacy is possible between police practitioners and

researchers but whether it can be systematized. Many researchers note that police agencieshave been very open to and, often to their own detriment, honest with researchers (Skogan

& Frydl, 2004). However, what I have seen, as noted later, is that the intimacy within a

police and research partnership is often developed among individuals, and not necessarily

between the police organization and the university. That is, a partnership between a policeand university begins and ends with a partnership of individuals. When those individuals

leave or lose interest, the partnership disappears making the true challenge here the

development of intimacy between the organizations themselves.Speaking to continuity of the partnership, police organizations and researchers operate

in different ways which makes developing long-term partnerships between them difficult.Researchers conduct their work, and subsequently partnerships with police, in a cyclical

way. Beginning with theory, we develop hypotheses, collect data, conduct analysis, and

make conclusions that are used to support or refute the original theory. Evaluation projects

may not always be directly linked to theory, but are cyclical as well. A research or evalua-tion project has a beginning (e.g., develop hypotheses and data collection instruments,

collect baseline measures), a middle (e.g., collect data, measure program implementation),

and an end (e.g., analyze data and make conclusions about the effectiveness of the

program). In addition, as researchers and academics, we move from project to project and

article to article to satisfy tenure requirements and our changing interests.Police departments, on the other hand, operate in a more linear way. Police organiza-

tions ebb and flow, evolve and devolve, but always move forward to the next day, the next




problem, or the next political issue which makes reflection and evaluation of previous work,

not impossible but, difficult and often not even considered. Stated another way, the worldin which police operate does not stop and wait for them to evaluate it; it continues to change

and adapt. In my own research, I have experienced this dilemma when I was simply trying

to write an evaluation report of an ongoing process. Each time I would sit down to write the

report, something new would happen in the organization that was important and that I

wanted to include and/or to wait to see what happened. It would have been easier to simplyend my partnership and my knowledge of the agency so I could sit down and write the

evaluation report without the ‘messiness.’

Consequently, this difference in process between the practical and research environment

makes it difficult for researchers to maintain a continuous relationship with practitioners,especially for those who require significant time to write their results. As Bradley and

Nixon suggest, one solution might be for police agencies to hire their own researchers (e.g.,

the Metropolitan Police in London), so the continuous partnership exists in the job respon-

sibility of the internal police research employee. But questions of objectivity of the internal

employee, cost, and necessity in smaller agencies, for example, are challenges in imple-menting this idea on a wider scale.

So, the question is, how do we systematize intimacy and a continuous partnership

between institutions with different agendas and processes? I’m not sure if I am qualified to

posit answers to this broad question, as I have only worked individually with police agen-cies, not as part of a larger initiative. However, I will conclude my comments by outlining

some of what I think are the defining qualities of a police partnership in the hope of

providing some insight to overcoming these issues. Although I have worked closely with a

number of agencies around the USA, I will focus my discussion on my current successfulresearch partnership with the Port St Lucie, Florida Police Department (PSLPD). I am

proud of the partnership I have developed and maintained with the PSLPD and am evenmore proud of the recognition our partnership has earned in 2008 by receiving the first

annual award for police/researcher partnerships by the International Association of Chiefs

of Police. The PSLPD was given the award for our work on institutionalizing the use of problem solving, analysis, and accountability into the day-to-day work of the police

agency (PSLPD, 2008). It is this recognition that prompted my participation in this special

issue.

Instead of detailing the evolution of the partnership and the substance of our work together, I will briefly highlight some of the characteristics of the partnership that I think

have contributed to our success. Generally, they include proximity, grant funding, practical

knowledge by the researcher, research knowledge by the practitioners, and, most impor-tantly, trust.

An important characteristic of this partnership is proximity. In the proposal for the initialgrant that began this partnership, my colleagues and I emphasized the importance of

proximity in selecting research sites to ensure participation and observation of the agency’s

practices (Weisel et al., forthcoming). I live in Port St Lucie, FL, and my home is literally

10 minutes from the main police station. This has been very important in making it easy for me to conduct my research, but also to participate in other agency functions, such as awards

assemblies, promotion ceremonies, and community meetings, that engender the ‘intimacy’

that Bradley and Nixon emphasize. In contrast, while at the Police Foundation in

Washington, DC, I worked with a number of police agencies around the country. The diffi-

culty of scheduling travel, the short length of trips, and the inability to attend impromptumeetings characterized more superficial, temporary partnerships that stand in stark contrast

to my current partnership with PSLPD.



126 R. Boba

Although I do not think grant funding is a requirement for developing a successful

police and research partnership, it does certainly help the process in a number of ways. Thefirst is that it creates legitimacy for the researcher. I, for example, brought a grant to the

PSLPD in 2004 which began our relationship. The grant paid primarily for my time to assist

the agency with implementation of analysis, and it also provided some funding to cover

conferences for agency personnel, resources such as books, and overtime for employees to

attend training that I conducted. Having this federal funding implied to the Chief andemployees of the agency that I was a legitimate researcher and the federal government

valued my work. It also outlined specific goals for the partnership (e.g., improve problem

solving, analysis, and accountability) and facilitated my engaging a wide range of people in

the agency as part of the implementation and evaluation process.Yet, this grant funding only initiated our partnership. That is, the grant period was from

January 2004 through May 2005, and if I had simply left at the end of the grant to write my

final report, the department would not have protested, but may have viewed me as just

another researcher ‘doing a project.’ However, we continued our collaboration from June

2005 through December 2007 without grant funding. Specifically, we held project meetingsand formulated subcommittees to discuss and guide the work being done, and I continued

to attend important functions and monthly Compstat meetings. In January 2008, I applied

for and received a second federal grant to evaluate all the work conducted through the part-

nership. In this second grant, none of the funding was allocated to the agency. Although progress in the agency had continued after the first grant was over, the new grant brought

some of the intensity back and provided me the time (one course release) to participate even

more fully. The important consideration here is that a police and research partnership will

ebb and flow based on the circumstances, and, I believe, it is the researcher’s responsibilityto stay connected, because the agency will continue operating whether or not a researcher

is involved. Grant funding is not glue that holds the partnership together, but is important because it encourages and facilitates the partnership by providing legitimacy for the

research, specific goals for the work, and time for the researcher to stay involved.

I believe that my experience as a crime analyst in a police agency early in my career hasalso been an important factor in the success of our partnership. Not only has it informed and

shaped the substance of my research, but also, specific to this partnership, it has provided

me with the skills to communicate effectively with police officers, managers, and

commanders. I have a particular style that I developed while working for a police depart-ment and use the practical situations I have experienced to exemplify the research concepts

I present. In addition, my experience as a crime analyst has assisted in the process as I

personally conducted the necessary crime analysis at the beginning of the partnership untilthe agency was able to hire two qualified analysts. Lastly, my knowledge of the nuances of

day-to-day work in a police agency has helped me develop strategies to overcome resistanceand apathy.

Alternatively, it is not enough that the researcher has practical experience to have a

successful partnership. Members of the agency itself must also appreciate, understand, and/

or have experience with research. These individuals can be civilian employees who arehired as resident researchers, as noted earlier. I would argue even more important is having

sworn personnel with these qualities, as they are the individuals who implement the prac-

tices and ‘sell’ the ideas to others in the agency. In the case of our partnership, the PSLPD

Chief and Assistant Chief were very aware of research and practice outside their agency and

had an appreciation of and an open mind to researchers. In addition, there was one particular member of the agency, a Sergeant, who was then promoted to Lieutenant, who had earned

a master’s degree in criminology and criminal justice and truly understood theory and its




application to policing. Not surprisingly, these individuals were the key to our successful

partnership – the Chiefs in their leadership and the Lieutenant in implementing the practiceson the ground level.

Lastly, and most importantly, all of these factors of the partnership have established a

meaningful and ongoing level of trust between me, as the researcher, and the organization

itself. This is important because trust leads to truly collaborative implementation and main-

tenance of policies and practices. A recent event in our partnership exemplifies our success.The PSLPD’s Chief of Police, who was instrumental in this partnership, has recently retired

and has been replaced. I was concerned about the continuation of the partnership because a

new chief, as I have often witnessed, could easily disregard the work we have done and

replace it with his own, very different, agenda. I, with the other key agency personnel, have both informally discussed and formally presented the collaborative work we have done over

the last five years to the new chief. At the writing of this paper, we have had several mean-

ingful meetings and are continuing the partnership under the new Chief’s leadership. I

believe that the smooth transition from one chief to the next illustrates the high level of trust

and confidence on which our partnership is based. One final comment about building trustis that it does not happen quickly and most likely will take longer than a year or two, which

is why proximity, shared knowledge, as well as patience are important.

In conclusion, I have not presented specific direction or insight about how to routinize

partnerships between police agencies and universities at the institutional level. Although Icommend the Australians and English for their achievements in standardizing these types

of partnerships, I am wary of their application in the USA because of the diffused nature of

both our police agencies and universities. Police agencies in the USA are too numerous for

every one of them to partner with a researcher, and the small number of researchers inter-ested in conducting applied police research limits their availability. Admittedly, to produce

quality research, not all police departments need to be involved in the research itself.Because it would be difficult for the USA to attempt a wide-scale initiative as in Australia

or in the UK, I think a more realistic goal would be for individual researchers to become

more active in forming meaningful, long-term partnerships with police organizations witha practice-based evidence approach. Finally, as this Special Issue attempts to do, a further

goal is to provide direction and guidance for those researchers and practitioners who are

interested in developing such partnerships.

Note on contributor

Rachel Boba is an Associate Professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at FloridaAtlantic University.

References

Boba, R., & Crank, J. (2008). Institutionalizing problem-oriented policing: Rethinking problemidentification, analysis, and accountability. Police Practice and Research: An International

Journal, 9(5), 379–393.Bradley, D., & Nixon, C. (2009). Ending the ‘dialogue of the deaf’: Evidence and policing policies

and practices, an Australian case study. Police Practice and Research: An International Journal,10(5–6), 423–435.

Cordner, G., & Biebel, E.P. (2005). Problem-oriented policing in practice. Criminology & Public

Policy, 4, 155–181.Goldstein, H. (2003). On further developing problem-oriented policing: The most critical need, the

major impediments, and a proposal. In Problem-oriented policing: From innovation tomainstream. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.



128 R. Boba

Hellerstein, D. (2008). Practice-based evidence rather than evidence-based practice in psychiatry. Medscape Journal of Medicine, 10, 141.

Marginson, F.R., Barkham, M., Evans, C., McGrath, G., Clark, J.M., Audin, K., et al. (2000).Measurement and psychotherapy: Evidence-based practice and practice-based evidence. British

Journal of Psychiatry, 177, 123–130.McDonald, P.W., & Viehbeck, S. (2007). From evidence-based practice making to practice-based

evidence making: Creating communities of (research) and practice. Health Promotion Practice,8, 140–144.

Port St Lucie, Florida Police Department (PSLPD). (2008). IACP and Sprint-Nextel Excellence in Law Enforcement Research Award Application.

Scott, M. (2000). Problem-oriented policing: Reflections on the first 20 years. Washington, DC: USDepartment of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

Sherman, L. (1998). Evidence-based policing. Washington, DC: Police Foundation.Sherman, L. (2002). Evidence-based crime prevention. London: Routledge.Skogan, W., & Frydl, K. (2004). Fairness and effectiveness in policing: The evidence. Washington,

DC: The National Academies Press.Weisburd, D.L., & Braga, A. (2006). Police innovation: Contrasting perspectives. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Weisburd, D.L., & Eck, J. (2004). What can police do to reduce crime, disorder and fear? The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 593, 42–65.

Weisel, D.L., Eck, J.E., Brunet, J.R., Boba, R., Sampson, R.S., & Scott, M.S. (forthcoming). Enhancing community policing by institutionalizing problem analysis: A descriptive evaluationof implementation in five police agencies. Washington, DC: Office of Community OrientedPolicing Services.

Documents

A Practice-based Evidence Approach in Florida