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