Research Brief: The Police Discipline Survey
by Christopher Harris and Kristen Chierus
1 | Page
A vital question that has plagued democratic governments, and in particular their police forces, is who will investigate acts of improper or illegal conduct by the police? American police departments have a long and sordid history with attempts to secure discipline within their own organizations to ensure that their members behave in ways that best serve an agency’s goals and purposes. There have certainly been numerous high profile incidents, both historically (see Johnson, 2003) and in recent memory (see Skolnick & Fyfe, 1993), which calls into question the degree to which police can successfully operate within the rule of law.
But quietly, and without much publicity, a number of departments across the country have taken significant steps to curb misconduct. Many of these steps involve specific tools designed to increase the degree to which agencies can monitor, respond to, or prevent incidents of misconduct, as well as a new framework of openness and accountability which serves as the organizing elements of these tools (Sparrow, Moore, & Kennedy, 1990; Walker, 2005). These tools include external mechanisms such as civilian review boards and police auditors, as well as internal mechanisms such as critical incident reporting and Early Intervention (EI) systems. These instruments are employed with the overarching goal of organizational change, which relies on systematic analysis of data, a focus on controlling street-level officer behavior, and a convergence of both internal and external strategies for accountability. In short, these tools and their accompanying framework have given rise to what Walker (2005) terms the “new police accountability”.
While some of these instruments have received attention from police scholars for quite some time, and others are beginning to receive attention, there are some elements of this “new accountability” which have not. One particular mechanism of interest which has yet to receive scholarly inquiry is the police discipline matrix. A discipline matrix is, “a formal schedule of disciplinary actions that specifies both the presumptive action to be taken for each type of misconduct, and any adjustments to be made based on an officer’s prior disciplinary record” (Walker, 2003, p.2).
Historically, police discipline has been a secretive world. Aside from a very small number of departments, it is impossible for citizens to know what the likely punishment would be for a particular act of police misconduct. Even in individual cases, often imposed discipline is not made public, or is specifically forbidden by state law or union contracts. For the public, such secrecy has lead citizens to question whether police are in fact receiving appropriate sanctions for their violations of law or departmental policy, which likely leads to a loss of police legitimacy and a weakening of their overall authority. For officers, no one has an idea of the normal punishment for any particular act of misconduct, either within the department or across agencies, leading often to perceptions of inconsistent and unfair disciplinary actions by supervisors (Curry, 2004). This is a particularly acute problem for large departments where disciplinary decisions are decentralized to Captains or similar personnel, all of whom may have varying tolerances for different acts of misconduct. Discipline matrices are one possible solution to these difficulties, since they propose to ensure that discipline is appropriate, consistent, and fair by requiring all supervisors to follow the same schedule of discipline. This matrix can also be shared with the public, thereby removing the secretive nature of disciplinary actions.
Currently, empirical research on police discipline matrices is nearly nonexistent: the available literature notes that the Phoenix Police Department, Los Angeles County Sheriff Department, and the Metropolitan Washington Police Department employ these matrices, and the Oakland Police Department was under consent decree to develop one (Police Chief, October 2006; Walker, 2003). Whether other police departments employ or are developing discipline matrices is unknown, and there is no available research on the challenges involved in designing, implementing, or maintaining a matrix (but see Shane, 2012).
In order to address this gap in knowledge, the School of Criminology & Justice Studies at UMass Lowell conducted a survey of U.S. law enforcement agencies to determine the prevalence of discipline matrices across large police departments. The remainder of thisresearch brief covers the study's methodology, its key findings, and concludes with a discussion of policy implications and next steps.
Study Design
As discipline matrices are thought to be employed by large police departments, the survey solicited departments with 100 or more full-time sworn officers for participation (excluding State Police). This information was obtained from the Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics in 2008, which is the most recent census available.
The census identified1,016 police departments with 100 or more full-time sworn officers, and each was sent a letter explaining the purpose and nature of the survey. The letter explained the survey's purpose was to inquire about current disciplinary policies and practices amongst U.S. law enforcement agencies, that the survey was very short (no more than 8 questions), and could be completed online. The letter included a hyperlink to the survey, which was designed and deployed using SurveyGizmo[1]. We asked that the survey be completed by the agency's top executive, or someone who was intimately familiar with the department's disciplinary policies and procedures. Agencies complied, with 29.6 percent of respondents having the rank of Chief or Assistant/Deputy Chief (or an equivalent thereof), and another 28.6 percent comprising respondent of the rank of Inspector, Commander, Colonel, Corporal, Captain, or Major. Another 23.1 percent were either Lieutenants or Sergeants. The remaining respondents were Internal Affairsor Human Resource personnel, and only 4 respondents were patrol officers.
Following the Dillman method (Dillman, 2007), we sent follow-up letters to nonparticipating agencies once every few weeks after the initial solicitation for three additional waves. After the follow-up waves, telephone calls were placed to the largest,non-participating agencies in hope of obtaining their responses. In the end, 371police departments responded to our survey, representing 36.5 percent of agencies with 100 or more full-time sworn officers. Among the nation's largest 100 agencies, 66 responded to our survey. Among the largest 200 agencies, 109 responded. Nearly 80 percent of respondent agencies were municipal police departments, and the remaining were Sheriff's departments. Based on the responses, the survey results appear to be adequate enough to estimate the prevalence of matrices across U.S. departments.
Key Findings
The survey initially asked if departments operated, or were currently planning, a discipline matrix. If the respondent indicated yes, then questions were asked about when the matrix was operational and whether or not it was shared (or was planning to be shared) with the public. If the respondent indicated no, then questions were asked about whether the agency employed progressive discipline and whether or not the agency anywhere specified penalties for specific act of misconduct. Lastly, a few questions were asked about the respondents (e.g., their current rank, years of experience in law enforcement, etc.).
Tables 1-3 show results from both the matrix question, as well as the follow-up questions for those who affirmatively indicated the use of a matrix. Table 1 demonstrates that a little more than one-third (37.4%) of the responding agencies indicated that they had or were planning a discipline matrix. The data also display a clear trend: the larger the departments, the more likely they were to have a matrix. Nearly 65 percent of agencies in the 90th percentile based on their number of full-time sworn officers were operating a matrix. By comparison, only 36 percent of the departments in the 10th percentile or lower were operating a matrix.
In terms of operational history, only 18 (12.6%) departments were in the planning phase and the remaining were currently in use(see Table 2). Of those whose matrix was operational, the initial year of operation ranged between 1972 and 2012. While some agencies' matrices dated as far back as the 1970s, and several more emerged between 1980 and 2000, the vast majority (88.2%) of the discipline matrices were operational during or after 2000.
As for public distribution, there was an even split amongst departments: about half shared their discipline matrix with the public and about half did not (see Table 3). Of those in the planning phase, most departments were anticipating sharing their matrix with the public.
Amongst the departments who indicated they do not employ a discipline matrix, the vast majority employ some form of progressive discipline (see Table 4). Only 5.2 percent of these agencies did not employ progressive discipline. The vast majority of agencies (87.7%) without a matrix also did not specify in any of their policies specific disciplinary actions for specific acts of misconduct. Of the 29 agencies which did specify penalties, most were for acts such as avoidable automotive collisions, being absent without leave, missing court, or failing to complete training within a specified timeframe. Two agencies also had policies for employee termination for intentional acts of untruthfulness or dishonesty.
Finally, we asked all respondents whether their agency shares disciplinary decisions regarding individual officers with the public. For those agencies which do not share their disciplinary decisions, we asked why this is the case, and provided a checklist to the respondents. Based on the responses, just over one-third (34.1%) of agencies share their disciplinary decisions with the public (see Table 5). Of those who do not, many were prohibited from doing so either by state law or departmental policy (these numbers do not sum to 100 percent as respondents could check all which applied). A small number of departments indicated that while the information is not typically made public, they will share this information if requested.
Policy Implications
From the survey, it appears that discipline matrices are a relatively recent technology for large U.S. police departments, but is more widely prevalent than initially thought based on current research. Just over 38 percent of the survey respondents indicated their agencies have, or are planning to employ, a matrix, and the vast majority have been in operation for less than twelve years. If we suspect that the vast majority of agencies with matrices replied to our survey, it would imply that just under 15 percent of U.S. police departments with 100 or more full-time sworn officers have, or are planning, discipline matrices. It also appears that the adoption of matrices varies systematically by size, with larger agencies using discipline matrices when compared to smaller agencies.
It is noteworthy that, of those agencies that have created a matrix, only half share their matrix with the public. Given one of the proposed advantages of utilizing a matrix is that it can remove the secrecy surrounding police discipline for the public, it is striking that more departments do not publicly disseminate their matrix. To the extent that loss of police legitimacy can be attributable to public sentiment that officers are not sufficiently sanctioned, or are not sanctioned in a commensurate manner with the nature of the misconduct, it would appear that such a loss could be mitigated (at least partially) by sharing the department's matrix with the public (even in places where the sharing of individual officer sanctions are not permissible).
For those departments which do not employ a matrix, nearly all premise their sanctions for officer misconduct on the principal of progressive discipline. It appears then that progressive discipline is a nearly universally accepted principal in large U.S. police departments.
Conclusion
Given the results of the findings, it appears that discipline matrices are employed to a greater extent than would be presumed given the current research literature. There is virtually no information on police discipline matrices, and so the information provided by our survey has proven illuminating. The next logical step is to examine the content of various discipline matrices, as it would prove fruitful to compare and contrast specified penalties across jurisdictions to determine the degree to which there is consensus amongst departments. In addition, some knowledge about the difficulties in creating, implementing, and maintaining a matrix would be useful for agencies seeking to create a matrix, and a collective body of knowledge around matrices would help in evaluating the proposed benefits of this new tool. As it stands, we do not know whether matrices are a useful technology for enhancing police accountability.
1 | Page
References
1 | Page
Curry. T.H. (2004). An analysis of the discipline process and outcomes, with recommendations, for the Lansing Police Department. Michigan State University, School of Labor & Industrial Relations.
Dillman, D.A. (2007). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd Ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Johnson, M.S. (2003). Street justice: A history of violence in New York City. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Police Chief Magazine (2006, October). Employee discipline matrix: A search for fairness in the
disciplinary process. Alexandria, VA: International Association of Chiefs of Police.
Shane, J.M. (2012). Police employee disciplinary matrix: An emerging concept. Police Quarterly, 15, 62-91.
Skolnick, J.H., & Fyfe, J.J. (1993). Above the law. New York, NY: The Free Press
Sparrow. M.K., Moore, M.H., & Kennedy, D.M. (1990). Beyond 911. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Walker, S. (2003). The discipline matrix: An effective police accountability tool? Omaha, NB: Police Professionalism Initiative.
Walker, S. (2005). The new world of police accountability. CA: Sage Publications.
1 | Page
[1] See for more information.