MENU TITLE: Police Integrity Public Service With Honor. Series: NIJ Report Published: January 1997 149 pages 301,842 bytes ------------------------------ Figures, charts, forms, and tables are not included in this ASCII plain-text file. To view this document in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file available from this Web site or order a print copy from NCJRS at 800-851-3420. ------------------------------ U.S. Department of Justice ------------------------------ Police Integrity Public Service With Honor A Partnership Between the National Institute of Justice and the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services ------------------------------ Project Managers Stephen J. Gaffigan Senior Policy Analyst Office of Community Oriented Policing Services Phyllis P. McDonald, Ed.D. Social Science Analyst National Institute of Justice January 1997 ------------------------------ U.S. Department of Justice Natinal Institute of Justice Jeremy Travis Director Office of Community Oriented Policing Services Joseph E. Brann Director Opinions or points of view expressed in this document are those of the participants and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Justice NCJ 163811 ------------------------------ Table of Contents Foreword Acknowledgments Executive Summary Chapter 1: Introduction and Background Chapter 2: Keynote Addresses Ethics and Police Integrity: Some Definitions and Questions for Study, Stephen J. Vicchio, Ph.D.11 Integrity and Ethics: A Federal Perspective, Janet Reno, Attorney General of the United States Chapter 3: Plenary Sessions First Plenary Session Second Plenary Session Third Plenary Session Fourth Plenary Session Fifth Plenary Session Chapter 4: Small Group Working Sessions on Integrity and Ethics Recommendations Model Practices Chapter 5: Epilogue Appendixes Appendix A: Attendees Appendix B: Selected Issue Papers on Plenary Panel Presentations Appendix C: Bibliography of Related Sources ------------------------------ Foreword Integrity is universal to the human experience; it can be considered the measure of an individual, an agency, an institution, a discipline, or an entire nation. Integrity is a yardstick for trust, competence, professionalism, and confidence. Deep within every human being is the subconscious ability to interpret behavior and events as a mark of integrity or a violation of trust. It is this universal tendency that makes the study of integrity complex, challenging, and important. Policing in a democracy requires high levels of integrity if it is to be acceptable to the people. Historically, in the United States, there have been many times when public trust in the integrity of the police has been questioned. Events in the 1990s eroded public trust in the integrity of the police; this situation has resulted in a closer scrutiny of the profession and its responses to this critical issue. This concern, as expressed by citizens and law enforcement professionals, motivated the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) and the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) to assemble a group of law enforcement personnel and other professionals in a national symposium to examine the issue of integrity. In July 1996 the National Symposium on Police Integrity took place in Washington, D.C. The 200 participants included police chiefs, sheriffs, police researchers, police officers, members of other professional disciplines, community leaders, and members of other Federal agencies. This participant mix was particularly noteworthy because it reflected diverse views of individuals who typically had not been at the same table in the past. That the issue of police integrity attracts international concern was evidenced by attendance at the symposium of representatives from the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Sweden, Belarus, Nicaragua, Haiti, El Salvador, and Honduras. During the 2 1/2 day meeting, participants and speakers agreed that understanding how to establish and maintain integrity was a common concern for law enforcement. Further, in his synthesis remarks, Mark Moore of the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, observed that the pursuit of integrity within one's profession is paramount to an individual's self-respect and true work satisfaction. There was also a clear understanding of the tragic consequences that would befall the profession, indeed our very democracy, if there was a serious erosion of integrity. What followed was an intense brainstorming session that allowed participants the opportunity to hear from one another and begin the dialogue toward finding more effective solutions. The general consensus following the symposium was that the discussion of police integrity has been broadened from a narrow focus on police officers' behavior and internal investigations of corruption to an understanding of the importance of other factors. These included leadership, command behavior, supervision, organizational structure, selection, hiring, training, the disciplinary system, the police subculture, community values, and political and economic conditions. Participants explored how these factors could affect behavior. They also recognized that the protection of civil liberties as prescribed by the U.S. Constitution is fundamental to guaranteeing the personal dignity of all people. Another example of the need to broaden the discussion of this issue was illustrated by the desire to learn more from those law enforcement organizations that historically have had little or no problem around the issues of integrity and ethics. These "healthy" organizations are quite numerous throughout the country, and there is much to be learned about why and how they have been able to maintain high standards. We can learn at least as much from examining what is right in police organizations as what is wrong in them. The presentations and small group working sessions that took place at this symposium generated many ideas and recommendations from participants. The results of these deliberations are presented and discussed in further detail in subsequent sections of this report. In the months following the symposium, we have worked with staff in analyzing this information to identify specific actions that our offices can initiate to continue the important momentum that began with this event. This COPS Office and NIJ joint action plan -- which is included in this report -- was submitted to the Attorney General for her review and approval. It represents the commitment of the U.S. Department of Justice to continue collaboration with the law enforcement profession in search of improved responses to the integrity issue. We both are proud to present this report. It represents the thinking that took place at the symposium, the ideas that were expressed, and the recommendations that were made. It is not meant to be a definitive analysis of the police integrity issue. Such analyses exist in the form of several publications that focus on particular elements of this issue (e.g., use of force). Rather, this report suggests a broader framework for how we should think about this issue in the future and what actions might be necessary on the basis of the scrutiny given it by symposium participants. We both are very satisfied with the progress to date. We are especially enthusiastic about and encouraged by the high levels of interest expressed by practitioners, researchers, and others concerned with law enforcement. More importantly, we are confident that the National Symposium on Police Integrity represents a profound new beginning toward a renewal of respect for the police and a new drive by law enforcement professionals to protect the personal dignity of both victims and offenders and the public trust of citizens. We encourage all members of the law enforcement community to continue their commitment to work on this critical issue at all levels of our profession and to consistently demonstrate a willingness to act decisively whenever necessary to enhance the level of integrity in our democracy. Joseph E. Brann, Director Office of Community Oriented Policing Services Jeremy Travis, Director National Institute of Justice ------------------------------ Acknowledgments Sheldon F. Greenberg, Ph.D., Associate Professor and Chair, Department of Interdisciplinary Programs, School of Continuing Studies, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, is to be commended for his many contributions to the National Symposium on Police Integrity and the proceedings of that meeting. He devoted many hours arranging the work group meeting that took place in Baltimore in March 1996 and lining up a trainer for the work group facilitators prior to the event. Most significantly, following the symposium, Dr. Greenberg summarized the intellectual and action-oriented themes of the symposium for final publication. Work Group In addition to COPS, NIJ, and other DOJ staff, special thanks is extended to the following members of the Police Integrity Work Group who were so instrumental in helping to plan the national symposium: Sheldon Krantz, Piper & Marbury L.L.P.; Mary Ann Wycoff, Police Executive Research Forum; Judge Milton Mollen, Graubard, Mollen & Miller; William K. Finney, Police Chief, Saint Paul, Minnesota; George Kelling, Professor, Rutgers University; Jimmy O'Keefe, Director of Training, New York City Police Department; Dave Williams, Assistant Chief, Portland Police Bureau; Michael Berkow, Police Chief, Coachella, California; Tom Koby, Police Chief, Boulder, Colorado; Jerry McElroy, Executive Director, New York City Criminal Justice Agency; Sheldon Greenberg, Chair, Department of Interdisciplinary Programs, The Johns Hopkins University; Elizabeth M. Watson, Police Chief, Austin, Texas; Gerald L. Williams, Executive Director, Bill Blackwood Law Enforcement Management Institute of Texas, Sam Houston State University; William A. Geller, Associate Director, Police Executive Research Forum; Frank Monastero (retired), U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mark Moore, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University; Gilbert Gallegos, Fraternal Order of Police; Philip Arreola, Police Chief, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Johnnie Johnson, Jr., Police Chief, Birmingham, Alabama; Mary F. Rabadeau, Chief, New Jersey Transit Police; Jerome A. Needle, International Association of Chiefs of Police; Jerome H. Skolnick, New York University; and Stephen Vicchio, Chair, Department of Philosophy, College of Notre Dame. Symposium Moderators The symposium sessions were moderated by Ellen Scrivner, Assistant Director, Training and Technical Assistance, COPS Office, and Sally T. Hillsman, Deputy Director, NIJ. Conference Facilitators and Recorders Small group discussions were an important part of the symposium. The following professionals participated as facilitators of the small groups: Steven Edwards, Social Science Program Manager, NIJ; Sam McQuade, Social Science Program Manager, NIJ; Sheldon Greenberg, Chair, Department of Interdisciplinary Programs, The Johns Hopkins University; Tom Potter, former Police Chief, Portland, Oregon; Marcia Chaiken, Director of Research, LINC, Alexandria, Virginia; David Hayeslip, Assistant Director, Policy Support, Program Development and Design, COPS Office; Gayle Fischer-Stewart, Consultant; Tom Koby, Police Chief, Boulder, Colorado; and Michael Berkow, Police Chief, Coachella, California. Recorders were assigned to work with each of the group facilitators to assist in documenting the ideas and recommendations that emanated from their work. The following staff provided this invaluable service: Tammy Rhinehart and Christine Whitledge of the COPS Office and Robert Kaminski, Jeffrey Ross, Stephanie Borque, Winnie Reed, and Richard Lewis of NIJ. Final Report Editing Special recognition and thanks to Jim Sweeney, Acting Assistant Director, Communications Division, COPS Office; Mary Graham, Publications Manager, NIJ; and Gayle Garmise, National Criminal Justice Reference Service editor. ------------------------------ Executive Summary I. Significance of the Event The National Symposium on Police Integrity, sponsored by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) and the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), was held July 14-16, 1996, in Washington, D.C. Some 200 participants represented a historic gathering of law enforcement executives, researchers, police officers, labor organizations, community and political leadership, and related disciplines. The purpose of the meeting was to provide a forum for discussion of a special set of policing issues that had been receiving extensive media attention. Incidents of major corruption, excessive use of force and brutality, and other forms of abuse in law enforcement agencies around the country had become prominent news items. These issues were not new ones for law enforcement. Nonetheless, law enforcement leaders and others perceived that new forms of old problems may be at the center of the issue. Therefore, it was time to examine them again and search for new solutions. The U.S. Department of Justice responded with the National Symposium on Police Integrity. A work group was convened in March 1996 to provide direction for an agenda. Perhaps the most important aspect of this work was selecting a title for the symposium since language often determines direction. Terms such as "officer discretion" and "police accountability" were considered. However, when the term "police integrity" was put forth, all members concurred that this was the most appropriate language for the issue at hand. A focus on "police integrity" opened a whole new domain. Although previous research, study, and experimentation had focused on critical issues such as corruption and excessive use of force, these approaches had, in fact, revolved around single dimensions. As a result, the solutions were constricted in that they were derived out of a need to control unwanted behaviors of individuals. In comparison, police integrity guided the focus to the broader domain of developing a healthy organization that would serve to reinforce and maintain the good character and constructive motivations of many of the individuals joining the ranks of law enforcement. The format of the national symposium consisted of two keynote addresses, a series of panel presentations by well-respected individuals speaking on behalf of the interests represented, small group discussions to explore more thoroughly the ideas presented, and a concluding synthesis by another well-known and highly qualified police policy researcher. Three Strategic Tracks Looking back at the process and outcomes of this national discussion, it was clear that three parallel tracks emerged: an intellectual domain, a personal consideration, and a set of actions representing a continuation of the symposium discussions. Mark Moore, Harvard University, described all three in his synthesis of the symposium. Intellectual. The focus on the intellectual domain broadened the conceptual thinking about this issue. It included identifying organizational, structural, and community considerations that were critical to establishing and maintaining healthy law enforcement organizations and that positively reinforced the qualities of its members. Personal. Mark Moore described the personal component of the deliberations in terms of the significance of police integrity for both leaders and police officers. An organization that has integrity gives members job satisfaction. Without that, the badge, so to speak, is tarnished, resulting in a sense of failure or loss. Actions. The small group discussions yielded a series of action steps that can be pursued to begin the process of seeking resolution for the issues brought to the table. The small group recommendations are summarized in Chapter 4. Finally, Attorney General Janet Reno's keynote address recognized that the work of the symposium should not be considered an end point but rather a beginning. She requested that a report be prepared that outlines an action plan to enable NIJ and COPS to continue the work suggested by the symposium participants. II. The NIJ/COPS Action Plan Following the national symposium, COPS and NIJ staff began to develop a plan for the upcoming year based on the ideas and recommendations developed during the symposium. The plan is designed to develop the issues as well as implement some of the small groups' recommendations. The objectives of the action plan are to structure future opportunities for expanded dialogue on critical integrity issues in venues closer to the State and local practitioner communities and to produce tangible and useful products for the law enforcement community. The basic elements of the action plan are as follows: o COPS issued a solicitation in November 1996 to establish several Regional Community Policing Institutes throughout the country primarily to deliver community policing training and technical assistance. All of these institutes will be encouraged to incorporate the subject of integrity and ethics into their curriculums, with one or more of these institutes developing a strong, programmatic emphasis on integrity and ethics issues. o COPS will include articles on community policing, integrity and ethics issues, and descriptions of model practices and programs in this area in bulletins for national dissemination. o NIJ awarded grants for research on police integrity based on priority topic areas identified at the national symposium. NIJ will continue to broaden its efforts in this area. The Office of Science and Technology (NIJ) has a similar commitment to focus on technology that may support the development of early warning tracking systems in the interest of prevention for police personnel. o Both COPS and NIJ are considering ways to initiate case studies of departments that have an excellent track record pertaining to integrity. The focus of these studies will be on departments that are fully implementing community policing and have successfully altered internal systems that have an effect on integrity as part of that process and on "healthy" police agencies that have a demonstrated history of high standards of integrity and ethics. Both offices are exploring ways to convene expert work groups to catalogue for dissemination state-of-the-art thinking on internal systems necessary for integrity maintenance. o COPS and NIJ will sponsor regional workshops to enable more State and local practitioners to become involved in constructive discussion relating to integrity issues. These regional workshops will resemble the structure of the national symposium. Practitioner participants will be provided all resources gathered to date and an opportunity to contribute their unique experiences and perceptions to the national discussion. o A number of the recommendations of the national symposium will be acted upon immediately in order to prepare for the regional workshops: Videotapes of symposium speakers will be duplicated; a workshop with representatives of police leadership/executive development programs and representatives of State training commissions will be conducted; a work group of representatives of other disciplines to identify working models of integrity maintenance will be convened; and copies of the national symposium report will be reproduced for distribution. o At the end of fiscal year 1997, a status report on the police integrity initiative will be prepared for the Attorney General. This report will document progress made on the preceding action plan, and it will address the remaining recommendations for future actions on the part of the U.S. Department of Justice. These additional recommendations will evolve from those presented at the national symposium and will be discussed further at the planned regional workshops during fiscal year 1997. III. A Summary of the Small Group Recommendations for Consideration Work groups were structured so participants could react to the symposium presentations. A trained facilitator was assigned to each group. Many of these issues have been analyzed by COPS and NIJ staff for immediate action and have been included in the action plan presented above that was approved by the Attorney General. The remaining recommendations will be discussed further and analyzed during the course of regional workshops scheduled for next year, and they will be presented as part of a future action plan in the second report submitted to the Attorney General in the fall of 1997. Small group discussions centered around the following principal symposium topics: o A general approach to the issue of integrity as presented by representatives of other disciplines and law enforcement executives. o The related issues of leaders, organizational structure, and the police subculture. o Police officers' perspectives. o Internal subsystems and external forces that had an impact on the behavior of law enforcement members. The proposals can be grouped as follows: Training and Training Materials o Convene a national workshop inviting representatives from the leading police executive leadership development programs throughout the country and representatives of State-level training commissions to discuss integrity and ethics in curriculums for greater effectiveness in training programs. o Develop a series of curriculum methodologies to infuse integrity across recruit, inservice, supervisory, and executive education and training programs. o Develop videotapes for police training programs of selected presentations from the national symposium. o Prepare a collection of curriculum outlines and lesson plans to establish a base of information on the nature of integrity-related training for national dissemination through the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). Research and Related Program Initiatives o Ensure that perspectives on integrity developed at the symposium are incorporated into existing and planned initiatives supported by NIJ and COPS. o Develop and implement a national "train the trainers" program to create a corps of instructors versed in the theory and practice of integrity and ethics to create consistency and quality in the instruction being provided to police personnel. o Assess entry-level screening and hiring processes to identify reliable predictors of ethical behavior. o Identify and/or develop new models of performance evaluation to enhance and encourage professional behavior. o Identify characteristics of officers, supervisors, and executives who have a proven track record of performance with integrity. Explore positive reinforcers of positive behavior and develop models. o Assess citizen oversight of police agencies. o Study the relationship between higher education and quality police service. o Study the handling of citizen complaints. o Study nonpunitive approaches to dealing with integrity violations that are not criminal acts. o Study police members who violated the public trust to identify causal factors and ways to prevent these actions on the part of other members. o Study supervisory training, preparation, and accountability practices for maintaining integrity for supervisors and their subordinates. o Develop tracking systems to monitor police members throughout their careers, including early warning systems, education, evaluations, recognition, and disciplinary actions to provide special assistance when it seems a problem may arise. o Study labor organizations, their perspectives on the issue, and their impact on police behavior. o Compare the perception of integrity and ethics among police members to citizens' perception of police performance. o Compare new recruits to experienced police members to determine why some succumb more readily to temptations. o Identify links between the police and the community that may either minimize the potential for violations or reinforce behavior in the interest of the public. o Study arbitration rulings to evaluate their impact on police behavior over time. o Study the correlation between psychological screening data and future violations of public trust to identify reliable predictors. o Study the estimated cost of integrity violations to the individual police officer, the agency, and the community. Dissemination of Model Program Elements o Design model subsystems, e.g., screening, hiring, training, performance evaluations, disciplinary programs, citizen complaint processing, and field training programs, to establish and maintain integrity within a law enforcement organization. o Establish a National Institute on Police Integrity and Ethics to provide a long-term, ongoing commitment to improving and maintaining integrity in public service. o Identify and collect model practices applied successfully in other disciplines to establish and maintain integrity. o Identify and collect model mission and values statements that support integrity development. o Identify and collect model media relations programs that have successfully focused the community on police integrity. o Identify and collect best practices designed specifically for small- to mid-sized law enforcement agencies that do not have staff dedicated to training, planning, or internal affairs units. o Identify and collect nontraditional employee recognition systems in law enforcement agencies and other professions. o Identify and collect models for educating elected officials on police integrity, the police subculture, and related issues. These programs may derive from professional associations and other disciplines. o Identify and collect model marketing strategies that have been implemented in large- and medium-sized law enforcement agencies. Continuing the Dialogue There were several recommendations related to continuing the dialogue initiated at the national symposium to further develop the issue and introduce new concepts or programs to establish and maintain integrity. They include the following: o Conduct a series of regional workshops with practitioners to provide an opportunity to share the developmental work that has occurred and to contribute to it. o Convene a work group consisting of representatives from law enforcement agencies, civil rights organizations, labor organizations, and civil rights enforcement agencies to examine the impact of external forces on police behavior and to generate common actions acceptable to all parties. o Convene a series of workshops on state-of-the-art thinking on specific issues such as internal auditing, recruitment and selection, performance evaluation, entry-level and inservice training, early warning systems, peer review systems, and internal affairs and citizen complaint processes. This would be a precursor to the specific research projects recommended under "Research and Related Program Initiatives." o Convene a series of meetings, focus groups, and/or public forums to engage the public in indepth, open discussions on the purpose of United States' police organizations and the issue of integrity and the public trust. These meetings could be held in public libraries, town hall meeting environments, and/or on public television. ------------------------------ Chapter 1 Introduction and Background The most essential element of a successful democratic government is freedom for all citizens to exercise their constitutional rights without fear or threat of endangerment. The basic mission of the American criminal justice system is to protect this freedom. The police, one of the foundations of the criminal justice system, must ensure the public trust if the system is to perform its mission to the fullest. Public trust can exist only when the police execute their duties with fairness, equity, professionalism, and rigor. A police service that performs in this manner also has integrity and honor. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is a primary protector of constitutional rights. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) is DOJ's research arm, and the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) is a DOJ mission-specific agency that is supporting the transformation of American policing. Recognizing the significance of police integrity to democratic government, these agencies combined efforts to assemble dedicated law enforcement leaders, members, researchers, and other related professionals to review the state of integrity in America's law enforcement services and to formulate a national action agenda to maintain police integrity and to ensure the public trust. The National Symposium on Police Integrity took place in Washington, D.C., on July 14-16, 1996, to examine the issues of public trust, public perception, and police integrity. In the national law enforcement community, there has long been a consensus that questions about police integrity warrant a professional, collective response. Two hundred professionals -- including police administrators, DOJ officials, representatives from the international law enforcement community, social scientists, ethicists, members of various academic disciplines, police union officials, members of the judiciary, attorneys, students of criminal justice, and police officers from a variety of departments throughout the country -- came together for a critical discussion about police integrity in the United States. The objectives of the National Symposium on Police Integrity were to: o Examine the causes of and solutions to violations of public trust by police. o Understand the dynamics of police integrity. o Develop short- and long-term strategies to establish and maintain high standards of performance. o Recommend research topics to NIJ and the COPS Office. The larger national context in which the symposium took place includes a recent series of corruption investigations within the New York Police Department, the revealing testimony of Mark Fuhrman in the trial of O.J. Simpson, the events at Ruby Ridge and Waco, the beating of Rodney King, and the recent assault of immigrant laborers by law enforcement officers in Riverside, California. Embarrassing events involving smaller police departments in Citrus County, Florida; West Hampton, New York; Southgate, California; Anchorage, Alaska; and Chesapeake, Virginia, also have generated intense public scrutiny of police and sheriff's department officials and criminal justice organizations throughout the country. Are these incidents indicative of a crisis in integrity among American police officers? Are they symptomatic of a system that improperly selects and trains its officers? Are these episodes part of a larger cultural manifestation, a breakdown of moral sensibilities and standards? Is the appearance of increased violations of public trust simply the result of improved candor and diligence in investigating wrongdoing by police agencies, or does it reflect advancements in the ability of the media to instantly communicate events around the country and world? Whether or not there is a crisis in police integrity in the United States, it was evident to the symposium participants that both the public and police believe one exists. Study results vary considerably. Some recent research suggests that the public's trust in police officers is at an all-time low; other data conclude it is quite high. Planning for the Symposium In mid-March 1996 a special work group was assembled at The Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore to plan the July symposium. The work group included police executives, union representatives, researchers, and others who had made significant contributions to the study of police integrity. Based upon this meeting, staff designed the agenda for the symposium. The symposium agenda included two keynote addresses, five plenary sessions, and nine small-group discussions. Professor Stephen J. Vicchio, Department of Philosophy at the College of Notre Dame (Baltimore), gave a keynote address entitled "Integrity and Ethics: Definitions and Historical Perspective." U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno gave the second address, "Integrity and Ethics: A Federal Perspective." Professor Mark Moore, Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, was invited to observe the symposium to assess the process and summarize final recommendations to NIJ, COPS, and DOJ for pursuing the national agenda to foster and maintain police integrity. The following presentations were selected for the five plenary sessions: o Interdisciplinary Panel on Integrity and Ethics. o Law Enforcement Executives on the Integrity and Ethics Challenges Facing the Profession. o The Impact of Police Culture, Leadership, and Organization on Integrity. o How To Effectively Cope With Influences in the Police Culture and Organization and in the Community. o The Impact of Internal and External Forces on Police Integrity. Symposium Objectives A primary objective of the symposium was to open channels of communication among police executives and other professionals, e.g., police union officials and law enforcement administrators, police and researchers, government leaders and academics, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and law enforcement executives. It also involved enlisting those concerned about professional integrity in other contexts -- business, law, government, and the clergy -- and listening to practitioners in these fields discuss ethical issues and integrity problems endemic to their professions. At still other levels, channels of communication were opened between researchers and practitioners so the public's perception of the police might be measured against more empirical information about police integrity. A second objective of the symposium was to provide opportunities for law enforcement administrators and all other participants to communicate in structured work groups. These work groups succeeded in identifying critical needs and issues for which members had the gravest concerns. Identifying model practices, a third objective, drew responses from both the panel presenters and the work groups. The symposium provided opportunities for participants to talk about effective programs and strategies that foster police integrity. Pursuing a National Agenda The paramount goal of the symposium was to develop an agenda for fostering and maintaining police integrity. Mark Moore's synthesis, hundreds of pages of notes taken by recorders and participants, and approximately 100 hours of videotape and audiotape yielded essential components for an agenda on police integrity. This national agenda encompasses three primary areas: a future research agenda, model programs, and best practices. It became evident that police executives, researchers, and other criminal justice practitioners, led by NIJ and the COPS Office, need to commit to research in critical areas to provide a full understanding of the issue. Another element of the national agenda should be the cataloguing and dissemination of model practices and initiatives from around the country, combined with a continuing dialogue on police integrity in State, regional, and local jurisdictions. What has worked; what has not worked? What factors may have contributed to the success or failure of particular practices designed to foster police integrity? Can practices in one department be applied to another despite different internal and external cultures? Finally, the national agenda should include an examination of mechanisms and programs that, in combination with effective investigative practices in preventing, identifying, and controlling corruption, have been shown over time to strengthen police integrity. Fundamental Questions Ultimately, the major thrust of a national agenda should focus on answering three profound and fundamental questions: o What is the relationship of democracy in the United States to the mission of police organizations? o What is the relationship of the Constitution to the police mission and, ultimately, our democracy? o What is the relationship between police integrity and community policing? The issue of protection of civil liberties was raised by one presenter. Through a poignant recounting of his experiences while a police officer, he conveyed to the audience how he came to understand that integrity and civil liberties protection were interconnected. Mark Moore expounded further on this fundamental issue to properly focus the questions. COPS and NIJ believe that an integral relationship exists between effective and creative community policing and police integrity; one cannot exist without the other. If the heart of community policing is the desire to make the police effective partners with communities in dealing with crime and violence, then building and sustaining these partnerships on mutual trust is critical to success. ------------------------------ Chapter 2 Keynote Addresses Ethics and Police Integrity: Some Definitions and Questions for Study Stephen J. Vicchio, Ph.D. The following keynote address was presented by Dr. Stephen J. Vicchio, professor of philosophy at the College of Notre Dame in Baltimore. Dr. Vicchio was asked to set the tone for the National Symposium on Police Integrity due, in part, to his role as a nationally renowned ethicist. He is part of the faculty in the Police Executive Leadership Program at The Johns Hopkins University, a lecturer to executives in police service and other professions, a member of the faculty of The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, and an expert witness in the insanity defense. The success of any conference is contingent on setting clear goals, raising points for discussion, and establishing a framework for participants to accomplish their tasks. In his address, Dr. Vicchio spoke on three matters: development of a working definition of the concept of integrity, the latest social scientific findings on whether moral integrity can be taught, and the potential to measure integrity in various professions, including police service. Finally, Dr. Vicchio offered some general observations about the symposium's goals. ------------------------------ We should therefore examine whether we should act in this way or not, as not only now, but at all times. --Plato ------------------------------ If he really does not think there is no distinction between virtue and vice, why sir, when he leaves the house, let us count the spoons. --Samuel Johnson, Letters ------------------------------ There is an old saying that "philosophers bake no bread." What this expression is supposed to mean, I gather, is that philosophers spend a good deal of time minding other people's business while not spending nearly enough on their own. Working entirely in this spirit, the spirit of an interloper, in this paper I wish to talk about three issues -- issues vital to the success of this conference and, ultimately, to the success of police organizations throughout the country. First, I wish to sketch out in a brief way what I see as the component parts of the concept of integrity. Second, I would like to spend a little time exploring what the latest social scientific research and common sense have to say about whether integrity can be taught. And, finally, I will end with some observations on the question of whether integrity can be measured in professional contexts such as police work. At the very end, if I might be so bold, I will also make some general recommendations about additional questions and approaches that might be helpful in discussing the issue of police integrity. I will begin, however, with a short take from Plato's Republic. In this section [Book II] of the Republic, Socrates discusses with his friend Glaucon what it means to act in a morally responsible way. Glaucon puts forth a theory that is not all that far from a general view of the issue that many hold in this country. In essence, Glaucon says that we do good because we risk punishment if we do wrong. Thus, we accept certain limitations on our freedom because we are afraid of being caught. So justice, in Glaucon's view, is a kind of arrangement (like traffic lights or stop signs) that is not intrinsically good or valuable but put into place to avoid harm. In the course of their discussion, Glaucon and Socrates allude to an old Greek story, "The Ring of Gyges." The wearer of the ring was rendered invisible, though he or she could still affect the material world as visible bodies do. In the course of the tale, the shepherd Gyges is given the ring, and he uses it without fear of reprisal. Indeed, he uses it to kill the king of Lydia and later to rape the queen. Glaucon argues that anyone in the shepherd's position would be foolish not to take full advantage of the power of the ring. In essence, it gives the wearer the ability to do wrong with impunity. Glaucon then goes on to suggest that justice is nothing more than a series of checks, a system of preventive devices. But if we possessed the ring of Gyges, there would be no good reason for doing the good. In the remainder of the Republic, Socrates attempts to counter Glaucon's view by suggesting that the citizens of a good society would act justly because they knew and appreciated the moral good and not merely because they were afraid of getting caught. There are several reasons why I begin with Plato's story. It is best, I think, to look at "The Ring of Gyges" as a cautionary tale, for it seems to me, for better or worse, the police officers in this country, at least when they are working on the street, often are possessors of the ring of Gyges. No supervision of police officers working with the public, no matter how thorough and conscientious, can keep bad cops from doing bad things. There simply are too many police officers and too few supervisors. Like it or not, the police in this country are possessors of the ring of Gyges. A second realization to be made from Plato's tale is that police departments in this country often operate as if Glaucon's view of justice is the proper one -- that we do the good out of fear, a level that developmental psychologists tell us is the lowest common denominator in the moral equation. If we put these two points together, that there will never be enough supervision to catch everyone and that good behavior on the job is motivated by fear, we should see that they are contradictory. If there is not enough supervision, then the bad cop will not be afraid. If we add a third element, that the bad cop always makes the news, then we have a recipe for disaster. Public Trust in the Police One of the major repercussions of the confluence of these three elements, (1) Glaucon's view of virtue, (2) there will never be enough supervisors to catch everyone, and (3) the bad cop always makes the news, is that we see over the past two decades in America an erosion of public confidence in public officials and their institutions. Consider, for example, the following tables of Americans' ratings of their confidence in various professionals. In this study 100 Americans were asked to rank the moral confidence/trust they have in the following professionals to do the right thing. (Position 1 is most trusted, position 12 is least trusted of those professions listed.) ------------------------------ 1980 1. pharmacist 2. clergy 3. firefighter 4. teacher 5. police officer 6. doctor 7. dentist 8. accountant 9. stock broker 10. lawyer 11. funeral director 12. politician 1995 1. firefighter 2. pharmacist 3. teacher 4. dentist 5. clergy 6. stock broker 7. doctor 8. accountant 9. funeral director 10. police officer 11. lawyer 12. politician ------------------------------ In this study, trust in police officers recorded the largest drop from 1980 to 1995 (5 spaces), followed by the clergy (3), doctors (1), and lawyers (1), though lawyers simply moved from 10th position to 11th. Another disturbing element to these findings is that although there was no significant difference between men and women respondents, there was a very big difference between African-American and white respondents. Among blacks, "police officer" had the 9th position in 1980 and the 11th position in 1995, just ahead of "politician." One major conclusion we can make from this study and from other like studies from around the country is that the public thinks police departments have an integrity problem, even if the police themselves do not. What complicates this issue still further is that in departments where corruption appears to be low and where citizen complaints are minimal, we assume that our officers on the job are people of integrity. Sometimes this is a faulty assumption, particularly if the motivation to do the right thing comes from fear of punishment. Often in professional contexts in this country we think of integrity as our ability to refrain from certain activities. But, clearly, if the concept is to mean something more than what Glaucon suggests, it must involve higher levels of thinking and feeling on the part of police officers. If we believe that community policing is the most effective way to protect and to serve the public, and then we put officers who operate from the fear of punishment in more direct contact with the community, then the community will not find officers of integrity but, rather, people who know the rules and regulations and keep them simply because they are afraid of getting caught. If this conference has some major goals, it seems to me, they should include these: How do we define integrity? How do we identify it in police officers? How do we make sure that the police officers we involve in community policing efforts are people of character and integrity? If we do not answer these core questions, then a conference like this is useless, indeed perhaps worse than useless, because we have pretended to get something done. Pretending to get something done in any profession is always dangerous. Let us then try to make some headway in our first question: What do we mean by the concept of integrity? The Concept of Integrity The first thing to say about the concept of integrity is that we often use organic or spatial metaphors to explain it. This, of course, hints at the etymological origins of the word integritas, "whole or complete." But when we go beyond the metaphors, it is not so easy to articulate what we mean when we say that a person possesses integrity. Martin Benjamin, in a helpful book called Splitting the Difference: Compromise and Integrity in Ethics and Politics, identifies five psychological types lacking in integrity. The first he calls the moral chameleon. Benjamin describes the type this way: "Anxious to accommodate others and temperamentally indisposed to moral controversy and disagreement, the moral chameleon is quick to modify or abandon previously avowed principles.... Apart from a commitment to accommodation, the moral chameleon has little in the way of core values.... The moral chameleon bears careful watching. If placed in a situation where retaining her principles requires resisting social pressure, she is likely to betray others as she betrays herself." Benjamin's second type, the moral opportunist, is similar to the moral chameleon in that his values are ever-changing. But where the moral chameleon tries to avoid conflict, the moral opportunist places primary value on his own short-term self-interest. While the moral chameleon's motto might be "above all, get along," the moral opportunist's is "above all, get ahead." The moral hypocrite is a third type lacking in integrity. "The hypocrite," writes Gabriele Taylor, "pretends to live by certain standards when in fact he does not." The hypocrite has one set of virtues for public consumption, and another set he actually has as a moral code. The lack of integrity comes in that the hypocrite pretends that the code is different than what it actually is. Benjamin's fourth type, the morally weak-willed, has a reasonably coherent set of core virtues, but they usually lack the courage to act on them. They are unlike the moral chameleon in that they know what the good is, they simply lack the courage to do it. Benjamin's final type, the moral self-deceivers, have at their core a basic contradiction. They think of themselves as acting on a set of core principles, while in fact they do not. To resolve this conflict, and at the same time to preserve their idealized view of themselves, they deceive themselves about what they are doing. By looking at these five types, we immediately see what integrity does not look like. But if we look a little closer, we also may get some hints about a proper understanding of the concept. First, a person of integrity has a reasonably coherent and relatively stable set of core moral virtues. And second, the person's acts and speech tend to reflect those principles. Individual integrity, then, requires that one's words and actions should be of a piece, and they should reflect a set of core virtues to which one is freely and genuinely committed. But what ought these virtues to be? The answer to that question may differ in different professional contexts, but integrity in the context of police work should amount to the sum of the virtues required to bring about the general goals of protection and service to the public. In short, professional virtue should always bring about the moral goals of the professional organization in question. A list of the virtues of a good cop, then, ought to tell us something important about why police departments exist. Professional integrity, then, in any professional context, is the integrated collection of virtues that brings about the goals of the profession. Presumably, in police organizations those major goals are connected to protection of and service to the public. A List of Core Virtues Lists of professional virtues are difficult, if not foolish, to compose, particularly if an interloper is doing the compiling. The following list is, of course, by no means complete. Rather, I consider it to be essential to the purposes of police organizations. These virtues, in other words, must be required by police officers if the goals of the organization are to be met. These virtues are not listed here in any order. o Prudence. Practical wisdom, the virtue of deliberation and discernment. The ability to unscramble apparent conflicts between virtues while deciding what action (or refraining from action) is best in a given situation. o Trust. This virtue is entailed by the three primary relationships of the police officer: the citizen-officer relationship, the officer-officer relationship, and the officer-supervisor relationship. Trust ought to engender loyalty and truthfulness in these three contexts. o Effacement of self-interests. Given the "exploitability" of citizens, self-effacement is important. Without it, citizens can become a means to advance the police officer's power, prestige, or profit, or a means for advancing goals of the department other than those to protect and to serve. o Courage. As Aristotle suggests, this virtue is a golden mean between two extremes: cowardice and foolhardiness. There are many professions -- surgery and police work, to name two -- where the difference between courage and foolhardiness is extremely important. o Intellectual honesty. Acknowledging when one does not know something and being humble enough to admit ignorance is an important virtue in any professional context. The lack of this virtue in police work can be very dangerous. o Justice. We normally think of justice as giving the individual what he or she is due. But taking the virtue of justice in a police context sometimes requires the removal of justice's blindfold and adjusting what is owed to a particular citizen, even when those needs do not fit the definition of what is strictly owed. o Responsibility. Again, Aristotle suggests that a person who exhibits responsibility is one who intends to do the right thing, has a clear understanding of what the right thing is, and is fully cognizant of other alternatives that might be taken. More importantly, a person of integrity is one who does not attempt to evade responsibility by finding excuses for poor performance or bad judgment. At a minimum, then, these seven virtues are required for integrity because they are required as well by the general goals of police organizations. There are probably other virtues I have missed, but most others will be variants of these seven. In short, a police officer who exhibits integrity is a person who has successfully integrated these seven virtues so that they become a whole greater than the parts. The police officer of integrity habitually will exhibit traits of character that make clear the goals of protection and service. In The Johns Hopkins Police Executive Leadership Program, we are planning a study that will attempt to identify exemplary police officers. We hope to determine whether the virtues we have listed above, as well as some others, are consistently found among the best of our police officers. Additionally, we hope to analyze the relationship of these virtues to performance evaluations, commendations, citizen complaints, and other variables and also to ask them for practical advice about how and why they have remained good cops. Can Integrity Be Taught? Needless to say, this is a second important question that should be at the top of our research agenda. If one looks at what evidence is now available from social scientific literature, the answer to our question seems to be "yes" and "no." Since most researchers agree that the practice of virtue -- the component parts of integrity -- is a habitual activity, it must be learned and reinforced. Other evidence suggests that the most effective time to teach virtue is early on, so the "yes" part of our answer is that children in stable, loving homes who regularly have the requisite virtues modeled for them are the most successful people at developing a track record for integrity. The "no" part of the answer comes with the realization that most evidence about problems with integrity suggest that they, too, are habitual problems. By and large, people who habitually have trouble in school with behavioral problems become adults who have the same problems. This is not to say that people's behaviors cannot change. But change always comes when the person has a clear goal and incentive for changing. The fear of punishment has rarely been enough to change habitual behavior. These findings clearly should have some important ramifications for the way we go about recruiting and testing police officers. Testing instruments need to be better than they are now. Longitudinal studies need to be completed that show us how well we have done in the past and the present in recruiting people who will grow to be police officers of integrity. This is one of the goals of the Hopkins study I alluded to earlier. One other area of inquiry worth pursuing is to track the relationship of the kind and extent of ethics training in police academies to the performance of those recruits as police officers. My initial sense is that the more extensive the training, the clearer the effect will be, though the social scientific evidence on the relationship of academic ethics training and moral behavior, at least at this point, is ambiguous. One element about academy ethics training is clear: if it is to be effective, it needs to be rigorous and it needs to emphasize critical thinking skills, reasoning skills, reasoning ability, and problem-solving techniques. In short, it needs to be the right blend of the theoretical and the practical. Can Integrity Be Measured? The answer to this question in the general area of professional activity is that we do not know. If we measure police integrity the way State medical organizations measure the integrity of physicians or the way State judicial review boards measure the integrity of lawyers, we will not be successful. Historically, these organizations try to determine what their members have been successful in avoiding. Integrity in these contexts is seen as not leaving a sponge in a patient's abdominal cavity or not having conflicts of interest. In short, these governing bodies look to see if the doctor or lawyer has followed the rules and regulations and has avoided doing wrong. But avoiding wrong behavior is not the same as having integrity, any more than simply avoiding bad notes will get a singer to Carnegie Hall. If we are to be successful in measuring police integrity, we must find measuring tools that not only enable us to determine that police officers effectively avoid certain behaviors but that they also regularly practice prudence, courage, justice, honesty, trust, self-effacement, and responsibility. One way to begin this task is first to refine the definition and identification of the virtues that go into making a police officer of integrity. If we have missed the boat in identifying what we see as the core virtues, we will know soon enough. A second item that must be put on our list of things to do is the development of an agenda -- a national mission statement, if you will -- that says in a broad way what the moral purposes are of police organizations. All definitions of virtue and integrity, Aristotle forcefully argues, only make sense in the context of what he calls telos, the larger reason or purpose in which those virtues are placed. What we want a department to be ultimately should tell us a great deal about what we want our officers to do. If we are going to think of ourselves as a profession, then we must assume the level of responsibility that a professional life entails. The profession ought to require more from its members than we expect from the general population. ------------------------------ Integrity and Ethics: A Federal Perspective Janet Reno, Attorney General of the United States Attorney General Janet Reno was called upon to set the tone for the symposium and discuss potential outcomes. Since her appointment as Attorney General of the United States and in her prior role as a prosecutor, she has expressed continued concern about and interest in improving police integrity at the Federal, State, and local levels. Attorney General Reno focused all participants on the task at hand: "The public trust is something that all of us hold sacred; you wouldn't be here otherwise." She challenged participants to go beyond the norm in pursuing integrity and quality service to communities: "You can set the high standards, you can set the policies, you can set performance standards, but it is following up to make sure that those standards are met and that those policies are carried out that is important." She urged the police profession to learn from other fields and from colleagues in other countries. She encouraged more open dialogue on a subject that has traditionally remained behind closed doors. She asked symposium participants to provide her with a viable agenda through which the Department of Justice can support a nationwide effort to improve and maintain police integrity. ------------------------------ I am delighted to be here today because as I look out on the audience, I see old friends and people that I have met since I came to Washington who have become my friends. As I have said on prior occasions when I left Miami, I worried that I would lose my sense of community, my sense of being able to look over and see a police chief and the sheriff and to understand how a system worked. But now I've just discovered that I have inherited a lot more communities, and the diversity and strength of them is exciting to behold. The public trust is something that all of us hold sacred; you wouldn't be here otherwise. And, fortunately, most of the men and women in law enforcement throughout this country hold it sacred. They are honest; they are hard-working, wonderful public servants who approach their roles with integrity and with respect. And we need to identify those officers, the best examples, and figure out how we replicate their actions across the face of America. I have said on so many occasions that being a police officer is probably the single hardest job I know. I just heard a very experienced assistant United States attorney on detail to Washington describe how she had to go testify in court the other day. And she said, "This was really my first experience. Now I have a whole new regard for agents and police officers who a year later have to testify as to what happened and have to recall and have to be subject to cross-examination." And you think of the role of the police officer -- the truth teller, having to be able to testify to the truth day in and day out after having had to calm an angry crowd, perhaps in an emergency without even a backup, having to make legal decisions without having gone to law school, without having a law library at their back. What we ask of police officers is more, really, than we ask of most professions, and we ask them to perform under the most difficult of circumstances. And so I think we should recognize how important this symposium is as a means of providing education, training, and information so that all police officers can benefit. But as we recognize that most in law enforcement are dedicated, honest public servants, we also recognize there are some who do not uphold those standards. There are some who are just plain bad people, but there are bad lawyers and bad doctors. I've often wondered why it was the bad police officer who caught the attention of the public more so. I think it's because there is probably no such expectation. They believe so in their police officer. They want to believe in their officer. That officer has protected them perhaps on another occasion. And then to have that officer disillusion them is something that they did not expect. That they did not anticipate it makes it all the more important. It's really exciting -- particularly as police around the country are focusing on community policing, focusing on the neighborhood, involving the neighborhood -- to walk through a neighborhood and have the neighbors tell me how much that police officer means to them, that 3 years ago they could not walk out from behind their doors because they were afraid, and now they can come out. Their number one issue now is not the drive-by shooting. That was the issue 3 years ago. Now, it's graffiti in the neighborhood, the overgrown lot, and what they are going to do about some vandalism. It is so exciting to see police officers on the cutting edge, bringing America's communities together. But as so many wonderful police officers do that, there is disillusionment thrown in, and that's why your work here today is so important. The Federal agencies have heard this before -- it hurt me to see the Feds come to town and say, "We're going to conduct this investigation. We're going to go after this. We're going to go do this." And then there might be a Federal police shooting, and they'd say, "You stay away, you can't have anything to do with this. This is our problem." We want to be in this with you together, working together as a team to develop the best training mechanisms applicable to Federal, State, and local agencies, to develop the best mechanism for ensuring integrity. We want to learn from you what we can do better at the Federal level. It makes no sense for the Federal government to come to town and say, "Your jails can only have a certain population," and not have the same standards apply to us. Or have the Civil Rights Division come to town and say, "Your officers must do x, y, and z," and not be able to pass muster at the Federal level. So we expect to adhere to the same high standards, and we can and will learn so much from State and local law enforcement officers who are on the front line in so many different issues that face this Nation. We have taken steps at the Federal level to ensure that our agencies function at the highest level of effectiveness. We put into process a means of assessing and reinforcing integrity in every Federal unit. Furthermore, the Department of Justice will conduct policy and procedure reviews for specific areas such as multijurisdictional task forces. In reviewing the many topics which you will be discussing throughout the symposium, it is evident that you have made a connection between the high standards of performance and sound policies and procedures. But there is more to it than just that, and from what I've heard at the conference today, you are bringing out some of these examples. You can set the high standards, you can set the policies, you can set performance standards, but it is following up to make sure that those standards are met and that those policies are carried out that is important. In some instances, I have seen wonderful policies announced, and nobody followed up, really, to see that they were implemented. Nobody took an independent look at an investigation conducted by an internal review unit to see whether the policies were really adhered to or to see what could be learned from the investigation to improve our training or prevent the problems. And so I will be anxious to hear, to listen, to learn what you develop as a means of providing a check and balance on our whole process. Our goals for the Department of Justice include -- as Jeremy [Travis, Director of the National Institute of Justice] has pointed out -- improving cooperation and communication among all agencies. When I came to town, there were different policies and procedures with respect to the different Justice Department agencies, and certainly with respect to Treasury agencies, and I asked, "Why?" It seems to me, if one policy applies one place it should apply in the other. And so we've been in the process of reviewing those in a cooperative effort through the Office of Investigative Agency Policy. This compels all of the Justice Department law enforcement agencies to come up with uniform standard policies and procedures, recognizing that there are certain exceptions, such as in the Bureau of Prisons. There may be different standards with respect to the unjustified use of force that we take into consideration but do so in a mutual way that recognizes the mission of each agency and produces a standard -- the highest standard possible. We want to continue, as I had mentioned, to reach out to State and local law enforcement, to learn from you, to benefit from your experience, to find out what we can do better at the Federal level -- what we can do better in terms of our responsibilities in investigating State and local law enforcement and how can we exchange information with you. It's frustrating to me to see an investigation conducted without somebody going back and looking at it after the investigation is over. Maybe after we've obtained the conviction, we can sit down with the local police agency and say, this is how it happened. You can trace this cop from the time he was honest. Then, he got in with this crowd; his sergeant wasn't very strong; his sergeant didn't pay any attention; he got in with these guys who came into the field without adequate field training. And looking at the scenario, you can see you could have anticipated the events and see what was going to happen. We really need to look at these cases, and learn from past experience, and understand how things happen and how people get into this situation. We want to establish the highest possible performance standards, both organizational and individual. I think one of my great frustrations is to see the different Federal agencies scattered across the country -- 94 U.S. attorneys; the FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation] organized in one way; the DEA [Drug Enforcement Administration] organized in different regions in another way; a marshal in each of the 94 Federal districts; INS [Immigration and Naturalization Service] broken down into border control, investigative officers, and inspectors. Just trying to make the whole operation function according to each agency's mission, but at the same time according to the highest possible national standards, is very important to me. This past Thursday I flew to the New Mexico border. I stopped in Las Cruces and talked with Sheriff Clay and Chief of Police Hampton, getting from them a flavor of what we needed to back them up and what we needed to do to support Federal law enforcement along that border. What impresses you as you go down the border is that the problem is different at each part of the border. So we've got to recognize the uniqueness of situations and recognize that we can learn from local law enforcement in addressing these unique situations. I think the single most important thing we can do, certainly at the Federal level, is to develop the highest possible training capacity, and I am committed to doing that. We have brought, for example, a significant number of new border patrol agents on board. My message from the beginning has been that we will not bring those agents on without ensuring proper training. We will not cut corners. We cannot, because of the crisis on the border, minimize what we are doing in terms of training. I need your support for that effort because there is a loud voice heard that says we need more border patrol agents. They've just asked for 700. We need 1,500. And I need State and local law enforcement to explain that we may be able to provide instructors and provide training. But then we pull experienced officers from the border to do the training, and we weaken the border and the field training on the border as we train agents in the academy. It is so important to emphasize to the funders of these operations that training doesn't stop at the academy -- that some of the best training in the world, some of the best integrity in the world, is learned from that field-training officer on the street, on the border, or wherever you go. And so, as we develop law enforcement efforts, it is important that we develop a coherent plan of training not just at the academy but in the field and in continuing education, which I consider so important. I think it is important that we look at patterns of misconduct to see what we can learn from them, to share this information with each other to better understand what's happening and take steps to analyze our problems and see what could have been done to prevent them. As we consider all of these issues, I believe that we should consider the other disciplines. What can other disciplines offer us? What has the legal profession learned? What has the medical profession learned? What can we do to learn from other disciplines? What steps can we take to ensure the highest standards of professionalism? How can we form partnerships with our international neighbors who are similarly attempting to ensure integrity within their own public service? I am delighted that we have representatives from other nations here because I recognize that in this next century law enforcement at almost all levels is going to be international. A sheriff in a remote rural county may well have a bank that is the subject of a hacker's attempt from across the ocean. With modern technology and with modern transportation, we must join forces around the world -- with our colleagues -- to develop the highest possible standards and to exchange information about what is working and what is not working. We have a special responsibility to reach out to developing nations to help them in training and to establish standards. As we try to do that, the headlines on CNN [Cable News Network] about some officer who did not live up to our standards attracts more attention than the wonderful work being done by our representatives who are reaching out to others. It is so important to listen, it is so important to hear, but it is also important to realize that we can train an awful lot of people to police the right way. I have a favorite theory. I think about 10 percent of the people, if that many, may be just plain bad. But most people in the world want to do the right thing. Another 10-15 percent probably don't know how. We can help them do it and teach them how to do it. Another 10-15 percent are probably just too lazy, and we can motivate them. But there is a wonderful core of people who can, if we involve them in our training efforts, contribute to our efforts to ensure the highest possible standards. I am going to look for your report. I am going to follow the work here closely. Both Jeremy [Travis] and Joe Brann [Director, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services] will keep me briefed. I am very anxious to see the final product that comes out of this symposium, and, most of all, I want to see it put into effect. It used to bother me when I would come to Washington at the invitation of the Federal government or some other agency to talk about something and then see the report on my shelf. I'd read it and try to implement it. But I didn't see much being done with it. As Attorney General, I'm going to make sure that I do something with this report because just looking at the people who are in this room today, it's going to be a good one. Thank you. ------------------------------ Chapter 3 Plenary Sessions Introduction Five moderators and 27 speakers were invited to present their views during the plenary sessions. Each person was allowed 20 minutes to speak. Although audience members could ask the panelists questions, most questions were posed during the nine work group sessions. This section presents an overview of the key points made by the speakers during the five plenary sessions. ------------------------------ First Plenary Session Interdisciplinary Panel on Integrity and Ethics This panel enabled experts from other disciplines to describe the nature of integrity issues and suggest solutions in their respective professions. Moderator: Tom Potter, Consultant, Portland, Oregon Participants: John Feerick, Dean, Fordham University School of Law Ray Kemp, Woodstock Theological Center, Georgetown University Kurt Schmoke, Mayor, Baltimore, Maryland Winthrop Swenson, Managing Director, Business Ethics Service Group, KPMG Peat Marwick ------------------------------ "Attorneys have multidrives which are at times misunderstood by the public." --John Feerick ------------------------------ As the first speaker, John Feerick explained in detail the restraints imposed on the behavior of attorneys by the adversary system: the duty the lawyer has to keep the client's concerns and interests confidential and to zealously advocate the client's position, even when the attorney feels the client may be acting unjustly. He suggested that what lies beneath these obligations is the belief that in an adversary system the truth will emerge and justice will be done. He also pointed out the dual roles the attorney often plays in the American system of jurisprudence: the role as officer of the court and the role as zealous advocate for the client. In addition to these sometimes conflicting roles, the American attorney also serves as an agent, not as a principal, often adding to the complexity of the job. Additionally, the lawyer works as a businessperson. The need to make a living often puts pressure on the lawyer to act in his or her own self-interest as well as the interest of the client. Much of the bad public perception of the moral character of attorneys comes from a failure to understand the American lawyer's different and sometimes conflicting roles. A third area covered by Mr. Feerick involved the roles American law schools, and the American legal community in general, are playing to change the perceptions the public often has of the legal profession and its practitioners. American law school classes on the institution of legal ethics and efforts by the courts and local and national bar associations are under way to sharpen the moral consciousness of attorneys and emphasize the importance of a moral dialogue between lawyers and their clients, not to speak of the commitment to pro bono work by lawyers throughout the United States. ------------------------------ "Professionalism must include care and concern for each member and a willingness to be open to scrutiny by the public served." --Father Ray Kemp ------------------------------ The common concerns shared by the police and members of the clergy were addressed by Father Ray Kemp. The principal and overarching concern, he argued, is the dedication to the securing of the common good. He cautioned that the clergy's understanding of their role in this goal must begin with a sense of their own vulnerability and weakness. The church has become more open in admitting that priests are subject to the same weaknesses and temptations as everyone else. The enormous morale problem of the prosecution of priests charged with pedophilia and sexual abuse is not an easy issue to discuss, analyze, or prevent. Father Kemp encouraged each participant in the symposium to draw a mental picture of what the larger society ought to be, a society where people are in right relation to one another. This vision of the common good ought to be the basis for this society. He explained that those who attempt to bring people to right relations must be committed to justice themselves. They must be held to a greater standard of decency because they stand at the intersection of good and evil. In this vision of right relations, said Father Kemp, freedom and responsibility must be seen as complementary. Experience has taught people that two areas of professional activity now demand constant attention: (1) the care and feeding of the professional person, and (2) an openness to continued scrutiny by the public. Father Kemp described several needs for today's clerical training: annual evaluations, clear promotional criteria, help in planning for retirement, and the necessity of ongoing training and mentorship beyond seminary or theological instruction. This training should include real cases of ethical dilemmas that commonly confront the contemporary cleric. Regarding openness to scrutiny by the public, Father Kemp said secrets that have potential for disaster must come to the surface promptly and in a helpful environment. Rules and expectations must be clear and realistic. The whistle-blower must be tolerated and supported not as an informant but as one who has the best interest of the organization at heart. ------------------------------ "One key issue for ethical government is leadership by example." --Mayor Kurt Schmoke ------------------------------ Maintaining integrity in local government is a challenge faced by Mayor Kurt Schmoke every day. He outlined four key elements in the city of Baltimore's ethics program. First, there must be leadership by example -- setting an ethical tone for the organization. Values must be discussed openly and often with cabinet members and the public. Issues must be dealt with forthrightly, even when they may be embarrassing. The second element of the program is a code of conduct with clear expectations, written in concise and easily understood language. The third element Mayor Schmoke discussed is an independent body to ensure the code of conduct is implemented. A group of citizens make up a board of ethics. The board meets regularly and makes ongoing recommendations to the mayor. The final element in Baltimore's ethics program is training. Mayor Schmoke said training is ongoing and is often conducted in partnership with the Civil Service Commission. During the second half of his talk, Mayor Schmoke explored how these four elements apply to the police department. The mayor spoke of the importance of keeping the police separate from political interference. He cited three specific areas: political meddling in emotionally charged or high-profile cases, endorsements of political candidates by the police chief, and union endorsement of political candidates. ------------------------------ "Clear standards and procedures tend to curtail unethical behavior and corruption." --Winthrop Swenson ------------------------------ For the past two decades, according to Winthrop Swenson, ethics has been a topic of significant debate within the business community. He cited a 1980 study, conducted by Fortune magazine, of the 800 largest companies in America. The study covered corporate corruption in five areas, and it revealed that 11 percent of these top companies had committed blatant ethical offenses. Many of these companies were multiple offenders. Among the results of this widespread lack of integrity by American corporations, said Mr. Swenson, was the creation of the U.S. Sentencing Commission by Congress. The Commission was charged with writing laws and rules for Federal judges in sentencing corporate criminal defendants. In 1991 the Commission released the Corruption and Crime Sentencing Guidelines. Mr. Swenson explained that the guidelines are based on the "spectrum approach." Members of the Commission divided offending companies according to the corporate cultures they exhibited prior to the infraction. Significant punishments were attached to companies with weak compliance and internal systems for control of unethical behavior. Less severe punishments were imposed on companies that had a history of good compliance and demonstrated systems to control corruption and unethical behavior. From the experience of dealing with these companies, said Mr. Swenson, the Sentencing Commission developed the following seven-step program to promote and encourage ethical behavior in organizations: 1. Develop standards and procedures that can be reasonably expected to curtail unethical behavior and corruption. 2. Institute oversight by high-level personnel. 3. Take care in delegating authority. 4. Effectively communicate standards and procedures. 5. Develop reasonable steps (auditing, monitoring, and hotlines) to ensure employees are meeting these standards. 6. Use appropriate discipline. 7. Learn from mistakes made in the organization. Two major problems have been found in implementing this seven-step program in various companies. First, Mr. Swenson elaborated, some companies take too narrow an approach to compliance and ethics issues. These organizations take a "check the box" approach to the seven-step program, and they have been generally less successful than others. Second, some of the companies take a legalistic or control-oriented approach. This misses some of the fundamental drivers of corporate misconduct: no upstream communication, unrealistic goals and expectations of employees, and use of untrained staff to teach ethics and compliance. This creates inservice education programs that are incomprehensible to employees. Generally, though, the seven-step program has proven successful and has had a positive effect on internal and external integrity. A similar kind of moral audit, Mr. Swenson concluded, may have merit for police organizations. ------------------------------ Second Plenary Session Law Enforcement Executives on the Integrity and Ethics Challenges Facing the Profession This session allowed selected law enforcement executives an opportunity to recount their experiences and share their best advice. Moderator: Gerald Williams, Director, Bill Blackwood Law Enforcement Management Institute, Sam Houston State University Panelists: Lee Brown, Professor of Sociology, Rice University Dan Corsentino, Sheriff, Pueblo County, Colorado Edward Flynn, Chief of Police, Chelsea, Massachusetts Howard Safir, Police Commissioner, New York, New York David Walchak, Chief of Police, Concord, New Hampshire Elizabeth Watson, Chief of Police, Austin, Texas ------------------------------ "Selection and training must be conducted in the spirit of service, not adventure, if we are to ensure police officers who are motivated to serve the public." --Dr. Lee Brown ------------------------------ Dr. Lee Brown has served as the chief executive officer of several major police agencies. He noted that the conference theme could be taken from the daily headlines of many American newspapers. Abuses by police officers appear to be a regular subject in American media. Dr. Brown offered a prescription for change: "If, in law enforcement, we are to rid ourselves of the specter of wrongdoing, we must fundamentally change the police culture." "The leadership of a police organization," Dr. Brown said, "ultimately will determine the character of the organization." Line officers must know and understand the core values of their organizations, and beyond that the department must be willing to stand by officers who foster those values. All police agencies should have a written code of ethics. It should appeal to common sense and be easily understood by those required to live by it. These values must become the guide for police officers so they can judge right from wrong and acceptable from unacceptable behavior. They must understand that their mission is to protect the constitutional rights of each citizen, regardless of race, creed, color, sexual preference, or gender. Police executives, Dr. Brown maintained, must understand the true meaning of accountability to the community. The community must be regarded with respect, and the police must see citizens as partners. Therefore, the question is, "How can we select officers to ensure their commitment to serving citizens and protecting civil liberties?" Dr. Brown made a strong recommendation: Police officers must be selected and hired in a spirit of service, not adventure. Only then can a department ensure that its officers will be motivated to solve problems and not be motivated by a need to exhibit strength, force, and machismo. Finally, it is critical that police leaders judge their own behavior on the following basis: "Do my actions have the `appearance' of impropriety," rather than "Have I violated the law?" Perception of impropriety, which is the Washington Post test, is as important as actual impropriety and should be considered in that light. Service then should be the acid test for both the chief executive and the police officer. Then and only then, said Dr. Brown, will the public be truly served. ------------------------------ "All bad ethical choices are the result of cultural conditioning, character conditioning, and ineffective internal systems, such as training or poor quality control." --Sheriff Dan Corsentino ------------------------------ Sheriff Dan Corsentino began his talk with a short history of the county he now serves. During the several years before he was elected, four consecutive sheriffs had been indicted on felony charges. This corruption affected all levels of the department and led to an annual attrition rate of 20 percent. Citizens did not call for service because they were not confident that deputies would "do the right thing." "I hear, see, and say nothing," was the rule among citizens. Good deputies began to wonder why they should maintain their integrity. The entire department lacked self-confidence and direction. Sheriff Corsentino then discussed the three major steps undertaken to correct the situation and regain respect for the sheriff's department. First, the department instituted a plan to enhance recruitment. Second, a three-tier ethics training program was started. Third, internal systems and quality control measures were improved. The department's ethics program, explained Sheriff Corsentino, consists of training at the academy level as well as at the middle management and executive officer levels. All bad ethical choices are the result of cultural conditioning, character conditioning, poor systems and training, or poor quality control. These root causes are discussed at all levels of the ethics training program. The sheriff's department, Sheriff Corsentino concluded, also changed the role of the Internal Affairs Division from not only detecting infractions but also identifying the root causes of those infractions. ------------------------------ "Police chiefs are better equipped to face integrity issues if they take the time to remember their own experiences as young officers." --Chief Edward Flynn ------------------------------ When police executives are deciding how to judge the behavior of police officers, Chief Edward Flynn stated, they must reflect on their own experiences as officers. A police chief must recall what it was like to be a young 22-year-old officer confronting a situation in which he was highly vulnerable. Often in such a situation, an officer is rescued by fellow officers. It is no mystery that at that moment, officers experience loyalty to another officer, a feeling of separation from the community and management, and a need to maintain a cloak of secrecy. In reality, police officers are given little guidance as to how to behave in situations that are morally ambiguous. Police executives are not quick to offer "life rings" to officers -- too often it is fellow officers who do. The police profession does not attract people who want to commit acts of brutality, Chief Flynn said. In reality, the police profession attracts individuals who are seeking moral clarity and who have a strong desire to correct the wrongs of society. It is the responsibility of police executives to take advantage of this situation and create an environment in which young, morally strong officers can actualize their idealism. These new officers are virtuous and have a compelling desire to serve the public. Sometimes, because police chiefs forget their pasts, it almost appears as if they dislike officers. Yet, it must be noted that chiefs have to deal continuously with officers who have made serious mistakes. Executives must focus on building a bridge between themselves and those many officers who arrive in the department with a fine and worthy intent. Chief Flynn also appealed to NIJ and COPS to provide a forum in which police management and labor could come together and find a common ground -- a consensus that there will be a few officers who will never be able to fulfill the police mission and will need to be fired. Management and labor also must agree to support and retain good officers. At the present time, concluded Chief Flynn, police chiefs are at a serious disadvantage because the formal mechanisms of accountability are dysfunctional. "Ironically, as the public demands more police accountability, the system delivers less." Legislatures pass bills of rights for officers. Arbitrators and civil service commissioners routinely overturn the disciplinary decisions of chiefs. Meanwhile, those chiefs who insist on police accountability are vulnerable to union no-confidence votes and political reprisals. "Chiefs must be accountable for their departments, but their leadership cannot overcome the negative aspects of the police culture if they are the only ones held accountable." ------------------------------ "An untapped resource for promoting integrity is having cops who did get into trouble recount their experiences and what they learned to other cops." --Police Commissioner Howard Safir ------------------------------ A series of initiatives have been taken by the New York Police Department, Police Commissioner Howard Safir told the audience, to root out corruption in the ranks. In addition to raising the educational requirement for employment and instituting random integrity checks (over 500 of the department's 650 annual integrity checks are done randomly), clear expectations are provided to officers. Codes, said Commissioner Safir, should be clear and practical. Accountability must exist up and down the chain of command. Fear of getting caught is sometimes a useful motivation. One of the most effective untapped resources for fostering police integrity, Commissioner Safir explained, is the anecdotal stories of cops who have gotten in trouble -- cops talking to other cops about how and why they went bad and how the department responded. ------------------------------ "Perhaps the best administrative technique for controlling corruption is to stress individual accountability and to clearly fix responsibility. Failure to hold personnel accountable breeds corruption." --Chief David Walchak ------------------------------ A recent Gallup poll, said Chief David Walchak, shows that the police were held in high esteem by the public when compared to other professions. Other studies reveal the following: a 1991 study in one State found that the three major ethical problems for police officers are drug and alcohol abuse, lying to protect other officers, and conduct prejudicial to the department. In a 1994 study in another State of 861 officers, 26 percent had seen racial harassment on the job, 24 percent had seen abuses of stop-and-frisk procedures, 20 percent had seen more force used than necessary, and 6 percent had seen records falsified. Other findings, Chief Walchak continued, suggest that years of service are not associated with ethical infractions, college-educated officers are less likely to incur citizen complaints, and female officers are more likely to report unethical behavior than their male counterparts, regardless of rank. Chief Walchak proposed several suggestions, including enhancing recruitment and selection procedures, developing reward systems that reflect the goals of community policing, increasing the number of academy hours devoted to ethics training, promulgating a written set of departmental values, fostering discussions on the importance of proper off-duty behavior, and implementing early warning systems for identifying officers at risk. ------------------------------ "A major problem with police integrity is middle managers who do not understand or are unwilling to embrace the moral goals of the police department." --Chief Elizabeth Watson ------------------------------ The integrity problem, Chief Elizabeth Watson charged, is not with the line officer. It never has been and isn't today, she continued. The problem is that there is a void in leadership at every level. This situation will only be corrected when chief executives begin to invest properly in their personnel to ensure that their behavior is based on a common set of core values that serves as a basis for the discipline of subordinates. Line officers are sincere and hard-working. Supervisors, however, need to be taught what it means to make core values part of the department's operations and how to translate those values to apply them to judgments of subordinates' behavior. Unfortunately, said Chief Watson, there are still those supervisors who see no conflict in acting on their own personal values, imbedded with prejudices and biases, rather than responding on the basis of the department's core values. Most of the time, personal values will be in accord with departmental values, but supervisors need to be acutely aware of those few times when their personal values conflict with departmental values. The issue becomes one of alignment. The dictionary differentiates between ethics and integrity but defines integrity as "firm adherence to a code or standard of values." The major challenge, then, becomes one of ensuring that supervisors are good followers who understand what it means to translate beliefs into judgments and behavior. If supervisors cannot translate values into behavior and continue to judge behavior by the attributes of the violator, they will find that their badges will not shine as brightly. One judgment by favoritism, instead of with impartiality, inhibits all other objective judgments. Investment in supervisors and managers, concluded Chief Watson, is a strong solution needed to protect line officers. ------------------------------ Third Plenary Session The Impact of Police Culture, Leadership, and Organization on Integrity This session focused on the dynamics and derivation of the police subculture, the role of leadership, the organizational structure, and how these affect police integrity. Moderator: Jerome Skolnick, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, The City University of New York Panelists: Robert Colville, District Attorney, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania Gilbert Gallegos, National President, Fraternal Order of Police William Johnston, Deputy Superintendent, Police Department, Boston, Massachusetts Judge Milton Mollen, Graubard, Mollen & Miller Ramona Ripston, Executive Director, American Civil Liberties Union, Los Angeles, California Hubert Williams, President, The Police Foundation ------------------------------ "One underpinning of the police subculture is the belief among police officers that no one -- i.e., management or the public -- understands them." --Professor Jerome Skolnick ------------------------------ A culture or, in the case of many police organizations, a subculture, is the set of norms or beliefs that guide a particular group's behavior. They are, said moderator Jerome Skolnick, the truths that officers feel in their bones, the touchstones that govern their attitudes and behavior. The text Beyond 911 suggests that the police culture includes at least the following six beliefs: o The police are the only real crimefighters. o No one else understands the work of a police officer. o Loyalty counts more than anything. o It is impossible to win the war on crime without bending the rules. o The public is demanding and nonsupportive. o Working in patrol is the least desirable job in the police department. Professor Skolnick told the audience that it is essential to understand how an organization's values become translated within the subculture. In the tape of the Rodney King beating, the interesting people are the 10 to 12 officers who stood around and watched. This is an example of what happens when the values and beliefs of a subculture come into direct conflict with the stated values of the organization. Few executives, said Professor Skolnick, grasp how or why the values they set forth are interpreted differently at various levels of the organization. ------------------------------ "Organizations must consider integrity improvement as a long-term goal -- there are no quick fixes." --District Attorney Robert Colville ------------------------------ Police, said District Attorney Robert Colville, have not changed substantially over the years in how they view the community or their agency. They are susceptible to many of the same temptations as they were 30 years ago. Corruption was rampant in the Pittsburgh Police Department in the 1960s. Police officers ran towing companies, cashed in on free lunches, and succumbed to many of the same temptations that are present today. Two things, Mr. Colville related, changed police attitudes toward corruption in the 1960s and 1970s: The Internal Revenue Service and other Federal agencies began to indict police, and a new public attitude about the police grew out of the civil strife and upheaval of the 1960s. After the 1960s, police came under greater scrutiny by citizens than at any other time in recent history. When police departments were forced to change, Mr. Colville said, a number of things had to occur for the change to last. First, training was enhanced. Second, leadership was improved. Third, working the media needed to be mastered. Leaders had to be honest, open, candid, and principled. Fourth, advice was needed from other disciplines that had experience in improving integrity. Last, concluded District Attorney Colville, organizations had to consider integrity improvement as a long-term process -- with no quick fix. ------------------------------ "Partnerships between management and line officers must be based on mutual respect and equal responsibility for integrity improvement." --FOP President Gilbert Gallegos ------------------------------ All people who serve the police profession, said Fraternal Order of Police President Gilbert Gallegos, need to review the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics. Police officers come from the citizenry and the culture of the community. If there are value problems in the culture as a whole, there inevitably will be value problems among police officers. Key questions, continued Mr. Gallegos, need to be answered about codes that set forth ethics and values. What role do line officers play in formulating the code of ethics? How often does management discuss with line officers the differences between the corporate code of the department and the informal code of the street? Partnerships between administrators and officers need to be formed. They must be built on mutual respect and equal responsibility for improving integrity. But, said Mr. Gallegos, management must also understand the responsibility of the union to defend its officers. Unlike most attorneys, union representatives do not have the option to walk away from a client. Unions, concluded Mr. Gallegos, should be actively involved in politics, particularly when so many sheriffs are elected officials and so many chiefs of police serve at the pleasure of a mayor, city manager, or county administrator. ------------------------------ "I learned through painful personal experience that the only way to preserve dignity for all those we serve is by protecting constitutional rights." --Deputy Superintendent William Johnston ------------------------------ Superintendent William Johnston eloquently recounted his experiences throughout his 30 years as a police officer that revealed a startling and critical recommendation for symposium participants. Police officers are special people, said Superintendent Johnston. They are the ones entering the scene of a robbery or burning building when all others are leaving as quickly as they can. Too often, their training and orientation propel them down a path that will eventually lead them to harm rather than to protect the people they serve. Superintendent Johnston illustrated this observation with a series of personal experiences that sowed seeds of his own change and reformation as a police officer. Early in his career, he was assigned to a tactical patrol force that had a culture of promoting force and arrogance in its treatment of people. Within that unit he became a decoy officer (an officer who poses as a victim). As a decoy officer, he began to understand what it was like to be an actual victim -- to be accosted and threatened with a knife or gun. He also learned what it felt like to be discriminated against. He learned that if people regard an individual as being different from the norm, they treat the person differently, most often in a negative way. The poignant lesson was brought home when Johnston served as a homosexual in a gay bar and was badly treated and harassed by police officers. Later, he was transferred to a unit to deal with hate crimes. Originally, he regarded hate crimes as inane and harmless compared with other crimes against persons. Then he had to respond to a call involving a minority family living in an all-white, middle-class neighborhood. On this particular evening, 18 windows in the family's home had been broken with rocks. Johnston recounted that he arrived to find the father, the head of the household, in tears and paralyzed, not knowing which member of his family to respond to first. In that moment Johnston understood that the most heinous crime was one that resulted in the loss of personal dignity. He recognized that in the past, he was responsible for damaging the personal dignity of some of the people he was supposed to serve. What, he pondered, would serve to prevent such an insult to the personal integrity of the people served by the police? Biased behavior, Superintendent Johnston imparted, begins with seemingly harmless words and jokes and ends with the performance of a Mark Fuhrman. He recognized that the behavior of a Mark Fuhrman robs all police officers of their credibility, and Johnston himself had contributed to that situation. Superintendent Johnston finally arrived at a most courageous solution, which he has been instrumental in implementing in the Boston Police Department. All police officers, he concluded, must be taught the true significance of the U.S. Constitution, not simply the constraints it places on the procedural aspect of the officers' job. The U.S. Constitution is the only standard that can uniformly protect and preserve the personal dignity of all people in the United States by guaranteeing civil liberties, if the police fully adopt it as a means to govern interactions. ------------------------------ "The shock is not that there are corrupt police officers but that too often police departments are incompetent when it comes to investigating corruption." --Judge Milton Mollen ------------------------------ The Mollen Commission, led by Judge Milton Mollen, found "pockets of corruption" in the New York Police Department (NYPD) predominantly related to the drug trade. The major shock in the investigation, Judge Mollen told the audience, was not that corruption existed in a 38,000-officer department but, rather, that the police department was incompetent and inept when it came to dealing with the corruption. Another important observation was that there were various cultures within the NYPD: a cop-to-cop culture, a cop-to-management culture (the blue wall of reluctance), and a cop-to-community culture. They are very different and exist in other police agencies as well. The Commission, Judge Mollen said, made important recommendations for both internal reforms and external oversight. There must be an outside, independent monitor to oversee the effort to eliminate corruption. Dissenters must have a voice and should be encouraged to come forward. Better training and supervision are needed. Some basic questions must be answered if integrity is to be improved: What happens to good, idealistic recruits? How do they lose their idealism? What happens in training, supervision, and patrol that changes these people? Judge Mollen closed by saying, "The biggest victim of the crooked cop is the honest cop." ------------------------------ "If managers only ensured compliance with existing policies and procedures, there would be far less corruption." --ACLU Attorney Ramona Ripston ------------------------------ Ramona Ripston began her remarks by talking about the perceived antipathy between police officers and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), but she reminded the audience that the largest client group served by the ACLU are police officers, primarily women suing police departments because traditional police culture makes their jobs very difficult. Ms. Ripston remarked that one of the most important goals of police organizations ought to be convincing the community that the police perform their work in ethical and moral ways. Ms. Ripston's group has studied the way the Los Angeles Police Department handles citizen complaints. Only 5 of 18 divisions are following existing rules of procedure. Culture needs to be instilled from the top down. One of the major impediments to compliance is managers who do not know the regulations or are not willing to follow them. Ms. Ripston also alluded to the Christopher Commission report. She observed that police unions are one of the most significant obstacles for bringing about the Christopher Commission's recommendations. Above all, Ms. Ripston stressed that the police and members of the ACLU are in the same business -- securing and protecting the civil rights of those they serve. ------------------------------ "Most police chiefs are honest and have integrity, but they fail due to an ignorance of what is occurring in their own departments." --Hubert Williams ------------------------------ Hubert Williams began by observing that police chiefs don't receive near the credit in this country they deserve. In general, police chiefs act with integrity and honesty. Where they sometimes fail is in fully understanding what is going on in their departments. Mr. Williams remarked that values come not just out of the documents that describe them but from traditional police culture. Often, there is a gap between what the documents say and what is actually happening in the police department. There is what Williams called a "disconnect between policies and practices." Sometimes this information does not make its way to the top of the chain of command. Police officers frequently protect each other. They sometimes see those in management as people who are against their interests. These perceptions clearly need to be changed. Mr. Williams also discussed several recommendations for improving the integrity of American police officers: (1) develop operational strategies for more positive and creative methods of discipline, (2) give more time to designing and implementing intervention strategies for problem officers, and (3) focus on professional integrity as opposed to political opportunity. Fourth Plenary Session How To Effectively Cope With Influences in the Police Culture and Organization and in the Community This session allowed line officers an opportunity to voice their perspectives and concerns about police integrity. Moderator: John Nicolleti, Police Psychologist, Denver, Colorado Panelists: Dr. Ted Hunt, Director, Los Angeles Police Department Protective League Sergeant Donald Cahill, Police Department, Prince William County, Virginia Captain Ross Swope, Metropolitan Police Department, Washington, D.C. Darryl Jones, President, National Law Enforcement Integrity Institute ------------------------------ "Police unions derive their strength from the failure of management to protect officers' interests and to listen to officers' needs." --Dr. Ted Hunt ------------------------------ Dr. Ted Hunt began the session by quoting from Edgar Schein's article, "Coming to a New Awareness of Organizational Culture." "Organizational culture is a pattern of basic assumptions and behaviors adopted in order to provide external adaptation and internal integration." Many of the traditional internal strategies for providing external adaptation and internal integration have not worked, Dr. Hunt argued. Hence, external forces (e.g., the Christopher Commission, the ACLU, the Mollen Commission) have had to intervene. Internal systems have not met the needs or expectations of the community. Police unions have arisen as an internal mechanism to respond to the failures of these traditional strategies. In the process, they have provided officers with protection against unilateral decisionmaking as well as helping individuals and the organization to cope with change. The law enforcement community is in the midst of enormous change. Many U.S. police forces are based on a 1940s military model, said Dr. Hunt, one that was given up by the military long ago. This model is based on a threat-and-fear management style. In many American departments, the support functions have become more important than the basic patrol functions. The American law enforcement community needs to do a better job of declaring its major role: Is it crime fighting, or is it crime prevention? Law enforcement is in the midst of a paradigm shift, and it is middle managers who have the most to lose. Dr. Hunt suggested that the average police officer wants two things: a decent wage and appreciation for a job well done. Officers thrive on appreciation, but middle managers do not know any model other than the military model, so they do what was done to them. The focus must be on quality control strategies. The values of the organization must be inculcated starting in the academy and continuing throughout one's career. Partnerships must be forged between formal and informal police organizations. Values must begin at the top, but they also must be driven from the bottom up; the energy for change must come from inside and outside the organization. In his concluding remarks, Dr. Hunt focused on ideas that have been implemented in the Los Angeles law enforcement community: o A Center for Police Organizational Studies has been organized. It is a partnership among the L.A. Police Protective League, the University of La Verne, and the California Commission on Police Officer Standards and Training. Its mission is to study and improve police organizational culture. o The L.A. Police Protective League has formed a liaison committee. During its formation effort was taken to include minority membership. The League also has negotiated with the city council to begin reengineering the disciplinary process. o The L.A. Police Protective League has acted as a liaison with the Inspector General as well as with officials from the Department of Justice. o The L.A. Police Protective League has played a pivotal role in bringing tax dollars back to city and county departments. ------------------------------ "The forces that influence an officer to adhere to professional behavior are the extended family, trainers, mentors, the behavior of model managers, and the fear of loss of reputation and employment." --Sergeant Donald Cahill ------------------------------ Donald Cahill, a senior sergeant with the Prince William County Police Department, opened by citing a list of characteristics of a good police officer: sets an example on and off duty; enforces the law fairly and impartially; obeys the laws he/she is sworn to enforce; considers the badge a symbol of public trust, not a door opener or discount card; is helpful to others who are in need; acts prudently and intelligently; takes care with evidence; shows proper courtroom demeanor; and attempts to be a leader in all senses of the word. Sergeant Cahill then asked what positive influences help to reinforce these characteristics. Among those he cited were the following: extended family and the network of values built by them, supportive teachers, peers whom one must face every day, military training, senior officers who act as mentors, the availability of extra training, and the fear of loss of one's reputation and employment. Among the negative influences on police integrity, Sergeant Cahill named the availability of corrupting influences in the culture. He also spoke of the poor example given by other officers as a major influence on recruits coming out of the academy. Short cuts taken by agencies, lack of resources to accomplish goals, lack of disciplinary action against supervisors, supervisors overlooking misconduct, and supervisors who say, "It is right because I say it is right," were also cited by Sergeant Cahill as significant influences that sour street cops. At the end of his talk, Sergeant Cahill offered a few recommendations. First, raise standards. It may require making the pool bigger as well, but in the long run, it will be worth it. Second, ethics training must begin early and be ongoing. Finally, proper ethics training needs to happen at the supervisory level as well. ------------------------------ "Mediocrity is the major cause of lack of integrity in American policing." --Captain Ross Swope ------------------------------ At the heart of Captain Ross Swope's remarks was a simple yet profound observation: the major cause in the lack of integrity in American police officers is mediocrity. Mediocrity stems from the failure to hold officers responsible and accountable. It comes from a lack of commitment, laziness, excessive tolerance, and the use of kid gloves. Dealing with mediocrity, said Captain Swope, is perhaps the greatest contemporary challenge to American law enforcement. The responsibility for dealing with it ought to lie with police sergeants, lieutenants, and captains. Captain Swope asked: How is mediocrity dangerous? He answered by providing the example of a bell curve, the standard distribution curve in statistical analysis. In a standard bell curve, there will be few officers with many core virtues (prudence, trust, courage, effacement of self-interest, justice, intellectual honesty, and responsibility). The expectation is that there will be many officers with some of these core virtues and, unfortunately, some officers with few of these core virtues. The extent of moral influence in a police department depends on the extent of influence exerted by the lower and upper portions of the bell curve. Those who control the extent of this influence, said Captain Swope, are sergeants, lieutenants, and captains. Police officers are extremely sensitive and attuned to what fellow officers do and do not do. Officers know who files false injury claims, who the second car is on a "man with a gun" call, who steps over the line with excessive force, and who is likely to get lost for a full tour of duty. When officers in the middle of the bell curve see that these people are not dealt with, they sometimes begin to imitate their behavior. Similarly, when those in the middle of the bell curve see fellow officers take extra calls, quickly respond as backup, and testify clearly and honestly, they begin to imitate them as well. The principal agents in bringing about this emulation are sergeants, lieutenants, and captains. Behavior, concluded Captain Swope, runs both ways. All but those at the lower end of the bell curve welcome change. ------------------------------ "The true leader in law enforcement is the one who has model performance and behavior, not the one designated by rank or title." --Darryl Jones, Retired Police Officer ------------------------------ Darryl Jones cited a number of hindrances to high ethical performance among American police officers: recruitment is difficult and the pool is often too small; standards for measurement are often nonexistent; harassment, excessive force, and discrimination are rampant; chiefs don't often have enough discretion in making moral decisions; resources are insufficient; the public trust in American law enforcement is on the decline; officers sometimes don't reflect the communities they serve; and the average academy ethics training consists of one 4-hour block. Mr. Jones suggested that many of these problems are not new, nor is the notion of community policing. In some ways it is another name for putting cops back on the beat. No matter what strategies are devised, four areas, said Mr. Jones, need constant attention if there is to be significant improvement in police integrity. 1. A community-based approach to problem solving should be used. Police service must be oriented to community needs. 2. All departments need internal review and assessment. Racism, sexism, harassment, and cronyism need to be dealt with through a systems approach. The system must include credible internal assessment. 3. Ethics training needs to be proactive. It should be less warm and fuzzy and should be done by people who have credibility with those who are being taught. 4. The concepts of human dignity, equity, and social justice have to be considered when judging promotions and commendations. Mr. Jones ended with three other connected points: First, that integrity is event sensitive; second, that the negative is contagious; and third, that the "broken window" theory applies in police work. What these three points have in common, he said, is that they refer to an important maxim in police work: Leadership is based on performance and behavior, not on position. ------------------------------ Fifth Plenary Session Impact of Internal Systems and External Forces on Police Integrity This session explored the many internal subsystems and external forces that affect police integrity. Moderator: William Geller, Associate Director, Police Executive Research Forum Panelists: Dennis Nowicki, Chief of Police, Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina Dr. Sam Walker, Professor of Criminal Justice, University of Nebraska at Omaha Robert Scully, Executive Director, National Association of Police Organizations Richard Roberts, Chief, Criminal Section, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice Steven Rosenbaum, Chief, Special Litigation Section, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice Richard Williams, Chief of Police, Madison, Wisconsin Merrick Bobb, Special Counsel to Los Angeles County, California Moderator William Geller opened the fifth plenary session with a few introductory remarks. He commented that a decade ago the conference might be called "Crime in a Free Society." Today it can more properly be labeled "Freedom in a Crime-Weary Society." ------------------------------ "One part of the formula for police integrity is an environment where police officers are involved in the improvement process." --Chief Dennis Nowicki ------------------------------ Chief Dennis Nowicki, the first of the speakers, shared some strategies and programs he has put in force as head of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department. He began with two assumptions: that his department should be a value-driven department, and that most cops are good and if a chief involves his or her officers in continual improvement, one can create the best environment for integrity to thrive. Many of the ideas he discussed at the conference were brought forward by other members of his department. Among those were the following: the police academy must move from a boot camp to an adult learning center; and curriculum-based inservice training must be made available to everyone in the department. Among Chief Nowicki's other recommendations were the following: inservice training should include core courses as well as electives; quality speakers and teachers must be brought in from the outside to help in training and teaching police officers; internal affairs should develop early warning systems; the department as a whole should develop compliance/ethics audits; recruiting and selection processes could be improved by recruiting on college campuses; a chaplaincy program is an important part of building integrity in the department; and the training of peer counselors is an effective way to build compliance with the department's values. In the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department, Chief Nowicki has instituted a peer-review use-of-force committee; no committee member has a rank above sergeant. The department is also experimenting with the idea of cross-district review. Although some concerns about liability issues and confidentiality have been voiced, Chief Nowicki concluded, these peer-review boards so far have had promising results. ------------------------------ "Research on which types of internal audits are most effective in fostering police integrity is essential." --Dr. Sam Walker ------------------------------ Dr. Sam Walker brought to the session his expertise on various forms of external audit of police departments. He began with a review of the facts: There has been a dramatic growth in the past 20 years in this country in citizen oversight of police departments; the rest of the English-speaking world has been slightly ahead of the United States on this issue; and there are a variety of external oversight models used throughout this country. Some cities use an office of citizen complaint, others an ombudsman. In still other cities, there is a compliance auditor and, in Los Angeles, an inspector general. Dr. Walker asked which of these models seems to have been most effective. His answer: The jury is still out. More importantly, the new American political environment now more or less demands some form of external review of police departments. This history over the past two decades has taught some important lessons. Dr. Walker suggested that the lesson to be learned for managers is, "Do it, or have it done to you." The lesson for union leaders is, "Get on the train or be left at the station; citizen review is going to happen." Dr. Walker ended his comments with two final observations. First, merely doing something, anything, is not enough. This has been shown in cities like the District of Columbia, where the civilian review board was a failure, and the New Orleans Office of Municipal Investigations, which has failed to curb police misconduct. Second, there is much to be learned from these failures. If a viable external review system is to be constructed, one must first learn why systems that have been tried have not worked. ------------------------------ "Police departments need to move from punitive discipline to positive discipline. Police officers deserve this level of respect." --Robert Scully ------------------------------ Robert Scully pointed to the importance of having union people invited to take part in this discussion of police integrity. He reminded those in attendance that the labor movement is not simply made of officers but also includes many managers. Most of Mr. Scully's observations came in the form of the following strategies and ideas for improving police integrity: o Move from punitive discipline to positive discipline. o All departments should have an open-door policy for all sworn officers and conduct regular debriefing sessions, off the record; this should help identify problem officers at the early stages. o The Department of Justice should share more information about police officers under investigation. o Equal employment opportunity agreements must be developed between labor and management in every department. o Performance evaluations need to be improved and should be less subjective. o All police officers should have collective bargaining agreements. o All police officers should have due-process rights in their departments. Mr. Scully also made some recommendations about academy and inservice training: o The case study approach should be used more than it is, particularly in line-of-duty death, use-of-force, and corruption cases. o The families of police cadets and young officers must be better integrated into the life of the department. Stress management training programs are a must for officers and family members. Mr. Scully suggested that civilian review boards are by and large not helpful and should be abolished. The principal reason he gave is that civilian review board members usually know very little about police work. Although Mr. Scully voiced his opposition to civilian review boards, he said that if they are to be used, members should meet minimum qualifications and go through some training. ------------------------------ "Where a systematic weakness in police integrity undermines the rule of law and jeopardizes the rights of citizens, [the Department of Justice] must intervene." --Richard Roberts and Steven Rosenbaum ------------------------------ Richard Roberts and Steven Rosenbaum, of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, are cochairs of the Attorney General's Task Force on Police Misconduct. As described by Mr. Roberts, the initiative has brought together different agencies within the Department and different sections of the Civil Rights Division in a comprehensive effort to combat and prevent law enforcement misconduct through enforcement of Federal civil rights laws and through training as well. Mr. Roberts explained the Civil Rights Division's longstanding criminal enforcement program. Under Sections 241 and 242 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the Department has authority to criminally prosecute individuals, including police officers, who act under color of law to willfully deprive persons of their civil rights. Such rights include the right to be free from use of excessive force and the right to be free from unwarranted searches and false arrest. The Division's Criminal Section is assigned responsibility for conducting investigations and prosecutions, acting in conjunction with United States Attorney's Offices and the FBI. Each year the Division receives about 8,000 to 10,000 complaints against police officers, correctional officers, and private citizens, and the FBI investigates about 2,000 to 3,000 of these. On average, 70 indictments are brought each year, of which an average of 27 are against law enforcement officers. The success rate for prosecutions against law enforcement officers is about two-thirds. Mr. Rosenbaum described the Division's civil enforcement program. In 1994 Congress granted the following new authority to the Justice Department to bring civil actions for declaratory and injunctive relief to remedy a pattern or practice of police misconduct: o 42 U.S.C. 14141. This authority supplements the existing law that prohibits law enforcement agencies that receive Federal funds from engaging in discrimination in carrying out their law enforcement responsibilities. o 42 U.S.C. 2000d; 42 U.S.C. 3789d. Under these laws, the Division examines "systematic failures of great significance," which may include: use of excessive force; discriminatory stops, searches, and seizures; and supervisory failures (e.g., failure to train, failure to investigate misconduct allegations, and failure to discipline). Mr. Rosenbaum emphasized that the Division views itself as collaborating with State and local law enforcement agencies in promoting police integrity. ------------------------------ "It's time for us to stop focusing on the bad apple and tend to the whole barrel." --Chief Richard Williams ------------------------------ Chief Richard Williams shared several anecdotes about his experiences to elucidate the point that after putting systems in place, one must check to see that they are working the way they were intended. Too often, he said, chiefs believe that all of their officers will behave well all of the time. Then they are shocked when one goes wrong. They must ensure that there are systems in place to do random checking. It is the chief's responsibility to tend to the whole barrel, i.e., the department, rather than focusing on the one bad apple. Chief Williams outlined four principal external forces that often affect issues of police integrity: political figures, the media, accrediting organizations, and the public. His two major conclusions were that one must check constantly to ensure things work as they are expected, and police organizations must be ready for constant examination by the four external forces. ------------------------------ "Continuity and consistency in concerns about integrity inhibit the 20-year cycles of sensationalism and corruption." --Merrick Bobb ------------------------------ Merrick Bobb gave a short history of the workings of the Kolt Commission and his role as Special Counsel to Los Angeles County. Mr. Bobb explained the five goals he and his staff strive to meet in their oversight and monitoring of the L.A. Sheriff's Department: (1) strengthen the Sheriff's Department's internal systems, (2) test the department's accountability, (3) reduce its liability, (4) restore its credibility, and (5) report fully and honestly. For each of these goals, Mr. Bobb suggested a number of strategies and practices that might be helpful to other departments. They include what he called "roll out" squads, representatives from training and internal affairs and other department members who go to the scene to help in cases that could have potential liability problems. Under "testing accountability," Mr. Bobb said that a computerized system for tracking citizen complaints, lawsuits, and use-of-force cases is indispensable to improving police integrity. For "restoring credibility," Mr. Bobb stressed the importance of having external review and independent monitoring of compliance. These systems need to be permanent and ongoing so that the 20-year pattern of corruption and cleanup that occurred in New York City will not be repeated. Note: Briefing papers were prepared for each individual plenary session to orient participants to the general content of the panel. These briefing papers appear in Appendix B. ------------------------------ Chapter 4 Small Group Working Sessions on Integrity and Ethics Panel presenters and keynote speakers raised issues during plenary sessions that nine small work groups dealt with in depth, focusing on matters such as practical implications, needs of both police agencies and individual employees, research opportunities, and model practices. Each group was diverse, consisting of police officials, academics, and others. Most of the panelists who presented at plenary sessions also participated in the small group meetings. Three themes were identified for the small group working sessions and were set forth in the symposium agenda: o Integrity and ethics -- to "facilitate a broad discussion of integrity and ethics issues that confront all public and private institutions." o Police culture, leadership, and organizations -- to "examine the effect of police culture, leadership, and organization on integrity and ethics." o Internal systems and external forces on police integrity -- to "examine how to improve and integrate internal systems and external forces that can sustain high integrity and ethical standards." In addition to giving participants the opportunity to respond to issues raised by panelists and speakers, the small group sessions provided a forum to address other issues of importance regarding integrity and ethics. Group members also discussed model practices used throughout the country and made recommendations for followup by the Department of Justice. Facilitation The nine work groups functioned individually, but they had a common purpose introduced in facilitator training. Prior to the start of the symposium, facilitators and recorders were identified for each of the work groups. Facilitators and recorders met for orientation and instruction by Dr. Karen Spencer, Director of Faculty Development, The Johns Hopkins University, on the day before the symposium began. Dr. Spencer provided guidance in conducting group exercises, establishing a dialogue to encourage all members to participate, identifying key issues, reaching consensus, and reporting findings. An additional half-day orientation session was held for panel presenters and speakers. In addition to the presymposium instruction, facilitators and recorders met each day to discuss the results of their sessions and provide feedback. Key Findings The nine work groups began their sessions by discussing remarks made by Attorney General Janet Reno during her keynote address. The Attorney General stated, "The public wants to believe in its police officers." Group members considered how wrongdoing by the police had a more significant effect on the public than wrongdoing by other occupations because the public's disillusionment with police who commit wrongdoing or who fail to act in an ethical manner is so severe. Focus on the Positive One underlying theme surfaced in almost every group session -- the need to reinforce the positive. Because discussions about integrity often focus on wrongdoing and weaknesses within organizations and the police culture, there is a need to reinforce those things that police agencies and officers do well. All of the work groups acknowledged that police corruption is not pervasive. Most police officers function with a high degree of moral consciousness and professional ethics. Most calls for service are handled well. Most serious crimes in most jurisdictions are solved. Most people are satisfied with the performance of their local police. Most police officers uphold high professional and personal standards -- dignity, respect, service, compassion, honesty -- in all that they do. This does not negate the need to address infractions, improprieties, and lack of integrity swiftly and aggressively. But there is a need within police service to cease evaluating agencies and officers solely on the presence or absence of wrongdoing and alleged wrongdoing. Traditionally, police integrity and, in fact, police performance have been assessed almost solely in negative terms. A police agency is deemed to have integrity if there are no scandals, no negative headlines, and, as one chief of police said, little or no "political fallout." For much of the population, police agencies continue to be deemed successful if there is no major crime wave and no drop in response time. Police officers are judged successful if they avoid citizen or supervisory complaints, maintain their statistics, and show up for work on time. Many politicians continue to judge police integrity on the basis of lack of corruption or forms of wrongdoing by police officers. Like many police executives, they do little to reinforce positive behavior. The internal system in most police agencies is designed solely to "pounce" on the negative, as one group member said. In turn, many police officers view integrity simply as the absence or avoidance of wrongdoing. Most wrongdoing is perceived as a violation of policy, procedure, or law. Within this context, there is little focus on the meaning or need for a higher order integrity -- moral responsibility, moral decisionmaking, infusion of values in all tasks, and ethical performance regardless of circumstance or location. Little has been done to assess agencies and their personnel based on the positive outcomes of their work in relation to their stated objectives. Many of the departments committed to community policing continue to evaluate officers based on statistical performance and the absence of problems rather on the quality of their solutions to the problems or their ability to marshal the community in the improvement of public safety. In considering the positive, police officers should be encouraged to take pride in their achievements and feel good about supporting their organizations. This pride becomes a force toward building stronger systems to improve and maintain integrity and productivity. Police officers need to be aware of the values and principles that provide the foundation of their organization, their profession, their work, and the communities they serve. These principles and values must be evident throughout the organization, especially in the priorities of commanders and the police chief. Recognition of achievements consistent with these values is a way to energize agencies and their employees to realize and appreciate the good work they do and to foster a collective approach -- from officers, administrators, labor organizations, community organizations, and others -- to minimize unethical behavior. Primary and Secondary Issues Exhibit 1 is a matrix that shows key topics common to the nine work groups. This matrix does not reflect all of the issues raised in work group sessions. Two areas -- community policing and leadership -- were discussed in some depth by all of the groups. Others such as selection, the police culture, and internal sanctions were addressed by almost all the groups. Each of the primary topics is addressed in the following paragraphs, which give brief summaries of work group discussions based on dialogue among work group participants as well as input from group facilitators and recorders. Other topics were raised in the work sessions that were discussed by a smaller number of groups. Although the secondary subjects are listed as being discussed less frequently, this does not imply that they are of lesser priority. In fact, for some work group participants, subjects such as civilian oversight, national standards, and developing trust were their highest priorities in improving police integrity. ------------------------------ Exhibit 1. Matrix of the Most Common Topics Discussed in Work Group Sessions Primary Topics o Community Policing o Selection o Training and Education o Corruption o Leadership o Police Culture o Organizational Structure o Unions and Labor Organizations o Values and Principles o Sanctions, Rewards, and Punishment o Politics o Perception and Image o Media Secondary Topics o Civilian Oversight o Character of Police Officers o Defending the Constitution o National Standards -- CALEA (Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies) -- Defining Integrity o Informal Versus Formal Rules and Codes o Performance Evaluations o Trust o Funding ------------------------------ Community Policing One of the issues raised at some point by the working sessions was the effect of community policing on integrity and the importance of trust and integrity to the success of community policing. Close ties between police and the community were once viewed as a source of corruption, and, as a result, police officers were discouraged from establishing lasting relationships within the neighborhoods they served. Today, this is changing as community policing fosters new partnerships. With this change, however, comes the need to reassess the exact nature of ties between police and community. Compelling officers to become more involved with the neighborhoods they serve and to solve problems in those neighborhoods requires yielding considerable authority to them to identify and analyze issues and make important decisions. Giving this freedom to officers requires police leaders to relinquish many of the traditional controls and restrictions placed on officers in the past, including rigid policy, bureaucratic systems for gaining approval to take action or spend time in problem-solving activities, and the inability to contact other resources -- e.g., public works, health departments, social services -- without prior endorsement by a supervisor or administrator. It also requires new strategies for monitoring officers' behavior and performance and holding them accountable. In community policing, decisionmaking is pushed down the chain. The community policing philosophy advocates that police officers function as primary decisionmakers, but many administrators and supervisors are unable to relinquish their control and accept this working arrangement. Generally, this reluctance exists because means to hold community policing officers accountable have not been developed. In some cases when administrators do provide authority and encourage greater discretion on the part of officers, it is not easy for all members to grasp this change because it appears inconsistent with traditional policing approaches. Many elements of the police organization -- leadership, training, crime analysis and information sharing, supervision, resource allocation, labor organizations, performance evaluations, and recognition systems -- need to come together to make community policing viable. Due to their complexity, work group sessions discussed many of these elements as separate issues. Selection Many of the groups focused on the potential for hiring police officers and civilian employees who possess the character necessary to uphold the highest standards of integrity and withstand temptation to deviate from these standards. Many recognized that in the past, selection of police officers focused more on ability to perform job tasks than on character. There was a common perception among groups that thepool of highly qualified applicants to police service seems to be getting smaller as entrance criteria become more rigid. Participants felt that new ways to attract qualified people to the profession needed to be identified. The selection process must screen in those who exhibit characteristics consistent with the profession, not just screen out bad candidates. There was agreement that more stringent selection criteria are in place today than at any other time in modern history, although some participants noted that these criteria may have been modified from time to time to broaden the pool of candidates. Many questions emerged: Are recruitment and selection processes missing the mark in attracting and selecting the best candidates for police service? Are bureaucratic and affirmative action mandates and the "rush" to hire officers under DOJ-COPS grants causing police executives to perpetuate a selection process that has failed to change to meet the needs of today's police agencies and the communities they serve? Is there a relationship between education and integrity that might influence a department's decision to require college education as an entry-level criterion for employment? Training and Education Can integrity be taught? There was consensus among most people participating in the work groups that internal professional education plays a key role in influencing and maintaining employee integrity. More emphasis is needed on quality education -- in addition to basic skills training -- from the moment an officer is hired through to retirement. But police agencies have been slow to emphasize quality and consistency in instructional programming. Police officers are faced with making moral and ethical decisions every day. Yet few officers receive instruction to support this decision-making. Few officers are given structured practice in dealing with challenges to their integrity or in ethical decisionmaking. The number of hours allocated to integrity and ethics instruction in recruit and inservice programs remains embarrassingly low. State minimum standards for police training generally require only a couple of hours of instruction in ethics. Some States require none. There was general belief among work groups that most police recruits enter the profession principled and with some degree of enthusiasm and a willingness to learn and to serve. Are there influences in the initial training of these recruits that cause them to lose some of their enthusiasm, doubt the system, or blindly accept the negative aspects of the culture? Recruits, tenured officers, supervisors, and administrators are adult learners. Their expectations for learning far surpass the traditional training they receive, which is rarely more than lectures and videos. They have little say in directing the professional education provided by their departments. Remedial training for those who fail exams is generally provided only in the larger departments. When remedial training is provided, it is too often little more than a repeat of the instruction that the officer failed to grasp the first time it was offered. New ways to assess and develop basic skills such as reading and report writing is needed to support candidates who have not had the privilege of a sound education. Field training and postfield training programs need to be refined as a means for encouraging ethical behavior. Police leaders must aggressively pursue an end to the "untraining" that takes place when young officers are taught to forget what they learn in the police academy in favor of "street smarts." The myth is that they learn practical tactics and street survival skills. The reality is that, while they may learn some practical approaches to police service not taught in the academy, they are also influenced negatively. Field training programs need to emphasize critical tasks for the patrol officer and ensure that field training and academy training are consistent in the requirement for those tasks. Police agencies also need to invest in leadership and executive development. Currently, many more programs are being developed that focus on issues such as leadership skills and navigating the change process. Nonetheless, much of the training still centers on traditional management concepts. The needs of police executives should be assessed and a model executive development program developed to provide police academies with a source of training ideas and techniques. Overall, police education needs to engage police members in more indepth levels of discussion of issues. It is not enough to lecture on integrity. It is essential that an opportunity be provided for trainees to participate in active discussions for employees to grasp and understand the complexity of the issues and the need for personal involvement in maintaining police integrity. Further, symposium participants recommended that officers at all levels of the department be allowed to participate in efforts to reengineer their respective departments to foster integrity. There was a deep and abiding understanding by participants that the more all members participate in developing changes, the greater the likelihood that they will be implemented successfully. Although work groups focused much of their discussion on the need for quality education in police service, participants also noted that education and training are not a panacea to solve all integrity-related ills. Too often, police executives and others view education and training as a "cure-all." As one chief stated, "We act as though once we get our officers into inservice training and help them `see the light,' we have done all we need to do to effect change. I've seen very little behavior changed simply as a result of training." There was consensus that quality education and training -- with emphasis on "quality" -- are only one component of the effort to improve integrity. Corruption Corruption needs to be an integral part of any discussion on police integrity. Although most of the symposium presentations and group discussions focused on the broader issue of instituting and maintaining integrity within police departments, hard-core corruption also was discussed. Corruption takes many forms. Traditionally, it is thought of as criminal violations committed by police officers for the purpose of personal gain -- e.g., accepting bribes, selling confidential information, tampering with evidence. Responding to this form of corruption aggressively will always be a primary responsibility of police leaders. Other forms of corruption -- e.g., failing to respond to certain calls for service, withholding information from police reports, failing to bring forth first-hand knowledge of wrongdoing by other officers -- must also be addressed expeditiously. The nature of corruption has changed over the years, resulting in higher levels of criminal activity among police officers. It is more blatant -- police officers have banded together to form criminal gangs -- and also more accepted. Is this trend in police service simply a reflection of society and its changing values, or does it reflect a greater acceptance of a lack of integrity? Corruption reform is a critical problem for police leadership. It is also a problem that must be shared by unions, police officers, political leaders, and members of the community. An environment that tolerates corruption does not evolve overnight. It is as important to ask questions about the environment that tolerates the corruption as it is to investigate the individuals who commit it. It is important to ask what role the community, political leaders, and others external to the police department play in establishing an environment that either tolerates or refuses to tolerate corruption. If corruption is wrong, then what is right? It is important to define expectations so that officers and civilian employees know which behaviors are acceptable and which are not. Most work group participants agreed that police executives and their agencies do a poor job in relaying clear expectations to police personnel. The effects are even worse when expectations are clear but there is no followthrough to reinforce them. It is reasonable to assume that police and civilian employees should know right from wrong as they relate to criminal corruption -- they should recognize that stealing, violating confidentiality of information, and accepting bribes are improper. Police employees are public servants who have assumed the public's trust and therefore should not abdicate their responsibility to maintain personal integrity, regardless of the state of the work environment or chief of police's or sheriff's managerial style. Nonetheless, it does happen in those environments where support is lacking or questionable behavior is modeled by superiors. Indepth discussions about corruption usually take place only after corruption is uncovered within the agency or a neighboring agency. Few police engage in quality discussions -- either through inservice sessions or meetings with superiors -- as a means of preventing corruption or fostering an environment open to communication about it. Leadership There was a common perception among work group participants that the average tenure of a chief of police has declined in recent years. Some attribute this to the public's dismay over police integrity and the demand by citizens and their political leaders for a "quick fix." Not all police administrators are leaders. It cannot be assumed that all police chiefs, sheriffs, and other executives will commit themselves and their agencies to self-study, risk taking, team building, or other actions necessary to improve integrity. They will continue to rely on traditional means -- citizen complaints, followed up by internal investigations, and, in the extreme, grand jury investigations. What role does a leader play in establishing an environment that minimizes the potential for integrity violations? The chief of police or sheriff bears full responsibility politically, in the media, and in the eyes of the public but, in reality, often inherits an environment that evolved over many years. While effective leaders can move an agency in a positive direction in a relatively short time, changing the culture and effecting lasting change cannot be accomplished overnight. Political and public expectations for law enforcement executives to effect rapid change are often unrealistic. Whether coming from within the organization or another agency, a chief of police or sheriff needs to move swiftly to improve integrity. The leader must define standards for acceptable behavior and define how others in the department -- commanders, supervisors, officers, and civilian employees -- can meet those standards and support others to do so. The leader bears primary responsibility for informing the public about its role in maintaining integrity and for involving citizens in efforts to control corruption and improve integrity. An effective leader should grasp every opportunity to involve citizens in advisory roles and engage them in constructive ways to prevent wrongdoing. In modern police service, leaders must do more than articulate right behavior; they must exhibit right behavior. The leader must ensure that the agency's values and principles are articulated, and he or she should include input from the department's stakeholders. The leader then must provide followthrough and ensure that the values and principles are expressed, communicated, and reinforced throughout all aspects of the department's operations, administration, and service. The leader must reward positive behavior and move swiftly to address wrongdoing. Leaders should enlist others, internally and externally, to solve integrity concerns. The goal of every police leader should be to create an atmosphere of a total and comprehensive "us" that includes the community, rather than an "us against them" attitude. Leadership in a police department is not bound or defined by rank. Those in executive positions have an obligation to develop supervisors' capabilities and compel them to assume a greater role in maintaining integrity. Integrity issues should not be relinquished to a central unit or authority until all alternatives to deal with them within the smallest unit have been exhausted. In this regard, the first-line supervisor assumes a key leadership role in ensuring that employees adhere to high standards of professional behavior and ferreting out those who violate these standards. Police Culture Is there something in the police culture that weakens the idealism and positive zeal of young police recruits? Why, after decades of concern, does the police culture continue to tolerate a "code of silence" in matters related to violations of integrity and law? A recurring issue in work group sessions was the need to view police integrity as all-pervasive in a police department and critically influenced by the police subculture. For generations people have referred to the police "culture." This was referred to in the "Selected Issue Papers on Plenary Panel Presentations," provided to all symposium participants: "Like integrity, the police culture defies simple definition." The police culture is made up of distinct subcultures -- police to police, police to supervisors, and police to community -- each of which has to be defined and understood for its role in fostering or corrupting integrity. One of the key components to changing the police culture is the coming together of Federal, State, and local police officials to embrace an agreed-upon statement and subsequent commitment to establishing a culture that is intolerant of the "code of silence," unprincipled behavior, misconduct, dishonesty, and poor-quality police service. All police should work to establish a culture that promotes openness, ensures internal and external fairness, promotes and rewards ethical behavior, and establishes a foundation that calls for mandating the highest quality service to the public. All police members should also promote a culture that attracts and retains good officers. Police executives, union leaders, political leaders, and others must come together to develop a collective vision of what the police culture of the future should be. If leadership does not assume an aggressive role in changing the police culture to one of integrity, officers will continue to foster their own culture in their own way. Organizational Structure To what extent do organizational structures contribute to unethical behavior? Too few police executives view their organization's structure as a viable tool for improving integrity and service. The organization's structure is the key determinant of the nature of relationships among employees, units, other agencies, and the community. It influences productivity and sets forth a system of checks and balances to ensure that service is provided efficiently and effectively. How the organization is structured internally will affect dramatically how it polices externally. For example, an organization that places priority on accountability of managers and supervisors, equal treatment for all its members, citizen accessibility to the department, inspections and audits, and quality education for employees will do better at maintaining integrity than one that ignores or minimizes these organizational factors. Far too many police organizations remain closed to the people they serve. Citizens know little about how the police organization functions and why. This causes the public to question police tactics, operations, expenditures, and, ultimately, integrity. The guise of protecting sensitive investigations, shielding the public from the negative aspects of policing, and notions of the police being "different" have insulated police organizations from their citizenry. Recently, citizen police academies have begun to remove some of the cloak of mystery from police organizations, but more is needed. Weak systems within the organization tend to breed integrity problems. Favoritism in promotions and assignment to specialty functions; infrequent or poorly conducted audits of evidence-handling systems, informant funds, and use of sick leave; unstructured or nonexistent rotational systems in certain units deemed to be sensitive (narcotics, vice, liquor inspections); haphazard report review; and poor-quality inservice and supervisory training programs are but a few of the organizational weaknesses that create an environment in which its members are vulnerable. The best insurance against corruption in a police department is pervasive accountability, fairness, consistency, and equity. Unions and Labor Organizations Generally, police organizations function around a traditional adversarial dichotomy: The chief of police or sheriff advocates for management while the labor union advocates for personnel. Yet executives of both the police department and the police union share a common goal: Both desire a police department of which they can be proud. Therefore, the relationship between labor and management does not have to be primarily adversarial. Even if management and labor have different objectives related to salary, benefits, and work schedules, there are many shared areas of agreement. One of those is that both are intolerant of corruption and mediocrity. According to many of the work group participants, the adversarial relationship is so strong in some agencies that coming together on matters related to integrity will be difficult. This is compounded by general distrust and the fact that many union contracts provide legal support to officers who commit integrity violations. Values and Principles Defining values and principles, relating them to the Constitution, and incorporating them into everything the police agency does is one important way to maintain integrity. Values and principles must be articulated, understood, and embraced by every executive, supervisor, officer, and civilian employee. Ideally, they should also be supported by the political entity. However, most police agencies continue to function without an awareness of their basic values. Even when values are written down, departments too often do not comprehend that their full impact can not be realized until they are incorporated into day-to-day discussions and operations. Teaching values, their meanings, their derivations, and their applications should be an integral part of all recruit and inservice education. This instruction should be ongoing throughout an employee's career. In addition, police training should teach the full meaning and historical role of the Constitution to give the whole picture of what a police department is trying to achieve. Generally, the only aspects of the Constitution that are taught in police academies are those portions that constitute a constraint on the police. Sanctions, Rewards, and Punishment To what extent does fear of punishment influence ethical behavior? In most police agencies, sanctions against integrity violations are based on a manual of rules and regulations. Internal affairs units investigate allegations. There is, however, little else. Some of the executives who participated in the work groups stated that they are mired in overly bureaucratic internal affairs processes that are supported by complex union contracts and a legislated police officers' bill of rights. Others stated that they know how to use the system to swiftly address wrongdoing. The mission of police departments' internal control functions should not simply be to investigate crime or wrongdoing by police officers. Rather, police departments should go one step further and, for every violation, pertinent policies, procedures, and all relevant training should be assessed to determine whether there exists any portion that may prove to be confusing, unclear, or simply wrong and that requires repair or correction in order to provide correct guidance to police members. Within most police departments, there is accountability for acts of corruption and other forms of wrongdoing. But there is little or no accountability for those who allowed such an environment that tolerated the corruption to evolve. When accountability does occur, it usually takes the form of the termination of the chief of police. But few deputy chiefs, majors, and captains have been sanctioned for their roles in ignoring weaknesses in organizational or individual integrity. Politics If the political environment surrounding a police department is corrupt, then it will be far more difficult to control corruption within that police agency. Political interference in a police agency's operations mitigates against integrity in the department. Politicians and government leaders should understand that their role is one of setting policy for the police agency and then permitting the chief of police to have the responsibility to apply the policy to operations. As one work group participant noted, in an academy class five recruits had been recommended for rejection by background investigators. A local politician insisted that the five be retained even though they did not meet standards. This action sent a message that the efforts and integrity of the background investigators were meaningless. It caused employees to question the worth of the entire class, and it sent a confusing message to applicants who had worked hard to meet the hiring standards. Programs need to be developed to educate politicians and government leaders about their proper role in relationship to police operations. Although interference at the procedural and personnel levels may never be eliminated, its ill effects can be minimized through education and understanding. Politicians who cater to unions and other officer associations to get votes and then return "favors" for those votes create ethical problems. There are ways for politicians to work with police unions during campaigns that do not have to result in favoritism, blind support during contract negotiations, or other byproducts that raise integrity questions. Ideally, the police leader must be willing to foster change and, if necessary, confront politicians if they foster or ignore corruption, knowingly or unknowingly. The nature of the interaction between the top police executive and his or her political leaders is scrutinized carefully by both police employees and the public. The quality and integrity of this relationship between the police executive and government leaders sets a tone within the entire organization. Perception and Image Almost all work group participants acknowledged that this is a difficult period for those serving in police agencies because the integrity and image of the entire profession is being questioned. Some of the public's perceived bastions of police integrity -- the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Los Angeles Police Department and their "Joe Friday/Adam12" image -- have come under question and scrutiny. As one police executive stated in a work group, "Regarding the public's perception of the police, this is the worst period I've seen since the late '60s and early '70s." While it is hoped that community policing and other forms of quality police service will overcome negative perceptions about the police, it will take some time. There is a need to take some immediate steps to repair the damage caused by a series of national scandals. Generally, police leaders are not encouraged to think about the possibility of marketing their departments. Any marketing that occurs does so as a residual of outreach programs such as Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.(R)) and Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T.) or colorful recruitment brochures. Many of the work group participants cited the inadequate marketing police agencies have done regarding community policing. When police chiefs and sheriffs consider marketing their departments, they should begin with a careful analysis of the police service and how it is perceived by the public. They need to understand that at the heart of gaining positive publicity is a persistent gathering of examples of accomplishments of the department and individuals within the department. Chiefs and sheriffs also need to understand that not all efforts will be publicized by the media. Persistence coupled with efforts to meet the media personally and explain the police operations will go a long way toward achieving positive publicity for a department. Media The media have the potential to both positively and negatively affect police integrity. In many instances, if it were not for exposes of certain incidents by the media, many police agencies would not respond as quickly or effectively as they do to either investigate or make needed corrections. The media bring pressure to a police agency to release information, investigate wrongdoing, and hold itself accountable to the public for the actions of its personnel. However, this important role is often negated because the media "sensationalize" many incidents. Striking a balance between effective reporting and sensationalism poses a particularly difficult problem for many police executives. One executive told the story of an officer who had mishandled a missing persons incident by failing to submit a report on time. No one was harmed in the incident, and the officer, a 7-year veteran, admitted his wrongdoing. The police department was handling the case appropriately and according to proper procedure as an internal affairs matter. A small local newspaper got hold of the story and sensationalized it for several days. The chief of police gave the paper all of the facts and worked to put the story into proper perspective. Ultimately, the police officer committed suicide, leaving a note about his "tarnished badge." While not the norm, the anecdote reflected the pressures many executives and officers experience from the media. Work Groups Almost without exception, work group participants wanted more time to discuss integrity-related issues, and many continued their dialogue after the day's events concluded. Participants suggested that for future sessions, specific topics should be assigned to individual groups and sufficient time should be allotted to discuss them. Time constraints made it difficult for groups to engage in indepth discussions on the numerous topics pertaining to integrity. Although this caused some frustration for work group participants, all understood that for the symposium it was more important to get all the related issues and topics identified. These pages reflect an overview of the comments, concerns, and needs of work group participants. Almost all of the participants expressed positive views about working in small groups with people from various components of the criminal justice network, a need for followup, and a willingness to participate in future sessions of this type. Recommendations The National Symposium on Police Integrity achieved consensus on a number of issues. Many of the discussions resulted in specific recommendations for NIJ and COPS, which are categorized into short term and long term. Initially, some were too broad or theoretical to be useful, and the work groups and facilitators spent time developing practical recommendations. The final list of recommendations, as prepared and presented by the participants in the work groups, is summarized below. Short-Term Recommendations 1. Continue the dialogue, started at the National Symposium on Police Integrity, at a level closer to local practitioners through additional national or regional meetings at which information can be collected and shared. As noted above, time did not allow for indepth discussion of many of the issues identified through the work of the symposium. 2. Conduct a short survey of symposium participants to identify actions instituted in their respective agencies that may have resulted from participation in the symposium. Because time has elapsed since the symposium, participants may have additional perspectives and suggestions. 3. Convene a work group consisting of representatives from police agencies, civil service agencies, labor organizations, and investigative and enforcement agencies (e.g., DOJ's Civil Rights Division) to examine the impact of external forces on police behavior and derive common actions acceptable to all parties. 4. Convene a national workshop inviting representatives from the leading police executive leadership development programs throughout the country (e.g., FBI National Executive Institute, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center's Federal Management Institute, California Command College, Southern Police Institute, The Johns Hopkins University Police Executive Leadership Program, Bill Blackwood Law Enforcement Management Institute) to discuss infusing integrity and ethics throughout the curriculums for greater effectiveness in police leadership development programs. 5. Develop materials on best practices used in police service by selected police practitioners and other professionals who could highlight ideas and practices they have found useful and effective in responding to issues of police integrity. 6. Identify model practices applied successfully in other professions to instill, monitor, and maintain integrity. Illustrate applicability -- similarities and differences -- to police service. Identify key contacts who can provide further information on these model practices. Among the professions that should be examined are medicine, specifically the fields of bioethics, geriatrics, and health policy; engineering; business; the clergy; the military, specifically the Joint Services Conference on Professional Ethics (JSCOPE); education; law; and the media. 7. Infuse perspectives on integrity developed at the symposium into existing and planned initiatives supported by NIJ, such as the regional technology centers, and the COPS Office, which will soon have Regional Community Policing Institutes. 8. Develop a series of curriculum aids to introduce integrity into recruit, inservice, supervisory, and executive education and training programs specifically related to community policing. An example of a curriculum aid would be the development of case studies in which issues of integrity are explored. 9. Develop a videotape for police education based on the principal presenters at the National Symposium on Police Integrity. 10. Convene a series of workshops on state-of-the-art thinking on specific issues such as internal auditing, recruitment and selection, performance evaluation, entry-level and inservice training, early warning systems, peer review systems, and internal affairs units and their processes. 11. Prepare a collection of curriculum outlines and lesson plans to establish a base of information on the content of integrity-related training currently being provided to police personnel for national dissemination through the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). 12. Identify model mission and value statements and academy curriculums that support them. Make this information available to police agencies through NCJRS. 13. Identify and make available model media relations programs that have focused successfully on both police integrity and community policing. Long-Term Recommendations 1. Develop and implement a national "teach the teachers" program to create a corps of instructors versed in ethical theory and practice in police service. The goal of this program is to create consistency and quality in the nature of instruction being provided to police personnel on matters related to integrity. 2. Assess entry-level screening and hiring processes to determine if they are reliable predictors of ethical behavior. The goal should be to explore the concept of "including in" rather than "weeding out." Are there good predictors for determining virtuous police behavior as opposed to eliminating candidates because of questionable behavior? 3. Explore existing models and/or develop new models of performance evaluations that enhance professional behavior. Explore ways in which the community may become involved in evaluating the performance of police officers. 4. Identify characteristics of officers, supervisors, and executives who have performed with integrity and have a proven track record. Identify influences that reinforce positive behavior, and develop models for police agencies to build on these influences. 5. Assess citizen oversight of police agencies, specifically civilian review boards, to determine if positive change has been effected by such oversight. Views should be gathered from both police personnel and the public. To date, most information on civilian review is anecdotal. 6. Establish a National Institute on Police Integrity and Ethics to provide a long-term, ongoing commitment to improving and maintaining integrity in police service. The institute could serve as a clearinghouse for best practices, problem solving related to integrity issues, educational curriculums, and more. It could also serve as the sponsor of regional and national workshops and the "teach the teachers" program cited above. The institute could certify teachers who complete the program. It could further serve as a center for conducting, coordinating, and monitoring research on police integrity and ethics. 7. Involve the public in indepth, open discussions on the nature and quality of police service. Develop a series of national discussions in regional public libraries on the purpose of American police organizations. Why do police exist in our society? What is the role of police in a democratic society? Participants should include police officers, members of the public, and representatives of the academic community. The groups would be based on a reading/discussion program similar to "Let's Talk About It," sponsored by the National Endowment for the Humanities. 8. Conduct research on the relationship between college education and quality police service. Do officers who enter the field with higher education maintain a better track record of professional performance? 9. Conduct research on handling of citizen complaints. What techniques are being used by progressive police agencies? Are there alternatives to traditional methods of receiving and responding to citizen complaints about officer performance? Do these alternative systems avoid creating an adversarial environment for police officers, the police agency, and the public? 10. Identify efforts to improve and maintain integrity applicable to small- and medium-sized police agencies that do not have large training staffs, planning units, or internal affairs units. Identify ways in which small- and medium-sized departments can access this information, implement programs or procedures, and evaluate their progress. 11. Conduct research on nonpunitive approaches to dealing with integrity violations that do not involve commission of criminal acts. Identify how police departments successfully handle officers who commit ethical violations but may not warrant termination. 12. Identify successful alternatives to traditional field training officer programs. Identify ways to stop perpetuating the aspects of the system that cause recruits to become cynical and critical of their work environment early in their careers. 13. Conduct research among officers who committed integrity violations to identify causal factors and ways to prevent recurrence among other officers. Part of this research should address the attitudes and perceptions of these officers toward deterrence (e.g., policy, prosecution, potential termination, internal affairs, and civilian review) and why they were not deterred. 14. Conduct research on how supervisors are being oriented, guided, educated, and held accountable for maintaining integrity and ethical behavior among officers, with specific attention to community policing. 15. Develop a model tracking system that monitors an officer throughout his or her career. This should incorporate an early warning system, education, evaluations, recognition, special achievement, discipline, and more. It should identify when an officer is in need of special attention to prevent declining performance. 16. Conduct research on the perspective of labor organizations on integrity and ethics, particularly at the local level. Research should identify how labor and management may work more closely in improving and maintaining integrity. It should also identify how adversarial relationships may be minimized in incidents related to integrity in which the union provides legal support to charged officers. 17. Conduct research on how police officers perceive integrity and ethics within the profession. Analyze how the perceptions of officers compare to those of citizens, including special populations, businesspersons, others in government and human service fields, politicians, educators, and clergy. Explore how this information can be used to better educate both police and those in other fields about integrity to achieve mutual understanding and better partnerships. 18. Identify successful nontraditional employee recognition systems, both in police service and in other professions. Identify ways to reinforce and reward integrity. 19. Conduct indepth research on new recruits. Compare the integrity-related perceptions of police recruits entering the field to those of experienced officers. Compare the perceptions of those recruits at various intervals in their careers. Track incoming officers to determine why some do not succumb to committing integrity violations while others do and relate this to overall performance. 20. Implement a series of research projects, workshops, and seminars to identify the various links between community policing and integrity -- vesting officers with more authority, forming partnerships, permanent beats, and others -- and the safeguards that can be implemented to minimize the potential for integrity violations. 21. Conduct research on trends over the past 5 years in arbitration rulings for and against police agencies as they relate to matters of integrity. 22. Conduct research to correlate psychological screening data collected by police agencies to groups of officers who committed integrity violations and those who did not. Determine if there are indicators of potential integrity infractions in current psychological testing. Explore new and alternative psychological screening tools that may serve as better indicators than those currently in use. 23. Develop models for educating politicians -- materials, network of professional associations, regional conferences -- about police integrity, the police culture, and related issues so they may work more closely with chiefs of police and others to set realistic expectations and provide appropriate support systems to effect change. 24. Conduct a survey to identify model marketing strategies that have been implemented in large- and medium-sized police departments. Sponsor a series of conferences on marketing the police to discuss how police agencies may apply these models and develop their own marketing strategies. 25. Identify the cost of integrity violations to the individual police officer and his or her career, the police agency, and the community. Once identified, this information should be incorporated in internal and external education programs. Model Practices Due to time constraints and the intensity of discussion on integrity-related issues, work group participants spent little time identifying and describing model practices. As such, many of the programs, intervention strategies, and educational efforts under way in the agencies represented were not shared. A followup session or survey, designed specifically to obtain information on model practices, is needed. The following model programs were discussed during both panel presentations and work group sessions and are representative of the many that exist in agencies today. The Care and Feeding of Professional Persons -- Clergy The Archdiocese of the District of Columbia has established a two-tiered program to support clergy. The first tier involves annual evaluation, clear promotional criteria, assistance in planning for retirement, ongoing training and mentorship beyond the seminary, and the use of real cases of ethical dilemmas that commonly confront the contemporary cleric. The second tier involves openness and scrutiny by the public. This includes a system to allow secrets that have a potential for disaster to come to the surface promptly within a supportive environment. Rules and regulations are clear and applicable. In this system whistle-blowing is encouraged, and whistleblowers are viewed not as informants but as loyal employees who have the best interest of the organization at heart. City of Baltimore Ethics Program -- Government Mayor Kurt Schmoke outlined a four-step ethics program under way in Baltimore. The first element is leadership by example. The second is a written code of conduct with clear expectations of what is required of city employees. The third is an independent functioning body to oversee implementation of the code of conduct. The fourth is ethics training for employees. Seven-Step Program for Compliance in Business Integrity -- Finance Industry Winthrop Swenson, of Peat Marwick and a former member of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, cited a seven-step program for companies to follow to encourage and support ethical behavior. The first step involves developing standards and procedures that can be reasonably expected to curtail unethical behavior and corruption. The second step involves instituting oversight by high-level personnel. The third step involves taking care in delegating authority. The fourth step involves effectively communicating standards and procedures. The fifth step involves developing reasonable steps to ensure that employees are meeting these standards. The sixth step involves using appropriate discipline. The seventh and final step involves learning from mistakes. Comprehensive and Values-Driven Policing -- The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department In Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina, values-driven policing is supported by a series of activities that permeate all units in the department. For example, values are reinforced in the police academy, which has evolved from a "boot camp" environment to an adult learning center. The police academy has instituted a curriculum-based training program of core courses and electives that are available to all members of the department. An early warning system was developed and is monitored by the internal affairs unit. The department conducts compliance/ethics audits. A peer review use-of-force committee has been implemented. Four Goals for Improving Police Integrity -- Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department In Los Angeles County, a goal-driven program to improve police integrity has been implemented. The first goal involves strengthening internal systems. The second involves testing accountability, which is accomplished through a computerized tracking system for citizen complaints, lawsuits, and use-of-force cases. The third goal involves reducing liability, which is accomplished, in part, through "roll out" squads that assess potential liability and take immediate action to minimize it. The fourth goal is the restoration of credibility. This involves ongoing external review and independent monitoring of compliance; these systems are permanent and ongoing. Public Release of Disciplinary Actions -- Aurora Police Department On a quarterly basis, the Aurora, Colorado, Police Department makes available to the public a listing of all disciplinary actions taken against police officers. This has minimized the media sensationalism often associated with disciplinary cases, provides a mechanism for the public to see the department's willingness to police itself, and fosters an environment of trust between the police department and the public. Long-Term Ethics Education for Police Commanders -- The Johns Hopkins University In Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University Police Executive Leadership Program is a regional effort in which current and future police executives meet for 2 full days every 2 weeks for 2 years. Participants range from sergeant to chief of police and represent all of the major jurisdictions in the Washington-Baltimore metropolitan area. During the first year of the program, executives receive 108 hours of ethics instruction from a professional ethicist and a team of experts from other professions. They rely on readings and case studies and participate in debates and a series of workshops beyond the scheduled biweekly meetings. Three-Tiered Ethics Training -- Pueblo County Sheriff's Department In the Pueblo County Sheriff's Office in Colorado, an ongoing, three-tiered ethics training program has proven effective. Recruits first participate in a structured curriculum. Training is carried over into inservice courses. All supervisors and executive officers participate in the curriculum. This ongoing approach keeps ethics in the forefront of the department's activities and reinforces positive behavior. ------------------------------ Chapter 5 Epilogue Mark Moore, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University Mark Moore of the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, was given the task of assessing the symposium process. Professor Moore was asked to listen throughout the symposium and provide the audience with an assessment of their thoughts. He spent 2 days pondering and sorting through the following questions: Did participants arrive at any understanding or consensus on actions that are needed? Did they encounter any significant obstacles, disagreements, or troubling issues? Based on the work of the symposium participants, he was able to successfully synthesize the dialogue and produce a blueprint to build police integrity. This epilogue is the result of his observations and reflections. The national symposium on police integrity started with a set of seemingly disparate notions about police integrity: Other disciplines have significant systems in place that law enforcement should consider using; all police members have the right motivation to build an organization supported and admired within their communities; leadership, organizational structure, and police subcultures all make a difference; and all the individual internal subsystems of hiring, training, discipline, supervision, and rewards need to be consistent with each other and of a certain quality to be effective. What needed to be considered were the following important questions: o What is meant by integrity? o What does integrity encompass? o What should be done to motivate police members to possess police integrity and the community to value it? o How should the many subsystems, players, and principles of consistency and fairness be integrated across police service to maintain the public trust and thus protect our democracy? Recognizing that we had several goals for the symposium and that they had to be integrated, I would like to start with an overall description of what I consider to be the most important goals of the symposium. The first was to find or rediscover within ourselves the motivation to do the work of enhancing police integrity. I think an important part of the value of our being here together is a commitment we make to one another to accept the burden of overcoming our natural tendencies toward moral weak will or moral confusion and the responsibility of leading in the direction of enhanced police integrity. If nothing else gets accomplished, discovering and recommitting ourselves to that goal would be reason enough to be here. The second goal was to understand what we mean by "police integrity," particularly in a world that has been changing, both with respect to the task that police face and to the expectations and general ideas and philosophies about policing that are out there. If all those things are in flux, then it is quite possible that our understanding of what we mean by police integrity might be undergoing some important changes, and it would be important to understand what those changes are. Third, having built the motivation and understood the direction in which we are trying to go, the last objective was to learn how to produce integrity in our organizations. Let me now record our progress in each of those categories: (1) What is our motivation? (2) What is police integrity? (3) How can we produce police integrity in our organizations? What motivates us to operate our police agencies with integrity? First, because it's the right thing to do. First question: Why pursue police integrity? Here I will exercise the kind of leadership that Sheriff Dan Corsentino had to exercise when talking to a group of people in his department who asked him, "What's in it for me?" There's a question we all should be asking ourselves, "What's in it for me to exercise leadership on behalf of police integrity?" Consider Betsy Watson's account of command meetings to get a good description of what people mean by "followthrough" in executing a strategy and what it feels like as you go through it. Betsy explained that during those command meetings, she encountered one disciplinary problem after another and was getting recommendations from her staff that were inconsistent with what she thought was the right answer. Yet she persevered, worked her way through to a solution, and was able to get everyone to go along. There is a lot of pain and effort associated with that. So the question is, "Why is it worth spending so much hard emotional and intellectual work on this problem?" There are three quick answers. It's the right thing to do, and as Steve Vicchio said, we in this room could not be whole persons without doing it. It would be impossible for us to fulfill our aspirations to be virtuous police leaders if we didn't do it. That assumes a lot; it assumes that we already have strong characters and would be motivated simply by the idea that this is the right thing to do. I'm happy to say that, as I go around the room, I find evidence everywhere of that being true; people want to do this, not because of complicated calculations, but simply because they know it constitutes virtue, and they would like to be virtuous. So, the first reason to press for police integrity is that it's the right thing to do. Second, our communities consider it more important to have integrity or to be trusted than to be effective or efficient. Second, police integrity is crucial for the legitimacy and operational effectiveness of our departments. We cannot say as police executives that we are valuable or effective in leading our organizations unless we operate with integrity because integrity is part of what citizens expect from the police. Citizens aren't just interested in the results of policing -- whether crime rates are down and people are feeling secure. Citizens want to be certain that their police are behaving correctly as well as being effective. Chief David Walchak, for example, observed that it was more important to be accountable and do the right thing than to be efficient or effective. I'd like to ask police chiefs this question when thinking about effectiveness and instrumental effectiveness, "How much more likely are you to be fired if your department engages in misconduct than if your department is less effective in controlling crime?" I know of very few police chiefs or executives who have been fired when the crime rate goes up. I know of many police chiefs and executives who have been fired when there was evidence of significant corruption and misconduct in their departments and they had failed to take action to deal with it. If that's true, one way to interpret that is to understand that the public is at least as interested, and probably more interested, in the way we do police work than in how effective we are, though the public is interested in effectiveness as well. So it's crucial for our departments to promote integrity because that's what effective policing means. It is also true that if we behave, if we have high integrity in a police department, we can reasonably expect support from the community; we understand very well that support from the community is crucial to our effectiveness. We may be able to get approval from our community with something other than high-integrity policing, but it would be wrong for us to do that. Therefore, for operational effectiveness, we have to police with integrity. Third, it is essential to create an environment with integrity so that idealistic subordinates who join the police department can realize their ideals. The third reason to be interested in integrity is that we owe it to our subordinates to make it possible for their idealism to be realized. This idea -- that we begin with highly motivated, idealistic people who sustain that idealism and motivation over a long period of time under painful working conditions but gradually begin to feel disenchanted, confused, betrayed, angry, or cynical -- was repeated over and over again at this meeting. As managers, part of the challenge we face in producing integrity in policing is to create the kinds of organizations within which that idealism can be realized. Those are the reasons, it seems to me, to try to find within ourselves the capacity to demand and push for policing with integrity throughout the country. Now I want to emphasize this point. I think there is a relationship between integrity and effectiveness. If we are tempted to cut corners to achieve a little more justice and efficacy at the price of fairness, that is a bad bargain over the long run. The nick that will take out of ourselves, our organizations, and our relationships with the community will end up costing us too much in self-esteem and in our performance to be worth undertaking. I want to pause here a minute, because the temptations to cut corners in policing are astonishingly strong. I think one of the things that makes them that way is that the public doesn't always demand from us the highest level of performance that we are capable of giving or should give. Sometimes the public will collude with us in producing policing that has less integrity than ought to be there. I think this was brought home most clearly to me when I was on a study task force for the Philadelphia Police Department about 10 years ago. It was shortly after the MOVE incident; the police had dropped a smoke bomb, and it burned down the block. A corruption investigation into the episode had reached rather high in the department. We were trying to figure out how we could restore this police department to effective functioning. We thought that an important part would be to get a strong external mandate for reform. Without that it would be hard to get reform inside the police department, so we sent out a survey to the citizens of Philadelphia. We were hoping the response would come back that the citizens were quite dissatisfied with the Philadelphia Police Department. We asked the citizens, on a scale of one to five, "What did you think of the Philadelphia Police Department?" The answer came back about 4.5, a very high rating. We then asked another series of questions: Do you believe that police sleep on the job? Everyone thought the police slept on the job. Do you think they're rude? Again, yes. Do you think they take bribes? One third of the people thought they often did. Do you think they sexually harass defendants? One-fifth of the people thought they did. They had all these particular bad pieces of behavior, yet they still rated the police department very high. In a followup discussion with a group of captains from the Philadelphia Police Department, I asked: "What do you think this means?" They all looked down at their shoes for a bit and were embarrassed for me because I didn't understand. I didn't get it. Finally, one of them said, "Look, Doc, you have to understand that when you're shoveling society's garbage, you gotta be indulged a little bit." And there was a kind of relaxation in the room because somebody had finally said something that was true. I suddenly realized that this was the understanding that existed between the Philadelphia Police Department and its community, that if the police were going to deal with society's criminal elements, they had to be given some latitude. If that's the way it is in Philadelphia, I thought, then how many other cities approach this issue the same way? I found that in a large number of other cities, it was now the deal, and it could easily sink to that in other cities. What I'm saying is that the public will let us get away with more than we ought to get away with. I can see the police sometimes sensing the possibility that the citizens won't hold us accountable, and then the police creep out to take advantage of the opportunity associated with that. I'm reminded of a Peanuts comic strip. Lucy says, "Come on. Kick the football." Charlie Brown says, "No, no, you'll pull the football away from me." Lucy insists, "No, no, honest I won't -- I'll leave it there." Every time she pulls the football away. That's what I think happens to policing over and over again. The citizens lose interest in demanding high performance from the police, so they relax for a minute. The police sense an opportunity to exploit citizens' tolerance, and they rush forward to kick the ball, only to have the citizens, 5 or 10 years later, say, "Whoops, we changed our minds. We no longer want that dirty deal -- we like the clean deal." In that moment careers, reputations, organizations are shattered. So I beg you not to yield to that temptation and continue to find the motivation to insist on high-quality, high-integrity policing. When we combine our first objective with our second, the subsequent question is, "Where do we get the motivation?" We get the motivation out of ourselves, out of a desire to produce effectiveness, out of a desire to create an opportunity for our subordinates. What do we mean by police integrity? Primarily we mean the violation of standards, especially the abuse of authority. The only means to guarantee police professionalism is for all of us to be most concerned about protecting constitutional rights. What do we mean by police integrity? I was struggling with this question yesterday, and I feel a little bit clearer today. I also feel a little frustrated. I worry that in our discussions, we've been covering up some important disagreements about what the police should stand for, what values they should stand for, and how they should pursue them. We've been covering them up with what I would describe as the mantra of police integrity. When you get a distinguished group of police people together like this and talk about integrity and professionalism, you can get uniform agreement and enthusiasm for the idea that we ought to have more professionalism and integrity in police departments. But then the question becomes more difficult when you ask, "What do we mean by police professionalism and integrity?" I think there's an easy answer to this, one orthodox answer that we developed over the last 30-40 years that everybody feels comfortable with. What we mean by integrity and professionalism is law-abiding character, technical confidence, neutrality, distance -- in Steve Vicchio's wonderful phrase, "the effacement of personal interest" -- and probably some notion of courtesy and client responsiveness. The image of policing portrayed by Sergeant Joe Friday in "Dragnet" is a very powerful idea of a certain kind of professionalism in policing. First, I want to honor that conception and say how valuable it has been to the field and to what extent that idea has carried us to astonishing success both operationally and in terms of our own interest. But I also want to argue that the Sergeant Friday concept of professionalism was not complete. It was unfinished with respect to constitutional rights in the operation of professional policing. One of the reasons I pressed Billy Johnston was that the Boston Police Department had put the protection of constitutional rights at the very top of the value statements for its department. I wondered whether that meant that the department had begun to view protection of constitutional rights as a goal and no longer a constraint. In my policing experience, the commitment to protect constitutional rights under professional policing was given a high degree of lip service, but in reality, constitutional rights were strongly resented. They were seen as inconsistent with substantive justice, and it was substantive justice that was the true goal of policing, not the protection of constitutional rights. To the extent that there was lip service given and distance created between what you might think of as professional policing and resentment of constitutional rights, a chink was created, a chink that could open up the door for something that I call "noble-cause corruption" (with a heavy emphasis on quotation marks because I don't want this to be treated as a justification). It is the idea that, yes, I did something wrong, but justice demanded it, not tolerated it but demanded it, because I could put the guy away who otherwise wouldn't be successfully prosecuted. I, the police officer, wouldn't gain personally from it; I didn't get anything from it. I only acted for the community in the community sense of justice to accomplish this goal. Of course, it's in that chink that Dirty Harry emerges as an image of a valued and virtuous police officer. The creation of this void between professional policing and constitutional rights was the point of Billy Johnson's compelling story. The account of his experience was so powerful, I found myself thinking about it over and over again during the course of the afternoon. Let me try to retell the story in analytic terms and see what we might get out of it because I think it is very instructive to us, and it had a big impact on people in this audience. Billy began his career as an officer seeking virtue; he responded to a set of experiences and moved over time to what now appears to be a deeply passionate and personal commitment to protecting civil liberties and fairness as important values in policing. He began as a tactical patrol officer and used force to enforce the law. He learned very early that using force did not win community support. That was a big moment, a turning point in his life. Then Billy became a member of the decoy squad, where he vicariously experienced victimization and the pain victims feel when they are disadvantaged members of society. I think that it was that moment that solidified his commitment. But the strong desire to protect potential victims from crime was no longer an abstract goal. It became quite concrete and an additional rush of motivation for that goal -- the protection of people -- comes center stage. Now, what was also important in his role as a decoy -- he also experienced something that many police officers don't get a chance to experience quite as vividly - - was the experience of discrimination against him on a personal level. The reason he experienced that was not because he was simply a crime victim but because he was a special kind of victim; he posed as a gay man coming out of a gay bar. In that moment, he experienced a kind of victimization that comes from being the target of discrimination and hate, not just the target of somebody who wants to take your money. An important part of that experience was that he began to sense that the attitudes in the police department he was a part of might be contributing to or reflecting conditions that expose people to the particular kind of victimization that is associated with discrimination. He labeled that, appropriately, the "loss of their personal dignity." We started with a man who was concerned about protecting people from being victims of crime, like all police. Then he noticed there are some classes of people that are vulnerable to a particular kind of victimization -- discrimination -- in some ways a more painful kind of victimization. Then suddenly, his interest in protecting crime victims grew to a commitment to protecting people from the excruciating pain of loss of personal dignity that occurs only as the result of discrimination. This protection can be fully and fairly exercised only if civil liberties are protected. That's a wild leap, so I've been thinking hard about exactly how that happened. If I can reproduce his logic, it progressed like this: Constitutional rights are what gives everyone dignity in society. Police have to be committed to protecting the civil rights of people from attack by other citizens. We all understand that we need to stop hate crimes so often perpetrated through vandalism of property. But we also are charged with protecting those who are particularly vulnerable to the blatant exercise of hatred. Protecting constitutional rights is the only means we have of ensuring a person's dignity. It's important to protect constitutional rights; it is the contribution the police make to society. It's important to protect people who are vulnerable to discrimination. The police have to refrain from giving only tacit support to those victims, a very dangerous and half-hearted position. Now this is the big moment, the most important point of Billy's experience. The police have to refrain from attacking the civil liberties of disadvantaged people. Therefore, it's important that the police be committed to civil liberties, and the whole idea of a police department then becomes not just to protect us from them but also to protect them from us. And that's a clarifying and peak moment, at least in Billy's life. There's a way of trivializing this point, I suppose, and I run the risk of doing that, but let me do it anyway. We all know the old saw that says a conservative is a liberal who just got mugged. Everyone knows that line. There's a response to that, which is a liberal is a conservative who just got arrested. I think that reminds us that some of the thugs, or some of the most heinous threats in society, come from the State, and some of the people who are the most obvious representatives of the State are police officers. Now let me share one or two other thoughts. Billy's story is a recounting of how he came to view the protection of civil liberties as the ultimate goal of policing, not as a constraint on what were once other particular goals. If it is true that our commitment to the protection of civil liberties is a goal and not just a constraint, I think that would turn out to be a very stern requirement, particularly if we enlarge the idea of civil liberties not just to be the protection of rights that are described in the Fourth Amendment but also to be "accountable." I think those issues would then challenge us to think more deeply about what we mean by police integrity. Let me be more concrete. I listened throughout the symposium to find examples of failures of integrity or instances of corruption. In our discussions, we focused on the following things: We focused a great deal on the misuse of force and authority, including extortion, brutality, "testilying," and simple rudeness. That, of course, aligns well with the civil liberty concern that we not use too much force and authority, that we use it only when it's justified. We also alluded to, but didn't discuss very intensively, bribery and corruption, even though I thought in a discussion of corruption and integrity that bribery would figure more prominently. Somehow, that didn't come on to our screen as much. We talked a bit about theft from the department and about personal conduct, both on and off the job. But if you were to go back to our transcript and try to find particular concrete actions we were talking about as instances of misconduct and the lack of integrity, it would have been principally about misuse of force and authority. At other times during the discussion, particularly when Hubert Williams was speaking, we talked about another potential kind of corruption, discriminatory practices and their threat to equal treatment and fairness. I don't know whether we want to think of that as a part of police integrity. But if we were to take the concern for civil liberties and widen it to be about fairness in general, then it might turn out to be of great interest. We must be concerned about the extent to which police departments are engaged in discriminatory practices or are perceived as being engaged in discriminatory practices and how one might be able to deal with that. I think there's a significant consensus in society that we don't like bribery, we don't like stealing from the department, and we don't like conduct unbecoming officers. I think the issues of whether we don't like excessive use of force or unfair and discriminatory police practices and whether we demand accountability of the police to the external community are much less firmly rooted. So there's a discussion about whether police integrity requires us to root out inappropriate uses of force, to root out discriminatory practices, and to make our operations accountable and transparent to the broader public. Now all of those things that I just mentioned -- eliminate excessive use of force, eliminate discriminatory practices, make yourselves accountable and transparent to the community -- are part of the philosophy of community policing. They are also an important part of the philosophy of professional policing. They are consistent with the concern for civil liberties and fairness and for being the kind of police department that can deal with particular challenges to police integrity. This is how can we make sure that police departments serve all their constituents. If there's one challenge to police integrity, I would argue that police departments should be there for everyone in this society, not just for some people. How can we produce integrity in our police departments? It means alignment between police and community, between management and officers, and between officers and their officer colleagues. Let me now turn to the question about how to produce integrity, which was our last goal. I think that if you were listening to the conversations, you would conclude that we have an extraordinary, valuable asset when trying to produce integrity in police departments. Integrity in police departments would be in the good service of officers, in their yearning to be led to do the right thing, to work in right relationships to one another and toward the purposes that are set for them. The important problem is how to align those aspirations (to use Betsy Watson's word) with the opportunities that the work in the organization will present to them. We should also consider alignment in this context as an alignment among what Judge Milton Mollen described as three important relationships: police to community, management to officers, and officers to officers. Our challenge as managers is to align aspirations of people in the organization with community needs and wants, with leaders' demands of officers, and with officers' demands of one another. Let's begin with the management of our relationship with the community. Presenters throughout the day thought that getting that alignment right would be quite important to produce high-integrity policing. District Attorney Robert Colville said bluntly, "If you are going to change anything, you need the political will to execute the change. Otherwise, you're kidding yourself." We also know that the philosophy of community policing is both an end and a means to develop strong relations with the community. Howard Safir described the efforts of the New York City Police Department to establish relations with the community by saying, "We are their police and make ourselves accountable." Yet my story about Philadelphia suggests that the public's demand for high-integrity policing may be a bit fickle. Therefore, the reason that these 20-year cycles of reform and scandal occur in New York City may be a function of the public's interest in reform as much as of what the police departments are able to control. This then leads to Judge Mollen's interesting question: "To what extent do we as managers, interested in producing high-integrity police departments, need the voltage that would come from a sustained, external body demanding from us high-integrity policing, and to what extent could that functional need to have people expect and demand from you high-integrity policing be produced by creating an external body to which you could be accountable?" I know that makes everybody very nervous, to have the police accountable to an external body. In its discussions, the Mollen Commission was trying to deal with this problem and grapple with two facts, both of which they took to be true but which seemed inconsistent on their face. First, they were quite convinced the police would be unable to control corruption if left to themselves. There had to be some external pressure or they wouldn't be able to get the job done. At the same time, they were quite convinced that unless the police did it themselves, they would be ineffective in successfully controlling corruption. That's the paradox. On one hand, the police can't do it themselves; on the other hand, unless the police do it themselves, it isn't going to work. This leads to the idea about how to construct an external advisory board, or an external control board, that would audit the police department's systems for controlling its use of authority, both for corruption and abuse of force, but not conduct individual investigations. It would issue reports periodically on the state of corruption and the department's systems for dealing with it, but it would be up to the chief and the department to take actions that would be necessary to accomplish their goals. I don't know whether that's the right answer, but I think it is an interesting question for you to contemplate. That is, to what extent would you, as leaders of police departments, be aided or disadvantaged in your efforts to find the motivation, define what constitutes integrity, and produce it in your departments by an external organization demanding from you what you would like to produce. It seems it would get easier to produce if there was an external body. I think that one of the lessons from Pat Murphy and the Knapp Commission was that, in many respects, the Knapp Commission helped Murphy accomplish the goal of cleaning up the department, and I think that's true for most of the important examples of reform we've seen. Let's look next at the management team. Again, I want to reference Betsy Watson's stories about the construction of her management team both to set high standards for appropriate performance and to commit to a particular philosophy of policing. Additionally, there needs to be recognition of the grueling work that it takes to hang in there. What constitutes "followthrough" in this case is to continually raise the issue, have the courage to face concrete questions, and resolve the questions in a way that is consistent with your understanding of the problem. However, you also need to talk with people about why you are deciding something a certain way. It is very tough to construct a management team, as you all know, when facing hard questions about concretely defining high-quality policing and, in particular, the acts that lie outside the boundaries of the organization's tolerance. One of the things the team thinks about, it seems to me, is what general approach will be used. What kind of management systems will be put in place to control corruption or promote integrity inside the police department? Yesterday, I mentioned that there seem to be two broadly different approaches. One is to "detect and respond, find the bad guys, and get them out of the department." The second is to "promote a good-behavior approach through cultural means." I thought there would be some tension between those two, but I think the group has reasonably agreed that to be successful in controlling corruption and promoting integrity, you'll have to rely on both of those things together. You'll have to have both a cultural push in supporting good conduct and an investigative focus that allows you to find and respond to misconduct in the force. I think we came to understand that those two things were not necessarily in opposition and would probably have to be integrated in any successful effort to control corruption and promote integrity. Let me talk about each of those approaches: the cultural approach and the investigative approach. The cultural approach depends on leadership and value statements, which we've already talked about, but it also depends on recruitment and selection on the one hand and training on the other. I believe that we spend a little too much time talking about recruitment and selection. One way to view this issue is that people are either honest or dishonest when they come into the police department. If we could screen out the dishonest ones, we would have an honest police department for the future. However, I think there's evidence to suggest that people change when they get into police departments, and they change as a function of both their work and the environment in which they find themselves. So the department's practices can either make bad people out of good people or good people out of bad. To the extent that that's true, it doesn't do us a lot of good to make sure that the people coming in are honest or dishonest. I also am worried about the quality of the tests we use to distinguish good people from bad, and I think that not many departments are replacing veteran officers at a high enough rate so that incoming officers will constitute a large proportion of the organization any time soon. Therefore, it will nearly always fall to a police department that is trying to promote integrity to work on practices and internal organization as well as concentrate on recruitment and selection. Spending too much time on recruitment and selection, however, is essentially to delay and render impotent a major initiative to control police corruption or to foster police integrity. There are some circumstances in which what I've said is not true, but often it is true. I also think there's a lot of emphasis placed on training. We tend to focus on academy training, hoping that we can inoculate our officers and not have to worry about them again. I don't think that's a reasonable expectation. I think our police have to be trained over and over and over again. Many people at the symposium made that point as well, and I'm reiterating it. One thing I want to add is that I'm an educator, so I know about teaching. I would make a distinction between hot pedagogic techniques and cold pedagogic techniques. What I call a cold pedagogic technique involves the classic technique: The instructor talks and the audience takes notes. A hot pedagogic technique is more interactive: it can involve verbal wrestling with one another, arguing, or drawing pictures. The police academy training now offered not only does not spend much time on questions of ethics but uses cold pedagogic techniques: Instructors talk about constitutional law and read codes of ethics. Topics taught through hot pedagogic techniques are driving, shooting, and self-defense. Those are compelling things. Through these devices, as someone observed, we also train people for war, and that gets people questioning who the enemy is, and the answer is ambiguous. I think the big challenge is to develop hot pedagogic training for integrity issues. Focusing on supervision, we shift to the investigative approaches, for reasons I think would be appropriate. I don't believe anyone here thinks we could get away with, or would want to get away with for long, not having a powerful investigative apparatus for detecting and responding to misconduct in our officers. That should be a part of every organization's portfolio of responses to misconduct. We haven't spent much time yet talking about the details of that system. I think there are three important questions about the details that need to be addressed. One is: What will be the focus of that investigative system -- all kinds of misconduct, certain kinds of misconduct -- and how will we set priorities among the different kinds of misconduct? Are we going to focus on corruption and bribery, or uses of force, or rudeness, or administrative misconduct? We need to develop a vocabulary to classify the different kinds of misconduct and decide which are going to be high priority and which are not as important to undertake. The next question is: What investigative methods are we going to authorize? We need to ask ourselves the following: To what extent are we going to use citizen complaints, or accumulations of citizen complaints? What status will citizen complaints have in triggering serious investigations? To what extent are we going to rely on covert surveillance? To what extent are we going to rely on stings? Commissioner Howard Safir said that 1,000 stings were being run each year in the New York City Police Department, and in a conversation I had with him, he said that 60 percent of the stings are conducted on a random basis, and only 40 percent have a predicate for focusing the stings. It is a very interesting and tough investigative practice. Is it standard practice now, and are people doing more or less of it? Are we going to use turnarounds? Are we going to use field associates - - people recruited early in their careers to report secretly on the conduct of other people in the organization? This is a very tough set of questions about the kinds of investigative apparatus we're going to deploy to ferret out misconduct in our organizations. The last question about investigative approaches is also a very important one: Should we concentrate the investigative capabilities in centralized units, called IAD [Internal Affairs Divisions], or should we decentralize and let precinct or borough commanders conduct the investigations as well? People who are interested in guaranteeing the quality of police investigations tend to want to centralize investigations. But there is an argument for decentralizing as well. If we hope to change the culture of the organization by pushing out the accountability for controlling corruption to precinct commanders and midlevel managers, then they should be given not only that authority and responsibility but also the resources to carry out the investigations as well as the central IAD. Police Commissioner Safir said that he was now asking precinct commanders to do minor investigations. As he pointed out, that produces a lot of allies in the department. I remember Pat Murphy telling me a story about 20 years ago when he was working on reducing police corruption in New York City. He described why he had decided to decentralize the investigative responsibility from a centralized IAD to the precincts and boroughs and to give them the responsibility for carrying it out. He said to me, "You know, Mark, what would happen in a precinct when they caught a couple of cops for misconduct. Guys from IAD would come down, and they would put the cuffs on the guys, and they would take them out of the precinct house and take them down to the station. Right after they got out of the precinct, the precinct commander would stand up and get everybody together and would say, `Those thugs from IAD came and took John and Charlie, two of the finest cops I ever knew.'" Why would they say that? Because they'd be worried about the morale of the troops, and they'd want to build up the morale again, but in that moment, they were disowning the responsibility for controlling corruption and were leaving it in the hands of "those bastards from IAD." When you said to them, you do the investigation, you lock them up, what happened inside the police department? Well, that forced a behavioral change. Some precinct captains said they couldn't do it and left. Others said they would, but when they did, what happened to them? They became part of the group that was against corruption, not supportive of it, and in that moment, the number of people in the organization who were looking for and trying to deal effectively with corruption went up dramatically, and the power of the people who were in those positions went up dramatically. With that, the total investigative apparatus that was focused on corruption increased, and supervision improved, and the culture was transformed. Whether you centralize or decentralize and under what circumstances you can hold people in the police department accountable is an important question. I've discussed the relationship between police leaders and community and suggested that it's important to mobilize external political accountability. I've talked about leadership in the management team and about making a choice between investigative and cultural approaches. I'm now facing up to the last challenge, which I think is the subject of one of our most important panels. How do you bridge the gap to the street cop, and particularly, how do you penetrate the cop-to-cop loyalty and build loyalty to the values of the organization rather than to one another? I think our union colleagues have something to tell us about the right way to reach into that set of relationships. Let me go through the following points: First, recognize how demanding the standards and the jobs are that we're imposing on police departments. I think Gilbert Gallegos made the strongest point about that, reminding us that as far as he could tell, only Christ had lived up to the responsibility of these challenges. So if we're imposing very high standards on the officers and we write them vaguely -- remember how cynical the responses can be to the standards -- the officers will feel insufficiently guided. But if we write them concretely, they will see them as protection of the bosses against claims that the bosses have been part of the problem to make sure that the officers themselves are the ones who end up being blamed if something goes wrong. Also recognize that if we want to ask for more by raising the standards, we then have to find a way to provide support inside the organization. It's unreasonable to raise standards without giving people more assistance. We may also have to recognize that management ambivalence is part of the problem that produces corruption. What would all that mean if we were to devise a program for controlling corruption and enhancing integrity in an organization? I think without a doubt we'd have to include officers in the planning and development of that system. I think we'd be surprised to discover unexpected allies in the organization who share our yearning to accomplish the right goals. Organizing ourselves in this way, setting up these kinds of working relationships within the police department, we would be doing internally what we're also trying to do externally -- namely, learning how to treat all the people in our organization and all the people in our society, even the people about whom we feel anger and contempt, with respect and a hope that we might find something in common we could do together. The point of the symposium to which we all agreed is that we ought to take advantage of this opportunity at this particular moment to produce excellence everywhere, every day, in our departments. You thanked me for spending the time here. I can't imagine any more valuable time for me to spend than on this subject with this group of highly motivated people. I'm very grateful to have had the opportunity to speak for you, and I wish you well in your subsequent conversations. Thank you. ------------------------------ Appendix A Attendees National Symposium on Police Integrity July 14-16, 1996 Patrick C. Alhstrom Executive Director Colorado Department of Public Safety Sherry Anderson Transportation Specialist Office of Intelligence and Security U.S. Department of Transportation Philip Arreola Chief of Police Milwaukee, Wisconsin Virginia B. Baldau Director (acting) Office of Development and Dissemination National Institute of Justice U.S. Department of Justice Ronald Banks Assistant Chief Chief of Staff Office of the Chief of Police Los Angeles, California Robert Beck Chief of Police Anne Arundel County, Maryland Neal Behan Chief of Police (retired) Baltimore County, Maryland Michael Berkow Chief of Police Coachella, California Ondra Berry Deputy Chief of Police Reno, Nevada Teri Black Deputy Director for Administration Office of Community Oriented Policing Services U.S. Department of Justice Merrick Bobb Special Counsel to Los Angeles County Tuttle and Taylor Los Angeles, California Barbara Boland Visiting Fellow National Institute of Justice U.S. Department of Justice Stephanie Bourque Program Manager National Institute of Justice U.S. Department of Justice Joseph E. Brann Director Office of Community Oriented Policing Services U.S. Department of Justice David Brown Deputy City Manager Tempe, Arizona Lee Brown Professor Department of Sociology Rice University Ron Burns Chief of Police Tempe, Arizona Paul Busick Director Office of Intelligence and Security U.S. Department of Transportation Louis A. Cabarruviaz Chief of Police San Jose, California Donald Cahill Supervisor Human Resources Bureau Police Department Prince William County, Virginia Cynthia Caporizzo Assistant Director for Intergovernmental and Public Liaison Office of Community Oriented Policing Services U.S. Department of Justice Jan M. Chaiken Director Bureau of Justice Statistics U.S. Department of Justice Marcia R. Chaiken Director of Research LINC Alexandria, Virginia Callie Chandler Research Analyst BDM Federal Monterey, California Rob Chapman Office of Community Oriented Policing Services U.S. Department of Justice Donald Christ Chief of Police Indianapolis, Indiana Robert E. Colville District Attorney Allegheny County, Pennsylvania Roger Conner Executive Director American Alliance for Rights and Responsibilities Washington, D.C. Dan Corsentino Sheriff Pueblo County, Colorado Lloyd L. Coward Director of Internal Affairs Metropolitan Police Department Washington, D.C. Sylvester Daughtry Chief of Police Greensboro, North Carolina Ed Davis Chief of Police Lowell, Massachusetts Charles Dean Chief of Police Prince William County, Virginia David Dial Chief of Police Naperville, Illinois David A. Dobrotka Chief of Police Glendale, Arizona Ann Marie Doherty Chief Bureau of Internal Investigations Police Department Boston, Massachusetts Steven Edwards Program Manager Office of Research and Evaluation National Institute of Justice U.S. Department of Justice Dean M. Esserman Chief of Police Metro-North Commuter Railroad Police Department New York, New York Paul F. Evans Commissioner of Police Boston, Massachusetts William Falcon Editor/Writer Office of Development and Dissemination National Institute of Justice U.S. Department of Justice Cherise Fanno Program Manager National Institute of Justice U.S. Department of Justice John Feerick Dean Fordham University School of Law Gayle Fisher-Stewart Consultant Takoma Park, Maryland Newman Flanagan Executive Director National District Attorneys Association Alexandria, Virginia Edward Flynn Chief of Police Chelsea, Massachusetts Thomas C. Frazier Commissioner of Police Baltimore, Maryland Lorie Fridell Associate Professor School of Criminology and Criminal Justice Florida State University Warren Friedman Executive Director Chicago Alliance for Neighborhood Safety Chicago, Illinois Stephen J. Gaffigan Senior Policy Analyst Office of Community Oriented Policing Services U.S. Department of Justice Larry K. Gaines Chair Police Studies Department Eastern Kentucky University Gilbert Gallegos National President Fraternal Order of Police Albuquerque, New Mexico Joel Garner Director of Research Joint Centers for Justice Studies Shepherdstown, West Virginia Dennis A. Garrett Chief of Police Phoenix, Arizona William A. Geller Associate Director Police Executive Research Forum Wilmette, Illinois Bruce Glasscock Chief of Police Plano, Texas Sheldon Greenberg Chair Department of Interdisciplinary Programs The Johns Hopkins University Owen Greenspan Criminal Justice Information Services Specialist SEARCH Clifton Park, New York Leah Gurowitz Assistant Director for Congressional Relations Office of Community Oriented Policing Services U.S. Department of Justice Ellen Hanson Chief of Police Lenexa, Kansas Steve Harris Chief of Police Redmond, Washington David Hayeslip Assistant Director for Program Development and Design Office of Community Oriented Policing Services U.S. Department of Justice George E. Henderson Attorney Advisor Community Relations Service U.S. Department of Justice Larry Hesser Chief of Police Georgetown, Texas Thomas Higgins Sheriff Erie County, New York Sally T. Hillsman Deputy Director National Institute of Justice Office of Research and Evaluation U.S. Department of Justice Marianne Hilton Lecturer in Psychology Swedish National Police College, Sorentorp Solna, Sweden Michael Hoke Assistant Deputy Superintendent Police Department Chicago, Illinois Stephen Holmes Social Science Analyst National Institute of Justice U.S. Department of Justice Ted Hunt Director Los Angeles Police Department Protective League Los Angeles, California Patricia C. Jessamy State's Attorney Baltimore, Maryland Johnnie Johnson Chief of Police Birmingham, Alabama William Johnston Deputy Superintendent Police Department Boston, Massachusetts Darryl Jones President National Law Enforcement Integrity Institute Annapolis, Maryland Eucher Luc Joseph Inspector General en Chef Haitian National Police Headquarters Port au Prince, Haiti Robert Kaminski Social Science Analyst National Institute of Justice U.S. Department of Justice Robert Kaplar Senior Staff Associate National Criminal Justice Association Washington, D.C. Phil Keith Chief of Police Knoxville, Tennessee Elizabeth K. Kellar Deputy Executive Director International City/County Management Association Washington, D.C. George L. Kelling Professor School of Criminal Justice Rutgers University Reverend Ray Kemp Woodstock Theological Center Georgetown University Gil Kerlikowske Chief of Police Buffalo, New York Wayne Kerstetter Department of Criminal Justice University of Illinois at Chicago Thomas L. Kirk Superintendent West Virginia State Police Richard F. Kitterman Executive Director Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc. Fairfax, Virginia Carl B. Klockars Professor Division of Criminal Justice University of Delaware Stanley Knee Chief of Police Garden Grove, California Tom Koby Chief of Police Boulder, Colorado Andrea Kovach Intern National Institute of Justice U.S. Department of Justice Sheldon Krantz Piper & Marbury, L.L.P. Washington, D.C. Gabrielle Kyle Social Science Analyst National Institute of Justice U.S. Department of Justice Robert Lamb Regional Director Northwest Region Community Relations Service U.S. Department of Justice Nancy La Vigne Program Manager National Institute of Justice U.S. Department of Justice Richard Lewis Program Manager National Institute of Justice U.S. Department of Justice G. Martin Lively International Liaison National Institute of Justice U.S. Department of Justice Felix Loicano Major Police Department New Orleans, Louisiana Kenneth Lyons Director International Brotherhood of Police Officers Quincy, Massachusetts Gary L. Maas Chief of Police Sioux City, Iowa Robert H. Macy District Attorney Seventh Judicial District Oklahoma County Courthouse Oklahoma City, Oklahoma John Maxwell Chief Inspector Internal Affairs Bureau Police Department Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Ronald McBride Chief of Police Ashland, Kentucky Phyllis McDonald Social Science Analyst National Institute of Justice U.S. Department of Justice Jerome McElroy Executive Director New York City Criminal Justice Agency New York, New York Isaiah McKinnon Chief of Police Detroit, Michigan Sam McQuade Social Science Program Manager National Institute of Justice U.S. Department of Justice Charles Meeks Executive Director National Sheriffs' Association Alexandria, Virginia Pamela Melhorn Program Assistant Department of Interdisciplinary Programs School of Continuing Studies The Johns Hopkins University Rina T. Menjivar Fiscalia Against Public Corruption Ministerio Publico Honduras David Michaud Chief of Police Denver, Colorado S. Michael Miller Prosecuting Attorney Columbus, Ohio Lois Mock Program Manager National Institute of Justice U.S. Department of Justice Milton Mollen Of Counsel Graubard, Mollen & Miller New York, New York Mark H. Moore Professor Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management Kennedy School of Government Harvard University Jill Morris Office of Community Oriented Policing Services U.S. Department of Justice Patrick V. Murphy Director of Police Policy U.S. Conference of Mayors Washington, D.C. Jerome A. Needle Director Programs and Research International Association of Chiefs of Police Alexandria, Virginia John Nicolleti Staff Psychologist Police Department Denver, Colorado Joe Norris Executive Officer Office of Community Oriented Policing Services U.S. Department of Justice Dennis E. Nowicki Chief of Police Law Enforcement Center Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina Jennifer O'Connor-Boes Research Analyst BDM Federal Monterey, California David Ogden Associate Deputy Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice Robert Olsen Chief of Police Minneapolis, Minnesota Eric Ostrov Forensic Psychologist Forensic Psychology Associates Chicago, Illinois Antony Pate Research Associate School of Criminology and Criminal Justice Florida State University Connie Patrick Director Office of General Training Federal Law Enforcement Training Center Deval L. Patrick Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice Rocco Pollutro Chief of Police Cleveland, Ohio Wesley A. Pomeroy Executive Director Dade County Independent Review Panel Hollywood, Florida Tom Potter Former Chief of Police Portland, Oregon Howard T. Prince Jepson School of Leadership University of Richmond Mary Rabadeau Chief New Jersey Transit Police Rick Rappaport Commander Professional Standards Bureau Police Department Fairfax County, Virginia Janet Reno United States Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice Neil Richards The Police Staff College Hampshire, England Tammy Rinehart Grant Advisor Office of Community Oriented Policing Services U.S. Department of Justice Ramona Ripston Executive Director American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California Los Angeles, California Richard W. Roberts Chief Criminal Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice Steven H. Rosenbaum Chief Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice Daniel N. Rosenblatt Executive Director International Association of Chiefs of Police Alexandria, Virginia Jeffrey Ian Ross Social Science Analyst National Institute of Justice U.S. Department of Justice Gale Rossides Assistant Director Training and Professional Development Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms U.S. Department of the Treasury Lynn Rowe Chief of Police Springfield, Missouri Joseph Ryan Associate Professor Department of Public Administration Pace University Howard Safir Police Commissioner New York, New York Verne Saint Vincent Chief of Police Aurora, Colorado Darrell Sanders Chief of Police Frankfort, Illinois Maria E. Schmidt Senior Policy Analyst Office of Government Relations National Center for State Courts Arlington, Virginia Kurt Schmoke Mayor Baltimore, Maryland David Scott Deputy Chief Southeast Transportation Authority Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Michael S. Scott Chief of Police Lauderhill, Florida Ellen Scrivner Assistant Director Training and Technical Assistance Office of Community Oriented Policing Services U.S. Department of Justice Robert Scully Executive Director National Association of Police Organizations Washington, D.C. Jerome H. Skolnick Visiting Distinguished Professor John Jay College of Criminal Justice The City University of New York Ron Sloan Chief of Police Arvada, Colorado Margaret Leland Smith Institute for Criminal Justice Ethics John Jay College of Criminal Justice The City University of New York Karen L. Spencer Director Center for Excellence in Teaching School of Continuing Studies The Johns Hopkins University Darrel W. Stephens Chief of Police St. Petersburg, Florida Patrick J. Sullivan Sheriff Arapahoe County, Colorado Anthony Sutin Deputy Director/General Counsel Office of Community Oriented Policing Services U.S. Department of Justice Pamela Swain Director of Resource and Planning International Criminal Investigative Training and Assistance Program U.S. Department of Justice Winthrop Swenson Managing Director Business Ethics Services Group KPMG Peat Marwick Washington, D.C. Ross Swope Captain Metropolitan Police Department Washington, D.C. Gary Sykes Director Southwestern Law Enforcement Institute Richardson, Texas Fred Taylor Chief of Police Dade County, Florida John Thomas Program Manager Office of Development and Dissemination National Institute of Justice U.S. Department of Justice Hans Toch Professor Criminal Justice Department State University of New York at Albany Jeremy Travis Director National Institute of Justice U.S. Department of Justice Virginia Trice Intern National Institute of Justice U.S. Department of Justice Benjamin B. Tucker Deputy Director for Operations Office of Community Oriented Policing Services U.S. Department of Justice Craig Uchida Assistant Director for Grants Administration Office of Community Oriented Policing Services U.S. Department of Justice Arie Van Oudheusden Head of Integrity Project Police Force of Rotterdam Rijnmond The Netherlands Lee Vasquez Sheriff Yamhill County, Oregon Mario Luis Velasco Councilman National Security Council San Salvador, El Salvador Stephen Vicchio Chair Department of Philosophy College of Notre Dame David Walchak Chief of Police Concord, New Hampshire Sam Walker Professor Criminal Justice Department University of Nebraska at Omaha Larry E. Walsh Chief of Police Lexington, Kentucky Elizabeth Watson Chief of Police Austin, Texas Joan C. Weiss Executive Director Justice Research and Statistics Association Washington, D.C. Chuck Wexler Executive Director Police Executive Research Forum Washington, D.C. Christine Whitledge Office of Community Oriented Policing Services U.S. Department of Justice David Williams Assistant Chief Investigative Branch Commander Police Department Portland, Oregon Gerald L. Williams Director Bill Blackwood Law Enforcement Management Institute Sam Houston State University Homer Williams Assistant Commissioner Internal Affairs United States Customs Service Hubert Williams President Police Foundation Washington, D.C. Richard K. Williams Chief of Police Madison, Wisconsin Mary Ann Wycoff Senior Research Associate Police Executive Research Forum Washington, D.C. ------------------------------ Appendix B Selected Issue Papers on Plenary Panel Presentations Phyllis P. McDonald, Ed.D., Stephen J. Gaffigan, and Sheldon J. Greenberg, Ph.D. Police Integrity: Definition and Historical Significance Why a National Symposium on Police Integrity? Most police executives agree that it is time to rethink the issue of police integrity. While highly publicized events of the last 2 years may prove to be a series of isolated incidents, they compel the police profession to become introspective, rethink the nature of the police business, and consider new strategies. The police profession is not new to this circumstance or process. Twice in recent history in the United States, police have reformed with success. In the 30s and 40s when political control was rampant, the police developed new methods of operating in order to neutralize political influence. The Los Angeles, Wichita, and Chicago Police Departments were three agencies that undertook major change to reduce external political controls. In 1968, the President's Commission on Civil Disorder put forth a serious indictment of police practices. Thoughtful police leaders again initiated reforms that are still evolving: community affairs units, hiring parity, mandated inservice training, and community oriented policing are examples of responses to the Commission's findings. Once again, in 1996, police are being called upon to examine their values, policies, procedures, and practices. A recent series of corruption investigations in the NYPD; the "revelations" of Mark Fuhrman in the Simpson trial; the Rodney King incident and trials; the Riverside, California, beating of immigrant laborers; and the shooting of a female who filed a complaint against a police officer have resulted in public indignation and challenge to the quality of police service. And these events are not confined to major cities. Incidents in Citrus County, Florida; West Hampton, New York; Southgate, California; Anchorage, Alaska; and Chesapeake, Virginia, have generated large-scale public scrutiny. The issue of police integrity is not confined to the United States. On June 10 and 11, 1996, the Council of Europe, a 39-member organization, met in Strasbourg, France, explicitly to discuss police ethics. Simultaneously to this meeting, the U.S. became a permanent member of the organization. Dr. Sally Hillsman, Deputy Director of NIJ, represented the U.S. at that meeting and presented a paper on police integrity. (A copy of that paper has been included in the resource packet for all symposium attendees.) Are these recent events indicative of a national trend toward deterioration of standards? Are these events symptomatic of improper selection and training of police? Or do these events simply reflect advancements in communications and a media driven by sensationalism and a desperation for market share? There is a consensus among police executives in the United States that a serious problem has surfaced that warrants a professional, collective response. This consensus propelled the U.S. Department of Justice to assemble leaders in the law enforcement community to examine the nature and dynamics of police integrity. Why Is Police Integrity an Important Issue in a Democracy? Public confidence in the police is integral to social order, economic development, and sound government processes. The police are the most visible symbol of government. Citizens view the quality of police service as an indicator of the quality of government. Police who are perceived as untrustworthy create fear and anxiety in citizens. Twice in recent history, the police have caused the public to question government processes and controls. In the late 50s and 60s, the police were viewed as a tool of the white, majority population violating rights of minorities. Again in the 60s and early 70s, college students, draft age individuals, and others viewed the police as the arm of an "establishment" that was rendering decisions they perceived favored a military industrial complex. A large part of the public perceived that police had no regard for the welfare of all citizens and projected this perception on all government -- Federal, State, and local. In the 80s, with the advent of the crack epidemic, the police were perceived as critical to the security of citizens. Now, in the 90s, local militias, citizens courts, and national publicity on the "weakness" and questionable practices of police have risen as an expression of skepticism of government. What Is Police Integrity and How Is It Related to Corruption? Police integrity can be simply defined as "adherence to professional standards." More complex definitions may include discussions of the "moral good" or Deming's simplistic, yet poignant, description of leadership: "Doing what's right." Webster's definition is clear: "Firm adherence to a code or standard of values." Intuitively, most people know what integrity means. Defining it in behavioral terms is more difficult. How does a police officer know what to do when most police agencies generate a variety of documents or mechanisms designed to shape standards of professional behavior? How are appropriate behaviors modeled for officers and deputies to follow? In response to the work of Tom Peters, many police departments began to articulate their values. An example of a values statement is: "We believe in the sanctity of life." Behaviors which are inviolable are expressed as "rules." "Police members will not violate their oath of office by lying." "Police members will not drink to excess in a public place." Standard operating procedures, generally referred to as policies and procedures or the patrol manual, describe or dictate acceptable practices for conducting the police business -- making a felony car stop, or processing a prisoner. Corruption may encompass the violations of any of the above, i.e., departmental values, rules, policies, or procedures. But corruption may be much more than simply breaking a rule. Corruption is a violation of the public trust. It is an abuse of police power that transcends written rules and policies. The relation of police integrity to corruption can be regarded as a continuum, with integrity on one end and corruption on the other. Along the continuum, proceeding from integrity to corruption, may be violations of administrative procedures, testifying, abuse of force, and more. "Ethics" is a term often used interchangeably with the word "integrity." Are the two terms synonymous? Ethics addresses the specific moral choices an individual makes in relating to others. Most police are exposed to ethics simply as a 2-hour course in entry-level training rather than a dynamic, operational principle that applies to day-to-day police business. Police are rarely exposed to discussions of integrity until their behavior or that of their colleagues is questioned. Is There a Relationship Between Integrity and Community Oriented Policing? Some police professionals have begun to question and discuss the relationship between police integrity and community oriented policing. They ask whether providing an officer time and freedom to interact with citizens may lead to corrupt behavior. Police officers generally work unsupervised in answering calls for service and have done so for generations. They have exercised discretion without falling prey to corruption. Are the expectations of community oriented policing (COP) so different that misuse of discretion and subsequent corruption should be anticipated? COP is built on a foundation of police interaction with the community. If the community perceives that its police department lacks integrity, then the potential for effective problem solving and crime prevention strategies between the police and community will be compromised. Conversely, if the department and its personnel are viewed with trust and esteem, openness to problem solving and other complex endeavors (community development, safe schools, crime reduction) becomes the basis for community oriented policing. This is a compelling reason to review and reassess the topic of police integrity. Interdisciplinary Panel on Integrity and Ethics A stockbroker uses insider information to steer a few favorite clients to rapid profit. A school official signs a construction contract without going through the required bid process. A lab assistant skips a step in screening some blood samples in order to meet a company-imposed quota. Unfortunately, ethical violations such as these occur too frequently. For generations, questions have been raised about how to develop and sustain integrity and ethical behavior among employees in business, industry, government, and the nonprofit sector. Recently, due to a series of highly publicized events, a new-sprung barrage of questions has been aimed at the police profession. Courtroom testimony by officers, vehicle pursuits, application of force, and evidence handling procedures have come under renewed national scrutiny. In their efforts to enhance the quality of service to communities through principle-driven, ethical policing, chiefs of police and sheriffs should seek opportunities to learn from the experiences of other occupations. During the symposium, experts from other disciplines will share their views and present alternatives to addressing employee integrity. Through presentations and open discussion with participants, they will seek to answer these and other questions: - Do employers have a right to impose principles and standards of "moral responsibility" on employees? Can they be enforced? - Do employers have an obligation to customers and other stakeholders to establish and maintain expectations for integrity? - Can employee integrity be assumed? - Should employers expect moral and ethical behavior and integrity from employees that go beyond the performance of basic job tasks? - Can moral responsibility and moral literacy be taught to employees? - What steps can be taken to ensure that employees' standards for moral behavior parallel or exceed those of the organization? - Are there success stories in other occupations that can serve as models to police agencies for maintaining high ethical and moral values? These questions are fundamental to any discussion on integrity and ethics. The answers are not simple. The public empowers the government to govern and it is the people to whom government is ultimately accountable. Therefore, it would seem that society's expectations of its public institutions should provide the foundation upon which integrity standards are defined and maintained. An employee's behavior is measured by an internal "moral compass" that distinguishes between right and wrong. All professions are challenged to provide employees with a moral compass and compel them to use it to make appropriate judgments. This compass is provided through quality leadership and supervision, ongoing assessment of organizational culture, continuous education and professional development, careful selection of employees, and more. Every profession risks lost productivity, loss of public confidence, and increased negative liability when employees operate without principles or a moral code. Every executive faces a challenge to ensure that employee perceptions of right and wrong are not in conflict with those of the profession or organization. Executives must ingrain ethical behavior in the organizational culture and then model ethical behavior. All professions in this society strive to provide high-quality services to their customers in pursuit of their established mission and goals. In this process of doing business, the ethical standards of most professions are scrutinized by the customers they serve. In some cases, this scrutiny takes the simple form of product purchase -- or lack of purchase. In others, the scrutiny is more complex, sometimes culminating in litigation, loss of public confidence, scandal, loss of licensure, or indictment. Policing, including ethical behavior of police personnel, has undergone external scrutiny over the past 30 years in the form of Presidential commissions and countless other Federal, State, and local examinations, and research efforts. Other professions have undergone similar scrutiny. Has this and other forms of scrutiny had an effect on how agencies manage integrity? Is there a crisis of confidence among business, industry, and government brought about by a breakdown in professional ethics? In the foreseeable future, will employers become more aggressive in their approach to ethics and integrity or will they continue to approach these important issues subtly? What will representatives from different professions -- the military, medicine, law, media, the clergy, and business -- say about ethics, integrity, and moral responsibility? The symposium panel will focus on these and other issues. Police Executives Discuss Police Integrity The purpose of this panel is to provide a forum for experienced police executives to express their perspectives on police integrity and to present personal experiences with setting and maintaining standards. Often police chiefs take office to find various behaviors related to integrity. For some, the department has been whole and healthy for its entire history, for others the department has deteriorated badly and often is the reason a new chief is secured. For others, the police department has a long history of existing on the edge. At times, this questionable performance is tolerated by the community and in other circumstances the community may be outraged but is powerless in the political structure to exert changes. One of the first tasks of any chief or sheriff is to determine the level of functioning of the agency; assess the integrity of its personnel; learn the community's needs and perceptions; and set direction for growth, change, and service. Police chiefs and other police executives recognize that their own personal and professional behavior can have a profound impact, negatively or positively, on the men and women of their police force. Modern Police Corruption Compared to the Corruption of 20 Years Ago The Mollen Commission report on the NYPD suggests that there are significant differences in the nature of corruption in the 1990s. The report suggests that a new character of police corruption exists. The pattern of 20 years ago consisted of so-called "minor" corruption, such as the taking of bribes for the purpose of allowing gamblers, prostitutes, and others to avoid the law and escape arrest. This was a mutually beneficial accommodation between the police officer and criminal. Today, however, while corruption still accommodates the officer, it is different in nature. The modern corrupt officer is paid not only to turn a "blind eye" to criminal activities but to work hand-in-hand with the criminal to actively facilitate criminal activities. In New York City, the officers became drug dealers and helped to operate large drug rings. The Mollen Commission also found that corruption had achieved new levels of organization. In the past, there was tacit approval through the ranks. Today, however, the corruption includes "crews" of police officers that protect and assist each others' criminal activities. Today's corrupt officers do not simply bump into opportunities, but rather aggressively seek opportunities. Similarly, methods for evading detection have achieved new levels, including ways to receive payoffs and to avoid internal investigators. How pervasive is the police corruption of the 90s? Is the situation in New York, as addressed by the Mollen Commission, unique? To what extent does modern police corruption occur in small towns and suburban and rural areas? The Motivation for Corruption Mark Moore of the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, describes a new phenomenon in the police industry which he terms "noble-cause justice." Moore suggests that "testilying" and document falsification are activities prompted by a need to ensure that prosecutions go forward. These "shortcuts" may lead to violation of constitutional rights and ultimately become counterproductive to the officer's intended results. This behavior often leads to acquittals since juries and judges regard police testimony and reports as suspect. To what extent are police willing to violate the public trust in order to guarantee that justice is served? Or, do some police use noble-cause justice as a rationale to justify illegal or unethical behavior for personal gain? Another form of corruption that will be discussed by police executives is the manipulation of policy and procedure. This includes officers wishing to incur additional overtime who make questionable arrests at the end of their tour. It includes officers who trade arrests, giving them to another officer who was not present, in order to allow him or her to go to court on a regular day off thus earning overtime. Other examples of policy and procedure manipulation include allowing a recruit to retake a final exam because he or she is the friend of a commander or approving a tuition payment. Unfortunately, these behaviors are not only forms of corruption but they easily lead to other problems and forms of corruption. Another issue in understanding violations of the public trust is the "tipping point" described by Malcolm Gladwell in New Yorker magazine. Gladwell suggests that crimes such as homicide, in much the same manner as a communicable disease, occur in a pattern that follows that of an epidemic. If crimes occur according to the patterns of an epidemic, perhaps corruption manifests in the same way. The implication for police executives is the early identification of corruption. Police chiefs have lost their jobs based on the inappropriate behavior of officers and subsequent publicity and political "fallout." How can a chief or sheriff work to minimize or eliminate corruption and other problems with integrity so that it does not adversely affect his or her position? Does the risk of political fallout cause police executives to take an ostrich-like approach to crises of integrity? These are among the questions and issues that will be explored. This national symposium will allow time for reflective thinking and the generation of strategies to maintain organizational integrity. Impact of Police Culture, Organization, and Leadership on Police Integrity ------------------------------ We are discussing no small matter, but how we ought to live.... --Socrates, in Plato's Republic ------------------------------ Integrity In Principle Centered Leadership, Stephen Covey details a series of leadership traits. Among them is integrity, which he defines as: "honest matching of words and feelings with thoughts and actions with no desire other than for the good of others, without malice or desire to deceive, take advantage, manipulate, or control constantly reviewing your intent as you strive for congruence." Integrity -- as it applies to police service -- is a series of concepts and beliefs that, combined, provide structure to an agency's operation and officers' professional and personal ethics. These concepts and beliefs include, but are not limited to, honesty, honor, morality, allegiance, principled behavior, and dedication to mission. ------------------------------ Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful. --Samuel Johnson (1759) ------------------------------ While police leaders, politicians, and the public expect all police personnel to be above reproach, there are few mechanisms in the police culture to teach, reinforce, and reward the characteristics or traits that define integrity. Nationally, the amount of time committed to discussing integrity and ethics in recruit, inservice, supervisory, and administrative training sessions is minimal. Traditionally, police leaders define integrity by the absence of specific traits and actions. Despite the broad philosophical and values statements often found in policy manuals, integrity is defined practically as an absence of corruption, incidents of excessive force, racism, selfishness, disloyalty, and more. As such, integrity is maintained by investigating and disciplining wrongdoing by police personnel rather than rewarding positive behaviors. Integrity and Culture Integrity is an obligation owed to the public by the police. Can leaders in a police agency overcome a traditional culture that accepts challenges to integrity such as a "code of silence" or a "blue flu"? The relationship between integrity and culture cannot be overstated. Integrity shapes the organization's culture and, once ensconced, the culture may influence integrity. Like integrity, the police culture defies simple definition. Part of the culture is defined in the image the police have of themselves -- conveyed to the public as impartial, professional crime fighters. Another part of the culture consists of a system of beliefs and behaviors not described in published manuals or agency values statements. These parts combine to form: "...the building blocks of current police culture; they are the truths that officers feel in their bones, the touchstones that -- unless changed -- will continue to govern their behavior and attitudes." In describing the police culture in Beyond 911, Sparrow, Moore, and Kennedy cite six of the strongest beliefs held by the police. They believe that they are the only real crime fighters. No one other than the police understands the real nature of their work. Loyalty to colleagues is their highest value and "counts above everything else." It is impossible to win the war on crime without bending rules and regulations. The public is demanding and unsupportive. And, working in patrol is the least desirable assignment in police service. These beliefs are well-ingrained in the system that hires, trains, directs, and evaluates police. These beliefs are reinforced by peers, academy instructors, supervisors, administrators, politicians, the media, and the public. Those who seek to challenge these beliefs often "swim against the tide." Some executives -- Neil Behan (retired chief, Baltimore County), Joe McNamara (retired chief, San Jose), David Couper (retired chief, Madison), and others -- enjoyed tenure in their agency and political support within their community for creating a culture and a new way of doing business built on integrity. They challenged many of the tenets that drive traditional agencies and the traditional police culture. Each of them espoused and personally demonstrated that integrity must permeate all that the police agency and its personnel do. They tolerated no less. In today's environment, how aggressive can a police executive be in weeding out corruption and instilling and maintaining integrity? If the chief assigns a significant number of personnel to the task (as did Commissioner Donald Pomerleau in Baltimore in the late 1960s and early 1970s), will he or she be criticized -- internally and politically -- for "misusing" resources that could be allocated to patrol? Can a police chief or sheriff committed to changing the integrity of police officers withstand the political pressure brought to bear by labor organizations (as did Bill Bratton in New York City)? Can a chief's or sheriff's aggressive approach to infusing and maintaining integrity withstand the complexities of due process afforded to police officers? ------------------------------ A man should be upright, not be kept upright. --Marcus Aurelius (121-180 A.D.) ------------------------------ Responsibility of Leaders How do police leaders influence the integrity of police employees? A critical first step in assessing, instilling, and maintaining integrity within the police culture is to ensure that police executives model appropriate behaviors. If a chief of police or deputy chief fails to convey information in an honest, direct way to employees; if officers are assigned to specialty units or promoted based on a process that is deemed less than fair and equitable; and, if executives allocate resources to cater to the whims and demands of influential people, can officers and civilian employees be expected to maintain a level of integrity that surpasses that of their bosses? Within any police organization, can employees be held to a higher standard of integrity and moral responsibility than that demonstrated by their executive officers and political leaders? Covey states that a person who lacks integrity will not be able to create a culture in which there is "genuine trust" and that an organization that lacks integrity cannot satisfy its customers. The organization may have a mission statement and well-stated values, but it will not live up to them. The organization and its executives "become hypocritical or duplicitous." ------------------------------ Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder. --George Washington (1779) ------------------------------ Traditionally, integrity in police service is discussed -- internally and externally in the media -- only when it is questioned, such as during the aftermath of the Rodney King incident in Los Angeles or following Mark Fuhrman's testimony in the O.J. Simpson trial. But even such noteworthy events fail to raise discussion about how modern police leaders maintain integrity within their organization and how the average police officer upholds these concepts -- truth, appropriate use of authority, application of reasonable force, and others -- rarely, if ever, violating the public trust. The media plays a significant role in influencing the public's perception toward the integrity of its police. Whether sensationalizing a single event -- a pursuit in South Carolina that resulted in allegations of excessive force -- or a thoughtful inquiry -- the dilemmas faced by agents of the U.S. Border Patrol in stemming the flow of illegal immigrants -- the news media quickly paints an enduring and often negative picture of police integrity. The results wreak havoc for police executives. What tools are available to executives to portray and sustain before the public an accurate picture of police integrity? How does the public gauge police integrity? How can executives successfully counter public misperception about police integrity? Integrity is not a task -- to be assigned or imposed on police employees to cause stress or consume time. It is not an add-on chore. Whether strong or weak, integrity is part of a person's being -- a way of life -- as much as their religion, relationships, and goals. In recent years, questions about integrity have been raised in relation to community policing. Many traditionally structured police organizations are changing, decentralizing, and relinquishing more authority to site-based district and precinct managers to support community and neighborhood initiatives. What preparation has the organization provided to these commanders to manage and problem solve independently? How much trust do chiefs and sheriffs have in the ability and integrity of these commanders to direct community-based operations? Police leaders committed to community policing must reconcile relinquishing authority and greater discretion to police officers so that they might establish quality relationships in the neighborhoods they serve and problem solve effectively with the highly structured system of constraints and hierarchical structure embedded in police tradition. In developing rapport with a restaurant manager, is an officer, once restricted by policy from taking free food, now allowed to take a cup of coffee and piece of pie when it is offered? Will sergeants, lieutenants, and captains allow police officers to go directly to the Public Works Department, bypassing the chain of command, to pursue a street repair? And, will a police officer who needs extra time to solve a neighborhood problem be trusted that he or she is not taking advantage of or abusing the department's overtime system? Discussion about integrity in policing raises other important questions. Will police leaders, elected officials, and the public continue to judge the many by the few whose integrity is questionable? Grappling with issues of integrity is not a recent phenomenon nor is it unique to police agencies. Coming to grips with integrity surfaced in the first stories in the Bible. Adam and Eve denied responsibility for their actions, blaming the influence of a serpent for their deeds. Their son, Cain, quickly denied responsibility for his actions, refusing to acknowledge his offense -- and there weren't many other suspects upon which to push the blame. Since policing first advanced from vigilantism, police leaders and officers have had to deal with "noble-cause corruption" (term put forth by Mark Moore of Harvard University). Should standards of integrity be bent in extraordinary circumstances? Can integrity be put aside when it is for the good of the society or a community or neighborhood? Does it matter that a police officer deals "street justice" to a known repeat offender who terrorizes a community only to have the courts repeatedly return him to the streets? Whose good should prevail when considering integrity? Is there a difference between wrongdoing and doing wrong for a noble cause? Who, if anyone, should make the determination? ------------------------------ When you prevent me from doing anything I want to do, that is persecution; but when I prevent you from doing anything you want to do, that is law, order, and morals. --George Bernard Shaw ------------------------------ Should a police department's integrity be measured by how it responds to citizen and internal complaints? Should it be measured through an aggressive, ongoing assessment of how employees perform in their beats and work stations? Should police executives regularly seek external support -- focus groups, community leaders, consultants, accrediting agencies -- to assist in assessing integrity? What other ways are there and where else may police executives turn internally and externally to ensure that the highest order of integrity is upheld? Questions abound regarding the impact of police culture, organization, and leadership on police integrity. As the nature of police organizations and police authority continue to be questioned and changed, more questions will arise about integrity. It is the goal and challenge of the National Symposium on Police Integrity and its participants to begin to answer many of these questions. Internal Subsystems and External Influences on Police Integrity Purpose of This Panel In the field of law enforcement, as in many disciplines, there are a number of subsystems in place for the purpose of maintaining professional standards of behavior. Subsystems in law enforcement agencies include: selection and hiring, training, supervision, internal inspections and investigations, performance evaluation, promotions, and policies and procedures. There are external influences as well, including: civilian complaint review boards, Federal civil rights actions, political checks and balances, the media, and community scrutiny. This panel will draw upon experts in the field of law enforcement to examine issues pertaining to internal subsystems and external influences. In addition, it will address the nature and functioning of the subsystems identified and how they can be influenced to improve integrity. Issues Related to Subsystems and Influences Integrity is at the foundation of quality police service. Police executives are asking if integrity can be measured during the hiring process. Currently, the Department of Defense is conducting a comparative study of police officers who have violated the public trust and their entry-level scores on psychological exams. The purpose is to identify patterns. Variables such as time on the job and educational background are being correlated. To date, no test for integrity has been found. Barring testing for integrity, police executives are considering other alternatives. Can integrity or moral responsibility be inculcated into recruits during entry-level training? The Swedish police are exploring ways to construct a "language" of "ethics" so that it can be discussed every day throughout a police department. The Swedish police are also evaluating officers' daily schedules in order to identify times and locations when such discussions should occur. Officers proceeding through their police careers must understand the dynamics of integrity. In addition to internal subsystems and external influences, there are personal forces that impact an officer. Despite departmental safeguards, these personal forces may influence an officer to violate the public trust. (See chart attached, "Dynamics of Police Integrity.") Researchers are beginning to develop an "early warning system" for police agencies to enable them to gather data, which, when viewed to identify a pattern, reveals the potential for public trust violations. Traditionally, different types of data are collected by police agencies but filed in different data banks. For example, records of sick leave, lateness, and unreasonable absences from the job are data used for pay calculation and therefore funneled into personnel systems. Records of citizens' complaints, even for minor incidents, are generally kept by the internal affairs unit. When all of the available data is viewed, previously undetected patterns of behavior may emerge. This indicates a problem manifesting that requires immediate attention. Some departments have begun to view certain elements of the police subculture as mitigating against maintaining professional standards. An agency whose components operate in isolation from one another will often have problems with internal communication, community problem solving, and more. It will be a department in which integrity problems can be bred. Organizational issues such as holding mid-level commanders and first-line supervisors accountable for the behavior of their officers should be examined. Holding executive-level officials accountable for adherence to policy and procedure and for modeling appropriate behavior and integrity is equally important. Some studies have suggested that police departments that are open and have clear objectives which generate high levels of activity tend to have fewer violations of the public trust. This is a compelling concept that will be discussed during the symposium. Other questions arise regarding internal subsystems. - How can performance evaluation, reward structures, and promotion systems be designed to support and/or reinforce standards of professional behavior and integrity? - Are there relationships between well-defined job roles, competency, and integrity? - What is the effect of first-line supervisors on standards of performance and integrity? - Have any training, accountability, or performance evaluation systems been developed that compel supervisors to assume leadership roles and hold their officers responsible for maintaining the public trust? - How well is the purpose of policing understood by members of the department and does a lack of understanding about purpose have an impact on performance and integrity? There are a number of external influences that affect police agencies and, ultimately, standards of behavior and integrity. Civilian review boards (CRBs), considered controversial when first introduced, exist in most of the nation's largest cities. Some are organized like internal affairs units with full-time investigators. Some have subpoena powers. And, some are structured as informal fact-finding organizations. Time should be devoted to identifying exceptional and effective civilian review boards. The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice was created by the U.S. Congress in 1957, and this unit should be studied by local police executives and others to determine how best civil rights investigations can benefit police agencies and communities. The Bureau of Justice Statistics has the mandate to collect statistics on police abuse of force. Tracking trends nationwide provides a service to agencies by identifying patterns and trends nationally, regionally, and in individual agencies. Politicians, government leaders, communities, neighborhoods, the criminal justice system, the media, and the police themselves have affected the quality of police service and police integrity. Can the guidelines for maintaining the public trust be developed to be of use to all interest groups? Police departments are judged by a variety of standards. Many of these are stated in negative terms such as lack of scandal, lack of corruption, lack of law suits, etc. Positive factors and influences that have potential to affect police integrity need to be identified and understood. ------------------------------ Bibliography of Related Sources Aaron, Titus. "Judicial Limitations of the Investigation of Officer Misconduct." Law and Order 39 (October 1991): 91-2. Amendola, Karen L. "Assessing Law Enforcement Ethics: A Summary Report Based on the Study Conducted with the Oregon Department of State Police." Police Foundation, January 1996. "Analysis of the District of Columbia's Civilian Complaint Review Board and Recommendations for Its Replacement." A Report Prepared for the American Civil Liberties Union of the National Capital Area. Piper & Marbury, L.L.P., June 29, 1995. Applebaum, D. "Looking Down the Wrong Side of the Gun: The Problems of the Police Use of Lethal Force." Police Chief (May 1983): 55-59. "Assessing Law Enforcement Ethics: Technical Report Based on the Study Conducted with the Oregon Department of State Police." Police Foundation, May 1996. Avery, Michael, and David Rudovsky. Police Misconduct Law and Litigation. New York: Clark Boardman Callaghan, 1992. Blumberg, M. "Controlling Police Use of Deadly Force: Assessing Two Decades of Progress." In R.G. Dunham and G.P. Alpert (eds.), Critical Issues in Policing: Contemporary Readings. Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press, 1989. Bobb, Merrick J., et al. "Five Years Later: A Report to the Los Angeles Police Commission on the Los Angeles Police Department's Implementation of Independent Commission Recommendations." Special Counsel (May 1996). Bok, Sissela. Secrets. New York: Random House, Inc., 1983. Burden, Ordway P. "Those Who Help, Help Themselves." Law Enforcement News (December 15, 1990): 5. Carter, David L. "Drug-Related Corruption of Police Officers: A Contemporary Typology." Journal of Criminal Justice (1990): 85-98. Christopher, Warren. "Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police Department." Los Angeles: July 19, 1991. Cohen, Howard S., and Michael Feldberg. Power and Restraint: The Moral Dimension of Police Work. New York: Praeger, 1991. Curriden, Mark. "When Good Cops Go Bad." American Bar Association Journal (May 1996): 62-65. Davis, Michael. "Do Cops Really Need a Code of Ethics?" Criminal Justice Ethics 10 (Summer/Fall 1991): 14-28. Delattre, Edwin J. Character and Cops: Ethics in Policing. 2nd ed. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy, 1994. Delattre, Edwin J., and Scott R. Stripling. "Police Integrity and Public Expectations." Public Interest Law Review (1992): 47-62. Dugan, John R., and Daniel R. Breda. "Complaints About Police Officers: A Comparison Among Types and Agencies." Journal of Criminal Justice 19.2 (1991): 165-171. Emmons, David, and Larry Nutt. "Values Education and the Criminal Justice Curriculum." Journal of Criminal Justice Education 6.1 (Spring 1995): 147+. Falcone, David N. "Police Pursuits and Officer Attitudes: Myths and Realities." American Journal of Police 28.1 (1994): 143-156. FBI Academy. "Maintaining Integrity in Law Enforcement Organizations: Selected Readings." Major City Chiefs Administrations, National Executive Institute Associates, January 1994. Finnane, Mark. "Police Corruption and Police Reform: The Fitzgerald Inquiry in Queensland, Australia." Policing and Society 1 (January 1991): 159-171. Freeman, Theodore F., Jr. "The Word is Integrity." Law and Order 38 (December 1990): 66. Fyfe, J.J. "Police/Citizen Violence Reduction Project." FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 58 (May 1989): 18-23. Geller, William A., and Hans Toch. "And Justice For All: Understanding and Controlling Police Abuse of Force." Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum, 1995, funded by NIJ. Geller, W., and M.S. Scott. Deadly Force: What We Know. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum, 1992. Goldstein, Herman. "Police Corruption: A Perspective on its Nature and Control." Police Foundation, January 1975. Giuliani, Rudolph W., and William J. Bratton. "Police Strategy No. 7: Rooting Out Corruption: Building Organizational Integrity in the New York City Police Department." New York: June 14, 1995. Hale, D.C. "Ideology of Police Misbehavior." Quarterly Journal of Ideology 13.2 (1989): 59-85. International Association of Chiefs of Police. "Building Integrity and Reducing Drug Corruption in Police Departments." Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 1989. International Association of Chiefs of Police. "Models for Management." Corruption Prevention (May 1, 1989). Ivkovich, Sanja Kutnjak, and Carl B. Klockars. "A Cross-Cultural Study of Police Corruption: Perceptions of Offense Seriousness." Presented to the American Society of Criminology Annual Meeting, November 1995. Ivkovich, Sanja Kutnjak, and Carl B. Klockars. "Police Perceptions of Disciplinary Fairness and the Code of Silence." Paper presented to the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, March 1996. Kappeler, Victor E., Richard D. Sluder, and Geoffrey P. Alpert. Forces of Deviance: Understanding the Dark Side of Policing. Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press, 1994. Keegan, Paul. "The Thinnest Blue Line." The New York Times Magazine 31 (March 1996): 32+. Kelling, George L. "How to Run a Police Department." City Journal (Autumn 1995): 34-45. Kleinig, John. "Teaching and Learning Police Ethics: Competing and Complementary Approaches." Journal of Criminal Justice 18 (1990): 1-18. Knapp Commission. The Knapp Commission Report on Police Corruption. New York: Braziller, 1972. Kolt, J.G., et al. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department: A Report by James G. Kolt and Staff. Los Angeles: Author, 1992. Kraska, Peter B., and Victor E. Kappeler. "To Serve and Pursue: Exploring Police Sexual Violence Against Women." Justice Quarterly 12.1 (March 1995): 85+. Levitt, Leonard. "Too Close to Comfort? DA's Need Cops Too Much to Charge Them, Critics Say." New York Newsday 15 (November 1991): 30. Maguire, M., and C. Corbett. "Patterns and Profiles of Complaints Against the Police." Chapter 10 in Coming to Terms With Policing. London: Routledge, 1989. Martin, Christine. "Illinois Municipal Officer's Perceptions of Police Ethics." Statistical Analysis Center, Illinois Criminal Justice Information Center, September 1994. Mollen, Milton. "Commission to Investigate Allegations of Police Corruption and the Anti-Corruption Procedures of the Police Department." New York City: July 7, 1994. Moore, Mark H. Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1995. Moore, Mark H., and Greg Chen. "Systems for Controlling Police Corruption: Review of the Literature and an Informal National Survey." The Mollen Commission. New York: September 1993. National Lawyers Guild. Police Misconduct Law and Litigation, 2nd ed. New York: Clark Boardman Callaghan, 1992. Pate, Antony M., and Lorie A. Fridell. "Police Use of Force: Official Reports, Citizen Complaints, and Legal Consequence." Police Foundation, 1993, funded by NIJ. "Philadelphia and Its Police: Toward a New Partnership." Report by the Philadelphia Police Study Task Force. Philadelphia: Philadelphia Police Study Task Force, March 1987. "Police Corruption: Can Brutality and Other Misconduct Be Rooted Out?" Congressional Quarterly Researcher (November 2, 1995). "Police, Lawyers and Truth." Harvard Law School Symposium, November 1995. "Police Ethics: Building Integrity and Reducing Drug Corruption." Police Chief (January 1991): 27- 41. "Police Integrity." In Task Force Report: Police. President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1967. Pollock, Joycelyn M., and Ronald F. Becker. "Law Enforcement Ethics: Using Officers' Dilemmas as a Teaching Tool." Journal of Criminal Justice Education (Spring 1995), 6.1: 1+. Reiss, A.J. "Controlling Police Use of Deadly Force." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 452 (November 1980): 122-134. Scrivner, Ellen M. "Controlling Police Use of Excessive Force: The Role of the Police Psychologist." Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, NIJ Research in Brief, October 1994. Scrivner, Ellen M. "The Role of Police Psychology in Controlling Excessive Force." Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, NIJ Research Report, April 1994. Sherman, L. "Reducing Police Gun Use: Critical Events, Administrative Policy, and Organizational Change." In Maurice Punch (ed.), Control in the Police Organization. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1983. Stephens, Darrel W. "Point of View: Discipline Philosophy." FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 63 (March 3, 1994): 20-22. Sviridoff, Michele, and Jerome E. McElroy. "Processing Complaints against Police: The Civilian Complaint Review Board." New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 1988. Thomas, B. "Police Accountability: A New Concern for Command Officers." Law and Order 39 (August 1991): 76+. U.S. Department of Justice. Public Integrity Section. Report to Congress on the Activities and Operations of the Public Integrity Section for 1986. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1987. Worden, R.E. "Situational and Attitudinal Explanations of Police Behavior: A Theoretical Reappraisal and Empirical Assessment." Law and Society Review 23(4) (1990): 667-711.