skip navigation

Justinfo Subscribe to Stay Informed

Add your conference to our Justice Events calendar


NCJRS Abstract


Subscribe to Stay Informed
Want to be in the know? JUSTINFO is a biweekly e-newsletter containing information about new publications, events, training, funding opportunities, and Web-based resources available from the NCJRS Federal sponsors. Sign up to get JUSTINFO in your inbox.

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Library collection.
To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the NCJRS Abstracts Database.

How to Obtain Documents
NCJ Number: NCJ 223801     Find in a Library
Title: Is Policing for Profit?: Answers From Asset Forfeiture
Author(s): John L. Worrall ; Tomislav V. Kovandzic
  Journal: Criminology and Public Policy  Volume:7  Issue:2  Dated:May 2008  Pages:219 to 244
Date Published: 05/2008
Page Count: 26
  Annotation: This article examines asset forfeiture as a motivation in policing.
Abstract: This work found no clear evidence of more forfeiture in States that permit local agencies to receive the most proceeds; however, it did find that local law enforcement agencies circumvent restrictive State laws (those placing limits on the proceeds they can receive) by teaming up with Federal officials to participate in so-called adoptive forfeitures, which permit them to receive equitable sharing payments. This latter finding was robust to numerous specifications, not altered in models estimated on various subsamples, and not affected by extreme values. Critics have argued that asset forfeiture encourages policing for profit, but their arguments have yet to transcend the anecdotal arena. This study tested two hypotheses aimed at answering the question whether policing was being done for profit. The study also lent a measure of support to the arguments espoused by forfeiture's critics, namely that forfeiture may be pursued for financial reasons. The article did not, however, assert that policing for profit was necessarily problematic, citing the difficulty in faulting financially strapped public agencies for seeking needed resources. The work also did not assert that forfeiture superseded other criminal justice goals, such as enforcement of antidrug laws. Data were gathered on asset forfeiture payments from a multistate sample of 572 law enforcement agencies, and used the Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics surveys from 1997 and 2000, U.S. Census data, and Uniform Crime Reports. Tables, references
Main Term(s): Motivation ; Asset Forfeiture
Index Term(s): Law enforcement ; Police work attitudes ; Police research ; Psychology of law enforcement
Publisher URL: 
Type: Report (Study/Research)
Country: United States of America
Language: English
  To cite this abstract, use the following link:

* A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's web site is provided.