DOCSLIB.ORG

Building Bridges Between Police Researchers and Practitioners: Agents of Change in a Complex World

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Building Bridges Between Police Researchers and Practitioners: Agents of Change in a Complex World The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: Document Title: Building Bridges Between Police Researchers and Practitioners: Agents of Change in a Complex World Author(s): Geoffrey P. Alpert, Ph.D., Jeff Rojek, Ph.D., J. Andrew Hansen, M.A. Document No.: 244345 Date Received: December 2013 Award Number: 2009-IJ-CX-0204 This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federally- funded grant report available electronically. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. BUILDING BRIDGES BETWEEN POLICE RESEARCHERS AND PRACTITIONERS: AGENTS OF CHANGE IN A COMPLEX WORLD Final Report to the National Institute of Justice By Geoffrey P. Alpert, Ph.D. Jeff Rojek, Ph.D J. Andrew Hansen, M.A. University of South Carolina This research was supported by funding from the National Institute of Justice, Grant # 2009-IJ- CX-0204. The findings within this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official positions of the National Institute of Justice or the United States Department of Justice. We express our appreciation to Carl Jenkinson and Allison Rojek for their help with organization and editing of the report. Please direct all correspondence regarding this report to Geoffrey P. Alpert, Professor, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of South Carolina, Phone (803) 777-6424, email: [email protected] This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. PROJECT STAFF Geoffrey P. Alpert, Ph.D. University of South Carolina Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice Currell College 1305 Greene St. Columbia, SC 29208 Phone: 803-777-6424 Fax: 803-777-9600 [email protected] Jeff Rojek, Ph.D University of South Carolina Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice Currell College 1305 Greene St. Columbia, SC 29208 Phone: 803-777-3495 Fax: 803-777-9600 [email protected] J. Andrew Hansen, M.A. University of South Carolina Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice Currell College 1305 Greene St. Columbia, SC 29208 Phone: 803-777-3623 Fax: 803-777-9600 [email protected] ii This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. ABSTRACT The present study uses a mixed-methods research strategy to examine police practitioner- researcher partnerships. The study has two primary research objectives: (1) examine the prevalence of police practitioner-researcher partnerships in the United States; and (2) examine the factors that prevent or facilitate the development and sustainability of police practitioner- researcher partnerships. The subsequent goals to be accomplished through these objectives are as follows: (1) identify the current level of participation in partnerships with researchers among law enforcement agencies; (2) identify the characteristics of agencies who participate in these partnerships; and (3) gain an understanding of the important lessons learned from practitioners and researchers for forming these partnerships in order to inform future participants in these efforts. The study employs three data-collection strategies to accomplish these objectives and goals. First, a nationally-representative sample of law enforcement agencies was surveyed to capture the prevalence of police practitioner-researcher partnerships and associated information. Second, practitioner and researcher representatives from 89 separate partnerships were interviewed, which were identified through the national survey. The interviews were the primary data-collection effort for gaining insight into the barriers to and facilitators of the development and sustainability of these partnerships, as well as the benefits of partnering. Third, four case studies were conducted on model partnerships that were identified during interviews with practitioners and researchers. While these case studies provide a detailed look at sustainable partnerships, the primary purpose of the case studies is to support a multimedia component of this study. The videos that represent this multimedia component convey important information from one peer to another. This strategy is directed to the practitioner community in order to facilitate dissemination of these important relationships by credible sources. iii This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. The national survey revealed that the level of participation in partnerships with researchers by law enforcement agencies is low overall, with only 32% of responding agencies reporting involvement in these relationships. Further examination of the characteristics of these partnerships shows overall participation in formal, short-term and long-term partnerships were less common, 18% and 10% respectively. Participation in either of these formal partnerships is correlated with the size of the agency. Partnerships are also more common among municipal police departments and state law enforcement agencies compared to county agencies. Lastly, agencies which report they use information sources produced by the research community are more likely to engage in partnerships, particularly for those agencies who reported the use of information provided by the National Institute of Justice. The practitioner and researcher interviews provided important lessons and informal rules necessary to engaging in successful partnerships, which can be grouped into three general areas. First, there are structural characteristics that partners have to negotiate, such as how the partnership will be supported, geographic proximity of partners, permanency of key participants, and the institutional demands for both partners. Second, both parties need to have values that orient them to partnership participation. The agency and its members need to see value in the incorporation of research and involvement of outside researchers, as well as being open to changing the way they do business. The researcher has to emphasize the desire to help and not judge the agency, have a shared stake in improving the agency and community, and value the knowledge of practitioners. Third, both parties have to effectively manage their interpersonal relationship. This involves establishing trust between partnership members and effective and ongoing communication about the expectations, roles, and products of the partnership process. iv This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In recent years, problems confronting public institutions have become more complex and the demands from stakeholders have increased, but resources have diminished. One mechanism government institutions have used to address these conditions has been the formation of partnerships with other government agencies, private organizations, community organizations, community leaders, and academic institutions (Vigoda, 2002). The underlying goal of these partnerships is to combine the resources, skills, and knowledge of the actors in a way that allows them to achieve better results in managing problems more effectively and efficiently than could be accomplished either individually or by government agencies alone (Lasker, Weiss, & Miller, 2001). Within the context of policing, this trend can be observed in partnerships with community members and institutions (community policing) or partnerships with other agencies (multi- agency task forces). The focus of the present study is an analysis of the collaborations between law enforcement agencies and the research community. Background While both sides of the practitioner-researcher partnership arguably benefit from their participation, the public policy consideration largely focuses on how the researcher can improve the law enforcement agency and/or its practices. Ideally, the research partner adds a degree of empirical knowledge and analytical skills that can improve an agency’s ability to identify problems and formulate effective responses. As such, police practitioner-researcher partnerships represent an interpersonal form of research utilization by law enforcement agencies. In essence, agencies can incorporate research into their organization by reading research articles and other sources to decide on their application alone, which assumes “knowledge is something that can be neatly packaged and passed to those who need it” (Fyfe & Wilson, 2012, p. 308). Alternatively, v This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Social Media and Tactical Considerations for Law Enforcement
    Social Media and Tactical Considerations For Law Enforcement This project was supported by Cooperative Agreement Number 2011-CK-WX-K016 awarded by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions contained herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. References to specific agencies, companies, products, or services should not be considered an endorsement by the author(s) or the U.S. Department of Justice. Rather, the references are illustrations to supplement discussion of the issues. The Internet references cited in this publication were valid as of the date of this publication. Given that URLs and websites are in constant flux, neither the author(s) nor the COPS Office can vouch for their current validity. ISBN: 978-1-932582-72-7 e011331543 July 2013 A joint project of: U.S. Department of Justice Police Executive Research Forum Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. 145 N Street, N.E. Suite 930 Washington, DC 20530 Washington, DC 20036 To obtain details on COPS Office programs, call the COPS Office Response Center at 800-421-6770. Visit COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov. Contents Foreword ................................................................. iii Acknowledgments ........................................................... iv Introduction ............................................................... .1 Project Background.........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Police Recruitment and Retention in the Contemporary Urban Environment
    THE ARTS This PDF document was made available from www.rand.org as a public CHILD POLICY service of the RAND Corporation. CIVIL JUSTICE EDUCATION ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT Jump down to document6 HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS NATIONAL SECURITY The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research POPULATION AND AGING organization providing objective analysis and effective PUBLIC SAFETY solutions that address the challenges facing the public SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY and private sectors around the world. SUBSTANCE ABUSE TERRORISM AND HOMELAND SECURITY TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE WORKFORCE AND WORKPLACE Support RAND Purchase this document Browse Books & Publications Make a charitable contribution For More Information Visit RAND at www.rand.org Explore the RAND Center on Quality Policing View document details Limited Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non-commercial use only. Unauthorized posting of RAND PDFs to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND PDFs are protected under copyright law. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please see RAND Permissions. This product is part of the RAND Corporation conference proceedings series. RAND conference proceedings present a collection of papers delivered at a conference or a summary of the conference. The material herein has been vetted by the conference attendees and both the introduction and the post-conference material have been re- viewed and approved for publication by the sponsoring research unit at RAND.
    [Show full text]
  • FY2017 Annual Report Alabama Law Enforcement Agency
    FY2017 Annual Report Alabama Law Enforcement Agency [intentionally blank] Alabama Law Enforcement Agency 2017 Annual Report Office of the Secretary The Secretary of Law Enforcement statutorily appoints and oversees the Division Directors for the Department of Public Safety and the State Bureau of Investigation. The Office of the Secretary also consists of the following units: Homeland Security, Protective Services, Administration, Support Services, and Integrity. Homeland Security The Homeland Security Program works with federal, state and local partners to prevent and respond to terrorism in the state. Homeland Security works closely with the public and private sectors in law enforcement, emergency medical services, fire services, agriculture, public health, public safety, communications, environmental management, military and transportation. The Homeland Security Program is also the administrator for the Grants Administered State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP). The purpose of the SHSGP is to support state and local efforts to prevent terrorism and other catastrophic events and to prepare the state for the threats and hazards that pose the greatest risk to the $11,652,000 security of the United States. In fiscal year 2017, the department administered $11,652,000 to state and local partners. Protective Services Protective Services consists of the Dignitary Protection and Uniform units. Protective Services is responsible for providing general law enforcement/police services at all state facilities, buildings, and other designated properties (primarily within the state Capitol complex in Montgomery), as mandated by §32-2-100, Code of Alabama, 1975; providing for the protection of certain state officers and visiting dignitaries to the state as mandated by §36- 33-1, et.
    [Show full text]
  • Reentry Strategy E M E N T R E E N T R
    P l a n n i n g a LANNING AND SSESSING A n P A d A s s e s s i n g a L a Law Enforcement w E n f o r c Reentry Strategy e m e n t R e e n t r Council of State Governments y Justice Center S t r a t e g y 100 Wall Street 4630 MontgomeryAvenue 504 West 12th Street 20th Floor Suite 650 Austin,TX 78701 New York, NY 10005 Bethesda, MD 20814 tel: 512-507-6653 tel: 212-482-2320 tel: 301-760-2401 fax: 512-474-5011 fax: 212-482-2344 fax: 240-497-0568 www.justicecenter.csg.org For More Information U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 1100VermontAvenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 To obtain details about COPS programs, call the COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770 Visit COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov . e080813162 Planning and Assessing a Law Enforcement Reentry Strategy A report prepared by the Council of State Governments Justice Center and the Police Executive Research Forum for the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services U.S. Department of Justice Matt Schwarzfeld Deirdre Mead Weiss Martha Plotkin Laura Draper This report was prepared by the Council of State Governments Justice Center, in partnership with the Police Executive Research Forum. It was completed under Cooperative Agreement 2005–HS–WX–K007 awarded by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions contained herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Standards Manual
    Delaware Police Accreditation Commission STANDARDS MANUAL January 19, 2021 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 STANDARDS FOR ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT ROLE Section 1 LAW ENFORCEMENT ROLE AND AUTHORITY 1.1.1 Oath of Office 8 Section 2 LIMITS OF AUTHORITY 1.2.1 State Law Requirements 8 1.2.2 Constitutional Requirements 9 1.2.3 Search and Seizure 9 1.2.4 Arrest 9 1.2.5 Strip and/or Body Cavity Searches 10 Section 3 USE OF FORCE 1.3.1 Use of Force 10 1.3.2 Police Officer Defined 10 1.3.3 Warning Shots 10 1.3.4 Less Lethal Weapon and Control Devices 11 1.3.5 Providing Medical Aid 11 1.3.6 Use of Force Reporting and Review 11 1.3.7 Officer Involved Shooting 11 1.3.8 Firearms and Ammunition 12 1.3.9 Weapons Proficiency 12 1.3.10 Annual Weapons Proficiency Training 13 1.3.11 Annual Use of Force Training 13 1.3.12 Annual Use of Force Analysis 13 Section 4 DIRECTION 1.4.1 Direction 14 2 1.4.2 Duty to Obey Lawful Orders 14 1.4.3 Mission 14 1.4.4 Written Directives 15 Section 5 ALLOCATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF PERSONNEL AND PERSONNEL ALTERNATIVES 1.5.1 Hiring Criteria 15 1.5.2 Basic Training Requirements 15 1.5.3 Part-time Officer In-service Training 15 1.5.4 Training Requirements for Use of Force and Firearms 16 1.5.5 Training Requirements for Seasonal Officers 16 1.5.6 Seasonal Officer Training Hours 16 1.5.7 Seasonal Officer Firearms Training Requirements 16 1.5.8 Non-sworn Personnel Training Requirements 16 Section 6 FISCAL MANAGEMENT AND AGENCY OWNED PROPERTY 1.6.1 Accounting 17 Section 7 COMPENSATION, BENEFITS AND CONDITIONS OF WORK 1.7.1 Conditions
    [Show full text]
  • Records Management Advice Internal Review/Investigation of Notorious
    Records Management Advice Issued: December 2015 Using Records Retention Schedules: Internal Review/Investigation of Notorious/Historically Significant Incidents within the Law Enforcement Agency’s Jurisdiction Purpose: Provide guidance to local law enforcement agencies on the identification and retention of notorious/historically significant incidents within the agency’s jurisdiction. The Law Enforcement Records Retention Schedule includes the following records series: DAN LE2010-059, Internal Review/Investigation – Notorious/Historically Significant Incidents. It is intended to cover internal review and investigation of incidents that (may) have enduring historical value for future research. Factors to consider Did the incident: • Cause controversy within the community, the county, or the state? • Involve a serious injury or fatality? • Involve a community-wide disaster (e.g., earthquake, mudslide, flood)? • Create a major public threat that required a significant law enforcement response (e.g. major protest, riot, demonstration, terrorist threat)? • Have a lasting impact on the community? • Result in a major modification to the agency’s policy, training, or equipment? • Cause a change in federal, state, or local law? • Result in the participation of or investigation by a federal agency/body (e.g., National Guard, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice, etc.)? • Attain significant contemporary public notoriety beyond the community? • Become the subject of extensive news media coverage, a book, or a feature film? • Become frequently cited in scholarly or professional literature or other resources? If you answered YES to any of the above then the records need to be appraised for transfer to Washington State Archives (WSA). Please contact your regional branch to organize appraisal and transfer; records declined by WSA may be destroyed.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Annual Report MISSION in Support of the Port of Seattle’S Mission, We: • Fight Crime, • Protect and Serve Our Community
    PORT OF SEATTLE POLICE 2020 Annual Report MISSION In support of the Port of Seattle’s Mission, we: • fight crime, • protect and serve our community. VISION To be the nation’s finest port police. GUIDING PRINCIPLES • Leadership • Integrity • Accountability Port of Seattle Commissioners and Executive Staff: It is my pleasure to present to you the 2020 Port of Seattle Police Department Annual Report. This past year was challenging in unprecedented ways. COVID-19 significantly impacted our day-to-day operations and our employees and their families. National civil unrest and demand for police reform led to critique and an ongoing assessment of the department. Changes in leadership, ten retirements, and a hiring freeze compounded the pressures and stress on your Police Department members. However, despite these challenges, I am proud to say that the high caliber professionals in the department stepped up. They adapted to the new environment and continued to faithfully perform their mission to fight crime, and protect and serve our community. Port employees, business partners, travelers, and visitors remained safe yet another year, because of the teamwork and outstanding dedication of the people who serve in your Police Department. As you read the pages to follow, I hope you enjoy learning more about this extraordinary team. On behalf of the exemplary men and women of this Department, it has been a pleasure to serve the Port of Seattle community. - Mike Villa, Deputy Chief Table of Contents Command Team . 6 Jurisdiction .........................................7 Community Engagement ...........................8 Honor Guard .......................................9 Operations Bureau .................................10 Port of Seattle Seaport . 11 Marine Patrol Unit .................................12 Dive Team .........................................12 SEA Airport .
    [Show full text]
  • Law Enforcement Intelligence: a Guide for State, Local, and Tribal Law Enforcement Agencies
    David L. Carter, Ph.D. School of Criminal Justice Michigan State University Law Enforcement Intelligence: A Guide for State, Local, and Tribal Law Enforcement Agencies November 2004 David L. Carter, Ph.D. This project was supported by Cooperative Agreement #2003-CK-WX-0455 by the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Points of view or opinions contained in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice or Michigan State University. Preface The world of law enforcement intelligence has changed dramatically since September 11, 2001. State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies have been tasked with a variety of new responsibilities; intelligence is just one. In addition, the intelligence discipline has evolved significantly in recent years. As these various trends have merged, increasing numbers of American law enforcement agencies have begun to explore, and sometimes embrace, the intelligence function. This guide is intended to help them in this process. The guide is directed primarily toward state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies of all sizes that need to develop or reinvigorate their intelligence function. Rather than being a manual to teach a person how to be an intelligence analyst, it is directed toward that manager, supervisor, or officer who is assigned to create an intelligence function. It is intended to provide ideas, definitions, concepts, policies, and resources. It is a primer- a place to start on a new managerial journey. Every effort was made to incorporate the state of the art in law enforcement intelligence: Intelligence-Led Policing, the National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan, the FBI Intelligence Program, the array of new intelligence activities occurring in the Department of Homeland Security, community policing, and various other significant developments in the reengineered arena of intelligence.
    [Show full text]
  • MCCA Report on the 2020 Protest and Civil Unrest
    Major Cities Chiefs Association Intelligence Commanders Group Line Length Represents the Number of Protests in Each City/County MCCA Report on the 2020 Protests and Civil Unrest October1 2020 REPORT ON THE 2020 PROTESTS AND CIVIL UNREST October 2020 The Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCCA) is a professional organization of police executives representing the largest cities in the United States and Canada. The MCCA provides a unique forum for urban chiefs, sheriffs and other law enforcement executives to share ideas, experiences and strategies. MCCA provides a collaborative forum for the advancement of public safety through innovation, research, policy development, government engagement, community outreach, and leadership development. MCCA membership is comprised of Chiefs and Sheriffs of the sixty-nine largest law enforcement agencies in the United States and nine largest in Canada. They serve 79.9 million people (65.7 US and 14.2 Canada) with a workforce of 251,082 (222,973 US and 28,110 Canada) officers and non-sworn personnel. The MCCA Intelligence Commanders Group (ICG) functions as a subset of the MCCA that focuses on law enforcement intelligence and national security matters. The ICG is comprised of intelligence commanders from each MCCA agency that represents their organization’s intelligence and/or national security mission. The group serves as a mechanism for advising the Chiefs and Sheriffs on security matters, exchanging intelligence between MCCA members, and developing programs for combatting crime and terrorism globally.
    [Show full text]
  • Drug Squads: Units Specialised in Drug Law Enforcement in Europe
    ISSN 2315-1463 EMCDDA PAPERS Drug squads: units specialised in drug law enforcement in Europe Contents: Key findings (p. 2) I Introduction (p. 3) I Background, objectives and methods (p. 6) I Key figures and institutional affiliations (p. 9) I Mandates and supervision (p. 21) I Conclusions (p. 32) I References (p. 34) I Annex (p. 35) Abstract: Drug law enforcement is likely to be the Keywords illicit drugs intervention that contributes the most to drug supply reduction key indicator reducing the supply of drugs in Europe. Important drug law enforcement police statistical datasets on drug seizures and drug law customs drug markets offences are the result of drug law enforcement activity, yet little is known about how drug law enforcement is organised in Europe. Based on a survey of specialised units, or drug squads, in 26 countries, this report provides for the first time essential facts about drug law enforcement in Europe. Data on the number of staff, institutional affiliations, mandates and functions of the more than 1 000 drug squads operating in Europe and their approximately 17 000 officers are presented and put into perspective, and knowledge gaps are identified. This report thus provides an evidence base against which to monitor future changes, while offering insights that will help in the contextualisation of essential datasets. Thus, it will be of interest to policymakers, but also to Recommended citation: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (2013), Drug squads: units the scientific community, the public at large and specialised in drug law enforcement in Europe, EMCDDA those working in law enforcement in Europe and Papers, Publications Office of the European Union, beyond.
    [Show full text]
  • State Highway Patrols-Their Functions and Financing
    State Highway Patrols-Their Functions and Financing EDWARD A. GLADSTONE and THOMAS W. COOPER, U.S. Bureau of Public Roads, Office of Planning •CONCERN FOR the safety of the motoring public, and the importance of the state police organizations in enforcing traffic and safety laws, was voiced by the governors of most of the 47 states in which the legislatures met in regular session in 1965. In state after state the governor's message emphasized highway safety and pointed to the need for additional highway patrol troops to curb highway accidents and fatalities. In at least 30 states requests were made for an increase in patrol strength, either by the governor, by legislative committees, or by safety agencies. Collectively, specific requests were made in 21 states for nearly 3, 800 troopers to be added to the patrol strength within the next onP. to four years. A summary of the requests (as of mid-1965) is given in Table 1. If approved, these requests would increase patrol strength by an average of 23 percent. TAB LE 1 REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL PATROL TROOPERS, SUBMITTED TO 1965 STATE LEGISLATURES BY GOVERNORS, LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEES, OR OTHERS Number Number St,it,,, (uhPr" stl\te~) State (where stated) Arkansas - New York 112 California 195 North Carolina 200 (4 years) Florida 212 Ohio 4-00 (2 years) Georgia 8o (2 years) Oklahoma 100 (2 years) Illinois 8oo ( 4 years) Pennsylvanla 300 Indiena 150 South Carolina - Iowa 100 (2 years) South Dakota - KMSt\8 50 Tennessee 100 Maryland 4o Texas - Michigan 200 Utah 20 Minnesota 368 (by 1973) Vermont 42 (2 years) Missouri 250 Washington - Nebraska 50 West Virginia - Nevada - Wisconsin - New Mexico 10 Wyoming - Source: Daily legislative bulletins published by the National.
    [Show full text]
  • NIJ Journal Issue
    Police Use of Force: The Impact of Less-Lethal Weapons and Tactics by Philip Bulman A new study suggests that less-lethal weapons decrease rates of officer and offender injuries. n the mid-19th century, police offi­ the University of South Carolina, cers in New York and Boston relied recently completed an NIJ-funded Ion less-lethal weapons, mostly study of injuries to officers and civil­ wooden clubs. By the late 1800s, ians during use-of-force events. police departments began issuing Injury rates to civilians ranged from firearms to officers in response to 17 to 64 percent (depending on the better-armed criminals. Today, many agency reporting) in use-of-force law enforcement agencies are again events, while injury rates to offi­ stressing the use of less-lethal weap­ cers ranged from 10 to 20 percent. ons, but they are using devices that Most injuries involved minor bruises, are decidedly more high-tech than strains and abrasions. Major inju­ their 19th-century counterparts. ries included dog bites, punctures, broken bones, internal injuries and Use of force, including less-lethal gunshot wounds. weaponry, is nothing new to polic­ ing, and in any use-of-force incident, injury is a possibility. Researchers Can New Technologies have estimated that between 15 and Decrease Injuries? 20 percent of arrests involve use of Advances in less-lethal technology force. A group of researchers led offer the promise of more effective by Geoffrey P. Alpert, professor of control over resistive suspects with criminology and criminal justice at 4 NIJ JOURNAL / ISSUE NO. 267 If injury reduction fewer serious injuries.
    [Show full text]