How Police Supervisory Styles Influence Patrol Officer Behavior U.S

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs JUNE JUNE National Institute of Justice 03 03

Research for Practice

How Police Supervisory Styles Influence Patrol Officer Behavior U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs 810 Seventh Street N.W. Washington, DC 20531

John Ashcroft Attorney General

Deborah J. Daniels Assistant Attorney General

Sarah V. Hart Director, National Institute of Justice

This and other publications and products of the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice can be found on the World Wide Web at the following site:

Office of Justice Programs National Institute of Justice http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij JUNE 03 How Police Supervisory Styles Influence Patrol Officer Behavior

Acknowledgments The author would like to thank Stephen D. Mastrofski, William Falcon, and Karen Sherman for their valuable insights and numerous contributions to this document.

Findings and conclusions of the research reported here are those of the author and do not reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. This study was conducted using information from the Project on Policing Neighborhoods, directed by Stephen D. Mastrofski, Roger B. Parks, Albert J. Reiss, Jr., and Robert E. Worden. The project was supported by the National Institute of Justice under grant number 95–IJ–CX–0071. Support for this research was provided through a transfer of funds to NIJ from the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. NCJ 194078 RESEARCH FOR PRACTICE / JUNE 03

ABOUT THIS REPORT

When police officers put their What were the study’s cruisers in gear, how much limitations? will their field supervisor’s style of supervision influence This research did not meas- their performance when they ure long-term patterns of deal with a fight in progress supervision or address how or an ongoing community supervisors communicate problem? their priorities. It did not address mixed supervisory A recent study found that styles or explore whether a field supervisor’s style may supervisors adjust their have a profound impact on styles in reaction to the offi- patrol officer behavior. That’s cers they are assigned to particularly true of the “active” supervise. For example, a style of supervision identified squad with younger officers by the research. would most likely require a different supervisory style than one with more sea- What did the soned officers. researchers find? Study data came from urban The study uncovered some police departments that surprising patterns in supervi- were implementing problem- sory styles and patrol officer solving/community policing behavior. Four supervisory strategies. These findings styles emerged from the may not apply to smaller, research. The style identified rural departments or those as active was more likely that are not implementing than the others to influence new strategies. officer behavior. This influence can be either positive or negative; for example, it Who should read this can inspire subordinates to study? engage in more problem- solving activities, or it can Police administrators, mid- result in more frequent use level managers, field super- of force. An active supervisors, and researchers, visory style was also the particularly those who focus most conducive to imple- on police organizations and menting community policing management. goals. ii POLICE SUPERVISORY STYLES

Robin Shepard Engel

How Police Supervisory Styles Influence Patrol Officer Behavior

Does field supervision of Justice that broadly examined patrol officers matter? policing issues, especially the Chances are that personal effects of community policing experience, common sense, initiatives on police and the This report is based on and intuition would elicit a public (see “The Project on three journal articles by quick “yes” from most police Policing Neighborhoods”). the author. Readers may refer to the articles for administrators and managers. The most important finding details on research find- But does street-level evi- ings and methodology dence justify that viewpoint? was that style or quality of (see “Recommended field supervision can signifi- Reading”). The answer is a qualified yes, cantly influence patrol officer according to recent field behavior, quite apart from research. Research findings quantity of supervision.1 not only confirm that view Frontline supervision by but also shed light on how sergeants and lieutenants frontline supervisory styles can influence some patrol can influence such patrol officer behavior, but the officer behavior as making study found that this influ- arrests, issuing citations, ence varies according to using force, and engaging the style of supervision. An in community policing. “active” supervisory style— involving leading by exam- The study involved field ple—seems to be most observations of and inter- influential despite potential views with sergeants and drawbacks. Indeed, active lieutenants who directly supervisors appear to be cru- supervised patrol officers cial to the implementation of in the Indianapolis, Indiana, organizational goals. Police Department and the St. Petersburg, Florida, Police This report in NIJ’s Research About the Author Department. The research for Practice series addresses Robin Shepard Engel, is based on data from the three principal questions: Ph.D., is associate Project on Policing Neigh- professor of criminal borhoods (POPN), a 2-year ■ What are the four supervi- justice at the University research project sponsored sory styles identified by the of Cincinnati. by the National Institute of research?

1 RESEARCH FOR PRACTICE / JUNE 03

Exhibit 1. Characteristics of 81 supervisors

Characteristics Minimum Maximum Mean

Supervisor age (years) 31 70 44 Years of experience as a supervisor 1 33 10 Percentage of supervisors who were female 15 Percentage of supervisors who were nonwhite 15 Percentage of supervisors who held a 4-year college degree 51 Amount of training* in community policing 1 5 4 Amount of knowledge† about community policing 1 3 2 Amount of training in supervision, management, leadership 1 5 4 Amount of knowledge about supervision, management, leadership 1 3 1

Note: 17 lieutenants and 64 sergeants. *Amount of training: 1 = none, 2 = less than 1 day, 3 = 1–2 days, 4 = 3–5 days, 5 = more than 5 days. †Amount of knowledge: 1 = very knowledgeable, 2 = fairly knowledgeable, 3 = not very knowledgeable.

■ How do those styles influ- age as well as level of train- ence patrol officer behavior? ing and experience (see exhibit 1). Each of the four ■ What are the implications styles encompasses about for departmental policy and 25 percent of the 81 field practice? supervisors (see exhibit 2). In general, none of the four supervisory styles was found Frontline supervisory to be ideal. Each style has styles benefits and drawbacks. (See “Study Methodology.”) The study’s field observations and interviews identi- The active style of supervision fied four main supervisory emerged as having the most styles: traditional, innovative, influence over patrol officers’ supportive, and active. Super- behaviors. Officers with active visor characteristics include supervisors were more likely personal features such as than those with other types

2 POLICE SUPERVISORY STYLES

Exhibit 2. Distribution of supervisory styles, in percent

Traditional Innovative Supportive Active

Gender Male (n = 69) 22 30 25 23 Female (n = 12) 50 8 17 25 Race White (n = 69) 26 26 25 23 Nonwhite (n = 12) 25 33 17 25 Location Indianapolis lieutenants (n = 17) 12 35 24 29 Indianapolis sergeants (n = 39) 18 28 26 28 St. Petersburg sergeants (n = 25) 48 20 20 12 Total (N = 81) 26 27 23 23

Note: Each percentage is the proportion of field supervisors associated with the style noted in the far left column. Thus, traditional supervisors constituted 26 percent of all 81 supervisors, 22 percent of 69 male supervisors, etc.

of supervisors to use force produce measurable out- and spent more time on self- comes—particularly arrests initiated activities, community and citations—along with policing activities, and prob- paperwork and documentation. lem solving. Less inclined toward devel- Traditional supervisors. oping relationships, tradition- Traditional supervisors expect al supervisors give more aggressive enforcement from instruction to subordinates subordinates rather than and are less likely to reward engagement in community- and more likely to punish oriented activities or policing patrol officers. The traditional of minor disorders. They are supervisor’s ultimate concern more likely than other types of is to control subordinate supervisors to make decisions behavior. because they tend to take over encounters with citizens Traditional supervisors are or tell officers how to handle more likely to support new those incidents. policing initiatives if they are consistent with aggressive Traditional sergeants and lieu- law enforcement. More than tenants are highly task oriented 60 percent of these supervi- and expect subordinates to sors “agree strongly” that 3 RESEARCH FOR PRACTICE / JUNE 03

policing, traditional supervi- THE PROJECT ON POLICING NEIGHBORHOODS sors strictly enforce rules and regulations and adhere to the NIJ is committed to providing relevant research that chain of command. helps practitioners in the field. This Research for Practice is one in a series of reports from the Project on Policing Innovative supervisors. Neighborhoods (POPN) conducted in 1996–1997. POPN Innovative supervisors are researchers examined police and citizen interaction, atti- characterized by a tendency tudes, and behaviors in 12 neighborhoods in Indianapolis, to form relationships (i.e., Indiana, and 12 similar neighborhoods in St. Petersburg, they consider more officers Florida. They directly observed patrol officers on duty, interviewed patrol officers and their supervisors, and to be friends), a low level of conducted telephone surveys of individuals randomly task orientation, and more selected in each neighborhood. positive views of subordinates. These supervisors NIJ is publishing several reports that summarize scholarly are considered innovative reports and articles written by POPN researchers. The because they generally summaries present key information that police managers need to know about problem solving and community polic- encourage their officers to ing. Additional topics will include encounters with juvenile embrace new philosophies suspects, gender differences in officer attitudes and and methods of policing. behavior, police attitudes toward the public and the public’s attitudes toward police, how officers spend their time Innovative supervisors are with the community, and race and everyday policing. defined by their expectations for community policing and Knowledge about how officers interact with neighborhood problem-solving efforts by residents and other officers can help law enforcement administrators improve policies and practices and lead subordinates. For example, to better community relations. With this goal in mind, 96 percent of these super- NIJ invites comments and suggestions concerning this visors reported that they research. To comment, write to Steve Edwards, National “agree strongly” that “a Institute of Justice, 810 Seventh Street, N.W., Washington, good patrol officer will try to DC 20531; e-mail [email protected]; or call find out what residents think 202–307–0500. the neighborhood problems are,” compared to 48 percent of traditional supervisors, 68 percent of supportive super- “enforcing the law is by far a visors, and 68 percent of patrol officer’s most impor- active supervisors. tant responsibility,” compared with 14 percent of One goal of innovative super- innovative supervisors, 11 visors is to help subordinates percent of supportive supervi- implement community polic- sors, and 11 percent of active ing and problem-solving supervisors. Along with their strategies by coaching, men- no-nonsense approach to toring, and facilitating. They

4 POLICE SUPERVISORY STYLES

are less concerned with supervisors classified as enforcing rules and regula- supportive may function tions, report writing, or other more as “protectors” than task-oriented activities than “supporters.” traditional supervisors. Of supportive supervisors, Unlike traditional supervisors, 68 percent reported that innovative supervisors gener- “protecting their officers ally do not tell subordinates from unfair criticism and how to handle situations and punishment” is one of their do not take over the situa- most important functions, tions themselves. They are compared with 10 percent more likely to delegate deci- of traditional supervisors, sionmaking. They spend sig- 5 percent of innovative nificantly more time per shift supervisors, and no active dealing with the public or supervisors. other officers than other supervisors do (15 percent The protective role adopted compared with 9 percent). by some supportive supervisors can be a problem, Supportive supervisors. however. Other research These supervisors support has found that shielding offi- subordinates by protecting cers from accountability them from discipline or mechanisms within the de- punishment perceived as partment can lead to police “unfair” and by providing misconduct.2 inspirational motivation. They often serve as a buffer be- Supportive supervisors are tween officers and manage- less concerned with enforc- ment to protect officers from ing rules and regulations, criticism and discipline. They dealing with paperwork, or believe this gives their offi- ensuring that officers do their cers space to perform duties work. They may encourage without constant worry of officers through praise and disciplinary action for honest recognition, act as coun- mistakes. selors, or display concern for subordinates’ personal and In some cases, supportive professional well-being. The supervisors do not have study found that supportive strong ties to or positive re- supervisors praise or reward lations with management. subordinate officers signifi- They may attempt to shield cantly more often during an patrol officers from the police average shift (3 times per administration. Thus, some 5 RESEARCH FOR PRACTICE / JUNE 03

shift) than do other supervi- characterized by directive sors (2 times per shift). decisionmaking, a strong sense of supervisory power, Active supervisors. Active and a relatively positive view supervisors embrace a phi- of subordinates. losophy of leading by example. Their goal is to be heavily Although active supervisors involved in the field alongside believe they have consider- subordinates while control- able influence over subordi- ling patrol officer behavior, nates’ decisions, they are thus performing the dual less likely to encourage team function of street officer and building, coaching, or mentor- supervisor. ing. One possible explanation Officers with for this is that they are reluc- Almost all active supervisors tant to become so involved active super- (95 percent) report that they that they alienate subordinate visors spent often go on their own initia- officers. A fine line separates more time on tive to incidents that their an active supervisor from officers are handling, com- being seen as overcontrolling self-initiated pared to 24 percent of tradi- or micromanaging. activities, tional supervisors, 55 percent of innovative supervisors, community- and 68 percent of supportive Impact of supervisory policing supervisors. style on patrol officers activities, and Active supervisors also give What impact does superviso- problem solving. importance to engaging in ry style have on patrol officer patrol work themselves. They activities? The study exam- spend significantly more time ined the influence of 64 ser- per shift than other supervi- geants’ supervisory styles on sors on general motor patrol the behavior of 239 patrol (33 percent compared with officers, having identified the 26 percent) and traffic en- sergeant-supervisor of each counters (4 percent com- officer. The study’s findings pared with 2 percent). These focus on how likely officers supervisors attempt to strike were to make arrests, issue a balance between being citations, and use force as active in the field and control- well as how much time per ling subordinate behavior shift they allocated to com- through constant, direct munity policing activities, supervision. Supervisors administrative duties, and with an active style are personal business.

6 POLICE SUPERVISORY STYLES

Arrests and citations. Supervisory style did not COMMUNITY POLICING IN FIELD TRAINING AND affect the likelihood that SUPERVISION patrol officers would make arrests or issue citations in Although not part of POPN research, a study conducted by either traffic or nontraffic Robin N. Haarr, Ph.D., under NIJ grant 96–IJ–CX– 0060, also situations. In nontraffic looked at influences on patrol officer behavior, particularly new recruits. This research also found that field supervisors encounters, however, the a mere presence of a field have crucial influence, although in a different context . supervisor, regardless of A separate study of how police recruits are taught com- style, significantly influenced munity policing principles provides some guidance for officer behavior; the longer a police managers on how field training and actual policing supervisor was present, the experience may supersede academy training in influenc- more likely patrol officers ing the attitudes and beliefs of new officers. were to make an arrest. The 3-year study surveyed police recruits at four intervalsb during their training and first year on the job. It focused on Use of force. Patrol officers academy “reform training”c designed to change recruits’ with active supervisors were attitudes positively toward community-oriented policing twice as likely to use force3 and problem-solving policing. against suspects as officers The research found that academy reform training often whose supervisors employ proved ineffective because it was not followed up during other styles. In addition, field training, and factors contradicting academy trainingd active supervisors them- dominated recruits’ actual policing experiences. selves used force against The study also found that recruits’ beliefs about the nature suspects more often than of policing were firmly established before training even other types of supervisors. begins: The mere presence of a supervisor at the scene, The best predictors of attitude change were by far the however, did not have a sig- attitudes that recruits brought with them to the acade- nificant influence on police my. In other words, police recruits are not empty vessels use of force. to be filled with new attitudes and values related to policing.e Self-initiated activities. Nonetheless, academy reform training did influence Patrol officers with active recruits’ beliefs about police work before field training. But supervisors spent more time the study found “little evidence of a formal and/or system- per shift engaging in proac- atic approach to incorporating community policing and/or f tive (self-initiated) activities problem-solving training into the field training process.” than officers with other Thus, community policing principles—already on shaky supervisors. The former continued on page 8 spent 15 percent of their time per shift being proac- tive, in contrast to 14

7 RESEARCH FOR PRACTICE / JUNE 03

percent, 13 percent, and 11 continued from page 7 percent for officers under ground because of recruits’ previously held beliefs—often supportive, traditional, and appeared to be academic: innovative supervisors, respectively. Proactivity It seems unreasonable to expect police recruits to excludes time spent on continue their commitment to community policing and dispatched or supervisor- problem-solving policing principles and practices if they directed activities, general leave the training academy and return to a police agency that does not require its officers to engage in patrol, traveling to a location, community policing or problem-solving activities.g personal business, and administrative activities. It falls to police leadership, the study concluded, to set the tone for community policing. When supervisors and the Community policing and organization practice community-oriented and problem- problem solving. Officers solving policing, recruits will too. The study recommends with active supervisors spent that academy-taught principles be coupled more closely more time per shift engaging with field training and actual police practices. in problem solving and other NOTES community-policing activities than officers with other types a. Haarr, R.N., The Impact of Community Policing Training and Program of supervisors. Officers under Implementation on Police Personnel, final report for the National Institute of active supervision spent Justice, grant number 96–IJ–CX–0060, Washington, DC; National Institute of Justice, 2000, NCJ 190680. 11.3 percent of their time per shift on problem solving, b. Surveys were administered on the first day at the academy, near the last compared with 10.7 percent day at the academy, 12 weeks later (near the end of field training), and at the end of 1 year on the job. for officers with supportive supervisors, 9.4 percent for c. “Reform training” is defined as “training designed to alter an officer’s per- those with traditional super- ception of the world and/or police work. ... In the case of community policing training, the goal is to replace outdated attitudes and beliefs about policing visors, and 8.0 percent for with new attitudes and beliefs that are consistent with community policing officers with innovative super- and problem-solving policing philosophies and strategies.” (Haarr, The visors. Although differences Impact of Community Policing Training and Program Implementation on between these percentages Police Personnel, pp. 3–4.) seem small, they can produce d. Such as shift, coworkers’ attitudes, and precinct location. substantial differences in the

e. Haarr, p. v. amount of time spent on community policing by an f. Ibid., p. 176. entire patrol force over the g. Ibid., p. 175. course of a year.

At first glance it appears con- tradictory that officers with innovative supervisors spent the least amount of time on community policing and

8 POLICE SUPERVISORY STYLES

problem solving. This finding Implications for policy suggests that simply having and practice an innovative supervisory style does not necessarily Collectively, the research find- translate into more innovative ings indicate that supervisory activities from subordinates. styles affect some types of subordinate behavior. Police Possibly, innovative super- administrators are encour- visors may be more inclined aged to consider supervisory to encourage community- style in setting department building tactics, while active goals and training. supervisors may encourage more aggressive enforce- Compared with other styles, ment, which may lead active an active supervisory ap- supervisors and their subordi- proach appears to wield the nates to be more engaged most influence over patrol with problem solving and officer actions. The findings other citizen interactions. suggest that to best influence their patrol officers’ Administrative activities. behavior, field supervisors Patrol officers with active su- must lead by example—the pervisors spend significantly hallmark of an active style. less time per shift on administrative tasks. Officers under One clear implication of the active supervision spent 13 research is that police admin- percent of their time dealing istrators and managers would with administrative matters, be well-advised to direct and compared with 19 percent train field supervisors to for patrol officers with tradi- become more involved and tional supervisors and 17 per- set an example of the behav- cent for those with innovative ior they expect from subordi- or supportive supervisors. nates. (For discussion of a different study that examined Personal business. Supervi- supervisory practices and offi- sory style has little effect on cer training, see “Community the time patrol officers spend Policing in Field Training and conducting personal business Supervision.”) (nonwork-related encounters and activities, including meal An active supervisory style, and restroom breaks). Overall, however, has potential prob- officers spent 16 percent lems. Leading by example of their time on personal can be positive or negative, business. depending on the example

9 RESEARCH FOR PRACTICE / JUNE 03

set. As noted previously, for Another possible explanation instance, active supervisors is that such easily measured and their subordinates are officer activities as arrests more likely to use force and citations may be most against suspects. influenced by policy guide- lines from higher ranking offi- By taking One reason why active cials. This effect is likely to supervisors might promote be relatively uniform regard- precisely the greater use of force and less of field supervisors’ risks that proactivity (which could styles. Thus, the place to expose the officer to greater look for supervisory influence he/she wants risk if things go wrong) is that over these activities may be the officer to by taking precisely the risks at the district or departmental take, the active that he/she wants the officer level, not the field supervi- to take, the active supervisor sory level. supervisor demonstrates that “if it’s demonstrates safe for Sarge, then it’s safe Leading by example is an for me, too.” effective frontline supervi- that “if it’s safe sory tool only if the example for Sarge, then Supervisory styles influenced supports departmental goals. only those officer behaviors For instance, many officers it’s safe for that are hardest to monitor at both sites had received rel- me, too.” and measure, such as use of atively little training in com- force, problem solving, and munity policing and were proactivity. Conversely, super- skeptical about its worth. visory styles did not signifi- Sergeants who practiced cantly affect officer behaviors an active supervisory style that are relatively easy to supplemented training defi- monitor and measure, such ciencies while building the as making arrests and issuing self-confidence of subordi- citations. One reason may be nate officers. that supervisors have more influence in situations where These findings strongly sug- patrol officers have the most gest that police administrators discretion. Perhaps the less are more likely to achieve certain the task and the less departmental goals if they visible its performance, the align them with supervisory more opportunity a sergeant practice and encourage field may have to define the duties supervisors to “get in the of subordinates, who may game.” appreciate such clarification of their roles.

10 POLICE SUPERVISORY STYLES

STUDY METHODOLOGY

This study used data collected for the POPN multimethod study of police patrol in the Indianapolis, Indiana, and St. Petersburg, Florida, police departments, which were implementing community policing at the time of the study. The core methodology was systematic social observation of patrol officers in the field. Trained observers accompanied officers on their work shifts and took field notes. Officers assigned to each of the 24 study beats were observed for approximately 240 hours. Researchers observed more than 5,700 hours of patrol work during the summer of 1996 in Indianapolis and the summer of 1997 in St. Petersburg. From their field notes, observers prepared narratives and coded data items about officer activities. Researchers also interviewed patrol officers and frontline supervisors about their personal characteristics, training and education, work experience, perceptions of their beats, attitudes toward the police role, and perceptions of their department’s implementation of community policing and problem solving. Participation was voluntary and confidential. To encourage candid responses to potentially sensitive questions about the quality of supervision, officers were not asked for their supervisors’ names. Officers were matched with sergeants through other information. Review of prior research identified 10 attitudinal dimensions that potentially shape supervisors’ styles: ■ How they make decisions. ■ How they distribute power. ■ The extent to which they attempt or avoid exerting leadership. ■ The priority they place on aggressive enforcement. ■ The priority they attach to community policing and problem solving. ■ How they view subordinates. ■ Whether they engage in inspirational motivation. ■ How task oriented they are. ■ Whether they focus on building friendships and mutual trust with subordinates. ■ Whether they focus on protecting subordinates from unfair criticism and punishment. Factor analysis of these dimensions revealed the four individual supervisory styles: traditional, innovative, supportive, and active.

11 RESEARCH FOR PRACTICE / JUNE 03

Notes Criminal Justice 30(1) (Janu- ary/February 2002): 51–64. 1. “Quantity” is used here in the sense of amount of supervision, i.e., Engel, R., “Supervisory the number of supervisors, the amount of interaction between Styles of Patrol Sergeants supervisors and subordinates, and and Lieutenants,” Journal time spent on supervised encoun- of Criminal Justice 29(4) ters between patrol officers and citi- (July/August 2001): 341–355. zens. This study is unique in its focus on the quality and style—as Engel, R., “The Effects of well as quantity—of patrol officer supervision. Supervisory Styles on Patrol Officer Behavior,” Police 2. For example, see Christopher Quarterly 3(3) (September Commission, Report of the Indepen- 2000): 262–293. dent Commission on the Los Ange- les Police Department, Los Angeles Other related articles and Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police Department, 1991; reports. Bergner, L., “Build- Mollen Commission to Investigate ing Teamwork Among Offi- Allegations of Police Corruption, cers,” Law Enforcement Commission Report, New York: The Trainer 12(6) (November/ Mollen Commission, 1994; Skolnik, December 1997): 10–12. J.H., and J.J. Fyfe, Above the Law: Police and the Excessive Use of Force, New York: Free Press, 1993; Haarr, R., “Making of a Com- and Kappeler, V.E., R.D. Sluder, and munity Policing Officer: The G.P. Alpert, Forces of Deviance: Impact of Basic Training and Understanding the Dark Side of Occupational Socialization on Policing, 2d edition, Prospective Police Recruits,” Police Quar- Heights, IL: Waveland Press, 1998. terly 4(4) (December 2001): 3. Use of force includes firm grip or 402–433. nonpain restraint, pain compliance (hammerlock, wristlock, finger grip, Mastrofski, S., R. Parks, A. carotid control, bar arm lock), impact Reiss, Jr., and R. Worden, or incapacitation (striking with body Policing Neighborhoods: A or weapon, mace, taser), or drawing or discharging a firearm. Report from St. Petersburg, Research Preview, Washing- ton, DC: U.S. Department of Recommended reading Justice, National Institute of Justice, July 1999, NCJ This report was based on the 184370. following articles: Mastrofski, S., R. Parks, A. Engel, R., “Patrol Officer Reiss, Jr., and R. Worden, Supervision in the Communi- Policing Neighborhoods: A ty Policing Era,” Journal of

12 POLICE SUPERVISORY STYLES

Report from Indianapolis, National Study, Research in Research Preview, Washing- Brief, Washington, DC: U.S. ton, DC: U.S. Department of Department of Justice, Justice, National Institute of National Institute of Justice, Justice, July 1998, NCJ May 2000, NCJ 181312. 184207. Community policing. For Mastrofski, S., R. Parks, and more information on commu- R. Worden, Community Polic- nity policing, visit the Office ing in Action: Lessons from of Community Oriented Polic- an Observational Study, Final ing Services Web site at Report to the National Insti- www.usdoj.gov/cops/ or tute of Justice, 1998. write to U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Weisburd, D., and R. Oriented Policing Services, Greenspan, et al., Police 1100 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Attitudes Toward Abuse of Washington, DC 20530. Authority: Findings From a

13 The National Institute of Justice is the research, development, and evaluation agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. NIJ provides objective, independent, nonpartisan, evidence-based knowledge and tools to enhance the administration of justice and public safety.

NIJ is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime.