Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Prepublication Copy Uncorrected Proofs Policing to Promote the Rule of Law and Protect the Population An Evidence-based Approach Committee on Evidence to Advance Reform in the Global Security and Justice Sectors Committee on Law and Justice Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education A Consensus Study Report of
Prepublication Copy, Uncorrected Proofs THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 This activity was supported by contracts between the National Academy of Sciences and the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs of the U.S. Department of State, Award No. SINLEC20CA3213. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-XXXXX-X International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-XXXXX-X Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/26217 Additional copies of this publication are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2021 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Policing to Promote the Rule of Law and Protect the Population: An Evidence-based Approach. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26217.
Prepublication Copy, Uncorrected Proofs The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.
Prepublication Copy, Uncorrected Proofs Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the studyâs statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committeeâs deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task. Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies. For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo.
Prepublication Copy, Uncorrected Proofs COMMITTEE ON EVIDENCE TO ADVANCE REFORM IN THE GLOBAL SECURITY AND JUSTICE SECTORS LAWRENCE W. SHERMAN, (Chair), University of Cambridge Institute of Criminology BEATRIZ ABIZANDA, Inter-American Development Bank YANILDA MARÃA GONZÃLEZ, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University GUY GROSSMAN, University of Pennsylvania JOHN L. HAGAN, Northwestern University KAREN HALL, Rule of Law Collaborative, University of South Carolina CYNTHIA LUM, George Mason University EMILY OWENS, University of California, Irvine JUSTICE TANKEBE, University of Cambridge Institute of Criminology JULIE ANNE SCHUCK, Study Director JESSALYN BROGAN WALKER, Study Director (through June 2021) SARAH PERUMATTAM, Senior Program Assistant EMILY P. BACKES, Associate Director, CLAJ MEGAN SNAIR, Technical Writer v
Prepublication Copy, Uncorrected Proofs COMMITTEE ON LAW AND JUSTICE ROBERT D. CRUTCHFIELD, (Chair), University of Washington (retired) SALLY S. SIMPSON, (Vice Chair), University of Maryland ROD K. BRUNSON, Northeastern University SHAWN D. BUSHWAY, University at Albany PREETI CHAUHAN, John Jay College of Criminal Justice KIMBERLÃ W. CRENSHAW, University of California, Los Angeles MARK S. JOHNSON, Howard University CYNTHIA LUM, George Mason University JOHN M. MACDONALD, University of Pennsylvania KAREN J. MATHIS, American Bar Association (retired), University of Denver THEODORE A. MCKEE, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Philadelphia, PA STEVEN RAPHAEL, University of California, Berkeley LAURIE O. ROBINSON, George Mason University CYNTHIA RUDIN, Duke University WILLIAM J. SABOL, Georgia State University LINDA A. TEPLIN, Northwestern University Medical School HEATHER ANN THOMSON, University of Michigan BRUCE WESTERN, Columbia University NATACHA BLAIN, Director EMILY P. BACKES, Associate Director STACEY SMIT, Program Coordinator vi
Prepublication Copy, Uncorrected Proofs Preface The movement for evidence-based policing in the 1990s came on the heels of the concept of evidence-based medicine in the same decade, but with far less clinical research to apply in policing practices. Since then, police research findings have been growing at a rapid rate and have been reviewed by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine on repeated occasions in the last two decades. However, scant research findings have been reported at the country level, examining differences in police systems and policies across nations. In an era when the U.S. Congress has mandated better evidence to support public expenditure, the application of that mandate to overseas police development requires two responses. One is to do the best translation possible from existing research comparing differences between and within countries. The other is to map out research and action agendas that will promote the growth of new evidence to provide better guidance to policing in the international context. This report is the first of five by a committee with diverse kinds of policing expertise assembled for the task by the National Academies. All five of these reports will be completed at the request of the International Narcotics and Law Enforcement (INL) Bureau of the U.S. Department of State. The committee was charged by INL to identify good practices in police reform. INLâs goal is for our reports to help ensure that ongoing U.S. foreign assistance for organizational police capacity building is informed by research. At the same time, INL seeks guidance from lessons learned from practitioners. Linking the two kinds of knowledge is an ongoing challenge in policing. Addressing this challenge requires a consensus-building process that identifies and then weighs the strength of relevant evidence, debates the conclusions, and engages a wide group of users to ensure that its presentation is relevant and accessible to them. The project, beginning with this report, offers a unique opportunity to unite the research and practitioner perspectives for actionable recommendations that can strengthen the assistance provided for international policing. In approaching my charge to chair this committee, I draw upon five decades of work in evidence-based police reform, partnering with police on five continents to both conduct research and apply it to policy-making, with some successes and many failures. My own background is strengthened by a committee composed of experts across the areas of criminology, political science, economics, law, and international and organized crime. By joining in this undertaking, they have emphasized the need to draw from multiple fields to determine how policing can be improved. Committee members also bring with them a wealth of understanding from their work across Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America, and North America. Their work has been intensely related to the various ways that communities experience the act of being policed and how police vii
Prepublication Copy, Uncorrected Proofs engage with their communities. This diversity of background led to robust discussions, not just about what can be concluded from existing evidence, but what the consequences might be from each recommendation we make. Our broadest area of agreement was the ongoing need for better evidence and infrastructure in each country for measuring the rule of law and harm to the public. The report that follows considers the institutional landscape of policing and the capacity to provide proper and fair protection to all members of the public and not just to a powerful few. It examines organizational policies, structures, and practices for policing likely to be effective in some contexts at promoting the rule of law and protecting the population. We hope that for this broadest and perhaps most difficult of our five tasks, this report can provide a research agenda to better support program development in this area. The reader can use the report most wisely as a provisional statement of what is known, in 2021, on the basis of either systematic research evidence or case study experience. We fully expect some conclusions may change or that others may expand existing knowledgeâespecially with the research agenda we recommend. While each report is published separately, all five should be seen as attempts to solve a larger puzzle of understanding and implementing successful police reform. This report offers a starting point for solving that puzzle. Lawrence W. Sherman, Chair Committee on Advancing Reform in the Global Security and Justice Sectors viii
Prepublication Copy, Uncorrected Proofs ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report would not have been possible without the contributions of many people. First, we thank the sponsor of this study, the U.S. Department of State, Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, for requesting and supporting this endeavor. We have admired the sponsorâs dedication to an evidence-led approach to further its programming. Special thanks go to the members of the study committee, who dedicated extensive time, thought, and energy to this report. In addition to its own research and deliberations, the committee received input from several outside sources, whose willingness to share their perspectives and experience was essential to the committeeâs work. We thank Stephen White (Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission), Andrew Carpenter (United Nations Police Division), Elizabeth Linos (Goldman School of Public Policy), Anne Li Kringen (University of New Haven), Sir Denis OâConnor (University of Cambridge), and Gustavo Flores-MacÃas (Cornell University). The committee also gathered information through a commissioned paper. We thank Peter Neyroud (University of Cambridge) for his paper and for contributing both to the discussion at the committeeâs information gathering workshop and to findings in the report. The committee also wishes to extend its gratitude to the staff of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, in particular to Julie Schuck, who made critical substantive contributions in the conception, writing, and editing of the report, and Jessalyn Walker, who served as the study director until her departure in June 2021. Thanks are also due to Emily Backes who provided substantive writing and editing contributions and critical oversight and direction for the project. Sarah Perumattam provided key administrative and logistical support and made sure the committee process ran efficiently and smoothly. The National Academies Research Center, particularly Anne Marie Houppert, provided valuable research assistance. From the Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, we thank Kirsten Sampson-Snyder, who shepherded the report through the review process, and Douglas Sprunger and Dara Shefska, who assisted with the reportâs communication and dissemination. We also thank technical writer Megan Snair for quickly summarizing the presentations and discussions from the committeeâs workshop and editor Marc DeFrancis for their skillful writing and editing of the report manuscript. This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. ix
Prepublication Copy, Uncorrected Proofs We thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Jay S. Albanese, Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs, Virginia Commonwealth University; Lucia Dammert, Humanities Department, University of Chile, Santiago; Andrew Faull, Justice and Violence Prevention Programme, Institute for Security Studies, Africa; Anna Giudice, Justice Section, Division for Operations, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime; Liam OâShea, Department of International Relations, London School of Economics and Political Science; and Victoria Walker, International Security Sector Advisory Team, Geneva Centre for Security Sector Governance, Switzerland. Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Alex Piquero, University of Miami, and Phil Cook, Duke University. They were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies. x
Prepublication Copy, Uncorrected Proofs CONTENTS Summary 1 INTRODUCTION The Committeeâs Charge Rule of Law Evidence-Based Policing Organization of the Report 2 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES FOR POLICING Military vs. Civilian Forces Governance of Police Investigating Police Misconduct Conclusion 3 POLICES FOR PROMOTING ACCOUNTABLE POLICING Police Recruitment Appointment of Police Leadership Use of Technology Internal Governance Conclusion 4 PROACTIVE POLICING PRACTICES Problem-Oriented Policing Community-Oriented Policing Use of Discretion Conclusion 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Translating the Evidence: Key Implications for Practice A Research Agenda for Evidence-based Policing REFERENCES Appendix A Validation Exercise Appendix B Biographical Sketches of Committee Members and Staff xi