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.