Democratizing the 

Police Abroad:

What to Do and 

How to Do It

Issues in

International Crime

David H. Bayley
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

810 Seventh Street N.W.

Washington, DC 20531

John Ashcroft

Attorney General

Office of Justice Programs National Institute of Justice

World Wide Web Site World Wide Web Site 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij
Democratizing the 

Police Abroad:

What to Do and 

How to Do It

David H. Bayley

June 2001

NCJ 188742

Issues in International Crime
National Institute of Justice

James O. Finckenauer

Program Monitor

The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes

the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

Prepared for the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, under grant number 1999–IJ–CX–0055.

Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the

official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

David H. Bayley is a distinguished professor in the School of Criminal Justice at the State University of

New York at Albany.
iii

CONTENTS

Executive Summary ....................................................................................v

Chapter 1. Introduction ..............................................................................1

Chapter 2. The Norms of Democratic Policing..........................................11

Chapter 3. Generic Lessons for Changing Police Organizations ................17

Chapter 4. Lessons for Police Reform Abroad ..........................................33

Chapter 5. Special Lessons for Police Reform in Peacekeeping..................51

Chapter 6. Lessons for American Management of 

Police Reform Abroad..............................................................65

Chapter 7. Conclusion ..............................................................................73

Bibliography..............................................................................................79
v

his report sets forth the lessons that observers and participants have learned

about the process of changing police organizations so as to support democracy. It is based on the study of three bodies of literature: studies of efforts

to change police practices in the developed democracies, especially in the United

States; accounts of the experience with foreign assistance to police abroad under both

bilateral and multilateral auspices; and accounts of the actions of nongovernmental

human rights organizations to rectify police abuses. More than 500 books, articles,

reports, and documents were reviewed in this study. The bibliography attached to

this report probably encompasses the largest number of materials on efforts to change

police organizations ever collected.

Observations about the process of democratic police reform were deemed to be

“lessons” if they were generally agreed on, were based on real-world experience, and

pertained to the goal of democratic development. The reforms considered most important in developing a police force that supports democracy are creation of a responsive public-service orientation, adherence to the rule of law, protection of human

rights, and transparency with respect to the activities of the agency and the people

within it. The lessons are discussed in chapters 3 to 6, which are organized as follows: 

■ Generic reform in any police organization.

■ Police reform abroad.

■ Police reform in peacekeeping.

■ Managing police reform abroad. 

In each chapter the lessons are listed, along with corollaries implied by the lessons.

Altogether there are 87 lessons and corollaries. Because the report is itself a roster

of lessons, they are not summarized here. The report concludes with a discussion

of the prospects for furthering the cause of democracy through police assistance

and reform. 

T

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction

C HAPTER1
3

he purpose of this report is to create a roster of what is known about

how to reform police forces abroad so as to support the development of

democracy. It is intended as a guide for people who are responsible for

developing and implementing programs of democratic police reform. It distills the

knowledge of other professionals in the field—people who, like themselves, arrive

in a foreign county on a cold, foggy morning among people whose language they

may not speak with instructions to create a democratic police force.

Determining when observations about the process of democratic reform become

“lessons” is a matter of judgment in two ways: One must decide whether they are

generally accepted by people in the field and whether they are based on substantive

experience rather than speculation. I have tried to be conservative in my judgments

about what is known about democratic reform, in particular by not putting forth my

own ideas about smart reform unless they are shared by others. Readers should recognize, then, that the lessons presented here may be neither exhaustive nor beyond

challenge. They are, I hope, a reasonable first cut at summarizing what is known

about the process of police reform in aid of democracy. 

It is also important to underscore that the lessons do not deal with reforms that are

unrelated to the qualitative goal of making police more democratic. Developing the

capacity of the police to reduce crime, control illegal drugs, or maintain public order

are all worthwhile objectives, but they are not the focus of this report. As we shall

see, however, they are not unrelated to democratic reform.

The need to provide practical advice to American reformers arises because assistance to foreign police has increased dramatically since the end of the Cold War.

The United States had been badly burned by involvement with foreign police forces

during the Cold War, so much so that section 660 of the Foreign Assistance Act of

1961 was amended in 1974 to prohibit U.S. agencies, including the military, from

training or assisting foreign police. Exceptions were made for the Federal Bureau

of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), when training and

assistance was related to their law enforcement missions.1 As a result of the amending of section 660, the Office of Public Safety of the U.S. Agency for International

Development (AID), which had been responsible for training police overseas, was

abolished. In the 1990s, however, reform of foreign police forces was widely recognized as necessary to support the expansion of democracy and to ensure a safe environment abroad for market economies. Accordingly, the United States progressively

exempted more and more countries from the section 660 prohibition and expanded

aid to criminal justice agencies abroad under the rubric of rule of law. It also

T
4

amended section 660 in 1996 to permit assistance to civilian police forces in countries emerging from armed conflict. The United States also joined with other countries and the United Nations (U.N.) in reforming and rebuilding foreign police

forces in countries viewed as “transitional democracies” (Poland, El Salvador) or

“failed states” (Bosnia, Haiti).

From 1994 to 1998, the United States spent almost $1 billion on rule-of-law programs

in 184 countries.2 Half the assistance went to 15 countries, most of them in Latin

America. Thirty-five U.S. Government agencies were involved, the largest being AID,

which spent 48.2 percent of the total. In 1986, the U.S. Government created a new

organization to provide specialized training to foreign police—the International

Criminal Investigative Training and Assistance Program (ICITAP). ICITAP is a jerrybuilt agency—organizationally located in the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ),

funded by AID, and supervised by the U.S. Department of State—whose program

has expanded beyond a small number of Caribbean and Central American countries to 63 countries worldwide, with an annual budget of about $50 million.3 The

United States is also sending police abroad to assist in training and monitoring foreign security operations, as in Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, and, most recently, East Timor.

In 1996, an average of 154 police officers were deployed overseas each month. By

1997, the number had grown to 275; by the end of 1999, it had grown to more

than 600. In fiscal year 2000, the U.S. Government spent $75 million on international police deployments, with $20 million more for direct support of the affected

criminal justice systems.4

There has been a parallel growth in the number and nature of multinational interventions in policing as well, again reflecting the transformation of the international

balance of power. Before the late 1980s, U.N. peacekeeping efforts focused almost

entirely on interstate conflicts, such as those between Israel and Egypt or between

Greece and Turkey. In 1988, for example, four of the U.N.’s five peacekeeping operations involved conflict between states. Since 1992, however, 9 of its 11 peacekeeping

operations have been intrastate “complex humanitarian emergencies,” as in Angola,

Bosnia, Cambodia, and Somalia.5 By February 2000, the U.N. had deployed 9,000

civilian police (CIVPOL) around the world.6 The mission of these police is no longer

exclusively monitoring and training. In Kosovo and East Timor, they are now authorized to carry arms and enforce the law. 

The recruitment and training of CIVPOL personnel has become a worldwide undertaking, with 34 nations currently participating in U.N. missions. By the summer of

1999, the International Association of Peacekeeping Training Centers had members
5

from 77 countries. The U.N.’s Institute for Training and Research gives a correspondence course for U.S. college credit called “U.N. Civilian Police: Restoring Order

Following Hostilities” as part of its 11-course syllabus. Students from 93 countries

are enrolled in this program.7

Recognizing that the genie of direct police assistance, especially in support of peacekeeping, was out of the bottle and would likely remain so, President Bill Clinton

issued Presidential Decision Directive 71 (PDD-71) on February 24, 2000, to provide structure and focus to American participation. Specifically, he directed the

Department of State to “take the lead” in forming interagency working groups to

improve American capacity to deploy civilian police; improve American ability to

train foreign police forces, emphasizing especially the protection of human rights;

and “build partnerships with Justice and USAID so that the USG can establish judicial and penal systems during peace operations.”8 PDD-71 specifically mentioned

the need to coordinate the work of ICITAP, DOJ’s Office of Prosecutorial Defense

Assistance and Training (OPDAT), and AID’s Center for Democracy and Governance

and Office of Transition Initiatives. 

In sum, during the 1990s, the U.S. Government gradually learned a major policy

lesson: that security is important to the development of democracy and police are

important to the character of that security. Assisting in the democratic reform of

foreign police systems has become a front-burner issue in American foreign policy.

But there was a second precipitator of American involvement in policing abroad

during the 1990s. The government became increasingly concerned about the rise

in transnational crime, especially crime organized by international criminal groups.

The main threats were trade in illegal drugs, terrorism, money laundering, and 

illegal immigration.9 In order to counter these external criminal threats, the U.S.

Government expanded its efforts to enhance law enforcement capacity in foreign

countries, creating an International Law Enforcement Academy (ILEA) in Budapest,

run by the FBI, and another in Bangkok, run by the DEA. It also increased funding

for the specialized training of foreign police personnel both in the United States

and abroad. 

Because the United States is now deeply involved in police training and assistance

abroad with two explicit agendas—support for democracy and protection against

international criminal activity—it is critically important to reflect on the tactics that

have proven successful in creating and reforming police agencies. Unfortunately,

“getting smart” is not easy. By and large, Americans sent abroad to help democratic
6

police learn on the job.10 They have nothing remotely resembling a manual about

what works in reforming police organizations in aid of democracy. Although there

are long lists of obstacles to police reform abroad, such as corruption, alienated

publics, and enduring habits of repression, there is little shared knowledge about

what to do about these problems.11

In order to remedy, or begin to remedy, this situation, the National Institute of Justice

gave me a grant to canvass systematically three bodies of literature about the process

of reforming the police:

■ Literature on police reform in developed English-speaking countries over the

past 30 years.

■ Accounts of the experience with foreign police assistance by agencies of the 

U.S. Government as well as the U.N.

■ Accounts of the attempts by nongovernmental human rights organizations to

moderate arbitrary and abusive police behavior abroad.

A team of graduate research assistants and I compiled a bibliography of more than

500 books, articles, reports, and documents dealing with the process of changing

police behavior and policy, which we then culled for insights about managing “democratic” reform.12 The bibliography is found at the end of this report. During the

research, it became very clear that people working in each of the three domains—

indigenous reform, foreign-assistance reform, and human rights protection—were

largely unaware of the activities of the others. People engaged in reform abroad

knew little about experience at home; people involved in organizational change at

home knew little about the adaptations required to succeed abroad; and human

rights activists knew a great deal about exposing police abuses but little about how

to stop them. 

The lessons in reforming police organizations are presented in four groups:

(1) Generic lessons for changing any police organization (chapter 3).

(2) Lessons for police reform abroad (chapter 4).

(3) Special lessons for police reform in peacekeeping (chapter 5).

(4) Lessons for American management of police reform abroad (chapter 6).
7

Generic lessons refer to what is known about changing any police organization

regardless of the context. Lessons abroad pertain to reform efforts designed to

change the character of an existing police force. Lessons for policing in peacekeeping apply to situations where the goal is to rebuild and reconstitute a police force

that has ceased to exist. Lessons for management draw out the implications of what

has been learned in the varied contexts for organizing, planning, and implementing

foreign police assistance by the U.S. Government. The lessons are cumulative in the

sense that each chapter’s lessons apply in succeeding chapters. Within each chapter,

lessons are presented in order of increasing specificity.

Because the purpose of this report is to summarize all that is known about democratic police reform, the lessons are presented very concisely; explanations are

added only if required to facilitate understanding what is meant. Each of these lessons could be discussed at great length, for behind each lies a substantial body of

literature reflecting extensive experience with police reform. 

I have also been selective in citing references. Long lists of references would have

been distracting to the reader and take up a great deal of space. More importantly,

I did not want to create the impression that this roster of lessons represents a scientifically documented consensus in the field. The responsibility for designating the

points on this list as “lessons” belongs entirely to me. Other people could read the

same works and find different lessons or challenge those I have found. Some lessons

are well documented; others, only slightly. The citations given should therefore be

considered illustrative, not exhaustive. They are designed to help the reader explore

the topic more fully, rather than as evidence that the “lesson” is unimpeachable.

Assuming that the list of lessons presented in this report represents a fair distillation of what has been learned, it bears out my expectation that there is a great deal

of knowledge that can and should be used in framing an American foreign policy

of democratic police reform. The report enumerates a total of 91 lessons, including

corollaries. For purposes of this report, a corollary is a lesson implied by a more

general point. There are 26 lessons about generic police reform, 27 about reform

assistance abroad outside of peacekeeping, 20 about reform in peacekeeping, and

18 about the management of a foreign policy of police reform. In sum, there is

more learning available to be used in making and implementing American efforts

to democratize foreign police forces than people working either at home or abroad

know about.
8

Notes

1. The President was authorized to allow assistance if it was “important to the

national security interests of the United States” (section 614) and was given

$50 million to be used for classified reasons, presumably for intelligence activities that involved police.

2. General Accounting Office, Foreign Assistance: Rule of Law Funding Worldwide for

Fiscal Years 1993–98, June 1999, Washington, DC: GAO/NSIAD–99–158. This

figure seems too high, considering that there were only 184 country members

of the U.N. during those years. As of August 2000, there are 188 members with

the recent admission of Kiribati, Nauru, and Tonga. I shouldn’t think that the

U.S. had rule-of-law programs in places like Cuba, Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. 

3. ICITAP interview, May 2000.

4. U.S. Department of State, White Paper: The Clinton Administration’s Policy

on Strengthening Criminal Justice Agencies in Support of Peace Operations,

February 24, 2000.

5. Mayall, J., ed., The New Interventionism: 1991–1994, Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1996.

6. Miyet, B. (Manager, U.N. Department of Peacekeeping), “Opening Statement

to the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations,” New York: United

Nations, February 11, 2000.

7. United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR), “Self-Paced

Correspondence Courses on Peacekeeping and Humanitarian Operations

from UNITAR POCI,” New York: Dag Hammarskjold Centre, n.d.

8. U.S. Department of State, “Presidential Decision Directive 71, Strengthening

Criminal Justice Systems in Support of Peace Operations and Other Complex

Contingencies Sub-Interagency Working Groups,” February 24, 2000.

9. Carothers, T., Aiding Democracy Abroad: The Learning Curve, Washington, DC:

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1999; McFarlane J., “Transnational Crime as a Security Issue,” paper for the third meeting of the Working

Group on Transnational Crime, Manila, Philippines, May 1998.
9

10. Barkan, J.D., “Can Established Democracies Nurture Democracy Abroad?

Lessons from Africa,” in Democracy’s Victory and Crisis, ed. A. Hadenius,

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997: 371–403.

11. Carothers, T., Aiding Democracy Abroad: The Learning Curve, (see note 9).

12. I am deeply grateful to Johnna Christian and Eamonn Cunningham, doctoral

students at the School of Criminal Justice, State University of New York at

Albany, for their painstaking assistance in collecting material for this research

and for helping to cull from it the lessons reported here.
The Norms of 

Democratic Policing

C HAPTER2
13

o undertake democratic reform through the police, it is essential to understand what police can do that might accomplish that end. What does a

“democratic” police force look like? This chapter will answer that question

by presenting four normative prescriptions for what the police can do to support

democratic development.1 These prescriptions do not define democracy. Rather,

they are means to that end. 

It should not be presumed that enacting these reforms will lead inevitably to political democracy. Police actions, however “democratic,” are not determinative of democratic growth. Indeed, the causal connection runs strongly in the other direction:

Democratic government is more important for police reform than police reform is

for democratic government. Police reform is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for democratic government. The police tail cannot wag the government dog. 

Although the police cannot bring about political democracy through their own unaided efforts, they can contribute to democratic political development most directly

by acting in accord with the following four norms. This is where the United States

should begin in developing democratic police forces abroad.

1. Police must give top operational priority to servicing the needs of individual

citizens and private groups.

Police are the most public manifestation of governmental authority. When they use

that authority primarily to serve the interests of government, they belie the democratic promise of government for the people. The most dramatic contribution police

can make to democracy is to become responsive to the needs of individual citizens.

This is what the various emergency telephone systems, such as 911, have achieved

in the developed democracies. Research shows that in Australia, Britain, Canada,

Japan, and the United States, most of the work done by the police is instigated by

individual members of the public rather than by orders issued by government. In

the United States, any citizen with access to a telephone can summon a uniformed

representative of the state who is imbued with the authority of law and equipped

with instruments of force to attend to his or her particular need. Although chiefs of

police in the United States complain about the burden of reacting to calls for service,

especially those that do not involve serious criminal matters, the 911 system should

be viewed as a major contribution to civilized government. It represents a transformation in the orientation of police that is still very rare among the world’s police

forces and that has occurred comparatively recently in the developed democracies. 

T
14

A police force whose primary business is serving the disaggregate public supports

democracy in two ways. First, it becomes accountable to the most diverse set of

interests possible. Second, it enhances the legitimacy of government by demonstrating daily and practically that the authority of the state will be used in the interests of

the people. In most countries today, this sort of responsive, service-oriented policing

would be a radical—indeed, revolutionary—departure from traditional behavior.

Creating such a force would do more for the legitimacy of government than any

other social program, and its effects would be immediate.2

2. Police must be accountable to the law rather than to the government.

In a democracy, the actions of government are constrained by law, that is, by decisions made and publicized after due representative deliberation. Police actions in a

democracy must therefore be governed by the rule of law rather than by directions

given arbitrarily by particular regimes and their members. Democratic police do

not make law; they apply it, and even then their judgments need to be validated

by courts. 

3. Police must protect human rights, especially those that are required for the sort

of unfettered political activity that is the hallmark of democracy.

Democracy requires not only that the police, part of the executive arm of the state,

be constrained by law but also that they make a special effort to safeguard activities

that are essential to the exercise of democracy. These activities are freedom of speech,

association, and movement; freedom from arbitrary arrest, detention, and exile; and

impartiality in the administration of law.3 In other words, democracy requires not

only the rule of law but law with a particular content. The problem is that the police

are not responsible for the content of law; government is. Paradoxically, then, the

obligations on the police to be accountable to the rule of law and to protect human

rights may conflict, as, for example, when if the law requires them to act in an arbitrary and repressive way. On their own, the best that the police can do with respect

to human rights is to “push the envelope” of normative behavior, to be better than

government requires, so as to show what democracy means in practice and to

encourage the public to press for it.

4. Police should be transparent in their activities.

Police activity must be open to observation and regularly reported to outsiders. This

requirement applies to information about the behavior of individual officers as well
15

as to the operations of the institution as a whole, especially whether the police are

achieving the results expected in a cost-efficient manner. 

Police forces cannot achieve democracy on their own, but if they act according to

these four norms, the chances that democracy will grow will substantially increase.

These are the levers for bringing about democracy through police reform. 

Notes

1. Marenin, O., “The Goal of Democracy in International Police Assistance Programs, Policing 21 (1) (1998): 159–77; United Nations High Commissioner for

Human Rights, Centre for Human Rights, International Human Rights Standards

for Law Enforcement: A Pocket Book on Human Rights for the Police, New York:

United Nations, 1996; United Nations International Police Task Force (BosniaHerzegovina), Commissioner’s Guidance, Sarajevo: United Nations International

Police Task Force (Bosnia-Herzegovina), 1996.

2. Bayley, D.H., “Who are We Kidding? or Developing Democracy Through

Police Reform,” in Policing in Emerging Democracies: Workshop Papers and Highlights, Research Report, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National

Institute of Justice, 1997, NCJ 167024: 59–64; Goldsmith, A., “Democratization

and Criminal Justice: Human Rights and Police Reform in Colombia,” unpublished draft, March 1995.

3. Annan, K., “Stop Blaming Colonialism, U.N. Chief Tells Africa,” New York Times,

April 17, 1998: A3; Bayley, D.H., Public Liberties in the New States, Chicago:

Rand McNally, 1963.
Generic Lessons 

for Changing 

Police Organizations

C HAPTER3
19

he publication in 1967 of the report of the President’s Commission on Law

Enforcement and the Administration of Justice ushered in what has sometimes been called the “scientific age” of American policing. Since then, the

effectiveness of the standard strategies of policing and the tactical behavior of police

officers have been carefully evaluated.1 The findings of this research and the development of a more ambitious, intellectual, and open-minded cadre of senior police

executives have led to intense efforts to change the policies and practices of American

policing. Undoubtedly the best known example of this has been the development of

community-oriented policing. Similar reappraisals have taken place in Australia,

Britain, Canada, the Netherlands, and a handful of other established democracies. 

As a result, there is now a wealth of experience with respect to the management of

change in police forces. Unfortunately, the lessons from it have never been carefully

collected and enumerated.2 Police executives rarely write about their managerial

techniques, and drawing lessons out of them face to face is like pulling teeth. They

are much better talking about their goals and accomplishments than their managerial

strategies. For this reason, most of the insights into the planned change of policing

come from academic observers and are scattered through many studies. 

Following are what I believe to be the 17 core lessons that have been learned about

changing the standard operating practices of police forces in developed democratic

countries.

1. Any reform program must be based on a clearly articulated understanding of

the connections between the objectives to be achieved and the actions proposed.

Too often, reform programs are justified exclusively in terms of the desirability of their

goals rather than their feasibility. Programs and money are thrown at problems without any specification as to how they will produce the desired result. To be successful,

however, reform programs must be constructed on the basis of strong theories supported by real-world experience, and describe how they will achieve their intended

goals. Such explanations need not be abstruse academic theories; they could be simply stories that plausibly link reform inputs to desired changes.3 But they must connect proposed changes with the particular objectives of reform. Policing is complex,

and not all objectives can be achieved through the same programs. 

T
20

2. Sustained and committed leadership by top management, especially the most

senior executive, is required to produce any important organizational change.

This is probably the most frequently repeated lesson of reform management.4 It

applies to any sort of reform effort, from administrative processes to operational

strategies and tactical behavior. Significant reform cannot be brought about by

stealth from below against the indifference or hostility of senior managers. 

3. The key to changing any aspect of policing is management, that is, the way in

which the members of a police organization are brought to do what policies call for.

Significant change does not occur through issuing orders or stating goals. Managers

at all levels must create the conditions that encourage, facilitate, and oblige people

to do what is desired. This commonly involves developing appropriate programs of

recruitment, training, promotion, resource allocation, supervision, research and evaluation, reporting, and work routines. The grain of the organization must be made to

work with reform rather than against it.5

Corollary: Organizational change does not occur through changing personnel; it

requires changing the system and culture of an organization.

Police executives tend to manage by personality. When a problem arises, they assign

a particular person to solve it. This may work well for crisis management, but not

for bringing about institutional change.6

Corollary: Recruitment and training of new personnel are not sufficient to bring

about reform. The benefits of both are lost if they are not reinforced by management

systems.7

This lesson, too, is a staple of writing about change in police and other complex

organizations.8 Police officers are notoriously skeptical about new programs, especially when each change in leadership brings a new “flavor of the month.” This

skepticism reflects in part their experience with training as recruits, which is

regarded almost universally as irrelevant to what they encounter on the job. 

Corollary: Police are more likely to be convinced of the value of a new program

by word-of-mouth from other police than by statistical evaluation of results.9
21

This observation has been made over and over again by people who have been

involved in training police officers.

Corollary: Training designed to change behavior must be regularly reinforced

through tangible rewards or costs.10

Personnel must be evaluated in terms of their performance with respect to the

reform program, and performance should then be reflected in promotions, 

assignments, and pay increases. 

4. Police behavior cannot be changed by formal reorganization within the police

or by restructuring on a national basis.

Although this lesson is widely recognized, it is just as often ignored by reformers.

Indeed, shuffling the boxes in the organizational chart is often the first, and sometimes the only, thing that managers do.11 Yet changing the structure of organizations

rarely affects operational behavior because it does not touch the “culture” of an organization, that is, what the workers themselves think is expected of them. Reform in

policing must be managed, not structured, into existence.

The same is true with respect to efforts to restructure the police nationally throughout a country. Americans frequently recommend to foreigners that they decentralize

their police operations, as the United States has done in a radical way.12 But the structure of national police systems is very difficult to change.13 Furthermore, democracy

is compatible with both centralized and decentralized police systems.14 Centralized

systems may be service oriented, accountable to law, protective of human rights,

and transparent, whereas decentralized systems may be none of these. 

Organizational changes may be useful if they are used to signal the importance of

new programs. By themselves, however, not only are they unlikely to produce democratic reform, but they will divert attention from the more important job of changing operational practices. As Petronius, the emperor Nero’s “arbiter elegantiae,” is

credited with saying: 

We trained very hard—but it seems that every time we were beginning

to form up into teams we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life

that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing: and a wonderful

method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralization.15
22

If democratic change is the objective of police reform, more attention should be

given to the management of personnel than to the formal structure of either the

police force or the police system of the country as a whole.

5. Material resources may support desired changes, but they are rarely essential

and never sufficient to bring them about.

Democratic reform cannot be achieved by investing in the material basis of policing,

whether in personnel or in equipment. Institutionalizing the four norms of democratic policing described in chapter 2 requires changing police behavior on the job.

Infusions of resources may facilitate this process but will not bring it about. Stories

abound about equipment being provided or salaries raised without producing any

meaningful improvement in service responsiveness, accountability, human rights, or

transparency.16 The best that can be said is that providing additional resources may

improve the morale of police and thereby increase their willingness to accept changes.

The theory implied by this statement is that resources do not increase democratic

behavior unless morale rises and resistance to change diminishes. Obviously, many

other things must also change for increased resources to produce these results.

It is important to distinguish the role of resources with respect to the goal of enhancing police capacity as opposed to the goal of changing police character. Additional

resources may contribute directly to the former, but only in a roundabout way to

the latter. In other words, resources are important to democratic reform only to the

extent that they enhance law enforcement effectiveness. In particular, many people

have observed, as we shall see in chapter 4, that democratic reform is unlikely to

occur if it comes at the expense of effectiveness. If this is so, then resources may

be more important to democratic reform than I have suggested. 

6. Significant reform requires widespread acceptance across ranks and assignments

in a police department.

Along with the importance of committed leadership, this is the most often repeated

lesson of successful reform.17 To obtain this necessary “buy-in” by all members of a

police force, successful reform generally involves the following sequential activities:

“brainstorming” by senior managers and carefully chosen colleagues about operational problems, creation of task forces from all ranks to devise concrete plans, discussion of proposed plans in seminars in all units and among all managerial ranks,

development of pilot projects to test feasibility in the field on the clear understanding
23

that the objective is to determine how to carry out the program and not whether to

undertake it, and implementation of the new program throughout the department.18

The clear implication of this process is that achieving reform in police forces is time

consuming and labor intensive. It is a cumulative activity that requires intelligence,

commitment, and, ultimately, the involvement of everyone.

Corollary: Extensive and genuine consultation is the best way to obtain acceptance

of new programs.

Police respond best when they believe that new programs incorporate their own

insights and on-the-job knowledge. Programs of change should begin, therefore,

by asking workers how they would solve a particular problem.19 Reform requires

a bottom-up management style.

Corollary: In developing new programs, managers must enlist support even from

officers not directly involved so that an “us versus them” mentality does not arise.

Corollary: Because the quality of supervision is critical to reform, people at each

supervisory level must be retrained with respect to the substance of the new program and its implications for them.20

Reform requires the acceptance of new responsibilities by all managers and supervisors. These new responsibilities are rarely welcomed. Most police managers prefer to

audit and monitor rather than manage and facilitate.21 This is understandable, as following orders is less risky than taking responsibility for facilitative supervision and

problem solving. 

7. When pilot projects are undertaken, they must have committed leadership and

personnel who are not continually pulled away for other purposes.

The importance of leadership in innovation, whether of a police force as a whole or

of a pilot project, is a lesson repeatedly stressed by observers. What is less obvious

is that because innovation represents a change in operational habits of an organization, there is a tendency to subordinate its needs to customary operations.22 People

assigned to new programs are viewed as a reservoir to be drawn on when traditional activities become hard pressed. But innovation needs consistent implementation, more so than routine operations, precisely because its activities have not

become institutionalized.
24

8. Police officers will not change their behavior unless they perceive it to be in

their personal interest to do so.

Changes that increase work or are perceived to be troublesome will not be adopted.

Change must work for the workers.23

Corollary: Reform will not occur unless the criteria for evaluating individual performance encourage the sort of behavior that reform requires.24

9. Reformers both inside and outside police organizations should be careful not to

denigrate the motivation, knowledge, or skill of the people whose behavior they

are trying to change.

Denigration can occur unintentionally if proponents of change imply that the people

whose behavior they want to change are personally at fault. Sometimes this is true,

as in the case of willful misuse of force. More often, however, they have been doing

the best they can with what they have been given, both materially and organizationally.25 Sensitivity in advocacy is the solution to this problem in the short run. In the

long run, the problem can be minimized if police agencies develop an experimental

mindset that allows for regular evaluation of the effectiveness of what is being done

and a willingness to admit failure without blame.26

10. Program evaluations that emphasize outputs rather than outcomes as a 

measure of success inhibit organizational creativity.

A distinction is made in writing about organizations between “output” (what is

done) and “outcomes” (what is achieved). Patrolling, for example, is an output of

the police, and it may or may not reduce crime, which is its desired outcome. In

recent years, a great deal of attention has been given to developing “performance

indicators” for the police. This movement has been especially strong in Britain.27

Most performance indicators focus, unfortunately, on outputs rather than outcomes,

with the result that police officers give more attention to reporting what they do

rather than what they achieve. This causes them to become preoccupied with meeting norms of activity rather than adapting their activity to produce desired results,

which in turn discourages innovation and reduces operational flexibility.

11. Reform requires that new programs be monitored so that midcourse changes

can be made. At the same time, burdensome evaluation can discourage reform.28
25

12. Change is more likely to occur when new resources are made available rather

than when existing ones are redistributed.

Providing new resources reduces resistance to change by allowing new activities to

be undertaken without penalizing existing ones.29 In the case of community policing,

for example—arguably the most important strategic reorientation of policing in the

last generation—only Edmonton, Canada, and Singapore, among large police departments, implemented it, to my knowledge, without an infusion of new funds. Without

new money, the odds are very long against reform that requires widespread accommodation to new practices.

13. If the incidence of crime and disorder is thought to be unacceptable or

increasing, police reform will be inhibited.

When public security is at risk, reform is likely to be seen by both the public and the

police as a distraction from the main purpose.30 The tragic implication is that police

reform is least likely to occur when it is most needed. Insecurity might, of course,

breed desperation and thereby encourage reform, but the instability inherent in such

situations makes reform problematic.

Corollary: To make changes in current strategies and tactics, police officers need to

be shown that the new programs will achieve the goals of the institution as well as

or better than the old programs. 

Because police officers identify with the institution’s goals—usually controlling crime

and disorder—they will not change their behavior without evidence that doing so

will improve, or at least not reduce, organizational effectiveness.31 This means that

reformers need to convince rank-and-file members that change will not come at the

expense of public order and crime control.

14. Increasing contacts between police personnel and respectable, noncriminal

members of the public is an important way of encouraging the development of

an accountable, service-oriented police organization.

Police tend to believe that the public regards them less well than it does. The primary

reason for this belief is that the contacts police have with the public are skewed toward

those who are disorderly, criminal, needy, or incompetent.32 In almost every neighborhood and in every society, there is a suppressed demand for responsive, sympathetic
26

policing.33 One important way to convince police of this demand is to expand their

contacts with the vast noncriminal, nontroublesome public. This can be done a variety of ways: by allowing civilians to use police facilities for meetings, civilianizing

staff positions, rewarding officers for taking an active part in community activities,

inviting civilians to observe police work, organizing joint training between police

and civilians, and holding regular meetings with citizens at all jurisdictional levels. 

15. Issuing clear statements of organizational policy accompanied by appropriate

positive and negative sanctions is a powerful way to change the behavior of police

officers, even in situations of high stress and urgency.34

Police executives often argue that they have limited control over the behavior of

their officers, such as the use of force, when officers are in situations of high stress

and possible danger. Research has shown, however, that police executives are not as

helpless as they think. Determined leadership coupled with skilled management can

substantially reduce the shooting of civilians, the abuse of nondeadly force, and corruption. Police management can also standardize the handling of domestic violence

and regulate the incidence of high-speed vehicle chases.35 Police culture can act as a

brake on change, but it is not the irresistible force often portrayed.

16. Reform is more likely to occur if police officials are connected to professional

networks of progressive police leaders (regional, national, and international).

Police managers want to appear modern and progressive. Their desire to be well

regarded by their peers can be used to encourage democratic reform.36 Regular contact with professional networks, inviting comparison and providing opportunities

for learning, is one way to do this. International professional associations, such as

the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the International Association

for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement, are especially important because their

leaders are likely to come from more progressive police forces and more democratic countries. 

17. Labor organizations within the police must be included in the development and

planning of any reform program.

In the United States, police unions can make or break reform. Police executives

complain continually that the unions have become so powerful that managers have

lost control of their departments.37 Frustrating though it may be to reformers, their
27

efforts are more likely to be successful if unions are included in planning from the

beginning rather than being ignored. Unions are part of modern policing and their

help must be solicited if reform is to succeed. 

Notes

1. Bayley, D.H., What Works in Policing, New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.

2. The most substantial attempt to pinpoint lessons from experience with community

policing is just now being completed by the Kennedy School of Government,

Harvard University, for the Urban Institute under a grant from the Office of Community Oriented Policing of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

3. Braithwaite, J. “Beyond Positivism: Learning from Contextual Integrated Strategies,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 30(4) (1993): 383–99; Goldstein, H., Problem Oriented Policing, Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990.

4. Couper, D.C., and S.H. Lobitz, Quality Policing: The Madison Experience,

Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum, 1991; Skolnick, J.H., and

D.H. Bayley, The New Blue Line: Police Innovation in Six American Cities, New

York: The Free Press, 1986; Sparrow, M., H. Moore, and D. Kennedy, Beyond

911: A New Era for Policing, New York: Basic Books, 1990.

5. Chatterton, M., and M. Rogers, “Focused Policing,” in Coming to Terms With

Policing: Perspectives on Policy, ed. R. Morgan and D.J. Smith, New York: Routledge, 1989: 64–81; Fielding, N., C. Kemp, and C. Norris, “Constraints on the

Practice of Community Policing,” in Coming to Terms With Policing: Perspectives

on Policy, ed. R. Morgan and D.J. Smith, London: Routledge, 1989: 49–63;

Smith, D.H., and J. Gray, Police and People in London: No. IV—The Police in

Action, London: Police Studies Institute, 1983; Sparrow, M., H. Moore, and

D. Kennedy, Beyond 911 (see note 4).

6. Skolnick, J.H., Justice Without Trial, New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1966.

7. Mastrofski, S.D., “Policing for People,” Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1999. NCJ 188061.

8. Hall, R.H., Organizations: Structures, Processes, and Outcomes (5th ed.) Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1991; French, W.L., and C.H. Bell, Organizational Development: Behavioral Science Interventions for Organizational Development,

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1995.
28

9. Toch, H., J.D. Grant, and R.T. Galvin, Agents of Change: A Study in Police Reform,

New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1973.

10. Boydstun, J.E., and M.E. Sherry, San Diego Community Profile: Final Report,

Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1975,

NCJ 30160; McElroy, J.E., C.A. Cosgrove, and S. Sadd, Community Policing: The

CPOP in New York, Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1993; Neild, R. “Police Training,”

In Washington Office on Latin America, Themes and Debates in Public Security

Reform: A Manual for Civil Society, Washington, DC: Washington Office on Latin

America, 1998.

11. Bayley, D.H., “Comparative Organization of the Police in English-Speaking

Countries,” in Modern Policing, ed. M. Tonry and N. Morris, Chicago: University

of Chicago Press, 1992: 509–46.

12. Bayley, D.H., “The Limits of Police Reform,” in Police and Society, ed. D.H.

Bayley, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1996, chapter 10; Bayley, D.H.,

“Who are We Kidding? or Developing Democracy Through Police Reform,”

in Policing in Emerging Democracies: Workshop Papers and Highlights, Research

Report, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of

Justice, 1997, NCJ 167024.

13. Bayley, D.H., “The Police and Political Development in Europe,” in The Formation of National States in Western Europe, ed. C. Tilly, Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press, 1975.

14. Bayley, D.H., Patterns of Policing, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press,

1985; Lustgarden, L., The Governance of Police, London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1986.

15. Quoted in Bayley, D.H., Police for the Future, New York: Oxford University Press,

1994.

16. Roth, J.A., et al., National Evaluation of the COPS Program—Title I of the 1994

Crime Act, Research Report, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,

National Institute of Justice, 2000, NCJ 183643; Chatterton, M.R., “Targeting

Community Beat Officers: Organizational Constraints and Resistance,” Policing

and Society 3(3) (1993): 189–204.

17. Cooper, D.C., and S.H. Lobitz, Quality Policing: The Madison Experience, (see note 4);

Guyot, D., Policing as Though People Matter, Philadelphia: Temple University Press,

1991; Kelling, G.L., and M.A. Wycoff, “Implementing Community Policing: The

Administrative Problem,” paper for the Executive Session on Police, February

28–30, 1991; Sadd, S., and R. Grinc, “Innovative Neighborhood Oriented Policing:
29

An Evaluation of Community Policing Programs in Eight Cities,” in The Challenge

of Community Policing: Testing the Promises, ed. D. Rosenbaum, Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications, 1994: 27–52; Seattle Police Department, Burglary Reduction

Program—Final Evaluation, Seattle, WA: Seattle Police Department, 1975.

18. Brown, L.P., “Community Policing: A Practical Guide for Police Officers,” The

Police Chief, August 1989: 72–82; Bayley, D.H., A Model of Community Policing:

The Singapore Story, Research Report, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,

National Institute of Justice, 1989, NCJ 116019; Roth, J.A., et al. National Evaluation of the COPS Program—Title I of the 1994 Crime Act, (see note 16); Oettmeier, T.

and W.H. Bieck, “Developing a Policing Style for Neighborhood Oriented Policing,”

Houston Police Department, n.d.; Cronin, R.C., Innovative Community Partnerships: Working Together for Change, Program Summary, Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,

1994, NCJ 147483; White, T.W., and R.A. Gillice, Neighborhood Team Policing

in Boulder, Colorado—A Case Study, Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 1977.

19. Toch, H., “Mobilizing Police Expertise,” The Annals (November 1980): 53–62.

20. U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, “Memorandum for

the Attorney General: Department of Justice International Training Activities,”

Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1999;

Wiles, P., “Policing Structures, Organizational Changes and Personnel Management,” Sheehy Inquiry Seminar, internal document, 1993; Skolnick, J.H., and

D.H. Bayley, The New Blue Line (see note 4).

21. Goldstein, H., Problem Oriented Policing, Philadelphia: Temple University Press,

1990; Skogan, W.G., Disorder and Decline, New York: The Free Press, 1990;

Bradley, D.W., and R. Wilkie, Managing the Police: Law, Organization and 

Democracy, Brighton, UK: Wheatsheaf Books, 1986.

22. Pate, A.M., “Community Policing Grows in Brooklyn: An Inside View of the

New York City Police Department’s Model Precinct,” Crime and Delinquency 40

(1996): 384–410; “Police Program Review,” Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Justice, National Institute of Justice, internal document, January 15, 1999.

23. Betjemann, W.N., Innovation and Social Change—A Review of the Albany Police

Department Neighborhood Police Concept, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1975, NCJ 34718; Pate, A.M., “Community

Policing Grows in Brooklyn” (see note 22); Trojanowicz, R., and B. Bucqueroux,

Community Policing: A Contemporary Perspective, Cincinnati, OH: Anderson, 1990;

Uildriks, N., and H. van Mastright, Policing Police Violence, Aberdeen, Scotland:

Aberdeen University Press, 1991.
30

24. Asbury, K., “Innovative Policing: Foot Patrol in 31 Division, Metropolitan

Toronto,” Canadian Police College Journal, 13(3) 1989; Greene, J.R., and S.D.

Mastrofski, Community Policing: Rhetoric or Reality, New York: Praeger, 1988;

McCleery, R.H., Policy Change in Prison Management: A Test Case for Administrative Analysis, East Lansing, MI: Governmental Research Bureau, Michigan State

University, 1957; Norman, M., “Officer Jett’s Laboratory,” New York Times Magazine, December 12, 1993: 62ff; Wycoff, M., “Improving Police Performance

Measurement: One More Voice,” The Urban Interest 4 (1) (Spring 1982).

25. Cooper, D.C., and S.H. Lobitz, Quality Policing: The Madison Experience (see note 4);

Marks, M., “Changing Police, Policing Change,” Society in Transition 28 (1997):

54–69; Oettmeier, T. and W.H. Bieck, “Developing a Policing Style for Neighborhood Oriented Policing,” (see note 18).

26. Reiss, A.J., “Police Organization in the Twentieth Century,” in Modern Policing, ed.

M. Tonry and N. Morris, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992; Sherman,

L.W., “The Police,” in Crime, ed. J.Q. Wilson and J. Petersilia, San Francisco:

ICS Press, 1995.

27. Bayley, D.H., Police for the Future, New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.

28. Pate, A.M., “Community Policing Grows in Brooklyn” (see note 22).

29. Roth, J.A., et al. National Evaluation of the COPS Program—Title I of the 1994

Crime Act (see note 16).

30. Kelling, G.L., and C.M. Coles, Fixing Broken Windows: Restoring Order and Reducing

Crime in Our Communities, New York: The Free Press, 1996; Sparrow, M., H. Moore,

and D. Kennedy, Beyond 911 (see note 4).

31. Cronin, R.C. “Innovative Community Partnerships: Working Together for

Change,” (see note 18); Goldstein, H., Problem Oriented Policing, (see note 21);

Mastrofski, S.D., “Community Policing and Police Organization Structure,” in

How to Recognize Good Policing, ed. J.P. Brodeur, ed., Thousand Oaks, CA: Police

Executive Research Forum and Sage Publications, 1998: 161–89.

32. Bayley, D.H., Police for the Future (see note 27).

33. Police Foundation, Reducing Fear of Crime in Houston and Newark: Summary

Report, Washington, DC: Police Foundation, 1986; Goldstein, H., Problem

Oriented Policing (see note 21).
31

34. Fyfe, J.J., “Police Use of Deadly Force: Research and Reform,” Justice Quarterly

5(2) (1988): 165–205; Walker, S., “The Rule Revolution: Reflections on the

Transformation of American Criminal Justice, 1950–1988.” Working Papers,

Series #3. Institute of Legal Studies, 1988.

35. Walker, S. “Achieving Police Accountability,” Occasional Paper No. 3. New York:

Center on Crime, Communities, and Culture, 1998.

36. Goldsmith, A., “Democratization and Criminal Justice: Human Rights and

Police Reform in Colombia,” unpublished draft, March 1995.

37. Fitzgerald Report, Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and

Associated Police Misconduct, Report, Brisbane, Australia, 1989; Skolnick, J.H.,

and D.H. Bayley, The New Blue Line (see note 4); Sparrow, M., H. Moore, and

D. Kennedy, Beyond 911 (see note 4).
Lessons for Police 

Reform Abroad

C HAPTER4
35

his chapter deals with the knowledge people have gleaned from efforts

to reform police systems abroad. The assumption behind these lessons is

that the assistance is intended to create police forces that function more

democratically. Enhancing the capability of the local police for crime control and

law enforcement, which is often also an American objective, is not the concern here.

The context of these efforts is countries with functioning governments but with

police forces whose character is not supportive of democracy. The next chapter will

examine a more restrictive arena of foreign police reform, namely, the rebuilding of

police forces in countries where government has ceased to exist altogether due to

political strife, ethnic violence, and economic collapse.

1. Foreign assistance cannot produce democratic reform against the opposition of

the host government.

The success of foreign assistance in promoting democratic policing is directly proportional to the country’s enthusiasm for it. It is not that government approval of

reform is a sufficient condition for success. Reform is tricky even with wholehearted

political support, as we have seen in the United States. But if government is opposed

to reform, reform has no chance of success at all. Any institutional changes, whether

of policy, training, or supervision, can be undermined by a determined regime.1 As

the Carnegie Commission on the Prevention of Deadly Conflict has said, “Foreign

donors must look for, or find, ways to use leverage to generate this political commitment, or assistance may be consumed eagerly, but with little impact.”2 It therefore

follows that foreign assistance programs designed to achieve reform must be built

on foreign “demand” rather than on donor “supply.” Demand is the best guarantor

of the sustainability of any assistance initiative.3

Some have concluded from this axiom that the United States should never assist foreign police forces in countries that do not have committed democratic governments,

especially if the objective of assistance is democratic reform.4 Margaret Popkin, for

example, suggests a triage approach: substantial support to democratic countries,

none at all to nondemocratic countries, and selective assistance to countries where

it might reinforce democratic development.5 The United States has only occasionally

followed this stricture. ICITAP withdrew from Liberia for several months in 1997

when President Charles Taylor appointed his cousin, a man known for horrendous

human rights abuses, as chief of the country’s police. It also held off training the

police in Panama for several months in 1990 when the military refused to relinquish

control. On the other hand, Thomas Carothers argues that there may be a role for

assistance even when the political climate is oppressive. Specifically, he suggests that

T
36

in addition to facilitating willing change, foreign assistance can discourage backsliding when reform is stalled and give voice to reform in the face of repression.6

Although observers disagree about the precise application of this lesson, they accept

the premise that programs must be crafted to fit different political circumstances.

Institutional policies and practices are not interchangeable parts.7 At the same time,

the United States must be very cautious about assisting countries with undemocratic

governments, not only because it may be investing unrealistically but also because

assistance of any sort may enhance the capacity for repression as well as connoting

approval for the regime.8

2. All police reform is political in the sense that it affects the position and interests

of different groups of people both inside and outside the police.

In giving assistance to foreign police, the United States must be alert to the effects

of such assistance on the distribution of power and influence. Assistance serves

some interests more than others, strengthens the ability to do one thing rather than

another, and encourages some people and discourages others. All foreign assistance

to police must be examined for these effects, especially for its impact on democratic

possibilities.9 It follows that reform should not be soft-pedaled simply because it

may be “political,” (i.e., controversial). The question is not whether assistance is

political—it all is—but what its likely consequences are for American objectives.

3. The norms of democratic policing may be achieved by different institutional

mechanisms in different countries.

Democratic reform abroad cannot be achieved through the mechanistic importation

of practices that work in the United States. As Carothers says:

Unconsciously or consciously, many Americans confuse the forms of

democracy with the concept of democracy. There is an unfortunate combination of hubristic belief that America’s political ways are the most democratic in the world and lack of knowledge about political life in other

democratic countries.10

Institutions and practices that support democracy in one country may not do so in

another. For example, community policing may produce a constructive partnership

between police and the public in the United States, but in authoritarian countries

it can be used for co-optation and top-down regimentation. Similarly, mobilizing

neighborhoods to share policing responsibilities with the police, which has become
37

popular in established democracies, can be very dangerous in countries polarized by

race, language, religion, and ethnicity.11

Corollary: Foreign experts tend to recommend what they are familiar with at home

regardless of its local applicability. 

Americans often assume that whatever police do in the United States is democratic.12

For example, American occupation authorities in Germany and Japan after World

War II decentralized the police, authorizing cities and major towns to create their

own police forces. As soon as the occupations ended, both countries undid the

decentralization—Germans making the police accountable to the states (Länder);

Japanese, to the national government.13

4. To produce democratic reform abroad, programs of police foreign assistance

must be adapted to local conditions. This requires the collection and analysis of

information about the traditions and practices of the police as well as about society

in general.

Whatever the context of reform—domestic, foreign, peacekeeping—reform interventions need to be based on careful analysis of the appropriateness of desired

objectives and the feasibility of implementation.14 In the views of many, American

efforts have relied too heavily on “drop in” courses, “turnkey” programs, and “cookie

cutter” projects designed without sufficient knowledge of local conditions. Strong

foreign assistance requires investing in knowledge of local circumstances and in

expert discussions about how those circumstances may affect implementation. This

is not a simple requirement that can be met in a perfunctory way. When I asked a

Bosnian chief of police what a foreigner ought to know to provide sensible advice

about democratic reform, he replied succinctly, “Everything.”15

Corollary: Police reform cannot be left to police experts, but must involve area

specialists, social scientists, and historians.16

Corollary: The most “developed” police are not necessarily the best models from

which reforming police should learn. Foreign advisors must learn that sophisticated

technologies, especially equipment, may not be the most appropriate technologies. 

Corollary: Foreign police assistance programs need as much advance planning as

military operations, clearly specifying objectives, implementation actions, resource

requirements, and timetables.17
38

The implication for policymakers is that assistance should not be provided if analysis shows that the amount provided for reform is inadequate, the capacity to use it

undeveloped, the institutional culture uncongenial, and the political climate hostile.

If the analysis of possibilities does not have consequences for policy, it is an empty

exercise. 

5. No amount of external inducement or pressure can produce democratic reform

against the hostility or indifference of the indigenous police. Unless a foreign

police force is seriously committed to reform, it will not occur.

This lesson follows from the proposition in the preceding chapter that leadership

from the top is essential for meaningful reform in any police force. It is important to

remember as well that resistance to change is the rule rather than the exception in

any organization. 

Corollary: Foreign assistance programs are unlikely to contribute to reform unless

they reinforce plans already developed abroad or are part of larger American efforts

to change the institutional culture of the foreign organization. 

So foreign assistance programs must invest time and money in persuading indigenous

police leaders that reform is in their interest. The programs must obtain “buy-in,”

which means active commitment, not just passive acquiescence.18

6. Foreign assistance personnel operating abroad must guard against condescension in their relations with local police. The fact that a country might profit from

assistance does not mean that its practitioners are unsophisticated.

This point is similar to the lesson from American reform that proponents of new

programs should not denigrate the contribution of people working under the old

programs. In the case of foreign assistance, neediness is often mistakenly perceived

as inferiority. The United States should not treat a foreign country “like a kid,” as

one Ukrainian official complained at a Washington conference.

7. Democratic police reform requires the separation of police from the military.

The reasoning behind this principle is that the military’s mission is so different from

that of the police that each contaminates the other. Democratic policing especially is
39

undermined by military involvement, because soldiers take orders from above rather

than responding to the appeals of individual citizens; their use of force is much less

restrained, and secrecy is a more ingrained mindset. Conversely, military officers in

developed democracies recognized long ago that police duties were antithetical to

their war-fighting mission. Policing requires mediation skills, the exercise of discretion in the use of authority, and a facilitative style of supervision. For these reasons,

the U.S. Department of Defense strongly supports the creation of an American civilian police force that can be deployed overseas precisely because it will prevent the

military services from performing law enforcement duties.19

8. The growth of violence, crime, and civil strife will subordinate police reform to

the enhancement of police capacity.

This lesson has been demonstrated repeatedly throughout the world. Failure to provide public security undermines the legitimacy of government and encourages further social disorder.20 Unfortunately, countries negotiating transitions to democracy

are likely to face the very conditions that make internal security uncertain: poverty,

unemployment, civil unrest, ineffective institutions of criminal justice, vigilantism,

and acute distrust between the public and the police. Therefore, the achievement of

effective but humane public order is a priority condition for democratic development.

Yet order is not a sufficient guarantee for democracy. Police reformers face the

dilemma that although enhancing the crime-control effectiveness of the police may

be necessary to achieve democracy, it may also endanger it by reinforcing the power

of repressive institutions. The development of law enforcement capacity is not a

substitute for reform. 

Corollary: Civil unrest, including high levels of crime, causes police and military

functions to become intermingled, thereby retarding the separation of the military

from the police.21

Especially when governments are threatened by insurrection or prolonged group

violence, the functions of the police and military degrade toward one another. The

military begin to operate domestically, and the police take on the characteristics

of armies, such as patrolling in groups and employing heavy weapons. The police

become more centralized, more closed, more suspicious of the public, less protective of human rights, and less willing to disband discredited units.22
40

9. The impulse to democratic reform may be weakened by the public’s belief that

reform will make it more vulnerable to crime and disorder.

As with the police, so with the public: The desire for safety may trump the putative

value of democratic reforms such as responsiveness, accountability, protection of

human rights, and transparency. It is a mistake to think the public is more enlightened than the police. Being “tough on crime” is often exactly what the public wants,

especially in the unsettled conditions of countries undergoing transitions from autocracy to democracy.23 “Civil society,” which so much American assistance attempts to

strengthen, may not be so civil.24

Corollary: Programs of democratic reform should try to produce tangible results in

terms of security and justice as soon as possible.

The public needs to be reassured that democratic policing is not weak policing.25

10. Nongovernmental organizations dedicated to protecting human rights must

learn to work with, as well as against, the police.

Human rights organizations are already learning that they have “an emerging dual

role—in encouraging reform and condemning continued abuse.”26 Unremitting criticism of the police can be counterproductive—distancing police from dissenting

voices, making the police less willing to admit abuses, tainting reformers within the

police as turncoats, and undermining the willingness of police officers to bring other

officers to account.27 The exposure of abuses does not automatically lead to reform.

Police must be helped to assume responsibility for their own behavior. This requires

outsiders to show police that adhering to democratic standards will make their lives

easier, not more difficult.

11. Creating effective disciplinary systems within the police should be a first-order

priority in democratic reform.

Preventing unlawful actions and the infringement of human rights is a core goal of

democratic reform. People in democratizing countries desperately long for justice

in the sense of humane, impartial enforcement of law.28 But there is another reason

for setting up effective internal disciplinary mechanisms. Research has shown that

when the public cooperates with the police by reporting crime, identifying suspects,

and mitigating the social conditions that lead to crime, the police become more

effective in their public safety role.29 The police themselves have a great deal to gain
41

by overcoming public hostility, which is so often the legacy of former repression.

Instilling effective discipline within the police is a powerful means for improving

their crime-control ability.30

12. The concern of foreign advisors and donors with their own problems of international crime and law enforcement decreases their enthusiasm for democratic

reform abroad.

The United States has two foreign police agendas: reform and security. Policymakers

often think that they must choose between them. Crafting a police-development

policy abroad involves facing the very same tension between the goals of controlling

crime or protecting human rights encountered in domestic criminal justice policy.31

As a result, American programs sometimes pull in different directions, not necessarily

in conflict but not always supporting one another. For example, programs of police

assistance from the international community to South Africa shifted between 1994

and 1998 from encouraging greater involvement with the community to raising its

law enforcement capability by creating street-crime enforcement units and improving their ability to gather intelligence.32

Corollary: In general, foreign donors are more likely to support capacity building

than democratic reform.

Not only does security tend to trump democracy, but capacity building promises

tangible gains in the short run, as opposed to the more remote and hard-to-measure

achievements of democratic reform. Capacity building is also easier to manage bureaucratically, which is not the same as saying that it is easier to accomplish.

Corollary: Established patterns of law enforcement cooperation between countries

may impede democratic reform. 

This occurs because American, and other, law enforcement agencies share crimecontrol objectives with their foreign counterparts. Over time they build working

relationships with foreign colleagues, exchanging information, hunting and extraditing fugitives, protecting each other’s citizens, and seizing and returning stolen property. An explicit purpose in creating the International Law Enforcement Academies

in Budapest and Bangkok was to develop networks of friendly colleagues that will

assist American law enforcement agencies in curtailing international crime. American

law enforcement agents working abroad, even though they accept the importance of

democratic reform, worry that pushing hard for unpopular changes may jeopardize

their working relationships.
42

13. In order for police reform to be effective, whether for capacity building or democracy, it must be accompanied by reform throughout the criminal justice system.

This is probably the most frequently repeated lesson derived from the assistance

experience in the 1990s.33 As the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and

the Administration of Justice underscored more than a generation ago, providing

public safety with justice requires a system of interlocking agencies: police, prosecutors, defense lawyers, judges, prison guards, and parole officers.34 Whether the purpose is democratic reform or increased crime-control effectiveness, reform cannot

take place one subunit at a time. It requires coordinated effort across the board. 

14. Technical assistance should not be the centerpiece of foreign assistance if 

democratic reform of policing is the objective.

None of the four attributes of democratic policing described in chapter 2—responsiveness, accountability, defense of human rights, and transparency—depend on technology. They require changes in attitudes, orientation, and behavior. This is not to say

that each cannot be assisted by technology, but simply that technology is not a substitute for deeper cultural change within the police. 

A lack of equipment may be a direct handicap to democratic reform when it contributes to a feeling of neglect on the part of police personnel, thereby making them

less enthusiastic for unsettling changes.35 Similarly, if providing effective security to the

public is important for the fortunes of democratic reform, then a lack of equipment

can be a handicap. Police in places like El Salvador, Haiti, and Bosnia lacked equipment as rudimentary as uniforms, radios, handcuffs, and even belts for trousers. 

But investment in technology does not guarantee either an increase in law enforcement effectiveness or a willingness to embrace democratic reforms. Although it is

easier to increase the technical capacity of police than to change their behavior, doing

so makes little, if any, contribution to democratic policing.36 It turns out that what is

easiest to change—namely, technical capacity—is the least important; what is hardest

to change—namely, institutional behavior—is the most important. 
43

15. Foreigners assigned to produce change abroad must reside in country for 

substantial periods of time to provide programmatic continuity, expeditious advice,

and informed midcourse corrections.

A “Marriott Brigade,” as short-term experts became known in Poland, will lack both

local knowledge, which is essential to effective program planning, and local legitimacy, which is essential to enlisting local support.37 Reliance on short-termers also

raises the costs of assistance. 

16. Institutional reform cannot be produced simply by increasing knowledge about

policies and practices elsewhere.

The key to institutional reform is not cognitive knowledge but practice in new

behavior within the home organization. Many reform programs begin, and often

end, with courses that describe desired practices and their benefit. Sometimes foreign officers are brought to donor countries to see these practices for themselves.

Both sorts of training are wasted if what is learned is not immediately incorporated

into the home agency’s work routines.38 Reform occurs only when knowledge is supported by facilitative management in every aspect of policing.

17. People engaged in police reform abroad, both public and private, should 

construct ways to share lessons learned and to coordinate activities.

Many institutions, public and private, foreign and domestic, provide training and

assistance to foreign police. The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) reported

that 34 federal agencies provided rule-of-law assistance between 1994 and 1998.39

Larry Diamond constructed a “selected” list of 33 private U.S. institutions that were

administering National Endowment for Democracy grants in the early 1990s, some

of which targeted criminal justice and human rights.40 So many foreign groups were

trying to help South Africa develop and reform its criminal justice system that in

1997, the United Nations commissioned the University of Capetown’s Department

of Criminology to compile a roster of them, along with the substance of their programs and the local agencies they were interacting with. The roster included more

than 200 groups.41

Without coordination, programs work at cross-purposes, duplication occurs, priorities become confused, and local officials are distracted from their primary responsibilities. Furthermore, an opportunity is being missed to share insights into ways to

improve the management of foreign assistance.
44

18. Crime control is as complex abroad as it is at home, and just as subject to

oversimplification.

Assistance programs designed to help foreign countries prevent crime must incorporate the well-researched lessons collected over the past 30 years in the United States

and other developed countries. Unfortunately, the usual nostrums show up abroad

as at home: more police officers, SWAT teams, heavier patrolling, undercover streetcrime units, stiffer prison sentences, capital punishment, asset forfeiture, liberal

wiretapping, RICO (racketeer-influenced corrupt organization) statutes, mandatory

drug testing, universal fingerprinting and DNA profiling, and so forth. Some of these

will be useful in some places, none of them will be useful everywhere, and some of

them will not be useful anywhere. Just as American law enforcement experts working abroad need to draw on the knowledge of foreign policy specialists, so people

who have spent their lives in foreign policy need to draw on the expertise of the

American criminal justice community when they design police assistance programs. 

Notes

1. Call, C., “Institutional Learning Within the U.S. International Criminal

Investigation Training Assistance Program,” in Policing the New World Disorder:

Peace Operations and Public Security, ed. R. Oakley, M. Dziedzic, and E.M.

Goldberg, Washington, DC: National Defense University Press, 1998: 177–218.

2. Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict, “Promoting Democracy

in the 1990’s: Actors and Instruments, Issues and Imperatives,” Report of the

Commission written by Larry Diamond. New York: Carnegie Corporation of

New York, 1995: section 4, p. 4.

3. Neild, R., “Human Rights and Citizen Security: The Framework for Democratic

Models of Policing,” Washington Office on Latin America. Paper for Regional

Seminar on Democratic Controls of the Maintenance of Interior Security in

Argentina, Chile, and Peru, Santiago, Chile, August 11–12, 1997; Costa, G.,

“The United Nations and Reform of the Police in El Salvador,” International

Peacekeeping 2(3) (1995): 365–90; Stanley, W., “International Tutelage and

Domestic Political Will: Building a New Civilian Police Force in El Salvador,”

in Policing Change, Changing Police, ed. O. Marenin, New York: Garland Publishing,

1996: 37–78; Popkin, M., “Building the Rule of Law in the Context of a Peace

Process: The Role of Negotiating Parties, Civil Society and the International

Community,” paper for London Conference, 1999; Stromsem, J., “U.S. Experience

in Police Assistance Abroad,” Barbados speech at IBD Stakeholders Meeting,
45

April 27, 2000; Byrne, H., W. Stanley, and R. Garst, “Rescuing Police Reform: 

A Challenge for the New Guatemalan Government,” Washington, DC:

Washington Office on Latin America, 2000.

4. Washington Office on Latin America and the American University School of

International Service, Elusive Justice: The U.S. Administration of Justice Program

in Latin America, Washington, DC: Washington Office on Latin America,

1990; Washington Office on Latin America, Demilitarizing Public Order: The

International Community, Police Reform and Human Rights in Central America and

Haiti, Washington, DC: Washington Office on Latin America, 1995.

5. Popkin, M., “Building the Rule of Law in the Context of a Peace Process” 

(see note 3).

6. Carothers, T., Aiding Democracy Abroad: The Learning Curve Washington, DC:

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1999.

7. Goldsmith, A., “Police Accountability Reform in Colombia: The Civilian

Oversight Experiment,” Unpublished draft, 1997; Konz, P., “The UNDP Justice

Programme in Latin America and the Caribbean: Areas of Intervention,” Paper

for London Conference.

8. Washington Office on Latin America and the American University School of

International Service, Elusive Justice (see note 4).

9. Blair, H., and G. Lansen, Weighing in on the Scales of Justice: Strategic Approaches

for Donor-Supported Rule of Law Programs, Washington, DC: U.S. Agency for

International Development, 1994; Cottam, M., and O. Marenin, “Predicting the

Past: Reagan Administration Assistance to Police Forces in Central America,”

Justice Quarterly 6(4) (1989): 589–618.

10. Carothers, T., Aiding Democracy Abroad: The Learning Curve (see note 6): 

chapter 5.

11. Bayley, D.H., “Who are We Kidding? or Developing Democracy Through Police

Reform,” in Policing in Emerging Democracies: Workshop Papers and Highlights,

Research Report, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National

Institute of Justice, 1997, NCJ 167024; Neild, R., “From National Security to

Citizen Security: Civil Society and the Evolution of Public Order Debates,” draft

paper, August 1999; Call, C., “Institutional Learning Within the U.S. International Criminal Investigation Training Assistance Program” (see note 1).
46

12. Gregory, F., “The United Nations Provision of Policing Services (CIVPOL) with

the Framework of ‘Peacekeeping’ Operations: An Analysis of the Issues,” Policing

and Society 6(2) 1996: 145–62.

13. Bayley, D.H., “A Foreign Policy for Democratic Policing,” Policing and Society

5(2) 1995: 79–94; Katzenstein, P.J., “Coping with Terrorism: Norms and Internal

Security in Germany and Japan,” paper for the Workshop on Ideas and Foreign

Policy, Center for Advanced Study of the Behavioral Sciences, Palo Alto, CA,

April 19–20, 1991.

14. Barkan, J.D., “Can Established Democracies Nurture Democracy Abroad?

Lessons from Africa,” in Democracy’s Victory and Crisis, ed. A. Hadenius,

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997: 371–403; Carothers, T., Aiding

Democracy Abroad: The Learning Curve (see note 10); Gregory, F., “The United

Nations Provision of Policing Services (CIVPOL) with the Framework of

‘Peacekeeping’ Operations: An Analysis of the Issues” (see note 12); Malan, M.,

“Peacekeeping in Southern Africa: Police Reform in Mozambique and South

Africa,” International Peacekeeping 6(4) 1999: 171–90; Mulcahy, A., The Dynamics

of the Police Legitimation Process in Northern Ireland, Ph.D. dissertation, Arizona

State University, 1998; Wilson, D.G., and W.F. Walsh, “Reflections on the Transfer

of Knowledge to Support Democratic Policing in Hungary and Romania,” in

Policing in Emerging Democracies: Workshop Papers and Highlights, Research Report,

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, U.S.

Department of State, Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement

Affairs, October 1997, NCJ 167024.

15. Personal communication, April 1996.

16. Marenin, O., “United States Police Assistance in Emerging Democracies,”

Policing and Society 8(2) (1998): 153–68.

17. Carothers, T., Aiding Democracy Abroad: The Learning Curve (see note 6);

Stromsem, J., “Comprehensive Strategic Planning Framework: A Practical Guide

to Strategic Planning for Judicial Reform,” Unpublished manuscript, 2000;

Costa, G., “The United Nations and Reform of the Police in El Salvador” (see

note 3).

18. Biebesheimer, C., “Justice Reform in Latin America and the Caribbean: The

IDB Perspective,” paper for London Conference, 1999; Popkin, M., “Building

the Rule of Law in the Context of a Peace Process” (see note 3); Stanley, W.,

“International Tutelage and Domestic Political Will: Building a New Civilian

Police Force in El Salvador,” in Policing Change, Changing Police, ed. O. Marenin,
47

New York: Garland Publishing, 1996; Wedel, J.R., Collision and Collusion: The

Strange Case of Western Aid to Eastern Europe 1989–1998, New York: St. Martin’s

Press, 1998; Washington Office on Latin America, “Draft Report on the DEA,”

internal document, 1998.

19. U.S. Department of State, “Presidential Decision Directive 71, Strengthening

Criminal Justice Systems in Support of Peace Operations and Other Complex

Contingencies Sub-Interagency Working Groups,” February 24, 2000.

20. Bayley, D.H., “A Foreign Policy for Democratic Policing” (see note 13); Bayley,

D.H., Patterns of Policing, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1985;

Stanley, W., “Building New Police Forces in El Salvador and Guatemala: Learning

and Counter-Learning,” International Peacekeeping 6(4) 1999: 113–34; Gray,

A., and M. Manwaring, “Panama: Operation Just Cause,” in Policing the New

World Disorder: Peace Operations and Public Security, ed. R. Oakley, M. Dziedzic,

and E.M. Goldberg, Washington, DC: National Defense University, Institute for

Strategic Studies.

21. Kincaid, A.D., and E.A. Gamarra, “Disorderly Democracy: Redefining Public

Security in Latin America,” Paper for XIV Annual Conference on the Political

Economy in the World System, University of Miami, FL, April 1995; Perito,

R.M., “The Role of Police in Peace Operations,” unpublished document, 2000;

Schmidl, E.A., “Police Functions in Peace Operations: An Overview,” in Policing

the New World Disorder: Peace Operations and Public Security, ed. R. Oakley, M.

Dziedzic, and E.M. Goldberg, Washington, DC: National Defense University,

1998: xiv–xxix; Washington Office on Latin America, Demilitarizing Public Order

(see note 4).

22. Koci, A., “Reform of the Police in Hungary and Lithuania: Empirical Findings

on the Policing of Public Order,” Innovation: The European Journal of Social

Sciences 11(3) (1998): 304–14; Martinez, J., and E. Amaya, “The Development

and Current State of El Salvador’s National Civilian Police Force,” unpublished

paper for Washington Office on Latin America conference, El Salvador, 2000.

23. Call, C., “Institutional Learning Within the U.S. International Criminal Investigation Training Assistance Program,” in Policing the New World Disorder: Peace

Operations and Public Security, ed. R. Oakley, M. Dziedzic, and E.M. Goldberg,

Washington, DC: National Defense University Press, 1998: 177–218; Bayley,

D.H., and C.D. Shearing, The Worldwide Restructuring of the Police, Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, forthcoming.
48

24. Martinez, J., and E. Amaya, “The Development and Current State of El

Salvador’s National Civilian Police Force,” (see note 22); Mulcahy, A., “The

Dynamics of the Police Legitimation Process in Northern Ireland,” (see note

14); Sismanidis, R.D.V., Police Functions in Peace Operations: Report from a

Workshop Organized by the U.S. Institute of Peace, Peaceworks series No. 14,

Washington, DC: U.S. Institute of Peace, 1997.

25. Neild, R., “Human Rights and Citizen Security” (see note 3); Stanley, W.,

“Building New Police Forces in El Salvador and Guatemala: Learning and

Counter-Learning,” International Peacekeeping 6(4) 1999: 113–34; Popkin, M.,

“Building the Rule of Law in the Context of a Peace Process” (see note 3).

26. Neild, R., “From National Security to Citizen Security” (see note 11): 26.

27. Bayley, D.H., “Getting Serious About Police Brutality,” in Accountability and

Criminal Justice: Selected Essays, ed. P.C. Stenning, Toronto: University of Toronto

Press, 1995: 93–109.

28. Byrne, H., W. Stanley, and R. Garst, “Rescuing Police Reform: A Challenge for

the New Guatemalan Government” (see note 3); Human Rights Watch, Shielded

From Justice: Police Brutality and Accountability in the United States, New York:

Human Rights Watch, 1998; Neild, R., “Police Training,” in Washington Office

on Latin America, Themes and Debates in Public Security Reform: A Manual for Civil

Society, Washington, DC: Washington Office on Latin America, 1998; Neild, R.,

“Internal Controls and Disciplinary Units” (draft, section of a larger report from

the Washington Office on Latin America); Stanley, W., “Building New Police

Forces in El Salvador and Guatemala: Learning and Counter-Learning” (see 

note 25).

29. Bayley, D.H., Police for the Future, New York: Oxford University Press, 1994;

Goldstein, H., Problem Oriented Policing, Philadelphia: Temple University Press,

1990; Skogan, W.G., Disorder and Decline, New York: The Free Press, 1990;

Sparrow, M., H. Moore, and D. Kennedy, Beyond 911: A New Era for Policing,

New York: Basic Books, 1990.

30. Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland, The Report of the

Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland. A New Beginning: Policing

in Northern Ireland, (Patten Report), September 1999.

31. Call, C., “Institutional Learning Within the U.S. International Criminal

Investigation Training Assistance Program” (see note 1); Packer, H.L., The Limits

of Criminal Sanction, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1968.
49

32. Van der Spuy, E., J. Geerlings, and A.M. Singh, Donor Assistance to Crime

Prevention and Criminal Justice Reform, South Africa, 1994–1998, Capetown,

South Africa: Institute of Criminology, University of Capetown, 1998.

33. Berkow, M., “Practical Issues in Providing Police Assistance Abroad,” in Civilian

Police and Multinational Peacekeeping—A Workshop Series: A Role for Democratic

Policing, ed. J. Burack, W. Lewis, and E. Marks, Washington, DC: Center for

Strategic and International Studies and the Police Executive Forum, 1999:

11–16; Kelly, R.W., “American Law Enforcement Perspectives on Policing in

Emerging Democracies,” Policing in Emerging Democracies: Workshop Papers

and Highlights, Research Report, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,

National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of State, Bureau of International

Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, 1997, NCJ 167024: 25–28; Heymann,

P.B., “Principles of Democratic Policing,” Paper for Conference on Policing

Emerging Democracies, Washington, DC, December 14–15, 1995; Neild, R.,

“Police Reform in Haiti: The Challenge of Demilitarizing Public Order and

Establishing Rule of Law,” paper for conference on Governance in Haiti:

Strengthening the State and Democratic Development, Ottawa, Canada,

November 7–8, 1996; Stanley, W., and R. Lossle, “Peace and Public Insecurity:

The Civilian Police Component of the Peace Operations in El Salvador,” in

Policing the New World Disorder, ed. R.B. Oakley, M.J. Dziedzic, and E.M.

Goldberg, Washington, DC: National Defense University, 1998: 67–108;

Washington Office on Latin America, Demilitarizing Public Order (see note 4).

34. President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice,

Task Force Report: The Police, Washington, DC: President’s Commission on Law

Enforcement and Administration of Justice, 1967.

35. Neild, R., “Police Reform in Haiti” (see note 33); Stanley, W., “Risking Failure:

The Problems and Promises of the New Civilian Police in El Salvador,”

Washington, DC: Washington Office on Latin America and Hemisphere

Initiatives, 1993.

36. Blair, H., and G. Lansen, Weighing in on the Scales of Justice (see note 9); Cottam,

M.L., and O. Marenin, “International Cooperation in the War on Drugs: Mexico

and the United States,” Policing and Society 9(3) 1999: 209–40.

37. Wedel, J.R., Collision and Collusion (see note 18).

38. U.S. Government, Interagency Working Group on U.S. Government-Sponsored

International Exchanges and Training, Annual Report FY 1998; Marenin, O.,

“The Internationalization of Democratic Policing,” Unpublished paper from
50

1999 American Society of Criminology Conference; Cohen, J.M., and J.R. Wheeler,

“Training and Retention in African Public Sectors: Capacity-Building Lessons

from Kenya,” in Getting Good Government: Capacity Building in the Public Sectors

of Developing Countries, ed. M.S. Grindle, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Institute

for International Development, 1997, chapter 5; Stanley, W., Protectors or

Perpetrators? The Institutional Crisis of the Salvadoran Civilian Police, Washington,

DC: Washington Office on Latin America/Hemisphere Initiatives, 1996.

39. U.S. General Accounting Office, Foreign Assistance: Rule of Law Funding

Worldwide for Fiscal Years 1993–98, Washington, DC: GAO/NSIAD–99–158,

June 1999.

40. Diamond, L., Promoting Democracy in the 1990’s: Actors and Instruments,

Issues and Imperatives, New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York, 1995.

41. Van der Spuy, E., J. Geerlings, and A.M. Singh, Donor Assistance to Crime

Prevention and Criminal Justice Reform, South Africa, 1994–1998, Capetown,

South Africa: Institute of Criminology, University of Capetown, 1998.
Special Lessons for

Police Reform 

in Peacekeeping

C HAPTER5
53

his chapter deals with lessons that have been learned about providing

effective, humane policing in association with international peacekeeping.

Peacekeeping refers to intervention by the international community to

stop conflict within countries and then to reestablish comity and basic government.

A distinction can be made between peacemaking and peacekeeping: the former is

intervention to stop conflict; the latter, intervention to preserve an existing but fragile cessation of conflict. Here, however, “peacekeeping” will refer to both: interventions in strife-torn countries where foreign agencies, national or international, both

stop conflict and help to create conditions for a durable peace. In these conditions,

the development of democratic policing faces special problems not found when

reform is instigated locally (chapter 3) or when it is encouraged abroad through

foreign assistance (chapter 4). At the same time, it should not be assumed that police

development in peacekeeping is sui generis. Many of the lessons learned in other

contexts apply here as well, especially those dealing with changing traditional patterns of organization and activity.

The lessons for democratic police development in peacekeeping are based on a

smaller set of experiences than in either of the two previous chapters and should,

accordingly, be considered more tentative than the others. In fact, as we have moved

from generic police reform to foreign-assisted police reform and now to peacekeeping police reform, the range of experience that supports the enumerated lessons has

contracted progressively.

1. In countries where effective government has ceased to exist, the division between

military and police operations during peacekeeping will be blurred.

Peacekeepers may have to protect refugees, arrest war criminals, protect broadcasting

facilities, support electoral processes, gather criminal intelligence, break up criminal

gangs, and prevent interethnic intimidation. In such situations, a “security gap” will

inevitably emerge unless the military is willing to serve as police until the international community provides a civilian alternative or competent local police are created.1 This can be done through the military itself or through a strong international

constabulary. U.S. Army Special Forces and Military Police provided this in Haiti

in 1995.2 The U.N.’s CIVPOL was authorized to do the same in Kosovo and East

Timor in 1999 and was armed for the purpose.

The sort of peacekeeping that occurs in “complex emergencies,” where intervention

begins with military action, has three stages—pacification, stabilization, and institutionalization.3 During the first phase, public security is provided by the international

T
54

military; in the second, it is provided either by an international police force or by

an interim local police; and in the third, it is provided by a reconstituted local police.

Corollary: Because the military will have to act as police during transitions from

military to civilian policing, it must organize and train accordingly.

This requires the development and standardization of policing doctrine for military

contingents both among international donors and within the branches of each country’s military. Observers of KFOR, the NATO force in Kosovo, for example, report

major differences between the British and French armies and between the U.S. Army

and the Marines.4

2. Peacekeeping missions must foresee the need for interim civilian policing and

a new, durable, effective, and democratic indigenous police force.5

The operative word here is “foresee” rather than “provide.” Everyone agrees that

peacekeeping interventions require a “theory of engagement” that specifies what the

international community will and will not do.6 Decisions about the extent and form

of intervention by the international community—from pacification through stabilization to normalization—need to be made explicitly before operations are begun.7

Some commentators go further and say that peacekeepers must also be prepared to

provide an interim police presence, either by its military force or by an international

civilian force. They argue that it is irresponsible, even immoral, to intervene militarily to stop conflict and then not to use that presence to protect the public after initial

pacification.8 The failure of IFOR (the multinational Implementation Force charged

with enforcing the 1995 Dayton Accords) and CIVPOL to prevent the forced evacuation of the Serb suburbs of Sarajevo in March 1996 is a case often cited.

But must military peacekeeping always assume responsibility for providing shortand long-run police protection? That is certainly preferable on moral grounds, but

if the international community won’t provide it, should peacekeeping not be undertaken at all? Is peacekeeping an all-or-nothing proposition? Perhaps it is better to

do some good than to do none at all. The answers to these questions depend on

circumstances—the presence or absence of a negotiated cease-fire, the capabilities

of local police, the capacity of the international military, the presence of regional support for postconflict peacekeeping, the difficulties of providing logistical support to

an international force, and the developmental potential of the country.9
55

Corollary: The major cause of military “mission creep” is failure to provide effective

civilian policing after peacemaking.

If peacekeepers do not provide for policing, military commanders face the dilemma

of either exceeding their rules of engagement or standing by as horrors are perpetrated. Furthermore, if their mandate is limited by both military rules of engagement and the announcement of an exit date, combatants will be encouraged to

preserve their fighting capacity and continue clandestine violence.

Corollary: International civilian police forces must be authorized to carry arms

and enforce the law at the discretion of country commanders.10

This lesson has been accepted by the United Nations for Kosovo and East Timor

and by the United States for its own civilian police contingents under PDD-71.

Corollary: Military peacekeepers must provide logistical support to international

CIVPOL units when they are unable to do so themselves.11

3. For peacekeeping operations to create the conditions for a stable peace and

effective institutions of local government, there should be unity of command

between military and civil components.

There is universal agreement about this, even though the principle is far from consistently applied. It was learned in Haiti but forgotten in Bosnia. It appears to have

been overlooked again in Kosovo, where NATO directs the military component

(KFOR), the U.N. has authority for policing, and the Organization for Security and

Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) is responsible for police training.

Corollary: Peacekeeping requires joint planning by military and civilian specialists,

including the sharing of intelligence about conditions in the field pertaining to

public security.12

To implement this, the U.N. and the United States need to create combined operational planning teams as well as combined field commands.13 This means appointing

senior police officers to the U.N.’s Department of Peacekeeping Operations and to

any U.S. Department of Defense peacekeeping operation.
56

4. Though the temptation will be great, it should not be assumed without analysis

that democratic reform must be traded off against law enforcement effectiveness

when rebuilding local police capacity.

When the military phase of peacekeeping ends, crime and disorder are likely to

increase. The sources of lawlessness are many: returning refugees, demobilized soldiers, the prevalence of weapons, acute unemployment, social divisions aggravated

by past conflict, inadequate communications, clandestine paramilitaries, corrupted

agencies of criminal justice, and the lingering psychological effects of prolonged violence.14 In these circumstances, peacekeepers may feel compelled to use remnants of

the discredited old police or demobilized soldiers untrained in policing, turn a blind

eye to righteous but overzealous enforcement of law, encourage militant self-defense,

and accede to arguments that reform will demoralize the existing police service.

Although this sort of compromise is understandable and occurs throughout the

world whenever insecurity rises to unacceptable levels, research has shown that

reform and effectiveness are not incompatible.15 Insistence on community responsiveness and adherence to the rule of law can be powerful crime-prevention strategies.16 International reformers must calculate carefully whether putative short-run

gains in crime-control efficiency will outweigh the losses from continued alienation

of local populations.

5. Despite pressing problems of crime and disorder, people with records of human

rights abuses must be excluded from newly formed local police forces.

Not only may a new police force quickly become tainted by association with discredited personnel, but old behavior patterns may also be passed on to new and impressionable recruits. It is especially dangerous to “roll over” whole units into the new

police, even if they possess unusual skills, such as intelligence gathering or criminal

investigation.17 They bring with them a cohesiveness that hampers change.

There will be other pressures on recruiters besides the threat of crime. Discipline

in any police forces requires skilled supervisors, especially in the middle ranks, but

these are precisely the sort of people who will be in shortest supply. At the same

time, government will be pressured to employ a host of demobilized combatants

who will claim to have relevant organizational skills.
57

6. The United Nations Department of Peacekeeping (UNDPKO) should coordinate

its work more closely with that of the nonmilitary U.N. agencies who are active in

the field, such as the U.N. Development Program, the U.N. High Commissioner

for Refugees, and the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights.18

7. United Nations member-states need to recruit and train CIVPOL personnel who

will be available on a standby basis for rapid deployment in peacekeeping missions.19

8. If the function of international CIVPOL is, among others, to create effective,

local, democratic police, its personnel must be recruited from countries experienced in democratic practices.

The plain fact is that not all countries that are willing to donate personnel to U.N.-

sponsored peacekeeping missions are democratic.20 Their police are not models of

responsive, humane policing. This problem is acknowledged widely, but solving it is

politically difficult. The U.N.’s desire for broad-based representation conflicts with

the need for both competence and appropriate normative attitudes.21

Corollary: Except for selected specialists, the bulk of personnel deployed in any

CIVPOL operation should be generalist police officers experienced in providing

a full range of police services in response to public demands.22

Corollary: Countries participating in multinational civilian police forces should

harmonize their policing doctrine and training for such missions.23

This raises a related issue: whether peacekeeping police should be deployed in

country-units or in integrated contingents. The U.N. prefers the latter in order to

demonstrate a coherent international presence, promote loyalty to the mission, and

prevent special relationships developing between particular country-units and the

local police. On the other hand, some experienced CIVPOL commanders, such as

Ray Kelly, who directed the international police monitors in Haiti, prefer the former,

arguing that country-units are more effective and that the skills of each country’s

police can be better matched to local needs.
58

9. Although the bulk of international CIVPOL forces should be generalists, some

specialists will be needed with skills in such areas as criminal investigation, crowd

control, information systems, forensic analysis, and election fraud.

In order to do this, the U.N. and the United States need to draft clear and detailed

job descriptions for the required skills. Because foreign as well as American police

forces vary considerably in the skill levels of their personnel, great care must be taken

to ensure that people with exactly the right capabilities are recruited.

10. The behavior of international police personnel must be monitored closely, and

misbehaving officers should be immediately relieved of duty and sent home.24

The International Association of Police Training Centers recommends that all U.N.

CIVPOL missions have an internal affairs investigation unit from the beginning, that

the standard of evidence for wrongdoing be “preponderance of the evidence” rather

than “beyond a reasonable doubt,” and that a record of misbehavior by participating

countries be kept so that donors can be held responsible and, if necessary, dropped

from the recruiting list.

11. The training of CIVPOL personnel should feature exploration of the legal

and ethical choices that may be faced in the field, such as when laws should 

be enforced, weapons displayed, force used, human rights violations reported, 

fraternization allowed, and hospitality accepted.25

Current training in law and ethics relies very much on the lecture method of

instruction, with emphasis on written standards. Greater effort must be made to

relate international standards to the ambiguous situations that CIVPOL personnel

will encounter in the field. Role-playing, for example, would help to draw out the

operational problems in applying standards to the real world. Trainers should also

be sensitive to the cultural and professional differences between themselves and the

people they train. Their audiences may be unprepared to recognize why particular

practices are not acceptable.

12. The creation of effective, democratic local police forces under international

auspices requires the collection of information about local criminal justice traditions, practices, and capabilities. International CIVPOL operations need to develop

the sort of intelligence capacity considered standard in military operations.
59

This point is fundamental and has arisen in previous chapters.26 Successful reform

requires thinking through the connections between what is done and what is to be

achieved, which, in turn, requires a profound understanding of local conditions.

13. A reformed local police force cannot be created by command. It requires the

consent of politicians, the public, and the police.

This, too, is a lesson learned in other contexts, but it takes on additional urgency in

peacekeeping. Peacekeeping involves the deployment of deterrent power. Because

peacekeepers are the biggest gorilla on the block, they may confuse power with

authority and be insensitive to local feelings of cultural pride and national autonomy.27 But power will be unavailing if local participants, the ones who do the work

on the ground, do not “buy in.” CIVPOL personnel must make a particular point of

taking the time to listen, persuade, and demonstrate rather than insisting, ordering,

and directing.

Conversely, CIVPOL personnel often understand very well that they are outsiders

and that they are resented because they are needed. Not wanting to be perceived as

neocolonialists, CIVPOL personnel may become too deferential and not press hard

enough for important reforms.28

Judgments about when to insist and when to defer cannot be made in the abstract.

They require careful, informed discussion by CIVPOL administrators on the ground.

Notes

1. Oakley, R.B., M.J. Dziedzic, and E.M. Goldberg, eds., Policing the New World

Disorder: Peace Operations and Humanitarian Assistance, Washington, DC:

National Defense University, 1998.

2. Neild, R., “Police Reform in Haiti: The Challenge of Demilitarizing Public

Order and Establishing Rule of Law,” paper for conference on Governance in

Haiti: Strengthening the State and Democratic Development, Ottawa, Canada,

November 7–8, 1996; Oakley, R.B., M.J. Dziedzic, and E.M. Goldberg, eds.,

Policing the New World Disorder (see note 1).

3. Sharp, W.G., “International Civilian Police: Maintaining Law and Order in

the New Millennia,” Paper presented at Center for Strategic and International

Studies workshop on Civilian Police and Multinational Peacekeeping, March

1998; Joulwan and Schoonmaker call these three steps “transformation, 

stabilization, and normalisation.”
60

4. Burack, J., “Policing in Kosovo: Putting Policing Skills to Work in Police

Operations,” Subject to Debate 14 (2–3) Washington, DC: Public Executive

Research Forum, March 2000.

5. Farris, K., and J.A. Schear, “Policing Cambodia: The Public Security Dimensions

of U.N. Peace Operations, 1992–1993,” in Policing the New World Disorder, ed.

R.B. Oakley, M.J. Dziedzic, Washington, DC: National Defense University, 1996:

33–66; Lewis, B., and E. Marks, “The Rule of Law in a Disorderly World: The

Need for Innovation and Focus Forward,” Draft paper, Center for Strategic and

International Studies, 2000; Pirnie, B.R., Civilians and Soldiers: Achieving Better

Coordination, Santa Monica, CA: RAND, National Security Research Division,

Police Executive Research Forum, 1998; Thomas, L., and S. Spataro, “Peacekeeping and Policing in Somalia,” in Policing the New World Disorder, ed. R.B.

Oakley, M.J. Dziedzic, and E.M. Goldberg, Washington, DC: National Defense

University, 1998: 109–46.

6. Gray, A., and M. Manwaring, “Panama: Operation Just Cause,” in Policing the New

World Disorder: Peace Operations and Public Security, ed. R. Oakley, M. Dziedzic,

and E.M. Goldberg, Washington, DC: National Defense University, 1998.

7. Bentley, D., and R. Oakley, “Peace Operations: A Comparison of Somalia

and Haiti,” in Strategic Forum, Washington, DC: National Defense University,

Institute for National Strategic Studies, May 1995; Mayall, J., ed., The New

Interventionism, 1991–1994, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

8. Hirsch, J.L., and R.B. Oakley, Somalia and Operation Restore Hope: Reflections on

Peacemaking and Peacekeeping, Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace

Press, 1995; Sismanidis, R.D.V., Police Functions in Peace Operations: Report from

a Workshop Organized by the U.S. Institute of Peace, Peaceworks series No. 14,

Washington, DC: U.S. Institute of Peace, 1997.

9. Mayall, J., ed., The New Interventionism, 1991–1994 (see note 7).

10. Sismanidis, R.D.V., “Police Functions in Peace Operations” (see note 8); Bailey,

M., and N. Poulio, “Military-Police Partnership for Haitian Public Security,”

in Policing the New World Disorder: Peace Operations and Public Security, ed. R.B.

Oakley, M.J. Dziedzic, and E.M. Goldberg, Washington, DC: National Defense

University, 1998: 147–76.

11. United Nations, Lessons Learned Unit, with German, Swedish, and Norwegian

collaborators, Comprehensive Report on Lessons Learned from United Nations

Operations in Somalia, April 1992–March 1995, United Nations: Department of
61

Peacekeeping Operations, December 1995; Bailey, M., and N. Poulio, “MilitaryPolice Partnership for Haitian Public Security” (see note 10).

12. Farris, K., and J.A. Schear, “Policing Cambodia: The Public Security Dimensions

of U.N. Peace Operations, 1992–1993” (see note 5); Thomas, L., and S. Spataro,

“Peacekeeping and Policing in Somalia” (see note 5).

13. Oakley, R.B., M.J. Dziedzic, and E.M. Goldberg, eds., Policing the New World

Disorder: Peace Operations and Public Security (see note 1).

14. Call, C.T., and W. Stanley, “A Sacrifice for Peace? Security for the General Public

During Implementation of Peace Agreements,” draft, November 1999.

15. Bayley, D.H., Police for the Future, New York: Oxford University Press, 1994;

Guyot, D., Policing as Though People Matter, Philadelphia: Temple University Press,

1991; Hornick, J.P., B.A. Burrows, I. Tjosvold, and D.M. Phillips, An Evaluation

of the Neighborhood Foot Patrol Program of the Edmonton Police Service, Ottawa:

Ministry of the Solicitor General, 1989; Sherman, L.W., D.C. Gottfredson, D.L.

MacKenzie, J. Eck, P. Reuter, and S.D. Bushway, Preventive Crime: What Works,

What Doesn’t, What’s Promising, Research in Brief, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, July 1998, NCJ 171676.

16. Goldstein, H., Problem Oriented Policing, Philadelphia: Temple University Press,

1990); Rosenbaum, D., ed., The Challenge of Community Policing: Testing the

Promises, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1994; Skogan, W. and S.

Hartnett, Community Policing, Chicago Style, New York: Oxford University Press,

1997; Trojanowicz, R., and B. Bucqueroux, Community Policing: A Contemporary

Perspective, Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing, 1990; Tyler, T.R., “Procedural Fairness and Compliance with the Law,” Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics 133 (1997): 219–40.

17. Call, C., “Sustainable Development in Central America: The Challenges of

Violence, Injustice and Insecurity,” Paper for USAID/European Commission

Project “Central America 2020,” 1999; Stanley, W., and R. Lossle, “Peace and

Public Insecurity: The Civilian Police Component of the Peace Operations in El

Salvador,” in Policing the New World Disorder, ed. R.B. Oakley, M.J. Dziedzic, and

E.M. Goldberg, Washington, DC: National Defense University, 1998: 67–108.

18. United Nations, Department of Peacekeeping Operations, “Report on the

Follow-Up Workshop on Civilian Police in United Nations Peacekeeping,”

August 2, 1999.
62

19. Oakley, R.B., M.J. Dziedzic, and E.M. Goldberg, eds., Policing the New World

Disorder: Peace Operations and Public Security (see note 13); Sismanidis, R.D.V.,

“Police Functions in Peace Operations: Report from a Workshop Organized by

the United States Institute of Peace” (see note 8); U.S. Department of State,

“Presidential Decision Directive 71, Strengthening Criminal Justice Systems in

Support of Peace Operations and Other Complex Contingencies Sub-Interagency

Working Groups,” February 24, 2000.

20. Hartz, H., “CIVPOL: The UN Instrument for Police Reform,” International

Peacekeeping 6(4) 1999: 27–42.

21. United Nations, Department of Peacekeeping Operations, “Report on the

Follow-Up Workshop on Civilian Police in United Nations Peacekeeping”

(see note 18); Shacochis, B., The Immaculate Invasion, New York: Viking

Press, 1999; Neild, R., “Police Training,” in Washington Office on Latin

America, Themes and Debates in Public Security Reform: A Manual for Civil

Society, Washington, DC: Washington Office on Latin America, 1998.

22. Human Rights Watch, Bosnia and Hercegovina Beyond Restraint: Politics and the

Policing Agenda of the United Nations International Police Task Force, New York:

Human Rights Watch, 1998.

23. Bailey, M., and N. Poulio, “Military-Police Partnership for Haitian Public

Security” (see note 10); Center for Strategic and International Studies and

Police Executive Research Forum, Civilian Police and International Peacekeeping,

1997; Perito, R.M., “Democratic Policing and International Police Operations,”

draft, 1997.

24. Farris, K., and J.A. Schear, “Policing Cambodia: The Public Security Dimensions

of U.N. Peace Operations, 1992–1993” (see note 5); International Association

of Peacekeeping Training Centers, International Civilian Police Planning Guide,

Canada: Canadian Peacekeeping Press, 1999; Sismanidis, R.D.V., “Police Functions

in Peace Operations” (see note 8).

25. Marotta, F., “The Blue Flame and the Gold Shield: Methodology, Challenges

and Lessons Learned on Human Rights Training for Police,” Peacekeeping 6(4)

1999: 69–92.

26. International Association of Peacekeeping Training Centers, International

Civilian Police Planning Guide (see note 24); Oakley, R.B., M.J. Dziedzic, and

E.M. Goldberg, eds., Policing the New World Disorder: Peace Operations and Public
63

Security (see note 1); Shacochis, B., The Immaculate Invasion (see note 21);

Zoufal, D.R., “Restructuring the Police in Bosnia-Herzegovina,” draft, 1999.

27. Center for Strategic and International Affairs, “Civilian Police and Multinational

Peacekeeping: A Workshop Project—The Police Power in Peace Operations,”

outline and papers, 1998.

28. Call, C.T., and W. Stanley, “A Sacrifice for Peace?” (see note 14).
Lessons for 

American Management of

Police Reform Abroad

C HAPTER6
67

nowing what might be done to improve the likelihood of democratic

reform is not the same as doing it. Knowledge must be incorporated into

action, which requires changes in the way the United States manages its

programs of foreign assistance and reform. This chapter describes the lessons that

observers generally agree should be incorporated into the administration of the

Government’s programs of police reform abroad. Many of these lessons will need

little explanation because they are implied by the discussion that has gone before.

1. As with any program of planned change, American foreign assistance to police

development and reform abroad should be guided by clearly articulated and 

factually informed theory connecting it and desired outcomes.

It has become commonplace in writing about foreign assistance to say that the

United States frequently undertakes programs because they are laudable rather than

sensible. Desirability overshadows feasibility. Moreover, the United States relies on a

few overworked reform tactics, such as drop-in courses and short visits by foreign

nationals to the United States, without any evidence that they make a difference.

Corollary: The U.S. Government should develop the capacity to plan and implement institutional change in police policy and practice abroad.

The key word here is “institutional.” Programs that might contribute to the democratic reform of foreign police are scattered across many agencies. None of them

has impressive in-house capability to do this job. The U.S. Department of State’s

expertise in this area is concentrated in International Narcotics and Law Enforcement

(INL), whose mission is international crime-control and crime-prevention capacitybuilding, not reform. The U.S. Agency for International Development (AID), haunted by memories of the discredited Office of Public Safety, is beginning to explore the

connections between democracy assistance and criminal justice, but cautiously. The

U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) assistance to police is led by law enforcement

agencies—the FBI and the DEA. They have substantial foreign experience, but their

mission is not democratic reform. ICITAP has the right mission, but it is an orphan

dangling between State, AID, and DOJ, without the staff to do the planning required.

The U.S. Department of Defense would rather not be involved, but is beginning to

recognize that it will be.

Altogether, the U.S. Government administers programs for democratic police reform

by sleight-of-hand. The fault is not the intelligence or motivation of the people

K
68

involved. The people in these agencies are smart and knowledgeable. The problem

is the system—in particular, the bureaucratic assignment of missions.

2. Programs designed to contribute to the reform of foreign police forces must be

based on a thorough understanding of host-country history and practices in policing.

Information about foreign police systems, and criminal justice more largely, is not

readily available across agencies in Washington. Planning for assistance programs

often lacks relevant intelligence.

Corollary: Because the design and implementation of reform programs requires

hands-on knowledge of operational practices and traditions, the U.S. government

should rely less on consultants sent abroad for short periods and more on people

assigned to live in country for periods of a year or more.

Not only does this lower the costs of administration, but resident managers have

greater standing with locals and can make more informed midcourse corrections.

3. Because police reform anywhere is a long-term proposition, American assistance

programs should be planned and funded for multiyear periods.

Corollary: Assistance to foreign police undertaken during peacekeeping operations

should not be tied to military exit timetables.

A compelling moral argument can also be made, as we saw in chapter 5, that the

military should not withdraw at all until an effective police force has been built.

This would suggest that military time schedules should be tied to civilian ones

rather than vice versa.

4. In providing assistance to police forces abroad, a mechanism needs to be created within the U.S. government to assess the programmatic balance between law

enforcement capacity building and democratic reform in particular countries.

PDD-71 suggested this sort of collaborative assessment in directing the U.S. Department of State to “build partnerships between Justice and USAID that enables the

USG to help establish judicial and penal systems during peace operations that then

become sustainable institutions.”1 Such partnership is needed for programs of foreign

police assistance generally, not just those associated with peace operations.
69

Corollary: All programs of assistance to foreign police should be reviewed for their

likely effects on the trajectory of local political development.

Some mechanisms to this purpose are already in place: for example, the Law Enforcement Working Groups that meet monthly at the Department of State, country teams

in embassies abroad that draft yearly mission performance plans, and the Interagency

Working Group on Democracy under the leadership of the Assistant Secretary for

Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. Given the generality of concern about the ad

hoc nature of U.S. planning for police assistance, however, something more would

appear to be necessary.

5. The implementation of reform assistance to foreign police needs to be more

carefully coordinated among agencies within the U.S. Government, not only

to avoid working at cross-purposes, but to avoid duplication, simplify contact

between host governments and the U.S. Government, and enhance oversight.2

Although there is universal agreement among observers about the importance of

interagency coordination, there is sharp disagreement about how to do it, in particular, about whether responsibility should be located in a single agency or remain

shared among several agencies.

6. The United States should coordinate its programs of democratic reform in 

particular countries with other donors, both public and private, during the 

planning as well as the implementation stage.

Designing programs in isolation from other international actors guarantees wasted

effort and resources. It also confuses host governments about what should be done.

7. Programs of democratic police assistance must include measures for building

support for reform among political leaders as well as society at large.

8. The U.S. military should not assume police responsibilities as part of peacekeeping operations except for short periods of time in transitional situations.

Corollary: Because the U.S. military will occasionally participate in civilian policing,

it should standardize its training in this regard across the services.
70

9. The design and implementation of democratic police development programs

should be done largely by police and civilians experienced with State and local

policing in the United States.

The Federal Government is responsible for foreign policy and therefore for America’s

police assistance abroad, but it has limited police resources and expertise of its own

to deploy in support of that policy. Federal agencies such as the FBI and the DEA

are not full-service police forces responsive to calls for assistance from the public.

They specialize in criminal investigation and selective law enforcement at the direction of Congress and the administration of the day. Although Federal personnel are

as democratic in their normative orientation as State and local police officers, their

mission equips them more for assisting the development of overseas law enforcement

capacity than in the design and reform of civilian public-service policing. The challenge for the Federal Government, then, is to find ways to mobilize the immense

fund of knowledge and experience residing in State and local police forces.

10. Programs of assistance to foreign police should be conducted in full public view

and subject to systematic congressional oversight.

At the moment, assistance to foreign police is provided through a series of exemptions to section 660 of the Foreign Assistance Act. There is no “positive institutional

mandate” with respect to police assistance.3 As a result, there is no coordinated congressional supervision.

Corollary: Foreign assistance to police should rarely be provided clandestinely, and

then only under carefully monitored conditions.

11. The United States should develop a CIVPOL reserve that can be mobilized

quickly for deployment abroad.

This has been called for by PDD-71, although the statutory basis for doing so has

not been developed.4
71

12. Agencies involved in providing foreign assistance to police should develop

the capacity to evaluate the success of every mission and draw from them lessons

about improving performance. In particular, they should debrief participants returning from overseas assignments, including service in peacekeeping operations, for

their insights.

The U.S. Department of Defense does this routinely. It is no less important for

civilian police assistance programs designed to expand the possibilities for democracy around the world and to protect the United States from transnational crime.

Notes

1. U.S. Department of State, “Presidential Decision Directive 71, Strengthening

Criminal Justice Systems in Support of Peace Operations and Other Complex

Contingencies Sub-Interagency Working Groups,” February 24, 2000.

2. Cordone, C., “Police Reform and Human Rights Investigations: The Experience

of the UN Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina,” International Peacekeeping 6(4)

1999: 191–209.

3. Lewis, B., and E. Marks, “The Rule of Law in a Disorderly World: The Need for

Innovation and Focus Forward,” draft paper, Center for Strategic and

International Studies, 2000.

4. Center for Strategic and International Affairs, “Civilian Police and Multinational

Peacekeeping: A Workshop Project—The Police Power in Peace Operations,”

outline and papers, 1998; U.S. Department of State, “Presidential Decision

Directive 71” (see note 1).
C HAPTER7

Conclusion
75

his report has collected and summarized what has been learned about

how police can be changed so as to support democracy, particularly

through programs of assistance to police in other countries. Changing

the police abroad to promote democracy is a four-step process: design of assistance

programs, implementation overseas, incorporation by the foreign police, and impact

on political democracy. This is a long row to hoe, and the chances of making a major

contribution to the fortunes of democracy abroad through such programs are not

great. Moreover, experience has repeatedly shown that assistance programs do not

make foreign governmental institutions more democratic unless those countries are

already engaged in democratic transitions. This is true for costly military interventions as well, even when they are followed by multilateral attempts to create new

police institutions.1

In his masterful account of American efforts to promote democracy in the 1990s,

Thomas Carothers says that America’s rule-of-law programs have been “difficult and

disappointing.”2 Philip Heymann, a former Deputy U.S. Attorney General who has

been instrumental in American criminal justice reform efforts abroad, thinks that the

best that can be achieved is a “fairly robust dialogue” about the advantages of democratic practices.3 Rather than dramatic shifts to democracy, the United States may

have to be content with creating “fragments of democracy” and reinforcing democratic “trajectories and increments.”4

Overshadowing even these slender prospects is the proven possibility that assistance

programs to foreign police can have negative effects on democratic development by

strengthening the capacity for repression.5 In sum, the ability of the United States to

assist democratic development through programs of police reform and assistance is

very limited.

Prospects are brighter but by no means certain for programs designed to enhance

the law enforcement effectiveness of foreign police. After reviewing many studies

in the 1990s, Mary Hildebrand and Merilee Grindle conclude that “investments

in capacity-building initiatives have not paid off in terms of improved effectiveness

overall or higher levels of organizational performance.”6 Although the introduction

of equipment and managerial technologies often seems sensible, indeed fundamental, its contribution to the enhancement of local law enforcement effectiveness is

not assured.

If the U.S. Government is going to achieve even modest success at either democratic

reform or law enforcement capacity building, policymakers need to make the right

T
76

choices with respect to program objectives, the substance of assistance programs,

and the way they are administered. Fortunately, there is a growing body of experience about these elements, most of it derived from programs of change within

established democracies.

During the 1990s, a consensus developed internationally about the norms of democratic policing. Few people would disagree with accountability, protection of human

rights, and transparency, and most would accept the importance of developing a service

orientation. The elements of democratic police reform are no longer problematic.

Uncertainty and confusion arise, however, with respect to the content and conduct

of foreign police assistance. Despite a wealth of experience that grows daily, the

insights of people involved in these processes have not been collected or analyzed.

What is needed is a new sort of evaluation to accompany programs of police assistance. It must go beyond auditing accounts or counting activities undertaken—such

as the number of courses given, computers installed, fax machines connected, forensic kits distributed, or visitors invited to the United States—to explore whether what

is done and how it is done produces the effects intended. To do this informatively,

evaluation must not be done prematurely, before assistance programs have had time

enough to make an impact. Institutional change takes time, which often frustrates

the desire of donors for quick and demonstrable results. Furthermore, the requirements of evaluation must be foreseen from the beginning, so that baseline information can be collected along with a rich description of the implementation process.

Although informative evaluation cannot be quick, it need not be complex and

costly. Assessments of the effects of assistance programs on police practices—their

“outcomes”—can be made through qualitative observations by independent experts.7

It doesn’t take long for experienced people to determine whether community policing programs are real, abuses of authority minimal, patrol officers responsive, the

public cooperative, management open, operational decisions based on adequate information, and police activities open to public inspection. Appraisals of the process of

implementation of assistance programs—their “outputs”—need to draw on the observations of both independent observers and involved practitioners. At the moment,

the most underused of these are the practitioners themselves, both outside changeagents and the police officials with whom they have worked. The people who do

assistance work, both at home and abroad, know a great deal about what works

and what doesn’t, but this knowledge isn’t being captured. Their insights and observations can be collected through interviews designed to encourage participants to
77

reflect on what they did, what went right and wrong, and why. These interviews

should be structured but open-ended. And they should be conducted orally; written

surveys will not be responsive enough to situational variations.

The most important lesson for police reform anywhere is that human nature—

meaning the interests of the people through whom reform will occur—must be

taken into account. For reform efforts to succeed, human interests, which reflect

particularistic attitudes and traditions, must be understood and then explicitly

accommodated, utilized, redirected, or overridden. Reform cannot be done by

remote control, by people who are not intimately familiar with the local human

context. Reform is fundamentally a political undertaking.

This is also true with respect to improving the process whereby American police

assistance is designed and implemented. Incorporating the lessons enumerated in

this report will require changing the way American institutions provide foreign assistance. Raising the prospects of success in assisting foreign police forces to become

more democratic requires clever management at home as well as abroad. Reform

is a messy human business for both donors and recipients.

Notes

1. Barkan, J.D., “Can Established Democracies Nurture Democracy Abroad?

Lessons from Africa,” in Democracy’s Victory and Crisis, ed. A. Hadenius,

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997: 371–403.

2. Carothers, T., Aiding Democracy Abroad: The Learning Curve, Washington, DC:

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1999: 170.

3. Heymann, P.B., “Creating Democratic Law Enforcement Institutions in Eastern

Europe, Latin America and South Africa,” unpublished draft, 1992.

4. Sklar, R.L., “Developmental Democracy,” Comparative Studies in Society and

History 29(4) 1987: 686–714; Goldsmith, A., “Democratization and Criminal

Justice: Human Rights and Police Reform in Colombia,” unpublished draft,

March 1995.

5. Huggins, M.K., Political Policing: The United States and Latin America, Durham,

NC: Duke University Press, 1998.
78

6. Hildebrand, M.E., and M.S. Grindle, “Building Sustainable Capacity in the

Public Sector: What Can Be Done?” in Getting Good Government: Capacity

Building in the Public Sectors of Developing Countries, ed., M.S. Grindle,

Cambridge, MA: Harvard Institute for International Development, 1997: 32.

7. Braithwaite, J., “The Nursing Home Industry,” in Beyond the Law: Crime in

Complex Organizations, ed. M. Tonry and A.J. Reiss, Volume 18 of Crime and

Justice: A Review of the Research, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994:

11–54; Braithwaite, J., and V. Braithwaite, “The Politics of Legalism: Rules

Versus Standards in Nursing-Home Regulation,” Social and Legal Studies 4

(1995): 307–341.
Bibliography
81

Ake, C. “Dangerous Liaisons: The Interface of Globalization and Democracy.” In

Democracy’s Victory and Crisis. Ed. A. Hadenius. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 1997: 282–96. 

Aldous, C. The Police Occupation in Japan: Control, Corruption and Resistance to Reform.

London and New York: Routledge, 1997.

Allen, D.H. and M.G. Maxfield. “Judging Police Performance: Views and Behavior of

Patrol Officers.” In Police at Work: Policy Issues and Analysis. Ed. R.R. Bennett. Beverly

Hills, CA: Sage, 1983: 65–86.

Alpert, G.P., J.R. Kenney, and T. Oettemeier, Facilitating Organizational Change:

Shaping Action Through Individual and Organizational Evaluations. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1998. NCJ 175243.

American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. Reform Delayed: Five Years

After the Christopher Commission, Los Angeles Police Department Citizen Complaint

Procedures, 1991–1996. Los Angeles, CA: American Civil Liberties Union of Southern

California, 1996.

Amnesty International. USA Campaign. “Rights for All.” Briefings and Focus. 1998,

accessed online at www.rightsforall-usa.org/info/report/index.htm.

Andersen, M.E. “International Administration of Justice: The New American Security

Frontier.” SAIS Review 13(1) (1993): 89–104.

———. “Interpol and the Developing System of International Police Cooperation.”

In Crime and Law Enforcement in the Global Village. Ed. W.F. McDonald. Cincinnati,

OH: Anderson Publishing Co., 1997: 89–102.

———. “Police Cooperation with Eastern Europe in an EC Framework.” In Comparisons in Policing: An International Perspective. Ed. J.P. Brodeur, Aldershot, UK: Avebury

Ashgate Publishing, 1995: 175–84.

Annan, K. “Stop Blaming Colonialism, U.N. Chief Tells Africa.” New York Times.

April 17, 1998.

Asbury, K. “Innovative Policing: Foot Patrol in 31 Division, Metropolitan Toronto.”

Canadian Police College Journal. 13(3) (1989): 37–54.
82

Audit Commission for Local Authorities for England and Wales. Helping with

Enquiries: Tackling Crime Effectively. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1993.

———. “Improving the Performance of the Fingerprint Service.” Police Paper No. 2.

London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1988: 33.

———. “Pounds and Coppers: Financial Delegation in Provincial Police Forces.”

Police Paper No. 10. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1991.

———. Streetwise: Effective Police Patrol. Executive Briefing. London: Her Majesty’s

Stationery Office, 1996.

———. “The Management of Police Training.” Police Paper No. 4. London: Her

Majesty’s Stationery Office: 1989.

Australian Federal Police. “The Role of Civilian Police in Peace Support Operations.”

Australian Defence Force Warfare Centre, International Peacekeeping Seminar, May

1997. 

Avant, D. “U.S. Military Attitudes Toward Post-Cold War Missions.” Unpublished

paper, April 2000.

Ayoob, Mohammed. “The New-Old Disorder in the Third World.” In The United

Nations and Civil Wars. Ed. Thomas G. Weiss. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1995:

chapter 4. 

Bailey, M., and N. Poulio. “Military-Police Partnership for Haitian Public Security.”

In Policing the New World Disorder: Peace Operations and Public Security. Ed. R. Oakley,

M. Dziedzic, and E.M. Goldberg. Washington, DC: National Defense University

Press, 1997: 147–76.

Ball, N. “Community-level Peace Building: Lessons From the South African Peace

Committees.” In After the War is Over, What Comes Next? Promoting Democracy,

Human Rights, and Reintegration in Post Conflict Societies. Washington, DC: U.S.

Agency for International Development, 1997.

Barkan, J.D. “Can Established Democracies Nurture Democracy Abroad ? Lessons

from Africa.” in Democracy’s Victory and Crisis. Ed. A. Hadenius. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1997: 371–403.
83

Bayley, D.H. “A Foreign Policy for Democratic Policing.” Policing and Society 5(2)

(1995): 79–94.

———. A Model of Community Policing: The Singapore Story. Research Report

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1989.

NCJ 116019.

———. “Capacity Building in Law Enforcement.” Trends and Issues no. 23 Canberra:

Australian Institute of Criminology, July 1999.

———. “Community Policing: A Report from the Devil’s Advocate.” In Community

Policing: Rhetoric or Reality. Ed. J.R. Greene and S.D. Mastrofski. New York: Praeger

Publishers, 1988: 225–38.

———. “Comparative Organization of the Police in English-Speaking Countries.” In

Modern Policing. Ed. M. Tonry and N. Morris. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,

1992: 509–46.

———. “Getting Serious About Police Brutality.” In Accountability and Criminal

Justice: Selected Essays. Ed. P.C. Stenning. Toronto: University of Toronto Press,

1995: 93–109.

———. Patterns of Policing. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1985.

———. Police for the Future. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.

———. Public Liberties in the New States. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963.

———. “The Contemporary Practices of Policing: A Comparative View.” In Civilian

Police and Multinational Peace-Keeping—A Workshop Series: A Role for Democratic

Policing. Ed. J. Burack, W. Lewis, and E. Marks. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1999, NCJ 172842: 3–8.

———. “The Limits of Police Reform.” In Police and Society. Ed. D.H. Bayley.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1996: chapter 10.

———. “The Police and Political Development in Europe.” In The Formation of

National States in Western Europe. Ed. C. Tilly. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University

Press, 1975: chapter 5.
84

———. What Works in Policing. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.

———. “Who Are We Kidding? or Developing Democracy Through Police Reform.”

In Policing in Emerging Democracies: Workshop Papers and Highlights. Research Report.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1997.

NCJ 167024: 59–64.

Bayley, D.H., and C.D. Shearing. The Worldwide Restructuring of the Police. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Justice. National Institute of Justice, forthcoming.

Bennett, T. “Evaluating Police and Public Performance in the Delivery of

Community Policing.” Unpublished paper for Workshop on Evaluating Police

Service Delivery. Montreal, 1994.

Bentley, D., and R. Oakley. “Peace Operations: A Comparison of Somalia and Haiti.”

Strategic Forum. Washington, DC: National Defense University, Institute for National

Strategic Studies, May 1995.

Berg, S. “Next Steps in Kosovo.” In Woodrow Wilson International Center for

Scholars, Kosovo and NATO: Impending Challenges—The Views of Experts at the

Woodrow Wilson Center. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press: 37–39.

Berkow, M. “Practical Issues in Providing Police Assistance Abroad.” In Civilian Police

and Multinational Peacekeeping—A Workshop Series: A Role for Democratic Policing. Ed.

J. Burack, W. Lewis, and E. Marks. Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Police Executive Forum, 1999: 11–16.

Berman, J.S. Theodore Roosevelt as Police Commissioner of New York: A Study in

Progressive Police Reform. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1985:

211–15.

Betjemann, W.N. Innovation and Social Change—A Review of the Albany Police

Department Neighborhood Police Concept. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1975. NCJ 34718.

Biebesheimer, C. “Justice Reform in Latin America and the Caribbean: The IDB

Perspective.” Paper for London Conference, 1999.
85

Bikales, W.G. “Capacity Building in a Transition Country: Lessons From Mongolia.”

In Getting Good Government: Capacity Building in the Public Sectors of Developing

Countries. Ed. M.S. Grindle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Institute for International

Development, 1997: chapter 15.

Blair, A., and M.J. Dziedzic. “Peacekeeping and Policing in Bosnia.” In Policing the

New World Disorder: Peace Operations and Public Security. Ed. R. Oakley, M. Dziedzic,

and E.M Goldberg. Washington, DC: National Defense University Press, 1998: chapter 8.

Blair, H., and G. Lansen. Weighing in on the Scales of Justice: Strategic Approaches for

Donor-Supported Rule of Law Programs. Washington, DC: U.S. Agency for International

Development, 1994.

Blair, I. “Police Corruption: The UK Experience and Response.” Paper for the

International Conference on Police Integrity. Florence, May 20–23, 1999.

Bond, C., and D. Gow. “Toonoomba Beat Policing Pilot Project: Main Evaluation

Report.” Criminal Justice Commission, Queensland, Australia, 1995.

Boston Urban Observatory. Boston (MA) Public Housing Program—An Assessment/

Evaluation. Boston, MA: University of Massachusetts, Boston Urban Observatory,

1977.

Boutros-Ghali, B. “UN Peacekeeping: Challenging A New Era.” Brown Journal of

World Affairs 3(1) (1996): 17–21.

Bouza, A.V. The Police Mystique: An Insider’s Look at Cops, Crime, and the Criminal

Justice System. New York: Plenum Press, 1990.

Boydstun, J.E., and M.E. Sherry. San Diego Community Profile: Final Report.

Washington, DC: Police Foundation. U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute

of Justice, 1975. NCJ 30160.

Bradley, D.W., and R. Wilkie. Managing the Police: Law, Organization and Democracy.

Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books, 1986.

Braiden, C. “Bank Robberies and Stolen Bikes: Thoughts of a Street Cop.” Canadian

Police College Journal 10(1) (1986): 1–14.
86

———. “Ownership: Who Paints a Rented House?” unpublished paper, 1991.

Braithwaite, J. “Beyond Positivism: Learning from Contextual Integrated Strategies.”

Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 30(4) (1993): 383–99.

———. “The Nursing Home Industry.” In Beyond the Law: Crime in Complex Organizations, Volume 18 of Crime and Justice: A Review of the Research. Ed. M. Tonry and

A.J. Reiss. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994: 11–54.

Braithwaite, J., and V. Braithwaite. “The Politics of Legalism: Rules Versus Standards

in Nursing-Home Regulation.” Social and Legal Studies 4 (1995): 307–41.

Brewer, J.D. “Policing in Divided Societies: Theorising a Type of Policing.” Policing

and Society 1(3) (1991): 179–92.

Brodeur, J.P. How to Recognize Good Policing: Problems and Issues. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Police Executive Research Forum and Sage Publications, 1998.

Broer, W., and K. van der Vijver. “Constraints to a Problem-Oriented Approach in

Police Management.” Paper for Nijenrode Seminar, 1980.

Brogden, M. “Community Policing as Cherry Pie.” In Policing Across the World. Ed.

R.I. Mawby. London, New York: UCL Press, 1999: 167–86.

Brogden, M., and C. Shearing. Policing for a New South Africa. London: Routledge,

1993.

Brown, D., and S. Iles. International Summaries: Community Constables—A Study of a

Policing Initiative. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of

Justice, 1986. NCJ 100900.

Brown, J. Policing by Multi-Racial Consent: The Handsworth Experience. London:

Bedford Square Press, National Council for Voluntary Organisations, 1982.

Brown, L.P. “Community Policing: A Practical Guide for Police Officers.” The Police

Chief (August 1989): 72–82.
87

Bryfonski, J.J., E.F. McDonough, E.P. Moschella, and J. Wilson. “Team Policing in

the Hartford Police Department.” University of Hartford, Regional Affairs Center,

1978.

Burack, J. “Policing in Kosovo: Putting Policing Skills to Work in Police

Operations.” Subject to Debate 14 (2–3) (March 2000). 

Burgreen, B. and N. McPherson. “Implementing POP: The San Diego Experience.”

The Police Chief 57(10) (1990): 50. 

Burnham, D. “How Police Corruption is Built into the System—and a Few Ideas

About What to Do About It.” In Police Corruption: A Sociological Perspective. Ed. L.D.

Sherman. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1974: 305–14. 

Butler, A.J.P. “Policing Management: The Critical Variable for Improving the Police.”

Paper presented at Cropwood Conference, Cambridge University, 1982.

Byrne, H., W. Stanley, and R. Garst. “Rescuing Police Reform: A Challenge for the

New Guatemalan Government.” Washington, DC: Washington Office on Latin

America, 2000.

Caiden, G.E. Police Revitalization. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, D.C. Heath and

Co., 1977.

Caldero, M.A. “The Community Oriented Policing Reform Philosophy: An Evaluation

and Theoretical Analysis.” Ph.D. dissertation. Washington State University. 1993.

Call, C. “From Soldiers to Cops: War Transitions and the Demilitarization of Policing

in Latin America and the Caribbean.” Ph.D. dissertation. Stanford University. 1999.

———. “Institutional Learning Within the U.S. International Criminal Investigation

Training Assistance Program.” In Policing the New World Disorder: Peace Operations

and Public Security. Ed. R. Oakley, M. Dziedzic, and E.M. Goldberg. Washington, DC:

National Defense University Press, 1998: 177–218.

———. “Sustainable Development in Central America: The Challenges of Violence,

Injustice and Insecurity.” Paper for USAID/European Commission Project “Central

America 2020.” 1999. 
88

Call, C., and M. Barnett. “Looking for a Few Good Cops: Peacekeeping, Peacebuilding

and CIVPOL.” Peacekeeping 6(4) (1999): 43–68.

Call, C.T., and W. Stanley. “A Sacrifice for Peace? Security for the General Public

During Implementation of Peace Agreements.” Draft. November 1999. 

Capowich, G., J. Roehl, and C.M. Andrews. Evaluating Problem Oriented Policing:

Process and Outcomes in Tulsa and San Diego. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 1995.

Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict. Promoting Democracy in the

1990s: Actors and Instruments, Issues and Imperatives. Report of the Commission written

by Larry Diamond. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York, 1995.

———. Preventative Diplomacy, Preventative Defense, and Conflict Resolution: A Report

of Two Conferences at Stanford University and The Ditchley Foundation. New York:

Carnegie Corporation of New York, 1999.

Carothers, T. Aiding Democracy Abroad: The Learning Curve. Washington, DC:

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1999.

———. “The Many Agendas of Rule of Law Reform in Latin America.” Paper

for Institute of Latin American Studies, London. Conference on International

Organizations, NGO’s, and Rule of Law Construction: Issues in Judicial Reform

in Latin America, 1999.

Center for Strategic and International Affairs. “Civilian Police and Multinational

Peacekeeping: A Workshop Project—The Police Power in Peace Operations.”

Outline and papers, 1998.

Center for Strategic and International Studies and Police Executive Research Forum.

Civilian Police and International Peacekeeping. Washington, DC: Center for Strategic

and International Studies and Police Executive Research Forum, 1997.

Center for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation. Annual Report. Braamfontein,

South Africa: Center for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, 1999.

Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales and Human Rights Watch. Argentina: Exacerbating Insecurity: Police Brutality in Argentina. New York: Human Rights Watch, 1998.
89

Chan, J. “Changing Police Culture.” British Journal of Criminology 36(1) (1996):

109–34.

Chapman, S.G. Police Murders and Effective Countermeasures. Santa Cruz, CA: Davis

Publishing, 1976.

Chappell, D., and J. Evans. “The Role, Preparation and Performance of Civilian Police

in United Nations Peacekeeping Operations.” Unpublished paper for International

Center for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy, Vancouver, B.C., 1997.

Chappell, D., and L.P. Graham. Police Use of Deadly Force: Canadian Perspectives.

Toronto: Centre of Criminology, University of Toronto, 1985.

Chatterton, M., and M. Rogers. “Focused Policing.” In Coming to Terms with Policing:

Perspectives on Policy. Ed. R. Morgan and D.J. Smith. New York: Routledge, 1989:

64–81.

Chatterton, M.R. “Targeting Community Beat Officers: Organizational Constraints

and Resistance.” Policing and Society 3(3) (1993): 189–204.

Chevigny, P. Police Power: Police Abuses in New York City. New York: Vintage Books,

1969.

———. The Edge of the Knife: Police Violence in the Americas. New York: The New

Press, 1995. 

Chopra, J. “The Space of Peace-Maintenance.” Political Geography 15(3/4) (1996):

335–57.

Clairmont, D. “Community-Based Policing: Implementation and Impact.” Canadian

Journal of Criminology 33(3/4) (1991): 469–84.

Clark, R.S. The United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Program: Formulation of Standards and Efforts at Their Implementation. Philadelphia, PA: University of

Pennsylvania Press, 1994.

Cohen, J.M., and J.R. Wheeler. “Training and Retention in African Public Sectors:

Capacity-Building Lessons From Kenya.” In Getting Good Government: Capacity
90

Building in the Public Sectors of Developing Countries. Ed. M.S. Grindle. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard Institute for International Development, 1997: chapter 5. 

Cole, B. 1999. “Post-Colonial Systems.” In Policing Across the World. Ed. R.I. Mawby.

London and New York: UCL Press, 1999: 88–108.

Contreras, M.E. “Capacity Building in the Bolivian Social Policy Analysis Unit.”

In Getting Good Government: Capacity Building in the Public Sectors of Developing

Countries. Ed. M.S. Grindle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Institute for International

Development, 1997: chapter 8. 

Cooper, B. “The Fall of the Wall and the East German Police.” In Policing in Central

and Eastern Europe: Comparing Firsthand Knowledge with Experience from the West. Ed.

M. Pagon. Ljubljana, Slovenia: College of Police and Security Studies, 1996. Accessed

online at http://www.ncjrs.org/unojust/policing/fall239.htm.

Cordner, G.W. “The Baltimore County Citizen Oriented Police Enforcement (COPE)

Project: Final Evaluation.” Paper for American Society of Criminology, 1985.

Cordone, C. “Police Reform and Human Rights Investigations: The Experience of

the UN Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina.” International Peacekeeping 6(4) (1999):

191–209.

Costa, G. “The United Nations and Reform of the Police in El Salvador.” International Peacekeeping 2(3) (1995): 365–90.

Cottam, M., and O. Marenin. “Predicting the Past: Reagan Administration Assistance

to Police Forces in Central America.” Justice Quarterly 6(4) (1989): 589–618.

Cottam, M.L., and O. Marenin. “International Cooperation in the War on Drugs:

Mexico and the United States.” Policing and Society 9(3) (1999): 209–40.

Couper, D.C., and S.H. Lobitz. Quality Policing: The Madison Experience. Washington,

DC: Police Executive Research Forum, 1991.

Cranshaw, R., and G. Markham. “Philosophy, Policy, and Innovation: Internal

Ideological Conflict and the Police Organization.” Paper for Nijenrode Seminar, 1980.

Cray, Ed. The Big Blue Line. New York: Coward-McCann, 1967.
91

Criminal Justice Commission. Beenleigh Calls for Service Project: Evaluation Report.

Research Division, Brisbane, Australia, 1998. 

Cronin, R.C. Innovative Community Partnerships: Working Together for Change.

Program Summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1994. NCJ 147483.

Crosette, B. 2000. “The U.N.’s Unhappy Lot: Perilous Police Duties Multiplying.”

New York Times. Feb. 22, 2000.

Crothers, L., and J. Vinzant. “Cops and Community: Street-Level Leadership in

Community Based Policing.” International Journal of Public Administration 19(7)

(1996): 1167–91.

Currie, E. “Two Visions of Community Crime Prevention” In Communities and Crime

Reduction. Ed. T. Hope and M. Shaw. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1998:

280–285.

Curtis, L.A. 1987. “The Retreat of Folly: Some Modest Replications of Inner-City

Success.” The Annals (November 1987): 71–89.

Daley, R. Target Blue: An Insider’s View of the N.Y.P.D. New York: Delacorte Press, 1971. 

Davis, M. “Hands Across the Border: Ethical Guidelines for Transnational Law

Enforcement.” In Crime and Law Enforcement in the Global Village. Ed. W.F. McDonald.

Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Co, 1997: 187–202.

Davis, R.C., and E. Erez. “Immigrants and the Criminal Justice System: An Exploratory

Study.” Violence and Victims 13(1) (1998): 21–30. 

Davis, R.C., and P. Mateu-Gelabert. “Respectful and Effective Policing: Two Examples

in the South Bronx.” Draft, Vera Institute of Justice, 1999. 

Day, P., and R. Klein. Accountabilities: Five Public Services. London: Tavistock

Publications, 1987.

De Mesquita Neto, P. “Crime and the Threat to Democratic Governance in Latin

America.” Paper at Conference on Crime and Threat to Democratic Governance,

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, DC, 1999.
92

Dean, G. “Police Reform: Rethinking Operational Policing.” Journal of Criminal Justice

23(4) (1995): 337–47.

Decker, S.H. “Value Consensus Among Agencies in a Juvenile Diversion Program:

A Process Evaluation.” In Implementing Criminal Justice Policies. Ed. M. Morash.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1982: 101–14.

Deng, F.M. “State Collapse: The Humanitarian Challenge to the United Nations.”

In Collapsed States: The Disintegration and Restoration of Legitimate Authority. Ed.

I.W. Zartman. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1995: chapter 13.

Diamond, L. Promoting Democracy in the 1990’s: Actors and Instruments, Issues and

Imperatives. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York, 1995.

Dixon, B., and E. Stanko. Serving the People: Sector Policing and Public Accountability.

Islington, UK: Islington Council Police and Crime Prevention Unit, 1993.

Driscoll, J., R. Meyer, and C. Schanie. 1973. “Training Police in Family Crisis

Intervention.” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 9 (January 1993): 62–82. 

Driscoll, J.M., R.G. Meyer, and C.F. Schanie. “Training Police in Family Crisis

Intervention.” In Community Mental Health and the Criminal Justice System. Ed.

J. Monahan. New York: Pergamon Press, 1976: chapter 7.

Dunn, W.N. 1978. “Workers’ Self-Management and Organizational Power.” In Workers’

Self-Management and Organizational Power in Yugoslavia. Ed. J. Obradovic and W.N.

Dunn. Pittsburgh, PA: University Center for International Studies, 1978: chapter 1. 

Durivage, A.J., B.L. Montcalm and M. Laberge. “Analysis of Organizational Culture:

The Key to Strategic Planning.” Canadian Police College Journal 16(2) (1992): 94–134.

East Providence Police Department. East Providence Police Department: Integrated

Criminal Apprehension Program: Final Evaluation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Justice. National Institute of Justice. 1980. NCJ 81718.

Eck, J.E. 1992. “Helpful Hints for the Traditional-Bound Chief.” In Fresh Perspectives.

Washington, DC: Police Executive Forum, 1992. 
93

Eck, J.E., and E.R. Maguire. “Have Changes in Policing Reduced Violent Crime?

An Assessment of the Evidence.” Draft, March 9, 2000.

Eck, J.E. and W. Spellman. Problem Oriented Policing in Newport News. Washington,

DC: Police Executive Forum, 1987. 

———. “Who Ya Gonna Call?: The Police as Problem-Busters.” Crime and

Delinquency 33(1) (1987): 31–52.

Educational Consultants India Limited. “Detailed Project Report for Conduct of

Training Needs Analysis for Bureau of Police Research and Development.” New

Delhi, 1998.

Eide, E.B., and T. Holm. “Postscript: Towards Executive Authority Policing? The

Lessons of Kosovo.” International Peacekeeping 6(4) (1999): 210–19.

Elliot, J.F. The “New Police.” Springfield, IL: Charles G. Thomas, 1973.

Epstein, J. Neighborhood Police Team Experiment: An Evaluation. Winnipeg, Canada:

University of Winnipeg, Institute of Urban Studies, 1978.

Erlanger, S. “Chaos and Intolerance Prevailing in Kosovo Despite UN’s Efforts.”

New York Times, November 22, 1999.

Ernst and Whinney. Springfield Police Department: Evaluation Report ICAP (Integrated

Criminal Apprehension Program) Phase 1. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,

National Institute of Justice, 1978. NCJ 51445.

Farrell, M.J. “Development of the Community Patrol Officer Program: CommunityOriented Policing in the New York City Police Department.” In Community Policing:

Rhetoric or Reality. Ed. J.R. Greene and S.D. Mastrofski. New York: Praeger, 1988:

73–88.

Farris, K., and J.A. Schear. “Policing Cambodia: The Public Security Dimensions of

U.N. Peace Operations, 1992–1993.” In Policing the New World Disorder. Ed. R. Oakley

and M. Dziedzic. Washington, DC: National Defense University Press, 1996: 33–66.

Feltes, P. “Police Integrity and the Police Organization.” Paper for International

Police Integrity Conference, Florence. Italy. May 20–23, 1999.
94

Fenichel, D.M. “Community Policing: The Trenton Experience.” Law and Order

4(9) (1993): 81.

Fiel, S.R. Preventing Genocide: How the Early Use of Force Might Have Succeeded in

Rwanda. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York, 1998.

Field, M.W. “Evaluating Police Services Through Citizen Surveys.” Police Chief

57(10) (1990): 69–72.

Field, S. Resettling Refugees: The Lessons of Research. Home Office Research Study.

London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1986.

Fielding, N. “The Organizational and Occupational Troubles of Community

Policing.” Policing and Society 4(4) (1994): 305–52.

Fielding, N., C. Kemp, and C. Norris. “Constraints on the Practice of Community

Policing.” In Coming to Terms With Policing: Perspectives on Policy. Ed. R. Morgan and

D. J. Smith. London: Routledge, 1989: 49–63. 

Finnane, M. “Police Corruption and Police Reform: the Fitzgerald Inquiry in

Queensland, Australia.” Policing and Society 1(1) (1990): 159–71. 

Fitzgerald Report, Report of a Commission of Inquiry Into Possible Illegal Activities

and Associated Police Misconduct. Brisbane, Australia, 1989.

Fleissner, D., N. Fedan, E. Stotland, and D. Klinger. Community Policing in Seattle:

A Descriptive Study of the South Seattle Crime Reduction Project. Seattle, WA: Seattle

Police Department, 1991.

Flynn, C., J. Suhr, and C. Kukuk. Lawrence Police Department: Integrated Criminal

Apprehension Program: Evaluation. Volume 4. Lawrence, KS: Lawrence Police

Department, 1978.

Fogel, D. Policing in Central and Eastern Europe: Report on a Study Tour. Publication

series 23. Helsinki, Finland: European Institute for Crime Prevention and Control,

1994.

Foley, D.W. “The Military Police Corps.” Paper for Policing the World’s Disorder

Conference. Washington, DC, September 1998. 
95

Freckelton, I. “Shooting the Messenger: The Genesis of Police Corruption: An

Australian Case Study.” In Complaints Against the Police: The Trend to External Review.

Ed. A. Goldsmith, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991: chapter 5.

French, W.L., and C.H. Bell. Organizational Development: Behavioral Science Interventions for Organizational Improvement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1995.

Fu, H.L. “A Bird in the Cage: Police and Political Leadership in Post-Mao China.”

Policing and Society 4(4) (1994): 277–91.

Fyfe, J.J. “Police Use of Deadly Force: Research and Reform.” Justice Quarterly 5(2)

(1988):165–205.

Gall, C. “Community Policing Taught by Americans in Kosovo.” New York Times.

September 8, 1999.

———. “German General’s Kosovo Peacekeepers are Fighting Crime.” New York

Times. December 21, 1999.

Gambari, I.A. “The Role of Foreign Intervention in Africa Reconstruction,” In Collapsed

States: The Disintegration and Restoration of Legitimate Authority. Ed. I.W. Zartman.

Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1995: chapter 14.

Garcia-Sayan, D. “Resources: The Role of International Financial Institutions in

Judicial Strengthening and Reform.” Paper for London Conference, 1999. 

Gardiner, J.A. “Law Enforcement and Corruption: Explanations and Recommendations.”

In Controlling Police Corruption: The Effects of Reform Policies—Summary Report.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute for Law Enforcement

and Criminal Justice, 1978: 315–24. NCJ 146906.

Gay, W.G., T.M. Beall, and R.A. Bowers. Four Site Assessment of the Criminal

Apprehension Program: Executive Summary. Philadelphia: University City Science

Center, 1984. 

Gelbard, R.S. “International Narcotics Control Budget and Program.” Testimony before

Subcommittee on Foreign Operations of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

March 20, 1997.
96

Geller, W.A. 1997. “Suppose We Were Really Serious About Police Departments

Becoming ‘Learning Organizations’?” National Institute of Justice Journal (December

1997): 2–8. 

———. Police Leadership in America. New York: Praeger, 1985.

Giacomazzi, A.L., E.F. McGarrell, and Q.C. Thurman. Reducing Disorder, Fear, and

Crime in Public Housing: An Evaluation of a Drug Crime Elimination Program in Spokane,

Washington. Spokane, WA: Washington State University, Washington State Institute

for Community-Oriented Policing Program in Criminal Justice, 1997.

Giacomazzi, A.L., P. Ogen, and Q.C. Thurman. “Program Monitoring and Community

Policing: A Process Evaluation of Community Policing Officers in Spokane,

Washington.” American Journal of Police 122(3) (1993): 89–114. 

Glendinning, V. Rebecca West: A Life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1987.

Goldsmith, A. Complaints Against the Police: The Trend to External Review. Oxford: U.K.

Clarendon Press, 1991.

———. “Cops, Complaints, and Citizens: Issues of Administration and Accountability.”

Unpublished draft, January 1990.

———. “Democratization and Criminal Justice: Human Rights and Police Reform in

Columbia.” Unpublished draft, March 1995.

———. “Police Accountability Reform in Columbia: The Civilian Oversight

Experiment.” Unpublished draft, 1997. 

———. “Police Misconduct and the Limits of the Law.” Unpublished draft, Summer

1989.

———. “Re-Cognizing Difference in Civilian Review: The Limits of Mono-Logical

Thinking in a Polyphonic World.” Draft paper for International Association for the

Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement conference, San Diego, CA, 1994.

———. “What’s Wrong with Complaint Investigations? Dealing with Differences

Differently in Complaints Against the Police.” Criminal Justice Ethics (Winter/Spring

1996): 36–55.
97

Goldstein, H. Problem Oriented Policing. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990.

———. “Toward a Community-Oriented Policing: Potential, Basic Requirements

and Threshold Questions.” Crime and Delinquency 33(1) (1987): 6–30.

———. The New Policing: Confronting Complexity. Research in Brief. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1993. NCJ 145157.

———. “The New Policing: Confronting Complexity.” Speech given at a conference

on community policing, New Jersey, August 24, 1993. 

Gonzalez, D. “Civilian Police Force Brings New Problems to Haiti.” New York Times.

November 26, 1999.

———. “Haiti’s Paralysis Spreads as U.S. Troops Pack Up.” New York Times.

November 10, 1999.

Gowing, N. “Media Coverage: Help or Hindrance in Conflict Prevention?” 

New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York, 1997.

Grady, D. “A Case Study of Resistance to Change Within the Santa Fe Police

Department.” Ph.D. dissertation, Walden University, 1997.

Gramckow, H.P. “Influence of History and the Rule of Law on the Development

of Community Policing in Germany.” Police Studies 18(2) (1995): 17–32.

Gray, A., and M. Manwaring. “Panama: Operation Just Cause.” In Policing the New

World Disorder: Peace Operations and Public Security. Ed. R. Oakley, M. Dziedzic, and

E.M. Goldberg. Washington, DC: National Defense University Press, 1998: 3–32.

Gray, C.S. “Technical Assistance and Capacity Building for Policy Analysis and

Implementation.” In Getting Good Government: Capacity Building in the Public Sectors

of Developing Countries. Ed. M.S. Grindle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Institute for

International Development, 1997: chapter 14. 

Gray, K., M.K. Stohr-Gillmore, and N.P. Lovrich. “Adapting Participatory Management

for a Parliamentary Organization: The Implementation of Teams in the Washington

State Patrol.” American Journal of Police 10(4) (1992): 27–47.
98

Great Britain, Home Office. Police Reform: A Police Service for the Twenty-First Century.

A White Paper, London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1993. 

Greenberg, R. Let’s Take Back Our Streets! Chicago: Contemporary Books, 1989.

Greene, J.R. “Evaluating Planned Change Strategies in Modern Law Enforcement:

Implementing Community-Based Policing.” In How to Recognize Good Policing. Ed.

J.P. Brodeur. Thousand Oaks, CA: Police Executive Research Forum and Sage

Publications, 1998: 141–60.

———. “Organizational Change in Law Enforcement.” Journal of Criminal Justice

9(1) (1981): 79–91.

Greene, J.R., and R.B. Taylor. “Community-Based Policing and Foot Patrol.” Paper

for Temple Conference, May 1987.

Greene, J.R., and S.D. Mastrofski. Community Policing: Rhetoric or Reality. New York:

Praeger, 1988. 

Gregory, F. “The United Nations Provision of Policing Services (CIVPOL) with the

Framework of ‘Peacekeeping’ Operations: An Analysis of the Issues.” Policing and

Society 6(2) (1996): 145–62.

Grinc, R.M. “Angels in Marble: Problems in Stimulating Community Involvement

in Community Policing.” Crime and Delinquency 40(3) (1994): 437–68.

Grindle, M.S., ed. Getting Good Government: Capacity Building in the Public Sectors

of Developing Countries. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Institute for International

Development, 1997.

Grosman, B.A. Police Command: Decisions and Discretion. Toronto: MacMillan of

Canada, 1975.

Grover, V. Mechanisms of Police Accountability: A Review. Rights and Social Justice

Program, Ford Foundation, New Delhi, June 1998.

Giuliani, R., and W.J. Brattan. “Rooting Out Corruption; Building Organizational

Integrity in the New York Police Department.” Police Strategy 7, June 14, 1995. 
99

Gurr, T.R. “Early-Warning Systems: From Surveillance to Assessment to Action.”

In Preventive Diplomacy. Ed. K.M. Cahill. New York: Basic Books, 1996: 243–62.

Guyot, D. Policing as Though People Matter. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1991. 

Haberfield, M.R. 1997. “Poland: ‘The Police Are Not the Public and the Public Are Not

the Police’: Transformation from Militia to Police.” Policing 20(4) (1997): 641–54.

Hadenius, A., ed., Democracy’s Victory and Crisis. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 1997.

Hageman, M.J. “Crime Prevention and the Phenomenological Approach.” Police Chief

57(10) (1990): 76–86.

Hall, R.H. Organizations: Structures, Processes and Outcomes. (5th ed.) Englewood

Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall, 1991.

Hargrove, E.C., and J.C. Glidewell, eds., Impossible Jobs in Public Management.

Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press, 1990.

Harlan, J.P. “The German Police: Issues in the Unification Process.” Policing 20(3)

(1997): 532–54.

Hartman, F.X., L.P. Brown, and D. Stephens. Community Policing: Would You Know

It If You Saw It? Community Policing Series No. 16. East Lansing, MI: National

Neighborhood Foot Patrol Center, Michigan State University, 1988. 

Hartz, H. “CIVPOL: The UN Instrument for Police Reform.” International

Peacekeeping 6(4) (1999): 27–42.

Hayes, M.D., and G.F. Wheatley. Interagency and Political-Military Dimensions of

Peace Operations: Haiti—A Case Study. Washington, DC: National Defense University,

Institute for National Strategic Studies, 1996.

Helman, G.B., and S.R. Ratner. “Saving Failed States.” Foreign Policy 89 (Winter

1992–93): 3–20.

Hendrickson, D. A Review of Security-Sector Reform. London: Centre of Defence

Studies, The Conflict, Security and Development Group, 1999.
100

Henry, V.E. June 1990. “Patterns of Police Corruption and Reform: Comparing New

York City and Queensland.” Research Paper No. 16. Brisbane: Griffith University,

June 1990.

_____. “Police Reform: The Overseas View.” Unpublished paper for Griffith University

Seminar, Queensland, Australia, July 1990.

Heymann, P.B. “Creating Democratic Law Enforcement Institutions in Eastern Europe,

Latin America and South Africa.” Unpublished manuscript, 1992.

———. “Principles of Democratic Policing.” Paper for Conference on Policing

Emerging Democracies, Washington, DC, December 14–15, 1995.

———. “Obstacles to Reform in the Area of Police Integrity.” Paper for Conference

on Police Integrity and Democracy. Florence, Italy. May 20–23, 1999.

Hildebrand, M.E., and M.S. Grindle. “Building Sustainable Capacity in the Public

Sector: What Can Be Done?” In Getting Good Government: Capacity Building in the

Public Sectors of Developing Countries. Ed. M.S. Grindle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

Institute for International Development, 1997: chapter 2.

Hill, R.S. Iron Hand in the Velvet Glove: The Modernization of Policing in New Zealand,

1886–1917. Annandale, Australia: Federation Press, 1995.

Hills, A. “Policing Enforcement and Low Intensity Conflict.” Policing and Society 7(4)

(1997): 291–308.

Hirsch, J.L., and R.B. Oakley. Somalia and Operation Restore Hope: Reflections on 

Peacemaking and Peacekeeping. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace 

Press, 1995.

Holdaway, S. Inside the British Police. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1983.

Holiday, D. “Guatemala’s Precarious Peace.” Current History (February 2000): 78–84.

Holm, T. “CIVPOL Operations in Eastern Slavonia, 1992–98.” International Peacekeeping

6(4) (1999): 135–56.
101

Homel, R. “Integrating Investigation and Prevention: Managing the Transformation of

the Queensland Criminal Justice Commission.” Queensland Review 4(2) 1997: 37–50.

Hornick, J.P., B.A. Burrows, I. Tjosvold, and D.M. Phillips. An Evaluation of the

Neighborhood Foot Patrol Program of the Edmonton Police Service. Ottawa: Ministry of

the Solicitor General, September 1989.

Houston Police Department. Developing a Policing Style for Neighborhood Oriented

Policing. Executive Session No. 1, 1987.

Hudspith, G. and P. Todd. “An Inter-Agency Approach—Bedfordshire.” In Crime and

Social Strategies in Local Communities of Europe. Ed. J. Brown. Cranfield, U.K.: Centre

for Policy Studies in Social Order, 1985: 7–13.

Huggins, M.K. Political Policing: the United States and Latin America. Durham, NC:

Duke University Press, 1998.

Human Rights Watch. Bosnia and Hercegovina Beyond Restraint: Politics and the Policing

Agenda of the United Nations International Police Task Force. New York: Human Rights

Watch, 1998.

———. Bolivia: Human Rights Violations and the War on Drugs. New York: Human

Rights Watch, 1995.

———. Police Abuse and Killings of Street Children in India. Children’s Rights Project.

New York: Human Rights Watch, 1996. 

———. Shielded From Justice: Police Brutality and Accountability in the United States.

New York: Human Rights Watch, 1998.

Human Rights Watch, National Coalition for Haitian Rights, and Washington Office

on Latin America. “The Human Rights Record of the Haitian National Police.”

Washington, DC: Human Rights Watch, 1997.

Hyden, G. “Democratization and Administration.” In Democracy’s Victory and Crisis.

Ed. A. Hadenius. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997: 242–62.

Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority. “Community Policing in Chicago:

An Evaluation.” On Good Authority. 2(9) (1999): 1–4. 
102

Independent Committee of Inquiry into the Role and Responsibilities of the Police.

The Role and Responsibilities of the Police. London: Police Foundation and Police

Studies Institute, 1996.

Interagency Working Group on U.S. Government-Sponsored International Exchanges

and Training. FY 1998 Annual Report. Washington, DC: Interagency Working Group

on U.S. Government-Sponsored International Exchanges and Training, 1998.

International Association of Chiefs of Police. Developing Neighborhood Oriented Policing

in the Houston Police Department. Rockville, MD: International Association of Chiefs

of Police, 1988.

———. Pepper Spray Evaluation Project: Results of the Introduction of Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) Into Baltimore County. Baltimore County, MD, Police Department, 1995. 

International Association of Peacekeeping Training Centres (IPTAC). International

Civilian Police Planning Guide. Nova Scotia, Canada: Canadian Peacekeeping Press,

1999.

International Criminal Investigative Training Assistance Program (ICITAP). “Year End

Review: A Compilation of Project Descriptions.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Justice, International Criminal Investigative Training Assistance Program, 1999.

Jiao, A.Y. “Community Policing and Community Mutuality.” Police Studies 18(3–4)

(1995): 69–91.

Johnston, Les. “Late Modernity, Governance, and Policing.” In How to Recognize Good

Policing: Problems and Issues. Ed. J.P. Brodeur. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage and Police

Executive Research Forum, 1998. 

Jones, T. Policing and Democracy in the Netherlands. London: Police Studies Institute,

1995. 

Jones, T., T. Newburn, and D.J. Smith. “Policing and the Idea of Democracy.” British

Journal of Criminology 36(2) (1996): 182–98. 

Joulwan, G.A., and C.C. Schoonmaker. Civilian-Military Cooperation in the Prevention

of Deadly Conflict: Implementing Agreements in Bosnia and Beyond. New York: Carnegie

Corporation of New York, 1998. 
103

Kaplan, D.E. “Yakuza, Inc.: American Investors Are Spending Billions of Dollars to

Snap Up Portfolios of Bad Loans from Japanese Banks.” U.S. News and World Report,

April 15, 1998: 40–45.

Kaplan, D.E., and C. Caryl. “The Looting of Russia.” U.S. News and World Report,

August 3, 1998: 26ff.

Kaplan, D.E., M. Madden, and S. Butler. “The Wiseguy Regime.” U.S. News and

World Report, February 15, 1999: 36.

Kaplan, R.D. “Sometimes, Autocracy Breeds Freedom.” New York Times op-ed.

June 28, 1998.

Katzenstein, P.J. “Coping with Terrorism: Norms and Internal Security in Germany

and Japan.” Paper for the Workshop on Ideas and Foreign Policy, Center for

Advanced Study of the Behavioral Sciences, Palo Alto, CA, April 19–20, 1991.

Kegley, C.W., and M.G. Hermann. “How Democracies Use Intervention: A Neglected

Dimension in Studies of the Democratic Peace.” Journal of Peace Research 33(3)

(1996): 309–22.

Kelling, G.L., and W.J. Brattan. “Implementing Community Policing: The Administration Problem.” Perspectives on Policing, No. 17, Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Justice, National Institute of Justice, July 1993. NCJ 141236.

Kelling, G.L., and C.M. Coles. Fixing Broken Windows: Restoring Order and Reducing

Crime in Our Communities. New York: The Free Press, 1996. 

Kelling G.L., M.R. Hochberg, S.L. Kaninska, A.M. Rocheleau, D.R. Rosenbaum,

J.A. Roth, and W.G. Skogan. The Bureau of Justice Assistance Comprehensive Communities

Program: A Preliminary Report. Research in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, National Institute of Justice, June 1998. NCJ 171132.

Kelling, G.L., R. Wasserman, and H. Williams. “Police Accountability and Community

Policing.” Perspectives on Policing No. 7, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, National Institute of Justice, November 1988. NCJ 114211.

Kelling, G.L., and M.A. Wycoff. “Implementing Community Policing: The Administrative Problem.” Paper for the Executive Session on Police. February 28–30, 1991.
104

Kelly, R.W. “American Law Enforcement Perspectives on Policing in Emerging

Democracies.” In Policing in Emerging Democracies: Workshop Papers and Highlights.

Research Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute

of Justice; U.S. Department of State, Bureau of International Narcotics and Law

Enforcement Affairs, October 1995: 25–28.

Kennan, G.F. “On American Principles.” Foreign Affairs 74(2) (1995): 116–26.

Kennedy, D.M. Fighting Fear in Baltimore County. Kennedy School of Government

Case Program. Cambridge, MA: John F. Kennedy School of Government, 1990.

Kennedy, D. Environmental Quality and Regional Conflict. New York: Carnegie

Corporation of New York, 1998.

Kincaid, A.D., and E.A. Gamarra. “Disorderly Democracy: Redefining Public

Security in Latin America.” Paper for XIV Annual Conference on the Political

Economy in the World System, University of Miami, FL, April 1995.

Klare, M.T. Supplying Repression. New York: Field Foundation, 1977. 

———. War Without End: American Planning for the Next Vietnam. New York: Alfred

A. Knopf, 1972.

Koci, A. “Reform of the Police in Hungary and Lithuania: Empirical Findings on

the Policing of Public Order.” Innovation: The European Journal of Social Sciences 11(3)

(1998): 304–14.

Konz, P. “The UNDP Justice Programme in Latin America and the Caribbean: Areas

of Intervention.” Paper for London Conference, 1999. 

Kramer, L.C., and P. McElderry. Total Problem-Oriented Policing: How a Police Department Adopted Problem-Oriented Policing as Its Comprehensive Strategy. Colorado Springs,

CO: Colorado Springs Police Department, 1994.

Krastev, I. “How to Control Corruption in South East Europe: The Case of Bulgaria.”

Paper for Conference on “Crime and Threats to Democratic Governance.” Woodrow

Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, DC, 1999.
105

Kuga, E. “Case Study of ‘CPOP: The Research—An Evaluative Study of the New

York City Community Police Patrol Officer Program’ by the Vera Institute of Justice.”

Unpublished paper for Proseminar, April 1991. 

Landa, C. “The Balance of the Judicial Reform in Peru in Reflection of the

Fundamental Rights.” Paper for London Conference, 1999.

Landry, J. New Orleans Police Department: Integrated Criminal Apprehension Program:

Phase 2 Evaluation Report. New Orleans, LA: New Orleans Police Department, 1979.

Laurance, E.J. Light Weapons and Intrastate Conflict: Early Warning Factors and Preventative Action. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York, 1998.

Lawyer’s Committee for Human Rights. Underwriting Injustice: AID and El Salvador’s

Judicial Reform Program. New York: Lawyer’s Committee for Human Rights, 1989. 

Lee, S.Y. The Korean National Police: Testing Theories of Obedience to the Rule of Law.

Ph.D. dissertation, Northeastern University, 1991.

Leeds, E. “Cocaine and Parallel Polities in the Brazilian Urban Periphery: Constraints

on Local-Level Democratization.” Latin American Research Review 31(3) (1996): 47–83.

Lewis, B., and E. Marks. “The Rule of Law in a Disorderly World: The Need for

Innovation and Focus Forward.” Draft paper for Center for Strategic and

International Studies, 2000.

Lia, B. “The Establishment of a Palestinian Police Force in the West Bank and Gaza

Strip.” International Peacekeeping 6(4) (1999): 157–70.

Liang, H. “International Cooperation of Political Police in Europe, 1815–1914: An

Essay Based on Some Austrian Archival Sources.” Mitteilungen Des Osterreichischen

Staatsarchivs 33 (1980): 193–217.

Litton, G.D., and A.P. Selmore. Development and Implementation of the Management

Incentive Training Program in the New Orleans Police Department. New Orleans, LA:

Mayor’s Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, 1981. 

Lobe, T. “The Rise and Demise of the Office of Public Safety.” Armed Forces and Society

(Winter 1983): 187–213.
106

Lord, V.B. “Impact of Community Policing: Reported Stressors, Social Support, and

Strain Among Police Officers in a Changing Department.” Journal of Criminal Justice

24(6) (1996): 503–22. 

Loveday, B. “The Road to Regionalisation.” Policing 6 (Winter 1990): 639–60.

Lurigio, A.J., and W.G. Skogan. “Winning the Hearts and Minds of Police Officers:

An Assessment of Staff Perceptions of Community Policing in Chicago.” Crime and

Delinquency 40(3) (1994): 315–30.

Lustgarden, L. The Governance of Police. London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1986.

Lutte, D.E. Improving National Capacity to Respond to Complex Emergencies: The U.S.

Experience. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York, 1998.

Lyons, W. “Taking Community Seriously: Policing Reform in Southeast Seattle.”

Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington, 1995. 

MacFarlane, R.I. Managing Criminal Investigations Program: Final Evaluation Report—

Montgomery County (MD). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National

Institute of Justice, 1979. NCJ 61360.

Macovei, M. “Police Impunity in Romania: Military Jurisdiction Over Misconduct

Cases.” Draft paper for Vera Institute of Justice, 1998.

Malan, M. “Peacekeeping in Southern Africa: Police Reform in Mozambique and

South Africa.” International Peacekeeping 6(4) (1999): 171–90.

Mandelbaum, M. “Foreign Policy as Social Work.” Foreign Affairs 75(1) (1996): 16–32.

Mani, R. “Contextualizing Police Reform: Security, the Rule of Law and Post-Conflict

Peacebuilding.” International Peacekeeping 6(4) (1999): 9–26.

Manning, P.K. “Information Technologies and the Police.” In Modern Policing. Ed.

M. Tonry and N. Morris, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992: 349–98.

Mansfield, E.D., and J. Snyder. “Democratization and the Danger of War.” 

International Security 20(2) (1995): 5–38.
107

Marenin, O. “Changing Police, Policing Change: Towards More Questions.” In Policing

Change, Changing Police: International Perspectives. Ed. O. Marenin. New York: Garland

Publishing, 1996: 309–30.

———. “Exporting Law and Order: U.S. Public Safety Assistance Programs to SubSaharan Africa: 1955–77.” Paper for the African Studies Association, 1982.

———. “From IPA to ILEA: Change and Continuity in United States Police Training

Programs.” Unpublished manuscript, 1998 American Society of Criminology

Conference.

———. ed., Policing Change, Changing Police: International Perspectives. New York:

Garland Publishing, Inc, 1996.

———. “Policing Rural Alaska.” In Alternative Policing Styles: Cross-Cultural

Perspectives. Ed. M. Findlay and U. Zvekic. Deventer, Netherlands: P. Kluwer 

Law and Taxation Publishers, 1993: 45–70.

———. “The Goal of Democracy in International Police Assistance Programs.”

Policing 21(1) (1998): 159–77.

———. “The Internationalization of Democratic Policing.” Unpublished manuscript,

1999 American Society of Criminology Conference.

———. “The Role of Bilateral Support for Police Reform Processes: The Case of the

United States.” International Peacekeeping 6(4) (1999): 93–112.

———. “The Police and the Coercive Nature of the State.” In Changes in the State:

Causes and Consequences. Ed. E.S. Greenberg and T.F. Mayer. Newbury Park, CA:

Sage Publications, 1990: chapter 6.

———. “United States Police Assistance in Emerging Democracies.” Policing and

Society 8(2) (1998): 153–68.

Marotta, F. “The Blue Flame and the Gold Shield: Methodology, Challenges and Lessons

Learned on Human Rights Training for Police.” Peacekeeping 6(4) (1999): 69–92.

Marks, M. “Changing Police, Policing Change.” Society in Transition 28 (1997): 54–69.
108

Martinez, J., and E. Amaya. “The Development and Current State of El Salvador’s

National Civilian Police Force.” Unpublished paper for WOLA conference,

El Salvador, 2000.

Marx, G.T. “Social Control Across Borders.” In Crime and Law Enforcement in the Global

Village. Ed. W.F. McDonald. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Co, 1997: 23–40.

Mastrofski, S.D. “Community Policing and Police Organization Structure.” In How

to Recognize Good Policing. Ed. J.P. Brodeur. Thousand Oaks, CA: Police Executive

Research Forum and Sage Publications, 1998: 161–89.

———. “Community Policing and Police Organization Structure.” Unpublished

paper for Montreal Conference, October 1994.

———. Policing for People. Washington, DC: Police Foundation; U.S. Department

of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1999. NCJ 180061.

Mastrofski, S.D., R.B. Parks, A.J. Riess, and R.E. Worden. Policing Neighborhoods:

A Report from Indianapolis. Research in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Justice, National Institute of Justice, July 1998. NCJ 184207.

Matthews, J.T. “Redefining Security.” Foreign Affairs 68(2) (1989): 162–77.

Matyi, P.J., and J.J. MacDonnell. Quincy Police Department: Final Report on an Evaluation of the Integrated Criminal Apprehension Project. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, 1979. NCJ 61103.

Mawby, R.I., ed., Policing Across the World: Issues for the Twenty-First Century. London:

UCL Press, 1999. 

Mayall, J., ed., The New Interventionism, 1991–1994. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1996.

Mayo, L.A. “Analysis of the Role of the Police Chief Executive.” Ph.D. dissertation,

American University. 1983.

McCleery, R.H. Policy Change in Prison Management: A Test Case for Administrative Analysis. East Lansing, MI: Governmental Research Bureau, Michigan State University, 1957.
109

McCold, P., and B. Wachtel. Restorative Policing Experiment: The Bethlehem

Pennsylvania Police Family Group Conferencing Project. Pipersville, PA: Community

Service Foundation, 1998.

McDonald, P.P., and G. Sheldon. 1999. Managing Police Operations: A Guide to Implementation of the NYPD Crime Control Model COMPSTAT. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth,

2001.

McDonald, W.F. “Crime and Justice in the Global Village: Towards Global Criminology.”

In Crime and Law Enforcement in the Global Village. Ed. W.F. McDonald. Cincinnati,

OH: Anderson Publishing Co., 1997: 3–22.

———. “Illegal Immigration: Crime, Ramifications, and Control (The American

Experience).” In Crime and Law Enforcement in the Global Village. Ed. W.F. McDonald.

Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Co., 1997: 88–95.

McDonald, W.F., K.C. Brown, and J. Soskis. Improving Evidence Gathering Through a

Computer-Assisted Case Intake Program: Final Report. Washington, DC: Georgetown

University, Institute of Criminal Law and Procedure, 1988. 

McElroy, J.E. “Evaluating Police Service Delivery of Police Agencies.” Unpublished

paper for Workshop on Evaluating Police Delivery of Service, Montreal. November

1994.

McElroy, J.E., C.A. Cosgrove, and S. Sadd. Community Policing: The CPOP in New

York. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1993. 

McFarlane, J. “Transnational Crime as a Security Issue.” Paper for the Third Meeting

of the Working Group on Transnational Crime, Manila, Philippines, May 1998.

McHugh, H. Key Issues in Police Training: Lessons Learned From USAID Experience.

Washington, DC: U.S. Agency for International Development, 1994. 

McNamara, J.D. “The Impact of Bureaucratic Dysfunctions on Attempts to Prevent

Police Corruption,” Police Journal 48 (1) (January–March 1975): 37–44.

Meese, III, E. “Community Policing and the Police Officer.” Draft paper for the

Harvard Executive Session, February 1991.
110

Miyet, B. “Opening Statement to the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations.”

New York: United Nations, February 11, 2000. 

Moir, P., and H. Eijkman, eds., Policing Australia: Old Issues, New Perspectives. South

Melbourne: The MacMillan Company of Australia, 1992. 

Montes, C., S. Migliorisi, and T. Wolfe. Evaluation of EC Country Strategy: South Africa

1996–1999. Brussels: European Commission, 1999.

Moore, M.H. “Conference Wrap-Up: Where Do We Go From Here?” In Policing in

Emerging Democracies: Workshop Papers and Highlights. Research Report. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice; U.S. Department of

State, Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, October

1995. NCJ 167024.

———. “Developing a Five Year Police Research and Evaluation Plan.”National

Institute of Justice, internal document, October 1994. 

———. “Police Leadership: The Impossible Dream.” In Impossible Jobs in Public

Management. Ed. J.C. Glidewell and E.C. Hargrove. Lawrence, KS: University of

Kansas Press, 1990: 72–102. 

———. “Problem Solving and Community Policing: Old Wine in New Barrels?” In

Modern Policing. Ed. M. Tonry and N. Morris, Chicago: University of Chicago Press,

1992: 99–158.

Moore, M.H., and D.W. Stephens. “Beyond Command and Control: The Strategic

Management of Police Departments.” Washington, DC: Police Executive Research

Forum, 1991. 

Moore, M.H., M. Sparrow, and W. Spelman. “Innovations in Policing: From

Production Lines to Job Shops.” Unpublished paper, May 1994.

Moore, M.H., W. Spelman, and R. Young. “Innovations in Policing: A Test of Three

Different Methodologies for Identifying Important Innovations in a Substantive

Field.” Unpublished paper, 1992.
111

Morgan, R. “Policing by Consent: Legitimizing the Doctrine.” In Coming to Terms

with Policing: Perspectives on Policy. Ed. R. Morgan and D.J. Smith. London: Routledge,

1989: 217–34.

———. “The Local Determinants of Policing.” In Policing and the Community. Ed.

P. Wilmott. London: Policy Studies Institute, 1987: 29–44.

Morgan, R. and D.J. Smith, eds., Coming to Terms With Policing: Perspectives on Policy.

London: Routledge, 1989.

Morgenthau, H.J. “The Political Conditions for an International Police Force.”

International Organization 17(2) (1963): 343–403.

Morn, F., and M. Toro. “From Dictatorship to Democracy: Crime and Policing in

Contemporary Spain.” International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal

Justice 13(1) (1989): 52–64.

Morris, M.O., S. Lea, and J. Tornatore-High. Oakland Crime Prevention Program:

Final Evaluation. Oakland, CA: Oakland Police Department, 1980.

Morrison, M. “On the Drug Smugglers’ Tracks.” Washington Post. May 29, 2000, A3.

Mulcahy, A. “The Dynamics of the Police Legitimation Process in Northern Ireland.”

Ph.D. dissertation, Arizona State University, 1998.

Murphy, C. “The Social and Formal Organization of Small Town Policing: A Comparative Analysis of RCMP and Municipal Policing.” Ph.D. dissertation, University

of Toronto, 1986.

Murray, C., T. Motoyama, W.V. Rouse, and H. Rubenstein, The Link Between Crime

and the Built Environment: The Current State of Knowledge. Vol. 1, Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1980. NCJ 77056: 65.

Myers, C.N. “Police Research Institute in Developing Countries.” In Getting Good

Government: Capacity Building in the Public Sectors of Developing Countries. Ed. M.S.

Grindle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Institute for International Development, 1997:

chapter 7.
112

Nadelman, E.A. Cops Across Borders: The Internationalization of American Law Enforcement. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1994.

———. “Cops Across Borders: Transnational Crime and International Law Enforcement.” Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1987.

National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals. Police.

Washington, DC: National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and

Goals, 1973.

National Crime Prevention Council. Taking the Offensive to Prevent Crime: How Seven

Cities Did It. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice

Assistance, 1994. NCJ 151532.

Naylor, R.T. “From Cold War to Crime War: The Search for a New ‘National Security’

Threat.” Transnational Organized Crime 1(4) (Winter 1995): 37–56.

Neild, R. “Can Haiti’s Police Reforms Be Sustained?” New York: National Coalition

for Haitian Rights and Washington Office on Latin America, 1998. 

———. “Community Policing.” Police Reform Issues Packet, Section V. Washington,

DC: Washington Office on Latin America, 1998.

———. “From National Security to Citizen Security: Civil Society and the Evolution

of Public Order Debates.” Unpublished paper, August 1999.

———. “Human Rights and Citizen Security: The Framework for Democratic Models

of Policing.” Washington Office on Latin America. Paper for Regional Seminar on

Democratic Controls of the Maintenance of Interior Security in Argentina, Chile and

Peru. Santiago, Chile, August 11–12, 1997.

———. “Internal Controls and Disciplinary Units.” Paper 3 in the series Themes 

and Debates in Public Security Reform: A Manual for Civil Society. Washington, DC:

Washington Office on Latin America, 1998.

———. “Police Recruitment.” In Washington Office on Latin America, Themes and

Debates in Public Security Reform: A Manual for Civil Society. Washington, DC: Washington Office on Latin America, 1998.
113

———. “Police Reform in Haiti: The Challenge of Demilitarizing Public Order and

Establishing Rule of Law.” Paper for conference on Governance in Haiti: Strengthening

the State and Democratic Development, Ottawa, Canada, November 7–8, 1996. 

———. “Police Training.” In Washington Office on Latin America, Themes and

Debates in Public Security Reform: A Manual for Civil Society. Washington, DC:

Washington Office on Latin America, 1998.

———. Policing Haiti: Preliminary Assessment of the New Civilian Security Force.

Washington, DC: Washington Office on Latin America, 1995.

———. “Policing the Peace: International Support for Post-Conflict Reform.”

Unpublished article, January 2000. 

New York Times. “Democracies and Their Police.” Editorial. May 1, 2000.

Norman, M. 1993. “Officer Jett’s Laboratory.” New York Times Magazine. December 12,

1993.

Oakley, R. and D. Bentley. “Peace Operations: A Comparison of Somalia and Haiti.”

Strategic Forum 30 (1995): 47–65.

Oakley, R.B., M.J. Dziedzic, and E.M. Goldberg, eds., Policing the New World Disorder:

Peace Operations and Public Security. Washington, DC: National Defense University

Press, 1998.

Oakley, R.B., and W.G. Carter III. “Beyond Jointness: The Civil-Military Dimensions

of Peace Operations and Humanitarian Assistance.” Washington, DC: National

Defense University, 2000.

Oettmeier, T., and W.H. Bieck. “Developing a Policing Style for Neighborhood

Oriented Policing.” Houston Police Department. n.d.

Oettmeier, T., and L. Brown. In Community Policing: Rhetoric or Reality. Ed. J.R.

Greene and S.D. Mastrofski. New York: Praeger, 1988.

Oettmeier, T. and M.A. Wycoff. “Police Performance in the Nineties: Practitioner

Perspectives.” American Journal of Police 13(2) (1994): 21–48.
114

Offee, C. “Micro-Aspects of Democratic Theory: What Makes for the Deliberative

Competence of Citizens?” In Democracy’s Victory and Crisis. Ed. A. Hadenius. New

York: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

Ottaway, M. “Democratization in Collapsed States.” In Collapsed States. Ed. I.W.

Zartman. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1995: chapter 23.

Packer, H.L. The Limits of Criminal Sanction. Stanford: CA. Stanford University Press,

1968.

Palmer, D. “Reforming Police Management: The Introduction of a Police Board in

Victoria.” Policing 20(4) (1997): 665–79.

Pasic, A., and T.G. Weiss. “The Politics of Rescue: Yugoslavia’s Wars and the Humanitarian Impulse.” Ethics and International Affairs 11 (1997): 105–32.

Pate, A.M. “Community Policing Grows in Brooklyn: An Inside View of the New York

City Police Department’s Model Precinct.” Crime and Delinquency 40 (1994): 384–410.

Patten Report. The Report of the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern

Ireland. A New Beginning: Policing in Northern Ireland. September 1999.

Pennington, R.R. “The Effects of Selected Police Reform Items and Environmental

Variables on Selected Productivity Measures in Suburban Police Departments.” Ph.D.

dissertation, Saint Louis University, 1985. 

Perito, R.M. “Democratic Policing and International Police Operations.” Unpublished

paper, 1997.

———. “The Role of Police in Peace Operations.” Master’s thesis, George Mason

University, 2000.

Peters, R. “After the Revolution.” Parameters. Summer 1995.

Petterson, W.E. “Police Accountability and Civilian Oversight of Policing: An

American Perspective.” In Complaints Against the Police: The Trend to External Review.

Ed. A.J. Goldsmith. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991: 259–90. 
115

Pierce, T. “Community Policing: How One Department Sizes It Up.” Police Chief

64(8) (1997): 78–79.

Pingitore, M., L.M. Reyes, and L.D. Waxman. On the Front Lines: Case Studies of

Policing in America’s Cities. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National

Institute of Justice, 1992. NCJ 139305.

Pinhiero, P.S. “Popular Responses to State-Sponsored Violence in Brazil.” In The New

Politics of Inequality in Latin America: Rethinking Participation and Representation. Ed.

D.A. Chalmers, C.M. Vilas, and K.R. Hite. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press,

1997: 261–80.

Pirnie, B.R. Civilians and Soldiers: Achieving Better Coordination. Santa Monica, CA:

RAND, National Security Research Division, Police Executive Research Forum, 1998. 

Police Foundation. Reducing Fear of Crime in Houston and Newark: Summary Report.

Washington, DC: Police Foundation, 1986.

Policing in Emerging Democracies: Workshop Papers and Highlights. Research Report.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice; U.S.

Department of State, Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs,

October 1995. NCJ 167024.

“Policing Program Review (1995–1998).” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice. National Institute of Justice, internal document, January 15, 1999.

Pontiac (MI) Integrated Criminal Apprehension Project: A Final Evaluation Report.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1979.

NCJ 64798.

Popkin, M. “Building the Rule of Law in the Context of a Peace Process: The Role

of Negotiating Parties, Civil Society and the International Community.” Paper for

London Conference, 1999.

President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. 

Task Force Report: The Police. Washington, DC: President’s Commission on Law

Enforcement and Administration of Justice, 1967. 
116

Pressman, J.L., and A. Wildavsky. Implementation. Berkeley: University of California

Press, 1973.

Promosch, E.G. 1994. “The Roles of United Nations Civilian Police (UNCIVPOL)

within United Nations Peace-Keeping Operations.” International and Comparative

Law Quarterly 43 (1994): 425–31.

Przeworski, A., M. Alvarez, J.A. Cheibub, and F. Limongi. “What Makes Democracies

Endure?” Journal of Democracy 7(1) (1996): 39–55.

Pullen, S., and M. Mande. Drug Task Forces in Colorado: An Evaluation of Multijurisdictional Strategies. Vol. 3. Office of Research and Statistics, Colorado Division of

Criminal Justice, Department of Public Safety, 1992. 

Punch, M. “Police Misconduct and ‘System Failure’: European Perspectives.” Paper

for Conference on Police Integrity and Democracy, Florence, Italy, May 20–23, 1999.

Pustintsev, B. “Police Reform in Russia: Obstacles and Opportunities.” Draft paper

for Vera Institute of Justice, 1998.

Ramesh, A. “Police Interventions to Check Violence Against Women: A Review.”

Rights and Social Justice Program. Ford Foundation, New Delhi, 1998. 

Reed, W.E. “The Politics and Urban Political Process of Community Policing in

Seattle, Washington, 1985–1993.” Paper for American Society of Criminology

Meeting, November 1995.

Reiss, A.J. “Controlling Police Use of Deadly Force.” The Annals (November 1980):

122–134.

———. “Police Organization in the Twentieth Century.” In Modern Policing. Ed.

M. Tonry and N. Morris. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992: 51–98.

———. Policing a City’s Central District—The Oakland Story. Research Report.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1985.

NCJ 96708.
117

Reksodiputro, M., and Y. Purnianti. “Community-Oriented Policing in Urban

Indonesia.” In Alternative Policing Styles: Cross Cultural Perspectives. Ed. M. Findlay

and U. Zvekic. Deventer, Netherlands: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers, 1993:

91–98.

Rieches, L.M., and R. Roberg. “Community Policing: a Critical Review of Underlying

Assumptions.” Journal of Police Science and Administration 17(2) (1990): 105–14. 

Roehl, J.A., M.A. Wycoff, and D.J. Rebovich. National Process Evaluation of the Weed

and Seed Initiative: Draft Final Report Part 1: Cross-Site Summary. Washington, DC:

Institute for Social Analysis, 1995.

Romero, A. “Police and Military Reform, Human Rights and Impunity in Latin

America: New Challenges for NGO’s in Rule of Law Construction.” Paper for

London Conference, 1999.

Rosa de Leon-Escribano, C. “Analysis of Police Reform in Guatemala.” Unpublished

paper for Washington Office on Latin America conference, El Salvador, 2000.

Rose, C.V. “The ‘New’ Law and Development Movement in the Post-Cold War Era:

A Vietnam Case Study.” Law and Society Review 32(1) (1998): 93–140.

Rosenau, W. “Peace Operations, Emergency Law Enforcement, and Constabulary

Forces.” In Peace Operations: Developing an American Strategy. Washington, DC:

National Defense University Press, 1995.

Rosenbaum, D., ed., The Challenge of Community Policing: Testing the Promises.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1994.

Roth, J.A., J.F. Ryan, S.J. Gaffigan, C.S. Koper, M.H. Moore, J.A. Roehl, C.C.

Johnson, G.E. Moore, R.M. White, M.E. Buerger, E.A. Langston, and D. Thatcher,

National Evaluation of the COPS Program: Title I of the 1994 Crime Act. Research

Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice,

2000. NCJ 183643.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Audit, Evaluation and Corporate Services Directorate:

Community Policing Review Report, 1995.
118

Rubin, E. “Haiti Takes Policing 101.” New York Times Magazine. May 25, 1997.

Russell, G.D. “The Political Ecology of Police Reform.” Policing: An International

Journal of Police Strategies and Management 20(3) (1997): 567–89. 

Sadd, S., and R. Grinc. “Implementation Challenges in Community Policing:

Innovative Neighborhood-Oriented Policing in Eight Cities.” Research in Brief.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, February

1996. NCJ 157932.

———. “Innovative Neighborhood Oriented Policing: An Evaluation of Community

Policing Programs in Eight Cities.” In The Challenge of Community Policing: Testing the

Promises. Ed. D. Rosenbaum. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1994: 27–52.

———. Innovative Neighborhood-Oriented Policing: Descriptions of Programs in Eight

Cities. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice,

1995. NCJ 157934.

Salomon, L., J. Castellanos, and F. Cuidadano. “Police Reform in Honduras.”

Unpublished paper for Washington Office on Latin America conference, El Salvador,

2000.

Samuels, D. “At Play in the Fields of Oppression.” Harper’s (May 1995): 47–54.

Schear, J.A. “Bosnia’s Post-Dayton Traumas.” Foreign Policy (Fall 1996): 104.

Schmidl, E.A. “Police Functions in Peace Operations; An Overview.” In Policing

the New World Disorder: Peace Operations and Public Security. Ed. R.B. Oakley, M.J.

Dziedzic, and E.M. Goldberg.Washington, DC: National Defense University Press,

1998: xiv–xxix.

Seattle Police Department. Burglary Reduction Program—Final Evaluation. Seattle, WA:

Seattle Police Department, 1975.

Sell, L. “Kosovo: The International Dimension.” In Woodrow Wilson International

Center for Scholars, Kosovo and NATO: Impending Challenges—The Views of Experts at

the Woodrow Wilson Center. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 1999. 
119

Shacochis, B. The Immaculate Invasion. New York: Viking Press, 1999.

Sharp, W.G. “International Civilian Police: Maintaining Law and Order in the

New Millennia.” Paper at CSIS workshop on Civilian Police and Multinational

Peacekeeping, March 1998. 

Shearing, C.D. “Report to the Independent Committee of Inquiry into the Role and

Responsibilities of the Police.” Unpublished paper, 1995.

———. “The Relations Between Police and Government: The Quest for Impartial

Policing.” Unpublished paper, 1991.

———. “Towards Democratic Policing: Rethinking Strategies of Transformation.”

In Policing in Emerging Democracies: Workshop Papers and Highlights. Research Report.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice; U.S.

Department of State, Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs,

October 1995. NCJ 167024: 29–39.

Sheptycki, J.W.E. “Policing, Postmodernism and Transnationalization.” British Journal

of Criminology 38(3) (1998): 485–503.

———. “Reflections on the Transnationalization of Policing: The Case of the RCMP

and Serial Killers.” International Journal of the Sociology of Law 26 (1998): 17–34.

———. “The Global Cops Cometh: Reflections on Transnationalization, Knowledge

Work and Policing Subculture.” British Journal of Sociology 49(1) (1998): 57–74.

Sherman, L.W. “Community Policing Research and Evaluation.” U.S. Department of

Justice, National Institute of Justice, internal document, 1994.

———. Controlling Police Corruption: The Effects of Reform Policies—Summary Report.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute for Law Enforcement

and Criminal Justice, 1978. NCJ 146906.

———. “Middle Management and Police Democratization: A Reply to John E. Angell.”

Criminology 12(4) (1975): 363–77.
120

———. “Reducing Police Gun Use: Critical Events, Administrative Policy and

Organizational Change.” Paper for Nijenrode Seminar, December 1980.

———. “The Police.” In Crime. Ed. J.Q. Wilson and J. Petersilia. San Francisco, CA:

ICS Press, 1995: 327–48.

Sherman, L.W., C.H. Milton, and T.V. Kelly. Team Policing: Seven Case Studies.

Washington, DC: The Police Foundation, 1973. 

Sherman, L.W., D.C. Gottfredson, D.L. MacKenzie, J. Eck, P. Reuter, and S.D. Bushway.

Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising. Research in Brief.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, July

1998. NCJ 171676.

Silverman, E.B. NYPD Battles Crime: Innovative Strategies in Policing. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1999. 

Sismanidis, R.D.V. Police Functions in Peace Operations: Report from a Workshop

Organized by the United States Institute of Peace. No. 14 in Peaceworks series.

Washington, DC: U.S. Institute of Peace, 1997.

Sklar, R.L. “Developmental Democracy.” Comparative Studies in Society and History

29(4) (1987): 686–714.

Skogan, W.G. Community Policing in Madison: Quality from the Inside, Out: An Evaluation of Implementation and Impact. Executive Summary. Washington, DC: Police

Foundation, 1993.

———. Community Policing in Chicago: Year Two. Research Preview. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, October 1995. FS 000105.

———. Disorder and Decline. New York: The Free Press, 1990.

———. Evaluating Problem Solving Policing: The Chicago Experience. Chicago: Institute

for Policy Research, 1996.

———. Partnerships for Prevention? Some Obstacles to Police-Community Cooperation.

Evanston, IL: Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research, 1994.
121

Skogan, W., and S. Hartnett. Community Policing, Chicago Style. New York: Oxford

University Press, 1997.

Skolnick, J.H. Justice Without Trial. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1966.

Skolnick, J.H. and D.H. Bayley. Community Policing: Issues and Practices Around the

World. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice,

1988. NCJ 111428.

———. “Theme and Variation in Community Policing.” In Crime and Justice. Ed.

N. Morris and M. Tonry. Vol. 10. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988, 

NCJ 111254: 1–37.

———. The New Blue Line: Police Innovation in Six American Cities. New York:

The Free Press, 1986. 

Smith, D.H., and Gray, J. Police and People in London: No. IV—The Police in Action.

London: Police Studies Institute, 1983.

Smith, M. “Reflections on Day One: Strategic Implications.” In Policing in Emerging

Democracies. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of

Justice; Department of State, Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement

Affairs, October 1995. NCJ 167024: 39–43.

Smith, T. America’s Mission: The United States and the Worldwide Struggle for Democracy

in the Twentieth Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994.

Society for International Development. Panel on “Law Enforcement and Civil Peace:

A Pre-Condition for Development.” Summary of remarks by the panelists,

Washington, DC, Mayflower Hotel, March 11–13, 1965. 

Southgate, P., T. Bucke, and C. Byron. Parish Special Constables Scheme. London: Home

Office, Research and Statistics Department, 1995.

Sparrow, M., H. Moore, and D. Kennedy. Beyond 911: A New Era for Policing. 

New York: Basic Books, 1990.

Stanley, W. “Building New Police Forces in El Salvador and Guatemala: Learning and

Counter-Learning.” International Peacekeeping 6(4) (1999): 113–34.
122

———. “International Tutelage and Domestic Political Will: Building a New Civilian

Police Force in El Salvador.” In Policing Change, Changing Police. Ed. O. Marenin.

New York: Garland Publishing, 1996: 37–78.

———. Protectors or Perpetrators? The Institutional Crisis of the Salvadoran Civilian

Police. Washington, DC: Washington Office on Latin America/Hemisphere Initiatives,

1996.

———. “Risking Failure: The Problems and Promises of the New Civilian Police in

El Salvador.” Washington, DC: Washington Office on Latin America and Hemisphere

Initiatives, 1993.

Stanley, W., and R. Lossle. “Peace and Public Insecurity: The Civilian Police Component

of the Peace Operations in El Salvador.” In Policing the New World Disorder: Peace

Operations and Public Security. Ed. R.B. Oakley, M.J. Dziedzic, and E.M. Goldberg.

Washington, DC: National Defense University Press, 1998: 67–108.

Stephens, M. “Care and Control: The Future of British Policing.” Policing and Society.

4(3) (1994): 237–51.

Stipak, B., S. Immer, and M. Clavadetscher. “Are You Really Doing Community

Policing?” Police Chief 61(10) (1994): 117–23.

Stone, C. “Strengthening Accountability in the New Global Police Culture.” Paper

presented at Conference on Crime and the Threat to Democratic Governance,

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 1999.

Streamlau, J. People in Peril: Human Rights, Humanitarian Action, and Preventing

Deadly Conflict. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York, 1998.

———. Sharpening International Sanctions: Toward a Stronger Role for the United

Nations. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York, 1996. 

Streamlau, J., and F.R. Sagasti. Preventing Deadly Conflict: Does the World Bank Have

a Role? New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York, 1998. 

Stromsem, J. “Comprehensive Strategic Planning Framework: A Practical Guide to

Strategic Planning for Judicial Reform.” Unpublished manuscript, 2000. 
123

———. “Memorandum for the Deputy Attorney General: Subject—Request for

Information on ICITAP’s Mission and Vision.” November 14, 1997. 

———. “U.S. Experience in Police Assistance Abroad.” Barbados speech at IBD

Stakeholders Meeting, April 27, 2000. 

Sunahara, D.F. “Public Inquiries into Policing.” Canadian Police College Journal 16(2)

(1992): 135–56.

Sunset Park Restoration Committee, Inc. “The Model Precinct: A Community

Review of New York City’s Safe Streets, Safe City Community Policing Program,”

New York: Sunset Park Restoration Committee, Inc., 1993.

Swarns, R.L. “South Africa in an Uphill Fight Against Crime.” New York Times,

May 15, 2000.

Swedish Commission on International Police Activities. “Report of the Special Swedish

Commission on International Police Activities.” In Policing the New World Disorder: Peace

Operations and Public Security. Ed. R.B. Oakley, M.J. Dziedzic, and E.M. Goldberg.

Washington, DC: National Defense University Press, 1998: chapter 10.

Sykes, G. “The Myth of Reform: The Functional Limits of Police Accountability in

a Liberal Society.” Justice Quarterly 2(1) (1985): 51–65.

Szikinger, I. “Post-Communist Law Enforcement in Hungary with Special Regard

to Problems of Police Integrity.” Paper for Conference on Police Integrity and

Democracy Florence, Italy, May 20–23, 1999.

———. “The Roma in Hungary.” Draft paper for VERA Institute of Justice, 1998. 

“The Boundaries of International Cooperation: Human Rights and Neo-Imperialism

in U.S.-Mexican Policing.” Unpublished manuscript reviewed for Social Problems,

November 1999. 

Thomas, L., and S. Spataro. “Peacekeeping and Policing in Somalia.” In Policing

the New World Disorder: Peace Operations and Public Security. Ed. R.B. Oakley, M.J.

Dziedzic, and E.M. Goldberg. Washington, DC: National Defense University Press,

1998: 109–46.
124

Thurman, Q. “Program Monitoring and Community Policing: A Process Evaluation

of Community Policing Officers in Spokane, Washington.” American Journal of Police

12(3) (1993): 89–114. 

Tifft, L.L., and D.J. Bordua. “Police Organization and Future Research.” Journal of

Research in Crime and Delinquency 6(2) (1969): 167–76.

Timoshenko, S. “Prospects for Reform of the Russian Militia.” Policing and Society

8(1) (1997): 117–24.

Toch, H. “Mobilizing Police Expertise.” The Annals (November 1980): 53–62.

Toch, H., and J.D. Grant. Police as Problem Solvers. New York: Plenum Press, 1991.

———. Reforming Human Services: Change Through Participation. Sage Library of

Social Research, Vol. 142. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1982.

———. “The Impermanence of Planned Change.” In Policy and Theory in Criminal

Justice. Ed. D. Gottfredson and R. Clarke. Aldershot, UK: Avebury, 1990: 140–59.

Toch, H., J.D. Grant, and R.T. Galvin. Agents of Change: A Study in Police Reform.

New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1973.

Toronto Police Department. “Evaluation of Phase I of the Implementation of

Community-Based Policing.” Toronto: Toronto Police Department, 1989.

Trojanowicz, R., and B. Bucqueroux. Community Policing: A Contemporary Perspective.

Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Co., 1990.

Travis, J. “Lessons for the Criminal Justice System From Twenty Years of Policing

Reform.” Keynote address at “New Beginnings” First Annual Conference of the 

New York Campaign for Effective Crime Policy, New York City, March 10, 1996.

———. “Policing in Transition.” Police Practice 1(1) (2000): 31–39. 

Trostle, J.A., J.U. Summerfeld, and J.L. Simon. “Strengthening Human Resource

Capacity in Developing Countries: Who Are the Actors? What Are Their Actions?”

In Getting Good Government: Capacity Building in the Public Sectors of Developing
125

Countries. Ed. M.S. Grindle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Institute for International

Development, 1997: chapter 3.

Turk, A. “Organizational Deviance and Political Policing.” Unpublished paper for

American Society of Criminology. November 1979.

Tyler, T.R. “Procedural Fairness and Compliance with the Law.” Swiss Journal of

Economics and Statistics 133 (1997): 219–40. 

Uildriks, N., and H. van Mastright. Policing Police Violence. Aberdeen, Scotland:

Aberdeen University Press, 1991.

United Nations. The United Nations and Cambodia, 1991–1995. New York: Department

of Public Information, United Nations, 1995.

———. The United Nations and El Salvador, 1990–1995. New York: Department of

Public Information, United Nations, 1995.

———. The United Nations and Somalia, 1992–1996. New York: Department of

Public Information, United Nations, 1996.

United Nations, CIVPOL. “Principles and Guidelines for United Nations Civilian

Police.” Draft. June 12, 2000.

———. “White Paper: The Roles of Civilian Police in Peacekeeping Operations.”

Draft, April 26, 2000.

United Nations, Department of Peacekeeping Operations. “Report on the Follow-up

Workshop on Civilian Police in United Nations Peacekeeping.” August 2, 1999. 

———. “Report on the Seminar on ‘The Role of Police in Peacekeeping

Operations.’” New York City. March 20–21, 1998.

———. The United Nations Transitional Administration in Eastern Slovenia, Baranja and

Western Sirmium (UNTAES), January 1996–January 1998: Lessons Learned. New York:

United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations, 1998.
126

United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Centre for Human Rights.

Human Rights and Law Enforcement: A Manual on Human Rights Training for Police. New

York and Geneva: Centre for Human Rights Professional Training Series No. 5, 1997.

———. International Human Rights Standards for Law Enforcement: A Pocket Book

on Human Rights For the Police. New York and Geneva: United Nations, 1996.

United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR). “Self-Paced Correspondence Courses on Peacekeeping and Humanitarian Operations from UNITAR POCI.”

New York: Dag Hammarskjold Centre, n.d.

United Nations, International Police Task Force (Bosnia-Herzegovina). Commissioner’s

Guidance. Sarajevo: United Nations International Police Task Force (BosniaHerzegovina), 1996.

———. “Principles of Democratic Policing.” Sarajevo: United Nations International

Police Task Force (Bosnia-Herzegovina), 1996.

United Nations, Lessons Learned Unit, with German, Swedish, and Norwegian collaborators. Comprehensive Report on Lessons Learned from United Nations Assistance

Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR) October 1993–April 1996. New York: United Nations,

Department of Peacekeeping Operations, 1996.

———. Comprehensive Report on Lessons Learned from United Nations Operations in

Somalia, April 1992–March 1995. New York: United Nations, Department of Peacekeeping Operations, December 1995.

———. “Multidisciplinary Peacekeeping: Lessons from Recent Experience.” (From the

Unit’s Home Page.) Accessed online at www.un.org/Depts/dpko/lessons/handbok.htm.

June 2000.

———. “Review of Civilian Police Operations in United Nations Peacekeeping:

Case Studies and Lessons Learned.” New York: United Nations, Department of

Peacekeeping Operations, 2000.

U.S. Agency for International Development. “Strategies for Sustainable Development.”

Washington, DC: US Agency for International Development, 1994.
127

———. Handbook of Democracy and Governance Program Indicators. Washington, DC:

U.S. Agency for International Development, Center for Democracy and Governance,

1998.

_____. “USAID Survey on Security Sector and Legal Reform.” Unpublished internal

memorandum, 2000.

U.S. Agency for International Development, Center for Democracy and Governance.

Civil-Military Relations: USAID’s Role. Washington, DC: U.S. Agency for International

Development, 1998. 

U.S. Conference of Mayors. Eight Successful City Drug Control Programs: Case Studies

of Eight Prevention and Policing Programs. Washington, DC: U.S. Conference of

Mayors, 1990.

U.S. Department of Justice. “Map of the World: Regional Inventories, Regional

Challenges, and Key Country Strategies.” Internal document, July 30, 1999. 

U.S. Department of Justice, Community Relations Service. Police Use of Deadly Force:

What Police and the Community Can Do About It. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Justice, Community Relations Service, 1978. NCJ 63464.

U.S. Department of Justice. National Institute of Justice. “Memorandum for the Attorney

General: Department of Justice International Training Activities.” Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1999.

U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice and Office of Community

Oriented Policing Services. “Community Policing Portfolio Highlights.” Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Internal document, 2000. 

U.S. Department of State. “Presidential Decision Directive 71: Discussion Papers on

Implementation.” May 11, 2000. (Limited circulation). 

———. “Presidential Decision Directive 71, Strengthening Criminal Justice Systems

in Support of Peace Operations and Other Complex Contingencies Sub-Interagency

Working Groups.” February 24, 2000.
128

———. White Paper: The Clinton Administration’s Policy on Strengthening Criminal

Justice Agencies in Support of Peace Operations. February 24, 2000. 

U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Public Affairs. Criminal Justice and Democracy in

the Western Hemisphere. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Public

Affairs, April 1989.

U.S. General Accounting Office. Foreign Assistance: Rule of Law Funding Worldwide for

Fiscal Years 1993–98. June 1999. Washington, DC: GAO/NSIAD–99–158.

U.S. General Accounting Office. Foreign Assistance: US Rule of Law Assistance to Five

Latin American Countries. August 1999. Washington, DC: GAO/NSIAD–99–195.

U.S. General Accounting Office. The Drug War: U.S. Programs in Peru Face Serious

Obstacles. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office. National Security and

International Affairs Division, 1991.

U.S. General Accounting Office, National Security and International Affairs Division.

“Foreign Assistance: Status of Rule of Law Program Coordination.” Memo to Congressional Requesters, October 13, 1999. Washington, DC: General Accounting

Office, National Security and International Affairs Division GAO/NSIAD–00–8R. 

Van Crevald, M. The Transformation of War. New York: The Free Press, 1991.

Van der Spuy, E. “International Assistance to Police Reform: Observations from

South Africa.” University of Capetown, Department of Criminology. Unpublished

paper, 1999.

Van der Spuy, E., J. Geerlings, and A.M. Singh. Donor Assistance to Crime Prevention

and Criminal Justice Reform, South Africa, 1994–1998. Capetown, South Africa:

University of Capetown, Institute of Criminology, 1998.

Vance, C.R., and D.A. Hamburg. Pathfinders for Peace: A Report to the UN SecretaryGeneral on the Role of Special Representatives and Personal Envoys. New York: Carnegie

Corporation of New York, 1997. 

Vickers, G. “Renegotiating Internal Security: The Lessons of Central America.”

In Comparative Peace Processes in Latin America. Ed. C. Arnson. Stanford, CA:

Stanford University Press, 1999.
129

Wadman, R., and R. Olsen. Community Wellness: A New Theory of Policing.

Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum, 1990. 

Walker, S. “The Rule Revolution: Reflections on the Transformation of American

Criminal Justice, 1950–1988.” Working Papers, Series #3. Madison, WI: Institute

for Legal Studies, University of Wisconsin, 1988. 

———. “Achieving Police Accountability.” Occasional Paper No. 3. New York:

Center on Crime, Communities, and Culture, 1998.

Warner, M. “SFOR Lessons Learned in Creating a Secure Environment with Respect

for the Rule of Law: Based on a Study of Bosnia.” Unpublished paper, March 2000.

Washington Office on Latin America. Demilitarizing Public Order: The International

Community, Police Reform and Human Rights in Central America and Haiti. Washington

DC: Washington Office on Latin America, 1995.

———. “Draft Report on the DEA.” Internal document, 1998.

Washington Office on Latin America and the American University School of International Service. Elusive Justice: The U.S. Administration of Justice Program in Latin America.

Washington, DC: Washington Office on Latin America, 1990. 

Weatherburn, D., and P. Grabosky. “Strategic Approaches to Property Crime Control.”

Policing and Society 9(1) (1999): 77–96.

Weatheritt, M. “Community Policing Now.” In Policing and the Community. Ed. P.

Wilmott. London: Policy Studies Institute, 1987: 7–20.

———. “Community Policing: Rhetoric or Reality?” Paper for Temple Conference,

May 1987.

———. Innovations in Policing. London: Croom Helm, 1986. 

Wedel, J.R. Collision and Collusion: The Strange Case of Western Aid to Eastern Europe

1989–1998. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998.
130

Weingart, S.N., F.X. Hartmann, and D. Osborne. Lessons Learned: Case Studies of the

Initiation and Maintenance of the Community Response to Drugs. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1993. NCJ 153564. 

Weisbord, M., H. Lamb, and A. Drexler. Improving Police Department Management

Through Problem-Solving Task Forces. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley, 1974.

Weisburd, D., and J.E. McElroy. “Enacting the CPO (Community Police Officer)

Role: Findings from the New York City Pilot Program in Community Policing.” 

In Community Policing: Rhetoric or Reality. Ed. J.R. Greene and S.D. Mastrofski. 

New York: Praeger, 1988: 89–101.

Weisel, D., and J. Eck. “Toward a Practical Approach to Organizational Change:

Community Policing Initiatives in Six Cities.” In The Challenge of Community Policing:

Testing the Promises. Ed. D. Rosenbaum. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,

1994: 53–72.

West, R. Black Lamb and Grey Falcon: A Journey Through Yugoslavia. New York:

Penguin Books, 1994.

White, R. “Organizational Changes.” Law and Order 39(11) (1991): 89–92.

White, T.W., and R.A. Gillice. Neighborhood Team Policing in Boulder, Colorado—

A Case Study. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 1977.

Wight, A.R. “Participation, Ownership, and Sustainable Development.” In Getting

Good Government: Capacity Building in the Public Sectors of Developing Countries. Ed.

M.S. Grindle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Institute for International Development,

1997: chapter 13. 

Wiles, P. “Policing Structures, Organizational Changes and Personnel Management.”

Sheehy Inquiry Seminar, internal document, 1993.

Wilkinson, M.J. Moving Beyond Conflict Prevention to Reconciliation: Tackling GreekTurkish Hostility. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York, 1999. 
131

Williams, J., and R. Sloan. “Turning Concept into Practice: The Aurora, Colorado

Story.” East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, School of Criminal Justice,

National Center for Community Policing, 1990.

Wilmott, P. ed., Policing and the Community. London: Policy Studies Institute, 1987.

Wilson, D.G. and W.F. Walsh. “Reflections on the Transfer of Knowledge to Support

Democratic Policing in Hungary and Romania.” In Policing in Emerging Democracies:

Workshop Papers and Highlights. Research Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Justice, National Institute of Justice; U.S. Department of State, Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, October 1997. NCJ 167024.

Wilson, O. Police Administration. (2nd ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963.

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Kosovo and NATO: Impending

Challenges—The Views of Experts at the Woodrow Wilson Center. Washington, DC:

Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 1999. 

Woodward, S.L. Balkan Tragedy: Chaos and Dissolution After the Cold War.

Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1995.

World Bank and Carter Center. From Civil War to Civil Society: The Transformation

from War to Peace in Guatemala and Liberia. Report on a workshop conducted by

the World Bank and the Carter Center in July 1997.

Wycoff, M. “Improving Police Performance Measurement: One More Voice.” The

Urban Interest. 4(1) (Spring 1982): 8–16. 

Wycoff, M., and G. Kelling. The Dallas Experience: Organizational Reform. Washington,

DC: The Police Foundation, 1978.

Wycoff, M., and T. Oettmeier. Planning and Implementation Issues for Community Oriented Policing: The Houston Experience. Houston, TX: Houston Police Department, 1996.

Wycoff, M., and W. Skogan. Community Policing in Madison: Quality from the Inside

Out. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice,

1993. NCJ 144390.
132

Zagorki, P.W. “Civil-Military Relations and Argentine Democracy: The Armed Forces

Under the Menem Government.” Armed Forces and Society 20(3) (1994): 423–37.

Zartman, I.W., ed., Collapsed States: The Disintegration and Restoration of Legitimate

Authority. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1995.

Zhao, J. Evaluation on the Implementation of Total Quality Management in the Omaha

Police Department: An Interim Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,

National Institute of Justice, 1998. NCJ 171378.

Zimmermann, W. “Last Chance for Bosnia?” The New York Review of Books. December 19,

1996, 10–13.

Zinni, A. Luncheon speech to the symposium on “Beyond Jointness: The CivilMilitary Dimensions of Peace Operations and Humanitarian Assistance.” June 2–3,

1999. Annex E to Oakley and Carter, “Beyond Jointness: The Civil-Military Dimensions of Peace Operations and Humanitarian Assistance.” Conference Report.

Washington, DC: National Defense University, 2000.

Zoufal, D.R. 1999. “Restructuring the Police in Bosnia-Herzegovena.” Unpublished

manuscript, 1999. 

Zuzevich, D. “Police Modernize to Face New Challenges and Increasing Crime.”

Crime and Justice International 14(17) (1998): 13–15. 

Zvekic, U. “Policing and Attitudes Towards Police in Countries in Transition:

Preliminary Results of the International Crime (Victim) Survey.” Policing and Society

8 (1998): 205–24.
pendent, nonpartisan, evidence-based knowledge and tools to meet the challenges of crime and justice,

particularly at the State and local levels. NIJ’s principal authorities are derived from the Omnibus

Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended (42 U.S.C. §§ 3721–3722).

NIJ’s Mission

In partnership with others, NIJ’s mission is to prevent and reduce crime, improve law enforcement

and the administration of justice, and promote public safety. By applying the disciplines of the social

and physical sciences, NIJ—

• Researches the nature and impact of crime and delinquency.

• Develops applied technologies, standards, and tools for criminal justice practitioners.

• Evaluates existing programs and responses to crime.

• Tests innovative concepts and program models in the field.

• Assists policymakers, program partners, and justice agencies.

• Disseminates knowledge to many audiences.

NIJ’s Strategic Direction and Program Areas

NIJ is committed to five challenges as part of its strategic plan: 1) rethinking justice and the processes that create just communities; 2) understanding the nexus between social conditions and crime; 3)

breaking the cycle of crime by testing research-based interventions; 4) creating the tools and technologies that meet the needs of practitioners; and 5) expanding horizons through interdisciplinary

and international perspectives. In addressing these strategic challenges, the Institute is involved in the

following program areas: crime control and prevention, drugs and crime, justice systems and offender

behavior, violence and victimization, communications and information technologies, critical incident

response, investigative and forensic sciences (including DNA), less-than-lethal technologies, officer

protection, education and training technologies, testing and standards, technology assistance to law

enforcement and corrections agencies, field testing of promising programs, and international crime

control. NIJ communicates its findings through conferences and print and electronic media.

NIJ’s Structure

The NIJ Director is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The NIJ Director establishes the Institute’s objectives, guided by the priorities of the Office of Justice Programs, the U.S.

Department of Justice, and the needs of the field. NIJ actively solicits the views of criminal justice

and other professionals and researchers to inform its search for the knowledge and tools to guide 

policy and practice.

NIJ has three operating units. The Office of Research and Evaluation manages social science research

and evaluation and crime mapping research. The Office of Science and Technology manages technology research and development, standards development, and technology assistance to State and local

law enforcement and corrections agencies. The Office of Development and Communications manages

field tests of model programs, international research, and knowledge dissemination programs. NIJ is a

component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance,

the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the

Office for Victims of Crime.

To find out more about the National Institute of Justice, please contact:

National Criminal Justice Reference Service

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

800–851–3420

e-mail: askncjrs@ncjrs.org

To obtain an electronic version of this document, access the NIJ Web site

(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij).

If you have questions, call or e-mail NCJRS.