Chapter a

Procedural Justice 

for Law Enforcement:

An Overview

By Laura Kunard and Charlene Moe 

FAIRNESS

VOICE

TRANSPARENCY

IMPARTIALITY
b
Procedural Justice 

for Law Enforcement:

An Overview

By Laura Kunard, PhD and Charlene Moe

Center for Public Safety and Justice, University of Illinois
This project was supported by cooperative agreement number 2012-CK-WS-K012 awarded by the Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions contained herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily 

represent the official position of the U.S. Department of Justice. References to specific companies, products, or services should 

not be considered an endorsement of a product by the authors or the U.S. Department of Justice. Rather, the references are 

illustrations to supplement discussion of the issues.

The Internet references cited in this publication were valid as of the original date of this publication. Given that URLs and web 

sites are in constant flux, neither the authors nor the COPS Office can vouch for their current validity.

Recommended citation:

Kunard, Laura, and Charlene Moe. 2015. Procedural Justice for Law Enforcement: An Overview. Washington, DC: Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services.

ISBN: 978-1-935676-86-7 

Published 2015
iii

Contents

Letter from the Director of the COPS Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

..........

..... .....

...

...

.............

........................

........................

........................

....................

....

....

....................

................

................

.......

.......

.......

.......

.................

.......

.......

.......

..........

..........

..........

.......

.......

.......

.......

.....................................

.............

.............

.............

.............

.................

.................

.................

.........

.............

.............

........

.................

............

............

............

.....

............

............

......

......

.....

.

.

....

....

.....

.....

.....

.....

.....

 . . . v

Letter from the Center for Public Safety and Justice 

vii

Acknowledgements ix

Introduction 

1

What Is Procedural Justice? 3

Fairness and consistency of rule application

4

External example 5

Internal example 6

Voice and representation in the process 6

External example 

7

Internal example 7

Transparency and openness of process

7

External example 

8

Internal example 8

Impartiality and unbiased decision making

9

External example 9

Internal example 

10

How Does Procedural Justice Relate to Community Policing?

11

Procedural justice and officer safety 14

Procedural justice and use of force 15

Procedural justice and encounters with people with mental illness

15

Procedural justice and hot spot policing 16

Procedural justice and the benefits to your community 16

Conclusion 19

References 

21

Selected Procedural Justice Resources 23

About the Center for Public Safety and Justice

25

About the COPS Office 26

v

Letter from the Director of the COPS Office

Dear colleagues,

I believe I speak for all of us when I say we place a high value on fairness and respect in all personal and professional interactions. 

Unfair or disrespectful treatment undermines not only respect for the individuals who behave that way but also the willingness 

of others to cooperate with them. 

This is especially true in relations between law enforcement and the communities we serve. As we’ve seen in recent events, bias 

and disregard for individual rights—intentional or not—often leads to obstruction, anger, and confrontation. And in our role 

as guardians of the peace, sworn to serve and protect our communities, we must counteract that by upholding the principles of 

procedural justice. 

The principles of procedural justice—fairness, transparency, impartiality, and providing voice for other sides to be heard—are 

vital to effective policing and positive community relations. They’re also critical to departmental harmony. And because the 

behavior of officers on the street is often a reflection of their treatment within the agency, these values must characterize the 

activities of all law enforcement leaders. 

This publication serves as an inspiring introduction to the concepts of procedural justice for officers, explaining the importance 

of practicing these principles in everyday encounters. It is also a useful management tool for supervisors. The Center for Public 

Safety and Justice (CPSJ) has done an excellent job of describing how procedural justice can be applied to the practices of 

community policing, detailing the challenges different agencies faced and the solutions they developed. 

I encourage you to read this report and consider how you can adopt these principles. Procedural justice is not just a nice idea—

it’s a critical component of our police work, essential to productive community relations and the public’s confidence in the 

legitimacy of law enforcement authority.

Sincerely,

Ronald L. Davis, Director

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

vii

Letter from the Center for Public Safety and Justice

Dear law enforcement officers and colleagues,

The last several years have seen tremendous change and innovation in American law enforcement. Our nation’s law enforcement 

agencies have leapt forward, not only due to necessity caused by budgetary constraints but also in response to calls by 

communities that their law enforcement agencies act on their behalf fairly and with greater transparency. There is a sea change 

occurring in our communities that cannot and should not be dismissed. The tenets of procedural justice are well suited to aid 

law enforcement agencies and the communities they serve in the pursuit of better relationships and more just outcomes.

The recent and rapid expansion of technology and social media has occurred on a parallel path, and as an aid to, critical analysis 

of law enforcement practices and policies. The proliferation of captured video and instant transmission of police-community 

encounters only underscores the point that no encounter with law enforcement is routine. Instead, each community encounter 

is itself an opportunity for law enforcement to recommit to serving the public through actions that are fair, transparent, and 

impartial and that offer voice to those involved. This externalization of procedural justice, as a standard for interactions with 

the community, is a necessary evolution of policing. In this way, procedural justice is tightly tied to community policing, a 

philosophy that many law enforcement agencies have embraced since the 1980s.

In a similar vein, agencies need to recognize the importance of procedural justice as an internal strategy as well. As a top down 

and bottom up effort to promote procedural justice, focusing on process throughout the agency will strengthen departments by 

emphasizing the same tenets that promote strong, resilient ties to the community. Effectively instituting the pillars of procedural 

justice strengthens departments internally. 

With the publication of Procedural Justice for Law Enforcement: An Overview, it is our hope that officers in all types of law 

enforcement agencies will come to better understand procedural justice and how to implement it and will embrace its benefits to 

their agencies and communities. We are happy to share this resource with you now and hope you find it helpful.

Sincerely,

Jason Stamps, Acting Director

Center for Public Safety and Justice

ix

Acknowledgements

The idea for this publication was conceived and supported by Melissa Bradley at the Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services (COPS Office), the project manager for the COPS Office Procedural Justice initiative.

The Center for Public Safety and Justice is grateful to the police department members and others whose anecdotes are featured 

herein:

•	 Captain Jim Mallery, Kalamazoo (Michigan) Department of Public Safety

•	 Captain Richard “Skip” Miller, Sioux Falls (South Dakota) Police Department

•	 Chief Ed Medrano, Gardena (California) Police Department

•	 Chief Will Johnson, Arlington (Texas) Police Department

•	 Lieutenant Leo Daniels, Arlington (Texas) Police Department

1

Introduction

Procedural justice has become an important focal point in the profession and strategy of policing in recent years, though 

the basic concept is likely nothing new to police officers. The purpose of this publication is to introduce law enforcement 

professionals to the concept of procedural justice. This is not a research paper; while it refers to rigorous academic research about 

policing and procedural justice, it should not be used as a substitution for it. In fact, we encourage officers to read the research in 

its entirety; complete citations are provided in the references section at the end of this publication.

Photo: Leonard Zhukovsky/Shutterstock

3

What Is Procedural Justice?

Procedural justice refers to the idea of fairness in the processes that resolve disputes and allocate resources. It is a concept that, 

when embraced, promotes positive organizational change, bolsters good relations with the community, and enhances officer safety. 

One way to think about procedural justice is by considering the equation in figure 1.

Figure 1. A simple equation

ASSESSMENT = OUTCOME + PROCESS

Source: “What is Procedural Justice?” fact sheet, Center for Public Safety and Justice, n.d., http://cops.igpa.uillinois.edu/sites/cops.

igpa.uillinois.edu/files/pj_fact_sheet.pdf. 

The ways in which community members develop opinions about a specific interaction with an officer (their assessment) is based 

primarily upon two things: the outcome of the encounter (whether they received a ticket, for example) and the process of the 

encounter (how the officer came to the decision about whether to give a ticket and whether the officer explained their decision 

making process). In short, procedural justice is concerned not exactly with what officers do, but also with the way they do it.

Research has shown that often the process is more important than the outcome of the encounter in shaping a community 

member’s assessment of the interaction (Sunshine and Tyler 2003; Tyler and Huo 2002). In fact, in a study conducted in 2008, 

researchers interviewed New Yorkers both prior to and following a personal experience with the police. The people who received 

a traffic citation from an officer who treated them fairly tended to view the police more favorably and were significantly more 

willing to cooperate with the police than they had been before that encounter (Tyler and Fagan 2008).

In recent years, procedural justice and how it relates to the profession of policing have been topics of research worldwide. 

Psychologists, sociologists, and criminologists alike have studied the pillars of procedural justice in police-community 

interactions. The main finding from this body of research is that “police can achieve positive changes in citizen attitudes to 

police through adopting procedural justice dialogue as a component part of any type of police intervention” (Masserole et al. 

2012). Much of the research in this area has been led by Tom Tyler at New York University. Dr. Tyler’s work identifies the main 

components of procedural justice (also known as the “pillars” of procedural justice), as explained later. 

In the field of law enforcement, we generally talk about two types of procedural justice: internal and external.

Figure 2. Internal and external procedural justice

INTERNAL procedural justice refers to procedural 

justice within your agency—an aspect of this type 

of procedural justice might be the quality of 

communication that exists within your agency 

among different ranks.

EXTERNAL procedural justice refers to procedural 

justice within your community—an aspect of this 

type of procedural justice might be the quality of 

communication that exists between officers and 

members of the public in different situations.

Source: Center for Public Safety and Justice, University of Illinois at Chicago.
4 Procedural Justice for Law Enforcement: An Overview

While external procedural justice is concerned with relationships between law enforcement officers and those outside of the 

department, internal procedural justice is concerned with the relationships officers have with their colleagues in their agencies. 

In addition to focusing on external procedural justice, Dr. Tyler’s research has addressed internal procedural justice and has 

found that officers who feel respected by their supervisors and peers are more likely to accept departmental policies, understand 

decisions, and comply with them voluntarily (Tyler, Callahan, and Frost 2007).

Another way to think about procedural justice is to become familiar with the key components of the concept—the four pillars 

of procedural justice. It helps to think of the pillars as tools that, when used, build mutual respect and trust between and among 

police officers and the community members they interact with from day to day. The four pillars represent strategic behaviors 

that, when applied by police officers, increase the likelihood of a positive overall assessment by community member. Every 

interaction between law enforcement officers and the public is an opportunity for law enforcement to build relationships, shape 

the reputation of the department, and increase overall community satisfaction. 

Figure 3. Four pillars of procedural justice

FOUR PILLARS OF PROCEDURAL JUSTICE

Source: Laura Kunard and Charlene Moe, Procedural Justice for Law Enforcement Agencies: Organizational Change through Decision Making and 

Policy (Chicago: Center for Public Safety and Justice, 2015), 50.

Fairness and consistency of rule application

The first pillar of procedural justice, as shown in figure 4, is fairness and consistency of rule application. Perceptions of fairness are 

driven not only by outcomes but also by the fairness and consistency of the processes used to reach those outcomes. 
What Is Procedural Justice? 5

Figure 4. First pillar: fairness

FAIRNESS

VOICE

TRANSPARENCY

IMPARTIALITY

Photo: Rachel Donahue/Shutterstock

Source: Laura Kunard and Charlene Moe, Procedural Justice for Law Enforcement Agencies: Organizational Change through Decision Making and 

Policy (Chicago: Center for Public Safety and Justice, 2015), 53.

The perception of fairness is not just about outcomes. As noted earlier, people consider both the outcome of a decision and the 

process by which the decision was made when forming their opinion about whether a decision was fair. Often, the outcome 

of an interaction is less important than the interaction itself—whether respectful treatment was experienced by the parties 

involved. In short, the process of decision making matters, the process of having a respectful conversation with a community 

member matters, and the process through which an outcome is arrived at matters.

External example

If a member of the public receives a speeding ticket (negative outcome) but was treated fairly during the interaction with the officer 

issuing the ticket (positive process), the driver is more likely to feel that the encounter was fair and is less likely to contest the ticket 

or register a complaint against the officer. The driver is also more likely to comply with the officer’s requests, such as producing 

identification when asked, and to come away from the encounter with a positive opinion of the law enforcement agency.
6 Procedural Justice for Law Enforcement: An Overview

For instance, as reported in a CBS news story (Hartman 2012), Deputy Sheriff Elton Simmons of the Los Angeles County 

Sheriff ’s Department is a veteran deputy of 21 years and has written more than 25,000 citations. He knows that, too often, 

tension can escalate and a simple traffic stop can develop into a more serious matter. But surprisingly he has not received a single 

complaint in his 21 years. 

With every traffic stop he makes, Simmons is determined to diffuse the situation, eliminating any unnecessary anxiety for both 

himself and the driver. Simmons says his motto is “Do good, be good, treat people good.” Simmons’ friendly and fair approach 

appears to endear him with motorists, some of whom end up apologizing.

Internal example

In many police organizations, the environment around the selection of officers for specialized units is extremely competitive 

and stressful. According to Lieutenant Leo Daniels of the Arlington (Texas) Police Department, the challenge becomes how 

departments can promote fairness in a selection process that leaves so many disappointed. These situations are similar to the 

external example: when fairness and consistency are practiced, the negative impact of the outcome is minimized. The way to 

create processes and outcomes that lead to positive assessment begins at the posting of an available position. The process must be 

open to everyone with a posting that is distributed widely and clearly identifies closing dates. Next, the selection criteria must not 

be a secret. If someone is not selected to participate in the process, they should be told immediately and the factors considered to 

eliminate them should be identified. Finally, after the selections are made, they should be announced publicly, and all candidates 

that participated in the process should be provided feedback on how they can improve in preparation for the next opportunity. 

Voice and representation in the process

The second pillar of procedural justice, as shown in figure 5, concerns voice. All people want to be heard, and involving people or 

groups in the decisions that affect them affects their assessment of a given situation. Everyone wants to feel as though they have a 

measure of control over their fate; having voice in situations that may be somewhat out of their control (such as whether they get 

a traffic ticket) helps them to feel that their opinions matter and that someone is listening to their side of the story, taking them 

seriously, and giving some consideration to their concerns.

Figure 5. Second pillar: voice

FAIRNESS

VOICE

TRANSPARENCY

IMPARTIALITY

Source: Laura Kunard and Charlene Moe, Procedural Justice for Law Enforcement Agencies: Organizational Change through Decision Making and 

Policy (Chicago: Center for Public Safety and Justice, 2015), 57.
What Is Procedural Justice? 7

External example

If a community member involved in a minor car crash is provided an opportunity to tell their side of the story to a police officer, 

their overall assessment of the interaction with that police officer will likely be positive. Giving that community member voice in 

that moment will affect their perception of policing and police officers in the future. 

The opposite can also be true. A police officer gave a woman a ticket for making an illegal turn. When the woman protested that 

there was no sign prohibiting the turn, the officer pointed to one that was bent out of shape, leaning over and hardly visible from 

the road. 

Furious and feeling the officer hadn’t listened to her, the woman decided to appeal the ticket by going to court. The day of her 

hearing arrived, and she could hardly wait to speak her piece. However, when she began to tell her side of the story the judge 

stopped her and summarily ruled in her favor, dismissing the case. 

How did the woman feel? Vindicated? Victorious? Satisfied?

No, she was frustrated and deeply unhappy. “I came for justice,” she complained, “but the judge never let me explain what 

happened.” This affected her perception not only of the officer and policing in general but also of the broader judicial system. 

Internal example

Similarly, voice is important within law enforcement agencies as well. Officers are no different than residents in the community. 

They want to know not only that they are heard but also that their opinions are valued. Chief Will Johnson of the Arlington 

(Texas) Police Department has a long-standing practice of holding nonsupervisory meetings. These meetings are held quarterly 

between the chief of police and nonsupervisory representatives from throughout the department for the purpose of giving 

officers an opportunity to connect with the chief. These representatives poll the officers in their respective areas and present the 

chief a list of questions to be discussed. Although the chief regularly solicits input from his command staff, on nonsupervisory 

meeting days, no supervisors are allowed in the meeting to ensure that officers feel safe in sharing and discussing their concerns 

and issues in an open forum. The results of the meetings—the questions, responses, and proposed actions—are communicated 

to the entire department. As expected, not everyone comes away with exactly what they want, but these meetings are successful 

because the officers have seen evidence that their ideas and concerns are truly being considered, and they value the opportunity 

to voice their ideas directly to the chief.

Transparency and openness of process

The third pillar of procedural justice, as shown in figure 6, is transparency and openness of process. Transparency means that the 

processes by which decisions are made do not rely upon secrecy or deception. In other words, decisions unfold out in the open 

as much as possible as opposed to behind closed doors. Nobody likes to feel that their future is being decided upon another 

person’s whim; we like to be able to see how things are unfolding so that we can come to understand the ultimate result of a 

decision. When officers are as transparent as possible, community members are more likely to accept officers’ decisions—even if 

they are unfavorable to them.
8 Procedural Justice for Law Enforcement: An Overview

Figure 6: Third pillar: transparency

FAIRNESS

VOICE

TRANSPARENCY

IMPARTIALITY

Source: Laura Kunard and Charlene Moe, Procedural Justice for Law Enforcement Agencies: Organizational Change through Decision Making and 

Policy (Chicago: Center for Public Safety and Justice, 2015), 60.

External example

Transparency is equally important when police officers interact with members of the public. A story from Captain Richard 

“Skip” Miller of the Sioux Falls (South Dakota) Police Department (SFPD) nicely illustrates this point. After becoming aware 

of some problems in a downtown park—including drinking and fighting—the SFPD took a well-thought out and measured 

approach. They worked with the mayor’s office and other city departments to analyze the problem and communicate clearly 

with those involved. City officials, including representatives of the police department, met with the leaders of the group causing 

trouble in the park. At these meetings, they outlined the problems and concerns of neighbors in the area, clearly explained the 

ordinances regulating behavior in the park (for example, drinking beer was allowed but drinking hard liquor was not), and 

listened to the concerns of those who regularly congregated in the park. As a result of the meeting, the city installed additional 

picnic tables and portable toilets for use in the park. Their transparent approach—opening lines of communication, explaining 

the existing ordinances—went a long way to ultimately resolving the problems.

Internal example

Chief Ed Medrano of the Gardena (California) Police Department related a story regarding the selection process for the 

department’s specialized detail positions. Once vacancies are posted, each applicant is encouraged to meet with the sergeant and 

the team members from the specialized detail. This allows applicants to better understand the necessary skills, education, and 

experience needed to be successful. These interactions are encouraged months in advance of the testing. In addition, applicants 

are encouraged to meet with the lieutenants in charge of the specialized units in order to learn what might be expected of that 

specialized detail in the future. After the applicant selection interview, the specialized detail supervisor and lieutenant meet with 

each applicant, regardless of placement on the eligibility list. They discuss the applicant’s strengths and weaknesses. This internal 

process filled with dialogue before, during, and after the interview allows applicants to gain full insight on the selection process 

and skills, experience, and education needed to be selected for a specialized detail.

One officer recently shared he was surprised by the amount of effort put into the selection process by specialty detail supervisors. 

The officer learned that selections were not just made for filling the team vacancy for today’s needs; rather, much effort was 

placed in determining who could best fill the vacancy for the needs of the team in the future. Even though the officer was not 

chosen for the position this time, the officer was more willing to accept the decision because the process was transparent and he 

understood the selection process and found it fair.            
What Is Procedural Justice? 9

If an officer puts in a request for a day off and his supervisor denies the request without explanation, that officer may feel 

confused, upset, or even angry. If the supervisor openly explains why the decision was made, noting the factors that went into 

the decision, the officer will likely feel more satisfied with the process, more satisfied with their supervisor, and more satisfied 

with the police department overall.

Impartiality and unbiased decision making

The forth pillar of procedural justice, as shown in figure 7, is impartiality and unbiased decision making. Impartial decisions are 

made based on relevant evidence or data rather than on personal opinion, speculation, or guesswork. Americans have a strong 

sense of fairness, and especially in our media-driven society— which allows for instant answers to nearly every question via 

the Internet—we want the facts. When people take the extra few minutes to make apparent to others the data used to make 

decisions, understanding and acceptance readily ensue.

Figure 7. Fourth pillar: impartiality

FAIRNESS

VOICE

TRANSPARENCY

IMPARTIALITY

Source: Laura Kunard and Charlene Moe, Procedural Justice for Law Enforcement Agencies: Organizational Change through Decision Making and 

Policy (Chicago: Center for Public Safety and Justice, 2015), 64.

External example

Recently, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, as shared by Captain Richard “Skip” Miller, experienced an uptick in bicycle accidents—

two resulting in fatalities. The SFPD’s approach to addressing that problem exemplifies impartiality and unbiased decision 

making. First, SFPD officers met with members of the cycling community, pedestrians in the downtown area, and drivers to 

find some common ground; all were concerned about the recent accidents and loss of life. Second, the SFPD worked with local 

media to announce upcoming saturation patrols in the downtown area where the accidents occurred, getting the word out 

to the community that officers would be on the lookout for violators. Third, the SFPD rolled out the saturation patrols, first 

with a focus only on giving warnings and educating the public about local ordinances. The officers on patrol stopped everyone 

in the downtown area in equal measure: cyclists failing to stop at stop signs, pedestrians jaywalking, and drivers who failed 

to yield to pedestrians. For two weeks, the patrol officers warned residents about their law-breaking behavior, educated them 

about the recent accidents, and informed them that they would be issuing citations for law-breaking behavior in the near future. 

This approach not only exhibited impartiality in their approach to problem solving but also built trust between police and the 

community members frequenting that area.
10 Procedural Justice for Law Enforcement: An Overview

Internal example

Like anyone else, officers value their time off, especially during the summer. Two officers who serve on the same shift in the 

Gardena (California) Police Department submitted a request for a vacation day on the same day. One officer requested the day 

off because of his daughter’s third birthday party. The second officer requested off to attend his daughter’s baptism. At the time, 

the department’s policy allowed for only one officer off on each shift. Even though both officers had valid and valued reasons to 

take leave from work, the policy clearly delineated the amount of officers allowed off at the same time: one. 

That policy had been set in place as an organizational mechanism to ensure impartiality in determining how many officers could 

take leave at the same time. The policy was well publicized, clearly explained, and uniformly utilized throughout the patrol 

bureau. Supervisors were not placed in the sometimes precarious situation of deciding which officer’s reason for leave had more 

merit. Thus, when a decision was made, based on fair and standardized implementation of department policy there was no 

perception of bias or favoritism. 

Ultimately, the second officer found a colleague to trade shifts with him, allowing the officer to attend the baptism. Most significant 

is the fact that the second officer whose time off request was denied had no animosity toward the department or his fellow officers 

because the policy was impartial. He understood the reason for the denial and saw that the policy was uniformly applied.

Photo: Jorg Hackemann/Shutterstock
11

How Does Procedural Justice Relate to Community Policing?

It is also helpful to think about the concept of procedural justice alongside the concept of community policing. Community 

policing is a philosophy that promotes organizational strategies that support the systematic use of partnerships and problemsolving techniques to proactively address the immediate conditions that give rise to public safety issues such as crime, social 

disorder, and fear of crime (COPS Office 2014).

Community policing is also often explained through defining its three pillars of partnerships, problem solving, and 

organizational transformation, as shown in figure 8. 

Figure 8. Three pillars of community policing

THREE PILLARS OF COMMUNITY POLICING

Source: Laura Kunard and Charlene Moe, Procedural Justice for Law Enforcement Agencies: Organizational Change through Decision Making and 

Policy (Chicago: Center for Public Safety and Justice, 2015), 41.

The first pillar, as shown in figure 9, refers to collaborative partnerships between law enforcement agencies and the individuals 

and organizations they serve to develop solutions to problems and increase trust. Partners with law enforcement may include 

local government agencies or departments, community groups, nonprofit organizations, social service providers, private 

businesses, and members of the media.

Figure 9. First pillar: partnerships

PARTNERSHIPS

PROBLEM SOLVING

ORGANIZATIONAL 

TRANSFORMATION

Source: Adapted from Laura Kunard and Charlene Moe, Procedural Justice for Law Enforcement Agencies: Organizational Change through 

Decision Making and Policy (Chicago: Center for Public Safety and Justice, 2015), 64.
12 Procedural Justice for Law Enforcement: An Overview

The second pillar, problem solving, as shown in figure 10, refers to the process of engaging in the proactive and systematic 

examination of identified problems to develop and rigorously evaluate effective responses. Key components of problem solving 

include the following:

•	 Scanning: Identifying and prioritizing problems

•	 Analysis: Researching what is known about the problem

•	 Response: Developing solutions to bring about lasting reductions in the number and extent of problems

•	 Assessment: Evaluating the success of the responses

•	 Using the crime triangle to focus on immediate conditions (victim/offender/location)

Figure 10. Second pillar: problem solving

PARTNERSHIPS

PROBLEM SOLVING

ORGANIZATIONAL 

TRANSFORMATION

Source: Adapted from Laura Kunard and Charlene Moe, Procedural Justice for Law Enforcement Agencies: Organizational Change through 

Decision Making and Policy (Chicago: Center for Public Safety and Justice, 2015), 64.

The third pillar of community policing, organizational transformation, as shown in figure 11, refers to the alignment of 

organizational management, structure, personnel, and information systems to support community partnerships and proactive 

problem solving. Community policing, like procedural justice, should permeate the agency at all levels.

Figure 11. Third pillar: organizational transformation PARTNERSHIPS

PROBLEM SOLVING

ORGANIZATIONAL 

TRANSFORMATION

Source: Adapted from Laura Kunard and Charlene Moe, Procedural Justice for Law Enforcement Agencies: Organizational Change through 

Decision Making and Policy (Chicago: Center for Public Safety and Justice, 2015), 64.
How Does Procedural Justice Relate to Community Policing? 13

As you can see by the definitions of the pillars, procedural justice and community policing are related, complementary 

concepts. The common denominator between the two, as shown in figure 12, is that they are both primarily concerned about 

relationships—creating them and maintaining them well.

Figure 12. Cultivating relationships FAIRNESS

CULTIVATING RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH

PROCEDURAL JUSTICE AND COMMUNITY POLICING VOICE TRANSPARENCY IMPARTIALITY PARTNERSHIPS PROBLEM SOLVING ORGANIZATIONAL

TRANSFORMATION

Source: Laura Kunard and Charlene Moe, Procedural Justice for Law Enforcement Agencies: Organizational Change through Decision Making and 

Policy (Chicago: Center for Public Safety and Justice, 2015).

One more way to think about the concept of procedural justice is by thinking about banking. In banking, the two main types of 

transactions are deposits and withdrawals. Think about interpersonal interactions (both within your department between colleagues 

and in the community between officers and residents) as transactions—positive transactions will result in deposits, while negative 

transactions will result in withdrawals. It is important to note that it may take multiple deposits or positive interactions to make up 

for one withdrawal or negative interaction. Deposits strengthen relationships while withdrawals damage them.

The community bank account represents your community’s overall feelings about your agency over time—your officers’ 

opinions about the department and the community’s opinions about the department. It is important to understand that each 

interaction, while it occurs between only two people, ultimately reflects upon the agency as a whole. Every interaction a police 

officer has with a community member should be seen as an opportunity to make a deposit.

An example of cultivating trust through relationships is demonstrated by Public Safety Officer Araujo from the Kalamazoo 

(Michigan) Department of Public Safety. Araujo responded to a night shift incident in a neighborhood that typically receives 

many calls for service. On this night, the call involved a person being stabbed. When Araujo arrived on scene, he recognized 

the subject who was stabbed. The stabbing victim was refusing to speak with officers at the scene about the incident. When the 

subject saw Araujo, he recognized him as the officer who had arrested him the previous Monday for another incident. How the 

stabbing victim was treated by Araujo during the earlier incident and subsequent arrest led him to confide in Araujo the entire 
14 Procedural Justice for Law Enforcement: An Overview

story of the stabbing from his point of view. It may never be known if the stabbing victim would have come forth with this 

information to any other officer; however, Araujo had shown the victim respect during their previous interaction and built trust 

with him, resulting in the victim providing the statement.

Procedural justice and officer safety

An example of how procedural justice can relate to officer safety is demonstrated in this deadly encounter illustration courtesy of 

Captain Jim Mallery of the Kalamazoo Department of Public Safety.

During a foot pursuit of a known gang member with a long history of violence and an outstanding arrest warrant, Officer Rick 

McCall found himself in a precarious and deadly position. In an effort to elude McCall, the suspect turned in to a backyard and 

hurdled himself over an old five-foot rickety chain-link fence, landing on his back, face up. McCall, hurdling the same fence and 

gripping the suspect’s arm, found himself hung up by his own gun belt atop the fence. Now McCall was looking straight down 

at the suspect who was reaching for the butt of his semiautomatic gun, which had fallen out of his pants upon impact. McCall, 

seeing the gun, shouted “No!” 

As the suspect’s eyes meet with McCall’s eyes, the suspect recognized who had been pursing him and he laid the gun on the 

ground saying, “McCall, I didn’t know it was you! I wouldn’t do that to you”—and he, the suspect, pushed his own gun away. 

While McCall untangled himself from the fence, the suspect cooperated and submitted to handcuffing without resistance. 

As McCall walked the suspect to the patrol car, he asked him, “You weren’t really going to shoot me, were you?” The suspect 

replied, “No, McCall, out of all the cops, you’ve always treated me decent.” 

McCall had arrested his near-assailant several times. He had also taken the time to engage with him over the years during 

noncrisis interactions when encountering him on the street. During one of these encounters, they learned they shared a 

common birthday, 10 years apart. This seemly inconsequential coincidence was the foundation in building a relationship with 

a sense of general mutual human respect. McCall’s choice to treat the suspect with respect and dignity through their numerous 

interactions, even when arresting him, saved his life that day. A true story of procedural justice impacting officer safety.

As we have learned from this brief overview of officer experiences, officers’ use of procedural justice engenders long term respect 

and compliance from their communities. When officers treat community members with respect, those community members (as 

well as their friends, families, and neighbors) are more likely to comply with the law and more likely to work with police to keep 

their communities safe. 

By building trust and respect among community members through repeated “deposits” into the community bank account, 

officers are stacking the deck in their favor to a certain extent—in each encounter with a new community member, officers are 

more likely to meet someone who respects the department, respects their authority, and complies with officer requests, thus 

lessening the need for officers to use force. The cumulative effect of procedural justice has a direct bearing on officers’ safety on 

the street.

When officers approach an interaction, the principle of procedural justice suggests that they expand their thoughts about the 

community encounter from “can I do this?” to “should I do this?” which may ultimately reduce officer fatalities and injuries. By 

setting a positive tone at the beginning of any interaction, officers can often keep interactions on an even keel, negating the need 

for raised voices or disrespectful exchanges that could easily escalate into dangerous situations.
How Does Procedural Justice Relate to Community Policing? 15

Procedural justice and use of force

It’s often said that an officer’s 

greatest weapon or tool is their 

brain, which enables them 

to process all the information 

from a rapidly evolving situation and be able to adapt 

accordingly.

—Corporal Charles Fernandez

Arlington (Texas) Police Department

Similar to the relationship between procedural justice and officer safety, procedural justice also relates to potential use of force 

situations. As noted by Jason Sunshine and Tom Tyler, “a procedural justice-based policing strategy doesn’t mean the police 

should not resort to the use of force when faced with a hostile individual. It simply means that to the extent that the police 

can elicit compliance without the use of force, the police officers, the institution of policing, and society in general will benefit 

greatly” (Sunshine and Tyler 2003).

One of the most important lessons of applying procedural justice to use of force situations is for officers to embrace their wit—

their intellect, their use of language, their powers of persuasion, their empathy, and their humanness. As Corporal Charles 

Fernandez of the Arlington (Texas) Police Department notes, an officer’s “greatest weapon or tool is their brain.” Officers have 

high levels of communication skills and are trained in helpful techniques such as verbal judo. Relying upon communication 

techniques can often defuse a potentially hostile situation quickly and negate the need for the use of force in that situation. 

Many interactions have a “tipping point”—a moment in the 

conversation where things get more or less tense. It is important 

for an officer who embraces the concept of procedural justice to 

recognize that moment and rely upon their language skills to turn 

the conversation to a calm, productive place.

Procedural justice and encounters with 

people with mental illness

As has been noted, procedural justice is important in every 

interaction that officers have with their colleagues as well as with 

the public. It is especially critical for officers to keep the pillars of 

procedural justice in mind when they are interacting with people 

with mental illness, particularly people with serious mental illness 

(SMI). Efforts to improve law enforcement’s ability to respond to 

people with mental illness have taken hold nationally in recent decades with many agencies creating and maintaining crisis 

intervention team (CIT) training models. Such training, which increases officers’ understanding of SMI as well as their 

savviness in communicating with people with SMI, should also be paired with the principles of procedural justice, which 

enhances such an approach.

Professor Amy Watson has studied the interactions between officers and people with SMI extensively and focuses some of 

her work on how officer behaviors may shape cooperation or resistance. (Watson 2007) Watson notes that “Procedural justice 

theory provides clear direction for efforts to improve police response to persons with mental illness” and goes on to emphasize 

that “measurable behaviors that may improve officers’ abilities to obtain cooperation and more effectively and safely manage 

encounters with persons with mental illness” include fairness and giving voice—pillars of procedural justice. Watson’s recent 

studies (2010, 2013) have underscored the importance of procedural justice in encounters between people with SMI and officers.

Example. Law enforcement officers who are members of crisis intervention teams have training in reflective listening 

techniques, which serve to de-escalate situations and build trust between officers and people with mental illness. A mediumsized agency received repeated calls from a woman diagnosed with schizophrenia. She called often to register complaints 

against her family members for a variety of alleged offenses. Officers who were dispatched to the scene often felt frustrated 
16 Procedural Justice for Law Enforcement: An Overview

with her seemingly incoherent ramblings about her deceased 

husband and the absence of any family members in the home. After 

the first few calls, the dispatcher sent a CIT-trained officer to the 

scene. By using his reflective listening skills, he realized, her actual 

needs would be revealed (she was out of medication and needed 

someone to go pick it up, for example), and he could effectively 

address her concerns.

When we’ve talked to people 

with serious mental illness 

about their police encounters, 

the thing that really comes 

through is that they feel extremely vulnerable when they 

have these encounters.

—Dr. Amy Watson, Associate Professor

University of Illinois at Chicago

Procedural justice and hot spot policing

The concentration of crime at 

specific hot spot locations within neighborhoods provides 

an important opportunity for 

police to make connections 

with those citizens who are 

most vulnerable to victimization and experience fear and 

diminished quality of life.

—David Weisburd and Anthony Braga

Hot spot policing is a strategy that focuses on a specialized 

geographic approach and concentrates police resources in welldefined “hot spots” of violence. Community members who live, 

work, or go to school in such hot spots tend to see more police 

officers and are likely to have more interactions with police officers. The increase in interactions between police officers and 

the public in hot spot policing situations presents many opportunities for police to earn deposits into the community bank 

account—to show respect through the four pillars of procedural justice and build trust with their community.

A procedural justice-based approach to policing—even hot 

spot policing—allows the law enforcement officers to “focus on 

controlling crime without alienating the public” (Sunshine and Tyler 

2003). So while police officers may be in a small geographic area 

to concentrate on a specific violent crime problem, that focus does 

not preclude them from using that proximity to get to know the 

residents, building trust through honest communication and perhaps 

at times informal conversations. 

Example. The Massachusetts State Police’s approach to hot spot 

policing provides an example of how procedural justice can play a role 

even in high intensity situations like drug raids. Nighttime raids of 

drug houses in Springfield, Massachusetts, often result in neighbors 

who come outside, awakened by the noise and commotion. As state 

trooper Mike Cutone explains, taking the time to explain what is 

going on in the neighborhood and connect with the residents makes 

all the difference in building trust between law enforcement and residents in the community. “You want to engage these other 

folks and let them know what’s going on and why we’re here,” Cutone says. The raid was featured on 60 Minutes and shows 

Cutone introducing himself and calling neighbors by their first names after the commotion is over (Stahl 2013).

Procedural justice and the benefits to your community

Procedural justice can be thought of as a framework around every interaction a police officer has—with colleagues in the 

law enforcement agency and with members of the community alike. It is important for law enforcement officers to recognize 

and appreciate the power they have in many situations and approach those situations with procedural justice in mind. When 

embraced by an entire law enforcement agency, as shown in figure 13, all members of the department can expect the building of 

trust and mutual respect among its members and the public.
How Does Procedural Justice Relate to Community Policing? 17

Figure 13. The procedural justice framework

INTERNAL & EXTERNAL 

INTERACTIONS

FAIRNESS

TRANSPARENCY

VOICE

IMPARTIALITY

CULTIVATING RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH

Source: Laura Kunard, “Community Policing: New Applications of an Enduring Perspective—Now More Than Ever,” presentation given 

to the Akron (Ohio) Police Department, April 2014, 80.

19

Conclusion

The tides are shifting in police-community relations in the United States. With the high visibility of several significant events 

comes a louder call for a new kind of policing rooted firmly in justice, impartiality, and collaboration with the community. 

Procedural justice is a framework in which law enforcement leadership can build effective policing efforts, first internally and 

then externally. In conversations with public safety professionals across the nation, the Center for Public Safety and Justice 

encounters a common response from newcomers to the concepts of procedural justice and police legitimacy: “This isn’t new; it’s 

what good cops have always done.” And they are right. As the body of research on internal and external procedural justice grows, 

it has become increasingly clear that this evidence-based way of doing business—rooted in the four pillars of fairness in decision 

making, impartiality, providing voice, and transparency—is the foundation of a 21st century model of policing. 

Indeed, the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing identifies the philosophical foundation of its work as an effort to 

“build trust between citizens and their peace officers so that all components of a community are treating one another fairly 

and justly and are invested in maintaining public safety in an atmosphere of mutual respect” (President’s Task Force 2015). 

A cultural shift in this direction requires more than a reliance on good cops continuing to be good. Procedural justice must be 

strategically institutionalized through policies and practices in order to shift the internal and external culture of law enforcement 

agencies to one that promotes mutual respect, where police can effectively serve as guardians working in partnership with 

members of the community rather than that of an occupying force. Indeed, procedural justice is the fulcrum on which this 

mutual respect balances.

We are optimistic that you will see the benefits of procedural justice as an organizational principle. Law enforcement executives 

should find necessity in institutionalizing procedural justice within their agencies. Furthermore, officers within the department 

will see the significant impact that embracing procedural justice in their everyday encounters with the public can have 

promoting effective policing and officer safety.

21

References 

Bradford, TeNeane, and Amy Watson. 2013. “Procedural Justice: Mental Illness.” The Beat (August). http://www.cops.usdoj.

gov/html/podcasts/the_beat/08-2013/TheBeat-082013_Watson.mp3.

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office). 2014. Community Policing Defined. Washington, DC: Office 

of Community Oriented Policing Services. http://ric-zai-inc.com/ric.php?page=detail&id=COPS-P157.

Fielder, Mora, and Charles Fernandez. 2013. “Procedural Justice: Use of Force.” The Beat (August). http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/

html/podcasts/the_beat/08-2013/TheBeat-082013_Fernandez.mp3.

Hartman, Steve. 2012. “No Complaints about This Traffic Cop.” CBS News. Last modified September 22, 2012. http://www.

cbsnews.com/news/no-complaints-about-this-traffic-cop/.

Kim, Chan W., and Renee Mauborgne. 2003. “Fair Process: Managing in the Knowledge Economy.” Harvard Business Review

( January 2003). https://hbr.org/2003/01/fair-process-managing-in-the-knowledge-economy/.

Kirkpatrick, Anne, Melissa Bradley, Tom R. Tyler, and Will Johnson. 2013. “Procedural Justice and Officer Safety.” IACP 

Conference session, Philadelphia, October 20, 2013.

Mazerolle, Lorraine, Sarah Bennett, Jacqueline Davis, Elise Sargeant, and Matthew Manning. 2012. “Legitimacy in Policing: 

A Systematic Review.” The Campbell Collaboration 9(1). http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/lib/download/2604/

Mazerolle_Legitimacy_Review.pdf.

President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. 2015. Final Report of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing.

(Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2015). http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/taskforce/

TaskForce_FinalReport.pdf.

Sunshine, Jason, and Tom R. Tyler. 2003. “The Role of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy in Shaping Public Support for 

Policing.” Law & Society Review 37(3):513–548. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-5893.3703002/pdf.

Stahl, Lesley. 2013. “Counterinsurgency Cops: Military Tactics Fight Street Crime.” 60 Minutes, CBS News, August 4. 

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/counterinsurgency-cops-military-tactics-fight-street-crime/.

Tyler, Tom R., and Jeffrey Fagan. 2008. “Legitimacy and Cooperation: Why Do People Help the Police Fight Crime in Their 

Communities?” Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 6(1) 231–75. http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/osjcl/Articles/Volume6_1/

Tyler-Fagan-PDF.pdf.

Tyler, Tom R., Patrick E. Callahan & Jeffrey Frost. 2007. “Armed, and Dangerous (?): Motivating Rule Adherence Among 

Agents of Social Control.” Law & Society Review 41(2):457–492. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-

5893.2007.00304.x/pdf.

Tyler, Tom R., and Yuen J. Huo. 2002. Trust in the Law. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Watson, Amy. 2007. “Applying Procedural Justice Theory to Law Enforcement’s Response to Persons With Mental Illness.” 

Psychiatric Services 58(6):787–793. http://ps.psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10.1176/ps.2007.58.6.787.

Watson, Amy, Beth Angell, Theresa Vidalon, and Kristin Davis. 2010. “Measuring Perceived Procedural Justice and Coercion 

among Persons with Mental Illness in Police Encounters: the Police Contact Experience Scale.” Journal of Community 

Psychology 38(2): 206–226. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jcop.20360/pdf.
22 Procedural Justice for Law Enforcement: An Overview

Watson, Amy C., and Beth Angell. 2013. “The Role of Stigma and Uncertainty in Moderating the Effect of Procedural Justice 

on Cooperation and Resistance in Police Encounters with Persons with Mental Illnesses.” Psychology, Public Policy, and 

Law 19(1):30–39. http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/law/19/1/30.pdf&productCode=pa.

Weisburd, David, and Anthony Braga. 2013. “The Importance of Legitimacy in Hot Spots Policing.” Community Policing 

Dispatch (September). http://cops.usdoj.gov/html/dispatch/09-2013/the_importance_of_legitimacy_in_hot_spots_

policing.asp.
23

Selected Procedural Justice Resources

COPS Office Community Policing Learning Portal, Procedural Justice Resource page:

http://cops.igpa.uillinois.edu/procedural-justice-resources

This online resource page features links to COPS Office-developed resources related to procedural justice, including podcasts 

and articles.

Interview with Professor Tom Tyler: 

http://courses2.cit.cornell.edu/sociallaw/videos/tyler/index.html

This website features videos of Professor Tom Tyler speaking about his research on procedural justice and its relationship to law 

enforcement processes.

Procedural Fairness website:

http://www.proceduralfairness.org/Policing.aspx

This website features many resources related to procedural justice in a variety of criminal justice contexts. Of particular interest 

to law enforcement officers is the series of six short videos of Professor Tracey Meares speaking about procedural justice and its 

relationship to law enforcement and the links to recent journal articles.

25

About the Center for Public Safety and Justice

The Center for Public Safety and Justice’s (CPSJ) 18 years of national experience providing training and technical assistance 

to communities throughout the United States on a variety of policing topics has given its staff unique insight into the culture 

of law enforcement, including operations, organizational structure and relationships with local government and community 

partnership teams. The mission of CPSJ is to promote public safety as a philosophy and practice for all members of a 

community. It is through partnerships and community engagement, organizational change and transformation, innovative 

approaches to problem solving, strong community-based leadership and quality education, training and technical assistance that 

the essence of community policing, community preparedness and emergency management is redefined enhancing quality of life 

across the United States. 

CPSJ is one of ten research centers within the College of Urban Planning and Public Affairs (CUPPA) at the University of 

Illinois at Chicago. CUPPA pursues its mission by weaving together three commitments: to innovative education, to engaged 

research and to making an influential contribution to policy and practice. CUPPA, through its nationally recognized research 

centers, strives to interweave the discovery of new knowledge with education and the practical application of research finding to 

critical issues and problems facing communities across the nation.

CPSJ has a long history of providing curriculum development, training and technical assistance and research capacity to the 

COPS Office. Additionally, CPSJ has developed long-standing partnerships with the Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice 

Assistance; the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency and many other state and 

local agencies. CPSJ has received awards from an extensive list of organizations requesting its expertise on a range of issues. A 

sampling of these activities include:

• The development and delivery of a three-part procedural justice series including Procedural Justice for Law Enforcement:

Organizational Change through Decision Making and Policy, Procedural Justice as a Dialogue-to-Change and the update and

revision to the Procedural Justice for Law Enforcement: Front-line Officers course initially developed by the King County,

WA Sheriff ’s Office

• Design and rollout of a national protocol for community and law enforcement responses to missing persons with

Alzheimer’s disease and other forms of dementia

• The design and development of the COPS Learning Portal that houses online training and resources developed by CPSJ

and other COPS Office grantees

• An extensive revision, update and expansion of the Illinois Basic Law Enforcement Academy Curriculum bringing the

curriculum in line with state law and current best practices in law enforcement

• More than a decade-long partnership with the Illinois Emergency Management Agency (IEMA) providing expertise in

subrecipient monitoring for the Urban Areas Security Initiative and the State Homeland Security Program
26 Procedural Justice for Law Enforcement: An Overview

About the COPS Office

The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office) is the component of the U.S. Department of Justice 

responsible for advancing the practice of community policing by the nation’s state, local, territory, and tribal law enforcement 

agencies through information and grant resources. 

Community policing is a philosophy that promotes organizational strategies that support the systematic use of partnerships and 

problem-solving techniques, to proactively address the immediate conditions that give rise to public safety issues such as crime, 

social disorder, and fear of crime. 

Rather than simply responding to crimes once they have been committed, community policing concentrates on preventing 

crime and eliminating the atmosphere of fear it creates. Earning the trust of the community and making those individuals 

stakeholders in their own safety enables law enforcement to better understand and address both the needs of the community 

and the factors that contribute to crime.

The COPS Office awards grants to state, local, territory, and tribal law enforcement agencies to hire and train community 

policing professionals, acquire and deploy cutting-edge crime fighting technologies, and develop and test innovative policing 

strategies. COPS Office funding also provides training and technical assistance to community members and local government 

leaders and all levels of law enforcement. The COPS Office has produced and compiled a broad range of information resources 

that can help law enforcement better address specific crime and operational issues, and help community leaders better 

understand how to work cooperatively with their law enforcement agency to reduce crime.

•	 Since 1994, the COPS Office has invested more than $14 billion to add community policing officers to the nation’s streets, 

enhance crime fighting technology, support crime prevention initiatives, and provide training and technical assistance to 

help advance community policing. 

•	 To date, the COPS Office has funded approximately 125,000 additional officers to more than 13,000 of the nation’s 18,000 

law enforcement agencies across the country in small and large jurisdictions alike.

•	 Nearly 700,000 law enforcement personnel, community members, and government leaders have been trained through 

COPS Office-funded training organizations.

•	 To date, the COPS Office has distributed more than 8.57 million topic-specific publications, training curricula, white 

papers, and resource CDs. 

COPS Office resources, covering a wide breadth of community policing topics—from school and campus safety to gang 

violence—are available, at no cost, through its online Resource Center at www.cops.usdoj.gov. This easy-to-navigate website is 

also the grant application portal, providing access to online application forms. 
27
28

Procedural justice has become an important focal point in the profession and strategy of 

policing in recent years. The purpose of this publication is to introduce law enforcement 

professionals to the concept of procedural justice and to encourage law enforcement 

to research the concept beyond what is captured in this introduction. The goal of this 

publication is to have a national understanding of procedural justice in policing and to strive 

towards institutionalizing the concepts throughout agencies across the country to build trust 

and confidence and advance public safety.

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

145 N Street NE

Washington, DC 20530

To obtain details on COPS Office programs,

call the COPS Office Response Center at 800-421-6770.

Visit the COPS Office online at www.cops.usdoj.gov.

Center for Public Safety and Justice

College of Urban Planning and Public Affairs

University of Illinois 

2930 Montvale Drive, Suite B

Springfield, IL 62704

To contact the CPSJ, call toll free at 887-864-7427.

ISBN: 978-1-935676-86-7 

e031425635

Published 2015