New Perspectives in Policing 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

J U N E 2 0 1 1
 

Police Discipline: A Case for Change 

Darrel W. Stephens 

Executive Session on Policing and 


Public Safety
 

This is one in a series of papers that will be published as a result of the Executive Session on 


Policing and Public Safety. 


Harvard’s Executive Sessions are a convening 

of individuals of independent standing who take 

joint responsibility for rethinking and improving 

society’s responses to an issue. Members are 

selected based on their experiences, their reputation for thoughtfulness and their potential for 

helping to disseminate the work of the Session. 

In the early 1980s, an Executive Session on Policing 

helped resolve many law enforcement issues of 

the day. It produced a number of papers and 

concepts that revolutionized policing. Thirty years 

later, law enforcement has changed and NIJ and 

Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government are 

again collaborating to help resolve law enforcement issues of the day. 

Learn more about the Executive Session on 

Policing and Public Safety at: 

NIJ’s website: http://www.nij.gov/topics/lawenforcement/administration/executive-sessions/ 

welcome.htm 

Harvard’s website: http://www.hks.harvard.edu/
 

criminaljustice/executive_sessions/policing.htm
 

National Institute of Justice 

Introduction 

Police disciplinary procedures have long been a 

source of frustration for nearly everyone involved 

in the process and those interested in the outcomes. Police executives are commonly upset by 

the months — and sometimes years — it takes 

from an allegation of misconduct through the 

investigation and resolution. Their frustration is 

even greater with the frequency with which their 

decisions are reversed or modified by arbitrators, 

civil service boards and grievance panels. Police 

officers and their unions generally feel discipline 

is arbitrary and fails to meet the fundamental 

requirements of consistency and fairness. Unless 

it is a high-profile case or one is directly involved, 

few in the community are interested in the police 

disciplinary process. Those interested are mystified by both the time involved in dealing with 

complaints of misconduct and the various steps 

in a lengthy, confusing and overly legal process. 

The one area about the administration of police 

discipline where there is general agreement: it 

is a frustrating experience that leaves everyone 

with a sense that it has fallen well short of the 

primary purpose of holding officers accountable for 

their actions and encouraging behavior that falls 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 | New Perspectives in Policing 

within departmental expectations and values. 

News accounts reinforce the overall dissatisfaction with police discipline: 

•	 United Kingdom. Publishing the Review of 

Police Disciplinary Arrangements, Ms. Hazel 

Blears said: “I am grateful to William Taylor for 

his thorough review. There is clear agreement... 

that police disciplinary arrangements need to 

move away from being lengthy, costly, heavily 

regulated and punitive” (Taylor, 2005). 

•	 Newark, N.J. “The Newark City Council 

launched an investigation today into the 

police department’s disciplinary procedure 

after African-American and Hispanic officers 

complained supervisors were disproportionally 

punishing them” (Adarlo, 2009). 

•	 San Francisco, Calif. “Police Commission 

President John Keker says he hopes the 

uproar over the panel’s vote not to fire Officer 

Marc Andaya will spur the city to revamp the 

‘broken’ police disciplinary system” (Zamora, 

1997). 

Twelve years later: “Almost six years after San 

Francisco voters gave civilians unparalleled 

power over police officers, the city’s discipline 

system is beset by delays of months and 

sometimes years, officials in charge of it say” 

(Cote, 2009). 

Cite this paper as: Stephens, Darrel W., Police Discipline: A Case for Change, 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 

2011. 

•	 Madison, Wis. “Two lawmakers are proposing 

a statewide solution to the problem of how 

to establish a system for disciplining and 

dismissing law enforcement officers and 

to end pay for those who are fired” (Forster, 

2007). 

•	 Montgomery County, Md. “In 2008, one out 

of nine officers found by the department to 

have committed a serious offense received 

the punishment originally recommended by 

Police Chief J. Thomas Manger, according 

to Assistant County Attorney Chris Hinrichs” 

(Suderman, 2009). 

•	 Cincinnati, Ohio. “The most severe 

punishments for police misconduct in 

Cincinnati are the least likely to stick. Police 

officers disciplined for major violations — 

from breaking policies to breaking laws — get 

their penalties reduced nearly three times 

more often than officers accused of minor 

violations” (Anglen and Horn, 2001). 

These news accounts, and others from the past 

few years, clearly reflect widespread concern 

with the processes used by police to discipline 

errant officers. The disciplinary process is supposed to help address police misconduct while 

supporting officers who have exercised their discretion appropriately and within the framework 

of law and policy. Unfortunately, the approaches 

police generally use fall well short of achieving 

their primary purpose and leave the department, 

employees and the community with concerns. 

There is significant dissatisfaction with the discipline approach: it is predominately punishment 

oriented, it takes an excessive amount of time, 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Police Discipline: A Case for Change | 3 

many decisions are overturned on appeal, and the 

entire process leaves one with a sense that there 

should be a better way to help officers stay within 

the boundaries of acceptable behavior and learn 

from the mistakes made in an increasingly difficult 

and challenging job. 

This paper focuses on discipline process issues 

and purposes within the context of the organizational challenge of managing and modifying officer 

behaviors. It begins by discussing the task of creating an environment in which officers understand 

expectations and avoid the formal disciplinary 

process altogether. It then describes the issues with 

traditional approaches to discipline and reviews 

different approaches that some police agencies are 

trying. These include the Charlotte-Mecklenburg 

Police Department’s discipline philosophy, now 

used for almost 10 years, and the Education-Based 

Discipline approach recently implemented by the 

Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and 

others. The paper will also offer a way forward for 

police to implement more effective approaches to 

discipline. 

Creating the Right Environment 

The best situation for a police department, its employees and the community is to create an environment 

in which the formal disciplinary process to deal with 

employee mistakes and misconduct is both the last 

option and the one least used. Creating that environment requires the department’s leadership to pay 

close attention to several essential elements that play 

central roles in an effectively managed organization. 

These areas include: 

•	 The Hiring Process. Finding and employing 

the right people is the foundation for creating 

an organization that effectively serves the 

community. Employment standards must 

be clear. For example: How is prior illegal or 

prescription drug abuse handled? What is 

the standard for driving and arrest records? 

What are the educational requirements? Do 

candidates have the right personality and 

character? With clear standards the selection 

process can identify and screen out candidates 

that may have difficulty maintaining the conduct 

and ethical behavior expected of a police officer. 

•	 Training. Officers must have the skills and 

knowledge to effectively do their jobs. Highquality, entry-level, field and in-service training 

programs are key to ensuring that officers not 

only understand the department’s expectations 

but have the skill level to meet them. Police 

departments and their employees must commit 

to a regimen of lifelong learning. 

•	 Clear Expectations. Training is an important 

aspect of ensuring that officers understand 

the department’s expectations, but more is 

required. The department’s mission, vision, 

values and ethical standards convey essential 

messages to employees, as do formalized 

departmental goals and objectives. The policies 

and procedures the department has developed 

to guide decisions provide a framework for 

acceptable performance. These must not 

only be written in clear, understandable 

language but must also be reinforced in 

daily operations. For example, a pursuit that 

begins in conflict with the department’s policy 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 | New Perspectives in Policing 

but for which no disciplinary proceeding 

ensues because of a positive outcome sets 

the stage for confusion and contributes to 

questions about consistency and fairness in 

the disciplinary process. Likewise, a policy 

that prohibits gratuities in an organization 

where a substantial number of people at all 

levels routinely accept them sends confusing 

messages and undermines all efforts at 

accountability. 

•	 Effective Supervision. One of the most 

important steps in creating a healthy work 

environment is the frontline supervisor and 

the level just above. These are also the most 

challenging jobs in police organizations as 

these levels have the most direct interaction 

with frontline employees and the community. 

These front-line supervisors are largely 

responsible for translating the department’s 

mission, vision, values, policies, rules and 

regulations into operational practice. By 

emphasizing some things and not others, 

they establish the organizational expectations 

for officers and shape the culture. Effective 

supervision is critical to creating an 

environment in which coaching, not the 

threat of discipline, helps mold officers into 

professionals. 

•	 Performance Standards and Review. Officers 

need to know what the work standards are and 

periodically review with their supervisor how 

they are doing. This is a difficult process for 

most police agencies. Setting standards is very 

challenging given the workload and types of 

problems officers encounter in different parts 

of the community and at different times of the 

day. Some officers are assigned to areas where 

the only work they are able to do is handle calls 

for service while others must self-initiate the 

majority of their work. Whatever the standards 

and review processes are in the department, it 

is important that officers understand them and 

that supervisors are helping to achieve them. 

•	 Complaint Reception and Investigative 

Procedures. The department must have 

effective complaint reception protocols 

and investigative procedures. It should not 

be overly difficult for a citizen to lodge a 

complaint against a police employee. Like 

employees, citizens should be informed of 

the steps that will be taken to follow up on the 

complaint and should also be informed of the 

outcome. The investigative process should 

also have defined time frames for completion, 

with complainants notified of any delays. 

•	 Technology. Police agencies have increasingly 

turned to technology to help deter misconduct 

and investigate it when it occurs. Automatic 

vehicle locators and in-car camera systems 

have become standard equipment in many 

police agencies in America. Some agencies are 

testing head-mounted cameras that record 

what officers see and hear when they are away 

from their vehicle handling a call. Although 

this technology has not been subjected to 

rigorous evaluation as an investigative aid or 

deterrent to misconduct, most police agencies 

believe that it serves that purpose. 

•	 Code of Silence. The “code of silence” has 

been a significant issue for policing for many 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Police Discipline: A Case for Change | 5 

years. Creating the right environment to 

discourage misconduct requires that police 

executives confront this issue. Even with 

indications that things may be improving, 

research suggests the code of silence is alive 

and well in policing (Rothwell and Baldwin, 

2007). The code severely hampers a police 

department’s ability to learn about and 

investigate misconduct. It also undermines 

credibility in the eyes of the community. 

Paying attention to all of these elements will help 

department leaders reduce employee mistakes 

and misconduct and contribute to creating the 

right environment, even though it will not eliminate the need for effective disciplinary processes 

that have legitimacy both internally and externally. 

Effective disciplinary processes serve a number of 

important functions in a police agency. They punish, 

change behavior, signal organizational expectations internally and externally, respond to citizen 

complaints and serve as an early warning tool 

about potential problem behaviors and tensions in 

the community. Ineffective processes do the same 

things except they have a tendency to punish without an appropriate behavior change, send the wrong 

signals and frequently leave the public with a sense 

that its complaints have not been taken seriously. 

Persistent problems with current disciplinary processes have limited their effectiveness. 

Disciplinary Process Issues 

In a nation where citizens have always valued 

individual liberties and have been reluctant to 

grant too much authority to government, police 

officers are given significant powers and are 

expected to use them judiciously. Citizens also 

expect that the police will be held accountable for 

the manner in which they use their authority and 

that any misconduct will be dealt with appropriately. The disciplinary process plays an important 

role in holding police officers accountable for 

their behavior. It also helps sort out situations in 

which officer misconduct has been alleged but 

in fact the officer acted appropriately. Obviously, 

there is a lot at stake for the community, for the 

officers and for the department. Effective policing 

depends on a disciplinary process that is capable 

of serving the interests of all three parties in a fair 

and equitable manner. In many cases the current disciplinary systems fail to do this, reducing 

police legitimacy and effectiveness. Some current 

issues with police disciplinary processes include: 

The disciplinary process is an ongoing source 

of conflict with employees and unions. The 

majority of police officers will not be the subject 

of an internal affairs investigation or significant 

disciplinary action during their careers. Yet, 

because of the potential for complaints or innocent mistakes, they are always concerned about 

the possibility of being investigated by Internal 

Affairs. Officers are influenced by the locker room 

talk about Internal Affairs investigations and general perceptions of not being treated fairly in the 

process1 (Curry, 2004). 

The disciplinary process is a source of mistrust and tension for some in the community, 

particularly in minority communities where 

many believe too many police decisions are 

influenced by race. Although there has been 

improvement, minority communities report 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6 | New Perspectives in Policing 

lower levels of confidence in the police and their 

honesty and integrity than white communities2 

(Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2009). Obviously, many 

factors contribute to citizens’ views of the police, 

but one that has substantial influence is a sense 

that police officers are not always held accountable 

for their behavior. A 2006 Seattle Post-Intelligencer 

editorial board poll revealed that 66 percent of 

respondents did not believe that complaints 

against the police were handled fairly and openly 

(Seattle Post-Intelligencer Editorial Board, 2006). 

The focus of discipline is predominately punishment, not behavior change. Most police 

executives would say the purpose of punishment is to deter future misconduct by the officer 

involved and send a message to others that such 

behavior will not be tolerated. Alternative courses 

of action that would lead to behavioral change 

are seldom part of the sanctions imposed on officers who have had sustained misconduct charges. 

Punishment for misconduct is appropriate at 

times, and it may lead to behavioral change, but 

it also brings resentment and at times contributes to the sense of unfairness that many officers 

have about how discipline is handled. In an Op/ 

Ed piece, Ted Hunt (2009), the former president of 

the Los Angeles Police Protective League, noted: 

One of the things that officers often complain about when they are disciplined is 

the way it was done. “I was not treated 

with respect,” said one officer. It wasn’t 

long until that officer’s humiliation 

turned into anger and then to resentment. An angry, resentful officer is not 

good for the organization. 

For the most part, the disciplinary process fails 

to deal adequately with the small group of officers who are the source of a disproportionate 

share of complaints received and use-of-force 

situations. It is common knowledge that a small 

number of officers account for an inordinate 

number of complaints and use-of-force situations. 

The Independent Commission on the Los Angeles 

Police Department (1991) found 44 officers with 

extremely high rates of citizen complaints who 

could have been identified from department 

records. Journalists have noted departments in 

which 2 percent of the officers accounted for as 

much as 50 percent of the complaints (Walker, 

Alpert and Kennedy, 2000). This realization has 

resulted in the establishment of early intervention systems to help identify problem officers. 

Inconsistent messages are sent to officers by 

the department heads handling complaints 

and misconduct allegations. A common myth 

in policing is that aggressive officers working in 

high-crime areas can expect to receive a higher 

number of complaints and encounter a greater 

number of situations where they will have to use 

force. Supervisors and managers often reinforce 

this belief in the way they handle complaints and 

reviews of use-of-force situations from these areas 

of the community. In police agencies where officers are required to file a report when they use 

force, supervisors are expected to investigate the 

circumstances under which force was used. Too 

often, these are pro forma investigations that focus 

on whether the degree of force used was within 

policy, not whether force should have been used. 

This tends to reinforce officers’ behavior and misses 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Police Discipline: A Case for Change | 7 

an opportunity to provide coaching on how these 

encounters might have been handled differently. 

The disciplinary appeal processes often weaken 

the purpose of discipline. Police executives’ disciplinary decisions are frequently overturned or 

reduced by review boards and arbitrators, undermining the impact of the discipline. Anglen and 

Horn (2001) found that in Cincinnati, 

Nearly 37 percent of cases involving 

more than three days of discipline were 

reduced, compared to 14 percent of cases 

with lesser punishments.... Part of the 

reason is that officers who get the stiffest 

punishments are more likely to appeal. 

And when fired officers appeal to an outside arbitrator, they get their jobs back 

every time. 

In both Chicago and Houston, arbitrators 

reduced the initial sanction imposed by the chief 

in 50 percent of the cases (Iris, 2002). Are police 

executives wrong half of the time when they 

determine sanctions for misconduct or do those 

hearing the appeal just disagree with the sanction? What is the impact of the frequency with 

which disciplinary decisions are overturned? Do 

officers in the organization believe this shows the 

process works, or are they more likely to believe 

this shows that the sanctions imposed were harsh 

and inappropriate? In high-profile cases, what is 

the impact on community confidence and trust 

when officers in the department are known to 

have been involved with misconduct? 

Processes generally take an excessive amount 

of time to complete. In large departments, it 

takes about six months to complete a complaint 

investigation, reach a finding and determine 

the disciplinary action if the allegation is sustained. In the most serious cases this time can 

be increased significantly and, when discipline 

is appealed, it can take well over a year or longer 

to completely resolve the matter. An article in the 

Atlanta Journal-Constitution described a police 

officer who had been on administrative leave for 

four years for a criminal allegation before he was 

charged with a felony sexual assault. He was only 

one of 26 officers who had been placed on administrative leave for a long period of time pending 

case investigation (Torpy, 2009). The impact of 

discipline on the officer and the messages to the 

department and to the community are severely 

compromised the longer it takes from the time 

the misconduct occurred to its resolution. 

Processes and outcomes often do not appear to 

be fair to employees. Several factors contribute 

to the impression held by many employees that 

the disciplinary process is not fair. First, discipline is a personnel matter and in many states 

and cities personnel issues are confidential.3 In 

these locations, departments cannot disclose 

the discipline or the circumstances that led to 

the decision. Second, there may be real or perceived variations in the punishment for similar 

offenses. These variations most often arise when 

different people are making the decisions. A commander in one part of the department may view 

the misconduct differently than another, producing different outcomes. Third, the amount of time 

that has elapsed from the time the misconduct 

occurred to when the sanctions are imposed 

sometimes influences employees’ opinions about 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8 | New Perspectives in Policing 

fairness. For example, an officer suspended a year 

after the misconduct, but who has performed well 

in the interim, is likely to resent the imposition of 

the sanction; in such instances, the officer’s colleagues frequently believe that imposition of the 

sanction is unfair. Finally, there are instances in 

police agencies where an officer is commended 

for his or her actions yet is disciplined for the 

same incident. Officers almost always see this as 

unfair disciplinary action. “Fair” is a tricky standard to establish in the best of circumstances and 

almost always requires some careful explanation. 

Processes and outcomes may be influenced by 

the amount of publicity the alleged misconduct 

receives. A high-profile incident of officer misconduct may affect the investigation and the outcome 

of the discipline process. In some cases the process 

is expedited while others are slowed down considerably by all the attention. In a case in Portland, 

Ore., that received extensive news media attention, 

it took more than three years for the chief to reach 

a decision in an incident where a Taser was used 

and the person being arrested died. The chief 

determined the officer acted within policy but the 

officer was suspended because he did not send 

the victim to the hospital soon enough (Bernstein, 

2009). In another case three years later, the same 

officer was placed on administrative leave for 

shooting a 12-year-old girl with a bean bag shotgun because she was resisting arrest. Union 

leaders claimed the suspension was more about 

the visibility of these cases than the behavior of 

the officer (Pitkin, 2009). 

High-profile cases are particularly difficult for 

police executives and the community. The news 

media may disseminate information, video or 

photo images provided by citizens before the 

departmental hierarchy even knows something 

has happened. Executives then have to make 

statements as soon as possible with very limited 

information, and what they say may change (and 

often does) as the investigation gets under way 

and progresses. The community struggles with 

sorting out what happened as they hear conflicting statements or see segments of videotapes that 

include only part of the encounter with officers. 

Discipline in some states is very public (e.g., 

Florida and Texas) but in most, it is a personnel matter protected by privacy laws (e.g., North 

Carolina). Debate continues about whether discipline of police officers should be open to public 

scrutiny. Some believe that open records serve 

as a deterrent to police officers and other public 

officials. They also believe the transparency that 

comes from being open improves confidence 

and trust in the police. In an article written to 

help gain access to disciplinary records, communications lawyers Steven Zansberg and Pamela 

Campos (2004) argue that: “Public access would 

help assure citizens that their complaints are 

taken seriously, investigated thoroughly in an 

unbiased fashion, and that officers who are found 

to have violated departmental policies are appropriately sanctioned.” 

Others believe it is unfair to officers to have personnel records completely open to the public 

— particularly internal affairs records. They 

believe that being a police officer does not mean 

they have to give up their right to privacy. They 

are concerned that unsubstantiated misconduct 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Police Discipline: A Case for Change | 9 

allegations could damage their reputations and 

careers if open to the public. They point out that 

officers are sometimes the subject of false allegations made by people trying to get back at them 

simply for doing their job. 

Policies on openness are far from settled and vary 

significantly from state to state. Florida’s public 

records law is among the most open in the nation. 

It makes Florida one of two states where access 

to these records is a right protected by the state 

constitution. Passed in the late 1970s, Florida’s 

law makes most police records open to the public, 

including personnel records and internal affairs 

records (after an investigation has concluded). 

The police chief’s authority to administer discipline varies widely even though it is a critically 

important responsibility in the overall operation of the department. An important aspect 

of leading and managing a police agency is the 

authority to ensure that law, policy, procedures 

and organizational expectations are carried out 

by employees. Disciplinary authority is an important aspect of that authority but surprisingly, it 

is limited for many police executives. In a 2006 

report to the Board of Supervisors on police disciplinary procedures, a survey of 25 California 

police departments, including the state’s eight 

largest, revealed that the chief’s authority to 

implement disciplinary sanctions ranged from 

none at all to officer termination. In most cases, 

the authority was limited to suspensions of less 

than 10 days with greater sanctions requiring the 

city manager’s or some type of board approval 

(Van de Water, 2006). 

The administration of discipline in police 

departments has taken on the characteristics 

of a criminal process in the way the investigation is conducted, testimony and evidence 

are considered and, in many respects, the way 

sanctions are imposed. This observation applies 

to policing within and beyond the United States. 

The Review of Police Disciplinary Arrangements 

Report (Taylor, 2005) noted the adoption of legal 

system procedures for handling discipline as an 

impediment to effective discipline. Following are 

excerpts from the report: 

The language and environment for handling police discipline should be open 

and transparent. It should be much less 

quasi-judicial. Investigations need not be 

centered on the crime model, the style 

of hearing should be less adversarial and 

similarities with a ‘military court martial 

model’ avoided (p. 5). 

The language in which the regulations 

are written and the processes operated 

is often viewed as inaccessible and the 

judicial style creates a formality which 

does not aid understanding, openness 

and simplicity. This is particularly so for 

the member of the public who becomes 

embroiled in the process (p. 19). 

The report also encourages that involvement of 

lawyers in the process be limited except in the 

appeal stage. The new procedures in the United 

Kingdom are designed to provide a fair and open 

way of dealing with misconduct and performance 

problems, creating an environment in which the 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10 | New Perspectives in Policing 

emphasis is on learning and development, both 

for the employees and for the organization. 

The overall impact of the issues described above 

will vary from one community to another, but 

all are affected by at least some of these issues. It 

seems clear that police disciplinary processes are 

in need of revision, but what is not clear is what 

should be done or how. 

Alternative Police Discipline Processes 

Recognizing the shortcomings of current 

approaches to police disciplinary practice, and 

in an effort to respond to concerns, some police 

departments have begun to explore alternatives and make changes. Some of the alternative 

approaches are relatively new, while others 

have been tried in some places, abandoned and 

then tried again in other places. Because of the 

complexity of the processes and the range of 

influences, most alternate approaches are not 

complete revisions of the process. Rather, they 

are designed to address one or more issues that 

cause major concern for individual departments. 

Discipline Matrix 

Although not a new idea, a number of departments have developed matrices that spell out the 

options for sanctions when there is a sustained 

violation of the rules of conduct or other policies. These departments believe that in addition 

to letting employees know in advance, a matrix 

will help make the sanctions applied both fair 

and consistent. In late 2003, the Oakland Police 

Department and the University of Nebraska at 

Omaha cosponsored a conference on the use of a 

disciplinary matrix as an effective accountability 

tool. The matrix was described as follows (Walker, 

2004: 2): 

A discipline matrix is a formal schedule 

for disciplinary actions, specifying both 

the presumptive action to be taken for 

each type of misconduct and any adjustment to be made based on an officer’s 

previous disciplinary record. 

The primary purpose of a discipline 

matrix is to achieve consistency in discipline: to eliminate disparities and ensure 

that officers who have been found to have 

committed similar forms of misconduct 

will receive similar discipline. 

Conference participants concluded that a matrix 

has the potential to improve accountability and 

consistency. They also cautioned that successful 

implementation is not guaranteed, as many of the 

precise details of using a matrix to guide disciplinary 

decisions remain to be worked out (Walker, 2004). 

Several police departments are moving forward 

in an effort to work through the details required 

to put a discipline matrix in place. Denver’s 

efforts represent one of the most comprehensive revisions of the disciplinary process that 

includes a matrix.4 The Denver Manager of Safety 

appointed an 80-member Disciplinary Advisory 

Group to review the entire process in an effort to 

administer discipline in a fair and timely manner. It was a diverse group that represented all of 

the stakeholders. The members worked for more 

than three years to understand the process that 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Police Discipline: A Case for Change | 11 

was in place and develop a process that included 

spelling out sanctions in a matrix. 

The Washington State Patrol adopted a discipline 

matrix in January 2002 that contains three different levels of misconduct from minor to major 

and defines sanctions for each level based on 

the number of offenses. The resulting process 

provides an opportunity for officers to “admit 

their mistake and move on.” Officers can choose 

to acknowledge their mistake and accept the 

sanction from the matrix without a lengthy 

investigation and hearing. In 2002, the patrol 

resolved 43 percent of its complaints without a 

formal investigation and most were resolved in 

less than 14 days. The process also facilitated resolution of level 3 (minor) complaints at the first 

line supervisory level rather than through a fullscale investigation as required by the old system. 

The first full year of implementation saw a reduction in lengthy investigations, reduced costs, a 

reduction in citizen complaints and considerable 

cost savings (Serpas, Olson and Jones, 2003). 

More recently, the Tucson Police Department 

adopted a matrix to guide disciplinary decisions. Union President Jim Parks said, “While 

no disciplinary system will ever be foolproof, I 

believe that we at the Tucson Police Department 

took a step in the right direction” (Parks, 2006). 

Tucson followed the lead of the Phoenix Police 

Department, which began using the matrix 

several years before.5 Table 1 is an example of a 

discipline matrix recommended to the Vancouver 

(Wash.) Police Department (Matrix Consulting 

Group, 2009). The “Offense Class” represents the 

seriousness of the offense. 

Overall, matrices have become a more commonly 

used device for improving disciplinary decisionmaking processes for police agencies, and it 

seems many officers see this as an improvement. 

Table 1. Vancouver Discipline Matrix 

First Offense Second Offense Third Offense 

Offense Class Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum 

1 N/A Memo of Correction N/A Written Reprimand Memo of Correction 1-Day Suspension 

2 Memo of Correction Written Reprimand Memo of Correction Written Reprimand 1-Day Suspension 3-Day Suspension 

3 Memo of Correction 1-Day Suspension Written Reprimand 3-Day Suspension 1-Day Suspension 5-Day Suspension 

4 Written Reprimand 3-Day Suspension 1-Day Suspension 5-Day Suspension 3-Day Suspension 15-Day Suspension 

5 1-Day Suspension 5-Day Suspension 3-Day Suspension 15-Day Suspension 10-Day Suspension Termination 

6 5-Day Suspension Termination 15-Day Suspension Termination Termination N/A 

7 Termination N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12 | New Perspectives in Policing 

They provide a better sense of what the range of 

sanctions might be for classes of misconduct, 

which officers generally believe is a positive step. 

Even so, in some cases, the old system has been 

re-arranged to fit in a matrix and the punishment 

orientation remains. Although a discipline matrix 

provides a range of sanctions, it does not remove 

discretion entirely (nor should it) and leaves the 

department open to the criticism of inconsistent 

application of discipline when the luster of a new 

approach begins to fade. 

Education-Based Discipline6 

Education-Based Discipline (EBD) is the creation 

of Sheriff Leroy Baca and the Los Angeles County 

Sheriff’s Department (LASD). It represents the 

most significant departure from traditional 

police disciplinary practice in the United States 

and perhaps the world. As the name implies, 

the process is designed to focus on behavioral 

change through education rather than punishment. The process gives the individual the 

option of voluntarily participating in a personally designed remedial plan that can include 

education, training or other options designed to 

address the misconduct issue, including writing 

a research paper. Moreover, all of the activities 

related to the plan are conducted during on-duty 

time. The option to participate is open to employees who are facing a one- to 30-day suspension. 

One mandatory component of the program is an 

eight-hour training session developed specifically for EBD called the Lieutenants’ Interactive 

Forum for Education (LIFE) Class. It is conducted 

by lieutenants and middle managers from LASD 

and focuses on understanding the influences that 

affect decision-making. In a Leadership Message 

from Sheriff Baca (2007), he said: 

Our leadership values require us to 

believe that until a Department member 

leaves our service, he or she will always 

be our responsibility. We must always 

care for all of our personnel, work closely 

with those who are experiencing problems, and be straightforward in building 

a trustworthy relationship. 

We must care and give to those in need 

whether they like us or not. Ineffective 

discipline is when we fail to be fair. Not 

listening to why Department members 

have acted in violation of a policy is 

widely believed to be unfair, especially 

by me. 

The focus of discipline should be on creation of a corrective action plan rather 

than punishment for punishment’s sake. 

The plan should emphasize training and 

remediation along with more creative 

interventions designed to correct deficits 

in performance and maximize the likelihood of the Department member and his 

or her peers responding appropriately in 

the future. 

EBD is just getting under way at LASD but has 

attracted the interest and encouragement of union 

leaders across the country — traditionally the loudest critics of punishment-based practices. Sheriff 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Police Discipline: A Case for Change | 13 

Baca has clearly demonstrated considerable leadership and courage in implementing a system that is 

likely to have as many critics as supporters. 

Mediation 

Although not widely used, some police agencies have turned to mediation between officers 

and citizens as a way of resolving complaints. A 

national survey identified 16 police departments 

with mediation programs (Walker, Archbold and 

Herbst, 2002). Some suggest that the approach has 

had value in helping both officers and citizens 

understand their own actions during the encounter. Mediation is often used as an alternative to 

the formal disciplinary process and usually it is 

the officer’s decision to participate. This approach 

is most suitable for complaints involving discourtesy, insensitivity and minor procedural issues. 

The Denver (Colo.) Police Department has made 

mediation a part of its overall approach to 

handling citizen complaints and discipline. A 

complaint is dropped if officers involved volunteer to participate in mediation regardless of the 

outcome. With professional mediators, officers 

and citizens meet at a neutral location to discuss 

the circumstances of the complaint. The satisfaction level of both officers and citizens in the way 

complaints have been handled in the three years 

the program has been operating has increased 

from 10-15 percent to 75-85 percent (Proctor, 

Clemmons and Rosenthal, 2009). 

An evaluation of the mediation approach used by 

the Pasadena (Calif.) Police Department in 2005 

indicated that it had great promise for improving 

understanding and trust between the police and 

the community (Police Assessment Resource 

Center, 2008). 

Peer Review 

In the early 1970s, the Oakland and Kansas City 

Police Departments implemented a peer review 

process based on work that social psychologist 

Dr. Hans Toch did in a correctional setting with 

corrections officers. The process involved experienced senior officers reviewing the behavior of 

officers who received a complaint or reached a 

predetermined threshold volume in areas such as 

use of force, resist arrests and vehicle collisions. 

Identifying officers, through analysis of variables 

of this type, represented one of the first forms of 

early intervention. 

Officers could elect to participate in peer review 

rather than the formal disciplinary process if they 

were facing charges or exceeded the thresholds. 

The peer review panel considered the circumstances and suggested behavior changes they 

believed would help minimize further complaints. In one situation, the panel conducted a 

role play session with the officer and learned he 

was violating the personal space of people during 

the interaction, which tended to intimidate them. 

The panel suggested he move back a few feet to put 

him in a safer position and to reduce the potential 

for intimidation. He complied and had no further 

difficulty in his interactions with citizens.7 

A project evaluation determined that officers who 

participated in peer review when compared to a 

control group were not significantly different in 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

14 | New Perspectives in Policing 

their behaviors, attitudes and peer ratings (Pate 

et al., 1976). The idea was not adopted on a permanent basis by either department following 

the trial, nor is there any indication it has been 

tried by other agencies — a disappointing outcome given the overall power of peer influence 

on officer conduct and the focus of the program 

on behavior change rather than punishment. 

It seems that peer review is worthy of further 

exploration as a formal — or perhaps informal — 

initiative aimed at encouraging and reinforcing 

positive attitudes and behavior. 

Early Intervention8 

Early intervention systems are designed to track 

various indicators and provide early identification of officers whose performance indicates 

emerging problems and then intervene in a useful 

way. In large departments, these are often complex database management systems that track a 

wide variety of performance indicators, including 

citizen complaints, use of force, sick leave, performance evaluations, training, failure to appear 

in court and car stops, among others. Thresholds 

are established that let the officer and supervisor 

know there may be a problem that needs correction before it becomes a disciplinary issue. These 

systems are not a part of the police disciplinary 

process, although they are closely connected as 

they help resolve potential performance issues 

before an officer reaches the stage where the disciplinary process is engaged. They also serve as 

one important way of addressing the challenges 

presented by that small group of officers who 

account for a large number of citizen complaints 

and other misconduct issues. Such officers can 

be identified sooner and steps can be taken to 

address the behavioral problems. 

Police agencies that have adopted early intervention systems believe they have value. The U.S. 

Department of Justice frequently includes in its 

consent decrees or memoranda of understanding the requirement to put such systems in place.9 

Although they have not been the subject of rigorous evaluations to determine their effectiveness at 

dealing with problematic behavior, these systems 

continue to evolve as more police agencies adopt 

them. A closer look at early intervention systems 

may provide greater insight on the most appropriate behavioral indicators, suitable thresholds and 

most effective intervention strategies. 

The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department 

Discipline Philosophy10 

In 2000, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police 

Department (CMPD) restructured its internal affairs investigative process in response to 

concerns about the length of time involved and 

officers’ concerns about the consistency and 

fairness of discipline. It adopted the disciplinary 

philosophy developed and implemented in St. 

Petersburg, Fla., in 1993. The original philosophy 

was devised by the then-chief of the St. Petersburg 

Police Department11 for several reasons. The first 

purpose was to inform the department and the 

community about how disciplinary decisions 

would be made. Florida’s public records law made 

the outcomes known in St. Petersburg, but the 

decisions were made behind closed doors and 

neither the public nor police employees knew 

what was considered in determining sanctions 

for misconduct. The philosophy contributed to 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Police Discipline: A Case for Change | 15 

a better understanding of how these decisions 

would be made. 

The second purpose was to provide operational 

definitions of “consistency” and “fairness.” For 

employees and their unions, these are the two 

most frequently voiced concerns with discipline. Officers and their representatives want to 

know that similar misconduct will receive the 

same sanctions regardless of who violated the 

rules. Employees are particularly concerned that 

supervisors, managers and favored people in the 

organization might be treated more leniently than 

they would be. This helps explain the favorable 

view unions often hold toward the use of a disciplinary matrix because the sanctions are spelled 

out for various levels and types of misconduct. 

For t he C ha rlot te-Meck lenbu rg Pol ice 

Department, consistency is defined as holding 

everyone equally accountable for unacceptable behavior and fairness is understanding the 

circumstances that contributed to the behavior while applying the consequences in a way 

that ref lects this understanding (CharlotteMecklenburg Police Department, 2001). 

This definition formally introduces the notion 

that “fairness” includes an understanding of the 

circumstances in which the misconduct took 

place. A violation of a rule or policy can take place 

because the officer made an honest mistake in 

judgment. It also can occur when the officer is 

fully aware of the rule but goes forward with the 

conduct anyway. The officer in both cases should 

be held accountable for the violation, but the two 

cases beg for different treatment. 

The third purpose was to provide guidance to 

supervisors and managers participating in the 

disciplinary process on the factors they should 

consider when making their decisions. Factors to be 

considered, with brief explanations, are as follows 

(Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department, 2001): 

•	 Employee Motivation. The police department 

exists to serve the public. One factor in 

examining an employee’s conduct will be 

whether or not the employee was operating 

in the public interest. An employee who 

violates a policy in an effort to accomplish a 

legitimate police purpose that demonstrates 

an understanding of the broader public 

interest inherent in the situation will be 

given more positive consideration in the 

determination of consequences than one 

who was motivated by personal interest. 

Obviously there will be difficulty from time 

to time in determining what is in the public 

interest. For example, would it be acceptable 

for an employee to knowingly violate an 

individual’s First Amendment right to the 

freedom of speech to rid the public of what 

some might call a nuisance? Or is it acceptable 

as being in the public interest to knowingly 

violate a Fourth Amendment right against 

an unlawful search to arrest a dangerous 

criminal? Although it would clearly not be 

acceptable in either case for an employee to 

knowingly violate a Constitutional right, these 

are very complex issues that officers are asked 

to address. The police have a sworn duty to 

uphold the Constitution. It is in the greater 

public interest to protect those Constitutional 

guarantees in carrying out that responsibility 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16 | New Perspectives in Policing 

even though it might be argued the public 

interest was being better served in the 

individual case. But if an employee attempts 

to devise an innovative, nontraditional 

solution for a persistent crime or service 

problem and unintentionally runs afoul of 

minor procedures, the desire to encourage 

creativity in our efforts at producing public 

safety will carry significant weight in dealing 

with any discipline that might result. 

•	 The Degree of Harm. The degree of harm an 

error causes is also an important aspect in 

deciding the consequences of an employee’s 

behavior. Harm can be measured in a variety 

of ways. It can be measured in terms of 

the monetary cost to the department and 

community. An error that causes significant 

damage to a vehicle for example could be 

examined in light of the repair costs. Harm can 

also be measured in terms of the personal injury 

the error causes such as the consequences of 

an unnecessary use of force. Another way in 

which harm can be measured is the impact of 

the error on public confidence. An employee 

who engages in criminal behavior — selling 

drugs for example — could affect the public 

confidence in the police if the consequences 

do not send a clear, unmistakable message that 

this behavior will not be tolerated. 

•	 Employee Experience. The experience of the 

employee will be taken into consideration 

as well. A relatively new employee (or 

a more experienced employee in an 

unfamiliar assignment) will be given greater 

consideration when judgmental errors are 

made. In the same vein, employees who 

make judgmental errors that would not be 

expected of one who has a significant amount 

of experience may expect to receive more 

serious sanctions. 

•	 Intentional/Unintentional Errors. Employees 

will make errors that could be classified as 

intentional and unintentional. An unintentional 

error is an action or decision that turns out to 

be wrong, but at the time it was taken, seemed 

to be in compliance with policy and the most 

appropriate course based on the information 

available. A supervisor for example, might give 

permission for a vehicle pursuit to continue on 

the basis the vehicle and occupants met the 

general description of one involved in an armed 

robbery. The pursuit ends in a serious accident, 

and it is learned the driver was fleeing because 

his driver’s license was expired. Under these 

circumstances, the supervisor’s decision would 

be supported because it was within the policy at 

the time it was made. Unintentional errors also 

include those momentary lapses of judgment or 

acts of carelessness that result in minimal harm 

(backing a police cruiser into a pole for example, 

failing to turn in a report, etc). Employees will 

be held accountable for these errors but the 

consequences will be more corrective than 

punitive unless the same errors persist. 

An intentional error is an action or a decision 

that an employee makes that is known to 

be in conflict with law, policy, procedures 

or rules (or should have [been] known) at 

the time it is taken. Generally, intentional 

errors will be treated more seriously and 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Police Discipline: A Case for Change | 17 

carry greater consequences. Within the 

framework of intentional errors there are 

certain behaviors that are entirely inconsistent 

with the responsibilities of police employees. 

These include lying, theft, or physical abuse 

of citizens and other equally serious breaches 

of the trust placed in members of the 

policing profession. The nature of the police 

responsibility requires that police officers be 

truthful. It is recognized however, that it is 

sometimes difficult to determine if one is being 

untruthful. The department will terminate 

an employee’s employment when it is clear 

the employee is intentionally engaging in an 

effort to be untruthful. Every effort will also 

be made to separate individuals from the 

department found to have engaged in theft 

or serious physical abuse of citizens. 

•	 Employee’s Past Record. To the extent 

allowed by law and policy an employee’s 

past record will be taken into consideration 

in determining the consequences of a failure 

to meet the department’s expectations. An 

employee who continually makes errors can 

expect the consequences of this behavior 

to become progressively more punitive. An 

employee who has a record of few or no 

errors can expect less stringent consequences. 

Also, an employee whose past reflects hard 

work and dedication to the community and 

department will be given every consideration 

in the determination of any disciplinary action. 

Laying out these factors helps police commanders think through the circumstances involved 

in the misconduct. The philosophy explicitly 

points out that unintentional mistakes are to be 

treated differently from intentional misconduct 

and that officers who run afoul of policy while 

genuinely trying to serve the public good should 

be given consideration in determining sanctions. 

Although thoughtful chiefs and commanders 

undoubtedly consider these factors when faced 

with the responsibility of making discipline decisions, it is important to put them in writing as a 

part of the department’s directive system. Not only 

does this let employees know how they will be 

treated, the transparency also adds legitimacy to 

the process inside and outside of the organization. 

However, laying out these factors in writing within 

the directives system is not, by itself, enough. In 

Charlotte–Mecklenburg, the philosophy was 

presented to both the civil service board and the 

citizens review committee before it was adopted. 

This also provided the opportunity for news 

media review. The philosophy was presented and 

discussed by the chief before supervisory and command staff, officer-in-service training, promotional 

classes and every class of recruit officers. In July 

2005, the department published a widely circulated 

guidebook titled Employee Conduct: Investigations 

and Discipline that was aimed at audiences inside 

and outside the department. The disciplinary philosophy was also addressed in the guidebook. All of 

these steps served to ensure that both employees 

and the community were informed of the department’s approach to discipline. 

Other Alternatives 

Conversations about improving police disciplinary processes often turn to the use of civilian 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

18 | New Perspectives in Policing 

review or approaches that professional associations of lawyers, doctors and others use to guide 

and control members. Civilian review is widely 

used in the United States with the hope that it 

will improve the legitimacy of handling, investigating and resolving citizen complaints. The 

closest equivalent within the police profession is 

where state-level police standards boards have 

the authority to revoke an officer’s certification, 

effectively taking away his or her ability to work 

in the state as a sworn officer. There are as many 

variations of civilian review as there are cities 

that have implemented this process. Some review 

boards receive complaints and forward them on to 

the police department for investigation and resolution. In other communities, an appointed group of 

civilians conducts the investigation. Some review 

boards have the authority to recommend disciplinary action. Many such review boards come into 

play after an investigation is complete, and some 

are focused on specific misconduct categories like 

use of force. Some act only when a citizen appeals 

directly to them. Civilian review boards are certainly an important ingredient in disciplinary 

processes and constitute one of many possibilities that ought to be considered when reviewing 

alternatives to traditional discipline. The models 

that other professions use to sanction their members do not seem to offer much promise. One of the 

most significant obstacles is that they do not offer 

any greater legitimacy — perhaps less — than the 

processes currently in use in policing. 

None of the alternatives discussed above represent complete departures from the traditional 

police disciplinary processes. They represent 

efforts to change the things that can be changed 

within the plethora of constraints imposed by 

law, contracts and tradition. They represent steps 

toward what may potentially be more effective 

methods of handling discipline. 

A Way Forward 

In a perfect world, employees would fully understand the organization’s expectations, report to 

work on time and always do the right thing. In such a 

world, employees would manage their own behavior 

with little need for elaborate disciplinary processes. 

Although that perfect world does not exist in policing 

today, a large majority of employees have no experience with the formal disciplinary processes because 

they do understand the expectations, treat people 

respectfully and consistently do their jobs in an 

acceptable manner. In exchange, these employees 

expect to be treated in a fair and consistent manner 

should they run afoul of a policy, rule, or regulation, 

or are the subject of a citizen complaint. Given all 

of the issues and concerns with disciplinary processes, how do police executives create systems 

that address mistakes and misconduct fairly while 

meeting the expectations of the community and 

employees? What would that process look like? Is 

it a matter of implementing one of the approaches 

described above? Is it a matrix that specifies sanctions, or an education-focused approach, or creation 

of a philosophy that guides how sanctions are determined? Is it some combination of these approaches, 

or something that has yet to be invented? 

There are no definitive answers to these questions. As one works toward answering them, the 

complexity of the administration of discipline in 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Police Discipline: A Case for Change | 19 

a police organization must be taken into account. 

A police chief does not have complete control of 

all the factors that influence disciplinary outcomes, but they should all be considered. Court 

decisions, state law, local ordinances, union 

contracts, civilian review, civil service, arbitrators, politics, complaint processes, investigative 

practices and organizational culture are all in 

play when disciplinary actions are taken. With all 

of this complexity, police executives might understandably shy away from a complete overhaul of 

the disciplinary process and focus on those parts 

over which they have some control or influence 

and that they believe might, with a little persuasion, be acceptable to stakeholders. 

One approach to improving discipline might be 

the use of a problem-solving process to engage as 

many of the stakeholders as possible in examining how discipline is handled. It might also be of 

value to identify specific characteristics of a discipline process that would respond to the agreed 

deficiencies of current approaches and therefore 

be regarded as priorities for any changes made. 

Problem Solving 

Problem solving offers great potential as a way 

to approach the development of better disciplinary processes and a helpful way of looking 

at misconduct and other disciplinary problems 

at both the organizational and individual levels. 

Police officers in many parts of the world have 

received problem-solving training over the past 

25 years and often apply their knowledge to crime 

and other problems. One of the more commonly 

used approaches is the SARA12 model developed 

by Police Executive Research Forum staff and 

members of the Newport News (Va.) Police 

Department in the mid-1980s (Eck and Spelman, 

1988). SARA guides officers through a four-step 

process to problem solving: 

Scanning: Identifying and selecting 

problems for further study. 

Analysis: Breaking the problem down 

and looking at all aspects. 

Response: Developing responses based 

on the analysis. 

Assessment: Determining if the response 

had the desired impact. 

It can be used to look at disciplinary problems 

from a number of perspectives. The SARA model 

is applied to discipline problems in table 2 (p. 20). 

Problem solving seems to be helpful in looking at 

specific areas where policies or procedures are 

frequently violated. 

Disciplinary Process Characteristics 

Even an organization with all the right policies, 

training and effective supervision needs a disciplinary process that deals with mistakes and 

misconduct in the most appropriate manner. 

Given the vast differences in police agencies, state 

laws, union contracts, forms of government and 

communities, it is unlikely that one model would 

meet the requirements of all agencies. Rather than 

try to focus on one or two approaches, it seems 

more helpful to identify characteristics that will 

contribute to an effective disciplinary process: 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

20 | New Perspectives in Policing 

Table 2. SARA Model 

Scanning 

Discipline Problems • Complaints 

– Citizens 

– Officers/supervisors 

– Other agencies 

• Use-of-force reports 

• Arrest reports/charges 

• In-car camera screening 

• Early intervention criteria 

• News stories 

• Division/unit statistics 

• Internal investigations 

Analysis	 Response 

• Individual with multiple • Warning 

complaints/misconduct • Counseling 

• Types of complaints (e.g., • Training discourtesy, excessive force, 

court absences) • Policy/procedure change
­

• Concentration of complaints (e.g., • Mentor/coach 

midnight patrol shift, narcotics, • Reassignment particular supervisor) 

• Suspensions/fines • Frequency of complaints/ 

misconduct • Employment termination 

• Demographics of complainant/ 

officer (e.g., race, gender, age, 

experience) 

• Department policy, procedures 

• Training 

• Early intervention at the lowest level the same time, that serious misconduct will be 

possible. A key part of effective discipline handled and properly documented through 

is recognizing mistakes and misconduct as the formal investigative and disciplinary 

soon as they occur and taking appropriate processes. 

corrective action. It is not unusual for police 

officers to say on learning an officer has been 

severely disciplined or terminated that it 

was about time the department addressed 

the behavior. Officers are often aware of 

the misconduct of others but fail to see that 

bringing it to the attention of supervisors 

is one of their responsibilities. The best 

intervention, and likely the most effective, 

comes from peers and first line supervisors. 

Peers can and do influence behavior in both 

positive and negative ways. An environment 

that encourages employees and supervisors 

to take corrective action on minor mistakes 

helps create a culture in which everyone takes 

• Fair and consistent application of discipline. 

One of the most difficult challenges for 

discipline in a police organization is ensuring 

both the perception and reality of fairness 

and consistency. Employees who experience 

the discipline process must understand 

the reasons for the actions taken by the 

department and how they can avoid similar 

problems in the future. They must have the 

sense that everyone in the organization is 

held accountable for their behavior, and 

if the sanctions are different for similar 

behaviors, that they are appropriate for the 

circumstances. 

responsibility for their own behavior and for Developing a sense of fairness and consistency 

the behavior of others who may need guidance among employees is difficult to achieve. It 

from time to time. It should also be clear, at requires that department and hopefully union 

Assessment 

• Complaint/ 

misconduct reduction 

• Satisfaction survey 

improvements 

• Commendations 

• Media coverage 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Police Discipline: A Case for Change | 21 

leadership will spend time in recruit and 

in-service training explaining the complaint, 

investigation and disciplinary processes. Chief 

executives must invest time in these forums 

explaining their perspective on discipline. 

They must also be ready to explain their 

decisions to employees and the community 

within the framework allowed by state and 

local law. 

•	 Behavioral focus. The primary focus 

of discipline should be on changing 

unacceptable behavior. If the behavior can 

be changed by a supervisor cautioning the 

employee or showing the proper way to 

handle a situation, that should be all that is 

required. If the disciplinary decision includes 

sanctions, the employee is entitled to an 

explanation of the reasons for the sanctions 

and their connection to the behavior problem. 

Training should be an option for addressing 

honest mistakes. It is one thing for officers 

to make judgmental errors because they do 

not know the correct procedure or have the 

right knowledge. It is quite another for them 

to know what to do but intentionally fail to 

follow policy and procedures. The latter may 

require more severe sanctions to reinforce 

departmental guidelines. Even punishment 

must be carried out with a view toward 

behavioral change. 

•	 Timely. Both internal investigations 

protocol and the disciplinary process must 

have established completion deadlines. To 

ensure these deadlines are met, a monitoring 

component that tracks progress on the case 

from the initial complaint to its resolution is 

an important piece of the process. 

•	 Transparent. While respecting individual 

privacy rights and staying within the 

framework of the law, police agencies must 

be as open as they can possibly be to their 

employees and the community they serve. 

Transparency increases the community’s 

confidence that mistakes and misconduct 

are treated seriously. Transparency helps 

employees see that the department leadership 

supports employees but is also willing to 

publicly acknowledge mistakes. Openness 

helps contribute to an environment in which 

accountability is an important individual and 

organizational value. 

This means that police agencies must, at a 

minimum, share statistical data with the 

community on police misconduct, sustained 

complaints and disciplinary action. Many 

police departments do this by publishing an 

annual report that is made available to the 

news media and the public. It also means that 

complainants receive timely feedback on the 

outcome of their complaint. 

Consideration should be given to including a 

peer on disciplinary review boards so a street 

officer’s perspective is considered when 

arriving at the decision. Some agencies have 

citizens sit in on the board hearings either as 

observers or as voting members of the board. 

Disciplinary processes that contain these characteristics are likely to have greater legitimacy 

in the eyes of the employees and the community. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

22 | New Perspectives in Policing 

Both are wary of a process that they do not 

understand, that is not transparent in many communities and that takes an inordinate amount of 

time to complete. 

Conclusion 

The purpose of police discipline is to help employees serve the public while staying within the 

framework of law, policy, procedures, training 

and organizational expectations for their behavior. Effective discipline requires that employees 

understand these boundaries and expectations. 

When officers stray, measured consequences 

are consistently and fairly applied to hold them 

accountable and to change their behavior. Ideally, 

employees clearly understand the relationship 

between their behavior and the consequences, 

and naturally make the appropriate adjustments. In this ideal system, the complainant and 

the general public know employees will be held 

accountable for their behavior, and this assurance contributes to their confidence in the police. 

It seems police discipline should be a straightforward process that everyone understands. Clearly 

it is not. 

In reality, police discipline is a messy, complicated and controversial process. It takes a long 

time from the misconduct to the outcome and, 

more often than not, the outcome is appealed 

and the sanctions are reversed. In the majority 

of communities, the feedback that complainants 

receive is limited to the investigative outcome: 

quite commonly a finding of “not sustained” that 

they struggle to understand. 

This is a process that could do with a great deal of 

improvement. It is encouraging to see that some 

police agencies, such as the Los Angeles County 

Sheriff’s Department, are pursuing cutting-edge 

changes. But far too many agencies are unwilling 

to take the risks involved in engaging stakeholders in a sincere effort to relieve the frustrations in 

a process that frequently fails to achieve its core 

purposes. 

Endnotes 

1. In a study of the Lansing (Mich.) Police 

Department, researchers found that officers 

believed that discipline was unfairly and inconsistently applied. They felt that command-level 

personnel were treated differently than officers 

and that publicity, rather than behavior, dictated 

the disciplinary outcome. 

2. See the Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 

section on public opinion, http://www.albany. 

edu/sourcebook/toc_2.html (accessed August 11, 

2009). On honesty and ethical standards in 2003, 

56 percent of white respondents rated the police 

as “high/very high” while only 31 percent of black 

respondents did. In 2008, white ratings were 55 

percent while blacks increased to 46 percent. On 

confidence in 2004, 70 percent of whites indicated 

“a great deal” or “quite a lot,” while blacks were at 

41 percent. In 2009, ratings by both whites and 

blacks dropped to 63 percent and 38 percent, 

respectively. 

3. A case in Charlotte, N.C., involving a 15-month 

employee goes to this point. The officer has been 

criminally charged with sexually assaulting six 

women while on duty and the case has attracted 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Police Discipline: A Case for Change | 23 

enormous public attention and concern. News 

reports indicate the officer had been the subject 

of disciplinary action on two occasions and the 

media wanted access to the file which, with the 

approval of city council, is permissible under 

certain circumstances. The city council decided 

not to review or open the file to the public, which 

effectively ends the matter unless attorneys in the 

civil or criminal trials are able to convince the 

court to open the file. 

4. For a detailed account of the Denver effort, see 

Report on the Manager of Safety’s Disciplinary 

Advisory Group and the companion Denver 

Police Department Discipline Handbook: Conduct 

Principles and Disciplinary Guidelines at http:// 

www.denvergov.org/PoliceDisciplineHandbook/ 

tabid/432137/Default.aspx. 

5. A growing number of police and sheriff’s 

agencies have been working on improving their 

disciplinary processes. The few named here are 

generally reflective of the changes that have been 

made by others. 

6. See t he Los A ngeles Count y Sheriff’s 

Department website, http://w w w.lasd.org/ 

divisions/leadership-training-div/bureaus/ 

ebd/about.html, for detailed information 

on the Education-Based Discipline program. 

Information about the concept comes from this 

site unless otherwise noted. 

7. Author’s recounting of a conversation with the 

officer involved when the author was a police officer in Kansas City. 

8. For a good overview of early intervention 

systems, see Early Intervention Systems for 

Law Enforcement Agencies: A Planning and 

Management Guide (Walker, 2003). The CharlotteMeck lenbu rg Pol ice Depa r t ment (2005) 

publication Early Intervention System: A Tool to 

Encourage & Support High Quality Performance, 

is also a good example of reaching out to the public to explain the system. 

9. The Department of Justice’s use of the Pattern 

and Practice legislation has been very limited 

during the past 10 years. There are indications 

that these investigations will be pursued more 

vigorously in the future. 

10. The full CMPD Discipline Philosophy can 

be found at CMPD.org under the “Directives” 

tab: http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/CMPD/ 

z s t o r a g e / I n s i d e C M P D / D o c u m e n t s / 

100004DisciplinePhilosophy.pdf. 

11. The chief was Darrel W. Stephens, author of this 

paper. Parts of the philosophy have been adopted 

by other agencies. Recently, the Milwaukee (Wis.) 

Police Department incorporated the entire philosophy in its procedures. 

12. The Center for Problem-Oriented Policing provides a detailed discussion of the SARA model: 

http://www.popcenter.org/about/?p=sara. 

References 

Adarlo, S. 2009. “Newark Launches Investigation 

Into Police Disciplinary Procedure.” The StarLedger. January 14. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

24 | New Perspectives in Policing 

Anglen, R. and Horn, D. 2001. “Police Discipline 

Inconsistent: Sanctions Most Likely To Be 

Reduced.” The Cincinnati Enquirer. October 21. 

Baca, L. 2007. “Psycholog y of Discipline.” 

Leadership Message from the Sheriff. Accessed 

December 8, 2010, from: http://www.lasd.org/ 

divisions/leadership-training-div/bureaus/ 

ebd/assets/leadership-message-psychology-ofdiscipline.pdf. 

Bernstein, M. 2009. “Chief Recommends 

Sergeant’s Suspension in Chasse’s Death.” The 

Oregonian, Portland. September 23. 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2009. Sourcebook of 

Criminal Justice Statistics. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. Accessed December 8, 

2010, from: http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/ 

toc_2.html. 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department. 

2001. Directive 100-104: Discipline Philosophy. 

Interactive Directives Guide. Charlotte, N.C.: 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department. 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department. 2005. 

Early Invervention System: A Tool to Encourage & 

Support High Quality Performance. Charlotte, 

N.C.: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department. 

Cote, J. 2009. “Long Delays Plag ue S.F. 

Police Discipline.” San Francisco Chronicle. 

March 21. 

Curry, T.H. 2004. An Analysis of the Discipline 

Process and Outcomes, With Recommendations for 

the Lansing Police Department. Lansing, Mich.: 

Lansing Police Department. 

Eck, J. and Spelman, W. 1988. Problem Solving: 

Problem-Oriented Policing in Newport News. 

Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum. 

Forster, S. 2007. “Lawmakers Want Statewide 

Approach to Police Discipline.” Journal Sentinel. 

December 28. 

Hunt, T. 2009. “Modernizing t he Police 

Disciplinary System.” American Police Beat 

(April): Opinion/Editorial. 

The Independent Commission on the Los 

Angeles Police Department. 1991. Report of the 

Independent Commission on the Los Angeles 

Police Department. Los Angeles, Calif.: The 

Independent Commission on the Los Angeles 

Police Department. 

Iris, M. 2002. “Police Discipline in Houston: The 

Arbitration Experience.” Police Quarterly 5 (2): 

132-151. 

Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. 2010. 

Education-Based Discipline Unit. Accessed 

December 8, 2010, from: http://www.lasd.org/ 

divisions/leadership-training-div/bureaus/ebd/ 

about.html. 

Matrix Consulting Group. 2009. Review of Internal 

Affairs, Disciplinary Process and a Cultural 

Assessment of the Police Department: City of 

Vancouver, Washington. Vancouver, Wash.: City 

of Vancouver, Washington. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Police Discipline: A Case for Change | 25 

Parks, J. 2006. “Tucson Police Department 

Has Taken a Step in the Right Direction in 

Determining Officer Discipline.” AZCOPS: The 

Voice of Arizona Law Enforcement 6 (3): 2. 

Pate, T., McCullough, J.W., Bowers, R.A. and 

Ferrara, A. 1976. Kansas City Peer Review Panel: 

An Evaluation Report. Washington, D.C.: Police 

Foundation. 

Pitk in, J. 2009. “Chasse Cop Christopher 

Humphreys Placed on Administrative Leave.” 

Wilamette Week Online. November 19 (accessed 

May 10, 2010). 

Police Assessment Resource Center. 2008. 

Evaluation of a Pilot Community Policing 

Program: The Pasadena Police-Community 

Mediation and Dialog Program. COPS Evaluation 

Brief No. 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services. 

Proctor, J., Clemmons, A. and Rosenthal, R. 

2009. “Discourteous Cops and Unruly Citizens: 

Mediation Can Help.” Community Policing 

Dispatch 2 (3). Accessed Dec. 8, 2010, from: 

http://w w w.cops.usdoj.gov/html/dispatch/ 

March_2009/mediation.htm. 

Rothwell, G.R. and Baldwin, J.N. 2007. “WhistleBlowing and the Code of Silence in Police 

Agencies Policy and Structural Predictors.” Crime 

& Delinquency 53 (4): 605-632. 

Seattle Post-Intelligencer Editorial Board. 2006. 

“Police Discipline: Public and Fair.” Seattle PostIntelligencer. April 18. 

Serpas, R., Olson, J. and Jones, B. 2003. “An 

Employee Disciplinary System That Makes Sense.” 

The Police Chief 70 (9): 22, 24-28. 

Suderman, A. 2009. “Montgomery Attorney: 

Police Officers Get Light Punishments Thanks to 

Union.” The Washington Examiner. May 6. 

Taylor, W. 2005. Review of Police Disciplinary 

Arrangements Report. London: Home Office. 

Accessed Dec. 8, 2010, from: http://tna.europ 

archive.org/20100419081706/http://www.police. 

homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/police-reform/ 

police-disciplinary-arrangements/index68ce. 

html?view=Standard&pubID=671130. 

Torpy, B. 2009. “In Atlanta, It Can Be a Long Wait 

for Cases to Be Resolved.” The Atlanta JournalConstitution. August 1. 

Van de Water, A. 2006. Police Discipline Procedures. 

Legislative Analyst Report. San Francisco Board of 

Supervisors. 

Walker, S. 2003. Early Intervention Systems for 

Law Enforcement Agencies: A Planning and 

Management Guide. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services. 

Walker, S. 2004. The Discipline Matrix: An Effective 

Police Accountability Tool? Conference report. 

Omaha, Neb.: University of Nebraska at Omaha. 

Walker, S., Alpert, G.P. and Kennedy D.J. 2000. 

Responding to the Problem Police Officer: A 

National Study of Early Warning Systems. Final 

Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

26 | New Perspectives in Policing 

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National 

Institute of Justice, NCJ 184510. Accessed Dec. 8, 

2010, from: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/ 

grants/184510.pdf. 

Walker, S., Archbold, C. and Herbst, L. 2002. 

Mediating Citizen Complaints Against Police 

Officers: A Guide for Police and Community 

Leaders. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services. 

Zamora, J.H. 1997. “Police Discipline Process 

Broken, Panel’s Chief Says.” San Francisco 

Chronicle. February 12. 

Zansberg, S. and Campos, P. 2004. “Sunshine 

on the Thin Blue Line: Public Access to Police 

Internal Affairs Files.” Communications Lawyer 

Fall 2004. 

Author Note 

Darrel W. Stephens is the retired Chief of the 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department. 

He is currently on the faculty at Johns Hopkins 

University’s Public Safety Leadership Program 

and is the Executive Director of the Major Cities 

Chiefs’ Association. This paper was written in 

support of the Executive Session on Policing and 

Public Safety at the Harvard Kennedy School 

of Government. The author acknowledges the 

important feedback from Malcolm Sparrow, 

David Sklansky and Ellen Scrivner. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

National Institute of Justice 

Washington, DC 20531 

Official Business 

Penalty for Private Use $300 

presorted standard 

postage & fees paid 

doJ/niJ 

permit no. g –91 

NCJ 234052 

Members of the Executive Session on Policing and Public Safety 

Chief George Gascón, San Francisco 

Police Department 

Mr. Gil Kerlikowske, Director, Office of 

National Drug Control Policy 

Chief Cathy Lanier, Washington, D.C. 

Metropolitan Police Department 

Dr. John H. Laub, Director, National 

Institute of Justice 

Ms. Adrian Nicole LeBlanc, Visiting 

Scholar, New York University 

Professor Tracey Meares, Walton Hale 

Hamilton Professor of Law, Yale Law School 

Chief Constable Peter Neyroud, Chief 

Executive, National Policing Improvement 

Agency (U.K.) 

Ms. Christine Nixon, Chair, Victorian 

Bushfire Reconstruction and Recovery 

Authority (Australia) 

Chief Richard Pennington, Atlanta Police 

Department 

Mayor Jerry Sanders, City of San Diego 

Professor David Sklansky, Professor of 

Law, Faculty Co-Chair of the Berkeley Center 

for Criminal Justice, University of California, 

Berkeley, School of Law 

Mr. Sean Smoot, Director and Chief Legal 

Counsel, Police Benevolent and Protective 

Association of Illinois 

Professor Malcolm Sparrow, Professor of 

Practice of Public Management, Kennedy 

School of Government, Harvard University 

Chief Darrel Stephens, CharlotteMecklenburg Police Department (retired) 

Professor Christopher Stone, Guggenheim 

Professor of the Practice of Criminal Justice, 

Kennedy School of Government, Harvard 

University 

Mr. Jeremy Travis, President, John Jay 

College of Criminal Justice 

Mr. Rick VanHouten, President, Fort Worth 

Police Association 

Professor David Weisburd, Walter E. Meyer 

Professor of Law and Criminal Justice; 

Director, Institute of Criminology, Faculty 

of Law, The Hebrew University; and 

Distinguished Professor, Department of 

Criminology, Law and Society, George 

Mason University 

Dr. Chuck Wexler, Executive Director, 

Police Executive Research Forum 

Chief Anthony Batts, Oakland Police 

Department 

Professor David Bayley, Distinguished 

Professor, School of Criminal Justice, 

State University of New York at Albany 

Dr. Anthony Braga, Senior Research 

Associate, Lecturer in Public Policy, 

Program in Criminal Justice Policy and 

Management, Kennedy School of 

Government, Harvard University 

Chief William J. Bratton, Los Angeles 

Police Department 

Chief Ella Bully-Cummings, Detroit Police 

Department (retired) 

Ms. Christine Cole (Facilitator), Executive 

Director, Program in Criminal Justice Policy 

and Management, Kennedy School of 

Government, Harvard University 

Commissioner Edward Davis, Boston 

Police Department 

Chief Ronald Davis, East Palo Alto 

Police Department 

Chief Edward Flynn, Milwaukee 

Police Department 

Colonel Rick Fuentes, Superintendent, 

New Jersey State Police 

Learn more about the Executive Session at: 

NIJ’s website: http://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/administration/executive-sessions/welcome.htm 

Harvard’s website: http://www.hks.harvard.edu/criminaljustice/executive_sessions/policing.htm 

*NCJ~234052*