Police Use of Force Policy Reform
By: Andrea M. Headley
Tags: Public Policy, Criminal Justice, Police

Police Reform

What do we know about the impact of these reforms?

Written by Andrea M. Headley, Joseph Broadus, Amanda Charbonneau, and Jack Glaser

Photo from Deena Baum | Daily Trojan

In response to the police killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, and in the midst of demonstrations in cities around the country, police use of force policies have again come under intense scrutiny. Prescriptions vary widely for how to reduce reliance on force among police departments, particularly force that is disproportionately directed against people of color. There is new momentum behind efforts to reduce police department budgets and reassign their responsibilities to providers of other social services, including mental health, mediation, and supportive housing. Less far-reaching proposals include banning chokehold and campaigns such as Campaign Zero’s #8cantwait, which focuses on eight specific use of force policy changes advocates compiled through deliberative and collaborative processes pulling from the 21st Century Task Force Recommendations on Police Use of Force, PERF Guiding Principles, and academic research and overall public demands. Advocates argue that these policies could prevent injuries and deaths and hold officers accountable for unnecessary and excessive force.

With these reforms under active consideration and discussion, it is critical that we consider: what do we actually know about use of force policies and the effectiveness of increasing restrictions?

As part of an ongoing project of the Center for Policing Equity’s National Justice Database, we reviewed the relevant literature and formal agency-level policies at eight police departments. One thing is clear: there is great need for more and better policies on use of force and they should be clear, prescriptive, and, ideally, standardized. We describe several more themes that are emerging from our review in detail.

What the Research Tells Us: Use of Force Policies and Outcomes

Peer-reviewed research shows that limiting officer discretion can lead to fewer accidents, fewer wrongful deaths, and reductions in police shootings overall. More recent studies suggest that policy changes focusing on record keeping and supervisory review can reduce weapon stops while increasing police “hit rates,” or the proportion of stops that yield actual evidence of a crime. Further, scholars find that when officers operate under more restrictive policies they use force less readily. More specifically, being very prescriptive about when, how, and why certain types of force (e.g., TASER deployment or OC spray use) are permitted is followed by reductions in frequency of use.

While these studies are promising and demonstrate that certain kinds of policy changes (or the introduction of new policies) can indeed affect officer behavior, they mostly focus on analyzing the impact of policy changes within a select few police departments.

Less peer-reviewed research examines policies across police departments and often focuses on the impact of very specific policies on deadly force. Along these lines, one study shows that requiring officers to file reports for pointing their gun, even when they do not discharge, is associated with lower rates of civilian deaths. However, other studies have found null (or at best weak) results for other policies such as formal rules regarding serving protection orders or the maximum number of hours worked per shift.

A Review of 8 Police Department’s Policy Documents

In a first step toward developing a multi-agency inventory of police department policies, we conducted in-depth reviews of formal policies at eight mid-size and large departments around the country. Considering the Use of Force policies specifically, as well as relevant policies such as those related to mental illness, racial bias, and community outreach, a few themes emerged:

1. Variability. There is substantial variation in the specificity and clarity of department policies. While accreditation bodies and professional associations have developed some “model policies,” and there was some evidence of emerging standardization in some of the departments we review, the level of detail in the policies we reviewed still varied widely, especially on common topics that are targets of reform, such as de-escalation, racial bias and disparities, incident reviews, accountability mechanisms, external reporting mechanisms, and data collection and analyses. Establishing clear state or national standards could reduce arbitrariness and facilitate cross-department evaluation in the service of assessing effectiveness and promoting best practices

2. Community policing. Despite a long-standing, national emphasis on “community policing” and building trust with communities of color, department policies on these goals tend to be vague and underdeveloped. “Community policing” often takes place through informal channels and may not correspond neatly with formal administrative policy, but this informality makes it nearly impossible to assess what practices are actually being carried out when departments describe their approach as “community-oriented.”

3. Basic prohibitions — on behaviors such as chokeholds — are often the clearest and most consistent elements of use of force policies. These bans represent the low-hanging fruit in reforms aimed at reducing force. Provided that enforcement mechanisms are clear, prohibitions should be a first step for departments, advocates, and policymakers.

4. Culture. Department policy is a clear and effective tool for outlining narrow procedures and follow-up steps, but broader cultural shifts — such as embracing a “guardian” rather than a “warrior” mindset — require much deeper investment.

The recurring phrase one comes across relating to this topic of study is some variation of “culture trumps policy.” There are clear limits to the potential for administrative policy alone to shift behavior or undo long-standing relationships of distrust. However, the formal policy can serve as a boundary for officers; as long as meaningful accountability and implementation mechanisms are in place to see that policies are enforced, they can be powerful tools for regulating some problematic behaviors (such as high speed pursuits, or failing to intervene when fellow officers violate policy), which may be otherwise tolerated by the culture within the department.

Efforts are underway in various cities and states to restructure policing — reallocating funds and responsibilities to other social service agencies. However, even if we radically restructure policing in the United States and police focus on a narrower set of activities, there will likely still be situations in which officers use physical force. As such, efforts to develop and implement clear and prescriptive policies, incentives, and accountability mechanisms to promote fair, proportional, and effective use of force will be at least as important in the future.