Advertisement

Journal of Experimental Criminology

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 319–334 | Cite as

Training police for procedural justice

  • Wesley G. SkoganEmail author
  • Maarten Van Craen
  • Cari Hennessy
Article

Abstract

Objectives

This paper reports the findings of an evaluation of a police training program on the principles of procedural justice. This training was part of a larger organizational change strategy aimed at improving the relationship between the police and the public in Chicago.

Methods

The paper reports on the findings of two studies. The short-term effects study was a quasi-experimental test of the immediate effectiveness of the training conducted at the police academy. A longer-term effects study examined the subsequent views of trainees and a comparison group, officers who had not yet been to training. Statistical controls were used to increase confidence in the findings of the second study, which was based on observational data.

Results

In the short term, training increased officer support for all of the procedural justice dimensions included in the experiment. Post-training, officers were more likely to endorse the importance of giving citizens a voice, granting them dignity and respect, demonstrating neutrality, and (with the least enthusiasm) trusting them to do the right thing. All of the effects of training were strong, with standardized effect sizes ranging from 1.2 to 1.6. Longer-term, officers who had attended the procedural justice workshop continued to be more supportive of three of the four procedural justice principles introduced in training; the effect of training on trust was not statistically significant.

Conclusions

There has been little systematic research on police training. This paper concludes that it can play a role in improving police–community relations. It also presents a discussion of some of the limitations of a training-based organizational change strategy.

Keywords

Quasi-experiment Survey Police training Procedural justice Neutrality Respect Voice Trust 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported in part by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the Joyce Foundation. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent the views of Northwestern University or the supporting foundations. Many thanks for the support of the staff of the Chicago Police Education and Training Academy, especially Lt. Bruce Lipman and Sgt. Mark Sedevic. Readers wishing to review the training materials described here should directly contact the Commander of the Chicago Police Training Division, 1300 W Jackson Blvd, Chicago, IL 60607, telephone +1.312.746.8310.

References

  1. Bradford, B. (2011). Voice, neutrality and respect: use of victim support services, procedural fairness and confidence in the criminal justice system. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 11, 345–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. Garner, J., Fagan, J., & Maxwell, C. D. (1995). Published findings from the NIJ spouse assault replication program: a critical review. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 8, 1–29.Google Scholar
  4. Haarr, R. N. (2001). The making of a community policing officer: the impact of basic training and occupational socialization on police recruits. Police Quarterly, 4, 402–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hinds, L., & Murphy, K. (2007). Public satisfaction with police: using procedural justice to improve police legitimacy. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 40, 27–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Stanko, B., & Hohl, K. (2013). Just authority: Trust in the police in England and Wales. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Lipsey, M. W. (1990). Design sensitivity: Statistical power for experimental research. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Mastrofski, S. D., & Richard Ritti, R. (1996). Police training and the effects of organization on drunk driving enforcement. Justice Quarterly, 13, 291–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Mazerolle, L., Bennett, S., Davis, J., Sargeant, E., & Manning, M. (2013a). Procedural justice and police legitimacy: a systematic review of the research evidence. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 9, 245–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mazerolle, L., Antrobus, E., Bennett, S., & Tyler, T. R. (2013b). Shaping citizen perceptions of police legitimacy: a randomized field trial of procedural justice. Criminology, 51, 33–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Murphy, K., Hinds, L., & Fleming, J. (2008). Encouraging public cooperation and support for police. Policing & Society, 18, 136–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Rosenbaum, D. P. (1987). Coping with victimization: the effects of police intervention on victims’ psychological readjustment. Crime & Delinquency, 33, 502–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Skogan, W. G., & Frydl, K. (2004). Fairness and effectiveness in policing: The evidence. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  14. Tyler, T. R., & Jackson, J. (2013). Future challenges in the study of legitimacy and criminal justice. In J. Tankebe & A. Liebling (Eds.), Legitimacy and criminal justice: An international exploration (pp. 83–102). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Tyler, T. R., Callahan, P. E., & Frost, J. (2007). Armed, and dangerous (?): motivating rule adherence among agents of social control. Law & Society Review, 41, 457–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Wheller, L., & Morris, J. (2010). Evidence reviews: What works in training, behaviour change and implementing guidance. London: National Police Improvement Agency.Google Scholar
  17. Wheller, L., Quinton, P., Fildes, A., & Mills, A. (2013). The greater Manchester police procedural justice training experiment: Technical report. London: The College of Policing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wesley G. Skogan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Maarten Van Craen
    • 2
  • Cari Hennessy
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Policy ResearchNorthwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA
  2. 2.Leuven Institute of Criminology (LINC)University of LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations