Beyond the final report: A research note on the Assessing Police Use of Force Policy and Outcomes project
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide a snapshot of key findings from research published from theAssessing Police Use of Force Policy and Outcomes study, a project funded by the National Institute of Justice. Design/methodology/approach Key findings from a national survey of police agencie...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Policing : an international journal of police strategies & management 2018-01, Vol.41 (2), p.194-201 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 201 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 194 |
container_title | Policing : an international journal of police strategies & management |
container_volume | 41 |
creator | Terrill, William Paoline III, Eugene A. Ingram, Jason Robert |
description | Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide a snapshot of key findings from research published from theAssessing Police Use of Force Policy and Outcomes study, a project funded by the National Institute of Justice. Design/methodology/approach Key findings from a national survey of police agencies on use of force policy and from an in-depth look at police use of force outcomes across eight cities published over the last ten years are synthesized to provide a cumulative perspective regarding the outcomes of the project. Findings The majority of police departments had a written force policy and reporting requirements, however, there was no commonly accepted force policy. Patrol officers were conservative in their views of what is reasonable force, administrative policy does matter in influencing force usage, and the use of a TASER impacted the likelihood of injury for both officers and citizens. Additional findings were also reviewed in the areas of complaints, police culture, first-line supervision, college education, and promotional aspirations. Originality/value While federal funding for policing related research projects are commonplace, taking a look back ten years later and summarizing key findings is uncommon. Doing so provides concise feedback to practitioners in one readily digestible manuscript. Furthermore, the paper also demonstrates the additional value to the original investment made by the National Institute of Justice. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1108/PIJPSM-04-2017-0047 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2015345730</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2015345730</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c227t-bb2d830752c751b8b1ff7d9c1c0dce70fecd5f0c12a5e69f59a07c256638043f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotkDFPwzAQhS0EEqUwM7BEYjbc2blcMkJFoaiISoDUzUocW7QqTbDTof-eREE3vBveO937hLhBuEOE_H61eF19vElIpQJkCZDyiZggUy6zgtan_a4zLQvC9bm4iHELANjPRFw_umOzr5Pu2yV-sy93SXBtE7pLcebLXXRX_zoVX_Onz9mLXL4_L2YPS2mV4k5WlapzDUzKMmGVV-g914VFC7V1DN7ZmjxYVCW5rPBUlMBWUZbpHFLt9VTcjnfb0PweXOzMtjmE_o9o-iqkU2INvUuPLhuaGIPzpg2bnzIcDYIZCJiRgIF0iLEZCOg_scVNLQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2015345730</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Beyond the final report: A research note on the Assessing Police Use of Force Policy and Outcomes project</title><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>Standard: Emerald eJournal Premier Collection</source><source>Emerald A-Z Current Journals</source><creator>Terrill, William ; Paoline III, Eugene A. ; Ingram, Jason Robert</creator><creatorcontrib>Terrill, William ; Paoline III, Eugene A. ; Ingram, Jason Robert</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide a snapshot of key findings from research published from theAssessing Police Use of Force Policy and Outcomes study, a project funded by the National Institute of Justice. Design/methodology/approach Key findings from a national survey of police agencies on use of force policy and from an in-depth look at police use of force outcomes across eight cities published over the last ten years are synthesized to provide a cumulative perspective regarding the outcomes of the project. Findings The majority of police departments had a written force policy and reporting requirements, however, there was no commonly accepted force policy. Patrol officers were conservative in their views of what is reasonable force, administrative policy does matter in influencing force usage, and the use of a TASER impacted the likelihood of injury for both officers and citizens. Additional findings were also reviewed in the areas of complaints, police culture, first-line supervision, college education, and promotional aspirations. Originality/value While federal funding for policing related research projects are commonplace, taking a look back ten years later and summarizing key findings is uncommon. Doing so provides concise feedback to practitioners in one readily digestible manuscript. Furthermore, the paper also demonstrates the additional value to the original investment made by the National Institute of Justice.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1363-951X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1758-695X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1108/PIJPSM-04-2017-0047</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Bradford: Emerald Group Publishing Limited</publisher><subject>Aspiration ; Complaints ; Criminal investigations ; Criminology ; Decision making ; Design ; Feedback ; Injuries ; Investments ; Law enforcement ; Police ; Police departments ; Polls & surveys ; Reasonable force ; Researchers</subject><ispartof>Policing : an international journal of police strategies & management, 2018-01, Vol.41 (2), p.194-201</ispartof><rights>Emerald Publishing Limited 2018</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c227t-bb2d830752c751b8b1ff7d9c1c0dce70fecd5f0c12a5e69f59a07c256638043f3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,967,12846,21695,27924,27925,30999</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Terrill, William</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Paoline III, Eugene A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ingram, Jason Robert</creatorcontrib><title>Beyond the final report: A research note on the Assessing Police Use of Force Policy and Outcomes project</title><title>Policing : an international journal of police strategies & management</title><description>Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide a snapshot of key findings from research published from theAssessing Police Use of Force Policy and Outcomes study, a project funded by the National Institute of Justice. Design/methodology/approach Key findings from a national survey of police agencies on use of force policy and from an in-depth look at police use of force outcomes across eight cities published over the last ten years are synthesized to provide a cumulative perspective regarding the outcomes of the project. Findings The majority of police departments had a written force policy and reporting requirements, however, there was no commonly accepted force policy. Patrol officers were conservative in their views of what is reasonable force, administrative policy does matter in influencing force usage, and the use of a TASER impacted the likelihood of injury for both officers and citizens. Additional findings were also reviewed in the areas of complaints, police culture, first-line supervision, college education, and promotional aspirations. Originality/value While federal funding for policing related research projects are commonplace, taking a look back ten years later and summarizing key findings is uncommon. Doing so provides concise feedback to practitioners in one readily digestible manuscript. Furthermore, the paper also demonstrates the additional value to the original investment made by the National Institute of Justice.</description><subject>Aspiration</subject><subject>Complaints</subject><subject>Criminal investigations</subject><subject>Criminology</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Design</subject><subject>Feedback</subject><subject>Injuries</subject><subject>Investments</subject><subject>Law enforcement</subject><subject>Police</subject><subject>Police departments</subject><subject>Polls & surveys</subject><subject>Reasonable force</subject><subject>Researchers</subject><issn>1363-951X</issn><issn>1758-695X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNotkDFPwzAQhS0EEqUwM7BEYjbc2blcMkJFoaiISoDUzUocW7QqTbDTof-eREE3vBveO937hLhBuEOE_H61eF19vElIpQJkCZDyiZggUy6zgtan_a4zLQvC9bm4iHELANjPRFw_umOzr5Pu2yV-sy93SXBtE7pLcebLXXRX_zoVX_Onz9mLXL4_L2YPS2mV4k5WlapzDUzKMmGVV-g914VFC7V1DN7ZmjxYVCW5rPBUlMBWUZbpHFLt9VTcjnfb0PweXOzMtjmE_o9o-iqkU2INvUuPLhuaGIPzpg2bnzIcDYIZCJiRgIF0iLEZCOg_scVNLQ</recordid><startdate>20180101</startdate><enddate>20180101</enddate><creator>Terrill, William</creator><creator>Paoline III, Eugene A.</creator><creator>Ingram, Jason Robert</creator><general>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGRYB</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HEHIP</scope><scope>M0O</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20180101</creationdate><title>Beyond the final report</title><author>Terrill, William ; Paoline III, Eugene A. ; Ingram, Jason Robert</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c227t-bb2d830752c751b8b1ff7d9c1c0dce70fecd5f0c12a5e69f59a07c256638043f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Aspiration</topic><topic>Complaints</topic><topic>Criminal investigations</topic><topic>Criminology</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Design</topic><topic>Feedback</topic><topic>Injuries</topic><topic>Investments</topic><topic>Law enforcement</topic><topic>Police</topic><topic>Police departments</topic><topic>Polls & surveys</topic><topic>Reasonable force</topic><topic>Researchers</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Terrill, William</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Paoline III, Eugene A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ingram, Jason Robert</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Criminology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>Sociology Collection</collection><collection>Criminal Justice Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Sociology Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Policing : an international journal of police strategies & management</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Terrill, William</au><au>Paoline III, Eugene A.</au><au>Ingram, Jason Robert</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Beyond the final report: A research note on the Assessing Police Use of Force Policy and Outcomes project</atitle><jtitle>Policing : an international journal of police strategies & management</jtitle><date>2018-01-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>41</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>194</spage><epage>201</epage><pages>194-201</pages><issn>1363-951X</issn><eissn>1758-695X</eissn><abstract>Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide a snapshot of key findings from research published from theAssessing Police Use of Force Policy and Outcomes study, a project funded by the National Institute of Justice. Design/methodology/approach Key findings from a national survey of police agencies on use of force policy and from an in-depth look at police use of force outcomes across eight cities published over the last ten years are synthesized to provide a cumulative perspective regarding the outcomes of the project. Findings The majority of police departments had a written force policy and reporting requirements, however, there was no commonly accepted force policy. Patrol officers were conservative in their views of what is reasonable force, administrative policy does matter in influencing force usage, and the use of a TASER impacted the likelihood of injury for both officers and citizens. Additional findings were also reviewed in the areas of complaints, police culture, first-line supervision, college education, and promotional aspirations. Originality/value While federal funding for policing related research projects are commonplace, taking a look back ten years later and summarizing key findings is uncommon. Doing so provides concise feedback to practitioners in one readily digestible manuscript. Furthermore, the paper also demonstrates the additional value to the original investment made by the National Institute of Justice.</abstract><cop>Bradford</cop><pub>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</pub><doi>10.1108/PIJPSM-04-2017-0047</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1363-951X |
ispartof | Policing : an international journal of police strategies & management, 2018-01, Vol.41 (2), p.194-201 |
issn | 1363-951X 1758-695X |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2015345730 |
source | Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); Standard: Emerald eJournal Premier Collection; Emerald A-Z Current Journals |
subjects | Aspiration Complaints Criminal investigations Criminology Decision making Design Feedback Injuries Investments Law enforcement Police Police departments Polls & surveys Reasonable force Researchers |
title | Beyond the final report: A research note on the Assessing Police Use of Force Policy and Outcomes project |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-24T22%3A39%3A55IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Beyond%20the%20final%20report:%20A%20research%20note%20on%20the%20Assessing%20Police%20Use%20of%20Force%20Policy%20and%20Outcomes%20project&rft.jtitle=Policing%20:%20an%20international%20journal%20of%20police%20strategies%20&%20management&rft.au=Terrill,%20William&rft.date=2018-01-01&rft.volume=41&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=194&rft.epage=201&rft.pages=194-201&rft.issn=1363-951X&rft.eissn=1758-695X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1108/PIJPSM-04-2017-0047&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2015345730%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2015345730&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |