Reducing Complaints Against Police and Preventing Misconduct: A Diagnostic Study Using Hot Spot Analysis
| Author | Tim Prenzler,Andrew Ede,Ross Homel |
| Date | 01 April 2002 |
| Published date | 01 April 2002 |
| DOI | 10.1375/acri.35.1.27 |
27
THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY
VOLUME 35 NUMBER 1 2002 PP.27–42
Address for correspondence: Andrew Ede, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice,
Griffith University, Mount Gravatt Campus, Queensland 4111, Australia.
Reducing Complaints Against Police
and Preventing Misconduct: A Diagnostic
Study Using Hot Spot Analysis
Andrew Ede, Ross Homel and Tim Prenzler
Griffith University
This study demonstrates the potential for using complaints data to
identify and remedy misconduct problems in policing, and to reduce
complaints.The study is distinctive in focusing on units of police manage-
ment responsibility at the operational level. Drawing on the criminologi-
cal concept of crime mapping, analysis of complaints was conducted at a
more specific level than previously attempted,either in the subject juris-
diction or in published research on the topic.The study is also distinctive
in attempting to control for the effects of different “task environments”
— by comparing units of similar size and similar duties — and by
comparing complaint patterns in terms of concentration and prevalence.
A high concentration of complaints was interpreted as indicative of a
problem with small numbers of individuals attracting a large number of
complaints.A high prevalence was considered indicative of a more diffuse
problem that might be associated with negative aspects of the workplace
culture of a unit.The analysis found units in all possible combinations of
concentration and prevalence of complaints. Out of 436 units, 38 had no
complaints and 79 had either a high concentration or a high prevalence.
Five units had a combination of a high concentration and high preva-
lence. A number of implications follow from these findings subject to
more refined research. For example, cases of high concentrations of
complaints might to be addressed with responses tailored to individual
behavioural patterns.The issue of a possible negative culture should be
addressed through reviews of management practices, with attention to
issues such as supervision and staff morale.
Strategies to prevent police corruption and misconduct draw on two main theoreti-
cal orientations based around concepts of “structure” and “culture”. Structural
perspectives account for police deviance primarily in terms of the police “task
environment” (Bennett, 1984; Savitz, 1970). The development of graft in response
to demand pressures for tolerance of crime has been a major analytic focus (Dixon,
1992). Considerable attention has also been given to strategic difficulties entailed
in supervising operational officers in a highly discretionary and fluid environment
(Reiner, 1997; Skolnik & Fyfe, 1993). A structural framework also allows for expla-
nations of specific forms of deviance. Patrol officers, for example, may be more
likely to use excessive force, whereas detectives may be more prone to fabricate
evidence. Traffic police may be more likely to engage in opportunistic corruption.
From the point of view of prevention, the corollary of a structural perspective is to
modify the task environment. Options include decriminalisation of vice, removal
of police responsibility for regulation of particular offences, the circulation of
officers through corruption-prone squads, and the introduction of greater commu-
nity consultation related to public order issues and policing of minority groups.
Attention has also been paid to better regulation of police procedures including
innovations such as the tape recording of interviews with suspects (Dixon, 1997;
Prenzler, Ede & Harrison, 1996). There are, however, major limitations on the
extent to which the task environment can be altered without eroding police powers
and responsibilities in crime control (Wood, 1997).
The second main area of theory in relation to police corruption and misconduct
concerns the concept of organisational culture. Some studies in this area are prone
to exaggerate the distinctiveness of a police culture (Niederhoffer, 1967). However,
attention to attitudes, practices and traditions is useful for understanding processes
through which misconduct is reinforced (Prenzler, 1997). Central to cultural expla-
nations of police misconduct are the values and practices of secrecy and solidarity
(Chan, 1997; Fitzgerald, 1989). These are closely associated with structural influ-
ences, such as the need for confidentiality to protect sensitive operations or the
camaraderie deriving from stress and danger (Brogden, Jefferson & Walklate, 1988).
The problem occurs when these positive values mutate and become pathological.
Notable among the reinforcers of “bad culture” have been recruitment and training
practices that produced a narrow conformist type of officer. Prevention initiatives
deriving from cultural perspectives include recruitment strategies aimed at creating
more points of resistance to group pressures. This entails diversifying the personnel
profile with more women and minority group members, and older more educated
people. Training initiatives include more attention to ethics, to cultural sensitivity
and communication skills, and to liberal values of tolerance and scientific under-
standings of behaviour. These strategies are designed to develop officers who have
internalised high ethical standards and are resistant to corruption opportunities.
While such reforms have often been enthusiastically supported, there is a growing
recognition of the power of both the task environment and the informal organisa-
tional culture to undermine these initiatives (Chan, 1997; Brereton & Ede, 1996).
These theories have now superseded traditional discourses about the individu-
alised moral failure of corrupt police. The “rotten apple” explanation, traditionally
favoured by politicians and police commissioners, is now rightly viewed with
suspicion as a rationalisation of management failure and a means of avoiding
systemic change (Lusher, 1981). Nonetheless, a comprehensive approach to
misconduct prevention will attempt to prevent the entry of individuals predis-
posed to non-compliance with organisational standards. It is also a key manage-
ment responsibility to develop forms of early identification to correct behavioural
problems or to remove non-compliant officers, using tools such as complaints
28
ANDREW EDE, ROSS HOMEL AND TIM PRENZLER
THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY
To continue reading
Request your trial