Promoting Officer Integrity Through Early Engagements and Procedural Justice in Seattle, Washington, 2013 (ICPSR 35508)

Version Date: Jun 27, 2017 View help for published

Principal Investigator(s): View help for Principal Investigator(s)
Emily Owens, University of Pennsylvania; David Weisburd, George Mason University; Geoffrey P. Alpert, University of South Carolina; Karen L. Amendola, Police Foundation

https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR35508.v1

Version V1

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.

For this study, researchers conducted an experimental evaluation of a training program aimed at promoting the use of procedural justice by officers in the Seattle Police Department (SPD). After identifying eligible officers using a specially designed High Risk Circumstance (HRC) model, researchers arranged non-disciplinary supervisory meetings for participants in which procedural justice behaviors were modeled. Participating officers were then asked to fill out comment cards about the experience.

Using the control and engagement groups, researchers evaluated the impact that procedural justice training had on a number of outcomes including arrests, warnings and citations, use of force, and citizen complaints. In addition to participant comment cards, researchers assessed outcomes by analyzing the administrative data collected by the Seattle Police Department.

Owens, Emily, Weisburd, David, Alpert, Geoffrey P., and Amendola, Karen L. Promoting Officer Integrity Through Early Engagements and Procedural Justice in Seattle, Washington, 2013 . Ann Arbor, MI: [distributor], 2017-06-27. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR35508.v1

Export Citation:

  • RIS (generic format for RefWorks, EndNote, etc.)
  • EndNote
United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice (2012-IJ-CX-0009)

Patrol district

Access to these data is restricted. Users interested in obtaining these data must complete a Restricted Data Use Agreement, specify the reasons for the request, and obtain IRB approval or notice of exemption for their research.

2013
2013-04-01 -- 2013-12-31

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.

This study aimed to address the lack of evidence for the practical implementation of procedural justice goals by conducting an experimental evaluation of a training program aimed at promoting the use of procedural justice by officers in the Seattle Police Department (SPD). The primary analytic focus was on tractable, policy relevant, measures of police performance and safety in the field.

During the field experiment, researchers identified officers involved in the top 12th percentile of predicted risk in their precinct based on the High Risk Circumstances (HRC) model. Officers were then randomly assigned to either a control or a treatment group. 241 officers were assigned to treatment and participated in engagements. In the experimental engagement group, officers were trained in procedural justice techniques.

At the conclusion of the engagement, officers were asked to fill out a confidential comment card about the experience, which was be mailed directly to the Police Foundation. Researchers then used administrative data from the Seattle Police Department to compare the post-engagement behavior of officers who work in behavioral hot spots on a number of dimensions during one and six week periods (short run and long run).

Officers in the treatment and control groups were compared based on the number and type of incidents that they responded to, their probability of using force or having a complaint filed against them, and the frequency with which they resolved incidents with a formal arrest, rather than a less disciplinary measure.

The High Risk Circumstances (HRC) model developed by the researchers was used to identify incidents in the top 12th percentile of predicted risk in their precinct on a bi-weekly basis. The officers involved in these incidents were identified and the top percentile of risk were randomly assigned to either a control or a treatment group. The experiment had 12 waves over the course of six months, and officers typically participated in meetings within 11 days of being notified of their selection. A total of 241 officers were assigned to treatment and a total of 221 procedural justice meetings were held.

Cross-sectional ad-hoc follow-up

All officers in the Seattle, Washington Police Department in 2013.

Individual
administrative records data, experimental data, survey data

This study includes one excel file and one stata file.

  • Comment Card database2.xlsx: This file includes 67 cases of police officer responses on comment cards, providing feedback on their supervisory meetings. The 11 variables include questions about whether the meeting helped the police officer to remember the event in question, whether the police officer felt respected or criticized, and whether the supervisor meeting provided a useful context for the officer to provide feedback to the supervisor.
  • FinalRegressSet2.dta: This file includes administrative data used to assess study outcomes for 31,300 cases. The 61 variables include patrol district, data collection dates, predicted risk score, information about officer events (including arrests, reports, assists, citations, and warnings) both pre- and post- treatment, and the calculated differences between the same.

A total of 241 officers were assigned to treatment, and while union and IRB rules mandated that officer participation in the engagements was voluntary, there was 91.7 percent compliance rate.

Likert-type scales were used.

2017-06-27

2018-02-15 The citation of this study may have changed due to the new version control system that has been implemented. The previous citation was:
  • Owens, Emily, David Weisburd, Geoffrey P. Alpert, and Karen L. Amendola. Promoting Officer Integrity Through Early Engagements and Procedural Justice in Seattle, Washington, 2013 . ICPSR35508-v1. [distributor], 2017-06-27. http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR35508.v1

No weights are provided.

Notes

  • These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.

  • The public-use data files in this collection are available for access by the general public. Access does not require affiliation with an ICPSR member institution.

  • One or more files in this data collection have special restrictions. Restricted data files are not available for direct download from the website; click on the Restricted Data button to learn more.

  • The citation of this study may have changed due to the new version control system that has been implemented.
NACJD logo

This dataset is maintained and distributed by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NACJD), the criminal justice archive within ICPSR. NACJD is primarily sponsored by three agencies within the U.S. Department of Justice: the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.