Kevin M. Gilmartin
One of the greatest challenges facing law enforcement
administrators today is the creation and maintenance of a values-based agency
consisting of an ethical cadre of officers and supervisors that represent the
values of society. Many issues arise that make the maintenance of ethical
employees a difficult task. One major challenge to maintaining an
ethical/values-based agency is that over the course of a police career every
department can expect it's officers to be exposed on a daily basis to
individuals and situations that violate the values these officers hold central.
This exposure over time can be expected to leave an emotionally corrosive
impact. To assist in the goal of creating values-based police agencies, one of
the primary areas of study of the law enforcement behavioral sciences for more
than two decades has been the refinement of pre-employment selection techniques
that bring values-based individuals to the starting point of a police career.
Screening protocols from psychological test batteries to interactive video
assessment instruments have assisted agencies in selecting men and women who
have the skills and values to potentially become successful police officers.
These individuals begin their careers able to not only successfully complete the
multiple task demands required of a police officer, but to present personal
backgrounds reflective of well developed values systems congruent with those of
society. For the law enforcement administrator, the challenge of the selection
of competent and ethical police candidates may be significantly less demanding
than the maintenance of a values-based police agency.
To become a law enforcement officer is not an easy task.
Intellectual, psychological, and background reviews are completed that many
times require the officer applicant to wait months, if not years, to determine
if they are successful in obtaining a position in the basic police academy. Once
selected to attend the academy, the applicant faces further academy screening
and testing. Demanding academic, physical, and discipline challenges continue to
reduce the number of recruits who eventually graduate the academy. Even then,
after successful completion of months of an academy curriculum, a Field Officer
Training Program thins the ranks even further of those hoping to successfully
complete the probationary period and have the opportunity to serve their
respective communities as police officers. With the exception of a small number
of professions in our society, very few, other career fields demand more to
obtain an entry level position than law enforcement. Even with these highly
selective screening measures in place, why does the field of law enforcement
experience the headline cases of wrongful acts perpetrated by officers that
potentially taint the entire profession ? Are these cases of "Bad Apples" that
should never have been officers and are selection failures or can the experience
of being, a law enforcement officer change the existing values structure of the
officer? Can this change cause an abandonment of "Core" ethical values by
officers and permit the development of rationalized "Situational Ethics" ?
The selection of values-based individuals at the entry
level appears to have been successfully completed by most law enforcement
agencies over the past 20 years. The maintenance of values-based individuals in
police work, however has not been a ma or focus of attention either by law
enforcement executives or behavioral researchers until quite recently.
In an effort to reduce ethical violations by officers,
agencies continue to address the issue of inappropriate officer behavior
patterns by utilizing primarily a reactive investigative model. Although clearly
the thorough investigation of inappropriate acts committed by officers is an
absolute necessity, it does not reflect a complete management intervention
strategy to reduce wrongful police acts. The reactive investigative prong needs
to be augmented by a proactive values maintenance" prong designed to provide
officers with the necessary information and insights to maintain core based
values. These interventions would need to take place at routine intervals over
the course of a police career and not limited to only entry level academy
lectures.
In attempting to create values-based 1cw enforcement
agencies the profession demands review of the dynamics that create officers who
willfully violate the values structures they possessed at the time of career
entry. Viewing officer values or ethics as a never changing photograph taken at
the time of entrance into the career, inappropriately permits ethical violations
to be viewed as poor pre-employment selection decisions and misses the essential
elements of most inappropriate police behavior patterns. In reviewing the
factors that permit ethical violation to occur within a law enforcement agency,
no singular determining causative factor exists that generates these behavior
patterns. There does however, exist several central traits that provide fertile
ground for the development of ethical deterioration at all levels of the rank
structure.
One of the central traits to values deterioration is the
development of a culture of perceived "Entitlement". This belief would permit
law enforcement officers to rationalize and Justify to themselves behavior that
is clearly unacceptable and would warrant enforcement action if engage in by
members of the community at large. The belief that unrealistic expectations of
favorable treatment or privileges being granted embodies entitlement.
Entitlement can take many forms and can appear at initial review to be a
relatively benign issue. Closer scrutiny can demonstrate the essential malignant
nature of entitlement. Entitlement is the belief that an individual by virtue of
his/her position as a law enforcement officer is owed certain privileges or
latitudes in terms of their behavior, "those rules really don't apply to us".
The old military adage of "rank has it's privileges" would represent one example
of "Entitlement" that appears to be accepted within that culture and possibly is
only an expression that certain positions of authority are afforded additional
respect in proportion to additional responsibility. In Law Enforcement, however,
like any other authority based system, the potential for the abuse of authority
exists and requires consistent vigilance for prevention. When the concept of
entitlement is transferred to the law enforcement culture, it can take the form
of "as cops we deserve "Professional Courtesy"; " Speed limits don't apply to
us"; " as a commander my secretary can do my personal typing"; " as the Chief, I
can play golf instead of attending the conference, even though I'm attending the
conference at the communities expense". Each of these statements is the
embodiment of entitlement. A belief develops that "you owe us cops for all we
put up with on the streets to serve and protect you". Pride in being able to
serve as a member of a given police agency is not entitlement. The belief that
as a member of a police agency we're special and the rules don't apply to us" is
however, "Entitlement".
When attempting to discuss values many law enforcement
agencies, unfortunately have not discussed the concept of the possible existence
of a belief of entitlement in their agencies, but rather have instead focused on
such issues as the acceptance of gratuities or other potentially controversial
behaviors. When an agency focuses it's attention on the question of what is an
inappropriate behavior or gratuity without discussing entitlement it bypasses
the more fundamental question for the officers to answer. Without discussing
entitlement the agency losses an opportunity for officers to understand and
discuss the potential impact of the gratuity question and its impact on core
values for the police officer. Lecturing working police officers about the evils
of gratuities and how they lead to the "slippery slope" of corruption will
usually be met with sarcastic sighs and closed minds. Discussing entitlement
provides officers the information necessary to conceptualize independent
values-based decisions. Whether or not the free cup of coffee is a
harmless expression of appreciation by a member of the community or represents
a contingent gratuity such as; "if I keep the cops in my restaurant the
added security is good for business" is actually a moot point for officers
trained in core values maintenance. The more appropriate questions for a police
administrator would be, by permitting the members of the department to accept
free coffee or reduced priced meals are we permitting to be created a belief
system in the officers that they warrant a different standard of accountability
than the general population. Secondly, it should be asked if a different
standard of accountability does exist, is it one where the officers are less
accountable for their behavior than the general community. Many a police
administrator that would consider reduced priced meals inappropriate would
permit officers to accept "special prices for law enforcement" for cellular
phones or pagers without a second notice. The law enforcement administrator
would also need to evaluate if a sense of "Entitlement" is being cultivated
within the departmental hierarchy, and expressed as an extension of the military
"rank-to-privileges" relationship. "As a commander I can bend the rules, but you
folks down the chain better behave", represents in-house entitlement in
operation.
How does entitlement develop and become institutionalized
across levels of rank/status within agencies ? Law enforcement by it's nature is
required to perform tasks the majority of society cannot or will not perform.
The tasks can range from dealing with violent situations. responding to tragic
events, or dealing with the most unsavory aspects of society. Officers by seeing
themselves dealing with situations that they alone must handle and control learn
early in a police career that the position permits them authority to transgress
certain social norms to perform job duties. Impacting freedom of movement of
citizens, ingress and egress into citizen's private homes, emergency movement
due to exigent circumstances that permit traffic laws to be suspended, even the
capacity/responsibility to make lethal force decisions are part of the officers
regular routine. Being exposed on a regular basis to "special authority" and at
the same time being exposed on a daily basis to that element of society that
operates without values, combines to severely challenge an officer's core values
system. Unchecked authority operating in an ethical vacuum is a central
component of all police corruption.
The movement away from core values is not a difficult
transition for officers working in many settings in our society. "What harm is
there in accepting a free meal compared to the carnage these suspects at my last
call just dealt to society?", is a realistic appraisal of the situational
relativity of values. It severely challenges officers to maintain their
essential "Core" values. "Situational" or "Relative" values or ethics are often
times the path of least resistance. "Before I became a cop I had no idea this
kind of stuff went on", can become the foundation for rationalizing what
initially appears to be harmless rule violations. The change in values-based
decisions by police officers can be outlined by a "Continuum of Compromise"
ranging from "Acts of Omission" typified by not performing seemingly petty tasks
to "Acts of Commission" including the active violation of administrative rules
and possibly ultimately criminal violations. This compromise begins with the
onset of a change in the manner in which officers explain or rationalize minor
rule violations. The officer's newly acquired behavior patterns begin with a
reappraisal of values relative to the environment in which the officers operate.
"Because of all the garbage we put up with on the streets, what's the big deal
about a little speeding or a free meal" can become an expression of situational
values comparison. Entitlement is the precursor belief that leads to wrongful
acts ranging from minor to felonious. Entitlement spans the rank structure. Many
times the best examples of entitlement can be found at the top of the
organizational chart. The chief who disciplines an officer for accepting a free
meal, yet plays golf with greens fees that are paid for by a member of the
community is clearly expressing a double standard and loudly proclaiming
the instruction "Do as I say not as I do", rendering hollow any attempts to
create and maintain a values based agency. Police executives that operate under
the double standard in terms of entitlement are doomed in attempts to create
values-based agencies and are viewed cynically by rank and file as little more
than generating sound bites for the local media. This command perspective lends
itself to "Politics-based" policing as opposed to "Values-based" policing. Often
times the executive level capacity to rationalize "special" ethical decisions
due to political exigency is no different than the street officer rationalizing
inappropriate actions for more tangible or earthy reasons.
A culture of entitlement is only reduced by a culture of
ethical accountability. Accountability needs to be both self-initiated and
organizationally-generated. The capacity to rationalize a lack of both
individual and organizational accountability can be directly linked to what
degree officers perceive themselves as being victimized by the deteriorating
values of the community they police. If the officer is exposed on an increasing
basis to violence and a generalized lack of social order it becomes easier to
perceive wrong doing as harmless relative to the general level of community
deterioration. The officer can readily rationalize that "Extreme situations
demand extreme measures". Brutality, lack of truthfulness in reporting police
activities, and a well entrenched belief that loyalty is far more essential than
integrity for a street police officer can, unfortunately become established core
cultural agency values, internalized by officers but rarely if ever discussed or
reviewed.
If officers are not reviewing their respective values
through competent training and frank discussion of the emotional demands of the
job, "Core" ethics give way to "Situational Ethics". Officers not provided
ongoing values training can naively perform a comparative assessment of their
held core values and beliefs in relation to the social disorder that can typify
their call-loads. This potential transfer to "Situational Ethics" away from
"Core Values" occurs in an emotionally charged atmosphere of perceived exigency
of the situations in which the officer works. A sense of entitlement combines
with a belief that the degree of the social deterioration permits situational
suspension of core values for the police officer. "You won't exist for five
minutes out here in this jungle with your core values", "these folks down here
would eat you alive, all they understand is force", "These folks respect what
they fear, not your core values", can become the expression of the
rationalization of values deterioration.
This movement to situational values from core values many
times put the police in direct confrontation with subgroups within society.
Subgroups within our society that experience significant disenfranchisement in
terms of education, employment and housing are particularly at risk for exposure
to the "Situationally Ethical" police officer. Permitting the belief that
separate standards of policing behavior are demanded in certain areas of the
community has potentially tragic consequences for all involved. Although
obviously more violent areas of any community require enhanced officer safety
procedures tactically, they do not warrant suspension of ethical police
behavior.
The capacity to maintain ethical behavior can poise an
overwhelming challenge to the young officer experiencing for the first time,
challenges and questioning of his/her core values in a confrontational
atmosphere supported only by other officers requiring camaraderie for survival.
The more confrontational the situation, the more officers are required to
rely on fellow officers for survival. Loyalty becomes more important than
integrity. Officers policing in the more confrontational areas of any community
require larger organizational resources invested in the area of values
maintenance and review, however manpower shortage-, and high call-loads
typically permit the administrator to perceive it as a low operational priority.
This belief typically changes radically when an agency must react to a
significant crisis stemming directly from inappropriate officer behavior
patterns.
To establish a values-based police agency requires the
agency to invest resources into permitting officers to review the dynamic
process of values formation and deterioration. Lectures from Internal Affairs on
past investigations of "Bad Cops" that do not explain the underlying behavioral
issues facing the officers only further alienates officers from the mechanisms
of values based accountability. This potentially leads to the belief " so-called
"values" are externally imposed upon us by people who have either forgotten what
the streets are really like or have never been out here". Officers without an
understanding of the dynamic nature of values formation respond to values or
ethics training with rather naive comments like "you can't teach ethics, either
you have it or you don't". Vilifying officers that have produced major ethical
or criminal transgressions does little to preserve core values if the officers
do not gain insight into the dynamic process of ethical deterioration that leads
to the violations. Strictly seeing the "Bad Cops" as some alien entity from
other larger departments and unrelated to the "Good Cops" does nothing to
inoculate officers to values/ethical deterioration. Interventions that pen-nit
officers to realize that many times the compromised officer started his/her
career as an enthusiastic values-based individual, who possibly only after 10 or
more years of good service began the transgressions, permits a more valuable
values/ethics review. Helping officers to understand their perception of values
and ethics in policing as a potentially changeable state consisting of daily
challenges pen-nits officers to reduce their own respective naiveté and
resistance to the issue. This also permits officers to develop and embrace
strategies for ethical preservation and maintenance. Officers with well
developed support systems and priorities consistent with their core values are
more resistant to deterioration. Integrity -Inoculation and strategies for
ethical maintenance requires effort and resources. These resources, however, are
minuscule compared to what an agency invests dealing with a major ethical/values
violation that destroys the public trust. Strategies to preserve values based
behavior are varied. Group instruction/discussion of ethical issues by competent
facilitators is fundamental. Information on past cases of corruption and the
specific potential pitfalls to officers in any given jurisdiction is also
essential. Officers with well developed support systems and balance in the realm
of their personal lives can be expected to be perceptive of the full range
consequences of their behavior. "Emotional Survival" training needs to be
perceived as essential to the officer as street survival instruction. Officers
need to learn the skills to develop and internalize a sophisticated sense of
self accountability that stretches beyond the belief "us cops are victimized by
having to deal with society's problems therefore we're justified or "Entitled"
to take liberties with rules or laws". Using exposure to hazard and risk in the
line of duty as an officer as a means of rationalizing rule violations needs to
be seen as a precursor to deterioration/corruption, not misplaced loyalty or
camaraderie to fellow officers. "If it weren't for us where would society be?"
at one level can be an expression of job commitment; at another level can be an
expression of victimization and entitlement. A rationalization or belief that
can prove disastrous to maintaining "Core" values-based police officers.
Providing law enforcement professionals with the
information and support to remain core values-based individuals should be a
primary goal of any police administrator. Officers who maintain emotional and
social perspective are the only ones who can professionally enforce societies
values and norms. Officers who perceive themselves "at war" with the communities
they serve, soon question their own internal values beliefs. Officers, due to
special assignment, that are exposed to either increased risk or behavioral
latitude are particularly vulnerable in this area. Although this questioning of
values is to be expected it cannot be ignored. Competent intervention is
demanded. Those officers who posses the belief "that due to everything we deal
with and are exposed to on a daily basis we're "Entitled" to our own standard"
spell a disaster to the community and agency alike.
