Eric L. Piza, Nathan T. Connealy, Victoria A. Sytsma, and Vijay F. Chillar (2022)

Criminology

*This study was funded by the Charles Koch Foundation, Policing and Criminal Justice Reform program

Key Takeaways

• Systematic social observation of body-worn camera footage and panel regression analysis tested the effect of police officer and civilian actions on police use of force across 5-second intervals
• The most influential variables are related to authority maintenance
• Additional variables reflecting procedural justice, civilian resistance, and bystander presence significantly influence when police use force occurs during civilian encounters
• Certain variables influence use of force at a distinct point in time whereas others exert influence over multiple time periods
• Overall findings support theoretical perspectives considering use of force as a transactional event

Research Summary

Prior research has consistently found that police-citizen encounters involving force typically extend across fairly lengthy time periods. During these extended periods, police officers must rapidly assess a series of dynamic situational factors, requiring the use of cognitive shortcuts that can influence later use of force decisions. Situational factors, and the cognitive shortcuts they motivate, can ebb and flow throughout a police-civilian encounter, differentially influencing the likelihood of force at various points. Within this context, empirical evaluations require measuring and assessing what happened in the seconds or minutes that preceded force as well as how the actions and behaviors of officers and the civilians they engage with influence the probability of force being used. Unfortunately, common data sources typically only allow for the cross-sectional analysis of use of force events, precluding the use of longitudinal methods that can sufficiently measure transactional events.

The current study reports on a systematic social observation (SSO) of body-worn camera (BWC) footage and panel regression analysis in Newark, NJ. The study sample includes 91 use of force events recorded on BWCs in Newark, NJ between December 2017 and December 2018. This study period reflects the pilot phase of the NPD’s BWC deployment. Rather than analyze encounters as cross-sectional moments in time, we parsed out the entirety of each individual use of force event into a series of five-second time intervals to examine encounters longitudinally. Data on the actions of police officers, suspects, and bystanders, which were collected during the SSO, were scored into their appropriate corresponding time interval(s) based on the start and/or end time of the given action or behavior. The unique structure of the dataset allows for a new way of examining the situational nature of police-citizen encounters, which to our knowledge has yet to be done in use of force research.

All model covariates were categorized into theoretical constructs: active civilian resistance (n=4), authority maintenance (n=5), procedural justice (n=5), and bystander presence (n=3). Four different interval-based operationalizations we applied to the model covariates.  The instant operationalization has start and end times that occurred instantaneously and simultaneously (e.g., a civilian shoving an officer). The active operationalization marks all of the consecutive interval(s) at which an action was actively occurring (e.g., officer explaining the reason for suspect detainment). The post-occurrence operationalization assigns the next six intervals (30 seconds) after a recorded instance of an action or behavior a value of ‘1’ to explore their potentially delayed effect. The lasting operationalization captures the number of times an action or behavior occurs, and the influence of its occurrence on the remaining duration of the event.

Significant effects were observed for 2 of 4 civilian resistance variables, 3 of 4 authority maintenance variables, 4 of 5 procedural justice variables, and 1 of 3 bystander presence variables. Post-hoc analyses found that the 6 covariates most predictive of increased use of force likelihood were authority maintenance variables. These 6 authority maintenance variables accounted for more than 65% of the regression model’s predictive capacity. This finding supports prior theoretical perspectives arguing that police use of force largely results from officer attempts to maintain authority over civilians during face-to-face encounters. Findings further indicate that the nature of the temporal influence greatly differed across variables. For example, civilians disobeying an officer’s calm command increases the likelihood of force in the instant it occurs, whereas officers explaining detainment increases the likelihood of force in the post-occurrence period. This finding supports theoretical perspectives considering the actions and reactions of police officers and civilians as key factors in determining exactly when use of force occurs during police-civilian encounters.

Eric L. Piza and Victoria A. Sytsma (2022)

Crime & Delinquency

*This study was funded by the Charles Koch Foundation, Policing and Criminal Justice Reform program

Key Takeaways

• Systematic social observation of body-worn camera footage and survival analysis tested the effect of suspect resistance and officer adherence to informational and interpersonal justice on time until police use of physical force
• Officer adherence to informational justice was significantly associated with longer time until both first use of force and highest level of force
• Suspect weapon possession was significantly associated with shorter time until use of the highest level of force
• Suspect resistance did not achieve statistical significance in any model
• Overall results suggest police officer actions more greatly influence time until force than does suspect resistance

Research Summary

While colloquial discussions of police use of force revolve around notions of “split-second judgments” such a framework may not reflect the reality of use of force events. Police-citizen encounters involving force typically extend across fairly lengthy time periods, with successive actions and reactions of officers and citizens influencing the likelihood of force. Empirical perspectives from psychology further explain how use of force events unfold over time. System 1 thinking involves quick, subconscious decisions. This contrasts with system 2 thinking, which consists of slower, more deliberate modes of processing information and determining a course of action. Within the context of use of force, police should operate with the goal of minimizing the need for system 1 thinking to allow for the careful deliberation that classifies system 2 thinking.

Suspect actions can impede officer de-escalation efforts in a manner that requires increased use of system 1 thinking. Suspect resistance has received perhaps the most empirical attention as a factor that significantly impacts police officer decisions to use force. Prior research demonstrates an empirical link between suspect resistance and police use of force.

Using tactics that “create time” can help officers delay the need for physical force. A point of emphasis in de-escalation involves officer adherence to procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice principles. Procedural justice refers to the perceived fairness of the procedures involved in decision-making and implementation. Interpersonal justice refers to officers treating civilians with respect and dignity and informational justice refers to providing civilians with information that is accurate and useful.  Dimensions of fairness are difficult to examine at the situational level because they are largely perception-based and heavily influenced by social contextual factors. In contrast, indicators of interpersonal and informational justice are particularly useful avenues for exploring possible situational-level impacts as these forms of justice are more amenable to observation.

The current study tests the effect of suspect resistance and police officer adherence to interpersonal justice (i.e. officer not using verbally antagonistic language) and informational justice (i.e. officer explaining reason for the encounter to the suspect) on time until use of force in police-citizen encounters. The study involves the systematic social observation of 91 use of force events recorded by BWCs between December 2017 and December 2018 in Newark, NJ. Four cases were removed because the start point and failure points occurred at the same time, bringing the final sample to 87 cases.

The analysis focused on two separate dependent variables: time until first use of physical force and time until use of highest level of force. Models controlled for suspect weapon possession, officer ethnicity, suspect ethnicity, and the type of physical force used (highest observed).

Police officer adherence to informational justice significantly increases time until the first use of physical force and the highest level of physical force. In cases in which the officer explained to the suspect why the suspect was being detained, the median time until first use of physical force is 3.33 minutes, compared to 0.83 minutes for those in which an explanation was not given. In cases in which the officer explained to the suspect why the suspect was being detained the median time until the highest level of force was used is 5.5 minutes, compared to 1.5 minutes for those in which an explanation was not given. Suspect weapon possession was also statistically significant, decreasing time until the highest level of force is used. The median time until highest level of force is 3.17 minutes when there is no weapon and 1.17 minutes when the suspect is in possession of a weapon. Suspect resistance is not significant in any of the models.

Scott Jacques & Eric L. Piza (2022)

Originally published in March 2022 edition of ACJS Today. Reproduced with permission.

The field of criminal justice (CJ) uses research, education, and outreach to make the world better. CJ scholars have become increasingly concerned with applied science, whereby research findings are widely disseminated and used to positively impact the CJ system. The Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences (ACJS) serves this mission by captaining three journals: Justice Quarterly (JQ), The Journal of Criminal Justice Education (JCJE), and The Justice Evaluation Journal (JEJ). Their articles advance what’s known about the CJ system, education, and research itself. This knowledge helps people to improve their practices. All of us in the academy want ACJS journals to be read and used by colleagues, students, journalists, community leaders, legislators, policymakers, police chiefs, judges, wardens—everyone and anyone.

There is a big problem holding back ACJS journals: Their articles, like most in our field, are prohibitively expensive to read, leading them to go unused. Most people can’t afford to unlock the paywall. For a single electronic copy, the cost is $47. Some of us have free access via our library or membership in ACJS, but most of us don’t. Journal paywalls make it harder for CJ practitioners to create and implement evidence-based policies and services (Bennell & Blaskovits, 2019). These paywalls are a challenge to students, staff, and faculty, too. The skyrocketing cost of journal subscriptions have led many universities to cancel their deals; the trend will only grow (Gaind, 2019; McKenzie, 2018).

Unequal access to knowledge is a social injustice. It’s a detriment to scholarly impact. It stands against the ACJS Code of Ethics, which affirms faithfulness to “free and open access to knowledge, to public discourse of findings, and to the sharing of the sources of those findings whenever possible.”[1] It’s counter to many of ACJS’s purposes per its Constitution & By-Laws.[2]

ACJS can provide complete open access (OA) to its journals. It can do so easily and quickly at no-cost. This transformation would enable anyone with an internet connection and a computer to freely read and share ACJS journal articles. This would be socially just. It would increase the journals’ citation metrics and altmetrics. Properly executed, this poses no legitimate threat to ACJS’s revenue from licensing its journals to a publisher, currently Routledge (an imprint of Taylor & Francis).[3] A lot of progress can be made because there’s a long way to go. Of any leading journal in our field, for example, JQ has the smallest percent of OA articles; 91% of articles published between 2017 and 2019 are fully paywalled (see Ashby, 2021).

To understand how such dramatic change is possible, you need to know about the different types of OA. With respect to ACJS journals, two kinds are most important: “green” and “gold.” They are defined by their relationship to different types of papers: preprints, postprints, and versions of record (VOR). A paper is a preprint if it hasn’t been accepted for publication, and a postprint if it has been. OA is “green” if to preprints and postprints. “Gold OA” is to the VOR, or the “final” version published in the outlet, and always entails an article processing charge (APC). The tables show the major distinctions.

Table 1. Types of Papers

Stage of Paper	Type of Paper
	Preprint	Postprint	Version of Record
Submitted for publication	X	✓	✓
Accepted for publication	X	✓	✓
Published by outlet	X	X	✓

Table 2. Types of Open Access Pertinent to Current ACJS Journals

Type of Paper	Type of Open Access
	Green	Gold
Preprint	✓	X
Postprint	✓	X
Version of Record	X	✓

At ACJS journals, the APC to make an article gold OA is $3,400.[4] Unsurprisingly, few authors pay this fee. At the time of writing, for example, only 5% of the journals’ “Latest articles” (i.e., “OnlineFirst”) are gold OA. This is fine with us because, generally speaking, we think it is irrational to pay APCs. Why? Because paywalled articles can be made OA for free. Authors do so by sharing their preprints and postprints on their personal websites, institutional repositories, field-specific (e.g., CrimRxiv) and general-purpose repositories (e.g., SocArxiv, Zenodo), and professional networking sites (e.g., ResearchHub, ResearchGate, Academia).

Green OA isn’t perfect. By definition, preprints and postprints are not the versions of record, which are the best ones to use. Short of access to them, postprints and preprints are useful replacements. The substance of a paper’s postprint and VOR should be exactly the same, though they may have stylistic differences. The substance of a preprint may match that of its VOR, but it may not if changed by the review process or otherwise. In short, then, gold OA is too expensive, and preprints may not adequately reflect the VORs, which make green OA to postprints the best of the bunch.

Every major CJ publisher expressly permits authors to provide green OA to their postprints (and preprints). This has an interesting moral and practical implication: Publishers are not to blame for the lack of OA at ACJS journals and elsewhere. Authors are the culprits, we hate to say. It’s understandable that they can’t afford gold OA, but green OA has no APC. It’s an easy, fast, and free way to promote social justice and unlock potential impact. There’s no good reason not to do it.

That said, CJ researchers and educators are not experts in library and information science. CJ programs offer no or little training in OA and “scholarly communication” more broadly. Our professors told us to publish frequently and/or in good places. They didn’t tell us to maximize our impact and serve the public good by making our papers OA. After all, OA is a relatively new development, especially given the slow pace of change in academia. Back in the world of print publications, OA wasn’t possible. We’re now in the digital age. It’s time to capitalize on new opportunities.

There are many people who want to help authors make their work OA. Librarians are available to assist in all sorts of things, including copyright, licenses, and getting papers into repositories. Some of your colleagues (us included) are available to take questions and steer you in the right direction. CrimRxiv is establishing a network of moderators to serve as “local” points of assistance. You can always tweet at @criminologyopen or send an email to hello@criminologyopen.com. Ignorance of OA can’t continue to be an excuse.

What can ACJS do to help authors provide green OA to articles in JQ, JCJE, and JEJ? A lot. Some of the options are difficult, expensive, or slow. We encourage everyone to avoid them. The best example of a bad idea is transitioning the journals to all gold OA. After all, few of us can afford to pay thousands of dollars for APCs. There are many better options: easy, fast, and free to implement. ACJS can provide complete OA to its journals. How so? The first step is asking for help. We are thankful for the opportunity to write this article for ACJS Today. Future efforts are too many to list out here. But OA can’t be an after-thought. ACJS needs a dedicated group of people working on the issue for the academy and its stakeholders.

References

Ashby, M. P. J. (2021). The open-access availability of criminological research to practitioners and policy makers. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 32(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2020.1838588

Bennell, C., & Blaskovits, B. (2019). The case for open police research. In R. J. Mitchell & L. Huey (Eds.), Evidence based policing. An introduction. (pp. 117–129). Bristol, United Kingdom: Policy Press.

Gaind, N. (2019). Huge US university cancels subscription with Elsevier. Nature, 567, 15–16.

McKenzie, L. (2018). “Big deal” cancellations gain momentum. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/05/08/more-institutions-consider-ending-their-big-deals-publishers

---

[1] https://www.acjs.org/page/Code_Of_Ethics

[2] https://www.acjs.org/page/Constitution

[3] See Peter Subner’s submission to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy: https://suber.pubpub.org/pub/apqb1mp4/release/3

[4] See https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/publishing-open-access/open-access-cost-finder

Eric L. Piza & Nathan T. Connealy (2022)

Criminology & Public Policy

Key Takeaways

• Protestors gathered nightly around the Seattle Police Department’s (SPD’s) East precinct following the murder of Geroge Floyd on May 25, 2020
• The SPD abandoned the precinct on June 8, 2020 to quell the confrontations, resulting property damage, and injuries to both police officers and protestors
• The Seattle Mayor ordered SPD to disband the CHOP zone and re-occupy the police station on July 1, 2020
• In the immediate CHOP zone the crime total was 132.9% higher than a synthetic control area during the occupation period
• Crime totals were 77.5% higher and 27.8% higher than a synthetic control area in the 2-block CHOP zone and East precinct service area, respectively
• Findings indicate drastic reductions of police presence may harm public safety
• Evidence-based policing may provide a vehicle for meaningful, long-term reform

Research Summary

The murder of George Floyd by then-Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin propelled immediate protests and calls for police reform around the world. Like many cities, Seattle was home to daily protests in the wake of George Floyd’s murder. Seattle’s protests stood out from the national activity due to their extreme magnitude and duration, particularly in the context of the Capitol Hill neighborhood.

Protestors frequently gathered around the Seattle Police Department’s (SPD’s) East precinct, with reported confrontations between police and demonstrators occurring daily. On June 8, 2020, the SPD abandoned the precinct in an attempt to quell the confrontations. An encampment was quickly established in a six-block area encompassing the abandoned precinct. The encampment would come to be known as the “Capitol Hill Occupation Protest” (CHOP). Protesters created a barricade around the perimeter of the area, using wooden pallets and other readily-available objects, which acted as a makeshift jurisdictional boundary for CHOP. Teams of civilian volunteers formed an armed security detail and medic team for the purpose of minimizing reliance on city agencies.

Seattle police officers were sent an email stating they should not respond to any call within the CHOP zone unless it was a “mass casualty event.” On July 1, 2020, the Seattle Mayor ordered SPD to disband occupants from the CHOP zone and re-occupy the police station. The order came after 4 shootings (2 of which were fatal) occurred over a 10-day period, which spurned increased calls for CHOP’s closure.

CHOP generated widely differing assessments from residents and public officials in Seattle. Where some saw a lawless area that threatened public safety, others saw a vibrant community advancing social justice. The fall of CHOP was met with the same level of disagreement. Some Seattle residents and officials saw the closure as an example of police violence against peaceful protestors, while others applauded what they perceived as a return to safety and order.

The geographically focused, time limited nature of CHOP provided an opportunity for a natural experiment to test the effect of the autonomous zone on crime. We used the microsynthetic control group method to create a control area of weighted street segments that are empirically equal to the intervention area street segments. We explore crime level changes in three separate intervention areas: the CHOP zone, all areas within 2-blocks and including the CHOP zone, and the entirety of the SPD East precinct service area.

Statistically significant crime increases were observed for each of the three intervention areas. The largest increase was observed in the immediate CHOP zone, with the crime total 132.9% higher than the weighted control area during the 24-day occupation period. Crime totals were 77.5% higher and 27.8% higher than the weighted control area in the 2-block CHOP zone and East precinct service area, respectively. Follow-up analyses concluded that no single crime type was responsible for the significant crime increases. The significant crime increase is noteworthy given the short time frame of the CHOP occupation and retreat of police from the area theoretically making it more challenging for crimes to be reported by citizens and/or proactively discovered by officers.

Findings suggest that police abolition, the most extreme form of police defunding, may significantly compromise public safety. Policy makers should support the evidence-based crime prevention work of both police and community-based institutions. Such an approach may achieve currently desired policing reforms without risking crime spikes that can result from drastic reductions of police presence. Wide-scale adoption of evidence-based policing may provide a vehicle for such meaningful, long-term reform.