Rainless West

• Author: Sanja Kutnjak Ivković,Robert Peacock,Maria Haberfeld
• DOI: 10.1177/1098611112465612
• Published date: 01 June 2013
• Date: 01 June 2013
• Subject Matter: Articles

Police Quarterly

16(2) 148 –176

© 2012 SAGE Publications

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1098611112465612

pqx.sagepub.com

465612PQX16210.1177/1098611112465

612Police QuarterlyKutnjak Ivković et al.

Kutnjak Ivković et al.

Police Quarterly

1Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

2John Jay College, New York, NY, USA

Corresponding Author:

Sanja Kutnjak Ivkovic´, Michigan State University, 560 Baker Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA.

Email: kutnjak@msu.edu

Rainless West: The Integrity

Survey’s Role in Agency

Accountability

Sanja Kutnjak Ivkovic´1, Maria Haberfeld2,

and Robert Peacock1

Abstract

This study seeks to test the capacity to measure individual agency integrity using

the theoretical perspective and police integrity instrument developed by Klockars

and colleagues. Specifically, sworn officers in a large U.S. municipal law enforcement

agency evaluated 11 vignettes describing various forms of police misconduct, from

police corruption and the use of excessive force to perjury and planting of evidence.

Although our study in Rainless West yields a picture of police integrity that is

largely similar to those reported for the three police agencies participating in the

study by Klockars and colleagues, we detect substantial differences in the levels of

integrity associated with the least serious forms of misconduct. Rainless West offers

a lesson for institutions seeking to raise police accountability to explore integrity not

only as it applies to the most serious forms of misconduct, but also as it applies to the

least serious forms of misconduct.

Keywords

police accountability, police integrity, police ethics, police misconduct, police corrup-

tion, use of force, use of excessive force, municipal police

The Search for Police Accountability

Reviewing the past 100 years of law enforcement history, Manning (2009) observed

that every large city has experienced multiple police scandals. These events inevitably

led to much publicized reform efforts that often provided only limited results

Article

Kutnjak Ivkovic´ et al. 149

(Monkonen, 2003; Sherman, 1978). Though the waves of scandal and reform continue,

urban police agencies have increasingly adopted new tools and practices to meet what

Walker (2005) has described as the new world of police accountability. Walker (2002)

defines accountability in terms of the police performance of the crime and disorder

control function as well as their respect for the rights of citizens. Moreover, Walker

argues that the current era rests on “police practices that build trust, enhance police

accountability, and reduce police misconduct” (US Department of Justice, 2001, p. 3).

The goal of obtaining a high degree of integrity is critical for an accountable police

agency in a democratic society (Caparini & Marenin, 2004).

If policing in the United States and other democracies is moving toward a new era

that emphasizes accountability for police misconduct, a fundamental unanswered

question is how either a scholar or a police administration can assess one of its critical

elements—the police agency’s level of integrity. Researchers seeking to measure

integrity in a police department frequently use the official data and confront the same

paradox; they can never be certain what situation is more positive: an increase or

decrease in the level of police misconduct relative to the level previously found in the

agency’s official statistics (Klockars, Kutnjak Ivković, & Haberfeld, 2006). A higher

rate of disciplinary actions for misconduct may be in response to an effective internal

affairs effort; in contrast, a department with a high level of actual misconduct could

have relatively few reported cases because of their weak enforcement measures and, if

anything, the presence of a culture that conceals misconduct. Put differently, two

equally sized agencies can share the same number of official misconduct reports, but

be polar opposites both in their commitment to hold officers accountable for their

behavior and in their success in doing so.

The uncertainty faced by scholars or practitioners assessing police integrity through

the use of official reports alone can be seen in the official statistics found by two of the

most famous investigatory commissions in U.S. history. At the same time that the

Knapp Commission (1972) was reporting that the New York Police Department

(NYPD) had widespread and systematic corruption, Cohen (1972) reported that the

NYPD’s official statistics showed that fewer than 1 in 100 officers received criminal

complaints in a given year (Kutnjak Ivković, 2009a). A similar question over official

statistics was raised by the Christopher Commission (1991) investigating the Los

Angeles Police Department (LAPD) for violations of Rodney King’s civil rights.

Mr. King’s brother had gone to the LAPD the day after his beating but was rebuffed

in his efforts to have a complaint filed (Christopher Commission, 1991). It is question-

able whether the incident would have received much official or public attention with-

out the appearance of a witness’s video recording that was broadcast worldwide a few

days later.

Despite the significant media and public concern for the integrity of local police

agencies, scholars have had limited success in developing measurements of agency

integrity that go beyond those based on official records. Prenzler (2002) points out

that, in the past, researchers’ knowledge of an agency’s level of integrity was largely

dependent on the rare public independent commissions (Prenzler’s case studies