Risk assessment and risk management in policing

Author:

E. Worden Robert,Harris Christopher,J. McLean Sarah

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to critique contemporary tools for assessing and managing the risk of police misconduct and suggest directions for their improvement. Design/methodology/approach – The paper draws on extant literature, synthesizing several lines of inquiry to summarize what the authors know about patterns of police misconduct, and what the authors know about assessing and managing police misconduct. Then the paper draws from the literature on offender risk assessment in criminal justice to draw lessons for assessing and managing the risk of police misconduct. Findings – The authors found that there is good reason to believe that the tools used to assess the risk of misconduct make suboptimal predictions about officer performance because they rely on limited information of dubious value, but also that the predictive models on which the tools are based could be improved by better emulating procedures for assessing offenders’ risk of recidivism. Research limitations/implications – Future research should examine cross-sectional and longitudinal patterns of misconduct and associations between risk-related outputs and enforcement activity, develop better measures of criterion variables, and evaluate the predictive accuracy of risk assessment tools. Practical implications – Police managers should make better use of the information available to them, improve the quantity and quality of information if feasible, and cooperate in the necessary research. Originality/value – This paper offers a new synthesis of extant research to demonstrate the limitations of contemporary provisions for assessing the risk of police misconduct, and potential avenues for useful research and improved practice.

Publisher

Emerald

Subject

Law,Public Administration,Pathology and Forensic Medicine

Reference70 articles.

1. Alpert, G.P. and Dunham, R.G. (1997), The Force Factor: Measuring Police Use of Force Relative to Suspect Resistance, Police Executive Research Forum, Washington, DC.

2. Andrews, D.A. , Bonta, J. and Hoge, R. (1990), “Classification for effective rehabilitation: rediscovering psychology”, Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 19-52.

3. Andrews, D.A. , Bonta, J. and Wormith, J.S. (2006), “The recent past and near future of risk and/or need assessment”, Crime & Delinquency, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 7-27.

4. Bazley, T.D. , Mieczkowski, T. and Lersch, K.M. (2009), “Early intervention program criteria: evaluating officer use of force”, Justice Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 107-124.

5. Bobb, M.J. , Marge, M. , Mazar, Y. , Naguib, C. and Shugrue, T. (2009), 27th Semiannual Report, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Police Assessment Resource Center, Los Angeles, CA.

Cited by 17 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3