SOCIAL EQUITY: A STUDY OF POLITICS, MANAGEMENT, AND THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW by SEAN A. MCCANDLESS B.A., Colorado State University Pueblo, 2005, 2007 M.A., University of Colorado Denver, 2009 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Public Affairs Program 2017
! "" 2017 SEAN MCCANDLESS ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
! """ This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy degree by Sean A. McCandless has been approved for the Public Affairs P rogram by Donald Klingner, Chair Mary E. Guy, Advisor Jessica Sowa Lonnie M. Schaible Date: May 13, 2017
! "# McCandless, Sean, A (Ph.D., Public Affairs Program ) Social Equity: A Study of Management, Politics, and the Equal Protection of the Law Thesis directed by Professor Mary Ellen Guy ABSTRACT Social equity, a pillar of public administration alongside efficiency, effectiveness, and economy, is one of the least understood and studied concepts in the literature There is a dearth of research despite the importance of understanding how public administration and public policy differentially affect groups, particularly minorities. To scholars like Gooden (2015a), res earch is needed on several questions: "What is the extent of inequity", "Why does inequity persist ", and "How do public agencies achieve a ccountability for social equity However, n umerous calls for social equity research have been largely unmet. A social equity issue that calls for more research concerns the extent to which police are fair in their interactions with minorities especially African Americans The literature addressing two of Gooden's questions, namely "What is the extent of inequity" and "Why does inequity persist", is growing. However, few studies have examined the third question, or how police agencies achieve accountability for social equity and in turn, how agencies' actions affect citizens' perceptions of how socially equitable departments are. As such, this study asks two questions: 1) what political, managerial, and legal factors affect citizen perceptions of social equity in policing ; and 2) how do these factors affect citizen perceptions of social equity in policing? To addr ess these questions, a cross case comparison of 11 purposively selected U.S. cities ("locales") was conducted. Local newspapers, city council meeting minutes, legislative agenda, police agencies' websites, and law enforcement statistics were examined to un derstand each locale's history of community police relations and agency practices related to social equity. Next, 55 semi structured interviews were conducted with members of citizen groups, state and
! # local level political leaders, and police agency repre sentatives to ascertain how agencies achieve accountability for social equity and how these strategies influence citizens' perceptions of social equity. D ata were iteratively coded, and cross case analysis was performed using meta matrices. Findings reve al that several factors affect citizens' perceptions of social equity namely the extent to which : a) citizen groups, political leaders, and police agencies cooperate to define social equity outcomes; b) these different groups agree on how best to pursue s ocial equity; c) agencies involve community leaders to obtain buy in when dealing with criminal and social issues popularly related to race; d) there have been recent shootings of unarmed minorities; e ) departments foster more one on one engagement with ci tizens; f ) departments employ community policing and social equity performance measurement to shape practice; g ) agencies try to achieve racial parity; and h ) agencies require trainings on community engagement As citizens feel that agencies more actively involve community groups and employ the strategies above, perceptions of social equity are more positive. A theory of accountability for social equity emerged. This theory is captured in a systems model, which highlights the environmental, input, black b ox, output, and feedback factors that appear linked to citizen perceptions of social equity. Three broad conclusions emerge: 1) discourses lead to policing practices and perceptions; 2) "fit" (i.e., openness to and feasibility of social equity programs), c hiefs' reinforcement, and officer buy in affect how departments try to achieve social equity; and 3) there are at least three approaches to accountability for social equity. After the discussion of this theory, limitations and future studies are discussed. The form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its publication. Approved: Mary E. Guy
! #" ACKNOWLEDGMENTS For my family and friends. You already know how much you mean to me and know what you have done. No written words can adequately express my appreciation Thank you to all of my wonderful interviewees, without whom this would not have been possible.
! #"" TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. THE NEED FOR SOCIAL EQUITY RESEARCH 1 II LITERATURE REVIEW ... ....... 25 III. METH ODOLOGY... ...... 103 IV. FIND INGS 11 4 V PATHS TO ACCOUNTABILITY FOR SOCIAL EQUITY ... ...... 154 REFERENCES ... 177 APPENDIX A. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Equity Research ... 232 B. Philosophy of science .234 C. Subject of police accountability bills 236 D. Locales' Government Types, etc 237 E. 2000 and 2010 Census and Census c hanges ... 238 F. Criminal/ social issues popularly related to race identified by interviewees ... 239 G. Locales' Community Policing and Social Equity Performance Measurement 240 H. Perceptions of community engagemen t and social equity performance ... 241 I. Representativeness, Recruitment Strategy, and citizen perceptions both overall 243 J. Agencies' trainings by locale . ... 244 K. Additional comments 245
! #""" LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: Interviewees ... 107 4:1: "Social Equity Laws" as related to citizen group perceptions of laws and enforcement ... 115 4:2a: Perceptions of social equity related to the action of legislators ... 119 4:2b: Minority legislators' proportions, bills proposed in 2014 2016, and bills passed ... .... 119 4:3: Prominent themes concerning proposition P3 .. .... 123 4:4: Prominent themes concerning propositions P4, P5, and P6 ..... .... 128 4:7: Prominent themes concerning P7 and P8 ..... .... 134 4:9: Primary themes concerning P9 & P10 ... 143 4:11: Prominent themes concerning P11 & P12 .......... ..... 146 4:12: Most cited factors affecting social equity across locales 151 4:13: Statuses of the propositions 152 5:1: Three versions of accountability for social equity 164
! "$ LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 5:1: A systems model of accountability for social equity 155 5:2: How discourses lead to perceptions ..156 5:3: Agencies' black boxes ..159
! CHAPTER I THE NEED FOR SOCIAL EQUITY RESEARCH Introduction Social equity, a "pillar" of public administration alongside efficiency effectiveness, and economy (Norman Major, 2011) is one of the least understood concepts in the literature (Gooden & Wooldridge, 2009 ) Before the 1960s, most scholarly discussions mentioned equity in passing For instance, g overnment reformers of the late 19 th and early 20 th centuries often argued that making government more efficient and effective would result in positive equity impacts for citizens (Link, 1971) Scholars of the mid 20 th century such as Appleby (1947) among others, equate d it with fairness and argued it is an element of good administration (Guy & McCandless, 2012) A heightened focus on social equity such that fairness applies to all persons (and is not simply dependent on or subsumed within efficiency and effectiveness ) developed in the 1960s The 1968 Minnowbrook Conference amplified the construct most notably with Frederickson's (1971) seminal essay in Marini's (1971) summative anthology of the conference i In brief, Frederickson's assertion was that too often policies are efficient and effective even though they are not socially equitable vis Âˆ vis traditionally disadvantaged groups (see Ingram et al., 2007). Primarily African Americans, the poor, and women experience the greatest costs yet the least benefits in the drafting and execution of public policy (see King, 1988). Scholars like Frederickson pointed to numerous examples, especially the Civil Rights Movement and public education, to highlight that po licies and administrative actions did not serve and protect all citizens equally (Ward, 2004; see also Dierenfield, 2008).
! # Further, scholars argued that while discussing normative dimensions was important, three goals needed to be reached. First, administ rators and scholars should use social equity not merely to inform and temper conceptions of efficiency and effectiveness but to make it a co equal pillar. Second, empirical work was required to demonstrate the need for and importance of social equity in te rms of housing, gender, income, policing, race, schooling, and so forth. Third, scholars should inform both administrators and policymakers on how to improve social equity (Frederickson, 1971, 1980, 1990, 2004, 2010; Rosenbloom, 2005; Svara & Brunet, 2005; see also Collins & Geber, 2008). Despite these calls, social equity studies have been largely descriptive, normative, limited in scope, and case study based (Rosenbloom, 2011), although a handful of wide reaching, empirical works are extant (Frederickso n, 2010). Most often, calls to improve the social equity literature remain unmet (see Pitts, 2011; Svara & Brunet, 2005). There are two needs:1) to inform administrators and policymakers on how efficiency and effectiveness do not, by themselves, address eq uity concerns (see Schneider & Ingram, 2005); and 2) to educate public administration students in the links between ethics and equity (Rice, 2004; Waldner et al., 2011). The dearth of research into social equity is explained in part by lingering questions on how best to study it. Some have suggested that research should focus on narrow, specific applications, such as social equity as demonstrated in a particular type of bureaucracy or policy, rather than on broad examples, such as income inequality (see Na tional Academy of Public Administration, 2014). Others have suggested focusing on how administrators act under the broad authority of the law with clear operational definitions of what social equity means in particular circumstances (Svara & Brunet, 2005). Others have suggested refocusing
! $ efficiency, effectiveness, and equity research on the intersections of politics, management, and law (Rosenbloom, 2005). Regardless of the difficulties in defining and studying the concept, scholars agree that the time is right for further research to better understand an underexplored pillar (Norman Major, 2011). ii The State of Social Equity Research A Case for More Research The promises of social equity research are to help make fairness both an input and output of policy design and administrative action, to understand the causes of inequity through examining policies and administrative actions, and to inform policymakers and managers of how to improve equity (see Bobrow & Dryzek, 1987). This section reviews typical defini tions of social equity, how scholars have studied it, the major problems with the research, and suggestions on how to improve it. Defining Terms Most scholars agree that, at a minimum, social equity refers to fairness and due process (Chitwood, 1974) regar dless of personal characteristics (Svara & Brunet, 2004), concerns the "activities designed to enhance the political power and economic well being of  minorities" (Frederickson, 1971, p. 311), and is a fundamental right (Francis, 2014). Others have indi cated that it refers to fostering distributive justice and respect for diversity (Gooden & Myers, 2004a,b). However, Rice (2004) argues that social equity is not the same as ensuring respect for and inclusion of diversity. Rather, in public service deliver y, it means fairness and equal treatment (p. 143). One well cited conceptual definition by the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA, 2000; see also White, 2004) is: The fair, just and equitable management of all institutions serving the public directly or by contract, and the fair, just and equitable distribution of public services, and implementation of public policy, and the commitment to promote fairness, justice, and equity in the formation of public policy.
! % In this way, holistically, socia l equity equates to: 1) procedural fairness; 2) fairness in distribution and access; as well as in 3) quality of services; 4) fairness of outcome; and 5) guaranteeing all a place at the table (Svara & Brunet, 2005). Refining the Focus -How Scholars Have Studied Social Equity Pitts (2011) notes that social equity lessons are necessary to improve administrative practices but argues that the literature consists of too many normative arguments and not enough empirical studies. Further research is required to demonstrate the importance of social equity concerns and balance the focus on efficiency and effectiveness (see Meier & Hill, 2009; Meier & O'Toole, 2006). iii Before the late 1960s, equity was usually treated as a dependent variable affected by improving ef ficiency and effectiveness. More equitable outcomes would result for citizens by making government operate more efficiently and effectively through enhancing popular control (Wilson, 1913), fostering cooperation between branches and departments (Willoughby 1918, 1927), acting under principles of scientific management (Taylor, 1911), promoting nomothetic principles of public administration (Caiden, 1984), providing administrative techniques (White, 1926; see also Sayre, 1951), fostering better recruitment a nd incentives (Mosher & Kingsley, 1936), allowing for more administrative control (see Bailey & Shafritz, 1988), and examining how administrators become public interest arbiters (Herring, 1936; see Rabin & Bowman, 1984). However, from the late 1960s onward social equity scholars highlighted three lessons: 1) policies can be efficient and effective but not socially equitable; 2) what is socially equitable is a function of participants' status; and 3) social equity can be both an input and an output (Frederi ckson, 1971, 1980, 1990, 2010). The following discussion
! & reviews these lessons by using the example of segregated schools to highlight equity issues and then discussing how scholars have conceptualized social equity as both an input and an output. Efficie nt and Effective May Not Be Socially Equitable The Case of Schools. The intersection of social equity and schools remains one of the more explored aspects of social equity literature (see Jennings, 2004) and helps to demonstrate how scholars have studied s ocial equity thus far. The central insight is that governments can foster policies and administrative actions that result in vastly different outcomes for those in majorities versus minorities, with majorities consistently benefitting more than minorities (Riccucci, 2009). As noted by Nelson (1998), the Fourteenth Amendment (adopted in 1868) and federal court decisions that incorporated equal protection rulings against state and local governments forbade administrators and policymakers from making individua ls (or groups) the target of discrimination. Despite these protections, during Reconstruction and post Reconstruction, many state and local governments engaged in "legal discrimination" against minorities, especially African Americans (Egerton, 2014). One discriminatory practice was "separate but equal", which allowed for legally recognized segregated schools so long as the schools were equal in quality (Cates, 2012), the legal basis of which stemmed from the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Plessy v Ferguson (1896), which upheld (and encouraged) the de jure practice of segregating schools (Patterson, 2002). The rationale for having segregated schools was that African Americans and Whites were allegedly "too different" to attend school together, but comparable and equal schooling was needed for both groups (to satisfy Fourteenth Amendment equal protection requirements). As such, to policymakers, "separate but equal" was a compromise between
! not allowing any schooling for African Americans and totally integrated schooling. To avoid concerns that segregated schools would be unconstitutional, policymakers argued that those schools could and would be efficient (resources are allocated equally to black and white schools), effective (the resources would be used in ways that African Americans and Whites get equal education), and socially equitable (both groups could have equal education, they would not have to be "burdened" with mixing together, and the policies would equally benefit both groups) (see Kluger, 2004). Despite these intentions, the reality was that "separate but equal" was not equal. African American schools universally had poorer resources, impoverished infrastructure, and out of date materials (Martin, 1998). In its ruling in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the US Supreme Court found that "separate but equal" blatantly violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In other words, the policy established under Plessy was not efficient, effective, or socially equitable (Cot trol et al., 2003). However, overturning "separate but equal" did not result in equity in schooling, namely the same outcomes for minorities as for majorities (Klarman, 2007; see Riccucci, 2009). Modern public school reform, especially school closures, ar e manifestations of "separate but equal" (Espenshade & Radford, 2013; see also Elmore, 2004; Mehta et al., 2012; Tienken & Orlich, 2013). For instance, closing poorly performing schools to devote resources to higher performing schools is often an economic decision that can be efficient in that public funds could be better spent at higher performing schools (see Morgan et al., 2007). Closing the schools and diverting resources could also be effective students (including poor students) would be better served by schools with more funding, better teachers, better environments, and so forth.
! ( However, such moves may not be socially equitable and often create ripple effects. Poorer students will have to travel further to reach good schools and are underserved in t heir own communities. Schools may become overcrowded (which then impacts effectiveness). Impoverished areas will receive fewer public funds. Achievement gaps across groups could grow (Clotfelter et al., 2004; Hanushek & Rivkin, 2009; McKown, 2005, 2013). C onsequently, efficiency and effectiveness metrics alone are ill equipped to address equity. Government does not serve all citizens equally, policymakers undervalue diversity, social polarization within cities grows, and minorities increasingly bear disprop ortionately greater costs yet fewer benefits than majorities (Garcia Zamor, 2014; Hall, 2006; Nowlin, 2011; Pitts, 2004). Observations like these are replete throughout the social equity literature: what is efficient and effective may not be fair to all g roups. Moreover, some groups consistently seem to have poorer outcomes than other groups, suggesting that outcomes are explained in part by groups' status (Polletta, 2002). The questions are then: why and how does this occur? Social Equity as Input and Ou tput. Social equity can be an input, or a consideration in the drafting and execution of policy, and an output, or something citizens obtain through policy design and tools used in those designs. As noted by Schneider and Ingram (2011), Governments at all levels have many choices of tools or instruments with which they carry out their responsibilities. These responsibilities all fall within the broad framework of what we call public policy: allocating goods or distributing costs, regulating, extracting res ources, persuading, controlling, listening to, and leading the population. The choices governments make in the details of policy designs, however, have long term effects on politics, democracy, justice, and citizenship. (p. 1477) Scholars have long been i nterested in typifying the different inputs and outputs of policy designs and have noted that designs have differential impacts on target groups (see
! ) Lowi, 1972; Ripley, 1985; Salamon, 2002). For instance, Wilson (1979) conceptualized the dispersion of cos ts and benefits in terms of types of politics: majoritarian (i.e., costs and benefits distributed widely), interest group (benefits and costs distributed to a few), clientist (elected leaders distribute benefits to small, aligned groups), and entrepreneuri al (small groups pay to benefit larger groups). Scholars in the social construction framework tradition have typified target populations using political power (high to low) and social construction (positive and negative), resulting in four groups: advantag ed (high political power/positive social construction); dependents (low political power/positive social construction); contenders (high political power/negative social construction); and deviants (low political power/negative social construction). As these authors have noted, benefits are likely to accrue to advantaged populations whereas costs accrue to disadvantaged populations (Ingram et al., 2007; King & Stivers, 1998). Since the least politically powerful often cannot exercise their voices to protest unequal treatment, policy designers do not sufficiently factor in equity concerns during the design process, will not factor them in unless challenged publically, or will do so solely through considering economic concepts such as Pareto optimality, the Kaldor Hicks criterion, or some other economic concept (Bobrow & Dryzek, 1987; Sackrey et al., 2013; Schneider & Sidney, 2009). What is fair according to Pareto Optimality is a function of not making any group worse off if another group is made better off during resource re distributions; the Kaldor Hicks criterion allows one group to be made worse off if that group is compensated in some other way equal to how they were disadva ntaged (Bobrow & Dryzek, 1987). However, without administrative, constitutional, ethical, and legal standards to allow for equal protection and equal representation, policies and administrative actions
! will likely not afford equal protection to groups or afford minorities platforms to voice their concerns (Bertelli & Lynn, 2006; deLeon, 1992; Grootaert & Van Bastelaer, 2002). Another lesson is that these differential impacts are rooted in policymakers' and administrators' values. Like efficiency and effect iveness, social equity is a value (Frederickson, 2004), and values arise out of actors' belief systems (Weible et al., 2011). Yet values and beliefs do not exist in vacuums. Rather, they obtain their meanings through, on one hand, public dialectical proces ses outside of policy and administrative actions regarding who gets what, when, how, and how much (Brewer & deLeon, 1983; see also Fischer, 1980/2002; Fischer et al., 2007) and, on the other hand, in the execution of public policy (see Birkland, 2011; Saba tier & Weible, 2007). Thus, the relationship is cyclical: as a value, social equity can influence which policies are created and how they are executed, which then influences how the public perceives social equity (Nalbandian & Klingner, 1987). However, wit hout administrators and policymakers considering and making protection of equity social responsibilities, whole populations might suffer from inequitable treatment (Svara & Brunet, 2005). In this way, social equity is both an input to and output of policy design, and administrators are the key players in the creation and operation of delivery systems for policy designs and have duties to behave ethically through fostering equity (see Wright, 1988). Despite these social responsibilities, scholars have consis tently found evidence that social equity concerns often are not considerations for administrators and policymakers as either inputs or outputs (Collier, 2006). Policymakers and administrators often give "less regard to human rights issues" (Collier, 2001, p. 37), particularly as reflected in public bureaucracies' interactions with citizens (Glaser et al., 2012). Inequitable treatment is found in studies of income inequality (see Kelly, 2009), gender inequality (see Chafetz, 2004), legal
! "+ inequalities resulti ng from sexual preference (Katznelson, 2005), intersectionalities between different characteristics (Johnson, 2011), globalization and resource usage (see Adve & Engineer, 2010), disaster management (see Gooden et al., 2009), government employment (see Ric cucci, 2009), and many other issues (see Guy & McCandless, 2012; Wooldridge & Gooden, 2009). On the other hand, there is evidence that workplace diversity has positive impacts on equity in that ethnically and racially diverse workforces often show greater considerations of social equity concerns (Behr, 2004), and that minorities in key positions are more likely to foster achieving equity (Harrison et al., 2006; see Skogan, 1976), but these results differ upon geographic region (Valentino & Sears, 2005). Reg ardless, when social equity is not an input and does not result in fair outputs, populations experience inequitable treatments, which raise equal protection concerns (see Yoshino, 2011). The Difficulties of Social Equity Research While social equity studi es reveal that fairness is far from realized in the drafting and execution of government work, several problems become evident. First, studies are often case study based, descriptive, normative (versus wide reaching, explanatory, and empirical), making it difficult to ascertain how pervasive the problem is. Second, many studies suffer from operationalization problems, yet creating useable operationalizations raises further concerns about the viability of meaningful social equity analysis. Third, while it ha s been relatively easy to make normative arguments about what is socially equitable, it is far more difficult to define what social equity is in particular circumstances (Gooden & Myers, 2004) and even more difficult to identify the long term implications of how equity is defined (Chitwood, 1974; Maynard Moody & Mosheno, 2012; Riccucci, 2009). However, scholars have offered several suggestions to overcome these issues. In discussions on the problems
! "" with the social equity literature, Pitts (2011), Rosenbloo m (2005), and Svara and Brunet (2004, 2005) have provided the most thorough assessments. Given the comprehensiveness and importance of this work, this sub section reviews their arguments. Pitts More empirics needed to back up normative arguments Pitts (201 1) argues that scholars often simply reiterate normative arguments rather than engaging in empirical analysis regarding "whether policies and programs actually work", which would "[help] policy makers and practitioners assess and improve programs that are unsuccessful" (Pitts, 2011, p. i.77). The goal of research should be to provide information to policymakers and managers, which would not require an abandonment of normative arguments but would mandate using empirical work to inform those arguments. Indivi duals involved in such research "should ideally understand from the outset the different ways that stakeholders define equity and be able to predict whether they will react positively or negatively to different terms and labels", which "is essentially an e mpirical question about language, and one that even the simplest research designs would be able to effectively answer" (p i79). iv Pitts recommended that scholars focus on how social equity tools "improve  outcomes for service recipients and government e mployees", which "will help [them] understand what has the greatest potential for alleviating social inequities" (p. i79). The required research would likely need to be qualitative, which is the strongest research approach since it allows scholars "to delv e  more deeply into the causal mechanisms at work in this area" (p. i80). A qualitative approach would also allow scholars to explore how participants use language and to develop clearer conceptual and operational distinctions between social equity, div ersity, cultural competence, and representation (p. i80).
! "# Rosenbloom Social equity is inherently flawed In contrast to Pitts, Rosenbloom (2005) has questioned the utility of social equity as a pillar. v To Rosenbloom, it is obvious that more research is ne eded on topics that have implications for equal protection, due process, and fair outcomes, albeit with a greater focus on the intersections of politics, management, and law. One problem has been that much social equity research consists of case studies of limited scope and utility and often ignores the extent to which administrators "perceive unfairness and other negative effects of efforts to promote diversity" (p. 249). Data are often missing on how managers measure social equity functions (if such measu rements exist at all) (see Ammons, 2013). Rosenbloom is also critical of how scholars have approached understanding managers' roles under the law, which is especially problematic given that administrators' perceptions and understanding of the law could inf luence how they perceive whether an action is equitable (or not) and what to do about it (see Lipsky, 1980; Lynn, 2006). Rosenbloom asserted that scholars (e.g., Svara and Brunet, 2004) confound equity and social equity when linking the latter to procedura l fairness and due process. Due process, for instance, is "overwhelmingly an individual right, not one that protects large groups from unfair deprivation of liberty or property by government". As such, "Constitutional equal protection is better suited to t he social in social equity" (p. 248, emphasis added). vi Rosenbloom's largest criticism was that all social equity definitions are tautological and not operationalized. Many definitions do not consider or account for "competing ideas about what constitutes social equity in even simply distributional matters" (p. 248) and do not consider "the full impact of measures to achieve diversity" (p. 249). More specifically,
! "$ using a standard definition of social equity as being equal treatment in political systems, Ro senbloom noted that: public personnel systems and state universities would violate social equity by distinguishing between applicants who are intelligent and unintelligent, achievers and nonachievers, motivated and unmotivated, leaders and followers, honest and dishonest and still t he rich and the poor could be forbidden alike from sleeping on park benches. It is incumbent on those who would make social equity a mainstay  to strive to provide a clearer, operational definition. (p. 249) Lastly, Rosenbloom warned that social equity research runs the risk of stealing popular sovereignty. Citing the work of Thompson (1975), who extensively criticized new public administration scholarship, Rosenbloom noted that "being a profession of government, public administrators may be free to adv ocate values such as social equity, but they need democratic constitutional legitimation to impose those values on the political system" (p. 250). Without improvements designed to remedy the above, Rosenbloom questioned the utility of incorporating socia l equity as a pillar of public administration. At present, it is a pillar that agglomerates incompatible concerns and concepts. Rather than resort to research on pillars, Rosenbloom argued that management, politics, and law "provide a broader and stronger basis for U.S. public administration than the so called pillars of efficiency, effectiveness, and social equity" (p. 251). Svara and Brunet Social equity research raises awareness Svara and Brunet (2005) have overwhelmingly disagreed with Rosenbloom. Fir st, while they agreed that studies should better account for administrators' legal and constitutional roles and earlier characterized social equity as "hollow" (see Svara & Brunet, 2004), they noted problems with viewing constitutional protections as solel y being
! "% individually based. Constitutional protections for an individual's due process rights will have social implications if those targeted are part of historically disenfranchised groups, or suspect classifications (see Judith, 2005). Without realizing this fact and establishing administrative commitment to foster fairness, one might "tolerate instances of inequality out of concern that remedies might not pass the equal protection test" (p. 255). More precisely, "without an awareness of and concern for s ocial equity, administrators might simply follow the letter of the law or fail to question whether the law should be changed" and that "the concern for social equity also can guide administrators in the exercise of discretion under the law" (Svara & Brunet 2005, p. 253). However, the authors acknowledged that what is socially equitable will likely change in particular circumstances and can be operationalized differently depending upon context, so a focus on narrow, specific examples can ameliorate some co ncerns about being overly broad. Svara and Brunet proposed the following as the basis for future operational definitions: 1) procedural fairness; 2) distribution and access, or equity in availability of services/benefits; 3) Quality in services and benefit s; 4) Outcomes; and 5) Related responsibilities such as guaranteeing all groups places at the table to express views (pp. 256 257). vii Gooden: Examine How Accountability is Achieved Gooden (2015a) proposes that researchers must turn their attention to how ac countability is achieved. She argued that social equity has evolved through "five complex, enduring questions" that correspond roughly to decades (p. 211). These questions are not simply answered sequentially or addressed for a period and not addressed aga in. Rather, they
! "& demonstrate that understanding social equity requires understanding all of these questions and then achieving fairer outcomes for marginalized groups. These questions are: o What is the context for equality? (Pre 1960s) o Who is "we"? (1960s 1970s) o How much inequity exists? (1980s 1990s) o Why does social inequity persist? (2000s 2010s) o How is accountability for social equity achieved? (2010s and beyond). (p. 211) Concerning the fifth question, to Gooden, citing the work of Dubnick (2005), "accountability in government offers the promise of democracy, justice, ethical behavior, and performance" (p. 221). Further, Gooden uses the work by Johnson and Svara (2011) to articulate what achieving accountability for social equity means, namely that administrators: o Should speak out about social equity problems "attributable to policy commissions and omissions" (p. 275) o Need to engage in "imaginative and targeted outreach that makes affirmative efforts to reach underserved or high need groups" (pp. 276 277) o Have a duty to promote social equity, especially process equity, which consists of "equal access and opportunity, equal treatment and protection, and due process" (p. 277). o Can and should give issues of fairness the same priority as other issues, esp ecially "measuring performance and improving productivity" (p. 221). o Should "measure social equity and track progress in alleviating disparities" (p. 278). o "Must take proactive and creative action to ensure that all people, regardless of resources or indiv idual characteristics, have a place at the table when needs are identified, policy options discussed, and programs and services assessed" (p. 278). o "Must build partnerships with other organizations and the community to address equity issues" (p. 278). Th us, Gooden provides a testable framework. If agencies engage in the seven actions above, then accountability for social equity is closer to being achieved. Numerous Authors : Examine p erceptions to understand accountability Gooden's framework is most aki n to social accountability, or "[e]ngaging citizens in holding public officials and service providers accountable" (Brinkerhoff & Wetterberg, 2016,
! "' p. 274). The aim of social accountability is "[i]mproving the quality o f governance and democracy" and "[pro viding] a means to enable the disadvantaged and marginalized in society to express voice, claim rights, and realism state society relations to influence power distribution" (p. 275). The question remains how to measure accountability and the effects of ac countability systems especially in that "there is no gold standard'" (Biela, 2015, p. 24). Given that social equity most implicates social accountability, some authors suggest examining perceptions, particularly those of citizens (Klay & Cho, 2015) In democratic governance, administrators and policymakers ultimately are accountable to the people, particularly by encouraging maximum feasible participation and deliberative forums (Koliba et al., 2011). Accountability mechanisms ultimately must produce high level outcomes, especially greater citizen trust in government (Dubnick, 2005, 2015). Outcome indicators include both quantitative and qualitative aspects, such as "the number of individuals employed 6 [months] after participation in a job training program or percentage of residents who feel safe in their neighborhood" (Callahan, 2015, p. 2411). Measuring perceptions of accountability are ideal ways to "[capture] the outcome of the [accountability] system" ( Biela, 2015, p. 27). Outcome measures repor t consequences of programs, such as "service quality or impact", which includes customer or citizen satisfaction (Kim, 2015, p. 2426) and "[i]mprovement in the quality of life" (Julnes, 2015, p. 2402). Additional Suggestions It is clear that numerous pro blems are evident in the literature, in part methodological and in part fundamental. While there are concerns that social equity has become a hodge podge of topics that could easily stand on their own (or better subsumed under politics,
! "( management, and law ), the consensus is that social equity concerns are real and should be studied. The literature is replete with additional suggestions for social equity research. First, many scholars have advised using performance management to study how public organizatio ns have incorporated social equity indicators (Yang & Holzer, 2006), but the literature on social equity indicators is still in its infancy. This has emphasized defining, assessing, and testing metrics to determine the degrees to which policies and adminis trative actions are equitable, even if these measures are often the least numerable (Charbonneau & Riccucci, 2008). These approaches have seen some success as they help to address operationalization problems by linking what is socially equitable to indicat ors created by public organizations (Charbonneau et al., 2009). Second, scholars have recommended focusing on identity construction in social equity research, namely how the public, policymakers, and administrators view target groups and vice versa (Por tillo, 2008). More specifically, Gooden and Portillo (2011) recommended that social equity research should consider: 1) social construction of identity categories, specifically by moving beyond static characteristics of one defining features to intersectio ns of sexual orientation, age, ability, and education; 2) organizational context; 3) ways to remedy social inequities; 4) race and gender factored in analyses as more than control variables; 5) operational definitions of equity; 6) equity assessment guidel ines; 7) clearer equity performance measures; and 8) identification of equity's core dimensions (see Bearfield, 2009). Third, since equity issues are inherently broad, foci on specific bureaucracies and narrower social equity concerns (i.e., specific rights) are warranted. One suggestion has been to detail how courts have defined these rights given that: 1) federal courts have helped to
! ") define what constitutes equal protection (and, by consequence, social equity); and 2) since public administrators must have constitutional competence, inclusion of case law likely would need to play a role (see Rosenbloom & Carroll, 1990). F inally, given the complexity of case law, a narrower focus on the intersections of equal protection (i.e., the Fourteenth Amendment) and a specific protection in the Bill of Rights (see Yoshino, 2011) would be required. Section Summary At a minimum, resear ch should begin by considering the role social equity plays as an input and how outcomes differ between the advantaged and disadvantaged (Riccucci, 2009). Syncretically, scholars have noted that any fruitful study of social equity would need to: 1) focus o n one aspect that has implications for groups (i.e., equal protection and not due process) in a specific type of public organization; 2) relate how courts have shaped the meaning of equity vis Âˆ vis that specific aspect; 3) detail administrators' constitut ional obligations and indicate how political authorities have shaped enactment; 4) have a management component, specifically through examining performance management criteria vis Âˆ vis social equity and how public organizations use these criteria; 5) offer narrow, testable operational definitions that reference how courts have defined equity; 6) consider how social constructions influence social equity as both input and output; 7) examine the role of diversity in the pursuit of social equity in a public org anization; 8) go beyond case studies and description to try to explain how variables interact using both qualitati ve and quantitative approaches; and 9) examine how agencies achieve accountability for social equity particularly by examining how accountabi lity systems affect citizen perceptions
! "* Research Questions and Outline of Remaining Chapters Svara and Brunet's (2004) characterization of social equity as "hollow" is likely accurate. However, given the purported importance of the pillar, empirical work is needed to "add material". Thus the overarching goal of the study is to begin to address th e following : how can scholars fill the social equity pillar to make it co equal to and as useful as the other pillars ? Since the literature is a collection of studies, no one study can fulfill the prior goal, but this study can help provide a way forward. Two steps are required: 1) forwarding a new more specific definition of social equity; and 2) studying a specific social equity issue in practice. Concerning the first step, the next chapter argues social equity must be rooted in government's legal oblig ations to provide equal protection of the law (see Rosenbloom, 2005, 2013). Concerning the second step, the focus is policing and pretextual stops. Social Equity: A lens on policing Public administration scholars have long been interested in how police do or do not foster equity (Frederickson, 2010). Police are both agents of social control and constitutional stewards serving a sovereign public (see Sklansky, 2007 a ). They are the epitome of front line bureaucrats with whom citizens interact extensively (Li psky, 1980). These interactions often occur in pretextual stops, which take place when police temporarily detain and search a pedestrian or motorist under the reasonable suspicion that a violation of the law is or is about to be in progress. A reasonable s top could be for something as innocuous as speeding or jaywalking or for something as serious as drug running (Johnson, 2004; see also Washington State Patrol, 2004/2008). In its ruling in Terry v. Ohio (1968), the Supreme Court of the United States upheld such stops as constitutional. The ruling also established the "reasonable
! #+ suspicion doctrine", a n outgrowth of Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures and one applicable solely to individuals being detained by police. A lat er ruling in Whren v. United States (1996) noted that race cannot be the only factor influencing a stop. Based on these rulings, many state and local statutes give police extensive powers to stop pedestrians and motorists (Withrow, 2007) albeit so long as such powers do not conflict with established federal laws, court rulings, and constitutional protections (Ducat, 2012). The concern among scholars and equity advocates is that Whren legitimized racial profiling Data on stop rates suggest that racial profiling could be extensive For instance, s everal analyses reveal that minorities are stopped, searched, and arrested in greater numbers than Caucasians (Gelman et al., 2007; Missouri Attorney General, 2013), although some scholars assert the evi dence is unclear or can be subject to misinterpretation (see Theobald & Haider Markel, 2006, 2009). Most data indicate that police stop African Americans in higher proportions than any other race (Dunn, 2009; Glowicki, 2014). This has led many to note the dangers of "Driving While Black": African Americans are at great likelihood to experience police racism, inequity, and brutality ( Meeks, 2000; see also Debnam & Beck, 2011; Hurwitz & Peffley, 2005). Many police departments have justified higher rates of st ops, searches, and arrests of minorities by arguing that some minorities commit more crime or are more belligerent with police (Piquero, 2008). As many officers say, police profile problems, not people (Williams & Stahl, 2008). However, these stops occur i n some form in all 50 US states (Withrow, 2007). These findings raise questions about the extent police do or do not protect minorities' constitutional rights (Batton & Kadleck, 2004).
! #" The constitutional implications of these stops, often called "Terry sto ps" after the aforementioned US Supreme Court ruling that upheld them as constitutional, are best exemplified in public consciousness by New York's "stop and frisk" policy. This policy, established under New York's Criminal Procedure Law Â¤ 140.50 and based on the Terry decision, provides police broad powers to stop and detain both pedestrians and motorists (CBSNews, 2012). In 2011, the New York Police Department detained roughly 684,000 people, primarily of African American or Latino descent (New York Civil Liberties Union, 2012/2014). However, a recent federal court ruling in Floyd, et al. v. City of New York (2013) found that "stop and frisk" was unconstitutional because it violated both Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure as well as due process and equal protection, respectively The ruling mandated both a stop to the practice as well as substantive changes to policing practice, such as police wearing body cameras. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit blocked this order, and a final ruling is still pending (Kalhan, 2013, 2014; Vaughn, 2013). Despite the seemingly obvious implications for public administration scholarship, scholarly understanding of policing and p retextual stops is much better developed in the criminal justice literature. Many studies of pretextual stops use government collected data, which usually involve basic counts of stops broken down by race of the detainee (see Missouri Attorney General, 201 3; New York Civil Liberties Union, 2012/2014; Washington State Patrol, 2001, 2004/2008). Other states, such as North Carolina, collect and publish data on numerous variables, such as the initial purpose of traffic stop broken down by driver's sex, race, an d ethnicity, among others (North Carolina Department of Justice, 2014). Scholarly studies use these data to conduct statistical analyses, such as gravity modeling, that
! ## attempt to ascertain if police stop minorities disproportionately with respect to the p opulation (e.g., Farrell et al., 2003). Other methods are extant as well. For instance, many scholars have used the Police Public Contact Survey (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2014). Other scholars examine how individual and department level factors influ ence how and when officers do or do not make a stop, such as the effects of academy training (Bass, 2001), police culture (Mastrofski, 2004), individual officers' attitudes toward race (Ramirez et al., 2000), officer perceptions of a citizen's attitude (En gel et al., 2011), and others. While criminal justice literature has a better understanding of individual and departmental aspects of policing and pretextual stops, it has a less developed understanding of the administrative and public dimensions. Public administration scholarship can positively add to the discussion in two ways. First, it adds the lens of social equity and its mandate that policy formulation and implementation treat citizens fairly (see Durlauf, 2005; Engel, 2005; Taylor, 2001). viii In this way, public administration research captures publicness often define d as public servants serving the public interest (see Pesch, 2008). Second, public administration provides the tools associated with the study of politics, management, and the law (Rosenbloom, 2013). The law interacts with politics and management to both empower and constrain public administrators when they serve the public interest (see Pesch, 2008 ; Rosenbloom, 2005; Rosenbloom et al., 2008; Walker & Bozeman, 2011 ). The effects of several public factors implicating equity remain underexplored, such as political variables related to policymaker and community pressures as well as differences in state laws, as well as the managerial effects of representative bureaucracy, performance me asurement, cultural competence, and others. C riminal justice and public administration literat ures need one
! #$ another: the former provides insight into stop rates, officers, and departments; the latter provides insights into how politics, management, and law play out on the public stage. However, to date, no study in either public administration or criminal justice has examined the interactions between politics, management, and law vis Âˆ vis social equity in policing and pretextual stops. Nevertheless, the time is right for such research. Several r ecent news stories especially the shooting of Michael Brown in Missouri, highlight the need to understand departmental factors as well as the administrativeness and publicness of policing and race given officers' roles as frontline administrators and stewards of constitutional rights operating under the rule of law (see McGee, 2014). Further, given the need to examine social equity accountability (Gooden, 2015a), this research is an ideal way to examine how police agencies achieve accountability, particularly by measuring the outcomes of policing, namely citizen perceptions. Several authors recommend examining citizen perceptions of accountability as a way to understand what affects citizen trust in the p olice. For instance, Walker (2007) noted the "absence of any literature on the relationship between accountability procedures and the perceived legitimacy of the police [as related to] racial and ethnic tensions" (p. 23). Walker recommended that researcher s ask whether "accountability mechanisms have a positive impact on police community relations and the perceived legitimacy of the police" (p. 23 emphasis added ). This is especially important to understand given how varied police accountability mechanisms are, particularly those that try to illicit more citizen involvement versus those that warrant only occasional meetings with citizens (Kelling et al., 1988). Further, examining perceptions allows a better understanding of how minority communities and polic e interact,
! #% especially given that perceptions influence behavior and that communities share perceptions that shape behavior (Davis, 2000, p. 2). Thus, while the context of this study is to begin to improve social equity literature, the focus on social equity in policing and pretextual stops leads to two research questions. First, what political, managerial, and legal factors affect citizen perceptions of social equity in policing ? Second, how do these factors affect citizen perceptions of social equity in policing? The following chapter reviews literature on the current state of social equity literature, the need to refocus social equity investigations on the intersections of politics, management, and law, and the political, managerial, and legal underpinnings of pretextual stops and racial inequities in police practice. The third chapter presents the methodology that meets the eight criteria outlined in the previous section. Given calls to move the field beyond focusing on efficiency, effectivenes s, and rationality and to performance evaluation, management, law, and new directions, the time is right for further research. Hopefully, this study through an empirical investigation of a relevant topic, will help fill a hollow social equity pillar and f ulfill the scholarly mandate to continue making the field relevant in the 21 st century, especially in terms of improving administrative and policy outcomes for disenfranchised groups (see Frederickson, 2010; O'Leary et al., 2010; Svara & Brunet, 2004, 2005 ).
! #& CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW Despite social equity being a pillar of public administration, scholars acknowledge that it is difficult to study and find it proble matic to define conceptually As such, most discussions of social equity eschew empirics in favor of normative arguments, despite the need for both (Pitts, 2011). More problematically, despite these difficulties, there is near universal recognition that social equity research is needed because social equity captures public and administrative concerns not subsumed by efficiency, effectiveness, and economy (Norman Major, 2011). It is as if scholars know social equity has much to contribute but are not entirely certain how to make the pillar live up to its promise. Before research can progress, clarifying the term conceptually is necessary. The following review has nine section s. The first three sections review literature on how scholars have defined social equity. The purpose is to develop a new, syncretic, and testable definition. The n f our sections survey literature on policing and pretextual stops as well as implicated legal political, and managerial concept s This is followed by a section that details scholarly suggestions on how to investigate both policing, pretextual stops and social equity A final section summarizes the literature review and forwards propositions to t est Underpinnings of Social Equity Research History and Philosophy Most scholars associate social equity with the pursuit and fulfillment of democratic rights and fairer administrative and policy outcomes (Frederickson, 2010), particularly for minorities (Francis, 2014; Rice, 2004). In so doing, scholars implicitly or exp licitly reference three traditions, all of which form the historical and philosophical underpinnings of social equity research. These are necessary to detail not only because of their prevalence in the
! #' literature but also to establish that the difficulty o f defining social equity is in part due to scholars unknowingly employing concepts from distinct and possibly mutually exclusive traditions. Religious and Early Social Contract Traditions The first is a natural rights tradition that defines rights as originating outside of humanity (e.g., deity; natural law; Platonist form; a priori principle). Many of these notions were formulated during the English European Enlightenment and are evident i n the works of Hobbes (1660/1982), Locke (1689/1986), and writings on deism (Holmes, 2006). ix These traditions are still commonly referenced in policy debates and court rulings (Bellah, 1967; Neuman, 2013). x Proponents usually argue that the chief role of g overnment is to protect rights recognized by the US Founders and to interpret laws in this vein (Bellah, 1967; Ducat, 2012; Neuman, 2013). Those who ascribe to this view usually self identify as Originalists (Scalia, 2013) (see Appendix A) However, when policymakers employ Originalist interpretations of natural rights, it is more likely to see groups excluded from protections (see Miller et al., 2004). For instance, supporters of these positions often argue that certain minority groups should not receive constitutional protections for two reasons. First, if the Founders who ratified the Bill of Rights and the Congresspersons and state legislators who passed and ratified the Fourteenth Amendment did not consider particular groups under the intended aegis of protection, then a group is not entitled to a particular right (Linder, 2012). Second, if a decision to protect a group is counter to democratic processes and consists of the courts acting to "create" a right not explicitly noted or implied in the Constit ution then the right is not democratically legitimate (Scalia, 2013; see also MacNeal, 2014). xi Originalists often assert that creating
! #( new rights is permissible, such as a right to an abortion, but that creating new rights should only occur in legislature s, not courts (Greene et al., 2011; Scalia, 2013). In contrast, others who support more non Originalist natural rights positions have argued that the Founders meant to protect the "discovery" of new natural rights, as is evident in the adoption of the Nin th Amendment to the US Constitution (Stevens, 2011, 2014). xii For instance, proponents often argue that all individuals have inalienable rights to privacy but that modern societies recognize different privacy rights than did earlier societies, such as privacy involving homosexual sex or reproductive choices (McAffee et al., 2006). As such, the courts can play an integral role in recognizing new rights that legislatures do n ot (Stevens, 2011, 2014). Cognitive Traditions The second tradition argues that values, which determine conceptions of rights, are cognitive "short cuts" that allow individuals to deal with complexity, filter information, and provide heuristics governing choices and actions (deWaal, 1996; Simon, 1955, 1957, 1973, 1983, 1995; Sinnott Armstrong, 2007a, 2007b; Sobel & Li, 2013). Rather than being immutable, inalienable, natural rights that come from a deity, nature, Platonist form, or a priori principle, righ ts in this tradition are crea ted by cognitive processing of influences related to socialization and the environment More specifically, children receive, encode, emulate, and reinforce moral and ethical principles and then continually reinterpret and apply these as adults, which helps create ordered, mental paradigms of the world (Bermudez, 2010; Berns, 2012; Grusec & Conger, 2009; Wyatt, 2008). These paradigms are far from logically consistent as many individuals only vaguely define values and often do so e xtemporaneously (Chong, 1993; Paivio, 1969, 1971, 1986). xiii Most administrative theories of rationality
! #) (especially bounded rationality) and policy process theories incorporate notions from this tradition (Frederickson & Smith, 2003; Schlager, 2007). Social Constructivist and Modern Social Contract Traditions The third tradition concerns public discourse, social construction, and modern social contract theory. This tradition borrows heavily from continental European social constructivist and deconstructionis t philosophies (Fischer, 1980; Foucault, 1975/1977; Habermas, 1962, 1990; Hume, 1777/1999; Scruton, 2001). In this tradition, public discourse, common consent, language games, and power manipulation define rights such as equity, determine beneficiaries, an d posit how government should protect those rights (Pope, 2013). For instance, Fischer (1980) used the continental European social constructivist philosophies of Foucault and Habermas to argue that public policies arise in discursive, meta philosophical di alectics over the meaning of values, which then influence the content of policy (see also Cahoone, 1996; Toulmin, 1953). In short, to Fischer, these terms gain their meaning through the public discourse, and competition over their meaning influences the co ntent of policy (see Sabatier & Weible, 2007; Zald, 1995). Other philosophers have sought to combine natural rights and social constructivist positions to argue that rights come from outside humanity but tha t public discourses create the meaning of the ter ms that people use (MacIntyre, 1967, 1981, 1988, 1990). xiv This tradition heavily emphasizes a modern social contract position that societies and governments must ethically maintain social justice values. This position is most associated with Rawls (1971), who many scholars view as providing the strongest normativ ely philosophical influence on social equity (Frederickson, 2010; Guy & McCandless, 2012). To Rawls, the debate over public meaning is a function of who participates in the debate (see
! #* Ingram et al., 2007). If minorities have no access, then policymakers w ill likely not factor in their concerns or fully protect what should be their rights or the rights already guaranteed to them Further, Rawls rejected the existence of immutable, universal definition s of concepts like equity yet acknowledged that in the ab sence of government protection, rights in the abstract had little meaning (see Arendt, 1955). Justice, then, is a function of two socially constructed contractual positions. First, "each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others" (Rawls, 1971, p. 53). Second, a society should address any inequality by (a) giving the greatest benefit to society's least advantaged members, and (b) ensuring that offices and positions are open to everyone, or free equality of opportunity. In this tradition, what is equitable is often contrasted with Originalist approaches and often emphasizes Living Constitutionalist positions (see Beard, 1936; Linder, 2011). xv Unlike Originalists, who purport not to conside r the current society's values when making decisions and focus instead on what words in legal documents meant to those who ratified them (see Scalia, 1997, 2013), Living Constitutionalists assert that going back to original meanings makes little sense sinc e societal understandings of and expectations towards rights have changed (Ducat, 2012). The presumption is that affordance of rights should be as expansive as possible so that disenfranchised groups do not disproportionately bear costs, and not benefits, of policy (Tribe & Matz, 2014), even if the act of doing so is against democratic processes. Thus, the protection of rights usurps considerations of efficiency, effectiveness, and economy (see Linder, 2011; Rosenbloom et al., 2008). xvi As such, scholars exp licitly or implicitly reference three distinct and possibly mutually exclusive historical and philosophical traditions when discussing social equity.
! $+ Without clarifying how they are using such terms, scholars will continue to develop fundamentally inconsis tent and paradigmatically conflicting conceptual definitions. A new approach that does not employ conflicting assumptions is needed. The answer can be found by analyzing how scholars have defined and studied social equity thus far. Social Equity Research: Definitions and Studies Literature published prior to the late 1960s did not actively use equity and most scholars employed the term in passing or often without reference to disadvantages faced by minorities. However, this changed after Public Administration Review's 1974 symposium on "Social Equity and Public Administration" which was a record of the discussions of the first Minnowbrook Conference (Guy & McCandless, 2012). This symposium was a cornerstone of New Public Administratio n sc holarship, whose proponents argued that the drafting and implementation of public policy had too few considerations of equity (Frederickson, 1971, 1974, 2010). Now, thanks in large part to new public administration scholars, few modern scholars dispute equ ity's place as a pillar of the field. Despite social equity's purported importance, scholars generally agree that it remains underdeveloped (see Norman Major, 2011). An analysis of the literature demonstrates that: 1) applied social equity literature is l acking; 2) parallel literatures (e.g., representative bureaucracy) are relatively more developed (see Keiser, 2010); and 3) uses of social equity fall into one of three distinct groups. Regardless, hidden within these problems lies the key to defining soci al equity successfully. Passing References to Social Equity Most literature employing social equity consists of scholars noting the concept's general importance (see Rutledge, 2002) or using it as a lens to examine a particular practice
! $" (e.g., Condrey & Battaglio, 2007). xvii A literature search conducted by this author revealed that social equity is referenced in almost 1,000 public affairs articles. xviii However, offhanded references comprise the bulk, such as discussing its growing importance in the 1960s and 1970s (Bowman, 1998), its function in policy/law debates (Nalbandian, 1989), or that it is a goal of policy formulation and implementation (Brintna ll, 2008). After passing references, the literature's discussion of social equity falls into two sub groups: 1) normative arguments about why public administration scholars and practitioners should take the study and application of social equity more serio usly, especially in terms of Master of Public Administration (MPA) education; and 2) proposed conceptual and operational definitions. Taking social equity seriously xix Regarding normative arguments such as those by Gooden (2008, 2011), Norman Major (2011), as well as Pitts (2011) are typical: social equity studies are caught between, on one hand, unmet calls for more literature, and on the other hand, little movement in using empirics to foster better administrative and policy outcomes for disenfranchised g roups. However, many discussions are contextualized by scholars noting that MPA students need to know more about equity issues and the extensive implications it has for public administration and management (see Gianakis & Snow, 2008; Gooden & Portillo, 201 1; Gooden & Wooldridge, 2007; Nalbandian & Klingner, 1987; O'Leary et al., 2010; Rosenbloom, 2005; Svara & Brunet, 2004, 2005; Wooldrige & Gooden, 2009). Chapter 1 covered many of the important studies in this sub group. Conceptual Definitions. Many scholars propose conceptual and operational definitions of what equity means beyond "fairness". The problem is that having so many definitions does not foster conceptual clarity, which led Svara and Brunet (2004, 2005) to
! $# characterize social equity defini tions as "hollow". Conceptual definitions form the basis of operational definitions, so clarifying social equity is an important step to defining it operationally (see Van de Ven, 2007). Numerous conceptual definitions are extant. Svara and Brunet (2004) s uggested four elements to "add material to the pillar": 1) administrators' "ethical and legal obligation to ensure that Constitutional rights are protected"; 2) distributional equity; 3) "consistency in the quality of existing services delivered to groups and individuals"; and 4) an "examination of whether policies and programs have the same impact for all groups and individuals served" (pp. 101 102). In a later article, Svara and Brunet (2005) suggested procedural fairness, fairness in distribution and acc ess, fairness of outcome, quality of services, and guaranteeing all a place at the table. Relatedly, the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA, 2014) proposed: 1) procedural fairness (i.e., due process, equal protection, hiring/promotion policies ); 2) distributional equity (i.e., equal access, targeted intervention, commitment to use resources to achieve fair results); 3) process equity (i.e., consistency in service delivery regardless of distributional criterion); and 4) outcome disparities (i.e. probing why disparities might exist). Other scholars have suggested focusing social equity definitions on the degree to which diversity, representation, and cultural competence are incorporated into government work (Gooden & Portillo, 2011; see also Goo den & Myers, 2004). Diversity, which is simply variation amongst the population based upon a particular demographic variable (Harrison & Klein, 2007), has provided a useful analytical concept to examine equity. For instance, Riccucci (2009) examined divers ity in government hiring and promotions and demonstrated that outcomes differ between dominant and minority groups. Similarly, representation and
! $$ representative bureaucracy involve minorities gaining access to positions of power (Selden, 1997b). Similar to diversity literature, representative bureaucracy literature demonstrates how outcomes for minorities differ depending on the degree to which minorities are represented in public bureaucracies and on the level of authority, discretion, and power they can e xercise (Keiser, 2010; Kennedy, 2014). Lastly, Gooden and Portillo (2011) recommended the inclusion of cultural competence as part of social equity, which refers to an individual's growing abilities to engage another individual's or community's cultural co ntext successfully (see Campbell & Campbell, 1996; Carrizales, 2010). However, Alexander and Stivers (2010) noted that the place of cultural competence in public administration scholarship is uncertain since the dominant view is that cultural competence is "obsolete or counterproductive" but that management approaches to incorporating issues of race into practice are inadequate (p. 578). Others have argued that social equity conceptual definitions must employ both normative /substantive and procedural dimensions. The former concerns citizens' perceptions of equity and fairness of outcome whereas the latter concerns government practice and the fairness of procedures used (Tyler, 2001). This distinction is important. As noted by Frederickson (2 010), i t is difficult to overstate the importance of citizen perceptions of social equity given that the mandate of social equity is to provide better outcomes for citizens, particularly minorities, and since citizens are supposed to be both the sovereign source of the political authority (Frederickson, 2010). Similarly, some have noted how social equity" overlaps with terms like "social justice" (see Candler et al., 2009). As noted by Frederickson (2010), social equity" and "social justice" are related b ut distinct: "social justice" involves
! $% the broad goal of achieving a better society whereas social equity" is the administrative and policy processes involved with realizing that goal. xx Overlaps in definitions. This diversity of opinion but lack of conse nsus led Norman Major (2011) to argue that, if anything, social equity might have too many definitions. In an attempt to resolve this quandary, Norman Major, Gooden (2008), and Gooden and Myers (2004b) recommended analyzing the effects of administration and policy on social equity. Gooden (2008) has termed this "social equity analysis" and argued that public administration scholars have a duty to study equity so as to improve social equity outcomes for all citizens. Relatedly, Norman Major argued that a fruitful approach might be to use benchmarks, surveys, and statistics to analyze the effects of procedural fairness (pp. 238, 241). Both approaches are inherently difficult because scholars must consider numerous factors that link democratic values and legislative intent with administrative actions and practices (see Johnson & Rivera, 2007; Johnson & Svara, 2011). Despite lacking conceptual clarity a nd often haphazardly referencing the three aforementioned and mutually exclusive historical and philosophical traditions, the previous conceptual definitions demonstrate remarkable overlap in four specific ways. First, there is widespread agreement that so cial equity must include protections afforded under the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof, such as due process and equal protection. Even Rosenbloom (2005), who has been the most critical about the usefulness of social equity as pillar of public administration, seems to be in agreement with this position Second, social equity definitions usually refer to incorporating minorities as part of government and decisionmaking processes, and that administrators should subsume diversity, represent ative ness and cultural issues under the aegis of social equity Third, all definitions
! $& have some normative injunction that government outputs should foster comparable quality of service delivery and access to government decisionmaking across groups. Fourt h, all definitions implicitly or explicitly reference the i mportance of citizen perceptions of social equity since the sovereignty of the people is the source of government's authority. These overlaps, discussed further later in this chapter, form the basis for a new definition of social equity. The Third Group The third and smallest group of studies employing social equity comprises direct investigations of social equity in practice. As noted by Gooden and Myers (2004b), these works might be better con ceived as "social equity analysis" since they investigate the degree to which government practices do or do not achieve social equity. All studies in this group test a specific operationalization of social equity and either conceptually define social equit y as akin to "fairness" or avoid conceptual definitions entirely (see Collins, 2006; Sneed, 2007). This literature broadly overlaps with literature on administrative and democratic values, performance management, public sector motivation, administrative cu lture, representative bureaucracy, and social construction. Exemplar topics are how to foster equity in school service delivery or in achieving racial and gender proportionality in government hiring and promotion practices (see Dunn, 2009; Jennings, 2004; Pitts, 2009; Pitts & Wise, 2010; Riccucci, 1987, 2002, 2009; Riccucci & Meyers, 2004; Tienken & Orlich, 2013). Despite the prima facie validity of social equity analysis, engaging in such research merely "sidestep[s] the definitional conundrum" without res olving the underlying lack of conceptual clarity or agreement on meaning (Rosenbloom, 2005, p. 248).
! $' Several studies are emblematic of this third group of literature. For instance, one study operationally linked equity to performance results that result fr om matching policy needs with policy responses (Collins & Gerber, 2008). Another investigated public support and willingness to pay for urban public education and employed an operationalization rooted in quantifying socioeconomic disparities between groups (Glaser et al., 2012). In a study of a nationally representative sample of gifted and talented programs and the impacts of minority representation vis Âˆ vis distributional equity of bureaucratic outputs, social equity was operationalized as a population p roportion (Nicholson Crotty et al., 2011). xxi Few articles explicitly link policing with social equity. One author operationalized social equity as "equal treatment of the innocent with respect to race" in the context of efficiency (Durlauf, 2005, p. 134). More specifically, Durlauf argued that advoca tes of policies violating fair treatment should demonstrate how the violation fulfills a social need and that "the efficiency effects are sufficient to overcome the fairness violation" (p.135). Finally, Engel (2005) employed Tyler's (2001) distinction of n ormative/substantive versus procedural equity when analyzing data from the Police Public Contact Survey. Findings indicated that, on one hand, citizen perceptions of police injustice seem to be normatively based on their perceptions of equity and fairness, and, on the other, citizens view equity as fair treatment during administrative outcomes of policing (e.g., receiving a ticket). This finding parallels extensively with the four overlaps in conceptual definitions noted in the previous sub section. A New P illar Three problems with defining social equity are evident. First, discussing equity references at least three distinct interpretations on the origins and meaning of rights each of
! $( which are built upon distinct epistemological and ontological assumption s Without clarifying these assumptions behind definitions and by defining social equity outside of democratic and meta discursive practices, scholars run the risk of usurping popular sovereignty and employing invalid and unreliable definitions (Rosenbloom 2005; Thompson, 1975; Van de Ven, 2007; see also Fischer, 1980). Relatedly, without such clarifications, the literature c an not move beyond simply rehashing normative arguments to the detriment of empirics (Pitts, 2011). More simply, being clear about und erlying assumptions and concepts is a fundamental requirement for any philosophy of science (Van de Ven, 2007; see Appendix B). Second, while there is agreement to a degree on what social equity should include, some definitions present conflicting requirements. For instance, most definitions do not define rights accurately, conflate individual rights with group rights, and propose normativ e elements of what policies should be versus what they are (Rosenbloom, 2005). Third, some scholars present arguments for more pragmatic social equity analysis without resolving the underlying problem of conceptual clarity. This move remains questionable. Since determining if something is or is not another thing requires some comparison to a broader, valid, agreed upon definition, it is not possible to indicate the degree to which something is or is not equitable without firs t defining what "fairness" is ( see Chitwood, 1974; Gooden & Myers, 2004 a,b; Habermas, 1984, 1987, 1990; Niiniluoto, 1980; Singleton & Straits, 2010; Tilly, 2007). xxii This is also problematic given that p ublic administrators often have to implement laws that social equity scholars have considered unfair, such as certain tax policies (Rosenbloom, 2005). xxiii
! $) Thus, there is little question that i n order to make social equity a useable, empirical pillar, the first step is to clarify the term conceptually. Only then will it be possible to give the field a paradigm and create testable, logically consistent, reflexive, reliable, and valid operational definitions (see Kuhn, 1962; Mingers, 2004; Putnam, 1993; Singleton & Straits, 2010; Van de Ven, 2007). xxiv The following sub sections propose a process for doing so. Critical realism offers the insight that a researcher should simultaneously acknowledge that he or she has a priori cognitive frameworks which affect his/her perception of the world" but also that scholars should take steps to be as objective as possible in studying a complex world (Van de Ven, 2007, p. 39; also pp. 58 70). Thus, this position supports that sc holars must focus not on defending their own normative definitions but must identify and study the definitions employed by those implicated in the research process. This involves three steps: a) rooting social equity in the rule of law; b) casting the equa l protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as the right most associated with social equity; c) measuring administrative and policy outputs and empirically commenting on the effects of administration and policy ; and d) noting the degree to which admini strative and policy actions do or do not fulfill government's legal social equity obligations and/or documenting the administrative and policy effects, both intended and unintended, implicating equal protection. The rule of law. Scholars agree that social equity must incorporate the rule of law, and all major conceptual definitions do so to some degree. However, the argument herein is that the rule of law must be the basis for social equity, not merely incorporate it. As noted by Rosenbloom (2013), it is es sential to "ground frameworks in what public administration does or is legally mandated to do" (p. 384).
! $* Since what is fair differs depending upon target population and policy area, the distinction between government obligations versus normative preference s is important for policies that implicate fairness (Rosenbloom et al., 2008). xxv Policies that implicate fairness usually concern procedural and constitutional guarantees, modifications to how government allocates public goods administrative processes related to addressing differences in outcomes for groups, and both intended and unintended outcome disparities (see NAPA, 2014). Ultimately, what empowers administrators to act is the authority from and accountability to elected legislatures and court systems, who in turn received their authority from a sovereign public ( Middlekauf, 2007; Rosenbloom et al., 2008; Sklansky, 2007 a ). While administrators have extensive discretion to implement the law and even to make policy while do ing so, they are still accountable to the people through constitutional bodies like legislatures and courts (see Goggin et al., 1990; Rosenbloom et al., 2008; Svara, 1985; 1998, 1999, 2001, 2006, 2008). Thus while legislatures have the primary function of creating legislation and courts have the primary responsibility for adjudication, both legislatures and the courts create the rule of law, especially concerning rights (Rosenbloom, 2013). What administrators are obligated to do come primarily a five part legal chain beginning with the US Constitution and ending with administrative rules and procedures (Rosenbloom, 1983, 2013). More specifically, these include: 1) the US Constitution (specifically the Supremacy Clause in Article VI xxvi the Bill of Rights, an d the Fourteenth Amendment's binding of state and local governments to due process and equal protection); 2) laws passed by the US Congress; 3) state constitutions and laws; 4) local ordinances ; and
! %+ 5) administrative rules and procedures (Ducat, 2012; Gre ve, 2013; Linder, 2011, 2014; Rosenbloom et al., 2008; Sobel, 2012). Thus, "the rule of law" is really a combination of laws as well as court rulings. Both empower and bind front line bureaucrats and are the sources authorizing administrative action (Rosen bloom, 1983, 2005, 2013; see also Goggin et al., 1990; Lipsky, 1980). Administrators have no legal obligation to provide anything not mandated in or stemming from these sources. Equal protection. Since social equity scholars often argue that policies violate citizens' rights, it is imperative that scholars define those rights accurately in terms of government's legal obligations. For instance, Rosenbloom (2005) noted that many social equity defini tions conflate individual right s with group rights. Due process, a common element in many social equity definitions, is actually an individual right. Svara and Brunet (2005) countered that individual rights such as due process implicate groups if a lack of protection is widespread amongst a group. xxvii The way forward is to associate social equity with equal protection, a broader protection, and not due process (Rosenbloom, 2005). The legal sources of government's equal protection obligations come from the Fou rteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, which incorporates the provisions of the Bill of Rights against the states (and later local governments) and implicitly protects groups as well as individuals (see the "Law" section below for more) (Linder, 2014 ; Nelson, 1998; Yoshino, 2011). Such a characterization avoids the factual and legal error of conflating a per sonal right with a group right and more clearly defines government's legal social equity obligations. Studying observable outputs. A legal focus p uts the onus of defining obligations and rights on administrative and policy actors as well as democratic processes (Fischer,
! %" 1980). This helps scholars move beyond simplistic formulations of "social equity is fairness" and avoid s problems associated with singularly, undemocratically xxviii normatively, and competitively defining social equity (Thompson, 1975; see Habermas, 1990; Hendrickx, 1999; Kettl, 2014; Rosenbloom, 2005; Rosenbloom et al., 2008). Sources of government obligations can be from any of the fi ve different levels of authority (Ducat, 2012; Greenhouse, 2012; Lash, 2014; Nelson, 1998; Roebuck, 1996; Stevens, 2011, 2014; Yoshino, 2011). xxix Further, a legal focus allows for a cleaner investigation of how administrators: a) exercise the public's sovere ignty; b) translate and meet legislative intent, especially if such intent is unclear or conflicting; c) are affected by factors related to political, social, and organizational dynamics; and d) use their discretion and value systems in policy implementati on (Bertelli & Lynn, 2006; Birkland, 2011; Drahozal, 2004; Fischer, 1980; Goggin et al., 1990; Funk & Searmon, 2011; Greve, 2013; Kettl, 2014; Kosar & Schachter, 2011; Levy, 1999; Lipsky, 1980; Rosenbloom et al., 2008; Shea, 2011; Shiffrin & Chopper, 2011; Sobel, 2012). Normative Dimensions Remain. Finally, such a process does not eschew normative arguments but, rather, offers empirics for ammunition in the scholarly mandate to improve outcomes for minorities underserved by government (see Frederickson, 2010; Gooden, 2008; Pitts, 2011). The largest differences from earlier definitions is that investigating social equity in this way resolves the concern that social equity definitions ignore the rule of law while still offering useful critique s of administration and policy. There are three primary advantages of having a legally focused social equity pillar. First, it avoids the trap of a scholar contributing to competing definitions and focuses on how the law defines or implicates social equit y and how administrators implement the law (see
! %# Hendrickx, 1999; Van de Ven, 2007). Since a researcher studies how well public administrators do or do not live up to government's own equity obligations the research process is sounder from a critical reali st perspective (Van den Ven, 2007). xxx Second, such a focus allows for stronger social equity analysis in that it is possible to: a) determine the extent to which administrators do or do not achieve equity goals outlined in policy; b) study outputs, outcomes and impact impacts without defaulting to purely normative arguments; c) indicate the effects of those outcomes on minority populations; and d) point to the degree to which legal obligations conflict with one another (see Schwartz, 2012). More specificall y, unlike a basic formulation of "equity is fairness", administrative actions can be measured (McKelvey, 1999; McKelvey, 2002). xxxi Further, with the focus on the law and administrative actions, it is possible to examine how related concepts, such as cultural competence, diversity, public sector motivation, administrative culture, and representation i mpact how administrators implement the law (see Gooden, 2008, 2011; Gooden & Myers, 2004 a, b; Gooden et al., 2009; Gooden & Portillio, 2011; Gooden & Wooldridge, 2007; Riccucci, 1987, 2002, 2009; Riccucci & Meyers, 2004; Riccucci et al., 2014; Svara & Brunet, 2004, 2005). Third, a scholar is still able to contribute to normative arguments as well as offer advice and critiques to administrators and pol icymaker on implementation (see Goggin et al., 1990; Lipsky, 1980; Norman Major, 2011; Pitts, 2011; Pressman & Wildavsky, 1973/1984; Starkey & Madan, 2001). The difference with the new pillar is that scholarly activity would better distinguish obligation f rom preference, not violate popular sovereignty illuminate (not outright support) philosophies of justice and faithfully document administrative and policy effects on populations (e.g., Rawls, 1971; Rosenbloom, 2005; Thompson, 1975). xxxii
! %$ Thus, the proposed new social equity pillar is : All public administrators are bound to faithfully execute government's legal obligations to foster the equal protection of the law in terms of: a) substantive and procedural guarantees that implicate both individual and group rights; as well as b) policies that involve resource redistributions and resolving outcome disparities between groups. With a new pillar established, research can move forward. As the next sections demonstrate, an ideal starting point is examining social equity in policing and pretextual stops. Social Equity and Policing Police are public administrators responsible for acting in the public interest by providing the public good of safety and order (Olejarski, 2011; see also Pesch, 2008). While scholars have long discussed the role of the police in terms of social equity (Fr ederickson, 2010), it has only been recently that scholars have attempted to study the political, managerial, and legal factors that influence policing (see Charbonneau et al., 2009). An ideal starting point is in examining policing and pretextual stops, a topic relatively more developed in criminal justice literatures T he following discussion relies on that literature. To remind, a pretextual stop occurs when police stop a motorist or pedestrian under the reasonable suspicion that a crime is in progress or could eventually be in progress. The courts have largely upheld this practice as constitutional (see Terry v. Ohio, 1961; Whren v. United States, 1996). Based on these rulings, m any state statutes give the police extensive powers to initiate pretextual stops (Withrow, 2007). Providing broad powers of this nature has both pros and cons: pretextual stops can be relatively low cost and effective at catching criminals (Harris, 1999a,b) but could give police officers too much discretion violate
! %% minorities' c onstitutional protections and encourage racial profiling (Barlow & Barlow, 2002 ; Batton & Kadleck, 2004; Harris, 2002 ). In short, it is a salient practice implicating social equity and frontline administrator s roles as constitutional stewards to a sovereign public. To examine this issue, t he following review uses Rosenbloom's (1983, 2005, 2013) framework of management, politics, and law to categorize the fac tors implicated in social equity, policing and prete xtual stops xxxiii According to Rosenbloom (2013), "Each of these perspectives is anchored in a function of government execution, legislation, and adjudication respectively" and "has gained widespread [scholarly] adoption" (p. 381). The use of this trichotomou s framework might seem odd given Rosenbloom's (2005, 2013) earlier critiques of the utility of the four pillars. However, using both Rosenbloom's framework in tandem with the four pillars presents two advantages. First, using the trichotomy frames administ rative practice in terms of the sources of authority and types of work most administrators do. This process acknowledges the reality that all public administrators, including police, are largely conditioned by managerial, legal, and political forces. Secon d, as noted above, social equity as defined by this study is grounded in the rule of law and becomes primarily but not exclusively, an output of administration and policy, one that public administrators have a legal obligation to uphold, albeit depending upon the policy xxxiv As such, politics, management, and the law become the silos to understand the different forces affecting administrators whereas the four pillars, social equity included, become targets defined by those silos. The following section has tw o sub sections. The first broadly reviews the role of police in a democracy. The second covers literature establishing the problem of inequity in
! %& policing and pretextual stops These two sub sections form the basis of the following discussion of the politi cal, managerial, and legal underpinnings of social equity in policing and pretextual stops. Police in a Democracy Historians, philosophers, and scholars have long been interested in the role of police regardless of the society (Berkeley, 1969; Bittner, 1980; Foucault, 1975/1977; Sklansky, 2007 a ; Skolnik & Fyfe, 1994). As noted by Foucault (1975/1977), governments use police as militarized arms of the state. In many authoritarian regimes police are accountable to an undemocratic sovereign and are agents of social control and discipline As argued by Arendt (1955), police in totalitarian r egimes like Nazi Germany or Sta linist Russia were instrumental in keeping order through terror and bending all citizens to the will of the state. Agamben (1998) has argue d that police in such regimes are the state adjudicators over the power of life and death itself. At least in theory, this is contrasted with police in a democracy although philosophers like Foucault have argued that police still serve the same functions of social control Regardless, i n democracies, governme nt authority and legitimacy lie with a sovereign people and their consent to policies made in their public interest by their representatives, whether elected or appointed ( Bertelli & Lynn, 2006; Middlekauf, 2007; Schattschneider, 1975). In a democracy, police are still agents of social control, but they are also subject to the democratic rule of law, must be accountable to the sovereign people, can only intervene in limited, controlled situations, can only use force proportional to an offense, must be as neutral as possible, and should treat citizens equitably (Marx, 1995/1999). Like any public administrator, police officers are simultaneously subject to the people yet also
! %' their guides : They are s ubject to the people, yet the people also owe some acquiescence to administrator s to achieve public ends (Rosenbloom et al., 2008; see also Kettl, 2014). Police also operate under public controls. In US democratic theory, these controls on police powers st em from the US Constitution as well as state constitutions, federal, state, and local laws, legislative and judicial oversight, exclusionary rules on the permissibility of gathering and using evidence against someone as well as both internal (departmental ) supervision and external (citizen) accountability ( see Sklansky, 2007 a ). Despite these controls, police often view their roles less so in terms of being public servants, per se but more so in terms of controlling and containing the public, which many officers assert is due to the criminalization of social problems (Giroux, 2003). Further, large scale criminal acts (e.g., 9/11) have changed the tenor of policing, with many policymakers arguin g that increased militarization of the police and giving police broader discretionary powers are necessary to maintain order (Bornstein, 2005; Su, 2010). Some scholars have expressed concerns that these issues have made police less responsive to citizen co ncerns (Diamon & Bucqueroux, 2007), who should be the police's sovereign master (Foucault, 1975/1977). These stressors reflect two classic tensions. The first is the tension between freedom and order O n one hand, governments have restrictions on how and when they can limit rights On the other hand, governments have citizen provided mandates to protect life, liberty, and property which might require restricting rights (Carter, 2012 ; Skyrms, 1996 ). The second tension is the "bureaucracy problem" of accoun tability and control versus discretion (Wilson, 1967).
! %( Rather than protect citizens equally, s ocial equity scholars often charge that political and social elites, including economic, ideological, political and social institutions, have used policing as a mechanism for racial control, which was particularly evident in the race conscious 1960s (Bonilla Silva, 2003; Frederickson, 2010 ; Walker, 1998). Emblematically, there appears to be a dichotomy between how majorities and minorities view the police. The latter have viewed police as protectors whereas the former have felt that different, lower standards apply to them (Carter, 1995). xxxv African Americans often are suspicious of police actions when they involve African Americans; Whites usually side with police in issues of discrimination against African Americans (Hurwitz & Peffley, 2005). These attitudes seem to point to deep seated soci etal and institutional racism (Williams, 1985). Racism i s a fundamental democratic problem : individuals who should be equal before the law are not (Cates, 2012). xxxvi In addition to the dichotomy mentioned above, there is also a racial dichotomy in terms of w ho still views racism as a problem. For instance, Hurwitz and Peffley (2010) examined how African Americans and Whites differentially view the US criminal justice system, finding evidence of a racial cleavage in terms of how groups view the legitimacy of t he system. Further, the authors found that policies based upon majority preferences are less likely to be responsive to charges of racial discrimination. However, m any Whites opine that the US no longer has a race problem because society has become "color blind" (Carr, 1997). The reality is likely that some Whites have developed new, more subtle justifications for racism (see Bonilla Silva et al., 2004; Marx, 2006). There is empirical evidence for this assertion. For instance, Bloch (2014) qualitatively analyzed 200 threads from online d iscussion forums sponsored by a US anti immigrant association. Findings revealed t hat
! %) participants tended to use color blind ideologies to conflate illegal immigrants and criminals with Hispanics. Participants noted that t he problem was not race but, rather, the criminality of illegal immigrants who just so happened to be Hispanic Relatedly, many police officers argue that police do not use race by itself when policing and treat everyone the same A commonly stated saying is that police profile problems, not people (Bonilla Silva, 2006; Williams & Stahl, 2008). On the other hand, some scholars contend that racism is a defining characteristic of policing since many aspects of police training and practice perpetuate racial a ttitudes (Bass, 2001 ; Schlosser, 2011 ). The implications for equity are profound. Democratically, police must be responsive to communities, treat marginalized groups fairly, and afford all the equal protection of the law (Barlow & Barlow, 1993; Ducat, 201 2; Major & Schmader, 2001; Sentas, 2014). If these are not present, then democratic legitimacy is at stake. Policing and Pretextual Stops Previous Methods Chapter 1 presented background information on the issue of racial profiling in pretextual stops. The focus of this section is to present additional information on this issue, albeit focused more on how scholars have studied it To remind, t he criminal justice literature has established that African Americans and Latinos are likely stopped, arrested, and have more physical altercations with police than Whites (see Harris, 1997; Meehan & Ponder, 2002; Withrow 2002a, b; Withrow, 2007; Zingraff et al., 2000 ). xxxvii The dominant scholarly assumption is that police might be using racial profiling t o substantiate criminal suspiciousness (Witherspoon, 2010). Racial profiling involves: Any police initiated action that relies on the race, ethnicity, or national origin rather than the behavior of an individual or information that leads the police to a particular
! %* individual who has been identified as being, or having been, engaged in criminal activity. (Ramirez et al., 2000, p. 3) xxxviii Several studies point to police engag ing in racial profiling, which has led to an extensive "Driving While Black" literature that discusses the prevalence of and inequities with racial profiling of motorists in particular ( Meeks; 2000; see also Bell et al., 2014; Debnam & Beck, 2011; Harris, 1999). Most research examines vehicular stops but a growing number examine pedestrian stops. Some departments have asserted that racial profiling is tantamount to good police work since it helps to reduce crime rates, thus making pretextual stops legal (J ohnson, 2010). A sampling of studies reveals trends in pretextual stops by race. For instance, a recent study of 125,000 pedestrian stops by the New York Police Department compared stop rates by racial and ethnic groups and specifically controlled for rac e specific arrest rates, precinct level variability, and geographic heterogeneity. Findings revealed that African Americans and Latinos are stopped more frequently despite race specific crime estimates (Gelman et al., 2007). Relatedly, one study of New Yor k City's stop and frisk procedures found that 50.6% of pedestrians stopped between 01/01/1998 and 03/31/1999 were African Americans, yet they comprised only 25.6% of the population. Hispanics were stopped in 33% of instances besides being 23.7% of the popu lation. Whites were stopped 12.9% of the time while comprising 43.4% of the population (Civil Rights Bureau of the State of New York Attorney General's Office, 1999; see also Spitzer, 1999; Zimring, 2006). Witherspoon (2010) found similar findings when exa mining traffic stop data in Missouri. Analysis supported the minority group threat hypothesis, or that changes in growth and size of the Black population
! &+ and the perceived threat this growth represents makes racial profiling in traffic stops more likely. A s implied above, scholars use numerous methods to investigate racial profiling and pretextual stops. xxxix Many studies employ state data, which some states leg ally mandate police departments to collect (Fridell et al., 2001; Weitzer & Tuch, 2002; Withrow, 2006). The bulk of these data come from the o ver 100 cities that regularly collect data linking traffic stops and race, yet Connecticut, North Carolina, Missouri, and Texas have the most wide reaching laws mandating data collection. A cross states, there are varying levels of comprehensiveness of what the officer has to report. Missouri, for instance, requires collection of 14 categories, including race, legal basis, duration of search, and whether a citation was given ( Witherspoon, 201 0; see also Ward, 2002). Several other methods of establishing rates and/or prevalence of profiling are evident. These include: studying minorities' perceptions, such as in national surveys like the Police Public Contact Survey (Durose et al., 2005; Gross & Barnes, 2002) xl ; impacts of police stop strategies (i.e., searches that yield evidence of wrongdoing) (Ayers, 2002a); municipal court records (Harris, 1999); turnpike observations (Lamberth, 1996) xli ; examination of videotapes of traffic stops (Cole, 1999); narratives in affidavits from warrantless arrests (Gizzi, 2011); ticket distribution patterns (Decker et al., 2002); gravity models (Farrell et al., 2003), among others. Other literature has investigated how officers' perceptions of race differ based upon the race of the officer Methods usually employ observations of police behavior and information interviews to understand officers' perceptions (Alpert et al., 2005). For instance, Engel et al. (2011) found that officer perce ptions of citizen demeanor tend to vary across ethnic groups. Officers regardless of race, usually report that African American drivers are
! &" more disrespectful, non complian t, or resistant than drivers of other races. White officers are more likely than African American officers to repo rt citizens as disrespectful, but both African American and White officers were equally as likely to report drivers being non compliant or verbally resistant (Engel et al., 2011). Other studies examine individual and/or department level factors; a samplin g of these studies is reviewed in the "Management" section below. Still o ther literature investigates attitudinal differences toward police based upon race. For instance, Lundman and Kaufman (2003) reported that African American drivers were less likely than drivers of other racial backgrounds to report that police made legitimate traffic stops. Relatedly, Allen and Monk Turner (2010) found that stronger predictors of satis faction with police were not the race of the motorist but size of locale, time of day, and race of the officer. Three problems become evident with these approaches. First, t he typical benchmark compares demographics of the driving population with predicti ons of expected stops of motorists for each race but doing so has proven to be notoriously difficult (see Engel & Calnon, 2004; Fridell, 2004). To make this method valid, a requirement is to establish the proportion of minority drivers to non minority dri vers (Dunn, 2009). However, at a minimum, doing so requires establishing not only proportions of mi norities versus non minorities but also drivers versus non drivers, drivers on roads who live outside a city versus those who live in a city and proportions of in state versus out of state drivers (Decker et al., 2002). For instance, using Department of Motor Vehicle data is possibly useful, but these data do not capture out of state populations (Zingraff et al., 2003). Using US Census data is also possible (see Harris, 2002), but it becomes difficult to establish proportions of non
! drivers to drivers (Dunn, 2009). Some scholars have used gravity models and adjusted the models using driving age and vehicle ownership data (Farrell et al., 2003; see a lso Carroll, 1955; Dunn, 2009). xlii Second, using existing d atasets also present s difficulties. M any of the variables needed to study whether racial profiling is occurring are often missing or not collected (e.g., links between location and race; officers' r ace; linking the purpose of the stop to outcomes; being able to compare who is stopped versus who is not stopped)(Myers, 2002; Witherspoon, 2010). Surveys that employ citizen perceptions offer insights related to equity, but they are only useful if matched to some measure of actual policing activities (see Kowalski & Lundman, 2008). Most problematic, when using government datasets, i t is not entirely certain if police agency data accurately represent racial disparities and traffic stops (Boivin & Cordeau, 2 011), which could be due to police not viewing the problem as important (Kochel et al., 2011) or police hostility to data collection (Withrow, 2006) Three, data on perceptual measures do not always account for stressors that make officers obey the rule of law for a given state. As such, w hile promising and valuable, the aforementioned approaches do not always capture the political, managerial, and legal factors that undergird police behavior. The dimensions of publicness and administration are often missing thus giving an incomplete picture of how police behave as public administrators and frontline bureaucrats. A different approach is required that links political, managerial, and legal drivers to social equity outputs. Again, criminal justice and public administration complement one another in this issue. Scholars need both literatures. W hat political, managerial, and legal factors intersect with this topic? The following sections address this question.
! &$ Law Rosenbloom (2013) defined law as encompassing constitutional integrity and constitutional rights such as due process and equal protection (p. 383). While mostly associated with adjudication in the courts, law bind s all branches of government, and all branches of government at all levels employ adjudic ation to some degree. Further, "all national, provincial, state, and many local governments  rely on law to establish jurisdictional boundaries, procedures, rights, responsibilities, conflict resolution systems, and remedies for illegal practices" (Rose nbloom, 2013, p. 386). Finally, law in public administration places the protection of rights, especially those guaranteed in the Constitution, higher than concerns of efficiency (Rosenbloom et al., 2008). Regardless of variations in state laws, Constituti onal protections that limit the power of police are higher than state laws This legal hierarchy i s due largely to : a) the Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the US Constitution which names the US Constitution, laws made in pursuance thereof, and treaties as the supreme law of the land; and b) the Fourteenth Amendment's due process and equal protection clause s incorporating the protections in the Bill of Rights against sub national governments (Ducat, 2012). xliii The US Constitution has two major checks on police powers: The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. T he Fourth Amendment provides broad protections against agents of the state indiscriminately searching and seizing persons, houses, papers, and effects. Unde r the Fourth Amendment, police can only search and seize these items through establishing probable cause, obtaining sworn affidavits, and applying for a search warrant from a magistrate (Carbado, 2002). xliv Court rulings implicating the Fourth Amendment demon strate the tension between the need to keep order but also reasonably ensure privacy rights. As such,
! &% c ourts have often ruled in favor of law enforcement if police actions were justified in situ and led to positives for social order while not significantly and unnecessarily impinging upon privacy rights (Taslitz, 2003). However, the US Supreme Court has largely ruled that motorists and pedestrians do not enjoy the full protections of the Fourth Amendment's search and seizure clause, largely because these g roups act in public, not in private and do not have the same reasonable expectations of privacy as they would in the home ( Schulhofer, 2012 ) Several US Supreme Court rulings are important for this precedent. xlv The ruling in Carroll v. United States (1925) established the precedent of automobiles having lower constitutional protection (since they could be driven away) but noted officers still have to demonstrate probable cause that a vehicle likely contained contraband before searching and seizing the car (see also United States v. Ross 1982). As mentioned previously the ruling in Terry v. Ohio (1968) established the constitutionality of pretextual stops, known as "Terry stops" and also established the "reasonable suspicion doctrine". Next in United States v. Cortez (1981), the Court ruled that police can only invoke reasonable suspicion if the suspicion is based upon the "totality of the circumstances" test developed under Illinois v. Gates (1983). The Court wrote that "the whole picture  must be taken into account" and that "based upon that whole picture the detaining officers must have a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity" (at 418). Relatedly, in Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993), the Court upheld a "plain feel" doctrine that allows for expanded seizures of contraband while frisking a detainee, albeit only if the contraband is immediately apparent. xlvi
! && The US Supreme Court has also ruled on other factors implicating what police can do in a Terry stop. Many of these expand upon the use of the totality of the circumstances test. For instance, Whren v. U.S. (1996) provided for near unlimited police powers to stop anyone for any tra ffic violation under state law (see Harris, 1999). The ruling also validated the use of race as a basis for police stops if other factors motivated the stop However in Illinois v. Wardlow (2000), the Court ruled that by itself, presence in a high crime l ocale does not, by itself, equal reasonable suspicion but that a location is relevant to determining which behaviors are suspicious. The Supreme Court has allowed several instances of officers initiating non consensual contacts with suspects who seemingly fit the profile of drug dealers (see Reid v. Georgia 1980; U.S. v. Mendenhall 1980; US v. Sokolow 1989). The ruling in Arizona v. Gant (2009) provided protections for motorists against particular searches For instance, police can only search compartmen ts if: a) officers find it reasonable to believe that an arrestee could access the vehicle or if the vehicle contains evidence of the arrest; or b) if the arrestee is in the vehicle but might gain access to a weapon or destroy evidence. xlvii Lower courts have also provided important rulings. For instance, i n Brown v. Oneonta (2000), the Second Circuit Court allowed the use of race as a search basis if explicit racial descriptions of the suspect were available. Additionally, the recent district court ruling in F loyd, et al. v. City of New York (2013) limited the New York Police Department's use of "stop and frisk". In this ruling, Judge Shira Scheindlin struck down the "stop and frisk" policy, noting the practice violated both the Fourth and the Fourteenth Amendment. The ruling required the NPYD to study the problem and engage in corrective measures, including the use of body camera s (Vaughn, 2013). Mayor Bloomberg appealed the ruling, and on
! &' October 31, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit blocked the order requiring changes; the case is still pending (Kalhan, 2013, 2014). Some scholars argue that these r ulings betray Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures (Barlow & Barlow, 2002). The Whren decision is particularly problematic to some. As argued by Batton and Kadleck (2004), t he majority in the Whren decision in particular did not account for how the ruling might validate more extensive racial profiling As such, given the broad state powers validated in Whren, how police engage in these actions is largely up to the discretion of state law and individual police departments ( Withrow, 2007). More fundamentally racial profiling often escapes the scrutiny of the Fourth Amendment, with many police assuming that racial profiling allows police to distinguish between "good" minorities (especially vis Âˆ vis African Americans) and "ba d" ones and that innocence is something that the one searched must establish (Carbado, 2002). These issues become more focused when factoring in the Fourteenth Amendment's e qual p rotection c lause. While the US Congress in 42 USC Â¤ 1983 noted that no state actor can have immunity when violating an individual's constitutional rights, failures in lower courts to address equal protection claims point to numerous limits of equal protection and police accountability, particularly for groups ( Jain, 2011) For instance, legal scholars like Fiss (1976) have argued that the courts should focus on examining "group disadvantaging" rather than anti discrimination against individuals. Fiss argued that focusing on individual instead of group rights cou ld never address pervasive inequality. However, as West (2002) observed, the US Supreme Court has largely not follow ed this path as justices have
! &( overwhelmingly looked to the e qual p rotection clause pertaining to state inaction against individuals. Regard less the body of Fourteenth Amendment still forbid s the creation of suspect classifications. In brief, a suspect classification is a group classification indicating that group members are subject to discrimination. When a court case implicates a suspect class, the courts use a higher form of judicial scrut iny (i.e., strict scrutiny) to examine an administrative action, law, or regulation. xlviii The typical criteria include: 1) a group has historically been discriminated again st and/or has been subject to prejudice; 2) has an immutable or highly visible trait; 3) is powerless to protect itself politically; and 4) the distinguishing characteristic does not prevent the group from meaningful contributions to society (see Frontiero v. Richardson 1973; Hirabashi v. United States 1944; Korematsu v. United States 1944 ; Lyng v. Castillo 1986; United States v. Carolene Products 1938). Thus, a legal perspective indicates that race by itself is not an acceptable criterion to initiate a stop and that using it as the sole basis for a stop violates both the Fourth and Four teenth Amendments. Further, as this study has defined social equity legally in terms of equal protection, and as police as public administrators are bound to protect constitutional rights, it is possible to investigate the extent to which police do or do n ot achieve equity in policing, including during pretextual stops. With this legal definition thus stated, political factors can be considered. Legal Summary -A Legal Focus: Measuring Social Equity The legal focus of this study points to questions of how best to measure social equity. A constitutional law measurement of social equity could consist of a scholar examining individual stops and ascertain ing if the reasons for that stop meet the constitutional
! &) requirements listed abo ve. However, doing so would not feasibly allow for large scale investigation of numerous stops since like is often the case in court proceedings, the focus would be shifted to individual stops. Further, using stop rate data is a possible measure for socia l equity, but these rates by themselves do not reveal whether officers' actions were constitutional. It is also possible to ascertain the degree to which officers have understanding of complex constitutional requirements (see Ceyssens, 2004), but doing so would require extensive surveying of individual officers could raise concerns about social acceptability biases and would necessitate officers actually revealing they use race as a basis for a stop (see Williams & Stahl, 2008). Examination of municipal c ourt records or complaints against police departments is also possible (see Harris, 1999), but these records do not capture issues related to stops that did not result in a legal proceeding or complaint. A broader measure is required. This broader measure uses citizen perceptions (see Walker, 2007) As noted above, many social equity scholars argue that several factors require understand ing citizen perceptions of social equity. First, in US democratic theory, the people are sovereign, so their perceptions of how well the government is doing creates a government's legitimate right to rule. Second, given this sovereignty, the provision of service must meet both citizen s' expectations as well as government's leg al obligations to those groups, which, in the cas e of policing, is equal protection of the law. As seen in the body of law concerning suspect classifications, if a group consistently feels that it does not have equal protection, then democratic legitimacy is at stake. Third, many of the reforms public bu reaucracies pursue to foster better outcomes vis Âˆ vis all four pillars of public administration are grounded in fostering better citizen perceptions of government service provision and, consequently,
! &* legitimacy. Fourth, the mandate of social equity is to provide better outcomes for citizens, particularly minorities (Cochran & Warren, 2011; Dolan & Rosenbloom, 2003; Dukes et al., 2009; Engel, 2005; Frederickson, 2010; Lundman & Kaufman, 2003; Meier & Hill, 2007; Osborne & Gaebler, 1992; Tyler, 2001). In br ief, using citizen perceptions of how well government fulfills its social equity obligations must form the core of future research, as doing so is one of the best ways to capture how well government is fulfilling its legal obligations (see Frederickson, 20 10; Tyler, 2001). This is particularly needed to better understand how attempts to achieve accountability for social equity (Gooden, 2015a; Johnson & Svara, 2011) affect citizen perceptions. As seen in the next sections, several propositions are forwarded concerning possible effects on social equity, which this study operationalizes as citizen perceptions. Politics Rosenbloom (2013) defined politics as Lasswellian, namely "who gets what, when and how" (see Lasswell, 1950). Included in politics are coalition building ; cooptation ; legislative actions and building support between legislators stakeholders, and other groups ; allocating services and creating constraints ; and policymaking (p. 386). xlix Political variables involve representation of societal i nterest s in legislatures equal opportunity, bargaining, and accountability (p. 383). However, political variables influence managerial and legal variables, and vice versa (Rosenbloom, 2013), but s everal political elements play a role in influencing police behavior in pretextual stops, especially at the state level. These involve states' legislative powers and laws, political culture, and policy responses to community issues, including adoption of community policing models.
! '+ Constitutionally, states have ext ensive powers to decide how to govern and set priorities for the police, albeit so long as those powers do not conflict with established federal powers and laws (Schulhofer, 2012). As argued by Liederbach et al. (2007), in instances of initiating pretextua l stops, state laws or departmental policies, not officer decisions, dictate when and when not stop or make an arrest. Thus, what is legal under state laws might be a significant predictor of pretextual stops for both motorists and pedestrians (Lundman, 20 10; Roberg et al., 2009). State statutes are far from uniform in the powers they give police to initiate stops. S ome statutes could allow police to stop motorists and pedestrians for anything ranging from cars having dirty license plates to individuals exhibiting what an officer "reasonably" determines is dangerous. l As evidenced in the summary of material facts in the Floyd ruling, New York Police Department officers often stopped a pedestrian because "a suspicious bulge" w as evident in the pedestrian's clothes. Further the Model Traffic Code for Colorado (State of Colorado, 2010) provides extensive police powers to stop cars, ranging from improper headlamps, passing improperly, not crossing a road properly, and others. Relatedly, Title 63 of the Missis sippi Code governing Motor Vehicle Regulation gives police some of the broadest discretionary powers in the country (e.g., cleanliness of outside of vehicle; anything contrary to any Mississippi law). S ome states have mandated the collection of traffic stop data to investigate possible issues of racial profiling or have passed laws that explicitly make profiling illegal, yet there is often significant variation in terms of enforcement of these requirements as well as departmental compliance (Lundman, 2010, 2012; Missouri Attorney General, 2013; Novak & Chamlin, 2012). Thus, given the primacy of state legislative action regarding policing
! '" powers, understanding how police initiate pretextual stops must begin with an analysis of state laws since they are an immediately source of officers' authority (see Liederbach et al., 2007; Lundman, 2010, 2012; Mastrofski, 2004; Mendelsohn, 1998; Mendias & Kehoe, 2006; Moran, 2000; Roberg et al., 2009; Williams & Stahl, 2008). Thus, it is reasonable to predict that : P 1: Citizen p erceptions of socially equitable policing will be lower in states whose legislatures give police more power to stop motorists and pedestrians. However, the content of state laws usually reflects majority interests (Ingram et al., 2007), which suggests that the presence of minority legislators could influence legislative mandates concerning race based issues. Accounting for the power of minority l egislators is essential given the Laswellian nature of politics or "who gets what, when, and how". Early studies examining the influence of minority legislators focused on how they help institute legislative reform. Much of this literature found that minority legislators tended to favor institutional reform more so than non minority legislators but that their success at initiating reform was often dependent on how legislative elites, such as a House speaker, accommoda ted them (Thielemann, 1992). Later literature has established that minority legislators more consistently forward and support legislation in favor of minority groups' policy preferences (Canon, 1999 ; Griffin & Newman, 2008 ) and more racially diverse legis latures adopt policies that better serve those preferences (Owens, 2005; Preuhs, 2007; Tschoepe, 1997). Similar to representative bureaucracy literature (discussed in the "Management" section), scholars have argued that these effects are because minority l egislators better represent their group's interests than do nonminority legislators (Griffin & Newman, 2007) both in terms of policy design but also mandating that state administrators better protect minority interests (Dye & MacManus, 2014). However, policy success is
! '# dependent on whether minorities rise to leadership positions (Griffin & Keane, 2006) or which party controls a legislature (Rocca & Sanchez, 2008). While r epresentativeness of legislato r s can be difficult to measure, t he general wisdom i s that when minorities occupy positions in the legislature in proportions closer to their proportion in the population (despite that representation in a legislature as compared to population representativeness can be quite disparate) legislatures adopt mo re minority friendly legislation (Broockman, 2013; Griffin, 2014) It is possible that a higher presence of minority legislators could change legislative signals about policing ma ndates from a state legislature Thus, it is reasonable to predict that: P2 : Citizen p erceptions of socially equitable policing will be higher in states in which minority legislators proportions in the state legislature are closer to their population proportions. Relatedly, literature suggests that it is possible to predict admini strative and policy actions in states. An extensive state politics literature investigates how state and local governments' characteristics influence administrative and policy outputs. For example, work by Grissom et al. (2009) as well as Valentino and Sea rs (2005) have established that regional differences help account for changes in administrative and policy practices. For instance, region often is related to administrative quality and capacity (see Conlan & Posner, 2008; Sigelman, 1976) as well as qualit y of service delivery (Barrett & Greene, 2001; Barrileaux et al., 1992; Grumm, 1970; Howard, 1999). One possible way to capture these location specific effects is Wilson's (1968) argument that local political culture determines policing styles, which are legalistic, watchman, and service. Legalistic departments emphasize professionalism, impartiality, strict enforcement of the law, and strong top down hierarchies. Watchman styles emphasize preventing social disorder, communalism, deep police involvement wi th the community, and
! '$ engaging in law enforcement less by the letter of the law and more by "immediate and personal consequences" (p. 141). Traditionalistic agencies exhibit service orientations and desires to foster residents' satisfaction, and with large r crimes exhibiting more attention than smaller ones and use of "informal nonarrest sanctions", such as warning or tickets p. 201). The predictor of these three styles is rooted in local political culture, specifically as seen in city government arrangemen ts. Wilson proposed four major types: 1) high professional council manager; 2) low professional council manager; 3) nonpartisan mayor council; and 4) partisan mayor council. To Wilson, cities with high professional council manager governments foster legali stic regimes. According to Wilson, these styles are the best. A partisan mayor council form often leads to a watchman style whereas either a low professional council manager or non partisan mayor council government led to traditionalistic departments. Empirical support for Wilson's typology is mixed. S ome findings support a link between a city manager style of government and rises in police arrests (Crank, 1990). Others give partial support to a link between higher arrest rates for larceny and drunk dri ving in "good government" cities (e.g., Langworthy, 1985) T here is a possible relationship between the presence of police chiefs interested in reform and council manager governments (Pursley, 1976). Some studies find no support at all for any of Wilson's proposition s (e.g., Hassell et al., 2003; Zhao et al., 2006b). Despite mixed empirical support, the possibility remains that local administrative variations could explain some differences in policing style albeit perhaps better explained by pressure from political elites as well as from unique community pressures (see Gailmard, 2012). Thus, it is reasonable to predict that
! '% P 3 : Citizen p erceptions of socially equitable policing will be higher in communities served by police departments working in cities that have council manager governments. As noted by Mendias and Kehoe (2006), in addition to those above, several variables affect how officers engage in policing, such as standards for policing (inc luding community expectations) as well as communit y and p olitical pressures As such, regions face their own unique policing issues (e.g., crime patterns; drug trafficking; homicides; immigration) that implicate race and could change how administrators respond to public issues (Taylor & McCandless, 2016 ). Confli ct theory and the related minority group threat hypothesis as well as consensus theory provide some theoretical basis for these claims. According to conflict theory, conflicts over material conditions engender crimes amongst minorities, and violence is a m ean s to gain power and resources not possible through other means However, dominant groups, including policy elites, suppress less powerful groups (Gallo, 2012; Kubrin & Weitzer, 2003). According to the minority group threat hypothesis, as the proportion of minorities increase with respect to Whites, citizens' fear of crimes increases, then leading to policing styles that emphasize minority crime control (Blalock, 1967; S tolzenberg et al., 2004 ; Witherspoon, 2010 ). Consensus theory offers a different explanation. This theory indicates that police operate from notions of equity and that the criminal justice system imposes sanctions on those who break the law, irrespective o f demographic factors (MacDonald, 2003). The reality is all three likely describe policing actions to some degree. As such, this raises questions about how these community pressures, especially in tandem with pressures from political elites, influence poli ce behaviors ( see Fagan & Davies, 2000; Huang & Vaughn, 1996; Krivo & Peterson, 2000; Liska & Chamlin, 1984 ; Taylor & McCandless, 2016 ).
! '& For instance, some individual officers are racist and may be motivated by desires to socially control minorities rathe r than serving public service imperatives under the assumptions that minorities are more likely to be dangerous (see Bass, 2001; MacDonald, 2001; Ramirez et al., 2000; Witherspoon, 2010). The common assertion by many police is that they target problems, no t people, and that aggressive, proactive law enforcement decreases crime and maximizes public safety (see Sampson & Cohen, 1988; Wilson & Boland, 1978). For example, Williams and Stahl (2008) studied traffic stop data from 24 police agencies in Kentucky an d also engaged in focus group interviews with small groups of officers from five agencies. The authors found not only that race correlates with stops but that officers assert they "profile problems and not people". The findings suggest that several factors prior to a stop influence officer decisionmaking and that the influences on the decisionmaking process, and not necessarily aggregate stop rates themselves, should be the focus of empirical inquiry (p. 221). li Other data suggest that many officers might not be intrinsically racist but that their values and perceptions, gained through experience, of how race, neighborhood characteristics, and crime rates interact lead officers to associate all three together (Smi th et al., 2006). For instance, several studies have found that police patrolling high crime neighborhoods often view minorities as suspicious, leading to more stops of these individuals (Alpert et al., 2005; Caldero & Larose, 2001; Gould & Mastrofski, 200 4). Others have noted that such effects might be better explained in that officers in large, urban locales simply tend to have gruffer, more impersonal policing styles, likely out of a worldview that envisions stricter lines between the rules of law and di sorder in dangerous communities (Barker, 1999).
! '' For instance, policing styles are different in wealthy communities (which typically are populated by Whites) versus those marked by poverty, unemployment, and low wages (which are typically populated by mino rities, especially African Americans). P olice tend to be more cautious with more economically advantaged citizens since they likely carry more voice and have a more secure platform to voice concerns with the police (Chambliss & Liell, 1966; Mastrofski & Ri tti, 1992). However, poorer communities tend to have higher crime rates, which is possibly due to structural inequities in those communities in which some minorities feel they must use crime to obtain resources they could not feasibly obtain otherwise (And erson, 1999; Currie, 1998; Kramer, 2000; Krivo & Peterson, 2000). Scholars have extensively documented how police do not always treat such communities equally as compared to more affluent communities (see Kirby, 2013). More problematically, some departments could engage in benign neglect of poorer communities (Liska & Chamin, 1984), have reduced responsiveness (Huang & Vaughn, 1996), or associate members of particular communities with criminal lifesty les (Kligner, 1997). Further, it is possible that variations in how police enforce laws could be explained by effects of political mandates, which are essential to understanding how police engage in their work (Mastrofski, 2004 ; Mendias & Kehoe, 2006 ). Pr incipal agent theory offers some insight. In this theory, "some actor(s) -(the principal(s)) -uses whatever actions are available, to provide incentives for some other actor(s) -(the agent(s)) -to make decisions that the principal most prefers" and strongl y relates to bureaucratic accountability to elites (Gailmard, 2014, p. 1). Those scholars employing principal agent theory attempt to link state policymakers' intentions and signals to how government agencies evaluate those intentions and decide how to res pond (Hatry, 1999; Meier & Bohte, 2001). As Terman (2014) noted,
! '( the literature on exactly how agents respond to principles signals is underdeveloped but it is likely that perceptions of the equity of police will be affected by demographic characteristic s and changes as well as pressures from political principals (Witherspoon, 2010). Given the importance of state laws, understanding how political principals pressure police is an important dimension to study. Thus, it is reasonable to predict that: P 4 : Citizen p erceptions of socially equitable policing will be lower in communities that have criminal or social issues popularly related to race. P 5 : Citizen p erceptions of socially equitable policing will be lower in communities that have experienced an inc rease in the proportion of minorities in the last 10 years. P 6 : Citizen p erceptions of socially equitable policing will be lower in communities in which political principals demand policing action on social issues popularly related to race Many communities have sought to address public safety issues by creating community policing programs. Community policing models place more emphasis on police collaboration with communities traditionally alienated by policing (Kelling, 1988; Skogan, 2004). These models "support the systematic use of partnerships and problem solving techniques, to proactively address the immediate conditions that give rise to public safety issues such as crime, social disorder, and fear of crime" (U.S. Department of Justice, 2009, p. 3). They help make policing subject to democratic controls, community input and support, and quests for social justice (Kappeler & Gaines, 2014). Community policing models have become more prevalent and often receive widespread citizen support (Li ederbach et al., 2008), although critics charge that the movement merely improves public relations and does not lead to substantive changes(King & Lab, 2000). More experienced and/or minority officers often express the most positive assessments of communit y policing (see Schaffer, 2002), especially those with strong beliefs in equality (see Zhao et al., 1999). Kelling et al.
! ') (1988) noted that community policing programs can vary significantly, although they normally fall into two categories: 1) regular meet ings between citizens and police; and 2) extensive citizen involvement with police, particularly so that citizens can nominate the problems police address and how they address them. Regardless, community policing involves building partnerships with histori cally disenfranchised communities to promote social equity accountability (Gooden, 2015a). Thus, it is reasonable to predict that P7 : Citizen p erceptions of socially equitable policing will be higher in communities served by police departments engaging in community policing programs. Politics Summary Regardless, as seen above, several factors emerge that could help to explain variation s in social equity vis Âˆ vis policing and pretextual stops First, the influence of a state legislature is paramount in that state laws, more so than federal laws, determine the legal parameters of how officers act. The presence and power of minority legislators also could have an effect. Second there is mixed evidence of a relationship b etween city government type and policing style, but it remains possible that local political cultures determine policing styles. Third communities themselves might face issues that could lead police to engage in profiling and pretextual stops more as well as adopt community policing programs Police, as agents, might receive mandates from political leaders, principals, to change how they police issues those principals relate to race. However, as noted by several scholars, at present, little is understood a bout the intersections between state statutes that empower police, the effect of local governments, community issues, and individual behavioral choices (see Engel et al., 2002, 2004, 2006; Weitzer & Tuch, 2002; Withrow, 2007; Zhao et al., 2006b). Finally, state culture could offer predictive power. However, distinctly managerial factors could affect social equity.
! '* Management According to Rosenbloom (2013), management is most associate d with the execution of policy. Policy execution involves translating po licy inputs into service outputs, mustering capacity to deliver public services, measuring performance developing relationships between stakeholders, and managing and leading human resources. Studies intersecting public management, police behavior, and resultant outputs on social equity are not numerous but are growing. lii Several scholars have noted that management matters significantly in government performance (Ingram et al., 2003; Riccucci, 2005). Empirical studies have extensively validated the import ance of public management to government performance (see Riccucci, 2005 ) yet findings point to the need to understand much more about the constellation of administrative factors involved (Eikenberry, 2009). C riminal justice scholars have well examined some of these managerial dimensions more, especially the effects of individual and department level influences. However, those scholars have not examined these issues as much in the context of social equity, social equity analysis, and implicated concepts As seen below, r epresentative bureaucracy, public sector /service motivation, and performance management all likely play a role influencing police practice and pretextual stops Further, many of these factors point to the difficulty of accounting for the many variables that affect how officers behave (Mastrofski, 2004) many of which are endogenous to one another. Finally, many of the elements below directly relate to Gooden's (2 015a) framework of what it means to achieve accountability for social equity (see also Johnson & Svara, 2011). For instance, agencies should make fairness and priority, reach out to underserved populations, and form partnerships. The sections below detail many elements scholars have
! (+ noted could improve police accountability to historically disenfranchised groups (see Walker, 2007). Performance Management Performance management and measurement are other examples of managerial practices worth investigating. The presence and effect of these practices might be the most promising to investigate. Numerous authors have drawn attention to performance management as the key to 21 st century public management reform (Moynihan, 2008), which often concerns the adoption o f private sector performance practices in the public sector (Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2004), especially managing for results, results based management, and transactional leadership (Moynihan, 2006, 2008). The assumption is that the methods are transferable bet ween sectors (Andrews et al., 2011; Boyne & Walker, 2010). These measures are often outgrowths of earlier reform movements such as New Public Management and the reinventing government movement. Proponents argue that the methods will make government more ac countable to the people, especially in terms of using public resources efficiently, effectively, and economically in the achievement of public goals (Meier & Hill, 2007; Osborne & Gaebler, 1992). Thus, performance measurement is an opportunity to present evidence that public bureaucracies are providing "a public bargain" and that public services and administrators are important and are achieving results to benefit the public interest (Holzer & Yang, 2004; see also Pesch, 2008). The use of performance measu rement tools is becoming more widespread with evidence growing that they can influence managerial and front line workers' behavior to meet performance management goals (Hatry, 2006; Jennings & Haist, 2003). The predicted
! (" effects are cyclical: the formulati on of objectives and execution of those objectives lead to generation of performance information, which then returns to managers who use the information to adjust objectives (Andersen, 2008). However, some authors argue that management has differential i mpacts in public and private organizations, not the least of which is because of differences in autonomy, control, discretion, funding, and other fundamental differences between the public and private sectors (Meier & O'Toole, 2011). Managers may only use performance management tools if the information the tools provide is useful, suggesting that their use could be related to economic incentives (Boyne & Chen, 2007) in influenced from principal agent dynamics (Gailmard, 2014; Kettl, 2014). Further, public m anagers might be less interested in effectiveness than in showcasing to politicians that they can achieve symbolic goals (Swiss, 2005). Regardless, performance management matters little without goal clarity (which might be less clear in public organization s) to use the performance information effectively (Moynihan et al., 2012). Further, the use of such measures means that management capacity must be well developed. For instance, information technology (IT) capacity appears to affect how well managers colle ct and use performance information (Brown, 2001). With IT present, administrators can better collect, process, and use performance information (Boyne & Chen, 2007; Kernaghan, 2014). Policing and Performance Management. Research into policing and performan ce management is growing. One area of research that shows promise is the investigation of how public administrators like the police use social equity indicators, which federal and state governments often have excluded in favor of efficiency, effectiveness, and economy (see Radin, 2006). Early studies of performance indicators in policing often found no use of social
! (# equity indicators (see Lucius & Heaphy, 1977; McDavid, 1977; Parks, 1984), whereas select studies found use of indicators related to citizen sa tisfaction (Pachon & Lovrich, 1977; Shin, 1977), or related to measuring officers' perceptions of the role of fairness, sensitivity, and knowledge of the law (Gianakis, 1994). Newer studies have found that police departments cast social equity indicators in terms of citizen satisfaction, namely perceptions of response time versus actual response times and of investigative effort as related to the race of both victims and officers (Chandek, 1999; Cheurprakobkit, 2003). As such, indicators, when present, gro und social equity measurement in citizen perceptions of courtesy, fairness, responses, and treatment (e.g., Orr & West, 2007; Wang, 2002). liii These studies suggest the prevalence and use of social equity indicators by police could affect numerous policing practices, including initiating pretextual stops. Further, they also suggest that levels of citizen satisfaction, even gained through self re ports, can be proxy measures for social equity given that citizen perceptions of legitimacy go up when they feel safe, included, responded to quickly, and satisfied (Cochran & Warren, 2011; Dukes et al., 2009; Lundman & Kaufman, 2003). For instance, there is a positive relationship between ratings of officers' performance and citizens' perceptions of procedural justice and behaviors focused on equitable outcomes (Wells, 2007; see also Engel et al., 2011; Taylor, 2001). One possible explanation is that forma l rules and guidelines could reduce the frequency of corrupt practices, which citizens perceive positively (Committee to Review Research, 2003). However, measures can often result in an output improvement in one way while having a decline in another (Grizz le, 2002). To wit, an improvement in effectiveness of policing might cause minorities to rate the social equity aspects of performance management lower (see Liederbach et al., 2008).
! ($ The extent of professionalization and unionization might affect the adop tion of social equity standards, but data indicate that more conservative departments will resist adopting equity standards (Fleming et al., 2006), that reform is usually slow at local levels (Russell, 1997), and that powerful police unions tend to impede equity reforms (Skolnick, 2008). Emblematically, while police and citizens often prioritize social issues similarly, police bureaucracies often resist programs that could lead to more equity in policing out of fears that such approaches could compromise cr ime fighting (Liederbach et al., 2008; Wood et al., 2004). However, while police values present in a bureaucracy are usually intractable but can change, particularly with extended mandates from and interactions with community expectations (Zhao et al., 199 9), it is possible that the use of social equity indicators could change administrative outputs in policing and pretextual stops. Also, performance measurement is related to IT. When present in police departments, IT can foster more practices fostering acc ountability to the public, but capacity is variable across departments (see Chan, 2001; Ericson, 2007; Koper et al., 2014; Marenin, 2005). Thus, the presence of incentives, goal clarity, and capacity will determine how public administrators actually use pe rformance information (Hvidman & Andersen, 2013). Consequently, investigating the prevalence and uses of social equity indicators by police departments is essential. While use of these indicators is rare, their use is growing (Charbonneau et al., 2009). R egardless, despite calls, little research has examined the extent and effects of indicators, especially on actual administrative behavior (Charbonneau & Riccucci, 2008; Charbonneau et al., 2009; Van Ryzin et al., 2004; see also Pitts, 2011). Thus, it is re asonable to predict that
! (% P8 : Citizen p erceptions of socially equitable policing will be higher in communities served by police departments that use social equity performance measures. Representative Bureaucracy Representative bureaucracy implicates social equity, and many classical studies of bureaucracies have highlighted the importance of representativeness T he following sub sections detail the background on representative bureaucracy, problems with the literature, and then the implications for policing Defining and Understanding Representative Bureaucracy For almost 100 years, public administration scholars have been interested in representativeness in bureaucracies. Further, in that time, scholars have overwhelmingly indicated that representativeness implicates fairness and equality For example, Weber (1922/1994) asserted that businesslike, objective, and rational bureaucracies were requisite to treating citizens equally. Kingsley (1944), widely credited with inventing the term "representative bureaucracy", equated representativeness with a psychological orientation toward fostering fairness, albeit noting that it is unsafe to entrust power to groups that do not mirror society's dominant forces. liv Van Riper (1958) considered a representative bure aucracy to be one that mirrored citizens' social class origins and concluded that the federal civil service was representative. Other authors (e.g., Larson, 1973; Meier, 1975) noted that there was poor evidence that representation guarantees that administr ators and policymakers consider all societal interests or that administrators maintain the values with which they were raised. Krislov (1974) argued that a representative bureaucracy can act as a restraint on inequitable bureaucratic power, particularly by bringing in more skills, funneling different views, broadening social approval for policies, making government positions more accessible, and fostering conditions to allow more education and career advancements for minorities and the disadvantaged. With t argeted
! (& drives aimed at fostering more representativeness, public bureaucracies are becoming more (but not perfectly) representative (Keiser, 2010; Naff, 2001). Yet representation is not as simple as ensuring that members of particular populations occupy positions in the government. Major differences between how they represent populations are evident, which leads to a difference between "passive" and "active" representation. Passive representation means that a bureaucrat of a particular demographic group i s present within a bureaucracy and represents that group, even if just symbolically. A prominent assumption has been that bureaucrats representing particular demographic characteristics might better serve underrepresented groups (Meier & Stewart, 1992; Mos her, 1982). Two large observations mark the representative bureaucracy literature. First, m inority bureaucrats often perceive themselves as representatives of a race, and when combined with high levels of discretion, such bureaucrats can substantively improve outcomes for minorities (see Selden et al., 1998; Sowa & Selden, 2003). Second symboli cally including minorities helps to foster public perceptions of governmental legitimacy (Krislov & Rosenbloom, 1981). Given the perceptual nature of social equity, representativeness and assessments of fairness are likely linked (see Engel et al., 2011; T aylor, 2001). There is empirical support for these positions. For instance, Riccucci et al. (2014) found that when gender representation mirrors proportions of women in society, citizen s tend to perceive government job performance, trustworthiness, and a gency fairness more highly They also tend to perceive the government as more legitimate Many contemporary studies mirror such findings including in policing (see Andrews & Miller, 2013; Atkins & Wilkins, 2013; Gad e & Wilkins, 2013; Park, 2013) Thus it is a ubiquitous conclusion in the literature
! (' t hat even passive representation can improve minority groups' access to and out comes of public service provision (Naff, 2011) Further, at the street level, representative bureaucracy tends to have a positive effect in terms of citizens' perceptions of service provision and the legitimacy of bureaucratic action (see Keiser et al., 2002). Finally, w hen local governments include more culturally and ethnically diverse personnel outcomes s eem to be more equitable for minorities; when governments do not take such measures, equity problems can occur (Spina, 2013). However, even at local levels, many minorities are stratified in low level jobs, so the effects of passive representation can be l imited. As such, scholars also investigate "active representation", which occurs when minority bureaucrats have enough discretion to foster better outcomes for minorities (Mosher, 1968; see also Keiser, 2010; Naff, 2001). A common empirical finding is that active representation allows more minority concerns to be expressed. For instance, Meier (1984) found an inverse relationship between proportions of African American and Hispanic teachers in relation to school board members and disciplinary actions ta ken against members of these groups (see also Meier & Stewart, 1991). Hindera (1993; 1998) found that in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission active representation is associated with administrators more often considering African American and Latino complaints. Similarly, Selden (1997a) examined the Farmers Home Administration Offices and loan applications made by African American, Asian American, and Hispanics and found a positive relationship between levels of active representation and acceptance o f applications. This immediately raises the question of why these effects occur. E vidence indicates t hat progressive ambition might compel some administrative proactivity in addressing group
! (( equity (see LeRoux & Pandey, 2011). Some empirical investigation s have found that m inority bureaucrats tend to think that stakeholders expect them to provide more benefit to other minorities (see Selden, 1997b) Evidence of the effect of stakeholder expectations appears in administrative actions concerning race and class (see Riccucci & Meyers, 2004), sex (see Meier & Nicholson Crotty, 2006; Saidel & Loscocco, 2005), and i ntersections between demographic c ategories (Meier et al., 2005), especially in agencies in which bureaucrats associate agency mission wit h fostering more equity (Meier & Nigro, 1976). Further, as representation moves from passive to active, bureaucratic culture and attitudes tend to change which results in bureaucrats more actively considering m inorities' concerns ( Bradbury & Kellough, 200 8; F rederickson, 2010). Further, with greater representativeness in public bureaucracies, especially in more ethnically diverse urban cities, those bureaucracies tend to make equity more of a priority (Behr, 2004; Crank & Wells, 1991; Meier, 1993; Pynes, 2 001; Riccucci, 1987; Zhao et al., 2010), albeit usually on a North South axis(Valentino & Sears, 2005). Thus, in total representativeness is likely a key variable influencing how public bureaucracies distribute goods to minority populations (Keiser, 2010; West and Durant, 2000) albeit so long as the demographic characteristic in question is salient (see Keiser et al., 2002). In terms of community characteristics, public burea ucracies operating in more ethnically diverse urban cities with representative workforces usually are more likely to make equity a priority While the aforementioned studies demonstrate that both passive and active representation can have positive effects in in terms of public administrators fostering more equitable outcomes for minorities, it is reasonable to ask why such effects occur. Most literature answers by indicating that representativeness allows enhanced administrative
! () discretion to make sure min orities receive public policy benefits fosters accountability to a wider body politc and engenders more positive citizen perceptions of government thus positively affecting perceptions of legitimacy (Dolan & Rosenbloom, 2003; Keiser, 2010; Krislov & Ros enbloom, 1981 ; Meier, 1975; Meier, 1993 a,b; Meier & Bohte, 2001; Sowa & Selden, 2003 ). Problems in Representative Bureaucracy Literature While many would agree that such outcomes are ideal, s everal concerns are present in the literature. One concern with representative bureaucracy is that it could call neutral competence, objectivity, and rationality into question and may cause inequitable distributions to other groups (Lim, 2006). Lim (2006) further noted that the literature does not significantly distinguish between direct and indirect causal effects of representative bureaucracy. I n the former, administrators specifically act in minorities' interests; in the latter, minorities could help to change behavior, affect clien ts, or other causal mechanisms. M uch of this research suffers from "black box" theories of public management, making it incumbent upon future scholars employing such theories to be clear er about causal arguments (Lim, 2006) F urther, it can be difficult to measure representativeness. M ethods of measuring representativeness often involve matching percentages in the civil service to population percentages or to the civilian labor force in general (i.e., those 16 and over and not in the military) (see US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2005; US Office of Personnel Management, 2005). Also, organizations themselves are embedded in unique contexts, have distinct missions, and view the need to include representativeness of min orities differently (Keiser, 2010; Keiser et al., 2002; Meier et al., 2005). As such, e ven with representativeness represent, numerous extraorganizational factors could affect the
! (* predicted effects of administrative discretion, such as interactions with ci tizens, political principals' demands on agencies, and intra and inter state political variations (see Keiser, 2006; Gailmard, 2014; Soss & Keiser, 2006). Further, representative bureaucracy proponents operate under the assumption that having minorities in a bureaucracy will improve outcomes of groups those minorities demographically represent However, it is unclear how many minorities would be needed to yield changes (i.e., a critical mass) or how stratificat ion which typically keeps minorities from occupying key decisionmaking positions affects discretion (Hindera &Young, 1998; Selden, 2006). Thus, more work is needed to understand how representative bureaucracy positively affects outcomes for minorities ( Keiser, 2010) especially in terms of how minority bureaucrats' personal characteristic s interact with the demographic variable of interest (e.g., race) and how this relationship affects their performance (Hewins Maroney & Williams, 2007; Ryan, 2012; Wilki ns, 2007). This is especially important to clarify considering how representative bureaucracy might affect policing. Representative Bureaucracy and the Police E vidence is growing that inclusion of minority officers in police forces yields more equitable outcom es for minorities and that the increased presence of minorities in departments can change police culture to be more sensitive toward racial issues. However, as noted by Lasley et al. (2011), few studies have explicitly examined representative bureauc racy and the police. Thus, the effects of greater representation remain unclear, and since racial parity in police departments remains unbalanced, opportunities to explore the effects of representative bureaucracy vis Âˆ vis the police are still in their in fancy (see Chappell, 2009).
! )+ M ost extant studies conclude that inclusion of minority police officers has positive effects on police culture, which then, in turn, positively affect outcomes for citizens. Alex (1969) provided one of the earliest arguments in favor of representativeness, who opined that hiring more racially diverse officers could lead to increased racial sensitivity in other officers. Several studies have found evidence in favor of this position. In departments in which the culture is already open to change, recruitment of minority officers can spark a cultural shift toward greater racial sensitivity and attention to minorities' concerns (Cran k, 2004; Dowler, 2005; Skolnick, 2008; Sun & Payne, 2004). Several studies have found that minority police chiefs (the presence of whom could be endogenous to other factors) are more likely to promote social equity (Harrison et al., 2006; Lewis, 1989; Zha o et al., 2006a). lv How a police chief drives policy is often a significant predictor of how a department behaves (Mastrofski, 2004). However while police forces are becoming more diverse in terms of officers' race, gender, and even sexual preferences, min ority officers are usua lly stratified in lower ranks. These stratification effects suggest that the effects of passive and active representation could be minimal (see Sklansky, 2006). Further, despite pushes to recruit more minority officers, some departme nts cann ot hire more minorities if a given minority group's proportion in the population is low (Grissom et al., 2009; Zhao & Lovrich, 1998). In terms of substantive outputs for citizens, the general wisdom is that when minority officers have a greater pr esence on a police force, they can better respond to race based issues and promote better relations with citizens (Weitzer et al., 2008). Questions remain regarding how these effects manifest themselves. Four categories of findings are important.
! )" First, so me evidence indicates that even in instances when the number of minority officers is representative of the population, minority officers tend to behave similarly to non minority officers (Sklansky, 2006) and that race is not a significant predictor of outputs. Thus representativeness may have no significant effects, or the effects of representativeness might be due to oth er factors such as changes in political culture Many scholars attribute minority officers acting like their counterparts to police culture socialization effects, which can mitigate many racial effects predicted by representative bureaucracy For instance one study found that black officers are more likely to profile racially than white officers, which the researchers attributed to police socialization pressures (Wilkins & Williams, 2008). Further, Terrill et al. (2006) conducted observational studies of police in Indianapolis and St. Petersburg to examine how police culture influences the use of force, finding that officers' attitudinal commitment to traditional police culture is a stronger predictor of action taken not race. Additionally, Smith and Petr ocelli (2001) examined traffic stop data in Richmond, Virginia and found that officer race was not a significant predictor of when officers stop minorit y drivers. In short, minority officers were just as likely as White officers to stop, search, and arrest minorities. lvi W hile race often seems to have an effect, very often, other factors better explain how officers act, such as years of experience (Sobol, 2010) which the section on "Public Sector/Service Motivation" discusses lvii More problematically, even when minority officers are on a police force, they might feel marginalized. For instance, Wilson and Wilson (2014) sent an online survey to 62 African American officers in nine police departments in the Northeastern United States Findings revealed that officers feel victimized due to racial indifference and hostile work environments, departments condone racial
! )# profiling, depar tments do little to support them but that they still feel they yield positive effects on the communities in which they serve. Second, o ther studies have found differences in how White versus minority officers act in terms of stopping motorists For instance, Gilliard Matthews et al. (2008) analyzed citizen reports of how officer race affects traffic decisio ns and found that Black officers tend to be more lenient with Black motorists than are White officers which could indicate an effect of outcomes changing based upon race However, when Antovics and Knight (2009) investigated the interconnections between o fficer and motorist race in stops initiated by the Boston police department, findings indicated that when officer and motorist race differ, officers, regardless of race, are more likely to initiate a stop and search a vehicle. Third some data reveal that greater representation on police forces yields numerous positive effects for citizens. Many of these relate to citizens' perceptions of legitimacy, furthering reinforcing the strong perceptual element of social equity. For instance, Theobald and Haider Markel (2006, 2009) found that police officer race often affects how citizens perceive the legitimacy of traffic stops. Citizens often express more positive attitudes about interactions with the police when passive represe ntation is present (see also Keiser & Haider Markel, 2007). Similarly, Cochran and Warren (2011) used data from the Police Public Contact Survey to determine the effects of how race affects citizen evaluations of police behavior as moderated by officer rac e. Findings indicated that officer race shapes citizen perceptions of stops, particularly for African Americans, with African Americans more positively rating associations with officers of the same race. Fourth, e ncouraging more representativeness also can have positive impacts on communitie s. To wit, Lasley et al. (2011) surveyed 405 male Caucasian, African American,
! )$ and Latino patrol officers from the Los Angeles Police Department between 1992 and 2007. Over this period, minority police officers indica ted an increased desire to engage and partner with the community whereas White officers exhibited less desire. The authors noted that the findings lent credence to representative bureaucracy's theory "that establishing racial parity between police and citi zens may increase the willingness of officers to represent the interests of others with similar demographic backgrounds" (p. 474). Further, in an examination of job satisfaction and its effects on policing in the New York City Police Department, White et a l. (2010) found that minority officers tended to rate opportunities to help people and that the profession yields prestige higher than W hite officers. However, data revealing positive effects of representative bureaucracy are not always clear. Huggins' (2012) analysis of 6,301 citizen reports of traffic stop encounters revealed that African Americans are less likely to report proper police behavior, regardless of the race of the officer. Findings further demonstrated that black citizens b eing stopped by white officers as well as white citizens being stopped by black officers were the least likely to result in a report of proper behavior. Consequently the results still showed "limited support for the importance of citizen race and officer/ citizen pairs in determining perception of police behavior" (p. 92). Similarly, other studies have found no impact on positive attitudes when representation is higher, with one study noting that violence against the police actually increases with represent ativeness (Barrick et al., 2014). As such, several factors regarding representative bureaucracy and policing require further investigation (Lasley et al., 2011). For instance, representative bureaucracy theory notes a link between discretion and race, whic h is important given officers' extensive powers as street level bureaucrats (see Maynard Moody & Musheno, 2003). Despite some of the
! )% evidence cited above, it is not entirely clear how officer race affects the decision to make a stop (see Theobald & Haider Markel, 2008). Many of these effects could be endo genous to other factors, such as openness to change, which in turn could be a function of several community and political issues (see Crank, 2004; Dowler, 2005; Skolnick, 2008; Sun & Payne, 2004). Regardles s, it is possible that representativeness could affect perceptions of socially equitable policing. Thus, it is reasonable to predict that P9 : Citizen perceptions of socially equitable policing will be higher in communities in which police officers are more racially representative of the community's population. P10 : Citizen p erceptions of socially equitable policing will be higher in communities served by police d epartments with a minority police chief. Administrative Culture A likely driver of policing and pretextual stops concerns administrative culture. Studies of administrative culture stem from studies of organizational culture (Jamil et al., 2013), which its elf is rooted in studies of organizational theory (see Hofstede, 1980; Pettigrew, 1979; Schein 1992). All studies of organizational share in common an analysis of regular behaviors, values, formal philosophy, rules, climate, skills, and habits (Schein, 199 2). lviii Administrative culture concerns public organizations' dominant values and norms that influence relations between administrators and in the performance of public work (Jamil et al., 2013). Much research on organizational culture examines top civil se rvants or corrupt practices (see Lam, 2004), but an extensive literature examines creating typologies of culture. For instance, most typologies place Weberian administrative culture as a baseline, which places emphasis on rule orientation and rule followin g (Jamil et al., 2013). However, at least two additional administrative cultures are evident, such as NPM/Market Values and Democratic Values (Dwivedl & Gow, 1999).
! )& Henderson (2004) has provided the most recent comprehensive summary of administrative cul ture studies. Several points are evident. First, according to Henderson, administrative culture concerns public officials' "shared values, attitudes, beliefs" as all levels of government; such culture "is related to the broader political culture from which it derives", which "can be further discussed in terms of sub cultures" (pp. 238 239). Second, US administrative culture is a reflection of the struggles to realize political values and who/what should manage service delivery. Third, core values of America n administrative culture appear to be neutrality and objectivity, professionalism and expertise, and transparency and accountability. Core beliefs concern a belief in equity and the legal order, beliefs in progress and stability, tendencies toward seculari sm, and administrators being specialists (not generalists). Henderson also noted three sub cultures. Traditional sub culture is the largest group at all levels of government who aim to serve the public yet enjoy security and benefits of the position. The s econd is self protective, which comprise officials who perceive they are under attack from elected officials and/or the public. The third is entrepreneurial, or administrators most associated with reinventing government and meeting modern challenges (Hende rson, 2004). Police Culture As noted throughout the literature review, scholars usually equate police culture with police practice. Overwhelmingly, scholars have argued that police culture tends to be insular, conservative, and distinct from other cultur es (Sklansky, 2007 a/b ). Further, most literature finds that police culture tends to be homogenous both within and across departments (see Loftus, 2009, 2010 as examples). Reuss Ianni (1983) found evidence of competing subcultures within departments, with managers and street of ficers having
! )' distinct cultures. Most studies explicitly or implicitly posit a link between culture and officer discretion. These findings are evident throughout the classical works examining police culture. For instance, the oft cited progenitor of such studies is from Westley (1970), who studied local police in Gary, Indiana in the late 1940s. Westley noted that police culture operated within a hostile environment, which contributed to feelings of isolation, self protection, solidarity, and secrecy. This work was expanded by Skolnick (1966) who noted that officers have working personalities, which are reactions to the dangers of work, which then lead to suspiciousness of environments outside the police. These threats often lead police to be conservative i n both their expression of emotion as well as cultural preferences. Some scholars dispute these findings, noting that since policing actions can differ in communities with similar political cultures, it is difficult to postulate the existence of a "common" police culture (Langworthy, 1995). Regardless, it is orthodoxy in criminal justice literature that there are several common indicators of police culture (see Sklansky, 2007). Crank's (1998) observations of police behavior and culture provide a more conte mporary baseline for such arguments. Crank argued that police culture can only be understood by taking account of daily police work. Line officers themselves interact with institutional environments, comprised of groups with varying expectations of the pol ice. Police culture itself is a consequence of administrative environments, courts, media, and interactions with groups on the streets. Unique police cultures could be attributable to management styles, individuals recruited, and population characteristics In brief, this culture is, in large part, a coping mechanism to deal with tensions related to external risks and dangers as well as relations with police and political
! )( elites, and police culture is a response to these pressures (Paoline, 2003). Scholars often argue that more data are needed on the origins of such cultures and how cultures change, especially concerning demands from societal stressors, changes in technology, or having more racially diverse police forces (see Chan, 1997; Cockcroft, 2007; Pu nch, 2007). The most recent high level review of the literature on police culture was conducted by Reiner (2010), who referred to police cultures as "complex ensembles of values, attitudes, symbols, rules, recipes, and practices" (p. 116). According to R einer, several themes are evident throughout the literature. First, police have a sense of mission and preferences for direct actions while maintaining cynicism and pessimism about citizens. Individuals outside of policing, especially citizens and politici ans, are often perceived as distant from the requirements of actual police work. This leads to extensive solidarity with other officers, even when street level officers violate rules. Further, police themselves often distinguish between "rough" and "respec table" persons and groups, which can lead to racial prejudice. Finally, officers tend to be highly pragmatic and conservative in their views of society and preferred action. However, more positive aspects are evident, such as officers' involvement in suppo rting citizens (see Manning, 2007), what one scholar called pragmatic humanism (Bjork, 2008). However, the effects of culture are not always as clear. This area of literature is particularly problematic given the need to account for the "many forces [that ] vie for control of officer discretion" (Mastofski, 2004, p. 102). lix What is clear is that numerous pathways lead to policing outcomes, from community pressures, individual norms, values, policing styles, motivation, and the interactions between these and culture ( French & Emerson, 2014; Mastrofski, 2004; Medias & Kehoe, 2006; Reiner, 2000), all of which are endogenous and
! )) poorly understood (Cihan & Wells, 2011; see also Dunham & Alpert, 1988). lx However, these cultures, while largely uniform across departm ents, can differ depending upon environmental stressors (Chan, 1996; Wilson, 1968), which can result in individual officers engaging in different policing styles (Paoline, 2003). An officer's work occurs "away from their colleagues or supervision", meaning that "a police officer's authority is exercised by their discretionary powers" (Macveran & Cox, 2012, p. 16). However, it is reasonable to assume that how an officer engages in policing is reflective of the culture of a department (Reiner, 2010). T he reality is that there are likely complex interactions between individuals' characteristics and existing culture. In short, the effects are not unidirectional. Officers themselves often have operational styles, in which their value orientations change ho w they respond, such as values concerning adherence to and enforcement of the law as well as maintaining the peace (see Wortley, 1997, 2003; see also Lipsky, 1980). Literature researching the effect of these orientation s is problematic as findings do not yield consistent outcomes (see Stith, 1990), although officers who have more community mindsets tend to make fewer arrests (Mastrofski et al., 1995, 1998, 2000). Cognitive schemas also likely have effect, which will change how an officer processes informat ion and how situational factors can differentially engage cognitive schemas and lead to different outcomes (see Novak et al., 2002). Research on cognitive schemas has attempted to identify schemas' effects on particular situations with policing, but result s have not been definitive, with much research suggesting that variability in actions can be explained by officers' attitudes concerning expected degrees of enforcement, adherence to procedure, and even community support (see Barker, 1999; Robinson, 2000; Worden & Pollitz, 1984; Wortley, 1997).
! )* Regardless, officers often feel it necessary to employ suspiciousness as a copying mechanism (Kappeler et al., 1998) by triaging public engagement by noting if persons are suspicious, "assholes" or "know nothings" (S kolnick, 1994). Occupational cultures, which are maintained by front line workers, can differ from organizational cultures defined by top administrators (Van Maanen & Barley, 1984; Schein, 1992). A possible effect on equity concerns distinctions between line officer and management officer culture. Many scholars have found that large police organizations have more policies to restrict officer discretion (e.g., Brown, 1988), although this is likely m itigated by the signals given to officers concerning the need to display their authority in dangerous situations (Manning, 1995). Line officers often experience uncertainty when interacting with superiors, who expect not only law enforcement but adherence to rules and regulations (Skolnick, 1994). As noted by Paoline (2003), this means that disciplinary actions reflect poorly on an entire department and an emphasis on what officers do poorly versus what they do well. As such, it is likely that a administrat ors exercising "excessive scrutiny" likely minimize equity violations (see Paoline, 2003, p. 201). This can result in a "cover your ass" attitude, which could encourage officers to behave in ways that do not bring attention to their actions (Herbert, 1997, 1998), especially when the perception is that supervisors are merely making officers' jobs difficult (Sparrow et al., 1990). Reuss Ianni (1983) posited that street cops have different cultures than management cops, but the latter has been weakened by the former due to increased emphasis on accountability, more minority groups in policing, and higher education requirements. In brief, those of higher rank might have different concerns and bring about different cultural commitments (Manning, 1994). As such, i t is possible that top administrators top management shape the occupational culture of a
! *+ department by shaping the organizational expectations (Wilson, 1968), or that supervision that create two cultures and hostility between street cops and management cop s (Reuss Ianni, 1983), which can result in cultural segmentation (Manning, 1994). Regardless, the logic can be relatively straightforward: police cultures that view minorities as dangerous are more likely to treat those minorities as suspicious, but indiv idual characteristics related to officers can mitigate these effects. In short, organizational and administrative culture shapes individuals, but individuals also shape culture (Rainey, 2009). Regardless, many scholars have noted that it is possible to mak e simple predictions of how the culture of a department affects discretion and the perceived seriousness of a crime (see Chan, 1996; Rowe, 2007; Skolnick, 2008; Wortley, 2003), albeit imperfectly. In this way, there are likely linkages between culture, dis cretion and policing output. lxi Objective Characteristics Education and Experience A growing body of literature has examined the effects of education on policing, which often can be a predictor of how police use their discretion (Macvean & Cox, 2012). Some scholars extirpate discussions of cultural effects and focus on predicting policing output by understand the effects of objective characteristics, such as age, years of service, socioeconomic background, race, gender, and so forth (see Lundman, 1994; Wilson & Braithwaite, 1995). The strongest predictor of how an officer engages in policing is usually level of experience, not race (Finn & Stalans, 1995, 2002; Sobol, 2010). In brief, more education is often a predictor of several effects, with the more educated officers like having the most equitable policing styles ( see Camilleri, 2007; Moynihan & Pandey, 2007; Perry, 1997, 2000;Vandenabeele, 2011). However, many police departments do not have high educational requirements for joining (Macvean & Cox, 20 12). Despite these
! *" relatively low requirements for joining most literature has found that more educated officers tend to better relate to citizens, have less prejudiced attitudes about policing, and are more publically committed to policing (Paoline & Ter rill, 2007). Thus, it is reasonable to predict that: P11 : Citizen p erceptions of socially equitable policing will be higher in communities served by police departments in which officers tend to have more education. Other literature suggests levels of experie nce, not education, most affect officers' motivation and performance ( Finns & Stalan, 2002; Paoline & Terrill, 2007 ; Riksheim & Chermak, 1993 ), especially informal influences like socialization ( Sobol, 2010; Walker & Katz, 2007). However, l evels of experience could have numerous effect s (see French & Emerson, 2014; Perry, 1996; Perry & Hondeghem, 2008). On one hand, more experienced officers have reported that their experience helps them value serving the public more, although this is usually the st rongest for minority officers (Lasley et al., 2011). On the other hand, high levels of experience might merely cause officers to be entrenched in a department's culture (Mastrofski, 2004) For instance, o ne study found that socialization effects of trainin g and longitudinal interactions with other officers were so strong that some African American officers are more likely to profile racially than are White officers, but attitudes held earlier in life likely play a role (Wilkins & Williams, 2008). Veterans m ight influence younger, less experienced officers to align themselves with an established police culture ( see Jones 1986; Van Maanen, 1974, 1975), which may or may not r espect openness and fostering equity (Christensen & Crank, 2001; Filstad & Gottschalk, 2010; Steinheider & Wuestewald, 2008). These effects are likely dependent upon the type of public bureaucracy and its existing culture and unique community stressors ( see Finns & Stalan, 2002). S eniority could have
! *# distinct effects depending upon the existing culture : Veterans could encourage more socially equitable practices or fewer practices In short, the effect of experience is likely dependent upo n larger context especially the type of location in which an officer works (see Barker, 1999) Trai ning Effects Relatedly, many scholars have noted how trainings can influence officer behavior and motivation ( Bass, 2001; Schlosser, 2011; Van Maanen, 1974; Wilkins & Williams, 2008 ). For instance, many police departments have initiated diversity and legal training. Most diversity trainings have seen little change since the 1960s, and they usually teach officers about cross cultural communication and conflict resolution (Blakemore et al., 1995). The literature presents mi xed evidence in terms of effects For instance, some studies find that such trainings yield little change in officers' racial attitudes (Schlosser, 2 0 13; see also Haberfield, 2002). On the other hand, such trainings can lead to increased knowledge and more critical thinking with respect to diversity (see Boulware Brown, 2004 ; Cornett DeVito & McGlone, 2000 ). Such programs need to be offered repeatedly, and there must be institution al will to offer them, but when present, such trainings can help change officers' attitudes ( S husta et al., 2002). Similarly, s cholars have long recognized the need for legal training for officers to ensure that policing actions are compliant with the law (see Ciminelli, 1986; Northwestern University, 1918 as historical examp les ). P rofessionalizing legal trainings, especially in the requirements of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, can lead to officers better considering the rule of law when policing (see Eijkman, 2006; Murrell, 1996; see also Police Law Institute, 2014). Numerous scholars have argued that judiciaries repeatedly criticize police
! *$ departments for not offering legal trainings since officers r equire regular updates on legislative and judicial actions; however, when present, such trainings positively affect outc omes (see Ceyssens, 2004; Clark & Armstrong, 2012; Kinnaird, 2007). Again, the presence of these trainings could be endogenous to other factors, such as pressures from political elites or communities or departments already being open to change. Regardless, it is reasonable to predict that: P1 2 : Citizen p erceptions of socially equitable policing will be higher in communities served by police departments with trainings on diversity and law. Relatedly, f or most street level bureaucrats, the identities and attitudes they bring into an organization usually exhibit little change yet remain salient (Portillo & DeHart Davis, 2009). For police, evidence exists that officers maintain identities formed early in l ife (see Raganella & White, 2004; Sun & Payne, 2004). These identities in turn affect motivation to join the police, which are often the strongest predictors of motivation throughout a career ( Lasley et al., 2011; Oberfield, 2014). lxii While many of the effec ts of the motivation to join can be affected by pressure to adhere f ormal rules (see Mastrofski et al., 1987), especially vis Âˆ vis supervision and monitoring (Westphal, 2004), officers who join with a desire for public service will likely maintain this motivation through their careers (Reiner, 2000). lxiii Management Summary The management practices discussed herein implicate human capital theory in particular, in that making bureaucracy more representative, more accountable administratively and engaging in performance measurement are all investments in particular skills, trainings, and knowledge for police to do their job better and achieve better outcomes
! *% for citizens ( see Hur, 2013; Lundberg & Startz, 1998). Further, it is evident that given the rise of m anagerial practices in policing, especially the emphasis on responsiveness to and protections of citizens, factoring how citizens perceive the benefits particularly perceptions of accountability, of these practices is essential to measuring social equity (see Gooden, 2015a; Walker, 2007) Using Qualitative Inquiry Scholars have provided several suggestions for how to improve understanding social equity and/or policing practices As seen above, there is no shortage of methods. Broadly, there are three extant methods of investigating policing and pretextual stops and their implications on social justice or social equity First, in criminal justice literature, the most common metho d has been to examine government collected traffic stop data (where available), estimate driving population demographics, and ascertain whether police stop minorities in higher proportions (see Dunn, 2009; Witherspoon, 2010). Second, many scholars have use d the Police Public Contact Survey to study citizen perceptions of the legitimacy of interactions with the police (see Durose & Langton, 2013). Third, some scholars have employed either qualitative approaches or mixed methods, such as using statistical ana lyses to inform targeted interviews or focus groups with police to ascerta in if race correlates with officer decisions to initiate a stop (see Williams & Stahl, 2008). The problems with these methods have been reviewed above. As a reminder, the problems usually concern : 1) government datasets not containing important information or lacking uniform data collection across states; 2) the difficulties of estimating proportions (which is better left to criminal justice scholarship); 3) other surveys (e.g., th e Police Public Contact Survey) not including important community identifiers (see Bureau of Justice
! *& Statistics, 2014) or not asking questions consistently across years ( e.g., the GSS; see NORC, 2014); 4) the difficulty of obtaining extended access to and truthfulness of officers; and 5 ) citizen surveys commissioned by departments not cross tabulating responses by race or aggregating questions on traffic enforcement instead of providing detail on pretextual stops or data sets being unavailable as they we re created by private firms unwilling to share data sets (see City of New Orleans, 2014; ETC Institute, 2014 ). Thus, a new method is required. In terms of social equity research, mixing methods but emphasizing qualitative elements is likely the best option and the type sch olars have called for the most. The call to obtain q ualitative data is understandable considering a strength of qualitative research is to use phenomenology and grounded theory to examine complex, endogenous causal ne tworks at various levels of analysis (Charbonneau & Riccucci, 2008; Charbonneau et al., 2009; Pitts, 2011; see also Bradbury & Kellough, 2011; Cresswell, 2013, 2012; Johnson & Svara, 2009; Miles & Huberman, 1994). Further, in order to understand the effect s of practices related to fostering social equity, especially indicators, Charbonneau et al. (2011) recommended case studies and interviews with public officials to determine links between the presence of social equity indicators and increased social equit y practices. Finally since social equity has a large perceptual element, qualitative data better capture nuances in the meaning individuals assign to their environment and actions, which then influence how they act (see Alvez & Timney, 2008; Frederickson, 2010). Finally, Johnson and Svara (2011) and Gooden (2015a) recommend that researchers examine how accountability for social equity is achieved. To remind, Gooden, using the work of Johnson and Svara as a guide, advanced a seven part framework to articulate what achieving accountability for social equity means. Using citizen perceptions as a way to
! *' exa mine outcomes of accountability, it is possible not only to ascertain how police agencies try to achieve accountability but how their attempts affect citizen perceptions (see Walker, 2007). Literature Review Summary: Justifications and Propositions If an ything the complexity of the literature cited above demonstrates that officers are not islands unto themselves but operate in an environment with numerous and conflicting political, managerial, and legal influences. The literature also reinforces the diff iculty of social equity research, not only because of problematic conceptual definitions but also because of the complexity of social equity issues themselves Social equity is far more than simply "fairness". However, the starting point to understanding it must be rooted in the law. G overnment's legal obligation in terms of social equity is to fost er the equal protection of the law. This is best exemplified in constitutional law which requires that other factors beyond race motivate a stop although race can be a reason to stop someone if supported by reasonable suspicion and the totality of the circumstances test While state laws vary in in terms of defining what permissible police b ehavior is no state law can legally conflict with this constitutional requirement. As such, if police stop minorities in greater proportions than Whites at least two theoretical positions provide an explanation First consensus theory indicates that pol ice operate from notions of equity and that the criminal justice system imposes sanctions on those who break the law, irrespective of demographic factors. Second according to conflict theory, conservative police values and culture foster more discrimination against minorities out of a desire to eliminate perceived racial threats. Conflict theory is strongly related to the minority group thre at hypothesis, which predicts that as the proportion of minorities increase with respect to Whites, citiz en's fear of crimes
! *( increases, then leading to policing styles that emphasize minority crime control The reality is that both theories could be supported depending upon the state and locality. Further, constitutionally, higher proportions of stops are no t unconstitutional if officers can demonstrate reasonable suspicion that a crime is in progress or about to be in progress. Yet even reasonable suspicion is not an isolated requirement, as officers invoking must demonstrate evidence of their using objectiv e, rational thinking to justify making the stop. As noted in the Floyd ruling, the pervasiveness of such practices, not isolated instances, may be the most problematic. The issue is that it is far from certain whether the majority of officers act from a sense of constitutional fairness (i.e., consensus theory) or from more sinister motives (i.e., conflict theory) Both theories likely explain some police actions but not others. As such, it is imperative to understand how several political, managerial, and legal factors influence the decision to initiate a stop, as c onstitutional requirements as well as consensus and conflict theory alone are insufficient to understand social equity in policing. However with this difficult reality acknowledged it is important to note that it is not always ideal to use data related to stop rates to examine the equity of government practice. Si nce social equity has a strong perceptual element, particularly in how citizens feel that administrative actions and policies are fair legitimate, and justified (Frederickson, 2010; Tyler, 2001) a valuable proxy for social equity is gauging citizen perceptions, especiall y those most affected by an admini strative action or policy. For instance, much of the impetus behind measuring government outputs and even government reform drives is to foster better feelings among and assessments from cit izens on the quality of service delivery ( Dollery & Robotti 2008; Osborne & Gaebler, 1992). If citizens are not happy with services, then it
! *) behooves both administrators and scholars to ascertain the political, managerial, and legal factors influencing those assessments (Osborne & Gaebler, 1992) This truism applies to policing and pretextual stops. As several studies cited in the literature demonstrate, obtaining c itizen perceptions of stops is essential to understand ing social equity for five primary reasons First, it is difficult to get officers to admit in research settings that their actions are motivated by profiling, except in small focus group settings in which officers trust group members, trust the researcher, and can be assured of anonymity (see Williams & Stahl, 2008). Second, as noted above, exis ting data sources are not always reliable for several reasons albeit usually related to completeness ( see Meeks, 2000). Third, using police data alone cannot reveal citizens' perceptions of the legitimacy and propriety of a stop (Lundman & Kaufman, 2003). According to some scholars, citizens' perceptions are as important as "the objective reality of the stops" given that perceptions of racial motivation may create citizen police distrust and future conflict ( Weitzer & Tuch, 2002, p. 436). Fourth citizen a ssessments are important because many minorities may not report problems with government bureaucrats to official sources especially in matters involving the police ( Lundman, 2004 ). This underreporting is problematic given that groups most affected by government service position might not have a voice to express their assessments (Ingram et al., 2007). Finally, and most importantly, obtaining citizen perceptions is sound in terms of democratic theory. In a democracy, the people are sovereign and public administrators are both servants to and guides of the people (see Kettl, 2014; Rosenbloom et al., 2008). As such, public administrators are ultimately accountable to the people in the services government deliver s so ascertaining how citizens perceive the equity of service delivery fosters accountability back to the sovereign people.
! ** Given this context, several legal, political, and managerial factors related to policing and pretextual stops likely affect social equi ty. Six factors in particular are important. First, it is clear that state legislatures drive police behavior, both in terms of state laws empowering police to engage in pretextual stops differ from state to state which could be a function of state and local political culture as well as in terms of the power of minority legislators Elazar's notion of political culture as well as Wilson's policing and community government typologies offer some insight Elazar argued that administrative and policy output can be predicted based upon state political culture. In this instance, states exhibiting traditionalistic political cultures are more likely to pass laws allowing more powers to initiate stops. Further, state political culture and the culture of administrative units in a state likely match. Relatedly, Wilson's typology predicts that policing style can be predicted based upon local government arrangements. Second, each department responds to uniq ue community issues th at political principals and citizens may associate with race. Many communities have begun community policing initiatives, but more data are needed on why departments start these, their effects, and their relationships to other community stressors. P ressure from political elites on these issues may change police behavior. This is most associated with principal ag ent theory ( see Gailmard, 201 4 ). As the literature above highlights, it is likely that investigating political elites' pressures could explain a great deal about social equity in policing and pretextual stops. Third, greater minority representation in pol ice forces could affect social equity Thus, representative bureaucracy theory predicts that passive representation might lead to greater acknowledgement of minority issues in police departments whereas active
! "++ representation leads to more bureaucratic outputs in favor of minorities. However, some of these effects may be endogenous to other factors. Fourth, self determination theory predicts that individual motivations differ upon context and task which then af fect discretion. However, administrative culture likely has numerous effects on motivation, particularly the culture that management officers create. Relatedly, individual officers' pol icing styles and backgrounds, especially concerning education and exper ience could play a role (see Williams & Stahl, 2008) Policing styles are difficult to measure as doing so require s extensive access to and observation of officers to gauge how they respond to numerous factors in situ or how they use pre existing cognitive schemas Proxy measures are possible but, as insinuated by Lundman (2010) and Roberg et al. ( 2009 ) state laws and pressure to adhere to the law might be more stable predictors, especially since police officers, espe cially departmental administrators, must ensure departmental accountability to the law Fifth, the way a department employs and uses performance measurement relat ed to equity could play a role. This literature is in its infancy, yet several scholars have called for more research (see Charbonneau & Riccucci, 2008; Charbonneau et al., 2009; Pitts, 2011). However, it is unclear how these tools improve social equity ou tcomes (Pitts, 2011), the extent to which departments use them, and how they are related to citizen perceptions of legitimacy and procedural justice (Barton & Teagel, 2007; Brown, 2001; Dias & Maynard Moody, 2007; Hinds, 2007; Moore & Braga, 2003; Oberfiel d, 2010; Portillo, 2007; Taylor, 2001; Van Ryzin & Immerwahr, 2004; Van Ryzin & Muzzio, 2004; Yang & Holzer, 2006). lxiv Understanding these tools are particularly important as many scholars have found
! "+" that having published social equity standards influences h ow front line administrators act (see Bagaka, 2009). Sixth and most broadly it is important to examine the question of how accountability for social equity is achieved (Gooden, 2015a; Johnson & Svara). Walker (2007) pointed to the dearth of research on ho w police accountability systems affect citizen trust in government. Citizen perceptions are very often the highest level outcomes of these systems (Biela, 2015). As such, measuring perceptions of accountability are ways of determining not only how agencies try to achieve accountability for social equity but also whether certain practices are associated with more positive perceptions. List of all p ropositions Given the current state of the literature 12 propositions were proposed: P1: Citizen p erceptions of socially equitable policing will be lower in states whose legislatures give police more power to stop motorists and pedestrians. P2 : Citizen p erceptions of socially equitable policing will be higher in states in which minority legislators' p roportions in the state legislature are closer to their population proportions. P3 : Citizen p erceptions of socially equitable policing will be higher in communities served by police departments working in cities that have council manager governments. P4 : Citizen p erceptions of socially equitable policing will be lower in communities that have criminal or social issues popularly related to race. P5 : Citizen p erceptions of socially equitable policing will be lower in communities that have experienced an i ncrease in the proportion of minorities in the last 10 years. P6 : Citizen p erceptions of socially equitable policing will be lower in communities in which political principals demand policing action on social issues popularly related to race. P7 : Citizen p erceptions of socially equitable policing will be higher in communities served by police departments engaging in community policing programs. P8: Citizen p erceptions of socially equitable policing will be higher in communities served by police departments that use social equity performance measures.
! "+# P9 : Citizen p erceptions of socially equitable policing will be higher in communities in which police officers are more racially representative of the community's population. P10 : Citizen p erceptio ns of socially equitable policing will be higher in communities served by police departments with a minority police chief. P11 : Citizen p erceptions of socially equitable policing will be higher in communities served by police departments in which officers tend to have more education. P12 : Citizen p erceptions of socially equitable policing will be higher in communities served by police departments with trainings on diversity and law.
! "+$ CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY The methods follow both Charbonneau et al.'s (2011) as well as Pitts' (2011) recommendation that future investigations of social equity should obtain detail rich qualitative data. To remind, Charbonneau et al. recommended interviews with public officials to better determine how managerial practices, particularly the use of performance m anagement indicators, influence social equity. Due to the intersections of management with politics and law (Rosenbloom 2013 ) it is reasonable to extend Charbonneau et al.'s recommendation to include the influence of political and legal factors Given how little is known about social equity in practice in terms of policing and accountability systems (Walker, 2007) qualitative data provide rich detail into the phenomenology of social equity or the meaning people bring to implicated variables, but also help create grounded theory for future investigations (see Brewer, 2000; Creswell, 2003, 2012 ; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011; Fakis et al., 2014; Greene et al. 1989; Lincoln & Denzin, 2005; Miles & Huberman, 1994 ) Further, while acknowledging that there are many factors that influence officer behavior but that many of these factors are endogenous to one another ( see Mastrofski, 2004) qualitative data, specifically investigating causal networks, allows for a fuller understanding of interactive effects (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Thus, this study could serve as a stepping stone to create a phenomenologically informed grounded theory of s ocial equity T he methods involve d two stages The first stage comprised purposive case selection of 11 locales in 11 states and 55 interviews with ACLU members, political leaders, and police agencies' public relations officers. This stage also included textual analysis of public
! "+% records, such as police department websites and newspapers, to ascertain information on population demographics, community policing programs, citizen satisfaction surveys, and so forth. Second data analysis used several qualita tive strategies, particularly cross case meta matrices (see Miles & Huberman, 1994). Interviews and Document Analysis Sampling Strategy The sampling strategy was purposive sampling, a type of nonprobability sampling. This strategy is preferred when the purpose "is to identify important sources of variation in the population and then to select a sample that reflects this variation" (Singleton & S traits, 2010 p p 173 174 ) and when a researcher needs data from participa nts who can "purposefully inform an understanding of the research problem and central phenomenon in the study (Creswell, 2012, p. 126). Additionally, this sampling strategy is p referred over probability sampling when little is known about the topic under investigation, when understanding the phenomenological meaning participants assign to variables takes precedence and when qualitative data are needed to create grounded theory before large N testing (Creswell, 2 003, 2013 ; Miles & Huberman, 1994 ) Finally such a strategy allows for more flexibility in case selection, which is important if a researcher needs to replace one case with another ( Creswell, 2003, 2012 ). Creswell (2003) identified eight primary methods of purposive case selection : typical, diverse, extreme, deviant, influential, crucial, pathway, and most similar (pp. 89 90). The sampling strategy is diverse. In this strategy, a researcher selects cases to "illuminate the full range of variation on X 1 Y, or X 1 /Y" (p. 89). Capturing d iversity is important for the present research given extensive variation in state laws and political cultures, political and
! "+& community pressures, community government types size of communities, and demographics Further, as a diverse sampling method is designed to capture variation among the target population, choosing this strategy allows a phenomenological investigation to assist in creating grounded theory to test quantita tively (see Miles & Huberman, 1994) Creswell (2012) citing Polkinghorne (1989) recommended the inclusion of 5 30 cases for phenomenological and grounded theory research designs. Geographical variation provides the basis for case selection as it often captures variation in other variables For instance, geographic variation helps to explain not only changes in political culture but also community issues and demographics. One locale in each appellate court district (except for the federal circuit) was p urposively selected for a total of 11. Locales were selected to maximize variation on: 1) racial composition and demographics; 2) government type; 3) history of racial and social issues; 4) presence of active NAACP and ACLU chapters; and 5) population size While the goal was to select 11 locales, interviewees for 19 were originally contacted. One downside to this purposive selection is that case selection will be based, in part, on participants willingness to contribute to the research The next sections describe this process. Website and Newspaper Analysis Before interviews commenced, information on communities' histories of issues related to social equity in law enforcement was obtained. First, state and local level ACLU and NAACP websites in the 11 st ates were examined given these groups' extensive involvement in and knowledge of local level issues related to social equity. Second, legislative websites were examined to identify legislative actions concerning law
! "+' enforcement, political leaders most asso ciated with these actions, and committee minutes and votes. City council websites for a randomly selected locale in each state with more than 150,000 people were consulted for information on social equity programs, initiatives, hearings, and ordinances rel ated to community law enforcement relations. Third, websites for each locale's police departments were consulted for information on citizen engagement and community policing programs, recruitment, department demographics, as well as reports issued on crime patterns, community engagement, and citizen satisfaction. Finally, websites were consulted to identify potential interviewees. To ground interview questions in community knowledge, newspaper analysis, a powerful tool for understanding a community's conte xt (Djupe & Peterson, 2002; Hannagan et al., 2012; McLaren et al., 2005), was undertaken in tandem with website analysis. Google News and Lexis Nexis searches were conducted with these terms: name of locale, police, profiling, racist/racism, community enga gement, community policing, minority/minorities, representation, fair/fairness, justice, shootings, bill/law, ACLU, NAACP, training, and performance Each article was coded for story theme, origin (e.g., wire/news service, staff), focus, treatment (i.e., g eneral news, feature, commentary), sources quoted, history (i.e., community law enforcement relations), political and/or legal actions, and planned events (e.g., protests, town forums, etc.)( Lynch & Peer, 2002). Interviews The researcher conducted interv iews with one of the following for each locale: 1) ACLU representatives; 2) NAACP representatives; 3) state legislators; 4) city council members; and 5) police agency representatives. Thus, 55 interviews were conducted The breakdown is presented in Table 1 :
! +( Table 1 : Interviewees ACLU Affiliates: 11 (1 for each locale ) NAACP Affiliates: 11 (1 for each locale) State legislators: 11 (1 for each state) City council members: 11 (1 for each locale) Police: 1 1 (1 for each locale ) Total Interviews: 55 Total states examined: 11 ACLU and NAACP Affiliate Interviews For all state s selected, the researcher contacted that state's ACLU affiliate and a local NAACP chapter Each state has an active ACLU branch familiar with the issues of policing and pretextual sto ps (see ACLU 2014a, c ) and many locales have NAACP branches Both are logical choice s from which to recruit interview participants given its extensive institutional knowledge of is sues related to racial justice as well as its extensive outreach and participation with police departments to investigate issues of racial inequity (see ACLU 2014b). Further, the interviewees had extensive knowledge of a state's issues involving pretextual stops and provided a holistic view of minority groups' views This method is easier and cheaper than surveying an entire population and helps capture d the publicness of the issue. Of all citizen groups, the ACLU and NAACP are the one s most associated with the equal protection of the law. Finally given possible endogeneit y problems of many factors associated with social equity, the expertise of the interviewee can help establish possible causal pathways and chains better than other methods (Creswell 2003, 2012; Miles & Huberman, 1994). The researcher requested 25 30 minute phone interview s with each ACLU and NAACP affiliate involved in a state 's activities investigating racial justice. The purpose of the interviews was to gain insight into how minorities in a state perceive the social equity of police practices vis Âˆ vis pretextual stops. As mentioned earlier, using citizen assessments is
! "+) an ideal way to measure social equity issues given the concept's strong perceptual component Questions captured several d imensions. These are: 1) minority groups' perceptions of social equity and the police involving pretextual stops ; 2) instances of social equity concerns in terms of policing and pretextual stops; 3) quality of citizen police interactions; 4) variation in t he quality of social equity across the state s ; 5) possible effects of social equity practices such as performance measurement, by law enforcement and the variety of those practices; and 6 ) any other issues the interviewee indicates are important. Finally, u sing an ordinal scale, t he interviewer asked interviewee s to indicate how they think minority groups in the state would rate t he social equity of the police in terms of pretextual stops. Political Leader Interviews The researcher requested 25 30 minute interviews with both state and local level political le aders Th e purpose of these interviews was to gain insight into several factors, especially the unique community issues that affect policing, possible intersections of these issues with race, politic al and community pressures on police, and the influence of state law on policing and pretextual stops. These political leaders are ideal interviewees since they have better knowledge of issues related to the political and legal variables identified in the literature review. Questions captured several dimensions. These are: 1) the influence of state law on pretextual stops; 2) community pressures the locations face related to crime ; 3) political signals given to police on these issues; 4) the effect of political culture; 5) the roles of the police in these community issues and how political leaders interact with police ; and 5) changes in demographics a nd the ir consequences.
! "+* Police Interviews Another important aspect is to gain data on how police, engage in community policing programs, the extent of representativeness, trainings on diversity, cultural management, and law, requirements for joining, levels of experience, and use of social equity measu res. Much of this information was accessib le through public records, searches of government websites, public information requests, newspaper analysis, and targeted interviews with public information officers. Further, many police departments have commissioned and have published the results of citi zen satisfaction surveys, which is an im portant performance management tactic (see Pueblo Police Department, 2014 as an example ) The researcher requested 25 30 minute interviews with chiefs, deputy chiefs, and public information officers in police depart ments. These interviewees were asked to fill in any details not found in published sources, such as how departments engage with the community, estimations or projections on the different reasons officers joined the force, degrees of representativeness, and so forth. Further, the researcher asked the public information officers to indicate which political or community factors officers feel most constrain them from engaging in effective law enforcement. Representatives of l aw enforcement agencies were the most skittish about participating, as they are usually more "tight lipped" than other public bureaucracies and can be the least transparent (see Barker & Roebuck, 1973). Officers often noted fear the department being caught engaging in an inequitable practice or answer in ways that cause social acceptability bias. However, the researcher assured departments that the purpose is simply to collect information primarily on community engagement practices, trainings, and
! ""+ representativeness Willingness to pa rticipate was likely higher since the researcher did not ask questions about pretextual stops or racial profiling. Data Analysis Miles and Huberman (1994) recommended that researchers use conceptually ordered matrices that compare respondents' answers based upon conceptual dimension s In brief, using such displays is a way of comparatively analyzing qualitative data across cases (p. 207). Cross case displays allow a researcher to use qualitative data from multiple cases to understand complex causal effe cts. The beginning stages of this analysis require a researcher to choose an ordered display and analytical technique amenable to the data S everal options for matrices are available : case ordered effects, case ordered predictor outcome, variable by variab le, causal model s and causal networks. Rather than being distinct, mutually exclusive methods of qualitative data analysis, a researcher can combine two or more of these matrices for more rigorous analysis including using one after another to test variou s relationships and develop causal explanations (pp. 207 238). Interview data were coded using methods typical for qualitative research: constant comparison, open and axial coding, and meta matrices (Creswell, 2003). Constant comparison and open coding o ccurred during data collection and involved continually collecting data and comparing/contrasting them to emerging or existing categories. Axial coding followed and involved identifying an open coding category, going back to the data, and creating further categories (Creswell, 2003). Meta matrices, or visual models identifying a central phenomenon, allowed cross case comparisons of causal conditions, interviewees' answers, strategies and resulting actions, context, and consequences (Creswell, 2003; Miles & Huberman, 1994).
! """ Potential Issues The se methods have several potential issues. First, the largest issue concerns gaining access and obtaining interviewee participation and then eliciting survey responses which is likely the most difficult element of qualitative research (Cresswell, 2003, 2012; Miles & Huberman, 1994). The researcher had to reject particular cases because of non participation by a potential interviewee. As such, the researcher cho se cases based upon not only the selection c riteria identified above but also based upon access to and compliance of interviewees. S everal strategies were employed to increase the likelihood of receiving a response to either a request to complete a survey or interview. These include d assuring parti cipants of the privacy of the results, indicating the importance of the study, as well as highlighting the benefits to the individual and to the groups/institutions/organization he/she represents (Rea & Parker, 2005; see also Blair et al., 2013; Jensen, 20 14). Further, t elephone interviews significantly reduce d costs in terms of time, effort, and money for both the researcher and respondents (Singleton &Straits, 2010). Finally, t he literature presents several methods of encouraging greater participation and access, which the researcher consulted and employed (e.g ., Fontana & Frey, 1994; Lindlof, 1995). The most developed of these methods is Dillman's total/tailored design method for mail and telephone surveys (Dillman, 1978; Dillman et al., 2014). Steps include sending cover letters explaining the purpose of the research and the importance of a respondent's opinion, a follow up a week later (possibly involving a postcard, but the modern method allows for an email), and so fort h. Following these steps help ed secure better response rates (see Hoddinott & Bass, 1986 as an example). Regardless of the difficulties involved and gi ven the need established in the literature for data
! ""# of this nature, it was imperative to use interviews w hile also taking the steps outlined above to elicit participation (see Charbonneau & Riccucci, 2008; Charbonneau et al., 2009) Second, using a single ACLU affiliate, community leader or public information officer for each case can be problematic if this leader's assessments do not match the community, are biased, or are not reflective of important variations in the population If this person's assessment is reflective or the views of the community, then the data a re more reliable. However, the causal networks detailed in Chapters 4 and 5 will allow for future testing in different environments, such as more extensive surveying of communities or police departments. Third, the methods do not measure pretextual stops themselves but, rather, the political, managerial, and legal factors influencing perceptions of accountability for social equity As such, the research cannot reveal the exact extent to which such stops occur. Parallel investigations in criminal justice li terature are better suited to examining stop rates. The contribution of public administration research is adding public administration to the discussion. Thus the literatures complement one another: one can reveal stop rates and internal dynamics in departments, and the other can offer a broader examination of the stage on which social equity plays. Fourth, while the study gather ed data on the extent and variety of political, managerial and legal factors that affect social equity outcomes in policing and pretextual stops, it cannot quantify the exact effects of those tools but it offers insights not present in the literature about their uses and perceptions of effects The present rese arch allow s for such investigations to occur in future studies and forwards a testable theory. Most importantly, it could provide the first picture of how politics, management, and law inte rsect in a salient
! ""$ public issue and provide a way forward to improv e social equity as a pillar of public administration.
! ""% CHAPTER IV FINDINGS This chapter presents findings for the 12 propositions. Propositions 1 3 are discussed one at a time. Given numerous overlaps in focus and findings, the remaining propositions are grouped into four sections as follows: a) 4 6; b) 7 8; c) 9 10; and d) 11 12. In most sections, findings are discussed in this order: citizen groups, political leaders, and police. In some sections, given numerous overlaps, findi ngs for political leaders and police are combined. Throughout, tables present the major themes that emerged in interviews. Each section ends with a discussion of the status of the proposition. The chapter ends with a summary of the findings and proposed re vised propositions. Throughout, several appendices are identified that present further information about locales. P1: Citizen perceptions of socially equitable policing will be lower in states whose legislatures give police more power to stop motorists and pedestrians. P1 : Overall findings The proposition is unsupported for four reasons. First, both citizen groups and state level political leaders argued that the lack of what some termed "social equity laws" especially those forbidding racial profiling, banning pretextual stops, and requiring data collection more affected perceptions of social equity than the presence of laws allowing police to stop motorists and pedestrians. Second, most citizen groups argued the lack of social equity laws meant agencies were less accountable and more likely to engage in selective enforcement. Third, political leaders noted that passing these laws is difficult, which is why so few are extant. Fourth, most police argued that citizen perceptions of equity are often affected by ignorance of the law and that social equity laws made police feel under attack. The primary findings are summarized in Table 4:1.
! ""& Table 4:1: "Social Equity Laws" as related to citizen group perceptions of laws and enforcement Locale Law forbids racia l profiling Law bans pretextual stops Law requires data collection Funds provided for retraining Body camera funds provided Citizen perception that laws target minorities Selective enforcement perception 1 N N N N N Medium Medium 2 N Y Y Y N Medium Medium 3 Y Y N N N Medium V. High 4 Y N N Y N Medium High 5 Y N Y Y N Medium V. High 6 Y N N N N Medium High Medium 7 N N N N N Medium High 8 Y Y N Y Y Medium V. High 9 Y Y N N N Medium V. High 10 Y Y N* Y N Medium High 11 Y N N N N Medium High Legend: Y: Locale mandates practice N: Locale does not mandate practice *: Law regarding appropriations was recently passed but not yet implemented Citizen Group Findings Four findings emerged in citizen group interviews. First, citizens de emphasized th e importance of laws allowing police to initiate a stop and instead noted that the lack of what some termed social equity laws or those that forbid racial profiling, ban pretextual stops, require data collection, provide funds for retraining, and allocate funds for body cameras most affect their perceptions of social equity As seen in Table 4.1, no state has all five types of laws, but most ban racial profiling. All interviewees argued states: a) do not pass enough social equity laws to positively affect police behavior; and b) need all five types of laws because, as noted by one interviewee, "without all of them, there will always be cracks." Second, many interviewees asserted data collection laws "make police the most accountable because if the d ata is collected fairly and analyzed fairly, then everything will be exposed", as one interviewee emblematically noted. However, findings for Locales 2 and 5, the only locales in states requiring data collection, suggest that the effects of these laws are not always clear. Locale 2 interviewees had largely positive perceptions of social equity ;
! ""' Locale 5 interviewees had largely negative perceptions. Locale 2 interviewees attributed the positive assessments to their believing police take data collection resu lts seriously by using the data to reduce inequities. Locale 5 interviewees noted that they think police are not sufficiently transparent with findings and do little to change practice. Third, interviewees often argued that the lack of social equity laws negative ly affects perceptions in that when laws are not present, police engage in selective enforcement more For instance, interviewees in four locales (4, 7, 10, and 11) exhibited "High" levels of concern regarding selective enforcement These states h ave few if any social equity laws, although most forbid racial profiling Interviewees argued that loop holes in laws were evident, especially regarding data collection, which one interviewee emblematically noted, "There's nothing explicitly preventing pol ice from selective enforcement, so they're not accountable." Interviewees in four locales (3, 5, 8, and 9) exhibited "Very High" levels of concern. Three of these states ban both racial profiling and pretextual stops, and one bans racial profiling but not pretextual stops. Citizen groups emphasized that the lack of "meaningful data collection" in these states as one interviewee termed it, influenced their perceptions because there's no one collecting data on what the police are doing, so they can get away with anything". Fourth, the lack of social equity laws is not always associated with negative perceptions of social equity. For instance, two locales (1 and 2) exhibited "Medium" levels of concern whereas one (6) exhibited a "High Medium" level of concer n. The states have varying social equity laws Locale 1 does not have any; Locale 6 has one; Locale 2 has three of the five. Citizen groups attributed the "Medium" level of concern to "officers in our department working in a department that values fairness more than others", as one
! ""( interviewee emblematically commented. However, interviewees in these locales indicated they wanted their respective legislatures to pass more of these laws "to make sure it's on paper, at least", as one interviewee said. Political Leader Findings Three findings emerged in political leader interviews. First, political leaders, especially those at the state level, tended to argue simil arly as citizen groups lacking social equity laws negatively affected perceptions of social equity more so than the presence of laws allowing police greater power to initiate stops. Second, interviewees frequently noted that social equity laws were hard to pass because of budgetary and framing issues. One interviewee emblematically noted, "Laws concerning data collection  retraining, and body cameras mean the state is spending a lot of money, which many are reluctant to do. Many will say we have more important priorities and these laws may just be wastes of time". Concer ning framing, co mments like these were typical: "We cannot agree on how to frame bills [i.e., whether bills protect or impugn police], so most never succeed" and "Most states cannot afford it [i.e., to pass social equity laws]". Third, many interviewees argued that local dynamics most often affected social equity perceptions. Commonly expressed sentiments included : laws "set the stage"; enforcing laws are difficult bec ause of varied communities are; "the real concern is not with the law but with whether officers are apply ing the law fairly" ; and "we have to look at individual departments [to understand citizen perceptions], most often". Police Findings Two findings em erged in interviews. First, most argued that ignorance of the law often influences citizens' perception of inequity. Police frequently commented, "Some
! "") people think that any stop is racial profiling, even if it's justified" and "most people don't understand the legal basis of why we can initiate a stop". Second, many argued that further data are required to determine if enforcement is selective, but most noted some selective enforcement likely occurs "among just a few [officers]" but that "the extent of equity problems are vastly overstat ed" as s ome interviewees emblematically commented Relatedly, all expressed understanding why social equity laws were in place but many felt such laws were passed because of "often unwarranted suspicions [against police] and "created environments hostile to police". P1: Status of the proposition As presently worded, the proposition is not supported. Interviewees de emphasized the role of laws allowing police to initiate stops and instead emphasized the effects of whether social equity laws were extant However, the effects of social equity laws are complex and require further investigation. Positive perceptions occurred in locales with no such laws, and negative assessments occurred in locales with two or more such laws. Findings indicate citizen groups views on selective enforcement likely have a greater effect on perceptions. As such, a revised proposition is: Perceptions of socially equitable policing will be higher in states with laws explicitly banning racial profiling, prohibiting pretextual stops and requiring collection of stop, search, and arrest data P2: Citizen perceptions of socially equitable policing will be higher in states in which minority legislators' proportions in the state legislature are closer to their population proportions. P2 : Overall Findings The proposition is partially supported for four reasons. First, while African American legislators often do not proportionally occupy seats in state legislatures the most positive perceptions of social equity tended to occur in locales with the lowest disparities in
! ""* representation. Second, citizen groups and local political leaders most often argued: a) minority legislators have a disproportionately positive impact on social equity by raising awareness of disparities evident in policing even if most police accountability bills they propose do not become law; and b) these legislators are stymied in their efforts to engage in reform. Third, police interviewees often noted feeling "under attack" by legislators. Fourth and related to findin gs for P1 many interviewees tended to note that local level dynamics, not actions of state legislatures, most affected social equity. The primary findings are detailed in Tables 4:2a and 4:2b. Appendix C presents further information on the subjects of pol ice accountability bills across the locales' states. Table 4:2 a: Perceptions of social equity related to the action of legislators Locale Citizen Groups Law Enforcement Political Leaders 1 Improving; need more laws Improving Need more laws 2 Insufficient Local Dynamics Inertia 3 Insufficient Local Dynamics Inertia 4 Insufficient Improving yet difficult Divided 5 Improving Improving Improving 6 Insufficient Feeling Attacked Inertia 7 Insufficient Improving yet difficult Inertia 8 Inequitable Feeling Attacked Inertia 9 Inequitable Feeling Attacked Inertia 10 Improving Improving yet difficult Improving 11 Insufficient Local Dynamics Inertia Table 4:2b: Minority legislators' proportions, bills proposed in 2014 2016, and bills passed Locale: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9* 10** 11 African American Legislators (#) 4 14 17 17 32 7 12 15 1 3 59 African Americans in population (%) 1 10 14 19.2 32 7.9 9.3 15.8 4.2 4 31 Representativeness (%) 1 7 14 12 22 5 8 11 1 3 25 Difference between population and representativeness 0 3 0 7.2 10 2.9 1.3 4.8 3.2 1 6 Police bills proposed (2014 2016) 6 8 1 7 5 4 5 2 7 10 9 Police bills authored by African American legislators (2014 2016) 6 7 1 7 4 1 1 1 5 8 9 Bills passed 1 1 0 2 2 0 0 0 1*** 6 0 Legend: Latino population above 20%. Latinos comprise 31% of the state's demographics and 21% of the legislative body. **Latino population above 20%. Latinos comprise 21% of the population of the state and 9% of the legislative body. ***Bill p assed by legislature but vetoed by governor
! "#+ Citizen Group Findings Three findings emerged from citizen group interviews. First, as seen in Table 4:1a, many felt that legislatures insufficiently address social equity issues. It was common to hear interviewees argue things like "Black legislators propose police accountability bills, but the legislature is too scared to pass them" or that "Black lives matter less in the legislature". To wit, interviewees in eight states characterized their legislatur es' actions as "insufficient" to improve social equity. Groups in three states characterized the situation as "improving" but argued that more laws are needed, particularly improving oversight, requiring body cameras, and changing how police shootings are investigated. Second, interviewees praised African American legislators and their allies for raising issues of social equity. It was common to hear statements indicating that : a) without the efforts of minority legislators, legislatures would not discuss social equity in policing ; b) despite dis proportional representation (see Table 4:2a), minority legislators most often were those who demand l egislature s address social equity; and d) these legislators most often are those who forward police accountability bills, although few become law (see Table 4:2b). Interviewees associated the lack of success with many police accountability bills not being passed with minority legislators being "stymied when trying to reform", as one interv iewee emblematically noted. Third, interviewees usually argued that despite the imp ortance of state legislatures, citizens' perceptions of social equity were most determined by their experiences with individual departments. Interviewees argued these exper iences were more important because citizens interact with local departments more frequently.
! "#" Political Leader Findings Political leaders at the state level very often argued similarly to citizen group interviewees. Three findings emerged. First, interv iewees concurred that they often felt stymied when raising social equity issues, which they argued is particularly evident in how few proposed police accountability bills become law. Framing was a frequently cited issue, especially the need to balance mess ages that a proposed law is meant to impugn or protect police. Many noted that legislative colleagues felt supporting bills they thought impugned the police "would be electoral suicide", as one interviewee stated. Second, interviewees noted that despite disproportionality, they felt a responsibility to raise social equity issues. It was common to hear statements such as "We feel a duty to raise these issues" and "we raise these issues more than anyone else". Third most mirrored citizen groups' arguments that local level dynamics more influence citizens' social equity perceptions than actions of legislatures. Most attributed this in part to "inertia" at the state level regarding police accountability bills. They al so noted that legislatures provide broad oversight and that "We [legislators] provide funds, pass the laws, [and] define what is acceptable, [but] local agencies put policies into action". Police Findings Police interviewees tended to comment less on the effect of laws and more on local level dynamics. Nevertheless, they primarily argued that legislators should be both reasonable in their expectations of law enforcement and should not pass laws hostile to agencies. As seen in Table 4:2a, in three locales, interviewees felt that agencies were
! "## legislatively "under attack", which interviewees attributed to: 1) negative but unwarranted media coverage; and 2) the public not understanding the difficult role of law enforcement. Like other groups, police tended to argue that local dynamics better explain social equity perceptions. P2: Status of the Prop osition The proposition is partially supported. The findings suggest that minority legislators have a disproportionate impact on social equity discussions in tha t they tend to be most associated with initiating legislative debates on social equity and most often are those who forward police accountability bills Citizen p erceptions are not explained solely by proportionality, or the number of bills proposed, or th e number of laws passed. This difficulty is compounded in that most interviewees asserted local level dynamics better explain perceptions of social equity than do actions of state legislatures However, as demonstrated in Table 4:2b, responses between citizen groups and lawmakers most closely matched in Locales 5 and 10, where both groups characterized legislative discussions around social equity as "improving". Regardless, a revised propositio n is warranted that accounts for: a) the disproportionately powerful role minority legislators play; and b) citizen groups' positive perceptions of these legislators. Therefore, a revised proposition is: Perceptions of socially equitable policing will be h igher in states in which minority legislators actively canvass to raise social equity issues and to propose social equity laws P3: Citizen perceptions of socially equitable policing will be higher in communities served by police departments working in cit ies that have council manager governments. P3: Overall Findings The proposition is not supported for four reasons. First, interviewees across groups argued government type does not affect social equity perceptions and groups largely argued
! "#$ that perception s of social equity are most affected by groups' view s of one another. Second, citizen groups argued their perceptions were affected by the degree to which they thought police and local level political leaders took social equity seriously and the degree to which city councils addressed their concerns. Second, political leaders' argued that perceptions were most affected by the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with other local level leaders regarding social equity. Third, police argued that perception s were most affected by how much citizens and local level political leaders supported agencies in their work. The primary findings are detailed in Table 4:3. Appendix D presents furt her information on each locale's government type. However, it is important to note that mayor council forms are more represented in this sample than are council manager forms for two reasons. First, while council manager forms are more common in the U.S. they often are used primarily in small communities. Second, it was important to choose communities that exhibited variation on other variables, especially population demographics and the presence of active NAACP chapters. Table 4:3: Prominent themes con cerning proposition P3 Citizen Group Findings The overall finding is that citizen groups de emphasized the importance of government type and noted that their perceptions were most affected by the actions of police Groups Citizen Groups Political leaders Police Prominent Themes Government type does not affect equity In locales with positive assessments, interviewees noted that political leaders and police cooperated and took equity seriously In locales with negative assessments, interviewees argued political leaders and police collude to prevent equity discussions and define social equity as "compliance" Government type does not affect equity In locales with positive assessments, political leaders said they agreed with one another and with other groups on how to best pursue equity In locales with negative assessments, interviewees noted greater intra group disagreement and sometimes supporting policies against citizens' wishes Government t ype does not affect equity In locales with positive assessments, police said they agreed with other groups on how to best pursue equity In locales with negative assessments, interviewees noted citizens did not understand police and that with greater u nderstanding, perceptions would be more positive
! "#% and political l eaders concerning social equity. Locales 1 (mayor council) and 2 (council manager) had the most positive assessments of social equity (see Appendix D) Interviewees often said things like "the police take fairness seriously", "city council and the police agree on the need to foster fair outcomes even when it doesn't appear there are issues"; and "the Chief involves us and gives us pipelines to the top". Some interviewees particularly in Locales 5 (mayor council), 8 (council manager), 9 (council manager), a nd 11 (Mayor Council) had negative assessments (see Appendix D) Interviewees opined that specific actions of police and city councilors influenced their perceptions of social equity, particularly that: 1) the use of predictive policing means police target poorer, minority communities; 2) police and political leaders collude with one another to stymie discussions on equity; 3) agencies and political leaders place the burden of social equity on citizens, which one interviewee emblematically commented means fairness is just [defined as] compliance"; and 4) agencies and city councilors refuse to respond to concerns and do little to foster fairer policing. Political Leader Findings Political leaders largely mirrored comments by citizen groups by arguing government type does not affect social equity, although this assessment primarily was expressed by city councilors in mayor council forms. The primary finding from political leader interviewees was that the extent of disagreement between council members o n the ideal ways to approach social equity better explained citizen perceptions. Two sub findings are important. First, interviewees serving locales with the more positive citizen assessments particularly Locales 1, 2, 4, and 6 tended to note that they oft en exhibited little intra group disagreement on how best to pursue equity and that they largely agreed with citizen groups
! "#& on how to approach equity. Common statements included those like, "We [city council ors ] agree on what the issues are and where attent ion is needed" and "We all recognize the need to balance messages between citizens and police so that both are heard and [that] we make decisions for the good of the community". Second, interviewees in locales with negative citizen assessments particularl y Locales 3, 5, 8, and 9 often referenced how disagreements between city council members and between councils and citizens affected perceptions of social equity These interviewees tended to note that they often demanded discussions of racial profiling, as ked police chiefs to make sure that racial profiling is not occurring, and proposed reforms to police, especially requiring more trainings. As part of this, interviewees often noted that other councilors thought that these efforts sent "mixed messages" or "hostile messages" to police At other times, interviewees indicated supporting police practices against citizen groups' wishes. It was common to hear councilors note, "when we [i.e., councilors] disagree more, outcomes suffer" and "we often have to suppor t policies citizens don't like." Police Findings Police also argued that government type does not affect perceptions of social equity. Rather, the primary finding is that police primarily argued that equity was most affected by how citizens and city coun cil members support the work of police. Police representatives in locales with lower citizen perceptions of social equity tended to note that citizen groups and some city council members did not understand the difficult role of law enforcement, which made police departments' job s tougher. Police commonly expressed sentiments like: "Community members need to understand our jobs before trying to reform us for problems that don't exist" and "We need support from citizens and councils
! "#' in the work we do". Most interviewees tended to note that both citizen groups and city councils should seek to understand law enforcement and that this greater understanding would likely mean that both groups would see the police as more equitable. As one interviewee noted, "If pe ople saw what we did and why we did it, they would see us as fairer." On the other hand, locales with more positive assessments of social equity often were marked by greater agreement among police with citizen perceptions. This was particularly evident in Locales 1 and 2 in which interviewees noted things like "I think we all agree on what fairness means and how to pursue it" and "relations between [different groups] are tight. We more often agree on our needs." P3: Status of the proposition The propositi on is not supported. There does not appear to be a relationship between city government type and perceptions of social equity. However, a possible relationship exists both between the degree to which a city's political leaders particularly city council mem bers agree or disagree on the meaning of social equity and the degree to which citizens, political leaders, and police agree on how best to pursue equity. As such, a revised proposition is warranted: Perceptions of socially equitable policing will be highe r in locales in which there is greater inter group agreement between citizens, elected officials, and police on how best to achieve social equity
! "#( P4: Citizen perceptions of socially equitable policing will be lower in communities that have criminal or social issues popularly related to race. P5: Citizen perceptions of socially equitable policing will be lower in communities that have experienced an increase in the proportion of minorities in the last 10 years. P6: Citizen perceptions of socially equi table policing will be lower in communities in which political principals demand policing action on social issues popularly related to race. Overall Findings Propositions P4 and P6 are supported. Prop osition P5 has unclear support. Regarding P4 and P6, all interviewees indicated that criminal or social issues popularly related to race affect perceptions of social equity. Findings fall into three groups based upon locale. First, groups in Locales 1 and 2 noted that despite serious cr iminal and social issues, there was extensive agreement on how to address these issues. Second, groups in Locales 3, 5, 8, 9, and 11 exhibited extensive inter group disagreement. Citizen groups argued that criminal and social issues led police to unfairly target minority communities. Political leaders and police argued that these issues require tough on crime approaches. Third, groups in Locales 4, 6, 7, and 10 exhibited some inter group agreement. Citizen groups expressed mixed assessments of social equity Political leaders and police argued for a balance between tough on crime approaches and more community oriented approaches. Many political leaders in these locales noted that both they and police needed to foster better understanding with communities but that city councils were often in the difficult position of trying to advance equity while knowing that tough responses to crime and social issues were required which might negatively affect perceptions of equity
! "#) Regarding P5, some citizen groups argued that changes in population could affect social equity perceptions in that police might stop more young African American men. However, most interviewees argued that data were unclear. The overall findings are detailed in Table 4:4. Appendices E and F provi de further information on population changes as well as the criminal and social issues popularly identified with race mentioned by interviewees. Table 4:4: Prominent themes concerning propositions P4, P5, and P6 Groups Citizen Groups Political Leaders Poli ce Prominent Themes In locales with positive assessments, citizen groups feel police proactively address social equity and involve citizens as decision makers In locales with negative assessments, citizen groups feel police are under pressure to get res ults Police might be stopping young Black men more In locales with positive assessments, political leaders say fostering community trust is paramount In locales with negative assessments, interviewees prioritize tough on crime approaches but assert more needs to be done to foster equity Political leaders say more data needed on stopping young Black men In locales with positive assessments, police try to improve community trust to increase buy in In locales with negative assessments, police emphas ize the need for citizens to understand police better Police say more data needed on stopping young Black men Citizen Group Findings Four findings emerged from citizen group interviews. First, interviewees in Locale 1 and 2 noted their communities have criminal and social issues often popularly related to race yet these interviewees had more positive perceptions of social equity. Inter viewees argued that t hese positive perceptions were rooted in their perceiving police as proactively addressing social equity concerns, involving community leaders in decision making, and fostering transparency. Second, citizen groups in Locales 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 11 had the most negative assessments of social equity and att ri buted their assessments to two factors: 1) the presence of criminal and social issues popularly but unfairly related to race, such as high murder, rape, robbery, and assault rates in tandem with gang violence; 2) political leaders demanding "tough on crime" approaches and then police departments acting inequitably when
! "#* addressing those issues. To interviewees, these issues: 1) place police under pressure to get results, resulting in th eir targeting poor minority communities; and 2) are exacerbated because agencies and councils do little to address underlying causes of inequities and instead focus on "catching criminals, [while] sweeping up lot of innocent people as well", as one intervi ewee emblematically stated. Many expressed sentiments like "the crimes of some means all Blacks become suspects", as one interviewee argued. Third, interviewees in Locales 4, 6, 7, and 10 expressed mixed perceptions of social equity. Interviewees referenced many issues popula rly related to race s uch as violent crime, drug use, and gangs t hat affect their perceptions of social equity Typical comments included police "sometimes treat all Blacks as suspects and that they "[go] through the motions reg arding fairness" and "[do] nothing to build community trust with the people they need it the most from". Fourth, most locales exhibited changes in African American populations between the 2000 and 2010 censuses. Most citizen groups were reluctant to specu late on possible e ffects. However, citizen groups with more negative assessments argued that they see a relationship between race and the age of the individuals being stopped. This sentiment was common: "With more young Black men, more police stops will o ccur". However, most groups, while arguing that profiling young African American men was possible, argued that more data are needed. Political Leader Findings Similar to citizen group assessments, perceptions appeared to differ based upon locale. Three findings emerged.
! "$+ First, interviewees in Locales 1 and 2 noted that criminal and social issues popularly related to race affected social equity perceptions, yet these interviewees noted that given these issues, "it's important to make sure community trust is there", as one said. Interviewees commented that there was extensive agreement between city councils and the police that issues related to crime would be dealt with in ways that did not shatter community support, particularly by "promoting positive and daily encounters that build up over a long time", as one councilor noted. Second, interviewees in locales with lower citizen assessments of equity (i.e., 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 11) frequently pointed to community issues that necessitate tough on crime approac hes, especially in urban centers that many citizens might find unpopular Interviewees agreed that these issues meant that minority communities likely felt the brunt of these efforts and that the size of the community made it difficult to foster more posi tive one on one interactions between citizens and police. Many argued: 1) too little attention is paid to fostering agency community trust, which "erodes good relations when police have to get tough"; and 2) in a quest to demons trate results, police might "sometimes be a bit too zealous", as one councilor said Finally, most made comments like the following: "We [i.e., city councilors] need to do more to make communities partners with police." Third, interviewees in Locales 4, 6, 7, and 10 noted that their communities face criminal or social issues popularly related to race that affect social equity perceptions but argued there were multiple causes of crime, not exclusively focused on any one racial group. Further, interviewees emphasized that despite fluct uations, their perceptions were that their cities were getting safer. They also often argued that police need more training, education, and equipment to handle community issues. Some, particularly in Locales 4 and 7, argued
! "$" that more police are needed, which one noted, "would increase outreach and get a handle on some issues better". Interviewees also tended to argue not only that police should have more resources to addr ess crime but that they need to be sure to address crime in ways that reduce racial profiling and foster good community relations. Police Findings Again, similar to perceptions of citizen groups and political leaders, perceptions appeared to differ based upon locale. Three findings emerged. First, police interviewees in Locales 1 and 2 commented that the presence of serious crime and community issues meant that "community trust is more important than ever", as one interviewee commented. Interviewees poin ted to close cooperation between political leaders and citizen groups to try to understand the causes of these issues and to elicit support in dealing with them. The result, as one interviewee noted, "[is] a close understanding about what needs to be done and what all our roles are." Second, interviewees in locales with lower citizen assessments of social equity (i.e., 3, 5, 8, 9, and 11) uniformly argued that they operate not only in difficult environments (i.e., high crime areas) but also respond to envir onmental requirements (i.e., the need to address crime) and mandates from elected leaders. They tended to note that: 1) communities needed to better understand the police; 2) equity issues were often overstated; 3) efforts to address crime (especially usin g predictive policing) were successful; 4) police had to prioritize addressing crime in dangerous areas, which often were poorer areas, especially after community members demanded more action; and 5) internal investigations do not reveal social equity issu es. Finally, police noted that increased attention to particular areas meant complaints against police occur more often because of greater polic e presence but that
! "$# citizens do not understand what police could and could not legally do. As one noted, "People will interact with us more. But many incorrectly think we can't stop and talk. Some perceive just talking as racial profiling, but it's legal. We often end conversations with nothing happening." Third, police in Locales 4, 6, 7, and 10 commented being "h ighly responsive" to criminal issues, as one interviewee termed it. They tended to assert that they needed to balance fighting crime and engaging in community outreach. However, interviewees uniformly noted that they were trying to establish more community partnerships to develop "build trust with people who could help us the most", as one interviewee put it. Police also mentioned that despite fluctuations in crime rates, their cities were getting somewhat safer. P4, P5, & P6: Status of the propositions Pro positions P4 and P6 are supported whereas P5 has unclear support. Interviewees' comments point to a possible causal chain: 1) criminal and social issues often popularly associated with race occur in many communities, but they are especially evident in larg er communities; 2 political principals demand policing action on difficult social issues; 3) enhanced police presence occurs in poorer communities; and 4) increased police community interactions result. To citizen groups, the danger occurs when minorities perceive that they "all become suspects", as one interviewee called it. However, other police activities especially co ncerning community engagement t end to affect perceptions of social equity in that citizen groups in communities with extensive crime issue s (Locales 1 and 2) still perceive agencies as being socially equitable. In larger communities, the presence of higher levels of crime necessitates according to political leaders and police more police presence and street level contact and less of an empha sis on community engagement strategies,
! "$$ resulting in lower assessments of social equity. F inally, population changes might affect perceptions of social equity, possibly because young Black males in particular have an increased number of police encounters. However, only some citizen groups were willing to offer this assessment, so further data and testing are needed. As such, the propositions do not need to be modified. P7: Citizen perceptions of socially equitable policing will be higher in communities serv ed by police departments engaging in community policing programs. P8: Citizen perceptions of socially equitable policing will be higher in communities served by police departments that use social equity performance measures. P7 & P8: Overall Findings Both propositions are partially supported for four reasons. First, all department s employs community policing programs (CPP) and social equity performance measures (SEPM), yet assessments of how these affected social equity varied considerably and fell int o three distinct groups based upon locale positive, negative, and mixed. Second, citizen groups argued that social equity perceptions were most affected by the extent to which they perceived agencies used CPP and SEPM to inform and shape practice, not the presence of the programs themselves. Third, the extent to which both political leaders and police believe that CPP and SEPM positively contribute to law enforcement varies significantly across the three locale groupings. Locales with more agreement from po litical leaders and police on the benefits and desirability of CPP and SEPM had the most positive citizen perceptions of social equity; locales with more inter group disagreement had the lowest perceptions. Fourth, in each locale, political leaders and pol ice paralleled one another's comments regarding the benefits and pitfalls of using CPP and SEPM. The primary findings are displayed in Table 4:7. Appendix G presents further information on locales' community engagement and social equity performance measure ment strategies. Appendix H presents a tabular comparison of
! "$% the three groups' perceptions of CPP and SEPM for all locales. To remind, Appendix D presents citizen groups' overall perceptions of social equity across locales. Table 4:7: Prominent themes concerning P7 and P8 Group Citizen Groups Political Leaders Police Primary Themes In locales with more positive perceptions, interviewees assert CPP and SEPM actively improve community relations In locales with negative perceptions, CPP and SEPM are "lip service" to fairness In locales with mixed perceptions, CPP and SEPM are not consis tent in results, and outreach is minimal In locales with more positive perceptions, interviewees assert CPP and SEPM are ideal and should continue In locales with ne gative perceptions, CPP and SEPM can be inefficient In locales with mixed perceptions, CPP and SEPM are important but have to be balanced with other programs In locales with more positive perceptions, interviewees assert CPP and SEPM are ideal and shoul d continue In locales with negative perceptions, tough on crime approaches must take priority In locales with mixed perceptions, CPP and SEPM are important but have to be balanced with other programs Citizen Group Findings Findings from citizen groups fell into three groups based upon locale. These three groups are : 1) locales with positive perceptions of social equity; 2) locales with negative perceptions of social equity; and 3) locales with mixed perceptions of social equity. Locales with Positive Perceptions. Interviewees who expressed more positive perceptions of social equity most evident in Locales 1 and 2 provided five arguments. First, agencies use of CPP and SEPM allowed for more personalized, respectful, and longitudinal engagements between the community and police. One interviewee said, "We see the same cops again and again. We sometimes talk and sometimes just say hello'. Just being friendly has gone a long way." Second, interviewees felt agencies actively included them to help guide depar tmental decisionmaking on social equity issues. Another interviewee said, "The Chief is proactive about involving us and asking for our opinions. He has said, If there is an issue, tell me immediately.'" Third, interviewees argued that departments active ly use information from SEPM to guide practice. As evidence, one interviewee noted: "In a meeting, the Chief noted an issue
! "$& with stops of young men some said were making a disturbance. The cops who dealt with it didn't run them off but struck up conversati ons and even played basketball with them and just asked them to keep it down a bit. The noise complaints stopped." Fourth, interviewees argued that higher inter group agreement between political leaders and police positively affected perceptions of social equity. One interviewee provided an emblematic response: "I think we all agree on what is important and that fighting crimes and maintaining good community relations go hand in hand. We always sense that our views are respected. This isn't to say it's par adise here and there aren't issues, but we seem more proactive about them." Fifth, Locales 1 and 2 have not experienced focusing events like shootings of unarmed minorities. A concern among interviewees was that a shooting would negatively affect good comm unity relations. Interviewees noted that the Chiefs emphasized the need for officers to maintain situational awareness and "act with the community in mind", as one interviewee commented. However, one interviewee for Locale 1 noted, "If there ever were a pr oblem, there's enough trust to assume it was not intentional" but also that, "Everything [i.e., a future problem] will be on a case by case basis". Locales with Negative Perceptions. Two fi ndings emerged from interviews with groups who expressed lower perc eptions of social equity most eviden t in Locales 3, 5, 8, 9, and 11 First, interviewees argued that CPP and SEPM are "lip service to fairness" and that agencies do not provide evidence that [they] care about fairness", as many interviewees noted. One int erviewee said: "We're raising issues all the time, but they refuse to listen. They say that we have issues with crime. They say officers have to be tough and are trained
! "$' to avoid racial profiling. But we never see proof that they don't racially profile wh en our daily experiences say they do." Second, interviewees argued that CPP and SEPM do not result in equity improvements, largely because they do not foster daily, positive interactions over a long period, especially in areas with high crime and low trust in the police. One interviewee provided a comment mirrored by others: "The police don't get out on the street and interact with a young Black kid. They [i.e., police] just sit in their cars, windows up, and prowl. It's like they're patrolling some occupied zone in Iraq. Whe n they do stop someone, it's gruff and What're you doing here?' sort of thing. Go up to a Black ki d, ask him how his day is going ." As part of this second finding interviewees often commented that in their assessment, political leaders and police associ ate equity with "simply compliance with the officer." Comments like these were common in interviews: "police seem to think compliance is everything"; "city council does little to change this attitude of just obey and things'll be fine"; and "some people's natural instinct is to run when police tell them to stop because I bet they figure they're better off trying to get away than getting shot on the spot." Many interviewees noted that they would deem CPP and SEPM successful when, as one interviewee stated, "there's no more shootings on unarmed Black men." Locales with Mixed Perceptions. Two findings emerged from interviews with groups who expressed mixed perceptions of social equity most evi dent in Locales 4, 6, 7, and 10 First, in interviewees' assessments CPP and SEPM demonstrate that police can take social equity seriously but are not consistent in doing so. Interviewees often noted: "There's a splurge of great activity but little progress"; "The heart with a lot of community
! "$( engagement events is there, but we need more than isolated events that make people come to the police instead of the other way around"; "They're [i.e., events] steps in the right direction, but more is needed"; and "community policing is good, but here it's just an occasional meeting with little evidence of things being done." To these interviewees, the issue is that CPP and SEPM do not sufficiently result in daily, positive, and respectful engagements over a long period and do little to combat negative attitudes of police. Interviewe es often asserted that "being friendly goes a long way" and that police "[should not] approach everyone as if they're a suspect". Second, interviewees often argued that use of CPP and SEPM do little to address systemic racism. Some sentiments were often e xpressed: events might involve "pizza and basketball, but then people will go back to the problems"; "I like it we can meet with police, and a lot of them are good guys, but we can't solve everything with an occasional get together"; and "we need evidence that police do something about [issues]." Political Leaders and Police Given that citizen group interviewees fell into one of three categories, the following section reviews major findings from political leader and police interviewees from those three gr oupings. These are discussed one at a time. Locales with Positive Perceptions Political leaders and police in locales with more positive citizen perceptions of social equity largely concurred with citizen assessments. Two findings emerged. First, political leaders tended to note that: 1) budgets were sufficient to support CPP and SEPM; 2) there was extensive evidence that CPP and SEPM led to more effective policing; and 3) CPP and SEPM were compatible with the needs of the community. One
! "$) com mented: "We had to choose to prioritize these programs because we knew with the [crime] issues we have, we needed community trust and understanding". Second, police noted that CPP and SEPM yielded improvements in community relations and that they made law enforcement easier through fostering greater citizen trust and buy in. Police added that being in smaller communities allowed for more extensive interactions with citizens on a daily basis. As one emblematically commented, "We all believe in this." Locales with Negative Perceptions Four findings emerged in interviews with political leaders and police in locales with negative citizen perceptions. First, budgets were often insufficient to support expanding CPP and SEPM and that while these programs ar e important, creating "substantive accountability mechanisms", as one interviewee termed it, mattered more, especially creation of external oversight bodies to investigate police behavior. The consensus was that such bodies would be better able to spot and remedy issues with the police better than CPP and SEPM by themselves. Second, many argued that in high crime areas, tough on crime approaches and compliance with the officer must often take precedence over CPP and SEPM One interviewee stated, "We can do [CPP and SEPM] all we want, but it never takes away from complying with an officer when stopped." Relatedly, many commented that greater use of SEPM, while ideal, might not be efficient. Common statements were that it would "eat up too much time" and "wou ld cost too much if response times went up." Third, p olice often paralleled political leaders' in that CPP and SEPM, while ideal, could equate to presenting "unreasonable expectations of officers", such as "people [being] under the expectation that no one will ever get shot", as one interviewee emblematically
! "$* stated. It was common to hear statements like the following: "99% of problems would not occur if the person being stopped merely complied"; "we analyze data all the time and find no issues, and if we do, we address them"; "investigations of officer behavior reveal the officer acted according to policy"; and "[greater use of SEPM would make] response times go up, [and] satisfaction [go] down." Fourth police argued citizens overstated fairness concern s and that community issues necessitated sometimes unpopular "tough on crime" approaches. Interviewees frequently noted that they wanted "citizens [to] act as ambassadors" and explain to communities "[that] use of force is not excessive". Interviewees argu ed that because citizens do not understand police, agencies are "under a microscope" and have their authority eroded. The issue of deadly shootings. Political leaders and police in this group frequently mentioned the issue of shootings of unarmed minoriti es. Political leaders most often expressed noted: 1) shootings presented nearly insurmountable challenges; 2) the shootings can be evidence of poor police practices, but that it was more likely that shootings did not violate policies; and 3) it is not acce ptable to call for officers who fatally shoot unarmed minorities to be prosecuted. Police often mirrored these sentiments. Comments like these were common: "shootings do more damage to us [i.e., agencies] than anything"; "investigations usually reveal no wrongdoing"; and "some cannot be convinced that officers are just following policy". All police argued that prosecuting all officers who shot unarmed persons would be a dangerous policy and noted things like, "[this policy] puts the officer's life at risk"; "people need to understand compliance. It's not all on the officer"; and "communities need to understand us [and the] crimes we deal with."
! "%+ Locales with Mixed Perceptions Interviewees in locales with mixed citizen perceptions of social equity tended to argue similarly. Four findings emerged. First, political leaders and police often noted that while CPP and SEPM were ideal, budgetary issues often necessitated focusing on other areas, such as obtaining equipment. One political leader provided an emblematic comment: "Sometimes these community engagement programs, however ideal, have to take a back burner to other issues, such as equipment. I don't like it, but there you go." As part of this, political leaders noted that police simply fostering daily, respectful, and sustained engagements over a long period would likely yield the same positive effects as would using CPP and SEPM. Relatedly, political leader s and police noted that CPP and SEPM were important but that given certain social and criminal issues, resources to target these crimes have to take priority. Second, many political leaders argued that external accountability bodies would more efficiently and effectively yield social equity improvements. One noted, "If we give more power to an independent monitor instead of police policing themselves, we would better know where issues are. [We] s till need good engagement, but a monitor cuts to the issue." Another noted, We would likely see more of an effect on [police] behavior [with an independent monitor]. We could see the issues and target were to change." Police, on the other hand, argued that such accountability bodies were not necessary because use CPP and SEPM already yielded substant ive improvements in community relations. Common sentiments were that "people trust us more" and "people see they can come to us for help" and "it helps show we're fair." Third, both political leaders and police were concerned that, at times, citizen group s overstated the extent of inequity. Police often argued that citizens would perceive agencies as
! "%" more socially equitable if they understood more about what police did in the community. Statements like these were common: "We partner with a lot of nonprofit s to help people get shelter"; "a lot of positive stuff we do never gets reported"; and "we frequently have officers helping people buy groceries, but no one ever knows". Finally, police argued that CPP and SEPM should not present unreasonable expectations such as citizens expecting that unarmed individuals will never get shot. Officers often noted things like, "Compliance with the officer is important" and "Communities need to understand us better" and "People should start with the assumption we're doing things right." P7 & P8: Status of the Propositions Both propositions are partially supported. The propositions assumed that the presence of CPP and SEPM would be associated with more positive perceptions, but the reality is more complex. Differences in pe rceptions appear more strongly related to how well citizens perceive agencies use CPP and SEPM to guide practice. Further, assessments from political leaders and police regarding the usefulness of CPP and SEPM differs significantly across locales. Therefor e two further propositions are warranted examine the extent to which citizens perceive agencies use CPP and SEPM to guide practice: 1) Perceptions of socially equitable policing will be higher in communities served by community policing programs that faci litate more sustained, daily, one on one interactions between police and community members ; and 2) Perceptions of socially equitable policing will be higher in communities in which agencies actively use social equity performance measures to guide practice
! "%# P9: Citizen perceptions of socially equitable policing will be higher in communities in which police officers are more racially representative of the community's population. P10: Citizen perceptions of socially equitable policing will be higher in com munities served by police departments with a minority police chief. P9 & P10: Overall Findings Proposition P9 is largely supported. Proposition P10 has unclear support. P9 is largely supported for four reasons. First, the most negative assessments of social equity often occurred in communities served by agencies in which there was more than a 15% di sparity in representativeness. Second, the most positive assessments occurred in locales in which the disparity was near 10% or below. Third, citizen groups argued that their perceptions of social equity were largely shaped by how seriously they think agen cies try to achieve racial parity. The most positive assessments tended to occur in locales with programs that had successfully recruited more minorities. Fourth, political leaders and police were often divided on the achievability and desirability of repr esentativeness. Political leaders and police in l ocales with the most positive citizen perceptions of social equity noted active and successful strategies to achieve racial parity. Political leaders and police in locales with the most negative perceptions of social equity tended to comment that achieving representativeness was ideal but at times unachievable and that officers who act in culturally competent ways could achieve the same positive effects as having a more racially diverse force. P10 has unclear support. Citizen groups expressed mixed opinions about minority chiefs. While praising the chiefs for breaking barriers, they often saw them as emblems of the status quo. Political leaders and police argued chiefs respond to unique needs ha ve promoted greater cultural awareness even if citizen groups do not think they have.
! "%$ The primary findings are displayed in Table 4:9. Appendix I presents information on each agencies' degree of representativeness, recruitment strategies, whether a locale has a minorit y police chief, and more specifics on citizen groups' perceptions of social equity. Table 4:9: Primary themes concerning P9 & P10 Groups Citizen Groups Political Leaders Police Themes In locales with positive assessments, citizen groups say agencies actively try to achieve parity In locales with negative assessments, citizen groups say agencies do little to achieve parity and argue why it is not possible In locales with positive assessments, political leaders say achieving parity is a primar y goal In locales with negative assessments, political leaders say achieving parity is important but unlikely In locales with positive assessments, police say achieving parity is a primary goal In locales with negative as sessments, police say achieving representativeness is unlikely; culturally competent officers will achieve same effects as representativeness ; Agency cannot send only minority officers in to minority communities Citizen Group Findings Three findings are important regarding how representativeness and presence of minority chiefs affect citizen perceptions. First, citizen groups argued that agencies' degree of racial parity affected their perceptions of social equity. Perceptions were most positive in which the disparities were at 10% or below and most negative when disparities were higher than 10% (see Appendix I) Locale 11 was an exception, which was slightly over represented yet had more negative assessments of social equity. Second, citizen groups arg ued that their perceptions were most affected by how seriously they thought agencies tried to achieve parity. In locales with more positive assessments, citizen groups charged that agencies took representativeness seriously and spoke positively about progr ams designed to increase racial parity. Typical comments included, "It [i.e., trying to achieve representatives] shows that they care", and "They [i.e., the departments] take it seriously", and "They're trying to do the right thing [and are] getting there slowly". In locales with more negative assessments, citizen groups asserted that
! "%% agencies did not take representativeness seriously and that minorities might find it difficult to become police themselves Comments like these were typical: "The police say d iversity is important but don't try to promote it by hiring enough Black officers"; "Many African Americans might not meet the educational requirements"; "Many Blacks distrust police so much that they would never become one." In Locale 11, the sole locale that was over represented in terms of African Americans, citizen groups spoke positively about racial parity being achieved but noted worrying that "some officers are just perpetuating racist practices." Third, four of the 11 locales have minority police c hiefs, yet interviewees expressed mixed assessments. All noted that it was a sign of progress that the city had a minority police chief. However, interviewees worried that "he's just maintaining the status quo", or "He's done some good, but we don't see hi m really pushing to make changes", "He needs to better consider all communities, not just  a few." Political Leader and Police Findings Findings for political leaders and police varied based upon locale but tended to mirror one another. Interviewees fr om all locales asserted that achieving representativeness was important to foster greater community trust. However, two findings emerged that were based upon locale. One finding emerged regarding minority chiefs. First, interviewees in locales with more po sitive citizen perceptions of social equity tended to note that achieving representativeness was difficult but that it helped police better connect with the community. Responses like these were typical: "People like to see people who look like them on the force", "We want a diverse force", "Diversity makes us stronger"; "[Diversity] helps with community buy in"; and "We all agree [i.e., citizens, agencies,
! "%& political leaders] that being more representative of our community is a goal we need to pursue that ma kes us better off." Second, interviewees in locales with lower citizen perceptions of social equity tended to note that while ideal, representativeness is likely unachievable. These arguments were typical: a) Few African Americans apply; b) officers acting in culturally competent and community appropriate ways would achieve the same benefits as having a more raci ally representative force; and c ) citizen should respect all officers' authority, regardless of race, especially because agencies cannot send only minority officers into minority communities. Regarding the effect of a minority police chief, both political leaders and police tended to note that the Chief "understood community needs" and "responded to issues as he saw them" and "has made respecting di versity more a priority in the department." The one exception was a political leader from Locale 8, who noted, "The chief is doing too little to change how the force operates, so the same old problems keep cropping up." P9 & P10: Status of the Propositions Proposition 9 is largely supported whereas Proposition 10 has unclear support. Greater racial parity is associated with more positive citizen perceptions of social equity. However, the degree to which citizens thought agencies take representativeness ser iously also affected perceptions of social equity. As such, another proposition should be added that investigates the relationship between citizen perceptions of how seriously departments try to achieve parity and perceptions of social equity. Proposition 10 has unclear support. However, given that only four of the 11 agencies have a minority chief and given indications that numerous variables beyond the presence of a minority chief affect citizen perceptions
! "%' (especially the presence of social and criminal issues popularly related to race), more cases are needed to test this proposition fully. Therefore, Propositions 9 and 10 do not need to be modified. However, an additional proposition is warranted: Perceptions of socially equitable policing will be higher in communities in which police agencies actively try to recruit minorities and exhibit successes at making departments more representative P11: Citizen perceptions of socially equitable policing will be higher in communities served by police depart ments in which officers tend to have more education. P12: Citizen perceptions of socially equitable policing will be higher in communities served by police departments with trainings on diversity and law. P11 & P12: Overall Findings Both propositions are largely supported for three reasons. First, locales with agencies that required more training on diversity, community policing, environmental causes of crime, identifying community issues, and organizing the community tended to have more positive citizen perceptions of social equity. Second, locales with agencies with few of these trainings had lower citizen perceptions of social equity. Third, both political leaders and police tended to want to offer more trainings but noted obstacles, largely budgetary. Table 4:11 presents the primary findings. Appendix J presents information on each agencies' trainings. Table 4:11: Prominent themes concerning P11 & P12 Group Citizen Groups Political Leaders Police Prominent Themes In locales with more positive assessments, citizen groups said trainings positively contributed to social equity In locales with more negative assessments, citizen groups said trainings are insufficient and officers are underprepared In locales with mixed perceptions, citizens say few trainings are given on community issues In locales with more positive assessments, political leaders said trainings were expensive but should continue because of positive results In locales with more negative assessments, political leaders were divi ded but often argued that more trainings were needed In locales with mixed perceptions, political leaders argued that trainings are ideal but had to be balanced against other priorities In locales with more positive assessments, police said trainings wer e ideal and contributed to good community relations In locales with more mixed and negative assessments, police said trainings were expensive, difficult to implement, and not ideal at times Regardless of locale, most police said more trainings would be ideal
! "%( Citizen Group Findings Findings for citizen groups fell into three categories based upon locale. The findings demonstrate that perceptions of social equity are more positive in locales with agencies that offer more trainings but these trainings extend beyond diversity and law. First, interviewees in Locales 1 and 2 had largely positive perceptions of social equity. They noted that departments required not only trainings on diversity and law but on environmental causes of c rime, identifying community problems, and organizing the community. Interviewees said these trainings, which were somewhat rarer in departments, improved social equity outcomes -engagement is more respectful, police are more proactive, and agencies seem to value fairness. Second, interviewees in Locales 3, 5, 8, 9, and 11 have largely negative perceptions of social equity. Citizen groups asserted that the police place too much emphasis on trainings related firearm usage and tactical driving and too little on diversity, law, environmental causes of crime, and identifying community problems. Some comments were typical: "They don't understand the community"; "We see the effects of poor training in poor outcomes"; "We're not sure some officers rights that are guaranteed." Third, interviewees in Locales 4, 6, 7, and 10 expressed mixed assessments. Most argued that departments do not focus enough on trainings to identify community problems and mobilizing the community and that trainings in law and community poli cing were often insufficient. Political Leader Findings Political leaders also tended to fall into three groups. First, political leaders in Locales 1 and 2 argued similarly as their citizen group counterparts. They argued that trainings resulted in posi tive social equity outcomes and should continue. They also noted that budgets
! "%) were sufficient to support trainings and would continue to be funded because good community relations resulted. Second, political leaders in Locales 3, 4, 6, 7, and 10 tended t o argue that trainings were important but that budgetary issues mean that other priorities mattered more. These comments were typical: "It would be ideal to offer more, but budgets are tight" and "It is more pressing to provide the budgets for equipment an d fighting drugs than community engagement trainings." Third, political le aders in Locales 5, 8, 9, and 11 also argued that trainings are ideal and should be expanded. These political leaders worried that too little attention had been paid to these traini ngs. Comments like these were typical: "We can see the results of poor training" and "We need better community relations, and trainings need to be expanded" and "We wish we had more in budgets to fund trainings." This finding demonstrates some overlap with citizen groups of these locales in that both want more trainings. Police Findings Regardless of locale, police interviewees' responses tended to overlap. Two findings are important. First, most noted difficulties with offering trainings. A frequently occu rring sentiment was that departments were often not provided sufficient funds for trainings, which were usually expensive, but they could be offered if more funding were provided. Interviewees noted that h aving an insufficient number of officers often meant that it was difficult to remove officers from patrol work and, relatedly, that communities might be less safe if officers were continually taken off the streets for training. Finally, most noted that tra inings, however ideal, might present unrealistic expectations. Common sentiments were: "Some
! "%* trainings are useful but just don't apply in dangerous situations"; "People need to understand why we have to respond using force at times"; "Good law enforcement might bring outcomes [some] don't like." Second, several intra group disagreements on the desirability of trainings were evident. Some law enforcement interviewees particularly in Locales 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, and 10 -acknowledged that further trainings on diver sity, community policing, and community engagement should be required because they would improve policing practices. Others argued particularly in Locales 5, 6, 7, 8, and 11 -that current trainings are sufficient, that citizen groups placed too much empha sis on further trainings, and that other trainings, especially those regarding firearms, were more important to reinforce. P11 and P12: Status of the proposition s Both propositions are largely supported. There is an association between positive perception s of social equity and when officers receive more training, especially on topics related to community engagement. However, two qualifications are warranted. First, the numbers of hours of training by themselves have unclear effects on social equity percep tions. Rather, social equity perceptions appeared more affected by: a) whether departments offer trainings on environmental causes of crime, identifying community problems, and organizing the community; and b) the extent to which departments seem to enforc e and value the trainings. In other words, perceptions of social equity were higher in locales that not only offered these trainings but also in which citizen groups perceived that agencies "took the trainings seriously", as one interviewee noted. Second, political leaders and police gave more wide ranging and divergent opinions on training than expected. While most want further trainings, budgetary issues often require
! "&+ prioritization of other strategies (e.g., firearms trainings). Further, there were wide spread assessments that trainings improved community relations, but some political leaders and police argued against trainings on these topics. Clearly, further investigation is warranted. As such, both propositions warrant modification Therefore: 1) Perceptions of socially equitable policing will be higher in communities served by police departments in which officers tend to have more college education ; and 2) Perceptions of socially equitable policing will be higher in communities served by police de partments requiring trainings on diversity, environmental causes of crime, identifying community issues, and organizing the community Summary of Findings As seen in Table 4:12, it appears that across all locales and groups, perceptions of social equity ar e most often affected by: a) the level of agreement between citizen groups, political leaders, and police on how best to pursue social equity; b) the level of disagreement among city council members on how best to pursue social equity; c) the degree to whi ch citizen groups feel departments take social equity seriously, especially through giving evidence that CPP and SEPM drive practice and that departments try to close gaps in racial disparities in departments; d) how well citizens feel departments engage c ommunities when they have to "get tough on crime"; e) the extent to which political leaders and police feel CPP, SEPM, representativeness, and trainings make law enforcement better; f) the extent to which budgets allow departments to fund more community en gagement strategies; and g) whether a community has a recent shooting of an unarmed minority.
! "&" Table 4:12: Most cited factors affecting social equity across locales Most cited factors The lack of social equity laws in a state The degree to which minority legislators canvass to raise social equity issues The level of agreement between citizen groups, political leaders, and police on how best to pursue social equity The level of disagreement among city council members on how best to pursue social equity The degree to which citizen groups feel departments take social equity seriously, especially through giving evidence that CPP and SEPM drive practice and that departments try to close gaps in racial disparities in departments How well citizens feel department s engage communities when departments have to "get tough on crime" Whether a community has a recent shooting of an unarmed minority The extent to which political leaders and police feel CPP, SEPM, achieving representativeness, and trainings improve commun ity relations The extent to which budgets allow departments to fund more community engagement strategies, both in trainings and on the ground The statuses of the proposit ions are presented in Table 4:13 Two propositions (4 and 6) were supported. Three propositions were largely supported (9, 11, and 12). Three were partially supported (2, 7, and 8). Two were not supported (1 and 3). Two had unclear support (5 and 10). Nine revised propositions are forwarded for future research. The next chapter discusses these findings in the context of the two research questions. It also discusses these findings in the context of the overall goal established in the intr oduction, namely how scholars can improve social equity as a pillar of public administration.
! " Table 4:13 Statuses of the propositions Propositions Support Modified Proposition P1: Citizen perceptions of socially equitable policing will be lower in states whose legislatures give police more power to stop motorists and pedestrians. Not supported Perceptions of socially equitable policing will be higher in states with laws explicitly banning racial profiling, prohibiting pretextual stops, and requiring colle ction of stop, search, and arrest data. P2: Citizen perceptions of socially equitable policing will be higher in states in which minority legislators' proportions in the state legislature are closer to their population proportions. Partially Supported Per ceptions of socially equitable policing will be higher in states in which minority legislators actively canvass to raise social equity issues and to propose social equity laws. P3: Citizen perceptions of socially equitable policing will be higher in commu nities served by police departments working in cities that have council manager governments. Not supported Perceptions of socially equitable policing will be higher in locales in which there is greater inter group agreement between citizens, elected offici als, and police on how best to achieve social equity. P4: Citizen perceptions of socially equitable policing will be lower in communities that have criminal or social issues popularly related to race. Supported No modification required P5: Citizen perce ptions of socially equitable policing will be lower in communities that have experienced an increase in the proportion of minorities in the last 10 years. Unclear support No modification needed. Further testing needed P6: Citizen perceptions of socially equitable policing will be lower in communities in which political principals demand policing action on social issues popularly related to race. Supported No modification required P7: Citizen perceptions of socially equitable policing will be higher in co mmunities served by police departments engaging in community policing programs. Partially supported Perceptions of socially equitable policing will be higher in communities served by community policing programs that facilitate more sustained, daily, one on one interactions between police and community members. P8: Citizen perceptions of socially equitable policing will be higher in communities served by police departments that use social equity performance measures. Partially supported Perceptions of socially equitable policing will be higher in communities in which agencies actively use social equity performance measures to guide practice. P9: Citizen perceptions of socially equitable policing will be higher in communities in which po lice officers are more racially representative of the community's population. Largely supported Perceptions of socially equitable policing will be higher in communities in which police officers are more racially representative of the community's population Perceptions of socially equitable policing will be higher in communities in which police agencies actively try to recruit minorities and exhibit successes at making departments more representative. P10: Citizen perceptions of socially equitable policing will be higher in communities served by police departments with a minority police chief. Unclear support No modification needed. Further testing required. P11: Citizen perceptions of socially equitable policing will be higher in communities serve d by police departments in which officers tend to have more education. Largely supported Perceptions of socially equitable policing will be higher in communities served by police departments in which officers tend to have more college education.
! "&$ P12: Citi zen perceptions of socially equitable policing will be higher in communities served by police departments with trainings on diversity and law. Largely supported Perceptions of socially equitable policing will be higher in communities served by police depar tments requiring trainings on environmental causes of crime, identifying community issues, and organizing the community.
! "&% CHAP TER V PATHS TO ACCOUNTABILITY FOR SOCIAL EQUITY This study addressed two questions related to how police departments' attempts to achieve accountability for social equity affect citizen perceptions The first question is: What political, managerial, and legal factors affect citizen perceptions of social equity in policing ? The second is: How do these factors affect citize n perceptions of social equity in policing? Twelve propositions grouped along political, managerial, and legal dimensions were tested to examine these questions in 11 US cities (hereafter "locales"). This study focused on perceptions of accountability for three reasons. First, part of the goal was to examine the validity of Gooden's (2015a) seven framework that defines accountability for social equity. For instance, accountability for social equity is closer to being achieved if agencies admit the social e quity issues they create, prioritize fairness, give everyone a place at the table, and so forth. Second, accountability systems like those proposed by Gooden operate under a paradox. On one hand, they produce quantifiable outputs yet are also meant to yiel d higher level outcomes, such as enhanced citizen tr ust in government (Dubnick, 2015 ). Thus, to understand accountability, researchers must understand how accountability systems affect citizen perceptions (Walker, 2007). Third, c ommunity m embership and a community's shared perceptions influence how citizens and police interact. If researchers better understand perceptions, they will better understand how police and communities relate to one another (Davis, 2000 ) A theory of accountab ility for social equ ity emerged from findings across the 12 propositions. Accountability for social equity is like a systems model with inputs, a black box, outputs, outcomes, and feedback that reside within a larger environment (see Figure
! "&& 5:1). Citizen perceptions of social equity are outcomes of a complex chain. Three conclusions are important Figure 5:1: A Systems Model of Accountability for Social Equity Conclusion 1: Discourses on fairness lead to practice and perceptions In all locales, citizen leaders, political leaders, and police (hereafter "participants") discuss and debate social equity and how to achieve it. These debates, referred to throughout as "discourses", lead to policing practices. Practices culminate in citi zen perceptions of social equity (see Figure 5:2). Discourses consist of: 1) participants' views on the social equity problems a locale faces; 2) the extent to which participants agree on these problems and to which citizen leaders are able to help define how a locale addresses those issues; and 3) definitions of fairness and administrative preferences. When participants agree on the social equity issues a community faces and when citizen leaders help define how to address those issues, the resultant polici ng practices lead to positive citizen perceptions of social equity.
! "&' Figure 5:2: How discourses lead to perceptions Participants' Views Participants' perspectives on the social equity needs of their communities form the first link in this chain. Thes e views form the basis for how a locale defines and addresses its social equity issues. Citizen Leaders' Views. Across locales, citizen leaders want to better the status of minorities. They demand that police: a) engage citizens respectfully; b) give minor ity groups a place at the table; and c) be more accountable and transparent. They also demand that governments do more to address systemic racism and socio economic disparities present within African American communities. Political Leaders' Views. These leaders had more varied than citizen leaders'. Their opinions were most often influenced by their: a) reported political ideology; b) desire to balance constituents' demands; and c) perceptions of the seriousness of social equity issues. Police Off icer s Views. Officers' views were more varied than citizen leaders' views but less varied than elected leaders'. Police noted that each community's social equity needs were unique and based on: a) the types of crimes within a locale; b) which populations committed the most crimes and where crimes are committed; and c) the seriousness of these crimes. Agreement, Playing Fields, Definitions, and Preferences
! "&( Next, participants debate these views and discourse on two things: 1) what a locale's social equity issues are; and 2) how to remedy those issues. Discourses occur in numerous milieux: community events, one on one interactions between two or more of these actors (e.g., elected leaders and police; police and citizen groups; citizen groups and elected lead ers; all three together), and city council meetings. From these interactions, priorities for how a locale achieves accountability for social equity are formed. Three lessons stand out. First, the extent to which participants agree on a locale's social equ ity issues determines how that locale will try to achieve accountability for social equity. When groups agree with one another, priorities converge, and policing practices are compromises between all groups. Policing practices, in turn, are associated with more positive citizen perceptions of social equity. When groups disagree, priorities do not converge, and approaches to social equity comport with what police and political leaders, not citizens, favor. The results are negative citizen perceptions. Seco nd, the "levelness of the playing field", or the extent to which citizen leaders help define a locale's social equity issues and how they want police address those issues, also affects citizen perceptions of social equity. In some locales, members of histo rically marginalized groups feel that discourses are inclusive namely that citizen leaders are active participants along with political leaders and police in debating how accountability for social equity will be achieved. In these communities, perceptions of social equity are positive because citizen group leaders feel involved, included, and respected by both political leaders and police. In communities with negative perceptions of social equity, citizen group leaders do not feel "meaningfully included", as one interviewee emblematically put it. The milieux in which discourses take place are "one sided" in favor of the police, and decisions about
! "&) policing are made "behind closed doors without our input", as another interviewee opined. Citizen leaders do no t feel they have a place at the table and that police and elected leaders do not address their social equity concerns. Third, the level of agreement between participants on how to achieve accountability and the levelness of the playing field create among p olitical leaders and police: a) definitions of fairness; and b) preferences for how to deal with a locale's social equity issues. The policing practices that departments adopt are reflections of these definitions and preferences. In communities with more i nclusive discourses, political leaders and police more often define fairness as "respectful engagement." Police then adopt practices aimed at creating positive, daily, and respectful engagements between community and police. The outcomes are positive perce ptions of social equity. In communities with less inclusive discourses (as reported by citizen leader interviewees), political leaders and police more often define fairness as "compliance with the officer", to take one emblematic quotation. The practices t hat result are "tough on crime" techniques that de emphasize fostering positive, daily, and respectful engagements. The outcomes are negative perceptions of social equity. A return to Gooden's Framework A return to Gooden's (2015a) framework is warranted. This study's findings help demonstrate the validity of the sixth dimension of this framework: accountability for social equity is closer to being achieved when everyone is given a place at the table. Achieving accountability for social equity requires tha t political leaders and police redraw power relationships through dialoguing with members of minority communities to hear their concerns and give them a say in how police do their jobs. When this occurs, police adopt
! "&* practices meant to improve accountabili ty which results in more positive citizen perceptions of social equity. Conclusion 2: Agencies' "black boxes" influence practices and perceptions Police departments are more likely to produce outputs (i.e., policing practices) that lead to positive perce ptions of social equity when three criteria are met. First, practices meant to achieve accountability for social equity (hereafter social equity programs ") must "fit" within departments. Second, police administrators must reinforce the importance of socia l equity. Third, officers must "buy in" to the importance of social equity (see Figure 5:3). Figure 5:3: Agencies' Black Boxes Social Equity Programs Must "Fit" Within Departments To yield more positive citizen perceptions of social equity, social equity programs meant to enhance accountability must "fit" within departments. 1 "Fit" consists of: 1) openness; 2) feasibility; and 3) sufficient resources. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! To remind, these programs are: 1) community policing and one on one respectful engagement; 2) social equity performance measurement; 3) strategies to achieve racial parity in departments, and 4) trainings related to diversity, community policing, environment al causes of cr ime, identifying community issues, and organizing the community.
! "'+ Openness Departments must be open to making social equity a cornerstone of practice. Departments exhibit ed varying degrees of openness. In some locales, police noted that programs: a) were compatible with a community's policing needs and existing department culture; and b) made policing easier through fostering citizen trust and high quality community police interactions. Political leaders commented that programs were successful in that they improved community relations and that the city council would continue to fund them. Social equity programs become cornerstones of practice political leaders suppor t them, and officers value them. In turn, citizens tend to view these departments as more socially equitable. In other locales, police asserted that programs: a) were incompatible with the department's culture; b) made policing more difficult; c) were too soft on crime and incompatible with a community's needs; d) endangered officers' lives; and e) wasted resources. Political leaders exhibited disagreement on the programs' necessity. Political leaders favoring "tough on crime" approaches usually outnumber those wanting more social equity programs. Thus, social equity does not become a cornerstone of practice. Citizens view these departments as socially in equitable. While "openness" is a key element in agencies' black boxes, more remains to be explored. Ope nness appears reflective of (somewhat) entrenched department cultures. These findings suggest that openness is partly a function of departments' interpretations of environmental factors, such as assessments of how dangerous a locale is. Ergo elected leaders and police in cities with more violent crime will likely favor adopting social equity programs less.
! "'" Feasibility and Sufficient Resources To be successful, programs must be feasible. Police departments need sufficient resources, especially budgets, personnel, and other resources. Many departments face resource and budgetary limitations that make it infeasible for them to implement programs 2 Further, departments are often understaffed because: a) locales cannot afford to pay more officers; and b) too few "quality candidates apply". 3 Programs require extensive time based, monetary, and IT resources. Social equity performance measurement is p articularly costly and time consuming, sometimes adding minutes to stops and calls. Call times go up, and efficiency declines. Consequently, many departments choose to prioritize policing activities they feel yield more substantive effects, such as ending community engagement programs in favor of shifting officers to patrol. The outcome is that citizens in locales served by these departments have negative perceptions of social equity. In other locales, city councils have little to no issue providing resour ces to support social equity programs. Departments have the capacity to support programs, and they become departmental staples. The outcome is that citizens in these locales have more positive perceptions. Administrators Must Reinforce the Importance of So cial Equity To be successful, police administrators, particularly chiefs, must reinforce the importance of social equity throughout departments. This reinforcement occurs through formal and informal communiquÂŽs, encouraging mid rank officers to bolster the importance !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! # Many police interviewees said their departments would likely support more programs if they could afford to do so. 3 Some agencies, such as in Locale 9, are understaffed by hundreds of officers. Further, m any polic e interviewees frequently used the phrase "we get so few quality candidates applying" to describe the difficulties of recruitment.
! "'# of social equity to subordinates, individual conversations, and word of mouth. Thus, administrators both create and reinforce how departments approach social equity Some chiefs continually reinforce the need for officers to be socially equita ble and respectful in every stop they initiate and in every call to which they respond. Reinforcement creates an agency wide dynamic in which officers are expected to infuse respectful engagement throughout their work. Citizen perceptions of these departments are largely positive. Other chiefs do not regularly communicate the importance of social equity. Many emphasize the need to be "tough on crime" over engaging in "softer" policing practices. This reinforcement creates an agency wide dynamic in which a department associates social equity with citizen compliance with officers. Citizen perceptions of these departments are largely negative. Officers Must Buy In" to Social Equity Top down messaging does not, by itself, determine how a department approaches social equity. Bottom up buy in is essential. Buy in refers to the degree to which patrol officers "believe" that social equity programs improve practice In some departments, few officers seem to buy in to social equity programs. They note these programs are "soft on crime", make their jobs more difficult, present unreasonable expectations (e.g., that unarmed minorities will not be shot), and more. In ot her departments, divisions among officers are evident some feel the programs improve practice, and others feel they misdiagnose community issues and put officers' lives at risk. 4 The extent of officer !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! % ,-./01.2! when police unions support social equity programs, departments will likely implement them successfully. When unions do not support them, often under the charge that they endanger officers' lives and make policing inefficient, departments will likel y not implement them, or will not implement them to the degree required to improve citizen pe rceptions.
! "'$ buy in appears associated with citizen perceptions of s ocial equity the more buy in and fewer departmental sub cultures the more positive the citizen perceptions. Future studies need to examine buy in further. The importance of buy in was evident in interviews with command level officers and in newspaper ana lysis, not in interviews with patrol officers. 5 These data cannot address how buy in occurs, just that it is important. A Return to Gooden's Framework This study helps validate earlier research finding that numerous factors in the black box affect outputs and outcomes (Riccucci, 2005). These include leadership, management (e.g., financial, human, capital, information technology), capacity, agency culture, and information (Barrett & Greene, 2008; Hofstede et al., 1990; Rainey, 2009). P olice departments' bla ck boxes still must be unpacked. This study helps validate part of Gooden's framework when departments prioritize fairness, outputs lead to improved outcomes. However, agencies cannot just be socially equitable. Budgets need to be sufficient. Agencies need personnel. Chiefs need to reinforce social equity. Officers must buy in. Departments need to feel social equity programs are compatible with community needs. Thus, achieving accountability fo r social equity does not just happen. Agencies must foster internal environments conducive to making equity a priority. Conclusion 3: There are at least three approaches to accountability for social equity There are at least three versions of the social e quity systems model Proactive, Latent, and Responsive As detailed in Table 5:1, perceptions of social equity are most often affected by: a) the level of agreement between citizen groups, political leaders, and police on how to pursue social equity; b) the degree to which citizen groups feel departments take !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 5 Many interviewees noted things like, "My guys sometimes wonder if this is the best approach" or "Patrol officers need to beli eve this, and it doesn't always happen." Newspapers often reported on departments' internal dynamics, such that office rs felt social equity programs were too soft on crime.
! "'% social equity seriously; c) how well citizens feel departments engage communities; and d) environmental factors Table 5:1: Three Versions of Accountability for Social Equity Perceptions Factors that af fect perceptions of social equity Positive (Proactive) Cooperation between groups Agreement on how to pursue social equity (political leaders) Smaller locales Fewer violent crime issues Budgetary availability One on one engagement Racial parity programs Representativeness Use of CPP and SEPM Training on community engagement Negative (Latent) Little cooperation between groups Disagreement on how to pursue social equity (political leaders) Large locales with criminal issues Recent shooting of unarmed minority Budgetary problems Disagreement about CPP and SEPM Association of social equity with compliance Few cultural divisions evident Political leaders: Citizens overstate social equity issues Police: Citizens insufficientl y understand law enforcement No racial parity programs Departments are not representative Few community engagement trainings Mixed (Responsive) Variable cooperation between groups Some agreement on how to pursue social equity (political leaders) Large l ocales with criminal issues Recent shooting of unarmed minority Budgetary problems Some use of CPP and SEPM Association of social equity with compliance Intra departmental cultural divisions Departments try to achieve racial parity Some community engagement trainings Prioritization of defensive trainings The Proactive Version Proactive locales have more positive citizen perceptions. To citizens, political leaders and police are proactive because they make equity a priority to avoid problems in the future. First, discourses occur on "even playing fields". There is closer cooperation between and agreement among citizens, political leaders, and police on how to achieve accountability
! "'& for social equity. Second, these locales tend to be smaller (i.e., around 150,000 persons). Interviewees asserted that the locales had violent crimes but that crimes were not extensive problems. Further, departments have sufficient budgets to support social equity programs, especially: a) recruitment to ma ke departments more racially representative; b) community policing programs (CPP) and social equity performance measurement (SEPM) ; and c) academy as well as in service trainings designed to promote good community relations. More simply, programs "fit". T hird, departmental cultures support social equity programs. Chiefs reinforce social equity's importance, and those throughout a department buy in. The Latent Version Latent communities have more negative citizen perceptions. To citizens, police and political leaders stymie discussions on social equity, meaning that issues are latent they are present but often hidden or unacknowledged. First, discourses do not occur on "even playing fields". Political leaders and police, unlike in proactive communities, seem to define how a locale will try to achieve accountability for social equity primarily among themselves and do not encourage or facilitate deliberation with members of min ority communities. Citizens, political leaders, and police disagree with one another on how to pursue social equity. Second, latent locales are large (i.e., over 850,000 persons). Interviewees report issues related to drugs, gang violence, property crime, and murder. Political leaders and police often argue: a) these issues necessitate tough on crime approaches; and b) social equity programs make policing more difficult and put officers' lives at risk. These communities experience frequent violent encounte rs between community members and police. In all latent communities, police have shot and killed an unarmed minority within the
! "'' past four years, resulting in police community tensions. Police and many political leaders associate social equity with complianc e: if citizens comply with officers, then social equity has been achieved. Third, political leaders often disagree on how to pursue social equity. Those who want departments to make social equity a greater priority especially through using more CPP and SE PM usually get out voted by those who want tough on crime approaches. Fourth, budgetary problems prevent departments from supporting social equity programs. Community engagement offices are understaffed, and departments can offer little training on communi ty engagement, community policing, diversity, cultural competency, and more. Departments prioritize what they feel yield more substantive results defensive trainings and predictive policing. Fifth, departments are not racially representative. They do not m aintain, nor can they likely afford, recruitment programs to foster racial parity. 6 Sixth, both a majority of elected leaders and police argue that their departments are already socially equitable, that any social equity issues are minimal, and that citiz ens overstate equity concerns because they insufficiently understand law enforcement. Within departments, few cultural divisions appear evident: officers either do not support further social equity programs, or they remain silent on the issue. Thus, s evera l factors interact to produce negative perceptions: dangerous environments, non inclusive discourses, budgetary issues, city council support for tough on crime approaches, and police cultures resistant to social equity reforms. Latent departments more ofte n emphasize policing tactics that associate equity with compliance. Minority !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 34!.156782!597:!4;;6<1.=!=968!/067>=!?6@1!AB1!<97!47?:!06.1!9547>!/04=1!C04!9DD?:E!978!AB1!847F/!>1/!174->0!06>0 G H-9?6/:!9DD?6<97/=IE! J/!/651=2!K4/0!<6/6L17!?1981.!978!D4?6<1!67/1.M61C11=!74/18!/09/! .9<69?!D9.6/:!67!81D9./517/=!C4-?8!74/!K1!9<061M18!-7?1==!18-<9/6479?! 4DD4./-76/61=!;4.!J;.6<97!J51.6<97=!65D.4M182!C06<0!C4-?8!1M17/-9??:!.1=-?/!67!54.1!H-9?6;618!9DD?6<97/=I
! "'( community leaders feel like they are not able to exercise popular sovereignty to affect how police do their jobs. The Responsive Version Responsive communities have mixed citizen perceptions of social equity. To citizens, police are not proactive in addressing social equity issues. Rather, they are responsive to them as they arise. First, citizen groups, political leaders, and police have variable cooperation among and agreement with one another on how to achieve accountability for social equity. In responsive locales, there is mutual recognition among groups that police need to foster better community relations. Groups disagree on how best to achieve it. Second, political leaders disagree on how to achieve accountability for social equity, especially whether social equity programs are necessary (e.g., funding more trainings). They most frequently agree on the need to establish citizen oversight bodies of p olice, often because they offer "more bang for our buck", as one interviewee put it, by promoting more formal ized accountability mechanisms and making police more "answerable" to citizens. Third, like latent communities, responsive communities are large locales with criminal issues. Political leader and police interviewees, rather than defining crime as hallmarks of the city (i.e., as in latent communities), noted that these issues are "typical of a big city" and "not as bad as othe r [cities]", to take two emblematic quotations. While all latent communities experienced police shootings of unarmed minorities within the past four years, they are less frequent and reported less in the media than in latent communities. Fourth, responsiv e departments experience budgetary problems, meaning that social equity programs often have to take "back seats" to other priorities. Departments are
! "') understaffed, meaning that few officers work primarily in community policing programs. Fifth, officers ass ociate much, but not all, of soc ial equity with "compliance". However, police interviewees emphasize the importance of compliance less than police interviewees in latent communities. Chiefs reinforce to officers the importance of being respectful in all st ops and calls. However, chiefs have emphasized the importance of respectful engagement unevenly, only placing greater emphasis on it within only the past two years. Cultural divisions within departments are evident many push for more social equity reforms, and many push against them. Sixth, no responsive department was racially representative. All operate minority recruitment programs to try to achieve racial parity. Seventh, while responsive departments often prioritize defensive trainings, it was more com mon to see more use of both academy and in service community engagement trainings than in departments in latent communities. In several responsive communities, chiefs have recently begun mandating more in service trainings centered on respectful engagement A Return to Gooden's Framework These findings validate Gooden's framework. The more that political leaders and agencies make social equity a priority and the more inclusive they are, the more social equity perceptions are positive. Further, the Proactive, Latent, and Responsive framework suggests that there are at least three approaches to accountability for social equity. Future studies are needed to test this framework. These conclusions comport with other studies' findings. First, trainings on diversity, law, and cultural competency are associated with more positive citizen perceptions (Boulware Brown, 2004; Camilleri, 2007; Clark & Armstrong, 2012). Second, programs like
! "'* CPP and SEPM help foster greater social equity, especially for communitie s alienated by policing (Kappeler & Gaines, 2014; Liederbach et al., 2008; Skogan, 2004) and also when programs move beyond being "public relations campaigns" (King & Lab, 2000). Third, racial representativeness in agencies can spark cultural shifts toward greater racial sensitivity and attention to minorities' concerns (Crank, 2004; Skolnick, 2008). Citizens are likely to view representative agencies more positively (Keiser & Haider Markel, 2007). The largest lesson is clear: the more that everyone is give n a place at the table, which enhances accountability by promoting "answerability", the more positive social equity perceptions are likely to be (Gooden, 2015a; Dubnick, 2005 ). Limitations This study has limitations. First, the findings suffer from not in cluding more interviewees. To remind, five interviewees represented each locale one ACLU member, one NAACP member, one local level political leader, one state legislator, and one police representative. Interviewees' assessments do not necessarily match the assessments of everyone in their respective organizations and communities. This is most problematic with citizen group leaders. On one hand, their opinions may be more negative than the typical citizen because leaders know more about how the police act. O n the other hand, their opinions may be more positive than the typical citizen because these leaders see firsthand agencies' attempts to achieve accountability for social equity. 7 Similarly, police representatives were all command officers. They cannot rep resent the opinions of everyone in a department. The same is true of political leaders. Regardless, some variation is lost !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 7 Further, many citizens likely do not have the broader community level views of police as do the leaders of particular citizen groups, meaning that typical citizens' assessments of police are likely formed in singular encounters.
! "(+ within each group. Future studies should address this by interviewing or surveying more individuals within each group, especially to see how assessments vary within groups. Second, citizen group interviewees' personal experiences may have influenced responses. A negative encounter with a police officer might lead a citizen leader interviewee to view an entire department as negative and discount evidence of positive behavior. Future studies need to examine how interviewees' individual experiences with officers shape perceptions of departments overall. Third, some interviewees' comments might exhibit social desirability bias (see Sing leton & Straits, 2010, p. 341). 8 Social desirability bias is the greatest issue with police. They are more likely to put a "positive spin" on social equity issues. Social desirability bias is less evident with citizen groups and political leaders. For inst ance, many noted their positions were "well known", that they "like to talk about [their] opinions" and "I want people to know them". Fourth, the 11 locales included in this study may not be representative of the entire United States. To remind, this stud y used purposive selection to maximize variation on demographics, crime issues a locale faces, policing practices, government type, and more. However, to obtain these 11 locales, 19 were chosen and contacted. Locales had to be excluded if even one potentia l interviewee representing the three major groups could not be secured. While the desired variation in locales was eventually achieved, future studies could address this through a large N survey of multiple locales. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8 To Singleton and Straits (2010), "many respondents will want to make a good impression on the researcher by appearing sensibl e, healthy, happy, mentally sound, free of racial prejudice, and the like" (p. 341). These authors recommended several strategies to reduce the likelihood of this type of bias, which this researcher employed: "[U]se of indirect questions, careful placement and wording of sensitive questions, assurances of anonymity and scientific importance, statements sanctioning less socially desi rable responses, building of rapport between interviewer and respondent, and collection of sensitive information within face to face interviews with self administered forms or other modes that protect privacy to the interviewees" (p. 341).
! "(" Fifth, achieving accountability for soci al equity is likely more complex than these findings suggest. Police agencies are unique products of their environments, and many factors affecting social equity likely remain undiscovered or underexplored. Future studies should refine the systems model an d tripartite framework advanced herein. Research is particularly needed on how environmental factors affect accountability for social equity, such as socio economic distributions within cities, types of crimes, city size, and more. It is also possible that more subtle variations in citizen perceptions beyond "positive, negative, and mixed" will be discovered in future studies. Sixth, this study discovered several associations between policing activity and citizen perceptions. The results cannot address: a) how social equity programs affect citizen perceptions, just that they do; b) if programs result in substantive changes in police behavior; and c) whether citizen groups perceive departments as more socially equitable simply because these programs are prese nt. Future studies should examine how social equity programs affect policing behavior and how this behavior, in turn, affects citizen perceptions. How to improve the social equity literature While this study addressed two questions related to social equity in policing, the overarching purpose was to address the following: How can scholars fill the social equity pillar to make it co equal to and as useful as the other pillars? This question arises from the reality that social equity scholarship is rare and c omprises only about 5% of the entire output of publications like Public Administration Review (Gooden, 2015b). First, this study suggests ways to resolve social equity's operationalization problems. Rosenbloom (2005) noted that researchers do not sufficien tly consider the rule of law, do not justify why an administrative action or policy is inequitable, and forward definitions that
! "(# undemocratically trump all others. To get around these issues, researchers should analyze how definitions of and approaches to social equity differ (particularly among citizen leaders, political leaders, and police in multiple locales) and how administrative actions and public policies affect citizen perceptions. What is considered socially equitable in one locale might be conside red socially inequitable in another. Rather than there being one definition of social equity, definitions of social equity change depending on: a) the administrative and policy act in question; b) different groups' definitions of fairness; and c) who is in volved in defining a locale's approach to social equity. More simply, discourses between citizens, political leaders, and public administrators define how a locale will try to achieve accountability for social equity. By examining who is involved in these discourses and how discourses lead to practice, researchers will better understand how and if the public sector achieves accountability for social equity. Researchers will understand how definitions of fairness "get there" in the first place. Second, rese archers need to examine Gooden's fifth question how accountability for social equity is achieved. The question moves beyond "admiration of the problem" to what agencies actually do about social equity. Examining social equity accountability requires scruti nizing different actors, their motivations, their power and social construction, which laws get passed and why, and what gets implemented and why. The question necessitates charting how the actions of the public sector affect citizen trust in government an d how the public sector affects different communities. Focusing on accountability requires researchers to unpack agencies' "black boxes" to better understand the effects of performance measurement, representative bureaucracy, leadership and ethics, organiz ational behavior, and more. It also necessitates ascertaining how and if social equity programs "fit"
! "($ within agencies, especially if they are compatible with agency cultures, if they are feasible, and if they have sufficient resources. The focus is placed squarely on agencies themselves, why they act the way that they do, and the consequences of how they act. Third, addressing how accountability for social equity is achieved requires both qualitative and quantitative data. The academy should want and value both types of data, especially given qualitative research's strengths in exploring contextual linkages. This study uncovered linkages likely not discoverable by using solely quantitative data. However, these findings must be advanced quantitatively, partic ularly in large N studies, to examine how definitions of and approaches to social equity differ across multiple locales. Fourth, researchers need to better consider how social equity issues are connected to one another. No social equity issue exists in is olation. This study suggests that how the public sector approaches social equity is rooted in discourses that define not only what a community's social equity issues are but also how public agencies will address those issues. Who gets the benefits of admin istrative actions and public policies are functions of who is involved in defining the social equity issues and how to address them. The more inclusive discourses are, the more socially equitable outcomes result. To take a horticultural metaphor, social e quity in policing seems to grow from the same pot as social equity in housing, social equity in social services, and more. As noted by interviewees, l ocales with the most negative perceptions of social equity also have issues regarding segregation, housing education, and resources. Minority communities tend to be the most heavily policed. Local governments have few, if any, policies to address these disparities. Locales with the most positive perceptions experience these issues, but they are
! "(% less pronounce d than in other locales. These local governments more often address the causes of inequities by fostering greater socio economic inclusion, better education, and more. The systems model advanced in this study can help explain other social equity outcomes. Social equity discourses affect what gets implemented. They create communities' "orientations toward equity" and define how the public sector addresses inequities. 9 When social equity reforms "fit" within agencies, when administrators reinforce their impo rtance, and when workers buy in, agencies will (likely) successfully adopt practices that will lead to more positive citizen perceptions. Future studies should examine these propositions in other social equity dimensions, especially housing and social serv ices. Suggestions for Future Research Additional studies are needed to clarify and advance the model that emerged from the findings. First, at least one large N study of numerous locales is needed. This survey should be distributed to community leaders, police, and political leaders across the United States to examine the revised propositions that emerged from this study. At present, the most important task is to examine how well the framework describes, explains, and predicts citizen perceptions. From there, the framework can be modified and e xpanded. Second, in depth case studies of more locales are needed. It is most important to interview more individuals from each group. A greater number of interviewees in a smaller number of locales will allow fuller exploration of numerous factors, part icularly intra group variation in perceptions and how buy in among officers occurs. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 9 Some cities m ight have orientations toward equity that hold all government agencies in a locale accountable for social equity; some agencies might make themselves accountable even if a city does not; even other agencies may resist holding themselves account able even if a city says it must. Regardless, numerous social equity "trees" appear to grow from one pot.
! "(& Third, how social equity practices especially community policing, social equity performance measurement, trainings, and recruitment programs to achieve racial parity in de partments affect perceptions needs to be better understood. For instance, the findings suggest that the presence of particular types of trainings especially those related to diversity, law, environmental causes of crime, organizing the community, and commu nity policing positively affect citizen perceptions. These findings cannot explain how trainings affect police behavior and how this behavior, in turn, affects perceptions. Fourth, the black box needs to be unpacked further. It is clear that factors rela ted to "fit", feasibility, reinforcement, and buy in influence police agencies' practices. What remains unclear is why some departments feel social equity reforms are more compatible with their culture whereas others resist social equity reforms. This stud y suggests that departmental culture is in part reflective of how "dangerous" officers perceive a city to be. A series of in depth case studies focused primarily on agencies is warranted. Fifth, it is important to extend the findings beyond policing. S oci al equity is marked by numerous intersections between policies, administrative actions, identities, and more (Gooden & Portillo, 2011). Some have found evidence that policing manages and regulates stigmatized populations especially in housing (Websdale, 2 001) Multiple social inequities result from elites' desires for social control, which manifest in policing, housing, and more. The model advanced herein should be studied in the context of other social equity issues particularly housing and social service s t o see if the patterns hold. Conclusion This study represents the first steps toward better understanding how accountability for social equity is achieved. It used a modified grounded theory approach that investigated
! "(' 12 propositions in 11 purposively s elected locales. Findings reveal that achieving accountability for social equity is a systems model with at least three iterations Proactive, Latent, and Responsive. This study also highlights how social equity cuts to the core of democratic governance: popular sovereignty and the equal protection of the law. However, governments create both inequity and inequity, which Jean Jacques Rousseau noted when he wrote, "Man i s born free, and everywhere he is in chains." Social equity reminds that governments have responsibilities to all persons to create conditions that protect and advance people's abilities to live meaningful lives. The findings point to one reality above all : power needs to be redrawn and fairness made a priority, but achieving accountability for social equity is possible. When social equity is achieved, government is closer to fulfilling its promise.
! "(( REFERENCES Adams, G.B., & Balfour, D.L. (2009). Unmasking administrative evil (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Adve, N., and Engineer, M. (2010). Equity and Social Justice in a Finite Carbon World. Economic and Political Weekly, 45 (40), 15. Agamben, G. (1998). Homo sacer: Soverei gn power and bare life. D. Heller Roazen (Trans.). Stanford University Press. A lex, N. (1969). Black in blue: A study of the Negro policeman New York: Appleton Century Crofts. Alexander, J., & Stivers, C. (2010). An ethic of race for public administrati on. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 32 (4), 578 597. Allen, J., & Monk Turner, E. (2010). Citizen perceptions of the legitimacy of traffic stops. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38 (4), 589 594. Alpert, G., MacDonald, J. H., & Dunham, R. G. (2005). Police Suspicion and Discretionary Decision Making During Citizen Stops. Criminology 43, 407 434. Alpert, G.P., Dunham, R.G., & Smith, M.R. (2007). Investigating racial profiling by the Miami Dade Police Department: A multimethod a pproach. Criminology & Public Policy 6(1), 25 55. Alvez, J.D.S., & Timney, M. (2008). Human rights theory as a means for incorporating social equity in to the public administration curriculum. J PAE, 14 (1), 51 66. American Civil Liberties Union. (2014a) Affiliates. Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/affiliates American Civil Liberties Union. (2014b). Boston police data shows widespread racial bias in street encounters with civilians. Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/criminal law reform racial justice/boston police data shows widespread racial bias street encounter s American Civil Liberties Union. (2014 c ). Racial justice. Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/racial justice Ammons, D.N. (2013). Signs of performance measurement progress among prominent city governments. Public Performance & Management Review, 36 (4), 507 528. Anderson, E. (1999). Code of the street New York: W.W. Norton.
! "() Andersen, S.C. (2008). The impact of public management reforms on student performance. Public Administration 86, 541 558. Andrews, R., & Miller, K.J. (2013). Representative bureaucracy, gender and policing: The case of domestic violence arrests in England. Public Administration 91, 998 1014. Andrews, R., Boyne, G.A., & Walker, R.M. (2011). Dimensions of publicness and organization performance: A review of the evidence. J PART 21, i 301 i319. Antovics, K., & Knight, B.G. (2009). A new look at racial profiling: Evidence from the Boston Police Department. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 91 (1), 163 177. Apple by, P.H. (1947). Toward Better Public Administration. Public Administration Review 7 (2) 93 99. Arendt, H. (1951). The origins of totalitarianism. Berlin/Prague: Schocken Books. Arizona v. Gant, 556 US 332 (2009). Arizona v. Johnson, 555 US 323 (2009). Atkins, D.N ., & Wilkins, V.M. (2013). Going beyond reading, writing, and arithmetic: The effects of teacher representation on teen pregnancy rates. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 23 771 90. Ayres, I. (2002a). Outcome Tests of Racial Disparities in Police Practices. Justice Research and Policy 4, 131 142. Ayers, I. (2002b). Pervasive Prejudice: Unconventional Evidence of Race and Gender Discrimination Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bailey, H.A., & Shafritz, J.M. (198 8). The American Presidency: Historical and contemporary perspectives. Chicago: The Dorsey Press. Bagaka, O. (2009). Parades of Reforms and the Quest for Social Equity: The Kenyan Case. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 31 (2), 187 205. Barker, J.C. (1999). Danger, duty, and disillusion: The worldview of Los Angeles Police Officers Prospect Heights, Ill.: Waveland Press. Barker, T., & Roebuck, J. (1973). An empirical typology of police corruption. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publishing. Barlow, D. E., & Barlow, M. H. (1993). Cultural diversity training in criminal justice: A progressive or conservative. Social Justice, 20 (3 4), 69 84.
! "(* Barlow, D. E., & Barlow, M. H. (2002). Racial profiling: A survey of African American police officers. P olice Quarterly 5(3), 334 358. Barnard, C.I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Harvard University Press. Barrick, K., Hickman, M.J., & Strom, K.J. (2014). Representative Policing and Violence Towards the Police. Policing, 8 (2), 193 204. Barrett, K., & Greene, R. (2001). Grading the states 2001: A management report card. Governing, 14, 20 108. Barrilleaux, C., Feiock, R., & Crew, R.E. (1992). Measuring and comparing American state administrative characteristics. State and Local Government Review, 24, 12 18. Barton, A., & Teagel, R. ( 2007 ) Police led proactive prevention of youth crime: A case for the innova tive use of support workers? Crime Prevention and Community Safety: An International Journal 9, 21 36. Bass, S. (2001). Policing S pace, Policing Race: Social Control Imperatives and Police Discretionary Decisions. Social Justice, 28 (1), 156 176. Batton, C., & Kadleck, C. (2004). Theoretical and methodological issues in racial profiling research. Police Quarterly 7(1), 30 64. Baum, L. (2012). The Supreme Court (11 th ed.). CQ Press. Beard, C.A. (1936). The living Constitution. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 185(1) 29 34. Bearfield, D.A. (2009). Equity at the intersection: Public administration and the study of gender. Public Administration Review 69(3), 383 386. Behr, J. G. ( 2004 ) Black and female municipal em ploy ment: A substantive b enefit of minority political in corpo ration? Journal of Urban Affairs 22, 243 246. Bell, C.G., Hopson, M.C., Craig, R., & Robinson, N.W. (2014). Exploring black and white accounts of 21 st century racial profiling: Riding and driving while black. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication 15 (1), 33 42. Bellah, R.N. (1967). Civil religion in America. Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 96 (1), 1 21. Berkeley, G.E. (1969). The democratic policeman. Beacon Press. Berlin, I. (1969). Two Concepts of Liberty. In I. Berlin (ed.), Four Essays on Liberty London: Oxford University Press.
! ")+ Berlin, I. (1978). From Hope and Fear Set Free. In H. Hardy (ed.), Concepts and Categories. Philosophical Essays London: Hogarth Press. Berlin, I. (2002). Liberty Oxford: Ox ford University Press. Bermudez, J.L. (2010). Cognitive Science: An Introduction to the Science of the Mind Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Berns, R.M. (2012). Child, Family, School, Community: Socialization and Support New York: Cengage Learning. Bertelli, A.M., & Lynn, L.E. (2006). Madison's Managers: Public Administration and the Constitution Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. Biela, J. (2015). Measurement of accountability. In E.M. Berman & J. Rabin (Eds.), Encyclopedia of public administration and public policy (pp. 24 31). New York: Taylor Francis. Birkland, T.A. (2011). An introduction to the policy process: Theories, concepts, and models of public policy making (3rd ed.). New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc. Bit tner, E. (1980). The functions of the police in modern society: A review of background factors, current practices, and possible role models. University of Michigan Library Press. Blair, J.E., Czaja, R.F., & Blair, E.A. (2013). Designing surveys: A guide to decisions and procedures New York: Sage Publications, Inc. BjÂšrk, M. (2008). Fighting cynicism. Some reflections on self motivation in police work. Police Quarterly 11(1), 88 101. Blakemore, J. L., Barlow, D., & Padgett, D. L. (1995). From the class room to the community: Introducing process in police diversity training. Police Studies 18(1), 71 83. Blalock, H.M (1967). Toward a theory of minority group relations John Wiley and Sons. New York, NY. Blau, P. (1970). A formal theory of dif ferentiation in organizations. American Sociological Review 35, 201 18. Bloch, K.A. (2014). "Anyone can be an illegal": Color blind ideology and maintaining Latino/citizen borders. Critical Sociology, 40 (1), 47 65.
! ")" Bobrow, D.B., & Dryzek, J.S. (1987). P olicy analysis by design Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Boeree, C.G. (2005). The evolution of morality. Shippensburg Pennsylvania: Shippensburg University. Boivin, R., & Cordeau, G. (2011). Measuring the impact of police discretion on offi cial crime statistics. Police Quarterly, 14, 186 203. Bonilla Silva, E. (2003). Racism without racists: colorblind racism and the persistence of racial inequality in the United States. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Bonilla Silva, E. (2006). Racism without racists. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Bonilla Silva, E., Lewis, A., & Embrick, D. G. (2004). "I did not get that job because of a !"#$%&'#()&)&)&*+&,-.&/0123&"4(./(5&0./04'1(4./&16&$1"12 7 !"4(5&2#$4/')&81$41"194$#" & :12;'<&=>?@A<&BBB C BD=) & Bornstein, A. (2005). Antiterrorist policing in New York City after 9/11: Comparing perspectives on a complex process. Human Organization, 64 (1), 52 61. Bou Habib, P. (2008). Security, profiling and equality. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 11 (2), 149 164. Boulware Brown, P.V. (2003). Cultural competence training with law enforcement personnel : A promising training model Virginia Beach: Regent University Press. Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 US 186 (1986). Bowman, J.S. (1998). The lost world of public administration education: Rediscovering the meaning of professionalism. J PAE, 4 (1), 27 31. Boyd, R. (1991). Confirmation, semantics and the interpretation of scientific theories. In R. Boyd, P. Gasper, and J.D. Trout (eds.), The Philosophy of Science. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Boyne, G.A., & Chen, A.A. (2007). Performance targets and public service improvement. J PART 17, 455 477. Boyne, G. A., & Walker, R.M. (2010). Strategic management and public service performance: The way ahead. Public Administration Review 70, 185 192. Bradbury, M.D., & Kellough, E. J. ( 2008 ) Representative Bureaucracy: Exploring the Potential for Active Representation in Local Government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18(4), 697 714.
! ")# Bradbury, M., & Kellough, E.J. (2011). Representative bureaucracy: Assessing the evi dence on active representation. American Review of Public Administration 41, 157 1 67. Brewer, G.D., & deLeon, P. (1983). The Foundations of Policy Analysis. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press. Brewer, J. D. (2000). Ethnography Buckingham: Open University Press. Britnall, M. (2008). Preparing the public service for working in multiethnic democracies: An assessment and ideas for action. J PAE, 14 (1: Symposium on Social Equity and Diversity), 39 50. Broockman, D.E. (2013). Black politicians are more intrinsically motivated to advance blacks' interests: A field experiment manipulating political incentives. American Journal of Political Science 57, 521 536. Brown, M. K. (1988). Working the street: Pol ice discretion and the dilemmas of reform (2nd ed.). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Brown, M. M. ( 2001 ) Th e benefits and costs of informa tion technology innovations. Public Performance & Management Review, 24 351 66 Brown v. Board of Education (19 54) 347 U.S. 483. Brown v. Oneonta (2000). 221 F.3d 329, 2nd Ciruit Court. Brunet, J.R. (2006, February). Measuring social equity performance in the criminal justice system Paper presented at the Fifth Social Equity Leadership Conference, Omaha, NE. Retrieved from http://www.powershow.com/view/3b8cd NWRiN/Measuring_Social_Equity_Performance_in_the_Cri minal_Justice_System_p owerpoint_ppt_presentation Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2014). Data collection: Police Public Contact Survey (PPCS) Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dc detail&iid=251 Cahoone, L. (1996). From Modernism to postmodernism: An anthology. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers, Inc. Caiden, G.E. (1984). In search of an apolitical science of American public administration. In J. Rabin and J. Bowman (eds.), Politics and administration: Woodrow Wilson and American public administration (pp. 57 71). New York: Marcel Dekker. Caldero, M.A., & Larose, A.P. (2001). Value consistency within the police: T he lack of a gap Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategi es & Management 24(2) 162 180
! ")$ Callahan, K. (2015). Performance measurement: Citizen drive. In E.M. Berman & J. Rabin (Eds.), Encyclopedia of public administration and public policy (pp. 2410 2415). New York: Taylor Francis. Camilleri, E. (2007). Antec edents affecting public service motivation. Personnel Review 36(3), 356 377 Campbell, J. C., & D. W. Campbell. ( 1996 ) Cultural competence in the care of abused women. Journal of Nurse Midwifery 41, 457 62. Candler, G.G., Johnson III, R.G., & Anderson J.F. (2009). Afterword: Toward Courageous Public Administration Scholarship. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 31 (2), 235 241. Canon, D.T. (1999). Race, redistricting, and representation: The unintended consequences of black majority districts Chicago: Uni versity of Chicago Press Carbado, D.W. (2002). (E)racing the Fourth Amendment. Michigan Law Review, 100 (5), 946 1044. Carman, C.J., & Barker, D.C. (2005). State political culture, primary frontloading, and democratic voice in presidential nominations: 1972 2000. Electoral Studies, 24 (4), 665 687. Carr, L.G. (1997). "Color blind" racism. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Carrizales, T. (2010). Exploring cultural competency within the public affairs curriculum. J PAE, 16 (4), 593 606. Carroll, J.D. (1955). Spatial interactions and the urban metropolitan description. Traffic Quarterly 45(2), 149 161. Carroll v. United Stat es, 267 US 132 (1925). Carter, I. (2012). Positive and negative liberties. Retrieved from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy : http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty positive negative/ Carter, R. A. (1995, December). Improving minority relations law enforcement agencies. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. Casillas, C.E., & Kammen, D.M. (2012). Quantifying the social equity of carb on mitigation strategies. Climate Policy, 12 (6), 690 703. Cates, D. (2012). Plessy v. Ferguson: Segregation and the separate but equal policy (Landmark Supreme Court Cases). New York : Abdo Group.
! ")% CBSNews. (2012, March 28). Stop and Frisk": Fighting crime or racial profiling? Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/stop and frisk fighting crime or racial profiling/ Ceyssens, P. (2004). Legal aspects of policing Salt Spring Island, BC: Earlscourt Legal Press. Chafetz, J.S. (2004). Gendered power and privilege: Taking Lenski one step further. Sociological Theory, 22 (2), 269 277. Chamberlain, A. (2013). The (Dis)Connection Between Political Culture an d External Efficacy. American Politics Research, 41 (5), 761 782. Chambliss, W.J., & Liell, J.T. (1966). The legal process and the community setting. Crime and Delinquency, 12, 310 317. Chan, J.B.L. (1996). Changing police culture. British Journal of Criminology, 36 (1), 109 134. Chan, JBL. (1997). Changing Police Culture: Policing in a Multicultural Society Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chan, J.B.L. (2001). The Technological Game: How Information Technology is Transforming Police Practice. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 1 (2), 139 159. Chandek, M.S. (1999). Race, expectations and evaluations of police performance: An empirical assessment. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Man agement, 22(4), 675 695. Chappell, A. (2009). The philosophical versus actual adoption of community policing: A case study. Criminal Justice Review 34, 5 28. Charbonneau, E., & Riccucci, N.M. (2008). Beyond the usual suspects: An analysis of the performance measurement literatu re on social equity indicators in policing. Public Performance & Management Review 31(4), 604 620. Charbonneau, E., Riccucci, N.M, Van Ryzin, G.G., & Holzer, M. (2009). The Self Reported Use of Social Equity Indicators in Urban Police Departments in the United States and Canada. State & Local Government Review 41(2), 95 107. Cheurprakobkit, S. (2000). Police citizen contact and police performance attitudinal dif ferences between Hispanics and non Hispanics. Journal of Criminal Justice 28(4), 325 336.
! ")& Chick, G. (2002). Concepts, constructs, variables, and measurement. Retrieved from the Pennsylvania State University website: http://www.personal.psu.edu/gec7/Concepts.html Chimel v. California, 395 US 752 (1969). Chitwood, S. R. (1974). Social equity an d social service productivity. Public Administra tion Review 34(1), 29 35. Chong, D. (1993). How people think, reason, and feel about rights and liberties. American Journal of Political Science, 37 (3), 867 899. Christensen, W., & Crank, J.P. (2001). Police work and culture in a nonurban settin g: An ethnographical analysis. Police Quarterly 4(1) 69 98. Cihan, A., & Wells, C.W. (2011). Citizens' opinions about police discretion in criminal investigations. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 34(2), 347 362. Ciminelli, M.L. (1986). A positive procedural approach to legal training for police officers. The Police Chief, 53(11), 26 City of New Orleans. (2014). Citizen satisfaction surveys Retrieved from http://www.nola.gov/nopd/about us/citizen satisfaction surveys/ Clark, C.A., & Armstrong, K. (2012). Beyond reproach: The need for effective and responsive training. In M.R. Haberfeld, C.A. Clarke, and D.L. Sheehan (Eds.), Police organization and training: Innovations in research and practice (Chapter 2 Electronic Version). Springer Publishing. Clark, J .P., & Tifft, L. (1966). Polygraph and interview validation of self reported deviant behavior American Sociological Review, 31, 516 523. Clotfelter, C., Ladd, H., & Vigdor, J. (2004). Do school accountability systems make it more difficult for low performing schools to attract and retain high quality teachers? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 23, 251 271. Cobb, K. (1999). Targeted Groups File Lawsuits over Traffic Stops That Are Not Routine. Houston Chronicle (Star Edition), October 17, A1 3. Cochran, J.C., & Warren, P.Y. (2011). Racial, ethnic, and gender differences in perceptions of the police: The salience of officer race within the context of racial p rofiling. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 28 (2), 206 227.
! ")' Cockcroft, T. (2007). Police culture(s): Some definitional, methodological and analytical considerations. In N, O'Neil, M., Marks, and AM Singh (eds.), Police Occupational Culture: New De bates and Directions (pp. 85 102) Amsterdam: Elsevier. Cohen, Michael D., James G. March, and Johan P. Olsen. 1976. People, prob lems, solutions, and the ambigu ity of relevance. In Ambiguity and choice in organizations, edited by James G. March and Johan P. Olsen, pp. 24 37. Bergen, Norway: Universitetsforlaget. Cole, D. ( 1999 ) Is Public Concern about Federal Police Using Racial Profiling Justified? Insight on the News 15(26) 24 27. Collier, P.M. (2001). Police performance measurement and human rights. Public Money & Management 21(3), 35 40. Collier, P.M. (2006). In search of purpose and priorities: Police performance indicators in England and Wales. Public Money & Management 26(3), 165 172. Collins, B.K., & Gerber, B.J. (2008). Taken for gra nted? Managing for social equity in grant progra m s. Public Administration Review 68(6), 1128 1141. Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1986). Committee to Review Research on Police Policy and Practices. (2003). Fairness and effectiveness in policing: The evidence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Condrey, S.E., & Battaglio, R.P. (2007). A return to spoils? Revisiting radical civil service reform in the United States. Public Administration R eview, 67 (3), 425 436. Conlan, T.J., & Posner, P.L. (2008). Intergovernmental management for the twenty first century. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institute. Connell, R. (2006). Glass ceilings or gendered institutions? Mapping the gender regimes of publi c sector worksites. Public Administration Review, 66 (6), 837 849. Cornett DeVito, M.M., & McGlone, E.L. (2000). Multicultural communication training for law enforcement: A case study. Criminal Justice Policy Review 11(3), 234 253. Cottrol, R.J., Diamond, R., & Ware, L.B. (2003). Brown V. Board of Education: Caste, Culture, and the Constitution (Landmark Law Cases & American Society). University Press of Kansas. Cox, S. M., Pease, S. E., Miller, D. S., & Tyson, C. B. (2001). Interim report of traffic stops statistics for the state of Connecticut Rocky Hill, CT: Division of Criminal Justice.
! ")( Crank, J.P. (1990). The influence of environmental and organizational factors on police style in urban and rural environments. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 27, 166 189. Crank, J.P (2004). Understanding police culture Cincinnati, OH: Anderson. Crank, J.P. & Wells, E.L. (1991). The effects of size and urbanism on structure amon g Illinois police departments. Justice Quarterly 8, 169 85. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2 nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Creswell, J.W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approa ches (3 rd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2 nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Crewson, P.E. (1997). Public service motivation: building empirical evidence of incidence and effect. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 7(4), 499 518 Cureton, S.R. (2000). Justifiable arrests or discretionary justice: Predictors of ra cial arrest differentials. Journal of Black Studies 30(5), 703 719. Currie, E. (1998) Crime and Punishment in America Metropolitan Books, New York. Cyert, Richard M., and James G. March. 1963. A behaviorist theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Dahl, R.A. (2007). On political equality. Yale University Press. Davis, R.C. (2000). The use of citizen surveys as a tool for police reform Vera Institute of Justice. Debnam, K.J., & Beck, K.H. (2011). Driving while black: A comparison of the beliefs, concerns, and behaviors of black and white Maryland drivers. Traffic Injury Prevention, 12 (6), 599 603. Decker, S.H., Rosenfeld, R., & Rojek, J. (2002). Annual report on 2001 Missouri traffic stops http://ago.mo.gov/racialprofiling/2001/racialprofiling2001.htm Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979). Deleon, P. (1992). Democratization of the policy sciences. Public Admini stration Review, 52 (2), 125 129
! ")) DeLeon, P., & DeLeon, L. (2002). What ever happened to policy implementation? An alternative approach. J PART 12(4), 467 492. DeWaal, F. (1996). Good natured: The origins of right and wrong in humans and other animals Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Dias, J.J., & Maynard Moody, S. (2007). For profit welfare: Contracts, conflicts, and the performance paradox. J PART, 17 (2), 189 211. Dierenfield, B.J. (2008). The Civil Rights Movement: Revised Edition. Boston: Rout ledge. Dillman, D.A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method New York: John Wiley & Sons. Dillman, D.A., Smyth, J.D., & Christian, L.M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed mode surveys: The tailored design method. New York: Wil ey & Sons. Dolan, J., and Rosenbloom, D.H. ( E ds.) 2003. Representative Bureaucracy: Classic Readings and Continuing Controversies Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe. Dollery, B., & Robotti, L. (Eds.). (2008). The theory and practice of local government reform. Northhampton, MA : Edward Elgar Dowler, K. (2005). Relationship between race and police work. Police Quarterly 8, 475 489. Drahozal, C.R. (2004). The Supremacy Clause: A Reference Guide to the United States Constitution Praeger. Dubnick, M.J. (2015). Ethics and accountability. In E.M. Berman & J. Rabin (Eds.), Encyclopedia of public administration and public policy (pp. 11 23). New York: Taylor Francis. Ducat, C.R. (2012). Constitutional interpretation. New York: Cengage Learning. Dukes, R.L., Portillos, E., & Miles, M. (2009). Models of satisfaction with police service", Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 32(2) 297 318 Dunham, R., Alpert, G. (1988). Neighborhood differences in attitudes toward policing: E vidence for a mixed strategy model of polic ing in a multi ethnic setting. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 79, 504 5 21. Dunn, R.A. (2009). Measuring racial disparities in traffic ticketing within large urban jurisdictions. Public Performance & Management Review 32(4), 537 561.
! ")* Durlauf, S.N. (2005). Racial Profiling as a Public Policy Question: Efficiency, Equity, and Ambiguity. The American Economic Review, 95 (2), 132 136. Durose, M., & Lanton, L. (2013). Police behavior during traffic and s treet stops, 2011. Retrieved from the Bureau of Justice Statistics website: http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4779 Durose, M. R., Schmitt, E. L., & Langan, P. A. (2005). Contacts Between Police and the Public: Findings From the 2002 National Survey Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice. Dwivedi, O.P., & Gow, J.I. (1999). From bureaucracy to public management: The administrative culture of the government of Can ada Peterborough, ON, Canada: Broadview. Dye, T.R., & MacManus, S.A. (2014). Politics in states and communities (15 th ed.). Pearson. Egerton, D.R. (2014). The wars of reconstruction: The brief, violent history of America's most progressive era. New York: Bloombury Press. Eijkman, Q.A.M. (2006). "Around here I am the law!" Strengthening police officers' compliance with the rule of law in Costa Rica. Utrecht Law Review, 2, 145 176. Eikenberry, A.M. (2009). The Present and (Normative) Future of Public Administration and Implications for ASPA. Public Administration Review, 69 (6), 1060 1067. Elazar, D.J. (1970). Cities of the prairie: The metropolitan frontier and American politics Ne w York: Basic Books. Elazar, D. J. (1984). American federalism: A View from the states (3rd ed). New York: Harper & Row. Elazar, D.J. (19 9 4). The American mosaic: The impact of space, time, and culture on American politics. Boulder: Westview Press. Ellis, E.D. (1926). The city manager as a leader of policy. National Municipal Review, 15 (4), 204. Elmore, R.F. (2004). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance. Boston: Harvard University Press. Engel, R.S. (2004). Citizens' perceptions of distributive and procedural injustice during traffic stops with police. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 42 (4) 445 481 Engel, R. S., & Calnon, J. M. (2004). Examining the Influence of Drivers' Characteristics During Traffic Stops with Police: Results from a National Study. Justice Quarterly 21(1), 49 90.
! "*+ Engel, R.S., Calnon, J.M., & Bernard, T.J. (2002). Theory and racial profiling: Shortcomings and future directions in research. Justice Quarterly 19(2), 249 273. Engel, R.S., Frank, J., Tillyer, R., & Klahm, C. (2006). Cleveland Division of Police traffic stop data study: Final rep ort Cincinnati: University of Cincinnati, Division of Criminal Justice. Engel, R.S., Tillyer, R., Klahm IV, C.F., & Frank, J. (2011). From the officer's perspective: A multilevel examination of citizens' demeanor during traffic stops. Justice Quarterly, 29 (5), 650 683. Epps, G. (2007). Democracy reborn: The Fourteenth Amendment and the fight for equal rights in post Civil War America. Holt Paperbacks. Ericson, R. (1982). Reproducing order: A study of police patrol work Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press. Ericson, R.V. (2007). Rules in policing: Five perspectives. Theoretical Criminology, 11 (3), 367 401. Espenshade, T.J., & Radford, A.W. (2013). No longer separate, not yet equal: Race and class in elite college admission and c ampus life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ETC Institute. (2014). 2014 City of Pueblo Community Survey Retrieved from the Pueblo, Colorado city government website: http://pueblo.us/Doc umentCenter/View/7253 Fagan, J., & Davies, G. (2000). Street stops and broken windows: Terry, race, and disorder in New York City. Fordham Urban Law Journal 28,457 504. Fakis, A., Hilliam, R., Stoneley, H., & Townend, M. (2014). Quantitative analysis of qualitative information from interviews: A systematic literature review. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 8(2), 139 161. Farrell, A., McDevitt, J., Cronin, S., & Pierce, E. (2003). Rhode Island Traffic Stop Statistics Act final report Boston: Northeastern University Institute of Race and Justice. Filstad, C. & Got tschalk, P. (2010). Collectivism versus in dividualism in police cultures. International Journal of Human Resource Development and Management 10(2) 117 35. Finn, M. A., & Stalans, L. J. (1995). Police referrals to shelters and mental health treatment: Examining their decisions in domestic assault cases. Crime and Delinquency 41 467 480.
! "*" Finn, M. A.,&Stalans, L. J. (2002). Police handling o f the mentally ill in domestic violence situations. Criminal Justice and Behavior 29 278 307. Fischer, F. (1980/2002). Politics, Values, and Public Policy: The Problem of Methodology Boulder, CO: Westview Press; Perseus Books. Fischer, F., Miller, G., & Sidney, M.S. (2007). Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods. Boca Raton: CRC/Taylor & Francis. Fisher, P. (2006). Political Culture and the Death Penalty. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 17 (1), 48 60. Fiss, O. (1976). Groups and the equal protection clause. Philosophy and Public Affairs 5(2), 107 177. Fleming, J., Marks, M., & Wood, J. (2006). 'Standing on the Inside Looking Out': The Significance of Police Unions in Networks of Police Governance. Au stralian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 39 (1), 71 89. Floyd, et al. v. City of New York, 959 F. Supp. 2d 540 (2013). Foucault, M. (1975/1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Pantheon Books. Francis, M.M. (2014). Civil Rights and the Making of the Modern American State Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Frede, D. (2013). Plato's ethics: An overview (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato ethics/ Frederickson, H. G. (1971). Toward a new public administration. In F. Marini (Ed.), Toward a new public administration: The Minnowbrook perspective (pp. 309 331). Scranton, PA: Chandler. Frederickson, H.G. (1980). New public administration University: University Press of Alabama. Frederickson, H.G. (1990). Public administration and social equity. Public Administration Review 50(2), 228 237. Frederickson, H.G. (2004). The Journal of Pub lic Affairs Education at age 10: History, content, and prospects. J PAE, 10 (2), 83 89. Frederickson, H.G. (2010). Social equity and public administration: Origins, developments, and applications Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
! "*# Frederickson, H.G., & Smith, K.B. (2003). The public administration theory primer. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. French, E.P., & Emerson, M.C. (2014). Assessing the Variations in Reward Preference for Local Government Employees in Terms of Position, Public Service Motivation, and Public Se ctor Motivation. Public Performance & Management Review, 37 (4), 552 576. Fridell, L.A. (2004). By the numbers: A guide for analyzing race data from vehicle stops Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum. Fridell, L., Lunney, R., Diamond, D., & Kubu, B. (2001). R acially biased policing: A principled response Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum. Friedman, M. (1999). Reconsidering logical positivism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 US 677 (1973). Funk, W.F., & Seamon, R.H. (2011). Examples and explanations: Administrative law (4 th ed.). Aspen: Aspen Publishers. Gade, D.M ., & Wilkins, V.M. (2013). Where did you serve? Veteran identity, representative bureaucracy, and vocational rehabilitation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 23 267 88. Gailmard, S. (2014). Accountability and principal agent theory. In M. Bovens, R.E. Goodin, & T. Schillemans (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public accountability [Online version] (pp. 1 27). Retrieved from the University of California Berkley Law website: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/csls/Gailmard_ _Accountability_and_Pr incipal Agent_Models%281%29.pdf Gallo, G. (2012). Conflict theory, complexity and systems approach. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 30 (2), 156 175. Garcia Zamor, J C. (2013). Social equity in urban development: Strategy and case studies. Garrigou Lagrange, R. (2012). Reality: A synthesis of Thomistic thought. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. Gianakis, G., & Snow, D. (2008). Teaching "supply side" social equity in MPA programs. J PAE 14(1), 67 78. Gilliard Matthews, S., Kowalski, B.R., & Lundman, R.J. (2008). Officer race and citizen reported traffic ticket decisions by police in 1999 and 2002. Police Quarterly, 11 (2), 202 219.
! "*$ Gelman, A., Fagan, J., & Kiss, A. (2007). An Analysis of the New York City Police Department's "Stop and Frisk" Policy in the Context of Claims of Racial Bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association 102(479), 813 823. Gianakis, G.A. (1994). Appraising the performance of "street level bureaucrats": The case of poli ce patrol officers. American Review of Public Administration 24(3), 299 315. Giroux, H. A. (2003). Racial injustice and disposable youth in the age of zero tolerance. Qualitative Studies in Education, 16 (4), 553 565. Gizzi, M.C. (2011). Pretextual stops vehicle searches, and crime control: An examination of strategies used on the frontline of the war on drugs. Criminal Justice Studies, 24 (2), 139 152. Glaser, J. (2006). The efficacy and effect of racial profiling: A mathematical simulation approach. Journal of Policy Analysis & Management 25(2), 395 416 Glaser, M.A., Bartley, H.W., McGuire, B.J., & Bannon, C. (2012). Frederickson's social equity agenda applie d Public Integrity, 14 (1), 19 38. Glowicki, M. (2014, October 24). Blacks searched more often during traffic stops. The Courier Journal. Retrieved from http://www.courier journal.com/story/news/crime/2014/10/24/evidence r acial profiling lmpd report/17828471/ Goggin, M., Bowman, A., Lester, J., & O'Toole, L. (1990). Implementation theory and practice: Toward a third generation. Scott Foresman & Company. Gooden, S.T. (2011). Social equity in public administration: The need for fire. In The Future of Public Administration around the world [JSTOR Book Chapter download]. Gooden, S.T. (2008). The politics of ready, aimstudy more: Implementing the "fire" in r acial disparities public policy research. Journal of Race and Policy, 4 (1), 7 21. Gooden, S., Jones, S., Martin, K.J., & Boyd, M. (2009). Social equity in local emergency management planning. State & Local Government Review 41(1), 1 12. Gooden, S.T., & Myers, S.L. (2004 a ). Social equity in public affairs education. J PAE 10(2), 91 97. Gooden, S.T., & Myers, S.L. (2004b). Social equity analysis and management: What MPA and MPP students need to know. J PAE, 10(2), 172 175. Gooden, S., & Portillo, S. (2011). Advancing social equity in the Minnowbrook tradition. J PART 21, i61 i76.
! "*% Gooden, S.T., & Wooldridge, B. (2007). Integrating social equity into the core human resource management course. Journal of Public Affairs Education 13(1), 59 77. Gould, J., & Mastrofski, S. (2004). Suspect Searches: Assess Police Behavior Under the U.S. Constitution. Criminology and Public Policy 3, 315 361. Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed method evaluatio n designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 11, 255 274. Greene, J., Persily, N., & Ansolabehere, S. (2011). Profiling Originalism. Columbia Law Review, 111 (2), 356 418. Greenhouse, L. (2012). The Supreme Court: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press. Greve, M.S. (2013). The Constitution: Understanding America's founding document. Aei Press. Griffin, J.D. (2014). When and why minority legislators matter. Annual Review of Political Science 17(1), 327 336. Griffin, J.D., & Kea ne, M. (2006). Descriptive representation and the composition of African American turnout. American Journal of Political Science 50, 998 1012. Griffin, J.D., & Newman, B.P. (2007). The unequal representation of Latinos and whites. Journal of Politics 69 1032 1046. Griffin, J.D., & Newman, B.P. (2008). Minority report: Evaluating political equality in America Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Grissom, J.A., Nicholson Crotty, J., & Nicholson Crotty, S. (2009). Race, Region, and Representative Bureaucracy. Public Administration Review, 69 (5), 911 919. Gross, S. R., & Barnes, K. Y. (2002). Road Work: Racial Profiling and Drug Interdiction on the Highway. Michigan Law Review 101, 653 754. Grizzle, G.A. (2002). Performance measurement and dysfun ction: The dark side of quantifying work. Public Performance & Management Review 25(4), 363 369. Grootaert, C., & Van Basterlaer, T. (2002). Understanding and measuring social capital: A multidisciplinary tool for practitioners (e book version). The World Bank.
! "*& Grumm, J.G. (1970). Structural determinants of legislative output. In A. Kornberg and L.D. Musolf (Eds), Legislatures in developmental perspective (pp.429 459). Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Grusec, J.E., & Hastings, P.D. (2007). Handboo k of socialization: Theory and Research. New York: Guilford Press. Guevara, E.C. (2016, July 21). Roundup: The Republican National Convention and race (so far). Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2016/07/21/486604305/roundup the republican national convention and race so far Guy M.E., & McCandless, S.A. (2012). Social equity: Its legacy, its promise. Public Administration Review, 72 (S1), S5 S13. Haberfeld, M. R. (2002). Critical issues in police training. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Habermas, J. (1962). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society [ Strukturwandel der Â…ffentlichkeit. Untersuchungen zu einer Kategorie der bÂŸrgerlichen Gesellschaft ]. T. Burger (trans.). Cambridge: Polity. Habermas, J. (1984 ). The theory of communication, Volume 1: Reason and the rationalization of society. London: Heinemann. Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communication, Volume 2: Lifeworld and system: A critique of functionalist reason. Oxford: Polity Press. Habermas, J. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge: Polity Press. Hall, T. (2006). Urban Geography (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge. Hanushek, E.A., & Rivkin, S.G. (2009). Harming the best: How schools affects the black white achi evement gap. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 28, 366 393. Harris, D. A. (1997). Driving while Black and all other traffic offenses: The Supreme Court and pretextual stops. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 87, 544 582. Harris, D. A. (1999 a). Driving while Black: Racial profiling on our nation's highways American Civil Liberties Union. Harris, David. (1999b). The Stories, the Statistics, and the Law: Why "Driving While Black" Matters. Minnesota Law Review 84(2), 265 326.
! "*' Harris, D.A. (2002). Profiles in injustice: Why racial profiling cannot work New York: New Press. Harris, D.A. (2007). The importance of research on race and policing: Making race salient to individuals and institutions within criminal justice. Criminolo gy & Public Policy 6(1), 5 23. Harrison, D. A., Kravitz, D.A., Mayer, D.M., & Levarey, D. (2006). Understanding attitudes toward affirmative action programs in employment: Summary and meta analysis of 35 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology 95,1013 1036. Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K.J. (2007). What's the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review 32 1199 1 228. Hassell, K.D., Zhao, J., & Maguire, E.R. (2003). Structura l arrangements in large municipal police organizations: Revisiting Wilson's theory of local political culture. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 26, 231 250. Hatry, H.P. (1999). Performance measurement: Getting result s Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Hatry, H.P. (1980). Performance measurement principle and techniques: An overview for local government. Public Productivity Review 4(4), 312 339. Hatry, H.P. (2006). Performance measurement: Getting resul t s ( 2 nd ed ) Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press. Heck, R.H., & Lam, W.S., & Thomas, S.L. (2014). State Political Culture, Higher Education Spending Indicators, and Undergraduate Graduation Outcomes. Educational Policy, 28 (1), 3 39. Henderson, K.M. (2004.) Characterizing American public administration: The concept of administrative culture. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 17(3), 234 250. Hendrickx, M. (1999). What can management researchers learn from David Campbell, the philosopher? An exercise in hermeneutics. In J.A.C. Baum and B. McKelvey (eds.), Variations in organization science: In honor of Donald T. Cambell (pp. 339 382). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Herbert, S. (1997). Morality in law enforcement: Chasing bad guys' with the Los Angeles Police Department. Law and Society Review, 30, 798 818. Herbert, S. (1998). Police subculture reconsidered. Criminology,36, 343 369. Herring, E.P. (1936/1969). Public administration and the public interest. Russell and Russell Pub lishers.
! "*( Hewins Maroney, B., & Williams, E. (2007). Teaching diversity in public administration: A missing component? J PAE, 13 (1), 29 40. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 US 177 (2004). Hindera, J.J. (1993). Representative bureaucracy: Further evidence of active representation in the EEOC district office. J PART 3 (4), 415 442. Hindera, J.J., & Young, C.D. (1998). Representative bureaucracy: The theoretical implications of statistical interaction. Political R esearch Quarterly, 51(3), 655 671. Hinds, L. ( 2007 ) Building police youth relationships: The importance of procedural justice. Youth Justice 7 195 209. Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 US 81 (1944). Hobbes, T. (1660/1982). Leviathan (Penguin Classics). New York: Penguin Putnam, Inc. Hoddinott, S.N., & Bass, M.J. (1986). The Dillman total design survey method: A sure fire way to get high survey return rates. Canadian Family Physician, 32, 2366 2368. Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work Related Values Sage, Beverly Hills, CA. Holmes, D.L. (2006). The faiths of the Founding Fathers. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Holzer, M., & Yang, K. (2004). Performance measurement and improvement: An assessment of the state of the art. International Review of Administrative Sciences 70(1), 15 31. Howard, C. (1999). The American welfare state, or states? Political Research Quarterly, 52, 21 42. Huang, W., Wilson, S., & Vaughn, M. (1996). Support and confidence: Public attitudes toward the police. In T. Flanagan and D. Longmire (Eds.), America's View of Crime and Justice: A National Opinion Survey (pp. 31 45). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006). Huggins, C.M. (2012). Traffic stop encounters: Officer and citizen race and perceptions of police propriety. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 37 (1), 92 110. Hume, D. (1777/2009). Dialogues concerning natural religion. Retrieved from http://www.gutenberg.org/files/4583/4583 h/4583 h.htm Hur, Y. (2013). Turnover, voluntary turnover, and organizational performance: Evidence from municipal police departments. Public Admi nistration Quarterly, 37 ( 1 ), 3 35
! "*) Hurwitz, J., & Peffley, M. (2010). And justice for some: Race, crime, and punishment in the US criminal system. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 43(2), 457 479. Hvidman, U., & Andersen, S.C. (2013). Impact of performance management in public and private organizations. J PART 24, 35 58. Illinois v. Caballes, 543 US 405 (2005). Illinois v. Gates 462 U.S. 213 (1983). Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 US 119 (2000) Ingram, P., Joyce, P., & Donahue, A. (2003). Governm ent performance: Why management matters Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Ingram, H., Schneider, A.L., & DeLeon, P. (2007). Social construction and policy design. In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the Policy Process (2 nd Ed.)(pp. 93 126). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Jain, N. (2011). Engendering fairness in domestic violence arrests: Improving police accountability through the equal protection clause. Emory Law Journal 60(4), 1011 1048. Jamil, I, Askvik, S., & Hossain, F. (2013). Unders tanding administrative culture: Some theoretical and methodological remarks. International Journal of Public Administration, 36 (13), 900 909. J ennings, E.T. (2004). From the editor in chief. J PAE, 10 (2), ii. Jennings, E.T., Jr., & Haist, M. (2003). Performance measurement? Symbol of substance ? Nashville: University of Kentucky Press. Jensen, J.M. (2014). 10 easy ways to increase response rates for your online surveys Albany: Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy, SUNY. Johnson, K. (2010 ). How racial profiling in America became the law of the land: United Statesv. Brignoni Ponce and Whren v. United States and the need for truly rebellious lawyering. Georgetown Law Journal 98, 1005 1071. Johnson, P., & Duberley, J. (2000). Understanding management research. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Johnson, P., & Duberley, J. (2003). Reflexivity in management research. Journal of Management Studies, 40 (5), 1279 1303.
! "** Johnson, R. (2008). Kant's Moral Philosophy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant moral/ Johnson, R.G. (2011). Social Equity in the New 21st Century America: A Case for Transgender Competence Within Public Affairs Gradua te Programs. J PAE 17(2), 169 185. Johnson, N.J., & Svara, J.H. (Eds.). (2011). Justice for all: Promoting social equity in public administration. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe. Johnson, R.R. (2004). Citizen expectations of police traffic stop behavior. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 27 (4), 487 497. Johnson, R ., & Rivera, M. (2007). Refocusing graduate public affairs education: Diversity competencies in human resource management. Journal of Public Affairs Education 13 15 27. Jones, G. (1986). Socialization tactics, self efficacy, and newcomers' adjustments to organizations. Academy of Management Journal 29, 262 279. Judith, H.(2005). Suspect classifications In The encyclopedia of civil liberties in America. Retrieve d from http://0 literati.credoreference.com.skyline.ucdenver.edu/content/entry/sharpecla/suspect_clas sifications/0 Julnes, P.L. (20 15). Performance measurement. In E.M. Berman & J. Rabin (Eds.), Encyclopedia of public administration and public policy (pp. 2401 2405). New York: Taylor Francis. Kalhan, A. (2013, November 5). The Appearance of impropriety and partiality. Retrieved from the Dorf on Law website: http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2013/11/the appearance of impropriety and.html Kalhan, A. (2014). Stop and frisk, judicial independenc e, and the ironies of improper appearances. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, 27 (4). Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2499983 Kappeler, V. E., Sl uder, R. D., & Alpert, G. P. (1998). Forces of deviance: Understanding the dark side of policing (2nd ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. Kappeler, V.W., & Gaines, L.K. (2014). Community policing: A contemporary perspective. Routldge. Katznelson, I. (2005). When Affirmative Action Was White: An Untold History of Racial Inequality New York: W. W. Norton.
! #++ Keiser, L.R. (2006). Determining Who Is Disabled: Street Level Workers and Eligibility Determination in the Social Security Disabilit y Program. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association Philadelphia: Author. Keiser, L.R. (2010). Representative bureaucracy. In Oxford Handbook of American Bureaucracy [Online PDF version]. Oxford: Oxford Universi ty Press. Keiser, L. R., & Haider Markel, D.P. (2007). The Relative Influence of Race and Gender: Descriptive Representation and Perceptions of School Discipline. Chicago: Authors. Keiser, L.R., Meier, K.J., & Holland, C.A. (2002). Lipstick and logarithms: Gender, institutional context, and representative bureaucracy. American Political Science Review 96 553 64. Kelly, N.J. (2009). The politics of income inequality in the United States New York: Cambridge University Press. Kelling, G.L. (1988). Police and communities: The quiet revolution US Department of Justice,National Institute of Justice, Rockville, MD. Kelling, G.L., Wasserman, R., & Williams, H. (1988). Police accountability and community policing. Perspectives on P olicing. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice Kelman, S. (1987). Public choice and public spirit. Public Interest 87, 80 94 Kennedy, B. (2014). Unraveling representative bureaucracy: A systematic review of the literature. Administration & Society, 46 (4), 395 421. Kettl, D. (2002). The transformation of governance: Public administration for twenty first century America Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press. Kettl, D.F. (2014). The politics of the administrative process (6th ed.). Los Angeles : Sage Publications. Kim, T. (2015). Performance measurement: Municipal. In E.M. Berman & J. Rabin (Eds.), Encyclopedia of public administration and public policy (pp. 2423 2431). New York: Taylor Francis. King, D.K. (1988). Multiple Jeopardy, Multiple Consciousness: The Context of a Black Feminist Ideology. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 14(1) 42 72. King, W.R., & Lab, S.P. (2000). Crime prevention, community policing, and training: Old wine in new bottles Police Practice and Research 1(2), 241 252. King, C.S., & Stivers, C. (1998). Government is us: Public administration in an anti government era Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
! #+" Kingsley, J.D. (1944). Representative Bureaucracy: An Interpretation of the British Civil Service Yellow Springs : The Antioch Press. Kinnaird, B. (2007). Exploring liability profilers: A proximate cause analysis of police misconduct. The International Journal of Police Science and Management, 9 (3), 210 213. Kirby, St. (2013). Effective policing? Implementation in theory and practice. Palgrave Macmillan. Klarman, M.J. (2007). Brown v. Board of Education and the Civil Rights Movement Oxford: Oxford University Press. Klay, W.E., & Cho, K.W. (2015). Accountabi lity: Performance reporting. In E.M. Berman & J. Rabin (Eds.), Encyclopedia of public administration and public policy (pp. 35 39). New York: Taylor Francis. Klinger, D. (1997). Negotiating order in police work: An ecological theory of police response to deviance. Criminology 35, 277 306. Kluger, R. (2004). Simple justice: The history of Brown v. Board of Education and black America's struggle for equality. N ew York: Vintage. Knowles, J., Persico, N., & Todd, P. (2001). Racial Bias in Motor Vehicle Searches: Theory and Evidence. Journal of Political Economy 109, 203 229. Kochel, T. R., Wilson, D. B., & Mastrofski, S. D. (2011). Effect of suspect race on off icers' arrest decisions. Criminology, 49 473 512. Koehler, M., & Rainey, H.G. (2008). Interdisciplinary foundations of public service motivation. In J.L. Perry & A. Hondeghem (Eds.), Motivation in public management: The call of public service (pp. 33 55). Oxford: Oxford University Press Koliba, C.J., Mills, R.M., & Zia, A. (2011). Accountability in governance networks: An assessment of public, private, and nonprofit emergency management practices following Hurricane Katrina. Public Administration Review, 71 (2), 210 220. Koper, C.S., Lum, C., & Willis, J.J. (2014). Optimizing the Use of Technology in Policing: Results and Implications from a Multi Site Study of the Social, Organizational, and Behavioural Aspects of Implementing Poli ce Technologies. Policing, 8 (2), 212 221. Korematsu v. United States, 323 US 214 (1944). Kosar, K.R., & Schachter, H.L. (2011). Street Level Bureaucracy: The Dilemmas Endure. Public Administration Review, 71 (2), 299 302.
! #+# Kowalski, B.R., & Lundman, R.J. ( 2008). Sociologist Austin Turk and Policing: Structural Reinforcers and Reversals of the Positional Authority of Police. Sociological Forum, 23 (4), 814 844. Kramer, R. (2000). Poverty, inequality, and youth violence. AAPSS 567, 123 139. Krislov, S. (1974). Representative Bureaucracy Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Krislov, S., & Rosenbloom D. H. ( 1981 ) Representative Bureaucracy and the American Political System New York: Praeger. Krivo, L.J., & Peterson, R.D. (2000). The structural contex t of homicide: Accounting for racial differences in process. American Sociological Review 65, 547 59. Kubrin, C.E., & Weitzer, R. (2003). Retaliatory homicide: Concentrated disadvantage and neighborhood culture. Social Problems, 50 (2), 157 180. Kuhn, T. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lam, J.T.M. (1994). Administrative culture and democracy in Hong Kong. Asian Affairs 21 166 181. Lamberth, J. ( 1996 ) Report of Dr. John Lamberth, Plaintiff's Expert. Revised Statistical Analysis of Incidence of Police Stops and A rrests o f Black Drivers/Traveler s on t he New Jersey Turnpike between Exits or Interchanges 1 and 3 from the Years 1988 through 1991 Langer, S.K. (2011). An introduction t o symbolic logic (3 rd ed.). Dover Publications. Langworthy, R. (1985). Research note: Wilson's theory of police behavior: A replication of the constraint theory. Justice Quarterly, 2, 89 98. Larson, A.D. (1973). Representative bureaucracy and administrative responsibility: A reassessment. Midwest Rev iew of Public Administration 7, 79 89. Lasley, J.R., Larson, J., Kelso, C., & Brown, G.C. (2011). Assessing the long term effects of officer race on police attitudes towards the community: a case for representative bureaucracy theory. Police Practice & Research, 12 (6), 474 491. Lasswell, H. (1950). Politics: Who gets what, when, how New York. NY: P. Smith. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 US 538 (2003). Lash, K.T. (2014). T he Fourteenth Amendment and the Privileges and Immunities of American Citizenship Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
! #+$ Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 US 602 (1971). LeRoux, K., & Pandey, S.J. (2011). City Managers, Career Incentives, and Municipal Service Decisions: The Effects of Managerial Progressive Ambition on Interlocal Service Delivery. Public Administration Review, 71 (4), 627 636. Levitan, D.M. (1948). The responsibility of administrative officials in a democratic society. Political Sci ence Quart erly, 61, 562 598. Levy, L.W. (1988). Original intent and the Framers' Constitution. New York: Macmillan. Levy, L.W. (1999). Origins of the Fifth Amendment: Th e right against self incrimination. Ivan R. Dee. Liederbach, J., Trulson, C.R., Fritsch, E.J., Caeti, T.J., & Taylor, R.W. (2007). Racial profiling and the political demand for data: A pilot study designed to improve methodologies in Texas. Criminal Justice Review, 32 (2), 101 120. Liederbach, J., Fritsch, E.J., Carter, D.L., & Bannister, A. (2008). Exploring the limits of collaboration in community policing: A direct comparison of police and citizen views. Interna tional Journal of Police Strate gies & Management 31, 271 2 91. Liederbac h J. & Travis, L.F. (2008). Wilson redux: A nother look at varieties of police behavior. Police Quarterly 11 447 4 67. Lieske, J. (1993). Regional subcultures in the United States. Journal of Politics, 55 888 913. Lim, H H. ( 2006 ) Representative Bureaucracy: Rethinking Substantive Effects and Active Representation. Public Administration Review 66/2 193 204. Lincoln, B. (2006). Holy terrors: Thinking about religion after September 11 (2 nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lincoln, Y. S., & Denzin, N. K. (2005). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage. Linder, D. (2011). Theories of constitutional interpretation. Retrieved from the University of Missouri Ka nsas City website: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/interp.html Linder, D. (2014). Levels of scrutiny under the Equal Protection clause. Retrieved from the University Missouri Kansas City website: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/epcscrutiny.htm Link, A.S. (1971). The Higher Realism of Woodrow Wilson and Other Essay s. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
! #+% Lipsky, M. (1980). Street Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Service Russell Sage Foundation. Liska, A.E., & Chamlin, M.B. (1984). Social structure and cri me control among macrosocial units. American Journal of Sociology 90, 383 95. Locke, J. (1689/1986). The Second Treatise of Civil Government Amherst, NY: Prometheus. Loftus, B. (2009). Police culture in a changing World Oxford: Oxford University Press. Loftus, B. (2010). Police occupational culture: Classic themes, altered times. Policing and Society 20(1),1 20. Long, N.E. (1952). Bureaucracy and constitutionalism. American Political Science Review, 46, 808 818. Lowi, T. (1972). Four systems of policy, politics, and choice. Public Administration Review, 11, 298 310. Lundberg, S., & Startz, R. (1998). On the persistence of racial inequality. Journal of Labor Economics, 16 (2), 292 323. Lundman, R. J. (1994). Demeanor or crime? The Midwest city police citizen encounters study. Criminology 32 631 656. Lundman, R.J. (2004). Driver race, ethnicity, and gender and citizen reports of vehicle searches by police and vehicle search hits: Toward a triangulated scholarly understanding. The Journal of C riminal Law and Criminology, 94 (2), 309 350. Lundman, R.J. (2010). Are police reported driving while b lack data a valid indicator of the race and ethnicity of the traffic law violators police stop? A negative answer with minor qualifications. Journal of C riminal Justice, 38 (1), 77 87. Lundman, R.J. (2012). Race and ethnicity missingness in the traffic stop data reported by 308 Massachusetts police agencies. Race and Justice, 2 (1) 42 65. Lundman, R., & Kaufman, R. (2003). Driving while black: Effects of race, ethnicity, and gender of citizen self reports of traffic stops and police actions. Crimonology, 41, 195 219. Lucius, J.R., & Heaphy, J.F. (1977). Apprehension productivity of police in large U.S. cities. Journal of Criminal Justice 5(4), 271 278. Lyng v. Castillo, 477 US 635 (1986).
! #+& Lynn, L.E. (2006). Public management: Old and new New York: Routledge. MacDonald, H. (2001). The myth of racial profiling. City Journal 11(2) [online]. MacDonald, H. (2003). Are cops racist? How the war against the police harms black Americans. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee. MacIntyre, A. (1967). Secularization and Moral Change. The Riddell Memorial Lectures Oxford: Oxford University Press. MacIntyre, A. (1981). After virtue. Notre Dame: Notre Dame Press. MacIntyre, A. (1988). Whose justice? Which rationality? Notre Dame: Notre Dame Press. MacIntyre, A. (1990). First Principles, Final Ends, and Contemporary Philosophical Issues Milwaukee: Marquette University Press. MacNeal, C. (2014, May 5). Alabama Chief Justice: The First Amendment Protects Only Christians Retrieved from http://talkingpointsmemo.co m/livewire/alabama chief justice christianity Macvean, A., & Cox, C. (2012). Police education in a university setting: Emerging cultures and attitudes. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 6 (1), 16 25. Maguire, E., Shin, Y., Zhao, J. & Hassell, K. (2003). A structural change in large pol ice agencies during the 1990s. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 26 251 2 75. Major, B., & Schmader, T. (2001). Legitimacy and the construal of social disadvantage. InJ.T. Jost & B. Major (eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice and intergroup relations New York: Cambridge University Press. Makowsky, M.D., & Stratmann, T. (2009). Political Economy at Any Speed: What Determines Traffic Cita tions? The American Economic Review, 99 (1), 509 527. Manning, P. K. (1995). The police occupational culture in Anglo American societies. In W. Bailey (Ed.), The encyclopediaof police science (pp. 472 475). New York: Garland Publishing. Manning, PK. (2007). A dialectic of organizational and occupational culture. In N, O'Neil, M., Marks, and AM Singh (eds.), Police Occupational Culture: New Debates and Directions (pp. 47 83) Amsterdam: Elsevier. Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803).
! #+' March, J.G., & Olsen, J.P. (2006). Elaborating the "new institutionalism". In R.A.W. Rhodes, S.A. Binder, and B.A. Rockman (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of political institutions (pp. 3 20). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Marenin, O. (2005). Building a Gl obal Police Studies Community. Police Quarterly, 8 (1), 99 136. Marini, F. (ed.). (1971). Toward a new public administration: The Minnowbrook Perspective. San Francisco, CA: Chandler Publishing. Martin, W.E. (1998). Brown v. Board of Education: A brief history with documents. Bedford/ St. Martin's. Marx, G.T. (1995). Police and democracy. Retrieved from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology website: http: //web.mit.edu/gtmarx/www/poldem.html Marx, S. (2006). Revealing the invisible: Confronting passive racism in teacher education. NewYork, NY: Routledge Maryland v. Wilson, 519 US 407 (1997). Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981 (1984). Mastrofski, S.D. (2004). Controlling street level police discretion. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 593, 100 118. Mastrofski, S., & Ritti, R. (1992). You can lead a horse to water: A case study of a police department's re sponse to stricter drunk driving laws. Justice Quarterly, 9, 465 491. Mastrofski, S., Ritti, R., & Hoffmaster, D. (1987). Organizational determinants of police discretion: The case of drinking driving. Journal of Criminal Justice 15, 387 402. Mastrofski, S. D., Parks, R. B.,&Worden, R. E. (1998). Community policing in action: Lessonsfrom an observational study .Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. Mastrofski, S. D., Snipes, J. B. Parks, R. B., & Maxwell, C. D. (2000). The helping hand of the law: Police control of citizens on request. Criminology 38 307 342. Mastrofski, S. D.,Worden, R. E., & Snipes, J. B. (1995). Law enforcement in a time of community policing. Criminology 3 3 539 563. Maynard Moody, S., & Musheno, M. (2012). Social equities and inequities in practice: Street level workers as agents and pragmatists. Public Administration Review 72(S1), S16 S23.
! #+( McAffee, T.B., Bybee, J.S., & Bryant, A.C. (2006). Powers rese rved for the people and the states: A history of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments (Reference guides to the United States Constitution) New York: Praeger. McDavid, J.C. (1977). The effects of interjurisdictional cooperation on police performance in the St. Louis metropolitan area. Publius 7(2), 3 30. McGee, S. (2014, August 19). Protests over Michael Brown's death in Ferguson show America's struggle with inequality Retrieved from: http://www.theguardian.com/money/us money blog/2014/aug/19/race ferguson inequality opportunities african american in justice McKelvey, B. (1999). Toward a Cambellian realist organization science. In J.A.C. Baum and B. McKelvey (eds.), Variations in organization science. Thousand Oaks: Sage. McKelvey, B. (2002). Model centered organization science epistemology. In J.A.C Baum (ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Organizations (pp. 752 780). Oxford: Blackwell. McKown, C. (2005). Applying ecological theory to advance the science and practice of school based prejudice reduction interventions. Educational Psychologist, 40, 177 189. McKown, C. (2013). Social equity theory and racial ethnic achievement gaps. Child Development, 84 (4), 1120 1136. Mead, L.M. (2004). State political culture and welfare reform. Policy Studies Journal, 32 (2), 271 296. Meehan, A. J., & Ponder, M. C. (2002). Race and place: The ecology of racial profiling African American motorists Justice Quarterly 19(30), 399 430. Meeks, K. (2000). Driving while black. New York: Broadway Books. Mehta, J., Schwartz, R.B., & Hess, F.M. (2012). The futures of school reform. Boston: Harvard Education Press. Meier, K.J. (1975). Representative bureaucracy: An empirical assessment. American Political Science Review, 69 (2), 526 542. Meier, K.J. (1984). Teachers, students and discrimination: The policy impact of black representation. Journal of Politics, 46 (1), 252 263. Meier, K.J. (1993a). Latinos and representative bureaucracy. J PART 3 (4), 393 414. Meier, K.J. (1993b). Represent ative Bureaucracy: A Theoretical and Empirical Exposition. In J. Perry (Ed.), Research in Public Administration Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
! #+) Meier, K.J., & Bohte, J. ( 2001 ) Structure and Discretion: Missing Links in Representative Bureaucracy. J PART 11/4: 455 70. Meier, K.J., & Hill, G.C. (2007). Bureaucracy in the twenty first century. In E. Ferlie, L.E. Lynn, & C. Pollitt (eds.), The Oxford handbook of public management (pp. 51 71). Oxford: Oxford University Press. M eier K. J., P ennington M. S., & E l ler W. S. ( 2005 ) Race, Sex, and Clarence Thomas: Representation Change in the EEOC. Public Administration Review 65/2: 171 9. Meier, K.J., & Hill, G.C. (2009). Bureaucracy in the twenty first century. In In E. Ferlie, L.E. Lynn, and C. Pollitt (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Public Management (Chapter 3 electronic version). Oxford: Oxford University Press. M eier K. J., and Nicholson Crotty J. ( 2006 ) Gender, Representative Bureaucracy, and Law Enforcement: The Case of Sexual Assault. Public Administra tion Review 66( 6 ) : 850 8 60. M eier K. J., and N igro L. ( 1976 ) Representative Bureaucracy and Policy Preferences: A Study in the Attitudes of Federal Executives. Public Administration Review 36 458 69. Meier, K.J., & O'Toole, L.J. (2006). Bureaucracy in a democratic state: A governance perspective Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Meier, K.J., & O'Toole, L.J. (2011). Comparing public and private management: Theoretical expectations. J PART 21, i 283 i299. Meier, K.J., & Stewart, J. (1991 ). The politics of Hispanic Education; State University of New York Press Albany, NY Meier, K.J ., & Stewart, J. (1992). The Impact of Representative Bureaucracies: Educational Systems and Public Policies. American Review of Public Administration 22(3) 151 71. Mendelsohn, A.H. (1997). The Fourth Amendment and traffic stops: Bright line rules in conjunction with the totality of the circumstances test. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 88 (3), 930 956. Mendias, C., & Kehoe, E.J. (2006). Engag ement of Policing Ideals and Their Relationship to the Exercise of Discretionary Powers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33 70 92. Middlekauff, R. (2007). The glorious cause: The American Revolution, 1763 1789. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
! #+* Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Miller, M.C., Barnes, J., & Katzmann, R.A. (2004). Making Policy, Making Law: An Interbranch Perspective Georgetown: Georgetown Un iversity Press. Miner, J. B (2005). Organizational behavior 1: Essential theories of motivation and leadership Armonk, N Y : M.E. Sharpe Mingers, J. (2004). Re establishing the real: Critical realism and information systems research. In J. Mingers and L. Willcocks (eds.), Social theory and philosophy for information systems. New York: Wiley. Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 US 366 (1993). Missouri Attorney General. (2013). 2013 Annual Report: Missouri Vehicle Stops. Retrieved from http://ago.mo.gov/VehicleStops/2013/#analysis Mondak, J.J., & Canache, D. (2014). Personality and Political Culture in the American States. Political Research Quarterly, 67 (1), 26 41. Moore, M.H., & Braga, A.A. (2003). Measuring and improving police performance: The lessons of Compstat and its progeny. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management 26(3), 439 453. Moran, D.A. (2000). Traffic stops, littering ti ckets, and police warning: The case for a Fourth Amendment non custodial arrest doctrine. American Criminal Law Review, 37 (3), 1143 1164. Morgan, D. R., England, R. E., & Pelissero, J. P. (2007). Managing urban America Washington DC: CQ Press. Morling, B. (2011). Research methods in psychology: Evaluating a world of information. W.W. Norton & Company. Mosher, F.C. (1968). Democracy and the Public Service New York: Oxford University Press Mosher, W.E., & J.D. Kingsley. (1936). Public personnel administration. New York and London: Harper & Brothers. Moynihan, D.P. (2006). Managing for results in state government: Evaluating a decade of reform. Public Administration Review 66, 77 89. Moynihan, D.P. (2008). The dynamics of performance management Constructing information and reform Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
! #"+ Moynihan, D., & Pandey, S. (2007). The role of organizations in fostering public service motivation Public Administration Review 67(1), 40 53. Moynihan, D.P., Pandey, S .K, & Wright, B.E. (2012). Setting the table: How transformational leadership fosters performance information use. J PART 22, 143 164. Murrell, D.S. (1996). Constitutional law outline for the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Durham: Carolina Academic Press. Myers, D.G. (2011). Psychology (10 th ed.). New York Worth Publishers. Myers, S.L. (2002). Analysis of racial profiling as policy analysis. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 21 (2), 287 300. Naff, K.C. (2001). To Look Like America Boulder, CO: Westview Naff, K.C. (2011). Representative bureaucracy. In Encyclopedia of Public Administration and Public Policy (2nd ed.)(pp. 1698 1701). Taylor and Francis: New York. Nalbandian, J. (1989). The U.S. Supreme Court's "consensus" on affirmative action. Public Administration Review, 49 (1), 38 45. Nalbandian, J., & Klingner, D.E. (1987). Conflict and values in public personnel administration. Public Administration Quarterly, 11 (1), 17 33. National Academy of Public Admi nistration. (2014). Standing Panel on Social Equity in Governance: Charter. Retrieved from http://www.napawash.org/fellows/standing panels/social equity in governance/22 uncategorized pages4/1110 5standing panel on social equity in governance charter.html National Academy of Public Administration, Standing Panel on Social Equali ty. (2000). Issue Paper and Work Plan Washington, D.C.: Author. Nelson, W.E. (1998). The Fourteenth Amendment: From political principle to judicial doctrine. Harvard University Press. Neuman, S. (2013, January 22). Divine rhetoric: God in the Inaugural Address. Retrieved from the National Public Radio website: http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/01/22/169998659/divine rhetor ic god in the inaugural address New York Attorney General's Office. (1999). The New York City Police Department's stop and frisk practices Albany: New York Attorney General.
! #"" New York Civil Liberties Union. (2012/2014). Stop and frisk data. Retrieved from http://www.nyclu.org/content/stop and frisk data New York v. Belton, 453 US 454 (1981). Nicholson Crotty, J., Grisson, J.A., & Nicholson Crotty, S. (2011). Bureaucratic repre sentation, distribution equity, and democratic values in the administration of public programs. The Journal of Politics, 73 (2), 582 596. Nickels, E. (2008). Good guys wear black: Uniform color and citizen impressions of police. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 31(1), 77 92. Niiniluoto, I. (1980). Scientific progress. Synthese, 45, 427 464. Niiniluoto, I. (1999). Critical scientific realism. New York: Oxford University Press. NORC at the University of Chicago. (2014). General Social Survey Retrieved from http://www3.norc.org/GSS+Website Norman Major, K. (2011). Balancing the four Es; or can we achieve equity for social equity in public administration? Journal o f Public Affairs Education 17(2), 233 252. North Carolina Department of Justice. (2014). Traffic stop reports Retrieved from http://trafficstops.ncdoj.gov/Default.aspx?pageid=2 Northwestern University. (1918). Legal training for police officers. Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology 8(5), 785 786. Novak, K.J., & Chamlin, M.B. (2012). Racial threat, suspicion, and police behavior: The impact of race a nd place in traffic enforcement. Crime & Delinquency, 58 (2), 275 300. Novak, K. J., Frank, J., Smith, B. W., & Engel, R. S. (2002). Revisiting the decision to arrest: Comparing beat and community officers. Crime & Delinquency 48 70 98. Nowlin, M.C. (20 11). Theories of the policy process: State of the research and emerging trends. Policy Studies Journal, 39 (Supplement S1), s41 s60. O'Leary, R., Van Slype, D.M., & Kim, S. (Eds.)(2010). The Future of Public Administration around the World: The Minnowbrook Perspective Washington, DC : Georgetown University Press. Oberfield, Z.W. (2014). Motivation, Change, and Stability: Findings From an Urban Police Department. The American Review of Public Administration, 44 (2), 210 232.
! #"# Oberfield, Z. W. 2010. Rule fol lowing and discretion at government's frontlines: Continuity and change during organization socialization. J PART 20 735 55. Olejarski, A.M. (2011). Public good as public interest? Public Integrity, 13 (4), 333 352. Orr, M., & West, D.M. (2007). Citizen evaluations of local police personal experience or symbolic attitudes? Administration & Society 38(6), 649 668. Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: Reading: Addison Wesley. Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity Princeton University Press. Onwuegbuzie, A.J., & Leech, N.L. (2005). On becoming a pragmatic researcher: The importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 8(5), 375 387 Owens, C.T. (2005). Black substantive representation in state legislatures from 1971 1994. Social Science Quarterly 86, 779 791. Pachon, H.P., & Lovrich, N.P.J. (1977). The consolidation of urban public services: A focus on the police. Public Administration Review 37(6), 38 47. Paivio, A (1969). Mental Imagery in associative learning and memory. Psychological Review 76(3), 241 263. Paivio, A (1971). Imagery and verbal processes New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Paivio, A (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach Oxford. England: Oxford University Press. Pandey, S.K., & Stazyk, E.C. (2008). Antecedents and correlates of public service motivation. In J.L. Perry & A. Hondeghem (Eds.), Motivation in public management: T he call of public service (pp. 101 117). Oxford: Oxford U niversity Press Paoline, E.A. (2003). Taking stock: Toward a richer understanding of police culture. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31(3), 199 214. Paoline, E.A. (2004). Shedding light on police culture: An examination of officers occupational attitudes. Police Quarterly, 7, 205 236. Paoline, E.A., & Terrill, W. (2007). Police education, experience, and the use of force. Criminal Justice and Behavior 34 (2), 179 196. Park, S. ( 2013 ) Does gender matter? The effect of gender representation of public bureaucracy on governmental performance. The American Review of Public Administration 43 221 2 42.
! #"$ Parks, R.B. (1984). Linking objective and subjective measures of performance. Public Administration Review 44(2), 118 127. Patterson, J.T. (2002). Brown v. Board of Education: A civil rights milestone and its troubled legacy. Oxford University Press. Pe nnsylvania v. Mimms, 434 US 106 (1977). Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357 (1998). Perry, J.L. (1996). Measuring public sector motivation: An assessment of construct reliability and validity. J PART 6(1), 5 22 Perry, J. (1997). Antecedents of public service motivation. J PART 7, 181 197. Perry, J. (2000). Bringing society in: Toward a theory of public service motivation. J PART 10, 471 488. Perry, J.L., Engers, T ., & Jun, S.Y. (2009). Back to the future? Per formance related pay, empirical research, and the perils of persistence. Public Administration Review 69(1), 39 51 Perry, J.L., & Hondeghem, A. (2008). Building theory and empirical evidence about public service motivation. International Public Managemen t Journal 11(1), 499 518 Perry, J.L., & Rainey, H.G. (1988). The public private distinction in organization theory: A critique and research strategy. The Academy of Management Review 13, 182 201. Perry, J.L., & Wise, L.R. (1990). The motivational bases of public service. Public Administration Review 50(3), 367 373. Pesch, U. (2008). The publicness of public administration. Administration & Society, 40 (2), 170 193. Pettigrew, A. (1979). On studying organizational culture Administrative Science Quarterly 24(4), 570 581. Piquero, A.R. (2008). Disproportionate minority contact. The Future of Children, 18 (2), 59 79. Pitts, D.W. (2004). Diversity in Professional Schools: A Case Study of Public Affairs and Law. J PAE, 10 (2), 125 142. Pitts, D. ( 2009 ) Diversity management, job satisfaction, and performance: Evidence from U.S. federal agencies. Public Administration Review 69 328 38.
! #"% Pitts, D.W. (2011). A Little Less Conversation, a Little More Action: Using Empirical Research to Promote Social Equity. J PART 21(Supplement 1: Minnowbrook III: A Special Issue), i77 i82. Pitts, D. W., & L. R. Wise. ( 2010 ) Workforce diversity in the new millennium: Prospects for research. Review of Public Personnel Administration 30 44 69. Plessy v. Ferguon (1896) 163 U.S. 537. Polletta, F. (2002). Freedom Is an Endless Meeting: Democracy in American Social Movements Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Police Foundation. (2003). A multijurisdicational assessment of traffic enforcement and data collection in Kansas Washington, DC: Author. Police Law Institute. (2014). Police Law Institute. Retrieved from http://www.policelaw.org/ Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2004). Public management reform: A comparative perspective Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pope, T.R. (2013). Social Contract Theory in American Jurisprudence: Too Much Liberty and Too Much Authority (Routledge Research in American Politics and Governance) New York: Routledge. Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and refutations London: Routledge and Keagan Paul. Portillo, S. 2007. Mentoring minority and female students: Recommendations for improving mentoring in public administration and affairs programs. Journal of Public Affairs Education 13 345 53. Portillo, S., & DeHart Davis, L. (2009). Gender and organizational rule abidance. Public Administration Review 69, 339 347. Powell, D. D. (1981). Race, rank and police discretion. Journal of Police Science and Administration 9, 383 389. Preuhs R.R. (2007). Descriptive representation as a mechanism to mitigate policy backlash: Latino incorportation and welfare policy in the American states. Political Research Quarterly 60, 277 292. Pressman, J.L., & Wildavsky, A. (1973/1984). Implementation University of California Press. Pueblo Police Department. (2014). Police department. Retrieved from http://www.pueblo.us/police
! #"& Punch, M. (2007). Cops with honours: University education and police culture. In In N, O'Neil, M., Marks, and AM Singh (eds.), Police Occupational Culture: New Debates and Directions (pp. 105 128). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Pursley, R. (1976). Community charac teristics and policy implementations: Some exploratory findings about two categories of municipal police chiefs. Journal of Criminal Justice, 4, 291 301. Putnam, H. (1993). Renewing philosophy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Pynes, J.E. (2001). The triumph of techniques over purpose revisited: Evaluating police officer selection. Review of Public Personnel Administration 21(3), 219 236 Rabin, J., & Bowman, J.S. (eds.). (1984). Politics and administration: Woodrow Wilson and American Public Administration. New York: Marcel Dekker. Radin, B.A. (2006). Challenging the performance movement: Accountability, complexity, and democratic values Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Raganella, A., & White, M. (2004). Race, g ender, and motivation for becoming a police officer: Implications for building a representative police department. Journal of Criminal Justice 32, 501 513. Rainey, H.G. (1982). Reward preferences among public and private managers: In search of the service ethic. American Review of Public Administration 16(4), 288 302 Rainey, H.G. (2009). Understanding and managing public organizations (4th ed.). San Franci sco, CA: Jossey Bass. Ramirez, D., McDevitt, J., & Farrell, A. (2000). A resource guide on racial profiling data collection: Promising practices and lessons learned Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Rayner, J., Williams, H.M., Lawton, A., & Al linson, C.W. (2011). Public service ethos: Developing a generic measure. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21, 27 51. Rea, L.M., & Parker, R.A. (2005). Designing and conducting survey research: A comprehensive guide (3 rd ed.) New York: Jossey Bass. Regis University. (2009). Political culture of the United States Retrieved from http://academic.regis.edu/jriley/421elazar.htm Rehnquist, W.H. (2002). The Supreme Court. N ew York: Vintage.
! #"' Reid v. Georgia, 448 US 438 (1980). Reiner, R. (2000). The politics of the police (3 rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rescher, M. (2000). Realistic pragmatism: An introduction to pragmatic philosophy. Albany: State University of Albany Press. Reuss Ianni, E. (1983). Two Cultures of Policing: Street Cops and Management Cops New Brunswick: Transaction. Rice, M.F. (2004). Organizational culture, social equity, and diversity: Teaching public administration education in the postmodern era. J PAE 10(2), 143 154. Riccucci, N. M. ( 1 987). Black employment in munici pal work forces. Public Administration Quarterly 11 76 89. Riccucci, N.M (2002). Managing diversity in public sector workforces Boulder, CO: Westview. Riccucci, N.M (2005 ). How management matters: Street level bureaucrats and welfare reform Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Ric cucci, N.M. (2009). The Pursuit of Social Equity in the Federal Government: A Road Less Traveled? Public Administration Review 69(3), 373 382. R iccucci N. M., & M eyers M. K. ( 2004 ) Linking Passive and Active Representation: The Case of Frontline Workers in Welfare Agencies. J PART 14( 4 ), 5 85 5 97. Riccucci, N.M., Van Ryzin, G.G., & Lavena, C.F. (2014). Representative Bureaucracy in Policing: Does It Increase Perceived Legitimacy? J PART, 24 (3), 537 551. Riksheim, E. C., & Chermak, S. M. (1993). Causes of police behavior revisited. Journal of Criminal Justice 21, 353 382. Ripley, R.B. (1985). Policy analysis in political science. Chicago: Nelson Hall. Roberg, R., Novak, K., & Cordner, G. (2009). Police and society. New York: Oxford University Press. Robinson, A. L. (2000). The effect of a domestic violence policy change on police officers' schemata. Criminal Justice and Behavior 27 600 624. Roebuck, D. (1996). A practical means for clarifying state law. The Justice System Journal, 18 (3), 305 316.
! #"( Rosenbloom, D. H. (1983). Public administrative theory and the separation of powers. Public Administration Review 43 219 227. Rosenbloom, D. (2005). Taking social equity seriously in MPA education. J PAE 11(3), 247 252. Rosenbloom, D. (2013). Reflections on "Public administrative theory and the separation of powers". The American Review of Public Administration, 43 (4), 381 396. Rosenbloom, D., & Caroll, J.D. (1990). Toward Constitutional Competence: A Casebook for Public Administrators Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Rosenbloom, D., Kravchuk, R., & Clerkin, R. (2008). Public Administration: Understanding Management, Politics, and Law in th e Public Sector McGraw Hill. Rosenthal, L. (2003). Policing and equal protection. Yale Law & Police Review, 21(1), 53 103. Rousseau, J.J (1762 / 1968 ) The Social Contract. M Cranston (trans.) New York: Penguin Putnam, Inc. Rowe, M. (2007). Rendering visible the invisible: Police discretion, professionalism and decision making. Policing and Society: An International Journal of Research and Policy, 17(3), 279 294. Russell, B. (1972). A history of Western philosophy New York: Simon and Schuster. Russell, G.D. (1997). The political ecology of police refor m. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 20(3) 5 67 589 Rutledge, P. (2002). Some unfinished business in public administration. P ublic Administration Review, 62 (4), 390 394. Ryan, S.E. (2012). Assessing Diversity in Public Affairs Curricula: A Multi Methodological Model for Student Led Programmatic Self Study. J PAE, 18 (4), 757 774. Sabatier, P.A. (2007). The need for better theor ies. In P. Sabatier, Theories of the Policy Process (2 nd ed.), 3 17. Sabatier, P.A., & Weible, C.M. (2007). The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Innovations and Clarifications. In P. Sabatier, Theories of the Policy Process (2nd. ed.), 189 222. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Sackrey, C., Schneider, G., & Knoedler, J. (2013). Introduction to political economy (7 th ed.). Dollars & Sense.
! #") Salamon, L. (Ed.). (2002). The tools of government: A guide to the new governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sampson, R.J., & Cohen, J. (1988). Deterrent Effects of the Police on Crime: A Replication and Theoretical Extension. Law and Society, 22, 163 169. Sayre, W.S. (1951). Trends of a decade in administrative values. Public Administration Review, 11 (1), 1 9. Scalia, A. (1997). A matter of interpretation: Federal courts and the law. Princeton University Press. Scalia, A. (2013). U.S. v. Windsor 570 US____ [Dissenting opinion]. Schaffer, J.A. (2002). I'm not against it in theory: Global and specific community policing attitudes. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management 25(4), 669 686. Schattschneider, E.E. (1975). The semi sovereign people: A realist's view of democracy in America. Cengage Le arning. Schein, E. (1992). Organizational Culture and Leadership (2nd ed.). Jossey Bass, San Francisco, CA. Schlager, E. (2007). A comparison of frameworks, theories, and models of policy processes. In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (2nd ed.)(pp. 293 319). Westview Press: Boulder, CO. Schlosser, M. D. (2011). Evaluating the M idwest police academy's ability to prepare recruits to police in a diverse multicultural society. Unpublished PhD Study submitted to the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign. Retrieved from https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/26225/Schlosser_Michael.pdf? sequence=1 Schlosser, M.D. ( 2013). Racial attitudes of police recruits in the United States Midwest Police Academy: A quantitative examination. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, 8 (2), 215 224. Schneider, A., & Ingram, H.M. (Eds.) (2005). Deserving and Entitled: Social Constructions and Public Policy Albany, NY: State University of New York. Schneider, A.L., & Ingram, H. (2011). Policy Design. In Encyclopedia of Public Administration and Public Policy (2 nd ed.)(pp. 1477 1481). Taylor and Francis: New York. Schn eider, A., & Sidney, M. (2009). What is next for policy design and social construction theory? The Policy Studies Journal 37(1), 103 119.
! #"* Schulhofer, S.J. (2012). More essential than ever: The Fourth Amendment in the Twenty First Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schwartz, B. (1980). The roots of the Bill of Rights. New York: Chelsea House. Schwartz, S.P. (2012). A brief history of analytic philosophy: From Russell to Rawls. New York: Wiley Blackwell. Scruton, R. (2001). Kant: A very short intr oduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. S aidel J. R., and L oscocco K. ( 2005 ) Agency Leaders, Gendered Institutions, and Representative Bureaucracy. Public A dministration Review 65( 2 ), 158 1 70. Selden, S.C. (1997a). Representative bureaucracy: Examining the linkage between passive and active representation in the Farmers Home Administration. American Review of Public Administration, 27(1), 22 42. Selden, S. C. ( 1997 b) The promise of representative bureaucracy: Diversity and responsiveness in a government agency Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe. Selden, S.C., Brudney, J,L., & Kellough, J.E. (1998). Bureaucracy as a Representative Institution: Toward a Reconciliation of Bureaucratic Government a nd Democratic T heory. American Journal of Political Science 42(3) 717 44. Selman, F. (2007). Aquinas 101: A b asic introduction to the thought of Saint Thomas Aquinas. Christian Classics. Sentas, V. (2014). Traces of terror: Counter terrorism law, policing, and race. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shea, T. (2011). The Sixth Amendment: The Rights of the Accused in Criminal Cases Rosen Central. Shiffrin, S.H., & Choper, J.H. (2011). The First Amendment, Cases, Comments, Questions (5 th ed.). West Press. Shin, D.C. (1977). The quality of municipal service: Concept, measure and results. Social Indicators Research 4(1), 207 229. Shusta, R.M., Levine, D.R., Harris, P.R., & Wong, H.Z. (2002). Multicultural l aw enforcement: Strategies for peacekeeping in a diverse society (2 nd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall Publishing. Sigelman, L. (1976). The quality of administration: An exploration in the American states. Administration and Society, 8, 107 144.
! ##+ S imon, H. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69 (1), 99 118. Simon, H. (1957). Models of Man: Social and Rational Mathematical Essays on Rational Human Behavior in a Social Setting. New York: Wiley. Simon, H. (1983). Reason in human affairs. Oxford: Blackwell. Simon, H. (1973). Organization man: Rational or self actualizing? Public Administration Review, 33 (4), 346 353. Simon, H. (1995). Rationality in political behavior. Political Psychology, 16 (1), 45 61. Singleton, R.A., & Straits, B.C. (2010). Approaches to social research (5 th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sinnott Armstrong, W. (2007a). Moral Psychology, The Evolution of Morality: Adaptations and Innateness Volume 1 The MIT Press. Sinnott Armstrong, W. (2007b). Moral Psychology: The Cognitive Science of Morality: Intuition and Diversity Volume 2 The MIT Press. Sklansky, D. (2006). Not your father's police department: Making sense of the new demographics of law enforcement. The J ournal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 96 (3), 1209 1243. Sklansky, D. (2007 a ). Democracy and the police (Critical perspectives on crime and law). Stanford University Press. Sklansky DA (2007b) Seeing blue: Police reform, occupational culture, and cognitive burn in. In N, O'Neil, M., Marks, and AM Singh (eds.), Police Occupational Culture: New Debates and Directions (pp. 19 45) Amsterdam: Elsevier. Skogan, W.G. (1976). Efficiency and effectiveness in big city police departments. Public Administration Review, 36 (3), 278 286. Skogan, W.G. (2004). Community policing: Can it work? Wadsworth, Belmont, CA. Skolnick, J.H., & Fyfe, J.J. (1994). Above the law: Police and the excessive use of force. Free Press. Skolnick, J. (1966). Justice without Trial: Law Enforcement in Democratic Society New York: Wiley.
! ##" Skolnick, J.H. (2008). Enduring issues of police culture and demographics. Policing and Society: An International Journal of Research and Policy, 1 8 (1), 35 45. Skyrms, B. (1996). Evolution of the social contract. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Smith, M. R., Makarios, M., & Alpert, G. P. (2006). Differential Suspicion: Theory Specification and Gender Effects in the Traffic Stop Context. Justice Quarterly 23, 271 295. Smith, M. (1999). HPD Writing Fewer Traffic Tickets under New Data Gathering Polic y. Houston Chronicle (Star Edi tion), October 17, A1 A 4. Sneed, B.G. (2007). Glass walls in state bureaucracies: Examining the difference dep artmental function can make. Public Administration Review, 67 (5), 880 891. Sobel, C., & Li, P. (2013). The Cognitive Sciences: An Interdisciplinary Approach (2 nd ed.). Sage Publications. Sobel, S. (2012). How the U.S. government works. Barron's Educational Series. Sobol, J.J. (2010). The social ecology of police attitudes. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 33(2), 253 269. Soss, J., & Keiser, L.R. (2006). The Political Roots of Disability Claims: How State Environments and Politics Shape Citizen Demands. Political Research Quarterly 59(1) 133 1 48. S owa J. E., and S elden S. C. ( 2003 ) Administrative Discretion and Active Representation: An Expansion of the Theory of Representative Bureaucracy. Public Administration Review 63( 6 ), 700 7 10. Smith, M.R., & Petrocelli, M. (2001). Racial profiling? A multivariate analysis of police traffi c stop data. Police Quarterly, 4 (1), 4 27. Sparrow, M. K., Moore, M. H., & Kennedy, D. M. (1990). Beyond 911: A new era for policing. United States: Basic Books. Spina, S.F. (2013). Addressing Remnants of the Past: Proactive Responses to Equity Issues in Public Administration. State & Local Government Review, 45 (2), 98 107. Spitzer, E. (1999). The New York City Police Department's "Stop and Frisk" Practices Office of the New York State Attorney General. Stalans, L. J.,& Finn, M. A. (1995).How novice and experienced officers interpret wife assaults: Normative and efficiency frames. Law and Society Review 29 287 321.
! ### Starkey, K., & Madan, P. (2001). Bridging the relevant gap: Aligning stakeholders in the future of manage ment research. British Journal of Management, 12 (Special Issue), S3 S26. State of Colorado. (2010). Model Traffic Code for Colorado. Retrieved from http://www .coloradodot.info/business/rules/documents/2010_Model_Traffic_Code.pd f State v. Pedro Soto, 734 A.2d 350 (NJ. Super. Ct. Law Div. 1996). Steinheider, B. & Wuestewald, T. (2008). From the bottom up: sharing leadership in a police agency. Police Practice and Research 9(2) 145 63. Stevens, J.P. (2011). Five chiefs: A Supreme Court memoir. Little, Brown and Company. Stevens, J.P. (2014). Six amendments: How and why we should change the Constitution. Little, Brown and Company. Stith, S. M. (1990). Polic e response to domestic violence: The influence of individual and familial factors. Violence and Victims 5 37 49. Stivers, C. (2002). Gender Images in Public Administration: Legitimacy and the Administrative State Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Stolzenberg, L., D'Allesio, S.J., & Eitle, D.L. (2004). A multilevel test of racial threat theory Criminology 42 (3), 673 698. Su, R. (2010). The overlooked significance of Arizona's new immigration law. Michigan Law Review, 108, 76 79. Sun, I. (2003). Police officers' attitudes toward their role and work: A comparison of black and white officers. American Journal of Criminal Justice 28(1), 89 108. Sun, I., & Payne, B. (2004). Racial differences in resolving conflicts: A comparison between black and white police officers. Crime & Delinquency 50, 516 541. Suppe, F. (1977). The structure of scientific theories (2 nd ed.). Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Suppe, F. (1989). The semantic conception of theories and scientific realism. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Svara, J.H. (1985). Dichotomy and Duality: Reconceptualizing the Relationship between Policy and Administration in Council Manager Cities. Public Administration Review, 45 (1), 221 232.
! ##$ Svara, J.H. (1998). The politics administration dichotomy model as aberration. Public Administration Review, 58 (1), 51 58. Svara, J. H. (1999). Complementarity of politics and administration as a legitimate a lternative to the dichotomy model. Administration and Society, 30 676 705. Svara, J.H. (2001). The myth of the dichotomy: Complementarity of politics and administration in the past and future of public administration. Public Administration Review, 61 (2), 176 183. Svara, J.H. (2006). Complexity in political administrative relations and the limits of the dichotomy concept. Administrative Theory and Praxis, 28, 121 139. Svara, J.H. (2008). Beyond dichotomy: Dwight Waldo and the intertwined politics administration relationship. Public Administration Review, 68, 46 52. Svara, J.H., & Brunet, J.R. (2004). Filling in the skeletal pillar: Addressing social equity in introduct ory courses in public administration. J PAE 10(2), 99 109. Svara, J.H., & Brunet, J.R. (2005). Social equity is a pillar of public administration. J PAE 11(3), 253 258. Swiss, J.E. (2005). A framework for assessing incentives in results based management. Public Administration Review 64, 593 602. Taslitz, A.E. (2003). Respect and the Fourth Amendment. The Journal of Criminal Law and Crimonology 94(1), 15 102. Taylor, F.W. (1911/2006). The principles of scientific management Cosimo Classics. Taylor, T.J., & McCandless, S. ( 2016 ). Juvenile Violence: Interventions, Policies, and Future Directions. In C. Rennison (Ed.), The Wiley Blackwell Handbook on the Psychology of Violence. Wiley Blackwell Publishing. Terman, J. (2014). Evaluating Political Signals: The Nature of Bureaucratic Response in Minority Preference Purchasing. The American Review of Public Administration 44(5), 522 549 Terrill, W., Paoline, E.A., & Manning, P.K. (2003). Police culture and coercion. Criminology, 41 (4), 1003 1034. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Texas Department of Public Safety. (2000). Traffic stop data report Retrieved fromhttp://www.txdps.tx.us/director_staff/public_information/trafrep2qoo.pdf
! ##% T heobald N., & H aider M arkel D. P. ( 2006 ) Symbolic Representation in the Bureaucracy? The Case of Law Enforcement Chicago: Authors Theobald, N.A., & Haider Markel, D.P. (2009). Race, Bureaucracy, and Symbolic Representation: Interactions between Citizens and Police. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 409 426. Thielemann, G. (1992). Minority legislators and institutional influence. Social Science Journal 29(4), 411 422. Thornton v. United States, 541 US 615 (2004). Tienken, C.H., & Orlich, D.C. (2013). The school reform landscape: Fraud, myth, and lies. R&L Education. Tilly, C. (2007). Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Toulmin, S. (1953). The philosophy of science: An introduction. London: Hutchinson. Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 US____ (2014). Tribe, L., & Matz, J. (2014). Uncertain justice: The Roberts court and the Constitution Henry Holt and Company. Tschoepe, G.J. (1997). The influence of African American representation on state AFDC policy. State and Local Government Review 29, 156 165. Tyler, T.R. (2001). Public trust and confidence in legal authorities: What do majority and minority group members want from the law and legal institutions? Behavioral Sciences and the Law 19, 215 235. Tyler, T. R., & Wakslak, C.J. (2004). Profiling and Police Legitimacy: Procedural Justice, Attributions of Motive, and A cceptance of Police Authority. Criminology 42( 2 ), 253 281. University of California Las Angeles, Department of Statistics. (2014a). What statist ical analysis should I use? Statistical analyses using Stata. Factorial logistic regression Retrieved from http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/whatstat/whatstat.htm#faclogistic University of California Las Angeles, Department of Statistics. (2014b). What statistical analysis should I use? Retrieved from: http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/mult_pkg/whatstat/ U.S. Census Bureau. (2014). Urban and rural classification. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/urban rural.html
! ##& U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. (2009). Community policing defined. Retrieved from http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/Publications/e03091719 3 CP Defined.pdf U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. ( 2005 ) Annual report on the federal work force, Fiscal year 2004 Washington, D.C.: Author. U.S. Office of Personnel Management (2005). Annual Report to the Congress: Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program Washington D.C.: Author. United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (1974). United States v. Carolene Products Company, 304 US 144 (1938). United States v. Cortez, 449 US 411 (1 981). United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984). United States v. Mendenhall, 446 US 544 (1980). United States v. Robinson, 414 US 218 (1973). United States v. Ross, 456 US 798 (1982). United States v. Sokolow, 490 US 1 (1989). United States v. Windsor, 570 US 12 (2013). Valentino, N. A., & Sears, D.O. (2005). Old times there are not forgo tten: Race and partisan realign ment in the contemporary South. American Journal of Political Science 49 672 88 Vandenabeele, W. (2008). Government calling: P ublic service motivation as an element in selecting government as an employer of choice. Public Administration 86(4), 1089 1105. Vandenabeele, W. (2011). Who wants to deliver public service? Do institutional antecedents of public service motivation provi de an answer? Review of Public Personnel Administration 31(1), 87 107. Van de Ven, A.H. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Van Maanen, J. (1974). Working the street: A developmental view of police behavior. In H. Jacob (Ed.), The potential for reform of criminal justice Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
! ##' Van Maanen, J. (1975). Police socialization: A longitudinal examination of job at titudes in an urban police department. Administrative Science Quarterly 20, 207 228. Van Maanen, J., & Barley, S. R. (1984). Occupational communities: Culture and control in organizations. In B. M. Staw & C. C. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 6, pp. 287 365). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Van Riper, P.P. (1958). History of the United States Civil Service Evanston: Row, Peterson and Company Van Ryzin, G. G., & Immerwahr, S. ( 2004 ) Derived importance performance analysis of citizen sur vey data. Public Performance & Management Review 27 144 73. Van Ryzin, G.G., & Muzzio, D. (2004). Explaining the race gap in satisfaction with urban services. Urban Affairs Review 39(5), 613 632. Van Ryzin, G. G., Muzzio, D., & Immerwahr, S (2004). Explaining the race gap in satisfaction with urban services. Urban Affairs Review 39, 613 32. Vaughn, B. (2013, August 12). NYPD's "stop and frisk" practice is unconstitutional, judge rules Reuters. Waldner, L., Roberts, K., Widener, M., & Sullivan, B. (2011). Serving Up Justice: Fusing Service Learning and Social Equity in the Public Administration Classroom. J PAE 17(2), 209 232. Walker, R.M., & Bozeman, B. (2011). Publicness and organizational performance. J PART, 21 (Issue Supplement 3) i279 i281. Walker, S. (1998). Popular justice: A history of American criminal justice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Walker, S. (2007). Police accountability: Current issues and research needs Paper presented at the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) Policing Research Workshop: Planning for the Future. Washington, D.C. Walker, S. & Katz, C. (2007). The Police in Ame rica: An Introduction (6th ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill Wang, X. (2002). Perception and reality in developing and outcome performance measure ment system. International Journal of Public Administration 25(6), 805 829. Ward, J.D. (2002). Race, ethnicity, and law enforcement profiling: Implications for public policy. Public Administration Review 62(6), 726 735.
! ##( Ward, L. (20 04). A Critical Social Equity Component of Public Affairs Education: The Role of the Civil Rights Movement. J PAE, 10 (2), 158 160. Washington State Patrol. (2001). Report to the legislature on routine traffic stop data Seattle, WA: Washington State Patrol and Criminal Justice Training Commission. Washington State Patrol. (2008/2014). Traffic stop data analysis. Retrieved from http://www.wsp.wa.gov/publications/stopdata.htm Weber, M. (1 922/1994). Weber: Political writings. In P. Lassman and R. Speirs (Eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Websdale, N. (2001). Policing the poor: From slave plantation to public housing. Northeastern Press. Weible, C.M. (2006). An Advocacy Coalition Framework Approach to Stakeholder Analysis: Understanding the Political Context of California Marine Protected Area Policy. J PART, 17, 95 117. Weible, C.M., Sabatier, P.A., & Flowers, J. (2011). Advocacy coalition framework. In Encycl opedia of Public Administration and Public Policy (2 nd ed.). New York: Taylor and Francis. Weimer, D., & Vining, A.R. (2010). Policy analysis: Concepts and practice (5 th ed.). Pearson Publishing. Weitzer, R. (1996). Racial discrimination in the criminal justice system: Findings and problems in the literature. Journal of Criminal Justice 24(4), 309 322. Weitzer, R., & Tuch, S. A. (2002). Perceptions of racial profiling: Race, class, and personal experience. Criminology 40, 435 456. Weitzer, R., Tuch, S., & Skogan, W. G. (2008). Police community relations in a majority Black city. Journal of Research in Crime and Deli nquency 45, 398 428. Wells, W. ( 2007 ) Type of contact and evaluations of police officers: The effects of procedural justice across three types of police citizen contacts. Journal of Criminal Justice 35, 612 21. West, R. (2002). The origins and fate o f antisubordination theory. Issues in Legal Scholarship 8, 1 11. West, W.F., & D urant R. F. ( 2000 ) Merit, Management, and Neutral Competence: Lessons from the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, FY 1988 FY 1997. Public Administration Review 60( 2 ), 111 1 22.
! ##) Westley, W.A. (1970). Violence and the Police: A Sociological Study of Law, Custom, and Morality Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Westphal, L. (2004). In car camera: Value and impact. Police Chief 71(8), 59 65. White, L.D. (1926). Introduction to the study of public administration. New York: Macmillan Company. White, M.D., Cooper, J.A., Saunders, J., & Raganella, A.J. (2010). Motivations for becoming a police officer: Re assessing officer attitudes and job satisfaction after six years on the street. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38 (4), 520 530. White, S. (2004). Multicultural MPA Curriculum: Are We Prep aring Culturally Competent Public Administrators? J PAE 10(2), l 11 123. Whren et al. v. U.S. (1996). 517 U.S. 806, U.S. Supreme Court. Wichowsky, A., & Moynihan, D.P. (2008). Measuring how administration shapes citizenship: A policy feedback perspectiv e on performance management. Public Administration Review 68(5), 908 920. Wilkins V. M. ( 2007 ) Exploring the Causal Story: Gender, Active Representation, and Bureaucratic Priorities. J PART 17(1), 77 94. Wilkins, V., & Williams, B. (2008). Black or blue: Racial profiling and representative bureaucracy. Public Administration Review 68, 654 664. Williams, B.N., & Stahl, M. (2008). An Analysis of Police Traffic Stops and Searches in Kentucky: A Mixed Methods Approach Offering Heuristic and P ractical Implications. Policy Sciences, 41 (3), 221 243. Williams, J. (1985). Redefining institutional racism. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 8 (3), 323 349. Willoughby, W.F. (1918). The movement for budgetary reform in the states New York: D. Appleton and Company for the Institute for Government Research. Willoughby, W.F. (1927). Principles of public administration. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press. Wilson, C.P., & Wilson, S.A. (2014). Are we there yet? Perceptive roles of Af rican American police officers in small agency settings. Western Journal of Black Studies, 38 (2), 123 133. Wilson, J.Q. (1979). American government: Institutions and policies. Lexington: D.C. Heath.
! ##* Wilson, J. Q. (1967). The bureaucracy problem, The Publ ic Interest 6 3 9. Wilson, J.Q. (1968). Varieties of police behavior. New York: Harvard University Press. Wilson, J .Q., & Boland, B. (1978). The Effect of the Police on Crime. Law and Society Review, 12, 367 390. Wilson, C., & Braithwaite, H. (1995). Police patroling, resistance, and conflict resolution. In N. Brewer & C. Wilson (Eds.), Psychology and policing (pp. 5 29). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Wilson, W. (1913). The new freedom: A call for the emancipation of the generous energies of a peop le New York: Doubleday, Page & Company Retrieved from the Project Gutenberg Website: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14811/14811 h/14811 h.htm Witherspoon, P. (2010). Minority group threat and racial profiling: An analysis of pretextual traffic stops and outcomes in Missouri municipalities [Doctoral study : University of Missouri, St. Louis). Retrieved from http://0 search.proquest.com.skyline.ucdenver.edu/docview/816338037?pq origsite=summon Withrow, B. L. (2001). Race based policing: Alternatives for assessing the problem. In W. Palacios, P. F. Cromwell, & R. Dunham ( Eds), Crime and justice in America (2nd ed. )(p p. 183 190). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Withrow, B. L. (2002a). Race based policing. In D. Levinson (Ed.), Encyclopedia of crime and justice (pp. 1335 1338). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Withrow, B. L (2002b). The Wichita stop study Retrieved from http://www.wichitapolice.com/ Withrow, B. L. (2006). Racial profiling : From rhetoric to reason Upper Saddle River, NJ : Prentice Hall. Withrow, B.L. (2007). When Whren won't work: The effects of a diminished capacity to initiate a pretextual stop on police officer behavior. Police Quarterly 10, 351 370. Wolf, J.F. (2005). Public administration's multiple institutionalized frameworks. Public Organization Review, 5 (3), 183 200. Wood, R.L., Davis, M. & Rouse, A. (2004). Diving into quicksand: program implemen tation and police subcultures. In W.G. S kogan, W.G. (Ed.), Community Policing: Can it Work? (pp. 136 161). Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth. Woodward, B., & Armstrong, S. (2005). The brethren: Inside the Supreme Court. Simon & Schuster.
! #$+ Wooldridge, B., & Gooden, S. (2009). The epic of social equity: Evolution, essence, and emergence. Administrative Theory & Praxis 31(2), 222 234. Worden, R. E., & Pollitz, A. A. (1984). Police arrests in domestic disturbances: A further look. Law and Society Review 18 105 119. Wortley, R. (1997). Attributions as a function of expertise: The case of the police decision to arrest. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 27 525 538. Wortley, R. K. (2003). Measuring police attitudes toward discretion. Criminal Justice and Behavior 30 538 558. Wright, N.D. (1988). Papers on the ethics of administration. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Wyatt, G. (2008). Family ties: Relationships, socialization, and home schooling. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Yang, K., & Holzer, M. (2006). The performance trust link: Implications for performance measurement. Public Administration Review, 66 (1), 114 126. Yoshino, K. (2011). The new equal protection. Harvard Law Review, 124 (3), 747 801. Zald, M.N. (1995). Progress and cumulation in the human sciences after the fall. Sociological Forum, 10 (3), 455 479. Zhao, J., & Hassell, K. (2005). Policing sty les and organizational priorities: Retesting Wilson's theory of local political culture. Police Quarterly, 8, 411 430. Zhao, J., & Lovrich, N. (1998). Determinants of minority employment in American municipal police agencies. Journal of Criminal Justice, 26 (4), 267 277. Zhao, J., He, N., & Lovrich, N.P. (1999). Value change among police officers at a time of organizational reform: a follow up study using Rokeach values. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 22(2) 152 170 Zhao, J., He, N., & Lovrich, N.P. (2006 a ). Pursuing Gender Diversity in Police Organizations in the 1990s: A Longitudinal Analysis of Factors Associated With the Hiring of Female Officers. Police Quarterly 9(4), 4 63 485 Zhao, J. He, N., & Lovrich, N.P. (2006b). The effect of local political culture on policing behaviors in the 1990s: A retest of Wilson's theory in more contemporary times. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34 (6), 569 578.
! #$" Zhao, J., Ren, L., & Lovrich, N. (2010). Wilson's theory of local political culture revisited in today's police organizations: Findings from longitudinal panel study. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 33(2), 287 304. Zimring, F. E. (2006 ). The Great American Crime Decline Oxford, U.K.: Ox ford University Press. Zingraff, M. T., Mason, H. M., Smith, W. R., Tomaskovic Devey, D., Warren, P., McMurray, H. L., et al. (2000). Evaluating North Caroling State Highway Patrol data: Citations, war nings and searches in 1998 Charlotte: Authors. Zingraff, M., Smith, W., Tomoaskovic Devey, D., Mason, H.M., Warren, P.Y., Wright, C.P. et al. (2003). The North Carolina highway study: Final report to the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice Washington: U.S. Department of Justice.
! #$# APPENDIX A FURTHER INFORMATION ON PHILOSOPHICAL UNDERPINNINGS OF SOCIAL EQUITY RESEARCH Under most political philosophy conceptions, the chief role of government is to provide enough order to protect these natural rights, especially property (and implicitly privacy) while not trampling on them. One consequence of England's unique government t raditions was that many, but not all, political philosophers simultaneously envisioned governments as both protectors and tyrannical violators of individual liberties, a contrast to the more public centered approach to government that had dominated philoso phical thought for centuries (MacIntyre, 1967, 1981, 1988, 1990; see also Middlekauf, 2007). Obviously, the work of Thomas Hobbes (1660/1982) is an exception to this, at least in part. Hobbes, a precursor to Locke, also was a social contract theorist and saw rights as stemming from a deity (albeit more materialist in conception than in Christian theology). While wanting a strong central authority to keep order, Hobbes also admitted that any legitimate government would need to be in accord with natural law. This English conception of government tyranny, itself a consequence of aristocratic struggles against t he Crown (Schwartz, 1980), helped lead to the view that political rights are not only individually based but were either negative, usually meaning freedom from something, or positive, usually meaning freedom to do/achieve something (Carter, 2012). This is also in contrast to the French public centered view posited by Rousseau (1762/1978), who emphasized that the greatest goods were liberty and equality determined through the public will. This raises questions about these two conflicting views of government A s noted by Berlin (e.g., 1968, 1978, 2002), both notions arise out a single political ideal (i.e., freedom) yet are incompatible. For instance, Berlin observed that political liberals in the English tradition favor negative liberty, arguing for limitati ons on government power. Opponents have emphasized positive liberty, namely self determination and living up to one's own potential, usually through fostering state mechanisms to assist in this process. In this way, a seemingly simple word like "freedom", much like "fairness", simultaneously has a generalized, ill defined public meaning as well as differing individual interpretations that depend upon notions of ideal state power (MacIntyre, 1967, 1981, 1988, 1990). However, other philosophies differ enormo usly. For instance, Platonists and Neo Platonists have argued that conceptions like "justice", "fairness", and "beauty" have perfect Forms that individuals using reason can ascertain (Frede, 2013). Kantians have argued that rational agents bind themselves to an absolute and unconditional categorical imperative, or propositions declaring an action necessary, out of reasoned necessity (Johnson, 2008). Traditional Christians have argued that these rights come from God (Holmes, 2006). In brief, consensus on the origin of rights, including of equity, as well as on any absolutely definition are far from realized, but a central link between these ideas is that rights ultimately come from outside of humanity. The problem is that modern definitions stem from competin g (and possibly incoherent) philosophical traditions (MacIntyre, 1967, 1990), which in tandem with impoverished rationalities to parse these concepts, make them difficult to discuss and measure (MacIntyre, 1988; see also Fischer, 1980). In other words, und er this conception, it is typical to see individuals positing the existence of an absolute definition, usually as rooted in some understanding of natural law and with or without an interventionist deity, while not fully demonstrating that such a deity, nat ural law, or natural rights exist independently from
! #$$ the societies in which they operate and from the governments that protect them (Arendt, 1951). As demonstrated by MacIntyre (1967, 1981, 1988, 1990), the roots of Western analytic thinking on values, whi ch is the forerunner of discussing modern political rights, stem from Aristotle, who conceived that human understandings of telos (or end purposes) give rise to virtues, that then give rise to rules, such as ethics. However, according to MacIntyre (1981), the Aristotelian, social centered view was replaced in the European Enlightenment with individual centered views, out of which rose the English social contract political philosophies that most influenced the Founders of the United States (Levy, 1988; Schwa rtz, 1980). The result was that European Enlightenment political thinkers increasingly emphasized the individual (and not the community) as moral interpreter, facilitating preferences for subjective, idiosyncratic views of virtues and associated rules. Exe mplars of the Aristotelian tradition, such as Thomas Aquinas (Thomism), asserted a teleological belief of humans having a definitive end goal (i.e., eternity with or without God) as well as perfectable public and moral character. Thomist thought had a dist inct public character through emphasizing humanity and then an individual as beneficiaries of rights (Garrigou Lagrange, 2012). Further, Thomists argued that legitimate governments had boundaries over which they could not cross, an idea from which moral ph ilosophers from Aquinas' time onward have largely not deviated (Selman, 2007).
! #$% APPENDIX B PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE This study imp licate s numerous philosophies of science. G iven that scholars "rely on a philosophy of science to interpret the meanings, logical relations, and consequences of [their]observations and theoretical statements" (Van de Ven, 2007, p. 36), defining social equity requires any researcher to be aware of the competing conceptual definitions of social equity, s pecifically regarding the source of rights, to whom these rights apply, and the extent to which those rights can be defined and measured. Without understanding and parsing these notions, scholars are likely employing implicitly or explicitly competing defi nitions. This process begins with understanding the nature of defining abstract terms (see Boyd, 1991; Niiniluoto, 1999; Russell, 1972; Suppe 1977, 1989). An idealized scientific process posits a linear function of situating, grounding, and diagnosing a r esearch problem (Van de Ven, 2007, pp. 95 96), which requires distinguishing between "theoretical and observable terms" (p. 114), and then determining and defining implicated concepts, constructs, and variables (pp. 117 120).However, this process is not si mple, and the implications for social equity are profound. According to Chick (2002), concepts are essentially mental representations of either real or agreed upon phenomena that are based upon experience; constructs, on the other hand, are theoretically b ased on observations that cannot be measured directly. However, this standard definition raises problems with respect to investigating something like social equity and can explain why scholars have had difficulties moving beyond notions such as "fairness" and "due process". Chick noted that: a) concepts pertaining to "real phenomena" could include things like "dogs, clouds, [and] pain" ; b) those pertaining to agreed upon phenomena could include things like "truth, beatify, justice, prejudice, value[s]", an d c) constructs could include "IQ, leisure satisfaction, environmental values", and so forth (paras. 1 2). The meaning of these terms can change based upon particular schools of the science of philosophy, which typically include positivism, relativism, pr agmatism, and realism (Johnson & Duberley, 2003). Much of public administration research has been dominated by positivist assumptions about the nature of reality, which typically operate under assumptions of ontological and epistemological objectivism in w hich an observer can be independent (Friedman, 1999). On the other hand, relativism is ontologically and epistemologically subjective in which the knower is embedded in the world and cannot stand outside of its constructs; pragmatism can be either but usua lly emphasizes relative epistemology and knower with a priori frameworks that affect perception (Rescher, 2000); and relativism is usually ontologically objective and epistemologically subjective with a conception of the knower similar to pragmatism (Johns on & Duberley, 2000, 2003; Van de Ven, 2007). In this way, there are fundamentally different assumptions regarding not only how well observers can understand something observed but also how well they can measure it (see Popper, 1963). For instance, the as sumptions behind stating "X is Y", which is a basic comparative format in symbolic logic (Langer, 2011), are that: 1) there exists some absolute, verifiable, and true definition against which scholars can compare and contrast findings, even if "no one has been able to say what it would mean to be closer to the truth,' let alone offer criteria to determine such proximity" (Niiniluoto, 1980, p. 446); and 2) that the terms actually are equal to one another. Each philosophy of science takes a different view on what a researcher can actually know in this process.
! # $& Much of this study follows a critical realist perspective. As noted by Van de Ven (2007), critical realism has the following tenets: 1) it is reasonable to assume the existence of a "real world" beyond that senses that is knowable, albeit with limits; 2) all facts/observations are theory laden with "no absolute, universal, error free truths"; 3) "no inquiry can be value free and impartial"; and 4) "multiple perspectives" are required in which "robust kno wledge is a product of theoretical and methodological triangulation where evidence is not necessarily convergent but might also be inconsistent and contradictory" (p. 38).
! #$' APPENDIX C SUBJECT OF POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY BILLS (2014 2016), CURRENT STATUS, AND MINORITY LEGISLATORS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Improving oversight and funds for training Y/Y* Y/Y Y/Y* Y/Y Y/Y* Protecting confidentiality of officers Y/N Y/N** Disclosing information on checkpoints Y/N Requiring body cameras Y/Y Y/Y Y/Y Y/Y Y/Y Determining when body cameras can be used Y/Y Establishing task force or pilot study to investigate body cameras Y/Y Y/Y Y/Y Y/Y Y/Y* Y/Y Revocation of officer certification Y/Y Mental health training for officers Y/Y Barring officers from questioning those outside jurisdiction Y/Y* Prohibiting recording officers in public Y/N Y/N Y/N Prohibit officers from interfering with public recording Y/Y* Protecting privacy of those on recordings Y/N Greater transparency when investigating shootings Y/Y Y/Y* Requiring more police chief training Y/Y* Protecting police from "frivolous complaints" Y/N Making targeting police a hate crime Y/N Extending officers' probationary period Y/Y Appropriations for data collection Y/Y* Prohibit use of race to stop motorists Y/Y Require officers to live where they serve Y/Y Require prosecution for police misconduct Y/Y Legend: Y/Y=Locale's legislature has debated bill; bill proposed by minority legislator Y/N=Locale's legislature has debated bill; bill not proposed by minority legislator *=Bill passed **Bill passed by legislature but vetoed by governor
! #$( APPENDIX D LOCALES' GOVERNMENT TYPES, PROPORTIONS OF AFRICAN AMERICANS ON CITY COUNCIL, PERCENTAGE OF AFRICAN AMERICANS ON CITY COUNCIL, AND CITIZEN GROUPS' OVERALL PERCEPTIONS Locales 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Gov Type M C C M M C C M M C M C M C C M C M M C M C Proportions of African Americans on city council 0/14 (0%) 1/12 (8%) 2/9 (22%) 4/8 (50%) 3/7 (43%) 2/15 (13%) 1/9 (11%) 3/10 (30%) 0/8 (0%) 2/13 (15%) 10/15 (67%) Percentage of African Americans on city council 4.1% 6.3% 26% 43% 55% 13.5% 15% 42% 6.5% 10% 51% Locale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Perception Proactive and positive Proactive, positive, but some changes needed Cautious and concerned Optimistic but cautious Inequitable and not improving Cautious and concerned Inequitable yet optimistic Inequitable and stymied Inequitable with questionable progress Inequitable but improving Inequitable but improving ! ! !
! #$) APPENDIX E 2000 AND 2010 CENSUS AND CENSUS CHANGES ! ! ! ! ! Locale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2000 Census 2.6% 39.3% 26% 45.3% 50.8% 13.5% 17.4% 40.4% 5.1% 10.2% 61.4% 2010 Census 4.1% 35.4% 26% 43% 54.7% 14.4% 15.4% 42.3% 6.5% 11.1% 54.0% Change +1.5% 3.9% 0% 2.3% +3.9% +0.9% 2.0% +1.9% +1.4% +0.9% 7.4%
! #$* APPENDIX F ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY INTERVIEWEES ! ! !
! #%+ APPENDIX G LOCALES' COMMUNITY POLICING AND SOCIAL EQUITY PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT STRATEGIES Locale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Community policing mission statement Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y At least 8 hours of community policing training for recruits Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Community policing training in service Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y SARA type problem solving projects actively encouraged Y Y N Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Number of patrol officers engaged in SARA type problem solving projects 20 40 0 35 300 0 300 0 1400 300 50 Evaluation criteria for patrol officers includes collaborative problem solving projects Y N N N N N Y N Y Y N Problem solving partnership or written agreement with local NAACP branch Y Y Y Y N N Y N Y Y Y Same patrol officers regularly assigned responsibility for areas or beats Y Y N Y Y N Y N Y N Y Estimated number of officers for regular beats 30 40 0 35 300 0 300 0 1300 0 50 Utilized information from community survey Y Y N N N Y N Y N Y Y Computerized records system Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Conducted research and statistical analyses Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Agency conducted analyses Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Outside organization conducted analyses N Y N N N N N N N Y Y Information provided on website Y N Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Ability of public to file complaint about officer on website Y N N N Y N N N N Y Y Social media used Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Social media allows public to rate the department Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Cameras on patrol cars Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Body cameras used N N N N Y Y N N Y Y N Presence of foot pursuit restriction policies as related to whether suspect is armed N N N N N N N N N N Y Estimated number of use of force incidents in the past year 50 60 90 450 750 100 70 600 500 700 350 ! ! !
! #%" APPENDIX H PERCEPTIONS OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND SOCIAL EQUITY PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT ACROSS GROUPS AND LOCALES "#$%&' ()*)+',!-.#/01 "#$%& 2 &'3'&!4#&)*)$%&!&'%5'.1 "%6!7,8#.$'9',* N6>76;6<97/!65D.4M1517/=! ,4=/1.=!>.19/1.!/.-=/!978! <47;6817<1 O47/67-182!896?:2! D4=6/6M1! 67/1.9647=! PQD17=6M1!K-/!M9?-9K?1 R.19/1.!<401=647!K1/C117!>.4-D= S9@1=!/9.>1/67>!<455-76/:! D.4K?15=!19=61. N6>76;6<97/!65D.4M1517/=! S9@1=!D4?6<67>!19=61.T!;4=/1.=! <6/6L17!/.-=/ N4<69?!51869!51==9>1=!67/1>.9?! # S97:!65D.4M1517/=T!U;/17! ;4=/1.=! >.19/1.!/.-=/ N1M1.9?!6==-1=!4;!1H-6/:!71M1.!>1/! 988.1==18 JK6?6/:!/4!?48>1!<45D?967/=!6=! 65D.4M1517/ V96?:2!D4=6/6M1!67/1.9647=!711818! W.4>.95=!01?D!<455-76/:!.1?9/647= X4!A>4?817E!D.4>.95 X4!>.4-DF=!4D67647!D1.D1/-9??:! >6M17!D.64.6/: V1D9./517 /!15D09=6L1=! /.97=D9.17<:!978!>448! <455-76/:!.1?9/647= S1/048=!67<.19=1!9<<1==!/4! D4?6<1 O6/6L17=!7118!/4!K1!.19?6=/6.95=! $ W.4>.95=!9.1!=/1D=!67!/01!.6>0/! 86.1647T!54.1!711818!/4!65D.4M1! 18-<9/647!978!H-9?6/:!4;!?6;1 PQ/1.79?!9<<4-7/9K6?6/ :! 51<0976=5=!.1H-6.18! O47<1.7=!/09/!1H-6/:!D.4K?15=!9.1! -781.!/01!=-.;9<1! V96?:2!D4=6/6M1!67/1.9647=!711818! V6M6818!4D67647=!.1>9.867>!1H-6/: Y-8>1/9.:!6==-1=!5197!/09/!/01!<6/:! 5-=/!D.64.6/6L1!<.651!;6>0/67>! /1<076H-1=!/09/!D.64.6/6L1!1;;6<617/! .1=-?/= X4!A=54@67>!>-7E!D467/67>!/4! 671H-6/:! S4.1!4M1.=6>0/!978!979?:=6=! 711818! W.4>.95=!D4=6/6M1!9;;1!1H-6/:T! <.651!6==-1=!815978!9647=! <6/6L17=!59:!74/!-781.=/978 O455-76/:!7118=!/4!K1! 95K9==984.=!4;!?9C!17;4.<1517/ N451!<6/6L17=!?1==!?6@1?:!/4! <4 5D?: % W.4>.95=!=04C!D4?6<1!<97!K1! =1.64-=!9K4-/!1H-6/: 344!=447!/4!81/1.5671!D.4>.95=F! 1;;1= S4.1!4;;6<1.!D.4=1<-/647=!711818 V96?:2!D4=6/6M1!67/1.9647=!711818! O455-76/:!09=!1Q/17=6M1!6==-1=!67! 5674.6/:!<455-76/61= S4.1!7118=!/4!K1!8471!/4!K.67>! 567 4.6/:!<455-76/61=!4-/!4;! D4M1./: O455-76/:!09=!1Q/17=6M1!6==-1=! 67!5674.6/:!<455-76/61= W.4>.95=!<9774/!5197!A=4;/!47! <.651E O45D?697<1!6=!1==17/69?!D9./!4;! 1H-6/: PH-6/:!65D.4M1517/=!86;;6<-?/!/4! =11 W4?6<1!9.1!-781.!9!56<.4=<4D1T! 71>9/6M1!9//17/647! 1.481=!D4?6<1! 9-/04.6/: & W.4>.95=!84!74/!.1=-?/!67! 65D.4M1517/= W4?6<1!9.1!4<<-D:67>!;4.<1 N/:5618!86=<-==647=!47!1H-6/:!8-1! /4!<4??-=647 V96?:2!D4=6/6M1!67/1.9647=!711818! O6/6L17=!4M1.=/9/1!1H-6/:!<47<1.7= Y-8>1/9.:!D.4K?15=!5197!/09/! 4/01.!D.4>.95=! 9.1!54.1! 65D4./97/ W4?6<1!7118!/4!K1!54.1!1H-6/9K?12! K-/!/4->0!47!<.651!9DD.49<01=! 59//1.!54.1!>6M17!<455-76/:! 6==-1= W.4>.95=!<4-?8!K1!1QD978182!K-/! /4->0!47!<.651!9DD.49<01=! 59//1.!54.1!>6M17!<455-76/:! 6==-1= O6/6L17=!4M1.=/9/1!1H-6/:! <47<1.7= O45D?697<1!6=!1==17/69?!D9./!4;! 1H-6/: W4?6<1!9.1!-781.!9!56<.4=<4D1T! 71>9/6M1!9//17/647!1.481=!D4?6<1 W.4>.95=!9.1!=/1D=!67!.6>0/! 86.1647T!54.1!.1H-6.18!/4!<-/! 84C7!47!.9<69?!D.4;6?67> W4?6<1!<9774/!AD4?6<1!/015=1?M1=E Z9<6=5!6=!1M1.:C01.1!67!/01! <45 5-76/:T!5674.6/61=!;11?!-781. G D.4/118!978!.1D.1=17/18 V96?:2!D4=6/6M1!67/1.9647=!711818! W4?6<1!?9.>1?:!84!1Q9?:!C09/!6=! 1QD118! O6/6L17!815978=!<97!K1! -7.19=479K?1 N451!>.4-D=!<47M67<18!4;;6<1.=!9.1! .9<6=/!67!/01!9K=17<1!4;!1M6817<1 S4.1!7118=!/4!K1!8471!/4!<47M67<1! <455-76/61=!/09/!/01:!<97!/.-=/! W.4>.95=!9.1!D4=6/6M1 O6/6L17=!C4-?8!.9/1!D4?6<1!;96.1.!6;! /01:!=9C!1M1.:/067>!D4?6<1!868 O6/6L17=!67=-;;6<617/?:!-781.=/978! D4?6<1 [==-1=!4;! =-DD4=18!671H-6/:!9.1! 9-9??:!4;;6<1.=!;4??4C67>!D4?6<:2! 74/!K167>!.9<6=/
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
! #%$ APPENDIX I REPRESENTATIVENESS, RECRUITMENT STRATEGY, AND CITIZEN PERCEPTIONS BOTH OVERALL
244 APPENDIX J AGENCIES' TRAININGS BY LOCALE
245 APPENDIX K ADDITIONAL COMMENTS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i Social equity grew out of arguments for "new public administration" but has proven to have greater longevity than its parent concept. ii It is important to point out that numerous, consistently executed, and focused studies of social equity over multifarious administrative and policy issues could help to resolve the lack of development of this pillar. It has taken hundreds (if not thousand s) of studies to articulate what efficiency and effectiveness mean in particular circumstances (and there is still more to learn), and the same applies for social equity. iii Improving efficiency, which is usually an input output metric (Grizzle, 2002), and effectiveness, which refers to assessing impacts, achieving purposes, and bureaucratic responsiveness (Hatry, 1980), have been hallmarks of public administration scholarship for over a century (see Barnard, 1938; Ellis, 1926). iv Pitts further noted: "The p ublic administration research community has failed to address these sorts of empirical issues, in large part because we are paranoid about doing empirical work that might cast social equity policies or programs in a negative light. In the process, we have created a false dichotomy between normative and empirical research that has prevented us from creating the knowledge that policy makers need to make policies and programs more effective at eliminating inequities" (p. i79). v Rosenbloom's criticisms were di rected at the 2004 special issue the Journal of Public Affairs Education devoted to social equity and schools. Jennings (2004) was the editor of the whole volume and provided a justification for the focus on schools and that social equity concerns remain e specially relevant in that policy domain. vi This point is logical given the language of the Fourteenth Amendment: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." vii The complexity of social equity requires understanding how different factors might affect one another, so scholars have often had difficulty pinpointing the most fruitful variables to study and determining the roots of social inequity. Some scholars have proposed that the basis of social equity is best "operationalized as economic equity", namely in tax policy (Gianakis & Snow, 2008). Other scholars have asserted that social equity concerns can be counfed by nt better considering intersectionalities (e.g., Bearfield, 2009; Stivers, 2002). viii Criminal justice literature more often uses "social justi ce", a related and more philosophical concept rooted in the work of Rawls' (1971) theory of social justice, which is broader than social equity yet places less emphasis on equity's administrative and legal guarantees (see Candler et al., 2009; Frederickson 2010). ix Deists posit that some divine agent created natural law, out of which arose natural rights, the most important being life, liberty, and property (Skyrms, 1996). x A common scholarly finding is that Americans, especially politicians, hold on to a nd forward generalized, ill defined, and even religiously oriented conceptions of values (see Neuman, 2013). As Bellah (1967) demonstrated, Americans often regard ethical principles associated with
246 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! American democracy, such as freedom and equality, and foun dational figures and documents, such as the Founders and the Constitution, with civic religiosity. xi For instance, in the recent ruling in Town of Greece v. Galloway (2014), the US Supreme Court asserted that prayers that started town meetings did not viol ate the First Amendment to the US Constitution because such prayers are ceremonial and in keeping with traditions and if officials make efforts at inclusion. The case of Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) is an example of this interpretive orientation in which the US Supreme Court concluded that a Georgia law that criminalized homosexual sodomy was constitutional because the original intent of the Fourteenth Amendment did not include protecting homo sexuals. xii The wording of the Ninth Amendment is as follows: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." xiii Not only does this help to simplify cognition (Simon, 1995; Weible, 2006), but evidence from evolutionary biology, psychology, and sociology is growing that ethics and morality were evolutionarily selected because of the advantages they give to species survival (Boeree, 2005). xiv For instance, Alisdair MacIntyre wa s both a Catholic as well as social constructivist who privately believed in a divine source of rights but was interested primarily in how people socially construct their meanings. xv Originalists often prefer the term "activist" interpretations. xvi The rul ing of the US Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) as well as United States v. Windsor (2013) help demonstrate these ideas. The Lawrence ruling overturned a Texas anti sodomy law, noting that consensual homosexual sex was protected under privacy and t hat changing societal conditions (among other things) mandated that equal protection should apply to homosexuals, a ruling that overturned all states' anti sodomy laws. The Windsor ruling overturned Section III of the federal Defense of Marriage Act of 199 6, which defined marriage as a union between one man (husband) and one woman (wife), on equal protection grounds and mandated that the federal government must recognize state approved same sex marriages. xvii The present author conducted a literature search through a prominent database and found that this first category spans disciplines beyond public administration, is vast, and comprises thousands of peer reviewed articles. When accounting for non scholarly sources, the number rises to the tens of thousands xviii As demonstrated by the present author's literature search, this number expands to over 8,000 when including non public affairs research, 18,000 when including any mention in in any type of scholarly work, and 24,000 when including newspapers. xix This i s part of the title of Rosenbloom's (2005) excellent piece critiquing social equity research. xx As mentioned previously, there are some arguments that economic metrics already subsume equity since economic metrics like Pareto Optimality or Kaldor Hicks, al ready have an implicit equity standard (see Bobrow & Dryzek, 1987; Casillo & Kammen, 2012; Weimer & Vining, 2010). xxi Namely that equity is reached in such a program when proportions of students in the program match the demographic proportions of students i n the school.
247 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! xxii The statement "equity is fairness" without any qualifiers is normative philosophy whereas the statement "equity is fairness, and fairness is Y according to Z" is empiricism. The problem becomes articulating the proper indicators of fairness ("Y") and to w hom/what those indicators apply ("Z") (see Langer, 2006 for an overview of symbolic logic). In brief, an empirical focus on equity requires examining that which is measurable. This is possible by focusing on political actors and institutions, and not on wh at it should be, which is a meta philosophical discourse (see Fischer, 1980). xxiii Most scholars agree that equity is not the same as equality (Dahl, 2007). xxiv As noted by Van de Ven (2007), these are foundational issues of philosophy of science that any frui tful scientific investigation must consider, namely "the nature of the phenomenon examined (ontology) and methods for understanding it (epistemology)" (p. 36). xxv The focus should first be on the equity duties of government since, legally, the equity dutie s of non profits and private industries are different, albeit overlapping. xxvi The Supremacy clause notes: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under th e authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land." xxvii This is related to the "suspect classification" doctrine arising out of Fourteenth Amendment rulings on the equal protection clause (see "Law" below). xxviii In other words, defining th em non democratically, which Rosenbloom (2005) warned against. For instance, Thompson (1975) criticized New Public Administration scholars in their attempts to define social equity, noting that the process of doing so violated the importance of defining su ch terms democratically and publically. xxix These could include administrative norms, procedures, rules, and the political, managerial, legal, and social processes involved in creating them (see March & Olsen, 2006; Lincoln, 2006; Niiniluoto, 1980; Ostrom, 2 006; Rosenbloom et al., 2008; Sabatier & Weible, 2007; Zald, 1995). xxx The reality is that even taking this position is taking a stand on epistemology and ontology as well as on basic assumptions regarding the philosophy of science. A relativist could easil y point out that this proposal merely swaps one set of (unproven) assumptions for another. This claim would be correct. The current author has to admit that even the attempt to be critically realist reveals a socially constructed ontology and points to an unprivileged epistemology "due to the incommensurability of discourses" (Van de Ven, 2007, p. 39). However, as the point is to improve empirics, the proposal herein is logical. The debate about epistemological and ontological positions must wait for anothe r day. xxxi Administrators are accountable to popular sovereignty through the elected legislatures and courts (Kettl, 2014; Rosenbloom et al., 2008). Further, while the full debate on the meaning of rights likely occurs in meta philosophical discourses in, o utside, and beyond the public sphere (see Fischer, 1980), legislatures and courts, ideally themselves servants of a sovereign people, are the most involved government branches with defining rights (Baum, 2012; Rehnquist, 2002; Woodward & Armstrong, 2005). As such, they broadly empower administrators. Without looking at what the rule of law allows, investigations of social equity will remain in a quagmire. xxxii A reader might think at this point that the author would indicate that a scholar should not be invol ved normatively in critiquing policies such as Jim Crow laws or separate but equal. This is
248 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! far from the truth. A legal focus allows a scholar to determine what a government's obligations are and the effects of implementation. A study employing this recons tituted pillar could easily note how a government's equity obligations (e.g., that African Americans have less rights than do Whites) are having detrimental effects on a population. The change here is that such studies do not rely solely on normative argum ents but, rather, make strong normative arguments while also being empirical. xxxiii As noted by Wolf (2005), these, along with agencies, routinization, professions, and markets "provide interpretive lenses that public servants experience during the workday" (p 183). xxxiv The reality is that there is a third, albeit not one worth mentioning in text. Using both the trichotomy and social equity avoids grounding the present research in other frameworks not rooted in governmental obligation, such as Wilson's (1967) bu reaucracy problem of conflict between accountability and control, Kettl's (2002) distinction between Hamiltonian, Jeffersonian, Madisonian, and Wilsonian views, among others (see Rosenbloom, 2013, pp. 384 385). xxxv For instance, one scholar found that that 9 0% of African Americans feel that police treat them unfairly versus 60% of Whites who feel that police treatment of African Americans is unfair (Sigelman et al., 1997). xxxvi As noted by Bou Habib (2008), situations involving equity and equality can be problem atic, especially determining whether profiling is always inequitable or whether, in certain instances, it is a useful tool to balance equity with security. xxxvii On the other hand, Virginia et al. (2001) found that Whites are more likely to consent to a search receive a ticket, and get arrested. Interestingly, one study found that Whites were as likely to have drugs in cars as were African Americans (Knowles et al., 2001). Regardless, more data are needed (Theobald & Haider Markel, 2008). xxxviii More simply, racial profiling occurs when minorities are stopped in numbers disproportionate to their numbers in society and with respect to other members of societies (Police Foundation, 2003). Revealingly, much of the data on the extent and problem of racial profiling come s from evaluations internal to police departments (Withrow, 2001). Other assumptions are that minorities commit a higher number of crimes and that police are acting reasonably (see Piquero, 2008). xxxix As suggested by Gelman et al. (2007), "reliable evidence of ethnic bias would require experimental designs that control for other factors so as to isolate differences in outcomes that could only be attributed to race or ethnicity" (p. 815). xl As demonstrated in studies employing the Police Public Contact Survey traffic stops are the most frequent interactions with police; rates of stops between African Americans, Whites, and Hispanics are similar (8.1, 8.9, and 8.9%, respective), African Americans and Hispanics are searched at higher rates than whites (9.5, 8.8 and 3.6%, respectively)(Durose et al., 2005). Given the aggregation at the national level and self report data, these data have limited insight into enforcement practices and patterns a state/local levels (Engel et al., 2002, 2004, 2006). xli This "turnpike census" study in New Jersey is famous in criminal justice literature. Research assistants counted cars on the road, tried to identify the race of drivers, tracked speed, and employed teams of observers who set their cruise control above fiv e miles per hour. Findings
249 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! indicated that African Americans and Whites seemingly violated traffic laws at the same rate. However, 73.2% of those stopped and arrested were black drivers, yet they comprised only 13.5% of the vehicles on the road (Lamberth, 1 996). Relatedly, African Americans often drive older, less maintained cars, which could make them more likely to be stopped (Alpert et al, 2007). xlii Two studies are important here. Harris (2002) defined driving populations by racial composition by using cen sus data on population by place of residence, defined the ages as between 15 and 75, accounted for the percentage of black households not owning a car (which, according to the US Federal Highway Administration National Personal Transportation Survey was 21 %), and found that African Americans were still more likely to be stopped and ticketed. Further, one study of Cleveland examined residential census data as an estimate, finding that African Americans are not the majority of drivers yet are still more likel y to be ticketed than whites (Dunn, 2009). xliii Fourth Amendment protections once only limited the federal government. The 1868 passage of the Fourteenth Amendment bound state and local administrators to the Bill of Rights, a process called "incorporating the Bill of Rights against the state", or simpl y "incorporation" (Nelson, 1998). Incorporation provided due process rights against the states and mandated that "No State shall  deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" (see Lash, 2014). Readers should consult endno te VI for the full language of Article I of the Fourteenth Amendment. xliv For reference, the exact language is: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be vio lated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." xlv Several other rulings are important as well. Officers can order occupants and passengers to exit the vehicle (see Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 1977; Maryland v. Wilson, 1997). This has largely protected searches initiated by dog alerts (see Illinois v. Caballes, 2005), thus allowing a "search incident to arrest" (see United States v. Robinson, 1973), pertaining to any reachable area (see Chimel v. California, 1969), which usually means an entire passenger compartment (see New York v. Belton, 1981). The court expanded these police powers of search and seizure if the occupant l eft the vehicle (see Thornton v. United States, 2004). However, However, police cannot stop vehicles for the sole reason of checking licenses and registrations (see Delaware v. Prouse, 1979). xlvi Relatedly, in Arizona v. Johnson (2009), the Supreme Court una nimously upheld that police can patdown a passenger in a stopped vehicle if the police have reasonable suspicion that the passenger is armed and dangerous. xlvii This means that the exclusionary rule is implicated. The exclusionary rule forbids the use of evid ence obtained from a search that violates a defendant's Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth amendment constitutional rights is normally inadmissible in court proceedings ( Weeks v. United States, 1914). This rule became binding on all states through the Fourteenth Ame ndment's equal protection clause in Mapp v. Ohio (1961). Several instances make evidence admissible: if a private party obtains the evidence, if the evidence would have been inevitably been found even
250 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! without a search, and if police acting in good faith ac t on a defective warrant yet believed their actions were legal ( Massachusetts v. Sheppard 1984; United States v. Leon 1984). As the Supreme Court has noted in several cases, the rule is not indiscriminately applied but, rather, is applicable in instances in which the "substantial social costs" engendered by using it (e.g., setting the guilty free) outweigh the need for deterrence (see Colorado v. Connelly 1986; Hudson v. Michigan 2006; Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole v. Scott 1998; United St ates v. Calandra 1974; United States v. Leon 1984). However, given that this is a rule that pertains to evidence seized, including in pretextual stops, inclusion of this as a variable overly complicates the question of the social equity and the practices of stops themselves. Future studies could investigate how this rule is implicated. xlviii Broadly, there are three levels of scrutiny in the courts: rational basis, intermediate, and strict. Established as part of the ruling in United States v. Carolene Produc ts (1938) and applied consistently since then, strict scrutiny means that any administrative action, law, or policy must satisfy three tiers: 1) there must be compelling government interest, namely that the action is necessary or crucial; 2) it must be nar rowly tailored (i.e., not be overbroad); and 3) it must use the least restrictive means. xlix In other words, agenda setting, policy formulation, adoption, implementation, evaluation, revision, and termination. l In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (2004), the Supreme Court upheld a Nevada law that required suspects to identify themselves during stops by law enforcement. li Many officers might simply be budget maximizing principals who stop motorists to maximize the utility gained from issuing tickets, although this is comparatively less useful when explaining why they stop pedestrians (see Makowsky & Stratmann, 2009). lii Social equity in terms of policing largely has been cast in terms of social justice, fairness, due process, and equality (Br unet, 2006; Collier, 2006; Jennings, 2005). liii Again, social equity becomes related to citizen perceptions. liv For instance, Levitan (1946) and Long (1952) applied Kingsley's notion to the US and noted that the US Civil Service represented American diversity albeit not perfectly. lv Thus, in tandem with bureaucratic factors, predictors of police behavior with extensive empirical validation involve how environmental factors influence both police bureaucracies and officers (e.g., Blau, 1970; Crank, 1990; Crank & Wells, 1991; Maguire et al., 2003; Zhao & Hassell, 2005; Zhao et al., 2006b; Zhao et al., 2010). For instance, these factors can include educational and training requirements (Liederbach & Travis, 2008) and the effect of professional standards mandated a cross departments and by political authorities (Walker & Katz, 2007). lvi Other studies have found that minority officers can be resistant to socialization into non minority officers' value systems (e.g., Paoline, 2004). lvii Interestingly, Nickels (2008) studi ed how uniform color influences citizens' perceptions of police. Even controlling for officer race, posture, and subjects' experiential, attitudinal, and demographic characteristics, uniform color seemed to be a stronger predictor of citizen impressions. B lack uniforms yielded more positive impressions than did lighter uniforms. These findings help suggest that the effects of race are complex and how little scholars understand these effects.
251 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! lviii It is obvious to see parallels to public sector/service motivati on (PSM). PSM is defined as an individual's predisposition to respond to motives grounded primarily or uniquely in public institutions and organizations" (Perry & Wise, 1990, p. 368). The theoretical impetus behind PSM is self determination theory, which posits that: 1) individuals exhibit motivations and respond to them differently depending upon organizational context and the characteristics of the task (Koehler & Rainey, 2008); and 2) motivation to serve in the public sector is different from that of th e private sector (Kelman, 1987). Scholars have established that public sector employees tend to be more altruistic (Crewson, 1997; Rainey, 1982), motivated by intrinsic rewards (Pandey & Stazyk, 2008), and value challenging work (Miner, 2005). More substan tively, such individuals are civically motivated to foster the public good and improve society, promote compassion, and enjoy policy making through extensive experience with a public bureaucracy (French & Emerson, 2014; Perry, 1996; Perry & Hondeghem, 2008 ). Further, the "more public" an organization is (i.e., its degree of publicness), the more PSM is useful to examine motivations (Vandenabeele, 2008). Levels of PSM are correlated with socio demographic characteristics. Education is a strong predictor of P SM (Moynihan & Pandey, 2007; Perry, 2000). More holistically, Perry (1997) found that individuals are more likely to be motivated by PSM if they report a closer relationship to God, have parents who value public service, and are more educated, suggesting t hat formative experiences affect PSM. Further, older, more highly educated females in long tenure managerial positions exhibit the most PSM (see Camilleri, 2007; Vandenabeele, 2011). ?6Q So complex are the intersections of these issues that Mastrofski (200 4) recommended that future empirical analyses inventory who and what influences police discretion and how that influence is manifested, which likely involves identifying o rganizational goal setting, controls, coalitions within organizations and political mandates (see Cohen et al., 1976; Cyert & March, 1963). lx Emblematically, Mendias and Kehoe (2006) presented four vignettes describing minor criminal incidents, asked police whether they would make an arrest, and asked them to rank the importance of how fo ur ideals factored in their decisionmaking (i.e., law enforcement; peace maintenance; procedural compliance; and whether the one stopped accepted responsibility); findings indicated that arrests rates were only 56% (despite that each event warranted an arr est) and that officers justified roughly 66% of their decisions using "law enforcement" and "peace procedure"). These findings reveal not only significant police discretion but also the likelihood that police use pre existing cognitive schemas when apprais ing incidents. lxi Laboratory studies involving presenting police with vignettes often reveal more stable results in terms of predicting how and when officers make arrest. For instance, findings suggest that some officers might use "efficiency" (e.g., adherence to procedure ) or "norms" (e.g., whether those stopped accepted responsibility), not a purely race based metric, when deciding to stop a motorist or pedestrian or to make an arrest (see Finn & Stalans, 2002; Stalan & Finn, 1995). lxii Perry and Rainey (1988) suggested the three criteria of publicness scholars most often use to distinguish public from private organizations, namely ownership (governments are collectively owned), sources of financial resources (consumer fees versus taxpay ers), and the model of social control (political control for governments versus largely market forces for private). According to
252 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Rainey (2009), these dimensions affect numerous processes and structures, including autonomy, economic incentives, goal clarity and values. lxiii It is possible that public sector/service motivation could explain some of these effects. However, there is evidence indicating that under some circumstances, minority officers exhibit differences in PSM versus White officers, a finding re lated to representative bureaucracy literature. For instance, minority officers often report higher job satisfaction, desire to help the public, and willingness to partner with the community (see Lasley et al., 2011; White et al., 2010). Further, minority officers often view their roles more broadly than do White officers and are more likely to see being constrained by the rule of law as important (Sun, 2003). Regardless, more studies are needed on relationships between levels of PSM and public sector emplo yee performance (Perry et al., 2009), especially concerning equity. Further, more data are needed on how a public sector ethos interacts with police officers' values as shaped by intra and interorganizational factors, especially culture, socialization, an d upbringing (see Larose et al., 2010). These data are needed considering that o fficer motivations and values could have profound impacts on the delivery of public goods as well as the legitimacy and accountability of the police (Tyler & Wakslak, 2004). It remains unclear whether police officers operate from a position akin to consensus theory, in which the criminal justice system imposes sanctions on those who break the law, irrespective of demographic factors, which is a prediction of consensus theory (se e MacDonald, 2003), or from conflict theory and the related minority group threat hypothesis, in which more conservative police values and culture help foster more discrimination against minorities out of a desire to eliminate perceived racial threats, thu s creating disparities in outcomes between groups (see Cureton, 2000; Weitzer, 1996; Witherspoon, 2010). Regardless, a strong commitment to public service like positively affects officer behavior to foster more social equity (see Lasley et al., 2011; Reine r, 2000). However, given the need to for extensive interaction with officers in order to measure PSM, these dimensions are out of the scop e of this study. lxiv The pervasiveness of inequity can have effects on participation rates and the receiving of services to which individuals are entitled; further, without equity included in assessment tools (e.g., the Program Assessment Rating Tool), citizens can often feel that public officials are not responsive to individuals' concerns (Wichowsky & Moynihan, 2008).