Table 2 Sensitivity to Ferguson Effects.
Model 1 (OLS) Model 2 (OLS) Model 3 (OLS) Model 4 (ordered logistic)
Model 5 (ordered logistic)
Less motivation Increased danger Affected colleagues Affected US citizens Affected local citizens
b (SE) β b (SE) β b (SE) β b (SE) OR b (SE) OR
Organizational justice −0.18⁎⁎ (0.02) −0.50 −0.07⁎⁎ (0.01) −0.37 −0.10⁎⁎ (0.01) −0.42 −0.03⁎⁎ (0.01) 0.97 −0.06⁎⁎ (0.01) 0.94 Self-legitimacy −0.10 (0.08) −0.06 0.06 (0.05) 0.06 −0.07 (0.06) −0.06 0.08⁎ (0.04) 1.08 0.03 (0.04) 1.03 Age −0.50 (0.27) −0.11 −0.36⁎ (0.15) −0.15 −0.33 (0.19) −0.10 0.01 (0.12) 1.01 −0.04 (0.13) 0.96 Male −0.63 (0.51) −0.05 −0.05 (0.30) −0.01 −0.46 (0.39) −0.06 −0.78⁎⁎ (0.28) 0.46 −0.31 (0.25) 0.74 Minority −0.83 (0.49) −0.08 −0.67⁎ (0.28) −0.12 −0.27 (0.36) −0.04 0.11 (0.23) 1.11 0.29 (0.23) 1.34 Four year degree 0.78 (0.46) 0.08 0.21 (0.27) 0.04 0.43 (0.32) 0.06 0.11 (0.21) 1.11 0.30 (0.21) 1.35 Deputy −0.88 (0.53) −0.08 −0.81⁎⁎ (0.28) −0.15 −0.91⁎ (0.35) −0.12 −0.44 (0.23) 0.65 −0.14 (0.22) 0.87 Patrol −0.15 (0.49) −0.02 −0.27 (0.27) −0.05 −0.02 (0.35) 0.00 0.30 (0.23) 1.35 0.26 (0.22) 1.30 Experience ≥10 years 0.25 (0.61) 0.03 −0.29 (0.31) −0.06 −0.26 (0.42) −0.04 −0.39 (0.27) 0.68 −0.36 (0.27) 0.70 Military 0.29 (0.48) 0.03 0.16 (0.27) 0.03 0.63 (0.35) 0.09 −0.23 (0.23) 0.80 −0.26 (0.22) 0.77 Intercept 28.08⁎⁎ (1.97) – 15.92⁎⁎ (1.19) – 21.28⁎⁎ (1.42) – – – – – F-test 18.07⁎⁎ 8.85⁎⁎ 10.17⁎⁎ 3.76⁎⁎ 7.07⁎⁎
R2 0.29a 0.15a 0.21a 0.05b 0.07b
N 369 364 370 374 373
Note: All models estimated using MICE (M = 10). Entries are unstandardized regression coefficients (b), robust standard errors (SE), standardized regression coefficients (β), and odds ratios (OR). ⁎ p b 0.05. ⁎⁎ p b 0.01. a Mean Adjusted R2. b Mean McFadden’s R2.
17J. Nix, S.E. Wolfe / Journal of Criminal Justice 47 (2016) 12–20
dangerous in the post-Ferguson era. Here again, organizational jus- tice on the part of supervisors seemed to protect deputies from the negative consequences of the Ferguson Effect. It is also worth noting that compared to white respondents, minorities (b = −0.67, p b 0.05) were significantly less likely to report an increased sense of danger in law enforcement. Given that much of the negative pub- licity surrounding the Ferguson controversy has dealt with the shooting of unarmed black citizens by white police officers, it is per- haps not surprising that minority officers are less likely to believe law enforcement has gotten more dangerous.
Model 3 focused on the extent to which respondents believed their colleagues had been impacted by negative publicity stemming from Ferguson. Our third dependent variable – affected colleagues – was regressed onto organizational justice and each of the control variables. The model explained 21% of the variation in the outcome variable. Once again, the organizational justice coefficient (b =−0.10, p b 0.01) was negative and statistically significant. Dep- uties who believed their agency and its command staff was fair and respectful were less likely to feel that their colleagues have been affected by negative publicity in the months following Ferguson.
Models 4 and 5 explored the extent to which respondents believed the Ferguson controversy had influenced citizens’ attitudes toward the police. Using ordered logistic regression, Model 4 regressed our fourth dependent variable, affected US citizens, onto organizational justice and the controls. As expected, organizational justice (b = −0.03, p b 0.01) was significantly and negatively associated with the belief that US citi- zens’ views of the police had gotten worse in the six months leading up to the survey. Those deputies who perceived greater organizational fairness within their agency were less likely to feel that citizens’ views of the police have gotten worse. In this way, organizationally fair treat- ment by supervisors seems to protect officers from cynical orientations about citizens. In Model 5, we explored a similar question but focused more specifically on respondents’ beliefs about local citizens’ views of the police. Our final Ferguson Effect variable – affected local citizens – was regressed onto organizational justice along with the controls. Again organizational justice (b = −0.06, p b 0.01) was significantly and negatively associated with the outcome. That is, deputies who per- ceived greater organizational justicewithin their agencywere less likely to believe that local citizens’ views of the police had worsened in the
6 months since Ferguson. With the findings in hand, we now turn to a discussion of the implications surrounding the results.
7. Discussion
There has been much debate over the existence of a Ferguson Effect on US police over the last year and a half. Although the notion that the Ferguson Effect is responsible for a nationwide crime trend has been debunked (Pyrooz et al., 2016; but see Rosenfeld, 2016), a growing body of evidence suggests that cops have indeed been impacted by con- tinued negative publicity (Morgan & Pally, 2016; Nix & Wolfe, 2015; Wolfe & Nix, 2016a). If in fact police officers across the country are less willing to be proactive on the job in the post-Ferguson era, this is a serious problem that we need to know more about. For example, re- ductions in proactive stops, order-maintenance policing, and other strategies known to be effective in crime reduction may have a more lagged effect on crime problems in particular communities than recent research has been able to observe. As such, a question we felt was im- portant to ask was: what factors are associated with officer sensitivity to negative publicity stemming from the Ferguson controversy? This study suggested that respondents’ perceived organizational fairness on the part of their supervisors was significantly associated with less sensitivity to five manifestations of the Ferguson Effect. Officers who felt their agency was fair were less likely to report (1) being unmotivat- ed, (2) that lawenforcement has becomemore dangerous, (3) that their colleagues have been impacted by negative publicity, and (4) that citi- zens’ attitudes (both nationally and locally) toward the police have worsened. With these results in mind, several issues warrant more de- tailed discussion.
Organizational justice extends beyond thewalls of the police depart- ment and ultimately protects cops. Respondents who indicated that their agency and command staff are fair, objective, honest, and respect- fulwere less sensitive to negative publicity surrounding their profession in thewake ofMichael Brown’s death in Ferguson. This finding adds to a growing body of literature which suggests that internal fairness pro- duces beneficial outcomes for individual officers, agencies, and the pub- lic at large (Bradford&Quinton, 2014; Trinkner et al., 2016;Wolfe &Nix, 2016a;Wolfe & Piquero, 2011).We implore researchers to continue ex- ploring organizational fairness in the police context – perhaps, for
18 J. Nix, S.E. Wolfe / Journal of Criminal Justice 47 (2016) 12–20
example, as it relates to important issues such as embracing evidence- based practices and adopting new technologies such as body-worn cameras. It is probable that agencies which emphasize internal fairness are more likely to generate buy-in from line-level officers on such matters.
Academic research on the Ferguson Effect has dramatically im- proved our understanding of thephenomenon. Simply put, scientific ev- idence is more valuable than conjecture. Research has revealed that there are important Ferguson-related effects on officers’ orientations to- ward their job and de-policing behaviors. It is also possible that the neg- ative publicity surrounding deadly force incidents such as those in Ferguson and Baltimore have thrust the police into a legitimacy crisis. That is, in response to the deaths of several unarmedblack citizens in re- cent years, US citizens may have begun to challenge the legitimacy of the police (see Bottoms & Tankebe, 2012; Tyler, 1990; Tyler & Huo, 2002). Any look at social media outlets will clearly reveal that a sizable portion of the American public is questioning the legitimacy of police use of force, particularly in minority communities. A recent experiment by Culhane et al. (2016) supports this argument empirically by showing that citizens are less likely to view police shootings as justified in the post-Ferguson era. This evidence suggests that the Ferguson-related in- cidents have also negatively impacted citizens’ orientations toward law enforcement. At this point, we need more theoretically-grounded and policy-relevant research on the legitimacy crisis that may be facing American police. The implications of reduced legitimacy are potentially far reaching and may impact police-community relations and crime for generations to come if not adequately addressed (Wolfe, McLean, & Pratt, 2016).
This issue brings us to the policy implications of our findings. In the face of public scrutiny of immense proportions, law enforcement agen- cies are in a position where they must act. Our findings underscore the importance of organizational fairness from supervisors and agencies more broadly. This is not necessarily surprising given that decades of re- searchhas demonstrated the role of organizational justice in the context of various employment and subordinate settings (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001; Reisig & Bain, 2016). The policy im- plication of this observation is straightforward: to minimize the impact of negative publicity and the Ferguson Effect on officers, agencies must strive to use organizational justice as a guiding principle of their mana- gerial philosophy. Ensuring that internal policies and procedures are fair, disciplinary proceedings and hiring/promotion decisions are based on objective indicators, allowing subordinate officers a voice in agency decision-making, and treating subordinates with respect and dignity are some of the ways in which police supervisors can cultivate a climate of organizational fairness in their agencies. Organizationally fair treatment sends the message to officers that the agency and its su- pervisors has their back and communicates to them that they are part of the agency (rather than simply a subordinate employee). Ultimately, this allows an agency to create a situation where officers believe that if something unfortunate occurs on the street, such as having to shoot a civilian, their agency will support them, provide a fair inves- tigation process, and not make decisions based on political pressure or public scrutiny. It is important to note, however, that political pressure is often an inescapable aspect of law enforcement. As such, we need to keep in mind that organizational justice on the part of police agencies cannot be fully separated from the efforts on the part of local governments (e.g., mayors and city councils) to do the same thing. Arbitrary decisions from local government officials have the power to undermine organizational justice within police agencies. Additionally, advocating for the use of organizational jus- tice does not absolve officers or agencies from misconduct and poor community relations. Indeed, police reform is needed in the US, particularly in certain communities. Ensuring organizational fair- ness within an agency is one prong to such reform.
Organizational justice training programs need to be developed with an eye toward helping agencies achieve these goals. Several
training platforms organized by both government (e.g., the Office of Community-Oriented Policing) and private entities have already emerged. When such training is implemented within agencies, there is a need for evaluation research dedicated toward under- standing what works with such programs and what does not. Owens, Weisburd, Alpert, and Amendola (2016) recently conducted an experiment in which they successfully implemented a low-cost procedural justice-centered training of officers in Seattle. Results re- vealed that trained officers were less likely to resolve incidents with arrest or force. An important component of this intervention includ- ed organizationally fair treatment by supervisors. More training programs and related evaluation research need to focus on organiza- tional justice within police agencies in the future.
The importance of organizational justice within police depart- ments cannot be overstated. Good policing starts inside the walls of police agencies. Simply put, we cannot expect officers to engage in procedural justice on the street if they do not receive such treatment from their own supervisors. Internal procedural justice provides a model for police officers that is likely to translate into interactions they have with citizens (Bradford & Quinton, 2014; Van Craen, 2016). Accordingly, organizational justice has direct public safety consequences. We know that procedural justice policing is safer for cops and community members alike (i.e., as opposed to relying on coercive force) and causes citizens to more regularly voluntarily comply with the law (see Tyler, 1990). Our findings suggest that or- ganizational justice may also create a situation where cops will not hesitate to do things on the street that we know are effective at com- bating crime (e.g., work with community members). Ultimately, this means that organizational justice translates into safer communities.
While our study is the first of its kind to demonstrate theoretical- ly-salient and policy-relevant results concerning the correlates of sensitivity to the Ferguson Effect, there were several things we could not do that represent opportunities for future work. First, our measure of the extent to which respondents’ colleagues have been impacted by negative publicity may suffer from projection. Psycho- logical projection theory offers a reason to believe that while respon- dents might be hesitant to indicate having been affected by the Ferguson controversy, they may project such feelings onto their peers (Baumeister, Dale, & Sommer, 1998; Boman, Stogner, Miller, Griffin, & Krohn, 2011). Unfortunately, we are unable to determine whether this occurred with some of our respondents. One avenue for future research that may prove fruitful is the collection of social network data to gauge the extent to which peer effects shape sensi- tivity to the Ferguson Effect. Second, likemost prior studies, ours was carried out using cross-sal survey data from a single agency. As such, the generalizability of our findings may be limited because (1) we were unable to determine whether respondents’ attitudes have truly changed post-Ferguson and (2) we cannot be certain that our findings from this particular agency are generalizable to officers working in other agencies or other regions of the country. At the same time, however, it is important to note that our Ferguson Effect measures were retrospective in nature by asking respondents to in- dicate how events in the previous six months had impacted them. Future research using longitudinal designs and/or conducted with multiple agencies would certainly be fruitful on both theoretical and practical levels.
In the end, organizational justice should be a cornerstone of all police departments. The beneficial outcomes – to officers, agencies, and the public – are numerous. Fortunately, agencies can implement organizational fairness at little cost. The police profession will un- doubtedly face continued public scrutiny in the current era of social media, especially given that officers have the unique power to arrest and use physical (even deadly) force. In this way, the importance of our findings is not restricted to reducing sensitivity to the Ferguson Effect. Rather, our findings suggest that organizational fairness can encourage officers to continue performing their duties when such
19J. Nix, S.E. Wolfe / Journal of Criminal Justice 47 (2016) 12–20
public scrutiny does occur. Ultimately, this translates into better cops and safer communities.
Appendix A. Organizational justice and Ferguson Effect items
Organizational justice
My agency’s policies are designed to generate standards so that deci- sions can be made with consistency. My agency’s policies are designed to allow employees to have a voice in agency decisions (e.g. assignment changes, discipline). My agency’s performance evaluation system is fair. My agency’s investigation of civilian complaints is fair. I understand clearly what type of behavior will result in disciplinewith- in my agency. Landing a good assignment in my agency is based on whom you know (reverse coded). If you work hard, you can get ahead at this agency. As an organization, my agency can be trusted to do what is right for the community. I trust the direction that my department’s command staff is taking our agency. I feel confident about top management’s skills. Command staff considers employees’ viewpoints. Command staff treats employees with kindness and consideration. Command staff treats employees the same regardless of their gender. Command staff treats employees the same regardless of their race or ethnicity. Command staff clearly explains the reasons for their decisions. Command staff clearly explains the reasons the agency makes policy changes. Generally, command staff treats employees with respect. I trust that command staff makes decisions that have the agency’s best interest in mind.
Ferguson Effects
