Schoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al
Filing
500
DECLARATION of Alan H. Scheiner in Support re: 498 MOTION in Limine To Preclude Plaintiff From Offering Certain Evidence at Trial.. Document filed by Christopher Broschart(Tax Id. 915354 in his official capacity), Christopher Broschart(Tax Id. 915354 Individually), Kurt Duncan(Shield No. 2483, Individually), Kurt Duncan(Shield No. 2483 in his official capacity), William Gough(Tax Id. 919124, Individually), William Gough(Tax Id. 919124, in his Official Capacity), Elise Hanlon(in her official capacity as a lieutenant with the New York City Fire Department), Elise Hanlon(individually), Shantel James(Shield No. 3004 in his official capacity), Shantel James(Shield No. 3004 Individually), Theodore Lauterborn(Tax Id. 897840 in his official capacity), Theodore Lauterborn(Tax Id. 897840, Individually), Michael Marino, Michael Marino, Gerald Nelson(Assistant Chief Patrol Borough Brooklyn North, Tax Id. 912370 in his official capacity), Gerald Nelson(Assistant Chief Patrol Borough Brooklyn North, Tax Id. 912370, Individually), Frederick Sawyer(Shield No. 2576 in his official capacity), Frederick Sawyer(Shield No. 2576, Individually), The City Of New York. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G (Under Seal), # 8 Exhibit PTX 4, 6, 13, 16, 18, 22, 25, 26, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35, 40, 42, 46, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 59, 60, 62, 64, 65, 66, 72, 84, 93, 95, 306, 308, 309, 314, 316, 400, 401, 402, 403, 406, 407, 408, 409, 420, 421, 426, 427 (Under Seal), # 9 Exhibit PTX 79, # 10 Exhibit PTX 81 (Part 1 of 2), # 11 Exhibit PTX 81 (Part 2 of 2), # 12 Exhibit PTX 404, # 13 Exhibit PTX 410, # 14 Exhibit PTX 411)(Thadani, Kavin)
PTX 81
e L:1-0-cv-06005-RWS Document 400-3 Filed 02113/15 'Page
þ
o
.o
1-
of 72
g
r
rù -.ne. Ë rí.^T¡T.,.-r d rel'tdl -,..¡Þ r- l'1ft /'ií-i-Ë*f\,R.T
g,Flt Elt HËt i:l E l\.-:f1l l-ï< E I tsv tr n5 EtTt
_H. \-ltjtJ-iLB,-, Hj'r\.-,\r'.-r'.I,-.\-\-qE. ¡IJ À- .ø- tr suFl {
A ìÀTT\i ¡fl]T Tr*T rfí-tTf Tì¡"Þ Et
F"-[JË-r.H' U-m\.n, ;
låI\ß/
À li1^ ^oo - la*.^n¡c-4 rc\ ä-lí rr.+-o'n.+.rt!,r"i
å' 1,¡U."J.:} $J I Þ-Þ irt !. v,-E / L'.h. .t!t-rr.-¡¿1¡.nv$ *rv
"r,ar**.z
/ä
.-:','lìi'
tt
Rfi
EÈ
EJ
I
lÐ
A
tñä
ñ
tr
mt
'l
!
[¡tten-xnfi"É .{f f airs Btç.reau.
C+rranpÊion Frevellíji(:¡rh a.t?il.,A,nalysËs
ElD
EJiûig
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document
400-3
Filed 02/13/l-5 Page 2of 72
Utr^
WÍtrIÍâïìir J" Bratûon
Foiice Col'ii iri issicn er
Ðavid TV. Seoúf
First
D
eputy Commissio ner
Walfer Maek
ty Co rn lni.ssÍ o n er
ïntel'¡ral AffaÍrs
Ðep
u
Case l-:10-cv-06005-RWS Document
400-3
Filed 0211-3/l-5 trage 3 oÍ 72
.%.
q'or
tr
J
tir
'ñ
H
Ía
ø
EC
FI
H
E
il
Ë
ß
ú
É
J.d
ffæmÆrpÆdÆãtr psæp'W
fffe sW ffiW F#fl€
ÆÆVÆF
,Æqffid-H$#s
Fir ¡ñ
þ:l .fti l!Ëd ül H
Êl H.,,rgggw
twgdqg
Case 1:1-0-cv-06005-RWS Document
400-3
Filed 02/l-3l3-5 Påge 4 öt 72
¿F
#*Æ R u FTeærirr F æ wærurfl##
tråN¿,ry
Ærv*n¿.Hsd,s Fsn¡w
Fr+3ect ,qtaff
Cliarlcs r,/. Campisi
Inspector
Coiniiianding OffTcer
Sgt. Vincent X{enry
OÌUAP
Sgt. Leopold Foje
P.0. Ðert'ick Fel'vis
S.A. iea¡i
R.eËlly
Case 1-:l-0-cv-06005-RWS Document
400-3
Filed 02/1-311-5 Fage 3 of 72
TÀBI,E OF COllllEÌ'ITS
Pi\GE
SUBJECT
trqtrat trrlf l_rR sf rvt4,4q1'
^ a I t
1
lrtgvv
i¡'ITRODUCTTON
14
HBTHODOLOüY
18
ct{À}icEs l,lrTHrN THE DEPè.RTMENT (rSsUE
DEPÂRTNiEÌ,]T
VALUtrS (ISSUE
#
#
1)
?6
2I
31
DEPÀRTHENT DRUG TESTING POLICY (TSSUE
DEFINING CORRUPTION (TSSUE
#
4
#
3)
JJ
5)
INTEGRITY TESTING (TSSUN
4)
#
REPORTING CORRUPTION.(ISSUE
41
6)
SUPERVISORY TRÀTNTNG TSSUES ( ISSUE
CORRUPTTON TRÀTNTNG
38
43
#
52
7)
(ISsUE H 8)
ANCILLÃRT TSSUES (ISSUE
#
9
54
56
}
CONCLUSTON
suMl4ÀRY OF RECoIIMENDÀTTONS {¡rt¡CHpTENT "Àrr
61
)
64
FOCUS GROUP OUTËTNES (ÀTTÀCHMENT ,'B'I }
66
BItsLIOGRAPHY
68
Case 1:1-0-cv-06005-RWS Document
400-3
EXECUTIVE
Filed 02/1-313.5 Page 6ôf 72
SUV¿MARY
At the dlrectlon of Fol lce Comn j.ssioner Raymond KelJ.y, bhe
tnLernal Affalrs Bureaur s Corruption Þrevention and Analysi.s Unit
(Cpeu) f ntLlabed a serf es of Focus Groups 1n order l:o ldent.lfy
and explore some of the prevailing ablitudesr përcêptlons and
oginions exísLinç among members of bhe Deparl.menL. tct*ard a range
of integriþy re-Labed issues. This research projecb, çrhich
corunenced in early AugusL and concluded in Iate December, '1993
ulLi'-'aì;eIy involved l-rvenLy tl''ree ( 23 ) groups of- of f icers of
various ranjts and assignments wiLhih bhe agency, 6nd a tol-a] of
over bhree hundred ( 300) members parl-icipabed in bhe !"ocus
Groups.
The projec',. *as underr-¿k-en 1n recognibion of t,he facb bhat
the informal demands and constralnts of bhe poìice occupatíonaÌ
of ten impacL as pobently upon ¡rolice discreti.onary
cu lture
bchavior as the formal policies and procedures prorilulgab,ed by the
âEency. Vlhile ùhe liLera[:ure of policing a¡rd of police deviance
have lorig emphasizeâ bhe importance of culbural factors in
determining police behavior' a greaL deal of that research Õn
polÍce culbure is daled, arrd bherefore of dubious value. rn
order bo EaÍn a more comprehensive and conbemporary understanding
of the atLitudes, fercepbions and belief sysbems which are
subsumed by the police subculture, and Lo provide bhis daba bo
the Po1ice Commissioner in order to beLL.er Ínform his policy
decisions, the research tean adopLed a Focus Group nrethodologry.
Focus Groups involve i¡rLeracLive direc{-ed interviews of
smalI groups of individual-s of similar backgrounds, in order to
develop information and t-o reach concl-usions aboub other
individual-s and groups possessed of sÍmil,ar characLeristics.
Focus Group methodology was deemed a vÍable and approprÍaÈe
formab for eficiting dal-a relabive t.o inbegrity issues, since bhe
enduring potenbial for police corruption appears inevitabry to
exist within the nexus of discretionary behavior, formal control
Policiesr añd bhe occupalional culture's toferance for members,
deviaûce. Consistenb wibh accepted practices of Focus Group
research, each group was cornprised of approximaL.ely fif teen (1S)
members, and twenLy ( 20 ) of bhe bwerrty l_hree ( 23 ) groups uere
randomly selected by compuLer from the population of officers
possessíng similar background characl-eris L.ics . The relevant
backgrorrnd characterisbics, vrhich incl.uderJ r_-ank, [-enurÉ in the
aggncy, . Lype of assignnrenb (i. e. , patrol . Communi L.y policing
unit, ËieLd Training unib, Porice Academy recruil-s, iupervisorõ
and middle managers), and irr so¡ne cases tne platoon to which bhe
officers were steadily assigned, were sel-eðLed because these
easily-operationalized variables appear most rikely Lo ptay a
powerf uI role in determ j.ning r'¡ork-related atbi budes and Lrelieis
.
Case 1-:1-0-cv-06005-RWS Document
400-3
Filed 0211-31L5 Page 7 ot 72
(21
Thus, each of Lhe offícers atbendtng a Parbicular Focus Group
sesslon had a com¡:arable career prof1le, and would L.lterefore be
expecLed L.o have slmtlar abb.f tudes. By e).tmlnatf ng selecblon
biàs througlr randornization lechnlques, by ensurlng that all
nembers of a particular Focus Group shared Lhe safne or
essenbially simlLar backgrnunds and work experiences, and b'¡
probirtg deepiy inLo the atbitudinal daEa bhey elici[ed, the
project su¿rff are coiriiôcni: irr gen+raJ.j.zi:':-o these finclings bo
õther simi. larly si{-r¡at ed groups and individuals wibhin the
Department. This level of confidence t/as furLher enhanced by
sliqhbty alLering the selecl-ion criteria of successive groups,
and by 6þss¡ving Lhe slight differences in bhe beliefs and
convictions espoused i:y L.hose. çr-cuPs. Tha scoPe and durab,ion of
th.e pro jech also permi tteiì Lhe research ta¿m to eccurnuLa be a
rreatth of general and specific daba concerning officers' belief
systerrrs, ôs l;ell as Lc disce¡:n manv of the subtler a¡rd more
nuanced cìynainics of bhcir se),f -reporLed behavior. Each of Lhe
Focus Groups rdas conducted in a "round-table'r formaE, and
participants were asked to respond bo an ídenL.ical series of open
ended quesbions related to integriby and corruption. fn order bo
ensure the reliabii-iiy of t.he daLa, Lhe facilitabors refrained
fron introducing Lheir own opinions, and made every effort bo
encourage candid discussÍon anrong parbicipents. To that end,
participants were assured thab a).though not.es would þe Laken by
one rnember of the projecb staf f , no names or identibies '*ould be
recorded; ab Lhe end of each session, par[icÍpanLs v¡ere asked to
review t,he ç¡rÍl-i;en nobes to guaranhee accuracy and anonymity. It
should be ernphasized thai; the facilit.ators encountered l-itLle
reluctance on t.he parL of of f icers t.o discuss Lhe issues and
guestions posed to bhem. fndeed, bhe vast majoriEy of
parLicipant.s seeared bo appreciabe bhe oppotLuniby bo share their
views and opinÍons wiLh bhe projecb st.aff, in apparent hope Lhab
their input would result in substanbive and posiCive changes ho
DepartmenL poì-icies and pracbices.
The following questions were posed to bhe Focus Group
parLicipan bs
1. l{or+ has the job of polÍce off icer changed in t.he pasl
Years ?
2. ' Àre Lhe Deparl-menL values reaso¡rab.Le or unreasonabte?
3.
F/hab. Ís reasonable and unreasonable abou l- bhe
Deparl-rnent/ s Drug Test,ing poì. icy and procedure?
4. How do Police Officels define corruption?
5. 9lhat role do inEeg:riLy tesLs ptay in the DepartmenL,s
ant i-corrup[:ion ef for t.s ?
6. Hov¡ do He encourage Lhe reporLing of corrupbion?
1. whaL are
t-he train.ing - needs for
porice
supervisors? (quesl-ion posed L,o supervisory. gtoupsi
8. How effective is corruption training?
:
Case l-:1-0-cv-06005-RWS Document
400-3
Filed 0211-31L5 Rage B'of 72
(3)
Às nobed, participanLs' responses Lo Lhese questlons
resulþed 1n bhe conrpllaLton of an abundant. base of df verse dat.a
concerning the depbh, dimenslons and prevalence of partlcular
at{:ttudes boçrard lntegr{by and corruptlon r+iLhin bhe agency and
wlthin specific populat,tons of ibs personnel. The exbensive and
in|rÍcate nature of Lhis dat-a set, in iact, presenbed bhe project
staf f: wi t-h sor¡ìe dÍ f f iculty in disLilLing and condensing i b Lo a
icrrnab sr;: table f or bhis reForb. Based upon bhe raw dala
obbaÍned, however, Lhe projeçt staff have developed a host. oí
Eindings and conclusions reìaLive to Lhe dynamics of Lhe fiolice
cu1L,ure and {-he level- of inlegrity wil:hin t.his Depar[ment, These
daEa have also resulbed in a number of speci fic polÍey
rÊcûíiìÍììenCe'cicns. îr'hile bhe bul-k of bhese f indings and
recoinrìende'¿iu.ns êre contained v¿I Lhln the body of Ehis report,
some of the principal cribical findings are sunnrarized below'
fL should be noLed Lhab wherever possible bhe projecb sfaff have
atLernpbe.d [o capture, in Lhis sumnary and in the repori,, Lire
bypical language and connotatÍons used by Focus Group
particípants.
ISSUE #1 Hcrv htu; bhe job.-oË-Pql"iqe
Of-fig¡¡r c-hanqed?
I'ice-breaker" guesbj.on Has int,ended
bo
this inibiaT
sbimulate díseussion aroong parlicipants and bo idenb.i f y broad
rn raising these
issues and trends wltich cc,ncern officers.
issues early in [he þ'oeus Çroup process, pfojec[ sbaff were ab]e
nob only Lo gain Ínsight into the general level oi morale, but to
prevenL Lhese issues from Iat.er inbrudinçr upon and disbracting
from discussions of inbegrity-specífic issues. In virtually aII
of the groups, a similar seb of percept.ions and bhemes emerged;
bheir recurring nature is evidence of their pervasiveness and of
bhe fact thab bhe culLure holds bhem unguesbionably as valid
bru bhs .
Àmong those in the Police Officer rank, Sergeanh.s were
roundly cri bicized for an Íncreasing lack of ìnberacbive
co¡nmunication skills ãnd job knot+J.edge, as vrelì- as for lheir Iack
of impartialiLy and Lheir poor decision-making ski11s. These
sentiments were echoed by Capbains as weII.
Inereasirrglyr SergeanLs are young and inexperienced, and
úheir practice of social.izing off-duby r,,'j.th srrbordinahes is
det,rimental bo their on-dul-y command and conLrol.
Precinct--based Field Training Un its (F'TU/ s) brere harshly
crib,icized for failing Lo adequabely schooì-.rookie officers in
the reali by of porice t¿ork .
The now-clefuncb Neighborhood
SLabilizaLion Urrit.s (tlSU's ) are regarded as a riìore ef fective
f ieLd training st,rategy in which seni.or pat,ror of ficers teach a
common sense approach to police r.rork, tâther hhan the "by the
book" slyre evídent arnong sergeants. The FTU concept sljfles
Case L:10-cv-06005-RWS Document
400-3
Filed 02ll-3115 Page 9 a'f 72
(4)
fnlttat,ive arrd mat.urity, and 1s almosb unl\,ersalIy characterlzed
as a "summons detall" designed prlmarlJ.y bo generate revenue.
The .sLeady tour concept has had a dtvlslve and delel,erlous
impacL, fraci:ionallzIng each preclnct into '"four' separabe
commands" in whlch officers lrave no relaLionshlps, interactions,
or affinity for officers assigned to obher plat.oons. The concepb
because officers
is "destr'oying the job" and creating conflictr*he
follow:r].ng tour.
f ew inhiì.ri [-ions aboui- "durnpirrg jobs" cn
have
Officers miss the informal camaraderÍe and Iocker rooÍn banl-er,
and numerous cI iques have f ormed. Cliques f acil f i:ate rnisconduct
and corruption by eroding posibive peer pressure and by
inLensifying in-group J.oyalty bonds.
GreaL tension and , aninosiL'; e:,.ists beL',teen Community
Folicing Unib (CPU) and sector officers. The perceoL.Íon is thal
CPU officers spend bheir bime unsupervised, socÍalizing r¿Íbh
reside¡rts wlrile pabrol of !i.eers rJo the bulk of polÍce i-¡ork. They
do not resporrd Lo caLls for service, especialJ.y gun runs anci
arrest situaLíons. CPU Officers consbibute a privileged class;
they benefib from Lhe "dial-a-tour'\ concepLr t.heir requesbs for
days off are more frequently granted, and bhey do not "fly" bo
debails or backfil-I secbors. CPU Officers do nob dispube many of
these claims.
RecruiLment and hiring sLandards have faIIen dramabically,
and ofiicers åre ouLraged aL. the number of new hires v.'ho have had
felony arresLs wiLh misderneanor convicLiorrs. Many patrol
of iicers quesbionecl Lhe int.egri ty and Lhe characLer of rookies,
and are relucta¡rL to work xit,h thenr for t.his reason. Applicant
invesbigators are seen ãs processors of paperwork, raLher bhan
inveshigabors who conduct. credible backEround and characber
i nves L.iqabions
.
Participant"s'.
RecornmendaLions
:
Rev i se the Basic Managernent ori enl-a bion course l-o
emphasize cCImmunicatíon skirrs, leadership, and personnel
managemenb. rrnpose a higher years-of-service requiremenb for
promobÍon to Sergeant.
Abandon L.he ¡'Tu concept in favor of the Nsu Lraining
concept. ULiJize Lhe l-alenl-s of senior pal-roI of!:icers [-o menbor
rookies. Give roolnrnen-cìahLons :
Jnformabion aboub the corrr.rption hoblj,ne should ba widely
notÍon
disseninaLed throughout the agency, and blie'callers Lhat' fÀÐ
mus L, be
¿es t echnoJ-Ogy bo . iden bi f y anonymotls
uiii i
Àbsolube confidenbÍal"iLy or anonymit.y ßust be assured
dispelled.
to officers who rePort corruPtion,
If IAB is t.ò gain credibiliLy iL, musE change iL,s "whibe
Socks" image anú concent-raLe only on Serious misCOnduct and
Corrui>{-icn. I.a-B persçnneL musb be experienCed invesblgatorS.
ih'¿ prècticã of closing cases tlrrough "Unsubstantiabed'r or
"Other Misconduct I'IoLed" classificat.ions musb be curtailed, and
an attempt, rnusL be rnade Lo fulty investigate and exonerabe
cf f icers when possible. IÀÞ should be solely concerrred wi{ih
serious misconducL. and corruption; minor misconducL and
administrative violations should nob be wi[hin IAB's purview, nor
should IAB issue Command Disciplines 'for rninor matters.
The qual.i f;y and reputation of rAB invest igaLors must be
improved i f the Bureau í s to )rave credibi l- i by and gaÍn the
rnvestigators must be aggressive in
cooperation of officers.
identifying altd arresLíng co::rupt cops, but only corrupt coÞs.
An on-going precinct dialogue program wilh memþers of. IAB
should be init,iated, as a rneans to sensibi.ze bobh groups Eo the
objecLives and goals of l-he other, and b.o change Lhe negabive
image oÊ IAB.
rssuL
#7
Whab are tlre traininq needs of supervisors?
SerqeanLs and LÍeuLenanEs onlv)
tÀsked
of.
Sergeants and Lieubenanbs were dismiss:'.ve of the Basic
Orient,ation Course (BþÍOC) and Lieutenanbs OrienlaLion
Course (r,OC¡, r.rhich bhey characterized as a PabroÌ 'Guide
refresher. These courses consisb prinrarily of, a series of
ilLalkíng lreads" çrho discu-cs fhe operations of lheir various
unÌts, and little efforb is expended to imparb leadership and
effecbive management and supervisory skiLls. The cont,ent of [he
trainÍng rnodules \{ere a}so criticized
for failing
bo
realist.ica).1y address Lhe practical issues facing supervisors
today, âDd part.icipants strongty emphasized the need for
nhands-on" and interactive mebhods of Ínstruclion.
Police Àcademy staff in general, and BMOCII',OC insl_rucbors in
particular,
were criLicized for bheir mediocre teaching
their ]ack of'praclicaì experience, ând bheir lack of
abilibies,
Management
400-3
Case 1-:1-0-cv-06005-RWS Document
Filed 02/13/15 PAge 1.6,of 72
(ii)
Pollce Academy sl-aff have liLLte lnEerest
overall crediblliLy.
or apLltude ln conveying Lhe course materlal, ancì far Loo many
breaks vrere glven Lo sl-udenbs. The courses l-ltemsêlvgg were
characL,eriaed as a wasLe oÊ time, and specif lc modules (e.9. ,
compub.er brainingr report ivriLing, l-eadership workshops) vlere
either under-resourced or coinpletely inadeguate.
Fa¡ticipanbs L''eLieve bhaI bhe BMOCILOC courses are given
primarily to aIIay Lhe Departmenb¡ s b.raining iiabiiii.y, rather
bhan bo actually ¡rrovide supervisors wi [h useful realisbic
braining.
Supervisors also complained aboub an unmanageable span of
co¡:t-rol. sLalÍng ¡*hab bhey are ofLen respoßsible for supervising
aa errbire precinct and are boo freguenLly assigned bo cover iîìore
t.han one precÍncb. trarLicuJ.arJ-y in the high crime precincLs
where effecLive supervisíon is nosb crÍtica1, they are freguently
dispa Lcired bo hand Ie 91 1 jobs tiur ing per iods of bacÞ.loç, in
addibion to Lheir ordinary supervisory duties. Thei' complaln
bhab despibe their high level of accounLabilit.y for Lhe actions
of subordina[:es, Lhese factors precìude effecLive supervision,
"the more [-enured supervisors also chided younger SergeanLs
for becoming overly friendly with subordÍnates off-tiuty and on.
fhis issue should be addressed by t.rainÍng, since Ít jeopardizes
their own posibion of authority and reduces respecb for
supervisors in general.
Lieut.enanbs in h.he ICO gfoup clairned bo have received no
Lraining in Lheir cìubies, much less in invesbigative Lechnigues.
They are over¡'þslmêd wit.h paperr+ork and under-resourced. They
are not apprised of any inLernal invesLùgations Laking p3-ace
within their commands, and beLieve that their knowJ-edge could be
of greal- assist,ance to such inbernal investigabions. The fCO
posi ticln Ís the least desirable or remunerative Lieubenant
position in a precinct, and is conseguenLly given bo the leasL
experienced Lieutenant.
Part ici pan_Ls, _ Recolrrmenda i: iolrs
:
Tlre BMOC and LOC courses reguire extensive revision in order
to provide adeguate insbrucLion in practical issues faced by
superv Ìsors
Lieutenanb rco's should receive speciar trainirrg in Lheir
parbicular duties and should receive the personnel and oL,her
resources t.hey need; an incentive or r"*"id. sysLem should be
incorporaLed. IÀB should make fulLer use of thãir knowtedge and
.
ta1enLs.
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document
400-3
Filed 02/13/1-5 Page 17 o172
(1.2)
prolecL sjatf 's. RÊce-nnd.alJea;
The role ôf [he Precincu/Unit. ICO needs to be reviewed. An
in-depLh anaLysis of current dubies and resPonsibilÍbies should
be coäducf:eci añO a clear see of Euidelines should be promulgated.
ISSUE #8.
ArtcillarY fssues
During the cçlurse oß bhe Focug Group SessiOns, issues
freguenb.L;r- arose uhich, while not direcLLy related bo the
g...o ject's goäIs and object.ives, neverb,heless merit menlion.
: - Of f icers ctraracb.erized 'bhe Deparbmertb's policy on wearing
haLs as irrelevanl-, draconian and petby. They relaLed frequenb
anecdobes concerning Officers on emergency runs who 'rle¡e
disciptined for not nearing habs. Ib should Þe noted i-haL â
change in DeparLmenb policy regarding habs clurÍng the course of
bhe projecb may render this issue moot.
The PoIice Deparl;ment is enhirely Loo responsive bo
poli bi cal Pressures, despi Le its rheLoric about. inparbial
They argue forcefully bhab the
enforcenenb of the lar+.
oeparl-rnent and its offfcers should be j,nsulaLed from such
pressures, and bhab ibs acbio¡rs should be directed aL serving the
needs of Lhe entire cibizenry rat.her Lhan t.he needs and tihims of
special inL.erest groups. The agency's policies are increasingly
shaped by exbernal political agendas, raLher t.han by bhe needs o.Ê
communibies. Community PolicÍng has dangerously extended and
Parbicipants were highly
enhanced this polibícal control.
resenLfuL and cynical aboub the poliLicizabÍon of the ägency,
characberizing it as pervasive, counter-productive, and conträry
to Èhe ideals thaL Bhey and the Department espouse. Severalparbicipanbs equated this politicizabion v¡ith corruption, and
guÍ L,e a ferç opined thah poli ticizaLion fost.ers and protects
police corrupLion. officers have litble hope bhat this trend in
poìiEieization will be reversed
ParLicipanl-s in bhe Brooklyn North Focus Group asserbed bhab
[heir e¡rf-ire PatrÕl Borough and'nearly aIl bhe precincts r+ithin
it are regarded as "dumping grounds" poputated by misfits,
malingerers and incompeten[-s. Tliey take a perverse pride in this
devianb identiLy. They reiterabed a belÍef bhat ranking officers
and inLernal investigaLors are afraid lo venEure -inLo bhe
rrsþifh6sss' preeincbs, and bhat they receive less exbernal
supervi:iion,
Overwhelmingly, parLicipants believed thab lhe DepartrnenL,s
recruit,menb and hiring practices have decl-ined, and bhey
400-3
Case 1:l-0-cv-06005-RWS Document
Filed 02/3.3/l-5 Page IB ot 72
(13)
articulahed a connectlon between thls decline and corrupllon.
l4any índividuals arresbed for felony erlmes have becolne Pollce
Of f icers ¿ ês have rùany others v¡ith ques b lonable backgrounds .
ParbicÍpanbs belleve t,hat polibieaÌ pressures bo hlre J.arge
nunbers of officers mllitabe againsb Lhorouþh background
investigahions and disqualificaEton of unsuiLable officers,
participa:rt s aue highli d j..stxuabf uI of i ounqer of f icers. ,Seve¡:a1
parbicipanbs claimed to have personally arrest,ed individuals who
ãre r,otl PoIice off icers. Participants Her-è nob opl-lnlstic that
the Departmenb will soon change ibs recruibmenL and hÍring
PräctÍces,
ParEiciganL,g'
Eecqrnmendabiolrs
:
The Department must resisb exLernal poliEical Pressures and
SLeps to
focus upon bhe ídeals of Ímparbialil-y and faírness.
b polit icization occurring as the result of Conmunity
Policing must be taken.
Braoklyn North should be useú as a braining ground, noL a
dumping ground.
t"fore st.ringenL background invesbÍgaLions musb be conducbed
all applicants, and bhose wiLh guesEionable backgrounds must
on
þe elimÍnated. Individuals with a criminal- hisBory shouLd
receive bhe greatest scrutiny; the Departnenb should not bear the
burden of disgualifying such applicants, bub rabher the
indÍvidual should bear Lhe burden of proving his/her ÕHn
suit.abiliLy.
l.imi
Pr.ojec t.. S La f f s, Recomrnendationi
The Depar[ment rnust take immediate affirmative
change bhe deviant idenb.iby of Brooklyn Norhh officers
s
beps to
Case 1-:10-cv-06005-RWS Document
400-3
/l r
1al,
Filed 02/L3/1-5 Page l9.of 72
1
POLTCE CORTUTTIOH À},fD CUI-'TURB:
A
FOCUS GROUP I'ÍETTIODOIÐGY
-IIËBQPg-EI.I.QN
Àb bhe dlrect,Lon of the Police Commissfoner, t.he
Corrupbion Prevent,Lon and Ànalysis Unfb (CPÀU) of the Inbernal
¡ff alrs Bureau recently convened a serf es oJi Lwenty-t.hree (23)
Focus Groups to idenbtfy and explOre some of tlre prevai),Íng
abbiIudes, percepblons and opinlons of PolÍce Officers tor,¡ard a
range of inbegriLy-reIat.ed isSues. This research projecb vras
undertaken in tecogniiion of the fact. thab a greab deal of
discretionary po).ice behavior is shaped and determined L''oth by
Llre formal rules and poJ.icy dÍrectÍons promulgabed by the
organization and by Lhe }ess formal bub perhaps equall"y potenb
demands and consbrainbs of tl:e po).ice occup¿tLionaL culb,ure. rn
LÍghþ of the fact tha! a greaL deal of policê v¡ork is noe
sub jecL Lo dí rect supervision anci Eakes pletê in ant!:lguous
clrcums Lances r or in si tua bÍons which may sêerï bo presen t
Çoi-rrpelling J-egÍLimate cause to deviate from formaJ. policyr åIl
understanding of police belravior nust bake these ínformal
factors Ínl-o account. When such behaviors faII vribhin bhe
realm of ethical- conduct, where pressures to deviabe from
policy nray be magnÍfied, lhe subculbural deberminanb,s of police
behavior take on an increased salience.
WhiIe an agency's f orrnal writf en poJ.icies or direcbives
are easiì.y discerned and articulabed, Ehe subtler and
infiniL^-Iy more complex dynamics of bhe police subculture are
Less ame¡rable to quanl-if ica{-ion and comprehension. Focus
Groups provide an apprCIpriat-e and viable research meb.hodology
with r¡rhich to seek a more comprehensive undersLandíng of bhe
complex deL.erminants of police behavior, especially r.ri t.h regard
to inbegriLy and corruption.
For several decades, Focus Groups have been r.ridely used jn
bhe social sciences and in market research Lo explore, to
describe, and to explain atti l-uöes and behavioral- dynamÍcs
which defy simpl"e quanl.ification. Focus Groups are a
particularly effecbive research mebhodology when complex or
multifacel-ed attitudes and behaviors are- the subjäct of
inguiry. Morgan (1988, p. l2l nobes, for example, bhat the
socÍologisb RoberE Merton initialry developed rocus Groups as a
means of probing bhe practical impact and effect of warti¡ne
do¡nestÍc propaganda efforts upon behavior.
Foeus Group methodology entails bhe formabion of a group
typÍcalry consÍsting of t'¡elve (tz¡ to fifbeen (15) menbers ç,rho share sorlìe common and rerevant aEl-ribube(s), and involves a
process of guided group discussÍon aimed al producing the
of data and insighbs v¿hich might not be accessed r*,ibhoutLype
Ètre
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document
400-3
Filed 0211-311-5 Page 2G o172
(1s)
type of lnt.eract,ion found ln a grouP sebbing. These grouP
part.lcfpanLs an oppgrtunity
Lo
diÁcusslons afford
as a sroupr bo focused questlons
respond, bolh tndividuarry.and
Based upon Lhese
posäA by Lhe facilitator/moderator.
freguent-Ly refirre his/her
facil.iLat-or
iesponsei the
inbo
questions Lo probe nore dee=ply"rlIl the issues ¿nd opinions
and to explore Lheir: ori-oins and inL.ensity. Thê Eroup
iaised,
dynamic aLso pernits participants bo quesbion Lhe responses of
othersr or to add imporhanl- details and clarificatÍon to their
own or anob,her's response. Focus Groups permii, the faciLitaLor
to gI j.mpse mäny of the subblebies and emoLÍcnal subsbance r+hich
underl i es spec i fic responses, and to draw appropriaLe
inferences fronr thenr. As â result, the facilibator/moderaLor
is provided wibh a richer ancl rnore refj.ned seb of daLa.
In poinbing out the advantages of Focus üroup rnel:lroriology,
EarI Babbie (1992) asserts bhat bhe technique is a flexible and
relatively inexpensive rneans of capturing real-IÍfe daba aboub
social behavÍor, and bhat ibs results have a high degree of
face validity (p. 255). A guidirrg principle Ín socÍal science
research is that data may be considered rellabJ.e when it has
both face validíLy ånd empirical validiLy; the resuLts must
J.ogically appear bo make sense wibhouL. a greaL. deal of
exÞIanation or elaboration, and essenbially similar results
must be obbained from successive groups. As r+i11 be discussed
more fully below, the daba obtained frorn this series of Focus
Groups meet boLh bhese criteria,
ãrìd can bherefore be
considered reliable.
Focus Group meÈhodology has in recent years come to be
adapted for and extensively. used in Arnerican industry t ds weII
as Ín Ehe pubJ-ic sector, partfcularly in service of
parbÌeipative managemenL, programs. These groups, r,rhich have
arso variousry been referred bo in bhe J.iterature as "gualiby
circles, and "ad hoc bask forces, " have been widery utilized in
Jäpanese industry, where tlre remarkaþIe gains made'in producing
high qual i ty goods is wideJ-y aüllributed 'uo r:hei r use. t.¡ithiñ
f:he past decade, participat.ive rnanagement initiabives in a host
of Àmerican police agencies have incorporated .focus groups or
quaJ.iby circles bo improve service delÍver:y, to ãtreamline
adminisl.rative tasks and procedures, bo - gaLher reJ,evant
information from and stimulate communicabion ãmong employees,
and bo esbabLish cogent pracLicat policies (rÉr eùrråuini
Brourn r page 18, AugusL 1993) .
rt must be emphasized bhat this series of Focus Groups
erere noU desígned or intended Lo produce speÇÍflc facbuaL datä
_
Case 1:1-0-cv-06005-RWS Document 400-3 Filed 02/13/1-5 Page 2L ol72
(16)
concernlng lndivlduals or acbs of corrupt-ion and mlsconduct.
Rather, bhelr lnLended qoal rras to probe Lhe prevalenb
atLlEude's tovrard corrupLÍon wil-hin Lhe police occupatlonalculture and l.o soltcit vlable solubions to t.he integriLy
problems faced by bhis aqencl. The Project soughb to
PoJ.ice
ðapi tal í ze upon bhe experiences and ex,perbise of
Of íicers and Lo deterrnine l:hei r percepbions of ihe Deparbmenb
and its policies regardilrç corrupLion, es r.¡elL as bheÍr
abbi budes and perceptions of other rnernbers of the servíce.
SpecificaIIy, the research manda[e concerned the identification
of Lhose organizational policies' procedures, and condiLions,
as r"'el1 es aspecbs of Lhe police occupat-ional culbure r'¿llich:
facil ibafe corrupbionr'
inhibiL disco'.'ery of corrupe activiBy; or
creabe opporlunities for corrupLion.
Further, l-he project souglrt insighL inbo Lhe prevaiJ-ínç
atbitudes, belief systems and behavioral norms which constitube
the cont.emporary police culture in New York Cit,y, in order bo
provide the Police Commissioner with accurate current da{:a
which would inform his policy decisÍons and enhance hÍs
capacity Lo manage t.he culture. Various academic researchers
have sIudied and expounded upon the critica]. and pervasive
feaLures of "the polÍce culburer" bo the extenl- thal the terrn
has beken on a generic guality which assumes bhat an identicaL
or hiçhty similar occupaLional culture characterizes most or
all of Àmerican policing. It must, be acknowledged, however,
that t'the po).ice culture" is not a singular or a sLâtic entity.
Rather, the occupational culture varies somewhat from agency to
agency, and moreover, the occupational culbure r*'ibhin an agency
is in a state of consLant evolution as it responds to an
interplay of innumerabLe factors and forces within the agency
as well as outside ib. SubstantÍve changes in DeparLment
policy, in training and promol-ional practices, and in the r+ork
environrnent, for example, v¡ill Ímpact bhe individual and shared
abtitudes of employees. SimilarJ-y, a g::eat many of bhe
abtil-udes hetd and shared by officers are refrective of, and
emanat.e from, l-he dominanL lar.ger culture, s val.ue system. In
thi s respect, Lhe adrnix l-ure of new of f icers in Lo the agency
will impart bo the occupaLional cull-ure a seb of new, and
poLenLiaì1y confricting, preexisting abLjL.udes and belief
syst.ems. AtLhough l-hese at bil,udes and perceptions of bhe
occupational culture t.end Lo be quite durab]-e, they are
mediaLed and modÍfied by their contact and conflict, r.rith the
existing attitudes and perceptions of l-he occupational cuIEure.
The introducbion of new or different valuês rvill create culture
Case L:l-0-cv-06005-RWS Document 400-3 Filed O2lL3lt5 Page 2V of 72
(17)
confllct., res'ulLlng 1n a ciialecb,ic process of redefinj.bion and
the emergerrce of a somewhat dlfferent shared value sysbem' rn
summary, t.he pollce occupationa] culLttre ln a given agency is a
vibrant and vi[aI culhu::e which responds Lo a myrÍad of subEIe
and ove¡t forces and pressures.
T'¡o ( 2 ) conc.lus icns elnerge f rom this recogni t ion of.
lhe transi[ory nature of an agency's occupahional cuJ.ture.
Firsbf managemenb of the dynarnÍcs i+lrich shape bhe occr.lpationa-1.
culLure are wiLhin Lhe conLrol of bhe police execubive, holding
open Lhe poben[ial for the €rxecubive to shape and dlrecl bhe
culLure's develop;lcnb, Recognition musb be given bo bhe facb
bhat, virtually evêry alí:erabion in Lhe work environmenb will
Ínevibably give rise to a corresponding change in the
The es babli shment of bhe s Leady tours
occupationa I cr.¡ ture .
concept, for example, to some extenb caused of f icers of si¡ril.a*backgrounds and interests bo choose particular bours,
concurrenbly limibing their inb.eracbion (and bheir exposure bo
differing aþbiLudes and opÍnions) wiUh other officers,
Às was
evÍdenced by lhe sbat,ed opinions of successive focus groups, as
well as by the percepLions of the project staff, Lhe police
Departmeni;'s occupational culbure has been somewhat.
fractionalized by sLeady bours - officers simp].y do noL have
the opporLuniby [o interacL r+ibh members assigne-d Èo oLher
bours, and to sone extent each Lour wiLh.in a precincb, has
developed i bs or.¡n iden b.Í ty . rn Lime , and undêr cerLain
condi Lio¡'ls, t his isora tion may resul t in bhe emergence of
separate and guiLe disparate cul-tures rvi.t.hin t.he sysbem.
secondry, we may concLude bhat much of bhe research and
conventÍonaI wisdom regarding the dÌmensions and features of
bhe occupationar curbure rnay no }onger be valid.
Much of the
academic research concerning police culbure, parbicularly bhab
body of work relating cultuie- bo corruption, was conducted in
the early 1970/s, t,le musL acknowtedge bhe L,remendous changes
which have taken prace since bìraL research was conducbed, ånd
may need to reconsider some of the assumphions we make
concerning bhe rera[:io¡rship bet.¿een curture end corrupbion.
J.
Case 1-;1-0-cv-06005-RWS Document
400-3
Filed 0211-3/1-5 Page 23 ol72
( roJ
Ì4trTlloDof,oGY
ln bhe
Declsions concerning tlie met.hodology uLtLfzed operant
several
present research were sñaped ln response to hhe most' sallenI
logisblc issues, one of
eonstraints uñã
issues r.ras Lh; pi;blem of selecbing ParLicipanbs t+¡o would
iãiiããt u iaÍrfy Ëroad range of persþecl-ives and attitudes,wi ab
t'h
l-¡e
the sãñe t imã' eñ;; *ouia provide- The pro jecE s baf f \"'ere
projeci staf f
rããningrur unã useiur informaEÍon.
a bruly rando¡n sample
therefóre less concerned uith achleving obbainÍng perLinenb
l-han wi i.h
;i- bhe ent.ire Department
informalion, This decision was shaped by the recogniL'ion Ôr
L.he limited nu¡nber of
caïea'L thal in an empirical sense,generalizing our f inciÍng-s
precl"ude
poi unLial Focus Groups r+ouIrJ
ånd resulbs to i.¡e eñLire popul-atíon of t-he agency. Às i'lorgan
large
( I gBB ) noLes, i-he ei,rpíiicaL i ssue of concern in
is
organizations
sample i:ias, not generalizabiliby: 40 or so parbicipant.s
a Iarge
are never goinõ to be Iepresent.at lve of when one's
population. -This is especialty. irnportanb
reäearch goal is nob to tesL hypot'heses bul- bo learn abouL
others, eiperiences and persPecbives. Using Focus Groups
bo learn abouL, the futL range of experience and
petspecL.ives in a broad populal-ion can be a fool's errand
(pp. 44_45).
Rather Ehan att.empbÍng to discern or measure Ehe full
range of. al-BiLudes and opinions existing wibhin the entire
ageñcy¡ including each of iLs operational, administ,rahive and
iñvesli.gabive functions, pro jecL. sEaf f _ narrowed the selecbion
criberiä Lo choose subgroups which would be likely Eo Provide
attitudes
t.he information mosL perEinent to our research
integril-y and corrupt-ion r+i thin bhe patroJ- force.
concerning
Decisions concerning bhe optimal size of [he groups were
again made in lighb of several logisbical and pracbical
considerations. Àccording Lo l'íorgan (1988), smaller groups
generally provide greaLer depLh of ínfor¡nation and insight, but
overall bhey tend bo be less producl-ive and more cosbly.
Larger groups po.se problerns of discussion manage.menb and group
control for the facilitalor, and important information can also
be losb, r+lren par-ticipanLs become distracted by the comments of
and subs[anbive
others.
Combining bol-h practicalconsideraL.ionsr Morgan (1988, PP. 43-44) recommends thab groups
noL generally exceed tweLve (121 members, bub that bhe
moderat.ors over*recruiI by about 20t to accounL for no-shows,
.
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document
400-3
Filed 0211-311-5 P,age 24 of 72
(19)
A bifurcabed methodology, ln which Lr+o (2) rounds of Focus
conducLedf e,as devlsed in order Lo refine boLh
the dynamlcs of Lhe process and bhe cc¡llecllon of daba.
ProJecb sbaf f ì.rere äwåre bhab the advent of sbeady tours and
the esEabLishrnenb of precinct Communily Po).icing UniLs 1n bhe
past several years ìtave resulted in the fo¡.'mation of four (4)
ôeparal-e work groups and bo some exbenb, perhaps four (4)
separâte occupAblonal- cultures * in each paLroJ. command. Prior
bo Lhe esbablíshment of these concepts, of iicers assigned '"o
GrouÞS would be
robating tours presuruably inl-eracbed m.ore frequently, if less
intenselyr wiEh a Iarger number of offÌcers, and inevibably the
differential effects of bhese inb.eracl-ions musE have ån impact
uporÌ Lhe a[f:ibudes and behaviora] norms of Lhe work grCIup
In order Eo d i.scern {:he poben t i aL di f f erences in
subcul bure .
al-titudes arnong Lhese four (4) subcul-bures, four (4) separate
Focus Groups were conducted during the firsb round - one (1 )
for each of blre Ehree (3) platoons, and o¡re (1) for Conr,runrt.y
In the firsb round of Focus Groups,
Poli.cing Unit officers.
tr+o (2) parLicipanl-s were chosen, in Lhe manner described
below, from each of the seven (7) Patrol Boroughs, ¿is well as
Lr+o ( 2) parLicipants f rom Lhe Detech.ive Eureau. Thus four ( 4 )
Focus Groups of sixteen (16) parLicipants were scheduled ín the
first round.
parbicipanbs for bhe second round oi Focus croups 'dere
chosen from wiLhin bhe same Pabrol Borough, in order to ensure
bhat each precinct had represenbation. A botal of ten (10)
Focus Groups llere held in the second round, one (i) for each of
Ehe seven (7) Pa[rot Boroughs, one (1) consist-ing of
Pabrolmen r s Benevolenl- Association delegat.es, and bwo Ql
consisting of PatroI Sergeanbs. (Nobe: Patrol_ Sergeants Here
select,ed in the sanie manner as bhe f irsL. round of Focus Groups
r+iLh two (2) sergeants selech,ed from each of the seven (7)
Pabrol Boroughs).
AÊ noted , the pro j ecl, staf f was l-ess concerned wi t h
aghieving a varid st-atisbicar sample of l-he entire Department
bhan with obLainirrg usef uI i¡rforrnabion. To that end, - severa.I
decisiorrs r{ere made concerning serection criberia for
parbicipat ion. Pr-ojecL sbaf f r+ere concerned thab parEicipants
had suf f icienb experienee and f amil iari by r.¿i bh Depar:lmenL
policies and procedures¿ âs we]-l as knowredge of the police
culture and bhe informal values, att-itudes añd practices that
culture enbails.
Research, iniL.iatly and most nobably
conducLed by Niederhoffer (1967) and by õbhers r*ho have more
tecentry replicated or expanded upon his work, indicates {:hat
the abt.iL.udes of porice 0fficers form in a process of
Case 1:1-0-cv-06005-RWS Document 400-3 Filed 0211-311-5 Fage 25 ot 72
(20)
lasting abouI f tve ( 5 ] YeaIs, and. bltab t'hese
ÀuUt budes remain f airly consisbenb unbtl aboub bhe br,¿elf Lh to
iffteenth year of serilce:. Moreover, the proJecb sLaff
for officers
ieãógnizeA bhab bhe sociaJ-ieabion process difÊerent Lhan
i*"rõited in the eauly 1980,s was signlficanbly the 1970rs, and
crisís of
?;;- bhose hired prioi Lo bhe fiscalf icers currenblY assigned to
of
ll.tiU Lhe vast rnajoriby of PoIice
oaliol f alt inÉo bhã post-1981 hlring cohorb. In order i'o
;Ibeib üo a Ìinited exbenE, Lhe abbitudes extant
;;;;;;., 'the
debecbive subcuJ.bure, bhe project sLaff expanded
*iÈni"
the seLecEion cril-eria bo include similarly 'qualitied Detecbive
inueÀbiça tors assigne,C to Þreci nct Detecbive Squads. Each ot
Lhe officers selected Lo particípate therefore meL each of bhe
f ollowírrg cri beria
they were either Folice Of f icers or Dei:ecbive
1.
InvesbigaL'ors;
Z. they weie assigned Lo patroÌ precincLs or Precinct
'3, DeLecbiveaSquads; of five (5) and a maximum of
they had minimum
tr+elve (12) years of service ín the agency. *(Due toa
notif icat.ion ef,ror rnade 'by the precinct's roll call clerk, one
offÍcer with only bv¿o and one-half years of service, less bhan
Llre required mínimum, 'r;as sent in pJ-ace of her parbner, who had
soclal l¿ation
:
receÍved an unexpecbed courb appearance not'if ícab.ion).
À l-asL grouÞ consisLing of Sergeants assigned bo Patrol
ServíCes BuIeau ,,,,'êfê randomly .seIeCted from alJ- PatrOI BorOUghs
wibh no criLeria to bime in service or rank being consÍdered.
To eliminate sample biasr a pool of approximately one
hundred ( 1 00 ) members who confor,"ned Lo bhese cri beria Þ¡ere
drawn frorn the DeparbmenE's personnel database using a version
of the computer program used to selecb officers for t.he Randorn
DoIe Tesbing program, adapbed ho consider the selecbion
crit.eria f ÍeIds. îhis randomJ-y generabed Iist incl.uded rnembers
of each of the seven (7) Pabrol- Boroughs. Telephone calls Here
placed to each PoIice officer's command to ascertain assignmenL
(radÍo moLo¡ pabrol or Cornmuniby PoI icÍng Unit, and/or st.eady
plaboon), and to each Detecbive's sguad Lo ascerbain his or her
scheduldd appearance days. Prom hhis master Iist,
four
(4) separabe lisEs were compiled - one (1 ) for each of bhe
Ehree (3) platoons and one (1 ) for the Conmunity PolÍcinq Unit
officers. Each lisb was consul-Led and two (2) members, êither
two (2t Police officers or a PoLÍce officer and a DetecLive
Invesl-Ìgabor, from each of the seven ('l) Patrol Boroughs v¡ere
arbitrarily designat,ed bo appear ab Lhe scherdul-ed Focus Group
Case 1:l-0-cv-06005-RWS Document
400-3
(21
Filed 02/1-3/15 Page 26 oî 72
)
rneet,tng. A total of f lf by f lve (55) parbiclpanbs vtere present
at. the followlng Focus Group meeblngs:
ROUÌ.ID
Group
#
late
z
3
fl parbicipants
08/1a/93
o8/12/93
o8/1'1 /93
1
¡"rale/Female Plal-oon Boro
14
CPU
2nd
3rd
sL
10/4
15
13
o8/20/e3
4
1
s/6
13
5s
9/4
12/1 40/1s
1
aII
all
aIÌ
all
A toLal of ten (10) addiLional Focu sG roup meetings took
place during bhe second round. SeI ect ion cri l-eria äild
selecLion rnehhod (i.e.r usê of Lhe adapbe dR andom DoLe compuLer
prograrni remained consistent, however, t hes e groups Here each
cornprised of members from the same Pabrol Borough. À$ noted,
ihÍs process ensured bhat each of bhe sevent.y five (?5) patrol
precincts ?¡ere represenLed . In addi t.ion, a Focus Group
comprised of seven (7| PBA Delegates Has held, Ìts members
selecbed by the PaLrolmen's Benevolent Association. A botal of
one hundred t,.renty-six (126) participants nere .presenb at. Lhe
follorving Focus Group meebings:
ROUND 2
Group
5
6
7
B
I
0
1
2
)t 3
)k 4
/l
Dat.e # parbicipanbs Male/remale platoon Boro
s/ 22/93
13
B/s
2nd
PBBX
s/ 24 /e3
1i
t/q
2nd
PBSI
el 29193
16
13/3
CPU PBBS
10 f t /gt
10
B/2
sb
PBI',S
pBMN
10 /6/e3
13
e/4
3rd
'l
i0 /7 /e3
7/0 PBA delegabes ÀLL
't6
10 l8 /gt
pBQ
13/3
1 st
10 /tz/gz
13
7 /o
3rd
PBBN
10 /22/e3
13
11 /z
2nd
ALL
12 l3/93
12/ 1Z
zND
ÀtL
.14
1
126
*
esl4l
(a s menbioned previously, a group of randomly selected
Sergean LS . assigned Lo the paLror services Bureau $¿ere assigned
t.o bwo (2 ) addiLÍonal Focus Groups. They were from all pa[rol
Borough c and assigned to bhe second platoon ) .
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document
400-3
(22
Filed 02l3-3/l-5 Rage 27 ol72
I
Àb t,he directfon of the Police Commfssfoner, and fn order
Eo gafn a more comprehenslve and inclusive perspecf-fve on bhe
dyrramlcs of the police culture, a bhird round of Focus Groups
was conducted. These groups consisLed of l:t'ro (2) panels of
fourbeen (14) members assigned Lo Fiel-d Trainlng Unils (fTU's)
and two (2) groups of btvelve (12) members âssigned to bhe
PoIice Àcadeäry Recruib, Training Secbion (PAIITS)/ (Group ¡fl 1'7
consisted of eleven ( i'l ) members), and the f Índings derived
from these groups are incorporated throughoul: bhe body of Lhis
report
À 'colal of .four ( 4 ) Focus Group neebings wibh f if by-one
¡ parblciparrts Here conduched during the bhird round,
use of bhe
Selection criteria and seLecLion mefhod (i.e.,
adapted Random Dole compuLer prograns) remained consisbent
for group.s #15 and #16. Each of these two (2) groups had bwo
(2) representatives from each of the seven (7) PabroL Boroughs.
Groups #11 and #1 8 were randomly sel.ecbed (using a tabLe of
randorn numbers) by bhe PoIice Rcademy Àdminj.strative Unib.
(St
ROUND 3
Group
Dabe # parLicipanbs Þía1e/Fernale Platoon Borö
#
15
16
17
18
11/3/93
11/s/93
11/16/e3
11
/22/s3
14
14
12/
1o/
2
FTU
AI-,L
q
FTU
ÀLL
N/A
N/À
11
11/o
12
5'l
11/1
aa/t
P. A.
P. À.
fn order bo gain insighL concerning the perceptions and
attitudes of middle managers v¡ibhin the Deparbment, a series of
Focus Groups consisbing of Lieut.enants and Capbains þrêre
incorporated inbo a fourÈh round. À bobal of bhree (3) Focus
Group meetÍngs with forly-eighb (48) parbicipants r.rere
conducbed during bhis round.
A group comprised of l-hirteen ( 13 ) Integrit-y Control
Officers (IcO's), twel-ve (i 2) Lieutenants and one (1 ) Sergeant
represenbing bhe seven (7 ) Pabror Boroughs v¡as randomly
selecL.ed using a list of rcO, s mainL,ained ab bhe Internar
Affairs Bureau. This group Has presented with Lhe same issues
as previous groups and also queried about. Lhe problems and
condibions indigenous bo the posibion of rnbegiity còntror
OffÍ cer r
Case 1:1-0-cv-06005-RWS Document
400-3
Filed 02/l-3/1-5 Page 28 ol72
(23)
A Focus Group conslstlng of bwerve (127 captains assigned
pabrol cot*ands ç^¡as also COnducLed. Tl-.e members of these
Lo
grOUpS i,Iere, predicLably, somet,llrat. older and more tenured hlran
TheÍr
Éi'e average þarLiclpanLs in previous groups ' bhose of
perceptionÉ añO ãbbibudes Lended bo generalJ-y mirror
breufðus groups, wibh several exceptions. I'hese excepbions are
ioted thiougllot¡L lhis reporb,, under bhe appropríabe issue
selec l. ions
A bobal of t,hirbeen.(13) Lieutenants, representing each of
bhe seven (?) Patrol Boroughs, pârbicipatecl Ín a Focus Gröup
session ab which bhey discussed each of bhe issues and i berns
mlr a
presented bo earlier groups of various ranks
äo*puter-generaLed randon sel.ection rneEhod used bo choose
parLicipañbs in previous groups was also used Lo select, Lhese
-
Lieu Eenants
¿ ¡ ae
.
ROUND 4
Grou¡r
19
20
21
ll
Date fl participanLs
13
11 /29/93
13
12/7 /93
"
12/15/93
13
48
l{a1e/Femal-e PlaLoon Boro
12/1
121 1
1111
rCO's
LL',s
ALt
ALL
Capb',s ALL
35/3
A special Focus Group consisbing of members of bhe
Guardians AssoclaLion vlas conducbed in order to ascerbain
r,lhebþer African-AmerÍcan offÍcers' atbibudes and percepbions of
inbegriEy issues differed significantly from bhose of bhe
predominanbly whibe focus gfoups prevÍously held. It, should be
ñoLed that in contrasb bo the random sampl-ing selecb.lon mebhod
used Lo generate parLicipant lists for l:he previous Focus
Groups, Lhese participanbs r{ere identified and selected by bhe
Guardiar:s Associabion's presidenb. As a rr¡suIb, the project
staf f canrrot concl-ude wibh a hi.gh degree of cerbainby bhaL bhe
aLt-il-udes and percepbions discerrred in t-his sample are
generally representat.ive of the ent-ire po¡ru.Lal-ion of ÀfricanAmeriean officers.
A secorrd special Focus Group consÌsbing of members of the
Policewomen r s Errdoç¡ment Àssociation ( PEA ) was conducted in
order bo ascertain whe[her female officr:rs' abtibudes and
peicept.ions of inLegrily issues differed significanLly from
Ehose of the predominantly male Focus Groups previously held.
It ShOuId be nobed Lhat. parbicipant.s $rere selecbed by the PBA,
i
Case 1-:1-0-cv-06005-RWS Document
400-3
Filed 02/i.3/1-5 Page 29 oÍ 72
(2.1)
and as v¡tbh Lhe Guardlans AssccíaLlon, proJecb slaff cannot,
conclude bhat Lhe ah,blludes and percepblons dfscerned 1n thts
sample are generaì-Iy represenLative of {:he enblre populablon of
female officers,
A botal of Lwo (2) Focus Group meet.ings tvibh bwen by,-fhree
(23 ) parbicipants were conducl-ed dur ing bhe f Íf th round,
RQUND 5
Group
22,
23
//
DaL,e # parbicipants
12,1 20
/ g3
12/22/st
'14
9
23
Ma 1e
/['ema
6/8
0/g
6
le
Group
Guard i ans
PÊA
Boro
ÀII
;{Il-
/1'.l
À grand total of Lhree hundred and ì-hirLeen (313) members
of hhe service parbicÍpaLed during five (5) rounds of Focus
Groups. The acbuaL Focus Group meetinqrs follovred a
standardized forrnab desÍgned Lo elicib comments on a successive
series of issues. A copy of the meet.Íng outline is included as
an /rppendix to bhÍs report, and the standardized
addressed, seriatim, the following issues:
formab
TSSUE
A1
1îl
#z
ll3
fl4
How has the job of Police Ofiicer changed in Lhe
years ?
Àre the Departmenb Va1ues reasonable or unreasonable?
pasE
What is reasonable and unreasonable about bhe Departnent,s
Drug testing policy and procedure?
How do Police Officers define corrupbion?
llhat role do integrity bests play in the UeparLment's
anbi-corrupbion ef forLs?
u
Hot+ do we encourage l-he reporting of corrupbion?
fi 6
fl 7 WhaL are bhe Lraining needs for police supervisors?
(0uestion posed to Supervisory Groups)
llow effective is corrupbion training?
B
fl 9 Anci I).ary issues
At each session, the group facilitator infroduced himsel-f
and gave a brief overvievr of the projecb, s goals and
objecL,ives, sbressing the confidenLial-il:y of part.icipants,
responses and emphasízing Lhe fact that onì-y one member of the
project sbaff would be taking noLes during the session. These
notes were made available to the participants after Lhe
H5
11
Case 1:10-cv-0'b005-RWS Document
400-3
Filed 02113/15 Page 30 ot 72
(25)
meeblng¡ ând b.hey were encouraged to scrutinize Lhem for
accuracy and for Lhe facb bhat no ldenLlties were mentloned,
Concrrrrent).y, bhe partf clpanL.s were assured that. their commeni;s
would be passed along to lhe police Commissioner as accurat,ely
as Dossible.
E;ch partic!panb was asked bo briefly
introduce
himself/herself to the group by first name and crJri-rriirâñd, ano to
provide a brief sunmary of lheir l:enure and experience in bhe
Department. As an "icebreaker" exercise, each participant was
asked t.o address Lhe quesLion, "Hor+ has Bhe job changed since
you began your career?r' Thls relativeLy ami:iguous and
open-ended icebreaker questÍon had a dual purpose: iL set a
tone oi non-bhreaEening self-disclosure, and it permitted
project sLaff l-o gal:her and begin bo assess general background
Ínfor-mation concerning the overall aLLit.udes and percepbions of
individuals and of Lire group as a v¡hole.
Following this inÍtial discussion, and having set. a
positive and relat.ively trusting tone, the remaining more
subsbantive issues were rai.sed and addressed in the order
indicaEed in t.he appended ouEline,
Case 1-:1Ô-cv-06005-RWS Document
400-3
Filed 02ll-311-5 Page
3t
ot 72
(26)
ISSUE
#
1
flh¡nnac
r¿l l-hin
tsha rlonrr{-mr¡nl-
As an iniLial "icebreal(er" guestion, the participants t'Iere
a$ked to discuss l-heir percepi-j.ons of ltow the job of Police
Of f icer had changed during Lheir tenure þ,f th the Depart.ment,
rìs il-',tencled, the open-e-nrled and somewbal- anbiguous nature of
t.his quesLion elicit.ed a broarl range of respo¡ìsÈs relabinç to
various types arrd aspacts of change the partfcipanbs had
observed in both the subcultural and lask environments.
Questions were relayed so they addressed both bhe changes in
bhe everyday basks l'-he partici pants perf orm and in bhe
individuals'¿ith t¡ho¡n t.hey work, Ib should also be noLed that
despite the range of responses generatedr several pabberns of
percepLions and aLbitudes t'rere discerned. fn virtually every
group, the parbicipants identified a si¡nilar saL of ÊercepLions
and issues. The pervasive and- recurring naLure of Lhese
palterns across each of the Focus Groups, âs well as t.he
vehemence wib.h which t,hey were expressed, lends credence to bhe
argument that these percepLions surpass mere opinion: bhey
have, in the parb,icipants' h:elief sysl-em, the fuII weight, of
objecLive reali by . Regardless of l-he perceptions' objecl-ive
the police occupabional culture
and facLual Þasis,
unquestioningly holds bhem bo be true and valid.
One such patb,ern of percepl,ions concei-ned supervisors, and
in particular Sergeants, who r.lere frequently seen as lackÍng i'n
inieracbive communication skiIls as well as job knowLedge.
Supervisors vrere aLso criLici'zed for their lack of impartialit.y
in dealing with subordinates and their poor decisÍon makÍng
The parbicipanbs related the pauciby of supervisory
skiIIs.
skills bo several facbors, including the poor braining bhey
receive at the Police Academyr s Basic I'fanagemenb OrÍentation
Course and the facb [hab rnany SergeanLs are promoted to lheir
rank with IiLtte street experience. Many SergeanLs Ì,rere seen
as lacking in the bype of mal-uriLy r'rhich police experience. and
generäI life experience br:ings, ând many officers voiced
resenl-nrent aE Sergeants' failure bo treaþ them as adults, Ab
the sâme time, many of the younger Sergeants were seen as
overly f riendly tot+ard "rooÌ
experience a ful-l range of calls,for service, The FTU system
is seen as sbifring l-he maturiby of rookies and preventing them
from having "hands-on" experience. participañts recommended
.
Case 1:l-0-cv-06005-RWS Document
400-3
Filed 02ll-3/1-5 Page 33,of 72
(28)
.l
elfmfnattng the Present FTU sysLem ln favor of a t'rafnlng
schene modeled afber bhe NSU's.
The vasL majoriL.y of parþicipanbs were of bhe opinlon bhat
Lhe s t,eady bc'ui coñcepb has had å severely nega bive and
divisive inrpacb upon their relationships v¡ibh oLher officers,
to bhe exL.enb b,hãt four ( 4 ) separate precincbs (each of the
b.hree ( 3 ) platoons and the cPU ) have Lreen creabed in every
cgmmand. Oepending upon precinct policy, CPU Officers may or
may not be used Lo back f i Il vacancies in pa t'rol secl-ors ,
exäcerbabing bhe exisLing lensions bebween paLrol officers and
CPU memL.ers, Pabrol of f icers are resent.ful of that, facb t'hat
they are of hen in a backlog '¿hile CPU Of f icers "he.ve cof fee
r+itñ neighborhood residenbs, " and thab CPU 0fficers ofben do
nOt baCk them up on SuCh dangerous assignments as "gun rung. rl
Many patrol officers believed thab CPU Officers constiLute a
privileged class their requesbs for days off or Ìosb time are
more frequently approved, for example, and bhey are exempbed
from "flyÍng" to debails. ThÍs sense of privilege is repubedly
being cuttivabed at the PoIice Àcadenry, where recruibs are told
(repórLedIy by instruclors who are themselves "inexperienced
rookies") -botñ to ignore bhe advice of veteran officers ("bhe
veterans only want Ló get you into l-roubler') and bhab paBrol ís
no[ as valuable as the Communiby folicÍng Unit. The anbagonism
is especially apparent toward rookies in the CPU, whose
requeshs for days off - parLicularly hotidays are granBed
Pal-rol of f icers f eel Lhat t hey
wi Ehou t regard f or seniori ty .
are doing the vast majorit.y oí t.he r.¡ork, and bhe mosL, dangerous
kind of r.rork
Participants also felt bhab. bhe st-eady tour concept "is
desbroying the Job." They no longer see or work wit.h offÍcers
assigned to other Lours, and a pot.ent form of social conLrolpeer pressure - has been losb, The old adage, "leave it for
the four-to-twelve" has become a modus vivendi .- because bhey
no }onger see or know the officers on bhe folLowing tour, many
cops have no regard for bhe officers on the oLher tours 'and
will no longer go out, of Lheir way for bhem, Prior Lo st.eady
t-ours, for example, the prospecl- of working wibh an of f icer
from another squad ab some fut-ure date deterred many minor
transgressions, such as failing to clean out bhe back seat of
the radio car. The posit.ive aspects of peer Pressure have been
l-osL due to e much smal-Ier work group and the dist-incb
improbabili ty of having contact. with of f icers from oL.her squads
during bhe rvork day. Other feabures of Lhis fracbionalizaEion
wi thin l-he commands include bhe fact Lhat of f icers rniss bhe
informal. locker-room banber and camaraderie bhey once shared,