The Canadian Review of Policing Research (2005)
ISSN: 1710 6915
ACTIVE SUPERVISION OF THE PATROL FUNCTION
Purpose
The hypothesis for this research was that active supervision may have a positive influence on patrol officers’ use of arrest, discretion and force. Active supervision consists of on-site oversight and patrol interaction by the supervisor, such as frequent supervisor attendance at proactive patrol officer activities and reactive calls for service to give advice and direction to subordinates as needed; review of action taken by patrol officers to assess suitability and necessity; and the modelling of desired behaviour. Active supervision should determine if an arrest was lawful and necessary or if a more suitable option was available to the patrol officer; confirm that there were grounds to support the initiation of a formal criminal sanction; establish that the wishes of the victim were considered; and, verify that the amount of force used was no more than was necessary in the circumstances.
Methodology
Canadian patrol officers and supervisors were surveyed using a questionnaire developed to measure and compare the indicators of active supervision that were derived from the hypothesis:
- The beliefs and expectations of patrol officers and supervisors about the roles of the patrol supervisor.
- The support of both groups for the concept of active supervision, including beliefs about how often supervisors should attend incidents with patrol officers, and if this attendance made the patrol officers uncomfortable.
- Patrol officers’ and supervisors’ beliefs about the influence of supervision on patrol officers’ behaviour, and patrol officers’ self-reported reaction to supervision.
- Patrol officers’ perceptions of active supervisory practices and supervisors’ self-reported oversight behaviour.
During a one-month period in 2003, questionnaires were distributed to 132 patrol constables and 20 sergeants at their pre-shift briefings or “parades” in three different Canadian police agencies: a large urban agency, a small urban agency and a predominantly rural agency. The questionnaires were left to be completed by patrol officers and supervisors on their own time and collected the following day. Eighty completed questionnaires were returned. The overall rate of return was 56 per cent. The rate of return for patrol officers was 50.7 per cent and 60 per cent for supervisors.
Findings
The results of the survey showed that most patrol officers want supervisors to attend the scene of street checks and street arrests, but not calls for service. The majority of patrol officers reported that it made them feel uncomfortable when a supervisor attended a routine street check with them. The supervisor respondents indicated that they were aware that patrol officers preferred that they accompany them on a call for service only when they call for a supervisor or backup, and that it makes patrol officers uncomfortable if the supervisors attend routine street checks with the patrol officers.
This situation could be owing to the patrol officers believing that they can handle both sets of incidents on their own, but that supervisory presence at street checks and arrests is valuable as a back up in an unknown situation and possible danger. This raises the possibility that back-up, rather than advice or direction, is all that patrol officers expect of supervisors. Another possible explanation may be that patrol officers recognize the role of supervisors to give advice or direction but nonetheless resent this as a reflection on patrol officers’ abilities, skills and knowledge .1
The majority of patrol officers and supervisors believed a supervisor strongly disapproving of unnecessary use of force would not influence a patrol officer’s use of force; however, over 80 per cent of patrol officers agreed that a patrol officer would be more likely to use force unnecessarily if they observed a supervisor using unnecessary force. Almost 50 per cent of supervisors felt they would not have any influence in the same situation. This may corroborate warnings that supervisors who use force frequently also influence their subordinates to use force more often, or unnecessarily .2
Most patrol officers and supervisors indicated that, in their view, a supervisor does not regularly review a patrol officer’s decisions, as suggested in much of the literature on police supervision.3 Over 80 per cent of patrol officers said they frequently asked their supervisor to come to the scene of incidents that they were handling. Less that 40 per cent of supervisors said they were asked. A possible explanation for this discrepancy is that patrol officers call supervisors only for back up, which supervisors do not consider to be calling for supervisory reasons. Nonetheless, being called as back up would offer supervisors the opportunity to oversee patrol-officer behaviour, and to assume the supervisory role if necessary. It is also possible that only select supervisors are called to the scene by patrol officers.
The majority of patrol officers and supervisors both reported that a supervisor frequently tells a patrol officer how to handle the incident when on the scene of an incident the patrol officer is handling, and that this is one of the expectations of active supervisors. The majority of patrol officers and supervisors also reported that a supervisor takes over and handles the incident when on the scene of an incident with a patrol officer. However, when supervisors do this, they could be going against a patrol officer’s expectation that the supervisor, at the most, should be giving only advice on how to handle a particular situation. This would explain some of the resentment patrol officers feel towards supervisors when they attend a scene, as patrol officers may feel they are capable of handling these incidents themselves. Previous research 4 found that the majority of patrol officers expected supervisors to back them up as another patrol officer would do, and only 10 per cent of officers indicated that they would expect some form of guidance from their supervisors.
Conclusions and Implications
It is unclear whether active supervisors have an influence on patrol officers or not. Their presence at calls for service may force patrol officers to handle incidents in accordance with agency policy and the wishes of the complainant, rather than otherwise, which could be a reason for the resentment of the presence of supervisors at incidents and for the reluctance to call them to a scene. It could also be that the presence of a supervisor at a street check or arrest causes the patrol officer to relinquish the matter to the supervisor, who may have more skills to handle it but leaves patrol officers feeling resentful because they believe it reflects negatively on their abilities. Thus the reluctance and resentment felt by patrol officers in having supervisors witness their work may actually be an indication that active supervision does have an influence on patrol officer behaviour. The challenge is to convince patrol officers to make use of and benefit from supervision rather than resisting and resenting it and, perhaps, for active supervisors to become consultative rather than authoritative.
In addition, rather than waiting to be called by patrol officers to attend an incident, supervisors could initiate attendance in order to have an influence on patrol officer behaviour. Frequency of interaction between supervisors and patrol officers should not be determined by the patrol officers, since they may not seek contact.
Generally patrol officers are younger, have spent less time in policing and have less experience than those in other police functions, such as criminal investigation. With the large cohort of baby boomers in policing retiring in the next ten years, the demographic trend in most police agencies is likely to aggravate the present situation,. Replacement of the retirees by new recruits will mean a vacuum in experience in the lower and mid levels in most police services. This factor will make on-the-road or on-site supervision an important part of teaching and enforcing proper use of police officer powers.
The situation may be further complicated by a new trend in civil litigation to accuse police services with negligence in policing; in this case, a failure to supervise.5 To avoid such suits, it is likely that supervisors will have to show that they have actively tried to prevent abuse of authority such as unlawful arrest, spurious or discriminatory charging practices, and excessive force; or be taken to task along with their subordinates for such occurrences. This may lead supervisors to scrutinize the policing activities under their control more frequently, particularly in such matters as consent searches and incidents involving visible minority suspects, which are frequently sources of complaint and controversy.
References
Allen, David (1980). Street-Ievel police supervision - the effect of supervision on police officer activities, agency outputs, and neighborhood outcomes. Ph.D dissertation. Ann Arbor, MI: Indiana University.
Allen, David (1982). “Police supervision on the street: an analysis of supervisor/officer interaction during the shift”, Journal of Criminal Justice, 10(2), 91-109, 1982.
Allen, David and M.G. Maxfield. “Judging Police Performance: Views and Behavior of Patrol Officers” in R.R. Bennett (ed.) Police at Work: Policy Issues and Analysis, pp. 65-86. Beverley Hills: Sage, 1983.
Brewer, Neil, Carlene Wilson and Karen Beck (1994). “Supervisory behaviour and team performance amongst police patrol sergeants” in Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, vol. 67, pp. 69-78, 1994.
Brooks, Laure W, Alex Piquero and James Cronin (1993). “Police Officer Attitudes Concerning Their Communities and Their Roles: A Comparison of Two Suburban Police Departments” in American Journal of Police, vol. 12, 1993, pp. 120-122.
Engel, Robin S. “Effects of Police Supervisory Styles on Patrol Officer Behaviour” in Police Quarterly, Vol. 3(3), pp. 262-293, 2000. p. 280.
Ericson, Richard V. Reproducing order: a study of police patrol work. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1982.
End Notes
1. Laure W. Brooks , Alex Piquero and James Cronin, “Police Officer Attitudes Concerning Their Communities and Their Roles: A Comparison of Two Suburban Police Departments” in American Journal of Police, vol. 12, 1993, pp. 120-122.
2. Robin S. Engel, “Effects of Police Supervisory Styles on Patrol Officer Behaviour” in Police Quarterly, Vol. 3(3), pp. 262-293, 2000. p. 280.
3. David Allen, Street-Ievel police supervision- the effect of supervision on police officer activities, agency outputs, and neighborhood outcomes, Ph.D dissertation, Ann Arbor, MI: Indiana University, 1980; David Allen, “Police supervision on the street: an analysis of supervisor/officer interaction during the shift”, in Journal of Criminal Justice, 10(2), 91-109, 1982; Richard V. Ericson, Reproducing order- a study of police patrol work, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1982. Neil Brewer, Carlene Wilson and Karen Beck, “Supervisory behaviour and team performance amongst police patrol sergeants” in Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, vol. 67, pp. 69-78, 1994; Robin S. Engel, (2000) “Effects of Police Supervisory Styles on Patrol Officer Behaviour” in Police Quarterly, vol. 3(3), pp. 262-293, 2000.
4. David Allen and M.G. Maxfield, “Judging Police Performance: Views and Behavior of Patrol Officers” in R.R. Bennett (ed.) Police at Work: Policy Issues and Analysis, pp. 65-86. Beverley Hills: Sage,1983.
5. Ronald Hunt, The Role of the First-Line Supervisor in Medium-Sized Police Departments by the Year 2004, Los Angeles, CA: California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, Los Angeles, CA: 1995;
Michael S. Vaughan, Tab W. Cooper and Rolando V. del Carmen, “Assessing Legal Liabilities in Law Enforcement: Police Chiefs’ Views” in Crime and Delinquency, 2001, Vol. 47(1), pp. 3-27; Bredeman et al versus City of Edmonton et al , Alberta Queen’s Bench, action no.8903 00808.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |