Abstract
Decertification is the process by which a state authority determines that an individual should not be allowed to continue exercising the duties and privileges of a law enforcement officer. This is a potentially powerful mechanism for ensuring integrity in law enforcement, yet little is known about the nature and scope of decertification actions. This article presents the findings of a national study of decertification practices among the states. Over 1,350 officers were decertified during 2011 (including corrections officers, police officers, and others), and the base rate of decertification among police officers is estimated to be 1.2 per 1,000 officers, varying from zero to 7.6 per 1,000 at the state level. Sources of variability and policy implications are discussed.
Democratic policing is necessarily concerned with the behavior of the police as well as the public’s perception of police behavior. Recent, highly publicized incidents of police misconduct have demonstrated that perceptions of police legitimacy can quickly be eroded by incidents involving poor officer behavior. The legitimacy of the police, and ultimately their ability to be effective public servants, hangs in the balance of both actual police behavior and the perception of police behavior, suggesting that if the police are inattentive to public concerns about the quality of policing there will be real consequences. Public compliance with the police and deference to police authority (and importantly, officer safety) are dependent on public perceptions of police legitimacy (Tyler, 2002). Although an argument might be made for better marketing of policing (an uncomfortable idea for those familiar with the dramaturgical perspective [Manning, 1977]), strong accountability mechanisms are the democratic solution.
Officers can be terminated for egregious behavior and are in fact terminated for such behavior despite cynical anecdotes regarding the strength of police unions and civil service regulations. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) reported more than 32,000 officer separations from local police departments during 2003, including about 2,600 dismissals (Hickman & Reaves, 2006). However, dismissal isn’t always the final word on the matter. Officers may be rehired by another jurisdiction, in which case the new jurisdiction inherits another jurisdiction’s problem. This can be a conscious decision by the hiring agency, especially in small jurisdictions where financial resources are limited and lateral officers are simply scarce (Goldman & Puro, 2001). Fortunately, most states have the authority to revoke an officer’s peace officer certification (often referred to as decertification), essentially invalidating their training credentials and making them unemployable as a law enforcement officer. The reasons for decertification vary, but in all such cases a state authority determines that the subject officer(s) should not be allowed to continue exercising the duties and privileges of a law enforcement officer.
The goal of state decertification is to ensure integrity in law enforcement by preventing the intrastate rehire of problem officers. For example, if an officer separates from a law enforcement agency in Washington State, a notice of the separation is reported to the Criminal Justice Training Commission. The law enforcement agency reporting the separation must indicate whether they are aware of “disqualifying misconduct” that could lead to the subject officer’s decertification. The Training Commission can investigate and decide whether to proceed against the officer, and if the officer is ultimately decertified, he/she is unemployable by other law enforcement agencies within Washington State.
The International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training (IADLEST) developed the National Decertification Index (NDI) as a means to further enhance integrity in law enforcement by preventing the interstate rehire of problem officers. Thus, the hypothetical officer decertified in Washington State cannot simply move to another state and gain employment as a law enforcement officer. The hiring agency can query the NDI to check whether the applicant has been decertified in another state, request relevant records from the other state, and make an informed decision about hiring the officer.
This article presents the results of an establishment survey of state Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) agencies with regard to current certification and decertification practices, including the bases for decertification, the total number of decertification actions by type of officer and reason for decertification, reporting practices, and data retention. We then examine the degree of POST participation in the NDI program, and records submissions to the NDI. Finally, we attempt to estimate base rates of decertification among states having decertification authority.
Literature Review
For much of the past 150 years, police officers have been viewed as thugs, political tools, and enforcers for the rich and influential. Beginning with the progressive movement of the early 1900’s, and with the emerging professional influence of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), American society came to value greater professionalism in civil service. Gone are the days when new officers “bought” their positions, received the tools of policing at the time (a badge, a stick, and a book of laws to enforce) and were sent out to their beat (Walker, 1992). The professionalism movement in policing brought with it greater attention to the selection and training of officers, the removal of political interference, and stronger management (Walker, 1992). Beginning in the 1950’s, many states began establishing professional standards for law enforcement officers in terms of minimum qualifications and training standards (Goldman, 2003).
In 1959, California and New York were the first states to establish POST commissions. The influential President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice (1967) emphasized a clear need for standards in the hiring and conduct of law enforcement officers and in addition to advocating for many of the modern movements in policing, the Commission recommended that each state establish a POST Commission. In that same year, 17 states had established POST commissions, and by 1981 every state would have a commission responsible for standards and training of law enforcement officers, correctional officers, communications staff, security guards, private investigators, and/or other positions of public trust (International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training, 2013).
While a number of national efforts have attempted to unite POST agencies, each commission remains fairly distinct. In 1973, the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals published recommendations ranging from improved recruitment and selection standards to rigorous basic and recurrent training curricula. In 1996, a “comprehensive national registry for all police officers” was proposed with the support of interest groups and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE; Franklin, Hickman, & Hiller, 2009). Though Congress rejected the Law Enforcement and Correctional Officers Employment Registration Act of 1996, the initiative spurred development of a voluntary reporting system, the National Officer Clearinghouse, and the system presently operated by IADLEST, the NDI.
Since the evolution of POST commissions, standards of conduct have been established to define grounds for revocation of an officer’s commission. Decertification can be predicated on a broad spectrum of behaviors spanning from criminal infractions to the more diffuse qualification of “moral turpitude” (Goldman, 2003). Regardless of the rationale, decertification has come to be an accepted and necessary enhancement to criminal prosecution and civil remedies, while protecting the officers’ constitutional right to due process. No longer is hiring and firing an internal personnel matter, unique to a jurisdiction. POST agencies provide a critical oversight role in what was once a loose conglomeration of authorities, policies, and procedures. Over time, revocation powers have become more widespread among the states, broader in scope, and stronger (for reviews of the content of state legislation regarding decertification, see Goldman, 2003; Goldman & Puro, 1987, 2001; Puro, Goldman, & Smith, 1997).
Goldman (2003, p. 126) estimates that the number of law enforcement officers who “either plead guilty to or are convicted of conspiracy and color-of-law violations in federal court is just a fraction of the total number of complaints . . . approximately 1% in fiscal year 2001.” Of the 6,000 criminal complaints filed in 2001, only 1,000 were investigated by the FBI; of the 1,000 investigated complaints, only 100 were prosecuted (Goldman, 2003). In many cases prosecution was deferred to local or state authorities. Other reasons why these cases were not prosecuted include lack of evidence of criminal intent, absence of a federal crime, or insufficient evidence to secure a conviction (Goldman, 2003). Decertification provides an alternate mechanism for removing problem officers from positions of authority and preventing them from being hired in another jurisdiction.
It has been suggested that national law enforcement initiatives such as the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Office of Community Oriented Policing Services make the professional standards maintained by POST agencies a requisite for receiving federal funding (Goldman, 2003). 1 Initially, the NDI was to be a joint venture funded by the DOJ and the Bureau of Justice Assistance. This would have unified the efforts of the IACP, IADLEST, and the DOJ to provide national leadership for police standards, decertification, and reporting. Currently, IADLEST administers the NDI and provides a national forum for discussion of standardization.
The last 50 years has seen the rapid evolution of law enforcement from a technical or vocational occupation to a professional discipline. Law enforcement officers today are better educated, often having college degrees in police science or criminal justice and the amount of training they receive has never been higher (Reaves, 2009, 2010), or better, two critical factors indicated by law enforcement officers as critical to curtailing police misconduct (Weisburd, Greenspan, Hamilton, Bryant, & Williams, 2001). Under threat of decertification, standards of conduct in and out of uniform have been raised for commissioned officers. A series of data collections beginning in 2000 (Franklin, 2000), and with support of the Bureau of Justice Assistance in 2005 (Franklin, 2005) and 2009 (Franklin et al., 2009), has been documenting the growth in state decertification authority, the incidence of decertification, and related policies and procedures. The present study reports on the latest and most detailed iteration of the project.
Method
An establishment survey (technically, a census) of state POST agencies was conducted in April, 2012. Questionnaires were self-administered via U.S. Mail and were addressed to the director of each state POST agency. All agencies except the POST in New Mexico responded to the questionnaire, which covered a range of topics on certification and decertification practices. Extensive follow-up procedures including telephone calls and emails from researchers as well as from the IADLEST Executive Director, and both faxed and re-mailed questionnaire packages were unsuccessful. Data for New Mexico were based upon information reported in a previous iteration of the survey (Franklin et al., 2009). All states except Hawaii maintain POST agencies or an equivalent entity. The Honolulu Police Department provided a response for Hawaii. The DC training and standards board was also included in the study.
The questionnaire was structured in three sections: the first section asked a series of questions concerning the POST agency’s certification and decertification authority, the basis for decertification, and decertification activity for calendar year 2011; the second section dealt with records retention and information management, as well as publication of decertification actions; and the third section dealt with participation in the NDI. The questionnaire data were coded for analysis with the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. The data collection instrument and the raw data are available in both paper and electronic format upon request.
Certain items on the questionnaire proved difficult for agencies. In particular, some agencies were unclear of the year in which their decertification authority was granted and the number of decertification actions since that authority was granted. Some agencies also had difficulty providing detail on the causes of decertification and the types of officers decertified. These types of data quality issues are noted in the analysis where appropriate.
In the following sections we provide descriptive statistics for certification and decertification practices as they pertain to all law enforcement officers (e.g., correctional officers, police officers, and others). We then transition to a focus on police officers only, and estimate base rates for police across the states.
Certification and Decertification Practices
POST agencies and similar state entities in 48 states reported having the authority to certify law enforcement officers in 2011 (agencies in Hawaii, New York, and the District of Columbia did not have such authority). In addition, POST agencies reported having the authority to certify correctional officers (23 agencies), parole or probation officers (19 agencies), communications personnel or dispatchers (13 agencies), canine handlers or canine teams (10 agencies), and private security officers (4 agencies).
POST agencies in 45 states had the authority to revoke officer certification in 2011 (Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia did not have this authority). 2 Among agencies having the authority to revoke certification, the bases for revocation included felony conviction (96%), misdemeanor convictions (78%), failure to meet training or qualification requirements (69%), misconduct (51%), and termination of employment for cause (44%; Figure 1). Voluntary relinquishment in lieu of prosecution or revocation was also reported as a basis for revocation in 73% of agencies.
Percent of POST agencies having authority to decertify officers for listed reasons.
Twenty-six agencies reported having the ability to temporarily suspend certification. The maximum lengths of temporary suspension ranged from a 5 day “Emergency Hearing” period up to 20 years. Among nine agencies indicating a maximum term of suspension, the average length was about 4 years. Twelve agencies indicated an ability to suspend officer certification indefinitely or without limit. Agencies reported also having the option to exercise disciplinary remedies other than decertification, including suspension of duty (49%), additional or remedial training (31%), reprimand (27%), probation (24%), counseling (9%), and fines (7%). In all cases, states reported that officers are entitled to appeal a revocation action.
Officers Decertified
Forty-four of the 45 agencies having authority to revoke certification were able to report the total number of officers decertified during 2011. In sum, these agencies reported a total of 1,354 officers who had their certification revoked. Georgia reported the greatest number of decertification actions (405), followed by Florida (305). Together, these two states account for more than half of all reported decertification actions during 2011.
The total number of decertification actions in 2011 was somewhat lower than reported in previous data collections. In 2008, a total of 1,556 decertification actions were reported; in 2004, a total of 1,506 were reported; and in 1999, a total of 1,810 were reported. These figures may suggest a declining trend in the number of annual decertification actions from 1999 to 2011 (Figure 2), however, given the limited time frame as well as efforts of some POSTs to clear administrative backlogs in the entry of decertification records, and other potential measurement issues, we are cautious in drawing any conclusions about a trend (see also Goldman and Puro, 2001, suggesting some evidence of an upward trend during the 1990’s).
Decertification actions, 1999-2011.
Among agencies able to provide detail regarding officers decertified in 2011, about 43% involved a felony conviction (Figure 3). It is important to note that these causes are not mutually exclusive; agencies reported multiple causes for some officers. Misconduct (29%) and misdemeanor convictions (22%) were the next most frequent causes noted. Termination of employment for cause (5%), failure to meet training or qualification requirements (2%), and “other” reasons (4%), were less frequently noted. In addition, it is important to note that voluntary relinquishment in lieu of prosecution or revocation action was noted in 27% of decertification actions during 2011.
Decertification actions by cause, 2011.
Among agencies able to provide detail regarding officers decertified in 2011, officers from law enforcement (59%) and corrections (37%) represent the majority of decertifications in 2011. The remaining categories (parole/probation, private security, canine handlers/canine teams, and communications/911/dispatch officers) collectively acccounted for about 1% of all decertification actions (Figure 4). Agencies identified decertifications as “Other” in 3% of the remaining cases, indicating “Detention,” “Juvenile Officers,” and “Certified Reserve Officers” as their classification.
Decertification actions by type of officer, 2011.
It is important to note that more than half of the agencies (55%) indicated that certain officers are exempt from certification requirements. Positions that were noted as exempt from certification authority included sheriffs, chiefs of police, fire marshals, “Chief Executives and the Second in Command of an Agency,” commissioners and those with limited police powers (park rangers, parole officers, and campus police).
Total Decertification Actions Since Authority Granted
Some POST agencies have had the authority to decertify officers since the 1960’s, while other agencies were only granted authority in the past 5 years. In addition, some POST agencies that previously had decertification authority have since lost, or regained, such authority. Twenty-eight of the 45 agencies having authority to revoke certification in 2011 were able to report the total number of officers decertified since their agencies were granted authority. In sum, these agencies reported a total of 11,639 decertification actions. Since 17 states were unable to provide this data, the total reported in 2011 should be regarded as very conservative. If available data from 2008 are included for the nonreporting entities, the total figure is 22,681 decertification actions. This is a more reasonable yet still quite conservative estimate.
The greatest number of decertification actions was reported by Florida (6,052), where the POST agency reported having the authority to revoke certification since 1980. 3 Arizona reported the next greatest number (1,103 actions since 1968). If data from 2008 are included, Georgia would likely have the greatest number of decertification actions: in 2008, Georgia reported having decertified 6,252 officers since 1970.
In three states, agencies indicated that another state agency also had authority to revoke certification, such as the State Police.
Obligation to Report Disqualifying Conduct
One challenge facing decertification authorities is how to determine whether an officer who has separated from an agency may have engaged in conduct that could lead to decertification. Law enforcement agencies in most states are required to report separations to their POST, but unless agencies are specifically required to report awareness of disqualifying conduct (a problem complicated by the need for qualified immunity—see Puro et al., 1997), the burden is on the decertification authority to investigate whether disqualifying conduct may have been a factor. In some states, a POST may learn about disqualifying conduct through word-of-mouth, news media, or other indirect sources.
POST agencies in 43 states indicated that law enforcement agencies must report employment separations of any type to the POST. Further, in 18 of those states, law enforcement agencies must also report awareness of conduct that could lead to decertification. However, 10 states with revocation authority specifically indicated that agencies are not specifically obligated to report awareness of conduct that could lead to decertification (although this may also be presumed of the remaining states). One state indicated that failure to report grounds for decertification was classified as a criminal offense.
Records Retention and Publication
POST agencies in 43 states reported maintaining certification records indefinitely; other agencies reported fairly long periods of records retention, ranging from 10 to 50 years. Thirty-four agencies reported use of an agency developed electronic data management system; 19 reported a commercial data management system; and 15 agencies also reported having a card-based manual system (these categories are not mutually exclusive). All but two agencies reported using a numbering system for identifying certification records, and most commonly used something other than a Social Security Number.
Thirty-four POST agencies (67%) reported that they publish revocation actions. The most common format was to publish these actions in the minutes of POST meetings (30 states), followed by an online location such as the POST agency’s website (10 states), some other type of agency publication (7 states), and newspapers or other public media (3 states; these categories are not mutually exclusive).
The NDI
The NDI is an electronic database maintained by IADLEST. State POST agencies can contribute, edit, and delete decertification records in the NDI, and can also query the NDI as part of the screening process for officer applicants. In some states, hiring agencies are authorized by POSTs to query the NDI directly in this role (19 states granted such authority in 2011).
The NDI is a “pointer system” and does not contain any detail about the specific decertification action, personnel records, or other sensitive information. Records in the NDI only refer the querying agency to the appropriate state records custodian. The goal of the NDI is to assist hiring agencies in determining whether an applicant has been decertified for misconduct in another state (Figure 5).
How the National Decertification Index (NDI) works to prevent the interstate rehire of problem officers.
NDI pointer records may be searched by name and date of birth. Results may include the name of the employing agency, start and end of service dates, year of decertification action, and the name and telephone number of the reporting agency. As of August, 2012, there were 15,261 decertification records in the NDI contributed by 32 states. For greater detail, see http://www.iadlest.org/Projects/NDI20.aspx.
Post Participation in the NDI
Thirty agencies in 2011 reported that they contribute decertification records to the NDI. This is about two thirds (67%) of all agencies having the authority to revoke certification. These agencies reported contributing a total of 1,341 records during 2011. It is important to note that there is not a direct relationship between the number of decertification actions in a given year and the number of records contributed to the NDI. This is because some agencies have only recently begun contributing records, and are “catching up” (i.e., reporting decertification actions from prior years). Among those able to provide detail, 72% of the records contributed during 2011 were for law enforcement officers, 18% were for correctional officers, with the remaining 10% spread across other categories.
Post Awareness and Use of the NDI
In 2011, only one agency indicated they were unaware of the NDI, and three indicated they were going to be contributing records in the near future. One agency indicated they were awaiting legislative approval to contribute records to the NDI. This is an improvement when contrasted with those agencies not contributing records to the NDI in 2008, when eight reported that they were unaware of the NDI, did not know enough about the NDI, or were exploring the possibility of contributing records in the future.
Twenty-two agencies reported “always” (15 states) or “frequently” (7 states) querying the NDI. Fourteen agencies reported “occasionally” (10 states) or rarely (4 states) querying the NDI, and 14 agencies reported “never” querying the database. Twenty-nine of the 30 agencies that reported contributing records to the NDI also reported querying the NDI. Seven agencies that reported they do not contribute records to the NDI also reported that they query the NDI.
There were no “hits” returned by the NDI (i.e., information that an individual seeking employment had been decertified in another state) that were reported by those agencies querying the NDI during 2011.
Estimating a Base Rate for Police Officers
Here, we attempt to estimate the base rates of decertification of police officers by state, using employment data from the FBI’s 2011 Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) employment data. The most recent available BJS Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies provides data for 2008 (Reaves, 2011), so we opted for the UCR data. 4 The 45 States having decertification authority employed a total of 579,435 officers in 2011 (this figure excludes West Virginia, who did not report decertification actions). States reported decertifying 717 law enforcement officers in 2011, yielding an estimated rate of 1.2 decertification actions per 1,000 officers on an annual basis (Table 1). We caution readers that this aggregate rate masks a great deal of variation. The rates of decertification during 2011 varied across the states from zero to a high of 7.6 per 1,000.
Estimated Base Rates of Decertification for Law Enforcement Officers, Among States Having Decertification Authority, 2011.
Note: Decertification data for New Mexico are from an earlier study. West Virginia was unable to report the total number of decertification actions and is not included in this table. Decertification actions for Georgia and Oregon are estimated based upon proportions attributable to law enforcement officers, in personal communications with POST Directors in those states.
As earlier noted, law enforcement agencies in 18 states are specifically obligated to report to the POST their awareness of conduct that could lead to decertification. One might surmise that decertification rates would be higher in the former states, and lower in those not having such a requirement. To examine this as a potential source of variability in base rates, we compared the two groups of states. The base rate among states having such an obligation was 1.8 per 1,000 compared to 0.9 per 1,000 among states not having such an obligation (Table 2). Both groups of states decertified about the same number of officers (about 360) during 2011, but states in which agencies are obligated to report awareness of decertifiable conduct represent about half as many officers. Although this particular policy variable may help to explain some of the variability in state-level rates, additional organizational variables not measured here are an important area that should be explored in future research. 5
Base Rates Among States in Which Law Enforcement Agencies Are Obligated or Not Obligated to Report to POST Awareness of Officer Conduct That Could Lead to Decertification, 2011.
Discussion and Conclusion
Decertification is a potentially important accountability mechanism for democratic policing. Once considered political and technical, law enforcement and corrections positions are now widely viewed as professional occupations with strict qualifications for employment and conduct in and out of uniform. Decertification actions may have been declining since the late 1990’s (whereas they may have been rising in the decade prior), and while most states have POST commissions for the administration of professional standards and discipline, some do not. Despite these concerns, decertification has proven to be a viable means of improving the quality of public service and controlling serious officer misconduct.
Since the 1960’s more than 22,680 law enforcement, corrections, security, communication and other officers have had their certification revoked for criminal infractions, misconduct, and failure to meet minimum standards. Additionally, 26 states indicated the ability to suspend certification for periods ranging from several months to 20 years. Much like the medical and legal professions, law enforcement has established, through professional organizations, standards and the infrastructure to share information in an effort to prevent the interstate rehire of problem officers. The result may be evident in the declining numbers of decertified officers in recent years. Decertification has potentially improved the quality of public servants in positions of authority.
While decertification has been employed for nearly 50 years, it is possible that a downward trend in the number of officers decertified occurred during the last decade. Although we hesitate to conclude that a definitive trend exists, such a trend could be interpreted as the result of improved standards and enforcement within agencies. As standards in hiring and training have improved the quality of incoming officers and decertification, retirement and attrition remove older officers from service and the incidence of misconduct may decrease accordingly. Under this assumption, we might expect to see a continued downward trend toward a base rate of decertification over the next decade.
Though decertification is arguably an effective control with little downside, five states do not have the authority to revoke certification (and see Note 2 regarding California), and the variability in rates across states may diminish the potential power of decertification both at the state-level and in the aggregate. Only 30 states reported contributing records to the NDI and only 22 states reported “always” or “frequently” querying the NDI during preemployment background checks. Decertification and NDI reporting remain a voluntary action. The authority to certify and decertify officers remains a powerful and closely held privilege not likely to be surrendered to an oversight authority. Additionally, law enforcement agencies and labor unions are notoriously protective of their officers and voluntary reporting remains a sensitive subject for many jurisdictions. Without a federal mandate, progress toward full participation in the certification/decertification and NDI reporting process will be slow.
In 1996 Congress attempted to pass a bill that would have mandated reporting to a national registry of law enforcement officers. This legislation had backing of the FDLE as well as members of the Senate and the House of Representatives, including Sen. Bob Graham (D. Fl) and Rep. Harry Johnson (D. Fl) but never made it out of committee; similarly, in the early 2000’s two DOJ initiatives attempted to develop national repositories for certification information that failed to come to fruition (Franklin et al., 2009). While professional organizations such as IADLEST have succeeded where politics failed, there remains no clear mandate to participate.
The issue of states rights has and will remain a contentious issue in the complex interplay between the federal government and local authority; however, in the case of so called “problem officers” there exists a compelling governmental interest in preventing the interstate rehire of these individuals. We have come to expect a level of professionalism and accountability from our public servants that necessitates a national clearinghouse for officer decertification information. The index can and should remain a “pointer” system, referring hiring officials to a designated point of contact for more information; however, 100% participation is required to ensure no officer decertified by one state may obtain a commission in another state. Further, state legislation should require agencies to report their awareness, at the time of separation, of conduct that could lead to decertification. Consistent standards, the free flow of critical information, and sponsorship of an entity with the authority to enforce such procedures are critical to the continued professionalization of the discipline.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.