| This dissertation offers the first theoretically-driven, comparative examination of the U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ) enforcement of Section 14141 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. Also known as `pattern or practice' reform, this provision grants the DOJ authority to "obtain appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate the pattern or practice...of conduct by law enforcement officers...that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States" (42 U.S.C. Sec. 14141).;I examine settlement reform efforts in four jurisdictions found to exhibit a pattern or practice of excessive use of force: Pittsburgh, PA; Washington, D.C.; Cincinnati, OH; and Prince George's County, MD. Specifically, I develop and test analytical frameworks to describe and explain the implementation and institutionalization of change.;The project's data is drawn from three sources: (1) quarterly reports filed by the independent monitor and police department staff; (2) twenty-eight open-ended interviews with key stakeholders, including police leadership, relevant city and county government personnel, independent monitors, and current and former DOJ attorneys; and (3) news reports, and publicly available data on demographic, crime, and socio-economic data. The study's data analysis is driven by a grounded theoretical approach.;After completing brief cases studies of each jurisdiction, I develop an analytical framework to describe and evaluate the implementation of pattern or practice reform. The framework is based on research taken from various areas of scholarship, including policy implementation, policing, and remedial law. I hypothesize that four categories of variables will define the implementation of settlement agreements, namely factors related to (1) the policy problem; (2) the policy solution; (3) the environmental context; and (4) the implementing agency.;I test this framework by describing the implementation of three settlement agreement components central to each jurisdiction's reform effort, including use of force policy change, creation of early warning systems, and the development of citizen complaint investigation protocols. Findings suggest that each department faced significant yet varied challenges implementing these settlement components. Despite the delays and other complications that stem from such challenges, each jurisdiction achieved "substantial compliance" and was released from federal oversight within five to seven years of the original settlement date.;Several factors help to explain variation between departments, including the complexity of joint action, agency and jurisdictional resources, active and capable police leadership, and support from local political leaders. This research also demonstrates the critical and unique role of independent monitors charged with overseeing the reform process. Monitors at once help to hold affected departments accountable, work to ensure that implementation remains high on the departments' agenda, and "fix" problems between stakeholder groups. Perhaps most importantly, these monitors act as intermediaries between DOJ attorneys, police leaders, and third-party groups, in the process bringing together "top-down" and "bottom-up" implementation forces.;Parties to pattern or practice agreements conceive of such agreements as legal instruments and as a result minimize the policy ramifications of the reform process. As a direct result of this legal framing, departments (as well as the independent monitors) focus on achieving substantial compliance with the terms of the settlement to the exclusion of other, policy-related considerations. Therefore, my analysis of the implementation process did not address anything beyond department implementation of legal mandates, and thus omitted any discussion of the extent to which such reforms affected outcomes like use of force incidence, citizen complaints, or public opinion of the police. Further, this narrow analysis did not consider the extent to which pattern or practice reform brought about changes to organizational culture, agency transparency, and legitimacy in the eyes of the community.;To account for this limitation, I examine the policy sustainability of pattern or practice reform initiatives. In order to frame several research questions on the sustainability of pattern or practice reform, I review literature from several fields, including organizational change, organizational theory, and policing. Drawing on these diverse approaches, I develop a framework for evaluating reform sustainability and hypothesize that sustainability is determined when the framework's three components are taken together: (1) the department's ability to sustain changes made to policy and accountability systems; (2) the symmetry between department culture and the goals of the reform effort; and (3) relevant outcomes.;Next, I use this framework to evaluate the sustainability of change in Pittsburgh, Washington, D.C., Cincinnati, and Prince George's County. Specifically, I attempt to explain jurisdictional differences by using four sets of factors, including the process and substance of reform, and the organizational and environmental contexts affecting change in each department. As with implementation, capable police leadership and a consistent commitment to both the letter and spirit of the settlement among jurisdictional political leaders proved critically important in promoting sustainability. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)... |
