Law Enforcement Innovation and Diffusion

177 Pages·2017·3.58 MB·English

by  Jeremiah Paul Johnson

CCiittyy UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff NNeeww YYoorrkk ((CCUUNNYY))
CCUUNNYY AAccaaddeemmiicc WWoorrkkss
Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects CUNY Graduate Center
9-2015
LLaaww EEnnffoorrcceemmeenntt IInnnnoovvaattiioonn aanndd DDiiffffuussiioonn:: AA NNeettwwoorrkk AAnnaallyyssiiss ooff
PPoolliiccee AAccccrreeddiittaattiioonn
Jeremiah Paul Johnson
Graduate Center, City University of New York
How does access to this work benefit you? Let us know!
More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/991
Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu
This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY).
Contact: [email protected]
LAW ENFORCEMENT INNOVATION AND DIFFUSION:
A NETWORK ANALYSIS OF POLICE ACCREDITATION

by

JEREMIAH PAUL JOHNSON

A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Criminal Justice in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, The City University of New York

2015

i
©2015
JEREMIAH PAUL JOHNSON
All Rights Reserved
ii
The manuscript has been read and accepted for the
Graduate Faculty in Criminal Justice in satisfaction of the
dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Jon Shane

______________________ _____________________________________
Date Chair of Examining Committee

Deborah Koetzle

_______________________ _______________________________________
Date Executive Officer

Pat O’Hara_________________________________________

Jeremy Porter_______________________________________

Supervisory Committee

THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK

iii
Abstract

LAW ENFORCEMENT INNOVATION AND DIFFUSION:
A NETWORK ANALYSIS OF POLICE ACCREDITATION
by
Jeremiah Paul Johnson
Dissertation Director: Dr. Jon Shane
This study seeks to identify network structures capable of predicting innovation uptake among
law enforcement organizations. Utilizing a mixed-methods approach, diffusion is studied
through the lens of a single innovation, state law enforcement accreditation. Quantitative data
culled from a variety of social artifacts in two New England states are used as a basis for the
study. Relational data extracted from meetings held by a private police chief’s association over
an 11 year period were used to construct an affiliation matrix. Social network analysis
demonstrates that actors with high levels of centrality are more likely to self-select state
accreditation enrollment than their less embedded counterparts. However, network position had
no significant effect on whether or not the innovation was adopted successfully. Policy
documents obtained from 22 law enforcement organizations that had recently enrolled in a state
accreditation program were subjected to text network analysis in order to measure organizational
responses to innovation uptake. Patterns of organizational language, including pronounced
structural shifts by agencies that adopted accreditation, are indicative of mimetic and normative
isomorphism. Study findings and their attendant implications are approached through an
institutional theory perspective.
Keywords: Accreditation; CALEA; diffusion; innovation; institutional isomorphism; institutional
theory; police organizations; social network analysis; text network analysis.
iv
Dedication
Non nobis, Domine, Domine
Non nobis, Domine
Sed nomini, sed nomini
Tuo da gloriam
(Psalm 115:1)
I would like to dedicate this dissertation to my loving family who have endured much and
received far too little in exchange:
To my precious treasure, Nadia, who not only catalyzed this doctoral pursuit, but
vicariously endured every struggle and victory along the way. The journey to this milestone took
longer than expected, but she never doubted me once. Many marriages falter in graduate school
without the added pressures of a police shift-work schedule or children. Somehow we emerged
stronger. Her daily (and nightly) sacrifices were not lost on me, nor were they in vain.
Hopefully we will recoup whatever time was lost, tenfold. #TeamJohnson
To my ten year old daughter, Tayler, who has never known a day outside the womb in
which her daddy was not in graduate school. Keeping tabs on my progress motivated me to
write as I never wanted to report the same page count two days in a row.
To my eight year old son, Hunter, who would regularly offer to write this “distertation”
on my behalf and even volunteered his XBOX 360 headset for dictation purposes.
To my younger daughters, Skyler (age 4) and Amber (age 1), who were spared the
worst, but did much to inspire and encourage my heart.
To my maternal and paternal grandmothers, Katherine Roberts and Irene Johnson,
both of whom passed during my time in the doctoral program. Their love and support will not
soon be forgotten.

v
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my distinguished dissertation committee comprised of Dr.
Jon Shane (Chair), Dr. Pat O’Hara, and Dr. Jeremy Porter. Their support,
despite my unconventional selection of methods, was greatly appreciated. I am
deeply honored to have each one of these scholars associated with my research:
I first connected with Jon through Dr. Delores Jones-Brown, who must have quickly
recognized that he and I see the world through very similar lenses. It has been a pleasure to read
Jon’s scholarly work and get to know him over the last few years (usually over a meal at the
diner!). I am indebted to him for shepherding me through this trying, yet oddly enjoyable ordeal.
I had the privilege of reading Pat’s work before I even met him. He understands police
departments better than any “outsider” (and most cops!) that I’ve encountered in my professional
life. His book, Why Law Enforcement Organizations Fail: Mapping the Organizational Fault
Lines in Policing, should be mandatory reading for all police administrators. Pat’s contributions
to the theoretical perspective of this dissertation were much appreciated.
It was a challenge to find a committee member who had the requisite knowledge and
interest to oversee a study grounded in social network analysis. Jeremy came highly
recommended by my peers in the doctoral program who exhorted me to secure him as a
committee member before newer students could lock him up. It was a great relief when he
volunteered to serve on the committee before I had even built up the nerve to ask! Jeremy lived
up to his reputation; his contributions to the quantitative aspects of this study were indispensable.
I would like to thank the following individuals for their contribution(s) to my
personal development as a scholar:
My esteemed friend, Dr. John DeCarlo, who showed a young sergeant from Connecticut
the way (literally and figuratively) to John Jay. John is undoubtedly the busiest retired cop on
the planet. Despite this, he has been a constant source of encouragement throughout my time in
the program. I wish that I could have served under his leadership in the policing world and
secretly hope that he will come out of retirement someday. I would also like to thank John for
serving as an outside reader for the second examination.
My mentor and colleague from Western Connecticut State University, Dr. Casey
Jordan. Casey vouched for me during the doctoral admissions process and I am relieved to have
finally made good on her assurances. She also helped me overcome imposter syndrome early on,
reassuring me that I was not just a police officer with a graduate degree, but rather was
“an academic who happened to be a cop”.
vi
My fellow cohort members at John Jay College, both original (2008) and “adopted”
(2009-2010), from whom I have learned so much. Your kind and collegial spirits were an
incredibly meaningful part of my time in the program.
John Jay College President Jeremy Travis who provided me with the opportunity of a
lifetime as an invited observer at the Harvard/NIJ Executive Session on Policing and Public
Safety. I have yet to rival the experience in my professional life and sincerely doubt that I ever
will.
Dr. Andrew Papachristos of Yale University, who took the time to tutor a total stranger
(from Greenfield, nonetheless) on the rudiments of Social Network Analysis. I truly hope that
his vision of a “Networked Criminology” is fully realized someday.
Dr. Peter Moskos of John Jay College, who graciously served as an outside reader for
the second examination. His Cop in the Hood blog is wonderful, although I must admit that a
little piece of me died inside when I read that the Peelian Principles of policing are largely
apocryphal.
Dr. Michael Maxfield of John Jay College who first brought my attention to an
important methodological consideration regarding internal validity. I have also benefitted from
his methods textbooks, which have made me a better researcher and instructor. Perhaps a
chapter section on social network analysis is warranted in a future edition?!
The Niederhoffer and Fyfe families, for their venerable and generous fellowships.
My parents, Brad and Elizabeth Johnson, who helped instill my love of learning.
The faculty at my alma mater, Geneva College, who provided a rather unremarkable
student with the tools to succeed in life. Special thanks goes to the late Dr. Byron Bitar (Micah
6:8), Dr. Byron Curtis (who will be happy to learn that I am no longer a knave), the late Dr.
Howard Mattson-Boze (who passed into glory just a few months prior to my defense), and Dr.
Frederick “Jay” Neikirk (who first exposed me to true academic rigor and the benefits thereof).
I am indebted to the following individuals for assisting me with data collection and other
administrative matters:
Duane Lovello Christine Crocker Pamela Hayes
Harold “Ted” Lemay Marcia Firetto Pete Appollonio
Dr. Gary Cordner Linda Phillips Dr. Kristofer “Bret” Bucklen
Soli Deo Gloria
vii
Table of Contents
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………...iv
Dedication…………………………………………………………………………………………v
Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………………….vi
Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………………..viii
List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………………...x
List of Figures....………………………………………………………………………………….xi
Chapter I. Introduction………………………………………………………………..1
A. Purpose of the Study……..……………………………………………2
B. Limitations of Extant Methodologies………..………………………..2
C. Research Questions……..……………………………………………..6
D. Significance of the Study………………………………..…………….7

Chapter II. Theoretical Framework and Review of Literature………………………...9
A. Innovation and Diffusion…………………………………………..….9
1. Interlocking Directorates…………………….…………………..14
B. Organizational Theory…………………………………………...…...17
1. Structural Contingency Theory……..……………………………19
2. Institutional Theory……..………………………………………..22
a. Myth, ceremony, and production within the
institutional environment…… ..……..……………………….23
b. Review of institutional policing literature…………….……...27
c. Institutional isomorphism…….……………………….………29
i. Coercive isomorphism……………………………………..33
ii. Mimetic isomorphism……………………………………..34
iii. Normative pressures…………….…………………………38

Chapter III. Context of Police Accreditation………………………………………….44
A. Police Accreditation……..…………………………………………...44
1. Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies…. 44
a. Expansion and diffusion of CALEA…………………………...47
2. State Accreditation Systems………………………………………51
a. CT Law Enforcement Accreditation – A Case Study…….........51

viii
Chapter IV. Methodology and Research Design……………………………………...57
A. Social Network Analysis…………………………………………….57
1. History……………………………………………………………57
2. Affiliation Network Analysis…………………………………….59
3. Text Networks……………...…………………………………….61
B. Research Questions………………………………………………….63
C. Hypotheses…………………………………………………………..63
D. Data Collection……………………………………………………...64
1. Boundary Specification………………………………………….65
2. Human Subjects and Consent……………………………………70

Chapter V. Analysis and Results……...……………………………………………...72
A. Affiliation Network Analysis of Police Chiefs……………………...72
1. Cohesion………………………………………………………….78
2. Prominence……………………………………………………….82
3. Event Centrality…………………………………………………..88
4. Spatial Distance….…………….…………………………………94
B. Text Network Analysis of Police Policy Documents……….…….....99

Chapter VI. Discussion and Conclusions.….……………………………………......113
A. Summary of Findings…………………………………………........113
B. Study Implications………………………………………………….114
1. Theoretical and Methodological Implications….….…………...114
2. Applied Implications……...………..………………...………...116
C. Limitations………………………………………………………….121
D. Areas for Future Research……...…………………………………..125

Notes………...……………………………………………………………………………….…129

Appendix A – Research Requests………………………………………………………………130

Appendix B - COP Meeting Graphs, by Year (2003-2013)……………………………………133

Appendix C - Stop Words Removed by ConText Prior to Bigram Analysis…………………..144

References…………………..………………………………………………………..………...161

Vita……………………………………………………………………………………………..176

ix