Police Culture and Youth Offenders the Effect of Legislative Change on Definitions of Crime and Delinquency

7/29/2019 Police Culture and Youth Offenders the Effect of Legislative Change on Definitions of Crime and Delinquency

1/26

http://pqx.sagepub.comPolice Quarterly

DOI: 10.1177/10986111052765432006; 9; 423Police Quarterly

Jennifer L. Schulenbergon Definitions of Crime and Delinquency

Police Culture and Young Offenders: The Effect of Legislative Change

http://pqx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/4/423The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:Police Executive Research Forum

Police Section of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences

can be found at:Police QuarterlyAdditional services and information for

http://pqx.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://pqx.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://pqx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/9/4/423SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):

(this article cites 5 articles hosted on theCitations

2006 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.at SAGE Publications on September 10, 2007http://pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://policeforum.mn-8.net/login.asp?link=http://policeforum.mn-8.net/login.asp?link=http://www.acjs.org/http://pqx.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://pqx.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://pqx.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://pqx.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://pqx.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://pqx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/9/4/423http://pqx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/9/4/423http://pqx.sagepub.com/http://pqx.sagepub.com/http://pqx.sagepub.com/http://pqx.sagepub.com/http://pqx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/9/4/423http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://pqx.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://pqx.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.acjs.org/http://policeforum.mn-8.net/login.asp?link=


2/26

10.1177/1098611105276543 POLICEQUARTERLY(Vol.9,No.4,December2006)Schulenberg/POLICEANDYOUTH

POLICE CULTURE AND YOUNG

OFFENDERS: THE EFFECT OFLEGISLATIVE CHANGE ON DEFINITIONS

OF CRIME AND DELINQUENCY

JENNIFER L. SCHULENBERG

Sam Houston State University

As of April 2003, Canada has new youth justice legislation that has implica-

tions for how police do their work in the areas of informal action (extrajudi-

cial measures or sanctions). Because of legislative change, there exists a

strong potential for challenges within the police cultures typifications and

recipes for action in how police officersdefine a youth as a delinquent and an

offense as serious. Using a mixed methodmixed model designand data from

202 semistructured interviews collected during 2002, this article explores

the continuity and discontinuity in definitions between the police culture and

the legislation. These are compared and contrasted to assess whether the

nature of official responses to juvenile crime will differ in the new legislative

environment. The results suggest that for legislative change to be effective in

harmonizing police behavior, it must not only be represented in policies and

procedures but also incorporated into the police culture.

Keywords: police culture; police discretion; legislation; young offender;

delinquent

As gatekeepers to the formal criminal justice system, the police play a fun-

damental role in deciding which youth get arrested, charged, and detained.

As of April 2003, new Canadian youth justice legislation called the Youth

This article is based on research funded by the Youth Justice Policy Branch of the Department of Justice

Canada, and preparation of this article was supported by Social Sciences and Humanities Research

Council of Canada Standard Research Grant and Fellowships. Direct correspondence to Jennifer L.

Schulenberg, College of Criminal Justice, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX, 77341-2296;

fax (936) 294-1683; e-mail: [email protected].

POLICE QUARTERLY Vol. 9 No. 4, December 2006 423447

DOI: 10.1177/1098611105276543

2006 Sage Publications

http://pqx.sagepub.com/http://pqx.sagepub.com/http://pqx.sagepub.com/http://pqx.sagepub.com/


3/26

Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) came into force, which provides much more

specific guidance to the police in their exercise of discretion when dealing

with young offenders. In light of this new legislation, the possibility arisesthat within the ethos of police culture, the questions of when, how, and why

the police use certain dispositions and not others could experience chal-

lenges. The issues that emerge from legislative change have the potential to

change how police officers define a youth as a delinquent, as well as the

concept of offense seriousness. The consequence of these working typifica-

tions has been previously demonstrated to affect police decision making

and the use of police discretion (Christensen & Crank, 2001; Crank, 2004;

Ericson, 1982).Police discretion is an aspect of everyday police work by knowledgeable

and experienced officers who belong to the police culture of the rank and

file (Goldsmith, 1990). In this sense, police officers learn from each other a

set of beliefs, values, attitudes, rules, and occupational practices as they

work together within a community. Thus, police develop theories about the

neighborhoods and people they police that are used as recipes for inter-

preting and labeling their daily activities (Cicourel, 1968, p. 105). For

example, a cue often used by police in the decision to investigate is incon-

gruity meaning that officers ask themselves whether an individual looks out

ofplace (Fisk,1974).The belief that unless you have a goodstory, dont do

it (Ericson, 1982, p. 15) sets the stage where the actions of police officers

can be defined and shaped by their occupational culture.

The objective of this article is to investigate the organizational and cul-

tural influences on how police officers define a youth as delinquent and a

crime as serious through an examination of the effects of policies, proce-

dures, legislation, andthepoliceculture. Specifically, based on relevant the-

oretical propositions and past research, does the effect of policies, proce-dures, and legislation vary within and across police agencies because of the

influence of the police culture? First, the methods used in this study will be

briefly reviewed including the research design, data sources, definitions of

common terminology, and the analytical techniques adopted. Second, the

findings will discuss the legislative environment, how officers define delin-

quency and seriousness, officers descriptions of their decision-making

processes, and whether they explain their behavior by referencing policy or

law, typifications, or both. Finally, the results from the analysis are pre-sented in the context of two questions:

424 POLICE QUARTERLY (Vol. 9, No. 4, December 2006)



4/26

Whenlookingat the change in legislation in the key areas highlighted, are the current def-

initions of delinquency and seriousness going to be challenged in thepolice culture as

a result?

Consequently, how can one expect the changing nature of official responses to juvenile

crime to differ?

METHOD

Quantitative and qualitative research are based on different epistemo-

logical and ontological assumptions. Thus, each type of research operates

with a different conception of realitythat is, a set of assumptions on the

definition of reality (ontology), the acknowledgement of reality or how weknow what we know (epistemology), and the ways in which reality is

understood (methodology; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Specifically, quantita-

tive (positivistic) research assumes that there is a reality composed of

atomistic, discrete,observable events in whichantecedent variables operate

in a lawlike fashion to produce events. Thus, social reality is a complex of

causal relations between objects and causes of human behavior that are

external to the individual. In contrast, qualitative (constructivist) research is

based on the fundamental assumption that there is more than one realitybecause of a process of interpretation whereby the social actors negotiate

meaning and understanding. Stated differently, qualitative inquiries are

investigations into the ways in which social actors make sense of their own

worlds through everyday processes.

The research questions and hypotheses used in this study were derived

from prior quantitative andqualitative research andtheoreticalpropositions

reflecting both positivist and constructivist ontologies, which resulted in

the decision to use a mixed methodology as the most appropriate to investi-

gate police decision making. In doing so, this research examined overlap-

ping and different facets of police discretion with young offenders. The

quantitative andqualitativefindings were compared with oneanother to add

breadth and scope to the results. Additionally, the theoretical frameworks

that were used encompass different approaches to the same phenomenon

that is, police decision making in youth-related incidents.

RESEARCH DESIGN

The research design adopted was a concurrent transformative mixed

methods design. This type of design uses two different methods to confirm,

Schulenberg / POLICE AND YOUTH 425



5/26

cross-validate, or corroborate findings within a single study that employs

multiple theoretical frameworks (Patton, 1990, 2002). Studies using this

mixed methods design integrate quantitative and qualitative data during theanalysis and interpretation phases as the researchers choice of method is

guided by specific theoretical perspectives that are reflected in the research

questions of the study. In other words, the theoretical perspective is the

driving force behind all methodological choices such as defining the prob-

lem, identifying thedesignanddata source, andanalyzing, interpreting, and

reporting results throughout the research process (Creswell, Plano Clark,

Gutmann, & Hanson, 2003, p. 230). In a concurrent transformative mixed

methods design, the analysis can involve the quantification of qualitativedata and interpretation of the results by either note[ing] the convergence of

the findings asa waytostrengthen the knowledgeclaimsof the study or [by]

explain[ing] any lack of convergence that mayresult (Creswell et al., 2003,

p. 229).

Under this rubric, further differentiations are made based on whether the

research is exploratory or confirmatory in nature. Because the research

questions and hypotheses are both, this research employed a parallel mixed

model (Tashakkori& Teddlie, 1998). Stated differently, both thequalitative

and quantitative data are used to answer questions and hypotheses that are

either exploratory or confirmatory and do so both at the analysis and inter-

pretation stage of the research. Therefore, the researchdesignused wascon-

current and parallel (i.e., the qualitative data are collected and analyzed

simultaneously), transformative (i.e., qualitative data are quantified), and

employed a mixed model (i.e., both confirmatory and exploratory research

questions and hypotheses are addressed).

DATA SOURCES

This research used both statistical and interview data from three data

sources. First, qualitative and quantitative data were derived from a sample

of 95 police services and based on more than 200 semistructured interviews

with more than 300 police officers across Canadafrom all provinces and

territories, all types of communities, and all types of police services. These

were conducted between March and August, 2002 (163 in English, 39 in

French). All interviews were tape recorded and were on average 1 to 1.5 hrslong. In the majority of cases, I conducted interviews with practitioners,

supervisors, and management. Ride-along data were collected from a total

of 11 police agencies. The duration of the ride-along ranged from 4 to 12




6/26

hours. A tape recorder was not used during the ride-alongs; however, my

observations were recorded in detailed field notes written during and after

the ride-along. All participating officers were allowed to look at the types ofinformation recorded (e.g., incident description, type of police action

taken). The interview data and the documentation provided by the inter-

viewees (e.g., policies and protocols) were the main source of data for the

study.1

Second, other documentary and statistical information about police

forces and their environment were obtained from other sources (e.g., pro-

vincial and municipal government agencies). For example, qualitative data

were recorded from Web sites maintained by the police, Web sites main-tained by the municipality or province, and documents obtained by request

from provincial governments. Finally, tabulations of statistical data on the

proportion of apprehended youth charged came from the aggregate Uni-

form Crime Reporting Survey for 1998 to 2000.2

Therefore, the multimethod analysis of variations in police discretion

and decision making used both quantitative and qualitative data. The quan-

titative data consisted of data sets from the aggregate Uniform Crime

Reporting Survey in conjunction with the coded responses from 198 out of

the 202 interviews conducted.3 These data were analyzed using frequency

distributions, chi-square, and the analysis of variance. The qualitative data

comprised the open, axial, and selective coding of 95 interview transcripts

and four police ride-along field notes representing 89 of the 95 police agen-

cies and detachments in the sample. These data were analyzed using a

grounded theory approach as well as conceptually ordered matrices based

on the manifest and latent coding of interview segments.4

CONCEPTUALIZING THE RESEARCH PROBLEM

Central to this examination are the concepts of police decision making,

police discretion, police culture, typifications, and recipes for action. It is

difficult to understand factors that affect police discretion without acknowl-

edging that police action in itself is a process. To mobilize the police, earlier

conclusions that the moral standards of the citizenry have more to do with

the definition of juvenile deviance than do the standards of policeman on

patrol (Black & Reiss, 1970, pp. 66-67) still appear valid today. Crimeonly exists once someone (a member of the public or dispatch) decides the

encounter requires police attention and someone (a member of the public or

police) seeks an official designation of a persons behavior as criminal.




7/26

Thus, the actual process of detecting youth crime is, for the most part, an

organizational mobilization (Black & Reiss, 1970).

Much of the research reviewed ignores the fundamental distinctionbetween the concepts ofdecision making and police discretion. Scholarly

discussions of decision making tend to focus on decisions involving

citizens and questionable behavior (Roberg, Crank, & Kuykendall, 2000,

p. 276). Basically, police decision making can be defined as decisions made

regarding when and how to intervene in situations (Roberg et al., 2000,

p. 276). In contrast, police discretion is a much narrower conceptualization

of police behavior. The most common definition is the decision not to

invoke formal social control even when the circumstances warrant (Roberget al., 2000). Specifically, in this research discretion is the way in which

individuals and groups of officials use their own judgment within a given

situation to take action or not (Gelsthorpe & Padfield, 2003, p. 3). This use

of judgment is not limited to one decision point (McLaughlin, 2001) as it

extends to policedecision makingat all levels of the investigative process.

All professions have unique characteristics that distinguish them from

other occupations. The police culture is no different and it has an impact on

policing policy, initiatives, and decision-making processes (Ericson, 1982;

Lipsky, 1980; Skolnick, 1967). Broadly defined, police culture is a set of

assumptions that is commonly held about police work known as a code that

shapes police officers attitudes and influences their decision premises

(Worden, 1989).

Finally, central to the qualitative analysis are the two concepts of

typification and recipes for action. A typification is an accounting of an

event based on previous experience and what is defined by officers as a rou-

tine event (Lundman, 1996). On the other hand, recipes for action are those

actions that are normally made when handling certain types of incidents(Ericson, 1982). It is through either of these methods that officers make

decisions at each stage of the investigation (informal action, diversion,

arrest, detain). Although many other factors (environmental, ecological,

and situational) play a role in the decision-making process, officers justify

their actions in terms of the organization they belong to, recipes for action,

and the law.

FINDINGS

The findings will address the organizational and cultural influences on

police discretion. First, the legislative environment will be discussed




8/26

highlighting the differences between the Young Offenders Act (YOA),

which was in force during data collection, and the YCJA that is now in

effect. Second, findings are presented that elucidate police officersdefini-tions ofa youth asdelinquent and anoffense asserious based on the analysis

of typifications. Third, using recipes for action, the decision-making pro-

cess in dealing with youth-related incidents is presented. Finally, the effect

of policies and procedures within the organization and the police culture is

investigated.

LEGISLATIVE ENVIRONMENT

The decision-making activities that police engage in highlight the fun-

damental process of how social order is possible (Cicourel, 1968, p. vii).

The importance of examining the process of criminal justice from the earli-

est point of contact with the police cannot be understated as this investiga-

tory process strongly influences the final disposition within the criminal

justice system (Ericson, 1982; Hagan & Morden, 1981). Thus, this section

reviews the options police officers have under the YOA and the YCJA to

handle youth crime.

At the time when the data for this research were collected, the main com-

ponents of the legal environment that pertained to the arrest, questioning,

charging, and pretrial detention of a suspected young offender were stipu-

lated in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Criminal Code (Greenspan

& Rosenburg, see ss. 493-529), and the YOA. Under the YOA, incidents

involving young persons followed a general model of process. Within each

stage, there are several options open to officers. The first decision point

involves a determination of whether a criminal offense occurred. The sec-

ond decisionpoint concerns the course ofactionan officerwill take(charge,diversion, or no charges). Finally, the third decision point involves the vari-

ous options that are open to police officers in carrying out their decision to

charge or divert a young person.

Specifically, police decision making under the YOA involved deciding

the appropriate course of action after evidence had been gathered and the

incident was determined to be founded. This might involve not laying a

charge, in which case an officer could take no further action, issue a warn-

ing, involve the parents, take the youth to the police station, make a referralto an external agency, and file an occurrence report to create an official

record of the incident. Alternatively, an officer might refer the case to alter-

native measures (diversion), which in some provinces might or might not




9/26

result in laying a charge. Finally, the police might decide to lay a charge

whereby the next stage involved deciding the method to compel appearance

in court (summons, appearance notice, promise to appear, or pretrial deten-tion). For a suspect to be held in custody in the public interest, the law

requires the officer to assesswhether detention is required to (a) confirm the

youths identity, (b) secure or preserve evidence, (c) prevent further offend-

ing, or (d) ensure the youth appears in court at the appointed time (Bala,

1997).

Ingeneral, the adoption of the YCJA did not affect the decision points for

police officers in the investigative process. However, unlike the YOA, the

new legislation clearly stipulates the purpose and objectives of the youthcriminal justice system. Section 3.1(a.1) of theYOAs declaration ofprinci-

ple states, While young persons should not in all instances be held ac-

countable in the same manner or suffer the same consequences for their be-

havior as adults, young persons who commit offenses should nonetheless

bear responsibility for their contraventions (Bala, 2003, p. 67). In contrast,

the declaration of principle of the YCJA in section 3.1 (c) states,

Within the limits of fair and proportionate accountability, the measures taken against

young persons who commitoffences should (i) reinforce respect for socialvalues, (ii)encourage the repair of harm done to victims and the community, (iii) be meaningful

for the individual young person given his or her needs and level of development and,

where appropriate, involve the parents, the extended family, the community and so-

cial or other agencies in the young persons rehabilitation and reintegration. (Bala,

2003, p. 80)

Thus, it isno longer the case that it is sufficient tohold the youth account-

able for his orher behavior; rather, the purpose of the systemis toemphasize

fairness and proportionality and protect the public through crime preven-tion, rehabilitation, and meaningful consequences (Bell, 2002, p. 61).

One of the most significant changes in the new act concerns the use of

informal action (now called extrajudicial measures) and diversion to alter-

native measures (now referred to as extrajudicial sanctions). The YCJA

stipulates for the police the appropriate responses and under what condi-

tions and restrictions extrajudicial measures and sanctions are seen as fair

and proportionate. Section 4 (c) states that extrajudicial measures are pre-

sumed to be adequate to hold a young person accountable for his or heroffending behavior for nonviolent offenses even if the youth has a prior

record (Tustin & Lutes, 2002, p. 14). The Act goes further by explicitly

instructing the police that before charging a young person, they shall . . .




10/26

consider whether it would be sufficient to warn the young person, adminis-

ter a caution . . . or refer the young person to a community-based program

(Tustin & Lutes, 2002, p. 16). Despite these options for police action exist-ing informally under the YOA, this new Act creates a legal environment

whereby these options must be considered prior to laying a charge for non-

violent offenses regardless of prior police contacts or convictions.

DEFINING A YOUTH AS DELINQUENT

Whenthe police decide touse formalactionbyarresting a youth, they are

publicly defining them as delinquent (Morash, 1984). According to priorresearch, a youth tends to be defined as a delinquent if he or she is the kind

of person who doesnt respect the law [making him or her] a perfect candi-

date for arrest, detention, and eventual incarceration (Morash, 1984;

Werthman & Piliavin, 1967, p. 74). Therefore, it has been suggested that the

police are more likely to arrest and charge a young person who is perceived

as a delinquent by the officer. Although much research has been conducted

on police perceptions of delinquency, there has been very little empirical

attention devoted to this issue within the Canadian context.

The interviews provide strong support for the hypothesis that the police

are more likely todefine a youth ina similar mannerand todealwitha delin-

quent using more formal social control. Although officers include many

factors in their typifications of delinquency, they are consistent in suggest-

ing a delinquent is someone with a prior record (repeat or habitual offen-

der), a bad attitude (with no respect for authority), and one who tends to

come from a poor home environment with very little parental involvement.

Beyond these initial facets of police officers definition of a delinquent,

there are three predominant themes in the 52 interview segments that wererelevant to this issue.

First, according to officers the label ofdelinquentis something a youth

earns during a period of time. A youth does not become a repeat offender

overnight. Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that a repeat offender

has certain characteristics that are commonly associated with this status.

For example, there is an element of criminal sophistication that police offi-

cers associate with a repeat offender. This may involve a youths demon-

strating prior intent or the use of tools to commit the crime that are morecommonly associated by the officers with adult offenders (e.g., the use of

surgical gloves to avoid leaving fingerprints). Sophistication is also per-

ceived by officers as a progression in the seriousness of the crimes a youth




11/26

commits.To bea repeatoffender asconceived within the definition ofdelin-

quent, a youth must commit multiple offenses that are defined by officers as

serious crime. This finding is significant as it suggests that young offenderswith a record of multiple offenses against the administration of justice are

also defined as a delinquent and, consequently, dealt with by using more

formal social control (e.g., laying a charge and detaining).

Although demeanor will not be discussed in great detail for this analysis,

within the concept ofdelinquent(as perceived by officers), a bad attitude is

also processual. Officers suggest that a youth who doesnt care and is indif-

ferent to the consequences of their behavior has character traits that are not

developed during a short period of time. In fact, officers closely linked thedevelopment of an attitude to the development of a repeat offender. For

example, if I walk in and somebody is looking at me like Im even less

scary than his 100 year old grandmother, then this is not a first time

offender. The implication is profound as a young person who commits a

serious offense (e.g., break and enter) but who does not fit an officers defi-

nition of repeat offender or bad attitude will be dealt with using less formal

social control (e.g., release with conditions instead of detaining) than a

youth who has committed the substantive offense of break and enter but has

a record of offenses against the administration of justice. Stated differently,

officers suggest that delinquents work pretty hard to be write offs.

Similarly, a young person from a poor home environment is not automat-

ically defined as a delinquent by officers. This facet of the typification also

occurs over time. A poor home situation for a delinquent involves the lack

of parental involvement and supervision during an extended period of time

that allows for the development of a prior record and a poor attitude. For

example, officers suggested that they know that he will reoffend because

he is left on his own all the time and I know that his behavior is alreadyestablished and this problem start[ed] with the parents [because] the

youth is left on his own [to] make the friends he wants [and] to come back

when he feels like it.

Second, how officers definea nondelinquent is notnecessarily theantith-

esis of a delinquent. According to officers, a nondelinquent is not defined as

someone who is a first- or second-time offender. In contrast, the typification

ofa nondelinquent does not mention a young offenders prior record. Police

officers suggest a nondelinquent is someone who is actively involvedin activities outside of school (e.g., hockey, church group), has highly

involved parents, tends to hang out with other youth whom the officers do




12/26

not perceive as delinquent, and as a result exhibits a good attitude by acting

scared and remorseful.

Finally, police officers appear to be fairly confident in their classificationand identification of youths as delinquent. Quite often officers suggested

that theyrecognize a delinquent when theydeal with themweknow who

the bad apples are because the bad ones really stand out. This concurs

with the findings of Werthman and Piliavin (1967) from more than 35 years

ago that found that the juvenile officer often proceeds directly to boys who

have proven themselves capable of committing the crime (p. 69). In other

words, officers do not appear to apply preconceived notions on a youth

based on their first interactions. Alternatively, they acknowledge this pro-cess as a form of labeling. For example, one officer said that once your

child gets labeled your whole family gets labeled. Thus, a great majority of

respondents not only hesitated to provide these typifications but also did so

with the caveat that defining a youth as delinquent is not a knee-jerk or

adhoc activity butone that the youth earns overa periodof time. Aptly sum-

marizing this position is one officers explanation that a youth has a delin-

quencycurveand it isonlyonce he has reached too highonhis curve that

we see this youth is really a delinquent.

DEFINING AN OFFENSE AS SERIOUS

Based on the analysis of 61 interview segments, police officerstypifica-

tions concerning serious crime vary in structure and respondents would

usually qualify their answers and provide examples. Table 1 gives the fre-

quency (total number of times) that certain offense types or generalizations

were mentioned in the segments as situations where normally no discretion

(or very, very little) is exercised. Although these offenses are listed sepa-rately in the table, a given officer would mention a few (in some cases 10 or

more) of these as serious.

When respondents were discussing the types of crime they perceived as

serious, they almostunanimously included various offensesagainst theper-

son in their typifications. In fact, police officers in this sample were more

than twice as likely to consider crimes against the person as serious in com-

parison to crimes against property or other types of offenses. Specifically,

the most commonly cited offenses in rank order are assault (14), breach of ajudges order (9), any gang-related crime (9), assault with a weapon (8),

offenses against a person or victim (7), any offense involving a weapon (7),

and breach of probation (7). This past finding is of particular interest as the




13/26

literature suggests that administrative offenses are not generally seen as

serious crime. However, the explanations officers provided within their

typifications and recipes for action help to elucidate these patterns.

In general, most of the offenses classified under other types of offensesare normally seen as minor crime. However, the reasons for not using ones

discretion are pertinent as these offenses (particularly breach of a judges

order and breach of probation) are viewed as quite serious by the police.


TABLE 1. Types of Crime Perceived as Serious by Respondents

Type of Crime Frequency

Crimes against the person

Homicide 2

Robbery 2

Assault causing bodily harm 5

Assault with a weapon 8

Assault 14

Utter threats 3

Sexual assault 2

Domestic violence 2

Violent offenses 3

Against a person (victim) 7

Anything with weapons 7

Total 55

Crimes against property

Break and enter 5

Arson 1

Fraud 2

Theft of auto 5

Theft 2

Possession of stolen property 1

Vandalism 2Mischief 1

Total 16

Other types of offenses

Drugs 2

Breach of a judges order 9

Breach of probation 7

Breaches by request 2

Unlawfully at large 1

Breach of a police undertaking 1

Total 22

GeneralizationsDegree of harm done 6

Major crime 2

Any gang-affiliated crime 9

Source: Schulenberg (2004).



14/26

Overall, police officers appear to approach offenses against the administra-

tion of justice in one of two ways: by using their discretion to a certain

extent under various circumstances or using virtually no discretion.One predominant theme that emerges from the analysis is the idea that

police officers are not justified in using their discretion when a youth

breaches a judges conditions. For example, one respondent said that the

judge has said you follow these conditions and we dont presume to have

any better understanding of this person than the judge. Alternatively, it

appears that the police see other system agents as designators of offense

seriousness. For instance, if something comes in asa request, mostly social

services oranother agency, its already gone to the point that yourdiscretionisnt needed, your enforcement is needed. Someone has already signaled

that its a serious matter. In terms of breaching probation, police officers

tend to view them as serious because they feel it is an indicator of a serious

lack of respect for the law.

Thus, police officers tend to have similar views on the definition of seri-

ous crime. However, these typifications do not generally incorporate the

types of offenses one would expect to be perceived as serious and also sug-

gest a variety of responses under violent, property, and other crimes.

Although offenses against the person are the most likely to be defined as

serious, it is the least serious of these offenses (assault) that is cited most

often and the victimless offenses against the administration of justice are

also typically defined as serious. Although these findings may be an artifact

of the frequency with which youths commit these types of crimes, the

results suggest that the police culture does have some impact on defining

the seriousness of the offense as quite often the offenses within officers

typifications are among the less serious ones in the Criminal Code and the

YOA.

THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS

On the basis of 88 interview segments, the evidence suggests that the

final disposition of a case and the associated decision-making process are

case dependentthat is, officers decide on their use of informal and formal

social control depending on the unique set of circumstances in each youth-

related incident. Many of the interview segments suggest two primaryobjectives in their decision making. First, the process involves satisfying

the requirements of law enforcementan incident is investigated to iden-

tify and apprehend a perpetrator(s) and gather the evidence that would be




15/26

required to prosecute. Second, a rather latent objective is to provide mean-

ingful consequences through the delivery of an appropriate sanction that, at

times, is semi-independent of the court and correctional system. This sec-ond objective is not suggesting police impropriety or illegal police actions.

Rather, it suggests that police perceive their role as more expansive than the

traditional view of police as law enforcers by including the prevention,

response, and suppression of crime as part of their duties.

Police officers do not view their decision making in terms of static cate-

gories (i.e., informal action, diversion, charging, and compelling appear-

ance). Incontrast, police decisionmaking is a dynamic process that is a pro-

gression in the application of formal social control. An officer suggestedthat the differences between police services may be attributable to varia-

tions in these dynamicsasthe law itself is fine. We have towork on how we

apply it and thats what makes the difference between two police forces

[and] between two police officersthe way we interpret it.

Virtually all of the respondents consider informal action in all youth-

related incidents. Thefrequency with whichofficers use their discretion can

not be overestimated as one officer suggests that we contact those same

people 20, 30, 40 times beforewesend themto somesort of formalizedpro-

cess such as alternative measures. The various actions that are defined by

officers as informal are quite extensive.

Officers will commonly give a verbal warningor finger wagging

when dealing with a young person that has committed a minor offense. A

less prevalent form of the warning is a formal caution5 that, when ap-

plied, appears to be very effective for the majority of youth-related inci-

dents. However, this practice is not universally accepted as one officer

summarized:

When I talk to other colleagues from other police forces, they look at me like Ive got

three heads when I start to talk about cautions. I dont think this is rocket science.

Were allowed to do it, the code spells it out for use and I think thats why we have the

changes that were goingto be experiencing with the new Act because no one else got

on board hereso now its going to be forced.

Another popular type of informal action is bringing the young person to

the police station even if the officer has decided he or she will not be pursu-

ing charges. Some officers explain that it is difficult to deal with a youngpersonproperly with a piece ofplastic between us or for purposes of iden-

tification, notification of parents, and filling out the paperwork. Others do

so to show them, whoever you have in custody, this is what could happen




16/26

or to have a bigger impact. For example, you can still be informal and be

flexible but you do it on your turf [and] keep control of the situation. . . .

When you go to their home, it really does change the dynamics of the situa-tion. Yet others feel this oversteps their legal authority and will normally

bring the youth directly home.

In regard to police discretion and the decision to charge, the data suggest

that the seriousness of the offense plays a very large role in their decision

making. However, as previously discussed, the official police response to

offenses against the administration of justice appears to be quite unique.

In other words, with this type of offense, police officers employ different

decision-making processes. If the decision is made to invoke formal socialcontrol it tends to involve penal law. The data suggest that this decision is

predicated on four interrelated factors. First, if the officer views the breach

violation as an indicator of disrespect for authority, the offense is almost al-

ways dealt with by way of charge. Second, respondents who do use their

discretion suggested that they will not lay a charge until there is a pattern of

willful disregard for the order, whereby the young person has breached sev-

eral times before a charge is actually laid. Third, there is evidence to suggest

that offenses against the administration of justice are used as a leverage tool

to get information. However, if the officer feels his or her workload is too

great, he or she may just as easily decide to use discretion. For example, I

will use it [the administrative offense] to get information on other crimes.

Other officers will use discretion quite frankly because they cant be both-

ered to do the paperworkits easier to drive a kid home. Last, and by far

the most prevalent theme in the data, was to invoke formal social control

only in cases where the offense against the administration of justice occurs

in conjunction with another substantive offense.

A lot of times we lay them in conjunction with something else. To simply breach

somebody because theyre out past their curfew, or drinking, well, at least in myexpe-

rience its 50-50 whether were really going to pursue it or not. The paperwork in-

volved, the processesits not an easy thing for us. . . .Theres no obligation for us to

pursue. WhenIvebeen a watch commander Id say, What are you looking toaccom-

plish? Did they do something else? Well no, then take them back to the guardian.

Again, the concept of workload arises as the paperwork required to pro-

cessanoffense against the administrationof justice is identical to thatof anyother substantive offense in the Criminal Code.

When looking at the evidence concerning the impact of parental involve-

ment on police decision-making processes, two predominant themes




17/26

emerge. First, to some extent all officers aim to involve the parents even

when theyhavemade the decision to lay a charge. However, for officers that

see the degree of parental involvement as a factor affecting police discretionthey tend to summarize their decision making in a similar manner as

exemplified in the following quote.

I try 100% of the time to get the parents involved and usually within the first five min-

utesof sitting downwith the parents, I havea good idea ofwhatdirection Im going to

gowith thisyouth because . . . 90% of the time, only the mothercomes in. WhenI see a

mother and father come in, thats one check positive for the kid. Two checks if the par-

ents are open and willing to discuss what happened, to do whatever it takes to fix the

situation, [then] thats another positive strike for the kid [and] I can present differentoptions. So that tells me right off the bat little Jimmy or Sally are free and clear be-

cause Mom and Dad are doing all my work. Again, situations though where you just

haveone parent comeinornoneat all, Im verysuspect.Thenyoureback tozerowith

the youth.

In other words, officers use the degree and nature of parental involve-

ment as an indicator to assess how best to deal with the young person. Thus,

when officers perceive a lack of informal social control from the family,

they are more likely to use more formal social control. Second, they are typ-ically more likely to charge a young person in cases where there is little pa-

rental involvement, poor parental attitudes, and no accountability or conse-

quences and more likely to use informal action or divert when they believe

there is a high level of parental involvement and appropriate consequences

at home.

THE EFFECT OF POLICIES AND

PROCEDURES ON POLICE BEHAVIOR

Initially, all interview segments were reviewed to establish whether police

officers explained their behavior by referring only to policies or to policies

and typifications or, alternatively, if they relied solely on typifications. The

analysis of 40 interview segments from 29 different police agencies sug-

gested two conclusions. First, out of the 25 police agencies where the expla-

nations could be categorized with confidence, officers in 40% (10) explained

their behavior in terms of references to policy, 44% (11) used both policies

and typifications, and 16% (4) employed only typifications when describing

their decision-making rationale. Thus, it appeared that the majority of offi-

cers relied either on policies or policies and typifications. However, when

examining thesubstantivecontent of the interview segments, definite themes




18/26

occurred within these categories that qualified the circumstances under

which police officers rely solely onpolicyoruse their typifications aswell.

Explanations for police decision making that rely only on references topolicies and the law appear to occur in three dimensions: conditions for

diversion to alternative measures,6 decisions made on the method to compel

appearance in court, and youth-related incidents that occur on school prop-

erty. When officers referred only to typifications, they described their deci-

sion making as a reliance on gut feelings and personal criteria. For example,

one officer explained his rationale as having to trust our feelings. We meet

youths [and] we develop an experience that becomes a certain expertise. . . .

We can trust our instinct when it comes to deciding whether the conse-quences are sufficient.

In contrast, the explanations that refer to both policies and typifications

are thematically much more complex. The situational circumstances range

from the decision to use diversion versus informal action, applying compo-

nents of the YOA (e.g., notice to parents), recording interactions, charging a

youth who is eligible for diversion, and compelling appearance. Yet most of

these segments contain a generic process not evident in those explanations

that use references only to policy or only to typifications. When citing both

policies and typifications, police officers make reference to law and policy

to explain what they should do in a youth-related incident and use typifica-

tions to describe the actions they generally take because they are justifiable.

Sometimes officers refer to the fact that they must justify their actions to su-

pervisors. One officer reasoned that each individual [is] accountable for

[his or her] actions, and as long as you can nicely cover off why you did

what you did, as long asyourecomfortable with that, then I feelmeperson-

ally, whether I charge someone is my decision [and] not someone elses.

Stated differently, youd have to be able to explain it to the sergeant orsomeone else why you feel this one is getting a break . . . .The discretionary

power is there but you have to be able to justify it. On the other hand, other

officers appear to require justification to themselves. For example, the

relevant policy was stated but the officer continued by saying that

we still want to give officers discretion because maybe this kid deserves to be in a di-

version program, maybe he doesnt. The officer is going to be there, hes going to see

what the kids attitude is like; hes going to see what the parents attitude is like when

theyre informed of the situation. Then hes going to have to make the decision

[whether] diversion is going to waste everyones time.




19/26

On further examination, these answers also suggested the possibility of

variation by type of organization. The work of Hagan (1977) and Weber

(1946) suggests that a positive relationship exists between police strengthand the standardization of police discretion with the implementation of bu-

reaucratic rules. Stated differently, the organizational structure of a police

department varies in the degree of bureaucratization. In general, the larger

the police force, the more bureaucratic it becomes. However, the theoretical

proposition implies that the presence of bureaucratic rules is an intervening

variable. Stated differently again, as the population increases and the police

service grows, it becomes more bureaucratic and will undertake to confine

and structure its discretion by articulating its operating policies in the formof rules (Goldsmith, 1990, p. 101).

Cross-tabulating the presence of policies and procedures with police

strength (2 = 11.59,p = 0.021; gamma = 0.493,p > 0.001; n = 92 agencies)

suggests that only 32% of the police agencies with less than 50 officers have

policies and procedures. Once a police agency has between 50 and 99 offi-

cers, 54% of the agencies in the sample had policies. Finally, police agen-

cies with 100 or more officers were the most likely to have youth policy

because 69% of the agencies in the sample had created policies and proto-

cols. According to Maguire, larger organizations rely less on centraliza-

tion and more on formalization as a mechanism for achieving coordination

and control (Maguire, 2003, p. 21). These results concur as there is a

higher likelihood of police policies and procedures for dealing with youth-

related incidents in larger organizations.

To address the degree to which policies, procedures, and the police cul-

ture affect police behavior, a new variable was created to assess the degree

that police officers in an organization deal with youth-related incidents in a

similar mannerthat is, the extent to which the presence of policiesand procedures harmonizes police responses to youth-related incidents

within the same police service. This composite variable measures the mean

similarity among all interviewed officers in each agency based on their

responses to interview questions that were quantitatively coded into 32

variables in the same manner that open-ended questions are coded in a sur-

vey.7 The mean similarity variable was calculated for all agencies that had at

least two respondents. Of the 95 police agencies in the interview sample, 40

agencies could not be included in this variable as only one interview wasconducted. For each pair of officers in the agency, their similarity was cal-

culated as the number of variables with the same value (e.g., 0 = no, 1 = yes)

divided by 32. For example, if there are 2 officers, there is one pair




20/26

compared. If there are 3 officers,3 pairs were compared (1 to 2, 1 to 3, and 2

to 3). If there are 4 officers, there are 6 pairs (1 to 2, 1 to 3, 1 to 4, 2 to 3, 2 to

4, and 3 to 4). Once the similarities are calculated for each pair of officers,

then the mean of these similarities was calculated with values ranging from

0 to 1. Three one-way ANOVA analyses were conducted and the results are

presented in Table 2.

The results suggest no support for this hypothesis. First of all, there is lit-

tle difference in levels of similarity of police behavior, compared over size

of police agencies. The means are all similar, and the overall Ftests are all

nonsignificant. However, some patterns do emerge. The first column for allagencies shows the mean levels of similarity among officers, broken down

by five levels of police strength in the agency. Although the overall Ftest is

not significant, the pattern of means clearly contradicts the hypothesis: As

police strength increases, the similarity among officers reported actions

decreases from 0.86 in the smallest agencies to 0.77 in the largest. Thus, the

increased use of policy in larger organizations does not appear to have

resulted in increased levels of similarity of behavior.

The second and third columns repeat the comparison of means, sepa-rately for police agencieswhose officers reported that theydoordonot have

written policy. The theoretical proposition predicts that agencies with pol-

icy will exhibit more similarity in their membersbehavior. The total mean


TABLE 2. Mean Similarity in Police Decision Making by Police Strength

Mean Similarity in Decision Making by Officers in an Agency

All Agenciesa

With Policiesb

Without Policiesc

Police Strength M N SE M N SE M N SE

Less than 25 officers .86 5 .05 .97 1 .83 4 .06

25 to 49 officers .81 15 .02 .82 7 .02 .80 8 .04

50 to 99 officers .81 11 .03 .80 7 .03 .83 4 .05

100 to 499 officers .79 13 .02 .79 9 .03 .80 4 .05

500+ officers .77 11 .02 .78 8 .02 .74 3 .06

Total .80 55 .01 .80 32 .01 .80 23 .02

Source: Schulenberg (2004).Note: As with all significance tests foranalyses of the interview data, these tests areonly an approximateindicator of statistical significance because the data are based on a sample that was not randomly se-lected.a. The significance levels for the comparison of means ttests are significant for the comparison betweenless than 25 and 500+ (p > .05)overall, F= 1.124, df= (4, 50), p = .356.b. The significance levels for the comparison of means ttests could not be performed because one grouphas fewer than two casesoverall, F= 1.529, df= (4, 27), p = .222.c. The significance levels for the comparison of means ttests are all not significantoverall, F= 0.437,df= (4, 18), p = .356.



21/26

similarities for agencies with and without policy are equal (0.80), contra-

dicting that proposition. Furthermore, no substantial differences between

agencies with and without policy in levels of similarity appear, even withinagencies of equal size.8 For example, in agencies with 50 to 99 officers and

those with 100 to 499 officers, the difference in mean similarity is tiny and

not in the hypothesized direction. In the largest agencies (500+ officers),

those with policy have a higher level of similarity (0.78) than those without

policy (0.74), but the difference is extremely small.

The data do suggest that policies are not effective in controlling police

behavior in very large agencies. However, there is some evidence that the

effect of policy varies by the size of police force (see column 2). It is con-ceivable that in smaller organizations, management maintains control

through informal interactions, whereas the larger a police agency becomes,

the effectiveness of informal control is reduced as seen by the decrease in

mean similarity overall. Yet the results suggest that the use of policy to con-

trol police behavior in all agency sizes is not very effective and does not

counteract the tendency for diversity in police decision making as the size

of agencies increases. These findings concur with those of Maguire (2003)

who found little evidence about what strategies are most effective for

changing people . . . formalization [with the imposition of bureaucratic

rules] is probably not [an] appropriate strategy for achieving control in

nonroutine people-changing organizations (p. 90).

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The objective of this article was to understand whether the effect of poli-

cies, procedures, and legislation varies within and across police agencies

because of the influence of the police culture. Prior research has found thatin the year 2000, 59% of all apprehended youth suspected of a Criminal

Code offense were charged (Carrington & Schulenberg, 2003, p. 22). Con-

sequently, further research was required to understand why, under theYOA,

diversion was seen as appropriate in 75% to 80% of youth cases (Caputo &

Kelly, 1997) but was used in less than 40% of youth-related incidents. The

results from this research appear to shed some light on this facet of police

behavior.

The data suggest that there is continuity and discontinuity within andacrosspolice agencies in terms of police decision-making practices. Across

agencies, police officers provided similar responses to defining delin-

quency. A delinquent is a young person with a prior record, a bad attitude,




22/26

and often a poor home environment with very little parental involvement.

How officers defined a nondelinquent was not the antithesis of a delinquent

in that there was nomention ofa youths prior record. Rather, police officerssuggested that a nondelinquent is someone who is actively involved in

activities outside of school, has highly involved parents, tends to hang out

with other youth whom the officers do not perceive as delinquent, and as a

result, exhibits a good attitude by acting scared and remorseful during the

interaction with the police. The label of a delinquent is one that a youth

earns over time and police officers indicated that they were fairly confident

in their classification of apprehended youth as delinquents. Thus, in this

instance, the effect of definitions within the police culture appears to bequite consistent across agencies.

In terms of defining an offense as serious, officers across agencies also

have similar views. In most cases, officers suggested that offenses against

the person (particularly assault) and offenses against the administration of

justice are seen as quite serious. Of importance, though, is the disjuncture

between the definition of seriousness in the police culture and that within

policy and legislation. Although these findings may be an artifact of the fre-

quency with which youth commit these types of offenses, the results sug-

gest that the police culture does have some impact above and beyond policy

and legislation as the offenses defined as serious within officers typifica-

tions are among the less serious ones articulated in the Criminal Code and

the YOA.

The evidence indicated that the decision-making processes are case

dependent and a dynamic process that is a progression in the application of

formal social control. However, officers articulated two objectives in their

decision making: (a) fulfilling the requirements of law enforcement and (b)

providing meaningful consequences through the delivery of an appropriatesanction. Additionally, if officers perceive a lack of informal social control

from the family, they are more likely to arrest and lay a charge but more

likely to use informal action or divert when they believe there is a high level

of parental involvement and appropriate consequences at home for the

unlawful behavior. Again, the YOA is silent on providing meaningful con-

sequences or using parental involvement as a factor in the use of police dis-

cretion that provides another example of the influence of police culture

across agencies.Although the majority of officers in this sample relied either on policies

or policies and typifications, they did so under certain circumstances.

Typifications and recipes for action that relied on references to policy and




23/26

law did so when discussing the conditions for diversion to alternative mea-

sures, decisions made on compelling attendance in court, and when dealing

with youth-related incidents on school property (e.g., because of zero toler-ance policies instituted by district school boards). However, when citing

both policies and typifications, an intriguing generic process occurs in the

decision-making process. That is, police officers make reference to law and

policy to explain what they should do in a youth-related incident and use

typifications to describe the actions they generally take because they are

justifiable.What this suggests is an inherent limitation of the impact of poli-

cies and procedures on police behavior. This possibility was investigated

through the assessment of the degree to which police officers in the sameagency deal with youth-related incidents in a similar manner. The results

suggested that the use ofpolicy tocontrol police behavior in all agencysizes

is not very effective and does not counteract the tendency for diversity in

police decision making as the size of agencies increases along with the

likelihood of explicit policies and protocols.

The implications of these findings are in one sense encouraging but in

another quite profound. On one hand, officers already consider using infor-

mal action in virtually all youth-related incidents (Schulenberg, 2004) and

also feel that part of the police role is to provide meaningful consequences

through the prevention, response, and suppression of crime as part of their

duties. This is highly consistent with the new legislation and the mandate

therein stipulating that officers must consider extrajudicial measures and

sanctions for nonviolent offenses regardless of prior record. On the other

hand, the results suggest that the police culture plays a role above and

beyond policies, protocols, and legislation in the degree to which it influ-

ences the interpretation of the law. Further analyses found that policies do

not appear to be very effective at harmonizing police behavior regardless ofagency size. Therefore, it is conceivable that the police will continue to

arrest and lay charges for offenses they perceive as serious despite a defini-

tion to the contrary in the YCJA as the stipulation of procedural protocols

did not produce a significant improvement in controlling police behavior.

Thus, for legislative change to be effective in harmonizing police behavior,

it must not only be represented in policies and procedures but also incorpo-

rated into the police culture.

Further research is required as the data used in this study are based onpolice officersperceptions while the YOA was still in effect. Thus, the pro-

jection of future police decision-making practices under the YCJA is

extrapolating from the findings. Furthermore, interview data are not the




24/26

most appropriate data type for causalanalysis. Rather, future research using

quantifiable data collected during observational ride-alongs using the

method of systematic social observation would be more suitable to measureand assess many aspects of police decision making and discretion address-

ed in this study.

NOTES

1. Qualrus was chosen as the CAQDA software for two reasons. First, it allows the

researcher to define a segment of text as one or more words each time a code is applied. In

many other CAQDA programs, the flexibility to define segment length is limited. Second,

Qualrus allows forexploratory andconfirmatory analyses as well as theability to export data

to statistical software programs such as SPSS.

2.The aggregate Uniform Crime Reporting Surveyprovidesdata at the level of the police

agency for the proportion of apprehended youth that were charged for a given year.

3. Four interviews were excluded from the quantification of the interviews as they

involved civilian respondents (e.g., restorative justice conference volunteer).

4. Interview segments ranged from a few words to several paragraphs.

5. A formal caution involves the official documentation of a warning in a police agencys

records management system. Depending on the police agency, this may also involve the par-

entsand the youth coming to the police station within thenextweeksothe officercan empha-

size that there was enough evidence to charge but the youth has been given a break. The

implication is that this break has been officially recorded and the youth will not receive this

favor twice.

6. Because the criteria for most diversion programs are determined at the provincial or

territorial level, these results are not entirely surprising.

7. The interviewquestions used deal with officersdecision-making practices in terms of

almostalwaysconsidering theuseof informal action, diversion,charging, anddetention, and

the degree of discretion used with offenses against the administration of justice.

8. Means for the smallest agencies cannot be compared because there is only one agencyin the with policy group.

REFERENCES

Bala, N. (1997). Young offenders law. Concord, Ontario, Canada: Irwin Law.

Bala, N. (2003). Youth criminal justice law. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Irwin Law.

Bell, S. J. (2002). Young offenders and juvenile justice: A century after the fact(2nd ed.).

Scarborough, Ontario, Canada: Thomson Nelson.

Black, D. J., & Reiss, A. J. (1970). Police control of juveniles. American Sociological

Review, 35, 63-77.

Caputo, T., & Kelly, K. (1997). Police perceptions of current responses to youth crime.

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada.




25/26

Carrington, P. J., & Schulenberg, J. L. (2003). Police discretion with young offenders.

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Department of Justice Canada.

Christensen, W., & Crank, J. P. (2001). Police work and culture in a nonurban setting: An

ethnographic analysis. Police Quarterly, 4, 69-98.

Cicourel, A. V. (1968). The social organization of juvenile justice. New York: John Wiley.

Crank, J. P. (2004). Understanding police culture (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advanced

mixed methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of

mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209-240). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Ericson, R. V. (1982). Reproducing order: A study of police patrol work. Toronto, Ontario,

Canada: University of Toronto Press.

Fisk, J. G. (1974). The police officers exercise of discretion in the decision to arrest: Rela-tionship to organizational goals and societal values. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Institute

of Government and Public Affairs.

Gelsthorpe, L., & Padfield, N. (2003). Introduction. In L. Gelsthorpe & N. Padfield (Eds.),

Exercising discretion:Decision-making in the criminal justice system and beyond(pp. 1-

28). Portland, OR: Willan.

Goldsmith, A. (1990). Taking police culture seriously: Police discretion and the limits of

law. Policing and Society, 1, 91-114.

Greenspan, E. L., & Rosenberg, M. (2001). Martins annual criminal code 2001. Aurora,

Ontario, Canada: Canada Law Book.

Hagan, J. (1977). Criminal justice in rural and urban communities: A study of the bureaucra-tization of justice. Social Forces, 55, 597-612.

Hagan, J., & Morden, C. P. (1981). The police decision to detain: A study of legal labelling

and police deviance. In C. D. Shearing (Ed.), Organizational police deviance: Its struc-

ture and control (pp. 9-28). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Butterworths.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services.

New York: Russell Sage.

Lundman, R. J. (1996). Demeanor and arrest: Additional evidence from previously unpub-

lished data. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 33, 306-323.

Maguire, E. R. (2003). Organizational structure in American policeagencies: Context, com-plexity, and control. New York: State University of New York Press.

McLaughlin, E. (2001). Discretion. In E. McLaughlin & J. Muncie (Eds.), The Sage dictio-

nary of criminology (pp. 95-96). London: Sage.

Morash, M. (1984). Establishment of a juvenile police record. Criminology, 22, 97-111.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA:

Sage.

Patton, M. Q.(2002). Methodological mixes.InM.Q.Patton(Ed.), Qualitative research and

evaluation methods (3rd ed., pp. 247-255). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Roberg, R., Crank, J., & Kuykendall, J. (2000). Police and society (2nd ed.). Los Angeles:

Roxbury.

Schulenberg, J. L. (2004). Policing young offenders: A multimethod analysis of variations in

police discretion. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Waterloo, Ontario,

Canada.




26/26

Skolnick, J. H. (1967). Justice without trial: Law enforcement in democratic society. New

York: John Wiley.

Tashakkori, A.,& Teddlie, C. (1998).Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quan-

titative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tustin, L., & Lutes, R. E. (2002). A guide to the youth criminal justice act. Markham,

Ontario, Canada: Butterworths.

Weber, M. (1946). From Max Weber, essays in sociology. New York: Oxford University

Press.

Werthman, C., & Piliavin, I. (1967). Gangmembers and thepolice. InD.J.Bordua(Ed.),The

police: Six sociological essays (pp. 56-98). New York: John Wiley.

Worden,R.E. (1989). Situational andattitudinal explanationsofpolicebehavior: A theoreti-

cal reappraisal and empirical assessment. Law and Society Review, 23, 667-711.

Jennifer L. Schulenberg is currently an assistant professor at the College of

CriminalJustice,Sam Houston State University. Herresearchinterests are in

research methodology, sociology of the family, juvenile justice, and policing.

Her research has been published in several journals including the Canadian

Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice (CJCCJ), Canadian Woman

Studies, andSociological Imagination. She is coauthor of the Department

of Justice Canada ReportPolice Discretion with Young Offenders, coau-

thor of a report on police discretion for StatisticsCanada, associate editor ofthe CJCCJ on the Youth Criminal Justice Act, and a member of the advisory

board for the Canadian Criminal Justice Association.


Documents

Police Culture and Youth Offenders the Effect of Legislative Change on Definitions of Crime and Delinquency