By Brett Cowell,  Maria Valdovinos Olson,  Eiryn Renouard Jennifer Calnon Cherkauskas,  Ryan Fisher

Law enforcement culture, particularly the normalization and acceptance of voluntary risk-taking, can result in officers taking unnecessary risks when driving and working on or near a roadway. These dangerous behaviors— including not wearing a seat belt, reflective vest, or body armor, driving at excessive speeds, and driving while fatigued or distracted—are major risk factors for officer-involved motor vehicle collisions and struck-by incidents. Given the significant number of officers who are injured or killed in these types of roadway-related incidents each year, the National Law Enforcement Roadway Safety Program (NLERSP) team sought to examine how law enforcement culture may be contributing to these behaviors and provide law enforcement leaders with guidance on how to shift organizational culture to improve roadway safety. Through a review of the available literature on law enforcement culture and roadway-related incidents and the findings from a focus group comprised of law enforcement executives, supervisors, trainers, and officers, the NLERSP team identified several actionable steps agencies can take to address roadway-related safety risks. In addressing these risks, law enforcement leaders must strive to create a culture of safety within their agency—one that emphasizes and values “safety first” in law enforcement operations. While changing culture in law enforcement is not easy, the highly successful crash prevention program implemented by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, whose case study is featured in this brief, demonstrates that it is possible. As focus group participants explained, establishing a culture of safety for roadway operations can be accomplished by setting expectations through policy and training, communicating these expectations, providing unyielding support, and emphasizing accountability at all levels of the agency  

Arlington, VA:  The National Policing Institute, 2024. 34p.

By Thierry Mayamba Niandu.

This paper examines the roles, responsibilities and interactions between the various formal and informal institutions and stakeholders involved in the management of police services in the DRC. It identifies informal networks that influence decision-making processes and policy implementation, and provides an analysis of interactions between the Congolese population and national and international actors. It also aims to highlight both horizontal and vertical accountability mechanisms within the existing legal framework, setting out to identify any legal gaps and contradictions, which could explain overlapping mandates. The study provides interesting geographical and administrative data on national security systems, and uses a multidimensional governance approach to understand the complexity of the security sector and the interconnectedness between the relevant actors. The study concludes that stakeholders of the security and police sectors of the DRC are linked together in a web of complex and dynamic systems, characterised by discrepancies between theory and practice. It is inaccurate to think of these systems and mechanisms as working either in opposition to one another or in parallel. In fact, these systems intertwine more than they conflict, and there are significant overlaps and confusion with regard to the mandates of the existing institutions, structures and actors involved. All security services in the DRC possess a legal framework within which they must operate. The legal contradictions and loopholes identified in this paper are often the result of dubious interpretations, or even deliberate misinterpretations of existing operational provisions underlying the functioning of security services. The research concludes that there is very poor coordination between the various actors and institutions involved in the management of security services in the DRC. This creates a dysfunctional structure characterised by a culture of impunity, with only a semblance of autonomy and independence among actors, but never with regard to senior civil servants in charge of coordination.

Brighton, UK: Institute of Development Studies, 2012. 107p.