Is PERF Just Reinventing the Wheel?
Scott Berkun had a front-row seat to one of the most innovative periods in America’s technology business history: he worked at Microsoft for nearly a decade from 1994 – 2003. Microsoft’s Internet Explorer, as you may recall, was one of the most widely used web browsers during the time Berkun worked at Microsoft.
In June 2010, Bloomberg Businessweek published an article Berkun wrote titled “Stop Trying to Reinvent the Wheel”. While I’m hesitant to constantly refer to a previously published article, I can’t help but notice the parallels to current issues we’re facing in the law enforcement community. Unless otherwise noted, all quotes should be attributed to Mr. Berkun.
“The key reason people look to reinvent things is that they don’t know what’s already been done. Ignorance, one way or another, is the leading cause of wasted effort everywhere. People who don’t spend time studying the problems they’re trying to solve are bound to reinvent something, and likely not nearly as well.”
It is no secret that law enforcement’s uses of force have come under intense scrutiny nationwide. This scrutiny is likely to increase locally with the nearing implementation of the Body Worn Camera (BWC) program. My personal belief is that BWC footage will provide further evidence of the amazing work SFPD cops do every day. In my experience, our members show amazing restraint and are reticent to resort to using force. That being said, our members also recognize the need to be swift and decisive when applying lawful uses of force to minimize harm to the public, the officer, and the subject.
Interestingly, there is a nationwide trend of numerous elected and appointed leaders calling for police use of force reform. In an effort to assume the self-appointed role as a subject matter expert, the Police Executive Research Forum (aka PERF, a non-profit organization that charges law enforcement executives membership fees) has recently produced a document of suggested use of force reform. Suggested reforms include new adjectives such as de-escalation, proportionality, and the critical decision making model. While the adjectives are new, the practical application of core law enforcement principles is the same. Unfortunately, some of the suggested new adjectives aren’t supported by current statutory and case law.
It seems that PERF is tactically placing itself in a position to take advantage of politicians caving to public opinion and insisting on reform from law enforcement executives whom they appoint. Unfortunately, elected officials have created the demand that PERF is happily filling. I’m no politician, but I imagine it is easier to try to change the circumstances of a police encounter that looks “bad” instead of explaining the relevant sequence of events that led to the encounter. I’m more than certain that a vast majority of police uses of force are due to a subject’s actions or non-compliance. Interestingly, PERF’s suggestions of police reform are silent as to the responsibility of citizens to follow the lawful order of a law enforcement officer.
My fear is that elected and appointed officials, local and nationwide, are haphazardly creating a restrictive system intended to cause police officers to hesitate by instituting verbose and confusing policies based on subjective principles. Policies exist to provide clear direction. Restrictive use of force policies don’t change the origin of an officer’s need to resort to force: actions or non-compliance of another person. Such policies only serve to restrict force options available to a police officer. Unfortunately, often ignored is the concept that the hesitation of a police officer can lead to deadly and disastrous results.
“The second reason for reinvention pertains to ego and rewards…there is more prestige to be gained for making something new than for reusing work done elsewhere in the company or industry. (emphasis added) This is true when the newly made thing is much worse than what already existed…if a culture rewards unnecessary reinvention more than it honors wise reuse, the ambitious will follow suit.”
It is much too early to know the exact ambitions of those supporting an expedited change of policies guiding law enforcement’s use of force. However, even a casual observer can easily detect the aggressive timeline of the implementation of new use of force policies. It will be interesting to follow all involved in the newfound urgent quest (both those insisting for police reform and those rushing to meet the call). It wouldn’t be surprising to learn that politicians add use of force reform to their platform when seeking another elected position, find non-profit group leaders placing another line on their curricula vitae, or discover newly formed private consultancies ready to bill hefty sums for their services. Unfortunately, it will be the lone officer facing a dangerous suspect that is left with the consequences of hastily crafted policies.
“Good leaders…recognize the rare skill of combining things together well...There’s a time to reinvent and a time to reuse, and the best minds know that both approaches have their place”.
I’m not suggesting that there is no need for reform. Quite the contrary, I believe there is a constant need for law enforcement to adapt and stay ahead of the curve. However, there’s a difference between the means by which law enforcement obtains and develops effective relationships with community members, stakeholders, and interest groups and how policies are created, especially policies that direct officers how to carry out their lawful duties.
It is easy to see that there is a great amount of public interest in law enforcement’s application of uses of force, and rightfully so. It is important for officers to understand that in most cases their uses of force are considered government intervention and seizure. However, it is equally important for the public to understand that there are mechanisms in place for officers that deviate from the legal standard, set by statutory law and US Supreme Court case law, when using force.
For those unfamiliar with the harsh realities of taking a non-compliant or actively resisting subject into custody, a front-row seat view of a judicious use of force can be shocking. As most cops realize (as well as the US Supreme Court), any use of force is a culmination of a sequence of events. The sequence of events, however, doesn’t sell newspapers or gain media attention. I’m hopeful that with the increasing availability of BWC footage, the public will be exposed to the entire sequence of events that lead to particular uses of force. Such a context will likely produce a level of understanding as to why a police officer used a particular force option.
In the meantime, if policies governing the use of force are modified, it is essential for those drafting such policies to understand the importance of specific language, consistent with statutory law and case law. There is no sense in replacing existing policy with a hastily prepared, mediocre and confusing product, intended to either satisfy a vocal faction or to personally benefit those expediting change.
