Examining the impacts of state-wide reform on police attitudes and perceptions in New Jersey

Abstract

New Jersey has enacted one of the most ambitious police use of force reduction initiatives, requiring all law enforcement officers to participate in de-escalation training and peer intervention training. To assess the impacts of the mandatory use of force training programs, we collected survey responses from officers before and after training, resulting in responses between N = 12,623 and N = 17,036 officers. Descriptive and bivariate analyses show several positive and significant changes. We find that officers are highly receptive to these mandated training programs. Further, we find that participation in the training results in significant shifts in officers’ attitudes and perceptions that align with each program’s tenets, suggesting these curricula can alter officers’ outlooks to support safe, effective interactions with community members. This study offers one of the few accounts of police officers’ receptivity to state-mandated use-of-force training, contributing to the growing evidence base on the impact of police training.

INTRODUCTION

In December 2020, the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General (NJOAG) announced plans to implement a comprehensive package of police reform policies designed to reduce the frequency and severity of officers’ use of force in interactions with community members (NJOAG 2020). Described as ‘the nation’s most ambitious police reform’ (Berman 2020), this package comprised efforts in three primary areas, including revisions to statewide use of force policies, implementation of mandatory use of force training for all sworn officers, and the collection and publication of use of force data by all law enforcement agencies (NJOAG Directive 2020–13).

This package is one example of police reform introduced in the wake of highly publicized incidents of officer use of fatal force against Black citizens across the USA. Fueled by civil unrest and calls for social justice, policymakers and legislatures have rapidly implemented reform measures designed to reduce instances of excessive force and enhance the safety and effectiveness of police interactions (Council on Criminal Justice 2021; National Conference of State Legislatures 2024). Empirical research has not kept pace with the rapid adoption of many police reforms, however. Very little is known about the effectiveness of these types of reforms (Lum et al. 2016; Engel et al. 2022a). Comprehensive evaluations documenting the implementation and impact of police reform efforts can provide essential information to build the evidence base and provide lessons learned to guide the field.

In 2021, the NJOAG engaged with a research team to collaborate in a multi-year, multi-method evaluation of their police reform package. This evaluation involved multiple design elements, including a repeated measures survey designed to assess changes in officers’ knowledge and attitudes following use of force training, state- and county-level analyses of administrative and qualitative data to examine the impact of reform efforts on officer and agency outcomes (e.g. frequency and severity of use of force, racial and ethnic disparities in use of force incidents, and injuries to officers and community members), and in-depth analyses with a small number of case study agencies to consider the implementation and impact of reform on police use of force. This evaluation represents the most extensive study of police use of force reform and the first attempt to directly survey every law enforcement officer across one state, highlighting the experiences of over 500 police departments and more than 31,000 sworn officers in New Jersey (estimates as of December 2023; NJOAG 2024).

This study presents findings from the first facet of the full evaluation; specifically, findings from repeated measures surveys designed to assess shifts in officers’ attitudes and perceptions following participation in mandatory use of force training. We examine officers’ responses to surveys administered immediately before and after their participation in de-escalation (Integrating Communications, Assessment, and Tactics or ICAT) and peer intervention (Active Bystandership for Law Enforcement or ABLE) training. The findings demonstrate that officers are highly receptive to these mandated training programs, highlighting that the officers can be socialized to view these programs favorably. Further, we find that participation in the ICAT and ABLE training results in significant shifts in officers’ attitudes and perceptions that align with each program’s tenets, suggesting these curricula can alter officers’ outlooks to support safe, effective interactions with community members. This study offers one of the few accounts of police officers’ receptivity to state-mandated use-of-force training. Notably, the high response rates to the surveys (ranging from 12,623 to 17,036 responses) from pre- to post-training underscore the robustness of the survey findings and alignment with the attitudes of sworn law enforcement officers across the state of New Jersey. To date, no empirical evaluation has reported findings from such a high volume of survey responses from officers.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Police training—particularly de-escalation and peer intervention training—is consistently identified as a tool to enhance police responses to community members by reducing the frequency and severity of the use of force during interactions (President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing 2015). A limited body of research exists, providing promising findings on the capacity of these training programs to enhance officers’ attitudes and reduce behaviors resulting in the use of force, injury, and misconduct. For instance, de-escalation training has been found to enhance officers’ attitudes toward the use of de-escalation tactics and confidence in responding to individuals in crisis in several studies (Isaza et al., 2019; Engel et al., 2020a; White et al., 2021). The impacts of de-escalation training on police officer behavior, however, are less clear. A randomized study conducted in Louisville, KY, found ICAT de-escalation training was associated with significant declines in officer use of force (–28.1%), subject injuries (–26.3%), and officer injuries (–36.0%) (Engel et al., 2022b).

Across other studies, researchers have observed no significant training effects on officers’ use of force (McLean et al., 2020), reductions in only certain types of force (White et al., 2023), or different findings based on the type of analysis used to examine the use of force (Goh 2021). White and colleagues (2023) observed no effect of customized de-escalation training on the overall prevalence of use of force in the Tempe (AZ) Police Department. However, trained officers decreased their use of certain types of force that were likely to produce injury (i.e. strikes and takedowns). Additionally, officers who received de-escalation training were found to spend more time during encounters and be less likely to injure community members in their encounters.

Peer intervention training has received less scholarly attention in policing. Only a few studies have examined peer intervention training programs for police, mainly examining officers’ perceptions of the training and willingness to intervene. For instance, studies have found that officers find peer intervention useful, increased support for the use of peer intervention, and increased reporting of the likelihood of intervention after participation in training (Taniguchi et al., 2022; Raines and Merenda 2023; Pelfrey 2024). In terms of officer behavior, only one study has examined this outcome, finding no observed training impacts on complaints by community members, officer use of force, and referrals for early intervention, support, and guidance (National Policing Institute 2022). However, the authors mention that these results should be interpreted with caution due to other factors, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, influencing the outcomes of interest. In sum, the available research evidence suggests that de-escalation and peer intervention training can have promising effects on police officers’ attitudes and behaviors. However, the limited number of studies and the substantial variation in the available evaluations (e.g. training under study, research design employed) and the findings they report highlight the importance of additional investments in research examining training effects.

While police training has been a major staple in US law enforcement agencies and subject to an increasing number of evaluations, the rigor and strength of the police training literature are highly limited due to contextual (e.g. recruit vs. in-service training), theoretical, and methodological limitations (see Lum et al., 2016; McGinley et al., 2020). Even in circumstances where methodological precision and internal validity are robust (e.g. randomized control trial evaluations), the generalizability of study findings remains a significant challenge. This issue is underscored by selection and socialization effects that may impact our interpretation of research findings. Selection effects occur when the characteristics of a group (representative of a subset of a population) may influence their likelihood of opting into certain behaviors/activities, such as law enforcement agencies that opt-in to implement training. Conversely, socialization effects are caused by external pressures to conform to certain behaviors/activities (e.g. mandated reform). Discussions of selection versus socialization effects are particularly salient to evaluations of the origins of police behavior and mechanisms to influence those behaviors (Lin et al., 2023).

To illustrate a potential circumstance where selection bias may exist in police training research, we can look to the procedural justice training literature. Procedural justice training aims to educate officers on the importance of giving community members a voice in their interactions, granting them dignity and respect, and demonstrating neutrality and trust (see Skogan et al., 2015). Randomized control trials highlight the positive effects of procedural justice training on officers’ attitudes and behaviors (e.g. Antrobus et al., 2019). However, it is impossible to discern whether these empirical findings are influenced by underlying selection processes. Specifically, agencies that opt to implement procedural justice training might be more progressive, influenced by evidence-informed practices, and open to changes in processes and procedures (Jonathan-Zamir et al., 2013)—similar to the confounded selection biases that emerged among early agency adopters of body-worn cameras (see Ariel et al., 2015).

Alternatively, socialization through mandated reforms, often through consent decrees and collaborative reform efforts, is also common in policing. Such approaches are federally mandated practices imposed on local agencies by the US Department of Justice (see Alpert et al., 2017). The current paper is unique in both context and topic because it is the first study of which we are aware that has surveyed and evaluated statewide law enforcement personnel about their reactions, receptivity, and attitudes regarding a litany of reforms related to the use of force practices, policy changes, and mandated trainings. In short, the police agencies were socialized to such changes, and their reactions to these proposed changes are extremely unlikely to be contingent upon selection bias. The study context in New Jersey and the types of police training implemented and assessed herein can inform several scholarly, policy, and practitioner audiences.

New Jersey use of force reduction initiative

Leveraging its unilateral power over law enforcement in the state, in 2020, the NJOAG mandated an overhaul of the state’s use of force policies and required retraining of every sworn law enforcement officer to reframe police interactions with community members—explicitly prioritizing the protection of the life, liberty, and dignity of community members in every encounter (NJOAG, n.d.; NJOAG Directive 2020–13). Collectively, the work comprising this reform initiative aims to reduce the frequency and severity of the use of force by all of New Jersey’s 31,000 + state, county, and local law enforcement officers. This comprehensive reform package includes three major components, including changes to statewide use of force policy; mandatory use of force training for all sworn law enforcement; and collecting and publishing uniform, comprehensive data around police use of force.

All officers in New Jersey were required to participate in ICAT and ABLE training by 30 September 2022 (NJOAG Directive 2022–5).¹ Both ICAT and ABLE are widely recognized use-of-force training programs, with hundreds of police departments implementing each.² ICAT, developed by the Police Executive Research Forum, is a 12-hour, 2-day de-escalation training course designed to provide officers with tools and skills for effective de-escalation. The training aims to enhance officers’ understanding of persons in crisis, increase officers’ confidence in the use of effective communication and tactics, and reduce the use of force in encounters. ICAT uses the Critical Decision-Making Model as a framework for officer responses to all encounters with the public. This model prioritizes information gathering and continuous assessment of situations warranting a police response, including the effectiveness of that response. ABLE training, developed by Georgetown University and partners, is an 8-hour, single-day course designed around the science of active bystandership. This type of training supports officers in recognizing harmful situations where intervention is needed, acknowledging the responsibility to act, and effectively intervening (Aronie and Lopez, 2017; Taniguchi et al., 2022). Through ABLE training, officers are taught that they have a responsibility to look out for each other and the public and are encouraged to intervene in situations to prevent officer misconduct.

Plans for ICAT and ABLE implementation were handled by training coordinators selected for each of the 21 New Jersey counties and three statewide agencies (i.e. New Jersey State Police, New Jersey Transit Police Department, and Rutgers University Police Department). Therefore, the delivery of training, whether the programs were consecutive or non-consecutive, varied by county and/or departments within counties.³ In coordination with the NJOAG, our research team collected ICAT and ABLE monthly training rosters from all training coordinators from September 2021 through April 2023. The final counts of trained officers indicate that 29,474 officers completed ABLE, and 29,225 officers completed ICAT, resulting in training compliance percentages of 94.6% and 93.8%, respectively.⁴

CURRENT STUDY

For the present study, our research team implemented a repeated measures survey design to assess the impact of training on officers’ attitudes and perceptions. These surveys were designed to assess the impact of ICAT and ABLE training on officers’ (1) receptivity to training, (2) knowledge attainment, (3) attitudes related to the use of force, officer misconduct, and persons in crisis, (4) self-reported confidence in applying skills and tactics, and (5) self-reported behaviors. We examine data collected from four surveys, including pre- and post-ICAT training surveys and pre- and post-ABLE training surveys. These surveys were administered to officers immediately before and after each training and facilitated through web-based questionnaires available using the online survey tool Qualtrics.

Data

Survey collection occurred from 11 August 2021, through 31 December 2022. In total, 17,036 pre-ICAT training (59.7% response rate) and 14,638 post-ICAT training surveys (51.3% response rate) were collected.⁵ We collected 15,142 pre-ABLE training (52.8% response rate) and 12,623 post-ABLE training surveys (44.0% response rate). The online supplement contains a full breakdown of sample demographics collected in the pre-training surveys, compared to the available 2023 statewide data.⁶ Consistent with statewide demographic data, the pre-training samples are largely male (88% statewide compared to 83% for both survey samples) and White (67% statewide compared to 67% of the ICAT sample and 62% of the ABLE sample). Approximately half of the officers in our sample held the rank of patrol officer (49% of the ICAT sample; 50% of the ABLE sample), and nearly half reported an education level of a bachelor’s degree or higher (48% of ICAT sample; 45% of ABLE sample).

Analytic techniques

The statistical approaches used to assess these data include descriptive analyses of survey items presented in a single wave of measurement (e.g. reactions to the trainings) and independent t-test comparisons of survey items presented across the two waves of measurement (e.g. office attitudes and perceptions related to the trainings). Of note, paired (or dependent) samples t-test comparisons would be the preferred method for observing differences between two-time points, as the method compares within-individual differences. Unfortunately, inconsistent reporting of identifying information during survey data collection (e.g. county, agency name, and badge number) largely reduced the number of available responses that could be matched across waves of the surveys. Because of this, the results obtained from the independent t-tests are presented to retain the full sample of responses. Still, for the participants who could be matched across pre- and post-training surveys, dependent samples t-test analyses were conducted, and those results are provided in the online supplement. The conclusions gleaned from the dependent samples t tests are consistent with those observed in the independent t tests.

Measures

Survey measures drew upon previous research evaluating ICAT training (Isaza et al., 2019; Engel et al., 2020a), items used previously in ABLE training surveys,⁷ adapted items from surveys used in sexual assault bystander intervention evaluation (Banyard 2008; Banyard et al., 2010), and new items informed by the ABLE curriculum. In this study, we rely on the descriptive analysis of individual items and comparative analyses of composite measures. Composite measures are used to better measure broad theoretical constructs that are not well captured using a single survey item. Scales and indices are superior to single items because they generate more sample variability and increase content validity. The scale’s reliability can be measured, and measurement error is assumed to average out when individual scores are summed. All survey measures, including the six additive scales in this study, are detailed below.

The pre- and post-ICAT training surveys include items across five conceptual areas to assess training impacts. Responses were provided using a five-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree; 5 = Strongly Agree). ICAT Training Program Receptivity measured officers’ perceptions of the ICAT training program – including the content, delivery, and perceived outcomes. Higher scores indicate greater agreement that ICAT is a beneficial training. Utility of the Critical Decision-Making Model (CDM) captured officers’ attitudes around using the CDM framework taught in ICAT. Eleven survey items were used to assess overall views of the utility of the CDM. Views on Community Interactions assessed officers’ general views on community interactions, including officer safety and de-escalation issues. An additive scale was computed using six survey items, where higher scores indicate greater agreement with the principles taught in ICAT (Min = 6, Max = 30; pre-training α = 0.90; post-training α = 0.92). Views on Interactions with Persons in Crisis included ten survey items to measure officers’ attitudes toward interactions with persons in crisis. Higher scores on this additive scale indicate greater understanding and empathy towards persons in crisis (Min = 10, Max = 50; pre-training α = 0.87; post-training α = 0.92). Attitudes Toward Use of Force used nine survey items to measure officers’ attitudes toward using force, including their preference for using force and communication skills. An additive scale was computed with higher scores indicating greater agreement with the tenets of ICAT (Min = 9, Max = 55; pre-training α = 0.73; post-training α = 0.78).

In the ABLE pre- and post-training instruments, five conceptual areas are used to measure training impacts. While all measures employ a five-point Likert scale, the first three use an agreement scale (1 = Strongly Disagree; 5 = Strongly Agree), the fourth uses a confidence scale (1 = Not at All Confident; 5 = Very Confident), and the fifth uses a likelihood scale (1 = Very Unlikely; 5 = Very Likely). ABLE Training Program Receptivity included in the post-training survey only assessed officers’ perceptions about ABLE training, where higher scores indicate greater agreement that ABLE is a beneficial training, using five survey items. Perceptions of Police Misconduct included 14 survey items that measured officer perceptions about police misconduct, officer wellness, and active bystandership. An additive scale was created, where higher scores are expected after training, aligned with the goals of ABLE (Min = 14, Max = 70; pre-training α = 0.87; post-training α = 0.91). Attitudes Toward Active Bystandership relied on 21 items to garner officers’ attitudes toward active bystandership, intervening with other officers, and accepting intervention from another officer. Higher scores on this scale represent greater support for using active bystandership in law enforcement (Min = 21, Max = 105; pre-training α = 0.91; post-training α = 0.93). Confidence in ABLE Skills captured officers’ confidence in performing different ABLE training skills. Here, seven individual survey items are presented, where higher scores indicated greater confidence in the ABLE skills acquired. Likelihood of Peer Intervention relied on seven survey items that measure perceptions about the likelihood of certain peer intervention activities in an officers’ department. Higher scores indicate it is more likely for peer intervention to occur. (Min = 7, Max = 35; pre-training α = 0.88; post-training α = 0.88).

RESULTS

Study results are focused on assessing the impacts of mandatory de-escalation and peer intervention training in New Jersey through an examination of officer reactions to the training followed by measured changes in officer attitudes after participation in each training. Immediate training impacts are considered by comparing pre-training and post-training scores generated from survey responses. In contrast, the reactions to training programs are descriptive in nature and based only on post-training results. Each subsection presents findings specific to the ICAT training, followed by findings specific to the ABLE training.

Officer reactions to the trainings

Guided by observations of the importance of documenting officers’ assessment of the quality and utility of training (see Kirkpatrick 1998), we measured officer reactions to and perceptions of both training curricula after the completion of the training programs. It is essential to assess officer training satisfaction and perceived skill acquisition because officers who are more satisfied and believe they acquired training skills are more likely to transfer this knowledge into learning and changes in behavior (Colquitt et al. 2000). As such, training receptivity plays a critical role in explaining a training program’s effectiveness.

ICAT training

Five survey items were used to assess officers’ perceptions of and general receptivity to ICAT. Table 1 displays the responses to these items. As shown, approximately 88% of officers reported the training was useful to them and 83% reported the training taught them new things. Further, 88% expressed satisfaction with the training and 86% would recommend the ICAT training to others.

Officers were asked to share their views on ICAT’s CDM. In total, 11 survey items were presented to responding officers to assess their views on the utility of the CDM. Table 2 presents officers’ responses across these items. As shown, at least 85% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with each positively phrased statement (Items 1–8). For the three negatively phrased items (Items 9–11), the results continue to show that responding officers hold positive views about the CDM. Notably, however, approximately 21% of officers reported they agreed the CDM may make officers hesitate to act when needed, compared to 51% who disagreed with this statement.

ABLE training

Consistent with our measurement of receptivity to ICAT training, officers’ general receptivity to ABLE training was evaluated using five survey items. Officer responses to each item are displayed in Table 3. Of the responding officers, approximately 86% reported the training was useful to them, and 87% reported the training taught them new things. Further, 88% expressed satisfaction with the training and 85% stated they would recommend the training to others.

The goal of any training program is for trainees to walk away with confidence that they have acquired the skills taught in the training. Officers were presented with seven items designed to assess their confidence in performing different skills taught in the ABLE curriculum after their completion of the training. As demonstrated by the responses displayed in Table 4, officers were overwhelmingly confident in their acquisition of the skills taught during the ABLE training. Specifically, more than 85% of the surveyed officers reported they were either confident or very confident in their ability to use each of the ABLE skills presented. Moreover, less than 1% reported low confidence.

Differences in officer pre-training and post-training attitudes

To further assess the impact of the ICAT and ABLE training programs, we next detail the differences in measured attitudes after officers’ participation in each training. Immediate training impacts are considered by comparing pre-training and post-training scores generated from survey responses. For all measures, we expect significant increases in scores to demonstrate the positive impacts of the training programs.

ICAT training

In consideration of differences in measured officer attitudes from before and after ICAT training, we examine changes in officers’ views in three areas fundamental to ICAT training: community interactions, interactions with persons in crisis, and use of force. Table 5A displays the descriptive statistics for the survey items across each of these areas from the pre- and post-ICAT training surveys and the t statistic obtained from their comparisons.

As demonstrated in the table, the overall responses reported in the post-training survey for all three constructs were statistically significantly more aligned with the tenets of ICAT training than those obtained in the pre-training survey. Of note, while the observed differences are statistically significant, we do not observe drastic differences. For example, the average response per item for the Views on Community Interactions scale increased from 4.3 to 4.4. Similar increases were observed for Views on Interactions with Persons in Crisis (4.1–4.3) and Attitudes Toward Use of Force (3.8–3.9). This is due in part to participating officers having views and attitudes that are highly aligned with ICAT prior to their participation in the training. For example, when it comes to the pre-training survey, 19% of responding officers were recorded as having the maximum score for Views on Community Interactions. However, this was less of a problem for the Views on Interactions with Persons in Crisis and Attitudes Toward the Use of Force. For these, the percentage of responding officers with a maximum pre-training score was approximately 5% and 2%, respectively.

ABLE training

We also observe changes in officers’ survey responses across three construct areas that are essential to the ABLE training: Perceptions of Police Misconduct, Attitudes Toward Active Bystandership, and Likelihood of Peer Intervention.Table 5B displays the descriptive statistics for each observed ABLE construct from pre-training and post-training surveys and the t statistic obtained from their comparisons.

The observed mean differences demonstrate that officers’ responses in the post-training survey were statistically significantly more aligned with ABLE teachings than those observed in the pre-training survey for all three constructs. As with the differences in the ICAT responses, the observed differences for constructs related to ABLE training were not necessarily large. The average response per item for the Perceptions of Police Misconduct scale increased from 4.1 at pre-training to 4.2 at post-training. Similar pre-training to post-training increases were also observed in Attitudes Towards Active Bystandership (3.9–4.0) and Likelihood of Peer Intervention (4.0–4.1). Once again, the lack of major increases may be partly due to highly ABLE-aligned perceptions and attitudes before training participation. This is especially likely for Likelihood of Peer Intervention, as nearly 14% of pre-training officers recorded the maximum score. Maximum pre-training scores were less of a factor for Perceptions of Police Misconduct (4%) and Attitudes Towards Active Bystandership (1.5%). Still, it is important to note that pre- and post-training differences were observed—even if those differences were small.

DISCUSSION

This study presents findings from the analysis of officer surveys administered immediately before and after their participation in mandatory de-escalation and peer intervention training. It offers several important contributions to the field. First, it is one of the first evaluations of police training to gather feedback from an entire state population of law enforcement officers. To our knowledge, no other studies have attempted this, nor has another research study gathered responses from over 17,000 law enforcement officers to a single survey. The high response rates to the pre- and post-training surveys underscore the survey findings’ generalizability to the attitudes of officers across New Jersey. Further, this study is among the first to assess officer reactions to state-mandated training, preventing concerns of selection effects in the findings. Finally, this study is one of the first independent assessments of ABLE peer intervention training and the first statewide assessment of ICAT training.

We found evidence that the ICAT and ABLE training programs, while mandated by the state, were still received very positively by officers. Indeed, most officers agreed that the ICAT training was useful and that it taught them new things (87.5% and 82.9%, respectively). Similarly, 86.2% of the sample agreed that they would recommend ICAT training to others. Receptivity to ICAT here mirrors those found in agencies that selected to implement ICAT (Isaza et al., 2019; Engel et al., 2020). Before ICAT training, the CDM was most likely an unfamiliar concept to officers. However, previous research has observed that officers view the CDM as an intuitive decision-making approach (Isaza 2020). Immediately after participating in ICAT training, survey findings supported this notion. Most officers agreed that the CDM was a valuable tool. Notably, however, longer-term evaluations of ICAT have demonstrated that this perceived utility can decrease with time (Isaza et al., 2019; Engel et al., 2020)

The post-training survey revealed similar findings about officers’ receptivity to the ABLE program. Most officers agreed the ABLE training was useful and taught them new things (86.2% and 86.7%, respectively). A similar percentage of officers agreed they would recommend this training to others (84.8% of respondents). This is consistent with a prior study of different peer intervention training (Taniguchi et al. 2022). Further, when asked about confidence in their acquired ABLE skills for effective intervention, we found officers were confident in their ability to use two new skills taught during ABLE: the 3D’s Model (Direct, Distract, and Delegate)⁸ and PACT (Probe, Alert, Challenge, Take Action).⁹ We found that officers had highly ABLE-aligned perceptions and attitudes before training, and while the exact reasons for this are unknown, it is possible that the previous NJOAG use of policy, which reinforced the responsibility of officers to take action to prevent or stop inappropriate use of force¹⁰, may have contributed to these attitudes. We are hopeful that these pre-existing views helped increase training receptivity towards ABLE and the likelihood of using skills taught within the program (see Wolfe et al. 2019 for relevant discussion); however, testing for this link is outside of the scope of this article.

Analyses demonstrate statistically significant changes in officers’ self-reported attitudes and perceptions following their completion of the ICAT and ABLE training programs. Aligning with past research on ICAT (Isaza et al. 2019; Engel et al. 2020), these findings demonstrate that this de-escalation training leads to attitudinal shifts that complement ICAT tenets. Specifically, officers reported greater understanding of effective responses to individuals in crisis, more confidence in their ability to influence positive outcomes in their interactions with community members, and less reliance on the use of force as a response strategy. Following participation in ABLE training, officers were found to report more restrictive views of police misconduct, as well as greater beliefs that preventing misconduct is part of their responsibilities and support for using active bystandership in law enforcement. Collectively, these findings highlight the capacity of these de-escalation and peer intervention training programs to alter officers’ attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions of self-efficacy to support safe, effective interactions with community members and prevent instances of police misconduct.

Study limitations and recommendations for future research

It is important to restate that this study’s goal was to be descriptive. As such, there are numerous directions for future research. As with any study, ours is not without limitations. First, this study is limited to self-reported survey data collected immediately before and immediately following officer participation in ICAT and ABLE training. The limitations of survey data—particularly concerns of social desirability—have been discussed elsewhere (see Chan 2008). Regarding this study in particular, the fact that training was rolled out as part of a larger reform package may impact the officer responses to the surveys. However, the nature of those impacts, whether positive or negative, is less certain. Our treatment of the training surveys as independent samples does reduce our confidence that the results are free from such bias but allows for the retention of the full sample of responses. Subsequent analyses on a reduced sample of the officers who could be matched across surveys replicated the presented findings.

Second, because the post-training surveys were collected directly after officer participation, the results represent initial and immediate officer training reactions. Further, the close proximity in time for the collection of officer pre- and post-measures raises the possibility of response priming in the post-training survey, which may explain some of the limited effect sizes found. It will be important for future work to observe if officers’ views are maintained over time. Similarly, it will be important to examine officers’ self-reported de-escalation and peer intervention skill use over time. Third, the descriptive goals of the study precluded the examination of additional explanatory variables for officers’ training receptivity, perceptions, and attitudes. Previous research has shown that receptivity and changes in attitudes vary across officers. Gender, race, age, and tenure have been shown to be associated with training receptivity and openness to training in general has been found to play an influential role in training receptivity and post-training officer perceptions and attitudes (Engel et al., 2021). It will be important for later research to consider the role of outside factors in explaining the variation in training outcomes for both ICAT and ABLE. We also cannot be certain how individual officer histories, experiences with previous training (academy, field, or in-service), and the influence of unions may have impacted the responses collected in this study.

Finally, reliance on survey data means that we do not directly observe the ‘real world’ impact these trainings may have. While we do glean an understanding of how well-received the trainings are by officers and whether they buy into the content being presented, we do not capture actual behavioral change. In other words, direct observation of officer actions is needed to know whether and how skills related to de-escalation and peer intervention are used in the field.

CONCLUSION

The findings presented in this study are part of a larger research project designed to examine the impact of statewide use of force reform in New Jersey. Using a repeated measures survey design, we assessed shifts in officers’ perceptions and attitudes following participation in mandatory de-escalation and peer intervention training. The findings suggest that officers were highly receptive to these mandated training programs. Further, we find that the training resulted in significant shifts in officers’ attitudes and perceptions, suggesting that these de-escalation and peer intervention curricula can alter officers’ outlooks to support safe, effective interactions with community members. Although not without limitations, this study offers one of the few accounts of the short-term effects of state-mandated use of force training, contributing to the growing evidence base on the impact of police training on officers’ perceptions and attitudes.

These initial findings are encouraging and will be built upon through further efforts to evaluate the impact of the comprehensive police use of force reform initiative in New Jersey. This evidence will be critical for policymakers, who can use information on the effectiveness of state-mandated reform to inform policy decisions and the larger public discourse. It is imperative that practitioners, academics, and policymakers continue to review and test innovative police reform efforts to build this evidence base and provide lessons learned to guide the field.

Conflict of interest

None declared.

Funding

This research was supported by Arnold Ventures (AV), formerly the Laura and John Arnold Foundation (Grant ID 23–08651). The findings and recommendations presented are from the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official positions or opinions of AV or the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General (NJOAG). The authors wish to thank the NJOAG Office of Public Integrity and Accountability as well as the numerous members of law enforcement across the state of New Jersey who assisted our research efforts over the past few years. Executives and staff members from the Police Executive Research Forum and the Center for Innovations in Community Safety at Georgetown University also provided valuable assistance to the research team.

References

Gabrielle T. Isaza, Ph.D., is a Senior Research Associate at the National Policing Institute. Previously, Dr. Isaza worked as a researcher at the International Association of Chiefs of Police/University of Cincinnati Center for Police Research and Policy and at the University of Cincinnati Institute of Crime Science. She earned her Ph.D. in Criminal Justice from the University of Cincinnati, with a dissertation focused on evaluating police de-escalation training. Dr. Isaza’s areas of research include police effectiveness, police reform, crime prevention, and evaluations of police training programs, including de-escalation, peer intervention, and implicit bias. Dr. Isaza has worked directly with several police departments and is an advocate of the practice of police-academic partnerships. She serves as principal investigator and co-principal investigator on multiple grants funded by state, municipal, federal, and philanthropic organizations. She has published across leading criminal justice journals and practitioner-focused publications.

Ryan T. Motz, Ph.D., is a Research Associate in the School of Criminal Justice at the University of Cincinnati. His current research centers on police behavior, police-community relations, and the evaluation of police training programs and crime reduction strategies. He has published in outlets including Criminology, Developmental Psychology, Criminal Justice and Behavior, and Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology.

Hannah D. McManus, Ph.D., is the Director of Science and Innovation at the National Policing Institute. Prior to joining NPI, she worked for five years as a Research Associate at the University of Cincinnati Center for Police Research and Policy. Dr. McManus participates in research and evaluation in the criminal justice field, with a specific focus on police practice. Her current work includes research on the development and implementation of training for police, best practices in crisis response, and the examination of police-community relations. An advocate for academic-practitioner partnerships to promote evidence-informed and best practices, Dr. McManus has worked directly with law enforcement agencies across the country. She currently serves as Co-Principal Investigator on multiple federally awarded grants and has published in both peer-reviewed and practitioner-focused outlets, earning several awards for those publications.

Nicholas Corsaro, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Criminal Justice at the University of Cincinnati. He has conducted numerous evaluations of strategic policing that have focused on open-air drug markets, gang violence, gun homicide, and police staffing needs. His research appears in various outlets in criminal justice, evaluation research, and public health peer-reviewed journals.

Footnotes