Paying a marriage taxAn examination of the barriers to thepromotion of female police officers

Carol A. ArchboldDepartment of Criminal Justice and Political Science,

North Dakota State University, Fargo, North Dakota, USA, and

Kimberly D. HassellHelen Bader School of Social Welfare, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee,

Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA

Abstract

Purpose – This paper aims to examine some of the factors associated with the decision to participatein the promotion process for female police officers in a Midwestern police agency.

Design/methodology/approach – Face-to-face, structured interviews were conducted in the springof 2006 with most (74 percent) of the female police officers employed by a Midwestern, municipalpolice agency.

Findings – The authors identified several organizational and personal factors that impact on femalepolice officers’ decision to participate in the promotion process. This study also uncovers a factor thathas not been addressed in previous research: how being married to fellow police officers (or part of a“cop couple”) can restrict the upward mobility of female police officers.

Research limitations/implications – Data for this study were collected from one municipal policeagency in the Midwest; therefore, the research findings may not be generalizable to small or very largepolice agencies. In addition, the female officers in this police agency comprise a relatively highpercentage of sworn positions (15 percent) compared to the national average of 12.6 percent; therefore,the experiences of the women in this department may not be representative of other female policeofficers working in agencies where women comprise either more or less than 15 percent of all swornpositions. Another limitation of this study is that the sample size is small. This is a limitation that mostresearchers will encounter when they choose to study female police officers, as there are so few womenwho work in American police agencies.

Practical implications – By identifying the barriers that female officers face when deciding to gothrough the promotion process, the authors were able to provide several administrative changes thatcould be made to encourage more female officers to participate in the promotion process.

Originality/value – There is very limited published research on the promotion of female policeofficers. This study uncovers a factor that has not been addressed in previous research: how beingmarried to fellow police officers can restrict the upward mobility of female police officers, thusresulting in a “marriage tax” for female police officers.

Keywords Police, Women, Promotion, United States of America, Sex and gender issues

Paper type Research paper

The number of female police officers employed by American law enforcement agencieshas increased slowly over the past three decades. In the early 1970s, female policeofficers represented less than 2 percent of the total number of sworn law enforcementofficers in the US (Martin, 1980). The Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that femalepolice officers comprised 7.6 percent of all sworn law enforcement positions in 1987,

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1363-951X.htm

PIJPSM32,1

56

Policing: An International Journal ofPolice Strategies & ManagementVol. 32 No. 1, 2009pp. 56-74q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1363-951XDOI 10.1108/13639510910937111

and increased to 8.8 percent in 1993 (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2002). More recentstatistics provided by the National Center for Women and Policing (2002) report thatfemale officers accounted for 12.6 percent of all sworn law enforcement positions inpolice agencies employing 100 or more officers in 2001.

Despite an increase in the employment of female police officers, there is limitedfemale representation in both command and supervisory positions in most Americanlaw enforcement agencies. A recent report by the National Center for Women andPolicing (2002) noted that:

Within large police agencies, sworn women currently hold only 7.3 percent of top commandpositions (chiefs, asst. chiefs, commanders, and captains), 9.6 percent of supervisory positions(lieutenants and sergeants), and 13.5 percent of line operation positions (detectives and patrolofficers) (p. 4).

Further, Schulz (2003, 2004) reported that women represent only 1 percent of all chief ofpolice positions in the US. These statistics illustrate how few female police officershave advanced up through the ranks beyond the position of patrol officer.

There has been limited research that examines why there are so few women movinginto promoted positions within law enforcement agencies in the US. In fact, there hasbeen very little research, in general, on the promotion of police officers. Some of theexisting research has explored whether the potential for promotion acts as a motivatorfor police officers (Gaines et al., 1984; Scarborough et al., 1999) and why police officers(both male and female) decline participation in the promotion process (Whetstone,2001). Other research has focused on how perceptions of tokenism impact female policeofficers’ participation in promotion (Archbold and Schulz, 2008; Wertsch, 1998); theextent to which female sergeants would be perceived differently than male sergeantswithin police organizations (Wexler and Quinn, 1985); and some of the factors thatinfluence female police officers’ decisions to participate in the promotion process(Whetstone and Wilson, 1999).

The study presented in this paper builds on previous studies as it examines some ofthe factors associated with the decision to participate in the promotion process forfemale police officers in a Midwestern police agency. Using face-to-face, structuredinterviews, we identified several organizational and personal factors that impactfemale police officers’ decisions to participate in promotion. This study also uncovers afactor that has not been addressed in previous research: how being married to fellowpolice officers (or being part of a “cop couple”) can restrict the upward mobility offemale police officers.

The promotion of female police officersOne of the earliest studies conducted on the promotion of female police officers wasconducted by Wexler and Quinn over two decades ago. Using survey data, Wexler andQuinn (1985) examined whether female sergeants would be perceived differently thanmale sergeants in the San Francisco Police Department. This study also exploredwhether female officers would need any special support services once they werepromoted into the position of sergeant. Although both male and female police officersbelieved that they would need additional training upon being promoted, female policeofficers rated themselves as less competent than their male colleagues (Wexler andQuinn, 1985). This difference between male and female police officers was attributed to

Paying amarriage tax

57

the fact that female officers had fewer years of service (in general) and fewer years ofspecific patrol experience compared to their male colleagues. Less patrol experiencewas the result of some of the female police officers being assigned to positions thatpulled them off the streets (Wexler and Quinn, 1985). Ultimately, the lack of experiencein patrol placed some of the female officers at a disadvantage when it came time forpromotion opportunities.

The same study also revealed that several of the female officers expected hostileattitudes from male officers once they became sergeants. More specifically, Wexler andQuinn (1985) noted that “nine of 21 female respondents specified that their biggestconcern about being a sergeant had to do with the negative reception they expected forwomen sergeants” (p. 101). The findings from this study indicate that female policeofficers believe that they will face several organizational barriers (specifically a lack ofexperience necessary to be promoted, as well as resistance from male peers within theirorganization) if they choose to participate in the promotion process.

Over a decade later, Teresa Lynn Wertsch (1998) conducted a study that focused onhow perceptions of “tokenism” among female police officers influenced the decision toparticipate in the promotion process. Using face-to-face, structured interviews withfemale police officers in a medium-sized police agency in the Pacific Northwest,Wertsch (1998) was able to identify several factors that played a role in the decision offemale officers to step forward for promotion. Some of the factors included issuesrelated to tokenism, family/childcare, and organizational barriers, includingadministrative bias (Wertsch, 1998).

Most of the female officers reported that they felt isolated at work solely becausethey were women, and also that they believed that they had to work harder than theirmale colleagues to prove themselves within the organization (Wertsch, 1998). Femaleofficers also stated that they felt restricted by being assigned to gender-appropriateroles within their police agency (i.e. Drug Abuse Resistance Education Officer,Neighborhood Resource Officer), which resulted in them being unable to attain theappropriate experiences to become strong candidates for promotion. A new schedulethat often accompanies promotion (usually the evening shift) was another potentialbarrier identified by most of the women who had children (Wertsch, 1998). It wouldbecome difficult to find adequate childcare, and also to spend quality time with theirchildren, if their new work schedule conflicted with their family schedule. This study isimportant because it articulates the complexity of both organizational and personalvariables that factor into the decisions of female police officers to participate inpromotion.

Archbold and Schulz (2008) also examined the impact of tokenism on female policeofficer’s decision to participate in the promotion process. Using face-to-face structuredinterviews with female police officers in a Midwestern police agency, the studyrevealed findings that contrast with Kanter’s original description of tokenism in theworkplace. In this study, most female police officers were strongly encouraged by theirmale supervisors to participate in promotion. This encouragement by male supervisorsactually dissuaded some of the female officers from participating in the promotionprocess. The findings from this study suggest that tokenism in the workplace is morecomplex than focusing solely on the numerical representation of women intraditionally male-dominated professions, including law enforcement.

PIJPSM32,1

58

Whetstone and Wilson (1999) also studied factors that contribute to theunder-representation of women in police supervisory or management positions. Datawas collected in a large Midwestern police agency using a combination of focus groupsand survey data. This study revealed that male and female police officers had verysimilar reasons for choosing not to participate in the promotion process. Femaleofficers ranked the following factors, in order of importance, for declining to participatein promotion (Whetstone and Wilson, 1999, p. 135):

(1) Prefer present shift and assignment.

(2) Issues related to childcare and family matters.

(3) Bias from the administration.

(4) They are simply not interested in becoming sergeant.

(5) They were concerned with a reduction in salary since becoming a sergeantwould limit their access to working overtime hours.

Similarly, male officers in this department ranked the following factors in order ofimportance for declining to participate in the promotion process (Whetstone andWilson, 1999, p. 135):

(1) Prefer present shift and assignment.

(2) There was a tie between issues related to childcare and family matters, and areduction in salary due to the lack of opportunity to work overtime.

(3) They are simply not interested in becoming sergeant.

(4) Concerned with the number of available openings.

The striking difference between the male and female responses is the exclusion ofadministrative bias on the male officers’ top five lists of factors that influenced theirdecision not to participate in the promotion process.

Focus groups with the female officers allowed for elaboration on some of the factorsthat influenced their decision not to participate in the promotion process. Several of thefemale officers viewed the position of sergeant as one that did not carry many benefits(monetarily or otherwise); therefore, the women were uninterested in applying for thatparticular position (Whetstone and Wilson, 1999). If overtime hours were no longeravailable once the female police officers were promoted, this could cause financialhardship for some of the women. This was especially true if the newly promotedwoman would have to pay more for daycare. Nearly all of the female officers in thefocus group commented that they “had worked diligently to obtain their currentassignment and shift and were not prepared to give it up for promotion” (Whetstoneand Wilson, 1999, p. 136). Giving up their current assignment and shift might alsocause a significant change to their family schedule at home, specifically resulting inless time to spend with their children and spouses. The focus group session alsorevealed that the factors specifically related to childcare and family issues wereseemingly more pronounced for female police officers who were married to fellowpolice officers (Whetstone and Wilson, 1999).

Some of the female officers identified a “short window of opportunity” for femaleofficers who are interested in promotion (Whetstone and Wilson, 1999, p. 136). This“short window of opportunity” would require that female officers “time” their

Paying amarriage tax

59

opportunity for promotion based on the developmental stages of their child/children.More specifically, Whetstone and Wilson (1999, p. 137) noted that:

One [female officer] can enter the promotional process while the child is a toddler and obtainthe rank of sergeant, with the goal of being assigned to the day shift by the time the childenters school. If this opportunity cannot or does not materialize, promotion to sergeant whilethe child is in school would result in an initial assignment to the evening shift eliminating theability to tuck in her child at night, assist with homework, and to participate in schoolactivities for two to three years.

The focus group discussions clearly identified issues related to family and childcare asimportant factors in the decision to participate in promotion. In conclusion, Whetstoneand Wilson (1999, p. 141) determined that it is “a combination of external demands andinternal constraints” that influences female police officers’ decisions not to seekpromotion.

After reviewing the existing literature on the promotion of female police officers, itis clear that additional research is needed to further understand this topic. The studypresented in this paper builds on previous research by examining some of the personaland organizational factors that influence female police officers’ decisions to participatein the promotion process. Using contemporary data, this study explores how officers’attitudes toward the promotion process, perceptions of leadership abilities, jobsatisfaction, negative experiences at work, and factors related to family and childreninfluence female police officers’ decisions to participate in promotion.

MethodsResearch siteThe research site for this study is a Midwestern, municipal police agency located in acity with a population of nearly 100,000 people (United States Census, 2000). Accordingto 2000 census figures, racial composition of the city includes 94.8 percent whites, 0.7percent African Americans, and 4.5 percent other races (including American Indians,Asians, and Hispanics/Latinos). The city has a mixed economy (including retail,manufacturing jobs, etc.), and can be described as a university town since thesurrounding area is home to several universities and community/technical colleges.

The agency featured in this study employs 129 sworn police personnel. There are109 sworn patrol officers and 20 sworn police administrators. Police officers in thisagency are predominantly male (85 percent) and white (100 percent). The ages of patrolofficers range from 23 to 64 years old, with a mean age of 35 years. Patrol officersaverage 7.9 years of service, with a range of 1-33 years of service. A total of 22 percentof the patrol officers in this agency have earned at least 60 semester credits or 90quarter credits without earning a degree. Another 12.8 percent of the patrol officershave earned a two-year degree, 61.5 percent have earned a four-year degree, and 3.7percent have earned a masters, law or doctorate degree. The minimum educationalrequirement for employment in the agency requires that all applicants must havecompleted the equivalent of 60 semester credits or 90 quarter credits at an accreditedcollege or university. This requirement has been in place since 1990; before thenapplicants were required to have only a high school diploma.

The ages of the department’s female officers range from 24 years to 53 years (withan average age of 35 years). There is a wide range of years of service for female officers,from 6 months to 27 years (with an average of 11.9 years of service). Most of the female

PIJPSM32,1

60

officers are married (79 percent). More than half (64 percent) of the married femaleofficers are married to fellow sworn members of the department. Almost half (43percent) the female officers have one or more children. Over three-quarters (78.5percent) of the female officers have earned a four-year degree, while 14.8 percent haveearned a two-year degree, and 6.7 percent have earned some college credits but nodegree. In general, the education levels of the female officers are higher than the totaldepartment education figures; for example, more female officers (78.5 percent) haveearned four-year degrees compared to all other police personnel in the department (61.5percent). More female officers (14.8 percent) have earned two-year degrees compared toother people in this police agency (12.8 percent).

Female police officers represent 15 percent of all sworn positions within thedepartment, which is high in comparison to the national average of 12.6 percent forpolice agencies employing 100 or more sworn officers (National Center for Women andPolicing, 2002). When one considers the size of the city in which this study took place(just under 100,000 people), the percentage of female officers is well above the nationalaverage. According to Bureau of Justice Statistic figures for 2004, the percentage offemale officers in municipal departments serving populations of between 50,000 and99,000 was 8.9 percent and in departments serving populations between 100,000 and249,000 it was 11 percent.

Because the focus of this study is on the experiences of female officers within asingle police agency, the sample size is small (n ¼ 14)[1]. As a result of the smallsample size, possibilities for statistical analysis were limited; therefore, frequencies andpercentages were used to quantify the responses given by female officers during theinterviews. Qualitative analysis of the interview data provides descriptive quotes thatsupport and explain the frequencies and percentages.

DataWith the help of the police department’s human resources division, all sworn femalepolice personnel were provided letters describing the purpose of this study, along withcontact information if they were interested in participating. Face-to-face, structuredinterviews were conducted with most (74 percent or 14/19) of the sworn female policeofficers in this agency during the spring of 2006. On average, the face-to-faceinterviews lasted 45 minutes, with the shortest interview lasting 35 minutes and thelongest interview lasting 90 minutes. Interview data was transcribed into MicrosoftAccess for data management. Query analysis was used to identify patterns and themesthat emerged from the qualitative interview data.

LimitationsData for this study was collected from one municipal police agency in the Midwest;therefore, the research findings may not be generalizable to small or very large policeagencies. In addition, the female officers in this police agency comprise a relativelyhigh percentage of sworn positions (15 percent) compared to the national average of12.6 percent (National Center for Women and Policing, 2002); therefore, the experiencesof the women in this department may not be representative of other female policeofficers working in agencies where women comprise either more or less than 15 percentof all sworn positions. Another limitation of this study is that the sample size is small.This is a limitation that most researchers will encounter when they choose to study

Paying amarriage tax

61

female police officers, as there are so few women who work in American policeagencies. Despite this limitation, researchers should continue to study the experiencesof female police officers in the USA as there is currently limited published research onthis very important topic.

ResultsSimilar to previous research, the findings from the current study reveal that bothpersonal and organizational factors influence female police officers’ decisions toparticipate in the promotion process. The following sections provide details about howeach of these types of factors influences female police officers’ willingness toparticipate in the promotional process.

Personal factors influencing decision-makingData analysis uncovered two primary personal factors that influence decision-makingfor the female officers included in this study. First, family responsibilities influencefemale police officers’ decisions to participate in the promotion process. Second, manyof the women interviewed lacked confidence in their level of police experience. Thislack of confidence impeded their willingness to pursue promotion.

Family responsibilities. The women interviewed for this study were asked if theyhad aspirations of being promoted when they first became employed as police officerswithin this agency. Approximately one-third (36 percent or 5/14) of the women statedthat they did have aspirations of being promoted into command or managementpositions at some point during their policing careers. When asked if they still havepromotion aspirations, only 21 percent (or 3/14) reported that they have held on to theirearlier aspirations of being promoted at some point in their careers. Half (7/14 or 50percent) of the female officers reported that it is possible that they might change theirmind and participate in promotion at some time in the future. Over half of these women(4/7 or 57 percent) stated that the position of sergeant is currently viewed as“undesirable” (more responsibility with very little monetary compensation in return),and until that position changed they would not consider applying for that position. Theremaining women (3/7 or 43 percent) mentioned that if they changed their minds inthe future regarding promotion, they would only consider moving into positions in theNarcotics Unit or Investigations. The women reported that positions within these twounits had shifts that would be more conducive to a balanced life between their workand family commitments.

Whetstone and Wilson (1999) discovered that the most common reason that femalepolice officers chose not to pursue promotion was because they were satisfied withtheir current shift and assignment. Most of the women in Whetstone and Wilson’s(1999) study stated that they had already organized their family life around theircurrent shift, and that it would cause conflict between their family and work schedulesif they were promoted into the position of sergeant. Similar to the findings in theWhetstone and Wilson (1999) study, over three-quarters of the women (11/14 or 79percent) interviewed for the current study reported that they are satisfied with theircurrent shift and would not want to rearrange their schedules to accommodate adifferent shift.

Of those women who reported that they were satisfied with their shift, most (8/11or 73 percent) stated that they would not participate in the promotion process

PIJPSM32,1

62

because they would not know what shift or assignment they would receive oncethey were promoted. In this particular police agency, officers who are promoted areassigned to certain assignments and shifts after they are picked for promotion bythe chief. Many women were uncomfortable not knowing which shift or assignmentthey would receive for promotion ahead of time because it might interfere with theirfamily schedule. Additional concerns centered on not knowing who the womenwould be working with once they were assigned to a different shift. These findingssuggest that female officers’ satisfaction with their current shift and assignment canact as a potential barrier to the advancement of women in this police organizationbecause the officers have reportedly synthesized their family schedules with theircurrent work schedules.

The women were asked about any additional difficulties they experienced whileattempting to balance their personal and professional lives since becoming employedas police officers. Their responses again highlight the significance of shift-work. Mostof the married women (8/11 or 73 percent) commented that shift work makes it difficultto spend time with their spouse, which leads to problems within their marriages. Thewomen also commented that if they were to be promoted, they would likely have tochange their shifts, and this might cause further conflict in their marriages:

My work shift is different than my husband’s so it makes it difficult to spend time together.When I was working he was sleeping and vice versa. The end result was that we were notsleeping in the same bed at the same time (FPO1)[2].

My overnight shift is not something that my husband appreciates . . . he wants me there athome with him (FPO6).

I don’t like the day shift but my husband wants me to work it so that we can have a morenormal life together. I prefer the night shift but I have to do what he wants me to do. I don’tfeel like my husband is proud of what I do. He thinks that the people I work with are pigs . . .literally (FPO11).

An interesting pattern that emerged from the interview data centered on some ofthe difficulties associated with being married to fellow police officers. Over half(7/11 or 64 percent) of the women reported that they were married to fellow policeofficers who worked within their police agency. The most common problemmentioned during the interviews was the shift work that each couple has to dealwith because they are both police officers. These women expressed concern that ifeither they or their husbands were to be promoted, there would be additional strainon their marriages and family:

The shift work is hard because I am married to another cop. We try to bid the same shift sothat we can see each other during the week. I miss family events because I cannot get time offduring holidays or for other family events. It also gets stressful when we don’t have the samedays off together. It makes it hard to be married when you can’t see the other person (FPO4).

I am married to a cop and it is hard. We are having serious issues right now. He views his jobas a cop as a “career” whereas he views my job as a cop like it is a hobby. It pisses me off . . .we clearly do not see this issue the same way (FPO13).

Shift work makes it tough to be a couple since we are both cops. We try to schedule our daysoff together but that doesn’t always work out. I think that if my husband ever went up for

Paying amarriage tax

63

promotion I wouldn’t be able to because it would make it even harder for both of us to seeeach other and our kids (FPO2).

Finding ample time to spend with their kids and being able to find quality, affordabledaycare for the overnight shifts were two additional issues reported by some of thewomen (4/6 or 67 percent). The women with these concerns also all happened to bemarried to fellow police officers within this organization. Each of the womencommented that having kids and being married to a fellow police officer compoundedtheir problems related to shift work and daycare.

It is virtually impossible to find overnight daycare. This is an issue if you are promoted to theposition of sergeant or a position that would require you to be on call (FPO13).

I have missed some of my kids’ functions because of my job. I also have a hard time takingthem to the doctor when they are sick due to the shortage of staff here in the department.When my kids were younger daycare was a huge issue – especially when I was workingovernights or when I would get called out to a scene when I was in Investigations for a year. Ihave some family support in town but it is still difficult (FPO12).

It is hard to manage kids when we are both officers. Both of us having different schedulesmake it tough. When I was an Investigator I had to pay someone to be on call in case I wascalled out to a scene in the middle of the night. I wasted a lot of money because the babysittergot paid even if she didn’t come over to watch my kids. Now that I am no longer in that unit Idon’t have that extra financial burden of “on-call” daycare services (FPO10).

If my mom wasn’t in town I would have had to quit this job to take care of my son. I don’t likedaycare. And it isn’t easy to find someone to watch your kid when you are working nights(FPO8).

Over half (8/14 or 57 percent) of the women did not have children during the timethat the interviews were conducted for this study. This group was asked if nothaving a child was a personal choice or a choice that has been influenced by theircareer as a police officer. Half of the women (4/8 or 50 percent) stated that nothaving children was both a professional and personal choice. Most of these womenstated that they wanted to get more police experience and build up their seniority inthe department so that they could bid the day shift before they had children. Thewomen believe that once they are able to bid the day shift they would be able tohave enough time to spend with their children. According to respondents, if theydecided to participate in the promotion process, they would risk losing the senioritythey had built up at the patrol level (which would allow them to work a schedulethat was more suitable for family time)[3]. More than one-third of the women (38percent or 3/8) stated that they never wanted children and do not plan on havingany in the future. And one woman specifically stated that she chose not to havekids because of her career in policing:

If you get pregnant, you are stuck on desk/light duty that stinks. Once you have the baby youhave to get back into physical shape very quickly so that you can get back out on the streets.It is definitely a concern for female officers. It seems like the decision to have kids would nothave as much of an impact on my husband’s career (FPO3).

Issues related to marriage and children were identified as a significant barrier to thepromotional advancement for many of the female police officers interviewed in this

PIJPSM32,1

64

study. The women who are married to other sworn police officers in this departmentbelieve that this problem is compounded for them because of conflicting work shiftswith their spouse, and also the inability to secure adequate and affordable daycare forovernight shifts or positions that would require them to be on call.

Confidence in leadership abilities and policing experience. Wexler and Quinn’s (1985)study found that female police officers rated themselves as less competent than theirmale colleagues when asked about their perceptions of their leadership abilities. Thisdifference in perception was explained by recognizing that female officers had feweryears of service, in general, and fewer years of specific experience on patrol comparedto their male colleagues.

In the current study, female officers were asked if they believe that they have theleadership characteristics needed to advance into management positions. A majority ofthe women (86 percent or 12/14) stated that they believe that they have the leadershipcharacteristics needed to be effective leaders within their police organization. When thewomen were asked if they think that they have enough experience in policing to bepromoted into management positions, less than half (43 percent or 6/14) of the womenbelieved that they have enough experience to become leaders. This finding issurprising given that only three of the 14 female officers interviewed were not eligibleto apply for promotion based on their years of service in the department. When askedto explain why they felt that they did not have enough experience, all the women statedthat they wanted more experience on patrol – which they believe would help thembecome more effective leaders in the future.

To further explore perceptions of leadership abilities, the female officers were askedif they believe that male police officers would make better leaders than female policeofficers. Most (86 percent or 12/14) of the women reported that they believe that malesdo not make better leaders than females, while 14 percent (2/14) stated that men do, infact, make better leaders than women. Most (86 percent or 12/14) of the women statedthat sex is not an important factor when determining if someone could be an effectiveleader:

Some males are good leaders, some are not. You have a wide spectrum across the board. Thesame can be said for women. I don’t believe that the sex of the person makes a difference inhow good of a leader they might be. It is about your experience in law enforcement and yourpersonality (FPO2).

Either sex could be effective leaders. I feel that being a good leader is more about beingopen-minded and being someone that is willing to listen to other people (FPO3).

A good leader is someone that has certain qualities that are effective in leading other people.For example, they should have a lot of experience, knowledge about the job, and the ability totake charge in a stressful situation. It depends on the person, not the sex of the person (FPO7).

Gender doesn’t make someone a good leader. It is about their abilities and personality. It isalso about being flexible and being able to admit mistakes (FPO8).

Similar to the findings in the Wexler and Quinn (1985) study, the women in thisdepartment reported that they do not feel that they have enough police experience to beeffective leaders. A lack of confidence in their policing experience is another barrier forfemale police officers considering stepping forward to participate in the promotionprocess.

Paying amarriage tax

65

Organizational factors influencing decision-makingThree organizational factors influence whether the female officers included in thisstudy would participate in the departmental promotion process: opportunities forpromotion, experiences on the job, and promotion examinations.

Opportunities for promotion. Over half (57 percent or 8/14) of the female officersreported that they believe that promotion availability is either “very good” or “good”for female police officers in their agency. The remaining female officers stated that theybelieve that promotion availability for female officers is either “fair” (36 percent or 5/14)or “poor” (7 percent or 1/14). The most frequently mentioned explanation for theirperception of promotion availability includes the idea that any female officer is likely toget promoted if she applies for the position because the administration wants so badlyto promote female officers:

There is a lack of expectation in the department when it comes to female officers. The idea isthat female officers will get a free ride (including getting promoted) because they are women. Idon’t like that idea, but it exists in this department (FPO5).

I don’t want to be promoted just because I am a woman. I also don’t want it to be based on apopularity contest within the department. If I knew that I would be promoted because theybelieved in my abilities and how I am on the streets I would do it. But at this point I am unsureof that (FPO3).

If they are going to promote me because I am female I wouldn’t want the promotion. I want tobe judged based on my abilities, not my body parts. I have been approached by several malesupervisors telling me to apply for promotion. I feel like if I were promoted that it wasbecause I am a female, not because I earned or deserve it (FPO11).

Over half of the women stated that they think that promotional availability is good forfemale officers in the department, which indicates that the perceptions of promotionalavailability may not be a barrier to the promotion of women in this department.However, it does appear as though most of the women have doubts about participatingin promotion because of the organization-wide perception that they will be promotedsolely because they are female.

The fearofspecialordifferential treatment of femaleofficers isabarrier topromotionaladvancement when it comes to most of the female police officers in this police agency. Amajority of the women interviewed (11/14 or 79 percent) stated that this issue was a majorfactor in their decision not to participate in the promotion process. This issue has beenbriefly noted in other literature (Schulz, 2004; Wells and Alt, 2005; Wexler and Quinn,1985), but has not been examined as an explicit factor affecting female police officers’promotion aspirations. This finding is also interesting because female police officers inthis agency comprise a relatively high percentage of sworn positions (15 percent)compared to the national average of 12.6 percent for police agencies of this size (NationalCenter for Women and Policing, 2002). Kanter’s (1977) research on tokenism in theworkplace suggested that as the representation of females in an organization increased,issues related to their token status would decrease. The findings in this study suggest thatan increasing proportion of women in an organization may not be enough to remedy theproblem of differential treatment in a traditionally male-dominated workplace.

Experiences on the job. All of the female officers were asked if they haveencountered any negative experiences (because they are females) that would impacttheir decision to pursue promotion during their employment with this police agency.

PIJPSM32,1

66

Most (79 percent or 11/14) of the women reported that they have experienced negativesituations during their employment as police officers. The most common negativeexperience reported by the women included situations where they were singled out andencouraged to participate in the promotion process. The women explained that theywould not participate in the promotion process at this time because of the perceptionthat females who apply for promotion will be promoted regardless of their abilities:

I wanted to apply for the sergeant’s position this past time but I heard rumors that if you are afemale and applied, you would automatically get the position. I don’t want a position like thatif I am getting it just because I am a female. That would make the job ten times harder (FPO2).

The idea is that women have a greater chance of getting promoted just because they arefemale. I have been approached by several male supervisors encouraging me to test, but thatadded pressure makes it hard. I even had one male supervisor tell me that I should takeadvantage of the fact that they want to promote women. I have always wanted to workNarcotics but I would never put in for it because there have been past instances where someof the males working in that division have done or said inappropriate things to the femalesassigned to that Unit. Who would want to walk into something like that? I see the same thingwith SWAT. I don’t think that there has ever been a woman in that group. We have had a fewwomen as K-9 officers but only a few. It just seems like females are not part of thosespecialized units, when there are some of us that would like to be part of them. There is a lackof accountability of people in those units so I wouldn’t want to get into that. The few womenthat have been part of those units have not been respected (FPO3).

There is this idea within the police department that females will get promoted no matter howgood or bad they are. I would never want to go for promotion if I thought that other peopleassumed that I got the position because I am a woman. It would be like winning by default(FPO5).

I am good friends with a lieutenant so people would assume that I would get promotedbecause I am close to him. Politics like that always play a role in the process (FPO6).

The women were also asked if they felt that they have ever been treated differentlyfrom their male colleagues specifically because of their sex. Over half (64 percent or9/14) of the women reported that they have been treated differently than their malecounterparts at some point during their employment with this police agency. Amajority (6/9 or 67 percent) of the examples of differential treatment involved instanceswhere verbal comments were made by male police officers and male supervisors:

When I bid my shift and ended up in the south end of the city one of my male supervisors toldme to be sure to bring my bottle of Midol (FPO7).

When I first started there were some guys that flat out told me that I shouldn’t be here. Theyhave since retired but they made no secret of their feelings about women in law enforcement. Ihave seen female officers get coddled because they are females (for example, not getting introuble when they clearly should have been in trouble). Sometimes it is hard to disentanglegender and personality. Some women are treated poorly because they are women and otherwomen get treated poorly because they are not very nice people (FPO1).

There are comments daily on how the department should “hire some size,” meaning that theyneed to hire more physically strong men. Some women are embraced by male officers becausethey are physically fit and strong, while other female officers are ridiculed for beingoverweight and out of shape. I never hear any of the male officers getting the same kind ofgrief about not being in shape (FPO3).

Paying amarriage tax

67

Negative experiences on the job affect women’s willingness to participate in thepromotional process. These negative experiences include being singled out forperceived special treatment and inappropriate verbal comments made by malecolleagues.

Promotion examinations. Only a few of the women (14 percent or 2/14) commentedthat they believe that the promotion exam itself is unfair (specifically the way that theexam is graded). Others (14 percent or 2/14) mentioned that the promotion process isunfair due to department politics:

Under the previous chief the promotion process was fair. I tested recently and didn’t do verywell. The exam is behavior based and doesn’t really focus on our knowledge of the job. Thispast time when they tested for sergeant positions, they had to lower the scores in order to getenough people in the promotion pool. That should be an indicator that the process is flawed. Itook the exam under the last chief and did ok. This past time I took the test and my score wassignificantly lower . . . even with several more years of experience under my belt. Somethingis wrong with the process. I believe there is also something wrong with the test and how it isgraded (FPO9).

Historically this place has been a good old boys club which made it very hard for females.They change and bend the rules of the promotion process for female officers hoping that itwill get more females to apply, however in the long run it ultimately undermines them inregard to their working relationships with the male officers. They [male supervisors] alsobadger the female officers about applying for sergeants positions with the idea that they wantto promote more women. This is done with good intentions but it hurts the female officers inregard to the respect they get from male officers they work with (FPO14).

The nexus between personal and organizational factorsMarriage and nepotism policies. Existing police literature rarely mentions thecomplexity surrounding female police officers who are married to other police officers.Whetstone and Wilson (1999, p. 136) noted that “the issues related to familial andchildcare responsibilities and the adjustments required for a promotion were even moresalient for those women whose partners were also employed by the department,” butthe authors did not elaborate any further on this point. Martin (1980) briefly mentionsthat police women who are married to other police officers “tend to get strongersupport for their work than women involved with men in other occupations and findthat they can discuss their work with someone who understands it” (p. 200). Thecurrent study also found differences for women married to other officers employed inthe same department.

So far, this study has noted the compounding effect that being married to a policeofficer can have for the female officers trying to balance their professional and personallives (shift-work, daycare, etc.). Interviews with the female officers revealed formalbarriers that bridge the personal and organizational factors prohibiting female officersfrom participating in the promotional process. In this police agency, there is a formalnepotism policy that places restrictions on the working relationships betweenhusbands and wives. The “Employment of relatives” policy states:

The city by-laws do not restrict employment to more than one member of a family or personsrelated by law or marriage. However, to avoid conflicts of interest, no city employee may takepart in decisions to hire, retain, promote or determine salary of her or his spouse, familymember or legal relative. In addition, no city employee is to be assigned responsibility for

PIJPSM32,1

68

supervising and/or directing the work of his or her spouse, family member or legal relative.For purposes of this policy, family members/legal relatives include the followingrelationships (natural, adoptive, step and foster relationships are included): parent, spouse,grandparent, child, sibling or in-laws. Requests for exceptions to this policy must be made inwriting to the appropriate supervisory authority.

While few organizations have established formal policies restricting workplaceromances, the most prevalent written policies are anti-nepotism policies that specifythat married couples must not work together or have direct supervisoryresponsibilities for each other (Powell and Foley, 1998).

Organizational research indicates that there are beneficial reasons for a policy ofthis nature. Some of the benefits of nepotism policies include controlling conflicts ofinterest and biased decision-making and inequities, real or perceived, which may havean impact on individual and organizational performance, such as group morale andcohesion, productivity, and so forth (Powell, 1993; Powell and Foley, 1998; Reed andBruce, 1993). Further, researchers explain that nepotism policies minimize theinfluence of traditional familial authority structures, such as husbands supervisingtheir wives within the managerial structures of bureaucratic organizations (Kanter,1977; Reed and Cohen, 1989; Reed and Bruce, 1993). Most court challenges of nepotismpolicies fail because of managerial concerns; courts consistently concede that conflictsof interest are legitimate concerns warranting nepotism policies and that these policiesdo not infringe on constitutional rights (Reed and Cohen, 1989; Massengill, 1997; seeKeckeisen vs. Independent School District #612, 509 F.2d. 1062 (1975) for widely-citedlegal precedence).

There are also criticisms of anti-nepotism policies. One of the criticisms focuses onthe paternalistic, or traditionally-oriented, nature of the policy. Since modernrelationships tend to be more egalitarian and dual-career oriented, married couples, it isargued, should be empowered to judge for themselves whether there are administrativeissues (Reed and Cohen, 1989). Another criticism of anti-nepotism policies is thedisparate effect on women (Reed and Cohen, 1989). Research shows that women enterthe labor market on a permanent basis later than men (e.g. starting a career afterraising a family); if a husband and wife work together, the husband is more likely to bepromoted to a supervisory position over the wife due to greater longevity and theaccompanying experience (Reed and Cohen, 1989). Nepotism policies, including thepolicy used by the police agency featured in this study, result in the transfer of thewoman/wife and restricted opportunities for her promotion. In essence, anti-nepotismpolices, it can be argued, are a barrier to equal employment opportunities for women(Reed and Cohen, 1989). One might also call it a “marriage-tax”: additional penaltieswomen must pay for being married to someone with whom they work.

While there are reasons for and against formal nepotism policies, one thing is clear:formal nepotism policies significantly impact promotional opportunities for women. Inthis police department, there are limited positions that come open for promotion at anygiven time. There are 19 women currently employed as patrol officers in thedepartment, 14 of whom participated in this study. Half of the female patrol officerswho participated (7/14) are married to officers currently employed in the department.Just under half (43 percent) of those husbands are currently in supervisory positions,representing an immediate restriction on their wives’ promotional opportunities as acorollary of their marriage. While there is a need to balance the managerial concerns

Paying amarriage tax

69

against conflicts of interest, there is also a need for administrators to consider thebenefits of female representation in supervisory positions.

Nepotism policies, such as the one in this police department, severely restrict thepromotional opportunities of women. This restriction on promotion availability wouldbe especially difficult for female police officers working in agencies that are medium orsmall in size[4]. Further, organizational research indicates that workplace romances areoccurring with greater frequency and are considered “common” (Riach and Wilson,2007; Powell and Foley, 1998). This pattern is expected to increase as:

. more women move into traditionally male-dominated professions;

. employees continue to spend greater amounts of time at work and,concomitantly, socializing with co-workers; and

. divorce rates stay high creating greater opportunity for workplaceromances/relationships (Powell and Foley, 1998).

“Cop couples,” married officers who work within the same police department, willcontinue to pay a marriage-tax as long as formal nepotism polices are enforced. And, asour research indicates, women will continue to bear the brunt of this “marriage tax.”

DiscussionSimilar to the findings of previous studies, the current study revealed that there areseveral factors that influence female police officers’ decisions to participate in thepromotion process (including both personal and organizational factors). The findingsfrom the current study are unique, however, in that several issues related to “copcouples” have been revealed. More specifically, we learned that female police officerswho are married to other police officers face a host of problems regarding their decisionto participate in promotion that may not be an issue for other female officers. We haveequated these additional problems to a “marriage tax”: additional penalties womenmarried to male officers employed in the same department must face as both a directand indirect result of their marriages. Female officers who are married to male officersemployed in the same department are indirectly affected when it comes to schedulingand shift-work. The need to balance their personal and professional lives inhibits manyof these women from participating in the promotion process. Female officers married tomale officers employed in the same department also face direct consequences of theirmarriages that prohibit their ability to be promoted: anti-nepotism policies.

Some of the promotional barriers for female police officers identified in this studycan be remedied by changes made by police administrators, while other barriers arenot as easy to fix. One of the major barriers to the promotional advancement of femaleofficers that is not necessarily fixable concerns nepotism policies. Anti-nepotismpolicies protect city government agencies from litigation involving allegations ofnepotism, but also restrict the promotional opportunities for women who are married tomale officers. While these policies restrict the organizational advancement of partiescomprising “cop couples,” it is unlikely that these policies will be abolished anytimesoon.

There are, however, several barriers to the promotional advancement of femaleofficers identified in this study that can be resolved by police administrators. First,police administrators could make an effort to provide affordable, on-site daycareoptions for all sworn police officers. On-site daycare is a pressing concern for men and

PIJPSM32,1

70

women working in both the public and private sectors; some public sector employers,at all levels of government, have heeded these concerns and opened on-site child carecenters. Governor Richardson of New Mexico, in 2006, celebrated the firststate-sponsored childcare center at the Department of Transportation offices inSanta Fe (Que Pasa, 2006). The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Georgiahas onsite daycare as does the National Security Agency Police in Fort Meade,Maryland and a number of US Customs and Border Protection offices throughout theUSA. Some courthouses, such as the Randolph County Court System in North Carolina,have on-site child care and in 1988, the New York City Police Department beganconstruction on its first on-site facility. As reported in the New York Times (Pitt, 1988):

In the last decade, a large number of corporations – and some municipalities, including LosAngeles – have come to recognize the extent to which child-care burdens can affect employeemorale, absenteeism and turnover. Between 1978 and 1986, employer-supported child-careprograms around the nation increased to well over 3,000 from 100, according to a survey bythe Conference Board.

While on-site child care may cost the police department valuable, and often timesscarce resources, this service may encourage some of the female police officers whohave children (or who are considering having children) to participate in the promotionprocess. Further, there is some empirical research to suggest that on-site child careprograms enhance recruitment and retention of workers (male and female) who plan onusing the facility (Rothausen et al., 1998; Grover and Crooker, 1995).

Family friendly scheduling is another potential solution to encourage police officers(both male and female) to consider promotion. Scandura and Lankau (1997) found thatflexible work scheduling was related to higher organizational commitment and jobsatisfaction for persons with family obligations. In this department, informing thepolice officers about the assignment and shift that they would be assigned to beforethey are officially promoted would allay this burden. Interviews with the femaleofficers indicated that most of the female officers eligible for promotion would not stepforward for promotion because they would not know what shift and assignment theywould receive until after they were picked for promotion. Knowing their shift andassignment ahead of time would allow the female officers time to plan or makealterations to their family schedules so that they would not miss out on time spent withtheir spouses and/or children.

Interviews conducted with the female officers also revealed several factors withinthe organization that act as barriers to the promotional advancement of female policeofficers. For example, most of the female officers had reservations about applying forpromotion because they believed that there is an organization-wide perception that anyfemale who applies for promotion will be promoted solely because she is a female andnot because she is the most qualified candidate. Several of the women stated that theywere “singled out” by male supervisors and were advised to participate in promotionbecause the administration wanted to promote more females into the position ofsergeant. By highlighting the token status that would accompany promotion into theposition of sergeant, the encouragement by male supervisors actually resulted in fewerfemale officers participating in promotion.

Another unintended consequence of male supervisors encouraging the femaleofficers to participate in promotion is that their encouragement might create theperception among male officers that the process is unfair or slanted in favor of female

Paying amarriage tax

71

officers. This perception might result in fewer male officers choosing to participate inthe promotion process as well. Allowing both male and female police officers to stepforward and participate in the promotion process on their own (without the advice ofmale supervisors) might be the best way to demonstrate that the promotion process isfair. After all, it is assumed that only those police officers (male or female) who aretruly interested in being promoted will choose to participate on their own accord.

Several of the female officers interviewed for this study also reported that theposition of sergeant is not viewed as a desirable position in the police agency. Theybelieve that the compensation awarded to someone promoted into the sergeant’sposition does not match the increased responsibilities that come with the position.Police administrators could change this perception by making the position of sergeantmore desirable by providing salaries that are equivalent to the increase inresponsibilities.

Although we did not examine male police officers’ perceptions toward the positionof sergeant, we can assume that some male police officers might have the samenegative view of the position. Whetstone (2001) found that male police officers listed“not interested in the position” as one of the top reasons they chose not to participate inthe promotion process for the position of sergeant. More specifically, Whetstone (2001)noted that officers made comments like “the department has put too much work onsergeants by eliminating the lieutenant’s position from each platoon. Many officers feelsergeants become overwhelmed by their new duties, quickly lose touch with thestreets, and shoulder unwanted tasks” (p. 155). Future research on the promotion offemale police officers should attempt to compare perceptions of both male and femalepolice officers in regard to promotion or advancement within police organizations.

By comparing past and present statistics on the number of female police officers insworn positions in the USA, it is obvious that there has been some improvement overthe last three decades. In contrast, the number of women in supervisory and commandpositions in most police agencies across the USA does not reflect the same level ofimprovement. The results of the current study (and the few previous studies conductedon this topic) have identified several personal and organization-based factors that helpexplain why there are so few women stepping forward to participate in the promotionprocess. The current study has also highlighted how anti-nepotism policies can act as anexus between personal and organizational factors that inhibit the promotion of femaleofficers.

While balancing personal and professional responsibilities is difficult in the modernwork era, these issues are intensified for members of “cop couples.” Unfortunately,research indicates that females will be forced to pay an additional tax for being marriedto someone with whom they work (Reed and Bruce, 1993; Reed and Cohen, 1989; Riachand Wilson, 2007). In this study, a significant number of the women employed in thispolice department are paying a marriage tax that directly and indirectly impairs theirability to enter into the promotion process. In order to make a change, policeadministrators have to continue to work on breaking down the barriers that femalepolice officers face when they consider their promotional opportunities in the future.

Notes

1. Wertsch interviewed 66 percent of the female officers in a police agency in the PacificNorthwest for her 1998 study. She noted that “no prior study has been able to acquire a

PIJPSM32,1

72

representative sample of female officers or reported such a high proportion of womenofficers in an agency” (Wertsch, 1998, p. 27). To date, our study has the highest proportion(74 percent) of female officers interviewed for a study on female officers and promotion froma single law enforcement agency. One of the difficulties of studying female police officers inthe US is that there are so few women who work within most police agencies; as a result, thesample size for most studies will be small. The only way that this limitation can be overcomeis to utilize a nation-wide sample of police agencies.

2. All female police officers who were interviewed for this study received a code (FPO1-FPO14).This code is used to identify the responses given by each of the officers.

3. This finding is similar to the “short window of opportunity” for female promotion identifiedin the Whetstone and Wilson (1999) study.

4. The 2004 Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies reports that half (50.4percent) of all state and local law enforcement agencies in the US employ fewer than tensworn employees.

References

Archbold, C.A. and Schulz, D.M. (2008), “Making rank: the lingering effects of tokenism onfemale police officers’ promotion aspirations”, Police Quarterly, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 50-73.

Bureau of Justice Statistics (2002), Police Departments in Large Cities, 1900-2000, US JusticeDepartment, Washington, DC.

Gaines, L.K., Van Tubergen, G.N. and Paiva, M. (1984), “Police officer perception of promotion asa source of motivation”, Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 12, pp. 265-76.

Grover, S.L. and Crooker, K.J. (1995), “Who appreciates family-responsive human resourcepolicies: the impact of family-friendly policies on the organizational attachment of parentsand non-parents”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 271-88.

Kanter, R.M. (1977), Men and Women of the Corporation, Basic Books, New York, NY.

Martin, S.E. (1980), Breaking and Entering: Policewomen on Patrol, University of CaliforniaPress, Berkeley, CA.

Massengill, D. (1997), “Not with your husband (or wife) you don’t! The legality of no spouse rulesin the workplace”, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 61-76.

National Center for Women and Policing (2002), Equality Denied: The Status of Women inPolicing: 2001, National Center for Women and Policing, Los Angeles, CA.

Pitt, D.E. (1988), “Newest innovation at police headquarters is child’s play”, New York Times,December 29.

Powell, G.N. (1993), Women andMen inManagement, 2nd ed., Sage Publications, Newbury Park,CA.

Powell, G.N. and Foley, S. (1998), “Something to talk about: romantic relationships inorganizational settings”, Journal of Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 421-48.

Que Pasa (2006), “First lady Barbara Richardson celebrates the opening of first state-sponsoredchild care center in Santa Fe”, Que Pasa: A Monthly Newsletter of the New MexicoDepartment of Transportation, November.

Reed, C.M. and Bruce, W.M. (1993), “Dual-career couples in the public sector: a survey ofpersonnel policies and practices”, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 187-99.

Reed, C.M. and Cohen, L.J. (1989), “Anti-nepotism rules: the legal rights of married co-workers”,Public Personnel Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 37-44.

Paying amarriage tax

73

Riach, K. and Wilson, F. (2007), “Don’t screw the crew: exploring the rules of engagement inorganizational romance”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 18, pp. 79-92.

Rothausen, T.J., Gonzalez, J.A., Clarke, N.E. and O’Dell, L.L. (1998), “Family-friendly backlash –fact or fiction? The case of organizations’ on-site child care centers”, Personnel Psychology,Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 685-706.

Scandura, T.A. and Lankau, M.J. (1997), “Relationships of gender, family responsibility andflexible work hours to organizational commitment and job satisfaction”, Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, Vol. 18, pp. 377-91.

Scarborough, K.E., Van Tubergen, G.N., Gaines, L.K. and Whitlow, S.S. (1999), “An examinationof police officers’ motivation to participate in the promotional process”, Police Quarterly,Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 302-20.

Schulz, D.M. (2003), “Women police chiefs: a statistical profile”, Police Quarterly, Vol. 6 No. 3,pp. 330-45.

Schulz, D.M. (2004), Breaking the Brass Ceiling: Women Police Chiefs and their Paths to the Top,Praeger Publishing, Westport, CT.

United States Census (2000), available at: www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html

Wells, S.K. and Alt, B.L. (2005), Police Women: Life with the Badge, Praeger Publishing,Westport, CT.

Wertsch, T.L. (1998), “Walking the thin, blue line: policewomen and tokenism today”, Womenand Criminal Justice, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 23-61.

Wexler, J. and Quinn, V. (1985), “Considerations in the training and development of womensergeants”, Journal of Police Science and Administration, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 98-105.

Whetstone, T. (2001), “Copping out: why police officers decline to participate in the sergeant’spromotion process”, American Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 147-59.

Whetstone, T. and Wilson, D. (1999), “Dilemmas confronting female police officer promotionalcandidates: glass ceiling, disenfranchisement or satisfaction?”, International Journal ofPolice Science and Management, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 128-43.

About the authorsCarol A. Archbold is an Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at North Dakota State Universityin Fargo, ND. Her research interests include police accountability and liability, gender issues inpolicing, and issues related to racial and ethnic minorities in the criminal justice system. CarolA. Archbold is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: carol.archbold@ndsu.edu

Kimberly D. Hassell is an Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at the University ofWisconsin-Milwaukee in Milwaukee, WI. Her research interests include police patrol practices,police organizational behavior, and police-citizen relationships.

PIJPSM32,1

74

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints