Cross-Cultural Collaboration for Community-Oriented Policing and Restorative Justice

Abstract

This chapter proposes ways to actively shape future cross-cultural police leadership and collaboration within and across police cultures. The ideas presented are intended to create dialogue across modern police organizations and those who lead them. All four authors are connected with police work either as police officers, police researchers, or criminology instructors. We highlight the impact of restorative justice in policing, community-oriented policing, and collaboration of the law enforcement community within US and UK. Examples of these efforts are embedded throughout the chapter to corroborate our argument for more collaboration within and across cultures if contemporary policing is to be successful. Future research directions are presented.

Full text

Cross-Cultural
Collaboration and
Leadership in Modern
Organizations
Nancy D. Erbe
California State University Dominguez Hills, California
Anthony H. Normore
California State University Dominguez Hills, California
A volume in the Advances in Human Resources
Management and Organizational Development
(AHRMOD) Book Series

Published in the United States of America by
Business Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global)
701 E. Chocolate Avenue
Hershey PA, USA 17033
Tel: 717-533-8845
Fax: 717-533-8661
E-mail: cust@igi-global.com
Web site: http://www.igi-global.com
Copyright © 2015 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in
any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher.
Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or
companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
British Cataloguing in Publication Data
A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library.
All work contributed to this book is new, previously-unpublished material. The views expressed in this book are those of the
authors, but not necessarily of the publisher.
For electronic access to this publication, please contact: eresources@igi-global.com.
CIP Data
Cross-cultural collaboration and leadership in modern organizations / Nancy Erbe and Anthony H. Normore, editors.
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Summary: “This book provides an interdisciplinary analysis of how organizations can responsibly embrace complex prob-
lem-solving and creative decision making, offering essential practical tools and critical guidelines”-- Provided by publisher.
ISBN 978-1-4666-8376-1 (hardcover : alk. paper) -- ISBN 978-1-4666-8377-8 (ebook) 1. Diversity in the workplace--
Management. 2. Multiculturalism. 3. Leadership. 4. Organizational behavior. I. Erbe, Nancy, editor. II. Normore, Anthony
H., editor.
HF5549.5.M5C76 2015
658.4’092--dc23
2015008246
This book is published in the IGI Global book series Advances in Human Resources Management and Organizational Devel-
opment (AHRMOD) (ISSN: 2327-3372; eISSN: 2327-3380)
Managing Director:
Managing Editor:
Director of Intellectual Property & Contracts:
Acquisitions Editor:
Production Editor:
Development Editor:
Typesetter:
Cover Design:
Lindsay Johnston
Austin DeMarco
Jan Travers
Kayla Wolfe
Christina Henning
Brandon Carbaugh
Tucker Knerr
Jason Mull

255
Copyright © 2015, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Chapter 15
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-8376-1.ch015
Cross-Cultural Collaboration
for Community-Oriented
Policing and Restorative Justice
ABSTRACT
This chapter proposes ways to actively shape future cross-cultural police leadership and collaboration
within and across police cultures. The ideas presented are intended to create dialogue across modern
police organizations and those who lead them. All four authors are connected with police work either
as police officers, police researchers, or criminology instructors. We highlight the impact of restorative
justice in policing, community-oriented policing, and collaboration of the law enforcement community
within US and UK. Examples of these efforts are embedded throughout the chapter to corroborate our
argument for more collaboration within and across cultures if contemporary policing is to be successful.
Future research directions are presented.
INTRODUCTION
The introduction of community-based policing
and restorative policing during the 1980s and
1990s offered police officers in western societies
additional discretion to develop flexible, long-term
alternative responses to incident-focused, reac-
tive “fire brigade” policing styles’ (Paterson &
Clamp 2012, 195). Such initiatives acknowledge
the central role of the community in identify-
ing, reporting and responding to crime and are
underpinned by a belief that the police are more
likely to successfully tackle crime when policing
strategies are based within and informed by com-
munity members themselves. However, two issues
have arisen here. On the one hand, this ideological
shift runs contrary to the historic policing mission
where independent police professional knowledge
directs local developments and it has thus gener-
ated a certain level of resistance by police officers
Anthony H. Normore
California State University – Dominguez Hills,
USA
Brian Ellis
Sacramento Police Department, USA
Kerry Clamp
University of Western Sydney, Australia
Craig Paterson
Sheffield Hallam University, UK

256
Cross-Cultural Collaboration for Community-Oriented Policing and Restorative Justice
(Bayley, 1994). On the other, a body of critical
literature has developed that questions the extent
to which this shift in power and responsibility has,
or even can, take place (Bauman, 2001; Hobsbawn,
1995). This literature questions whether placing
‘the community’ at the centre of policing policy
makes sense, especially during a historical period
in which many communities (in their traditional
sense) are understood to have disappeared (see
Clamp & Paterson 2011). While we acknowledge
this tension, we posit that not only is a cultural
shift away from traditional approaches to policing
our communities desirable, it is essential given
the myriad of demands and values that co-exist in
post-modern, multicultural societies (Clark 2005).
BACKGROUND: THE CHANGING
CRIMINAL JUSTICE LANDSCAPE
We begin by taking stock of the context in which
the criminology is grounded. Until the early post
WWWII period, criminology had been dominated
by a positivist approach which viewed the causes
of crime as a consequence of one’s circumstances
and neo-classicism which was based on the belief
that swift and certain responses to crime would
reduce the likelihood of repeat offending (Walsh
& Ellis 2006). However, during the late 1960s
and 1970s respectively, the discipline underwent
two major crises (Young 1988). The first related
to what Young (1988) referred to as an ‘aetio-
logical crisis’. For the most part, positivism was
based on the belief that as post-war social condi-
tions improved crime would decrease. Instead,
crime continued to rise. The second, a crisis of
‘penality’, followed the publication of a number
of criminal justice studies in the United States
which questioned both the effectiveness of the
police and the reformative potential of prisons
in managing the problem of crime. These crises
found expression in ‘nothing works’ pessimism
and led to a ‘questioning of the state’s ability to
control crime’ (Garland 2001, p. 62).
Advanced liberal democracies (e.g., UK,
US, Canada, Australia) responded to this crisis
by reforming criminal justice institutions and
mobilizing non-state mechanisms in the ‘fight
against crime’. From a criminological perspective
advanced liberal democracies refer to political
systems that group countries together. From the
1980s onwards criminal justice became charac-
terized by an enhanced role for victims and com-
munities in the administration of justice (rather
than professionals alone) and the politicization
of crime control. The rise of ‘populist punitive-
ness’ (Bottoms, 1995) involved politicians talking
tough and introducing ever more stringent penal
policies in order to secure public support (Young
& Matthews 2003). This cultural and political
shift resulted in increased resources for policing,
prosecutions and prisons (McEvoy, 2007; Roach
2005) but also had the adverse effect of creating a
perception of increased criminal incidents despite
a relatively stable decline in crime rates from the
mid-1990s (Young & Matthews, 2003).
Exclusive adherence to a punitive strategy
did not produce the desired result in terms of
‘greater satisfaction with criminal justice or an
increased sense of security’ (Roach, 2005). An
increase in caseloads, an absence of faith in the
ability of the criminal justice system to deal
with crime effectively, and an increase in victim
advocacy (Garland 2001; McEvoy 2007; Zehr,
2002) subsequently resulted in concerted efforts
to find new and innovative ways of engaging with
offenders, victims and communities. As a result,
an emphasis on community-oriented policing
and restorative justice emerged. It is within this
context that we examine efforts intended to help
shape global police leadership and collaboration
within and across cultures. We will frame our
collaborative work within the context of har-
nessing restorative values/justice, community-
oriented policing, and ethical leadership with
the belief that culture and collaboration must
play pivotal roles in contemporary policing if it
is to be successful.

257
Cross-Cultural Collaboration for Community-Oriented Policing and Restorative Justice
One author is British who lives in UK; one
is South African who lives in Australia; one is
American who lives in USA; and one is Canadian
who lives in the USA. Our bios provide more
about our cultural backgrounds and lived experi-
ences throughout the world. The mere essence of
collaborating on this chapter is indicative of our
cross-cultural collaborative efforts.
THE RISE OF RESTORATIVE
JUSTICE IN POLICING
Two peoples have made very specific and profound
contributions to practices in the field of restorative
justice - the First Nations people of Canada and
the U.S., and the Maori of New Zealand (Zehr,
2005). In many ways, restorative justice represents
a “validation of values and practices that were
characteristic of many indigenous groups whose
traditions were often discounted and repressed by
western colonial powers” (Johnstone & Van Ness,
2007, p. 77). By the second half of the 1990s, the
expression “restorative justice” had become popu-
lar attracted many segments of society, including
police officers, judges, schoolteachers, politicians,
juvenile justice agencies, victim support groups,
aboriginal elders, and parents” (p. 77). Other
researchers assert that restorative justice is “a fast-
growing state, national and international social
movement that seeks to bring together people to
address the harm caused by crime” (Umbreit &
Armour, 2011, p. 2)
Although the origins of restorative justice are
widely contested (Clamp 2014), many agree that
the inherent failings of criminal justice created
an impetus for alternative models to be devised.
Within a policing context, it was an Australian
police sergeant, Terry O’Connell, who saw the
potential that restorative practices could offer the
police in terms of curbing youth offending. The
‘Wagga Wagga’ model, as it became known, sought
to provide a more just and meaningful outcome
for victims, offenders and their families than the
standard policing approach offered (Moore &
O’Connell, 2003). Drawing on the New Zealand
model of family group conferencing, Sergeant
Terry O’Connell brought together offenders,
victims and their supporters in a scripted confer-
ence process. The ‘Wagga Model’, as it became
popularly known, differed from family group
conferencing in that it was facilitated by police
officers and sought to drive home the consequences
of offending behaviour through the involvement
of the perpetrators’ family and the victim.
The principal aim of restorative processes in
policing is to repair the harm that has been caused
by the incident through the active involvement
of all stakeholders – victims, offenders and their
supporters or community representatives (where
they want this) – in discussing what happened
and deciding on the appropriate outcomes to deal
with the causes and consequences of the incident
(Braithwaite, 1999; Morris 2002; Van Ness &
Strong 2010). Given the range of due process
concerns that arise from such interaction, most
restorative justice schemes that are used within
the criminal justice setting require the offender
to first admit responsibility for the offence and
for both the victim and the offender to consent
to their involvement in the process. It is thought
that through such a process stakeholders will
subsequently have a deeper understanding of
the circumstances and consequences of the of-
fence; that all participants will have agreed and
contributed to the drafting of a behavioural or
task-oriented contract to which the offender has
to adhere; and that all participants will experience
a sense of procedural justice (i.e. that they will be
satisfied that they have been dealt with in a fair
and equitable manner).
Perhaps the most significant theorist in this
area is Jonathan Braithwaite who put forward
the idea of reintegrative shaming whereby the
actions of the offender are denounced, but not
the offender. During the process of reintegrative
restorative conference, the offender is encouraged
to acknowledge wrongdoing and make amends

258
Cross-Cultural Collaboration for Community-Oriented Policing and Restorative Justice
for his or her actions by responding to the harm
caused to the victim; ‘thus demonstrating that he
or she remains part of the law-abiding community
and recognises its norms of acceptable behaviour’
(Roche, 2003). Braithwaite (1989) outlines three
essential features for this to occur: i) mutual re-
spect, ii) mutual commitment, and iii) intolerance
for the behaviour combined with understanding.
Reintegration not only places a requirement on
the offender, but also on his/her family and other
agencies in supporting the offender to overcome
the underlying causes of the offending, which may
stem from a variety of practical, emotional and/
or psychological needs (Clamp, 2014).
Beyond the significant shift required of the
community to effectively curb crime and achieve
justice within a restorative response, is the impact
that this has for altering the police role. On the
one hand, police officers in “restorative policing”
engage in partnership working with the com-
munities that they serve in understanding the
problem and then seeking positive solutions to
those problems. On the other, rather dramatically,
officers are empowered to assist in the resolution
of offences outside of the system. Thus rather
than officers identifying perpetrators, assessing
the severity of the incident and determining the
most appropriate sanction, they are now involved
as one participant in a process which seeks to
find a solution that will prevent any harm in the
future rather than punishing what has already
been done. The enhanced emphasis placed upon
proactive policing and harm reduction across
western jurisdictions represents a return to the
aims of policing as outlined by nineteenth century
police innovators such as Sir Robert Peel in the
UK and a recognition of the limitations of relying
solely upon responsive modes of police response.
From a cross-cultural perspective this is a radical
transformation of the policing role in many west-
ern countries (e.g., Wales, England, Canada, US,
Australia) and one that perhaps to date has not been
clearly articulated in terms of the skills needed
to successfully interpret and undertake their role
in innovative ways. In the following sections, we
highlight the particular traits that would offer the
potential to realize a more community-oriented
and restorative model for police work.
TRAIT DEVELOPMENT
Police leaders have many opportunities to connect
employees to the visions they make which lead
towards organizational and personal growth (Ben-
ner, Tanner, & Chelsea, 1996). It becomes critical
for leaders in police organizations to ensure their
workforce is operational ready (Coates, 2008).
Based on recent Canadian research on police
leadership (Ellis & Normore, 2014) we briefly
introduce several traits that align organizational
and personal development. We believe when these
traits are developed in police leaders there is an
increased chance that community-oriented- polic-
ing and restorative justice becomes more effective.
Responsible. Leaders set the tone and are re-
sponsible for shaping behavior in organizational
life (Gini, 2004). We do not pretend however that
all police leaders stand and deliver. Recent public-
ity about unethical practices and police corrup-
tion around the world clearly indicate otherwise
(Harper, 2014). Leadership responsibility is often
thought of as a balancing act between personal,
organizational, and follower duties. Because
of this, certain conflicts occur, causing tension
and test leaders over time. The first step in trait
development is to understand that a police leader
who balances the responsibilities of the agency is
better balanced to handle challenging situations
that lie ahead (Ellis & Normore, 2014).
Credible. Credibility in police organizations
much like any other workplace happens over
time. Organizations that do not pay attention to
credibility have fewer opportunities to connect
with the communities they serve all the while
chipping away at employee engagement and
morale (Springer, 2008). Because of this, police
agencies must leverage the relationships within

259
Cross-Cultural Collaboration for Community-Oriented Policing and Restorative Justice
their organizations to better the relationships
between line level and management in attempt
to find solutions that enhance credibility (Hassi,
2012). Credible leaders take care of their people
and recognize the importance of protecting the
integrity and preventing corruption (Ciulla,
2004; Ellis & Normore, 2014). According to the
2011 police corruption index from Transparency
International police corruption is a significant
widespread police problem in countries such
as Peru, Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Russia and
Ukraine (Rogers, 2011).
Competent. A leader needs to be able to
manage well and that means that they need to
understand the business that they are in and be a
resource to the followers. Police leaders at every
layer within an organization are accepted or dis-
approved by the line level. And the requests by
those people in rank will be carried out depending
on the level of police leadership they have been
given (Murray, 2014; Sklansky & Marks, 2008).
In order to lead and have officers follow, police
leaders need to have the competence necessary
to build the credibility for followership. Compe-
tence comes from a number of sources such as
interaction with communities; staying up to date
on laws, policies, and procedures.
Compassionate. Compassion is a centerpiece
for police leadership to be profoundly impactful.
Police work is often the result of split second
decisions and “thin slicing.” Thin slicing refers
to the ability of our unconscious to find patterns
in situations and behavior based on very narrow
slices of experience (Gladwell, 2005, p. 23). Po-
lice leaders need to understand the importance of
compassion because it’s an organizational heal-
ing force and becomes indispensable to leaders
(Frost, Dutton, Maitlis, Lilius, Kanov, & Worline,
2006). When these leaders only look at errors
through the lens of police policies, procedures,
and public perception, it breeds a toxicity that
can be felt at every layer of an organization. For
example, serious breach of law, public abuse, and
the use-of-force continuum shows the range and
typology of abuse of authority including physi-
cal abuse/excessive force, verbal/psychological
abuse, and legal abuse/violations of civil rights
(Carter, 1994). Therefore, it is essential to have
all relevant information to adequately deal with
issues as they arise.
Reflective. One of the greatest assets derived
from wisdom is the reflection it brings. Leaders
in law enforcement agencies are under great pres-
sures to perform from their chain of command to
the communities they serve. Police leaders who
have ownership of credibility and compassion
regularly use reflection as a tool for organizational,
personal, and follower growth (Ellis & Normore,
2014). Every person has had instances where if
they could go back in time would alter events
for a better outcome. For example, take a SWAT
(Special Weapons And Tactics) team debrief
after a raid. SWAT is a commonly used name for
law enforcement units, which use military-style
light weapons and specialized tactics in high-risk
operations that fall outside of the capabilities of
regular, uniformed police. SWAT is commonly
used internationally, as a colloquial, generic term
for these units. During debriefing exercises discus-
sions focus on lessons learned related to planned
or spontaneous tactical operations, high risk patrol
encounters, K9 deployments, and specialty unit
operations.
Caring. A key trait identified in the literature
repetitively focused on leaders’ self-aggrandize-
ment where leaders use their followers to make
themselves look good and get ahead resulting in
lack of care for the needs of the followers (Ellis &
Normore, 2014). Therefore, the primary starting
point for developing leadership traits is that the
leader has to care, and influence the followers to
care. This trait extends to caring about followers
(i.e., influenced) and championing them in their
own activities for growth and development and
the compelling cause of the team towards excel-
lence. For example, one author is a member of
a large team of sworn and unsworn officers who
represent various divisions of the Los Angeles

260
Cross-Cultural Collaboration for Community-Oriented Policing and Restorative Justice
Police Department. The team leads a culture of
continuous improvement whereby members share
experiences and reflect on ways to improve and
care about their work, themselves, their communi-
ties, and each other, and how to more effectively
serve and protect the public.
Collaborative. If all traits are developed and
recognized at a high level, it follows that the leader
and his/her sphere of influence will be considered a
worthy partner for collaboration. In our society very
few institutions can thrive without the collabora-
tion of others where people work synergistically
together, and where ideas, goals, and actions are
shared and agreed on by the team. Organizations,
agencies, community groups and individuals all
look to partner with others following ‘the exchange
perspective’ to find others that can help them fulfill
their roles (Yulk & Becker, 2006).
Courageous. When law enforcement leaders
care, are considered competent, have developed
credibility, and have learned to communicate ef-
fectively then they can, with confidence, be mor-
ally courageous. They use courage to do the right
thing, to give honest feedback, to ask for honest
feedback, to uphold democracy and justice, to
apologize, to say we can do better, to change the
status quo and to challenge mediocrity. Of all the
leadership traits that have been discussed, the last
one being moral courage is the one that involves
the greatest risk while providing the greatest re-
wards. Moral courage demands a lot from officers-
-maybe a lot more than physical courage--and
holds sometimes greater risks (Kidder & Bracy,
2001). A great many officers who would step into
the literal line of gunfire to protect a fellow officer
balk when it comes time to call out that same of-
ficer for legally or constitutionally questionable
behavior, or their best friend for morally impure
actions, or their spouse for destructive decisions
(Wasilewski & Olson, 2011). While most leaders
know what they are supposed to do, the world is
still full of examples of poor decisions which are
most often reflective of some of the traditional
ways of policing (Krishnamurti, 1999).
TRADITIONAL POLICING
Policing is a profession rich with tradition and
cultural characteristics that extend across interna-
tional jurisdictions. These cultures and traditions
have the potential to build a bond amongst police
officers but also contain characteristics such as
suspicion, conservatism and authoritarianism
that separate police officers from wider society
(O’Neill, Marks & Singh, 2007). Traditional polic-
ing relies on agencies to have command and control
as a means to move from tasks towards a vision
and mission success. For example, the mission of
the Sacramento Police Department in California
is to work in partnership with the community to
protect life and property, solve neighbourhood
problems, and enhance the quality of life in our
city (see www.sacpd.org). This emphasis upon
centralization and hierarchy means that policing
cultures and traditions can act as obstacles to col-
laboration. The question of “who is going to have
ultimate control” stands in the way of innovation.
One of the central roles and functions of policing
agencies is to take control of problematic situa-
tions on behalf of sovereign authorities (Bittner,
1970). Hence, there is a cultural challenge to col-
laboration presented by traditional command and
control ways of thinking about and doing policing.
Despite this, law enforcement agencies that
are willing to relinquish some degree of control
gain more control over proactive approaches to
problem solving which align with the agency’s
mission focus. One potential example is found
with the traditional police call for service model.
In English-speaking jurisdictions, evidence has
repeatedly demonstrated that the majority of police
resources are devoted to responding to calls from
citizens (Bayley, 1994). This limits the amount of
time officers have available for creative initiatives
to prevent or reduce community problems. The
emphasis upon reactive modes of policing can
mean that police end up cleaning up the mess
left over from individual incidents without the
over-arching strategic response that is evident in

261
Cross-Cultural Collaboration for Community-Oriented Policing and Restorative Justice
proactive, problem-solving approaches to crime.
These differentiated approaches are captured in
Table 1.
Traditional policing has a rigid hierarchy where
orders are carried out through a bureaucratic
chain of command. Employees in bureaucratic
organizations can feel there are limited oppor-
tunities to express themselves (Prahlah, 2010),
even where this is not the case, and this can make
innovation and change a problematic process.
Traditional command and control approaches to
police management can prove to be disappointing
for agencies involved in new endeavors. Leaders
and managers rely on personal knowledge to in-
form decision-making but might be so far removed
from current police thinking that their approach
seems outdated to their junior colleagues. This
can be attributed to a leader’s lack of continuous
learning as it relates to laws, resources, and the
tactics officers use to perform their duties. Police
work operates in a constant state of evolution in
western democracies with new local mandates
and changes to existing laws.
This cultural dislocation is evidenced in the
distinct police officer and management cultures
that exist across police organizations (Reuss-Ianni,
1982). For example, one author’s experience re-
lated to tensions with a manager pertaining to the
time frame it was taking to deal with complaints
of drug activity in a specific neighborhood.
When advising the manager of the problems and
solutions the team was using, the manager was
not satisfied. He justified his response reflecting
back to his time in the unit and how he dealt with
similar complaints. What he didn’t realize is that
the suggested tactics were no longer legal under
current law and also violated policy. Therefore,
police organizations must commit themselves to
driving a culture that takes the best pieces of the
past and blends them with contemporary values
and culture that are recognizable for communi-
ties and current employees. Aspects of traditional
police leadership provide key functions such as
the provision of stability and control; information
management; direction; and goal clarity (Quinn,
Faerman, Thompson, McGrath, & St. Clair, 2011).
Sir Robert Peel’s nine principles of policing
continue to hold a prominent position in western
models of policing (Nazemi, 2014). US Law
enforcement agencies use the motto “protect and
serve” which is aligned with preventing crime and
disorder whilst UK policing agencies retain crime
prevention as a core function and continue to adhere
to the philosophy of policing by consent. These
values and mission statements reflect the ambi-
tions of police organizations although it should be
acknowledged that these aspirations are rarely met
within socially disadvantaged and marginalized
communities. The Peelian principles represent
core values for anyone entering and enduring the
profession and represent consistent characteristics
of policing that can underpin leadership strategies.
Peel’s nine principles of policing include:
• The basic mission for which the police ex-
ist is to prevent crime and disorder.
• The ability of the police to perform their
duties is dependent upon public approval
of police actions.
• Police must secure the willing co-opera-
tion of the public in voluntary observance
of the law to be able to secure and maintain
the respect of the public.
• The degree of co-operation of the public that
can be secured diminishes proportionately to
the necessity of the use of physical force.
• Police seek and preserve public favor not
by catering to public opinion but by con-
stantly demonstrating absolute impartial
service to the law.
Table 1. Approaches to crime
Traditional Contemporary
Command and control Mission focused
Arrest way out problems Problem-solving
Reactive Proactive

262
Cross-Cultural Collaboration for Community-Oriented Policing and Restorative Justice
• Police use physical force to the extent nec-
essary to secure observance of the law or
to restore order only when the exercise of
persuasion, advice and warning is found to
be insufficient.
• Police, at all times, should maintain a rela-
tionship with the public that gives reality
to the historic tradition that the police are
the public and the public are the police; the
police being only members of the public
who are paid to give full-time attention to
duties which are incumbent on every citi-
zen in the interests of community welfare
and existence.
• Police should always direct their action
strictly towards their functions and never
appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
• The test of police efficiency is the absence
of crime and disorder, not the visible evi-
dence of police action in dealing with it.
Established by the London Metropolitan Police
in 1829, The Peelian Principles remain applicable
to law enforcement agencies today. Though not
officially referred to as a code of ethics, they are
based on the required ethical behavior for law
enforcement when engaging with, and being
held accountable to, the public. With Peelian
principles at the forefront of policing, we assert
the need to take stock of leadership from the lens
of traditional and contemporary police leadership.
While searching for the best leadership model for
police agencies, leaders can look at the traditional
versus contemporary police leadership practices
and see that there might not be one size that fits
all, rather many moving parts in a much larger
picture. We would argue that both these leadership
models have a dualistic relationship such as the
one between leadership and management. When
comparing the two, it is clear that contemporary
police leadership has an abundance of strengths
yet leadership does not run from a script of as-
sumptions. Modern police leaders should under-
stand the flexibility of using both traditional and
contemporary concepts to help them dial their
“leadership rheostat” to find the best fit for any
given situation.
Contemporary Police Leadership
The dominant reform agenda within western polic-
ing agencies for the last three decades has revolved
around the re-emergence of community policing.
The modern community policing leader realizes
that creativity and flexibility are the two greatest
tools available for the success of their mission.
Their accountability comes from recognizing the
efforts of their employees, thus providing people
with empowerment from meaningful work (Yukl
& Becker, 2006). Failure is seen as an opportu-
nity to deliver better services in the future. To
return to the Sacramento Police Department in
California, leaders were searching for innovative
ways to combat crime. Leaders piloted a model
of “hot spot” policing where officers would spend
time at a pre-designated location with the hopes
of reducing crime. While the goals of the proj-
ect were positive, the program never gained the
popularity expected which caused organizational
tension. Leadership then moved towards a more
analytical model where officers would be given
more information about crime data as it pertains
to geographical areas and developed resources
accordingly.
When comparing the two types of leadership
models, it is apparent that contemporary police
leadership uses collaboration and creation as their
signature strengths, thus creating an abundance of
opportunity (Quinn, et al., 2011). It allows organi-
zations the ability to leverage talents within their
workforce rather than relying on the management
team to have all of the answers. Recent policy de-
velopments in the UK have sought to re-invigorate
police discretion and leadership from below with
the aim of encouraging the modern police leader
to use more robust liquid networks to engage
with colleagues and communities (Paterson &
Clamp, 2012). Similarly, within the Sacramento

263
Cross-Cultural Collaboration for Community-Oriented Policing and Restorative Justice
Police Department, the informal expectation of
managers is to be interconnected to community
leaders, business owners, and available resources
to problem-solve local issues.
Openness and collaboration should allow
ideas to flourish and flow through open channels
and networks (Johnson, 2010) that engage with
members of the community. These networks look
outside of the organization just as often as rely-
ing on internal mechanisms. The modern police
leader knows that the police need not only their
own employees, but also the community serve.
An example of community-driven police practices
can be further found within the Sacramento Police
Department. They have a number of community
and police interactions such as one-on-one coffee
meetings scheduled on a routine basis; town hall
meetings to discuss relevant topics; neighbourhood
association meetings; and community surveys.
The police department uses this information to
deliver practices which best mirror community
needs. Furthermore, police agencies give citizens
more stake in policing with community steering
groups such as the City of Sacramento’s Office
of Public Safety Accountability (OPSA). The role
of OPSA is to improve the relationship between
public safety and the communities they serve
by promoting trust, transparency, and account-
ability (www.cityofsacramento.org). In addition,
modern police leaders rely on collaboration with
other entities of the criminal justice system such
as probation and parole; District Attorney’s of-
fice; the judicial branch; and other city entities
such as parks and recreation to create vibrant
solutions for public safety. In countries such as
the U.S, Canada, the UK and Australia, we see a
competitive advantage for contemporary police
leaders and their agencies as they engage in more
frequent use of community-oriented policing.
Collaboration and relationship-building play a
central role within community-oriented policing
and have become a cornerstone of contemporary
police leadership thinking in western society (Ellis
& Normore, 2014a).
Community-Oriented Policing
Because collaboration and relationships play
a central role, community-oriented policing in
California becomes a cornerstone with the way
contemporary police leaders carry out business in
democratic societies (Ellis & Normore, 2014a).
It promotes organizational strategies to address
the causes and reduce the fear of crime and
social disorder through problem solving tactics
and community/police partnerships (www.cops.
usdoj.gov). There are three central components
to community-oriented policing. First, it relies on
community participation to determine priorities.
Trust becomes a key mobilizer within this process
through the sharing of information about crime
problems and local priorities for communities and
the generation of a dialogue about how limited
resources should be allocated Without an open
dialogue, it can be difficult to get the community
buy-in needed to open up lines of communication
(see Ellis & Normore, 2014b). In addition, law
enforcement looks for ways to connect to the pub-
lic which include strategies such as community
forums, survey distribution, neighborhood meet-
ings, and social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter,
Nextdoor.com) - to name a few.
Second, police organizations must define goals
and objectives that match community desires.
According to the European Social Survey (2012)
criminal justice organizations that actively seek
information and do not take the proper steps to
act on it reduce employee and public trust. It is
imperative for police leaders to remember that
not all solutions are universal (Prahlad, 2010).
Agencies must be able to tailor make strategies
to individual community problems. Restorative
justice programs are within those strategies. For
example, the mobilization of stakeholders be-
comes essential for the successful implementation
of not only community-oriented policing but also
restorative justice programs. The key for leaders
is to find the passion within the community and
align it with their own workforce.

264
Cross-Cultural Collaboration for Community-Oriented Policing and Restorative Justice
The success of police-led restorative justice
programs in the UK has been driven by commu-
nity demands for justice and security that have
been captured and coordinated by engaged local
agencies. Conversely, attempts by police agen-
cies to establish restorative justice programs and
transplant them into communities have met with
resistance and failure (Clamp & Paterson, 2011).
Thus, police-led restorative justice programs have
been most successful in relatively homogenous
social contexts where there is an identifiable voice
emanating out of a community rather than the
cacophony of divergent voices that emerge out of
more complex, multi-cultural contexts.
Communities have enormous potential to
generate and sustain social capital with leadership
that draws the relevant components from local
economic and cultural capital together (Bourdieu,
1980; Sampson & Graif, 2009). When strong
neighborhoods emerge within cities, they cre-
ate networks of information that hold influence
over neighborhoods in surprising ways (Johnson,
2010). For example, community strategies such
as neighborhood watch allow for the strengthen-
ing of social control in some contexts but also
lead to increased fear of crime in others. Thus,
traditional policing allows for good principles of
planning and organizing (Winfree & Newbold,
1999) that responds to the demands of an identi-
fied community whilst contemporary leadership
emphasizes collaboration and creation amongst
front-line employees and communities to find ef-
ficiencies, develop resources and problem-solve
with communities. Here is where restorative justice
processes come into play as pivotal to community-
oriented policing and used in various countries.
According to Bacon (2010) as part of an alterna-
tive to court sanction a process of “victim-offender
mediation” is used in Canada. It usually involves
a meeting, in the presence of a trained mediator,
between victim and offender. This system gener-
ally involves few participants, and often is the
only option available to incarcerated offenders.
In New South Wales under the 1997 Young Of-
fenders Act, and New Zealand’s 1989 Children,
Young Persons and their Families (Bacon, 2010)
a process called “family group conferencing” has
been developed. It’s the most appropriate system
for juvenile cases, due to the important role of the
family in a juvenile offender’s life. The New South
Wales scheme has been favorably evaluated by
the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics
and Research. Other restorative processes (see
Bacon, 2010) that involve community policing
include “restorative conferencing” (e.g., England);
“community restorative boards” (e.g., Canada,
Wales, England); “restorative circles” (e.g.,
Brazil, Germany, Canada, US, UK and Uganda);
and “circles of support and accountability” (e.g.,
Canada, US, UK).
The rise and predominance of community-
oriented policing and restorative justice across the
wealthy western democracies has been supported
by evidence of dramatic urban transitions from the
United States and United Kingdom yet the impact
of attempted policy transfer beyond the west is at
best uneven and often unsuitable for different so-
cial and economic contexts (Wisler & Onwudiwe,
2009). The general public however would likely
be open to alternative forms of justice if it were
explained to them. In order for restorative justice
to become publicly accepted, there must be an
effective public relations collaboration between
the media, criminologists, and law enforcement
officials who can act as mediums, promoting
community involvement, while still protecting
individuals’ rights, and acting ethically.
Ethics in Law Enforcement
Ethics in law enforcement has garnered more
attention than ever. Its implications have been
repeatedly seen, though not always in a positive
light, and generally associated with police corrup-
tion. Throughout the developed and developing
countries gathering accurate information about the
prevalence of police corruption is hard to come
by, since the corrupt activities tend to happen in

265
Cross-Cultural Collaboration for Community-Oriented Policing and Restorative Justice
secret and police organizations have little incentive
to publish information about corruption (Kutnjak
Ivkovic, 2003). Police officials and researchers
alike have argued that in some countries, large-
scale corruption involving the police not only exists
but can even become institutionalized (Kratcoski,
2002). An earlier study of corruption in the Los
Angeles Police Department proposed that certain
forms of police corruption may be the norm, rather
than the exception, in American policing (Grant,
2003). In the UK, an internal investigation in 2002
into the largest police force, the Metropolitan Po-
lice, Operation Tiberius found that the force was
so corrupt that “organized criminals were able to
infiltrate Scotland Yard “at will” by bribing corrupt
officers, and that Britain’s biggest force suffered
‘endemic corruption’ at the time (Harper, 2014).
Where corruption exists, the widespread
existence of a Blue Code of Silence among the
police can prevent the corruption from coming to
light. Officers in these situations commonly fail
to report corrupt behavior or provide false testi-
mony to outside investigators to cover up criminal
activity by their fellow officers (Skolnick, 2002).
The well-known case of Frank Serpico a police
officer who blew the whistle on the pervasive
corruption in the New York Police Department
despite the open hostility of other members, il-
lustrates how powerful the code of silence can
be. In Australia in 1994, independent politician
John Hatton forced the New South Wales state
government to override the Independent Com-
mission Against Corruption and the advice of
senior police to establish a ground-breaking Royal
Commission into Police Corruption (ABC News,
2009). However, in a number of countries, such
as China, Pakistan, Malaysia, Russia, Ukraine,
Brazil and Mexico, police corruption remains to
be one of the largest social problems facing these
countries (Wang, 2013).
We often use words like ethics, values, and
standards but for all the talk of ethics and standards
in law enforcement, it is important to establish
what this means. Taking a restorative approach
recognizes the equal importance of a myriad of
community perspectives in defining these stan-
dards and values. According to Roufa’s research
(2014) on law enforcement ethics, “When offi-
cers fail to do what is right, and especially when
they do what is clearly and blatantly wrong, they
erode the public trust just a little more and further
degrade law enforcement’s ability to work within
the community and carry out its mission. Adher-
ence to high ethical standards, then, is as vital
to achieving the overall goal of modern policing
as any other tactic, technique or practice” (para.
9). Roufa claims that “the oath of office lays the
groundwork for instilling ethical behavior, but
it doesn’t stop there” (para. 10). To help guide
officers toward ethical decision making, most
western agencies codify those practices that they
hope to promote and those they expect officers to
avoid. Roufa further asserts,
….that officers ….are called to be examples to
the public and to demonstrate the right way to
behave, rather than the entitlement mentality they
are so often accused of exhibiting…to remember
that what they do in uniform affects not only
themselves as individuals, but their entire agency
and, perhaps, the entire profession…that every
officer remembers the reason she took the job in
the first place: to protect and to serve, and within
the spirit of morality while making a difference
(para. 14-15).
The spirit of morality, said Aristotle, is awak-
ened in the individual only through the witness
and conduct of a moral person (Gini, 2004). The
real role of leadership is to manage the values of
an organization (Peters & Waterman, 1982). From
community support to getting officers to follow
leaders, police leadership relies on leaders who
have a strong moral compass. When looking at the
importance of a police leaders’ moral compass it
is evident that the way leaders treat others plays
a critical part to organizational and community
success. This is primarily due to a leader’s col-

266
Cross-Cultural Collaboration for Community-Oriented Policing and Restorative Justice
lective obligations to their people (Royakkers,
Grossi, & Dignum, 2005). There is a great example
that conceptualizes the importance of a leader’s
necessity for a moral compass and loyalty in the
Buddhist story of Mencius. Loyalty does not mean
that you serve authority, but rather you are loyal to
goodwill and the trials and tribulations that come
with being a leader. The modern police leader
understands this is accomplished through the
people that work under you rather than focusing
on the people above you. The story of Mencius,
as shared by He, Thornton and Li (2012) goes
as such: “When the prince regards his ministers
as his hands and feet, his ministers regard their
prince as their belly and heart; when he regards
them as his dogs and horses, they regard him as
another man; when he regards them as the ground
or as grass, they regard him as a robber and an
enemy” (p. 44).
Unfortunately for those who do not see this
as their avenue for success, they usually rely on
giving their loyalty to others above them while
stepping on anyone who gets in their way. This
is how toxic leaders are born and manifest them-
selves within organizations. These individuals
are usually loyal to those who help them climb
the corporate ladder instead of being loyal to the
organization itself. Being loyal to the organiza-
tion means to speak the truth and deliver not so
great news from time to time. One of the ways
that police leaders can build loyalty to their
organizations and align their moral compass is
to ask themselves questions that reflect what
their family and friends would think of them
had they known the decisions they made could
create opportunities for character strength (Bol-
man & Deal, 2008; Normore, Javidi, Anderson,
Normand, Scott & Hoina, 2014). Modern police
leadership is about having the spirit of authentic
leadership that leads the way. Authentic leaders
do not compromise their values, but rather take
tough opportunities to strengthen their values
(Northouse, 2010).
FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTION
A couple of research areas have emerged that
should interest those vested in future direction of
cross-cultural collaboration and restorative justice
and policing. First, enthusiasm is growing about
restorative justice in law enforcement agencies
and across countries. Agencies have started to
embrace the approach because they see in it a
better way to deliver what has been required of
them all along; others embrace it as a new justice
paradigm, capable of displacing the retributive
justice paradigm. The need will likely remain for
strategic redirection for redeploying resources and
broadening engagement with communities. As
more research unfolds about its merit efforts to
apply restorative in practice will move the field to
another, better, but still transitional performance
level.
A second area for future research is in the area
of inclusive cultural collaboration. Police need to
understand the cultural experiences and dynamics
of the communities they serve. Increasingly, police
agencies are trying to hire officers who are more
representative of their respective jurisdictions. It
has become a dominant political and social mission
of people of color, women, and gays and lesbians
seeking social justice through a more responsive
police force. As historically marginalized groups
achieve greater access to jobs in policing, percep-
tions on both sides may need to be addressed. It is
always difficult for two groups to work together
when one (or both) views the other as the enemy.
The benefits, though, may be substantial. In each
case where new groups have been assimilated into
the police rank and file (e.g., racial minorities
and women) more research remains to be done
internationally concerning whether or not rela-
tions between the police and those groups have
had impact on crime reduction.
One final area that has kept momentum is
the area of ethical leadership within and across
police cultures (Loftus, 2009; Loveday, 2005) –
specifically concerning corruption. We believe

267
Cross-Cultural Collaboration for Community-Oriented Policing and Restorative Justice
there’s a need to study ways that agencies in
various countries reduce corruption within and
across police agencies. For example, should there
be more external oversight over the police with
a special focus on integrity, recruitment, and
training? Furthermore, a study could focus on
leadership from police supervisors about integrity,
how they are held responsible for the misbehavior
of subordinates, and how they can change the
organization’s culture to tolerate misbehavior
less. Contextual conditions not commonly found
in countries in crisis, emerging from conflict, or
facing serious threats to their security, will need
to be considered as agencies encourage systemic
social and political reform.
CONCLUSION
The ideas presented in this chapter are intended to
ignite a cross cultural dialogue within and across
modern police agencies throughout the world.
Although the experiences we shared are limited
to western democracies we believe the underly-
ing premise of restorative justice (and policing)
coupled with well-developed community-oriented
policing can promote collaboration within and
across cultures if contemporary policing is to be
successful. As international police agencies work
to transform the long-standing culture of tradi-
tional police leadership and organizations they
can embrace two transformative consequences for
the role of police officers, namely: a rethinking
or reconsideration of the relationship between the
police and the broader community in responding
to crime, and a need to see crime problems in their
social context with a forward-looking (or preventa-
tive) problem-solving orientation (Marshall, 1999)
rather than from a crime control perspective. Thus,
rather than police officers identifying perpetra-
tors, considering the severity of the incident and
deciding on an appropriate action, an ethical and
restorative framework requires them to seek to
include all those involved in the decision-making
process. As such, further extension of the public
voice in restorative policing will sometimes require
officers to act as facilitators and silent stakehold-
ers rather than as decision-makers, a process
which will require police officers to interpret and
undertake their role in innovative ways (Paterson
& Clamp, 2012).
REFERENCES
ABC News. (2009). Anti-corruption campaigner
eyes NSW. Retrieved March 16, 2014, from http://
www.abc.net.au/news/2009-11-06/anti-corrup-
tion-campaigner-eyes-nsw/1132874
Bacon, J. (2010). Making progress in restorative
justice: a qualitative study. (Unpublished Masters
Thesis). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.
Bauman, Z. (2001). Community: Seeking safety in
an insecure world. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Bayley, D. (1994). Police for the future. Oxford,
UK: OUP.
Benner, P., Tanner, C., & Chelsa, C. (1996). Exper-
tise in nursing practice: Care, clinical judgment,
and ethics. New York, NY: Springer.
Bittner, E. (1970). The functions of the police in
modern society. Oelgeschlager: Gunn and Hain.
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2008). Reframing orga-
nizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (4th
ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bottoms, A. (1995). The philosophy and politics
of punishment and sentencing. In C. Clarkson
& R. Morgan (Eds.), The politics of sentencing
reform. Oxford, UK: ClarendonPress.
Bourdieu, P. (1980). The logic of practice. Stan-
ford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Braithwaite, J. (1999). Restorative justice: Assess-
ing optimistic and pessimistic accounts. Crime and
Justice, 25, 1–127. doi:10.1086/449287

268
Cross-Cultural Collaboration for Community-Oriented Policing and Restorative Justice
Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, shame and reinte-
gration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
doi:10.1017/CBO9780511804618
Carter, D. (1994). Theoretical dimensions in the
abuse of authority. In T. Barker & D. Carter (Eds.),
Police deviance (pp. 269–290). Cincinnati, OH:
Anderson publishing.
CFLeads Cultivating Community Engagement
Panel. (2013). Engaging residents: A new call
to action for community foundations. Retrieved
July 10, 2014, from http://www.cfleads.org/com-
munity-engagement/CFLeads-Call-to-Action.pdf
Ciulla, J. (2004). Leadership and the problem of
bogus empowerment. In G. Hickman (Ed.), Lead-
ing organizations: Perspectives for a new era (2nd
ed., pp. 195–208). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Clamp, K. (2014). Restorative justice in transition.
London: Routledge.
Clamp, K. (2010). The receptiveness of countries
in transition to restorative justice: A comparative
analysis of the role of restorative justice in tran-
sitional processes and criminal justice reform.
Unpublished thesis, University of Leeds.
Clamp, K., & Paterson, C. (2011). Rebalancing
criminal justice: Potentials and pitfalls for com-
munity neighbourhood panels. British Journal of
Community Justice, 9(2), 21–35.
Clark, M. (2005). The importance of a new
philosophy to the post modern policing environ-
ment. Policing: An International Journal of Po-
lice Strategies & Management, 28(4), 642–653.
doi:10.1108/13639510510628721
Coates, C. (2008). Organizational competencies.
Retrieved September 16, 2014, from http://www.
cullencoates.com/images/Managing_Organiza-
tional_Competencies_.pdf
Ellis, B., & Normore, A. H. (2014a). Community-
oriented policing: The power of collaboration. Law
Enforcement Today (LET): The Law Enforcement
Community. Retrieved June 17, 2014, from http://
www.lawenforcementtoday.com/2014/03/09/
community-oriented-policing-the-power-of-
collaboration/
Ellis, B., & Normore, A. H. (2014b). Police lead-
ership: Connecting with communities through a
partnership initiative. Peace Officers Research
Association of California Law Enforcement. Re-
trieved December 5, 2014, from http://porac.org/
Ellis, G., & Normore, A. H. (2014). A self-assess-
ment for law enforcement leadership improvement:
The 6 traits of a successful police leader. Law
Enforcement Today (LET): The Law Enforce-
ment Community. Retrieved April 27, 2014, from
http://lawenforcementtoday.com/2014/02/10/a-
self-assessment-for-law-enforcement-leadership-
improvement-the-6-traits-of-a-successful-police-
leader/
European Social Survey. (2012). Trust in Jus-
tice: topline findings from the European social
survey. Retrieved May 19, 2014, from http://
www.europeansocialsurvey.org/docs/findings/
ESS5_toplines_issue_1_trust_in_justice.pdf
Frost, P., Dutton, J., Maitlis, S., Lilius, J., Kanov,
J., & Worline, M. (2006). Seeing organizations
differently: Three lenses on compassion. Retrieved
February 9, 2014, from http://webuser.bus.umich.
edu/janedut/Compassion/Three_lenses_on_Com-
passion.pdf
Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control: Crime
and social order in contemporary society. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Gini, A. (2004). Moral leadership and business
ethics. In G. Hickman (Ed.), Leading organiza-
tions: Perspectives for a new era (2nd ed., pp.
345–355). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

269
Cross-Cultural Collaboration for Community-Oriented Policing and Restorative Justice
Gladwell, M. (2005). Blink: The power of thinking
without thinking. New York, NY: Little, Brown
& Company.
Grant, J. (2003). Assault under color of authority:
Police corruption as norm in the LAPD Rampart
Scandal and in popular film. New Political Sci-
ence, 25(3), 404.
Harper, T. (2014). Exclusive: Scotland Yard’s rot-
ten core: Police failed to address Met’s ‘endemic
corruption’ - Crime – UK. Retrieved October
17, 2014, from, http://www.independent.co.uk/
news/uk/crime/exclusive-scotland-yards-rotten-
core-police-failed-to-address-endemic-corrup-
tion-9050224.html
Hassi, A. (2012). Managing organizational cred-
ibility: Towards a four-approach model. Paper
presented at the annual Society of Business
Research - Nashville Conference, Nashville, TN.
He, W., Thornton, J. L., & Li, C. (2012). In the
name of justice: Striving for the rule of law in
China. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution
Press.
Hobsbawm, E. (1995). Age of extremes: The
short twentieth century, 1914-1991. London,
UK: Abacus.
Johnson, S. (2010). Where good ideas come from:
The natural history of innovation. New York, NY:
Riverhead Books.
Johnstone, G., & Van Ness, D. W. (2007). Hand-
book of restorative justice. Devon, UK: Willan
Publishing.
Kidder, R., & Bracy, M. (2001). Moral cour-
age. Retrieved March 8, 2014, from http://ww2.
faulkner.edu/admin/websites/jfarrell/moral_cour-
age_11-03-2001.pdf
Kratcoski, P. (2002). International perspec-
tives on institutional and police corruption.
Police Practice and Research, 3(1), 74.
doi:10.1080/15614260290011345
Krishnamurti, J. (1999). The light in oneself: True
meditation. Springfield, VA: Nataraj Books. John
Wayne Quotes. Retrieved July 7, 2014, from http://
www.quotes.net/authors/John Wayne.
Kutnjak Ivkovic, S. (2003). To serve and col-
lect: Measuring police corruption. The Journal
of Criminal Law & Criminology, 93(2/3), 600.
Loftus, B. (2009). Police culture in a changing
world. Oxford, UK: OUP. doi:10.1093/acprof:o
so/9780199560905.001.0001
Loveday, B. (2005). Police reform: Problems of
governance and accountability. The Police Journal,
78(4), 339–350. doi:10.1350/pojo.2005.78.4.339
Marshall, T. (1999). Restorative justice: An over-
view. London, UK: Home Office.
McEvoy, K. (2007). Beyond legalism: Towards
a thicker understanding of transitional justice.
Journal of Law and Society, 34(4), 411–440.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-6478.2007.00399.x
Moore, D., & O’Connell, T. (2003). Family con-
ferencing in Wagga Wagga: A communitarian
model of justice. In G. Johnstone (Ed.), A restor-
ative justice reader: Texts, sources and context.
London, UK: Routldege.
Morris, A. (2002). Critiquing the critics: A brief
response to critics of restorative justice. The
British Journal of Criminology, 42(3), 596–615.
doi:10.1093/bjc/42.3.596
Murray, A. (2014). What is the difference between
management and leadership. Retrieved.

270
Cross-Cultural Collaboration for Community-Oriented Policing and Restorative Justice
October 26, 2014, from http://guides.wsj.com/
management/developing-a-leadership-style/
what-is-the-difference-between-management-
and-leadership/
Nazemi, S. (2014). Sir Robert Peel’s nine prin-
ciples applied to modern day policing. Retrieved
October 27, 2014, from http://magnacartaplus.org/
briefings/nine_police_principles.htm#nine_prin-
ciples
Normore, A. H., Javidi, M., Anderson, T., Nor-
mand, N., Hoina, C., & Scott, W. (2014). Moral
compass for law enforcement professionals. Holly
Springs, NC: International Academy of Public
Safety.
Northouse, P. (2010). Leadership: Theory and
practice (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
O’Neill, M., Marks, M., & Singh, A. M. (2007).
Police Occupational Culture: New Debates and
Directions. New York, NY: Elsevier.
Paterson, C., & Clamp, K. (2012). Exploring recent
developments in restorative policing in England
and Wales. Criminology & Criminal Justice,
12(5), 593–611. doi:10.1177/1748895812441933
Peters, T., & Waterman, R. (1982). In search
of excellence: Lessons from America’s best-run
companies. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Prahalad, C. K. (2010). An interview with C.K.
Prahalad. Retrieved August 15, 2014, from http://
jia.sipa.columbia.edu/interview-ck-prahalad/
Quinn, R., Faerman, S., Thompson, M., McGrath,
M., & St. Clair, L. (2011). Becoming a master
manger: A compelling values approach (5th ed.).
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Reuss-Ianni, E. (1982). Two cultures of policing:
Street cops and management cops. New Bruns-
wick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Roach, K. (2005). Enhancing criminal justice
reform: Including restorative justice. Paper pre-
sented at the 11th United Nations Congress on
‘Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Syner-
gies and Responses: Strategic Alliances in Crime
Prevention and Criminal Justice’, Bangkok, Thai-
land. Retrieved September 18, 2014, from www.
icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/11_un/
KENT%20ROACH%20Speaking%20Notes.pdf
Roche, D. (2003). Accountability in restorative
justice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Rogers, S. (2011). Corruption index 2011 from
Transparency International: find out how coun-
tries compare. Retrieved July 19, 2014, from
www.guardian.co.uk
Roufa, T. (2014). Ethics in law enforcement: What
the public expects and how officers can deliver.
Retrieved November 4, 2014, from http://crimi-
nologycareers.about.com/od/Career_Trends/a/
Ethics-In-Law-Enforcement.htm
Royakkers, L., Grossi, D., & Dignum, F. (2005).
Responsibility in organizations. In J. Lehman,
M. A. Biasiotti, E. Francesconi, & M. T. Sagri
(Eds.), Legal ontologies and artificial intelligence
techniques (pp. 1–14). Nijmegen: Wolf Legal
Publishers.
Sampson, R., & Graif, C. (2009). Neighborhood
social capital as differential social organization.
The American Behavioral Scientist, 52(11),
1579–1605.
Sklansky, D., & Marks, M. (2008). The role of the
rank and file in police reform. Policing and Soci-
ety, 18(1), 1–6. doi:10.1080/10439460701718484
Skolnick, J. (2002). Corruption and the Blue Code
of Silence. Police Practice and Research, 3(1), 8.
doi:10.1080/15614260290011309

271
Cross-Cultural Collaboration for Community-Oriented Policing and Restorative Justice
Springer, C. (2008). Organizational credibil-
ity counts. Retrieved April 3, 2014, from http://
digitalscholorship.unlv.edu/sea_fac_articles/332
Umbreit, M., & Armour, M. (2011). Restorative
justice dialogue: An essential guide for research
and practice. New York, NY: Springer Publishing.
US Department of Justice. Office of Commu-
nity Oriented Police Services, (2008). What is
community-policing? Retrieved April 5, 2014,
from http://www.cops.usdoj.gov
Van Ness, D., & Strong, K. (2010). Restoring
justice: An introduction to restorative justice.
Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing.
Walsh, A., & Ellis, L. (2006). Criminology: An
interdisciplinary approach. London, UK: Sage.
Wang, P. (2013). The rise of the Red Mafia in
China: A case study of organized crime and cor-
ruption in Chongqing. Trends in Organized Crime,
16(1), 49–73. doi:10.1007/s12117-012-9179-8
Wasilewski, M., & Olson, A. (2011). On courage:
Get off the side lines and into the game. Retrieved
April 10, 2014, from, http://www.lawofficer.com/
article/leadership/courage
Winfree, L. Jr, & Newbold, G. (1999). Com-
munity policing and the New Zealand Police:
Correlates of attitudes toward the work world in
a community-oriented national police organiza-
tion. Policing: An International Journal of Po-
lice Strategies & Management, 22(4), 589–618.
doi:10.1108/13639519910299553
Wisler, D., & Onwudiwe, I. (2009). Community
policing: International patterns and compara-
tive perspectives. Advances in Police Theory and
Practice Series. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
doi:10.1201/9781420093599
Young, J. (1988). Radical criminology in Britain:
The emergence of a competing paradigm. The
British Journal of Criminology, 28(2), 159–183.
Young, J., & Matthews, R. (2003). The new politics
of crime and punishment. Cullompton: Willan.
Yulk, G., & Becker, W. (2006). Effective em-
powerment in organizations. Organizational
Management Journal, 3(3), 210–231. doi:10.1057/
omj.2006.20
Zehr, H. (2005). Changing lenses – a new focus
for crime and justice. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press.
Zehr, H. (2002). The little book of restorative
justice intercourse. Scottdale, PA: Goodbook.
ADDITIONAL READING
Alarid, L., & Montemayor, C. (2011). Implement-
ing restorative justice in police departments. Police
Practice and Research, 13(5), 450–463. doi:10.1
080/15614263.2011.607654
Clamp, K., & Doak, J. (2012). More than words:
Restorative justice concepts in transitional justice
settings. International Criminal Law Review,
12(3), 339–360. doi:10.1163/157181212X648824
DeLattre, E. (2006). Character and cops: Ethics
in Policing (5th ed.). Washington, DC: AEI Press.
Flanagan, R. (2008). The Review of Policing: Final
Report. London, UK: Home Office.
Foster, J. (2010). Nice to do and essential: Improv-
ing neighbourhood policing in an English police
force. Policing. Journal of Policy Practice, 4(4),
395–402.
Johnstone, G., & Van Ness, D. (2007). Handbook of
restorative justice. Devon, UK: Willan Publishing.
Johnstone, G. (2002). Restorative justice: Ideas,
values, debates. Cullompton, UK: Willan Pub-
lishing.
Kappeler, V., Sluder, R., & Alpert, G. (1994).
Forces of deviance: Understanding the dark side
of policing. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

272
Cross-Cultural Collaboration for Community-Oriented Policing and Restorative Justice
McCold, P., & Wachtel, B. (1998). Restorative
policing experiment: The Bethlehem Pennsylva-
nia Police Family Group Conferencing Project.
Pipersville, PA: Community Service Foundation.
O’Mahony, D., & Doak, J. (2004). Restorative
justice - is more better? The experience of
police-led restorative cautioning pilots in North-
ern Ireland. Howard Journal, 43(5), 484–505.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-2311.2004.00344.x
Paterson, C. (2011). Adding Value? A review of
the international literature on the role of higher
education in police training and education. Police
Practice and Research, 12(4), 286–297. doi:10.1
080/15614263.2011.563969
Reiner, R. (2010). The politics of the po-
lice. Oxford, UK: OUP. doi:10.1093/
he/9780199283392.001.0001
Strang, H., & Braithwaite, J. J. (2001). Restor-
ative justice and civil society. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Trautman, N. (1997). The cutting edge of police
integrity. Orlando, FL: Ethics Institute.
KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
Community-Oriented Policing: A phi-
losophy that combines traditional aspects of law
enforcement with prevention measures, problem-
solving, community engagement, and community
partnerships.
Criminology: The scientific study of crime,
criminal behaviour and law enforcement.
Cross-Cultural Collaboration: A process
where a group of individuals with different cultures
work jointly with each other on a common goal.
Restorative Justice: An approach to justice
that focuses on the needs of the victims and the
offenders, as well as the involved community,
instead of satisfying abstract legal principles or
punishing the offender. Victims take an active role
in the process, while offenders are encouraged to
take responsibility for their actions.
Restorative Policing: A range of tactics and
strategies, whose end result, when done right, is
that offending behavior is prevented or curtailed,
conflict between communities is reduced and
victims are given back their own confidence and
sense of well-being.