How Do You Define Trust Between a Police Department and its Community?

How do you define trust between a police department and its community? This is a question I ask every Middle Management class I teach at the state police academy. Normally this question is met with a response that sounds like crickets in an open field, coupled with blank stares that resemble a deer caught in the headlights of a car. But that's okay; we're normally so busy with answering calls for service and all the other daily demands we don't devote much thought to such a question.

Then I'll ask for a show of hands of how many people in the class are married. Since the class is mostly tenured officers with rank, nearly everyone raises their hand. Then to facilitate a better understanding of the concept of trust, I modify the original question, "How do you define trust in a marriage?" Again, crickets and blank stares. I know everyone in the class knows what trust feels like, but we rarely take time to articulate into words what we feel.

After some prompting, spontaneous discussion ensues, and we ultimately agree on a definition that is something like:

We can all visualize different circumstances surrounding our marriages and how this definition of a shared values system might apply to defining trust within our marriages. The key point to understand is the components that build trust are the same regardless if it's building trust in a marriage or building trust in a business relationship. Now, let's apply those same ideas of shared values and predictable responsive behaviors back to the original question. How do you define trust between a police department and the community it serves?

Every community has expectations of its police department, and those expectations are a result of the value system the community has. Therefore, the community's expectation is when their police department is faced with varying circumstances, the police department's responsive behavior will progress along a predictable path, that is consistent with the values of the community. However, when an interpersonal contact occurs on the street, and the community has no trust regarding shared values, conflict and resistance usually results.

Value systems vary from community to community. Therefore there is not one universal solution applicable everywhere. However, one thing appears to be universal in all communities – treating all people fairly. In 2003, a MORI poll asked respondents to rate the importance of 20 possible functions of the criminal justice system. 72% of the respondents rated treating all people fairly as "absolutely essential," making this function the most important function in the eyes of those polled. This result suggests treating all people fairly is a safe foundation to build upon for all community trust solutions.

Assuming we agree everyone wants the police to treat them fairly, and with dignity and respect, what's the next step in identifying what your community values regarding police performance?

The next step sounds easy, but it is not. Matter-of-fact, from what I've repeatedly seen at many different levels during my career, our industry does not execute the next step very well at all. The next step is — Listen AND Understand. Author and TED speaker Simon Sinek articulated the listening process perfectly in a speech to a Youth Leadership group:

Historically, as an industry, we are quick to defend our actions which pre-empts our ability to listen thoroughly and understand. Our communities are speaking to us, and telling us loud and clear, they do not trust us. There is a growing concern among many of my colleagues that our industry is on the verge of an epidemic crisis regarding community trust. We must do something different. What we have been doing for the last 50 years clearly is not working.

When we explore techniques for effective listening, in his book Never Split the Difference, retired FBI Hostage Negotiator Chris Voss describes a listening and understanding process aspiring to hear the response, "that's right." The goal is to paraphrase the other person's perspective accurately enough so they respond with, "That's right" — a subconscious point of agreement that signals you fully understand what they are saying. It is only at this point that the other person will be willing to listen to what you have to say.

I have used this technique many times. Frequently, especially with minor issues, what I find is when someone wants to file a complaint about the police, once we get to "that's right" they are satisfied. What they want is to have someone listen to them and understand their feelings. Filing a complaint was merely a means to an outcome — an outcome of someone understanding their experience.

Our industry needs to spend more time seeking to understand before being understood, especially on big community issues. As we have seen in our definition of trust, trust only occurs once we embrace a shared values system — when the community is confident that when the police are confronted with varying circumstances, the police response will proceed along a predictable path of fairness, dignity, and respect.

The first step to building trust is agreeing the foundational shared value is treating all people fairly and with dignity and respect. The next step is to listen and understand the concerns and perspectives of people in our community by asking clarifying questions, properly paraphrasing and aspiring to get to the responsive statement of "that's right." Then, and only then, will we begin building shared values, begin building trust, provide the quality of police service the community desires, and avert a crisis of police legitimacy.

Captain Bob Woolverton (ret)

34-year veteran of the Bothell, Washington Police Department and second-generation law enforcement officer. Graduate of the FBI National Academy (Session #183). Holds a B.S. and M.S. in Management and Leadership. Leadership instructor at the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission. Personal mission: Lead, Teach, and Inspire.