Over the past few years, considerable attention has focused on alleged widespread occurrences of a phenomenon known as “de-policing.”¹ What constitutes de-policing has been debated, and both its definition and claimed impacts have varied.²

The current general lack of confidence in government institutions, including police agencies, compounds the perception of the occurrence and dynamics of de-policing.⁶ This general mindset, coupled with substantial news coverage of excessive force incidents, has resulted in extensive public criticism of police conduct and the priorities of their services, as well as calls for defunding the police.

A few self-report studies have featured anonymously interviewed officers who claimed to have engaged in de-policing to avoid involvement when faced with a high likelihood of escalation or use of force, which could result in misconduct accusations.⁷ This seems plausible in jurisdictions where strong accusations or proven instances of such behavior have taken place.

However, the evidence of these effects has almost always originated from informal discussions, opinion pieces, or interviews involving questions that focus on de-policing. They have included anonymous self-reports, rather than independent observational data.⁸

Despite the anecdotal and subjective documentation as well as commentary lamenting such practices, proven cases of pervasive de-policing have not been clearly and empirically well-established. Again, such conduct is logically possible, but it lacks clear confirmation.

Nonetheless, various commentators have not only alleged de-policing regularly occurs but also assert that it contributes to reduced effectiveness of police services. It has even been cited as a cause of spiking crime rates due to resulting nonresponse or slow response times.⁹

Consequently, some also see it as elevating levels of public distrust and lack of confidence in policing because officer disengagement is viewed as shirking duty. Some also see this alleged discouragement on the part of officers, said to drive de-policing, as resulting in well-documented officer staffing shortages brought on by retirements or resignations as well as recruitment shortages of entry-level personnel.

While staffing shortages fueled by recruitment difficulties and an acceleration of officers leaving the profession are certainly real, the empirical evidence for this being substantially driven by dissatisfaction and de-policing is lacking. Other, more salient, issues may be driving such staffing issues. These include low wages, overall lack of confidence in the policing profession, attractiveness of other vocations without shift work, and health and safety concerns.

Extent and Expressions

If popular understandings, anonymous self-reporting, and anecdotal evidence of de-policing are valid, there should be ways to test and measure the existence and significance of it. If de-policing does occur and has some of the reputed consequences, how might it be recognized and measured?

Because fluctuations in aggregate arrests, citations issued, and response times cannot unilaterally be attributed to de-policing, perhaps the single modality to measure the phenomenon is by observing actual policing behaviors, whether through ride-alongs or other appropriate methods.¹⁰ Police agencies offer these types of observational approaches to potential recruits and, in some cases, even the media.¹¹ Such methods indicate that agencies do not engage in de-policing as defined in this article; otherwise, law enforcement would avoid hosting these public interactions.

Understaffing is one possible explanation for de-policing as staffing shortages certainly reduce what an agency can accomplish. Inevitably, if serious crimes are more frequent or attract more political emphasis, lesser offenses will receive less attention. In such cases, attributing this reduced response in an environment of limited human and fiscal resources to intentional discretionary de-policing is unwarranted. 

Perhaps the issue of inadequate or limited staffing is a straightforward explanation. With reduced staff, agencies must give less serious crimes less focus and documentation. Of course, if activity is not documented, it is not measured—contributing to perceptions of de-policing behavior.

One factor in staffing shortages—difficulties attracting new recruits—may be driven by demographics as the baby boom generation’s children age out of their primary recruitment years, giving way to other age-eligible, interested cohorts. In addition, perhaps the negative publicity and increased mistrust of law enforcement as reflected in several years of opinion polling are discouraging people from applying to become police officers. These issues may be impacting staffing beyond known, asserted, or popularly recognized dissatisfaction and/or diminished morale within police ranks, which presumably discourages entry level applications.

All the issues that contribute to understaffing might themselves reduce self-initiated or proactive responses when nonserious criminal conduct is involved. Thus, the phenomenon of de-policing may have considerably less to do with police avoiding responses and recent increases in crime than it does with the complex issue of overcoming staffing shortages. 

Causes and Varieties

It is important to understand some social dynamics that might discourage the claim of discretion-driven de-policing. Such an avoidance strategy is incompatible with a professional field that prides itself on stepping forward and taking control. Disengagement goes against the core identity of most police officers. Admitting, even anonymously, that de-policing is a pervasive practice that adopts a passive and timid role in an industry that takes pride in its ability to “run toward trouble” seems contradictory.

Periods of shifting community values on what is and what should be expected from the police complicate this dynamic. Because policing in democratic societies has emphasized the importance of linking officers’ practices to public preferences and sentiments (e.g., Sir Robert Peel’s Nine Principles of Policing—“The police are the public and the public are the police”), officers and those they serve must balance police capabilities and priorities with community expectations.¹² Shifts in values and expectations, which are ongoing and, arguably, especially prevalent today, may yield inconsistencies and controversy when traditional practices mesh with these changes.

Additionally, community ideas of priorities and strategies may sometimes differ from those of their local police agencies. In this context, some degree of de-policing may occur due to communities adjusting their preferences, financial cost points, or tolerance of one another’s priorities. Examples include the degree to which some large, urban municipal governments have opted for policies that accommodate homelessness, drug use, or disorderly conduct linked to mental illness. Police in these environments may have been officially encouraged not to engage in such public order issues, even as residents and business owners urge active interventions. 

Provokers and Inhibitors

As noted previously, the idea that de-policing is rooted in fear of negative public reaction to police actions has grown out of instances of alleged and actual police misconduct. Incidents in Ferguson, Missouri; Louisville, Kentucky; Memphis, Tennessee; Minneapolis, Minnesota; and other jurisdictions serve as examples. Where clear cases of misconduct occur and are highly publicized, they foster additional allegations of misconduct based on actual instances or assumptions and misunderstandings. In turn, this has led to the conclusion that police understand the need to be more mindful and minimize the potential for complaints. 

This intensified expectation of care has probably, to a degree, given rise to officers evaluating situations more warily and avoiding or curtailing police contact. In such instances, de-policing is not only possible but more probable. But while incidence is likely, prevalence remains largely unknown.

Historically, it is also worth noting that the practice of discretionary police avoidance of or withdrawal from engagement is not new and did not find its birth in Ferguson or other recent incidents. In fact, an appearance of the term “de-policing” appeared in the academic literature as early as 1980.¹³ In this use, discretionary de-policing was described as a valid and viable form of police discretion that focused upon avoidance of encounters as a positive means for resolving disputes, rather than a strategy for preventing intense or threatening scrutiny of police actions.

Additionally, studies of routine police behavior over many years note discretionary decisions by officers to informally process, dismiss, or even ignore illegal conduct as a way to provide just and equitable public safety.¹⁴ Officers may also consider particular interventions a waste of effort if other layers of the criminal justice system, including prosecutors or courts, cannot or will not follow through with charging or sentencing large numbers of offenders. This may be regarded as a means of intentional exercise of police discretion to impact criminal justice strategy beyond the stage of officers’ role in mobilizing involvement of the criminal justice system.¹⁵

These are not examples of de-policing as defined in this article but are related to use of police discretion to sustain and ensure supposed just and equitable outcomes. The key point is that making decisions regarding discretionary noninvolvement is a long-established policing practice. The distinguishing characteristic in the current discussion about de-policing is that fear of increased potential consequences for real or perceived misconduct is only one of many possible reasonable rationales for discretionary choices by police to avoid or downplay official criminal justice involvement.

Ethical Aspects

If officers practice de-policing to avoid a possible controversial outcome despite serious, legitimate threats to community safety, this can amount to dereliction of duty that requires leaders to encourage more appropriate conduct. Such behavior, where there is real potential harm to public safety, can amount to unethical shirking of duty and failure to honor aspects of oath of office. If so, what are the implications of agencies allowing or ignoring such practices? And what actions can law enforcement executives take to prevent or correct them?

Agencies that ignore de-policing, as defined in this article, could become degraded if rifts are created between police and the communities they serve. In the extreme, if left unchecked, such breakdowns in public safety and the rule of law could contribute to cities and towns suffering fragmentation and moral decay as citizens and law enforcement retreat to their respective corners. To deter such a trajectory, de-policing should be regarded as a clear leadership issue that must be immediately addressed when encountered. If ignored, the negative effects of such nonintervention start slowly, even imperceptibly, then seem to appear all at once. 

At times, discipline will be needed to ensure that officers live up to the ideals of the organization and the informal contract the police have with the public to serve and protect. The agency should expect no less of officers as they go about their duties, nor should officers expect less of themselves.

As noted in a March 2023 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin article by the authors titled “Intertwining Ethics and Confidence to Sustain Trust,” police actions, including de-policing, should be examined regarding “the degree to which the content and outcome of police actions square with an agency’s vision, mission, and guiding principles. No department can or will always register perfect conformity. While all will fall short of the ideal, a clear-eyed assessment of what an agency stands for and how it delivers its services is both necessary and revealing.”¹⁶

Elevating and maintaining the importance of ethical conduct is what agencies must strive for. Achieving this requires constant work for ethical behavior to become part of a self-perpetuating culture that embraces it.

Conclusion

This article began by examining the myths and realities associated with de-policing. The emergence of such allegations of police misconduct are not surprising given:

• A deterioration in public confidence and trust in government generally and policing specifically
• Social and traditional media access to many more live videos of police-community interactions
• Staffing issues related to demographic and hiring curves and ongoing challenges related to misunderstandings of policing
• A reduction in the ability of police officers to respond to calls due to reduced staffing and possible increased demand

Taking all this into account, the evidence examined yields little concrete support for the conclusion that de-policing is a prevalent and widespread phenomenon. Yet, recurrent anecdotal evidence suggests that it is also not a myth.

More succinctly, at the heart of such debate is skepticism as to whether police exercise discretion in the name of public good or disengage to avoid scrutiny and potential negative publicity—fair or unfair—in case events raise controversy. However, little empirical evidence was found for widespread de-policing to avoid such negative attention. Consequently, notions that extensive unethical avoidance of police duties occurs were found lacking as well.

Anecdotal claims of widespread de-policing will likely continue, which will variously portray officers as shirking their duties or, as carefully and timidly as possible, navigating a political environment of controversy and political acrimony. Where fear-based accusations of de-policing as neglect of duty are noted and substantiated, it falls to agencies to take appropriate, procedurally guided action to discourage such conduct through disciplinary processes.

Contemporary American law enforcement agencies traditionally pride themselves on standing up to popular political pressure and refusing to be intimidated into choosing the “convenient wrong” decision over the “more challenging right and proper” one. This does not mean that they always get things right. It does mean that, in partnership with ethically grounded leaders, they must strive to do the right thing by their oath of office and core ethical guiding principles.

The conclusion offered here is that limited quantitative evidence exists suggesting the occurrence of widespread disengagement of police responsibilities despite persisting qualitative and anecdotal debates. Nonetheless, when and if such behavior is uncovered and confirmed, it should be treated like any police performance matter that contradicts the guiding principles and ethics of the agency.

In summary, whether de-policing exists can be debated by academics and others, but what is more germane is: What behavior does the public expect law enforcement to engage in, and are police personnel engaging in these matters appropriately? Identifying and building consensus about what communities expect and what police agencies can deliver while maintaining and elevating the importance of ethical conduct is the goal. Achieving these ends requires constant diligence.

Reaching this objective is a challenging path that can result in numerous positive returns. Focusing on cultivating ethical agency cultures can:

• Lift and restore the police profession
• Assist it in recovering from recent declines in public trust
• Attract more and better applicants
• Foster stronger support from elected officials
• Encourage changes that do not detract from police morale
• Convince communities to support and embrace the overall mission of effective policing and public safety for the service and protection of all