全球智库信息集成服务系统

• Community member interviews indicated that subgroups and problematic behavior associated with them have negatively impacted perceptions of LASD. About 47 percent of LASD survey respondents agreed.
• Combined with the interview findings, the LASD survey findings suggest that, for some parts of LASD, subgroups exhibit features of being a normalized part of the organization.
• About 40 percent of LASD survey respondents agreed that subgroups are more common at high-crime stations (55 percent of those who had been invited to join a subgroup agreed).
• About 40 percent of respondents identified the following criteria for being invited to join a subgroup: being known as a hard worker (91 percent of those who had been invited to join a subgroup), working in challenging environments (86 percent of those invited), socializing with subgroup members (51 percent of those invited), and engaging in specific behaviors, such as being aggressive about making arrests (47 percent of those invited).
• According to 30 percent of respondents and 42 percent of those who were invited to join a subgroup, the groups have codes of conduct and expect members to perform to certain standards. Among these respondents, subgroups are perceived to be a motivational tool.
• Around 15 percent of those who had been invited to join a subgroup agreed that being invited to join a subgroup was associated with behavior that violates LASD policy, while 22 percent of invitees agreed that willingness to look the other way when others engage in improper or unethical behavior was a criterion for being invited.

RAND Corporation researchers studied deputy subgroups within the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (LASD) to help LASD and the county learn more about how these subgroups are formed, why they exist, and what actions might be taken if it is determined that these subgroups have a significant impact on LASD's mission.

The research team formulated questions for an anonymous survey, confidential interviews, and focus groups with a range of LASD personnel and community stakeholders. The team collected interview and focus group data from 141 community leaders and members; interview data from 57 individuals, including members of LASD and other county stakeholders; and responses from 1,608 LASD survey participants.

Sixteen percent of LASD survey respondents acknowledged that they had been asked to join a subgroup, with one-quarter of those being invited in the last five years (the survey did not directly ask whether participants belonged to a subgroup). Personnel had a wide array of views on the structure, function, risks, and value of the subgroups, but many recognized that the potential risks outweighed any functional value or other purported benefits.

This matter negatively impacts community trust, and community members wanted to see that LASD was taking the matter seriously. Deputies expressed mixed opinions as to what actions they felt the department should take. Thirty-seven percent of respondents agreed that subgroups should be prohibited. These results suggest that this subject is divisive within LASD and that efforts for such change could be met with some resistance.

• Chapter One

  Introduction

• Chapter Two

  Prior Reports and Media Coverage of LASD Subgroups

• Chapter Three

  Relevant Research

• Chapter Four

  Methods

• Chapter Five

  Community Perspectives

• Chapter Six

  LASD Organizational Context

• Chapter Seven

  LASD Views on Subgroups

• Chapter Eight

  Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department Survey Results

• Chapter Nine

  Summary of Key Findings and Limitations

• Chapter Ten

  Recommendations

• Chapter Eleven

  Conclusion

• Appendix A

  Detailed Methods

• Appendix B

  Survey Instrument

• Appendix C

  LASD Interview Protocol

• Appendix D

  Community Interview Protocol and Focus Group Guide