Beyond Enforcement Welcomeness, Local Law Enforcement, and Immigrants (pages 433–442).pdf

Beyond Enforcement: Welcomeness, Local Law Enforcement, and Immigrants

Abstract: Studies of local law enforcement actions toward immigrants show that while some cities engage in

Linda M. Williams is assistant professor

enforcement, many others do not. Th in the School of Public Affairs at Arizona e extent and determinants of enforcement have been assessed, but these studies

State University. Her research interests

have not evaluated the full range of practices, including welcoming practices, toward immigrants. Th is article

include administrative law, environmental

introduces the concept of “welcomeness,” develops a framework for measuring it, and, using a nationwide survey

policy, and immigration policy, including the

of local police departments, examines how widely departments are welcoming (or unwelcoming) to immigrants. effects of climate change on the mitigation

and adaption policies of local and state

Th e data show that many police departments have consciously and deliberately developed practices intended to

governments, comparative immigration and

foster positive relationships between the police and immigrants and to encourage immigrants to call the police

immigrant policies, and the process through

for assistance. which immigrant policies are carried out by

local bureaucratic agencies. E-mail: linda.m.williams@asu.edu

Practitioner Points

• Welcomeness encompasses a range of practices toward immigrants that are often intentionally created, thoughtfully implemented, and found in a variety of communities. • Th e dimensions of welcomeness provide a framework for police departments to assess their practices and provide a model for police departments that want to engage positively with immigrants. • Welcoming practices may improve interactions between police oﬃ cers and immigrants and may improve immigrants’ perceptions of local law enforcement. • Welcoming police departments often have a deeper commitment to community policing.

tion and the extent to which agencies assist immigrants in integrating into the community vary L In the United States, the integration of immigrants considerably. For example, some local police depart-

ocal government agencies frequently interact

veriﬁ cation or no policy regarding undocumented

with immigrants. Th e nature of that interac-

immigrants in their community (Lewis et al. 2013).

is left largely to state and local governments, whereas

ments engage in immigration-law enforcement by

in many other countries, integration is addressed by

targeting undocumented immigrants, garnering

the national government (Bloemraad 2006; Varsanyi

much publicity and controversy. Other police depart- 2008). Th us, when a locality becomes a destination ments have practices prohibiting or discouraging

for immigrants, any public policy response is a local

oﬃ cers from verifying immigration status, and many

one. Local schools teach immigrant children; local

departments have no oﬃ cial stance. Some depart-

health departments try to address their medical needs;

ments proactively reach out to immigrants in their

and local police departments need to build trust and

community without regard to immigration status in

cooperation so as to solve crimes. Local administrative

order to build trust.

agencies such as the police may respond more positively toward immigrants than elected oﬃ cials (Lewis

Enforcement of federal immigration laws has

and Ramakrishnan 2007), and local public agencies

devolved in many ways to local police departments

often help immigrants integrate into the community

(Huntington 2008; Spiro 1997). Extensive research

(Jones-Correa 2008; Marrow 2009).

has explored the nature and possible determinants of these enforcement actions (Decker et al. 2009;

Th ese two tendencies—devolution of immigra-

Lewis et al. 2013). While pressure for enforcement

tion enforcement and historically local processes of

has grown, many police departments do not engage

immigrant integration into society—are profoundly in

in federal immigration-law enforcement (Decker

tension. Local agency oﬃ cials increasingly feel under

Public Administration Review ,

et al. 2009; Lewis et al. 2013). A majority of police Vol. 75, Iss. 3, pp. 433–442. © 2015 by considerable political pressure to enforce immigration departments have either policies forbidding status The American Society for Public Administration. law. Th ey also face the practical and normative issue of

DOI: 10.1111/puar.12335.

Beyond Enforcement: Welcomeness, Local Law Enforcement, and Immigrants 433

434 Public Administration Review • May | June 2015

Th is article describes the degree to which local police departments have adopted “welcoming” practices. It begins with a description of the concept of “welcomeness,” which encompasses a range of practices toward immigrants, and the dimensions of welcomeness. Th e range of welcoming practices is then described, followed by a discussion of the implications of this research and potential future research.

The Concept of Welcomeness and How It Matters

Local agencies have adopted a wide range of practices to welcome and integrate immigrants. Welcoming practices are those that treat

immigrants as equal members of the community regardless of whether they speak English, are U.S. citizens, or are authorized to be in the country. But welcoming practices require more than equal treatment, narrowly under- stood. Welcoming practices aﬃ rmatively strive to make public services accessible to immigrants given their particular competen- cies and circumstances. For example, services

must be available in the native language of immigrants who do not speak English. Immigrants often distrust police, so law enforcement needs to engage in eﬀ orts to build trust (Busch, Latif, and Levy 2005; Th eodore 2013). Welcoming practices cover several dimensions aimed at facilitating accessibility by immigrant groups. Th ese dimensions will be described later. Th e key point is that welcoming practices are in stark contrast to immigration enforcement, but they go considerably beyond a mere absence of hostility. Welcoming policies are often intentionally created, thoughtfully implemented, and found in a variety of communities. Relative welcomeness is the degree to which administrative practices vary from excluding immigrants to helping integrate immigrants into the community.

Th e concept of welcomeness builds on research showing that the administration of law and policy toward subordinate and marginal- ized groups varies considerably, and these variations shape peoples’ understanding of their place in society (Soss 1999). For example, Soss found that low-income recipients of Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) experienced considerably diﬀ erent administrative processes in these two programs: whereas SSDI was perceived as fair, rational, and rule governed, AFDC was perceived as unfair, opaque, and arbitrary (Soss 1999). Recipients of SSDI learned the habits and ways of thinking of full citizens: they are respected members of society, who may call upon, and inﬂ uence, government. Recipients of AFDC, by contrast, felt reinforced in their perceptions of their own marginality and government’s lack of responsiveness.

Such studies show that individuals who have positive experiences with public programs and bureaucracies that are perceived as fair, rational, and rule governed learn the habits and ways of thinking of full citizens: government is reasonable and responsive, and they are respected members of society who may call upon, and inﬂ uence, government. Th ose who experience agencies that they perceive as unfair, opaque, and arbitrary feel reinforced in their perceptions of their own marginality and government’s lack of responsiveness. Soss’s research has been extended to policing and police stops: while police stops that are reasonably based on a person’s actions and are fairly administered contribute to trust in the police, police stops

ensuring that all community members are served, especially as a lack of service may exacerbate social problems such as crime, malnutri- tion, and disease.

Many police departments and associations have voiced opposition to anti-immigrant state and local laws. Although fi ve states have adopted Arizona S.B. 1070–style legislation requiring local police offi cers to check immigration status during stops and arrests, similar legislation failed in 31 states. State police associations, including the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police, the California Police Chiefs Association, the Dallas Police Association, and the Major Cities Chiefs Association, have opposed state-level enforcement initiatives. Police offi cers in such cities as Chicago, Los Angeles, Glenwood Springs (Colorado), and Austin (Texas) have opposed legislation requiring local law enforcement to inquire about immigration status (National Immigration Law Center 2013). Opposition frequently focuses on the potential loss of trust between police and immigrants, which detracts from public safety eff orts.

Many police departments have taken steps to become more responsive to residents by adopting community policing as an alterna- tive policing structure (Skogan 2006; Skolnick and Bayley 1988). Community policing is a cluster of ideas and practices adopted by many departments to build trust and conﬁ dence between police and residents by increasing communication and cooperation (Skogan 2006). It emphasizes forming collaborative partnerships among law enforcement, residents, and community organizations to develop solutions to problems and increase trust in police. Th e police organization also changes to support these partnerships. Changes occur in management, including policies and strategic planning, the organizational structure, and personnel. Adoption of community policing varies. Some departments implement some aspects, while others develop a formal written plan and restructure the organization to fully integrate these strategies and structures. Community policing has become the dominant model for police work (Oliver and Bartgis 1998; Skogan 2006). To the extent that these initiatives include outreach to immigrant communities, police agencies that accept the norms of community policing may be more welcoming to immigrants.

Scholars have not fully investigated how local agencies navigate these crosscutting pressures. Doing so requires examination of the full range of local practices toward immigrants on a national level.

I build on research showing that local bureaucratic agencies are facilitating immigrants’ socioeconomic and political integration (Jones- Correa 2008; Marrow 2009). While the existing research focuses on specifi c geographic areas, this article examines local police departments’ internal practices toward immigrants. Internal practices are defi ned as the rules, operating procedures, and formal and informal norms the department chooses to follow. A police department may choose to reach out to immigrants, collaborate with other organizations, or recruit bilingual offi cers. External factors, such as city ordinances and state laws, may aff ect the actions of police offi cers and immigrants’ perceptions of the police department, but they are outside the department’s control.

Welcoming practices aﬃ rmatively strive to make public services accessible to immigrants given their particular competen-

cies and circumstances.

that are arbitrary, intrusive, and not reasonably justiﬁ ed contribute viewed with suspicion, and may perceive public employees as being to distrust of the police (Epp, Maynard-Moody, and Haider-Markel

disrespectful or hostile. Agencies with practices encouraging or 2014). Th us, immigrants who experience administrative processes

facilitating positive interactions between employees and immigrants that are perceived as fair and rational would be expected to have dif- may be perceived as more welcoming than those with practices ferent perceptions of public organizations.

inhibiting positive interactions or promoting negative interactions. Policies, practices, and interactions with public employees that show

Th ese studies have important implications respect and acceptance of immigrants as equal for local policies toward immigrants. Local

members of the community may enhance administrative policies toward immigrants

Variations in the degree of

immigrants’ perceptions of individual public may vary, just as the structure and imple-

welcomeness of local agencies

agencies and encourage integration. Th toward immigrants may aﬀ ect ese

mentation of social welfare policies varies. expectations regarding immigrants’ percep- Variations in the degree of welcomeness of

immigrants’ perceptions of

tions are beyond the scope of this article; it local agencies toward immigrants may aﬀ ect

focuses on how, and how much, local admin- immigrants’ perceptions of government and

government and their place in

istrative policies vary from unwelcomeness to their place in society, just as variations in

society.

welcomeness toward immigrants. social welfare administration have been shown to do. Th e eﬀ ects of local policies on immigrants’ perceptions are

Data Sources

beyond the scope of this article, which focuses on the preliminary Th e key measures of local police department practices are derived matter: how, and how much, local administrative policies toward

from an original survey of police executives in cities with a mini- immigrants vary from unwelcoming to welcoming.

mum population of 10,000 and a foreign-born population of at least 5 percent. Th e survey was distributed in June 2012, and all

Th e term “welcomeness” is drawn from research on homeless correspondence was based on Dillman’s (2007) tailored design peoples’ access to health care, which employs narratives to under-

method for mixed-mode surveys. Based on the 2006–10 American stand how homeless individuals perceived their treatment at health

Community Survey (ACS), 2,150 police departments met the care facilities and how their perceptions aﬀ ected their likelihood of

population criteria. A small number of communities were omit- returning to that agency for assistance (Wen, Hudak, and Hwang

ted because they lacked their own police department, typically 2007). Some practices express welcomeness. Drawing on the work

ce. Valid e-mail of philosopher Martin Buber (1970), Wen and colleagues observe

because they contracted with the county sheriﬀ ’s oﬃ

addresses were obtained for 1,503 chiefs. Th ese chiefs received that interactions between social welfare workers and homeless

an invitation to complete the survey online and were promised individuals can be divided into two distinct types: “I-It” interactions anonymity of their responses. After sending three follow-up e-mails, and “I-You” interactions. In “I-It” interactions, the social welfare

useable surveys were received from 284 departments, for a response oﬃ cial treats the homeless individual as a thing or object with no

rate of 19 percent. 1 Fifteen responses were from cities with a personality or agency of his or her own and with no standing as an

foreign-born population of 3 percent to 4.9 percent but located in equal member of society. In “I-You” interactions, the social welfare

metropolitan areas with large immigrant populations. Table 1 shows oﬃ cial treats the homeless individual as a person, with personality,

the percentage of cities meeting the initial selection criteria and the agency and standing as an equal member of society. Wen, Hudak,

percentage of respondents by population, as well as the level of wel- and Hwang observe that those who experienced the “I-It” interac-

comeness by population. Th e cities reﬂ ect the changing settlement tion felt treated rudely, ignored, or overlooked. In many cases, they

patterns of immigrants, with 70 percent of both respondents and described unfair treatment, power imbalances, and a feeling that

cities in the original sample having fewer than 50,000 residents. they were not viewed as human beings. Individuals who experienced the “I-You” interactions felt as if their concerns and needs were

Th e author also conducted a total of 18 in-depth interviews with heard and taken seriously and that they were viewed as a person.

police commanders and frontline oﬃ cers in nine communities. Four Individuals who experienced unwelcomeness indicated they were

interviews were conducted in two states prior to constructing the less likely to seek assistance from the agency in the future than those survey in order to design the survey instrument, reﬁ ne the dimen- who encountered welcomeness.

sions, and enrich understanding of these dimensions in practice. Following the survey, 14 interviews were conducted in police

Th ese observations closely parallel Tom Tyler’s theory of proce- departments representing the spectrum of welcomeness and located dural justice, which observes that people place a high value on being treated respectfully by people in authority (Tyler 1990; Tyler,

Table 1 Distribution of Survey Population and Responding Cities by Population

Degoey, and Smith 1996). Tyler’s research suggests that being

Population Size by Degree of

treated respectfully is especially important to members of groups

City by Population

Welcomeness

that have historically or commonly been viewed as outsiders or of

Total

lower status. Th ese individuals are often unsure whether they are

Population

Sample Respondents Unwelcoming Neutral Welcoming

accepted as full members of the community. Being treated respect-

fully sends the message that they are accepted. 10%

Immigrants are in some ways analogous to the homeless, as both are

often viewed as marginal members of society. Immigrants may not

understand American social norms or speak English ﬂ uently, may be 29%

Beyond Enforcement: Welcomeness, Local Law Enforcement, and Immigrants 435 Beyond Enforcement: Welcomeness, Local Law Enforcement, and Immigrants 435

immigrant interactions and may aﬀ ect immigrants’ awareness of law the chief ’s recommendations. Th e appendix provides additional

enforcement programs (DOJ 2008b; Skogan et al. 2002). Almost information on the departments selected.

43 percent of non-native English speakers report speaking English less than “very well” (ACS 2011). Providing written information

Dimensions of Welcomeness

and online information in languages other than English and recruit- Welcomeness has several dimensions and encompasses the formal

ing and hiring bilingual oﬃ cers are recommended (DOJ 2008b). practices of the organization and how frontline staﬀ act and speak toward immigrants. Th e dimensions are based on scholarly research

Th is dimension is composed of four measures. Th e ﬁ rst is the avail- and the practices identiﬁ ed by practitioners and immigrant advocates

ability of in-language written materials, including pamphlets and and are closely related to some program elements of community

ﬂ yers. Of the departments having written materials, 79 percent policing (Mitnik, Halpern-Finnerty, and Vidal 2008; Skogan et al.

provided them in languages other than English. Th e second measure 2002; U.S. Department of Justice 2008b). Recommendations for

reﬂ ects the increasing use and importance of e-government. Does enhancing police interactions with immigrant populations empha-

the department provide information on its website in a language size the need to promote outreach to immigrant populations, recruit

other than English or a link to a translation website? Of the oﬃ cers from immigrant populations so as to reduce language barriers, responding departments, 97 percent had a website, and 23 percent collaborate with organizations and agencies that assist immigrants,

provided some type of in-language support on it. 2 Th e third measure and provide practical training to oﬃ cers to improve interactions

represents eff orts to recruit and hire bilingual offi cers by off ering with immigrants (DOJ 2008b). Immigration law enforcement

a bilingual pay diff erential or providing extra points to bilingual eff orts negatively aff ect immigrants’ perceptions of and trust in law

candidates in the hiring process. Twenty-seven percent of depart- enforcement (DOJ 2008b). Community policing emphasizes key

ments off ered bilingual pay diff erentials, and 28 percent off ered professional norms favoring equal treatment of all in the community.

extra points for certiﬁ ed bilingual oﬃ cers. 3 Th e fourth measure is Th ree key aspects of community policing—community engagement,

the substantive outcomes of hiring and recruiting, speciﬁ cally, the organizational change, and a problem-solving orientation—provide a

percentage of bilingual sworn oﬃ cers in the department. Th e aver- foundation for welcoming practices in police departments.

age percentage of bilingual oﬃ cers was 8.7 percent, with a range from 0 percent to 90 percent. 4

Five dimensions of “welcoming” practices were identiﬁ ed. Welcomeness measures the extent to which a department (1) makes

Dimension 2: Community Outreach

its policies and processes available in the native languages of local Community outreach is a best practice to build trust and relation- immigrant populations, (2) has outreach programs to immigrant

ships and obtain feedback (DOJ 2008; Skogan et al. 2002). Many communities, (3) cooperates with other local agencies and organi-

police departments have outreach programs to immigrant popula- zations that support or assist immigrants, (4) provides training to

tions. For example, the Chicago Police Department has attempted oﬃ cers to improve interactions with immigrants, and (5) enforces

to engage Latinos in its community policing program (Skogan et al. federal immigration laws. Th e premise of my analysis is that the

2002). Interviews conducted with police departments found a wide more a department does in each of these areas, except enforcement

range of outreach eﬀ orts.

of federal immigration laws, the more welcoming it is toward immigrants. Th e ﬁ ve dimensions are summarized in table 2.

Accordingly, the second dimension of welcomeness is the extent to which the department reaches out to immigrants in the com-

Dimension 1: In-Language Resources

munity in both symbolic and substantive ways. “Symbolic” Th e ﬁ rst dimension is in-language resources (meaning resources in

eﬀ orts involve public relations communications conducted in the native languages of immigrants). Th is dimension recognizes the

the language of immigrant groups in the community. While the need for departments to communicate eﬀ ectively with and provide

symbolic value of communicating in immigrants’ home language information to immigrants. Information is important to members of may send an important message of inclusion or demonstrate inter- the community, perhaps more so for those members who are new to est in the needs and issues of immigrants, without more vigorous the country, its culture, and its customs (Caidi, Allard, and Quirke

steps, it can be seen as little more than one-way communication. By contrast, “substantive” outreach eﬀ orts involve some type of

Table 2 Dimension and Measures of Welcomeness of Law Enforcement

eﬀ ort to “hear” and absorb the lessons of what one hears as well as

Dimensions of Welcomeness Measures

to simply speak: to use information from immigrants to formulate

In-language resources • In-language pamphlets, brochures, fl yers

policies or practices.

• Web pages in a language other than English or a

link to a translation website • Bilingual pay/recruitment

By these deﬁ nitions, a relatively small but signiﬁ cant percentage of

• Percentage of bilingual police offi cers

departments reported engaging in symbolic and substantive out-

Community outreach • Symbolic outreach to immigrants

reach. Regarding symbolic outreach, 16 percent reported using non-

programs • Substantive outreach programs to immigrants

English media at least six times per year, while in the past year, 13

Collaboration with other • Collaboration with law enforcement agencies agencies

percent of departments reported oﬃ cers had participated in “meet

• Collaboration with non–law enforcement organi-

zations and agencies

and greets” with immigrants in the community, and 22 percent

Staff training • Training to improve interactions with immigrants

reported meeting with immigrant leaders. Regarding substantive

Enforcement efforts • Status verifi cation policies

outreach, 29 percent of departments incorporated immigrants’ feed-

• Participation in 287(g) ICE program

back into the development of neighborhood or community policing

436 Public Administration Review • May | June 2015 436 Public Administration Review • May | June 2015

grants. Th e measure is based on a survey question asking, “Have sworn oﬃ cers received training or guidance to work with immi-

Dimension 3: Collaboration

grants?” Seventy-ﬁ ve percent of respondents indicated that oﬃ cers Developing partnerships with other community organizations that

had received training.

interact with and serve immigrants can help police departments, as the

organizations can share information and provide information to immi- Dimension 5: Enforcement

grants (Ortiz, Sugie, and Miller 2008; Skogan et al. 2002). Accordingly, Prior studies show that engagement in immigration-law enforce- the third dimension of welcomeness is collaboration with other agen-

ment varies considerably among local police departments, from cies and organizations to serve immigrants or to enforce immigration

sanctuary cities to those that aggressively enforce federal immigra- law. Police departments may collaborate with other law enforcement

tion laws (Decker et al. 2009; Lewis et al. 2013). Local enforcement agencies and with other agencies in diﬀ erent ways and with diﬀ erent

of immigration law has negatively aﬀ ected relationships between motivations (Mitnik, Halpern-Finnerty, and Vidal 2008).

Latinos, regardless of their immigration status, and police (Th eodore 2013). Th erefore, the dependent variable, welcomeness, incorpo-

Collaboration can have negative and positive eﬀ ects on wel- rates enforcement. Common enforcement policies are coded on a comeness, and the two measures of collaboration reﬂ ect this.

continuum from the most unwelcoming to the most welcoming. Participation in a 287(g) agreement with the federal Immigration

At the unwelcoming end are policies requiring oﬃ cers to conﬁ rm a and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency, in which the police

person’s immigration status upon any lawful contact and suspicion department is delegated authority for enforcement of federal

that the person may be an undocumented immigrant (8 percent of immigration laws, is a form of collaboration, but it is unwelcom-

departments). A somewhat more welcoming policy, but still toward ing because it negatively aﬀ ects immigrants’ perceptions of police

the “unwelcoming” end of the continuum, are policies allowing (Th eodore 2013). By contrast, collaboration with non–law enforce-

oﬃ cers to verify immigration status after arresting an individual ment organizations, such as public school districts, neighborhood

who is suspected of being an undocumented immigrant (20 percent associations, or faith-based organizations, may be a positive element of departments). At the midpoint on this continuum are depart- of welcomeness. Interviews indicate that the programs growing

ments having no written policy on these matters (70 percent of out of these interactions are generally aimed at helping immigrants

departments). Finally, on the welcoming end of the continuum are adjust to American society, educating immigrants on the avail-

policies prohibiting oﬃ cers from checking the immigration status of able community resources, and obtaining immigrants’ feedback on

an individual (3 percent of departments).

improving service. One chief explained that he met with a community of immigrants to discuss domestic violence to help them adjust

A General Index of Welcomeness

to U.S. laws. He stated, “they come from a diff erent culture and a Th e fi ve dimensions were combined into a single additive index of country with diff erent laws. We want to help them understand the

the degree of welcomeness of police departments. Because some laws here to reduce conﬂ ict and help them understand expectations

survey questions used diﬀ erent scales, Stata’s Alpha command was

used to standardize the components to a common mean before ment in another city was the catalyst for a community-wide eﬀ ort

and laws. It is not about judging, but helping.” 5 Th e police depart-

combining into the additive index (α = .73). Th is index is normally to help immigrants. Th e police chief explained that hunger was an

distributed. Factor analysis conﬁ rmed the dependent variable is tap- issue, so he contacted the local food bank. Th e chief explained, “We

ping a single primary dimension. 8

also determined that we needed a one-stop place where people could

come and get oriented to the services that are available and the food How “Welcoming” and “Unwelcoming” Departments

pantry seemed to be the best place for that. So we organized sort of

Vary on Each Dimension

a welcome wagon. You could go to the food pantry and they could Police departments one standard deviation or more below the mean orient you to the city, available services and what is out there that

are “unwelcoming,” and those one standard deviation or more

above the mean are “welcoming.” Th ose between unwelcoming and laborations with other law enforcement agencies and collaborations

you might not know about.” 6 To reﬂ ect the diﬀ erence between col-

welcoming are “neutral.” Th e diﬀ erences between welcoming and with other types of agencies and organizations, this dimension is

unwelcoming police departments are remarkable (see table 3). Th is composed of two separate measures: the extent of collaboration with section illustrates the diﬀ erences between welcoming and unwel- other law enforcement agencies and the extent of collaboration with

coming departments on the dimensions of welcomeness and in their non–law enforcement organizations.

commitment to community policing.

Dimension 4: Staff Training

As noted previously, community policing is a professional norm Police oﬃ cers may struggle to communicate eﬀ ectively with

adopted by many police departments and is probably consistent immigrants because of signiﬁ cant language or cultural diﬀ erences

with welcomeness. Community policing plans are common, but (DOJ 2008b). For example, in all interviews, police oﬃ cers stated

the level of commitment varies. Some police departments say they that they encountered diﬀ erences in cultural expectations regarding

follow community policing, but their actions and commitment nonverbal behavior, such as eye contact, as well as verbal commu-

to community responsiveness are largely superﬁ cial and symbolic, nication, such as the expectation in some immigrant communities

while others are committed (Greene 2000; Herbert 2006; Skogan that oﬃ cers should directly address only the head of the family. 7 2006). Th e departments in this study reﬂ ect this range of commit-

Th ese challenges may be addressed by police training (DOJ 2008b). ment, with 89 percent of departments indicating they had a com- Accordingly, the fourth dimension of welcomeness is whether the

munity policing plan. Of those, 42 percent had a formal written

Beyond Enforcement: Welcomeness, Local Law Enforcement, and Immigrants 437

Table 3 Summary of Results Unwelcoming Neutral Welcoming

Results for in-language materials, website, training, and pay differential

Provides in-language materials

100% Website has in-language information

Offers pay differential for bilingual offi cers

Percentage of sworn offi cers certifi ed bilingual 0%

Symbolic outreach (“speak”)

Used non-English media (e.g., newspapers or television)

90% Attended or participated in meetings or “meet and greets” with immigrants

94% Spoke with immigrant community leaders about community issues or needs

94% Participated in events to reach out to immigrants

94% Met with staff at agencies that serve immigrants

Substantive outreach (“hear”)

Included feedback from immigrant leaders or groups in the development of policing strategies

72% Recruited immigrant leaders or immigrants to participate in citizen police academies

82% Assigned patrol offi cers to specifi c geographic areas/beats in which immigrants live

76% Formed partnerships with immigrant leaders or immigrant groups through written agreements

Collaboration efforts with non–law enforcement agencies

No reported collaborative activity

3% Collaborated with 5+ agencies in last year

87% Average frequency of collaborative activities

Fewer than 1x per month Once per month More than 1x per week

Staff training

Training provided to staff to improve interactions

Immigration status enforcement policies

Verifi ed when the offi cer has any lawful contact with a person and has a reasonable suspicion

28% the person is unlawfully present in the U.S. Once someone has been arrested and booked in jail

25% No policy

44% Status is never verifi ed

plan, and 47 percent had an informal, not written plan. To measure departments had none. In 55 percent of the welcoming depart- the extent of implementation of community policing ideals,

ments, 11 percent or more of the oﬃ cers were bilingual, while only respondents were asked whether the department had engaged in 10

4 percent of unwelcoming departments met this level. Leaders in common components of community policing within the previous

welcoming departments frequently mentioned the need for bilingual

12 months. 9 On average, unwelcoming departments engaged in 4.7 oﬃ cers as a priority. As one police chief explained, “We have 260 of these activities, neutral departments engaged in 6.6 activities, and sworn oﬃ cers in our department and I would say 10 percent are welcoming departments engaged in 8.1 activities. Unwelcoming

Hispanics and bilingual. By the time I leave here I would love to get departments may have not fully accepted the dominant professional

it close to 20 percent.” 10 Th is department actively recruited bilingual norm of community policing, while welcoming departments are

offi cers and off ered a pay diff erential to applicants. more fully engaged in community policing. Immigration-law enforcement varies considerably. Departments were Th e following analysis describes and illustrates the range of vari-

asked which characterization best described their policy on check- ations in welcoming practices. Th e ﬁ rst dimension is in-language

ing the immigration status of people thought to be undocumented resources. While 32 percent of unwelcoming departments provided

immigrants. Th e policies were arrayed from the most enforcement- written materials in a language other than English, 100 percent of

oriented at the top of the table to the least enforcement-oriented at welcoming departments did so. While no unwelcoming department

the bottom. Few departments (8 percent) reported they had the most provided in-language information on its website, 61 percent of wel-

enforcement-oriented policy, which is to encourage offi cers to verify coming departments did so. Similar diff erences can be seen in train- immigration status whenever the offi cer has any lawful contact with ing, with 29 percent of unwelcoming departments having provided

a person and the offi cer has a reasonable suspicion the person is an training to assist offi cers interact more eff ectively with immigrants

undocumented immigrant. Beyond this extreme, large diﬀ erences and 100 percent of welcoming departments having done so. While

emerge between welcoming and unwelcoming departments. Ninety-

6 percent of unwelcoming departments off ered a pay diff erential for one percent of unwelcoming departments but only 44 percent of bilingual offi cers, 36 percent of welcoming departments off ered this

welcoming departments had no written policy regarding when to incentive. Th ese diﬀ erences are substantial and meaningful.

verify status, leaving the choice of whether to ask for documentation entirely to the discretion of the oﬃ cer.

Departments reported substantial diﬀ erences in the percentage of bilingual oﬃ cers. While 65 percent of the unwelcoming depart-

Most police oﬃ cers and chiefs interviewed did not support greater ments had no bilingual oﬃ cers, only 3 percent of welcoming

involvement by their departments in federal immigration-law

438 Public Administration Review • May | June 2015 438 Public Administration Review • May | June 2015

that the department uses the information to enforcement. Leaders in neutral and welcom-

Most police oﬃ cers and chiefs

formulate policies or practices. Departments ing departments indicated that the general

interviewed did not support

also reach out to immigrants in more substan- public and elected oﬃ cials were not sup-

greater involvement by their

departments in federal immigra- tive ways, such as incorporating immigrants’

portive of increased enforcement. A police feedback in the development of community chief in a neutral department in an ideologi-

tion-law enforcement.

policing strategies and recruiting immigrants cally conservative state stated, “I would say

to participate in citizen police academies. that probably most of the community is not even concerned about

Th ese actions represent substantive attempts not only to communi- it [undocumented immigrants]. Th ey [residents] are just kind of

cate with immigrants but also to integrate their needs and concerns oblivious to the whole thing.” 11 into departmental practices. Again, welcoming and unwelcoming departments act in substantially diﬀ erent ways. While 82 percent

Another police chief in a neutral department in an ideologically liberal of welcoming departments recruited immigrants to participate in state strongly objected to police leaders who advocated more local

citizen police academies, only 5 percent of unwelcoming depart- enforcement of immigration law. He favored simply enforcing the exist- ments did so. Seventy-two percent of welcoming departments used ing law. He said, “If the U.S. government had a policy that required

feedback from immigrant leaders and groups in the development me as a local department to enforce federal law, then that is our job

of policing strategies, while 3 percent of unwelcoming departments until it is changed by the court system. It is not for me to say I agree or

reported doing so. Welcoming departments reached out to immi-

I disagree with those policies. And I think you have a lot of examples, grants in meaningful, frequent, and varied ways, while unwelcoming especially from sheriﬀ ’s departments, where they are very vocal and one- departments did little to proactively engage with immigrants. sided in their view [about immigrants]. Th ey are basically stating they

are going to violate the law and not fulfi ll their mission.” 12 Interviews with law enforcement leaders and frontline offi cers also illustrate these diff erences in community outreach programs.

Leaders in some unwelcoming departments reported that their com- While unwelcoming departments rarely proactively reached out to munities favored stricter local enforcement of immigration laws. In

immigrants, welcoming departments actively sought to engage with one such department, the chief indicated that his community would immigrants. Oﬃ cers’ and leaders’ ongoing responsibilities routinely support local immigration-law enforcement. He reported that the

included the following: 15

city council has asked his opinion about signing a 287(g) agreement with ICE. Although he acknowledged that local residents probably

• Meeting with recent immigrants who were attending semi- would favor such an arrangement, he opposed it: “What we decided

nars at a local immigrant support organization and what our council back then agreed was that we were not going

• Creating programs (including Trunk or Treat programs at to be involved in it. Th at is something the federal government is

Halloween and bike fairs and safety programs) to enhance responsible for.” 13 Still, even in some unwelcoming departments,

the relationship between immigrants and police there was little support for local enforcement of immigration law.

• Conducting community programs in neighborhoods with Th us, a sworn oﬃ cer in an unwelcoming department stated that his

large immigrant populations

community would not accept stricter enforcement of immigration law. “I don’t think it would be acceptable to most residents. I don’t

Welcoming and unwelcoming departments collaborate diﬀ erently. think they [residents] would tolerate punitive action toward immi-

Collaboration is measured based on the frequency of contacts and grants, even undocumented ones. I don’t think oﬃ cers want to do it the number of partners. Frequent interaction with multiple law either.” 14 Interviews suggest popular support

enforcement agencies is deﬁ ned as more for increased local involvement in immigra-

unwelcoming, while frequent interaction tion enforcement exists in some communities,

Frequent interaction with mul- with multiple organizations not engaged

but many departments have declined to direct

in law enforcement is more welcoming. their oﬃ cers to engage in enforcement, and

tiple law enforcement agencies

Collaboration with other law enforcement many have formally directed them not to.

is deﬁ ned as more unwelcom-

ing, while frequent interaction

agencies is common among welcoming and

with multiple organizations not unwelcoming departments, typically through

Vigorous outreach to build trust with

the Secure Communities Program, a federal immigrants is another thing. Welcoming and

engaged in law enforcement is

program in which ﬁ ngerprints are shared with unwelcoming police departments engage

more welcoming.

the Federal Bureau of Investigation and ICE in outreach in substantially diﬀ erent ways.

when an individual is booked into a local jail. Welcoming departments engage in symbolic outreach eﬀ orts at a substantially higher rate than either unwelcoming or neutral depart- Collaboration with non–law enforcement agencies is diﬀ erent. ments. While 90 percent of welcoming departments used non-

Unwelcoming departments collaborate less frequently with non– English media in the previous year, only 7 percent of unwelcoming

law enforcement agencies and, when they do collaborate, they do departments did so. Similar diﬀ erences are found in other categories so with fewer partners than welcoming departments. Th e survey of symbolic outreach eﬀ orts.

listed 15 non–law enforcement agencies and asked respondents how frequently they had collaborated with each on issues and concerns

While symbolic outreach eﬀ orts may represent attempts to obtain of immigrants during the past year. 16 Forty-two percent of unwel- information or demonstrate interest in the needs and issues of

coming departments collaborated with no other agency, while only

Beyond Enforcement: Welcomeness, Local Law Enforcement, and Immigrants 439

3 percent of welcoming agencies reported no collaboration. Eighty- just don’t get them.” 19 Th is department was waiting to be contacted, seven percent of welcoming agencies collaborated with ﬁ ve or more

while welcoming and neutral departments sought out opportunities. agencies, while only 36 percent of unwelcoming agencies reported doing so. Welcoming agencies also collaborate more frequently.

Discussion

On average, unwelcoming departments collaborated less than once Research on law enforcement and immigrants has focused largely on per month, while welcoming departments engaged in collaborative

local enforcement of immigration law. Th at research has observed activity more than once per week.

that a substantial proportion of local police departments engage in some form of immigration-law enforcement, while many others

Interviews with police offi cials illustrate the nature of these dif- eschew enforcement. If this were all we know, it would be reason- ferences. A key diff erence between outreach eff orts and collabora-

able to infer that local police departments are either punitive toward tion eﬀ orts of unwelcoming versus welcoming departments is the

immigrants or, at best, neutral toward them. extent to which the department proactively seeks opportunities. Welcoming departments proactively identify concerns, ways to

Th is research shows that police departments have made intentional reach out to individuals and organizations and actively seek partner

decisions to reach out to immigrants with policies to recruit and organizations. A chief in a welcoming department explained,

hire oﬃ cers with language skills, provide information in languages other than English, and provided training to help oﬃ cers interact

Part of their (frontline oﬃ cers) work expectations is to be eﬀ ectively with immigrants. In addition, many departments are part proactive in terms of building relationships within neighbor-

of collaborative networks to build trust with and improve services to hoods; getting to know neighborhood residents, businesses,

immigrants. Th ese practices are sharply diﬀ erent from immigration- churches, schools, community groups and others. Th ey

law enforcement, and they are something more than merely neutral have to be engaged not only at neighborhood meetings but

toward immigrants. Th ese are welcoming practices. Th ey are deliber- in problem solving initiatives within these neighborhoods.

ately crafted to enhance relationships and build trust between the Sometimes the oﬃ cers drive these initiatives and other times

police department and immigrants. Unwelcoming police depart- they are partnering with the community around them, but

ments look quite diﬀ erent from welcoming ones.

I think that’s very important because what it does is builds unity and the expectation for proactive engagement around

Local agencies engage in activities to help immigrants integrate into problem solving, not just crime ﬁ ghting. 17 the community (Jones-Correa 2008; Marrow 2009). My research provides a national view of the actions of police departments, and

Th is proactive approach to community collaboration is even found the data show that many departments have consciously and deliber- in many neutral departments. Th us, one neutral department

ately developed practices intended to develop positive relationships focused its eﬀ orts on children of immigrants who suﬀ ered from

between the department and immigrants, encourage immigrants’ poor nutrition and health, had disciplinary issues in school, had low use of the agency, and help immigrants integrate into the com- reading and math scores, and lacked aﬀ ordable after-school activi-

munity. With one possible exception, the percentage of bilingual ties. Th e police department was the catalyst for change. Th e chief

oﬃ cers, they are also intentional. Departments in communities with explained, “We saw what was going on and we wanted to change it.

a large bilingual population may be able to hire bilingual employ-

I knew that was a broader approach than I could tackle myself so ees without specifi c recruitment eff orts or incentives. Th e other we brought in community representatives from the diff erent social

practices represent intentional eﬀ orts on the part of the agency: service agencies to volunteer groups. I say those ﬁ rst initial meet-

training must be developed and presented, employees must be sent ings there were probably 30 or more groups represented and then

to meetings, and ﬂ yers and pamphlets must be translated. Police

departments operate within sharp resource constraints. Allocation department’s eﬀ orts led to after-school and summer programs to

we just sort of brainstormed where we wanted to go.” 18 Th e police

of resources to training, translation services, publications, programs, provide recreational and educational opportunities, code enforce-

and so on represents a deliberate decision to direct scarce resources ment addressing safety and health issues in an apartment complex

toward welcomeness. Welcoming departments seem to have adopted with many immigrant tenants, and the local food bank developing

community policing as the right way to police their community, programs to assist immigrants, including extending their operating

while unwelcoming departments have not. hours and providing recipes and cooking information. Th e police department proactively identiﬁ ed the needs of immigrants and

Conclusion

organized other community groups to help address them. Welcomeness matters because it is the administrative means by which departments treat immigrants as members of the com-

Unwelcoming departments were more reac- munity deserving of protection and service. tive than proactive. For example, one chief

Th e community policing princi- Welcomeness may foster a dynamic whereby

explained, “We have been wide open to it

ples of responsiveness to, build- immigrants learn to trust and partner with the

(collaboration with immigrant organizations). police to address issues of crime. Th e com-

ing trust with, and engaging

munity policing principles of responsiveness any groups in the community; quite frankly

I mean we really try to be participatory with

with the community are impor- to, building trust with, and engaging with the

it’s just good business sense. We do things all

community are important in order to truly year long with diﬀ erent groups of people but

tant in order to truly reduce

Beyond Enforcement Welcomeness, Local Law Enforcement, and Immigrants (pages 433–442).pdf