State-by-State Review: The Spread of Law Enforcement Accountability Policies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Much of this paper appears to have been rethought and rewritten, and is thus much improved.

Author Response

Reviewer#1

There were no new comments from the first reviewers. We thank you for your kind words and your valuable feedback, and we appreciate the opportunity to learn from your insights.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the author(s) for their considerate and thorough responses to my comments. I believe they have adequately addressed the issues I pointed out. While their responses were generally clear and appropriate, I still recommend that the literature review section be separated from the introduction. By creating a distinct literature review section, the authors can more effectively highlight prior research, demonstrate gaps in the existing literature, and position their study within the broader academic context. This separation will also enhance the overall organization and readability of the manuscript.

Additionally, as previously pointed out, the COVID-19 pandemic may have influenced the passage of bills during the 2020–2022 period, which is when the data for this study were collected. I suggest that the author(s) acknowledge the potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the limitations section or as a direction for future research. The author(s) should consider discussing how pandemic-related factors—such as shifts in legislative priorities or limited governmental operations—may have affected the findings.

Author Response

Reviewer#2

Comment #1: I appreciate the author(s) for their considerate and thorough responses to my comments. I believe they have adequately addressed the issues I pointed out. While their responses were generally clear and appropriate, I still recommend that the literature review section be separated from the introduction. By creating a distinct literature review section, the authors can more effectively highlight prior research, demonstrate gaps in the existing literature, and position their study within the broader academic context. This separation will also enhance the overall organization and readability of the manuscript.

Response #1: Thank you very much for the valuable comments. To address this feedback, we have separated the literature review section, identified gaps in the literature by adding more citations, and included additional sentences in the discussion section. Please see pages 2, 3, 4, 15, 16, 17, and 19 for these updates.

Comment #2: Additionally, as previously pointed out, the COVID-19 pandemic may have influenced the passage of bills during the 2020–2022 period, which is when the data for this study were collected. I suggest that the author(s) acknowledge the potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the limitations section or as a direction for future research.  The author(s) should consider discussing how pandemic-related factors—such as shifts in legislative priorities or limited governmental operations—may have affected the findings.

Response #2: We agree with the reviewer. To address this comment, we have added a paragraph in the text discussing the impact of COVID-19 on policing and communities. Please see the page 17.

Additionally, we added the following sentence to the study limitations. Please see the page. 20

Dear Reviewer, we thank you for your kind words and your valuable feedback, and we appreciate the opportunity to learn from your insights.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewed article is a valuable study describing legislative efforts in recent years in USA to enact and implement police accountability policies (PAP). Although the Author has focused on issues pertaining to USA, the problem he has presented and the manner in which he has presented it justify the contention that the study may also be of value to scholars, administrative and judicial personnel in other countries where the issue of the relationship between law enforcement and prima vista minority citizens perceived as problematic or negatively disposed towards the police or other services is present. The subject matter of the peer-reviewed article is important and worthy of presentation to a wider audience. Notwithstanding the positive assessment of the article, I have two critical comments.

1. I think that the thesis “Racial bias and false beliefs about crime fuel this over policing, which results in excessive force and police aggression even in non-threatening circumstances” included in Introduction has journalistic nature. I do not know on what basis it was made (as it certainly does not derive from the results of published research).

2. It  would be desirable, in addition to indicating that the survey was sent to a group of 55 experts (2.2. Survey Data Collection), to estimate in some way the representativeness of this group against a larger background so that the reader can judge for himself the reliability and value of the research in this area.

However, the indicated comments do not change the overall positive assessment of the reviewed article. I am evaluating the reviewed article in the perspective of its possible publication in a journal - whereas, as I am not an expert in the field of US criminal procedure, I cannot, however, verify the claims of changes in the law following the death of G. Floyd.

Author Response

Reviewer#1

Comment#1: The reviewed article is a valuable study describing legislative efforts in recent years in USA to enact and implement police accountability policies (PAP). Although the Author has focused on issues pertaining to USA, the problem he has presented and the manner in which he has presented it justify the contention that the study may also be of value to scholars, administrative and judicial personnel in other countries where the issue of the relationship between law enforcement and prima vista minority citizens perceived as problematic or negatively disposed towards the police or other services is present. The subject matter of the peer-reviewed article is important and worthy of presentation to a wider audience. Notwithstanding the positive assessment of the article, I have two critical comments.

Response#1: Thank you for your kind words and for endorsing our manuscript. Your comments, along with those from the other reviewers, have greatly helped us improve the quality of our work.

Comment#2: I think that the thesis “Racial bias and false beliefs about crime fuel this over policing, which results in excessive force and police aggression even in non-threatening circumstances” included in Introduction has journalistic nature. I do not know on what basis it was made (as it certainly does not derive from the results of published research).

Response#2: We appreciate the reviewer highlighting the need for further evidence to support this claim. We have added additional citations to this statement and throughout the introduction as necessary.

Comment#3: It  would be desirable, in addition to indicating that the survey was sent to a group of 55 experts (2.2. Survey Data Collection), to estimate in some way the representativeness of this group against a larger background so that the reader can judge for himself the reliability and value of the research in this area.

Response #3: We agree with the reviewer that the sample size for the qualitative section of the project was small. To address this, we performed an in-depth analysis using the open-ended questions and have included this as a limitation in the revised manuscript.

To identify themes, a systematic open coding process was applied to the data, allowing themes to emerge from participants' perspectives. Initial codes were developed based on recurring phrases and concepts, which were then grouped into broader thematic categories. This iterative process led to the identification of four major themes, each representing a key aspect of police accountability as perceived by respondents: law enforcement oversight and accountability; legitimacy and perception of law enforcement; community-police collaboration; and policy and structural reform (Table 2). Please see section 3.2. pages 13-16.

Comment#4: However, the indicated comments do not change the overall positive assessment of the reviewed article. I am evaluating the reviewed article in the perspective of its possible publication in a journal - whereas, as I am not an expert in the field of US criminal procedure, I cannot, however, verify the claims of changes in the law following the death of G. Floyd.

Response #4: We thank the reviewer for endorsing the value of this publication and providing a thoughtful review. In this study, we conducted a comprehensive analysis of 226 bills passed after the death of George Floyd. We agree that measuring the impact of this legislation will require further research in the future.

Dear Reviewer, we thank you once again for your most valuable comments and appreciate having had this wonderful opportunity to learn from you. We hope that our responses have addressed your comments effectively.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Unfortunately, I find much of this manuscript to be very confusing and/or misleading.  For example, the categories for police accountability policies start with 14 which are reduced to 12, which seems fine, but then are variously reported as being either 5 or 6.  See pg. 3 for example, which indicates 5 categories but then lists 6!

 The even greater confusion comes from the reporting of and the results of the expert survey.  Fifty-five respondents (already a small sample) across a range of backgrounds were surveyed with multiple follow-ups.  Despite the numerous followups, apparently only 15 chose to participate.  And here is some of the further confusion – 14 are said to have actually responded, but the tables indicate only 11 respondents?  On page 8, it is indicated that 14 experts were surveyed, which is certainly misleading.  Why is this important?  First, because this is a very low response rate (20%), particularly given all the followups.  Second, there is no breakdown of the backgrounds of the actual respondents – how many were police officials, how many scholars, how many other policy makers, etc.  These survey results should actually have been the more important aspect of the study because they would help us understand why policies are or are not implemented!

 Finally, there are the tables!  Table 2 reports that just one survey respondent agreed that inadequate support from police departments was a barrier to reform?  And only one agreed that community support facilitates passing law enforcement accountability policy?  It appears that the categories have been reversed, as the discussion does not agree with the tables.  And finally, the breakdown of policy implementation into just 2 categories (6 and 5 or fewer) is inexplicable.  States that implemented 5 reforms are in a much different place than those implementing just one!

Author Response

Reviewer#2

Comment#2-1: Unfortunately, I find much of this manuscript to be very confusing and/or misleading.  For example, the categories for police accountability policies start with 14 which are reduced to 12, which seems fine, but then are variously reported as being either 5 or 6. See pg. 3 for example, which indicates 5 categories but then lists 6!

Response 2-1: Response 2-1: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this error, and we have made adjustments in the manuscript. We edited the references to other categories to clearly outline our process for refining the categorization during our review of the bills. For example, the methods section now clarifies this process as follows: (1) Training, (2) Use of technology, (3) Certification, (4) Improving community involvement, (5) Use of force, and (6) Reducing structural racism.

Comment#2-2: The even greater confusion comes from the reporting of and the results of the expert survey.  Fifty-five respondents (already a small sample) across a range of backgrounds were surveyed with multiple follow-ups.  Despite the numerous followups, apparently only 15 chose to participate.  And here is some of the further confusion – 14 are said to have actually responded, but the tables indicate only 11 respondents?  On page 8, it is indicated that 14 experts were surveyed, which is certainly misleading.  Why is this important?  First, because this is a very low response rate (20%), particularly given all the followups.  Second, there is no breakdown of the backgrounds of the actual respondents – how many were police officials, how many scholars, how many other policy makers, etc.  These survey results should actually have been the more important aspect of the study because they would help us understand why policies are or are not implemented!

Response 2-1: We received a total of 14 survey responses; however, 3 of these answered only one question and were not included in the analysis. Consequently, Table 3 reports on 11 completed surveys. The majority of the respondents were scholars (64%), while 18% identified as policymakers and 18% as social activists.

Here are the modifications we made to the manuscript in response to the reviewers’ comments:

• We clarified the sample size within the text.
• We included the low response rate and small sample size as limitations of the study.
• We performed a deep qualitative analysis using the open-ended question, and added a new section to the manuscript. Please see section 3.2. pages 13-16.

Comment#2-3: Finally, there are the tables!  Table 2 reports that just one survey respondent agreed that inadequate support from police departments was a barrier to reform?  And only one agreed that community support facilitates passing law enforcement accountability policy?  It appears that the categories have been reversed, as the discussion does not agree with the tables.  And finally, the breakdown of policy implementation into just 2 categories (6 and 5 or fewer) is inexplicable.  States that implemented 5 reforms are in a much different place than those implementing just one!

Response 2-3: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We reviewed the survey responses and have corrected the table, as it contained a typo in the column. Additionally, to address this comment and Comment 2-2, we added Section 3.2.2.1 to describe the survey findings. Please refer to pages 16-19 for the updated information.

Dear Reviewer, we thank you once again for your most valuable comments and appreciate having had this wonderful opportunity to learn from you. We hope that our responses have addressed your comments effectively.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study reviewed police accountability policies (PAP) in the United States and surveyed 14 experts to examine the barriers and challenges to successfully implementing PAP. While the topic is important and worth exploring, the study raises several major concerns.

First, the PAP review does not clearly capture the purpose of the study.  While the study provided which state passed which bills based on the six key areas, that does not provide clear information about barriers and challenges.  There are several factors influencing successful bill passing such as a state’s resource capability (financial status), political color, demographic factors, etc. The author(s) may capture those factors from various sources such as the census. Additionally, the author(s) overlooked the influence of the increase in hate crimes on bills passing. The COVID-19 pandemic, which occurred in 2020, was a significant social issue that was deeply linked to the rise in hate crimes in the United States. This context should be considered in the analysis of the bills passed because the author(s) reviewed the bills passed between 2020 and 2022.

Second, the simple descriptive statistic results from the 14 respondents do not adequately represent experts’ opinions. The sample size is too low to present the results using a quantitative approach. Also, those 14 respondents’ different professional backgrounds may have influenced their perspectives. The author(s) noted that the survey included open-ended questions. Rather than presenting simple descriptive statistics based on agree/disagree responses from only 14 participants, it would be more effective to adopt a qualitative approach that analyzes the open-ended responses in greater depth. If the open-ended questions did not yield sufficient information, it is recommended that the author(s) conduct qualitative interviews with the experts to gather richer and more detailed insights.

Third, the paper requires restructuring. Specifically, it lacks a dedicated literature review section. While some literature is reviewed in the introduction and discussion sections, it would be more effective to create a separate literature review section. This would allow for a more comprehensive and in-depth examination of previous studies relevant to the topic.

Author Response

Reviewer#3

Comment#3-1: This study reviewed police accountability policies (PAP) in the United States and surveyed 14 experts to examine the barriers and challenges to successfully implementing PAP. While the topic is important and worth exploring, the study raises several major concerns.  First, the PAP review does not clearly capture the purpose of the study.  While the study provided which state passed which bills based on the six key areas, that does not provide clear information about barriers and challenges.  There are several factors influencing successful bill passing such as a state’s resource capability (financial status), political color, demographic factors, etc. The author(s) may capture those factors from various sources such as the census. Additionally, the author(s) overlooked the influence of the increase in hate crimes on bills passing. The COVID-19 pandemic, which occurred in 2020, was a significant social issue that was deeply linked to the rise in hate crimes in the United States. This context should be considered in the analysis of the bills passed because the author(s) reviewed the bills passed between 2020 and 2022.

Response 3-1: We thank the reviewer for bringing this to our attention. In response to this and other reviewers' comments, we have significantly revised the manuscript. The main steps we undertook include:

• Analysing the bill passage by categorizing them into six distinct categories.
• Comparing the survey findings with the existing literature to highlight the barriers and facilitators.
• To identify themes, a systematic open coding process was applied to the data, allowing themes to emerge from participants' perspectives. Initial codes were developed based on recurring phrases and concepts, which were then grouped into broader thematic categories. This iterative process led to the identification of four major themes, each representing a key aspect of police accountability as perceived by respondents: law enforcement oversight and accountability; legitimacy and perception of law enforcement; community-police collaboration; and policy and structural reform (Table 2).
• We agree with the reviewer that COVID-19 may impact on the crime rate, and it needs to be researched for the future.
• We hope that we have effectively addressed the reviewers' concerns.

Comment#3-2: Second, the simple descriptive statistic results from the 14 respondents do not adequately represent experts’ opinions. The sample size is too low to present the results using a quantitative approach. Also, those 14 respondents’ different professional backgrounds may have influenced their perspectives. The author(s) noted that the survey included open-ended questions. Rather than presenting simple descriptive statistics based on agree/disagree responses from only 14 participants, it would be more effective to adopt a qualitative approach that analyzes the open-ended responses in greater depth. If the open-ended questions did not yield sufficient information, it is recommended that the author(s) conduct qualitative interviews with the experts to gather richer and more detailed insights.

Response 3-2: We completely agree with the reviewers, and to address this, we conducted a thorough qualitative analysis. We have added a new section (3.2.1. Themes and Participant Perspectives), which can be found on pages 13-16.

Comment#3-3: Third, the paper requires restructuring. Specifically, it lacks a dedicated literature review section. While some literature is reviewed in the introduction and discussion sections, it would be more effective to create a separate literature review section. This would allow for a more comprehensive and in-depth examination of previous studies relevant to the topic.

Response 3-3: We agree with the reviewer, and to address this, we have revised the introduction by adding more literature. Additionally, we updated the discussion section to compare our findings with the existing literature. We hope this adequately addresses the reviewer’s comments.

Dear Reviewer, we thank you once again for your most valuable comments and appreciate having had this wonderful opportunity to learn from you. We hope that our responses have addressed your comments effectively.