A transformational approach for institutionalizing diversity, equity, and inclusion

Professional associations representing women, people of color, and other underrepresented groups have long advocated for increasing diversity. One such organization in the context of law enforcement is the National Black State Troopers Coalition (NBSTC). Working in partnership with the general counsel for NBSTC, we created a comprehensive strategy to a diverse, equitable, and inclusive workforce. It is a four-step approach.

Step 1 is to perform a diversity gap analysis. Leaders first set goals for the desired workforce demographics. Specific goals are more easily and accurately monitored and evaluated compared to vague goals such as “to be diverse,” “to value diversity,” “to increase diversity,” or “to reflect the community.” Next, analyze the demographic statistics of the current workforce. Finally, determine if there are any gaps between the desired and current demographics.

Step 2 is to perform a barrier analysis to identify any current practices that may undermine DEI and remove or revise any such practices. Step 3 is to identify new practices that will enhance DEI and implement said practices. Steps 2 and 3 require a comprehensive systems-wide approach that focuses on several important HRM practices such as DEI communication practices, employment branding, recruiting practices, hiring processes, onboarding, transfers and assignments to special projects or tasks forces, promotion processes, training and development opportunities, performance management/appraisals, total rewards/compensation practices, commendation and discipline practices, retention, and organizational culture. A comprehensive approach is needed because many of these HRM practices are interrelated. For example, a law enforcement agency’s employment brand, communication practices, and culture will influence the diversity of the applicant pool and may thwart the effectiveness of even the most state-of-the-art recruiting tactics. Similarly, diverse employees cannot be promoted to management ranks if they are not hired or retained. Because organizations vary in demographic composition, leadership, HRM practices, DEI progress, culture, and other organizational and environmental setting characteristics, it is important to recognize that a practice that works for one organization may not work for another.

Step 4 is to sustain DEI. Any successful DEI initiative requires top management support in both word and deed. Adequate resources must also be provided, including financial resources, human resources, the proper know how needed to implement Steps 1–4, and training. In addition, a methodology should be developed for assessing the progress and outcomes of changes, and results should be tracked on an ongoing basis. It is also important to build in accountability, identifying who will be held accountable and how. Finally, create a task force or assemble an external third party to review practices and progress on an ongoing basis.

This four-step approach to attaining a DEI workforce was presented to and endorsed by NBSTC in 2020 (National Black State Troopers Coalition, 2021).Footnote ¹ In 2021, NBSTC shared the strategy nationally and distributed it to all state police agencies. Of course, no state police agency can be forced to adopt or implement the plan; it is up to each agency to choose if and how it wants to approach DEI. An organization can only take a comprehensive and transformational approach to DEI if it chooses to do so.

Change management principles are just as important as the HRM and staffing tactics

Many change efforts fail because of a lack of preparation related to implementation. For example, change tactics are often implemented without taking into account the forces of the broader system and context, and success is short lived because these forces cause the situation to regress back to the status quo. Even a state-of-the-art tactic will not likely succeed without selling the need for change, garnering commitment from leadership, securing needed resources, identifying and addressing resistance to change, and obtaining engagement and input from all levels and stakeholders. Although space does not allow a detailed discussion of change management principles, I will highlight key points related to driving forces and restraining forces for change that I have found to be salient in the context of law enforcement DEI.

Driving forces are those factors that support the case for increasing DEI. One typology for categorizing driving forces is to consider the legal case, social justice case, and business/public safety case for DEI.

There are compelling legal reasons for valuing DEI. Genuine and proactive attempts to increase diversity should aid departments and municipalities in complying with the requirements of equal employment opportunity, affirmative action, and nondiscrimination law. In turn, these efforts may help prevent litigation. Litigation can be very expensive, may tarnish the reputation of the department and municipality (further hindering their ability to recruit diverse applicants), and could result in significant internal conflict and strife. Given the prevalence of discrimination charges and court cases related to public safety agencies, this driving force should not be underestimated. At the time this was written, at least five state police agencies (i.e., 10% of states) have pending litigation against them related to racial discrimination or a racially hostile work environment.

A social justice case can also be made for law enforcement DEI. In brief, law enforcement departments should make genuine and proactive attempts to increase diversity because it is the ethical or socially responsible thing to do. Indeed, many law enforcement departments and/or their municipalities explicitly value diversity in their mission statements or similar proclamations.

Finally, regarding the “business” or public safety case, a diverse workforce can increase organization effectiveness (e.g., see U.S. Department of Justice & Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2015, 2016). Diversity leads to more innovation and creativity and results in more effective decisions and actions. A diverse law enforcement department also fosters community relations and builds trust (U.S. Department of Justice & Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2016). Law enforcement is referred to as public safety—a public service organization that serves the entire community and depends on the community for funding. As such, the department may benefit by reflecting the community being served. Importantly, research is beginning to show the significance of diversity as it relates to police violence and the use of force. Recent research suggests that racial diversity in law enforcement reduces racially disproportionate use of force (Ba et al., Reference Ba, Knox, Mummolo and Rivera2021), officer killings of African Americans (Legewie & Fagan, Reference Legewie and Fagan2016), and police killings of non-White civilians (Cox et al., Reference Cox, Cunningham and Ortega2022).

Restraining forces are those factors that resist change or work against increasing DEI. Resistance occurs at the organizational level because organizations are, by nature, complex and inherently stable entities that resist change. Organizational systems have several elements in place that are designed to maintain stability. This is one reason why, as noted earlier, it is so important that a DEI strategy must take a systems approach. One small change to one part of the system will be resisted by the other elements of the system.

Another restraining force is the lack of resources. Any change effort will fail if the organization does not allocate sufficient funding, time, or personnel to make the change. Therefore, when developing (and prior to implementing) such a strategy, it is imperative to identify and allocate the resources that are needed. When law enforcement agencies have budgets and contracts that allow for it, many reputable I-O firms have delivered the practices recommended by Dhanani, Wiese, Brooks, and Beckles such as the criterion-centric approach, high-fidelity assessments, assessment centers, and so forth. On the other hand, when budgets or contracts do not allow for it, and the law enforcement agency solicits bids for suboptimal selection procedures, these same firms are happy to oblige. Furthermore, these same firms often find themselves defending the suboptimal selection procedures (boosting their revenue through expert witness fees) after the law enforcement agency is sued for discrimination, presenting some interesting dilemmas. Consent decrees can be effective for increasing diversity because they often mandate the use of more optimal HRM practices and require budget allocations for doing so. However, when the consent decree and oversight ends, things often fall back to the way they were, and diversity gains often begin to disappear. The difficult reality is that many law enforcement agencies do not have the budget, staffing levels, or know how required to implement and sustain many of the practices recommended by Dhanani et al. and others.

Organizational restraining forces may also come in the form of agreements with other constituencies. In some instances, law enforcement agencies may be bound to the policies of their city, county, or state government. For example, they may be required to follow civil service rules or rely on a civil service commission/department to recruit applicants, develop/administer selection procedures, and provide lists of eligible candidates. Ironically, although civil service is often put in place to prevent bias, the recruiting and selection practices that are used may sometimes be less than optimal with regard to fostering DEI, even if they are perceived as “fair.”

State laws may also need to be considered. For example, some states have more restrictive discrimination laws (including protected classes that are not covered by federal law) whereas other states place limits on affirmative action and preferential treatment. Some states have laws or policies regarding selection procedures. In a previous court case that I was involved in, a defendant (which was a municipality defending its promotion procedures) claimed it could not use less discriminatory selection/promotion practices such as assessment centers because state law prohibited it. The judge ultimately ruled that the municipality’s promotion practices were discriminatory under federal law. Regardless of the state law’s legitimacy or the city’s intent, this was a barrier to diversity for several years prior to the discrimination lawsuit.

Agreements with unions or other employee associations may also place restraints on change initiatives. Sometimes local collective bargaining agreements dictate practices and procedures that do not foster, and even work against, DEI. For example, according to Barrett:

There have been recent discrimination cases in public safety where local union chapters have been named as codefendants, suggesting that some local chapters/agreements may act as DEI restraining forces.

Obviously, there is nothing inherently wrong with civil service, state law, and collective bargaining agreements, and there are no doubt several examples of where these agreements foster DEI. Nevertheless, any DEI strategy must assess the local agreements that are in place and the extent to which these agreements may resist change or place limits on autonomy. Furthermore, if these types of agreements are in place, it behooves the law enforcement agency to partner with these constituencies when developing a DEI strategy.