CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 53Policing Practices and PerceptionsPublic Policy and Administration ResearchCriminal Justice and Penology

Citizen oversight in the United States and Canada: an overview

Ferdik, Frank V., Rojek, Jeff, Alpert, Geoffrey P.·2013·Police Practice and Research
DOI 10.1080/15614263.2013.767089
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Police misconduct and corruption have the potential to erode public trust and confidence in both policing and government agencies. Repeat accounts of law enforcement officials engaging in deviant acts have prompted greater citizen involvement in the review of officer behavior. However, citizen oversight has had a contentious history in both the USA and Canada, with most challenges expressed by law enforcement officers whose behavior often comes under scrutiny. This article provides a review of how citizen oversight has evolved in both nations, as well as an examination of contemporary models of this accountability practice. This review reveals that operational differences exist between the different oversight models and that external factors such as political, police, and public support, as well as budgetary considerations also impact the procedural outcomes of citizen oversight. We conclude with a discussion of the future prospects and challenges to citizen oversight of the police.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/15614263.2013.767089

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Proponents maintain that civilian review boards can restore public trust in policing by introducing a measure of independent oversight and transparency.

    “Proponents maintain that CRBs can restore public trust in policing by introducing a measure of independent oversight and transparency (2, 3).”

    From Does civilian oversight impact police legitimacy? (2025) · cites this paper as [2]

  • Advocates and scholars have promoted civilian review boards as a central reform to bolster transparency, credibility, and public trust in policing.

    “Advocates and scholars have promoted CRBs as a central reform to bolster transparency, credibility, and public trust in policing (2).”

    From Does civilian oversight impact police legitimacy? (2025) · cites this paper as [2]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 12 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Ferdik, F. V., Rojek, J., & Alpert, G. P.
Affiliations
  • University of South Carolina (US)
  • Griffith University (AU)
Corresponding author
Rojek, Jeff
ORCID
Venue
Police Practice and Research
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2013-04
Volume
14
Issue
2
Pages
104-116
ISSN
  • 1477-271X (ISSN-L)
  • 1561-4263
DOI
10.1080/15614263.2013.767089
OpenAlex
W2087129576
Cited by
53
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1
FWCI
19.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Police Practice and Research (publishedVersion)
  • Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Policing Practices and Perceptions
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
  • Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Justice and Penology
Keywords
citizen oversight, police accountability, police misconduct, police corruption, public trust in police, police-community relations, United States, Canada, budgetary constraints

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review