Drs. Hashimi and Ouellet: Invite Only: The Prevalence of Subgroups Within A Police Department

BACKGROUND: WHAT ARE POLICE SUBGROUPS?

Policing is inherently collaborative. Officers develop strong bonds to navigate stressful, high-pressure situations, relying on teamwork, shared duties, and coordinated efforts to maintain public safety. These shared bonds sometimes create unofficial “subgroups” with unique identities or symbols known only to their members. Such subgroups can serve as spaces for mentorship, trust, and support, but they can also threaten organizational unity and undermine supervision and training if they endorse behaviors that conflict with official policy and procedure. Despite recent calls from the public, policymakers, and civil rights groups to understand the scope of subgroups in law enforcement, there has been limited research on how widespread departmental subgroups are and which officers are most likely to be invited.

METHOD: WHAT WE DID TO IDENTIFY OFFICER SUBGROUPS

Using survey data from 1,352 officers in a large urban police department, we examined whether officers had ever been invited to join a departmental subgroup and, if so, how recently. Officers were also asked about their demographic backgrounds, work-related behaviors (i.e., using force or drawing a weapon), and pervasiveness of misconduct complaints. Additionally, we collected social network data by having officers list up to ten “close friends” in the department. Using network analysis techniques, we examined whether officers who were asked to join subgroups held positions of greater social influence than their non-invited peers in the department.

RESULTS: WHICH OFFICERS GET INVITED INTO SUBGROUPS

Nine percent of surveyed officers said they had been invited to join a subgroup, and about one-third were invited within the past year. Over half of these subgroups had some online visibility, such as forums, image boards, or social media pages. Surprisingly, when it came to individual-level attributes, no notable differences emerged between officers who were invited and those who were not: officers’ rank, gender, race, unit, frequency of using force, and complaint history were not associated with whether they received an invitation. However, officers invited to join a subgroup were typically embedded in more tightly knit friendship networks. That is, their circle of friends also tended to be friends with one another, possibly fostering a sense of trust that leads to these exclusive invitations.

IMPLICATIONS: MANAGING THE RISKS AND REWARDS OF POLICE SUBGROUPS

Our findings suggest that while these subgroups may not prescribe to criminal or deviant activities, they can shape departmental climate and social dynamics in meaningful ways. On the one hand, departmental subgroups can create solidarity, support, and encourage competence, protecting officers from the various stressors and dangers of the job. On the other hand, the alternative hierarchy, informal workarounds, and increased secrecy can present issues for team functioning and supervision, requiring increased attention from administration. While we recognize that it is particularly challenging to identify and estimate the size and scope of subgroups in the workplace, efforts to better understand their implications can be mobilized by establishing and enforcing comprehensive policies that define, clarify, and address behavior, ethics, and professional conduct. By implementing guidelines, agencies can preserve the positive aspects of these groups—camaraderie, mentorship, and shared learning—while preventing problematic behaviors from escalating or occurring in the first place. More research will help refine these guidelines, but one thing is clear: subgroups can be valuable or harmful, depending on how they are regulated and how openly they interact with the rest of the department.