“It's frustrating … I didn’t join to sit behind a desk”: Police paperwork as a source of organizational stress

Abstract

Police officers are responsible for both proactive and reactive policing; however, every call for service, at a minimum, equates to an administrative process that is time-consuming and appears to distract from the ability of police officers to do their investigative and community-oriented police work. In this article, we explore the administrative processes that are paperwork as a source of organizational stress. Specifically, we draw on researcher observational field notes, focus groups, as well as interview data discussing the paperwork processes as a part of and contributing to the organizational and operational stressors experienced by, and the psychological burden and its effects on, police officers in a provincial policing agency in Canada. Results indicate not only the sheer volume of paperwork that police are responsible for, but also the extended time being spent “catching up” administratively and the psychological implications of such processes on their well-being, including, for example, decreased morale, frustration, and feeling overwhelmed.

Introduction

Researchers have long demonstrated that policing is a profession that can, and too often does, result in occupational stressors (Antony et al., 2020; JM Brown and Campbell, 1990; Pranzo and Pranzo, 1999; Randall, 2013). The roots of these occupational stress injuries include, but are by no means limited to, organizational and operational job stressors. Operational stressors in policing are well recognized (see, for example J Brown et al., 1999; Purba and Demou, 2019; Shane, 2010; Violanti et al., 2017); they are the acute situations, incidents, and responses to calls for services that also gain police officers’ recognition as first responders (Carleton et al., 2019). It is the organizational stressors that are most concerning, amendable to change and fundamentally demanding on police that receive less attention. Although not as glorified or potentially dramatic as operational stressors, organizational stressors have been reported by police as more stressful than operational stressors (Ricciardelli et al., 2020) and most enduring in impact. It is organizational stressors within the environment in which officers work that are the leading source of occupational stress for police—that is, the “niggling aspects of the work environment that pervade police organizations because of the structural arrangements and social life inside the organization” (Shane, 2010: 815; see also Collins and Gibbs, 2003; Kop et al., 1999; Symonds, 1970). Although organizational stress can include interactions with colleagues and supervisors, shifts, and scheduling (among other known sources of stress), in the this article, our focus is on one specific form of organizational stress: paperwork, specifically the paperwork-related administrative processes that consume a substantial amount of police work, and its contribution to overall occupational stress for police.

Drawing on qualitative data from ethnographic observations collected by way of researcher field notes, interviews, and focus groups conducted with provincial police officers in one Canadian Atlantic province, we unpack their experiences of administrative paperwork and how that shapes their psychological well-being. We elucidate the organizational stress espoused by paperwork and administrative burdens. Our interviews were not initially designed to inquire about paperwork as a source of organizational stress—they were intended to focus on occupational (both operational and organizational) stressors particularly tied to policing youth. Instead, it became apparent during the ethnographic process and while talking with officers that paperwork was a significant—and the most time-consuming—part of their job and that paperwork was not an enjoyable activity. We became acutely aware of diverse forms that were daunting to fill out but then were duplicated by other slightly amended forms. We watched officers work to “catch up” on paperwork, curse at their computers (often at their Record Management System (RMS)) and write up largely every interaction with a civilian requesting their services. It was from observing the stress and sheer abundance of paperwork, and the ascendency over police worktime by paperwork, that we started learning about the paperwork itself, the different forms and processes, their RMS system, and the psychological toll paperwork slowly evoked; thus, the foundation for our study emerged.

Literature review

For any officers, their operational effectiveness—the effectiveness with which they perform their occupational duties—is negatively impacted by the different occupational stressors and the health and safety risks they face on the job (Duxbury and Higgins, 2001, 2012; Houdmont, 2016). The lack of material and human resources, the latter particularly critical to paperwork duties, are recognized challenges across police services (Sinha, 1981; Verimliliklerinin et al., 2010). Staffing challenges, although observed and discussed at police association meetings (Wilson and Grammich, 2009), remain a significant problem for policing agencies. This is exacerbated by the economics of policing, given that salaries for police agencies are a key expenditure (Hollis and Wilson, 2015; Wilson and Heinonen, 2011). However, challenges remain with retention, recruitment, and attrition (Egan, 2005; Jordan et al., 2009; Scrivner, 2006; Spielman, 2009; Tulgan, 2000), which simply add to the burden caused by staffing need. Not surprisingly, policing agencies have tried to increase staffing and impose performance benchmarks (Srinivasan et al., 2013) as they respond to changes in operating budgets and hiring freezes (Hollis and Wilson, 2015; Johnson and Jackson, 2011; Police Executive Research Forum, 2010).

In a study of police workload, Duxbury and Higgins (2012), in surveying 25 police services across Canada with a sample of 7,091 officers, learned how staff work experiences and work–life conflict impact police. The authors described police as having to manage competing demands, exacerbated by understaffing, which constituted key stressors for police. In total, 40% of their sample experienced work stress intensified by the pressure to meet unrealistic deadlines. The paramilitary structures essentially eliminate the officers' ability to take control and manage their own workload by saying “no” to demands on their time. In addition, 40% of officers reported being stressed because of understaffing caused by officers taking leave, secondment, or being absent and not backfilled. Of these police officers, 54% described lacking enough staff to satisfy their job duties at work, with 46% reporting that their backfill for staff on leave (or even to fill new positions) never materialized in a timely manner. Further, 37% of respondents could not take breaks at work because of inadequate staffing, 38% believed the work culture hindered help-seeking, and 57% positioned such that they could never say “no” when work was requested of them. In consequence, Duxbury and Higgins (2012) found that levels of absenteeism were high, with two-thirds of their participants reporting an absence in the six months before their survey participation. Officers missed, over six months, seven days of work because of health problems (51%), mental or emotional fatigue (28%), or childcare-related issues (27%). Not surprisingly, perhaps, Duxbury and Higgins (2012) put forth that “doing more with less” staff translated to greater stress levels among officers.

Numerous organizational stressors have been noted within policing. Among these, we can include issues such as staffing, the promotion process, the rank structure of policing, workload issues and feeling underappreciated in their work (Brough, 2004; Brough and Williams, 2007; Cotton and Hart, 2003; Hollis and Wilson, 2015; Ricciardelli et al., 2020; Wilson, 2012; Wilson and Weiss, 2014). Of significantly less focus, at least with respect to academic researchers given the lack of uptake in the policing scholarship, has been the stress associated with some of the more mundane aspects of policing, namely administrative tasks. Such tasks typically include court time, witness preparation, bureaucratic wrangling, evidence control, and documentation.

Although each of the administrative tasks cited above is a potential source of stress to officers, arguably one of the most time-consuming and thus frustrating aspects of their daily routine is paperwork. Previous researchers have documented that officers spend a significant portion of their on-duty hours engaged in paperwork (Brodeur and Dupont, 2006; Chan, 2005; Ericson, 1982), often at the expense of patrol and other proactive duties associated with crime prevention and public safety (Malm et al., 2005). For example, a study by Malm and colleagues (2005) reported that general duty (patrol) officers spend more time on paperwork tasks than on service calls and investigations combined. The result is not only an individual paper burden, but also a set of organizational pressures to perform paperwork tasks thoroughly and on tight timelines (Hedgley, 2007; Lasiewicki, 2007). One of the first studies to document the effects of this burden on both individuals and organizations is Waegel's (1981) study, in which he observed that officers must “satisfy the paperwork demands of the organization (referred to as ‘keeping the red numbers down’) by classifying each case and producing a formal investigative report within two weeks after the case is assigned” (pp. 264–245). While conforming with such demands, officers are also pressured to meet organizational arrest and citation quotas to not only maintain their good standing, but as a prerequisite for promotion (Waegel, 1981).

With the advent of new technologies, it would be practical to think that police paperwork would have decreased; however, researchers who have commented on this aspect of patrol and investigative work have consistently documented steady increases in the volume of police paperwork over the years (see, for example, Brodeur and Dupont, 2006; Chan, 2007; Lum and Koper, 2015; Malm et al., 2005; Ricciardelli et al., 2020). Various reasons have been put forward to explain this increase, including new technologies (computer systems), changes in criminal law, and public pressure for increased internal and external accountability, among others (Burke, 1993; Crank, 2014; Loftus, 2010; Lum and Koper, 2015; Malm et al., 2005; Ricciardelli et al., 2020). Of these, what has perhaps received the most attention from researchers is the rise of police accountability structures. For example, Chatterton (1989) attributes a rise in documentation requirements to the increased reliance on paperwork as a tool for supervisors and managers to monitor, audit, supervise, and/or edit the work of operational officers. This new “tool” is also emphasized by Campbell (2004: 701), who writes from the perspective of decision-making officers that increases in paperwork help supervisors “keep abreast of operational activities and local crime conditions”, “closely monitor and supervise arresting officers’ administrative skills”, and “gauge their ability to assemble evidence, collate ‘facts’ and take statements”. In some countries, notably the United Kingdom (UK), this move towards greater monitoring and oversight of front-line work has been attributed to the rise of new public managerialism, a theory of optimal governmental functioning that is premised on incorporating aspects of private sector ideology (namely cost reductions and efficiencies) with a blending of public sector virtues, such as accountability and transparency (McLaughlin and Murji, 2000). With the rise of new public managerialism, we increasingly see the importation of private sector practices such as “audits” and “verification systems”, which also meant an increasing reliance on “paper trails” (Ericson and Haggerty, 2018).

Paperwork has increasingly become a source of frustration and demoralization among officers who perceive the bulk of their work life as “filling out meaningless reports” (Lasiewicki, 2007). Other scholars have noted that officers may feel pressured to work hours of unpaid overtime simply to catch up on incomplete paperwork (Malm et al., 2005). For others, there are feelings of role strain, as officers feel torn between what they have to do (paperwork) and what they feel they should be doing (attending calls for service) (Huey and Ricciardelli, 2015). In one UK study, Loftus (2010) found examples of role strain among officers who felt compelled to complete paperwork, which they viewed as impinging on their ability to be involved in “authentic policing experiences” such as crime-related work. This can result in a work role overload, described by Duxbury and Higgins (2012: 56) as “a type of role conflict that results from excessive demands on the time and energy supply of an individual such that satisfactory performance is improbable”.

In the current article, we build on the previous literature to present a fuller, more up-to-date picture of the effects of the paperwork burden on individual officers. In essence, our analysis of interviews with officers about their perceptions and experiences of this taskwork allows us to move beyond previous descriptions of the “burden”—which have focused largely, if not solely, on the volume of work—to tease out elements of the process that create organizational stress for officers and how they experience that stress. We complement interview data with ethnographic research, researcher field notes from these observations, and document analysis of non-redacted police forms to fully unpack the weight of paperwork on police in Canada. We note that the paperwork and associated administrative burden surfaced across all datasets—interviews, observations, and non-redacted police forms—which supports a triangulation in our data, allowing for robust and comprehensive analyses and elucidation of the impacts of paperwork on officer wellness.

Methods

Data collection

Data for this study derives from a larger five-year study of Canadian provincial police officers working in the federal Canadian police service—the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). In the Atlantic region, the RCMP is responsible for policing municipalities and provincially as well as federally. Over the course of these five years (2014–2018), in-depth, in-person semi-structured interviews were conducted in-person with 104 police officers from detachments across one Atlantic Canadian province. In addition 31 focus group interviews occurred, introducing a further 134 participants during this time. Participants were recruited by simply asking officers if they were interested in participating in interviews or a focus group while visiting detachments or at the regional headquarters. Interviews and focus groups occurred in-person and in private meeting rooms, with focus groups consisting of three to five participants in each group. Focus groups generated additional data and insights through group interaction and facilitated conversations about respondents’ perceptions and experiences beyond that of their own attitudes and opinions (Morgan, 1997). All interviews covered a range of topics on youth policing, including officer roles and duties, perceptions of youth crime, the policing environment and its effects on youth policing, and successes, challenges, and barriers to implementing extra-judicial measures for youths (e.g., barriers such as like paperwork). These ranged from 40 to 70 minutes in length, and were conducted in English and audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Participants consisted of front-line officers and supervisors working in public-facing positions (e.g. patrol) within the same police service. Rank ranged from constables to inspectors, and ethnicity was mostly White but included very few People of Color and who identified as Indigenous—we do not provide exact numbers because they are so few that we worry about making participants identifiable. Years of service ranged from new to the occupation (fresh out the depot, the RCMP training academy) to upwards of 20+ years of service. Both urban and rural locations were included; however, specific demographics of participants have been purposely excluded to maintain the confidentiality of the participants, which may be easily identified in smaller locations. All data collection occurred with approval from a university research ethics board and in accordance with the Canadian Research Tri-Council guidelines.

Information on this larger project is supplied to contextualize the subset of data analyzed in this study. Specifically, from this larger project, we extracted applicable data on police paperwork and created a separate dataset consisting of only these files. This occurred as a major theme of discussion during this project related to concerns over the potential for increased paperwork. In light of this, we sought to focus on this matter to garner more in-depth insights. Therefore, the final sample consists of 55 interviews with police officers included in this study for analysis. While at the agencies undertaking interviews, ethnographic fieldwork was also conducted by the research team, through the utilization of private offices on-site for written and dictated notetaking. This fieldwork, engaged in by two authors, occurred over a period of approximately six months and allowed direct observations enabling researchers to generate first-hand, in-depth insights into police practices and culture surrounding paperwork and, generally, the operational and organizational stressors impacting policing. This ethnographic research, which we conducted together and individually, occurred during the day and on night shifts, where direct observations were undertaken of, at minimum, 75 police officers’ work during their routine activities. This included in the detachments, in vehicles, and in the regional headquarters. Lastly, around 30 blank non-redacted forms were secured throughout the observation period related to criminal offenses that exemplified the paperwork police typically handled to further our understanding of how paperwork can influence officers’ occupational stress via organizational stress. Altogether, in this study, we present an analysis of findings from 55 interviews with police officers, ethnographic observations of 75 police officers’ work activities, and document analysis of non-redacted police forms to explore the linkages between and effects of the police paperwork burden on occupational and organizational stress.

Analytical procedure

All data were analyzed following a thematic approach. Thematic analysis is a strategy known in qualitative research that involves the identification, analysis, and description of themes within datasets (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Through this, researchers can explore the context of the data at a level of great depth, all while allowing for interpretation and flexibility in the analytical process (Braun and Clarke, 2006). To undertake this analysis, we first started by conducting an inductive, exploratory analysis to familiarize ourselves with the collected data, followed by open-focused coding to generate initial codes (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Themes were then conceptualized by amalgamating codes with commonality into higher-level groupings known as themes. Next, we conducted a second round of coding using the potential themes to compare, contrast, and further develop our preliminary thematic findings and establish subthemes across our data files. After this final review, the themes and subthemes were named and defined (Braun and Clarke, 2006). All data were then coded according to these finalized themes and subthemes. Intercoder reliability was performed through the constant comparative method by two authors to ensure agreement in coding (Cheung and Tai, 2021). Any coding discrepancies were first noted and then discussed until resolution, which was rather simple because agreement was consistent across codes and very few codes resulted in any discrepancies—the resolution in every case was to code an excerpt into two categories rather than isolate the excerpt to one code. In the article, we refrain from assigning pseudonyms but do ensure every quote is from a unique participant. Excerpts are also edited for grammar and speech fillers, never impacting meaning or vernacular. For the purpose of this study, participant numbers have been avoided because they can be distancing and alienating. Pseudonyms have also been withstood, because they imply gender, which may inadvertently identify participants in smaller detachments and rural areas. In addition, owing to the small nature of police agencies, references to gender throughout the results have been avoided to prevent any recognition of participants.

Results

In general, participant responses indicate paperwork as a source of occupational stress for police officers, with several key contributing factors including the heavy time commitment of paperwork, the complexity and counterintuitive nature of paperwork, the continual administrative catch up required, and the effect on officer wellness. Further, participants reported role strain and impacts to attitudes and moods because of the load of paperwork. We structure the results to unpack each theme with support from interview and focus group data.

Police work as “90%” paperwork

The sheer volume of paperwork was a trying and comprehensive emergent theme across participants, as evidenced by one constable: “Paperwork, I must say, it really, really is massive”. The degree of paperwork has, according to participants, surmounted to the point where the public rarely see police, they believe, because “we spend more time behind a computer screen than we do out on the streets. That's why people say we never see a police officer anymore, cause we’re up here”. Another officer lamented their public absence as most evident on night shifts, where “we don’t come to work until six o’clock, so you have a very small window where you can talk to the public because you don’t want to be calling people at one o’clock in the morning. So, from six o’clock until ten o’clock is paperwork”. Thus, paperwork was a significant part of the policing job such that officers felt their visibility and public presence were impacted.

Despite the outcomes of paperwork associated with a considerable public absence (rather than presence), the paperwork police reported as central to their occupational work included forms and “a lot of data entry stuff”. Regarding the latter, one respondent explains that their time was consumed by “stuff that feels like data entry. Every hour or two that you spend doing something on the street feels like it's another three tied to a computer doing paperwork”. As the respondent expresses, for all police, every few hours of investigative work or patrol work translates into hours spent administratively filling out an array of forms and filling in reports. This was echoed by many officers who lamented the degree of paperwork resulting from any call for service; a constable explains the following:

for every ten minutes of fun, you have an hour and half of writing to do now. Say you stop a car, and you catch a guy for impaired driving. The traffic stop itself to the point of arrest might take ten minutes. And then you bring them back here, and breath takes an hour. And then you have about four hours of paperwork to do.

This officer continued by stating that not only does the paperwork need to be prepared quickly for court, but “god forbid you ever make a mistake”, given the repercussions of investigation and errors in court. This represents another source of psychological stress rooted in paperwork processes, which we will revisit.

To explain the breadth of paperwork, one constable describes, “in addition to writing a report that we all have to do anyway. In addition to that, you link all the involved people and involved vehicles and all this other stuff, and you’ve got to search first to see if they’re already there, then you link them”. Thus, illustrating that the paperwork was not as simple as filling in a form; paperwork could and often did also involve steps and additional police work that may or may not be necessary or proportional to the case at hand. A supervisor, relating to the time drain that is paperwork, explains that “to put it in perspective, say I get called to a common, everyday assault. If I spend an hour actually at the scene dealing with the people involved, I’m going to spend nine hours getting ready and the paperwork and the computer stuff done, and then off to court”. Thus, paperwork appears to seep into the very corners of police work, creating ongoing stress as police officers continue to strive to complete all the necessary administrative processes tied to each action they take while on duty.

Another supervisor explains that an officer “spends 90% of the day doing administrative tasks and functions and 10% actually doing solid police work, like actually patrolling”. In fact, most participants describe their paperwork responsibilities as taking up to 90% of their work time; this is instead of what participants refer to as “solid police work”, which involves active policing responsibilities (e.g., case construction, investigative work, or patrol). Another officer, too, reinforces that “the 90% and the 10%—you’re tied to the office now. You’re tied to the computer. You’re tied to all those admin functions [due to paperwork]”, referring back to the previous days when police “were out every single day”, explaining that “now it's 10% interaction and 90% admin, paperwork, forms and surveys”. This description of changes in how police spend their work time illuminates officer perceptions of paperwork over time, emphasizing that the time requirement has not lessened with the advent of new technology.

The stress of paperwork: Complexity and lack of intuitive processes

The stress of paperwork was intensified by the complexities of the tasks and how processes that needed to be followed were not intuitive. Here, one officer described spending most of their days in front of a computer, while doing so creates new administrative burdens as they try to complete the required reporting across different systems and organizations while being inundated by paperwork. They say:

And it was faster because I took my paper out, and I started writing, and it was done. Now you’ve got to get the computer on. You’ve got to hope that it's not locked up. You’ve got to get in, you’ve got to fill out this particular form. Now everybody wants a piece of that. So now, for national statistics, you’ve got to make sure these forms are done. For provincial statistics, you’ve got to make … This is just for, say, domestic violence. Then you’ve got to do the partnership and spousal abuse form. That's a checklist to make sure that you’ve covered off everything that's in the report. Then you have to have the Victim Services forms. That's just forms for a small file; a simple husband was upset at the wife and gave her a push. It's still an assault. We don’t accept it. We don’t agree with it. You’re going to be charged.

This officer's words reveal the complexities of paperwork. It is far from the simple act of completing a report on the incident policed. Instead, they describe filling out forms for different statistical agencies, fighting with the computer for its functionality, and making sure they cover all reporting bases. The extreme volume and lack of straightforwardness of the paperwork create an administrative burden laced with organizational stress.

The RMS system used by officers was viewed as enduringly dysfunctional and embedded in needless repetitive processes. For instance, one officer noted:

The system we got, everyone whines and complains about RMS endlessly, endlessly. And when I joined, RMS was brand new, and it was supposed to be paperless—but now we end up doing both. We have a paper file and an electronic file. So, in some ways, you end up doing stuff twice. You don’t write it out. Most forms we don’t have to write out. You can type them up once and put them on RMS and print them off. You might only have to do the form once, but you’ve got to balance the electronic file and the paper file. You’ve got both of that going at the same time. There's good and bad with RMS …

As this quote exemplifies, the online system to track police activities appears to add to the paperwork burden rather than reduce it, which equates to the complex balancing of needs both of electronic and hard-copy reporting. Others discussed incidents that were “five to ten minutes maybe to deal with it, and you could be here for hours just inputting, you know, [the system] is inputting the same information three times”. The respondent spoke of the volume and complex process that is RMS reporting and reiterated a previous theme: that paperwork makes police work take significantly longer while articulating that RMS created duplications in efforts.

The complexity of the processes was another tremendous complaint put forth by officers and a source of immense stress. Participants spent much time talking about the particularly complex process that underpinned uploading images for reports. These were made difficult by multiple factors, the lack of connectivity in rural areas and cumbersome processes that were not intuitive or reasonable, always limited by the programs used for uploading. One constable explains:

Connectivity is a big thing for scene photos and stuff. Right now, either I can take a picture on my camera, come back here, connect with the computer, download it, put it on my RMS file, and that's time-consuming. Or I can take pictures on my phone, email them to myself, download them onto the computer and attach them to the file. Something to streamline that would be nice … Also, something that we spend a lot of time doing is shrinking files. If I take a five- or six-megapixel picture on my phone, the file is three or four mgs or whatever, right? RMS will only take single attachments up to about two mgs. So, I have to go into ACDSee, or whatever graphics program we’re using, and shrink every file down. You could take anywhere from four or five or 20 or 30 pictures at the scene for a motor vehicle collision, where you take all these pictures. So, you have to come back, download them, resize them. You can either add each of them to RMS individually, which is a very time-consuming thing to do …

The complexity inherent in the process of uploading images is apparent in this officer's words. Participants explained their struggles, both tied to connectivity issues but more so inherent to the process of resizing and uploading images. This stress is particularly problematic with the increasingly digital age and the need to include images (photographs) tied to crimes or crime scenes (Huey and Ricciardelli, 2015). One officer said: “it would be amazing to be able to upload, either directly into your file would be a dream, but even something that would just upload whenever it got wi-fi connectivity or whatever, right?”. This participant elucidates the added complexity of rural policing, and the impact of connectivity issues while working in the field for police.

Participants spoke about tools that were supposed to support their efforts toward completing paperwork when on patrol or responding to a call for service—specifically, the mobile data terminals located in select police vehicles. Instead, speaking to the stress such devices cause, a participant explains that any help they are to provide is:

… false. Those things [mobile data terminal], half the time they work, half the time they don’t work. And when they do work, they’re a pain in the ass. You have glitches, they’re slow as hell. Why would I spend, because literally to write up a five-minute file while I’m behind the desk, on there (because it's so slow), it’ll take me 30 minutes.

Thus, even technological supports are sources of psychological strain because of their dysfunction, as evidenced by this officer.

Another complex process that hindered their ability to deal with the paperwork burden was the strain imposed by the criminal justice system itself. The court processes and other systemic justice needs applied additional burdens to police who have to prepare files for these systems. A respondent explains:

… the judicial system here … First of all, they want everything on paper. Everything got original signatures; they don’t want to see copies or anything else. The court itself, when you lay an information wants two copies both signed, original information's. Defense attorneys have a wonderful way of making sure they get what they want so everything has to be on paper, and obviously, they don’t have the programs to open up our programs … and the provincial government is so interested in statistics and statistical evidence to support arguments I guess, that it eventually lands back on the member to do it … 

Thus, as this participant's words express, the processes required by courts and government add to the burden; they are neither reasonable in request, intuitive in nature, nor streamlined and appropriate. Respondents here also lamented that they were required to prepare multiple “original copies” for courts, which was also at least a duplication of already duplicated efforts. An officer explains, “Here you have to bring four copies … the court gets an original, I get an original, the crown gets an original, the defense gets an original. No, no. In my mind, there's one original document. They should get true copies, but here we have to bring four copies”. Again, overly complex processes created additional administrative burdens.

Another respondent, generally demotivated by paperwork, described their work as “I pump out stats like crazy. I’m a walking statistic. Everything I do is based on stats. How many tickets did you write, how many domestics did you go to, how many this, how many that?”, again referring to the government processes requesting statistics to support analysis where the burden to create the data for information processing rests on the officers. In essence, we see a top-down push that creates more administrative work for police but fails to reduce their opposing responsibilities. Thus, a work role overload exists, weighing down police in our study, which at times, seems insurmountable. In this sense, participants are constantly managing the strain of trying to “catch up” on their paperwork, negotiating the conflicting demands on their time, energy, and resources.

Spending time catching up

Members discussed the psychological toll that accompanies being off for any kind of leave because of the volume of paperwork that awaits their return. Officers spoke about “catching up” after periods off duty, but also, catching up because of the lack of backfill that accompanies other members taking leave. For example, a constable describes their experience returning from leave:

Well, we’ve got so many files coming in, and like, I was off this summer, but the guys were working so short, like you’re responding to calls, you’re doing the paperwork, and that's all you really got time to do right. The extra stuff, it's just not there.

The officer’s words illustrate the burden of paperwork as prolonged and insurmountable, particularly after periods away. There is a psychological toll tied to the paperwork that awaits their return, impacting their ability to de-stress on leave but also shaping their return to work. This is intensified by the sentiment of “working short”, as working officers must carry the redistributed load of work in the absence of their peers without additional support. Similarly, another respondent explains their experience:

I find when I come to work on my first day back, I’m in the office for three or four hours catching up on stuff. With our job, [this agency] (I don’t know how [another city] policies are), but for us, we’re more flexible. We can come in the office and do a bit of paperwork, and then if we don’t want to do any more paperwork, we can get on the road and deal with situations that are happening out there, whether it's kids at the hockey rink or speeding vehicles.

This participant describes the time commitment of catching up, with every return to work involving hours of paperwork. Although they may decide to take a break from the paperwork, it is evident that the paperwork remains an ongoing priority carried forward and pushed to a later time.

Other participants discussed “catching up” despite not having leave and the carry forward of the paperwork load, as one respondent details spending “99% of my time’s behind a desk. I haven’t left the office today, other than driving from bay, then I parked myself in front of the desk, trying to get some paperwork caught up. I’ve been trying to catch up since October–December. … I got written down I have 19 motor vehicle collision reports that need to be submitted, and I can’t sit down”. This officer is unable to catch up despite trying, which is consistent with our ethnographic observations—we watched members for weeks trying to get their paperwork done in detachments but never seeming to catch up.

Psychological impacts: Paperwork leading to compromised wellness

The psychological toll of paperwork was the most significant emergent theme across our interviews. Officers emphasized feeling hopeless because of the amount of unfinished paperwork and that the administrative burden was pressure-inducing. For instance, one respondent said: “You can’t get caught up on paperwork if you’re out responding to calls or talking to complainants on the phone or doing that type of thing. You’ve still got to type it all up, right?”; describing the ever-increasing paperwork that shapes their occupational work. This psychological effect was evident through themes of role strain and the lack of proactive policing, effects on attitudes and moods in the workplace, and the sentiment that officers are performing unnecessary work.

Role strain and job focus

The psychological strain of paperwork and the influence on proactive policing and role strain was a recurrent theme and reported stressor. The paperwork was referred to as “just hamper[ing you]. You can’t really do anything proactive [it's all reactive]”. Another officer discussed the psychological weariness of paperwork, saying, “Everything is ‘do this and do that,’ but the paperwork weighs down the members, and they’ll say there's too much paperwork, so I can’t do these extra things. Members are like, ‘I can’t write tickets, I’m too busy’”. Here, it is evident that the gravity of administrative paperwork impacts the ability of officers to engage in proactive police work, such as traffic stops. In this sense, paperwork was seen as hampering the ability of members to do all parts of their jobs. Reflecting on colleagues, a detective explained that “people get overwhelmed with it”, as, “diary dates” resulted in “spend[ing] all week making sure that these [diary dates] are up-to-date so that it looks pretty for management … It is frustrating. Because a lot of us, I mean … I didn’t join [this police agency] to sit behind a desk … I find it discouraging”. This officer describes the disappointment between their desires when joining the police agency and the reality of how they spend their work time. In addition, this participant notes that diary dates (soft deadline dates for file completion that can be extended if needed), are for management purposes and add further strain to officer workloads.

One officer noted, “You think with being a police officer you think about being out there and being … You know, doing stuff. Being visible, being on the road, talking to people, you know. But there's just so much of this foolish paperwork that really, it can be done so much more easier, but it's not”. This participant describes the paperwork as “foolish” and creating stress that reduced officers’ abilities to do their job.

Attitudes and moods

Another recurring theme was the impact paperwork had on attitudes and moods in the workplace. One constable expressed that paperwork makes members “pessimistic and being in a rotten mood, but a lot of the time we feel like some of the resources are just nagging us and ah we feel like okay ‘what is the point of this?’ We feel like they’re … they’re hounding us for certain information, and we’re having to fill out a form and send it to them so they can justify their job”, evidencing the impact on morale and the frustration of the job, as well as the psychological toll of such processes, equating the work to “administrative garbage”. Other officers agreed, for example: “the information is already captured in the file, and we’re expected to write up other reports that capture the same information. But somebody needs a specific form that they can look up because they can’t actually go and find it themselves”. These participants point to the redundancy and duplication of work within their administrative duties, further describing the sentiment they are responsible for the work of others. Paperwork also impacted morale in detachments and creating “rotten moods” among police officers. Another constable described themself as “I’m a paperboy. A glorified hand holder, and I’m good at paperwork”. Such processes resulted from “too much policy, too much paper now”. This is consistent with previous evidence of role strain as officers feel firmly rooted in administrative work, with limited capacity for police functions.

Others, like the following officer, explain that paperwork leaves members “jaded”, asking, “why am I putting in all these hours for and stressing about getting this paperwork done when really it doesn’t mean anything? You still gotta do it, but it creates that little built-in frustration. Like this is really ridiculous that I’m even jumping through these hoops right now”. Thus, paperwork is seen as meaningless pressure and an occupational requirement with little to no benefit, which increases officer stress and impacts officer mood in the workplace. One constable called the paperwork “disheartening”, drawing attention to how “every time I conclude a file, I get two more back. You pick up two more. And you get rid of those two, and you pick up two more”. Echoing many others, participants were “overwhelmed” by paperwork: “It's the one thing that everyone hates the most”. Others too explained, “paperwork is [pause], it drags you down. There's no doubt about it … it comes down to the stupid calls that we get. So, then I’ve got to sit behind and explain why I did what I did for a stupid file that we should never have been called from. But that all takes time”. This officer notes frustration in the requirement for paperwork for calls for service that are minor in nature, as an obstacle disproportionate to the officer's effort at the call. One participant further explained that for every call they receive, they are required to log the call, and then “we have to send it to our supervisor. Then our supervisor approves it, and then he sends it to his supervisor. [laughs] So you’re not only wearing me down, you’re wearing my supervisor down and then you’re wearing his supervisor down with files”. This officer illuminates the ramifications of paperwork as impacting the responding officer, but also influencing their supervisors and others within the hierarchy of command. Similarly, a supervisor described their experience:

We do just get a little bit robotic, and we do just punch the paper through … A lot of times, too, when you put through a thousand documents, or you set up and you see that, once again, we’re broken sometimes (not as an organization … but just the criminal justice system as a whole), that you do get a little disgruntled after a while.

This participant speaks to the effect of the paperwork on self, becoming “robotic” and “disgruntled” by the processes, going through the motions of paperwork in a way that perhaps allows them to disengage from paperwork, complete their work, but also, at the same time, protect their own well-being by distancing themselves from the organizational burden.

Officer attitudes regarding the unending nature of paperwork were intensified by any errors. Respondents spoke about files being returned regularly for minor errors in filling out forms that were often insignificant to the case but added additional strain onto their paperwork burden. One respondent describes:

If you put one little thing wrong in that Victim Report, that file gets kicked back to you. One little thing. It's a pain in the ass. I can’t even describe how much of a pain in the ass that thing is. Because you can put—it says ‘weapon used.’ You’ll put a weapon in there that was used, and then it will kick it back and say, “No, it has to be something else”. No, wait, what? That's what it was. No, it's got to be something else.

In this instance, the officer speaks to the vexation that arises when paperwork “gets kicked back” and the aggravation felt while negotiating with computer systems, despite entering valid information related to the case.

Discussion

Policing has been well recognized as a profession that can lead to occupational stress injuries, stemming from organizational stressors such as navigating relationships with colleagues, shifts and scheduling, and workload. This study focuses on one element of organizational stress often overlooked in the current body of literature: the police paperwork burden. Our findings provide strong evidence that police officers feel that the paperwork-related administrative demands of their jobs are overwhelming, consuming upwards of 90% of their work time. Participants lamented the consuming nature of paperwork, describing administrative work such as filling out forms, completing reports, and data entry on RMS, as their core occupational demand and the most time-consuming activity in the job. Generally, the central theme across our analyzed data was that participants were always catching up on paperwork and never felt they experienced a reprieve from administrative demands. Although consequences are multifold, one notable effect of the administrative burden on officers is the concomitant of reactive response: the handling of calls for service in between completing paperwork and other administrative tasks, rather than proactively as they are mainly left absent from the public eye as a means to attend to paperwork demands.

The complex processes tied to paperwork, including those induced by RMS, as well as the reporting needs of courts and the government, were additional sources of psychological stress. Participants talked about duplicating their efforts when filling out forms and reports, and described the software as dysfunctional, and the processes as non-intuitive—often not making any logical sense. Describing themselves as “walking statistics”, officers felt the burden of external tasks being pushed onto their list of responsibilities by government and criminal justice actors, who continued to expect the police to respond to all their unique processing needs. The shift towards evidence-based policing practices does require data for analysis and means for best-practices; however, a balance is required to eliminate redundancy (e.g., entering the same data repeatedly in different ways) and frustration (e.g., software that is not user-friendly), while allowing the production of useful data that can inform evidence-based approaches. Moreover, paperwork processes were exacerbated by challenges when dealing with developments in technology and technological demands. The expansion of the use of and need for additional software (e.g., for digital images) further complicated processes leading to increased frustrations. Participants reported feeling like “paperboys”, spending the majority of their time completing paperwork and becoming frustrated by the systems. A review of all paperwork and forms through a lens of reducing redundancy within police services could decrease technological issues causing officer frustration. Given our findings, such efforts, although labor-intensive on the front end, could be beneficial for officer morale but also could create more hours in the day for proactive police work. This would also assist with managing the burden created by staffing shortages and paperwork demands.

Officers also spoke about the lack of utility of the mobile workstations located in many police vehicles for various reasons: first, the units often did not work but, second, online connectivity was often lacking in the rural areas in which they policed, making such devices useless. To this end, further investigation into the paperwork burden and the associated tools, such as mobile workstations, with a revisited focus on the rural and remote context that underpins much of the police work in Canada is recommended.

The gravity of paperwork led to feelings of hopelessness among our participants, who were trapped in an ongoing cycle of managing the unending administrative burden. This hopeless feeling was tied to never being able to catch up on their paperwork, the volume of paperwork, and the fact that even when completed, the paperwork forms seemed to be returned to the members because of perceived (and sometimes false) errors. Officers also expressed that paperwork left them “jaded”, “disgruntled”, “angry”, and “frustrated”, referring to the forms and processes as “stupid” and “foolish”. These descriptors reinforce the psychological toll that results from paperwork, as it overwhelms officers and thus clearly impacts their mental health and well-being.

The paperwork burden also permeates the chain of command, because supervisors and superiors are also impacted by paperwork obligations. In this sense, future researchers may seek to understand the hierarchical organization impacts of paperwork on superior officers. Efforts to streamline paperwork processes will clearly impact all levels of police organizations. A streamlined paperwork approach that is functional, intuitive, and designed for public safety as much as police and organizational accountability could yield improvements in staff retention and job satisfaction.

Strengths, limitations and concluding remarks

Like all research, our study is not without limitations. We did not use psychometrics or mental health assessments during our investigation of the impact of paperwork on police. Future research that combines an analysis of paperwork with officer mental health is thus warranted. Our study is also limited in that we did not originally set out to study paperwork. Instead, the paperwork burden emerged as a predominant reality and theme across our focus group, and interview data and ethnographic observations. A structured study looking at the paperwork challenge, how police respond to it, and what forms can be revised or removed is necessary. Lastly, our study findings may not be generalizable beyond that which was studied here, as our data originates from one Atlantic province in Canada. Additional study of the paperwork burden, particularly its impacts on organizational stress, is thus warranted.

Despite these limitations, this study provides valuable insight into the effects of paperwork on police, establishing paperwork as an organizational stressor and, thus, an occupational stressor for officers. Several key findings contribute to the literature on police occupational stressors, unpacking the depth of the previously established “burden” of paperwork and illuminating the complexity and occupational monopoly of paperwork duties on police time. Our study provides evidence of the effects on officer attitudes and moods presented by administrative duties and illuminates the role strain felt by officers. In addition, our work presents novel detail into the gravity of interminable paperwork “catch up” experienced by police officers, and the resultant consequences throughout the police hierarchy. Further research directed toward reducing workplace redundancies is warranted to reduce officer stress and strain, eliminate workplace duplications, and streamline internal and external processes within the justice system. User-informed technological changes through a human factors system lens, in collaboration with justice partners benefiting from police-generated data could create improvements to the work experiences of police officers by reducing occupational stress.