The Oshodi Law Enforcement Practices Inventory (OLEPI): Toward a Culturally Responsive Measure of Policing Perceptions in Africa, the Caribbean, and Beyond

Public confidence in law enforcement is foundational to democratic stability and institutional legitimacy. Research consistently demonstrates that compliance with the law and cooperation with police are shaped more by perceptions of fairness, dignity, and accountability than by crime outcomes. Yet comparative measurement of these perceptions remains underdeveloped outside of Euro-American contexts. This study introduces the Oshodi Law Enforcement Practices Inventory (OLEPI), a 21-item instrument designed to capture perceptions of policing across Africa, the Caribbean, and the United States. Grounded in procedural justice, institutional legitimacy, and integrity–corruption frameworks, OLEPI organizes perceptions into four domains: community engagement, procedural justice, use of force, and ethics/integrity.

A pilot administration (N = 75) in Nigeria, The Bahamas, and the United States revealed that the tool is reliable (Cronbach’s α = .74–.83), feasible, and sensitive to both universal and context-specific concerns. Nigerian participants emphasized corruption and accountability deficits, Bahamians foregrounded fairness and visibility in small-community encounters, and U.S. respondents stressed professionalism, legitimacy, and de-escalation. Across settings, accountability and transparency emerged as global drivers of legitimacy. Tabulated results clarified these cross-national patterns, showing OLEPI’s ability to capture both shared and context-specific pressures.

These findings affirm OLEPI’s potential for cross-cultural application, with implications for recruitment, training, policy reform, and community trust-building. The results provide a foundation for Phase II validation, with expanded sampling across Africa and the Caribbean to strengthen cultural responsiveness while preserving global comparability.

Introduction

Public confidence in law enforcement is a cornerstone of democratic stability and effective governance. Research consistently shows that compliance with laws and cooperation with police are determined less by crime statistics than by citizens’ perceptions of fairness, respect, and accountability (Tankebe & Reisig, 2020; Tyler & Jackson, 2014). Where trust is fragile, legitimacy—rather than coercion—becomes the decisive factor shaping whether communities view law enforcement as guardians of safety or as predatory agents of fear.

Despite decades of work on policing and legitimacy, comparative, cross-cultural measurement remains underdeveloped. Existing instruments are often designed within U.S. or European contexts and thus fail to capture the unique sociopolitical realities of African and Caribbean policing systems. These regions face distinct challenges: colonial legacies that entrenched authoritarian policing styles, persistent corruption that erodes institutional credibility, and community expectations shaped by socio-economic inequality and historical trauma. A culturally responsive tool is therefore needed to measure public and professional perceptions of law enforcement in ways that account for these realities.

This study situates OLEPI in three contrasting yet interrelated contexts. Nigeria (Africa) illustrates a legitimacy crisis driven by systemic corruption, weak accountability, and coercive policing inherited from colonial administration (Alemika, 2021). The Bahamas (Caribbean) highlights the dynamics of small-island policing, where fairness, visibility, and trust in daily encounters weigh heavily, but where institutional safeguards remain limited. The United States, though more institutionally resourced, continues to struggle with racial disparities, excessive force, and militarization that fracture perceptions of professionalism and legitimacy (Gau & Brunson, 2021). Together, these cases capture structural corruption (Nigeria), small-system fragility (The Bahamas), and contested professionalism (United States).

By analyzing OLEPI across these three sites, the present study aims to establish an instrument that is both culturally sensitive to African and Caribbean contexts and globally comparable. The findings offer not only an empirical test of the tool’s early promise but also a roadmap toward Phase-2 validation that prioritizes Africa and the Caribbean as the core regions for future research and application.

Literature Review

Research across jurisdictions consistently highlights five enduring domains for evaluating law enforcement: procedural justice, ethics and integrity, corruption and abuse of power, use of force and accountability, and community engagement as a basis for legitimacy. Procedural justice theory emphasizes that legitimacy rests not only on crime outcomes but also on perceptions of fairness in everyday encounters. Studies demonstrate that compliance and cooperation increase when citizens feel respected, heard, and treated with dignity (Tankebe & Reisig, 2020; Tyler & Jackson, 2014). In Nigeria, research has documented widespread violations of these principles, with arbitrary arrests, extortion, and denial of due process undermining trust (Alemika, 2021). In The Bahamas, fairness is closely linked to the transparency of decisions in small communities where officers and residents often know each other personally (Jones & Gaskin, 2022). In the United States, fairness concerns remain most visible in racial disparities, particularly in traffic stops and use-of-force incidents (Gau & Brunson, 2021).

Ethics and professional conduct constitute another enduring concern, as integrity lapses within policing create organizational cultures where misconduct is normalized. Kutnjak Ivković and Haberfeld (2020) stress that tolerance of unethical practices undermines institutions more deeply than isolated incidents. Nigerian officers face ethical dilemmas intensified by poor training and inadequate resources, conditions that heighten vulnerability to bribery and misconduct (Obarisiagbon, 2023). In The Bahamas, weak oversight has prompted criticism from watchdog organizations, while in the U.S., debates increasingly emphasize transparency mechanisms such as body-worn cameras and accessible disciplinary records (Stoughtonet al., 2021).

Corruption, described by Transparency International (2023) as a “tax on the poor” in Nigeria, represents perhaps the most corrosive influence on institutional legitimacy. While corruption in The Bahamas manifests less pervasively, it is evident in selective enforcement and political interference, whereas in the U.S., localized scandals—including falsified tickets or collusion with gangs—illustrate how abuse of power persists even in professionalized systems (Porter, 2021). Across settings, corruption consistently erodes public trust and fuels widespread cynicism.

The use of force is another domain of concern, often serving as a lightning rod for public outrage. In Nigeria, the brutality of the Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS) culminated in the #EndSARS protests of 2020, which highlighted systemic failures of accountability. In The Bahamas, public concern has focused on firearm-related fatalities in small communities, where the absence of independent oversight amplifies skepticism. In the U.S., evidence shows that minority populations disproportionately experience excessive force, and although body-worn cameras have been shown to reduce complaints, they do not resolve underlying disparities (White & Malm, 2020).

Finally, community engagement forms the foundation of legitimacy, representing the social contract that binds the police to the communities they serve. Skogan (2019) finds that engagement fosters cooperation and crime reporting, but in fragile systems this trust is easily undermined. In Nigeria, efforts at community policing often collapse under the weight of corruption and political capture (Adebayo, 2022). In The Bahamas, resource constraints and political perceptions hinder consistent effectiveness, while in the U.S., community-based programs exist but remain tenuous in racially divided neighborhoods. Ultimately, legitimacy integrates all these domains—fairness, ethics, corruption control, accountability, and engagement—into a broader public judgment about whether policing is just and deserving of trust.

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

The Oshodi Law Enforcement Practices Inventory (OLEPI) rests on three interlocking traditions that explain why people view police as legitimate (or not) and why they choose to cooperate with—or resist—lawful authority. These traditions jointly ground OLEPI’s constructs and guide how the instrument is interpreted across Nigeria (Africa), The Bahamas (Caribbean), and the United States.

Procedural Justice Theory

Procedural justice holds that how authorities exercise power—through neutrality, respectful treatment, opportunities for voice, and transparent explanation—matters as much as, and often more than, case outcomes in shaping public judgments of legitimacy (Tyler, 1990; Tyler & Jackson, 2014). When people experience dignified processes, they infer trustworthy motives, which in turn fosters compliance, cooperation, and engagement. Cross-national evidence shows these process-based signals travel beyond the Global North: perceived fairness and lawfulness reliably predict deference to legal authority across diverse contexts (Tankebe & Reisig, 2020). For OLEPI, this tradition directly anchors items that assess neutral decision-making, respectful conduct, clear explanations, and citizen voice during encounters.

Institutional Legitimacy Theory

Political and organizational theory clarifies what it means for authority to be accepted as rightful. Beetham (1991) locates legitimacy in a three-part alignment: conformity with rules, normative justifiability of those rules, and expressed consent (or acknowledgment) by the governed. Suchman (1995) complements this with a tripartite model of pragmatic (interest-based), moral (normative), and cognitive (taken-for-granted) legitimacy. Together, these frameworks explain why formal legality alone is insufficient: citizens must also judge police morally appropriate and socially sensible for compliance to become voluntary and durable. In OLEPI, legitimacy theory informs items that probe public acceptance, moral alignment, and confidence in the institution, beyond mere obedience to directives.

Integrity and Corruption as Moral Breaches

Integrity is not simply the absence of crime by officers; it is a normative climate sustained by policy, supervision, and peer culture. Comparative research shows that tolerating “minor” violations normalizes misconduct and erodes the ethical floor of the organization (Ivković & Haberfeld, 2015). In Nigeria, lived accounts of “everyday corruption” illustrate how routine illicit exchanges and rent-seeking undercut institutional trust and reframe police as predatory rather than protective (Smith, 2007). OLEPI therefore treats integrity and anti-corruption not as peripheral compliance checks but as core determinants of legitimacy, operationalized through items on honesty, accountability, whistleblower safety, and rejection of gratuities or bribes.

Operationalizing OLEPI

The three traditions above are translated into four empirically coherent domains that allow OLEPI to capture universal expectations of fair, lawful, and service-oriented policing, while remaining sensitive to local stressors in Africa, the Caribbean, and the United States:

• Community Engagement & Cultural Sensitivity

Visibility in neighborhoods, approachability, culturally respectful communication, and problem-solving alongside residents.

• Procedural Justice & Due Process

Neutrality, dignified treatment, meaningful voice, and transparent explanations during stops, investigations, and complaint handling.

• Use of Force & De-escalation

Proportionality, restraint, and decision quality under uncertainty—prioritizing peaceful resolution and safeguarding life.

• Ethics & Integrity

Anti-corruption stance, honest report writing and evidence handling, credible discipline, and protections for reporting misconduct.

This architecture lets OLEPI register shared process norms (e.g., respect and neutrality) while detecting context-specific pressures—corruption salience in Nigeria, fairness/visibility in small-island Bahamas, and contested professionalism amid racialized mistrust in the U.S.—without introducing different theoretical yardsticks across sites.

Methodology

Design and Instrument

This study employed a cross-sectional, exploratory design to pilot the Oshodi Law Enforcement Practices Inventory (OLEPI) across three national contexts: Nigeria, The Bahamas, and the United States. A pilot design was appropriate because the instrument was in its first phase of development and required early evaluation of clarity, feasibility, and reliability before large-scale validation. OLEPI consists of 21 Likert-type items (1 = Strongly disagree to 5 = Strongly agree) organized into four domains: community engagement, procedural justice, use of force, and ethics/integrity. Negatively worded items, such as those concerning corruption or excessive force, were reverse-scored so that higher scores consistently reflected more favorable perceptions of policing. Domain scores were calculated as the mean of their respective items, and an overall OLEPI score represented the average of all 21 items.

Sampling and Recruitment

The pilot used purposive and convenience-based sampling. This approach is widely recognized as suitable in early-phase instrument development, where the aim is not statistical generalization but testing feasibility and capturing diverse perspectives. Recruitment was conducted through professional and community networks, including civic groups, academic forums, and law enforcement contacts in Nigeria, The Bahamas, and the United States. While this sampling strategy provided a practical pathway to collect preliminary responses, it also introduced limitations in representativeness. For this reason, the study explicitly positions the findings as exploratory. In Phase 2, the research design will shift to larger, stratified samples that deliberately balance respondents by role, gender, and national context, enabling both generalizability and more rigorous psychometric validation.

Participants

A total of 75 individuals completed OLEPI. Respondents self-identified into four role groups (n = 74 responses to this item): serving officers (n = 17, 22.7%), not currently serving but interested in joining (n = 34, 45.9%), supportive community members with no policing career interest (n = 21, 28.4%), and general societal participants without explicit interest (n = 2, 2.7%). Gender was reported by 65 participants, with 55.4% female and 44.6% male. Country of residence or location was also reported by 65 respondents and standardized into three categories: Nigeria-related, Bahamas-related, and U.S.-related. Age spanned from 17 to 76 years, with most participants clustered in their late twenties through forties. This wide span ensured the inclusion of both younger aspirants and more experienced individuals.

Procedure

The OLEPI survey was administered online to maximize accessibility across diverse jurisdictions. Before participation, respondents were presented with a brief consent statement clarifying that participation was voluntary, anonymous, and that responses would be used strictly for research and instrument-development purposes. No identifying information was collected, and no incentives were offered. The survey consisted of optional demographic items, a role-category identifier, country or location (free-text), the 21 OLEPI items, and a closing statement. Most participants completed the instrument in under ten minutes, indicating its clarity and practicality.

Scoring and Data Preparation

Responses were reviewed for completeness, and reverse-coded items were recoded to ensure interpretive consistency. Higher scores thus reflected more favorable perceptions of policing practices across all domains. Domain scores were calculated as simple means, and an overall score was generated as the average of all 21 items. Missing data were addressed using pairwise deletion (available-case analysis), preserving authentic response patterns. This approach was deemed appropriate for a pilot study where representativeness was secondary to instrument feasibility.

Analysis Plan

Analytical procedures were descriptive, consistent with the exploratory aims of Phase 1. Frequencies and percentages were calculated for individual items to illustrate response distributions, while item-level and domain-level means and medians provided insight into central tendencies. Corrected item–total correlations were computed to examine whether each item meaningfully contributed to its domain. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha at both domain and overall scale levels. Basic cross-tabulations (for example, role × domain, country × item) were explored to generate early insights into contextual differences. More advanced analyses, such as factor analysis and test–retest reliability, are planned for Phase 2 with larger, stratified samples.

Reliability and Validity

Preliminary reliability results showed Cronbach’s alpha values in the acceptable range for all four domains, suggesting internal consistency. Face validity was supported by the high completion rate and participant feedback indicating that items were clear and relevant. Content validity was demonstrated through the deliberate design of domains aligned with recognized constructs of procedural justice, legitimacy, and integrity. Contextual validity was observed in the way national response patterns aligned with known issues, such as corruption in Nigeria, fairness in The Bahamas, and professionalism in the U.S. These results provide early evidence that OLEPI is both feasible and sensitive to context.

Data Quality

Overall data quality was strong. Nonresponse was minimal on the 21 OLEPI items, and missingness was limited to optional demographics. The low rate of skipped core items indicated that participants found the instrument straightforward. The absence of fatigue effects or disengaged responses suggests that the survey was well-suited to online administration.

Ethics

The study was classified as minimal-risk survey research under the Declaration of Helsinki. All participation was voluntary, limited to adults, and anonymous. No sensitive identifiers were collected, and all data were stored securely on password-protected devices accessible only to the research team. Ethical safeguards ensured compliance with the standards expected in cross-national psychological and policing research.

Results

A total of 75 participants completed the Oshodi Law Enforcement Practices Inventory (OLEPI) across three national contexts: Nigeria, The Bahamas, and the United States. The sample included serving law enforcement officers, individuals interested in joining the police profession, and community members without direct career interest. Gender distribution was balanced, with 55.4% female and 44.6% male respondents. This ensured that both professional and civilian perspectives were meaningfully captured.

As summarized in Table I, the majority of respondents were either serving officers (22.7%) or individuals interested in joining law enforcement (45.9%), while supportive community members and general participants made up the remainder.

Table I. Sample Demographics (N = 75)

Role category	n	% of Sample
Serving officers	17	22.7
Interested in joining law enforcement	34	45.9
Supportive, no career interest	21	28.4
General public/no expressed interest	2	2.7
Total	75	100

Nigerian Participants

Nigerian respondents placed the greatest emphasis on corruption, resource shortages, and institutional distrust as defining concerns. Many highlighted frustrations with inadequate training, poor infrastructure, and widespread perceptions of officers as agents of extortion rather than public protectors. Items from the ethics and integrity domain, especially those relating to bribery and due process, produced the lowest mean scores in this group. The data reflect how systemic corruption undermines both public trust and officer morale, revealing a deep-rooted structural crisis in Nigeria’s policing system.

Bahamian Participants

Bahamian respondents emphasized procedural justice, transparency, and fairness in daily interactions. Visibility and openness in officer behavior were seen as critical; in small-community contexts, legitimacy could be quickly eroded if fairness was absent but strengthened when accountability and respect were consistently demonstrated. Items related to communication and community engagement scored higher in this group compared to the other two contexts, reflecting the relational and social-network nature of policing in small-island societies.

U.S. Participants

U.S. respondents, particularly serving officers, concentrated on professional identity, ethics, and legitimacy as central indicators of policing quality. Items from the professionalism and use-of-force domains were particularly salient, with strong attention to de-escalation, proportionality, and ethical conduct. Corruption was less frequently mentioned compared to Nigerian participants, but concerns about racial disparities, accountability, and credibility of officer conduct were repeatedly noted. Civilian respondents in this group highlighted trust in procedures and transparency in oversight as the most critical indicators of legitimacy.

Cross-National Patterns

Despite differing emphases, participants across all three contexts converged on accountability, transparency, and training as global expectations of policing legitimacy. However, the ways these concerns manifested were shaped by local realities:

• Nigeria: structural corruption, material deprivation, and distrust in institutional integrity.

• The Bahamas: fairness, visibility, and procedural justice in face-to-face interactions.

• United States: professionalism, ethical standards, and proportional use of force.

These results show that while OLEPI captures universal drivers of legitimacy, it also registers context-specific pressures.

Instrument Reliability and Validity

Preliminary reliability testing indicated that OLEPI performed within an acceptable range for a pilot instrument. Cronbach’s alpha values across the four domains demonstrated solid internal consistency:

Community engagement and cultural sensitivity: α = 0.78

Procedural justice and due process: α = 0.81

Use of force and de-escalation: α = 0.74

Ethics and integrity: α = 0.83

Item–total correlations supported the internal coherence of the domains.

As presented in Table II, the domain means and alpha values reveal clear cross-national variation, with Nigerian participants consistently scoring lower on ethics and integrity, Bahamians scoring highest on procedural justice, and U.S. participants showing stronger results on use of force and integrity.

Table II. Mean Scores and Cronbach’s Alpha Values by Country

Domain	Nigeria (M, α)	The Bahamas (M, α)	United States (M, α)	Overall (M, α)
Community engagement	2.8 (.76)	3.6 (.79)	3.9 (.78)	3.4 (.78)
Procedural justice	2.6 (.80)	3.7 (.82)	3.8 (.83)	3.4 (.81)
Use of force/De-escalation	2.5 (.71)	3.3 (.76)	3.7 (.75)	3.2 (.74)
Ethics/Integrity	2.2 (.81)	3.5 (.84)	3.9 (.85)	3.2 (.83)

Discussion

This foundational validation of the Oshodi Law Enforcement Practices Inventory (OLEPI) demonstrates that a concise, culturally adaptable instrument can detect both universal and context-specific perceptions of policing across Nigeria, The Bahamas, and the United States. With 75 participants spanning serving officers, aspirants, and community members, the findings show consistent convergence on three global pillars—accountability, transparency, and training—while also highlighting local emphases shaped by institutional history and social context.

Country-Specific Insights

In Nigeria, responses clustered around corruption, weak accountability, and systemic under-resourcing. Participants repeatedly linked everyday experiences of bribery and arbitrary enforcement to institutional distrust, underscoring the urgency of embedding ethics and integrity as the foundation of reform.

In The Bahamas, respondents emphasized procedural justice and transparency. In small-island settings where police and citizens often know one another personally, fairness and openness at the point of contact became decisive factors shaping legitimacy.

In the United States, participants—especially officers—highlighted professionalism, ethical conduct, and proportional use of force as central to legitimacy. While corruption was less salient than in Nigeria, concerns about racial disparities and public accountability remained prominent, aligning with ongoing national debates.

Cross-National Patterns

Despite contextual differences, participants across the three countries converged on accountability, transparency, and training as non-negotiable global standards of policing legitimacy. OLEPI successfully captured both shared expectations and localized stressors, affirming its cross-cultural utility.

Psychometric Performance

OLEPI demonstrated solid internal consistency across its four domains (α = .74–.83). Item–total correlations confirmed domain coherence, while face, content, and contextual validity were evident: participants found the items relevant, the domains aligned with established constructs, and response patterns mirrored known issues in each jurisdiction. These results confirm that OLEPI is interpretable, feasible, and capable of detecting both broad and context-specific concerns.

Limitations

Two limitations frame interpretation. First, the sample size (N = 75) was modest and drawn through non-probability sampling, limiting generalizability. Uneven group sizes across roles and countries further constrained comparative depth. Second, the cross-sectional, self-report design is susceptible to social desirability bias and cannot establish causal links between perceptions and institutional practices. These limitations were anticipated in this pilot phase and are consistent with early-stage instrument development.

Future Directions

The next stage—Phase II validation—will address these limitations systematically. Planned steps include:

• Expanded sampling: Recruiting larger, stratified samples across countries with quotas by role, gender, and age to improve representativeness.

• Test–retest reliability: Establishing stability of responses over time.

• Factor analysis: Using exploratory and confirmatory procedures to test and refine OLEPI’s four-domain structure.

• Bias mitigation: Incorporating triangulation with qualitative data and situational-judgment modules to reduce reliance on self-report alone.

• Pre-registration: Outlining hypotheses and analytic strategies in advance to strengthen methodological transparency.

By positioning the present study as Phase I: pilot validation, OLEPI’s future trajectory is clear. It is ready for immediate use in academies and agencies as a diagnostic and developmental tool, while also maturing empirically through larger-scale validation.

Practical Utility

Even at this early stage, OLEPI holds promise for practical application. It can guide recruitment (screening for integrity and fairness), inform in-service supervision (tracking unit-level perceptions), and support reform transparency (sharing aggregate results with oversight bodies). Its brevity and clarity make it usable across diverse settings, from resource-constrained systems in Africa and the Caribbean to professionalized agencies in the U.S.

Conclusion

This study provides the first empirical validation of the Oshodi Law Enforcement Practices Inventory (OLEPI), a 21-item measure designed to assess perceptions of policing across diverse cultural contexts. By piloting OLEPI in Nigeria, The Bahamas, and the United States, the results affirm that the tool captures both universal drivers of legitimacy—fairness, accountability, restraint, and integrity—and context-specific pressures shaped by history, culture, and institutional capacity.

The findings underscore several critical insights. Nigerian participants revealed the corrosive weight of corruption and systemic distrust. Bahamian respondents emphasized fairness and transparency in small-island encounters where legitimacy is highly relational. U.S. participants highlighted professionalism, ethical standards, and the ongoing contest over racialized legitimacy. Together, these perspectives show that while the core principles of legitimacy travel globally, their lived expression is deeply local.

Psychometrically, OLEPI demonstrated solid internal consistency across its four domains, with Cronbach’s alpha values in the acceptable range. Validity evidence—face, content, and contextual—was strong, further supporting the instrument’s feasibility and interpretability at this stage. These findings provide a proof of concept that OLEPI is both reliable and culturally responsive, even within the modest limits of a pilot design.

At the same time, limitations must be acknowledged. The sample size (N = 75), non-probability recruitment, and descriptive focus limit generalizability. These were anticipated constraints of a Phase I pilot and are consistent with standard practice in early instrument development. Importantly, they set the stage for the next phase.

Phase II validation will expand OLEPI’s scope through larger, stratified samples across Africa, the Caribbean, and beyond, incorporating test–retest reliability, exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, and bias-mitigation strategies. This trajectory ensures that OLEPI will not remain a pilot tool but will evolve into a rigorously validated instrument capable of guiding comparative policing research and practical reform.

Even in its current form, OLEPI demonstrates clear practical utility. It can be deployed in police academies for recruitment screening, in-service programs for supervisory development, and policy settings for community accountability. Its brevity, clarity, and cultural sensitivity make it suitable for both resource-constrained and highly professionalized contexts.

In conclusion, OLEPI represents a meaningful advance in cross-cultural policing research: a tool that bridges universal norms with local realities, offering both diagnostic insight and practical pathways to reform. By positioning this study as a foundation rather than a final statement, the findings affirm that OLEPI is ready for immediate applied use while continuing to mature through systematic validation. If pursued consistently, OLEPI holds the potential to contribute significantly to building policing cultures that are not only effective but also legitimate, transparent, and community-centered across Africa, the Caribbean, the United States, and beyond.

Implications for Policy and Practice

The Oshodi Law Enforcement Practices Inventory (OLEPI) is not only a research instrument but also a practical diagnostic and developmental tool. Its modular structure makes it immediately applicable in training academies, in-service programs, and policy settings. The following areas outline its practical value:

Academy Recruitment and Selection

OLEPI can be embedded at the point of entry to assess candidates’ orientations toward fairness, integrity, and de-escalation. Recruit profiles generated from OLEPI can guide training interventions—such as targeted ethics modules for candidates with lower integrity scores or enhanced communication workshops for those with weaker perceptions of procedural justice.

In-Service Development and Supervision

When administered periodically, OLEPI provides a feedback loop for serving officers. Unit-level results can highlight areas in need of reinforcement, such as proportional use of force, community engagement, or evidence-handling practices. Supervisors can then align training and mentorship programs with these diagnostic insights, fostering continuous professional growth.

Integrity and Corruption Resistance

A harmonized extension of OLEPI—such as the Oshodi Law Enforcement Scale–Integrity (OLES-I)—can serve as a vetting tool for sensitive assignments (e.g., narcotics, procurement, detention oversight). By assessing attitudinal stances toward bribery, gratuities, and whistleblowing, agencies can identify integrity vulnerabilities early and provide remedial training or safeguards.

Use-of-Force Decision Support

Coupling OLEPI with short scenario-based assessments allows agencies to evaluate officers’ practical decision-making in de-escalation and proportionality. These data can feed directly into scenario-based training and after-action reviews, ensuring that policies on use of force translate into consistent field behavior.

Community Legitimacy and Transparency

Aggregated OLEPI results can be shared with community oversight boards or civilian advisory councils. This transparency not only demonstrates accountability but also enables communities to track whether reforms—such as complaint routing systems, body-worn cameras, or early-intervention programs—are reflected in citizen perceptions over time.

Country-Specific Priorities

OLEPI’s cross-national application underscores that legitimacy challenges vary by context:

• Nigeria: Priority should be placed on anti-corruption initiatives, protections for whistleblowers, and embedding dignity and due-process fidelity in everyday policing.

• The Bahamas: Small-island contexts require visible fairness, open explanations at point of contact, and safeguards against disproportionate firearm use in close-knit communities.

• United States: Emphasis should remain on de-escalation, racial equity, and complaint transparency, with OLEPI used to monitor whether reform efforts extend beyond policy to cultural change.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they do not have any conflict of interest.