Issues and Practices - Home | Office of Justice Programs

[Pages:181]U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs National Institute of Justice

Issues and Practices

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs 810 Seventh Street N.W.

Washington, DC 20531

Office of Justice Programs World Wide Web Site

National Institute of Justice World Wide Web Site



Citizen Review of Police: Approaches and Implementation

by Peter Finn

March 2001 NCJ 184430

National Institute of Justice

Vincent Talucci Program Monitor

K. Felicia Davis, J.D. Legal Consultant and Director

at Large National Association for Civilian

Oversight of Law Enforcement

Administrator Citizen Review Board 234 Delray Avenue Syracuse, NY 13224

Mark Gissiner Senior Human Resources Analyst City of Cincinnati

Immediate Past President, 1995?99

International Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement

2665 Wayward Winds Drive Cincinnati, OH 45230

Advisory Panel*

Douglas Perez, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Sociology Plattsburgh State University 45 Olcott Lane Rensselaer, NY 12144

Jerry Sanders President and Chief

Executive Officer United Way of San Diego

County P.O. Box 23543 San Diego, CA 92193

Former Chief San Diego Police Department

Samuel Walker, Ph.D. Kiewit Professor Department of Criminal Justice University of Nebraska

at Omaha 60th and Dodge Streets Omaha, NE 68182

Lt. Steve Young Vice President Grand Lodge Fraternal Order of Police 222 East Town Street Columbus, OH 43215

*Among other criteria, advisory panel members were selected for their diverse views regarding citizen oversight of police. As a result, readers should not infer that panel members necessarily support citizen review in general or any particular type of citizen review.

Prepared for the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, by Abt Associates Inc., under contract #OJP?94?C?007. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

C I T I Z E N R E V I E W O F P O L I C E : A P P R O A C H E S A N D I M P L E M E N TAT I O N

Foreword

In many communities in the United States, residents participate to some degree in overseeing their local law enforcement agencies. The degree varies. The most active citizen oversight boards investigate allegations of police misconduct and recommend actions to the chief or sheriff. Other citizen boards review the findings of internal police investigations and recommend that the chief or sheriff approve or reject the findings. In still others, an auditor investigates the process by which the police or sheriff's department accept or investigate complaints and reports to the department and the public on the thoroughness and fairness of the process. Citizen oversight systems, originally designed to temper police discretion in the 1950s, have steadily grown in number through the 1990s. But determining the proper role has a troubled history. This publication is intended to help citizens, law enforcement officers and executives, union leaders, and public interest groups understand the advantages and disadvantages of various oversight systems and components. In describing the operation of nine very different approaches to citizen oversight, the authors do not extol or disparage citizen oversight but rather try to help jurisdictions interested in creating a new or enhancing an existing oversight system by: ? Describing the types of citizen oversight. ? Presenting programmatic information from various jurisdictions with existing citizen oversight systems. ? Examining the social and monetary benefits and costs of different systems. The report also addresses staffing; examines ways to resolve potential conflicts between oversight bodies and police; and explores monitoring, evaluation, and funding concerns. No one system works best for everyone. Communities must take responsibility for fashioning a system that fits their local situation and unique needs. Ultimately, the author notes, the talent, fairness, dedication, and flexibility of the key participants are more important to the procedure's success than is the system's structure.

iii

C I T I Z E N R E V I E W O F P O L I C E : A P P R O A C H E S A N D I M P L E M E N TAT I O N

Acknowledgments

I thank the many individuals who patiently answered my questions and sent me materials about their citizen oversight procedures. In particular, I thank the following oversight directors and coordinators: Barbara Attard, Lisa Botsko, Mary Dunlap, Suzanne Elefante, Patricia Hughes, Liana Perez, Melvin Sears, Todd Samolis, Ruth Siedschlag, and Joseph Valu. The following advisory panel members (whose titles are listed on the back of the title page) provided a large number of helpful comments during a 1-day meeting in Washington, D.C., and reviewed the draft report: K. Felicia Davis, Mark Gissiner, Douglas Perez, Jerry Sanders, Samuel Walker, and Steve Young. Among other criteria, advisory panel members were selected for their diverse views regarding citizen oversight of police. As a result, readers should not infer that the panel members necessarily support citizen review in general or any particular type of citizen review. Benjamin Tucker, former Deputy Director of Operations of the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, and Phyllis McDonald, Social Science Analyst with the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), also participated in the board meeting and made important contributions. Pierce Murphy, Community Ombudsman in Boise, Idaho, provided valuable suggestions for improving the report. Vincent Talucci, Program Manager for the project at NIJ, provided wise guidance and constant support. Terence Dunworth, Managing Vice President at Abt Associates Inc., offered numerous suggestions for improving the report, most important, a complete reconfiguration of the executive summary and discussion of program costs. Mary-Ellen Perry and Joan Gilbert carefully produced the numerous report drafts.

Peter Finn Associate Abt Associates Inc.

v

C I T I Z E N R E V I E W O F P O L I C E : A P P R O A C H E S A N D I M P L E M E N TAT I O N

Executive Summary

Introduction

There has been a considerable increase in the number of procedures involving citizen oversight of police implemented by cities and counties in the 1990s. However, many of these procedures have had a troubled history involving serious--even bitter--conflict among the involved parties. Citizen Review of Police: Approaches and Implementation is designed to help jurisdictions that may decide to establish--or wish to improve--an oversight system to avoid or eliminate these battles. At the same time, the publication can help oversight planners understand and choose among the many options available for structuring a citizen review procedure. Finally, current oversight staff and volunteers may find it useful to review the publication as a way of learning more about the field.

To provide this assistance, Citizen Review of Police describes the operations of nine very different systems of citizen oversight. However, the publication does not promote any particular type of citizen review--or citizen review in general. Rather, the report is intended to help local government executives and legislators, as well as police and sheriff's department administrators, union leaders, and local citizen groups and public interest organizations, learn about the advantages, drawbacks, and limitations of a variety of oversight systems and components.

? Type 3: Complainants may appeal findings established by the police or sheriff's department to citizens, who review them and then recommend their own findings to the chief or sheriff.

? Type 4: An auditor investigates the process by which the police or sheriff's department accepts and investigates complaints and reports on the thoroughness and fairness of the process to the department and the public.

All four types of oversight are represented among the nine citizen review systems described in this report (see exhibit 1).

Each type of system has advantages and drawbacks. For example, oversight systems that involve investigating citizen complaints (type 1) can help reassure the public that investigations of citizen complaints are thorough and fair. However, hiring professional investigators can be expensive, and the investigations model typically has no mechanism for soliciting the public's general concerns about police conduct.

Whatever their specific advantages, any type of citizen oversight needs to be part of a larger structure of internal and external police accountability; citizen oversight alone cannot ensure that police will act responsibly.

Types of Citizen Oversight

There is no single model of citizen oversight. However, most procedures have features that fall into one of four types of oversight systems:

Oversight Costs

Exhibit 2 presents the nine oversight systems arranged in ascending order of budget levels along with their activity levels for 1997. As shown, there is a theoretical relationship between the four types of oversight systems and cost.

? Type 1: Citizens investigate allegations of police misconduct and recommend findings to the chief or sheriff.

? Type 2: Police officers investigate allegations and develop findings; citizens review and recommend that the chief or sheriff approve or reject the findings.

? Type 1 oversight systems, in which citizens investigate allegations and recommend findings (Berkeley, Flint, Minneapolis, San Francisco), are the most expensive largely because professional investigators must be hired to conduct the investigations--lay citizens do not have the expertise or the time.

vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EXHIBIT 1.TYPE AND SELECTED FEATURES OF NINE OVERSIGHT SYSTEMS

System

Type*

Openness to Public Scrutiny

Mediation Subpoena Officer Legal

Option

Power Representation

Berkeley Police

1

? hearings and commission decisions open to

dormant

yes

Review Commission

public and media

(PRC)

? general PRC meetings available for public to

express concerns

? full public report, including interview transcripts

? city manager makes response public after review of

PRC and internal affairs (IA) findings

? appeal process

? IA's dispositions and discipline not public

during investigation; during hearing

Flint Office of the

1

? findings distributed to media and city archives

no

Ombudsman

? no appeal

? chief's finding public, but not discipline

yes, but

not interviewed in

never used person

Minneapolis Civilian

1

? hearings are private

yes

Police Review

? general public invited to monthly CRA meeting to

Authority

express concerns

(CRA)

? appeal process

? complainant told whether complaint was sustained

? chief's discipline not public until final disposition

no, but cooperation required under Garrity ruling

during investigation, union representative may advise officer; during hearing, union attorney defends officer

Orange County Citizen Review Board

2

? hearings open to public and media scrutiny

no

? findings and the sheriff's discipline are matters

of public record

? no appeal

yes, but

during hearings

never used

Portland Police

3, 4

? PIIAC audits open to public and media

no

Internal

? citizen advisory subcommittee meetings open to

Investigations

public and media

Auditing Committee

? appeal to city council

(PIIAC)

? PIIAC decisions are public; chief's discipline is not

yes

none

Rochester Civilian Review Board

2

? reviews are closed

? results are not public

? no appeal

yes

no

none

St. Paul Police Civilian Internal Affairs Review Commission

2

? hearings are closed

no

? no appeal

? no publicizing of disciplinary recommendations

yes, but

none

never used

San Francisco

1

? chief's hearings are closed

yes

yes

during investigation;

Office of

? police commission hearings are public

during hearing

Citizen Complaints

? appeal process for officers

? complaint histories and findings confidential

? chief's discipline not public

Tucson Independent 2, 4

? monitoring is private

no

Police Auditor and

? appeal process

Citizen Police

? board holds monthly public meeting at which

Advisory Review

public may raise concerns

Board

no

not applicable

* Type 1: citizens investigate allegations and recommend findings; type 2: police officers investigate allegations and develop findings; citizens review findings; type 3: complainants appeal police findings to citizens; type 4: an auditor investigates the police or sheriff 's department's investigation process.

viii

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download