Issues and Practices

1 Department of JusticeOffice of Justice ProgramsNational Institute of JusticeIssues and Department of JusticeOffice of Justice Programs810 Seventh Street , DC 20531 Office of Justice ProgramsNational Institute of JusticeWorld Wide Web SiteWorld Wide Web Site Review ofPolice: Approachesand Implementationby Peter FinnMarch 2001 NCJ 184430 National Institute of JusticeVincent TalucciProgram MonitorAdvisory Panel*The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes theBureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention, and the Office for Victims of for the National Institute of Justice, Department of Justice, by Abt Associates Inc.

2 , under contract#OJP 94 C 007. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the author and do not necessarilyrepresent the official position or policies of the Department of Felicia Davis, Consultant and Directorat LargeNational Association for CivilianOversight of Law EnforcementAdministratorCitizen Review Board234 Delray AvenueSyracuse, NY 13224 Mark GissinerSenior Human Resources AnalystCity of CincinnatiImmediate Past President, 1995 99 International Association forCivilian Oversight ofLaw Enforcement2665 Wayward Winds DriveCincinnati, OH 45230 Douglas Perez, ProfessorDepartment of SociologyPlattsburgh State University45 Olcott LaneRensselaer, NY 12144 Jerry SandersPresident and ChiefExecutive OfficerUnited Way of San Box 23543 San Diego, CA 92193 Former ChiefSan Diego police DepartmentSamuel Walker, ProfessorDepartment of Criminal JusticeUniversity of Nebraskaat Omaha60th and Dodge StreetsOmaha, NE 68182Lt.

3 Steve YoungVice PresidentGrand LodgeFraternal order of Police222 East Town StreetColumbus, OH 43215*Among other criteria, advisory panel members were selected for their diverse views regarding citizen oversight ofpolice. As a result, readers should not infer that panel members necessarily support citizen review in general or anyparticular type of citizen many communities in the United States, residents participate to some degree in overseeing their local law enforce-ment agencies. The degree varies. The most active citizen oversight boards investigate allegations of police misconductand recommend actions to the chief or sheriff. Other citizen boards review the findings of internal police investigationsand recommend that the chief or sheriff approve or reject the findings.

4 In still others, an auditor investigates the processby which the police or sheriff s department accept or investigate complaints and reports to the department and the pub-lic on the thoroughness and fairness of the oversight systems, originally designed to temper police discretion in the 1950s, have steadily grown in numberthrough the 1990s. But determining the proper role has a troubled publication is intended to help citizens, law enforcement officers and executives, union leaders, and public interestgroups understand the advantages and disadvantages of various oversight systems and describing the operation of nine very different approaches to citizen oversight, the authors do not extol or disparagecitizen oversight but rather try to help jurisdictions interested in creating a new or enhancing an existing oversightsystem by: Describing the types of citizen oversight.

5 Presenting programmatic information from various jurisdictions with existing citizen oversight systems. Examining the social and monetary benefits and costs of different report also addresses staffing; examines ways to resolve potential conflicts between oversight bodies and police ;and explores monitoring, evaluation, and funding one system works best for everyone. Communities must take responsibility for fashioning a system that fits theirlocal situation and unique needs. Ultimately, the author notes, the talent, fairness, dedication, and flexibility of the keyparticipants are more important to the procedure s success than is the system s OFPOLICE: APPROACHES ANDIMPLEMENTATIONiiiForewordCITIZENREVIE W OFPOLICE: APPROACHES ANDIMPLEMENTATIONvAcknowledgmentsI thank the many individuals who patiently answered my questions and sent me materials about their citizen oversightprocedures.

6 In particular, I thank the following oversight directors and coordinators: Barbara Attard, Lisa Botsko, MaryDunlap, Suzanne Elefante, Patricia Hughes, Liana Perez, Melvin Sears, Todd Samolis, Ruth Siedschlag, and Joseph 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, , and reviewed the draft report: K. Felicia Davis,Mark Gissiner, Douglas Perez, Jerry Sanders, Samuel Walker, and Steve Young. Among other criteria, advisory panelmembers 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 Tucker, former Deputy Director of Operations of the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, andPhyllis McDonald, Social Science Analyst with the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), also participated in the boardmeeting and made important contributions.

7 Pierce Murphy, Community Ombudsman in Boise, Idaho, provided valuablesuggestions for improving the Talucci, Program Manager for the project at NIJ, provided wise guidance and constant support. TerenceDunworth, 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-EllenPerry and Joan Gilbert carefully produced the numerous report FinnAssociateAbt Associates OFPOLICE: APPROACHES ANDIMPLEMENTATIONviiIntroductionThere has been a considerable increase in the number ofprocedures involving citizen oversight of police imple-mented by cities and counties in the 1990s.

8 However,many of these procedures have had a troubled historyinvolving serious even bitter conflict among theinvolved parties. Citizen Review of police : Approachesand Implementationis designed to help jurisdictions thatmay decide to establish or wish to improve an over-sight system to avoid or eliminate these battles. At thesame time, the publication can help oversight plannersunderstand and choose among the many options availablefor structuring a citizen review procedure. Finally, currentoversight staff and volunteers may find it useful to reviewthe publication as a way of learning more about the provide this assistance,Citizen Review of Policedescribes the operations of nine very different systems ofcitizen oversight.

9 However, the publication does not pro-mote any particular type of citizen review or citizenreview in general. Rather, the report is intended to helplocal government executives and legislators, as well aspolice and sheriff s department administrators, union leaders, and local citizen groups and public interest organi-zations, learn about the advantages, drawbacks, and limita-tions of a variety of oversight systems and of Citizen OversightThere is no single model of citizen oversight. However,most procedures have features that fall into one of fourtypes of oversight systems: Type 1:Citizens investigate allegations of police mis-conduct and recommend findingsto the chief or sheriff. Type 2: police officers investigate allegations and devel-op findings; citizens review and recommendthat thechief or sheriff approve or reject the findings.

10 Type 3: Complainants may appeal findingsestablishedby the police or sheriff s department to citizens,whoreview them and then recommend their own findings tothe chief or sheriff. Type 4: An auditor investigates the processby whichthe police or sheriff s department accepts and investi-gates complaints and reports on the thoroughness andfairness of the process to the department and the four types of oversight are represented among the nine citizen review systems described in this report (seeexhibit 1).Each type of system has advantages and drawbacks. Forexample, oversight systems that involve investigating citi-zen complaints (type 1) can help reassure the public thatinvestigations of citizen complaints are thorough and , hiring professional investigators can be expen-sive, and the investigations model typically has no mecha-nism for soliciting the public s general concerns aboutpolice their specific advantages, any type of citizenoversight needs to be part of a larger structure of internaland external police accountability; citizen oversight alonecannot ensure that police will act CostsExhibit 2 presents the nine oversight systems arranged inascending order of budget levels along with their activitylevels for 1997.