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 National Institute of Justice World Wide Web Site World Wide Web Site http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij Citizen Review of Police: Approaches and Implementation by Peter Finn March 2001 NCJ 184430 National Institute of Justice Vincent Talucci Program Monitor Advisory Panel* K. Felicia Davis, J.D. Douglas Perez, Ph.D. Samuel Walker, Ph.D. Legal Consultant and Director Assistant Professor Kiewit Professor at Large Department of Sociology Department of Criminal Justice National Association for Civilian Plattsburgh State University University of Nebraska Oversight of Law Enforcement 45 Olcott Lane at Omaha Rensselaer, NY 12144 60th and Dodge Streets Administrator Omaha, NE 68182 Citizen Review Board Jerry Sanders 234 Delray Avenue President and Chief Lt. Steve Young Syracuse, NY 13224 Executive Officer Vice President United Way of San Diego Grand Lodge Mark Gissiner County Fraternal Order of Police Senior Human Resources Analyst P.O. Box 23543 222 East Town Street City of Cincinnati San Diego, CA 92193 Columbus, OH 43215 Immediate Past President, 1995–99 Former Chief International Association for San Diego Police Department Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement 2665 Wayward Winds Drive Cincinnati, OH 45230 *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 ITIZEN R EVIEW OF P OLICE: APPROACHES AND I MPLEMENTATION Foreword In 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 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 pub- lic 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 ITIZEN R EVIEW OF P OLICE: APPROACHES AND I MPLEMENTATION 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 ITIZEN R EVIEW OF P OLICE: APPROACHES AND I MPLEMENTATION Executive Summary Introduction • Type 3: Complainants may appeal findings established by the police or sheriff’s department to citizens, who There has been a considerable increase in the number of review them and then recommend their own findings to procedures involving citizen oversight of police imple- the chief or sheriff. mented by cities and counties in the 1990s. However, many of these procedures have had a troubled history • Type 4: An auditor investigates the process by which involving serious—even bitter—conflict among the the police or sheriff’s department accepts and investi- involved parties. Citizen Review of Police: Approaches gates complaints and reports on the thoroughness and and Implementation is designed to help jurisdictions that fairness of the process to the department and the public. may decide to establish—or wish to improve—an over- All four types of oversight are represented among the sight system to avoid or eliminate these battles. At the nine citizen review systems described in this report (see same time, the publication can help oversight planners exhibit 1). understand and choose among the many options available for structuring a citizen review procedure. Finally, current Each type of system has advantages and drawbacks. For oversight staff and volunteers may find it useful to review example, oversight systems that involve investigating citi- the publication as a way of learning more about the field. zen complaints (type 1) can help reassure the public that investigations of citizen complaints are thorough and fair. To provide this assistance, Citizen Review of Police However, hiring professional investigators can be expen- describes the operations of nine very different systems of sive, and the investigations model typically has no mecha- citizen oversight. However, the publication does not pro- nism for soliciting the public’s general concerns about mote any particular type of citizen review—or citizen police conduct. review in general. Rather, the report is intended to help local government executives and legislators, as well as Whatever their specific advantages, any type of citizen police and sheriff’s department administrators, union oversight needs to be part of a larger structure of internal leaders, and local citizen groups and public interest organi- and external police accountability; citizen oversight alone zations, learn about the advantages, drawbacks, and limita- cannot ensure that police will act responsibly. tions of a variety of oversight systems and components. Oversight Costs Types of Citizen Oversight Exhibit 2 presents the nine oversight systems arranged in There is no single model of citizen oversight. However, ascending order of budget levels along with their activity most procedures have features that fall into one of four levels for 1997. As shown, there is a theoretical relation- types of oversight systems: ship between the four types of oversight systems and cost. • Type 1: Citizens investigate allegations of police mis- • Type 1 oversight systems, in which citizens investigate conduct and recommend findings to the chief or sheriff. allegations and recommend findings (Berkeley, Flint, Minneapolis, San Francisco), are the most expensive •