Document of Interest Provided By Councilmember Hamann on Civilian Review Boards

Home Browse Search

Investigators’ work Most programs have a procedure for reviewing the quali- ty of their investigators’ work. Many tape record all interviews, not only to have a permanent record of what complainants, officers, and witnesses said but also to review the investigators’ techniques. In Flint, the senior investigator reviews the findings of every investigator, and the ombudsman provides a final review. In San Francisco, one of three Office of Citizen Complaints (OCC) senior investigators reviews every file, followed by a review by the chief investigator. If investi- gators recommend the complaint be sustained, one of two OCC attorneys reviews the case to assess whether the evidence is sufficient and the findings comply with applicable laws, rules, and orders. Mary Dunlap, the OCC director, reviews the file for a final determination. Dunlap reviews about 1,500 packets a year, averaging 6 per working day. It takes her 3–5 minutes to review simple cases, but complex and important cases can take many hours. Because she feels that supervision of investigators is critically important for quality control, Dunlap makes sure she hires enough supervisors and provides them with exten- sive training and close oversight. Each senior investigator is responsible for the same five investigators’work prod- uct so they can monitor the investigators’progress over several months or longer. Any of the OCC reviewers may send inadequate packets back to investigators for additional work. The most typical—although still uncommon—problem supervisors C HAPTER 7: MONITORING, EVALUATION, AND F UNDING 124 Monitoring Examining several aspects of a citizen oversight system can suggest how well the process is operating. The intake process Intake staff can discourage would-be complainants by an indifferent attitude, lack of helpfulness, or dilatoriness. Program supervisors can assess intake staff performance by casually or formally observing the process. They also can require investigators and board members to ask com- plainants whether they found the intake process complicated or discour- aging. Customer satisfaction surveys (see next section) can include ques- tions about the intake process. Oversight directors can also use “testers”—fake complainants—to monitor the intake process (see “Using ‘Testers’ to Monitor the Intake Process”). Oversight bodies to which internal affairs units refer complainants can monitor how conscientiously IA investigators are making referrals. The program coordinator of Rochester’s Civilian Review Board (CRB) asks each chairperson to visit the police department’s IA section four times a year to review whether a random sample of six cases that were never sent to CRB (e.g., because a citizen dropped the complaint) should have been for- warded. CRB administrators talked with IA on the one occasion in which a chairperson felt a case should have been referred because of its sensitive nature. USING “TESTERS” TO MONITOR THE INTAKE PROCESS To monitor the intake process, program directors can arrange for unknown citizens to file fictitious complaints. Although using testers may anger program staff, the technique is common in the private sector when retail busi- nesses need to make sure their personnel are providing good customer service.Testers can provide valuable infor- mation regarding the thoroughness with which staff screen citizens’ complaints, how well they help complainants fill out necessary forms, how accurately and politely they answer questions, and how expeditiously they meet complainants’ needs. In San Francisco, one of three Office of Citizen Complaints (OCC) senior investigators reviews every file, followed by a review by the chief investigator. Mary Dunlap, the OCC director, reviews the file for a final determination.