Document of Interest Provided By Councilmember Hamann on Civilian Review Boards

Home Browse Search

C ITIZEN R EVIEW OF P OLICE: APPROACHES AND I MPLEMENTATION 127 • Almost half of the citizen respondents felt the outcomes of their cases were not fair. • Eighteen of the 21 responding officers felt the outcomes of their cases were fair. Because only 29 of 174 citizens and 21 of 81 police officers to whom the survey was sent returned them, it is difficult to know whether the responses are representative of more general satisfaction or dissatisfaction among all complainants and officers. Nevertheless, the responses are use- ful for documenting considerable sat- isfaction with CRA while pointing to areas for possible improvement. Walker plans to reexamine the data after a year when 140–150 surveys should be available for analysis, at which time he will examine levels of satisfaction in relation to the citizens’ and officers’ gender, race, and age.2 A Tucson city councilman telephones each constituent in his district who appeals an IA investigation to see if the person was satisfied with the auditor’s review. For example, he called a mother who complained about an officer pulling over her son. The woman reported she had learned from the auditor that her son had been in possession of an illegal substance and had no valid dri- ver’s license, facts of which she had not been aware. As a result, she now was satisfied with the officer’s behav- ior—and pleased with the auditor’s review. Every con- stituent but one whom the councilman has telephoned has reported being satisfied with the oversight process. Evaluating the Citizen Oversight Process Two long-time observers of citizen review have reported, “There are no thorough, independent evaluations of the effectiveness of any [citizen oversight] procedures, much less any comparative studies.”3 Although one comprehensive evaluation has been conducted since this statement was made, the lack of evaluations is perhaps not surprising. Establishing objectives To evaluate the effectiveness of an oversight system, it first is necessary to establish the objectives the procedure is designed to achieve—something few oversight planners have done. The objectives need to be specific and measur- able. However, this crucial step is fre- quently omitted, making it necessary to develop objectives for measuring program success after the fact. In addition to hampering any evaluation, not establishing objectives from the outset leaves program staff uncer- tain—or mistaken—about what they are supposed to be doing. Among the possible objectives plan- ners can establish for citizen review of the police are the following: 1. Increase the public’s confidence that the police or sheriff’s department is addressing citizen complaints fairly and thoroughly. 2. Reassure the public that the police or sheriff’s depart- ment appropriately disciplines officers who engage in misconduct. 3. Defuse hostility toward public officials or the police or sheriff’s department expressed by residents or spe- cific groups of residents. This typically is the reason most oversight systems are established. 4. Improve the fairness and thoroughness of the police or sheriff’s department’s investigations of citizen complaints (for example, by auditing the department’s own procedures or conducting investigations in tan- dem with or instead of internal affairs department investigations). 5. Reduce misconduct by police officers, such as verbal abuse, use of excessive force, and discriminatory enforcement of the law. 6. Reduce the number of police shootings. 7. Help ensure that officers who engage in misconduct are appropriately disciplined. 8. Provide the public with an understanding of the behavior of police officers and sheriff’s deputies. To evaluate the effectiveness of an oversight system, it first is necessary to establish the objectives the procedure is designed to achieve— something few oversight planners have done.