Document of Interest Provided By Councilmember Hamann on Civilian Review Boards

Home Browse Search

C HAPTER 7: MONITORING, EVALUATION, AND F UNDING 128 9. Provide the public with a “window” on how the police or sheriff’s department investigates allegations of officer misconduct. 10. Increase legitimate citizen complaints by, for example: • Providing an avenue for filing complaints that is less intimidating than going to the police or sher- iff’s department. • Increasing confidence that com- plaints will be taken seriously. • Providing more accessible loca- tions for filing. 11. Provide an open and independent forum for the public to express general concerns about the police or sheriff’s department’s opera- tions or about officer conduct. 12. Provide a mechanism through which citizens can suggest recom- mendations for improving police policies and proce- dures and police training. 13. Establish a mediation option for resolving selected complaints to achieve one or more of the potential benefits of mediation identified in chapter 3. After establishing objectives, program planners and administrators need to determine how they will know whether each one has been achieved in terms of: • What level of activity will be considered a success (e.g., 10 fewer police shootings in each of the next 2 years compared with the average number of shootings during each of the previous 10 years; a 15-percent increase within 2 years of citizens who feel confident the department is disciplining officers appropriately). • How the necessary data will be gathered (e.g., police records of use of firearms over a 12-year period; public survey of community attitudes toward the police before the oversight procedure was initiated and 2 years later). There are other barriers to evaluation in addition to the failure to develop measurable objectives. Many administrators consider monitoring and evaluating program activities a low priority. They may lack the time, money, or expertise to assess their programs, or they may be concerned that negative results may jeopardize their funding and even their positions. Finally, even with solid objectives and the time, skills, and will to conduct a useful evaluation, there may be problems with the data that make it difficult to draw valid conclusions about the oversight system’s effectiveness (see “Data Barriers to Evaluating Oversight Procedures”). The Albuquerque evaluation Despite these concerns and barriers, assessing program effectiveness is essential for learning how to improve oversight operations and for demon- strating that the oversight process should be maintained or expanded. Reflecting this need, the Albuquerque City Council commissioned a $27,602 evaluation of its oversight system and used many of the findings in restruc- turing its procedures (see “The Albuquerque City Council Commissioned a Thorough Evaluation”). Although this approach may cost more money than jurisdictions are able to spend, other cities and counties easily can afford to implement parts of the evaluation. Funding Oversight bodies have dramatically different budgets: Some, such as the review board in Orange County, cost relatively little because they rely almost entirely on volunteers and in-kind services, while others, such as those in Flint and Minneapolis, run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars (see exhibit 7–2). San Francisco’s oversight budget is more than $2 million. The relationship between oversight costs and oversight activity In most organizations, there is a relationship between expenditures and results—that is, the more money spent, the more or better the results. Are increased expenditures for oversight associated with increased utilization—that is, do oversight systems get what they pay for? Exhibit 7–2 presents the nine oversight systems The Albuquerque City Council commissioned a $27,602 evaluation of its oversight system and used many of the findings in restructuring its procedures.