Document of Interest Provided By Councilmember Hamann on Civilian Review Boards

Home Browse Search

Types of Citizen Review According to experts, “There is no single model [of citi- zen oversight], and it is difficult to find two oversight agencies that are identical.”3 However, most oversight systems fall into one of four types:4 • Type 1:Citizens investigate allegations of police mis- conduct and recommend findings to the chief or sheriff. • Type 2: Police officers investigate allegations and develop findings; citizens review and recommend that the chief or sheriff approve or reject the findings. • Type 3: Complainants may appeal findings established by the police or sheriff’s department to citizens,who review them and then recommend their own findings to the chief or sheriff. • Type 4: An auditor investigates the process by which the police or sher- iff’s department accepts and investi- gates complaints and reports on the thoroughness and fairness of the process to the department and the public. While some oversight procedures rep- resent “pure” examples of these mod- els, many oversight systems are hybrid models that merge features from the four different types into their own unique formulation. For example, the Office of Community Ombudsman in Boise, Idaho, created in 1999, combines the authority to investigate complaints—a type 1 oversight system—with the responsibility to review internal affairs investigations to determine if they are thorough and fair—a type 4 over- sight system.5 Furthermore, as discussed in chapter 3, “Other Oversight Responsibilities,” any oversight system may undertake three other responsibilities in addition to investigating, reviewing, or auditing citizen complaints: 1. Recommending changes to department policies and procedures and suggesting improvements in training. 2. Arranging for informal or formal mediation. 3. Assisting the police or sheriff’s department to develop or maintain an early warning system for identifying potentially problematic officers. To make an informed decision about which type of oversight procedure to adopt and which additional responsibilities to undertake, jurisdictions need to examine tradeoffs inherent in fashioning an oversight system—what they will gain and lose by the approach they select. Only with these tradeoffs in mind can com- munities select a system that will best meet their local needs, resources, and constraints. Exhibit 1–1 lists some of the tradeoffs jurisdictions need to consider in selecting an oversight procedure. In addition to weighing tradeoffs, selecting oversight features may depend on several criteria: • Which features does the public want? • Which features are most effective in achieving the goals the community expects the oversight procedure to achieve? • Which features may create conflict with the police or sheriff’s depart- ment or the police union, and which features may disappoint community activists? • How much will the features cost? • How will the new features mesh with existing over- sight procedures? Potential Benefits of Citizen Oversight Oversight systems have the potential to benefit com- plainants, police and sheriff’s departments, elected and appointed officials, and the public at large. The extent to which benefits materialize depends not only on the type of oversight procedure implemented but also, and criti- cally, on how well these groups work together. The work- ing relationships among the groups in turn depend to a tremendous extent on the personality, talents, dedication, C HAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 6 To make an informed decision about which type of oversight procedure to adopt and which additional respon- sibilities to undertake, juris- dictions need to examine tradeoffs inherent in fashion- ing an oversight system— what they will gain and lose by the approach they select.