Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police (Criminal Justice) 159332099X, 9781593320997

Citation preview

Criminal Justice Recent Scholarship

Edited by Marilyn McShane and Frank P. Williams III

A Series from LFB Scholarly

This page intentionally left blank

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

Brenda A. Buren

LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC New York 2007

Copyright © 2007 by LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC All rights reserved. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Buren, Brenda A., 1966Evaluating citizen oversight of police / Brenda A. Buren. p. cm. -- (Criminal justice : recent scholarship) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-59332-099-7 (alk. paper) 1. Police administration--United States--Citizen participation. 2. Police--Complaints against--United States. I. Title. HV7936.C56B87 2007 363.2068'4--dc22 2006035867

ISBN-10 159332099X ISBN-13 9781593320997 Printed on acid-free 250-year-life paper. Manufactured in the United States of America.

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements

vii

1.

Introduction

1

2.

Citizen Participation in the Public Policy Process

7

3.

Citizen Participation in Policing

23

4.

Evaluation Model

49

5.

Evaluation Approach and Methodology

63

6.

Findings: Implementation and Administration

87

7.

Findings: Assessing Goal Achievement

113

8.

Findings: Assessing Confidence in Police

147

9.

Overview of Findings

157

10. Conclusion and Recommendations

165

Appendices A. Citizen Review Panel Observation Sheet

177

B. Interview Questions for Police Executive Staff

181

C. Interview Questions for Citizen Panel Members

187

v

vi

Table of Contents

D. Tempe Citizens Survey Training Manual

193

E. Tempe Citizens Survey

197

F. Local Newspaper Editorial Discussing Panel

207

G. Citizen Review Panel Member Application

209

H. Survey of Inaugural Citizen Panel Members

213

References

219

Index

227

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Dr. N. Joseph Cayer for providing guidance and encouragement on this project, Dr. B.J. Tatro for her practical guidance in conducting evaluations as well as for her humor and positive attitude, and Dr. Thomas Schade for his valuable insight and expertise on citizen oversight. I am also grateful to the many individuals who took the time to participate in this research. Without the openness and willingness from stakeholders associated with the citizen oversight process in Tempe, Arizona this project would not have been possible. In particular, I would like to thank Chief Ralph Tranter and former Chief Ron Burns (currently the Police Chief in Lakewood, Colorado) for providing open access to information and activities related to the Tempe oversight panel. I would also like to thank Assistant Chief Laura Forbes, former Assistant Chief Kevin Kotsur (currently the Police Chief in Avondale, Arizona), and former Assistant Chief Jay Spradling (currently Assistant Chief at Arizona State University) for their support for this project and for their encouragement to see it to completion. Also, many thanks to Michelle Carstens for reviewing this document for publication. Finally, I would like to thank members of the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for the Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force for allowing me to participate in their training and panel review sessions. I very much appreciate the candor provided from those who were interviewed and those I had discussions with over the multi-year time period from which data were collected.

vii

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

On July 15, 1999 the Tempe, Arizona City Council approved an ordinance establishing the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force. This citizen oversight panel was initiated by the Tempe Police Department in an effort to further the organization’s community policing goals and promote public confidence in the police. In practice a wide variety of citizen oversight mechanisms exist, but at its core the concept of citizen oversight involves offering community members who are not sworn police officers an avenue to provide input into the police complaint process (Walker, 2001). Proponents of citizen oversight have long criticized the common practice of police investigating complaints against the police; considering it ineffective, satiated with opportunities for abuse, and in need of reform (Landau, 1996; Lewis, 2000). These concerns are often aggravated when the internal complaint investigation process is the sole accountability mechanism used by police. THE EVALUATION OF CITIZEN OVERSIGHT Although citizen oversight has received considerable attention from academics, community activists, and law enforcement over the past three decades, little attention has been given to the evaluation of citizen oversight. Specifically, little emphasis has been placed on whether or not citizen oversight systems have been implemented and administered as intended, the extent to which they have fulfilled identified objectives, or what impact such systems actually have on promoting 1

2

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

public confidence in the police. As a result, this study first evaluated whether or not Tempe’s citizen oversight panel was implemented and administered as intended. This involved identifying the basic structural and procedural provisions of the panel outlined in the ordinance and comparing them to the actual structure and procedures implemented and administered by the Tempe Police Department since the panel became operational. Second, this study evaluated the degree to which Tempe’s citizen oversight panel achieved the program goals identified by the Tempe Police Department. Specifically, this involved identifying the intended scope, context, recipients, delivery mechanisms, and activities related to the panel to determine whether or not the panel was successful in furthering the organization’s community policing goals. This was the most challenging component of the study as it attempted to evaluate program goals that were broad and highly contextual. These two research questions took priority in the study for two reasons. First, the Tempe City Council approved the panel via ordinance so the policy environment was stable, thus precluding the likelihood that the panel would be withdrawn or dramatically changed at the legislative level. Second, the Tempe Police Department presumed that simply having a citizen oversight system was positive because it promotes citizen participation and demonstrates the organization’s efforts to be inclusive, again precluding the likelihood that the panel would be withdrawn entirely. Thus, the purpose of this approach was to discern information for police managers that could improve program performance and increase the organizational capacity of the City of Tempe and the Tempe Police Department to sustain and improve the panel. In addition, information from this component of the study can inform the City Council, and ultimately the community, on how well the panel was implemented and administered. Finally, this study evaluated the impact the panel had on promoting public confidence in the Tempe Police Department. This held a secondary purpose in the study and was intended to provide general feedback on the overall impact of the panel. Hence, the research questions addressed in this study were:

Introduction

3

1.

Was the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force implemented and administered as intended?

2.

To what degree has the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force achieved the broad program goals established by the Tempe Police Department?

3.

What impact has the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force had on promoting public confidence in the Tempe Police Department?

NEED FOR CITIZEN OVERSIGHT RESEARCH As citizen oversight has gained momentum over the past three decades, the normative arguments about the value of including citizens in the review of complaints against the police have led some to conclude that citizen oversight will become an inevitable part of policing (Bayley, 1991). Interestingly, however, even though many regard citizen oversight as inevitable, a significant majority of the literature continues to focus on the larger philosophical and structural issues surrounding citizen oversight rather than providing evidence on whether or not citizen oversight systems, of any form, are effective. As a result, the literature also lacks the substantive guidance organizations considering citizen oversight need with regard to the best ways to develop, implement, maintain, and improve citizen oversight systems. Brereton (2000) questions the inevitability of citizen oversight and argues that many governments are inquiring whether the costs of citizen oversight can be justified, and suggests that many police departments and police unions are reasserting claims that the police can do a better job investigating complaints against the police. Consequently, he argues that if citizen oversight is to survive and meet the expectations of supporters in the long term, it is critical that the normative claims about the benefits of citizen oversight be supported by tangible evidence. Jerome (2006) concludes that the effectiveness of citizen oversight continues to be a matter of dispute.

4

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

Given that only a handful of citizen oversight systems have been independently evaluated (Herzog, 2000; Jerome, 2002), there is a need for this study as it attempts to provide evidence on how well one citizen oversight system was implemented and administered, the degree to which the system’s broad objectives were achieved, and whether or not the system was successful in promoting public confidence in the police. On a macro level, this study provides comprehensive information on the development, implementation, and delivery mechanisms of a citizen oversight system that can guide practitioners in the field and improve the knowledge base surrounding community policing and citizen oversight. In addition, it provides tangible performance information that can contribute to the normative arguments about citizen oversight. On a micro level, this research can increase the organizational capacity of the City of Tempe and the Tempe Police Department to make improvements to the oversight panel and to ensure its prolonged existence and success. RESEARCH STRATEGY This study focused on citizen oversight in Tempe, Arizona. It examined the settings, processes, resources, stakeholders, and delivery mechanisms associated with the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force to provide a framework from which to evaluate citizen oversight in Tempe. Both naturalistic and rationalistic approaches were pursued, which resulted in the use of both qualitative and quantitative methods of data collection and analysis. A case study was used to evaluate whether or not the panel was implemented and administered as intended, and to address the degree to which the panel achieved the goals established by the Tempe Police Department. A case study was employed for a variety of reasons. First, from a very practical perspective, policymakers and administrators in Tempe formally requested an evaluation of the citizen oversight panel in Tempe, and a case study provided the methodological framework necessary to elicit feedback on several important components of the system. In addition, since policy and decision makers were only interested in Tempe, multiple cases were not necessary to ensure generalizability to a larger population.

Introduction

5

Second, a case study provided the best method to acquire a comprehensive and practical understanding of the purposes, development, implementation, and maintenance of the Tempe panel. This type of understanding was needed to adequately orient potential users of the evaluation and provide much needed information to practitioners on the process of actually implementing a citizen oversight system. It also allowed for the description of the panel and its context to determine if the panel had been structurally and procedurally implemented in the manner required by the ordinance establishing the panel. Third, a case study allowed for the observation and analysis of the specific background, conditions, development, and interactions between stakeholders that led to the identification of relationships between processes and stakeholders. This was important in gaining a better understanding of the degree to which the objectives of Tempe’s citizen oversight system were met. A survey of the community was used to evaluate the impact the panel had on promoting public confidence in the Tempe Police Department because it provided a valid and reliable method of assessing the general merit and worth of the panel. It was also important to use a survey because this component of the evaluation required information on the panel from a broader community perspective, and the survey provided important feedback from a large, representative sample of Tempe residents. A variety of data collection tools were incorporated in this study, including telephone surveys, interviews, focus groups, observation, and review of documents. Traditional quantitative data analysis tools (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) and procedures (descriptive statistics) were incorporated to analyze data acquired from the telephone survey, while less traditional qualitative data analysis tools (N4 Classic) and procedures (description) were used to analyze data acquired from interviews, focus groups, observation, and documents. EXPECTATIONS OF THE OVERSIGHT PANEL The basic expectations of this study were that the Tempe panel would prove to be worthwhile, although several areas would be identified for improvement. Specifically, it was anticipated that the Tempe Police

6

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

Department had implemented and administered the panel as prescribed in the ordinance establishing the panel, but that marginal areas for improvement would be identified. It was also anticipated that the goals established for the panel by the Tempe Police Department would be met to varying degrees. Examples of areas that would likely be identified for improvement included: modifying some structural and procedural components of the system; ensuring timely and comprehensive feedback to panel members and the community; finding better ways to communicate the citizen oversight and complaint processes to citizens as complainants and as potential panel members; and providing more resources to the program to enhance service delivery. In regard to the impacts of the panel, it was anticipated that the research would demonstrate that, to a large degree, the panel was accomplishing programmatic activities perceived to be worthwhile. Finally, given the strong focus on politics in both the community policing and citizen oversight literature, it was assumed that politics would play a critical role in the development, implementation, and operation of the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force. ORGANIZATION This introductory chapter outlined the specific research questions that were addressed and provided an overview of the purpose and need for the study, the general methodologies employed, and the expectations of the study. Chapter Two provides a review of the relevant citizen participation literature and Chapter Three focuses on the relevant community policing and citizen oversight literature. Chapter Four outlines the research model used to carry out the study, and clarifies definitions and conceptualizations of the problem. Chapter Five delineates the research methodology, while the findings are presented in Chapters Six, Seven, and Eight. Chapter Nine includes a discussion of the lessons learned and implications of the study, and identifies important areas for future research. Conclusions and recommendations for improvement are discussed in Chapter Ten.

CHAPTER 2

Citizen Participation in the Public Policy Process

This study is guided by literature in citizen participation, community policing, and citizen oversight. Theories and research in citizen participation will provide the necessary foundation and context for understanding the growth and development of community policing and citizen oversight. It will also guide this evaluation of the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force by demonstrating how citizen participation in the broader public policy arena influences the subsequent role and application of community policing and citizen oversight in the United States. This chapter focuses specifically on citizen participation in the public policy process and is divided into six key sections. The first section provides an historical context from which to view the evolution of citizen participation in the United States. The second section addresses definitional issues and presents the common characteristics associated with citizen participation, while the third section outlines who participates in the public policy process and why. The fourth section discusses what citizen participation entails, and includes ways in which individuals, groups, and organizations participate. Successful participation strategies are presented in the fifth section, and barriers to and problems associated with citizen participation in the public policy process are presented in the sixth and final section. HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION The appropriate role of citizens in governance has been at the forefront of philosophical thought for centuries and continues to pervade 7

8

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

contemporary political and administrative deliberation and practice (Lando, 1999; Langton, 1978; Midgley, Hall, Hardiman & Narine, 1986; Skocpol & Fiorina, 1999). It is, however, western democratic theory that has had the largest impact on citizen participation in its modern context, although threads of populism and anarchism are, to lesser degrees, clearly present (Midgley, Hall, Hardiman & Narine, 1986). Lando (1999) contends that citizen participation in the public policy process is a relatively recent development that has not always been the goal of civilized societies. He notes that Aristotle, in describing the ideal form of government, concluded that the rule of the many could revert to mob rule. He further suggests that this classical notion carried over to James Madison’s Eighteenth Century America where, in Federalist 10, Madison’s concerns about group factions dominating the political process reverberated those of Aristotle. More recently, debates about the merits of citizen participation have ranged from those arguing that pluralism, or special interest involvement, is the key vehicle available to allow individual citizens or groups of citizens to participate in government (Dahl, 1989; Lando, 1999), to opposing arguments espousing that pluralism inhibits the government’s ability to represent the collective good (Hudson, 2001; Lando, 1999; Lowi, 1969). Although there has not always been agreement on the role of the direct involvement of citizens in government, there is overwhelming evidence today that citizens support the concept of citizen participation in the public policy process, at least in the abstract (Kweit & Kweit, 1981; Scarrow, 2001). In the United States, citizen participation in government has moved from a representative, and often elitist, form of democratic involvement that frequently excluded ordinary citizens into a complex, open, and often fragile arena of opportunity for direct involvement. The Civil Rights movement of the 1960s gave many previously marginalized groups a voice and dramatically changed the ways citizens participate in the public policy process, forever altering the face of American democracy (Lando, 1999). It was during this domestically turbulent time in the United States that trust in government began a sustained four decade decline that has only witnessed sporadic increases during periods of national crisis. Voting rates also declined during this period and forms of social association that once dominated American life

Citizen Participation in the Public Policy Process

9

witnessed substantial decay (Putnam, 2000; Skocpol & Fiorina, 1999; Verba & Nie, 1987). In response to many of these emerging issues and demands for involvement, Congress enacted the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. This was an important piece of legislation that formally attempted to get direct and active citizen participation in public programs, and became the catalyst for future government efforts aimed at promoting participation. With new variations in the ways and reasons people participate and do not participate in public life, differing perspectives have emerged regarding the status of citizen involvement in the United States; and as Skocpol and Fiorina (1999) have aptly noted, “For democracy in America, this may be, at once, the best and most worrisome of times” (p. 1). ELEMENTS OF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Given the magnitude of change in citizen involvement in the public policy process over the past four decades it is not surprising that the term citizen participation takes on a variety of different meanings to different people. Mize (as cited in University of Oregon, 1996), three decades ago, recognized the enduring reality that not only is there no consensus on the meaning of citizen participation and its relationship to public decision making, there is no consensus on the consequences of citizen participation, whether they be good, bad, or somewhere in between. Although no single definition exists, there are clearly key elements that resonate throughout the literature that characterize citizen participation. The elements include voluntary and active participation, fair and democratic participatory processes, and the ability to have an impact on the decisions being made (Langton, 1978; Midgley, Hall, Hardiman & Narine, 1986). Considerable debate, however, still exists as to the reasons people participate or do not participate, the reasons organizations pursue or do not pursue citizen participation, and the benefits and drawbacks of citizen participation (Chrislip & Larson, 1994; DeSario & Langton, 1987; King & Stivers, 1998; Langton, 1978; Midgley, Hall, Hardiman & Narine, 1986). As Midgley, Hall, Hardiman, and Narine (1986) have noted, “Clearly, much more information is needed if we are to know who participates, what participation entails, and how it can be promoted” (p. 24).

10

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

WHO PARTICIPATES AND WHY? To adequately assess the role of citizen participation in the public policy process, it is important to first understand who participates and why. Typically, normative arguments surrounding citizen participation focus on the role of the citizen or group of citizens rather than the role of public administrators or organizations. Moreover, these normative arguments presume that those participating are ordinary citizens who get involved to improve all or parts of the public policy process. Although some people do participate with the intent to improve government on a broad, philosophical basis, it is clear that the ordinary citizen is not the primary actor in these situations. Further, when the intent of the participation is focused on specific issues, the actors are not ordinary citizens either. Rather they are citizens who have some degree of personal interest in the decisions being made. The reasons behind why some people participate and others do not often encompass the motivation to participate as well as the competency or ability to participate (King & Stivers, 1998). Motivation to participate is a key component to be addressed when exploring who participates and why, as it embodies the benefits to be achieved from participation. Citizens as well as organizations can benefit from the participatory process, and both have diverse motives for being involved, ranging from broad philosophical intents to improve government and the overall public policy process, to more specific, self-interested motives. To better understand the motivation for participating there is value in dissecting both ends of the motivation spectrum; however, it is critical to acknowledge that motivation for participation in the public policy process lies, to varying degrees, somewhere in between. As Mansbridge (1990) fittingly notes in her criticism of assertions that self-interest alone explains public life, “The claim that self-interest alone motivates political behavior must be either vacuous, if self-interest can encompass any motive, or false, if selfinterest means behavior that consciously intends only self as the beneficiary” (p. 20). In exploring the broad motives for participation, Kweit and Kweit (1981) argue that who participates in the public policy process and why often depends on what level of impact the participation is intended to have, and that impact can be on the societal or individual level.

Citizen Participation in the Public Policy Process

11

Societal Level When participation is viewed on a societal level the expectations of participation are largely to redistribute power (Kweit & Kweit, 1981). From this perspective, the goal of participation is to break down the distinction between those who govern and those who are governed, and this goal can be pursued by both individuals and organizations. Through participation, citizens have the opportunity to have more power in the citizen-government relationship by having a voice throughout the public policy process. From this perspective, democratic tenets take precedence over specific special interest goals. In essence, the importance of participation is to ensure there is a voice in the overall policy process so that good government occurs. An important element of this broad purpose for participation is that participation is more likely to cover all of the policy stages, particularly the agenda setting and policy development stages where input can be the most productive (Kindon, 1984; Lando, 1999). Interestingly, addressing involvement at the societal level often acts as a catalyst for developing participation structures that are then used at the individual level. Often, the method of pursuing the goal of power redistribution involves increasing the types and amounts of opportunities for participation as well as the aggregate number and diversity of people participating. In addition, the goal of power redistribution is often extended to not only ensure that citizens have more power in the process, but to ensure that all citizens have as equal an opportunity as possible to participate. Cole (1974) found that the distribution of goods and services is more equitable when citizens participate in the public policy process; although there is evidence that inequalities in participation, and ultimately, the redistribution of power still exist (Barnes, Knops, Newman & Sullivan, 2001; Langton, 1978). Individual Level When participation is viewed on an individual level the expectations of participation are primarily to benefit the individual or the organization on the micro level. For the individual, participation at this level is typically expected to produce benefits such as gaining a sense of identity with the community and its problems, reducing alienation from

12

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

the political system, or protecting specific self interests (Cogan, Sharpe & Hertberg, 1986; Kweit & Kweit, 1981). More recently, protecting self-interests have come to involve not only what people want, but what people do not want in their communities, such as power facilities, large commercial retail businesses, detention facilities or other ventures that may be viewed negatively. These have come to be known as NIMBY (Not in My Back Yard) interests. Participation by citizens at this level can also produce benefits for the public administrator or organization, including increased legitimacy and support from the public as well as improved communication and interaction with the public that can improve the efficacy of public programs. In addition to motivation, it is often presumed that a high degree of competence is required from individuals participating in public decision making since the issues being addressed are too important to be left to just anyone, or that the issues are too complex for the average person to understand. While the competency flag is still waved by some academics and practitioners, strong arguments exist that discount the requisite competency claims, suggesting that it is poorly developed and administered participatory processes that are the problem rather than the competency of the individuals involved (Crosby, Kelly & Schaefer, 1986). Further, Desario and Langton (1987) advocate that it is critical to cross the paths of citizen participation and technocratic decisionmaking, which has become almost the sole arena of expert bureaucrats, to meld technocracy into democracy. The chances of accomplishing this task are remote without finding methods and processes to minimize the actual and perceived levels of competence required to participate. WHAT DOES PARTICIPATION ENTAIL? A variety of types of citizen participation exist, as do forms in which citizens can participate. Kweit and Kweit (1981) provide a short but comprehensive list of participation types that includes electoral participation, group participation, direct citizen government contact, and serving as a local official. Conway (1985) describes the forms that participation can take as active versus passive, conventional versus unconventional, and symbolic versus instrumental. These types and forms of participation can involve citizens, public administrators, and organizations.

Citizen Participation in the Public Policy Process

13

Types of Participation Citizens can participate directly in the public policy process or indirectly through representative means. Historically, the primary mechanism available to most people to participate in the public process was the opportunity to vote for candidates that, in theory, would then represent the will of the majority that elected them. It was through representative democracy that formal government structures at the local, state, and national levels were developed and continue to formally function, and have over time enfranchised previously excluded groups in having a voice in electing representatives (Lando, 1999). Electoral participation also provides citizens the opportunity to overturn and enact laws through the referendum and initiative processes; however, as Scarrow (2001) argues, institutional reforms favoring direct democracy are increasingly being more widely spread and used, particularly at the local level, than are referendum strategies. Group participation encompasses a variety of forms and dominates the citizen participation literature (Chrislip & Larson, 1994; Crosby, Kelly & Schaefer, 1986; Lando, 1999; Midgley, Hall, Hardiman & Narine, 1986). Group participation includes involvement in a wide variety of activities from political party and other special interest participation to local neighborhood group involvement. Direct citizen contact with government occurs when individuals contact government agencies or political representatives through phone calls, meetings, or letters to voice their concerns. Although this is an extremely popular form of participation, particularly when addressing negative, highly charged, NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) types of issues, Mathews (1994) argues that this type of participation is, in the long-term, not very effective because it does not carry issues into the larger public policy arena. This direct contact is, however, often effective when individual involvement grows to group involvement. Serving as a local official is an important way in which citizens participate in the public policy process. This type of direct participation can involve serving as a city council member or as a member of a board, panel, or similar group that is officially sanctioned by a government entity. Lando (1999) suggests that serving in a formal capacity as a local official typically is an outgrowth or extension of prior group participation efforts such as neighborhood involvement.

14

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

Forms of Participation Conway (1985) describes the forms that participation can take as active versus passive, conventional versus unconventional, and symbolic versus instrumental. Any type of citizen participation discussed above can take on any form of participation. Gregson (1997) provides the following working definitions and examples of the different forms participation can take. Active participation involves making purposeful efforts to be involved, and includes activities such as voting and participating on boards or commissions. Passive participation is that which does not involve purposeful action oriented efforts, and includes activities such as reading the newspaper to stay up-to-date on political and community issues, and attending ceremonies or other public events. Conventional participatory activities are those that are accepted by the existing government and majority political culture. Unconventional activities, on the other hand, are those activities that are not accepted by the existing power structures and can involve terrorist actions, riots, civil disturbances, and other activities intended to make strong social statements or repress other peoples’ participation. Symbolic participation is that which is intended to promote the legitimacy of the government and political system, and includes participation in patriotic activities such as displaying the flag and singing the national anthem at public events. Conversely, instrumental participation is that selfinterested participation aimed at accomplishing specific personal goals. All of these forms of participation have been used and have experienced varying degrees of success depending on the issues being addressed and the perspectives of participants. PROMOTING PARTICIPATION Strategies designed to promote participation in the public policy process can stem from citizens who want to get involved as well as from organizations that encourage citizen involvement in government activities. Historically, citizens took on the primary, activist role to demand more control and ultimately involvement in the activities of public organizations and institutions that possessed power. Scarrow (2001) observes that in response to contemporary demands from citizens for more popular control over government, a broad movement

Citizen Participation in the Public Policy Process

15

has and continues to be underway to redesign public institutions in ways that give citizens more opportunities to have direct contact and control over administrative and political processes. As a result, today it is often public organizations that are the strongest initiators of participation in the public policy process. Stern and Fineberg (1996) agree, and maintain that one of the key administrative issues confronting public decision makers is how to best directly involve citizens in the decision making process. Chrislip and Larson (1994) provide a broad list of features that they suggest must be built into the citizen participation process from beginning to end in order for collaboration between citizens and government to succeed. They include good timing, support or acquiescence of established authorities or powers, overcoming mistrust and skepticism, and strong leadership of the process. Cogan, Sharpe, and Hertberg (1986) outline those components that public organizations must address if participation programs are to be effective. The list includes the need to meet legal requirements; clearly communicate goals and objectives; command political support; be an integral part of the decision making structure; receive adequate funding, staff, and time; identify concerned or affected publics; and delineate clear roles and responsibilities for participants. McGrath (1989) adds several more practical recommendations to Cogan, Sharpe, and Hertberg’s (1986) list to enhance actual participation once the overall participatory process is established. They include using small, informal meetings to increase participation; building on local strengths, including existing advocacy groups; grounding participation in peoples’ real life experiences; building accountability into the group; relating group size and structure to function; providing practical assistance and training to participants; providing an open and effective communication system; providing direct contact to bridge physical and status gaps; providing up-to-date information and resources; and providing technical support. Bringing information and communication into the process is also critical. In addition to traditional communication methods, many contend that technology has an opportunity to play an important role in citizen participation in the public policy process by allowing more ordinary citizens to participate in a wide array of public activities (Gregson, 1997; Scarrow; 2001). Not only will technology provide

16

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

more people the opportunity to participate, there is also a greater likelihood for the quality and quantity of organizational communication to grow. When dealing specifically with formal boards or panels, Gabris (2000) suggests that strong, credible leadership positively influences board or panel member behavior, and that the relationship between board or panel members requires skillful nurturing by professional administrators who understand effective leadership practices. Stivers (1994) adds to the importance of administrators cultivating the process by contending that public administrators need to listen and be responsive to citizens, which is particularly relevant to citizen participation. She states that “Developing the capacity to listen well promotes accountability by helping administrators to hear neglected voices and engage in reciprocal communications with the public; it promotes effectiveness by deepening our understanding of complex situations and facilitating imaginative approaches” (p. 364). Migley, Hall, Hardiman, and Narine (1986) add that public administrators need to find new ways to discern emerging issues and bring them to the forefront, and develop manageable forums that foster civil public discussion. Thomas (1993) emphasizes this point suggesting that public administrators need to act proactively and anticipate emerging issues and address them appropriately rather than letting reactive responses be imposed from elsewhere. Box (1998) argues that citizens should play the central role in the public policy process and that politicians and administrators should act as the facilitators of that process, and implies that commissions and advisory committees are desirable and beneficial. Crosby, Kelly, and Schaefer (1986) provide a framework for the development, implementation, and operational maintenance of citizen panels; an important component to consider as the focus of this study is on a particular citizen panel. The components of this framework that need to be considered include participant selection, effective decision making, fair procedures, cost effectiveness, flexibility, and follow through. These components are important since the purpose of this type of participation is to start with a diverse, representative group of people, educate them on the topics at hand, and allow them to recommend the policy priorities or actions among many alternatives. This is very different than the narrow, self-interested direction that other forms of

Citizen Participation in the Public Policy Process

17

participation can take. However, without good administrative processes, once relatively neutral and representative panels can be coopted to serve special interests as well. Participant Selection Crosby, Kelly, and Schaefer (1986) place significant importance on selecting panel participants that are representative of the broader public, and ensuring that participant selection is not open to manipulation. In contrast to typical group participation wherein anyone who voices concern or takes the time to organize and participate, the authors argue that strategies need to be employed that attempt to make panels representative. The most common method used to select representative panel members is to have elected officials appoint members. The authors suggest that this helps correct the representation issue, but that ideally a stratified sample of the population should be used. Likely due to the reality of politics at all levels of government, particularly for panels that are intended to address potentially controversial issues, no substantive literature could be found to assess whether or not the recommended stratified sampling method had been successfully used in selecting a citizen panel. Effective Decision Making In order for citizen panels to make effective decisions regarding complex problems, Crosby, Kelly, and Schaefer (1986) advocate providing timely, accurate, and meaningful information to citizen panel members, and that panel members must be given adequate time to read and filter the information relative to the decisions they are being asked to make. Panels also need to be of the appropriate size; large enough to have adequate representation, but small enough to ensure active involvement. They also stress that the hearing formats used to acquire panel input need to be well facilitated, orderly, and that the views of all participants need to be given ample and equitable attention. Fair Procedures Many reasons exist for ensuring that fair procedures are followed with citizen panels. Most important is that when panel members, and ultimately the public, perceive the process to be fair, it gives the panel

18

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

legitimacy. Drawn to its logical conclusion, legitimacy leads to continued support of the organization that has sanctioned the panel. According to Crosby, Kelly, and Schaefer (1986), fairness in the panel hearing process includes open and honest communication, ensuring some combination of staff input, advocacy input, and opportunity for panel members to provide perspective and commentary. Cost Effectiveness Crosby, Kelly, and Schaefer (1986) advise that the panel participation process must be cost effective, although they offer no criteria or guidance on how such effectiveness should be evaluated. Often, cost effectiveness issues surface following the implementation of panels, and discussions entail whether or not it is cost effective to have programs at all as opposed to whether or not more cost effective methods exist. Cost effectiveness arguments can also be used as means to terminate or diminish the authority of panels by those who do not support them (Bonn, 2006; Bonn, 2005). Flexibility Crosby, Kelly, and Schaefer (1986) argue that the panel method should be flexible, and adaptable to a variety of different tasks and settings. Typically, however, most panels that are established, particularly at the local levels of government, focus on specific areas of interest or concern. Following Recommendations As with other forms of citizen participation, addressing recommendations made by citizen panels is important. This includes providing feedback to panel members on the ultimate outcomes of their input and recommendations. Closely tied to this is the importance of ensuring that the mandates of the panel are communicated and agreed upon by panel members and the organization sanctioning the panel, and that the panel is appropriately structured to address the issues at hand. Without this structure, panel members may make recommendations that

Citizen Participation in the Public Policy Process

19

the organization is not in a position to implement, which can lead to distrust in the process. BARRIERS TO AND PROBLEMS WITH PARTICIPATION While direct participation in politics and administration has clearly established a stronghold in most aspects and levels of the public policy process, barriers to and problems with citizen participation still exist. The barriers that prohibit or diminish opportunities for citizens to participate in the public policy process evolve from the concept of social exclusion and focus on the different reasons individuals can be excluded from participation. Closely tied to the barriers that keep people from participating are the more practical problems associated with participation that can make participation difficult, unproductive, or in some cases, counterproductive. Interestingly, many of the barriers to and problems associated with participation are not insurmountable, but rather issues that require careful consideration and thought when developing processes to ensure broad-based, non-exclusionary citizen participation in the public policy process. Barriers to Participation Barnes, Knops, Newman, and Sullivan (2001) argue that there are, at any given time, a number of different processes at work creating diverse experiences of exclusion that act as barriers to public participation. These experiences stem from economic inequalities, physical and environmental inequalities, psychological and moral inequalities, regulatory inequalities, and discursive inequalities. The authors’ definitions follow. Economic inequalities serve as barriers to participation when material or time resource scarcities affect the ability or willingness of people to become involved in public activities. This can include simply not having transportation to attend meetings and activities, or not having the time to participate due to work or family responsibilities. Economic inequalities also come into play indirectly as citizens coming from diverse socioeconomic environments often have different perceptions about what is relevant, and consequently, have different viewpoints about what is even worth deliberating.

20

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

Physical exclusion implies that individuals who are in some way not able-bodied will experience barriers to participation. Those who have disabilities may not have the necessary support mechanisms to participate that address physical limitations such as sight, hearing, or other related issues. Closely tied to physical exclusion is environmental exclusion. As Judge, Mulligan, and Benzeval (1998) argue, poor quality physical environments, which are common in poorer communities, contribute to poor health, and Purdy and Banks (1999) note that poor health minimizes an individual’s ability to participate in public life. Psychological and moral exclusion occurs when individuals are made to feel like outsiders due to the personal, ethnic, religious, or cultural characteristics they possess. Two events can occur in these situations. The first, and most common, is that individuals who possess certain characteristics are made to feel or perceive they do not have a voice, or at least not an equal voice to the majority, so they are either excluded entirely from participating or their participation is marginalized. The second event that can occur is that individuals of the majority can feel anxious or threatened by certain individuals and decide not to participate themselves or minimize their participation. Either way, psychological and moral concerns result in exclusion and lack of representative participation. Regulatory exclusion is that which prevents individuals who have been viewed as contributors to social problems to be involved in public life. This can include individuals with mental illness, criminals, or even young people who have not met a statutory age that allows participation in some activities. This is an interesting area that does not receive significant attention in the participation arena from academics, public administrators, or citizens. Discursive exclusion is the way in which dominant discourse constructs experience and meanings around issues in order to develop priorities and maintain power. Government organizations, for instance, can contribute to discursive exclusion by placing significance and meaning around certain issues that then get attention—attention that is usually beneficial to the organization. Lando (1999) argues this point by suggesting that government can act as an inhibitor by what it chooses to bring or not bring to the forefront of the policy arena. Desario and Langton (1987) provide further illustration of discursive

Citizen Participation in the Public Policy Process

21

exclusion by arguing that a strong us versus them mindset exists between the technical, bureaucratic experts that operate within public organizations and citizens. Problems with Participation During the early stages of the citizen participation movement in the 1970s, it was already apparent that there were emerging problems with participation; problems that have materialized but have not been fully addressed. Cupps (1977), in the late 1970s, identified the emerging problems as the potential short sightedness of political responses to the citizen participation movement, problems of representation and legitimacy, problems associated with the style and tactics of public interest groups and their spokespeople, and the absence of sophisticated cost-benefit analysis of citizen group policies and programs. Cupps (1977) passionately summarized his concerns over citizen participation by stating “To the extent that we permit non-governmental groups, publicly oriented or private, to have a decisive voice in determining public policy, we add to the crisis of legitimacy and authority affecting all of our political institutions. Vigorous and extensive public participation should be an integral part of the public policy process, but it should not dominate it” (p. 485). Perhaps the issue that has received the most attention among Cupps’ (1977) concerns is the problem of representation, an issue that Lowi (1969) brought to the forefront a few years earlier. The concern over representation centers around the fact that very small groups of influential people have the ability to push their own, potentially narrow views and causes with great fervor. Skocpol and Fiorina (1999) observe that this has the potential to move issues to the policy agenda that may not be the issues that concern ordinary citizens. In essence, small groups of individuals have the potential to diminish the power and authority of elected officials, public administrators, and citizens by moving their narrow, often self-interested views to the policy forefront. Closely tied to the philosophical concerns regarding citizen participation are several practical issues that need attention. These include public apathy and the resultant difficulty in mobilizing ordinary citizens, the overload of information and apparent complexity related to government that minimizes peoples’ desire to participate, inadequate

22

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

representation, and the lack of fair and credible processes for participation. It is clear that citizen participation in the public policy process is an expansive, complex, and often difficult arena to grasp, both theoretically and practically. The next chapter of the study will incorporate the multifaceted components of citizen participation outlined in this chapter into the areas of community policing and citizen oversight.

CHAPTER 3

Citizen Participation in Policing

The previous chapter presented a comprehensive review of the role citizen participation plays in the public policy process, which provides the requisite foundation from which to consider the role of citizen participation in modern American policing. Citizen participation in policing reflects many of the same issues inherent in citizen participation in the public policy process. As a result, the approach used in the previous chapter of looking at who participates, what participation entails, and how participation can be promoted will also be used in this chapter to address the specific roles community policing and citizen oversight play in the realm of citizen participation in policing. Although seemingly antithetical in their original rationale and development, community policing and citizen oversight must be discussed in tandem in order to adequately understand the development and implementation of the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force. This chapter focuses specifically on citizen participation in policing and is divided into five main sections. The first section provides an historical overview of the growth and development of community policing and citizen oversight in the United States. This section also addresses definitional issues and presents the common characteristics associated with citizen participation in policing. The second section outlines who participates in policing and why. The third section discusses what citizen participation in policing entails, and includes ways in which individuals, groups, and organizations participate. Successful citizen participation strategies in policing are presented in the fourth section, and barriers to and problems associated 23

24

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

with citizen participation in policing are presented in the fifth and final section. HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND DEFINITIONS The role that citizens have played in American policing has varied considerably since the establishment of the first police agency in Boston in 1838 (Dempsey, 1994). It was at this point in history when the responsibility of policing local communities formally shifted from the part-time role of all citizens to the full-time role of small cadres of paid police officers. In the mid-Nineteenth Century, police departments in the United States existed primarily in large urban centers and the police function was entrenched in the local political machinery (Walker, 1980). Officers were political appointees that served at the pleasure and direction of local political bosses in neighborhoods throughout Boston, New York, Chicago, and other large metropolitan cities. Policing in the United States grew in breadth and size but remained relatively unchanged in function and practice during its first half century of existence. However, in 1883 Congress passed the Pendleton Act that established national civil service standards—standards that also governed police (Sullivan, 1977). This sparked a dramatic era of reform in policing that focused on merit, centralized organizational control, strict adherence to rules and directives, quick responses to serious crimes, and the pursuit of crime solving technology. In addition, rather than being familiar faces in neighborhoods, police officers were routinely transferred in and out of neighborhoods and were discouraged from developing interpersonal relationships with members of the communities in which they served. With this change in focus and so many new rules and regulations in place, new methods of ensuring police accountability also had to be pursued. It was the hierarchy within police agencies that took on this role by internally investigating allegations of police officer misconduct and dispensing discipline. This philosophical and practical shift in American policing was a hard line response to the favoritism, graft, and other abuses of authority associated with the political era that preceded it; and this new era of reform dominated all facets of policing. It also significantly increased the expectations of citizens while at the same time decreasing citizens’

Citizen Participation in Policing

25

responsibility to address crime and disorder in their respective communities. Police professionals, as part of a growing specialized public bureaucracy, were able to convince the public that the police were there to solve crime and public safety problems, and that citizens should simply let the police do their job. This new era of reform also gave police significant organizational autonomy from political leadership since political interference was considered a negative influence and was frowned upon (Bass, 2000). One constant that did not change as a result of this major era of reform were the players; policing in the United States continued to be the domain of White, working, and middle class men. This broad reform movement in policing ultimately became known as the traditional era of policing, and remained relatively unchanged for nearly a century. American society as well as the issues it faced certainly changed, but with the exception of enhancements in the specific tactics, tools, and strategies used, the bureaucratic responses to crime remained relatively constant. This era only began to dissolve when escalating crime and disorder, combined with concerns about unfair and sometimes brutal treatment of citizens, gave birth to two dominant forces rooted in citizen participation that began chipping away at traditional policing norms. These forces were community policing and citizen oversight. Although citizen oversight first emerged as a radical concept in Los Angeles in 1928 (Walker, 2001), the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s is typically credited as the catalyst to contemporary citizen oversight as well as community policing. Even with common roots, however, community policing and citizen oversight ultimately developed in two very dissimilar ways, poles apart, in form and practice. Community policing was a response to traditional policing that was predominantly initiated by police agencies to address increasing crime and disorder problems. Although external community pressures compelled police agencies to pursue change to better address public safety concerns (Zhao, 1996), it was primarily police rather than communities that pursued community policing as a new policing strategy. Police agencies realized that they could not adequately address public safety issues without the full partnership of citizens, and community policing was, at its core, aimed at bringing citizens back into the realm of assisting the police in addressing crime and disorder

26

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

in their respective communities. This was particularly important in communities with large minority populations wherein decades of distrust had precluded the development of positive relationships between community members and the police. Conversely, citizen oversight evolved from community activists who demanded involvement in police activities to address concerns about police abuses of authority and mistreatment of citizens, particularly minority citizens. This distinction is important in this study because the Tempe Police Department was not forced by the community to implement the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force; rather it was in large part pursued as part of the organization’s broad community policing initiative. Some police agencies look at the role of citizen oversight within a community policing context very differently. Bass (2000), for example, found that some police professionals in Seattle thought that the full implementation of community policing would actually negate the need for citizen oversight rather than making it a component of a larger community policing strategy. COMMUNITY POLICING DEFINED Community policing is a policing philosophy that gained popularity and momentum in the 1980s in response to growing concerns about escalating crime in communities throughout the United States. Although no single definition of community policing exists, the basic premise underlying the philosophy is that the police and the communities in which they serve must work together to identify local public safety issues and then work together to find effective solutions to those problems (Brown, 1989; Community Policing Consortium, 2002; Goldstein, 1987; Trojanowicz & Bucqeuroux, 1990). It also assumes that in order to make this relationship between the police and community effective, citizens must be involved in all aspects of policing and that a mutual trust must be developed (Goldstein, 1987; Palmiotto & Donahue, 1995; Trojanowicz & Carter, 1988). The catalyst of the community policing movement is often credited to James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling and their 1982 Atlantic Monthly article titled Broken Windows: The police and neighborhood safety, wherein the authors concluded that disorder and citizens’ fear of

Citizen Participation in Policing

27

crime actually plagues communities more than serious crime does. Further, they argued that it is neighborhood decay that is at the root of disorder and fear of crime, and that in order to adequately address the broad quality of life issues in local communities, neighborhood decay needs to be addressed by both the police and citizens. Wilson and Kelling (1982) concluded the article by stating “Just as physicians now recognize the importance of fostering health rather than simply treating illness, so the police, and the rest of us, ought to recognize the importance of maintaining, intact, communities without broken windows” (p. 38). The literature on community policing flourished in the 1980s and 1990s and encompassed a wide variety of issues ranging from why the philosophy was important to how to implement, maintain, and evaluate it (Community Policing Consortium, 2002; Eck & Spelman, 1987; Goldstein, 1979; Kelling & Bratton, 1993; Kelling, Wasserman & Williams, 1988; Kennedy, 1993). Correia (2000) argues that the form that community policing takes is often determined by the community context in which it exists, and suggests that police agencies must take the lead in finding long term solutions to public safety problems. Most of the literature has followed this line of thinking and has been aimed at police as implementers and maintainers rather than considering citizens as mutual, proactive partners in the implementation and maintenance of community policing. The Federal Government has also supported community policing through the creation of the Community Oriented Policing Office (COPS). The COPS Office has served as the clearinghouse for dispensing grant funds and, between 1994 and 2002, awarded $9.3 billion to police agencies throughout the United States to hire personnel to implement community policing strategies (COPS Office, 2003). Without any consensus on what constitutes community policing, it was not surprising that few parameters were established in the COPS grant initiatives as to what the funds were actually intended to accomplish. Given the public support and financial incentives associated with community policing, most police agencies throughout the country have subscribed to community policing in some fashion. Although community policing has ostensibly become the panacea for addressing crime and disorder in communities throughout the United States, there is no broad consensus on how it should be

28

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

implemented or how successful it has actually been. Further, considerable debate exists on the merits and effectiveness of community policing. Some scholars argue that community policing is simply rhetoric used by police agencies to gain legitimacy and resources more than it is a cohesive and legitimate crime control strategy (Bayley, 1988; Jordan, 2000; Klockars, 1988). Closely related are points of view that advocate that the political arena within which community policing develops strongly affects the form community policing takes, the legitimacy it attains, and the success it achieves (Lyons, 1999; Reed, 1999). Further, Grabosky (1992) argues that citizen participation in policing is desirable because it augments organizational legitimacy and provides for better informed communities, but that taken too far has the potential to threaten the civil liberties of citizens. Mastrofski and Ritti (2000) maintain that police agencies have not made the necessary structural and organizational changes that the full implementation of community policing requires, and consequently, continue to pursue programs and structures that are popular to the community even with little or no evidence that they are actually effective. Recently, challenges to some fundamental elements of community policing have raised questions over the future the philosophy has as a means to involve citizens in policing and the control of crime and disorder. Sampson and Raudenbush (1999) provide a formidable challenge to the core assumption presented in Wilson and Kelling’s (1982) Broken Windows theory. The authors argue that it is poverty that is the dominant factor in determining the level of community disorder, and that developing trust among neighbors in urban communities plays a more significant role in crime control than do attempts by the police to address external signs of neighborhood decay. Oliver (2000) provides what might be the final blow to community policing, arguing that community policing is in the midst of its third and perhaps final iteration, and will likely be replaced by another policing paradigm. Hartcourt and Ludwig (2005) found no evidence to support Wilson and Kellings theory when reviewing crime data from New York City and a five-city social experiment, and also found no evidence that broken windows policing is the best use of law enforcement resources. Given the role police agencies have played as partners with their respective communities in the community policing era, however, it seems unlikely

Citizen Participation in Policing

29

that citizens will allow the next policing paradigm to shift too dramatically far from these roots and abandon citizen participation altogether. Consequently, the most powerful and influential elements of community policing will likely continue, in some fashion, to be a part of any future policing paradigm. CITIZEN OVERSIGHT DEFINED Citizen oversight developed very differently than community policing. The first citizen oversight mechanism in the United States surfaced in Los Angeles in 1928 as the Committee on Constitutional Rights (Walker, 2001). This committee was made up of volunteer attorneys who reviewed complaints against the police and then referred them to the Los Angeles Police Department for investigation. Citizen oversight gained momentum in the United States in the late 1950s and 1960s in response to public concerns that the police were using excessive force, particularly with minorities, in their reaction to the social unrest surrounding the Civil Rights movement (Finn, 2001; Radelet & Carter, 1993). Although citizen oversight can take on a wide variety of structures and forms, the basic premise underlying citizen oversight is that community members who are not sworn police officers are included in the review of complaints against police officers (Walker, 2001). Citizen oversight has historically been pursued by citizens concerned that the internal complaint investigation process, which has become an American policing norm, is ineffective and riddled with potentials for abuse (Landau, 1996; Lewis, 2000). Walker (2001) argues that citizen oversight is a response to dysfunctional organizations wherein existing accountability measures have broken down, and as a result, serves as a strategy for changing police agencies in order to reduce officer misconduct. Further, Walker (2001) argues that the basic goal of citizen oversight is to open up the complaint process, which has traditionally been the sole arena of the police; break down the protective isolation of the police; and provide for the perspective of citizens in the complaint review process. The early oversight systems that emerged in the 1950s and 1960s were adamantly opposed by the rank and file within police agencies, were plagued with struggles over investigative authority, and lacked well administered and efficient processes (Radelet & Carter, 1993).

30

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

Consequently, many of the initial citizen oversight systems were short lived (Snow, 1992). Philadelphia in 1958 and New York in 1966 were two of the first cities to implement citizen oversight during this period, and both faced significant challenges and obstacles (Hudson, 1972). Both the Philadelphia and New York boards were mandated by the mayors of each city after members of their respective communities demanded citizen oversight to curtail police discretion. The Philadelphia board lasted eight years, the New York board four months. Finn (2001) notes that citizen oversight emerged again in the 1970s as African Americans in urban communities gained more political power and White political leaders recognized the need for enhanced police accountability. Walker (2001) adds that Watergate magnified public concerns over government accountability in the 1970s, which contributed to demands for citizen oversight. Many citizen oversight systems emerged during this period following shootings or other significant use of force incidents, which is still the most common catalyst for the development and implementation of citizen oversight. Terrill (1992) adds that racial and ethnic allegations of discrimination also trigger community leaders to pursue citizen oversight. Citizen oversight has gained considerable momentum and by 2000 had become more widespread than ever before in the United States (Finn, 2001). Finn (2001) asserts that by 1998, approximately eighty percent of the nation’s largest cities had some type of citizen oversight, although only a small fraction of all police agencies throughout the country have implemented citizen oversight. At the same time, public opinion polls in the 1990s have demonstrated that support for citizen oversight has grown dramatically among citizens, and although to a lesser degree, has also been increasingly supported by police officers (Walker, 2001). Landau (2000) adds that through the 1990s most police administrators had, at least publicly abandoned resistance to citizen oversight. Although citizen oversight is still most often implemented following a highly charged police incident, the reciprocal rise in the implementation of community policing and citizen oversight may indicate that agencies who have implemented a community policing framework may be more amenable to citizen oversight. Walker (2001) even argues that the community policing movement has indirectly contributed to the growth of citizen oversight, stating “Born in the early 1980s, the idea of community policing became virtually the gospel

Citizen Participation in Policing

31

among police chiefs and politicians by the 1990s. Although community policing advocates said almost nothing specifically about citizen complaints, their emphasis on developing partnerships between departments and community residents undermined the traditional police argument that citizens are unqualified to make judgments about police policy” (p. 43). WHO PARTICIPATES AND WHY? To better understand citizen participation in policing, it is important to recognize who participates in community policing and citizen oversight, and why. Participation in policing has, in many ways, been framed by the dominant policing paradigm in place at any given time. For instance, during the traditional era of policing when citizen participation was not an accepted norm in the police culture, participation often took on an activist role and the interaction between active citizens and police was often highly charged and caustic. Conversely, community policing advocates the involvement of citizens, so the interaction between citizens and the police is typically more cooperative, although some would argue not as constructive. Both the police and citizens must be considered when discussing who participates in community policing and citizen oversight, and why. As with citizen participation in the public policy process, the macro or societal level motives for participation must be examined as well as the micro or individual level motives for participation. Community Policing Given the considerable emphasis placed on community policing by the police community and academics, coupled with the large amount of resources available, there are clear motives for police agencies to participate in community policing. On the macro or societal level, the benefits include increased legitimacy and support through more interaction with citizens, and a shared responsibility between citizens and the police to resolve crime and public safety issues (Brown, 1989; Reed, 1999). In terms of legitimacy, it is assumed that the more citizens learn about the police and vice versa, the more confidence citizens will have in the police, and ultimately the more support the community will

32

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

provide the police. As for shared responsibility, community policing has clearly placed more responsibility on citizens than did the traditional, reactionary approach to addressing crime; however, in practice citizen involvement in community policing is still very much driven by police. This police-driven approach has transpired for two reasons. First, police agencies, by design, may limit citizen participation to maintain control. Typically in these situations, organizations and administrators are not fully receptive to community policing, but are implementing it due to external mandates or pressures, or in an effort to placate citizens or gain access to resources. Second, well intentioned police agencies that want to pursue community policing often find the community largely apathetic and uninterested in becoming involved. In addition, when citizens do participate in policing activities, it is often to address a particular problem or issue that they are directly involved in, or it follows a high profile crime or incident that temporarily increases fear in the community. On the micro or individual level organizations can expect community policing to increase the job satisfaction of police officers, develop more open and productive internal relationships, and create internal support for continued organizational change (Brown, 1989; Kelling, 1988). In essence, community policing provides for a more open organizational environment that in turn is more prepared and capable of change to respond quickly and effectively to citizens’ needs. This assumes, however, that police managers are able to effectively change the organizational philosophy and strong culture that is inherent in police agencies. In order for community policing to work, citizens also have to play a role. So, what compels citizens to participate in community policing? The lines separating the societal and individual benefits that citizens can gain through community policing often blur. However, the general societal level motives for citizens to participate include long-term commitments to crime prevention and problem solving, and more accountability to the public and public scrutiny of the police (Brown, 1989; Kelling, Wasserman & Williams, 1988). From this perspective it is presumed that citizens want to play a role in the development and preservation of broad crime control strategies with the police, and want

Citizen Participation in Policing

33

to access the inner workings of the police to provide more general accountability and public scrutiny to police activities. Individual level motives for citizen participation in community policing include customized police services and community organization (Brown, 1989). At the individual level, citizens are motivated to participate in community policing because there is some presumed self-interested benefit for the citizen. As presented in the discussion on citizen participation in the public policy process, issues involving competency also come into play with community policing. Most police agencies participating in community policing take the lead role in getting citizens involved and in developing and pursuing crime control strategies. This means that police agencies are often responsible for developing and maintaining the administrative processes necessary to accommodate citizen participation. As a result, the required competency for organizations involved in community policing has risen, but the competency for involved citizens has decreased substantially. The narrowed competency required for citizens to participate also impacts the motivation to participate. Since police agencies involved in community policing advocate citizen involvement, they have created mechanisms and environments that encourage the participation of both police supporters and adversaries. This has allowed citizens who were not likely to participate in policing in the past to participate, including supporters who had not been asked to participate as well as detractors who simply may not have had the resources to take on the bureaucratic and political strength of the police. Citizen Oversight Given that both police management and police unions have historically resisted the involvement of citizens in addressing complaints against police officers (Radalet & Carter, 1993; Walker, 2001), it has been primarily through acquiescence to mandates or political pressure that most police agencies have become involved in citizen oversight. Consequently, the impact that police have intended to have by participating in citizen oversight has strongly favored the individual level impact over the societal level impact. In essence, participation is intended to benefit the organization on the individual level by

34

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

minimizing conflict and negative publicity, and increasing the legitimacy of the police. Finn (2001) demonstrates this by suggesting that citizen oversight can benefit a police agency by improving the organization’s image with the community, increasing public understanding about the nature of police work, improving the quality of the organization’s internal investigations process, discouraging misconduct; and helping reassure the public that the organization already investigates citizen complaints thoroughly and fairly. Although some organizations may implement citizen oversight as part of a larger community policing philosophy, there is little evidence to suggest that the goal is to actually redistribute power from the police to citizens. Unlike other community policing strategies that actually emphasize the need for shared responsibility and open access to information, citizen oversight is still broached hesitantly and is consciously designed to provide controlled access and limited authority to citizens (Lewis, 2000). Consequently, it appears that even those organizations that pursue community policing to impact the broad societal level are motivated to implement citizen oversight for individual level, self-interested reasons. This is an interesting phenomenon when considering that Braunstein and Tyre (1994) argue that there has been no evidence uncovered to suggest that any police agency has actually suffered from including citizens in the review of complaints against the police. Citizens, on the other hand, clearly have pursued citizen oversight with the intent to impact both the societal and individual levels. Failures with existing accountability structures, including the political system, the courts, and police administration have motivated citizens to turn to citizen oversight (Walker, 2001). On the macro or societal level, citizens participate in citizen oversight to improve democracy (Lewis, 2000) and to ensure that the police as an institution are accountable to the citizens they serve. On an individual level, citizens have pursued citizen oversight as the direct result of an incident that affected a specific individual or a group of individuals within a community (Finn, 2001). As a result, it is at the individual level that citizen action is often sparked and where demands made by active citizens ultimately require police agencies to provide citizens some degree of access to the organization. By bringing to the public and political arena disturbing

Citizen Participation in Policing

35

anecdotes of police misconduct, active citizens have eventually been given access to some part of the complaint review process. The competency required by citizens to pursue and participate in citizen oversight has historically been extremely high. Citizens who wanted to play a role in policing had to overcome strong resistance from police agencies, which required considerable competency to maneuver through the bureaucratic and legal channels simply to access information and get concerns acknowledged. Citizens had to organize, get influential people and entities involved such as politicians, the media, and other special interest groups including the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). In addition, they had to thoroughly understand the complaint and investigation processes as well as the politics within police agencies. Often times, they also had to operate within an environment of mistrust and poor race relations. Competency is still important, but well-structured processes can accommodate effective involvement by providing training and more importantly, allowing citizens into the inner workings of the police. Well-structured processes allow energy to be spent on the issues at hand rather than on simply accessing information and then trying to unravel the politics to understand what things really mean. In addition, when police agencies initiate citizen oversight, it is likely that a nonadversarial relationship rooted in cooperation rather than conflict will lead to mutual trust and more sophisticated interaction and involvement in the complaint process. In essence, police agencies may realize through experience that they can trust citizens to participate fully and competently in the complaint process. WHAT DOES PARTICIPATION ENTAIL? Citizen participation in policing can take on variety of forms depending upon the crime and disorder issues in the community, the local political environment, the culture and attitude of local police, the established relationship between local police and the community, and the proclivity for citizen involvement and activism within the community. Given the disparate development patterns of community policing and citizen oversight it is not surprising that the types and forms of citizen participation that have evolved in these two arenas are often quite

36

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

different. Interestingly, in this study, however, citizen oversight is being evaluated as a component of community policing which means that part of Tempe, Arizona’s community policing philosophy is the inclusion of citizen oversight. Community Policing Community policing requires the participation of both the police and the community in addressing public safety concerns. Eck and Rosenbaum (1994) argue that citizens must play an important role in community policing if the philosophy is to be effective. The specific responsibilities Eck and Rosenbaum (1994) say the community must address are being the eyes and ears of the community, participating in activities that address crime and disorder and drive the criminal element out of the community, reducing the chances of being victimized by reducing the opportunity for crimes to occur, putting pressure on others in the community to act to address public safety concerns, and allowing the police to act on the community’s behalf. All of these elements are common in most community policing environments with the exception of driving the criminal element out of the community and allowing the police to act on the behalf of the community. These two components are often discouraged or are at least downplayed because they have the potential to get citizens into dangerous or violent situations that they may not be prepared to handle, or in the latter, may require the police to violate the civil right of individuals, which is problematic as it takes on a rogue character even when supported by the local community. Oliver (2001) adds to the list above arguing that another important function of the community in community policing is leadership and a shared responsibility in policy making and decision making with police. Oliver (2001) makes this point by saying “When the community works with the police in this shared leadership role, the citizens have not only a vested interest in how the police perform their role but also a responsibility for their role that has not existed since the loss of the order maintenance role around the 1950s” (p. 244). Citizen participation in community policing can occur directly or indirectly through a variety of activities, programs, and committees. Police agencies promoting community policing typically try to address

Citizen Participation in Policing

37

all of these components. In direct participation, citizens can work directly with their neighbors and the police as well as other local government agencies to address particular problems. Typically this involves addressing specific crime or disorder issues in a neighborhood or at a distinct location. The role that citizens can play in these situations often depends upon the severity of the problem being addressed, the role that the police agency has provided citizens, and the motivation of involved citizens. Citizens can also participate indirectly in neighborhood associations or other committee structures to address problems or issues specific to their neighborhoods, or can participate on broad-based committees intended to serve the larger community. Participation on the part of police can take on a myriad of different structures and forms. Some agencies may implement or participate in a minimal number of superficial programs or activities simply to espouse that they are a community policing agency, while others may be significantly involved in a variety of inclusive activities. Those agencies that are fully committed to community policing will not only look at strategies to work directly and indirectly with the community, they look internally at management and organizational issues to ensure that, as an organization, they are prepared to meet the challenges that community policing presents police agencies. Citizen Oversight Citizen oversight is only one of many police accountability tools that are available to citizens, politicians, and police administrators. This is important to recognize because the structure and form that specific citizen oversight mechanisms take largely depend upon the other police accountability systems that exist as well as the effectiveness of those other accountability systems. Walker (2001) argues that a mixed accountability system, which includes a variety of internal and external control mechanisms, is best. Internal mechanisms can include sound complaint procedures, early warning systems, and strong management control. External mechanisms can include citizen oversight as well as public and political support for strong police accountability measures. Citizen participation in citizen oversight can take on a wide variety of forms depending upon the structure and operation of any given oversight mechanism. Traditionally, citizen participation in citizen

38

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

oversight was pursued by active citizens concerned over a lack of police accountability. As a result, it was the assertive citizen or group of citizens that joined forces to implement independent oversight mechanisms. Citizen participation in citizen oversight occurs much differently if the oversight mechanism is initiated and implemented by the police agency. Although active citizens concerned over police accountability may still participate, it is more likely that the police agency involved will recruit and evaluate members that will participate in established oversight processes. Consequently, the participation itself is easier for citizens since the processes for participation have already been established and the interaction with police is likely to be much more cordial and interactive rather than adversarial. There is no standard model to follow when developing a citizen oversight system, so most have developed locally based on the needs of the community or entity implementing citizen oversight (Luna & Walker, 2000). Walker (2001) emphasizes this point by stating “Perhaps the most notable aspect of the oversight movement was its experimental and often ad hoc character that produced a tremendous variety among oversight mechanisms.” (p. 40). Walker and Kreisel (1996) suggest that the differences in oversight mechanisms typically center around the focus on role and mission, operational structure, operating policies, and level of authority. Luna and Walker (2000) conclude that the primary focus placed on the study and practice of citizen oversight is typically on structure and authority, and that relatively little attention has been given to the issues of process and implementation. Further, they argue that a variety of structures may prove to be successful, but it is process and implementation that are the important issues that need to be addressed. Finn (2001) expands this perspective stating “The talent, fairness, dedication, and flexibility of the key participants—in particular, the oversight system’s director, chief elected official, police chief or sheriff, and union president—are more important to the procedure’s success than is the system’s structure” (p. xi). Finn (2001) provides an overview of the four primary types of oversight systems. All four types have advantages and disadvantages, and most oversight systems are actually mixtures or adaptations of one or more of these types.

Citizen Participation in Policing

39

1.

Citizens investigate allegations of police misconduct and recommend findings to the chief or sheriff.

2.

Police personnel investigate allegations and develop findings; citizens review and recommend that the chief or sheriff approve or reject the findings.

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.

4.

An auditor investigates the process by which the police or sheriff’s department accepts and investigates complaints and reports on the thoroughness and fairness of the process to the department and public.

Walker (2003) provides a fifth type of oversight system that is relatively new. This type of system involves providing non-sworn individuals who are employed by the law enforcement agency some input or control over the complaint process. In addition to structural issues, Finn (2001) notes that an oversight body’s legal basis and authority need to be carefully considered and clearly articulated. In addition, Finn (2001) suggests that the openness of oversight proceedings to the public needs to be addressed. Often this involves considering the benefits of open and honest communication between oversight members and police representatives versus the benefits of promoting legitimacy and integrity of the process by demonstrating openness to the public. Related to this is the consideration that needs to be given to the privacy issues of individuals and officers involved in incidents being reviewed. Finn (2001) and Walker (2001) strongly emphasize that regardless of the citizen oversight process used, it is critical that it be a component of a larger structure of internal and external accountability. Citizen oversight alone cannot serve the accountability needs of a community, and often, citizen oversight itself is more effective when part of a mixed approach because in these situations the community and the police have likely demonstrated commitment to police accountability— particularly when initiated by police.

40

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

PROMOTING PARTICIPATION Strategies designed to promote citizen participation in policing can evolve from citizens who want to participate as well as from police agencies who pursue citizen participation. As with participation in the public policy process, it is often public organizations that are leading the charge for citizen participation in policing activities. Due to apathy and a lack of community involvement throughout the United States, promoting participation in policing is challenging, but essential if the current policing paradigm is to succeed. With this mandate, how can police agencies promote participation in policing? Community Policing There are two components that need to be addressed by police to effectively promote participation in community policing. First, is the need for police executives to address the internal structure, management, and culture of the organization to ensure that police officers have the necessary direction, training, and resources to promote rather than discourage citizen participation (Brown, 1989; Oliver, 2001; Trojanowicz & Bucqueroux, 1990; Kelling, Wasserman & Williams, 1988). Second, is the need to pursue external programs and strategies aimed at getting citizens involved in policing activities. These strategies may encompass comprehensive planning and implementation programs that span many years to less involved, simpler approaches to getting citizens involved. Many of the more popular community policing approaches focus on information sharing and include sponsoring public events or activities, holding community forums, promoting media coverage, producing cable television shows, and maintaining informative and interactive web sites. Many police agencies also provide opportunities for citizens to learn more about the inner workings of police through programs such as citizen police academies, volunteer work programs, and ride-along programs that offer citizens the opportunity to actually ride in the field with patrol officers. Finally, strategies that focus on problem solving and addressing longer term community issues include neighborhood watch, focused interventions aimed at reducing crime and disorder, and even citizen oversight.

Citizen Participation in Policing

41

Citizen Oversight Historically, citizen oversight has been pursued by citizens and special interest groups concerned about incidents of police brutality or misconduct. It is, however, not uncommon today for police agencies to pursue the development, implementation, and operation of citizen oversight systems. Actually, many academics and practitioners recommend that police agencies pursue citizen oversight before trigger incidents occur that force the political mandate of citizen oversight. This provides an organization more control and the ability to pursue more cordial and cooperative relationships with the community (Braunstein &Tyre, 1994). It also provides an organization the opportunity to adequately research citizen oversight models and practices to ensure that a system that best meets the needs of the organization and the respective community is pursued. When an agency is forced to respond to political mandates quickly in response to an incident or series of incidents, an inadequate system is likely to be pursued, which can lead to more complex problems down the road. Consequently, much of the how to literature on citizen oversight focuses on the steps and strategies police should take when implementing citizen oversight to accommodate citizen participation. Finn (2001) provides an important list of items that need to be considered in promoting citizen participation in citizen oversight, including involving representatives of all concerned parties in the planning process, establishing clear goals for the oversight system, training panel members so they better understand the police function, and implementing an effective community outreach program. The outreach program can involve not only recruiting and selecting citizens to participate on a citizen oversight panel, but includes developing and implementing outreach methods aimed at advertising the services of the oversight system and the police agency in responding to police complaints. BARRIERS TO AND PROBLEMS WITH PARTICIPATION The barriers and problems associated with citizen participation in policing mirror those of citizen participation in the public policy arena. As with the public policy arena, the barriers that prohibit or diminish

42

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

opportunities for citizens to participate in community policing and citizen oversight evolve from the concept of social exclusion wherein citizens are excluded from participating (Barnes, Knops, Newman & Sullivan, 2001). These barriers include economic inequalities, physical inequalities, psychological inequalities, regulatory inequalities, and discursive inequalities, and impact community policing and citizen oversight in similar ways. Economic inequalities can act as barriers for individuals to participate in policing activities in a variety of ways. First and foremost are pragmatic issues of simply having the time and resources to participate. For some individuals or families who have extensive work or child rearing responsibilities, there may be less time available for community involvement. Simply working an unusual work shift or a second job can exclude individuals because most group meetings and activities occur around an eight to five work day, or assume that at least one member of the household is available to attend meetings and functions around typical work hours. The largest economic inequalities involving participation in policing, however, center around the different perspectives individuals and groups from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds have about what is even relevant to deliberate or pursue. For instance, since a component of community policing involves the police and community mutually identifying priorities, a wealthier part of the community may place more political pressure on the police to prioritize concerns about loud noise, gas powered skateboarders, or similar nuisances above more serious public safety concerns in poorer communities simply because those in the poorer communities do not have the time, resources, or political clout that other members of the community have. Citizens can also be excluded from participating in community policing and citizen oversight activities due to physical exclusion. This can include physical or mental handicaps that are not considered when participatory processes are developed, or can simply encompass individuals who may not be able to easily leave their homes to participate due to illness or other incapacities. Psychological exclusion can impact citizen participation in community policing and citizen oversight if established processes and activities do not ensure fairness and promote the inclusion of all members. This is particularly important when participation is on broad

Citizen Participation in Policing

43

scale committees that impact the entire community, as there is much greater likelihood to be differences of opinion on how to address largescale philosophical issues related to policing. Crosby, Kelly, and Schaefer (1986) emphasize the importance of ensuring that fair procedures are used with citizen panels, not only because it is the right thing to do, but because on a very pragmatic basis it enhances the legitimacy of the panel and ultimately of the organization sanctioning the panel. Regulatory exclusion can have a significant impact on citizen participation in policing, particularly in regard to citizen oversight. Regulatory exclusion excludes individuals who have been viewed as contributors to social problems from being involved in policing activities. Although community policing in principle espouses the inclusion of all community members in police-community related activities, it is difficult to determine how often individuals perceived as being outside mainstream societal parameters actually participate in police-community activities and what form this interaction takes. In regard to citizen oversight, it is clear that individuals viewed as contributors to social problems have either been prohibited from participation or have faced significant difficulty in participating. For instance, in situations wherein citizen oversight is pursued by individuals concerned about police brutality or other police misconduct, allowing individuals with criminal backgrounds to participate may work against the efforts of the group as the general public may see this as an attempt to minimize the powers of the police. In situations where citizen oversight is implemented by police, individuals with criminal backgrounds or negative contacts with the police are restricted from participating as oversight panel members. Although the police have legitimate concerns over providing access to police facilities and confidential police information to those with criminal records, restriction from participation can be exacerbated if the process allows individuals to be excluded based on other non-tangible criteria. Discursive exclusion can act as a barrier to participation in policing when citizens, groups of citizens, or local government entities are able to provide meaning around important issues that then get attention in the public arena. This is, at the heart, the politics of community policing and citizen oversight. Those individuals, groups, or organizations that are successful at placing significance and meaning

44

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

around issues are then able to develop public priorities and maintain power. For instance, if a police agency is able to define the issues surrounding police accountability and convince local politicians and the community of their perspective, it is the police agency that then has the power to pursue or not pursue new accountability mechanisms or change existing ones even if there are pockets of resistance in the community. In addition to the barriers that prohibit or diminish citizen participation in policing there are a variety of different practical problems that can emerge specific to community policing and citizen oversight. Community Policing Perhaps the biggest problem facing participation in community policing is the reality that police agencies are primarily responsible for the development and implementation of community policing. Oliver (2001) argues that it is necessary for the police to take the lead role given the current lack of community in the United States, but that at some point the community must take the lead role. After over two decades of community policing serving as the dominant policing paradigm, there are only scattered examples of situations wherein communities have taken significant responsibility for this relationship. The problem facing participation in community policing then, involves the entire future of policing in the United States. If this philosophy, which is grounded in citizen participation, proves unsuccessful, a new iteration of policing may evolve that has the potential to place the future of citizen participation in policing in jeopardy. Other practical problems associated with community policing can be distinguished as internal problems or external problems. Internally, the problems include internal resistance from police officers and the need for additional resources. Typically, when police chiefs or sheriffs opt to pursue community policing, they not only find apathy from the community, but resistance internally from police officers who are resistant to change and concerned that they will become social workers rather than crime fighters (Oliver, 2001). Organizational issues involving the transition to community policing have received significant attention in the literature (Meese, 1993; Sparrow, 1988;

Citizen Participation in Policing

45

Wasserman & Moore, 1988), but there is little consensus on what organizational and management strategies have been successful in changing the internal police culture toward community policing. The issue of resources is one that has reached little consensus as well. Although it is arguable whether or not moving toward community policing itself requires additional resources, it is clear that the federal government has instilled the notion that it does by providing over $9.3 billion dollars in community policing resources to police agencies throughout the United States between 1994 and 2002 (COPS, 2003). So, whether community policing actually requires the need for more resources or simply provides an opportunity to pursue more resources, it is clear that organizations must address whether or not additional resources are needed to support citizen participation, and if so, how many and how to acquire them. Externally, apathy and lack of representation from community members are clearly the most significant problems associated with citizen participation in community policing. Citizens tend to stay involved when it serves their short-term interests, but do not typically stay involved consistently over the long-term. Citizen Oversight As with community policing, adequate representation of participants is one of the largest potential problems associated with citizen oversight (Finn, 2001; Walker, 2001). Without adequate representation as well as fair and consistent operating practices citizen oversight will not gain the legitimacy it must have to succeed, and without legitimacy, participation is diminished and often ineffective. Another problem that needs to be overcome is the complexity that is often associated with citizen oversight. Without well facilitated and administered processes, the average citizen may not be able to participate. Tied to this are processes that do not have adequate administrative support to address complaints. Without this support, citizen oversight members may not get the assistance they need to participate, or may become frustrated due to the time and bureaucracy associated with processing complaints resulting from inadequate administrative support.

46

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

Unions present another challenge to citizen oversight. Unions have historically served as one of the largest obstacles to accountability measures in police, and generally strongly resist citizen oversight (Finn, 2001; Levi, 1977; Walker, 2001). Halpern (1974) addressed this issue in the early 1970s by stating “Militant police unions may constitute the greatest obstacle to reform and innovation in contemporary U.S. police practice. By cooperating with commissioners, police associations have helped to defeat or forestall proposals for civilian review boards, and can be counted on to oppose other civilian accountability schemes” (p. 561). Although there is currently more support for citizen oversight by police management and many officers, unions still serve as a significant obstacle to citizen oversight. There is some evidence, however, that unions are recognizing the staying power of citizen oversight and are attempting to find ways to negotiate parts of the oversight process and build relationships with oversight bodies (National Association of Civilian Oversight for Law Enforcement, 2003). Another barrier that is emerging with citizen oversight, although not entirely negative, is that police are beginning to reclaim ownership of the complaint process. Goldsmith (1991) argues that police are beginning to address complaints more proactively as a way to provide feedback to the organization that is critical for the organization to grow and learn. In essence, police are beginning to practice private sector management principles in regard to complaints that focus on customer service as much as they focus on legal and disciplinary action. Although community policing and citizen oversight have developed in separate and distinct ways, it is evident that citizen oversight can become part of a larger community policing philosophy aimed at improving relationships between citizens and the police, and ultimately improving the quality of life in communities. Moore (1991) makes this point, suggesting that citizen oversight can serve as a tool to address police brutality, but that the establishment of a shared commitment to community policing is far more promising. Landau (2000), in her critique of the shortcomings of community policing further demonstrates the need to include citizen oversight in a community policing environment by stating “In the face of routine, rather shallow proselytising about the inherent accountability of community-based policing and the win-win partnership it creates, other significant forms of accountability have been overshadowed” (p. 77).

Citizen Participation in Policing

47

The next chapter of the study will take this information on community policing and citizen oversight to present a research model developed to conceptualize the evaluation of the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Police Complaints and Use of Force.

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER 4

Evaluation Model

This study employed a three-pronged approach to evaluate the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force. Each of the three prongs was represented by a specific research question. The first research question was designed to determine if the citizen oversight panel was implemented and administered as intended, and was addressed through descriptive analysis. The second research question was designed to determine the degree to which the panel achieved the broad goals established by the Tempe Police Department, and was addressed through an evaluative assessment of the panel. The third research question was designed to assess the impact the citizen oversight panel had on promoting public confidence in the Tempe Police Department and was accomplished through explanatory analysis. Combined, these three research questions were used to evaluate the normative assumptions of the benefits associated with citizen participation in the public policy process; specifically in regard to community policing and citizen oversight. Perez (1994) provides a valuable set of criteria for evaluating police complaint processes that have been woven into the three research questions addressed in this study. He argues that when evaluating police complaint systems it is critical to assess the integrity of the process, which refers to the quality of the investigative process; the legitimacy of the process, which refers to how stakeholders perceive the system; and whether or not the organization learns from the process. Walker (2001) provides several practical evaluation rudiments to address to help determine if Perez’s broad criteria are being met in regard to citizen oversight. Walker (2001) argues that 49

50

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

when evaluating the monitoring role of citizen oversight it is important to assess the levels and quality of community outreach, customer assistance, policy review, and public attitudes about the police. Combined, these criteria provided utility in determining the effectiveness of the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force. Determining the effectiveness of a citizen oversight entity is a complex endeavor as is evidenced by Walker’s (2001) conclusion that “The effectiveness of an oversight agency depends on its formal structure and the powers it possesses, the activities it engages in, the quality of its leadership, the support it receives from the public and the responsible elected officials, and the attitude of the law enforcement agency it is responsible for overseeing” (p.187). Given the difficulty in validating the broad, normative assumptions inherent to citizen oversight, a logic model was developed to simplify the process. This logic model, presented in Figure 1, outlines the thought process and assumptions underlying the three research questions that comprised this study. Tatro (1998), in a study of consumer and family participation in state-level mental health program evaluation provides a framework from which to address the concerns related to validating normative assumptions in an evaluation. She contends that directly measuring the long-term effects of public programs is challenging and that demonstrating a causal link between program elements and outcomes is even more difficult. Consequently, she advocates using mediating steps in the logic chain, as the mediating steps are easier to capture quantitatively and are usually visible earlier in the life of a program. This framework was used in this study and the specific components of the logic model were developed from a hypothesized understanding of the panel gained from the literature and experience, the Tempe oversight panel’s intended operations and outcomes, and from input from experts in the Tempe Police Department. The broad program goals presented in the logic model in Figure 1 are identified as Long Term Effects. These goals were identified prior to the implementation of the Tempe oversight panel through a focus group that included the Police Chief and the Department’s Division Commanders (immediately below the Police Chief in the organizational hierarchy at that time). These goals were reasserted more recently when this study formally began. It was important to ensure that the same

Evaluation Model

51

FIGURE 1 Logic Model

Activities

Well designed, implemented, and maintained citizen oversight panel.

Intermediate Effects

Long Term Effects

Increased communication and information exchange between the Police Department and citizens.

Increased support from the community (external).

Citizen panel members more aware of the inner workings of the Department. Better complaint system. Decreased litigation.

Increased public confidence and trust in the Police Department (external). Increased credibility and integrity within the Police Department (external and internal).

52

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

goals were still in place because significant organizational change had occurred since the development and implementation of the Tempe oversight panel, and time had passed since the development of the panel and the formal onset of this study. It is important to note that these goals are also prominent in the normative literature on community policing and citizen oversight. This logic model was used to connect the Tempe oversight panel’s identified activities to its intermediate effects, and ultimately to its long-term effects. The relationship between each of the study’s research questions and the logic model follow. PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION The first research question was designed to determine if the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force was implemented and administered as it was intended. This is the first element to be addressed in the logic model presented in Figure 1. Determining whether or not the Tempe oversight panel was implemented and administered by the Tempe Police Department as outlined in the ordinance establishing the panel was critical to the study as it directly impacted the two remaining research questions. If the panel was not implemented and administered as outlined in the ordinance, outcomes from the two remaining research questions may have been the result of panel implementation failures rather than the ineffectiveness of citizen participation in the citizen oversight process. This assessment involved comparing the requirements of the Tempe oversight panel documented in the ordinance to sources describing the implementation and administration of the panel. The ordinance is presented in its entirety and actual format in Figure 2 (City of Tempe, 2000). A review of documents and interviews with involved stakeholders were used to determine if the requirements in the ordinance were adhered to by the Tempe Police Department, and the City Manager, where appropriate. The Tempe Police Department had considerable influence on the development, implementation, and administration of the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force in two important ways. First, the Tempe Police Department initiated the

Evaluation Model

53

panel and as a result developed the structure and process that, with only minor adjustments, was approved as an ordinance by the Tempe City Council. Second, ambiguity within the ordinance provided the Tempe Police Department significant latitude in the day-to-day administration of the panel. As a result it is important to assess the actions of the Tempe Police Department in contrast to the framework for the development, implementation, and operational maintenance of citizen panels as outlined by Crosby, Kelly, and Schaefer (1986) as well as by Finn (2001). Crosby, Kelly, and Schaefer (1986) provide a framework that addresses appropriate participant selection, effective decision-making, fair procedures, cost effectiveness, flexibility, and follow through on panel recommendations. Finn (2001) addresses many of the same issues, but goes further to include the recruitment and training of citizen members as well as police members, methods for community outreach, on-going monitoring of the panel, and evaluating the citizen oversight process. This chapter outlined the general research model used to evaluate the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force. In the next chapter, the methodology used to actually undertake the evaluation is presented. GOAL ACHIEVEMENT The second research question involved determining the level of goal achievement the Tempe oversight panel had attained. This was difficult since it takes considerable time to establish long-term relationships and levels of trust between the community and the police, so an evaluation after only a few years may prove negative or inconclusive; not because the panel was ineffective but because it had not been given adequate time to achieve the desired long-term results. In addition, several of the long-term goals identified for the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force by the Tempe Police Department executive staff were broad, and were goals that required multiple strategies that surpassed more than just citizen oversight, even if citizen oversight proved to be successful. Several factors that had a potential impact on goal achievement were identified and are presented in Figure 3. All of the independent variables were tied to the literature

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

54

FIGURE 2 Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Complaints and Use of Force Ordinance

Components of the Ordinance Chapter 2, Article V of the Tempe City Code amended to include: Division 12: Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force Sec. 2-285. Established. a)

There is hereby established a Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force (“panel”) to be composed of fifteen (15) citizen members and three (3) Police Department members.

b) When functioning as a review sub-panel as described in Sec. 2-288, each sub-panel shall consist of five (5) citizen members and three (3) Police Department members. The citizen members of each sub-panel will be selected by the City Manager. c)

This panel shall act in an advisory capacity to the Chief of Police and the City Manager.

Sec. 2-286. Appointment of citizen members; terms of office. a)

The fifteen (15) citizen members of the panel shall be selected from residents of the city. The Mayor will make three selections, and each Council Member will make two selections.

Evaluation Model

55

FIGURE 2 (continued)

Components of the Ordinance b) The term of office of citizen members shall be for (3) years and shall commence on the first day of January each ear and end on the 31st day of December, three (3) years thereafter, except the initial citizen members of the panel. Such terms shall be staggered so that the term of no more than five (5) citizen members shall conclude in any given year. c)

Citizen members of the panel may not serve more than two (2) complete consecutive terms. Any vacancy shall be filled for the remainder of the unexpired term of the citizen member whose office is vacant in the same manner as such citizen member received original appointment.

d) Citizen members on the panel shall receive no compensation for their service as panel members. e)

The City Manger may for cause remove any citizen member of the panel.

Sec. 2-287. Police Department members assigned. a)

The Chief of Police shall select three (3) Police Department employees to serve as members of the panel.

b) The three (3) Police members shall consist of one (1) Division Commander, who shall serve for indefinite term, one (1) first line Supervisor, and one (1) line Officer, both of who shall serve for a two-year term.

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

56 FIGURE 2 (continued)

Components of the Ordinance (c) The appointed Division Commander shall serve as Chairperson of the panel and each sub-panel. Sec. 2-288. Powers and duties. The Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force shall have the following powers and duties: (a) To establish such rules and regulations as it deems necessary for its government and for the faithful performance of its duties; to set a time for meetings which shall be held as needed if there is business to transact; to establish the manner in which special meetings shall be held and the notice to be given thereof; and to provide that five (5) members of each sub-panel shall constitute a quorum. The affirmative vote of five (5) members of each sub-panel shall be required for passage of any matter before the panel. (b) To require attendance of the members at regular meetings and to provide that absence from three (3) consecutive regular meetings without consent of the panel shall be deemed to constitute the resignation of such member and such position shall thereupon be deemed vacant.

Evaluation Model

57

FIGURE 2 (continued)

Components of the Ordinance (c) To meet in sub-panels selected by the City Manager and conduct a review of the record of the following: 1.

All police shootings and police incidents when direct physical force by the Police results in serious injury or death. Serious injury is defined as an injury that requires the subject to be admitted into a hospital.

2.

The findings of the Police Department’s investigation of unsustained, unfounded, or exonerated citizen complaints, when that citizen requests a review of the Police Department’s findings. A request for review must be made within thirty (30) days from the date the citizen is notified of the findings of the Police Department’s investigation.

3.

Any Police Department incident, at the request of the Police Chief.

(d) After a review of the record, each review panel shall make one of the following findings in a report to the Chief of Police: 1.

Agree with the findings of the Police Department investigation.

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

58 FIGURE 2 (continued)

Components of the Ordinance 2.

Disagree with the findings of the Police Department investigation.

3.

Advise the Chief of Police that further investigation is warranted.

4.

Upon a review of a use of Police force incident, the review panel shall make a further finding whether the use of Police force was within Police Department policy.

(e) The panel may make recommendations to the Chief of Police concerning training programs, revisions of policies or procedures, commendable actions, preventive or corrective measures except for employee discipline and community concerns regarding police action and procedures.

Evaluation Model

59

FIGURE 3 Potential Factors Involved in Goal Achievement.

Independent Variables

Dependent Variable

Degree of trust citizen panel members have in the panel and the panel process. Level of awareness citizen panel members have to the inner workings of the Police Department. Level of access citizen panel members have to information related to incidents being reviewed by the panel. Level of information exchange between citizens and the Police Department. Degree to which the process has improved the internal complaint system in the Tempe Police Department. Degree to which the process has impacted the amount of litigation against the Tempe Police Department.

The Tempe Police Department executive staff’s perception of goal achievement for the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force.

60

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

TABLE 1 Hypotheses Regarding Tempe Citizens’ Response to Citizen Oversight

Hypotheses Citizens will not be familiar with the concept of citizen oversight. Citizens will not be aware that the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force exists. Those citizens that are aware that the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force exists will not know the process to have a complaint reviewed by the panel. Citizens will support the involvement of citizens in the review of complaints against Tempe Police Officers. Minority citizens will support the involvement of citizens in the review of complaints against Tempe Police Officers at a higher rate than will non-minority citizens. Public confidence in the Tempe Police Department will increase when the public knows that the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force exists.

Evaluation Model

61

on citizen participation, community policing, citizen oversight, or some combination as presented in Chapters Two and Three of this study. In addition, the variables encompassed the intermediate effects outlined in the logic model in Figure 1. PROMOTING CONFIDENCE IN THE POLICE Traditional hypotheses testing was used to address the third research question. These hypotheses were drawn from Herzog’s (2000) evaluation of civilian oversight in Israel as well as the general community policing and citizen oversight literature. Herzog (2000) concluded that citizen oversight as a concept was supported by the Israeli community, but that the community at large was not aware of the existence of the oversight system. To enhance confidence citizens have in the police, it is important that they are aware of the existence of the citizen oversight system. This perspective is strongly supported in the literature and in practice (Finn, 2001; National Association of Citizen Oversight for Law Enforcement, 2003; Walker, 2001). Consequently, it was important to find out in this study if the citizens of Tempe supported the concept, and if so, who supported it, and if they were aware such a system existed in Tempe. Several hypotheses related to these issues were developed from the literature and are presented in Table 1. These hypotheses served as the foundation for the survey questions that were developed to determine if the implementation of the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force promoted public confidence in the Tempe Police Department.

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER 5

Evaluation Approach and Methodology

This study addressed three research questions designed to evaluate the effectiveness of the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force. First, it assessed whether or not the panel was implemented and administered as intended. Second, it examined the degree to which the panel achieved the broad program goals established by the Tempe Police Department; and third, it measured the impact the panel had on promoting public confidence in the Tempe Police Department. Given the diversity of the research questions, mixed modes of inquiry and ultimately mixed methods were used to assess various program components. A case study incorporating naturalistic analysis was used to address the first two research questions, while a more traditional survey methodology incorporating rationalistic analysis was used to address the third research question. Focus groups, interviews, review of documents, and observation provided data for the first two research questions, while a longitudinal survey of Tempe residents provided data for the third research question. This chapter focuses on the modes of inquiry and methods used to evaluate the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force, and the chapter is broken into five sections. The first section outlines the background that led to the evaluation and the resulting selection of methods. The second section delineates the general evaluation theory used to develop the methodological foundation for the study. The third section outlines the research strategy used, including a discussion of the study population, the specific methods used to address the research questions, instrumentation and

63

64

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

data collection, data analysis, and reporting. The fourth section addresses issues of reliability, validity, and trustworthiness. The fifth section discusses the constraints and limitations of the methods employed in this study. BACKGROUND In July 1999 when the Tempe City Council approved the ordinance establishing the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force, the City Council requested that the program be evaluated after a minimum of two full years of operation to determine if it was effective. At that time, and at the conclusion of this study, I was serving as a mid-level, non-commissioned manager in the Tempe Police Department with responsibility for managing the fiscal, administrative, research, and information technology planning functions within the organization. Given that the Tempe Police Department did not have the resources to adequately evaluate the new program, combined with my interest in program evaluation, it was determined that this evaluation would be undertaken as a component of my academic endeavors. Given that this study was an evaluation of the overall citizen oversight system in Tempe rather than a study on an individual component of the program, multiple modes of inquiry and mixed methods were used to gain a comprehensive understanding of the system and to assess its effectiveness. EVALUATION PURPOSES Since this study is an evaluation of the Tempe Citizen’s Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force, it is important to outline the evaluation theory that guided this research. The general evaluation theory used was Mark, Henry, and Julnes’ (2000) theory of evaluation as assisted sense making. This theory is derived from the notion that social programs exist to contribute to social betterment and that the primary role of evaluation is to enhance and supplement the natural sense making efforts of democratic actors as they seek social betterment. Mark, Henry, and Julnes (2000) provide, as part of their theory, a framework designed to assist in the evaluation planning process by translating a general interest in social betterment into the

Evaluation Approach and Methodology

65

specifics of evaluation design. Specifically, they analyze four purposes for evaluation: 1. 2. 3. 4.

To review the merit of programs and their value to society; To improve the organization and its services; To ensure program compliance with mandates; and To build knowledge and expertise for future programs.

These purposes are intended to help define the approach and research methods to be used in an evaluation. The authors also discuss how to merge these purposes for the most effective evaluation. This information provided a planning framework for this study that incorporated a dual approach, wherein organizational improvement served as the primary purpose of the evaluation and assessment of merit and worth as the secondary purpose. This dual approach was selected because it fulfilled the Tempe Police Department’s need for information to improve the program and the Tempe City Council’s need for tangible information on how worthwhile the program is to the community. Thus, the Tempe Police Department and Tempe City Council serve as the primary audience for the evaluation, although this study may also benefit interested citizens, academics, as well as police and other public sector practitioners. Given the information and evaluation needs of the identified audience, three research questions were developed: 1.

Was the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force implemented and administered as intended?

This question was posed to address whether or not the program was structurally and procedurally implemented as required by the ordinance and administered as prescribed by the Tempe Police Department. This question was pursued for organizational improvement purposes rather than compliance because the basic program components outlined in the ordinance were extremely simplistic and vague, which gave the Tempe Police Department wide discretion in developing and implementing the necessary administrative components of the program. As a result, information acquired from this

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

66

research question can serve as a catalyst to organization and program improvement in administering the Tempe oversight panel. 2.

To what degree has the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force achieved its broad program goals?

This question was intended to get at the heart of whether or not the Tempe oversight panel was accomplishing the broad program goals that were identified by the Tempe Police Department’s executive staff. Given that the Tempe Police Department initiated the oversight panel on the premise it would accomplish certain broad objectives, this question was critical to examine. Information acquired from this question will also provide the Tempe Police Department an opportunity to improve the oversight system. 3.

What impact has the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force had on promoting public confidence in the Tempe, Arizona Police Department?

This question was posed to address the broad outcome questions that the City Council was most interested in by determining if the panel is or is not worthwhile from a public perspective. RESEARCH STRAGEY The research strategy used in this study incorporated both naturalistic and positivistic modes of inquiry. Modes of inquiry are the broad analytical approaches used to undertake a study—approaches that guide the research and help define the specific methodologies that will be employed to address each of the articulated research questions. The use of mixed approaches is becoming more commonplace in the social science research literature (Creswell, 1994; Reichardt & Rallis, 1994; Tashakkori & Teddie, 1998) and has long been part of the pragmatically oriented evaluation literature (Patton, 1990). Both naturalistic and positivistic modes of inquiry were pursued because the research questions being addressed required the use of both approaches. As Tashakkori and Teddie (1998) advise, it is important to place

Evaluation Approach and Methodology

67

predominance of the research question over the paradigm and use the most appropriate methods from both approaches to best answer the research questions. A mixed approach was used by Herzog (2000), a contributor to the very limited literature on the evaluation of citizen oversight bodies. A mixed approach may also address Brereton’s (2000) concern that it is methodological issues that play a large role in why so little evaluation work has been done on citizen oversight. He states that “A basic problem in evaluating external oversight bodies is that relatively little information is available about what these bodies do and how well they do it” (p. 107). A mixed approach can join the often limited pieces of citizen oversight information together to provide a comprehensive look at a specific citizen oversight body. Although this study is considered a mixed approach, the naturalistic and positivistic lines are clearly drawn by the association of each research question to one approach. The first research question concerning whether or not the program was implemented and administered as intended was addressed through a naturalistic approach, as was the second research question regarding the level of goal achievement the program has realized. The third question involving the level of confidence the community has in the Tempe Police Department as a result of the oversight system was addressed through a more traditional positivistic approach. Below are the facets considered in developing the research design for this study. Study Population Given that the goal of this study was to evaluate the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force, a simple determination was made that data needed to be collected specific to the Tempe program. This meant that the study population for the questions surrounding implementation and level of goal achievement would be internal program stakeholders. These stakeholders are presented in Table 2. The study population for the research question focusing on the level of citizen confidence in the Tempe Police Department would be Tempe citizens.

68

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

Methods The methods used in this study were a case study and a survey. A case study was used for the first two research questions involving implementation and level of goal achievement, while a longitudinal survey was used to determine the level of confidence citizens had in the Tempe Police Department as a result of the panel. These methods have a strong history in the literature and in practice and worked well for the overall evaluation of the Tempe panel. Case Study A case study of the Tempe panel was used wherein the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force was the unit of analysis. Case studies are frequently used in applied naturalistic research as they provide an integrated framework to study a phenomenon while also allowing considerable flexibility (Yin, 1990). The case study method was selected for this study in order to gain a comprehensive understanding of the context surrounding Tempe’s program, which laid the foundation to adequately evaluate how well the program was implemented and how effective it was in addressing the goals established by the Tempe Police Department. Since the audience for this study was specifically interested in Tempe’s program, the focus of the study is to fully understand Tempe’s program rather than to make generalizations about citizen oversight to a larger population of oversight systems. As part of this case study, data were collected from numerous stakeholders in a variety of forms. This data was used to provide community, organization, and program context and addressed the first two research questions in the study. Most of the stakeholders that were contacted for this study were selected due to their specific role and involvement in the development, implementation, or operation of the Tempe panel. Survey Survey methodology was used to address the level of confidence citizens had in the Tempe Police Department as a result of the panel.

Evaluation Approach and Methodology

69

TABLE 2 List of Case Study Stakeholders/Informants

Case Study Stakeholders/Informants •

•

• •

•

•

•

• • •

•

•

Police Chief City Manager Assistant Police Chiefs (includes APC that oversees civilian oversight panel) Former Police Chief responsible for implementing the panel Assistant City Attorney Citizen panel members Police Department panel members (Officer and Sergeant) Personnel Services Commander (Administers civilian review cases) Patrol Commander (Oversaw original implementation of program) Internal Affairs Sergeant (Presents investigations to sub-panels) City Clerk Administrative Assistant (Responsible for panel-related administrative tasks)

70

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

The population for the survey was the citizenry of Tempe, measured through a representative sample of Tempe citizens who had telephones. The population for this part of the study provided an important link to the case study by contributing valuable external feedback on the panel. Data Collection and Recording Tools Given the diverse approach to this study, a variety of data collection and recording tools were used for the naturalistic components of the study. The data collection and recording tools used included review of documents, interviews, and observation. Telephone surveys were used for the positivistic component, and data was collected via laptops with the help of a proprietary software application. Naturalistic A wide variety of official and unofficial documents related to the program were closely reviewed and examined. These documents were retained throughout the development and implementation of the program. This information supplied important context to the evaluation and provided the basis for questions that were asked during interviews. It also supplied much of the data that was used in the descriptive assessment of the program that was carried out to determine if the program was implemented and administered as intended. Observations of panel activities were used to obtain a better understanding of how the panel actually operated and to gain a better sense of the contextual elements surrounding the panel and panel activities. Nine sub-panel review sessions wherein eleven incidents were reviewed were observed over a two-year period. With the exception of one sub-panel review session wherein three small incidents were reviewed, all sub-panel review sessions encompassed the review of a single incident. In addition, information sharing and training sessions were also observed. In an effort to provide additional context to the Tempe oversight panel, a Phoenix citizen oversight panel was also observed. Phoenix has a citizen oversight panel that has been place for several years and is very different than Tempe’s in structure and process. An observation guide was developed prior to attending any sub-panel review sessions to provide focus, ensure data collection

Evaluation Approach and Methodology

71

consistency among all of the sub-panels that were observed, and to ensure that the issues and questions specific to the evaluation were not excluded or overlooked. This observation guide, that is included in Appendix A, proved to be an excellent resource. Information documented in the observation guides was transcribed within twentyfour hours of the respective sub-panel review session to ensure that notes were assessed and evaluated before too much time passed and details were lost. It also provided focus on the process and interaction among participants rather than the substantive content of the incident being reviewed. Interviews were held with all individual stakeholders listed in Table 2, and with five of the fifteen citizen panel members. Citizen panel members were selected only if they had participated on a subpanel that had been observed and if they responded to a request to voluntarily participate in an interview. All individuals that were interviewed were briefed on the background and purpose of the study and were asked for their voluntary participation. Respondents were asked pre-prepared questions that focused on their particular involvement in the panel. The specific questions asked varied among respondents depending upon their type and level of involvement. The interview questions posed to Tempe Police Department executive staff are presented in Appendix B, and represent the general questions asked of all internal stakeholders. The interview questions posed to citizen panel members are presented in Appendix C. All pre-prepared questions were addressed during interviews; however, the interview sessions were open and informal enough to provide flexibility in working around the questions when new paths opened. All interviews were audio recorded with the knowledge and consent of participants. Interviews were audio recorded to ensure that the information was recorded accurately and to provide me the flexibility to focus primarily on the discussions that were occurring rather than on recording field notes. In addition to the audio recording, general observations and issues that needed follow up were documented in field notes. Although anonymity could not be guaranteed given the qualitative nature of the study and the need to interview key players, assurances were given that audio recordings would not be listened to by anyone but me.

72

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

It is important to note that panel members were not interviewed until six of the eight sub-panel review sessions were observed. This provided a better foundation and heightened context to the interviews. A comprehensive outline of the data sources that were included in the evaluation is presented in Table 3. Survey A survey was used to collect data for the third research question which addressed the impact the panel has had on promoting public confidence in the Tempe Police Department. The data were collected as part of the Tempe Police Department’s Annual Citizen Survey. This survey has been undertaken by the Tempe Police Department since 1994, and is used to acquire a variety of public safety related information from citizens. The actual Tempe Police Department survey used in 2002 is presented in Appendix E, and follows the survey training guidelines presented in Appendix D. Given the timing of this study, survey data were collected at two intervals, the first in October 2001 approximately one year after the full implementation of the Tempe panel, and the second in October 2002 approximately two years after the full implementation of the panel. Some specific questions relating to the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force were added to the survey for the first time in 2001 as part of this study, and are presented in Table 4. Questions developed by Herzog (2000) in his research on citizen oversight in Israel served as a basis for the survey questions used in this component of the study, and are directly related to the hypotheses developed and presented in Chapter 4. The Annual Citizen Survey conducted by the Tempe Police Department Crime Analysis Unit involves contacting Tempe residents by telephone and asking them a variety of questions regarding their perceptions of and interactions with the Tempe Police Department as well as their perceptions regarding crime and disorder in their neighborhoods. With the assistance of Arizona State University Justice Studies Program students, Tempe residents are contacted and interviewed over the telephone each year. Tempe specific telephone numbers were purchased from Qwest Communications Company and interviewers asked respondents if they were indeed Tempe residents, so there is a high level of certainty that Tempe residents were responding

Evaluation Approach and Methodology

73

to the survey. Respondents were also informed that this was a routine survey undertaken annually by the Tempe Police Department and that their participation was voluntary. Spanish speakers were provided to speak to those respondents that do not speak English. Student interviewers were given formal training by professional researchers from the Tempe Police Department Crime Analysis Unit. Each interviewer was given a laptop with software that provided interviewers the specific survey questions to ask respondents. Interviewers were able to directly enter responses into the laptop and data were aggregated at the end of each shift of interviewing. In the 2001 survey, 1,796 respondents were contacted and 651 (36%) met the criteria of being at least eighteen years old and a citizen of Tempe, and agreed to respond to the survey. In the 2002 survey, 1,031 respondents were contacted and 402 (39%) met the necessary criteria and agreed to respond to the survey. The number of respondents contacted and interviewed was dependent on the number of student interviewers, and how many contacts they could make over a two-week period. Data Analysis Both descriptive and explanatory modes of inquiry were used in this study. Description was used to provide general context to the entire evaluation, and was used exclusively to address whether or not the program was implemented and administered as intended. The implementation and administration of the program will be described in relative detail in the next chapter, and compared and contrasted to the program parameters outlined in the ordinance as well as the internal procedures developed by the Tempe Police Department. Description and explanation were used to determine the degree to which the program achieved its long-term goals. Description was used to develop constructs and organize data in an attempt to systematically relate the information in the developed logic model. Explanation was used exclusively to explain the impact the program had on promoting public confidence in the Tempe Police Department.

74

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

TABLE 3 List of Data and Data Sources

Descriptive Components

General Data Sources

Community Context Demographics

City planning documents 2001 Statistical Report 2000 Census Reports

City government structure/government culture/progressive nature/citizen expectations of government

City documents City charter Council Committee docs Interviews Police Chief/Asst. Chiefs City Manager Observation/Personal Experience General observations from personal experience and from attending City Council meetings Media Reports East Valley Tribune Arizona Republic

Changes in City government since development and implementation of panel

Observation/Personal Experience

Evaluation Approach and Methodology

75

TABLE 3 (continued)

Descriptive Components

General Data Sources

Organizational Context (of Police Dept.) Demographics and growth

City Documents Police staffing reports Police EEOC Report City Annual Budget

Organizational structure

City Documents Police org. chart Internal Police memos

Police culture/Progressive nature of Police Department

City documents Police programs Police grants Media Reports East Valley Tribune Arizona Republic Interviews Police Chief/Asst. Chiefs

Community policing history/citizens expectations of police

City documents Marketing publications Annual Citizen Survey Interviews Police Chief/Asst. Chiefs

76

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

TABLE 3 (continued) Descriptive Components

General Data Sources

Program Development Research, review of citizen oversight programs and processes/history in Tempe Police Department

City Documents Internal historical documents proposing citizen oversight in the TPD (Tranter recommendation in 1992; Forbes proposal in 1997) Variety of internal memos discussing need to implement process in Tempe

Development of initial program

City Documents Memos outlining proposed system Interviews Internal Affairs Lt. at time program developed—lead on project Assistant City Attorney Media East Valley Tribune Arizona Republic

Evaluation Approach and Methodology

77

TABLE 3 (continued)

Descriptive Components

General Data Sources

Program Development, cont. Employee involvement

City Documents Memos discussing need to include Officer’s Association in the development of the program Interviews Internal Affairs Lt. at time program developed

City Council input

City Documents Minutes from City Council Issue Review Sessions Interviews Internal Affairs Lt. at time program developed

78

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

TABLE 3 (continued)

Descriptive Components

General Data Sources

Program Development, cont. Citizen participation in program development

City Documents Minutes from City Council Issue Review Sessions City Council Public Hearings (2) as part of the ordinance approval process Interviews Internal Affairs Lt. Police Chief Asst. Police Chiefs

Parameters of program as outlined in ordinance

City Documents City Council Consent Agenda—Ordinance approval

Evaluation Approach and Methodology

79

TABLE 3 (continued)

Descriptive Components

General Data Sources

Program Activities Panels convened (number / type)

City Documents Follow-up records on each panel convened City Documents Asst. Chief (Chairs Panel)

Delivery mechanisms; i.e. process involved to review a complaint/use of force incident; convene panel; select panel; and police participation and resources used

City documents Internal police documents outlining process

Panel member notification and preparation

Interviews Asst. Chief (Chair panel)

Interviews Asst. Chief (Chairs panel) PSB Commander City Manager

PSB Commander (Prepares for Panel meetings)

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

80 TABLE 4 Citizen Survey Questions

1.

Are you familiar with the concept of civilian review, wherein citizens participate in the review of complaints against the police? Yes _____ No _____

2.

Are you aware that the Tempe Police Department has a civilian review mechanism called the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force? Yes _____ No _____ If yes, do you know the process to have a complaint against a Tempe Police Officer reviewed by the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force? Yes _____ No _____

3.

Do you support civilian involvement in the review of complaints against Tempe Police Officers? Yes _____ No _____

4.

To what extent has your confidence in the Tempe Police Department changed knowing the Department now utilizes a civilian review panel? Your confidence has greatly increased Your confidence has somewhat increased Your confidence has not changed Your confidence has somewhat decreased Your confidence has greatly decreased

_____ _____ _____ _____ _____

Evaluation Approach and Methodology

81

Case Study In naturalistic research, data analysis often happens simultaneously with data collection. As information is uncovered and patterns are identified, data collection may take different paths that lead to new data sources. The two research questions addressed through the case study were analyzed using strong recording methods and incorporating the use of N4 Classic, a computer software program that helps organize and identify relationships among and between naturalistic data. Data was organized and summarized by research question, then by topic or variable, and finally by stakeholder group. This process helped identify trends and highlight areas that required further follow up. Survey The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to identify relationships and provide descriptive statistics on the survey data collected. Specifically, frequencies were used. After examining survey data for each year independently, survey data from 2001 were compared to survey data from 2002. Verification Addressing validity and reliability concerns was important in both the naturalistic, case study components of the study as well as the positivistic survey component of the study; however, they were addressed somewhat differently. Case Study With the two naturalistic oriented research questions construct validity was addressed with multiple measures. Through the review of documents, interviews, and observation of events and activities, several measures were used, which increased the likelihood that concepts were appropriately operationalized. Internal validity focused on trustworthiness and was addressed through peer debriefings; case analysis; thick description of findings; description of involvement of informants; and maintaining detailed field notes and interview

82

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

transcripts. External validity was difficult to address in this study since the focus was on the Tempe case, which limited the generalizability of the results to other populations. Although the study cannot be generalized in the same way positivistic components can be, the information acquired through the study can still be valuable to others— particularly practitioners. Reliability was addressed by following formal case study methodology protocols; describing the author’s dual role as the researcher in this study and as a Tempe Police Department employee; and by thoroughly documenting data that was collected. This included getting copies of documents for review; maintaining audio recordings of interviews; documenting observations; and developing a routine for quickly, thoroughly, and consistently documenting field notes and transcribing audio recordings. Given the author’s dual role as a researcher and manager in the Tempe Police Department it may be difficult, although certainly not impossible, for another individual to fully replicate this study. Even if data collection and recording protocols were strictly adhered to, it would be difficult for an individual to have the access to police management, involvement in organizational activities, and the level of trust that has developed over the course of ten years of working with internal stakeholders. Survey Construct validity was addressed in the positivistic oriented research question concerning the impact the program had on promoting public confidence in the Tempe Police Department through specification of variables and use of a traditional survey measurement instrument. Internal validity was addressed through traditional quantitative analysis techniques, including the use of descriptive statistics. External validity was addressed through the use of a random sample of adequate size. Reliability was achieved through the use of a well-documented survey methodology and the use of a representative sample. Reporting The results of this study are presented in the next three chapters and were reported in a straight forward, analytical style. Description was

Evaluation Approach and Methodology

83

used to provide an overview of the Tempe panel and address the naturalistic oriented research questions. Specifically, detailed description was provided on the evolution and implementation of the panel; the major processes involved; the stakeholders involved; the impact the Tempe panel has had on stakeholders; and issues identified for improvement. Numeric information was used to report results where appropriate. The positivistic oriented question that focused on public confidence in the Tempe Police Department was described with narrative and results from statistical tests. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY Role of the Researcher The potential concerns surrounding the role and proximity of an evaluator in relation to the program being evaluated is well documented in the literature (Merriam, 1998; Weiss, 1972). It is often assumed that an individual too closely tied to an entity or program being evaluated may possess too many biases to provide an objective assessment of the program being evaluated. Although this is certainly a concern to be acknowledged, other literature, particularly that in the qualitative vein, recognizes that there are also significant benefits to be gained when a researcher has close, intimate knowledge of the entity or program being evaluated as well as access to stakeholders (Caudle, 1994; Creswell, 1994; Guba & Lincoln, 1989). As a result, it is important to note the role I played as the researcher in this study as well as the potential biases I brought to the process. As a professional non-commissioned manager in the Tempe, Arizona Police Department I have been influenced by the culture of the police organization. I support the social value the police function offers society on a macro level as well as the services the Tempe Police Department provides the community on a micro level. I am also cognizant that my position as Fiscal and Research Administrator and executive staff participant brings with it organizational authority and responsibility that supports Tempe Police Department management. In essence, my close ties to the organization and the management hierarchy that implemented the citizen oversight system in Tempe must be considered in this study.

84

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

At the same time, my position has provided significant access to people and information that would have been impossible for an outside researcher to access. With the exception of the military, police culture is unlike any other public organization and it takes significant time and diligence to earn trust in this environment. This is particularly true of non-commissioned individuals, and even more so for academics outside of the organization. Consequently, even if another researcher gained access to the environment, he or she would likely be met with skepticism and be provided limited information. My position also allowed me to be privy to the meetings and discussions wherein the citizen oversight system was developed and implemented, and as a result, I have had a rare opportunity to witness how the system actually works from beginning to end, and how personalities and politics have impacted the system. This included examining investigative materials; talking to investigators; observing sub-panels that have been convened; observing panel training sessions; discussing outcomes and process issues with key stakeholders; and observing the Police Department’s executive staff review complaints that were reviewed by the panel that ultimately lead to the Police Chief making determinations of whether or not he was in agreement with the panel’s recommendations. The fact that I am a non-commissioned administrator combined with my routine interaction with the Tempe Police Department executive staff allows me, as a matter of course, to be critical, ask difficult questions, and provide an atypical perspective regarding organizational issues on a day-to-day basis. The situation was no different in pursuing this evaluation of the Tempe Citizen’s Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force. In essence, I have been able to ask difficult questions and get what I perceive to be very open and honest feedback on the entire oversight system from internal stakeholders that would likely be impossible with an outside researcher. I have also been able to access information and get feedback in a variety of different settings, including stakeholder interviews and observing sub-panel review sessions and related activities. In addition, and perhaps more importantly, I have been privy to day-to-day, informal discussions that emerged internally regarding citizen oversight generally, and the Tempe panel specifically. Finally, it is important to note that when I began this study I was supportive of the concept of citizen oversight, but was very critical of

Evaluation Approach and Methodology

85

what I perceived to be the development and implementation of a very pro police program in Tempe. Most significantly, I was concerned that the oversight system would not have the necessary authority and independence to affect organizational change in the Tempe Police Department.

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER 6

Findings: Implementation and Administration

This evaluation incorporated a case study to assess the implementation and administration of the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force. Tempe, Arizona is a progressive and vibrant city that is part of the growing Phoenix metropolitan area. It is home to Arizona State University, one of the largest universities in the country with a student population of over 45,000; is home to the Arizona Cardinals National Football League franchise; is the spring training home of Major League Baseball’s Anaheim Angels; hosts the Fiesta Bowl, which serves as the national collegiate championship football game every three years; hosts one of the nation’s top three New Year’s Eve block party celebrations each year; and is host to numerous other special events throughout the year. In 2000, Tempe had a population of 158,625 and a total land area of 40.1 square miles, which makes this land-locked city one of the most densely populated cities in Arizona. The following demographic highlights provide an overview of the Tempe population in 2000 (US Census, 2003), which is the most recent comprehensive data available. z z

The median age of citizens was 28.8 years and 74.3% of the population was under 45 years of age. The racial breakdown of citizens was 80.2% White; 5.6% Asian; 4.4% Black or African American; and 10.7% identified as Some Other Race. Of the total population, 17.9% identified as being of Hispanic or Latino origin.

87

88 z

z z

z

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police Owner occupied housing units comprised 51% of all housing units, while renter occupied housing units comprised 49% of all housing units. The median family income was $55,237 and the per-capita income was $22,406. The occupational categories of working residents were 69% professional, managerial, sales, and office, and 31% service, construction, maintenance, and production related. The median price of a home was $132,000.

The City of Tempe operates within a Council-Manager form of government under the auspice of a Mayor and City Council elected at large. The Police Chief serves at the will of the City Manager. In 2003, the Tempe Police Department was comprised of 326 commissioned employees and 183 civilian employees. Tempe Police Department employees enjoy competitive salaries state and nation wide, and professional civilian staff and commissioned police employees are generally well educated, with most possessing some college or college degrees, and many possessing graduate degrees. The City of Tempe is a strong advocate of education and provides $5,000 annually to every City employee for tuition reimbursement. Tempe instituted an ordinance allowing for the operation of a police bargaining unit in 1999, prior to the establishment of the citizen oversight panel, and such a bargaining unit exists. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE PANEL Although the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force was largely pursued as a community policing initiative by the Tempe Police Department in 1999, the topic of citizen oversight first emerged in the Department in 1991 following an inadvertent fatal shooting of a citizen by an Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS) Officer. DPS is Arizona’s state-level law enforcement agency. After this incident was adjudicated, the family of the individual that was killed pursued legislation mandating a central

Findings: Implementation and Administration

89

entity to investigate officer involved shootings statewide. The family also lobbied for a statewide citizen oversight mechanism wherein police shootings would be reviewed by a citizen panel. The caveat to the legislation being pursued was that any law enforcement agency in Arizona that already had a citizen oversight mechanism in place at the time the legislation was enacted would not fall under the auspice of the state recommended citizen oversight panel. This prompted the Tempe Police Department’s Police Chief and executive staff at that time to consider developing a citizen oversight mechanism in Tempe to avoid falling under the state mandate should the proposed legislation pass. As a result of the DPS incident and subsequent proposed legislation, the Tempe Police Department’s first proposed citizen oversight system was drafted by the then Internal Affairs Lieutenant in 1992 at the direction of the Police Chief. When the proposed legislation for a statewide citizen oversight mechanism did not make it through the Arizona Legislature, the interest in a citizen oversight system in the Tempe Police Department simply dissipated, although it became strongly advocated by the Internal Affairs Lieutenant that drafted the proposed oversight system due to a perceived lack of executive management accountability at that time. Coincidentally, that Internal Affairs Lieutenant became the Police Chief in Tempe in 2000, approximately one year after the formal implementation of the Tempe panel in 1999, and at the conclusion of this study, still served as the Police Chief in Tempe. Following a change in the executive staff in the Tempe Police Department in 1996, discussions surrounding the desire to have citizen oversight again emerged. This time, the discussions focused primarily on the need to truly include citizens in the inner workings of the Police Department if the Department was going to successfully function within a community policing environment. In addition to discussions initiated by the Police Chief, the approach of using citizen oversight as a community policing strategy was addressed and advocated in 1998 through a research paper written by a Tempe Police Department Lieutenant attending a police executive development course at Northwestern University. At the conclusion of this study, that Patrol Lieutenant was serving as the Investigations Division Assistant Police Chief in the Tempe Police Department. Interestingly, two of the biggest supporters of citizen oversight in the Tempe Police Department prior to

90

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

the creation of the Tempe Citizens Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force were mid-level managers who now fill executive positions in the Department. It is important to note, however, that the need to continue to enhance organizational accountability was still an important factor considered during the development of the Tempe panel. The growing concerns and media attention over the lack of police accountability nation-wide combined with several highly charged incidents involving police throughout the country and the Phoenix metropolitan area provided the extra incentive Tempe Police Department executives needed to pursue citizen oversight. After gaining the support of City management and elected officials, the Tempe Police Department proceeded with the development and implementation of a citizen oversight system. It is interesting to note that almost every individual contacted in the course of this research was initially suspect, to some degree, regarding the concept of citizen oversight until more information was gained about the concept or until individuals actually participated in the process. Once the potential benefits inherent to all stakeholders, including citizens, the Police Department, City management, and the City Council became apparent, there was little resistance to the concept or the plan to implement citizen oversight in Tempe. Further, when the concept was broached for the first time publicly, the media response was very positive. An editorial published in The Arizona Republic newspaper in November 1998, presented in Appendix F, demonstrates the positive response Tempe received for proactively pursuing an oversight system. This editorial and future media reports credited the Tempe Police Department with being an open agency interested in citizen involvement and self-improvement, which indirectly furthered the goal of promoting community confidence in the Police Department even before the panel became a reality. This is in sharp contrast to the media attention given to other agencies resistant to establishing citizen oversight systems. The ordinance that established the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force in 1999 was developed by internal Police Department staff after significant research was conducted on different citizen oversight approaches and structures that existed throughout the country. In addition, legal assistance in drafting the ordinance was provided from the Tempe City Attorney’s Office.

Findings: Implementation and Administration

91

The ordinance was approved in July 1999; the panel, which was comprised of fifteen citizens and three commissioned police employees, was selected in November 1999; and the first sub-panel was convened on August 9, 2000. COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE The research question addressed in this chapter was whether or not the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force was implemented and administered as intended. This involved a close examination of the ordinance as well as the actual administrative processes implemented and managed by the Tempe Police Department. This question was assessed through interviews with stakeholders, the observation of twelve sub-panel incident reviews, discussions with Tempe Police personnel involved in the oversight process, and the review of all Tempe Police Department documentation related to the panel since the research and development of the panel began. The ordinance is presented in its entirety in Chapter Four, Figure 2. APPOINTMENT OF CITIZEN PANEL MEMBERS AND TERMS OF OFFICE After the ordinance establishing the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force was approved in 1999, word of mouth and media attention brought seventy-one citizens forward as applicants for the fifteen seats on the inaugural panel. Prospective citizen panel members had to complete an application, presented in Appendix G, and submit it to the City Clerk. Prospective citizen panel members had to be Tempe residents; could not have been arrested by the Tempe Police Department within the last five years; could have no felony convictions; could not be directly related to a Tempe Police Department employee; and could not have been an adversary party, a representative of an adversary party, or have had any financial interest in any litigation or claim against the City related to the Police Department or any individual Officer or employee of the Police Department. All candidates considered for selection had to pass a minimal background check conducted by the Tempe Police Department to ensure candidates met the established criteria. As designated in the

92

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

ordinance, the Mayor selected three citizens to sit on the panel and each of the six City Council Members selected two citizens to sit on the panel. Interestingly, during the interviews with citizen panel members, only one of the five panel members interviewed was cognizant of which Council Member selected them to participate on the panel, which demonstrates that there was little direct political influence in the selection of the inaugural panel. A brief demographic survey was taken when the inaugural panel was selected in 1999, and twelve of the fifteen selected citizen panel members responded to the survey. The survey is presented in Appendix H. Of those twelve respondents, 75% were men and 25% were women; 83% where White, 17% were Black or African American, and 8% of all respondents identified as being of Hispanic or Latino origin. The mean age of respondents was 52.5 years, and the median age was 52 years. From the observation of panel activities over the past two years, the demographics of the panel appear to have remained relatively constant since its establishment. Since the implementation of the panel in 1999, four of the original citizen panel members are no longer on the panel. One member moved out of town, one member’s term expired and was not renewed, and two members died. Eight other panel members’ terms expired and were renewed for a second term. The process that a panel member has to go through to receive a second term is not outlined in the ordinance. The process that Tempe Police Department has used is simply to ask citizen panel members if they would like to serve a second and final term upon their first terms expiring. When the panel was initiated, inaugural panel members served staggered terms to ensure that the panel maintained some stability and historical context by replacing members gradually rather than all at once. The ordinance states that citizen panel members shall not receive compensation for their services, however, they do receive discount golf privileges at the City’s two municipal golf courses. This is a privilege provided to all members of all City Boards and Commissions. There is no mention of compensation for Police panel members, as participating was assumed to be an ancillary function of their jobs. As a result, they received compensation for their time as they do any other work related responsibilities. It was discovered, however, during the course of this research that unbeknownst to many involved in the process, Police panel members did receive discounted golf benefits for their

Findings: Implementation and Administration

93

participation on the panel. It appears that the Police panel members received the same information and documents from the City Clerk’s Office as all City Board and Commission members did, which included golf privileges. The ordinance does provide the City Manager to remove any citizen panel member for cause; however, to date this has not occurred. Police Department Panel Members Assigned The Police Department’s executive staff selected three Police Department employees to serve as members of the panel. These three members included one Division Commander, one Police Sergeant, and one Police Officer. Although the ordinance actually states that a first line Supervisor and a line Officer will be included on the panel, the intent was to include a Police Sergeant and Police Officer as opposed to a non-commissioned first line Supervisor from another area of the Police Department. When the ordinance was written it was assumed that the Division Commander responsible for Support Services (one of four Command areas at the time) would serve as the panel Chairperson for an indefinite period. This position was selected since it fulfilled the Support Services functions within the Department and, as a result, would not likely be passing judgment on anyone within the Support Services chain of command since most incidents that will likely go to the panel are initiated in the field wherein more contact with citizens is made. In addition, it was presumed that this position would have the most contact and involvement with issues related to the panel and hence would best serve the Department and the panel. Due to organizational changes since the inception of the panel, the position of Division Commander was reclassified into an Assistant Police Chief (now, one of three command areas in the Department). As a result, one of the Department’s three Assistant Police Chiefs is serving as the Chairperson of the panel and each sub-panel rather than a Division Commander (a title that is no longer used in the Police Department). The Assistant Police Chief assigned to the panel is responsible for the Support Services components of the Department, which include Records, Communications, Media Relations, Recruitment and Hiring, Volunteers, Detention, Property,

94

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

Identification, Training, and Internal Affairs. In addition, all Lieutenant positions were reclassified into Commander positions. During the course of this evaluation, the recognition of the significant role and level of authority that this Assistant Police Chief possesses in relation to the citizen oversight system became disconcerting. As a result of the way the ordinance was written combined with the organizational structure of the Tempe Police Department, this Assistant Police Chief has been given almost independent authority over every aspect of the citizen oversight system. In terms of structure alone, this Assistant Police Chief has hierarchical authority over almost every Police employee involved in the citizen oversight system. First, the Personnel Services Commander, who serves as the liaison to the citizen oversight panel and manages the entire Internal Affairs function, reports directly to this Assistant Police Chief. Internal Affairs personnel investigate most incidents that go to the panel for review and are also responsible for the administration of the panel. This includes determining what training to provide to the panel and actually providing that training. In addition, the use of force and defensive tactics personnel that were used as experts during sub-panel review sessions also report to the Personnel Services Commander, and ultimately the Support Services Assistant Police Chief. Second, this Assistant Police Chief serves as Chairperson of the panel and is a voting member of each sub-panel convened to review an incident. Third, this Assistant Police Chief held primary responsibility in developing the administrative processes to actually run the sub-panel review sessions and is the only individual involved in bringing recommendations and feedback from sub-panel review sessions to the Police Chief and other Assistant Police Chiefs for review— recommendations that are not formally documented as part of the subpanel review process. Moreover, this Assistant Police Chief has implemented new administrative processes on an ad hoc basis without going back to the Police Department’s executive staff to ensure compliance with the ordinance and to consider potential unintended consequences that may result from significant administrative changes. Finally, this Assistant Police Chief serves as an executive staff member who participates in the decision making process with the Police Chief to determine the outcome of the incidents that have been

Findings: Implementation and Administration

95

reviewed. Although the individual that has filled this Assistant Chief position for the past three years clearly has good intentions and wants to improve the citizen oversight system, these issues need to be addressed to deal with potential perception issues surrounding the legitimacy of the oversight system. In essence, due to structural inadequacies the current system appears to lack appropriate checks and balances. The Police Sergeant and Police Officer panel members were selected by the Police Chief and Assistant Police Chief. Selections were made from a pool of commissioned Police employees who requested, through memos of interest, to sit on the panel after reviewing internal information provided by the Police Department about the panel and the responsibilities of Police Department panel members. Members were selected based on the information in their memos, their work histories, and the confidence the Police Department’s executive staff had in applicants’ ability to view incidents from a broad, organizational and community perspective. The Police Sergeant selected served on the panel for over a year, but resigned voluntarily when she was assigned to Internal Affairs to ensure she did not present a conflict of interest on the panel. Rather than following the original selection process to find a Sergeant replacement, however, a Sergeant assigned to the Personnel Services Division was selected by the Personnel Services Commander given this Sergeant’s use of force and defensive tactics training history, combined with a work schedule that better accommodated panel activities. The Officer selected has been on the panel since its inception rather than being replaced after a two-year term as required in the ordinance. The ordinance does not include any provisions for Police panel members to serve more than one two-year term on the panel. The Panel Review Process The ordinance establishing the citizen oversight panel in Tempe provides three avenues from which incident reviews can be initiated. The first avenue is when an officer involved shooting or serious use of force incident occurs. Any time an officer discharges a firearm or uses direct physical force that results in the serious injury or death of an individual, the incident is automatically sent to the panel for review. Serious injury is defined as an injury that requires the involved subject

96

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

to be admitted into a hospital. The specific language regarding this avenue needs to be clarified in the ordinance. Currently, the practice is to bring all police shootings to the panel regardless of whether or not a subject was actually hit; however, the ordinance states in Section 2-288 c.1. that “All police shootings and police incidents when direct physical force by the Police results in serious injury or death” will be brought to the panel for review. If the language is not clarified, it could be interpreted that only shootings that resulted in serious injury or death are required to go the panel for review. Often, these serious use of force incidents require significant time to investigate since there is typically a criminal investigation, a review by the County Attorney to determine if criminal charges are merited for the involved officer, and an internal administrative investigation. Following the investigation of an identified use of force incident, a sub-panel is convened to review the incident before a final decision regarding the incident is made by the Police Chief. At the conclusion of this study, eight (57%) incidents were brought to the panel as a result of the type and/or outcome of the force used. In addition, every documented police shooting and serious use of force incident in the Tempe Police Department’s Use of Force reporting process were brought to the panel for review, as is required in the ordinance. The second way an incident can be sent to the panel for review is by complainant request. Any citizen complaint investigated by the Tempe Police Department that results in a disposition of not sustained, unfounded, or exonerated can be brought to the panel upon request of the involved citizen. Not sustained dispositions are those wherein there is insufficient evidence to either prove or disprove the allegation. Unfounded dispositions are those wherein it is determined the allegations are false. Exonerated dispositions are those wherein it was determined that the incident or actions occurred, but that an Officer’s response was lawful and proper. These dispositions conclude that an Officer is not at fault or responsible, so they are open for review. If an Officer has been found responsible, the incident cannot go to the panel for review. Given this discernment, it is important to make sure that the Police Department continues to maintain a strong system of disciplinary oversight and related checks and balances to ensure that an Officer is not given minor discipline for an incident to prohibit that incident from being appealed to the panel. A request for review must be

Findings: Implementation and Administration

97

made by a citizen within thirty days from the date the citizen is notified of the findings of the complaint investigation. After receiving a request for a panel review by a citizen, a sub-panel is convened to review the incident prior to a final decision regarding the incident being made by the Police Chief. At the conclusion of this study, five (36%) incidents were brought to the panel through citizen request. The final way an incident can be sent to the panel for review is at the request of the Police Chief. The ordinance does not place any parameters around what the Police Chief may or may not bring to the panel for review. At the conclusion of this study, one (7%) incident was brought to the panel for review at the request of the Police Chief. This avenue may be open for unintended consequences related to perceptions about why the Police Chief sends certain items to the panel for review and not others. This avenue should be used for unusual incidents or incidents that involve an opportunity for the panel to address large policy related issues. Also, it is important that the Police Chief not send an incident involving a citizen complaint to the panel for review prior to the expiration of the involved citizen’s allocated time frame to bring the issue to the panel. This may impact the way the complaint is viewed by the panel. Sub-Panel Incident Review Process Although the investigative requirements of the three different ways incidents get to the panel for review may vary, the administrative process to review incidents by a sub-panel was almost identical regardless of how an incident got to the panel for review. The first step in this process was to select five citizen members from the panel to sit on a to review an incident. All of the sub-panels that have been convened since the implementation of the panel were selected by the City Manager as required in the ordinance. Citizen participants involved in the inaugural sub-panel that was convened were selected at random by the then interim City Manager. Citizen participants involved in each subsequent sub-panel were hand selected by the permanent City Manager who replaced the interim City Manager in 2001. In an effort to ensure adequate representation of sub-panel members for incidents being reviewed, combined with a desire to make sure that all panel members have the opportunity to serve, the City

98

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

Manager requested input from Police personnel involved in the panel process to select citizen members. As a result, the Personnel Services Commander that serves as the oversight panel liaison contacted the City Manager via memo to inform the City manager that a sub-panel needed to be convened. The memos provided a brief summary of the incident to be reviewed as well as background information that outlined which panel members had participated in prior sub-panels. The City Manager then selected five citizen panel members and three alternates from the list to serve on each sub-panel. Although it was clear during the research that all involved parties were attempting to do the right thing by making sure that the interests of complainants or citizens involved in a shooting or use of force incident were considered, it was also clear that the City Manager, involved Police personnel, and citizen panel members had concerns about how this selection process may be perceived. When interviewed, the City Manager specifically stated that he would like recommendations on how to improve this part of the oversight system. After citizen panel members were selected, Internal Affairs administrative staff selected several prospective dates to convene the sub-panels and contacted selected panel members by telephone and/or e-mail to determine whether or not they were available to participate on the sub-panel. Attempts were made to schedule the first five citizen panel member selections; however, alternates were contacted if scheduling did not allow the original five members selected to participate. Police panel members were also contacted at this point in the process. Since three Police panel members were selected to participate on the panel, the same three Police panel members served on every sub-panel review unless a member was permanently replaced. The ordinance does not provide for alternate Police panel members, and as a result, there were no alternate Police panel members. After all sub-panel members were scheduled for a review, Internal Affairs administrative staff forwarded a letter to all sub-panel members providing them a synopsis of the incident to be reviewed. This letter also provided an estimation of the time that would be required to review the available documentation and related investigative materials given the complexity of the incident. Panel members that were selected and were able to participate on a sub-panel then contacted Internal Affairs administrative staff to

Findings: Implementation and Administration

99

schedule a time to come to the Police Department to review the documentation related to the incident. On occasion, panel members came to the Police Department without notice to review the investigative materials. All investigative documentation, transcripts, recordings, photographs, and other information related to the incident being reviewed were provided for sub-panel members to examine. No information related to an incident was condensed, altered, or redacted, so sub-panel members had complete access to Internal Affairs files relative to the incidents being reviewed. This is a sharp contrast to many other oversight systems wherein limited or summary information is provided to citizens involved in the oversight process. Sub-panel members then actually convened on the designated date to review the incident. The review sessions were held on specified Thursday afternoons at 2:00 p.m. in the Tempe Police Department South Substation mini-auditorium. The sub-panel review sessions were kicked off by the Support Services Assistant Police Chief who served as the panel Chairperson. This introduction often provided a general overview of issues and activities related to the entire citizen oversight system and then focused on the specific incident being reviewed. The Assistant Police Chief provided a review of the decisions the sub-panel was required to make at the conclusion of the assessment of the incident, and introduced the investigator who then provided an overview of the incident and investigation results. The supervisor who conducted the investigation of the incident provided a presentation and answered all questions regarding the incident and subsequent investigation. Typically, the investigator was an Internal Affairs Sergeant due to the type and severity of the incidents that went to the panel for review; however, since complaints that are sent to the panel through citizen request can involve any type of incident, some incidents were actually investigated by an operational supervisor or manager in the field. Whoever investigated the incident being reviewed by a sub-panel gave the presentation. When Internal Affairs personnel presented an investigation, PowerPoint software was used. Experts were also in the room to answer specific questions subpanel members may have had. These experts included an Assistant City Attorney, firearms and defensive tactics experts, and other individuals who were invited to provide expertise related to the specific incident being reviewed.

100

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

After the investigator concluded the presentation and answered all questions, the investigator was asked to leave the room. At this time the Assistant Police Chief who served as the panel Chairperson asked if there were any questions sub-panel members had regarding the investigation or any concerns that they were not comfortable discussing with the investigator present. Citizen panel member interaction with investigators and other Police personnel present during sub-panel review sessions was very interactive and appeared to be very open. During every sub-panel review session observed, all citizen sub-panel participants asked at least one question, while many asked several. Often, most citizen panel members asked numerous questions of Police staff and fellow citizen panel members. Many also made clarifying statements to ensure they and other sub-panel members clearly understood issues. Interestingly, Police panel members spoke much less frequently during review sessions than citizen panel members, and Police panel members typically waited until citizen panel members had asked numerous questions and had significant discussion prior to asking questions or getting involved in the discussion. After review of an incident the Assistant Police Chief who served as the panel Chairperson would request a motion to agree with the findings of the investigation, disagree with the findings of the investigation, or request further investigation. Following a motion and second motion, sub-panel members voted on the motion. Five of eight votes passed a motion. In use of force incidents, the sub-panel was then asked to determine if the use of force was or was not within policy. The same motion and voting process occurred. Making a determination on whether or not the use of force was or was not within policy appears to be a non-relevant step in the process that has the potential not only to confuse panel members in the decision making process, but provide the opportunity for misinterpretation of a sub-panel’s findings. Unless a sub-panel concludes that an incident needs further investigation, subpanels either agree or disagree with the findings of an investigation. As a result, if a sub-panel agrees with the findings of an investigation, the investigation will have already concluded whether or not the use of force was or was not within policy. In essence, a sub-panel cannot conclude that they agree with the findings of an investigation and not have the same use of force policy determination that the investigator had. Sub-panel members may ultimately not agree with the policy and

Findings: Implementation and Administration

101

make recommendations to consider changes to the policy, but they cannot make a determination of policy in a particular incident review that contradicts their determination of the findings of an investigation. This caused confusion among sub-panel members on at least three separate sub-panel review sessions that were observed. At the conclusion of this study, all sub-panels that were convened to review incidents agreed with the findings of the respective investigations. It is important to note that in several of the incidents reviewed, however, the investigators concluded that the involved Officers had varying degrees of culpability. As a result, agreeing with the findings of the investigation in several cases meant holding the Officer responsible, in whole or in part, for the incident or complaint. Finally, the sub-panels were asked for any recommendations concerning training programs; revisions of policies and procedures; commendable actions; or preventive or corrective measures with the exception of employee discipline. Recommendations were initiated through motions, and required a majority vote to send the recommendation to the Police Chief and executive staff. Robert’s Rules were also used during this part of the process to ensure that the recommendations were supported by a majority of the panel rather than single participant or a minority of the participants. A total of four recommendations have been formally made to the Police Chief and executive staff, and all have been pursued by the Police Department. One reason for the limited number of recommendations was that several incidents involving Officers shooting at vehicles went to subpanels for review, and after the first such incident was reviewed, there was no need to make the same recommendations for training and policy changes when similar incidents were subsequently reviewed. All but one of the incidents involving Officers shooting at vehicles had actually occurred prior to the panel reviewing the first incident of this type. Generally, the panel has been given the authority to provide formal recommendations to address organization-wide issues such as policy changes and improvements to training. The only authority they have been given outside this realm is to recommend employee commendations. Since the panel is specifically not given the authority to make recommendations on employee discipline, it appears contradictory to allow the panel to recommend commendations. If it is the panel’s responsibility to review incidents and make judgements on

102

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

how well the Police Department as an organization handled the incident, and the Police Department’s responsibility to address employee performance issues related to incidents, providing panel members the authority to recommend commendations appears to be inconsistent. The ordinance requires that five panel member be present to constitute a quorum. This issue needs to be addressed to ensure that a citizen majority is always required to make a quorum. Currently, a quorum of five can exist wherein a majority of the members are Police panel members. In addition, a quorum of only five, regardless of whether they are citizen or Police panel members, puts much more authority in the hands of each member present compared to a quorum of seven, for example. After decisions have been made regarding an incident, the Assistant Police Chief who serves as the panel Chairperson notes any recommendations that were made that need to be provided to the Police Chief and executive staff for consideration. This is not a formal process that occurs as part of the sub-panel review session. Rather, notes are taken by hand by the Assistant Police Chief that serves as the panel Chairperson and those notes are informally communicated to the Police Chief and executive staff at the formal meetings wherein sub-panel review outcomes are presented. A prepared form is also completed outlining the conclusions of the review and signed by all sub-panel members. After the necessary documentation is completed, the review process is concluded. After reviewing the entire administrative process, it is apparent that several documentation weaknesses exist that inhibit the panel process. First, sub-panel members are generally not provided the entire investigative packet for reference during the review session. The only time they are is when the investigations are very short, typically less than five pages, and panel members actually read the investigations at the sub-panel review session. Second, the sub-panels are not provided any visual overhead of what is actually being decided upon by the group. Sometimes there is confusion among sub-panel members on what specific motion was made, and as a result, confusion about what outcome they were actually voting on occurred. Third, the group does not see the hand written notes that are taken by the Assistant Police Chief during the recommendations part of the review process. As a

Findings: Implementation and Administration

103

result, panel members cannot be sure what was actually written. As a result there is never consensus that the recommendations were communicated clearly, which may cloud the information brought to the Police Chief and executive staff for review. Fourth, the document that panel members sign regarding the outcome of the sub-panel review is a pre-prepared form that does not include all of the necessary elements to fully document the incident. For instance, if two members of an eight member sub-panel did not agree with the majority of the panel, there is no place on the form to separate dissenting votes. In essence, dissenting panel members sign the pre-prepared form like the majority, and it appears as if all eight panel members agreed with the outcome. This is important because the decision making process implemented is based on votes rather than on obtaining consensus from the entire sub-panel. Fifth, no formal follow up is provided to sub-panel review participants regarding the final outcome of the incident. These apparent documentation weaknesses also contributed to an inadequate archive being kept of the incident and the outcome of the review of the incident. Powers and Duties In the ordinance, the panel was given a variety of responsibilities related to the administration of the panel process. These responsibilities include establishing rules and regulations under which to function; establishing times for meetings; and establishing the manner in which meetings shall be held and the notice to be given. It appears that most, if not all, of the administrative functions surrounding the operation of the panel have been initiated and implemented by the Police Department staff working with the panel. This was likely a necessity at the onset of the process due to the lack of specificity on how the process would be administrated in the ordinance, combined with the fact that this was a police initiated endeavor. Panel members do provide feedback on the administrative process; however, it is typically when such feedback is solicited by the Police Department. So, panel members are involved administratively; however, they are not the driving force as seemingly required in the ordinance. In an effort to formalize the panel process, the Police Department incorporated Robert’s Rules as a decision making tool in sub-panel incident reviews.

104

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

As a result, all decisions and recommendations must be presented through motions by panel members and, in order for decisions or recommendations to pass five affirmative votes are required. Most of the administrative procedures developed and incorporated by the Police Department linked different components of the ordinance into operational processes. There are, however, no documented policies and procedures on how the oversight system is administered, which is a substantial concern in terms of the future stability and legitimacy of the oversight system. One large administrative component that the Police Department included was panel training. Training was developed and provided by the Tempe Police Department when the panel first began, and an annual training refresher session is provided to all panel members. Although some of the specific training components change from year to year, the overall focus and purpose of the training is to initiate panel members to police operations—particularly related to use of force. Training is critical, and Bobb (2005) notes that it is difficult for oversight bodies to be effective without a broader perspective of police operations. Table 5 provides an overview of the general training topics provided to panel members. The annual training session also includes time for the panel and Police representatives to discuss all of the incidents that have been reviewed by sub-panels over the preceding year. This was the only time panel members were given feedback on the final disposition of incidents that had been reviewed. In addition, this segment of the training provided an opportunity to discuss issues related to specific incidents reviewed; procedures and other issues related to the administration of the panel and sub-panels; ways that panel members could get more involved; and recommendations on how to make the panel process better. The Police Department has spent all training time exposing citizen panel members to police operations, policies and procedures, as well as what Officers experience in the field; however, no training opportunities that contrast or provide alternatives to the police perspective were provided to citizen panel members. To date, no training or resources have been offered that provide citizen panel members a look at a police subject’s point of view or bring to the forefront tools that provide citizen panel members to be more critical

Findings: Implementation and Administration

105

and further question, and ultimately improve, the Tempe Police Department’s use of force and complaint investigation systems. This is important as is difficult for oversight bodies to provide effective oversight without a broader, more balanced perspective of policing (Bobb, 2005). OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT All stakeholders that were interviewed were asked what they thought could be improved with the Tempe Panel for Citizens’ Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force. Early in their respective interviews, stakeholders were specifically asked to identify what they thought was working well with the process and what they thought could use improvement. In addition to responses to the specific questions asked on this topic, additional feedback came as a result of specific questions asked of stakeholders during interviews. Table 6 provides an overview of the substantive suggestions provided by a majority of stakeholders interviewed to improve the oversight process.

106

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

TABLE 5 Training Provided to Citizen Panel Members Training Topic

Frequency / Time Allocated

Review of Complaint Investigation Process

Initial / 1 Hour

Confidentiality of Internal Affairs Files

Initial / .5 Hour

Tempe Police Department Complaint Statistics

Initial / .5 Hour

Tour of Facilities

Initial / 1 Hour

Review Use of Force Policy

Annually/1 Hour

Managing Use of Force Incidents

Annually/1 Hour

Low Level Contact Use of Force Techniques

Annually/1 Hour

Mid Level Contact Use of Force Techniques

Annually/1 Hour

High Level Contact Use of Force Techniques

Annually/1 Hour

Confrontational Simulations

Annually/1 Hour

Review of Firearms and Firearms Training Philosophy

Annually/1 Hour

Findings: Implementation and Administration

107

TABLE 5 (continued) Training Topic

Frequency / Time Allocated

Principles of Marksmanship / Testing

Annually/1 Hour

Judgment and Psychological Aspects of Using Deadly Force

Annually/1 Hour

Firearms Simulator Drills

Annually/1 Hour

Simunition Training and Demonstration

Annually/1 Hour

Ride Along

Annually/1 Along

Ride-

108

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

TABLE 6 Stakeholder Suggestions for Improvement to the Tempe Oversight System

1. Remove the Assistant Chief as a voting member of the panel. 2. Look at alternatives to the method the City Manager uses to select sub-panel members. 3. Find ways to keep panel members involved in panel and Police Department activities since the number of incidents reviewed may only require panel members to participate on a sub-panel once or twice a year. 4. Provide more information to Police personnel regarding the purpose and role of the panel since many do not know it exists and/or are not aware of the purpose and responsibilities of the panel. 5. Continue to focus on bringing the panel basic training as well as new types of training.

Findings: Implementation and Administration

109

MAJOR FINDINGS z

z

z

z

z

z

z

z

The fifteen members that comprised the panel were selected by the Mayor (three selections) and each Council Member (two selections), which is in accordance with the parameters of the ordinance. All citizen panel members selected by the Mayor and Council were Tempe residents and met the established criteria to participate on the panel, as required in the ordinance. All Officer-involved shootings have been sent to the panel for review, which is in accordance with the parameters of the ordinance. All use of force incidents resulting in serious injury have been sent to the panel for review, which is in accordance with the parameters of the ordinance. All requests from citizens to appeal the findings of complaint investigations that were not sustained, unfounded, or exonerated went to the panel for review, which is in accordance with the parameters of the ordinance. All recommendations made by sub-panels for training, policy review, commendations, and other identified issues have been sent to the Police Chief for consideration. All recommendations have been pursued by the Tempe Police Department. The panel has consistently been composed of fifteen citizen members and three Police Department members, which is in accordance with the parameters of the ordinance. The citizen members of each sub-panel that has been convened were formally selected by the City Manager, which is in accordance with the parameters of the ordinance.

110 z

z

z

z

z

z

z

z

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police The panel has acted in an advisory capacity to the Police Chief and City Manager, which is in accordance with the parameters of the ordinance. The terms of office allowable to citizen members have not been exceeded, which is in accordance with the parameters of the ordinance. Citizen members of the panel do not receive compensation for their services, which is accordance with the parameters of the ordinance. Panel members do, however, receive discounted golf benefits as do all citizens who serve on City Boards and Commissions. The Police Chief selected three Police Department employees to serve as members of the panel. These three members included one Division Commander (now Assistant Police Chief), one first line Supervisor, and one line Officer, which is in accordance with the parameters of the ordinance. Each sub-panel that has been convened has consisted of a minimum of five panel members and has constituted a quorum, which is in accordance with the parameters of the ordinance. The affirmative vote of at least five sub-panel members was realized for each matter passed by each of the sub-panels convened, which is in accordance with the parameters of the ordinance. All incidents reviewed have involved a review of the full record surrounding the incident, which is in accordance with the parameters of the ordinance. Each sub-panel that has reviewed an incident has made a report to the Police Chief either agreeing with the findings of the Police Department investigation, disagreeing with the findings of the Police Department investigation, or advising the Police Chief that further investigation is warranted, which is in accordance with the parameters of the ordinance.

Findings: Implementation and Administration z

z

z

z

z

z

z z

111

In each use of force incident reviewed, the sub-panels made a further finding of whether or not the use of force was within Police Department policy, which is in accordance with the parameters of the ordinance. The panel and each sub-panel has had the opportunity to make recommendations to the Police Chief concerning training programs; revisions of policies or procedures; commendable actions; preventive or corrective measures, except for employee discipline; and community concerns regarding police action and procedures, which is in accordance with the parameters of the ordinance. The line Officer selected as a member of the panel has served the panel for a period longer than two years, which is not in accordance with the parameters of the ordinance. The Sergeant selected as a replacement Police panel member was not selected using the same process inaugural Police panel members were, which was by the Chief and executive staff. The replacement of this Police panel position was not done in accordance with the parameters of the ordinance. The Police Department rather than the panel has established the rules and regulations surrounding the panel process, which is not in accordance with the parameters of the ordinance. No administrative policies and procedures have been documented, which is problematic given the loose parameters established in the ordinance. The process used to document sub-panel recommendations is inconsistent and inadequate.

findings

and

No summary information on panel activities is published. The public currently has no way to know if the panel is functioning or to appreciate what the panel is doing.

112 z

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police All stakeholders contacted in the course of this study stated that they thought the citizen oversight process was effective and functioning well. All stated that the process was very open and that it was going much better than they had anticipated. Citizen panel members’ feedback focused on the openness and honesty of Police personnel throughout the process, while Police and City stakeholders’ feedback centered around the commitment of citizen panel members to the process and the seriousness in which they approached their roles. In addition, a large majority of stakeholders felt there was at least minimal room for improvement and were eager to make improvements to the panel process to ensure it would continue to progress in the future.

CHAPTER 7

Findings: Assessing Goal Achievement

This component of the evaluation utilized a case study to assess the degree to which the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Complaints and Use of Force achieved the broad program goals established by the Tempe Police Department. Six independent variables were examined to determine if the oversight process was contributing to those broad goals. The logic model presented in Chapter Four, Figure 1 provided the foundation for this research question, and the independent variables addressed in this component of the study were derived from the logic model. Stakeholder interviews, observation of sub-panel review sessions, observation of panel training sessions, observation of organizational interactions in the Police Department, and review of documents provided the data to address each of the identified variables. CITIZEN PANEL MEMBERS’ TRUST IN THE OVERSIGHT PROCESS Citizen panel members possessed varying degrees of skepticism about the concept of citizen oversight generally; however, many reservations communicated by citizen panel members were tempered as a result of their actual involvement in the Tempe panel. Specific questions and responses of citizen panel members obtained during interviews provided the most palpable indication of the level of trust panel members had in the citizen oversight process. Given the different directions the interviews often veered, specific responses for all questions were not provided by every citizen panel member interviewed. Observations also provided important information in 113

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

114

relation to the level of trust citizen panel members had in the citizen oversight process. To provide context to the responses, a brief demographic breakdown is provided for each citizen participant, and each has been given a pseudonym. Eileen Caucasian, female, 60 years of age, health care administrator. Warren Caucasian, male, 55 years of age, attorney. Alex Caucasian, male, 65 years of age, retired businessman. Roxanne African American, female, 55 years of age, public health professional Patrick Caucasian, male, 40 years of age, businessman. Interview Responses of Citizen Panel Members Question: What do you think about the concept of citizen oversight generally? ƒ

Eileen I had some reservations about it to begin with because I think for (law enforcement) professionals it is good, but I think there is a danger. When a person (participant) does not know the background, the intensity, the goals and objectives, the standards (in the Police Department), it is so easy to judge and say “This is what I would do” and it is not necessarily what a person with good judgment would do. I think the other half of it is whether or not the person (participant) on there has an axe to grind. I think that is a real concern. You can get people who are professionals and know what is going on or you can get people who aren’t really law

Findings: Assessing Goal Achievement

115

enforcement professionals but they’ve got their own agendas. And I haven’t shed those (reservations) exactly. I think that this group is being run quite well and I’m impressed with the people who have been on it. So, partly it has been the administrative leadership from the Police Department, they have kind of molded us into why they are doing it. Their sincerity for one thing. I think they truly want to have input and to be able to explain if there is something that we don’t understand or disagree with. ƒ

Patrick In a perfect world I think it probably isn’t necessary. However, when people start asking questions they want to defer to others. I think if you have people interested in the process you should probably do it, but I think as far as citizens boards go in general I guess that times have changed and you’re not quite sure if you can really trust your police department. I think that’s the public perception and so forth, so I guess that is one of the curses that any civilian police departments would have as opposed to the military or something like that. They are accountable to a political body.

ƒ

Warren I think it’s important, I do. If I didn’t think it was important I wouldn’t have volunteered to do it. I hope we’re contributing something to good police work, sure.

ƒ

Alex I think citizen involvement, oversight is important. With some of the things that we have seen on television and read in the newspaper…the Diallo incident in New York and Rodney King in Los Angeles, and other incidents of that sort. I think that the public perception of law enforcement has degraded somewhat and I think citizen oversight, as we have in Tempe, helps restore the community’s confidence in the law enforcement function and law enforcement institutions. It gives the public, generally, the

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

116

opportunity to provide some customer view of the law enforcement function and that feeling of disenchantment or powerlessness tends to be reduced a little bit I think by virtue of citizen oversight. Question: What were your thoughts/perceptions when you originally heard that Tempe was implementing a citizen oversight process? ƒ

Patrick I felt like there was a danger, with any type of committee like this, either becoming totally rubber stamped or going in with hostility or with an agenda that will cause us to be in conflict all the way.

ƒ

Eileen Personally, I thought it would be a good idea, something I would like to get involved with myself.

ƒ

Warren When I first read about it in the paper I thought this would be a good idea. There had been some problems in some other police departments in the Valley involving police shootings and police brutality, and I don’t remember the circumstances really, but I was aware that there were some. I think it was after an incident in another Valley jurisdiction that they got a lot of bad press for, and that may have been a catalyst for this (Tempe panel) to get going, to have a place to get things reviewed by regular citizens. As a Tempe resident I thought it was a good idea to have that citizen input and a place for things like that (serious incidents) to be reviewed by common, ordinary citizens.

ƒ

Roxanne I did not want to be part of a regulatory process….When you look at us like somebody that can get the police, that’s not the kind of organization I wanted to be part of. To help make decisions and make sure that things are in place, now that’s okay.

Findings: Assessing Goal Achievement ƒ

117

Alex When I first heard about it I had sort of two perspectives. One was from a citizens’ view. I think this is a good idea. That was the citizens’ perspective. The other one was thinking about if from the law enforcement perspective, from the perspective of the patrolman on the street, the motor officer, the people who actually had to provide the services. And that was concern that they would either misunderstand or that they would be against it on its face or not really understand it. And I was concerned that the Command Staff or management of the Police Department had a sales job to do or an educational job to do so the people on the street wouldn’t reject that concept out of hand and say “Well we don’t need people looking over our shoulders,” and that sort of thing. So, I was concerned from the officers’ perspective that it might be misconstrued and from the citizens perspective I was delighted that Tempe was as progressive as that seemed to indicate.

Question: Have your thoughts/perceptions changed since then? ƒ

Warren Yes, when I first heard about it I had a vision that this panel would actually have some teeth, that its decisions would actually mean something and not just be advisory. That if we as a panel ruled in some way that actions were inappropriate or that an officer had behaved inappropriately that that would carry the day and carry weight. It wasn’t until I had volunteered and taken office and went through the training that they (the PD) told us that it was just advisory and that surprised me.

ƒ

Alex Yes. From the citizens perspective I think Tempe has a right to be proud of themselves; I mean not smug, but certainly we can look to the Tempe Police Department as being progressive and wanting to keep its own house in order. I think from the officers’ perspective, I think I’ve done three or four ride-alongs now, and I’ve have asked

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

118

each of the officers that I’ve had a chance to visit with, to spend some time with, what their view was of the citizens review process. The anxiety level that I got at the very first ride-along was significantly higher than it seems to be today. So either by just not hearing anything, where no one’s head was cut off and it is not in the newspaper, the officers have become less anxious or through education they have become more comfortable with the process. One of the misperceptions that the officers seemed to have, at least in the beginning, was that we came in off the street with no real understanding of the process, that we really had no understanding of the orders, of the restrictions on the use of deadly force and I think they were pleasantly surprised that we got the education that we got...so the communication to the officers on the street either has been or will be a good idea. Especially when they learn that we have to go through a lot of training, and we do that every year. Just as they do, we have to have ongoing training as well. That I think has reduced the anxiety level of among those who know about it. Question: Tell me about your interaction with Police Department personnel involved in the panel process. ƒ

Eileen The most awkward interaction has been with the ride-alongs. I’m never quite sure how the officer that you’re riding with views this civilian panel. There was one instance where I came in and was given the name of the person I was supposed to ride with. When I came in, the person at the counter said “Oh, we’re not going to have you ride with him.” I’m not sure where he was coming from or why he said that, but I thought that was kind of interesting. I never found out any more about it. The first one (ride along) I did, the officer couldn’t have been more pleasant, just wonderful. And the second one, he too was very polite but kind of distant. That was early too. This is my third year now, so there may be a change in attitude with the officers as more and more people from the panel come into contact with them....I think if it were a less well run Department, or if there were problems with scandal types of

Findings: Assessing Goal Achievement

119

things, I think it would be a different expectation, a different attitude, and different outcome (from officers). ƒ

Patrick Everybody’s great. No sweat there.

ƒ

Warren Oh, they’re (PD staff) really nice people. It’s been good, they are really good at communicating with us and sending us letters reminding us of training and sub-panels. The Administrative Assistant sends me e-mails and I get letters, I get phone calls and (am) asked if I am available for a particular panel. The communication couldn’t be better really. They’re (PD staff) just always so polite, in fact I wonder “Are they always this nice when they’re on the street?” Because they’re just really terrific. They’ve been most respectful.

ƒ

Alex Generally speaking, the mystique about the Police Department has sort of evaporated...the mystique, the aura of more than human has sort of evaporated and they now have become to me regular folks with a difficult job, held to absolutely extraordinary levels of performance, judgment. Overall, reactions have been well, virtually all positive. They are nice people, with a commitment to the job, an idealism for the most part. My reaction to the folks on the panel from the Police Department, universally positive. Good people, committed, and as far as I can tell they have shown us not just the roses, but the warts as well, and we saw some warts at the last meeting. There doesn’t seem to any concern about politics, uh, (the Assistant Chief) has been very forthright.

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

120

Question: Do you feel comfortable sharing your perspective/speaking your mind while participating on a sub-panel? ƒ

Warren Yes, if anything I probably talk too much. (Regarding being afraid to ask tough questions) No, and the reason is I think they (the PD staff) are so tolerant of anybody’s questions that you never get the impression that you’re really asking something that’s stupid or that they don’t want to be bothered, or anything like that. Everyone of them (PD staff) that has talked to us, especially at the training, has been really forthcoming and supportive.

ƒ

Patrick I think maybe I talked too much….I’ll say what I want to say, I’ll say what I feel.

ƒ

Eileen Oh yeah. I don’t know how you could design it better to get people to express their views; and when people do express them they are listened to, and I don’t know how you could make it more open or conducive to dialogue than it is.

ƒ

Alex Very comfortable. I never felt in any way negative by virtue of a question I’ve asked….There’s a healthy discourse, with disagreement. I think everyone is allowed to present their position, ask their own questions, make their own decisions, and vote however they feel is appropriate.

Findings: Assessing Goal Achievement

121

Question: Do you have any concerns about one or two individuals having too much influence on the rest of the group? ƒ

Patrick There aren’t that many alpha people on the panel. The cops (sworn panel members) aren’t. They don’t want to be. I expected them to be very alpha people, but they’re not in this situation, they just kind of sit back and listen. And as far as the citizens go, there are just a few of us that might say “This just isn’t right” or something like that and just wear it out.

ƒ

Warren Sometimes I think, “Where are you guys coming from?” Sometimes it worries me that they’re (panel members) not going to get there (to the main issue), but they usually do. Sometimes I don’t know where people are coming from. We go through all of these commentaries and need to get back to the issue. I think sometimes they think we have more power than we do (and that’s why they focus on the details so much). I think there are some people there because it’s more about them than it is about what we’re doing, and that’s okay if they can bring it back in perspective.

Question: Do you think the panel is pro police? ƒ

Alex I think the panel is pretty strongly supportive of the Police. I think that part of that support is they want to make sure the Department is the best Department it can be and that means if they (the PD) are mucking around or performing in a shoddy fashion they wouldn’t hesitate to say that “This is not tolerable, we can’t do this.” I also suspect that if it were a really poorly run Department they either wouldn’t have a civilian review board or it would be stacked in a different direction from the way this one is. Now, these are supposedly somewhat random selections, but the randomly selected were already self selected so there is that kind of bias

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

122

there. And, I think the Tempe Police Department has a very positive image in the community so people are inclined to say “Yes I’d like to be involved because I support them not because I want to fight with them.” ƒ

Roxanne Yeah as a whole. We are such a dynamic a different group of people though….I don’t think that anybody on this panel is out to get the cops so I guess in that respect they are pro police. Personally, in some respects I think it is like sitting on a jury. You really want to give people the benefit of the doubt and really understand the situation, so when we go through an analysis or a situation we try to understand why that happened and why the person reacted the way they did that led up to a certain event, and you’re thinking could we (the PD) have done it any differently. Too pro police though, no I don’t think so. We still try to look at cases with an open mind and so forth because you’re giving us the nasty stuff, the situations where an officer is deciding whether to shoot or not shoot or use some other use of force, we’re not getting other (more routine) types of situations (to review). I guess it could happen (being too pro police), but that’s why you have terms and get new people and that sort of thing.

ƒ

Warren

ƒ

They are. I have the perception they are. Patrick I have picked up on that from a couple of people (on the panel). I tend to trust them (the PD) until I have reason not to.

ƒ

Eileen There may be a slight lean towards the Department...but I think the groups (sub-panels) I have been involved in have been objective.

Findings: Assessing Goal Achievement

123

Question: Do you think the citizen oversight process in Tempe has gained enough legitimacy to adequately address a highly charged police-related incident? Why or why not? ƒ

Warren You never know until it happens, but yes, I think they (the panel) probably can....But also, on none of the panels I have been on has there been anything that people were truly divided on. On the last sub-panel, there was one person who said they thought the officer operated within policy in terms of the shoot, and everyone else said no. But (the member) was also new. But that was only one person. As you know in group dynamics only one person does not have a whole lot of power, but if you get two people on a panel of five there could be much more conflict. I think the people that are on the panel at the present time would all be able to manage conflict in a creative and positive way. But that’s always a danger when you change people (replace panel members) too. (In terms of citizens’ perception of the panel outcome) You know, I think it is going to depend on the people and how it is played in the media....When you read stuff in the paper you know you don’t get an unbiased, complete report. You know that there are other things that you don’t know, but I have a feeling that the people in the community are going to say...if they agree with what happened then they will say “Well, yes, the citizen review panel is a good idea.” If they don’t agree, then (they will say) “They’re just rubber stamps.” And that is where I think a broader community perspective, being able to develop that is better.

ƒ

Patrick Hmmm...my first thought is that I don’t think people will care. I’m trying to think of a citizen review panel (sub-panel) that really made a difference in a public awareness type of eye. The fact that it exists might be the big political push....The reality is that the way this group is made up and the recommendations that we’ve passed down have always been the same with the cops, so that tells me that the Police Department in general has a pretty good process

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

124

going and that nothing strange has happened. They’re (the PD) taking the correct action. If the big incident, whatever happened, nothing tells me right off the bat that we’re (panel) going to react any differently, you know if it’s a Rodney King or one of those things, I’m not so sure that we’ll see it any different. (In terms of citizens’ perception of the panel outcome) In terms of having a citizen review board, I’m just not sure how much that is going to make a difference, I really don’t know. I think the difference comes from the press...or people who might be totally outraged by the process….I don’t think people will (say) “Oh my God this terrible thing has happened, lets go talk to the review board about it.” I don’t think that’s a natural, I think the natural is going to be groups of people that relate to it that create some type of voice that starts getting air time or starts getting the attention that does this. I just really don’t think it is going to make a difference, but that’s just my hunch, I could be wrong. ƒ

Eileen I hope so. I think so, I guess.

ƒ

Alex Yeah, I think so. I think the process has proven itself to be effective….The community’s perspective, the community’s opinion is not going to be shaped by the process, it’s going to be shaped by people outside the process, it’s going to be shaped by people with agendas. If it happened to be a racial issue, for example, it would be shaped by the agendas of people outside of the Police Department, outside of the citizen oversight process, and if someone wants to make something out of the findings or out of the process, they are going to do it. Given that, can the process handle a controversial case, I think without question it can…I think people’s commitment, speaking about the current board members, are committed and they will do what they have to do even if it says to the Police Department “Look, Mr. Diallo was unarmed or the use of force with Rodney King was far beyond anything

Findings: Assessing Goal Achievement

125

reasonable”.…Perception and the reality, I think, don’t have anything to do one with the other, unfortunately. Question: Are you comfortable with the role of the panel being advisory rather than a final decision maker? ƒ

Eileen Yes, I’m more comfortable with that. If it were a less well run Department, I might feel the need for more authority. What I was saying earlier about having the civilians on the panel I can say for myself, I don’t know law enforcement. I can say “You had better have a policy for this and you better follow your own policy...and you had better have a reason why you are going that direction rather than another.” For a civilian panel to come in and essentially re-write policy or establish say a penalty for something and the next panel do it differently, then you’ve got chaos. Things should be done on a case by case basis, but the decision making should be according to policy for each case.

ƒ

Patrick I am. Like I said I would prefer that this board not exist....Nothing has made me feel like we need more (authority).

ƒ

Roxanne I was on another board that had decision making authority and I spent all my time on that board (because of the details). To do this (work on a decision making board), you need to have a lot of time....So when this (the Tempe panel) came along I said “Okay, it doesn’t sound like it will be that type of board.”

ƒ

Alex I think the role of the group depends upon what the Command Staff does with the output from the process…and that is not just in Tempe. If this is a process to convince outsiders that everything’s

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

126

fine, they should abolish the process. If there’s really an attempt to improve the policing process in a community, an advisory role is adequate. If the Command Staff blows off the recommendations of the panel, and basically it’s business as usual, then maybe there should be more power vested in the citizens. In this case, I think the Command Staff is committed to using the output from the citizens to improve the process. ƒ

Warren If I ruled the world, I would put more teeth in the board. I don’t know how other (police) departments have done it or what their experience has been, but I guess I just have a basic objection to the advisory nature of the whole thing, and maybe now that we’ve had it in place for a few years and the (Police) Department itself isn’t afraid of it really as they were at first...I don’t have the sense that they think this little band of citizens would take off on some wild hair.

Question: What do you think is not going well or could use improvement with the citizen oversight process in Tempe? ƒ

Eileen I couldn’t offer any alternatives. There may be ways to improve it, but I don’t know what alternatives there are...nothing in particular.

ƒ

Patrick I hope the next ride along I go on there won’t be as much uneasiness (on the part of the officer). Is disbanding it an option? From a community perspective I’d like to get to the point where we quit second guessing ourselves....I understand the reasons for it (the panel), I mean people want to get involved in everything you know, and (people) like me who would just as soon not be on this board understand the value of being on the board because I think we might know more than the average bear. I would like to think

Findings: Assessing Goal Achievement

127

that this panel will not survive in perpetuity, that it will end….I haven’t had and I don’t expect to have the Chief come in here and say “You know, we had this situation and you guys really made the difference for us to make this decision.” I would look at that Chief like “What’s up with you?” if that ever got to that point. I wish this board didn’t have to exist, but given the fact that it does exist, hmmm...I think you should make it more intense for us. In the training they (the PD) put us through this use of force where we’re almost always going to shoot the guy, and it almost becomes fun. I hate to say that….Put us through a situation where maybe you’ve got to give us a fifty pound belt with all of the different tools and then maybe we won’t have to shoot the guy....We might get a better appreciation of the escalation process, because really we just go from zero to seven or eight...shoot or don’t shoot. Like I said I would like the incidents (training) to be more intense so we might be able to solve a situation before we actually have to pull a gun. ƒ

Warren A problem I had was that one of the options we have (when reviewing an incident) is to recommend more investigation, but we can’t do the investigation ourselves. We couldn’t appoint one of our own panel members to go out and interview a witness or gather some other piece of evidence. My experience with the cases here is that the person that gathers the evidence gets to put a spin on it. We all do. I don’t mean that critically, you have to. I just remember thinking that we can read this report that the officers create about a complaint against an officer and we can’t do any investigation, we can’t interview any witnesses, nobody comes before us to listen to our questions about what happened, and then we pass judgment on whether it’s appropriate. So far, I haven’t felt the need to do that. I’ve never made a motion to go out and have some more investigation done, although I regret not doing it in one case. The training that we take is necessary. You take citizens that don’t understand things like use of force and when it’s appropriate to use lethal force and when it’s not, and escalation of force and all that has to be taught to us I guess and was done in a pretty

128

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police effective way. I’m not sure once you’ve been on the panel a while how necessary it is to come back and do this every year. I didn’t really learn anything new at this last training and it took a Friday night and all day Saturday. Going through the training is important and I don’t think I would let someone sit on the panel without it, but I don’t think I would require it every year or make it voluntary if you’ve been through it once. Some of the training I thought was maybe a little bit too pointed. The example is when we strapped on the paint guns and went out to shoot at each other—it was so clear what the purpose of that exercise was that it struck me funny. It worked, you know they get you in a situation where someone is shooting bullets at you with a gun and your heart pounds and even though you know nobody is going to get hurt and you start shooting back at somebody and they run up to you and say “How many rounds did you shoot?” And you say “I don’t know, four” and they look and you’ve shot nine. All of that of course is designed so that when you read a report and an officer said he shot four times and yet there are nine wounds in this guy and nine shell casings laying on the ground that the guy isn’t lying. I got, it but I would have gotten it if they explained it to me. Maybe it wouldn’t for others. I almost wanted to say to them “Okay, this time I’ll be the victim and you be the cops and you just come in and blow me away, okay?” Or “I’ll be an innocent guy and I’ll reach into my pocket to get my wallet and you shoot me.” They (the PD) don’t have an exercise for you to see what it is like to be a suicidal person sitting on a park bench ready to blow your brains out when a cop shows up. Some of the things are really comical. I really believe (regarding the City Manager’s method of selecting citizen sub-panel members)…that it just looks bad to let the City Manager hand select the people that sit on a sub-panel. And we’re going to get a tough case one of these days. We’re going to get a case like they’ve had in other (police) departments where the citizens are up in arms about what has happened and they want to see the process resolve the issue somehow. And if things go badly, and I mean badly in the sense of public perception, and the City Manager hand selects the members of the citizens review board that sit on that particular sub-panel it could get ugly. I think that needs to get fixed. I don’t think there is much

Findings: Assessing Goal Achievement

129

fear really, of things getting out of hand if we just go on a rotational basis. And I don’t think it’s going to help any really to say “Well, the reason we have this (selection process) is so the City Manager can put a Black or Hispanic or female person on the sub-panel to ensure fairness”.…Then when the tough case came along, you know one that was in the newspaper every day and the public is up in arms because of an incident...so the City Manager is going “Now, who should we select here? Should we select this panel member who has voted against the (Police) Department on every panel they have been on or should we pick so and so?” And I thought, man, this is going to look horrible if he picks people he knows he can count on to support the Police Department. One of my other concerns when we first got into this and they (the PD) were training us, was “Wait a minute”...the tough case comes along and the Police Department says the officer was justified in shooting, the way that panel is set up, we would have to have every single, a unanimous side on the citizens part of this sub-panel to overrule the Police Department side (sworn panel members)….This was a concern because this was a citizens board, but almost half of its members are Police Department employees and that bothered me. And then I look at the make up of the panel (citizen members). The first time we got together, and I’m not sure if this is still the case because I don’t know everyone’s background, but we were introducing ourselves to each other and “I’m so and so and I work for the whatever police department and I’m an officer there and I live in Tempe,” and another guy “I’m retired and I worked for DPS” or whatever. I’m looking around the room going this is going to be great fun in a tough case to convince these other retired police people, or others (with) police experience, that the investigator screwed it up or got it wrong anyway and that the officer is out of policy and it’s a bad shoot or whatever the issue is. I’m going to have to convince every one of these people, or practically every one of them, to overrule the Police Department. I was worried about that. I still am a little bit because we haven’t seen a tough case; at least I haven’t seen one. But we’re going to, we’re going to see one and I wonder if I’m going to be on the sub-panel when that tough case comes and I

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

130

wonder if we’re going to have citizens who are willing to say “No, this was wrong,” even though Internal Affairs said otherwise. Another problem that I wanted to address...we as citizen panel members read the Police reports, we read what officers said, what witnesses said, and sometimes we even read transcripts of tape recorded conversations, and I guess the tapes are there if we wanted to take the time to listen to them. My point is that it is usually a report by an officer of what somebody said and then somebody has to kind of make a judgment as to what to believe and not to believe, particularly when those are in conflict. Whoever is in charge of the investigation has to write that final report and say “I believe that this is what took place” and sometimes that is in conflict with what at least some witnesses have said. And there is usually some explanation, you know, “I’m going to discount this witness because they were too far away or didn’t hear this,” or “They weren’t really as involved,” you know. There is some explanation in those reports sometimes, but in a tough case, one that really is the officer’s word against the citizens word, it’s hard to make that judgment. We don’t ask jurors to make that judgment in courts of law without listening to them (witnesses), without watching them while they speak. We have some of the stuff that goes into that I guess regarding inconsistent statements that are made or the consistency of their story, sometimes that goes into the reports, but it’s hard without listening to them and seeing how they behave. I’ve never felt conflicted like that yet on any of the subpanels I have sat on, but they will probably come. ƒ

Alex I would like to get more information about the post-citizen review results, whatever those are…it might bring a little closure….I would invite all the board members to every panel even though they may not be (sub) panel participants…those not selected for the (sub) panel could attend to familiarize themselves.

Findings: Assessing Goal Achievement

131

Observations Observations made during interviews and during sub-panel review sessions provided valuable information on the level of trust citizen panel members appeared to have in the Tempe citizen oversight process. First, during the one-on-one interviews with citizen panel members they appeared very comfortable and at ease answering questions, and were very candid in their responses. In addition, none of the panel members interviewed displayed any hesitations or concerns about the interview being audio recorded for research purposes, and all spoke highly of the Police personnel they had come into contact with during the entire process. Second, during training and sub-panel review sessions, citizen panel members asked a wide variety of questions and large numbers of questions. During each incident review that was observed, every citizen panel member asked at least one question during each review and several members asked numerous questions during each review. Interviews and observation of panel activities confirmed that citizen panel members feel comfortable participating in panel related activities. Third, the candor of responses by Police Department representatives to questions asked by citizen panel members during regular meeting sessions and sub-panel review sessions created an environment of openness and honesty between Police personnel and citizen panel members. Interpersonal interactions between citizen panel members and Police employees during panel meetings and sub-panel incident review sessions was very informal and relaxed, again demonstrating a comfort level and trust between citizen and Police participants. The information acquired throughout the research process confirmed that citizen panel members supported the concept of citizen oversight, and had varying degrees of trust in the Tempe citizen oversight system. This trust in the Tempe citizen oversight system came primarily as a result of panel members’ interactions with Police Department representatives and their satisfaction with the quality of the investigations they reviewed, rather than from confidence in the formal structure or administration of the oversight system. This was evident in interviews with citizen panel members wherein they had concerns about potential weaknesses with the formal structure and processes of

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

132

the Tempe panel, although all recognized that weaknesses had not yet become glaring due to the seemingly good intentions of all individuals involved. CITIZEN PANEL MEMBERS’ AWARENESS OF THE INNER WORKINGS OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT Interview Responses of Citizen Panel Members Question: Has participating as a panel member influenced your thinking about the Tempe Police Department in any way? ƒ

Eileen Yeah, I think it has a little bit. As I told you, I was fairly sympathetic with them, but I have so much respect for what they go through, you know what they have to do, and what they are trying to do with this panel. Part of that has come through the people (involved) in the various case discussions, but the ride-along I think has done a lot too...to say “Okay, this is what you guys do.”

ƒ

Patrick I don’t think my participation in this has changed my perspectives very much.

ƒ

Warren Yes, it has. I’ve been real impressed, really. When you’re not really involved you have this perception that, you know you read about things that go on in other police departments around the country and the scandals. Police work has been full of scandal in some places and as a citizen that doesn’t get involved with it much you kind of wonder just how professional our officers are and how good of a job they are really doing at respecting people’s rights and treating citizens, even those they suspect of committing a crime or even have evidence of committing a crime, how well they treat them and how professionally they serve. I have been

Findings: Assessing Goal Achievement

133

impressed with the people we’ve met in our process by their desire to want to do things right, to want to do things by the book, follow the rules, make sure that the rules they set are appropriate and are constitutional. I’ve been very favorably impressed. I just don’t have the sense that there’s some evil lurking underneath all of this. Everything seems to be above board, at least from my viewpoint. And the ride-alongs have been great from the sense that going out and meeting officers and riding with them and seeing what it’s like out there on the street. I would definitely continue to require that for panel members. ƒ

Alex It’s a more human organization, and the individuals are more human too…that police mystique is not there as much. A healthy respect, but not mystique.

Observations During interviews with citizen panel members, individuals described many of their interactions with Police personnel and described the new information they had obtained about the Tempe Police Department as a result of their participation on the panel. During training and sub-panel review sessions, citizen panel participants routinely asked questions about the Police Department and/or Police-related issues not directly related to the training topic or incident being reviewed. These barriers acted as catalysts for discussions about the Tempe Police Department that increased the citizen panel members’ awareness of the inner workings of the Department. It was evident, however, from citizen stakeholder interviews and Police stakeholder interviews that the oversight system had not increased the level of awareness about the inner workings of the Police Department in the community at large.

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

134

CITIZEN PANEL MEMBERS’ ACCESS TO INFORMATION Interview Responses of Citizen Panel Members Question: Do you feel that you have had open access to the information you needed to participate on the sub-panels you have been on to date? ƒ

Eileen I have not found anything deficient...It would be nice to know how much there is to read so we know how much time to plan. They (the PD representatives) said they would try to give us a sense of how thick it was and let us know. (Regarding access to information fitting your schedule) I’ve been able to access the information in the afternoons. There was at least once that I became conscious of the fact that there was me and only one or two people up in the (administration) area, and I thought that I had better go home. (Regarding other methods of getting the information/security and confidentiality) I wouldn’t want to (have the documentation). It might be of assistance, but I think you’re inclined to be diverted more easily reading it in your backyard or something. Whereas when you are there you really focus. It’s like studying at the library instead of in front of your TV set.

ƒ

Patrick As far as the panel goes I don’t think there have been any problems. Access has been perfect for me...I don’t know if it will work for everyone, but you do a good job making it on afternoons and evenings. I understand that people may have that issue.

ƒ

Warren It’s a little bit cumbersome in the sense that they (the PD) won’t make copies of these reports for us and let us read them at home or in our offices, which has been more inconvenient than it might be otherwise. I take off work to go down there to look at the reports. Sometimes I’ve gone down there (to the PD) and there has been

Findings: Assessing Goal Achievement

135

another panel member there and we had to shuffle information back and forth. ƒ

Alex Unless I’m out of town I am committed to participating and will adjust my schedule accordingly.

Question: Do you think that the actual information/documentation provided regarding specific investigations has been adequate in terms of detail, quality, and accuracy? ƒ

Eileen It has been so far.

ƒ

Patrick It’s been fine. It’s the same information (the PD is using).

ƒ

Warren I’ve been impressed with the quality of the reports. The quality of the reports have been great, they’ve been well done. Of course the quality of the report is dependent upon the author, I am real impressed with (one of the Internal Affairs Sergeants) thoroughness and objectivity and the well-written reports. The last Sergeant’s presentation was the best I’ve seen. This Sergeant’s ability to explain what their investigation has shown…they were very well prepared to answer questions about how they concluded that it happened this way. This person seemed totally objective and tough, really. Very straight forward...I think so, I hope so. It’s difficult because you are hearing from people who have authored the reports. It’s hard to tell without taking one of those cases and jumping in and investigating it yourself. I don’t know, I have a general distrust of this process that comes from things like those kids that confessed to the Temple Murders and it later turned out they weren’t near it. Somehow those police officers got confessions from them by doing something totally wrong. I don’t know, you

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

136

read the report, it looks objective, it sounds objective, and you don’t have any reason to believe it’s not I guess except for my general distrust. ƒ

Alex Yes. Well, autopsy photographs…those kinds of things tell me at least that this is an open process. If you don’t want to look at the photographs, don’t look at them, but if that’s important to you then “Here they are.” …Yeah, they show us everything. They show us the pictures, they show us the books, they show us diagrams. We get, as far as I know, we get access to everything the Police Department has available in their investigation.

Question: What was the time frame you were given from the time you were notified of a sub-panel to the time the actual panel convened? Was this adequate time to review the information? ƒ

Eileen Oh yes. I’ve never had a problem with that...I think we get notification two or three weeks, maybe even a month in advance. It seems like it’s plenty of time to go through my calendar and check off a time and then call and see if it is okay. Now one of the things they (the PD) might be able to do for themselves better is to ask people to call and make an appointment to come in.

ƒ

Warren (The PD) has done a real good job of giving us a lot of lead time, I think it’s our responsibility to get this stuff digested and so forth, there’s nothing wrong with that process.

Observations Panel members appeared to be very informed when participating in sub-panel incident reviews, and asked questions during sub-panel review sessions directly related to the documentation they had reviewed, making it evident that participants had accessed the

Findings: Assessing Goal Achievement

137

investigative materials. In addition, Police Department representatives present at sub-panel reviews responded candidly to questions from citizen panel members related to the information and/or documentation used in the review of an incident. The final Internal Affairs investigations that were presented internally in the Police Department were the same investigations provided to citizens participating on sub-panel incident reviews. Correspondence sent to sub-panel members clearly stated the times that the investigation materials would be available for review (during normal business hours), or if a sub-panel member would prefer, a different time could be scheduled through the administrative assistant. During interviews with citizen panel members and while observing sub-panel review sessions, feedback was provided by some citizen panel members that they would like to have less information to review. In addition, feedback was also obtained regarding some of the graphic photos that were included in the investigative documentation that was disconcerting to some citizen panel members. Citizen panel members were also observed in the Police administration area spending considerable time reviewing documentation related to incidents that were scheduled for review. Participants also took notes for reference at the actual sub-panel review. This information demonstrates that citizen panel members had total access to investigative materials. It also demonstrates that participants were able to physically access the materials at the Police Department facility, although some participants would prefer to be able to access the documentation in forms that would preclude them from having to come and review the documents at the Police Department. LEVEL OF INFORMATION EXCHANGE BETWEEN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITIZENS Interview Responses of Citizen Panel Members Question: Do you think there has been an increase in the exchange of communication and information between the Police Department and the community as a result of the citizen oversight process? What about with panel members?

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

138 ƒ

Warren Hmmm...actually, no. For instance, I don’t see in the paper any information, any increase in information about the Police Department since the panel was put together. I haven’t seen anything about the panel, but that’s fine with me. I don’t think the panel needs to be trumpeted in the paper. I think things like Street Beat (cable television show) coverage will bring people out of the crevices and we will get a different response. When I tell people I’m on the civilian review panel, now most of them have heard about it, but when I first started they said “What’s that?” “What do they do?” And at that time I really didn’t know.

ƒ

Eileen I don’t know. I don’t think this process has had much effect on communications between the citizenry at large and the Police Department at large. I think there is an opportunity for it to do so, but I don’t know that that has happened so far. I’m not sure that the folks in the city of Tempe know about this. I think it’s almost internal to the Police Department, I mean in terms of perception. I think the Police Department knows more about it, and well they should, than the public at large. I’m not sure the public knows about the existence of the citizens’ review board. If they did, that might improve the communication.

Observations Through interviews with citizen and Police stakeholders, reviewing newspaper articles, and interacting with citizens in a professional capacity, it is apparent that an increase exchange between the Police Department and the citizenry of Tempe has not increased in light of the implementation and operation of the Tempe panel. This is not surprising, however, given the limited information that has been provided to the public regarding the panel.

Findings: Assessing Goal Achievement

139

DEGREE TO WHICH THE OVERSIGHT SYSTEM HAS IMPROVED THE INTERNAL COMPLAINT SYSTEM IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT Citizen, City, and Police stakeholder perspectives were considered in determining the degree to which the oversight system has improved the internal complaint system. Interview Responses of Citizen Panel Members Question: Do you think the existence of citizen oversight in Tempe has improved the internal complaint investigation process? ƒ

Eileen I suspect it does simply because knowing that someone else is going to look it over; someone who has the potential to be in conflict or to raise issues that might be misunderstood. I think it probably puts pressure (on the investigator) to be very precise, to develop a logical argument, have outcomes related to the facts, that kind of thing. I do not know if that is new, but I’m sure it has something to do with maintaining that kind of standard.

ƒ

Patrick I think I know what goes on and I think they (the PD) are awfully thorough, very thorough, very very thorough, the documents are just humungous....My sense is that the people being investigated are getting a fair shake. Thorough and fair is I guess the only way I can put it.

ƒ

Alex I suppose it has, but I don’t know what it was like before this.

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

140 ƒ

Warren Don’t know what it was like before, so in terms of a baseline I don’t have a baseline to start from…It seems to me that the investigations are thorough, but I do wonder as compared to what. This looks like a great investigation, but then parethetically I have to ask myself “As compared to what?” What does appear to me is that there’s redundancy in those investigations, page after page after page of interviews and if one goes through all of those interviews, it would be difficult to fake the consistency between this one and this one and this one and this one done by different investigators with different witnesses over a different period of time. The officers’ opinions, they all seem to match and they all come together; the determination is made on the basis of that larger picture, so it would be difficult to fake that, and I take comfort in that. But again, we don’t have anything with which to measure that, to measure the investigation. On the part of the Police Department presenters I think there’s some anxiety on their part when they come to this panel because I think there is some mystique from their perspective as to what the panel is and what the responsibilities are, and “What they are going to do to us, and what I have to do for them, what my responsibilities as an investigator and a presenter are.” You can see on a (sub) panel, it seems to me, that there’s a certain level of anxiety from the Police Department’s perspective wanting to make sure that everyone there understands, and that’s not a bad thing. Their discomfort with the citizens I think is a good thing because I think it leads to, I don’t have any evidence of this, but it certainly could lead to a little bit more sanitation, making sure that there is really no question about what we are trying to do here. It reduces some of the sloppiness, not that there is any. So, I think that there is some anxiety or some intimidation or the potential for some intimidation from the Police Department’s perspective about “What those five folks out there are going to do. I have to make sure everything is clean and correct, because these are citizens and they are not held to the same, they’re not confined by the same fences that we in the Police Department are, so if they don’t like it, this whole thing could blow up and we don’t want to have that

Findings: Assessing Goal Achievement

141

happen....We want this to be as clean and concise and honest and as straightforward, whatever happens, as we can make it.” Interview Responses of Police and City Stakeholders To provide context to the responses, a brief demographic breakdown is provided for each City participant, and each has been labeled by their title. Police Chief Caucasian, male, 50 years of age. Assistant Police Chief (Female) Caucasian, female, 45 years of age. Assistant Police Chief (Male) Caucasian, male, 42 years of age. Assistant City Attorney Asian American, male, 33 years of age. Internal Affairs Sergeant Caucasian, female, 37 years of age. Question: Do you think the existence of citizen oversight in Tempe has improved the internal complaint investigation process? ƒ

Police Chief It (the panel) is very valuable…If officers (investigators) know that their work is going to be reviewed by a citizen panel, I think there is a higher level of responsibility and accountability that accrues. Maybe it keeps them on their toes a little bit more.

ƒ

Assistant Police Chief (Female) Oh yeah. Oh, absolutely…Now keep in mind, I have to review them (investigations) too. And don’t think for a minute that when I

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

142

review it that I’m not thinking the entire time that this is going to the citizens’ review panel. I will make sure, just from my standpoint and the PD’s standpoint, I don’t want to produce a subpar product to put before people who are assessing and evaluating us, not only our behavior on a certain night, but I think it is also an evaluation and assessment of our investigation (process). So as a result I can tell you, at least if it is in my chain of command…it’s hard to get stuff by me because I read it and I read it with a really critical eye…It (the investigation) has to be thorough and every detail uncovered or addressed, and then an explanation given…I do believe it (the citizens’ review panel) has made the quality of our internal investigations much better. ƒ

Assistant City Attorney You know what I think it has done is force the investigators to articulate themselves better because of the fact that they do have to give these oral presentations in addition to their documentation. So obviously they become more skilled with the PowerPoint and all that stuff and having to stand up there and give presentations...I think that’s been a benefit.

ƒ

Assistant Police Chief (Male) It is an incentive for management to do the right things because if goes to citizen review board you better have your t’s crossed and and your i’s dotted.

ƒ

Internal Affairs Sergeant I’m pretty conscientious and anal about my investigations, but this makes me even more so in the sense that I will think about it...like when I am typing something and it is a sticky point that is hard to articulate it makes me think more about “How is this going to sound,” and so I sit and say “Okay, if I’m a citizen that doesn’t have the knowledge that I have right now, how is this going to sound, what are they going to think of it, is there a better way to explain it, is there one more thing I should do to cover that base?”

Findings: Assessing Goal Achievement

143

It’s not a fear, but it’s an incentive to do the most thorough investigation. Observations Observations that validated that the Tempe oversight system has improved the complaint process in the Tempe Police Department came primarily from Police stakeholder interviews and observing presentations provided by investigators to sub-panels. Most of this information is qualitative, however, when all involved Police stakeholders confirm assumptions that the process should make investigators pay more attention and think about the fact that their investigation may go to the panel, it is evident that the oversight process has positively affected the complaint system in the Tempe Police Department. DEGREE TO WHICH THE OVERSGHT PROCESS IMPACTED LITIGATION AGAINST THE TEMPE POLICE DEPARTMENT Interview Responses of Police and City Stakeholders Question: Do you think the existence of the citizen oversight in Tempe has decreased or has the potential to decrease litigation facing the Police Department? ƒ

Assistant City Attorney Yeah, I do. I think in a broad sense…if the citizens’ review panel has found that we have acted within reason, we can still be sued….You know, we’re being sued for this, but was this outrageous behavior? Would this shock the conscious? And if we say that we’ve put this through our citizens’ review panel, we showed them all of the things we are showing the court today, and as members of our community or population they were not shocked or upset…and they felt that that our policies were within reason our officers acted appropriately. And even if it goes the other way, I think the penalties are lessened knowing that an outside body reviewed it….It’s the same as a jury looking at it, in my

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

144

opinion….It can also assist in determining when we should settle a case…It can absolutely influence the decisions we (the Police Department) make in terms of litigation. ƒ

Police Chief I think in the long run it will help our litigation, because as I have said several times, it is an incentive to do good policing. One of these days it may be used as a club to beat us up, but I think over the long run the fact that the panel exists and we have a good review process I think it helps promote professionalism which over the long run will reduce our liability exposure.

Observations Little information was provided that could conclude that the oversight system would impact the amount of litigation against the Police Department. Specifically, there was no measurable change in the number of claims made against the Police Department since the implementation of the Tempe panel. Litigation appears to be a variable that will need to be evaluated over a longer period of time to determine whether or not the citizen oversight panel has had any impact on litigation.

Findings: Assessing Goal Achievement

145

MAJOR FINDINGS z z

z

z

z

z

z

Citizen panel members reported that they had a high degree of trust in fellow panel members and Police and City representatives. Citizen panel members reported that they had a high degree of trust in the panel process to date; however, several concerns about potential weaknesses in the Tempe oversight system were acknowledged. Of specific concern were issues related to the structure and administration of the Tempe panel that could be perceived to have a Police Department bias. Citizen panel members became more aware of the inner workings of the Police Department as a result of their participation on the panel. Most of this has evolved from required training, ride-alongs with officers, and discussions that emerged during sub-panel review sessions and related interactions with Police personnel involved in the oversight process. Citizens throughout the community have not become more aware of the inner workings of the Police Department as a result of Tempe oversight panel. Communication between citizen panel members and the Police Department increased since the establishment of the panel; however, communication between the Police Department and citizens at large did not increase. Citizen panel members had complete access to information associated to incidents reviewed by sub-panels. All documentation and materials the Police Department had on an investigations that were to be reviewed by sub-panels were provided to the panel members. It appears that more time is needed to determine the impact the panel may have on litigation.

146 z

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police Although not all variables, or intermediate effects, were realized at the conclusion of this study it was evident through those that were realized, that the Tempe oversight panel has achieved, to a degree, the long-term objectives identified by the Police Department executive staff.

CHAPTER 8

Findings: Assessing Confidence in the Police

This component of the evaluation incorporated a longitudinal survey of Tempe citizens to assess the role the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force had on promoting public confidence in the Tempe Police Department. Survey data was collected in October 2001 and October 2002. RESPONSES In 2001, a total of 1,796 individuals were contacted and 651 (36%) met the criteria of being eighteen years or older and a citizen of Tempe, and also agreed to respond to the survey. In 2002, a total of 1,031 individuals were contacted and 402 (39%) met the necessary criteria and agreed to respond to the survey. Demographic characteristics of respondents from both surveys were consistent with the Census data for Tempe, Arizona outlined in Chapter Six. Generally, respondents were young, well-educated, and predominantly White with significant numbers identifying as being of Hispanic or Latino origin. Approximately half of all respondents rented their residences, and half owned their residences. Although there is no comparable Census data on residency tenure, it is important to recognize the large percentage of respondents that had lived in Tempe for three or fewer years. In 2001, 50% of all respondents had lived in Tempe for three or fewer years. In 2002, 74% of all respondents had lived in Tempe for three or fewer years.

147

148

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF CITIZEN OVERSIGHT Hypothesis: Citizens’ Familiarity with the Concept of Citizen Oversight This hypothesis proposed that Tempe citizens would not be familiar with the concept of citizen oversight. Table 7 illustrates how familiar respondents were with the concept of citizen oversight. In both the 2001 and 2002 surveys, a large majority of citizens were not familiar with the concept of citizen oversight. When breaking down different variables associated with citizens’ familiarity with the concept of citizen oversight it was clear that education level and age of respondent played important roles. In the 2001 survey, 29% of all college graduates were familiar with the concept of citizen oversight compared to 18% of respondents that did not possess college degrees. In 2002, the numbers were lower for both groups, but college graduates as a group were still more familiar with citizen oversight (21%) compared to citizens who did not possess college degrees (11%). Familiarity with the concept of citizen oversight increased consistently as the age of respondents increased. In 2001, 57% of respondents over fifty years of age were familiar with the concept of citizen oversight compared to 28% of respondents age forty one to fifty, and 17% of respondents age forty or less. In 2002, 50% of respondents over fifty years of age were familiar with the concept of citizen oversight compared to 18% of respondents age forty one to fifty, and 11% of respondents age forty or less. Male respondents were also more familiar with the concept of citizen oversight than females in both the 2001 and 2002 surveys. In 2001, 25% of male respondents were familiar with the concept compared to 18% of female respondents. In 2002, 18% of male respondents were familiar with the concept compared to 11% of female respondents. Race was a factor for Native American respondents and those that identified as being of Hispanic or Latino origin. These groups’ familiarity with citizen oversight compared to that of White, Asian, or African American/Black respondents that did not identify as being of Hispanic or Latino origin was significantly lower. In both the 2001 and 2002 surveys, Native American respondents and those identifying as

Findings: Assessing Confidence in Police

149

TABLE 7 Citizens’ Familiarity with the Concept of Citizen Oversight Question 1: Are you familiar with the concept of civilian review, wherein citizens participate in the review of complaints against the police? 2001 Survey (N=651)

2002 Survey (N=390)

Yes

21.5%

14.1%

No

78.5%

85.9%

being of Hispanic or Latino origin were at least 50% less likely to be familiar with the concept of citizen oversight than any other group. This data supports the hypothesis that Tempe citizens were generally not aware of the concept of citizen oversight. Hypothesis: Citizens’ Awareness of the Tempe Panel This hypothesis proposed that citizens would not be aware that the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force existed. Table 8 shows that respondents were not likely to know that the Tempe panel existed. This finding was consistent in both the 2001 and 2002 surveys. Although education level and gender did not appear to be related to citizens’ awareness of the Tempe panel as it did with knowledge about the concept of citizen oversight generally, the awareness level of the Tempe panel increased consistently as the age of respondents increased. In 2001, 22% of respondents over fifty years of age were familiar with the Tempe panel compared to 15% of respondents age forty one to fifty, and 7% of respondents age forty or less. In 2002, 24% of respondents over fifty years of age were familiar with the concept of citizen oversight compared to 7% of respondents age forty one to fifty, and 5% of respondents age forty or less.

150

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

Respondents’ awareness that Tempe had an oversight panel also increased as the years of residency of respondents increased, although not as appreciably in the 2002 survey. In 2001, 5% of respondents living in Tempe three or fewer years were aware that Tempe had an oversight panel, compared to 8% of those living in Tempe for four to seven years, and 30% of those living in Tempe for more than seven years. In 2002, 6% of respondents living in Tempe three or fewer years were aware that Tempe had an oversight panel, compared to 9% of those living in Tempe four to seven years, and 11% of those living in Tempe more than seven years. Race appeared to be a factor in the level of awareness about Tempe’s panel for those respondents identifying as being of Hispanic or Latino origin. Only those identifying as being of Hispanic or Latino origin, as a group, had consistently lower awareness levels of the Tempe panel than other groups. In 2001, only 3% of respondents identifying as being of Hispanic or Latino origin were aware that Tempe had a citizen oversight panel, compared to 12% of White and 6.5% of other minority group respondents that did not identify as being of Hispanic or Latino origin. In 2002, no respondents (0%) identifying as being of Hispanic or Latino origin were aware that Tempe had a citizen oversight panel, compared to 9% of White and 10% of other minority group respondents that did not identify as being of Hispanic or Latino origin. This data supports the hypothesis that Tempe citizens were generally not aware that Tempe had a citizen oversight system. Hypothesis: Citizens’ Knowledge of the Process to Have a Complaint Reviewed by the Panel This hypothesis proposed that those citizens that were aware that the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force existed would not know the process to have a complaint reviewed by the Tempe panel. Table 9 demonstrates that a majority of respondents that were aware that the Tempe panel existed were not knowledgeable about the process to have a complaint reviewed by the panel. This finding was consistent in both the 2001 and 2002 surveys. No demographic variables were significant among the individuals that responded to this question. This data supports the hypothesis that

Findings: Assessing Confidence in Police

151

TABLE 8 Citizens’ Awareness of the Tempe Panel Question 2: Are you aware that the Tempe Police Department has a civilian review mechanism called the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force? 2001 Survey (N=651)

2002 Survey (N=390)

Yes

10.6%

7.2%

No

89.4%

92.8%

TABLE 9 Citizens’ Knowledge of the Process to Have a Complaint Reviewed by the Tempe Panel Question 2a: If yes, do you know the process to have a complaint against a Tempe Police Officer reviewed by the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force? 2001 Survey (N=69)

2002 Survey (N=28)

Yes

30.4%

39.3%

No

69.6%

60.7%

152

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

Tempe citizens who did know that Tempe had an oversight panel would not know the process to have a complaint reviewed by the panel. Hypothesis: Support for Citizen Involvement in the Review of Complaints Against Police Officers This hypothesis proposed that citizens would support the involvement of citizens in the review of complaints against Tempe Police Officers. Table 10 shows that most respondents supported citizen involvement in the review of complaints against Tempe Police Officers. This was consistent in both the 2001 and 2002 surveys. When breaking down different variables associated with citizens’ support for the involvement of citizens in the review of complaints against Tempe Police Officers, education played a minor role, while the age of the respondent played a larger role. In the 2001 survey, 92% of all college graduates supported the involvement of citizens in the review of complaints against Tempe Police Officers compared to 86% of those respondents that did not possess college degrees. In 2002, college graduates were still more supportive of the involvement of citizens in the review of complaints against Tempe Police Officers (88%) compared to citizens who did not possess college degrees (81%). Interestingly, as the age of the respondent increased, the level of support to have citizens involved in the review of complaints against Tempe Police Officers decreased. This was particularly evident in those respondents over fifty years of age. In 2001, 85% of respondents over fifty years of age supported the involvement of citizens in the review of complaints against Tempe Police Officers, compared to 89% of respondents age fifty or less. In 2002, 70% of respondents over fifty years of age supported the involvement of citizens in the review of complaints against Tempe Police Officers compared to 90% of respondents fifty years of age or less. This data supports the hypothesis that citizens would support the involvement of citizens in the review of complaints against Tempe Police Officers.

Findings: Assessing Confidence in Police

153

TABLE 10 Citizens’ Support for Citizen Involvement in the Review of Complaints Against Tempe Police Officers Question 3: Do you support civilian involvement in the review of complaints against Tempe Police Officers? 2001 Survey (N=651)

2002 Survey (N=390)

Yes

89.4%

85.6%

No

10.6%

14.4%

Hypothesis: Minority Citizens’ Support for Citizen Involvement in the Review of Complaints Against Police Officers This hypothesis proposed that minority citizens would support the involvement of citizens in the review of complaints against Tempe Police Officers at a higher rate than non-minority citizens. Table 11 shows that minority respondents did not support the involvement of citizens in the review of complaints against Tempe Police Officers at a higher rate than non-minority respondents. This finding is contrary to the literature as well as the stated hypothesis. Since the literature surrounding citizen oversight has addressed the large role African American/Black citizens and groups have traditionally played in pursuing citizen oversight, further assessment was done to determine if African American/Black respondents as a single minority group would support including citizens in the review of complaints against Tempe Police Officers at a higher rate than other groups. The data did not confirm a finding that

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

154

TABLE 11 Minority Citizens’ Support for Citizen Involvement in the Review of Complaints Against Tempe Police Officers

Question 3: Do you support civilian involvement in the review of complaints against Tempe Police Officers? 2001 Survey (N=651)

2002 Survey (N=390)

NonMinority

Minority

NonMinority

Minority

Yes

89.6%

87.5%

88.9%

82.3%

No

10.4%

12.5%

11.1%

17.7%

African American/Black respondents consistently supported the inclusion of citizens in the review of complaints against Tempe Police Officers at higher rates than other groups. In 2001, 92% of African American/Black respondents stated that they supported the inclusion of citizens in the review of complaints against Tempe Police Officers compared to 90% of White respondents, and 87% of other minority groups combined. In 2002, 70% of African American/Black respondents stated that they supported the inclusion of citizens in t he review of complaints against Tempe Police Officers, compared to 89% of White respondents, and 75% of other minority groups combined. Hypothesis: Level of Confidence in the Police as a Result of Citizen Oversight This hypothesis proposed that public confidence in the Tempe Police Department would increase when the public became aware that that the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of

Findings: Assessing Confidence in Police

155

TABLE 12 Level of Public Confidence in the Tempe Police Department as a Result of Citizen Oversight Being Established in Tempe Question 4: To what extent has your confidence in the Tempe Police Department changed knowing that the Department now utilizes a civilian review panel? 2001 Survey 2002 Survey (N=651) (N=390) Greatly Increased

7.7%

7.5%

Somewhat Increased

32.6%

25.4%

Not Changed

59.1%

63.2%

Somewhat Decreased

0.6%

1.0%

Greatly Decreased

0.0%

0.0%

Force existed. Table 12 illustrates that public confidence in the Tempe Police Department increased substantially as a result of respondents’ knowledge that Tempe had a citizen oversight panel. The number of respondents that indicated that their confidence in the Tempe Police Department decreased in any way after knowing that the Tempe panel existed was negligible. No demographic variables were significant among the individuals that responded to this question. This data supports the hypothesis that citizens’ level of confidence in the Tempe Police Department increased as a result of the citizen oversight being established in Tempe. The caveat, however, is that citizens must know about the panel.

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

156 MAJOR FINDINGS z z

z z

z z

z

Most Tempe citizens were not familiar with the concept of citizen oversight. Citizens’ awareness of citizen oversight increased as education levels increased and as age increased. Men were more likely to be familiar with the concept of citizen oversight than women, and individuals identifying as being of Hispanic or Latino or Native American origin were significantly less likely to be aware of the concept of citizen oversight than all other groups. Most Tempe citizens were not aware that Tempe has a citizen oversight panel. Among those Tempe citizens that were aware that Tempe has a citizen oversight panel, only a handful of individuals were aware of the process to have a complaint reviewed by the panel. Most Tempe citizens supported the involvement of citizens in the review of complaints against Tempe Police Officers. Tempe citizens who were minorities did not, as a group, consistently support the involvement of citizens in the review of complaints against Tempe Police Officers at higher rates than citizens who were not minorities. Public confidence in the Tempe Police Department increased substantially when Tempe citizens became aware that the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force existed.

CHAPTER 9

Overview of Findings

The first objective of this study was to determine if the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force was implemented and administered as intended. Given the political stability of the oversight system, the purpose of this element of the study was to identify information that could assist the City of Tempe and the Tempe Police Department in improving the panel. With minor exceptions, the panel was implemented and administered as intended and as outlined in the ordinance. Given the relatively loose parameters of the ordinance, however, several structural and administrative weaknesses were identified that were not anticipated by stakeholders when the panel was developed and implemented. Through the entire research process, all involved stakeholders appeared to be genuinely interested in and committed to enhancing the system to make it more effective and ensure its continued success and existence. The second objective of this study was to determine the degree to which the broad goals established for Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force were achieved. An examination of the relationship between independent variables identified as potential contributors to goal achievement and actual goal achievement revealed that the established goals for the oversight system were met to varying degrees. Trust in the oversight process was clearly the strongest, and perhaps most important, element of success in the Tempe oversight system to date. It is also the element that is most at risk if administrative weaknesses in the system are not addressed.

157

158

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

The final objective of this study was to identify the impact the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force had on promoting public confidence in the Tempe, Arizona Police Department. This objective was pursued to determine if the panel was perceived to be worthwhile from a public perspective. Longitudinal data from two citizen surveys demonstrated that Tempe citizens did indeed perceive the panel to be worthwhile. This component of the study validated the Police Department’s assumption that citizen oversight would promote confidence in the Tempe Police Department when citizens were aware the panel was in place. It also demonstrated, however, that most citizens were not aware that the panel existed. The three components of this evaluation were directly tied to the logic model presented in Chapter Four as Figure 1. The assumptions of the logic model were that a well-developed and administered oversight system would lead to intermediate effects, that if accomplished, would lead to goal achievement. This logic model proved to be valuable in tying the three objectives of the study together, and illustrated how weaknesses in the development and administration of the oversight system impacted the degree to which intermediate effects were realized, and ultimately the extent of goal achievement. It is important to note that the Tempe panel was implemented and administered as originally intended; however, after actually having the panel in place for three years the weaknesses in the system have become apparent. These weaknesses could not have been fully anticipated during the development and initial implementation of the panel. PARTICIPATION IN THE OVERSIGHT SYSTEM Who Participates and Why? The motivation for citizens to participate in citizen oversight in Tempe was generally twofold. Some participated for the broad purposes of improving the Police Department and ultimately the community; others served for personal motives such as getting more involved in the dayto-day operations of the Police Department or providing a particular perspective on the panel. Kweit & Kweit (1981) would refer to these motives for participation as individual and societal. Citizens on the

Overview of Findings

159

Tempe panel typically had both individual and societal motives for participating. It is important to recognize the significance of citizens participating for reasons other than solely self-interest, because much of the citizen participation literature focuses on the importance of developing strong relationships between public administrators and citizens—relationships that would be difficult to attain in environments of conflict and narrow self-interest. This is particularly important when considering citizen oversight since adversarial relationships may be effective in the short-term to serve as catalysts for change, but that long term effectiveness requires mutual cooperation, respect for differences of opinion, and the development of long term relationships. The Tempe Police Department’s primary motive for pursuing and implementing citizen oversight was on an individual level, with the organization pursuing broad, yet self-interested motives for participating. These motives were to gain legitimacy, employ additional accountability measures, and further community policing goals—all self-interested organizational motives aimed at gaining continued support from the community. This support is necessary to maintain authority and acquire necessary resources. This is not to say that the Tempe Police Department was not interested in improving government, it is simply recognizing that implementing the Tempe oversight panel was a strategy to accomplish specified goals. Citizens that participated in the oversight system as panel members were not demographically representative of Tempe. Typically, those that participated were more likely to be men, older, well-educated, and long-time residents of Tempe. Police Department panel members were primarily involved as a result of their formal role in the organization. Police Officer and Sergeant panel members were intended to be pulled from a pool of interested and qualified candidates by the Chief and executive staff; however, administrative weaknesses in the system allowed one Police panel to be added to the panel based on organizational convenience. What Does Participation Entail? Although not fully representative of the community, it is important to note that citizen panel members were directly involved in the participatory process and better represented the ordinary citizen than

160

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

other forms of citizen oversight often do. Many oversight systems throughout the United States have the perceived benefit of being fully independent from the law enforcement agency they are responsible for overseeing, but often create another level of bureaucracy that further removes citizens from directly participating in the review of complaints against police officers. Without this direct participation in the process from citizens, oversight would solely provide an additional accountability mechanism rather than a dual purpose of providing additional accountability while also fulfilling community policing strategies. Promoting Participation The Tempe Police Department has been very effective at promoting participation and collaboration in actual panel related activities. This is primarily due to the proactive approach that the Tempe Police Department used to establish the oversight system and the open and honest environment they have created for citizen panel members. Chrislip and Larson (1994) suggest that the foundation of collaborative participation involves good timing, strong leadership, support from established authorities, and overcoming mistrust and skepticism, and these issues were appropriately addressed by the Police Department at the onset of the development of the Tempe oversight system. Further, more specific elements were included in the administration of panel activities that have proven to be effective, including the use of small informal groups to increase participation, providing all information related to complaints and investigations to participants, prohibiting panel activities to be open to the public or aired on television, providing practical assistance and training to participants, and promoting open and interactive communication among citizen panel members and Police Department representatives. The Police Department has been effective at facilitating the process and minimizing the participatory requirements and burdens of citizen panel members so participants can focus their participatory efforts on the issues at hand rather than on administrative or other ancillary issues. Conversely, the Tempe Police Department has not been effective at promoting participation in the process from a broad community perspective. Little emphasis has been placed on marketing the panel to

Overview of Findings

161

potential panel members or complainants in the community. In fact, during interviews it was apparent that City and Police stakeholders, as well as some citizen stakeholders, did not necessarily want information about the existence of the panel to be well known in the community due to fears that the system would be misused by some citizens, which in the end, may minimize the legitimacy of the oversight system. Communicating the existence of the panel to the community is one aspect of citizen oversight wherein there is strong consensus from academics and practitioners. If information about the citizen oversight system is not effectively communicated to the public, the benefit of gaining support from the citizenry at large is lost; and providing information to affected or disenfranchised parts of the community that may feel they need the panel the most is critical. Finally, if the oversight system is intended to improve accountability in the Tempe Police Department, it is important that concerns from citizens get to the panel to be reviewed, regardless of whether or not appeals are initially perceived as insignificant or without merit. IMPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS From a theoretical perspective, research findings validated most of the literature regarding the benefits of citizen oversight. In essence, the findings demonstrated, as expected, that a well developed and administered citizen oversight system would lead to beneficial intermediate effects, and ultimately favorable long term effects for the law enforcement agency and its respective community. From a practical perspective, findings provided tangible evidence that citizen oversight in Tempe, Arizona, has been effective. It also demonstrated that there is a need to continue to evaluate the oversight system in Tempe and make improvements when necessary. Most importantly, it confirmed that the Tempe Police Department complaint process possessed integrity, which refers to the quality of the process; possessed legitimacy, which refers to how stakeholders perceived the system; and that the Police Department learned from the process. These are the criteria Perez (1994) said were essential to assess when evaluating the complaint process, and Walker (2001) considered important in the assessment of citizen oversight.

162

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

LIMITATIONS OF STUDY As with any study, there are limitations that preclude the research from being as in-depth or as comprehensive as one would like, or shortcomings are realized following the data collection process. The primary limitations of this study included the small number of citizen panel members that were interviewed, the lack of specific interview responses to every question asked of stakeholders, the precision of the survey questions used in the Tempe Police Department’s Annual Citizen Survey to collect data on Tempe citizens’ knowledge and perceptions of the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force, and the fact that the panel did not disagree with the findings of the investigators in any cases that went to the panel for review. Although interviewing five of fifteen citizen panel members provided the necessary information to validate assumptions about the level of goal achievement the Tempe oversight system had attained, the citizen interviews were incredibly interesting and would have provided additional context to the entire study. On the flip side, so much information was acquired through all stakeholder interviews that only a fraction of that information actually made it into the study findings, although the information not specifically included did provide context for the larger study. Another limitation with the interviews resulted from the flexibility given to respondents in straying from specific questions during actual interviews. In an effort not to repeat certain elements in the discussion, some questions were skipped when it appeared the questions had been fully answered elsewhere in the interview. This became difficult to address when using quotes from the actual interviews, particularly given that the overall responses from interviews had to be condensed to fit within the framework of the study. This was particularly evident with responses related to whether or not the Tempe panel had increased citizen panel members’ awareness of the inner workings of the Police Department. Another limitation was the clarity of the actual survey questions used to collect broad data from the population of Tempe residents about the Tempe panel. In an effort to collect longitudinal data from Tempe citizens, questions related to the Tempe panel were developed two

Overview of Findings

163

years prior to the conclusion of this study. As a result, much more knowledge was acquired about citizen oversight and the Tempe panel since data were collected from the first survey. Had this knowledge been available at the onset, different language would have been used. As example, citizens were asked questions about civilian review since that was the familiar terminology at the onset of the study. Since then, the literature has revealed that the term citizen oversight better served to describe the concept and practice of having citizens who are not sworn police officers involved in the review of complaints against Police Officers (Walker, 2001). Although there is no consensus on the exact terminology, it was determined that the term citizen oversight was more appropriate than the term civilian review for this study. There is the potential that using the term citizen oversight rather than civilian review may have altered responses from some respondents. Finally, given that the panel did not disagree with the findings of investigators in any of the cases reviewed since the implementation of the panel, it is difficult to deduce if or how the assessment of panel’s effectiveness would have changed if such a conflict existed. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH On a micro level, evaluative information needs to be routinely collected on the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Complaints and Use of Force to assess its effectiveness over the long run. In addition to examining the structure and administrative processes, success at accomplishing intermediate and ultimately long term goals, and the perception of Tempe citizens about the process, specific performance indicators need to be developed that measure the activity of the panel and the outcomes of the panel. On a macro level, it is critical that broad evaluative criteria be established to provide a framework from which to assess the efficacy of variant oversight systems. Providing tangible information on the merit of oversight systems will serve to either validate the effectiveness of oversight systems or require those that are deemed not effective to make changes that will enhance the role and value those systems play in their respective communities.

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER 10

Conclusion and Recommendations

The general conclusion of this evaluation of the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force is that, to date, the system is working well due to the integrity of the individuals involved and their desire for the citizen oversight system to affect positive change in the Police Department and the community. However, several structural and administrative weaknesses need to be addressed to provide more stability and legitimacy to the process. It is clear that the citizen oversight system in Tempe needs to continue to evolve and take advantage of the trust that has been developed between Police Department representatives and citizen panel members to institutionalize the oversight system and ensure its continued existence. It is important to note that when I began this study I was supportive of the concept of citizen oversight, but was very critical of what I perceived to be a very pro police system being developed in Tempe. Although several of my pro police concerns were validated, the research process also gave me much more confidence in the citizen oversight process in Tempe, and assurance that the foundation that has been laid can, with some time and attention, mature into a model citizen oversight system. I have also realized that although the Tempe panel lacks the independence and decision making authority that is often attributed to quality oversight mechanisms, without the direct involvement of citizens, the Tempe oversight system would not truly be a citizen oversight system, nor would it be able to serve as a function of the Police Department’s community policing philosophy. Finally, as much of the literature suggests, I found that the effectiveness and the success of the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force was a direct result of the good intentions and efforts 165

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

166

of the individuals involved. Both citizen panel members and Police Department representatives demonstrated throughout the research process that they wanted the citizen oversight system to provide value and serve as a catalyst for change, where necessary; and to serve as a tool to ensure that the Tempe Police Department continues to build on what is already being done well. RECOMMENDATIONS Who Participates z

z

z

z

Strong consideration needs to be given to removing the Assistant Chief (formerly the Division Commander) assigned to the panel as a voting panel member. This is important in order to avoid any real or perceived conflict of interest between the Assistant Chief’s role as a panel member and role as a Police Department executive staff member. In addition, it removes the almost independent authority this single position in the organizational hierarchy has over the citizen oversight system. This would require a change to the ordinance. If the Assistant Chief position is removed as a voting member of the panel, this position should be designated as the facilitator of the process, and the title of Chairperson should be removed. This would ensure that top-level leadership and attention is still given to the oversight system. Changing the formal role of this position would require a change to the ordinance. Consideration should be given to including an additional citizen to sit on sub-panel review sessions, increasing the number from five to six. This will ensure that members of the larger panel are used more frequently and increase the level of citizen involvement and representation on the panel. This would require a change to the ordinance. To address complaint appeals that may come to the panel involving civilian Police Department employees, consideration should be

Conclusion and Recommendations

167

given to inviting an appropriate expert to any sub-panel review session wherein a complaint against a civilian Police employee is reviewed. This expert should work in or have specific knowledge of the work area wherein the complaint was initiated. z

z

z

z

z

Citizens who are current police officers, sheriff’s deputies, or other sworn law enforcement officers should not be permitted to serve on the panel. Citizens who are former police officers, sheriff’s deputies, or other sworn law enforcement officers should be out of law enforcement for a minimum of two years before being permitted to serve on the panel. This will minimize concerns from citizens at large and citizen panel members that the panel is stacked with individuals that may have particular agendas favoring the police perspective as a result of their respective backgrounds. This would require a change to the ordinance. Former Tempe Police Officers and Tempe Police Department employees should not be permitted to serve on the panel. This too should be included in the ordinance. All parameters required by citizens to participate on the panel should be included in the ordinance rather than any administrative documentation. This will ensure that criteria cannot be changed without involvement from other parts of the City government infrastructure. The diversity of citizen panel members needs to be addressed by formalizing the requirement that citizen panel members be representative of the community. When the Mayor and Council make selections of new citizen panel members, the current make up of the panel should be reviewed to ensure that citizen panel members represent the community to the degree possible. This would require a change to the ordinance. Expand the number of Police representatives that have the opportunity to serve on the panel. Ideally, two Police Officers and two Police Sergeants should be selected and a random draw could determine which Police Officer and which Police Sergeant sits on a

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

168

particular sub-panel. This allows more involvement and precludes the same two Police panel members from sitting on every subpanel review. At minimum, an alternate Police Officer and Police Sergeant should be selected to make the sub-panel review scheduling process easier and provide a backup should a Police panel member need to recuse themselves due to a conflict of interest. What Participation Entails •

z

z

z

z

By far, the most important recommendation provided in this study is that the Tempe Police Department document the administrative policies and procedures associated with the oversight panel. This information needs to be appropriately maintained and accessible to panel members and the public. Without this information, the administrative process appears to be largely discretionary. Preclude the Police Chief from bringing any issue that is complaint driven to the panel until after the time frame for a citizen to appeal a complaint to the panel has expired. Provide parameters for what types of issues or incidents the Chief of Police will bring forward to the panel for review. This will minimize any concerns that certain incidents are brought to the panel by the Police Chief for review, while others are not. Develop a mechanism to ensure that citizen and Police panel members are rotated off of the panel when their respective terms expire. A process should be developed to address what will occur should a sub-panel fail to agree or disagree with the findings of an investigation, but determine that further investigation is warranted. Since this has not occurred, it is not clear if the issue will be further investigated and brought back to the same sub-panel for review, a new sub-panel, or not brought back at all. It is also not clear who determines what further issues will be investigated. Is it

Conclusion and Recommendations

169

the sub-panel or Police personnel? This is a component that may need to be addressed in the ordinance. z

z

z

z

In use of force incidents, strong consideration should be given to removing the requirement for sub-panels to make determinations on whether or not the use of force was within policy. The determination of whether or not a sub-panel agrees with the results of an investigation is directly tied to whether or not the panel thinks the use of force was within policy. In addition, if significant tactical errors are made leading up to a use of force incident by a Police Department employee, but the use of force itself is within policy, the poor judgement on the part of Police Department employees is downplayed in the eyes of the panel as well as by involved employees. This would require a change to the ordinance. Develop a mechanism to continually evaluate the effectiveness of the Police Department’s complaint process and citizen oversight system. This may include providing feedback tools for complainants, involved Police Department employees, and citizen panel members. This will further perceptions of legitimacy and institutionalize change and flexibility as parts of the citizen oversight process. Citizens who appeal the results of a complaint investigation to the panel should be required to document this request and outline why they are not satisfied with the outcome of the complaint investigation. This documentation should be provided to sub-panel members prior to reviewing the incident. This will ensure that complainants’ concerns are brought to the panel in the words of the complainant. To make certain that all citizens have the opportunity to use the citizen oversight system, however, a mechanism needs to be developed that provides complainants an alternative to a typical written request to have a complaint appealed to the panel. This may include giving a complainant the opportunity to document their concerns in their native language or providing them the

170

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police means to verbally record their concerns. This information should then be given directly to the panel.

z

z

z

z

A mechanism needs to be developed to address situations wherein more information regarding an incident emerges that may impact the outcome of a sub-panel’s recommendations. For instance, if more information emerges after a sub-panel has reviewed an incident, a policy needs to be created to determine how such situations will be addressed. After receiving an inquiry from a citizen who may be interested in appealing a complaint investigation to the panel, a document should be provided to the citizen to inform of them of what their responsibilities are if they wish to have a complaint outcome appealed to the panel, the time frame that they must respond within, and the role of the panel—which is to review the complaint investigation, not to reinvestigate the complaint. This will ensure that the citizens’ expectations of the panel are realistic. Clarify language in the ordinance regarding police shootings being brought to the panel for review. Currently, the practice is to bring all police shootings to the panel, regardless of whether or not a subject was actually hit, but the ordinance states in Section 2-288 c.1. that “All police shootings and police incidents when direct physical force by the Police results in serious injury or death.” If the language is not clarified, it could be interpreted in the future by others involved in the process that only shootings that resulted in serious injury or death were required to be reviewed. This would require a change in the ordinance. Clarify language in the ordinance regarding which Police Department employees can participate as panel members. Currently, the ordinance states in Section 2-287. b. that “The three (3) Police members shall consist of one (1) Division Commander, who shall serve for indefinite term, one (1) first line Supervisor, and one (1) line Officer, both of who shall serve for a two-year term.” Since the intent was to have a Police Officer and a Police Sergeant sit on the panel, this should be clearly articulated. In

Conclusion and Recommendations

171

addition, the language needs to be changed in reference to the Assistant Chief involved with the panel. If the position is not removed as a voting member, the title needs to change from Division Commander to Assistant Chief. If the position is removed as a voting member, the title and any formal role the position will play in the process needs to be articulated. This would require a change to the ordinance. •

•

•

A quorum of six should be required for sub-panels rather than a quorum of five. This is particularly important if the Assistant Chief that serves as the panel Chairperson is not removed as a voting panel member since a quorum of five could potentially include only two citizen panel members. Even if the Assistant Chief is removed as the Chairperson, it is important that a quorum of more than five be required since the ordinance mandates the affirmative vote of five panel members rather than a majority. Should a quorum contain only five panel members, one individual has the ability to affect the outcome of the review. In addition, no decision regarding a review could be made if one of five panel members dissented since the required affirmative vote of five members could not be met. Citizen sub-panel members should be selected at random by the City Manager. Given that an almost random selection already occurs given the diverse schedules of participants, there is little reason not to make the selections random. This would greatly increase the confidence panel members and citizens have in the oversight system. In addition, if the larger issue of ensuring that a representative panel is selected by the Mayor and Council, the justification of wanting to ensure sub-panels are adequately representative is moot. Given that the panel cannot make recommendations or decisions regarding discipline of an employee, consideration should also be given to removing the authority of the panel to provide commendations to employees. This would provide consistency in the panel’s authority to address, through the review of independent

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police

172

incidents, organization-wide issues rather than employee specific issues. This would require a change to the ordinance. •

•

•

At sub-panel review sessions, technology should be used to share relevant information with the entire group during actual meetings. At each sub-panel that is convened, a document that outlines the conclusions of the incident review should be finalized during the course of the meeting. This includes a sign off sheet for all subpanel members that would allow them to designate whether they were in agreement or opposed to the final decision. In addition, all recommendations made by the sub-panel should be documented and reviewed during the course of the meeting so there is no room for misinterpretation. All information related to decision making should be viewed by the entire panel and all documents should be printed out at the meetings, signed off by panel members, and used as the official report of that sub-panel incident review. The final documentation should be provided to the Chief and executive staff. Strong consideration should be given to developing an annual report that provides a summary of the complaints that were appealed to the panel and the use of force incidents that occurred, as well as the activities of the panel. It is also important to include the recommendations that have been made by the panel and whether or not the Police Department implemented those recommendations. This will inform the citizens at large of the activities of the citizen oversight system in their community, and will also provide easily accessible information for any information purpose that should arise. Do not require citizens who appeal a complaint to pay for public records associated with the appeal.

Promoting Participation •

In addition to training provided to panel members by the Police Department, training needs to be provided to the panel by outside entities. This would provide the panel with alternative perspectives so they are better equipped to address issues that arise when

Conclusion and Recommendations

173

reviewing incidents. This balance in training would assist in maintaining neutrality and preclude panel members from being coopted by the Police. Police provided training should continue, but complementary outside training needs to be included as well. This can include training from police accountability experts, defense or civil rights attorneys, prosecutors, judges, risk managers, experts in mediation, and a variety of other topics. This would require resources and the need to develop an administrative process regarding how such training would be selected and when it would be provided. •

•

•

z

Provide all panel members with a summary reference document that they can have in their possession when involved in panel activities. This reference document should include the citizen oversight ordinance, established policies and procedures, a glossary of terms, and other information panel members may find valuable in accomplishing their work. The City should consider providing a budget for the panel to pay for training by outside entities, to purchase documents and other resources related to citizen oversight, and to allow panel participation in networking opportunities with citizen oversight academics, experts, and members from other jurisdictions. Decisions on how to spend this money should be made by the panel. It is important to communicate with panel members what ultimately happens with cases after recommendations are made to the Police Chief. A written response should be provided to subpanel members within a specified time period following the review of an incident. If the Chief of Police does not follow the recommendations of the sub-panel, a meeting should be scheduled for the Police Chief to meet with members of the sub-panel to discuss why their recommendations were not followed.

174 z

z

z

z

z

z

Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police Given the increasing use of the internet, a web page should be dedicated to the panel, and should be easy to access and navigate. The page should include facts about the panel, information on how to make a complaint and appeal the outcome of a complaint investigation, an overview of the process to become a panel member, relevant contact information, hyperlinks to related websites, and copies of any documentation appropriate for public disclosure, such as an Annual Report of panel activities. Information regarding the panel and how to file a complaint should be made available on the web and in other related documentation in Spanish as well as English. The transient nature of Tempe reinforces the importance of continuing to educate the community on the efforts of the Tempe Police Department, and particularly on the existence of citizen oversight. Community outreach needs to be on-going, and includes using the media, sharing information about the panel to neighborhood associations and other Boards and Commissions, and using other City information sharing mechanisms such as the cable network, water billings, and Council Issue Review Sessions to update the Council and community on the panel. Discontinue the golf pass benefits provided to Police Department panel members since they are already compensated as part of their regular work schedule for their participation. The Tempe Police Department as an agency should consider membership in the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE). This would keep the Police Department up-to-date on issues regarding police accountability and citizen oversight to make sure that the Tempe panel continues its path of progressive growth and citizen involvement. Panel members should also use NACOLE as well as the Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC) as information resources. More marketing on the panel needs to be done both internally and externally. Given that the purpose of the citizen oversight system

Conclusion and Recommendations

175

and the benefits that are expected to be derived from the citizen oversight system result from the perception the public has of the Police Department, it is critical that people know that the panel exists. In addition, it is important that individuals within the organization know the panel exists and learn more about it so they better understand and trust the process.

This page intentionally left blank

APPENDIX A

Civilian Review Panel Observation Sheet

Panel Specifics Incident: Incident Date: Panel Date: Panel Members Participating: Citizen 1: Citizen 2: Citizen 3: Citizen 4: Citizen 5: Officer: Sergeant: ACOP: Cmdr: City Attorney: Internal Affairs Sgt: Officer(s) Involved:

177

178

Documentation Documentation Available: Copy of PowePoint presentation? ______ Copy of Panel outcome form? ______ Other? _____

Room Arrangements Room Arrangements: Pros: Cons:

Group Dynamics Between Panel members and Police Department Staff:

Among/Between Panel members:

Appendix

Appendix

Summary of Panel Process General Notes: ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ Panel Member Participation: ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

Presenter Quality of Presentation:

Objectivity:

179

180

Procedure Was routine procedure followed?

Agree to Findings? Motions: Votes: Actions within Policy? Motions: Votes:

Recommendations to PD:

Motions: Votes:

Notes ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

Appendix

APPENDIX B

Interview Questions for Police Executive Staff

Interview Questions for Police Executive Staff Participant _____________________________ Date ___________________________________

1.

What role did you play in the Department’s early discussions on potentially implementing citizen oversight in Tempe? [Were you supportive? Did you have reservations?]

2.

How, if at all, have your perceptions changed since then?

3.

Did you play a role in planning the actual citizen oversight process that is now in place in Tempe? [If so, what was your role?].

4.

As the Chief, what role do you play in the citizen oversight process in Tempe?

5.

Are you comfortable with that role? [Is there anything you would change about your role?] 181

182

Appendix

6.

What do you think about the concept of citizen oversight generally? [Do you think it is good for the Police? Good for the community?]

7.

What do you think is going well with the citizen oversight process in Tempe?

8.

What do you think is not going well or could use improvement with the citizen oversight process in Tempe?

9.

What do you think about the parameters of the ordinance that first established and now guide the citizen oversight process in Tempe? [Are they adequate? Do they need to be revised/updated?]

10. What are your thoughts on the structure of the panel itself—having a larger panel and then selecting small panels for each panel convened?

11. Do you think the process of selecting the larger panel is adequate and/or appropriate? [Council selection]. What about the specific panels selected to review incidents? [City Manager selection]

12. Has there been any political fallout due to the selection of members for the larger panel by Council members? What about any political fallout due to the selection of a specific panel?

13. Do you think the larger board is actually representative of the community?

Appendix

183

14. Have you had any interaction with panel members? If so, please tell me about your interactions. [What type of interaction have and do you have? How do you think they perceive the process?]

15. Do you think the members of the panel are generally supportive of the Police Department? [If so, do you think they are too supportive?]

16. What do you think about the role of an Assistant Chief being a voting member in the process?

17. Do you have any concerns about the entire process being in a single chain of command?

18. Do you think the structure and policies associated with the panel are solid enough to withstand any police personnel being assigned to that function?

19. What do you think about the process in which information comes to you and the rest of the Command Staff? Are you concerned that the recommendations made by the panel could be watered down by the ‘messenger’?

20. What do you think about the training that is provided to the panel? Too much, too little, adequate in focus?

21. Do you think there has been an increase exchange of communication and information between the Police Department and the community?

22. Do you think citizens have become more involved in inner workings of the Police Department.

184

Appendix

23. Do you think the existence of citizen oversight in Tempe has improved the internal complaint investigation process?

24. Do you think the existence of the citizen oversight in Tempe has decreased or has the potential to decrease litigation facing the Police Department?

25. Do you think the citizen oversight process in Tempe has gained enough legitimacy to adequately address a highly charged policerelated incident? [Why or why not?]

26. Do you think there is adequate information provided to or available to citizens on the existence of the panel?

27. Do you think there is adequate information provided to or available to people on how to make a citizen complaint? How about enough information to bring an incident to the panel for review? [What suggestions do you have for improving this communication?]

28. Do you have any concerns about putting more information out about the panel? [Existence of? Summary of results in an annual report or other documentation?]

29. Do you think that everything that should have gone to the panel has gone to the panel?

Appendix

185

30. As the Chief, what kind of feedback, if any, have you received from the public generally? ƒ

What about your peers in the law enforcement community?

ƒ

What about the City Council?

ƒ

What about the City Manager?

31. What changes, if any would you make to the citizen oversight process in Tempe at this point and time?

This page intentionally left blank

APPENDIX C

Interview Questions for Panel Members

Interview Questions for Panel Members Participant ________________________ Date ______________________________

1.

What do you think about the concept of citizen oversight generally? [Do you think it is good for the Police? Good for the Community?]

2.

What were you thoughts/perceptions when you originally heard that Tempe was implementing a citizen oversight process?

3.

Have your thoughts/perceptions changed since then?

4.

Have you been involved in any other citizen involvement activities wherein you provided input to a governmental entity? If so, what was it?

5.

Did you pursue being a panel member on your own or were you asked to participate by a Council person? Please explain the process you went through. If it was on your own, what made you want to become a panel member? 187

188

Appendix

6.

What are your thoughts on the structure of the panel itself—having a larger board and then selecting small panels for each panel convened?

7.

What do you think of the process used to select the overall board? [The application process; Council appointing members, etc.]

8.

What about the process to select specific panel members for a review?

9.

Do you think the overall board is of appropriate size? What about the individual panels?

10. Do you feel that your peer panel members have the necessary skill, experience, and aptitude to full participate on the board?

11. Tell me about your interaction with PD personnel involved in the panel process. [What type of interaction do you have with PD personnel during the process.]

12. Do you think members of the panel are generally supportive of the Police Department? [If so, do you think they are too supportive?]

13. Do you think the larger panel is a good representation of the community? What about specific panels? What are your thoughts on the recommendations made at the recent training/refresher?

14. Do you think there has been an increase in the exchange of communication and information between the Police Department and the community as a result of the citizen oversight process? What about with panel members?

Appendix

189

15. Do you think citizens have become more involved in the inner workings of the Police Department as a result of the citizen oversight process? What about panel members?

16. Do you discuss your involvement, generally, as a participant on the panel with family, friends, co-workers, neighbors, etc.? If so, what has been the general context of these discussions?

17. Do you think the existence of citizen oversight in Tempe has improved the internal complaint investigation process?

18. Do you think the citizen oversight process in Tempe has gained enough legitimacy to adequately address a highly charged policerelated incident? Why or why not?

19. Do you feel that you have had open access to the information you needed to participate on the panel(s) you have been on to date?

20. Please describe the information that was made available to you and how you went about preparing for the panel(s).

21. Do you think that the actual information/documentation provided regarding specific investigations has been adequate in terms of detail, quality, and accuracy? Is it too much information?

22. What was the time frame you were given from the time you were notified of the panel to the time the actual panel convened? Was this adequate time to review the information?

23. How were you contacted to participate on a specific panel review?

190

Appendix

24. Have you heard anything from the Police Department regarding the final outcome of the incidents you reviewed as a panel member? Was this communication adequate?

25. Do you feel the panel meetings are administered/run efficiently?

26. Do you feel comfortable sharing your perspective/speaking your mind while participating on a panel?

27. Do you feel that you have ample opportunity to ask questions and participate in the actual panel review sessions?

28. Do you think that your views are given the same attention as other panel members during the panel review sessions you have participated in? Do you have any concerns about one or two individuals having too much influence on the rest of the group?

29. Has participating as a board/panel member influenced your thinking about the Tempe Police Department in any way?

30. Do you think the documentation you are provided on incidents is objective?

31. Do you think the presentations made by Internal Affairs personnel to the panel are objective?

32. Do you think the individual facilitating the panel sessions is objective?

Appendix

191

33. What would you change about the overall board in terms of process if you could?

34. What would you change about the panel process if you could?

35. Do you have any problems participating due to access issues; i.e. the time of the panel meetings, locations of the meetings, location of the investigation materials, etc.?

36. Do you think your fellow panel members listen and respect your points of view when you bring them up? What about the PD staff?

37. Are you comfortable with the role of the panel being advisory rather than a final decision maker?

38. Do you feel as though any members of the larger board have any personal agendas or political reasons for being involved?

39. What do you think is going well with the citizen oversight process in Tempe?

40. What do you think is not going well or could use improvement with the citizen oversight process in Tempe?

This page intentionally left blank

APPENDIX D

Tempe Citizens Survey Training Manual

TEMPE POLICE DEPARTMENT CRIME ANALYSIS UNIT TRAINING MANUAL FOR TEMPE PD’S CITIZEN SURVEY For the past several years, the Tempe Police Department's Crime Analysis Unit has conducted an annual survey of Tempe citizens. The survey contains approximately sixty questions that address the following areas: victimization, fear of crime, safety concerns, quality of life, community involvement, and satisfaction with the Tempe Police Department. You will use a laptop computer to conduct the survey and each survey should take about 5 to 10 minutes. Please follow these instructions to ensure the reliability of this survey. Thank you again from the CAU. ⇒ DIRECTIONS FOR CONDUCTING THE SURVEY

• • •

Make sure you have before you start:

1.

a pen a phone number/address sheet a sheet titled “Open Ended Questions.” Take your phone number sheet out and cross out the #1 in the upper left hand corner. This indicates to us that the numbers on this sheet has been called one time. Because we go through these 193

Appendix

194

sheet a number of times, it is important that you cross out the next number each time and that you keep the sheet as neat as possible so others can read it. 2.

To begin the program, double click on the Survey 2002 icon.

3.

Click on Start on the menu.

4.

Enter your social security number. This is for quality control. If we have questions about a particular survey after we are finished, we can call you to answer the question.

⇒ MAKING CALLS AND KEEPING TRACK Look on the Address/phone number sheet and call the first phone number.

•

•

•

• •

If no one is home and there is not an answering machine, check the box (neatly) marked no answer. If you contact an answering machine, DO NOT leave a message and put a check in the appropriate box. If the line is busy or if there is no adult present at the time, mark the respective boxes. If you do contact someone and it is a bad time for them, try to make an appointment for that night or the following night and mark it in the appropriate box. If you make an appointment for a later date, be sure to tell the person in charge for they will keep that sheet separate from the others so the appointment can be kept.

Once you start going over the lists for the second or third times, call the numbers that have not refused or have been completed.

•

Do not check the same box twice, just leave it. If line was busy is checked, but this time they are not home, check the appropriate box. Do the same if they refuse or complete the survey.

Appendix

195

⇒ SUCCESSFULLY CONTACTING A CITIZEN Once you have contacted someone, read the introduction to the citizen. If they refuse, mark that box distinctly so that no other surveyor will call that number (this is important in estimating the response rate). ⇒ IF CITIZEN AGREES TO COMPLETE THE SURVEY If they agree to do the survey, continue with the survey. The program will prompt you for responses for each question and will automatically move to the next question once you have entered the citizen’s response. ⇒ FINISHING THE SURVEY

•

•

•

•

When you get to the last box read the top line and hang up the phone. Before calling the next person, type in the corresponding address to the number that you called. Then press Continue. appear.

The first screen for a new survey will

When you are finished for the evening, leave the survey program on, turn in your call sheets and open ended question sheets.

NOTE: If you have problems or clicked the wrong button at any time, please ask the person to wait and raise your hand. We will right down the mistake and you will continue. It is important to do this ASAP so we can make note of the correct survey number in order to do the corrections later.

This page intentionally left blank

APPENDIX E

Tempe 2002 Citizens Survey

Questions from laptop survey program:

Frame 1: Please enter your identification number: Frame 2: “Hi, my name is ___________, and I am helping conduct a survey for the Tempe Police Department. You have been randomly chosen to answer this survey about the quality of life and policing in Tempe. The survey will take just a few minutes and is completely confidential—at no time will I ask for your name. Will you participate? Surveyor: If the respondent speaks only Spanish, document it on your call sheet and thank them for their time (they will be recontacted). 1.

Do you live in Tempe? Yes No

1a.

If yes, how long have you lived in Tempe? (If no, discontinue survey). ___ Years ___ Months

2.

Do you work in Tempe? Yes No

197

Appendix

198 3.

What is your age? ____ Years 18 or older but will not give age Less than 18 (If less than 18, discontinue survey)

4.

Are you currently a student at a college, community college, or vocational school? Yes No

5.

What is the highest level of education you have completed? Less than high school High school Some college Associate’s Degree Bachelor’s Degree Some graduate school Graduate Degree

6.

Do you live alone? Yes No

7.

Do you own or rent your residence? Own Rent

8.

How long have you lived at this residence? ___ Years ___ Months

“Now I have a few questions related to traffic in Tempe.” 9.

Do you feel that photo radar enforcement is an effective method to reduce traffic accidents? Yes No

Appendix

199

10.

Would you like to see more use of photo radar enforcement in Tempe Yes No

11.

Do you feel that red light photo enforcement is an effective method to reduce traffic accidents? Yes No

12.

Would you like to see more use of red light photo enforcement in Tempe? Yes No

13.

Have you ever received a citation for a moving traffic violation in Tempe? Yes No

13a.

If yes, was the citation the product of photo radar enforcement or red light photo enforcement? Yes No

“Now I have a few questions about your perceptions of crime in Tempe.” 14.

Have you been to downtown Tempe in the past 12 months? Yes No

15.

Do you think crime is a serious problem in downtown Tempe? Yes No

16.

Have you been to the Arizona Mills Mall in the past 12 months? Yes No

200

Appendix

17.

Do you think crime is a serious problem at the Arizona Mills Mall? Yes No

18.

Has there recently been a time when you wanted to go somewhere in Tempe but didn’t go because you thought it would be unsafe? Yes No

18a.

If yes, where? Open–ended

19.

Have you been to the Tempe Town Lake or the Tempe Beach Park in the past 12 months? (Connected geographic areas) Yes No

20.

Do you think crime is a serious problem at the Tempe Town Lake or the Tempe Beach Park? Yes No

“Now I’d like to ask you some questions about your neighborhood.” For the next six questions, answer on a scale of 1-10 (one being low): 21.

How serious is the amount of crime in Tempe?

22.

Overall, how safe is it to live in your neighborhood?

23.

How likely are you to become the victim of a crime while walking alone in your neighborhood at night?

24.

How likely is your house or other property to be damaged or burglarized?

Appendix

201

25.

Overall, how afraid are you of being the victim of a crime in Tempe?

26.

To what extend does the amount of police patrol in your neighborhood meet your expectations?

27.

When you see a patrol care in your neighborhood, do you feel: Safe, because there is a police presence Concerned, because there must be trouble when the police are around

28.

What are the most important issues concerning your neighborhood? Open-ended (e.g. personal safety, drugs, lighting, traffic, gangs, etc.)

29.

Who is most responsible for solving these problems? Police Community You as an individual

30.

What do you feel are the most important crime concerns within Tempe? Open-ended (e.g. theft, assault, sexual assault, auto theft, drugs, etc.)

31.

Do you know your neighborhood police officers by: Name Face Not at all

32.

Are you a member of any neighborhood organization (e.g. homeowner’s association, tenant group, crime watch, etc.)? Yes No

33.

How well do you know your neighbors? Not at all Somewhat Very well

202

Appendix

34.

If you had a problem, how likely is it that you could get help from a neighbor? Not at all likely Somewhat likely Very likely

For the next eight questions, answer on a scale fo 1-10 with regard to how much each of these things characterize your neighborhood (1 being low, 10 being high). 35.

My neighborhood is noisy.

36.

Vandalism is common in my neighborhood.

37.

People in my neighborhood do not take care of their homes and apartments.

38.

My neighborhood is dirty.

39.

There is a lot of graffiti in my neighborhood.

40.

There is a lot of drug use in my neighborhood.

41.

There are a lot of disruptive people in my neighborhood.

42.

There are a lot of unsupervised teenagers in my neighborhood.

“Now I’d like to ask you a few questions about the Tempe Police.” 43.

On a scale of 1-10, with one being low, how would you rate the quality of service provided by the Tempe Police Department? 1 through 10

44.

Have you ever had contact with a Tempe police officer? Yes No

Appendix 44a.

203

If yes to 44, what was the contact for? Open-ended

44b. If yes to 44, how would you grade the officer(s) (on a typical AF grading scale) that you came into contact with in regard to: Their professionalism Their responsiveness Their helpfulness Their respect 45.

Do you feel that the Tempe Police Department responds to its citizens on an equal basis? All of time Most of the time Some of the time Rarely Never

45a.

Please explain your answer. Open-ended

46.

Do you feel that the Tempe Police Department enforces the laws of the state in a fair and consistent manner? All of time Most of the time Some of the time Rarely Never

46a.

Please explain your answer. Open-ended

47.

Are you familiar with the concept of civilian review, wherein citizens participate in the review of complaints against the police? Yes No

204

Appendix

48.

Are you aware that the Tempe Police Department has a civilian review mechanism called the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for the Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force? Yes No

48a.

If yes to 48, do you know the process to have a complaint against a Tempe Police Officer reviewed by the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for the Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force? Yes No

49.

Do you support civilian involvement in the review of complaints against Tempe Police Officers? Yes No

50.

To what extent has your confidence in the Tempe Police Department changed knowing the Department now utilizes a civilian review panel? Your confidence has greatly increased Your confidence has somewhat increased Your confidence has stayed the same Your confidence has somewhat decreased Your confidence has greatly decreased

“Now I’d like to as you some questions about victimization.” 51.

Have you personally ever been the victim of a crime? Yes No

51a.

If yes to 51, how long ago? (If no, move to question 54) ___ Years ___ Months

51b. If yes to 51, what type of crime? Open-ended

Appendix 51c.

205

If yes to 51, did you report it to the police? Yes No

51d. If no to 51c, why not? Open-ended

“Just one more question.” 52.

With which ethnic group to you identify? Asian Black Caucasian Hispanic Native American Other (Please specify/open-ended)

Do NOT ask this question if you can discern the answer from your conversation with the respondent. 53.

What is your sex? Female Male

2nd to last frame: “Thank you for participating in our survey. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Joel Plant at 480.350.8303.”

This page intentionally left blank

APPENDIX F

Local Newspaper Editorial Discussing Panel

Kudos to Tempe police on Citizen Review Panel The Arizona Republic, Thursday, November 19, 1988, p. 6 EV. Citizens may soon be looking over the Tempe Police Department’s shoulder—at the police chief’s invitation. This would be a turnaround from what might be considered the norm. Police in some municipalities resent what they view as citizen intrusion into their affairs. Not so in Tempe, where the Police Department itself proposed the Valley’s first citizen panel to review internal police investigations. It’s a significant step that the City Council should continue to support. As proposed, the panel of police officers and citizens would not recommend or review discipline for individual officers. But it would offer members of the public who feel unfairly treated by the police a public forum in which to discuss their concerns. It would bring an openness to an internal review process that can foster suspicion. Police Chief Ron Burns told staff writer Bob Petrie that “people who don’t feel a complaint was adequately or accurately investigated would have a place to go.” Now, they don’t. The department currently does it own investigations, which are followed by a report to the City Council. 207

208

Appendix

Citizens can complain to their elected officials. But the average Jane on the street has no outside forum in which to appeal the findings of an internal investigation. There is no independent review of citizen complaints against the law enforcement agency that citizens finance. No matter how well an internal investigation is done, its exclusivity raises questions. No matter how well run a police department may be, the lack of outside review can erode confidence. It can breed suspicions about cover-ups, which can erode public confidence in police. Such erosion of public confidence can be the best news the criminal element in our communities ever hears. After all, without strong community support, a police force lacks thecae eyewitness information and cooperation needed to crack cases. By being proactive in its efforts to bring the public into the process, the chief’s proposal helps assure public support remains strong. Chief Burns and the department deserve credit for coming up with this idea. It is one more way to keep the doors of government open to the public.

APPENDIX G

Citizen Review Panel Member Application

Text version of the citizen review panel member application—web version available at https://www.tempe.gov/clerk/tcppr.htm. TEMPE CITIZENS PANEL FOR REVIEW OF POLICE COMPLAINTS AND USE OF FORCE CITIZEN APPLICATION To be considered to serve on the Review Panel all applicants will undergo a Police background check based on the information supplied in this application. Name: Birthdate: Home Address: Occupation: Employed By: Home Phone: Business Phone: E-Mail:

209

Appendix

210 Social Security Number:

Ethnicity: Optional information is used to insure that the Panel is culturally diverse and reflective of the community. 1.

Are you a resident of the City of Tempe? Yes No

2.

How many years have you lived in Tempe?

3.

Where did you live prior to moving to Tempe?

4.

What is your highest grade level of education?

5.

Review panels will be scheduled on weekday afternoons. Would you be able to serve on a Review Panel during those times? Yes No

6.

Would you be able to participate in a one or two day orientation class prior to serving on the Review Panel? Yes No

If any questions below (#7 to #10) are answered “yes” please explain on a separate sheet of paper and mail it to the Tempe Police Department. 7.

Have you been arrested by the Tempe Police Department in the last five years? Yes No

8.

Have you been charged with a crime other than a minor traffic offense during the last ten (10) years? Yes No

Appendix 9.

211

Are there currently any criminal charges pending against you? Yes No

10. Have you ever been convicted of a felony? Yes No 11. (Box available to discuss) Professional experience highlights (Fax or E-mail resume if available). 12. (Box available to discuss) community activities. 13. (Box available to discuss) previous Board, Commissions, or Committee experience. 14. (Box available to discuss) what skills you think qualify you to be a Panel member. 15. (Box available to discuss) why are you interested in serving on this Review Panel. 16. (Box available to discuss) any additional comments.

Disqualifiers: Citizen panel members must: ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

Be a resident of Tempe Not have been arrested by the Tempe Police Department within the last five years. Have no felony convictions. Not be directly related to a Police Department employee. Not be an adversary party, a representative of an adversary party, or have any financial interest in any pending litigation or claim against the City relating to the Police Department or any individual officer or employee of the Police Department.

This page intentionally left blank

APPENDIX H

Survey of Inaugural Citizen Panel Members

Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force Introductory Survey, November, 16 1999

1.

How familiar were you with the concept of external civilian police review prior to getting involved with the Tempe civilian review process?

‰ ‰ ‰ ‰ 2.

Very familiar Familiar Somewhat familiar Not familiar at all

Why have you decided to be a member of the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force? ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________

213

Appendix

214 3.

What would you like to see the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force accomplish during your tenure as a panel member? ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________

4.

How satisfied are you with the way the civilian review process was developed in Tempe?

‰ ‰ ‰ ‰ ‰

Very satisfied Satisfied Somewhat satisfied Not satisfied Unaware of how the process was developed

If you are aware of how the process was developed, please provide an explanation of your response. ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ 5.

What level of confidence do you currently have in the Tempe Police Department’s internal complaint process?

‰ ‰ ‰ ‰

High Medium Low None

Appendix 6.

How would you rate the level of confidence citizens at large have in the Tempe Police Department’s internal complaint process?

‰ ‰ ‰ ‰ 7.

215

High Medium Low None

Rank the following items from 1 to 7 on the level to which they influence your perceptions about the police profession. Television media Print media Personal contact(s) Police education programs Friends / relatives Public meetings Other _______________

8.

_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____

Please identify what level of discipline you think is appropriate for each of the actions listed below if they were performed by a Tempe Police Officer. Please assign one of the following disciplinary categories (ND, R, S, or T) to each action listed below. ND = No Discipline R

= Reprimand

S

= Suspension

T

= Termination

Appendix

216 _____

Theft of property from the property room

_____

Sleeping on duty

_____

Intentionally falsifying a police report

_____

Feigning illness

_____

E-mailing a friend out of state from a City-owned computer

_____

Receiving an unsatisfactory annual performance report

_____

Perjury in court

_____

Addressing a co-worker with a racial slur

_____

Cursing at a citizen

_____

Failure to report for an off-duty police-related job

_____

Accepting a free lunch while on duty

_____

Striking a resistant, handcuffed prisoner

_____

Engaging in consensual sexual activity while on duty

_____

Excessively speeding in a police car without lights or siren

_____

Accessing the Motor Vehicle Department database for a personal inquiry

_____

Missing court (to provide testimony related to an on-duty incident)

_____

Lying during an internal investigation

Appendix

9.

10.

217

_____

Displaying a weapon during a felony traffic stop

_____

Obtaining a confession through threat of physical force

Are you

‰ ‰

Female? Male?

Are you (check all that apply)

‰ ‰ ‰ ‰ ‰

Asian? Black? Hispanic? White? Other?

11.

What is your current age? ______

12.

Please provide any other comments you would like regarding the civilian review process generally, or regarding the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force specifically. __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________

This page intentionally left blank

References

Barnes, M., Knops, A., Newman, J. & Sullivan, H. (2001). Participation and exclusion: Problems of theory and method. Economic & Social Research Council. Retrieved August 23, 2002, from http://www.essex.ac.uk/democracy/Projects/proj1wp1.html. Bass, S. (2000). Negotiating change: Community organizations and the politics of policing. Urban Affairs Review, 36, 148-178. Bayley, D. (1988). Community policing: A report from the Devil’s advocate. In J. R. Greene & S. D. Mastrofski (Eds.), Community policing: Rhetoric or reality (pp. 226-236). New York: Praeger. Bayley, D. (1991). Preface. In A. Goldsmith (Ed.), Complaints against the police: The trend to external review (pp. x-xi). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Bobb, M. (2005). Internal and External Police Oversight in the United States. Paper presented at the Police Accountability and the Quality of Oversight Conference at The Hague, October 19-21, 2005. Retrieved April 28, 2006, from http://www.parc.info/pubs/index.html. Bonn, T. (2005). Quarterly Report for the Quarter Ending September 30, 2005 by the Omaha, Nebraska Office of the Public Safety Auditor. Retrieved April 28, 2006, from http//www.omahapublicsafetyauditor.com. Bonn, T. (2006). Personal e-mail correspondence (April, 2006) discussing the implications of the Quarterly Report for the Quarter Ending September 30, 2005 by the Omaha Nebraska Office of the Public Safety Auditor. Box, R. C. (1998). Citizen governance: Leading American communities into the 21st Century. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 219

220

References

Braunstein, S. & Tyre, M. (1994). Selling your community on a citizen’s review board. Public Management, 76, 12-14. Brereton, D. (2000). Evaluating the performance of external oversight bodies. In L. Goldsmith & C. Lewis (Eds.), Civilian oversight of policing (pp. 105-124). Oxford: Hart Publishing. Brown, L. P. (1989). Community policing: A practical guide for police officials. Police Chief, 56, 72-82. Caudle, S.L. (1994). Reengineering for results: Keys to success from government experience. Chrislip, D. D., & Larson, C. E. (1994). Collaborative leadership: How citizens and civic leaders can make a difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. City of Tempe (2000). Staff Summary Report requesting a second public hearing to establish a Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force. Web Page, http://www.tempe.gov/clerk/history_99/990715pdsr01.htm. Cole, R. L. (1974). Citizen participation and the urban policy process. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Cogan, A., Sharpe, S. & Hertberg, J. (1986). Citizen Participation. In F. So, I. Hand & B.D. McDowell (Eds.), The practice of state and regional planning, (pp.283-308). Chicago, IL: American Planning Association. Community Oriented Policing Office. (n.d.). Retrieved January 7, 2003, from http://www.usdoj.gov/cops/. Correia, M. E. (2000). Citizen involvement: How community factors affect progressive policing. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum. Creswell, J. N. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Crosby, N., Kelly, J. M., and Schaefer, P. (1986). Citizen Panels: A new approach to citizen participation. Public Management Forum, March/April, 170-177. Cupps, S. D. (1977). Emerging problems of citizen participation. Public Administration Review, 75, 478-487. Dahl, R. (1989). Democracy and its critics. New Haven, CT: Yale University. Dempsey, J. S. (1994). Policing: An introduction to law enforcement. St. Paul, MN: West Publishers.

References

221

Desario, J. & Langton, S. (1987). Citizen participation in public decision making. New York: Greenwood Press. Eck, J. E. & Spellman, W. (1987). Who ya gonna call? The police as problem busters. Crime and Delinquency, 33, 31-52. Eck, J. E. & Rosenbaum, D. (1994). The new police order. In D. P. Rosenbaum (Ed.), The challenge of community policing: Testing the promises. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Finn, P. (2001). Citizen review of police: Approaches & implementation. Washington, DC: NIJ Issues and Practices. Gabris, G. T., Golembiewski, R. T. & Ihrke, D. M. (2000). Leadership credibility, board relations, and administrative innovation at the local government level. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11, 89-108. Goldsmith, A. J. (Ed.). (1991). Complaints against the police: The trend to external review. New York: Oxford University. Goldstein, H. (1979). Improving policing: A problem-oriented approach. Crime and Delinquency, 25, 236-258. Goldstein, H. (1987). Toward community-oriented policing: Potential, basic requirements, and threshold questions. Crime and Delinquency, 33, 6-30. Goldstein, H. (1990). Problem-oriented policing. New York: McGrawHill. Grabosky, P. N. (1992). Law enforcement and the citizen: Nongovernmental participants in crime prevention and control. Policing and Society, 2, 249-271. Gregson, K. (1997, May). Community Networks and Political Participation: Developing Goals for System Developers. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Society for Information Science and technology, Washington, DC. Halpern, S. C. (1974). Police employee organizations and accountability procedures in three cities: Some reflections on police policy making. Law and Society Review, 8, 561-582. Harcourt, B. and J. Ludwig (2005). Broken windows: New evidence from New York City and a Five-City Social experiment. University of Chicago Law School. Retrieved on May 1, 2006 from http://www.law.uchicago.edu/academics/publiclaw/93-beh-jlwindows.pdf.

222

References

Herzog, S. (2000). Evaluating the new civilian complaints board in Israel. In L. Goldsmith & C. Lewis (Eds.), Civilian oversight of policing (pp. 125-146). Oxford: Hart Publishing. Hudson, J. R. (1972). Police review boards and police accountability. Law and Contemporary Problems, 36, 515-538. Hudson, W. E. (2001). American democracy in turmoil: Seven challenges to America’s future. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House. Jerome, R. (2006). Police Reform: A Job Half Done. American Constitution Society. Retrieved on April 28, 2006 from http://www.acslaw.org/files/RJ%20Community%20Policing%20426-06.pdf. Jerome, R. (2002). Police Oversight Project: City of Albuquerque. Police Assessment Resource Center. Retrieved on September 28, 2003, from http://www.parc.info/projects/pdf/abqreport.pdf. Jordan, W. T. (2000). Citizen police academies: Community policing or community politics? American Journal of Criminal Justice, 25, 93105. Judge, K., Mulligan, J. A. & Benzeval, M. (1998). Income inequality and population health. Social Science and Medicine, 46, 567-579. Kelling, G.L. (1988). Police and communities: The quiet revolution. Perspectives in Policing, 1, 1-7. Kelling, G.L. & Bratton, W.J. (1993). Implementing community policing: The administrative problem. Perspectives in Policing, 7, 1-7. Kelling, G.L., Wasserman, R. & Williams, H. (1988). Police accountability and community policing. Perspectives in Policing, 17, 1-11. Kennedy, D.M. (1993). The strategic management of police resources. Perspectives in Policing, 8, 1-7. King, C. S. & Stivers, C. (1998). Government is us: Public administration in an anti-government era. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Boston: Little, Brown. Klockars, C. B. (1988). The rhetoric of community policing. In J. R. Greene & S. D. Mastrofski (Eds.), Community policing: Rhetoric or reality (pp. 239-258). New York: Praeger.

References

223

Kweit, J. G. & Kweit, R. T. (1981). Implementing citizen participation in a bureaucratic society: A contingency approach. New York: Praeger. Landau, T. (1996). When police investigate police: A view from complainants. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 38, 291-315. Landau, T. (2000). Back to the future: The death of civilian review of public complaints against the police in Ontario, Canada. In L. Goldsmith & C. Lewis (Eds.), Civilian oversight of policing (pp. 63-79). Oxford: Hart Publishing. Lando, T. (1999). Public participation in local government: Points of view. National Civic Review, 88, 109-123. Langton, S. (1978). Citizen participation in America. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Levi, M. (1977). Bureaucratic insurgency: The case of police unions. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Lewis, C. (2000). The politics of civilian oversight: Serious commitment or lip service? In L. Goldsmith & C. Lewis (Eds.), Civilian oversight of policing (pp. 19-40). Oxford: Hart Publishing. Lincoln, E. & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Lowi, T. (1969). The end of liberalism. New York: W.W. Norton. Luna E. & Walker, S. (2000). Institutional structure versus political will: Albuquerque as a case study in the effectiveness of civilian oversight of police. In L. Goldsmith & C. Lewis (Eds.), Civilian oversight of policing (pp. 83-144). Oxford: Hart Publishing. Lyons, W. (1999). The politics of community policing: Rearranging the power to punish. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press. Mansbridge, J. J. (1990). Beyond self- interest. Chicago: Chicago University. Mark, M., Henry, G. T. & Julnes, G. (2000). Evaluation: An integrated framework for understanding, guiding, and improving policies and programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Mastrofski, S. D. & Ritti, R. R. (2000). Making sense of community policing: A theory-based approach. Police Practice and Research, 1, 183-210. Mathews, D. (1994). Politics for people: Finding a responsible public voice. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois.

224

References

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Midgley, J., Hall, A., Hardiman, M. & Narine, D. (1986). Community participation, social develoment and the State. London: Methuen. Moore, M. H. (1991). Police accountability and the ‘Dirty Deal.’ Governing, 4, 9. National Association of Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement. Website accessed December 14, 2002, from http://www.NACOLE.org. Oliver, W. M. (2000). Community policing: Classical readings. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Oliver, W. M. (2001). Community-oriented policing: A systemic approach to policing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Palmiotto, M., & Donahue, M. (1995). Evaluating community policing: Problems and prospects. Police Studies: The International Review of Police, 18, 33-53. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Perez, D. (1994). Common sense about police review. Philadelphia: Temple University. Police Assessment Resource Center (2003). Best Practices Review. www.parc.info. Purdy, M. & Banks, D. (1999). Health and Exclusion. London: Routledge. Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster. Radelet, L. A. & Carter, D. L. (1993). The police and the community. New York: MacMillan College. Reed, W. E. (1999). The politics of community policing: The case of Seattle. New York: Garland. Reichardt, C. S. & Rallis, S. F. (Eds.). (1994). The qualitativequantitative debate: New perspectives. San Francisco: Sampson, R. J. & Raudenbush, S. W. (1999). Systematic social observation of public spaces: A new look at disorder in urban neighborhoods. American Journal of Sociology, 105, 603-651. Scarrow, S. E. (2001). Direct democracy and institutional change: A comparative investigation. Comparative Political Studies, 34, 651665.

References

225

Skocpol, T. & Fiorina, M. P. (1999). Making sense of the civic engagement debate. In Skocpol, T. & Fiorina, M. P. (Eds.), Civic engagement in American democracy (pp. 1-23). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Snow, R. (1992). Civilian oversight: Plus or minus. Law and Order, December, 51-56. Sparrow, M. K., Moore, M.H. & Kennedy, D. M. (1990). Beyond 911: A new era for policing. New York: Basic Books. Stern, P. C. & Fineberg, H. (1996). Understanding risk: Informing decisions in a democratic society. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Stivers, C. (1994). The listening bureaucrat: Responsiveness in public administration. Public Administration Review, 54, 364-368. Sullivan, J. L. (1977). Introduction to police sciences (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Tashakori, A. & Teddie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combinging qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Tatro, B. J. (1998). Consumer and family participation in State-level mental health program evaluation (Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, 1998). Dissertation Abstracts International, 59, 615. Terrill, R. J. (1992). Civilian oversight of the police complaints process in the United States: Concerns, developments, and more concerns. In A. Goldsmith (Ed.), Complaints against the police: The trend to external review (pp. 291-322). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Thomas, J. C. (1993). Public involvement and governmental effectiveness: A decision-making model for public managers. Administration & Society 24, 444-469. Trojanowicz, R. C. & Bucqueroux, B (1990). Community policing: A contemporary perspective. Cincinnati: OH: Anderson. Trojanowicz, R. C. & Carter, D. (1988). The philosophy and role of community policing. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University. U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed on August 29, 2003, from http://www.census.gov/. University of Oregon (1996). Oregon’s Statewide Planning Program. Retrieved on January 21, 2001 from http://222.uoregon.edu/~ppm/landuse/appx-a.html.

226

References

Verba, S. & Nie, N. (1987). Participation in America: Political democracy and social equality. Chicago: University of Chicago. Walker, S. (1980). Popular justice: History of American criminal justice. New York: Oxford University Press. Walker, S. (1984). Broken windows’ and fractured history: The use and misuse of history in recent patrol analysis. Justice Quarterly, 1, 7590. Walker, S. (2001). Police accountability: The role of citizen oversight. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Walker, S. & Wright-Kreisel, B. (1996). Varieties of citizen review: The implications of organizational features of complaint review procedures for accountability of the police. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum. Wasserman, R. & Moore, M.H. (1988). Values in policing. Perspectives in Policing, 8, 1-7. Weiss, C. (1998). (2nd Ed.). Evaluation: Methods for studying programs and policies. Upper Saddle, NJ: Prentice Hall. Wilson, J. Q. & Kelling, G. (1982). Broken windows: The police and neighborhood safety. Atlantic Monthly, February, 46-52. Yin, R. K (1984). Case study research: Design and methods. Applied Social Research Methods Series. Vol. 5. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Zhao, J. (1996). Why police organizations change: A study of community-oriented policing. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.

Index

A

appointment of, 89 awareness, 130 level of access, 57 level of awareness about police operations, 57 level of information exchange, 57 trust, 111, 143 citizen participation, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 23, 25, 28, 31, 32, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 50, 51, 157, 215, 217 barriers to, 19 in policing, 23, 24, 39, 44 representation, 17, 21, 45, 95, 163, 187 Community Oriented Policing Office (COPS), 27, 215 community policing, 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 51, 59, 86, 87, 157, 158, 162, 215, 217, 218, 219, 220 defined, 26 literature, 27, 49 complaint investigation, 1, 29, 94, 102, 137, 139, 166, 167, 170, 184, 188 complaints against the police, 1, 3, 29, 34, 78, 147, 200, 217

administrative policies and procedures, 108, 165 administrative process weaknesses, 155, 157, 162 administrative processes, 24, 54, 101, 108 annual report, 169, 185 annual training, 102

B budget, 170

C case study, 4, 60, 65, 66, 68, 79, 80, 85, 111, 218 citizen panel members, 51, 52, 53, 95, 106, 107, 127 citizenp articipation problems with, 19 citizen oversight system, 2, 3, 4, 38, 59, 61, 82, 83, 87, 88, 92, 97, 129, 148, 159, 162, 163, 166, 169, 171 citizen panel members, 17, 57, 69, 89, 90, 96, 98, 102, 106, 109, 111, 127, 128, 129, 131, 135, 143, 157, 158, 160, 162, 164, 166, 168 access to information, 131, 143

227

Index

228 cost effective, 18 costs, 3

D data collection, 4, 5, 61, 68, 79, 81, 160 decision making, 15, 16, 36, 92, 98, 101, 123, 162, 169 descriptive analysis, 47 discretion, 30, 63 diversity of citizen panel members, 164

E effectiveness, 16, 18, 27, 37, 48, 51, 60, 61, 157, 161, 162, 166, 218, 220 employee discipline, 56, 99, 108 evaluation of police complaint process, 47 of citizen oversight literature, 64 evaluation theory, 60, 61

F fair procedures, 16, 17, 42, 51

H history of policing, 24, 65, 73, 74, 93, 215, 220 traditional era of policing, 25, 31 history of the Tempe panel, 86

I impact of the panel, 2 Interviews, 69, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 129

L limitations of study, 82 litigation, 49, 57, 89, 141, 142, 143, 184

M minority citizens, 29, 154 mixed methods, 60, 61 modes of inquiry naturalistic, 4, 60, 64, 65, 66, 68, 79, 80, 81 positivistic, 64, 65, 68, 80, 81

N NACOLE. See National Association for Civilian Oversight of Police (NACOLE) National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE, 171

O observations, 111, 128, 131, 134, 136, 141, 142 ordinance, 1, 2, 4, 5, 50, 61, 63, 76, 79, 86, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 95, 96, 100, 101, 106, 107, 108, 155, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 170, 183

P panel review process, 93 participant selection, 17 participation direct citizen government contact, 12 electoral, 12

Index

229

group, 12, 13, 17 serving as a local official, 12 Pendleton Act, 24 police panel members, 53, 167 police shootings, 55, 87, 93, 114, 167 police unions, 3, 33, 45, 217 politics, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 21, 24, 25, 28, 30, 33, 34, 35, 37, 40, 41, 42, 90, 113, 121, 155, 183, 190, 218 promoting participation, 14, 40 public administrators, 10, 12, 16, 20, 21, 157 public confidence in the police, 1, 3 public decision making, 9, 12, 215

R race, 85, 146, 148 recommendations, 6, 15, 16, 18, 38, 40, 51, 83, 92, 96, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 106, 108, 121, 123, 125, 161, 163, 167, 168, 169, 170, 184, 187, 205 from the panel, 56 reliability, 61, 80, 81, 191 review of documents, 5, 50, 60, 68, 80, 111 Robert’s Rules, 99, 101

S study population, 61, 65

sub panel, 55, 67, 69, 83, 96, 98, 99, 100, 102, 106, 107, 108, 117, 120, 128, 131, 141, 143, 166, 168 sub-panel, 52, 54, 68, 69, 70, 83, 89, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 100, 101, 105, 106, 107, 108, 111, 118, 121, 126, 127, 128, 129, 131, 134, 135, 143, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 170 incident review process, 95 survey, 5, 59, 60, 65, 66, 70, 71, 73, 78, 79, 80, 81, 90, 145, 146, 147, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 160, 191, 192, 193, 194, 202, 203, 209

T training, 15, 35, 40, 41, 51, 56, 68, 70, 71, 83, 85, 92, 93, 99, 102, 105, 106, 108, 111, 115, 116, 117, 118, 125, 127, 129, 131, 143, 158, 169, 170, 184, 187 external, 169 types of oversight systems, 39 types of participation, 13

V validity, 61, 80, 81