Memorandum

City of Lawrence

Police Department

 

TO:

Tom Markus, City Manager

FROM:

Tarik Khatib, Chief of Police

CC:

Toni Wheeler, City Attorney

 

Maria Garcia, Assistant City Attorney

 

Anthony Brixius, Police Captain

DATE:

December 4, 2016

RE:

Police Oversight

 

Background

The Lawrence Police Department has a community policing culture and officers routinely go “above and beyond” in their duties serving their community.  This is recognized by the community; and each year, over 100 cards, emails, and letters of thanks are received each by members of the department for their exceptional service.  In addition, the department and community have formally recognized officers many times through awards presentations.  Since 2012, these have included:

 

·         Distinguished Service Award – 8 officers have been recognized for placing themselves in danger of great bodily harm to assist citizens and/or subdue dangerous individuals.

·         Commendation awards – 26 officers have been recognized for actions such as the peaceful de-escalation of armed (firearms and knives) individuals, those experiencing a mental health crisis, and rescue efforts at house fires.

·         Life Saving Award – 39 officers have been recognized for saving the life of an individual.

·         Letters of Commendation awards – 30 officers have been recognized for their commitment to serving the community through their excellent investigative work.

 

Many times, officers do not receive the official recognition they deserve, so it is likely many more instances of exceptional service exist that go unnoticed or unreported.   In addition, 12 citizens have been recognized by the department through various Citizen Service Awards for their efforts to assist officers and their fellow community members.

 

In 2015, the ETC institute, a community-based market research firm, conducted the most recent Direction Finder Survey of citizens to gather information about satisfaction and input about priorities for the City.  Satisfaction with police services was high with 80% of citizens reporting satisfaction with the professionalism of the police officers; 14% did not have an opinion, and 6% of citizens reported being unsatisfied. Only 3% of citizens reported feeling unsafe in Lawrence.  A 2011 survey showed a similar result with satisfaction rated at 79%.   In general, the Lawrence Police Department has wide-based community satisfaction.  However, the department has not taken things for granted and has worked steadily to improve how it serves the community while also understanding additional work remains.   In the following sections, this memorandum will:

 

1.       Section I – summarize some of the improvements already put into place and examine some processes that currently exist.

2.       Section II – present information about civilian review and oversight.

 

3.       Section III – offer some suggestions for additional improvement for the department.

 

SECTION I – IMPROVEMENTS AND CURRENT PROCESSES

 

Department Demographics

One component to community oriented policing and developing trust is to have a department that reflects the diversity of the community. Over the past several years, the department has increased efforts to recruit minorities to better reflect our community demographics and to gain the benefits that diversity brings to any organization.  Since 2011, the department has had some success in the following areas:

 

·         Women in staff positions has doubled since 2011 (2) to 2015 (4).

·         Minorities in staff positions has doubled since 2011 (2) to 2015 (4).

·         As a percentage, in 2015, 14.3% of department staff were minorities.  In 2011, this percentage was 8%.

·         Female officers as a percentage of workforce has increased from 2011 (6.8%) to 2015 (11%).

·         African American officers as a percentage of workforce has increased from 2011 (3.4%) to 2015 (5.2%).

·         The department has been able to recruit and retain Native Americans from Haskell Indian Nations University.  Personnel are working on improving the relationship further through being involved in class presentations to students, as they have done for many years.

 

Per the most recent census, Lawrence demographics are:

 

Race and Ethnicity

2010 Census

Department

Black Alone

4.7%

5.2%

American Indian Alone

3.1%

2.6%

Asian Alone

4.5%

1.3%

Hispanic Origin

5.7%

1.9%

 

From a statistical standpoint, the department appears to be moving in a positive direction with the recruitment of women, African American men, and promoting these two groups to the supervisory level.  Challenges remain in the recruitment of officers who are Asian or from a Hispanic background.  Some steps the department has taken include offering hiring bonuses for officers with language (Spanish) skills.

 

Police Officer Training

The importance of employee training and development cannot be over-emphasized as it relates to officer preparedness and the quality of the interactions officers have with the community and within the department.  Over the past several years, the department has made the following efforts:

 

·         All department employees have received the 8-hour Mental Health First Aid course.

·         Approximately 50% of the department has received the 40-hour Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) training.  The department is on course to achieving 100% of the officers trained by 2018.

·         As part of the initial recruit academy instruction, newly hired Lawrence Police Officers receive approximately 80 hours of training in disciplines such as:  Ethics and Discretion in Law Enforcement, Cultural Awareness, Community Policing & Problem Solving, Verbal Judo, Customer Satisfaction, Interactions with Special Populations, Interpersonal Communication, Role of Patrol in Community Policing, Crisis Intervention, Mental Health First Aid, Fair and Impartial Policing, and Crisis Management Strategies.

·         Since 2014, a continuing education format has provided each officer with an additional 35 hours of training related to Racial or Biased Based Policing, Diversity, Cultural Awareness, Fair and Impartial Policing, Crucial Conversations, Ethics and Discretion in Law Enforcement, Hate Bias Crimes, and Community Oriented Policing.

·         The department has greatly enhanced leadership training for supervisors and those expressing an interest in supervision.   Emphasis has been on leadership, the role of supervision, and officer discipline.  Some examples include:

 

Ø  The Emerging Leaders Academy program though the KU Public Management Center.

Ø  Kansas Law Enforcement Leadership Academy (front-line supervision) sponsored by the KU Public Management Center and Kansas Law Enforcement Training Center (KLETC).

Ø  Kansas Law Enforcement Command School sponsored by the KU Public Management Center and Kansas Law Enforcement Training Center (KLETC).

Ø  Central States Law Enforcement Executive Development Seminar (CSLEEDS).

Ø  Leadership Lawrence.

Ø  Federal Bureau of Investigation National Academy (FBINA).

Ø  International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) Women’s Leadership Institute. 

Ø  Randy Means – advanced supervision and management; and internal affairs, police discipline, and hiring.

Ø  Jack Enter – challenging the organizational culture and walking the narrow road of leadership.

Ø  Harry Dolan – leadership, supervision, and officer discipline.

Ø  Gordon Graham – risk management for executives in law enforcement.

 

·         Recognizing the very difficult and emotionally draining aspects of the law enforcement career, the department partnered with the Douglas County Sheriff’s Office to host a day-long training provided by Dr. Kevin Gilmartin.  The topic was emotional survival for law enforcement and provided strategies for coping with the stress the career brings with it.

·         Most of the department’s commissioned personnel have been through the daylong Force Science training.  The training focuses on the dynamics of human behavior and officer reaction during use-of-force encounters.

·         The department subscribes to a language service that can provide translation for over 200 languages.  This is available to the patrol officers by phone in their vehicles. It can take as little as 30 seconds to 2 minutes to get an interpreter. The department recognizes the changing demographics of the community and is attempting to be better prepared to serve the diverse population.

·         The department has also offered law enforcement functional Spanish speaking instruction to officers as well as access to more in-depth programs such as Rosetta Stone.

·         The department has sent members to a “train the trainer” course for the Blue Courage program.  This two-day course will be implemented at the department in the future.  The program is nationally recognized and emphasizes the guardian role law enforcement officers have as well as maintaining the trust of the public.

 

Public Engagement

Police department employees seeing themselves as members of the community in addition to their work roles is a crucial component of the police-citizen relationship.  Police officers recognizing their leadership role and opportunity to be role models is equally important.  The over-arching theme is to strengthen the relationship with community members outside of the oftentimes confrontational interactions (citizen as a suspect, angry victim, or traffic citation situations) police officers are placed in.  Lawrence Police Officers are involved with dozens of community agencies and events on an annual basis.  The department has also:

 

·         Partnered with the Lawrence, Douglas County Valor First Responder Awards program to recognize exceptional performance by first responders.  This is a community led program that allows citizens to more easily see and appreciate the efforts made by first responders who serve the community.

·         Assisted with the formation of the Lawrence Police Foundation (LPF).  This organization is an outgrowth of the Citizen’s Academy program and has resulted in a group of citizens who seek to publically support the department’s goals and objectives.

·         Had the Chief of Police and personnel attend a variety of community meetings to engage in listening, discussion, and educational opportunities.

·         Added citizen awards and recognition to the annual awards program as a way to recognize individuals who have assisted their community and law enforcement through their exceptional actions.

·         Continued with the Neighborhood Resource Officer (NRO) and School Resource Officer (SRO) programs which further allow for officers to engage the community and children in schools.  Officers provide presentations, meet with community members, teach in schools, and act as coaches and mentor to youth.

·         Implemented an active social media program to improve and increase our approachability and interactions with citizens.

 

Community Survey

Feedback from some of the meetings the department has had with community members suggests that additional information needs to be gathered in regards to the department’s multicultural engagement, communication, and inclusivity efforts.  The department is in discussion with Allegro Training and Consulting in regards to independently conducting such an analysis with results expected during the first half of 2017.

 

Public Information

Over several years, the department has increased the level of information and interaction between the department and the community focusing on refining the way it communicates with the public.  Specific steps the department has undertaken:

·         Reassigned additional duties away from the Public Affairs Officer (PAO) to allow for increased responsiveness to information inquires.

·         Introduced RAIDS (Regional Analysis and Information Data Sharing) Online crime mapping to provide citizens with information about crime in Lawrence.

·         Provided on-line access to crime and accident reports.

·         Published videos and information about the department, its functions, and personnel.

·         Provided news releases, a “how to” section on accessing services, information about the complaint process, and crime prevention information.

·         Posted resource needs and related memos on-line.

·         Participated in the Benchmark City Survey and posting of the results comparing Lawrence Police Department statistics against 30 other survey participants.

·         Published a year-end Office of Professional Accountability (OPA) summary of complaints report.

·         Published a Department Annual Report.

·         Published an annual Taser Report.

·         Published an annual Citation Accountability Report.

·         Published an annual Use-of-Force report.

·         The Department Policies and Procedures have been reformatted and made more accessible on-line.

·         The department is now on Facebook and the site is maintained.

·         The department now uses Twitter to communicate.

 

Current Complaint Process

The department accepts all complaints against the department or any of its members, regardless of the manner in which the complaint is received (i.e. in person, by telephone, via e-mail, in writing, etc.).  The fact that a complainant does not wish to or is not willing to identify themselves does not cause the complaint to be dismissed.  All members of the Lawrence Police Department may be the initial contact for a complaint; and are expected to assist the complainant in contacting a supervisor or facilitating the flow of information so that the supervisor can follow-up on the complaint as soon as possible. Employees of the department, who have knowledge of any misconduct or wrong doing by any other employee, either directly or indirectly, are obligated to present the information to their immediate supervisor, the Office of Professional Accountability, or the Chief of Police as soon as possible. Failure to report misconduct or wrongdoing is considered misconduct.  City and department policy also have strong prohibitions against discouraging individuals from making a complaint as well as any retaliation for such.

 

Some of the ways the department receives complaints include:

 

 

With the exception of investigations conducted by the Attorney General’s Office, complaints are generally investigated utilizing an administrative internal investigative process.  If there is a corresponding allegation or concern of criminal activity, the department has utilized both internal resources and external departments to conduct the investigations.

It is important to note that a large percentage (36%, five-year average) of complaints against officers are internally generated.  This is an indication of a department culture that recognizes that misconduct by an officer is something of concern for everyone, and not just to those external to the department. 

 

The Investigative Process

The Office of Professional Accountability (OPA) is responsible for formal internal affairs investigations.   The investigative process utilizes law enforcement personnel, usually supervision, who are familiar with law enforcement practices and department policies and procedures and have received training on how to conduct internal investigations.   This allows for an investigation that can gather the most information surrounding an allegation.  For example:

 

·         The investigator is a skilled evidence gatherer.

·         The investigator is skilled at conducting interviews of citizens and police officers.

·         The investigator, through department policy and authority of the Chief of Police, can order officers to cooperate with the investigation and compel truthful testimony at the risk of discipline up to and including termination.

·         If the incident being investigated also constitutes a violation of criminal statues by the officer, the investigator can still compel testimony in regards to the internal investigation under the officer’s Garrity protections.  The officer would still have to answer questions, but they could not be used against him or her in a criminal trial.  This is only applies to government agencies.

 

After the internal investigation is complete, the case is reviewed by the Chief of Police to determine a final disposition.

 

Discipline

The community has much invested in its police officers in terms of training, experience, and expectations.  Unless an officer’s misconduct is egregious enough to merit dismissal from the department, the objective of discipline is to hold officers accountable while still allowing for officer improvement and learning.  Cumulative misconduct or poor performance that may not on its own result in dismissal for an individual event of violation of policy, can also result in the separation of the officer from the department.  Internal investigations and the resultant discipline are considered personnel records and are not public documents. 

 

Under Lawrence’s council-manager form of government, the City Manager is ultimately responsible for the discipline of all City employees.  Various levels of delegation and authority are extended to department heads during the course of normal business.  The Chief of Police regularly exercises disciplinary authority for minor misconduct.  The City Manager is briefed in regards to misconduct of a serious nature and the discipline being considered.  All cases, however, are eventually briefed to the City Manager as part of the bi-annual review presented by the department.

 

Not all discipline takes place in the public eye, nor should it.  Laws pertaining to personnel records, employee due process, and employee liberty claims form the formal guideposts.  The ability for an officer to make a mistake, learn from it, and continue to be a productive employee is critical from a human resources perspective without all the details being public.  Officers are human and may make some mistakes over their hopefully long and productive careers.  The Lawrence Police Department holds officers accountable for their actions up to and including separation.  On average, two officers are separated per year in relation to misconduct.  Another two to three officers a year are separated due to poor job performance or fit.

 

Accountability Process

Complaints investigated by the Office of Professional Accountability (OPA) go through several levels of review to include:

 

·         Initial person who receives and/or investigates the complaint.

·         A review by that person’s supervisor.

·         A review and determination by the Chief-of Police.

·         In some cases, a review by the City Manager

·         In some cases, a review by the City Attorney

·         In all cases, bi-annual after the fact review by the City Manager, as a briefing.

 

Some processes that have been developed over the past several years to increase accountability and provide transparency to the public in regards to police conduct and complaints include:

 

·         Expanded the role of the Citizens’ Advisory Board for Fair and Impartial Policing.

·         Developed an internal warning system for officer misconduct.

·         Publication of a year-end Office of Professional Accountability (OPA) summary of complaints report.

·         Publication of an annual Taser Report.

·         Publication of an annual Citation Accountability Report.

·         Established a use-of-force review process and a summary is published on-line.

 

Citizens’ Advisory Board for Fair and Impartial Policing

In 2005, the Lawrence Citizens’ Advisory Board was established per Kansas statues requiring law enforcement agencies to adopt racial or biased-basing policing policies and advisory boards to assist departments with such policies.  Since 2005, the requirement for a law enforcement agency to have such a board has been lifted.  The City, however, has not only kept the board, but it has continually worked to improve its functions and responsibilities in an effort to improve the Lawrence Police Department and its service to the community.  Some of the improvements made include:

 

·         Understanding that the police bias can involve more than race.  As such, the board has changed its name to the Citizens’ Advisory Board for Fair and Impartial policing to better reflect its purpose.

·         The board has been provided with training to increase its knowledge and capability as an advisory group to the department.  The three training sessions were provided by Judge Kathryn Carter (Ret.) of the Kansas Attorney General’s Office and took place in August and November of 2013 as well as another session in March of 2014.  Topics included: applicable laws and changes in state law in regards to racially biased policing, an introduction to Fair and Impartial Policing based on Dr. Lorie Fridell’s work, and a discussion on recruitment and hiring practices based on Dr. Lorie Fridell’s work.

·         The board sponsored a Fair and Impartial Policing training event for community members to better understand the department’s training of officers.

·         The board moved its meetings to the more public venue of the City Commission chambers to increase access to the community.  The board also posts agendas and minutes.

·         In addition to reviewing allegations of racial bias by police officers, the board now reviews incidents of Taser usages and use-of-force.  This is done in open forum where any member of the public may attend.  The summaries are also posted online for public review as well.

 

Section I Summary

The Lawrence Police Department continually works to improve the way it serves the community.  And, through its efforts, the department enjoys a good reputation with its citizens.   The department has a culture of community policing and officers understand the high expectations of the community.  When those expectations are not met, officers are held accountable up to and including separation from the department.  Although the current processes work well, the department recognizes that maintaining the public’s trust requires that the department continues to seek improvement. 

 

SECTION II – CIVILIAN POLICE REVIEW BOARDS

 

A police department’s relationship with the public is something that is continually fostered over time.  Nationally, there have been examples of conduct that have spotlighted the need for additional oversight of police departments.  The Lawrence Police Department is not without its faults and there have been examples of its officers not meeting the community’s expectations.  One improvement that has been suggested for Lawrence is the formation of a formal Citizen Police Review Board (CPRB).  This section will summarize Civilian Police Review Boards and the role they could play.

 

Research

In addition to staff’s general experience and understanding, the following research was reviewed:

 

·         The National Institute of Justice of the U.S. Department of Justice (2000). Citizen Review of Police: Approaches and Implementation.  U.S. Department of Justice.  Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/184430.pdf

 

·         International Association of Chiefs of Police (2000). Police Accountability and Citizen Review.  IACP.  Retrieved from http://www.iacp.org/Police-Accountability-and-Citizen-Review

 

·         Samuel Walker (2001). Police Accountability: The role of Citizen Oversight.  Wadsworth.

 

Assistant City Attorney Maria Garcia conducted research on the legal aspects of police oversight. Police Captain Anthony Brixius examined comparable police agencies and their civilian oversight processes.

 

Summary of Research

In the research, four basic types or classes of review boards were presented:

 

1.       Type 1/Class I – This consists of a separate and external group of non-sworn individuals who investigate complaints of police misconduct.  The investigation is then reviewed by another non-sworn group and recommendations are made to the Chief of Police.  These boards may also possess the authority to subpoena records and compel testimony.

 

2.       Type 2/Class II – Complaints are investigated by the police department.  Citizens review the investigation and then can make their own findings.  Recommendations are made to the Chief of Police.

 

3.       Type 3/Class III – Complaints are investigated by the police department.  If the complainant is not satisfied with the findings or outcome, the citizen can appeal to the board.

 

4.       Type 4/Class IV – Auditor system.  The independent auditor does not investigate the complaint, but whether the process was thorough and fair.

 

The IACP publication provided a brief overview of things to consider when contemplating police oversight and citizen review boards.  The Department of Justice study specifically looked at nine communities ranging in population from 108,000 to 750,000 that had some level of a citizen review board.   Although both provided examples in regards to the perception of increased trust review boards could provide communities, the actual effectiveness of such boards to impact or change police officer behavior and accountability was not clearly found.

 

Mr. Samuel Walker is a University of Nebraska emeritus professor who is a nationally recognized police accountability and civil rights expert and has authored 14 books on the subject(s).  In his study of police accountability and citizen oversight, he attempts to answer the question of whether citizen review and oversight is effective.   Professor Walkers’ answer is, “it depends”.  Due to the politics of review board members, community members, police departments, and police unions; the large complexities involved; the different review board formats; and variation in data collection, the research was not able to provide definitive answers as to the general effectiveness of civilian review boards.  For example, the “sustained complaint” rates for review boards were relatively the same as those for internal department processes.   And, Professor Walker argues measuring rates of sustained complaints is the wrong metric.  Professor Walker explains that whether the police conduct the investigation or citizens do, the inherent problems are the same.  This is due to the nature of police work:

 

·         It is low-visibility work with much officer discretion and often without direct supervision.

·         The most common complaints do not involve any physical evidence that can be observed.

·         In most complaints, it is not clear what happened.  Often, it is the officer’s word against that of the complainant.

·         Due to perceptions, the officer and complainant views may be different.

·         Use of force by officers is part of their duty (have legal authority to use), depending on the circumstances.

 

Instead of review boards, Professor Walker suggests efforts should be focused on the monitoring aspects of oversight as a way of addressing organizational change that is sustainable. This is more important than investigation of police misconduct which focuses only on individual officers or incidents.  Professor Walker’s research cannot prove or disprove the effectiveness of external or internal investigations in deterring officer misconduct.  He posits that the objective is to “prevent misconduct through policy innovation, education, and proactive problem solving”.  Professor Walker favors the more effective role of an auditor and monitoring systems in regards to citizen oversight of police departments, the overall purpose of which, would be to ensure that the Chief of Police and department administration are held accountable to their accountability responsibilities.

 

Professor Walker believes the “best approach remains the appointment of oversight officials with candidates screened in a fashion similar to the screening of judicial nominees”.  They would be neither pro-police or anti-police.  The auditor would need full access to the department, information, and staff.  Some things an auditor can do include:

 

·         Community outreach.

·         Customer assistance; information provision, listening.

·         Review of police investigation of complaints for thoroughness and fairness.

·         Identify problem officers; assistance with early warning.

·         Identify policy needs/changes; review policy.

·         Identify training needs; feedback.

·         Assist with the development of professional standards

·         Quality assurance surveys.

 

Professor Walker observes that the “the entire controversy over police oversight exists because many people do not believe that police complaint procedures have integrity” and therefore lack legitimacy.  Specific suggestions in regards to the police complaint process include:

 

·         Community outreach to inform the public on the complaint process.

·         Ensuring access to the complaint process; brochures, officers handing them out, “how to” file a complaint information distributed throughout city.

·         Outreach with special populations.

·         Facilitating the filing of a complaint other than at the police department.

·         Physically moving the internal investigative function away from the police department building; improves access for citizens, potential less embarrassment for officers involved as well.

·         Thorough and fair fact finding in investigations; goal is to improve the quality of investigation; more information as in most cases, the issue is lack of information and other evidence.

·         Improving communication with the complainant; better explanation of the process and outcomes.

 

Professor Walker does not advocate for taking disciplinary decisions and authority away from Chief of Police and he believes that to do so may be detrimental in the long run.  But, there is a need to hold the Chief of Police accountable for the discipline he or she gives or does not.

 

SECTION III – RECOMMENDATIONS

 

Recommendations

In contemplating a course of action, we must not lose sight of the complex challenges officers face and the sacrifices they make.  From a purely statistical standpoint, officers have millions of interactions with citizens across the United States on daily basis.  The overwhelming majority of the time, even when faced with the most difficult circumstances, officers ensure safe and successful outcomes.  This is true in Lawrence as well. 

 

Change needs to focus on what will actually produce the results desired by the community and not as an overreaction to any one stimulus.  The overall objective of oversight of the police department should be to increase police officer accountability and public trust while at the same time recognizing that the department has continually improved.  Whatever is implemented should also be sustainable and able to weather political changes.  The wellbeing and ability to develop as an employee of those who serve the community also plays a role in what a better oversight structure can look like.

 

Achieving increased accountability while maintaining a good working environment for officers is achievable.  Fully independent review boards with broad investigative powers are not necessarily more effective than independent boards that review investigations done by the police department, especially where the police department has a well-developed, fair and responsible process as is the case in Lawrence. Independent investigative boards are also more expensive and require substantial professional investigative resources, and this can have the negative unintended consequence of undermining the department’s own oversight of officers. These boards are most useful where a police department has fully lost the trust of its community. I don’t believe this is the case for the Lawrence Police Department and anything we do should be to complement and enhance what we already do and not supplant it.  After reviewing all the research, discussing with staff, and talking with community members, I suggest the following approaches be implemented:

 

1.       Improvements to citizen access to filing a complaint with the department:

 

·         Increasing community outreach and education as to the complaint process.

·         Making the link to the complaint more prominent on the department’s website.

·         Allowing for electronic submission of the complaint in addition to the printed format currently utilized.

·         Placing complaint forms and lock boxes they can be dropped in at a location other than the department.  One example could be the Library.  Department personnel could retrieve the forms at certain intervals.

·         Officers equipped with the forms and provide them when asked.

 

2.       Allow for the current Citizens’ Advisory Board for Fair and Impartial policing to have    additional roles.  The board is representative of the community and has received some   level of training, which would be required.  This would take the form of:

 

·         In addition to the department process that exists, board members could receive complaints directly from the public as a way to increase access to the complaint process by citizens.  Specific complaints would be kept confidential.

·         Complaints would be forwarded to the department to continue to investigate as the current practice.

·         For biased-based policing type complaints, the complainant may ask the board to review the findings if unsatisfied with the departments’ findings. The reviews would take place in an executive session and would not be public proceedings.  The board members would be subject to non-disclosure agreements if they take on this role as detailed information received would be considered personnel information.  The examination would consist of department staff presenting the investigation and board members asking questions and/or suggesting additional investigation take place.  The board could affirm the department’s findings or disagree with them.  The board’s determination would be advisory and ultimately the authority would rest with the City Manager in the case of a reviewed complaint.  Although the deterrence of misconduct effectiveness of this process is ambiguous according to the research, it would add a component of advocacy and recourse for complainants dissatisfied with the outcome of a specific complaint.  This is like a process utilized by the Olathe, Kansas Police Department.  Changing the name of the board to the Citizen’s Police Review Board would be reflective of their additional scope.

 

3.       Implement initiatives to address some of the inherent nature of police work problems as identified by Professor Walker.  These center around the lack of information and competing perspectives regarding the investigation of police conduct.  Expanding the monitoring, information collection, oversight, and early warning capabilities of the department can be increased.

 

·         Implement the use of body cameras by the department.  This would not only require the funding for the equipment, but an Information Technology employee to manage and maintain the system as well. The memorandum, Police Body Cameras (dated February 2, 2015) provides a detailed examination of the issue as it relates to the department proceeding forward at some point with this technology.   This was not funded as part of the 2017 budget request and another request will be made as part of the 2018 budget process.

 

·         Implement race data collection in regards to police/citizen contact(s).  This would include all vehicular stops, whether a citation was issued of not, as well other (pedestrian, calls for service) contacts.  This would require funding for the services of a social scientist or other researcher and some improvements to the department’s Spillman Records Management System (RMS).  The memorandum, Department Update and Strategic Plan (dated July, 16, 2015) presents the methodology required to successful collect the data in a usable fashion on pages 3-4.  In addition to Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) information that could be gleaned, data collection could provide statistics of other interest for the community as well.  Statistics in regards to contact officers have with individuals experiencing a mental health crisis or homelessness are two such examples.  This project was not requested as part of the 2017 budget.  As this project should include all of Douglas County Law Enforcement, the Douglas County Criminal Justice Coordinating Council (CJCC) is examining the topic.  The council will likely have a recommendation to the city and county.

 

·         Fund an additional sergeant position within the department so that the Office of Professional Accountability (OPA) can be transitioned to an Office or Professional Standards (OPS).  The latter suggesting a proactive approach, rather than waiting for complaints to be received by the department.  With the amount of information available (in-car video, bodycams, and electronic reports), I believe a significant improvement could be made if an auditing component was introduced.  This could take the form of randomly reviewing media and conducting follow-up customer service related contacts with individuals who have had contact with the department. 

 

With the support of the City Manager, the afore mentioned items can be presented soon as part of the city’s formal budgeting process.

 

4.       As directed by the City Manager, conduct independent, external to the police department review in a manner as suggested by Professor Walker’s research.  This can take the form of utilizing the City Attorney’s Office or the engagement of external expert(s) for specific purposes.  The focus would not be individual officer-specific, but rather the department.  Periodic public reports would be produced based on the findings.

 

5.       Follow through with the community survey as presented earlier in this memorandum, examine the results, and implement improvements that can be made.

 

Many of these suggestions involve additional resources and it is understood that we are in a resource challenged environment.  However, true change and oversight will require these additional resources.  In his research, Professor Walker acknowledge this as well when he suggested that police departments need to have adequate staff and resources to implement oversight processes.