Building better civilian review boards.

Consider this hypothetical, yet familiar, scenario. During an arrest, a police officer injures a suspect, resulting in brutality charges against the department. When the incident is made public, members of the community demand action: They want to establish a civilian review board.

Citizens often propose civilian review boards following incidents that involve the use of excessive force. In such cases, the community views the civilian review board as a means for placing restraints on overzealous police officers. At the same time, officers already may feel overburdened, overregulated, and evaluated unfairly by the public.

Police officers often believe that review boards are anticop.(1) They perceive citizens as too prone to bias and ignorant of actual police practices to make sound judgments.(2) Indeed, boards that are conceived hastily, selected hurriedly, and trained poorly often confirm the worst expectations of the police. When a board is assembled under pressure from angry members of the community and scathing editorial writers, the focus of attention becomes speedy implementation, rather than the careful selection of board members and the establishment of a viable mission.

Several problems can result when a board is assembled hastily. First, members of the board may come in with their own agendas instead of representing the greater good of the community at large. In addition, the board's goals may be designed poorly, resulting in a lack of focus and defined purpose. Further, training for board members may be deficient or absent altogether.

Under these circumstances, no one should be surprised if the board makes flawed decisions. Worse, everyone involved loses. The law enforcement agency loses the chance to obtain valuable input from concerned, legitimate sources in the community, and the community loses the opportunity to provide that input.

Fortunately, it is possible to build a better civilian review board. This article presents implementation and training models designed to help law enforcement executives create a board that best serves the interests of the community and the agency. Both models emphasize thoughtful problem analysis and skilled communication.

IMPLEMENTATION MODEL

A law enforcement agency that takes the initiative to create a review board can have major impact in its design, implementation, and ultimate success. Police executives who do not direct the process allow others--government administrators, elected officials, Community activists, etc.--to create a board that serves their own needs, which are not necessarily the needs of law enforcement or the community it serves.

When implementing a civilian review board, police executives need to consider several major factors. These include timing; goals, powers, and procedures; audience and stakeholders; and member qualifications.

Timing

When law enforcement administrators create civilian review boards in response to community demands following high-profile incidents, the public may view the administrators as reactionary and shortsighted. Worse, police executives' colleagues and subordinates, as well as some community members, may see them as merely yielding under pressure.

In contrast, proactive police executives who take the initiative and propose civilian review boards before their constituents demand them appear confident about their departments and open to dialogue with their communities. Ultimately, they exert greater control over the process and the final product than their reactive colleagues.

Goals, Powers, and Procedures

The board's goals, powers, and procedures represent the lifeblood of the review board. The goals of the review board determine its powers which, in turn, affect the procedures it follows. For this reason, law enforcement administrators must consider these factors not only separately but also as a function of one another.

Goals

First and foremost, an effective review board must possess clearly stated goals. These objectives may range from broad areas, such as improving communication between the police and the community or increasing police accountability and credibility with the public, to specific purposes, such as reviewing all shooting incidents in a department. Or, the board may serve as a liaison between the community and all public service agencies--not merely law enforcement agencies.

A citizen review board can accomplish its goals better when the members know exactly what those goals are. However, clearly defined objectives mean little unless accompanied by the power to attain them.

Powers

When public officials form review boards in response to citizen protests, the resulting boards often lack the power to accomplish their goals. Without power, boards serve primarily a ceremonial function. Officials truly committed to improving service to the community establish review boards that are more than mere window dressing.

Although the method used to enact a board does not determine what powers the board will possess, it does dictate how the board's powers are established and modified. More important, it may reflect the seriousness with which the board is viewed by its creators. Four commonly used means to enact civilian review boards are municipal ordinance, city or county code, resolution, and executive appointment; each method has advantages and disadvantages.

Establishing a citizen review board by ordinance signals that the government views the board as important enough to constitute it under law. Furthermore, ordinances require public hearings, which allow all interested parties to provide input. Unfortunately, the bureaucratic process may prove slow and cumbersome.

Boards instituted by city or county code possess legislative clout. However, as with ordinances, the bureaucratic process may hinder efficiency.

Boards founded by resolution can accommodate emerging needs quickly with minimal bureaucratic red tape. However, this flexibility increases the possibility of political manipulation.

Quick implementation and a safeguard against political influence ideally characterize executive appointments. However, when boards are formed in this manner, board members may be perceived as tame--representing the established viewpoints of the official who appointed them.

A review board's goals form the basis of its power and, ideally, determine the specific tasks it will perform. For example, a board created to improve all public services to the community might review the cases of other public offices, such as building and zoning or sanitation. Or, a board with the goal of establishing fair and uniform discipline procedures might initiate independent investigations, subpoena witnesses, and conduct hearings(3) or recommend or mete out punishment. However, according to a 1991 survey, none of the boards in place in the 50 largest U.S. cities has the power to impose discipline. These boards serve only in an advisory capacity.(4)

Procedures

The procedures that a board follows depend on its powers. There are three major types of boards based on their methods of investigation.

In the first, police officers conduct the investigation and present their findings to the review board, which submits a recommendation to the department head. The second type calls for civilian investigators selected by the board to conduct the inquiry, with the board making the decision. In the third type of review board, the police complete the analysis and make recommendations to the department head, who makes the final decision. In this type, the board functions only as an avenue of appeal for citizens unsatisfied with the final decision.

Many boards combine elements from all three approaches. No one type of board is superior; police executives must decide which model will work best in their community. This may depend, in part, on whether the board was created as a proactive or reactive measure.

Audiences and Stakeholders

Communication models offer important insight to police administrators contemplating citizen review boards. These models demonstrate that different audiences perceive messages differently. As a result, speakers must identify their target audience for each message. Then, they determine its relevant perceptions, history, characteristics, and desires. This research allows speakers to tailor their messages accordingly.

Target audiences for criminal justice administrators establishing citizen review boards include the public; other police executives and their departments; government administrators, attorneys, and elected officials; special interest groups; and the media.(5) Once police executives identify their target audience, define the needs of the audience, and determine the goals of the board, they can refine their approaches to suit each audience. For example, a police executive might address police officers who fear that a civilian review board given the power to recommend discipline will favor overly severe punishments.(6) In this case, the executive might provide evidence that review boards have proved more lenient in proposing punishments than police chiefs who discipline their officers without civilian review.(7)

Police executives also can learn a lesson from management theory. Individuals who participate in a change process adapt better than those who have change imposed from outside sources. Therefore, police managers should invite members of their target audiences to be stakeholders in the process of creating a review board.

Stakeholders provide input during the planning and construction phases and enhance the board in two distinct and important ways. They increase the board's responsiveness to those it serves, and they increase its legitimacy in the eyes of the community.

Board Member Qualifications

Members of citizen review boards are exactly that--citizens. Thus, the board should be a microcosm of the community, reflecting the diversity of its residents. In addition to this basic requirement, planners should consider other factors when establishing board member qualifications.

These include, but are not limited to:

* Imposing age and/or residency requirements

* Disqualifying convicted criminals, police officers' family members, elected officials, members of the governmental empowering board, and/or plaintiffs in legal actions against any governmental entity

* Requiring current or previous community involvement.

Once the stakeholders determine the member profile, they can begin to select individuals for positions, according to a previously established method agreed upon by all stakeholders.

TRAINING MODEL

Establishing and empowering a citizen review board, defining its operational goals and procedures, and selecting its members is only the beginning. Now, the members must be trained.

Clearly, a properly trained review board will serve the community better. Equally important, board members who undergo a thorough training regimen enhance the board's credibility with the residents and the police. The program used to train the newly established civilian review board for the City of Stuart, Florida, may serve as a model to illustrate the principles and methods needed to prepare new board members properly.(8)

Training Principles

Prospective Stuart board members undergo 12 hours of training, as well as 24 hours of ride-along time. The training is divided into four sessions, and ride-alongs are individually scheduled with the department liaison officer. By design, the program exposes board members to some of the same training and street experiences of Stuart police officers. It also familiarizes board members with departmental policies.

In addition to classroom lectures, board members receive hands-on training. This is especially important in areas where officers risk injury and their departments face potential lawsuits, such as high-speed pursuits and searches and seizures. Hands-on training enables board members to see events from the officer's perspective--life on the other side of the windshield.

Board members also ride with patrol officers on all shifts and in at least a representative number of diverse zones or sectors. Citizens often have a much different perspective of how an officer handles a situation after they actually see and feel, for instance, the tension and hostility of a crowd outside of a bar following a shooting or stabbing. While board members still must hold officers accountable for their actions, they need to have a realistic view of police work.

In Stuart, members of neighboring departments train the board members under the direction of consultants. Trainers not associated directly with the department are viewed as more objective and unbiased.

Training Sessions

The first training session for the Stuart citizen review board provides a brief overview and history of review boards and the heritage of this particular board. In addition, the city attorney discusses liability statutes and the laws applicable to public record concerns, internal affairs investigations, and confidentiality issues. The trainers and consultants review the upcoming training curriculum and establish a viable schedule to accommodate the needs of the board members.

The three remaining sessions include classroom lectures and demonstrations and hands-on training in the following areas:

* Defensive tactics--board members learn and practice takedowns and other techniques for controlling suspects

* Firearms familiarization--members play the part of the officer in an interactive shoot/don't shoot video

* Emergency vehicle operations--members drive police cars in a mini-emergency vehicle operations course.

All of the interactive courses and the classroom lectures include a question-and-answer period.

This training curriculum is based on the specific needs of the City of Stuart. Accordingly, each community should design a program that best suits its own needs.

CONCLUSION

Today's citizens expect both sensitivity and accountability from law enforcement. Civilian review boards represent a viable option for building a strong police-community relationship, especially when initiated prior to public demand.

Civilian review boards can enable law enforcement agencies and communities to open a dialogue that benefits all the stakeholders. Citizens become involved directly in accountability issues and better understand the nature of police work. At the same time, police officers feel less threatened by what they view as an uninformed public.

Without proper implementation, however, citizen review boards are doomed to failure. Problem analysis and good communication remain the keys for initiating, constructing, and training a review board that is an asset to the police department and to the community.

Endnotes

1 While conducting research in Florida from 1992 to the present, the authors found this opinion to be commonplace among police officers.

2 Werner E. Petterson, "Police Accountability and Civilian Oversight of Policing: An American Perspective," Complaints Against Police: The Trend to External Review, ed. Andrew J. Goldsmith (Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1991), 270-1; and Douglas Perez, "Police Review Systems," Management Information Service Report, ICMA, vol. 24, no. 8, August 1992, 1.

3 Framers need to consider potential legal conflicts with applicable police officer bills of rights and collective bargaining agreements. In addition, jeopardy to criminal cases might arise through granting immunity for subpoenaed testimony. See, e.g., Judith E. Secher, "Legal Considerations Involving Civilian Review of Police Conduct," Police Chief, March 1993, 11-12.

4 Samuel Walker and Vic W. Bumphus, "Civilian Review of the Police: A National Survey of the 50 Largest Cities, 1991," Department of Criminal Justice, University of Nebraska at Omaha, 1991, 4.

5 Susan Braunstein and Mitchell Tyre, "Selling Your Community on a Citizen's Review Board," PM: Public Management, January 1994, 13.

6 See Perez, supra note 2, whose surveys found that a "wide majority" of police officers believe they are treated more fairly by internal review systems.

7 Numerous studies support the conclusion that civilian review boards are less likely to sustain charges against police officers than chiefs acting on the results of police internal affairs investigations and that, furthermore, civilian boards are more lenient in disciplinary recommendations when officers are found guilty. See, e.g., Wayne A. Kerstetter, "Who Disciplines the Police? Who Should?" Police Leadership in America: Crisis and Opportunity, ed. William A. Geller (New York: Praeger, 1985), 162; and Douglas Perez, "Police Accountability: A Question of Balance" (Ph.D. dis., University of California at Berkeley, 1978), 278-79.

8 The authors worked closely with the city manager, the city commission, the police department, and the community from November 1992 to October 1993. Their work had three major components: Advising on the construction of the board, facilitating interaction between various stakeholders, and planning, delivering, and evaluating training. The board heard its first police case in February 1994.