By Darrel Stephens, Ellen Scrivner and Josie F.and Cambareri and National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement
Civilian oversight of law enforcement agencies is nothing new. In fact, agencies have always been accountable to the communities they serve. Moreover, additional oversight boards have existed in various forms since the 1950s. While not present everywhere, according to Liana Perez, Director of Operations of the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement, there are now more than 200 oversight boards across the nation.
Civilian oversight of the police has been a topic of discussion and debate since the 1960s. The debate generally surfaces in communities where there has been a high-profile incident in which a member of the community has been injured or killed during an encounter with the police. The shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri in August 2014 followed by other high-profile shootings and deaths pushed civilian oversight and police accountability into the national spotlight.
The National Association of Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE) adopted a system developed by Samuel Walker in 2001 with some modifications of their own. NACOLE places civilian oversight bodies in one of three classifications:
1. The investigation-focused model involves routine, independent investigations of complaints against police officers, which may replace or duplicate police internal affairs processes, though non-police civilian investigators staff them.
2. The review-focused model concentrates on commenting on completed investigations after reviewing the quality of police internal affairs investigations. Recommendations may be made to police executives regarding findings, or there may be a request that further investigations be conducted. A review board composed of citizen volunteers commonly heads this model, and they may hold public meetings to collect community input and facilitate police-community communication.
3. The auditor/monitor model focuses on examining broad patterns in complaint investigations including patterns in the quality of investigations, findings, and discipline rendered. Furthermore, in some cities that use this model, auditor/monitors may actively participate in or monitor open internal investigations. This model often seeks to promote broad organizational change by conducting systematic reviews of police policies, practices or training, and making recommendations for improvement.
As shown in figure 1, 28 agencies (70%) reported one of the three NACOLE models: investigation focused (independent investigations of misconduct allegations), review-focused (review the quality of completed internal affairs), or auditor/monitor-focused (inspector general, audit processes, review complaint investigations). Twelve agencies (30%) classified their oversight body as being either a combination of these models or another type of model completely.
• The most common type of civilian oversight boards were review-focused (n = 16).
• Auditor/monitor-focused boards were used least frequently (n = 4).
• Twelve MCCA agencies reported “other,” which usually meant they used some hybrid of these models or had two separate bodies with oversight authority.
General authorities MCCA agencies reported the authorities their agency’s model of civilian oversight possessed. While two agencies (Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Honolulu, Hawaii) reported their board as having all the authorities listed, most agencies’ oversight bodies had varying levels of authority.
Figure 2 displays which authorities civilian oversight bodies are more or less likely to have among the responding MCCA agencies. 
• Two agencies (5%) reported that their civilian oversight board had all authorities while 39 agencies (95%) reported their board as having limited authority.
• Reviewing discipline (26 agencies), independently investigating complaints (26 agencies), and hearing citizen appeals (25 agencies) were the types of authority most frequently held by civilian oversight bodies.
• Only 4 civilian oversight bodies (10%) had the authority to impose discipline.
• Among the 41 agencies responding to this question, civilian oversight bodies have an average of approximately four of these listed authorities.
Characteristics of oversight bodies
Size
Of the departments reporting the number of members currently serving on their civilian oversight body (36 respondents), the average number of members reported was approximately 13. Sizes of oversight boards ranged from 2 to 50 members.
Term length
Five agencies reported having unlimited terms for members, while 29 agencies did not allow board members to serve unlimited terms. The term length served on civilian oversight boards ranges from 6 months to 8 years (n = 29).
Qualification of members
Agencies indicated the qualifications needed to serve as a volunteer member on their civilian oversight board. Answers were open-ended and varied greatly in detail. Responses were coded into dichotomous variables for this survey question. When a qualification was explicitly mentioned, it was coded as “yes,” and qualifications that were not mentioned in open-ended responses were coded as “no.”
Figure 3 displays frequencies of named qualifications in responses. Thirty-five agencies mentioned at least one qualification for oversight board members, while two agencies reported that the qualifications for members were “none.”
• Qualifications most frequently cited were recommendation/appointment by a city official (11 Boards, 30% of agencies) and residency (12 boards, 32% of agencies).
• 8% of agencies (3 boards) indicated that members must be former law enforcement officers (LEO), while 11% of agencies (4 boards) indicate that members may not be a LEO and one board (3%) exclude membership for those with a family member in law enforcement.
• Only 8% (3 boards) of agencies mentioned that members had to complete some training requirement to serve.
79% of the MCCA agencies that responded to our survey indicated they have some type of civilian oversight body in their community. At one time or another, it is safe to say that all of the other agencies have had a conversation about creating a civilian oversight body in their city. It is important to have an ongoing conversation about how to ensure that police are held accountable for their actions. It is also a difficult conversation about extremely complicated work, and the conversation most often takes place in less than ideal circumstances. NACOLE found that 49% of agencies’ oversight bodies were established following high-profile incidents and 30% from concerns about racial violence.
There is little doubt that conversations about police accountability need to continue and should be a high priority. A July 2017 Gallup Poll indicated that 57% of Americans had a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in the police; however, there are continuing gaps between minority groups and white people who have a lot of confidence in the police. Black respondents’ confidence in law enforcement was only 30%, Hispanic respondents’ was 45%, and white respondents’ was 61%.
A 2016 CATO Institute poll found that 46% of Americans (including 64% of African Americans) say the police are “generally not” held accountable for misconduct, and 79% of Americans support outside law enforcement agencies conducting these investigations. The question for police is how to engage the community in a way that helps close the gaps that exist between white community members and racial minorities in confidence and accountability.
This is not a challenge for the police alone, but also for local government generally and for civilian oversight bodies. The steps that have been taken so far have not had much effect on confidence and perceptions of accountability. Have the solutions fallen short because they are the wrong ideas? Have they been implemented in a half-hearted way? Have they been appropriately resourced?
These are important questions that require police leaders and the community to work together to resolve.
For the source and full report, click here: https://cops.usdoj.gov/RIC/Publications/cops-w0861-pub.pdf