Summary
This report describes the operations of nine very different approaches to citizen oversight, discussing the advantages, drawbacks and limitations of a variety of oversight systems and components. It also looks at staffing; resolution of potential conflicts between oversight bodies and police; and monitoring, evaluation, and funding concerns.
Contents
1. Introduction. – 2. Case studies of nine oversight procedures. – 2.1. The Berkeley, California, Police Review Commission: a citizen board and the police department investigate complaints simultaneously. – 2.2. The Flint, Michigan Ombudsman’s Office: an ombudsman investigates selected citizen complaints against all city departments and agencies. – 2.3. The Orange County, Florida, Citizen Review Board: a sheriff’s department provides executive support to an independent review board. – 2.4. The Portland, Oregon, Police Internal Investigations Auditing Committee: a city council, citizen advisers and a professional examiner share oversight responsibilities. – 2.5. The Rochester, New York, Civilian Review Board: trained mediators review citizen complaints. – 2.6. The St. Paul Police Civilian Internal Affairs Review Commission: a police-managed board recommends discipline. – 2.7. San Francisco’s Office of Citizen Complaints: an independent body investigates most citizen complaints for the police department. – 2.9. Tucson’s dual oversight system: a professional auditor and a citizen review board collaborate. – 3. Other oversight responsibilities: policy recommendations, mediation, early warning systems. – 4. Staffing: volunteer board members, investigators, executive director or auditor. – 5. Addressing important issues in citizen oversight. – 5.1. Outreach. – 5.2. Issues of oversight mechanics. – 5.3. Minimizing delays. – 5.4. Openness of oversight proceedings. – 5.5. Politics. – 6. Resolving potential conflicts between oversight bodies and police. – 7. Monitoring, evaluation and funding. – 8. Additional sources of help.