What Does Police Oversight Look Like?
When things go wrong in policing, there are often very few avenues available for concerned community members who wish to tackle the root causes of problems.
Other areas of government have formal bodies, such as commissions or boards, that may help enact community priorities or respond to public concerns on issues such as schools, parks, and zoning. But where do members of the public go when they have concerns about policing?
To answer this question, the Policing Project examined the ordinances of the 100 largest cities in the United States to see what their formal police oversight bodies look like.
Getting It Right Before It Goes Wrong
Police oversight bodies are not uncommon—in fact our survey found the majority (64%) of cities have them. But more than half of these bodies only have "back-end authority" meaning they can review particular incidents or claims of police misconduct after they happen.
To really address community concerns and enact reforms before something goes wrong, cities need to have "front-end bodies"—entities that can set or advise on policies and practices that govern the policing agency. But these sorts of bodies are largely absent from the largest American cities. Of the 100 cities in our survey, only 26 have front-end oversight bodies, and only six have bodies with the authority to set policy (not just advise).
Key Finding:
Of the 100 cities in our survey, only 26 have front-end oversight bodies, and only 6 of those have the authority to set policy.
What sorts of groups are tasked with police oversight?
Throughout the country we see four common models with varying degrees of formal and soft power. Explore the chart on the right to learn more about each of the four common types of oversight bodies.
There are two types of bodies that specifically provide front-end accountability:
Police Commissions: Police commissions are permanent bodies that review police department policies and practices to ensure they are consistent with community needs. The advantage of commissions is that they are multi-member bodies whose members can potentially represent a variety of viewpoints and communities.Example: In six cities from our survey—Los Angeles, San Francisco, Detroit, Milwaukee, Kansas City, and Oakland–the commissions actually are responsible for setting police department policies. In several other cities, commissions can recommend changes but final decision-making authority rests with the police.
Inspectors General: Police inspectors general review department policies and records to identify potential shortfalls and make recommendations.
Example: In five cities from our survey–New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Seattle, and New Orleans–IGs have broad authority to review any policy or practice that may be of interest to the public. The IGs in these cities have conducted important investigations on topics ranging from gang databases to the misuse of surveillance technologies. These reports have in turn prompted significant policy change.
What Might Robust Police Accountability Look Like?
How best to structure an oversight body is a question that each community must ultimately answer for itself based on its needs. Still, there are a few essential factors to consider:
Does the body have authority to consider systemic change, or only to review a specific incident? Back-end review is important in all areas of government, but real change requires evaluation of systemic policies and practices. Incident review occurs at the back end, while systemic change comes at the front.Example: In Chicago, the Public Safety Section within the Office of the Inspector General not only conducts investigations and audits of all Chicago Police Department policies and practices, but also issues follow-up reports and investigations to determine if its recommendations have been implemented.
Does the body have authority to mandate change, or only to recommend it? Of the front-end bodies we identified, all but 6 have advisory authority only. Binding authority is a way to increase the likelihood of systemic change taking place. To be clear, the power to recommend change can be substantial as well, but in that case the advisory body must depend on other factors, such as open access to information and sufficient resources.
Example: In some places this binding authority reaches policy making—as is the case with Detroit’s Board of Police Commissioners—while in other places that authority includes a say in selecting or removing the police chief (as is the case with Oakland’s Police Commission).
Does the body have the budget and resources to make a difference? Even a body with tremendous power on paper will ultimately have limited impact unless it has adequate resources to conduct investigations, learn from community members, and research policy changes. In our review we found that the inspectors general, by virtue of being a separate city agency, generally were given substantial funding. Among the remaining front-end bodies, however, only 6 had considerable funding and staffing (e.g., administrative assistants, investigators, and community liaisons) to carry out their work.
Example: Crucially, authority and resources do not always go hand in hand. Both San Francisco and Kansas City have a commission with the authority to set policy, but San Francisco has a significantly larger staff and budget—one reason why its commission is much more active.
Does the body have access to the information it needs to carry out its work? Systemic change cannot occur without understanding the issues at hand. To be effective, a public body must be able to identify trends in policies and practices that persistently lead to negative outcomes, as well as patterns in officer misconduct. In order to carry out this analysis, the body requires access to internal police documents such as general orders and misconduct complaints.
Example: In some places, like Los Angeles, the Office of the Inspector General and Board of Police Commissioners both have direct access to police files, meaning that they do not have to wait for the LAPD to send them for review. In places without a direct line of access to documents, it is necessary for a body to have a way to enforce their requests for information, usually via subpoena power.
Does the body communicate regularly with community members, especially to get their feedback on issues that concern them? Oversight bodies should represent the interests of community members, but as commissioners and inspectors general are not elected to these positions, it is critical that they form connections with the general public. This includes hosting public meetings and conducting outreach activities to keep the public informed and solicit feedback. Oversight bodies should also regularly release public reports (including any applicable raw data) to promote their own transparency and accountability.
Example: The Office of the Inspector General for the NYPD includes a useful tracking tool in its reports that allows the public to quickly determine the extent to which its recommendations have been implemented by the NYPD.