Transparency has been a topic of discussion in and around law enforcement for over a century, if not longer. Well before citizen review boards became synonymous with the term, society and culture has demanded some version of transparency as a prerequisite for community trust in law enforcement. Arguably, the evolution of transparency has played a cyclical role in the evolution of policing, as well.
Early transparency efforts came as a result of questionable junctures between local government and organized crime in the 1920’s, and law enforcement’s subsequent nexus to both. When the community questioned law enforcement’s ineffective response to organized crime, calls for transparency and reform grew popular within the media and the public. Almost concurrently, law enforcement academics and professionals (such as New York City Police Commissioner Theodore Roosevelt) launched professionalism campaigns, standardizing investigative procedures and patrol technologies.
Many of the reforms enacted by Commissioner Roosevelt resulted in training and policing methods that are considered commonplace today. Merit based hiring legitimized law enforcement as a profession, and coherence to policy and procedures helped to maintain it. Shooting ranges, mug shots and fingerprinting as identification measures, along with proprietary law enforcement communications were developed at this time, as well. Although some areas of the country were slower to catch on than others, in general the more technologically progressive and expertly refined law enforcement grew to be, the more the public perceived it as a legitimate profession with real accountability.
Advances in media changed public attitudes towards the police in the 1960’s, as violent images of police engaging in counter-protest measures started streaming into homes through improved television broadcast systems. Once again, calls for increased accountability fell upon law enforcement agencies, as citizens questioned police tactics and policies. From this era, the first seeds of ‘community oriented policing’ were established by the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice. If one follows this pendulum of noteworthy law enforcement responses to culture events and crime, it is easy to observe a pattern of concurrent swings in public sentiment and law enforcement structures.
Perhaps this latest iteration is the exception, though, in this mutually beneficial alternation. In considering most Citizen Review Board (CRB) models, it is difficult to find a link between community oversight committees and the ways they serve to improve existing law enforcement agencies or officers, as transparency efforts have before.
Currently, CRBs are designed to increase transparency into law enforcement agencies by reviewing complaints and high-stakes investigations, such as officer-involved shootings. These committees can then form opinions as to whether or not they agree with findings, and make recommendations toward complaint resolutions, or even some policies and procedures. A few assumptions are inherent to the design of these committees: the first and most obvious is that law enforcement officers cannot be trusted. The second is that law enforcement agencies cannot be trusted to hold their officers accountable. Third is that transparency’s primary value is to catch bad actors in law enforcement. In repeatedly–and solely–focusing on complaints and negative incidents, these assumptions are not only reinforced, but substantiated.
How is this helping? Who is this helping?
Transparency doesn’t have to mean surveillance. Transparency can be mutual understanding. Improved communication methods. Aligned and informed goals.
CRBs are (hopefully) already composed of people who have an interest in improving the effectiveness of law enforcement in their communities. What are some other meaningful ways to accomplish this?
CRBs could be ambassadors for communities with deep distrust for the police that has been established either as a learned ideology or an earned experience. They could be a contact for gathering intel and information that would otherwise be difficult to transmit to law enforcement without fear of retaliation. They could be a bridge over barriers that impede discussion and development of actual solutions to the roots of known problems, which are rarely detectable from a patrol vehicle. CRBs could establish themselves as a liaison, and a purposeful thread running through the fabric of law enforcement. CRBs could improve transparency in law enforcement agencies by helping them become better at knowing their constituents, and how to best serve them.
Some of the communities with the greatest needs for protection and public safety are often the ones who feel they cannot call the police; and not because they haven’t had a chance to re-review an internal affairs report. Rather, because there is an inherent unknown involved. Will the officers understand the deeper community issues at hand? Will they face repercussions from their peers? Will the tension all around us break into something unthinkable?
Removing that veil — that would be real transparency.
References:
Police, accountability, transparency and reform
Theodore Roosevelt Association – Police Program – Theodore Roosevelt Association
Leave a Reply