Internal Accountability
 |
Internal Affairs
Internal affairs units, with varying structures, are tasked with investigating misconduct by police personnel. These units investigate alleged officer misconduct including corruption, excessive force, and discriminatory treatment of members of the public or of those within the agency. Typically, internal affairs units are responsible for investigations and make recommendations to the police chief or sheriff, or his or her designate, who have the responsibility of imposing discipline, where warranted, when such allegations are sustained.
Publications
Merrick Bobb, “Internal and External Oversight in the U.S.,” PARC, October 2005. Merrick Bobb, Special Counsel, and PARC, “Twentieth Semiannual Report on the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department,” August 2005. James J. Fyfe, Jack R. Greene, William F. Walsh, O.W. Wilson, Roy Clinton McLaren, Police Administration, McGraw Hill: New York, 5th Edition, 1997. Sean Kelly, “Internal affairs: Issues for Small Departments,” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, July 2003 http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2194/is_7_72/ai_107121939 U.S. Department of Justice, “Principles for Promoting Police Integrity: Examples of Promising Police Practices and Policies,” January 2001. http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojp/186189.pdf
Relevant Links/Tools
IACP and COPS, “Ethics Toolkit” (website with links to reports/resources, and other information on police integrity issues.)
Back To Top
|
| |
Early Identification/Early Intervention/Personnel Assessment Systems
The purpose of early identification/early intervention/personnel assessment systems that have developed beginning in the late 1980s and early 1990s is to track a variety of indicators (that differ from department to department) in an attempt to identify patterns of officer conduct that fall outside of the norm. The tracked indicators may show exemplary or unsatisfactory conduct on the part of officers. Tracking such behavior patterns may identify conduct among certain units or during certain shifts that requires correction. These systems are also used to identify and then correct inappropriate behavior though individualized strategies that may include additional training, re-assignment to another division or shift, or some other action to ensure that the officer’s actions do not become a liability for the department. The number of indicators used in these tracking systems has expanded through time and includes positive (such as commendations) as well as negative information about officer conduct. These systems also monitor officers who have been the subject of interventions to determine whether the intervention was successful. More and more departments are finding these early identification systems an essential management tool.
Publications
Merrick J. Bobb, Special Counsel, and PARC, “Sixteenth Semiannual Report on the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department,” 2003. Herman Goldstein, Police Corruption, Washington, DC: The Police Foundation, 1975. Dennis J. Kenney, Early Warning Systems: Responding to the Problem Police Officer, Washington: Government Printing Office, 2001. www.ncjrs.gov Carl B. Klockars, Sanja Kutnjak Ivkovich, and Maria R. Haberfeld, “Research For Practice: Enhancing Police Integrity,” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, December 2005. U.S. Department of Justice, “Principles for Promoting Police Integrity: Examples of Promising Police Practices and Policies,” January 2001. http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojp/186189.pdf Vera Institute of Justice, “Turning Necessity into Virtue: Pittsburgh’s Experience with a Federal Consent Decree” September 2002. http://www.vera.org/publication_pdf/180_326.pdf Samuel Walker, Geoffrey P. Alpert and Dennis Kenney, “Early Warning Systems: Responding to the Problem Police Officer,” Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, 2001. www.ncjrs.gov . Samuel Walker, "The New Paradigm of Police Accountability," St. Louis University Public Law Review, Vol. XXII, No. 1, 2003. Samuel Walker, “Early Intervention Systems for Law Enforcement Agencies: A Planning and Management Guide,” Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice, 2003. (Appendices describe several jurisdictions’ early intervention systems.) http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/mime/open.pdf?Item=925 Samuel Walker, Stacy Osnick Milligan with Anna Berke, “Supervision and Intervention within Early Intervention Systems,” Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice and Police Executive Research Forum, Washington, D.C., December 2005.
Relevant Links/Tools
Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies. Standards for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA). CALEA now requires all large agencies to have an early intervention system in order to be accredited. www.calea.org International Association of Chiefs of Police, “Early Warning System Model Policy” and “Early Warning System Concepts and Issues Paper.” http://www.theiacp.org/pubinfo/PolCtr.htm Phoenix Performance Assessment System (PAS) system http://www.phoenix.gov/police/pas1.html Special Litigation Section, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice. Many of the consent decrees and memoranda of understanding include sections on requirements for early intervention/warning systems. http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/police.htm U.S. Department of Justice, “Principles for Promoting Police Integrity: Examples of Promising Police Practices and Policies,” January 2001. http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojp/186189.pdf
Back To Top
|
Disciplinary Policies and Procedures
Police disciplinary policies and procedures vary from department to
department. Ideal disciplinary policies and practices require that
discipline is meted out in a consistent, meaningful, and fair manner.
As is clear from consent decrees and memoranda of agreement stemming
from a department’s “pattern or practice” of misconduct, some police
leaders continue to struggle with creating and using disciplinary
standards that met these standards.
Publications
Nathan F. Iannone and Marvin P. Iannone, “Supervision of Police Personnel,” Prentice Hall: New Jersey, 6th Edition, 2001. New York City Public Advocate, “Disciplining Police: Solving the Problem of Police Misconduct,” 2000. http://www.pubadvocate.nyc.gov/svlist.cfmU.S.
Department of Justice, “Principles for Promoting Police Integrity:
Examples of Promising Police Practices and Policies,” January 2001. http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojp/186189.pdfSamuel
Walker, “The Discipline Matrix: An Effective Police Accountability
Tool?” Police Professionalism Initiative, University of Nebraska at
Omaha, January 2004. http://www.policeaccountability.org/matrixreportfinal2.pdfSee “ Monitoring” for more information regarding disciplinary system reforms required by “pattern or practice” agreements.
Back To Top
|
|
|