Civilian Review Boards: An Overview
https://clerbmemphis.org/
Let’s talk about police reform, specifically Civilian Review Boards (CRBs).
CRBs go back at least to the 1948 Complaint Review Board in DC, and the idea has roots even further back in Progressive-Era good government efforts. The idea is to provide some form of oversight of police by folks from outside the corps of sworn officers.
[A note on language: a CIVILIAN review board is better than a CITIZEN Review Board. I actually like the language of "citizenship" in that it implies obligations we have to others. But that language also can be exclusive. Most advocates prefer “civilian” because it recognizes that folks without documentation are especially subject to overpolicing and police violence.]
Data on CRBs are difficult to find, because there are so many variations on civilian oversight and because police departments have been very resistant to cooperating with them.
What IS clear, however, is that typical avenues of oversight are not acceptable anymore. Police departments have their own internal review processes and avenues for citizen participation, but they have not done much to produce any meaningful reform. One thing that should be obvious from recent awareness about police violence: police cannot police the police. (Whoa.)
And typical oversight from elected officials is sorely lacking as well. Electeds do not want to be seen as weak and open to criticism from law and order challengers; on the flip side, police culture remains super-resistant to outside control. This is NOT your average bureaucracy.
Right now in Richmond there are two parallel processes that are aiming to produce guidelines for a CRB.
Last month Mayor Levar Stoney appointed a bunch of folks to a “Task Force to Reimagine Public Safety.” Lots of well-meaning folks are involved, but also police - so some critics are skeptical. The activist group Richmond Transparency and Accountability Project (RTAP) was invited to participate, and while they sent a member, they also called for the mayor to disband it! Why?
RTAP and others know that this is their best shot to get meaningful police reform. The problematic makeup of the task force, plus the short timeline (45 days) might produce a rubber-stamp board that does not actually change policing.
One of the appointees to the Mayor’s task force is, ironically, City Council member Mike Jones; he and his colleague Stephanie Lynch got the Council to create their own civilian board task force. This smaller group (9 members) will issue a report next March, so they are operating on a longer timeline and have more support from the reformers. (I think you can still apply!)
So what do we want these task forces to actually set up?
An awesome 2016 report from the non-profit National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement lays out three options for CRBs (h/t to Ross Catrow, Official Keeper of Municipal PDFs):
Investigation: this type of body conducts independent investigations of civilian complaints against police action. These boards can be powerful and provide significant accountability for police misconduct. But these kinds of boards are often very expensive, require highly trained investigators, and require police cooperation, who often would prefer to defer to internal affairs process (often compromised or ineffective, which is why we need CRBs in the first place!). One example of this type of board is the San Francisco Department of Police Accountability.
Review: this board reviews the police’s existing internal affairs process. Like other public commissions, these boards are typically cheaper and staffed by volunteers. Also like other commissions, however, they can have limited authority, rubber-stamp official actions, or eventually become “captured” by the agency they are supposed to review (e.g., the police). Urbana, Illiinois is one example.
Monitoring: this board undertakes an ongoing, broad review of police policies and data. While it can be hard to pry data out of police hands, these boards can help reform police without engaging in controversy over individual cases. Still, if run a public commission, these can be subject to the same lack of authority and resources as review types, and additionally can seem to paper over the justice demanded in individual cases of police violence. (Some localities, like Denver, have tried to fix these problems by making it a separate government agency.)
What should Richmond do? I lean towards a blend of investigation and monitoring, the more robust and independent the better. Still, the path ahead will be difficult; the task forces and a resulting CRB need to negotiate among resistant police, a critical public, and public officials who want to split the difference. NACOLE suggests that localities should choose "best fit" over best practice, and use the "least force" necessary to achieve their goals.
No matter what, the results will be crucial. The #BlackLivesMatter movement has forced local government to re-examine their approach to policing; to use a cliche, the time for reform is now. If you have thoughts, let your council member know – they own the crucial votes to determine the future of policing in this city.