Who's Policing The Police? - Kinder.rice.edu

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONSFindings andRecommendationsCivilian oversight is evolving right now across the United States, and as thisreport shows, it is evolving especially quickly in Texas. Three of the fiveorganizations we researched were less than 2 years old. Perhaps because of this,each of these organizations can present specific lessons for Houston and other Texascities currently revising their civilian oversight practices.The agencies in Fort Worth, Dallas and Austin moreclosely align with the principles for effective civilianoversight. In San Antonio and Houston, civilian oversightagencies suffer from a lack of data access, a lack of independence, uncertain legal status and a complete lack oftransparency and public reporting.Regarding NACOLE best practices, most of the Texasagencies score well by one metric: independence frompolice. Texas oversight agencies differ in the extent towhich they have access to police data and staff, such ascomplaint data, body camera footage, incident reports,and other key internal police; Dallas and Austin oversightagencies have largely independent access to police data,while the other cities do not. In addition, state law placesrestrictions on Texas agencies’ ability to acquire policepersonnel information.As shown in the appendix, city leaders attempting toform a new oversight organization face many challenges:city council members may have objections to the oversight board’s recommendations, and activists may havedemands that are at odds with the agency’s responsibilities. Police unions may put up significant roadblocks toforming a new agency. Dallas, for example, faced significant protests against its board, and Austin needed to doextensive negotiations with its police union in order tofinalize the terms of its oversight groups.4Nevertheless, we make five findings below that can helpguide Houston and other Texas cities as they considerestablishing or revamping their citizen oversight process.In addition, NACOLE provides many excellent resourceson starting a new oversight organization. Houston leaderswould do well to study not only NACOLE’s resources4, but also the formation of the agencies in this report(which is partially detailed in the appendix).1. Civilian oversight agencies need powersand staffing.Oversight work requires time and money, and extensiveresearch suggests that an ineffective and opaque civilianoversight system may be worse than no oversight systemat all. If starting or reforming an oversight system, thatsystem should be funded and supported. If an oversightagency is tasked with investigating or auditing complaints, it needs to employ effective investigators (i.e., people with legal knowledge, police expertise and researchskills). If a civilian board must gather facts about a use-offorce complaint, it should have time to conduct meaningful review (something that the Houston IPOB currentlylacks, according to the recent Task Force findings). If it isauditing policy, the office needs effective researchers andauditors who can help identify what specific police policies or practices lead to unjust outcomes. Austin currentlyRice University Kinder Institute for Urban Research

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONShas approximately 15 staff members with plans to increaseto 20 in the immediate future. By contrast, most agenciesin the state’s big cities have fewer than five employees tooversee forces of thousands of officers. Houston’s IPOBhas no staff or resources.2. State law, particularly LGC 143, mayalso create barriers to citizen oversight.State law — Local Government Code Ch. 143, specifically —sets many of the parameters that govern how municipalities may review officers’ personnel files, consider pastdisciplinary infractions, discipline officers in a timelyfashion or do many other activities that serve civilianoversight best practices. For example, LGC 143:!Places a 180-day limit on an officer receivingdisciplinary suspensions (including for use of force),dated from the day the department becomes awareof the act (see, for example, Local Government Code§ 143.117.d).5!Gives officers great leeway in preventing the releaseof their personnel file (see Local Government Code§ 143.1214).6!Allows officers to identify their complainants, whichis a disincentive for civilians to file complaintsagainst officers because the civilians may fearretaliation (see Local Government Code § 143.123.f),7a point of particular concern in a state with a largeundocumented immigrant population.!Mandates removal of a disciplinary action against anofficer’s record if that action is expunged by a hearingexaminer, which is a controversial practice.83. Civilian oversight policy is usually writteninto the collective bargaining agreements.For the reasons described above, Texas cities don’t onlywrite oversight policy through their own ordinances andcharter provisions. Because of LGC 143, they also effectively write it through the collective bargaining processwith their local police unions. In addition to setting theterms of employment (like salary and benefits), policeunion collective bargaining agreements (called a “meetand confer” agreement in Houston) often set the powerand scope of oversight. San Antonio’s oversight boardarises directly from the police’s collective bargainingagreement, while Austin’s oversight board activities arelargely outlined in their agreement with the police union.Additionally, the union contracts often restrict the abilityof agencies to hear testimony from police officers, restrictagencies’ access to officers’ personnel and disciplinaryfiles, allow older disciplinary infractions to be expungedand/or limit the agency’s or chief’s ability to discipline offending officers, among many other clauses. Transparencycan also be harmed by these agreements. For example,San Antonio’s collective bargaining agreement limits theability of oversight board agendas and rulings to be public.Implementing oversight best practices requires changingkey clauses to union contracts. Given that Houston’s meetand confer with the HPD that was ratified in 2018 ends atthe end of 2020, city leaders should pay particular attention to the barriers to effective oversight within that agreement at this specific juncture in time.104. Oversight agencies need a strong legalbasis and board members need training.These rules can be superseded by a collective bargaining agreement or meet and confer agreement (LocalGovernment Code § 143.303 and 143.307.c). These rulesrepresent extra bargaining chips that police unions canbring to the table in a collective bargaining agreementwhen they are negotiating for other items, such as compensation and benefits.Agencies that derive from executive orders or collectivebargaining agreement terms (like Houston’s and SanAntonio’s) are inherently more tenuous than those written into an ordinance or charter. Creating an organizationwith an ordinance or charter amendment helps guaranteethat the agency has a funding stream and ensures thatcity officials support the organization through staffing,funding and other legal protections.LGC 143 also has some provisions that only apply tocities with more that 1.5 million people, i.e., only the cityof Houston (see Local Government Code Subchapter G).9We suggest that state and city officials confer to discussLGC 143’s barriers to effective oversight, as outlined byNACOLE’s principles, and encourage more uniform andevidence-based policy design.Training of civilian board members is necessary becausemany civilians have strong opinions about police yetpossess little knowledge about the ins and outs of patrolpolice work, which can be rather dull.11 Some cities mandate a strict training regimen for civilian board members(including ride-alongs and classes led by local police).Who’s Policing the Police?: A Comparison of the Civilian Agencies that Perform Oversight of Police in Texas’ Five Largest Cities5

Photo by Coast Guard News/flickrFINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONSCities looking to revamp their agencies should note thatNACOLE issues principles for selecting and trainingstaff people and board members (as outlined in a recentreport12), such as a basic familiarity with state laws andthe history of the local police and their challenges. Somescholars suggest that a board should not be city-appointed; rather, board members and monitors should beappointed by community groups representing non-whitecommunities most likely to face police malfeasance.13Board members should be willing to publicly criticize thepolice department if needed. Boards may risk irrelevanceif their members, without critical investigation, consistently agree (or disagree) with police perspectives.14as well). Dallas and Austin attempt to partially do this byhaving different oversight institutions — both a monitor’soffice and a board that attempts to guide criminal justicepolicy and review other police practices. Cities shouldtry to ensure that these different parts of the accountability puzzle fit together and provide information to eachother. This can happen when a city has both a board anda monitor, as each agency can make sure the other fulfillsits mandate. Accountability also requires that oversightagencies publicize their work, something they cannoteasily do because of LGC 143 and clauses in collectivebargaining agreements.5. Civilian oversight is a part of a largerpolice accountability project.Civilian oversight is only part of any overall effort toimprove police accountability. Improving accountabilityalso requires policymakers to improve lines of communication between the police and residents, and police departments making their data more publicly available (andnot only crime data, but institutional and complaint data6Rice University Kinder Institute for Urban Research

INTRODUCTIONIntroductionThis report analyzes the civilian agencies that perform civilian oversight ofpolice in Texas’ five largest cities: Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Austinand Fort Worth. These five cities’ oversight agencies have different mandates,responsibilities and investigative powers, as well as different relationships to thegeneral public, different mandates and different disclosure requirements. Ourresearch demonstrates that, compared to Houston, the other major Texas citiesmostly have more-extensive oversight agencies.For Houston, this report comes at a period when the existingcivilian oversight institution is being reviewed by the cityfor possible changes. Since 2011, volunteer civilians servingon Houston’s Independent Police Oversight Board (IPOB)have reviewed investigations of serious police use-of-forceincidents. In September 2020, Houston Mayor SylvesterTurner’s Task Force for Police Reform (hereafter “TaskForce”) recommended policing reforms for Houston. KinderInstitute for Urban Research Director William Fulton servedon the Task Force, and Kinder Institute staff members assisted him in his Task Force work by providing research assistance. That research effort was the genesis of this report.While the Task Force was conducting its review in the summer of 2020, some members of the Houston City Council aswell as other prominent Houstonians pointedly criticizedthe IPOB’s structure and effectiveness. Councilmembershave suggested that the board is an opaque and ineffectiveentity that is “window dressing”15 and not meaningful oversight of police. One of the Task Force’s major recommendations included overhauling the IPOB, and the details ofthat reform will be mentioned in this report’s appendix.Our intent is for this guide to prove useful for policydesign in Houston. Therefore, we focused on other largeTexas cities that must perform civilian oversight under the auspices of Texas state law, particularly LocalGovernment Code Chapter 143 (hereafter “LGC 143”),which places obstacles to civilian oversight of the police.However, the experience we describe may help otherTexas cities looking to create oversight organizations.To analyze each city’s civilian oversight practice, theKinder Institute used the National Association for CitizenOversight of Law Enforcement’s (NACOLE) best practicesas a framework. NACOLE is the leading national organization representing practitioners of civilian oversight ofpolice. Drawing on the extensive scholarly literature on civilian oversight, NACOLE developed a list of 13 principles16for effective civilian oversight. Using these principles as aframework, we examined each city’s oversight board to seehow well they aligned (or diverged) from best practices.While we did not apply a quantitative NACOLE score toeach agency, we did conclude that the agencies in FortWorth, Dallas and Austin more closely align with theprinciples for good and effective civilian oversight. In SanAntonio and Houston, civilian oversight agencies sufferfrom a lack of data access, a lack of independence frompolice, uncertain legal status and a complete lack of transparency and public reporting.While we hope that this guide helps policymakers acrossTexas, we must emphasize that each city has local policing concerns. Police departments in Texas — and indeedWho’s Policing the Police?: A Comparison of the Civilian Agencies that Perform Oversight of Police in Texas’ Five Largest Cities7

INTRODUCTIONacross the United States — are hyper-local institutions.Approximately 18,000 police forces exist in the U.S., including almost 2,800 law enforcement agencies in Texas,which collectively employ roughly 79,000 peace officers(as of writing).17 Texas’ large cities in this report all havetheir own crime and policing challenges, which also differfrom Texas’ rural cities, college towns or transnationalborder metropolises. Their civilian oversight agenciesshould, accordingly, have some different functions.Citizen Oversight of Police: An OverviewCivilian oversight of police18 is part of this larger policeaccountability project.19 According to experts on the field,police should be publicly accountable at the agency- andofficer-level. Agencies are expected to fight crime anddisorder while providing public services, while officersare expected to be fair and just while they execute thedepartment’s goals.20 Accountability has both an internaland external dimension. Internally, officers are accountable to performance goals, their supervisors and otheragency demands. Externally, officers must be accountableto public expectations of fairness, justice and equity.The civilian oversight agencies analyzed in this reportare part of that external accountability project (with theexception of San Antonio, whose civilian oversight agencyis technically within the police department). This report,however, will focus primarily on civilian oversight agencies’ practices, and less on how they fit with other aspectsof the accountability puzzle.While most police rarely use violence in their daily work—only 2% of police-civilian contacts lead to use of force oreven a threat21 — police use-of-force is at the heart of mostcivilian oversight agencies.22 Police have a unique relationship to the law and violence. Often, police interactionswith citizens represent a crucial juncture where the state’scapacity for violence intersects with the everyday structural inequalities of the United States.23 Simply put, poorerand non-white civilians are more likely to be the targetsof police violence, which is often one of the reasons whycitizens seek more oversight of police.24 Thus, use-of-forceassumes special attention in the world of civilian oversight.But oversight can center on more than use-of-force.Nonviolent police encounters, such as traffic stops, canalso be unjust and unfair. So can promotion and hiringpractices or emergency response times. Oversight agencies also can, for example, review promotions, reviewweapons acquisition,25 do “big data” analysis with collected bodycam footage,26 or actively help write and8enforce the policies that govern the police department’severyday operations.27 In this research, we found that themore-thorough oversight agencies in Texas do, in fact,engage in more than use-of-force review.The five largest Texas cities all have external civilian oversight institutions and they differ extensively in their composition, powers and operation. Each agency has a different legal basis, different abilities to conduct independentinvestigations and different staffing capacities. Austin employs approximately 15 people (soon to be 20) in its Office ofPolice Oversight, many of whom have advanced degrees.Austin also supports a volunteer Community Police ReviewCommission that reviews officer use-of-force cases. Dallasand Fort Worth employ much less staff than Austin, butstill have a diversely trained staff. San Antonio and Houstonemploy no civilian oversight professionals. San Antonio hasa board of 14 people — 7 officers and 7 civilians — within itspolice’s Internal Affairs division that reviews use-of-forcecases. Many other large Texas cities may not do civilianoversight. For example, we originally intended to includeEl Paso in this report, but it has no civilian oversight agency.History of civilian oversight of policeThe earliest major push for institutionalizing civilianoversight came during the 1930s, after notable federal commissions advocated for the practice. The major cities of themid-Atlantic region formed the first major civilian oversightagencies in the mid-20th century: Washington, D.C., in1948, New York City in 1953 and Philadelphia in 1958. Policeinterests quickly pushed back against these oversight agencies.28 Within two decades, all had dissolved or changedsubstantially due to lack of funding and public support.The next major push emerged from the 1960s unrest inDetroit, Los Angeles/Watts and other cities that frequentlyarose directly from police abuse against Black civilians.The federal Kerner Commission in 1968 recommended thatcities institute oversight agencies, and many did. In the1970s and onwards, the newer civilian oversight agenciestended to have more investigative powers, greater budgets,more ability to discipline officers and a constant fundingstream thanks to agencies being enshrined through citycharter amendments or ordinances. Some civilians tookoversight matters into their own hands: Black Powerorganizations across the U.S. started “copwatch” programsin which members would actively follow police officers inorder to witness their interactions with civilians.Another push came in the 1990s, when the 1992 LosAngeles Riots and broken windows/”zero tolerance” poRice University Kinder Institute for Urban Research

INTRODUCTIONlicing caused people to demand more civilian oversight. A1994 federal policy within the Violent Crime Control andLaw Enforcement Act gave the federal government morepower to investigate local police departments, largelythrough federal consent decrees, which placed local policedepartments that had a demonstrable record of violenceunder federal oversight.Following Michael Brown’s death in Ferguson, Missouri,in 2014, protests under the broad “Black Lives Matter”movement have increasingly pushed for policing reforms,including oversight, leading cities to institute new organizations. Also, the Justice Department under the Obamaadministration oversaw many consent decrees in places likeNew Orleans, Cleveland, Chicago and Ferguson, helping toinstitutionalize improved oversight agencies in some of thoseplaces. While this expansion has effectively ceased duringthe Trump presidency,29 existing consent decrees and broader protests have expanded civilian oversight: experts estimate around 150 exist in the United States today.30 Famousexamples exist in San Jose, New Orleans, Denver and SanFrancisco, yet even smaller cities like Urbana, Illinois, havecivilian review boards or professional police monitors.Civilian oversight has an ambivalent history. The agenciessit at the center of a struggle among different municipalinterests: activists, police union leadership, local politicians, the police chief, advocacy organizations, rankand-file officers and so forth. Often, the public will rallyaround creating an oversight agency after a controversialuse-of-force case. City leaders will then create an agency,and decades later the public will protest again after a major incident increases demand for new police accountability practices. This has been the case within Houston, as theIPOB replaced an older civilian oversight board in 2011.Sometimes an agency will start with a broad mandate butnot have the staffing capacity to support it (as happenedin the 1950s in New York City), or the union’s collectivebargaining agreement will kneecap the agency’s abilityto gather evidence from officers. Sometimes a reviewboard’s members, if they are sympathetic to police andtheir unions, will weaken the board’s oversight capacities(a critique levied at the IPOB by some citizens, including aformer IPOB member).31Types of oversight agenciesScholars place oversight organizations into different categories, which can help us frame the work of the differentorganizations in Texas. While few use the same languageto describe the types of oversight agencies, we adopt thetypology used by De Angelis et alia in their re

2 Rice University Kinder Institute for Urban Research To analyze each city's civilian oversight practice, the Kinder Institute used the National Association for Citizen Oversight of Law Enforcement's (NACOLE) best practices as a framework. NACOLE is the leading na-tional organization representing practitioners of civilian oversight of police.