Civilian oversight of law enforcement

Civilian oversight, sometimes referred to as civilian review or citizen oversight, is a form of civilian participation in reviewing government activities, most commonly accusations of police misconduct.[1] Members of civilian oversight or civilian review boards are generally not employed by the government entity which they are reviewing.[2] These groups are tasked with direct involvement in the citizen complaints process and develop solutions to improve government accountability. Responsibilities of civilian oversight groups can vary significantly depending on the jurisdiction and their ability to become influential. Oversight should not simply criticize but should improve government[3] through citizen support for government responsiveness, accountability, transparency, and overall efficiency.[4]

Proactive civilian oversight improves transparency and demands accountability at all levels of government.[5] Reporting and monitoring (financial records, performance measures, and open records,... etc.) are now regarded as fundamental governance responsibilities.[6] Citizen Advisory Boards are a way for civilians to be involved in government oversight. Other forms of government oversight include citizen committees, community panels, citizen juries, public participation, negotiated rulemaking, and mediation[7]

An effective civilian oversight committee is structured to take on the following responsibilities: create processes for risk governance, monitoring and reporting; create clear defined duties to improve effectiveness and avoid overlapping work; recruit/retain members that are knowledgeable and engaged about policy; develop critiques that result in improved service outcomes; assign oversight responsibilities to designated individuals or groups for specific government functions; and reviews rolls regularly.[6][8]

Civilian oversight boards brainstorm ideas to improve transparency and create policy proposals.[9] Most proposals regarding civilian oversight have been with respects to police activities,[10] healthcare, non-profit and private sector.

Definition and scope

According to the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE):

"Sometimes referred to as citizen oversight, civilian review, external review and citizen review boards (Walker 2001; Alpert et al. 2016), this form of police accountability is often focused on allowing non-police actors to provide input into the police department’s operations, often with a focus on the citizen complaint process. In some jurisdictions, this is sometimes accomplished by allowing oversight practitioners (both paid and volunteer) to review, audit or monitor complaint investigations that were conducted by police internal affairs investigators. In other jurisdictions, it is done by allowing civilians to conduct independent investigations of allegations of misconduct lodged against sworn law enforcement officers. It can also be accomplished through the creation of mechanisms that are authorized to review and comment on police policies, practices, training and systemic conduct. Some oversight mechanisms involve a combination of systemic analysis and complaint handling or review."[11]

Change in political attitude

Civilian oversight is the result of a profound change in public attitudes toward government particularly related to trust. There is a lack of trust between communities and government/business because of historical misconduct. Misconduct included racial discrimination during the civil rights era, illegal activities during the Watergate scandal, and more recently the general public disagreement with government bailouts and financial fraud like Enron scandal. All these actions have caused an increased demand in accountability. Trust is a measured by gauging how effective ordinary civilians feel local policies and authorities are in their duties as official.[12] A series of laws have been created indicating the growing public concern about the need for oversight of government agencies.

In the 21st century, the trend towards providing legislative oversight over intelligence services and their activities has been a growing phenomenon. Scandals and new laws in the ever-changing political situation over the last twenty years have made it a necessity for Legislative oversight over problematic intelligence and security programs. Resulting in a clear push towards reigning in government agencies overstepping their boundaries and made civilian oversight a requirement over national security and law enforcement.[13]

Benefits and weaknesses

Benefit Increased focus on monitoring, reporting, strategic advising, value creation, accountability, and the creation of professional standards.[3]

Civilian oversight serves as a benefit to the citizens as it promotes a willingness of organizations subjected to be more open to engagement. Shifting towards engaging with the people being served and more attention towards accountability opens new avenues of service delivery. Organizations that can be made to submit to oversight of the population being served allows for changes that would benefit the population.[14]

Weakness or setbacks Accountability, transparency, and reporting are important to citizen oversight. Acts like Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act have caused an increase in oversight responsibilities requiring increased reporting, extensive examination of performance, and increased accountability of internal citizen oversight.[6] Oversight can be excessive and ultimately detrimental to desirable outcomes,[3] and administrators spend a significant amount of time on monitoring and less on strategies.[3] Difficulty forming citizen groups, failing to function effectively, agency role is not visible enough or influential, group is abolished altogether.[15]

International

Civilian participation and accountability initiatives have become a common practice in democratic nations.[5] Reporting and monitoring results are now regarded as fundamental governance responsibilities [6] The growth of civilian oversight is not confined to the United States. Citizen oversight (particularly for the police) is universal and has expanded across the English-speaking world and is spreading in Latin America, Asia, and continental Europe [15] International Asian countries do not look at service-oriented policing like western countries. Asian democracies focus on defense and maintenance of established rules, reviewing and monitoring government actions and policing human rights violations, police corruption, and corporate management.[16] Research in the United Kingdom has noted the importance of oversight of state functions such as prisons to ensure the fair and humane detention of vulnerable persons such as prisoners.[17]

Hong Kong's civilian oversight is considered to be far more transparent, independent, sufficient at holding government accountable. Possibly a result of being largely more democratic, than countries like China. Nearly all Asian democracies have some form of oversight, but only 3 have civilian oversight.[16]

History in the United States

The first organized efforts to conduct civilian oversight of police began in the 1920s. The table below is predominantly related to police oversight between 1920 and 1980. By 1980 there were about 13 agencies, and by 2000 more than 100 such as the Independent Police Auditor (IPA) in San Jose, California and Seattle, Washington and the Office of Independent Review (OIR) in New York City, New York.[15]

Year, Location Organization Responsibilities
1925, Los Angeles, California Committee on Constitutional Rights Los Angeles Bar Association created a Committee on Constitutional Rights to receive complaints about police misconduct.
1931, Nationwide National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement U.S. President Herbert Hoover established the National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement, better known as the Wickersham Commission report on Lawlessness in Law Enforcement recommended creating “some disinterested agency” in each city to help people who had complaints about the police.
1935, New York City, New York Harlem citizens task force New York City, a mayor's task force recommended a committee of from five to seven Harlem citizens of both races to whom people may make complaint if mistreated by the police.
1948, Washington, D.C. Complaint Review Board (CRB) The first official civilian review board the historically significant innovation, the Complaint Review Board (CRB) was extremely weak and ineffectual.
1958, Philadelphia Police Advisory Board (PAB) The Police Advisory Board (PAB) consisted of a board of citizens who would receive citizen complaints, refer them to the police department for investigation, and then make a recommendation to the police commissioner for action after reviewing the police investigative file.
1960, Nationwide various organizations the movement for citizen oversight expanded significantly civil rights movement challenged police misconduct nationwide.
1966, New York City expanded Civilian Complaint Review Board(CCRB) Mayor John Lindsay expanded the existing Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB; created in 1953 as a purely internal procedure) to include four non-police members, giving it a 4–3 civilian majority.
1970s, Kansas City, Missouri Office of Citizen Complaints Monitored and responded to Citizen Complaints about government misconduct.
1973, Berkeley, California Police Review Commission (PRC) The first oversight agency with independent authority to investigate complaints and Detroit voters created the Board of Police Commissioners (BPC) to govern the police department, and the board established a complaint review process staffed by non-sworn investigators.
1995, Nationwide National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE) was established.

See also

References
  1. DeAngelis, Rosenthal, and Buchner.(2014) "Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement: A Review of the Strengths and Weaknesses of Various Models." National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement, September 2016, pp. 8-10
  2. Marlene K. Rebori (2011) Citizen advisory boards and their influence on local decision-makers, Community Development, 42:1, 84-96, DOI: 10.1080/15575330.2010.505294 .
  3. Faleye, Olubunmi, Rani Hoitash, and Udi Hoitash,(2013) "The trouble with too much board oversight." MIT Sloan Review pg.53-56
  4. Rahman, H.Z., & Robinson, M. (2006). Governance and state effectiveness in Asia.IDS Bulletin (37) p. 130–149.
  5. Welcome to citizenoversight.com
  6. Prybil, Lawrence, and Rex Killian.(2014) "Community Benefit Needs Board Oversight" Health Progress pg 90-94.
  7. Webler, Thomas. Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Evaluating models of environmental discourse (1995-01-01) p. 17-33. ISBN 0792-335171.
  8. Pelletier, Stephen G.(2014)"High Performing Committees: What Makes Them Work?" Trusteeship pg 8-15.
  9. Denver City Government (2010). Citizen oversight board Archived 2010-09-22 at the Wayback Machine.
  10. Weitzer R. (2004). Public Opinion on Reforms in Policing. Police Chief.
  11. DeAngelis, Rosenthal, and Buchner.(2014) "Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement: A Review of the Strengths and Weaknesses of Various Models." National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement, September 2016, p.5
  12. Citrin, J., & Muste, C. (1999). Trust in government. In J.P.Robinson, P.R. Shaver, & L. Wrightsman (Eds.). Measures of political attitudes (pp. 465–532). New York: Academic.
  13. Born, Hans (2004). "Towards Effective Democratic Oversight of Intelligence Services: Lessons Learned from Comparing National Practices". Connections. 3 (4): 1–12. doi:10.11610/Connections.03.4.01. ISSN 1812-1098. JSTOR 26323059 – via JSTOR.
  14. Brinkerhoff, Derick W.; Wetterberg, Anna (2016). "Gauging the Effects of Social Accountability on Services, Governance, and Citizen Empowerment". Public Administration Review. 76 (2): 274–286. doi:10.1111/puar.12399. ISSN 0033-3352 – via Wiley Online Library.
  15. Andrew Goldsmith & Colleen Lewis, eds.,(2000)The History of Citizen Oversight pg.1-10 Archived 2014-12-10 at the Wayback Machine
  16. Nalla, M. K., & Mamayek, C. (2013). Democratic policing, police accountability, and citizen oversight in Asia: an exploratory study. Police Practice & Research, 14(2), 117-129. doi:10.1080/15614263.2013.767091
  17. Roffee, James A. (2017-01-01). "Accountability and Oversight of State Functions: Use of Volunteers to Monitor Equality and Diversity in Prisons in England and Wales". SAGE Open. 7 (1): 2158244017690792. doi:10.1177/2158244017690792. ISSN 2158-2440.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.