www.portlandcopwatch.org/iprassessmentanalysis.html -
[Cached Version]
Published on: 2/12/2008
Last Visited: 7/9/2008
The 137-page report by nationally recognized expert Eileen Luna-Firebaugh contains at least 3 dozen recommendations, many of which can immediately bring improvements if adopted.Most significantly, it suggests that the IPR should be doing independent investigations not only on its own, but when directed to do so by the CRC.The current ordinance allows such investigations, but the IPR has never done one in its entire 6-year existence.
Luna-Firebaugh further instructs the IPR to assign a staff person directly to the CRC and have them hold more appeal hearings, issue more policy recommendations, and do more outreach.
...
(46) Luna-Firebaugh adds that there has been no marked improvement in quality of investigations or community satisfaction. (114)
Luna-Firebaugh noted that some officers not being held accountable for misconduct, the IAD not fully investigating, and the IPR not conducting independent investigations all lead to a lack of community confidence. (53)
Luna-Firebaugh struggled to analyze four sets of statistics she was given regarding the "Sustain rate," or how often officers are found guilty of misconduct.She expressed that Portland's "statistics have been sometimes difficult for this Consultant to understand, and it must be almost impossible for the average Portland citizen to understand as well."(78, echoed on 48) She notes that such confusion also leads to reduced public confidence in the system. (51)
She repeats twice that regardless of the differences between her statistics and the IPR's, the general perception of the IPR is the same across the boards, with no survey showing public confidence over 30% in the IPR. (51, 78 & 94)
Part of the concern is a lack of transparency and communication on the part of the IPR.There has been no annual report presented since 2004 (49) and, Portland Copwatch would add, the three existing reports were never presented to City Council.Luna-Firebaugh found a general lack of awareness of the IPR throughout Portland.
...
(83) Luna-Firebaugh cites the National Institute of Justice (NIJ-part of the federal Department of Justice), which defines dedication to a successful civilian complaint system as "Intellectual curiosity that seeks to 'get to the bottom' of what has occurred."(83)
...
Luna-Firebaugh reminds the four elected Commissioners and the Mayor that they have the authority to change the ordinance if the IPR is not meeting the community's needs--which the report proves, it is not. (111)
...
Furthermore, Luna-Firebaugh gives good reasons for the IPR to take over some cases from IAD.In 25 cases she reviewed for the study, 9 were "seriously inadequate."
...
Luna-Firebaugh further recommends that the CRC should advise the IPR when the above criteria are met, since the ordinance is vague about when the threshold is met. (12, 114, 117, 120)
She notes that the IPR could be effective and have high satisfaction rate if its independence is actual and not in writing. (114) Perhaps one reason the public doesn't trust the investigation process is that, the consultant found, at intake complainants are told about mediation (ability to talk one-on- one with an officer, but the complaint doesn't get investigated), service complaint (in which a supervisor talks to the officer, but no investigation is done), but not about the possibility of a full investigation being conducted. (83) In 2006, 63% of complaints were dismissed by IPR and only 10% were investigated by IAD. (64) (This brings to mind South Park's Officer Barbrady, telling panicked townspeople "OK, people, move along, nothing to see here.")
...
Luna-Firebaugh does not address other issues which have led to the low number of appeals: in 2002, the IPR stopped taking appeals from people whose complaints were declined/dismissed; they changed the definition of a "Service Complaint" (which we call the "dirty fork" finding) so that the civilian no longer has the right to refuse that outcome; and IPR refuses to include appeal forms when advising people of the outcome of investigations.We believe declined cases should be eligible for appeal, citizens should have a say in Service Complaints, and that appeal forms should go out with all "disposition letters."
City employees may have said more about the way the IPR handles its Citizen board than the dozens of citizens who called Luna-Firebaugh to express their frustration with the system, and the nine who filed appeals and all said they were not at all satisfied. (47-48) Here are two quotes attributed to City Council staff members:
...
Luna-Firebaugh indicates that she found no overt bias on the part of IAD investigators.However, she found one third of their investigations to be inadequate.Her survey results show 89% of officers but only 56% of citizens thought the investigators were unbiased. (149 & 160) More than one in five civilians said investigators discouraged them from filing complaints. (97 & 151) The lack of thoroughness and imbalance of citizen and officer satisfaction, combined with how often officers' words are believed over civilians' (see "Findings" section), is indicative of an institutional bias even if it is not overt in the individual case files.
35 online sources [ view sources ]
Profile is not claimed [ this is me ]
