Subject: Sunlight: Consent decrees open police data, but for a limited time
only
Who polices the police? [image: Image of gavel]
(Photo credit: Joe Gratz/Flickr <http://ift.tt/1t3vpNO>)
Well, since the enactment of the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act <http://ift.tt/VLYFHy> a portion of that responsibility has
gone to the Special Litigation Section <http://ift.tt/1ty9rUx> of the Civil
Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). When a local or
state police department exhibits a pattern of unconstitutional practices or
policies, Section 14141 of the 1994 bill gives the DOJ jurisdiction to
investigate and litigate that department.
These investigations often result in an agreement between the DOJ and the
police department called a consent decree (also known as a 'memorandum of
agreement' or 'settlement agreement'). This May, Cleveland entered
into a consent
decree <http://ift.tt/1HJdWXi> after the DOJ reported âsystemic
deficiencies and practicesâ that contributed to unreasonable police use of
force throughout the police department. The consent decree outlines
requirements <http://ift.tt/1FUaEMS> that will make policies, procedures,
audits and select police data publicly available. Specifically, the
agreement encourages transparency for use of force justifications, the
establishment of a 13-member citizen advisory committee and revisions to
search and seizure policies.
In March, the Ferguson Police Department (FPD) received findings
<http://ift.tt/1wFkf9I> from their Section 14141 investigation and is currently
negotiating <http://ift.tt/1Io10SZ> a consent decree with the DOJ; alike to
Cleveland, FPD also received recommendations to improve the openness of its
data. If FPD does not settle with the DOJ, they could risk dissolution or
further litigation <http://ift.tt/1Nl2669>.
Consent decrees can help achieve greater transparency and accountability in
policing because they often require departments to institute new policy,
collect new data and report data publicly. New Orleansâ 2012 consent decree
<http://ift.tt/1HTi16v> was particularly expansive, requiring the police
department to improve the quality and availability of police data,
policies, manuals, reports and audits. The policy changes required by the
consent decree opened a multitude of police datasets <http://ift.tt/1GLe5Y4>,
making New Orleans a leading city in open data and police accountability.
However, consent decrees and their associated federal oversight eventually
end. And when this oversight is gone, the reforms instituted under the
consent decree often dissolve.
Consent decree longevity
For example, the Rampart Scandal <http://ift.tt/1xWFocs> of the Los Angeles
Police Department (LAPD) lead to the implementation of a consent decree
requiring the collection and public availability of stop and frisk data
<http://ift.tt/1AP6Hs5>. However, the LAPDâs consent decree has now been
lifted and that data is no longer publicly available, with the last report
<http://ift.tt/1VypLUQ> dated 2006.
In 2001, Washington, D.C. entered into a memorandum of agreement
<http://ift.tt/1HTi16x> with the DOJ after the Washington Post
<http://ift.tt/1VypLUU> reported that the Metropolitan Police Department
(MPD) killed more people per capita than any other major city police
department. Unlike most DOJ investigations, this one was requested by MPDâs
Chief of Police at the time, Charles Ramsey. This request resulted in a
consent decree requiring the department to make quarterly reports on use of
force statistics and complaints publicly available. The required quarterly
reporting spawned the Force Investigation Team, which was later dissolved
once the decree had expired as part of a "departmental reorganization
<http://ift.tt/1VypLUV> Today, without a consent decree binding MPD to
release use of force statistics, the only publicly available use of force
data comes out of two annual reports â from the Office of Police Complaints
<http://ift.tt/1HTi2Y6> and the MPD <http://ift.tt/1HTi16z> â that do
little beyond reporting annual counts.
[image: Metropolitan Police Department's annual report use of force data]
Chart of annual use of force statistics from Metropolitan Police
Department's 2013 annual report (Image credit: Metropolitan Police
Department)
The New Orleans Police Department (NOPD) is finding opportunity outside of
its consent decree to open data through its participation in the White
Houseâs Police Data Initiative (in which Sunlight is also proud to
participate <http://ift.tt/1JXIQIB>) and a meeting at the White House
addressing how to use technology and data to improve community policing. In
this meeting, the NOPD made a commitment to release use of force data, car
and body camera metadata, results from disciplinary investigations and both
pedestrian and vehicle stop data. NOPD made this commitment âbecause people
are asking for that information and [they] want to be transparent about itâ
and that releasing this data will âbuild legitimacy and build trust in
police and the community,â according to NOPDâs Superintendent Michael
Harrison.
In cities such as New Orleans, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., consent
decrees have been responsible for opening police data that may not have
otherwise been made public. These public datasets are integral to police
accountability and building community trust, but unfortunately are only
guaranteed while federal oversight exists â as evidenced in Los Angeles and
Washington, D.C. While consent decrees are powerful, change within a
department must be systemic and well accepted, or else the department may
abandon reforms in favor of cost-reduction or traditional practice.
NOPD is aware of this challenge and has committed itself to establishing a
police culture that ensures long-lasting adoption of consent decree reforms.
Itâs my job, along with our entire executive team and command staff team
[...] to change our culture...I think the systems of accountability that
weâre building and implementing are the kind of systems that are strong and
are flexible to change over time as things change with this police
community. Iâd like to think these systems of accountability will always be
there, whether Iâm the chief or not, to make us the kind of police
department that we promised the citizens we would be.
NOPD Superintendent Michael Harrison
In addition to the necessary intra-departmental cultural change, community
buy-in is also important in ensuring lasting reform adoption. NOPD Deputy
Chief of Staff Jonathan Wisbey agrees:
Once you start establishing expectations with the community, by providing
data, it makes it very difficult for someone in the future to go back and
say this thing that weâve provided for years...weâre no longer going to do
so.
Of course, consent decrees do not guarantee greater transparency or data
availability. Some consent decrees, like Detroitâs <http://ift.tt/1HTi2Ya>
(ongoing from 2003) do not include requirements to make data publicly
available. Although Detroitâs consent decree requires the department to
collect new data and statistics, they are only required to report them to
the consent decree monitor, the City and the DOJ. Instead of hosting their
own crime statistics, the Detroit Police Department (DPD) links to
city-data.com <http://ift.tt/1kJ16cc>. We were unable to identify the
source of this data as city-data.com does not cite sources and did not
reply to our inquiries. Due in part to the consent decree and an Executive
Order establishing Detroit's Open Data Initiative earlier this year
<http://ift.tt/1VypLUZ>, the City of Detroit holds DPD crime data and has
recently made it publicly available on the City's open data portal
<http://ift.tt/1MBCaTC> alongside data from eight other agencies. Detroit
is a prime example that consent decrees, while often helpful in increasing
transparency and accountability in policing, are just one of the methods by
which a city can open its police data.
Cost of consent decrees
While there are many benefits realized from consent decrees, their
implementation is often met with resistance over associated costs and
administrative changes. Consent decrees can cost a city millions of dollars
a year â and last many years â causing government and public concern over
associated costs of implementing required reforms.
New Orleansâ 2015 budget includes $7.3 million <http://ift.tt/1wOVaEK> to
cover the costs of implementing of the cityâs consent decree. In 2014,
Seattle Police Department spent $5.8 million <http://ift.tt/1HTi42b> on
consent decree implementation. Clevelandâs recently established consent
decree was met with financial concerns as the consent decreeâs
requirements, which include adopting updated technology, hosting more
trainings, hiring new staff and establishing external agency monitoring,
will cost the city millions. Some <http://ift.tt/1VypLV1> have argued that,
while expensive, the implementation of consent decrees may reduce civil
liability and be a worthwhile long-term investment. Further, a consent
decree can help a department get the resources they need when they would
otherwise be met with pushback <http://ift.tt/1nESR1S> (page 34) from the
city or unions.
Despite the promise of reduced civil liability and better resources,
officers do not always welcome the intrusion of the federal government on
their agency. Because the purpose of a consent decree is to reform police
department policies and practices, the behaviors of police officers take
center-stage. Officers often view these agreements negatively and resist
suggested changes in favor of traditional practice.
Itâs often hard to reform police departments without external
intervention...Institutions are resistant to change. None of us like to
have somebody outside telling us what to do. And police departments are
especially that way.
Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California-Irvine Law School
<http://ift.tt/1w4LXwd>
from Sunlight Foundation Blog http://ift.tt/1HTi2Hz
via IFTTT <http://ift.tt/1bODNcb>