The newly appointed police chief of a large metropolitan police department approaches the podium for his first press conference.
“I will get right to the point,” he says, as cameras flash. “I was hired by the city council to make changes in the police department, and that’s what I’m planning to do, starting today. We have 20 bad police officers in this department and my pledge to the members of our community is that I will do whatever is necessary to remove them from our ranks.”
A wave of shock runs among members of the press and other attendees. Bad police officers?! And he’s actually admitting to it! The statement is unprecedented, but the chief isn’t finished yet.
He continues: “In the spirit of full transparency, I have included the officers’ names in a press release that we’re issuing immediately upon the conclusion of this press conference.” He pauses, waiting for the second round of tumult to die down. “This department carefully documents all personnel complaints. We have examined all feedback we get from the community and altogether, these 20 officers have received more complaints than the rest of the department combined. The evidence is indisputable — and the disciplinary actions will commence immediately.”
Department members watch the press conference and read the list of names, realizing that most of those being called out as “bad officers” work in areas with the highest reported crime rates in the city. Yes, there are a few names on the list that clearly belong there, but most of the others are viewed by their peers as excellent officers.
As members of the rank and file continue discussing this bombshell announcement, one person says quietly, “What about Officer So-and-so? Why isn’t he on the list?” “And Officer Whats-her-name … shouldn’t she be called out as well?” A frantic discussion ensues, with most of the assembled officers agreeing on three or four coworkers they believe should have been given the boot.
Within minutes, the lives of 20 officers have been changed forever and the collective morale of the department has dropped to unprecedented levels. In addition, the new chief of police has just unwittingly placed himself on the path to failure.
How could this happen?
It’s a bold move, based on the best of intentions. But at the same time, it was both misguided and reckless. How could there be such a huge disparity between the data presented to the chief and the widely known reality of the officers on the street? The truth is, Big Data can be incredibly helpful … but also remarkably hazardous.
What follows are just a few areas or points of failure that could lead to this type of result.
1. The data lacks context: Relying solely on the sheer number of complaints can be deceiving and inaccurate. Officers who work in areas with high call volumes and certain types of commonly reported crimes are much more likely to have community contacts that are adversarial or perceived as adversarial. Plus, what is the call volume?
It is very likely the officers in the city’s high-crime areas are not only handling more calls than their peers in less busy areas, but that the nature of the calls may be more confrontational and contentious. Branding them as “bad officers” for this is both unfair and unrealistic.
2. Mere numbers don’t reveal the problem: Not all complaints are created equal. Complaints of rudeness are often subjective and can be the result of an officer not doing what a person wanted (or doing what they didn’t want) — likely for good reasons. An officer who is continually called upon to referee arguments between residents in more densely populated areas is much more likely to receive complaints than someone dealing with property crimes in affluent neighborhoods.
Imagine an officer who is not on the chief’s list — not named as one of the “bad officers” — whose only complaint resulted from the time he told a female driver he would not write her a ticket if she would have sex with him. Is he really one of the chief’s “good” employees?
3. Failure to adequately investigate every complaint: Another big factor in sorting the “good” from the “bad” involves how complaints are investigated. Are supervisors or internal affairs personnel reviewing all available body-worn camera (BWC) footage — in its entirety, from the beginning of the call right to the very end? If no video footage exists, are investigators interviewing all available witnesses?
Another critical question (assuming all officers are equipped with BWCs) is why video is missing in the first place. What if Officer So-and-so turned off his body camera so the eventual complaint would come down to his word against hers? What if Officer Whats-her-name’s BWC always seems to “malfunction” in situations where she just happens to be accused of bias?
In departments where situations like this are happening, a full audit of all officers’ stops may be extremely revealing.
4. Changes to the complaint reporting system: Many agencies have begun giving community members the ability to file complaints as well as compliments via a hotline or an online form. Are complaints and compliments treated the same and stored in the same file? Or do complaints go into the officer’s disciplinary file and the compliments into their separate personnel file?
The type of calls generating complaints may also be important to the analysis. For example, an officer who consistently receives complaints from one type of call and compliments from another type of call may just need some retraining.
Also, the ability to file complaints online allows anyone with a cell phone to quickly vent their frustrations. Because of this, follow-up investigations are critical. Check out any business on Yelp or Google Maps and you’ll be immediately reminded how people are more and more willing to complain about just about anything.
5. Quality of and differences between first-line supervisors: Listen to any law enforcement risk manager and you’ll hear a common refrain: Front-line supervision is often the weakest link in any law enforcement organization. Some sergeants feel the need to be friends with the officers they supervise. As a result, it is not unheard of for some supervisors to intercept or downplay personnel complaints.
At the other end of the spectrum, some supervisors try to do their job diligently and correctly, and are sometimes penalized for the complaints that come from their teams. Taken out of context, a “bad” sergeant could be promoted or commended by the top brass, while the sergeant who plays by the rules receives warnings about their direct reports. When upper management doesn’t recognize and support leaders with integrity, those leaders often tend to give up.
The importance of performance reporting
The list of problems I called out above is not a comprehensive list of potential issues that may exist in agencies, but it does include some of the biggest ones. New chiefs and sheriffs cannot assume that the complaint and compliment system they have inherited is being properly utilized. They also can’t assume every complaint has been adequately investigated, or that supervisors have been completely honest in the complaints they “let through.”
Law enforcement agencies need an effective performance reporting system to help ensure they have the data needed to sort through relevant information and make informed decisions. Without this critical management tool, top-level managers will often find themselves “flying blind” with regards to personnel actions. And press conferences like the one described above are the inevitable result.
A properly implemented performance reporting system will ensure complete and accurate data that will endure across changing administrations. Perhaps more importantly, the system will also allow for chiefs and sheriffs to quantify all the good things their members are doing.
