Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/26/15 1 of 7. PageID #: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v. CITY OF CLEVELAND,
Defendant.

)

CASE NO.:

)

)

JUDGE:

)

)

)

)

)

)

COMPLAINT

I. INTRODUCTION 1. The United States of America, by its undersigned attorneys, brings this civil action against the City of Cleveland for declaratory and injunctive relief under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141. 2. The United States brings this action to remedy a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers of the Cleveland Division of Police (“CDP”), an agent of the City of Cleveland, that deprives persons of rights, privileges, and immunities secured and protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1345, and 2201. 4. The United States is authorized to initiate this action under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141. Under Section 14141, the United
1

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/26/15 2 of 7. PageID #: 2
States is authorized to bring suit against a state or local government for equitable and declaratory relief in order to remedy a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. 5. Declaratory and injunctive relief is sought as authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 14141(b). 6. Venue is proper in the Northern District of Ohio under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Defendant
is located in the Northern District of Ohio, and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this claim occurred in Cleveland, within the Northern District of Ohio. III. PARTIES 7. Plaintiff is the United States of America. 8. Defendant City of Cleveland is a municipal corporation located in Cuyahoga County, in the Northern District of Ohio. Defendant is a local government within the meaning of Section 14141, controls and operates CDP, and is liable for the acts or omissions of CDP. IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS A. Nature of the Action 9. As set out more fully below, for at least the last five years, CDP has been engaging in a pattern or practice of the use of excessive force and of unreasonable searches and seizures. B. The United States’ Investigation 10. Approximately a decade ago, the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) investigated CDP for engaging in pattern or practice of unconstitutional and unlawful conduct. That investigation identified deficiencies in CDP’s practice of use of force
2

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/26/15 3 of 7. PageID #: 3
and accountability systems and resulted in a 2004 memorandum agreement in which CDP agreed to make changes to address the identified deficiencies. The memorandum agreement was not enforced by a court, did not involve an independent monitor to assess CDP’s changes, and CDP’s efforts to implement changes did not result in sustained reform. This lack of sustained reform left many of the same structural deficiencies in place and contributes to CDP’s current unreasonable uses of force, unreasonable stops, searches, and seizures, and problematic accountability systems that persist today. 11. Because of these continued deficiencies, in March 2013, DOJ began another investigation of CDP. That extensive investigation included a comprehensive assessment of officers’ use of force, and CDP’s policies, procedures, training, systems of accountability, and community engagement. DOJ representatives and retained police experts conducted multi-day onsite tours of CDP’s facilities and District command stations; observed police activity and participated in ride-alongs with officers and supervisors in every police District; interviewed Cleveland officials, CDP’s command staff, members of CDP’s specialized units, supervisors, and police officers; and held multiple town hall meetings and individual meetings with residents, community groups, members of religious communities, CDP’s patrol officer and management unions, the City’s Office of Professional Standards and Civilian Police Review Board, and other stakeholders. DOJ representatives also interviewed individuals who had either witnessed or been subjected to force, or other stops, searches, and seizures by CDP officers. The investigation further involved an extensive review and analysis of thousands of pages of CDP’s documents by DOJ representatives and retained police
3

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/26/15 4 of 7. PageID #: 4
experts. Included among these documents were incident reports, force reports, internal investigations, CDP policies, procedures, and training materials, and civilian complaints. 12. The investigation found that CDP, through its acts or omissions, engages in a pattern or practice of the use of excessive force. DOJ also identified that CDP’s stops, searches, and seizures often violate the Fourth Amendment. DOJ found that Defendant’s systemic deficiencies and acts or omissions caused this pattern or practice of unconstitutional and unlawful conduct. 13. On December 4, 2014, DOJ issued a summary of the findings of the investigation in a 58-page report (“Report”), which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. C. Defendant’s Pattern or Practice of Unreasonable Uses of Force, Stops,
Searches, and Seizures 14. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all the allegations set forth above. 15. Defendant and its agents, including CDP, through their acts or omissions, engage in a
pattern or practice of using unreasonable force against persons in Cleveland. Many times these persons pose little or no threat of harm to the officers, themselves, or others. This pattern or practice of unreasonable force includes the unnecessary and excessive use of deadly force, including shootings and head strikes with impact weapons; the unnecessary, excessive, or retaliatory use of less lethal force, including electronic control weapons, chemical spray, and fists; excessive force against persons who are mentally ill or in crisis, including in cases where the officers were called only for assistance; and the employment of poor and dangerous tactics that place officers in situations where avoidable force becomes inevitable and places officers and civilians at
4

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/26/15 5 of 7. PageID #: 5
unnecessary risk. These uses of force are objectively unreasonable under the totality of the circumstances. 16. Defendant and its agents, including CDP, through their acts or omissions, also appear to engage in a pattern or practice of unlawfully stopping, searching and arresting persons in Cleveland. These stops, searches, and seizures are objectively unreasonable under the totality of the circumstances. 17. The patterns or practices of unconstitutional conduct set out above are caused by pervasive deficiencies in Defendant’s systems for directing, training, supervising, and holding accountable CDP officers. 18. As summarized in the Report, Defendant’s systemic deficiencies include a failure to: adequately review and investigate officers’ uses of force; fully and objectively investigate all allegations of misconduct; identify and respond to patterns of at-risk behavior; provide its officers with the support, training, supervision, and equipment needed to allow them to do their jobs safely and effectively; adopt and enforce appropriate policies; effectively deploy resources; and implement effective community policing strategies at all levels of CDP. These deficient systems demonstrate Defendant’s deliberate indifference to the patterns or practices of unconstitutional and unlawful conduct committed by CDP officers and its other agents. V. CAUSE OF ACTION: PATTERN OR PRACTICE OF VIOLATIONS OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AND SECTION 14141 19. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all the allegations set forth above. 20. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue,
5

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/26/15 6 of 7. PageID #: 6
but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” 21. By the actions set forth above, Defendant and its agents, including CDP officers, use unreasonable force against individuals. 22. By the actions set forth above, Defendant and its agents, including CDP officers, engage in unreasonable stops, searches, and seizures of individuals. 23. By the actions set forth above, Defendant and its agents, including CDP officers, have engaged and continue to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution and laws of the United States, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 14141(a). 24. Unless restrained by this Court, Defendant will continue to engage in the unconstitutional and illegal conduct alleged herein, or other similar unconstitutional or illegal conduct, causing irreparable harm to the people of Cleveland. VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 25. WHEREFORE, the United States prays that the Court:
a. Declare that Defendant, its officers, agents, and employees have engaged in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, in violation of Section 14141;
b. Enjoin Defendant, its officers, agents, and employees from engaging in any of the predicate acts forming the basis of the pattern or practice of conduct;
c. Order Defendant, its officers, agents, and employees to adopt and implement policies and procedures to remedy the pattern or practice of unconstitutional and
6

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/26/15 7 of 7. PageID #: 7

unlawful conduct described herein, and to prevent Defendant, its officers, agents, and employees from depriving persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States; and d. Order such other appropriate relief as the interests of justice may require.

Respectfully submitted,

s/Steven M. Dettelbach____________ STEVEN M. DETTELBACH United States Attorney Northern District of Ohio
CAROLE S. RENDON (0070345) First Assistant U.S. Attorney Northern District of Ohio
MICHELLE HEYER (0065723) HEATHER TONSING VOLOSIN (0069606) Assistant U.S. Attorneys Northern District of Ohio 400 United States Court House 801 West Superior Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1852 Tel. (216) 622-3600 Email: Carole.Rendon@usdoj.gov Email: Michelle.Heyer@usdoj.gov Email: Heather.Tonsing.Volosin@usdoj.gov

s/Vanita Gupta_________________ VANITA GUPTA Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
JUDY C. PRESTON Acting Chief Special Litigation Section
EMILY A. GUNSTON (CA 218035) Special Counsel RASHIDA OGLETREE T. JACK MORSE Trial Attorneys United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel. (202) 514-6255; Fax. (202) 514-4883 Email: Emily.Gunston@usdoj.gov Email: Rashida.Ogletree@usdoj.gov Email: Jack.Morse@usdoj.gov

7

 
 Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 1 of 110. PageID #: 80

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF CLEVELAND, Defendant.

)

CASE NO.:

)

)

JUDGE:

)

)

)

)

)

)

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 2 of 110. PageID #: 81
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. I II . BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ I lll. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND BUILDING TRUST............... ............................ 4
A. Cotnmunity Police Con1mjssion .................................. ............................... .................. 4 B. District Policing Committees ............................... ................. ........................................ 7 TV. COMMUNITY AND PROBLEM-ORIENTED POLICING ............................... .............. 8 Y. BI AS-FREE POLICING............................................................................................ ....... I0 VI. USE OF FORCE ............................................................................................................... 12 A. Use of Force Principles ............................................................................................... 12 B. Use of Force Policies .................. ........... ............ ........................ ...... ..................... ...... 14
I. Firearn1s ......... .............................................. .............................. ....... .................... 15 2. Electronic Control Weapons ................................................. ~............................... 16 3. Oleoresin Capsicum Spray ("OC Spray")............................................................. 18 C. Use of Force Training ............................................................ ........ ............................. 19 D. Use of Force Reporting Policy and Use of Force Reports .......................................... 20 E. Use of Force Investigations ........................................................................................ 22 l. Investigations of Level 1 Uses of Force ................................................ .. .. .. .. .... .. . 22 2. Investigations of Level 2 Uses of Force .............. ................................................. 23 3. Force Investi gation Team and Investigations of Level 3 Uses of Force............... 27 F. Force Review Board ................................................................................................... 31 Vfl . CRISIS INTERVENTION................................................................................................ 34 A. Mental Health Response Advisory Com mittee..................... ...................................... 34 B. Crisis Intervention Coordinator ............. ... ..... .............. ...................................... ......... 35

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 3 of 110. PageID #: 82
C. Crisis Intervention Training.................. ...................................................................... 35 D. Specialized Crisis Intervention Trained Officers........................................................ 36 E. Crisis Intervention Policies and Procedures ............................................................... 38 VIII. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES ......................................................................................... 39 IX. ACCOUNTABILITY ................................................. ...................................................... 43 A. Internally Discovered Misconduct ................................... ........................................... 43 B. Reporting Misconduct and Preventing Retaliation ............ ......................................... 46 C. Investigation of Civilian Complaints ........ .................................................................. 47
1. The Office of Professional Standards ......... ... ......................................... .............. 47 2. Filing and Tracking of Civilian Complaints ......................................................... 49 3. Classification of Civi lian Complaints ................................................................... 51 4. Investigation ofCivilian Complaints .......................................................... .......... 52 5. Communication with the Complainant ................................................................. 54 D. Police Review Board.............................................................................................. ..... 54 E. Disciplinary Hearings ............................ ..................................................................... 56 F. Discipline ............. .. ............................................................................................... ...... 57 X. TRANSPARENCY AND OVERS IGHT ..................................................,...................... 58 A. Police Inspector General ............................................ .... ............................................. 58 B. Data Collection and Analysis...................................................................................... 59 XL OFFICER ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORT..................................................................... 63 A. Training....................................................................................................................... 63 I. l~raining Plan ......................................................................................................... 63 2. Field Training Program ......................................................................................... 66 3. Documentation of "fraining................................................................................... 67 B. Equ ipment and Resources.............................................. ............................................. 67
II

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 4 of 110. PageID #: 83
C. Recruitment and Hiring............................................................................................... 70 D. Performance Evaluations and Promotions .............................................................. .... 71
I. Performance Evaluations ...................................................................................... 72 2. Pron1otions ............................................................................................................ 73 E. Staffing....... ........... .......................................................................................... ............ 73 Xll. SUPERVISION ................................................................................... .............................. 74 A. Duties, and Training of First Line Supervisors........................................................... 74 B. O·fticer Intervention Program...................................................................................... 75 C. Body Worn Cameras .......... ......... ... ............................................................................. 78 XIJ I. POLICIES .................................................................... ..................................................... 78 XIV. IMPLEME TATTON, ASSESSMENT, OUTCOMES, AND ENFORCEMENT .......... 80 A. Role of the Independent Monitor .......... ................................................................ ...... 80 B. Selection and Compensation of the Monitor ......................................... ..................... 81 C. Compliance Reviews ......................................................... ............ ............................. 82 D. Biennial Community Survey....................................................................................... 83 E. Outcome Measurements.............................................................................................. 84 F. Monitoring Plan and Review Methodology................................................................ 88 G. Monitor Recommendations and Technical Assistance ............................................... 89 H. Con1prehensive Reassessment .................................. .................................................. 90 l. Monitor Reports......... ....................................... ......... ................................................. 90 .J. Coordination with the Police Inspector General......................................................... 91 K. Communication between Monitor, Parties, and PubIic .............................................. 9 1 L. Public Statements, Testimony, Records, and Conflicts of Interest............................. 92 M. CDP Consent Decree Implementation Unit ................................................................ 93 N. Implementation Assessment and Report..................................................................... 93
Ill

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 5 of 110. PageID #: 84 0. Access and Confidentiality ...................... ................................................................... 94 P. Court Jurisdiction, Modification of this Agreement, and Enforcement...................... 95
Q. Termination of this Agreement........................................................... ....................... . 96
XV. DEFJNJTJONS AND ABBREV IATIONS .. ........ ............................................................. 97
lV

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 6 of 110. PageID #: 85
I. INTRODUCTION
The United States of America and the City of Cleveland (collectively " Parties'') are committed to ensuring that police services in Cleveland are delivered in a manner that is constitutional, effective, and consistent with community values, while preserving officer and public safety. To further these goals, the Cleveland Division of Police ("COP") and the Cleveland community must have a strong relationship that is built on mutual trust and respect. The provisions of this Agreement are designed to bolster this relationship and ensure that it endures. The Constitution requires the City to prevent excessive force, to ensure that searches and seizures arc reasonable, and to ensure that police services are deli vered free fro m bias. These precepts also are fund amental to a strong community-police relationship. To further these goals, the City has agreed to provide clear guidance to offi cers; increase accountability; provide for civilian participation in and oversight of the police; provide ofticers with needed support, training, and equipment; and increase transparency. The Parties acknowledge that nothing in this Agreement alters the fact that the City of Cleveland is a governmental entity organized under the laws of Ohio and governed in accordance with its Municipal Charter (''Charter"). This Agreement does not alter the Cleveland Charter provisions regarding control and supervision of the police force. The Mayor o f Cleveland and Director of Public Safety retain their authority over COP and the Chief of COP retains authority to oversee the operations of COP.
For these reasons, and noting the general principle that settlements are to be encouraged, particularly settlements between government entities, the Parties agree to implement this Agreement under the following terms and conditions.
II. BACKGROUND
1. On March 14, 20 13, at the request of the Mayor of Cleveland and others, the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") announced the beginning o l'its investigation into COP's policies and practices to determine whether COP engages in a pattern or practice of the usc of excessive force in violation of the Fom1h Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Violent Cri me Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. ~ 14141 ("Section 14141").
2. As part of its investigation, DOJ, in consultation with expc11s in police practices,

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 7 of 110. PageID #: 86
conducted a comprehensive assessment of offi cers' use of fo rce and COP's policies, procedures, training, systems of accountability, and commtmity engagement. The investigation included multi-day onsite tours of CDP's facilities, District command stations, and ride-alongs with offi cers in every police District; interviews with Cleveland officials, COP's command staff, members of COP's specialized units, supervisors, and police officers; an extensive review of documents; and numerous meetings with residents, community groups, members of religious communities, the Office of Professional Standards, the Civilian Police Review Board, and other stake ho ld ers. 3. The City and CDP cooperated during the investigation and provided access to documen~s, fac ilities, and personnel. Many members of Cleveland's diverse communities, including communi ty advocates, religious leaders, and members of COP's patrol offi cer and management un ions, took an active interest in the investigati on and played a critical role in providing information and faci litating a thorough investigation. 4. On December 4, 20 14, the Department of Justice publicly announced that it had reasonable cause to believe that CDP engages in a pattern or practice of using excessive force. DOJ announced that it had reasonable cause to believe that, although most force used by COP officers was reasonable, a signifi cant amount of deadly and less lethal force was excessive and constituted an ongoing risk to the public and to COP officers. DO.J also determined that systemic deficiencies contribute to the pattern or practice of excessive force. These defi ciencies relate to operational and structural areas of COP, including its accountability systems, resource deployment, community policing efforts, policies, and officer support, training, equipment, and supervision. Although DOJ did not specifically investigate CDP's search, seizure, and an·est practices, DOJ's force review revealed Fourth Amendment concerns in those areas as well. 5. The City agrees that DOTs lindings raise issues of importance to the City and the community that should be addressed. To that end, and simultaneous with the release of DOJ' s findings, the Parties issued a Joint Statement of Principles agreeing to begin negotiations with the intention of reaching a court-enforcea ble settlement agreement, to include the appointment of an outside independent monitor to ensure compliance with
2

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 8 of 110. PageID #: 87
the terms of this Agreement. In agreeing to address these important issues, the City is not agreeing with the findings. 6. Constitutional policing and effective policing are interdependent, and rely on a strong partnership between the police department and the communities that it serves. To ensure that the reforms embodied in this Agreement are responsive to community and offi cer concerns, the Parties consulted extcns.ively with community leaders, police officers, advocates, residents, and other concerned individuals who offered meaningful recommendations and insights on reform. This Agreement re flects the broad input received by the Parties from the diverse communities that make up the City of Cleveland. The Parties are committed to ongoing engagement with community stakeholders to foster continued participation and long-term sustainabi lity of the reforms created by this Agreement. 7. This Agreement was reached as a result of the authority granted to the Department of Justice under Section 1414 1 to seek declaratory or equitable reliefto remedy a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers that deprives individuals of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or federal law. 8. This Agreement is not intended to limit the lawful authority of the Mayo r of Cleveland over the CDP or the lawful authority ofthe Chief of Police to oversee the operations of CDP. 9. The Parties acknowledge the appropriation authori ty of Cleveland City Council under the Ohio Revised Code and the Cleveland Charter and Codified Ordinances. This Agreement is not intended to override the lawful authority of the Cleveland City Council to appropriate funds. 10. This Agreement is not intended to Iimit the lawful authority of CDP officers to usc objectively reasonable force or otherwise fulfill their law enforcement obligations und er the Constitution and laws of the United States and the State of Ohio. I I . This Agreement will not be construed as an admission or evidence of IiabiIity under any federal , State, or municipal law including 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Nor is the City's entry into this Agreement an admission by the City, CDP, or its officers and employees that they have engaged in any unconstitutional, illegal, or otherwise improper activities or conduct. The Parties acknowledge the many CDP offi cers who have continued to
3

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 9 of 110. PageID #: 88
work diligently and with integrity despite challenging circumstances. 12. This Agreement will constitute the entire integrated agreement of the Parties. No prior
drafts or prior or contemporaneous communications, oral or written, will be relevant or admissible for purposes of determining the meaning of any provisions herein in any litigation or any other proceeding, except the Department of Justice' s December 4, 20 14 Findings Letter. 13. This Agreement is binding upon all Parties hereto, by and through their officials, agents, employees, and successors. If the City establishes or reorganizes a government agency or entity whose function includes overseeing, regulating, accrediting, investigating, or otherwise reviewing the operations of COP or any aspect thereof, the City agrees to ensure that these functions and entities are consistent with the terms of this Agreement and wi II incorporate the terms of this Agreement into the oversight, regulatory, accreditation, investigation, or review functions of the government agency or entity as necessary to ensure consistency.
Ill. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND BUILDING TRUST 14. This Agreement recogni zes the imp01ta:nce of community input into the way police services are delive red. Ongoing community input into the development of reforms, the establishment of police priorities, and mechanisms to promote community confidence in COP will strengthen COP and the police-community relationship that is necessary to promote public safety. To promote public trust and confidence in COP, constitutional and effective policing, officer and public safety, and the sustainability of reforms, COP will create, in accordance with this Agreement, formal and informal mechanisms that facilitate ongoing communication between COP and the many Cleveland communities it serves.
A. Community Police Commission
15. To leverage the experience and expertise of the people of Cleveland, and to ensure that CDP recognizes and operates in a manner consistent with cooperative community understanding and engagement, the City will establish, within 90 days of the Effective Date, a Community Police Commission (''Commission") consisting of 13 members who represent the many and diverse communities in Cleveland. The Commission wi ll
4

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 10 of 110. PageID #: 89
have the following mandate: a. to make recommendations to the Chief of Police and the City, including the Mayor and the City Council, on pol icies and practices related to community and problem-oriented policing, bias-free policing, and police transparency; b. to work with the many communities that make up Cleveland for the purpose of developing recommendations for police practices that reflect an understanding of the values and priorities of Cleveland residents; and c. to report to the City and community as a whole and to provide transparency on police department reforms.
16. To ensure diverse representation, within 30 days of the Effective Date, the City wi ll establish a selection panel made up of representatives from each or the following: (a) faith based organizations; (b) civil rights advocates; (c) the business/ph ilanthropic community; (d) organ izations representing communities of color; (e) advocacy organi7..ations; (f) youth or student organizations; (g) academia; and (h) individuals with expertise in the challenges faci ng people with mental illness or the homeless. The members of this panel will be selected by the Mayor in consultation with DOJ. and with participation by members of Cleveland City Council as determined by the Council President. Within 30 days of their appointment, the selection panel will accept applications for membership on the Commission from individuals who reside or work in the City of Cleveland. Within 30 days thereafter, in an open public forum, the selection panel will recommend I 0 persons to be appointed as members of the Commission for a term of no more than 4 years, ensuring at least I representative from each of the categories identified above. The persons recommended by the selection panel shall be appointed as provided in the Charter. Current members of the se lection panel cannot apply to become members of the Cor;nmission. In add ition, the Cleveland Patrolmen's Association, the Fraternal Order of Police, and the Black Shield will each identify one member to be appointed as provided in the Charter to serve on the Commission. Vacancies within the original four year term will be tilled in the same fashion as the original appointments. At the end of four years, a selection panel will be reconstituted and members of the Commission wi II be selected as described above. One member of the Commission will be selected by the Commission to attend meetings
5

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 11 of 110. PageID #: 90
of, and receive relevant information and reports from the Community Relations Board of the City of Cleveland, and one member of the Community Relations Board will be selected by the Community Relations Board to attend meetings of, and receive relevant information and reports from the Commission. The Commission will meet periodically with the Chief of Police and provide recommendations and reports to hi m or her, but remain independent from , the Chief of Police, the Mayor, and the City Council. 17. The Commi ssion will:
a. within 90 days of appointment, hold public meetings across the City, complete an assessment of COP's bias-free policing pol icies, practices, and training, and make recommendations;
b. on an ongoing basis, including through its membership on the Training Review Committee, assist as appropriate in CDP"s development of training related to bias-free policing and cultural competency;
c. on an ongoing basis, assess COP's community activities, and make recommendations for additional strategies for COP to consider to increase community engagement with and communi ty confidence in CDP;
d. on an ongoing basis, review COP's civilian oversight structure to determ ine if there are changes it recommends for improving COP's accountability and transparency; and
e. perform other function as set out in this Agreement. 18. In addition to the above, the Commission has the authority to:
a. review and comment on COP's policies and practices related to use of force, search and seizure, and data collection and retention;
b. review and comment on COP's implementation of initiatives, programs, and activities that are intended to support reform; and
c. hold public meetings to discuss the Monitor's reports and to recei ve community feedback concerning CDP's compliance with this Agreement.
19. The City wi ll provide access to all information requested by the Commission related to its mandate, authority, and duties un less it is law enfo rcement sensiti ve, legall y restricted, or would disclose a personnel action.
20. At least annually, the Commission wi ll issue rcpot1s, incl uding any recommendations
6

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 12 of 110. PageID #: 91
for improvement, related to each activity that it undertakes. The City will post the Commission's reports and recommendations to the City's website. 21. The City wi ll consider and timely respond in writing to the Commission's recommendations for improvements. Those responses also will be posted to the City's website. 22. The budget for the Commission wil l be visible as a separate line item in the budget proposal that is submitted annually pursuant to the Charter to the Cleveland City Council with the appropriations ordinance. The Parties wi ll endeavor to secure private fund ing fo r the Commission as appropriate. The Monitor will analyze the Commission's budget and advise the Parties and the Court as to whether it affords sufficient independence and resources to meet the terms of this 1\greement.
B. District Policing Committees
23 . Working jointly, the Commission, COP, and Community Relations Board ("CRB"), will work with the D.istrict Policing Committees (formerly called District Community Relations Committees) to fac il itate regular communication and cooperation between COP and community leaders at the local level. These Disn·ict Policing Committees should meet, at a minimum, every quarter.
24. Working jointly, the Commission, COP. and CRB will develop a mechanism to recruit and expand the membership of the District Policing Committees, each of which should include a representative cross-section of community members, including, for example, representatives of social services providers, faith leaders, local business owners, youth, etc., from that District. Each District Policing Committee also ~ill include at least one CO P officer from that District. COP will work with the Commission to select officers lor each District Policing Committee.
25. COP will work closely with the District Policing Committees to identi fy strategies to address crime and safety issues in their District. In developing appropriate strategies, the District Policing Committees shou ld consider and address law enforcement priorities and community policing strategies in their District, and should address any concerns or recommendations about specific COP policing tactics and initiatives in their District.
7

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 13 of 110. PageID #: 92
26. At least annually, each District Policing Committee will present its identified strategies, concerns and recommendations to the Commission. At the same time, an officer who is a member of the District Policing Committee will present to the Commission CDP's assessment of ways to address, and barriers to, implementing the strategies, concerns and recommendations of the Committee.
IV. COMMUNITY AND PROBLEM-ORIENTED POLICING 27. CDP will develop and implement a comprehensive and integrated community and problem-oriented policing model in order to promote and strengthen partnerships within the community, engage constructively with the community to ensure co llaborative problem-solving, and increase community confidence in COP. COP will consult with the Commission regarding this model as appropriate. 28. COP will ensure that its mission statement reflects its commitment to community oriented policing and will integrate community and problem-oriented policing principles into its management, policies and procedures, recruitment, training, personnel evaluations, resource deployment, tactics,.and accountability systems. 29. CDP will ensure that officers are fami liar with the geograph ic areas they serve, including their assets, challenges, problems, business, residential and demographic profiles, and community groups and leaders; engage in problem identification and solving activities with the community groups and members regard ing the community's priorities; and work proa~tively with other city and county departments to address quality of life issues. 30. CDP will provide initial and annual in-service community and problem-oriented policing training that is adequate in quality, quantity, type, and scope, and wi ll incorporate into its training of all oniccrs, including supervi sors, commanders, and executives, community and problem-oriented policing principles, includi ng: a. methods and strategies to improve publ ic safety and crime prevention through community engagement; b. training that promotes the development of new problem-solving partnerships between the police and community, targeting problem-solving and crime prevention;
8

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 14 of 110. PageID #: 93
c. leadership, ethics, and effective communication and interpersonal skills; d. commw1ity engagement, including how to establi sh partnerships and acti vely
engage civilians and community organizations, including youth, LG BT, homeless, and mental health organizat ions and communities; e. principles of procedural justice and its goals; f. conflict resolution and verbal de-escalation of conflict; and g. cultural competency and sensitivity training. 3 1. The City and CDP will maintain collaborative partnerships with a broad spectrum of comm unity groups. COP representatives will meet, as appropriate, with residential, business, religious, civic, educational, and other community-based groups in each District, and with the District Policing Committees, to proactively maintain these relationships and identify and address community problems and challenges. 32. COP will continue to meet with members of the commu11ity in each District on a monthly basis. CDP will actively solicit participation from a broad cross-section of community members in each District. Among other things, these community meetings will be used to identify problems and other areas of concern in the community and discuss responses and solutions. During these meetings, COP may discuss, when appropriate, summaries of relevant aud its and repot1s assessing COP as well as any policy changes completed during the preceding quarter. 33. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, COP will develop and implement systems to monitor offi cer outreach to the community. COP will use this method to analyze, among other things, whether officers are partnering with a broad cross-section of community members to develop and implement cooperative strategies that build mutual respect and identify and solve problems. The Monitor will review whether the systems developed by the City are effective. 34. At least annually, CDP will present the results of this analysis, broken out by District, in a publicly-available community policing report detailing its community policing efforts in each District. This report will descri be the problems and solutions identified in the analysis above. The report also will identify obstacles encountered in community and problem-oriented policing and recommendations for future improvement. In developing this report, COP will consider, as appropriate, available resul ts from the
9

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 15 of 110. PageID #: 94
biennial survey. The community policing report will be provided to the Commission, posted on COP's website, and a summary of the rep011 will be provided at each District community meeting fo llowing the report' s publication.
V. BIAS-FREE POLICING
35. CDP will de liver police services with the goal of ensuring that d1ey are equitab le, respectful, and free of unlawful bias, in a manner that promotes broad community engagement and confidence in COP. COP expects all officers to treat all members of the Cleveland community with courtesy, professionalism, and respect, and not to use harassing, intimidating, or derogatory language.
36. COP will integrate bias-free policing principles into its management, policies and procedures, job descriptions, recruitment, training, personnel evaluations, resource deployment, tactics, and acco ~ntabili ty systems.
37. COP will administer all activities without discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, disability, age, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
38. Within 18 months of the Effective Date, COP will develop a bias-free policing policy that incorporates, as appropriate, the recommendations developed by the Commission pursuant to paragraph 17, and that provides clear guidance to officers that biased policing, including deciding to detain a motorist or pedestrian based solely on racial stereotypes, is prohibited.
39. Within 18 months of the Effective Date, with input from the Commission, COP will develop training that incorporates the principles of proceduraljustice and that is designed to ensure that police services are delivered free fro m bias. The Monitor will review the training to assess whether it is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type.
40. The training will be provided to all offi cers and will include: a. constitutional and other legal requirements related to equal protection and unlawful discrimination, including the requirements of this Agreement; b. strategies, such as problem-oriented policing, proceduraljustice, and recognizing implicit bias, to avoid conduct that may lead to biased policing or the perception of biased policing; c. historical and cultural systems that perpetuate racial and ethnic profiling;
10

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 16 of 110. PageID #: 95
d. identification of racial or ethnic profiling practices, and police practices that have a disparate impact on certain demographic categories;
e. self-evaluation strategies to identify racial or ethnic profi ling; f. District-level cultural competency training regarding the histories and culture
of local immigrant and ethnic comm unities; g. police and community perspectives related to bias-free policing; h. the protection of civil rights as a central part of the police mission and as
essential to effective policing; 1. instruction in the data collection protocols required by this Agreement; and J. methods, strategies, and techniques to reduce misunderstanding, conflict, and
complaints due to perceived bias or discrimination. 41. Supervisor training will include:
a. how to identify biased police practices when reviewing investigatory stop, arrest, and usc of force data;
b. how to respond to a complaint of biased police practices, including conducting a preliminary investigation of the complaint in order to preserve key evidence and potential witnesses;
c. how to evaluate complaints of improper pedestrian stops fo r potential biased police practices; and
d. engaging the community and developi ng positive relationships with diverse comm unity groups.
42. Officers also will receive annual in-service training on bias-free policing that is adequate in quality, quantity, type, and scope.
43. To help ensure that police services are delivered in a manner free from bias, CDP will analyze data pursuant to paragraph 265.
44. Within 18 months of the Effective Date, the appointi ng authority will consider principles of bias-free policing and equal protection in its hiring; unit assignment, as applicable; promotion; and performance assessment processes, including giving consideration to an individual's record of bias-related violations, as well as using interviews or other methods to assess the individual's ability to effectively practice bias-free polici ng.
II

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 17 of 110. PageID #: 96
VI. USE OF FORCE
45. DOJ acknowledges that CDP recentl y has made impot1ant changes to some of its force policies. Building on these improvements, CDP will revise, develop, and implement force policies, training, supervision, and accountabi lity systems with the goal of ensuring that force is used in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the requirements of this Agreement and that any use of unreasonable force is promptly identified and responded to appropriately. The force policies, training, supervision, and accountability systems wil l be designed with the goa l of ensuring that offi cers use techniques other than fo rce to effect compliance with police orders whenever feasible: use force only when necessary, and in a manner that avoids unnecessary injury to officers and civilians; de-escalate the use of force at the earliest possible moment; and accurately and completely report all uses of force.
A. Use of Force Principles
46. The City will implement the terms of this Agreement with the goa l of ensuring that use of force by CDP offi cers, regardless of the type of force, tactics, or weapon used, wi II comply with the fo llowing requirements: a. offi cers will allow individuals the opportunity to submit to arrest before force is used wherever possible; b. officers will use de-escalation techniques whenever possible and appropriate, before resorting to force and to reduce the need for fo rce. De-escalation techniques may include verbal persuasion and warnings and tactical deescalation techniques, such as slowing down the pace of an incident, waiting out subjects, creating distance (and thus the reactionary gap) between the ofticer and the threat, and requesting additional resources (e.g. specialized CIT officers or negotiators). Officers will be trained to consider the possibility that a subject may be noncompliant due to a medical or mental condition, physical or hearing impairment, language barrier, drug interaction, or emotional crisis; c. if force becomes necessary, officers will be limited to using only the amount or force objectively reasonable as necessary to control th e person.
12

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 18 of 110. PageID #: 97
d. in applying force, officers will reduce the level of force as the threat diminishes;
c. officers normally wi ll not usc force against persons who are handcuffed or otherwise restrained, unless it is objectively reasonable and necessary under the circumstances to stop an assault, escape, or as necessary to fulfill other law enforcement objectives;
f. officers will not use force against persons who only verbally confront them and do not impede a legitimate law enforcement function:
g. CDP will explicitly prohibit the use of retaliatory force by officers. Retaliatory force includes, for example, force in excess of what is objectively reasonable to prevent an escape to punish individuals for fl eeing or otherwise resisting arrest; and force used to punish an individual for di srespecting officers;
h. officers will not use head strikes with hard objects, except where lethal force is justified. Ofiicers will be trained that a strike to the head wi th any impact weapon could result in death ;
1. other than to protect an officer's or other person's safety, officers will not use force to subdue an individ ual who is not suspected of any criminal conduct;
J. CDP's policy will expressly provide that using a fi rearm as an impact weapon is never an authorized tactic. Officers will be trained that use of a !irearm as an impact weapon could result in death to suspects, bystanders, and themselves;
k. officers will not use neck holds; I. CDP will continue to limit vehicle pursuits to those in which the need to
capture the suspect outweighs the danger to the public. CDP will continue to limit the number ofCDP vehicles that may be involved in a vehicle pursuit; and m. immediately following a use or force, officers and, upon arri val, a supervisor will inspect and observe subjects fo r injury or complaints of pain resulti ng from the use of force, and immed iately obtain any necessary medical care. As
13

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 19 of 110. PageID #: 98
necessary, officers will provide emergency first aid unti I professional medical care providers are on scene. 47. As soon as practical following a use of force, COP wi ll ensure that the incident is accurately and properly reported, documented, and investigated. A fundamental goal of the revised use of fo rce policy wi ll be to account for, review, and investigate every reportable use of force and reduce any improper uses of force. 48. COP will track and analyze officers' uses of force to hold officers accountable for unreasonable uses of force; to guide training and policy; and to identify poor tactics and emerging trends.
B. Use of Force Policies 49. COP wi ll develop and implement use of force policies that comply with applicable law
and are adequate to achieve the goals described in paragraph 45. The use of force po licies will incorporate the use of force principles above, and will specify that the unreasonable use of force will subject officers to the disciplinary process, possible criminal prosecution, and/or possible civil liability. 50. COP's policies will address the use and deployment of its authorized force techniques, technologies, and weapons that are available to CDP officers, including standard-issue weapons that are made available to all officers and weapons that are made avai lable only to specialized units. The policies will clearly define and describe each force option and the circumstances under which use of such force is appropriate. 51. COP's policies related to specific weapons wi ll include training and certification requirements that each officer must meet before being permitted to carry and use the authorized weapon. 52. No officer wi ll carry any weapon that is not authorized or approved by COP. 53. Prior to the use of any approved weapon, the officer, when possible and appropriate, wi ll communicate to the subject and other officers that the use of the weapon is imminent, and allow the subject an opportunity to comply. 54. CDP will implement policies for each of the following weapons using the following guidelines.
14

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 20 of 110. PageID #: 99
1. Firearms
55. Officers will not unholster and display a firearm unless the circumstances create a reasonable belief that lethal force may become necessary. COP's policies will require and training will teach proper techniques for unholstering, displaying, pointing, and aiming a firearm, and for determining when it is appropriate. to do so. The Monitor will review COP's pol icies and training to ensure that they comply with this paragraph. If an officer unholsters a firearm during an incident, interaction, or event that would otherwise trigger a reporting or data collection requirement, officers wiII document that a fi rearm was unholstered. COP will annually collect and analyze thi~ data.
56. Unholstering a firearm and pointing it at a subject constitutes a Level 1 reportable use of force and will be reported and investigated as such. The fo llowing exceptions to this reporting requirement will apply: a. SWAT Team Oftlcers will not be required to report the pointing of a firearm at a subject as a use afforce during the execution of SWAT Team duties; b. officers who are deputized and assigned to a Federal Task Force will not be required to report the pointing of a firearm at a subject as a usc of force when conducting federal task fo rce operations during which a supervisor is present. Reports or forms regard ing any such incidents that are otherwise prepared by a Task Force supervisor wi ll be provided to COP; c. officers assigned to the Gang Impact, Narcotics, Homicide, Sex Crimes, Domestic Violence, and Financial Crimes Units will not be required to report the pointing of a firearm at a subject as a use of force if done solely while entering and securing a building in connection with the execution of an arrest or search warrant and a supervisor prepares a report detailing the incident.
57. Oniccrs wiII not "fire warning shots. 58. Officers will consider their surroundings before discharging their firearms and will
avoid unnecessary risk to bystanders. victims, and other officers. 59. OCficers will not discharge a tircarm from or at a moving vehicle, unless use of lethal
force is justi fied by something other than the threat ti·om the moving veh icle; officers will not intentionally place themselves in the path of or reach inside a moving vehicle; and, where possi ble, officers will attempt to move out of the path of a moving vehicle.
15

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 21 of 110. PageID #: 100
60. CDP annually will provide at least 16 hours of firearms training which will incl ude pistol , shotgun, and policy training. In consultation with the Monitor, CDP will develop a plan to provide appropriate night, reduced light, and stress training for officers. Officers wi ll successfully quality with each firearm they are authorized to use or carry on-duty at least annually. Officers will be required to quali fy using proficiency standards and will not be permitted to carry any firearm on which they fai led to qualify.
2. Electronic Control Weapons
61. Officers wiII use Electronic Control Weapons (''ECWs") only where: ( I) grounds for arrest or detention arc present and the subject is actively or aggressively resisting, and lesser means would be ineffective; or (2) such fo rce is necessary to protect the officer, the subject, or another party from immediate physical harm, and Jesser means would be ineffective or have been tried and failed.
62. Each standard 5-second ECW application is a separate usc of force that officers must individually justify as reasonable. After the fi rst ECW application, the officer will reevaluate the situation to detennine if subsequent cycles are reasonable. In determining whether any additional application is reasonable, officers will consider that a subject may not be able to respond to commands during or immed iately following an ECW application. Officers will not employ more than three cycles of an ECW against a subject during a single incident.
63. Officers will consider transitioning to alternative control measures if the subj ect does not respond to ECW applications.
64. Officers will not use ECWs in drive stun mode solely as a pai n compliance technique. Officers may use ECWs in drive stun mode only to supplement the probe mode to complete the incapaci tation ci rcuit, or as a countermeasure to gain separation between ot1icers and the subj ect so that officers can consider another force option.
65. Officers wiII determine the reasonableness or ECW use based upon all the relevant circumstances, includ ing the subject's apparent age, size, physical, and mental condition, and the feas ibility of lesser force options.
66. Except where lethal force is authorized, officers will not use ECWs where: ( I) a deployment may cause serious physical injury or death from situational hazards,
16

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 22 of 110. PageID #: 101
including falling, losing control of a moving vehicle, or becoming ignited from the presence of potentially explosive or flammable materials or substances; or (2) the subject is visibly pregnant, apparently elderly, a child, visibly frail, has obviously low body mass, or is in apparent medical crisis. 67. Offi cers will not use ECWs on fleeing persons who do not pose a threat of physical harm to officers, other civilians, or themselves. 68. Officers will not intentionally target ECWs to a subject's head, neck, or genitalia. 69. Officers will not normally usc ECWs on handcuffed or restrai ned persons. EC Ws wi ll be used on handcuffed or restrained persons only where the subject is displaying aggressive physical resistance and lesser means would be ineffective or have been tried and fa iled. 70. Officers will carry EC Ws in a weak-side holster to reduce the chances of accidentally drawing and/or ti ring a firearm . 71. Officers will be trained in and fo llow protocols developed by COP, in conjunction with the City's EMS professionals, on the officer's responsibi lities fo llowing ECW use, including:
a. restrictions on removing ECW probes, including the requirements described in the next paragraph;
b. understanding the risks of positional asphyx ia, and using restraint techniques that do not impair the subj ect's respiration fo llowing a ECW application;
c. monitoring all subjects who have received an ECW application while in police custody; and
d. informing medical personnel of all subjects who have been subjected to multiple ECW applications, including prolonged applications (more than 15 seconds); or who appear to be under the influence of drugs or exhibiting symptoms associated with excited delirium; or who were kept in prone restraints after ECW use.
72. The City wi ll ensure that all subjects who have been exposed to an ECW application receive a medical evaluation by emergency medical responders in the fi eld or at a medical facility. Absent ex igent circ umstances, probes will be removed from a subject's sk in only by medical personnel or properly trained ofticcrs.
17

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 23 of 110. PageID #: 102
73. In addition to the force reporting requirements outl ined in paragraph 88, officers will clearly articu late and justify the foll owing regarding their ECW usc in a written narrative: a. each and every ECW cyc le used on a subject or attempted agai nst a subject; b. use of the ECW in drive stun mode; c. ECW application for more than 15 seconds; d. continuous cycling of an ECW; e. ECW application on a fl eeing person; and f. ECW application by more than one officer.
74. Of!icers who have been issued ECWs wi ll receive annual ECW certifications, which will consist of physical competency; weapon retention; CDP policy, including any policy changes; technology changes; and scenario-based training.
75. CDP wi ll develop and implement integrity safeguards on the use ofECWs to ensure compliance with COP policy. CDP will conduct quatterly downloads of all ECWs. CDP will conduct random and directed audits of ECW app lication data, which will be provided to the Moni tor for review. The aud its should include a comparison of the downloaded data to the officer's Use of Force Reports. Discrepancies within the aud it should be addressed and appropriately investigated.
76. ECW application data will be tracked and analyzed in CDP's Officer Intervention Program.
3. Oleoresin Capsicum Spray ("OC Spray") 77. Officers will apply OC spray only: (I) when such force is reasonable to protect the
officer, the subject, or another party from physical hatm and lesser means would be ineffective; or (2) for crowd dispersal or protection and other means would be more intrusive or Jess effective. 78. After one standard OC spray (one second), each subsequent application is a separate use of force that officers must individually justify as reasonable. 79. Officers will not normally use OC spray on handcuffed or restrained persons. OC spray will be used on handcuffed or restrained persons only where the subj ect is displaying aggressive physical resistance and lesser means would be ineffective or have been tried
18

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 24 of 110. PageID #: 103
and failed. 80. Officers will be trained in and follow protocols developed by CDP in conjunction with
the City's EMS professionals, on the officer' s responsibilities following OC spray use, including:
a. decontaminating every subject exposed to chemical spray by using cool water to flush the subject's face and eyes within 20 minutes of gaining control of the scene. Officers need not decontaminate subjects who were on ly secondarily exposed to OC spray, for example, when OC spray is used for crowd control, unless requested by the subject;
b. understanding the risks of positional asphyxia, and using restraint techniques lhat do not impair the subject's respiration fo llowing an OC spray application;
c. requesting medical response or assistance for subjects exposed to OC spray when they complain of continued effects after having been decontaminated, or they indicate that they have a pre-existing medical condition (e.g., asthma, emphysema, bronchitis, heart ailment, etc.) that may be aggravated by OC spray.
81. Officers will carry only CDP issued OC spray. 82. CDP wiII maintain documentation of the number of OC spray canisters distributed to
and utiIized by each officer. 83. OC spray application data will be tracked and analyzed in CDP's Officer Intervention
Program.
C. Use of Force Training 84. As part of its training requirements in Section XI of this Agreement, within 365 days of
the Effective Date, CDP will provide all current officers use of force training that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type and that includes:
a. proper use of force decision-making; b. use offorce reporting requi rements; c. the Fourth Amendment and related law; d. de-escalation techniques, both verbal and tactical, that empower officers to
make arrests without using force and instruction that disengagement, area
19

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 25 of 110. PageID #: 104
containment, survei llance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements, usi ng cover, calling in specialized units, or delaying arrest may be the appropriate response to a situation, even when the use of force would be legally j ustified ; e. role-playing scenarios and interactive exercises that illustrate proper usc of force decision-making, including training on the importance of peer intervention; f. the proper deployment and use of all intermediate weapons or technologies; g. the risks of prolonged or repeated ECW exposure, including that exposure to ECWs for longer than 15 seconds (whether due to multiple applications or continuous cycling) may increase the risk of death or serious physical injury; h. the increased ri sks ECWs may present to a subject who is pregnant, elderly, a chi ld, frail, has low body mass, or is in medical crisis; 1. that when using an ECW the drive stun mode is generally less effective than the probe mode and, when used repeated ly, may exacerbate the situation; J. firearms training, as described in paragraph 60; k. factors to consider in initiating or continuing a vehicle pursuit; and I. for supervisors of all ranks, as part of their initial and annual in-service supervisory training, training in conducting use or force investigations; strategies for effectively directing officers to minimize uses of force and to intervene effectively to prevent or stop unreasonable force; and supporting officers who report unreasonable or unrepotted force, or who are retali ated agajnst for attempting to prevent unreasonable force. 85. COP also will provide the use of force training described in paragraph 84 to all new officers as part of its training Academy. 86. CDP will provide all officers with annual use of force in-service training that is adequate in quality, quantity, type, and scope.
D. Use of Force Reporting Policy and Use of Force Reports 87. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, CDP will develop and implement a si ngle,
uniform, repOiii ng system pursuant to a Use of Force Reporting policy. CDP uses of
20

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 26 of 110. PageID #: 105
force will be di vided into three levels. The three levels for the reporting, investigation, and review of use of force correspond to the amount of force used and/or the outcome of the force. This Agreement's categorization of these types of uses of force is based on the following factors: potential of the technique or weapon to cause injury; degree of injury caused; deg ree of pain experienced; degree of disability experienced by the subject; complaint by the subject; degree of restraint of the subject; impairment of the functi oning of any organ; duration of force; and physical vulnerabi lity ofthe subject. Each level of force will require increasingly rigorous reporting, investigation, and review. The levels of force are defined as fo llows:
a. Level 1 is force that is reasonably expected to cause only transient pain and/or disorientation during its application as a means of gaining compliance, including pressure point compliance and joint manipulation techniques, but that is not reasonably expected to cause injury, does not result in an actual inj ury, and does not result in a complaint of injury. It does not incl ude escorting, touching, or handcuffing a person with no or minimal resistance. Unholstering a firearm and pointi ng it at a subject is reportable as a Level 1 use of force with the exceptions set forth in paragraph 56.
b. Level 2 is force that causes an injury, could reasonably be expected to cause an injury, or results in a complaint of an inj ury, but does not rise to the level of a Level 3 use afforce. Level2 includes the use of an ECW, including where an ECW is fi red at a person but misses; OC Spray application; weaponless defense techniques (e.g., elbow or closed-fist stri kes, kicks. leg sweeps, and takedowns); usc of an impact weapon, except for a strike to·the head, neck or face with an impact weapon; and any canine apprehension.
c. Level 3 is force that includes: (1) uses of lethal force; (2) uses of fo rce resulting in death or serious physical injury; (3) uses of force resulting in hospital admission; (3) all neck holds; (4) uses of force resulting in a loss of consciousness; (5) canine bites; (6) more than three appl ications of an ECW on an individual during a single interaction, regardless of the mode or duration of the application, and regardless of whether the applications are by the same or different offi cers, or an EC W applicati on for longer than 15 seco nds,
21

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 27 of 110. PageID #: 106
whether continuous or consecuti ve; and (7) any Level 2 usc of force against a handcuffed subj ect. 88. All officers using or observing force will report in writing, before the end of their shift, the usc of force in a Use of Force Report. The Use of Force Report will include: (l ) a detailed account of the incident from the officer's perspective; (2) the reason for the initial pol ice presence; (3) a specific descri ption of the acts that led to the use of force; (4) the level of resistance encountered; and (5) a complete and accurate description of every type of force used or observed. The usc of force reporting policy wi ll explicitly prohibit the use of conclusory statements, ''boilerplate," or "canned" language (e.g., ''furtive movement" or "lighting stance"), without supporting detail. 89. Officers will be subject to the disciplinary process for material omissions or mi srepresentations in their l:Jse of Force Reports. 90. Officers who use or observe force and fa il to report it wi ll be subject to the disciplinary process, up to and includ ing termination, regardless of whether the force was reaso nab le. 9 1. Officers who use or observe force will notify their supervisors, or ensure that their supervisors have been notified, as soon as practical following any use of force. An officer who becomes aware of an allegation of unreasonable or unreported fo rce by another officer must immediately notify his or her supervisor of that allegation. 92. Use of Force Reports will be maintained centrally.
E. Usc of Force Investigations 93. !\supervisor who was involved in a usc of force, including by participating in or
ordering the force under investigation, will not investigate the incident or review the Use of Force Reports for approval or disapproval.
1. Investigations of Levell Uses of Force 94. The direct supervisor of the ofiicer(s) employing a Level I use of force wi ll review and
approve the usc of force in writing, return the Usc of Force Report to the officer for revision, or elevate the Level 1 use of force before the end of the supervisor' s shift following the shift on which the Level 1 force was used. lfthe Use of Force Report is returned to the officer fo r revision, all revisions and additional reviews wi ll be
22

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 28 of 110. PageID #: 107
completed within 5 days of the use of force. It is not mandatory for supervisors to report to the scene of a Level I use of force. Supervisors will elevate and investigate any Level l use of fo rce that appears to have violated policy or was improperly categorized as a Level I use of force. Tf a supervisor determines that an oflicer's report reveals evidence of a use of force involving potential c1:iminal conduct, he or she will immediately notify Internal Affairs.
2. Investigations of Level2 Uses of Force 95. The direct supervisor of the officer(s) using force, upon notification of a Level 2 use of
force incident or allegation of excessive force, will respond to the locati on of the occurrence. Where the force is a Level I but the subject has alleged excessive force, the supervisor wil l respond to the scene to determ ine whether a Level I or Level 2 investigation should be conducted. 96. If a CDP supervisor uses a Level 2 use of force, a supervisor of a higher rank will respond to the location of the occurrence and comply with the requirements of this section . 97. For all Level 2 uses of force, the direct supervisor wi ll:
a. respond to the scene, examine the subj ect of the force for injury, and interview the subject for complaints of pain after advising the subject that the interview pertains only to the usc o r force and not to any underlying alleged crime and that the subject need not answer questions;
b. where appropriate, ensure that the subject receives medical attention from an appropriate medical provider;
c. obtain an identify ing number that allows CDP to track the usc of force; d. identify and collect all evidence relevant to the use of force and evaluate that
evidence to determine whether the usc of force: ( 1) was consistent with COP policy; and/or (2) raises any policy, training, tactical, or equipment concerns; c. ensure that all evidence that could establi sh material facts related to the use of force, including audio and video recordings, photographs, and other documentation of injuries or the absence of injuries is collected ;
23

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 29 of 110. PageID #: 108
f. ensure that a canvass for civilian witnesses is conducted and interview all civilian witnesses. Supervisors will either record the interview or encourage civi lian witnesses to provide and sign a written statement in their own words;
g. ensure that all officers witnessing a use of force incident by another oftlcer complete a Usc of Force Report. Supervisors wil l ensure that all Use of Force Reports identify all offi cers who were involved in the incident, witnessed the incident, or were on the scene when it occurred;
h. ensure that involved offi cers arc interviewed separately from one another. Group interviews will be prohibited. Supervisors wi ll not ask officers or other witnesses leading questions that suggest lcgaljusti(jcations for the officers' conduct, where such questions are contrary to appropriate law enforcement techniques; and
1. each investigating supervisor will provide a brief written synopsis to their immediate supervisor, which will be forwarded through the chain of command to the District Commander by the end of the shift on which the force occurred, documenting the supervisor's preliminary determination of the appropriateness o r the use of force.
98. The investigating supervisor will ensure that all Use of Force Reports include the information required by this Agreement and COP policy; consider all relevant evidence, including circumstantial, direct, and physical evidence, as appropriate; and make credibility determinations, if feas ible. Supervisors will make all reasonable efforts through the investigation to resolve material inconsistencies between the om ccr, subject, and witness statements, as well as inconsistencies between the level of force claimed by the officer and the subject's injuries, and inconsistencies between multiple offi cers. COP will train all investigating supervisors on how to effectively complete these tasks.
99. Whenever a supervisor determines that there may have been mi sconduct, the supervisor will immediately noti fy Internal Affairs and Internal Affairs will determine if it should respond to the scene and/or conduct or take over the investigation.
100. Within fi ve days of learni ng of the use offeree, each supervisor will complete and document his/her investigation using a supervisor's Use of f orce Report. Any
24

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 30 of 110. PageID #: 109
extension to this deadline must be authorized by a District Commander. This Report will include the fo llowing:
a. the supervisor's narrati ve description of the incident, including a precise description of the evidence that either justifies or fai ls to justify the officers' conduct based on the supervisor's independent review of the facts and circumstances of the incident;
b. documentation of all evidence that was gathered, including names, phone numbers, and addresses of witnesses to the incident. In situations in which there are no known witnesses, the report will specifically state that fact. In situations in which witnesses were present but circumstances prevented the supervisor from determining the identification, phone number, or address of those witnesses, the report will state the reasons why. The report should also include all available identi fy ing information for anyone who refused to provide a statement;
c. the names of all COP employees who used force or witnessed the use of fo rce; d. the investigating supervisor's evaluation of the use of force, based on the
supervisor's review of the evidence gathered, including a determination of whether the offi cers' actions appear to be within CDP policy and consistent with state and federal law; and an assessment of the incident for policy, training, tactical or equipment concerns, including whether the use of force may have been avoided through the use of de-escalation techniques or lesser force options; and e. documentation of any non-disciplinary corrective action taken. I0 1. Investigatory supervisors will be subject to the disciplinary process for failing to adequately investigate and documen t a use of force and materi al omissions or misrepresentations in the supervisory investigation. An investigatory supervisor's fai lure to adequately investigate a use of force will be addressed in their perfomtancc review. 102. Upon completion of the supervisor's Use of Force Report, the investigating supervisor will fo rward the report through their chain of command to the District Commander, who will review the report to ensure that it is complete and that the fi ndings are
25

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 31 of 110. PageID #: 110
supported using the preponderance of the evidence standard. Each level in the chain of command will review the report within 72 hours of receiving it. Reviewing supervisors in the chain of command wil l order add itional investigation when it appears that there is additional relevant evidence that may assist in resolving inconsistencies or improve the reliability or credibility of the findings. IOJ. Where the findin gs of the Use of Fo rce Report are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, the investigating supervisor's chain of command will document the reasons for this determination and wi ll include this documentation as an addendum lo the original investigation. The investigating supervisor's superior will counsel the investigating supervisor regarding the inadequately supported determination and of any investigative deficiencies that led to it. The District Commander will be responsible for the accuracy and completeness of Usc of Force Reports prepared by supervisors under their command . 104. Where an investigating supervisor conducts deficient investigations, the supervisor will receive the appropriate corrective action, including training or demotion, in accordance with performance evaluation procedures and/or the disciplinary process. 105. Whenever an investigating supervisor, reviewing supervisor, or District Com mander finds evidence of a use of fo rce involving potential criminal conduct by an officer, he or she will suspend the force investigation immediately and notify Internal Affairs. Internal Affairs wi ll immed iately notify FIT. which will take over both the criminal and administrative investigation. 106. When the District Commander finds that the investigation is complete and the findings are supported by the evidence, the investigation file will be promptly fo rwarded to Internal Affairs. Internal Affairs will review the investigation to ensure that it is complete and that the findings arc supported by the evidence. I07. When Internal Affairs completes its review, it wi ll forward the complete file to the Chief of CDP for disposition. I08. At the discretion of the Chief, his or her designee, or Internal AfTairs, a use of force investigation may be assigned or re-assigned for investigation to FIT or to another supervisor, whether within or outside of the District in which the incident occulTed, or may be returned to the District for further investigation or analysis. This assignment or
26

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 32 of 110. PageID #: 111
re-assignment will be explained in writing. I09. Where, after investigation, a use of force is found to be out of policy, the Chief will
direct and ensure the appropri ate disciplinary process. Where the use of force indicates policy, training, tactical, or equipment concerns, the Chief wi ll ensure also that necessary training is deli vered and that po licy, tactical, or equipment concerns are reso lved.
3. Force Investigation Team and Investigations of Level 3 Uses of Force II 0. COP may refer criminal investi gations of uses of force to an independent and highly
competent agency outside CDP where appropriate to ensure the fact and/or appearance of impartiality of investigations. 111 . The Internal Affairs Unit will include CDP 's Force Investigation Team ("FIT"). Each FIT will be a team comprised of personnel from various units and will not be a new unit to which officers are permanently assigned. The FIT will conduct administrati ve investigations in all of the following instances and, where appropriate and where not assigned to an outside agency as permitted above, wi ll conduct criminal investigations of: (1) all Level 3 uses of force; (2) uses of force involving potential crim inal conduct by an officer; (3) all instances in which an individual died while in, or as an apparent result of being in, COP custody; and (4) any uses of force reassigned to FfT by the Chief or his or her designee. The FIT will be designed to ensure that these incidents are investigated fully and fairly by individuals with appropriate expertise, independence, and investigative skills to ensure that uses of force that are contrary to law or policy arc identified; that training, tactical, and equipment defi ciencies related to the usc of force are identified; and that investigations are of sufficient quality. 11 2. FlT will be comprised of personnel who have specialized training and expertise. The FIT membership will be tailored to the circumstances of each investigation, but will normally include one or more FIT detectives, the FIT sergeant, an Offi ce of Professional Standards investigator, an Internal Affairs investigator, and a Homicide Unit supervisory officer, who will serve as the Team's leader. OPS investigators will not pattieipate in criminal investigations. At least one member of the r rT wi ll be avai lable at all times to eva luate potential referrals from COP supervisors.
27

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 33 of 110. PageID #: 112
11 3. Prior to performing FIT duties, FIT members will receive FIT-specific training that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type, including FIT procedures, including callout and investigative protocols; the differences between administrative and criminal investigations and how each should be conducted; investigations of olftcer-involved shootings; investigative equipment and techniques; and proper roles of the fo llowing: on-scene counterparts, such as crime scene technicians; the Monitor; any outside investigating agency; the prosecutor's office; and OPS. The training also will address techniques for objective fact-gathering and evaluation and the factors to consider when evaluating credibility. FIT investigators also will receive annual in-service training that is adequate in quantity, quality, type, and scope.
11 4. Within days from the Effective Date, CDP will identify, assign, and train personnel for the FIT to fulfill the requirements of this Agreement.
11 5. FIT wi ll respond to the scene of every incident involving a use of fo rce for which it is required to conduct an investigation. The FIT leader will immed iately noti fy the appropriate prosecutor's office. If the City elects to utilize an outside agency to conduct the criminal investigation, the FlT leader will notify the designated outside agency to respond to the scene to conduct the criminal investigation.
11 6. CDP will develop and implement policies to ensure that, where an outside agency conducts the criminal investigation, FIT conducts a concurrent and thorough administrative investigation.
117. Before using an outside agency to conduct criminal investigations, CDP wi ll develop a memorandum of understanding with the outside agency to ensure that, after an appropriate prosecutor review, completed crimi nal investigations are provided to FIT and the Monitor, and that information obtained from or as a result of any compelled interviews of officers is not provided to criminal investigators. The memorandum of understanding also will delineate responsibi lities between the two agencies and establish investigative protocols to ensure, to the extent possible, thorough, objective and timely administrative and criminal investigations.
118. FIT will :
28

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 34 of 110. PageID #: 113
a. assume control of the use of force investigation upon their arrival, unless an outside agency is conducting the criminal investigation and control of the scene by the crim inal investigating body is appropriate;
b. ensure that a canvass for, and interview of, civilian witnesses is conducted by FlT team members. FIT members will either record the interview or encourage civilian witnesses to provide and sign written statements in their own words, but will take information from civilian witnesses who have pertinent information even if they refuse to be recorded or refuse to complete or sign a formal statement;
c. arrange for photographing and processing of the scene; d. ensure that all evidence that could establish material facts related to the use of
force, including audio and video recordings, photographs, and other documentation of injuries or the absence of injuries is collected; c. examine the subject for inj ury, photograph areas of injury or complaint of injury, interview the subject for complaints of pain afte r advising the subject that the interview pertai ns only to the use of force and not to any unde rl ying alleged crime and that the subject need not answer questions, and ensure that the subject receives medical attention from an appropriate med ical provider;; f. ensure that all ofticers witnessing the use of force by another officer complete a use of force report regarding the incident; g. review all usc of force reports to ensure that they include the information required by CDP policy; h. consistent with applicable law, interview all officers who witness or arc otherwise involved in the incident. To the extent possible, officers will be separated until interviewed. Group interviews will be prohibited. FIT will not ask officers or other witnesses leading questions that suggest legal justifications for the officers' conduct, when such questions are contrary to appropriate law enforcement techniques. FIT wi ll record all interviews. FIT will ensure that all FIT investigation reports identify all offi cers who were involved in the incident, witnessed the incident, or were on the scene when it occurred;
29

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 35 of 110. PageID #: 114
1. arrange for body worn camera video downloads; j . provide an initial briefing to a training representative at the start of the
investigation to ensure that any training issues that require immediate attention are identified, and continue to consult as appropriate with the training representative; and k. make all reasonable efforts through the investigation to resolve material inconsistencies between the officer, subject, and witness statements, as well as inconsistencies between the level of force claimed by the officer and the subject' s injuries. 11 9. On at least an annual basis, the Monitor will determine whether the criminal investigations conducted by the outside agency are consistently objective, timely, and comprehensive. If the Monitor determines that they are not and the City di sagrees, the Court will resolve the disagreement. If a determination is made that the investigations arc not consistently objective, timely, and comprehensive, the memorandum of understanding will be terminated and the FIT will assume responsibility for conducting all crim inal investigations of uses of force. 120. II' the FfT leader determines that a case has the potential to proceed criminally, compelled interviews of the subject offi cer(s) will be delayed. No other part of the investigation will be held in abeyance unless specifically authorized by the Chief in consultation with the agency conducting the criminal investigation and the appropriate prosecutor's office. 121. The FIT leader will complete a preliminary report that will be presented to the Chief of Police or the Chier s designee as soon as possible, but absent exigent circumstances, no later than 24 hours after learning of the usc of force. 122. With the exception of compelled interviews as described in paragraph 120, FIT will complete its administrative investigation within 60 days. Any request for an extension of time must be supported by a written j ustification and approved in writing by the Chief or the Chiers designee. COP's inability to complete the investigation because it is awaiting information from an outside agency, such as the medical examiner's office, wi ll constitute sufficient basis for such an extension for that portion of the investigation. Within seven days of the conclusion of each use of feree investigation,
30

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 36 of 110. PageID #: 115
FIT will prepare an investigation report and recommend whether the preponderance of the evidence establishes that the involved orticer(s) violated COP policy, and whether any training or policy concerns are presented. FIT's investigative report and recommendations will be reviewed by the head oflnternaJ Affairs. Within three business days, the head oflnternal/\ffairs will approve or disapprove FTT' s recommendations, or request that FIT conduct additional investi gation. Any request for additional investigation and the FIT's response will be documented and maintained in the investigatory file. Internal Affai rs will fo rward the investigative report to the Chief of Police for review and approval. 123. COP will revise the FIT manual to ensure that it is consistent with the force principles outlined in this Agreement and includes the fo llowing:
a. guidance on an appropriate approach when providing Garrity warnings and protections to offi cers for answering questions regarding their uses of force;
b. clear procedures to ensure appropriate separation of criminal and administrative investigations in the event of compe lled subject officer state ments;
c. definitions of all relevant terms~ d. clear statements of the mission and authority of FIT; e. procedures for report writing; f. procedures for objective fact-gathering and evaluation and the factors to
consider when evaluating credi bility; g. procedures for collecting and processing evidence; h. procedures for consulting with the law department, including ensuring that
administrative investigations are not unnecessarily delayed while a criminal investigation is pending; and 1. scene management procedures.
F. Force Review Board 124. COP wi ll develop and impl ement a Force Review Board ("FRB") to serve as a qual ity
control mechanism for uses of force and force investigations, and to appraise usc of force incidents from a tactics, training, policy, and agency improvement perspective.
31

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 37 of 110. PageID #: 116
The FRB will review all FIT investigations, all Level 2 investigations where there was a determination of force related misconduct, and a sample of Level 2 use of force investigations. The Force Review Board ("FRB") will be comprised of the Chief of Police or his or her designee, who will chair the FRB; a supervisor from the training section; a representative from Office of Professional Standards; and a representative from Internal Affairs. One representative fTom each District, to be selected by the District Commander, will participate in all Force Review Board reviews involving a use of force in that District. The Chair may include any subject matter experts the Chair fee ls would be helpful in reviewing particular incidents. The FRB also may consult with other advisors as necessary. I 25. Each member will receive training on legal updates. updates to COP's policies, and CDP training curriculum related to the use of force. I26. The Force Review Board will conduct comprehensive and reliable reviews of investigations within 90 days of submission to the FRB. The scope of the Board' s review will not be limited to assessing an officer's decision-making at the moment the officer employed force. Rather, the FRB's review will include the.circumstances leading up to the use of force, tactical decisions, infotmation sharing and communication, adequacy of supervision, equipment, training, COP's medical response, when applicable, and any commendable actions. The review wi ll include the actions and inactions of all officers, supervisors, comnianders, and dispatchers involved in the incident, as appropriate. 127. In conducting these reviews, the Force Review Board wi ll :
a. ensure that it is objective and complete and that the findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Where the findings are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, the FRB wi ll document the reasons for this determination, including the specific evidence or analysis supporting its conclusions, and fo rward its determination to the Chief of Police;
b. hear the case presentation from the lead investigator, or for supervisory investigations, the representative from the District where the force occurred;
32

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 38 of 110. PageID #: 117
c. review any written or recorded statements from the ofticer, and discuss the case as necessary with the investigator or District representative to gain a full understanding of the facts of the incident;
d. order additional investigation when it appears that there is additional relevant evidence that may assist in resolving inconsistencies or improve the reliabi lity or cred ibility of the force investigation;
e. determine whether the inc.ident raises concerns regardi ng policy, training, equipment, supervision, med ical response by officers on the scene, communication, or tactics, and refer such incidents to Lhe appropriate unit within CDP to ensure they are resolved;
f. recommend non-disciplinary corrective action to enable or encourage an officer to improve his/her performance; and
g. document its findin gs and recommendations in a report within 15 days of each FRB case presentation.
128. The FRB wil l assess the quality of the investigations it reviews, including whether investigations are objective and comprehensive and recommendations are supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The FRB will identify and document any deficiencies that indicate a need for corrective action.
129. Annually, the FRB will examine the data related to use of force provided by the Data Collection and Analysis Coordinator pursuant to paragraph 261, to detect any pattems, trends, and training deficiencies and make recommendations for correction, as appropriate. The analysis wi ll be provided to the Monitor. To avoid duplication of effort in developing the public report required by paragraph 266, this analysis wi ll be conducted in conjunction with the Data Collection and Ana lysis Coordinator.
130. The FRB will work with the Data Collection and Analysis Coordinator to develop a tracking system to ensure that each of its recommendations has been forwarded to the appropriate personnel. The Chief and his or her designee wi ll ensure that the FRB's recommendations, including non-disciplinary corrective action, are implemented as appropriate.
33

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 39 of 110. PageID #: 118
VII. CRISIS INTERVENTION
13 1. CDP will bui ld upon and improve its Crisis Intervention Program with the goal of: (a) assisting individuals in crisis; (b) improving the safety of officers, consumers, fa mily members, and others within the community; (c) providing the foundation necessary to promote community and statewide solutions to assist individuals with mental illness; and (d) reduci ng the need for individuals with mental illness to have further involvement with the criminal justice system. The Crisis Intervention Program will provide a forum fo r effective problem solving regarding the interaction between the crim inal justice and mental health care system and create a context for sustainable change.
A. Mental Health Response Advisory Committee
132. Within 180 days of the Effective Date, CDP and the City will ensure that a Mental Health Response Advisory Committee ("Advisory Committee") is developed to foster relationships and build support between the police, the community, and mental health providers and to help identify problems and develop solutions designed to improve outcomes for individuals in crisis.
133. The Advisory Committee will include the Crisis Intervention Coord inator and representation from specialized CIT officers. CDP also will seek representation from the Cleveland Municipal Court's Mental Health Docket, the Ohio Criminal Justice Coordinating Center of Excellence. Cuyahoga County's Alcohol, Drug Add iction, and Mental Health Services Board ("ADAMHS Board''), FrontLine Services, and any other relevant Cuyahoga County mental health organizations, such as advocacy organizations, homeless service providers, area hospitals, and interested community members.
134. The Advisory Committee will meet regularly and provide guidance to assist COP in improving, expanding, and sustaining its Crisis Intervention Program.
135. On an annual basis, the Advisory Committee will conduct an analysis of crisis intervention incidents to determine whether CDP has enough spec ialized CIT officers, whether it is deploying those ofticers effectively, and whether specialized CIT officers, call-takers, and dispatchers arc appropriately responding to people in crisis, and will
34

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 40 of 110. PageID #: 119
recommend appropriate changes to policies, procedures, and training regarding police contact with individuals in crisis. 136. The Advisory Committee's reports and recommendations will be provided to the Commission, wi ll be publicly available, and will be posted on the Ci ty's website.
B. Crisis Intervention Coordinator 137. Within I80 days of the Effective Date, COP will designate an officer, at the rank of
captain or above, to act as a Crisis Intervention Coordinator to better faci li tate communication between COP and members ofthe mental health community and to increase the effectiveness of COP's Crisis Intervention Program. 138. The Coord inator will develop and maintain partnerships with program stakeholders and serve as a point of contact for advocates, individuals, fam ilies, caregivers, professionals, and others associated with the mental health community. The Coordinator will be available as a resource at al l times during normal business hours. 139. The Coordinator will participate in the Advisory Committee and on a regular basis solicit feedback from the mental health community and specialized CIT ofli cers, calltakers, and dispatchers regarding the effi cacy of CDP's Crisis Intervention Program. 140. The Coordinator will be responsible for coordinating implementation of the changes and recommendations made by the Advisory Committee, as appropriate. 141 . The Coordinator will be responsi ble for ensuring the selection of appropriate candidates for designation as specialized CIT officers. The Coordinator also will be required to ensure that officers, call-takers, and dispatchers are appropriately responding to CITrelated calls. 142. The Coordinator will create ways to recognize and honor specialized CIT officers, call takers, and dispatchers, where appropri ate.
C. C risis Intervention Training 143. CDP will provide training on responding to individuals in crisis to all of its officers and
recruits. Within 365 days ofthe Effective Date, officers wi ll be provided with at least eight hours of initial training, and all officers will receive annual in-service training thereafter. The initial and annual training wi ll be adequate in quality, quantity, type, and scope, and will include the circumstances in which a specialized CJT officer should
35

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 41 of 110. PageID #: 120
be dispatched or consulted and how situations involving individuals in crisis should be addressed if a specialized CIT officer is not immediately available. All new recruits will receive at least 16 hours of training in the academy that meets these same requirements. 144. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, and annually thereafter, all CDP call-takers, dispatchers, and their supervisors will receive cri sis intervention telecommunicators training that is adequate to enable them to identify, dispatch, and appropriately respond to calls for service that involve individuals in crisis. The training will include identification of individuals in crisis; telephonic suicide intervention; crisis management, de-escalation and scenario-based exercises; interactions with individuals with mental illness; information that should be gathered when the call-taker suspects that the call involves an individual in crisis; and the types of calls that require a specialized CIT response. Any crisis intervention training that already has been provided to call-takers, dispatchers, and their supervisors may be considered to fulfi ll training requirements under this Agreement for those individuals, if approp riate.
D. Specialized C risis Intervention Trained Officers
145. COP will provide enhanced specialized training in responding to individuals in crisis to certain officers ("specialized CIT officers"). Specialized CIT officers will continue to be assigned to the patrol division and will maintain their standard patrol duties, except when called upon to respond to incidents or call s involving indi vidual s in crisis.
146. The enhanced training fo r specialized CIT officers will be at leasr 40 hours. This enhanced training will be adequare in quality, scope, and type and will include how to conduct a field evaluation, suicide intervention, community mental health resources, common mental health diagnoses, the effects of drug and alcohol abuse, perspectives of individuals with mental health issues, family members, the rights of persons with mental illness, civil commitment criteria, crisis de-escalation, and scenario-based exercises. This training must include on-site visitation to mental health and substance abuse fac ilities and interaction with indi viduals with mental illness and substance abuse disorders. Officers who arc designated as specialized CIT officers who already have received 40 hours of appropriate crisis intervention training may be considered to have
36

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 42 of 110. PageID #: 121
fulfilled these training requirements. 147. Specialized CIT ofticers do not have to receive the initial eight hours of trai ning
provided to all officers, but must receive eight hours of annual in-service crisis intervention training, which can be the same training provided to all officers, if app ropri ate. 148. Training and designation as a specialized CIT officer wi ll be voluntary. To be eligible for consideration, officers must have at least three years of experience as a COP officer. COP wi ll provide an in-depth assessment of each applicant to determine the applicant's fitness to serve as a specialized CIT officer. This assessment will include an examination of the officer's wri tten application, supervisory recommendations, disciplinary tile, and an in-person interview. Officers with a history of complaints of, or who have been disciplined for, excessive use of force against individuals in crisis will be presumptively ineligible to be specialized ClT officers. 149. Supervisors wi ll identify and encourage qual ified officers across all shifts and all Districts to serve as specialized CJT offi cers. 150. All Field Training Officers will receive the enhanced specialized crisis intervention trai ning described in paragraph 146. Despite having received this training, an FTO will not be designated as a specialized CIT officer unl ess that FTO has volunteered to be a specialized CIT officer and has been selected by the Coordinator.
15 1. Specialized CIT officers who arc dispatched to an incident involving an individual in
crisis will have primary responsibility for the scene. If a supervisor has assumed
responsibility for the scene, the supervisor will seck the input of a specialized crT
officer regarding strategies for reso lving the crisis where it is reasonable for them to do so. 152. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, the Coordinator will develop an ef1ecti ve specialized crisis intervention plan ("Specialized Crisis Intervention Plan"). The goal of the Specialized Crisis Intervention Plan will be to ensure that a specialized CIT officer is available to respond to all calls and incidents that appear to involve an individual in crisis. The Specialized Crisis [ntcrvention Plan wi ll include an assessment of the number of officers necessary to achieve this goal; identification of gaps in coverage of particular shifts or Districts and development of mechanisms to fill those
37

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 43 of 110. PageID #: 122
gaps; identification of any barriers to ensuring full coverage and steps to overcome those barriers; and ways to identify qualified officers and to encourage them to apply. CDP will continually review and revise this plan as barriers to full coverage are identified and addressed. The Specialized Crisis Intervention Plan will take into account the seniority provisions of the Collectively Bargaining Agreement and that CDP may not immediately be able to ensure that a specia lized CIT officer is available to respond to all call s or incidents that appear to involve an individual in crisis. Within these constraints, the City wil l use its best efforts to ensure that a specialized CIT of1icer responds to all calls and incidents that appear to involve an indi vidual in crisis. The Monitor will assess the Specialized Crisis Intervention Plan and report to the Parties whether it is appropriate and e ffective, and whether the City is using its best efforts to implement it.
E. Crisis Intervention Policies and Procedures 153. The Ohio Criminal Justice Coordinating Center of Excellence currentl y is conducting a
peer review of the crisis intervention program in Cuyahoga County. The results of the peer review assessment will be provided to the Advisory Committee, DOJ, and the Monitor. In developing its policies and procedures and the plan req uired by paragraph 152, the City will consider this assessment and any recommendations contained within it. 154. CDP, with recommendations from the Advisory Committee, will revise its policies to make clear that a crisis intervention response may be necessary even in situations where there has been an apparent law violation. 155 . CDP, with recommendations from the Advisory Committee, will revise its current crisis intervention policy to ensure that specialized CIT officers have appropriate discretion to direct individuals with mental health and substance abuse issues to the health care system, rather than the judicial system, in those instances where it is appropriate to do so. 156. COP's policies and procedures will make clear that specialized CIT officers, when available, must be dispatched to all call s or incidents that appear to involve an individual in ctisis. CDP will track incidents in which a specialized officer was not
38

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 44 of 110. PageID #: 123
dispatched to such calls. In developing and revising the plan required by paragraph I52, CDP will identify any barriers to ensuring that specialized CIT officers were dispatched to these calls, and will include steps to overcome these barriers. 157. COP will track calls and incidents involving individuals in crisis by gathering, at a minimum, the foll owing data:
a. date, time, and location of the incident; b. subject's name, age, gender, race, ethn icity, and address; c. whether the subject was armed, and the type of weapon; d. whether the subject is a United States mil itary veteran; e. name and address of individual calling for service; f. the reason for the interaction, i.e., suspected criminal conduct or call for
assistance; g. nan1e(s) and badge number(s) of the offi cer(s) on the scene; h. whether a supervisor responded to the scene; 1. techniques or equipment offi cers used; J. any injuri es to offi cers, subject, or others; k. disposition of the incident (e.g., defuse, arrest, citation, referral); and I. briefnarrative of the event (onl y if not included in another document). 158. COP must publicly report this outcome data annually and provide it to the Advisory Committee, aggregated as necessary to protect privacy. 159. COP will utilize this outcome data to identify training needs and develop case studies and teaching scenarios for crisis intervention training as well as primary and in-service crisis training; to make changes to the crisis training curriculum; to identify safety issues and trends; to recognize and hi ghlight successfu l individual officer performance; to develop new response strategies for repeat calls for service; and to identify systemic issues that impede CDP's ability to provide an appropriate response to an incident invo.lving an individual in crisis.
VlJI. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES 160. COP will conduct all investigatory stops, searches, and arrests with the goal of ensuring that they are conducted in accordance with the rights secured and protected by the
39

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 45 of 110. PageID #: 124
Constitution and state and federal law. COP will conduct investigatory stops, searches, and arrests fairly and respectfully as patt of an effecti ve overall crime prevention strategy that takes into account community values. To achieve this goal, COP will revise, develop, and implement search and seizure policies that comply with applicable law, and include the requirements below. 161. Officers will not use an individual's gender, race, ethnicity, national origin, or perceived sexual orientation as a factor, to any extent or degree, in establishing reasonable suspicion or probable cause, unless such information is part of an ac tual and credible description of a specific suspect in an investigation that includes other identifying factors. 162. Officers wi ll not conduct investigatory stops when they lack reasonable suspicion. 163. Officers wi ll not conduct pat down searches without specific and articulable facts to reasonably suspect that a particular person is armed and dangerous. Thi s docs not restrict an officer's ability to conduct a search incident to arrest or prior to transport. 164. Where an officer seeks consent for a search, the officer will inform the person of his or her right to refuse and to revoke consent at any time and document the person's consent. 165. COP officers will not rely solely upon an individual's geographic location, or presence in a high crime area without any other speci fi c and articulable facts indicating that the individual has been, is, or is about to engage in criminal activity, as the basis for an investigatory stop. 166. Officers will immediately notify a supervisor when effectuating a custod ial arrest for obstructing official business, resisting arrest, or assaulting an officer and no other substantive violation is alleged. Upon notification, the supervisor will respond to the scene. 167. Officers will not use "canned" or conclusory language without supporting detail in documents or reports doc umenting investigatory stops, searches, or arrests. 168. Officers will articulate the justification for an investigatory stop, search, or arrest in a speci fi c and clear manner in their reports. COP will train officers to usc specific and individualized descriptive language in reports when documenting investigatory stops, searches, and arrests. Supervisors wil l review all documentation of investigatory stops,
40

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 46 of 110. PageID #: 125
searches, and arrests for completeness and adherence to law and COP policy. 169. COP supervisors will review each arrest report by officers under their command,
whether or not they involve the seizure of contraband, and will sign off on those reports to memorialize their review within 24 hours of the arrest, absent exceptional circumstances. Supervisors wil l review reports and forms for deficiencies including:
a. "canned" or conclusory language without supporting detail, inconsistent information, insufficient articu lation of the legal basis for the action, or other indicia that the information in the reports or forms is not conect or complete;
b. arrests fo llowi ng stops that were not supported by reasonable suspicion; c. arrests that are not supported by probable cause, or are otherwise in violation
of the law or COP policy; and d. for every search or arrest involving the recovery of contraband evidence,
whether the circumstances by which the evidence was recovered and/or probable cause fo r arrest was establ ished are plausible and complete. 170. Within seven days, COP supervisors will separately document and report: (1) investigatory stops and pat-down sea rches that appear unsupported by reasonable suspicion, or that are otherwise in violation of COP policy; (2) aJTests unsuppo rted by probable cause or that are in violation of COP policy; or (3) investigatory stops, searches, and arrests that, while comporting with law and policy, indicate a need for corrective action or review of agency pol icy, strategy, tactics, or training. 171. COP supervisors will take appropriate action to address all apparent violations or deficiencies in investigatory stops, searches, and arrests. Appropriate action may include recommending non-disciplinary corrective action for the involved officer, or referring the incident for adm inistrative or criminal investigation. The supervisor will ensure that each violation or deficiency is addressed in the officer's performance eva luatio ns. 172. 1\ command-level official will review, within seven days of their completion, all supervisory reports of investigatory stops and pat-down searches not supp01tcd by reasonable suspicion, all searches and aiTests not supported by probable cause, and all investigatory stops, searches, and arrests that were in violation of COP pol icy, or that indicated a need for COJTective action or review of agency policy, strategy, tactics, or
41

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 47 of 110. PageID #: 126
training. The commander will evaluate the supervisor's assessment and recommendations and ensure that all appropriate corrective action is taken, including referring the incident to Internal Affairs for investigation, if warranted. The commander also will take appropri ate non-disciplinary corrective action and/or will initiate the disciplinary process against supervisors who fail to conduct complete, thorough, and accurate reviews of officers' investigatory stops, searches, and arrests. CDP will take into account the quality and completeness of these supervisory and commander reviews of officers' investigatory stops, searches, and arrests, in supervisory and commander perfom1ance evaluations. 173. CDP will provide all officers with initial training that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type on investigatory stops, searches, and arrests, including the requirements of this Agreement. The training will be taught by a qualified instructor with significant experience in Fourth Amendment issues. The training will address the requirements of Fourth Amendment and related law, CDP policies, and this Agreement, including:
a. the di ft'erence among the scope and degree of intrusion associated with different types of pollee contacts; the difference between probable cause, reasonable suspicion, and mere speculation; and the difference between voluntary consent and the mere acquiescence to police authority;
b. the types of facts and circumstances that may be considered in initiating, conducting, terminating, and expanding an investigatory stop;
c. the level of permissible intrusion when conducting searches. such as "pat-downs'' or "fri sks'';
d. the permi ssible nature and scope of searches incident to an arrest; e. procedures fo r executing searches, including handIing, recording, and taking
custody of seized property and evidence; and f. the principles of procedural justice and the effect that differing approaches to
investigatory stops, searches, and arrests can have on community perceptions of police legitimacy and public safety. 174 . CDP also will provide offi cers with annual search and seizure in-service training that is adequate in quality, quantity, type, and scope. 175. COP will incorporate the following elements in its training of officers: (1) if possible,
42

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 48 of 110. PageID #: 127
introducing themselves at the initiation of contact with a civilian; (2) stating the reason for an investigatory stop as soon as practicable; (3 ) ensuring that an investigatory stop is no longer than necessary to take appropri ate action; and (4) acting with professionalism and courtesy throughout the interaction.
IX. ACCOUNTABILITY 176. The City and CDP will ensure that all allegations of offi cer misconduct, whether internally discovered or alleged by a civilian, are fully, fairly, and effi ciently investigated; that all investigative findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence and documented in writing; and that all offi cers who commit misconduct are held accountable pursuant to a disciplinary system that is fair, consistent, and provides due process. To achieve these outcomes, COP and the City will implement the requirements set out below.
A. Internally Discovered Misconduct 177. Internal Affairs will conduct obj ective, comprehensive, and timely investi gations of all
internal allegations of officer misconduct. All findin gs will be based on the preponderance of the evidence standard. This standard will be clearly delineated in policies, training, and procedures and accompani ed by detailed examples to ensure ·proper application by investigators. 178. Internal Affairs will be headed by a qualified civilian who is not a current or former employee of CDP, and who is not a cunent or retired law enforcement officer. The civilian head oflnternal Affairs will rep01i directly to the Chief of Police. 179. CDP will ensure that misconduct investigators and commanders possess excellent investigative skills, a reputation for integrity, the ability to write clear reports, and the ability to be fair and objective in determining whether an offi cer committed misconduct. Officers with a sustained history of civilian complaints of, or who have been disciplined for, excessive use of force, discrimination, or dishonesty will be presumptively ineligible for assignment to Internal Affairs. 180. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, CDP will provide al.l new personnel assigned to Internal Affairs with ini tial training and verify that all ex isting personnel received training within 365 days prior to the Effective Date that is adequate in quality, quantity,
43

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 49 of 110. PageID #: 128
scope, and type on conducting misconduct investigations. This training will include instruction in:
a. investigative skills, including proper interrogation and interview techniques; gathering and objectively analyzing evidence; and data and case management;
b. the par1icular challenges of admini strative police misconduct investigations, including identify ing alleged misconduct that is not clearly stated in the complaint or that becomes apparent during the investigation;
c. properly weighing the credibility of civilian witnesses against officers; d. using objective evidence to resolve inconsistent statements; e. the proper application of the preponderance of the evidence standard; and f. COP rules and policies, incl uding the requirements of this Agreement, and
protocols related to administrative investigations of alleged officer mi sco nduct. 181. Internal Affairs investigators also will receive annual training related to conducting misconduct investigations that is adequate in quality, quantity, type and scope. 182. ln each investigation, Internal Affairs will collect and consider all relevant circumstantial, direct, and physical evidence, including officer-recorded video as it becomes available through COP's implementation of body worn cameras or other recording devices. There will be no automatic preference for an ofticer's statement over a non-officer's statement. lnternal Affairs investigators will not disregard a witness's statement solely because the witness has some connection to either the complainant or the offi cer or because the witness or complainant has a criminal history. In conducting the investigation, Internal Affairs investigators may take into account the record of any witness, complainant, or officer who has been detem1ined to have been deceptive or untruthful in any legal proceeding, misconduct investigation, or other investigation. Internal Affairs investigators will make all reasonable efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements. 183. Internal Affairs will evaluate all relevant police activity and any evidence of potential miscond uct uncovered duri ng the course of the investigation, includi ng each usc of force, and any investigatory stops, searches, or seizures that occurred during the incident.
44

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 50 of 110. PageID #: 129
184. If the person involved in the encounter with the police pleads guilty or is found guilty of an offense, Internal Affairs will not consider that information alone to be determinative of whether a CDP officer engaged in misconduct, nor will it justify discontinuing the investigation.
I85. Internal Affairs wil l complete its administrative investigations within 30 days from the date it learns of the alleged misconduct. Any request for an extension of time must be approved in writing by the Chief or the Chiefs designee.
186. At the conclusion of each investigation, lntemal Affairs wi II prepare an investigation report. The report will include: a. a narrative description of the incident, including a precise description of the evidence that either justifies or fail s to justify the officer's conduct based on Internal Affairs' independent review of the facts and circumstances of the incident; b. documentation of all evidence that was gathered, including names, phone numbers, and addresses of witnesses to the incident. In situations in which there are no known witnesses, the report will specificall y state this fact. In situations in which witnesses were present but circumstances prevented the author of the report from determining the identification, phone number, or address of those witnesses, the report will state the reasons why. The report also will include all available identifying information for anyone who refuses to provide a statement; c. documentation of whether officers were intervi.ewed, and a transcript or recording of those interviews; d. the names of all other CDP employees who witnessed the incident; e. Internal Affairs' evaluation of the incident, based on its review of the evidence gathered, including a determination of whether the officer's actions appear to be within CDP policy, procedure, regulations, orders, or other standards of conduct required of City em ployees; and an assessment of the incident for policy, training, tactical, or equipment concerns; f. if a weapon was used, documentation that the officer's certification and training for the weapon were current; and
45

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 51 of 110. PageID #: 130
g. documentation of recommendations for initiation of the disciplinary process. 187. In addition to determining whether an officer committed alleged misconduct,
investigations will include an assessment of whether: a. the police action was in compliance w1th training and legal standards; b. the use of different tactics should or could have been employed; c. the incident indi cates a need for additional training, counseling, or other nondisciplinary correcti ve actions; and d. the incident suggests that COP should revise its policies, strategies, tactics, or training.
188. COP will ensure that all relevant information from the completed investigation is provided electronically to the officers' supervisors, the Training Review Commi ttee, the Force Review Board, the Officer Intervention Program, and the Data Collection and Analysis Coordinator while ensuring that sensitive information is adequately protected.
B. Reporting Misconduct and Preventing Retaliation
189. CDP will require any COP employee who observes or becomes aware of any act of misconduct by another employee to report the incident to a supervisor or di rectly to Jnternal Affairs. Where an act of misconduct is reported to a supervisor, the supervisor wi ll immediately document and report the information to Intemal/\ffairs. Failure to report an act of misconduct is an egregious offense and will subject the officer to the disciplinary process and, if sustained, will subject the officer to discipline, up to and including termination.
190. COP will develop a system that all ows officers to confidential ly and anonymously report potential misconduct by other officers.
191. CDP will expressly prohibit all forms of retaliation, discouragement, intimidation, coercion, or adverse action, against any person, civilian or officer, who reports misconduct, makes a misconduct complaint, or cooperates with an investigation of mi scond uct.
192. Officers who retaliate against any person who reports or invest igates alleged misconduct will be subject to the disciplinary process and possible discipl ine, up to and including termination.
46

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 52 of 11• 0. PageID #: 131
C. Investigation of Civilian Complaints
1. The Office of Professional Standards 193. The Office of Professional Standards (''OPS") will investigate all civi lian complaints it
receives, other than those that allege criminal conduct. All complaints of apparent criminal conduct wi ll be rcfctTcd to Internal Affairs. Complaints of excessive fo rce wi ll be retained by OPS for investigation except in exceptional circumstances, or if Internal Affairs already bas initiated an investigation. Once Internal Affairs completes a referred criminal investigation, if a dctctmination is made that no criminal conduct occurred, the complaint wil l be referred back to OPS and the Police Review Board (''PRB") for disposition. 194. The City will ensure that OP is led by an administrator with the skills, expertise, and experience to effectively manage the intake, tracking, timely, and o~jective investigation of complaints; identify and implement appropriate training for investigators and PRB members from sources outside of COP; assess OPS's equipment and staffing needs, including administrative staff, investigators, and supervisor(s); and ensure that OPS operates in a manner that is transparent and accountable to the community it serves. The administrator also will have the skills, expet1ise, and experience to develop and implement performance standards for OPS. For future appointments, the City wi ll seek the Commission's input in developing the minimum qualifications and experience for an administrator. 195. OPS investigators will receive initial training that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope. and type and will include:
a. investigative skills, including proper interrogation and interview techniques; gathering and objectively analyzing evidence; and data and case management;
b. the particular challenges of admini strative investigations ofpol ice conduct. including identi fying conduct warranting investigation that is not clearly stated in the complaint or that becomes apparent during the investigation;
c. properly weighing the credibility of civi lian witnesses against officers; d. using objective evidence to resolve inconsistent statements; e. the proper application of the preponderance of the evidence standard; and
47

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 53 of 110. PageID #: 132
f. CDP rules and policies, including the requirements of this Agreement, and protocols related to administrative investigations of officer conduct alleged to be improper.
196. The training wi ll be provided by sources both inside and outside of COP, in order to ensure the highest quality training on investigati ve techniques and COP policies, procedures, and disciplinary rules. Within 365 days ofthe Effective Date, OPS investigators will receive training that is adequate in quality, quantity, type, and scope, both initially and annually, in how to conduct administrative investigations.
197. OPS Investigators will not be current members of the CDP, and no COP personnel wi ll have any active role inOPS's operations.
198. The City will ensure that the lawyer representing OPS does not have any actual or apparent contl icts of interest.
199. OPS will have its own budget, separate from the admini strative budget fo r the Department of Public Safety. The OPS Administrator will oversee the budget. The Monitor will analyze OPS' s budget and advise the Parties and the Court as to whether it affords sufficient independence and resources, including sufficient staff and training to meet the terms of this Agreement.
200. Within 180 days of the Effective Date, OPS will develop a revised operations manual that will be made available to the public. The manual will, at a minimum, include the followi ng: a. a mission statement that defines OPS and PRB's core values, mission, and authority; b. definitions of all relevant terms; c. investigati~e procedures, including procedures for objective fact-gathering and evaluation and the factors that will be considered when evaluating credibility; procedures on report writing; and procedures for collecting and processing evidence; d. procedures outl ining when complaints may be administratively dismissed and the process with which OPS must comply to ensure that complaints are not prematurely or unnecessari ly dismissed;
48

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 54 of 110. PageID #: 133
c. outlines the duties and practices of PRB, including how PRB will review OPS findings, how cases will be presented to PRB by OPS, the standard of review PRB will apply to reviewing complaints, how disciplinary recommendations will be determ ined, and a description of the types of information PRB will make available to the public; and
f. an explanation of possible dispositions and outcomes of complaints.
2. Filing and Tracking of Civilian Complaints 201. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, the City and CDP, in consultation with the
Commission and OPS, will develop and implement a program to promote awareness throughout the Cleveland community about the process for tiling complaints with OPS. 202. CDP and the City will work with the police unions, as necessary, to allow civilian complaints to be submitted to OPS verbally or in writing; in person, by phone, or on line; by a complainant, someone acting on his or her behalf, or anonymously; and with or without a signature from the complainant. All complaints will be documented in writing. 203. CDP will post and maintain by the intake window at CDP headquarters and all District headquarters a pennanent placard describing the civilian complaint process that includes relevant OPS contact information. including telephone numbers, email addresses, and Internet sites. 204 . Within 365 days of the Effective Date, COP will provide training that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type to all police personnel, including dispatchers, to properly handle complaint intake, including how to provide complaint materials and information; the consequences for failing to take complaints; and strategies for turning the complaint process into a positive poli ce-civilian interaction. 205. COP will require all offi cers to carry complaint forms in their COP vehicles. Officers wi ll provide complaint forms to indi viduals upon request. Offi cers will provide their name and badge number upon request. If an individual indicates to an officer that he or she would like to make a complaint about that officer, the officer will immediately inform his or her supervisor who wi ll respond to the scene to assist the individual in tiling a complaint. The supervisor will provide the individual a copy of the completed
49

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 55 of 110. PageID #: 134
complaint form or a blank fom1 to be completed later by the individual. 206. The City and OPS will make complaint forms and other materials outlining the
complaint process and OPS's contact information widely available at locations including: the websites of CDP, OPS and the City of Cleveland; the lobby ofOPS's building; COP headquarters and Districts; and City Hall. OPS wi ll ask locations such as public library branches and the offices and gathering places o f community groups to make these materials available. 207. OPS's complaint form will not contain any language that could reasonabl y be construed as discouraging the filing of a complaint, including warnings about the potential criminal consequences for filing fal se complaints. 208. Within 180 days of the Effective Date, complaint forms and related informational materials will be made available, at a minimum, in English and Spanish. OPS will make every effort to ensure that complainants who speak other languages (including sign language) and have limited English pro ficiency can fi le complaints in their prefen ed language. The fact that a complainant does not speak, read, or write English, or is dea f or hard of hearing will not be grounds to decline to accept or investigate a comp laint. 209. The City will ensure that civili an complaints submitted through other ex isting systems, including the Mayor's Action Center and the Department Action Center, are immediately forwarded to OPS for investigation. 210. Within 150 days ofthe Effective Date, OPS wi ll establish a centralized electron ic numbering and tracking system for all complaints. Upon receipt of a complai nt, OPS will promptly assign a unique identifier to the complaint, which will be provided to the complainant at the time the complaint is made. OPS's centralized numbering and tracking system will maintain accurate and reliable data regarding the number, nature, and status of all complaints, from initial intake to final disposition, including investigation timeliness and notification to the complainant of the interim status and tina! disposition of the complaint. The system will be used to determine the status of complaints, as well as for periodic assessment of compliance with relevant OPS policies and procedures and this Agreement, including requirements of timeliness of investigations. The system also will be used to monitor and maintain appropriate
50

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 56 of 110. PageID #: 135
caseloads for OPS investigators. 2 1I. OPS will track, as a separate category of complaints, allegations of biased policing,
including allegations that an officer conducted an investigatory stop or arrest based on an individual' s demographic category or used a slur based on an individual's demographic category. OPS will require that complaints of biased policing are captured and tracked appropriately, even if the complainant does not so label the al legation. 212. OPS wi ll track, as a separate category of complaints, allegations of unlawful investigatory stops, searches, or arrests. 213. OPS will track, as a separate category of complaints, all allegations of excessive use of force received through OPS's intake process. 2 14. OP will conduct regular assessments of the types of complaints being received to identify and assess potential problematic patterns and trends. 215. .OPS will produce, at least annually, a public report summarizing complaint trends, including the number and types of complaints received, the disposition of complaints by complaint type, the number and types of complaints admini stratively dismissed, and the average length of complaint investigations.
3. Classification of Civilian Complaints
2 16. Within 90 days of the Effective Date, OPS wi ll determine criteria for assigning complaints to one of two tracks: standard and complex. Investigation of complaints assigned to the standard track will be completed within 45 days. Investigation of complaints assigned to the complex track will be completed within 90 days during the first 6 months following the Effective Date and within 75 days thereafter. OPS will undertake a staffing analysis to determine how many investigators are required to meet these targets and, ifnecessary, the City will use best efforts to expand OPS staff in accordance with the results of the analysis. The staffing analysis wi ll be provided to the Monitor, which will review it for adequacy. The Monitor will advise the Patties as to whether OPS and PRB's budget affords sufficient independence and resources to meet the terms of this Agreement, and whether the City is using best efforts to expand its staff, if indicated by the analysis. The Monitor will include this assessment in its
51

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 57 of 110. PageID #: 136
reports. 2 17. OPS will not terminate an investigation simply because the complainant seeks to
withdraw the complaint or is unavailable, unwilling, or unable to cooperate with an investigation. OPS will continue the investigation and reach a fi nding, where possible, based on the evidence and investigatory procedures and techn iques available. In its annual report, OPS will include the number and types of complaints administratively di smissed and the reasons for closure. Only the fo llowing types of complaints may be assigned the disposition of administratively dismissed:
a. complaints disputing traffi c citations, except that allegations of improper conduct contained in such complaints (e.g., racial profiling, illegal search, excessive force) will be classified and investigated according to their merits;
b. complaints alleging a delay in police services where the preliminary investigation demonstrates that the delay was due to workload, or otherwise unavoidable;
c. complaints regarding off duty offi cer conduct of a civil nature, unless the alleged conduct, or its effects, constitute misconduct or have a substantial nexus to the officer's City employment; and
d. complaints in which the prelimi nary investigation demonstrates that the officer does not work for CDP, or where the identity of the offi cer cannot be detennined despite the best efforts ofOPS.
4. Investigation of Civilian Complaints 2 18. OPS will ensure that investigations of complaints are as thorough as necessary to reach
reliable and complete fi ndings that are supported by the preponderance of the evidence. 219. CDP will ensure that OPS has timely access to all reports related to the incident,
including incident reports, supervisory investigations, completed Internal Affairs' investigations, and Force Review Board reports. If an investigation already is being or has been conducted by COP and the OPS Ad ministrator determines that it was thorough and complete, no additional investigation will be required. However, OPS has the authority to conduct additional investigation of any civilian complai nt. 220. OPS investigators will attempt to interview each complainant in person, and where
52

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 58 of 110. PageID #: 137
appropriate, this interview will be recorded in its entirety, absent a specific, documented objection by the complainant. 221. The Chief will order officers who witnessed or participated in an incident that is the subject of an OPS complaint to cooperate with the OPS investi gation, including by responding to written questions submitted by OPS or in-person interviews, as request by OPS. 222. .OPS investigators will have access to any relevant disciplinary information in the record of an officer who is the subject of a current investigation. 223. In each investigation, OPS will consider all relevant evidence, including circumstantial, direct, and physical evidence. There will be no automatic preference for an officer's statement over a non-offi cer's statement. OPS will not disregard a witness's statement solely because the witness has some connection to either the complainant or the offi cer or because the witness or complainant has a criminal history. OPS will make all reasonable effot1s to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements. 224. At the conclusion of its investigation, OPS will explain its findings using one of the fo llowing categories:
a. Sustained: the preponderance of the evidence establishes that the violation of policy occurred . A complaint may be "sustained in part'' if the investigation revealed sufficient evidence to support a finding of a policy violation on one or more, but not all of the complainant's allegations. A complaint may also be "sustained for a violation not based on original complainf' ifthe investigation reveals evidence of misconduct that was not included in the complainant's original allegation.
b. Exonerated: the preponderance of the evidence fails to establish a find ing of a policy violation and does not wanant any further investigation or action.
c. Unfounded: the preponderance of the evidence fa ils to establish whether a policy violation occun·ed or did not occur.
d. Not Sustained: the preponderance of the evidence establishes that the alleged conduct did occur, but did not violate COP po licies, procedures, or training.
e. Administratively dismissed. 225. OPS will document in writing the investigation of each complaint, including all
53

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 59 of 110. PageID #: 138
investigatory steps taken, and OPS's findings and conclusions. The recommended findings will be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 226. In addition to determining whether an officer committed the conduct alleged in the complaint and whether it violated policy, OPS may consider whether: (a) the police action was in compliance with training and legal standards; (b) the incident indicates a need for additional training, counseling, or other cotTective measures; and (c) the incident suggests that COP should revise its policies, strategies, tactics, or training. OPS may include recommendations on these topics in its investigation. 227. OPS will forward all investigations and its written conclusions to PRB in sufficient time for PRB to consider them no later than the second regularly scheduled PRB meeting following completion or the investigation.
5. Communication with the Complainant 228. OPS wil l send periodic written updates to the complainant including:
a. within seven days ofrcccipt of a complaint, OPS wi ll send non-anonymous complainants a written notice of receipt, including the tracking number assigned to the complaint. The notice will inform the complainant how s/he may contact OPS to inquire about the status of a complaint.
b. when OPS concludes its investigation, OPS will notify the complainant that the investigation has been concluded and forwarded to PRB, and inform the complainant when PRB will hear the complaint.
c. when PRB reaches a determination, OPS will notify the complainant of PRB's determination and inform the complainant that the case will be forwarded to the Chief of Police or Director of Public Safety for review and/ or disciplinary action; and
d. when the Chief or Director of Public Safety reports the final outcome of his/her disciplinary process, OPS will notify the complainant of the result, and inform him/her that the matter is now concluded.
229. Notwithstanding the above notices, a complainant may contact OPS at any time to determine the status of his/her complaint.
D. Police Review Board
54

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 60 of 110. PageID #: 139
230. Within 120 days of the Effective Date, in consultation with the Commission, the Mayor will work with the City Counci l to develop an ordinance to place a Charter Amendment on the ballot that would ensure that the members ofPRB are appointed in a transparent manner, are representative of the diverse communities within Cleveland, and allow the chair and a vice chair of PRB, to each serve for a term of one year, to be selected from among the members by majori ty vote of PRB's membership.
23 1. PRB members will not be cuncnt or former members of the CDP. 232. PRB will have its own budget, separate from the administrative budget for the
Department of Public Safety. The OPS Administrator will oversee the budget. The Monitor will analyze PRB's budget and advise the Parties and the Court as to whether it affo rds sufficient independence and resources, including sufficient staff and training to meet the terms of this Agreement. 233. PRB members wi ll receive initial training that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type and will include:
a. constitutional and other relevant law on police-citizen encounters, including law on the use of force and stops, searches, and arrests;
b. police tactics; c. investigations of police conduct; d. bias-free policing; e. policing individuals in crisis; f. CDP policies, procedures and disciplinary rules; and g. community outreach. 234. The training will be provided by sources both inside and outside of COP, in order to ensure the highest quality training on investigative techniques, and CDP policies, procedures, and disciplinary rules. 235. PRB' s meetings will be open to the public. The schedule and location of meetings will be designed to ensure easy public access and will be posted on OPS's website, as will agendas for upcoming PRB meetings. PRB members may vote to go into executive session for their deliberations, but case presentations and PRB votes wil l take place in open session. 236. OPS investigators will attend PRB meetings at which their investigations are bei ng
55

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 61 of 110. PageID #: 140
considered and present their investigation, findings, and conclusions to PRB, whose members can direct questions about cases to them. If PRB determines that it needs additional informat ion before considering a matter, it may ask the investigator to conduct further investigation. 237. PRB 's recommended dispositions will be based on a preponderance of the evidence. For each case, PRB shall set f01th its conclusion and an explanation of its reasons and supp01ting evidence in writing including, when applicable, the justification for departing from OPS's recommended disposition. 238. In cases where PRB is recommending a sustained disposition, in whole or in part, PRB will include a recommendation as to disciplinary or non-disciplinary corrective action. 239. PRB wi ll forward all of its recommendations regarding dispositions and discipline to the Chief of Police or Di rector of Public Safety for their review. PRB may include an assessment of whether: (a) the police action was incompliance with training and legal standards; (b) the incident indicates a need fo r additional training, counseling, or other con ective measures; and (c) the incident suggests that COP should revise its policies, strategies, tactics, or training.
E. Disciplinary Hearings
240. The Chief of COP will issue a General Police Order that requires officers to: (a) cooperate with the Internal Affairs and OPS investigators; and (b) submit all relevant evidence to the investigators such that it is available for consideration by Internal Affairs or PRB.
241 . Where PRB or Internal Affairs recommends the initiation of the disciplinary process, the Chief of COP, or his/her designee. or the Director of Public Safety will conduct a discipl inary hearing and will provide the officer with an opportunity to testify. If an officer provides new or additional evidence at the hearing, the hearing will be suspended and the matter will be returned to [nternal Affairs or PRB for consideration, as appropriate.
242. IfPRB recommends the initiation of the disciplinary process and recommends a disciplinary level, and the Chief or the Director of Public Safety does not uphold the charges in whole or in part after the hearing. or docs not impose the recommended
56

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 62 of 110. PageID #: 141
discipline or non-disciplinary corrective action, the Chief or the Director will set forth in writing his or her justification for doing so. 243. COP will track the number of instances in which the Chief or the Director of Public Safety rejects, in whole or in part, PRB's recommended disposition. 244. At least annually, the Monitor will review this data and assess whether PRB is achieving its mission.
F. Discipline 245. CDP will ensure that discipline for sustained allegations of misconduct comports with
due process, and is consistently applied, fair, and based on the nature of the allegation, · and that mitigating and aggravating factors are identified and consistently applied and documented. 246. [n order to ensure consistency in the imposition of discipline, COP will review its current disciplinary matrix and wi ll seek to amend it as necessary to ensure that it:
a. establishes a presumptive range of discipline for each type of rule violation; b. increases the presumptive discipline based on an officer's prior violations of
the same or other rules; c. sets out detined mitigating and aggravating factors; d. prohibits consideration of the off1cer' s race, gender, national origin, age,
ethnicity, fam ilial relationships, or sexual orientation; e. prohi bits consideration ofthe high (or low) profi le nature ofthe incident; f. provides that COP will not take only non-disciplinary corrective action in
cases in which the disciplinary matrix calls for the imposition of discipline; and g. provides that CDP will consider whether non-d isciplinary corrective action also is appropriate in a case where discipline has been imposed. 247. All disciplinary decisions will be documented in writing. 248. If amended, CDP will provide its disciplinary matrix to the Commission, the Police Inspector General, and the police unions for comment. 249. COP wi ll work with the unions to all ow for sustai ned disciplinary find ings to stay in an officer' s record for ten years.
57

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 63 of 110. PageID #: 142
X. Transparency and Oversight
A. Police Inspector General 250. The City wi ll hire an individual or individuals with significant experience in law
enforcement practices and civil rights law to serve as a Police Inspector General. The City will seek the Commission's input in developing the minimum qual ifications and experience for an Inspector General. The Police Inspector General will be appointed by the Mayor into the classified service of the City. 25 1. The Police Inspector General will work in the Office of the Mayor of the City of Cleveland, but wiII report to the Chief of CDP. 252. The Police Inspector General will not be a current or former employee of COP. 253. The duties of the Poi ice Inspector General will include authority to do the foll owing:
a. review CDP policies and practices to determine compliance with state and federal law, effectiveness, consistency with principles of bias-free and community policing and procedural justice; whether they promote public and officer safety, and whether they are achieving the goals of this Agreement;
b. audit compliance with policies and procedures; c. conduct investigations; d. analyze trends; e. develop specific recommendat ions for reform concerning policies, procedures,
practices, training, and equipment to improve police services and accou ntability; f. analyze investigations conducted by OPS to determine whether they are timely, complete, thorough, and whether recommended dispositions are supported by the preponderance of the evidence; g. collect and analyze al l sustained findings and the discipline imposed, includ ing the use of mitigating and aggravating factors, to assess disciplinary trends and to determine whether discipline is consistently applied, fair, and based on the nature of the allegation; and h. make reports and recommendations for reform publicly available. 254. The Police Inspector General also will have authority to conduct investigations, analyze
58

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 64 of 110. PageID #: 143
trends, and make reports and recommendations, as appropriate, at the request of the Chief of CDP or the Mayor. The Commission may recommend to the Chief of COP, the Director of Public Safety, or the Mayor additional areas of inquiry for the Inspector General. 255. The budget fo r the Inspector General will be visible as a separate line item in the budget proposal that is submitted annually pursuant to the Charter to the Cleveland City Council with the appropriation ordinance. The Monitor will analyze the Inspector General's budget and advise the Parties whether it affords suffic ient independence and resources to meet the terms of this Agreement. The Monitor will include this assessment in its reports. 256. The Police Inspector General wi ll have access to all documents and data necessary to perfotm the above functions, includi ng any raw data collected by the Data Collection and Analysis coordinator.
B. Data Collection and Analysis 257. COP will collect and maintain all data and records necessary to accurately evaluate its
use of force practices and search and seizure practices and facilitate transparency and, as permitted by law, broad public access to information related to CDP's decision making and activities. To achieve this outcome, COP will designate an individual or individuals as the " Data Collection and Analysis Coordinator". The Data Collection and Analysis Coordinator will have the responsibilities below. 258. The Data Analysis and Collection Coordinator will ensure the collection and tracking of all documents related to uses of forcc and allegations of misconduct and related materials, including:
a. officers' use of force reports; b. superv i sor~s use of force investi gations; c. force investigations by the Force Investigation Team; d. force investigations by the Office of Professional Standards; e. force reviews conducted by the Force Review Board ; f. investigations conducted by Internal Affairs; and
59

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 65 of 110. PageID #: 144
g. all supporting documentation and materials, including relevant ECW downloads, supporting audio-visual recordings, including witness and officer interviews, and any relevant camera downloads, including from body worn cameras.
259. The Data Analysis and Collection Coordinator will ensure the creation and maintenance of a reliabl e and accurate electronic system to track all data derived from force-related documents, including: a. the type(s) of force used; b. whether an ofticer unholstered a firearm; c. the actual or perceived race, etlmicity, age, and gender of the subject; d. the name, shift, and assignment of the orticer(s) who used force; e. the District where the use of force occurred; f. whether the incident occurred during an officer-initi ated contact or a call for se rv1ce; g. the subject's perceived mental or medical condition, use of drugs or alcohol, or the presence of a disability, if indicated at the time force was used; h. the subj ect's actions that led to the use of force, including whether the subject was in possession of a weapon; 1. whether the subject was handcuffed or otherwise restrained during the use of force; J· any injuries sustained by the officer or the subject or complaints of injury, and whether the officer or subject received medical services; k. whether the subject was charged with an offense, and, if so, which offense(s); I. for deadly force incidents, the number of shots fired by each invo lved officer, the accuracy of the shots, and whether the subject was armed or unarmed; and m. the length of time between the use of force and the completion of each step of the force investigation and review.
260. The Data Collection and Analysis Coordinator will ensure the creation and maintenance of a re liab le and accurate electronic system to track data on all vehicle stops, investigatory stops, and searches, whether or not they result in an arrest or issuance of a summons or citation. This system will all ow the information to be searched and
60

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 66 of 110. PageID #: 145
summarized electronically. Data is not required to be collected for social contacts and encounters that are voluntary and consensual. CDP's stop and search data collection system will be subject to review and approval by the Monitor and DOJ, and will require officers to document the following:
a. the offi cer's name and badge number; b. date and time of the stop; c. location of the stop; d. duration of the stop; e. subject(s)'s actual or perceived race, ethnicity, age, and gender; f. if a vehicle stop, the presence and number of any passengers; g. if a vehicle stop, whether the driver or any passenger was required to exit the
vehicle, and the reason for doing so; h. reason for the stop, including a brief description of the facts creating
reasonable suspicion; 1. whether any individual was asked to consent to a search and whether such
consent was given; J. whether a pat-down, frisk, or other non-consensual search was pertormed on
any individual or vehicle, including a brief description of the facts justifyi ng the action; k. a full description of any contraband or evidence seized from any ind ividual or vehicle; and I. disposition of the investigatory stop, including whether a citation or summons was issued to, or an arrest made of any individual, including the chargc(s). 26 1. The Data Analysis and Collection Coordinator will be responsible for the routine reporting of relevant data to the Chief of Police, FRB, Training Review Committee, OPS, the Commission, and the Police lnspector General. 262. The Data Analysis and Collection Coordinator will be responsible lor the annual assessment of forms and data collection systems to improve the accuracy and reiiabi lity of data collection. This assessment will be provided to the Monitor. 263. Within 365 days of the Effecti ve Date, the Data Collection and Analysis Coordinator will develop a protocol to accurately analyze the data collected and allow for the
61

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 67 of 110. PageID #: 146
assessments required below. This protocol will be subject to the review and approval of the Monitor and DOJ. 264. Within 90 days of development of the protocol, and annually therealler, COP will conduct an assessment and issue a report summarizing its investigatory stop, search, and arrest data. The report wi ll identify significant trends in compliance with the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, identify which practices arc most effective and effici ent in increasing public safety and community confidence in COP, and the steps taken to con·ect problems and build on successes. The report will be publicly available. 265. Within 150 days of development of the protocol, and annually thereafter, COP will conduct an assessment and issue a report of all activities, including use of force, arrests, motor vehicle and investigatory stops, and misconduct complaints alleging di scrimination, to detennine whether COP' s activities are applied or adm inistered in a way that di scriminates against individuals on the basis ofraee, ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity. This report will be based on data the City is obligated to collect, and is not an independent data collection requirement. COP's report will identify which practices arc most effective and effic ient in increasing public safety and community confidence in COP, and identify steps taken to correct problems and build on successes. COP will make this report publicly available. 266. Within 150 days of the development of the protocol, and annually thereafter, COP, working with the FRB, will analyze the prior year's force data, including the force-related data listed above, to determine trends; identify and correct deficiencies revealed by this analysis; and document its findin gs in a public report. The FRB 's data analysis responsibilities are outlined in paragraph 129. 267. To ensure transparency in the implementation ofthi s Agreement, all COP audits, reports, and outcome analyses related to the implementation of this Agreement will be made publicly available, including at the City and CDP websites, to the extent permitted by law. The Commission wi ll work to make paper copies of these documents avai lable to the community. The Commission also may recommend that COP make additional documents, data, and reports publicly available. 268. To ensure transparency in its ongoing work, to the extent permitted by law, COP will post its policies and procedures, training plans, community pol icing initiati ves,
62

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 68 of 110. PageID #: 147
community meeting schedules, budgets, and internal audit reports on its website.
XI. OFFlCER ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORT A. Training
269. CDP wil l ensure that all offi cers receive adequate training to understand: (a) how to po lice effectively and safely in accordance with COP policy; (b) the requirements of this Agreement, Ohio law, and the Constitution and laws of the United States. COP training will reflect CDP's commitment to procedural justice, bias-free policing, and community policing, and will instill agency expectations that officers police diligently, and have an understand~ng of and commitment to the constitutional rights of the indi viduals they encounter.
1. Training Plan 270. CDP will expand the scope and membership of the Training Review Committee. The
Training Review Committee, headed by the Commander responsible for Training, will include Training Section staff members, the District training coordinators, union representatives, and members of the Commission. 27 1. Within 365 days ofthe Effective Date, the Training Review Committee wi ll develop a written training plan for CDP's recruit academy, probationary fi eld training, and inservice training to ensure that recruits, and officers are trained to effectively and lawful ly carry out their duties in accordance with CDP policy, the requirements and goals of this Agreement, Ohio law, and the Constitution and laws of the United States. The plan will:
a. identify training priorities and broad training goals; b. require at least 960 hours of recruit training; c. fu lfi ll all of the in-service training required by this Agreement, which will
require at least 40 hours of in-service training annuall y; d. develop instructional strategies that incorporate active learning methods such
as problem-solving and scenario-based activities, based on current theori es of learning; and e. establish the tl·equency and subject areas fo r recruit and in-service training.
63

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 69 of 110. PageID #: 148
272. The Training Plan need not apply to personnel in the Conununication Control Section. 273. Upon the Chiefs approval of the training plan, COP will submit the training plan and
schedule of all training required by this Agreement to the Monitor and DOJ. The Monitor will review the training plan and provide the Parties with written comments within 30 days of receipt thereof. DOJ will have 30 days from receipt of the Monitor's comments on the training plan to determine whether the training plan is consistent with the requirements of this Agreement and to provide comments. Both the Monitor and DOJ wi ll comment specifically on whether the proposed training is adequate in quantity, scope and type. If the Monitor or OOJ objects to any aspect of the training plan and schedule, they will note their objections to all Parties in writing. COP will have 15 days to resolve any objections to its training plan and sched ule. lf after this I5 day period has run, the Monitor or DOJ maintains its objection, then the Monitor wi ll have an additional 15 days to resolve the objection. If either party disagrees wi th the Monitor's resolution of the objection, either pat1y may ask the Court to resolve the matter. The training plan and schedule will be implemented once any objections have been resolved. 274. The Training Review Committee will annually review and update COP's training plan. To inform this update, the Training Review Committee wi ll conduct a needs assessment, taking into consideration: trends in misconduct complaints; problematic uses of force; analysis of officer safety issues; input from members at all levels of COP; input from members of' the community, including community concerns; court decisions; research refl ecting the latest in law enforcement trends; individual Di strict needs; and any changes to Ohio or federal law, and to COP policy. The Training Review Committee's needs assessment also will identify trends and document officer reaction to and satisfaction with the training they received and officer learning as a result of training, including the extent to which officers are applying the knowledge and skills acquired in training to their jobs. 275. CDP's Commander responsible for training will continue to be responsi ble for overseeing and coordinating all COP training, including recruit academy~ probationary field training; in-service training, includi ng firearms and other use of force training; roll-call training; supervisory training; and all elective training.
64

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 70 of 110. PageID #: 149
276. CDP will designate a single training coordinator in each District. The Commander responsible for training will establish and maintain communications with each District training coordinator to ensure that all offi cers complete training as required and that documentation of training is provided to the Commander responsible for training.
277. Within 180 days of the Effective Date, COP will develop recruit academy and in-service curricula that comport with COP's training plan and that comprehensively address the requirements of this Agreement.
278. Unless otherwise noted, the training required under this Agreement, including training on all policies revised or developed pursuant to this Agreement, will be delivered within two years of the Effective Date. Any training provided to CDP officers beginning in January 20 15 may be considered to fulfill training requirements under this Agreement for individual officers, if appropriate.
279. For all other substantive updates or revisions to policy or procedure, CDP wi ll ensure and document that all relevant CDP personnel have received and read the policy or procedure. Notification of each revi sion or update wiII include the rationale for the policy changes and the difference between the old and updated policy. Training beyond roll-call may be necessary for many policy updates and revisions to ensure officers understand and can perform their duties pursuant to the policy.
280. The Commander responsible for training will review all training curricula, lesson plans, and procedures for consistency, quality, accuracy, currency, completeness, and compliance with applicable law and COP policy, and ensure that they effectively teach CDP personnel to understand and fo llow CDP policies. The Commander responsible for training wil l ensure that a variety of adult learning techniques, scenario-based training, and problem-so lving practices, in addition to traditional lecture formats, arc incorporated into all training. The Commander responsible for training also will ensure that all curricula, lesson plans, instructor's quali.fieations, and testing materials are reviewed by the Training Review Committee and, where appropriate, persons external to COP with expertise in the relevant lesson areas.
28 1. CDP will ensure that instructors arc qualified and use only curricula and lesson plans that have been approved by the Commander responsible for trai ning. CDP will actively seek out and retain qualified instructors from outside COP to supplement the skills of
65

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 71 of 110. PageID #: 150
its in-house training staff' and adjunct instructors. As appropriate, CDP will incorporate experts and guest speakers, including judges, prosecutors, crime victims, and community members, to participate in relevant courses.
2. Field Training Program
282. Within 270 days of the Effective Date, COP will revise, as necessary, its field training program for graduates of the police academy to comport with COP's training plan and this Agreement. The fi eld training program will follow academy training and wi ll continue to be at least 26 weeks.
283. The field training program will incorporate community and problem-oriented policing principles, and problem-based learning methods.
284. Within 270 days of the Effective Date, COP will review and revise as necessary its fi eld Training Officer ("FTO") participation policy to establish and implement a program that effectively attracts the best FTO candidates. CDP's policies and procedures on fi eld training wi ll delineate the criteria and methodology for selecting FTOs and fi eld training sergeants. The City will work with the unions to allow only highly qualified officers to serve as FTOs and Field Training Sergeants. Taking into account the collective bargaining agreements with the unions, COP will revise its eligibi lity criteria to select FTOs and Field Training Sergeants based on their written applications, performance evaluations, previous performance as police officers, and complaint and disciplinary histories.
285. COP will ensure that all new FTOs and Field Training Sergeants receive in itial and inservice training that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type, and that addresses management and supervision; community-oriented policing; effective problem solving techniques; and field communication. If current FTOs and Field Training Sergeants have received initial training that is sufficient to fu lfill the requirements of this Agreement, they will not have to repeat the initial training. FTOs and Field Training Sergeants will receive the required in-service training at least every three years. rTOs and Field training Sergeants will be trained on any substantive changes to FTO policies and practices during the interim period. FTOs and Field Training Sergeants will be required to maintain, and demonstrate on a regular basis, their profi ciency in managing
66

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 72 of 110. PageID #: 151
recruits and subordinates, practicing and teaching community and problem-oriented policing, and solving problems effectively. COP will maintain current documentation of FTOs' evaluations and training. 286. Within 270 days of the Effective Date, COP will create a mechanism for recruits to provide confidential ·f·eedback regardi ng the quality of their fi eld training, including the extent to which their fi eld training was consistent with what they learned in the academy, and suggestions fo r changes to academy trai ning based upon their experience in the FTO program. COP will document its response, including the rationale behind any responsive action taken or decision to take no action. 287. CDP's Training Review Committee will, on an annual basis, analyze all aspects of CDP's FTO program and consider emerging national policing practices in this area. Based on this research and analysis, the Training Review Committee will recommend , and COP wi ll institute, appropriate changes to policies, procedures, and training related to its FTO program.
3. Documentation of Training
28 8. CDP will document all training provided to or received by CDP officers, whether required or otherwise. Officers will sign an acknowledgement of attendance or digital ly acknowledge completion of each training course (whether provided through CDP or outside sources) as well as completion of annual training requirements and training on any new or substantially revised policies. These acknowledgements will be maintained in a format that allows for analysis by training type, training date, trajning source, and by individual officer name.
289. Within 540 days of the Effective Date, COP will develop and implement a system that will allow the Training Section to electronically track, maintain, and produce complete and accLU"ate records of current curricula, lesson plans, training delivered, and other training materials in a centralized electronic fil e system.
290. CDP will develop and implement accountability measures, including disciplinary and non-disciplinary corrective action, to ensure that all officers successfully complete all required training programs in a timely manner.
B. Equipment and Resources
67

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 73 of 110. PageID #: 152
29 1. With the goal of ensuring that COP is provided with the resources, equipment, and updated technology necessary to implement the terms of this Agreement and to allow officers to perform their jobs safely, effectively, and efficientl y, the City wil l implement the paragraphs below.
292. Within 365 days ofthe Effective Date, CDP will complete a comprehensive equipment and resource study to assess its current needs and priorities to perform the functions necessary for CDP to fulfill its mission and satisfy the requirements of this Agreement. Within six months of completion of thi s study, COP will develop an effective, comprehensive Equipment and Resource Plan that is consistent with its mission and that will allow it to satisfy the requirements of this Agreement.
293 . Among other items, COP's Equipment and Resource Plan will provide for necessary equipment includ ing, at least the following: a. an adequate number of computers; b. an adequate number of operable and safe zone cars; c. zone cars with reliable, functioning computers that provide officers with upto-date technology, including: 1. a mobile computer-aided dispatch system that allows officers and supervisors to access real time information received from call-takers and dispatchers; ii. the ability to access COP's records management system; and m. access to law enforcement databases that allow officers to learn basic information about the civilians with whom they interact and the call history associated with the locations to which they are responding, as well as warrant and driver' s license checks, and information conceming restraining orders; and d. zone cars equipped with first-aid kits that would allow police officers to perform life-saving measures, and equipment necessary to decontaminate persons exposed to OC spray.
This plan also will ensure that CDP: e. properly maintains and seeks to continuously improve upon existing equ ipment and technology; and
68

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 74 of 110. PageID #: 153
f. is appropriately identifying eq uipment needs and seeking to utilize, as appropriate, emerging technologies.
294. CDP will actively seek input and feedb ack from the Commission, patrol officers, and supervisors regarding resource allocation, equipment needs, and technological improvements.
295. Upon the Chier s approval of the Equipment and Resource Plan, COP wi ll submit it to the Monitor and DOJ. The Monitor wi ll assess the Equipment and Resource Plan and report to the Parties whether it is appropriate, effective, and consistent with the requirements of this Agreement. OOJ may independentl y review and assess whether the Equipment and Resource Plan is appropriate, effective, and consistent with the requirements of this Agreement. The City and COP will employ best efforts to implement the Equipment and Resource Plan over the period of time set forth in the approved plan. The Monitor will report to the Parties whether the City and COP arc using best efforts to implement the Equipment and Resource Plan as required.
296. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, COP will develop or revise, as appropriate, and implement an effective, centralized records management system that will enhance crime analysis, improve responsiveness and transparency, allow for effective and efficient data collection, promote infonnation sharing within CDP and throughout the law enforcement community, aid in developing crime-fighting solutions, and assist CDP in effectively deploying its personnel.
297. Within 180 days of the Effective Date, COP will utilize a department-wide e-mail system to improve communication and information sharing among all department personnel, including command staff, supervisors, and patrol officers. Patrol officers will not have access to information regarding allegations of misconduct..
298. COP will employ information technology professionals who are trained to conduct crime and intelligence anal ysis, who are capable of troubleshooting and maintaining information technology systems and who can identify and suggest appropri ate technological advancements.
299. COP will implement an effective employee assista nce program that provides officers ready access to the mental health and support resources necessary to facilitate effective and constitutional policing.
69

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 75 of 110. PageID #: 154
C. Recruitment and Hiring
300. To maintain high-level, quality service, ensure officer safety and accountability, and promote constitutional, effective po licing, COP will review and revise as necessary its recruitment and hiring program to ensure that COP successfully attracts and hires a diverse group of qualified individuals.
30 I. The Mayor will work with the City Council to deve lop an ordinance to place a Charter Amendment on the ballot that would give the appointing authority greater flexibility in the selection of candidates from the certified eligibility list for the CDP.
302. Within 180 days of the Effective Date, CDP wi ll develop a recruitment pol icy and a strategic recruitment plan that includes clear goals, objectives, and action steps for attracting qualified applicants from a broad cross-section of the community. The recruitment plan will establish and clearly identify the goals of COP's recruitment efforts and the duties of officers and staff implementing the plan. CDP will regul arly review its recruitment and hiring procedures and the effects of those procedures to ensure that those, and other requirements, reflect the needs of the job and do not create artificial or unnecessary barr.iers to selection. The recruitment plan will be provided to the Monitor and DOJ.
303. The City wi ll implement the recruitment plan within 60 days of it being approved by the Monitor.
304. CDP's recruitment plan will include specific strategies for attracting a diverse group of applicants, including officers who are familiar with the different neighborhoods of Cleveland, who possess strategic thinking and problem-solving sldlls, emotional maturity, interpersonal skills, and the ability to co llaborate with a diverse cross-section of the community.
305 . In developing and implementing its recruitment plan, CDP will consult with the Commission and other community stakeholders on strategies to attract a diverse pool of applicants. CDP will create and maintain sustained relationships with community stakeholders to enhance recruitment efforts.
306. CDP will continue to utilize an objective system for hiring and selecting recruits. The system wi ll continue to employ minimum qualification for candidates and an objective process for selecting recruits that employs reliable and valid selection criteria that
70

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 76 of 110. PageID #: 155
comport with the Charter and anti-discrimination laws. 307. COP wi ll report mmually to the public its recruiting activities and outcomes, including
the number of applicants, interviewees, and selectees, broken down by gender, race, ethnicity, and national origin. the extent to which CDP has been able to recruit qualified applicants, and a discussion of any challenges to recruiting hi gh-quality applicants. 308. COP will continue to require all candidates for sworn personnel positions, including new recruits and lateral hires, to undergo a psychological and medical examination to determine their fitness for employment. COP will continue to maintain a drug testing program that provides for reliable and valid pre-service testing for new officers and random testing fo r existing officers. The program will continue to be designed to detect the use of illegal substances, including steroids. 309. CO P will conduct thorough, objecti ve, and timely background investigations of candidates for sworn positions in accordance with federal anti-discrimination laws. COP's suitability determination will include assessing a candidate's criminal history, employment hi story, usc of controlled substances, and ability to work with diverse communities. COP also will determi ne, to the extent possible, whether the candidate has been named in a civil action in either Cuyahoga County and/or in the County where the officer lives. 310. As pa11 of the hiring process, consistent with applicable law, CDP will request to review personnel files from candidates' prev ious employment and, where possible, will speak wi th the candidate's previous supervisor{s). This review, and any salient informat ion obtained, will be documented in the candidate's fil e. 31 1. If a candidate has previous law enforcement experience, COP will complete a thorough, objecti ve, and timely pre-employment investigation that includes requesting a candidate's history of using lethal and less lethal force, use of force training records, and complaint history. This review, and any salient information obtained fro m this review, will be documented in the candidate's file.
D. Performance Evaluations and Promotions
3 12. COP will ensure that offi cers who police professional ly and effectively arc recognized through the performance evaluation process. and that officers who lead professiona lly
71

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 77 of 110. PageID #: 156
and effectively are identi fied and receive appropriate consideration for promotion. CDP will further ensure that poor perfo rmance or policing that otherwise undermines public safety and community trust is refl ected in officer evaluations so that COP can identi fy and effectively respond.
l. Performance Evaluations 313. COP will develop and implement fair and consistent practices to accurately evaluate
officer performance in areas related to integrity, community policing, and critical police functions, on both an ongoing and annual basis. 314. As part of this program, within 18 months of the Effective Date, COP, working with human resources and the police unions as necessary, will continue to utilize a formalized system documenting the annual performance evaluations of each ofti ccr by the officer's direct supervisor. The annual performance evaluation wi ll be augmented to include an assessment of:
a. community engagement and communication with the public as appropriate to ass ignment;
b. use of community and problem-oriented policing and problem-solving strategies as appropriate to assignment;
c. de-escalation strategies; d. techniques for dealing with individuals in crisis; e. civilian commendations and complaints; f. disciplinary actions; g. compliance with policy; h. safety (e.g., officer safety standards and vehicle operations); 1. training; J. report writing; and k. decision-mak ing skills. 315. As part of the annual performance review process, supervisors will meet with the employee whose performance is being evaluated to discuss the evaluation. In add ition, on an ongoing basis, supervisors will discuss with their subordi nates their performance and will document as appropriate the supervisor's ongoing communications regarding
72

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 78 of 110. PageID #: 157
officer performance and areas of growth. 316. CDP will hold supervisors of all ranks accountable for conducting timely, accurate, and
complete performance evaluations of their subordinates.
2. Promotions 317. COP will develop and implement fair and consistent promotion practices that comport
with the requirements of this Agreement and result in the promotion of officers who are effective and professional. 318. In determining whether the onicer is likely to be effecti ve and appropriate for the position to which he or she is being considered for promotion, the appointing authority will consider the fo llowing factors, where relevant:
a. effective use of community and problem-oriented po licing strategies; b. the number and circumstances of uses of force ; c. an officer's service as an FTO or Field Training Sergeant; d. disciplinary record; e. problem-solving skills; f. interpersonal skills; g. support for departmental integrity measures; and h. pending disciplinary process.
E. Staffing 3 19. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, COP will complete a comprehensive staffing
study to assess the appropriate number of sworn and civi lian personne l to perform the functions necessary for COP to fulfi ll its mission, and satisfy the requirements of this Agreement. Within 180 days of completion of this study, CDP will deve lop an effec tive, comprehensive Stafting Plan that is consistent with its mission. including community and problem-oriented polici ng, and that will allow COP to meet the requirements of this Agreement. 320. Among other items, COP's Staffing Plan will address and provide for each of the fo llowing:
a. personnel deployment to ensure effective community and problem-oriented policing;
73

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 79 of 110. PageID #: 158
b. a sufficient number of well-tTained staff and resources to conduct timely misconduct investigations;
c. to the extent feasible, Unity of Command ; and d. a sufficient number of supervisors. 32 1. Upon the Chiefs approval of the Staffi ng Plan, COP wil l submit it to the Monitor and OOJ . The Monitor wil l assess the Staffing Plan and report to the Parties whether it is appropriate, effective, and consistent with the requirements of this Agreement. DOJ independently will review and assess whether the Staffing Plan is appropriate, effective, and consistent with the requirements of this Agreement. The City and CDP will employ best efforts to implement the Staffi ng Plan over the period of time set forth in the approved plan. The Monitor will report to the Parties whether the City and COP are using best efforts to implement the Starting Plan as required.
XII. SUPERVISION
A. Duties, and Training of First Line Supervisors
322. CDP will ensure that first line supervisors provide close and efiective supervision of officers. This close and effective supervision includes responding to, investigating, and documenting force as required by this Agreement; ensuring that officers are working actively to engage the community with the goal of increasing public trust; monitoring, commanding, and controlling incidents and calls for service; reviewing arrest report s for compliance with law and this Agreement; identifying training and professional development needs; and providing leadership, counseling, redirection, and support to officers as needed.
323 . Within 365 days of the Effective Date, CDP will develop and implement mandatory supervisory training for all new and current supervisors. This training for new and current supervisors may be different, but both will be adequate in quality, quantity, type, and scope, and will include the following topics: a. techniques for effectively guiding and directing officers and promoting effective and constitutional police practices; b. de-escalating conflict;
74

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 80 of 110. PageID #: 159
c. evaluating written reports, including identification of canned or conclusory language that is not accompanied by specific facts;
d. investigating officer uses of force; e. building community partnerships and guiding officers on this requirement; f. understanding supervisory tools such as the Officer Intervention Program and
body worn cameras; g. responding to and investigating al legations of officer misconduct; h. evaluating officer performance; 1. consistent disciplinary sanction and non-punitive con ective action; J. monitoring use of force to ensure consistency wi th policies; and k. legal updates. 324. Thereafter all sworn supervisors will receive adequate in-service management training, which may include updates and lessons learned related to the topics covered in the supervisor training and other areas covered by this Agreement. 325. CDP will hold supervisors directly accountable for the quality and effectiveness of their supervision, including whether supervisors identify and effectively respond to misconduct and ensure that officers effectively engage with the community.
B. Officer Intervention Program 326. Within 365 days of the Efiective Date, CPD will create a plan to modify its Officer
Intervention Program ("OlP") to enhance its effectiveness as a management too l to promote supervisory awareness and proactive identification of potentially problematic behavior among officers. 327. CDP supervi sors will regularly use OrP data to evaluate the performance of CDP ofJicers across all ranks, units, and shifts. Non~medical CDP supervisors will not have access to confidential medical or mental health information or treatment plans. CDP supervisors will be trained to interpret OIP data; understand and utilize the range of non-disciplinary corrective action they can take to modify officers' behavior and improve performance; manage risk and liability; promote constitutional policing; and address underlying stressors to promote officer well-being. The intent of OTP is to intervene before discipline is required.
75

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 81 of 110. PageID #: 160
328. The OJP will include a computerized relational database that will be used to collect, maintain, integrate, and retrieve data department-wide and for each ofli cer regarding: a. all uses of force; b. all ECW applications and accidental discharges involving a subject; c. all inj uries and deaths to persons in custody; d. all cri tical firearm discharges; e. incidents invo lving the reportable po inting of a firearm at a person; f. the number of OC spray applications; g. canine bites; h. vehicle pursuits and traffic collisions involving CDP equipment; 1. civilian complaints, whether tiled with CDP, OPS, or the Mayor's oftice; j . judicial proceedings where an oflic..:er is the subject of a protective or restraining order, other than a temporary restraining order dealing solely with financial matters. Officers will be required to report to thei r supervisors if they become the subject of a protective or restraining order, other than a temporary restraining order dealing solely with financial matters; k. failures to record incidents with COP's body worn cameras that are required to be recorded under COP' s body worn camera policy; I. instances in which CDP is informed that a court has made a negative credibility determination regarding a CDP officer, or that a motion was granted on the grounds of a constitutional violation by a CDP officer; m. all disciplinary action taken against offi cers; n. all documented non-disciplinary corrective action required of officers; o. sick leave usage, especially in concert with regular days of [ and hoiidays; and p. all criminal proceedings initiated against an officer, and all civil lawsuits served upon the City and/or its officers or agents. resulting from the actions of COP officers.
329. CDP will set threshold levels for each OIP indicator that will trigger a fo rmal review, and the thresholds will allow for peer-group comparisons between offi cers with similar assignments and duties. The Monitor and DOJ will review and approve the OIP threshold levels.
76

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 82 of 110. PageID #: 161
330. COP will implement rolling thresholds so that, once a review of a particular officer has been triggered as a result of a specific criteria that resulted in an intervention, each ubsequent event involving that same criteria wi ll trigger a review for a specified period of time.
33 1. COP will collect and, at least quarterly, analyze OIP information related to supervisor, District, squad, and unit trends.
332. OIP will include appropriate identifying information for each involved employee (i.e., name, badge number, shift, and supervisor) and, where appropriate, each involved civilian (e.g., race, ethnicity, national origin, and gender).
333. CO P wi ll develop and implement a comprehensive protocol for using the updated OIP information that wil l include data storage, data retrieval, reporting, data analysis, panern identification, supervi·sory use, supervisory/departmental intervention, documentation, audits, access to the system, and confidentiality of personally identifiable information, medical and mental health records and treatment plans.
334. Supervisors will review OIP data other than confidentia·l medical or mental .health records and treatment plans, for all officers under their direct command at least monthly, and whenever an employee first comes under their supervision. At least quarterly, supervisors will review broader, pattern-based reports.
335. Interventions in response to threshold triggers wi ll be timely implemented and designed to assist officers in avoiding potentially problematic behavior. Al l interventions will be documented in writing and entered into OIP. Supervisors wi ll review the progress and evaluate the effectiveness ol' thc intervention strategy except for those interventions that relate to confidential medical and mental health treatment plans.
336. CDP wil l enter information into OLP in a timely, accurate, and complete manner, and will securely and confidentially store all data. CDP will maintain all officer specitic information in OIP for at least five years following the officer's separation from CDP, unless prohibited by law. Information necessary for aggregate statistical analyses will be maintained indefinitely. CDP will provide in-service training to all employees, including officers, supervisors, and commanders, regarding the updated OIP within 180 days of the system improvements specified in thi s section to ensure proper understanding and usc of the system. COP supervisors will be trained to usc OJP as
77

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 83 of 110. PageID #: 162
designed to help improve the performance of offi cers under their command. Commanders and supervisors will be trained in evaluating and making appropriate comparisons in order to identify any significant individual or group patterns.
C. Body Worn Cameras
337. CDP's use of body worn cameras is not required by this Agreement. lf CDP chooses to usc body worn cameras, COP will provide clear guidance and training on their use, and wi ll implement protocols for testing equipment and preservation of recordings to foster transparency, increase accountability, and build trust, while protecting the privacy rights of individuals.
338. Supervisors will review recordings related to any incident involving at least a Level 2 or 3 use of force; injuries to officers; and in conjunction with any other supervisory in vesti gati on.
339. Supervisors will conduct adequate random and directed audits of body worn camera recordings created by officers under their command to confirm compliance with COP policy and to identify areas where additional training or guidance is needed. Supervisors will incorporate the knowledge gained from this review into their ongoing evaluation and supervision of officers.
340. Ofticers wi ll be subject to the disciplinary process for intentional or otherwise unj ustified failure to activate body worn cameras in violation of CDP policy.
XIII. POLICIES
341. To maintain high quality service, ensure officer safety and accountabi lity, and promote constitutional, em~ctive policing, CDP will ensure that its policies and procedures reflect and express CDP's commitment to building community trust, utilizing communi ty and problem-oriented policing, ensuring bias-free policing, and incorporating the concept of proceduraljustice.
342. As needed, COP will develop, revise, and implement policies and procedures to fully incorporate the te1ms of this Agreement and comply with applicable law. COP will ensure that its policies and procedures are plainly written, logically organized, and use terms that are clearly defined. Unless otherwise noted, COP will develop all pol icies and procedures pursuant to this Agreement within 365 days of the Effecti ve Date.
78

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 84 of 110. PageID #: 163
343. CDP will ensure that officers from all varying ranks and units have a meaningful opportunity to review and comment on new or existing policies and procedures.
344. Prior to submission to the Monitor and OOJ, COP will provide policies related to biasfree policing, use of fo rce, search and seizure, and data collection and retention to the Commission for review and comment. The Commission will provide any comments to CDP within 15 days of submission. The CDP wi ll consider, discuss with, and timely respond to the Commission' s concerns. Where the Commission's concerns are unresolved, COP will provide the Commission' s comments to the OOJ and the Monitor along with the policy when it is submitted for approval.
345. CDP will submit all policies, procedures, manuals, and other administrative orders or directives related to this Agreement to the Monitor and DOJ prior to publication and implementation. If the Monitor or DOJ objects to the proposed pol icy, procedure, manual, or other administrati ve order or directive because they do not incorporate the requirements of this Agreement or are inconsistent with this Agreement or law, the Monitor or DOJ wi ll note this objection in writi ng to all Parties within 15 business days of the receipt of the policy, procedure, manual, or directive. COP will ha ve 15 business days to resolve any objections to its policies, procedures, manuals, or directives. lf, after this 15 day period has run, the Monitor or OOJ maintains its objection, then the Monitor will have an additional 15 business days to resolve the objection. If either party disagrees with the Monitor' s resolution of the objection, either party may ask the Court to resolve the matter. The policies will not be published or implemented until any obj ections have been resolved. The Monitor will determine whether an additional amo unt of time is necessary to ensure full and proper review of policies. Factors to consider in making this determination include: (a) complexity ofthc policy; (b) extent of disagreement regarding po licy; (c) number of policies provided simultaneo usly; or (d) extraordinary circumstances delaying review by the DOJ or the Monitor. In determining whether these factors warrant additional time for review, the Monitor wi ll fu lly consider the importance of prompt implementation of policies and wi ll allow add itiona l time for po licy review only where it is clear that additional time is necessary to ensure fu ll and proper review. Any extension to the above timelincs by the Monitor will also toll COP's deadline for pol icy completion.
79

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 85 of 110. PageID #: 164
346. COP will post approved policies and procedures on the City's website to ensure public accessibility. There will be reasonable exceptions for policies, procedures, and administrative orders that are law enforcement sensitive, such as procedures regarding undercover officers or operations.
347. The COP wi ll review each policy or procedure related to thi s Agreement six months after it is implemented and annually thereafter, to ensure that the pol icy or procedure provides effective direction to COP personnel and remains consistent with this Agreement, and current law. The COP will review and revise policies and procedures as necessary upon notice of a significant policy deficiency during audits or reviews.
348. COP wi ll maintain a complete, up-to-date manual of all COP policies and procedures that is indexed and maintained in an organized manner using a uniform numbering system for ease of reference. Officers and employees will have access to the manual, in hard copy or electronic format. Revisions and updates to COP policies and procedures wi 11 be incorporated into the manual.
349. CDP will ensure that changes in case law and statutes that are relevant to the work of COP are disseminated to appropriate CDP personnel in a timely manner and incorporated, as needed, into CDP policies, procedures, and training.
XlV. IMPLEMENTATION, ASSESSMENT, OUTCOMES, AND ENFORCEMENT
A. Role of the Independent Monitor
350. The Parties will jointly select an Independent Monitor ("Monitor") who will assess and report whether the requirements of this Agreement have been implemented, and whether this implementation is resulting in constitutional and effective policing, professional treatment of individuals, and increased eommtmity trust of CDP. The Monitor will work with the Parties to identify and address any barriers to compliance.
35 1. The Monitor will only have the duties, responsibilities, and authority conferred by this Agreement. The Monitor will not, and is not intended to, replace or assu me the role and duties of any COP employee, including the Chief, or any other City official. Nothing in this Agreement alters the fact that the Mayor of Cleveland retains authority over the COP and the Chief of COP maintains the authority to oversee the operations of COP. As an agent of the Court, the Monitor will be subject to the supervision and
80

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 86 of 110. PageID #: 165
orders of the Court, consistent with this Agreement and applicable law. 352. In order to assess and report on COP' s implementation of this Agreement and whether
the goals of this Agreement are being achieved, the Monitor wi ll conduct the reviews specified in this Agreement, and will review COP policies, procedures, practices, training curricula, and programs developed and implemented under this Agreement.
B. Selection and Compensation of the Monitor 353. Within 90 days of the Effective Date, or additional time if agreed to by the Parties, the
City and DOJ will together select a Monitor, acceptable to both Parties, to assess and report on COP ' s implementation of this Agreement. The Parties have agreed to use an open Request for Information process in selecting the Monitor. This process will be implemented in a manner consistent with this Agreement, including the requirement that the Monitor be jointly selected and acceptable to both DOJ and the City. The Parties' Monitor selection will be subject to the approval of the Court with jurisdiction over this Agreement. The Monitor will be comprised of individuals of the highest ethics. 354. If the Parties are unable to agree on a Monitor or an alternative method of selection within the timeframe agreed to by the Parties, each Party will submit the names of three candidates, or three groups of candidates, along with resumes and cost proposals, to the Colllt, and the Court will select a Monitor from among the qualified candidates/candidate groups. 355. The Monitor will be appointed for a period of five years from the Effective Date and wi ll have its appointment extended automatically should the City and COP not demonstrate Substantial and Effective Compliance at the end of thi s five-year period. The extension of the Monitor beyond seven years wi ll be allowed only if the Court determines that it is reasonably necessary in order to assess and facilitate Substantial and Effective Compliance with this Agreement. The Monitor's appointment will terminate prior to five years if the City has achieved Substantial and Effective Compliance for the time specified in paragraph 40 1. 356. The City wi ll bear all reasonable fees and costs of the Monitor. DOJ and the City recognize the importance of ensuring that the fees and costs borne by the City arc
81

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 87 of 110. PageID #: 166
reasonable, and accordingly fees and costs will be one factor to be considered in selecting the Monitor. In the event that any dispute ari.ses regarding the reasonableness or payment of the Monitor's fees and costs, the City, DOJ, and the Monitor will attempt to resolve such dispute cooperatively prior to seeking the assistance of the Court. If the City and DO.J agree, and the Court approves, an independent third party with no financial interest in the case may pay some or al l of the fees and costs of the Monitor. 357. The City will provide the Monitor with permanent office space and reasonable office support such as office furniture, telephones, lntemet access, secure document storage, and photocopying. 358. The Monitor, at any time after its initial selection, may request to be allowed to h:ire, employ, or contract with such additional persons or entities as are reasonably necessary to perform the tasks assigned to the Monitor by this Agreement. Any person or entity hired or otherwise retained by the Monitor to assist in furthering any provision of this Agreement will be subject to the provisions of this Agreement. The Monitor wi ll notify the City and DOJ in writing if the Monitor wishes to select such additional persons or entities. The notice will identify and describe the qualifications of the person or entity to be hired or employed and the monitoring task to be performed. If the City and DOJ agree with the Monitor' s proposal, the Monitor will be authorized to hire or employ such additional persons or entities. The City and the DOJ have ten business days to disagree with any such proposal. If the City and DOJ are unable to reach agreement within ten business days of receiving notice of the disagreement, the Court wiII resolve the dispute. 359. Should any of the Parties to this Agreement determine that the Monitor's individual members, agents, employees, or independent contractors have exceeded their authority, or failed to satisfactori ly perfonn the duties required by this Agreement, the Party may petition the Court for such relief as the Court deems appropriate, including replacement .of the Monitor, and/or any individual members, agents, employees, or independent contractors.
C. Compliance Reviews 360. The Monitor will conduct reviews or aud its as necessary to determine whether the City
82

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 88 of 110. PageID #: 167
and GOP have complied with the requirements of this Agreement. Compliance requires that the City and CDP: (a) have incorporated the requirement into policy; (b) have trained all relevant personnel as necessary to fulfill their responsibil ities pursuant to the requi rement; and (c) are carrying out the req uirement in actual practice. Compliance reviews and audits will contain the elements necessary for reliabili ty and comprehensiveness. Compliance reviews and audits may be conducted using sampling and compilation data where appropriate. D. Biennial Community Survey 36 1. Within 180 days of the Effective Date, and every two years thereafter, the Monitor will cond uct a reliable, comprehensive, and representative survey of members of the Cleveland community regarding their experiences with and perceptions of CDP and of public safety. Analysis of the results ofthis survey will be included in the outcome assessments that are described in paragraph 367 and that may be used to demonstrate sustained compliance with this Agreement. 362. The City and DOJ will endeavor to secure private funding for the biennial community survey. 363. To conduct the biennial community survey, the Monitor will :
a. develop a baseline of measures on public satisfaction with policing, attitudes among police personnel, and the quality of po lice-citizen encounters;
b. design, conduct, and analyze basel ine and subsequent biennial surveys of a representative sample of City residents, police personnel, and detained arrestees;
c. review and consider prior law enforcement surveys in Cleveland and other cities, as well as current or recent concerns in Cleveland, in designing the survey;
d. observe community meetings and engage in informal conversations with Cleveland residents, COP officers and command staff, and other relevant individuals, including DOJ represent~tives during the pendency of this Agreement;
83

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 89 of 110. PageID #: 168
e. ensure that the resident and arrestee surveys are designed to capture a representative sample of Cleveland residents, including members of each demographic category;
f. conduct the survey in English, Spanish, and other languages, as necessary, to ensure representation of the entire Cleveland community; and
g. formally discuss the survey methodology with COP supervisors and DOJ representatives, throughout the pendency of this Agreement. and consider these opinions in the development of the initial survey and in making improvements to subsequent surveys.
364. CDP and the City agree to cooperate wi th the design and perfonnance of the survey. 365. The report of the baseline survey and subsequent biennial surveys will be posted to the
City's website, and publicly distributed. 366. CDP will analyze the results of the survey and will use this analysis to modify and
improve COP policies, procedures, practices, and protocols, as needed. E. Outcome Measurements 367. In addition to compliance reviews and audits, the Monitor will conduct qualitative and
quantitative assessments to measure whether implementing this Agreement has resulted in constitutional policing. The measurements relating to use afforce; addressing individuals in crisis; and stop, search, and arrest are not intended to expand the City's data collection requirements set forth elsewhere in the Agreement. These outcome assessments will include collecting and analyzing. at least annual ly, the fol lowing outcome data, trends, and patterns:
a. Use of fo rce measurements, including: 1. number of use-of-force incidents as compared to number of arrests, with use-of-force incidents broken down by force type, District, type of related arrest (if any); actual or perceived race, ethnicity, age, and gender of the subject; and, if indi(.:ated at the time force was used, the subject's mental or medical condition, use of drugs or alcohol, or the presence of a di sab ili ty;
84

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 90 of 110. PageID #: 169
2. number of injuries to offi cers and public, the rate at which officer and subject injuries decrease or increase overall and by severity of injury; number of force complaints, disposition of complaints, source of complaint (internal or external), fo rce ty pe, geographic area, and any identified demographic category of complainant;
3. the rate at which ECW usage decreases or increases compared to the usc of force overall and by weapon;
4. number of uses of force found to violate policy, broken down by force type, geographic area, type of arrest; actual or perceived race, ethnjciiy, age, and gender of the subject; and, if indicated at the time force was used, the subject's mental or medical condition, usc of drugs or alcohol, or the presence of a disability;
5. number of officers who have more than one instance of use of fo rce in violation of poJicy;
6. force reviews or investigations indicating a policy, training, or tactical deficiency; and
7. quality of use of force investiga tions and reviews; and number and rate of use of fo rce administrative investigations which are returned for lack of completeness.
b. Address ing individuals in crisis measurements, including: 1. number of calls fo r service and incidents that appear to in volve an individual in crisis, broken down by whether specialized CIT offi cers responded to the calls; and the rate of individuals in crisis directed to the healthcare system, rather than the judicial system; 2. number of police interactions where force was used on individuals in crisis, including the type of fo rce used; the reason for the interaction, i.e., suspected criminal conduct or a call for assistance; the threat to public safety, including whether the person was armed and if so, with what; a description of the type of resistance offered, if any; and a descri ption of any attempts at de-escalation.
c. Stop. Search, and Arrest measurements, including:
85

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 91 of 110. PageID #: 170
1. total number of investigatory stops, searches and atTests overall and broken down by District (understanding that di fferent Districts may have inherently different demographic compositions), type of arrest, actual or perceived age, race, gender, and ethnicity of subject, and the rate at which the encounters resulted in a summons or arrest;
2. data related to the documented reasonable suspicion to stop and probable cause search or arrest, broken down by the actual or perceived race, gender, age, and ethnicity of the pcrson(s) stopped/searched/arrested;
3. number of searches that resulted in a finding or contraband, overall and broken down by District (understanding that different Districts may have inherently di fferent demographic compositions), type of arrest, and the actual or perceived age, race, gender, and ethnicity of subject.
d. Bias-Free Policing and Community Engagement measurements, including: I. number and variety of community partnerships, including partnerships with youth ; 2. homicide clearance rate; 3. number of civilian complaints regarding pol.ice services related to discrimination and thei r disposition; and 4. analysis of results of biennial community survey, when available.
e. Recruitment measurements, including: I. number of qualified recruit appli cants; 2. detailed summary of recruitment activities, including development and leveraging of community partnerships; 3. number and race, ethnicity, gender, and any self-identified disabil ity of applicants who failed the initial screening and the reasons for their fai lure; 4. number of applicants with fluency in languages other than English, and the specitic languages spoken; 5. number and race, ethnicity, gender, or self-identified disability of lateral candidates, and a Iist of their former agencies and years of service; 6. nu mber of applicants with at least two years of college, a college degree, or at least two years of military service;
86

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 92 of 110. PageID #: 171
7. pass/fail rate in each phase of the pre-employment process by race, ethnicity, gender, and self-identified disability of applicants;
8. the average length of time to move applicants through each phase of lhe pre-employment process and average amount of time to process applicants; and
9. composition of recruit classes by race, ethnicity, gender, and selfidentified disability.
f. Training measurements, including: l. number and percentage of officers provided training pursuant to thi s Agreement, broken down by the type of training provided; 2. students' evaluations o [ lhe adequacy of training in type and frequency; 3. modi fications or improvements to training resulting from the review and analysis required by this Agreement; and 4. prevalence of training deficiencies as reflected by problematic incidents or performance trends.
g. OHicer assistance and support measurements, including: l . availabili ty and use of officer assistance and support services; and 2. officer reports or surveys of adequacy of officer assistance and support.
h. Supervision measurements, including supervisors' initial identification of officer violations and performance problems, and the supervisors' responses to those violations and problems;
1. Civilian complaints, internal investigations, and discipline, including: 1. number of complaints, and whether any increase or decrease in this number appears related to access to the complaint process; 2. number of sustained, exonerated, unfounded, not sustained, and administratively dismissed complaints by type of complaint; 3. number of complaint allegations supported by a preponderance of the evidence; 4. average length of time to complete investigations by complaint type; 5. number of officers who were subjects of multiple complaints or who had repeated instances of sustained complaints;
87

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 93 of 110. PageID #: 172
6. arrests of officers for on- and off-duty conduct; 7. criminal prosecutions of officers for on-or off-duty conduct; and 8. other than vehicle accidents not involving a pursuit, number and nature of
civil suits against the City or CDP officers for work related conduct. and the amount ofjudgments against or settlements resulting from those civil suits. J. 1n conducting these outcome assessments, the Monitor may use any relevant data collected and maintained by CDP or the City (e.g., crime trend pattern analysis), provided that the Monitor has determined, and the Parties agree, that this data is reasonably reliable and complete.
F. Monitoring Plan and Review Methodology 368. Within 90 days of assuming the duties as the Monitor, the Mon itor wi ll review and
recommend any changes to the outcome measures detailed above that the Monitor deems useful in assessing whether implementation of this Agreement is resulting in constitutional po licing. Recognizing that the above outcome measures have been negotiated and agreed to by the Parties, the Parties will move the Court to adopt any recommendations upon which they agree. 369. Within 120 days of assum ing the duties as the Monitor, the Monitor will develop a plan for conducting the compliance reviews and outcome assessments, and will submit this plan to the Parties for review and approval. This plan will:
a. clearly delineate the requirements of this Agreement to be assessed for compliance, indicating which requirements wi.ll be assessed together;
b. set out a schedule for conducting outcome measure assessments for each outcome measure at least annually, except where otherwise noted, with the first assessment occurring within 365 days of the Effective Date; and
c. set out a schedule fo r conducting a compliance review or audit of each requirement ofthis Agreement within the first two years of this Agreement, and a compliance review or audit of each requ irement at least annuall y thereafter, un less the Monitor no longer assesses that requirement as provided in the next paragraph.
88

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 94 of 110. PageID #: 173
370. Where the Monitor recommends and the Parties agree, the Monitor may refrain from conduc ting a compliance rev iew of a requirement prev iously fo und to be in compliance by the Monitor, or where outcome assessments indicate that the outcome intended by the requirement has been achieved. The City and CDP will be deemed to have achieved Substantial and Effective Compliance on those requirements and the City's obligations under those provisions will be deemed to have been met for the purpose of seeking termination of this Agreement, without considering the one or two year sustained compliance requirement.
37 1. i\t least 90 days prior to the initiation or any outcome measure assessment, compliance review. or audit, the Monitor will submit a proposed methodology for the assessment, review, or audit to the Parties. The Parties will submit any comments or concerns regarding the proposed methodology to the Monitor no later than 45 days prior to the proposed date of the assessment, review, or audit. The Monitor wi ll modify the methodology as necessary to address any concerns or will inform the Parties in writing or the reasons it is not modifying its proposed methodology. Any unresolved disputes involving the Monitor's methodology may be submitted to the Court for resolution.
G. Monitor Recommendations and Technical Assistance 372. The Monitor may make recommendations to the Parties regarding actions necessary to
ensure timely Substantial and Effecti ve compliance with this Agreement and its underlying objectives. Such recommendations may include a recommendation to change, modify, or amend a provision of this Agreement, a recommendation fo r additional training in any area related to this Agreement, or a recommendation to seek technical assistance. In add ition to such recommendations, the Monitor may also, at the request of DOJ or the City and based on the Monitor's reviews, provide technical assistance consistent with the Monitor's responsibilities under tru s Agreement. 373. In the event that Substantial and Effective Compliance with this Agreement req uires technical assistance beyond the scope of the Monitor's duties, DOJ, COP, and/or the Monitor will inform the Parties of the need for technical assistance and its relation to compliance with this Agreement. The Monitor, with assistance from the City, will arrange for the prompt initiation of the required technical assistance, to be performed
89

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 95 of 110. PageID #: 174
by the Mon itor, its agent, independent contractor, or a separate entity. The cost for the technical assistance will be borne by the City. If any Party disagrees with the need for the requested technical assistance, the Party will, within I 5 days of being informed in writing of the requested technical assistance, inform the Court, which will resolve the dispute.
H. Comprehensive Reassessment
374. Two years and six months after the Effecti ve Date, the Moni tor will conduct a comprehensive outcome assessment to determine whether and to what extent the outcomes intended by this /\greement are being achieved, and vvhether any modifications to this Agreement are necessary for achievement in light of changed circumstances or unanticipated impact (or lack of impact) oft.he requ irement. The Monitoring Plan will provide that this comprehensive outcome assessment wi ll coincide with an annual outcome assessment as required in paragraph 367. This assessment also wiII address areas of greatest achievement and the requirements that appear to have contributed to this success, as well as areas of greatest concern, including strategies for accelerating Substantial and Effective Compliance. Based upon this comprehensive assessment, the Monitor will recommend any modifications to this Agreement necessary to achieve and sustain intended outcomes. Where the Parties agree with the Monitor's recommendations, the Parties will move the Court to modify this Agreement accordingly. This provision in no way diminishes the Parties' abil ity to stipulate to modifications to this Agreement as set out below. Noth ing in this Assessment wi ll enable the Monitor to unilaterally modify the terms of thi s Agreement.
I. Monitor Reports
375. The Monitor will file with the Court, every six months, written, public reports that include the following: a. a description of the work conducted by the Monitor during the reporting period; b. a list of each Agreement requirement, indicating which requirements have been: I. incorporated into policy;
90

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 96 of 110. PageID #: 175
2. the subject of sufficient training for all relevant COP officers and employees; and
3. carried out in actual practice. c. the methodology and specific findings for each compliance review conducted,
where appropriate, and redacted as necessary for privacy concerns. An unredacted version wi11 be fil ed under seal with the Court and provided to the Pat1ies. The underlying data for each compliance review will not be publicly available but will be retained by the Monitor and provided to either or both Parties upon request; d. for any requirements that were reviewed or audited and fo und not to have been implemented, the Monitor's recommendations regard ing necessary steps to achieve compliance; e. the methodology and specifie findings for each outcome assessment conducted; and f. a projection of the work to be completed during the upcoming reporting period and any anticipated challenges or concerns related to compl iance with this Agreement. 376. The Monitor will provide a copy of the six-month reports to the Parties in draft form within 15 business clays after the end of each reporting period. The Parties will have 15 business days upon receipt of the report to informally comment on the draft report. The Monitor will consider the Parties' responses and make appropriate changes, if any, before issuing the report.
J. Coordination with the Police Inspector General 377. In conducting its assessments, reviews, and audits, and in developing its monitoring
plan and review methodologies, the Monitor may coordinate and confer with the Police Inspector General to avoid duplication of effort and expenses.
K. Communication between Monitor, J>arties, and Public 378. The Mon itor will maintain regular contact with the Parties in order to ensure effective
and timely communication regarding the status of COP' s compliance with this Agreement. To faci litate this communication, the Monitor will conduct monthly
91

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 97 of 110. PageID #: 176

meetings, which will include participation by the Chief, counsel.for the City, CDP's Consent Decree Implementation Unit (described below), and DOJ. The Monitor also wi ll meet at least twice each year with the Mayor. 379. The Monitor will hold public meetings with community stakeholders, including the Commission and the Cleveland City Council, to explain the Mon itor's reports and inform the public about this Agreement's implementation process, as well as to hear community perspectives of police interactions. The Monitor will notify the Pa1ties when such meetings are scheduled.

L. Public Statements, Testimony, Records, and Conflicts of Interest

380. 38 1. . 382.

Except as required or authorized by the terms of this Agreement or with the Parties acting together: the Monitor, including any agent, employee, or independent contractor thereof, will not make any public statements or issue ·findings with regard to any act or omission of the City or CDP, or their agents, representatives, or employees; or disclose non-public information provided to the Monitor pmsuant to this Agreement. Any press statement made by the Monitor regarding its empl oyment or monitoring activities under this Agreement tirst will be approved by OOJ and the City. The Monitor, including any agent, employee, or .independent contractor thereat: may testify as to its/their observations, tindings, and recommendations before the Court with jurisdiction over this matter. However, the Monitor, including any agent, employee, or independent contractor thereof, will not testify in any other liti gation or investigative or pre-litigative proceeding with regard to any act or omission of the City, COP, or any of their agents, representatives, or employees related to this Agreement or regarding any matter or subject of which the Monitor may have received knowledge as a result of his/her performance under this Agreement. This paragraph does not apply to any proceeding before a court related to performance of contracts or subcontracts for monitoring this Agreement. Unless such contlict is waived by the Parties, the Monitor will not accept employment or provide consulting services that would present a confl ict of interest with the Monitor's responsibi lities under this Agreement, incl uding being retained (on a paid or unpaid basis) by any cunent or future litigant or claimant, or such litigant 's or

92

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 98 of 110. PageID #: 177
claimant's attorney, in connection with a claim or suit against the City or its departments, officers, agents or employees. 383. The Monitor is not a state or local agency, or an agent thereof, and accordingly, the records maintained by the Monitor wi ll not be designated as public records subject to public inspection. 384. The Monitor will not be liable for any claim, laws uit, or demand arising out of the Monitor's performance pursuant to this Agreement brought by non-parti es to this Agreement.
M. CDP Consent Decree Implementation Unit 385. The City and CDP agree to hire and retain, or reassign current City employees to form a
unit with the skills and abilities necessary to facilitate compliance with this Agreement. At a minimum, this unit will coordinate the City's and COP's compli ance and implementation activities; faci litate the provision of data, documents, materials, and access to the City' s and COP's personnel to the Monitor and DOJ, as needed; ensure that all data, documents and records are maintained as provided in this Agreement; and assist in assigning implementation and compliance related tasks to COP personnel, as directed by the Chief or the Chief's designee.
N. Implementation Assessment and lleport 386. The City and CDP agree to collect and maintain all data and records necessary
to: ( I) document compliance with this Agreement, including data and records necessary for the Monitor to conduct reliable outcome assessments, compliance reviews, and audits; and (2) to allow COP or other City entities to perform ongoing quality assurance in each of the areas addressed by this Agreement. 387. Within 180 days of the Effective Date, the City will file with the Court, wi th a copy to the Monitor and DOJ, a status report. This report will delineate the steps taken by CDP during the reporting peri od to comply with thi s Agreement; CDP's assessment of the status of its progress; plans to correct any problems; and responses to any concerns raised in the Monitor's previous semi-annual report. Fo llowing this initial status report, the City wi ll file a status report every six months thereafter while this Agreement is in effect.
93

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 99 of 110. PageID #: 178
0. Access and Confidentiality
388. To faci litate its work, the Monitor may conduct on-site visits and assessments without prior notice to the City and COP. COP will notify the Monitor as soon as practicable, and in any case within 12 hours, of any critical fi rearms discharge, in-custody death, or arrest of any officer.
389. The Monitor will have timely, fu ll , and direct access to all Agreement related individuals, facilities, trainings, meetings, disciplinary hearings, reviews, and the scene of any occurrence that the Monitor reasonably deems necessary to carry out the duties assigned to the Monitor by this Agreement. The Monitor will cooperate with the City and COP to access people, scenes, and facilities in a reasonable manner that, consistent with the Monitor's responsibilities, minimizes interference with daily operations.
390. The City and COP will ensure that the Monitor will have full and direct access to all City and CDP documents and data related to the Agreement that the Monitor reasonably deems necessary to carry out the duties assigned to the Monitor by this Agreement, except any doc·uments or data protected by work product or the attorney-client pri vilege (together "privilege"). Privilege may not be used to prevent the Monitor from observing trainings, disciplinary hearings, or reviews, other than reviews with City lawyers in anticipation of litigation or for litigation. Should the City and COP decline to provide the Monitor with access to documents or data based on privilege, the City and COP will inform the Monitor and DOJ that it is withholding documents or data on this basis, and will provide the Monitor and DOJ with a log describing the documents or data and the basis of the privilege . If DOJ objects to the City's classification, DOJ may seek resoluti on of the propriety of the assertion of the privilege from the Court.
39 1. DOJ and its consultants and agents wi ll have fu ll and direct access to all City and CD P staff, employees, facilities, documents, and data related to the Agreement, in coordination with the Law Depattment of the City of Cleveland, except any documents or data protected by work product or the attorney-cl ient privilege (together "pri vilege). DOJ and its consultants and agents will coordinate with the Law Department of the City of Cleveland to access invo lved personnel, faci lities, and documents in a reasonable manner that, consistent with DOJ's right to seek enfo rcement of this
94

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 100 of 110. PageID #: 179
Agreement, minimizes interference with daily operations. Should the City or CDP decline to provide DOJ with access to personnel, documents, or data based on privilege, the City and CDP wi ll inform DOJ that it is withholding personnel, documents, or data on this basis, and will provide DOJ with a log describing the documents or data and the basis fo r withholding. IfDOJ objects to the City's classification, OOJ may seek resolution of the propriety ofthe assertion from the Court. 392. While an administrative or criminal investigation into the conduct of an officer or officers is ongoing, neither the Monitor nor OOJ will ask the subject officer(s) or witness officer(s) questions related to the conduct that is under investigation. 393. The Monitor and 001 will provide the City and COP with reasonable notice of a request for copies of documents. Upon such request, the City and COP wi ll provide copies in a timely manner (electronic, where readily available) of the requested documents to the Monitor and DOJ, unless withheld as privileged or otherwise withheld pursuant to law as described above. 394. The Monitor wi ll have access to all records and information relating to criminal investigations of COP officers as permitted by law. The Monitor will have access to all documents in criminal investigation files that have been closed by COP after the Effective Date. 395. The Mon itor and DOJ will maintain all contidential or non-public information provided by the City and CDP in a confidential manner. Other than as expressly provided in thi s Agreement, this Agreement will not be deemed a waiver of any privilege or right the City and CDP may assert, including those recognized at common law or created by statute, rule, or regulation, against any other person or entity with respect to the disclosure of any document.
P. Court Jurisdiction, Modification of this Agreement, and Enforcement 396. This Agreement will become effective upon entry by the Court. 397. The Court will retain jurisdiction of this action for all purposes until such time as the
City and COP have achieved Substantial and Effective Compliance with this Agreement and maintained such compliance for no less than two consecutive years. At all times, the City and CDP will bear the burden of demonstrating by a preponderance
95

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 101 of 110. PageID #: 180
or the evidence its Substantial and Effective Compliance with this Agreement. DOJ acknowledges the good faith of the City of Cleveland in trying to address actions that are needed to promote police integrity and ensure constitutional policing. DOJ, however, reserves its right to seck enforcement of the provisions of this Agreement if it determines that the City and CDP have failed to substantially comply with any provision of this Agreement. DOJ will consult with officials from the City before instituting enforcement proceedings. 398. The City and DOJ may jointly agree to make changes, modifications, and amendments to this Agreement, which will be effective if approved by the Court. Such changes, modifications, and amendments to this Agreement will be encouraged when the Parties agree, or where the Monitor's reviews, assessments, and/or audits demonstrate that an Agreement provision as drafted is not furthering the purpose of this Agreement or that there is a preferable alternative that will ach ieve the same purpose. Where the Parties or the Monitor are uncertain whether a change to th is Agreement is advisable, the Parties may agree to suspend the current Agreement requirement for a time period agreed upon at the outset of the suspension. During this suspension, the Parties may agree to temporarily utilize an alternative requi rement. The Monitor wi ll assess whether the suspension of the requirement, and the use of any alternative provision, is as effective, or more effective at achieving the purpose as was the original/current Agreement requirement, and the Parties wi ll consider this assessment in determining whether to jointly stipulate to make the suggested change, modification, or amendment. 399. The Parties agree to defend the provisions of this Agreement including in collective bargaining. The Parties wi ll notify each other of any court, union, or admin istrative challenge to tbis Agreement. In the event any provision of this Agreement is challenged in any city or state cou rt, the Parties will seek removal to Federal Court. 400. The City and COP agree to require compliance with this Agreement by their respective officers, employees, agencies, assigns, or successors.
Q. Termination of this Agreement 401. This Agreement will terminate when the City has been in Substantial and Effective
Compliance with the search and seizure provisions for one year and with all of the
96

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 102 of 110. PageID #: 181
remaining provisions for two consecutive years. "Substantial and Effective Compliance" means that the City either has complied wi th all material requirements of this Agreement, or has ach ieved sustained and continuing improvement in constitutional policing, as demonstrated pursuant to this Agreement's outcome measures.
402. Irthe Parties disagree whether the City has been in Substantial and Effective
Compliance with the search and seizure provisions for one year and with all of the remaining provisions for two consecutive years, the City may seek to terminate this Agreement. Prior to tiling a motion to terminate, the City agrees to notify DOJ in writing when the City has determined that they are in Substantial and Effecti ve Compliance with this Agreement and that such compliance has been maintained for the required time periods. Thereafter, the Parties wi II promptly confer as to the status of compliance. If, after a reasonable period of consultation and the completion of any audit or evaluation that DOJ and/or the Monitor may wish to undertake, including onsite observations, document review, or interviews with the City and COP's personnel, the Parties cannot resolve any compliance issues, the City may file a moti on to terminate this Agreement. If the City moves for termination of this Agreement, DOJ will have 60 days after the receipt of the City's motion to object to the motion. If DOJ does not object, the Court may grant the City's motion without a hearing. IfDOJ does object, the Court wi ll hold a hearing on the motion, and the burden will be on the City to demonstrate by the preponderance of the evidence that it is in Substantial and Effective Compliance with this Agreement and has maintained such compliance for the required time periods. 403. This Agreement is enforceable only by the Parties. No person or entity is intended to be a third-party beneficiary of the provisions o f this Agreement for purposes of any civil, criminal, or administrative action. Accordingly, no person or entity may assert any claim or right as a beneficiary or protected class under this Agreement.
XV. DEFINITJONS AND ABBREVIATIONS 404. "Active physical resistance•· means the subject's physical actions are intended to
prevent an officer from placing the subject in custody and taking control, but are not
97

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 103 of 110. PageID #: 182
directed at harming the officer. Examples include: breaking the offi.cer's grip or hiding from detection. Verbal statements alone do not constitute active resistance. 405 . "Aggressive physical resistance" means the subject poses a threat of harm to the officer or others, such as when a subject attempts to attack or does attack an offi cer; exhibits combative behavior (e.g., lunging toward the offi cer, striking the officer with hands, fi sts, kicks, or any weapon). 406. "Arrest" is the taking of one person into custody by another. To constitute arrest there must be an actual restraint of the person. The restraint may be imposed by force or may result from the submission of the person arrested to the custody of the one arresting him . /\ n arrest is a restraint of greater scope or duration than an investigatory stop or detention. An arrest is lawful when supported by probable cause. 407. Bias-free policing means policing that is accomplished without the selective enforcement or non-enfo rcement of the law, including the selection or rejection of pruiicular policing tactics or strategies, based on the subject's membership in a demographic category. 408. "Canine apprehens·ion" means any time a canjne is deployed and plays a clear role in the capture of a person. The mere presence of a canine at the scene of an arrest or use of a canine so lely to track a subject will not count as a canine apprehension. 409. "COP'' refers to the Cleveland Division of Police and its agents, offi cers, supervisors, and employees (both sworn and unsworn). 41 0. ''Chief'' means the Chief of Police of the Cleveland Division of Police or his or her properly designated Acting Chief. 411. "CIT" means crisis intervention trained. 41 2. "City'' means the City of Cleveland, including its agents, offi cers, and employees. 41 3. "Crisis Intervention Program" is a first responder model of police-based crisis intervention that involves a dynamic collaboration of commtmity, health care, and advocacy partnerships committed to improving the way law enforcement and the community respond to individuals in crisis. 414. "Community and problem-oriented policing" is a policing philosophy that promotes and relies on collaborative partnerships between law enforcement agencies and the individuals and organizations they serve to develop solutions to problems, increase trust
98

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 104 of 110. PageID #: 183
in police, and improve the effectiveness of policing efforts. 41 5. "Complainant" means any person who makes a complaint against CDP or an officer or
employee of CDP. 416. "Court" will refer to the United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio
presiding over this case. 417. "Critical tircarm discharge" means a discharge of a firearm by a CDP officer, including
accidental discharges; discharges at animals, other than to euthanize an animal under controlled circumstances; and discharges at persons where no one is struck, with the exception of recreational activities, range, discharges into a weapons clearing trap, and training discharges that do not result in a person being struck. 418. "Days" means calendar days unless otherwise modified. 419. "Demographic category" means race, cthnicity, national origin. age, gender, gender expression or identity, sexual orientation, disabi lity, religion, or limited English profic iency. 420. "Depattment of Justice" or "DOJ" refers jointl y to the United States Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division and the United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Ohio. 42 1. "Developmental disability" is a condition that begins during the developmental period and that negatively affects the trajectory of the individual's physical, intel lectual, and/or emotional development. A developmental disabi lity is often a lifelong condition that results in substantial functional limitations in areas such as self-care, mobility, selfdirection and capacity for independent living. It can also be characterized by problems with both intellectual function ing or intel ligence, which include the ability to learn, reason, problem solve, and other ski lls; and adaptive behavior, which incl udes everyday social and life skills. 422. "Discipline" or "disciplinary action" means a personnel action for violation of an established law, regulation, rule, admi nistrative rule, or COP policy, includi ng a verbal reprimand, written reprimand, suspension, or dismissal. 423. "District" refers to one of the service areas of COP, which together cover the entire geographic area of the City of Cleveland . Each District is led by a District Commander. 424. "ECW" means Electronic Control Weapon, a weapon, including those manufactured by
99

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 105 of 110. PageID #: 184
TASER International, designed primarily to discharge electrical charges into a subject that will cause involuntary muscle contractions and override the subject' s voluntary motor responses. 425. "ECW application" means the contact and delivery of an electrical impulse to a subject with an Electronic Control Weapon. 426. "Effective Date" means the day this Agreement is approved and entered as an order of the Couti. 427. ''Firearm" means any instrument capable of discharging a bullet or shot, including a pistol, revolver, rifle or shotgun. Bean bag shot gtms used as such are not firearms for the purposes of this Agreement. 428. "Implement" or "implementation" means the putting into place of a policy or procedure, including the appropriate training of all relevant personnel) and the consistent and verified performance of that policy or procedure in actual practice through the regular use of audit tools. 429. "Including" means "including, but not limited to." 430. "investigatory stop" or "investigatory detention" means a temporary restraint where the subject of the stop or detention reasonably believes that she or he is not free to leave within the meaning of Terry v. Ohio. An investigatory stop or detention may be a pedestrian, vehicle, or bicycle stop. 43 1. "Individual in crisis" means a person in a mental health crisis or who appears to be significantl y under the influence of opi oids or PCP. 432. "Less lethal force" means a force application not li kely to cause death or serious physical injury. Use of less lethal force can nonetheless result in death or serious physical injury. 433. ''Lethal force" means any use offorce likely to cause death or serious physical injury, including the critical discharge of a firearm, or strike to the head, neck, or throat with a hard object. 434. "Mental health crisis'' means an incident in which someone with an actual or perceived mental illness or developmental disabili ty is experiencing intense feelings of personal distress (e.g., anxiety, depression, anger, fear, panic, hopelessness), obvious changes in functioning (e.g., neglect of personal hygiene, un usual behavior) or catastrophic life
100

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 106 of 110. PageID #: 185
events (e.g., disruptions in personal relationships, support systems, or living anangements; loss of autonomy or parental rights; victimization; natural disasters), which may, but not necessarily, resu lt in an upward trajectory of intensity cu lminating in thoughts or acts that are dangerous to his- or herself and/or others. 435. "Mental Health commun ity" includes individuals and professionals from the mental health, alcohol and drug addition, developmentally disabled, and chi ld and adolescent development communities. 436. "Menta l Health provider" includes professionals from the mental health, alcohol and drug addiction, developmentally disabled, and child and adolescent development communities, who have the appropriate training and education in their respective fields and who are currently licensed in the State of Ohio to deliver the services he or she has undertaken to provide. 437. "Mental illness" is a medical condition that disrupts an individual's thinking, perception, mood, or abili ty to relate to others such that daily funct ioning and coping with the ordinary demands of life arc diminished. Mental illness includes, but is not limited to, serious mental illnesses such as major depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder ("OCD"), panic disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder ("PTSD"), and borderline personality disorder. Mental illness includes individ uals with dual diagnosis of mental illness and another condition, such as drug and/or alcohol addiction. 438. "Misconduct" means any improper conduct by an officer, includi ng an alleged violation of CDP policy, procedure, regulations, orders, or other standards of conduct required of City employees including the improper use afforce. Solely for purposes of this Agreement, misconduct does not include minor infractions, such as uniform violations, routine motor vehicle accidents, or violations umelated to the terms or this Agreement. 439. "Mobile Computer-Aided Dispatch System" is a computerized method of dispatching police officers on a service call. It can also be used to send messages to the dispatcher and store and retrieve data (i.e., rad io logs, fie ld interviews, schedules, etc.). 440. "Monitor'' means a team or people who will be jointly selected to monitor and report on the implementation of this Agreement. 441. "Neck hold" refers to one of the following types of holds: ( I) carotid restraint hold; (2)
101

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 107 of 110. PageID #: 186
a lateral vascular neck constraint; or (3) a hold with a knee or other object to a subj ect's neck. 442. "Non-disciplinary corrective action" refers to action other than discipline taken to enable or encourage an officer to improve his or her performance. 443. "OC Spray application" means the deployment of Oleoresin Capsicum Spray on a known subj ect. It does not include the deployment of OC Spray to clear a room when there are no visible subjects. 444. "Office of Professional Standards" or "OPS)) means the City agency responsible for the intake and investigation of civilian c.omplaints of police misconduct. 445. "OIP" means the Officer Intervention Program. 446. "Passive resistance" means non-compliance with officer commands that is non-violent and does not pose an immediate threat to the officer or the public. Bracing, tensing, linking arms. or verbally signaling an intention to avoid or prevent being taken into custody constitute passive resistance. 447. "Personnel" means all COP employees. 448. ;'Police officer" or "officer" means any sworn law enforcement agent employed by or volunteering for CDP, including supervisors and reserve officers. 449. "Policies and procedures" means written regulations or directives, regardless of the name of the regulation or directive, describing the duties, functions, and obligations of CDP personnel, and prov iding specific direction on how to fulfi ll those duties) funct ions, or obligations. These include general orders, special orders, policies, procedures, and standard operating procedures. 450. " Procedural justice" refers to a concept involving four central principles designed to build public confidence in the police: 1) treating people with dignity and respect; 2) giving individuals a chance to be heard during encounters; 3) making decisions fairly and transparently, based on facts; and 4) conveying goodwill and trustworthiness. 451. "Reasonable force" means force that complies with the Fourth Amendment's requirement of objective reasonableness under Graham v. Connor. 452. "Records Management System" means an agency-wide system that provides for the storage, retrieval) retention) manipulation, archiving, and viewing of information, records documents, or fi les pertaining to law enforcement operations.
102

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 108 of 110. PageID #: 187
453. "Seizure" occurs when an officer's words or actions convey to a reasonable person that he or she is not free to leave.
454. "Serious physical injury" means injury that creates a probabil ity of death, or which causes significant serious permanent or protracted disfi gurement, or which causes a significant petmanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any body part or organ.
455. "Specialized unit" means a designated law enforcement component with specialized training, skills, and mission.
45 6. "Substantial and Effective Compliance" means that the City either has complied with all material requirements of this Agreement, or has achieved sustained and continuing improvement in constitutional policing, as demonstrated pursuant to this Agreement's outcome measures.
457. ·'Supervisor" means sworn CDP personnel at the rank of sergeant or above (or anyone acting in those capacities) and non-sworn COP personnel with oversight responsibility for other personnel.
458. "Unity of Command" means that all officers arc assigned to a consistent, clearl y identified first-line supervisor and that first-line supervisors are assigned to work the same days and hours as the officers they are assigned to supervise.
459. "Use of force'' means any physical coercion used by an offi cer in performance of offi cial duties that is a Level I, 2, or 3 use of force.
460. "Use of force involving potential criminal conduct" means force that a reasonable and trained supervisor would conclude could result in criminal charges due to the apparent circumstances of the use of force.
46 1. "Use of Force Report" means a written report documenting all force at Level I or above.
462. " Will" or "Shall" or "agrees to" means that the provision imposes a mandatory duty.
Respectfully submitted this 26th day of May, 2015.
103

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 109 of 110. PageID #: 188

For Plainti ff UNITED STATES OF AMERJCA:
STEVEN M. DETT United States Attorney Northern District of Ohio

v~
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division

CAROLE S. RENDON First Assistant U.S. Attorney Northern District of Ohio

MARK KAPPELHOFF Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division

MICHELLE HEYER HEATHER TONS!NG VOLOSIN Assistant U.S. Attorneys Northern District of Ohio United States Court I louse 80 1 West Superior Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1852 Tel. (2 16) 622-3600 Email: Carole.Rendon@usdoj.gov Email: Michelle.Heyer@usdoj.gov Email: Heather.Tonsing.Volosin@usdoj.gov

JUDY C. PRESTON Acting Chief Special Litigation Section
EMILY A. GUNSTON Special Counsel RASHIDA OGLETREE T. JACK MORSE Trial Attorneys United States Department of Justice Civi l Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel. (202) 514-6255; Fax. (202) 514-4883 Email: Emily.Gunston@usdoj.gov Email: Rashida.Oglctree@usdoj.gov Email: Jack.Morse@usdoj .gov

104

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/26/15 110 of 110. PageID #: 189 For Defendant CITY OF CLEVELAND:
--
Director of Law GARY S. SINGLETARY Chief Counsel JOSEPH F. SCOTT Chief Assistant Director of Law 60 1 Lakeside Avenue, Room 106 Cleveland. Ohio 44 11 4
105

 
 Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 9 Filed: 06/12/15 1 of 1. PageID #: 479

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
 EASTERN DIVISION


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff v.
CITY OF CLEVELAND, Defendant

)

Case No.: 1:15 CV 1046

)

)

JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.

)

)

)

)

)

)

ORDER

At a hearing held on June 12, 2015, in the within case, which commenced at 9:00, the court approved the Consent Decree of the parties for the reasons stated on the open record and with the understandings referenced thereon.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/S/ SOLOMON OLIVER, JR. CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
June 12, 2015

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 7 Filed: 06/12/15 1 of 2. PageID #: 366

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v. CITY OF CLEVELAND,
Defendant.

)

CASE NO.: 1:15CV1046

)

)

JUDGE OLIVER

)

)

)

) )

ORDER

)

This matter came before the Court upon the Parties’ Joint Motion to approve and adopt the parties’ Settlement Agreement as the Order of this Court. The Court finds that the terms of the Parties’ Settlement Agreement are fair and equitable; that the requirements set forth in the Settlement Agreement are designed to achieve significant and effective reforms in the manner in which police services are provided throughout the City of Cleveland; and that those reforms are consistent with the purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 14141 and the requirements of the Constitution. The Court further finds that in reaching the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Parties elicited significant community involvement and that the Settlement Agreement has been drafted in a manner the Parties believe will address the issues and concerns voiced through the community involvement.

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 7 Filed: 06/12/15 2 of 2. PageID #: 367 Therefore, this Court, having considered the United States’ claim under 42 U.S.C. § 14141 and the terms of the Settlement Agreement entered into by the Parties, and having determined that it has jurisdiction over this claim, hereby enters the relief set forth in the Settlement Agreement and incorporates the terms of the Settlement Agreement herein. ENTERED and ORDERED this 12th day of June, 2015.
_/_s/_S_O__L_O_M__O_N__O__L_I_V_E_R_,_J_R_._____________ CHIEF JUDGE
2


 
 Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 25 Filed: 10/01/15 1 of 2. PageID #: 574

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff v.
CITY OF CLEVELAND, Defendant

)

Case No: 1:15 CV 1046

)

)

)

)

JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.

)

)

)

)

ORDER APPOINTING MONITOR

Pursuant to Paragraph 353 of the Settlement Agreement, approved and entered as an Order of this court, the City of Cleveland and the United States of America (collectively, “Parties”) have jointly requested that this court approve their selection of the Police Assessment Resource Center (“PARC”) to serve as the Independent Monitor (“Monitor”). (J. Mot., ECF No. 24.)
The Parties conducted an extensive process to select the Monitor. The process included an in-depth review of all final applications, lengthy in-person interviews of a number of the teams, multiple follow-up interviews with some of those teams, interviews by the court of the principals of each of the finalists, and consultation by the court with the Parties prior to their final selections. The Parties have now agreed to select PARC as the Monitor in this matter.
After fully considering the Parties’ Joint Motion, speaking with Matthew Barge and other members of the PARC team, and reviewing their written materials, the court is satisfied that the PARC team, as currently constituted, has the experience, qualifications, and diversity needed to be an effective Monitor with respect to this forward-looking Consent Decree entered into by the Parties.

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 25 Filed: 10/01/15 2 of 2. PageID #: 575

Furthermore, the court is convinced that their involvement and oversight will be a great help to the Parties and the court in assuring the implementation of constitutional and effective policing, professional treatment of individuals, and increased community trust of the Cleveland Division of Police.
The court hereby approves the Parties’ selection of PARC, as described in their Joint Motion (J. Mot., ECF No. 24.), to serve as Monitor under the Settlement Agreement.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

October 1, 2015

/s/ SOLOMON OLIVER, JR. CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-2-

 
 Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 26 Filed: 10/06/15 1 of 3. PageID #: 576

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff v.
CITY OF CLEVELAND, Defendant

)

Case No: 1:15 CV 1046

)

)

)

)

JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.

)

)

)

)

ORDER

Currently pending before the court in the above-captioned case is the Motion for Leave Instanter to Submit the Attached Brief of Amici Curiae, The Cleveland Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Collaborative for a Safe, Fair, and Just Cleveland, and the Ohio Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild (collectively, “Interested Groups”) Regarding Concerns about the Parties’ Settlement Agreement. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff United States of America (“United States”) and Defendant City of Cleveland (“City”) filed separate Responses on July 8, 2015. (ECF Nos. 18 and 19.) The parties indicated that there is no need for amicus assistance at this time, as there are no legal issues pending. Moreover, the United States stressed that community groups were accorded a substantial opportunity to be heard on issues governed by the Consent Decree. Finally, the parties stated that, as the court has already approved the Consent Decree, the focus must now be on its implementation. After giving serious and careful consideration to these arguments and the Brief of the Interested Groups, the court denies the Motion for the reasons stated herein.

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 26 Filed: 10/06/15 2 of 3. PageID #: 577
On June 12, 2015, the court approved the settlement embodied in the Consent Decree, finding it to be fair, adequate and reasonable. Before reaching this conclusion, the court examined the Consent Decree itself and listened to the arguments of counsel, including their representation that the parties sought, received and considered input from various community groups before reaching an agreement. Indeed, the Interested Groups acknowledge that they were consulted during this process. The court was also aware of the numerous mechanisms built into the Consent Decree that allow for continued community involvement. Moving forward, the court was aware that the Interested Groups, as well as other groups, would have various opportunities for input, including through communications with the parties and the Monitor, and involvement with the Community Police Commission and the District Policing Committees. Ultimately, the court was acutely aware that the Consent Decree embodies a compromise between the parties. And, in approving this settlement, the court, was not indicating that the Consent Decree was immune from improvement. Rather, the court took into consideration the fact that the Consent Decree might be amended in light of the parties’ experiences, albeit in limited circumstances.
Currently, the court does not find it appropriate to engage in discussions with the Interested Groups about amendment of the Consent Decree. The court reiterates its finding that the settlement was fair, reasonable and adequate. It has clearly articulated goals, measurements and time frames. The Interested Groups currently have methods to communicate their views regarding the Consent Decree that are more appropriate than a grant of amicus status. Ordinarily, the purpose of an amicus brief is to assist the court by offering a novel perspective on unresolved questions or issues not fully addressed by the parties. See, e.g., United States v. Michigan, 940 F.2d 143, 164-65 (6th Cir. 1991). However, there are presently no unresolved questions or issues before the court. To the extent that
-2-

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 26 Filed: 10/06/15 3 of 3. PageID #: 578 the Interested Groups wish to have the United States or the City address issues in a manner different than that provided by the Consent Decree, the better course is to continue to work with and through them to provide input. And, while issues may arise in the future that the court may be called upon to address, there are simply no issues requiring amicus assistance at this time. Therefore, the Motion (ECF No. 11) is hereby denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ SOLOMON OLIVER, JR. CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
October 6, 2015
-3-

 
 Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 43 Filed: 02/01/16 1 of 12. PageID #: 636

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
vs. CITY OF CLEVELAND
Defendant.

) CASE NO.: 1:15-CV-01046 ) ) ) JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER, JR. ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM SUBMITTING FIRST) YEAR MONITORING PLAN

Pursuant to paragraph 369 of the Settlement Agreement (also referred to as the “Agreement”, “Consent Decree,” or “Decree”) between the City of Cleveland (the “City”) and the United States ordered by this Court on June 12, 2015, the Monitor submits the First-Year Monitoring Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit A (the “Monitoring Plan” or “Plan”). Dkt. 7. The City and United States (the “Parties) and Cleveland Division of Police (“CPD” or “the Division”) have collaborated closely and effectively with the Monitor to produce a process or framework for effectively and efficiently implementing the Agreement’s requirements. Feedback and comment on previous drafts of this plan from community stakeholders, such as the Community Police Commission (“CPC”), and community members and groups at large have been directly incorporated into the final Plan submitted here. Because the Plan sets aggressive but realistic goals, deadlines, and milestones for complying with the requirements of the Agreement while ensuring that individuals and organizations across Cleveland’s diverse communities have a voice

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 43 Filed: 02/01/16 2 of 12. PageID #: 637
in the discussion of how police services are delivered, the Monitor and the Parties together respectfully request that the Court approve the Plan. I. OVERVIEW OF THE MONITORING PLAN
A. Objective & Format of the Monitoring Plan The First-Year Monitoring Plan is intended to provide a clear, unified structure and framework for the day-to-day and week-to-week efforts that stakeholders from across the Cleveland community need to undertake to ensure that the Consent Decree is implemented in a manner aimed at “ensuring . . . police services in Cleveland” are “constitutional, effective, and consistent with community values, while preserving officer and public safety.” Dkt. 7-1 at 6. The Plan details a formalized process for implementation of the Consent Decree and the Monitoring Team’s assessment of the Division’s progress in doing so. In the experience of the Monitoring Team, if well-intentioned stakeholders address disparate elements of the Consent Decree at different junctures, it will be far less possible for major changes to be implemented as effectively, efficiently, and with the involvement of all important stakeholders – including CPD officers, Cleveland community members, leadership of police officer unions and organizations, the CPC, and others. This Monitoring Plan is partially a project implementation plan and partially an agenda. It is divided into nine major areas. Those areas address the core parts of the Consent Decree on which stakeholders will focus during the first year of monitoring. Primary objectives, reflected in bolded white type in the more darkly shaded rows, are the broader achievements or accomplishments that the Consent Decree requires. Below those objectives, in the plain-text and indented rows, are the key results or milestones that must be met
2

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 43 Filed: 02/01/16 3 of 12. PageID #: 638
during the year in service of each objective. In some instances, italicized notes explain or clarify details about the key results or milestone delineated immediately above it.
Each key result or milestone is associated with at least one “responsible stakeholder.” That stakeholder, or set of stakeholders, is responsible for achieving the key result or reaching the milestone indicated. Accomplishing the result or milestone is achieved by providing the “deliverable” identified in each row by the deadline provided in the “deadline” column.
The Plan covers the period of February 1, 2016 through January 31, 2017, with a limited number of deadlines falling beyond January 31, 2017.
B. Major Milestones Anticipated Under the Plan The emphasis of the First-Year Monitoring Plan is on providing officers with clear rules with respect to using force and establishing within the Department the basic policies and procedures necessary to ensure that all uses of force are uniformly reported, fairly investigated, and rigorously reviewed. To this end, a new use of force policy will be in place, and all officers trained on it, by December 31, 2016. Ex. A at 8–10, 22–24. Throughout the year, CPD will be revamping protocols, procedures, and processes for reviewing internal investigations of officer misconduct, Ex. A at 37–39, and the investigation and review of use of force incidents specifically. Id. at 8–11. This means that, as of January 1, 2017, CPD officers will be operating under a use of force policy that meets the requirements of the Consent Decree. Relatedly, CPD, in partnership with the newly-formed Mental Health Response Advisory Committee, will also be developing new policies and training for responding to individuals experiencing mental health, substance abuse, and other behavioral crisis challenges. Id. at 32– 36.
3

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 43 Filed: 02/01/16 4 of 12. PageID #: 639
Another primary area of focus will be bias-free policing. A major, early task of the CPC will be to conduct an assessment of CPD’s bias-free policing policies, practices, and training and make recommendations for improvements or changes. Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 17; Ex. A at 55–57. After also receiving input from CPD officers, officer organizations, and community members and organizations, CPD will develop a bias-free policing policy and training that “incorporates the principles of procedural justice and . . . is designed to ensure that police services are delivered free from bias.” Dkt. 7-1 ¶¶ 38, 39; Ex. A at 55–58.
More generally, CPD will have a new mission statement on or about June 10, 2016. That mission statement, which must communicate the Division’s commitment to community-oriented policing, will be reflective of Cleveland resident and officer input. Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 27; Ex. A at 1–2. Consistent with the revised mission statement, CPD will develop a new, comprehensive strategy for implementing a community and problem-oriented policing model. Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 27; Ex. A at 3– 4.
By June 2016, CPD will develop a new recruitment policy and strategic recruitment plan “that includes clear goals, objectives, and action steps for attracting qualified applicants from a broad cross-section of the community.” Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 302; Ex. A at 29–31. Supervisors will receive a general overview of CPD’s new mission statement, what to expect under the Consent Decree, and their new and enhanced responsibilities with respect to the central issues of the Decree. Ex. A at 20–22.
Also by June 2016, CPD and the Monitoring Team will complete comprehensive equipment and resource studies that assess CPD’s current needs and priorities with respect to its officers being able to fulfill CPD’s mission and satisfy the requirements of the Agreement. Dkt. 7-1 ¶¶ 292, 314; Ex. A at 46. The Monitor will work closely with officers, community members,
4

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 43 Filed: 02/01/16 5 of 12. PageID #: 640
City stakeholders, and the Division to ensure that officers have the tools and resources that they need to effectuate the priorities associated with problem-solving and community-oriented policing strategies.
The Plan calls for CPD to complete a staffing study and plan for ensuring that CPD deploys the appropriate number of personnel to perform the functions necessary for CPD to fulfill its mission and satisfy the requirements of the Agreement. Dkt. 7-1 ¶¶ 319, 322; Ex. A at 49–51. Part of this analysis will necessarily consider implications of CPD’s implementation of a new department-wide computer system enabling it “to collect, maintain, integrate, and retrieve data . . . for each officer” about officer performance. Dkt. 7-1 ¶¶ 326, 328; Ex. A at 47–49.
Efforts will also be underway in 2016 to ensure that the Office of Professional Standards (“OPS”), which receives and investigates civilian complaints of officer misconduct, performs high-quality, objective investigations and that the Police Review Board, which reviews OPS investigations, has the training, expertise, and composition to ensure fair, objective, and rigorous assessment of misconduct investigations. Ex. A at 39–44.
C. What the Plan Is and Is Not This Plan does not take the place of the Consent Decree. The Consent Decree sets forth a number of objective, goals, and major commitments that the City and CPD have made for changing the way that a number of things are done within CPD. Nothing in this Plan alters the Decree’s fundamental obligations, adds new requirements, or eliminates commitments. Instead, the Plan provides a framework for the City of Cleveland to meet the objectives and fulfill the major commitments of the Decree. The Plan covers only the first year of monitoring. It is not a multi-year, comprehensive plan that details each and every step that CPD must take to get to where it needs to ultimately be
5

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 43 Filed: 02/01/16 6 of 12. PageID #: 641
under the Consent Decree. Instead, it covers a 12-month time period, beginning on February 1, 2016 and continuing until January 31, 2017. There are a few deadlines, for projects that will be well underway by January 31, 2017, that go beyond this one-year focus – to ensure that there are clear expectations about how the work performed in the first year will need to be continued in the second year. In December 2016, the Monitor will present a plan for the second year.
Not all requirements and reforms of the Consent Decree are addressed by this Plan – only what the Team contemplates that stakeholders can focus on during the first year of implementation and monitoring. For instance, policies and training on the stops and detentions of civilians, and changes to the system of officer discipline are issues on which this Plan – given the host of foundational issues to be tackled in the first year – proposes not to focus intensive work or collaboration during the first year. The Consent Decree requires that these issues be addressed during the process, and subsequent Monitoring Plans will outline a unified process for addressing them in the same way that issues related to use of force policy, use of force training, the internal affairs process, and equipment and resources are addressed in this First-Year Monitoring Plan.
Finally, this Monitoring Plan proposes deadlines for specific deliverables or milestones. If a party or implicated stakeholders fails to meet a deadline, the Monitor will inform the Court and seek its assistance on addressing the deficiency. To ensure swift and effective progress toward achieving the major objectives of the Consent Decree, any entity covered by this plan that seeks to delay, move, or otherwise change a deadline in the Plan must petition the Court to do so. The Monitor may, at his discretion, support or comment on the motion to extend. However, the Plan provides a limited exception to the general requirement that any entity seeking to change a deadline petition the Court:
6

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 43 Filed: 02/01/16 7 of 12. PageID #: 642
[T]he deadlines might, in some instances, need to be extended by a brief interval to allow or accommodate unforeseen circumstances or unexpected, minor delays. Accordingly, if and only if all of the Monitor, United States, and the City of Cleveland agree that an extension for any of the deadlines outlined in this Plan is warranted and acceptable, the deadline may be extended by an interval of seven (7) calendar days without petitioning the Court for an extension of the deadline. No deadline may be extended by more than seven (7) calendar days without approval of the Court. The extension of any specific deadline, or deadlines, will not change or otherwise affect any other deadline. Ex. A at 1. This exception is consistent with the goal of establishing aggressive but realistic deadlines for progress under the Decree. II. COMMUNITY COLLABORATION & INVOLVEMENT A. Community Stakeholder Involvement in Reaching Major Milestones If policing in Cleveland is to be “consistent with community values,” the community must have a direct and ongoing role in the substantive reforms contemplated under the Consent Decree. Dkt. 7-1 at 6. This Monitoring Plan outlines a specific process for involving the community, in all of its forms, in the implementation of the Consent Decree. It tasks the community, including CPD officers, both with framing and focusing issues as the “first step” of substantive reform and with providing specific, substantive input on contemplated changes. Specifically, this Plan provides a general process that typically requires the CPC to collect the concerns, experiences, values, and issues of the community related to the various areas of concern from across Cleveland’s diverse communities. The Commission synthesizes and summarizes disparate community feedback into a single, written work product that fairly and accurately summarizes community input received. The work product is distributed to the CPD so that the Division can directly take community input into account, where appropriate, when it revises policies, drafts training, or contemplates new initiatives.
7

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 43 Filed: 02/01/16 8 of 12. PageID #: 643
That same process typically requires that the Monitor, leadership of police officer unions and organizations, and CPD collaborate to convene a series of meetings and establish alternative forms of officer outreach (including email, surveys, anonymous written submissions, and discussions at roll calls before the start of officer shifts) to collect the concerns, experiences, values, and issues of rank-and-file officers related to the various areas of the Plan’s focus. The Division synthesizes and summarizes disparate officer feedback into a single, written work product that fairly and accurately summarizes community input received. The Division likewise will directly take community input into account, where appropriate, when it revises policies, drafts training, or contemplates new initiatives.
Subsequently, when the Division has produced a proposed final draft of policy or training, or a finalized plan for implementing another aspect of the Decree, the Monitor is tasked with engaging in an affirmative, intensive effort to obtain CPC, community, officer, and other stakeholder input and comment. During this time period, the Monitor will circulate proposed drafts or plans for comment by community organizations and leaders; receive input from CPC and CPD officers; solicit feedback on the Monitor’s website, by email, and via social media; and hold community forums and meetings. Drafts of key written materials will be accessible on the Monitor’s website and CPC’s website, with printed materials available at Cleveland Public Library locations. Such written materials will be accompanied by an executive summary that explains, in plain language, what the draft is, what it addresses, and what the most important areas for feedback will be. When possible, those written materials will be translated into Spanish.
The Monitoring Team has also been working to establish a network of Consent Decree “study groups” in partnership or affiliated with a number of churches throughout Cleveland,
8

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 43 Filed: 02/01/16 9 of 12. PageID #: 644
Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority locations, the Cleveland Public Library, and Cuyahoga Community College. These groups will receive monthly or bi-monthly guides to understanding and discussing the Consent Decree. The Monitor will regularly solicit input from these groups of particularly involved, committed, and informed community members.
Upon approval of the Monitoring Plan, the Monitoring Team will ensure that it publicizes the host of ways that community members and organizations can be substantively involved in Consent Decree reform.
B. Community Feedback on the Monitoring Plan The Monitoring Team did not wait to begin the process of sustained, intensive, and substantive engagement with the community. The process has already started with the Monitoring Plan submitted here. Specifically, the Monitor distributed an initial draft of the Plan to the Parties, and associated stakeholders including the Division of Police and leadership of the major police officer unions, in mid-December. On the same day, the Monitor presented the Plan to the CPC at a public meeting. The Monitoring Team subsequently circulated the Plan to some 116 community organizations and leaders and outlined the Team’s desire for feedback, comment, edits, and input. In early January, the Monitoring Team established its website, where the draft Plan has been available. Through that website, interested members of the public can use a comment form or email to provide input on the Plan. The Team also established a presence on social media, allowing for additional forms of electronic feedback. The Monitor, Parties, and Division engaged in a series of candid, collaborative discussions on the proposed Plan in January 2016, which led to some changes and refinement. Representatives of the Monitoring Team appeared before the Cleveland City Council’s Public
9

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 43 Filed: 02/01/16 10 of 12. PageID #: 645
Safety Committee to answer questions and receive comment on the draft Plan. The Monitor solicited comment from the leadership of the police officer unions and met with leadership of the Cleveland Police Patrolmen’s Association (“CPPA”) to address the Plan.
The Monitoring Team received feedback from throughout the Cleveland community on the draft Plan. Community input was received via several mechanisms:
• Community Meetings. The Monitor invited individuals and organizations who had received an initial draft of the Plan to participate in community meetings to discuss the Plan on January 11, 2015 and January 12, 2015.
• Community Police Commission. CPC commissioners reviewed and discussed the Plan. It held a public comment period on the Plan at its January 27, 2016 meeting. The Monitor received formal, collected comments from CPC on January 28, 2016.
• Community Organizations. The Monitor received input directly from community organizations in Cleveland, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Ohio and the Legal Aid Society of Cleveland.
• Direct Resident Feedback. The Monitor received comments and input via email and the form on the Team’s website from residents of Cleveland.
A good deal of community input was incorporated directly into the Plan. For instance, the CPC, as well as several members of the public, expressed some concern that the initial draft Plan called for the Commission to complete too much important work by unrealistic deadlines. Working with the CPC and Parties, the Monitor sought both to adjust some deadlines and to collapse some proposed responsibilities into either broader work product or into the Monitor’s community engagement efforts.
The Monitor also appreciates feedback from several community stakeholders that desired additional clarity about the specific outlets and mechanisms available for community input going forward. As previously noted, the Monitoring Team will be working to clarify and publicize the
10

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 43 Filed: 02/01/16 11 of 12. PageID #: 646
host of mechanisms for community participation in the Consent Decree process as implementation of the Decree begins in earnest under this Plan. III. CONCLUSION
The task of the Monitor was to craft a plan for monitoring CPD’s implementation of the Consent Decree during its first year. The Monitor and Parties, with input and feedback from across the Cleveland community, have collaborated on a Monitoring Plan that sets aggressive but realistic goals and asks the Cleveland community to participate directly and substantively. Therefore, the Monitor and Parties together respectfully request that the Court approve the FirstYear Monitoring Plan and order them effective.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Matthew Barge MATTHEW BARGE Monitor 115 West 18th Street, Second Floor New York, New York 10001 Tel: (202) 257-5111 Email: matthewbarge@parc.info
11

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 43 Filed: 02/01/16 12 of 12. PageID #: 647 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on February 1, 2016, I served the foregoing document entitled Memorandum Submitting First-Year Monitoring Plan via the court’s ECF system to all counsel of record.
/s/ Matthew Barge MATTHEW BARGE
12

 
 Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 34 Filed: 12/09/15 1 of 16. PageID #: 607

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff, vs.
CITY OF CLEVELAND,
Defendant.

) CASE NO.: 1:15-CV-01046 ) ) ) JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER, JR. ) ) ) CITY OF CLEVELAND’S ) INITIAL STATUS REPORT

I. Introduction
Section 387 of the Settlement Agreement entered into in this matter by the City of
Cleveland (“City”) and the United States of America provides:
Within 180 days of the Effective Date, the City will file with the Court, with a copy to the Monitor and DOJ, a status Report. This report will delineate the steps taken by CDP [Cleveland Division of Police] during the reporting period to comply with this Agreement; CDP’s Assessment of the Status of its progress; plans to correct any problems; and response to concerns raised in the Monitor’s previous semi-annual report. Following this initial status report, the City will file a status report every six months thereafter while this Agreement is in effect.
The “Effective Date” is defined at Section 426 of the Settlement Agreement to mean
“the day this Agreement is approved and entered as an order of the Court.” This Court
entered an Order approving the Agreement as a Consent Decree on June 12, 2015.
The City provides its Initial Status Report to the Court pursuant to Section 387 to
report on the activities undertaken by the CDP and the City to date to comply with the
requirements of the Consent Decree. The following discussion identifies milestone
events that have been accomplished within the initial six month period following the June

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 34 Filed: 12/09/15 2 of 16. PageID #: 608
12, 2015 “Effective Date” established with the Consent Decree, and further identifies significant steps that have been undertaken toward meeting other agreed upon goals. II. Steps Taken by the CDP and the City of Cleveland During the Reporting
Period to Comply With the Consent Decree. A. Appointment of the Monitor
Pursuant to Section 353 of the Consent Decree, the City and the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) were to select a Monitor subject to the approval of the Court. The Monitor is to assess and report on implementation of the Settlement Agreement. The Court entered an Order on October 1, 2015 approving the selection of the Police Assessment Resource Center (“PARC”) as the Monitor. As noted in the Court’s order approving PARC, “[t]he process included an in-depth review of all final applications, lengthy in-person interviews of a number of teams, multiple follow-up interviews with some of those teams, interviews by the court of the principals of each of the finalist, and consultation by the court with the Parties prior to their final selections.”
The leader of the PARC Monitor team is Matthew Barge. The City and the Monitor team have been actively engaged and working on a variety of issues that are addressed in the Consent Decree in the approximate two month period following the team’s October appointment. Pursuant to Section 357 of the Consent Decree the City has provided the Monitor team with office space and office support at the Justice Center.
Section 356 of the Consent Decree establishes that the “City will bear all reasonable fees and costs of the Monitor.” The Court issued an Order on November 25, 2015 that addresses the process to be used in this matter for review and payment of the Monitor’s monthly expense statements. Payments will be made through the Clerk of
2

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 34 Filed: 12/09/15 3 of 16. PageID #: 609
Court. The City’s first monthly payment through the Court for the Monitor’s October expenses was accomplished on December 7, 2015. B. Appointment of the Community Police Commission
Section 15 of the Consent Decree established that a Community Police Commission (“CPC”) was to be established within 90 days of the above referenced Effective Date. In conformance with Section 16, a Selection Panel representing diverse community interests was established for the purpose of receiving and reviewing applications and then recommending ten individuals who reside or work in the City for appointment to the newly created CPC. The ten individuals recommended by the Selection Panel along with three individuals representing the police unions were appointed to the CPC in conformance with the Consent Decree on September 8.
The Commission has held public meetings across the City as required by Section 17 and currently has scheduled meetings for the second and fourth Wednesdays of each month. The Commission’s three co-chairs are Dean Craig Boise, Mario Clopton, and Dr. Rhonda Williams. Pursuant to Section 16, the City’s Community Relations Board has provided a staff person to attend Commission meetings and to assist the Commission administratively in this early transition period.
Section 22 of the Consent Decree requires that the annual operating budget for the Community Police Commission “be visible as a separate line item in the budget proposal submitted annually pursuant to the Charter to the Cleveland City Council with the appropriations ordinance.” Cleveland’s Charter requires the Mayor to submit to City Council no later than February 1, 2016 an estimate of the expense of conducting the affairs of the City for the 2016 fiscal year. Pursuant to the requirement in Section 22 of
3

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 34 Filed: 12/09/15 4 of 16. PageID #: 610
the Consent Decree the budget estimate for the Commission is being prepared and will be included and identified as a separate line item in the Mayor’s 2016 submission to City Council. C. District Policing Committees
Section 23 of the Consent Decree requires that the City’s Community Relations Board, the CPC, and the CDP work jointly with the newly designated “District Policing Committees.” The District Policing Committees referenced in the Consent Decree were previously known as “District Community Relations Committees” and each had worked with the City’s Community Relations Board (“CRB”) since 1974. The CRB has worked with members of the existing committees to assist them in understanding the changes addressed in the Consent Decree. The Consent Decree envisions both an expanded membership representing a cross-section of the community and a more visible role working with the CDP to identify strategies to address appropriate crime and safety issues in each district. At least one CDP officer will be assigned to each Committee. The CRB staff has met with members of the Monitor’s Community Engagement team to discuss the CRB’s existing structures within the community and the Board’s role in assisting with community engagement strategies and the further development of the District Policing Committees.
The CRB has undertaken a series of community meetings/briefings and presentations to assist the community to better understand the Consent Decree and the community engagement components it contains. In this regard:
- The CRB, in partnership with Cleveland Neighborhood Progress (CNP), convened a meeting of street/block club leaders and community organizers and safety
4

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 34 Filed: 12/09/15 5 of 16. PageID #: 611

coordinators on Saturday, November 14, 2015. The purpose of the meeting was to help

train and educate community stakeholders on the Consent Decree and the need for broad

participation in the District Policing Committees. More than 300 citizens participated in

this training, with Mayor Jackson, Chief of Police Williams, City Law Director

Langhenry and Community Relations Board Director Griffin discussing the need for the

community to be involved with the Committees to ensure the success of the Consent

Decree. Deputy Chief of Operations Drummond and all of the District Commanders

discussed ways for the community to help the CDP develop safety plans for their

respective police districts. Three members of the Cleveland Police Commission also

participated.

-

On November 17 Mayor Jackson and Director Griffin conducted a

meeting with more than 45 street outreach workers, who reach out to gangs, at-risk youth

and young adults, marginalized communities and restored citizens (formerly incarcerated

individuals and individuals reentering our community) to encourage these individuals to

actively participate in the District Policing Committees.

-

The City has also separately met with other diverse groups to discuss

implementation of the Consent Decree and the District Policing Committees, including

the Hispanic Advisory Council, clergy and faith based coalition leaders, and local

business owners such as barbershop and beauty salon owners.

D. Office of Professional Standards/Police Review Board

1. Office of Professional Standards

The City’s existing Office of Professional Standards (“OPS”) has completed a

5

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 34 Filed: 12/09/15 6 of 16. PageID #: 612
variety of requirements that are found within sections193 to 228 of the Consent Decree. As recognized in the Consent Decree, OPS is tasked with investigating all civilian complaints it receives against CDP officers, excluding criminal conduct. OPS has accomplished the following tasks since the Effective Date: (1) established a centralized electronic numbering and tracking system for all complaints, (2) developed a revised operations manual, (3) established a criteria for assigning complaints to either a standard or complex investigation track, (4) ensured that its complaint forms do not contain language that could be reasonably construed as discouraging the filing of a complaint, and (5) developed complaint forms and related informational materials in English and Spanish.
2. Police Review Board (“PRB”) Section 230 of the Consent Decree provides that “in consultation with the Commission, the Mayor will work with the City Council to develop an ordinance to place a Charter Amendment on the ballot that would ensure that members of the PRB are appointed in a transparent manner, are representative of the diverse communities within Cleveland, and allow the chair and vice chair of PRB, to each serve for a term of one year, to be selected among the members by majority vote of PRB’s membership.” City officials have solicited recommendations from the CPC. The CPC is working on recommendations. An ordinance to place the proposed Charter Amendment on the ballot was introduced in City Council on December 7, 2015. Public hearings on the ordinance are a part of the legislative process. E. Cleveland Division of Police (“CDP”) 1. Crisis Intervention
6

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 34 Filed: 12/09/15 7 of 16. PageID #: 613
Section 131 of the Consent Decree recognizes the City will build and improve its existing Crisis Intervention Program with the goals of (a) assisting individuals in crisis, (b) improving the safety of officers, family members, and other community members, (c) providing a foundation for promoting community and statewide solutions to assist individuals with mental illness, and (d) reducing the need for individuals with mental illness to have further involvement with the criminal justice system.
Section 132 of the Consent Decree requires that CDP and the City ensure that a Mental Health Response Advisory Committee (“Committee”) be established within 180 days of the Effective Date to “foster relationships and build support between the police, the community, and mental health providers and to help identify problems and develop solutions designed to improve outcomes for individuals in crisis.” The City announced the establishment of the Committee on September 23, 2015 pursuant to a memorandum of understanding entered into between the City and the Cuyahoga County’s Alcohol, Drug Addiction, and Mental Health Services Board (“ADAMHS Board”).
Section 137 of the Consent Decree requires that CDP “designate an officer, at the rank of captain or above, to act as a Crisis Intervention Coordinator to better facilitate communication between CDP and members of the mental health community and to increase the effectiveness of CDP’s Crisis Intervention Program.” Captain James Purcell has been designated as CDP’s Crisis Intervention Coordinator. As noted in Section 137 the Coordinator is “responsible for coordinating implementation of the changes and recommendations made by the Advisory Committee, as appropriate.”
Section 143 of the Consent Decree requires that all new recruits receive at least 16 hours of crisis intervention training while in the Academy. The new recruits in the CDP
7

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 34 Filed: 12/09/15 8 of 16. PageID #: 614
cadet class that graduated on October 16, 2015 exceeded this standard and received 40 hours of crisis intervention training from the ADAMHS Board before graduating.
2. CDP Recruitment and Hiring Section 300 of the Consent Decree states, “To maintain high-level, quality service, ensure officer safety and accountability, and promote constitutional, effective policing, CDP will review and revise as necessary its recruitment and hiring program to ensure that CDP successfully attracts and hires a diverse group of qualified individuals.” a. Charter Amendment Section 301 requires that the “Mayor will work with the City Council to develop an ordinance to place a Charter Amendment on the ballot to give the appointing authority greater flexibility in the selection of candidates from the certified eligibility list for the CDP.” The required Charter Amendment ordinance was developed with City Council and the Amendment allows the City greater flexibility in the selection of qualified individuals from a certified eligibility list by allowing selection from the top ten (10) eligible candidates, instead of selecting from the top three (3) eligible candidates as before. The Charter Amendment was placed on the November 3, 2015 ballot and was approved by the City’s voters. The Charter Amendment became effective on that date. b. Recruitment Policy and Plan Section 302 of the Consent Decree requires the development of a recruitment policy and strategic recruitment plan that includes “clear goals, objectives, and actions steps for attracting qualified applicants from a broad cross-section of the community.” The City is developing a recruitment policy and plan for the Department of Safety that addresses the goal of successfully attracting a diverse group of qualified applicants for
8

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 34 Filed: 12/09/15 9 of 16. PageID #: 615
CDP within an action plan that also addresses the recruitment of qualified applicants for Fire and EMS from a broad cross-section of the community. The recruitment plan will be provided to the Monitor and DOJ for review as required by Section 302. The City has reached out to the CPC and other community stakeholders seeking their input concerning “strategies to attract a diverse pool of applicants” as set out at section 305. The Consent Decree further provides at Section 305 that the City is to “implement the recruitment plan within 60 days of its being approved by the Monitor.”
3. CDP Consent Decree Implementation Unit Section 385 of the Consent Decree requires that the City and CDP establish a unit to facilitate compliance with the Settlement Agreement. This unit has been established under the leadership of Commander Brian Heffernan and it is to coordinate “compliance and implementation activities, facilitate the provision of data, documents, materials, and access to the City’s and CDP’s personnel to the Monitor and DOJ, as needed; ensure that all data documents and records are maintained as provided in the Agreement, and assist in assigning implementation and compliance related tasks to CDP personnel, as directed by the Chief or the Chief’s designee.” The implementation unit is fulfilling the role assigned by the Consent Decree and facilitates ongoing communications, meetings, and the exchange of information with the Monitor team members. Section 292 of the Consent Decree requires the CDP to complete a comprehensive equipment and resource study to assess its current needs and priorities to perform the functions necessary for CDP to fulfill its mission and satisfy the requirements of the Consent Decree. Section 319 of the Consent Decree requires the CDP to complete a comprehensive staffing study to assess the appropriate number of sworn and civilian
9

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 34 Filed: 12/09/15 10 of 16. PageID #: 616
personnel to perform the functions necessary for CDP to fulfill its mission and meet the requirements of the Consent Decree. Both the equipment/resource and staffing studies are to be completed within 365 days of the Effective Date —June 11, 2016. CDP has initiated work on both studies.
4. CDP Data Collection and Analysis Section 257 of the Consent Decree provides that “CDP will collect and maintain all data and records necessary to accurately evaluate its use of force practices and search and seizure practices and facilitate transparency and, as permitted by law, broad public access to information related to CDP’s decision making and activities. To achieve this outcome, CDP will designate an individual or individuals as the ‘Data Collection and Analysis Coordinator’.” Section 263 establishes that within 365 days of the Effective Date — June 11, 2016, the Data Collection and Analysis Coordinator will have developed a protocol that will allow for accurate analysis of the collected data and the various data assessments required in the Consent Decree. CDP has established the minimum qualifications and special requirements for filling the Coordinator position and is presently working with the City’s Information Technology Services staff to implement an expanded, reliable, and accurate electronic system to collect and track the increased data collection requirements established in the Consent Decree. 5. CDP Police Inspector General Section 250 of the Consent Decree requires the City to “hire an individual or individuals with significant experience in law enforcement practices and civil rights law to serve as Police Inspector General.” The City is presently developing the minimum qualifications and experience necessary to fill the Inspector General position. As required
10

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 34 Filed: 12/09/15 11 of 16. PageID #: 617
in Section 250, the City has asked for the Commission’s input on the minimum qualifications and experience for the position. The Mayor is to appoint the Inspector General with the position being in the classified service. The Inspector General will work in the Office of the Mayor and will report to the Chief of CDP. The Inspector General’s authorized duties are set out at Section 253 and include: review of CDP policies and procedures, the audit of compliance with policies and procedures, conducting investigations, analyzing trends, developing specific recommendations for reform, analyzing investigations conducted by OPS, analyzing findings and discipline imposed, and making reports and recommendations for reform publicly available. Section 255 requires that the annual budget for the Inspector General “be visible as a separate line item in the budget proposal submitted annually pursuant to the Charter to the Cleveland City Council with the appropriations ordinance.” The budget estimate for the Inspector General is being prepared and will be included and identified as a separate line item in the Mayor’s 2016 submission to City Council.
6. Internal Affairs Section178 of the Consent Decree establishes that CDP’s Internal Affairs unit “will be headed by a qualified civilian who is not a current or former employee of CDP, and who is not a current or retired law enforcement officer. The civilian head of Internal Affairs will report directly to the Chief of Police.” The City has finalized the job description and minimum qualifications and experience necessary for filling the Internal Affairs position. 7. Training and Policies Section 278 of the Consent Decree establishes, “Unless otherwise noted, the
11

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 34 Filed: 12/09/15 12 of 16. PageID #: 618
training required under this Agreement, including training on all policies revised or developed pursuant to this Agreement, will be delivered within two years of the Effective Date —June 12, 2017. CDP is presently engaged in ensuring that all training requirements outlined in the Consent Decree are accomplished within the time frames established.
Section 270 of the Consent Decree requires expanded membership of its Training Review Committee (“TRC”) to include “Training Section Staff members, the District training coordinators, union representatives, and members of the Commission.” CDP is in the process of identifying the required expanded membership and has reached out to CPC for identification of who on the Commission will serve on the TRC.
Section 342 of the Consent Decree provides that within 365 days of the Effective Date—June 11, 2016,“[a]s needed, CDP will develop, revise, and implement policies and procedures to fully incorporate the terms of this Agreement and comply with applicable law. CDP will ensure that its policies and procedures are plainly written, logically organized, and use terms that are clearly defined.” CDP has begun work on reviewing and revising, as necessary, its policies and General Police Orders. Section 344 requires that policies related to bias-free policing, use of force, search and seizure, and data collection and retention are to be provided to the CPC for review and comment prior to submission to the Monitor and DOJ.
The Consent decree at Section 17 envisioned that CPC would “complete an assessment of CDP’s bias-free policing policies, practices, and training and make recommendations” within 90 days of appointment. At the request of the CPC, the City and DOJ filed a joint motion (Dkt # 30) requesting that the Commission’s time for
12

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 34 Filed: 12/09/15 13 of 16. PageID #: 619
completing the assessment of CDP’s bias-free policing policies, practices, and training be extended for three (3) months to March 7, 2016. This Court issued an Order (Dkt # 33) approving the requested extension on December 8, 2015. Pursuant to Sections 38 and 39 of the Consent Decree, CDP is required to develop bias-free policing policies and training within 18 months of the Effective Date —December 12, 2016. Section 39 further requires that the Monitor is to then review the developed bias-free training to assess whether it is “adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type.”
In August the CDP entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) with Ohio Department of Public Safety and the Ohio State Highway Patrol (OSHP). Pursuant to the MOU, the OHSP is to provide, at no cost to the City, the Basic Police Officer Certification Course training to the CPD’s 136th recruit class beginning on December 9, 2015 at the OSHP Academy in Columbus. The MOU recognizes the commitment of the OHSP to providing the most advanced training possible for law enforcement across the State of Ohio.
The training has been delayed as the result of an ex-parte temporary restraining order (“TRO”) that was entered by the Court of Common Pleas for Cuyahoga County, Case No. CV-15-855190, at the request of the Cleveland Police Patrolman’s Association (“CPPA”) on December 4. The TRO remains in effect at the time of this filing and is being contested, with a hearing being set for December 9, 2015 at 1:00 PM on the City’s motion to dissolve the TRO.
8. CDP E-Mail System Section 297 of the Consent Decree requires that “[w]ithin 180 days of the Effective Date, CDP will utilize a department-wide e-mail system to improve
13

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 34 Filed: 12/09/15 14 of 16. PageID #: 620
communication and information sharing among all department personnel, including command staff, supervisors, and patrol officers.” CDP has timely established the department-wide e-mail system required in the Consent Decree. III. CDP’s Assessment of the Status of its Progress
The CDP continues its ongoing goals of serving and protecting the public, while continuing its timely efforts to adopt the reforms addressed in the Consent Decree. In addition to the progress addressed above, the CDP has established a professional and ongoing working arrangement with the Monitor team. The CDP has effectively communicated and interacted with the newly formed Community Police Commission on a number of issues. The CDP continues to work actively to meet and exceed the many goals that have been established in the Consent Decree. IV. CDP’s Plans to Correct Any Problems
The City is presently addressing the TRO entered by the Court of Common Pleas that has delayed the start of training of the CDP’s most recent recruit class by the OSHP. The State’s training of the new recruit class would assist in the CDP’s effective use of the Academy training officers in meeting the training and planning requirements contained in the Consent Decree, while also assisting in meeting training requirements associated with the City’s hosting of the Republican National Convention in 2016.
CDP otherwise remain focused on effectively addressing and completing the agreed upon requirements in the Consent Decree. The CDP will continue its ongoing cooperation and professional interactions with the newly appointed Monitor team and with members of the Community Police Commission as it proceeds with agreed upon reforms.
14

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 34 Filed: 12/09/15 15 of 16. PageID #: 621 Respectfully submitted, Barbara A. Langhenry (0038838) Director of Law
By: /s/ Gary S. Singletary Gary S. Singletary (0037329) Chief Counsel City of Cleveland 601 Lakeside Avenue, Room 106 Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1077 Tel:(216) 664-2800 Fax:(216) 664-2663 E-mail: gsingletary@city.cleveland.oh.us Counsel for the City of Cleveland
15

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 34 Filed: 12/09/15 16 of 16. PageID #: 622 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the City of Cleveland’s Initial Status Report was filed electronically on December 9, 2015. Notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s system. Pursuant to the requirements of the Consent Decree the Monitor Team has been delivered a copy of this filing.
/s/ Gary S. Singletary Gary S. Singletary (0037329) Counsel for the City of Cleveland
16

 
 Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 1 of 72. PageID #: 817

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
vs. CITY OF CLEVELAND
Defendant.

) CASE NO.: 1:15-CV-01046 ) ) ) JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER, JR. ) ) ) MEMORANDUM SUBMITTING FIRST ) SEMIANNUAL REPORT )

The Cleveland Police Monitoring Team submits its First Semiannual Report.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Matthew Barge MATTHEW BARGE Monitor 115 West 18th Street, Second Floor New York, New York 10001 Tel: (202) 257-5111 Email: matthewbarge@parc.info

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 2 of 72. PageID #: 818

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team

First Semiannual Report
June 2016

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 3 of 72. PageID #: 819
2

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 4 of 72. PageID #: 820

TABLE OF CONTENTS
First Semiannual Report

Executive Summary

5

A Note From the Monitor

10

The Role of the Monitor & This Report

14

Community Engagement & Building Trust

19

Community & Problem-Oriented Policing

23

Bias-Free Policing

29

Use of Force

31

Crisis Intervention

38

Search & Seizure

44

Accountability

45

Transparency & Oversight

49

Officer Assistance & Support

52

Supervision

62

Compliance & Outcome Assessments

66

3

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 5 of 72. PageID #: 821
Report Photo Credits: Tony Dejak/AP; CPD; City of Cleveland; Alvin Smith 4

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 6 of 72. PageID #: 822

work for the day-to-day and week-to-week efforts that stakeholders from across the Cleveland community need to undertake to ensure that the Consent Decree is implemented” according to the Decree’s objectives.4 Part project roadmap and part agenda,5 the Court approved the detailed plan in early February 2016.6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Monitoring Plan sought to “set[] aggressive but realistic goals, deadlines, and milestones for complying with the requirements” of the Consent Decree, and it provided mechanisms for the Parties and Monitor to make “adjustments to certain timelines [when] necessary” to reflect changed circumstances or operational realities.7 It also built community and CPD officer participation directly into the substantive reform process – both early, when the Community Police Commission and Division of Police gather views, values, experiences, and expectations of residents and officers to inform CPD’s initial drafting of new policies, training, and processes; and later on, when the Monitor works with stakeholders to get direct and substantive feedback about specific reforms.
Notable Areas of Progress to Date

1. Use of Force

Under the Consent Decree between the United States and City of Cleveland (the “Parties”) involving various reforms to the Cleveland Division of Police (“CPD, “CDP,” “Division of Police,” or the “Division), the Cleveland Police Monitoring Team must “assess and report whether the requirements of this Agreement have been implemented, and whether this implementation is resulting in constitutional and effective policing, professional treatment of individuals, and increased community trust of

Reform in the area of force is a primary area of focus and work throughout the remainder of 2016 and into 2017. The current goal, codified in the First-Year Monitoring Plan, is for CPD to have a new use of force policy in place, and all officers trained on the policy, by December 31, 2016. This will allow the new policy to become effective and implemented across Cleveland as of January 1, 2017.

CDP.”1 The First Semiannual Report is the Monitor’s first, comprehensive summary of the City and CPD’s progress to date in implementing the reforms that the Decree requires.

To date, there has been tremendous progress toward a core use of force policy that provides clear, specific direction on when force may be used. The Division and the personnel it has tasked

The Monitor and Monitoring Team are “agent[s] of the Court” who are “subject to the supervision and orders of the Court.”2 The Monitor works

To date, there has been tremendous progress toward a core use of force policy that provides clear, specific direction on when force may be used.

with working on policy changes have worked collaboratively and diligently to incorporate the recommendations of Consent Decree

for the Court – not the City and not

stakeholders. Since late March 2016,

the DOJ – and serves as its eyes and ears, with “a legal duty to

several iterations and drafts have

act solely in [the Court’s] interests.”3 The Monitor serves si-

been the subject of productive discussions in which CPD has re-

multaneously as arbiter, technical advisor, and facilitator as CPD

mained open to exploring the adoption of new approaches. In

works to ensure effective, safe, and constitutional policing con-

working on the policy, CPD has been aided by feedback collected

sistent with the values of the Cleveland community.

by the CPC and the City of Cleveland on resident views of use

of force and officer feedback collected by CPD in collaboration

After being appointed in October 2015, the Monitoring Team

with police officer unions and organizations.

worked with the Parties on a First-Year Monitoring Plan. That Plan is “intended to provide a clear, unified structure and frame-

Because the policy discussion period has taken slightly longer than originally projected, and because the RNC is increasing-

1 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 350; accord ¶ 375 (requiring semiannual “written,

ly imposing substantial operational demands on CPD and the

public reports”). 2 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 351. 3 Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute, Fiduciary Duty, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fiduciary_duty (last

4 Dkt. 43 at 2. 5 Id. 6 Dkt. 44.

visited Apr. 22, 2016).

7 Dkt. 43 at 1; Dkt. 51.

5

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 7 of 72. PageID #: 823

City, the Parties and Monitor have agreed that community engagement on the proposed final draft of a new force policy for Cleveland should occur in late July or August. Although the Parties and Monitor will update the Court and public on a modified

including individuals experiencing mental, substance abuse, or other behavioral health challenges.10
Although creating a community-based problem solving group is

timeframe for community review of the proposed new force

a challenging mission, CPD and the Cleveland community are, at

policy in the coming weeks, this modified timeframe does not impact the ultimate goal of having CPD officers trained on the new policy by December 31 and the policy subsequently effective

this early stage, making meaningful process toward communityand stakeholder-driven reforms to the delivery of services to individuals in crisis. The Advisory Committee currently has over

on the streets of Cleveland on January 1, 2017.

50 members representing the Cleveland community, including

2. Officer Training

representatives from the judiciary, social service providers, behavioral health experts, and representatives of CPD, including CPD’s new, Decree-required Crisis Intervention Coordinator.11

A consensus continues to emerge that high-quality and robust

training throughout an officer’s career is a linchpin to ensuring safe, effective, constitutional, and community-based policing. The Consent Decree requires that CPD officers receive no fewer

The Advisory Committee’s first task under the First-Year Monitoring Plan was completing a crisis intervention needs assessment – to evaluate both the needs of the public and those of CPD

than 40 hours of in-service training annually, with year-to-year

officers. Assessments of resident and officer needs were incor-

training priorities, needs, and commitments established by a Training Review Committee. The Court approved a new CPD policy substantially expanding the Training Review Committee in April 2016.8 Additionally, the First-Year Monitoring Plan

porated into a detailed Work Plan for accomplishing various Consent-Decree required tasks through the end of January 2017. The final, Court-approved plan12 clearly reflected a great deal of work and set a clear agenda for addressing changes in CPD crisis

notes that policies that come about in the Consent Decree do

intervention policy, training, data collection, and other areas.

not become effective “until the Parties and Monitor have certi-

fied that training on the policy and its core concepts has been

Progress under the Work Plan has been swift, with the Com-

successfully completed.”9

mittee’s Policy Subcommittee already

CPD worked closely with the Parties and Monitor to identify a prioritized training for training provided to CPD personnel in 2016 as part of the First-Year Monitoring Plan. The year’s major training initiatives

Although creating a community-based problem solving group is a challenging mission, CPD and the Cleveland community are making meaningful progress toward community and stakeholderdriven reforms to the delivery of services to individuals in crisis.

having reviewed over 23 separate crisis intervention policies from across the country, identified best features of each policy, and incorporated those features into a policy that best fits the unique challenges and opportunities in Cleveland. The group is on track to

include: (1) state-required officer re-certification training; (2) training on an important, new officer performance and management database system called Blue

deliver a comprehensive, revised set of crisis intervention policies at a noteworthy pace.

Team; (3) training in the Fall of 2016 on the anticipated new offi-

In the coming months, attention will focus on providing eight

cer use of force policy intended to provide knowledge, skills, and scenario-based practice on applying the new policy; (4) initial supervisor training in the Fall of 2016 that serves as an early, class-

hours of crisis intervention training to all officers and developing a 40-hour enhanced training for specialized crisis intervention officers who, once selected, will be dispatched to the scene of

room-based opportunity for CPD to discuss with supervisors

those incidents that appear to involve subjects in crisis.

what they can expect in the way of new requirements, changed processes, and reform initiatives upcoming in the Consent Decree process; and (5) eight hours of Decree-required crisis inter-

4. Community Police Commission

vention training for all CPD officers. The Monitoring Team will

The Community Police Commission, created by the Parties to

be closely evaluating officer training in a number of ways and at several discrete stages.

serve as a conduit between the Consent Decree reform process and Cleveland’s diverse communities, spent its first several months determining how it should operate, function, and struc-

3. Crisis Intervention

ture itself in order to accomplish its duties. That the Commis-

The Consent Decree required the development of a Mental Health Response Advisory Committee “to foster relationships

sion has sometimes engaged in extended discussions or heated debates about its work is a sign of strength and progress, not impotence or dysfunction. Indeed, the Commission, must perpet-

and build support between the police, the community, and mental health providers” and “identify problems and develop solutions designed to improve outcomes for individuals in crisis,”

ually strive to create an environment at its meetings where the Cleveland community members can passionately disagree when
10 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 131.

8 Dkt. 55.

11 Dkt. 64.

9 See, e.g., Dkt. 43-1 at 9–13.

12 Dkt. 63 at 2.

6

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 8 of 72. PageID #: 824

warranted while assuring a respectful tone that promotes participants listening to views different than their own. Although the Monitoring Team is continuing to review the group’s specific recommendations, the final, written work product of the CPC addressing force, bias-free policing, and CPD’s mission statement has been – along with the work of the Mental Health Advisory Committee – at a very high level of quality.

duct an in-depth, microscopic review of OPS and its functions geared toward developing an emergency organizational transformation plan. It is noteworthy and commendable that the City has recognized the significant deficiencies with OPS and has committed to the Monitor and Department of Justice to fixing OPS, including by providing additional resources to address the situation.

Notable Challenges to Date

Cleveland residents and officers deserve to have confidence

that resident complaints about police performance or conduct

1. Office of Professional Standards (“OPS”) & Police

will be objectively, fairly, thoroughly, and timely investigated

Review Board (“PRB”)

according to processes and standards that, in themselves, are

rigorous, fair, transparent, and keep involved parties updated

OPS is a civilian-led office charged with investigating civilian

as to progress. They likewise deserve to have confidence that

complaints about CPD officers. PRB is the body that reviews

those investigations will be reviewed in a manner that is similar-

OPS investigations and recommends dispositions in such cases

ly impartial and exhaustive. OPS and PRB have some distance

to the Chief of Police.

to travel before such confidence could be fairly considered to be

well-placed.

Although the Monitoring Team is still crunching some of the

data recently provided to it by the OPS and the City, a stagger-

2. Equipment and Resources

ing number of OPS cases are incomplete – including, as of May

4, 2016, 202 cases from calendar year 2014 and 225 cases from

It is clear that the City and CPD will have to make significant

calendar year 2015, according to OPS’ own data. This is unac-

progress along a host of areas to fulfill their commitments re-

ceptable and irresponsible by any measure. The state of OPS is

lated to equipment and officer resources under the Consent

dire – even with OPS and PRB initiating steps, since early May, to

Decree. It must be emphasized that many of the areas that the

review and dispose of long-incomplete investigations, as it is un-

Division must address under the Consent Decree – including a

clear to the Monitoring Team precisely what standards were in

records management system, computer-aided dispatch, and en-

place to allow OPS and PRB to suddenly complete 122 long-run-

suring sufficient number of computers in district stations and in

ning cases in a span of just a few weeks.

cars – are basic technology platforms that Cleveland was over-

due to address regardless of whether there had been a Consent

The foundational deficiencies with OPS are more significant and

Decree. These tools are necessary to protect the public, keep

urgent than the Monitor and Parties were aware in early 2016

officers safe, and allow the Division of Police to effectively and

as the Monitoring Plan for the year was constructed. For one

efficiently conduct law enforcement.

thing, the Monitoring Team only started to receive up-to-date

statistics and information about OPS’ work in mid-April 2016,

One such tool, which the Division must address under the Con-

although initial requests were made in October 2015. For another, an initial, 14-page draft of a Decree-required, revised operational manual, which must spell out in detail how OPS operates and

The condition of the Office of Professional Standards, which investigates civilian complaints of officer misconduct, is unacceptable and irresponsible by any measure. The state of OPS is dire.

sent Decree, is the records management system (“RMS”). An RMS is the hub of a police department’s day-to-day law enforcement activity, storing records such as incident and arrest reports, and “today’s police environment cannot func-

investigates cases, was deficient in

tion without a solid RMS.”13 In 2011, the

every regard – lacking rigor, containing inaccurate information,

City contracted for an “upgrade” of its aging (circa-1998) RMS

failing to address numerous Consent Decree requirements, and

system.

omitting a host of material details.

The new system, called LERMS, was immediately plagued by

As work progressed on revising the Manual, it became clear to

significant problems when it went live. Many users reported re-

the Parties and Monitor that, before an effective Manual can be

ceiving “system error” messages, and many others experienced

seriously contemplated, a comprehensive and intensive orga-

frequent system freezes for which the only solution was unplug-

nizational assessment of OPS must be conducted to determine

ging the computer unit from the wall, re-plugging, and starting

how OPS is currently functioning, why so few cases are inves-

the computer and the LERMS program again. These technical

tigated, and what specific reforms must be instituted to ensure

problems, stemming from both vendor software and City infra-

that new complaints are fully and fairly investigated and the

structure and project management issues, led to a backlog of, as

enormous backlog of incomplete investigations is addressed.

of April 20, 2016, 11,000 to 12,000 records of incident, arrest,

Over the coming months, the Parties and Monitor have agreed that a sub-group of the Monitoring Team will be detailed to con-

13 Ralph Ioimo, Introduction to Criminal Justice Information Systems 105-106 (2016).

7

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 9 of 72. PageID #: 825

and other police reports not yet entered into the RMS system.

strong quality.

Without such reports entered into the system, it is as though

these events never happened. As a result, since LERMS went live

However, some of CPD and the City’s initial work product or de-

in November 2015, officers and government leaders have been

liverables responding to specific deadlines did not reflect the lev-

operating with incomplete or outdated information about crime

el of quality, comprehensiveness, or rigor that will be necessary.

and law enforcement activity.

Indeed, a number of conversations among the Parties and Mon-

itor have focused on basic project management strategies rather

The City has appropriate put focus on the LERMS issue. Tem-

than substantive reform requirements – leading initial feedback

porary workers have assisted in reducing the backlog of cases

to focus on how the City and CPD should approach thinking

not entered into the system to 7,590 as of May 25, 2016. Cur-

about structuring major reforms rather than talking about the

rent city personnel working on ensuring that LERMS is a stable,

nature or substance of those Decree requirements. As a result,

high-functioning system have gone to extraordinary lengths to

some deadlines that the City and CPD originally proposed in

address issues far more related to business practice and imple-

some areas turned out to err too far on the side of speed and am-

mentation issues rather than core computer or technology con-

bition, with deliverables needing more revision and discussion in

cerns. To be successful in the long-term, and to allow the City to

most instances than initially contemplated.

proceed with updates to other related systems (including field

reporting and an updated Computer Aided Dispatch system),

Further, significant City and CPD capacity has necessarily need-

the City, Department of Public Safety, and CPD must commit

ed to be focused on planning and preparations for the Republi-

to rigorously implementing mainstream project management

can National Convention (the “RNC” or “Convention”) – with

structures going forward.

the circumstances surrounding the event substantially evolving

since the Monitoring Plan was discussed in December 2015 and

Elsewhere, whether always the case or not, many elements of

January 2016. Division, City, and community attention has, es-

CPD’s core infrastructure – computers, cars, and the like – are

pecially in recent months, understandably been significantly

either aging, run-down, or deficient. For instance, CPD vehicles

focused on the July Convention. The early stages of a Consent

are often in significant levels of disrepair – with personnel at

Decree have been time-intensive for all cities that have imple-

times having serviced on their own time and dime. There are re-

mented them, but Cleveland has faced the unique challenge of

ports that CPD personnel have resorted to using their personal

needing to balance the early days of reform with preparation for

vehicles for some types of Division work. It appears that there

a major national security event of the size and scope that the city

remain an insufficient number of computers available to patrol

does not hold in a typical period.

officers to effectuate their shift-to-shift duties. In the absence

of in-car or mobile tools, many officers rely on personal mobile

In light of the Monitoring Team’s evaluation of progress, as re-

phones for Division-related communications and record-keep-

flected in this report, the Parties and Monitoring Team are in

ing.

the process of identifying additional revisions of the Monitor-

ing Plan that will allow CPD to build on the progress to date in

After the RNC, the Monitoring Plan will provide the City with

light of external dynamics that have arisen. The Monitor will, as

a Gap Analysis that describes where CPD is with respect to infrastructure now and where it needs to be going forward. The Team’s recommendations will not be tied to unrealistic, unduly expensive, or unnecessary systems. Far from in-

CPD’s new record management system was immediately plauged by significant problems when it went “live” in November 2015. Consequently, officers and government leaders have been operating with incomplete or outdated information about crime and law enforcement activity.

always, keep the Court and public informed as to any contemplated adjustments. The process of reform is hard work. Real-world issues, pragmatic considerations, and operational realities will require adjustments, from time to time, of the timetables and

sisting that CPD buy a Rolls Royce,

deadlines set forth in the Monitoring

the Monitor will be attempting to

Plan. The Monitoring Team will not

ensure that CPD officers have a reliable, high-functioning overall

consider such adjustments or revisions problematic if it is clear

technology infrastructure that gets the Division and its officers

that Consent Decree implementation is proceeding in good

to where it needs to be.

faith, with appropriate urgency, and in a manner that focuses on

high-quality solutions.

Areas of Focus in the Next Six Months

Even pending more detailed discussions – and in addition to con-

To date, the City and CPD must be commended for producing

tinued work on finalizing the use of force policy, implementing

deliverables – such as drafts of policies, plans, or training – by

training for officers on the force policy and initial training for su-

the Court-ordered deadlines of the First-Year Monitoring Plan.

pervisors, and addressing the challenges encountered with OPS

CPD personnel who have been involved in the policy drafting

and the Division’s equipment and technology infrastructure

and revision process have been particularly responsive, thought-

outlined above – work is projected to continue in several other

ful, and collaborative – and able to produce policy materials of

foundational areas.

8

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 10 of 72. PageID #: 826

1. Community and Problem-Oriented Policing
In the coming months, CPD will need to develop and implement a “comprehensive and integrated community and problem-oriented policing model.”14 That model may well require CPD to devote adequate resources and adjust its staffing model to allow community policing to become central to the Division’s structure and operations – with individual officers incentivized to develop community relationships and solve resident problems not as an extra duty conducted in time specifically set aside for community policing but as part of executing the general philosophy and basic approach of CPD.
This process will also necessarily inform further changes to the Decree-required Recruitment and Hiring Plan, which must identify specific strategies for “attracting a diverse group of applicants, including officers who are familiar with the different neighborhoods of Cleveland, who possess strategic thinking and problem-solving skills,” and possess other important capabilities.15 Early drafts of such a plan lacked dynamic, outside-thebox thinking about how to attract such officers or any clear project management structure.
CPD’s Decree-required “comprehensive staffing study to assess the appropriate number of sworn and civilian personnel to perform” CPD’s mission and fulfill the Decree’s requirements will be setting the stage for a discussion of how the Division’s staffing and assignment structure may need to change to allow for successful implementation of a comprehensive community policing model.16
One of the first major tasks related to community policing has been the development of an updated mission statement for CPD.17 After significant input and collaboration from CPC and CPD officers, CPD developed a mission statement that is currently available for public review. The Monitor will soon recommend to the Court whether the statement should be approved. 18
2. Use of Force Inquiries & Review
The manner in which a law enforcement agency evaluates whether an officer’s use of force was consistent with law, policy, and generally-accepted law enforcement practices is best served by a prompt, unbiased, and thorough use of force investigation. An important goal of the Consent Decree is to ensure that all uses of force administered by CPD officers are, after being promptly and uniformly reported, meaningfully examined and reviewed.
14 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 27. 15 Id. ¶ 304. 16 Id. ¶ 319. 17 Id ¶ 27; Dkt. 43-1 at 3–4. 18 More information on ways to provide feedback on the mission statement and other substantive reform measures can be found at the Monitoring Team’s website at www.clevelandpolicemonitor. com.

Work is underway on the policies relating to the review of force incidents, with types of administrative responses necessary varying according to the general severity of the force employed.
Likewise, CPD will be crafting policies and procedures related to supervisory review of completed force inquiries. Part of this process will entail the establishment of a new Force Review Board (“FRB”). Intended “to serve as a quality control mechanism for uses of force and force investigations,” FRB will “appraise use of force incidents from a tactics, training, policy, and agency improvement perspective.”19
3. Bias-Free Policing
The City and United States agreed that CPD would implement a host of reforms to ensure that the Division “deliver[s] police services . . . that . . . are equitable, respectful, and free of unlawful bias, in a manner that promotes broad community engagement and confidence . . . . ”20 The goal of the bias-free policing policies is to ensure policing and law enforcement outcomes that are as free from the effects of all bias, whether express or implicit, to the greatest extent possible. CPC provided recommendations on Bias-Free Policing Recommendations in March and were the culmination of a number of community meetings across Cleveland. A bias-free policing policy is slated to be finalized in October 2016 and officer training approved by the Court by early March 2017.
About the Remainder of the Report
During the Monitor’s initial reports, as CPD begins work in earnest on a number of areas, much more will be left either partially or yet to be addressed than has been sufficiently reduced to approved policy, the subject of adequate training, or implemented for an adequate period so as to allow the Monitor to assess whether a policy or process requirement is being carried out dayto-day throughout the Department and across Cleveland. As such, although this report addresses all substantive provisions of the Consent Decree and summarizes CPD’s progress to date in complying with them, the report is structured around the major sections and sub-sections of the Decree21 rather than inventorying progress in each and every provision and sub-requirement.
Accordingly, those looking for a report card, ratings, percentages, scales, or other similar over-simplifications will not find them here. Instead, appropriate to the current, early stage of Consent Decree implementation, the remainder of this report aims to describe the progress made to date, challenges outstanding, and future expectations with respect to CPD and the City’s compliance with the Decree.
19 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 124. 20 Id. ¶ 35. 21 See id. at i-iv.

9

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 11 of 72. PageID #: 827
A NOTE FROM THE MONITOR
The Consent Decree does not refer to the names of individuals who must implement it. Instead, it addresses roles, entities, and structures. This is because the Decree is aimed at long-term, systemic reforms that will leave Cleveland with structures and processes to ensure constitutional policing regardless of who happens to be in positions of leadership in CPD, the City, or the community at any given moment – and long after the Consent Decree is done. Accordingly, the Cleveland Police Monitoring Team’s First Semiannual Report on the status of Consent Decree implementation generally refers to the positions, entities, organizations, and institutions that are tasked with driving progress rather than referencing particular individuals. It does, however, name specific actors when their work or performance is particularly tied to the substantive areas described. Organizations and entities are, however, made up of people. The personalities, specific skills, or unique dedication of individuals doing the hard work of structural change will drive the quality and nature of progress over time. In our work so far, we have been grateful to have received the sustained commitment of Mayor Frank Jackson. The Mayor and I have spoken regularly about substantive reform issues. He remains deeply engaged in the day-to-day, week-to-week efforts of the Division and City on implementing the Decree. His dedication to ensuring that the Consent Decree can reset the relationship between the police and the community it serves has set a clear tone – a tone that has paved the way for the Division and City to work on substantive reforms without the extended periods of resistance or indifference that have inaugurated Consent Decree efforts in other cities. Chief Calvin Williams has been similarly dedicated and engaged since the beginning of the Consent Decree process. From inviting us to address his command staff on the day that we were appointed to inviting me to join him in welcoming the class of CPD recruits currently concluding their academy training, we have deeply appreciated the Chief’s genuine commitment to collaboration and getting everyone to roll up their sleeves and work toward fulfilling the Decree’s requirements. His able leads on Consent Decree implementation,
10

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 12 of 72. PageID #: 828
Deputy Chief Joellen O’Neill and Commander Brian Heffernan, have gone out of their way to ensure that the Monitoring Team has received what we have needed during our first several months on the job – from cooperation and information to office space and IDs providing easy access to CPD buildings. Retired Judge Greg White’s continued public service as the coordinator of compliance across City functions has likewise benefited the process.
As this report details more specifically elsewhere, the Monitoring Team has spent significant amounts of time in CPD’s districts and in the field with police officers. At least three Monitoring Team members have been assigned to each of CPD’s five district as primary liaisons to the Team. We are endeavoring to develop ongoing relationships with the rank-and-file and command staff alike so that the Team develops a detailed view of the challenges, opportunities, risks, and rewards of being a CPD officer. We sincerely thank the many officers who have candidly shared their views, frustrations, and concerns – whether about the Division, the City, the Consent Decree process, or us – and who have placed their confidence and trust in us to oversee changes that keep them safe, help them keep the community safe, and allow them to form the kind of deep, enduring ties with Cleveland’s communities that nearly all officers with whom we have spoken have said that they want.
We also thank the leadership of CPD’s various police officer organizations for their willingness to work with us and to engage in the process outlined in the First-Year Monitoring Plan. Steve Loomis, head of the Cleveland Police Patrolmen’s Association; Brian Betley, President of Fraternal Order of Police Lodge Number Eight; Cesar Herrera, head of the Hispanic Police Officer Association of Cleveland; and Lynn Hampton, head of Cleveland’s Black Shield Police Association have all actively encouraged their members to participate in the various mechanisms in place not only to interact directly with the Monitoring Team but also with the Division’s command staff as the Division’s leadership ask for feedback, comments, and views on proposed changes to policies and processes. The Monitoring Team greatly appreciates the open lines of communication that have been established with each of these organizations and their members.
Elsewhere, for the City of Cleveland, City Council President Kevin Kelley and Councilman Matt Zone, Chair of the Council’s Safety Committee, have provided strong support to all Consent Decree stakeholders. Director of Law Barbara Langhenry and her Chief Counsel, Gary Singletary, have remained deeply engaged in the reform process. Their deep understanding of Cleveland, the Consent Decree, and CPD contributed significantly to the swift completion of the comprehensive, 66-page project plan that the Court approved as the First-Year Monitoring Plan in early February 2016. Blaine Griffin has helpfully assisted the Consent Decree process in driving greater and sustained community participation as substantive reform has started in earnest since the approval of that Monitoring Plan.
The United States retains an active role as the specific requirements of the First-Year Monitoring Plan and Consent Decree are being implemented. Lawyers from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Cleveland and Civil Rights Division in Washington, D.C. been remained readily responsive to their obligation to provide substantive feedback and input to the City and Division as work proceeds across a host of areas. In particular, acting U.S. Attorney Carole Rendon has remained significantly engaged in the reform process since assuming that role from former U.S. Attorney Steven Dettelbach, for whom we have great respect and appreciation.
We also appreciate the contributions of the Community Police Commission (“CPC”) and its volunteer commissioners. As only the second body of its kind established pursuant to a Consent Decree in the country, the group has needed to spend substantial amounts of time early on determining to fulfill its mission. The workload has been substantial
11

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 13 of 72. PageID #: 829
as the group has established itself and begun the work of gathering community input on core issues such as use of force and bias-free policing. In particular, we thank the Commission’s three initial co-chairs – Dr. Rhonda Williams, Mario Clopton, and Dean Craig M. Boise (who resigned from his appointment in April 2016 in connection with being named Dean of Syracuse University’s College of Law) – for their significant contributions to the Commission and Consent Decree process to date. While there have been periodic frustrations and disagreements in the Commission’s early days, and while elements of its operations are a work in progress, we appreciate the Commission’s commitment since February to providing high-quality work product outlining the concerns, interests, values, and experiences of various elements of Cleveland’s diverse communities with respect to the police.
Indeed, nothing in the description of the good working relationships that have been established between and among various Consent Decree stakeholders should be read to suggest anything other than that the work under the Consent Decree remains very much a work in progress. There have already been some challenging conversations, extended debates, and frustrations expressed in areas of both substance and process among Consent Decree stakeholders. We not only suspect that this will continue but, to at least some extent, hope that it will. Differences of opinion, passion, and professional tension can all be good things so long as all involved continue to listen to one another and remain focused on the objectives and requirements of the Decree. The Monitoring Team is gratified that, to date, primary Consent Decree stakeholders have committed themselves to coming together, around a common agenda, and directly addressing a sometimes challenging web of interests, experiences, and views.
Finally, we are immensely appreciative of the contributions and investment of the Cleveland community – neighborhood residents who have participated in District Policing Committee meetings, individuals who have attended a CPC town hall or public forum, organizations and individuals who have met and shared their experiences with the Monitoring Team, and the many residents who have already participated in City-wide community feedback efforts or emailed the Cleveland Police Monitoring Team. The Parties and the Monitoring Team, via the First-Year Monitoring Plan, have pledged to involve the community substantively and intensively throughout the reform process. We thank the individuals and organizations who have participated to date.
To the extent that the Consent Decree must drive policing “consistent with community values,” all stakeholders – including the Court and the Monitor – need to know what those values involve. As the process continues to address a host of changes to policing in Cleveland, we urge all of Cleveland’s residents to become involved directly in the reform process – by sending an email, participating in an online feedback process from time to time, attending a CPC or District Policing Committee meeting, becoming involved in one of the Monitoring Team’s study groups , or otherwise. As Cleveland develops a new, shared vision of policing going forward, we appreciate the investment made to date by many within the community – and encourage residents from across Cleveland’s diverse communities to have their say as that new vision begins to develop.
***
Since being appointed in October 2016, there have been some additions to the Monitoring Team, as well as a change in personnel. Maggie Goodrich, Chief Information Officer for the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), is working with the Team on issues related to technology, equipment, and resources – and doing so in addition to her full-time, significant responsibilities with that police department. Victor Ruiz, the Executive Director of Esperanza in Cleveland, has joined the Monitor’s Community Engagement Team with a focus on engaging Cleveland’s Hispanic and Latino communities. Finally, the New
12

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 14 of 72. PageID #: 830
York University School of Law Policing Project serves as consultant to the Monitoring Team. Professor Barry Friedman, one of the nation’s leading constitutional and Fourth Amendment scholars as well as reporter to the American Law Institute’s Principles of Law: Police Investigations project, and Maria Ponomarenko, a distinguished constitutional and criminal procedure legal scholar, are helping on a host of projects that support the Team’s ongoing monitoring work. We are also fortunate that NYU is detailing Nonny Onyekweli to the Cleveland monitoring effort beginning in August 2016.
In December 2015, our original Deputy Monitor, Chief Noble Wray (ret.) departed the Team to accept a position with the Community Oriented Policing Services (“COPS”) Office of the U.S. Department of Justice. The Team is grateful for his important initial contributions. We are, and Cleveland is, fortunate to have, as Chief Wray’s replacement, Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey (ret.). Commissioner Ramsey served as the head of the Philadelphia Police Department until January 2016 and the Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department in Washington, D.C. from 1998 to 2006. Previously, he was a Deputy Superintendent at the Chicago Police Department. In January 2015, President Obama named Commissioner Ramsey as the co-chair of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. Commissioner Ramsey is participating across all aspects of our oversight and technical assistance.
With the addition of Commissioner Ramsey as Deputy Monitor, the Team now consists of 19 Team members or consultants from both Cleveland and around the country. Team members have spent significant amounts of time on the ground in Cleveland, working with Consent Decree stakeholders, meeting with Cleveland residents and community organizations, and spending time with CPD personnel in its districts. The Monitoring Team maintains two primary offices: an office within CPD headquarters to facilitate discussion with CPD personnel and to access CPD data systems, as well as a community office at Lutheran Metropolitan Ministries at East 45th Street and Superior Avenue. We are appreciative of Lutheran Ministries’ ongoing generosity and support.
I continue to have the incredibly good fortune of working with a Monitoring Team of unparalleled expertise and dedication. This report represents the collective view, and hard work, of that Team. The report is also detailed. Substantive and enduring change happens in details, not sound bites. This report summarizes an early, important stage in the systemic reform process that the Consent Decree requires.
Matthew Barge Monitor
June 2, 2016
13

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 15 of 72. PageID #: 831

THE ROLE OF THE MONITOR & THIS REPORT
A. The Role of the Monitor & Other Stakeholders
The agreement between the United States and City of Cleveland (the “Parties”) involving various reforms to the Cleveland Division of Police (“CPD,” “CDP,”22 “Division of Police,” or the “Division”) takes the form of a consent decree.23 The Consent Decree (also referred to as the “Decree”) binds not only the Division of Police but the entire City of Cleveland including all City depart-
22 The Consent Decree refers to the Cleveland Division of Police as “CDP.” Our understanding is that Division personnel refer to themselves as “CPD.” Accordingly, this report refers to the Division as “CDP.” 23 The name of the document is a Settlement Agreement. The Parties moved the Court to approve the Agreement as a Consent Decree, in part “because voluntary compliance through a negotiated resolution and entry of a consent decree is more likely to accomplish agreed upon goals than will orders imposed at the end of bitter and protracted litigation.” See Dkt. 3 at 4, available at https://www.justice.gov/file/441411/download. Since the announcement of the agreement between the United States and the City, Cleveland residents and media have more typically referred to it as a Consent Decree rather than a Settlement Agreement. See, e.g., Henry J. Gomez, “Cleveland Consent Decree Provides Blueprint for Long-Elusive Police Reforms: The Big Story,” Cleveland Plain Dealer (May 27, 2015), http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/05/cleveland_consent_decree_provi.html; About Us, Cleveland Community Police Commission, http://www. clecpc.org/about-us (last visited May 24, 2016) (preamble referencing Consent Decree); Paul Orlousky, “Former Federal Judge to Coordinate Cleveland Consent Decree,” Cleveland19.com (Apr. 1, 2016), http://www.cleveland19.com/story/31621886/ former-federal-judge-to-coordinate-cleveland-consent-decree (referring to agreement as “federally mandated consent decree”).
14

ments, the City Council, and the Mayor’s Office. Although a vast majority of the specific requirements most directly implicate CPD, the City as a whole remains the entity that must ensure compliance with the Decree’s requirements.
The U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) concluded its investigation of the actions, policies, and procedures of the CPD in December 2014.24 The DOJ maintains an active role in the implementation of the Consent Decree as a party to the litigation and with an ongoing, statutory enforcement obligation.
The Parties selected Matthew Barge and the Police Assessment Resource Center (“PARC”) to serve as an “Independent Monitor who will assess and report on whether the requirements of the Consent Decree have been implemented, and whether this implementation is resulting in constitutional and effective policing, professional treatment of individuals, and increased community trust of CPD.”25 The Court appointed the Monitor and the Cleveland Police Monitoring Team (the “Monitoring Team”) on October 1, 2015.
The Monitor and Monitoring Team are “agent[s] of the Court” who are “subject to the supervision and orders of the Court.”26 Accordingly, the Monitor is not an employee, contractor, or any other type of agent of the City of Cleveland. Likewise, the Monitor is not an employee, contractor, or any other type of agent of the Department of Justice. Instead, the Monitor is an independent actor, working on behalf of the Court, to oversee, monitor, and assess implementation of the Consent Decree. The Monitor works for the Court – not the City and not the DOJ.
In short, the Monitoring Team serves as the eyes and ears of the Court, with “a legal duty to act solely in [the Court’s] interests.”27 Significantly, this arrangement – with a Court and a Monitor overseeing implementation of reforms until they are substantially and effectively implemented – is different from Cleveland’s prior experiences with police reform.28
24 See Letter from Vanita Gupta and Steven Dettlebach to Mayor Frank Jackson on the DOJ’s Investigation of Cleveland Division of Police (Dec. 14, 2014) https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/ files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2014/12/04/cleveland_division_of_police_findings_letter.pdf. 25 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 350. 26 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 351. 27 Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute, Fiduciary Duty, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fiduciary_duty (last visited Apr. 22, 2016). 28 See Letter from Shanetta Y. Cutlar to Subodh Chandra, et al, Re: Agreement to Conclude DOJ’s Investigation of the Cleveland Division of Police’s Use of Deadly Force (Feb. 9, 2004), available at https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/ legacy/2010/12/15/cleveland_uof_final.pdf. Specifically, the memorandum of understanding executed between the City of Cleveland and the Department of Justice in 2004 contained suggested police reforms but there was never a formal consent de-

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 16 of 72. PageID #: 832

B. What the Monitoring Team Does29

A further, important component of the Monitoring Team’s role

as facilitator involves the Monitoring Team’s ongoing, sustained,

The Monitoring Team plays many different roles. One role is that

and intensive community engagement. In this role, the Monitor-

of arbiter. The Consent Decree directs the Monitor to “assess

ing Team organizes and leads meetings, summits, discussions,

and report whether the requirements of this Agreement have

and educational forums throughout Cleveland aimed toward

been implemented, and whether this implementation is result-

involving the Cleveland community in key aspects reform. This

ing in constitutional and effective policing, professional treat-

report elsewhere describes in greater detail the Team’s specific

ment of individuals, and increased community trust of CDP.”30

efforts to involve the Cleveland community directly and sub-

This means that the Monitor reviews, provides feedback on, and

stantively in the reform process.32

ultimately recommends approval or disapproval to the Court of

changes in policy, training, procedure, and other practices within

Some have inquired as to why the Monitoring Team is spending

the Division of Police. It also means that the Monitor must up-

time and effort engaging with the community when the Con-

date the Court and public on the current status of reform overall

sent Decree is about the police. The reason is that the Consent

at defined intervals.

Decree is built around “ensuring that police services in Cleve-

land” are, among other things, “consistent with community val-

In this role, the Monitor will not hesitate to praise the City and Division of Police when promising progress has been made. Nor

ues” and promote the emergence of “a strong community-police relationship.”33 To determine whether various substantive

will it hesitate to inventory areas in which progress is insufficient

reforms support and promote those community-focused goals,

or too slow. The job of the Monitoring Team is to fully and fairly

the Monitoring Team needs to ensure both that it has an ongoing

assess the nature, scope, and progress of reform and to report its

understanding of the values, concerns, experiences, and inter-

assessments to the Court and to the public.

ests of the Cleveland community in all of its forms and that the

community is actively and substantively involved in the details of

A second role is that of technical advisor. The Cleveland Police

reform, from the ground up.

Monitoring Team’s goal is for the Division of Police to benefit

from the decades of law enforcement, monitoring, and organi-

Relatedly, some have wondered why the Monitoring Team must

zational change experience of the

engage in community outreach when

Team’s members. As the Division The Monitor plays many different roles, including the Consent Decree charges the new-

crafts new policies and revamps those of arbiter, technical advisor, and facilitator. ly-created Community Police Com-

particular practices, the Monitoring

mission (“CPC”) with “work[ing]

Team will, wherever possible, pro-

with the many communities that

vide information about best practices, discuss what has worked

make up Cleveland for the purpose of developing recommenda-

and not worked well in other cities to address similar issues, and make expectations clear from the beginning. It is hoped that this

tions . . . that reflect an understanding of the values and priorities of Cleveland residents.”34 The Court and Monitor are invested

granular, day-to-day, hands-on involvement will make reform

in ensuring that the CPC succeeds in fulfilling the tasks assigned

faster, better, more efficient, and more effective.

to it by the Consent Decree. However, the Monitoring Team has

an independent obligation to ensure that the community is in-

Another role of the Monitoring Team is that of facilitator. The

volved in the process of reform itself so that all residents, orga-

Consent Decree involves a host of interrelated reforms. To en-

nizations, and stakeholders who want to be involved and make

sure that all stakeholders, from within the Division and across

their voices heard can adequately do so. Thus, the Monitor’s on-

the Cleveland community, are heard and can participate in the

going community engagement is not redundant to CPC’s work

Consent Decree process, the Monitoring Team works with the

nor inconsistent with that work. Instead, it is aimed at ensuring

City, Division, DOJ, and Court to provide a framework and pro-

that the community has access not merely to one Consent De-

cess for implementing the Decree. The Court-approved First-

cree stakeholder, in the form of CPC, but to the process and the

Year Monitoring Plan (the “Monitoring Plan”), discussed in fur-

Court more generally.

ther detail below, is one of many significant ways, to date, that

the Monitoring Team has served as facilitator.31

It is also worth emphasizing what the Monitor and his Team

do not do. For one thing, the Team does not have the author-

ity, jurisdiction, or ability to take specific actions on particular

cree or any oversight by the federal court.
29 Some elements of this discussion are adapted from material previously published on the Monitoring Team’s website. See About Us, Cleveland Police Monitoring Team, http://www.clevelandpolicemonitor.net/about/ (last visited May 26, 2016).

cases, incidents, or allegations of officer misconduct. The Team cannot bring criminal charges against either citizens or police officers, as it is not a substitute for local prosecutors. Likewise, the Team cannot intervene directly in ongoing employment or disciplinary issues within the Division, as it is not a substitute for

30 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 350.

32 See infra 19-22.

31 See Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 369 (setting forth requirements for monitoring

33 Dkt. 7-1 at 1.

plan).

34 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 15(b).

15

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 17 of 72. PageID #: 833

the disciplinary process or an override to the decisions of the Di-

ed to provide a clear, unified structure and framework for the

vision, City, or arbitrators in specific cases.

day-to-day and week-to-week efforts that stakeholders from

across the Cleveland community need to undertake to ensure

Similarly, the Monitor and his Team do not substitute for the Division of Police or Department of Public Safety. Operational

that the Consent Decree is implemented” according to the Decree’s objectives.36 The goal of CPD, the Parties, and the Moni-

decisions, planning, and ensuring accountability remain in the

toring Team in constructing the First-Year Monitoring Plan was

hands of CPD and the City. Although the Team is available to

to get all stakeholders – including CPD officers and the com-

give technical assistance on any areas of interest to CPD during

munity – on the same page with respect to what areas or issues

the pendency of our monitoring, neither the Monitor nor the

would be addressed by when.

Court run the Division.

Covering the period of February 1, 2016 to January 31, 2017, the

The Monitoring Team is charged with assessing whether the Division is effectively implementing the overall, systemic chang-

Monitoring Plan takes the form “partially [of] a project implementation plan and partially [of] an agenda.”37 The Consent

es to how it functions that are required by the Consent Decree.

Decree’s major requirements or objectives are broken down into

The Team is overseeing the long-term reforms required by the Consent Decree so that, in the future, policing in Cleveland is ef-

a series of key results or milestones to an identified stakeholder for completion by express deadlines.38 The First-Year Plan aims

fective, safe, constitutional, and consistent with the values of the

to make clear to any interested resident or stakeholder precisely

community. In doing so, the duty of the Monitor in this report is to summarize to the Court and public precisely where CPD

what changes can be expected when. The Court approved the Plan on February 4, 2016.39

is – over time, across issue areas, and in light of all of the Consent

Decree’s obligations – on the road to reform.

The Monitoring Plan sought to “set[] aggressive but realistic

C. About the First-Year Monitoring Plan, the Nature of Progress, and Compliance Under the Consent Decree

goals, deadlines, and milestones for complying with the requirements” of the Consent Decree, but it also provides mechanisms for the Parties and Monitor to make “adjustments to certain timelines [when] necessary” to reflect changed circumstances or operational realities.40 It should also be noted that the Plan

During our first several months in Cleveland, one issue that has

has formally changed some of the original, specific timeline ref-

arisen relates to exactly what progress and compliance under

erences in the Consent Decree – including various requirements

the Consent Decree might entail or look like. More specifically,

for some provisions to be accomplished within a specific number

some have suggested, from time to time, that the Monitor or the

of days – such that the Consent Decree has been revised to con-

Court need to become involved on a specific area or in a given

form to the timetables required by the Monitoring Plan.

incident because CPD does not yet appear to be functioning in

the way described by the Consent Decree. That is, some have

The First-Year Monitoring Plan has set the agenda for priori-

demanded action when it has appeared that CPD is not yet com-

tizing and structuring what CPD must do first or most urgent-

plying with a particular requirement of the Consent Decree.

ly given real-world operational considerations. Therefore, the

Monitor and Court will, for the foreseeable future, be primar-

The Consent Decree, however, outlines a comprehensive set

ily enforcing the deadlines for key milestones and deliverables

of substantial, systemic reforms that require, in almost all in-

set forth in the Monitoring Plan. Only after a reformed policy,

stances, a period of time for the City and CPD to address, get

process, curriculum, or the like has been completed by CPD; ap-

right, and fully implement. However, even good-faith attempts

proved by the Court; been the subject of adequate training for

to do everything that is required under the Consent Decree si-

CPD personnel; and implemented for a sufficient period of time

multaneously and without a sound project management struc-

will a given element of the Decree fully become reality. In short,

ture would only ensure that little is accomplished at the level of quality, and with the level of stakeholder and community engagement, that the Consent Decree requires. The Team recognizes that “if well-intentioned

The First-Year Monitoring Plan has set the agenda for prioritizing and structuring what CPD must do first or most urgently given real-world operational considerations.

the Consent Decree operates more like a roadmap to reform rather than an “on/off” switch.
Some residents have asked the Monitoring Team why the Cleveland com-

stakeholders address disparate elements of the Consent Decree

munity needs to “wait” in order to see the required changes fully

at different junctures, it will be far less possible for major chang-

implemented. The Team recognizes some of the frustrations

es to be implemented as effectively, efficiently, and with the in-

volvement of all important stakeholders” as is necessary to comply with the Decree’s requirements.35

36 Id. 37 Id.

Accordingly, the Decree-required Monitoring Plan was “intend-

38 Id. at 2–3. 39 Dkt. 44.

35 Dkt. 43 at 2.

40 Dkt. 43 at 1; Dkt. 51.

16

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 18 of 72. PageID #: 834

that it has heard from community members who wonder why

January 2016. (See “A Note on the Republican National Conven-

the Court or Monitor cannot simply unilaterally dictate or impose all of the new policies, processes, and training on CPD at one time.

tion.”) The early stages of a Consent Decree have been time-intensive for all cities that have implemented them, but Cleveland has faced the unique challenge of needing to balance the early

days of reform with preparation for a major national security

Change imposed from outside CPD would not give rise to mean-

event of the size and scope that the city does not hold in a typical

ingful, lasting reform. However, the

period.

Parties agreed to a reform process overseen and assisted by the Court and Monitor but ultimately implemented by the City and CPD itself in dynamic partnership with the Cleveland community.41 Such systemic and cultural change may, from

In light of the Monitoring Team’s evaluation of progress, as reflected in this report, the Parties and Monitoring Team are in the process of identiying additional revisions to the Monitoring Plan that will allow CPD to build on the progress to date in light of external dynamics that have arisen.

The process of reform is hard work. Real-world issues, pragmatic considerations, and operational realities will require adjustments, from time to time, of the timetables and deadlines set forth in the Monitoring Plan.

time to time, be perceived as “taking

The Monitor does not consider such

longer” than something externally imposed. Indeed, the Con-

adjustments or revisions problematic if it is clear that Consent

sent Decree contemplates that the process of implementing its reforms will potentially take several years42 – in part because it is the City, CPD, and City of Cleveland that need to be the primary drivers and owners of real change. Ultimately, neither the

Decree implementation is proceeding in good faith, with appropriate urgency, and in a manner that focuses on high-quality solutions.

Monitoring Team nor the court own the reform process. CPD

As work on the Consent Decree continues, the Parties and

and the City of Cleveland are responsible for meeting deadlines with high-quality deliverables consistent with the Consent Decree; neither the Court and Monitor nor Department of Justice

Monitoring Team will need to continuously adapt or adjust the Monitoring Plan to real-world circumstances and operational realities. Indeed, “it is inevitable that unanticipated events

and any other entity controls the delivery of progress. It is, and will remain, the CPD and the City, in all of its forms, that will dictate the pace, nature, and long-term success of substantially

will occur in projects,” including “technical issues,” “external events,” and performance-related issues.43 Decree stakeholders will, accordingly, need to “balance[e] formality and flexibility,”

and effectively implementing the Decree’s many requirements.

which “allows for creativity, adaptation to undefined situations,

To date, the City and CPD must be commended for producing deliverables – such as drafts of policies, plans, or training – by

and continuous improvement, while maintaining a clearly stated set of standards, procedures, and guidelines that promote best practices.”44

the Court-ordered deadlines of the First-Year Monitoring Plan.

However, some of CPD and the City’s initial work product or deliverables responding to specific deadlines did not reflect the level of quality, comprehensiveness, or rigor necessary. Indeed,

In a few instances to date, the Court has already approved minor, recommended adjustments to the Monitoring Plan at the request of the Monitoring Team and Parties.45 In light of the

a number of conversations among the Parties and Monitor have

Monitoring Team’s evaluation of progress, as reflected in this

focused on basic project management strategies and skills rather than substantive reform requirements – leading initial feedback to focus on how the City and CPD should approach thinking

report, the Parties and Monitoring Team are in the process of identifying additional revisions of the Monitoring Plan that will allow CPD to build on the progress to date in light of external

about structuring major reforms rather than talking about the

dynamics that have arisen. The Monitor will, as always, keep the

nature or substance of those Decree requirements. Ultimately, some deadlines that the City and CPD originally proposed in some areas turned out to err too far on the side of speed and ambition, with deliverables needing more revision and discussion in most instances than initially contemplated.

Court and public informed as to any contemplated adjustments.
43 Franco Caron, Managing the Continuum: Certainty, Uncertainty, Unpredictability in Large Engineering Projects 30 (2013). 44 George Pitagorsky, The Zen Approach to Project Management

Further, significant City and CPD capacity has necessarily needed to be focused on planning and preparations for the Republican National Convention (the “RNC” or “Convention”) – with the circumstances surrounding the event substantially evolving since the Monitoring Plan was discussed in December 2015 and

236 (2007); accord Mohan V. Tatikonda & Stephen R. Rosenthal, “Successful Execution of Product Development Projects: Balancing Firmness and Flexibility in the Innovation Process,” 18 J. Operations Mgmt. 401, 402 (2000) (“A recurring, problematic challenge [project management] practitioners face[] [i]s what we call ‘balancing firmness and flexibility’ in project execution”; Jurg

41 See Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 351 (“The Monitor will not, and is not intended

Kuster, et al, Project Management Handbook 115 (2015) (“Bureau-

to, replace or assume the role and duties of any CDP employee,

cracy should not destroy project management’s flexibility. How

including the Chief . . . [T]he Chief of CDP maintains the authority

any problems that occur are discussed and resolved in a manner

to oversee the operations of the CDP.”).

that is appropriate to the situation is actually more important.”).

42 Id. ¶ 355 (appointing Monitor for “period of five years”).

45 Dkt. 53, 59.

17

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 19 of 72. PageID #: 835

A Note on the Republican National Convention
In July 2016, Cleveland will host the Republican National Convention. In any year, this would be a significant national security event. The state, of the current political contest that will culminate in Cleveland has increased the attention on planning and preparations for the Convention.
Because, again, the Monitor is an agent of the Court, the Monitoring Team is not running the Division’s or the City’s planning for the RNC. Indeed, preparations for the event commenced long before the Team’s oversight began. The Monitor’s role will remain the monitoring and assessment of the Division’s compliance with the Consent Decree over time.
As the remainder of this report makes clear, almost all of the Consent Decree’s requirements will take time to be fully implemented. Since the Court approved the consensus Monitoring Plan in February, work has begun on changes to core use of force policies, officer training, internal procedures, and day-to-day processes. However, much of this work will still be in progress when the RNC comes to Cleveland. Although the requirements to police constitutionally never change, and the Consent Decree remains in place during the Convention, the timing of that event means that work on a host of major reforms still will be either in progress or yet to come in mid-July.
Law enforcement experts will note that crowd management environments can be particularly challenging for any police department. As Deputy Monitor Charles Ramsey knows from his time as the Chief of Police in Washington, D.C. – an area necessarily accustomed to handling large-scale national security events – such large events pose unique operational realities even among departments that routinely handle them.
During the Convention, the Monitor and members of the Team will be on the ground in Cleveland. To the extent that any events may require, the Team will monitor any situations that might unfold that implicate the use of force, internal and citizen’s complaint investigations, bias-free policing, supervision, or other Consent Decree issues. As noted above, however, the Monitor cannot and does not, under the terms of the Decree, comment on pending investigations or independently evaluate claims of officer misconduct in real-time.

transforming the Office of Professional Standards, and the related Police Review Board, into a high-functioning investigatory agency. As always, the Monitoring Team will update the Court and the public on proposed updates to the Monitoring Plan.
D. About This Report
The Monitor must “file with the Court, every six months, written, public reports.” Generally, the reports must “descri[be] . . . the work conducted by the Monitor during” the period covered by the report and outline “which [Consent Decree] requirements have been incorporated into policy [and] actual practice.”
During the Monitor’s initial reports, as CPD begins work in earnest on a number of areas, much more will be left either partially or yet to be addressed than has been sufficiently reduced to approved policy, the subject of adequate training, or implemented for an adequate period so as to allow the Monitor to assess whether a policy or process requirement is being carried out day-to-day throughout the Department and across Cleveland. As such, although this report will address all substantive provisions of the Consent Decree and summarizes CPD’s progress to date in complying with them, the report is structured around the major sections and sub-sections of the Decree rather than inventorying progress in each and every provision and sub-requirement.
Accordingly, those looking for a report card, ratings, percentages, scales, or other similar over-simplifications will not find them here. Instead, appropriate to the current, early stage of Consent Decree implementation, this report aims to describe – in substantive, real-world terms and in a format intentionally designed to look and feel unlike a typical Court document – the progress made to date, challenges outstanding, and future expectations with respect to CPD and the City’s compliance with the Decree.

Even pending more detailed discussions, it appears likely that efforts in the latter half of the year will focus more exclusively on policies and training relating to use of force; the creation of a community and problem-oriented policing model, and related issues of staffing and recruitment and hiring processes; and
18

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 20 of 72. PageID #: 836

substantively and continually from the city’s diverse communities about proposed new ways of policing in Cleveland. Under the First-Year Monitoring Plan, this happens both early in the process – when the Community Police Commission and Division of Police gather views, values, experiences, and expectations from the community that inform the initial drafting of new policies and processes – and later on, when the Monitor works with stakeholders to get real, direct, and substantive feedback about specific reform proposals. Accordingly, this section also addresses the Monitoring Team’s community engagement efforts.

A. Community Police Commission

COMMUNTIY ENGAGEMENT & BUILDING TRUST

The Parties have acknowledged the “importance of community input into the way police services are delivered.”48 The Cleveland Community Police Commission (“CPC” or the “Commission”) is an important mechanism created through the Decree “to promote public trust and confidence in the CDP” and to “facilitate ongoing communication between CDP and the many Cleveland communities it serves.”49 The CPC is mandated “to make recommendations to the Chief of Police and the City, including the Mayor and the City Council” based on the “values and priorities of Cleveland residents.”50 In this way, CPC is intended to serve as a conduit between the Consent Decree reform process and Cleveland’s diverse communities.

The Mayor appointed the CPC’s thirteen volunteer commis-

sioners on September 8, 2015. Ten of those individuals were

The goal of the Consent Decree, as set forth in its first paragraph,

selected to represent the many diverse segments of Cleveland ci-

is “ensuring that police services in Cleveland are delivered in a

vilian communities, and another three commissioners received

manner that is constitutional, effec-

appointments to serve as representa-

tive and consistent with community values, while preserving officer and

That the Community Police Commission has

tives from three CPD unions.

public safety” with the additional acknowledgement that – in order to do so – “the Cleveland Division of Police and the Cleveland community must have a strong relationship that is built

sometimes engaged in extended discussions or heated debates about what to do, how to accomplish its work, or what recommendations to make are signs of strength and progress, not impotence or dysfunction.

Like any new organization, the first several months of the CPC’s existence required it to determine how it should operate, function, and structure itself in order to accomplish its

on mutual trust and respect.”46

duties. That the Commission has

To that end, the first substantive section of the Consent Decree seeks to promote enhanced “community engagement and trust” through two, specific “formal mechanisms . . . that facilitate ongoing communication between CDP and the many Cleveland communities it serves.”47 This section addresses the City’s progress to date on those two mechanisms: the Community Police Commission (“CPC”) and the District Policing Committees.

sometimes engaged in extended discussions or heated debates about what to do, how to accomplish its work, or what recommendations to make to Consent Decree stakeholders on a given subject are signs of strength and progress, not impotence or dysfunction. The Commission is intended to be a forum where individuals with different backgrounds, experiences, and views come together to talk about creating a new, shared vision of policing in Cleveland.

An important task of the Monitoring Team is to ensure that any proposed policy not only meets the particular requirements spelled out in the decree but also promotes the larger goals of safe, effective, and constitutional policing consistent with Cleveland’s values. To gauge whether reforms are consistent with the values of Cleveland residents, the Monitoring Team must hear
46 Dkt. 7-1 at. 1. 47 Id. ¶ 14.

Put differently, the Monitor would be skeptical if the Commission did not experience some growing pains, take some time to figure out how to operate, or engage in sometimes intense debates. The Monitoring Team only observes that the Commission must perpetually strive to create an environment at its
48 Id. 49 Id. 50 Id. ¶ 15.

19

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 21 of 72. PageID #: 837

meetings where members of the public, CPD, and commission-

Office of Professional Responsibility (“OPS”) Manual, and job

ers can disagree, with passion, with one another where warrant-

descriptions for an eventual Inspector General and civilian head

ed while ensuring that the tone remains respectful and promotes

of Internal Affairs. CPC has also provided extremely helpful

participants listening to views that may be different than their

feedback on the First-Year Monitoring Plan and biennial com-

own. The Monitoring Team has previously suggested to the

munity survey. Although the Monitoring Team is continuing to

Commission that it make use of outside moderators to help

review the group’s specific recommendations as work proceeds

commissioners lead public dialogue and structure community

in many of these areas, the Monitor has been significantly im-

discussion in a way that promotes this kind of participation and

pressed by the thoughtfulness and quality of the Commission’s

forward-looking conversation. The recent use of such modera-

work product and its commitment to hearing from the com-

tors has enhanced the quality of CPC meetings.

munity. Indeed, the final, written work product of the CPC ad-

dressing force, bias-free policing, and CPD’s mission statement

The Commission must also continually challenge itself to find

has been – along with the work of the Mental Health Advisory

ways of attracting an ever-broader cross-section of the commu-

Committee52 – at a very high level of quality.

nity to its meetings. It must remain committed to outreach to

Cleveland residents of all views, backgrounds, experiences, affili-

The CPC meets with other stakeholders – including the Chief,

ations, and walks of life in order to be the forward-looking prob-

City Law, the City’s Community Relations Board, CPD’s Con-

lem-solving venue that it must aspire to be.

sent Decree Implementation Unit, the Department of Justice,

and the Monitoring Team – in a monthly meeting required by

Because the Consent Decree process necessarily prioritizes

the Consent Decree. The CPC and the Chief of Police have ex-

community input and participation in reform, CPC has been

pressed a desire to cement a relationship grounded in collabora-

tasked with working through a host of important topics to date.

tion, trust, and problem-solving. The Monitoring Team will re-

This, in turn, has required a significant investment from the

main committed to providing whatever support and assistance

Commission’s volunteer commissioners. The Monitoring Team

is necessary to ensure that those desires become a reality.

is grateful to the commissioners for their investments, and it

understands the significance of their time commitments. To en-

B. District Policing Committees

sure that the Cleveland community yields the best and broadest

returns from the commissioners’ investments, the Monitoring

In an effort “to facilitate regular communication and coopera-

Team has recommended that CPC consider hiring an organiza-

tion between CDP and community leaders at the local level,” the

tional consultant to provide assistance with helping the all-vol-

Consent Decree also calls for the expansion – building on exist-

unteer group to ensure that its processes and approach allow it

ing structures – of five District Policing Committees, or one for

fulfill its priorities and mission. The

each of the five police districts within

Monitor understands that CPC has been allocated funds to hire an Executive Director and staff support, which also promises to assist the Commission in coordinating and structuring its work.

The Commission must continually challenge itself to find ways of attracting an ever-broader crosssection of the community to its meetings – so that it can be the forward-looking problem-solving venue that it must aspire to be.

the city of Cleveland.53 Those Committees are tasked with working in cooperation with the City of Cleveland Community Relations Board, the CPC, and the CDP to “identify strategies to address crime and safety

issues in their District.”54

The CPC has generally held two full commission meetings, one

town hall, and several committee and/or “work group” meet-

Initial discussions between the Monitoring Team and the City’s

ings per month. With the exception of one policy-related work

Community Relations Board have taken place regarding the

group, CPC meetings have been open to the public and con-

timeline for ensuring expansion of the District Policing Com-

vened at various locations in the Cleveland community. The

mittees. In the next six months, the Monitor will be looking to

Monitoring Team has recommended that CPC consider, from

ensure that the Committees are fulfilling their obligations to

time to time, taking fuller advantage of meetings held just among

“present . . . identified strategies, concerns and recommenda-

commissioners themselves so that more discussion, dialogue,

tions to the [Community Police] Commission” and each Com-

and collaboration can take place in person rather than through

mittee’s officer member “present[s] to the Commission CDP’s

electronic communications.51

assessment of ways to address, and barriers to, implementing

the strategies, concerns and recommendations of the Commit-

As a result of diligent work over the last seven months, CPC has

tee.”55

completed a number of in-depth reports addressing CPD’s mis-

sion statement, use of force policy, bias-free policing policy, the

51 As advisors to the Chief of Police, the Commission is not subject to laws related to open meetings. Commissioners may, then, choose whether or not any particular meeting is well-suited to be a public meeting.

52 See infra 38-43. 53 Dkt. 7-1 ¶¶ 23-24. 54 Id. ¶ 25. 55 Id. ¶ 26.

20

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 22 of 72. PageID #: 838

C. The Monitoring Team’s Community Engagement & Outreach

Examples of Monitoring Team Engagement

The Consent Decree calls for the robust, intensive, substantive and sustained engagement of the community throughout the implementation process. The Monitoring Team has committed to an aggressive community outreach initiative that maximizes the substantive involvement of as many Cleveland residents as want to become involved in the conversation on how policing should look in Cleveland going forward. Consequently, the Team’s dayto-day efforts have been geared toward ensuring that reform is not something that happens in a downtown conference room and is imposed on Cleveland residents and CPD officers but, instead, happens in partnership with the community.
To date, this robust effort has included in-person face-to-face meetings with civil rights organizations, faith communities, public and private legal institutions, Cleveland Police Officer Associations, public housing residents, persons who are homeless, individuals returning from incarceration, gang members, college students, fraternities and sororities, members of the LGBTQ community, young people and high schoolers, government officials, and social service agencies.
As of early May 2016, well over 100 community groups have been directly engaged by the Monitoring Team. In our conversations, we have learned about the experiences, expectations, values, interests, and concerns that individuals from all walks of like and backgrounds have with respect to law enforcement generally and the CPD specifically. The report presents a non-exhaustive list of examples of the types of individuals and organizations who have become directly engaged and involved in the monitoring process.
The Monitoring Team has also conducted public forums to discuss general monitoring issues, as well as to receive feedback on the First-Year Monitoring Plan when it was in draft form in late 2015 and early 2016. The Team has entered into an ongoing partnership with the Cleveland Public Library, which is making available to patrons reproduced copies of the Consent Decree, 2014 Department of Justice Findings Letter, the First-Year Monitoring Plan, and proposed draft policies on which the Consent Decree process will be seeking public input and participation in the coming months.
To expand community involvement and foster informed feedback to the Division of Police, Monitor, Court, and other Consent Decree stakeholders, the Monitor’s Engagement Team is organizing community “study groups” across the Cleveland community. These study groups will consist of three to six individuals from a particular organization (i.e., a church, social club, agency, fraternity, sorority, public housing location, or the like) who will meet regularly to review the Monitoring Plan, study the Settlement Agreement, review proposed policies and training coming out of the Consent Decree process, and work on developing recommendations – all under the organization of the

Civil Rights Organizations 			 Anti-Defamation League				 American Civil Liberty Union (ACLU)		 Partnership for a Safer Cleveland			 Council on American Islamic Relations Collaborative for a Safe & Just Cleveland NAACP Urban League of Greater Cleveland LGBT Community Center of Greater Cleveland National Alliance for the Mentally Ill
Faith Communities Olivet Baptist Church The Word Church Greater Cleveland Congregation LGBT Ministries of Cleveland Northeast Ohio Faith-Based Collaborative United Black Pastors Association
Youth Groups 				 MyComm					 Cleveland Youth Leadership (The 110)		 Youth Solutions Congress				 CMSD Investment Schools Site Coordinators\ Schubert Center for Youth Studies High Tech Academy, Cuyahoga Community College Boys and Girls Club members
Crime & Safety Organizations Peace in the Hood The Peace Alliance Black on Black Crime Society for Nonviolent Change Black Man’s Army Association
Hispanic and Latino Organizations Hispanic Roundtable Spanish American Committee Hispanic Police Officer Association Northeast Ohio Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
Community & Family Support Organizations Neighborhood Connections Fatherhood Initiative Neighborhood Leadership Institute 100 Black Men Life Exchange Center Cleveland Neighborhood Progress Cleveland Foundation Gund Foundation Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority (CMHA) Cleveland Public Library
Monitoring Team.
In its engagement, the Monitoring Team has encountered some distinct “schools of thought” surrounding the implementation

21

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 23 of 72. PageID #: 839
of the Consent Decree and about the possibility for real reform. Some believe that better relationships can exist between and police and community and that the Consent Decree can be a way to achieve such relationships. Others are skeptical. They want to see improved relationships between the community and the police but past, failed attempts at reform leave them somewhat dubious at the potential for meaningful, sustained change. Yet others believe that the Consent Decree constitutes little more than “business as usual” – that a different relationship between the police and community is necessary but that, ultimately, the dynamics are unlikely to change. A final group appear to take a “wait and see” approach – wanting an improved relationship between law enforcement and residents but are “on the fence” and not yet willing to become engaged with the process.
A common factor across all these schools, as well as among individuals who believe that reform is not necessary or that the Consent Decree is not a necessary exercise, is that all seem to want a relationship between the community and police that helps make Cleveland the best place to live and work that it can be.
This Monitoring Team’s commitment is, and will remain, to in-depth, sustained engagement with the community geared toward having individual residents participate directly and substantively in the reform process. Another pledge of the Monitor and the Engagement Team is inclusiveness. Some community groups are experienced, poised, and ready to participate in substantive conversations surrounding the implementation of the consent decree. Those groups tend to attend public meetings, complete surveys, and track news regarding CPD the Consent Decree. Such groups are, and will remain, an asset to the process.
There are also those residents who do not have the time, ability, resources, or incentive to engage with the process, attend public meetings, or track details regarding reform. To this end, the Team has facilitated outreach meetings in homeless shelters, at public housing estates, in local community rooms for residents with physical impairments that prevented them from traveling, in substance abuse treatment facilities to get and included the opinions of residents housed there, in reentry communities where returning citizens gather. These voices must be included in the implementation process if the Consent Decree is to be successful.
Finally, the Monitoring Team observes that its definition of “community” squarely includes the Division of Police. As this report details elsewhere, the Monitoring Team continues to work closely with CPD, the various police officer unions and organizations, and command staff to foster direct, open dialogue between rank-and-file patrol officers and Consent Decree stakeholders.
22

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 24 of 72. PageID #: 840

COMMUNTIY & PROBLEM-ORIENTED POLICING
The Consent Decree requires that CPD develop and implement a “comprehensive and integrated community and problem-oriented policing model.”56 This section refers to policing according to this model as “community policing.”
Community policing blends two key concepts. The first is that effective law enforcement requires problem-solving in active partnership with the community. The second is that this partnership requires a respectful and trusting relationship between the police and community.
The Consent Decree requires that CPD implement a number of fundamental reforms related to community policing, including:
• “[E]nsur[ing] that its mission statement reflects its commitment to community oriented policing”57;
• “[E]nsur[ing] that its officers are familiar with the geographic areas they serve . . . and engage in problem identification and solving activities with the community . . . ”58
• “[P]rovid[ing] initial and annual in-service community and problem-oriented policing training,” to include problem solving with the community, as well as concepts such as leadership and communication; procedural justice; conflict resolution and verbal de-escalation; and cultural competency sensitivity training”59;
56 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 27. 57 Id. ¶ 28. 58 Id. ¶ 29. 59 Id. ¶ 30.

• “[M]aintain[ing] collaborative relationships with a broad spectrum of community groups”60;
• “[C]ontinu[ing] to meet with members of the community in each District on a monthly basis” and “actively solicit[ing] participation from a broad cross-section of community members in each District”61;
• “[D]eveloping and implementing systems to monitor officer outreach to the community”62; and
• “Analyze” the quality and nature of its, and officer’s community policing efforts, “broken out by District, in a publicly available community policing report”63.
CPD is in the very early stages of its efforts with regard to the community policing requirements of the Consent Decree. Still, many community members and CPD personnel have asked members of the Monitoring Team for details on how the adoption of a new approach to “community policing” may be expected to impact CPD and the City of Cleveland in the months and years to come. Accordingly, this section addresses the major features of “a comprehensive and integrated community and problem-oriented policing model”– and what the Monitoring Team will be looking for in the future as it assesses the CPD’s efforts in this area.
A. What Community Policing Is64
As the Monitoring Team works with Consent Decree stakeholders on the CPD’s development and implementation of a community policing strategy, the Monitoring Team’s expectations will be informed by established conclusions found in academic research and the documented experiences of police agencies and practitioners in the real world – including many members of the Monitoring Team itself.65
60 Id. ¶ 31. 61 Id. ¶ 32. 62 Id. ¶ 33. 63 Id. ¶ 33–34. 64 Some elements of this discussion are adapted or condensed from a framework that multiple members of the Cleveland Police Monitoring Team have provided to other jurisdictions. 65 Among others, Deputy Monitor Chuck Ramsey implemented a widely-cited model of community policing in Chicago, the Chicago Alternative Policing Strategy (“CAPS”) in the 1990s, as Deputy Superintendent before serving as Commissioner of the Philadelphia Police Department and Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department in Washington, D.C. Chief Joseph Brann was appointed by President Bill Clinton to establish the Department of Justice’s Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office. Dr. Ellen Scrivner served as Deputy Director of the COPS Office. Brian Center was centrally involved in the development and implementation of a comprehensive, community-based anti-gang strategy in partnership with the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) in South Los Angeles.
23

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 25 of 72. PageID #: 841

That is not to say that the Monitor will dictate the specifics of community policing in Cleveland. Efforts to build effective policing in partnership with the community must come both from

B. Key Features of Community Policing This section briefly outlines a number of foundational tenets

within the CPD and the community. A new policing model must

that should guide the discussion about what community policing

be created to fit the unique experience and history of Cleveland, as well as the diversity of views and experiences among its residents.

should look like going forward. We consider these concepts to be a framework. As such, they are not a checklist of specific tasks or requirements independent of the Consent Decree. Rather,

they are provided to set some basic

However, the Monitoring Team will CPD is in the very early stages of its efforts with expectations about the features gen-

require that CPD explain, to all Con- regard to the Consent Decree’s requirement that it erally associated with a community

sent Decree stakeholders and the implement a comprehensive, integrated community policing program that is truly com-

Cleveland community, the reasons and problem-oriented policing model.

prehensive and integrated across all

for the various elements of an updat-

aspects of CPD’s operations. To the

ed policing model. Determinations

extent that elements of CPD’s work

of what a comprehensive policing strategy entails should be

to date have addressed some of these particular features, the sec-

grounded in what we know works or, otherwise, be accompanied

tion discusses them briefly here.

by well-reasoned justifications for exploring untested practices.

Institutional Features

The issue of what constitutes community policing has, from

time to time, “suffered from conceptual confusion in research and practice.”66 Nevertheless, there is a large body of work that provides a solid definition of community policing. The COPS Office of the Department of Justice currently defines communi-

The factors referred to here as “institutional considerations” focus on what the Division does as a whole, organizationally, to achieve its goals around community policing. Transforming any large organization is challenging, and it takes a disciplined atten-

ty policing as:

tion to detail to ensure that all components of the organization

[A] philosophy that promotes organizational strat-

work together.

egies that support the systematic use of partner-

1. CPD Must Have Both a Mission Statement & Strategic

ships and problem-solving techniques to proac-

Plan That Reflect a Comprehensive Commitment to

tively address the immediate conditions that give

Community Policing.

rise to public safety issues such as crime, social disorder, and fear of crime.67

“Successful institutionalization of community policing is likely

Core features of community policing include the following:

only if it is included as part of the adopting organization’s mission,” especially if accompanied by a “set of core values.”69 It is the Monitoring Team’s experience that successful organizations

(1) It should be the standard operating method of

put their goals in writing and communicate clearly with their

policing, not an occasional special project; (2) it should be practiced by personnel throughout the

staff about how to reach those goals.

ranks . . . ; (3) it should be empirical, in the sense

One of the first major tasks under the First-Year Monitoring

that decisions are made on the basis of information that is gathered systematically; (4) it should involve, whenever possible, collaboration between police and other agencies and institutions;

Plan was the required development of an updated mission statement for CPD.70 As part of this process, CPD, in partnership with CPPA, FOP, and other police officer organizations, publicized an online questionnaire for officers to provide direct input.

and (5) it should incorporate, wherever possible,

Some 133 officers took part. An overwhelming point of feedback

community input and participation, so that it is the community’s problems that are addressed (not just the police department’s) and so that the

from officers, as well as union leadership, was that the mission statement should be short, concise, and clear. CPC engaged in a similar feedback process, yielding more than 120 responses,

community shares in the responsibility for its own protection.68
66 A. Gerasimos Gianakis, et al, “Reinventing or repackaging pub-

in addition to addressing the mission statement in regular open CPC meetings. Generally, community respondents believed the CPD’s former mission statement was, while well-written, less measurable, attainable, and clear than it could be.

lic services? The case of community-oriented policing,” 58 Pub.

Admin. Rev. 485 (1998).

5 Police Forum 1, 5 (1995)).

67 COPS Office, U.S. Dept. of Justice, “Community Policing De-

69 E.J. Williams, “Structuring in Community Policing: Institution-

fined” at 1 (2014), available at http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/

alizing Innovative Change,” 4 Police Practice & Research 119, 124

vetsto-cops/e030917193-CP-Defined.pdf.

(2003).

68 Gary W. Cordner, “Community Policing: Elements and Effects,”

70 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 27; Dkt. 43-1 at 3–4.

24

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 26 of 72. PageID #: 842

On January 6, CPPA submitted to CPD and the Monitoring Team a draft mission statement that, in part, signaled a strong commitment to CPD’s “PRIDE” values (Professionalism, Respect, Integrity, Dedication, and Excellence). On March 22, CPD submitted to the Parties and Monitor a first draft mission statement. DOJ and the Monitoring Team provided comments indicating that the submitted statement constituted a good start but that the Division should work to make it simpler, clearer, action-oriented, and values-focused. The Monitoring Team provided CPD with an extensive primer on mission statements that discussed the important elements of good mission statements from both the corporate and law enforcement worlds.
CPD revised the statement, submitting a new draft during the week of April 11. Subsequently, the Monitor provided a mission statement primer and CPD heard a number of presentations by experts provided at a CPC meeting. CPD made additional changes, submitting another version of the statement on April 18. CPC issued a written report of its work on CPD’s mission on May 10, 2016.
The period for community review and input on CPD’s new, proposed mission statement will conclude on June 10. After CPD, the Parties, and Monitoring Team review and address the community’s feedback, the Monitor will recommend to the Court whether the mission should be approved as consistent with the Consent Decree. The Monitoring Team thanks those Cleveland residents who have provided input – and urge those who have not yet given feedback to do so.71
2. CPD Must Embrace a Geographic and Problem-Solving Focus.
A primary indicator of successful community policing is a department’s tailoring of policing strategies to fit the needs of specific neighborhoods.72 Accordingly, part of the Monitoring Team’s future assessments will look at whether CPD has strategies in place Division-wide geared toward the challenges and circumstances of specific neighborhoods.
3. Adequate Resources Must Be Devoted to Community Policing.
Adequate funding, as well as the effective use of resources, is
71 More information on ways to provide feedback on the mission statement and other substantive reform measures can be found at the Monitoring Team’s website at www.clevelandpolicemonitor. com. 72 See, e.g., Cordner, supra note 71 at 2–3 (“Community policing emphasizes the geographic basis of assignment and responsibility by shifting the fundamental unit of patrol accountability from time of day to place.”); Wesley G. Skogan, “Representing the Community in Community Policing,” in Community Policing: Can It Work 58 (2003) (noting importance of “adopt[ion of] a decentralized turf orientation by reorganizing patrol work around small geographical areas . . . . ”).

important to the successful adoption of community-oriented policing.73 Whatever community policing strategy or plan is ultimately adopted by CPD and approved by the Court, the successful implementation of the plan will depend on the extent to which the Division and its officers benefit from the support necessary to meaningfully implement it.
4. Community Policing Must Be Central to Organizational Structure and Operations.
An issue in any organization attempting to adopt community policing “is whether . . . attitudinal and behavioral changes at the police officer level will be supported by structural changes in the police organization.”74 Sustained, structural change contrasts with “police agencies [that would] implement tangential and symbolic elements of community policing at the fringes of the organization, without actually producing changes in the technical core (where the primary work is accomplished).”75 Indeed, over the years, some police departments have tried to create stand-alone units to engage in community policing, but this strategy has consistently failed.
Therefore, the Monitoring Team will be looking see if the entire Division, including specialty units, are part of the community policing strategy and if the philosophy guides day-to-day, shiftto-shift priorities and approaches. The recent appointment of Commander Johnny Johnson to serve as the commander of CPD’s Bureau of Community Policing76 is an early, positive signal that CPD can embrace a vision of community policing in which community collaboration is how officers operate minute-to minute – and consists of far more than events, programs, or time specifically set aside for officers to “do” community policing before returning to their “normal” law enforcement activities. The Monitoring Team looks forward to working closely with Commander Johnson in driving the active embrace of community policing as the general philosophy and basic approach of the Division.
5. The Division Must Use Performance Measures that Reflect Community Policing Principles.
73 See, e.g., Gianakis, supra note 69 at 485 (1998) (funding was highest- ranked operational problem associated with adoption of community-oriented policing); Allison T. Chappell, “The Philosophical Versus Actual Adoption of Community Policing: A Case Study,” 34 Crim. Justice Rev. 5, 17 (2009) (most important measure may not be about the overall monetary commitment so much as the effective use of resources). 74 Gianakis, supra note 69. 75 Edward R. Maguire & Stephen D. Mastrofski, “Patterns of Community Policing in the United States,” 3 Police Quarterly 4, 5 (2000). 76 See Ryllie Danylko, “Cleveland Appoints Commander of Community Policing Bureau,” Cleveland Plain Dealer (Apr. 11, 2016), http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2016/04/cleveland_appoints_commander_o.html.

25

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 27 of 72. PageID #: 843

Historically, “[w]ithin both formal and formal police cultures,

ployment possibilities available and evaluate them based on the

crime solving and criminal apprehension are more valued than

needs and resources of Cleveland.

crime prevention,” with an officer “more likely to be commend-

ed for arresting a bank robber than for initiating actions that

8. CPD Must Actively Promote the Visibility of Officers and

prevent such robberies.”77 This approach has become increas-

Its Activities in a Transparent Manner.

ingly disfavored, with greater recognition that officers must be

incentivized according to clear performance metrics aligned

How the Department communicates its strategies, efforts and

with an organization’s overall strategic and operational goals. As

accomplishments can be important in building community

a new community policing model is implemented and embraced,

confidence and partnership.83 Indeed, community knowledge

a proven track record of productive and proactive community

about what CPD is doing or how the Division is responding in

policing must be prerequisites for advancement, and the stan-

particular incidents can lead to a greater sense that the Division

dard mode of operation, within the Division. The Monitoring

is willing to establish an authentic two-way relationship – pro-

Team will be looking to work closely with Consent Decree stake-

viding the public with ongoing, real information about policing

holders to ensure the implementation of performance measures

in Cleveland, whether good, bad, or otherwise. The Monitoring

and metrics that promote and sustain a new community policing

Team will be looking to see how CPD actively communicates

approach.78

with community members about what they are doing in specific

areas and how they keep the community engaged.

6. CPD Must Provide Training that Incorporates Com-

munity Policing Values and

Officer-Based Features

Objectives.
Training will be a crucial component of implementing a new community policing vision. Studies have found that, “[c]ompared to those who did not receive training, officers who attended the [community-oriented po-

The Monitor will not dictate the specifics of community policing in Cleveland. A new policing model must fit the unique experience and history of Cleveland. However, that strategy should be grounded in what we know works or, otherwise, be accompanied by well-reasoned justifications for exploring untested practices.

Other features of community policing that will be considered by CPD relate to how individual officers are utilized. These include:

1.

Officers Should Be

Assigned to Specific, Appropriate-

licing] training strongly and signifi-

ly-Sized Beats.

cantly agree[d] to adopt and practice” such policing.79 Indeed,

attempting to practice community police without providing

Researchers have generally found that patrol officers should be

sufficient, high-quality training can be minimally or counter-pro-

assigned to the same areas for extended periods of time to in-

ductive.80 After a new community policing model is finalized,

crease their familiarity with the community – and the commu-

the Monitoring Team will work with CPD and other stakehold-

nity’s familiarity with them.84 Thus, CPD will need to re-eval-

ers on the Consent Decree-required, comprehensive communi-

uate how patrol officers are utilized, including how officers are

ty policing training.81

staffed, assigned, and whether a sufficient number are assigned

to fixed shifts, and to defined beats that are organized along nat-

7. The Division Should Explore and Implement, as Appro-

ural neighborhood and community boundaries, for appropriate

priate, Alternatives to Motorized Patrol.

lengths of time. The Monitoring Team will look forward to dis-

cussing CPD’s staffing models, and its assignment process, to en-

Successful community policing frequently involves the imple-

sure that officer beats are well-sized and that the Division allows

mentation of alternatives and/or supplements to motorized

its officers the time, incentives, and resources to develop authen-

patrol – such as bike patrols, store front or neighborhood-based

tic community relationships as a part of day-to-day policing.

offices or stations, mobile offices or stations, or foot patrols.82

The Monitoring Team will be looking to see whether the City

2. Officers Must Spend Sufficient Time Doing Community

and CPD closely and thoroughly consider the array of officer de-

Engagement and Problem Solving.

77 Cordner, supra note 71 at 3; accord Chappel, supra note 76 at 10. 78 See Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 33. 79 Sutham Cheurprakobkit, “Community policing: Training, definitions and policy implications,” 25 Policing 709, 720 (2002). 80 P.C. Kratcoski & S.B. Noonan, “An assessment of police officers’ acceptance of community policing,” in P.C. Kratcoski & D. Dukes (eds.), Issues in Community Policing 169 (1995). 81 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 30. 82 Cordner, supra note 71 at 4.
26

83 Skogan, supra note 75 at 312.
84 See Cordner, supra note 71 at 2–3 (summarizing importance of long-term assignments to defined beats); M. K. Sparrow, National Institute of Justice, “Implementing Community Policing: Research in Brief,” (1988) (indicating that, with respect to community policing, “[a]gencies that assign fixed shifts and beats generally enjoy a higher success rate. Long-term and/or permanent shift assignment—the ultimate forms of decentralization—allow officers to learn more about people, places, issues, and problems within neighborhoods”).

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 28 of 72. PageID #: 844

A sustained philosophical and logistical challenge that depart-

ing Team will review the quality and consistency of those efforts,

ments face when implementing a community policing model is

as it must under the terms of the Consent Decree.88

ensuring that officers have sufficient time and ability to engage

with the community and in problem-solving activity. Depart-

2. Residents Must Provide Input on Substantive Policing Is-

ments too often believe “that responding to calls for service

sues, and the Department Must Respond to Such Input.

leaves them with too little time to practice community polic-

ing.”85

Community engagement and partnerships are only useful, in

the long-term, when they provide mechanisms for residents

The Monitoring Team commits to providing technical assistance

to provide specific input and feedback on substantive policing

to CPD and Consent Decree stakeholders on reimagining the in-

concerns. Likewise, the input that a police agency gathers from

vestments of its resources to ensure that officers can have the

the community is meaningful to the extent that the agency en-

time and resources necessary to spend time engaging in proac-

gages with and responds to such input – even if, ultimately, the

tive, problem-solving activities.

response is to indicate that particular suggestions or ideas are

not feasible, counter-productive, or inconsistent with what the

3. Officers and Supervisors Must Make Ongoing, Active

Division believes it must do.

Use of Real-Time Information and Data.

The First-Year Monitoring Plan builds into the reform process

The effective use of accurate data is critical to effective problem

mechanisms for sustained, intensive community involvement.

solving. The appropriate use of objective data and information

CPC is charged with collecting the “concerns, experiences, val-

“helps police identify and analyze community problems” while

ues, and issues related to” any of a number of topics “from across

also “assist[ing] them in police program assessment.”86 Accord-

Cleveland’s diverse communities” and preparing “a single, writ-

ingly, the Division’s long-term challenges with information tech-

ten document that fairly and accurately summarizes community

nology, discussed in detail elsewhere in this report, fundamen-

input received.”89 This summary of input is provided to CPD,

tally impact its ability to engage in comprehensive, integrated

along with similar feedback from CPD officers and their organi-

community policing – which uses real-world evidence and data

zations, prior to CPD’s work beginning in earnest on draft poli-

dynamically and creatively to address crime and community is-

cies, trainings, and other reforms responsive to the Decree. Later

sues.

in the process, when CPD or the City have produced a Proposed

Final Draft that adequately incorporates, where appropriate,

Community-Based Features

stakeholder input and comment, the Monitor, “working wher-

ever possible with CPD, will engage in an affirmative, intensive

Authentic community policing can

effort to obtain CPC, community,

increase the public’s confidence in, One of the first major tasks under the First-Year officer, and other stakeholder input

and cooperation with, the police be- Monitoring Plan was the required development of and comment” on a proposed final

cause it entails an ongoing, true part- an updated mission statement for CPD.
nership between law enforcement

draft of the policy, training, or other change at issue.90 This provides a

and the public.

further opportunity for the reform

process to be shaped directly by the input, comment, and partic-

1. The Division Must Maintain and Optimize a Range of

ipation of the community.

Community Partnerships.

As progress is made under the Decree, however, CPD will need

Successful community policing requires agencies to facilitate

to ensure, through its community and problem-oriented polic-

and promote a wide range of community partnerships – includ-

ing model, that the precedent being set by reform under the De-

ing with other law enforcement agencies, other components of

cree is not an aberration but a commitment to community inclu-

the criminal justice system, government agencies, non-profits

sion and involvement.91

that serve the community, the local media, and residents. Suc-

cessful partnerships entail a police department systematically

3. Residents Must Be Involved with Law Enforcement and

participating in, organizing, or promoting community-based

Crime Prevention.

crime prevention and social service initiatives.87 The Monitor-

85 Chappell, supra note 76 at 17–18 (summarizing Glensor, R. W.,

Because the Consent Decree touches on numerous aspects of

& Peak, K., “Implementing change: Community-oriented policing and problem solving,” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 65(7) at 14-21

88 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 367(d); accord id. ¶¶ 31, 32.

(1995)).

89 See, e.g., Dkt. 43-1 at 3–4 (outlining process for work on re-

86 Cheurprakobkit, supra note 82 at 712 (2002); see Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 34. 87 See U.S. Department of Justice, Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office, Community Policing Self-Assessment

vised CPD mission statement, which reflects basic process used through much of First-Year Monitoring Plan). 90 See, e.g., id.

Tool 6 (2001).

91 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 33.

27

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 29 of 72. PageID #: 845

CPD’s core functions – from how officers are hired, fired, pro-

vulnerable communities, have a significant impact on reducing

moted, and disciplined and the equipment and resources avail-

overall confidence in police. This report elsewhere describes

able for them to use to the way that the Division aligns its op-

the Monitoring Team’s efforts, as part of the Decree’s require-

erations and management with a community-focused approach

ment that the Monitor “conduct a reliable, comprehensive, and

– the Decree’s reforms are part and parcel of further enhancing

representative survey of members of the Cleveland community

the quality of CPD’s law enforcement and “crime fighting” ef-

regarding their experiences with and perceptions of CDP and of

forts. A significant role of the police-community partnership

public safety,”96 to track trends in the quality of interactions that

must be geared toward building avenues in which residents be-

residents report with respect to CPD. Likewise, the required re-

come ever more involved with crime prevention and other law

forms to OPS will necessarily influence overall public confidence

enforcement objectives. “To be effective in lowering crime and

and trust in the police to the extent that it provides a trusted out-

creating secure communities, the police must be able to elic-

let to address those encounters where citizens felt mistreated.

it cooperation from community residents.”92 Therefore, the

Monitoring Team will be evaluat-

ing, throughout the Decree process, the mechanisms that CPD has, puts in place, or enhances to engage the community as direct law enforcement partners.

The Monitoring Team will be looking to see if the entire CPD are part of the community policing strategy and if the philosophy guides day-to-day priorities and approaches – rather than consisting only of events, programs, or time specifically set

aside for officers to “do” community policing.
4. CPD Should Explore Ways

of Ensuring the Visibility of

Police Across Cleveland’s Communities.

Some research indicates that “[r]espondents who recalled spotting police on patrol in their neighborhood recently grew less worried about crime” and, at the same time, had “increased confidence in the police.”93 Indeed, the visibility of police in residents’ neighborhoods may in fact influence opinions of the police to the same extent or more than the quality of interactions between residents and the police.94 Accordingly, as CPD adopts an enhanced community policing model and completes “a comprehensive staffing study to assess the appropriate number of sworn and civilian personnel . . . necessary for CDP to fulfill its mission, and satisfy the requirements of” the Decree95, the Division will need to ensure a staffing system and assignment model that promotes sufficient officer visibility across Cleveland’s neighborhoods.

5. Any Community Policing Model Must Focus on LongTerm Improvements to the Quality of Police Encounters and Enhancing Confidence in Mechanisms Available to Residents to Address Problematic Police Encounters.

One of the most important factors related to successful community policing is the quality of citizen encounters and interactions with the police. Positive encounters increase trust while negative encounters, especially in historically underrepresented or

92 Tom Tyler & Jeffrey Fagan, “Legitimacy and Cooperation: Why Do People Help the Police Fight Crime in Their Communities?,” 6 Ohio St. J. Crim. L. 231, 232 (2008). 93 Skogan, supra note 75 at 312. 94 James Hawdon & John Ryan, “Police-Resident Interactions and Satisfaction with Police: An Empirical Test of Community Policing Assertions,” 14 Crim. Justice Pol’y Rev. 1, 1 (2003). 95 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 319.

96 Id. ¶¶ 361–66.

28

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 30 of 72. PageID #: 846

judges to physicians and teachers100 – appears to have implicit, or subconscious, biases to some extent because:

[The human] brain . . . learns over time how to distinguish different objects (e.g., an apple and an orange) based on features of the objects that coalesce into patterns. These patterns or schemas help the brain process information efficiently – rather than figuring out what an apple is every time it encounters one, the brain automatically recognizes it and understands that it is red, edible, sweet, and juicy . . . .

BIAS-FREE POLICING

These patterns also operate at the social level. Over time, the brain learns to sort people into certain groups (e.g. male or female, young or old) based on combinations of characteristics as well. The problem is when the brain automatically associates certain characteristics with specific groups that are not accurate for all individuals in the group . . . . 101

The City and United States agreed that CPD would implement a host of reforms to ensure that the Division “deliver[s] police services . . . that . . . are equitable, respectful, and free of unlawful bias, in a manner that promotes broad community engagement and confidence . . . . ”97
The Monitoring Team observes here that the use of the term “bias-free policing” can, in some instances, lead to some confusion about expectations going forward. The Monitor assumes that, if asked, any police officer currently employed with CPD would say that they want to treat everyone equally. Social cognition research increasingly confirms that, even among individuals with an express commitment to treating people equally,98 “attitudes or stereotypes . . . [may] affect our understanding, actions, and decisions . . . involuntarily and without an individual’s awareness or intentional control.”99 Indeed, everyone – from lawyers and
97 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 35.
98 Justin D. Levinson, “Forgotten Racial Equality: Implicit Bias, Decisionmaking, and Misremembering,” 57 Duke L.J. 345, 360 (2007) (“[I]mplicit racial attitudes . . . frequently diverge from explicit racial attitudes.”); accord Anthony G. Greenwald & Linda H. Krieger, “Implicit Bias: Scientific Foundations,” 94 Cal. L. Rev. 945 (2006) (defining implicit biases as “biases based on implicit attitudes or implicit stereotypes” that “can produce behavior that diverges from a person’s avowed or endorsed beliefs or principles”).
99 Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity, “State of the Science: Implicit Bias Review 2014” at 16, http://kirwaninstitute.osu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2014-implicit-bias.pdf.

Thus, CPD’s bias-free policing initiatives will need to be geared toward: (1) ensuring a zero-tolerance approach to express, outward, and intentional manifestations of bias by CPD personnel; (2) ensuring policies and processes for identifying instances in which police services may be delivered in a less than impartial manner; and (3) providing officers with education and training on areas such as “problem-oriented policing, procedural justice, . . . recognizing implicit bias,”102 “cultural competency training regarding the histories and cultures of local immigrant and ethnic communities,” 103 and others.104
100 Christine Jolls & Cass R. Sunstein, “The Law of Implicit Bias,” 94 Cal. L. Rev. 969, 975 n.31 (“The legal literature on implicit bias is by now enormous”); Theodore Eisenberg & Sheri Lynn Johnson, “Implicit Racial Attitudes of Death Penalty Lawyers,” 53 DePaul L. Rev. 1539, 1553 (2004) (implicit bias among defense attorneys); Alexander R. Green, et al, “Implicit Bias Among Physicians and its Prediction of Thrombolysis for Black and White Patients,” 22 J. Gen. Internal Med. 1231, 1237 (2007) (“[P]hysicians, like others, may harbor unconscious preferences and stereotypes that influence clinical decisions.”).
101 National Center for State Courts, “Helping Courts Address Implicit Bias: Resources for Education” (2012), http://www.ncsc. org/~/media/Files/PDF/Topics/Gender%20and%20Racial%20Fairness/IB_report_033012.ashx.
102 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 40(b).
103 Id. ¶ 40(f).
104 See President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Final Report at 11 (2015) (“To achieve legitimacy, mitigating implicit bias should be a part of training at all levels of a law enforcement organization to increase awareness and ensure respectful encounters both inside the organization and with communities.”).

29

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 31 of 72. PageID #: 847
The goal, then, of the bias-free policing policies is to ensure policing and law enforcement outcomes that are as free from the effects of all bias to greatest extent possible. Even if cultural and historical realities render it impossible to entirely eliminate the possibility or effects of individual bias, CPD policy and training can provide officers with specific strategies and approaches – backed up by scientific literature and existing real-world training – for attempting to minimize the effects of such bias on officer decision-making.
The first major task under the First-Year Monitoring Plan is the “develop[ment] [of] a bias-free policy that incorporates, as appropriate, . . . recommendations developed” by CPC “and that provides clear guidance to officers that biased policing, including deciding to detain a motorist or pedestrian based solely on racial stereotypes is prohibited.”105
Consistent with the Monitoring Plan, the CPC provided Bias-Free Policing Recommendations on March 7, 2016. Those recommendations were the culmination of approximately seven community meetings devoted to gathering the experiences, viewpoints, and feedback of Cleveland’s communities of color, faith, LGBTQ, and youth, homeless related to bias-free policing. The initial CPC report included specific comments and concerns collected by the CPC Bias-Free Work Group from community members. The report also provided numerous recommendations to the CPD related to its: interaction with citizens of varying backgrounds and demographics; organizational culture; recruitment; training; and, reporting.
As a result of CPC’s considerable efforts to gather the views and feedback from across Cleveland’s diverse communities, the Commission’s initial bias-free policing recommendations were detailed and thorough – and will no doubt prove useful as the Division drafts an initial bias-free policing policy that utilizes “strategies, such as problem-oriented policing, procedural justice, and recognizing implicit bias”106 by June 3, 2016.107 That policy must be finalized by October 14, 2016 and a training developed, and approved by the Court, by March 6, 2017.108
In addition to the revision of policies and initial training on those policies, CPD must provide officers with annual training on bias-free policing; analyze data to “ensure that police services are delivered in a manner free from bias”; and apply bias-free principles to hiring, unit assignments, promotion and performance evaluations.109
105 Dkt 7-1 ¶ 38. 106 Id. ¶¶ 38 – 40. 107 Dkt. 43-1 at 59. 108 Id. at 60. 109 Dkt. 7-1 ¶¶ 42–44.
30

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 32 of 72. PageID #: 848

low the new policy to become effective and implemented across Cleveland as of January 1, 2017. This is an ambitious goal, but it is possible – especially because of the focus that CPD will continue to be investing on preparations for the Republican National Convention in July 2016 – that operational realities or other pragmatic considerations might require adjustments to the timeframe. However, the City and CPD’s ongoing commitment to this aggressive timetable serves as evidence of a commitment to addressing the Consent Decree’s requirements with an appropriate sense of urgency. Work on additional requirements related to force reporting and review has begun and will continue through the remainder of 2016.

USE OF FORCE

This section provides an update on CPD’s progress to date in complying with the Decree’s use-of-force-related provisions and a preview of what CPD officers and Cleveland residents can expect in the months to come.
A. Use of Force Principles & Officer Use of Force Policy

Since the Court ordered it effective in early February 2016112, the

First-Year Monitoring Plan has focused initial work on CPD’s foundational policy governing when officers are authorized to and are prohibited from using force.113 The goal of all Consent

How, when, and under what circumstances CPD officers are authorized to use force, the manner in which they are trained

Decree stakeholders is to provide CPD officers with clear rules of the road regarding when force may and may not be used.

regarding fundamental use of force principles, and how uses of force are documented and subsequently investigated, are at the core of the Consent Decree.110 As the Decree is implemented, CPD must, therefore:
[R]evise, develop, and implement force policies, training, supervision, and accountability systems with the goal of ensuring that force is used in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the requirements of the Agreement and that any use of unreasonable force is promptly identified and responded to appropriately.111

The Consent Decree requires that these revised force policies address a number of “use of force principles,” or global requirements that are applicable “regardless of the type of force, tactics, or weapon used.”114 These requirements are expressly inventoried in the Consent Decree,115 but the various principles relate to some overarching concepts:
Reasonableness. Officers are authorized only to use force that is objectively reasonable.116 Objectively reasonable force is force that is appropriate when analyzed from the perspective of a reasonable officer under all of the circumstances, or in light of all of the factors, that the officer who used force encountered. Objective reasonableness incorporates the idea that officers,

Reform in the area of force is a primary area of focus and work

in the moment that they make split-second decisions in “tense,

throughout the remainder of 2016 and into 2017. The Parties, Monitoring Team, Community Police Commission, and other stakeholders will be working to ensure that the terms and objectives of the Consent Decree are

A major goal for the year is having CPD officers trained on the new use of force policy by December 31, 2016 and the policy subsequently becoming effective on the streets of Cleveland on January 1, 2017.

uncertain, and rapidly evolving” situations,117 do not have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight in the way that others might have after an incident. Nevertheless, it demands that each officer do what a reasonable officer

fully embraced, implemented, and be-

would when encountering the same

come the substantive road map for a reset relationship between the community and the Cleveland community.

112 Dkt. 44.

113 Dkt. 43-1 at 8–9.

The current goal, codified in the First-Year Monitoring Plan, is for CPD to have a new use of force policy in place, and all officers trained on the policy, by December 31, 2016. This will al-
110 See Dkt. 7-1 ¶¶ 45–130.

114 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 46. 115 Id. ¶ 46. 116 See generally Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (describing basic contours of “objective reasonableness”).

111 Id. ¶ 45.

117 Id. at 397–98.

31

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 33 of 72. PageID #: 849

situation.
Necessity. Necessity refers to the idea that officers should use force only when required under the circumstances or in the absence of reasonably effective alternatives.118

tion techniques may include verbal persuasion and warnings and tactical de-escalation techniques, such as slowing down the pace of an incident, waiting out subjects, creating distance (and thus the reactionary gap) between the officer and the threat, and requesting additional resources . . . . ”121

Proportionality. The concept that force should be proportional means that force should roughly correspond to, be commensurate with, or reflect the totality of circumstances surrounding the situation, including the presence of imminent danger to officers or others. The more immediate the threat and the more likely that the threat will result in death or serious physical injury, the greater the level of force that may be objectively reasonable and necessary to counter it. The concept does not require that officers use the same type or amount of force as the subject. 119
De-escalation. De-escalation refers to officers using strategies, tactics, and techniques – when safe and feasible to do so – aimed at reducing the need or likelihood for force to be used. It does not mean that officers have to retreat or avoid using force when confronted with a safety threat. Instead, the requirement to de-escalate asks officers to use proactive approaches to resolve issues in a way that might avoid or reduce force.120 “De-escala-
118 See, e.g., Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 45 (“force polices . . . will be designed with the goal of ensuring that officers . . . use force only when necessary”); ¶ 46(c) (“[I]f force becomes necessary, officers will be limited to using only the amount of force objectively reasonable as necessary to control the person.”); ¶ 46(e) (requiring prohibition against officers using force against handcuffed subjects “unless it is objectively reasonable and necessary under the circumstances to stop an assault, escape, or as necessary to fulfill other law enforcement objectives”); ¶ 46(f) (“[O]fficers will not use force against persons who only verbally confront them and do not impede a legitimate law enforcement function”); ¶ 46(g) (prohibiting “use of retaliatory force”); ¶ 46(i) (“. . . . [O]fficers will not be use force to subdue an individual who is not suspected of any criminal conduct”); ¶ 46(l) (“CDP will continue to limit vehicle pursuits to those in which the need to capture the suspect outweighs the danger to the public”); ¶ 61 (“Officers will use” tasers “only where . . . such force is necessary to protect the officer, the subject, or another party from immediate physical harm, and lesser means would be ineffective or have been tried and failed”).
119 See, e.g., id. ¶ 46(c) (“. . . [O]fficers will be limited to using only the amount of force objectively reasonable as necessary to control the person.”); ¶ 46(d) (“[I]n applying force ,officers will reduce the level of force as the threat diminishes”); ¶ 46(e) (general prohibition against use of force against handcuffed or restrained subjects); ¶ 46(f) (prohibition against use of force against subjects “who only verbally confront” officers); ¶ 46(i) (prohibition on applying force “to subdue an individual who is not suspected of any criminal conduct”).
120 See, e.g., id. ¶ 46(a) (“[O]fficers will allow individuals the opportunity to submit to arrest before force is used whenever possible.”); ¶ 46(b) (“[O]fficers will use de-escalation techniques whenever possible and appropriate, before resorting to force and to reduce

Consistent with and building from the basic principles, the Decree also requires policies providing officers with specific guidance on using various force instruments or weapons.122
Work on the revised use of force policies began with CPC “collect[ing] the concerns, experiences, values, and issues” of community members “related to the use of force policy . . . from across Cleveland’s diverse communities into a single, written document” summarizing community input that it received.123 Specifically, CPC held a number of meetings addressing use of force, including:
• A full CPC meeting on the topic (February 24, 2016)
• A March 9 town hall (March 9, 2016) • Special meetings regarding use of force with:
• A focus group from Black Shield • A focus group of Cuyahoga Metropolitan
Housing Authority (“CMHA”) residents • A focus group with members of 100 Black
Men • Meetings and discussions with clergy • Discussions at meetings and with members
of the Mental Health Advisory Committee • Force-related discussions that occurred organi-
cally during forums more directly geared toward bias-free policing (including meetings seeking to engage the Muslim and LGBTQ communities)
Additionally, the CPC fielded a “Use of Force Questionnaire” to get feedback from Cleveland residents. Community organizations provided comments and input directly to the Commission, as well, including Showing Up for Racial Justice (SURJ), Strategies for Youth, and the Schubert Center for Child Studies at Case Western Reserve University.
The Commission adopted a number of recommendations that stemmed from and incorporated the input that it received. These recommendations were summarized in a list of premises provided to Consent Decree stakeholders:
• Incorporate a number of critical elements of model Use of Force Policies in statement in practice – including “life preservation” as “cornerstone[]” of
the need for force.”); ¶ 46(d) (“ . . . [O]fficers will reduce the level of force as the threat diminishes”). 121 Id. ¶ 46(b). 122 Id. ¶¶ 54–83. 123 Dkt. 43-1 at 8.

32

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 34 of 72. PageID #: 850

a use of force policy, emphasizing concepts such as de-escalation, and ensuring that officers have a duty to intervene to stop excessive force; • Developing a force policy that, at minimum, adopts an approach somewhere between a purely “permissive” and “restrictive” approach to using force; • Focusing on providing “updated, state-of-theart training that focuses on de-escalation, decision-making, and accountability”; • Ensuring that force policies are “align[ed] with community values and expectations” and recent work in the field of policing; and • Ensuring that force policies are connected with a clear sense of how officers are held accountable for adhering to policy requirements.124
The City of Cleveland’s Community Relations Board also fielded an informal, non-scientific feedback survey on use of force issues in which a total of 1,092 residents provided responses in some format. Key findings of that input initiative included:
• A relatively low number of Cleveland residents (about one-third said that the City of Cleveland’s police are fair when using force. Residents indicated that CPD’s use of de-escalation tactics, crisis intervention and cultural competency training, and use of less-lethal force instruments would address the issue.
• Fewer than half (44 percent) of respondents agreed that CPD approaches citizens in a respectful manner, recommending customer service, diversity, sensitivity, and bias-free policing training.
• Close to half (45 percent) of participants in the survey said that CPD uses excessive, or too much, force. A slightly higher percentage (54 percent) of respondents believed that CPD disproportionately uses force against certain groups of people.
• Most respondents (59 percent) believe that CPD is not appropriately trained on use of force issues.
• About two-thirds (65 percent) of respondents indicated that they do not believe that there is accountability and accuracy in how officers report use of force incidents.
Although the City’s survey did not seek to secure a random, statistically-significant sample that would allow it to determine the general views of the Cleveland population as a whole, the results of the City’s survey are useful. The Monitoring Team appreciates the Mayor and Community Relations Board’s proactive involvement in the area. Not only do the surveys help to inform
124 Cleveland Community Police Commission, “Use of Force: Summary Report & Initial Policy Recommendations” at 7–8 (Mar. 31, 2016), available at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5DdHkGRNM-2QWZWZGNSaVJtMms/view (last visited May 1, 2016).

some of the issues that CPD must address in its use of force policy revisions, the City initiative also sets the stage for the even more comprehensive and methodologically rigorous survey on similar issues that the Monitoring Team is currently undertaking pursuant to the Consent Decree’s requirements.125
Concurrently, CPD, working directly with “the leadership of CPPA, FOP, and other police officer organizations” engaged in several forms of officer outreach – including an unscientific online officer feedback survey, focus group discussions, anonymous written submissions, and a series of meetings with union and officer organization leadership. Like CPC, CPD “generate[d] a single, written document that summarize[d] the officer input received.”126
Some 243 CPD personnel participated in the on-line survey. Key findings included that:127
• Most officers who completed the feedback form did not believe that force types and categories in CPD’s current force policies are sufficiently clear (with more than one-third (36 percent) of respondents disagreeing that the current policies are clear and another one-third (32 percent) saying that the current policies were neither especially unclear or clear).
• Fewer than one-third (31 percent) of responding officers believe that the current CPD policy reflects a priority on using techniques other than force to effectuate law enforcement objectives.
• Of officers who had experience using the taser, nearly two-thirds (65 percent) of respondents found the less-lethal very effective or effective.
• Officers appeared to want clearer definitions of key terms used in the force policy, with fewer than 40 percent of officers saying that current definitions make the current policy more understandable.
With in-depth reports on the views of CPD officers and representatives of many of Cleveland’s communities, the Division
125 See infra 66–68. 126 Dkt. 43-1 at 8. 127 Data from CPD (Mar. 31, 2016). As this report emphasizes elsewhere, CPD’s survey cannot be used to definitively establish what all officers in CPD necessarily believe with respect to CPD’s current policies. Although a significant number of officers participated, the sample was not random and the number of respondents not necessarily statistically significant such that one could say, with sufficient confidence, that the reflected views would be consistent with all CPD officers, including those who did not participate in the survey. Nevertheless, the feedback from officers who invested the time to complete the survey is a useful glimpse into how a sizable number of CPD officers are viewing force policy issues. The report presents the results here in that spirit.
33

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 35 of 72. PageID #: 851

drafted a revised force policy. Since late March 2016, CPD, DOJ,

important to short-circuit or to attempt when other significant

and the Monitoring Team have been meeting regularly and ex-

law enforcement imperatives are consuming the Division and

changing drafts. The communication that has been taking place

the community’s focus.

with CPD personnel tasked with crafting the new policy has been

robust, cooperative, and uniformly aimed at producing a policy

The Parties and Monitor currently contemplate that community

that will not only satisfy the terms and conditions of Decree but

engagement on the new force policy will occur beginning in late

also keep members of CPD, and the vast and diverse community

July or August, with the Monitor recommending that the Court

they serve, safe. Nothing within the Consent Decree, the revised

either approve or disapprove of the policy in late August or early

policy, or eventual training on a revised use of force is intended

September. The Parties and Monitor will update the Court and

to create circumstances that place officers and citizens at risk.

public on this modified timeframe in the coming weeks. Never-

Rather, these important revisions seek to minimize the possibil-

theless, this timeframe does not impact the ultimate goal of hav-

ity of force and thus, injury to officers or individuals. Particular

ing CPD officers trained on the new policy by December 31, 2016

care is being given to ensure that those provisions of the policy

and the policy subsequently becoming effective on the streets of

that require verbal and tactical de-escalation when and where

Cleveland on January 1, 2017.

appropriate are clear and effectively communicated.

B.

Officer Use of Force

As of the date of filing this report with the Court, June 2, 2016, there has been tremendous progress toward a core use of force policy that provides clear, specific direction to

The manner in which CPD constructs and implements Decree-required training will be critical to ensuring that constitutional and effective policing principles are woven into CPD’s DNA.

Training
Although policy is the mechanism which guides and sets expectations for an officer’s work, training is the

officers on when force may be used.

key to ensuring proper understand-

The Division, and the personnel it has tasked with working on

ing and application of policies in practice – day in and day out on

policy changes, have worked diligently to incorporate the recom-

the streets of Cleveland. Thus, the manner in which CPD con-

mendations of various Consent Decree stakeholders – including

structs and implements Decree-required training will be critical

the CPC and its officers – and have worked collaboratively with

to ensuring that desired outcomes are reached and constitution-

other City representatives, the Department of Justice, and Mon-

al and effective policing principles, particularly those related to

itoring Team. The Monitoring Team commends the Division for

the use of force, are woven into CPD’s DNA.

being open to exploring adoption of new approaches.

The Consent Decree required that CPD officers receive training

As with most major police policies implicated by the Decree, the

on a host of force-related topics within 365 of the Decree becom-

First-Year Monitoring Plan calls for a period, once the Division

ing effective in June 2015.128 CPD, the Parties, and the Monitor

has completed a Proposed Final Draft of a core use of force poli-

all agreed, in the context of discussing the First-Year Monitoring

cy sufficiently responsive to the Decree, of intensive community

Plan, that such a timeline was unrealistic – given the Monitor’s

engagement and input on the substance of the proposed policy

appointment in October 2015, and the Monitoring Plan becom-

itself. This feedback process is intended to involve, to the extent

ing effective, consistent with the terms of the Decree, in Febru-

possible, a community conversation about whether the policy

ary 2016, and the necessity for completed revisions and updates

adequately addresses the diverse interests of Cleveland’s diverse

to CPD’s policies to be codified and approved by the Court be-

communities.

fore officers can receive training on new expectations.

The time period for this engagement period was originally to start on or about April 28 and run through May 30, 2016. However, the Parties and Monitor have needed to use this period to continue work on the force policies, which has pushed back the time horizon for the community process. Although it is likely that the force policies will be ready for broad-based public discussion and comment soon, the Monitor is mindful, as this report elsewhere makes clear, of the significant operational demands that the RNC has been imposing – and will continue to impose until after the convention in late July 2016. The attentions of Cleveland’s officers, residents, community groups, and civic organizations have likewise, and appropriately, turned to addressing the potential impacts of the event on the community. Given the centrality of the use of force policy to the Consent Decree, and many of its other reforms, the Parties and Monitoring Team agree that the public’s substantive, informed participation in reform is too

An initial draft of officer training on the new force policy is due to the Parties and Monitor by July 5, 2016, with a finalized training slated to be submitted to the Court by October 7, 2016. This report elsewhere details the Monitoring Team’s expectations regarding this, and other, upcoming training.129
C. Use of Force Reporting
How CPD captures information regarding force incidents, including the facts and circumstances that led to the use of force, the actions of the subject to whom force was applied, and the level of force deployed will assist the Division in ensuring that use of force decisions are appropriate and that the type of force
128 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 84. 129 See infra 52-55.

34

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 36 of 72. PageID #: 852

used is consistent with the Constitution, state and federal law, and CPD policy.

ry, it typically does not rise to Level One force for purposes of the Consent Decree.

The uniform reporting of force will also enable the Division to

Level Two force is force that “causes an injury, could reasonably

better adjust its officer training, practices, and procedures to re-

be expected to cause an injury, or results in a complaint of inju-

spond to lessons learned, trends, or patterns that may impact the

ry.”133 It typically includes all types and instrumentalities of force

safety of officers and the community. That is, rigorous reporting

the use of which does not rise to the level of lethal force or is

of force will allow, over time, for the Division both to manage for

otherwise characterized as Level Three force.

itself the risk of unconstitutional policing and to use real-world

data and evidence to make operational and managerial decisions.

Level Three force is that force which constitutes “lethal” or

“deadly” force. It also includes any level of force which results

Part of the Consent Decree’s force reporting requirements in-

in death or serious injury, hospital admission, or loss of con-

volve CPD establishing a new system of classifying force. This

sciousness. Specific types of force such as neck restraints, canine

classification approach does not, in itself, affect whether an offi-

bites, and more than three applications of an Electronic Control

cer’s use of force is or is not authorized by CPD policy. Although

Weapon (i.e. Taser) or a single application that lasts longer than

CPD officers will need to know about the classification structure

15 seconds also constitutes a Level Three use of force.134

in order to effectuate proper reporting and post-incident perfor-

mance, CPD officers do not necessarily need to know anything

The Consent Decree places an affirmative duty on all officers

about the scheme in order to make decisions in the field about

using or observing force to report such force in writing by the

applying force in a manner consistent with the core officer use

completion of their tour of duty. This particular provision with-

of force policy. The stratification of force into three “levels” trig-

in the Decree underscores the importance of a sufficiently de-

gers a specific administrative response, investigation, and review

tailed and descriptive narrative which highlights the facts and

of a force incident after it occurs.

circumstances which led to the initial police/citizen interaction,

as well as those actions which led to the decision to use force,

Level One force is the lowest level of force. It is force that is “rea-

the level of resistance encountered, and a complete and accurate

sonably expected to cause only transient pain and/or disorien-

description of every type of force used.135

tation during its application as a means of gaining compliance,

including pressure point compliance and joint manipulation

The Consent Decree requires that CPD develop and implement

techniques, but that is not reasonably expected to cause injury,

a “single, uniform reporting system” within 365 days of the De-

does not result in actual injury, and does not result in a complaint

cree’s effective date in June 2015.136 The Court-approved First-

of injury.”130 Some minor or so-called de minimis force, such as

Year Monitoring Plan adjusted some elements of this obligation,

touching, and handcuffing, is, technically, a use of force for con-

with the policy on use of force reporting not slated to be com-

stitutional purposes, and application of such force could also

pleted until late June 2016 and officer training, necessary to be

result in exposure to liability in state and federal court if conducted in a manner contrary to law.131 However, consistent with the logic of Courts in the area,132 when such physical contact with an individual does not

Rigorous reporting of force will allow, over time, for the Division both to manage for itself the risk of unconstitutional policing and to use realworld data and evidence to make operational and managerial decisions.

completed before the policy can be fully implemented, not slated to be finished until December 31, 2016.
Until recently, officers reported force by completing a narrative in a word

result in injury or complaint of inju-

processing document in which they

were expected to provide all information – including basic in-

130 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 87(a).

formation like the subject’s name or the address of the incident.

131 Bingham v. City of Manhattan, 341 F.3d 939, 947 (9th Cir. 2003) (indicating that some Fourth Amendment violations can be, by their nature, de minimis); Watts v. County of Sacramento 1111, 1119–20 (E.D. Cal. 1999), rev’d on other grounds, 256 F.3d 886 (9th Cir. 2001) (lifting suspects by handcuffs was not de minimis force as a matter of law).
132 The concept of de minimis force reflects the recognition by many courts that some types of physical contact “are just too minor to constitute a ‘seizure’ for Fourth Amendment purposes

CPD has made significant progress in making the reporting of force easier, more straightforward, and efficient for officers. CPD is well into the implementation of IAPro, an officer performance management database system that will be a platform for, among other things, the logging of information about force incidents. Beginning in late April 2016, rank-and-file officers are being trained to use Blue Team, a straightforward, web-based, end-user portal for entering data into in the IAPro system. Because the IAPro/Blue Team environment is an “off-the-shelf”

without doing violence to that word.’” Acevedo v. Canterbury, 457 F.3d 721, 725 (7th Cir. 2006); accord Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989) (“Not every push or shove, even if it may later seem unnecessary in the peace of a judge’s chambers, violates

133 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 87(b). 134 Id. ¶ 87(c). 135 Id. ¶ 88.

the Fourth Amendment.”).

136 Id. ¶ 87.

35

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 37 of 72. PageID #: 853

software solution, CPD has needed to substantially import the

quality of its service.

program’s built-in data fields and collect the information that

the system’s standard use of force module requires.

Furthermore, it appears to the Monitoring Team that all uses

of force, no matter how serious or comparatively minimal, are

The Monitor worked closely with CPD personnel on config-

currently being investigated using similar processes. This has

uring its use of force data portal to be consistent with both the

resulted in substantial frustration among supervisors who won-

requirements of the Consent Decree and best practices. As

der why they are investigating relatively minor uses of force, in

officers transition from paper-based use of force reports to us-

which no misconduct appears to be involved and which causes

ing the computerized Blue Team environment, they are using

no pain or injury to a subject, as though they were a relatively

an updated paper reporting form that mimics, line by line and

serious force incident. Although all uses of force need to be re-

screen by screen, the electronic process. The adoption of Blue

viewed, not all use of force investigations, based on the serious-

Team will, in the long-term, constitute a significant efficiency

ness of the force or incident, necessarily should require the same

within CPD as well as a substantive step toward better, unified,

degree or depth of investigation.

real-time information on force across the Division.

Consequently, the Consent Decree’s protocols for force inqui-

After all officers have transitioned to using Blue Team and the

ries vary according to the Level of force. For example, supervi-

use of force reporting policy is implemented, the Monitoring

sors are not required under the Decree to respond to the scene

Team will begin reviewing a statistically random sampling of

of Level One uses of force. Likewise, unless the supervisor

use of force reports to determine compliance with the terms

deems the lower-level force to be in violation of policy, the sub-

and conditions of the Agreement. The Team’s findings inci-

ject to whom force was applied makes an allegation of excessive

dent to those reviews will be made part of the Monitor’s semi-

force, or the supervisor determines that the level of force was im-

annual reports. To the extent those reviews result in a finding

properly classified, the investigation will typically be limited to a

of non-compliance, the Monitoring

review of the involved officer’s use of

Team will work closely with the Di- The City, CPD, and CPC engaged in significant force report.137

vision to remediate deficiencies and initiatives to gain initial feedback and input from

put in place training and accountabil- Cleveland residents and police officers on use of Level Two uses of force require that

ity measures to ensure compliance. force prior to CPD developing a new use of force a supervisor respond to the scene

policy.

and commence a preliminary force

D. Use of Force Investigations &

inquiry. Such inquiries will include

Review

assessing officer and subject injuries and ensuring prompt med-

ical assistance, locating and interviewing witnesses, identifying

The manner in which a law enforcement agency evaluates wheth-

and locating physical or forensic evidence, securing any audio or

er an officer’s use of force was consistent with law, policy, and

video evidence that may have captured the incident, and proper-

generally-accepted law enforcement practices is best served by

ly evaluating whether the force used was consistent with law and

a prompt, unbiased, and thorough use of force investigation. An

policy.138 If a supervisor’s inquiry at any point indicates “that

important goal of the Consent Decree is to ensure that all uses

there may have been misconduct, the supervisor will immedi-

of force administered by CPD officers are, after being promptly

ately notify Internal Affairs and Internal Affairs will determine

and uniformly reported, meaningfully examined and reviewed.

if it should respond to the scene and/or conduct or take over the

investigation.”139

As a threshold matter, CPD has, for at least some time, referred

to any examinations into officer performance in a given incident

Level Three uses of force may come under the purview of ei-

as investigations – or, more precisely, as “invests.” Because su-

ther the Division’s Force Investigation Team (“FIT Team”) or

pervisors within the department (also referred to as the “chain

an independent outside agency. With the current focus on the

of command”) have also, at least to date, investigated at least a

development and implementation of the Division’s revised Use

good share of internal allegations of officer misconduct, many

of Force Policy, the Consent Decree process will not get to the

CPD personnel believe that all force investigations are, essen-

development of a specialized Force Investigation Team in ear-

tially, internal affairs or full-blown misconduct investigations.

nest until later this Summer.140 Even after a policy is established,

Going forward, all use of force will need to be examined, with facts ascertained and circumstances surrounding the incident

137 Id. ¶¶ 94-95.

specifically explored. However, this factual examination and

138 Id. ¶¶ 95-97.

subsequent review will not be because the Division necessari-

139 Id. ¶ 99.

ly assumes that officer misconduct occurred. Over the coming months and years, it will be a cultural change for CPD to start viewing internal reviews of force as mechanisms that the Division uses to continually leverage real-world lessons learned, trends, and patterns to self-manage and continually improve the

140 Specific Consent Decree provisions address the composition of the Force Investigation Team, those cases for which they will have investigative authority, the manner in which those persons will be trained and equipped to conduct their work, and the manner in which they will conduct their investigations. Id. ¶¶ 110-118.

36

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 38 of 72. PageID #: 854
FIT team personnel will need to be identified and trained before being deployed in order to ensure that the force investigation considers not only what occurred at the moment that an officer applied force but the totality of the circumstances, tactics, and considerations from the moment of dispatch or an officer initiating contact with a subject until after force has been applied and the incident resolved or scene secured.
In addition to policies and procedures relating to force inquiries, CPD will also be crafting policies and procedures related to supervisory review of completed force inquiries. Part of this process will entail the establishment of a Force Review Board (“FRB”). Intended “to serve as a quality control mechanism for uses of force and force investigations,” FRB will “appraise use of force incidents from a tactics, training, policy, and agency improvement perspective.”141 Specifically, FRB will review all serious uses of force (e.g., FIT investigations), Level 2 investigations involving force-related misconduct, and a sample of Level 2 investigations.142 The Board will be comprised of personnel from across the Division.143
Upon implementation of the FRB and the commencement of their work, the Monitoring Team looks forward to routinely attending FRB meetings to determine if FRB is “conduct[ing] comprehensive and reliable reviews” of force incidents that:
[I]nclude the circumstances leading up to the use of force, tactical decisions, information sharing and communication, adequacy of supervision, equipment, training, C[PD]’s medical response, when applicable and any commendable actions. The review will include the actions and inactions of all officers, supervisors, commanders, and dispatchers involved in the incident, as appropriate.144
141 Id. ¶ 124. 142 Id. ¶ 124. 143 Id. ¶ 124. 144 Id. ¶ 126; see also id. ¶ 127 (listing requirements of FRB consideration of each reviewed incident).
37

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 39 of 72. PageID #: 855

CRISIS INTERVENTION
The Department of Justice’s 2014 investigation indicated that “officers use excessive force against individuals who are in mental health crisis” – in part because the Division’s “crisis intervention policies and practices are underdeveloped.”145
The Consent Decree includes a host of requirements aimed at “build[ing] upon and improv[ing]” the Division’s crisis intervention programs. In particular, the Decree envisions that the Division’s Crisis Intervention Program provide a forum for effective problem solving regarding the interaction between the criminal justice and the mental health care system, as well as creating a context for sustainable change.146
The Settlement Agreement indicates that CPD should build upon and improve its Crisis Intervention Program, with the following goals:
• Assisting individuals in crisis; • Improving the safety of officer, consumers,
family members, and others within the community; • Providing the foundation necessary to promote community and statewide solutions to assist individuals with mental illness; and • Reducing the need for individuals with mental illness to have further involvement with the criminal justice system.147
145 U.S. Department of Justice, “Investigation of the Cleveland Division of Police” (Dec. 4, 2014) [hereinafter “2014 Findings Letter”] at 4, 52. 146 See generally Dkt. 7-1 ¶¶ 131–59. 147 Id. ¶ 131.
38

To meet these goals, the Decree required the development of a Mental Health Response Advisory Committee “to foster relationships and build support between the police, the community, and mental health providers” and “identify problems and develop solutions designed to improve outcomes for individuals in crisis.”148
While creating a community-based problem solving group is a challenging mission, CPD and the Cleveland community are, at this early stage of the process, making meaningful progress toward developing a forum and structure where police, social service providers, mental health and other advocates, and individuals struggling with mental illness and substance abuse challenges can meet and discuss how to best provide services to individuals in crisis.
The credit for the good start goes not only to CPD but to the Alcohol, Drug Addiction and Mental Health Service Board of Cuyahoga County (the “ADAMHS Board”) and the community volunteers and professionals who work with the police on the Mental Health Response Advisory Committee (the “Advisory Committee”). Volunteer providers and community members have reached out to a wide range of Cleveland residents to assess the needs of the Cleveland community. Social service providers have begun to talk about substantive reforms to policies, police officer training, response approaches, and long-term changes to the delivery of social services in Cleveland. Working with CPD and the ADAMHS Board, the members of the committee have engaged a wide range of citizens in order to assess the needs of the Cleveland community, studied the efforts of other cities in addressing crisis intervention issues, examined diversion and alternatives to arrest, analyzed the available data, worked to develop a model policy document, and recommended important changes to crisis intervention training.
In short, a partnership is being formed, in real-time, that can serve as a foundation of an integrated system to meet the needs of individuals experiencing a behavioral crisis. The remainder of this section summarizes the fruits, to date, of this new, dynamic partnership.
A. Background Information
1. ADAMHS Task Force Recommendations for the Consent Decree
In response to issues raised by the DOJ investigation, the ADAMHS Board formed a task force to make recommendations for the Consent Decree (the “Task Force”). The Task Force focused on issues related to of training, continued practice, and oversight and presented their results to the City and DOJ.149 For instance,
148 Id. 149 Alcohol, Drug Addiction and Mental Health Service Board of Cuyahoga County Mental Health Task Force, “Mental Health Task Force Recommendations for the Consent Decree Between the

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 40 of 72. PageID #: 856

the Task Force recommended creation of a Citizen Police Relationship Committee that would focus on integrating various social service functions and bridge gaps between the community and the police. The Task Force recommended that all officers and command staff receive some training on mental health issues and de-escalation techniques but that a specialized Cleveland Crisis Intervention Team (“CIT”) curriculum be created. It recommended that dispatchers receive specialized crisis training and that a CIT Program champion be identified within the CPD command structure.
The Task Force emphasized the importance of consistent information-sharing, data collection, and internal collaboration among CPD, the court systems, and the ADAMHS Board on identifying individuals with frequent criminal justice and behavioral health system involvement and ensuring provision of social services to such individuals. It also recommended creation of a Special Co-Responder Team – to include a social worker, mental health expert, and seasoned police officer – on the East and West sides of Cleveland who could be called to handle extreme mental health crisis situations and follow-up upon individuals released from treatment.
2. Criminal Justice Coordinating Center of Excellence CIT Peer Review

B. Current Implementation Status
1. Developing a Mental Health Response Advisory Committee
One of the first major steps toward implementation of the Consent Decree’s provisions regarding crisis intervention was the development of the Mental Health Response Advisory Committee (the “Advisory Committee”) within 180 days of the Consent Decree becoming effective. Prior to the appointment of the Monitor, the City signed a Memorandum of Understanding152 with the ADAMHS Board to assist the City and CPD with creating the Consent Decree-required Mental Health Response Advisory Committee. The terms of that Memorandum of Understanding do not supersede, replace, or otherwise alter the requirements of the Consent Decree or the Court’s jurisdiction over crisis intervention issues.
The ADAMHS Board established the Advisory Committee, which formed six standing sub-committees (Executive, Policy, Data, Training, Community Engagement, and Diversion). An ad hoc Public Survey Task Force was also formed, as a partnership between the Community Engagement and Policy functions, to coordinate the Advisory Committee’s efforts to obtain community input.

The State of Ohio Criminal Justice Coordinating Center of Ex-

The Advisory Committee currently has over 50 members repre-

cellence (“CJCCOE”) conducted a voluntary CIT Peer Review and presented a number of recommendations.150 This report was cited in the Consent Decree with the stipulation that the

senting the Cleveland community. They include representatives from the Cleveland Municipal Court’s Mental Health Docket, Front Line Services, the Ohio Criminal Justice Coordinating

City of Cleveland should consider

Center for Excellence, and a diverse

the CJCCOE assessment and any The Mental Health Advisory Committee currently array of mental and behavioral health

recommendations.151

has over 50 members representing Cleveland’s social service providers.153 The Com-

judiciary, social service providers, mental health mittee has gotten off to a swift start

The report made a wide range of specialists, CPD personnel, and crisis intervention and shown good momentum. It has

recommendations, many of which experts.

conducted numerous meetings, as

were consistent with the ADAMHS

well as a day-long retreat to develop

Task Force’s recommendations. Additionally, the Peer Review

a structure and working relationships.

addressed strengthening how specialized crisis intervention

officers are routed to a call, enhancing the use of data on crisis intervention encounters, developing a collaborative crisis communication policy, addressing the role of officers in involuntary

CPD and the Advisory Committee have, to date, formed a productive community partnership. High-ranking police leadership have regularly attended the Advisory Committee’s meetings,

hospitalization, and coordinating the transport of individuals

and CPD contributions to the community partnership have

with mental illness. The report also made recommendations regarding officer training, including the need for more interactive learning opportunities, greater use of de-escalation role-playing,

been excellent. CPD has been actively involved with the Advisory Committee and each of its subcommittees. The Division is engaged with the Committee’s members in developing the mis-

more robust lectures on legal issues, enhanced training evalua-

sion for each subcommittee.

tion, and the delivery of training to first-line supervisors.

The volunteer professionals and advocates who make up the Committee and its subcommittees have devoted significant time,

U.S. Department of Justice and the City of Cleveland Division of

Police,” 1-5 (March, 2015). 150 Woody M, Futo J, and Lilley P, Criminal Justice Coordinating

152 Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Cleveland Department of Public Safety and The Alcohol, Drug Addiction

Center of Excellence, “Cleveland Division of Police CIT Peer Re-

and Mental Health Services Board of Cuyahoga County 1–4 (Sept.

view” (Apr. 2015) at 1-13.

2015).

151 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 153.

153 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 133.

39

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 41 of 72. PageID #: 857

and exhibited impressive dedication, to addressing a wide range of issues. The ADAMHS Board continues to make a noteworthy investment in staff support for the work of the Committee.
2. Crisis Intervention Needs Assessment
The Advisory Committee’s first task under the First-Year Monitoring Plan was completing a crisis intervention needs assessment – to evaluate both the needs of the public and those of officers (the “Needs Assessment”).
The Community Engagement and Policy Subcommittees were part of a Task Force on the Needs Assessment. The Public Survey Task Force organized a series of community meetings. These meetings occurred in March and were facilitated by members of the Advisory Committee and the Division. The Public Survey Task Force developed a survey instrument that was available at the community meetings and online, with Spanish language versions made available and special efforts made to reach out to the Spanish-speaking community.154 The Advisory Committee joined with the National Alliance of Mental Illness (“NAMI”) Greater Cleveland to host three focus group sessions. Meanwhile, CPD took on the task of assessing the needs of the officers. An Officer Needs Assessment survey was developed by the Division, with input provided by a range of police officer organizations.
The Committee’s Advisory and Data subcommittees worked on analyzing the results of the community-wide and police officer survey initiatives. The summary of initial feedback was shared with the subcommittees and presented at the April 2016 Advisory Committee general meeting. The results from the needs assessment are being integrated into the work of each subcommittee, even as the needs assessment process is slated to continue, with efforts to involve the community in addressing the needs of citizens experiencing a crisis event becoming ongoing.
3. Work Plan
The First-Year Monitoring Plan charged the Advisory Committee with creating a detailed Work Plan for accomplishing its various Consent Decree-required tasks through the end of January 2017 – one that includes task assignments and a timeline for developing the specifics of all CPD crisis intervention and training programs.
Representatives and staff of the ADAMHS Board took on the task. The first draft of the Work Plan was submitted after consultation with the subcommittee chairs and several revisions. The plan is extensive and covers 14 pages. The Work Plan is a good start toward a strategic plan to accomplish the steps provided in the Settlement Agreement.
The Work Plan does a good job of organizing the tasks, identi-
154 To view these surveys, go to http://bit.ly/ClevelandCrisisSurvey and http://bit.ly/EncuestaPublicaCLE.
40

fying the responsible parties, and setting working timeframes. The U.S. Department of Justice, the City of Cleveland and the Monitoring Team reviewed the plan and provided feedback to the ADAMHS Board and the MHRAC. All Consent Decree stakeholders had a number meetings and engaged in scores of other communications to address various important elements in the plan. On May 9, 2016, the Monitor recommended that the Court approve the Plan and adopt its various requirements and deadlines as part of the First-Year Monitoring Plan, indicating, in part:
The final proposed version of the Work Plan . . . clearly reflects a great deal of work, and the Monitoring Team commends CPD, the City, the Advisory Committee, and the United States for their significant efforts. The extensive Work Plan does a good job of organizing the tasks, identifying the responsible parties, and setting appropriate timeframes for various stakeholders to reach defined milestone.
Significantly, the Work Plan calls for significant work to be completed by June 2016. This work includes: (1) gaining community input about crisis intervention issues through a needs assessment; (2) developing a revised CPD Crisis Intervention Policy; (3) exploring a new crisis event data collection process and instrument; (4) revising a number of crisis-related training curricula including an annual course for all officers, a specialized course for CIT officers, a course for call taker and dispatchers, and a strategy for crisis training for new officers; and (5) establishing CPD Crisis Intervention Team leadership. Impressively, significant progress has been made and draft work products are already under review in all five areas. An extensive community needs assessment was completed and a preliminary report has been reviewed. A survey of CPD officers was also conducted and reviewed by the MHRAC. A draft CPD Crisis Intervention Policy has been completed, and the full Advisory Committee has begun to consider that draft policy. A new data collection instrument has been explored. An annual crisis in[-]service has been proposed and initially reviewed by the MHRAC at a monthly meeting. Additionally, the training curriculum for call takers and dispatchers is well underway and on track to be completed soon. A revision of the specialized CIT training course is well underway as well. Finally, a CIT Coordinator for CPD has been appointed, and the Division is represented at MHRAC meetings.
Having closely reviewed the Work Plan, the Monitoring Team concludes that it provides a clear and

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 42 of 72. PageID #: 858

appropriate structure for implementing the Consent Decree’s provisions addressing crisis intervention.155
The Court approved the Work Plan on May 18, 2016.156 Consequently, its obligations and deadlines have become a part of the Court-enforced First-Year Monitoring Plan.
C. Appointing a CPD Crisis Intervention Coordinator
The Settlement Agreement required the appointment of an officer, at the rank of Captain or above, to act as the Crisis Intervention Coordinator within 180 days of the Consent Decree becoming effective.157 The CIT Coordinator is responsible for a range of important duties, including:
• Developing partnerships with stakeholders • Participating in the Advisory Committee • Soliciting feedback from the community and specialized CIT
officers and dispatchers • Coordinating implementation of changes • Ensuring the selection of appropriate candidates as special-
ized CIT officers and creating ways to honor and recognize specialized CIT officers and dispatchers.158
CPD moved quickly to comply with this provision and fill this position. Prior to the appointment of the Monitoring Team, CPD has posted the position and identified three qualified candidates. Captain James Purcell was selected for the position. The Monitoring Team had the opportunity to meet with Captain Purcell while he was considering the CIT Coordinator position, and his focused efforts on crisis intervention issues since being appointed have assisted the Division in integrating fully into the Advisory Committee structure.

fully implemented a CIT and community-based crisis intervention coordinating committee model – appoint a member of the Division itself to serve as a chair of the Advisory Committee.
D. Crisis Intervention Policies and Procedures
1. Revised CPD Crisis Intervention Policies
The Consent Decree requires that CPD, in partnership with the Advisory Committee, revise its policies to make clear, among other things, that:
• Crisis intervention responses may be necessary even in situations where there has been an apparent law violation;
• CIT officers have appropriate discretion to direct individuals to health care rather than the judicial system; and
• CIT officers must be dispatched to all calls that involve an individual in crisis.159
As part of approaching the task of revising the Crisis Intervention Policies, the Policy Subcommittee identified four guiding principles:
• Advancing respect, dignity and safety in all interactions between CDP and citizens;
• Safely diverting people with mental illness, the vulnerable and/or those citizens in crisis from the criminal justice system where possible to appropriate mental health and substance abuse treatment;
• Reducing unnecessary use of force and injury and advancing best practice tactics; and
• Managing the stigma associated with mental illness and addiction in police-citizen encounters.160

The Monitoring Team notes that,

The Policy Subcommittee has re-

while the CIT Coordinator will con- Through the Mental Health Advisory Committee, viewed over 23 separate crisis in-

tinue to have a vital role in reshaping a partnership is being formed, in real-time, that tervention policies from across the CPD and the City’s crisis interven- can serve as a foundation of an integrated system country.161 Subcommittee members

tion service delivery efforts, the Di- to meet the needs of individuals experiencing identified the best features of each

vision’s involvement in the formal a behavioral crisis – including mental health, policy and are working with CPD to

Advisory Committee structure must substance abuse, and other challenges.

incorporate those features into an

continue to grow. The identification

updated crisis intervention policy

of one individual to be a crisis intervention “point person” within that best fits the unique challenges and opportunities in Cleve-

the Division is necessary but not sufficient.

land. With in-depth meetings stretching as long as four and a

half hours in some cases, the work of the volunteer members of

For instance, the Advisory Committee is currently co-chaired by the Policy Subcommittee has been particularly impressive. The

the head of the ADAMHS Board and the City’s Assistant Director

of Public Safety. Given the central role of the Division to crisis in- 159 Id. ¶¶ 153–59.

tervention response and to compliance with the Consent Decree’s crisis intervention provisions, the Monitoring Team recommends that the Advisory Committee – like other cities that have success-

160 ADAMHS Board of Cuyahoga County on behalf of the City of Cleveland Mental Health Response Advisory Committee, City of Cleveland Mental Health Advisory Committee 2015 Report, 1-22

155 Dkt. 63 at 2. 156 Dkt. 64. 157 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 137.

(Jan. 2016)
161 This impressive resource collection has been posted on-line by the ADAMHS Board. See ADAMHS Board, “Crisis Intervention Policies,” available at http://adamhscc.org/en-US/Crisis-Inter-

158 Id. ¶¶ 137–42.

vention-Policies.aspx.

41

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 43 of 72. PageID #: 859

group is on track to deliver a comprehensive, revised set of crisis intervention policies at a noteworthy pace.
3. Crisis Intervention Data
CPD must track calls and incidents that involve individuals in crisis, collecting an array of specific data.162 Data will be publicly reported annually and used to identify training needs, trends, successful individual officer performance, necessary changes in strategies, and systemic issues related to crisis intervention response.163
Even before the Consent Decree, CPD had a “data sheet” – a pencil and paper form – for collecting some basic information about crisis intervention incidents. The Advisory Committee’s Data subcommittee undertook an analysis of existing data on crisis intervention. Both CPD and the Advisory Committee have become aware of the low completion rates of these existing data sheets. Current estimates are that data may have been collected on only 10 to 20 percent of actual crisis events.
As a result, CPD and the ADAMHS Board have identified that the data sheet, and data collection and analysis process, will need to be improved. Especially given that CPD is collecting some data about some class of crisis events – which positions it ahead of some similarly situated police departments – the City, CPD, and Advisory Committee need to take time to get the rollout of new or improved reporting requirements to officers right. Although some changes to the specific data collection instrument that officers use will be required, those changes cannot occur unless and until (i) a new crisis intervention policy is in place that clarifies precisely what a crisis intervention incident is and, consequently, when crisis intervention-related data must be provided about that incident, and (ii) a non-manual, technology-based solution is in place or imminently contemplated that will ensure that revised reporting requirements do not unnecessarily impede the ability of officers to efficiently and effectively provide law enforcement service.
Because the Consent Decree identifies five interrelated crisis intervention strategies that will directly involve CPD officers, there must be compatible and strategic approaches across all of CPD’s crisis intervention efforts and programs. The Policy Subcommittee’s work on CPD’s crisis intervention policy is relevant to nearly all of the Advisory Committee’s, and CPD’s, work. As such, the Policy Subcommittee’s work must be sufficiently far along in order for work on training, data, and other areas to progress further. Given the dedication and impressive progress made to date in the area of policy, the Monitoring Team has confidence that waiting to finalize training curricula, data forms, the specifics of diversion programs, and other areas until basic CPD policies have been definitively finalized will produce more effective and lasting – as well as ultimately more efficient – reform.
162 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 157. 163 Id. ¶¶ 157–58
42

E. Completing Crisis Intervention Training
The Settlement Agreement provides a number of objectives for Crisis Intervention Training. These training objectives include:

All officers
New recruit training Dispatchers & call-takers Specialized CIT officers

8 hours of annual training (minimum) 16 hours of academy training
Appropriate training
40 hours of enhanced training

Since the Consent Decree was ordered, the Ohio Peace Officer Training Commission has issued a new Crisis Intervention training curriculum for Ohio Peace Officers.164 This curriculum is part of the academy training for recruits. Consent Decree stakeholders have tentatively agreed that this new training is a reasonable substitute for the Decree-required sixteen hours of Academy Training. A formal request for this substitution will be reviewed and submitted to the Court.

As part of the discussions about the Work Plan for the first year of monitoring, the Advisory Committee has been reviewing recommendations for developing training consistent with the Consent Decree’s requirements. Despite the complexity and scope of the task, the Training Subcommittee has made good progress toward completing the Crisis Intervention Training. Their work is to be commended.

The Training Subcommittee is currently tackling the curriculum for the minimum of eight hours of annual training for all officers. Having reviewed the new crisis intervention training curriculum that will used to instruct new recruits, the Subcommittee is developing recommendations to use elements of this curriculum to shape the eight hours of annual training for all officers.

The Training Subcommittee has developed a series of preliminary recommendations for the 40 Hours of Enhanced Training for Specialized CIT Officers. These recommendations include:

• A maximum class size of 30 officer participants; • Focus on patrol officers who volunteer for the training; • Use of providers/experts in the field and experienced CIT
officers to provide training, including individuals and families of individuals in recovery from serious mental illness; • A new emphasis on the use of de-escalation tactics with individuals experiencing mental health or behavioral crisis, with more intensive role playing; • The inclusion of in-person site visits to crisis-related
social service providers; • Increased time at St. Vincent Charity Medical Center

164 Ohio Peace Officer Training Commission: Education & Policy Section, Peace Officer Basic Training Crisis Intervention, 1-156 (Jan. 2016).

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 44 of 72. PageID #: 860

Psychiatric Emergency Department;

to conform to Consent Decree requirements and best practice.

• Adding the use of the commitment process to the legal

The Training Subcommittee should continue to review and

education component; and

make general recommendations for strategies on, respectively,

• Providing more time for interactive question-and-an-

the eight-hour annual training for all officers, the 40-hour train-

swer sessions.

ing for specialized crisis intervention officers, and the training

for dispatchers and call takers. As such, it is likely that additional

Work on specific curricula for a 40-hour enhanced training for

needs of all CPD officers beyond the eight-hour annual training

specialized crisis intervention officers will continue once a re-

should be reviewed, and training recommendations that can fur-

vised crisis intervention policy has been finalized. Similarly, the

ther strengthen the CPD’s capacity to respond to crisis events

work of the Diversion Subcommittee, which is examining alter-

should be made, once the initial crisis intervention programs

natives to both arrest and inpatient commitment for individuals

have been developed and implemented.

experiencing crisis, will also provide additional direction to the

Training Subcommittee. Additionally, the Training Subcommit-

F. Selection of Specialized CIT Officers

tee has begun to review the existing Crisis Intervention Training

Curriculum for dispatchers and call takers. This work will be

The Consent Decree addresses the identification and selection

completed when the draft CIT Policy for Dispatchers is available

of crisis intervention officers who are specifically “called upon

to guide further curriculum development.

to respond to incidents or calls involving individuals in crisis.”166

Thus, CPD must eventually have a volunteer, dedicated cadre of

A good deal of discussion in the area of training has focused on

officers within its ranks who are crisis intervention specialists

the City’s long-term goal of providing 40 hours of crisis train-

and regularly dispatched to the scene of incidents involving in-

ing not only to the specifically-designated specialist officers dis-

dividuals experiencing a crisis.

patched to the scene of crisis incidents but, instead, to all CPD

officers. Devoting that level of resources to crisis intervention

Under the Decree, to be a designated “specialized CIT officer,”

would have the potential of making CPD one of the most-trained

an officer must volunteer, have three years of CPD experience,

departments in the country with respect to behavioral crisis.

complete a written application, obtain supervisory recommen-

That goal is commendable. To effectively integrate this goal into the Consent Decree’s obligations, the City of Cleveland, Advisory Committee, CPD, and other stakeholders will need to ensure that all elements

The Consent Decree identifies five interrelated crisis intervention strategies that will directly involve CPD officers. Accordingly, there must be compatible and strategic approaches across all of CPD’s crisis intervention efforts.

dations, undergo a disciplinary file review (including use of force-related discipline), and participate in an in-person interview.
CPD is taking the lead on developing

of crisis intervention policy, training,

a selection process for these special-

and service delivery reflect compatible and consistent strategic

ized CIT officers. This strategy makes sense, and the Work Plan

goals.

provides a good deal of time to complete the selection process.

Going forward, CPD should continue to work with the Adviso-

As some jurisdictions have observed, providing significant

ry Committee, DOJ, and the Monitoring Team on the selection

amounts of crisis training to all officers can, without careful plan-

process – which should include a mechanism to allow the Parties

ning, run the risk of an inefficient duplication of effort, for mul-

to the Consent Decree and Monitoring Team to independently

tiple demands to be made upon a volunteer community training

assess whether officers selected to be CIT specialists meet the

faculty, and of inconsistency in the final results during an actual

relevant qualifications criteria.

crisis event.165 The Monitoring Team stands at the ready to as-

sist the City with ensuring that it might simultaneously meet its

Consent Decree and long-term, aspirational commitments in a

manner that does not detract from the effectiveness of either.

This implementation of various of the interrelated crisis inter-

vention strategies would best be accomplished sequentially.

The Policy Subcommittee should continue to lead the charge

in addressing revision of CPD’s core crisis intervention policies

165 See M.T. Compton, et al, “The police-based crisis intervention team (CIT) model: II. Effects on level of force and resolution, referral, and arrest,” Psychiatric Services 523-529 (2014); R.T. Dupont, “The Crisis Intervention Team Model: An Intersection Point for the Criminal Justice System and the Psychiatric Emergency Service,” in A. Fishkind (ed.), Emergency Psychiatry: Principles and Practice (2008).

166 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 145.

43

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 45 of 72. PageID #: 861

SEARCH & SEIZURE
The Parties agreed in the Consent Decree that the Cleveland Division of Police will ensure its officers “conduct all investigatory stops, searches, and arrests with the goal” that those events protect the rights conferred to individuals under the “Constitution, state and federal law.”167 CPD has committed to providing its officers with the appropriate guidance and training regarding the Fourth Amendment, “professionalism,” and procedural justice in its interactions with individuals.168
Specifically, the Division is slated to “revise, develop and implement”169 policies that train its officers on how to appropriately conduct investigations and searches in the community. Those stops and searches will need to avoid using immutable characteristics – such as race, ethnicity, gender, and perceived sexual orientation – as a factor when evaluating whether or not an individual should be suspected of criminal activity.170 Officers will not be permitted to make stops without reasonable suspicion, and pat-down searches will not take place absent the requisite “specific and articulable facts” regarding an individual’s possession of a weapon and dangerousness.171
Additionally, officers will be expressly required to inform individuals of their right to decline consent to search (where such
167 Dkt. 7-1 ¶160. 168 Id. ¶¶ 173-175. 169 Id. ¶ 160. 170 Id. ¶ 161. 171 Id. ¶¶ 162-163.

agreement is required).172 Of equal importance, in those instances where no underlying crimes are alleged and an individual is arrested solely for a crime related to interactions with police, such as resisting arrest and obstructing official business, the officer making the arrest is required to notify his or her immediate supervisor so that the superior officer can arrive on scene to assess the situation.173
The reporting and supervision of stops, searches, and seizures are also addressed by the Decree. Officers will be required to use specific details in reports documenting the events that led to an investigatory stop, search, or arrest – while refraining from employing “canned or conclusory statements.”174 This oversight provides two levels of review, involving the immediate supervisor and command level, where the reporting of the patrol officers are evaluated in a timely fashion to ensure compliance with applicable laws and CPD policies.175 That review is designed to address all violations and deficiencies in the documentation while explicitly authorizing supervisors with the authority to recommend correction and disciplinary action, along with criminal investigation, where appropriate.176
In the context of the Court-approved, First-Year Monitoring Plan, the Parties and Monitor agreed to defer close consideration of policies, procedures, and practices related to stops of individuals until the second year of monitoring in 2017. This should not be mistaken as minimizing the importance of issues related to search and seizure to the Cleveland community. Indeed, the Monitoring Team has heard from numerous individuals from across the city that negative views of interactions with CPD stem not necessarily from what happens but, instead, from how officers treat or interact with residents during those encounters. Reserving key portions of 2017 and 2018 to fundamentally addressing these issues through changes in policy and officer training allows reform in this area to happen within a broader context of actively implementing community-based performance metrics and a comprehensive community policing model. The Monitor looks forward to working on these issues with stakeholders and the Cleveland community going forward.
172 Id. ¶ 164. 173 Id. ¶ 166. 174 Id. ¶ 167. 175 Id. ¶¶ 168-172. 176 Id.

44

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 46 of 72. PageID #: 862

ACCOUNTABILITY
The Consent Decree indicates that, to further the goals of effective, safe, and constitutional policing consistent with the values of the community, the City will, among other things, “provide clear guidance to officers; [and] increase accountability . . . . ”177 This commitment to expanded accountability is reinforced in the City and CPD’s commitment to:
[E]nsur[ing] that all allegations of officer misconduct, whether internally discovered or alleged by a civilian, are fully, fairly, and efficiently investigated; that all investigative findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence and documented in writing; and that all officers who commit misconduct are held accountable pursuant to a disciplinary system that is fair, consistent, and provides due process.178
To achieve these outcomes, CPD and the City have agreed to implement several requirements under Article X (paragraphs 176 to 268) of the Decree. Under the First-Year Monitoring Plan, progress toward implementing a number of these requirements either is, or soon will be, underway.179 Other requirements await full implementation as foundational steps are taken. This section summarizes CPD’s progress toward complying with the Decree’s provisions related to accountability, including Internal Affairs (“IA”), the Office of Professional Standards (“OPS”), Police Review Board (“PRB”).
177 Id. at 1. 178 Id. ¶ 196. 179 Dkt. 43-1 at 39–47.

A. Cleveland’s Accountability Structure Generally
In Cleveland, and at least since the creation of the Office of Professional Standards, the process used to investigate complaints of officer misconduct has depended on the source of those complaints. Potential misconduct identified or discovered internally, by CPD personnel, have been investigated by the Division itself. Although identifying precisely who or what entity within the Division may be responsible for what types of internal misconduct investigations has been somewhat convoluted for some time, the results of any internal investigation eventually are forwarded to the Chief of Police and, in some instances, the Director of Public Safety for review and adjudication.
Complaints of misconduct from residents, or sources external to the Division, have needed to be investigated by OPS. OPS investigators, upon completing an investigation, are responsible for forwarding the investigation on to the Police Review Board, a civilian-based body tasked with evaluating OPS investigations and making recommendations on the case to the Chief of Police.
B. Internal Affairs
“Internal affairs is a generic term that refers to the function of investigating the police or to the police organizational unit responsible for that function.”180 Although “[t]he types of [IA] units and their functions vary extensively among the police departments in the United States,” internal investigations of officer misconduct are, in agencies of CDP’s size, most typically “reviewed and investigated by internal affairs units.”181
Currently, what CPD has historically called Internal Affairs is housed with the Division’s Bureau of Integrity Control. That Bureau consists of two parts: an Inspections Unit and Internal Affairs. By policy, Internal Affairs has been responsible for conducting primarily criminal investigations of potential officer misconduct and investigating any incidents specifically directed to it by the Chief of Police.182
The Inspections Unit is charged with “conduct[ing] inspections designed to maximize the performance of police personnel by securing compliance with Division rules, regulations, policies and procedures.”183 Among other tasks, it “[r]espond[s] to and
180 Jeffrey J. Noble & Geoffrey P. Alpert, Managing Accountability Systems for Police Conduct: Internal Affairs & External Oversight xiii – xiv (2008). 181 Id. at xiv. 182 CPD GPO 1.3.16, Integrity Control Section Call-Up Teams, Section I(D) (rev. Oct. 14, 2009). Other CPD policies suggest that Internal Affairs also investigates “incidents of Domestic Violence involving members of the Division.” CPD GPO 1.2.01, Organizational Structure, Section II(G)(1) (rev. Mar. 18, 2014). 183 CPD GPO 1.2.01, Organizational Structure, Section II(G)(2) (rev.
45

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 47 of 72. PageID #: 863

provide[s] investigative oversight of any incident(s)” referred to

Thus, although the Consent Decree preserves a clear role for

it by the Chief, “any use of the beanbag shotgun,” any “[n]on-fa-

the Inspections Unit, or whatever entity the Division may find

tal motor vehicle accidents involving off-duty sworn members,”

appropriate, to address a specifically-identified class of “minor

and certain classes of “[f]irearm discharges and shooting inci-

infractions” like “uniform violations” or “routine motor vehicle

dents” that the Division’s prior Use of Deadly Force Investiga-

accidents,”189 CPD’s revamped Internal Affairs function will be

tion Team would handle.184 Although the full scope of its activ-

a primary engine for the Division’s non-criminal investigations

ities is not exhaustively inventoried

as to whether officers may have vio-

in existing CPD policy, the Monitoring Team’s current understanding is that Inspections has historically addressed “low-level” accountability issues, such as uniform violations, tardiness concerns, or various logbook audit requirements.

CPD’s revamped Internal Affairs function will be a primary engine for the Division’s non-criminal investigations as to whether officers may have violated Division policy. IA will conduct all nonminor, non-criminal internal or administrative investigations of potential officer misconduct.

lated Division policy. IA will conduct all non-minor, non-criminal internal or administrative investigations of potential officer misconduct. CPD officers will have an affirmative obligation, under CPD policy, when they “observe[] or become[] aware

of any act of misconduct by another

Generally, then, unless a non-criminal administrative investiga-

employee to report their incident to a supervisor or directly to

tion for the potential violation by an officer of the Division’s pol-

Internal Affairs.”190 Division policy “will expressly prohibit all

icy has been specifically referred to IA by the Chief, the investiga-

forms of retaliation, discouragement, intimidation, coercion, or

tion happens elsewhere – whether within the involved officer’s

adverse action, against any person . . . who reports misconduct .

chain of command or, with less frequency, by some element (not

. . . ”191

clearly defined in current CPD policy) within the Inspections

Unit.

The Consent Decree requires that, going forward, Internal Af-

fairs will be headed by a non-sworn civilian.192 In early February

The Monitor observes that, in conversations over several

2016, the CPD, with input from the Parties, Monitor, and CPC,

months with Division personnel, some confusion has existed

initiated the process for the selection of a civilian head of the De-

among officers as to the full scope of cases that IA may address.

partment’s Internal Affairs by finalizing a job description. The

For instance, the interaction between an OPS investigation and

City is currently identifying and reviewing the qualifications

an IA investigation is unclear. Similarly, members of the Moni-

of potential candidates. The First-Year Monitoring Plan antic-

toring Team have received different answers at different times to

ipates that this position will be filled and that the new head of IA

inquiries about how, if a patrol officer believed that a colleague

will be in place by late August.

engaged in possible misconduct, and precisely where that officer

should refer the misconduct complaint and precisely what inter-

Once the new IA director has started in that position, CPD

nal entity would be responsible for investigating. CPD’s existing

will update its Internal Affairs policy manual (currently called

policies are redundant with respect many material details of its

the “Internal Affairs Policies and Procedures”), Inspections

internal accountability system – but silent as to many more.

Unit Manual, and all implicated General Police Orders to re-

flect the Consent Decree’s requirements relating to IA, report-

Under the Consent Decree, “Internal Affairs will conduct objec-

ing misconduct, and preventing retaliation.193 The First-Year

tive, comprehensive, and timely investigations of internal allega-

Monitoring Plan calls for all of this work to be completed, and

tions of officer misconduct.”185 The term “misconduct” refers

submitted to the Court for its review, on or before February 1,

to “any improper conduct by an officer, including an alleged

2017. As always, the Monitoring Team’s recommendations and

violation of CDP policy, procedure, regulations, orders, or oth-

assessments of IA reforms will be based on the extent to which

er standards of conduct required of City employees including

they adequately comply with the requirements of the Consent

the improper use of force.”186 The Decree does, however, note

Decree, incorporate feedback of the Parties, are consistent with

that such “misconduct” does not include certain “minor infrac-

best practices, and reflect the values and specific input of com-

tions.”187 Consistent with best practices, comparatively low-level or technical violations of CPD policy will continue to be handled by first-line supervisors.188

360-Degree View of Eight Police Departments” at 1 (Feb. 2011) (“Supervisors are then a key to accountability, performance, and vitality in contemporary [police] organizations.”).

Mar. 18, 2014).

189 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 438.

184 CPD GPO 1.3.16, Integrity Control Section Call-Up Teams, Section II(A)–(C) (rev. Oct. 14, 2009).

190 Id. ¶ 189. Such reporting may be confidential or anonymous. Id.

185 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 177.

191 Id. ¶ 191.

186 Id. ¶ 438 (emphasis added).

192 Id. ¶ 178 (providing that civilian may not be either “a current or

187 Id. ¶ 438.

former employee of CDP” and may not be “a current or retired law

188 See Stephen D. Mastrofski, Dennis P. Rosenbaum, & Lau-

enforcement officer”).

rie Fridell, National Institute of Justice, “Police Supervision: A

193 Id. ¶¶ 176–92.

46

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 48 of 72. PageID #: 864

munity and Division stakeholders.

though initial requests were made on October 26, 2015 – leaving the full extent of the problem only recently identified by either

C. Office of Professional Standards (“OPS”) and Police

the Parties or Monitoring Team.

Review Board (“PRB”)

For another, the Consent Decree required that, within 180 days

OPS, as outlined above, is a civilian-led office charged with investigating civilian complaints about CPD officers. The City of Cleveland’s Charter requires OPS to conduct “a full and complete investigation” of all complaints of officer misconduct.194 The Police Review Board reviews OPS investigations and makes recommendations to the Chief of Police about disposition of OPS cases.

of the Consent Decree becoming effective on June 12, 2016, OPS needed to have “develop[ed] a revised operations manual” that would include, among other things: a mission statement; detailed investigative, report-writing, and evidence-collection procedures; procedures “outlining when complaints may be administratively dismissed” and a process for “ensur[ing] that complaints are not prematurely or unnecessarily dismissed”; defined procedures, duties, and practices for the PRB; and the

DOJ’s 2014 investigation observed that significant, systemic problems that it had identified in its previous 2004 investigation “remain[ed] and, in some cases, have worsened,” with ongoing “impossibly high caseloads for investigators, . . . inappropriate

system of “dispositions and outcomes” that OPS and PRB will use.197 Under the First-Year Monitoring Plan, the timetable for providing an initial draft of the OPS Manual was extended to February 1, 2016.

and premature rejection of civilians’ complaints, substandard investigations, significant delays in completing investigations, and the failure to document and track outcomes.”195 Consequently, the Consent Decree imposes, and City must ensure OPS’ compliance with, a substantial array of comprehensive obligations on OPS and the Police Review Board.196

An initial, 14-page draft of the OPS Manual provided to the Monitoring Team was deficient in every regard. As the Monitoring Team indicated to the OPS and the City on March 17, 2016, the draft Manual lacked rigor, contained inaccurate information, failed to address numerous Consent Decree requirements, and omitted a host of material details. It was especially bewildering

Although the Monitoring Team is still crunching some of the data recently provided to it by the OPS and the City, and will have more to say on the subject when it files its Quantitative Baseline Assessment Report with the Court in June, a staggering number of OPS cases are incomplete – including, as of May 4, 2016, 202 cases from calendar year 2014 and 225 cases from calendar year

to the Monitoring Team that the draft did not directly import clearly-stated requirements of the Decree. Most troublingly, the Manual did not impose rigorous requirements on investigators relating to the fairness, thoroughness, objectivity, completeness, and timeliness, and it left unaddressed basic information about the Board operates, functions, and makes decisions.

2015, according to OPS’ own data. This is unacceptable and irresponsible by any measure. The state of OPS is dire.

The Court subsequently agreed to various deadline changes that provided OPS and the City until May 5, 2016 to submit a draft re-

Since early May, OPS and PRB initiated steps to review and dispose of long-incomplete investigations. In May 2016, PRB re-

sponsive to the Consent Decree and the comments of the Monitoring Team and DOJ.198 As work progressed on a Manual, it

viewed and disposed of 122 of the 202 pending cases from 2014.

became clear to the Parties and Monitor that, before an effective

It is unclear to the Monitoring Team

Manual that codifies how OPS must do business going forward

precisely how OPS and PRB managed to complete 122 cases in just a few weeks. The Parties and Monitoring Team will consequently need

The foundational deficiencies associated with OPS are more significant and more urgent than the Monitor and Parties were aware in early 2016.

can be seriously contemplated, a comprehensive and intensive organizational assessment of OPS must be conducted to determine how OPS is

to explore how those cases were ad-

currently functioning, why few cases

judicated, whether the investigations were in fact complete, and

are investigated, and what specific reforms must be instituted on

whether the decisions to end and adjudicate outstanding cases

an expedited basis to ensure both that new complaints of officer

were made according to a codified, fair, and rigorous procedure.

misconduct are fully and fairly investigated and that the enor-

mous backlog of incomplete investigations is addressed.

The foundational deficiencies associated with OPS are more significant and more urgent than the Monitor and Parties were aware in early 2016 as the Monitoring Plan for the year was constructed. For one thing, the Monitoring Team only started to receive up-to-date statistics about OPS’ work in mid-April 2016, al-
194 Charter of City of Cleveland, § 115-4, Investigation and Disposition of Complaints. 195 2014 Findings Letter at 39. 196 Dkt. 7-1 ¶¶ 193–239.

Over the coming months, the Parties and Monitor have agreed that a sub-group of the Monitoring Team will be detailed to conduct an in-depth, microscopic review of OPS and its functions geared toward developing an emergency organizational transformation plan. This will entail the Monitoring Team investing significant resources in helping OPS turn itself around and providing substantial technical assistance to that end. It is notewor-
197 Id. ¶¶ 199, 200. 198 Dkt. 58 at 2; Dkt. 59.

47

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 49 of 72. PageID #: 865

thy and commendable that the City has recognized the signifi-

sive understanding of what a budget sufficient for OPS and PRB

cant deficiencies with OPS and has committed to the Monitor

to comply with the Decree might be.

and Department of Justice to fixing OPS.

Still, it is unlikely that resource issues alone can explain or justify

Although the Monitoring Team is pleased to be able to apply its

how OPS has gotten to where it is. Instituting mechanisms for

experience in civilian oversight, investigations, administrative

keeping investigators on task, a process for prioritizing investi-

processes, and organizational change to OPS, the provision of

gations if it appears as though the existing staff cannot keep up

such in-depth assistance goes well beyond what the Parties and

with all complaints received, reducing processes to writing, and

Monitor initially expected and will, as a result, require the shift-

taking advantage of technological efficiencies require time but

ing of other areas of focus in the First-Year Monitoring Plan to

not necessarily substantial financial commitments.

accommodate a disproportionate amount of attention on OPS

in the next several months. All of the Monitoring Team, City,

For instance, last year, it was reported that OPS had “established

DOJ, and OPS only have so much capacity – and getting OPS

a centralized electronic numbering and tracking system for all

into a state where Cleveland residents can have confidence that

complaints.”201 Although such a logging system does appear to

complaints about the police will result in an objective, impartial,

be technically in place, OPS still has a distance to travel to use

rigorous, and complete investigation will require a great deal of

its new electronic case management platform – a dedicated area

time and effort. Meanwhile, the City has committed to provid-

in IAPro, CPD’s selected off-the-shelf officer performance and

ing additional resources, including added investigators, to help

investigations database software system – in a way that can ad-

address the situation.

equately promote fair, thorough, objective, and timely investi-

gations. Specifically, it does not appear that OPS investigators

The Monitoring Team has heard,

are using much of the program’s elec-

from time to time, that one reason why OPS has struggled relates to a purported lack of resources. In January 2016, both OPS and PRB provided proposed budgets for the 2016 budget year. The proposed budgets were analyzed, as required by the

Cleveland residents and officers deserve to have confidence that complaints about police performance or conduct will be objectively, fairly, thoroughly, and timely investigated according to processes and standards that, in themselves, are rigorous, fair, and transparent.

tronic capabilities and are, instead, continuing to accomplish much of their day-to-day work on paper and attaching such work after the fact or, otherwise, using a rudimentary, home-grown database to log basic information. Given that investigators

Decree, by the Monitoring Team.199

have received in-depth training on

Mindful of the scope of the reforms that OPS must make in the

the system, it is puzzling that OPS refuses to use it. Likewise,

coming year, the Monitoring Team could not identify any sound,

given that OPS’ current procedures and processes have resulted

evidence-based approach to determining what OPS may or may

in such an extraordinary backlog of incomplete investigations,

not need as it implements the various requirements of the De-

it cannot be argued with a straight face that OPS’ old, manual

cree. For instance, part of the 2016 OPS budget involved a line-

systems have been effective.

item allocation for training for OPS investigators – a sum that

we understand to have been based on projected training courses

Cleveland residents and officers deserve to have confidence that

provided by OPS’ Administrative Manager that all OPS investi-

resident complaints about police performance or conduct will be

gators and management will complete over a two-year period.

objectively, fairly, thoroughly, and timely investigated according

However, the Parties, OPS, and Monitor will need to determine

to processes and standards that, in themselves, are rigorous, fair,

what training is sufficient in scope to comply with the Consent

transparent, and keep involved parties updated as to progress.

Decree.200 Given insufficient facts about the training, and nu-

They likewise deserve to have confidence that those investiga-

merous other, line items of the OPS budget, the Monitoring

tions will be reviewed in a manner that is similarly impartial and

Team could not reach any conclusions about the adequacy, or

exhaustive. OPS and PRB have some distance to travel before

inadequacy, of the 2016 OPS Budget.

such confidence could be fairly considered to be well-placed.

Similarly, because a number of changes in the PRB workload and processes will be necessary , the Monitoring Team did not reach any conclusions about the 2016 PRB Budget. The Monitor looks forward to working with OPS and PRB over the coming year to implement many foundational requirements of the Consent Decree and, in doing so, gain a far more structured and comprehen-

199 Dkt. 7-1 ¶¶ 199, 232.
200 Id. ¶¶ 195–96; see id. ¶ 195 (contemplating a one-year timeframe for initial training sufficient in content and scope to adequately address Consent Decree-required training topics).

201 Dkt. 34 at 6.

48

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 50 of 72. PageID #: 866

TRANSPARENCY & OVERSIGHT
Transparency and oversight are elements of a culture and system of real accountability. They are also essential values of effective and well-functioning law enforcement agencies. CPD, like all police departments, has a responsibility to ensure that incidents are properly reported, documented, and investigated and, where warranted, addressed with fair, prompt, and appropriate remedial measures. This responsibility includes regular analysis of both individual incidents and of aggregate data and trends. Such analysis can aid in the detection of unreasonable force or other types of inappropriate behavior and can help supervisors and commanders to take measures to prevent such conduct. It also can help identify policies, procedures, training, or equipment issues that may need to be addressed.
Section X of the Consent Decree, entitled “Transparency and Oversight,” includes two primary sections. The first addresses the creation of a new Police Inspector General. The other addresses the collection and analysis of data on officer and the Division’s performance.
A. Police Inspector General
The Consent Decree requires the creation of a new, internal oversight function within the Division – a Police Inspector General.202 The Inspector General must be an experienced civilian who will be responsible for monitoring, auditing, and reporting on both individual incidents and the systemic, Division-wide
202 Dkt. 7-1 ¶¶ 250–56.

performance of officers.
This new position and its staff will have a number of significant duties, including: reviewing policies and practices to determine compliance with the law, effectiveness, consistency with principles of bias-free and community policing, and whether they promote public safety; auditing compliance with policies; conducting investigations and analyzing investigations conducted by OPS; analyzing trends; developing recommendations for reform; analyzing whether the discipline system is working in a fair and consistent manner; and ensuring that the office’s reports and recommendations are made publicly available.
Although the Inspector General function constitutes an important piece of the accountability-focused reforms of the Decree, the Decree does not provide an express timetable for the City to initiate the hiring of an Inspector General or for a selected candidate to assume the position. In weighing the relative importance of the Inspector General position in light of the competing concerns, the Monitoring Team and Parties concluded that hiring and funding an Inspector General need not necessarily happen during the first year of monitoring. Accordingly, the First-Year Monitoring Plan does not include a deadline for this position during 2016. Establishing the position of the Inspector General while significant foundational work is happening on numerous other terms of the Consent Decree risks the position becoming less attractive for qualified applicants – who might believe that the Consent Decree gives them relatively little room to review or audit compliance with policies that are still just being established or written under the oversight of the Court. A better time to initiate the process of searching for, interviewing, and ultimately hiring an Inspector General may be during, or after, the first quarter of calendar year 2017. Furthermore, under the Consent Decree, CPD must consult with the CPC “in developing the minimum qualifications and experience for an Inspector General.”203 The Monitor’s current understanding is that this consultation remains ongoing.
Nonetheless, one of the requirements of the Consent Decree is that “[t]he Monitor . . . analyze the Inspector General’s budget and advise the Parties whether it affords sufficient independence and resources . . . . ”204 When preparing its 2016 budget for the Division, the City included a proposed budget for the Inspector General of $148,760, which constitutes $142,960 in salary and benefits and $5,800 for related professional costs in 2016.
Based upon the information provided, the Monitoring Team defers final judgment on whether the budget proposed for the Inspector General is sufficient to provide it with adequate independence and/or to meet the terms of the Consent Decree. However, given the Division’s size and the scope of the Inspector General’s responsibilities, a single budgeted position will not be
203 Id. ¶ 250. 204 Id. ¶ 255.

49

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 51 of 72. PageID #: 867

sufficient to meet the terms of the Agreement. Likewise, we are highly skeptical, based on experiences of other cities in creating similar oversight mechanisms, that an Inspector General could be successful solely by utilizing auditors already working in existing City functions.205 Determinations about how well a police department is functioning necessarily entail both pure auditing, quantitative, and qualitative functions – both systemically and with respect to specific instances or cases.206 Consequently, the Monitor encourages the City to ensure that the budget request in future years corresponds realistically to funding an Inspector General and the requisite support necessary to enable this new oversight mechanism to accomplish the host of significant duties outlined in the Consent Decree.207
B. Data Collection and Analysis
This report addresses elsewhere the intersection of equipment, resources, information technology, and the collection of data necessary under the Consent Decree.208 This section more narrowly focuses on the obligation of the Division to hire a Data Collection and Analysis Coordinator (the “Coordinator”) to help ensure that CPD is maintaining the required information in a manner that “facilitate[s] transparency and . . . broad public access to information related to CDP’s decision making and activities.”209
Among the Coordinator’s primary obligations is ensuring the collection and tracking of all information related to uses of force, search and seizure practices, and allegations of misconduct. Significantly, the Coordinator will be tasked with “ensur[ing] the creation and maintenance of a reliable and accurate electronic
205 See Association of Inspectors General, Principles & Standards for Offices of Inspector General 7 (2004) (noting that because Offices of Inspectors General “are established . . . often under differing authorities and mandates[,] [t]hese differences, as well as other factors, may affect the practices of various offices and, consequently, the applicability of standards to these offices”); Institute of Internal Auditors, International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (2012) (outlining auditing standards addressing little about in-depth qualitative review and policy recommendations); United States Government Accountability Office, Government Auditing Standards (2011) (same). 206 See Rebekah Hollwedel & Tim Burns, Office of the Police Ombudsman, Spokane, Washington, “A Current Sampling of Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement Practices in the United States” at 5 (June 2012), https://static.spokanecity.org/documents/opo/ documents-reports/other/civilian-oversight.pdf (“Other than auditing, reviewing, and investigating complaints, [police] oversight responsibilities can include policy and procedure recommendations, mediation and helping set up and maintain early warning systems to track complaints made against officers who may need more training or counseling from a supervisor.”). 207 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 253. 208 See infra 55-. 209 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 257.
50

system to track” use of force-related data and search and seizure information.210 The Coordinator also is “responsible for the routine reporting of relevant data” to various entities within the Division211; conducting annual assessments of both use of force and investigatory stop data212; and analyzing Division practices for potential disproportionate or disparate impacts with respect to “race, ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.”213 All of these reports must “be made publicly available.”214
CPD indicates that it will designate and identify the Data Collection and Analysis Coordinator imminently.215 The Division elected to search for an individual from outside the department to fill the position. A job description was created, which the Parties and Monitoring Team reviewed and approved. That job has been posted, and the City is currently in the process of reviewing applications and interviewing applicants.
Once in place, the Coordinator will meet with the Monitoring Team at least monthly.216 The Monitoring Team looks forward to working with the new Coordinator and sharing with him or her the data-related insights that it has gained during initial observations and assessments. These include an analysis of data types, format, and availability of various types of information across the Division and City.
One of the Coordinator’s first tasks will be to develop a Data Analysis Protocol to guide the analysis of data in various areas, including stops, searches, arrests, uses of force, vehicle stops, investigatory stops, and complaints of discrimination or bias. Pursuant to the Monitoring Plan, a draft of the Analysis Protocol will be due to the Court by October 12, 2016.217 Following approval of the Analysis Protocol, CPD and the Coordinator’s first major assessment on the host of data analysis areas outlined in the Consent Decree will be filed with the Court in late January 2017.218
C. Public Availability of CPD-Related Information
The Consent Decree requires that certain documents and information – including CPD’s “policies and procedures, training plans, community policing initiatives, community meeting schedules, budgets, and internal audit reports” – be posted on its
210 Id. ¶¶ 259, 260. 211 Id. ¶ 261. 212 Id. ¶¶ 263, 264, 266. 213 Id. ¶ 265. 214 Id. ¶ 267. 215 The First-Year Monitoring Plan called for CPD to designate the Coordinator on or before June 1, 2016. 216 Dkt. 43-1 at 55. 217 Id. at 55–56. 218 Id. at 56.

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 52 of 72. PageID #: 868
website.219 The Monitoring Team has been monitoring CPD’s website and regular intervals to determine whether these types of information are being made available. As of April 20, 2016, little to none of the required information that should have been available – including existing CPD policies and procedures, training plans to satisfy state-imposed certification requirements, community meeting schedules, budget materials, and any internal reports – in a finalized form had been posted. The City and CPD indicate that they have been working on a mechanism for the Division to be able to more easily and directly post relevant information on the website.
219 Dkt. 7-1 ¶¶ 267–68.
51

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 53 of 72. PageID #: 869

OFFICER ASSISTANCE & SUPPORT
The Consent Decree recognizes that, for CPD to best serve the Cleveland community, its officers must have the knowledge, training, resources, and support necessary to perform at the highest level and consistent with both the Division’s mission and the community’s values. Although the interests of and support for CPD’s sworn personnel are woven throughout the Consent Decree, Section XI of the Agreement identifies some specific areas for the City to address: (1) training; (2) equipment; (3) recruitment and hiring; (4) performance evaluations and promotions; and (5) staffing.
Required reforms in each of the five areas discussed in this section are aimed at providing Cleveland’s officers with the day-today support that they need to ensure their safety, the safety of the public, and the ability to enjoy success in their careers as a result of embracing community-focused policing.
A. Training
A consensus continues to emerge that high-quality and robust training throughout an officer’s career is a linchpin to ensuring safe, effective, constitutional, and community-based policing. For instance, the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing identified “training and education” as one of six basic pillars of contemporary policing, noting that “[a]s our nation becomes more pluralistic and the scope of law enforcement’s responsibilities expands, the need for expanded and more effective training has become critical.”220
220 President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Final Report (2015) at 3.
52

Likewise, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (“IACP”), a major police organization, has noted, with respect to use of force training in particular, that “[w]hat we do know for certain is that leaders have a professional obligation to train law enforcement to the fullest degree in order to ensure officer safety as well as public safety.”221 The group identified “concern[s] that in-service trainings have not” in the past “been validated in the same rigorous fashion as academy training, and that the level of accountability is far different for officers when approaching in-service training” in many organizations.222
1. In-Service Training
The Consent Decree requires that CPD officers receive no fewer than 40 hours of in-service training annually, with year-to-year training priorities, needs, and commitments established by a Training Review Committee.223 The Court approved a new CPD policy substantially expanding this Training Review Committee in April 2016. Responsible for “develop[ing] comprehensive, annual plans relating to the specific training programs that CPD will provide its officers and continually evaluat[ing] the quality of the Division’s training,” the Committee is “comprised of members of the Division’s Training section; designated District-level training coordinators, who serve as a local point of contact about training issues for officers; union representatives; and members of the Community Police Commission.”224 As the Monitor reported to the Court when it recommended approval, the policy creating the Committee, among other things:225
• Mandates that the Division incorporate “[a] variety of adult learning techniques, scenario-based training, and problem-solving practices, beyond solely traditional lecture formats . . . into all training;226
• Provides that officers receive continuing professional training on constitutional use of force, search and seizure, tactics, crisis intervention, community and problem-oriented policing, bias-free policing, annual equipment training, state requirements, supervision, and technology as necessary or required;227
• Sets the composition of the Training Review Committee;228
221 International Association of Chiefs of Police & U.S. Department of Justice, Emerging Use of Force Issues: Balancing Public and Officer Safety at 23 (Mar. 2012), http://www.theiacp.org/portals/0/pdfs/emerginguseofforceissues041612.pdf. 222 Id. 223 Historically, “in-service” training has referred within CPD to annual training that fulfilled both state and Division requirements. The term is used in this report to refer to any and all training provided to current CPD officers. 224 Dkt. 55 at 1. 225 Id. at 1, 2–3. 226 Dkt. 55-1 at 3. 227 Id. at 2–4. 228 Id.. at 5–6.

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 54 of 72. PageID #: 870

• Requires that the Committee create specific minimum and desired standards for training instructors, who must have “exemplary performance records”;229
• Delineates requirements for the Training Review Committee to identify trends and lessons learned from officer performance, conduct an annual needs assessment, develop a written training plan to ensure that the Division’s needs are addressed in its in-service training programs, and analyze all aspects of CDP’s FTO program;230 and
• Requires that the Division document officer participation in and attendance at officer training.231
The Monitor attended the Training Review Committee’s first meeting at CPD Headquarters on April 5, 2016 and was encouraged by the immediate level of active engagement exhibited by CPD personnel, union representatives, and CPC commissioners. The Monitoring Team looks forward to continuing to provide technical assistance and support as the Committee establishes how it will carry out its significant charge.
For training provided to CPD personnel in 2016, CPD worked closely with the Parties and the Monitor to identify a prioritized training agenda in the First-Year Monitoring Plan.232 The year’s major training initiatives include:
State-Required Officer Re-Certification Training. Each year, the State of Ohio requires that police officers receive a minimum number of hours of continuing education training in specified areas in order for officers to remain sworn peace officers in the state (commonly referred to as “OPOTA Training”). In late 2015, CPD worked with the Parties and Monitoring Team to review proposed training, intended to satisfy the 2016 state certification requirements, to ensure that such training would not be inconsistent with Consent Decree training to come. Although officers are receiving some state-required training on areas that touch on the Consent Decree – including procedural justice, crisis intervention, and the Fourth Amendment – this training addressed foundational topics that, indeed, the Monitoring Team and Parties did not determine to be inconsistent with Consent Decree requirements. CPD officers began receiving the state-required training in mid-January 2016.
BlueTeam Training. CPD is in the midst of implementing IAPro, an officer performance and management database system. The IAPro platform includes a user-friendly interface called Blue Team, which allows officers to input and view information in the database system in a web-based portal. The required training of officers on Blue Team, is scheduled to begin at the end of April 2016.
Upcoming Training. The First-Year Monitoring Plan ties the
229 Id. at 2. 230 Id. at 6–7. 231 Id. at 7. 232 Dkt. 43-1 at 14–33.

creation and implementation of officer training initiatives to the anticipated approval of new policies.
Officer Use of Force. The Monitoring Plan calls for all CPD officers to have completed basic training on a Court-approved, new use of force policy by December 31, 2016 – allowing for a new use of force policy to be fully effective as of January 1, 2017. This initial force training is intended to provide knowledge, skills, and scenario-based practice on applying the new use of force policy.
This training will be geared toward ensuring that all CPD personnel have a straightforward base of understanding about the new use of force policy’s requirements. Additional, intensive training in 2017 will go even further toward addressing the force-related topics and skills required by the Consent Decree. The Court approved a timetable for force training replaces the initially-contemplated deadlines identified in the Decree to ensure that the finalization of clear rules of the road for officers on force are fully completed before CPD provides training in the area of force.233
Initial Supervisor Training. Several requirements of the Decree address officer supervision, as this report details elsewhere. Consistent with these requirements, the Decree mandates that CPD “develop and implement mandatory supervisory training for all new and current supervisors” that covers, among many other topics, “techniques for effectively guiding and directing officers”; “de-escalating conflict”; “evaluating written reports”; “investigating officer uses of force”; “building community partnerships”; “evaluating officer performance”; and other subjects.234
An Initial Supervisor Training program is slated to begin in mid-August and conclude October 21, 2016.235 This training, initially proposed by Chief Williams and enthusiastically endorsed by the Parties and Monitoring Team, has been conceived as an early, classroom-based opportunity for the Division to discuss with its supervisors what they can expect in the way of new requirements, changed processes, and reform initiatives upcoming in the Consent Decree process. The intent is to provide supervisors with specific information that they can use, day-to-day and shift-to-shift, to address the concerns, questions, or possible misinformation that may circulate around the Division from time to time as CPD personnel adjust to new or different expectations. Additional supervisor training will be developed in coordination with the Training Review Committee, with the Court-Approved Monitoring Plan also replacing the initially-contemplated timetable identified in the Decree regarding supervisor training.
Crisis Intervention. CPD must provide all officers with “at least eight hours of initial training” on crisis intervention and “annual in-service training thereafter.”236 Because that basic training
233 See Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 84. 234 Id. ¶ 323. 235 Dkt. 43-1 at 23–24. 236 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 143.
53

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 55 of 72. PageID #: 871

for all CPD officers must include both basic information and skill-building on responding to individuals experiencing mental health or other behavioral crisis, the required revisions of CPD’s

In the specific context of police officer training, established best practices and the Consent Decree point the way toward “realistic, scenario-based training” that is integrated and woven

crisis intervention policies will need to be completed before this training can commence.237 The policy and training changes must
be completed in partnership with the Mental Health Response Advisory Committee.238

throughout specific training courses rather than standing alone or separate from other means of content delivery and skills development.241

Integrating these practices into CPD’s overall training para-

The First-Year Monitoring Plan indicates that revised policies that come about in the Consent Decree “do[] not become effective, and officers are neither expected to conform to its requirements,

digm may require the Division, and City, to embrace decidedly new approaches to providing officer education from a logistical and resource perspective. Previously, continuing education for

or be subject to discipline or any employment action pursuant to officers was provided in the form of one 40-hour (one-week)

it, until the Parties and Monitor have certified that training on the policy and its core concepts has been successfully completed.”239 The Monitoring Team cannot stress more strongly, to Cleveland’s

block of “in-service” training. When an officer had completed this training, that officer had functionally completed the major training requirements for the year. Although this approach has

officers and residents alike, that no policy with substantial opera- certain operational advantages, the effective and efficient im-

tional impact may be implemented in the Consent Decree process before officers have received training on the new policy’s specific expectations – or before the Monitor and Parties have so certified.

plementation of the Consent Decree’s requirements will likely change the way that CPD schedules, conducts, and conceives of officer training – with training programs likely needing to

Because training programs are what translate policy expectations start and stop on a rolling basis throughout the year and officers

into everyday officer performance, officers must be afforded an environment to learn about new or updated rules, engage with the substantive requirements, and practice incorporating that knowl-

needing to schedule time to participate in several, shorter training programs on distinct topics or policies throughout the year. During the pendency of the Decree, and beyond, CPD must be

edge into real-world scenarios in a training environment before able to more nimbly address officer needs by providing more

they can be expected to implement actively the new policies in practice.

training with greater frequency than it generally has in the past. The Monitoring Team will be working with the Division in an intensive, hands-on way in the upcoming months to modify the

As training is developed in 2016 and beyond, the Monitoring Team will be looking to see whether CPD’s initiatives take full advantage of longstanding best practices in adult education. Generally, effec-

Division’s long-term approaches to officer training. An innovation that should help CPD in changing its training

tive adult and professional learning programs present problems delivery paradigm is its impending procurement and use of an

for adults to solve or tasks for them to complete rather than, or at least in addition to, solely providing information for students to passively consume:

CPD must be able to more nimbly address officer needs by providing more training with greater frequency than it generally has in the past.

electronic learning management system (“LMS”). This platform will have two important uses. The first will be to track each individual offi-

To involve adults in their own learning and adhere to adult learning principles, introduce interactivity

cer’s training history in an electronic form. Currently, training histories are kept manually, and it is not currently clear to the Monitoring Team whether or not such

whenever possible into your instruction . . . [L]ook

records are entirely complete. The second important use of the

for opportunities to use case studies, brainstorming exercises, facilitated discussions, role-plays, problem solving, etc. Use the experience of your adult

LMS will be to provide computer-based or electronic learning to officers. This will provide CPD with a training platform that is less formal and resource-intensive than live classroom training

learners to help you introduce interactivity.

but can be more standardized than trainings conducted by an ar-

Some training courses depend too much on cognitive learning, using only lectures, slide presentations. This type of learning re-

ray of supervisors before officer shifts at roll calls. Many police agencies, government organizations, and private firms have successfully transitioned elements of their ongoing employee train-

quires the learner to passively absorb and retain large amounts of ing and education to electronic environments, and the Monitor-

content. To retain learning, learners need opportunities to make a connection with the content and apply the learning to real-life.240

ing Team is pleased that CPD has proactively pursued adopting

237 Id. ¶¶ 154–56. 238 Id. ¶¶ 132–36. 239 See, e.g., Dkt. 43-1 at 9–13.

generally Stephen D. Brookfield, Understanding & Facilitating Adult Learning: A Comprehensive Analysis of Principles and Effective Practices (1986); Maclcolm S. Knowles, et al, The Adult Learner: The Definitive Classic in Adult Education and Human

240 National Highway Institute, NIH Instructor Development Course, available at https://www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov/downloads/free-

Resource Development (5th ed., 1998). 241 Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Final Report at 52 (Mar.

bies/172/PR%20Pre-course%20Reading%20Assignment.pdf; see 2015); Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 84(e).

54

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 56 of 72. PageID #: 872

this innovation. As of late April 2016, an RFP for the LMS had

tives.246

been issued, and the Division, with City partners, has begun re-

viewing responses.

The Monitoring Team looks forward to working closely with

CPD’s Training Bureau as it begins to craft training programs

The Monitoring Team will be evaluating officer training in vari-

that provide officers with practical, real-world skills and clear

ous ways to gauge whether the CPD’s training programs satisfy

knowledge about the requirements of CPD’s new policies and

substantial and effective compliance with the specific training

procedures.

provisions of the Consent Decree and further the practical im-

plementation of new and revised CPD policies and procedures.

2. Academy Training

One means of evaluation is by review of proposed curricula for

training and, ultimately, recommending to the Court whether

The Consent Decree also contains certain obligations relating

to approve the training initiative – and subsequently observing

to the training of new officers at the academy.247 For the Acad-

such training to ensure that the delivered instruction is consis-

emy class that will soon graduate, the City and CPD elected to

tent with the Court-approved materials.242 Across training ini-

send recruits to the Ohio State Patrol’s academy in Columbus,

tiatives, the Monitoring Team will be basing its determination

Ohio before having the class return for additional, CPD-specific

of the adequacy of training programs

training. In the upcoming months,

“based on the extent to which the [training] adequately complies with the requirements of the Agreement, incorporates feedback of the Parties,

Cleveland does not yet benefit from many of the basic technological innovations associated with contemporary, urban policing.

the Monitoring Team will be closely reviewing that training and speaking with members of the most recent class to gauge whether the training

and reflects the values and specific

conforms to the Decree’s require-

input of community and Division stakeholders.”243 Among the

ments.

requirements of the Agreement that the Monitor will consider

is the extent to which the training makes use of “instruction-

B. Equipment & Resources

al strategies that incorporate active learning methods such as

problem-solving and scenario-based activities, based on current

Cleveland does not yet benefit from many of the basic techno-

theories of learning.”244

logical innovations associated with contemporary, urban polic-

ing. As part of the Consent Decree, “[w]ith the goal of ensur-

After training curricula have been approved by the Monitor and

ing that CPD is provided with the resources, equipment, and

Court, CPD’s training will need to be evaluated pursuant to the

updated technology necessary to implement” the Decree “and

Consent Decree along four discrete dimensions:245

to allow officers to perform their jobs safely, effectively, and ef-

ficiently,”248 the City and CPD agreed to implement a compre-

Reaction criteria. Trainees’ “affective and attitudinal respons-

hensive “Equipment and Resource Plan,” approved by the Court,

es to the training program” assessed “by using self-report mea-

that “will provide for necessary equipment including, at least the

sures.”

following”249:

Learning criteria. “[M]easures of the learning outcomes of training,” which typically take the form of “paper-and-pencil” or other “performance tests” that occur within the training program itself.
Behavioral criteria. “[M]easures of actual on-the-job performance” such as “supervisor ratings or objective indicators of performance” to gauge whether the training has, in fact, had any effect on performance. Results criteria. Measures of the “value gained by engaging” in the training to the organization in terms of effects on the Division in the aggregate and across time. These will align with the Monitoring Team’s ongoing outcome measurement initia-
242 See generally Dkt. 43-1 at 13–33. 243 See, e.g., Dkt. 43-1 at 14. 244 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 271(b). 245 Winfred Arthur, et al, “Effectiveness of Training in Organizations: A Meta-Analysis of Design and Evaluation Features,” 88 Journal of Applied Psychology 234, 235 (2003).

• [A]n adequate number of computers; • [A]n adequate number of operable and safe zone cars; • [Z]one cars with reliable, functioning computers that provide
officers with up-to-date technology, including: o [A] mobile computer-aided dispatch system that allows officers and supervisors to access real time information received from call-takers and dispatchers; o [T]he ability to access CDP’s records management system; and o [A]ccess to law enforcement databases that allow officers to learn basic information about the civilians with whom they interact and the call history associated with the locations to which they are responding, as well as warrant and driver’s
246 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 367. 247 Id. ¶ 277. 248 Id. ¶ 291. 249 Id. ¶ 293; see id. ¶ 295.
55

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 57 of 72. PageID #: 873

license checks, and information concerning restraining orders.250
That Plan must also identify clear mechanisms for ensuring that the City and CPD are “properly maintain[ing] and seek[ing] to continuously improve upon existing equipment and technology,” as well as “appropriately identifying equipment needs and seeking to utilize, as appropriate, emerging technologies.”251
On April 21, 2016, CPD completed an initial Equipment & Resource Study aimed toward “assess[ing] its current needs and priorities to perform the functions necessary for CPD to fulfill its mission and satisfy” the Consent Decree’s obligations.252 The Monitor appreciates the CPD’s efforts and is closely reviewing the study. The First-Year Monitoring Plan called for the Monitoring Team to submit to the Court an Equipment and Resource Gap Analysis on June 13, 2016 that “attempts to identify the current state of CPD technology, equipment, and related resources and identifies what will be necessary for CPD to comply with the Settlement Agreement,” with stakeholders convening an Equipment and Resource Summit to begin the discussion of how to get the Division to where it needs to be.253 Because of operational demands associated with the RNC, the Parties and Monitor have agreed to defer submission of the gap analysis and a convening of stakeholders on the issues until early August 2016. The Monitor looks forward to discussing issues related to addressing CPD’s equipment and resource needs following the RNC and submission of the Team’s Gap Analysis.

ly expensive, or unnecessary systems. The goal will be to ensure that CPD provides the basic tools and technology foundation for officers to be able to effectively and efficiently keep the public and themselves safe. Far from insisting that CPD buy a Rolls Royce, the Monitor will be attempting to ensure that CPD officers have a reliable, high-functioning vehicle that gets the Division to where it needs to be.
This section summarizes the City and CPD’s efforts to date to address some of the specific equipment and technology requirements of the Consent Decree.254
1. Records Management System (“RMS”/“LERMS”)
A records management system (“RMS”) is the hub of a police department’s day-to-day law enforcement activity. Generally, the RMS is the computerized database platform “that provides for the storage, retrieval, retention, manipulation, archiving, and viewing of information, records, documents, or files pertaining to law enforcement operations.”255 Its importance cannot be understated:
The RMS is the main departmental database . . . [It] is the main storage system that the police department depends on for data storage and retrieval of critical information . . . The data stored on these systems are crucial to performing dayto-day operations, and today’s police environment cannot function without a solid RMS.256

Even pending completion of the Gap Analysis, however, it is

clear that the City and CPD will have to make significant prog-

RMS stores “[s]uch records [as] . . . incident and accident re-

ress along a host of areas to fulfill their commitments related to equipment and officer resources under the Consent Decree. It

ports, arrests, citations, warrants, case management, field contacts, and other operations-oriented records.”257 Thus, when

must be emphasized that many of the areas that the Division

an officer in the field runs a check of an individual stopped for

must address – including a records

a traffic violation, the officer is query-

management system, computer-aid- When it comes to equipment and technology, far ing the RMS. When an officer needs

ed dispatch, and ensuring sufficient from insisting that CPD buy a Rolls Royce, the to arrest an individual, the arrest and

number of computers in district Monitor will be attempting to ensure that CPD related reports are entered into the

stations and in cars – are basic tech- officers have a high-functioning vehicle that gets the RMS. When the Mayor, Chief, or Dis-

nology platforms that Cleveland Division to where it needs to be.

trict Commander needs information

was overdue to address regardless

about crime trends, this information

of whether there had been a Consent Decree. These tools are

comes from RMS. Whether infor-

necessary to protect the public, keep officers safe, and allow the

mation about “people, locations, property, conveyances (e.g.,

Division of Police to effectively and efficiently conduct law en-

vehicles), and organizations (including businesses and gangs),”

forcement.

the RMS is the primary and often only way that anyone in a law

enforcement agency can keep track of critical operational infor-

The Monitoring Team notes that many of its members have in-depth, real-world experience working under the resource constraints of local governments from across the country. The Team’s determination of what an “adequate” equipment and resource infrastructure entails will not be tied to unrealistic, undu-
250 Id. ¶ 293(a)–(c). 251 Id. ¶ 293(e)–(f). 252 Dkt. 43-1 at 48. 253 Id.

254 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 293. 255 Law Enforcement Information Technology Standards Council, Bureau of Justice Assistance, and National Institute of Justice, “Standard Functional Specifications for Law Enforcement Records Management Systems” [hereinafter “Specifications for RMS”] at x (2003). 256 Ralph Ioimo, Introduction to Criminal Justice Information Systems 105-106 (2016). 257 Specifications for RMS at x (2003).

56

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 58 of 72. PageID #: 874

mation.258

take place during the project’s nearly five-year gestation.260

Until November 2015, Cleveland was using a legacy RMS system

As the technical troubleshooting proceeded, IT experts could

originally implemented around 1998. In 2011, the City contract-

not benefit from trial-and-error processes in a test database en-

ed with New World Systems for an “upgrade” of its aging RMS system to the company’s Law Enforcement Record Management System (“LERMS”) platform. For reasons not entirely clear to

vironment until early March 2016. Prior to that time, the only database version available was the full-blown production environment, where making changes could risk compromising the

the Monitoring Team, or to many Division personnel, the planning and implementation process thereafter took nearly half a decade. One explanation for the length of time necessary to implement the system may be related to the fact that Cleveland is

quality, integrity, or basic stability of the system that officers were depending on live and in the field.261
These technological, business practice, and project management

one of, if not the, most populated and most urban environments in which the LERMS platform has been used.259
After LERMS “went live,” it was immediately plagued by signif-

problems are not simply technical or bureaucratic – they have real-world ramifications for Cleveland’s officers and the Cleveland community. First, since November 2015, officers and government leaders have been operating with incomplete or outdated

icant problems. Many users reported receiving “system error”

information about crime and law enforcement activity. Under

messages, and many others experienced frequent system freezes for which the only solution was unplugging the computer unit from the wall, re-plugging, and starting the computer and the

Cleveland’s old RMS and with the current LERMS system, officers write out field reports on law enforcement incidents and interactions they have, type them up in a station, print them out,

LERMS program again.

and fax them to a data entry unit that would re-type the officers’

reports and extract relevant data or information to enter into

Other issues stemmed not from the vendor software issues but

fields within RMS. Leaving aside the inefficiencies and redun-

from CPD’s computing infrastruc-

dancies baked into this approach,

ture. Many users who were experi- Going forward, a significant governance issue the technical problems and program

encing the most substantial problems with respect to CPD’s information technology instability that data entry personnel

turned out to be using computers structure must be addressed to ensure sound, active experienced with LERMS led to a

that did not meet the manufactur- management across City functions.

backlog, as of April 20, 2016, of some

ers’ minimum specifications for running LERMS – for instance, by trying to use the system on a 32-bit computer when the minimum specifications require a

11,000 to 12,000 records of incident, arrest, and other police reports not yet entered into the RMS system.262 Without such reports entered into the system, it is

64-bit processor. In addition to causing end user problems, the

as though these events never happened. This is a public safety

Division’s lack of centralized knowledge about its IT inventory (what computers with what specifications are located where) in the department required IT personnel to have to manually install LERMS updates intended to potentially fix ongoing issues

and officer safety issue. CPD cannot effectively formulate a law enforcement response to incidents that they do not know are
260 See generally Paul Harmon, Business Process Change: A

– one computer at a time, in person, and district by district.

Business Process Management Guide for Managers and Process Professionals (3d Ed. 2014); Peter Henderson (ed.), Systems

Still other issues seemed to stem from business practice and data

Engineering for Business Process Change: Collected Papers

challenges – including confusion about how the new LERMS

from the EPSRC Research Programme (2012).

system might capture information or accommodate workflows that the Division had used previously. A formalized business process mapping – in which the CPD’s current workflow across the host of end-user utilizations and needs are charted in detail against the capabilities and limitations of the system – did not

261 See Mario A. Nascimento, Very Large Data Bases 1116 (2004) (“In enterprise databases,” such as RMS, “it is common . . . to use test servers in addition to the production server(s). A test server can be used for a variety of purposes including performance tuning, testing changes before they are deployed . . . and so on.”).

262 Although switchboard operators scan police reports when re-

258 Id. at 3. 259 See, e.g., Tyler Technologies, Public Safety Client Success

ceived from the field, categorize them, and assign a number to the incident (therefore ensuring that the incident is formally “entered into the system”), the content, information, and data contained

Stories, http://www.tylertech.com/solutions-products/pub-

within that report is not entered until data entry specialists manu-

lic-safety-solutions/public-safety-success-stories (last visited

ally enter such information. Technically, then, all reports being re-

Apr. 29, 2016) (listing as “success stories” of New World platform

ceived from the field are logged in the system, but the assignment

San Bernadino, California; Frisco, Colorado; Waterbury, Con-

of a number has no value to officers in the field and CPD com-

necticut; Milford, Delaware; Kanakee, Illinois; Chesterfield, Mich-

mand staff because substantive information about the nature of

igan; Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York; Sioux Falls, South

the incident, individuals involved, location, and the like are entered

Dakota; Germantown, Tennessee; Rockwall, Texas; and Lynden,

later in the process by the data specialists – which is precisely the

Washington).

stage at which the backlog has developed.

57

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 59 of 72. PageID #: 875

occurring, and officers may be interacting with individuals or in

although billed as an “upgrade,” the LERMS implementation

environments about which they do

required the adoption of an entirely

not have full information regarding recent history.
Core law enforcement functions were significantly impacted by the problems with LERMS. For exam-

Given the challenges that CPD has seen with LERMS, the Monitoring Team will be looking to approve an in-depth implementation plan prior to the start of any implementation of field reporting, computer-aided dispatch (CAD), or other systems.

new platform: replacing a more antiquated system from the mid-1990s with a modern, Windows environment.
Apparently, no CPD personnel were

ple, all of the software “plug-in” in-

intensively involved in the day-to-day

terfaces used for crime mapping and reporting purposes broke

project management of what essentially was the implementa-

when LERMS was introduced. This included mechanisms for

tion of an entirely new system. That involvement will be nec-

reporting to the county court system, Ohio state systems, an

essary going forward to ensure that other required technology

on-line police reporting system, and crime mapping. The loss

upgrades and solutions work for, rather than at cross-purposes

of crime-mapping capabilities persisted until at least early April

from, the Division of Police. In April 2016, CPD formally desig-

2016 – leading some within the Division, for the four or five

nated a technology steering committee comprised of IT, CPD,

months without crime mapping, to resort to tracking crime

and City representatives. This marks an encouraging, if long

trends with pushpins, markers, and wall maps based on word of

overdue, step in the right direction. As new technological ele-

mouth rather than documented crime reports.

ments continue to be introduced to CPD to make policing more

effective, and more accountable, CPD itself – and not merely the

The Monitoring Team has reason to believe that the situation

Division of Public Safety – needs a primary seat at the table so

with LERMS has stabilized somewhat. Significant attention

that technologies can be procured and implemented in a way

has been given over the past few months to LERMS’ technical

that is most optimized for the Division’s operational needs.

problems. New World Systems, which was recently bought by

Tyler Technologies, ultimately came up with a so-called “hot fix”

The Monitoring Team notes that the current City personnel

to resolve many of the issues causing error messages and the sys-

working on ensuring that LERMS is a stable, high-functioning

tem timing out. A new lead from Winbourne Consulting, LLC, a

records management system, including Chief Information Offi-

technology and management consulting services firm, has been

cer Donald Phillips and IT Project Manager Larry Jones II, have

secured to assist in the project management and technical trou-

both invested significant time and gone to extraordinary lengths

bleshooting of the LERMS project. Older equipment and infra-

to address issues – the seeds of which, in many instances, were

structure that was not consistent with minimum specifications

planted well before they worked for the City of Cleveland – far

necessary to run LERMS were swapped out for more up-to-date

more related to functional practice and implementation issues

equipment.

rather than core computer or technology concerns. Their focus

on LERMS has been commendable, and the Monitoring Team

Going forward, a significant governance issue with respect to

looks forward to working with them closely on this and addi-

CPD’s information technology structure must be addressed to

tional law enforcement IT projects.

ensure the sound, active management, across City functions,

of CPD-related projects. Generally speaking, the management

City IT and implicated CPD personnel are still working through

of an IT project must be informed by a “business owner,” who

various issues with LERMS logged on an “issues list.” Until these

“leads the organization that requires or directly benefits from

problems are addressed and the Department of Public Safety,

the products or services being provided by the project,”263 to en-

CPD, and other City stakeholders commit to mainstream proj-

sure that “the computerized solution . . . synchronize[s] with the

ect management structures, it is unlikely that the problems with

customer and users’ actual needs for the solution . . . . ”264

LERMS will be definitively behind the City – and that the City

can make progress on implementing other vital tools for public

A challenge in the LERMS project was that the Division viewed

and officer safety, including field reporting and a modern in-car

the LERMS “upgrade” as, fundamentally, a technology project

Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system, without encountering

that should be outsourced almost exclusively to IT. However,

the kinds of significant challenges that have plagued LERMS.

263 Maryland Department of Information Technology, “Roles and Responsibilities” at 10, available at http://doit.maryland.gov/ SDLC/Documents/SDLC%20Roles%20and%20Responsibilities.pdf (last visited Apr. 29, 2016). 264 Terry T. Kidd, Handbook of Research on Technology, Project Management, Planning, and Operations 205 (2009); see generally Colleen Garton & Erika McCulloch, Fundamentals of Technology Project Management (2012) (outlining best practices in technology project management).
58

Finally, the City has appropriately put focus and resources on addressing the backlog of records, including hiring and training temporary workers to enter information into LERMS. As of May 25, 2016, the backlog of records not entered into LERMS is down to 7,590. The City reports that 4,938 of those records were created within the last three months (March to May 2016). The Monitoring Team appreciates the dedicated efforts of City and CPD personnel to address the backlog.

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 60 of 72. PageID #: 876

2. Field Reporting
A 2003 study observed that, even then, “[f]ield mobile computing has been at the forefront of police technology implementations throughout the United States for the past several years.”265 Field reporting will allow CPD officers to complete various incident reports in the field rather than in the station – making far less manual and redundant the process of such reporting than current practices, outlined above, allow.

only recently that all officers obtained the ability to access Citywide email – which still needs to become essential for basic communication, including rapid and efficient dissemination of both mundane and critical information.267 In the absence of in-car or mobile tools, many officers rely on their personal mobile phones for Division-related communications and record-keeping. Far too many critical law enforcement functions depend on manual processes or idiosyncratic officer workarounds rather than harness the advantage of uniform, computerized platforms.

Because field reporting essentially serves as a front-end interface for the RMS system, successful implementation of field reporting depends substantially on resolving ongoing issues with LERMS. The Monitoring Team looks forward to the implementation of field reporting occurring within the framework of the Equipment and Resource Plan. Given the challenges that CPD has seen with LERMS, the Monitoring Team will be looking to approve an in-depth implementation plan prior to the start of any implementation of field reporting, CAD, or other systems.
3. Infrastructure (Adequate Numbers & Deployment of Computers, Cars, and Other Tools)

C. Recruitment & Hiring
The Decree calls for CPD to update its processes and protocols for recruiting and hiring CPD officers, in order to ensure that the Division “successfully attracts and hires a diverse group of qualified individuals.”268 To do so, the Division is charged with “develop[ing] a recruitment policy and a strategic recruitment plan that includes clear goals, objectives, and action steps for attracting qualified applicants from a broad cross-section of the community, . . . . establish[ing] and clearly identify[ing] the goals of C[PD]’s recruitment efforts . . . . ”269 That plan must, in particular, include specific strategies for:

The Consent Decree requires that CPD ensure, and the Moni-

[A]tracting a diverse group of applicants, including officers who

toring Team certify, that CPD provide officers with “an adequate

are familiar with the different neighborhoods of Cleveland, who

number of computers” and an “adequate number of operable

possess strategic thinking and problem-solving skills, emotional

and safe zone cars” that have “reliable, functioning computers”

maturity, interpersonal skills, and the ability to collaborate with

that can access CAD, RMS, and other related law enforcement

a diverse cross-section of the community.270

databases.266 CPD’s Equipment and Resource Study, as well as

the Monitor’s upcoming Equipment and Resource Gap Analysis,

Consistent with the Monitoring Plan, the City provided a draft

will assist in addressing where CPD is now, what an adequate in-

Recruitment and Hiring Plan on February 16, 2016. The Monitor

frastructure in terms of officer-focused technology might entail,

and Department of Justice separately provided feedback to the

and what is necessary to get CPD to

minimalistic outline provided. Those

where it needs to be on the equip- The Monitoring Team has consistently heard from comments recommended that subse-

ment front.

CPD officers that many elements of the Division’s quent drafts be more specific; include

core infrastructure are aging, run-down, or specific, measurable, realistic, and

The Monitor observes that, wheth- deficient.

time-bound objectives; set forth clear

er always the case or not, we have

deliverables that “translate [the] proj-

consistently heard from officers, and seen ourselves, that many

ect mission . . . into actionable realities”271; provide specific dead-

elements of CPD’s core infrastructure – computers, cars, and the

lines for all deliverables; incorporate elements from successful

like – are either aging, run-down, or deficient. Multiple police of-

recruitment plans implemented elsewhere and from best prac-

ficers told us that CPD officers will go to local garage sales to find

tices literature.272 The Plan suggested to the Monitoring Team

spare parts for some of the Division’s desk phones that are no longer supported by the manufacturer. We have seen CPD cars in significant levels of disrepair – cars that personnel at times have serviced on their own time and dime. In some instances, there are reports that CPD personnel have resorted to using their personal vehicles for some types of Division work. We continue to identify what appears to be an insufficient number of computers

267 See id. ¶ 297 (requiring CPD to “utilize a department-wide e-mail system to improve communication and information sharing among all department personnel, including command staff, supervisors, and patrol officers”). 268 Id. ¶ 300. 269 Id. ¶ 302.

available to patrol officers within CPD’s five stations available

270 Id. ¶ 304.

for them to use actively to effectuate shift-to-shift duties. It was

271 Jack Ferraro, Project Management for Non-Project Managers

172 (2012).

265 Ralph E. Ioimo & Jay E. Aronson, “The Benefits of Police Field Mobile Computing Realized by Non-Patrol Sections of a Police Department,” 5 Int. J. Pol. Sci. & Mgmt. 195, 195 (2003).

272 See International Association of Chiefs of Police & Community Oriented Policing Services Office, “Law Enforcement Recruitment Toolkit” (2009), http://ric-zai-inc.com/Publications/

266 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 293.

copsp171-pub.pdf; Jeremy M. Wilson, et al, RAND Corporation,

59

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 61 of 72. PageID #: 877

both a lack of dynamic, outside-the-box thinking about how to attract diverse and qualified officers and a significant lack of a clear project management structure.
The City provided a revised draft on April 11, 2016. Although somewhat more specific, the draft version nonetheless still failed to specify an overall, measurable objective for the effort; did not indicate precisely what community stakeholders would be engaged and how during a recruitment effort; stated only that a subsequent media outreach plan would be crafted at some undefined stage prior to January 1, 2016 rather than endeavoring to spell out precisely what media strategies might be used; and outlined vague plans to measure the success of the overall initiative. Given the amount of work still necessary to craft a sufficient, actionable plan for complying with paragraph 304 of the Consent Decree, the Monitor and Parties have agreed, pending approval of the Court, to revisit active revision and work on the Plan after the RNC is completed – which also allows the Plan to be considered in the context of CPD’s development of a comprehensive, new community and problem-oriented policing model. Indeed, the Monitoring Team believes that considering the hiring and recruiting of new officers will allow the City and CPD to have a clearer understanding of precisely what qualifications, skills, experiences, and attributes they should be looking for in attracting candidates capable of executing a new vision of day-to-day policing in Cleveland.
In the meantime, the Division will need a new class of recruits, to keep pace with retirements and attrition, to begin the Academy in early 2017. Depending on when a comprehensive Recruitment and Hiring Plan that meets all Consent Decree requirements can be implemented, it is likely that the next class will need to be recruited and selected without the benefit of the comprehensive Plan being in place.
Nonetheless, CPD has begun some work on some important components of the ultimate Recruitment and Hiring Plan. One encouraging feature is the commitment to implementing an on-line application process to make applying to be a Cleveland officer easier and to allow for recruiters and hiring managers to communicate with applicants across all stages of the process. In January 2016, the City contracted with NEOGOV, a software provider, to provide the infrastructure for such on-line applications. Likewise, in February 2016, the City issued a Request for Proposals for a vendor to provide overhauled testing of prospective recruits. A vendor has been slated to be selected by June 1, 2016.
“Police Recruitment and Retention for the New Millennium: The State of Knowledge” (2010), http://www.rand.org/content/dam/ rand/pubs/monographs/2010/RAND_MG959.pdf; CALEA, “Effective Public Safety Recruitment Plans,” http://www.calea. org/content/effective-publicsafety-recruitment-plans (last visited Mar. 14, 2016).
60

D. Performance Evaluations and Promotions
Part of the culture change that will be necessary across the Division relates to how officer performance is evaluated – and ensuring that high-performing officers have access to promotional opportunities. Over time, CPD must “develop and implement fair and consistent practices to accurately evaluate officers” across a number of dimensions including “integrity, community policing, and critical police functions.”273
The First-Year Monitoring Plan does not directly address these issues. In part, that is because the “formalized system documenting the annual performance evaluations of each officer” must “include an assessment of,” among other things, “community engagement and communication with the public,” “use of community and problem-oriented policing,” “de-escalation strategies,” and “techniques for dealing with individuals in crisis.”274 With such policies, procedures, systems, and training still being some months away from being fully implemented, it is simply too early in the Consent Decree process to devise an evaluation system that features these elements.
The Division must also “develop and implement fair and consistent promotion practices that . . . result in the promotion of officers whoa re effective and professional.”275 Because factors that the Consent Decree will require to be considered include elements such as the “effective use of community and problem-oriented policing strategies” within CPD’s community-oriented policing model that will be addressed later this year, the promotional process is likewise not addressed in the First-Year Monitoring Plan.276
The Monitoring Team looks forward to working with the Parties, Division, CPC, and other community stakeholders on developing a system of evaluation and promotion within the Division that gives greater confidence that CPD personnel are being evaluated on the elements and features of performance that are most critical, with officers being rewarded for community-oriented, respectful, and effective policing.
E. Staffing
A number of elements of the Consent Decree are likely to compel changes in the way that CPD deploys its existing personnel and, potentially, in the overall number of sworn and civilian personnel. Specifically, CPD’s total number of personnel and its plan, procedures, and policies governing the staffing, assignment, and deployment of such personnel within its districts must allow the Division to, among other things:
• Implement a “comprehensive and integrated problem-ori-
273 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 313. 274 Id. ¶ 314. 275 Id. ¶ 317. 276 Id. ¶ 318.

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 62 of 72. PageID #: 878

ented policing model”277; • Ensure rigorous investigations and reviews of force inci-
dents278; • Ensure that specialized crisis intervention officers “are dis-
patched to an incident involving an individual in crisis” and are able to “have primary responsibility for the scene”279; • Provide the ability for supervisors to eventually “review all documentation of investigatory stops, searches, and arrests”280; • Ensure that officers can receive the training required by the Decree281; • Ensure that officers guarantee necessary evaluations282; • Provide necessary opportunity for “first line supervisors [to] provide close and effective supervision of officers”283; • Implement the Officer Intervention Program284; and • Provide supervisors with the ability to “conduct adequate random and directed audits of body worn camera recordings.”285

Given the scope of requirements that implicate the Division’s basic staffing and deployment, the types of changes that the Division and City will need to contemplate are unlikely to be satisfied by minor adjustments, temporary “band-aids,” or half-measures.

The Consent Decree requires that CPD “complete a comprehensive staffing study to assess the appropriate number of sworn and civilian personnel to perform” CPD’s mission and fulfill the requirements of the Decree.286 In particular, the Staffing Plan must “provide for each of the following”:

• [P]ersonnel deployment to ensure effective community and problem-oriented policing;
• [A] sufficient number of well-trained staff and resources to conduct timely misconduct investigations;
• [T]o the extent feasible, Unity of Command; and • [A] sufficient number of supervisors.287

Under the First-Year Monitoring Plan, the Staffing Study was due to the Monitor and Parties on June 1, 2016. The Monitoring Team looks forward to reviewing the Study in the coming days. Subsequently, CPD “will develop an effective, comprehensive Staffing Plan that is consistent with its mission, including community and problem-oriented policing, and that will allow”

277 Id. ¶ 27.

278 Dkt. 7-1 ¶¶ 93–130.

279 Id. ¶ 151.

280 Id. ¶ 168.

281 Id. ¶ 271.

282 Id. ¶¶ 313–16.

283 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 322.

284 Id. ¶¶ 326–36.

285

Id. ¶ 339.

286

Id. ¶ 319.

287

Id. ¶ 320.

the Division to comply with the whole of the Decree’s requirements.288

288

Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 319.

61

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 63 of 72. PageID #: 879

• [I]dentifying training and professional development needs; and
• [P]roviding leadership, counseling, redirection, and support to officers as needed.291

The Division must ensure that CPD supervisors are held “directly accountable for the quality and effectiveness of their supervision . . . . ”292

SUPERVISION

In addition to setting forth clear expectations for CPD supervisors in Consent Decree-related policies, both “new and current supervisors” will be receiving substantial training over the coming years.293 As this report outlines elsewhere, CPD supervisors are currently expected receive the first Court-approved supervision training in late Summer and early Fall 2016. This Initial Supervisor Training is intended to provide a substantive overview of Consent Decree requirements and changes so that supervisors can have a solid understanding of what is coming down the pipeline.

A. First-Line Supervisors
“It is an established principle in policing that first-line supervisors – sergeants – play a critical role in directing and controlling the behavior of officers in police-citizen interactions.”289 In police organizations, “[t]he sergeant is the person to whom the rank-and-file officer will look for direction, guidance, and assistance with problem solving,” with first-line supervisors “essentially determin[ing] the efficiency and effectiveness of the agency.”290
The Consent Decree recognizes the importance of “close and effective” first-line supervision, which includes:

Over the next few years, supervisors will be receiving not only targeted training on new or changed responsibilities in updated policies and procedures but also broader training on effective management skills, leadership development, supervisory techniques and approaches, evaluating performance, understanding community and work styles, and other areas.294 This “in-service management training”295 will be aimed at giving sergeants the practical toolkit that they need to promote high-quality performance from those under their command.
The Monitoring Team’s current understanding is that new sergeants have historically received relatively little training other than on CPD policies and other bureaucratic considerations. Because effectively managing, supervising, and leading individuals who were only recently a new sergeant’s direct peers involves a significant and sometimes-foreign skill set for newly-minted supervisors, the Team will also be exploring with the Division how to create something akin to a Field Training Officer program for new sergeants, lieutenants, and other command staff.

• [R]esponding to, investigating, and documenting force . . . ; • [E]nsuring that officers are working actively to engage the
community with the goal of increasing public trust; • [M]onitoring, commanding, and controlling incidents and
calls for service; • [R]eviewing arrest reports for compliance with law and this
Agreement;
289 Samuel Walker, National Institute of Justice, “Police Accountability: Current Issues and Research Needs” (2007) at 12, available at http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/218583.pdf.
290 Sean E. Moriarty, “The Leadership of Police Organizations Program in the Delaware State Police: Recommendations for Law Enforcement Leadership Development,” Police Chief (May 2009), available at http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=1792&issue_id=52009#4.

291 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 322.
292 Id. ¶ 325.
293 Id. ¶ 323.
294 See, e.g., Bruce J. Avolio, Full Leadership Development: Building the Vital Forces Within Organizations (1999) (outlining approaches to and principles of leadership development); Steven A. Murphy & Edward N. Drodge, “The Four I’s of Police Leadership: A Case Study Heuristic,” 6 Int’l J. Pol. Sci. & Mgmt. 1 (2004) (leadership development in context of police agencies); Terry D. Anderson, et al, Every Officer is a Leader: Transforming Leadership in Police, Justice, and Public Safety (2000) (same); Richard Hughes, et al, Leadership: Enhancing the Lessons of Experience (5th ed. 2005) (outlining approaches to personnel management and leadership).
295 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 324.

62

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 64 of 72. PageID #: 880

B. Officer Intervention Program

Supervisors will be required to regularly review this perfor-

mance data. When an officer reaches a certain, defined thresh-

1. Overview

old in some area of performance, a supervisor will be required to

assess an officer’s performance to determine whether there are

This section discusses CPD’s progress in complying with

any patterns of conduct that may suggest potential deficiencies,

requirements to modify its Officer Intervention Program

the effects of stress, or some other issue that might be impacting

(“OIP”).296 The Consent Decree requires that the OIP become

the officer’s work and whether some sort of intervention may be

a broader, systemic management tool that will “proactive[ly]

useful.

identif[y] . . . potentially problematic behavior among officers”

and provide non-disciplinary supervisory intervention aimed at

It must be emphasized that the OIP system, and process, will

“modify[ing] officers’ behavior and improv[ing] performance”

always constitute “non-disciplinary corrective action.”304 The

before the performance may cause more significant problems.297

OIP is a mechanism for the Division to proactively and affirma-

tively address officer performance trends – separate and apart

The Consent Decree requires that CPD’s existing OIP be com-

from the disciplinary process. Indeed, the Consent Decree ex-

prehensively transformed into an ef-

pressly provides that “[t]he intent of

fective “early intervention system.” The concept of an “early intervention system” is not new. As early as 1981, a national civil rights commission recommended that police departments develop systems to identify officers who might be prone to misconduct claims.298 For decades, major law en-

Over the next few years, supervisors will be receiving not only targeted training on new or changed responsibilities but also broader training on effective management skills, leadership development, supervisory techniques and approaches, evaluating performance, work styles, and other areas.

OIP is to intervene before discipline is required.”305
The OIP system does not take the place of the disciplinary process, however. Officer performance in specific incidents that might constitute misconduct must, under other

forcement groups have endorsed the

Consent Decree provisions, be rigor-

utility of police agencies identifying problematic performance

ously investigated.

trends early so that supervisors can provide mentoring, training,

and other performance interventions.299 This is especially true

2. Current Implementation Status

in light of “growing evidence [to] support[] the perception that a

small percentage of officers are responsible for a disproportion-

CPD’s existing officer intervention program constitutes a good

ate share of citizen complaints and other concerns.”300

starting point to the extent that it identifies personnel subject to

An early intervention system builds on “the basic principles of

administrative charges, sick time abuse, civilian complaints, use

personnel management and human resource development that

of force incidents, and internal investigations.306 Supervisors, or

have developed in the private sector.”301 The purpose of the sys-

other employees, can refer officers who may benefit from “guid-

tem “is to translate officer performance indicators into a formal

ance or assistance” are referred to the program by the Occupa-

management tool for identifying officers with potential behav-

tional Medical Director of CPD’s Medical Unit.307

ioral problems” or issues that would benefit from some form of

proactive intervention.302 Such a system relies on a database

Nevertheless, the existing program will need to be substantially

that logs information about various elements of an officer’s per-

overhauled to conform to the Consent Decree’s requirements.

formance – uses of force, firearm discharges, civilian complaints,

For one thing, first-line supervisors currently do not have regu-

disciplinary action taken against officers, failures to comply with

lar and timely information about performance trends for officers

the Division’s body-worn camera policies, and many others.303

under their supervision, specifically those that reflect potential

risks and require their attention. Tracking officer performance

296 Id. ¶¶ 326–36. 297 Id. ¶¶ 326, 327. 298 U.S. Civil Rights Commission, Who Is Guarding the Guardians? 80 (1989). 299 See CALEA Standard 45.1.15 cmt. (4th ed. 2001); International

over time depends on a supervisor’s recollection or generalized intuition, not objective information or hard data. Because they are, “many say, the most important figure[s] in the police supervisory and command hierarchy” when it comes to early intervention systems,308 CPD’s front-line supervisors will be responsible

Association of Chiefs of Police, Building Integrity and Reducing

304 Id. ¶ 327.

Drug Corruption in Police Departments 80 (1989).

305 Id.

300 Geoffrey P. Alpert & Samuel Walker, “Police Accountability and Early Warning Systems: Developing Policies and Programs,” 2 Justice Research & Policy 59, 60 (2000). 301 Id. at 61. 302 Id.

306 CPD GPO Number 1.1.20-I-A. 307 CPD GPO Number 1.1.20 Purpose, I-B. 308 John S. Dempsey & Linda S. Forst, An Introduction to Policing 87 (2015); see, e.g., U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, “Strategies for Interven-

303 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 328.

ing with Officers through Early Intervention Systems: A Guide for

63

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 65 of 72. PageID #: 881

for assessing officer performance in a host of areas, rather than having the Medical Unit alert supervisors as to the performance of the officers under their command.
Additionally, rather than something related to an internal medical division about which officers and supervisors have understandable concerns about privacy implications, the program will need to be considered by the Division as a primary officer performance management tool – and something that is a primary vehicle for self-managing the risks of unconstitutional policing. As such, the Division will need to consider how to expand OIP so that it includes a broader range of interventions (training, counseling, peer-based mentoring, etc.) and ensures that the assistance provided by means of OIP is a proactive form of career development and mentoring rather than something that, while non-disciplinary, feels to officers either too much like the formal discipline process or like a mental or medical health referral.
Further, the success of the OIP will rely on the implementation and use of “a computerized relational database that will be used to collect, maintain, integrate, and retrieve data department-wide” on officer performance.309 As described elsewhere in this report, the Division is in the process of implementing IAPro, the officer performance database. One of the ultimate functions that IAPro – and its related, web-based front-end user interface called BlueTeam will serve as a “one-stop shop” for a host of information about officer performance in the field – will perform for CPD will be the automatic “trigger[ing of] a formal review” when certain “threshold levels” of activity “for each OIP indicator” are met.310
For the OIP to be based on a sufficiently robust data set, IAPro will need to include some amount of historical information. In some of the classes of information required to be a part of the OIP, the process of gathering historical data will be more difficult simply because CPD either did not uniformly track the information or, if it did, the data may be scattered across a number of discrete databases or informal spreadsheets maintained by officers.
Front-Line Supervisors” at 4 (Feb. 2006) (observing that “first-line supervisors are really the linchpin of EIS” such that supervisors implementing a robust EIS “will be required to handle responsibilities that previously may not have been considered part of their job”); U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, “How Police Supervisory Styles Influence Patrol Officer Behavior” at 2 (June 2003) (noting that “active style of supervision” has “the most influence over patrol officers’ behaviors”); James J. Willis, U.S. Department of Justice, Community Oriented Policing Services Office, “First-Line Supervision Under Compstat and Community Policing” at 5 (March 2011) (“First-line supervisors play a key role in what the police organization does and how it does it . . . .”). 309 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 328. 310 Id. ¶ 329.

C. Body-Worn Cameras
Within the last 12 to 18 months, the Cleveland Division of Police has joined the more than 6,000 estimate police departments in the United States that use body cameras in some capacity.311 All CPD patrol officers are equipped with body cameras, with specialty units (such as personnel working at the Cleveland Hopkins International Airport) slated to be equipped with units in the near future. CPD and the City of Cleveland are to be commended for embracing a technology that, in other jurisdictions, has been associated with substantial decreases in use of force and civilian complaints.312
CPD’s “use of body worn cameras is not required by” the Consent Decree.313 However, “[i]f C[PD] chooses to use body worn cameras,” which it has, the Division must “provide clear guidance and training on their use” and ‘”implement protocols for testing equipment and preserv[ing] . . . recordings to foster transparency, increase accountability, and build trust, while protecting the privacy rights of individuals.”314 The Decree outlines CPD supervisor responsibilities for viewing recorded incidents and “conduct[ing] adequate random and directed audits of body worn camera recordings . . . to confirm compliance with C[PD] policy.”315 The Division must also ensure that officers are “subject to the disciplinary process for intentional or otherwise un-
311 Jon Schuppe & Andrew Blankstein, “LAPD Skid Row Shooting Brings Focus to Body Camera Technology,” NBCNews.com (Mar. 2, 2015), http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/lapd-skidrow-shooting-brings-focus-body-camera-technology-n315731; accord Zusha Elinson, “Police Use of Body Cameras Raises Questions Over Access to Footage,” Wall St. Journal (Apr. 28, 2015), http://www.wsj.com/articles/police-use-of-body-cameras-raises-questions-over-access-to-footage-1430253877.
312 See, e.g., “Oakland Mayor Says Police Body Cameras Have Cut Use-Of-Force Incidents Significantly in 5 Years,” KPIX (Dec. 17, 2014), http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/12/17/oakland-mayor-says-police-body-cameras-have-cut-use-of-forceincidents-by-60-in-4-years-jean-quan-oakland-police-department-opd-officer-involved-shooting/ (reporting decrease in use of force incidents by nearly 75 percent in six years that Oakland Police Department has used body cameras); Tony Perry, “San Diego police body camera report: Fewer complaints, less use of force,” L.A. Times (Mar. 18, 2015), http://www.latimes.com/ local/lanow/la-me-ln-body-cameras-20150318-story.html (noting 40.5 percent fall in complaints and 46.5 percent reduction in “personal body” force following adoption of body cameras); Tony Farrar, “Self-Awareness to Being Watched and Socially-Desirable Behavior: A Field Experiment on the Effect of Body-Worn Cameras on Police Use-of-force,” Police Foundation (Mar. 2013), http:// www.policefoundationlorg/content/body-worn camera (summarizing 50 percent reduction in use of force over a one-year period in Rialto, California).
313 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 337.
314 Id.
315 Id. ¶¶ 338–39.

64

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 66 of 72. PageID #: 882
justified failure to activate” cameras in accordance with CPD policy.316
CPD crafted their body-worn camera policy in mid-2015. Because CPD engaged in a policy process that engaged community organizations, stakeholders, and residents, the task of the Monitoring Team has been to confirm that the body-worn camera policy appropriately incorporates community comment, conforms to the Decree’s specific requirements, and sufficiently promotes the Decree’s other objectives.
To examine the extent to which the body-worn camera policy incorporates or reflects community values, the Monitoring Team engaged in a community outreach effort. One element of that effort was to discuss the current policy with organizations such as the ACLU and NAACP that were involved in the initial policy process. These groups provided helpful feedback and, while recommending some updates and changes to the existing policy, expressed a generally positive view of the process that CPD used to create that initial policy.
Another element of the Monitoring Team’s efforts was to make available and publicize a non-scientific feedback survey to allow Cleveland residents to provide their views, input, and feedback on the issue of body cameras. The Monitoring Team received 304 responses either on-line or through completing a printed version of the on-line questionnaire. Those who provided feedback generally were supportive of current CPD policies regarding the activation and deactivation of body camera units, although a sizable minority (around one-third of respondents) thought that cameras should be on at all times. Residents who took the survey strongly believed that procedures should be in place to allow individuals who have complaints about officer conduct or performance to access body-worn camera footage. Residents agreed with current CPD policies about only discontinuing the filming of an incident until an encounter has ended or they have been ordered to stop recording by a supervisor; about not stopping record (even if asked by someone to do so) unless the officer enters a private residence without a warrant (and when domestic violence is not at issue) or when a victim refuses to talk to an officer while the camera records; and about current requirements for an officer wearing a camera to tell a resident, at the first reasonable opportunity, that the camera is on.
The Department of Justice and Monitoring Team have provided feedback on the body-worn camera policy. The Division has subsequently provided revisions of the policy, responding to the concerns, to the Department of Justice. It is anticipated that the Monitoring Team will submit CPD’s updated body-worn camera policy, along with the Team’s approval or disapproval of the policy, to the Court in the coming week.
316 Id. ¶ 340.
65

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 67 of 72. PageID #: 883

succeeded if the Division has sterling policies and ideal processes on the books, which officers follow and the Division rigorously enforces, but the policies do not ultimately translate into conditions and results that Cleveland residents feel in their neighborhoods and CPD officers recognize on a daily basis.

COMPLIANCE & OUTCOME ASSESSMENTS
A. Nature of Compliance & Outcome Assessments
The Consent Decree constitutes a comprehensive, and interrelated, set of reforms. In one way, the Decree can be viewed as requiring CPD to adopt a substantial program of reforms that have worked well in other jurisdictions to address the same or similar problems.

To this end, the Decree requires the Monitor to also conduct “outcome assessments,” or “qualitative and quantitative assessments to measure whether implementing this Agreement has resulted in constitutional policing” in Cleveland.318 Thus, the Decree requires that the Monitor assess whether the implementation of the Consent Decree’s reforms is contributing to the necessary outcomes of ensuring safe, effective, and constitutional policing consistent with Cleveland’s values. Ultimately, these “outcome measurements” explore whether implemented changes are having the actual effects across the Cleveland community that they are intended to have.
A notable feature of the Cleveland Consent Decree is its express inclusion of a host of specific outcome assessments that the Monitor must evaluate and track over time.319 This section of the report addresses the Monitoring Team’s work, to date, on taking baseline measurements in those predefined areas so that, over time, the Court can gauge whether the Consent Decree is driving the overall change in CPD’s culture and practice that the Decree contemplates.
B. Monitor’s Progress to Date

A good portion of the Monitoring Team’s efforts, especially in

1. Baseline Assessments

the early stages of Consent Decree implementation, will always

be on what might be called “compliance assessments.”317 This

In a filing with the Court, the Monitor described in detail the

class of work involves the Monitoring Team evaluating wheth-

data that is being collected with respect to CPD’s performance

er CPD and the City are, in fact, doing what is required under

in 2015 – the last calendar year before reform began in earnest

the Consent Decree; doing it with a sufficient level of quality;

under the First-Year Monitoring Plan – to establish a baseline

and ensuring that the approved policies, procedures, and train-

for the CPD along a number of the required outcome areas.320

ing are being actively implemented in the field by officers. In

In some instances, the assessments will be quantitative, and the

simplest terms, the Monitor’s “compliance reviews” evaluate

process will be geared toward identifying data with which new

if CPD and the City are doing what

numbers in subsequent years can be

they are supposed to be doing under A notable featured of the Cleveland Consent Decree compared. This type of data will in-

the Decree. If CPD and the City are is its express inclusion of a host of specific outcome clude, but is not limited to: numbers

meeting technical requirements, the measurements that the Monitor must evaluate and of uses of force and the numbers

compliance assessments seek to ver- track over time.

per factors such as the subject’s per-

ify whether the implementation of

ceived race, gender, or mental con-

reforms are being performed in actual practice over a sufficient-

dition; number of complaints about bias or discrimination; the

ly sustained period. Thus, compliance assessments also seek to

composition of new police academy recruit class by race, gender,

ensure that reform exists not merely on paper or in theory but in

and other considerations; and others.

day-to-day practice.

For other categories of assessments, the Monitoring Team will

However, the Consent Decree reforms will only be worthwhile to the extent that they drive real change in the real world – and in the ongoing, daily experiences of residents from across Cleve-

conduct qualitative reviews. For instance, the Team will be evaluating a statistically significant, random sample of use of force investigations and reviews from 2015 – to gauge how their level

land’s diverse communities. The Consent Decree will not have

318 Id.

317 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 367 (outlining distinction between “compliance reviews and audits” and “outcome measurements”).

319 Id. 320 Dkt. 50.

66

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 68 of 72. PageID #: 884

of quality measures up against the requirements of the Consent Decree with respect to fairness, thoroughness, completeness, objectivity, and other basic factors. The initial baseline evaluation of pre-Consent Decree implementation force investigations will enable the Monitor, Court, Parties, and community stakeholders to have something to which to compare inquiries that occur pursuant to new policy and processes, implemented according to the Consent Decree, in the coming years.
The Consent Decree required the Monitor to review the outcome measures and recommend any changes within 90 days of being appointed.321 After carefully considering the outcome measures outlined in the Decree, the Monitor did not recommend any changes.
Within 120 days of being appointed, the Monitoring Team was required “to develop a plan for conducting the compliance reviews and outcome assessments” contemplated by the Decree.322 That plan was to include a few components. First, it was to “clearly delineate the requirements” of the Consent Decree that would “be assed for compliance . . . within the first two years” of monitoring. The Parties and Monitor agreed that coming up with a schedule for conducting a comprehensive “compliance review or audit” of many of the requirements of the Consent Decree would be premature during the first year of monitoring given the desire to focus on real-world implementation of a host of the Decree’s requirements during that time.

degree of effort to identify precisely which individuals in which areas of the Division or City might have information or data related to each outcome measure. During these conversations, the Monitoring Team discussed the current feasibility of in fact collecting and reporting data in a fashion called for by the consent decree, or the lack thereof.
The Monitoring Team has received a decent share of the data necessary to begin any meaningful analysis as of the end of April. In some instances, this data was slow to be produced – expressly not for reasons relating to a lack of attention, cooperation, or good faith desire to comply with the Team’s requests. Instead, it became apparent to the Monitoring Team that the Division’s current IT infrastructure limits CPD’s ability to easily retrieve, analyze, and use data. Indeed, many classes of relatively straightforward data are collected on paper, in pen-and-paper logbooks, or on individual Excel spreadsheets created and maintained by enterprising but individual personnel.
In other instances, the Monitoring Team has identified that meaningful baseline assessments will be difficult to conduct at all. Some of the data requested is simply not collected, such as information on stops, searches, and seizures. Other data are either not centrally available anywhere within the City or are not expected to be collected and, as such, is prohibitively challenging to assemble, such as the number and type of the Division’s ongoing community partnerships (for which there appears no centralized or formalized tracking).

Second, the Monitor needed to “set out a schedule for conduct-

ing outcome measure assessments at least annually . . . . ”323 The

The Monitor is currently discussing preliminary results of its

Parties and Monitor agreed, via the First-Year Monitoring Plan, to continue discussing the process for

analysis of available quantitative data with the Parties and CPD for discussion.327 The Monitoring

completing an initial set of outcome The results of the Monitoring Team’s required Team is also discussing the quality

measurements, which functionally biennial community survey of Cleveland residents of the data considered and the ca-

serve as baseline assessments in each of the areas referenced in the Decree.324 Accordingly, the Parties and Monitor presented a plan to the Court

on views about the police filed with the Court soon.
on March 16, 2016 for the

and
sis

public
for the

safety will be pacity of the Division to sustain its
own rigorous, annual data collection process,328 as well as serve as the baMonitor’s ongoing assessments.329 The Monitoring

Monitor to conduct these baseline assessments.325 The Court

Team is due to file a public report with the Court summarizing

approved this Baseline Assessment Plan on March 24, 2016.326

the findings of its baseline measurement process by June 22, 2016.330

The Baseline Assessment Plan called for the Monitoring Team to collect, clean, and sort 2015 quantitative data from CPD, OPS, and the City of Cleveland between March 1, 2016 and May 31, 2016. The Monitor assigned a dedicated sub-team to focus on outcome measures. That team has conducted a series of site visits since December 2015 to meet with a variety of CPD and City personnel to learn the state of CPD’s data collection capacity, efforts, and constraints. In many instances, this required some
321 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 368. 322 Id. ¶ 369. 323 Id. ¶ 369(b). 324 Dkt. 43-1 at 63. 325 Dkt. 50. 326 Dkt. 52.

2. Biennial Community Survey
All of CPD, CPC, the City (through the Mayor and Community Relations Board), and Monitoring Team have asked for substantive comment and input from both the community at large and from CPD officers. Indeed, one unique feature of the Consent Decree in Cleveland has been the sustained commitment by CPD, in partnership with the police officer unions and other organizations, to asking police officers about what changes they
327 Dkt. 52-1 at 7. 328 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 129. 329 Id. ¶ 367. 330 Dkt. 50-1 at 7.

67

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 69 of 72. PageID #: 885

would like to see in policy, process, procedure, training, and support resources to further the goals of the Decree. Likewise, the early timing, significant scope, and primary importance of community input at the beginning of work on nearly all major reform topics has helped to put the needs, experiences, and values of the Cleveland community further to the fore than many other Consent Decree processes.
It should be noted here that some elements of this community outreach has been the design and deployment of what have been colloquially termed “surveys.” Although there have been billed as “surveys” on issues related to use of force policies, bias-free policing, body-worn cameras, and the Division’s mission statement, among others, these community feedback efforts are not the sort of methodologically-rigorous surveys – featuring random sampling of a statistically relevant number of individuals from across Cleveland’s diverse communities – from which the Monitor or other stakeholders can be assured that the expressed views are representative of Cleveland’s whole population. These “surveys” do, however, provide an important snapshot of the views of individuals who are electing to take the Consent Decree process up on its offer to be heard and contribute to reform from the ground up. So that the utility of these non-representative feedback instruments can be most useful to the Consent Decree process, the Monitoring Team has provided technical assistance to both CPD and the City on certain elements of feedback instruments to date.
Accordingly, the feedback initiatives that have previously been, and will continue to be, undertaken, by various Consent Decree stakeholders are separate and different from the formal, scientific survey of community perceptions. To that end, the Consent Decree requires that the Monitor, “[w]ithin 180 days of the Effective Date, and every two years thereafter, . . . conduct a reliable, comprehensive, and representative survey of the members of the Cleveland community regarding their experiences with and perceptions of CDP and of public safety.”331 Because the Monitor was appointed nearly four months after the Consent Decree’s effective date, the Parties and Monitor agreed that the deadline for the first biennial survey would be extended to June 23, 2016.332
On March 15, the Monitor filed the Biennial Community Survey Plan (the “Survey Plan”) required by the First-Year Monitoring Plan333 with the Court.334 The Plan outlined three phases for completing a comprehensive survey initiative.
The first phase consists of an initial, comprehensive, and rigorous survey of Cleveland residents. The survey conducted will be a telephone-based survey of a random set of Cleveland residents, with the composition of those residents sufficient to allow valid
331 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 361. 332 Dkt. 47. 333 Dkt. 43-1 at 61. 334 Dkt. 50.
68

statistical inferences about the whole of the Cleveland population. After the Court approved the Survey Plan,335 the Monitoring Team created a “call for survey firms” that it advertised in the Monitoring Team’s website and disseminated affirmatively with both national firms and local Cleveland firms with prior survey experience. The Team collected and assessed responses to the call for surveys, selecting two firms as finalists. Subsequently, the Team solicited and received input from the Parties about the finalist survey firms.
Ultimately, with the consent of the Parties, the firm of ISA was selected to conduct the initial community survey.336 The first task of the Monitor, working with ISA, was to construct a survey design instrument responsive to the requirements of the Decree. To that end, the Monitoring Team obtained prior surveys conducted in Cleveland and reviewed surveys conducted in other jurisdictions related to policing, public safety, and public confidence of law enforcement. A draft of the survey instrument was distributed to the Parties and CPC for feedback and comment.
The community survey was conducted between May 5 and May 31. A final report on the results is slated to be filed with the Court no later than June 23, 2016.
Phase Two of the community survey initiative will consist of “structured, methodologically rigorous focus group research,” which “is a standard mechanism for augmenting generalized survey research to gain a greater, more detailed, and more nuanced view of the reasons, experiences, and motivations behind particular views or opinions expressed in an overview survey.”337 The focus group component “will both inform and supplement the survey results” and provide an opportunity “to secure input from members of the community [who] are more difficult to reach by telephone” and to provide a forum “for dialogue and sharing of experiences that can offer a more complete perspective than survey answers” that necessarily add little opportunity for respondents to provide narrative explanations or accounts of experiences to support their views.338
The last phase of the survey initiative will involve developing a process for assessing the perceptions of experiences of police officers with regard to their interactions with the community and of arrested detainees to probe the nature of their interactions with CPD – both of which are required by the Decree.339
335 Dkt. 52. 336 See ISA Corporation, About Us, http://www.isacorp.com/ about-us/ (last visited Apr. 19, 2016). 337 Dkt. 50. 338 Id. 339 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 363(b).

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 70 of 72. PageID #: 886

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team

Lutheran Metropolitan MInistry 4515 Superior Avenue, First Floor
Division of Police 1300 Ontario Street, Fourth Floor info@clevelandpolicemonitor.com
69

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 71 of 72. PageID #: 887
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team
Matthew Barge Monitor
Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey (ret.) Deputy Monitor
Chief Timothy Longo Director of Implementation
Charles R. See Director of Community Engagement
Christine Cole Director of Outcome Measures
Dr. Modupe Akinola Chief Joseph Brann (ret.)
Brian Center Dr. Randolph Dupont
Kelli Evans Maggie Goodrich Ayesha Hardaway
Victor Ruiz Captain Scott Sargent (ret.)
Dr. Ellen Scrivner Sean Smoot
Timothy Tramble Monitoring Team
Barry Friedman Nonny Onyekweli Maria Ponomarenko NYU School of Law Policing Project
Consultants

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 65 Filed: 06/02/16 72 of 72. PageID #: 888 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on June 2, 2016, I served the foregoing document entitled Memorandum Submitting First-Year Monitoring Plan via the court’s ECF system to all counsel of record.
/s/ Matthew Barge MATTHEW BARGE
2

 
 Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 69 Filed: 06/13/16 1 of 28. PageID #: 892

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff, vs.
CITY OF CLEVELAND,
Defendant.

) CASE NO.: 1:15-CV-01046 ) ) ) JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER, JR. ) ) ) CITY OF CLEVELAND’S ) SECOND STATUS REPORT

I. Introduction
Section 387 of the Settlement Agreement1 entered into by the City of Cleveland (“City”) and the Department of Justice (“DOJ”)2 states in pertinent part: “Following [its] initial status report, the City will file a status report every six months thereafter while this Agreement is in effect.” The City filed its Initial Status Report on December 9, 2015 and files this second report to update the Court, the Monitor, the Department of Justice, and the residents of Cleveland concerning the status of the broad range of activities that have been undertaken by the CDP and the City over the past six months.
Following the City’s initial status report, the Monitor engaged with the City and the Department of Justice in a collaborative manner to establish an agreed upon plan, or road map, to guide the implementation of reforms during the period February 1, 2016 through January 31, 2017. This guide, the “First-Year Monitoring Plan” (hereafter “Monitoring Plan”), was filed and approved by the Court on February 4, 2016. The

1 The Consent Decree approved by the Court on June 12, 2015 incorporates the terms of
the Settlement Agreement reached between the City and the Department of Justice. 2 The City and the DOJ collectively will be referred to as the “Parties.”

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 69 Filed: 06/13/16 2 of 28. PageID #: 893
Monitoring Plan was designed around work to be accomplished in nine topic areas, and establishes the methodology and calendar for meeting designated deliverable results. The work of the CDP and other City stakeholders in the first half of 2016 has focused on the schedule outlined in the Monitoring Plan.
The City’s efforts going forward remain directed at meeting the goals and reform principles identified in the Consent Decree, while continuously seeking to ensure the safety of persons living and working in Cleveland. As might be expected, a large measure of the work being undertaken in the first year of the Consent Decree has involved the development, adoption, and implementation of policies and plans that will guide the CDP going forward. In addition to working with the Monitor and the DOJ, the City and the CDP are working with the new Cleveland Community Police Commission (“CPC”) and listening to the many voices of the City’s diverse communities as policies and plans are developed.
This report discusses the many areas that have been addressed in the past six months and the City’s progress to date. To provide a cross-reference and understanding of activities and progress to this point, the City’s report follows the outline contained in Paragraph 387 of the Consent Decree:
This report will delineate the steps taken by CDP [Cleveland Division of Police] during the reporting period to comply with this Agreement; CDP’s Assessment of the Status of its progress; plans to correct any problems; and response to concerns raised in the Monitor’s previous semi-annual report.
II. Steps Taken by the Cleveland Division of Police and the City of Cleveland During the Reporting Period.
As noted above, the Monitoring Plan covers the period February 1, 2016 through
2

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 69 Filed: 06/13/16 3 of 28. PageID #: 894
January 31, 2017 and identifies nine basic topic areas as a framework for establishing the milestones that are anticipated to be met during this twelve month period. The major title headings (A.-I.) following within this section of the report incorporate the nine topic headings as they are identified in the Monitoring Report. A. Community and Problem-Oriented Policing
1. Mission Statement The Consent Decree establishes at section 28 that “CDP will ensure that its mission statement reflects its commitment to community oriented policing…” The CDP’s new mission statement has been delivered to the Monitor for recommended approval and filing with the Court. CDP’s development of the new mission statement included receiving and reviewing input from the communities through the work of the CPC along with input from uniformed officers. Developing the mission statement also involved discussions, evaluation, and review by the Parties and the Monitor team. The Mission Statement proposed for filing with the Court documents CDP’s direct and ongoing commitment to both constitutional and community oriented policing: The mission of the Cleveland Division of Police is to serve as guardians of the Cleveland community by enforcing the law, maintaining order, and protecting the lives, property, and rights of all people, as guided by the Constitution. We shall carry out our duties with a reverence for human life in partnership with members of the community through professionalism, respect, integrity, dedication and excellence in policing. 2. Community and Problem-Oriented Policing Work Plan The Monitoring Plan establishes that CDP will propose a Community and
3

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 69 Filed: 06/13/16 4 of 28. PageID #: 895
Problem-Oriented Policing Plan in October,3 with a final version of the Community and Problem-Oriented Policing Work Plan being reviewed by the Monitor for filing with the Court by January 30, 2017. Section 17(c) of the Settlement Agreement requires that the CPC assess CDP’s community activities and make strategy recommendations for CDP’s consideration relating to increased community engagement and confidence. B. Use of Force - Related Policies
In Section 45 of the Settlement Agreement the Parties agreed that “CDP will revise, develop, and implement force policies, training, supervision, and accountability systems with the goal of ensuring that force is used in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the requirements of this Agreement and that any use of unreasonable force is promptly identified and responded to appropriately.” Review, development, and implementation of new use of force policies is a bedrock of the agreed upon reform efforts and has been a primary area of attention of the CDP during this reporting period.
As was reported in the Monitor’s First Semi-Annual Report, “[t]he current goal, codified in the First-Year Monitoring Plan, is for CPD to have a new use of force policy in place, and all officers trained on the policy, by December 31, 2016. This will allow the new policy to become effective and implemented across Cleveland as of January 1, 2017.”4 The new policies will take effect only when “the parties and the Monitor have certified that training on the polic[ies] and its core concepts have been sufficiently
3 Milestones that are scheduled for completion after June 13, 2016 will be addressed in the City’s next status report which should be filed in December. 4 First Semi-Annual Report, Dkt # 65, p. 31.
4

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 69 Filed: 06/13/16 5 of 28. PageID #: 896
completed.”5 The new “Use of Force” policies currently being developed address the guidelines
governing use of force by officers, the reporting to be completed following a use of force, the levels of investigation to be completed following a use of force, and requirements for supervisory review following the completion of the required reporting and investigations. An update on the current status of policy development in each of these four uses of force related areas follows.
1. Use of Force – by Officers Initial steps in CDP’s review and development of revised division policies governing officer use of force involved receiving community input from the Community Relations Board and the CPC, and input from CDP’s patrol and supervisory officers. Taking due consideration of community and officer input, CDP has proposed revised policies governing officer use of force along with guidelines governing the use of intermediate weapons. The policies provide direction and clarity for those instances when an individual’s actions require an appropriate use of force response. The intermediate weapons policy establishes use of force guidelines relative to the deployment of intermediate weapons. Intermediate weapons generally used by officers addressed in the policy include the asp baton, Taser, and Oleoresin Capsicum spray, generally referred to as OC or pepper spray. CDP has also proposed along with the use of force policy a separate policy addressing the principles of “De-Escalation.” The purpose associated with this new proposed policy is to establish guidelines for officers relative to de-escalating situations
5 Monitoring Plan, Dkt # 43-1, p. 7. 5

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 69 Filed: 06/13/16 6 of 28. PageID #: 897
in order to gain voluntary compliance and to reduce the need to use force. The CDP, Parties, and the Monitor continue at the time of this report to be
actively engaged in discussions concerning the final language to be contained in each of these proposed policies. The City believes a general consensus between the CDP, the parties, and the DOJ concerning the use of force and de-escalation policy language has been achieved, and it is currently anticipated that final language reflecting the consensus will be proposed to the Monitor by the end of this month. The Monitor’s recent First Semi-Annual Report provided that it is “currently contemplate[d] that community engagement on the new force policy will occur beginning in late July or August, with the Monitor recommending that the Court either approve or disapprove of the policy in late August or early September.”6
2. Use of Force - Reporting Paragraph 47 of the Consent Decree provides that “[a]s soon as practical following a use of force, CDP will ensure that the incident is accurately and properly reported, documented, and investigated. A fundamental goal of the revised use of force policy will be to account for, review, and investigate every reportable use of force and reduce any improper uses of force.”7 Within this framework, the parties further agreed that “CDP will develop and implement a single, uniform, reporting system pursuant to a Use of Force Reporting policy.”8 CDP has been working on the development of the required reporting policy concurrent with the work associated with the aforementioned policies governing officer
6 First Semi-Annual Report, Dkt # 65, p. 34 7 Dkt # 7-1, p. 14.
6

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 69 Filed: 06/13/16 7 of 28. PageID #: 898
use of force and de-escalation. The new reporting policy will establish guidelines for the reporting of all uses of force responses and for documenting the reasonableness, necessity and proportionality associated with an officer’s use of force. The proposed use of force reporting policy is being reviewed and discussion remains ongoing between the CDP, the Parties and the Monitor as to the final language to be incorporated. The Monitoring Plan anticipates submission of a final agreed upon draft of CDP’s new reporting policy in late June, and, if the Court approves the policy, with the attendant necessary training to be completed by the end of December.
An interim development related to “use of force” reporting that is being currently used a new, interim force reporting form — the “Blue Team Individual Involved Officer Worksheet.” Blue Team is a software program that has been adopted by CDP that allows, among other capabilities, for officer “use of force” reporting to be directly and electronically entered into the system. CDP is presently training officers on using the Blue Team system. This program will enable patrol officers to enter their use of force reporting directly into the system allowing them to complete their duties more efficiently. Though the referenced worksheet is a paper form, its design closely aligns with the drop down computer screens used with the Blue Team software system.
3. Use of Force – Investigations Paragraph 87 of the Consent Decree established that uses of force would be classified within three defined levels, 1, 2, and 3, and further provided: The three levels for the reporting, investigation, and review of use of force correspond to the amount of force used and/or the outcome of the force. This Agreement’s categorization of these types of uses of force is based on
8 Id. at p. 20.
7

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 69 Filed: 06/13/16 8 of 28. PageID #: 899
the following factors: potential of the technique or weapon to cause injury; degree of injury caused; degree of pain experienced; degree of disability experienced by the subject; complaint by the subject; degree of restraint of the subject; impairment of the functioning of any organ; duration of force; and physical vulnerability of the subject. Each level of force will require increasingly rigorous reporting, investigation, and review. Level 1 is the lowest category and includes “force that is reasonably expected to cause only transient pain and/or disorientation during its application as a means of gaining compliance, including pressure point compliance and joint manipulation techniques, but that is not reasonably expected to cause injury, does not result in actual injury, and does not result in complaint of injury.” Level 2 addresses uses of force that “could reasonably be expected to cause an injury, or results in a complaint of an injury, but does not rise to Level 3 use of force.” Level 3 includes among its definition the use of lethal force, uses of force resulting in death or serious injury, force resulting in hospital admissions, neck holds, force resulting in loss of consciousness, canine bites, and certain levels of electronic control force when used.9 The level of scrutiny or investigation to be undertaken following an officer’s use of force increases with the level of the force used. CDP’s proposed policies governing the required investigations for each of the three levels of force are still being discussed and reviewed as of the date of this filing.
a. Levels 1 and 2 Investigation CDP is presently engaged with the Monitor and the Parties concerning a new proposed policy entitled “Use of Force Supervisory Reviews and Investigations.” The proposed policy addresses the level of scrutiny and use of force investigations that are to
8

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 69 Filed: 06/13/16 9 of 28. PageID #: 900
be conducted for Level 1 and Level 2 uses of force. Pursuant to the agreement of the parties and language of the Consent Decree, the proposed policy addresses fair and impartial use of force reviews and investigations that will be conducted by officer chain of command supervisors for Level 1 and Level 2 uses of force. The proposed policy would require that investigations address attempted de-escalation, the reasonableness and necessity of actions taken by an officer, and proportionality of force used in relation to the level of resistance encountered. CDP continues to work with the Parties and the Monitor with the goal of gaining approval and finalizing the policy by late August.
b. Level 3 Investigation The Consent Decree requires that Level 3 uses of force be investigated by a team of personnel having specialized training and expertise, with the teams being tailored to the circumstances of each investigation. The teams will be identified with the title Force Investigation Team (“FIT”).10 A FIT will investigate all Level 3 use of force incidents, uses of force involving potential criminal conduct by an officer, all incidents in which an individual has died while in, or as an apparent result of being in, the Division’s custody, and any uses of force assigned for FIT investigation by the Chief. CDP’s proposed policy governing FIT investigations is currently being reviewed and discussed by the Parties and the Monitor. The proposed FIT policy has been designed to ensure that Level 3 uses of force are investigated fully and fairly by individuals with appropriate expertise, independence, and investigative skills. The policy is intended to
9 The complete definition for each of the three Levels can be found at paragraph 87 of the Settlement Agreement, Dkt # 7-1, at subparagraphs a.-c. 10 Requirements addressing FIT are contained in paragraphs 110-123 in the Settlement Agreement, Dkt # 7-1,.
9

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 69 Filed: 06/13/16 10 of 28. PageID #: 901
ensure that any uses of force that are contrary to law or policy are identified; that any training, tactical, and equipment deficiencies related to the use of force are identified; and that investigations when conducted are of sufficient quality. A FIT when deployed is to be granted full investigative authority by the Chief of Police.
The Monitoring Plan establishes that review and further refinement of both the draft supervisory chain of command force investigation policy for Levels 1 and 2 uses of force and the FIT use of force investigation policy for level 3 incidents will be finalized in late August.
4. Use of Force – Review. The CDP has concurrently developed a policy proposal that relates to the review of uses of force through the creation of a Force Review Board (“FRB”). As established in Section 124 of the Consent Decree the newly created FRB will serve as a quality control mechanism for reviewing use of force investigations and will “appraise use of force incidents from a tactics, training, policy, and agency improvement perspective.” The FRB will review all FIT investigations and all Level 2 investigations where force-related misconduct was found, with the further responsibility to review a sample of other completed Level 2 force investigations. CDP provided its initial proposed FRB policy for review of the Parties and the Monitor on June 10. C. Officer Training The third section of the Monitoring Plan is entitled Officer Training. In accord with the Consent Decree, CDP’s training policy is to be reviewed to “ensure that all officers receive adequate training to understand: (a) how to police effectively and safely in accordance with CDP policy; [and] (b) the requirements of the Agreement, Ohio law,
10

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 69 Filed: 06/13/16 11 of 28. PageID #: 902
and the Constitution and laws of the United States.” 11 To meet the requirements of the Consent Decree the Monitoring Plan establishes certain goals that are to be achieved in 2016. Establishing a training program that meets the requirements of the Consent Decree is a vital undertaking and the following addresses ongoing training related achievements.
1. Training Policy and Committee CDP’s new Police Officer Training Standards policy was developed and finalized with the agreement of the Parties and Monitor and filed for the Court’s approval on March 30, 2016. The new training policy establishes the use of multiple creative learning techniques and provides for the ongoing and continuing professional training of officers on a variety of subjects—to include constitutional use of force, search and seizure, tactics, crisis intervention, community and problem solving policing, bias free policing, annual equipment training, state required training, supervisory training, and technology training as necessary. The approved training policy expands CDP’s Training Review Committee by including with CDP’s training section staff members, newly appointed District training coordinators, representatives from the police unions, and members of the Cleveland Police Commission.12 In recommending approval of the new training policy to the Court on March 30, the Monitor commented that “[a]fter careful review…the proposed policy incorporates the applicable requirements of the Consent Decree while making clear the scope both of training programs that CDP is committing to provide to its officers and of
11 Dkt # 7-1, paragraph 269. 12 The CPC members that have been appointed to the Training Review Committee include Mario Clopton and Dr. Kathy Clegg.
11

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 69 Filed: 06/13/16 12 of 28. PageID #: 903
the Training Review Committee’s role in identifying the Division’s training priorities.”13 On April 19 the Court entered an order approving the CDP’s new training policy.
The expanded Training Review Committee as envisioned in the Consent Decree14 will review and update CDP’s training plan on a yearly basis and will conduct a needs assessment that considers trends in misconduct complaints, problematic uses of force, officer safety issues, input from officers at all levels, input from the community, court decisions, law enforcement trends, District needs, and changes to laws and policies.
2. District Training Coordinators Pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 276 of the Consent Decree, CDP has now identified and appointed a single training coordinator for each of its Districts. The coordinators will work with the Commander responsible for training, and as members of the Training Review Committee they will ensure that officers assigned to their respective districts complete required training. The District training coordinators will eventually handle additional responsibilities to include the scheduling of training, presenting roll call training and in-service training, and documenting the completion of training. 3. In-Service Training Plan As work in the first part of the year has focused on developing revised plans and policies, officer in-service training was separated into two components for 2016. The first component involves training that began in January and that is scheduled to be completed by the end of June 2016. After review and discussion between the Division, Monitor, and DOJ, CDP’s in-service training plan for the first six months of the year was approved by
13 Dkt # 55, p. 3. 14 Dkt # 7-1, paragraph 274.
12

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 69 Filed: 06/13/16 13 of 28. PageID #: 904
the Monitor. The training undertaken during this period allows the Division to complete existing State-mandated OPOTA training requirements.
CDP’s in-service training plan for the second half of 2016 has been submitted to the Parties and the Monitor as required by the Monitoring Plan. The proposed subject matter of the in-service training to be provided to officers in the second six months of 2016 would include training on the new use of force and use of force reporting policies as they are approved, required crisis intervention training, and training in other required areas. As required by the Monitoring Plan CDP has identified and submitted a list of the Division’s In Service Training Instructors, along with their area of expertise, to the Monitor and Parties
4. Supervisor Training Plan Paragraph 323 of the Consent Decree requires that CDP “develop and implement mandatory supervisory training for all new and current supervisors.” The Monitoring Plan envisions CDP’s developing a Supervisor Training Plan that addresses implementation and adherence to the Consent Decree’s supervisor training requirements. Additionally, the Monitoring Plan requires the development of an Initial Supervisor Training Plan for supervisor training that is to be provided in 2016. Both plans have been prepared and submitted by CDP for review by the Parties and the Monitor in accordance with the Monitoring Plan. Discussions regarding suggested revisions to CDP’s proposals remain ongoing and the plans have not yet been finalized and approved. 5. Training Documentation Plan The Consent Decree requires that CDP develop and implement a system that will
13

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 69 Filed: 06/13/16 14 of 28. PageID #: 905
allow CDP “to electronically track, maintain, and produce complete and accurate records of current curricula, lesson plans, training delivered, and other training materials in a centralized electronic file system.” CDP has prepared and submitted to the Parties and the Monitor a proposed Training Documentation Plan (“TDP”) pursuant to the schedule established in the Monitoring Plan. The TDP as proposed by CDP and discussed with the parties and the Monitor would incorporate the adoption of a Learning Management System (“LMS”). LMS involves a software application that provides for the administration, documentation, reporting, tracking, and delivery of electronic educational technology. Review and discussion between the Parties and Monitor regarding feedback and suggested refinements to the proposed TDP remain active and ongoing.
6. Recruitment and Hiring Paragraphs 300 to 311 of the Consent Decree address CDP recruitment and hiring practices. In achieving the language adopted in the Consent Decree the City and DOJ agreed that “CDP will review and revise as necessary its recruitment and hiring program to ensure that CDP successfully attracts and hires a diverse group of qualified individuals.”15 The Parties and the Monitor are in agreement that establishing a comprehensive and strong recruiting plan that effectively engages the diverse population of Cleveland and meets the inclusive goals established in the Consent Decree is important. As was commented upon in the Monitor’s First Status Report, the City is proceeding with important work that will significantly impact on future recruiting. The City has developed and submitted proposed and revised recruiting plans within the time frames established in the Monitoring Plan. Aspects of the City’s plan remain subject to
14

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 69 Filed: 06/13/16 15 of 28. PageID #: 906
further attention and discussion between the Parties and the Monitor and it was agreed that more time than had been initially contemplated would be taken in developing the final recruiting plan to present to the Court. The City has agreed to continue to work with the Monitor and DOJ in reaching a mutually agreeable and effective recruiting program.
It is understood and contemplated by the City, the Monitor, and the DOJ that the City’s next cadet class will come from the City’s existing civil service list. The City remains committed to its ongoing establishment of an on-line application process that will make applying to join Cleveland’s safety forces an easier process for all involved. D. Crisis Intervention
In March CDP and the Mental Health Response Advisory Committee submitted a proposed Crisis Intervention Work Plan to address gaps in resources, knowledge and infrastructure regarding crisis intervention and to address the process for complying with crisis intervention deadlines established in the Monitoring Plan. After review and discussion with the Parties and Monitor a revised plan was filed with the Court and was approved in May.16
The MHRAC is presently working on re-writing CDP’s CIT policy and expects to have it completed for review by the Parties and the Monitor in July. Community meetings and focus groups have been held to discuss issues related to CDP and crisis response and to obtain recommendations. The initial eight (8) hour CIT training for CDP officers, which will begin in the Fall, is currently in development. The CIT Coordinator, Captain James Purcell is working on a staffing plan to ensure specialized CIT officers are
15 Dkt # 7-1, p. 70, at paragraph 300. 16 Dkt # 64, Order.
15

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 69 Filed: 06/13/16 16 of 28. PageID #: 907
available on every shift in each district. E. Accountability
1. Internal Affairs Paragraph 178 of the Consent Decree requires that CDP’s Internal Affairs (“IA”) office “will be headed by a qualified civilian who is not a current or former employee of CDP, and who is not a current or retired law enforcement officer.” In this regard the Monitor Plan has established the goal of having a civilian head of IA appointed and commencing work by the end of August. CDP has established a job description for the position that was approved by the Parties and the Monitor. The position has been posted nationally and CDP has received a number of applications from a diverse pool of applicants. CDP is presently reviewing the application pool for qualified applicants to interview in the near term as the Division works to meet the August deadline for filling the position. 2. Office of Professional Standards The office of Professional Standards (“OPS”) is responsible for receiving and investigating citizen complaints alleging misconduct by officers and employees of the Cleveland Division of Police. After a full and complete investigation, OPS presents the results to the Civilian Police Review Board (“PRB”) for disposition. Discussion concerning OPS is contained in Section V of this report: “Response to Concerns Raised in the Monitor’s Semi-Annual Report.” 3. Police Review Board The Consent Decree requires the Mayor to work with City Council, in consultation with the CPC, to develop an ordinance to place a Charter Amendment on the
16

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 69 Filed: 06/13/16 17 of 28. PageID #: 908
ballot ensuring that members of the Police Review Board (“PRB”) are appointed in a transparent manner, that the PRB membership is representative of the diverse communities within Cleveland, and to allow the chair and vice-chair of the PRB to each serve one year terms, with their selection by a majority vote of PRB’s members. The CPC was consulted and provided recommended PRB Charter amendment language. The Mayor is presently working with City Council to develop an ordinance that would place a Charter Amendment on the November 2016 ballot.
4. Transparency The City has established a link on both the City’s and CDP website for the purpose of meeting the terms of paragraph 268 of the Consent decree. This paragraph requires that CDP post its “policies and procedures, training plans, community policing initiatives, community meeting schedules, budgets, and internal audit reports on its website.” CDP intends that required information will be consistently posted and updated as matters proceed. F. Equipment and Resources 1. Equipment and Resources Study Section 292 of the Consent Decree required that CDP “complete a comprehensive equipment and resource study to assess its current needs and priorities to perform the functions necessary for CDP to fulfill its mission and satisfy the requirements of this Agreement.” CDP completed and submitted the required equipment and resource study in April to the Parties and Monitor. 2. IA Pro IA Pro is a software program management tool that has been adopted by CDP to
17

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 69 Filed: 06/13/16 18 of 28. PageID #: 909
allow the Division to electronically enter, track and maintain all in-house investigations such as injury investigations, use of force investigations, motor vehicle accidents and more. The software program will allow the Division to investigate, follow and close internal cases in a more efficient manner. The program also enables the Division to identify officers for early intervention before discipline is required by tracking indicators such as use of force, motor vehicle accidents, injuries and more. The alert will enable the Division to assist officers with possible issues, such as training, before the officer reaches the need to be disciplined.
CDP identified an IA Pro Implementation and Maintenance Team that has met with representatives of the Parties and the Monitor in accordance with the direction in the Monitoring Plan to discuss the status of implementing the IA Pro system. CDP has also provided the Monitor with a proposed final version of the IA Pro Implementation Work Plan required in the Monitoring Plan. A memorandum filed with the Court on April 11 concerning the IA Pro Implementation Work Plan addresses the status of matters17:
The Monitor is in receipt of the Division’s Final Draft of the IA Pro Implementation Work Plan. That Plan provides a general overview of the intended implementation process, with accompanying deadlines. The Parties and Monitor have agreed that the overview Plan is sufficient for this current juncture — primarily because it closely adheres to the manufacturer of IA Pro’s standard and recommended implementation process and establishes an IA Pro Implementation Team to drive implementation of the system across the Division. As the IA Pro implementation process unfolds, updated project plans may be necessary. The Monitor will update the Court as implementation proceeds. Implementation continues. The IA Pro program will also allow the Office of Professional Standards to enter and track citizen complaints electronically.
17 Dkt # 56, pp. 1-2.
18

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 69 Filed: 06/13/16 19 of 28. PageID #: 910
3. Staffing Paragraph 319 of the Consent Decree requires that within the first year “CDP will complete a comprehensive staffing study to assess the appropriate number of sworn and civilian personnel to perform the functions necessary for CDP to fulfill its mission, and satisfy the requirements of the Agreement.” Pursuant to the Monitoring Plan CDP conducted a survey of its officers and met with the CPPA and FOP to discuss staffing issues and concerns prior to the completion of its study. The results of the officer survey input have been provided to the Monitor and Parties. CDP is finalizing the staffing study for delivery to the Monitor and the Parties pursuant to the Monitoring Plan. The Consent Decree further requires at paragraph 319 that following completion of the staffing study that CDP is “to develop an effective, comprehensive Staffing Plan that is consistent with its mission, including community and problem-oriented policing that will allow CDP to meet the requirements of this Agreement.” The Monitoring Plan schedule requires that CDP submit the separate staffing plan to the Parties and the Monitor in August. 4. Body Worn Cameras During the period of this report the Monitor provided CDP with an assessment of its existing body-worn camera policies and practices. CDP has undertaken to revise its former policies to incorporate feedback received from the Parties and the Monitor. While CDP believes a consensus has been achieved on most body-worn camera policy issues, further review and communication between the parties and DOJ continues in addressing finalization of the policy.
19

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 69 Filed: 06/13/16 20 of 28. PageID #: 911
G. Data Collection and Analysis The Consent Decree requires that CDP designate a Data Collection and Analysis
Coordinator to coordinate the creation, collection, and maintenance of multiple data and records required by the Decree. The job position was posted nationally and many applications were received. The Interview process and associated background checks are ongoing. H. Bias Free Policing
Section of the Consent Decree required that “[w]ithin 18 months of the Effective Date, CDP will develop a bias-free policing policy that incorporates, as appropriate, the recommendations developed by the [CPC] pursuant to paragraph 17 [of the Settlement Agreement] and that provides clear guidance to officers that biased policing, including deciding to retain a motorist or pedestrian based solely on racial stereotypes is prohibited.”
1. Bias Free Policing Policy On June 3 CDP produced to the Parties and the Monitor a proposed Bias Free Policing Policy. The new draft policy was formulated to provide officers guidance in delivering police services with the goal of ensuring that they are accomplished equitably, respectfully, and free of unlawful bias, and in a manner that promotes broad community engagement and confidence in the Cleveland Division of Police. On March 7, 2016 the CPC completed and provided CDP and others its initial Bias Free Policing Report as contemplated by paragraph 17 of the Settlement Agreement. In delivering the proposed draft policy the CDP made clear that it is committed to providing services and enforcing laws in a professional, nondiscriminatory, fair and
20

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 69 Filed: 06/13/16 21 of 28. PageID #: 912
equitable manner. The policy establishes that CDP officers are to engage in bias-free policing and shall not make enforcement decisions or take actions that are influenced by bias, prejudice, or discriminatory intent.
CDP’s proposed bias free policy is the first step in a review process that contemplates finalization and approval of a new Bias-Free policy in the middle of October. As with the development of the use of force policies, the Parties and the Monitor will review and comment on the policy as it proceeds to finalization.
2. Bias Free training The Plan contemplates that CDP will develop in service training relative to the bias free policing policy after finalization and approval of the policy. Such training would occur during the period of October, 2016 to February, 2017. I. Compliance and Outcome Assessments and Reporting 1. Biennial Survey Paragraph 364 of the Consent Decree requires that the CDP and City “agree to cooperate with the design and performance” of the Biennial Survey to be undertaken by the Monitor. Pursuant to the schedule incorporated into the Monitoring Plan, the City and CDP worked to provided relevant comments and considerations to the Monitor concerning preparation of the Biennial Survey. The City understands that much of the survey work has been completed and that the results will be forthcoming in the next reporting period. 2. City Status Report Pursuant to the terms of the Monitor Plan and the agreement of the Monitor and Parties the City’s second status report is being filed with the Court on June 13.
21

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 69 Filed: 06/13/16 22 of 28. PageID #: 913
J. Miscellaneous This section of the report discusses other ongoing efforts during the period of the
last six months not addressed in the Monitoring Plan. 1. Consent Decree Implementation Coordinator In April the City appointed retired Federal Magistrate Judge Gregory A. White as
the city’s Consent Decree Implementation Coordinator. Judge White reports directly to the Mayor and is responsible for coordinating the City’s on-going implementation efforts in meeting requirements of the Consent Decree and the Monitoring Plan. Judge White coordinates directly with CDP’s Consent Decree Implementation Unit and regularly interacts with the Monitor.
2. CDP Coordination with CPC A representative from CDP’s Consent Decree Implementation Unit headed by Commander Brian Heffernan regularly attends the scheduled meetings of the CPC, with the Commander providing a point of coordination for commissioners when questions or requests for documents arise that require CDP attention. The Unit has presented information and held question and answer sessions at full and sub-committee meetings in response to topics the Commission was working on, and has further participated with the CPC in break out group meetings with community members on a variety of topics. Additionally the Unit offered and provided formal training to CPC commissioners on topics to include: CDP operations, policies, intermediate weapons and data / statistics matters. The unit is presently arranging and coordinating ride-a-longs with officers during a shift with those commissioners who have expressed interest in participating.
22

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 69 Filed: 06/13/16 23 of 28. PageID #: 914
III. Assessment of the Status of Cleveland Division of Police’s Progress
CDP has made strong and consistent progress in working to ensure that the reforms and goals agreed to and formalized in the Consent Decree are being met. The Division has been working to meet the terms of the Consent Decree, while at the same time concurrently planning and preparing for the Republican National Convention that is coming to Cleveland during the week of July 18-21. The CDP continues to work with and provide information to the CPC, with Commander Brian Heffernan and other members of its implementation team attending regularly scheduled meetings of the CPC. CDP has also maintained a courteous and professional working relationship with the Monitor, with the intention of ensuring the continuing cooperation that was recognized in the Monitor’s first semi-annual report. As addressed in this report much of the work in the past six months has necessarily been focused on policies (e.g. use of force, training, crisis intervention, bias-free policing) that will continue to govern policing in Cleveland beyond the period of the Consent Decree.
IV. Plans to Correct Any Problems
CDP’s Law Enforcement Records Management System (LERMS) was originally installed in approximately 1998. An upgrade of the system to a Windows platform was completed on November 15, 2015. After the upgrade, the system had been slow to nonresponsive with system errors occurring that resulted in a backlog in the entry of officer incident reports. The City’s Information Technology Department (“ITS”) worked with the system provider to resolve the identified problem areas related to the LERMS go live date last November. Numerous recommendations and changes/fixes were recommended
23

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 69 Filed: 06/13/16 24 of 28. PageID #: 915
and applied. Software fixes applied to the system, in conjunction with the redeployment of new hardware and some network enhancement contributed to the LERMS system being stabilized by mid-May. At the time of this report the LERMS system is completely operational.
Due to the issues described above, a backlog of officer incident reports developed. It is important to note that all reports are added to the LERMS system within 24-72 hour of receipt. The backlog refers to the adding of the report narratives to the initial report record. At this time, a combination of temporary workers and current staff has been employed to address and significantly reduce the number of backlog items, while also managing the current report volume. As was noted in the Monitor’s report:
The City has appropriate[ly] put focus on the LERMS issue. Temporary workers have assisted in reducing the backlog of cases not entered into the system to 7,590 as of May 25, 2016. Current city personnel working on ensuring that LERMS is a stable, high-functioning system have gone to extraordinary lengths to address issues far more related to business practice and implementation issues rather than core computer or technology concerns.18 Further reduction of the number of backlog items has occurred during the period following the Monitor’s report and reduction remains an ongoing priority.
V. Response to Concerns Raised in the Monitor’s Semi-Annual Report
A significant concern addressed in the Monitor’s Semi-Annual Report involved the Office of Professional Standards (“OPS”). The Monitor concluded in the report that “a comprehensive and intensive organizational assessment of OPS must be conducted to determine how OPS is currently functioning, why so few cases are investigated, and what
18 Dkt # 65, at p. 8.
24

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 69 Filed: 06/13/16 25 of 28. PageID #: 916
specific reforms must be instituted to ensure that new complaints are fully and fairly investigated and the enormous backlog of incomplete investigations is addressed.”19 The City recognizes that the timely, full, and fair investigation of citizen complaints is a critical part of the agreed upon reforms outlined in the Consent Decree. As was noted in the Monitor’s report, the City “has committed to the Monitor and Department of Justice to fixing OPS.”20 The City remains committed to taking those steps that are necessary to ensure that OPS not only meets, but exceeds, the performance measures agreed upon in the Consent Decree. As assessments are completed, the City will further work with the Monitor and DOJ to develop new achievable performance milestones to guide OPS in meeting all agreed upon reforms.
Operations Manual A near term City goal working with the Monitor and DOJ is the development of a comprehensive and revised agency Operations Manual that sets out the OPS mission statement, ensures public transparency, and provides clear and detailed procedures for investigators in the initiating, handling, and completing of investigations, to include complaint intake, evidence collection, and preparing final reports. The Manual will also document the duties and procedures for the Community Police Review Board (“PRB”) to include the presentation of OPS findings, the standard of review, how reviews are conducted, how disciplinary recommendations are determined, and dissemination of information to the public. The Operations Manual will be made available for public comment before finalization and approval is obtained.
19 Dkt # 65, at p. 7. 20 Id.
25

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 69 Filed: 06/13/16 26 of 28. PageID #: 917
Additional Personnel The City is committed to significantly reducing the number of pending complaints documented in the Monitor’s report. The City will provide additional resources to address the situation, while continuing to work with the DOJ and Monitor in assessing the needs of OPS. The hiring process for hiring two additional full-time OPS Investigators is underway. The two positions were posted May 20th and the City has received over 100 applications. The Department of Public Safety is currently reviewing all applications to determine which applicants meet the minimum qualifications. Interviews of prospective investigators will follow shortly after the qualification review is completed. A new administrator position, General Manager of Administrative Services, has been added to the OPS organizational structure. Over 60 applications were received for the position and a final hiring decision will be made soon. The new management administrator will be responsible for the following duties: monitoring and tracking OPS and PRB budgets, coordinating training, overseeing the performance review processes, and coordinating the annual and quarterly reporting process. Training An important consideration in the Consent Decree was agreement to provide OPS investigators with enhanced investigative training. OPS investigators are in the process of receiving enhanced training that addresses the following subjects: Investigative Skills, Gathering & Objectively Analyzing Evidence, Interview and Interrogation Techniques, Data and Case Management, Identifying Conduct Warranting Investigation, Witness Credibility, Preponderance of the Evidence Standard, and CDP Rules and Policy Training. In accordance with the Consent Decree, the CPRB will receive training on the
26

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 69 Filed: 06/13/16 27 of 28. PageID #: 918
following subjects: Constitutional Law, Use of Force, Stops, Searches, and Arrests, Police Tactics, Investigations of Police Misconduct, Bias-free Policing, Policing Individuals in Crisis, CDP Policies, Procedures, and Disciplinary Rules
Complaint Investigations The City will continue to work with the Monitor and DOJ to address and resolve identified problems. The City remains determined to properly and completely investigate all complaints received by OPS. As of June 10, OPS had received approximately 115 complaints in calendar year 2016. In approximately 20 of these complaints, the investigations have been finalized by OPS and reviewed by the PRB. Approximately 200 of the 294 complaints filed with OPS in 2015 remain pending. With regard to 2014, approximately 65 of the 474 complaints filed also remain pending. The City is committed to significantly reducing the number of pending complaints by the end of 2016. In attending to completing its investigations, OPS will place proper emphasis on assessing and prioritizing current complaints to protect the evidence gathering process. To better assist with the task of case management, investigators are currently completing daily activity logs. In addition, OPS will soon begin using the IA Pro electronic case management and performance platform used by CDP. This will allow OPS to accurately track each complaint and resulting investigation. The City is committed to the reforms contained in the Consent Decree and to ensuring that OPS effectively fosters trust between citizens, the community, and the Cleveland Division of Police by conducting thorough, fair, and timely investigations of complaints.
27

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 69 Filed: 06/13/16 28 of 28. PageID #: 919
Respectfully submitted, Barbara A. Langhenry (0038838) Director of Law By: /s/ Gary S. Singletary Gary S. Singletary (0037329) Chief Counsel City of Cleveland 601 Lakeside Avenue, Room 106 Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1077 Tel: (216) 664-2800 Fax:(216) 664-2663 E-mail: gsingletary@city.cleveland.oh.us Counsel for the City of Cleveland
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that the City of Cleveland’s Second Status Report was filed electronically on June 13, 2016. Notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s system. Pursuant to the requirements of the Consent Decree the Monitor Team has been delivered a copy of this filing.
/s/ Gary S. Singletary Gary S. Singletary (0037329) Counsel for the City of Cleveland
28

 
 Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 1 of 71. PageID #: 924
EXHIBIT A

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 2 of 71. PageID #: 925
Cleveland Ohio Community Survey Public Perceptions of Safety and Policing
Submitted to: The Cleveland Police Monitoring Team
June 2016
Sophia T. Gomez, Diana O.
Francine Cafarchia Sophia T. Gomez, Diana O. Diaz

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 3 of 71. PageID #: 926
Cleveland Ohio Community Survey 2016
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Overview
As part of a Settlement Agreement between the United States and the City of Cleveland, the Courtappointed Cleveland Police Monitoring Team contracted with Interviewing Service of America (ISA), an independent research firm, to conduct a community survey, as required by the Agreement, to gauge public perceptions of safety and policing. The purpose of the survey was to assess the Cleveland community’s trust and confidence in the Cleveland Division of Police overall and with regard to specific areas, including use of force and bias-free policing.
The findings presented below reflect the content of telephone interviews conducted by ISA between May 4 and May 31, 2016, with a sample of 1,400 adults, 18 years of age or older, living in the City of Cleveland. A combination of landline and cell phone random digit dial samples (RDD) were used. To ensure an adequate sample of Latino residents, traditional RDD was augmented with listed sample, which draws listed telephone numbers based on Hispanic surname. Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish and averaged 16 minutes in length. The margin of error for the study as a whole was +/-4% at the 95% confidence interval and takes into account the design effects of weighting. Analysis and reporting were conducted by Gomez Research, Inc.
Key findings are summarized below for residents overall, followed by any observed differences by race, ethnicity, geographic area, or age.
Key Findings
Overall Attitudes towards the Cleveland Division of Police
 A slight majority of Cleveland residents approve of the job the police are doing. Just over half of all residents surveyed (55%) believe the Cleveland Division of Police is doing a “good” or “excellent” job overall. These approval ratings were consistent among men and women and include 18% of residents who give the Cleveland Police the highest rating of excellent. Nevertheless, views of the Division of Police are substantially more divided than other municipal agencies. For instance, more than eight-out-of-ten residents (81%) rate the Division of Fire as good or excellent and more than two-thirds (69%) give top ratings to the Department of Public Works.
 Cleveland residents are skeptical about police conduct and accountability. Only half of Cleveland residents (50%) believe police officers follow the law “all of the time” or “most of the time.” Just under half (48%) believe officers treat people with respect or use the appropriate amount of force (47%) in most situations. When misconduct does occur, the majority of Cleveland residents (55%) believe officers are held accountable “only some of the time” or “almost never.”
 Views of the police vary significantly by race and ethnicity. Black and Latino residents give the Cleveland Police lower ratings overall compared to white residents. Nearly threefourths of white residents surveyed (72%) believe the Cleveland Police are doing a good or excellent job overall, compared to 60% of Latino residents and 43% of black residents.
i

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 4 of 71. PageID #: 927
Cleveland Ohio Community Survey 2016
Black and Latino residents also gave the Cleveland Police lower ratings across a number of specific measures. Just over one-third of black residents surveyed (38%) said they believe police officers follow the law “most of the time” or “almost all the time,” compared to 58% of Latino residents and 68% of white residents. Black residents are also less likely to agree that officers treat people with dignity and respect and use the appropriate amount of force all or most of the time. When misconduct does occur, more than two-thirds of black residents (69%) believe that the officers are held accountable “some of the time” or “almost never,” the lowest rating among all groups.
 Approval ratings vary by geographic area1. Residents in the Far-West and Mid-West areas give the Cleveland Police higher ratings serving the City overall compared to residents from the Mid-East, South-East, and North-East areas. Nearly three-fourths (73%) of residents living in the Far-West areas and 62% of residents living in the Mid-West areas rate overall police performance as good or excellent, compared to 49% of residents in the NorthEast, and 44% of residents living in the Mid-East and South-East areas. Residents living in the Far-West and Mid-West areas also give police higher ratings for serving people within their neighborhoods compared to those living in the Mid-East and South-East.
 Older residents view the police more favorably than do younger residents. The majority of residents 55 years and older (62%) give the Cleveland Police a rating of good or excellent, compared to 49% of residents 18 to 39 and 56% of residents 40 to 54.
Perceptions of Public Safety
 A majority of Cleveland residents believe the City is safe overall and that their own neighborhoods are also safe. Seven-out-of-ten residents (70%) report that they feel “very safe” or “somewhat safe” in the city as a whole and more than three-fourths (78%) feel safe in the communities where they live. The majority of residents have a positive perception of public safety regardless of gender or age, although college-educated residents and those earning above $30,000 feel safer than others. While overall safety ratings were high, more than half of residents (57%) surveyed said they are “somewhat worried” or “very worried” about being a victim of crime.
 Some differences in perceptions of public safety were identified along racial and ethnic lines. Black and Latino residents reported lower rates of perceived safety compared to white residents and were more likely than whites residents to report that they are “very worried” that they or someone else in their household will be a victim of crime. Black and Latino residents were also more likely to report that police are doing a “poor job” controlling crime in their neighborhoods. One quarter of black residents (24%) surveyed give the Cleveland Police a rating of “poor” controlling crime in their communities.
1 The term area in this report refers to geographic areas and zip codes that coordinate with the police district lines as much as possible. The collection of zip codes assigned to these geographical areas were created solely for this purpose and are defined as follows: Far-West: 44135, 44111, 44142, 44130, 44126, Mid-West: 44102, 44144, 44109, 44113, 44134, Mid-East: 44114, 44115, 44127, 44103, 44106, South-East: 44105, 44104, 44120, 44122, 44128, and NorthEast: 44108, 44110, 44112, 44117, 44119, 44121.
ii

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 5 of 71. PageID #: 928
Cleveland Ohio Community Survey 2016
Community Policing
 Most Cleveland residents consider their relationship with the Cleveland Police to be “positive,” but a majority of Cleveland residents do not believe that the police have developed relationships with people like them or are knowledgeable about their communities. Two-thirds of Cleveland residents (67%) consider the relationship between their community and the Cleveland Police as “very positive” or “somewhat positive.” However, only one-third of residents think the police have taken the time to meet members of their community (33%) or have developed relationships with people like them (37%). Nearly one-out-of-five residents (19%) believe that the Cleveland Police is “not at all knowledgeable about people like them.” The survey also found that while the majority of residents see police officers patrolling their neighborhoods at least once a week, most residents do not recognize specific officers or know their names. A total of 40% of residents reported that they see the same police officers in their neighborhood each week and 13% know the officers who work in their communities by name.
 Findings suggest that community engagement with black and Latino communities has been less successful than with other groups. Black residents are less likely than white and Latino residents to view the relationship between their community and the Cleveland Division of Police as positive, and both black and Latino residents give police lower community engagement ratings across a number of key measures. More than eight-out-often white residents (81%) view the relationship with police as “somewhat positive” or “very positive,” compared to 76% of Latino residents and 58% of black residents. Additionally, black and Latino residents are less likely than white residents to agree that police have taken the time to meet members of their community and to develop relationships with people like them. Black and Latino residents were also less likely to know police officers by name compared to white residents. Further, black and Latino residents are less likely than white residents to describe Cleveland Police as knowledgeable about the background and experiences of people like them, 46% and 38%, respectively. Less than half of black and Latino residents reported that it was “easy” or “very easy” to provide input to the Cleveland Police, compared to 55% among white residents.
 Black and Latino residents are less likely to reach out to police for help compared to white residents. Nearly nine-out-of-ten (89%) white residents said they would be “very likely” or “somewhat likely” to ask the police for help compared to 81% of Latinos and 74% of black residents. White residents are also more likely to report a crime: 94% compared to 85% of Latino residents and 77% of black residents.
Bias-Free Policing
 The majority of Cleveland residents believe the police treat all racial and ethnic groups equally at least “some of the time,” but many believe differential treatment still exists for some groups. Although 57% of Cleveland residents believe the police treat all groups equally “always” or “sometimes,” half of the residents surveyed said they believe AfricanAmericans (53%), young people (53%), and the homeless (47%) are not treated as well as other members of the community.
iii

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 6 of 71. PageID #: 929
Cleveland Ohio Community Survey 2016
 Perceptions of differential treatment are more widely held among black and Latino residents. A total of 70% of white residents believe the police treat all racial and ethnic groups equally at least some of the time compared to 55% of Latino residents and 49% of black residents. Two-thirds of black residents (66%) believe they are treated worse than other members of the community, compared to half (53%) of the city’s general population who think the same.
Perceptions Regarding the Use of Force
 The majority of Cleveland residents are distrustful regarding the use of force by the Cleveland police. The majority of Cleveland residents (63%) believe that police use appropriate force only “sometimes,” “rarely,” or “never” and half (51%) are concerned that they, a family member, or friend will be a victim of excessive force. The majority of residents (56%) are not concerned about being a victim of an officer-involved shooting.
 Black and Latino residents are far less likely to believe that police use the appropriate amount of force. Less than a quarter of Latino residents (23%) and black residents (18%) believe the police use the appropriate amount of force “almost always” compared to 46% of white residents.
Interactions with Cleveland Police
 Most contact with police was either initiated by residents or equally initiated by residents and police, although the type of interactions residents reported varied by race and age. Black residents are more likely than white residents to report that contact was initiated by police, 28% compared to 13% respectively. Residents between the ages of 18 and 39 were also more likely to report that contact was initiated by the police (29%) compared to residents 40 years and older (13%). A total of 39% of residents reported having some type of contact with Cleveland police in the 12 months prior to the survey, and 78% said the contact was initiated by them or equally initiated by them and the police.
 The study found that based on personal experiences, the majority of residents believe police are respectful and professional in their interactions with the public. Reflecting on their contact with police in the 12 months prior to the survey, two-thirds (66%) of residents reported that they found that “all” or “most” Cleveland officers treat them, their friends, and family with respect. The majority of residents (69%) “somewhat approve” or “strongly approve” with how the police handled their situation. Approximately three-fourths of residents who had interacted with police reported that officers were polite (75%), treated them with respect (74%), and listened to what they had to say (72%). Two-thirds of residents (66%) reported that officers answered all their questions, and 62% said officers explained their reason for stopping or questioning them. A majority of residents also reported that officers kept them informed about what would happen next (61%), did not use excessive force (58%), and did not detain them longer than was necessary (57%).
 In contrast, residents’ perceptions of police conduct based on what they hear from others is consistently more negative. When asked about the experiences of family, friends, or neighbors, only about half of residents agree that officers are polite (52%), treat people
iv

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 7 of 71. PageID #: 930
Cleveland Ohio Community Survey 2016
with respect (52%) and listen to what they have to say (53%) compared to three-fourths of residents who agree with those statements when reflecting on their first-hand experience.
 Word of mouth was one of the most frequently cited sources of information about police, second only to local television. A total of 38% of residents reported that they learn about police by talking with others, and 64% said they rely on local television, followed by social media (32%) and websites (22%).
 Black residents are less likely to report that officers treat them with respect and give lower approval ratings for how police handled the situation. More than three-fourths of white residents (77%) said officers “almost always” or “mostly” show them respect, compared to 57% of black residents. When asked about their most significant interaction with police in the 12 months prior to the survey, just over three-fourths of white residents (76%) “strongly approve’ or “somewhat approve” of how police handled their situation compared to 61% of black residents.
Filing of Complaints
 Only 24 individuals surveyed reported filing a formal complaint with the Cleveland Police. Given the extremely small sample size, results cannot be extrapolated to the larger population. A direct survey with individuals who filed complaints is recommended. Preliminary findings suggest that the process for filing complaints about police conduct could be improved.
Summary
The study found that a majority of Cleveland residents approve of the job the police are doing and feel safe in the City of Cleveland and within their own neighborhoods. Moreover, results suggest that based on personal experiences, most residents view police as respectful and professional in their interactions.
Despite these positive indicators, many Cleveland residents are skeptical about police conduct and accountability, including the use of force. Moreover, residents’ views of the police vary significantly by race, ethnicity, and area. Black residents, in particular, have more negative opinions of the Cleveland Police compared to other groups across most measures including overall approval ratings, perceived safety, community engagement, and perceptions of the use of force. Black and Latino residents are also less likely to report that they are treated with respect when they interact with police and are less satisfied with how police handle those interactions. Although a majority of Cleveland residents believe the police treat all racial and ethnic groups equally at least some of the time, many believe differential treatment still exists.
Finally, results indicate that residents are more likely to form negative opinions about the police based on what they hear from others, rather than their own personal experience, suggesting that a single interaction has an “echo” effect that shapes the perceptions of many people. Future research, whether through follow-up surveys or focus groups, might explore what makes interactions positive or negative and how positive and informal contact might improve community-police relations.
v

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 8 of 71. PageID #: 931
Cleveland Ohio Community Survey 2016
Acknowledgements We thank members of the Cleveland Police Monitoring Team who provided insight and expertise that greatly assisted the research.
vi

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 9 of 71. PageID #: 932
Cleveland Ohio Community Survey 2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................. ii
I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................... 1 II. METHODOLOGY........................................................................ 1 III. FINDINGS .................................................................................... 3
Overall Attitudes toward the Cleveland Division of Police .......................... 3 Performance Ratings Overall and by Geographic Area Ratings across Key Indicators Difference by Race and Ethnicity Differences by Age Contact with Police and Overall Ratings
Perceived Public Safety................................................................................ 10 Perceived Safety Citywide and within Neighborhoods Differences by Race/Ethnicity and Age
Community Policing .................................................................................... 15 Relationship between Cleveland Police and Local Communities Neighborhood Patrols Community Meetings Differences by Race and Ethnicity Differences by Geographic Area
Bias-Free Policing ........................................................................................ 26 Overall Perceptions Differences by Race and Ethnicity
Perceptions Regarding the Use of Force ...................................................... 30 Overall Perceptions Differences by Race, Ethnicity and Age
Interactions with Cleveland Police............................................................... 32 Type of Contact and Overall Impressions Based on Personal Experiences Approval Ratings Based on Personal Experiences and the Experiences of Others How Residents Form Opinions of Police Outside of Personal Experience Differences by Race, Ethnicity, and Age
vii

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 10 of 71. PageID #: 933
Cleveland Ohio Community Survey 2016
Filing of Complaints..................................................................................... 38 Satisfaction with the Process for Filing a Complaint Why Some Residents Decide Not to File a Complaint
V. SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 41 VI. APPENDICIES:
Appendix A: Survey Instrument with Frequencies for Respondents Overall Appendix B: Demographic Profile of Residents Surveyed Compared to Population
Estimates Appendix C: Margin of Error for Target Populations
viii

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 11 of 71. PageID #: 934
Cleveland Ohio Community Survey 2016
List of Tables
Table 1: Perceptions of Cleveland Police Based on Personal Experience and the Report of Others.............................................................................. 34 Table 2: Demographic Profile of Residents Surveyed Compared to Population Estimates ......... 56 Table 3: Margin of Error for Target Populations .......................................................................... 57
ix

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 12 of 71. PageID #: 935
Cleveland Ohio Community Survey 2016
List of Figures
Figure 1: Overall Performance Ratings, Cleveland Division of Police Compared to Other City Departments ............................................. 3 Figure 2: Overall Performance Ratings, Cleveland Division of Police Citywide Compared to within Neighborhoods ................................ 4 Figure 3: Overall Performance Ratings, Cleveland Division of Police, by Area............................ 5 Figure 4: Ratings of Police Performance across Key Indicators..................................................... 6 Figure 5: Overall Performance Ratings, Cleveland Division of Police, by Ethnicity..................... 7 Figure 6: Ratings of Police Performance across Key Indicators, Black Residents ......................... 8 Figure 7: Ratings of Police Performance across Key Indicators, Latino Residents........................ 8 Figure 8: Perceptions of Public Safety .......................................................................................... 10 Figure 9: Concerns about Being a Victim of Crime...................................................................... 11 Figure 10: Perceived Public Safety within Neighborhoods .......................................................... 11 Figure 11: Perceived Effectiveness of Police in Controlling Crime within Neighborhoods..................................................................................... 12 Figure 12: Perceived Effectiveness of Police in Controlling Crime within Neighborhoods, by Area...................................................................... 12 Figure 13: Perceptions of Public Safety, by Ethnicity .................................................................. 13 Figure 14: Concerns about Being a Victim of a Crime, by Ethnicity ........................................... 13 Figure 15: Perceived Effectiveness of Police in Controlling Crime within Neighborhoods, by Ethnicity............................................................... 14 Figure 16: Overall Relationship between the Cleveland Division of Police and Local Communities ....................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 17: Police Knowledge of Local Communities ................................................................... 16 Figure 18: Ease of Providing Public Input .................................................................................... 17 Figure 19: Likelihood to Contact Police for Help or to Report a Crime....................................... 18 Figure 20: Neighborhood Patrols .................................................................................................. 19 Figure 21: Perceived Involvement of Cleveland Police at Community Meetings ........................ 20 Figure 22: Overall Relationship between the Cleveland Division of Police and Local Communities, by Ethnicity.................................................................................................. 21 Figure 23: Indicators of Relationship between Cleveland Police and Local Communities, by Ethnicity.................................................................................................. 22
x

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 13 of 71. PageID #: 936
Cleveland Ohio Community Survey 2016
Figure 24: Police Knowledge of Local Communities, by Ethnicity ............................................. 23 Figure 25: Ease of Providing Public Input, by Ethnicity .............................................................. 23 Figure 26: Likelihood to Reach Out to Police for Help, by Ethnicity .......................................... 24 Figure 27: Likelihood to Report a Crime, by Ethnicity ................................................................ 24 Figure 28: Overall Relationship between the Cleveland Division of Police and Local Communities, by Area ........................................................................................................ 25 Figure 29: Overall Perceptions of Bias-Free Policing .................................................................. 26 Figure 30: Perceived Unequal Treatment towards Specific Groups ............................................. 27 Figure 31: Perceptions of Bias-Free Policing, by Ethnicity.......................................................... 28 Figure 31a: Perceived Unequal Treatment towards Specific groups ............................................ 29 Figure 32: Overall Perceptions Regarding the Use of Force ........................................................ 30 Figure 33: Concerns about Being a Victim of Excessive Force ................................................... 30 Figure 34: Overall Perceptions Regarding the Use of Force, by Ethnicity................................... 31 Figure 35: Respect Shown by the Cleveland Division of Police Based on Personal Experience ...................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 36: Overall Approval Ratings Based on Personal Interactions with the Cleveland Division of Police......................................................................................................... 33 Figure 37: Sources of Information on the Cleveland Division of Police ...................................... 35 Figure 38: Respect Shown by the Cleveland Division of Police, by Ethnicity............................. 36 Figure 39: Overall Approval Ratings Based on Personal Interactions with Police, by Ethnicity ............................................................................ 37 Figure 40: Ratings of Specific Aspects of the Complaint Filing Process ..................................... 38 Figure 41: Overall Satisfaction with the Complaint Filing Process .............................................. 39 Figure 42: Reasons Residents Decided Not to File a Complaint .................................................. 40
xi

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 14 of 71. PageID #: 937
INTRODUCTION
As part of a Settlement Agreement between the United States and the City of Cleveland addressing the Cleveland Division of Police, the Cleveland Police Monitoring Team contracted with Interviewing Service of America (ISA), an independent research firm, to conduct a community survey to gauge public perceptions regarding safety and policing. The purpose of the research was to assess the Cleveland community’s trust and confidence in the Cleveland Division of Police regarding the police overall and with respect to perceptions of racial profiling and the use of excessive force. Specifically, the survey addressed: (1) community perceptions of the police overall; (2) residents’ experiences with the police; (3) community perceptions of the police with respect to the use of force; (4) citywide perceptions of police on other issues, including neighborhood service, responsiveness, effectiveness and general public safety; (5) specific measurements of police/community interactions, particularly the quality of police interactions based on personal interactions or based on what has been heard from a third party; (6) how these interactions have played out, including approval/disapproval of how the police handled situations; and, (7) how the experiences of others influences community perceptions.
The remainder of this report presents the survey methodology and findings that emerged from the data analyses and is organized as follows:
 The Methodology section, which describes data collection and statistical methods;  Detailed Findings;  Summary; and,  The Appendices, which include the survey instrument with frequencies, a demographic profile
of residents surveyed compared to population estimates, and the margin of error for target populations.
METHODOLOGY
Overview
The findings presented in this report reflect the content of telephone interviews conducted by ISA between May 4 and May 31, 2016, with a sample of 1,400 adults, 18 years of age or older, living in the City of Cleveland. Within households, the oldest/youngest method was used to randomly select one adult aged 18 years or older. A combination of landline and cell phone random digit dial samples (RDD) were used. A total of 684 respondents were interviewed on a landline telephone and 716 were interviewed on a cell phone. To ensure an adequate sample of Latino residents, traditional RDD was augmented with listed sample, which draws listed telephone numbers based on Hispanic surname. All samples were provided by the Marketing Systems Group. Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish and averaged 16 minutes in length. The margin of error for the study as a whole was +/-4% at the 95% confidence interval, which takes into account the design effects of weighting. Analysis and reporting were conducted by Gomez Research, Inc.
Weighting
Post-stratification weights were calculated by raking (an iterative proportional fitting algorithm). Weights were generated based on U.S. Census population parameters for the City of Cleveland.
Page 1

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 15 of 71. PageID #: 938

Telephone use estimates were obtained from the Center for Disease Control based on estimates for the state of Ohio. The data were weighted for age, race, education, gender, and phone ownership. Weighting on phone ownership reduces oversampling of dual use (cellphone and landline) households due to the dual-frame sample. From weighting alone, the design effect of the survey was 2.86 and the design factor was 1.69. Of the 1,400 total completions, 1,330 had adequate item responses for all weighting variables. The weight for the remaining 70 cases was set to the mean in order to preserve cases.

Statistical Comparisons

Statistical tests were conducted for all comparative analyses to identify whether observed differences among demographic groups or categories were statistically significant.2 All reported differences were
statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level, unless otherwise noted. The margin of error
for these comparisons was not adjusted for design effects.

Definition of Geographic Areas
To help analyze differences by area, residents’ zip codes were organized into the following five geographic areas which are similar, but not identical, to Cleveland’s police districts.

Far-West Mid-West Mid-East South-East North-East

Similar to Police District 1: Similar to Police District 2: Similar to Police District 3: Similar to Police District 4: Similar to Police District 5:

44135, 44111, 44142, 44130, 44126 44102, 44144, 44109, 44113, 44134 44114, 44115, 44127, 44103, 44106 44105, 44104, 44120, 44122, 44128 44108, 44110, 44112, 44117, 44119, 44121

Report Organization

This report has been organized around the following topic areas:

 Overall attitudes towards the Cleveland Division of Police;  Perceived public safety;  Community policing;  Bias-free policing;  Perceptions regarding the use of force;  Interactions with Cleveland Police; and,  Filing of complaints.

The next section of this report presents study findings.

2 A statistically significant difference means that the difference between groups is not by chance, and that a real difference in perceptions exists.
Page 2

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 16 of 71. PageID #: 939

FINDINGS
Overall Attitudes towards the Cleveland Division of Police
Performance Rating Overall and by Geographic Area
Public confidence in the Cleveland Division of Police was measured using a five question series in which residents were asked how they would rate the Cleveland Police overall and across specific attributes, including how frequently police officers follow the law, treat people with respect, and use the appropriate amount of force. Overall, the survey found that, although a majority of Cleveland residents have confidence in the Cleveland Division of Police, there were significant areas of concern. Just over half of all residents surveyed (55%) reported that they believe the Cleveland Police are doing a “good” or “excellent” job overall. These approval ratings were consistent among men and women and include 18% of residents who give the Cleveland Division of Police the highest rating of excellent.
Residents, however, give the Division of Police lower ratings compared to other City departments and divisions, including the Cleveland Division of Fire and the Cleveland Department of Public Works. More than eight-out-of-ten residents (81%) rated the Division of Fire as good or excellent and more than two-thirds (69%) give top ratings to the Division of Public Works, as seen in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Overall Performance Ratings Cleveland Division of Police Compared to Other City Departments Overall ratings for the Cleveland Division of Fire, the City of Cleveland
Department of Public Works, and Cleveland Division of Police (n=1,400)

Division of Fire

10%

37% 12%

44%

Department of Public Works

22% 20%

7% 27%

47%

Division of Police

18% 22%

37%

55%

20%

42%

81% 69%

Excellent Good Only Fair Poor

*Figure based on Q2: “When it comes to [name of department], do you think they are doing an excellent, good, only fair, or poor job?”
Page 3

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 17 of 71. PageID #: 940

Overall performance ratings were consistent regardless of whether residents were evaluating police performance overall or within their own neighborhood (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: Overall Performance Ratings, Cleveland Division of Police Citywide Compared to within Neighborhoods
Residents rated performance of the Cleveland Division of Police overall
and within their neighborhood (n=1,400)

55% 37%

42% 20%

55% 33%

42% 16%

18%

22%

22%

26%

Citywide

Neighborhoods

Excellent

Good

Only Fair

Poor

*Figure based on Q2c and Q3: “When it comes to [name of department], do you think they are doing an excellent, good, only fair, or poor job?” “Thinking about the area where you live, how would you rate the job of the Cleveland Police are doing serving people in your neighborhood?”

Page 4

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 18 of 71. PageID #: 941
Approval ratings did, however, vary by geographic area, as seen in Figure 3. Residents in the FarWest and Mid-West areas give the Cleveland Police higher ratings for serving the City overall compared to residents from the North-East, Mid-East, and South-East areas. Nearly three-fourths (73%) of residents living in the Far-West area and 62% of residents living in the Mid-West area rated overall police performance as good or excellent, compared to 49% of residents in the North East, and 44% of residents living in the Mid-East and South-East areas. Residents living in the Far-West and Mid-West areas also give police higher ratings for serving people within their neighborhoods compared to those living in Mid-East and South-East areas.
Figure 3: Overall Performance Ratings, Cleveland Division of Police, by Area Ratings of overall police performance by where residents live

Far-West Mid-West North-East Mid-East South-East

26% 22% 10% 15% 16%

39% 30% 28%

47%

40%

49%

44% 44%

Excellent

Good

73% 62%

*Figure based on Q2: “When it comes to [name of department], do you think they are doing an excellent, good, only fair, or poor job?” **The sample size for each area varied from 196 to 397, unweighted. This chart does not include 66 residents who live outside of these main areas.

Page 5

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 19 of 71. PageID #: 942

Ratings across Key Indicators
In addition to rating the Cleveland Division of Police overall, residents were asked to rate job performance across several key indicators. Results are presented in Figure 4. Findings suggest that Cleveland residents remain skeptical about police conduct and accountability in a number of areas. Only half of Cleveland residents (50%) believe police officers follow the law “all of the time” or “most of the time” and less than half believe officers treat people with respect (48%) or use the appropriate amount of force in most situations (47%). When misconduct does occur, the majority of Cleveland residents (55%) believe officers are held accountable only “some of the time” or “almost never.”

Figure 4: Ratings of Police Performance across Key Indicators Overall ratings of Cleveland Police conduct and accountability (n=1,400)

Follow the law
Treat people with dignity and respect
Use appropriate amount of force
Are accountable when misconduct
occurs Almost all the time

22% 33%
22% 36%
20% 34%
19% 29%

28%

50%

12% 26%

45% 48%

13%

49%

26%

47%

13%

47%

19%

38% 26%

55%

Most of the time

Some of the time

Almost never

*Figure based on Q4-Q7: “I’m going to read some statements about the Cleveland Police. For each one, please tell me whether you think the statements are true all the time, most of the time, some of the time, or almost never. Cleveland Police…”

Page 6

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 20 of 71. PageID #: 943

Differences by Race and Ethnicity
Views of the Cleveland Division of Police varied significantly by race and ethnicity. Findings indicate that black and Latino residents give the Cleveland Police lower ratings overall compared to white residents. Nearly three-fourths of white residents surveyed (72%) reported that the Cleveland police were doing a good or excellent job overall, compared to 60% of Latino residents and 43% of black residents, as seen in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Overall Performance Ratings, Cleveland Division of Police by Ethnicity
Ratings of overall performance for the city as a whole

White Latino Black

30%

17%

9%

26%

42%

15% 22%
11%

13% 31%

45% 35% 43%

26%

28%

Excellent Good Only Fair Poor

72% 60% 55%

*Figure based on Q2: “When it comes to [name of department], do you think they are doing an excellent, good, only fair, or poor job?” **Unweighted sample size was 418 for white residents, 236 for Latino residents, and 635 for black residents.

Page 7

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 21 of 71. PageID #: 944

Black and Latino residents also give the Cleveland Police lower ratings across a number of specific measures. Just over one-third of the black residents surveyed (38%) said they believe police officers follow the law “most of the time” or “all the time” compared to 58% of Latino residents and 68% of white residents. The study found that black residents are less likely to agree that officers treat people with dignity and respect and use the appropriate amount of force all or most of the time. When misconduct does occur, more than two-thirds of black residents (69%) believe that the officers are held accountable only “some of the time” or “almost never,” the least favorable rating among all groups. Responses from black and Latino residents are presented in Figures 6 and 7, respectively.

Figure 6: Ratings of Police Performance across Key Indicators Black Residents
Black residents rated statements about the Cleveland Police as being true all the time,
most of the time, some of the time, or almost never (n=635)

Follow the law
Treat people with dignity and respect
Use the appropriate amount of force
Are accountable when misconduct
occurs

14% 13% 14% 11%

23%

41%

22%

44%

19%

43% 14%

25%

33%

38% 35% 33%

17%

59%

18%

62%

19%

61%

36%

69%

Almost all the time Most of the time Some of the time Almost never

Figure 7: Ratings of Police Performance across Key Indicators Latino Residents
Latino residents rated statements about the Cleveland Police as true almost all the
time, most of the time, some of the time, or almost never (n=236)

Follow the law
Treat people with dignity and respect
Use the appropriate amount of force
Are accountable when misconduct
occurs

29% 28% 28% 27% 19% 30% 22% 27%

29%

5% 33%

28%

11% 39%

25%

45%

13%

44%

24%

46%

15%

42%

58% 56%

Almost all the time Most of the time Some of the time Almost never

*Figures 6 and 7 are based on Q4-Q7: “I’m going to read some statements about the Cleveland Police. For each one, please tell me whether you think the statements are true all the time, most of the time, some of the time, or almost never. Cleveland Police…”

Page 8

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 22 of 71. PageID #: 945 Differences by Age Older residents view the police more favorably than do younger residents. The majority of residents 55 years and older (62%) give the Cleveland Police a rating of good or excellent, compared to 49% of residents 18 to 39 and 56% of residents 40 to 54. Contact with Police and Overall Ratings The study found no difference in the overall ratings of the Cleveland of Division of Police between residents who had contact with the police and those who did not. In addition, no difference was found between residents who initiated contact with the police compared to those who did not initiate contact. The survey did not, however, distinguish between formal and informal police contact.
Page 9

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 23 of 71. PageID #: 946

Perceived Public Safety
Perceived Safety Citywide and within Neighborhoods
In addition to overall police performance, the survey measured residents’ perceptions of public safety. The study found that most Cleveland residents feel safe in the City of Cleveland and within their own neighborhood. Seven-out-of-ten residents (70%) reported that they feel “very safe” or “somewhat safe” overall and more than three-fourths (78%) feel safe in their own neighborhood, as seen in Figure 8. The majority of residents have a positive perceptions of public safety regardless of gender or age, although college-educated residents and those earning more than $30,000 feel safer than others.

Figure 8: Perceptions of Public Safety Overall safety in the City of Cleveland as a whole and safety within
neighborhoods (n=1,400)

70%

78%

50% 20%

29% 10% 19%

40% 38%

22%
8% 13%

Citywide

Very Safe

Somewhat safe

Neighborhoods

Not too safe

Not at all safe

*Figure based on Q8 and Q8a: “In general, how safe do you feel in the City of Cleveland?” “In general, how safe do you feel in your neighborhood?”

Although overall safety ratings were high, more than half of residents (57%) surveyed said they were “somewhat worried” or “very worried” about being a victim of crime (Figure 9).

Page 10

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 24 of 71. PageID #: 947

Figure 9: Concerns about Being a Victim of Crime Proportion of residents concerned that they or someone in their household
will be a victim of crime (n=1,400)

57%

42%

22%

23% 19%

35%

Becoming the Victim of a Crime Not at all worried A little worried Somewhat worried Very worried
*Figure based on Q11: “How worried are you that you or someone in your household will be a victim of a crime?”
As seen in Figure 10, 83% of residents feel safe walking the streets of their neighborhood during the day and less than half (44%) feel safe walking at night.

Figure 10: Perceived Public Safety within Neighborhoods Residents rated how safe they feel walking in their neighborhood in the day and at night (n=1,400)
83%

36% 47%

12% 8%

44% 26% 18%

47% 27% 20%

In the day

At night

Very Safe Somewhat safe Not too safe Not at all safe

*Figure based on Q9 and Q10: “How safe do you feel walking the streets of your neighborhood…?”

Figure 11 on the following page presents public perceptions regarding the effectiveness of the Cleveland Police in controlling crime within neighborhoods. Half of Cleveland residents (51%) believe the police are doing a good or excellent job controlling crime in their community. Notably, 17% of respondents consider the police to be doing a poor job controlling crime where they live.

Page 11

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 25 of 71. PageID #: 948

Figure 11: Perceived Effectiveness of Police in Controlling Crime within Neighborhoods
Residents rated the performance of Cleveland Police in their neighborhoods (n=1,400)

51%

46%

33%

17%

18%

29%

Excellent

Controlling Crime

Good

Only Fair

Poor

*Figure based on Q12: “How would you rate the job the Cleveland Police are doing controlling crime in your neighborhood?
Results were largely consistent across geographic areas in terms of perceived safety, however, residents in some areas gave the Cleveland Police higher marks for controlling crime in their neighborhoods. Residents in the Far-West and Mid-West areas were more likely than residents from the Mid-East, North-East, and South-East areas to report that the police were doing a good or excellent job controlling crime in those areas (Figure 12).

Figure 12: Perceived Effectiveness of Police in Controlling Crime within Neighborhoods, by Area
Proportion of residents who rated Cleveland Police crime control as good or excellent

Far-West Mid-West Mid-East North-East South-East

32%

20%

38%

10%

37%

12% 14%

35% 22%

36%

39%
47% 47%

58%

71%

Excellent

Good

*Figure based on Q12: “How would you rate the job the Cleveland Police are doing controlling crime in your neighborhood?” **The sample size of the area varied from 196 to 397, unweighted. This chart does not include 66 residents who live outside of these main areas.

Page 12

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 26 of 71. PageID #: 949

Differences by Race and Ethnicity
While overall perceptions of public safety were high, significant differences were found along racial and ethnic lines. Black and Latino residents reported lower rates of perceived safety compared to white residents and were more likely than white residents to report that they are “very worried” that they or someone else in their household will be a victim of crime. See Figures 13 and 14.

Figure 13: Perceptions of Public Safety, by Ethnicity Proportion of residents who rated the overall safety in the City of
Cleveland as very safe or somewhat safe

White

23%

59%

82%

Latino

34%

36%

70%

Black

14%

48%

62%

Very Safe Somewhat safe
*Figure based on Q8: “In general, how safe do you feel in the City of Cleveland?” **Unweighted sample size was 418 for white residents, 236 for Latino residents, and 635 for black residents.
Figure 14: Concerns About Being a Victim of a Crime, by Ethnicity Concerns among Latino and black residents about becoming a victim of a crime

37% 15% 22%

60% 29% 32%

42% 23% 19%

57% 24% 33%

Latino

Black

Not at all worried A little worried Somewhat worried Very worried

*Figure based on Q11: “How worried are you that you or someone in your household will be a victim of a crime?” **Unweighted sample size was 236 for Latino residents, and 635 for black residents.

Page 13

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 27 of 71. PageID #: 950

Black and Latino residents were also more likely to report that police are doing a poor job controlling crime in their neighborhoods as seen in Figure 15. One quarter of black residents surveyed gave the Cleveland Police a rating of “poor” when asked how they would rate job performance. Results are presented in Figure 15.

Figure 15: Perceived Effectiveness of Police in Controlling Crime within Neighborhoods, by Ethnicity
Residents rated the performance of Cleveland Police in their neighborhoods

White Latino Black

26%

44%

21%

6% 27%

22% 25% 12%

35%

14% 39%

25%

37%

37%

24%

70% 57%
61%

Excellent Good Only Fair Poor
*Figure based on Q12: “How would you rate the job the Cleveland Police are doing controlling crime in your neighborhood?” **Unweighted sample size was 418 for white residents, 236 for Latino residents, and 635 for black residents.

Page 14

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 28 of 71. PageID #: 951

Community Policing
Relationship between Cleveland Police and the Local Communities
In exploring residents’ perception of community policing efforts, residents were asked about their community’s relationship with the Cleveland Division of Police and how frequently they saw police officers patrolling their neighborhood or attending community meetings. Results are presented for residents citywide followed by an analysis of differences by race and ethnicity. Overall, the survey found that most Cleveland residents consider the relationship between their community and the Cleveland Police to be positive, but fewer residents believe the police have developed relationships with people like them or are knowledgeable about their communities.
Two-thirds of Cleveland residents (67%) describe their relationship between the Cleveland Police and their neighborhood as “very positive” or “somewhat positive,” as seen in Figure 16. However, in other findings, only one-third of residents think the police have taken the time to meet members of their community (33%) or have developed relationships with people like them (37%).
Figure 16: Overall Relationship between the Cleveland Division of Police and Local Communities Residents described their relationship with Cleveland Police (n=1,400)
67%

48% 19%

27% 8% 19%

Relationship with Police
Very positive Somewhat positive Somewhat negative Very negative
*Figure based on Q13: “Overall, how would you describe the relationship between the Cleveland Division of Police and the neighborhood where you live?”

Page 15

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 29 of 71. PageID #: 952

As seen in Figure 17, just over half of the residents surveyed (51%) believe Cleveland Police officers are “very knowledgeable” or “somewhat knowledgeable” about their community. Nearly one-out-offive residents (19%) reported that the Cleveland Police is “not at all knowledgeable” about people like them.

Figure 17: Police Knowledge of Local Communities Residents rated Cleveland Police knowledge about local
community background and experiences (n=1,400)

51%

40%

37%

19%

14%

21%

Cleveland Police Knowledge

Very knowledgeable Not too knowledgeable

Somewhat knowledgeable Not at all knowledgeable

*Figure based on Q20: “How knowledgeable are the Cleveland Police about the background and experiences of people like you?”

Page 16

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 30 of 71. PageID #: 953

Residents were asked if it is easy for people from their community to give input and make suggestions to the Division of Police. The survey found that just under half of all residents believe it is “very easy” or “somewhat easy” to provide input. More than one-third of residents (38%) reported that it was “not too easy” or “not at all easy” to make suggestions, as seen in Figure 18.

Figure 18: Ease of Providing Public Input Residents rated how easy it is to give input and make suggestions
to the Cleveland Division of Police (n=1,400)

49% 31% 18%

38% 17% 21%

Giving Input and Making Suggestions Very easy Somewhat easy Not too easy Not at all easy

*Figure based on Q21: “How easy is it for people from your community to give input and make suggestions to the Division of Police?”

Page 17

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 31 of 71. PageID #: 954

Despite perceptions among some residents that the Cleveland Police have not developed relationships at the community level, the majority of Cleveland residents would still be comfortable turning to the police if they were in trouble or had witnessed a crime. When asked how likely they would be to ask a Cleveland Police officer for help, 80% of residents said they would be “very likely” or “somewhat likely” to ask for help. In addition nearly nine-out-of-ten residents (88%) said they would be very likely or somewhat likely to report a crime or to provide information to the Cleveland Police. Results are presented in Figure 19.

Figure 19: Likelihood to Contact Police for Help or to Report a Crime Residents rated how likely they would be to ask for help or report a crime to
the Cleveland Division of Police (n=1,400)

80% 22%

88% 18%

58%

18% 11%

70%

10% 6%

Ask for Help

Report a Crime

Very likely Somewhat likely Not too likely Not at all likely
*Figure based on Q22 and Q23: “If you were in trouble, how likely would you be to ask a Cleveland Police office for help?” “If you witnessed a crime or knew about a crime that took place, how likely would you be to report it or to provide information to the Cleveland Police?”

Page 18

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 32 of 71. PageID #: 955
Neighborhood Patrols
To document residents’ awareness of community policing activities, the survey asked residents how frequently they had seen police officers on foot or in a car patrolling their neighborhood and whether they see the same offices regularly and/or know the names of any officers who work in their neighborhoods. The survey found that while the majority of residents see police officers patrolling their neighborhood at least once a week, most residents do not recognize specific officers or know their names. Results are presented in Figure 20. More than half of residents surveyed reported seeing patrols in their neighborhoods several times a week or more. A total of 40% of residents reported that they see the same police officers in their neighborhood each week and 13% know the officers who work in their neighborhoods by name.

Figure 20: Neighborhood Patrols Residents described the frequency of Cleveland Police patrols within neighborhoods (n=1,400)

At Least Once a Day Several Times a Week Once or Twice a Week Less than Once a Week
Never Don't Know/Refused

19%

13% 11% 2%

21%

35%

*Figure based on Q14:”In the last 12 months, how frequently did you see Cleveland Police officers on foot or in a car patrolling in your neighborhood?”

Page 19

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 33 of 71. PageID #: 956

Community Meetings
To help measure community engagement, the survey first asked residents if they were aware of any community meetings being held in their neighborhood in the last 12 months and how many of those meetings they personally attended. Just under one-quarter of residents surveyed (23%) reported that community meetings had been held in their neighborhood. Residents who had attended at least one meeting were asked how often Cleveland Police officers attended those meetings. Results are presented in Figure 21. Approximately, two-thirds of residents who attended community meetings (65%) reported that Cleveland Police attended “some” or “most” of the meetings.
Figure 21: Perceived Involvement of Clevelend Police at Community Meetings Residents who reported attendance at least one community meeting were asked how frequently they saw police officers at those meetings (n=152)

Most Meetings Some Meetings
Rarely Never Don't Know/Refused

12% 15%
7%

31% 34%

*Figure based on Q15c: “In the last 12 months, how frequently did you see Cleveland Police officers attend community stakeholder meetings in your neighborhood?”

Page 20

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 34 of 71. PageID #: 957

Differences by Race and Ethnicity
Although a majority of residents surveyed characterize the relationship between their communities and the Cleveland Division of Police as positive, findings suggest that community engagement with Black and Latino communities could be improved. Black residents were less likely than white and Latino residents to describe the relationship between their community and the Cleveland Division of Police as positive and both black and Latino residents gave lower community engagement ratings across key measures. More than eight-out-of-ten (81%) white residents described their community’s relationship with the Cleveland Police as somewhat positive or very positive, compared to 76% of Latino residents and 58% of black residents, as seen in Figure 22.

Figure 22: Overall Relationship between the Cleveland Division of Police and Local Communities, by Ethnicity
Proportion of residents who described their overall relationship with
Cleveland Police as very positive or somewhat positive

White

30%

Latino

22%

Black

12%

51%

54%

46%

58%

81% 76%

Very positive Somewhat positive
*Figure based on Q13: “Overall, how would you describe the relationship between the Cleveland Division of Police and the neighborhood where you live?” **Unweighted sample size was 418 for white residents, 236 for Latino residents, and 635 for black residents.

Page 21

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 35 of 71. PageID #: 958

Figure 23 presents results from a series of questions regarding police engagement, segmented by race and ethnicity. Black and Latino residents were less likely than white residents to agree that Cleveland Police have taken the time to meet members of their community and to develop relationships with people like them. Black and Latino residents were also less likely to know police officers by name, compared to white residents.

Figure 23: Indicators of Relationship between Cleveland Police and Local Communities, by Ethnicity
Proportion of residents who answered yes to statements regarding their relationship with police

Cleveland Police Develop Relationships with People
Cleveland Police Take the Time to Meet People
Residents Know Police Officers by Name

30% 27%

10% 9%

26% 27%
19%

White Black Latino

53% 46%

*Figure based on Q17-Q19: “The following questions are about the relationship between the Cleveland Police and your community. Do you…?” **Unweighted sample size was 418 for white residents, 635 for black residents, and 236 for Latino residents.

Page 22

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 36 of 71. PageID #: 959

In addition, black and Latino residents were less likely than white residents to describe Cleveland Police as knowledgeable about the background and experiences of people like them. Less than half of black and Latino residents surveyed reported that it was easy or very easy to provide input, compared to 55 percent among white residents. Results are presented in Figures 24 and 25.
Figure 24: Police Knowledge of Local Communities, by Ethnicity Proportion of residents who rated Cleveland Police as very knowledgeable or somewhat knowledgeable about people like them

White

20%

Black

11%

Latino

13%

44%

35%

46%

25%

38%

64%

Very Knowledgeable Somewhat knowledgeable
*Figure based on Q20: “How knowledgeable are the Cleveland Police about the background and experiences of people like you?” **Unweighted sample size was 418 for white residents, 635 for black residents, and 236 for Latino residents.
Figure 25: Ease of Providing Public Input by Ethnicity
Proportion of residents who rated giving input and making suggestions to the Cleveland Division of Police as very easy or somewhat easy

White Black

22% 16%

33% 30%

55% 46%

Latino

16%

29%

45%

Very easy

Somewhat easy

*Figure based on Q21: “How easy is it for people from your community to give input and make suggestions to the Division of Police?” **Unweighted sample size was 418 for white residents, 635 for black residents, and 236 for Latino residents.

Page 23

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 37 of 71. PageID #: 960

The study found that black and Latino communities are less likely to reach out to police for help compared to white residents, as seen in Figure 26. Nearly nine-out-of-ten (89%) white residents said they would be very likely or somewhat likely to ask the police for help compared to 81% of Latinos and 74% of black residents. White residents are also more likely to report a crime: 94% compared to 85% of Latino residents and 77% of black residents (see Figure 27).
Figure 26: Likelihood to Reach Out to Police for Help, by Ethnicity Proportion of residents by race/ethncity who said they were very likely or
somewhat likely to reach out to Cleveland Police

White Latino Black

73% 56% 48%

16%

89%

25%

81%

26%

74%

Very likely

Somewhat likely

*Figure based on Q22: “If you were in trouble, how likely would you be to ask a Cleveland Police office for help?” **Unweighted sample size was 418 for white residents, 236 for Latino residents, and 635 for black residents.

Figure 27: Likelihoood to Report a Crime by Ethnicity
Proportion of residents who said they are very likely or somewhat likely to report a crime to Cleveland Police

White

82%

94% 12%

Black Latino

64% 54%

21%

85%

22%

77%

Very likely

Somewhat likely

*Figure based on Q23: “If you witnessed a crime or knew about a crime that took place, how likely would you be to report it or to provide information to the Cleveland Police?” **Unweighted sample size was 418 for white residents, 635 for black residents, and 236 for Latino residents.

Page 24

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 38 of 71. PageID #: 961

Differences by Geographic Area
The survey found that Cleveland Police have a better relationship with residents from some areas than from others. Residents from the Far-West area are more likely than residents from all other areas to describe their overall relationship with the Cleveland Police as good or excellent. Residents from the Mid-West area are also more likely to give high ratings compared to residents from the Mid-East and South-East areas. See Figure 28.
Figure 28: Overall Relationship between the Cleveland Division of Police and Local Communities, by Area Proportion of residents who rated their overall
relationship with Cleveland Police as very positive or somewhat positive

Far-West Mid-West North-East Mid-East South-East

31%

51%

82%

23%

49%

72%

15%

53%

68%

15%

42%

57%

12%

44%

56%

Very positive

Somewhat positive

*Figure based on Q13: “Overall, how would you describe the relationship between the Cleveland Division of Police and the neighborhood where you live?” **The sample size of the areas varied from 196 to 397, unweighted. This chart does not include 66 residents who live outside of these main areas.

Page 25

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 39 of 71. PageID #: 962

Bias-Free Policing
Overall Perceptions
To gauge public perceptions regarding bias-free policing practices, residents were asked if they believe the Cleveland Division of Police treats all racial and ethnic groups equally and whether specific members of the community are treated differently. The majority (57%) of Cleveland residents believe the police treat all racial and ethnic groups equally at least some of the time, but few believe that African-Americans, Latinos, Muslims, homeless people, LGBTQ residents and people with special needs are treated the same as everyone else. Only about a third of Cleveland residents believe homeless people (32%), young people (34%), and African-Americans (37%) are treated as well as other groups. Asian-Americans were the only traditionally marginalized group that the majority of residents believe are treated the same as other members of the community. Results are presented in Figures 29 and 30.

Figure 29: Overall Perceptions of Bias-Free Policing Residents rated how often the Cleveland Police treat all racial and
ethnic groups equally (n=1,400)

57%

37% 20%

34% 17% 18%

Equal Treament by Cleveland Police

Always Sometimes Rarely Never *Figure based on Q24: “Do you think the Cleveland Police treat all racial and ethnic groups equally?”

Page 26

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 40 of 71. PageID #: 963

Figure 30: Perceived Unequal Treatment towards Specific Groups Residents rated how well the Cleveland Police treat specific groups compared
to other members of the community (n=1,400)

Asian-Americans People with Special Needs
Latinos LGBTQ Individuals
Muslims African-Americans
Young People Homeless People

14%

54%

33%

49%

35%

44%

25%

42%

28%

39%

37%

53%

34%

53%

32%

47%

Treats the same Not as well
*Figure based on Q25: “I’m going to ask you about a number of groups in the Cleveland community and for each one, please tell me if you think the Cleveland Police treats them the same as other members of the community.

Page 27

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 41 of 71. PageID #: 964

Differences by Race and Ethnicity
Latino and black residents are much less likely than white residents to believe that the Cleveland Police treat all racial and ethnic groups equally sometimes or always. As seen in Figure 31, 70% of white residents believe the police treat all racial and ethnic groups equally at least some of the time compared to 55% of Latino residents and 49% of black residents. Two-thirds of black residents (66%) believe they are treated worse than other members of the community, consistent with general public perceptions. Figure 31a, on the following page, shows results among black residents.

Figure 31: Perceptions of Bias-Free Policing, by Ethnicity Residents rated how often Cleveland Police treat all racial and ethnic groups equally

White

11%

33% 9% 20%

37%

70%

21%

34%

55%

Latino

15%

17%

31%

11%

38%

49%

Black

22%

22%

44%

Always

Sometimes

Rarely

Never

*Figure based on Q24: “Do you think the Cleveland Police treat all racial and ethnic groups equally?” **Unweighted sample size was 418 for white residents, 236 for Latino residents, and 635 for black residents.

Page 28

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 42 of 71. PageID #: 965

Figure 31a: Perceived Unequal Treatment towards Specific Groups Responses from Black Residents
Black residents rated how well the Cleveland Police treat specific groups compared to other members of the community (n=635)

Asian-Americans People with Special Needs
LGBTQ Individuals Muslims Latinos
African-Americans Homeless People
Young People

47% 18%
44% 39%
37% 29%
35% 34%
35% 41%
26%

25% 24%

54%

Treats the same Not as well

66% 66%

*Figure based on Q25: “I’m going to ask you about a number of groups in the Cleveland community and for each one, please tell me if you think the Cleveland Police treats them the same as other members of the community.

Page 29

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 43 of 71. PageID #: 966

Perceptions Regarding the Use of Force
Overall Perceptions
One objective of the study was to measure public perceptions and concerns regarding the use of force by police. Residents were asked how often they think the Cleveland Police use appropriate force when they stop, question, or arrest someone and whether residents are concerned that they will be a victim of excessive force. The study found that a majority of Cleveland residents (63%) believe that the police use appropriate force only “sometimes,” “rarely,” or “never.” Half (51%) are concerned that they, a family member, or friend will be a victim of excessive force. The majority of residents (56%) are not concerned about being a victim of an officer-involved shooting. Results are presented Figures 32 and 33.
Figure 32: Overall Perceptions Regarding the Use of Force Residents rated how often they believe the Cleveland Police use the appropriate level of force (n=1,400)
69%

41% 28%

22%
9% 13%

Appropriate Level of Force
Almost always Sometimes Rarely Never
*Figure based on Q26: “How often do you think the Cleveland Police use the appropriate use of force when they stop or questions or arrest someone?”

Figure 33: Concerns about Being a Victim of Excessive Force Residents rated how concerned they are about being involved in an officer-involved
shooting or being a victim of excessive force (n=1,400)

Officer-Involved Shooting

34% 19%

23%

22% 42%

56%

Excessive Force

25% 24%

23% 27%

48% 51%

Not at all concerned Somewhat concerned

Not too concerned Very concerned

*Figure based on Q27 and Q28: “I want to ask you about some of the behavior of the Cleveland Police. How concerned are you that a family member, a friend, or you will be a victim of excessive force by the Cleveland Police?” “How concerned are you that a family member, a friend, or you will be a victim of an officer-involved shooting?”

Page 30

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 44 of 71. PageID #: 967

Difference by Race and Ethnicity
As seen in Figure 34, Latino and black residents are more concerned about the use of force by police than are white residents. Less than a quarter of Latino (23%) and black (18%) residents believe the police use the appropriate amount of force “almost always” compared to 46% among white residents.
Figure 34: Overall Perceptions Regarding the Use of Force, by Ethnicity Residents rated how often the Cleveland Police use the appropriate level of force

White Latino Black

46%

7%

12%

23% 10% 9% 19%

39%

18%

45%

18%

12% 30%

35%

82%

63%

63%

Almost Always

Sometimes

Rarely

Never

*Figure based on Q26: “How often do you think the Cleveland Police use the appropriate use of force when they stop or questions or arrest someone?” **Unweighted sample size was 418 for white residents, 236 for Latino residents, and 635 for black residents.

Page 31

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 45 of 71. PageID #: 968

Interactions with Cleveland Police
Type of Contact and Overall Impressions Based on Personal Experiences
In addition to documenting general impressions, the survey was designed to gauge public perceptions of the Cleveland Police based on personal interactions and/or the experiences of family and friends. Residents were first asked if they personally had any contact with the Cleveland Police in the 12 months prior to the survey. Of the slightly more than one-third (39%) of residents who reported that they had contact with police, a vast majority (82%) described the contact as “occasional,” with 16% describing it as “frequent.” Most contact was either initiated by residents (41%) or was equally initiated by residents and the police. One-in-five residents (20%) indicated that their contact was most often initiated by police.
Based on their personal experiences with the Cleveland Police, two thirds (66%) of residents believe that “all” or “most” officers treat them, their friends, and family with respect. Results are presented in Figure 35.
Figure 35: Respect Shown by the Cleveland Division of Police Based on Personal Experience
Residents rated how many Cleveland Police officers they believe show them respect during a personal encounter (n=502)
66%
28%

38%

13%

7% How Many Officers Show Respect

Almost all show respect Most do not show respect

Some show respect Almost none show respect

*Figure based on Q32: “Based on your personal experience, how many of the Cleveland Police officers you encounter treat you, your friends, and your family members with respect? “

Page 32

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 46 of 71. PageID #: 969

Approval Ratings Based on Personal Experience and the Experiences of Others
Next, residents were asked to recall their most significant interaction with the Cleveland Police in the last 12 months and whether they approve or disapprove of how police handled their situation. As seen in Figure 36, two-thirds (69%) of residents said they “somewhat approve” or “strongly approve” with how the police handled the incident overall.

Figure 36: Overall Approval Ratings Based on Personal Interactions with the Cleveland Division of Police
Residents rated their approval of how Cleveland Police handled their situation (n=502)
69%

23% 46%

29%
15% 14%

Approval

Strongly approve Somewhat approve Somewhat disapprove Strongly disapprove

*Figure based on Q35: “Overall, do you approve of how the Cleveland Police handled your situation?”

Page 33

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 47 of 71. PageID #: 970

In addition to general questions about their most significant interaction with police, residents were asked specific questions about how police conducted themselves, including whether officers answered all their questions, listened to what they had to say, and used the appropriate amount of force. In a parallel set of questions, residents were asked if they knew of family, friends, or neighbors who had contact with Cleveland Police and their impressions of police conduct based on “what they heard from others.”

The study found that based on personal experiences, the majority of residents “agree” or “strongly agree” that police are respectful and professional in their interactions with the public. Approximately three-fourths of residents who interacted with police reported that officers were polite (75%), treated them with respect (74%), and listened to what they had to say (72%). Two-thirds of residents (66%) reported that officers answered all their questions and 62% said officers explained their reason for stopping or questioning them. A majority of residents also reported that officers kept them informed about what would happen next (61%), did not use excessive force (58%), and did not detain them longer than was necessary (57%).

In contrast, residents’ perceptions of police conduct based on what they hear from others is consistently more negative. When asked about the experiences of family, friends, or neighbors only about half of residents agree that officers are polite (52%), treat people with respect (52%) and listen to what they have to say (53%) compared to three-fourths of residents who agree with those statements when reflecting on their first-hand experience. Results are presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Perceptions of Cleveland Police Based on Personal Experience and the Reports of Others

Officers are polite

Score based on Personal Experience (Agree/Strongly Agree)
n=502
75%

Score based on the reports of others (Agree/Strongly Agree)
n=384
52%

Officers treat people with respect Officers listen Officers answer questions

74%

52%

72%

53%

66%

59%

Officers offer an explanation of situation

62%

58%

Officers keep people informed about what will happen next

61%

54%

Officers do not use more force than necessary

58%

42%

Officers do not detain people longer than necessary

57%

42%

*Figure based on Q34 and Q37: “Please tell me whether you strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree with each

statement about the Cleveland Police in general based…”

Page 34

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 48 of 71. PageID #: 971

How Residents Form Opinions about Police Outside of Personal Experience
The study found that word of mouth (38%) was one of the most frequently cited sources of information about the police, second only to local television (64%). Results are presented in Figure 37.

Figure 37: Sources of Information on the Cleveland Division of Police Residents reported which sources they most often use to learn about the Cleveland Police (n=1,400)

Local Television Word of Mouth Social Media Websites
Cleveland Plain Dealer Local Radio
Other Newspapers Other
Don't know/Refused

22% 21% 19% 18% 1% 5%

38% 32%

64%

*Figure based onQ46: From what sources do you learn the most about the Cleveland Police?”
As a follow-up question, Latino residents were asked if they learn about the police through Spanishlanguage media. Nearly half of all Latino residents (47%) reported that they learn about the police through Spanish-language media “often” or “sometimes.”

Page 35

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 49 of 71. PageID #: 972

Differences by Race, Ethnicity, and Age
The type of interactions residents have with police varies by race and age. Black residents were more likely than white residents to report that contact was initiated by police, 28% compared to 13% respectively. Residents between the ages of 18 and 39 were also more likely to report that contact was initiated by the police (29%) compared to residents 40 years and older (13%).
When asked to describe how well police treat residents based on their personal experience, 77% of white residents said officers “almost always” or “mostly” show them respect, compared to 57% of black residents (see Figure 38).

Figure 38: Respect Shown by the Cleveland Division of Police, by Ethnicity Ratings among white and black residents who had personal contact with Cleveland Police, in-person, over the phone, or in some other way

77%

28%

57%

49%

32%

6%

25%

20% 10%

White

Black

Almost all show respect Most do not show respect

Most show respect Almost none show respect

*Figure based on Q32: “Based on your personal experience, how many of the Cleveland Police officers you encounter treat you, your friends, and your family members with respect?“ **Unweighted sample size was 192 for white residents and 216 for black residents. There was not a sufficient number of Latino residents for comparison.

Page 36

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 50 of 71. PageID #: 973

Figure 39 presents residents’ approval of police based on their most significant personal interaction. More than three-fourths of white residents (76%) strongly approve or somewhat approve of how police handled their situation compared to 61% of black residents.
Figure 39: Overal Approval Ratings Based on Personal Interactions with Police, by Ethnicity
Approval ratings among white and black residents who had personal contact with Cleveland Police, in-person, over the phone, or in some other way

76% 16%
60%

21% 13%

61% 28% 33%

37% 23% 14%

White

Black

Strongly approve Somewhat approve Somewhat disapprove Strongly disapprove

*Figure based on Q35: “Overall, do you approve of how the Cleveland Police handled your situation?” **Unweighted sample size was 192 for white residents and 216 for black residents. There was not a sufficient number of Latino residents for comparison. .

Page 37

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 51 of 71. PageID #: 974

Filing of Complaints
Satisfaction with the Process for Filing a Complaint
To help gauge public satisfaction with the complaint process at the Cleveland Division of Police, residents were asked if they had considered filing a complaint in the 12 months prior to the survey and, if so, to rate their experience overall and across specific measures. Less than 10% of residents surveyed reported that they had considered filing a complaint and, of those, only one quarter actually filed. Figure 40 below shows ratings across different components of the complaint filing process. Although residents were asked specifically about formal complaints filed with Cleveland Division of Police, it is possible that some of the ratings presented here actually refer to complaints filed with the Office of Professional Standards. In addition, since only 24 residents surveyed filed complaints, results are presented in terms of cases rather than percentages. It should be noted that due to the extremely small sample of individuals who filed complaints, results cannot be reliably extrapolated to the larger population and should be interpreted with caution. Results presented here are not statistically reliable and should be verified by a future statistical sample of individuals who filed complaints.
Twelve out of the 24 individuals who filed complaints “agree” or “strongly agree” that the staff who took their information listened to their complaint. However, less than half of residents who filed complaints agreed that officers or staff treated them with respect, that the steps for filing a complaint were easy to understand, that the staff kept them informed, and that the staff followed-up to share the outcome of their investigation.

Figure 40: Ratings of Specific Aspects of the Complaint Filing Process Unweighted number of residents who strongly agreed, agreed, disagreed, or
strongly disagreed with statements (n=24)

The officer or staff listened
I was treated with respect
The steps were easy
The officer or staff kept me informed

1 1
3 1
3

The officer or staff followed-up Strongly Agree

11 12

6

39

10 11

7

3 10

8 11

9

2 11

67

8

5 13

36

9

Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

9 18

*Figure based on Q40: “We’re interested in what you think of the process of making complaints about the police or the way that certain police officers have performed. Please tell me whether you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree with the following statements about your experience. When you filed a complaint…”
Page 38

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 52 of 71. PageID #: 975

Difficulty with the complaint process and a perceived lack of follow-up by Cleveland Police or the Office of Professional Standards, affected overall satisfaction ratings. When asked how satisfied they were with the complaint process overall, the majority of residents reported that they were dissatisfied with the experience (15 out of 24 cases). See Figure 41.
Figure 41: Overall Satisfaction with the Complaint Filing Process Unweighted number of residents who said they were very satisfied, somewhat
satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied (n=24)
15

8

10

3

5

5

Satisfaction with Process Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Very dissatisfied
*Figure based on Q41: “Overall, how satisfied were you with how the Cleveland Police handled your complaint?”

Page 39

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 53 of 71. PageID #: 976

Why Some Residents Decide Not to File Complaints
Residents who decided not to file a complaint were asked to describe their reasons. Results are presented in Figure 42. The most frequently cited reasons for not filing a complaint were the belief that it would not have made a difference (30 cases), followed by concern regarding backlash from the police (13 cases).

Figure 42: Reasons Residents Decided Not to File a Complaint Unweighted number of residents who considered filing a complaint but did not (n=79)

It would not have made a difference

30

Concerned about backlash/revenge by police

13

Some other reason

12

It would have taken too long

7

Issue was resolved

7

It wasn't necessary

6

Did not know how to file complaint 3

I just received forms 2

Don't know/Refused 2

*Figure based on Q42: “Can you briefly tell me why you decided not to file a formal complaint?” **Totals do not add to 79 since some respondents mentioned more than one reason.

Page 40

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 54 of 71. PageID #: 977
SUMMARY
Overall, the study found that a majority of Cleveland residents approve of the job the police are doing and feel safe in the City of Cleveland and within their own neighborhoods. Moreover, results suggest that based on personal experiences, most residents view police as respectful and professional in their interactions. Despite these positive indicators, many Cleveland residents are skeptical about police conduct and accountability, including the use of force. Moreover, residents’ views of the police vary significantly by race, ethnicity, and area. Black residents, in particular, have more negative opinions of the Cleveland Police compared to other groups across most measures including overall approval ratings, perceived safety, community engagement, and perceptions of the use of force. Black and Latino residents are also less likely to report that they are treated with respect when they interact with police and are less satisfied with how police handle those interactions. Although the majority of Cleveland residents believe the police treat all racial and ethnic groups equally at least some of the time, many believe differential treatment still exists. Finally, results indicate that residents are more likely to form negative opinions about the police based on what they hear from others, rather than their own personal experience, suggesting that a single interaction has an “echo” effect that shapes the perceptions of many people. Future research, whether through follow-up surveys or focus groups, might explore what makes interactions positive or negative and how positive and informal contact might improve community-police relations.
Page 41

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 55 of 71. PageID #: 978
APPENDIX A: SURVEY INSTRUMENT WITH FREQUENCIES FOR RESPONDENTS
OVERALL
Page 42

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 56 of 71. PageID #: 979
Cleveland Ohio Community Survey 2016 Public Perceptions of Safety and Policing
Weighted Results (n=1,400)
INTRODUCTION
Hello. My name is _________. We are conducting a survey with people in your area about the City of Cleveland and the Cleveland Division of Police. The federal government and the City are interested in improving policecommunity relations. To do that, we need to hear from residents about their experiences with and expectations for the Cleveland Division of Police. Your answers will be anonymous.
01 willing to continue 02 refusal 03 call back <at specific time> 04 call back <no specific time> 05 no answer 06 busy 07 answering machine 08 disconnected number 09 language barrier (not Spanish or English) 10 business number 11 fax machine
SCREENER QUESTIONS Landline (Unweighted n=684) 1. May I speak with the [youngest/oldest] adult at home who is 18 years or older?
1 Yes, I am that person (continue interview) 2 Yes, transferring to the person (restart intro) 3 Not available now (If person who answered is an adult, continue interview. If person is who
answered is under 18 arrange a call-back) 9 Refused (terminate)
Cell Phone (Unweighted n=716) 1a. Since you are on a cell phone, I can call you back if you are driving or doing anything else that requires
your full attention. Can you talk safely and privately now, or not? 1 Yes 2 Not right now (try and arrange a time to call-back) 9 Refused (terminate)
1b. Are you 18 years or older? (n=1400) 1 Yes 100% 2 No (terminate)
All Respondents
1c. Are you comfortable taking this survey in English? [DO NOT READ OPTIONS] (n=1400) 1 Yes, comfortable in English 96% 2 No, need survey in Spanish [SWITCH TO SPANISH VERSION]4% 3 No, need other language [TERMINATE]
Page 43

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 57 of 71. PageID #: 980

1d. What city do you live in? (Don’t Read) (n=1400) 1 City of Cleveland 100% 2 Other (Terminate) 9 Don’t know/refused (terminate)
1e. What is your zip code? [Record 5 digit zip code. Zip code list to be provided. Don’t Know/Refused Terminate]
1f. So we can represent everyone in the community, can you please tell me what racial or ethnic group you most identify with? (n=1400)
1 Hispanic/Latino 10% 2 Black/African American 52% 3 Asian-American 1% 4 White/Caucasian 32% 5 Other racial or ethnic background (specify) 2% 9 Refused (Don’t Read) 3%

PERCEPTIONS OF POLICE JOB PERFORMANCE OVERALL

I’d like to ask you some questions about services provided by the City of Cleveland and how good of a job you think they’re doing.

2. First, when it comes to [INSERT ITEM] do you think they are doing an excellent, good, only fair, or poor job overall? How about [INSERT ITEM], do you think they are doing an excellent, good, only fair, or poor job overall? What about [INSERT ITEM]?

SCALE: 1 Excellent
2 Good 3 Only Fair 4 Poor 9 Don’t know/Refused (Don’t read)

ITEMS: (n=1400) a. The Cleveland Division of Fire (Top 2=81%) 37% Excellent; 44% Good; 10% Fair; 1% Poor; 7% Don’t know b. The City of Cleveland’s Department of Public Works (Top 2=69%) 22% Excellent; 47% Good; 20% Fair; 7% Poor; 3% Don’t Know c. The Cleveland Division of Police (Top 2=55%) 18% Excellent; 37% Good; 22% Fair; 20% Poor; 3% Don’t Know

3. Thinking about the area where you live, how would you rate the job the Cleveland Police are doing serving

people in your neighborhood? (n=1400)

1 Excellent 22%

55%

2 Good 33%

3 Only Fair 26%

42%

4 Poor 16%

9 Don’t know/Refused (Don’t read) 3%

Page 44

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 58 of 71. PageID #: 981

I’m going to read some statements about the Cleveland Police. For each one, please tell me whether you think the statement is true almost all the time, most of the time, some of the time, or almost never. [ROTATE Q4 –Q7]

4. Cleveland Police officers follow the law.

1 Almost all the time 22% 2 Most of the time 28%

50%

3 Some of the time 33%

45%

4 Almost never 12%

9 Don’t know/Refused (Don’t read) 5%

5. Cleveland Police officers treat people with dignity and respect. (n=1400)

1 Almost all the time 22%

2 Most of the time 26%

48%

3 Some of the time 36%

49%

4 Almost never 13%

9 Don’t know/Refused (Don’t read) 3%

6. In general, Cleveland Police officers use the appropriate amount of force. (n=1400)

1 Almost all the time 20% 47% 2 Most of the time 26%

3 Some of the time 34%

47%

4 Almost never 13%

9 Don’t know/Refused (Don’t read) 6%

7. Cleveland Police hold officers accountable when misconduct occurs. (n=1400)

1 Almost all of the time 19%

2 Most of the time 19%

38%

3 Some of the time 29%

55%

4 Almost never 26%

9 Don’t know/Refused (Don’t read) 7%

PERCEPTIONS OF PUBLIC SAFETY

The next set of questions are about public safety.

8. In general, how safe do you feel in the City of Cleveland? (n=1400)

1 Very Safe 20%

70%

2 Somewhat Safe 50%

3 Not too Safe 19%

29%

4 Not at all Safe 10%

9 Don’t know/refused (Don’t Read) 1%

8a. In general, how safe do you feel in your neighborhood? (n=1400)

1 Very Safe 38%

78%

2 Somewhat Safe 40%

3 Not too Safe 13%

22%

4 Not at All Safe 8%

Page 45

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 59 of 71. PageID #: 982

9. How safe do you feel walking the streets of your neighborhood during the daytime? (n=1400)

1 Very Safe 47% 2 Somewhat Safe 36%

83%

3 Not too Safe 8%

12%

4 Not at all Safe 4%

5 I don’t walk in my neighborhood (Don’t read) [SKIP to Q11] 5%

9 Don’t know/refused (Don’t Read) <1%

10. How safe do you feel walking the streets of your neighborhood at night? (n=1400)

1 Very Safe 18% 2 Somewhat safe 26%

44%

3 Not too Safe 20%

47%

4 Not at All Safe 27%

5 I don’t walk in my neighborhood at night (Don’t read) 9%

9 Don’t know/refused (Don’t Read) <1%

11. How worried are you that you or someone else in your household will be a victim of crime? (n=1400)

1 Very Worried 22% 2 Somewhat Worried 35%

57%

3 A Little Worried 23%

42%

4 Not at All Worried 19%

9 Don’t know/refused (Don’t Read) 1%

12. How would you rate the job the Cleveland Police are doing controlling crime in your neighborhood?

(n=1400)

1 Excellent 18%

2 Good 33%

51%

3 Only Fair 29% 4 Poor 17%

46%

9 Don’t know/refused (Don’t Read) 3%

PERCEPTIONS OF COMMUNITY POLICING

The following questions are about the relationship between the Cleveland Police and your community.

13. Overall, how would you describe the relationship between the Cleveland Division of Police and the

neighborhood where you live? (n=1400)

1 Very Positive 19% 2 Somewhat Positive 48%

67%

3 Somewhat Negative19% 27% 4 Very Negative 8%

9 Don’t Know/Refused (Don’t read) 6%

14. In the last 12 months, how frequently did you see Cleveland Police officers on foot or in a car patrolling in your neighborhood? (READ) (n=1400) 1 At least once a day 35% 2 Several times a week 19% 3 Once or twice a week 21% 4 Less than once a week 13% 5 Never 11% 9 Don’t Know/Refused (Don’t read) 2%

Page 46

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 60 of 71. PageID #: 983

16. Can you count on seeing the same police officers in your neighborhood once or twice a week? (n=1400) 1 Yes 40% 2 No 44% 9 Don’t Know/Refused (Don’t Read) 16%

17. Do you know the names of any of the police officers who work in your neighborhood? (n=1400) 1 Yes 13% 2 No 86% 9 Don’t Know/Refused 1%

15a. In the last 12 months, have there been any community stakeholder meetings in your neighborhood? (n=1400)
1 Yes 23% 2 No [SKIP to Q18] 48% 9 Don’t know [SKIP to Q18] 29%

15b. How many of those meetings have you personally attended? ________ [99 =Don’t know] [DK and 0 times SKIP to Q18] (n=358) One or more 42%; Mean=1.2

15c. In the last 12 months, how frequently did you see Cleveland Police officers attend community stakeholder meetings in your neighborhood? (READ) Did they attend… (n=152)
1 Most meetings 31% 2 Some meetings 34% 3 Rarely 12% 4 Never 15% 9 Don’t Know/Refused (Don’t Read) 7%

18. Do you think the Cleveland Police take the time to meet members of your community? (n=1400) 1 Yes 33% 2 No 53% 9 Don’t Know/Refused (Don’t Read)14%

19. Do you think the Cleveland Police have developed relationships with people like you? (n=1400) 1 Yes 37% 2 No 54% 9 Don’t Know/Refused (Don’t Read) 8%

20. How knowledgeable are the Cleveland Police about the background and experiences of people like you?

(n=1400)

1 Very Knowledgeable 14% 2 Somewhat Knowledgeable 37% 51%

3 Not too Knowledgeable 21%

4 Not at All Knowledgeable 19%

40%

9 Don’t Know/Refused (Don’t Read) 9%

Page 47

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 61 of 71. PageID #: 984

21. How easy is it for people from your community to give input and make suggestions to the Division of

Police? (n=1400)

1 Very Easy 18%

49%

2 Somewhat Easy 31%

3 Not too Easy 21%

38%

4 Not At All Easy 17%

9 Don’t Know/Refused (Don’t Read) 13%

22. If you were in trouble, how likely would you be to ask a Cleveland Police officer for help? (n=1400)

1 Very Likely 58% 2 Somewhat Likely 22% 80%

3 Not too Likely 11% 4 Not at All Likely 8%

18%

9 Don’t Know/Refused (Don’t read) 2%

23. If you witnessed a crime or knew about a crime that took place, how likely would you be to report it or to

provide information to the Cleveland Police? (n=1400)

1 Very Likely 70% 2 Somewhat Likely 18% 88%

3 Not too Likely 4% 4 Not at All Likely 6%

10%

9 Don’t Know/Refused (Don’t read) 3%

PERCEPTIONS OF BIAS-FREE POLICING

The next few questions are about the way police treat people in the community.

24. Do you think the Cleveland Police treat all racial and ethnic groups equally? Would you say… (n=1400)

1 Always 20% 2 Sometimes 37% 57%

3 Rarely 18%

4 Never 17%

34%

9 Don’t know/refused (Don’t Read) 9%

25. I’m going to ask you about a number of groups in the Cleveland community and for each one, please tell me if you think the Cleveland Police treats them the same as other members of the community or not as well. First, when it comes to [INSERT ITEM; RANDOMIZE] do you think the Cleveland Police treat them the same as other members of the community or not as well? How about [NEXT ITEM]? [IF NECESSARY: When it comes to [ITEM] do you think the Cleveland Police treat them the same as other members of the community or not as well?]

ITEMS: (n=1400) a) African-Americans 37% Treats the same; 53% not as well; 10% Don’t know b) Hispanic/Latinos 44% Treats the same; 35% Not as well; 22% Don’t know c) Muslims 39% Treats the same; 28% Not as well; 32% Don’t know d) Asian-Americans 54% Treats the same;14% Not as well; 32% Don’t know e) Young People 34% Treats the same; 53% Not as well; 13% Don’t know f) Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals 42% Treats the same; 25% Not as well; 33%
Don’t know g) Homeless people 32% Treats the same; 47% Not as well; 21% Don’t know h) People with mental illness or special needs 49% Treats the same; 33% Not as well; 18% Don’t
know

Page 48

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 62 of 71. PageID #: 985

SCALE: 1 Treats them the same 2 Not as well 9 Don’t know/refused

PERCEPTIONS OF THE USE OF FORCE

Now, I want to ask you about some of the behavior of the Cleveland Police.

26. How often do you think Cleveland Police use the appropriate level of force when they stop or question or

arrest someone? Would you say… (n=1400)

1 Almost always 28% 69% 2 Sometimes 41%

3 Rarely 13%

22%

4 Almost never 9%

9 Don’t know/Refused (Don’t Read) 9%

27. How concerned are you that a family member, a friend, or you will be a victim of excessive force by the Cleveland Police? (n=1400) 1 Very Concerned 27% 2 Somewhat Concerned 24% 51% 3 Not Too Concerned 23% 4 Not At All Concerned 25% 48% 9 Don’t Know/Refused (Don’t read) 2%

28. How concerned are you that a family member, a friend, or you will be a victim of an officer-involved

shooting? (n=1400)

1 Very Concerned 23%

42%

2 Somewhat Concerned 19%

3 Not Too Concerned 22%

56%

4 Not At All Concerned 34%

9 Don’t Know/Refused (Don’t read) 2%

INTERACTIONS WITH CLEVELAND POLICE
I’d like to hear about your experiences with the Cleveland Police and those of your family, friends, and neighbors.
29. In the last 12 months, have you personally had any contact with the Cleveland Police, in-person, over the phone, or in some other way? (n=1400) 1 Yes 39% 2 No [SKIP TO Q36] 60% 9 Don’t know/Refused [SKIP TO Q36] 1%
30. How would you describe the frequency of your contact with the Cleveland Police in the last 12 months? Would you say you have had … [READ LIST] (n=502) 1 Frequent contact 16% 2 Occasional contact 82% 9 Don’t know/Refused (Don’t read) 2%

Page 49

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 63 of 71. PageID #: 986

31. Would you describe these contacts as mostly initiated by you, mostly initiated by the Cleveland Police, or about equal? (n=502) 1 Mostly initiated by me 41% 2 Mostly initiated by the police 20% 3 Equally initiated by me and the police 37% 9 Don’t know/Refused 2%

32. Based on your personal experience, how many of the Cleveland Police officers you encounter treat you,

your friends, and your family members with respect? Would you say…[READ LIST. RECORD ONE

RESPONSE.] (n=502)

1 Almost all officers show respect 38%

2 Most officers show respect 28%

66%

3 About the same show respect as do not show respect 19%

4 Most officers do not show respect 7%

13%

5 Almost none of the officers show respect 6%

9 Don’t know/Refused [DO NOT READ] 1%

33. I’m going to ask you to recall your most significant interaction with the Cleveland Police in the last 12 months. First, was that encounter initiated by you or by the police? (n=502) 1 Initiated by me 57% 2 Initiated by the police 31% 3 Equally initiated 8% 9 Don’t know/Refused 4%

34. Still thinking about your most significant interaction with the Cleveland Police in the last 12 months, please tell me whether you strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree with each statement as it relates to that specific experience. Or you can tell me if it doesn’t apply. [ROTATE ITEMS a-e]

SCALE 1 Strongly Agree 2 Agree 3 Disagree 4 Strongly Disagree 5 Doesn’t Apply (Read) 9 Don’t know/Refused (Don’t Read)

ITEMS (n=502) a) The officers answered all my questions (Top 2=66%) 36% Strongly Agree; 30% Agree; 12% Disagree; 10% Strongly Disagree; 9% Doesn’t Apply; 1% Don’t Know b) The officers listened to what I had to say (Top 2=72%) 38% Strongly Agree; 34% Agree; 13% Disagrees; 11% Strongly Disagree; 3% Doesn’t Apply; 1% Don’t know c) The officers kept me informed about what would happen next (Top 2=61%) 32% Strongly Agree; 30% Agree; 18% Disagree; 10% Strongly Disagree; 10% Doesn’t Apply; 2% Don’t Know d) The officers were polite in how they spoke to me (Top 2=75%) 40% Strongly Agree; 35% Agree; 9% Disagree; 11% Strongly Disagree; 4% Doesn’t Apply; 1% Don’t Know e) The officers treated me with respect (Top 2=74%) 42% Strongly Agree; 32% Agree; 12% Disagree; 10% Strongly Disagree; 4% Doesn’t Apply; 1% Don’t Know f) The officers explained their reason for stopping, questioning, or interacting with me (Top 2=62%) 28% Strongly Agree; 33% Agree; 8% Disagree; 6% Strongly Disagree; 22% Doesn’t Apply; 2% Don’t know

Page 50

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 64 of 71. PageID #: 987

g) The officers did not detain me for longer than was necessary (Top 2=57%) 29% Strongly Agree; 27% Agree; 7% Disagree; 4% Strongly Disagree; 29% Doesn’t Apply; 2% Don’t know
h) The officers did not use more force than was necessary (Top 2=58%) 28% Strongly Agree; 30% Agree; 8% Disagree; 3% Strongly Disagree; 30% Doesn’t Apply; 1% Don’t know

35. Overall, do you approve of how the Cleveland Police handled your situation? Would you say you… (n=502)

1 Strongly Approve 46%

2 Somewhat Approve 23%

69%

3 Somewhat Disapprove 14% 29% 4 Strongly Disapprove 15%

9 Don’t know/Refused 3%

36. Do you know of family, friends, or neighbors who had contact with the Cleveland Police in the last 12 months? (n=1400) 1 Yes 30% 2 No [SKIP to Q38] 67% 9 Don’t know/Refused [SKIP TO Q38] 3%

37. I’m going to ask you to recall what you have heard from family, friends, and neighbors regarding their interaction with the Cleveland Police in the last 12 months. Please tell me whether you strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree with each statement about the Cleveland Police in general based on what you have heard from others. [ROTATE ITEMS a-e]

SCALE 1 Strongly Agree 2 Agree 3 Disagree 4 Strongly Disagree 5 Doesn’t apply 9 Don’t know/Refused

ITEMS (n=384) a) Officers listen to what people have to say (Top 2=53%) 19% Strongly Agree; 35% Agree; 27% Disagree; 15% Strongly Disagree; 2% Doesn’t Apply; 2% Don’t know b) Officers answer people’s questions (Top 2= 59%) 21% Strongly Agree; 38% Agree; 22% Disagree; 12% Strongly Disagree; 4% Doesn’t Apply; 3% Don’t know c) Officers keep people informed about what will happen next (Top 2= 54%) 17% Strongly Agree; 37% Agree; 24% Disagree; 12%Strongly Disagree; 4% Doesn’t Apply; 5% Don’t know d) Officers are polite in how they speak to people (Top 2= 52%) 17% Strongly Agree; 35% Agree; 28% Disagree; 17% Strongly Disagree; 1% Doesn’t Apply; 2% Don’t know e) Officers treat people with respect(Top 2= 52%) 19% Strongly Agree; 34% Agree; 28% Disagree; 15% Strongly Disagree; 2% Doesn’t Apply; 2% Don’t know f) Officers explain their reasons for stopping or questioning someone (Top 2= 58%) 18% Strongly Agree; 39% Agree; 21% Disagree; 13% Strongly Disagree; 5% Doesn’t Apply; 4% Don’t know g) Officers do not detain people for longer than necessary (Top 2=42%) 15% Strongly Agree; 27% Agree; 29% Disagree; 16% Strongly Disagree; 7% Doesn’t Apply; 6% Don’t know h) Officers do not use more force than is necessary(Top 2=42%)16% Strongly Agree; 26% Agree; 31% Disagree; 16% Strongly Disagree; 5% Doesn’t Apply; 5% Don’t know

Page 51

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 65 of 71. PageID #: 988

38. In the last 12 months, have you considered filing a complaint with the Cleveland Division of Police for any reason? (n=1400) 1 Yes 8% 2 No [SKIP TO Q43] 90% 9 Don’t know/Refused [SKIP TO Q43] 1%
39. Did you end up filing a formal complaint with the Cleveland Police? (n=103) 1 Yes 24% 2 No [SKIP TO Q42] 76% 9 Don’t Know/Refused (Don’t Read) [SKIP TO Q43] N/A

40. We’re interested in what you think of the process for making complaints about the police or the way that certain police officers have performed. Please tell me whether you strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree with the following statements about your experience. [ROTATE ITEMS] SCALE 1 Strongly Agree 2 Agree 3 Disagree 4 Strongly Disagree 5 Doesn’t Apply 9 Don’t know/Refused

ITEMS (n=24) Unweighted number of cases only. a. When I filed the complaint, I was treated with respect by the officer or staff taking my complaint. (Top 2=11) 1 Strongly Agree; 10 Agree; 7 Disagree; 3 Strongly Disagree; 2 Doesn’t Apply; 1 Don’t Know b. When I filed the complaint, the officer or staff listened to what I had to say (Top 2= 12) 1 Strongly Agree; 11 Agree; 6 Disagree; 3 Strongly Disagree; 2 Doesn’t Apply; 1 Don’t Know c. The steps to filing a complaint were easy to understand (Top 2= 11) 3 Strongly Agree; 8 Agree; 9 Disagree; 2 Strongly Disagree; 1 Doesn’t Apply; 1 Don’t Know d. The officer/staff kept me informed (Top 2=7) 1 Strongly Agree; 6 Agree; 8 Disagree; 5 Strongly Disagree; 2 Doesn’t Apply; 2 Don’t Know e. The officer/staff followed-up to tell me the outcome of their investigation (Top 2= 6) 3 Strongly Agree; 3 Agree; 9 Disagree; 9 Strongly Disagree; N/A Doesn’t Apply; N/A Don’t know

41. Overall, how satisfied were you with how the Cleveland Police handled your complaint? Were you …

1 Very Satisfied 5 cases 2 Somewhat Satisfied 3 cases

8 cases

3 Somewhat Dissatisfied 5 cases 15 cases

4 Very Dissatisfied 10 cases

9 Don’t Know/Refused

42. [DO NOT ASK IF Q39=YES] Can you briefly tell me why you decided not to file a formal complaint? (DO NOT READ. Check all that apply. Probe: “Any other reason?”] (n=79) 1 Didn’t know how 2 cases 2 It would have taken too much time 7 cases 3 Concerned that there would be a backlash/revenge by the police 13 cases 4 Didn’t think it would make a difference 30 cases 5 Some other reason (specify) 12 cases 9 Don’t know/refused (Don’t Read) 2 cases

Page 52

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 66 of 71. PageID #: 989

DEMOGRAPHICS

Finally, I’d like to ask you a few general questions to make sure we have a representative sample. Your answers are anonymous.

43. What year were you born? ______ ______ ______ ______ [Subtract from 2016 to calculate age]

44. [If conducted in ENGLISH, others SKIP] Is English your native language? (n=1400) 1 Yes 93% 2 No 5% 9 Prefer not to answer/refused 2%

45. What is the highest level of schooling you’ve completed? (Don’t Read) (n=1400) 1 Grades 1-8 5% 2 Grades 9-11 17% 3 High School Graduate/GED 31% 4 Some College/Vocational Training 28% 5 College Graduate 10% 6 Post Graduate/Professional School 5% 9 Refused 3%

46. From what sources do you learn the most about the Cleveland Police? (Check all that apply) (n=1400) 1 Local Television 64% 2 Local radio 19% 3 Cleveland Plain Dealer 21% 4 Other newspapers 18% 5 Websites 22% 6 Word of mouth 38% 7 Other source (specify) 1% 8 Social media 32% 9 Don’t know/refused 5%

47. [ASK ONLY IF Q1f = Hispanic/Latino] Do you learn about the Cleveland Police through Spanish-language

media? (n=236)

1 Yes, Often 21%

47%

2 Yes, Sometimes 26%

3 No 48%

9 Don’t know/refused (Don’t read) 4%

48. How many people live in your household? ___________

49. [Asked of cell phones only] Do you have a landline telephone? (n=716) 1 Yes 24% 2 No 73% 9 Refused 4%

Page 53

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 67 of 71. PageID #: 990
50. Asked to landline phones only] Do you have a cell phone? (n=684) 1 Yes 79% 2 No 18% 9 Refused 3%
51. [Asked of everyone] Does your household primarily use cell phones or land line phones? (n=1400) 1 Cell 69% 2 Land Line 24% 9 Refused 7%
52. I am going to read some categories of household income. Please stop me when I reach the category of your total 2015 annual household income, before taxes: (n=1400)
01 Less than $10,000 18% 02 $10,000 to under $20,000 13% 03 $20,000 to under $30,000 16% 04 $30,000 to under $40,000 9% 05 $40,000 to under $50,000 5% 06 $50,000 to under $75,000 6% 07 $75,000 to under $100,000 4% 08 $100,000 to under $150,000 3% 09 $150,000 to under $200,000 1% 10 More than $200,000 1% 99 Refused (DON’T READ) 24%
53. Which of the following do you most identify with? Do you consider yourself to be… (n=1400) 1 Straight 79% 2 Gay 2% 3 Lesbian 1% 4 Bisexual 2% 5 Transgendered N/A 6 None of the above 7% 9 Prefer not to answer (do not read) 9%
54. And are you male or female? (n=1400) 1 Male 47% 2 Female 51% 9 Refused 2%
55. Note Language (English or Spanish) (n=1400) 96% English; 4% Spanish
Page 54

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 68 of 71. PageID #: 991
APPENDIX B: DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF RESIDENTS SURVEYED COMPARED TO
POPULATION ESTIMATES
Page 55

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 69 of 71. PageID #: 992

Table 2: Demographic Profile of Residents Surveyed Compared to U.S. Census Population Estimates

Population Characteristic Landline Only Dual Use Cellphone Only

U.S. Census Population Estimates for City of Cleveland
6.4% 46.1% 47.5%

Unweighted Sample 12.7% 55.4% 31.9%

Weighted Sample 6.7% 45.6% 47.7%

Male Female

48%

42.9%

47.6%

52%

57.1%

52.4%

White/Caucasian Black/African American Hispanic/Latino Other Race

33.4% 53.3% 10.0% 3.30%

30.7% 46.7% 17.3% 5.3%

33.4% 53.1% 10.0% 3.5%

18 – 34 years of age 35 -54 years of age 55- 64 years of age 65+ years of age

34.3% 33.6% 16.1% 16.0%

20.2% 35.4% 19.1% 25.4%

33.1% 34.6% 15.9% 16.4%

Less than $10,000 $10,000 to $49,999 $49,999 to $99,999 $100,000 +

20.0% 54.0% 18.9% 6.9%

15.6% 67.6% 10.9% 5.9%

18.2% 67.1% 10.0% 4.8%

Less than High School High School Graduate/GED Some College College Graduate +

22.6%
33.0%
29.1% 15.2%

14.9%
33.9%
26.6% 24.6%

22.0%
33.8% 28.4% 15.8%

Sources: http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045214/3916000 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/wireless_state_201602.pdf
*Missing Values in unweighted samples imputed to item median in order to preserve cases

Page 56

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 70 of 71. PageID #: 993
APPENDIX C: MARGIN OF ERROR FOR TARGET POPULATIONS
Page 57

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 71-1 Filed: 06/23/16 71 of 71. PageID #: 994

Table 3: Margin of Error for Target Populations

Sample Size

Margin of Error

White, Non-Hispanic

418

+/-5%

Latinos/Hispanics

236

+/-6%

Black, Non-Hispanic

635

+/-4%

*Margins of Error are based on a 95% confidence level. Subsamples may have larger

margins of error. The margin of error for groups was not adjusted for design effects.

Page 58

 
 Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 73 Filed: 06/24/16 1 of 31. PageID #: 1038

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
vs. CITY OF CLEVELAND
Defendant.

) CASE NO.: 1:15-CV-01046 ) ) ) JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER, JR. ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM PROVIDING ) BASELINE ASSESSMENT REPORT

I. INTRODUCTION
The Consent Decree (the “Decree”) requires the Monitor to conduct qualitative and
quantitative “outcome assessments” to measure whether implementing the reforms that the
Decree requires ultimately results in safe, effective, and constitutional policing. The Monitoring
Team’s First Semiannual Report introduced the importance of the assessments:
[T]he Decree requires that the Monitor assess whether the implementation of the Consent Decree’s reforms is contributing to the necessary outcomes of ensuring safe, effective, and constitutional policing consistent with Cleveland’s values. Ultimately, these ‘outcome measurements’ explore whether implemented changes are having the actual effects across the Cleveland community that they are intended to have.
A notable feature of the Cleveland Consent Decree is its express inclusion of a host of specific outcome assessments that the Monitor must evaluate and track over time . . . .
Dkt. 65 at 70. Accordingly, the outcome measures, both qualitative and quantitative, aim to
gauge, document, and tell the story of reform across the Division and the City of Cleveland over

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 73 Filed: 06/24/16 2 of 31. PageID #: 1039
time. To do so, the Monitoring Team must first establish and capture baseline assessments to which future improvements will be measured.
The specific outcome measures to which the United States and City of Cleveland agreed in the Consent Decree address a host of areas, including: use of force; crisis intervention; stops, searches, and arrests; bias-free policing and community engagement; recruitment; officer training; officer assistance and support; supervision; civilian complaints; and internal investigations, and discipline. Running four pages in the Consent Decree, outcome measures related to these nine major areas are broken down into many particular measures, with each often associated with many sub-parts. In total, there are some approximately 471 discrete data points that the Consent Decree requires the Monitoring Team to assess annually.
To understand whether the Consent Decree is “result[ing] in constitutional policing,” Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 367, the Monitoring Team needs to understand where the City and Cleveland Division of Police (“CPD” or the “Division”) were when work on the Consent Decree began in earnest. Following the outline of paragraph 367, collecting appropriate baseline data for the quantitative items will allow the Monitoring Team and Court to understand whether the Consent Decree’s provisions are having the intended effect in the real world. Review of these data will occur annually and, in the case of the biennial survey, Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 366, on alternate years.
Although this report focuses on establishing baselines for quantitative measures, the Monitoring Team will soon begin reviewing qualitative measures of use of force investigations and reviews, the prevalence of training deficiencies, the availability and use of officer assistance and support services, the number of citizen complaint allegations supported by the preponderance of the evidence, and various supervisory responses that occurred in calendar year 2015. Given the substantial amount of work and volume of discussions that the quantitative
2

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 73 Filed: 06/24/16 3 of 31. PageID #: 1040
measures, which constitute a significant majority of the outcome measurements outlined in the Decree, have required among the Parties and Monitoring Team, the Parties and Monitor previously agreed to provide the Court with the results of the baseline quantitative outcome measurement process before proceeding with the second phase of the baseline process, which will address those qualitative assessment areas.
In October 2015, shortly after being appointed, the Monitoring Team made a comprehensive request for various information, files, and data to the City and CPD. The intent of this document request was both to establish a working knowledge of the Division and to identify sources for data required by the consent decree. As part of its organizational structure, the Monitor established an Outcome Measurement Team, which began in November 2015 to assemble and review quantitative data submitted by the Division and other parts of the City. The Outcome Measurement Team identified a number of challenges associated with that request, and, ultimately, a number of one-on-one meetings were held with several units and individuals in the CPD, the City, and the Office of Professional Standards (“OPS”) to collect and understand the data.
The Outcome Measures Team has been able to secure, clean, analyze and now report on a number of the quantitative data points called for in paragraph 367 of the Decree. The remainder of this report describes, in more general terms, the efforts and challenges associated with the collection of data for calendar year 2015, the limitations of the data received in some areas that leave the Monitoring Team currently unable to establish a definitive baseline measure, and plans for improving data collected and the data collection process moving forward. Exhibit A constitutes a compendium of the specific data points and measures that the Monitoring Team was able to assemble. Although this report will, in some instances, highlight the key measures,
3

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 73 Filed: 06/24/16 4 of 31. PageID #: 1041
metrics, or data identified, Exhibit A sets forth, area by area and data point by data point, whether there is data or sufficiently accurate data for the data point to be considered a “baseline.”
The baseline measure is intended to serve simply as a benchmark against which data for subsequent time periods will be compared to gauge change or progress. As such, the Monitoring Team does not, at this time, make any qualitative determinations about whether any of the numbers, rates, percentages, or other data are positive, negative, or otherwise. Indeed, progress and trends over time will be the primary indicia that institutional reform is taking hold within the CPD and is making a lasting and meaningful impact on Cleveland’s neighborhoods and communities. II. NATURE OF THE DATA CONSIDERED A. The Initial Data Request
Process: CPD responded to the Monitoring Team’s initial data request by both emailing and uploading hundreds of documents for review to a cloud-based file-sharing account created for the Cleveland Police Monitoring Team. Initially, this was an effective method of sharing and organizing data and information. However, a Division-issued desktop computer with access to the file sharing environment was infected by malware – compromising the Dropbox and posing challenges for users connected to the file share. The Monitoring Team discontinued use of the file sharing environment and has been reluctant to reengage with it moving forward.
Key Insights: The malware virus illustrates, to at least some relevant extent, the challenges and insufficiencies within CPD and the City with respect to computing and information technology infrastructure. The City and CPD should ensure that CPD computers have sufficient security and anti-virus protection to guard against viruses and other external threats.
4

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 73 Filed: 06/24/16 5 of 31. PageID #: 1042
B. Method of Data Collection Process: Because no single CPD system tracks all of the data associated with the
Consent Decree’s outcome measurements and no individual person or unit was familiar with precisely whether CPD or the City tracked the necessary information or, if it was tracked, precisely where the information may be housed, the Outcome Measurement Team first needed to familiarize itself with the several units in CPD from whom data would likely be supplied. In a “treasure hunt” of sorts, the Team began with the City’s IT Department and the CPD Crime Analysis Unit. Both of these units had good insights into the flow of work and the data that are available. The Team then met with units responsible for the underlying work for which data points are needed.
Once the appropriate person or persons were identified as sources of data and the required information was collected, the Outcome Measurement Team shared spreadsheets summarizing the information with the relevant parties or entities within the City. It should be noted that, in almost all instances, the data initially submitted required substantial cleaning, synthesis, and organization.
Key Insights: Overall, CPD and the City’s infrastructure poses a challenge to the Division’s ability to easily track and retrieve data about its core functions. In nearly all instances, we found archaic and rudimentary processes – very often relying on manual, pen-andpaper entries in log books; duplicative efforts; and electronic data maintained on local workbooks and spreadsheets and not part of a shared, departmental system.
Some of the data named in the Consent Decree are not currently being collected at all (e.g., stops, searches and seizures). Consequently, no baseline can be established. Other data are not centrally available nor expected to be collected and, as such, difficult to assemble (e.g., the
5

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 73 Filed: 06/24/16 6 of 31. PageID #: 1043
number and type of community partnerships). The nature of the specific challenges that the Outcome Measurement Team encountered will be discussed in greater detail below.
The Division has been exceptionally open and receptive to the Outcome Measurement Team. In turn, the Team has communicated a desire to become a resource for the Division as it considers data collection for day-to-day management purposes, as well as for compliance with the Consent Decree. In some instances, the Division has been receptive to the Team’s assistance in terms of structure, data vocabulary, and the facilitation of connections across the City to enhance retrieval of relevant data. In the Team’s meetings, it has endeavored, where appropriate, to provide technical assistance about ways to modify and improve the data collection to be more responsive to the expectations of the Consent Decree and to more broadly assist CPD supervisors in the ongoing management of the Division.
III. SUMMARY OF BASELINE MEASURES This section highlights each of the key categories of baseline data requested in the
Consent Decree and discusses the process, challenges, and key insights from the data collection endeavor. The format (e.g., number and lettering) is directly taken from the Consent Decree. Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 367. For example, subsection A, “Use of Force,” below corresponds to paragraph 367, part (A) of the Consent Decree. To adhere to the Consent Decree’s organizational scheme, the report deviates somewhat from separate numbering and lettering of sub-parts of the reports sections. For each measure requested, we will explain whether the data were included in the baseline, whether the data were excluded and why, as well as any limitations of the data reported.
6

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 73 Filed: 06/24/16 7 of 31. PageID #: 1044
A. Use of Force Process: To assemble data on use of force, the Team met several times with members of
the CPD’s IAPro Team and Crime Analysis Unit who are responsible for inputting information on use of force incidents for 2015 into IAPro, a computer platform for logging and tracking officer performance data, and analyzing these data. Other data in this section related to use of force and not directly taken from IAPro were provided by the Chief’s Office, the Internal Affairs Unit, the Case Office, and the Personnel Department.
Key Insights: Currently, use of force reports are entered from a hand-written Use of Less Lethal (“ULLF”) report into the IAPro database by a member of the IAPro Team. This process initially introduced some issues with the completeness of the use of force data, with a number of use of force investigations and reviews remaining outstanding well into 2015.
Additionally, there is some inconsistency across different data collection sources that make uniting the disparate sources challenging. For instance, officer badge numbers in IAPro and information collected by the Internal Affairs Unit (“IAU”) don’t match up. Names are inconsistently recorded (e.g., nick names, spelling errors). It seems that detectives and COs are not in IAPro. The dates of incidents in IAU data does not track well with the date of incident in IAPro. IAU’s database does not include “allegation.”
An example of the challenges that this poses for baseline measurement purposes can be found in considering the Consent-Decree-required data on use of force policy violations by force type. Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 367(a)(1). Currently, use of force policy violations are housed in the Case Office. Although some basic information is electronic, other information is not. For instance, in order to get information on the force technique, instrument, or type used in some of the force incidents, the basic information from the Case Office needed to be matched with IAPro data by
7

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 73 Filed: 06/24/16 8 of 31. PageID #: 1045
badge number and officer name. However, the badge numbers reported did not always match with the officer information from IAPro. These specific issues make definitive determinations about general types of force challenging.
1. Number of UOF as compared to arrest, by force type, by district, arrest if any, race, ethnicity, age, gender of the subject; and, if indicated at the time force was used, the subject’s mental or medical condition, use of drugs or alcohol, or presence of a disability.
CPD data indicate that there were 350 use of force in calendar year 2015. Majorities of subjects to whom force was applied in these incidents were black (277 subjects), were male (265 subjects), and were young (age 29 or younger) (198 subjects).
Data Not Collected/Challenges: Baseline data for 2015 do not include information on the medical or mental state or presence of drugs or disability of the person on whom force was used. The use of force reporting process in place through does not uniformly collect information on the medical condition or disability of the person on whom force was used. Although CPD collects some information about whether the subject appeared to be under the influence of drugs for at least some portion of 2015, other subject conditions (such as alcohol intoxication) were not yet uniformly collected in 2015. Likewise, it does not appear that officers have received instruction as to how subject conditions may be defined or reflected on force reports. Consequently, it is impossible to discern whether, when an officer checks “drugs” on a use of force report, the notation indicates that the subject appeared to be under the influence of drugs during the force incident or whether drugs were found during or after the incident.
Additionally, although CPD has collected information about whether the subjects of force are subsequently arrested, there are significant enough issues with the data to make the
8

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 73 Filed: 06/24/16 9 of 31. PageID #: 1046
Monitoring Team uncomfortable using it as a baseline at this time. For one thing, data is missing for some 84 (nearly 11 percent) of subjects, with the arrest type listed as “NULL” in the relevant database. For another, at least 40 cases list the arrest type as “crisis intervention.” It is unclear why so many incidents are included in the “other” catch-all category, as well as why “crisis intervention” is an arrest type rather than a feature of the subject or the incident itself. The completeness and uncertainty about the nature and level of generality of the categories used by CPD during this time period with respect to arrest type lead the collected information to not be included as a “baseline” measure at this time.
Next Steps: The Division will need to ensure that IAPro and its modified reporting process is uniformly capturing information on the potential disability, mental state, and use of drugs or alcohol of subjects, as well as with respect to arrest “type” where a subject involved in a force incident was arrested. The use of a revised Use of Force reporting form and system should substantially assist in that regard.
2. Category: Number of officers and members of the public injured; number of force complaints and disposition of complaints; force type, geographic area and demographic information as available from complainant.
CPD reports that 134 officers were injured in the context of force incidents that occurred in calendar year 2015, and 112 members of the public were injured in the context of force incidents.
Data Not Collected/Challenges: The required tracking of the change over time in the rate of officer and subject injuries overall, as well as the severity of such injuries, necessarily is not a part of the baseline because it focuses on the evolution of these statistics across time.
9

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 73 Filed: 06/24/16 10 of 31. PageID #: 1047
With respect to force complaints, currently, as the Monitor’s First Semiannual Report summarized:
[T]he process used to investigate complaints of officer misconduct. . . depend[s] on the source of those complaints. Potential misconduct identified or discovered internally, by CPD personnel, has been investigated by the Division itself . . . . Complaints of misconduct from residents, or sources external to the Division, have needed to be investigated by OPS. Dkt. 65 at 49. Although the overall numbers of both officer complaints about the potential misconduct of other officers and of resident complaints about potential misconduct would appear relatively straightforward to determine, that basic information is not rigorously tracked in any data system. Without evaluating all IAU and OPS cases for 2015, which was outside the scope of our baseline inquiry and may not have definitively identified how the incident originated in any event, the Team simply cannot know with any level of confidence how internal affairs or OPS cases originated. Even if such data or information was more readily available, a number of substantive issues would prevent the taking of an accurate and reliable baseline that could be used in future years to gauge progress or change. For IAU, it is not apparent that there is a current, welldefined set of policies and process by which an officer can report the potential misconduct of another officer. Indeed, the Monitoring Team has previously noted that “members of the Monitoring Team have received different answers at different times to inquires about how, if a patrol officer believed that a colleague engaged in possible misconduct, and precisely where that officer should refer the misconduct complaint . . . . ” Dkt. 65 at 50. For OPS, this report makes clear that the substandard collection of basic information and data and the lack of rigorous, codified standards for classifying and adjudicating resident complaints makes identifying a baseline problematic.
10

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 73 Filed: 06/24/16 11 of 31. PageID #: 1048
Next Steps: The Division and OPS will need to establish a process for capturing how both internal affairs and OPS investigations are initiated. For IAU, this will happen as part of the Consent Decree’s process of finalizing policies, processes, and systems related to internal investigations and administrative reviews of potential misconduct. For OPS, this is already happening in the context of the Parties, Monitoring Team, and OPS “developing an emergency organizational transformation plan.” Dkt. 65 at 11.
3. Category: raw number of ECW (Taser) usage in 2015 CPD’s IAPro database reflects 44 applications of the Taser in 2015. Data Not Collected/Challenges: We cannot report on any changes in this usage in this report because these baseline numbers can only serve as a reference point for future comparisons. Next Steps: None. 4. Category: The number of uses of force found to violate policy, broken down by
force type, geographic area, type of arrest, actual or perceived race, ethnicity, age and gender of the subject; and, if indicated at the time force was used, the subject’s mental or medical condition, use of drugs or alcohol, or the presence of a disability. At least as of mid-Spring 2015, there were nine (9) cases in which the use of force was found to be related to a violation of policy, training, or tactics. Of these cases, five (5) involved policy violations, two (2) involved training deficiencies, and two (2) involved tactical deficiencies. Of the five policy violation cases, two appear to have related to the failure to adhere to completing force reporting or investigation requirements in a timely manner.
11

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 73 Filed: 06/24/16 12 of 31. PageID #: 1049
Data Not Collected/Challenges: The issues relating to uniformly collecting information about a subject’s mental/medical condition, use of drugs or alcohol, and disability also apply to this category. Likewise, it is currently challenging to identify and aggregate information about the relative ages of officers who violate the use of force policy because the Monitoring Team’s current understanding is that such information is not readily maintained in, or accessible to, the IAPro database. The issues affecting “arrest type” data noted previously apply to this outcome measure, as well.
Next Steps: The Division will need to ensure that IAPro and its modified reporting process is uniformly capturing information on the potential disability, mental state, and use of drugs or alcohol of subjects. Officer demographic information in IAPro should include an officer’s date of birth.
5. Category: The number of officers who have more than one instance of use of force in violation of policy.
In calendar year 2015, no officer was found to have violated the use of force policy more than once. Going forward, and especially in light of the Consent Decree’s requirements involving the Officer Intervention Program (“OIP”), Dkt. 7-1 ¶¶ 326–36, the Monitoring Team and Parties will need to clarify whether this outcome measure should potentially reflect more than multiple policy violations in a calendar year but, instead, reflect multiple policy violations in a different time period.
Data Not Collected/Challenges: None. Next Steps: The Division will need to ensure that it has a system or process for cumulatively capturing Use of Force violations across time.
12

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 73 Filed: 06/24/16 13 of 31. PageID #: 1050
6. Category: Force reviews or investigations indicating a policy, training, or tactical deficiency.
Again, of the nine cases that appeared to identify some deficiency, five (5) were for policy violations, two (2) were for training, and two (2) were for tactics. It should be noted that, of the seven (7) cases in which the disposition has been determined to date, two cases have resulted in suspension: one case involving use of force in the context of an officer’s secondary employment, for which a 1-day suspension was assigned; and another case involving overdue force reports, for which a 6-day suspension was assigned.
Data Not Collected/Challenges: It is not currently clear to the Monitoring Team how deficiencies in officer performance in use of force incidents are classified as involving training or tactical deficiencies rather than policy violations.
Next Steps: As work on the Consent Decree continues, the Monitor and Parties will spend significant time working with the CPD to standardize and streamline the process for reviewing use of force incidents and for considering, when necessary, the nature and extent of officer discipline that may arise from improper conduct during such incidents. The classification scheme for force policy violations will be part of the process. CPD’s mechanisms for reflecting the dispositions, adjudications, and ultimate discipline associated with particular force inquiries need to also be streamlined.
7. Category: Number of use of force administrative investigations that are returned for lack of completeness
Data Not Collected/Challenges: Currently, it is not possible to distinguish between cases that were returned for substantive reasons (e.g., for being incomplete with regard to the material
13

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 73 Filed: 06/24/16 14 of 31. PageID #: 1051
details of the incident or poorly written) and cases that were returned for technical reasons (e.g., missing signature or incomplete form).
Next Steps: The Division will need to establish a system or process for adequately reporting on incomplete investigations – and for documenting investigations that are incomplete for substantive reasons or are incomplete for technical reasons.
B. Addressing Individuals in Crisis Process: We relied on CPD’s new Crisis Intervention Coordinator and the ADAMHS
Board Report for data in this section. Key Insights: The ADAMHS Board Report, based on CPD’s crisis-intervention data for
2015, reflected some inconsistencies and some known data accuracy issues. Accordingly, this leaves the baseline measures for crisis intervention undefined at this time.
1. Category: Number of calls for service and incidents with individuals in crisis, broken down by whether specialized CIT officers responded to the calls the rate of which the individuals in crisis are redirected to the health care system
Data Not Collected/Challenges: The numbers of calls for service and incidents reported with individuals in crisis – as well as the details of those incidents and the subjects involved in them – appear likely to be simultaneously over- and under-inclusive. The numbers are overinclusive because, in some instances, incidents are classified as involving a crisis or officers are filling out crisis intervention data sheets in instances where there was an interaction with an individual facing a behavioral or mental health challenge but there was not, in fact, any sort of affirmative crisis intervention. For instance, the reported numbers for 2015 would reflect as identical a situation where an officer gave a homeless individual a ride to a shelter in the back of
14

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 73 Filed: 06/24/16 15 of 31. PageID #: 1052
his or her car and a situation where an officer talked a subject experiencing mental illness down from committing self-harm. At the same time, there is some confusion among CPD officers about when to fill out the specialized crisis intervention “form” – with some officers not uniformly completing the form unless the incident involves a use of force. Accordingly, a number of CPD interactions with individuals experiencing a behavioral crisis but that do not involve force are not necessarily being captured by the data currently available.
Next Steps: The Division will need to establish a clearer system for tracking and reporting on how individuals in crisis are handled. Specifically, the Committee and CPD “will need to take time to get the rollout of new or improved reporting requirements to officers right.” Dkt. 65 at 46. The Mental Health Advisory Committee’s work on core revisions to CPD’s crisis intervention policy “must be sufficiently far along in order for work on . . . data . . . to progress further,” and “a non-manual, technology-based solution” must be “in place or imminently contemplated” to “ensure that revised reporting requirements do not unnecessarily impede the ability of officers to efficiently and effectively provide law enforcement service.” Dkt. 65 at 46.
2. Category: Number of police interactions where force was used on individuals in crisis, including the type of force used; the reason for the interaction, i.e. suspected criminal conduct or a call for assistance; the threat to public safety, including whether the person was armed and if so, with what; a description of the type of resistance offered, if any; and a description of any attempts at deescalation.
The Team pulled some information from the ADAMHS Board Report on the number of police interactions where force was used on individuals in crisis and the type of force used. However, although some numbers appear accurate, the ADAMHS Board Report indicates that,
15

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 73 Filed: 06/24/16 16 of 31. PageID #: 1053
in some instances, the numbers in certain categories are “double-counted” and, accordingly, not mutually exclusive.
Data Not Collected/Challenges: We cannot definitively establish baselines for the reason for the interaction, whether the person was armed, the type of resistance offered and a description of attempts of de-escalation, as these data were not available as they are not collected in a thorough manner.
Next Steps: Again, pending completion and implementation of new crisis intervention policies and establishing an improved mechanism for tracking crisis intervention data, the Division will need to revamp its reporting requirements and process.
C. Stop, Search, & Arrest Data Process: The Team met with the Compliance Unit to discuss the stop, search, and arrest
measures. Key Insights: The CPD does not collect data on stops, searches, and arrests pursuant to
such activity. Accordingly, the baseline cannot include any information related to this activity. Next Steps: It is currently contemplated that work will occur in earnest on new policies
and procedures, including data collection systems, for stops during 2017. As with updated mechanisms for collecting crisis intervention data, CPD will need to ensure that the collection of data on stops occurs in a system or environment that is approved by the Court and promotes efficient and effective law enforcement.
D. Bias-Free Policing & Community Engagement
16

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 73 Filed: 06/24/16 17 of 31. PageID #: 1054
Process: Data were collected from a number of sources, including CPDs District Commanders, the Homicide Unit, and OPS. For measures relating to community engagement activity, the Team learned from the Division that most of this information is housed within the Districts. The Team asked each District Commander to provide information on community engagement and partnerships in the form of a spreadsheet template that the Team constructed and provided.
It should be noted that, although the City of Cleveland maintains a number of partnerships and structures that relate to public safety and policing, the Monitoring Team has interpreted the measure to refer more to those partnerships that the Division of Police itself cultivates, maintains, and fosters. This should not be read as minimizing the importance of ongoing relationships across City departments and entities with respect to law enforcement and safety.
This section of the Consent Decree also includes reference to the biennial survey of Cleveland residents regarding perceptions of CPD and public safety. Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 361–66. The results of that survey were discussed in a separate report to the Court. See Dkt. 71.
Key Insights: There is no central source that serves as a repository for information on all of the community engagement activities taking place in the Division, or specifically within Districts.
1. Category: Number of community partnerships, number of community partnerships with youth, variety of community partnerships.
Data Not Collected/Challenges: The Team has received detailed information about the number of community partnerships from three of the Division’s five districts to date. Consequently, the Team cannot definitively determine the baseline at this time. Nevertheless, it
17

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 73 Filed: 06/24/16 18 of 31. PageID #: 1055
can be noted here that one CPD District reported 22 community partnerships, another reported 14 partnerships, and a third reported 10 partnerships. The Monitoring Team suspects that the overall numbers for CPD are likely larger than the aggregate number across the individual Districts.
Next Steps: The Division will need to establish a system/process for capturing community engagement more efficiently and systematically.
2. Category: Homicide clearance rate In 2015, CPD’s homicide clearance rate was 56 percent. Of 127 homicides occurring in Cleveland during the year, 71 were solved and 56 were unsolved. Data Not Collected/Challenges: None. Next Steps: None. 3. Category: Number of civilian complaints regarding police services related to
discrimination and their disposition. Data Not Collected/Challenges: The baseline cannot include the number of civilian complaints regarding police services related to discrimination and their disposition. For information on civilian complaints for discrimination, OPS is the adjudicating body. With respect to the overall number of complaints related to discrimination, OPS has an inadequate and rudimentary case tracking system. The state of OPS data is either irretrievable or unreliable. Only as part of more recent work in the Consent Decree process has a more formalized intake process been codified. In any event, OPS’ current intake categorization scheme does not appear to include discrimination as a primary category or sub-category. With respect to disposition of resident complaints related to discrimination, the Monitoring Team has previously reported that, of the 294 complaints received by OPS in 2015,
18

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 73 Filed: 06/24/16 19 of 31. PageID #: 1056
86 percent of cases have not completed the investigatory process. Only four had been reviewed by the PRB as of early May 2016.
Next Steps: The Parties and Monitoring Team re working closely with OPS to assist in developing a system to more appropriately capture, categorize, investigate, and track citizen complaints.
4. Category: Biennial community survey The results of the Decree-required, biennial community survey have recently been provided to the Court. See Dkt. 71.
E. Recruitment Measures Process: The City’s Civil Service Commission (“CSC”) is generally the custodian of
data related to recruitment measures. For some subparagraphs of the Consent Decree, the data were provided by the CPD (e.g., composition of the 2015 recruit class). Once the class roster is assembled and certified, the Civil Service Commission ceases engagement with the process. It is important to note that the 2015 measures we report may not represent an appropriate baseline, as the process for both recruitment and selection is changing for future CPD classes.
1. Category: The number of qualified recruits; baseline also includes the total number of qualified and unqualified recruits by race and gender
The definition of “qualified” is inherently qualitative in some crucial respect. At least for purposes of this baseline, the Team considered as “qualified” recruits those who were “hired” and those whose names were certified and vetted for the Academy as indicated by the CSC. Using this general definition, the number of qualified recruit applicants in 2015 was 191. The number of applicants who were not qualified was 1,219. A total of 781 applicants were white,
19

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 73 Filed: 06/24/16 20 of 31. PageID #: 1057
409 were black, 13 were Asian, 154 were identified as Hispanic, and the remainder were classified in other categories. No data was available for 6 applicants. A total of 1,120 applicants identified their gender as male, with 290 identifying their gender as female.
Data Not Collected/Challenges: As part of the City’s implementation of a comprehensive recruitment and hiring strategy, this definition of “qualified” is likely to change. Within information about applicant race, the Hispanic/Latino category needs to be further validated, as the number does appear slightly low in light of Cleveland’s overall demographics.
Next Steps: None. 2. Category: Summary of recruitment activities, including leveraging community
partnerships as these data are not available. Data Not Collected/Challenges: The baseline cannot include the summary of recruitment activities, including leveraging community partnerships, as these data are not available. Currently, there is no central source that serves as a repository for information on all of the recruitment activities taking place in the Division. Next Steps: The Division will need to establish a system and process for capturing its recruitment activities more efficiently and systematically. The City’s indication that they intend to create a dedicated group within CPD to manage and engage with recruitment activities is an encouraging step toward ensuring that a dedicated entity will be in charge of managing data and performance metrics associated with recruiting and hiring. 3. Category: Number and race, ethnicity, gender of applicants who failed the
initial screening and the reasons for the failure. In 2015, 1,219 applicants were reported to have failed the initial screening. This included 394 applicants who failed to show for the test, 240 applicants who failed to submit their Personal
20

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 73 Filed: 06/24/16 21 of 31. PageID #: 1058
History Statement, and 251 who either did not show for or failed the agility test. Some 35 applicants failed the written test.
Data Not Collected/Challenges: In 2015 – and, to our knowledge, unlike some previous years – every applicant went through a criminal record screening. In the past, only those who had made it past a “first cut” had their backgrounds checked. Such added and earlier background screening in 2015 might therefore have resulted in higher numbers than expected in the “exclusion for background reasons” category relative to prior years. Further, the information about the race of applicants who failed the initial screening provided by the Civil Service Commission needs further refinement, as the total number of applicants reflected in that data element exceeds the number of applicants who failed and, indeed, the overall number of applicants in 2015.
Next Steps: In the short-term, the Division will need to ensure it is accurately capturing information about the race and ethnicity of its applicants. In the longer term, it is likely that the collection of additional demographic information of recruits will need to be considered in the context of the Decree-required Recruitment & Hiring Plan.
4. Category: Number of applicants with fluency in languages other than English, list of languages spoken by recruits.
Data Not Collected/Challenges: The Team is unable to report on the number of applicants with fluency in languages other than English or on the languages spoken by recruits. These data are not currently collected in the recruitment process.
Next Steps: The Division will need to ensure it is accurately capturing the language proficiency of applicants and recruits.
21

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 73 Filed: 06/24/16 22 of 31. PageID #: 1059
5. Category: Lateral candidates by race, gender, ethnicity, disability. List of lateral candidates.
The Division reported to the Team that, unlike many other police departments, lateral candidates are not recruited into the Division of Police.
Data Not Collected/Challenges: None. Next Steps: The issue of lateral candidates is likely to be a part of the Decree-required Recruitment & Hiring Plan. 6. Category: Number of applicants with at least two years of college, a college
degree or at least two years of military service. The Civil Service Commission’s data reflects that 347 applicants in 2015 had two or more years of college. Some 240 applicants had a college degree. Data Not Collected/Challenges: The Team is unable to report on years of military service because this data does not appear to be currently collected by CPD or another entity within the CPD. However, the Team can report on the number of applicants who have demonstrate that they have at least 180 days of active military service and/or if they are a disabled veteran. The Civil Service Commission is not in possession of recruit data for two or more years of military service. Next Steps: The City will need to ensure it is accurately captures the years of military experience held by recruits. 7. Category: Pass/fail rate overall for applicants by race, ethnicity, and gender. Data Not Collected/Challenges: The Team calculated for itself the pass rate. These data are inherently reliant on the accuracy of the underlying data. For instance, if data on the number
22

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 73 Filed: 06/24/16 23 of 31. PageID #: 1060
of Hispanic/Latino applicants is inaccurate, then the pass rates for Hispanics would also be inaccurate.
Next Steps: None. 8. Category: Average length of time to move applicants through each phase. Data Not Collected/Challenges: Currently, the recruitment data are not collected in a manner that allows for process time to be determined. Next Steps: The City and/or Division will need to develop a system/process to accurately captured the length of time to move applicants through each phase of the process. 9. Category: Final composition of recruit class by race, ethnicity and gender. Of the members of the recruit class in 2015 that did not separate from the class at some point during the year, 29 class members were white, 12 members were Hispanic/Latino, 8 individuals were black, and the racial identity of three were listed as “other.” The class consisted of 44 individuals identifying their gender as male and 8 individuals identifying their gender as female. Data Not Collected/Challenges: The Team is unable to report on self-identified disability except for disabled veterans, as such information is either not collected or not readily available. Next Steps: The City and/or Division needs to ensure a mechanism for ensuring that recruits identify any disability status.
F. Training Measures Process: The Team met with the CPD’s Compliance Bureau and Training Section and
the command staff to discuss training measures.
23

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 73 Filed: 06/24/16 24 of 31. PageID #: 1061
Key Insights: Training conducted pursuant to the Consent Decree will not begin until later in 2016. 2016 will therefore serve as the baseline for the training measures. The Outcome Measures team has offered support and advice to the training unit on how to conduct future class evaluations. As training modifications are made pursuant to the Decree, they will be recorded by the Team. Any training deficiencies reflected by problematic incidents or performance trends will be collected by the Training Section, IAU, the Training Review Committee, and the Force Review Board – with the Training Review Committee needing to ensure a coordinate repository for identified deficiencies across these various internal accountability structures or mechanisms.
Next Steps: The Parties, Monitoring Team, and Division will need to collaborate on establishing systems and processes for capturing the key training measures outlined in the Decree.
G. Officer Assistance & Support Efforts Process: The Team met with members of the Employee Assistance Unit and CPD
Compliance Bureau. Key Insights: Many of the officer assistance programs are voluntary. Presently, the
Employee Assistance Unit can report on the availability and use of officer assistance and support services. For 2015, 11 officers used assistance and support services. The Unit cannot currently report on officers’ opinions or evaluation of the services. The Monitoring Team has provided some suggestions to the Unit on methods to collect evaluative information without compromising officer confidentiality.
24

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 73 Filed: 06/24/16 25 of 31. PageID #: 1062
Next Steps: The Division will need to establish a system/process for capturing officers’ experiences and opinions on the employee assistance program, including with the Officer Intervention Program as it is substantially revamped going forward.
H. Supervision Measurements Process: The Team met members of CPD’s Command Staff to discuss supervision
issues. Key Insights: The baseline does not include the various Decree-required supervision
measures because the CPD indicated that it would not be possible, at present, to collect them. There is no central or known data collection effort on this item.
Next Steps: The Division will need to establish a system/process for capturing how supervision is conducted in the Division.
I. Civilian Complaints, Internal Investigations and Discipline Process: The Team met with members of the Inspections Unit, the Internal Affairs Unit,
and OPS. Key Insights: A very small number of cases are investigated by Inspections, with IA
investigating those civilian complaint allegations that are or could be criminal in nature. Most civilian complaints therefore are or should be investigated by OPS. Although Exhibit A summarizes the number of civilian complaints, it is important to underscore the fact that the quality of the data collected from OPS is not sufficiently reliable at this time. As mentioned in the Monitor’s First Semiannual Report and elsewhere in this report, a significant percentage of the 294 complaints filed in 2015 have neither completed the investigatory process nor been
25

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 73 Filed: 06/24/16 26 of 31. PageID #: 1063
reviewed by the PRB. Only four have been reviewed by the PRB. The office has inadequate case tracking an only recently has established a formal system for intake.
Exhibit A therefore reports primarily on civilian complaints investigated by the CPD itself, which the Team believes to be very small proportion of overall civilian complaints. The data from both IAU and Inspections was drawn from Excel spreadsheets and manual log books maintained in the respective units. To provide the Team with data, handwritten logs were in some instances transferred to electronic spreadsheets and subsequently circulated. This information often had to be linked up with data from other databases, such as IAPro.
1. Category: Number of complaints, and whether any increase or decrease in this number appears related to access to the complaint process
OPS reports that there were 294 resident complaints about police conduct in calendar year 2015.
Data Not Collected/Challenges: The lack of defined processes and protocols within OPS makes gauging the reliability of the overall complaint numbers challenging.
Next Steps: The Parties and Monitoring Team are working closely with OPS and the Division to assist in developing a system to more appropriately capture and investigate citizen complaints.
2. Category: Number of sustained, exonerated, unfounded, not sustained, and administratively dismissed complaints by type of complaint
Data Not Collected/Challenges: The data reported are incomplete. Only 45 of the 294 cases from 2015 have been completed and received dispositions as of the writing of this report. Only 4 have gone to the PRB for review and a discipline recommendation to the Chief of Police.
26

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 73 Filed: 06/24/16 27 of 31. PageID #: 1064
Next Steps: The Parties and Monitoring Team are working closely with OPS and the Division to assist in developing a system to more appropriately capture and investigate citizen complaints.
3. Category: Number of complaint allegations supported by a preponderance of the evidence
Data Not Collected/Challenges: The data reported are incomplete. In any event, it is not readily apparent that the “preponderance of evidence” standard is rigorously applied by OPS or PRB or that, even if it is, OPS investigative files are sufficiently thorough and complete so as to conduct a qualitative review of the investigations to determine if the application of the standard by OPS or PRB are appropriate.
Next Steps: The Parties and Monitoring Team are working closely with OPS and the Division to assist in developing a system to more appropriately capture and investigate citizen complaints.
4. Category: average length of time to complete investigations by complaint type Data Not Collected/Challenges: The available data reported are incomplete and, by themselves, misleading. The average length of time reported only represents the 45 cases that have been completed – not the vast majority of cases that are still pending at least five, and as many as 17 months, after the original complaint was made. Next Steps: The Monitor is working closely with OPS and the Division to assist in developing a system to more appropriately capture and investigate citizen complaints. 5. Category: number of officers who were subjects of multiple complaints or who
had repeated instances of sustained complaints.
27

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 73 Filed: 06/24/16 28 of 31. PageID #: 1065
Data Not Collected/Challenges: Here, too, the available data reported are incomplete and, by themselves, misleading. The average length of time reported only represents the 45 cases that have been completed – not the vast majority of cases that are still pending at least five, and as many as 17 months, after the original complaint was made.
Next Steps: The Monitor is working closely with OPS and the Division to assist in developing a system to more appropriately capture and investigate citizen complaints.
6. Category: arrests of officers for on- and off-duty conduct CPD records indicate that 14 officers were arrested in connection with off-duty conduct. One officer was arrested in connection with on-duty conduct. Data Not Collected/Challenges: None. Next Steps: CPD and the City need to ensure that collection of information about arrests of officers are adequately logged and reflected in IAPro, the Division’s centralized officer performance database. 7. Category: criminal prosecutions of officers for on-or off-duty conduct Eleven (11) officers were prosecuted in connection with off-duty conduct. One officer was prosecuted in connection with on-duty conduct. Two officers who were arrested in relation to off-duty conduct were not prosecuted. One case remains open. Data Not Collected/Challenges: None. Next Steps: None. 8. Category: Other than vehicle accidents not involving a pursuit, number and
nature of civil suits against the City or CDP officers for work related conduct, and the amount of judgments against or settlements resulting from those civil suits
28

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 73 Filed: 06/24/16 29 of 31. PageID #: 1066
Data Not Collected/Challenges: There are eight cases logged that represent large civil suits. Of these cases, five are not yet settled; therefore, the settlement value in this report is incomplete. The Team is in the process of collecting judgment data on cases from low-level complaints (e.g., missing property).
Next Steps: The Monitoring Team will be continuing to work with City Law to collect the data necessary.
IV. CONCLUSION This purpose of this memorandum is to summarize what outcome measures required by
the Decree have sufficient data to consider 2015 data as a baseline and what other areas will require work and focus in order to have data that can serve as benchmark data. Exhibit A, attached hereto, provides a detailed breakdown of all quantitative measures that the Decree requires be assessed over time – indicating whether the numbers can be considered as baselines and, where no numbers are listed, usually summarizing the nature of the deficiencies.
Going forward, the Monitoring Team will evaluate and update the Court, and public, on all outcome measures at least yearly (or, in the case of the community survey, once every two years) to assess the nature of progress over time in the various reforms of the Consent Decree translating into real-world reform, effective law enforcement, and constitutional policing across Cleveland’s diverse communities.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Matthew Barge MATTHEW BARGE Monitor
29

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 73 Filed: 06/24/16 30 of 31. PageID #: 1067 115 West 18th Street, Second Floor New York, New York 10001 Tel: (202) 257-5111 Email: matthewbarge@parc.info
30

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 73 Filed: 06/24/16 31 of 31. PageID #: 1068 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on June 22, 2016, I served the foregoing document entitled Memorandum Providing Baseline Assessment Report via the court’s ECF system to all counsel of record.
/s/ Matthew Barge MATTHEW BARGE
31

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 73-1 Filed: 06/24/16 1 of 18. PageID #: 1069
EXHIBIT A

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 73-1 Filed: 06/24/16 2 of 18. PageID #: 1070
Baseline Measures June 2016

EXHIBIT A: Baseline Outcome Measures

Baseline Consent Consent Appendix Decree Decree Line Item Paragraph Section

Topic

Name of Measure

1 367 a

Use of Force (UOF)

2

367 a. 1

UOF

UoF Charges

3

4

5

367 a. 1

UOF

6

7

8

367 a. 1

UOF

9

10

11

12

13

367 a. 1

UOF

14

15

16

17

18

19

# of UOF charges #of non-UoF charges UoF Charges ending in arrests
# UoF ending in arrests Total # of non-UoF ending in arrests UoF rates UoF as % of all charges UoF arrests as % of all arrests % of UoFs ending in arrest % of non-UoFs ending in arrest District District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 outside city

20

367 a. 1

UOF

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

Force type Balance Displacement Body Force Control Hold-Restraint Control Hold-Takedown Joint Manipulation Tackling/Takedown Taser Verbal/Physical Gestures Other (1-25 instance each) Unknown/NULL

Included in 2015 Baseline? (yes/no)

Source of Data

2015 Data Collected

Validated by Source (yes/no)

Comments

yes IAPro yes IAPro yes IAPro yes IAPro
yes IAPro

see below

Validational data from CPD captured 349 use

of force cases (based on timing of data

350 yes request)

38,920 yes 39,270 charges in 2015

see below

Validational data from CPD captured 289

285 yes Arrests with 609 different charge types

24,086 yes 24,371 total arrests in 2015

see below

0.9% yes

1.2% yes

81% yes

62% yes

see below

36 yes

64 yes

100 yes

85 yes

61 yes

4 yes

These data are for all officers that used force

(1,311). Multiple force types used by officers

see below

per citizen.

76 yes

463 yes

217 yes

65 yes

137 yes

142 yes

44 yes

31 yes

106 yes

30 yes

31

367 a. 1

UOF

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

367 a. 1

UOF

Arrest type Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Category 5 Category 6 Category 7 Race

no IAPro

see below

yes IAPro

see below

While 774 Arrest Types (i.e., Charge Types) were identified in IAPro, the categories were not clear and more meaningful categories N/A need to be established as a baseline . . . . . . .

1 of 17

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

367 a. 1

UOF

47

48

49

50

367 a. 1

UOF

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

367 a. 1

UOF

59

60

61

62

367 a. 1

UOF

63

64

65

367 a. 1

UOF

66

367 a. 1

UOF

67

68

69

367 a. 1

UOF

70

71

367 a. 2

UOF

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

367 a. 2

UOF

79

80

81

367 a. 2

UOF

82

83

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 73-1 Filed: 06/24/16 3 of 18. PageID #: 1071
Baseline Measures June 2016

Black White Hispanic Asian Other Unknown/NULL Ethnicity Hispanic/Latino Non-Hispanic/Latino Unknown/NULL Age under 20 years 21-29 years 30-39 years 40-49 years 50-59 years 60+ years Unknown/NULL Gender Male Female Unknown/NULL Mental State Mental Crisis Behavioral Crisis Event

yes IAPro yes IAPro
yes IAPro yes IAPro

see below see below
see below see below

259 yes 77 yes 9 yes 1 yes 1 yes 3 yes
9 yes 338 yes
3 yes
64 yes 134 yes
68 yes 38 yes 18 yes 11 yes 17 yes
265 yes 82 yes 3 yes
42 yes 13 yes

Medical Condition Drugs / ETOH

no IAPro

.

yes IAPro

N/A 138 yes

Unimpaired/None Detected

yes (new)

67 yes

Unknown/NULL Disability

yes (new) yes IAPro

90 yes . N/A

No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the future Only drugs and alcohol as noted in IAPro New item CPD collects that has been added to baseline but not specified in Consent Decree New item CPD collects that has been added to baseline but not specified in Consent Decree No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the future

Injuries # officers injured # public injuries rate of officer injuries change overall rate of officer injuries change severity rate of subject injuries change overall rate of subject injuries change severity Force complaints
# of force complaints
# of non-force complaints disposition of force complaints Substantiated Substantiated Other

yes IAPro yes yes no no no no yes IA
yes IA

see below see below see below

134 yes 112 yes
. N/A not baseline, need to calculate in future . N/A not baseline, need to calculate in future . N/A not baseline, need to calculate in future . N/A not baseline, need to calculate in future
These data are by officer and not by case; These data are just from IA and does not 43 yes include complaints through OPS These data are by officer and not by case; These data are just from IA and does not 73 yes include complaints through OPS
0 yes 7 yes

2 of 17

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 73-1 Filed: 06/24/16 4 of 18. PageID #: 1072
Baseline Measures June 2016

84

Administrative Closure

2 yes

85

Open

34 yes

86

367 a. 2

UOF

source (in/ext.) force complaints

no IA

see below

Incomplete information; no systematic

87

Internal (CPD)

no

. N/A capturing of data through IA or OPS

Incomplete information; no systematic

88

External (non-CPD/Civilian)

no

. N/A capturing of data through IA or OPS

lots of incomplete data (more than half data

89

367 a. 2

UOF

force type

yes IA, IAPro see below

not present)

90

Balance Displacement

0 yes

91

Body Force

8 yes

92

Control Hold-Restraint

2 yes

93

Control Hold-Takedown

0 yes

94

Joint Manipulation

1 yes

95

Tackling/Takedown

0 yes

96

Taser

1 yes

97

Verbal/Physical Gestures

0 yes

98

Other (1-25 instance each)

7 yes

99

Unknown/NULL

27 yes

100

367 a. 2

UOF

geographic area

yes IA

101

District 1

2 yes

102

District 2

0 yes

103

District 3

4 yes

104

District 4

4 yes

105

District 5

3 yes

106

outside city

0 yes

107

Unknown/NULL

10 yes

108

367 a. 2

UOF

demographics of complainant

yes IA, IAPro

109

Black

11 yes

110

White

2 yes

111

Hispanic

0 yes

112

Asian

0 yes

113

Other

0 yes

114

Unknown/NULL

10 yes

115

116

367 a.3

ECW usage

# ECW and changes over time

yes IAPro

Not in baseline, need to calculate in future

117

# of ECW

yes IAPro

44 yes

118

changes compared to UOF

no

. N/A Not in baseline, need to calculate in future

119

changes compared to weapon/force instrument no

. N/A Not in baseline, need to calculate in future

120

121

367 a.4

UOF violating policy # in violation

yes Case Office

9 yes

Case Office,

122

367 a.4

UOF violating policy force type

yes IAPro

see below

123

Balance Displacement

2 yes

124

Body Force

5 yes

125

Control Hold-Restraint

0 yes

126

Control Hold-Takedown

0 yes

127

Joint Manipulation

2 yes

128

Tackling/Takedown

0 yes

129

Taser

0 yes

130

Verbal/Physical Gestures

1 yes

131

Other (1-25 instance each)

2 yes

132

Unknown/NULL

2 yes

3 of 17

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 73-1 Filed: 06/24/16 5 of 18. PageID #: 1073
Baseline Measures June 2016

133

367 a.4

UOF violating policy geography

134

District 1

135

District 2

136

District 3

137

District 4

138

District 5

139

outside city

Case Office,

yes IAPro

see below

1 yes 3 yes 3 yes 1 yes 1 yes 0 yes

140

367 a.4

UOF violating policy Arrest Type

141

Category 1

142

Category 2

143

Category 3

144

Category 4

145

Category 5

146

Category 6

147

Category 7

148

367 a.4

UOF violating policy race

149

Black

150

White

151

Hispanic

152

Asian

153

Other

154

367 a.4

UOF violating policy ethnicity

155

Hispanic/Latino

156

Non-Hispanic/Latino

157

367 a.4

UOF violating policy age

158

under 20 years

159

21-29 years

160

30-39 years

161

40-49 years

162

50-59 years

163

60+ years

164

Unknown/NULL

165

367 a.4

UOF violating policy gender

166

Male

167

Female

168

367 a.4

UOF violating policy condition

169

mental condition

170

medical condition

171

drugs/alcohol

172

presence of disability

Case Office,

yes IAPro

see below

Case Office,

yes IAPro

see below

Case Office,

yes IAPro

see below

Case Office,

yes IAPro

see below

Case Office, yes IAPro
Case Office, no IAPro no no no no

While 15 Arrest Types (i.e., Charge Types) were identified in IAPro, the categories were not clear and more meaningful categories TBD need to be established as a baseline . . . . . . .
2 yes 6 yes 1 yes 0 yes 0 yes
1 yes 8 yes
0 yes 0 yes 2 yes 5 yes 2 yes 0 yes 0 yes
9 yes 0 yes
No data collected currently; Needs to be . N/A collected in the future
No data collected currently; Needs to be . N/A collected in the future
No data collected currently; Needs to be . N/A collected in the future
No data collected currently; Needs to be . N/A collected in the future

4 of 17

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 73-1 Filed: 06/24/16 6 of 18. PageID #: 1074
Baseline Measures June 2016

173

174

367 a5

UOF violating policy # of officers with > 1 UOF violating policy

175

176

367 a6

UOF violating policy force reviews/investigations resulting in

yes Case Office

yes IA

see below

177

policy deficiency

178

training deficiency

179

tactics deficiency

180

181

367 a7

UOF violating policy investigation process

no IA

182

quality of investigations

183

quality of review

# of investigations returned because

184

367 a7

UOF violating policy incomplete

yes Chief's Office

185 367 b

addressing individuals in crisis

addressing individuals # calls for service and incidents involving an

186

367 b. 1

in crisis

individual in crisis

no CI Unit

187

Responded to by specialized CIT officer

188

Responded to by other

addressing individuals

189

367 b. 1

in crisis

Direction of individuals in crisis

no CI Unit

190

directed to healthcare system

191

directed to judicial system system

192

direction other

193

rate - directed to healthcare system

194

rate - directed to judicial system system

195

rate - direction other

196 addressing individuals

197

367 b. 2

in crisis

# of UOF on ind in crisis

no CI Unit

198

type of force used

199

Balance Displacement

200

Body Force

201

Control Hold-Restraint

202

Control Hold-Takedown

203

Joint Manipulation

204

Tackling/Takedown

205

Taser

206

Verbal/Physical Gestures

207

Other (1-25 instance each)

208

Unknown/NULL

addressing individuals

209

367 b. 2

in crisis

reason for interaction

no CI Unit

210

# subject armed/not armed

211

weapon type

212

resistance offered

213

description of attempts to de-escalate

214 367 c

stop, search, arrest

0 yes
Examination of data received shows most of the policy deficiencies were administrative/technical (i.e. late forms) and 5 yes not substantive or due to tactics 2 yes 2 yes
A random sample will be selected by Monitoring Team and reviewed to capture N/A the quality of the investigations . .
Data have not been received as of June 2016
Incomplete information; no systematic N/A capturing of data . .
Incomplete information; no systematic N/A capturing of data . . . . . .
Incomplete information; no systematic N/A capturing of data . . . . . . . . . . .
Incomplete information; no systematic N/A capturing of data . . . .

5 of 17

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 73-1 Filed: 06/24/16 7 of 18. PageID #: 1075
Baseline Measures June 2016

215

367 c. 1

stop, search, arrest # of investigatory stop, search, arrest

216

# of investigatory stops

217

# of investigatory searches

218

# of investigory arrrests

no Compliance

219

367 c. 1

stop, search, arrest % of investigatory stop, search, arrest

no Compliance

220

# investigatory stops/# summons or arrest

221

# investigatory searchess/# summons or arrest

222

367 c. 1

stop, search, arrest District

223

District 1

224

District 2

225

District 3

226

District 4

227

District 5

228

outside city

no Compliance

229

367 c. 1

stop, search, arrest Arrest type

230

Category 1

231

Category 2

232

Category 3

233

Category 4

234

Category 5

235

Category 6

236

Category 7

no Compliance

237

367 c. 1

stop, search, arrest Actual or perceived age

238

under 20 years

239

21-29 years

240

30-39 years

241

40-49 years

242

50-59 years

243

60+ years

244

Unknown/NULL

no Compliance

245

367 c. 1

stop, search, arrest race

246

Black

247

White

248

Hispanic

249

Asian

250

Other

251

Unknown/NULL

no Compliance

252

367 c. 1

stop, search, arrest ethnicity

253

Hispanic/Latino

254

Non-Hispanic/Latino

255

Unknown/NULL

no Compliance

256

367 c. 1

stop, search, arrest gender

257

Male

258

Female

259

Unknown/NULL

260

no Compliance

No data collected currently; Needs to be N/A collected in the future . . .
No data collected currently; Needs to be N/A collected in the future . .
No data collected currently; Needs to be N/A collected in the future . . . . . .
No data collected currently; Needs to be N/A collected in the future . . . . . . .
No data collected currently; Needs to be N/A collected in the future . . . . . . .
No data collected currently; Needs to be N/A collected in the future . . . . . .
No data collected currently; Needs to be N/A collected in the future . . .
No data collected currently; Needs to be . N/A collected in the future . . .

6 of 17

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 73-1 Filed: 06/24/16 8 of 18. PageID #: 1076
Baseline Measures June 2016

documentable

reasonable suspicion to

stop and probable

261

367 c. 2

cause search

actual or perceived race

no Compliance

262

Black

263

White

264

Hispanic

265

Asian

266

Other

267

Unknown/NULL

documentable

reasonable suspicion to

stop and probable

268

367 c. 2

cause search

actual or perceived ethnicity

no Compliance

269

Hispanic/Latino

270

Non-Hispanic/Latino

271

Unknown/NULL

documentable

reasonable suspicion to

stop and probable

272

367 c. 2

cause search

actual or perceived gender

no Compliance

273

Male

274

Female

275

Unknown/NULL

documentable

reasonable suspicion to

stop and probable

276

367 c. 2

cause search

actual or perceived age

no Compliance

277

under 20 years

278

21-29 years

279

30-39 years

280

40-49 years

281

50-59 years

282

60+ years

283

Unknown/NULL

284

searches finding

285

367 c. 3

contraband

# of searches finding contraband

no Compliance

searches finding

286

367 c. 3

contraband

# of searches finding contraband by district

no Compliance

287

District 1

288

District 2

289

District 3

290

District 4

291

District 5

292

outside city

searches finding

293

367 c. 3

contraband

Arrest type

no Compliance

294

Category 1

295

Category 2

296

Category 3

297

Category 4

298

Category 5

299

Category 6

No data collected currently; Needs to be N/A collected in the future . . . . . .
No data collected currently; Needs to be N/A collected in the future . . .
No data collected currently; Needs to be . N/A collected in the future . . .
No data collected currently; Needs to be N/A collected in the future . . . . . . .
No data collected currently; Needs to be . N/A collected in the future
No data collected currently; Needs to be N/A collected in the future . . . . . .
No data collected currently; Needs to be N/A collected in the future . . . . . .

7 of 17

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 73-1 Filed: 06/24/16 9 of 18. PageID #: 1077
Baseline Measures June 2016

300

Category 7

.

searches finding

No data collected currently; Needs to be

301

367 c. 3

contraband

actual or perceived race

no Compliance

N/A collected in the future

302

Black

.

303

White

.

304

Hispanic

.

305

Asian

.

306

Other

.

307

Unknown/NULL

.

searches finding

No data collected currently; Needs to be

308

367 c. 3

contraband

actual or perceived ethnicity

no Compliance

N/A collected in the future

309

Hispanic/Latino

.

310

Non-Hispanic/Latino

.

311

Unknown/NULL

.

searches finding

No data collected currently; Needs to be

312

367 c. 3

contraband

actual or perceived gender

no Compliance

. N/A collected in the future

313

Male

314

Female

315

Unknown/NULL

searches finding

. . .
No data collected currently; Needs to be

316

367 c. 3

contraband

317

318

actual or perceived age under 20 years 21-29 years

no Compliance

N/A collected in the future . .

319

30-39 years

.

320

40-49 years

.

321

50-59 years

.

322

60+ years

.

323

Unknown/NULL

.

324 367 d

bias free policing & community engagement

bias free policing &

community

District

325

367 d.1

engagement

326

327

328

# of community partnerships District 1 District 2 District 3

yes Commanders see below

Data have not been received as of June 2016 10 yes 11 yes

329

District 4

22 yes

330

District 5

14 yes

bias free policing &

represents partnerships specifically with

community

District

youth, although youth may be included in

331

367 d. 1

engagement

# of community partnerships w/youth

yes Commanders see below

other partnerships

332

District 1

Data have not been received as of June 2016

333

District 2

4 yes

334

District 3

3 yes

335

District 4

7 yes

336

District 5

1 yes

bias free policing &

community

District

337

367 d. 1

engagement

variety of community partnerships

yes Commanders

Can be calculated once all data for all

338

District 1

Districts have been received

Can be calculated once all data for all

339

District 2

Districts have been received

Can be calculated once all data for all

340

District 3

Districts have been received

8 of 17

341
342 343

344

367 d.2

345

367 d.2

346

347

348

367 d.2

349

350

351

367 d.2

352

353

354

355

356

357

367 d.3

358

359

367 d.3

360 367 e

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 73-1 Filed: 06/24/16 10 of 18. PageID #: 1078
Baseline Measures June 2016
District 4 District 5

Can be calculated once all data for all Districts have been received Can be calculated once all data for all Districts have been received

bias free policing & community engagement bias free policing & community engagement
bias free policing & community engagement
bias free policing & community engagement

homicide clearance rate
# of homicides # of homicides solved # of homicides unsolved
Type of homicide # of domestic violence homicides # of non-domestic violence homicides
Homicide victims Adult male victims Adult female victims Juvenile male victims Juvenile female victims

Homicide yes Unit
Homicide yes Unit
Homicide yes Unit
Homicide yes Unit

see below see below

56% yes
127 yes 71 yes 56 yes
12 yes 115 yes
95 yes 23 yes
7 yes 2 yes

bias free policing & community engagement

# civilian complaints for discrimination

dispostion of discrimination complaints

bias free policing & community engagement

analysis of bienniel survey

recruitment measures

no OPS

.

no OPS

.

yes ISA hired

Incomplete information; no systematic N/A capturing of data
Incomplete information; no systematic N/A capturing of data
results are in a separate document from this baseline document

361

367 e. 1

recruitment measures applicants

362

# of qualified recruit applicants

363

# of not qualified recruit applicants

City Hall Civil

Service

Commission

yes (CSC)

see below

Category captured in data: "Name has been

certified. Candidates are being vetted for the

next Academy" (categroy 11) and

"hired/currently in the academy" (category

191 yes 4)

These are applicants who failed somewhere

1219 yes in the process

364

367 e. 1

recruitment measures applicants by race

365

366

367

368

369

370

371

yes White (W)
Black (B) Asian (A) Hispanic (H) Other (O)
AI No Data (.)

see below

781 yes 409 yes
13 yes 154 yes
44 yes 3 yes 6 yes

9 of 17

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 73-1 Filed: 06/24/16 11 of 18. PageID #: 1079
Baseline Measures June 2016

372

367 e. 1

recruitment measures applicants by gender

yes

see below

373

Males

1120 yes

374

Females

290 yes

375

CPD

Personnel;

City Hall Civil

summary of recruit activities in development

Service

Incomplete information; no systematic

376

367 e. 2

recruitment measures of community partnerships

no Commission

N/A capturing of data

City Hall Civil

summary of recruit activities in leveraging of

Service

Incomplete information; no systematic

377

367 e. 2

recruitment measures community partnerships

no Commission

N/A capturing of data

378

Same number as above (# of non-qualified

City Hall Civil

applicants); considered anyone who is NOT

Service

hired (category 4) and anyone whose name

379

367 e. 3

recruitment measures # of applicants who failed initial screening

yes Commission

1219 yes has NOT been certified (category 11)

City Hall Civil

Service

380

367 e. 3

recruitment measures reason for failures

yes Commission see below

381

2-Failed agility test

166 yes

382

3-No show for the Agility test

85 yes

N/A to reason for

383

4-Hired / Currently in the Academy

failures

yes

384

5-No response to certification

183 yes

385

6-Passed over

13 yes

386

7-Removed for background reason(s)

66 yes

387

8-No show for the Psychological Exam

1 yes

388

9-No longer interested

19 yes

389

10-Waived

17 yes

11-Name has been certified. Candidates are

N/A to reason for

390

being vetted for the next Academy

failures

yes

391

12-No show for the test

394 yes

13-Did not submit their Personal History

392

Statement

240 yes

393

14-Failed the test

35 yes

City Hall Civil

Service

394

367 e. 3

recruitment measures recruit failures by race

yes Commission see below

395

White (W) Failures

658 yes

396

Black (B) Failures

375 yes

397

Asian (A) Failures

12 yes

398

Hispanic (H) Failures

128 yes

399

Other (O) Failures

41 yes

400

AI Failures

1 yes

401

No Data (.) Failures

4 yes

City Hall Civil

Service

402

367 e. 3

recruitment measures recruit failures by ethnicity

yes Commission see below

It is unclear whether this information is

403

Hispanic/Latino (H)

128 yes captured adequately

404

Non-Hispanic/Latino

1091 yes

10 of 17

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 73-1 Filed: 06/24/16 12 of 18. PageID #: 1080
Baseline Measures June 2016

City Hall Civil

Service

405

367 e. 3

recruitment measures recruit failures by gender

yes Commission see below

406

Male Failures

971 yes

407

Female Falures

248 yes

City Hall Civil

Only have data on veterans; No data

Service

collected currently; Needs to be collected in

408

367 e. 3

recruitment measures recruit failures by self identified disability

no Commission .

the future

409

City Hall Civil

Service

No data collected currently; Needs to be

410

367 e. 4

recruitment measures # of applicants with fluency in other language no Commission .

collected in the future

No data collected currently; Needs to be

411

367 e. 4

recruitment measures list of languages spoken by recruits

no

.

collected in the future

412

City Hall Civil

Service

413

367 e. 5

recruitment measures # of lateral candidates

yes Commission

0 yes The Division does not recruit laterals

414

367 e. 5

recruitment measures laterals by race

yes

see below

yes The Division does not recruit laterals

415

Black

0 yes

416

White

0 yes

417

Hispanic

0 yes

418

Asian

0 yes

419

Other

0 yes

420

367 e. 5

recruitment measures ethnicity

yes

see below

yes The Division does not recruit laterals

421

Hispanic/Latino

0 yes

422

Non-Hispanic/Latino

0 yes

423

367 e. 5

recruitment measures laterals by gender

yes

see below

The Division does not recruit laterals

424

Male

0 yes

425

Female

0 yes

426

367 e. 5

recruitment measures Other information on laterals

yes

see below

The Division does not recruit laterals

427

laterals with self identified disability

0 yes

428

list of laterals former agencies

0 yes

429

list of laterals years of service

0 yes

430

City Hall Civil

Service

431

367 e. 6

recruitment measures applicant qualifications

yes

Commission see below

This category captures those who attended

college for 2+ years, but did not obtain a BA

degree (includes those with associates

432

# applicants with 2+ years college

yes

455 yes degrees)

433

# applicants with college degree

yes

240 yes

No data collected currently; only have

434

# applicants with 2+ years military

no

. N/A 180+days; Needs to be collected in the future

New item CPD collects that has been added

to baseline but not specified in Consent

435

# applicants with 180+ days military

yes (new)

161 yes Decree

New item CPD collects that has been added

to baseline but not specified in Consent

436

disabled veterans

yes (new)

1235 yes Decree

437

11 of 17

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 73-1 Filed: 06/24/16 13 of 18. PageID #: 1081
Baseline Measures June 2016

City Hall Civil

pass/fail rate in each phase of pre-

Service

438

367 e. 7

recruitment measures employment process

yes Commission see below

pass calculated

439

2-Failed agility test

86.38% yes pass rate calculated

440

3-No show for the Agility test

93.03% yes pass rate calculated

441

4-Hired / Currently in the Academy

N/A

yes pass rate calculated

442

5-No response to certification

84.99% yes pass rate calculated

443

6-Passed over

98.93% yes pass rate calculated

444

7-Removed for background reason(s)

94.59% yes pass rate calculated

445

8-No show for the Psychological Exam

99.92% yes pass rate calculated

446

9-No longer interested

98.44% yes pass rate calculated

447

10-Waived

98.61% yes pass rate calculated

11-Name has been certified. Candidates are

448

being vetted for the next Academy

N/A

yes pass rate calculated

449

12-No show for the test

67.68% yes pass rate calculated

13-Did not submit their Personal History

450

Statement

80.31% yes pass rate calculated

451

14-Failed the test

97.13% yes pass rate calculated

City Hall Civil

Service

452

367 e. 7

recruitment measures pass/fail rate by race

yes Commission see below

453

White (W) pass rate

46.02% yes pass rate calculated

454

Black (B) pass rate

69.24% yes pass rate calculated

455

Asian (A) pass rate

99.02% yes pass rate calculated

456

Hispanic (H) pass rate

89.50% yes pass rate calculated

457

Other (O) pass rate

96.64% yes pass rate calculated

458

AI pass rate

99.92% yes pass rate calculated

459

No Data (.) pass rate

99.67% yes pass rate calculated

City Hall Civil

Service

460

367 e. 7

recruitment measures pass/fail rate by ethnicity

yes Commission see below

461

Hispanic/Latino (H) pass rate

89.50% yes pass rate calculated

462

Non-Hispanic/Latino pass rate

85.08% yes pass rate calculated

City Hall Civil

Service

463

367 e. 7

recruitment measures pass/fail rate by gender

yes Commission see below

464

Male Pass Rate

20.34% yes pass rate calculated

465

Female Pass Rate

79.66% yes pass rate calculated

City Hall Civil

Service

No data collected currently; Needs to be

466

367 e. 7

recruitment measures pass/fail rate by self identified disability

no Commission .

collected in the future

467

avg length of time to move through each

No data collected currently; Needs to be

468

367 e. 8

recruitment measures phase of preemployment

no

.

collected in the future

No data collected currently; Needs to be

469

367 e. 8

recruitment measures avg length of time to process applicants

.

collected in the future

470

471

367 e. 9

recruitment measures composition of recruit class

yes

see below

472

Initial Size of recruit class

yes

52 yes

New item CPD collects that has been added

to baseline but not specified in Consent

473

Remained

yes (new)

44 yes Decree

New item CPD collects that has been added

to baseline but not specified in Consent

474

Separated

yes (new)

8 yes Decree

12 of 17

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 73-1 Filed: 06/24/16 14 of 18. PageID #: 1082
Baseline Measures June 2016

475

367 e. 9

recruitment measures Separated by Race

yes

see below

New item CPD collects that has been added

to baseline but not specified in Consent

476

Black

yes (new)

2 yes Decree

New item CPD collects that has been added

to baseline but not specified in Consent

477

White

yes (new)

4 yes Decree

New item CPD collects that has been added

to baseline but not specified in Consent

478

Hispanic

yes (new)

2 yes Decree

New item CPD collects that has been added

to baseline but not specified in Consent

479

Asian

yes (new)

0 yes Decree

New item CPD collects that has been added

to baseline but not specified in Consent

480

Other

yes (new)

0 yes Decree

481

367 e. 9

recruitment measures Separated by Gender

yes

see below

New item CPD collects that has been added

to baseline but not specified in Consent

482

Male

yes (new)

7 yes Decree

New item CPD collects that has been added

to baseline but not specified in Consent

483

Female

yes (new)

1 yes Decree

Command

Staff/

484

367 e. 9

recruitment measures composition of recruit classes by race

Academy see below

485

Black

8 yes

486

White

29 yes

487

Hispanic

12 yes

488

Asian

0 yes

489

Other

Command

3 yes

Staff/

490

367 e. 9

recruitment measures composition of recruit classes by ethnicity

491

Hispanic/Latino

492

Non-Hispanic/Latino

Academy see below Command

12 yes 40 yes

Staff/

493

367 e. 9

recruitment measures composition of recruit classes by gender

494

Male

495

Female

Academy see below

44 yes 8 yes

composition of recruit classes by self

No data collected currently; Needs to be

496

367 e. 9

recruitment measures identified disabilty

no

. N/A collected in the future

497 367 f. 1 training measures

# of officers provided training pursuant to

498

367 f. 1

training measures

this agreement

no

. N/A future comparisions

% of officers provided training pursuant to

499

367 f. 1

training measures

this agreement

no

. N/A future comparisions

500 students' evaluations of the adequacy of

501

367 f. 2

training measures

training in type and frequency

no

. N/A future comparisions

502

13 of 17

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 73-1 Filed: 06/24/16 15 of 18. PageID #: 1083
Baseline Measures June 2016

modifications or improvements to training

resulting from the review and analysis

503

367 f. 3

training measures

required by this agreement

504

prevalence of training deficiencies as

refelected by problematic incidents or

505

367 f. 4

training measures

performance trends

506 367 g. officer assistance & support efforts

officer assistance & availabilty of officer assistance & support

507

367 g. 1

support efforts

services

officer assistance &

508

367 g. 1

support efforts

use of officer assistance & support services

509

officer assistance & officer reports of adequacy of officer

510

367 g. 2

support efforts

assistance & support svcs

officer assistance & survey analysis of adequacy of officer

511

367 g. 2

support efforts

assistance & support svcs

512 367 h. supervision measures

supervisors initial indentification of officer

513

367 h.

supervision measures violations

supervisors initial indentification of officer

514

367 h.

supervision measures performance problems

no
no
yes EAP yes EAP no EAP no EAP
no no

515

367 h.

516

367 h.

517 367 i.

518

367 i. 1

519

367 i. 1

520

521

367 i. 2

522

523

524

525

526

527

528

529

530

531

367 i. 2

532

533

534

535

supervision measures supervisors response to officer violations

no

supervisors response to performance

supervision measures problems

no

civilian complaints & investigations & discipline

civilian complaints &

investigations &

discipline

# of complaints

yes

civilian complaints &

investigations &

discipline

increases/decreases related to access

no

civilian complaints &

investigations &

discipline

# sustained by complaint type

no

False Report

Harassment

Improper Procedure

Infraction Notice (UTT/PIN)

Lack of Service

Not Provided by Complainant

Other

Physical Abuse/Excessive Force

Unprofessional

civilian complaints &

investigations &

discipline

# exonerated by complaint type

no

False Report

Harassment

Improper Procedure

Infraction Notice (UTT/PIN)

IA, Inspections, OPS IA, Inspections, OPS IA, Inspections, OPS
IA, Inspections, OPS

. N/A future comparisions
. N/A future comparisions
. N/A
11 yes
No data collected currently; Needs to be . N/A collected in the future
No data collected currently; Needs to be . N/A collected in the future
No data collected currently; Needs to be N/A collected in the future
No data collected currently; Needs to be . N/A collected in the future
No data collected currently; Needs to be . N/A collected in the future
No data collected currently; Needs to be . N/A collected in the future
Of the 294 cases in 2015, only 45 have been completed and only 4 have gone through the 294 yes PRB
No data collected currently; Needs to be . N/A collected in the future
Incomplete information; no systematic N/A capturing of data . . . . . . . . .
Incomplete information; no systematic N/A capturing of data . . . .

14 of 17

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 73-1 Filed: 06/24/16 16 of 18. PageID #: 1084
Baseline Measures June 2016

536

Lack of Service

537

Not Provided by Complainant

538

Other

539

Physical Abuse/Excessive Force

540

Unprofessional

civilian complaints &

investigations &

541

367 i. 2

discipline

# unfounded by complaint type

542

False Report

543

Harassment

544

Improper Procedure

545

Infraction Notice (UTT/PIN)

546

Lack of Service

547

Not Provided by Complainant

548

Other

549

Physical Abuse/Excessive Force

550

Unprofessional

civilian complaints &

investigations &

551

367 i. 2

discipline

# not sustained by complaint type

552

False Report

553

Harassment

554

Improper Procedure

555

Infraction Notice (UTT/PIN)

556

Lack of Service

557

Not Provided by Complainant

558

Other

559

Physical Abuse/Excessive Force

560

Unprofessional

civilian complaints &

investigations &

561

367 i. 2

discipline

# of administratively dismissed

562

False Report

563

Harassment

564

Improper Procedure

565

Infraction Notice (UTT/PIN)

566

Lack of Service

567

Not Provided by Complainant

568

Other

569

Physical Abuse/Excessive Force

570

Unprofessional

civilian complaints &

investigations &

571

367 i. 2

discipline

# of insufficient evidence

572

False Report

573

Harassment

574

Improper Procedure

575

Infraction Notice (UTT/PIN)

576

Lack of Service

577

Not Provided by Complainant

578

Other

579

Physical Abuse/Excessive Force

580

Unprofessional

581

IA, Inspections, no OPS
no OPS
no OPS
no OPS

. . . . .
Incomplete information; no systematic N/A capturing of data . . . . . . . . .
Incomplete information; no systematic N/A capturing of data . . . . . . . . .
Incomplete information; no systematic N/A capturing of data . . . . . . . . .
Incomplete information; no systematic N/A capturing of data . . . . . . . . .

15 of 17

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 73-1 Filed: 06/24/16 17 of 18. PageID #: 1085
Baseline Measures June 2016

civilian complaints &

investigations &

# of complaint allegations supported by a

No data collected currently; Needs to be

582

367 i. 3

discipline

perponderance of the evidence

no OPS

. N/A collected in the future

583

civilian complaints &

investigations &

average length of time to complete by

Incomplete information; no systematic

584

367 i. 4

discipline

complaint type

no OPS

N/A capturing of data

585

False Report

.

586

Harassment

.

587

Improper Procedure

.

588

Infraction Notice (UTT/PIN)

.

589

Lack of Service

.

590

Not Provided by Complainant

.

591

Other

.

592

Physical Abuse/Excessive Force

.

593

Unprofessional

.

594

civilian complaints &

investigations &

Incomplete information; no systematic

595

367 i. 5

discipline

# of officers w/multiple complaints

no OPS

N/A capturing of data

596

District 1

.

597

District 2

.

598

District 3

.

599

District 4

.

600

District 5

.

601

outside city/other units

.

civilian complaints &

IA,

investigations &

Inspections,

Incomplete information; no systematic

602

367 i. 5

discipline

# of officers w/repeated sustained complaints no OPS

. N/A capturing of data

603

civilian complaints &

investigations &

604

367 i. 6

discipline

arrests of officers for conduct

yes IA

see below

605

on duty

1 yes

606

off duty

14 yes

607

civilian complaints &

investigations &

608

367 i. 7

discipline

criminal prosecitions for conduct

yes IA

see below

609

on duty

1 yes

610

off duty

11 yes

611

not prosecuted

2 yes

612

open

1 yes

613

civilian complaints &

investigations &

# of civil suits against the City or CDP for

City Law

614

367 i. 8

discipline

work related conduct

yes Department

8 yes

615

settled

3 yes As of May 2016

616

not yet settled

5 yes As of May 2016

civilian complaints &

investigations &

City Law

There can be multiple natures of suits for

617

367 i. 8

discipline

nature of the suits

yes Department see below

each suit

618

excessive force (including deadly force)

5 yes

619

unlawful search & seizure

1 yes

16 of 17

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 73-1 Filed: 06/24/16 18 of 18. PageID #: 1086
Baseline Measures June 2016

620

false arrest

1 yes

621

discrimination/bias

0 yes

other violation of consitutional rights (e.g., 1st

622

amendment)

1 yes

623

Harassment

0 yes

624

improper handling/disposition of property

1 yes

625

contempt of cop

1 yes

626

failure to provide medical assistance

1 yes

627

other

0 yes

civilian complaints &

investigations &

City Law

628

367 i. 8

discipline

amount of judgments against

yes Department see below

629

number of judgments

23 yes As ofJune 2016

civilian complaints &

investigations &

City Law

630

367 i. 8

discipline

Judgment Status (number)

yes Department see below

631

number of judgments (closed)

10 yes As ofJune 2016

632

number of judgments (active)

13 yes As ofJune 2016

civilian complaints &

investigations &

City Law

633

367 i. 8

discipline

Judgment Status (amount)

yes Department see below

634

amount of judgments (closed)

$ 1,125,724.35 yes As ofJune 2016

635

amount of judgments (active)

TBD

yes As ofJune 2016

civilian complaints &

investigations &

City Law

636

367 i. 8

discipline

amount of settlements

yes Department see below

637

settled

$

14,000 yes As ofJune 2016

638

not yet settled

TBD

yes As ofJune 2016

17 of 17

 
 -1-
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
Special Litigation Section P.O. Box 66400 Washington, DC 20035-6400
July 23, 2002
Subodh Chandra, Esquire Director, Law Department Cleveland City Hall 601 Lakeside Avenue Room 106 Cleveland, OH 44114
Re: Investigation of the Cleveland Division of Police
Dear Mr. Chandra:
We would like to take this opportunity to express our appreciation for the considerable cooperation we have received from the City, Police Chief Edward Lohn, and the men and women of the Cleveland Division of Police (CDP) in our investigation and mutual effort to improve policing in Cleveland. The CDP’s willingness to review and improve its policies and procedures is admirable. We likewise want to thank the Cleveland Police Patrolmen’s Association, the Fraternal Order of Police, the Black Shield Association, and community leaders who share the Division’s desire to improve police practices.
Members of our team, including our police practices experts, have met with Chief Edward Lohn, former chiefs Mary Bounds and Martin Flask, and the CDP command staff to share informally recommendations about the policies and practices of the CDP. During our meeting on March 11, 2002 then Acting Law Director Rick Horvath, Public Safety Director James Draper and Chief Lohn expressed interest in receiving specific written recommendations to assist the CDP in the implementation of new policies, including the Manual of General Police Orders adopted on March 1, 2002. In this letter, we convey in greater detail our recommendations regarding use of force, misconduct complaint investigations, risk management, traffic stop procedures, and training.

-2-
To date we have reviewed relevant CDP policies and directives; attended police academy and in-service training sessions; ridden along with district patrol officers; and conducted interviews with CDP officials, a broad cross-section of the CDP command staff, and those charged with oversight of the CDP. We have spoken with representatives of the Cleveland Police Patrolman’s Association, the Fraternal Order of Police and the Black Shield Association, as well as local attorneys, community leaders and citizens. Additionally, we are in the process of reviewing the investigative reports provided to us by the City relating to civilian complaints, use of force investigations and Internal Affairs (IA) investigations.
This letter is not meant to be exhaustive, but rather focuses on significant recommendations that we can provide at this stage of the investigation under 42 U.S.C. § 14141 and 42 U.S.C. § 3789d. Although we have nearly completed our review of the use of deadly force investigations and the discharge of firearms investigations provided by the CDP, important aspects of our investigation have yet to be completed, most notably completing our review of the CDP complaint investigation reports, and the more current reports of uses of non-deadly force, still to be produced. In addition, we are proceeding with our review of the computer data relating to traffic citations that we have received recently. Therefore, this letter is not intended to provide our findings regarding the ultimate question for our investigation: whether the CDP is engaged in a pattern or practice of unconstitutional conduct.
We hope that this letter will assist in our mutual goal of ensuring that the CDP provides effective and respectful police service to the people of Cleveland, and we look forward to continued cooperation toward this goal. We also would be happy to provide examples of policies used by other police departments that might address issues we raise below.
I. Uses of Force
A. The CDP should clarify its use of force policy
We recognize that the CDP has recently adopted a new Use of Force policy (GPO 2.1.01), which provides guidance on both the use of deadly force and the use of non-deadly force. The new policy appropriately adds head strikes with ASP batons to the definition of deadly force. However, it does not include head

-3
-
strikes with other hard objects. (e.g., flashlights, portable radios). Model policies of well-recognized authorities, including the National Law Enforcement Policy Center of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, consider strikes to the head with impact weapons such as flashlights to constitute uses of deadly force. Accordingly, we recommend that the CDP clarify its use of deadly force policy to designate any strike to the head with an impact weapon as a use of deadly force and impose the same use threshold, reporting and investigation requirements as other uses of deadly force.1
B. The CDP should clarify its process for reviewing uses of deadly force to ensure consistency
We understand that the CDP investigates uses of deadly force differently depending on whether or not the use of force results in death or injury to a person. Although not specified in the policy, we understand that when a CDP officer uses deadly force and a person is either injured or killed, the Use of Deadly Force Investigative Team (UDFIT) responds to the scene and conducts an investigation. However, if deadly force is used, but no person is injured or killed, the UDFIT apparently does not respond to the incident. We understand that, instead, on-duty homicide detectives and staff from the Inspections Unit investigate noninjury shootings and other non-injury incidents in which deadly force is used. Finally we understand that prior to October 2001, these non-injury incidents were investigated by the involved officer’s district supervisor.
We recommend that the CDP clarify its policy on the investigation of use of deadly force incidents to make clear that in-depth examination of uses of deadly force does not depend on whether there is injury or death to a person, but on whether the force used by an officer could result in death or serious bodily injury. The use of deadly force definition contained within GPO 2.1.01 appropriately includes any “action that is likely to cause death or serious physical harm” and is not limited to incidents that actually cause such harm. Therefore, we recommend that the
1
 We observe that the CDP policy now defines intermediate weapons as “authorized less than lethal devices approved and issued by the Division” including the ASP baton and beanbag shotgun. We recommend that the CDP clarify that ASP batons and beanbag shotguns, given their potential to cause lethal injury, are “less lethal” rather than “less than lethal” weapons.

-4
-
CDP adopt a uniform policy requiring the investigation of all uses of deadly force by the UDFIT, regardless of whether injury actually results.
In addition, we recommend that the CDP form and utilize a shooting review team to review uses of deadly force after any criminal and administrative reviews have been completed. The purpose of the shooting review team should be to review every incident of use of deadly force to evaluate the tactics used, the effectiveness of the equipment used, and whether training standards need to be altered.
We also recommend that, if not already offered, the CDP explore making confidential psychological counseling and stress de-briefing available to officers in the aftermath of a traumatic event as part of the process of ensuring that the officer remains fit for duty. We recommend that the CDP review and consider revising its stated policy that officers involved in a use of deadly force incident automatically “undergo a psychiatric evaluation if they cause death or injury and shall not return to street duty until so ordered by the Chief.” (GPO 2.1.01 (V)). This policy raises two potential concerns. First, the use of the term “psychiatric evaluation” may unfairly suggest that an officer is unfit for duty before any such determination is made. Second, if the CDP is performing only a traditional “psychiatric evaluation,” that process alone may not offer the assistance and support appropriate to an officer involved in a traumatic use of force.
C. CDP should thoroughly investigate and document uses of force
Our review of CDP use of deadly force and use of non-deadly force investigations from 1998-2000, and our interviews with CDP investigators, revealed a lack of documentation that raises concerns about the competency, thoroughness, and impartiality of use of force investigations. For example, we have found instances in which investigators failed to document interviews of victims, suspects, or CDP or civilian witnesses. In other instances, CDP investigators failed to document the location of all physical evidence, perform standard gunshot residue tests, locate other forensic evidence, or take relevant photographs. We recommend that the CDP provide specific guidance that investigators photograph all claimed or actual areas of injury and interview all officers who could be witnesses in addition to all civilian witnesses.

-5-
These apparent deficiencies may derive from inadequate training for use of force investigators. The command staff and investigators we interviewed informed us that investigators receive no specialized training in conducting these sorts of investigations. We recommend, at a minimum, that the CDP provide all of its use of force investigators with training in the following: observation and surveillance skills; basic forensics; interviewing and interrogation skills; report writing; basic criminal law; basic court procedures; basic rules of evidence; and CDP's disciplinary and administrative procedures.
We also reviewed several investigations where the investigator was involved in or supervised the use of force incident. This raises the strong potential for a conflict of interest. In addition, for injuries which result in hospital admission and, as described above, incidents involving the use of deadly force, we recommend that investigators not be based in the district in which the incident occurs. We recommend that CDP policy make specific that supervisors who are involved as witnesses, participants or supervisors in a use of force incident shall not investigate that use of force.
We also recommend that every supervisory review of any use of force include an assessment of the following issues: (1) was the force used in compliance with policy, training and legal standards; (2) if not, should the incident be further investigated to determine whether misconduct occurred; (3) using different tactics could the officer(s) have avoided using force or using the level of force employed; (4) does the incident indicate a need for additional training, counseling or other remedial measures; and (5) does the incident suggest that CDP should revise its policies, training, tactics, or equipment. The investigations we have reviewed to date are inconsistent in terms of addressing these critical questions.
We were recently provided with a database of use of nondeadly force reports by the CDP. We noted that this database does not track whether the use of force is determined to be within policy. We recommend that this information be added to the database.
II. Complaints of Police Misconduct
A. The CDP should clarify its structure and policy regarding complaints of police misconduct

-6-
We recommend that the CDP include a definition of “complaint” in its policy on accepting citizen complaints (GPO 1.3.15) and that the Office of Professional Standards (OPS) and Internal Affairs (IA) procedural manuals contain consistent guidance.
We recognize that the CDP has recently reallocated responsibility for investigations of police misconduct. Currently, allegations of criminal misconduct are investigated by IA, which consists entirely of sworn personnel and reports directly to the Chief. All other complaints of police misconduct are investigated by OPS, which is staffed by sworn personnel who report to a civilian supervisor. OPS forwards its investigations for review by the Police Review Board, which then makes a recommendation to the Chief regarding the disposition of the complaint and whether discipline should be imposed. In light of this restructuring of the complaint investigation process, we recommend that the CDP promulgate a policy statement that clearly delineates the responsibility for the investigation of complaints or allegations of misconduct between Internal Affairs, OPS and first line supervisors.
To assure that complaints are directed to the appropriate unit for investigation and the results of the investigation are appropriately tracked, we recommend that the CDP develop a centralized system for accepting, logging, tracking and assigning complaints for investigation by the appropriate CDP authority. We recommend that these data be entered into the Risk Management System discussed below. We recommend that the CDP adopt a policy addressing who will be responsible for investigating complaints against OPS and IA personnel. Moreover, we recommend that the CDP implement both a public education campaign and additional inservice training on the policies and procedures for accepting and handling complaints. Ensuring that the public is informed of the means by which complaints can be lodged and that all complaints will be professionally and appropriately handled benefits community/police relations.
B. The CDP should review its policies for staffing IA and OPS and review the training and equipment needs for these specialized units
We understand that staff assignments to OPS are determined almost entirely by seniority and that OPS investigators receive

-7
-
no formal training in conducting complaint investigations. We recommend that the CDP work with the appropriate union officials to establish eligibility criteria for sworn investigator applicants, including consideration of an officer’s complaint and disciplinary history. We also recommend the CDP remove investigators whose actions while serving as investigators would have disqualified them from selection as investigators.
IA and OPS investigators should receive specialized and ongoing training. Officers newly assigned to OPS and IA should be paired with a more experienced investigator in these specialized units for an appropriate period. We also recommend that the CDP provide additional training to both IA and OPS investigators from sources outside the Division. We would be happy to assist the CDP in identifying appropriate resources. Additionally, OPS and Internal Affairs investigators should provide in-service training to first line supervisors regarding their roles at the front end of the complaint process and in assisting in internal investigations. Finally, we recommend that the CDP takes steps to encourage officers to consider OPS duty as an important step in their career development paths. Lending greater prestige to this office should aid in having effective OPS staff.
We also recommend that the CDP carefully evaluate the staffing and workload of OPS, as the responsibility for a larger volume of complaints has raised concerns about the adequacy of OPS staffing. We understand that the recent restructuring increased OPS’ workload from approximately 350 cases per year to over 700 while the staff only increased from five investigators to eight. We understand from staff that complaint investigations are being resolved more quickly than in the past, but investigations still take as long as four months to be completed. We also heard staff concerns regarding the equipment assigned to OPS. Specifically, we understand that OPS has only two cars for its eight investigators and that at the time of our interviews with OPS staff both of these cars were in disrepair. The unavailability of cars can limit the ability of investigators to be in the field. Further, we understand that investigators must devote time to transcribing tape recorded interviews. It is our understanding that both IA and the former Complaint Investigation Unit investigators were assigned or had access to a CDP vehicle and that transcription of tape recorded interviews by these investigators was performed by clerical staff. We recommend that the CDP review the allocation of resources to ensure that OPS is

-8-
adequately staffed and equipped to perform its function efficiently.
C. The CDP should review its policy on the administrative withdrawal of misconduct complaints
We understand that many complaints are administratively withdrawn because investigators are unable to contact complainants or complainants do not respond to phone calls or letters seeking additional information necessary to the investigation. We also understand that under current CDP policy and the Collective Bargaining Agreement, complaints are investigated by OPS only if signed by the complainant and written in the complainant’s own handwriting. Complaints that do not comply with these requirements are administratively withdrawn and are not investigated. We understand that the limited availability of staff and equipment discussed above may hamper the ability to contact complainants, many of whom contact OPS initially by phone, to obtain the required signatures and written statements, thus precluding investigation of those complaints. Our review of complaint files to date reveals that a significant number of the total complaints received by OPS are administratively withdrawn without a final determination on the merits. Based on a review of the OPS investigation files provided to us, during the period 1998 to 2000, approximately 28 percent of complaints were administratively withdrawn. Investigations by CIU during the same time period resulted in a nearly identical administrative withdrawal rate (27 percent).
We recommend the CDP work with the appropriate union officials to permit the CDP to investigate all citizen complaints, whether signed and written in the complainant’s handwriting or not. Absent this change in policy, we recommend that the CDP allocate the necessary resources to assure meaningful efforts to have complaints received conform to these requirements. Although we recognize that some complaints from anonymous sources may not provide sufficient information upon which to base an investigation, we recommend that CDP investigate all citizen complaints to the extent reasonably possible to determine whether or not the allegations can be resolved and that the CDP not close any misconduct investigation without rendering one of the following dispositions: sustained; unfounded; exonerated; insufficient evidence; or administrative withdrawal.
We recommend that the CDP adopt a clear standard for when a

-9
-
case may be administratively withdrawn. We note that Section 9.0 of the Proposed OPS Procedural Manual contains useful guidance on this issue,2 however further clarification may be beneficial. We recommend that the standard for administrative withdrawal be phrased so that a matter is not administratively withdrawn unless an investigation cannot be completed because the complainant is unavailable or unwilling to cooperate after diligent effort has been made and there is no other information on which to base an investigation. We recommend that the standard be incorporated in a general police order and be made applicable to all officers charged with investigating complaints, including IA.
D. The CDP should revise and update the standard procedures for accepting and investigating misconduct complaints
Based on our review of investigations to date, we are concerned that investigators inject opinions and speculation that may call into question the objectivity of the investigation. We recommend that the CDP clarify Section 3.4 of the OPS manual to make clear that investigators should not insert personal views or unsupported conjecture in their investigative reports. The goal of administrative investigation is to (1) ensure that the investigation is conducted fairly and impartially, (2) establish what happened, and (3) uncover and preserve all pertinent evidence. Accordingly, we recommend that all complaint investigators be trained to consider all relevant evidence including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence, as appropriate, and make credibility determinations, if feasible. Investigators should not give automatic preference to any person's statement over any other person's statement. In making such credibility determinations, the investigators should consider, at a minimum, the following factors: (i) the officer’s investigation history (if relevant to their credibility in the investigation); (ii) the complainant’s or witness’ criminal history (if relevant to their credibility in the investigation); and, (iii) other credible facts suggesting a propensity for untruthfulness of the persons involved or credibility of the
2
 Section 9.0 provides in relevant part: “Administratively Withdrawn - the investigation cannot be completed due to the unavailability of the complainant after diligent efforts have been made to contact him and there is no other information on which to base an investigation and/or the complainant’s unwillingness, if there is no other information on which to base an investigation.”

-10
-
complaint in general. In making such credibility determinations CDP investigators should not disregard a witness’s statement merely because the witness has some connection to the complainant. Further, the CDP should train all of their investigators on the factors to consider when evaluating complainant or witness credibility. Investigators should make efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements. We recommend that the CDP prohibit investigators, during complaint investigations, from asking officers or other witnesses leading questions that improperly suggest legal justifications for the officer's conduct when such questions are contrary to appropriate law enforcement techniques.
Our review of OPS investigations also revealed concerns about the thoroughness of misconduct complaint investigations and the potential for possible criminal prosecutions to be affected by a lack of appreciation for the principles of Garrity v. New Jersey 385 U.S. 493 (1967)(holding that if a law enforcement officer is not provided with immunity, any statement given under threat of adverse personnel action is unconstitutionally coerced). We recommend that OPS institute the following investigative policies and practices: for all complaints alleging misconduct, require investigators to conduct in-person, recorded interviews with all identified complainants, witnesses, and officers who are the subject of such complaints; require that all complaints alleging misconduct, including, anonymous complaints, withdrawn complaints, and complaints filed by complainants who are unwilling to cooperate with the OPS or whom OPS is unable to locate, are investigated to the extent reasonably possible to determine whether or not the allegations can be resolved; create written guidelines regarding when to compel statements pursuant to Garrity v. New Jersey that ensure the integrity of potential criminal investigations; and train investigators in these procedures.
Finally, the IA procedural manual CDP provided to us by the CDP was published in 1982. This 20 year old manual does not appear to accurately describe the current role of IA and, by virtue of its age, contains techniques that are out-dated and no longer applicable. Accordingly, we recommend that the CDP develop a new IA manual that, at a minimum, describes the required investigative steps including (a) procedures for contacting victims and witnesses, (b) evidence gathering techniques, (c) the format and content of investigative reports and (d) procedures for exchanging information between different

-11
-
units of the CDP. We would be happy to suggest training resources and model policies that may assist in the development of this new manual.
III. Risk Management
A. The CDP should develop its risk management system to track a wide variety of employee conduct in order to identify and assist employees whose actions suggest job-related issues
We understand that the CDP has recently purchased a risk management software system to help identify and remedy potentially troublesome officer conduct. We understand that this system is designed to allow the CDP to aggregate data from a variety of sources, such as personnel files, citizen complaints and use of force reports in order to review systemic issues that may require changes in training or policy. Our specific recommendations on the data elements that should be collected to make the risk management system a more useful tool from the present day forward are included below. We also recommend that the database be populated with historical data from the last several years.
We believe that the CDP will benefit from utilization of its automated risk management tool. We are pleased to learn that the CDP’s system was installed in December 2001, and that CDP staff are presently working on the logistical issues involved in populating this system with data from different sources. We recommend that the CDP capture data elements relating to both officer action and organizational conduct. Data that may be helpful include: uses of deadly and non-deadly force, complaints investigated by both IA and OPS, criminal allegations against officers, civil or administrative claims against officers, assignment and rank history of officers. Because of the CDP policy regarding the administrative withdrawal of complaints discussed above, we recommend that the risk management system also include data regarding complaints that are closed by withdrawal.
Because risk management tools are designed to help supervisors and managers identify and correct behaviors before the imposition of discipline might become necessary, we recommend that the CDP review its policy regarding the Early Intervention Program (EIP) and clarify how the risk management system will be used in connection with the EIP, including what thresholds will

-12
-
be used to identify officers for review and how such officers’ conduct will be reviewed. Moreover, officers should be made aware of what non-disciplinary actions may be taken by supervisors and managers when specific officers are identified by the risk management system. We also recommend that the CDP emphasize that first line supervisors remain responsible for the behavior of officers under their supervision.
We understand that the current EIP policy contemplates that the office of the Chief of Police will monitor statistical records, presumably the risk management system. In addition, when an officer exhibits a number of indicators equal to or exceeding the threshold determined by the Chief, an EIP package will be delivered to the officer’s commander for review. We understand that the commander, with input from supervisory staff, may determine that intervention is not warranted. We recommend that the CDP require district commanders who determine that intervention is not merited under the EIP, be required to provide a written explanation to justify this determination. Finally, we recommend that the EIP not be voluntary on the part of the officer, as the program is designed to reaffirm agency policy and provide additional training or other appropriate non-disciplinary assistance. We understand that other police departments around the country require that officers participate in these types of assistance programs in order to address at risk behavior and prevent officers from becoming involved in serious misconduct.
IV. Traffic and Pedestrian Stops
A. The CDP should implement its data collection initiative and expand the frequency and scope of its data analysis
We understand that the CDP has decided to collect data on all pedestrian and motor vehicle stops by CDP officers. We understand that as part of this initiative the CDP is including diverse members of the community, representatives of the CPPA, the FOP, and other line officers and command staff in the development of the policy statement and data collection protocol. We applaud these efforts. As we have discussed with Chief Lohn, former Chiefs Bounds and Flask, and members of the CDP command staff, meaningful analysis of stop data requires the collection of a number of data items. We have been provided with a draft data collection form that CDP officers will utilize to capture the following data: the date of the stop, the officer’s name and badge number, the location of the stop, the gender,

-13-

race/ethnicity and date of birth of person stopped, the basis for the stop, whether a search or frisk of the person or vehicle was conducted, whether the search was consensual, whether any contraband was seized, the result of the contact (i.e verbal warning, citation issued, or arrest), the state in which the vehicle stopped is registered, and whether a canine was deployed. We understand that the CDP had planned to begin data collection in February 2002, but that a test of the data collection system in January 2002 highlighted certain logistical issues that the CDP is currently working to resolve.
We also recommend that the CDP develop a methodology for analyses of stop data on a regular basis. Because much research is presently being done in the area of data analysis, both within the policing profession and in academia, the CDP may want to retain a consultant for guidance in data analysis. In addition to examining traffic stop data, we recommend that traffic stop analyses include a review of commendations and compliments, as well as information on complaints and civil suits (both pending and resolved) that allege discrimination in the provision of police services on the basis of race, color, or national or ethnic origin.
We also understand that for the last year the CDP has been collecting and reviewing certain data items from uniform traffic tickets (UTTs) including the identity, gender, and race of all persons to whom a citation is issued, data that identifies the vehicle and license plate, the street location of the stop that resulted in the issuance of the ticket(s), the police district in which the ticket was issued and the identity of the issuing officer. We understand that the CDP has been conducting regular reviews of this UTT data and recommend that this practice continue in conjunction with the stop data analyses discussed above.
B. The CDP should utilize its in-car video cameras and audio recorders more systematically
It is our understanding that CDP utilizes video cameras mounted in police cruisers and audio recorders to detect and prosecute persons suspected of driving under the influence violations and to investigate fatal and other serious traffic accidents. (GPO 3.4.03). We recommend that these cameras and recorders be used to record all traffic stops. We urge the CDP (1) to configure the video camera systems and audio recorders so

-14
-
they begin taping at the time that an officer activates his/her emergency equipment, and (2) to modify its policy regarding the storage of the tapes to prohibit officers from rewinding the tapes or erasing or re-using the tapes and to maintain the evidentiary integrity of the tapes. Used tapes should be stored for a minimum of 90 days. These recordings can then be used to aid in quickly resolving complaints as well as in conjunction with the stop data and analysis discussed above.
V. Training
A. The CDP should provide additional in-service firearms training
All CDP officers are required by the state training board to qualify annually in the use of firearms. We understand that this qualification is achieved during an eight hour in-service firearms training. This training consists of classroom presentations and the administration of a short written exam on the use of deadly force policy, followed by a live-fire examination on the shooting range that focuses on ensuring that officers know how to use firearms proficiently. We understand that the GPO 1.1.10 requires that officers score a minimum of 80 percent on the written examination, but that the written exam consists of approximately 20 questions. Thus, a passing score could be obtained even though questions that test an officer’s basic understanding of the use of deadly force policy are answered incorrectly. We recommend that the CDP review this requirement to ensure that a passing score on the written examination requires that officer correctly answer key questions related to the use of deadly force policy.
During our observation of firearms qualification and training, CDP staff showed us the 19 room training facility that is an obvious source of pride. We understand that training is offered at this facility in both search techniques and the use of firearms indoors. We were favorably impressed with the facility and recommend that the CDP develop a formal training curriculum and schedule so that all officers can receive the benefit of this resource. We understand from speaking with command staff, firearms trainers, and rank and file officers, that additional firearms training would be welcomed.
We also understand that the CDP is considering adding quarterly firearms training for all officers to focus on tactical

-15
-
and decision-making skills. We strongly encourage this plan. Our review of use of deadly force investigations and “non-use” of deadly force investigations revealed numerous circumstances in which CDP officers utilized tactics that appeared to create additional risks to the officers. Specifically, we observed a number of investigations of CDP officers firing at moving vehicles that, through the use of different tactics, may have been avoidable and presented fewer risks to officers and subjects. We recommend that this additional training include exercises in tactical training and “shoot, don’t shoot” decisionmaking scenarios. Further, the use of interactive firearms training technology, or simulation training tools, would provide for realistic role playing and provide CDP officers decisionmaking practice and assessment. To the extent possible, we recommend that the CDP training include scenarios drawn from actual CDP use of force incidents. We recommend that the scenarios be balanced between incidents wherein the officer is able to deploy tactics that result in avoidance of shooting as well as incidents wherein use of deadly force was necessary and justified. Finally, we recommend that officers receive training in night shooting and stress training (i.e., training in using a firearm after undergoing physical exertion). Our review of the 23 use of deadly force incidents provided by the CDP reflect that 17 of these occurred at night.
B. CDP should develop a structured Field Training Officer (FTO) Program, implement a well-designed FTO selection procedure and take measures to assure that FTOs are adequately trained
We understand from district commanders that FTOs are selected almost exclusively on the basis of seniority with little input from the command staff. These FTOs serve for indefinite terms and receive only limited training. We recommend that the CDP work with union officials to develop a structured program for recruiting, selecting, training and evaluating FTOs.
The CDP should develop specific criteria for the selection of FTOs from the ranks of qualified personnel with the clearly established minimum qualifications. At a minimum, FTOs should have several years of experience as police officers. FTOs should have no adverse disciplinary actions that reflect a lack of integrity, use of excessive force or discriminatory behavior, have favorable performance appraisals, and exhibit interpersonal skills consistent with the coach/mentor function of an FTO. Moreover, the CDP should adopt a structured training and

-16
-
evaluation program for FTOs. We would be happy to provide the CDP with examples of FTO programs that other law enforcement agencies have implemented with success.
We recommend that the CDP take measures to recruit and train qualified FTOs, including providing additional incentives to encourage officers to apply to become FTOs. Possible incentives include greater monetary compensation or priority for receiving training on new equipment (such as weapons), policies and procedures. We also recommend that FTOs be appointed to serve for a fixed term of approximately 2 years, renewable at the discretion of the CDP based upon overall satisfactory performance, and that the CDP develop a mechanism for removing FTOs who fail to perform adequately.
C. CDP management should audit recruit and in-service training and provide in-service cultural diversity training.
A number of training sessions that we have observed highlight the need for the Chief or Executive Staff to audit academy and in-service training in order to be confident that policies are being effectively taught. While some training courses we have attended were well done, others clearly were not effective in conveying the subject matter. For example, one particular training course consisted solely of a lecture on Supreme Court decisions and complex legal concepts. Officers clearly were not paying attention to the lecture (to the point of reading newspapers, doing crossword puzzles and chatting among themselves), asked no questions, and did not participate in any discussion of the issues. CDP command staff apparently were unaware of the specifics of this training until we brought it to their attention.
The recommended auditing can be accomplished either through an auditing function, in which designated CDP personnel, not part of the academy staff, attend training courses and report their observations to the Chief, or by requiring executive and command staff to attend training and to report to the Chief. Regardless of who is designated to carry out the audit function, there should be a reporting structure that, at a minimum, provides information on whether the subject matter taught complied with department policy and current law, whether class time was sufficient and properly used, and whether teaching methods were effective.

-17-
In conclusion, we appreciate the cooperation we have received from City and CDP officials in our investigation to date. We look forward to continuing to work with you and to discussing the issues raised by this letter.
Sincerely,

/s/ Steven H. Rosenbaum

cc: Emily M. Sweeney, Esq. United States Attorney

Steven H. Rosenbaum Chief Special Litigation Section

 
 U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
Special Litigation Section - PHB 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530
June 4, 2003
HAND DELIVERED
Subodh Chandra, Esq. Law Director Cleveland City Hall 601 Lakeside Avenue Room 106 Cleveland, Ohio 44114
Re: Investigation of Cleveland Division of Police Central Prison Unit and Holding Cell Facilities
Dear Mr. Chandra:
As you know, the Civil Rights Division is conducting an investigation of the Cleveland Division of Police (CDP) pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141, as well as the Safe Streets Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3789d. On July 23, 2002, we notified you that the Division had expanded the scope of this investigation to include conditions of confinement at the Central Prison Unit (CPU) and district police station holding facilities. We greatly appreciate the continuing cooperation of the City and the CDP in our investigation.
The CDP has a total of 150 holding cells currently in use located in six separate facilities. The CPU is a 50-cell, secure facility located within the police headquarters building in the Third District. The five separate holding cell facilities in the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Districts have approximately 20 cells in each district. We understand that each of these facilities is considered to be a “five day facility” as defined by Ohio Revised Code § 5120:1-7-02(A)(2). Accordingly, these facilities are subject to the standards set forth in the Minimum Standards for Jails In Ohio, promulgated by the Ohio Director of the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. Although we are ultimately guided by constitutional and federal statutory standards, we have considered these standards as well,

-2
-
along with other relevant materials, in making the observations and formulating the recommendations described below.
In 2001, over 50,000 detainees were held in CDP holding cells. The holding cells are intended for short-term, prearraignment detention. Our preliminary review indicates that detainees are typically held for 24-48 hours, but that a number of detainees were held for as long as five days. The Deputy Chief for administrative operations has responsibility for all holding cell operations. The CPU and holding cell facilities are supervised by the CDP Commander for Administrative Services, assisted by a CDP captain, lieutenant and a sworn officer-incharge (OIC). At the CPU, the OIC’s sole responsibility is to supervise the day to day operation of the jail. By contrast, each district’s OIC, often a sergeant, is responsible for overseeing the general operation of the district, as well as the holding cell facilities. The district OICs report directly to the district commanders. The CPU and district OICs each supervise a staff of Institutional Guards (IGs), civilian CDP employees who perform the day-to-day functions within the facilities. Although the CPU OIC exercises significant supervision over the IGs under his/her command, in the districts the IGs generally operate the district facilities with limited involvement by the OIC. District holding cell facility operations also are supervised by the Commander for Administrative Services.
Over the course of three trips, September 5-6, October 15-16, and October 22-23, 2002, we toured the CPU and each of the five police district holding facilities three separate times with consultants in medical care, suicide prevention, correctional practices, and environmental health and safety. We have interviewed the command staff charged with administration of these facilities, medical personnel, the food service contractor, numerous institutional guards and detainees, and the officers in charge of each facility. Following each of our visits, we conducted informal exit conferences with CDP command staff and holding cell supervisors in which we related our preliminary concerns about conditions in the holding cells and highlighted particular areas including suicide prevention, fire safety, and security practices. This letter provides a more comprehensive discussion of our concerns and recommendations in the following areas: suicide prevention, medical care, fire safety, security and administration practices, and environmental health and safety. This letter is limited to conditions in the

-3
-
holding cell facilities and does not include further discussion of the issues raised about other CDP policies and practices in our letter dated July 23, 2002.
Some of the concerns addressed in this letter relate to physical and environmental conditions in the CDP holding cells, while others relate to detention policies and procedures, e.g. detainee intake. The City and the CDP could address many of the concerns regarding medical care, physical conditions and environmental conditions by implementing our recommendations in the CDP holding cells or by housing detainees in an expanded or alternative facility. With respect to other concerns raised in this letter, we suggest that the CDP revise and expand upon its detention polices and procedures in order to implement our recommendations, regardless of whether the CDP decides to house detainees in an alternate location.
This letter discusses the results of our tours and investigation of the CPU and holding cell facilities to date. We continue to review documents that were recently provided to us by the CDP relating to the use of the restraint chair at the CPU. We will notify you of any additional concerns.
I. Suicide Prevention
Within the past three years there have been a number of near fatal suicide attempts, by hanging, by CDP detainees. Our review of suicide prevention measures throughout the CDP holding cells revealed that the CDP lacks adequate measures for suicide risk assessment and suicide prevention. We recommend that the CDP immediately address this potentially life-threatening issue. While further specific recommendations are provided below, in general, we recommend that the CDP develop and implement written policies and procedures in the following areas of suicide prevention: intake screening focusing on suicide risk; staff training; communication and intervention; safe housing of suicidal detainees; follow-up; and mortality review.
A. Identification and Screening
Effective identification and screening procedures are critical to any jail’s suicide prevention efforts. The CDP’s initial identification and screening process is insufficient to identify a detainee’s suicide risk for several reasons. When a detainee is initially processed into a holding cell, a Booking

-4
-
Information Form is completed. This form has only two areas of suicide risk inquiry, and we understand that the arresting officer fills out the form without necessarily consulting the detainee. This process is problematic because the arresting officer may not have or be able to solicit accurate information regarding the detainee’s level of suicide risk. In addition, there is an increased likelihood that suicidal indicators will be overlooked to the extent that an officer relies on observations of any suicidal behavior instead of direct questioning of the detainee. The likelihood that suicidal indicators will be overlooked is further increased by the fact that the arresting officers have not received adequate training to identify potentially suicidal behavior and the lack of involvement by medical personnel in screening detainees.
The Booking Information Form is also an inadequate screening tool because it does not sufficiently inquire into a detainee’s potential suicide risk. For example, the form fails to inquire about a detainee’s current thoughts of self-harm, history of suicidal behavior and current or prior mental health treatment. In addition, the Booking Information Form fails to include a “Disposition” section indicating actions which are to be taken once a detainee is determined as a potential suicide risk. Further, the CDP does not have an automatic mechanism for staff to determine whether the detainee was deemed to be a suicide risk during a prior CDP confinement.
We recommend that the Booking Information Form be revised to include all areas of inquiry into potentially suicidal behavior identified below. The revised booking procedures should include inquiry by the booking officer as to any information known to the arresting officer and/or the detainee which indicates that the detainee is a medical, mental health or suicide risk. Further, inquiries should be directed to the detainee regarding his/her current thoughts of self-harm, recent significant loss (death of a family member/close friend, break-up of a significant relationship, job loss); history of suicidal behavior by the detainee or a family member; expression of hopelessness/ helplessness; and current or prior mental health treatment.
In addition, we recommend that the CDP review and revise its Record Management System (RMS)to provide for easier access to information regarding a detainee’s prior suicide risk while in the jail system. When a new detainee is booked, CDP personnel should verify through RMS whether the detainee was a medical,

-5
-
mental health, or suicide risk during any prior CDP confinement.
B. Staff Training
The CDP lacks written policies to guide staff regarding the appropriate levels of supervision of suicidal detainees. The CDP’s training curriculum for both IGs and sworn officers fails to convey current standards of care. In addition, the CDP does not provide any annual suicide prevention training to its facility staff. This overall lack of suicide prevention training and guidance significantly hampers the IGs, who have the most contact with the detainees, in their ability to prevent a suicide. Moreover, OICs and other sworn officers who may come into contact with potentially suicidal arrestees are not provided appropriate training to help identify and assist such individuals. For example, the CDP training does not provide adequate training on the specific indicators of an increased risk of suicide.
We strongly recommend that the CDP develop pre-service and annual in-service training programs for both IGs and sworn officers in the area of suicide prevention. Training for IGs should also include specific instruction regarding the role of jail and medical staff in responding to suicide attempts and providing first aid and CPR. Annual suicide prevention inservice training should be provided for holding cell and medical staff.
We would be pleased to provide further technical assistance in the development of appropriate policies and a training curriculum.
C. Communication and Intervention
The CDP also lacks formal policies governing the communication of information regarding suicidal detainees. We observed a general absence of the communication among staff in the holding cell facilities that is necessary to prevent detainee suicide attempts. Because detainees can pose a suicide risk at any point during their detention, staff must constantly maintain awareness, share information and make appropriate referrals to mental health and medical staff. However, as discussed below, there is insufficient medical staff involvement in the initial screening and intake of detainees. This inadequacy is compounded by the lack of verbal and written communication between and among

-6
-
staff, especially medical staff. For example, an in-custody death at the CPU occurred shortly before our October 2002 tour, however, medical staff we spoke with were unable to provide us with information regarding the surrounding circumstances. Although apparently not a suicide, this incident demonstrates the medical staff’s lack of involvement in or knowledge of significant events in the holding cell facilities. In addition, during our second tour of the CPU, we noticed that a detainee was dressed in a paper gown and was housed in a cell reserved for suicidal detainees. Despite the fact that the detainee was on “suicide watch,” the IG we spoke with was unable to provide us with any documentation indicating that the detainee was potentially suicidal. Instead, the CPU “jail log” only indicated that this detainee had hepatitis B.
We recommend that the CDP develop and implement written policies for communicating the medical and mental health needs of detainees, including potential suicide risk, to relevant personnel. These policies should establish a procedure for communicating information from one shift to another, as well as from one district holding facility to another following transportation. In addition, we recommend that medical staff, who currently have very limited holding cell facility duties, meet on a regular basis to assess suicidal detainees.
The CDP’s practices regarding intervention measures following the discovery of a suicide attempt are adequate in general, although these practices were not formalized in a written policy and we noted inconsistent implementation of these practices. For instance, all IG and police personnel were reported to be certified in first aid and CPR (although one sergeant admitted that he had not received any CPR training since 1993). In addition, each facility had a first aid kit (although several kits were not fully stocked) and appropriate cutting tools in the event of a suicide attempt by hanging. Finally, each facility had an Automated External Defibrillator (AED) and the IGs were trained in its use. The placement of AEDs exceeds both state and national standards and is commendable.
We recommend that the CDP develop and implement written policies and procedures for intervention following a suicide attempt. These policies should include specific instruction regarding the role of all jail and medical staff in responding to suicide attempts and providing first aid and CPR. In addition, with respect to the proposed annual in-service suicide prevention

-7
-
training, the CDP should also review its intervention procedures and schedule “mock drills.”
D. Housing and Level of Supervision
All of the CDP’s holding cells pose significant problems for housing suicidal detainees. All of the facilities have cells containing dangerous protrusions that can serve as anchoring devices in hanging attempts. For instance, all facilities have cells with horizontal and vertical bars, with large-gauge mesh wiring on the upper bars that obstructs visibility, and air vents located on the walls, also with large-gauge mesh wiring. Other dangers evident in all facilities were large-gauge cages over smoke alarms and large-gauge mesh wiring over ceiling vents. At the First, Fourth and Fifth Districts, we observed holes in the mattress platforms through which a sheet or other item could be anchored. Exposed electrical conduits were observed at the CPU, the First, Fourth and Fifth Districts. The Fourth and Fifth Districts also have blind spots that prevent staff from monitoring potentially suicidal detainees.
We recommend that the CDP ensure that specific cells are designated to house suicidal detainees and that these cells be made as suicide resistant as possible, i.e., remove obvious protrusions, such as those described above. As our consultants emphasized during our exit interviews, we also recommend that due to the numerous protrusions, distance from staff, and obstructed visibility in the present isolation holding cells, suicidal detainees should not be housed in these cells, until the designated cells are made as suicide resistant as possible. We recommend that these cells not be used until they can be modified. As an interim measure, suicidal detainees should be housed in cells where they may be continuously observed by staff.
In addition to the physical deficiencies of the cells, we also found that the supervision provided to suicidal detainees is inadequate. It appears that the CDP’s practice is to isolate suicidal detainees in a cell that is in reasonably close proximity to staff. However, the cells utilized in some districts were too far away from the IG’s station to allow for close supervision or obstructed from view because of the physical design of the facility. For example, in the Fifth District, the cells used for isolating detainees were located in a separate area behind a cement wall; an area reportedly designated for renovations.

-8
-
E. Follow-Up and Mortality Review
The CDP does not currently have a formalized “follow-up review process” for suicide attempts or “mortality review process” for all detainee deaths, and the current process appears to be inadequate. The purpose of follow-up or mortality reviews is to investigate the underlying events and to learn how to prevent future incidents. This does not appear to be the focus of the CDP’s follow-up or mortality reviews, however. For instance, regarding an attempted hanging in the First District, the CDP review failed to raise any issues concerning basic suicide prevention practices. In fact, the two reviewing sergeants concluded only that no actual policies were violated in that case. The review did not address that fact that the detainee had made multiple suicide attempts in the same holding facility, indicating that the second and third attempts could have been prevented.
We recommend that the CDP institute a formalized follow-up and mortality review process following a detainee death or suicide attempt. Furthermore, we recommend that the review be conducted by a multi-disciplinary committee comprised of jail personnel and medical and mental health professionals.
II. Medical Care
The CDP has no systematic method of providing medical care to detainees. There are no policies or procedures specifically directed to guide medical treatment for detainees. The only existing policies that touch on medical care are general police orders that provide guidance for accepting detainees into the jail and relate to transporting detainees to the hospital or emergency room. The CDP has very limited medical staffing, who only treat detainees housed at the CPU, consisting of: a registered nurse from Employee Health Care, which is located in the police headquarters building, who conducts limited review of screening and medications on week days; and a physician, who conducts rounds five days per week for approximately one-half hour per day. Because there is no medical supervision of health care in the district facilities, the IGs of the different districts, under the supervision of the OICs, have developed their own ad hoc practices for dispensing medication and identifying persons with medical conditions. These practices put detainees at risk.

-9-
Our consultant’s review of four in-custody deaths which occurred between 1999 and 2002 exemplify the problems with the ad hoc system. In these cases, the detainees described being on medication for a chronic disease, but there was no medical follow-up and they did not receive their medication in the holding cells. For example, on April 6, 2000, a detainee was ill at the time of her arrest and transported directly to a local hospital and admitted for asthma. Two days later, she was released from the hospital and taken to the First District, but her asthma became worse and she was readmitted to the hospital on April 9. She was returned to the First District the same day with a prescription for prednisone and an inhaler. The following day she was brought to the CPU for a court appearance where she complained of shortness of breath and died. Despite two trips to the hospital, there was no evidence that the detainee received her medications as ordered or that there was any medical followup following her return to CDP custody.
While further specific recommendations are provided below, in general we recommend that the CDP develop and implement a program to provide medical care to detainees. Further, we recommend that the CDP utilize qualified medical personnel to help develop appropriate policies and procedures.
A. Detainee Intake/Screening
Effective intake and screening procedures are crucial to the early identification of medical and mental health issues among detainees and, thereby, the prevention of injury, illness and death among detainees. There is insufficient involvement of medical professionals in the CDP intake/screening process. Instead, IGs who have not received sufficient medical training are tasked with conducting an initial medical screening of detainees by asking a series of questions on the booking form.
In the district holding facilities, there are no trained medical staff.1 We were informed that any detainee with an apparent medical condition or who reports that he/she requires medication is taken to the hospital for treatment. This practice was not reflected in our review, particularly with regard to medication. For example, during our first tour, a detainee with
1
 The First District had an EMS team located in the police station, but they were not involved in detainee screening.

-10-
epilepsy had a seizure while we were on site at the Second District. Although he had indicated earlier, during intake screening, that he took prescription medication for epilepsy and did not have that medication with him, he was not sent to the hospital until after he suffered a seizure.
While there is more involvement of medical professionals at the CPU than in the district facilities, the practices at CPU are also insufficient. A registered nurse from Employee Health Care may review selected intake forms at the CPU; however, there is no systemic process, governed by policy, to review each of these intake forms relating to medical conditions. Effectively, the only medical screening that occurs on a routine basis throughout all holding cell facilities is that done by the IGs.
CDP’s procedures to screen for contagious diseases also are inadequate. There is no routine tuberculosis or other contagious disease screening at the CPU or in the districts. Isolation of detainees is based on the judgment of IGs who rely on detainees’ self-identification through responses to the medical questionnaire, which does not include routine symptom screening for tuberculosis.
The CDP’s isolation procedures for contagious diseases have been developed without medical oversight, resulting in inadequate precautions in some cases and needless precautions in others. Both in the CPU and the districts, detainees who report that they had or have tuberculosis are put in single cells which have open bars, do not have negative pressure ventilation and are in close proximity to the other holding cells. These cells do not sufficiently isolate such individuals from other detainees and are therefore inappropriate for housing persons with active tuberculosis. The Employee Health nurse does visit the CPU and contact the Cuyahoga County Health Department to determine the current medication for a detainee with tuberculosis; however, the nurse is on-site only Monday through Friday, so detainees with tuberculosis who enter on a Friday night may not be seen for three days. Detainees who report a history of HIV or hepatitis are deemed to be contagious and are also housed in single cells. These practices are not generally necessary for individuals with HIV or hepatitis.
We recommend that either 1) intake, contagious disease and isolation screening be conducted by a medical professional, or 2) IGs receive additional training on conducting intake, contagious

-11-
disease and isolation screening and that such screening is reviewed by a medical professional. All detainees with symptoms of, or who report having, a chronic illness should be examined on the day of intake by a nurse and appropriate follow-up by the physician should occur. Contagious disease screening and isolation practices should be modified to be consistent with generally accepted medical practices.
B. Medication Administration
Medication administration practices at the CPU and district holding facilities are inadequate and put detainees at substantial risk. At all facilities, we observed lax practices regarding the storage, dispensing and provision of prescription medications. At the CPU, if detainees have medication with them at intake, IGs place those medications in a cardboard box in a locked cabinet and write instructions in the logbooks for the IGs to dispense the medication. There is insufficient medical supervision over this process. During the week, the nurse visits the CPU daily and checks the medication box to see what it contains. The nurse may inspect the medication containers to verify the contents, but there is no other supervision by a health professional over medication distribution. During the weekends, IGs inspect medication containers and make judgments as to whether the containers are appropriately labeled with the detainee’s name and whether the detainee will be permitted to take the medication. If the container is not marked, the detainee must wait until Monday for the nurse to review the container, which results in detainees being without medication for two or three days. For detainees on insulin the nurse will draw the insulin in a syringe and place the syringe in a refrigerator with instructions in the logbook for IGs to deliver the medication. This is not a medically acceptable practice.
There is no standardized control or storage of medication in the districts. For example, in the Fifth District medications are kept in open drawers and in the Fourth and Sixth Districts detainees are permitted to keep some medications, like asthma inhalers, in their cells. In several districts expired medication was stored in cabinets with medication currently used by detainees. Moreover, narcotics and other scheduled drugs were not handled differently than other medications and not stored in double locked cabinets, as required by standard pharmacy protocols. In several districts, expired narcotic medications remained in medication drawers or cabinets and were not

-12
-
destroyed. No process for inventory or disposal of drugs is maintained. At the Fifth District, medications which must be refrigerated are kept in refrigerators that also hold food.
Practices for dispensing medication in the district facilities are also inadequate and vary from district to district. For example, in some districts, detainees who are admitted with asthma inhalers are permitted to keep these on their persons, in other districts, detainees are prohibited from keeping inhalers. These decisions are not made by medical personnel, but apparently by IGs. If detainees have medication with them at intake, the IGs will also examine the label and determine whether the detainee will be permitted to take the medication. If the detainee is permitted to take the medication, the IG will store the medication and note the administration of the medication in the general log book. There is no medical personnel supervision of this practice for dispensing medication, resulting in inconsistent administration of medication. For example, at the Second District where the detainee suffered a seizure during our tour, another detainee was taking medication for epilepsy and had only received one dose of his medication at 5:00 p.m. although he was prescribed to take it three times per day.
In both the CPU and the districts, the treatment of detainees who state that they are on medication but do not have it on their person varies with the IG on duty. In some cases, IGs will attempt to verify with a pharmacy or physician what medication is currently prescribed. In other cases, the detainee is sent to a local emergency room to see a physician. The general, unwritten policy appears to be that detainees who come in without medications should be taken to the local emergency room, but this is not consistently followed, as noted above. One factor leading to such departures from generally accepted practices is that, at all the holding facilities, medical information regarding detainees is communicated by word of mouth between shifts.
We recommend that medication, prescription, storage and distribution systems be improved and made uniform. Further, written policies and procedures should be developed to be compliant with current correctional medical standards and pharmacy regulations.
C. Clinical Treatment

-13-
Although the CPU and district holding facilities are intended for short term detention, chronically ill detainees need to receive appropriate medical care to prevent relapse or exacerbation of their conditions. At the CPU, based on the history obtained at intake, the IG will refer to the nurse any detainee who is ill or who may have a chronic disease that the IG believes requires medical attention. These referrals are judgments made by untrained IGs and can result in untimely medical referrals. The physician makes rounds in the CPU four days a week for approximately one half-hour each day. There is no sick call process other than requesting the attention of the physician at the time he makes his rounds. Moreover, most physician encounters are done cell-side and evaluations are generally without examination. Medical encounters with the physician are documented by single line entries in a book that includes only the name, age, race and complaint of the detainee and the medication that is being taken or was prescribed. Detainees we spoke with apparently did not know how to access medical services. No separate medical records on detainees are kept and records that are maintained are not confidential. The CDP provides even less medical treatment to detainees at the districts, where there is no medical staff. Any treatment is obtained by conveying detainees to the hospital and, as noted above, the CDP does not transport detainees in need of medical evaluation or treatment to the hospital consistently.
The problems with screening, medication administration and treatment are exacerbated by the lack of adequate medical staffing at the CPU and district holding facilities. There is no single position specifically assigned to manage health care for detainees in the holding cell facilities. As a result, practices relating to medical treatment for detainees have apparently been developed and instituted by CDP sworn and civilian staff. At the CPU, a registered nurse from the Employee Health Services, provides a brief period of time from Monday through Friday to assess detainees brought to her attention by CPU staff. In addition, an Employee Health Services physician spends approximately one half-hour, 5 days per week at the CPU. Neither the nurse nor the physician evaluate or treat detainees in the districts. IGs, who reportedly receive no medical training, apparently perform medical evaluations, distribute medication and perform medical triage at all facilities.
We recommend that a physician be responsible for directing clinical medical care at the facilities. Clinic space should be

-14
-
improved and minimal medical supplies should be available where detainees are examined. Medical documentation should be improved so that it is confidential and accurately reflects the care provided. Further, we recommend that the CDP designate an appropriate number of holding cell facilities to house those detainees with medical issues, to avoid the need to replicate a medical program in every facility.
III. Fire Safety
Our tours revealed an absence of certain fire safety precautions that cause significant concern. While we noted that all of the facilities had operable smoke detectors, there was no apparent system for regularly checking emergency doors, grills and locking mechanisms for operation. During our second tour, we observed two doors at the CPU to have inoperable locks and an emergency door at the Second District that was extremely difficult to open. Staff attempting to open and lock some of the metal gates at the CPU reported that there was no system for regularly inspecting doors and gates for operability. Further, there was no indication that a safety program was in place for conducting emergency fire drills or evacuations. Although all the facilities reported having evacuation plans, when queried, staff members from all facilities, including some who had worked for the CDP for up to eight years, stated that they had never participated in a fire drill. The CPU and most of the districts lacked sufficient handcuffs or flex cuffs in the event a mass evacuation was necessary.
We recommend that the CPU develop appropriate fire safety policies and procedures, including plans to regularly inspect the operability of all exits, locked doorways, smoke detectors and fire extinguishers. The CDP should also regularly conduct fire drills. Further, we recommend that the CDP acquire a sufficient supply of handcuffs or flexcuffs in the event of a mass evacuation.
IV. Detainee Safety and Security
The CPU and district facilities are often overcrowded and understaffed. These conditions, coupled with deficiencies in the practices used to house and supervise detainees in facilities which lack adequate communication equipment, present substantial risks of harm to detainees. We set forth below how, in our consultant’s opinion, these particular deficiencies contributed

-15-
to the death of one detainee.
A. Security Screening and Classification
1. Detainee Population and Housing
We observed a number of deficiencies in CDP policies and practices regarding safety and security screening and detainee monitoring. The CPU and district holding cells lack an objective method to screen detainees for potential security risks. Although the security screening necessary in a holding facility is not as extensive as the classifications systems required at a long term facility such as a prison, a system of screening and housing detainees based on objective, behavior-based criteria is an important component of providing a reasonably safe environment. However, the CDP lacks such a system and fails to determine systematically whether detainees are suspected crime partners, combative or assaultive, or may be likely victims of inmate-on-inmate violence while in the holding cells. Booking staff reported that cell assignments are made on the basis of available cell space and unguided judgments by line staff as to the appropriate placement of detainees. These practices pose safety and security risks to both detainees and staff. We recommend that the CDP develop an objective detainee security screening system and would be happy to provide technical assistance in this regard.
The concerns presented by the lack of an objective security screening system are exacerbated by mild overcrowding in the holding cell facilities. The CPU is designed to house 60 detainees in single cells which are approximately 48 square feet in size with one bunk. On the date of our second tour, there were 65 detainees at the CPU, which we were told was a typical daily census. However, a review of recent population counts revealed that the population at the CPU can climb as high as 103. We observed that the majority of detainees in the CPU and in the district holding cells were double celled due to the population and, in some cases, because cells were out of service due to inoperable toilets and sinks. We were also told that triple celling occurs at times, depending on the population and number of cells in service.
While capacity is apparently regularly exceeded at the CPU and often at the districts, there is no procedure to increase staffing levels during these periods. At the CPU, staffing

-16
-
consists of six to eight IGs, supervised by an OIC. Staffing at the districts consists of an OIC, who is generally not involved in direct supervision of detainees, and one or two IGs. When the district facilities become overcrowded, the discretionary administrative response is to close these facilities for new bookings. This occurs most frequently when there is only one IG on duty who, along with the OIC, bears the responsibility for all holding cell operations including detainee supervision. We recommend that the CDP review staffing and detainee population patterns to ensure that appropriate supervision is provided to detainees at all times.
2. Security Features
We also observed a number of security features typical of jail operations to be absent. Facility staff do not have handheld radios or body alarms, there are few operable intercoms and surveillance cameras, and there does not appear to be a regular system for conducting cell searches for contraband. These deficiencies can negatively impact staff and detainee safety and communication. For example, our review of the in-custody death of a detainee at the Second District on July 14, 2001, indicates that another detainee heard the deceased’s cellmate screaming for an IG and heard the deceased wheezing the night before he died. A witness reported that it took 15 to 20 minutes for an officer to respond. The deceased was later moved to an observation cell, where he was found dead at 10:30 a.m.
We recommend that the CDP repair or replace inoperable surveillance equipment and ensure that there are operable surveillance cameras in strategic locations. We recommend that staff be provided with hand held radios and/or body alarms. In addition, we recommend that a two-way communication system be installed for detainees to contact staff who are outside of normal hearing distance.
Certain other security measures at the CPU appeared lax. For example, at the CPU, cellblock grills, processing cell grills, and control grills were observed to be open simultaneously and were unattended. This practice contravenes standard correctional norms. In one case, we observed one detainee’s cell door was left unlocked along with the doors in and out of that detainee’s cellblock. At the CPU, we also observed an emergency key, which security staff reported would open the cell areas and the emergency exits, that was stored in a

-17-

non-secure location - hanging on the wall by the reception desk, available to anyone. In addition, we observed that the CPU and holding cell facilities lacked security equipment such as metal detectors and search wands. Further, we observed some sworn staff enter the confinement area with their weapons. Although we were told that the weapon was not loaded and the magazine had been secured, this practice is contrary to standard correctional practices and can increase the likelihood of a disturbance should a detainee attempt to gain control of the weapon.
We recommend that the CDP review its policies and training of security staff to develop, implement and train staff with regard to appropriate physical security precautions. In addition, we recommend that the CDP acquire search wands, metal detectors and ample restraining devices for the CPU and holding cell facilities. Further, we recommend that the CDP implement a policy requiring that all firearms be properly secured and kept out of the confinement areas.2
3. Policies, Procedures and Post Orders
The basic operational foundation for a well-managed jail is the maintenance of current policies, procedures and post orders. While we understand the CDP is in the process of revising these materials, our tours revealed that the CPU and the holding cell facilities policies, procedures and post orders are outdated or not available. The most recent policy and procedure manual that was available during our tour was dated 1987.
The post orders that the CDP provided to us appear to address, in limited fashion, all security posts. These orders do not contain, however, the duties listed in chronological order, which would make the orders easier to follow. Moreover, the post orders are not signed or dated. There also appears to be no mechanism for ensuring that security staff read and understand the orders.
We recommend that the CDP develop a system whereby policies, procedures and post orders are regularly reviewed and updated by the OIC. All facility policies, procedures and post orders
2
 At the CPU, we observed firearm lockboxes installed in the corridor leading to the reception area that apparently were not utilized.

-18
-
should be readily available to staff and consistent among the different facilities. Further, we recommend that, as with CDP General Police Orders, policies, procedures and post orders be dated and signed by the appropriate CDP official. We recommend that security staff regularly review and certify that they have read and understood the policies, procedures and post orders.
B. Information for Detainees and Grievance Procedures
The holding cell facilities lack a system for providing detainees with general information regarding: medical or mental health services, showers, family visits, access to telephones and attorneys, fire evacuations, food service, and any grievance procedure. Moreover, none of the facilities we toured had a written grievance procedure. We recommend that the CDP develop and implement a written procedure for disseminating information regarding obtaining services and a written detainee grievance procedure whereby a detainee can express his or her grievance to the OIC, with an appropriate mechanism to appeal up the chain of command, without fear of reprisal.
C. Use of Force/Restraints
We understand that there is no separate use of force policy applicable to holding cells other than the CDP’s general policy on the Use of Force, GPO 2.1.01. While this policy addresses use of force scenarios for police officers, it does not provide appropriate guidance for the use of force in the holding cell facilities staffed by non-sworn IGs. Although we understand that authorization for the use of force by IGs is obtained from the OIC, the policy does not contain a requirement for staff to promptly file use of force reports and submit witness statements. It does not contain provisions for ensuring medical treatment of staff and detainees after a use of force incident in one of the facilities.
The only facility equipped with an emergency restraint chair is the CPU. We understand that use of this chair must be authorized by the OIC, or sworn personnel higher in the chain of command, and that the CDP’s practice for use of this chair is to place a detainee in the chair located in an office with its windowless door shut. Security staff apparently do not maintain monitoring or observation logs of detainees while they are restrained and there is no record of checks by medical staff of the restrained detainee. The CPU has no specific policies or

-19-
procedures governing the safe use of the restraint chair, although we were told that detainees are not restrained for longer than two hours.
We recommend that the CDP amend the existing use of force policy or promulgate a specific use of force policy applicable to staff in the holding cell facilities. Further, we recommend that the CDP develop policies for the safe and appropriate use of its restraint chair.
III. Environmental Health and Safety
A. Cleaning and Maintenance
In general, all holding cells except those in the Sixth District were dirty and poorly maintained. During our inspections, we identified problems with CDP policies and practices regarding routine cleaning, trash removal, and physical plant maintenance and repair. Accumulations of dirt, trash, and debris, especially in the amounts we observed, can have a serious and wide-ranging impact. Trash, particularly food and paper, attracts insects and rodents, which can spread disease. It also increases the potential for injury to inmates and staff, causes odor problems, and provides a convenient place for detainees to conceal contraband, thereby compromising security.
Neither the cells nor the corridors at CPU appear to be cleaned on any regular basis. With limited exceptions, on three separate inspections, the cells were filthy, with excessive amounts of dirt, dust and grime. Food debris and other trash was frequently observed in and around the cells. Trash, including bread, breakfast cereal, spilled soup, toilet paper, and various types of food containers, was littering the cells and corridors. The CPU has an apparent fly infestation. Fly traps were evident with fruit flies and house flies. Air vents were blocked with paper waste and dirt. During our second tour of the CPU, we observed that the plumbing chases were full of paper debris and dead roaches. Although the chases were significantly cleaner at the time of our third tour, the CDP does not have a system for ensuring that these areas are cleaned routinely.
In the districts, cleaning practices varied widely. While the Sixth District appeared to conduct routine cleaning, the other districts had cells which were filthy and did not appear to be cleaned on a regular basis. The Second District observation

-20
-
cell had apparent blood stains on the wall during our first tour in September which were still evident during our second tour. Similarly, at the Fifth District, what appeared to be dried feces on toilet paper was observed splattered on a wall outside a cell used for observation of potentially suicidal detainees.
We also observed biohazardous waste disposal practices that are dangerous to both staff and detainees. During our tour of the CPU, a detainee had vomited blood and we observed a small cardboard box being used as a container to capture and dispose of this biohazardous waste. Staff seemed unaware of the appropriate method for disposing of this box and it was left in the front reception area for some time before it was removed. In the First District, we were informed that blood spills are not cleaned up until the following day when the maintenance crews arrive. At the Fourth District, no biohazard bags or containers were available for disposing of biohazardous waste and there was no protective equipment, such as eyewear, gowns or aprons for cleaning up such waste. At the Second District, dried blood residue was observed on a wall in one of the observation cells, and staff were using regular trash bags for discarding biohazardous waste.
We recommend that the CDP develop a routine cleaning and maintenance system for the CPU and district holding facilities. We recommend that sweeping, mopping, toilet and sink cleaning be done on a daily basis. Cells should be cleaned and disinfected after each detainee’s release. Pipe shafts, closets and other such areas should be cleaned on a routine basis.
B. Unsanitary Living Conditions
In addition to the inadequacies in cleaning and maintaining the cells, our tours also revealed living conditions to be unsanitary. Although we were told that detainees are afforded the opportunity to shower, our interviews with staff and numerous detainees were to the contrary. Most of the facilities either had no towels or towels were scarce. The shower facilities in the female wing of the CPU had a fly paper strip covered with flies, no working light and had mold on the shower floor. Similarly, the male shower had no light and mold all over the floor. In numerous facilities we observed detainees in dire need of showering. A number of detainees we spoke with had been detained for 3 to 5 days without the opportunity for showers.

-21-
Further, there is no system for cleaning or sanitizing mattresses. We observed mattresses in use that could no longer be effectively sanitized because the mattress casing was cracked.3 As a result, we understand that mattresses are regularly reused by different detainees and that a single blanket can be used by up to three different detainees in a given week. These practices, coupled with the lack of showers, contribute to the unsanitary conditions and foul odors in most of the holding cell facilities, particularly at the CPU.

We recommend that the CDP establish a system whereby newly admitted detainees are provided an opportunity to shower upon reception and on a regular basis. Showering opportunities should be recorded. There should also be delousing supplies available to those who need them, and a system should be developed to ensure that mattresses are sanitized between use and that clean blankets are provided to detainees upon admission.

*

*

*

In conclusion, we appreciate the cooperation we have received from City and CDP officials and look forward to continued discussion about the issues raised by this letter.

Sincerely,

cc: Gregory A. White United States Attorney Northern District of Ohio

/s/ Shanetta Y. Brown Cutlar
Shanetta Y. Brown Cutlar Acting Chief Special Litigation Section

3
 We also note that the fire retardancy of mattresses can be significantly compromised if the casing is cracked.

 
 Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3 Filed: 05/26/15 1 of 9. PageID #: 71

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v. CITY OF CLEVELAND,
Defendant.

)

CASE NO.: 1:15CV1046

)

)

JUDGE OLIVER

)

)

)

)

JOINT MOTION AND

)

MEMORANDUM FOR

)

ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE

I. Introduction Plaintiff the United States of America and Defendant City of Cleveland (“City”)
(collectively “the Parties”) have entered into a Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) and jointly move the Court to approve and enter the attached Agreement as an Order of the Court. The Agreement resolves litigation being initiated by the United States with the concurrent filing of a Complaint brought under the authority of 42 U.S.C. § 14141 (“Section 14141”).
The Complaint filed by the United States alleges that the Cleveland Division of Police (“CDP”) engages in a pattern or practice of using excessive force against individuals and engages in unlawful searches and seizures of individuals, both in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Parties agree that the allegations raise issues of concern that should be addressed. In agreeing to address these important issues, the City is not agreeing with the allegations. With this Agreement the Parties recognize that the City has committed to

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3 Filed: 05/26/15 2 of 9. PageID #: 72
implementing significant reforms that are intended to improve public confidence in law enforcement and to ensure that police services are delivered to the Cleveland community in a manner that complies with constitutional standards.
II. Legal Standard Public policy favors settlement because “litigation is avoided, costs of litigation are
contained, and the legal system is relieved of the burden of resolving the dispute with the resulting effect of alleviating an already overcrowded docket.” Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. National Union Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, No. 5:08CV1789, 2011 WL 5024823, at *3 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 19, 2011) aff’d sub nom Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 694 F.3d 781 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting Triplett v. Rosen, Nos. 92AP–816 & 92AP–817, 1992 WL 394867, at *18–19 (10th Dist. Dec. 29, 1992)).
When considering whether to approve and enter a settlement agreement, the court should assess whether the agreement is fair, adequate, reasonable, consistent with the public interest, and consistent with the purposes of any statute at issue. United States v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cnty. Gov’t, 591 F.3d 484, 489 (6th Cir. 2010) (citing United States v. Cnty. of Muskegon, 298 F.3d 569, 580-81 (6th Cir. 2002) and United States v. Akzo Coatings of America, Inc., 949 F.2d 1409, 1426 (6th Cir. 1991)). Whether an agreement protects the public interest is a key consideration when determining whether a settlement agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. See Akzo, 949 F.2d at 1435 (citing Acushnet River & New Bedford Harbor: Proceedings re Alleged PCB Pollution, 712 F.Supp. 1019, 1028 (D. Mass.1989)). The United States and the City have entered into an Agreement that they believe is fair, adequate, reasonable, and consistent with the public interest.
2 


Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3 Filed: 05/26/15 3 of 9. PageID #: 73
III. Discussion A. The Settlement Agreement is consistent with Section 14141 and the public objectives of the law. Section 14141 prohibits law enforcement officers from engaging in a pattern or practice
“that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” Pursuant to the authority of the Statute, the Department of Justice conducted an investigation of the Cleveland Division of Police over a period of 21 months following the request of Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson. The investigation was conducted with the cooperation of the City and CDP. The results of that investigation were shared by DOJ with the City and formed the basis for extensive negotiations that resulted in the Agreement that has been placed before this Court.
Following its investigation, DOJ issued a report that concluded the Department had reasonable cause to believe that CDP and its officers had engaged in a pattern or practice of exercising excessive force in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States. DOJ’s investigative findings are contained in its December 4, 2014 Findings Letter, a copy of which is attached hereto for reference by the Court. While disputing the accuracy of the conclusions reached by DOJ in its Findings Letter, the City entered into negotiations with the Department to address the findings and concerns raised by the investigation. The fact that the City disputes the accuracy of these findings does not preclude entry of the Settlement Agreement as an order of the Court. See, e.g., United States v. Armour & Co., 42 U.S. 673, 682 (1971) ("Because the defendant has, by the decree, waived his right to litigate the issues raised...the conditions upon which he has given that waiver must be respected...."); Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79, 88 (1981) (The parties do not need to admit liability, because doing so "den[ies] the parties their right to compromise their dispute on mutually agreeable terms."); Cotton v. Hinton,
3 


Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3 Filed: 05/26/15 4 of 9. PageID #: 74
559 F.2d at 1326, 1330 ("It cannot be overemphasized that neither the trial court in approving the settlement nor this Court in reviewing that approval have the right or the duty to reach any ultimate conclusions on the issues of fact and law which underlie the merits of the dispute.").
The proposed Agreement before the Court is consistent with the public interest because it will better ensure that police services provided by CDP in Cleveland are delivered in a manner that is both constitutional and effective. Through the proposed Agreement, the City commits to develop and implement new policies, training, and practices throughout CDP in the areas of community engagement, use of force, crisis intervention, search and seizure, accountability and supervision, transparency and oversight, officer assistance and support, and policies.
The Agreement is appropriate in resolving the issues raised between the City and DOJ because voluntary compliance through a negotiated resolution and entry of a consent decree is more likely to accomplish agreed upon goals than will orders imposed at the end of bitter and protracted litigation. See, Akzo, 949 F.2d 1409, 1436 (presumption in favor of voluntary settlement). Indeed, the DOJ’s investigation and the Parties’ subsequent negotiations already have set in motion a process of reform measures within CDP. Throughout this process, the City, CDP leadership, and many CDP police officers have expressed a desire to improve the performance of CDP in its effort to interact with and protect the safety of the community. The proposed Agreement will assist both the City as a whole and CDP officers in achieving that goal.
The Agreement establishes the basis for undertaking reform efforts within CDP for the express purpose of better promoting effective community engagement, effective policy guidance, better training, and closer supervision. The Agreement will provide for broader officer support systems and will establish improved mechanisms to help ensure that accountability and investigations of any misconduct are both fair and constructive. Perhaps most important, the
4 


Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3 Filed: 05/26/15 5 of 9. PageID #: 75
Settlement Agreement seeks to address and substantively improve the relationship between CDP and the diverse communities being policed, ultimately thereby making the City of Cleveland a safer place to live and work. Settling this dispute without protracted litigation thus allows the City, DOJ, and CDP officers to implement the shared goal of agreed upon reforms within CDP without unnecessary delay.
B. The Settlement Agreement is fair, adequate and reasonable. DOJ’s investigation and the Parties’ subsequent negotiations and outreach efforts provide evidence that the negotiated Agreement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. For the past six months, the City of Cleveland and the Department of Justice have worked together to ensure that a negotiated Agreement could be achieved that addresses areas of concern raised by DOJ’s investigative findings. The Agreement includes provisions that have been extensively discussed and agreed upon in an effort to create sustained and comprehensive reforms. In drafting this Agreement, which takes into consideration and effectively reflects the thoughts and concerns of the community, the Parties solicited and received input from police officers, the various police unions, and community members and leaders, including representatives from the faith-based communities, mental health professionals, advocates for the homeless, representatives of the business and philanthropic communities, and civil rights organizations. The City and DOJ jointly organized and participated in town hall meetings. DOJ representatives attended community and organizational meetings that were convened following the investigation. Cleveland’s City Council solicited input from Cleveland residents by conducting “listening tours,” which DOJ also attended. DOJ and the City have accepted numerous comments and suggestions from many members of the community via a dedicated phone line, email address, and mail. The Parties received and considered during the course of
5 


Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3 Filed: 05/26/15 6 of 9. PageID #: 76
their negotiations at least 30 written suggested plans from all segments of the community. Guided by this input, the Parties negotiated in good faith and have reached agreement
upon reforms to existing policies, practices, procedures, training, oversight, and accountability structures of CDP that sufficiently address the concerns of the United States as expressed in the allegations of the Complaint. The proposed Agreement reflects broad input from many individuals representing a wide cross-section of Cleveland’s diverse residential and business communities, and includes input from police officers and supervisors, along with advocates for the mentally ill and homeless.
Further, the nature and extent of the good faith negotiations that were undertaken in arriving at this Settlement Agreement provide the Court with additional assurance that it is fair, adequate, and reasonable to remediate the violations alleged in the Complaint, despite the absence of ongoing litigation. While courts must approve consent decrees, they do not “inquire into the precise legal rights of the respective parties.” United States v. City of Jackson, Miss., 519 F.2d 1147, 1151 (5th Cir. 1975); Williams v. Vukovich, 720 F.2d, 909, 920 (6th Cir. 1983) (“A court has no occasion to resolve the merits of the disputed issues or the factual underpinnings of the various legal theories advanced by the parties.”). Instead, in determining that the Settlement Agreement is fair, adequate and reasonable, the Court may rely on the judgment of experienced counsel for the parties. U.S. v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, 591 F.3d 484, 489 (6th Cir. 2010).
Counsel for the Parties to this Settlement Agreement are experienced litigators who, for many months, engaged in a process of compromise in which “in exchange for the savings of cost and elimination of risk, the parties each give up something they might have won had they proceeded with litigation.” Armour & Co., 402 U.S. at 681. In reaching negotiated resolution,
6 


Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3 Filed: 05/26/15 7 of 9. PageID #: 77
both DOJ and the City took steps to guarantee that the concerns of all interested parties were considered in reaching this Agreement and the shared goal of ensuring constitutional policing by CDP.
Counsel for both Parties are intimately familiar with the practices of CDP and spent long hours negotiating the details of the Settlement Agreement. Both Parties consulted with subject matter experts and CDP leadership to ensure that each remedial measure in the Settlement Agreement is tailored to address effective and sustainable reforms that address the concerns raised by the Department of Justice’s investigation and that can be reasonably implemented and measured. Thus, the adversarial posture, combined with the respective duties of these government agencies towards those they represent, and the good faith, extensive negotiations between seasoned litigators, provides further assurance that the Settlement Agreement is fair, adequate, and reasonable, and may be relied upon by the Court in so finding. See LexingtonFayette, 591 F.3d at 489; see also, Akzo Coatings, 949 F.2d at 1436. IV. Conclusion
The City of Cleveland and the Department of Justice share the same interest in protecting the constitutional rights of members of the Cleveland community and have worked cooperatively over the course of six months to achieve this Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement resolves between these parties all issues identified in the Department of Justice’s investigation of the Cleveland Division of Police. Because the proposed Settlement Agreement is fair, adequate, and reasonable, and because it promotes the public interest and the purposes underlying Section 14141, the Parties jointly and respectfully move this Court to approve and enter the Settlement Agreement in its entirety as an Order of the Court.
7 


Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3 Filed: 05/26/15 8 of 9. PageID #: 78

Respectfully submitted, For Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

STEVEN M. DETTELBACH United States Attorney Northern District of Ohio
s/Carole S. Rendon____________________ By: CAROLE S. RENDON (0070345) First Assistant U.S. Attorney Northern District of Ohio MICHELLE HEYER (0065723) HEATHER TONSING VOLOSIN (0069606) Assistant U.S. Attorneys Northern District of Ohio 400 United States Court House 801 West Superior Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1852 Tel. (216) 622-3600 Email: Carole.Rendon@usdoj.gov Email: Michelle.Heyer@usdoj.gov Email: Heather.Tonsing.Volosin@usdoj.gov

VANITA GUPTA Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
s/Judy C. Preston______________________ By: JUDY C. PRESTON Acting Chief Special Litigation Section EMILY A. GUNSTON (CA 218035) Special Counsel RASHIDA OGLETREE T. JACK MORSE Trial Attorneys United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel. (202) 514-6255; Fax. (202) 514-4883 Email: Emily.Gunston@usdoj.gov Email: Rashida.Ogletree@usdoj.gov Email: Jack.Morse@usdoj.gov

8 


Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 3 Filed: 05/26/15 9 of 9. PageID #: 79
For Defendant CITY OF CLEVELAND: BARBARA A. LANGHENRY (0038838) Director of Law City of Cleveland s/Barbara A. Langhenry_____________ By: GARY S. SINGLETARY Chief Counsel JOSEPH F. SCOTT Chief Assistant Director of Law City of Cleveland 601 Lakeside Avenue, Room 106 Tel: (216)664-2800 Fax: (216)664-2663 Email: blanghenry@city.cleveland.oh.us Email: gsingletary@city.cleveland.oh.us Email: jscott@city.cleveland.oh.us
9 


 
 Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 1 of 70. PageID #: 1608

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
vs. CITY OF CLEVELAND
Defendant.

) CASE NO.: 1:15-CV-01046 ) ) ) JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER, JR. ) ) ) NOTICE SUBMITTING MONITORING ) TEAM’S SECOND SEMIANNUAL ) REPORT

The Cleveland Police Monitoring Team submits its Second Semiannual Report.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Matthew Barge MATTHEW BARGE Monitor 234 5th Avenue, Suite 314 New York, New York 10001 Tel: (202) 257-5111 Email: matthewbarge@parc.info

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 2 of 70. PageID #: 1609

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team

Second Semiannual Report
January 2017

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 3 of 70. PageID #: 1610
2

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 4 of 70. PageID #: 1611

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Second Semiannual Report

Executive Summary

5

A Note From the Monitor

11

The Role of the Monitor & This Report

15

Community Engagement & Building Trust

18

Community & Problem-Oriented Policing

21

Bias-Free Policing

25

Use of Force

26

Crisis Intervention

36

Search & Seizure

41

Accountability

42

Transparency & Oversight

52

Officer Assistance & Support

54

Supervision

62

Compliance & Outcome Assessments

65

3

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 5 of 70. PageID #: 1612
Report Photo Credits: CPD; City of Cleveland; Alvin Smith 4

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 6 of 70. PageID #: 1613

strides have also been made in the form of new operational manuals for the Office of Professional Standards (“OPS”) and Police Review Board (“PRB”) aimed at ensuring that investigations and review of resident complaints about the police are fair, thorough, objective, and timely.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

At the same time, the City will need to meet significant challenges in the coming months on a host of other areas. Although it will likely benefit now, for the first time, from codified, express operational rules, OPS continues to suffer from a staggering backlog of uncompleted investigations. PRB, in turn, will need to fairly and systematically review those cases when they are complete even as they adjust to vastly different processes and procedures. The City will need to craft a strategic, comprehensive Equipment and Resource Plan that provides the men and women of CPD with the basic equipment and technology necessary for them to do their jobs and outlines a path to ensuring that the Division never again lacks for resources.
Notable Areas of Progress to Date

1. Use of Force Policies

Under the terms of the Consent Decree between the United States and the City of Cleveland (the “City”) (collectively, the “Parties”) involving the Cleveland Division of Police (“CPD,” “CDP,” the “Division of Police,” or the “Division”), the Cleveland Police Monitoring Team must “assess and report whether the requirements” of the Consent Decree “have been implemented,

At a status conference on January 6, 2017, the Court indicated that it would approve new use of force policies for CPD. The completion and recent approval policies on when officers may and may not use force on the streets of Cleveland represent a critical milestone in the Division’s progress under the Consent Decree and are a major step forward.

and whether this implementation is resulting in constitutional

and effective policing, professional treatment of individuals, and

Those policies were the result and culmination of a comprehen-

increased community trust . . . . ”1 This is the Monitoring Team’s

sive and inclusive engagement process – one in which the com-

second summary of the City’s progress to date in complying

munity was invited to be involved in the policy revision process

with the Consent Decree.2

both early on, to help set the agenda

The City of Cleveland has reached several and frame issues that needed to be

To date, the City of Cleveland has critical mielstones in the Consent Decree process addressed in new policies, and later

reached several critical milestones in – including new use of force policies, forthcoming in the process, when CPD and the

the Consent Decree process. Over crisis intervention policies, and new manuals for Consent Decree Parties believed

the past several months, the reform complaint investigation and review.

that the revised policies were sub-

process focused significantly on

stantially far enough along to make

guidelines and “rules of the road” for police officers with respect

community feedback valuable and

to use of force and interacting with individuals experiencing a

necessary. This included engagement by the Community Police

behavioral crisis. The recently approved, new use of force pol-

Commission (“CPC”) of Cleveland residents and by the CPD of

icies for CPD and the imminent crisis intervention policies will

rank-and-file officers and the police officer unions and organiza-

help to ensure, once officers are trained and the policies become

tions.

effective, that it can be a new day in Cleveland with respect to force and the response of law enforcement and social providers to individuals experiencing behavioral health crises. Significant
1 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 350.
2 Id. ¶ 375 (requiring semiannual reports). The Updated First-Year Monitoring Plan, approved by the Court and the Parties, adjusted the date of filing this report, as well as the City’s next semiannual status report, from December 2016 to January 2017. Dkt. 80-1 at 22. The Monitoring Team used one day of a deadline extension, id. at 3, with the consent of the Parties so that the public discussion period could commence on January 11, 2016.

In making the proposed force policies public well before they were completed, formally reviewed by the Monitor, or circulated to the Court for approval, the Cleveland community had an opportunity to be more involved in the substantive drafting of use of force policies than – at least to this Monitoring Team’s knowledge – any other community has, to date, in other Consent Decree contexts. After a number of important changes were made to respond to community feedback on the final proposed policies, the new-approved policies were finalized and submitted to the Court in November 2016.

5

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 7 of 70. PageID #: 1614

The primary, “General” use of force policy outlines, in greater

2. Crisis Intervention Policies

clarity than CPD’s prior policies, that officers may use force only

when it is it is (1) necessary, (2) proportional, and (3) objectively

The City of Cleveland will likely reach another critical milestone

reasonable, and that officers (4) use strategic de-escalation tac-

in the coming days when new crisis intervention policies are sub-

tics and strategies when it is safe and feasible to do so. Although

mitted to the Court for review and approval. The development

no law, court, or policy can prescribe specific rules that can apply

of these new policies, processes, and approaches for officers in-

to every conceivable circumstance involving all possible police

teracting with individuals experiencing behavioral health crises

encounters under any possible permutation of circumstances,

(including mental health, substance abuse, or other long-term

the policy contains a specific list of actions in which, “[c]onsis-

behavioral health challenges) has been the product of superior

tent with the principles of necessity, proportionality, objective

work and collaboration by the police, social service providers,

reasonableness, and de-escalation, Officers shall not” engage.3

mental health and substance abuse professionals, advocates, and

Those include, for instance, using force against subjects “who

individuals in recovery who have met and had candid discussions

only verbally confront officers,” applying force to those “who

on improving services for those in crisis as part of Cleveland’s

are handcuffed or otherwise restrained” except in very limited

Mental Health Advisory Board (“MHRAC” or the “Board”).

circumstances, using “neck holds,” and using “head strikes with

hard objects. Under the new policy, officers now have a duty

In creating new crisis intervention policies, MHRAC members

to intervene and “tak[e] all reasonable actions to stop any use

reviewed over 23 separate Crisis Intervention Policies from CIT

of force” not authorized under CPD policy and a duty to render

programs throughout the country. Members highlighted fea-

medical aid.4 A separate policy provides instructions to officers

tures of each policy and then worked with CPD to select the best

on using intermediate weapons, sometimes called less-lethal

elements and modify, where appropriate, these policy elements

tools, such as the Taser and OC Spray to gain control of a subject

to best suit the unique challenges and features of the Cleveland

posing a threat without needed to use more significant or deadly

community. As MHRAC and its policy subcommittee explored

force.

what approaches would work best for Cleveland, a dynamic

and highly cooperative relationship

Importantly, in addition to de-escalation being a core use of force principle, CPD now has a separate, standalone De-escalation policy. The Division’s stated intent is to clarify that officers understand that “the guidelines relative to de-esca-

CPD’s proposed crisis intervention policies present a new, comprehensive strategy for responding to individuals in behavioral crisis – and have been the product of superior work and collaboration by the police with social service providers and experts from across Cleveland.

emerged among advocates, healthcare professionals, and CPD.
Consequently, CPD’s proposed crisis intervention policies present a new, comprehensive strategy for responding to individuals in behavioral crisis.

lating situations in order to gain vol-

Among other key features, the policy

untary compliance and reduce the need to use force” apply to all

ensures that the Division coordinates with community resourc-

encounters, regardless of whether force is ultimately required to

es to assist those in need. It focuses on safety for both the officer

resolve the situation or not.5

and individual in crisis and on diverting individuals experiencing

a crisis into treatment whenever possible. It emphasizes that all

The approved, new use of force policies for CPD will only be-

officers use de-escalation strategies with respect to individuals

come effective once the men and women of the Division receive

in crisis and, in that way, positively reinforces CPD’s use of force

significant, substantive training on the policy’s provisions. The

policy. It provides mechanisms to ensure that all CPD officers

Division’s upcoming, 16-hour training for all officers on the new

have basic information about behavioral crisis but that a cadre of

use of force policies will, it is hoped, serve as a strong founda-

specialized, highly-trained officers be available and dispatched to

tion for officers to learn about new obligations under the poli-

incidents in which an individual experiencing a crisis is involved.

cy and practice skills related to responding to subjects and po-

tential threats in dynamic, scenario-based environments. It is

In the coming months, an introductory, eight-hour training for

currently contemplated that use of force training may be able to

all CPD officers on the new crisis intervention policy, as well

begin sometime in February 2016. Even if several weeks more

as content on mental health signs and symptoms and commu-

are required beyond that date to finalize training, train CPD’s

nication and active listening, will commence. Upcoming years

instructional staff to give the training to officers on a round-the-

of training will focus on issues including engaging and resolving

clock basis, or commence the training of officers, the Monitoring

conflict, addressing a crisis involving a loss of reality, and assist-

Team is satisfied that the Division is committed to completing

ing individuals at risk for suicide. This training is being devel-

a high-quality training that incorporates the good practices of

oped in the context of the MHRAC by a joint task force of CPD

peer departments and uses adult educational principles.

training instructors and subject matter experts.

3 Dkt. 83 at 17. 4 Id. at 20. 5 Id. at 24; see also Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 36.

CPD has taken a leadership role and remained active in every phase of the MHRAC, and the ADAMHS Board of Cuyahoga

6

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 8 of 70. PageID #: 1615

County has committed significant staff support. The MHRAC’s professionals and advocates on the Board have devoted significant time to addressing a wide range of issues, serving without financial compensation. MHRAC members have brought a great deal of civic pride to an important effort for the Cleveland community. They are forming a true community partnership in order to meet the needs of individuals experiencing a behavior crisis and provide CPD officers with the training, tools, resources, and support that they need to respond effectively and safely to individuals experiencing behavioral crises.

Cases were adjudicated as “sustained” and “unfounded” without specific reference to particular CPD policies. It was immediately apparent to the Monitoring Team that the Board had been carrying out their duties absent a set of established protocols to guide their decision making – even though the 1984 City Charter amendment creating the PRB provided that the Board “shall make rules providing for the procedure of the Board and for the review of complaints filed with it,” to be approved by the Public Safety Director and made effective “fifteen days after their publication in the City Record.”6

3.

OPS and PRB Manuals

Accordingly, the Monitoring Team, in concert with the Parties,

spent several months working with PRB on drafting an Opera-

Since the First Semiannual Report in June 2016, a great deal of

tions Manual (the “PRB Manual”) to guide its deliberative pro-

work has focused on the development of new operational man-

cess. Designed for a broad-based constituency who may seek to

uals governing the operations of the Office of Professional Stan-

better understand how the PRB conducts business, this Manual

dards (“OPS”), which investigates civilian complaints about the

provides a step by step process that directs the movement of

police, and the Police Review Board (“PRB”), which reviews those investigations and makes adjudication and discipline recommendations to the Chief about them. For reasons that are not entirely clear to the

A great deal of work has focused on the development of operational manuals governing the operations of the Office of Professional Standards and the Police Review Board, which have never before been in place.

investigative files from OPS to PRB, how those cases are assigned for PRB member review, the structure and agenda for PRB meetings, the means by which investigations are reviewed and discussed in a public forum, the

Monitoring Team, neither entity –

deliberative process which results in

despite their long history – had ever operated according to clear,

the board’s decisions and recommendations pertaining to each

express, and codified operational rules or expectations.

case presented, and a public announcement of their findings and

recommendation for further consideration and action by the

With respect to OPS, the Parties and Monitoring Team worked

Chief of Police and Director of Public Safety.

hard, prior to the Republican National Convention in Cleveland

in July 2016, to develop and finalize a Provisional Manual. The

The Monitoring Team will provide ongoing technical assistance

goal, articulated in late May, was to establish a working set of

to both OPS and PRB as they endeavor to implement the host

guidelines and processes to guide the reception of civilian com-

of new policies, processes, and provisions required by their new

plaints in a systematic and thorough manner before the Conven-

manuals.

tion was held. The Provisional Manual has been effective since

July 15, 2016.

Notable Challenges to Date

Subsequently, a more comprehensive, permanent Operations Manual was developed. This Manual, submitted to the Court in November 2016, reflects the organizational mission and values of OPS, clearly defines its organizational structure and detailed job functions, identifies and describes with clarity those matters in which the office has investigative authority, and provides a thorough, comprehensive, and rigorous step-by-step review of how complaints of misconduct are accepted, assessed, documented, tracked, investigated, periodically reviewed, concluded, and ultimately forwarded to the Police Review Board for review and adjudication. The OPS Manual covers a significant amount of ground, creating clear rules of the road for OPS personnel, community members, and CPD personnel alike to understand with respect to how matters are thoroughly and timely investigated.
The situation was much the same with the PRB. Even when PRB has addressed cases, it was not clear precisely how the Board or its members were making decisions – what standards it was applying, how it was considering and weighing evidence, and precisely what its various recommendations as to findings meant.

1. OPS and PRB
As of November 21, 2016, OPS had a backlog of 439 uncompleted investigations. More than four out of every five (81 percent) of investigations of complaints received in 2016 are unresolved. More than two out of three (68 percent) of investigations of complaints received in 2015 are likewise unfinished. Some cases still stretch from complaints made in 2014. At this point, the Monitoring Team struggles for language sufficiently strong to communicate how unacceptable and appalling the state of OPS as an entity is.
Currently, the City, Monitoring Team, and OPS are engaged in discussions regarding a plan to eliminate the backlog of uninvestigated, incomplete, or unresolved complaint investigations. The Monitoring Team has asked for such a plan since at least the Spring of 2016. It has been provided with a series of cursory and highly minimalistic documents, purported to be plans for eliminating the backlog, that did little more than summarize
6 Charter of the City of Cleveland, § 115-3.
7

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 9 of 70. PageID #: 1616

the nature of the problem or, in one instance, propose that OPS

will allow it to satisfy the requirements of this Agreement.”9

eliminate its backlog by summarily pushing a significant number

That Plan needed to outline specific strategies for ensuring ad-

of incomplete cases on to CPD’s chain of command to resolve,

equate levels of specific, core technologies;10 address how the

likely without formal discipline. Accordingly, all efforts to date

Division will “satisfy the requirements of this Agreement,” in-

by OPS to outline mechanisms for addressing the backlog have

cluding the Decree’s many other substantive requirements;11 and

been patently insufficient in all respects and, in form and con-

“ensure that CDP” both “properly maintains and seeks to con-

tent, not serious proposals.

tinuously improve upon existing equipment and technology”

and “is appropriately identifying equipment needs and seeking

The Monitoring Team declined to either approve or disapprove of the full OPS budget for 2017 – instead providing only short-term, provisional approval of the budget for the first quarter of the year.7 The reason

The implementation of a detailed, comprehensive, and sophisticated Equipment and Resource Plan is a significant opportunity to ensure that the men and women of the Division never again lack what they need to do their jobs.

to utilize, as appropriate, emerging technologies.”12
The City submitted its final Equipment and Resource Plan, as required by the First-Year Monitoring Plan, on

for this short-term and provisional

November 25, 2016.13 After closely re-

approval is that the OPS budget relies substantially on “com-

viewing the submitted Plan, the Monitoring Team, in turn, filed

pensation for four temporary Investigators” who “are slated to

a motion with the Court indicating that – because it did not spe-

provide support to permanent investigators in completing those

cifically, strategically, and comprehensively provide CPD officers

investigations that remain open.8 However, it is almost certain

with the tools they need to do their jobs – the Monitor could not

to be the case that OPS will need to hire additional, full-time

approve the Plan. The Monitor outlined a number of deficien-

investigators to ensure that its personnel have reasonable and

cies in the proposed Plan. Some related to fundamental project

manageable caseloads – and that the officer can handle the typi-

management, strategic, and planning failures. Others related to

cal level of civilian complaints that it receives.

the City’s inability to adequately address specific technological

and resource requirements of the Consent Decree.

Of course, for staffing issues to be definitively addressed, current

investigators will need to adopt the extensive rules, practices,

At a status conference on January 6, 2017, the Court instructed

and procedures codified in the OPS Manual and to abide by those

the City to continue to work with the Department of Justice and

rules for an extended period before stakeholders can fully under-

Monitor on a more detailed and comprehensive Equipment and

stand what an investigator’s typical workload is. Even pending

Resource Plan. For too long, the men and women of the Division

approval of the OPS Manual by the Court, the Monitoring Team

have not received the equipment, resources, technology, and in-

will be working closely with OPS and its personnel – providing

frastructure support required to deliver the type and level of po-

day-to-day technical assistance on how to transform the exten-

lice services that the Cleveland community requires and values.14

sive Manual from paper into practice.

Lacking true computer-aided dispatch, field reporting, sufficient

in-car computers, and an adequate number of well-functioning

Similarly, the previous lack of clear processes and procedures

patrol cars, CPD is several decades behind where it should be.15

has allowed PRB to also fall behind on the timely review and

The implementation of a detailed, comprehensive, and sophisti-

deliberation of cases – failing in its core duty and service to the

cated Equipment and Resource Plan is a significant opportunity

City of Cleveland. Although there is, of course, no question that

to permanently fix that – and to ensure that the men and women

the backlog of uncompleted cases in OPS has a direct correlation

of the Division never again lack what they need to do their jobs.

to the Board’s ability to promptly receive and adjudicated cases,

as PRB cannot conduct a timely review if OPS has not provided

3. Community Confidence & Trust

them with a timely investigation, PRB will need to remedy sig-

nificant deficiencies going forward to adhere to the Manual and

In late June 2016, the Monitoring Team filed the results of the

comply with the Consent Decree. In the past, the process that

first, Consent-Decree-required scientific community survey to

PRB had used to deliberate on cases previously was improvisa-

gauge public perceptions of safety and policing with the Court.16

tional at best, unfair at worst, and in need of substantial rigor and

Overall, the survey found that Cleveland residents are skeptical

precision, regardless.

about police conduct and accountability.

2. Equipment, Technology, and Resources
The Consent Decree and First-Year Monitoring Plan required that the City “develop an effective, comprehensive Equipment and Resource Plan that is consistent with its mission and that
7 Dkt. 87 at 2–3. 8 Id. at 2.

9 Id. 10 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 293. 11 Id. ¶ 292. 12 Id. ¶ 328. 13 Dkt. 80-1 at 19. 14 Dkt. 93 at 2. 15 Id at 3. 16 Dkt. 71.

8

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 10 of 70. PageID #: 1617

CPD – and a new, shared vision for policing in Cleveland – is

Generally, “[j]ust over half of all residents surveyed (55%) believe

also necessary from the perspective of ensuring greater safety

the Cleveland Division of Police is doing a ‘good’ or ‘excellent’

on the streets of Cleveland. Community confidence and trust,

job overall.”17 Only 50 percent of residents believe police officers

by making residents more willing to participate and cooperate

follow the law “all of the time” or “most of the time.”18 “Just un-

with police, tends to reduce both crime and the fear of crime.25

der half (48%) believe officers treat people with respect or use the

Accordingly, the Consent Decree is far more than an adminis-

appropriate amount of force (47%) in most situations.”19 A ma-

trative, bureaucratic, or accountability-focused document. It is

jority of residents (55 percent) believe officers are held account-

squarely a crime-fighting document that will assist substantially

able “only some of the time” or “almost never” for misconduct

in the ability of CPD officers to perform its core law enforcement

when it occurs.20 Just “one-third of residents think the police

functions.

have taken the time to meet members of their community (33%)

or have developed relationships with people like them (37%).”21

Although there remains skepticism in some quarters of the City

and CPD about the utility of resident involvement in the suppos-

There are significant racial disparities with respect to approval

edly technical details of police policy and procedure, the Moni-

of and views about CPD. While “[n]early three-fourths of white

toring Team is optimistic that the opportunities for broad and

residents surveyed (72%) believe the

sustained community involvement

Cleveland Police are doing a good or excellent job overall,” only “43% of black residents” believe the same.22 Indeed, “Black and Latino residents . . . gave the Cleveland Police lower ratings across a number of specific measures” – with “more than two-thirds

Overall, the Monitoring Team’s survey of the Cleveland community demonstrated a disconnect between the Division and the communities that it serves – with a critical number of individuals believing that law enforcement is not responsive to their views, concerns, or experiences.

in the drafting of core policies relating to use of force and to crisis intervention can serve as a foundation for the Division’s, and the City’s, future efforts to increase transparency, access, and accountability. It is likewise optimistic that the remarkable dedi-

of black residents (69%) believ[ing]

cation and superior work of Cleve-

that . . . officers are held accountable ‘some of the time’ or ‘almost

land’s Community Police Commission will increasingly serve as

never’” for misconduct.23 White residents are comparatively

a bridge between the Division and the diverse communities that

more likely than Latino and black residents to “ask the police for

it serves.

help” or “report a crime” to CPD,24 which may have significant

effects on crime within some Cleveland communities.

Areas of Focus in the Next Six Months

Whether policing in Cleveland is effective, safe, and consistent with the values of the community cannot be definitively established by a survey. The protections of the U.S. Constitution are not poll-driven concepts. Consequently, the results from the Monitor’s initial community survey do not definitively establish, one way or another, whether CPD is or is not engaged in constitutional policing and whether the Division has or has not complied with any relevant part of the Consent Decree.
However, the surveys demonstrate a disconnect between the Cleveland Division of Police and the communities that it serves, with a critical number of individuals believing that local law enforcement officials are not as responsive to their views, concerns, or experiences – and that, at times, the burdens of law enforcement are not equally shared.
A renewed trust among the community with respect to the
17 Dkt. 71-1 at 3. 18 Id. at 3. 19 Id. 20 Id. at 3. 21 Id. at 4. 22 Id. at 3. 23 Id. at 4. 24 Id. at 5.

In the coming months, the attention of Consent Decree stakeholders26 will be turning toward new policies, manuals, and processes for the Division of Police’s internal investigations and administrative reviews – including use of force investigations and officer misconduct investigations. This will also begin to include focus on the discipline system. Meanwhile, Cleveland residents will have opportunities to shape the scope, focus, and content
25 See generally Robert J. Sampson, et al, “Neighborhoods and Violent Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy,” 277 Science 918 (1997) (detailing link between community policing and crime and fear of crime); Gary W. Cordner, “Community Policing: Elements and Effects,” 5 Police Forum 1 (1995) (same); Michael D. Reisig & Roger B. Parks, “Can Community Policing Help the Truly Disadvantaged?,” 50 Crime & Delinquency 139 (2004) (same); Dan Fleissner & Fred Heinzelmann, National Institute of Justice, “Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design and Community Policing” (Aug. 1996) (same); A. Steven Dietz, “Evaluating Community Policing: Quality Police Service and Fear of Crime,” 20 Policing 83 (1997) (same).
26 The term “Consent Decree stakeholders” is sometimes used in this report to refer to a broad-based group of individuals and entities with an interest in reform under the Consent Decree, including but not limited to the Parties, CPD, the Community Police Commission, the police officer unions and organizations, rankand-file Division personnel, community organizations and groups, and Cleveland residents.

9

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 11 of 70. PageID #: 1618
of the Division’s Community and Problem-Oriented Policing Plan, bias-free policing policy, and search and seizure protocols. The Parties and Monitoring Team will be working on the Second-Year Monitoring Plan, which will address these issues and cover the period of February 2017 through January 2018, in the coming weeks. About the Remainder of the Report As with the First Semiannual Report, the remainder of “this report addresses all substantive provisions of the Consent Decree and summarizes CPD’s progress to date in complying with them.”27 “[T]he report is structured around the major sections and sub-sections of the Decree rather than inventorying progress in each and every provision,” paragraph, “and sub-requirement.”28 It “describe[s] the progress made to date, challenges outstanding, and future expectations with respect to CPD and the City’s compliance with the Decree.”29 27 First Semiannual Report at 9. 28 Id. 29 Id.
10

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 12 of 70. PageID #: 1619
A NOTE FROM THE MONITOR
Although I spend a good deal of time in Cleveland, I reside in New York City. When the weather and schedule cooperates, running along the City’s West Side Highway, which itself runs along the Hudson River, provides one of the area’s better outdoor opportunities. From this vantage, one can often see the air traffic taking off and landing at New York’s three major airports (LaGuardia, John F. Kennedy, and Newark), as well as a host of smaller, regional airports (Westchester County, Teeterboro, and others). Those large airports are located within an approximately 35-mile radius. As of 2015, “[o] ver 3,000 commercial flights pass through New York City airports every single day.”30 Consequently, “[a]ir traffic operations in and around the New York metropolitan area are notoriously complex.”31 “Each [a]irport has varying arrival and departure rates which are usually determined by weather conditions.”32 Because the configurations of take-off and landing patterns obviously cannot conflict, the air traffic volume, weather, other airspace restrictions, and the “[c]lose proximity of numerous airports” make air traffic management a continually challenging enterprise.33 Consequently, there are rules, processes, systems, and approaches in place to ensure that everyone involved in aviation can operate within clear expectations and parameters – even in the face of unexpected or unpredictable events. When the weather changes, for 30 Graham Rapier, “This Is Why New York City Can Be a Nightmare for Air Travelers,” Business Insider (Aug. 5, 2015). 31 Paul U. Lee & Nancy M. Smith, “Reducing Departure Delays at LaGuardia Airport with Departure-Sensitive Arrival Spacing (DSAS) Operations,” Proceedings of the Eleventh USA/ Europe Air Traffic Management Research and Development Seminar (2015), available at https://human-factors.arc.nasa.gov/publications/Lee_2015_ATM%20DSAS.pdf. 32 NBAA, “New York City Area Airspace Overview” (2011), available at https://www.nbaa. org/events/amc/2011/news/presentations/1011-Tue/NBAA2011-NY-Airspace-Review. pdf. 33 Id.
11

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 13 of 70. PageID #: 1620
instance, stakeholders know how traffic patterns are changed. Various individual actors – from pilots and air traffic controllers to airline operations management and airport operators – do not need to independently determine the process for addressing the situation. Although those actors still need to exercise discretion to know what processes or scenarios might apply and need to make informed judgment calls – with even the best systems and procedures subject to human error34 – the systems in place for managing flight traffic are aimed at ensuring the safest and most efficient air travel possible without forcing individuals to continually make something up or reinvent the wheel.
Certainly, the work in which police officers are engaged on a day-to-day, shift-to-shift basis can require them to respond to “circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving” – involving individuals, environments, and specific factors that they have never previously encountered.35 No law, court, or policy can prescribe specific rules that would apply to every conceivable circumstance involving all possible subjects of police encounters under any possible permutation of circumstances.36
Given “the unpredictability and potential severity of the threats”37 that officers may face, a host of police policies, procedures, and training must give officers pragmatic and clear guidelines that they can apply to a limitless set of situations and encounters on the streets of our communities. To date, the Consent Decree process has focused significantly on guidelines and “rules of the road” for police officers with respect to use of force and interacting with individuals experiencing a behavioral crisis.
Although a city and a police department cannot control what situations officers may face, it can control what tools and training officers receive to do their jobs, how well the careers of its police professionals are supervised and developed, how it evaluates and analyzes officer performance, and the types of service that it delivers to the community. Simply, where a department may have to deal with unpredictability at times on the street, it can at least establish uniform structures, processes, rules, and regulations that are predictable, fair, and aimed at ensuring policing consistent with its mission, community values, and the Constitution.
To this end, the Consent Decree process has addressed administrative and internal processes – including those of the Office of Professional Standards (“OPS”), Police Review Board (“PRB”). As the term of the First-Year Monitoring Plan winds down, the Monitoring Team, Department of Justice, City of Cleveland, Division of Police, Community Police Commission, and others are well underway in addressing others – including the uniform reporting, investigation, and review of use of force and the Division of Police’s Internal Affairs investigations.
The implementation of these new processes, procedures, policies, systems, and approaches necessarily entails some significant abandonment of the status quo. Although the Monitoring Team is aware of the uncertainty and discomfort that can go along with change, the Consent Decree requires that the City of Cleveland and Division of Police reset and renew the way that it does business, supports its officers, and serves the Cleveland community. The most important change may be the transformation of the Division from
34 See Jim Hoffer, “Investigators: Alarming Increase in Runway Incursions at NY Area Airports,” ABC7.com (Feb. 24, 2015). 35 Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397 (1989). 36 Linda S. Miller, et al, Community Policing: Partnerships for Problem Solving 46 (11th ed. 2011) (“Police use discretion because no set of policies and procedures can prescribe what to do in every circumstance.”). 37 Eugene A Paoline et al, “Police Culture, Individualism, and Community Policing: Evidence from Two Police Departments,” 17 Justice Quarterly 575, 581 n. 2 (2000).
12

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 14 of 70. PageID #: 1621
an organization that too often operates by custom, unwritten understanding, and undefined policy to a transparent, accountable organization that clearly and fairly articulates expectations to all of its employees – and to the wider public.
Although a great deal of progress has been made – with critical milestones related to policies on use of force, crisis intervention, and civilian oversight reached – an enormous amount of work remains for the City of Cleveland to be considered in substantial and effective compliance with the Consent Decree.
Mindful of the scope of work that remains, the Monitoring Team has added, with the agreement of the Parties, further subject matter expertise since the First Semiannual Report in June 2016. Chief Hassan Aden (ret.) is the former Chief of Police of the Greenville Police Department in Greenville, North Carolina. Until late 2015, he was the Director of the Research and Programs Directorate of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), where he directly oversaw the day-to-day management of operational programs and research projects aimed at advancing professional police services. He worked for 26 years at the Alexandria Police Department in Alexandria, Virginia, rising to the rank of Deputy Chief. Chief Aden is leading, along with Chief Tim Longo (ret.), the Monitoring Team’s efforts related to force investigations and internal affairs.
Richard Rosenthal was, until September 2016, the Chief Civilian Director of the Independent Investigations Office of British Columbia – an office that he was hired to establish in January 2012. He previously served as the Independent Police Monitor for the City and County of Denver, Colorado and as the Director of the Independent Police Review Division in Portland, Oregon. Mr. Rosenthal began his legal career as a Deputy District Attorney in the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, where he was credited with uncovering, pursuing, and initiating reform of the LAPD in the wake of the “Rampart Scandal.” Mr. Rosenthal, who has published and spoken extensively on civilian oversight and police monitoring, has been spending significant amounts of time with OPS and PRB as it attempts to alleviate its large backlog of incomplete or unreviewed cases and implement its new, Consent-Decree-required operational manuals.
Finally, the Monitoring Team continues to benefit significantly from its relationship with the NYU School of Law Policing Project. In addition to Director Barry Friedman and Deputy Director Maria Ponomarenko’s ongoing involvement and assistance, Fellow Nonny Onyekweli and Consultant Rosemary Nidiry have been working closely with the Monitoring Team in Cleveland. Ms. Onyekweli is a 2016 graduate from NYU Law, with experience at the law firms of McDermott Will & Emery and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. Ms. Nidiry, most recently a Director of Criminal Justice at the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, worked for many years as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, where she investigated and prosecuted a wide range of federal and criminal matters.
The Team continues to spend significant amounts of time on the ground in Cleveland – meeting with Consent Decree stakeholders and engaging with Cleveland’s diverse communities, including the men and women of the Division of Police. The Team has provided significant technical assistance, working side by side with CPD and the City to ensure that final policies, manuals, plans, and other deliverables are consistent with the Consent Decree.
In conducting that work, the Monitoring Team has continued to benefit from a good working relationship with CPD – including (but by no means limited to) Chief Calvin Williams, Deputy Chief Joellen O’Neill, Commander Brian Heffernan38, Captain Robert Simon, and
38 The Monitoring Team notes here that Commander Heffernan’s last day, after a 31-year career of public service with CPD, is this Friday, July 13. Since the beginning of our monitoring,
13

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 15 of 70. PageID #: 1622
Commander Daniel Fay. Mayor Frank Jackson, Judge Greg White (ret.), Director of Law Barbara Langhenry and her Chief Counsel Gary Singletary, and Blaine Griffin of the City continue to meaningfully partner with the Monitor and the Consent Decree process to achieve notable milestones. Local Department of Justice, under the leadership of Carole Rendon, and Washington, D.C.-based representatives continue to be involved in ensuring that Cleveland’s officers and residents realize the benefits and promise of the Consent Decree. Steve Loomis, Brian Betley, Lynn Hampton, and Cesar Herrera have continued to engage with Consent Decree stakeholders and the reform process.
In particular, the Team appreciates the continued dedication of the volunteer commissioners serving on the Community Police Commission, the civilian staff of OPS, and the civilian members of the PRB – who all play critical and ongoing roles in ensuring that the Cleveland community and its police department have an active, mutually reinforcing partnership. In the Consent Decree, the City of Cleveland and United States agreed that “[o]ngoing community input into the development of reforms, the establishment of police priorities, and mechanisms to promote community confidence in CDP will strengthen CDP and the police-community relationship that is necessary to promote public safety.”39 Although there remains skepticism in some quarters of the City and CPD about the utility of resident involvement in the supposedly technical details of police policy and procedure, the Monitoring Team remains committed to ensuring that, long after the Consent Decree, residents will have a direct and substantive say in how their police department conducts the business of keeping their communities safe.
We also thank the men and women of the Cleveland Division of Police. In our meetings, ride-alongs, and candid conversations with police officers of all ranks, we have been impressed by the level of commitment and passion that they exhibit on a daily basis. As numerous members of the Monitoring Team know first-hand from their decades of experience wearing the uniform, police officers are the ones who are called upon to address individuals and solve problems when the rest of the social service and community framework has broken down. As this report elsewhere makes clear, for too long, Cleveland’s officers have not received the equipment, resources, technology, training, high-quality supervision, professional development, and basic administrative fairness to which they are – without qualification or deviation – entitled as professionals and public servants. It is the Monitoring Team’s hope that CPD officers will soon begin to see and feel the effects of the Consent Decree’s attention to the support of the Division’s personnel.
As these and other issues are addressed during the implementation of Consent Decree reforms in subsequent periods, the Monitoring Team will stand at the ready to report to this Court, the Cleveland community, and CPD personnel on the status of the City’s compliance with the Consent Decree.
Matthew Barge Monitor
January 10, 2016
Commander Heffernan has headed up a great deal of CPD’s day-to-day compliance efforts. A large portion of the progress that the Division has made, to date, on the nuts and bolts of the Consent Decree can be attributed to his focus, commitment, and genuine willingness to embrace new approaches and ways of doing business for the Division. The Monitoring Team will greatly miss his involvement on this project and congratulate him on his retirement. 39 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 14.
14

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 16 of 70. PageID #: 1623

THE ROLE OF THE MONITOR & THIS REPORT
A. Overview of the Monitoring Team’s Work Over the Past Six Months
The Monitor’s First Semiannual Report introduced and summarized the role of the Monitor in the Consent Decree process:
The agreement between the United States and City of Cleveland (the “Parties”) involving various reforms to the Cleveland Division of Police (“CPD,” “CDP,” “Division of Police,” or the “Division”) takes the form of a consent decree. The Consent Decree (also referred to as the “Decree”) binds not only the Division of Police but the entire City of Cleveland including all City departments, the City Council, and the Mayor’s Office. Although a vast majority of the specific requirements most directly implicate CPD, the City as a whole remains the entity that must ensure compliance with the Decree’s requirements . . . .
The Monitor and Monitoring Team are “agent[s] of the Court” who are “subject to the supervision and orders of the Court.” Accordingly, the Monitor is not an employee, contractor, or any other type of agent of the City of Cleveland. Likewise, the Monitor is not an employee, contractor, or any other type of agent of the Department of Justice. Instead, the Monitor is an independent actor, working on behalf of the Court, to oversee, monitor, and assess implementation of the Consent Decree. The Monitor works for the Court – not the City and not DOJ.

In short, the Monitoring Team serves as the eyes and ears of the Court, with “a legal duty to act solely in [the Court’s] interests.” Significantly, this arrangement – with a Court and a Monitor overseeing implementation of reforms until they are substantially and effectively implemented – is different from Cleveland’s prior experiences with police reform.40
During the past six-month reporting period, the Monitoring Team has continued to “play[] many different roles.”41 First, the Monitoring Team has served as an arbiter, “assess[ing] and report[ing]” as to “whether the requirements of this Agreement have been implemented, and whether this implementation is resulting in constitutional and effective policing, professional treatment of individuals, and increased community trust of CDP.”42 During the past six months, the Monitoring Team has worked closely with Consent Decree stakeholders on a host of policies, manuals, and processes – including those related to officer use of force, crisis intervention, OPS, PRB, body-worn cameras, equipment and resources, and officer training.
“A second role” of the Monitoring Team “is that of technical advisor.”43 The Monitoring Team now includes 23 members who are committed to “provid[ing] information about best practices, discuss[ing] what has worked and not worked well in other cities to address similar issues, and mak[ing] expectations clear from the beginning.”44 As this report elsewhere makes clear, the Monitoring Team has provided sustained and significant technical assistance over past six months on the Division’s use of force policies, crisis intervention policies and program, use of force training, resident complaint investigations, technology, equipment, resources, information technology governance, data collection, and supervision.
The Monitoring Team also continues to function as a “facilitator” – “ensur[ing] that all stakeholders, from within the Division and across the Cleveland community, are heard and can participate in the Consent Decree process.”45 Whether by continually updating timelines, deadlines, and expectations as to progress in its Monitoring Plans46 or by facilitating community forums on the Division’s proposed use of force policies, the Monitoring Team has continued over the past six months to provide a day-to-day framework in which collaboration and dialogue can be fostered and in which the community can be ‘actively and substantively involved in the details of reform, from the ground up.”47
40 First Semiannual Report at 14. 41 Id. at 15. 42 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 350. 43 First Semiannual Report at 15. 44 Id. 45 Id. 46 See Dkt. 80 (submitting Updated First-Year Monitoring Plan). 47 First Semiannual Report at 15.
15

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 17 of 70. PageID #: 1624

B. The Updated First-Year Monitoring Plan, Nature of Progress, and Compliance Under the Consent Decree

vised the original, Court-approved Monitoring Plan52 to reflect operational realities.

The Updated First-Year Monitoring Plan covers the period of

The Monitoring Team has previously explained that “the Consent Decree operates more like a roadmap to reform than an ‘on/ off’ switch.”48 That has remained true during the most recent

November 1, 2016 through January 31, 2017, which is the end of the first monitoring year.53 The updated plan continues to break down the Consent Decree’s major requirements and objectives

reporting period. As previous filings with the Court demon-

“into a series of key results or milestones” and assigns respon-

strate and this report summarizes, critical milestones have been reached in several fundamental areas, including use of force, crisis intervention, and the investigation and adjudication of civilian complaints about the police. However, much more work remains “to ensure that reform exists not merely on paper or in theory but in day-to-day practice.”49 Officers and personnel

sibility “to an identified stakeholder for completion by express deadlines.”54 The updated plan continues to “make clear to any interested resident or stakeholder precisely what changes can be expected when” during the reform process.55
The Monitor has previously noted that it might be necessary to

need to be trained on the new policies and approaches, and time will be necessary as these new ways of doing business become, over time, engrained in the fabric and DNA of the Division and City.

modify monitoring plans during the Consent Decree process “to reflect changed circumstances or operational realities.”56 The primary changes memorialized in the Updated First-Year Monitoring Plan involved changes to deadlines made necessary

in light of the “significant City and CPD capacity” that “needed

It is worth emphasizing here that, although the Monitoring Team and other Consent Decree stakeholders remained involved in the day-to-day details of achieving compliance and reform, the

to be focused on planning and preparations for the Republican National Convention” held in Cleveland in mid-July 2016.57 As the Monitoring Team has previously noted, “Cleveland has faced

City and CPD itself – in dynamic partnership with the Cleveland

the unique challenge of needing to balance the early days of

community – ultimately must own the adoption of new policies,

[Consent Decree] reform with preparation for a major national

processes, and approaches:
Indeed, the Consent Decree contemplates that the process of implementing

The City and CPD itself, in dynamnic partnership with the Cleveland community, ultimately must own the adoption of new policies, processes, and approaches.

security event of the size and scope that the city does not hold in a typical period.”58 Simply put, intensive focus on Consent Decree reforms could not be maintained between

its reforms will potentially

mid-May 2016 and mid-August 2016 –

take several years – in part because it is the

which required Consent Decree stakeholders to revise the orig-

City, CPD, and the City of Cleveland that need to be the primary drivers and owners of real change . . . . CPD and the City of Cleve-

inal Monitoring Plan to ensure that it continued to adequately “set[] aggressive but realistic goals, deadlines, and milestone for complying with the requirements” of the Consent Decree.59

land are responsible for meeting deadlines with high-quality deliverables consistent with the Consent Decree; neither the Court and Monitor nor Department of Justice and

C. The Role of This Report The First Semiannual Report outlined the purpose of the Moni-

any other entity controls the delivery of progress. It is, and will remain, the CPD and the City, in all of its forms, that will dictate the

tor’s Consent-Decree-required semiannual reports: The Monitoring Team is charged with assess-

pace, nature, and long-term success of substantially and effectively implementing the Decree’s many requirements.50

52 See Dkt. 43 (submitting First-Year Monitoring Plan); Dkt. 44 (approving First-Year Monitoring Plan). 53 The Court appointed the Monitor and Cleveland Police Moni-

To ensure that all stakeholders continue to work according to “a clear, unified structure and framework for the day-to-day and week-to-week efforts that stakeholders from across the Cleveland community need to undertake to ensure that the Consent Decree is implemented,”51 the Parties and Monitoring Team re-

toring Team on October 1, 2015. See First Semiannual Report at 14. Pursuant to Paragraph 369 of the Consent Decree, the original First-Year Monitoring Plan was submitted to the Court on February 1, 2016. That Plan covered the period of February 1, 2016 through January 31, 2017. See First Semiannual Report at 16. 54 First Semiannual Report at 16.

55 Id.

48 Id. at 16.

56 Id.at 5; see Dkt. 43 at 1; Dkt. 51.

49 Id. at 66.

57 First Semiannual Report at 17.

50 Id. at 17.

58 Id.

51 Dkt. 43 at 2.

59 Dkt. 43.

16

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 18 of 70. PageID #: 1625

A Note on the Republican National Convention
In July 2016, Cleveland hosted the Republican National Convention. As the Monitoring Team previously observed in June 2016:
In any year, this would be a significant national security event. The state of the current political contest that will culminate in Cleveland has increased the attention on planning and preparations for the Convention.
Leading up to the RNC, the Division of Police and its personnel invested significant time, resources, and attention to planning for a successful event. This attention, as well as the Division and City’s partnership with outside resources from other jurisdictions and the federal government, produced an event that saw the City and police department receiving substantial praise.1
Although “the Monitor cannot and does not, under the terms of the Decree, comment on pending investigations or independently evaluate claims of officer misconduct in real-time,”2 the Monitoring Team does observe that police made relatively few arrests during the event, with violence or security events related to or occurring around the Convention kept relatively minimal, as well. To the extent that the eyes of the nation were on Cleveland, the men and women of CPD, under the visible leadership of Chief Calvin Williams, appeared to perform commendably and professionally under potentially challenging circumstances.
1 See, e.g., Evan MacDonald, “Cleveland Police Perform Well Under Spotlight of Republican National Convention: Analysis,” Cleveland Plain Dealer (July 22, 2016), http://www.cleveland.com/rnc-2016/index.ssf/2016/07/ cleveland_police_perform_well_under_spotlight_of_republican_national_convention_analysis.html; Ivan Livingston, “Despite Fears, Cleveland Security a Success,” CNBC.com (July 22, 2016), http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/22/ despite-fears-cleveland-convention-security-a-success.html; Jonathan D. Woods, “How Police Succeeded at the Republican National Convention,” Time (July 23, 2016), http://time.com/4420014/republican-convention-protests-police-secret-service/.
2 First Semiannual Report at 18.
ing whether the Division is effectively implementing the overall, systemic changes to how it functions that are required by the Consent Decree. The Team is overseeing the longterm reforms required by the Consent Decree so that, in the future, policing in Cleveland is effective, safe, constitutional, and consistent with the values of the community. In doing so, the duty of the Monitor in this report is to

summarize to the Court and public precisely where CPD is – over time, across issue areas, and in light of all of the Consent Decree’s obligations – on the road to reform.60
During this reporting period, the Monitor has formally approved or disapproved, per the Consent Decree and First-Year Monitoring Plan, a number of policies, manuals, plans, or other deliverables.61 In so doing, it has detailed to the Court and to the public the reasons why various deliverables have or have not been consistent with the Consent Decree’s requirements. The Monitoring Team has also provided the Court with reports on various of the Monitor’s formal outcome measurement requirements.62
The Monitor must also “file with the Court, every six months, written, public reports.”63 Generally, the reports must “descri[be] . . . the work conducted by the Monitor during” the period covered by the report and outline “which [Consent Decree] requirements have been incorporated into policy, actual practice.”64 This is the Monitor’s second such report.
The Monitoring Team has previously emphasized that “those looking for a report card, ratings, percentages, scales, or other similar over-simplifications will not find them here.”65 Instead, this report describes the specific progress that the City and CPD has made to date, the significant challenges that remain, and what the Monitor expects from Consent Decree stakeholders during the next six months.
60 First Semiannual Report at 16. 61 See, e.g., Dkt. 72 (recommending approval of new CPD mission statement); Dkt. 83 (recommending approval of new use of force policies); Dkt. 86 (recommending approval of new OPS and PRB operational manuals); Dkt. 87 (submitting budgets for OPS, PRB, and CPC). 62 See, e.g., Dkt. 71 (submitting results of biennial community survey); Dkt. 73 (reporting results of initial baseline outcome measurements). 63 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 375. 64 Id. ¶ 375(b). 65 First Semiannual Report at 18.
17

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 19 of 70. PageID #: 1626

COMMUNTIY ENGAGEMENT & BUILDING TRUST
A. Community Police Commission (“CPC”)
The committed group of volunteers comprising the Cleveland Community Police Commission (“CPC” or the “Commission”) has continued to produce high-quality work and important contributions to the Consent Decree process. Just more than one year into its existence, the Commission has built an impressive list of work products that have contributed significantly to new policies and procedures within the Division of Police.
Since the First Semiannual Report, which highlighted the importance of the Commission’s work and its commitment to community input, CPC has continued to produce a number of valuable work products. This work has included, among other things:
• Use of force policy recommendations; • Recommendations on the OPS Manual; • Recommendations on the PRB Manual; • Recommendations on the City’s Equipment and
Resource Plan; • A draft of the Community Engagement Assess-
ment Plan; and • A draft of the Commission’s first Annual Report.
The CPC coordinates much of its work through its five established committees. These include the Budget Committee, IT and Infrastructure Committee, Community Outreach and Engagement Committee, the Communications Committee, and the Policy and Procedure Assessment (“PPA”) Committee. With the establishment of the PPA Committee, a committee of the whole that meets monthly, the Commission has transitioned
18

from convening two public meetings to holding one public meeting per month and using the PPA meetings to conduct the important internal and follow-up business among the commissioners themselves. The Monitoring Team commends the Commission for adopting new approaches to its work in order to find a balance between transparency, public input and accountability, and efficiency.
This PPA Committee is responsible for stewarding all CPC policy recommendations and steering the other established committees and work groups. While work groups function on an as-needed basis, currently existing work groups include Bias-Free Policing, Civilian Police Review Board and Office of Professional Standards, and Use of Force.66 Work group meetings have been open to the public.
CPC has demonstrated its interest to engage all communities of Cleveland by hosting its meeting locations throughout the City of Cleveland – including in recreation centers, places of worship, and neighborhood resource centers. It continues to allocate a portion of all public meetings to community feedback generally in the form of public comments or breakout sessions. Regardless of how attendees provide feedback, the Commission has documented such input and has taken care to situate its policy recommendations in light of the comments received from the community during these processes.
CPC is also challenging itself to find ways of attracting a broad cross-session of the community to its meetings. The date, time, and location of each meeting are posted on the Commission’s website calendar well in advance of each meeting date. The formats of meetings have been restructured with the goal of fostering a less contentious environment where people of different backgrounds, experiences, and points of view can all feel safe, valued, and comfortable expressing their perspectives. Although average public attendance at CPC meetings has not yet significantly increased, these changes – along with the hiring of community outreach staff – gives some promise for improved community participation going forward.
Another opportunity for greater community participation in Commission activities is through the Commission’s relationship with the District Policing Committees, as the two groups develop deeper connections through shared strategies and aligned outreach efforts.
Over the past six months, in addition to facilitating commission events, members of the Commission have participated in a wide range of police reform assemblies, including but not limited to:
• Monthly meetings of the Parties of the Consent Decree; • Community and Problem-Oriented Policing
Forum held at Case Western Reserve Uni
66 A Mission Statement work group has been discontinued by the Commission until such time there is a need to re-evaluate the mission statement of the CDP and/or the CPC.

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 20 of 70. PageID #: 1627

versity;

• Use of Force policy roundtables;

The Consent Decree calls for the expansion of the membership

• Crisis Intervention training and policy

of the District Policing Committees and annual reporting of

roundtables;

its strategies, concerns and recommendations to the Commis-

• Mental Health Response Advisory Com-

sion.67 As active as the Commission and the District Policing

mittee; and

Committees are, the bridging of strategies to strengthen com-

• Cleveland’s Community Relations Board.

munication and cooperation between CPD and communities of

Cleveland has not yet been established. In the coming months

The Monitoring Team has heard diverse viewpoints expressed

the Monitoring Team will observe and support the Community

by Commission members. Conversations have generally re-

Relations Board’s efforts to begin to connect the overlapping in-

mained civil and respectful, even when points of view have been

terests and responsibilities of the District Policing Committees

passionate and pointed. CPC is supposed to be a venue where

and the CPC.

members of the Cleveland community with diverse viewpoints

can come together and discuss challenging issues. The Monitor-

C. The Monitoring Team’s Community Engagement &

ing Team continues to believe that passion, debate, and difficult

Outreach

conversations are a sign of the Commission’s health, vibrancy,

and progress – and not a sign of failure, insignificance, or chaos.

The Consent Decree continues to “call[] for the robust, inten-

The diversity of viewpoints that the Commission hears, and the

sive, substantive[,] and sustained engagement of the community

diversity of its volunteer commissioners, remains an important

throughout the implementation process.”68 During the past six

part of ensuring that CPC can be the type of conduit between

months, the Monitoring Team has continued to gather and listen

Cleveland’s diverse communities and the reform process.

to the views of Cleveland residents and attempted to ensure that

all interested individuals can participate in the reform process.

Much has been accomplished by the Commission – at times, with great strain on individual commission members. Commissioners are currently doing more than what can reasonably be expected of a volunteer unit. Borrowed staff of the

Much has been accomplished by the Commission. The Monitoring Team continues to believe that passion, debate, and difficult conversations are signs of the Commission’s health, vibrancy, and progress – and not a sign of failure, insignificance, or chaos.

To this end, the Monitor’s Community Engagement Team has conducted more than 40 community meetings and made 60 presentations before community groups of all kinds, i.e. religious congregations, social clubs, fraternities and sororities, political

Cleveland Foundation and the City

gatherings, ethnic coalitions, law

of Cleveland Community Relations Board has been invaluable

enforcement members, youth groups, and others populations

to CPC, and the Monitoring Team thanks both entities for their

within the City of Cleveland.

strong support of community participation in police reform.

As with the prior reporting period, the Monitoring Team has

However, commissioners have, to date, consistently carried out

continued to meet with groups large and small, and even one-

a wide array of duties that should likely be performed by a staff.

on-one with community leaders and individuals, to explain the

Therefore, it is necessary for the commission to make opera-

Consent Decree process, update on current progress, share

tional capacity building a primary focus in the coming months.

information, and answer questions. By this time in the Team’s

In particular, the hiring of an Executive Director should be the

ongoing efforts, the list of individuals, groups, entities, and or-

Commission’s top priority. Encouragingly, the Executive Di-

ganizations with which the Monitoring Team has met or spoken

rector selection process is underway and the Commission is on

would be prohibitively lengthy to recount here. Because the

pace to fill the position in early 2017. The Commission should

Team remains mindful that “[t]here are . . . those residents who

endeavor for a transition of executive and administrative duties

do not have the time, ability, resources, or incentive to engage

by empowering the Executive Director with true executive au-

with the process,”69 the Team continues to work hard to reach

thority and the responsibility of hiring, and managing the on-

even further into Cleveland’s diverse communities.

boarding of, additional staff.

All of the Monitor’s engagement is focused on ensuring resident

B. District Policing Committees

involvement and participation in the substantive reform pro-

cess. This report elsewhere recounts, in some level of detail, the

The District Policing Committees (formally known as the Dis-

extensive community engagement and outreach that took place

trict Community Relations Committees), one for each of the

in Cleveland around proposed new use of force policies for CPD.

five Police Districts, have operated as strong district-wide part-

The level, scope, and extent of resident – including police officer

nerships involving local stakeholder groups and individuals, the

– involvement in the development and finalization of those force

Community Relations Board and the Police Districts. These Committees devise locally-formed strategies to address issues and concerns specific to each Police District.

67 Dkt. 7-1 ¶¶ 23–26. 68 Id. at 21. 69 Id. at 22.

19

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 21 of 70. PageID #: 1628
policies goes far beyond the process used in other Consent Decrees and is a noteworthy testament to the commitment of the City and its residents to broad-based, community-facing reform. The Engagement Team continues to provide educational information across the Cleveland Community to residents. The Monitoring Team’s website, www.clevelandpolicemonitor.com, contains relevant information on the Consent Decree process and real-time postings of events, meetings, and updates to the Monitoring Plan – so that residents, community organizations, and other interested stakeholders can remain current on all phases of the implementation process. The Monitoring Team remains in a partnership with Cleveland’s local libraries, Cuyahoga Community College, and other organizations to provide access to information and real-time knowledge about what Consent Decree reforms are being considered. As described elsewhere in this report, the Monitoring Team has built extremely strong working relationships with members of the Division at the command level as well as with rank-and-file officers. In the coming year, the Team will work to continue to solidify those relationships and build even stronger partnerships with officers on the street that daily interact with residents in the community. The public has made it clear that accountability for officer’s actions on the streets is one of the main concerns they want to see the reform process address. The Engagement Team works to ensure that their voice is heard on this issue and encourages citizens who hold those concerns to participate in CPC meetings and work groups that deal with policy and accountability issues. The Monitoring Team continues to maintain an office at Lutheran Metropolitan Ministries (“LMM”), which is provided to the Team without charge. The Monitor thanks LMM for its continued generosity, hospitality, and support.
20

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 22 of 70. PageID #: 1629

COMMUNTIY & PROBLEM-ORIENTED POLICING
The First Semiannual Report summarized the requirements of the Consent Decree related to Community & Problem Oriented Policing (“Community Policing”). To review, the Consent Decree requires that the CPD implement a number of fundamental reforms related to community policing, including:
• “[E]nsuring that its mission statement reflects is commitment to community oriented policing;”
• “[E]nsur[ing] that its officers are familiar with the geographic areas they serve . . . and engage in problem identification and solving activities with the community . . .”
• “[P]rovid[ing] initial and annual in-service community and problem-oriented training,” to include problem solving with the community, as well as concepts such as leadership and communication; procedural justice; conflict resolution and verbal de-escalation; and cultural competency sensitivity training;”
• “[Maintain[ing] collaborative relationships with a broad spectrum of community groups;”
• “[C]ontinu[ing] to meet with members of the community in each District on a monthly basis” and “actively solicit[ing] participation from a broad cross-section of community members in each District.”
• “[D]eveloping and implementing sys-

tems to monitor officer outreach to the community; and • “Analyze” the quality and nature of its, and officers’ community policing efforts, “broken out by District, in a publicly available community policing report.”70
A. Community and Problem-Oriented Policing Plan
The Monitoring Team’s previous report also outlined the major features of a comprehensive and integrated community and problem-oriented policing model based on best practices. That Report noted that, while the Monitor will not dictate the specifics of community policing in Cleveland, we would expect to see a strategy grounded in what we know works or, otherwise, a well-reasoned justification for exploring untested practices.
Given the substantial work required under the Consent Decree, as well as the resources required to police the Republican National Convention, the CPD remains in the early stages of turning its attention to Community Policing. In December, the CDP, City, CPC, DOJ, and the Monitor agreed to embark on a streamlined and coordinated community engagement process around the Division’s “comprehensive and integrated community and problem-oriented policing model.”71
Substantive community input is the first step in the development of the community and problem-oriented policing plan and the Division’s plan must be a direct response to what the community wants. The goal of this stream-lined process is for the parties to work together when they reach out to the community. A coordinated process is especially important for community and problem-oriented policing because of the breadth and nature of the topic. Discussions around community policing have great potential to stray off into conceptual and philosophical conversation rather than concrete strategy.
Recognizing the need for a more educational, and more productive engagement process around this topic the parties intend to work to together in the effort to have broad and inclusive engagement with Cleveland residents. The stakeholders hope that a collaborative engagement process will minimize multiple and redundant community solicitations on the same topic and allow for meaningful input on this important plan.
The Monitoring Team understands that the CPD has already put some thought into how to re-shape its community policing and build on positive work being done in the community on a daily basis. It looks forward to working closely with the Department as it turns those thoughts into a detailed process and proceeds through the challenging steps needed to implement these important reforms. Nonetheless, some work has been done in this area over the past several months that is worth noting.
70 Dkt. 7-1 ¶¶ 27-30. 71 Id. ¶ 27.
21

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 23 of 70. PageID #: 1630

B. Mission Statement The Consent Decree requires that the CPD ensure that its mis-

cially rolled out within the Division. Visitors to CPD districts and headquarters may, for instance, see the Division’s prior statement still posted in the buildings. Even more fundamen-

sion statement “reflects its commitment to community oriented policing.”72 As the Monitor observed to the Court previously, “[i]n a police department, ‘successful institutionalization of community policing is likely only if it is included as a part of the

tally, it does not appear that CPD officers have been informed – whether through an email, a Divisional Notice, or oral content provided during pre-shift roll calls – that the Division has a new philosophy and overriding set of values that is embodied by a

adopting organization’s mission,’ especially if accompanied by a ‘set of core values.’”73

CPD is still in the process of ensuring active implementation of its new mission statement, approved by the Court in July 2016.

new mission statement. The lack of urgency with respect to meaningfully implementing the mission statement has been frustrating to the Monitor-

In response to that requirement, the

ing Team and other Consent Decree

CPD engaged in a thoughtful process, which directly involved CPD officers and the Cleveland community, to draft a new mission statement. Some 133 officers responded to an anonymous

stakeholders who participated in extensive conversations about that statement in the Spring of 2016.

feedback form about their views on what should be included in a

Thus, although the Monitor and Court have approved a new

new mission statement for the Division. Representatives of the Cleveland Police Patrolman’s Association (“CPPA”), Fraternal Order of Police Cleveland Lodge Number 8 (“FOP”), and other

mission statement, it does not appear that the Division has taken any meaningful steps toward ensuring that the mission statement is substantially and effectively implemented. The Division

officer organizations also met with CPD leadership to discuss

and Monitoring Team have discussed the possibility of the Divi-

the mission statement. Additionally, the CPC, in a labor-intensive effort, also developed a feedback mechanism for Cleveland residents – with 122 people participating and providing feedback

sion’s upcoming training on the new use of force policies as being a good vehicle for ensuring broad-based awareness of CPD’s new mission. The Team will be looking to see whether that

to the CPD. Separately, the Commission conducted research

training does provide specific background, context, and content

and provided recommendations based on commissioner views and the views, experiences, and feedback provided to it during various public meetings and forums. Further, the Monitoring Team sought community feedback about a proposed mission statement that was made public for community input.74

on the new mission statement along with the significant other substance that the training must cover.
C. Biennial Community Survey
The Monitoring Team contracted with an independent research

The result of this internal and external engagement is a new

firm to conduct a methodologically rigorous and scientific com-

CPD Mission Statement, collaboratively drafted and approved by this Court in July 2016,75 that provides a new direction for the men and women of the Division and the Cleveland community.76

munity survey, to gauge public perceptions of safety and policing.77 The purpose of the survey was to assess the community’s trust and confidence in the CPD overall and with regard to spe-

The mission of the Cleveland Division of Police is to serve as guardians of the Cleveland community. Guided by the Constitution, we shall enforce the law, maintain order, and pro-

cific areas, such as use of force and bias-free policing. The results of the survey, which were filed with the Court in June 2016,78 will provide useful information to CPD and the community as a comprehensive community and problem-oriented policing plan is developed.79

tect the lives, property, and rights of all people. We shall carry out our duties with a reverence for human life and in partnership with mem-

Overall, the survey found that Cleveland residents are skeptical about police conduct and accountability. Generally, “[j]ust over

bers of the community through professionalism, respect, integrity, dedication, and excellence in policing.

half of all residents surveyed (55%) believe the Cleveland Division of Police is doing a ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ job overall.”80 Only 50
percent of residents believe police officers follow the law “all of the time” or “most of the time.”81 “Just under half (48%) believe

Problematically, this new mission statement has not been offi-
72 Id. ¶ 28. 73 Dkt. 72 at 2 (quoting E.J. Williams, “Structuring in Community Policing: Institutionalizing Innovative Change,” 4 Police Practice & Research 119, 124 (2003)). 74 See Dkt. 72 at 5–7 (describing Monitoring Team’s outreach process).

officers treat people with respect or use the appropriate amount of force (47%) in most situations.”82 A majority of residents (55 percent) believe officers are held accountable “only some of the
77 Dkt. 7-1 ¶¶ 361–66. 78 Dkt. 71. 79 Dkt. 7-1 ¶¶ 27–34. 80 Dkt. 71-1 at 3.

75 Dkt. 74.

81 Id.

76 See generally Dkt. 72.

82 Id.

22

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 24 of 70. PageID #: 1631

time” or “almost never” for misconduct when it occurs.83 Just

Consequently, the results from the Monitor’s initial community

“one-third of residents think the police have taken the time to

survey do not definitively establish, one way or another, whether

meet members of their community (33%) or have developed rela-

CPD is or is not engaged in constitutional policing and whether

tionships with people like them (37%).”84

the Division has or has not complied with any relevant part of

the Consent Decree.

There are significant racial disparities with respect to approval

of and views about CPD. While “[n]early three-fourths of white

However, the surveys demonstrate a disconnect between the

residents surveyed (72%) believe the Cleveland Police are doing

Cleveland Division of Police and the communities that it serves,

a good or excellent job overall,” only “43% of black residents” be-

with a critical number of individuals believing that local law

lieve the same.85 Indeed, “Black and

enforcement officials are not as re-

Latino residents . . . gave the Cleve- The Consent Decree is far more than an sponsive to their views, concerns, or

land Police lower ratings across a administrative, bureaucratic, or accountability- experiences – and that, at times, the

number of specific measures” – with focused document. It is squarely a crime-fighting burdens of law enforcement are not

“more than two-thirds of black resi- document that will assist officers in performing equally shared.

dents (69%) believ[ing] that . . . offi- core law enforcement functions.

cers are held accountable ‘some of

A renewed trust among the commu-

the time’ or ‘almost never’” for mis-

nity with respect to the CPD – and a

conduct.86 White residents are comparatively more likely than

new, shared vision for policing in Cleveland – is also necessary

Latino and black residents to “ask the police for help” or “report

from the perspective of ensuring greater safety on the streets

a crime” to CPD,87 which could have significant effects on crime

of Cleveland. Community confidence and trust, by making res-

within some Cleveland communities.

idents more willing to participate and cooperate with police,

tends to reduce both crime and the fear of crime.90 According-

Whether policing in Cleveland is effective, safe, and consistent

ly, the Consent Decree is far more than an administrative, bu-

with the values of the community cannot be definitively estab-

reaucratic, or accountability-focused document. It is squarely

lished by a survey. The protections of the U.S. Constitution are

a crime-fighting document that will assist substantially in the

not poll-driven concepts. Indeed, it is axiomatic among scholars

ability of CPD officers to perform its core law enforcement func-

of varied ideological persuasions that, under the U.S. Constitu-

tions.

tion, “[i]t is of great importance . . . to guard one part of the soci-

ety against the injustice of the other part”88:

D. CPD Community Engagement

[T]he real power lies in the majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the constituents.89
83 Id. 84 Id. at 4. 85 Id. at 3. 86 Id. at 4. 87 Id. at 5. 88 The Federalist No. 51 (James Madison) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 2003) at 320. 89 Letter from James Madison to Thomas Jefferson (Oct. 17, 1788), in Jack N. Rakove, Declaring Rights, at 161–62 (1998); see, e.g., West Virginia State Bd. Of Educ. V. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943) (“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities . . . [F]undamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”); Samuel Freeman, “Constitutional Democracy and the Legitimacy of Judicial Review,” 9 Law & Philosophy 327, 327 (1990) (“The conception of democracy that stems from the social

Over the past six months, CPD has meaningfully sought community feedback related to critical reforms. In addition to the efforts made in relation to the mission statement discussed above, the CPD participated significantly in soliciting feedback to proposed changes to its use of force policies, engaging both its front-line police officers and Cleveland residents.
The Team recognizes that, for some CPD personnel, engaging
contract tradition of Locke, Rosseau, Kant and Rawls, is based in an ideal of the equality, independence, and original political jurisdiction of all citizens . . . [J]udicial review can be seen as a kind of shared precommitment by sovereign citizens to maintaining their equal status in the exercise of their political rights . . . . ” ). 90 See generally Robert J. Sampson, et al, “Neighborhoods and Violent Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy,” 277 Science 918 (1997) (detailing link between community policing and crime and fear of crime); Gary W. Cordner, “Community Policing: Elements and Effects,” 5 Police Forum 1 (1995) (same); Michael D. Reisig & Roger B. Parks, “Can Community Policing Help the Truly Disadvantaged?,” 50 Crime & Delinquency 139 (2004) (same); Dan Fleissner & Fred Heinzelmann, National Institute of Justice, “Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design and Community Policing” (Aug. 1996) (same); A. Steven Dietz, “Evaluating Community Policing: Quality Police Service and Fear of Crime,” 20 Policing 83 (1997) (same).

23

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 25 of 70. PageID #: 1632
the public substantively on issues related to the Division’s policies, procedures, and operations is a new concept and experience. It is understandable that some, at least initially, might believe that such engagement must entail criticism, condescension, or attack. However, the dedication of other CPD personnel to participating in dialogue both with individuals who indicated that they are highly supportive of CPD and with others who indicated that they are highly critical of police conduct has been noteworthy.
The Monitoring Team has received questions and been made aware of the concerns of some community members about the participation of CPD personnel at community forums or on community panels focusing on police reform. The Team understands that the experiences of some community members may lead them to be highly averse or subjectively unable to feel like their experiences can be validated and their voices heard in the context when a member representing the police are present. However, paradigms related to restorative justice are grounded, in part, on “involving all stakeholders.”91 Broad-based, cross-community conflict resolution approaches are likewise grounded in the “[i]nclusion of a full range of stakeholders.”92 Studies of police complaint mediation programs indicate that the presence of law enforcement agents is critical in transforming the attitudes, views, and behaviors of both residents and police officers regarding specific police-community interactions.93
In short, a renewed relationship between the community and Division of Police, where each group views the other not as “them” but as “us,” requires the participation of Cleveland residents and officers alike. It may, from time to time, require a good-faith effort by officers to learn more about the day-to-day interactions that some community members believe passionately are systemically unfair or unjust – just as it may require a good-faith effort by Cleveland residents to hear about the day-to-day realities and rigors of line-level law enforcement. It may require members of the community and police department, over time and when appropriate, to engage with the possibility that the police-community relationship is not inevitably or permanently consigned to be what it may have been.
91 About Restorative Justice, “Tutorial: Intro to Restorative Justice” (last visited Nov. 21, 2016), http://restorativejustice.org/restorative-justice/about-restorative-justice/tutorial-intro-to-restorative-justice/. 92 Judith E. Innes, “Consensus Building: Clarifications for the Critics,” 3 Planning Theory 7 (2004). 93 Samuel Walker & Carol Archbold, “Mediating Citizen Complaints Against the Police: An Exploratory Study,” 2000 J. Disp. Resol. 231 (2000); Ryan P. Hatch, “Coming Together to Resolve Police Misconduct: The Emergence of Mediation as a New Solution,” 21 Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resolut. 447 (2005).
24

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 26 of 70. PageID #: 1633

BIAS-FREE POLICING
As part of the Consent Decree, the City of Cleveland and the Department of Justice have agreed to make certain that the Cleveland Division of Police “will deliver services with the goal of ensuring [those services] are equitable, respectful, and free of unlawful bias, in a manner that promotes broad community engagement and confidence in CDP.”94
To that end “CPD’s bias-free policing initiatives will need to be geared toward: (1) ensuring a zero-tolerance approach to express, outward, and intentional manifestations of bias by CPD personnel; (2) ensuring policies and processes for identifying instances in which police services may be delivered in a less than impartial manner; and (3) providing officers with education and training on areas such as “problem-oriented policing, procedural justice, . . . recognizing implicit bias,”95 “cultural competency training regarding the histories and cultures of local immigrant and ethnic communities,”96 and others.
While recognizing that “cultural and historical realities [may] render it impossible to entirely eliminate the possibility or effects of individual bias, CPD policy and training can provide officers with specific strategies and approaches – backed up by scientific literature and existing real-world training – for attempting to minimize the effects of such bias on officer decision-making.”97 As detailed in the Updated First-Year Monitoring Plan, the development of that policy and training will need to incorporate,
94 Dkt. 7- 1 ¶ 35. 95 Id. ¶ 40(b). 96 Id. ¶ 40(d). 97 First Semiannual Report at 29.

where appropriate to do so, the concerns and issues gathered by the Cleveland Community Police Commission from Cleveland’s diverse communities.98 To date, the CPC has provided specific recommendations relating to bias-free policing. Those recommendations were the culmination of approximately seven community meetings devoted to gathering the experiences, viewpoints, and feedback of Cleveland’s communities of color, faith, LGBTQ, youth, and homeless related to bias-free policing. The initial CPC report summarizing this input and those recommendations included specific comments and concerns collected by the CPC Bias-Free Work Group from community members. The CPC’s report also provided numerous recommendations to the CPD related to its: interaction with citizens of varying backgrounds and demographics; organizational culture; recruitment; training; and, reporting. As a result of CPC’s considerable efforts to gather the views and feedback from across Cleveland’s diverse communities, the Commission’s initial bias-free policing recommendations were detailed and thorough – and will no doubt prove useful as the Division drafts an initial bias-free policing policy that utilizes “strategies, such as problem-oriented policing, procedural justice, and recognizing implicit bias.”99 With that work completed, the focus is now on the development of the CDP’s policy and training. As detailed in the Updated First-Year Monitoring Plan, the Monitor and the Parties are currently reviewing CPD’s draft bias-free policing policy. Ultimately, the Monitor must approve or disapprove of the final Bias-Free Policing Policy by February 28, 2017.100
98 Dkt. 80-1 at 20. 99 Id. at 30. 100 Id. at 20.
25

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 27 of 70. PageID #: 1634

and later in the process, when CPD and the Consent Decree Parties believed that the revised policies were substantially far enough along to make community feedback valuable and necessary. In making the proposed force policies public well before they were completed, formally reviewed by the Monitor, or circulated to the Court for approval, the Cleveland community had an opportunity to be more involved in the substantive drafting of use of force policies than – at least to this Monitoring Team’s knowledge – any other community has, to date, in other Consent Decree contexts.

USE OF FORCE

Because this commitment to sustained community involvement and substantive public participation by the City, CPD, and the Department of Justice has been so significant, the following sections summarize, in some detail, the process that Consent Decree stakeholders used in creating the new rules of the road for officers with respect to using force that the Court approved at a status conference on January 6, 2017.
a. CPC’s Engagement

A. Policy
The topic of use of force—how, when, and under what circumstance CPD officers are permitted to use force—is central to the consent decree.101 The Decree mandates the CPD:
[R]evise, develop, and implement force policies, training, supervision, and accountability systems with the goal of ensuring that force is used in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the requirements of the Agreement and that any use of unreasonable force is promptly identified and responded to appropriately.102

The feedback process started in February 24, 2016 when the CPC held a full meeting on the topic of use of force. The Commission subsequently hosted a separate town hall and held special meetings with community groups and organizations – such as the Black Shield police officer organization, Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority (“CMHA”) residents, 100 Black Men, clergy, the LGBT Community Center, members of the Mental Health Advisory Committee, and others. CPC also “developed a Use of Force Questionnaire,” which allowed community members to directly provide input.
The Commission ultimately proposed a set of specific recommendations to Consent Decree stakeholders based on this feedback. Those recommendations focused on a broad range of topics including emphasizing “life preservation” in policy, providing “updated state-of-the-art training” and ensuring the policies are “aligned with community values and expectations.”103

1. The Policy Drafting & Community Engagement Process

b. The City of Cleveland’s Engagement

From the beginning of work on new

Cleveland’s Community Relations Board also conducted an in-

use of force policies under the Con-

formal survey on use of force issues.

sent Decree, the Parties and major The Cleveland commubnity was involved A total of 1,092 residents provided

stakeholders have been substantially throughout the development of the Division’s new feedback in some capacity. Although

involved in actively soliciting com- use of force policies.

the City’s survey did not secure a ran-

munity involvement in the policy cre-

dom, statistically-significant sample,

ation and refinement process. Each group’s initiative has been

the City did a noteworthy job and the

vital to the success of creating a use of force policy that incorpo-

Monitoring Team commends their efforts.

rates and reflects community values.

Key findings from that engagement effort included:104

Most importantly, the community was invited to be involved in the policy revision process both early on, to help set the agenda and frame issues that needed to be addressed in new policies,
101 See Dkt. 7-1 ¶¶ 45–130.

103 Cleveland Community Police Commission, “Use of Force: Summary Report & Initial Policy Recommendations” at 7–8 (Mar. 31, 2016).

102 Id. ¶ 45.

104 First Semiannual Report at 33.

26

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 28 of 70. PageID #: 1635

• A relatively low number of Cleveland residents (about

officers may and may not use force on the streets of Cleveland.

one-third) said that the City of Cleveland’s police are

Starting in March 2016, the Consent Decree stakeholders met

fair when using force.

regularly to discuss issues and exchange preliminary drafts of

• Fewer than half (44 percent) of respondents agreed

the policies. All stakeholders were, and are, mindful of the duty

that CPD approaches citizens in a respectful manner.

to structure the reform process in a manner that can make max-

• Close to half (45 percent) of participants in the survey

imum use of the time that Cleveland residents provide to the

said that CPD uses excessive, or too much, force.

process.

• A slightly higher percentage (54 percent) of respon-

dents believed that CPD disproportionately uses force

On September 8, the Parties and Monitoring Team agreed that

against certain groups of

the then-current drafts of four pol-

people.

The Division of Police engaged in a process to icies – a general policy, a definitions

• Most respondents (59 per- secure the substantive input from CPD officers policy, a policy addressing intermedi-

cent) believe that CPD is about its prior use of force policies and what they ate weapons, and a policy addressing

not appropriately trained wanted to see in a new policy.

the duty to de-escalate – were suffi-

on use of force issues.

ciently advanced that community in-

• About two-thirds (65 percent) of respondents indicat-

put and feedback was warranted and necessary. Consequently,

ed that they do not believe that there is accountability

the Parties and Monitoring Team made proposed new policies

and accuracy in how officers report use of force inci-

available to the general community.

dents.

e. The Stakeholder’s Collaborative Engagement

c. CPD’s Engagement

Starting on September 8, the Monitoring Team – working close-

The Division also engaged in a process to secure the substantive

ly with the City of Cleveland, CPD, the Department of Justice,

input from CPD officers about the use of force policy. CPD part-

and the CPC – solicited public input on the CPD’s proposed Use

nered with the leadership of CPPA, FOP, and other police officer

of Force policies. Between September 8 and November 4, 2016,

organizations and conducted several forms of officer outreach.

the Parties engaged in a comprehensive feedback process.

These outreach efforts included a non-scientific online officer

survey, focus group discussions, anonymous written submis-

1. Overview of The Public Comment Process

sions, and a series of meetings with union and officer organiza-

tion leadership.105

To ensure that the Consent Decree stakeholders received in-

put from a cross-section of Cleveland residents, the Monitor-

As the Monitoring Team has previously summarized, key find-

ing Team oversaw a comprehensive process of community in-

ings from the officer online survey included that:106

volvement aimed at providing community organizations and

residents, including CPD personnel, with numerous avenues to

• Most officers who completed the feedback form did

provide input on the force policies.

not believe that force types and categories in CPD’s

current force policies are sufficiently clear.

1. The Monitoring Team’s Website. The Monitoring

• Officers appeared to want clearer definitions of key

Team made the draft policies available on the Mon-

terms used in the force policy, with fewer than 40 per-

itoring Team website, the CPC’s website, and the

cent of officers saying that current definitions make the

City’s website, along with a brief summary of key pol-

current policy more understandable.

icy changes. Organizations and interested individuals

• Fewer than one-third (31 percent) of responding offi-

were invited to submit written comments.

cers believe that the current CPD policy reflects a pri-

ority on using techniques other than force to effectuate

The Team received three sets of detailed comments—

law enforcement objectives.

from The Schubert Center for Child Studies at Case

• Of officers who had experience using the Taser, near-

Western Reserve University (“Schubert Center”),

ly two-thirds (65 percent) of respondents found the

Strategies for Youth, and the American Civil Liberties

less-lethal very effective or effective.

Union of Ohio.

d. The Policy Revision Process
After receiving input from the CPC, the City, and the CPD, the Division set out to draft revised policies with respect to when
105 Id. 106 Id.

2. The Monitoring Team’s Feedback Form. The Monitoring Team created an online feedback form to provide residents with an opportunity to weigh in on the policies without necessarily having to read the policies in full or attending a public event. The feedback form asked residents a series of questions designed to get their views on whether the new policies address
27

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 29 of 70. PageID #: 1636

their concerns, would improve police-community relations, and would promote officer safety. Comments were received from a number of Cleveland residents.
3. Community Roundtables. The Monitoring Team coordinated – in partnership with the City, CPC, CPD, and Department of Justice – two major community roundtables to provide an opportunity for direct engagement between the Consent Decree Parties and the community around the proposed policy. Those roundtables took place on September 15, 2016 at Jerry Sue Thornton Center, on Cleveland’s Eastside, and on September 20 at Urban Community School, on Cleveland’s Westside. The Chief of Police and United States Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio attended both roundtables.
Some 200 residents and community leaders attended the two roundtables, including police officers, several members of the clergy, residents and staff of the Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority, Cleveland city council members, and representatives from The Hispanic Alliance, The Council on American Islamic Relations, and the LGBT Center of Greater Cleveland.
In structure, the roundtable events included an overview of the use of force policies with a question-and-answer panel and an opportunity for small group discussions.
The community roundtable started with a 20-minute overview presentation by the Monitor. It sought to provide attendants with a brief overview of the policies – focusing on the major differences between CPD’s old policies and the proposed new policies and highlighting how the new policies satisfy the Consent Decree requirements and also keep CPD personnel and the Cleveland community safe.
A subsequent question-and-answer portion of the session began with community members discussing the new policy in small groups to which attendees were randomly assigned. Representatives from the City, the DOJ, the Monitoring Team, and the CPD served as facilitators and led the small group discussions.
Each group was instructed to come up with and agree on two questions. A panel of representatives – including from the DOJ, the City, and the Monitoring Team answered as many questions as possible in 20 minutes.
Some of the groups sought clarification on key policy terms, like “chokehold” and “proportionality.” Others asked about training and accountability—for example, inquiring whether “officers have scenario-based training.” Many attendees understandably emphasized the

importance of issues relating to training, reporting, accountability, and discipline – topics that the Consent Decree encompasses but on which the reform process will address in coming months.
After the question and answer panel, the same small groups engaged in a substantive discussion around the use of force policies. The Monitoring Team created an agenda to guide the conversations and give residents an opportunity to weigh in without reading the policy in full. Participants were first asked to reflect on Cleveland community values, and then to apply these values to specific policy questions – such as what factors officers should be required to consider before using force. Each group was provided with a large easel pad and instructed to choose a note taker to document the group’s thoughts and discussion.
After a 45-minute discussion, a reporter nominated by the group was asked to share the group’s two most significant or important suggestions or ideas with the audience and the Consent Decree stakeholders. The Monitoring Team recorded these summary suggestions on a projected screen so that community members could not only hear but see their own thoughts and the feedback of other small groups.
A number of community members – including some who had concerns about the impact on the policies on police officers or certain groups within Cleveland – expressed their appreciation for having an opportunity to participate in the policy-making process and found the small-group format to be a positive way to ensure that the voices of all attendees could be heard by other Cleveland residents and from a representative of a Consent Decree stakeholder directly involved in the day-to-day reform effort. Indeed, the Mental Health Response Advisory Committee has sought, and the Monitoring Team has gladly provided, technical assistance on planning that group’s community engagement process on proposed crisis intervention policies. The Monitor is pleased that other Consent Decree stakeholders are seeking to replicate the kind of intensive community feedback that occurred in conjunction with the use of force policies in other important areas of reform.
2. Summary of Comments Received
Generally, as a local Cleveland newspaper summarized, resident discussions focused on small tweaks – and a general sense that the force policies were an important step in the right direction for Cleveland going forward.107 Several community members
107 See Eric Heisig, “Residents Offer Input On Proposed Cleveland Police Use-Of-Force Policy,” Cleveland.com (Oct. 16, 2016), http://www.cleveland.com/court-justice/index.ssf/2016/09/

28

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 30 of 70. PageID #: 1637

and small groups praised the policies for providing greater clarity and for being “very straightforward.”
Both at the roundtables and in written comments, community members made a number of suggestions for how to improve the draft policy. Many emphasized the need for greater communication before using force and during de-escalation. Several tables suggested officers learn how to de-escalate themselves when they arrive on a scene.
Some community members who took the online survey found that the policies did not address their concerns and will negatively affect officer and community safety. From the comments received, it seemed as though many of the respondents did not support the Consent Decree and expressed concern that the policies would keep officers from “protecting themselves.” These comments reaffirmed to the Monitoring Team, including its five former law enforcement professionals, the importance of ensuring that the policies are as clear as possible and provide officers with the tools that they need to keep themselves safe while they keep Cleveland’s communities safe.
More specifically, the Monitoring Team noted a number of common themes or threads throughout the various community feedback mechanisms:
1. When Officers May Use Force. Community members suggested a number of factors in which they believed that officers should be trained to assess and consider when evaluating the threat that a subject poses. These included the number of other officers present, the amount of time provided for the suspect to reply to a command, information from witnesses, and potential trauma to bystanders. During the community roundtables, at least half the groups emphasized the importance of improved communication between officers and suspects. Groups stressed that officers should consider the subject’s ability to speak English and whether the subject understands the officer’s commands.
2. De-Escalation Techniques. At the community roundtable, participants also suggested additional techniques officers should consider. Several groups suggested officers should consider the tone and volume of their voice when de-escalating a situation. One group suggested that “officers should approach subjects with a low voice, to avoid subjects from yelling at officers.” Several groups felt as though officers should give subjects room to vent and to distinguish venting from violent mannerisms. Another group believed that officers should tailor their de-escalation strategies to specific neighborhoods.
Several of the small roundtable groups felt the de-esca-
residents_offer_input_into_pro.html.

lation policy should more expressly emphasize the role of officers as “guardians” rather than “warriors.” This was articulated in several different ways. One group stressed that “officers should leave the situation better than how they found it,” while another noted that “the responsibility of the officers is not to escalate the situation and this should be more prominent in the policy.” Another group worried officers might not attempt to de-escalate for a reasonable enough time and asked for clarification on an appropriate “length of time the officer should attempt de-escalation tactics.”
A number of groups highlighted the information problem that officers often face and the challenges that officers confront when needing to make quick assessments of people and circumstances that may unfold quickly. Groups discussed how “de-escalation is only possible if officers are properly informed.” One group urged the department to work on clarifying communication from the caller to the dispatcher and then again from the dispatcher to the officer.
3. Youth. At the community roundtables, at least four groups suggested the policies need to better address communicating and de-escalating with children. One group suggested a youth-specific policy. The Schubert Center and Strategies for Youth provide additional, valuable, and specific comments to Consent Decree stakeholders on a variety of issues relating to children, youth, and juveniles.
4. Mental Health. Several community roundtable groups expressed concern that the proposed policies fail to emphasize how officers should interact with community residents with mental disabilities. One group suggested that “each police district have a specific number of CIT trained officers and CIT trained supervisors on duty during each shift.” Another group urged for CPD to keep a database of neighborhoods or streets where mentally disabled community members reside. These and other comments have been discussed even more specifically within the content of CPD’s specific policy on crisis intervention.
5. Communication. Over half of the groups at both roundtables suggested that, to enable verbal de-escalation strategies, officers be provided with more training on communicating with non-English speakers. One group suggested that each officer carry a mini “cheat sheet of common Spanish phrases.”
6. Cleveland Community Values. Several groups suggested the policies include statements expressly referencing CPD’s recognition of the values of “reverence for life” and “respect for all individuals.”
29

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 31 of 70. PageID #: 1638

7. Feedback About Topics Not in the Use of Force Policies. Community members provided input on several topics not expressly covered by the proposed policies relating to when officers may and may not deploy force in the field. These important topics included training, reporting, accountability in the review of excessive use of force, and community policing.
Training. Over half of the groups offered suggestions on how training should be conducted and what additional topics should be covered. Several reiterated the importance of scenario-based training and role-playing. One said that the policies include “too much writing” and urged the CPD to use videos, examples, and illustrations instead of classic classroom instruction. Several groups and community members noted the influence of race and poverty on CPD’s policing practices. Two roundtable groups suggested training should address implicit biases and cultural competency,
Lastly, some residents provided input on what should happen after training. One group suggested, officers should be tested to make sure they know the policies, while another group recommended that the policies should be reviewed and revised in order to reflect the realities of Cleveland.
Reporting. A number of community comments focused on the reporting of use of force incidents and ways to provide transparency in the process. One small group suggested the creation of a CPD database where use of force data is tracked and open to the public. Another urged the police department to post a sample Use of Force Reporting form on their website. Another roundtable of residents expressed concern about officers reporting each other. That group urged the CPD to allow for anonymous reporting in order to protect officers from retaliation.

gested adding more emphasis on the responsibilities of officers who witness excessive use of force. Lastly, one group recommended immediate isolation for officers who have been involved in a use of deadly force.
Community Policing. At the community roundtables, several groups commended the Parties for including the community in this policy-making process. Many residents emphasized the need for more community engagement. One small group said they would like more opportunities and venues to learn how officers implement the use of force policies.
A few groups suggested officers become more familiar with the areas they patrol. One group noted that community policing principles are integral to these policies. This group stressed that officers should learn more about quality of life challenges in their patrolling communities as that often influences how residents respond. Another group suggested CPD create an officer database consisting of each officer’s name, picture, and some brief information about the officer, such as—the officer’s patrol area, education, and qualifications.
Many community residents discussed the influence of race and poverty in CPD’s policing practices. Several groups provided suggestions on additional training topics, such as cultural competency and implicit bias. Others expressed concern about officer’s perceptions of minority communities. They suggested that CPD adopt stronger community policing practices and more community engagement.
2.. The Final Use of Force Policies Approved by the Court
As submitted to and approved by the Court, the policy revisions include critical changes to 5 new policies:

Review Process and Accountability. Many community members expressed concerns about the process by which force incidents are investigated and reviewed. Several groups indicated that the current review structure is inadequate. Two groups suggested review by independent third parties, rather than individuals connected to the police department. They recommended the department find ways to combat the “blue wall of silence” culture. Additionally, community members sug-

(1) CPD’s General Police Order (“GPO”) regarding Use of Force – General, which outlines clear use of force principles and specific expectations about when CPD authorizes officers to use force;
(2) a Use of Force – Definitions GPO, which defines commonly used terms in the various force policies;
(3) a Use of Force – De-escalation GPO, which requires that officers

30

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 32 of 70. PageID #: 1639

use affirmative strategies and tactics aimed toward ensuring officer and subject safety while reducing the

all force to be necessary and proportional, the new policy matches community expectations and best practices.113

need for or the severity of force to

The fourth principle, de-escalation, is now required before offi-

be used; (4) a Use of Force – Intermediate
Weapons GPO, which provides specific guidance on the use of lessthan-lethal force tools, such as the Taser, OC Spray, and baton; and (5) a Use of Force – Reporting GPO, which addresses the requirement

cers resort to the use of force. Although the CPD has a separate de-escalation policy, the Division has included de-escalation as one of the major principles in the general policy.114 This serves to reiterate and highlight the important expectation that officers employ de-escalation techniques.115 Many Community Roundtable participants expressed concern that the proposed policies failed to address how officers should interact with community residents with mental disabilities. The Parties responded to this

that officers report force when used.
As the Monitor reported to the Court when it recommended approval of the policies,108 the use of force policies are consistent

feedback by adding, in the list of “officer/subject factors and circumstances” that must be considered “when choosing a force response,” that officers should consider “[k]nown or reasonably apparent mental illness, developmental disability, or crisis inci-

with the Consent Decree because they promote officer and public safety, enhance effective and proactive law enforcement, and advance constitutional policing in a manner consistent with the

dent” and “[k]nown or reasonably apparent physical disability or other medical or physical condition, including visual or hearing impairment,” when choosing a force response.116

values of Cleveland’s communities as articulated by those com-

munities during extensive community outreach and engagement

2. When Officers Are Authorized to Use Force

on the force policies.

The new policy provides specific

a. Use of Force: General

CPD’s new use of force policies are consistent with guidance as to when deadly force

the Consent Decree because they promote officer may be authorized. It also provides

At the outset, the new force policy and public safety, enhance effective and proactive a specific list of actions in which,

emphasizes the Division’s “commit- law enforcement, and advance constitutional “[c]onsistent with the principles of

ment to carry out its duties with a policing in a manner consistent with the values of necessity, proportionality, objective

reverence for the sanctity of human Cleveland’s communities.

reasonableness, and de-escalation,

life.”109 This express commitment—

Officers shall not” engage. These

which not only aligns the CPD’s new, Court-approved mission

actions include using force against subjects “who only verbally

statement—is directly responsive to feedback from the Use of Force Community Roundtables and the CPC’s explicit recommendation.110 After outlining the purpose of the policy, the

confront officers,” applying force to those “who are handcuffed or otherwise restrained” except in very limited circumstances, using “neck holds,” and using “head strikes with hard objects.117

General GPO articulates the policy’s four fundamental require-

This prohibited activity list – consistent with the Consent De-

ments: that force be used only when it is (1) necessary, (2) proportional, and (3) objectively reasonable, and that officers (4) use strategic de-escalation tactics and strategies when it is safe and

cree – also conforms to many of the CPC’s recommendations, including prohibiting the “use of force against those who are exercising their First Amendment rights.”118 It also prohibits of-

feasible to do so. 1. Principles

ficers from “reaching into, or placing themselves in the path of a vehicle.” 119

3. Rare and Exceptional Circumstances

The inclusion of necessity, proportionality, and de-escalation is a notable shift from CPD’s prior force policy.111 The Division’s previous, fifteen-page policy – which a majority of CPD officers told the Division was unclear and gave them insufficient guidance on when precisely force can and cannot be used – prohibited “excessive force,” without defining precisely what would be excessive, and situated authorized force in terms of force “that is objectively reasonable to bring an incident under control.”112 By requiring

revised August 14, 2014).
113 See, e.g., Seattle Police Department, Manual Section 8.000 (“An officer shall use only the degree of force that is objectively reasonable, necessary under the circumstances, and proportional to the threat or resistance of a subject.”); PERF Guiding Principles No. 2 and No. 3 at 35-40.
114 Dkt. 83 at 17.

108 Dkt. 83.

115 Id.

109 Id. at 16

116 Id.

110 Dkt. 74;Dkt. 83 at 16.

117 Id. at 18.

111 Dkt. 83 at 17 (or cite to the old policy).

118 Id. at 19.

112 Cleveland Division of Police General Police Order 2.1.01 (last

119 Dkt. 83 at 19; Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 59.

31

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 33 of 70. PageID #: 1640

No law, court, or policy can prescribe specific rules that can apply to every conceivable circumstance involving all possible police encounters under any possible permutation of circumstances.120 Indeed, CPD was mindful that any force policy “must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments – in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving.”121 Consequently, the policy provides that “[i]n rare and exceptional circumstances” where deadly force would be authorized, the subject’s actions “constitute an immediate danger and grave threat to the officer or others,” and “no other force options, techniques, tactics, or choices consistent with the Division’s policy are available, it may be necessary for an officer to take extraordinary or unanticipated actions in order to overcome the threat” that might resemble

cess focused on the need for officers to tailor their responses to young people in a manner consistent with their age, maturity, and relative development. The Monitor understands that CPD is working closely with the Schubert Center for Child Studies at Case Western Reserve to craft a standalone GPO about officer interactions with youth. To the extent that any Use of Force policy cannot exhaustively detail the particular knowledge that officers should have about young people, the Team applauds the Division’s forward-looking focus on the specific issues that relate to interacting with children and juveniles in various stages of physical and cognitive development. To the extent that this protocol on addressing young subjects is successful, other such protocols might be developed to address the disabled or those with language barriers.126

approaches that are prohibited in nearly every other circumstance by CPD’s policy.122

Other community comments focused on issues relating to holding officers accountable with complying with the requirements

The expectation of the Parties and Monitor are that this “immediate danger and grave threat” policy provision would apply exclusively “[i]n rare and exceptional situations,” that CPD’s policy will be routinely and fairly applied “without regard to” an officers “underlying intent or motivation,” and that “[t]he officer’s actions” in such exceptional circumstances “shall be subject to strict review.”123 Indeed, it is the hope and expectation of all stakeholders that no Cleveland officer or resident will find themselves in the type of dangerous encounter with a subject where an officer’s options are so severely limited that a safe resolution of the incident is only possible by using otherwise prohibited

of the force policy or on actions not squarely within the realm of use of force. For instance, the CPC suggested that the force policy address issues related to “verbal abuse, intimidation, . . . sexual favors,” sexual violence, and retaliation.127 The importance of each of these subjects demands a full treatment in a separate General Police Order, both to make clear that professional obligations and standards relating to such areas apply not just when force is used but across officer interactions with the public and to ensure that CPD’s revised General Use of Force policy maintains the focus and clarity that officers and community members routinely urged.

force techniques.

Similarly, a number of community recommendations focused

4. Duty to Intervene and Duty to Provide Medical Attention

on issues relating to use of force data, investigations, accountability, transparency, body cameras, and the role of the Office
of Professional Standards (“OPS”)

The duty to intervene provides that “[e]ach officer at the scene of a use of force incident has a duty to intervene by taking all reasonable actions to stop any use of force that is perceived

Many community comments focused on issues of accountability. The importance of each of these subejcts demands a full treatment in a separate General Police Order, and the Consent Decree process will soon work on addressing these issues.

in reviewing force incidents.128 The Monitoring Team concurs that these issues, which are all addressed in the Consent Decree, are squarely related to force and the long-term ability of

to be unauthorized by this policy.”124

the Division to implement the Use

The duty to provide medical aid is an affirmative duty for officers

of Force policy in practice. Because the General Use of Force

themselves. CPD’s prior policy required only that officers “en-

policy focuses on when officers may and may not use force on

sure medical care was provided.”125

the streets of Cleveland, these topics will be subsequently ad-

dressed in the Consent Decree process in other General Police

5. Addressing Community Concerns

Orders and Operation Manuals.

Some community comments during the public feedback pro-
120 Linda S. Miller, et al, Community Policing: Partnerships for Problem Solving 46 (11th ed. 2011) (“Police use discretion because no set of policies and procedures can prescribe what to do in every circumstance.”). 121 Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397 (1989). 122 Dkt. 83 at 20. 123 Id.; Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397 (1989). 124 Dkt. 83 at 20. 125 Id.

b. Use of Force: Definitions
126 Cleveland Community Police Commission, “Summary Comparison Of Proposed General Police Orders With Cleveland Community Police Commission Recommendations” at 7–8 (Sept. 23, 2016), [hereinafter CPC Final Use of Force Summary Comparison] (recommending “specific protocols for dealing with those with physical . . . conditions, . . . differently abled, and language barriers”). 127 CPC Final Use of Force Summary Comparison at 2, 7. 128 CPC Final Use of Force Summary Comparison at 12–14

32

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 34 of 70. PageID #: 1641

Common definitions of frequently-used terms that apply throughout the force-related policies are located in the newly revised Definitions policy. These definitions provide a common framework for officers, and the public, aimed at fostering clarity, fairness, and accountability. The three-page Definitions policy defines thirteen terms, three levels of force, and three levels of subject resistance.129
The revised policy directly responds, as noted above, to feedback and comments from CPD officers. One of the key findings from the electronic survey that the Division conducted was that “officers appeared to want clearer definitions of key terms used” in a new force policy, “with fewer than 40 percent of officers saying that the Division’s old definitions made the policy clear.130 Consequently, CPD endeavored to make the new definitions both concise and precise – so that policy provisions using the defined terms are readily understandable. For instance, the new policy provides clear definitions for key terms integral to the general policy.131
The Definitions section also outlines the three Levels of force discussed.132 It should be noted that, consistent with the Decree, low-level, Level 1 reportable force now includes “un-holstering a firearm and pointing it at a subject.”133 This is consistent with the CPC recommendation that the policy “[i]ncorporate in GPO Definitions, explicit language regarding pulling out and pointing of firearms—even when not fired.”134
c. Use of Force: De-Escalation
De-escalation is the use of affirmative and strategic techniques to preserve a greater array of tactical options, thereby increasing the likelihood that a subject will voluntarily comply while minimizing the likelihood that force will need to be used during an incident and/or reducing the severity of force that is used. CPD’s revised policies now impose an affirmative duty on police officers to de-escalate situations unless it is not safe or not feasible for them to do so. The concept has been set forth both in a distinct policy section and as a requirement in the General Use of Force policy.135
CPD’s stated intent of having both a separate, standalone De-escalation policy and incorporating de-escalation expressly into
129 Dkt. 83 at 21–22. 130 Dkt. 43-1 at 33. 131 See Dkt. 83 at 22. (discussing the addition of definitions for integral words—such as “neck hold” and “necessary”—in the general policy). 132 Dkt. 83 at 38. 133 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 56; Dkt. 83 at 38. 134 CPC Final Use of Force Summary Comparison at 2. 135 Dkt. 83 at 24. The General Use of Force Policy emphasizes the significant breadth of the duty and the primary importance of de-escalation in the Division’s approach to policing and using force going forward.

the General Use of Force policy is to clarify that officers understand that “the guidelines relative to de-escalating situations in order to gain voluntary compliance and reduce the need to use force” apply to all encounters, regardless of whether force is ultimately required to resolve the situation or not.136 During the Use of Force Community Roundtables, many community members discussed the importance of incorporating specific protocols for de-escalating individuals with mental health conditions.137 Consistent with this feedback, the de-escalation policy requires officers to consider whether a subject’s lack of compliance is a deliberate attempt to resist or an inability to comprehend and/ or comply based on “[k]nown or reasonably apparent mental illness, developmental disability, or crisis incident or [k]nown or reasonably apparent physical disability or other medical or physical condition, including visual or hearing impairment.138
d. Use of Force: Intermediate Weapons
Intermediate weapons, sometimes called less-lethal or less-thanlethal weapons, can be an important tool used by officers to gain control of a subject posing a threat without needing to use more deadly force. The appropriate use of less-lethal weapons has been associated with a lower rate of injuries to both officers and civilians.139 CPD previously did not have a standalone, separate policy section or manual specifically dedicated to intermediate weapons.140 Instead, different rules applied to different intermediate weapons, and all were contained in the Division’s single force policy. Indeed, the only guideline that applied to all intermediate weapons was that officers were not permitted to use an intermediate weapon against someone who was passively resisting.141
The revised Intermediate Weapons policy focuses on four authorized intermediate weapons: (1) ASP Baton/Riot Baton/ Impact Weapons; (2) Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) Spray; (3) Conducted Electrical Weapon (“CEW” or “Tasers”); and (4) and the beanbag shotgun. The new policy sets out clear provisions that apply to all intermediate weapons, regardless of type, including when officers are and are not authorized to use any intermediate weapon.142 Under the revised policy, officers are required to carry at least two intermediate weapons, which ensures that officers will have multiple less-lethal options immediately available to them.143
136 Id.; see also Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 36. 137 Dkt. 83 at 25. 138 Id. 139 See e.g., John M. MacDonald, et al, “The Effect of Less-Lethal Weapons on Injuries in Police Use-of-Force Events,” 99 Am. J. Pub. Health 2268 (2009) (concluding that “[i]ncidence of . . . injuries can be reduced dramatically when law enforcement agencies responsibly employ less-lethal weapons in lieu of physical force”). 140 Dkt. 83 at 25. 141 Id. 142 Id. at 26. 143 Dkt. 83-4 at 1, Procedures (I)(A)(2).
33

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 35 of 70. PageID #: 1642

come effective once the men and women of the Division receive

The policy also provides force-instrument-specific guidelines – or particular policy provisions that apply to the specific nature of the instrument and the risks associated to officers and subjects.144 Because OC Spray and CEW are more widely carried

significant, substantive training on the policy’s provisions.
Monitoring Team’s last semiannual report summarized the importance of training to the Consent Decree effort:

and used by CPD officers than other intermediate weapons, the guidelines for those instruments are discussed in detail.145

A consensus continues to emerge that high-quality and robust training throughout

e. Officer Use of Force Reporting

an officer’s career is a linchpin to ensuring

Finally, the Division’s Officer Use of Force Reporting policy is consistent with the requirements of the Consent Decree and incorporates community feedback.146 This policy outlines what officers must do to notify supervisors after force has been used, what they must be prepared to do in terms of describing and reporting what happened, and the administrative response from

safe, effective, constitutional, and community-based policing. The Consent Decree requires that CPD officers receive no fewer than 40 hours of in-service training annually . . . . 148
The Division’s upcoming, 16-hour training for all officers on

the Division that officers can expect to be followed immediately

the new use of force policies will, it is hoped, serve as a strong

after a use of force incident. The proposed policy captures the affirmative duty placed on all

foundation for officers to learn about new obligations under the policy and practice skills related to responding to subjects and potential threats in dynamic, scenario-based environments.

witness officers to report such force in writing. The Division has

created a Witness-Officer Narrative Statement, which requires officers who are bystanders or witnesses to the use of force by a CPD officer to provide, among other things: (l) detailed account

CPD continues to partner closely with the Department of Justice, City, and Monitoring Team in development a comprehensive use of force training that clarifies for officers what is expect-

of the incident from the witness-officer’s perspective; (2) the reason for the initial police presence; (3) a specific description of the acts that led to the use of force; (4) the level of resistance en-

ed of them under the new force policies, provides opportunities for officers to apply the policies to real-world situations, and allows CPD personnel to practice the tactics and strategies that

countered; and (5) a complete and accurate description of every

can ensure that they keep themselves safe while de-escalating

type of force used or observed.
The comments of the CPC and other community organizations focused on how force reports would be evaluated, reviewed, and made public. Specifically, in a separate document

The Use of Force reporting policy outlines what officers must do to notify supervisors after force has been used, what they must be prepared to do in terms of describing and reporting what happened, and the administrative response from the Division.

situations when it is feasible to do so. It is currently contemplated that use of force training may be able to begin sometime in February 2016. Even if several weeks more are required beyond that date to finalize training, train CPD’s instructional staff to give

reviewing the reporting policy, the CPC indicated that “Use of

the training to officers on a round-the-clock basis, or commence

Force Reports need to be consistently evaluated for departmental values and integrity of reporting of the facts of the case,” and that “Use of Force . . . be reported out to the community . . . on a monthly or quarterly basis.”147 The Monitoring Team agrees.

the training of officers, the Monitoring Team is satisfied that the Division is committed to completing a high-quality training that incorporates the good practices of peer departments and uses adult educational principles. That is, even if the start of training

However, the Officer Use of Force Reporting policy applies to officers. The response of supervisors to use of force incidents, the administrative inquiries and reviews of force, and the Depart-

must be a some interval after February 2016, a shift in timelines would be reasonable so long as it is in service of enhancing the quality and effectiveness of the force training.

ment’s tracking of data about use of force will all be the subjects of subsequent GPOs that will be separately completed, made available for wider review, and submitted to this Court.
B. Officer Use of Force Training
The approved, new use of force policies for CPD will only be-

C. Use of Force Investigations & Review
The Monitoring Team outlined the significant Consent Decree requirements relating to the internal investigation and review of force used by CPD officers in the First Semiannual Report.149 Much of the public feedback regarding the policies on when officers may and may not use force understandably also began to ad-

144 Id. at 2-8, Procedures (II-V). 145 Dkt. 83 at 27- 28 (discussing specific details and protocols officers must follow when using CEWs or Tasers).

dress issues relating to how the Division of Police would respond to, investigate, and review force incidents – affirming that “[a]n important goal of the Consent Decree is to ensure that all uses of

146 Id. at 28; Dkt. 7-1 ¶¶ 87–99.

148 First Semiannual Report at 6.

147 Dkt. 83 at 29.

149 Id. at 36–37.

34

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 36 of 70. PageID #: 1643
force administered by CPD officers are, after being promptly and uniformly reported, meaningfully examined and reviewed.”150
Currently, work is underway, per the Updated First-Year Monitoring Plan, on new policies relating to the investigation and review of force. This includes establishing policies on lower-level force inquiries and, for serious uses of force, policies and protocols for a dedicated Force Investigation Team (“FIT”) that must be specially trained to handle comprehensive and objective administrative reviews of force incidents. After policies are finalized, supervisors will need training on the many new requirements relating to investigating and reviewing force, and the membership of FIT will need to be determined and trained.
Additionally, policies and a procedural manual for the Division’s eventual Force Review Board (“FRB”), which will “serve as a quality control mechanism for uses of force and force investigations” by “apprais[ing] use of force incidents from a tactics, training, policy, and agency improvement perspective.”151 FRB also “will asses the quality of the investigations it reviews, including whether investigations are objective and comprehensive and recommendations are supported by a preponderance of the evidence.”152 It must also “examine . . . data related to use of force . . . to detect any patterns, trends, and training deficiencies . . . .”153 During the first significant span of time in which the Board is operating, the Monitoring Team will provide in-depth, active, and real-time technical assistance by participating in meetings of the Board and, where necessary, asking questions or probing unexplored issues if the Board is not otherwise considering material issues that it must under CPD policies and the Consent Decree.
The establishment of all of these mechanisms of internal review and critical self-analysis will require substantial effort, attention, and dedication by CPD and all Consent Decree stakeholders. Indeed, the success of the substantial parts of the Decree depend on the Division’s ability to meaningfully embrace the transition to becoming a continually self-analytical and, when necessary, self-critical organization – so that the risks of unconstitutional policing in the future can be addressed and prevented.
150 Id. at 36. 151 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 124. 152 Id. ¶ 128. 153 Id. ¶ 129.
35

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 37 of 70. PageID #: 1644

CRISIS INTERVENTION
The Department of Justice’s 2014 investigation concluded that “officers use excessive force against individuals who are in mental health crisis,” in large part because the Division’s “crisis intervention policies and practices are underdeveloped.”154 Consequently, the Consent Decree includes a number of important requirements aimed at building and improving the Cleveland Police Division’s Crisis Intervention Program.155 The Crisis Intervention Program will provide a forum for effective problem solving regarding the interaction between the criminal justice and the mental health care system as well as creating a context for sustainable change.156
The Consent Decree indicates that CPD should build and enhance its Crisis Intervention Program with the following goals:
• Assisting individuals in crisis • Improving the safety of officer, consum-
ers, family members, and others within the community • Providing the foundation necessary to promote community and statewide solutions to assist individuals with mental illness; and • Reducing the need for individuals with mental illness to have further involvement with the criminal justice system.157
To date and over the six-month period that this report address-
154 2014 Findings Letter at 4, 52. 155 First Semiannual Report at 38. 156 See generally Dkt. 7-1 ¶¶ 131–59. 157 Id. ¶ 131.
36

es, the Cleveland community has met the challenge of providing a forum to address problems regarding the interaction between the criminal justice and the mental health care system. This forum, the Mental Health Response Advisory Board (“MHRAC” or the “Board”) holds great promise in creating ongoing and sustainable change. Police, social service providers, mental health and substance abuse professionals, advocates and individuals in recovery have met and had candid discussions on how to improve services for those in crisis.
These discussions have not only led to change in the CPD crisis response program but also to corresponding changes in the capacity of the Alcohol, Drug Addiction and Mental Health Service Board of Cuyahoga County (ADAMHS) to meet the needs of individuals experiencing a behavioral crisis. Those providing services are not waiting for formal agreements or policy revisions to make meaningful change. Rather, programs are being improved as issues are identified. This sort of cooperative process suggests that the change which is occurring is not just a response to a formal agreement but rather portends the development of a meaningful problem-solving relationship.
A. Background Information
1. Cleveland Division of Police Special Events
As this report summarizes elsewhere, shortly after the Monitor’s First Semiannual Report, CPD was faced with the challenges of a high-profile national event. In the weeks leading up to the Republic National Convention (“RNC”), the timetable for the Crisis Intervention work was adjusted to allow resources to be devoted to preparing for the RNC. Despite the demands of this major event, the changes in the timetable for progress in accomplishing the tasks related to the Crisis Intervention Program were minimal. The work in developing the policies and practices of the Crisis Intervention program remains on track.
2. Developing a Mental Health Response Advisory Committee
As detailed in the Monitor’s First Semiannual Report,158 the ADAMHS Board, under a memorandum of understanding with the City of Cleveland formed the Mental Health Response Advisory Committee with six standing subcommittees (Executive, Policy, Data, Training, Community Engagement and Diversion), along with an ad hoc Public Survey Task Force.
The MHRAC has conducted numerous meetings as well as a daylong retreat to develop a structure and working relationships. The relationships highlighted in the First Semiannual Report remain strong and have resulted in substantial progress. The Monitoring Team, the City of Cleveland and CPD, and the U.S. Department of Justice have worked closely with the Mental Health Response Advisory Committee and its various sub-committees. Importantly, CPD has taken a leadership role and remains active
158 First Semiannual Report at 39–40.

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 38 of 70. PageID #: 1645

in every phase of the MHRAC. The ADAMHS Board remains and the ADAMHS Board Mental Health Task Force recom-

committed and has provided significant staff support. The volun- mended that a CIT Champion be found among the command

teer professionals and advocates have devoted significant time to staff. Deputy Chief Joellen O’Neill has taken on this role. Dep-

addressing a wide range of issues and have served without finan- uty Chief O’Neill continues to attend the MHRAC meetings at

cial compensation.

both the committee and subcommittee level and her leadership

has set a positive tone for the Cleveland Division of Police.

This sort of community effort warrants special recognition – and

provides clear evidence that the community, police officers, CPD, B. Current Implementation Status

and the City all benefit when dedicated community members are

directly involved in crafting the Division’s policies and proce- The Consent Decree outlines five major steps with respect to

dures.

crisis intervention. The first two steps –developing a Mental

Health Response Advisory Committee and appointing a CPD

3. Crisis Intervention Needs Assessment and Work Plan

Crisis Intervention Coordinator – have been accomplished, as

outlined below. This constitutes significant and commendable

Per the First-Year Monitoring Plan159, the Mental Health Re-

progress.

sponse Advisory Committee conducted a Crisis Intervention Needs Assessment. The MHRAC organized the assessment of the needs of the

The Mental Health Response Advisory Committee holds great promise in creating ongoing and sustainable change.

All parties involved are working towards completing the next three steps. Progress towards delineation

public, and CPD took on the task of

of the Crisis Intervention Policies

assessing the needs of the officers. Community meetings were fa- and Procedures, and Completion of Crisis Intervention Train-

cilitated by MHRAC and CPD. Additionally, the MHRAC worked ing is reaching completion. The step of Selection of Specialized

with the ADAMHS Board and NAMI Greater Cleveland to host Crisis Intervention Trained Officers is on schedule. Given the

focus group sessions. The results from both the Communi- necessary revisions to the schedule due to the CDP time com-

ty-wide and CPD Officer Needs Assessment continue to influence mitment needed to support recent major national events in

the work of MHRAC’s subcommittees.

Cleveland, the steps are being accomplished in a timely manner.

The ADAMHS Board took on the task of developing its Work Plan in conjunction with all parties to the Settlement Agreement. That plan is extensive and has helped CPD and the MHRAC in working to comply with the Consent Decree’s crisis intervention requirements.
4. Appointing a CPD Crisis Intervention Coordinator
As indicated in the previous report, CPD quickly filled this position with Captain James Purcell.160 Captain Purcell is a well-respected officer who worked in the mental health field early in his career. He has demonstrated that he is up to the challenges of being a CIT Coordinator and is developing partnerships with stakeholders, participating in the MHRAC, soliciting feedback from the community and potential specialized CIT officers and dispatchers, and coordinating the change implementation process. He was appointed co-chair of the MHRAC and has been active in the major MHRAC task for this semi-annual period, that of developing the revised crisis intervention policy. He is beginning to tackle the tasks of ensuring the selection of appropriate candidates as specialized CIT officers and is creating ways to honor and recognize specialized CIT officers and dispatchers.
The Ohio Criminal Justice Coordinating Center of Excellence
159 Dkt. 43-1 at 32–33. 160 First Semiannual Report at 41.

1. Revising CPD Crisis Intervention Policies & Procedures
The work of the MHRAC Policy Subcommittee has been guided by four principles:
• Advancing respect, dignity and safety in all interactions between CDP and citizens.
• Safely diverting people with mental illness, the vulnerable and/or those citizens in crisis from the criminal justice system where possible to appropriate mental health and substance abuse treatment.
• Reducing unnecessary use of force and injury and advancing best practice tactics
• Managing the stigma associated with mental illness and addiction in police-citizen encounters.
The MHRAC Policy Subcommittee was presented with results from the community and officer needs assessment meetings to guide them in developing a new CPD Crisis Intervention policy. The members also reviewed over 23 separate Crisis Intervention Policies from CIT programs throughout the country. This impressive collection of CIT Policies has been posted on-line by the ADAMHS Board. Members highlighted features of each policy and then worked with CPD to select the best elements and modify, where appropriate, these policy elements to best suit the unique challenges and features of the Cleveland community.

The volunteer members of the subcommittee deserve the thanks

37

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 39 of 70. PageID #: 1646

Features of Proposed Crisis Intervention Policy1
• Establishes a community-based Advisory Committee with defined roles and responsibilities
• Coordinates with community resources to assist those in need
• Addresses: – individuals in crisis who might have with a wide range of special needs – the needs of both juveniles and adults
• Describes – a specialized role for volunteer officers to provide leadership in crisis events – curriculum for training all officers as well as officers identified as leaders – the role of Dispatch in assisting officers in responding to a behavior crisis – the role of CPD supervisors
• Emphasis on – de-escalation strategies for all officers – a strong, positive interface with new CPD use of force policy
• Focuses on – safety for both the officer and individuals in crisis – diverting individuals into treatment wherever possible – considering the needs of the individual in providing transportation – coordination of transportation with Emergency Medical Services (EMS)
• Clarifies the relationship between CPD and emergency crisis services
• Details crisis information to be monitored by CPD/ ADAMHS to improve police services
1 Ballard, Carole, Crisis Intervention Team Policy Comparison, ADAMHS Board, (Oct. 2016) at 1-2.
of the Cleveland community for their dedication to this important task161. The cooperative relationship established between advocates, healthcare professionals and the Cleveland Police Department worked well in developing a consensus policy to address the needs of the individual in crisis without compromising the safety of the officer or the Cleveland community.
Consequently, CPD’s Proposed Crisis Intervention Policy presents a new, comprehensive strategy for responding to individuals in a behavioral crisis. The policy work is on schedule and has been made available to the Cleveland community for review and feedback. A newly-formed Community Outreach Task Force has worked to inform the community about the new Crisis Pol-
161 Co-Chairs Judge Hollie Gallagher and advocate Gabriella Celeste, liaisons: CPD Deputy Chief Joellen O’Neill and Captain James Purcell, Department of Justice Heather Tonsing Volosin and Jack Morse, ADAMHS Board Carole Ballard.
38

icy and obtain feedback to bring to the Policy Subcommittee, holding multiple community forums where members of the public have been able to provide substantive feedback on the crisis intervention policies. The Monitoring Team will have more to say about this extensive and impressive process when it files the finalized policies with the Court.
2. Crisis Intervention Data
The Consent Decree requires that CPD track calls and incidents involving individuals in crisis and collected detailed data.162 This data will be reported annually and used to identify training needs, trends, successful individual officer performance, necessary changes in strategies, and systemic issues related to crisis intervention response.163
Even before the Consent Decree, CPD personnel were supposed to log information about interactions with individuals experiencing a behavioral health crisis on the so-called CIT Data Sheet. That data instrument – which CPD personnel have needed to fill out by hand on a strictly paper-based form – collected some basic information about crisis intervention incidents. However, both CPD and the ADAMHS have become aware that the completion rate of these forms is extremely low – with officers appearing to properly complete the data sheets in between 10 and 20 percent of the interactions that they have with individuals experiencing crisis. This low completion rate seems to stem not from officers refusing to comply but from confusion both about the scope of incidents that require a CIT Data Sheet to be completed and the extent to which that form should be completed even when other aspects of the interaction require separate reporting (e.g., an arrest report or a use of force report).
Consequently, CPD and the ADAMHS Board have identified that the data collection will need to be improved. Major changes in the data collection process will require: a (i) a new crisis intervention policy in place that clarifies the nature of a crisis intervention incident and when crisis intervention-related data must be provided about that incident, and (ii) a non-manual, technology-based solution is in place to ensure that reporting requirements do not impede the ability of officers to efficiently and effectively provide law enforcement service.164
As in other areas of data collection, and consistent with the Consent Decree’s requirement that police services be effective and ensure officer safety,165 the Monitoring Team will insist that CPD provide the tools and technological platforms necessary to ensure that officers can log and track a broader set of incident and performance data efficiently and effectively – without impacting their ability to respond to calls or address other law enforcement objectives. In short, the ultimate collection of data
162 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 157. 163 Id. ¶¶ 157–58 164 First Semiannual Report at 42. 165 Dkt. 7-1 at 1.

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 40 of 70. PageID #: 1647

about crisis contacts must not remove officers from the field for an unduly lengthy period. It is unlikely, then, that a manual, penand-paper approach can fulfill this important objective. The Monitoring Team continues to have confidence that waiting to finalize a data gathering mechanism until a sound, technological platform can be established for officers to use will produce more effective, lasting, and efficient reform.166
3. Completing Crisis Intervention Training
The Consent Decree requires several types of training related to crisis intervention. First, all officers must receive eight (8) hours of annual training on crisis intervention issues. Second, new recruits must receive 16 hours of training in the Academy on crisis issues. Third, CPD dispatchers and call-takers must receive appropriate training on identifying signs of behavioral crisis. Fourth, CPD must provide forty (40) hours of enhanced training to designated, specialized Crisis Intervention Team (“CIT”) officers who will be specifically dispatched to the scene of incidents involving individuals experiencing a behavioral crisis. All officers will receive 8 hours of annual training on crisis intervention topics. New recuits will receive 16 hours of Academy training. Dispatchers and call-takers will also recxeive appropriate training on crisis topics.167
During the first six months of the work on the Settlement Agreement, the MHRAC Training Subcommittee worked with experts from the Ohio Criminal Justice Coordinating Center of Excellence (“CJCCOE”), the ADAMHS Board, and CPD staff to integrate the work of the Policy Subcommittee into the training curriculum for all CPD crisis training. As with other committees, members worked using a consensus-based strategy to develop a curriculum that is designed to meet the unique needs of the Cleveland community.
Training of All Officers. The MHRAC Training subcommittee recommended utilizing the Ohio Attorney General’s “Interacting with and De-escalating the Special Needs Population” curriculum as a benchmark.168 Trainers will be selected by CDP and ideally be the Specialized CIT officers. The CPD trainer would be paired with a mental health professional, chosen by the ADAMHS Board, to ensure practical and clinical expertise. The intent of this training is to teach officers, whether for the first time or as a refresher, to connect with an individual that is experiencing a mental health crisis and demonstrate ways that the officer can direct them to the most efficient method of resolving this conflict.
166 First Semiannual Report at 42 (“[T]he City, CPD, and Advisory Committee need to take time to get the rollout of new or improved reporting requirements to officers right.”). 167 Requirements for the training of Specialized CIT officers are covered in Settlement Agreement Step D: Specialized Crisis Intervention Trained Officers. 168 First Draft 8-Hour Mental Health Training for Cleveland Division of Police Responding to Individuals in Crisis, MHRAC Training Subcommittee, May, 2016.

The Training sub-committee decided that a focus on the quality of instruction and the ability of the training to have a meaningful impact on the officer in training was more valuable than covering a large quantity of topics. Consequently, the first year of the training for all officers, 2017, will focus on the new CPD Crisis Intervention Policy, Mental Health Signs and Symptoms, Communication and Active Listening, and the Command and Control Paradox. The second year of training, 2018, will focus on models of crisis response that address specific issues such as engaging and resolving conflict, addressing a crisis involving a loss of reality and assisting individuals at risk for suicide. Additional, specialized topics will be covered as the training progresses in later years.
Currently, the eight-hour training curriculum is being revised by a joint task force of CPD training instructors and volunteer subject matter experts. The current strategy of including law enforcement, healthcare professionals, advocates, and individuals in recovery in the teaching process aims to set a positive example of a cooperative relationship in action for the CPD officers in the class.
Recruit Training. The Ohio Peace Officer Training Commission has a Crisis Intervention training curriculum for Ohio Peace Officers169. This curriculum is required as part of the Academy training for recruits. All parties agree that the new training is a reasonable substitute for the 16 Hours of Academy Training. This request will be submitted to the Court.
Dispatch Training. The new model of crisis intervention provides a significant role for CPD dispatchers, as the ability of the dispatchers to identify calls involving a potential behavioral crisis as well as their ability to implement key parts of the new policy is critical to the success of the updated crisis program.
The MHRAC Training Subcommittee met with CPD dispatchers as part of the curriculum development process. The Training Subcommittee decided that the intent of the training is to teach dispatchers essential job skills and to coordinate dispatcher training with the new General Police Orders.170 The committee felt that “through intensive education and scenario based training, including critiquing actual dispatch calls, new dispatchers will learn that every mental health call is unique and should be treated with the utmost care.”171 The committee recognized that “calls involving a mental health issue will require more time by the call-taker and will require more information be passed on to responding law enforcement personnel. Patience and poise in the face of challenges will be paramount to put law enforcement
169 Peace Officer Basic Training Crisis Intervention. Ohio Peace Officer Training Commission: Education & Policy Section. 1-156 (Jan. 2016) 170 Dispatch Curriculum Overview Recommendations, MHRAC Training Subcommittee (Sep. 2016). 171 Id.

39

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 41 of 70. PageID #: 1648

in the best position to respond appropriately.”172 Importantly, the Training Subcommittee felt that “critiquing real-life situations by listening to audio recordings would provide an enlightening method of learning about these topics.”173
The proposed, upcoming dispatcher training will include coverage of the following topics:
• Crisis Intervention Team Model and the Role of the Dispatcher
• The new CPD Crisis Intervention Policy • General Facts about Mental Health, Disabilities,
and Addiction • Adults, Children and Youth • Mental Health and Healthcare Professionals’ Duty
to Protect • Community Resources • The Rights of Individuals Needing Care • Identifying Red Flags in Communication • Common Scenarios and use of Clarification Ques-
tions
Specialized CIT Officers Training. As the Monitoring Team has previously discussed, the Consent Decree requires that CPD “eventually have a volunteer, dedicated cadre of officers within its ranks who are crisis intervention specialists and regularly dispatched to the scene of incidents involving individuals experiencing a crisis.”174 These designated, specialized Crisis Intervention Team (“CIT”) officers must received specialized and tailored training.
The MHRAC Training Subcommittee began its work to develop the Specialized CIT Officers Training by developing a set of recommendations to guide the training curriculum. These recommendations included ensuring a maximum class size, utilizing a faculty of providers/experts in the field and experienced CIT officers, and including families and individuals in recovery from serious mental illness as part of the training. The Subcommittee recommended that coursework include basic mental health signs and symptoms, with a focus on adults, adolescents, and children. It also indicated that lectures on autism, developmental disabilities, elder care, trauma-related care, and cultural competency should also be provided. Additional recommendations included providing expanded training on intensive de-escalation tactics; conducting in-person site visits to include St. Vincent Medical Center Emergency Services, homeless services, and Veterans’ Affairs; and providing sufficient time in the specialized training for question and answer sessions.175
The recommendations of the Subcommittee have led to a detailed curriculum outline. The MHRAC Training Subcommittee
172 Id. 173 Id. 174 First Semiannual Report at 43. 175 Id. at 42–43.
40

intends to have police trainers and subject matter experts work together to provide the substantive lecture material needed to complete the 40 hours of Specialized CIT Officer Training. The goal is to begin the Specialized CIT Officer Training in early 2017.
4. Selection of Specialized CIT Officers
The selection process requires that specialized CIT officers must volunteer for the role, have three years of CPD experience, undergo a CIT Fitness Assessment, complete a written application, obtain supervisory recommendations, undergo a review of the disciplinary file to include use of force related discipline, and undergo an in-person interview. CPD is taking the lead on developing a selection process for officers. The Monitoring Team looks forward to working with CPD, the City, the Department of Justice, and MHRAC to develop a comprehensive CIT Officer Selection process with appropriate mechanisms to determine if the officers chosen meet the relevant criteria.
C. Conclusion
CPD and the Cleveland community are making meaningful progress towards developing a forum where law enforcement, service providers, advocates, and those individuals struggling with mental illness and substance abuse can meet and discuss change. CPD’s encouraging progress in fulfilling the requirements of the Consent Decree relating to crisis intervention is due not only to the Division’s own dedication and hard work but to the sustained focus and attention on these issues by the Alcohol, Drug Addiction and Mental Health Service Board of Cuyahoga County (the “ADAMHS Board”). Indeed, the ADAMHS Board has formed an important partnership with the Cleveland Police Department and has provided meaningful assistance to the formation and work of the Mental Health Response Advisory Committee.
Likewise, the community of volunteers who make up the Mental Health Response Advisory Committee deserve significant credit for their hard work. The members of the committee have engaged a wide range of Cleveland residents in order to assess the needs of the Cleveland community. They have studied the efforts of other cities in addressing crisis intervention issues. They have examined diversion and alternatives to arrest and analyzed the available data. They have worked to develop a model policy document and recommended important changes to crisis intervention training.
Through these and other efforts, MHRAC members have brought a great deal of civic pride to an important effort for the Cleveland community. They are forming a true community partnership in order to meet the needs of individuals experiencing a behavior crisis and provide CPD officers with the training, tools, resources, and support that they need to respond effectively and safely to individuals experiencing behavioral crises.

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 42 of 70. PageID #: 1649

SEARCH & SEIZURE
The Consent Decree requires that CPD “revise, develop, and implement” policies on how its officers “conduct all investigatory stops, searches, and arrests with the goal” that such actions comply with the “Constitution, state and federal law.”176 As the Monitor summarized in the First Semiannual Report, officers will be expressly prohibited from “using immutable characteristics – such as race, ethnicity, gender, and perceived sexual orientation – as a factor when evaluating whether or not” there are sufficient grounds for initiating a stop of an individual.177
Importantly, under the Consent-Decree-required policy, “[o]fficers will be required to use specific details in reports documenting the events that led to an investigatory stop, search, or arrest” – providing substantially more information and supervision of this type of officer performance than currently exists within CPD, which does not currently log all such stop activity.178 To be able to track all investigatory stops in a manner that does not impose substantial inefficiencies, the tracking and database system for stops will need to be electronic. In conversations to date with the City and CPD, the current thinking is that stop information will be logged in the upgraded CAD system available on in-car computers in patrol vehicles or, otherwise, on mobile devices for officers assigned to non-motorized patrol duties. Alternatively, the information might be captured in the record management system via those same mobile computers. In any event, the one thing that the Parties and Monitoring Team agree on is
176 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 160. 177 Id. ¶ 161. 178 First Semiannual Report at 44.

that pen-and-paper will not only be insufficient but could risk overburdening officers with yet more time-consuming, manual processes. As this report details elsewhere, however, CPD is a long way off from having computers in all of its patrol vehicles. Indeed, it is a long way off from having enough patrol vehicles. Further, even when there are enough computers in enough cars, the City and CPD will need to manage to fully implement field-based reporting to the record management system and/or true, contemporary computer-aided dispatch – and provide exhaustive training to officers on how to enter, for themselves, information into the dynamic, continually-updated systems. Thus, in the area of stops, confusion or delays in technology upgrades will prevent a core, substantive obligation of the City under the Consent Decree. The First Semiannual Report stated that “[i]n the context of the Court-approved, First-Year Monitoring Plan, the Parties and Monitor agreed to defer close consideration of policies, procedures, and practices related to stops of individuals until the second year of monitoring in 2017.”179 As the focus of the Parties and other Consent Decree stakeholders turns to development of the Second-Year Monitoring Plan, the Monitor continues to look forward to “[r]eserving key portions of 2017 and 2018 to fundamentally addressing these issues through changes in policy and officer training,” which will “allow[] reform in this area to happen within a broader context of actively implementing community-based performance metrics and a comprehensive community policing model.”180
179 Id. 180 Id.

41

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 43 of 70. PageID #: 1650

ACCOUNTABILITY
In Cleveland, the entity that investigates potentially problematic officer performance depends on how the performance came to the City’s attention. If an individual outside the Division makes a complaint about officer conduct, the Office of Professional Standards (“OPS”) investigates the complaint. If a Division employee identifies, discovers, or makes a complaint about officer misconduct, the Division itself conducts the investigation. Although there has been confusion in the past about precisely what entity or entities within the Division would conduct the investigation, the Consent Decree clarifies that “Internal Affairs [IA] will conduct objective, comprehensive, and timely investigations of all internal allegations of officer misconduct,”181 which is “any improper conduct by an officer, including an alleged violation of CDP policy, procedure, regulations, orders, or other standards required by City employees including the improper use of force.”182
In the Consent Decree, the City agreed that it “will ensure that all allegations of officer misconduct, whether internally discovered or alleged by a civilian, are fully, fairly, and efficiently investigated” – with a preponderance of the evidence standard uniformly applied and “documented in writing.”183 Thus, the day-to-day operations of OPS must be as sound, rigorous, and
181 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 177. 182 Id. ¶ 437. “Solely for purposes of this Agreement, misconduct does not include minor infractions, such as uniform violations, routine motor vehicle accidents, or violations unrelated to the terms of this Agreement.” Id. 183 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 176.
42

objective as those of IA.
The need for uniform quality within IA and OPS is made even clearer when considering the duties of the Chief of Police and Public Safety Director. Ultimately, the Chief, and in certain instances the Safety Director, must use the investigations of the underlying incident to make an ultimate finding and, where warranted, impose discipline or take some other corrective action. The Chief and Safety Director must be able to have absolute confidence in the fairness, thoroughness, objectivity, and timeliness of all investigations of officer misconduct, whether conducted by OPS or by IA. The accountability system in Cleveland simply will not work if one entity is substantially stronger than the other – or, certainly, if both entities suffer from foundational deficiencies.
A. Internal Affairs
The Monitor’s First Semiannual Report summarized what a police department’s Internal Affairs (“IA”) does in a typical police department and what Cleveland’s Internal Affairs has done in the past:
Internal affairs is a generic term that refers to the function of investigating the police or to the police organizational unit responsible for that function . . . [I]nternal investigations of officer misconduct are, in agencies of CDP’s size, most typically reviewed and investigated by internal affairs units.
Currently, what CPD has historically called Internal Affairs is housed with[in] the Division’s Bureau of Integrity Control. That Bureau consists of two parts: an Inspections Unit and Internal Affairs. By policy, Internal Affairs has been responsible for conducting primarily criminal investigations of potential officer misconduct and investigating any incidents specifically directed to it by the Chief of Police.
The Inspections Unit is charged with conducting inspections designed to maximize the performance of police personnel by securing compliance with Division rules, regulations, policies, and procedures . . . . Although the full scope of its activities is not exhaustively inventoried in existing CPD policy, the Monitoring Team’s current understanding is that Inspections has historically addressed ‘low-level’ accountability issues, such as uniform violations, tardiness concerns, or vari-

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 44 of 70. PageID #: 1651

ous logbook audit requirements.184

ate.”188 However, “[i]n practice, the system for the investigation

and adjudication of civilian complaints has been, at best, a paper

That prior report noted that, going forward, the Division’s In-

tiger”:189

ternal Affairs would be streamlined such that it conducts all

non-minor, non-criminal administrative investigations of poten-

At worst, it has been an active impediment to the abili-

tial officer misconduct185 – and that IA would play a significant

ties of CPD command staff to manage the department,

role in the oversight and coordina-

of officers to have confidence that the

tion of supervisory responses to Going forward, the Division’s Internal Affairs will disciplinary system affords them due

lower-level performance inquiries, be streamlined such that it conducts all non-minor, process, and of community members

reviews, or interventions. Thus, it non-criminal administrative investigations of to know that all complaints are inves-

will soon be within the CPD that all potential officer misconduct.

tigated thoroughly and adjudicated

CPD inquiries into potential miscon-

fairly. The experience of the Moni-

duct, whether serious or trivial, interact with IA – with a defined

toring Team in its first year overseeing Consent Decree

set of the more significant or substantial misconduct cases being

implementation leads it to conclude that DOJ’s 2014

directly investigated by internal affairs investigators.

conclusion that Cleveland’s ‘civilian complaint system,

as a whole, is disorganized and ineffective’ was, in many

CPD provided the Parties and Monitoring Team with an initial

ways, a diplomatic understatement.’190

draft of an IA policy manual, and related policies, on November

11, 2016. Pursuant to the Updated First-Year Monitoring Plan,

The following sections describe the significant efforts of Con-

the Parties and Monitoring Team are now “work[ing] together

sent Decree stakeholders to provide a new foundation for both

to ensure that the First Draft of the Internal Affairs Policy Man-

OPS and PRB – so that the poor practices and performance of

ual adequately addresses the requirements and objectives of the

the past can give way to a renewed sense of urgency and spirit

Settlement Agreement.”186 A final draft of the policy, along with

of accomplishment within these two vital entities. Precisely

related Division policies, is due no later than February 3, 2017,

because they are both currently under the ultimate authority of

with the Monitor approving or disapproval of the final draft later

the Director of Public Safety, the Monitoring Team expects that

in the month.187 As Consent Decree stakeholders complete work

change will be swift, supported, and substantial and that, if not,

on policies and manuals relating to IA, the Monitoring Team will

accountability will be clear and certain.

be looking to ensure that past problems are addressed through

the implementation of clear standards, precise rules, common

1. Office of Professional Standards (“OPS”)

understandings, and clear objectives for IA personnel.

a. Overview

In the meantime, and as this report elsewhere discusses, the

Monitoring Team has been conducting a structured, method-

In the First Semiannual Report, the Monitoring Team expressed

ologically rigorous qualitative review of Internal Affairs inves-

our disappointment and frustration with the dysfunction

tigations. Reviews are ongoing, and the Monitoring Team will

and failed legitimacy of the Office of Professional Standards

provide the Court with a comprehensive report on its findings.

(“OPS”).191 The Team’s dismay was exacerbated by a mindbog-

gling backlog of cases that had been left dormant for a consid-

B. Office of Professional Standards (“OPS”) and Police

erable time with little to no investigative activity. In addition to

Review Board (“PRB”)

having missed the opportunity to promptly identify and, per-

haps, correct misconduct, the backlog has threatened the con-

Cleveland’s OPS, pursuant to the City’s Charter, investigates

fidence that both the citizens of Cleveland and members of the

complaints made by civilians about CPD officers. After OPS

CPD can have in OPS’s ability to effectively carry out its import-

has completed an investigation, Cleveland’s PRB reviews and

ant public service.

analyzes the investigation in order to make a recommendation

to the Chief of Police as to the ultimate disposition of the case

During this past reporting period, members of the Monitoring

and, if warranted, the discipline that an involved officer should

Team set out to identify the causes of the deficiencies which have

receive as a result of misconduct established in the investigation.

crippled OPS’s efficiency and to inaugurate a path to addressing

those deficiencies. The Team has provided the sustained and de-

The Monitoring Team has observed to the Court previously

tailed technical assistance necessary to assist in the development

that, at least “[o]n paper, it would appear that Cleveland’s sys-

and implementation of a new basic operating approach and day-

tems of accountability and civilian are adequate and appropri-

to-day process aimed at restoring legitimacy to the overall cit-

184 First Semiannual Report at 45–46. 185 Id. at 46. 186 Dkt. 80-1 at 15. 187 Id.

188 Dkt. 86 at 2. 189 Id. 190 Dkt. 86 191 First Semiannual Report at 47–48.

43

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 45 of 70. PageID #: 1652

izen review process – and drastically improving the manner in

technical assistance to OPS and PRB as they advance forward.

which OPS delivers services to the citizen of Cleveland.

In May 2016, the Monitoring Team launched an assessment of

Improvements to OPS will not happen overnight – and, indeed, cannot, given that OPS will be needing to address a staggering backlog of unfinished or uninvestigated cases while attempting to keep up with new complaints. As of November 21, 2016, the OPS backlog numbered 439 cases. More than four out of ev-

OPS’s past and current business practices. The work began with interviewing OPS staff in order to better understand how complaints were received, evaluated, documented, assigned, investigated, concluded, and ultimately resolved through the Police Review Board hearing process.

ery five (81 percent) of investigations of complaints received in 2016 are unresolved. More than two out of three (68 percent) of investigations of complaints received in 2015 are likewise unfinished. Some cases still stretch from complaints made in 2014. At this point, the Monitoring Team struggles for language sufficiently strong to communicate how unacceptable and appalling the state of OPS as an entity is.

Without exception, investigators expressed concern over depleting investigative resources, the absence of clear and consistent guidelines that would establish a uniform framework for investigations, and the difficulty in obtaining timely access to relevant materials that are retained by the CPD or other entities, both private and public.194 Their frustration regarding the backlog of cases was evident, as was their personal and professional com-

None of the Decree’s substantial requirements relating to OPS can be successfully accomplished without the rigorous overhaul to existing processes premised upon sound managerial practices and informed by the operations of other similarly-situated investigatory agencies.192 The systems and processes must be in

mitment to work hard to resolve the accumulated issues. While our discussions with the OPS Administrator failed to yield any clear explanation for these glaring deficiencies, there was little disagreement that OPS had fallen into a state of dysfunction and ineffectiveness that warrants immediate corrective action.

place to ensure that all investigations, and all reviews of those investigations, are fair, thorough, objective, complete, and timely

By early July 2016, the Monitoring Team, with the assistance of the Department of Justice and pursuant to a series of working

It should be noted that no process, however sound or well-in-

sessions with OPS and Consent Decree stakeholders, had as-

tentioned, for day-to-day operations of OPS or PRB will suc-

sembled a Provisional Operations Manual for OPS, which out-

ceed without the demonstration

lined step-by-step guidelines for the

of impregnable leadership at the At this point, the Monitoring Team struggles for intake, investigation, and resolution

highest levels of management with- language sufficiently strong to communicate how of constituent complaints. The goal,

in the Division of Public Safety and unacceptable and appalling the state of OPS as an articulated in late May, was to estab-

OPS. Regardless of how the Moni- entity is.

lish a working set of guidelines and

toring Team and the Parties work

processes to guide the reception of

to reform the citizen review process by ensuring compliance

civilian complaints in a systematic and

with the provisions of the Consent Decree, true reform in OPS,

thorough manner before the Republican National Convention

and the Police Review Board, cannot and will not be sustained

was held in Cleveland.

without knowledgeable, committed, and bold leadership. Such leadership requires both the desire and tenacity to overcome the failed systems that have been allowed to fester and the mediocre approach to date in correcting a broken and failed system of accountability.

Prior to the implementation of the intake form, if someone came to OPS and was subsequently referred to an outside entity because OPS lacked the jurisdictional authority to investigate the complaint, contact with that person was not likely to be captured in any electronic database or written log. This incomplete

b. Work Over the Last Six Months193

and complacent practice precluded OPS, the Parties, and the Monitoring Team from having the ability to conduct a reliable

The Monitoring Team’s work this period focused on: (1) conducting an organizational assessment of OPS and PRB; (2) assisting both in the development of clearly defined business processes pertaining to the receipt, evaluation, assignment, investigation, and conclusion, and adjudication of complaints; (3) the development of a performance appraisal for the OPS Administrator’s position in order to provide clear guidance and establish a more stringent system of accountability; and (4) the assignment of a dedicated Monitoring Team expert to provide

assessment as to how a particular constituent contact may have been handled at intake and ultimately resolved through the established process. Accordingly, in addition to the Provisional Operations Manual, the team developed a new, comprehensive intake form capturing not just those interactions with civilians that articulate a complaint that falls within the purview of OPS investigative authority but, instead, every contact that OPS has with a constituent regardless of whether that contact results in a full investigation.

192 Dkt. 7-1 ¶¶ 193–239. 193 Substantial elements of this discussion are reproduced or adapted from the Monitor’s filing to the Court found at Dkt. 86.

194 These materials include such things as 9-1-1 calls, dispatch records, daily duty rosters and assignment logs, police reports, video footage, and a variety of other police records that may be relevant to the constituent’s complaint.

44

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 46 of 70. PageID #: 1653

Again, during the development of both the Provisional Manual and the Intake Form, representatives from the Department of

investigating complaints in a timely manner . . . . ”200 The Manual specifically outlines the types of misconduct com-

Justice and the City of Cleveland regularly participated in the creation and review of the documents, and had line- by-line input as to the final work product. The Provisional Manual has been effective since July 15, 2016.

plaints over which OPS has jurisdiction from the City of Cleveland Charter.201 The Manual then sets forth a number of ethical
requirements, including the express incorporation of the NACOLE Code of Ethics.202 Most importantly, “[a]ll OPS employ-

ees, staff, contractors, or other agents have an affirmative duty to

In early August 2016, the Monitoring Team set out to formalize the Provisional Operations Manual into a more detailed, permanent, and sustainable document. This comprehensive, per-

ensure that all OPS investigations are fair, thorough, unbiased, comprehensive, and timely.”203

manent Manual (the “OPS Manual”) reflects the organization-

To ensure OPS’s actual independence and the perception of in-

al mission and values of OPS, clearly defines its organizational structure and detailed job functions, identifies and describes with clarity those matters in which the office has investigative

dependence among the Cleveland community and within CPD, the Manual provides that “[n]o OPS personnel may be current or former members of CDP.”204 Further, the Manual includes

authority, and provides a thorough, comprehensive, and rigor-

provisions outlining CPD personnel’s existing duties to “coop-

ous step-by-step review of how complaints of misconduct are accepted, assessed, documented, tracked, investigated, periodically reviewed, concluded, and ultimately forwarded to the Po-

erate with an OPS investigation” and to not retaliate against individuals for filing a complaint or participating in the complaint, investigative, or adjudicative process.205

lice Review Board for review and adjudication.

General Intake Process. A sig-

The OPS Manual covers a significant amount of ground, creating clear rules of the road for OPS personnel, community members, and CPD personnel alike to understand with respect to how matters are thoroughly

The new OPS Manual covers a significant amount of ground, creating clear rules of the road for OPS personnel, community members, and CPD personnel alike to understand with respect to how matters are thoroughly and timely investigated.

nificant portion of the Manual’s remainder sets forth, with significant specificity, the “investigative procedures” that OPS and its personnel must employ to ensure that its investigations are fair, thorough, objective,

and timely investigated. Among oth-

and timely.206 Accordingly, the OPS

er things, the OPS Manual addresses the following:

Manual begins by setting forth how OPS interacts with mem-

bers of the public and takes complaints.

Introductory Matters. The OPS Manual outlines that the purpose of the Manual is to provide OPS, CPD, and “members of the Cleveland community with express standards, expectations, and processes for the receipt and investigation of public complaints

First, regardless of how a matter comes to the attention of OPS, the OPS Manual now requires that every constituent contact at the intake and assessment of a complaint, inquiry, or concern

about police performance or conduct regarding CDP employees.”195 It also defines key terms.196
Mission, Jurisdiction, Ethical & Employment Requirements. Taken together, the various provisions of the OPS Manual Section entitled “Mission, Jurisdiction, Ethical & Employment Requirements,” adequately, and for the first time in a codified set of regulations and standards for the organization, “defines OPS[‘s] . . . core values, mission, and authority.”197 Consistent with feedback from CPC,198 the Manual includes an enhanced mission and values statement.199 This enhanced mission statement emphasizes that “OPS is not a part of the Cleveland

be thoroughly documented, assigned a unique tracking number, and reviewed regardless of whether a formal complaint investigation results.207 The purpose for such detailed documentation and oversight is to ensure that thorough and accurate information is captured pertaining to all constituent contacts, the reason for those contacts, and the way in which OPS responds to or otherwise resolves a constituent’s complaint or inquiry – as well as to ensure that OPS is not discouraging or turning away individuals whose issues rise to the level of a complaint. New requirements that OPS provide monthly statistical reports regarding the intake process to the PRB and Public Safety Director aim

Division of Police” but that OPS is a critical component of “in-

crease[ing] accountability and improve[ing] public confidence in the police by receiving and fairly, thoroughly, and objectively

200 Id. at 3. 201 Id. at 4.

202 Id. at 4–6.

195 Dkt. 86-1 at 3.

203 Id. at 6.

196 Id.; accord Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 200(b).

204 Id. at 7.

197 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 200(a).

205 Id.

198 Dkt. 86-1 at 6.

206 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 200(c).

199 Id. at 3–4.

207 Dkt. 86-1 at 8–10.

45

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 47 of 70. PageID #: 1654

to ensure transparency in the complaint collection process.208
Currently, the voluntary agreement between the City and the CPPA provides that “[a]ll complaints filed by a citizen against [officers] shall be submitted by the complainant in his or her own handwriting.”209 The Consent Decree requires that the City “work with the police unions . . . to allow civilian complaints to be submitted to OPS verbally or in writing; in person, by phone, or on[-]line; by a complainant, someone acting on his or her behalf, or anonymous; and with or without a signature . . . . ”210
Accordingly, the OPS Manual expressly provides that “[a] signed complaint form is NOT required for any further action to be taken by OPS in an effort to resolve the constituent’s complaint . . . . ”211 OPS will take the complaint, complete a full investigation, and forward the investigation to the PRB for review – in the same manner as the CPPA Contract currently provides for complaints “filed more than six (6) months after the date of the alleged event.”212 To ensure that individuals are aware of the implications of not providing a complaint signed and written out in their own handwriting, the Manual therefore provides that “complainants must be advised that, for reasons unrelated to OPS rules and regulations, officers may not be able to be disciplined for conduct that is alleged in unsigned and/or anonymous complaints, even if OPS and the PRB make a finding of misconduct.”213
A significant number of major departments take anonymous complaints without exception and permit such complaints to form the basis of disciplinary action, including, but not limited to: Mesa, Arizona; Bakersfield, California; Los Angeles, California; Long Beach, California; Aurora, Colorado; Miami-Dade, Florida; Jacksonville, Florida; Atlanta, Georgia; Honolulu, Hawaii; Baltimore County, Maryland; Montgomery County, Maryland; Raleigh, North Carolina; Las Vegas, Nevada; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Tulsa, Oklahoma; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Memphis, Tennessee; Virginia Beach, Virginia; and Washington, D.C. An academic survey from nearly 30 years ago found that some 96 percent of the 101 departments surveyed “investigate anonymous complaints, if not as a matter of routine, then if there is any other supportive information.”214
208 Id. at 10. 209 Collective Bargaining Agreement Between the City of Cleveland and Cleveland Police Patrolmen’s Association (CPPA), Non-Civilian Personnel [hereinafter “CPPA Contract”], Article VIII (m) at 11.
210 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 202.
211 Dkt. 86-1 at 9.
212 CPPA Contract, Article VIII (m) at 11 (indicating that employee in such circumstances “may be ordered to respond to the complaint and to the investigation, but shall not be subject to disciplinary action for that complaint”).
213 Dkt. 86-1 at 9.
214 Paul West, “Investigation of Complaints Against the Police: Summary Report of a National Survey,” 7 Am. J. Police 101 (1988).

Furthermore, because individuals with physical disabilities and mobility impairment may be excluded from the ability to fill out and sign complaint forms, the Monitor has significant concerns that the current CPPA provision providing that complaints may only result in discipline if an individual physically is able to, and does, physically write out his or her complaint and sign his or her name constitutes an ongoing violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 104 Stat. 328, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and the equivalent Ohio state statute, O.R.C. § 4112.99. The ADA, and its Ohio analogue, applies to the City of Cleveland’s programs and activities, including its interactions with civilians through OPS, and requires the City to “make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability.”215
Consequently, the Monitor will expect that the City and CPPA will work expeditiously to ensure that the provisions of the Consent Decree, generally-accepted practice, and compliance with the ADA and equivalent Ohio state law are harmonized with the CPPA Contract.
Complaint Intake. The OPS Manual outlines the variety of mechanisms through which civilians may make complaints.216 It assigns specific duties to OPS upon receiving a complaint.217 Among other things, received complaints must be assigned to a “standard” or “complex” track based on their overall complexity and a generalized complaint category “based solely on the content of the complaint,” such as “biased policing” or “harassment.”218 OPS’s intake Coordinator subsequently gathers basic information relating to the content of the complaint, and the complaint is forwarded within three (3) business days to the OPS Administrator for review and assignment to an Investigator within 24 hours of receipt from the Intake Coordinator.219 These and other specific, new timeline rules in the OPS Manual are intended to hold all OPS personnel strictly accountable for ensuring timely investigations. OPS must also provide notice both to the complainant that it has received a complaint and, in almost all circumstance, to implicated CPD personnel.220
As noted above, internally-discovered misconduct – or misconduct allegations made or identified by CPD personnel – will be investigated by CPD’s Internal Affairs, which will soon “be headed by a qualified civilian.”221 Further, some classes of officer performance, such as use of force, will be subject to standardized, post-incident administrative inquiry.222 Externally-reported
215 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7); Title II Technical Assistance Manual § II-3.6100, at 14.
216 Dkt. 86-1 at 10–12.
217 Id. at 12–13. 218 Id. at 13. 219 Id. at 14, 17. 220 Id. at 17–18. 221 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 177.
222 Id. ¶¶ 93–130.

46

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 48 of 70. PageID #: 1655

misconduct – or misconduct allegations made or identified by non-CPD personnel – will be investigated by OPS. However, it is readily conceivable that some incidents will generate a civilian complaint to OPS and an internal investigation of some type, whether automatic or related to possible misconduct. Accordingly, the OPS Manual provides specific procedures and guidance to OPS about how its inquiries should proceed when a criminal or administrative investigation is already underway within CPD.223
The OPS Manual provides that “[i]n order to ensure a thorough investigation, OPS Investigators may need access to any and all relevant disciplinary information in the record of an officer who is the subject of a current investigation.”224 Because the Director of Public Safety has authority over both OPS and CPD, the Monitoring Team will expect that the Director ensure that OPS has direct, automatic, and real-time access to information about completed internal investigations – and that, in turn, CPD have the same direct, automatic, and real-time access to information about completed OPS investigations. The Monitoring Team will be watching closely to ensure that no information or records are withheld either from OPS or from CPD on the grounds that it is not substantively relevant when it does meet the definitions provided by the OPS Manual. The Monitor will also be evaluating closely whether information about past officer performance is appropriately and non-prejudicially considered by OPS, and CPD.
Complaint Investigation Process. The OPS Manual provides, for the first time, granular instruction to OPS personnel on initiating, planning, conducting, and completing a fair and comprehensive investigation of complaints.225 Specifically, it outlines procedures for OPS investigators to interview the complainant; identifying and securing evidence; creating a comprehensive investigatory plan; evaluating evidence uncovered during the investigation; conducting interviews; and preparing a comprehensive summary report of the investigation. This specific, standardized guidance on the day-to-day duties and stepby-step tasks of OPS Investigators sets forth, essentially for the first time, the express expectations of OPS personnel and the standards that their work must meet.
Timeliness & Milestones. To address the significant, ongoing concerns about the timeliness of OPS investigations, the OPS Manual memorializes the Consent Decree’s requirement that “Standard” complaint investigations be resolved within 45 days and “Complex” investigations be concluded within 75 days. The Parties and Monitoring Team are mindful, and the OPS Manual expressly contemplates, that “[a] number of factors influence how swiftly an investigation may be completed”; however, issues that impact timeliness, including OPS’s workload and the pace of resolution of complaints by PRB, “are the responsibility of the OPS to effectively manage and resolve to ensure that citizen
223 Dkt. 86-1 at 15–17.
224 Id. at 30.
225 Id. at 18–31.

complaints are not impeded.”226
OPS Administrator’s Review of the Investigative File & Finalizing Civilian Police Board Action. The OPS Administrator must review all completed investigations, identify and address any deficiencies, and make a final recommended finding by applying the preponderance of the evidence standard. The OPS Administrator makes findings as to adjudication and “shall not make any recommendations as to potential discipline.”227 OPS then notifies the complainant “that the investigation has been concluded and the date that the PRB will convene to review the matter.”228 The case is forwarded “to the PRB in sufficient time for PRB to consider them no later than the second regularly scheduled PRB meeting following the completion of the investigation.”229
Administrative Dismissals & Finalizing Police Review Board Action. The Manual provides significant detail about when complaints may be “administratively dismissed.”230 It seeks to ensure that the dismissal of a complaint without a full investigation is contemplated only in clear and “limited instances.”231
Duties of OPS and OPS Personnel. For the first time, the OPS Manual spells out specific duties, tasks, standards, and expectations for OPS personnel, including the OPS Administrator, OPS Investigators, OPS administrative personnel, and OPS’s Research Analyst. It specifically requires at least annual training on investigative skills and CPD rules and policies.232 The Monitor will expect that the City, through the ongoing oversight of the Director of Public Safety, will ensure that all OPS personnel adhere to the Manual’s requirements.
c. Approach to Progress Going Forward
Currently, the City, Monitoring Team, and OPS are engaged in discussions regarding a plan to eliminate the backlog of uninvestigated, incomplete, or unresolved complaint investigations. The Monitoring Team has asked for such a plan since at least the Spring of 2016. It has been provided with a series of cursory and highly minimalistic documents, purported to be plans for eliminating the backlog, that did little more than summarize the nature of the problem or, in one instance, propose that OPS eliminate its backlog by summarily pushing a significant number of incomplete cases on to CPD’s chain of command to resolve, likely without formal discipline. Accordingly, all efforts to date by OPS to outline mechanisms for addressing the backlog have been patently insufficient in all respects and, in form and con-
226 Id. at 32. 227 Id. at 34. 228 Id. 229 Id. 230 Id. at 34–37. 231 Id. . at 33; accord Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 200(d). 232 Dkt. 86-1 at 43.
47

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 49 of 70. PageID #: 1656

tent, not serious proposals.

cedures codified in the OPS Manual and to abide by those rules

for an extended period before stakeholders can fully understand

Pending approval of the PRB Manual by the Court, the Monitor-

what an investigator’s typical workload is. In other words, al-

ing Team will be working closely with OPS and its personnel –

though the City might be able to benchmark its staffing needs

providing day-to-day technical assistance on how to transform

against other cities, the others referenced above have been op-

the extensive Manual from paper into practice.

erating for some time with codified, defined operational rules.

Cleveland is just beginning down that road.

The Monitoring Team has also recently communicated to the

Court regarding the OPS budget for 2017.233 The Monitoring

Constitutional policing, due process, transparency, and compre-

Team declined to either approve or disapprove of the full OPS

hensive officer performance investigations all require resources.

budget for 2017 – instead providing only short-term, provisional

That OPS has been under-resourced in the past does not excuse

approval of the budget for the first quarter of the year.234 The

under-resourcing in the future – in the same way that OPS’ lack

reason for this short-term and provisional approval is that the

of day-to-day operational policies and procedures could not ex-

OPS budget relies substantially on “compensation for four

cuse the ongoing lack of codified standards and procedures go-

temporary Investigators” who “are slated to provide support

ing forward.

to permanent investigators in completing those investigations

that remain open.235 However, “[a]lthough the professional in-

2. Police Review Board (“PRB”)

vestigatory skillset of these temporary investigators can hope-

fully provide some assistance toward alleviating a portion of the

a. Overview

backlog, this temporary solution, budgeted for only the first four

months of the year, is precisely that: temporary.”236 “Because

During the Summer, the Monitoring Team began to more closely

OPS will need to build its longer-term capacity, the Monitor

examine the manner in which the PRB goes about its import-

therefore approves the proposed OPS budget for, and only for,

ant public duty. It was immediately apparent to the Monitor-

the first quarter of 2017.”237 The Monitoring Team approved the OPS budget for the first quarter of 2017 at a status conference on January 6, 2017.

The lack of clear processes and procedures has allowed PRB to also fall behind on the timely review and deliberation of cases – failing in their core duties and service to the City of Cleveland.

ing Team that the Board had been carrying out their duties absent a set of established protocols to guide their decision making – even though the 1984 City Charter amendment

It is almost certain to be the case

creating the PRB provided that the

that OPS will need to hire additional, full-time investigators

Board “shall make rules providing for the procedure of the Board

to ensure that its personnel have reasonable and manageable

and for the review of complaints filed with it,” to be approved

caseloads – and that the officer can handle the typical level of

by the Public Safety Director and made effective “fifteen days

civilian complaints that it receives. The Monitoring Team has

after their publication in the City Record.”239 It is unclear why,

discussed with the City that OPS lags far behind, in terms of the

32 years after voters approved the Board’s creation and 28 years

complaints to investigator ratio, peer civilian oversight agencies

after the Charter amendment became effective (following con-

that conduct investigations. For instance, the D.C. Office of Po-

clusion of litigation), no such procedures appear to exist – and,

lice Complaints has an investigator to complaint ratio of 1:34.

if they did, why the Board has not used any codified and proce-

Chicago’s former IPRA entity had an investigator-complaint

dures for some time.

ratio of 1:24. San Francisco’s Office of Citizen Complaints has

an investigator-complaint ratio of 1:23. Cleveland’s OPS, with its

The lack of clear processes and procedures has allowed PRB to

six technical investigator positions,238 has an investigator ratio

also fall behind on the timely review and deliberation of cases –

of 1:49. Thus, for Cleveland to get to Washington, D.C.’s investi-

failing in their core duties and service to the City of Cleveland.

gator level, at least three new, full-time investigators would need

This assessment is not geared toward individual Board mem-

to be recruited, hired, and trained.

bers who, as volunteers, have been uniformly impressive in their

heartfelt desire to do good work, thoughtfully consider cases,

For staffing issues to be definitively addressed, current investi-

and provide good-faith recommendations to the Chief of Police.

gators will need to adopt the extensive rules, practices, and pro-

There is, of course, no question that the backlog of uncomplet-

233 Dkt. 87.

ed cases in OPS has a direct correlation to the Board’s ability to

234 Id. at 2–3.

promptly receive and adjudicated cases. PRB cannot conduct a

235 Id. at 2. 236 Id. 237 Id. 238 These positions are referred to as “technical” because it includes two recently-hired investigators who have ben given rela-

timely review if OPS has not provided them with a timely investigation. Correcting this entirely unacceptable condition will require that the OPS Administrator, with the clear, consistent, and unambiguous direction of the Director of Public Safety, develop and establish a comprehensive and effective plan to resolve the

tively little responsibility to date.

239 Charter of the City of Cleveland, § 115-3.

48

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 50 of 70. PageID #: 1657

backlog, more effectively manage cases and administer the office for which the Director has ultimate responsibility, and ensure that OPS is properly staffed and equipped to complete cases in a time frame that is consistent with the Consent Decree and the

Purpose of the Board, Purpose of the PRB Manual, and Duties & Responsibilities of the Staff. The PRB Manual’s initial sections provide that “[t]he purpose of these procedures is to facilitate the operation of the [Board], including the review

expectations of the greater Cleveland community.
Even when PRB addressed cases, it was not clear precisely how the Board or its members were making decisions – what standards it was applying, how it was considering and weighing evidence, and precisely what its various recommendations as to findings meant. Cases were adjudicated as “sustained” and “unfounded” without specific reference to particular CPD policies. Indeed, in the deliberations that the Monitoring Team observed,

of public complaints . . . as authorized by the City of Cleveland Charter.”241 The Manual makes clear that the PRB has “the power to receive, cause investigation of, and recommend, and in some cases determine, the resolution of public complaints regarding” CPD misconduct.242 It outlines specific “duties and responsibilities” of the Board, PRB members, and contemplated staff.243
Organization & Meetings. The Manual codifies the recent changes to the City Charter that Cleveland voters approved on

it appeared as though Board members were making a finding as to whether they believe that improper conduct occurred – not whether specific violations of CPD policy had taken place. In

November 8, 2016, with PRB’s membership expanded to “nine members who are representative of the diverse communities within Cleveland” – with “at least one member who resides” in

short, the process that PRB had used to deliberate on cases previously was improvisational at best, unfair at worst, and in need of substantial rigor and precision, regardless.
b. Work Over the Past Six Months240
Accordingly, the Monitoring Team, in concert with the Parties, spent several months working with PRB on drafting an Opera-

each police District and at least one member “between the ages of 18 and 30” – appointed by either the Mayor or City Council.244
Member terms are four years, with individuals limited to serving two consecutive four-year terms.245 The Board will select a member to serve as Chair and another to serve as Vice-Chair.246
Board members will receive training on constitutional and other
relevant law, police practice and procedure, administrative investigations, and other pertinent topics.247

tions Manual (the “PRB Manual”) to guide its deliberative process. Designed for a broad based constituency who may seek to better understand how the PRB conducts business, this manual provides a step by step process that directs the movement of in-

Importantly, the Manual sets clear expectations regarding the attendance and participation of Board members during PRB’s meetings.248 The Monitoring Team will expect that Board mem-

vestigative files from OPS to PRB, how those cases are assigned

bers indeed “use best efforts to attend all regularly-scheduled

for PRB member review, the structure and agenda for PRB

Board meetings.”249 The Manual indicates that Board mem-

meetings, the means by which inves-

bers “shall receive compensation

tigations are reviewed and discussed Since Cleveland voters approve the creation of the as may be established by the Coun-

in a public forum, the deliberative PRB in 1984, the PRB has not functioned with cil.”250 To the extent that the scope

process which results in the board’s clear rules for its day-to-day operations – despite of the commitment required by PRB

decisions and recommendations per- the Charter’s express contemplation that it would. will be more significant than it was

taining to each case presented, and a

previously, some degree of compen-

public announcement of their findings and recommendation for further consideration and action by the Chief of Police and Director of Public Safety.

sation may well be appropriate, fair, and necessary – and set forth as part of the Board’s “own budget separate from the budget of the Department of Public Safety” and of OPS.251 That Budget

Since voters approved the creation of a Police Review Board in 1984, and the approved changes to the City of Cleveland Charter became effective in 1988, the PRB had not functioned with clear rules for its day-to-day operations – despite the Charter’s

must also include resources for the Board to “hire and/or appoint support personnel.”252 All PRB “meetings shall be open to the public,” with the general “order of business” outlined in
241 Dkt. 86-2 at 3.

express contemplation that, “[s]ubject to the approval of the executive head of the police force, the Police Review Board shall make rules providing for the procedure of the Board . . . . ” Charter of the City of Cleveland § 115-3, Powers and Duties of Board.

242 Id. 243 Id. at 2–4. 244 Id. at 5. 245 Id. at 5–6.

The Manual submitted to the Court thus provides, for the first time, rules of the road for how Board members must acquit

246 Id. at 7. 247 Id. at 7–8.

themselves of their duties. Significant features of the PRB Manual include the following.

248 Id. at 5–6. 249 Id. at 6.

250 Id. at 7.

240 Substantial elements of this discussion are reproduced or adapted from the Monitor’s filing to the Court found at Dkt. 86.

251 Id. 252 Id. at 10.

49

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 51 of 70. PageID #: 1658

the Manual.253 Quorum and voting requirements are expressly provided.254
Authority, Jurisdiction, Duties, Responsibilities, and Review of Complaint. Consistent with Cleveland’s Charter, the OPS Manual clarifies that:
The Board has the power to receive, cause investigation of, and recommend resolution of any and all complaints filed with it alleging misconduct by officers and non-sworn employees of the Cleveland Division of Police, regardless of their duty status, when such misconduct is directed toward any person who is not a CDP employee. On its own complaint, the Board may direct the OPS Administrator to conduct an investigation of any incident involving the use of deadly force by members of the police force and any incident resulting in the injury or death of persons in the custody of the police force.255
The Manual outlines the process by which PRB typically receives completed investigations from OPS and by which PRB might receive complaints or “cause an investigation of incidents involving the use of deadly force” or “incidents resulting in the injury or death of persons in custody of the police force.”256
The Manual contemplates that “Board members may make written inquiries of the OPS Administrator” when or after reviewing a given complaint investigation file “to obtain additional information, documents, or other evidence.”257 The Board must “allow complainants or subject employees” present at PRB meetings “to speak after the case is called by the Board . . . . ”258 “Board members may” also “ask follow-up questions of any person who has addressed the Board.”259 If the voluntary cooperation of individuals involved in complaint investigations are insufficiently forthcoming or willing to cooperate, “[u]pon majority vote” and notification of the Public Safety Director and Police Chief, “the Board has the power to subpoena and require the attendance of witnesses, the production of documents, and/or the production of other papers pertinent to its adjudications . . . . ”260
The administrative rules that the Manual establishes outline procedures for consideration of certain categories of complaint investigations by a three-member panel (a “Panel”) rather than
253 Id. at 9. 254 Id. at 10. 255 Id. at 11. 256 Id. 257 Id. at 13. 258 Id. 259 Id. 260 Id. at 14.
50

by the “full Board.”261 Specifically, complaints “classified as Demeanor, Rudeness, and Improper Tow, with no other type of alleged conduct, shall be assigned for review by a Panel” unless the Chair determines otherwise.262 “[C]omplex investigations shall be assigned to the full Board for review.”263 Other types of complaints “shall be assigned by the Chair for review by either a three-member panel or by the full Board.”264 These rules work to ensure that all cases can be comprehensively considered but that the Board’s full meetings can focus on the most significant, difficult, or complex cases as appropriate.
Hearing Procedures. The Manual provides a host of specific procedures that the Board must follow when hearing and considering cases at its regular, public meetings. “The purpose of [a] hearing is to review the case . . . in order to reach a disposition and a recommendation on discipline for each allegation identified by OPS or by Board members during their review of the case.”265 Complainants and subject employees must receive notice of when a case involving them will be considered by the Board.266 PRB must use the categories of dispositions required by the Consent Decree.267 Although “[t]he Board shall give weight to the OPS Administrator’s recommended disposition, and shall justify in writing any departure from it,” the PRB “is not bound by the OPS Administrator’s recommendation and shall reach its own conclusions regarding the appropriate disposition.”268
Where the PRB votes to recommend a “sustained” disposition, the Board also considers recommended discipline or “other remedial action.”269 When doing so, it applies a standard of “just cause.”270 The Manual also provides a process for making recommendations regarding revisions in CPD “policies, strategies, tactics, or training” and for “identify[ing] officer or employee performance that is commendable, superior, noteworthy, or otherwise deserving of special and positive recognition” and recommend to the Chief of Police or Public Safety Director that CPD personnel receive a commendation.271 Ultimately, the PRB delivers a written “Final Summary prepared for each complaint adjudicated as ‘sustained’ to the Chief of Police and/or the Director of Public Safety, as appropriate, within fourteen calendar days” of the hearing.272
261 Id. 262 Id. 263 Id. 264 Id. (emphasis in original). 265 Id. at 15. 266 Id. at 22. 267 Id. at 18. 268 Id. at 15. 269 Id. at 16. 270 Id. 271 Id. at 20. 272 Id. at 22.

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 52 of 70. PageID #: 1659

Action of the PRB Following Hearing by the Chief of Police. The PRB Manual before the Court outlines, for the first time, a specific and codified process for the PRB to fulfill one of the central duties granted to it by Cleveland’s Charter: overriding the determination of the Chief of Police. The PRB was created by an amendment to the Cleveland City Charter that was approved by voters in 1984.273 Then-Mayor George Voinovich and then-City Council President George Forbes drafted the amendment language as an emergency ordinance “for the immediate preservation of the public peace, property, health, and safety” in the wake of significant public unrest over the relationship between CDP and Cleveland residents.274
Pursuant to Charter Section 119, where a suspension is for less than ten (10) days, the Chief’s decision is final.275 If the Chief determines that a suspension for more than ten (10) days is appropriate, Section 119 provides that the matter must be referred to the Safety Director, who will hold a hearing and render the final judgment in the matter. Thus, the Chief may suspend officers for only up to ten days, with the Safety Director suspending officers for more than ten days.
The Charter establishes exceptions to this disciplinary regime for matters in which a complaint has been filed with OPS and heard by the PRB. In effect, it places the PRB’s disciplinary authority on equal footing with the Chief of Police.276 Section 115-4 indicates that, if the PRB determines that discipline should be imposed, it will forward its recommendation to the Chief of Police. The Chief must then notify the PRB whether or not s/he intends to impose discipline, and if so, what that discipline will be. Under Section 115-4, if the PRB disagrees with the Chief’s decision or with the length of his/her proposed discipline, “the Board, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 119 of this Charter to the contrary, may suspend the officer or employee.”277 Essentially, while this provision creates a path through the Chief in PRB matters, by allowing the PRB to override the Chief, it grants the Board the power to impose discipline in cases before it.
273 The amendment did not become effective immediately, due to injunctions issued in connection with litigation that Cleveland’s police union filed. The case was ultimately decided against the Union, and the injunction was lifted in 1988.
274 Charter of the City of Cleveland (1984).
275 Id.
276 Section 119 further underscores the Charter’s intent to afford the Chief and the PRB equal disciplinary power by mandating that:
Prior to suspending any officer or employee of the police force, the Chief of Police shall ascertain whether a complaint on file with the Police Review Board relates to the conduct of the officer or employee in question. If so, the Chief of Police shall not suspend the officer or employee unless the Police Review Board concurs with the Chief’s decision, in accordance with Section 115-4 of this Charter.
277 Charter of the City of Cleveland (1984).

The Monitoring Team has previously outlined to the Court that, although the Monitor does not tend to credit the City’s argument suggesting that such certification is legally required by the terms of the Charter and/or past state-court precedent, it can approve the Manual-provided process that requires that the PRB’s override of the Chief of Police’s discipline to be sent to the Director of Public Safety for final hearing and resolution.278
c. Approach to Progress Going Forward In order to assist both OPS and the PRB, the Monitor has appointed Mr. Richard Rosenthal to provide leadership and technical assistance to both OPS and PRB as they endeavor to implement the host of new policies, processes, and provisions required by the new manuals. Mr. Rosenthal, whose background and qualifications are described elsewhere in this report, has led three civilian oversight agencies – making him uniquely situated to provide the in-depth technical assistance and monitoring that OPS and PRB require to become the high-quality, transparent, and professional entities that they must under the Consent Decree. During the next monitoring period, Mr. Rosenthal, along with other members of the Monitoring Team, will work to ensure the implementation and strict adherence to the operations manuals and that the more frequent and productive meetings of the PRB are resulting in thoughtful and fair case deliberation.
278 See Dkt. 86 at 28–37.
51

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 53 of 70. PageID #: 1660

TRANSPARENCY & OVERSIGHT
A. Police Inspector General
The Consent Decree continues to “require[] the creation of a new, internal oversight function within the Division – a Police Inspector General.”279 The Inspector General (“IG”) must be “an individual or individuals with significant experience in law enforcement practices and civil rights law . . . . ”280
The IG’s substantial duties include, but are not limited to, review of CPD policies and practices, auditing, conducting investigations, analyzing data for aggregate and systemic trends, developing “specific recommendations for reform,” “analyz[ing] investigations conducted by OPS to determine” if they are adequate, and reviewing imposed discipline.281 The IG’s reports and recommendations must be made public.282
The First Semiannual Report noted that “the Decree does not provide an express timetable for the City to initiate the hiring of an Inspector General or for a selected candidate to assume the position.”283 It noted that, “in light of the competing concerns, . . . the First-Year Monitoring Plan d[id] not include a deadline for this position during 2016.”284
279 First Semiannual Report at 49. 280 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 250. 281 Id. ¶ 253. 282 Id. 283 First Semiannual Report at 49. 284 Id.

Although no IG has been hired to date, Consent Decree stakeholders have engaged in conversations about funding levels for the position when it is created. The First Semiannual report noted that “a single budgeted position will not be sufficient to meet the terms of the Agreement” and that the Monitoring Team was “highly skeptical, based on experiences of other cities in creating similar oversight mechanisms, that an Inspector General could be successful solely by utilizing auditors already working in existing City functions.”285 Ultimately, one person will not be able to do all that the Decree requires. The IG will need a high-quality staff and administrative support. The IG will also need independence and the ability to present sometimes challenging recommendations, problematic trends, or stark recommendations – giving voice to and shedding light on uncomfortable facts, when necessary, about the Division of Police or City of Cleveland.
As work begins in earnest in the second year of monitoring to hire an individual for the IG position, the Monitoring Team believes that Cleveland’s search will yield substantially higher-quality candidates if the individuals applying to the job know that the position will be well-resourced and provided with sufficient independence. The Monitoring Team looks forward to discussions about the best mechanisms for doing so in the upcoming months with the City, Department of Justice, Community Police Commission, police officer organizations, and others.
B. Data Collection and Analysis
As the Monitor recently noted to the Court, the City has “recent[ly] hire[d] . . . an outside consultant to serve as a Data Analysis Coordinator across CPD and City functions for purposes of the Consent Decree.”286 This hiring complies with the Consent Decree’s requirement that CPD “designate an individual or individuals” to “ensure the collection and tracking of all documents related to uses of force and allegations of misconduct and related materials.”287
“One of the Coordinator’s first tasks will be to develop a Data Analysis Protocol to guide the analysis of data in various areas, including stops, searches, arrests, uses of force, vehicle stops, investigatory stops, and complaints of discrimination or bias.”288 Although the completion of such a protocol has been delayed in order to ensure the on-boarding of a well-qualified individual into the Data Analysis and Collection Coordinator position, the Monitoring Team continues to look forward to working closely with CPD and the Coordinator as the Division develops such a protocol aimed at growing and operationalizing the extent to which management and supervisors of all levels use real-time data to make management and supervisory decisions.
285 Id. at 50. 286 Dkt. 93 at 17. 287 Dkt. 7-1 ¶¶ 257–58. 288 First Semiannual Report at 50.

52

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 54 of 70. PageID #: 1661
C. Public Availability of CPD-Related Information
As another means of the “increase[d] transparency” that the City has pledged with respect to Division operations going forward, the Consent Decree continues to require that data and information about the Division – including its “policies and procedures, training plans, community policing initiatives, community meeting schedules, budgets, and internal audit reports – be posted on CPD’s website.289 Additionally, “[t]o ensure transparency in the implementation of” the Decree, “all CDP audits, reports, and outcome analyses related to the implementation of this Agreement will be made publicly available, including at the City and CDP websites.”290
The First Semiannual Report noted that, “[a]s of April 20, 2016, little to none of the required information that should have been available” on CPD’s website “in a finalized form had been posted.”291 Encouragingly, extensive new material has been made available on the Division’s website, with the public now able to view policies, reports, and materials related to the Consent Decree. The Monitoring Team commends CPD for ensuring that the Cleveland community, via its own outlets, has access to information about the Division’s functions and processes for doing business.
The Monitoring Team will have more to say, in future discussions with the Parties about a more comprehensive Division policy about the public availability and release of CPD information and in future reports, about the significant steps that the Division and City must make to transform itself from a department too often fearful of providing information and data to the public to one that quickly, fairly, and transparently provides the community with updates on its activities and performance – whether good, bad, or otherwise.
289 Dkt. 7-1 at 1; id. ¶ 268. 290 Id. ¶ 267. 291 First Semiannual Report at 51.
53

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 55 of 70. PageID #: 1662

OFFICER ASSISTANCE & SUPPORT
A. Training
1. In-Service Training
The Division of Police has submitted to the Monitoring Team its 2017 In-Service Training Plan, which was to have outlined the full scope of training programs that its existing officers would receive in the way of ongoing professional training. The Monitoring Team has provided feedback on this plan and will be working with CPD and the Parties to further define and refine the areas of focus for training in this calendar year to ensure that they are consistent with the Consent Decree’s goals and the ultimate Second-Year Monitoring Plan, which will cover the period of February 2017 through January 2018.
The Monitoring Team will have more to say on the subject of in-service training when it is able to present a complete curriculum on the upcoming use of force training to the Court and public.
2. Academy Training
The “Consent Decree . . . contains certain obligations relating to the training of new officers at the academy.”292 For the current and previous class Academy classes, “the City and CPD elected to send recruits to the Ohio State Patrol’s academy in Columbus, Ohio before having the class return for additional, CPD-specific training.”293 The Monitoring Team will soon be providing to the Parties a proposal for its assessment of the overall quality of the 292 First Semiannual Report at 55. 293 Id.
54

current approach to training new CPD officers.
B. Equipment & Resources294
1. Background
The Department of Justice’s 2014 investigation concluded that:
CDP’s failure to appropriately allocate resources – including staffing and equipment – contributes to the pattern or practice of unconstitutional force. In addition, Cleveland police officers are not given the basic equipment, the physical structures, and the technology required to perform their jobs safely and effectively.295
It noted that the lack of “adequate technology” and “a sufficiently professional workspace” ultimately “is dangerous to the officer, undermines public safety and is unfair.”296 “As much as any building, stadium, or other public works project, a well-run, professional and constitutional police presence is the foundation of a healthy city in our democracy.”297
The Monitor’s First Semiannual Report affirmed that “Cleveland does not yet benefit from many of the basic technological innovations associated with contemporary, urban policing.”298 The Division did not have enough decent-quality patrol cars, modern technology in those cars, and modern systems for those technology platforms.299 The report noted that “many of the areas that the Division must address . . . are basic technology platforms that Cleveland was overdue to address regardless of whether there had been a Consent Decree” and “are necessary to protect the public, keep officers safe, and allow the Division of Police to effectively and efficiently conduct law enforcement.”300 It inventoried the “technological, business practice, and project management problems” across projects and functions that were made manifest in the problematic rollout of CPD’s new record management system.301
The Consent Decree required that CPD “complete a comprehensive equipment and resource study to assess its current needs and priorities to perform the functions necessary for CDP to fulfill its mission and satisfy the requirements” of the
294 Substantial elements of this discussion are reproduced or adapted from the Monitor’s filing to the Court found at Dkt. 93. 295 2014 Findings Letter at 54. 296 Id. at 54–55. 297 Id. at 55. 298 First Semiannual Report at 55. 299 Id. at 59. 300 Id. at 56. 301 Id. at 57–58.

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 56 of 70. PageID #: 1663

Decree.302 After completing that study, the City needed to “de-

Third, the Plan must “ensure that CDP” both “properly main-

velop an effective, comprehensive Equipment and Resource Plan

tains and seeks to continuously improve upon existing equip-

that is consistent with its mission and that will allow it to satisfy

ment and technology” and “is appropriately identifying equip-

the requirements of this Agreement.”303

ment needs and seeking to utilize, as appropriate, emerging

technologies.”313 This relates to DOJ’s determination that the

The Plan needed to address a number of different requirements.

City’s “failure to thoughtfully assess the Division’s needs and pri-

First, the Plan “will provide for necessary equipment includ-

oritize effectively affects officers’ and supervisors’ ability to do

ing, at least . . . an adequate number of computers; an adequate

their jobs . . . . ”314

number of operable and safe zone cars; zone cars with reliable,

functioning computers that provide officers with up-to-date

2. Challenges to Date

technology, including” mobile computer-aided dispatch, access

to the Division’s records management system, and access to law

The City submitted its final Equipment and Resource Plan, as

enforcement databases; and “zone cars equipped with first-aid

required by the First-Year Monitoring Plan, on November 25,

kits . . . . ”304 These requirements stemmed, to at least some rel-

2016.315 After closely reviewing the submitted Plan, the Mon-

evant extent, from the Department of Justice’s observation that

itoring Team, in turn, filed a motion with the Court indicating

it found “not enough computers at the district stations” and a

that – because it did not specifically, strategically, and compre-

patrol car fleet that was “old and in poor repair.”305

hensively provide CPD officers with the tools they need to do

their jobs – the Monitor could not approve the Plan.

Second, the Plan must address how the Division will “satisfy the

requirements of this Agreement,” including the Decree’s many

The Monitoring Team’s analysis of the Plan was significantly in-

other substantive requirements.306

formed by the Monitoring Team’s ex-

For instance, CPD will need to col- After closely reviewing the City’s Equipment and perience with substantial technology

lect information and data about in- Resource Plan, the Monitoring Team concluded and equipment initiatives in other

vestigatory stops,307 and “calls and that it did not specifically, strategically, and major American police departments.

incidents involving individuals in comprehensively provide CPD officers with the It is also informed by familiarity with

crisis.”308 The Division is required to tools they need to do their jobs.

generally-accepted approaches in

“develop and implement a single, uni-

the fields of information technology,

form, reporting system” to effectuate the Decree’s use of force

project management, and strategic planning.

reporting requirements.309 “[A]ll relevant information from [a]

completed [Internal Affairs] investigation” must be “provided

Successful compliance with the Consent Decree will require

electronically to the [involved] officers’ supervisors, the Training

that the City and CPD successfully execute the implementation

Review Committee, the Force Review Board, the Officer Inter-

of numerous distinct but interrelated equipment, resource, and

vention Program, and the Data Collection and Analysis Coordi-

technology projects. For purposes of the instant filing, “project”

nator . . . . ”310 “CDP supervisors” must “regularly use . . . data to

refers to “a temporary endeavor undertaken to produce a unique

evaluate the performance of CDP officers across all ranks, units,

product, service, or result.”316 Similarly, “project management”

and shifts.”311 To adequately “modify its Officer Intervention

is “a system of avoiding missed deadlines, vague expectations

Program,” CPD must utilize “a computerized relational database

and budget overspending.”317

that will be used to collect, maintain, integrate, and retrieve data

department-wide and for each officer regarding” a host of specif-

“In the process of planning” to manage and successfully execute

ic performance data.312 These and numerous, similar Consent

such a project, “projects should be properly defined and divided

Decree provisions require that CPD embrace a host of new or

into logical, progressive steps.”318 Any successful project plan

upgraded technologies, resources, and equipment.

needs to provide overall objectives in clear terms that can be

measured:

302 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 292. 303 Id. 304 Id. ¶ 293. 305 2014 Findings Letter at 56–57. 306 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 292. 307 Id. ¶¶ 160–75. 308 Id. ¶ 157. 309 Id. ¶ 87. 310 Id. ¶ 188. 311 Id. ¶ 327. 312 Id. ¶ 328.

Objectives are quantifiable criteria used to measure project success. They describe the ‘what’ you’re trying to do, accomplish, or
313 Id. 314 2014 Findings Letter at 57. 315 Dkt. 80-1 at 19. 316 James P. Lewis, Fundamentals of Project Management 2 (3d ed. 2007). 317 William Fox and Gerrit van der Waldt, A Guide to Project Management 8 (2008). 318 Id. at 44.

55

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 57 of 70. PageID #: 1664

produce. Quantifiable criteria should at least include schedule, cost, and quality measures . . . . 319

Plan outlined a number of the deficiencies with the City’s proposed Plan. Some of those deficiencies related to fundamental project management, strategic, and planning failures:

Generally, project management literature contends that objectives should be specific, measurable, accurate (e.g., precise), realistic, and time-bound or time-limited (e.g., have a time frame with an end date assigned to them).320
Further, a project plan needs to be specific about how the various broader components of the plan will be successfully implemented over time. Specifically, the plan needs to identify specific deliverables that “translate [the] project mission . . . into actionable realities.”321 For “every deliverable that will be produced, the date [by which] it will be produced” also needs to be identified in concrete terms.322
With specific respect to planning for the strategic implementation of a number of IT-related projects, organizations “that excel in project delivery . . . clearly define what needs to be done in a project, by whom, when, and how” – “carefully select[ing] tools, align[ing] them with project and business goals, link[ing] them to metrics, and provid[ing] them to project managers to deliver positive results.”323 “The most common reason for [IT] project failure [i]s poor planning,” including a “weak” project plan.324
Thus, although the City has some disagreement about the applicability of such concepts to its Consent Decree efforts,325 the Monitor believes that it is fair, reasonable, and appropriate to demand that the City’s plan for implementing a host of new technology platforms and initiatives be structured and planned in a manner according to well-accepted standards and practices in the field of project management.
The Monitoring Team’s motion to the Court indicating that it could not approve the City’s submitted Equipment and Resource
319 Kim Heldman et al, PMP Project Management Professional Exam Study Guide 107 (7th ed. 2007). 320 See, e.g., Jason Westland, The Project Management Life Cycle 32 (2007); James P. Lewis, Fundamentals of Project Management 51 (2007); Mark Resch, Strategic Project Management Transformation: Delivering Maximum ROI & Sustainable Business 111 (2011); Richard Jones, Project Management Survival: A Practical Guide to Leading, Managing and Delivering Challenging Projects 59–61 (2007). 321 Jack Ferraro, Project Management for Non-Project Managers 172 (2012). 322 Paula Martin & Karen Tate, Getting Started in Project Management 128 (2002). 323 Kathy Schwalbe, Information Technology Project Management 16–17 (2015). 324 Brenda Whittaker, “What Went Wrong? Unsuccessful Information Technology Projects,” 7 Information Management & Computer Security 21, 24–25 (1999). 325 Dkt. 95 at 5.

A Lack of Specific, Well-Supported Deadlines. The Plan uniformly situates “project milestone completion dates” not in terms of actual dates but as references to general, quarter-year time periods. These overly broad, 90-day “deadlines” combine the worst of overly rigid project management with the worst of insufficiently detailed management approaches. On the one hand, because the deadlines are fixed time units, rather than relational to other internal milestones, small delays or unexpected events may substantially complicate project execution.326 At the same time, the broad time periods ensure that there is no specific date certain by which particular projects can be expected to have been finished or major milestones reached – just a span of twelve to thirteen weeks over which the progress might be made. Ultimately, the three-month-long deadline windows make the determination of the sufficiency of the Plan, the City implementation of the Plan, and all stakeholders holding the City accountable for adhering to the Plan unacceptably problematic. Given the accepted “importance of deadlines and time urgency for focusing attention on nonroutine behavior” of organizations, some specific time parameters must be established and enforced.327
Further, the deadlines offered were not adequately supported, defended, or explained. Especially because social science and organizational behavior literature establishes that “[p]eople underestimate their own . . . [task] completion times,” the deadlines that are included need to be situated in terms of the underlying work, resources, and effort necessary to complete a given deliverable or reach a particular milestone.328
A Failure to Identify Specific Actors Responsible for Various Deliverables. “A successful project requires that the project team participate (at some level) in the planning process . . . and be responsible for completion of assignments . . . . Project team members need to be accountable for the effective performance of their assignments.”329 Although some primary actors, business owners, or stakeholders are identified as responsible
326 See, e.g., Stephen Leybourne and Eugene Sadler-Smith, “The Role of Intuition and Improvisation in Project Management,” 24 Int’l J. Project Mgmt. 483 (2006) (describing need for project managers to be flexible and objective-oriented).
327 Nancy Satudenmayer et al, “Time to Change: Temporal Shifts as Enablers of Organizational Change,” 13 Organization Science 583, 584 (2002); accord Dkt. 93-3 at 3 (noting that “[e]ach component of the Equipment & Resource Plan . . . should have an accompanying management control [and] accountability”).
328 Roger Buehler et al, “Exploring the ‘Planning Fallacy’: Why People Underestimate Their Task Completion Times,” 67 J. Personality & Social Psyc. 366, 371 (1994). 329 California Office of the State Chief Information Officer Archives, Project Management Overview: Roles and Responsibilities at 1 (Jan. 1997).

56

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 58 of 70. PageID #: 1665

for some of the major project milestones, most deliverables are not attached to any specific entity, person, or City representative. For example, the Plan outlines the City’s efforts to secure

agement Office with particular IT projects, those consultants are, by the City’s own admission, not assisting the City or CPD in overhauling the approach used to equipment, resource, and

and implement a Learning Management System, which will pro-

technology problems; strategically planning for immediate and

vide an electronic environment for training and professional development activities. Although a Business Owner is specifically identified, the Plan does not describe precisely who has been

long-term needs; and thoughtfully implementing changes in systems and processes that are ripe with interdependencies. The City’s Plan appears to argue that the five years of problems

reviewing proposals from vendors, has been viewing vendor

with LERMS was an isolated or exceptional circumstance. It says

demonstrations, will be selecting the system, and will be coordinating the in-field implementation and training (of some undefined set) of officers.

that individuals “involved with the original LERMS project” will not be a part of at least the field-based reporting initiative.335 Additionally, “when the initial LERMS project was started,” there

The Summary Rejection of the Need for Outside Experts. The Monitor’s First Semiannual Report outlined the five-year odyssey involved to “upgrade” CPD’s record man-

“was no Chief Information Officer of the City of Cleveland” and “[n]o project management approach . . . in place.”336
Although the City’s current candor about the LERMS imple-

agement system software, which

mentation is admirable, it simply is

“is the main storage system that the police department depends on for data storage and retrieval of critical information.”330 The Monitoring Team identified significant basic IT

The Monitoring Team has repeatedly recommended that the City and CPD engage with outside consultants in revamping its overall IT governance structure. The City declines.

not clear that new systems, processes, and habits are, in fact, in place to manage major, future projects in a new, better, and more resource-efficient way. Further, if the City’s cur-

governance and project management

rent law enforcement IT approach

problems as a critical cause of the problems with the system’s

apparently cannot manage to get 105 computers deployed to

implementation. “These technological, business practice, and

the field so that officers can use them in a timely manner, the

project management problems are not simply technical or bureaucratic – they have real-world ramifications for Cleveland’s officers and the Cleveland community,” with incident reports

Monitoring Team is highly skeptical of the approach’s ability to massively overhaul CPD’s reporting, dispatch, and other core systems.

becoming backlogged for entry into the struggling new system, called LERMS.331 Indeed, the City concedes that “[t]he LERMS project failed due to a lack of project management structure,

To this end, the Monitoring Team requests that the Court address the possibility of the City hiring an outside consultant,

governance, documentation, executive sponsorship and oversight.”332
Accordingly, the Monitoring Team has repeatedly recommend-

with responsibility for overseeing the construction and execution of the Equipment and Resource Plan and restructuring IT governance with respect to the Division of Police, to serve as a kind of “IT Czar.” The City’s encouraging, recent hire of an out-

ed to the City and CPD that it engage with outside consultants

side consultant to serve as a Data Analysis Coordinator across

to assist it in revamping its overall IT governance structure, implementing major new platforms, and dramatically enhance the capacity of the City and CPD to “properly maintain[] and .

CPD and City functions for purposes of the Consent Decree might serve as a template for engaging the kind of outside assistance that can build long-term capacity within CPD and the City

. . continuously improve upon existing equipment and technol-

with respect to IT. Although the City appears to have misunder-

ogy,” “identify[] equipment needs,” and “utilize, as appropriate, emerging technologies.”333 The City declines. Instead, the Plan vaguely observes that the Project management Office “currently

stood this suggestion as amounting to a “suggested takeover of the City’s Executive administrative functions,”337 the Monitoring Team simply believes that CPD and the City would benefit

utilizes outside consultants in the implementations of various citywide IT projects.”334
Assuming the City’s assertions are true, and without knowing what consultants may be available for what types of projects

from having a single, high-skilled individual coordinate the successful planning for and management of the host of complicated projects that will be implicated by the Equipment and Resource Plan – which would obviously not do anything approaching an impingement on the City’s “local self-governing authority.”338

encompassed by the Plan, the possibility for the City to secure outside help and experts is undoubtedly positive. However, even if consultants are already on retainer to help the Project Man-

The Monitor does dispute, however, the claim that “there is no ongoing City IT crisis that warrants the added expense and in-

330 Dkt. 83 at 56.

terruptions associated with appointing” an outside consultant

331 Id.. at 57.

335 Id.

332 Dkt. 93-1 at 13.

336 Id.

333 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 293(e)–(f).

337 Dkt. 95 at 9.

334 Dkt. 93-1 at 13.

338 Id. at 10.

57

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 59 of 70. PageID #: 1666

to assist the City.339 That the Division of Police is decades behind its peers and where it should be with respect to core law enforcement systems does constitute a crisis that can only be addressed with a serious, strategic, and comprehensive plan, which the City has been unable, to date, to produce.
The Failure to Address the Decree’s Requirements Related to Identifying Equipment Needs, Maintaining and Improving Upon Existing Technology, and Utilizing Emerging Technologies. The Consent Decree requires that the Plan “ensure that CDP” “properly maintains and seeks to continuously improve upon existing equipment and technology” and “is ap-

mand staff, or administrative personnel.342
The City’s Plan does not provide any sense of what “an adequate number of computers” under the Consent Decree is.343 Although it contends that the current ratio of computers to personnel are 1: 2.24 and that the addition of 105 computers secured by an Ohio state grant would bring the ratio to 1: 1.92, without describing the numbers on which such ratios are based, the Plan likewise does not outline a mechanism, method, or process for identifying what an adequate number of computers in fact would be – or specifically how CPD and the City will ensure that the number is “properly maintain[ed].”344

propriately identifying equipment needs and seeking to utilize, as appropriate, emerging technologies.”340 Especially because the City declines to consider utilizing an outside consultant to assist it in improving its law enforcement IT governance and project management, the Plan does not comply with these maintenance and improvement requirements of the Consent Decree.

The Plan observes that computers purchased through an Ohio state grant will be deployed in 2017. Not only does the Plan fail to note that the computers have been sitting in City storage since at least early 2016, it does not provide for any process of identifying whether more than the previously-purchased 105 computers are necessary for current staffing, current and antic-

For the Monitoring Team to be in a

ipated use needs, or current and anticipated use volume. To the

position to approve an Equipment

extent that the City and CPD might

and Resource Plan from the City, it It is unclear why it has taken nearly one year to “identify the number of Computers to

needs to have confidence that the deploy computers purchased with a state grant to be deployed at each District” as more

processes and habits that have given the officers that need them. Instead, they apparently than 105, no process or timeline is pro-

Cleveland a five-year implementa- continue to sit in storage.

vided for identifying the number, pur-

tion of a software program, an ap-

chasing the computers, and deploying

proaching one-year-long process for deploying desktop comput-

them to the field.345

ers to District stations, and a generally under-resourced police department have been addressed – such that CPD never again finds itself with its police officers lacking the tools and support that they need to do their jobs..
Failure to Meaningfully Account for Project Interdependencies. A number of the City’s timelines with respect to specific projects fail to adequately account for the interdependencies

Additionally, the Monitor notes that the Plan suggests that the 105 “new” computers are intended “for Field Based Reporting.”346 Generally, the phrase “in the field” means “[a]way from the laboratory, office, or studio . . . . ”347 In law enforcement, “field reporting” generally refers to front-line officers providing data and information from the neighborhoods where they work on a mobile platform.348

across other projects. Indeed, the overall structure of the Plan – with a litany of specific projects listed in isolation and without cross-reference to the timelines or initiatives in other, related projects – suggests that the City has not adequately identified how the rate of progress on some initiatives may impact the rate of progress in others.

A police station is not the field, and “In-Station Reporting” is not field reporting – leaving the Monitoring Team substantially confused about how the 105 computers have anything to do with true “field reporting.”349 The Monitoring Team has outlined these concerns to the City, most recently in its November 3, 2016 memorandum. The Community Police Commission has

Other issues relate to the City’s inability to adequately address specific technological and resource requirements of the Consent Decree:

also emphasized the need for officers to have dynamic, real-time access to databases that might contain information about a sub-
342 Id. at 5–6.

Inadequacy of the Plan’s Treatment of Precinct-Based Computers. According to CPD’s own Equipment and Resource Study, one-third (or 36 percent) of CPD’s total “working computers” are housed in the Division’s five patrol Districts.341 One out of ten (11 percent) of working PD computers are available to CPD patrol personnel, rather than to supervisors, com-

343 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 293(a). 344 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 293(e). 345 Dkt. 93-1 at 5. 346 Id. 347 “in the field” Oxford Living Dictionary, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/in_the_field (last visited Dec. 17, 2016).

339 Id. at 10. 340 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 293(e)–(f).

348 See Larry T. Hoover, “From Police Administration to a Police Science: The Development of a Police Academic Establishment in the United States,” 8 Police Quarterly 44 (2005).

341 Dkt. 93-2 at 5.

349 Dkt. 93-1 at 8.

58

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 60 of 70. PageID #: 1667

ject, such as if the individual is known to face mental health challenges.350

The Plan Fails to Substantively and Specifically Address CPD’s Inadequate Number of Patrol Cars. CPD currently has an insufficient number of patrol cars overall. CPD reports

The Plan’s Treatment of the Necessary Computer-Aided Dispatch Upgrade Is Inadequate. Computer-aided dispatch (“CAD”) systems “allow public safety operations and communications to be augmented, assisted, or partially controlled by an automated system.”351 “CDP dispatch” currently uses one such CAD system “for call handling, assignments and field notifications,” and the implementation of a CAD system to CPD officers “will provide an accurate and consistent picture of an incident in progress for personnel in the field.”352

to have 358 marked zone cars, spread throughout the Districts, Downtown Services Unit, Bureau of Traffic, CLE Hopkins International Airport, and other locations. CPD reports that “[a] source of frustration by all personnel is the lack of vehicles,” especially due to slow “turnaround time” while “waiting to be serviced or repaired at Motor Vehicle Maintenance.”359 CPD reports that its current benchmark for marked vehicles is 394 – leaving CPD at a deficit of nearly 10 percent (9.2 percent), even before considering those staffing changes that will be necessary

Cleveland implemented the current CAD platform in 2005.353 The City “upgraded the CAD system to include Silent Dispatch-

to effectuate the Decree’s other requirements. Further, the condition of the insufficient number of patrol cars

ing[,] which allows for the dispatcher to dispatch calls for service via the Mobile Data Terminal instead of over the . . . radio . . . . ”354 Cleveland’s EMS and Fire elected to use Silent Dispatching.355
The Division of Police declined to do so. As such, CPD’s radio

that CPD does have in service is poor. More than one-third (38 percent) of CPD patrol cars have over 90,000 miles. Nearly one out of ten (8 percent) of total CPD vehicles were out for maintenance in July 2016 – a process that takes too long, is inefficient,

is among the busiest and loudest that this Monitoring Team has

and may be too expensive. Indeed, Monitoring Team personnel

observed – and officers must track, for themselves, information provided by communications and dispatch on their own notepads or on their personal cell phones

have been surprised by the incredibly poor condition of many individual cars in CPD’s fleet. Despite these problems with CPD
vehicles, CPD and the City have not,

rather than having the information displayed on an in-car computer.356
The City indicates that “[f]unding is

CPD has too few patrol cars. The patrol cars that it does have are in poor repair and old, with more than one-third currently having over 90,000 miles.

to date, had a plan for vehicle inventory replacement. CPD itself correctly notes that “[a]s it stands today, 38% of the fleet could be replaced around

currently in place to order and install the recommended number of Mobile Data Terminals need[ed] to outfit the Patrol Vehicle fleet.”357 Assumedly to ensure that

the same time,” which “will be costly to the City of Cleveland if the fleet is not managed and maintained.”360 Thus, the City of Cleveland does not have enough

new computers are not placed in old cars that will soon need to

patrol cars for its officers, and the ones that it has are in poor

be decommissioned, the Plan indicates that a Police Vehicle Replacement Plan would be “developed to identify when vehicles will be scrapped out due to age and/or mileage.”358 Given that

condition and will soon need to be replaced – but the City has not, to date, had any plan to remedy the problem.

the Equipment and Resource Plan being reviewed was submit-

The Consent Decree requires that “CDP’s Equipment and Re-

ted to the Monitoring Team on November 25, 2016, it is unclear why the instant Plan does not include more detailed information about the implications of vehicle fleet modernization on MDT installation and CAD implementation.

source Plan . . . provide for necessary equipment including . . . an adequate number of operable and safe zone cars . . . with reliable, functioning computers that provide officers with up-to-date technology.”361 The Plan that the City submits fails to provide

350 Dkt. 93-3 at 2–3.

for an adequate number of operable and safe cars. It engages in no effort to estimate, benchmark, or otherwise determine how many cars are necessary. It outlines only a short-term, one-shot

351 Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice, Standard Functional Specifications for Law Enforcement Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) Systems at viii.
352 Dkt. 93-1 at 15.

process for coming up with a Patrol Vehicle Modernization Plan – not a process for ensuring that the fleet remains modern nor, even more fundamentally, a process for actually procuring the vehicles.

353 Id. 354 Id. 355 Id. 356 See Dkt. 93-3 at 3 (raising the issue of whether “new equipment and technology capacity [will] result in the decommissioning of use of private cell phones and other technologies by police officers in the carrying out of their official duties”).

CPD has contended that the Plan does not contain specifics about the number of cars that will be procured or the timeline for such procurement because other City stakeholders, including City Council and Motor Vehicle Maintenance, need to take independent action. Although the Monitoring Team under-
359 Dkt. 93-2 at 19.

357 Dkt. 93-1 at 16.

360 Id.

358 Id.

361 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 293.

59

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 61 of 70. PageID #: 1668

stands those realities, it assumes that all City stakeholders and Cleveland residents would benefit from a realistic and specific appraisal of how many cars are necessary to procure to ensure that officers have enough high-quality vehicles in which to patrol Cleveland’s neighborhoods and respond to calls for service. Although the Monitor could approve an ultimate Equipment and Resource Plan that included a specific process for benchmarking the number of patrol cars needed given the Division’s current staffing and deployment, a specific deadline for determining the number of cars necessary, and a specific deadline for those cars to be procured, the Monitor cannot approve an Equipment and Resource Plan that lacks specifics or in which “the budget,” which “is to be determined,” is the exclusive driver of how well-supported CPD’s personnel may be.362
3. Approach Going Forward
At a status conference on January 6, 2017, the Court instructed the City to continue to work with the Department of Justice and Monitor on a more detailed and comprehensive Equipment and Resource Plan. The Monitoring Team looks forward to continuing to discuss these important issues.
C. Recruitment & Hiring
The Monitor has previously reported on the City’s initial attempts to “develop a recruitment policy and a strategic recruitment plan that includes clear goals, objectives, and action steps for attracting qualified applicants from a broad cross-section of the community, . . . establish[ing] and clearly identify[ing] the goals of CDP’s recruitment efforts.”363
Specifically, the First Semiannual Report noted that the City’s initial, draft plan “suggested to the Monitoring Team both a lack of dynamic, outside-the-box thinking about how to attract diverse and qualified officers and a significant lack of clear project management structure.”364 It noted that, although a subsequent draft provided on April 11, 2016 was “somewhat more specific,” a substantial “amount of work [was] still necessary to craft a sufficient, actionable plan for complying with paragraph 304 of the Consent Decree.”365
The Updated First-Year Monitoring Plan did not cover a sufficient time period, or available resources, to allow for Consent Decree stakeholders to re-focus on the Recruitment and Hiring Plan process.366 In the meantime, the City has implemented some discrete projects related to recruitment and hiring, including the implementation of an on-line application process and securing the services of outside vendors to assist in the testing of prospective recruits.
362 Dkt. 93-1 at 60. 363 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 302. 364 First Semiannual Report at 59–60. 365 Id. at 60. 366 See Dkt. 80.
60

The Monitoring Team must be clear that the Consent Decree requires that the City submit, and the Court approve, a Recruitment and Hiring Plan – and that such a Plan subsequently be substantially and effectively implemented in practice. A discrete assortment of process or platform changes, such as providing for on-line applications, is a solid component of a broader strategy and plan but is not a sufficient substitute for such a strategy and plan. Thus, even if the City indicates that it is making reforms to the recruiting and hiring process, those reforms are happening outside of the Consent Decree process currently – and they must be brought into it for the City to be considered in compliance with paragraphs 300 through 311 of the Consent Decree.
Put simply, the Consent Decree mandates that “[t]he City will implement the recruitment plan within 60 days of it being approved by the Monitor.”367 The Monitor has not approved this plan and will not unless it “includes clear goals, objectives, and action steps for attracting qualified applicants from a broad cross-section of the community.”368
To this end, the Monitoring Team rejects any notion that operationalizing the goal of the plan – e.g., expressly indicating that the goal of the Plan is to increase the diversity of recruit candidates by a certain percentage – would somehow amount to an impermissible racial quota and violate state employment law. Care must be afforded to noting that targeted outreach to a host of Cleveland’s diverse communities in order to encourage them to voluntarily apply for employment and proceed through the hiring process does not constitute any impermissible or discriminatory practice.369
D. Performance Evaluations and Promotions
“The First-Year Monitoring Plan d[id] not directly address . . . issues” relating to ensuring regular and comprehensive performance evaluations of CPD personnel and that “high-performing officers have access to promotional opportunities.”370 The Monitor suspects that work on this will commence in late 2017
367 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 303. 368 Id. ¶ 302. 369 See, e.g., David Pitts, “Diversity Management, Job Satisfaction, and Performance: Evidence from U.S. Federal Agencies,” Public Administration Review 69.2 (2009) 329–30(“[R]ecruitment and outreach[] considers whether an organization is extending itself to all potential sources of employees . . . [I]t involves seeking out employees from the labor market who may not be ‘found’ through the typical venues. Increasing organizational diversity has the potential to increase performance [citing sources].”); Steven A Ramirez, “Diversity and the Boardroom,” 6 Stan. J. L. Bus. & Fin. 85, 105 (2000) (“Recognizing the benefits of diversity empowers a company to approach hiring in a more eclectic fashion, including recognizing that a firm has too many individuals of a homogenous background and not enough individuals of different backgrounds.”). 370 First Semiannual Report at 60.

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 62 of 70. PageID #: 1669

or early 2018, as a number of “policies, procedures, systems, and training” that will inform changes in evaluations and promotions must still be “fully implemented.”371 Thus, it largely remains “too early in the Consent Decree process to devise an evaluation” and promotion “system” that comprehensively addresses the Decree’s requirements in these areas.372
E. Staffing
CPD submitted to the Monitoring Team a Resource Study and Deployment Proposal on June 17, 2016. The document contained elements both of the Consent-Decree-required “staffing study to assess the appropriate number of sworn and civilian personnel” and the Consent-Decree-required Staffing Plan focused on how deployment should work going forward within the Division.373 Of particular utility to the Monitoring Team and other Consent Decree stakeholders was CPD and the City’s accounting of its current personnel, span of control (e.g. how many officers are assigned to how many supervisors), and deployment patterns.
However, the requirement of the Consent Decree is for CPD’s staffing study “to assess the appropriate number of sworn and civilian personnel to perform functions necessary for CDP to fulfill its mission, and satisfy the requirements of this Agreement.”374 Indeed, the eventual Staffing Plan must permit the Division to deliver services “consistent with its mission, including community and problem-oriented policing,” and must “allow CDP to meet the requirements of this Agreement.”375
As this report makes clear, much work remains – involving numerous stakeholders and, indeed, as many of Cleveland’s residents who can devote the time to become involved – on creating the required community and problem-oriented policing plan. Likewise, the remainder of this report also makes clear how much substantive work remains on core areas of the Consent Decree – including use of force, search and seizure, supervision, crisis intervention, and the like – that will almost certainly impact the day-to-day structure, operations, and deployment of CPD personnel.
Thus, the Division cannot know at this time – and neither can the Monitoring Team – precisely how many officers CPD requires, or how those officers should be deployed across the Division, to satisfy everything that the Consent Decree requires. Consent Decree stakeholders will know more once there is clarity on how community and problem-oriented policing will look in Cleveland pursuant to the upcoming community policing plan. By that time, policies related to use of force response and investigation by supervisors will also be more defined, with
371 Id. 372 Id. 373 Dkt. 7-1 ¶¶ 319–20. 374 Id. ¶ 319 (emphasis added). 375 Id. ¶ 320.

resource implications for personnel devoted to the Force Investigation Team and Force Review Board more well-known. At around the same time, it is hoped that new policies related to the consolidated and expanded Internal Affairs function will make similar deployment implications clear. In short, the CPD’s initial Resource Study and Deployment Proposal was an incredibly useful guide for understanding, at a high level, the Division’s current personnel and the manner in which they are deployed. However, it must be clear that the Study and Proposal was not the ultimate Staffing Plan. Accordingly, this process must, at the appropriate juncture, ensure the development of a Staffing Plan that conforms to paragraphs 319 through 321 of the Consent Decree – and that the City and CPD subsequently will “employ best efforts to implement” over “the period of time set forth in the” future “approved plan.”376
376 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 321.
61

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 63 of 70. PageID #: 1670

SUPERVISION
A. First-Line Supervisors
As the Monitoring Team outlined in its previous report, “[i]t is an established principle in policing that first-line supervisors – sergeants – play a critical role in directing and controlling the behavior of officers in police-citizen encounters.”377 Consequently, the Consent Decree outlines a number of critical duties for sergeants.378
With training for all officers, regardless of rank, on new use of force policies imminent, supervisors will begin to receive some critical, new elements of “the practical toolkit that they need to promote high-quality performance from those under their command.”379 Specifically, first-line supervisors will need to respond to and manage the scene of most use of force incidents and, with respect to lower-level force, will need to conduct the Division’s administrative inquiry into the force. This constitutes a significant charge, and sergeants will need the training and support from their own supervisors necessary to effectuate these duties.
It is also likely that part of 2017’s training initiatives will include the type of “in-service management training” that the Monitor377 First Semiannual Report at 62 (quoting Samuel Walker, National Institute of Justice, “Police Accountability: Current Issues and Research Needs” (2007) at 12, available at http://www.ncjrs.gov/ pdffiles1/nij/grants/218583.pdf.) 378 Id. 379 Id.
62

ing Team and Division have discussed.380 Because “sergeants have historically received relatively little training other than on CPD policies and other bureaucratic considerations,” such training will be the first time that some within the Division may receive formalized instruction “on effective management skills, leadership development, supervisory techniques and approaches, evaluating performance, understanding community and work styles, and other areas.”381
The Monitoring Team intends to spend even more time, as new substantive policies are rolled out to the Division’s officers and supervisors, within CPD’s districts – both understanding the day-to-day realities of first-line supervisors and the officers under the command, as well as providing real-time technical assistance to the men and women on whom the Division relies to carry out its mission on a daily basis.
B. Officer Intervention Program
A critical part of supervisor responsibility involves responding proactively to officer performance, identifying potential challenges, and actively assisting officers in a non-disciplinary context to change habits or behaviors before they become problematic. The Monitoring Team has previously described how so-called early intervention systems can serve as one critical, automated means of promoting such supervision:
An early intervention system builds on the basic principles of personnel management and human resource development that have developed in the private sector. The purpose of the system is to translate officer performance indicators into a formal management tool for identifying officers with potential behavioral problems or issues that would benefit from some form of proactive intervention. Such a system relies on a database that logs information about various elements of an officer’s performance . . . . Supervisors will be required to regularly review this performance data. When an officer reaches a certain, defined threshold in some area of performance, a supervisor will be required to assess an officer’s performance . . . . 382
If the supervisor determines that some intervention is necessary for an officer, that intervention will take the form of “non-disciplinary corrective action.”383
While the CPD currently maintains a process that is referred to as the Officer Intervention Program (“OIP”), the Consent De-
380 Id. 381 Id. 382 Id. at 63 (internal citations omitted). 383 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 327.

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 64 of 70. PageID #: 1671

cree will require substantial modification of the OIP that will increase its effectiveness and transform it into a broader early intervention system.384 This modification of the OIP will provide a broader, systemic approach to early intervention.
Because the First-Year Monitoring Plan elected not to focus on progress in this area during the first year of Consent Decree implementation, CPD has yet to meaningfully engage on several issues relating to the OIP. It is likely that work will begin in earnest on the OIP during the upcoming, second year of monitoring.
One primary issue that CPD will have to address relates to its information technology infrastructure. CPD continues to implement IAPro as the hub of officer performance data, and it is this information that will inform the early intervention process. One of the challenges of the backlog of BlueTeam entries uncompleted by supervisors and not reviewed by the CPD chain of command is that these incidents could not be considered for purposes of officer performance assessments and the possible non-disciplinary behavioral intervention of the OIP. In short, if the basic requirements of the OIP involve supervisors routinely viewing and considering data and information on officer performance, that data and information needs to be accurate, comprehensive, and up-to-date. As this report outlines elsewhere, CPD has some distance to travel to provide this type of data platform for the OIP and department management more generally.
At present, OIP is considered a program of the Medical Unit, with that Unit primarily responsible for tracking officer information and reporting to supervisors. The Monitoring Team has previously described CPD’s current OIP:
CPD’s existing officer intervention program constitutes a good starting point to the extent that it identifies personnel subject to administrative charges, sick time abuse, civilian complaints, use of force incidents, and internal investigations. Supervisors, or other employees, can refer officers who may benefit from ‘guidance and assistance’ are referred to the program by the Occupational Medical Director of CPD’s Medical Unit.385
Although this process is well-intentioned, IAPro and the use of information in IAPro as part of the EIS process do not constitute medical issues. They are core operational and management issues. Consequently:
[R]ather than something related to an internal medical division about which officers and supervisors have understandable concerns about privacy implications, the program will need to be considered by the Division as a pri-
384 Id. ¶¶ 326–36. 385 First Semiannual Report at 63 (internal citations omitted).

mary officer performance management tool – and something that is a primary vehicle for self-managing the risks of unconstitutional policing.386
Rather than the Medical Director managing the information, the supervisors need ongoing access to system data to help improve the performance of officers under their command and enhance its effectiveness as a proactive management tool that helps promote constitutional policing. Given that first line supervisors play a critical role in the direction and controlling of officers under their command, it is important that they have tools to help them direct and control their interactions with citizens. An OIP that is modified to create an effective early intervention program will be in compliance with Consent Decree requirements and will help CPD ensure stronger supervisor, enhanced accountability, and better professional development for the Division’s officers.
C. Body-Worn Cameras387
As the Monitor has previously indicated, the CPD has recently joined numerous other police departments in using body cameras in some capacity.388 Pursuant to the Consent Decree, “[i]f CDP chooses to use body worn cameras, CDP will provide clear guidance and training on their use, and will implement protocols for testing equipment and preservation of recordings to foster transparency, increase accountability, and build trust, while protecting the privacy rights of individuals.”389
The Court-approved First-Year Monitoring Plan provided that the Monitor would “review and assess CPD’s current body-worn camera policies and practices,” which would “include the collection of input from” a host of community stakeholders “about CPD’s current body-worn camera policies and practices.”390 In March and April 2016, the Monitoring Team met with police officers, received input from community organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and talked with residents who were knowledgeable about the Division’s prior process for developing the body-worn camera policy. On April 11, 2016, the Monitoring Team circulated a memorandum to CPD and the City regarding the Division’s Body-Worn Camera (Wearable Camera System) Policy, General Police Order Number 3.2.20.
386 Id. at 64. 387 Portions of this section are reproduced or adapted from the Monitor’s motion to the Court regarding the proposed body-worn camera policy found at Dkt. 92. 388 Dkt. 65 at 64 (“All CPD patrol officers are equipped with body cameras, with specialty units (such as personnel working at the Cleveland Hopkins International Airport) slated to be equipped with units in the near future.”) 389 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 337. 390 Dkt. 44-1 at 53.
63

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 65 of 70. PageID #: 1672

Stakeholder focus subsequently shifted to work on new policies related to force, new policies and protocols for crisis intervention, operational manuals for the Office of Professional Standards and Police Review Board, and on the City’s preparation for the Republican National Convention in July 2016. Pursuant to revised deadlines in the Updated First-Year Monitoring Plan,391 CPD and the Parties continued work on revising the body-worn camera policy in October 2016. The deadline for the Monitor to “recommend[] approval or disapproval of the Final Draft Body Worn Cameras Policy to the Court, either in whole or in part” was, with the Parties and Monitor having agreed that a seven-day extension of the deadline was “warranted and acceptable,” December 19, 2016.392
In its December 19, 2016 motion to the Court, the Monitoring Team indicated that the Proposed Policy “establish[es] guidelines for the use, management, storage, retrieval, and supervision regarding the [WCS].”393 It sets forth that the policy of the Department is that “WCS shall be deployed to ensure transparency and foster trust in our community.”394 It then sets forth clear and straightforward guidance regarding when the WCS must be activated – that is, placed into “event mode” from “buffering mode,” in which ongoing footage is captured but “recorded over” in a security-camera-style recording loop of approximately thirty seconds or so.395 The Proposed Policy provides that, if placing the camera in “event mode” is “not feasible due to an immediate risk to the safety” to the officer or others, the officer shall activate it “as soon as the immediate threat has been addressed.”396 The Proposed Policy then gives a non-exhaustive list of examples for when the camera must be deployed397 and sets forth those circumstances in which the camera can be returned to buffering mode, primarily to protect citizens’ privacy or in situations where consent is needed to record and is not given.398 This is a substantial improvement on earlier versions of the Proposed Policy which contained convoluted and unnecessarily confusing language governing when to place the WCS unit into event mode.
The Proposed Policy prohibits officers from editing, deleting, or altering the recordings,399 has a number of other provisions regarding officers’ responsibilities for handling their cameras,400 and also requires comprehensive and continuous training.401 Although the Monitoring Team still believes that the exceptions
391 Dkt. 80-1 at 19.
392 Id. at 3, 19.
393 Dkt. 92-1 at 2.
394 Id.
395 Id. ¶ I-A
396 Id. ¶ I-B.
397 Id. ¶ II-B-1-a.
398 Id. ¶ II-C.
399 Id. ¶ I-C.
400 Id. ¶¶ I-C, I-E, I-F.
401 Id. ¶ IX.
64

to the “default rule” regarding when cameras must be activated could be further streamlined and structured, it finds that, overall, the Proposed Policy succeeds in “provid[ing] clear guidance and training on their use,” as required by the Consent Decree.402
The Proposed Policy further sets forth that officers “shall be subject to the disciplinary process for intentional, repeated or otherwise unjustified failure to activate their WCS in violation” of the policy403 consistent with the Consent Decree’s requirement that “[o]fficers will be subject to the disciplinary process for intentional or otherwise unjustified failure to activate body worn cameras in violation of CDP policy.”404 It properly requires documentation of the reason that the camera “has been returned to buffering mode” from event mode.405 It also delineates the responsibilities of supervisors, satisfying the Consent Decree’s requirements that supervisors “review recordings” in various situations,406 and “conduct adequate random and directed audits” of recordings.407 Finally, the Proposed Policy sets forth various rules regarding the retention and storage of the recordings.408
After reviewing the body-worn camera policy, the Monitoring Team concluded that – with three exceptions – the provisions and requirements of the Proposed Policy represent substantial progress toward meeting the Consent Decree’s requirement that, having chosen to use body-worn cameras, CPD “will provide clear guidance and training on their use, and will implement protocols for testing equipment and preservation of recordings to foster transparency, increase accountability, and build trust, while protecting the privacy rights of individuals.”409
At the January 6, 2017 status conference, the Court provided the City with 30 days to provide more details about the potential cost implications of requiring that CPD officers use body cameras during secondary employment that is reasonably related to a law enforcement function. The Monitoring Team looks forward to receiving this additional, detailed, and fact-based report from the City and will update the Court and the public about the implications of the report.
402 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 337. 403 Dkt. 92-1 ¶ I.I 404 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 340. 405 Dkt. 92-1 ¶ II-B-h. 406 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 338; Dkt. 92-1 ¶ III-A-5, 407 Dkt 7-1 ¶ 339; Dkt. 92-1 ¶ IV. 408 Dkt. 92-1 ¶ VIII. 409 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 337.

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 66 of 70. PageID #: 1673

COMPLIANCE & OUTCOME ASSESSMENTS
The Monitoring Team has previously outlined the types of formal assessments that it makes of CPD’s progress toward implementing the Consent Decree:
A good portion of the Monitoring Team’s efforts . . . [are] ‘compliance assessments.’ This class of work involves the Monitoring Team evaluating whether CPD and the City are, in fact, doing what is required under the Consent Decree; doing it with a sufficient level of quality; and ensuring that the approved policies, procedures, and training are being actively implemented in the field by officers. In simplest terms, the Monitor’s ‘compliance reviews’ evaluate if CPD and the City are doing what they are supposed to be doing under the Decree . . . .
However, the Consent Decree reforms will only be worthwhile to the extent that they drive real change in the real world – and in the ongoing, daily experiences of residents from across Cleveland’s diverse communities . . . .
To this end, the Decree requires the Monitor to also conduct ‘outcome assessments,’ or qualitative and quantitative assessments to measure whether implementing this Agreement has resulted in constitutional policing’ in Cleveland . . . [T]hese ‘outcome measurements’ explore whether implemented changes are having the actual effects across the Cleveland community that they are intended to have.410
The following sections summarize the Monitoring Team’s effort during the most recent reporting period to both quantitatively and qualitatively assess the nature of CPD’s compliance
410 First Semiannual Report at 66 (internal quotations and citations omitted).

with specific Consent Decree requirements and measure the real-world outcomes expected by successful implementation of such reforms.
A. Consent Decree Survey Requirements
1. General Community Survey
Since the First Semiannual Report in early June 2016, the Monitoring Team completed the Consent Decree-required, biennial community survey process411 and submitted a report highlighting the results of the survey to the Court.412 Approximately 1,400 Cleveland residents responded to a telephone survey designed to learn more about the trust and confidence residents feel and experience toward the police, residents’ sense of safety, and their relative support for the police department and its employees. The results of this survey are outlined elsewhere in this report.
2. Police Officer Survey
The Monitoring Team also must facilitate focus groups of the community and officers to better understand police-community relations.413 Accordingly, the Monitoring Team has prepared a call for survey firms that has been publicized widely as well as circulated to eligible and recommended capable firms. Potential responding firms for whom the targeted outreach was agreed to be useful were identified by the City’s Legal Department and the Mayor’s Technical Expert Consultant on Surveys. The drafting of the call for firms was conducted by the Monitoring Team with feedback from the City’s expert consultant as well as the Department of Justice, the City, and CPD.
The call for firms was released on October 26, 2016, with responses submitted by November 22, 2016. Scoring and selection was conducted by a Monitoring Team subcommittee, including the City’s designated expert consultant on survey research. The Team selected the Cleveland-based Marketing Solutions in early December 2016. Over the coming months, the Monitoring Team will work closely to ensure that the firm both recruits participants and moderates with fidelity to the Consent Decree and group expectations.
3. Detained Arrestees
Another area of study required by the consent decree is of detained arrestees.414 This will be a valuable source of information about community-police relations and yet, a complex project to execute. The Monitoring Team has explored a number of strategies and identified challenges for this step and are postponing it to the next period. There are a number of requirements and
411 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 361. 412 Dkt. 71. 413 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 363. 414 Id. ¶ 363(b).
65

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 67 of 70. PageID #: 1674

stakeholders that must be considered, including strategies for sampling – representative or convenience samples – safety and security considerations for interviewees and interviewers, as well as consent, privacy and other human subject requirements before a final design is deemed satisfactory. The Monitoring Team has been in contact with a few university-based scholars for assistance who have done similar work in the past, and it looks forward to conducting this work in early 2017.
B. Baseline Outcome Measures
1. Overview
In late June 2016, a report was submitted to the Court that included 2015 baseline measures outlined in the consent decree.415 Those measures will serve as a baseline reference point for assessing the progress, over time, of the reform efforts instituted by the City and CPD during the Consent Decree.

documents, and lesson plans developed around the new Use of Force Policy were similarly reviewed and commented upon by the Outcome Measurement Team to certify compliance with the required data collection by Paragraph 367.
C. Qualitative Review of Outcome Measures Collected
As described by the First Semiannual Report and required by the Updated First-Year Monitoring Plan,416 outcomes are to be measured not only quantitatively, but also qualitatively to ensure that the quality of the data collected and the processes used to collect the data will result in meeting the stipulations of the Consent Decree. In order to determine if the reforms have the desired impact on the way work is being completed by the CPD staff, it is necessary to ensure not only that the formal or technical requirements have been minimally met but, instead, whether CPD personnel are adhering to standards and quality expectations with the requisite fidelity.

The Monitor’s Baseline Assessment Report inventoried the significant challenges encountered with the collection and compilation of data, as well as with the quality of the data that could be collected. In the months since the report was filed, the Monitoring Team has instigated routine conversations with CPD staff from the various units from which the baseline measures were collected to help improve data collection and retrieval capacity in future years.
2. Capacity-Building Efforts
At the suggestion of the City’s Compliance Team, the Outcomes Measurement Team spoke with community experts about the encumbrances to data collection within the Division and agreed to work collaboratively with a vendor chosen by the City at some future date who will serve as the Data Collection and Analysis Coordinator required by Paragraph 257 of the Consent Decree. The Team has been told the City issued a request for proposals to secure the necessary capacity, and it looks forward to working in partnership with the named individual or team to minimize redundancy and to maximize support and technical assistance provided to CPD as it works to track, store, and use data in a more comprehensive and integrated manner.
Members of the Monitor’s Outcomes Measurement Team have continued to work across a host of substantive reform areas to ensure that compliance can be rigorously assessed and outcomes comprehensively measured. For instance, in reviews of job descriptions, intake and disposition forms, as well as policy manuals for the Office of Professional Standards, recommendations and adjustments were made by the Outcomes Measurement Team to include data called for in Paragraphs 257 and 367. Similarly, there have been and will continue to be conversations with the Training Academy staff to ensure that student evaluations of training are useful and comprehensive and that consent decree required training is captured and counted. The many policies,
415 Dkt. 73.

During the past six months, the Outcome Measures Team has begun the process of performing qualitative reviews of the systems and processes used in four key units: (1) OPS; (2) the Inspections Unit (“IU”); (3) Chain of Command Reviews and 4) Internal Affairs Unit (“IAU”):
OPS. OPS investigates non-criminal misconduct complaints filed by civilians. As the Baseline Assessment Report clarified with the Court, the Monitoring Team is deferring qualitative analysis of OPS investigations after learning that there is a significant backlog of investigations in both 2015 and 2016 and that the office was operating with irregularity and inconsistency of policy. Substantial efforts to remedy this situation are reported elsewhere in this document.
Inspections Unit (IU). Some administrative or internal investigations are conducted by CPD’s Inspections Unit. These cases are small in number and therefore did not warrant a qualitative review. These are non-criminal in nature and often come into the Department through a telephone call to the Chief’s Office. A review of these cases, for baseline purposes, will be forthcoming in early 2017.
Chain of Command Reviews. There is a chain of command review of non-criminal misconduct detected through supervision or an internal complaint and for some use of force some complaints. These reviews are forwarded to the Case Preparation Office located in the Office of the Chief of Police for review and adjudication. The Monitoring Team is deferring review of these cases pending the completion of its review of Internal Affairs cases.
Internal Affairs Unit (IAU). All allegations that are
416 Dkt. 80.

66

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 68 of 70. PageID #: 1675

or could be criminal are investigated by the CDP’s Integrity Division’s Internal Affairs Unit (IAU). During this reporting period, the Team has conducted a focused review of a statistically significant, randomly selected set of the 79 total cases investigated by IAU in 2015.
Beginning in September 2016, the Outcomes Measures Team collected and reviewed quality assessment tools used to review investigations from a variety of external and internal sources. These tools were then modified to suit the language used in the CPD’s investigations and the consent decree expectations. Modification was conducted in conjunction with members of the IAU who ensured that the Outcomes Measures team had a complete and thorough working knowledge of process, rules, and policies currently used for IAU investigation.
The Monitoring Team’s previous data collection of the 2015 IAU cases identified 79 total cases for all categories of criminal allegation that resulted in either criminal prosecution or administrative reviews. Of these 79 cases, 20 included the use of deadly force, with the remaining 59 cases including use of force and other criminal misconduct.
The Team conducted a power analysis to determine a statistically significant number of IAU cases (out of the 79 total cases) that would need to be reviewed at a 95 percent confidence interval. This power analysis suggested that 40 cases should be assessed. Accordingly, 40 cases were randomly selected from the list of 79 cases.
Because use of deadly force is one of the key areas of focus in the consent decree and given these cases are often complex and serious with regard to nature of those offenses, use of deadly force cases have been “oversampled” in the selection of cases. This means that the total group of 40 cases includes enough deadly force cases to allow sufficient confidence that conclusions made about this sub-group of deadly force cases would hold for all deadly force cases, even if we looked at all 20 of those cases. The overall results of the 40 cases will be weighted to the actual proportion of the 79 cases so that deadly force cases are not overly represented.417 Thus, of the 40 cases, five are use of deadly force cases.
After the successful piloting of the qualitative evaluation instrument using five additional IAU cases, the Team has begun to review the 40 randomly selected IAU cases for the qualitative review.
417 For more on the process of “oversampling,” see Pew Research Center, Methods, U.S. Survey Research, Sampling (last visited Dec. 12, 2016), http://www.pewresearch.org/methodology/u-s-survey-research/sampling/.

It is hoped that the quality assessment of the sample of IA cases will be completed by the end of 2016. In turn, once the IAU qualitative review is conducted, the same process will be used to perform a qualitative review of OPS investigations conducted in 2016. The Monitoring Team expects the OPS qualitative review to be completed by June 2017.
67

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 69 of 70. PageID #: 1676
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team
Matthew Barge Monitor
Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey (ret.) Deputy Monitor
Chief Timothy Longo (ret.) Director of Implementation
Charles R. See Director of Community Engagement
Christine Cole Director of Outcome Measures
Chief Hassan Aden (ret.) Dr. Modupe Akinola
Chief Joseph Brann (ret.) Brian Center
Dr. Randolph Dupont Kelli Evans
Maggie Goodrich Ayesha Hardaway Richard Rosenthal
Victor Ruiz Captain Scott Sargent (ret.)
Dr. Ellen Scrivner Sean Smoot
Timothy Tramble Monitoring Team
Barry Friedman Ruby Nidiry
Nonny Onyekweli Maria Ponomarenko NYU School of Law Policing Project
Consultants

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 97 Filed: 01/10/17 70 of 70. PageID #: 1677
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on January 10, 2017, I served the foregoing document entitled Notice Submitting Monitoring Team’s Second Semiannual Report via the court’s ECF system to all counsel of record.
/s/ Matthew Barge MATTHEW BARGE

 
 Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 104 Filed: 01/24/17 1 of 31. PageID #: 1724

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff, vs.
CITY OF CLEVELAND,
Defendant.

) CASE NO.: 1:15-CV-01046 ) ) ) JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER, JR. ) ) ) CITY OF CLEVELAND’S ) THIRD STATUS REPORT

I. Introduction Cleveland’s third semi-annual status report to the Court and the Cleveland
Community is provided pursuant to Section 387 of the Settlement Agreement/Consent Decree,1 which allows: “the City will file a status report every six months thereafter while this Agreement is in effect.” The City filed its Initial Status Report on December 9, 2015, with its Second Status Report being filed on June 13, 2016. The City’s third report addresses the status of ongoing activities and accomplishments undertaken subsequent to the second report.
An agreed upon “First-Year Monitoring Plan” (“Plan”) was approved by the Court on February 4, 2016 and the Plan identified a variety of goals to be met during the period February 1, 2016 through January 31, 2017. The Plan established the calendar for accomplishing certain milestones in achieving reforms that had been established in the

1 The Settlement Agreement entered into between the City of Cleveland (“City”) and the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) on May 26, 2015 was approved by the Court on June 12, 2015 and forms the basis of the referenced “Consent Decree” that was issued by the Court. References to “Settlement Agreement” and “Consent Decree” refer to the same document, which can be found at Dkt. 7-1.

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 104 Filed: 01/24/17 2 of 31. PageID #: 1725
City’s Settlement Agreement with the DOJ. The Monitoring Plan was revised during the course of the year. As was noted in the Monitor’s First Semiannual Report “the parties and Monitoring Team will need to continuously adapt or adjust the Monitoring Plan to real-world circumstances and operational realities.” (Dkt. 66).2
One such real-world circumstance and operational reality recognized during the course of 2016 was the significant time and resource allocations that were associated with the City’s planning for and hosting of the 2016 Republican National Convention in Cleveland this past July. Hosting the Convention was a major undertaking and had been declared a National Special Security Event (“NSSE”) by the Secretary of Homeland Security. CDP in working with the United States Secret Service assumed a central and primary role in assuring security and safety in Cleveland during the RNC, while also working to guarantee and protect the First Amendment rights of local community members, those who had come to Cleveland either to protest or to support the Republican nominee, and those visitors who had come to experience and witness a historic event. While preparing for and hosting the RNC, the City and CDP’s efforts also remained directed at meeting agreed upon goals identified in the Settlement Agreement, while continuously seeking to reduce crime and ensure the everyday safety of those living, visiting, and working in Cleveland.
As anticipated, a large measure of the work being undertaken in the third six month period of the Consent Decree involved close attention to the development, refinement, and adoption of important policies and plans that will guide the CDP’s efforts
2 References to Dkt. in this report refer to the Court’s Docket, with the corresponding number identifying the docket entry where the referenced material can be found.
2

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 104 Filed: 01/24/17 3 of 31. PageID #: 1726
as the Division serves and protects the Cleveland community going forward. The primary accomplishments during this most recent reporting period involved: (1) CDP’s revised Use of Force of policies, (2) CDP’s Crisis Intervention Policy and Procedures, (3) the manuals for the Office of Professional Standards (“OPS”) and Police Review Board (“PRB”), (4) CDP’s proposed Wearable Camera System Policy, and (5) CDP’s proposed Equipment and Resource Plan. In addition to ongoing interactions and work with the Monitor Team and the DOJ in addressing the completion of new policies and plans, the City and the CDP have and will continue to work with the Cleveland Community Police Commission (“CPC”), residents, and community groups.
To provide a consistent cross-reference regarding activities and progress addressed in this status report, the City’s report follows the basic outline found in Paragraph 387 of the Settlement Agreement:
This report will delineate the steps taken by CDP during the reporting period to comply with this Agreement; CDP’s Assessment of the Status of its progress; plans to correct any problems; and response to concerns raised in the Monitor’s previous semi-annual report. II. Steps Taken by the Cleveland Division of Police and the City of Cleveland During the Reporting Period.
As noted above, a First Year Monitoring Plan was adopted to cover the period February 1, 2016 through January 31, 2017. While updated and revised during the year, the Plan continued to identify a sequence of agreed upon milestones to be completed during this reporting period in nine topic areas: A. Community and Problem-Oriented Policing, B. Use of Force, C. Officer Training, D. Crisis Intervention, E. Accountability
3

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 104 Filed: 01/24/17 4 of 31. PageID #: 1727
F. Equipment and Resources, G. Data Collection and Analysis, H. Bias Free Policing, and I. Compliance and Outcome Assessments and Reporting. Following the format used in the City’s second status report, this third report addresses the status of activity in each of these nine topic areas. A. Community and Problem-Oriented Policing
1. Mission Statement The development and filing with the Court of CDP’s new “Mission Statement” was addressed in the City’s Second Status Report. As noted therein the new Mission Statement reflects CDP’s direct and ongoing commitment to both constitutional and community oriented policing through adoption of the following language: The mission of the Cleveland Division of Police is to serve as guardians of the Cleveland community by enforcing the law, maintaining order, and protecting the lives, property, and rights of all people, as guided by the Constitution. We shall carry out our duties with a reverence for human life in partnership with members of the community through professionalism, respect, integrity, dedication and excellence in policing.
The Court approved CDP’s new Mission Statement on July 12, 2016. (Dkt. 74). CDP will be directly addressing with the Division’s officers the background and philosophy associated with the new Mission Statement concurrent with the forthcoming training to be undertaken with the implementation of CDP’s new Use of Force policies.
2. Community and Problem-Oriented Policing Work Plan The Settlement Agreement provides that “CDP will develop and implement a comprehensive and integrated community and problem-oriented policing model in order to promote and strengthen partnerships within the community, engage constructively with the community to ensure collaborative problem solving, and increase community
4

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 104 Filed: 01/24/17 5 of 31. PageID #: 1728
confidence in CDP. (Dkt. 7-1, ¶ 27). In early December CDP and the City received specific input on this topic from the Monitor entitled “A Framework for Community Policing in Cleveland.” The Monitor’s Framework provides a variety of ideas, practices, and suggestions for study and discussion within the following identified topic areas: community and problem-oriented policing, staffing and deployment, equipment and resources, recruitment and hiring, officer training and education, and officer and supervisor evaluation. Collaborative work with the CPC, Monitor Team, and the DOJ in developing a successful community and problem-oriented policing model will be an ongoing and major focus of the CDP and City during the next reporting period.
3. Cleveland Police Commission Because the CPC lost two of its originally appointed members in 2016, the Selection Panel authorized by the Settlement Agreement (Dkt. 7-1, ¶ 16) was reconstituted for the purpose of recommending two new members to fill the vacancies. The Panel recommended Gordon Friedman and LaToya Logan to fill the vacant CPC positions. Both were sworn in as members of the Commission by Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson on November 14, 2016. The City’s Finance Department worked closely with CPC in formulating a proposed budget for 2017. The Monitor reviewed the proposal and recommended approval by way of the Motion filed on November 30, 2016, noting therein: The budget, as proposed and scheduled to be presented for approval by Cleveland City Council, appears to provide sufficient independence along with the required resources to achieve the goals of the upcoming Monitoring Plan for 2017. (Dkt. 87). The Court formally approved the proposed CPC budget by way of the Order
5

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 104 Filed: 01/24/17 6 of 31. PageID #: 1729
issued on January 17, 2017. (Dkt. 101). B. Use of Force
On November 16, 2016, the Monitor filed a motion (Dkt. 83) recommending approval of five revisions to CDP’s “Use of Force” policies. The five revised policies addressed: (1) Use of Force – General, (2) Use of Force: Definitions, (3) De-Escalation (4) Use of Force: Intermediate Weapons, and (5) Use of Force: Reporting. In conformance with the Settlement Agreement the revised policies were “designed with the goal of ensuring that officers use techniques other than force to effect compliance with police orders whenever feasible; use force only when necessary, and in a manner that avoids unnecessary injury to officers and civilians; de-escalate the use of force at the earliest possible moment; and accurately and completely report all uses of force.” (Dkt. 71, ¶ 45). Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr., after hearing from the Monitor and counsel for both the City and the DOJ, approved the five policies at the Status Conference conducted by the Court on January 6, 2017.
CDP’s initial work on the new use of force policies was described in the City’s Second Status Report — Dkt. 69. The City’s Second Status Report reviewed the initial steps undertaken by CDP in the review and development of the revised use of force policies. Early steps included CDP’s receipt and consideration of community input and recommendations from the CPC, the results of a community survey conducted by the City’s Community Relations Board, and CDP’s outreach to and interactions with patrol and supervisory officers. As with much work being accomplished in accordance with the Settlement Agreement, CDP’s continuing efforts leading to the finalized use of force
6

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 104 Filed: 01/24/17 7 of 31. PageID #: 1730
policies included discussions and exchange of ideas with the Monitor, DOJ, CPC, and individual officers.
Much of the drafting of the core language to be incorporated into the new policies had been completed last year by early September. It was at this point that two collaboratively sponsored community forum events were held to allow community members to see the progress that had been made in drafting their new policies. It was anticipated that having interactive public meetings to discuss the draft policies would not only assist in achieving community understanding of the new policies, but that residents would be provided a forum allowing for direct input of community opinions and ideas to be taken into consideration in finalizing CDP’s use of force policies. Approximately 200 Cleveland area residents attended and were actively engaged with representatives from the City, CDP, the Monitor Team, DOJ, and other stakeholders in discussions concerning the proposed new policies. Ideas and opinions generated at the two public forums along with additional final policy recommendations made by the CPC were taken into account by CDP as final drafts of the revised policies were completed. The Monitor submitted the revised policies to the Court for approval on November 16. (Dkt. 83). The Monitor’s motion identified in pertinent part:
The Monitoring Team has closely reviewed the updated policies. For the reasons set forth below, the Monitor concludes that the policies are consistent with the Consent Decree because they promote officer and public safety, enhance effective and proactive law enforcement, and advance constitutional policing in a manner consistent with the values of Cleveland’s communities as articulated by those communities during extensive community outreach and engagement on the force policies. (Dkt. 83 at p. 2) A brief discussion highlighting aspects of the revised policies follows.
7

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 104 Filed: 01/24/17 8 of 31. PageID #: 1731
1. Use of Force – General
The purpose of CDP’s General use of force policy is expressed within the policy
as follows:
To establish guidelines for officers of the Cleveland Division of Police relative to the use of force, and to provide direction and clarity, in those instances when a subject’s actions require an appropriate use of force response.
(Dkt. 83-1, Use of Force General Policy). A concise overview of the policy guidelines
adopted with the General policy provides:
Consistent with the Division’s mission, including the commitment to carry out its duties with a reverence for the sanctity of human life, it is the policy of the Division to use only that force which is necessary, proportional to the level of resistance, and objectively reasonable based on the totality of circumstances confronting an officer. Officers shall also take all reasonable measures to de-escalate an incident and reduce the likelihood or level of force. Any use of force that is not necessary, proportional, and objectively reasonable and does not reflect reasonable de-escalation efforts, when safe and feasible to do so, is prohibited and inconsistent with Divisional policy.
(Id.). The detailed policy language provides CDP’s officers with specific guidance
concerning general procedures to be undertaken, when deadly force is authorized, and
when force is prohibited. The policy provides further guidance to officers on their duty to
ensure that any use of force is authorized and delineates the corresponding duty on
officers to intervene when an unauthorized use of force is observed. The policy also
describes the duty placed on officers to ensure necessary medical care is obtained and
provided when force has been used.
2. Use of Force: Definitions
A separate policy was drafted that defines various terms used in CDP’s Use of
Force Policies. The definitions ensure understanding of certain terms and concepts that
8

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 104 Filed: 01/24/17 9 of 31. PageID #: 1732
are used throughout the Use of Force policies. (Dkt. 88-1, Use of Force Definitions
Policy).3 Considering the above described “General” policy (Dkt. 83-1), the Definitions
policy (Dkt. 88-1) provides useful definitional context:
Force: Means the following actions by an officer: any physical strike, (e.g., punches, kicks), any intentional contact with an instrument, or any physical contact that restricts movement of a subject. The term includes, but is not limited to, the use of firearms, electronic control weapon (CEWe.g. Taser), ASP, chemical spray, hard empty hands, or the taking of a subject to the ground. Reportable force does not include escorting or handcuffing a subject, with no more than minimal resistance.
Necessary: Officers will use physical force only when no reasonably effective alternative appears to exist, and only then to the degree which is reasonable to effect a lawful purpose.
Proportional: To be proportional, the level of force applied must reflect the totality of circumstances surrounding the immediate situation, including the presence of an imminent danger to officers or others. Officers must rely on training, experience, and assessment of the situation to decide an appropriate level of force to be applied. Proportional force does not require officers to use the same type or amount of force as the subject. The more immediate the threat and the more likely that the threat will result in death or serious physical injury, the greater level of force that may be proportional, objectively reasonable, and necessary to counter it.
3. De-Escalation
The Settlement Agreement recognized that CDP officers would “use de-escalation
techniques whenever possible and appropriate.” (Dkt. 7-1, ¶ 46). De-escalation is defined
in the “Use of Force: Definitions” policy as:
[T]he process of taking action to stabilize the situation and reduce the immediacy and level of a threat so that more time, options, and resources are available to resolve the situation and gain voluntary compliance. Deescalation techniques may include, but are not limited to, gathering
3 On December 5, 2016 the Monitor filed Supplement Exhibits (Dkt 88) substituting three of the Use of Force policies: Definitions, De-escalation, and Reporting for the same three policies that had been directly attached as Exhibits to the Motion Recommending Approval of the policies as had been filed on November 16 — Dkt. 83.
9

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 104 Filed: 01/24/17 10 of 31. PageID #: 1733
information about the incident, assessing the risks, verbal persuasion, advisements and warnings, and tactical de-escalation techniques, such as slowing down the pace of the incident, waiting out subjects, creating distance (reactionary gap) between the officer and the threat, repositioning, and requesting additional resources (e.g., specialized CIT officers or negotiators).
(Dkt. 88-1). CDP’s separate and now approved De-Escalation policy establishes
“guidelines for officers of the Cleveland Division of Police relative to deescalating
situations in order to gain voluntary compliance and to reduce the need to use force.”
(Dkt. 88-2, De-Escalation Policy). It is recognized as a matter of policy concerning the
employment of de-escalation principles that:
Officers have the ability to impact the direction and outcome of the situation with their decision making and employed tactics. Policing, at times, requires that an officer may need to exercise control of a violent or resisting subject, or a subject experiencing a mental or behavioral crisis. At other times, policing may require an officer to serve as a mediator between parties, or defuse a tense situation. Officers shall use deescalation tactics and strategies when safe under the totality of the circumstances and time and circumstances permit.
(Dkt. 88-2).
4. Use of Force: Intermediate Weapons
Intermediate Weapons are defined by way of policy as “[w]eapons that interrupt a
subject’s threatening behavior so that officers may take control of the subject with less
risk of injury to the subject or officer than posed by greater force applications, including
but not limited to the ASP batons, and Conducted Electrical Weapon (CEW), Oleoresin
Capsicum (OC) Spray and the beanbag shotgun.” (Dkt. 88-1, Definitions).
The separate policy addressing “Intermediate Weapons” was “to establish
guidelines for officers of the Cleveland Division of Police relative to the use
of force when deploying intermediate weapons, while providing direction and clarity, in
10

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 104 Filed: 01/24/17 11 of 31. PageID #: 1734
those instances when a subject’s actions require a use of force response.” (Dkt. 83-4, Use
of Force: Intermediate). The Intermediate Weapons policy identifies that these weapons
“are used to interrupt a subject’s threatening behavior so that officers
may take control of the subject with less risk of injury to the subject or officer than posed
by greater force applications. Intermediate weapons may be used when objectively
reasonable, necessary, proportional, and permitted under this policy.” (Id.)
5. Use of Force: Reporting
The Settlement Agreement provided that “CDP will develop and implement a
single, uniform, reporting system pursuant to a Use of Force Reporting policy.” (Dkt. 7-1,
¶ 87). CDP’s approved Reporting policy was developed “[t]o establish guidelines for the
reporting of all use of force responses and for documenting objective reasonableness,
necessity and proportionality after a use of force response.” (Dkt. 88-3, Use of Force:
Reporting). The Reporting policy requires that:
Officers shall notify their supervisor when they have used force, except for de minimis force. Officers shall clearly, thoroughly and properly report use of force incidents. The necessity for each application of force shall be documented, identifying the uniqueness of each situation and justifying every force response.
(Id.). Reporting requirements relate to three classified established levels of force:
“1. Level 1 Use of Force: Force that is reasonably likely to cause only transient pain and/or disorientation during its application as a means of gaining compliance, including pressure point compliance and joint manipulation techniques, but that is not reasonably expected to cause injury, does not result in an actual injury, and does not result in a complaint of injury. It does not include escorting, touching, or handcuffing a subject with no or minimal resistance. Un-holstering a firearm and pointing it at a subject is reportable as a Level 1 use of force.
2. Level 2 Use of Force: Force that causes an injury, could reasonably be expected to cause an injury, or results in a complaint of an injury, but does
11

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 104 Filed: 01/24/17 12 of 31. PageID #: 1735
not rise to the level of a Level 3 use of force. Level 2 includes the use of a CEW, including where a CEW is fired at a subject but misses; OC Spray application; weaponless defense techniques (e.g., elbow or closed-fist strikes, kicks, leg sweeps, and takedowns); use of an impact weapon, except for a strike to the head, neck or face with an impact weapon; and any canine apprehension that involves contact.
3. Level 3 Use of Force: Force that includes uses of deadly force; uses of force resulting in death or serious physical harm; uses of force resulting in hospital admission due to a use of force injury; all neck holds; uses of force resulting in a loss of consciousness; canine bite; more than three applications of an CEW on an individual during a single interaction, regardless of the mode or duration of the application, and regardless of whether the applications are by the same or different officers, an CEW application for longer than 15 seconds, whether continuous or consecutive; and any Level 2 use of force against a handcuffed subject.”
(Id.).
The use of force policies have been developed and approved with the necessary
understanding that the circumstances necessitating an officer’s use of force can occur in
conditions involving immediate danger and grave threat to the officer or others. Such
circumstances can result in a use of force that would be otherwise prohibited by the
revised policies. The Reporting policy ensures that any such use of force is fully reported
and explained:
In the rare and exceptional circumstances that officers use force that would otherwise be prohibited by Division policy, they must justify the use of force by articulating the specific facts that led to such a use of force. Officers must describe, in detail, the objective reasonableness, necessity, and proportionality of the force that was used, the actions of the subject that constituted immediate danger and grave threat to the officers or others, the officer’s efforts to de-escalate the encounter, why the officer believed that no other force options, techniques, tactics or choices consistent with Division policy were available, and how rapidly the officer was able to return to compliance with Division policies.
(Dkt. 88-3). An officer is subject to discipline for failing to report a use of force, for
failing to report uses of force the officer has observed, and for “material (significant)
12

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 104 Filed: 01/24/17 13 of 31. PageID #: 1736
omissions or misrepresentations in their Use of Force Reports.” (Id.) C. Officer Training - Use of Force
As was noted in the Monitor’s Second Semi-Annual Report (Dkt. 97), “[t]he approved, new use of force policies for CPD [sic] will only become effective once the men and women of the Division receive significant, substantive training on the policies provisions.” (Report at p. 34). CDP is currently finalizing the curriculum that will be the basis for 16 hours of in-service to be provided to all officers. Work on the use of force training curriculum has been ongoing over the period of this report and has been undertaken in a collaborative fashion with input from the Monitor Team and DOJ. It is anticipated that a training plan will be finalized in the very near future with subsequent training of CDP officers on the new policies being undertaken in the first quarter of 2017. D. Crisis Intervention
The Settlement Agreement requires that CDP “build upon and improve the Crisis Intervention program with the goal of (a) assisting individuals in crisis; (b) improving the safety of officers, consumers, family members, and others within the community; (c) providing the foundation necessary to promote community and statewide solutions to assist individuals with mental illness; and (d) reducing the need for individuals with mental illness to have further involvement with the criminal justice system.” (Dkt. 7-1, ¶ 131). The City recently submitted to the Monitor for review three related policies associated with CDP’s revised Crisis Intervention Policy and Procedures (collectively the “CIT Policy”). On January 19 the Monitor submitted the three CDP policies to the Court through a motion, commenting therein, in part:
13

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 104 Filed: 01/24/17 14 of 31. PageID #: 1737
The CIT Policy submitted to the Monitor makes it clear that a “crisis intervention response may be necessary even in situations where there has been an apparent law violation.” Id. ¶ 154. It provides that specialized CIT officers will “have appropriate discretion to direct individuals with mental health and substance abuse issues to the health care system.” Id. ¶ 155. Additionally, the policy makes it clear that specialized CIT officers, when available, must be dispatched to all calls or incidents that appear to involve an individual in crisis. Id. ¶ 156. Because the City has submitted a CIT Policy that has met the requirements and objectives of the Consent Decree, the Monitoring Team recommends approval of the policy subject to the conditions regarding the completion of certain attachments discussed below.
(Dkt. 101, Motion Regarding Cleveland Division of Police Crisis Intervention Policy and
Procedures).4
By way of background, shortly after the Settlement Agreement was entered by the
Court as a Consent Decree, the City had entered into an agreement with the Alcohol,
Drug Addiction, and Mental Health Service Board of Cuyahoga County (“ADAMHS
Board”) to form the Mental Health Response Advisory Committee (“MHRAC”) set out at
¶ 132 of the Settlement Agreement. The MHRAC was established as “an advisory
Committee to the Department of Public Safety and CDP on behavioral health issues and
crisis intervention. The committee is made up of representatives of behavioral health and
4 As further explained in the Monitor’s Motion:
The initial final draft and the current policy references three documents that are near completion. These are the CIT Stat Sheet (CIT Program Attachment A), a written statement for the officers regarding emergency commitment under ORC 5122.10 (Crisis Intervention Response Attachment A), and a resource card for the officers (Crisis Intervention Response Attachment B). While there is general agreement on these three documents, the specific content is still being completed and will be presented to the parties, the Monitor, and the Court in the near future. Therefore, complete approval of the policies attached hereto by the Monitoring Team is conditioned upon receipt and approval of the attachments that the policies reference. (Dkt. 101, p. 8).
14

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 104 Filed: 01/24/17 15 of 31. PageID #: 1738
social service agencies, criminal justice agencies, advocacy groups, community members, and members of CDP. The MHRAC was developed through a Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Cleveland, Department of Public Safety and the Alcohol, Drug Addiction and Mental Health Services Board of Cuyahoga County.” Dkt. 101-1, Crisis Intervention Team Definitions). The Settlement Agreement established that the CDP would work with the MHRAC to revise its then current crisis intervention policy. (Dkt. 7-1, see ¶¶ 153-155).
As a result of the collaborative work of the CDP, MHRAC, and ADAHMS Board, with regular and continuing participation and input from the DOJ and Monitor Team, work on a consensus draft CIT Policy consisting of three separate CDP policies was completed in November. Prior to finalization of the policies two public forums were conducted on December 13, 2106. Input from the community was received and considered before the final CIT Policy was submitted to the Monitor for final review.
As was further noted by the Monitor in filing the three policies with the Court: The Monitoring Team notes that the work of the Advisory Committee is particularly impressive in light of the volunteer nature of the various members’ commitments. The cooperative relationship established between advocates, healthcare professionals and the Cleveland Police Department worked well in developing a consensus policy to address the needs of the individual in crisis without compromising the safety of the officer or the Cleveland community. As a result, the policy presents a new, comprehensive strategy for responding to individuals in a behavioral crisis. (Dkt. 103). The three separate policies making up the overall CIT Policy are briefly addressed.
15

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 104 Filed: 01/24/17 16 of 31. PageID #: 1739
1. Crisis Intervention Team Definitions
Similar to the definitions policy adopted with the new Use of Force Policy, a
separate definitions policy was adopted for the purpose of defining critical terminology
used in the CDP’s CIT Policy. (Dkt. 101-1). Several terms key to the revised policy
include:
Crisis: A situation where an individual’s safety and health are threatened by behavioral health challenges, to include mental illness, developmental disabilities, substance use, or overwhelming stressors. A crisis can involve an individual’s perception or experience of an event or situation as an intolerable difficulty that exceeds the individual’s current resources and coping mechanisms and may include unusual stress in their life that renders them unable to function as they normally would, which may make them a danger to self or others.
Developmental Disability: A disability that is characterized by an identified condition such as Autism Spectrum Disorder or Intellectual Disability Disorder that results in functional limitations in areas such as self-care, language, learning, mobility, self-direction, comprehension, capacity for independent living and economic self-sufficiency.
Mental Illness: A disorder of thought, mood, memory, emotion, perception, or orientation that significantly impairs judgment, behavior, capacity to recognize reality or the ability to address basic life necessities, and requires care and treatment for the health, safety, or recovery of the individual or the safety of others. Some individuals with mental illness may have a dual diagnosis that includes another condition such as drug and/or alcohol addiction. Mental illness conditions may be characterized by impairment of an individual’s normal cognitive, emotional, or behavioral functioning, and caused by social, psychological, biochemical, genetic, or other factors.
Specialized CIT Officer: A voluntary, specially trained, basic patrol officer who has demonstrated a desire and ability to work with people in crisis situations and who has been selected to be a member of the Crisis Intervention Team.
2. Crisis Intervention Team Program
As described, the purpose of the Crisis Intervention Team Program (“CIT
16

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 104 Filed: 01/24/17 17 of 31. PageID #: 1740
Program”) is: To increase the effectiveness of the Cleveland Division of Police’s (CDP) Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) Program by: facilitating communication between CDP and the behavioral health community; developing a foundation that promotes effective solutions for assisting those in crisis or with behavioral health challenges; improving the crisis intervention training of officers; increasing the resources available to CDP; reducing the need for individuals in crisis to have further involvement with the criminal justice system; and improving the safety of officers and the Cleveland community. ( Dkt. 101-2, Crisis Intervention Team Program Policy). The CIT Program is to ensure the provision of “resources and develop collaborative partnerships with the community, behavioral health care systems, and advocacy groups to improve CDP’s relationships with the community. The CIT Program shall reflect the values of the community it serves by promoting dignity and fairness to all people through its training, encounters with individuals in crisis, and community partnerships, with the goal of connecting or redirecting individuals in crisis and their families to health care resources that can provide for long-term stabilization and support.” (Id.) The Program formalizes recognition of specialized CIT officers within the CDP ranks who will be tasked to respond to everyday crisis intervention calls. CIT officers will be volunteers from within CDP, with the Division assessing each officer applicant to determine his/her fitness to serve as a Specialized CIT Officer. The assessment will include an in-person interview and review of the officer’s application, supervisory recommendations, past crisis intervention reports, personnel file, and history of Office of Professional Standards complaint history. The policy makes clear that “Officers with a history of complaints of, or who have been disciplined for, excessive use of force against individuals in crisis will be presumptively ineligible to be a Specialized CIT officer.” (Id.)
17

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 104 Filed: 01/24/17 18 of 31. PageID #: 1741
The policy identifies that each Specialized CIT officer will receive 40 hours of crisis intervention training, to include training in the following areas: how to conduct field evaluations, suicide interventions, community mental health resources, common mental health and developmental disability diagnoses, effects of drug and alcohol use, the rights of persons with mental illness and disabilities, crisis de-escalation; civil commitment criteria; scenario-based exercises, on-site visitation to mental health and substance abuse facilities, understanding age-appropriate responses in handling juveniles with mental illness; and perspectives of individuals with mental health issues and their family members. As might be expected, the Specialized CIT officers will be central to the success of the intervention process. Unless a supervisor on scene has assumed responsibility these officers will have the primary responsibility on scene for handling a crisis incident.
All other CDP officers are to receive eight (8) hours of annual in-service crisis intervention training that is adequate in quality, type, and scope addressing the circumstances when a Specialized CIT officer shall be dispatched or consulted, how to handle a crisis incident if a Specialized CIT officer is not immediately available, and updates on mental health issues. CDP recruits will receive at least 16 hours of training that meets Ohio Police Officer Training Academy requirements in the Academy . (Id.)
3. Crisis Intervention Team Response The Crisis Intervention Team Response Policy “establishes guidelines for the Cleveland Division of Police (CDP) to interact with individuals who are suffering from a crisis by improving the safety of officers and the Cleveland community, promoting
18

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 104 Filed: 01/24/17 19 of 31. PageID #: 1742
community solutions to assist individuals in crisis, and diverting those individuals away from the criminal justice system.” (Dkt. 101-3) As a matter of policy:
The Division shall handle encounters with individuals in crisis in a manner that promotes the dignity of all people while reflecting the values of protection and safety. Individuals in crisis may require heightened sensitivity and additional special consideration. Officers should use reasonable precautions to avoid a violent encounter with individuals in crisis by de-escalating the situation and making every effort to preserve the safety of officers, the individual, and the general public with the goal of connecting the individual to the appropriate community resources for a sustainable recovery. (Id.). This Policy addresses the various circumstances and responsibilities associated with responding to a crisis through topics addressing and providing guidance concerning: Communications Control Section (CCS) [dispatcher] responsibilities, non CIT Officer responsibilities, specific Specialized CIT Officer responsibilities on scene, responding to juveniles in crisis, crisis incident de-escalation, use of force, handcuffing, diversion options & transportation, supervisor responsibilities, law enforcement emergency admissions, health authority emergency admission, probate warrants, individuals who are absent without leave (AWOL) from inpatient psychiatric facilities or individuals who are on a trial home visit, requests for assistance at shelters or mental health agencies, incident reports with “Crisis Intervention” in the title and CIT Stat Sheet, and referral options. E. Accountability 1. Internal Affairs The Consent Decree indicates that CDP through Internal Affairs (“IA”) will conduct objective, comprehensive, and timely investigations of all internal allegations of
19

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 104 Filed: 01/24/17 20 of 31. PageID #: 1743
officer misconduct. IA also conducts investigations when criminal conduct is alleged to have been committed by CDP employees.
The Consent Decree requires that CDP’s Internal Affairs Superintendent be a “qualified civilian who is not a current or former employee of CDP, and who is not a current or retired law enforcement officer.” (Dkt. 7-1, ¶ 178). Originally, the goal established by the first year monitoring plan was to have the Superintendent in place by August of 2016. While the amended first year plan changed that date to the end of January 2017, additional time will be necessary.
CDP, in consultation with the Monitor and DOJ, engaged in extensive but so far unsuccessful efforts to find a qualified candidate meeting the above qualifications. The prohibition against a suitable candidate being a current or retired law enforcement officer has disqualified from consideration a broad range of individuals such as state or federal prosecutors and police officers from other jurisdictions who may have extensive experience in public corruption or police accountability.
Meanwhile, the CDP, the Monitor, and DOJ are continuing their work on a new Internal Affairs Operations/Policy Manual. This manual will govern IA activities to include the types and scope of cases that will be investigated. In addition, the manual will specifically set out a process for interaction between the IA Superintendent and the Office of Professional Standards Administrator. Cooperation between these two entities is critical to efficient and transparent investigations into alleged police misconduct.
2. Office of Professional Standards and the Civilian Police Review Board The Office of Professional Standards (“OPS”) is responsible for receiving and investigating citizen complaints alleging misconduct by sworn officers and other
20

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 104 Filed: 01/24/17 21 of 31. PageID #: 1744
employees of the Cleveland Division of Police. After a full and complete investigation, OPS presents the results to the Civilian Police Review Board (“PRB”) for disposition and, if warranted a recommendation to the Chief of Police or Safety Director as to appropriate discipline.
At this time OPS continues to be challenged by a significant backlog of cases in various stages of investigation. Progress has been made, however, in providing structure and adding staff that together offer a stepping stone for helping OPS come into compliance with the Consent Decree and turn it into the trusted agency this City and all residents expect and deserve.
Since the last report, two fulltime investigators were added and trained. Thus there are currently six permanent investigators sharing the extensive caseload of incomplete investigations. Furthermore, a General Manager of Administrative Services has also been added to the OPS staff. Among other duties, the General Manager is tasked with creating and implementing a case management and performance review process. In conjunction with the review process, OPS is currently using IA Pro, the same electronic case management and performance platform used by CDP. All of this will provide additional investigative tools and efficiencies as OPS addresses the existing backlog of cases and receives new complaints.
It is anticipated that the City and the Monitor will engage in discussions during the first quarter of 2017 regarding what level of permanent staff will be required going forward. This decision is complicated by the backlog of cases and the critical necessity of conducting timely investigations on current cases.
21

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 104 Filed: 01/24/17 22 of 31. PageID #: 1745
As the Monitor outlined in his last Semiannual Report, through the joint effort of the City, his team, and DOJ, comprehensive operations manuals have been produced for both OPS and PRB. On November 29 the Monitor filed a motion recommending that the Court approve both manuals. (Dkt. 86). At the status hearing conducted by the Court on January 6, Judge Oliver delayed approval of the manuals to allow the City and DOJ to address identified minor non-substantive technical issues. (Dkt. 101, Order).
In the case of OPS, the manual outlines the process for interacting with the public, receiving, evaluating, and timely investigating complaints, and making presentations and recommendations to PRB. As such, the manual also provides clear guidance for citizens and CDP officers and employees as to what they can expect during the course of an investigation. The PRB manual, in turn, outlines procedures that will be followed in receiving, reviewing and deliberating upon OPS investigations. This guidance will be of great assistance to not only the board members as they prepare for and conduct meetings, but also to anyone attending the meetings, whether as an observer or interested party. Finally, in the event discipline is recommended, the manual provides the ultimate decision makers, either the Chief of Police or Safety Director, a clear understanding as to the process that was followed by PRB.
A Charter Amendment outlining revisions to the PRB was passed by voters in November. As a result the number of PRB members was increased to nine, with appointments coming both from the Mayor and City Council. Individual board members will ultimately be required to represent and reflect the diverse communities within Cleveland. Other provisions include term limits for board members as well as occupying the chair and vice chair positions.
22

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 104 Filed: 01/24/17 23 of 31. PageID #: 1746
This upcoming year will be challenging for PRB. As OPS reduces the backlog of unfinished investigations, there will be a corresponding increase in PRB hearing presentations. This, in turn, will require a greater time commitment by the board members, not just in attending meetings, but also in the considerable effort required to review investigation materials in advance of the hearings. The additional number of board members together with the revised manual provisions allowing for review of some cases by less than the whole board will help, but by no means eliminate, the increased workload board members will face in the months ahead.
The City continues to be committed to the reforms contained in the Consent Decree and to ensuring that both OPS and PRB effectively foster trust and confidence within the community and CDP by conducting thorough, fair, and timely investigations and dispositions of citizen complaints. F. Equipment and Resources
1. Equipment and Resources Study As noted in the City’s Second Status Report CDP completed and submitted to the Parties and the Monitor a comprehensive equipment and resource study that assessed its current needs and priorities to perform the functions necessary both to fulfill its mission and satisfy the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. The Agreement further required that “[w]ithin six months of completion of this study, CDP will develop an effective, comprehensive Equipment and Resource Plan that is consistent with its mission and that will allow it to satisfy the requirements of this Agreement.” (Dkt. 7-1, ¶ 292). Planning and preparations for the RNC delayed feedback and discussions with the Monitor following CDP’s submission of the Equipment and Resource Study. The
23

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 104 Filed: 01/24/17 24 of 31. PageID #: 1747
Monitor’s responsive analysis to the CDP’s study was received on September 13, 2016 by way of a combined presentation to the City, CDP, DOJ, and CPC. The City thereafter continued in discussions with the Monitor Team and DOJ concerning CDP’s equipment needs through November 25, 2016, when the “Cleveland Division of Police Equipment and Resource Plan” was released. The Plan took into account the realities of the City’s fiscal planning, contracting, and budgetary processes under the City’s governing laws and was approved by the Chief as required by the Settlement Agreement.
In accordance with the Settlement Agreement the City believes it presented a substantive Equipment Plan that addresses multiple equipment and resource issues within the terms of the Consent Decree. The Plan was formulated to ensure that CDP maintained and continuously improved existing equipment and technology while identifying equipment needs and emerging technologies. The City sought and received input and feedback from the CPC, patrol officers, and supervisors concerning resource allocation, equipment needs, and technological improvements.
The Equipment Plan took into account overall equipment needs of officers that would be required to perform their jobs safely, effectively, and efficiently. In this regard the Plan specifically addressed the following areas: CDP’s Records Management System, Computer Aided Dispatch, Technology Governance, Mobile Technology, In-Station (District) Technology, Administrative/Management Applications, and the Creation of a Patrol Car Vehicle Modernization Plan.
On December 19, 2016 the Monitor filed a motion recommending that the Court not approve the City’s proposed plan. (Dkt. 93). CDP’s proposed Plan was attached to the Monitor’s motion and is available to be read in its entirety. (Dkt. 93-1). The City filed
24

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 104 Filed: 01/24/17 25 of 31. PageID #: 1748
a response to the Monitor’s concerns on December 28, 2016. (Dkt. 95). The issue is further addressed below in “Section V. Response to Concerns Raised in the Monitor’s Semi-Annual Report.”
2. Body Worn Cameras Paragraph 337 of the Settlement Agreement provides: CDP’s use of body worn cameras is not required by this Agreement. If CDP chooses to use body worn cameras, CDP will provide clear guidance and training on their use, and will implement protocols for testing equipment and preservation of recordings to foster transparency, increase accountability, and build trust, while protecting the privacy rights of individuals. (Dkt. 7-1). CPD established its first Wearable Camera System (“WCS”) policy in 2015 as the Division began its initial use of body worn cameras. The Monitoring Team subsequently submitted comments and recommendations concerning body worn camera policies in April, 2016. The DOJ provided comments to CDP in October. After ongoing discussions and exchanges of ideas concerning what should go into a new CDP WCS policy, CDP submitted a close to final version of its proposed WCS policy to the Monitor in November. Because of continuing policy differences, CDP continued to discuss into December the merits of its proposed policy with the Monitor and DOJ. As the Updated First Year Monitoring Plan required the Monitor to file a memorandum with the Court by December 19 recommending approval or disapproval of CDP’s proposed WCS policy, CDP submitted a final proposed WCS policy to the Monitor on December 16. The Monitor timely submitted the CDP’s proposed WCS policy to the Court with a motion expressing the Monitor’s position that with three identified exceptions the
25

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 104 Filed: 01/24/17 26 of 31. PageID #: 1749
proposed WCS Policy satisfied the terms of the Consent Decree. (Dkt. 92). The Monitor disagreed with CDP’s proposed WCS policy in three areas: (1) for not mandating the use of body-worn cameras while officers are working secondary employment with a private employer, (2) as to when officers may and may not view body worn camera video, and (3) concerning public disclosure of body camera footage. The City filed its response to the Monitor’s expressed concerns on January 5 (Dkt. 96).
The City responded that CDP’s proposed WCS policy meets the terms of the Settlement Agreement as it provides (1) clear guidance and training on the use of cameras is provided in the policy and (2) implements protocols for testing equipment and the preservation of recordings to foster transparency, increase accountability, and build trust, while protecting the privacy rights of individuals. CDP’s expressed WCS policy establishes “guidelines for the use, management, storage, retrieval, and supervision regarding the Wearable Camera System (WCS). To provide officers with clear guidance on the use of the WCS and preservation of recordings to foster transparency, increase accountability, build trust, and protect the privacy rights of individuals.” (Dkt. 92-1)
The WCS policy was addressed at the January 6 status conference with Judge Oliver. The remaining concern to be further addressed relates to the secondary employment issue. The City’s WCS policy encourages use of body worn cameras when officers are engaged in secondary employment but does mandate the use of cameras. The secondary employment issue is being addressed presently as requested by the Court and is discussed below in “Section V. Response to Concerns Raised in the Monitor’s SemiAnnual Report.”
26

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 104 Filed: 01/24/17 27 of 31. PageID #: 1750
G. Data Collection and Analysis CDP is close to filling the Data Collection and Analysis Coordinator position
established in the Settlement Agreement. The position is created to coordinate the creation, collection, and maintenance of multiple data and records required by the Decree. H. Bias Free Policing
As was noted in the City’s Second Status Report CDP submitted a proposed Bias Free Policing Policy for further discussion and review in June. The policy was formulated to provide officers guidance in delivering police services with the goal of ensuring that they are accomplished equitably, respectfully, and free of unlawful bias, and in a manner that promotes broad community engagement and confidence in the Cleveland Division of Police. As noted in the Monitor’s Second Semiannual Report “the Monitor and the Parties are currently reviewing CDP’s draft bias-free policing policy.” (Dkt. 97, p. 25). Further discussion concerning the proposed policy remains ongoing. It is anticipated pursuant to the Updated First Year Monitoring Plan that the Monitor will approve or disapprove the policy by February 28, 2017. I. Compliance and Outcome Assessments and Reporting
The City received the Monitor’s Second Semiannual report on January 10. Pursuant to the terms of the Monitor Plan and the agreement of the Monitor and Parties the City’s third status report is being filed with the Court on January 24. III. Assessment of the Status of Cleveland Division of Police’s Progress
CDP continues to focus on ensuring that the reforms and goals contained in the Settlement Agreement are being met. The significant milestones achieved in this reporting period as addressed above, to include completion of CDP’s Use of Force and CIT
27

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 104 Filed: 01/24/17 28 of 31. PageID #: 1751
Policies and the drafting of the final OPS and PRB manuals, are major developments toward ensuring continuing progress. CDP’s exemplary handling of the challenges presented by the City’s hosting of the Republican National Convention was nationally recognized, as was the successful handling of the massive crowd celebrating the Cleveland Cavalier’s Championship. The accomplishments of the last period are true indicators that progress has been made and will continue in 2017. IV. Plans to Correct Any Problems
1. OPS As addressed above, the City remains focused on substantially reducing the backlog of OPS complaints and working to ensure timely and thorough investigations are completed. In the short term, the City’s attempt to add temporary investigators to assist in eliminating the backlog has been somewhat problematic. Although the OPS budget allows for four such investigators, only one is currently working. Efforts are currently underway to expand the search for qualified candidates. Plans are also being made for an alternative approach in the event the temporary positions remain unfilled. 2. Internal Affairs As noted above the City has experienced difficulty in filling the civilian IA Superintendent position. The City plans to engage the Monitor and DOJ in discussions concerning the qualifications for the position. As currently written, the Settlement Agreement language would preclude even experienced members of the Monitoring team who are assisting CDP in meeting the IA reforms from consideration to fill the IA Superintendent position. Paragraph 398 of the settlement Agreement contemplates discussions between the City, DOJ, and the Monitor where a provision of the Settlement
28

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 104 Filed: 01/24/17 29 of 31. PageID #: 1752
Agreement as drafted is not furthering the purpose of the Agreement. The City wishes to explore whether amended language somewhat broadening the pool of potential applicants for the IA position would provide a preferable alternative for achieving the civilian supervisory goal contained in the Settlement Agreement. V. Response to Concerns Raised in the Monitor’s Semi-Annual Report
1. Equipment, Technology, and Resources The Monitor did not recommend approval of the current Equipment and Resource Plan proposed by the CDP and filed a motion detailing his position on December 19, 2016. (Dkt. 93). The City filed a response to the Monitor’s motion on December 28. (Dkt. 95). The City’s response outlined where it believes the Monitor’s opinions and concerns regarding the City’s equipment planning were misplaced, while also acknowledging the Monitor “raise[d] many good considerations for further discussion and refinement as the City proceeds with agreed upon reforms.” (Dkt. 95, p. 2). CDP’s Plan was a serious undertaking that reflected a great deal of study, discussion, and followed ongoing interactions with the Monitor, DOJ, and the CPC. The Court addressed the Monitor’s motion and the City’s response at the January 6, 2017 status conference. Per the Court’s direction at this hearing the City will continue to work with the Monitor and DOJ in a collaborative fashion to reach a detailed and comprehensive Plan that meets the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 2. Body Worn Cameras The remaining concern raised by the Monitor with regard to CDP’s proposed Wearable Camera System Policy centered on whether CDP should mandate the wearing of such cameras when an officer is engaged in secondary employment. The Court
29

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 104 Filed: 01/24/17 30 of 31. PageID #: 1753
considered this matter at the January 6 status conference. As proposed the City’s policy recommended but does not require the wearing of CDP issued body cameras by an officer while performing duties for a secondary employer. The Consent Decree specifically provides that “CDP’s use of body worn cameras is not required by this Agreement.” (Dkt. 7-1 ¶337). The City believes its policy otherwise meets the requirements in the Agreement and that the administrative and financial considerations associated with mandating that all officers employ cameras while performing secondary employment is significant and problematic. This Court requested that the City further address its concerns with mandating body worn cameras and provide additional information in support of its position within thirty days of the hearing (February 6, 2017). The City is presently working on providing the requested information. VI. Conclusion
As evidenced by the achievements addressed above, and in the first and second status reports filed with this Court, the City remains committed to achieving the agreed upon reforms addressed in the Consent Decree.
Respectfully submitted, Barbara A. Langhenry (0038838) Director of Law By: /s/ Gary S. Singletary Gary S. Singletary (0037329) Chief Counsel City of Cleveland 601 Lakeside Avenue, Room 106 Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1077 Tel: (216) 664-2737 Fax:(216) 664-2663 E-mail: gsingletary@city.cleveland.oh.us Counsel for the City of Cleveland
30

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 104 Filed: 01/24/17 31 of 31. PageID #: 1754 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the City of Cleveland’s Third Status Report was filed electronically on January 24, 2017. Notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s system. Pursuant to the requirements of the Consent Decree the Monitor Team has been delivered a copy of this filing.
/s/ Gary S. Singletary Gary S. Singletary (0037329) Counsel for the City of Cleveland
31

 
 Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 1 of 77. PageID #: 2801

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
vs. CITY OF CLEVELAND
Defendant.

) CASE NO.: 1:15-CV-01046 ) ) ) JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER, JR. ) ) ) NOTICE SUBMITTING MONITORING ) TEAM’S THIRD SEMIANNUAL ) REPORT

The Cleveland Police Monitoring Team submits its Third Semiannual Report.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Matthew Barge MATTHEW BARGE Monitor 234 5th Avenue, Suite 314 New York, New York 10001 Tel: (202) 257-5111 Email: matthewbarge@parc.info

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 2 of 77. PageID #: 2802

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team

Third Semiannual Report
June 2017

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 3 of 77. PageID #: 2803
2

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 4 of 77. PageID #: 2804

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Third Semiannual Report

A Note From the Monitoring Team

4

Introduction to the Role of the Monitor & 7 This Report

Community Engagement & Building Trust

12

Community & Problem-Oriented Policing

20

Bias-Free Policing

26

Use of Force

27

Crisis Intervention

33

Search & Seizure

39

Accountability

40

Transparency & Oversight

56

Officer Assistance & Support

59

Supervision

68

Compliance & Outcome Assessments

72

3

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 5 of 77. PageID #: 2805
A NOTE FROM THE MONITORING
TEAM
Like any project originally contemplated to last possibly as long as a half-decade or more, the Consent Decree process in Cleveland has seen changes in the personnel working on reform on a day-to-day basis. Similar efforts in other cities have witnessed changes in political administrations, attorneys, police personnel, monitors, judges, and elected officials – with the work nonetheless progressing toward what the United States and the involved city originally agreed. Although the reform required by the Decree is larger than any one person, we nevertheless pause here to credit and thank the contributions of some individuals who have uniquely furthered the reform process to date. First, Former Police Chief and Cleveland Public Safety Director Bill Denihan will retire as CEO of the Alcohol, Drug Addiction and Mental Health Services (ADAMHS) Board of Cuyahoga County on August 1. Bill has spent 35 years in public service to the residents of Cleveland, Cuyahoga County, and the State of Ohio, with his work spanning across numerous public sectors. Most recently, Bill’s commitment to the Consent-Decree-created Mental Health Responsive Advisory Committee has contributed directly to an extraordinary collaboration between the Cleveland community and the Cleveland Division of Police (“CDP” or the “Division”), as this report discusses in detail. Bill has noted that he “considers himself . . . a change agent of government,” and the Monitoring Team will miss his determination and unstinting embrace of new approaches to achieve positive outcomes for the Cleveland community. Carole Rendon’s tenure as U.S. Attorney concluded in March 2017. Carole was involved in the police reform process in Cleveland from the early days of the Department of Justice’s investigation and the negotiation of the Consent Decree through the active implementation of the Consent Decree. Now a partner at the law firm of Baker Hostetler, Carole’s fairness, integrity, and thoughtfulness are all without question and measure. The City of Cleveland and Division of Police are better for Carole’s dogged commitments to fairness, justice, and selfless public service – and the Monitoring Team will greatly miss working closely with her to ensure that the outcomes of the
4

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 6 of 77. PageID #: 2806
Consent Decree are met in the years to come.
Although we referenced his departure in a footnote in the Second Semiannual Report shortly before filing, when his retirement date had become clear, Commander Brian Heffernan retired in mid-January after 31 years of public service with CDP. The early coordinator of an array of the Division’s early compliance work, Brian’s work ethic, focus, and willingness to entertain new approaches and arguments greatly assisted the City, Division, Department of Justice, and Monitoring Team during the first year of Consent Decree implementation. The Division of Police is tremendously fortunate to have benefitted from Brian’s committed leadership over decades of various high-impact assignments. The Monitoring Team hopes that Commander Heffernan is enjoying an exceptionally well-earned retirement.
Dr. Rhonda Williams, the Co-Chair of the Community Police Commission from soon after it was established in September 2015, resigned from the Commission as of May 31 to take an endowed chair position at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee. Formerly the Founder and Director of the Social Justice Institute, and a Professor of History, at Case Western University, “Dr. Rhonda” has been enormously influential in driving the Commission to be a forum for the substantive exchange of specific, forward-looking recommendations about how policing in Cleveland should function. Her dedication, hard work, and commitment have been greatly appreciated by the Monitoring Team, and her important voice and perspective will be missed.
Monitoring Team member Kelli Evans discontinued her work with the Team as of April 30 to take a position with the Attorney General of the State of California, where she is coordinating that office’s approach to a host of criminal justice issues. As a former Senior Trial Attorney with the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice focusing on police issues, a former Federal Court Monitor of the Oakland Police Department, and the former Senior Director of the State Bar of California, Kelli brought to the Monitoring Team a wealth of substantive knowledge, legal acumen, and pragmatic expertise that substantially assisted the Team’s efforts on a host of fronts. Kelli’s shoes will be very large ones to fill.
Finally, an important member of the team guiding the City’s Consent-Decree-related efforts is shifting roles. Blaine Griffin, the former Director of the City’s Community Relations Board, was sworn in as a City Council member on May 15, 2017. The Monitoring Team worked closely with Blaine over more than 18 months on implementing strategies geared toward ensuring community involvement, participation, and voice in the Consent Decree process. His passion for and commitment to the Cleveland community – including those elements of the community that are under-served, ignored, or skeptical of participating in government or civic life – has been a tremendous asset to the City and to the police reform process to date. The Monitoring Team looks forward to working with Blaine in his important new role representing the residents of Cleveland’s Ward 6.
Regardless of who is involved in this effort going forward, the Monitoring Team and Parties will continue to report to this Court, the public, and the men and women of the Division of Police about the status of the City’s compliance with the Consent Decree.
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team June 13, 2017
5

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 7 of 77. PageID #: 2807
Report Photo Credits: CPD; City of Cleveland; Alvin Smith 6

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 8 of 77. PageID #: 2808

INTRODUCTION TO THE ROLE OF THE MONITOR & THIS REPORT
The Consent Decree between the United States and the City of Cleveland (the “City”) (collectively, the “Parties”) involving the Cleveland Division of Police (“CPD,” “CDP,” the “Division of Police,” or the “Division”) requires that the Cleveland Police Monitoring Team “assess and report whether the requirements” of the Consent Decree “have been implemented, and whether this implementation is resulting in constitutional and effective policing, professional treatment of individuals, and increased community trust . . . . ”1 This is the Monitoring Team’s third summary of the City’s progress to date in complying with the Consent Decree.2
In the December 2016 through June 2017 reporting period addressed here, the City of Cleveland has continued to reach important milestones. In-depth, scenario-based training on the Division’s new force policies for all CDP officers is now underway. Crisis intervention training for all officers has also begun. The notable efforts of the Division’s Training Section on the use of force training and of CDP and the community volunteers who make up the Mental Health Response Advisory Committee have resulted in dynamic, high-quality training. At the same time, substantial work has been conducted by a host of stakeholders across the Cleveland community on the first phase of constructing a new community and problem-oriented policing plan for the City of Cleveland. In all these areas, the City and Division must be commended to their commitment to adopting new approaches consistent with best practices.
This report also details ongoing challenges. The City’s system for investigating and addressing civilian complaints about police
1 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 350. 2 Id. ¶ 375 (requiring semiannual reports).

performance continues to lag far behind where it must be. The Division’s capture and use of officer performance data to guide it in the delivery of services, supervision and professional development of officers, and risk management will require significant attention over the coming months. Similarly, even as the City and Division make strides in implementing necessary technological platforms, the Decree-required Equipment and Resource Plan must put in place systems and processes that ensure that the Division does not fall behind on officer resources and equipment again in the future. Much work remains on significant changes to the Division’s processes for investigating and reviewing use of force, investigating officer misconduct, imposing discipline, and supervising officers.
The remainder of this section reiterates the role of the Monitoring Team, summarizes the current Monitoring Plan, and describes the purpose and form of this report – which, in the use of summary assessments of the compliance status of each paragraph of the Consent Decree, differs to some relevant extent from previous reports.
A. Role & Responsibilities of the Monitoring Team
Although the Monitoring Team has previously summarized its duties and responsibilities under the Consent Decree, the Team’s status as a fiduciary agent of the Court is worth reiterating:
The agreement between the United States and City of Cleveland (the “Parties”) involving various reforms to the Cleveland Division of Police (“CDP,” “CDP,” “Division of Police,” or the “Division”) takes the form of a consent decree. The Consent Decree (also referred to as the “Decree”) binds not only the Division of Police but the entire City of Cleveland including all City departments, the City Council, and the Mayor’s Office. Although a vast majority of the specific requirements most directly implicate CDP, the City as a whole remains the entity that must ensure compliance with the Decree’s requirements . . . .
The Monitor and Monitoring Team are “agent[s] of the Court” who are “subject to the supervision and orders of the Court.” Accordingly, the Monitor is not an employee, contractor, or any other type of agent of the City of Cleveland. Likewise, the Monitor is not an employee, contractor, or any other type of agent of the Department of Justice. Instead, the Monitor is an independent actor, working on behalf of the Court, to oversee, monitor, and assess implementation of the Consent Decree. The Monitor works for the Court – not the City and not DOJ.
7

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 9 of 77. PageID #: 2809

In short, the Monitoring Team serves as the

It should be noted, however, that the Consent Decree does not

eyes and ears of the Court, with “a legal duty

require that the Monitoring Plan manage the implementation of

to act solely in [the Court’s] interests.” Sig-

the Decree for the Division, City, or any other stakeholder. In-

nificantly, this arrangement – with a Court

stead, it must “delineate the requirements of this Agreement to

and a Monitor overseeing implementation of

be assessed for compliance”; “set out a schedule for conducting

reforms until they are substantially and effec-

outcome measure assessments for each outcome measure” spec-

tively implemented – is different from Cleve-

ified in paragraph 367; and “set out a schedule for conducting a

land’s prior experiences with police reform.3

compliance review or audit” of the various requirements of the

Decree.11

As through the first year of Consent Decree implementation, the

Monitoring Team has continued to wear many hats during the

As such, the Monitoring Team is pleased to be passing the baton

past six months (the “reporting period”), working as: “facilita-

to the City and Division going forward with respect to the fash-

tor,” working to ensure that “all stakeholders, form within the

ioning of a project implementation plan that will ensure, among

Division and across the Cleveland community, are heard and can

other things, that: the Monitor reviews all “CDP policies, proce-

participate in the Consent Decree process”4; as technical advi-

dures, practices, training curricula, and programs developed and

sors to the Division and City, “provid[ing] information about

implemented under this agreement”; the Department of Justice

best practices, discuss[ing] what has worked and not worked

has the ability to review the same; that the Community Police

well in other cities to address similar issues, and mak[ing] expec-

Commission, police officer organizations, rank-and-file officers,

tations clear”5; and, most fundamentally, as arbiter, “assess[ing]

other community stakeholders, and Cleveland residents all have

and report[ing]” as to “whether the requirements of this Agree-

appropriate opportunity to provide input to and feedback on

ment have been implemented, and whether this implementation

reforms generally and on specific proposed changes to policies,

is resulting in constitutional and effective policing, profession-

practices, training, and procedures; and that the Court, as al-

al treatment of individuals, and increased community trust of

ways, be in a position to consider reforms of the Consent Decree

CDP.”6

and order them effective before being implemented within the

City or Division.
B. The Updated Second-Year The Monitoring Team is pleased to be passing the

Monitoring Plan, Nature of baton to the City and Division of Police to fashion Put differently, a significant objective

Progress, and Compliance a project implementation plan for its day-by-day of the Consent Decree is to ensure

Under the Consent Decree progress going forward.

that the City, going forward, manages

for itself the risk of unconstitutional

To date, the Monitoring Team, with the Parties’ agreement,

policing or undesirable police performance. An important com-

has taken on the task of creating “a clear, unified structure and

ponent of doing so is building the capacity within the Division

framework for the day-to-day and week-to-week efforts that

and the City to self-initiate and perpetuate new processes and

stakeholders from across the Cleveland community need to un-

procedures that foster and promote enhanced accountability

dertake to ensure that the Consent Decree is implemented”7 –

through new policies, processes, procedures, and administrative

which has taken the form of the Monitoring Plan.

mechanisms.

The current, Second-Year Monitoring Plan covers the period of February 1, 2017 through January 31, 2018.8 As the Monitor has observed, however, it is necessary from time to time to modify deadlines and timeframes during the Consent Decree process “to reflect changed circumstances or operational realities.”9 Accordingly, the current Monitoring Plan calls for the submission to the Court of “an updated monitoring plan for the second year” by August 11, 2017 that reflects a current sense of timeframes for various deliverables and milestones in light of progress during the first six months under the Second-Year Plan.10
3 First Semiannual Report at 14.
4 Id. at 15.
5 Id.
6 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 350.
7 Dkt. 43 at 2.
8 See Dkt. 120.
9 First Semiannual Report at 5; see Dkt. 43 at 1; Dkt. 51.
10 Dkt. 120-1 at 7.

One such capacity relates to project management. As the Monitor has reported to the Court and public on a number of fronts,12 the City, across many functions, must become more adept at identifying strategic objectives, establishing an express plan for meeting those objectives, managing the faithful implementation of that plan over time, rigorously measuring results, and
11 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 369.
12 See Dkt. 87 (summarizing long-term failures of City to manage processes for OPS investigation and PRB adjudication of complaints); Dkt. 92 (referencing various issues not adequately addressed in process of implementing body-worn camera technology); Dkt. 93 (outlining failure of City Equipment and Resource Plan to provide sufficient process for ensuring that the Division “properly maintains and seeks to continuously improve upon existing equipment and technology” and “is appropriately identifying equipment needs” (Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 293(e), (f)); Dkt. 125 (same); Dkt. 126 (describing failure of City to generate a plan for prospectively managing the backlog of hundreds of incomplete civilian complaint investigations).

8

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 10 of 77. PageID #: 2810

holding individuals and entities accountable for any failures to

Consent Decree and approximately twenty months into the

adequately implement the plan or meet the required objectives.

monitoring, it is useful to present a paragraph-by-paragraph ac-

The recognition of this imperative is not academic, theoretical,

counting of the general state of the City’s compliance with the

bureaucratic, or unrealistic. Instead, from the five members of the Monitoring Team who have been leaders in major police departments and the more than twelve members of the Monitoring Team who have worked

Although it runs the risk of over-simplification, at this stage of the Consent Decree, it is useful to present a paragraph-by-paragraph accounting of the general state of the City’s compliance with the specific requirements of the Consent Decree.

specific requirements of the Consent Decree. Although this, too, runs the risk of being an over-simplification, the Team concludes that this approach amounts to a summary of the qualitative discussion of compliance

in or with police departments in a ci-

that continues to be the featured el-

vilian capacity to the six members who have monitored reform

ement of our reports and does not artificially try to attach num-

agreements elsewhere, the Team is unanimous in its assessment

bers, grade levels, or invented scales to describe the state of the

that the City of Cleveland and Division of Police have a distance

City’s compliance.

to travel to ensure that CDP can implement strategic plans and

clear programs that ensure ongoing self-analysis and internal im-

Consequently, each of the following sections of this report be-

provement.

gins with a chart that summarizes – paragraph by paragraph –

the state of the City’s compliance with the requirements of those

C. The Purpose and Form of This Report

Consent Decree paragraphs. It positions compliance as the fol-

lowing:

The Monitor must also “file with the Court, every six months,

written, public reports.”13 Generally, the reports must “de-

Non-Compliance. The City or Division has

scri[be] . . . the work conducted by the Monitor during” the pe-

not yet complied with the relevant provision

riod covered by the report and outline “which [Consent Decree]

of the Consent Decree. This includes instanc-

requirements have been incorporated into policy, . . . and [] car-

es in which the City or Division’s work or ef-

ried out in actual practice.”14 This is the Monitor’s third report

forts have begun but cannot yet be certified

in satisfaction of this ongoing obligation. Among other things:

by the Monitoring Team as compliant with a

material component of the requirement.

[The monitoring reports must] assess wheth-

er the Division is effectively implementing the

Evaluation Deferred. This category reflects

overall, systemic changes to how it functions

those limited instances where work in a given

that are required by the Consent Decree. The

area has been intentionally and affirmatively

Team is overseeing the long-term reforms re-

deferred in order to work on other, necessary

quired by the Consent Decree so that, in the

prerequisites. In these areas, the City or Di-

future, policing in Cleveland is effective, safe,

vision could have made more progress in a

constitutional, and consistent with the values

given area but, for project management rea-

of the community. In doing so, the duty of the

sons, have appropriately focused attention on

Monitor in this report is to summarize to the

other areas. Although this still means that the

Court and public precisely where CDP is –

City has a distance to travel to reach Gener-

over time, across issue areas, and in light of all

al Compliance with the term of the Consent

of the Consent Decree’s obligations – on the

Decree, the intentional and affirmative de-

road to reform.15

cision to postpone focus on a given area for

project management and implementation

The Monitoring Team has previously eschewed the use of “a

purposes is sufficiently different to warrant a

report card, ratings, percentages, scales,” or similar devices to

separate designation in some cases.

gauge compliance.16 Indeed, the Team’s experience is that such

tools, because they are inherently “over-simplifications,”17 can

Partial Compliance. The City or Division

distract and detract from the substance of the underlying re-

has made sufficient initial strides or sufficient

quirements and of the work in which stakeholders are engaged

partial progress toward compliance toward

to achieve compliance.

a material number of key components of the

Nevertheless, the Team believes that now, two years into the

provision of the Consent Decree – but has

not achieved operational compliance. This

13 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 375.

includes instances where policies, processes,

14 Id. ¶ 375(b). 15 First Semiannual Report at 16. 16 Id. at 18. 17 Id.

protocols, trainings, systems, or the like exist on paper but do not exist or function in dayto-day practice. It may capture a wide range of compliance states or performance, from

9

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 11 of 77. PageID #: 2811

the City or Division having taken only very limited steps toward operational compliance to being nearly in operational compliance.
Operational Compliance. The City or Division has made notable progress to technically comply with the requirement and/or policy, process, procedure, protocol, training, system, or other mechanism of the Decree such that it is in existence or practice operationally – but has not yet demonstrated, or not yet been able to demonstrate, meaningful adherence to or effective implementation, including across time, cases, and/or incidents. This includes instances where a given reform is functioning but has not yet been shown, or an insufficient span of time or volume of incidents have transpired, to be effectively implemented in a systemic manner.
General Compliance. The City or Division has complied fully with the requirement and the requirement has been demonstrated to be meaningfully adhered to and/or effectively implemented across time, cases, and/or incidents. This includes instances where it can be shown that the City or Division has effectively complied with a requirement fully and systemically.
In considering this classification scheme, readers of this report should keep some important things in mind. First, a designation of “Non-Compliance” or “Partial Compliance” does not necessarily or in itself mean that the lack of progress is something that the Monitoring Team finds problematic under the circumstances. In some instances, it does. However, the Monitoring Team has previously pointed out that “even good-faith attempts to do everything that is required under the Consent Decree simultaneously and without a sound project management structure would only ensure that little is accomplish at the level of quality . . . that the Consent Decree requires.”18 This means that some elements of the Consent Decree, which “acts more like a roadmap to reform than an ‘on/off ’ switch,”19 must be focused on more immediately while others will receive focus further along in the process. Regardless of the reasons for the compliance status, however, the categorization of progress is still useful in illustrating the scope of the work both successfully implemented to date and outstanding going forward.
Second, the Monitoring Team’s conception of “partial compliance” requires more than the City or Division simply taking some limited or initial steps toward adhering to a particular Consent Decree requirement. That is, a “partial compliance” determination is not used simply because some small amount of work has
18 First Semiannual Report at 16.
19 Id.

been conducted. Instead, “non-compliance” becomes “partial compliance” when the City or Division has made sufficient, material progress toward compliance – suggesting that the Division has graduated from the stages of initial work to more well-developed and advanced refinement or various reforms.
Third, the compliance that this report discusses is with respect to compliance with the various, specific provisions of the Decree – and not with respect to the “Substantial and Effective Compliance” with the whole of the Agreement.20 Such “Substantial and Effective Compliance” will be reached when “the City either has complied with all material requirements of this Agreement, or has achieved sustained and continuing improvement in constitutional policing, as demonstrated pursuant to this Agreement’s outcome measures”21 “by a preponderance of the evidence”22 of the type and quality that could be considered and credited in any other proceeding in federal court. As the following sections make clear, the City still has a substantial distance to travel to either comply with all of the Decree’s requirements and/or to demonstrate “sustained and continuing improvement” across outcome measures and in a manner that can, through consideration of sufficiently trustworthy evidence, meet the identified standard to reach Substantial and Effective compliance with the Consent Decree.
Next, the various charts that begin sections of this report involve intentionally condensed summaries of the requirements in each paragraph. For the sake of space and clarity, we do not reprint the entire Consent Decree in the document. Any imprecision detected or confusion created by these condensed or summarized requirements is unintended and, in any event, can be cured with reference to the original Consent Decree language itself.23
The indications of the City and the Division’s compliance status is limited to paragraphs 14 through 340 of the Consent Decree because those paragraphs spell out specific, substantive reforms that must occur. However, other paragraphs of the Decree also contain other specific requirements and agreements. For instance, paragraph 343 requires that the Division “ensure that officers from all varying ranks and units have a meaningful opportunity to review and comment on new or existing policies and procedures.”24 Other paragraphs make clear more broad-based or generalized obligations. For example, paragraph 341 compels the Division to “ensure that its policies and procedures” regardless of whether expressly referenced in other provisions of the Consent Decree “reflect and express CDP’s commitment to building community trust, utilizing community and problem-oriented policing, ensuring bias-free policing, and incorporating the concept of procedural justice.”
20 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 397.
21 Id.¶ 456 (emphasis added).
22 Id. ¶ 397.
23 See generally Dkt. 7-1, available at https://www.justice.gov/crt/ case-document/file/908536/download.
24 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 343.

10

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 12 of 77. PageID #: 2812
Further, the Monitoring Team bases its assessments on its current understandings, knowledge, and information gained through ongoing work and discussion with CDP, the Parties, and other stakeholders. The assessments are informal to the extent that not all of them are necessarily informed by the type of exhaustive compliance and outcome measurements that are a critical component of the Consent Decree – and the summary determinations do not take the place of these more structured, systemic analyses. The intent is to provide a bottom line sense of where the Division is on the road to compliance. Ongoing, rigorous quantitative and qualitative assessments will provide a more comprehensive picture as work under the Consent Decree proceeds.
The terms adopted here – including Non-Compliance, Partial, Operational, and General Compliance – are not terms that appear in the Consent Decree. Instead, categorizing the state of compliance with the Decree requirements by using these terms is a method that the Monitoring Team is adopting to explain and discuss the substantive work and progress that the City has made in a systematic, straightforward way. The approach is similar to that used by monitors of Department of Justice Consent Decrees involving police practices in Albuquerque, Cincinnati, Detroit, East Haven, Los Angeles, New Orleans, and others, as well as consent decrees in non-police contexts.25
Finally, because the status of compliance determinations for relevant Consent Decree paragraphs at the beginning of each of the report’s major sections do a good, even if over-simplified job, of encapsulating the state of current progress, the Monitoring Team foregoes the inclusion of an Executive Summary so as to avoid inclusion of a summary of the various compliance summaries throughout the report.
25 See, e.g., Settlement Agreement, United States v. Delaware (D. Del.), https://www.ada.gov/delaware.htm (Consent Decree under the American with Disabilities Act)
11

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 13 of 77. PageID #: 2813

COMMUNTIY ENGAGEMENT & BUILDING TRUST

Paragraph

Compliance Status

14. CDP creation of “formal and informal mechanisms that facilitate ongoing communication between CDP and the many Cleveland communities it serves.”

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

A. Community Police Commission (“CPC”)

Paragraph

Compliance Status

15. Creation of CPC and made to make recommendations, work with Cleveland communities to develop recommendations, and “report to the City and community as a whole and to provide transparency” on reforms

OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE

16. Establishment of CPC Selection Panel to select CPC Commissioners; composition of CPC; and periodic meetings with Chief of Police to “provide recommendations.”

OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE

17(a). “[H]old public meetings across the City, complete an assessment of CDP’s bias-free policing policies, practices, and training, and make recommendations.”

GENERAL COMPLIANCE

17(b). “[A]ssist as appropriate in . . . development PARTIAL of training related to bias-free policing and cultural COMPLIANCE competency.”

17(c). “[O]n an ongoing basis, assess CDP’s communities activities” and “make recommendations” related to “community engagement” and “community confidence”

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

17(d). “[O]n an ongoing basis, review CDP’s civilian oversight structure to determine if there are changes it recommends for improving CDP’s accountability and transparency”

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

17(e). “[P]erform other function[s] as set out in this PARTIAL

Agreement.”

COMPLIANCE

12

18(a). “[R]eview and comment on CDP’s policies PARTIAL COMand practices related to use of force, search and PLIANCE seizure, and data collection and retention.”

18(b). [R]eview and comment on CDP’s implemen- PARTIAL tation of initiative, programs, and activities that are COMPLIANCE intended to support reform.”

18(c). “[H]old public meetings to discuss the Monitor’s reports and to receive community feedback concerning CDP’s compliance with this Agreement.”

OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE

19. “The City will provide access to all information requested by the Commission related to its mandate, authority, and duties unless it is law enforcement sensitive, legally restricted, or would disclose a personnel action.”

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

20. CPC “will issue [at least annual] reports,” which OPERATIONAL

“City will post . . . to the City’s website.”

COMPLIANCE

21. “The City will consider and timely respond in writing to the Commission’s recommendations for improvements,” which “will be posted to the City’s website.”

NONCOMPLIANCE

22. CPC budget listed as “separate line item” to en- OPERATIONAL

sure “sufficient independence and resources.”

COMPLIANCE

As detailed in the Monitor’s two prior Semiannual Reports, the Cleveland Community Police Commission – comprised of 13 volunteer commissioners – has provided meaningful contributions and recommendations for changes in police practice and procedure as required under the Consent Decree.26 “CPC is supposed to be a venue where members of the Cleveland community with diverse viewpoints can come together and discuss challenging issues.”27

Although the pace at which deliverables for some of the substantive work has slowed somewhat over the past six months, the engagement and activity of the Commission continued to accelerate during the most recent reporting period. Through meetings of the general body and its various committees, the CPC devoted its work, among other things, toward:

• Presenting policy requirements of current Disciplinary General Police Order to the public;
• Providing recommendations for a new draft policy on officer discipline to CDP;
• Conducting a small group workshop on Use of Force specific discipline;
• Conducting a small group workshop on Early Intervention/Formative Practices; and
• Collaborating with City, CDP, DOJ, the Monitoring Team, and other stakeholders to conduct a series of community meetings on community problem-oriented policing.

The Commission has continued its schedule of having one full Commission meeting per month. Those meetings, rotat-
26 Dkt. 7-1 ¶¶ 14-22. 27 Dkt. 97 at 20.

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 14 of 77. PageID #: 2814

ed throughout locations in various neighborhoods within the Cleveland community, are where the Commission’s work to act as a conduit between the broader Cleveland community and the reform process has routinely taken place. In addition to conducting the routine business of the Commission while also looking to find new and innovative ways to actively engage the public in the substantive work of the Commission, a portion of each general meeting continues to be dedicated to allowing the Commissioners to hear the facilitated comments and concerns from community members in attendance.

recommendations and feedback on what constitutional and community-oriented policing in Cleveland should look like.
Considering the scope and breadth of this charge, the Commission continued work during the reporting period on revisions of its bylaws to set clear expectations aimed at solidify the meaningful engagement and contribution of each Commissioner. The Court encouraged CPC to enact a code of conduct regulations to achieve this goal and the Monitoring Team echoes that encouragement.

CPC committees continued their work over the course of the

With respect to the content of the in-progress bylaws intended

first half of 2017 by:

to govern the day-to-day functioning of the CPC as a City enti-

ty, the Monitoring Team observes here again that fully engaged

• Sponsoring community viewings and discussions of a

Commissioners are crucial to the Commission and to the Con-

criminal-justice-related documentary;

sent Decree process. Individuals having a desire to be a part of

• Hosting a Townhall Day of Justice;

a process pregnant with the potential to make lasting reforms

• Conducting searches for an Executive Director and a

that improve policing in Cleveland is not sufficient in itself.

Community Engagement Coordinator; and

Moreover, participating but not, for whatever reason, making

• Revising the Code of Conduct Regulations detailing

meaningful contributions also confers little value to the process.

expectations of Commissioners

Instead, each Commissioner must pull their own weight while

using their own skillsets with respect to the numerous tasks that

Through the leadership of its co-chairs and the assistance of a

the Consent Decree expressly requires of the Commission. It

policy fellow from the Cleveland Foundation, the CPC has con-

is the sincere hope of the Monitoring Team that the work and

tinued to make a considerable effort to get the word out about

engagement of the CPC will be solidified by clear, objective by-

upcoming meetings and substantive topics of discussion. The

laws detailing not only the expectations of each Commissioner

Commission has also been able to provide comprehensive min-

but also identifying the collective desired remedy of the group

utes from each general meeting on their website. It has also

should those expectations fail to be met.

widely distributed relevant surveys and information to its net-

work of community members.

As of this writing, CPC continues to work on revisions of their

bylaws with input and feedback from the City of Cleveland, its

As discussed in our Second Semian-

residents, the DOJ, and the Monitor-

nual Report, the amount of effort and

ing Team. It is hoped that these by-

energy currently required of committed individuals – on a volunteer basis – is not of small consequence. Indeed, the work and contributions of the CPC has come about as a re-

The engagement and activity of Cleveland’s Community Police Commission has continued to accelerate during the most recent reporting period on a number of important fronts.

laws are finalized expeditiously.
The Monitoring Team understands that some in the Cleveland community do not believe that Cleveland

sult of the considerable sacrifices of

residents, citizens, and voters should

many dedicated Commissioners. It

have a direct say in how the police

is unreasonable, based on the Monitoring Team’s observations,

function. Indeed, an odd fact of American democracy is that

to expect such sacrifice to be sustainable. Accordingly, it is the

most police departments have generally engaged in rulemaking

hope of the Monitoring Team that, with the recent acquisition

and policymaking outside of public view – subject neither to

of a full-time Executive Director and a Community Engagement

formal procedures, like notice-and-comment rulemaking,28 or

Coordinator, the notable work and effort the CPC leadership

to the direct, substantive intervention of elected officials, like

has begun will continue to expand.

mayors or city councils,29 that basic theories of democratic ac-

Specifically, it seems more than reasonable to expect that those employees will: work to communicate with the parties, Commissioners, and other community stakeholders regarding the upcoming deadlines and deliverables from the CPC; continue the efforts of the CPC to expand its network of active community voices; and conduct much of the initial background research and information on substantive best police practices that Commissioners have undoubtedly spent countless hours gathering on their own to provide a solid foundation for developing sound

28 See, e.g., The Legal Environment of Business: Text and Cases: Ethical, Regulatory, Global, and Corporate Issues 124 (2011) (describing “notice-and-comment rulemaking” as process requiring government agencies to “allow ample time for persons to comment in writing on [a] proposed rule” for how the agency will implement a law or conduct its work).
29 Samuel Walker, “Controlling the Cops: A Legislative Approach to Police Rulemaking,” 63 U. Detroit L.R. 361, 361 (1986) (describing that, historically, “[m]ayors and city council members” intervened “rarely to establish accountability of police behavior,” with “police

13

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 15 of 77. PageID #: 2815

countability assume necessary to ensure that executive and government agencies, like police departments, that are responsive to the broader democratic will:
Democratic accountability implies governance based on feedback, learning from experience, and the informed consent of the governed . . . Formal legal institutions have limited democratic value if citizens are not motivated to use and capable of effectively using available access opportunities . . . The democratic hope is that citizens and their representatives shall be able to design and reform institutions at will, making governing through organizing and reorganizing an important aspect of political agency.30

ual personalities rather than the substance of the whole Commission’s work.32 Even if it may not agree on the details of every one of the Commission’s recommendations in every instance, the Monitoring Team overall remains pleased with the thoughtfulness and pragmatism of the Commission’s input and recommendations to the reform process, most recently with respect to the job description and proposed hiring and recruiting process for the Consent-Decree-required Inspector General.
Finally, some conversations surrounding community participation in policing in Cleveland inevitably circle around to a discussion of who the “real” Cleveland community is. Those discussions sometimes focus on whether the Commission, other city entities, the police officer organizations, other community groups, or even individual Cleveland residents either do or do not reflect the views of “the community.”

Although the direct participation and involvement of residents in the specifics of law enforcement may not have been typical in the past, it is entirely consistent with the type of involvement

The Monitoring Team’s Consent-Decree-required community survey, conducted in 2016 and filed with the Court in June 2016 – which randomly surveyed a statistically-significant sam-

that citizens can have if they have issues that they believe need to

ple of Cleveland residents – found that there is indeed no single

be addressed in their children’s public schools, in their neighborhood parks, or in countless other aspects of local civic life. Especially given the foundational importance of police in maintaining

“Cleveland community.” Some community members (55 percent of residents) believe that the police are doing a good job.33 These views, however, “vary significantly by race and ethnicity”

order and keeping residents safe, law enforcement must be subject to the same kinds of broad-based democratic responsiveness that we expect of so many other realms that do not implicate life-and-death stakes for community

– with nearly three-quarters (72 percent) of white residents “believ[ing] the Cleveland Police are doing a good or excellent job overall, compared to 60% of Latino residents and 43% of black
residents.”34 These differences in

members and the government officials – police officers – who carry out their duties.
Regardless, the City and Department

Law enforcement must be subject to the same kinds of broad-based democratic responsiveness that we expect of so many other realms of community and public life.

views lead Black and Latino residents to be much “less likely to reach out to the police for help compared to white residents.”35

of Justice agreed to establishing a

Approval of CDP also varies by geo-

Commission with authority to assess and make recommenda-

graphic area.36 Similarly, “[o]lder residents view the police more

tions on a host of fronts. This includes, but is not limited, to the

favorably than do younger residents,” with less than half (49 per-

broad charge to “review and comment” on the Division’s “policies and practices related to use of force, search and seizure, and data collection and retention” as well as any “initiatives, programs, and activities that are intended to support reform.”31

cent) of residents ages 18 to 39 saying that CDP does a good or excellent job.37
Thus, in terms of overall approval or disapproval of the Divi-

Although the scope of CPC’s charge is significant and far-reaching, the Monitoring Team remains pleased with the value of the Commission’s substantial contributions to date.

sion’s performance alone, there are different communities within Cleveland, different views about CDP, and differences among and between communities, neighborhoods, and social groups

with respect to confidence and trust in the Division of Police.

To this end, the Monitor observes that some individuals and entities appear unfortunately inclined, at times, to focus on individ-
administrators issu[ing] rules that typically were ignored by the rank and file officers”); see generally Kenneth C. Davis, Discretionary Justice: A Preliminary History 55–56 (1969) (“When administrative bodies delegate discretionary power without meaningful standards, administrators should develop standards at the earliest feasible time, and then . . . should further confine their own discretion through principles and rules.”).
30 Johan P. Olsen, Democratic Accountability, Political Order, and Change 1, 9 (2017).

32 See Hugh G. Gauch, Scientific Method in Practice 184 (2003) (describing the ad hominem argument as a logical “fallacy,” in which an individual attempts “to discredit an argument or conclusion by discrediting its proponent,” that “is irrational because an argument’s merit depends on its content, not on who says it”). 33 Dkt. 70-1 at i. 34 Id. at i. 35 Id.at iii. 36 Id. at ii.

31 Dkt. 7-1 ¶¶ 18(a)–(b).

37 Id.

14

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 16 of 77. PageID #: 2816

Even among individuals who believe that the Division does a

is not a singular, monolithic entity. However, unlike other com-

good job overall, a majority of Cleveland residents (55 percent)

munity organizations, the CPC is charged with being a forum in

“believe officers are held accountable ‘only some of the time’ or

which all points of view within the community are given voice

‘almost never.’”38 As a result, the percentage of Cleveland res-

and due consideration – and can influence the substantive de-

idents who believe that CDP is doing a good job is the same as

velopment of CDP policies, practices, procedures, and training.

those who “are skeptical about police conduct and accountabil-

The success of reform depends on CPC becoming singularly fo-

ity.”39 This means that, to about the same extent, “the commu-

cused on this task rather than bureaucratic mechanics, person-

nity” thinks that officers are not rou-

alities, or other understandable but

tinely held accountable but that the Division generally does a good job. These different viewpoints, then, are both more than adequately represented in the community.
Given that the margin of error for the

Although Cleveland is essentially split, 50-50, on basic views about the Division of Police, residents approving and residents disapproving of past performance often want the police to take more time to meet members of their communities and develop relationships with people like them.

ultimately non-consequential diversions or distractions.
There are, however, some things that do seem to unite larger swaths of the Cleveland community: “only onethird of residents think the police

poll was +/-4 percent, there is essen-

have taken the time to meet members

tially an even, 50-50 split on basic views of the Division: wheth-

of their community (33%) or have developed relationships with

er it does a good job, whether police officers follow the law, and

people like them (37%).”42 This means that two-thirds of the

whether officers treat some people differently (African-Ameri-

community – encompassing both those who generally approve

cans, young people, the homeless, and others).40

of CDP’s performance and who generally disapprove – believe

Ultimately, then, “the community” does not think one thing

that the Division can do a better job with respect to community

or have a unified, consensus view of CDP and its performance.

policing, outreach, engagement, and support. At the same time,

Those who have more critical views of the police are just as

it would not seem that those who believe that the Division is

represented, currently, in the Cleveland population as those

doing a good job in this regard would object to the implemen-

who have more positive views. The Consent Decree, by its own

tation of new strategies and programs to further enhance the

terms, created the CPC to be a forum for the “many communi-

Division’s engagement with the community and relationships

ties that make up Cleveland” to “develop[] recommendations for

with residents who do not yet feel that they have them. On this

police practices that reflect an understanding of the values and

and other issues, there is common ground – which is ripe for the

priorities of Cleveland residents.”41 The existence of the Com-

CPC to address.

mission reflects, then, that references to “the community” is are

references to the many diverse communities that make up the

B. Community Focus Groups

larger fabric of Cleveland.

The preceding section discussed the results of the Monitoring

The task of the Commission is to serve as a place where all view-

Team’s first biennial community survey, filed with the Court in

points are respectfully heard and meaningfully considered, even

June 2016.43 That survey was a random phone survey of Cleve-

if a consensus viewpoint cannot emerge – especially because, as

land residents.

discussed here, the Consent-Decree-required community senti-

ment evaluations have established that Cleveland residents are

Although the overall community survey goes a great distance in

split on a number of foundational fronts with respect to their

providing insight into what a representative sample of Cleveland

trust and confidence in the Division of Police. Some commis-

thinks with respect to police and policing issues, the time-limited

sioners and community participants at CPC meetings should, it

and focused nature of such a survey leaves few opportunities for

would seem, be critical of the police in some areas because some

an exploration of why people have the views and opinions that

significant parts of the community are critical of the police and

they do. Accordingly, structured interviews taking place in the

its performance. At the same time, it would seem that some

context of focus group settings “are often used to supplement

commissioners and community participants at CPC meetings

conventional surveys.”44 While the large, phone-based survey

likewise should praise the police in some areas because some sig-

was statistical and predictive because a representative sample

nificant parts of the community have praise for the police and its

of respondents participated, the findings of a focus group is not

performance.

statistical, quantitative, or predictive in nature. However, they

can provide background, context, and explanation for the broad-

In short, the CPC, like any other community organization, does

er survey results.

not speak for “the community” because a democratic population

The Monitoring Team partnered with Cleveland-based survey

38 Dkt. 70-1 at i. 39 Dkt. 70-1 at i. 40 Id. at i–iii. 41 Id. ¶ 15(b).

42 Id. at iii. 43 See Dkt. 70. 44 Herbert Weisberg, et al, An Introduction to Survey Research, Polling, and Data Analysis 22 (1996).

15

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 17 of 77. PageID #: 2817

research firm Ideas in Focus to conduct focus groups assessing the perceptions of individuals in the Cleveland community with respect to the Division of Police. A total of six, two-hour focus groups were conducted in early May 2017. The groups involved 62 participants from six neighborhoods from across Cleveland
The Team will soon, and separately, file with the Court the final report on the focus group program that outlines the methodology and approach of the Ideas in Focus firm. However, some general lessons can be briefly summarized here:
• Police Presence. When asked about the presence of police, responses fell into thee basic categories: (1) police are not present and not available, even when you need them; (2) police are present but doing the wrong things or making things worse; and (3) police are present and seem reasonable in language, behavior, and actions.
Participants in each group recounted experiences when they called the police for help but their emergency was not serious enough to receive a response. Two separate respondents who were victims of robberies observed that the police did not make them feel safe and did not seem to take the investigation seriously. In fact, participants from three different groups admitted that in order to get a faster police response when they call the police, they either exaggerate the situation or lie about it, making the situation seem more serious or dire.
A number of participants expressed their perceptions that CDP officers harass and provoke people based on profiling and stereotypes. Several individuals expressed a belief that police officers have quotas for arrests and receive bonus pay for bringing in people with warrants and therefore spend their time on these activities.
• Interactions with CDP. A number of participants indicate that they try to avoid interactions with CDP officers because they generally perceive police to be unresponsive or dismissive of people’s needs, actively profiling people, overly aggressive, corrupt, dishonest, uncaring, or self-interested. Some participants indicated that they have stopped taking their children to the park to avoid problems with the police.
At the same time, other participants gave examples of positive police interactions with people, including officers conducting home visits, giving surprise holiday gifts, and officers electing to let an individual go rather than ticketing or arresting them. Participants recounted stories about officers giving children teddy bears at Christmas and about officers providing a car ride in bad weather.
Several individuals explained that the lack of trust in some communities with respect to the police leads people to take matters in to their own hands, without involving
16

CDP, because they feel that they cannot rely on the police for help or protection. As one participant summarized:
“Then they wonder why everybody is getting guns and doing what they have to do to survive. To protect yourself. I don’t condone having guns or just going out killing people for no reason but if it comes down to your life and you’re protecting yourself and your family I’d do it, too.”
One of the focus groups, focusing on residents of Glenville, was comprised of participants all ages 19 to 29 and Black. These young adults indicated that they have adjusted their strategies for moving around their neighborhood and community, including checking social media for police check point locations, avoiding traveling through certain areas, and memorizing the times of officer shift changes. Indeed, one participant recounted “[w] were 16, 17, 18, we knew the shifts in high school.”
• Community Policing and Knowledge. When participants were asked about what “community policing” means to them, people generally understood the concept to refer to people in a neighborhood and police officers working together collaboratively to improve the safety and security of the neighborhood. They suggested that an understanding of the neighborhood was necessary for successful community policing.
• At the same time, even the many individuals who believe that community policing sounds good in theory indicated that, in reality, people fear retribution in their neighborhoods if they are viewed as cooperative or a “snitch.”
• Relationships. Many participants expressed their belief that there is a deep-seeded culture of racism and long-established patterns of racist treatment of the Hispanic and Black communities by the police. A number indicated that, although they do not have bad relations, they just want police officers to do their jobs and be available when needed – and are uninterested in cultivating a closer relationship with individual police officers.
• Misconduct and Accountability. Police misconduct was perceived by participants as rampant among officers. Neither the legal system nor the police themselves are seen as holding the police accountable. The general sense that dishonesty and corruption among police officers is common contributes to people’s distrust of the police.
• Complex Dynamics. Even participants who expressed distrust of the police indicated that police officers have a difficult job to do. They understand that police officers feel as though they are entering compromising situations in Cleveland’s neighborhoods on a daily basis.

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 18 of 77. PageID #: 2818

Few believe that the distrust in the community with respect to the police has been addressed in productive ways to date. People do not feel empowered to address issues through the channels that exist, such as the District Policing Committees and Community Police Commission.
• Feelings about the Future and the Possibility of Renewed Relationships. Most people were open to greater police presence in their neighborhood – especially if officers are committed to doing the right thing and have a deeper knowledge of the neighborhood, including an understanding of its people, culture, hot spots, unique dynamics, schools, and the like. Many who expressed hope and optimism for a different police-community relationship going forward situated their hope in terms of “the children” and subsequent generations – indicating that existing dynamics had developed over an extended period and that many years may be necessary to establish a new dynamic.
Participants had a high awareness of incidents of excessive force and recent controversial events involving the police. However, there is less awareness of positive instances in which the police have been helpful or solved problems. Likewise, there is relatively low awareness for the Consent Decree, CDP reform process, and events and activities that support community policing.
Ideas in Focus and the Monitoring Team presented the results of the focus group effort to a broad group of Division and City stakeholders on May 24, 2017. The Monitor will file the final report on the focus group initiative with the Court in the coming weeks.
C. District Policing Committees

Paragraph

Compliance Status

23. Facilitation of “regular communication and cooperation between CDP and community leaders at the local level,” with District Policing Committees meeting “at minimum, every quarter.”

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

24. CPC, CDP, and Community Relations Board (“CRB”) will “develop a mechanism to recruit and expand” Committee membership.” CDP “will work with [Community Police] Commission to select officers for each District Policing Committee.”

NONCOMPLIANCE

25. CDP “will work closely with District Policing Committees to identify strategies to address crime and safety issues in their District,” considering and addressing identified priorities.

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

26. “At least annually, each District Policing Committee will present its identified strategies, concerns, and recommendations” to the CPC, with CDP officer who is Committee member presenting to CPC “CDP’s assessment of ways to address” the recommendations.

NONCOMPLIANCE

The Monitoring Team understands that it is new for Cleveland to have a body specifically empaneled to become resident experts in law enforcement and policing. However, the Commission is by no means the lone venue for community participation or the sole route for resident involvement. As many of the Monitoring Team’s reports and filings have described, the Cleveland community has been participating in the Consent Decree process in many ways and through many organizations – from the City’s District Policing Committees to the Mental Health Response Advisory Committee. Given the many formal and informal mechanisms for resident involvement built into the Consent Decree, it is clear that the Parties never intended for CPC to be the sole voice in Cleveland on policing issues.

Although the CPC has made tremendous strides and gone to great lengths to meet the demands of the Consent Decree, there is more to be done. That additional work does not rest on the shoulders of the Commissioners alone. Instead, as required under the Settlement Agreement, a significant portion of the community outreach and collaboration that yet remains will be the collective work of the Division along with the CPC and the District Policing Committees.

The Monitoring Team has previously described the role of District Policing Committees under the Consent Decree.45 Specifically, in an effort “to facilitate regular communication and cooperation between CDP and community leaders at the local level,” the Consent Decree requires the expansion of the five District Policing Committees (“DPC”s.)46 Those Committees must work with the City of Cleveland, the CPC, and the CDP directly “to identify strategies to address crime and safety issues in their District.”47

During this reporting period, the Monitoring Team met with all District commanders, staff representatives of the Community Relations Board and respective civilian co-chairs of each District Policing Committee. To ensure that the DPCs operate in accordance with the terms of the Consent Decree, these meetings addressed the DPCs’ current governance structure, membership composition, community engagement strategies, stakeholder partnerships, and crime prevention and intervention strategies. Members of the Monitoring Team also attended monthly meetings to observe the facilitation of the meetings, the composition of their attendance, and their agendas.

All but the Third District have a monthly meeting attendance of

45 See First Semiannual Report at 20–21. 46 Dkt. 7-1 ¶¶ 23–24. 47 Id. ¶ 25.
17

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 19 of 77. PageID #: 2819

approximately thirty civilians or more. The First District main-

tation coordinator have all expressed their commitment to build

tains an impressive average attendance of sixty or more civilians.

deeper connections, primarily with disconnected populations,

Although the Third District DPC currently has a small following

within each district and build membership to be more reflective

of fewer than twenty attendees, Commander McCartney, who

of each district. The Monitoring Team looks forward to working

assumed the position in recent months, has shown a strong in-

closely with the committees over the next monitoring period to

terest in forging stakeholder partnerships and a desire to build

ensure that the Committees can continue to be a hub of commu-

the monthly DPC meeting attendance. This was evident in his

nity involvement in policing in Cleveland going forward.

active participation in Consent Decree mandated community

outreach efforts on community and problem-oriented policing.

D. The Monitoring Team’s Community Engagement &

Outreach

The Monitoring Team also observed the dedication of civilian

DPC members in all districts – each with an openness for the

The Monitor’s Community Engagement Team continues its

expansion of the District Committee to be more reflective of

work to foster, facilitate, strengthen, and maintain the substan-

the population of the District. The need for DPC membership

tive and comprehensive involvement of Cleveland communi-

expansion was also acknowledged by all district commanders,

ty stakeholders in the implementation process of the Consent

staff of the Community Relation Board, and the City of Cleve-

Decree. The Team’s efforts are geared toward ensuring that, as

land Consent Decree implementation coordinator. While there

reform happens, an inclusive community voice is deeply woven

were strongly expressed concerns for recognizing the value of

into the process, with newly-developed policies and practices

existing DPC membership, all parties agree that the expansion

reflecting the community’s desires and values for effective, safe,

of membership should not be misinterpreted as neglecting the

responsive, and constitutional policing.

value of long-serving membership. Rather, the onboarding of

new members maximizes the full potential of the DPCs and the

The Team has reached out across the Cleveland community to

community and problem-oriented policing strategies of the Po-

connect with groups representing a wide-ranging variety of eth-

lice Districts.

nic, faith, political, professional, cultural, social, and economic

backgrounds. Outreach efforts to connect with and inform the

The Monitoring Team has identified some resistance among

community have consisted of public forums and presentations at

some members of the various DPCs to being referred to as Dis-

community meetings small and large, including block club meet-

trict Policing Committees rather than District Community Re-

ings, and church congregations and District Police Committee

lations Committees, as they were called before the Consent De-

meetings. Meetings with rank and file police officers, formal

cree. Indeed, it appears that all five committees are still referring

and informal, have been an asset to building trust among officers

to themselves as District Community Relations Committees.

regarding the Consent Decree process and intent. The Engage-

ment Team has made appearances on local TV and radio sta-

The Monitoring Team understands the pride that longstand-

tions, attended local events across the community to distribute

ing committee members have in what they have developed and the association between that history of commitment and the committee’s prior names. Although the Monitor cares much more about what the committees do than what they are

The Monitoring Team’s engagement efforts continue to be geared toward ensuring that, as reform happens, an inclusive community voice is woven deeply into the process – with new practices reflecting the community’s desires for effective, safe, responsive, and constitutional policing.

literature, and conducted a number of listening sessions with citizens so they could share their views with the Monitoring Team and the Parties on critical issues mandated for consideration by the Consent Decree.

called, the City and Department of

To date, Cleveland residents have

Justice nonetheless agreed that the name would be changed in

shared their thoughts, feelings, experiences, histories, and beliefs

order to signify their specific, important role in police reform

on such critical issues as the Division’s new Use of Force policy,

going forward.48 Consequently, a plan has already been devised

crisis intervention policy and training, and community and prob-

by the City of Cleveland, the CDP, and respective district com-

lem-oriented policing strategies.

manders to officially change the name of the district committees

over the next sixty days in order to comply, at least in part, with

While the Monitoring Team has maintained very close contact

paragraphs 23 through 26 of the Consent Decree.

with groups and individuals participating regularly in various as-

pects of the Consent Decree implementation process, the Team

Overall, the District Policing Committees have a strong founda-

remains very interested in those opinions and experiences of

tion on which to build. Some districts required more structured

persons whose normal daily activities do not provide the time,

governance, while others with strong governance are in need to

ability, or impetus to participate directly in the reform process.

establish more inclusive membership practices. The command-

In an attempt to capture the opinions and experiences of persons

ers of all five districts, civilian CDP leadership, the Community

not normally consulted about community affairs, the Monitor-

Relations Board, and the Cleveland Consent Decree implemen-

ing Team arranged for a series of roundtable discussions – focus

48 Id. ¶ 23.

groups – involving citizens from across the community. A wide

18

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 20 of 77. PageID #: 2820
range of topics were discussed to ascertain the perceptions of the “person on the street” about police-community relationships, community and problem-oriented policing, crime and crime reduction efforts in the community, officer recruitment strategies, complaint filing with the Office of Professional Standards, use of force incidents, and a number of other topics. Fostering even greater and more sustained community involvement will be at the forefront of the Team’s agenda as efforts move into the second half of 2017. Through collaborative efforts with community stakeholders, the Engagement Team plans to focus on expanding youth and young adult, senior citizen, and corporate involvement in the implementation process. From time to time, the vast diversity of social, philosophical, experiential, and historical perspectives of the various stakeholders represent a mosaic which at times seemingly conflicts with the goal of consensus-building for policy development and other substantive change. However, given the diverse perspectives on policing in the Cleveland community, the Engagement Team remains encouraged by the willingness of all parties concerned to remain at the table and forge new policies and practices that reflect the best of 21st century policing. The Monitoring Team extends its sincere thanks and appreciation to all those who have meticulously labored with the Team to foster good will and cooperation throughout the hard work of the reform process so far.
19

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 21 of 77. PageID #: 2821

COMMUNTIY & PROBLEM-ORIENTED POLICING

Paragraph

Compliance Status

27. Implementation of “comprehensive and integrated community and problem-oriented policing model” and consultation with CPC regarding the model.

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

28. Ensuring that “mission statement reflects [the Division’s] commitment to community oriented policing” / “integrat[ing] community and problem-oriented policing principles into its management, policies and procedures, recruitment, training, personnel evaluations, resource deployment, tactics, and accountability systems”

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE / NONCOMPLIANCE

29. Ensuring “that officers are familiar with the geographic areas they serve,” “engage in problem identification,” and “work proactively . . . to address quality of life issues”

NONCOMPLIANCE

30. Initial and annual in-service community and problem-oriented policing training “adequate in quality, quantity, type, and scope” that addresses specifically-identified areas.

NONCOMPLIANCE

31. Maintenance of “collaborative partnerships with a broad spectrum of community groups,” including CDP meetings with community organizations and District Policing Committees.

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

32. CDP “meet[ing] with members of the community in each District on a monthly basis and “solic[itation of] participation from a broad cross-section of community members in each District” to “identify problems and other areas of concern . . . and discuss responses and solutions.”

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

33. Development and implementation of “systems to monitor officer outreach to the community” that CDP “will use . . . to analyze . . . whether officers are partnering with a broad cross-section of community members to develop and implement cooperative strategies that build mutual respect and identify and solve problems.”

NONCOMPLIANCE

20

34. “At least annually, CDP will present the results” of paragraph 33 analysis “broken out by District in a publicly-available community policing report” that describes problems, solutions, and obstacles. Report provided to Commission and posted on CDP website.

NONCOMPLIANCE

The Consent Decree requires that CDP develop and implement a “comprehensive and integrated community and problem-oriented policing model” to “promote and strengthen partnerships with the community . . . and increase community confidence in the CDP.”49 This section refers to policing according to this model as “community and problem-oriented policing.”

Community policing involves the police and the community working as partners to “coproduce” public safety and neighborhood well-being. The core idea behind community policing is that the police and the community share jointly in the responsibility for promoting public safety, and that each has an important role to play. Although “community policing” often is associated with specific programs or strategies – such as athletic leagues or foot patrol – community policing cannot be implemented effectively unless it is embraced by the organization as a whole. As countless law enforcement professionals have recognized, community policing principles should inform decision-making at all levels of the agency, including decisions about hiring, deployment, and evaluation.50 A division-wide commitment to community policing will help promote trust and legitimacy, improve the quality of police-citizen encounters, and address persistent public safety issues in Cleveland communities.

The Decree defines “community and problem-oriented policing” as a “policing philosophy that promotes and relies on collaborative partnerships between law enforcement agencies and the individuals and organizations they serve to develop solutions to problems, increase trust in police, and improve the effectiveness of policing efforts.”51 The Decree also requires CPC to assess CDP’s community activities, and make recommendations for additional strategies for CDP.”52

Specifically, the Consent Decree mandates that CDP implement numerous fundamental reforms related to community policing, including:

• “[E]nsur[ing] that its mission statement reflects its commitment to community oriented policing”53;
• “[E]nsur[ing] that its officers are familiar with the geographic areas they serve . . . and engage in problem
49 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 27. 50 See, e.g., Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), Community Policing: Past, Present, and Future at 4 (2004) (“Community Policing”); Presidential Task Force On 21st Century Policing, Final Report at 43 (2015). 51 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 414 52 Id. ¶ 17. 53 Id. ¶ 28.

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 22 of 77. PageID #: 2822

identification and solving activities with the community. . . .”54 • “[P]rovid[ing] initial and annual in-service community and problem-oriented policing training,” to include problem-solving with the community, as well as concepts such as leadership and communication; procedural justice; conflict resolution and verbal de-escalation; and cultural competency sensitivity training;”55 • “[M]aintain[ing] collaborative relationships with a broad spectrum of community groups”56; • “[C]ontinu[ing] to meet with members of the community in each District on a monthly basis” and “actively solicit[ing] participation from a broad cross-section of community members in each District”57; • “[D]eveloping and implementing systems to monitor officer outreach to the community”58; and • “Analyze” the quality and nature of its, and officer’s community policing efforts, “broken out by District, in a publicly available community policing report.”59
Over the past few months, the CDP has been working closely with the Monitoring Team, the City, and the CPC to organize and execute a stream-lined and coordinated community engagement process around community and problem-oriented policing in Cleveland. The Division is currently in the first step of the development of the community and problem-oriented policing plan: soliciting and incorporating substantive community input. The parties are working together to reach as many Cleveland residents as possible and learn what community members would like the Division’s plan to look like. Following the broad solicitation of community input, Community Policing Bureau Commander Johnny Johnson will take the lead on drafting the Division’s community and problem-oriented policing plan.
Some traditional approaches to law enforcement management and organization are incompatible with community policing. Officers who spend their days rushing between calls for service, for example, will not have time to get to know residents or address community concerns. Many of the problems that residents identify require cooperation from others within the agency – or from other municipal agencies. So long as officers are evaluated primarily on the basis of metrics like stops and arrests, they are unlikely to invest the time and energy into working with residents or developing alternative strategies for addressing public safety issues.
A. Features of Community and Problem-Oriented Policing Being Explored in Community Outreach on the Community and Problem-Oriented Policing Plan
54 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 29.
55 Id. ¶ 30.
56 Id. ¶ 31.
57 Id.¶ 32.
58 Id. ¶ 33.
59 Id. ¶¶ 33-34.

The issue of what constitutes community policing has, from time to time, “suffered from conceptual confusion in research and practice.”60 In December of 2016, the stakeholders agreed on a framework for the Division’s community and problem-oriented policing plan required by the Consent Decree. They identified the core components of community policing – collaborative problem solving, community engagement around policing policy and practice, and opportunities for officers to get to know their communities – as well as related areas of division management and organization that the CDP will need to address in order to implement the plan effectively. These include staffing and deployment, recruitment and hiring, officer training, and officer and department evaluation.
As part of the collaborative engagement process, the CDP is soliciting community and officer input on the core components and the related areas of community and problem-oriented policing.
Core Components
Although “community policing” has come to mean many things, and has been associated with a variety of specific programs and strategies, there is wide agreement within the law enforcement community on its three critical components:
• Police-community collaboration in identifying and addressing community problems and concerns;
• Meaningful opportunities for community input on policing policies and practices;
• Opportunities for officers to get to know the community.
Collaborative Problem-Solving
The Consent Decree specifically requires the CDP to ensure that officers “engage in problem identification and solving activities.”61 To ensure that these problem-solving efforts are successful, the Decree requires that all levels of CDP engage with and “maintain collaborative partnerships with a broad spectrum of community groups” and that officers engage with these partnerships in a way to “proactively maintain these relationships and identify and address community problems and challenges.”62
The CDP is using the community engagement process to identify potential community partners. Potential partners include residents, local businesses, non-profit organizations, community and faith-based leaders, and other government agencies. The Division has always worked closely with Cleveland’s community development corporations, block clubs, and faith-based groups,
60 A. Gerasimos Gianakis, et al, “Reinventing or Repackaging Public Services? The Case of Community-oriented Policing,” 58 PUB. ADMIN. R. 485 (1998). 61 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 29. 62 Id. ¶ 31.
21

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 23 of 77. PageID #: 2823

but it is looking to further develop these partnerships and create

Community policing also requires that officers have regular op-

new partnerships. To that end, the stakeholders are specifical-

portunities to get to know residents and become familiar with

ly asking community members to: (1) identify local groups and

local problems and concerns. Officers who spend their days in

organizations that the CDP could collaborate with in problem-

patrol cars will not be able to form the sorts of meaningful part-

solving efforts; (2) help the CDP identify potential obstacles to

nerships with residents that are necessary to facilitate collabora-

collaboration and suggest ways to address them; and (3) provide

tive problem solving and engagement. Encouraging officers to

input on how best to ensure that District Policing Committee

interact with residents in a non-enforcement capacity can:

members are representative of the community at large.

• Promote trust and mutual understanding between of-

Community Engagement around Policing Policy and

ficers and community members;

Practice

• Encourage officers to identify and take responsibility

for problems in their communities;

A community policing plan also should include opportunities for

• Make residents more likely to report crimes or bring

organized, routine police-community engagement around polic-

public safety concerns to the attention of the police.65

ing policies and practices. This will allow the community to have

a say in how it is policed, which in turn helps create a sense of

There are a number of strategies and approaches that the CDP

trust and legitimacy that is essential to effective policing. Over

can take to ensure consistent and meaningful interaction be-

time, these efforts strengthen police community relations and

tween officers and residents. These include: alternatives to

promote public safety and constitutional policing.63

motorized patrol, such as bicycle or foot patrols; other oppor-

tunities for social engagement, such as participation in Athlet-

The Consent Decree mandates that CDP ensure that residents

ic Leagues or “Coffee with a Cop” events; and participation in

provide input on substantive policing issues, and that CDP re-

community activities.

sponds to that input. To support these

efforts, as discussed above, the Decree

In choosing the appropriate mix of

required the City to establish the CPC In choosing its policing strategies, CDP will need to programs and strategies, the CDP

to “work with the many communi- tailor its approach to the specific needs of different should tailor its approach to the

ties that make up Cleveland for the neighborhoods and communities – and ensure that specific needs of different neighbor-

purpose of developing recommenda- officers have opportunities to engage with a broad hoods and communities, and ensure

tions for police practices that reflect cross-section of Cleveland residents.

that officers have opportunities to

an understanding of the values and

engage with a broad cross-section

priorities of Cleveland residents.”64

of Cleveland residents. To that end,

As part of the reform process, the CPC and Monitoring Team

through the collaborative engagement process, the CDP is seek-

have solicited the community’s views on various issues including

ing community input to: (1) inform the allocation of resources

body-worn cameras, use of force, and now community policing.

among various alternatives to motorized patrol, such as foot pa-

In designing its community and problem-oriented policing plan,

trols, bicycle patrols, and mini-stations; help to identify locations

the CDP will need to develop a strategy for conducting this sort

where these efforts are likely to be most effective at promoting

of public engagement around policy on an ongoing basis.

consistent engagement with residents; and help to prioritize

among the range of possible social and community engagement

CDP is using the community engagement process to learn more

programs.

about how community members would like to provide input on

policing policy and practice. Stakeholders are specifically asking

Institutional Features

Cleveland residents to: (1) identify obstacles to broad-based en-

gagement and participation; (2) suggest strategies for reaching

Staffing and Deployment

out to communities that do not routinely engage with either the

CPC or CDP; and (3) suggest ways to make community forums

As part of its community and problem-oriented policing plan, the

and town halls more effective in ensuring meaningful, substan-

CDP will need to ensure that its staffing and deployment models

tive engagement. Learning the answers to these questions will

facilitate long-term police-community familiarity and relation-

provide the CDP with valuable insights regarding the outreach

ship-building.66 Community policing can be resource-intensive.

and engagement strategies that will best meet the needs of

Cleveland residents.

65 See, e.g. Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), Community

Opportunities for Officers to Get to Know Their Communities

Policing: Past, Present, And Future at 45 (2004). 66 Lisa M. Graziano, Dennis P. Rosenbaum and Amie M. Schuck, “Building Group Capacity For Problem Solving And Police-Com-

63 See Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 14.

munity Partnerships Through Survey Feedback And Training: A Randomized Control Trial Within Chicago’s Community Policing

64 See id.

Program,” 10 J Exp . Criminol . 80 (2014).

22

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 24 of 77. PageID #: 2824

Officers must have sufficient time in their schedules to engage

for attracting applicants from a cross-section of Cleveland’s

with the community and address community problems, without

neighborhoods; and (3) neighborhood leaders who could help

undermining the division’s ability to respond to calls for service.

suggest potential candidates.

Community and problem-oriented policing also requires that

the agency structure its deployment

The Division has recently shifted its

infrastructure, including district and patrol sector boundaries, in ways that facilitate long-term partnerships and collaboration with community-based organizations.

One idea that CDP should explore is making greater use of civilian personnel so that sworn officers can be redeployed to core law enforcement tasks on the streets.

police recruiting efforts from solely within the Cleveland Division of Police to the City of Cleveland’s Department of Public Safety. Instead of the Division spearheading the re-

cruiting effort for police specifically,

One idea to explore is to make greater use of civilian person-

the Department of Public Safety is now recruiting fire, police,

nel. Civilian employees cost less to train, equip, and pay, and

EMS, and corrections officers. CDP is optimistic that outsourc-

can replace sworn officers in assignments like dispatch and re-

ing the recruiting efforts to an office within the Department of

cord-keeping so that officers can be redeployed to policing tasks

Public Safety will lead to greater and improved advertising and

on the street. For example, in Newport News, Virginia, civilians

recruiting strategies, as well as increase the number of commu-

at information desks take 40 percent of all reports.67 Unsworn

nity and service-minded recruits. It is hoped the new recruiting

“community service officers” also can assist with parking en-

process will provide a large, diverse pool of recruits and the CDP

forcement, respond to traffic incidents to take initial statements,

will be fully and actively engaged with the hiring of officers to

help preserve crime scenes, and help officers investigate minor

ensure new hires are committed to the Division’s vision of com-

quality-of-life offenses such as vandalism.

munity and problem-oriented policing.

CDP is using the community engagement process to educate community members about the resources it would require to divert some portion of officer time to discretionary police-community interactions – and solicit community input on the portion of officer time that residents would like to see spent on engagement activities. The Division is also using the collaborative process to gain valuable insight on what tasks residents would feel comfortable having performed by civilian personnel.
Recruitment and Hiring
Community policing requires departments to recruit and hire candidates who are service-minded and committed to working in partnership with residents to promote public safety. Officers should be broadly representative of the community and be familiar with the culture and tradition of the different neighborhoods they will serve. Officers should also possess strategic thinking and problem-solving skills, emotional maturity, interpersonal skills, and the ability to collaborate with a diverse cross-section of the community.
The Consent Decree requires the Division “to integrate community and problem-oriented policing principles” into its recruitment practices, and to develop a recruitment plan that includes specific strategies “for attracting qualified applicants from a broad cross-section of the community.”68
CDP is utilizing the community engagement process to ask community members to identify: (1) obstacles or impediments that discourage individuals from applying to the CDP; (2) strategies
67 United States Department of Justice, Office of Community-Oriented Policing (COPS Office), Implementing Community Policing: Lessons from 12 Agencies 62 (2009). 68 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 302.

Officer Training and Education
Community policing requires officers to possess a variety of skills, including teamwork, leadership, interpersonal, and problem-solving skills. Community policing also requires officers to become familiar with the history, culture, and traditions of their communities. Ensuring that officers are equipped with these necessary skills and knowledge is an important component of any community and problem-oriented policing plan. Studies show that the success of community policing programs depends in large part on whether officers receive adequate training. 69 Officers who receive training on community-oriented policing are more likely to incorporate principles of community policing into their day-to- day work.70
For this reason, the Consent Decree specifically requires that officers receive training on:
• Community engagement and problem-solving strategies;
• Leadership, ethics, and effective communication; • Forming community partnerships; • Procedural justice; • Conflict resolution; and • Cultural competency.71
Successful training programs incorporate principles of community policing into all aspects of the curriculum. Training programs focus on a variety of specific community policing skills, such as conflict-resolution, including strategies for helping cit-
69 Sutham Cheurprakobkit, “Community policing: Training, definitions and policy implications” 25 Policing 709, 710 (2002). 70 Id. at 720. 71 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 30.
23

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 25 of 77. PageID #: 2825

izens resolve disputes peacefully rather than resorting to violence or self-help; and familiarity with other city departments, social service providers, and other resources to which to refer residents.72 In addition to training on specific skills, officers should receive training on cultural competency, tailored to the specific history, traditions, demographics, and quality of life challenges of the various communities in which officers will work. Cultural competency training can help to ensure that officers are sensitive to the particular needs and vulnerabilities of different populations, and avoid unnecessary tension.
The CDP is using the community engagement process to identify the specific skills and local knowledge that would best serve officers working in Cleveland neighborhoods and districts. Stakeholders are specifically asking Cleveland residents to identify: (1) specific aspects of Cleveland history that should be incorporated into officer training; (2) the unique cultures, characteristics, and challenges of Cleveland’s many communities; and (3) strategies for involving residents in developing and implementing training curricula.

While it is important to evaluate individual officers, it is also important to review the Division as a whole to ensure the community and problem-oriented policing plan is effective. The Consent Decree requires CPC to come up with an assessment plan to evaluate the CDP’s community policing and engagement efforts.77 The stakeholders are utilizing the community engagement effort to learn what measures and metrics Cleveland residents would like to see CDP use when tracking individual officers. Stakeholders are seeking specific community input on: (1) the sorts of behaviors or interactions that residents most want to encourage (and thus the Division to measure); (2) effective strategies for measuring community sentiment; and (3) community representatives whom the CDP could turn to when seeking community feedback.
Additionally, stakeholders are seeking input on how the CPC should be assessing the Division’s plan. The community engagement process specifically seeks answers to three vital questions:

Officer and Division Evaluation Officer and supervisor evaluations are essential to the success

• How should the CPC measure what community members think about the community policing plan?
• Who should inform the CPC about whether the com-

and sustainability of a community policing program. Evaluations provide supervisors, division leadership, and the community with information about whether officers are following com-

munity policing plan is working? • What factors should the CPC consider and keep track
of?

munity policing practices. Evaluations also incentivize officers

and supervisors to pursue positive community relationships and engage residents in problem-solving efforts. As law enforcement professionals have long recognized, “what you measure is what you get.”73

Currently, the stakeholders have nearly completed the first phase of the community engagement process – soliciting and reviewing community input. After this phase is complete, the stakeholders will receive all the community input and the CDP

For these reasons, the Consent Decree requires the CDP to incorporate principles of community

will prepare the first draft of its community and problem-oriented policing plan. Once the Division has prepared the draft plan,
all stakeholders will work together to

and problem-oriented policing into officer and supervisor evaluation, and adopt performance measures that:
• Measure and “monitor officer

The Consent Decree requires CDP to incorporate principles of community and problem-oriented policing into officer and supevisor evaluation by measuring and documenting community engagement and communication with the public.

share CDP’s proposed plan and solicit community input. CDP, with assistance from the Monitoring Team, will take the lead in hosting and presenting the proposed draft plan to the Cleveland community. The Mon-

outreach to the community”;74

itoring Team expects this next phase

• Document community engagement and communica-

of community engagement to take place later this summer. Fol-

tion with the public;75 and

lowing this second round of community input, the CDP will re-

• Track the use of community and problem-oriented policing strategies, including de-escalation techniques and methods for engaging with individuals in crisis.76

vise its proposed plan in light of specific feedback related to the proposed drafts and make changes, where appropriate. The final plan will then be submitted to the Court for review and approval.
B. Mission Statement

72 Edwin Meese, National Institute of Justice, Community Policing and the Police Officer 6–7 (1993).
73 United States Department of Justice, COPS Office, Reducing Fear of Crime: Strategies for Police xi. 74 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 33.

The Monitoring Team previously reported that, as of early January 2017, “although the Monitor and Court have approved a new mission statement, it does not appear that the Division has taken any meaningful steps toward ensuring that the mission

75 Id. ¶¶ 33, 42-44, 314, 317.

76 Id.

77 Id. ¶ 17.

24

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 26 of 77. PageID #: 2826
statement is substantially and effectively implemented.”78 The Team is pleased that, on May 17, 2017, the Division circulated a Divisional Notice to all officers containing the revised General Police Order 1.1.02 that sets forth the Court-approved mission statement. Likewise, the mission statement is the subject of discussion at various junctures in the Division’s upcoming officer use of force training. Thus, although the Monitoring Team categorizes CDP’s progress on the mission statement requirement of the Consent Decree as “Partial Compliance,” the Division can be expected to reach Operational Compliance with the Mission Statement following completion of the officer use of force training that contains this instruction on the new mission.
78 Dkt. 97 at 23.
25

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 27 of 77. PageID #: 2827

BIAS-FREE POLICING

Paragraph

Compliance Status

35. Delivery of “police services with the goal of en- E VA LUAT I O N suring that they are equitable, respectful, and free of DEFERRED unlawful bias,” among other things.

36. “CDP will integrate bias-free policing principles into its management, policies and procedures, job descriptions, recruitment, training, personnel evaluations, resource deployment, tactics, and accountability systems.”

E VA L UAT I O N DEFERRED

37. CDP will ensure that it “administer[s] all activi- PARTIAL ties without discrimination” on basis of various pro- COMPLIANCE tected classes

38. “CDP will develop a bias-free policing policy” PARTIAL incorporating CPC recommendations “that pro- COMPLIANCE vides clear guidance to officers”

39–40. Bias-free policing and procedural justice E VA LUAT I O N training “adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and DEFERRED type” covering specific areas

41. Supervisor training on bias-free policing and E VA LUAT I O N procedural justice issues covering specific areas DEFERRED

42. Annual in-service training on bias-free policing E VA LUAT I O N

“adequate in quality, quantity, type, and scope”

DEFERRED

43. Analysis of paragraph 265 data (“including use of force, arrests, motor vehicle and investigatory stops, and misconduct complaints alleging discrimination (¶ 265))

NONCOMPLIANCE

44. Consideration of “bias-free policing and equal NONprotection” principles in hiring, unit assignment, COMPLIANCE promotion, and performance assessments.

26

CDP, as summarized in prior reports, must ensure that it has policies and procedures in place that allow it to “deliver services with the goal of ensuring [those services] are equitable, respectful, and free of unlawful bias, in a manner that promotes broad community engagement and confidence in CDP.”79
To this end, CDP’s policies, and related training, will need to provide specific guidance for officers on the Division’s expectations. In approving the Second-Year Monitoring Plan, the Court endorsed the Parties’ current timeline of completing a bias-free policing policy – and the important community engagement and involvement that must be part of the policy’s creation and refinement – by November 21, 2017.80
As of this writing, CPC has “provided specific recommendations relating to bias-free policing”:
Those recommendations were the culmination of approximately seven community meetings devoted to gathering the experiences, viewpoints, and feedback of Cleveland’s communities of color, faith, LGBTQ, and youth, [and] homeless related to bias-free policing. The initial CPC report summarizing this input and those recommendations included specific comments and concerns collected by the CPC Bias-Free Work Group from community members. The CPC’s report also provided numerous recommendations to the CDP related to its: interaction with citizens of varying backgrounds and demographics; organizational culture; recruitment; training; and, reporting.81
CDP has submitted a policy draft, informed by the CPC and other community organization recommendations, to the Parties and Monitoring Team for feedback and technical assistance. Over the coming months, the draft bias-free policing policy will be further revised and refined. Upon eventual finalization and approval of a bias-free policing policy, the City and Division’s work will turn in earnest to comprehensive training on the policy and related topics.82
79 Dkt. 7- 1 ¶ 35. 80 Dkt. 123. This deadline is an adjustment from the First-Year Monitoring Plan, Dkt. 80-1 at 20, driven by competing policy development and training requirements. 81 Dkt. 97 at 26. 82 Dkt. 7-1 ¶¶ 39–42.

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 28 of 77. PageID #: 2828

USE OF FORCE

A. Officer Use of Force Principles & Policy

Paragraph

Compliance Status

45. “CDP will revise, develop, and implement force policies, training, supervision, and accountability systems with the goal of ensuring that force” complies with the Constitution, federal law, and the Consent Decree “and that any use of unreasonable force is promptly identified and responded to appropriately.”

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

46. “The City will implement the terms of this Agreement with the goal of ensuring that use of force by CDP officers . . . will comply” with at least twelve major, listed principles.

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

47. Division “will ensure that the [use of force] in- NON-COMPLIcident is accurately and properly reported, docu- ANCE mented, and investigated.”

48. “CDP will track and analyze officers’ uses of force to hold officers accountable for unreasonable uses of force; to guide training and policy; and to identify poor tactics and emerging trends.”

NON-COMPLIANCE

49. Development of use of force policies “that comply with applicable law[,] . . . are adequate to achieve the goals described in paragraph 45,” and “specify that unreasonable use of force will subject officers to the disciplinary process, possible criminal prosecution, and/or possible civil liability.”

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

50. “CDP’s policies will address the use and de- PARTIAL COMployment of its authorized force techniques, tech- PLIANCE nologies, and weapons.”

51. Weapon-specific policies “will include training and certification requirements that each officer must meet before being permitted to carry and use the authorized weapon.”

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

52. “No officer will carry any weapon that is not au- PARTIAL COM-

thorized or approved by CDP.”

PLIANCE

53. “Prior to the use of any approved weapon, the officer, when possible and appropriate, will communicate to the subject and other officers that the use of weapon is imminent, and allow the subject an opportunity to comply.”

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

54–83 “CDP will implement policies” for firearms, PARTIAL COMECWs (Tasers), and OC (pepper) spray that comply PLIANCE with a host of specific, expressly listed provisions.

The Second Semiannual Report described, in detail, the process throughout 2016 of updating the Division’s officer use of force policy – including the significant role that CDP officers, Cleveland residents, and community organizations played in the formulation of the revised policy.83 The Court approved the new use of force policies, subject to some specific conditions, on January 17, 2017.84

B. Officer Use of Force Training

Paragraph

Compliance Status

84. CDP “will provide all current officers use of force training that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type and that includes” a number of specific, expressly-listed elements.

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

85. CDP “will provide the use of force training de- PARTIAL COM-

scribed in paragraph 84 to all new officers.”

PLIANCE

86. “CDP will provide all officers with annual use of E VA LUAT I O N force in-service training that is adequate in quality, DEFERRED quantity, type, and scope.”

A well-functioning and effective police department is one that ensures that its officers are properly trained in the high-risk critical tasks that they may have to address as part of their duties. This training must be clear, comprehensive, well-organized, and be executed in a way in which an officer can understand and readily apply the principles learned outside the sterile environment of the classroom.

Police policy and training has its origin in two fundamental places: the law (including the United States Constitution, state, and local law) and the evidence-based policing and adult educational practices that have evolved over time. The requirements of the Consent Decree most clearly represent the legal basis which governs the critical tasks that make up an officer’s work, especially with regard to all uses of force. The Consent Decree also sets out those practices which provide even further guidance to officers who may be compelled to use force, and ensures that those decisions and the resulting consequences are ones that reflect important policy principles that ensure adherence to constitutional protections and ensure that an officer’s actions are reasonable, necessary, and proportional to the level of resistance confronting the officer at the time force is used.
83 Dkt. 97 at 27–35.
84 Dkt. 101.
27

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 29 of 77. PageID #: 2829

Most importantly, the Consent Decree and the Court-approved

tinuous cycling) may increase the risk of death or seri-

use of force policy requires that in every instance where it is safe

ous physical injury;

and feasible to do so, a CDP officer must take steps to de-esca-

• The increased risks ECWs may present to a subject

late a situation in an effort to reduce the likelihood of having

who is pregnant, elderly, a child, frail, has low body

to use force to safely and effectively resolve it. The concept of

mass, or is in medical crisis;

de-escalation is not a new concept in policing. The use of ver-

• That, when using an ECW, the drive stun mode is gen-

bal commands and persuasion, taking steps to create a safe dis-

erally less effective than the probe mode and, when

tance between an officer and dangerous subject, and waiting for

used repeatedly, may exacerbate the situation;

additional resources to arrive on the

•

Firearms training . . . ;

scene are considerations that have

and

been in the tool kit of officers who The Division’s sustained and focused efforts on •

Factors to consider in

have found themselves on the scene designing and implementing the Use of Force initiating or continuing a vehicle

of evolving incidents. The impor- Training program has resulted in a high-quality, pursuit.85

tance of de-escalation and its promi- dynamic instructional program for officers.

nence in police use of force training is

CDP’s Academy recruits must re-

a critical part of the CDP’s new use of

ceive this use of force training,86 and

force policy – and will be an area that the Monitoring Team will

the Division’s supervisors must receive specialized training, as

be closely assessing.

discussed elsewhere in this report, relating both to use of force

and broader supervisory skills.87 In addition to initial training

The manner in which the practical significance of the concepts

on use of force covering, among other things, the topics listed

of necessity, proportionality and de-escalation are communicat-

above, the Division must “provide all officers with annual use

ed to the officers who will be called upon to both understand and

of force in-service training that is adequate in quality, quantity,

carry out these important considerations is critical. Training in-

type, and scope.”88

deed translates the sometimes-legalistic formalism necessary in

the Division’s policies into actionable skills and tactics that offi-

Like some other aspects of the Consent Decree’s implementa-

cers use on a day-to-day basis on the streets of Cleveland.

tion, the development and execution of the Use of Force Train-

ing curriculum lagged somewhat behind what the First-Year

Consequently, the Consent Decree defines the training require-

Monitoring Plan originally forecast. Competing operational

ments associated with the curriculum. These provisions seeks to

issues within the CDP during the first year of the Consent De-

complement use of force policy and ensure the development of

cree, coupled with the diminishing capacity within the Training

a training program that effectively highlights the important con-

Section, impacted CDP’s ability to complete work on the use of

siderations that directly relate to an officer’s work.

force policies and, in turn, the use of force training.

Specifically, the use of force training that CDP must provide to its officers must be “adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type” and include instruction on:
• Proper use of force decision-making; • Use of force reporting requirements; • The Fourth Amendment and related law; • De-escalation techniques, both verbal and tactical,
that empower officers to make arrests without using force and instruction that disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements, using cover, calling in specialized units, or delaying arrest may be the appropriate response to a situation, even when the use of force would be legally justified; • Role-playing scenarios and interactive exercises that illustrate proper use of force decision-making, including training on the importance of peer intervention; • The proper deployment and use of all intermediate weapons or technologies; • The risks of prolonged or repeated ECW exposure, including that exposure to ECWs for longer than 15 seconds (whether due to multiple applications or con-

More recently, however, CDP’s sustained and focused efforts on designing and implementing the Use of Force Training program has yielded substantial results.89 Since August 2016, the Monitoring Team has worked closely with the Division of Police and its Training Section. The Team’s objective was to provide both guidance and technical assistance as to the development and implementation of a cohesive training curriculum that is consistent with the requirements of the Consent Decree and provides the most effective and operationally efficient means by which to en-
85 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 84.
86 Id. ¶ 85.
87 Id. ¶ 84.
88 Id. ¶ 86.
89 The Second Semiannual Report indicated that it was then “contemplated that use of force training may be able to begin sometime in February 2016. Even if several weeks more are required beyond that date to finalize training . . . , the Monitoring Team is satisfied that the Division is completed to completing a high-quality training.” Dkt. 97 at 35. Ultimately, CDP required only about four to five weeks of additional time, which all of the Monitor, CDP, City, and DOJ agreed was useful to refine the training further rather than address any outstanding foundational issues.

28

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 30 of 77. PageID #: 2830

sure that all sworn members of the CDP are rigorously trained and have a working knowledge of the Division’s new use of force policy. Members of the Monitoring Team have met periodically with the Training Division staff reviewing the specific modules developed, carefully scrutinizing both the content and the instructional modality to ensure that the most effective adult learning methodology was incorporated into each module.
The Monitoring Team has been favorably impressed by the hard work of the Training Section and their willingness to embrace definitively new approaches to officer training. The Monitor commends the Section’s tremendously hard work on a comprehensive use of force curriculum that will provide officers not only with a specific, substantive grounding in the specific provisions of the new, Court-approved use of force policy but also with substantial opportunities to practice the application of those provisions in real-world scenarios as well as the assessment of actual police encounters with subjects. The Parties, Monitoring Team, and CDP’s Training Section are united in the belief that, for an officer to truly understand the scope of the materials, it is not enough to be able to recall or otherwise recite the technical provisions of the policy. Rather, officers must be able to transfer, apply, and make active use of the guidance and provisions that are set out within that policy.
The result of the Training Section’s significant innovation and noteworthy work is a comprehensive Use of Force Training program on the new use of force policies. It consists of several components:

their understanding in a scenario- based environment.
Two-Day, In-Class, Scenario-Based Training. Between May and October 2017, all sworn CDP personnel will attend two days (16 hours) of in-class training. This training consists almost exclusively of integrated, interactive scenario-based instruction aimed at giving officers repeated opportunities to apply the new use of force policy provisions in a real-world context.
Over the course of the two days, officers will proceed through eight “modules” of instruction, all of which have either interactive or scenario-based elements. Those modules include instruction on:
• De-Escalation • Contact and Cover • Subject Control and Handcuffing • Intermediate Weapons • Decision-making Scenarios • Threat Assessment • Officer Performance Assessments (video-based) (two
modules)
Day one begins with a formal introduction of the instructors, safety rules, attendance requirements and expectations. The class is then divided in smaller groups to maximize safety and facilitate close observation and evaluation of each officer attending the training. The officers then go through four modules of training.

Initial Policy Instruction/“Pre-Loading.” The Training Sec-

The first module is solely focused on the introduction and thor-

tion constructed a “pre-load” video presentation that all CDP

ough review of the five new use of force related policies and all

officers have viewed or soon will view, in an expanded roll call

of the major changes within those policies, particularly in how

training context, in the Districts in May and June before they at-

force is used and reported. This is an interactive classroom

tend the subsequent in-class training components. The approx-

segment of the training that builds the foundation for all of the

imately one-and-a-half-hour video presentation outlines, step by

training modules that follow.

step, the new policy and the expectations of the upcoming use

of force training sessions. The “pre-load” presentation begins

Module two explores de-escalation principles, strategies and

with a message from Chief Williams that reinforces the impor-

techniques with the officers and is intended to fully explain what

tance of the use of force policy provisions and underscores the

de-escalation is, why it matters and how it should be considered

Division’s commitment to these im-

in every aspect of police work from

portant changes. The presentation then proceeds through the new CDP policies, providing instruction to officers on the specific provisions of the updated, Court-approved use of

The hard work of the Training Section and its willingness to embrace new approaches to officer training has greatly impressed the Monitoring Team.

daily citizen contacts to crisis events.
In module three, officers will learn to effectively evaluate the situations and the subjects they encounter as

force policy.

well as how to quickly assess the re-

sources they have available to help them safely resolve various

CDP personnel will view the pre-load and be given the oppor-

situations. Teaching the officers to assess the environment they

tunity to ask questions of training personnel, supervisors, and

are in will also be part of the training. This is commonly referred

Command staff who will be in attendance during these Dis-

to as “contact/cover” training and is a key part in determining the

trict-based sessions. It is hoped that the pre-loading activities

options to de-escalate or use force available to the officers.

will ensure officer knowledge of the new policy and a better un-

derstanding of newly emphasized concepts prior to attending

Module four trains the officers on contemporary subject con-

the classroom instruction, where instructors will delve deeper

trol and prone handcuffing techniques. Handcuffing and con-

into content and afford officers the opportunity to demonstrate

trol techniques have changed over the years, and this refresher

29

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 31 of 77. PageID #: 2831

training will teach officers in accordance with policy changes and modern techniques.
Day two will begin with a significant review of the four modules learned on day one and then proceed into four additional modules. Module one is a complete session focused on the assessment of videos depicting scenarios of officers handling various situations that end in various ways. The CDP officers will have to identify whether stops were justified, whether use of force was justified and if the correct options were used, and will be evaluated based on CDPs new use of force GPOs.
Module two is comprised of reality-based scenarios in which the officers are faced with a variety of situations and are evaluated on verbal commands, choice of intermediate weapons and the utilization of de-escalation techniques if opportunities to do so exist.
Module three is also a reality-based scenario that focuses on how the officer reacts to and assesses the environment to which he or she is dispatched to, and the tactical decisions that follow. The scenarios are intended to evaluate the officers’ decision making skills in accordance with the new use of force GPOs.

Regardless of whether officers meet the required minimum performance standards, all scenario-based modules provide an opportunity for a full debriefing in which participating instructors and other students will be charged with fully analyzing officer performance – identifying the application of good tactics and areas of strength as well as areas for improvement or where other or different strategies or tactics could or should have been applied.
During the week of April 17, 2017, members of the Monitoring Team and DOJ conducted a walk-through of the entire in-class curriculum. CDP training instructors delivered content, modeled scenarios, and demonstrated hands-on and decision making modules that reinforce the policy changes and underscore the fundamental use of force principles (necessity, proportionality, objective reasonableness, and de-escalation whenever safe and feasible) that are the foundation of the Division’s policy. The Monitoring Team was tremendously impressed by the level of the training demonstrated and the clear commitment of the instructors to the overriding objectives of the Division’s Use of Force Training initiative.

Module four builds on module three

Ultimately, the Monitoring Team is

by further exploring the officers’ During the Use of Force training, officers must meet tremendously pleased by the Divi-

verbal commands, body language, minimum performance requirements, including sion’s ability to construct a training

level of awareness about the event passing a written exam and meeting defined that takes advantage of entirely new

they are in and finally their under- standards during scenario-based and role-playing approaches and is geared toward

standing and execution of de-escala- exercises.

providing officers with practical, day-

tion techniques and/or transition to

to-day skills and an ability to practice

use of force tools and techniques in accordance with the new use

application of the new force policy in realistic settings. This

of force policies. If the scenario turns to force, the level of force

interactive, immersive training is a far distance from the rote

is evaluated as to whether it was necessary, proportional and ob-

“Death by PowerPoint” 90 style that, for many police depart-

jectively reasonable.

ments, has served as the default method.

The maximum total class size for the two-day course is 48 officers. On both days, the class of 48 officers will begin with an introduction and overview that emphasizes the training’s objective and various provisions and expectations of the new policy. Subsequently, the class will be divided into four groups of twelve officers each. Each group of twelve officers will proceed, throughout the remainder of each day, through four of the above modules.
During the training, officers must meet minimum performance requirements. One element of officer evaluation will be a written exam, administered during the training, to confirm that officers have a clear understanding of the new force policy’s requirements and expectations. Another element of officer evaluation will be a formal, operationalized performance “check list” for evaluating every officer’s performance during the various interactive, scenario-based elements. Officers who do not receive a passing score for their performance in one of the scenario exercises will receive specific, remedial training and/or one-on-one discussion to ensure their understanding of the appropriate application of the force policy.

Another innovation that the Training Section is implementing relates to gauging and integrating officer feedback on the training program. To do so, the Division has designed an effective evaluation form to be completed by each officer at the conclusion of the in-class training. The resulting evaluation survey, created by the Training Section with some assistance from the Monitoring Team, allows for officers’ feedback to be incorporated to improve or adjust the training curriculum to ensure maximum effectiveness and value.
The Monitoring Team has approved the use of force curriculum and submitted it to the Court.91 Given the critical importance of the Use of Force Training, members of the Monitoring Team will attend training sessions throughout the implementation of force training initiative to ensure that the training is of the quality that all stakeholders expect. The Team looks
90 Jane Wakefield, “How to Avoid ‘Death by PowerPoint,” BBC. com (Dec. 18, 2015), http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35038429.
91 Dkt. 130.

30

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 32 of 77. PageID #: 2832

forward to updating the Court on training as it is implemented over the next several months.
Presuming that the Use of Force Training is completed in early Fall 2017, the Consent-Decree-required and Court-approved use of force policy will be implemented in the field – such that officer performance will be evaluated in light of adherence to the new use of force policies – as of January 1, 2018, consistent with the Court’s previous order.92
C. Use of Force Reporting, Investigations, & Review

Paragraph

Compliance Status

87. “CDP will develop and implement a single, uniform reporting system pursuant to a Use of Force reporting policy” that complies with the force Level categorization set forth in the paragraph.

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

88. Requiring “[a]ll officers using or observing force” to complete a Use of Force Report including a number of specific features and avoiding “conclusory statements, ‘boilerplate’, or ‘canned’ language.”

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

89. “Officers will be subject to the disciplinary pro- PARTIAL cess for material omissions or misrepresentations COMPLIANCE in their Use of Force Reports.”

90. “Officers who use or observe force and fail to report it will be subject to the disciplinary process, up to and including termination, regardless of whether the force was reasonable.”

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

91. Requirement no “notify . . . supervisors . . . as soon as practical following any use of force” and if becoming aware of “an allegation of unreasonable or unreported force by another officer.”

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

92. “Use of Force Reports will be maintained cen- PARTIAL

trally.”

COMPLIANCE

93. “A supervisor who was involved in a use of force, including by participating in or ordering the force under investigation, will not investigate the incident or review the Use of Force Reports for approval or disapproval.”

NONCOMPLIANCE

94. Setting specific requirements relating to the in- NON-

vestigation of low-level, Level 1 force.

COMPLIANCE

95–109. Setting specific requirements relating to the investigation by supervisors and/or CDP chain of command for investigation and review of Level 2 force.

NONCOMPLIANCE

110. “CDP may refer criminal investigations of uses E VA LUAT I O N of force to an independent and highly competent DEFERRED agency outside CDP.”

111. Creation and design of dedicated Force Investigation Team (FIT) that “will conduct administrative investigations . . . and criminal investigations” of serious force, “force involving potential criminal conduct,” in-custody deaths, and cases assigned to it by the Chief.

NONCOMPLIANCE

92 Dkt. 101 (“The new policies will become effective upon the Cleveland Division of Police’s successful completion of Use of Force Training.”).

112. Composition of FIT Team.

NONCOMPLIANCE

113. “FIT members will receive FIT-specific training that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type” on a host of specific, expressly-listed topics both initially and annually thereafter.

NONCOMPLIANCE

114. “CDP will identify, assign, and train personnel NONfor the FIT to fulfill the requirements of this Agree- COMPLIANCE ment.”

115. Response of FIT to use of force scenes. FIT notification of prosecutor’s office. Notification of designated outside agency to conduct criminal investigation if City elects to use external agency for such investigations.

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

116. “CDP will develop and implement polices to ensure that, where an outside agency conducts the criminal investigation, FIT conducts a concurrent and thorough administrative investigation.”

NONCOMPLIANCE

117. Memorandum of understanding required be- NONtween CDP and outside agency containing specific, COMPLIANCE expressly-listed provisions.

118. Setting forth various, specific, and express- NON-C ly-listed responsibilities of FIT during its investiga- OMPLIANCE tions.

119. Monitor’s duty to annually review any “criminal investigations conducted by the outside agency” to ensure that they “are consistently objective, timely, and comprehensive.”

E VA L UAT I O N DEFERRED

120. Providing for delay of compelled interview if “case has the potential to proceed criminally” but otherwise requiring that “[n]o other part of the investigation . . . be held in abeyance” unless “specifically authorized by the Chief” in consultation with investigating agency and prosecutor’s office.

NONCOMPLIANCE

121. Requiring completion of preliminary report presented to Chief or Chief’s designee “as soon as possible, but absent exigent circumstances, no later than 24 hours after learning of the use of force.”

NONCOMPLIANCE

122. Completion of investigation within 60 days. Preparation of FIT investigation report. Review of FIT investigative report by head of Internal Affairs who “will approve or disapprove FIT’s recommendations, or request . . . additional investigation.”

NONCOMPLIANCE

123. Revision of FIT manual to ensure “consisten[- NONcy] with the force principles” and several specific, COMPLIANCE expressly-listed provisions.

124–30. Establishment and operation of Force Review Board “to serve as a quality control mechanism for uses of force and force investigations, and to appraise use of force incidents from a tactics, training, policy, and agency improvement perspective.”

NONCOMPLIANCE

Just as officers must have clear expectations set forth in policy on when to use and not use force, the Division must have clear processes and procedures for the administrative investigation and review of force incidents.93 The Monitoring Team’s prior reports have described that “[m]uch of the public feedback regarding the policies on when officers may and may not use force
93 First Semiannual Report at 36–37; Dkt. 97 at 35–36.
31

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 33 of 77. PageID #: 2833

understandably also began to address issues relating to how the Division of Police would respond to, investigate, and review force incidents – affirming that [a]n important goal of the Consent Decree is to ensure that all uses of force administered by CDP officers are, after being promptly and uniformly reported, meaningfully examined and reviewed.”94
The Court-approved Second-Year Monitoring Plan anticipates that finalized policies and manuals relating to the investigation of force incidents will be presented to the Court by July 31, 2017.95 As the Second Semiannual Report forecast:
This includes establishing policies on lower-level force inquiries and, for serious uses of force, policies and protocols for a dedicated Force Investigation Team (“FIT”) that must be specially trained to handle comprehensive and objective administrative reviews of force incidents. After policies are finalized, supervisors will need training on the many new requirements relating to investigating and reviewing force, and the membership of FIT will need to be determined and trained.96
Shortly thereafter, and not later than September 20, 2017,97 policies and a procedural manual are to be finalized for the Division’s eventual Force Review Board (“FRB”), which will “serve as a quality control mechanism for uses of force and force investigations” by “apprais[ing] use of force incidents from a tactics, training, policy, and agency improvement perspective.”98 FRB must also “asses the quality of the investigations it reviews, including whether investigations are objective and comprehensive and recommendations are supported by a preponderance of the evidence.”99 It will “examine . . . data related to use of force . . . to detect any patterns, trends, and training deficiencies . . . . ”100 “During the first significant span of time in which the Board is operating, the Monitoring Team will provide in-depth, active, and real-time technical assistance by participating in meetings of the Board and, where necessary, asking questions or probing unexplored issues if the Board is not otherwise considering material issues that it must under CDP policies and the Consent Decree.”101
The City and CDP have indicated their full commitment to ensuring the full and comprehensive implementation of new structures and processes for reviewing the use of force so that it aligns
94 Dkt. 97 at 35–36. 95 Dkt. 120-1 at 5–6. 96 Dkt. 97 at 36. 97 Dkt. 120-1 at 6–7. 98 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 124. 99 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 128. 100 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 129. 101 Dkt. 97 at 36.
32

with the requirements of the Consent Decree and builds from the insights, best practices, and lessons learned from other jurisdictions that have previously implemented force review boards and other similar mechanisms.102 Consequently, by the end of 2017, it is anticipated that CDP will at least have in place the policies, procedures, and mechanisms that will allow it to comprehensively analyze the application of force so that officer training, professional development, and risk management may all be continually enhanced.
102 See, e.g., District of Columbia Metropolitan Police, General Orders, Use of Force Review Board (Mar. 30, 2016), available at https://go.mpdconline.com/GO/GO_901_09.pdf; New Orleans Police Department Operations Manual, Chapter 1.3.7, Use of Force Review Board (Dec. 6, 2015), available at http://www.nola. gov/getattachment/NOPD/NOPD-Consent-Decree/Chapter-1-3-7-Use-of-Force-Review-Board.pdf/; Philadelphia Police Department, Directive 10.4, Use of Force Review Board (UFRB) (Sep. 18, 2015), available at https://www.phillypolice.com/assets/directives/PPD-Directive-10.4.pdf.

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 34 of 77. PageID #: 2834

CRISIS INTERVENTION

Paragraph

Compliance Status

131. “CDP will build upon and improve its Crisis Intervention Program” in furtherance of four specific, expressly-listed goals, which “will provide a forum for effective problem solving regarding the interaction between the criminal justice and mental health system and create a context for sustainable change.”

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

132. Establishment of Mental Health Response Advisory Committee (the “Advisory Committee”) “to foster relationships and build support between the police, community, and mental health providers and to help identify problems and develop solutions designed to improve outcomes for individuals in crisis.”

OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE

133. Composition of Advisory Committee.

OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE

134. “The Advisory Committee will meet regularly and provide guidance to assist CDP in improving, expanding, and sustaining its Crisis Intervention Program.”

OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE

135. Advisory Committee will conduct an annual “analysis of crisis intervention incidents to determine whether CDP has enough specialized CIT officers, whether it is deploying those officers effectively, and whether specialized CIT officers” and communications “are appropriately responding to people in crisis,” and will also “recommend appropriate changes.”

NONCOMPLIANCE

136. “The Advisory Committee’s reports and recommendations will be provided” to CPC, “be publicly available, and will be posted on the City’s website.”

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

137. CDP will designate a Crisis Intervention Coor- OPERATIONAL dinator for specific, expressly-identified purposes. COMPLIANCE

138. “Coordinator will develop and maintain partnerships with program stakeholders and serve as point of contact” and “resource” for other stakeholders.

OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE

139. “Coordinator will participate in the Advisory Committee and on a regular basis solicit feedback from the mental health community and specialized CIT officers, call-takers, and dispatchers regarding the efficacy of CDP’s Crisis Intervention Program.”

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

140. “Coordinator will be responsible for coordinating implementation of the changes and recommendations made by the Advisory Committee, as appropriate.”

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

141. “Coordinator will be responsible for ensuring the selection of appropriate candidates for designation as specialized CIT officers” and “to ensure that officers, call-takers, and dispatchers are appropriately responding to CIT-related calls.”

NONCOMPLIANCE

142. “Coordinator will create ways to recognize and NONhonor specialized CIT officers, call-takers, and dis- COMPLIANCE patchers.”

The Department of Justice’s 2014 investigation found that “officers use excessive force against individuals who are in mental health crisis” in large part because the Division’s crisis intervention policies were underdeveloped.”103 This finding led to the Consent Decree requirements aimed at building and improving the Cleveland Police Division’s Crisis Intervention Program.104

A building block for change in the Division’s crisis intervention program was the requirement to develop a forum for effective problem solving regarding the interaction between the criminal justice and the mental health care system as well as creating a context for sustainable change.105

The Consent Decree indicates that the CDP should build and enhance its Crisis Intervention Program with the following goals:

• Assisting individuals in crisis • Improving the safety of officer, consumers, family
members, and others within the community • Providing the foundation necessary to promote com-
munity and statewide solutions to assist individuals with mental illness • Reducing the need for individuals with mental illness to have further involvement with the criminal justice system.106

During the past 12 months, the Cleveland community has continued to meet the challenge of providing an effective forum to

103 2014 Findings Letter at 4, 52. 104 Second Semiannual Report at 38. 105 See generally Dkt. 7-1 ¶¶ 131-59. 106 Id. ¶ 131.
33

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 35 of 77. PageID #: 2835

address problems regarding the interaction between the criminal Spanish language version and focus groups with CDP officers.

justice and the mental health care system. This forum, the Men- A work plan was developed at the MHRAC annual retreat and

tal Health Response Advisory Committee (“MHRAC”) has the provided an interface with the Monitoring Team’s First-Year

tackled the process needed to create sustainable change. Police, Monitoring Plan to help organize the tasks. The Second-Year

social service providers, mental health and substance abuse pro- work plan will be completed at this year’s MHRAC annual re-

fessionals, advocates and individuals in recovery continue to meet treat and again will provide a detailed task list to interface with

and have made progress on how to improve services for those in the Second-Year Monitoring Plan.111 The Division moved quick-

crisis. The work of the MHRAC does

ly to appoint a CDP Crisis Interven-

not only have a positive impact on the CDP crisis response program, but there has also been corresponding changes in the capacity of the Alcohol, Drug Addiction and Mental Health Service Board of Cuyahoga County

The collaboration and partnership among the Division and the community-based Mental Health Response Advisory Committee continues to help the Cleveland community better meet the needs of individuals experiencing a behavioral crisis.

tion Coordinator, identifying three qualified candidates and selecting Captain James Purcell for the position.112 Captain Purcell has been praised for his contributions and active participation. His opinions have

(“ADAMHS”) to meet the needs of in-

been respected by CDP leadership,

dividuals experiencing a behavioral crisis.107

and he reports directly to Deputy Chief Joellen O’Neill who is an

active participant with the MHRAC. Captain Purcell has been

The recent six-month period that this report addresses has seen appointed to serve as co-chair of the MHRAC.

the successful completion of a major step in improving the Divi-

sion’s capacity to respond to individuals in crisis. A new CDP cri-

2. Revising CDP Crisis Intervention Policies and

sis intervention policy108 was developed in cooperation with the

Procedures

Mental Health Response Advisory Committee. The Court has

approved this policy.109 The cooperative relationship established The second six months of Consent Decree implementation

between advocates, healthcare professionals and CDP worked had a primary focus on crisis intervention policy development.

well in developing a consensus policy to address the needs of the The cooperative relationship established between advocates,

individual in crisis without compromising the safety of the offi- healthcare professionals, and CDP worked well in developing a

cer or the Cleveland community. As a result, the policy presents consensus policy to address the needs of the individual in crisis

a new comprehensive strategy for responding to individuals in a without compromising the safety of the officer or the Cleveland

behavioral crisis.

community.

A. Background Information110
1. First Semiannual Monitoring Period
During the initial phase of the Consent Decree, several key tasks were accomplished that included forming the Mental Health Response Advisory Committee, completion of a needs assessment and work plan, as well as focusing on appointing a CDP Crisis Intervention Coordinator. The City of Cleveland and CDP, through a subcontract with the ADAMHS Board established the Advisory Committee, complete with six standing sub-committees (Executive, Policy, Data, Training, Community Engagement, and Diversion). All of the MHRAC committees have been active and have done a good job of working with CDP to accomplish the tasks of the Consent Decree.

The initial work of the MHRAC Policy Subcommittee was guided by a desire to advance respect and safety between CDP and citizens, diverting citizens in crisis from the criminal justice system where possible, advancing best practice tactics and reducing unnecessary use of force and managing the stigma associated with mental illness and addiction. The MHRAC Policy Subcommittee used results from the community and officer needs assessment meetings to guide them in developing a new CDP Crisis Intervention policy. As a result, the new policy presented a comprehensive strategy for responding to individuals in a behavioral crisis. This policy document was presented at several community forums where citizens provided detailed feedback. This impressive process deserves additional attention and will be discussed later in this document in the Current Implementation Status section.

The needs assessment was developed through a series of three community meetings co-hosted with the National Alliance on Mental Illness, an extensive internet survey which included a
107 Second Semiannual Report at 36. 108 Dkt. 103. 109 Dkt. 115. 110Some of elements of this section are summarized from the
Monitoring Team’s First (June 2016) and Second (January 2017) Semiannual Reports of the Monitor.

3. Crisis Intervention Data
The Consent Decree agreement requires that CDP track calls and incidents that involve individuals in crisis, collecting detailed data113 Data will be reported annually and used to identify training needs, trends, successful individual officer performance,
111 Dkt. 120. 112 First Semiannual Report at 39-41. 113 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 157.

34

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 36 of 77. PageID #: 2836

necessary changes in strategies, and systemic issues related to crisis intervention response.114

force of CDP training instructors and volunteer subject matter experts. The revision of the annual training curriculum has been well received and will be covered in the Current Implementation

An original CDP/ADAMHS Board data instrument, commonly

Status section.

referred to as the “stat sheet” collected some basic information about crisis intervention incidents. However, both CDP and the ADAMHS Board became aware of the low completion rates.

The Ohio Peace Officer Training Commission has a crisis intervention training curriculum for Ohio Peace Officers.116 This cur-

As a result, CDP and the ADAMHS Board have identified that

riculum is required as part of the Academy training. All parties

the data collection will need to be improved. However, major changes in the data collection process require that a non-manual, technology-based solution is in place to ensure that reporting

agree that the new recruit training is a reasonable substitute for 16 Hours of Academy Training. The new model of CIT has a significant role for CDP dispatchers.

requirements do not impede the ability of officers to efficiently and effectively provide law enforcement service.115
The policy work has been completed which paves the way for

The proposed dispatcher training will include: information about the crisis intervention policy and the role of the dispatcher and a general introduction to mental health, disabilities and ad-

improved data collection strategies. However, planning work is

diction. Additional training topics will include legal issues along

underway to integrate the crisis intervention collection process with improvements in the CDP overall reporting process. Success in implementing the technology should improve the overall

with a focus on critical elements in communication and practice scenarios. The dispatch training has been developed into a basic outline, and the curriculum will be completed after the annual

completion rate while reducing the workload for the officers. As

officer training is underway.

discussed in the First Semi-Annual Report, the Monitoring Team has confidence that waiting to finalize data forms will produce effective, lasting, and more efficient reform.

The MHRAC Training Subcommittee recommended the Specialized CIT Officer Training include a faculty of providers/ex-

4. Crisis Intervention Training The Consent Decree requires several types of training relat-

perts in the field and experienced CIT officers, and the inclusion of families and individuals in recovery from serious mental illness. The coursework should include basic mental health topics that focus on adult and children and the inclusion of lectures on

ed to crisis intervention. First, all officers must receive eight hours of annual training on crisis intervention issues. Second, new recruits must receive 16 hours of training in the Academy

autism, developmental disabilities, elder care, trauma-related care, and cultural competency. Additional recommendations include expanded work on intensive de-escalation tactics, in-per-

on crisis issues. Third, CDP dispatchers and call-takers must

son site visits to include St. Vincent Medical Center Emergency

receive appropriate training on identifying signs of behavioral

Services, homeless services and Veterans’ Affairs, more time for

crisis. Fourth, CDP must provide 40

question and answer sessions, and a

hours of enhanced training to designated, specialized Crisis Intervention Team (“CIT”) officers who will be specifically dispatched to the scene of incidents involving individuals experi-

By October 2017, all CPD officers will have received eight hours of foundational training on crisis intervention issues – with more to come in subsequent years.

maximum class size of 30 CIT participants. 117 The MHRAC Training Subcommittee intends to have police trainers and subject matter experts work together to provide the

encing a behavioral crisis.

substantive lecture material needed

The first year of annual training for all officers will focus on the new CDP Crisis Intervention Policies, Mental Health Signs and

to complete the 40 hours of Specialized CIT Officer Training. 5. Selection of CIT Officers

Symptoms, Communication and Active Listening, and the Com-

mand and Control Paradox. The intent of the training is to teach officers, whether for the first time or as a refresher, to understand that an individual is experiencing a behavioral crisis and help the officer find the most efficient method of resolving the conflict. MHRAC decided that a focus on the quality of instruction and the ability of the training to have a meaningful impact on the officer in training was more valuable than covering a large

Paragraph

Compliance Status

145. “CDP will provide enhanced specialized training in responding to individuals in crisis to certain officers (‘specialized CIT officers’),” who will be “called upon to respond to incidents or calls involving individuals in crisis.”

NONCOMPLIANCE

quantity of topics. The annual training is part of a five-year plan

and important specialized topics will be covered as the training progresses. The curriculum has been reviewed by a joint task

116 Peace Officer Basic Training Crisis Intervention. Ohio Peace

114 Id. ¶¶ 157–58.

Officer Training Commission: Education & Policy Section. 1-156 (Jan. 2016).

115 First Semiannual Report at 42.

117 First Semiannual Report at 42-3.

35

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 37 of 77. PageID #: 2837

146–47. Outlining various requirements for the “en- NONhanced training” for specialized CIT officers of “at least COMPLIANCE 40 hours.”

148. Designation of specialized CIT officers, per spe- NON-

cific, expressly-listed requirements.

COMPLIANCE

149. “Supervisors will identify and encourage qualified NONofficers across all shifts and all Districts to serve as COMPLIANCE specialized officers.”

150. “All Field Training Officers” (“FTO”s) “will receive the enhanced specialized crisis intervention training described in paragraph 146,” though FTOs will “not be designated as a specialized CIT officer” unless they volunteer and have been selected to do so.

NONCOMPLIANCE

151. “Specialized CIT officers who are dispatched to an incident involving an individual in crisis will have primary responsibility for the scene,” with supervisors “seek[ing] the input of a specialized CIT officer . . . where it is reasonable for them to do so.”

NONCOMPLIANCE

152. “[T]he Coordinator will develop an effective specialized crisis intervention plan . . . to ensure that a specialized CIT officer is available to respond to all calls and incidents that appear to involve an individual in crisis” that includes various, specific, expressly-identified requirements. The City “will use its best efforts to ensure that a specialized CIT officer responds to all calls and incidents that appear to involve an individual in crisis.”

NONCOMPLIANCE

CDP is taking the lead on developing a selection process for officers and completing the formal selection process as part of the Second-Year Monitoring Plan. The selection process requires that specialized CIT officers must volunteer for the role, have three years of CDP experience, undergo a CIT Fitness Assessment, complete a written application, obtain supervisory recommendations, undergo a review of the disciplinary file to include use of force related discipline, and undergo an in-person interview. The Monitoring Team will work with CDP, the City, the Department of Justice, and MHRAC to review the strategy for CIT officer selection.

B. Current Implementation Status

1. Revised Crisis Intervention Policy

Paragraph

Compliance Status

153. City “will consider” crisis intervention program as- PARTIAL sessment by Ohio Criminal Justice Coordinating Cen- COMPLIANCE ter of Excellence.

154. CDP “will revise its policies to make clear that a crisis intervention response may be necessary even in situations where there has been an apparent law violation.”

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

155. CDP “will revise its current crisis intervention policy to ensure that specialized CIT officers have appropriate discretion to direct individuals . . . to the health care system, rather than the judicial system . . . where it is appropriate to do so.”

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

156. CDP policies and procedures will ensure that “specialized CIT officers . . . must be dispatched to all calls or incidents that appear to involve an individual in crisis.” CDP must “track incident in which a specialized officer was not dispatched to such calls” and “identify any barriers” to ensuring dispatch of specialized CIT officer to such calls.

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

157. “CDP will track calls and incidents involving indi- PARTIAL viduals in crisis by gathering, at a minimum,” specific, COMPLIANCE expressly-identified data.

158. Public reporting of paragraph 157 data and provi- PARTIAL

sion to Advisory Committee.

COMPLIANCE

159. “CDP will utilize” paragraph 157 data “to identify training needs and develop case studies and teaching scenarios” for training and other expressly-identified systemic purposes.

NONCOMPLIANCE

The Division and the MHRAC Policy Subcommittee went beyond what was required by the Consent Decree in establishing a best practice for crisis intervention.118 The extra effort applies not only to the final policy document, but also to the process of obtaining meaningful community input. The policy covers a wide range of topics that go beyond the Consent Decree in order to provide important crisis intervention services to the community. It consists of three interrelated sections: definitions, a crisis intervention program description and guidelines for officers’ response to a crisis event.119

Although the community-based Advisory Committee is required by the Consent Decree, the MHRAC has been written directly into CDP policy. The MHRAC is given defined roles and responsibilities in the policy program document. The policy also emphasizes coordination with community resources to assist those in need, and calls on officers to contact community resources for both adults and youth. Additionally, the policy addresses the needs of youth, providing special guidance for officers interacting with them. These are just a few of the issues that are addressed in the revised policy that go beyond the specific requirements of the Consent Decree.

CDP and the MHRAC approached the community feedback forums in a sophisticated and caring manner. Community members were briefed on the policy. Skilled facilitators helped with small group feedback so that all community members had a chance to discuss their reactions to the new policy. The community attendance was very good, and members of Cleveland media were present at both sessions. Chief Williams, Deputy Chief O’Neill, and the CDP’s CIT coordinator attended the sessions. The CEO of the ADAMHS Board and key ADAMHS executive staff also attended the sessions along with the chairs and members of the MHRAC Policy Subcommittee. The Department of Justice had representatives from Cleveland and Washington in attendance and a number of members of the Monitoring team both from Cleveland and from other states were present at each session. The process was
118 Some parts of this section are summarized from Dkt. 103.
119 For a detailed breakdown of policy elements, see the Monitoring Team’s Second Semiannual Report at 38.

36

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 38 of 77. PageID #: 2838

remarkable not only for its transparency, but also for the atmo-

icy, Mental Health Signs and Symptoms, Communication and

sphere of community pride that was apparent at each meeting.

Active Listening, and the Command and Control Paradox. The

Committee decided that a focus on the quality of instruction

The community feedback was tracked systematically. The sub-

and the ability of the training to have a meaningful impact on

committee reviewed each recommendation and met to discuss

the officer in training was more valuable than covering a large

the crisis intervention policy in light of the community com-

quantity of topics. The annual training is part of a five-year plan,

ments. The community feedback at public forums led to further

and important specialized topics will be covered as the training

substantive changes in the policy.

progresses.

The revisions included a greater emphasis on the concept of respect and dignity, a focus on the importance of building relationships with community and local neighborhoods, spe-

The Division’s new crisis intervention policies and training, which were both the product of substantial community participation and input, are among the best that the Monitoring Team has ever seen.

The final draft of the eight-hour training represents a product that has been through several stages of development. The curriculum is the

cific suggestions related to the role

first of five yearly trainings in crisis

of culture, the need for a marker to improve the community’s

intervention that are part of the Consent Decree. In order to

recognition of CIT Officers, specific guidance around transpor-

develop this first eight-hour training curriculum, the MHRAC

tation of non-violent individuals in crisis, a juvenile-specific sec-

first formed a Training Subcommittee, which consists of CDP

tion in the Crisis Intervention Response Policy, and guidance for

representatives, mental health professionals, advocates, those

the officer for responding to children who are witnesses to an

recovering from mental illness and substance abuse, additional

event when police respond to individuals in crisis. After these re-

law enforcement expertise, as well as representation from the

visions were made by the Policy Subcommittee, a final draft was

Department of Justice and the Monitoring Team. The Training

sent to the Monitor for submission to the court in January 2017.

Subcommittee set a goal of using the eight-hour training for all

Community participation in the development of CDP policy

officers to address the topics presented in the new Ohio Peace

was always a goal of the Consent Decree, but the Mental Health

Officers Standards.

Response Advisory Committee and the CDP deserve special

recognition for the way in which they successfully engaged the

The initial product of the Training Subcommittee was an out-

citizens of Cleveland.

line of topics for the CDP eight-hour training. This outline went

through extensive review and feedback. The feedback led to a

2. Crisis Intervention Training

more limited but more realistic set of topics for the first eight

hours of training. This limited set of topics was developed with

Paragraph

Compliance Status

the understanding that additional topics would be covered in future eight-hour blocks of training. The feedback led to a series

143. “CDP will provide training on responding to in- PARTIAL dividuals in crisis to all of its officers and recruits,” COMPLIANCE

of drafts resulting in an impressive and detailed product. The current curriculum consists of three documents. There are also

including “at least eight hours of initial training” and “annual in-service training thereafter,” that “will be adequate in quality, quantity, type, and scope.”
144. Initial and annual training for “CDP call-takers, NON-

a series of well-done PowerPoint slides, a set of overall learning objectives and an instructor’s manual with a slide-by-slide discussion of the material.

dispatchers, and their supervisors” on specific, ex- COMPLIANCE pressly-identified crisis intervention topics.

This finalized eight-hour training is an impressive product that resulted from significant work and collaboration between CDP

and the community. The members of the Training Subcommit-

As outlined above, the Consent Decree requires several types of training related to crisis intervention. First, all officers must receive eight hours of annual training on crisis intervention issues. Second, new recruits must receive 16 hours of training in the Academy on crisis issues. Third, CDP dispatchers and call-takers must receive appropriate training on identifying signs of behavioral crisis. Fourth, CDP must provide 40 hours of enhanced training to designated, specialized CIT officers who will be specifically dispatched to the scene of incidents involving individuals experiencing a behavioral crisis.

tee and the task force of individuals who worked on particular subjects deserve a great deal of credit for this product. Kyle Miller of the Sisters of Charity Health System provided the initial leadership for the committee. As the project moved forward, Dr. Richard Cirillo of the Cuyahoga County Board of Developmental Disabilities and CDP Captain James Purcell provided leadership and a great deal of work. Mike Woody of the Ohio Criminal Justice Coordinating Center for Excellence provided assistance in de-escalation training. Throughout the process the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Northern District of Ohio, with Heather Tonsing Volosin as team leader, provided ongoing support and

The primary focus of the MHRAC Training Subcommittee and CDP has been the first year of annual training of all CDP officers. This training will focus on the new CDP Crisis Intervention Pol-

feedback for the effort. Additionally, the ADAMHS of Cuyahoga County led by Scott Osiecki and Carole Ballard provided key agency support for the effort. The work on the training curriculum has clearly been a community effort.

37

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 39 of 77. PageID #: 2839
The CDP is planning to have five training modules for all officers and additional topics will be covered in the remaining four modules. This curriculum has done a good job of covering a set of important topics in a manner that is consistent with adult learning strategies with an emphasis on the practical application of knowledge to the officers’ daily patrol responsibilities.
The Monitoring Team has recommended approval of the curriculum, which is pending before the Court.120 Along with the officer use of force training, the crisis intervention training is a critical component of the Consent Decree. Accordingly, the Monitoring Team and DOJ will be attending and auditing the crisis intervention training as it takes place through October 2017 to ensure that its quality is consistent with the strong curriculum that the Division and MHRAC have constructed.
C. Conclusion & Next Steps
CDP and the Cleveland community continue to make important progress in assisting individuals in crisis while maintaining the safety of officers, individuals with mental illness, family members and other citizens. The MHRAC has become a forum for change. A Crisis Intervention Policy has been approved that was developed in partnership with the MHRAC and its volunteer members and reflects meaningful community input. This policy and the process involved in gaining community feedback goes beyond what is required in the Consent Decree. The extra effort demonstrates that the process of community engagement was undertaken in good faith.
The newly developed eight-hour training curriculum for all officers reflects a similar level of accomplishment. In the training effort, CDP has been receptive to the expertise of community experts who have volunteered their time to assist with training and curriculum development. The curriculum has undergone several iterations, and a sense of pride in the work is warranted. As with the policy work, the training curriculum for all officers reflects an important step in community engagement in which mental health and substance abuse professionals have stepped up and provided assistance to their city’s police department.
This foundation of cooperation, collaboration, and community involvement creates a sense of optimism for future challenges facing individuals struggling with mental illness and substance abuse.
120 Dkt. 129.
38

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 40 of 77. PageID #: 2840

SEARCH & SEIZURE

Paragraph

Compliance Status

160. “CDP will revise, develop, and implement search and seizure policies that comply with applicable law, . . . include the requirements below,” and conform to expressly-identified principles.

NONCOMPLIANCE

161–65. Policy requirements for officers for stops, NON-

searches, and detentions.

COMPLIANCE

166. “Officers will immediately notify a supervisor when effectuating a custodial arrest for obstructing official business, resisting arrest, or assault an officer and no other substantive violation is alleged,” and “the supervisor will respond to the scene.”

NONCOMPLIANCE

167. “Officers will not used ‘canned’ or conclusory language without supporting detail in documents or reports documenting investigatory stops, searches, or arrests.”

NONCOMPLIANCE

168. “Officers will articulate the justification for an investigatory stop, search, or arrest in a specific and clear manner in their reports.” CDP “will train officers” on documenting stops. “Supervisors will review all documentation of investigatory stops, searches, and arrests.”

NONCOMPLIANCE

169. Supervisor will review of “each arrest report by officers under their command,” with supervisors reviewing reports for specific, expressly-identified deficiencies.

NONCOMPLIANCE

170–72. Supervisory review of investigatory stops, NON-

searches, and arrests.

COMPLIANCE

173. Provision of “initial training that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type on investigatory stops, searches, and arrests, including the requirements” of the Consent Decree that “will address the requirements of Fourth Amendment and related law, CDP policies,” and specific, expressly-identified topics.

NONCOMPLIANCE

174–75. Provision of “annual search and seizure in-service training that is adequate in quality, quantity, type, and scope” incorporating specific, expressly-identified topics.

NONCOMPLIANCE

The Consent Decree requires that CDP “revise, develop, and implement” policies on how its officers “conduct all investigatory stops, searches, and arrests with the goal” that such actions comply with the “Constitution, state and federal law.”121 As the Monitoring Team has previously summarized, those revised policies will expressly prohibit officers from “using immutable characteristics – such as race, ethnicity, gender, and perceived sexual orientation – as a factor when evaluating whether or not” there are sufficient grounds for initiating a stop of an individual.122

Additionally, “[o]fficers will be required to use specific details in reports documenting the events that led to an investigatory stop, search, or arrest” – providing substantially more information and supervision of this type of officer performance than currently exists within CDP, which does not currently log all such stop activity.123 Because CDP is ensuring that all patrol cars are outfitted with in-car computers, the Division still has some distance to travel to ensuring that the basic foundations are in place to allow information on stops to be captured electronically – which is necessary to avoid the “risk [of] overburdening officers with yet more time-consuming, manual processes.”124

The First Semiannual Report indicated that “[i]n the context of the Court-approved, First-Year Monitoring Plan, the Parties and Monitor agreed to defer close consideration of policies, procedures, and practices related to stops of individuals until the second year of monitoring in 2017.”125 The Court-approved Second-Year Monitoring Plan positions the timetable for working on policies relating to stops, searches, and seizures as between September 2017 and March 2018 – which includes time for substantial community engagement and involvement. This is consistent with the Parties’ and Monitoring Team’s recognition that this timeframe “allows reform in this area to happen within a broader context of actively implementing community-based performance metrics and a comprehensive community policing model.”126

121 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 160. 122 Id. ¶ 161; Dkt. 97 at 42. 123 First Semiannual Report at 44. 124 Dkt. 97 at 42. 125 First Semiannual Report at 44. 126 Id.
39

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 41 of 77. PageID #: 2841

ACCOUNTABILITY

Paragraph

Compliance Status

176. “The City and CDP will ensure that all allegations of officer misconduct, whether internally discovered or alleged by a civilian, are fully, fairly, and efficiently investigated; that all investigative findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence and documented in writing; and that all officers who commit misconduct are held accountable pursuant to a disciplinary system that is fair, consistent, and provides due process.”

NONCOMPLIANCE

As indicated in the Monitor’s prior reports, the Consent Decree indicates that, to further the goals of effective, safe, and constitutional policing consistent with the values of the community, the City will, among other things, “provide clear guidance to officers; [and] increase accountability . . . ”127 This commitment to expanded accountability is reinforced in the City and CDP’s commitment in the Consent Decree to:

[E]nsur[ing] that all allegations of officer misconduct, whether internally discovered or alleged by a civilian, are fully, fairly, and efficiently investigated; that all investigative findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence and documented in writing; and that all officers who commit misconduct are held accountable pursuant to a disciplinary system that is fair, consistent, and provides

127

Dkt. 97 at 45.

40

due process.128
To achieve these outcomes, the City is expected to reform its internal investigation and civilian oversight mechanisms by ensuring appropriate resourcing for these programs, and through the creation and implementation of plans for backlog reduction, cooperation between these mechanisms, public outreach and training.129
This section summarizes CDP’s progress toward complying with the Decree’s provisions related to accountability, including Internal Affairs (“IA”), the Office of Professional Standards (“OPS”), and the Citizen Police Review Board (“CPRB”).
As the Monitoring Team has previously summarized,130 in Cleveland, the entity that investigates alleged misconduct depends on how the allegation came to the City’s attention. If an individual outside the Division makes a complaint about employee conduct, OPS investigates the complaint. If a Division employee identifies, discovers, or makes a complaint about employee misconduct, the Division itself conducts the investigation through its IA unit or by other elements within the Division.
In the Consent Decree, the City agreed that it “will ensure that all allegations of officer131 misconduct, whether internally discovered or alleged by a civilian, are fully, fairly, and efficiently investigated” – with a preponderance of the evidence standard uniformly applied and “documented in writing.”132 Thus, the day-to-day operations of all the oversight mechanisms – IA, OPS and CPRB – must be sound, rigorous, and objective.
A. Internally Discovered Misconduct

Paragraph

Compliance Status

177. “Internal Affairs will conduct objective, comprehensive, and timely investigations of all internal allegations,” with “findings . . . based on the preponderance of the evidence standard” that must “be clearly delineated in policies, training, and procedures and accompanied by detailed examples to ensure proper application by investigators.”

NON-COMPLIANCE

178. “Internal Affairs will be headed by a qualified NON-COMPLIcivilian” who “will report directly to the Chief of Po- ANCE lice.

179. Qualifications for IA investigators.

NON-COMPLIANCE

128 Dkt. 7-1 ¶196. 129 Id. ¶¶ 176–278. 130 Dkt. 97 at 43. 131 This requirement pertains to all employees within the Division, not just sworn law enforcement officers. 132 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 176.

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 42 of 77. PageID #: 2842

180. Initial training for IA investigators “that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type on conducting misconduct investigations” that addresses specific, expressly-identified topics.

NON-COMPLIANCE

181. “[A]nnual training” for IA investigators “that is NON-COMPLI-

adequate in quality, quantity, type and scope”

ANCE

182. “In each investigation, Internal Affairs will collect and consider” all evidence. “[N]o automatic preference for an officer’s statement over a non-officer’s statement.” No disregard of a “witnesses’ statement solely because of” connection to the complainant or criminal history. IA investigators must “make all reasonable efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements.”

NON-COMPLIANCE

183. IA “will evaluate all relevant police activity and NON-COMPLIany evidence of potential misconduct uncovered ANCE during the course of the investigation.”

184. IA will not consider guilty plea or verdict as “determinative of whether a CDP officer engaged in misconduct” or justification for “discontinuing the investigation.”

NON-COMPLIANCE

185. IA “will complete its administrative investiga- NON-COMPLItions within 30 days from the date it learns of the ANCE alleged misconduct.”

186–87. IA investigative report requirements.

NON-COMPLIANCE

188. Forwarding of completed IA investigations “to the officers’ supervisors, the Training Review Committee, the Force Review Board, the Officer Intervention Program, and the Data Collection and Analysis Coordinator.”

NON-COMPLIANCE

189. “CDP will require any CDP employee who observes or becomes aware of any” potential misconduct to “report the incident to a supervisor or directly to” IA.

NON-COMPLIANCE

190. “CDP will develop a system that allows offi- NON-COMPLIcers to confidentially an anonymously report poten- ANCE tial misconduct by other officers.”

191. “CDP will expressly prohibit all forms of retaliation, discouragement, intimidation, coercion, or adverse action, against any person, civilian or officer, who reports misconduct, makes a misconduct complaint, or cooperates with an investigation of misconduct.”

NON-COMPLIANCE

192. “Officers who retaliate . . . will be subject to the NON-COMPLI-

disciplinary process.”

ANCE

Internal Affairs is a generic term that refers to the entity within a police department with the responsibility to investigate employee misconduct.133 The Monitor’s prior Semiannual Reports summarized what a police department’s Internal Affairs (“IA”) does in a typical police department and what Cleveland’s Internal Affairs Unit has done in the past.134

Within CDP, the Internal Affairs Unit has historically been responsible for conducting primarily criminal investigations of

133 See Dkt. 97 at 43–44. 134 First Semiannual Report at 45–56; Second Semiannual Report at 41–42.

potential employee misconduct and investigating any incidents specifically directed to it by the Chief of Police. Generally, unless a non-criminal administrative investigation has been specifically referred to IA by the Chief of Police, the investigation would have been conducted either within the involved employee’s chain of command or, with less frequency, by an element within IA known as the Inspections Unit. The Inspections Unit’s primary task is to effectuate lower-level administrative compliance audits (such as uniform inspections, logbook audits, and the like).
The Department of Justice’s 2014 investigation concluded that the CDP internal investigation structure did not “adequately investigate and hold officers accountable for misconduct.”135 In addition, the investigation concluded that the CDP’s IA Unit did not conduct thorough and objective investigations of alleged officer misconduct.136
Consequently, the Consent Decree required a reformed Internal Affairs function that would have more robust requirements in the conduct of investigations and that would also serve as a primary engine for the Division’s administrative (non-criminal) investigations as well as internal and citizen generated criminal investigations.
1. Analysis of Pre-Consent Decree IA Investigations
The Consent Decree requires CDP and the City to have in place both the mechanisms and defined policies pertaining to the investigation of misconduct that is discovered within the Department. As noted above, the entity within the CDP tasked with conducting administrative investigations of allegations of misconduct on the part of CDP is IA.
The Decree calls for CDP “allegations of officer misconduct” to be “fully, fairly, and efficiently investigated . . . . ”137 Pursuant to the Second-Year Monitoring Plan, the Monitoring Team has engaged in a methodologically-rigorous qualitative review of prior IA investigations, in order to gauge the depth and scope of the reforms that must be implemented with respect to IA.138
The Monitoring Team assessed the Division’s IA investigations in light of the provisions of the Consent Decree and generally-accepted law enforcement practices, including but not limited to whether the investigations complied with the following:
• All allegations are clearly stated and clearly answered. • All relevant facts bearing the truth of each allegation
are clearly stated. • All evidence (e.g. photos, recordings, etc.) is included
or its means of retrieval specified. • All evidence, to include testimony, is properly record-
135 2014 Findings Letter at 34. 136 Id. at 35–36. 137 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 176. 138 Dkt. 120-1 at 31.
41

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 43 of 77. PageID #: 2843

ed and preserved. • Contact and identification for all persons interviewed
and for the investigator(s) is included. • The report is impartial, with no bias for or against any
party. • The report is logically organized with the aim of help-
ing the reader to understand it. • The report language is clear, and where special terms
are used, they are defined. The reader should not have to presume or guess the meaning of a term. • The report avoids conclusory statements wherever possible. • Sentences and paragraphs are direct, simple, and easy to understand, using the fewest words to clearly convey the point. • Estimates of time, distance, or other quantities should be as precise as reasonably useful, but need not be precise beyond that. • Unless explicitly permitted by agency policy, personal opinions should be avoided. If they are permitted, they should include explicit evidence to support the opinion.139

The Monitoring Team’s review commenced in the fall of 2016 and involved several members of the Monitoring Team with extensive experience in Internal Affairs and the investigation of citizen complaints.

Team members selected a statistically-significant, random sample140 of IA cases from 2015, which included an intentional “oversample” of those cases involving use of force (n=45). The 45 cases involved the investigation of the conduct of some 64 total officers. Accordingly, the Monitoring Team reviewed a randomly-selected subset of IA cases from 2015 – a number large enough to ensure, within generally accepted levels of confidence within social science141, that the subset was representative of the whole set of cases that occurred in that period. This “random-sampling approach is the best way to ensure that the selected sample rep-

139

U.S. Department of Justice, Community Oriented Po-

licing Services Office, Standards and Guidelines for Internal Af-

fairs: Recommendations from a Community of Practice 36–

37 (2008), available at http://www.parc.info/s/cops-

p164-pub.pdf [hereinafter “Standards & Guidelines”].

140 See Michael S. Lewis-Beck, et al, 3 Sage Encyclopedia of

Social Science Research Methods 985, 986 (2004) (“Simple

random sampling is often practical for a population of business records . . . . ”).

141 The Monitoring Team determined the sample size in order to ensure a 95 percent confidence interval. “A 95% confidence interval is an interval that is very likely to contain the true population mean” – meaning, roughly, that there is a 95 percent chance that, even if the Monitoring Team evaluated all IA cases from 2015 rather than a statistically-significant sample or subset of the 2015 cases, the results would be, statistically, the same. Sandra D. Schlotzhauer, Elementary Statistics Using JMP 184 (2007).

42

resents the population” of all IA cases and investigations that occurred during the studied 2015 period “and that the findings in the sample” of reviewed IA investigations “can be generalized to the population” of all of the IA cases “from which the sample was obtained.”142
The Team’s reviewers used a structured qualitative assessment instrument, which was piloted and refined utilizing a review of five randomly-selected cases.
CDP provided the Monitoring Team with full IA files via a portable hard drive that included video, photos, and all written reports. Team members were divided into random pairs in order to review each investigative file – with the individual pairs varying from case to case.
The individual pairs also varied from time to time throughout the review process. Each individual team member separately conducted a rigorous review of the file and commented on each investigation using the assessment instrument. Where assessments differed between the two reviewers, the reviewers convened to attempt to reconcile differences. The Monitoring Team’s final assessment constitutes either the consensus view of both members of the pair or, where no consensus could be reached, an average of the two reviewers’ assessments. The assessments were completed in late March 2017.
In addition to assessing the quality of IA investigations across an array of specific features, Monitoring Team reviewers also assessed the quality of the investigation overall, on a value range of one through four (poor to very good):
1 (Poor) – All aspects of the investigation could be improved. The investigation does not establish sufficient information to support an evidence-based evaluation of the incident due to investigative deficiencies, material omissions, or other issues.
2 (Fair) – Several aspects of the investigation could be improved. Identified flaws materially impacted the quality of the overall investigation, and the resulting file provided insufficient information to evaluate the incident.
3 (Good) – Although some aspects of the investigation could be improved, any identified flaws did not appear to materially impact the quality of the overall investigation, and the resulting file provided sufficient information to evaluate the incident.
142 Lemuel A. Moye, Statistical Reasoning in Medicine: The Intuitive P-Value Primer 30 (2006); accord Timothy C. Urden, Statistics in Plain English 48 (2001) (“[W]hen we do inferential statistics, we want to know something that we observe in a sample represents an actual phenomenon in the population.”).

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 44 of 77. PageID #: 2844

nature, will be investigated by IA.143

4 (Very Good) – The investigation complied

with most CDP protocols and investigators

From the data that was present in the files examined, 27 percent

made reasonable attempts to follow all leads

of complainants were identified as Black/African American, 7

and answer all material questions.

percent as White/Caucasian, less than 4 percent as Hispanic and

the remaining as “Other.” The lack of basic demographic data

Of the 45 files reviewed, 44 percent of the investigations were

on the complaining or instigating party in 62 percent of cases

rated as very good or good overall (11 percent as very good and

is problematic. Similarly, the gender of 24 percent of the com-

33 percent as good). However, a majority (53 percent) of inves-

plainants was not recorded and is deemed either missing or un-

tigations were determined to be of fair (33 percent) or poor (20

known. Of instances where gender was recorded, a majority of

percent) quality. One file lacked any supporting materials what-

the known complainants were women (41 percent).

soever (3 percent).

None of the 64 investigations that the Monitoring Team re-

As a threshold matter, the Monitoring Team concludes that

viewed required translation or language accommodation.

there can be universal improvements with respect to the record

keeping and the content of the files. Team reviewers found sig-

b. Processing of Complaints

nificant pieces of data missing from many investigative files and

were unable to determine whether the files were transmitted

The processing of a complaint or allegation, whether internal

with the data inadvertently not included, or whether the data

or external, typically involves receipt of the complaint, thor-

ever existed. Consequently, reviewers could not properly assess

ough and complete documentation of the complaint, proper

cases involving use of force in 9/54

classification of the complaint, and

cases because of missing informa-

assignment to the appropriate inves-

tion.
a. Context and Sources of Complaints

A majority (56 percent) of largely pre- tigatory body. Upon receipt of the Consent Decree, 2015 Internal Affairs complaint, a supervisory review is investigations were determined to be inadequate. conducted to determine the type of
allegation and the appropriate venue

within the CDP to conduct further

Investigations are more likely to result from on-duty perfor-

investigation.

mance. About 50 percent of reviewed cases resulted from

on-duty activities, 25 percent from off-duty behavior, and six

Our review of the investigative files selected suggested that cas-

percent were related to extra duty assignments. In ten percent

es appear to have been reviewed and classified within 30 days of

of instances, missing data made the context of the underlying in-

receipt. Complaints which initially contained alleged violations

cident not possible to be determined. In the remainder of cases,

of criminal law (and thus were within IA’s jurisdiction) but were

the context of the complaint was not clear.

declined for prosecution were half as likely to be completed in 30

days after receipt from the prosecutor’s office.

The origins of complaint include an array of sources: arrestees,

lawyers, family members, third parties, community activists,

In 59 percent of cases reviewed, all relevant General Police Or-

CDP employees, and others. Moreover, complaints may come to

ders – that is, the CDP policy provisions implicated by the nature

the Division’s attention in a variety of ways; civil actions, phone

of the specific allegations or complaint – were accurately listed in

calls, internet or social media, the Mayor’s office, walk-ins, and

the case file materials.

various forms of written communication.

Monitoring Team reviewers found sufficient evidence that there

Our review of the investigative files indicates that it has been

were sustained and reasonable efforts made to contact and inter-

more likely that cases come from sources outside of the CDP

view witnesses in two-thirds (66 percent) of IA investigations.

(some 45 percent of cases) as opposed to the Division’s inter-

Likewise, in two-thirds of cases, those contact efforts and inter-

nal sources (i.e. other members, supervisors, Chiefs office, etc.).

views were properly documented and logged.

However, given that a relatively large percentage (more than 10

percent) of cases did not have data regarding the actual source

of the complaint, the Monitoring Team cannot draw definitive

The Monitoring Team could find few instances where there was

conclusions.

sufficient documentation that all relevant information from a

completed investigation was appropriately transmitted, secure-

Nevertheless, the Monitor notes that, going forward under the

ly and electronically, to the employee’s supervisor (21 percent of

Consent Decree, the origins and scope of IA cases will necessar-

ily change – as internal complaints or allegations of potential officer misconduct, whether criminal or merely administrative in

143 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 177 (“Internal Affairs will conduct objective, comprehensive, and timely investigations of all internal allegations of offi-

cer misconduct.”).

43

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 45 of 77. PageID #: 2845

cases), the Training Review Committee (0 percent of cases), the Force Review Board (0 percent of cases, as the Review Board does not yet exist), the Officer Intervention Program (0 percent of cases), or a central data repository (7 percent of cases). The Division will need to make efforts to ensure that these other, appropriate individuals and entities receive completed internal investigations to ensure appropriate oversight, accountability, officer wellness, and data collection.
c. Interviewing Witnesses

false allegation [sic] of peace officer misconduct. Per the Ohio Revised Code, this is a misdemeanor of the 1st degree, punishable by a maximum term of incarceration of six months, or a fine up to $1,000.00, or both.
By signing this advisement, you are acknowledging that any and all allegations made today are true and accurate to the best of your knowledge.

i. Civilian Witnesses

Do you understand this advisement?

The manner in which a witness interview is conducted and preserved is an important aspect of the investigative process. It has been the Monitoring Team’s experience that electronic recording of “the live, word-for-word statements of all interviewees, including accused employees, is the best way to avoid interpretive errors in recounting statements.”144
The Monitoring Team’s review of the selected files leads it to conclude that there is much room for improvement with complainant interviews. Of 14 instances in which interviews with civilian witnesses were problematic, five suggested inadequate questioning, two had inconsistencies that were not adequately addressed, four included relevant questions that were left unanswered during the interview, and three had concerns about the interviewer’s demeanor. A number of other cases featured questioning by investigators that was incomplete to adequately cover the implicated facts, allegations, and standards. In 58 percent of cases where witnesses were interviewed, possible bias was noted – including questioning that suggested a preference for the officer or a disregard f the complainant based on his or her past criminal history or guilty plea. On the positive side of the ledger, in 80 percent of cases where audio or video files were available for review, investigators appropriately avoided leading questions.
ii. Barriers to Complaints
In nearly every Internal Affairs file stemming from a civilian’s complaint about officer conduct, the Monitoring Team encountered two highly unusual documents that, indeed, no Team member can recall ever seeing in any number of other agencies. The first document is a form, with the header “City of Cleveland / Division of Police / Internal Affairs Unit,” that reads as follows:
Advisement of Ohio Revised Code 2921.15 – Making false allegation of peace officer misconduct.
Effective March 22, 2001, anyone who knowingly files a complaint against a police officer, knowing that the allegations in the complaint are false, is committing the crime of making
144 Standards & Guidelines at 34.

Witnesses making complaints about officer conduct are required to indicate “yes” or “no” and to sign, print, and date their name, along with a witnessing officer.
The general practice of most police agencies is to avoid practices or representations that would tend to dissuade a civilian from participating in an interview or proceeding with a complaint:
The public complaint process should not discourage, dishearten, or intimidate complainants or give them cause for fear. Unless required by law, a complainant need not be under oath or penalty or perjury. Unless required by law, no threats or warnings of prosecution or potential prosecution for filing a false complaint should be made orally or in writing to a complainant or potential complainant.145
Although it is true that, in Ohio, anyone who knowingly makes a false allegation against a police officer is committing a misdemeanor, state law does not require that complainants be advised of this law, that they sign that they understand the law, take an oath, be advised of penalties, or the like.146 Given the significant possibility that complainants might not fully understand that only making allegations that they affirmatively knew to be false might subject them to penalty, the risk of chilling the participation of legitimate complaints is likely too high. Likewise, the value of this signed waiver is of limited use during subsequent prosecution for such a false complaint, as it provides little of probative value in establishing the mental state of a complainant. Instead, it introduces the concept – early and strongly – that civilians participating in an internal investigation might face repercussions, ramifications, or even retaliation. Indeed, it is not clear if this form was or would be regularly provided to CDP employees bringing a specific, potentially criminal complaint to IA’s attention – even though the provision of the Code applies to everyone, whether sworn, civilian employee, or civilian.
Because the costs outweigh the benefits, future CDP criminal investigations involving civilian complainants should eliminate
145 Id. at 17. 146 Ohio Rev. Code § 2921.15.

44

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 46 of 77. PageID #: 2846

the practice of providing the document advising complainants

interview resumed.”147

of the Ohio Revised Code; any other similar document; or verbal

advisement, advice, or counsel to the complainant regarding any

In addition to properly preserving the testimony itself, record-

potential penalties with respect to reporting.

ing the interview also allows for a memorialization of any proce-

dural warnings or advisements that the accused employee may

The second problematic document are variations of a form in

be given related to the compelled nature of their statement, the

which the complainant declines to pursue further prosecution.

protection the employee is afforded as a result of being ordered

One variant is entitled “Cleveland Division of Police / Internal

to give a statement against their self-interest, and the conse-

Affairs Unit – Withdraw Complaint Form.” On this form, a

quences that could be faced if the employee refused to provide

complainant attests that “[w]ith reference to the above crime, I,

such a statement. Where applicable, there is case law that gov-

[complainant name], now wish to withdraw my complaint, and

erns how such interviews are to be conducted and any protec-

desire that no further action be taken on my behalf by the Cleve-

tions the accused employee may derive as a result of those pro-

land Division of Police on that matter.” The complainant, as well

tections.

as a witness officer, prints and signs his or her name and dates the

document. Another similar form is called “Cleveland Division of

In three-quarters (76 percent) of total cases where CDP employ-

Police / No Prosecution Form.” On that form, the complainant

ees were listed as possible witnesses to an event related to the

indicates that “[w]ith reference to the above crime(s), I [com-

investigation, interviews of those employees were conducted in

plainant name] do NOT wish to prosecute [name of investiga-

slightly more than one-third (38 percent) of cases. Where em-

tion subject] for the crime of [crime specified]. With my signa-

ployee interviews took place, they were generally not audio-re-

ture below, I affirm that no member of the Cleveland Division of

corded or video-recorded – nor were the interviews transcribed.

Police influenced my decision to not prosecute the above named

This lack of sufficiently-documented interviews of CDP officers

person for the above stated crime.”

and personnel substantially compro-

This form appears to be a more generalized non-prosecution form that is used both in cases involving a CDP officer as a party and standard cases not involving a CDP officer.
These forms appear in the files reg-

Any forms or documentation on which a civilian complinant attests to hte intent and desire to not pursue a complaint or prosecution further should be made available only if a complainant affirmatively expresses a desire to drop the allegations or complaint.

mised the integrity and thoroughness of IA investigations.
d. Collection of Evidence
As with any investigation, how evidence is gathered, processed, and

ularly. In some instances, they are

properly preserved is critical to

appropriate, with uncooperative

bringing the investigation to a log-

complainants not wanting to sit for an interview being asked to

ical conclusion and successfully proving or disproving the al-

sign the Withdraw Complaint or No Prosecution forms. In oth-

legations that prompted the investigation. Evidence typically

er instances, however, the issue of not pursuing the complaint

presents itself in three ways: testimonial, physical, and forensic.

or prosecution is raised during interviews of the civilian com-

Testimonial evidence consists of statements taken during the

plainant. This is likely to have the effect of chilling participation

course of the investigation and any sworn testimony that may be

by some complainants who believe that IA investigators, whether

given at a hearing or trial. Physical evidence generally consists

intending to do so or not, are coercing them into dropping their

of actual objects, but may also include things like fingerprint or

complaint. Consequently, the Monitoring Team recommends

footprint impressions, pry-marks, or other such evidence left be-

that going forward, in those more limited instances where IA is

hind by a person or object. Forensic evidence refers to what is

conducting a criminal investigation based on allegations made

called “trace” evidence, or evidence that is left behind by transfer

by a civilian (since OPS conducts administrative investigations

from a person to an object. Some examples of “trace” evidence

of civilian complaints), any forms or documentation on which a

might be blood, saliva, or fibers.

civilian complainant attests to the intent and desire to not pur-

sue a complaint or prosecution further be made available only if

In the context of administrative investigations, testimonial and

a complainant specifically asks for them or expressly and clearly

physical evidence are the more common types that will influence

indicates a desire to drop the allegations or complaint.

the outcome of the administrative investigation. For purposes

of the Monitoring Team’s review, things like video and photo-

iii. Officer/CDP Interviews

graphic evidence would fall within the framework of physical

evidence for purposes of how we conducted our file review and

Properly recording and preserving testimonial evidence is crit-

assessment. The types and kinds of forensic evidence outlined

ical in the investigative process to avoid any interpretive error

above would more likely than not have their place in investiga-

that may adversely impact the investigation. “All interviews

tions surrounding criminal misconduct and serious use of force

should be recorded in their entirety. If breaks are taken a nota-

incidents which were not necessarily the subject of our most re-

tion should be made on the recording, concerning the time that the break was taken, who requested it, and the time in which the

147 IACP National Law Enforcement Policy Center, Investigation of Employee Misconduct 11 (Jan. 2007).

45

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 47 of 77. PageID #: 2847

cent file review and assessment.

In the majority of reviewed IA cases, it was more likely than not that all relevant physical evidence was documented (76 percent of cases), collected (64 percent of cases) and analyzed (60 percent of cases). Still, this leaves substantial room for improvement. Further, the Team found that complainant injuries were far more likely to be documented than officer injuries – even when injuries to officers were just as important in many circumstances to determining what transpired. Complainant injuries were more likely to be documented than officer injuries with complainant injuries documented in 83 percent of cases but officer injuries documented in only one-third (33 percent) of instances.

e. Investigative Conclusions

IA investigations consistently (in 89 percent of reviewed cases) present a narrative description or summary of evidence tending to establish or fail to establish officer misconduct. However, there could be significant improvements in the documentation with respect to compliance with policy, legal standards, tactics, need for additional training or corrective action, need for policy review, or the currency of weapon certification and training. Figure 1 outlines the percentage of cases where relevant information was appropriately documented where the issues were material:

Figure 1: Summary of IA Investigation Documentary Compliance

Compliance with policy

73%

Training and legal standards

56%

Whether other tactics could/should have been 12% employed

Need for additional training or corrective action 33% Need for review of policy, strategies, tactics or 15% training Currency of weapon certification and training, if 0% weapon was used

Recommendations for initiation of disciplinary 74% process

Cases that were determined to be “Poor” by the Monitoring Team were consistently found to contain complete facts or the assessor was unable to determine certain important facts such as because obvious questions were not asked in the interview, there were incomplete facts or witnesses were described as present but not interviewed. In other cases, there seemed to be no effort to substantiate facts and rather reliance was placed on an officer’s admission of guilt. One case review suggested there seemed to be unreasonable inferences made by the investigator in order to avoid sustaining the complaint. In another case, the Monitoring Team identified a bias in favor of the officer.

2. Development of New IA Structure & Policies

46

Another significant reform required by the Consent Decree was the creation of a civilian Superintendent position. This civilian head of IA will report directly to the Chief of Police and is charged with ensuring fair, unbiased, thorough and timely IA investigations. Along with the creation and adoption of a new policy and procedural manual for IA, a new level of cooperation between the IA unit and the Office of Professional Standards (OPS), and the creation and adoption of a FIT manual, the reorganization of IA is intended to serve as a foundation for ensuring high-quality, fair, objective, timely, and thorough administrative investigations.
In early February 2016, CDP began the process for the selection of a civilian IA Superintendent. Unfortunately, the process ended in December 2016 without a suitable candidate being identified to serve in that position. A review of CDP’s hiring process for that position by the Monitoring Team concluded that the original job recruitment did not sufficiently highlight the need for a civilian candidate. Indeed, many of the applicants who responded to the Division’s recruitment were, in fact, current and former law enforcement officers – which the Consent Decree currently prohibits.148
Although the First-Year Monitoring plan anticipated that the new head of IA would be in place by late August 2016,149 a new recruitment had to be re-posted and re-advertised in January 2017. By April 2017, potential candidates were being vetted for initial interviews. By the end of April, the CDP reported to the Monitoring Team that no qualified candidate had been identified in this second round of recruitment. The Division requested that DOJ and the Monitoring Team agree to modify the Consent Decree’s requirements to allow former law enforcement officers, to include retired and former prosecutors, federal investigators and officers from departments other than the CDP, to be considered for the position.
The lengthy delay in filling this position has had a negative impact on the Internal Affairs reform process and has impeded the process of correcting past poor relationships between IA and the OPS and ensuring seamless cooperation between these two oversight mechanisms. As such, the Monitoring Team agreed with the recommendation of the Department of Justice and City that the pool of potential candidates be expanded. However, the Monitoring Team believes that, other qualifications being equal, compliance with the Consent Decree’s specific provisions would be most straightforward and expeditious if the IA Superintendent position is filled by a qualified person who has not previously served as a police officer at the municipal or county level.
In the meantime, work is underway on updating the Internal Affairs policy manual (and implicated General Police Orders) to reflect the Consent Decree’s requirements relating to IA, re-
148 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 178 (“Internal Affairs will be headed by a qualified civilian who is not a current or former employee of CDP, and who is not a current or retired law enforcement officer.”). 149 Dkt. 43-1 at 39.

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 48 of 77. PageID #: 2848

porting misconduct, and preventing retaliation. On November 11, 2016, the CDP provided the Parties and Monitoring Team with an initial draft of an IA policy manual, and related policies. Although the initial draft was a good start, it required extensive revisions in order to make it compliant with the Consent Decree and nationally identified best practices. Further work on this draft was deferred pending completion of the Monitoring Team’s assessment of 2015 Internal Affairs cases, summarized above. The Parties and Monitor have re-engaged on this topic and expect for work in this important area to be a focus of compliance efforts over the next several months.
B. Office of Professional Standards (“OPS”)

Paragraph

Status of Compliance

193. OPS “investigate[s] all civilian complaints it receives, other than those that allege criminal conduct,” which are referred to IA. Excessive force complaints generally retained by OPS. IA investigations referred back to OPS if “determination is made that no criminal conduct occurred.”

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

194. “The City will ensure that OPS is led by an administrator with the skills, expertise, and experience to effectively manage the intake, tracking, timely, and objective investigation of complaints”; implement PRB training; “assess OPS’s equipment and staffing needs”; and “develop and implement performance standards for OPS.”

NONCOMPLIANCE

195–96. Initial training for OPS investigators “ade- NONquate in quality, quantity, scope, and type,” including COMPLIANCE specific, expressly-listed topics.

197. “OPS Investigators will not be current mem- OPERATIONAL bers of the CDP, and no CDP personnel will have COMPLIANCE any active role in OPS’s operations.”

198. “The City will ensure that the lawyer repre- OPERATIONAL senting OPS does not have any actual or apparent COMPLIANCE conflicts of interest.”

199. “OPS will have its own budget, separate from . . . the Department of Public Safety” that “affords sufficient independence and resources, including sufficient staff and training to meet the terms of this Agreement.”

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

200. Development and implementation of OPS PARTIAL COMoperations manual “made available to the public” PLIANCE that covers specific, expressly-listed topics.

201. Development and implementation of “a program to promote awareness through the Cleveland community about the process for filing complaints with OPS.”

NONCOMPLIANCE

202. “CDP and the City will work with the police unions . . . to allow civilian complaints to be submitted to OPS verbally or in writing; in person, by phone, or on line; by a complainant, someone acting on his or her behalf, or anonymously; and with or without a signature from the complainant,” with all “complaints documented in writing.”

NONCOMPLIANCE

203. “CDP will post and maintain by the intake window at CDP headquarters and all District headquarters a permanent placard describing the civilian complaint process” and containing specific, expressly-listed information.

NONCOMPLIANCE

204. “CDP will provide training that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type to all police personnel, including dispatchers, to properly handle complaint intake, including” with respect to specific, expressly-listed topics.

NONCOMPLIANCE

205. CDP officers “carry complaint forms in their CDP vehicles,” which officers must provide “upon request.” Supervisors will be dispatched to scene when an individual wants to make a complaint, with the supervisor providing a copy of completed complaint form “or a blank form to be completed later by the individual.”

NONCOMPLIANCE

206. “The City and OPS will make complaint forms and other materials outlining the complaint process and OPS’s contact information available at locations” including a number of specific, expressly-listed locations.

NONCOMPLIANCE

207. “OPS’s complaint form will not contain any language that could reasonably be construed as discouraging the filing of a complaint, including warnings about the potential criminal consequences for filing false complaints.”

OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE

208. Availability of complaint forms in English and Spanish. “OPS will make every effort to ensure that complainants who speak other languages . . . can file complaints in their preferred language.”

NONCOMPLIANCE

209. “City will ensure that civilian complaints submitted through other existing systems, including the Mayor’s Action Center and the Department Action Center, are immediately forwarded to OPS for investigation.”

NONCOMPLIANCE

210. “OPS will establish a centralized electronic numbering and tracking system for all complaints,” which “will maintain accurate and reliable data regarding the number, nature, and status of all complaints . . . including investigation timeliness and notification of the interim status and final disposition of the complaint.” It “will be used to monitor and maintain appropriate caseloads for OPS investigators.”

NONCOMPLIANCE

211. Biased policing tracked as a separate category of complaint that “are captured and tracked appropriately, even if the complainant does not so label the allegation.”

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

212. “[A]llegations of unlawful investigatory stops, PARTIAL searches, or arrests” tracked as a separate catego- COMPLIANCE ry of complaints.

213. “[A]llegations of excessive use of force” tracked PARTIAL

as separate category of complaints.

COMPLIANCE

214. “OPS will conduct regular assessments of the NONtypes of complaints being received to identify and COMPLIANCE assess potential problematic patterns and trends.”

215. “OPS will produce, at least annually, a public report summarizing complaint trends, including” with respect several specific, expressly-identified areas.

NONCOMPLIANCE

47

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 49 of 77. PageID #: 2849

216. Assignment of complaints to Standard and PARTIAL

Complex investigatory tracks.

COMPLIANCE

217. Dismissal and/or administrative dismissal of PARTIAL

complaint investigations.

COMPLAINCE

218. “OPS will ensure that investigations of complaints are as thorough as necessary to reach reliable and complete findings that are supported by the preponderance of the evidence.”

NONCOMPLIANCE

219. “CDP will ensure that OPS has timely access to all reports related to the incident . . . ,” and authority of OPS “to conduct additional investigation” of civilian complaint when CDP investigation has already taken place relating to the incident.

NONCOMPLIANCE

220. “OPS investigators will attempt to interview PARTIAL each complainant in person” and record the inter- COMPLIANCE view.

221. “The Chief will order officers who witnessed or participate in an incident that is the subject of an OPS complaint to cooperate with the OPS investigation,” including by responding to written questions or sitting for an in-person interview.

NONCOMPLIANCE

222. “OPS investigators will have access to any NONrelevant disciplinary information in the record of an COMPLIANCE officer who is the subject of a current investigation.”

223. “OPS will consider all relevant evidence,” with no preferences for particular witness’s statements, including of officer over a non-officer, or because of connection to complainant or criminal history. “OPS will make all reasonable efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements.”

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

224. OPS findings categories.

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

225. “OPS will document in writing the investigation of each complaint, including all investigatory steps taken, and OPS’s findings and conclusions,” which must “be supported by a preponderance of the evidence.

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

226. Items for consideration for OPS findings.

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

227. “OPS will forward all investigations and its written conclusions to PRB in sufficient time for PRB to consider them no later than the second regularly scheduled PRB meeting following completion of the investigation.”

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

228. “OPS will send periodic written updates” to NONthe complainant at specific, expressly-identified COMPLIANCE junctures.

229. “[A] complainant may contact OPS at any time PARTIAL

to determine the status of his/her complaint.”

COMPLIANCE

OPS is the civilian-staffed office charged with investigating civilian complaints about CDP employees. The City of Cleveland’s Charter requires OPS to conduct “a full and complete investigation” of all complaints of employee misconduct.150

In the First Semiannual Report, the Monitoring Team expressed disappointment and frustration with the dysfunction and failed

150 Charter of the City of Cleveland, Section 115-4.
48

legitimacy of the Office of Professional Standards” (“OPS”).151 In the Second Semiannual Report, the Monitoring Team noted a sustained effort on the part of the Monitoring Team and the DOJ to provide the “detailed technical assistance necessary to assist in the development and implementation of a new basic approach and day-to-day process aimed at restoring legitimacy to the overall citizen review process – and drastically improving the manner in which OPS delivers services to the citizens of Cleveland.”152
The Monitoring Team has previously informed the Court that, “[o]n paper, it would appear that Cleveland’s systems of accountability and civilian oversight are adequate and appropriate.” However, “[i]n practice, the system for the investigation and adjudication of civilian complaints has been, at best, a paper tiger.”153 The system has been broken for some time and has failed to adequately serve the citizens of Cleveland and the men and women of the Division of Police.
Although significant efforts have been taken to reform OPS, meaningful progress and comprehensive change have not yet occurred. The Monitoring Team has run out of words to capture the depth and breadth of the progress that needs to be made to cure the current inability of Cleveland residents to have complaints about City employees fairly and fully addressed in a timely manner – and pursuant to the City’s own Charter.
1. Current State of Backlog and Issues with Disposition Notifications
As of April 13, 2017, OPS reported 383 pending investigations, with many complaints originating more than two years ago. Even worse, it was determined that the OPS administration had focused only on reducing the backlog of pending investigations and had failed to pay appropriate attention to a significant backlog of cases that, while the investigation was technically finished, were still awaiting review by the Police Review Board – as well as cases where PRB had made findings but substantive follow-up actions were still required.
Specifically, OPS internal reports identified a substantial number of cases (16 cases in total, including 11 cases from 2014) that had not been referred to the Chief’s Office for “Chief’s hearings” (to determine whether or to what extent discipline should be imposed on cases where the PRB had found misconduct had, in fact, occurred); 22 cases that had been previously referred to the Internal Affairs Unit for investigation (including 17 cases from 2014) where no follow-up from the OPS had occurred; 44 cases designated for administrative dismissal that had not been processed and closed out; and a previously unidentified number of cases that had been closed by the OPS without any notice to complainants (162 cases, including 61 cases initiated in 2014 and 74 cases initiated in 2015). In addition, 96 additional cases, all
151 Dkt. 97 at 44 (citing First Semiannual Report at 47–48). 152 Id. at 44–45. 153 Dkt. 97 at 43 (quoting Dkt. 86 at 2).

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 50 of 77. PageID #: 2850

initiated in 2014, which had been identified by the OPS and PRB in 2016 for “supervisory review” by the CDP were still in the process of being prepared by the OPS for referral, a delay of almost one year in the implementation of this decision.
The failure of the OPS to prepare and send out disposition letters to complainants whose complaints had been previously resolved as not-sustained by the CPRB was also troubling. Upon inquiry by the Monitoring Team, OPS could provide no reasonable explanation for not communicating with complainants about the ultimate outcome of the complaint investigation. This failure occurred despite technical assistance from the Monitoring Team and the efforts of DOJ in November 2016 to edit draft templates and finalized templates for such correspondence and sustained conversations emphasizing the importance of such communication. In other words, as of late 2016, OPS could have sent out letters to complainants about the resolution of their matters.
Upon further inquiry, it was determined that failures on the part of the PRB to consistently explain their reasoning for their decision-making made it virtually impossible for the OPS to appropriately notify complainants of the reason behind such decisions. Consequently, a disposition letter template had to be developed for OPS which offers complainants the ability to review their file, discuss the investigation with OPS staff, and discuss the Board at PRB meetings in an attempt to provide some level of transparency and accountability for the decisions that had been made by the PRB.

that it was “currently the Monitoring Team’s understanding that there are 16 cases awaiting disciplinary hearings with the Chief of Police.”154 This understanding was based on representations that OPS made and data that OPS provided – and was particularly frustrating given that OPS purported to have forwarded the “sustained” cases to the Chief’s Office in mid-March 2017. In reality, OPS had not ensured that the Chief’s Office had, in fact, received the “sustained” files. As of May 23, 2017, the Chief’s Office had only received one case forwarded to it by OPS in the calendar year 2017 where there was a “sustained” finding recommended. It reports to have likewise received only one case from the calendar year 2016.
While we have acknowledged that “[i]mprovements to OPS will not happen overnight,”155 and there has been a reduction in the number of pending OPS investigations (a thirteen percent ove4rall reduction, from 439 reported on November 1, 2016 to 383 reported on April 13, 2017), the fact that hundreds of cases with completed investigations but no adjudications from PRB have been ignored or inadequately handled during this same period of time is troubling. Further, the inaccurate information about what “sustained” complaints had been forwarded to the Chief for action – whether intentional, reckless, or merely negligent – casts serious doubts on the reliability of information currently coming from OPS.
2. Problems Associated with OPS Administrative Dismissals and Supervisory Reviews

The disposition letter template was completed at the end of

In order for the City to fully comply with the Consent Decree,

April. Letters to complainants affected by the backlog began be-

OPS must be able to establish its ability to function as an effec-

ing sent out by OPS in May, albeit slowly. Nevertheless, the fail-

tive independent investigation agency. Although OPS has been

ure of the OPS administration to ensure timely and appropriate

recently provided with substantial additional resources (in the

disposition letters and the ultimate need to send out letters that

form of two additional permanent investigators and six addi-

do not provide information about the Board’s underlying ratio-

tional temporary, full-time investigators), concerns remain with

nale to 162 citizen complaints.

respect to the state of OPS’s case management practices and its

inability to create, on its own, a plan for reducing the backlog

Most troubling of all is the failure of

of incomplete and unresolved com-

the OPS administration to forward cases involving recommendations for “sustained” findings from the PRB to the Chief’s Office so that the Chief might consider the case and issue ultimate findings. The message sent to

The Monitoring Team has run out of words to capture the depth and breadth of the progress that needs to be made to cure the inability of Cleveland residents to have complaints about City employees fairly and fully addressed in a timely manner.

plaint investigations.
The Monitoring Team’s concerns with the ability of the OPS to operate effectively and efficiently without constant and ongoing attention

the residents of Cleveland is that even

from the DOJ and the Monitoring

if an allegation of misconduct against

Team, and oversight of the Court,

a Cleveland police employee is investigated and misconduct is

can be illustrated through two significant examples of problem-

identified, there can be no expectation that action will be taken

atic case management practices.

with respect to that complaint. Accountability is the core func-

tion of OPS and PRB; the failure of OPS administration to en-

First, in March 2017, OPS identified 44 cases that it had approved

sure this core function is performed is not acceptable.

for “administrative dismissal” pursuant to the new policies and

procedures that allow OPS to dismiss cases, under limited cir-

Even more unacceptable is the fact that the Monitoring Team re-

cumstances, without first seeking the approval of the PRB. The

ceived incorrect information from OPS on the status of the cases

circumstances under which cases can be dismissed without PRB

that PRB had recommended that the complaint be “sustained.” In early May 2017, the Monitoring Team reported to the Court

154 Dkt. 126 at 8. 155 Dkt. 97 at 45.

49

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 51 of 77. PageID #: 2851

action include “complaints [solely] disputing traffic citations; . .

inating the backlog, that did little more than

. complaints alleging a delay in police services where the preliminary investigator demonstrates that the delay was due to workload or otherwise unavoidable; complaints regarding off-duty

summarize the nature of the problem or, in one instance, propose that OPS eliminate its backlog by summarily pushing a significant

officer conduct of a civil nature [that does not constitute mis-

number of incomplete cases on to CDP’s

conduct] or [does not] have a substantial nexus to the officer’s City employment; and “complaints in which a preliminary investigation demonstrates that the officer does not work for CDP, or

chain of command to resolve, likely without formal discipline. Accordingly, all efforts to date by OPS to outline mechanisms for ad-

where the identity of the officer cannot be determined despite the best efforts of OPS.”156
The Monitoring Team would expect, given the specificity of

dressing the backlog have been patently insufficient in all respects and, in form and content, not serious proposals.158

these limitations, that OPS would be able to identify those cas-

To resolve these failures, the Second-Year Monitoring Plan re-

es appropriate for administrative dismissal without additional technical assistance from the DOJ or the Monitoring Team. However, upon reviewing these 44 cases, more than one-quarter were ill-suited for disposition without the PRB weighing in

quired OPS to submit to the Monitoring Team, by February 1, 2017, a detailed plan outlining how it would utilize available resources to attack the current backlog while also timely and competently addressing incoming complaints.159

because they did not generally fit into the categories outlined above. A 25 percent error rate provides little assurance that OPS, as currently constructed, can fully and faithfully implement the

Unfortunately, the Monitoring Team was provided with a draft plan that, once again, was cursory, minimalistic, and which failed

requirements of the Consent Decree and the Court-approved

to identify and address many of the significant challenges facing

OPS Manual. Second, in 2016, PRB authorized OPS to send 96 cases from 2014

the OPS as outlined in this report. It provided no concrete steps to be taken, no specific timelines, and no particular methodologies for reducing the backlog. The plan generally left the impres-

to CDP for “supervisorial review” – transferring authority and responsibility for resolving these complaints from OPS to the Division’s supervisors.

sion of a lack of awareness as to the scope and depth of the cases comprising the current OPS backlog. In short, the plan failed to recognize or disclose the true nature of the OPS backlog and, as

such, did not consider the resources

Unfortunately, insufficient communication between the OPS and the Division resulted in the need for extended discussions necessary for

OPS continues to struggle with meaningfully addressing a significant backlog of incomplete investigations.

actually needed to ensure the appropriate handling and timely resolution of complaints filed with OPS.

CDP and its command staff to understand the genesis for supervisors being asked to address complaints in a manner that they otherwise

It has become readily apparent to the Monitoring Team that OPS simply does not have the capacity to come up with a plan to address its

would not. Although OPS reached agreement with the Chief of

substantive problems without ongoing technical assistance from

Police on a new plan to ensure appropriate referral of the cases, this plan was not finalized until mid-April 2017 – almost a year after these already-untimely cases were initially approved

the DOJ and the Monitoring Team. Consequently, instead of demanding a new plan be prepared, “the Monitoring Team and Department of Justice needed to provide substantial technical

for supervisory referral. In the meantime, the complainants received no notification or update on how their cases were being addressed.

assistance to OPS to ensure the establishment of even a generalized framework for addressing the backlog of investigations.”160
This Backlog Reduction Plan creates two teams to manage and

3. Backlog Reduction Plan

drive identified tasks within the office. The first, the “Ongoing/

In its last report, the Monitoring Team noted that the City, Monitoring Team, and OPS were engaged in discussions regarding a

Expedited Investigation Team,” is responsible for completing all complaint investigations filed after January 1, 2017. This team also manages all complaints pending pre-Disciplinary hearings

plan to eliminate the backlog of uninvestigated, incomplete, or unresolved complaint investigations.157 It noted that, although “[t]he Monitoring Team had asked for such a plan since at least the Spring of 2016,” the Monitor had only been provided with:

to be conducted by the Chief of Police or the Director of Public Safety, administers all cases pending CPRB hearings as well as all cases pending with the Divisions Internal Affairs Unit. They will also be responsible for the hiring of new staff, the implementa-

[A] series of cursory and highly minimalistic documents, purported to be plans for elim-

tion of a new investigative report template, and the creation and implementation of a public awareness plan.
158 Id. at 48–49.

156 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 217.

159 Dkt. 120-1 at 16.

157 Dkt. 97 at 44–49.

160 Dkt. 126 at 7–8.

50

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 52 of 77. PageID #: 2852

The second team, the “Backlog Reduction Team,” has the responsibility for completing all investigations filed prior to January 1, 2017, including those cases pending “supervisory review” with the Division. It is also responsible for OPS draft budget development and budget planning, the creation of an annual report, training for OPS staff and the CPRB, and the creation of business rules, process maps, and the migration of OPS to the IAPro case management database.
The Monitoring Team will provide technical assistance to be available in support of investigative issues, concerns and case handling. However:
It must be noted that the Resource Allocation Plan is not nearly as specific, clear, or dynamic as the Monitoring Team believes necessary to ensure efficient and responsive engagement with the OPS backlog. Indeed, it is general and preliminary. However, even a generalized approach for how OPS and its personnel will be structured in order to meaningfully address incomplete investigations while making progress on new and more-recent civilian complaints is better than no approach[,] which has been the mode of operation to date in the City of Cleveland.161
The Monitoring Team hopes that the addition of new investigative resources and the allocation of specific personnel to handle the backlog of cases will enable OPS to dig itself out of the large hole that the City has permitted to fester for years. Without substantial, decisive action, only time will tell whether the OPS can be brought to a place where it can operate in accord with reasonable public expectations.
4. Case Management System/Business Mapping
At the beginning of 2017, the Monitoring Team and DOJ focused attention on some of the most basic, foundational management and administrative requirements necessary for an investigatory agency with OPS’s charge to operate successfully in a city the size of Cleveland.
OPS has previously been operating without up-to-date “process maps” – or an expressly defined procedure for addressing the flow of work and the various stages that civilian complaints go through from an administrative standpoint. At the same time, OPS has no operational “business plan” outlining the responsibilities of various staff members with respect to the processing of cases. The work of the office has been largely manual, with some work inadequately stored on an antiquated and insufficient case management database system.
With respect to the case management platform, OPS has con-
161 Id. at 8–9.

tinued to use this old system despite the availability of IAPro and BlueTeam to the Office – the same system that CDP’s IA investigators are using. Although OPS was provided with a dedicated area in IAPro a substantial time ago, no plan has been put into place to ensure a seamless or timely transition to that database. As a result, while OPS began entering limited data in IAPro, it continued to primarily utilize and populate the former database, resulting in wasted resources being used to populate two different databases. At the same time, many OPS investigators continue to operate without utilizing the electronic capabilities of either database, instead relying on paper files to accomplish their day-to-day work.
As of the first quarter of 2017, the City reported that administration of the IAPro database had been taken over by the Department of Safety. The Monitoring Team is now working with he OPS to create a migration plan, which will serve as a step-by-step discussion of how the OPS gets from where it is today to full use of the IAPro case management system. In addition, OPS is reporting working on business rules explaining which members of staff will be responsible for case management data entry and to ensure consistency in the making of such entries was competed in April 2017. These projects were anticipated to be completed by the end of May 2017 but remain a work in progress.
5. OPS Budget and Resourcing
As previously reported, the Monitoring Team declined to either approve or disapprove of the full OPS budget for 2017 – instead providing only short-term, provisional approval of the budget through the first quarter of the year. The Monitoring Team was concerned that the proposed OPS budget failed to provide for a permanent solution to OPS resource issues, instead relying substantially on “temporary investigators” to reduce the backlog of cases:
It is almost certain to be the case that OPS will need to hire additional, full-time investigators to ensure that its personnel have reasonable and manageable caseloads – and that the officer can handle the typical level of civilian complaints that it receives. The Monitoring Team has discussed with the City that OPS lags far behind, in terms of the complaints to investigator ratio, peer civilian oversight agencies that conduct investigations.162
In the meantime, the City approved the hiring of two new permanent investigators and six new temporary investigators over the course of a five-month period. As of the end of April 2017, all investigative positions have been hired. This is an encouraging development that gives OPS more resources than it has had during the past several years to both address the backlog of incomplete investigations and ensure that new complaints brought to the office are fully and fairly investigated in a timely
162 Dkt. 97 at 49.
51

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 53 of 77. PageID #: 2853

manner.
Unfortunately, administrative support staffing has not been as successful. Although a chief clerk was finally hired in January 2017, that position now needs a temporary backfill – and OPS and CPRB have been unsuccessful in hiring a part-time clerk to support CPRB activities. Without these administrative support positions being filled in a timely fashion, precious investigative resources will have to be expended on administrative and clerical functions.
6. Handwritten Complaint Requirement
As previously reported, the current, voluntary agreement between the City and the Cleveland Police Protective Association (“CPPA”) provides that “[a]ll complaints filed by a citizen against [officers] shall be submitted by the complainant in his or her own handwriting.” The Consent Decree requires that the City “work with the police unions . . . to allow civilian complaints to be submitted to OPS verbally or in writing; in person, by phone, or on[-]line; by a complainant, someone acting on his or her behalf, or anonymous; and with or without a signature . . . . ”163 The Court-approved OPS Manual provides that “[a] signed complaint form is NOT required for any further action to be taken by OPS in an effort to resolve the constituent’s complaint . . . . ”164
As the Monitoring Team has previously described, a vast majority of American police departments “take anonymous complaints without exception and permit such complaints to form the basis of disciplinary action.”165 Indeed, “[a]n academic survey from nearly 30 years ago found that some 96 percent of the 101 departments surveyed ‘investigate anonymous complaints, if not as a matter of routine, then if there is any other supportive information.’”166
Not only does the City need to take unsigned complaints in order to align with the longstanding practices of most other police department and to comply with the Consent Decree, but it also must do so given the impermissible exclusion of individuals with physical disabilities and mobility impairment from the civilian complaint process in Cleveland. The Monitoring Team
163 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 217. 164 Dkt. 86-1 at 9. 165 Dkt. 86 at 16 (listing departments that accept complaints, including Mesa, Arizona; Bakersfield, California; Los Angeles, California; Long Beach, California; Aurora, Colorado; Miami-Dade, Florida; Jacksonville, Florida; Atlanta, Georgia; Honolulu, Hawaii; Baltimore County, Maryland; Montgomery Country, Maryland; Raleigh, North Carolina; Las Vegas, Nevada; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Tulsa, Oklahoma; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Memphis, Tennessee; Virginia Beach, Virginia, and Washington, D.C). 166 Dkt. 86 at 16 (quoting Paul West, Investigation of Complaints Against the Police: Summary Report of a National Survey, 7 Am. J. Police 101 (1988)).
52

has previously noted its “significant concerns that the current CPPA provision providing that complaints may only result in discipline if an individual physically is able to, and does, physically write out his or her complaint and sign his or her name constitutes an ongoing violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act . . . and the equivalent Ohio state statute.”167
The new OPS Manual does require OPS to investigate such cases; however, unless and until the agreement between the City and the police union is modified, no discipline can be imposed on cases that do not involve a signed complaint. This is an unfortunate practice and status quo.
Consequently, although the City, through bargaining, previously sold away, among other things, the rights of Cleveland’s disabled to seek redress from the police department for inferior or problematic performance, the Monitoring Team “expect[s] that the City and CPPA work expeditiously to ensure that the provisions of the Consent Decree, generally-accepted practice, and compliance with the ADA and equivalent Ohio state law are harmonized with the CPPA Contract.”168 Further, the Team expects that this agreement will happen well in advance of resolution of a finalized contract, through a memorandum of understanding or agreement between the City and CPPA on this issue.
7. OPS Manual
The OPS Manual, summarized in some detail in the Second Semiannual Report, was posted to the City record on March 22, 2017 and became effective April 6, 2017.169 This manual was a long time coming, and the Monitoring Team looks forward to working with the Parties and OPS to ensure that the Manual that it is fully and effectively implemented.
8. OPS Annual Report
Paragraph 215 of the Consent Decree requires OPS to produce an annual report summarizing complaint trends and timeframes for the public. The Monitoring Team expected that the report encompassing data from 2016 would be completed by the end of the first quarter of this year. That expectation was largely the result of continued assurance from OPS staff that it was on schedule to meet the deadline. The Monitoring Team understands that OPS expects to present its 2016 annual report by July 2017.
9. Public Awareness Plan
167 104 Stat. 328, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq; O.R.C. § 4112.99; see Dkt. 86 at 16 (noting that “[t]he ADA and its Ohio analogue, apply to the City of Cleveland’s programs and activities, including its interactions with civilians through OPS, and require the City to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures where the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability). 168 Dkt. 86 at 16–17. 169 Dkt. 97 at 45–48.

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 54 of 77. PageID #: 2854

The Consent Decree requires that “the City and CDP, in consultation with OPS and the CPC, will develop and implement a program to promote awareness throughout the Cleveland community about the process for filing complaints with OPS”170 in order to enhance access to the complaint process. This program is to include a plan to post information about the civilian complaint process,171 a plan to ensure that all CDP officers carry complaint forms in their vehicles,172 a plan to make OPS complaint forms and other materials widely available at public locations,173 and a plan for ensuring that civilian complaints submitted to the City via other existing systems are forwarded to OPS immediately.174
In order to achieve these requirements, the Second-Year Monitoring Plan required that by April 27, 2017, the City and the CDP would “submit a First Draft plan for a program to promote awareness of the OPS process and comply with paragraph 201 of the Agreement (the ‘OPS Awareness Plan’).”175
On April 27, 2017, the OPS Administrator submitted a plan that was represented as complying with this requirement of the Second-Year Monitoring Plan. Unfortunately, the plan submitted did not meet the expectations of the Monitoring Team. In fact, there did not appear to have been any consultation between the City, the CDP, the CPC and the OPS. Instead, it appeared to be an attempt by the OPS to comply with this requirement without any support or input from any other City entity.
The April 2017 plan also failed to provide target dates for any identified deliverables or any indication of who would be responsible for achieving the various required tasks. Although the City has been on notice for more than two years that OPS complaint forms need to be distributed to zone cars, for example, there was no indication of a target date for compliance with this requirement, nor how or by whom this task would be achieved. Similarly, there was no indication of any recognition of the need to ensure a continuous supply of complaint forms to the various CDP Divisions or how this need would be addressed.
It does not appear that OPS has sufficient staff or resources to either create or implement a workable and achievable program as required by the Consent Decree. Nor does it appear that the City has given any significant thought as to how to achieve these important deliverables in a sustainable way. Accordingly, the Monitoring Team has recommended that OPS explore the possibility of hiring a Community Outreach Ombudsman – a dedicated staff member who can be responsible for the creation and implementation of the plan envisioned by the Consent Decree and Parties and who can coordinate OPS’s interactions with the broader Cleveland community on an ongoing basis.
170 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 201. 171 Id. ¶ 203. 172 Id. ¶ 205. 173 Id. ¶ 206. 174 Id. ¶ 209. 175 Dkt. 120-1 at 19.

C. Police Review Board (“PRB”)

Paragraph

Compliance Status

230. “Mayor will work with the City Council to develop an ordinance to place a Charter Amendment on the ballot” addressing PRB composition and appointment process.

GENERAL COMPLIANCE

231. “PRB members will not be current or former G E N E R A L

members of the CDP.”

COMPLIANCE

232. “PRB will have its own budget,” overseen by OPS Administrator and separate from Department of Public Safety, that “affords sufficient independence and resources.”

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

233–34. Initial training for PRB members “that is PARTIAL COMadequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type” and PLIANCE that covers specific, expressly-identified topics.

235. PRB meetings open to the public and post- NON-COMPLIed in advance, with “case presentations and PRB ANCE votes” occurring during “open session.”

236. “OPS investigators will attend PRB meetings at which their investigations are being considered and present their findings . . . . ” PRB may “ask the investigator to conduct further investigation” as necessary.

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

237. “PRB recommended dispositions will be based on a preponderance of the evidence. For each case, PRB shall set forth its conclusion and an explanation of its reasons and supporting evidence in writing, including, when applicable, the justification for departing from OPS’s recommended disposition.”

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

238. “In cases where PRB is recommending a sustained disposition, in whole or in part, PRB will include a recommendation as to disciplinary or non-disciplinary corrective action.”

NON-COMPLIANCE

239. Forwarding of PRB recommendations to NON-COMPLI-

Chief of Police and Director of Public Safety.

ANCE

The Police Review Board reviews OPS investigations and makes recommendations to the Chief of Police about the disposition of OPS cases. After OPS has completed an investigation, Cleveland’s PRB reviews and analyzes the investigation in order to make a recommendation to the Chief of Police as to the ultimate disposition of the case and, if warranted, the discipline that an involved officer should receive as a result of misconduct established in the investigation.

1. PRB Manual

As previously reported, the Monitoring Team has identified that since the PRB was created by a 1984 City Charter amendment, the Board has been carrying out its duties absent a set of established protocols to guide its decision making.176 The lack of clear processes and procedures allowed PRB to fall behind on the timely review and deliberation of cases – failing in its core duties and service to the City of Cleveland.

176 Dkt. 97 at 8.

53

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 55 of 77. PageID #: 2855

In addition, as recently exemplified by OPS’s inability to prepare disposition letters to complainants explaining the reasoning behind Board findings, the PRB has failed to appropriately document its decision-making processes. With the adoption of the new PRB Manual, effective April 6, 2017, it is expected that the Board now has the tools to effectively complete its work. As indicated below, training on the policy manual and the new processes put into place for both the OPS and the PRB began with a full-day training session on May 13, 2017.

3. PRB Meeting Organization
Over the course of the last monitoring period, the Monitoring Team has noted inconsistencies in the conduct of PRB meetings, and an apparent lack of understanding on the part of the OPS and PRB as to what types of discussions need to take place publicly as opposed to during executive session. That being said, significant improvements in the conduct of the meetings has been noticed over time.

1. PRB Training Plan
The Second-year Monitoring Plan requires that, by April 1, 2017, a draft training plan be prepared to ensure that “PRB members will receive initial training that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type and will include various specified areas, including constitutional and other relevant law related to police-citizen encounters; police tactics; investigations of police conduct; bias-free policing; policing individuals in crisis; CDP policies, procedures and disciplinary rules; and community outreach.”177 The training plan for PRB must be completed by June 15, 2017 and implemented by July 1, 2017.
A draft outline of proposed training was provided to the Monitoring Team on April 6, 2017. The outline documented shortterm training provided at a full-day training retreat for the PRB on May 13, 2017, as well as the topics to be covered in future trainings to be provided either before or after regular monthly CPRB meetings. Although the outline provided is not as sufficiently detailed as envisioned in the Second-year Monitoring Plan, work will continue to ensure that appropriate subject matter experts are identified who can create and provide an appropriate, ongoing curriculum and training as required by the Consent Decree.
2. Documentation of PRB Decision-Making
In its April and May 2017 meetings, PRB struggled with the timely documentation of the reasoning for its decisions. As of the end of May, the Board had still failed to adequately document the decisions made in either meeting. The importance of contemporaneous documentation of these decisions cannot be overstated. While it is hoped that the hiring of staff for the board, which is overdue, will help alleviate this problem, unless and until the board is able to manage this responsibility, the opportunity for long-term success will be greatly impeded.
During the next monitoring period, the Monitoring Team will work to ensure PRB’s implementation and strict adherence to its new operations manual, thoughtful and fair case deliberation, and appropriate documentation of reasoning for future decisions. Among many other benefits, this will help to ensure that OPS can provide fulsome explanations of findings to complainants on an ongoing basis.
177 Dkt. 120-1 at 20 (quoting Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 233).

The OPS and PRB have an assigned lawyer from the Law Department, who should have been advising them as to how to organize their meetings to comply with public meetings laws as well as to ensure confidentiality of discussions that should be taking place during executive session. The Monitoring Team has noted no such advice having been provided – even though this deficiency was identified in late 2016 and brought to the attention of the Law Department.
The Monitoring Team and the DOJ have set up a meeting between the Law Department, OPS, and PRB in order to ensure all participants are fully aware of legal requirements in this area and in order to develop a standard agenda and standard practices for the conduct of future PRB meetings.
D. Discipline and Disciplinary Hearings

Paragraph

Compliance Status

240. “The Chief of CDP will issue a General Police Order that requires officers to (a) cooperate with the Internal Affairs and OPS investigators; and (b) submit all relevant evidence to the investigators such that it is available for consideration by Internal Affairs or PRB.”

E VA L UAT I O N DEFERRED

241. Disciplinary hearing requirement, with officer given “opportunity to testify” and suspension of hearing if “officer provides new or additional evidence at hearing,” with matter “returned to IA or PRB for consideration.”

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

242. Written justification by Chief or Director of decision to “not uphold the charges” or “does not impose the recommended discipline or non-disciplinary corrective action” where PRB previously “recommends the initiation of the disciplinary process and recommends a disciplinary level.”

NONCOMPLIANCE

243. “CDP will track the number of instances in which the Chief or the Director of Public Safety rejects, in whole or in part, PRB’s recommended disposition.”

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

245. “CDP will ensure that discipline for sustained allegations of misconduct comports with due process, and is consistently applied, fair, and based on the nature of the allegation, and that mitigating and aggravating factors are identified and consistently applied and documented.”

E VA L UAT I O N DEFERRED

246. “CDP will review its current matrix and will seek to amend it” “to ensure consistency” and inclusion of a number of specific, expressly-identified features.

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

54

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 56 of 77. PageID #: 2856

247. “All disciplinary decisions will be documented PARTIAL

in writing.”

COMPLIANCE

248. “CDP will provide its disciplinary matrix to the OPERATIONAL Commission, the Police Inspector General, and the COMPLIANCE police unions for comment.”

249. “CDP will work with the unions to allow for E VA LUAT I O N sustained disciplinary findings to stay in an officer’s DEFERRED record for ten years.”

To date, CDP has consulted with the Monitoring Team and Department of Justice on its Disciplinary Matrix, which sets forth the types of discipline that may be imposed with respect to violation of various Division policies. The Division has conferred with the CPC to receive their comments and insights. Work will continue into the summer to finalize this updated Matrix. Work on other parts of the discipline system will likely occur either concurrent with changes to the Division’s internal investigations procedures or soon thereafter.

55

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 57 of 77. PageID #: 2857

TRANSPARENCY & OVERSIGHT

A. Police Inspector General

Paragraph

Compliance Status

250. “The City will hire an individual or individuals with significant experience in law enforcement practices and civil rights law to serve as a Police Inspector General” (“IG”). City must seek CPC’s “input in developing minimum qualifications and experience” for IG.

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

251. IG work in Office of Mayor but report to Chief NON-

of Police.

COMPLIANCE

252. IG “will not be a current or former employee NON-

of CDP.”

COMPLIANCE

253–54. Duties and authority of IG.

NONCOMPLIANCE

255. Budget of IG must be “a separate line item” E VA LUAT I O N in City budget and “afford[] sufficient independence DEFERRED and resources” to comply with Consent Decree.

256. IG “will have access to all documents and data NONnecessary to perform the above functions, includ- COMPLIANCE ing any raw data.”

The Consent Decree requires “the creation of a new, internal oversight function within the Division – a Police Inspector General.”178 The Inspector General (“IG”) must be “an individual or
178 First Semiannual Report at 49.

individuals with significant experience in law enforcement practices and civil rights law . . . . ”179
“The IG’s substantial duties include, but are not limited to, review of CDP policies and practices, auditing, conducting investigations, analyzing data for aggregate and systemic trends, developing specific recommendations for reform, analyzing investigations conducted by OPS to determine if they are adequate, and reviewing imposed discipline.”180 The IG’s reports and recommendations must be made public.181
The Consent Decree “does not provide an express timetable for the City to initiate the hiring of an Inspector General or for a selected candidate to assume the position.”182 Accordingly, “the First-Year Monitoring Plan d[id] not include a deadline for this position during 2016.”183
The Second-Year Monitoring Plan provides a specific timeframe for the recruitment and hiring of the IG. CDP and the City are currently working on a draft plan for the IG (the “IG Plan”) that addresses issues relating to recruitment, “staffing, administrative support, . . . budget,” and other implementation issues.184 As the Monitor has previously observed, “one person will not be able to do all that the Decree requires,” making it necessary for the IG Plan to outline mechanisms for ensuring that the IG benefits from “high-quality staff and administrative staff.”185 Indeed, “Cleveland’s search” for an IG “will yield substantially higher-quality candidates if the individuals applying to the job know that the position will be well-resourced and provided with sufficient independence.”186
The process of constructing the IG Plan has been envisioned by the Parties and Monitoring Team as a mechanism for permitting the City, CDP, CPC, and other community representatives to discuss how the IG position should be set up to ensure that it can have the independence necessary to make meaningful, pragmatic recommendations to the Division of Police and City. The finalized IG Plan will be presented to the Court in mid-August.187 The City and CDP’s current goal is to have an Inspector General hired by December 1, 2017.188
179 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 250. 180 Id. ¶ 253. 181 Dkt. 97 at 53 (quoting Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 253) (internal quotations omitted). 182 First Semiannual Report at 49. 183 Id. 184 Dkt. 120-1 at 22. 185 Dkt. 97 at 53. 186 Id. 187 Dkt. 120-1 at 22. 188 Id.

56

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 58 of 77. PageID #: 2858

B. Data Collection and Analysis

Paragraph

Compliance Status

257. “CDP will collect and maintain all data and records necessary to accurately evaluate its use of force practices and search and seizure practices and facilitate transparency and, as permitted by law, broad access to information related to CDP’s decision making and activities. To achieve this outcome, CDP will designate an individual or individuals as the ‘Data Collection and Analysis Coordinator.’”

NONCOMPLIANCE

258. Coordinator “will ensure the collection and tracking of all documents related to uses of force and allegations of misconduct and related materials,” including specific, expressly-listed materials and information.

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

259. Coordinator “will ensure the creation and maintenance of a reliable and accurate electronic system to track all data derived from force-related documents,” including specific, expressly-identified data.

NONCOMPLIANCE

260. Coordinator “will ensure the creation and maintenance of a reliable and accurate electronic system to track data on all vehicle stops, investigatory stops, and searches, whether or not they result in an arrest or issuance of a summons or citation.” The system must conform to a number of specific, expressly-identified requirements.

NONCOMPLIANCE

261. Coordinator must “routine[ly] report[] . . . relevant data to the Chief of Police, FRB, Training Review Committee, OPS, the [Community Police] Commission, and the Police Inspector General.”

NONCOMPLIANCE

262. Coordinator “responsible for the annual assessment of forms and data collection systems to improve the accuracy and reliability of data collection.”

NONCOMPLIANCE

263. Coordinator “will develop a protocol to accurately analyze the data collected and allow for” various outcome measurements, “subject to the review and approval of the Monitor and DOJ.”

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

264. Annually, “CDP will conduct an assessment and issue a report summarizing its investigatory stop, search, and arrest data” that addresses various specific, expressly-identified topics.

NONCOMPLIANCE

265. Annually, “CDP will conduct an assessment and issue a report of all activities, including use of force, arrests, motor vehicles and investigatory stops, and misconduct complaints alleging discrimination, to determine whether CDP’s activities are applied or administered in a way that discriminates against individuals on the basis of race” or other listed prohibited classes or characteristics, and that addresses various specific, expressly-identified topics.

NONCOMPLIANCE

266. Annual analysis of “prior year’s force” data with NON-

FRB.

COMPLIANCE

In Fall 2016, CDP began a search for a Data Collection and Analysis Coordinator, as required by paragraphs 257 through 263 of the Consent Decree. That search did not produce any qualified candidates for this role.

Consequently, in February 2017, CDP finalized a two-year consulting arrangement with Dr. Dan Flannery of the Begun Center at Case Western University to serve as an interim Data Collection and Analysis Coordinator and to begin building capacity for when the full-time position is filled.
At the time of this report, the activities outlined by Dr. Flannery and his team in the first year of the contract include: meetings with key stakeholders, a review of the baseline measures compendium, an initial data scan, a comprehensive data mapping exercise, initial data analysis and quality assurance validation, development of a codebook with all data points, technical assistance on CDP data migration and integration efforts, and preliminary baseline reports for any available data related to use of force, crisis intervention, community engagement, civilian complaints, and stop, search and arrest data. The team also plans on developing routine reporting templates and timelines for all of the above Consent Decree areas.
Second-year activities will include continued meetings with key stakeholders, revisions of the data map and codebook, continued technical assistance on CDP data migration and integration efforts, continued data analysis and quality assurance validation, ad hoc reports and data analysis runs, several topic-specific outcome reports (e.g., the required use of force report), and a comprehensive annual final report.
Dr. Flannery’s team meets weekly with key stakeholders at the CDP and monthly with the Monitoring Team members focused on Outcomes Measures. Meanwhile, a plan is also being developed by his team to hire a full-time Data Collection and Analysis Coordinator. The Monitoring Team appreciates the initial challenges that the City encountered in trying to recruit and hire an individual (or individuals) to fill this important role. Nevertheless, given the significance of the responsibilities that the Consent Decree assigns to the Coordinator, the City will need to seriously evaluate what it will need to do with respect to new recruiting approaches, an expanded salary band, or other modifications to attract a seasoned and skilled professional for the position.
C. Public Availability of CDP-Related Information

267. “[A]ll CDP audits, reports, and outcome anal- NON-COMPLIyses related to the implementation” of the Consent ANCE Decree will be public.

268. “CDP will post its policies and procedures, training plans, community policing initiatives, community meeting schedules, budgets, and internal audit reports on its website.”

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

The Consent Decree continues to require that data and information about the Division – including its “policies and procedures, training plans, community policing initiatives, community meeting schedules, budgets, and internal audit reports – be posted

57

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 59 of 77. PageID #: 2859
on CDP’s website.189 Additionally, “[t]o ensure transparency in the implementation of” the Decree, “all CDP audits, reports, and outcome analyses related to the implementation of this [the Consent Decree] will be made publicly available, including at the City and CDP websites.”190
The First Semiannual Report found that, “[a]s of April 20, 2016, little to none of the required information that should have been available” on CDP’s website “in a finalized form had been posted.”191 The Second Semiannual Report found that, as of early January 2017, “new material has been made available on the Division’s website, with the public now able to view policies, reports, and materials related to the Consent Decree.”192 The Monitoring Team commended CDP’s efforts to ensure transparency and access.
Currently, the City of Cleveland’s website does have a link that directs web visitors to the “DOJ Settlement Agreement Data.”193 The bulk of the Consent Decree documents are within the CDP’s section.194 For its part, the Division appears to be updating its website in a timelier manner, especially as compared to previous years.
The information that the Division posts are documents that have been produced by the Cleveland Police Monitoring Team, and the Cleveland Police Commission, as well as General Police Orders, court filings, and status reports.
What is not available, or easy to find, are audits, budgets, and outcome analysis reports. We recommend that the CDP re-double its efforts to post these materials – as well as focus on making it easier for the average user to navigate the website and find the relevant materials.
189 Dkt. 7-1 at 1; id. ¶ 268. 190 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 267. 191 First Semiannual Report at 51. 192 Dkt. 97 at 54. City of Cleveland, Division of Police, Police Settlement Agreement, http://www.city.cleveland.oh.us/CityofCleveland/Home/ Government/CityAgencies/PublicSafety/Police/PoliceSettlementAgreement (last accessed May 12, 2017). 194 City of Cleveland, Division of Police, http://www.city.cleveland.oh.us/CityofCleveland/Home/Government/CityAgencies/ PublicSafety/Police (last accessed May 12, 2017).
58

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 60 of 77. PageID #: 2860

OFFICER ASSISTANCE & SUPPORT

A. Training

Paragraph

Compliance Status

269. “CDP will ensure that officers receive adequate training to understand: (a) how to police effectively and safely in accordance with CDP policy; [and] (b) the requirements of this Agreement, Ohio law, and the Constitution and laws of the United States,” including in the areas of “procedural justice, bias-free policing, and community policing.”

NONCOMPLIANCE

270. “CDP will expand the scope and membership OPERATIONAL

of the Training Review Committee.”

COMPLIANCE

271–72. “[T]he Training Review Committee will develop a written training plan for CDP’s recruit academy, probationary field training, and in-service training” that addresses a host of specific, expressly-identified issues.

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

273. “The Training Plan and schedule will be imple- PARTIAL COMmented once any objections have been resolved” PLIANCE on a yearly basis.

274. “The Training Review Committee will annually review and updated CDP’s training plan” by “conduct[ing] a needs assessment” that addresses a number of specific, expressly-identified data and information on real-world trends, needs, policy, and law.

NONCOMPLIANCE

275. “CDP’s Commander responsible for training” PARTIAL COM-

will be in charge of “all CDP training.

PLIANCE

276. “CDP will designate a single training coordinator in each District. The Commander responsible for training will establish and maintain communications with each District training coordinator to ensure that all officers complete training as required and that documentation of training is provided to the” training Commander.

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

277. “CDP will develop recruit academy and in-ser- PARTIAL COMvice curricula that comport with” the Training Plan PLIANCE and Consent Decree requirements.

278. “[T]he training required under this Agreement . NON. . will be delivered within two years of the Effective COMPLIANCE Date.”

279. “For all other substantive updates or revisions to policy or procedure, CDP will ensure and document that all relevant CDP personnel have received and read the policy or procedure. Notification of each revision or update will include the rationale for policy changes and the difference between the old and updated policy.”

NONCOMPLIANCE

280. Training Commander reviews all training materials; ensures that they use “a variety of adult learning techniques, scenario-based training, and problem-solving practices”; and “ensure that all curricula, lesson plans, instructor’s qualifications, and testing materials are reviewed by the Training Review Committee.”

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

281. “CDP will ensure that instructors are qualified PARTIAL COMand use only curricula and lesson plans that have PLIANCE been approved by the” Training Commander.

288. “CDP will document all training provided to or received by CDP officers,” with officers “sign[ing] an acknowledgement of attendance or digitally acknowledge[ing] completion of each training course,” which “will be maintained in a format that allows for analysis by training type, training date, training source, and by individual officer name.”

NONCOMPLIANCE

289. “CDP will develop and implement a system that will allow the Training Section to electronically track, maintain, and produce complete and accurate records of current curricula, lesson plans, training delivered, and other training materials in a centralized electronic file system.”

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

290. “CDP will develop and implement accountability measures . . . to ensure that all officers successfully complete all required training programs in a timely manner.”

NONCOMPLIANCE

1. In-Service Training

This section discusses the major Consent Decree training initiatives that have been the focus of the Parties’ and Division’s attention during this reporting period: (1) a use of force training initiative comprised of (a) a roll call video presentation and (b) an in-class, 16-hour, interactive and scenario-based training program for all sworn CDP personnel; and (2) an in-class, eighthour crisis intervention training program for all CDP officers. The recent completion and submission of both training initiatives to the Court constitute notable milestones in the Consent Decree process.

The in-class portion of the use of force training and the eighthour crisis intervention training will occur in the same “block” of in-person training. Between now and early October 2017, one group of 48 officers will go to the use of force training each Monday and Tuesday, with a different group of 48 officers going to the same training on Thursday and Friday. On Wednesday, both

59

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 61 of 77. PageID #: 2861

of these groups of 48 officers – for 96 total officers – will participate in the eight-hour crisis intervention training course. Given the interactive nature of the courses, these larger units will be broken up during the course of each training to ensure that

• Initial, supervisor-specific training on bias-free policing;200
• Annual follow-up “training on bias-free policing that is adequate in quality, quantity, type, and scope”;201

all students have the ability to learn content, practice skills, and

• Training that “teach[es] proper techniques for unhol-

participate in an interactive manner

stering, displaying, pointing, and

during the many active instruction

aiming a firearm, and for deter-

periods.

With a solid training foundation in place, the mining when it is appropriate to

Division’s focus can now shift toward integrated do so”;202

Again, the Monitoring Team com- strategic planning for ongoing training on a host of • “[A]t least 16 hours of firearms

mends the Division for completing important topics in the coming years.

training which will include pistol,

high-quality, foundational training

shotgun, and policy training,” in-

programs on the new use of force policies and related skills, as well as the new crisis intervention policy and related skills. Both the Training Section and the

cluding “night, reduced light, and stress training” for “each firearm they are authorized to use or carry on-duty”;203

Mental Health Advisory Committee are deserving of substantial

• Annual ECW (taser) certifications that include,

credit and praise for their hard work, diligence, and willingness to adopt pedagogical approaches that are different from what some training initiatives have generally entailed in the past.

among other things, “scenario-based training” with the ECW;204 • Members of the forthcoming, dedicated Force Inves-

tigation Team (“FIT”) with “FIT-specific training that

In addition to the Consent-Decree-focused training, CDP must – like all law enforcement agencies in the State of Ohio – provide officers with training that satisfies the annual advanced training requirements of the Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy

is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type” and that covers a host of specific areas or issues;205
• Initial and ongoing training for members of the forthcoming Force Review Board;206

(“OPOTA”). Through completion of these approximately sixteen to twenty hours of instruction and training on various topics, CDP officers will receive the “40 hours of in-service training annually” required by the Consent Decree for the 2017 calendar year.195
With a solid foundation now being implemented with respect to

• Annual training on crisis intervention for all CDP officers;207
• Training for specialized Crisis Intervention Team officers;208
• Initial and annual training on search and seizure, CDP’s policies on search and seizure, and the Fourth Amendment;209

basic use of force and crisis intervention training, the Division’s focus can shift in the next reporting period toward integrated strategic planning for ongoing training for current CDP officers

• Initial and annual training for Internal Affairs investigators;210
• Initial and annual “in-service training that is adequate

in the coming years. Among other things, the City and Division

in quality, quantity, scope, and type, and that address-

need to plan on providing:
• Annual “use of force in-service training that is adequate in quality, quantity, type, and scope” for “all officers”;196
• Use of force training for supervisors on “conducting use of force investigations; strategies for effective-

es management and supervision; community-oriented policing; effective problem solving techniques; and field communication” for Field Training Officers and Field Training Sergeants;211 • General and ongoing “supervisory training for all new and current supervisors” that is “adequate in quality, quantity, type, and scope” and covers a number of spe-

ly directing officers to minimize uses of force and to intervene effectively to prevent or stop unreasonable force; and supporting officers who report unreasonable or unreported force, or who are retaliated against for attempting to prevent unreasonable force”;197

200 Id. ¶ 41. 201 Id. ¶ 42. 202 Id. ¶ 55. 203 Id. ¶ 60.

• Community and problem-oriented policing principles for all officers;198
• Initial training for all officers on bias-free policing;199

204 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 74. 205 Id. ¶ 113. 206 Id. ¶ 125.

195 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 271(c).

207 Id. ¶ 144.

196 Id. ¶ 86.

208 Id. ¶¶ 145–48, 150

197 Id. ¶ 84(l).

209 Dkt. 7-1 ¶¶ 173–75.

198 Id. ¶ 30.

210 Id. 1 ¶¶ 180–81.

199 Dkt. 7-1 ¶¶ 39–40.

211 Id. ¶ 285.

60

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 62 of 77. PageID #: 2862

cifically-identified topics;212 • All officers with training on the forthcoming, updated
Officer Intervention Program (“OIP”);213 and • All officers with training on using body-worn cameras
per the Division’s policy.214
All of these specific training initiatives must be informed, per the Consent Decree, by the Division’s newly established Training Review Committee, which includes representatives from across the Division, the police officer organizations, and the CPC. That Training Review Committee must construct, on an annual basis, a Training Plan that identifies what training initiatives and content CDP personnel will receive.215 A draft Training Plan that the Committee submitted for calendar year 2017 is being refined by the City. In future years, such draft plans will need to be submitted in greater advance of the start of the year to ensure that they are strategic planning and agenda-setting documents rather than memorializations of previously decided decisions or programs.
To date, changes in leadership in the Training Section have frustrated the Division’s efforts to establish the Training Review Committee as the locus of activity with respect to identifying training needs, setting priorities, and determining what training initiatives need to happen when. The Monitoring Team will be looking to see that the responsibility for planning for ongoing, in-service training is shared much more broadly and throughout the Division rather than residing solely with a historically understaffed Training Section.
Undoubtedly the scope of the training that the Division will need to provide – and that the City will need to pay for – under the agreement that the City and the United States reached is significant. The Monitoring Team has already signaled that training will need to be approached in a dramatically different way going forward, which will likely also require some differences in resource allocation. However, because it is how policy is turned into practice and how officers can learn the strategies and skills necessary to use new approaches and implement best practices in a manner that is safe, effective, and automatic, training of personnel is among the best investments that any law enforcement agency can make. The Monitoring Team looks forward to continuing to work with the City and Division to ensure that the host of outstanding training obligations under the Consent Decree are implemented as effectively and efficiently as possible.
2. Academy Training and Field Training Program

Paragraph

Compliance Status

282. “CDP will revise, as necessary, its field training program for graduates of the police academy to comport with” the Training Plan and Consent Decree.

NONCOMPLIANCE

283. “The field training program will incorporate NONcommunity and problem-oriented policing princi- COMPLIANCE ples, and problem-based learning methods.”

284. Review and revision of Field Training Officer (“FTO”) “participation policy to establish and implement a program that effectively attracts the best FTO candidates” and “revise eligibility criteria” for FTOs.

NONCOMPLIANCE

285. New FTOs and Field Training Sergeants must “receive initial and in-service training that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type, and that addresses” a number of specific, expressly-listed topics and conforms to a number of additional features or requirements.

NONCOMPLIANCE

286. “CDP will create a mechanism for recruits to provide confidential feedback regarding the quality of their field training,” and the Division “will document its response, including the rationale behind any responsive action taken or decision to take no action.”

NONCOMPLIANCE

287. “Training Review Committee will, on an annual basis, analyze all aspects of CDP’s FOT program,” “consider emerging national policing practices in this area,” and “recommend, and CDP will institute, appropriate changes to policies, procedures, and training related to its FTO program.”

NONCOMPLIANCE

Given the scope of the in-service training that the Consent Decree requires, the City and Division’s focus to date has been on developing and implementing core training for current CDP officers. The completed training on use of force will be provided to the current Academy class during their Cleveland-specific time with CDP personnel after completing the Ohio State Patrol Academy.216 Basic training on crisis intervention will primarily be addressed through a 16-hour state course at the Patrol Academy, as well.

Nevertheless, the “Consent Decree . . . contains certain obligations relating to the training of new officers at the Academy.”217 Likewise, it contains provisions relating to the Division’s field training program, in which recent Academy graduates participate during their early days on the force.218

In light of other areas of focus with respect to training, the Monitoring Team pushed back initial plans, developed with the Parties, of assessing the capacity of the Ohio State Patrol’s Columbus-based Academy. It looks forward to working with CDP and the City to determine whether sending recruits for basic training there will enable the Division to comply with the ultimate requirements of the Consent Decree.219

212 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ ¶ 323–24. 213 Id. ¶ 336. 214 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 337. 215 Dkt. 7-1 ¶¶ 270–81.

216 Dkt. 97 at 55. 217 Id.; Dkt. 7-1 ¶¶ 271, 275, 277 218 Dkt. 7-1 ¶¶ 282–87. 219 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 55.
61

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 63 of 77. PageID #: 2863

B. Equipment & Resources220

Paragraph

Status of Compliance

291. “The City will implement” paragraphs regarding equipment and resources in order to allow implementation of the Consent Decree “and to allow officers to perform their jobs safely, effectively, and efficiently.”

NONCOMPLIANCE

292. “CDP will complete a comprehensive equipment and resource study to assess its current needs and priorities,” and it “will develop an effective, comprehensive Equipment and Resource Plan that is consistent with its mission and that will allow it to satisfy the requirements of this Agreement.”

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

293. “CDP’s Equipment and Resource Plan will provide for necessary equipment including, at least” “an adequate number of computers”; “an adequate number of operable and safe zone cars”; “zone cards with reliable, functioning computers that provide officers with up-to-date technology” including computer-aided dispatch, the records management system, and various core law enforcement systems; and “zone cards equipped with first-aid kits.” “This plan also will ensure that CDP properly maintains and seeks to continuously improve upon existing equipment and technology; and is appropriately identifying equipment needs and seeking to utilize, as appropriate, emerging technologies.”

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

294. “CDP will actively seek input and feedback from the Commission, patrol officers, and supervisors regarding resource allocation, equipment needs, and technological improvements.”

NONCOMPLIANCE

295. “City and CDP” must “us[e] best efforts to NONimplement the Equipment and Resource Plan as COMPLIANCE required.”

296. “CDP will . . . implement an effective, central- PARTIAL

ized records management system.”

COMPLIANCE

297. “CDP will utilize a department-wide e-mail PARTIAL system to improve communication and information COMPLIANCE sharing.”

298. “CDP will employ information technology professionals who are trained to conduct crime and intelligence analysis, who are capable of troubleshooting and maintaining information technology systems and who can identify and suggest appropriate technological advancements.”

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

299. “CDP will implement an effective employee assistance program that provides officers ready access to the mental health and support resources necessary to facilitate effective and constitutional policing.”

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

The Consent Decree requires the City of Cleveland to “develop an effective, comprehensive Equipment and Resource Plan that is consistent with its mission and that will allow it to satisfy the requirements of this Agreement.”221 The Plan must “provide for necessary equipment including, at least . . . an adequate number

220 This discussion is adapted from Dkt. 125. 221 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 292.
62

of computers; an adequate number of operable and safe zone cars; zone cars with reliable, functioning computers that provide officers with up-to-date technology, including” mobile computer-aided dispatch (“CAD”), access to the Division’s records management system (“RMS”), and access to law enforcement databases; and “zone cars equipped with first-aid kits . . . . ”222 The Plan must also address how the Division will satisfy the other substantive requirements of the Decree.223 Moreover, the Plan must “ensure that CDP” both “properly maintains and seeks to continuously improve upon existing equipment and technology” and “is appropriately identifying equipment needs and seeking to utilize, as appropriate, emerging technologies.”224
The Monitoring Team previously disapproved of the City’s Plan proposed on November 25, 2016.225 The Monitor’s Second Semiannual Report in January 2017 explained that the Monitor could not approve the Plan at that time for a number of reasons, including, but not limited to:
• A lack of specific, well-supported deadlines; • A failure to identify specific actors responsible for var-
ious deliverables; • The summary rejection of the need for outside ex-
perts; • The failure to address the Decree’s requirements re-
lated to identifying equipment needs, maintaining and improving upon existing technology, and utilizing emerging technologies; • A failure to meaningfully account for project interdependencies; • The inadequacy of the Plan’s treatment of precinct-based computers; • The inadequacy of the Plan’s treatment of the CAD upgrade; and • A failure to substantively and specifically address CDP’s inadequate number of patrol cars.226
Following a January 6, 2017 status conference before the Court, the City endeavored to craft a satisfactory plan. Between January 2017 and late April 2017, the City submitted multiple revisions of the Plan in an effort to address the concerns raised by the Monitor. The most recent version of the Plan submitted by CDP was dated April 17, 2017.227
“As an agent of the Court,” the Monitoring Team needed to “assess and report whether the requirements” of the Consent Decree “have been implemented.”228 Although, “in some in-
222 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 293. 223 Id. ¶ 292. 224 Id. ¶ 293. 225 Dkt. 93 at 7. 226 Dkt. 97 at 54–60 227 Dkt. 125-1. 228 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 351; accord id. ¶ 352 (requiring the Monitor “to re-

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 64 of 77. PageID #: 2864

stances, the evaluation of policies or plans created to comply with the Consent Decree is relatively mechanical,” in other instances, “those plans must comply with more general provisions or provide more significant detail than the Consent Decree provides.”229

The Plan Does Not Yet Comply with Provisions of the Consent Decree Related to Computers. The Consent Decree specifically requires that the Plan provide for “an adequate number of computers” with the Division.230 The City has now deployed 51 of the 105 computers it purchased for Field Based Reporting. The remaining computers will apparently be deployed

On May 3, the Monitoring Team informed the Court that the Plan is minimally adequate in some regards to meet some, though not all, of the Consent Decree’s requirements. The Monitor found the Plan consistent with some paragraphs of the Decree and not yet in compliance with other paragraphs. Specifically, the Monitoring Team approved the Plan as “appropriate, effective, and consistent with the requirements” of paragraphs 293(b), (c), and (d) of the Consent Decree. It could not approve the Plan with respect to paragraphs 292; 293(a), (e), and (f); 294; and 298.

as soon as electrical work is completed in the stations that will receive those computers. The Plan, however, still does not provide any sense of what “an adequate number of computers” under the Consent Decree is. Although the ratio of computers to personnel will be 1:1.92, after all 105 computers are deployed, the Plan does not indicate whether more than the previously-purchased 105 computers are necessary for current staffing outside of the report writing rooms (e.g., specialized units, detectives, etc.). The Plan does indicate that CDP will receive new computers via the City PC Refresh Program; however, these would

1. Current State of the Equipment & Resource Plan

not be net new computers but only a one-for-one swap of an old computer for a new computer. It is yet to be seen if the City has

The General Approach of the Current Plan Is an Im-

plans to add to the deployment of computers outside of the 105

provement Over the November

going to report writing areas. It must be noted that 105 is no

2016 Plan. In a number of import-

magic number. Instead, it is simply

ant regards, the April 17, 2017 Plan To date, the City’s Equipment and Resource Plan the number of computers that Cleve-

(the “April 2017 Plan” or the “Plan”) has been consistent with the Consent Decree in land could secure with a given grant

represents a notable improvement some respects and insufficient in terms of the funding.

over the previously-filed Novem- Decree’s requirements in others.

ber 25, 2016 Plan (the “November

Accordingly, the Monitor approves of

2016 Plan”). First and foremost, the most recent version now

the Plan only insofar as it outlines an

provides specific milestones/deliverables and associated dates.

approach for ensuring deployment of the 105 desktop comput-

Although the Plan does not always indicate a particular person

ers that have been sitting in City storage since early 2016.231 The

or resource that will be responsible for each milestone/deliver-

Monitoring Team cannot determine if this number is “adequate”

able, it does indicate the responsible City entity, division and/or

for purposes of the Consent Decree based on information pro-

vendor.

vided in the Plan.232

In addition to not embracing outside assistance with refining the City of Cleveland’s overall planning and project management approach to law enforcement IT projects, the Plan does not meaningfully account for project interdependencies. Although it does include target dates for various milestones and interdependencies, the City has yet to identify how the rate of progress on some initiatives may impact the rate of progress in others, in particular as it pertains to specific technological and resource requirements of the Consent Decree. For example, the City plans to go live with its upgraded CAD platform in December 2017 – at the same time that it is targeted to be in the middle of its RMS Field Based Reporting deployment. How the City and CDP will provide sufficient resources to perform the technical, end-user support, training, and deployment activities for both projects at once remains unclear. Nevertheless, the most-recent version of the Plan is a significant step in the right direction.

The City’s Patrol Vehicle Modernization Plan Adequately Addresses the Requirements of the Consent Decree. Paragraph 293(b) and (c) relate to ensuring that CDP has a sufficient number of well-equipped zone cars. CDP currently has an insufficient number of patrol cars overall. CDP reports to have 358 marked zone cars, spread throughout the Districts, Downtown Services Unit, Bureau of Traffic, CLE Hopkins International Airport, and other locations. CDP completed a Patrol Vehicle Fleet Assessment in January 2017, and developed a Patrol Vehicle Modernization Plan in February 2017. The Plan indicates the City will purchase 45 new vehicles each year, beginning in 2017, for five years, for a total of 225 new patrol vehicles by 2021.233 In April 2017, the Cleveland City Council approved the purchase of the 45 patrol vehicles that will be purchased in 2017. The Plan also contains a process for ensuring that all CDP patrol cars have access to CAD, RMS, and other law enforcement databases necessary for core operational functions.234

view . . . policies, procedures, practices, training curricula, and programs developed and implemented under” the Decree).
229 Dkt. 93 at 7–8 (providing examples of Equipment and Resource Plan requirements that are comparatively more or less detailed in the Consent Decree).

230 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 293(a). 231 Dkt. 97 at 59. 232 See Dkt. 93 at 8 (defining “adequate”). 233 Dkt. 125-1 at 83. 234 See Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 293(c).

63

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 65 of 77. PageID #: 2865

The Monitoring Team approves the Equipment and Resource Plan, and the incorporated Patrol Vehicle Modernization Plan, with respect to Paragraphs 293(b) and (c) of the Consent Decree because it finally puts long overdue patrol cars on the streets and at the disposal of the patrol officers who need them. The Monitor commends the City for addressing this issue in a strategic, specific way that suggests the level of particularity that the City needs to use with respect to the other, outstanding areas not yet adequately addressed in the Plan.
The Plan Sufficiently Addresses Updates to the City’s CAD System. The Consent Decree requires that CDP use “a mobile computer-aided dispatch system that allows officers and supervisors to access real time information received from call-takers and dispatchers.”235 CAD systems allow dispatch/ communications personnel to dispatch officers in the field to calls for service via an automated system.
The City is in the process of upgrading the CAD system to include silent dispatching, which allows officers to be assigned calls for service via the Mobile Data Computer instead of over the radio. Cleveland’s EMS and Fire currently use silent dispatching; however, CDP does not. As such, CDP’s radio is unusually busy, as compared to other law enforcement agencies, and officers must track information regarding a call for service manually, rather than having the information displayed on an incar computer.
The City held the kick-off meeting for the CAD upgrade project on March 24, 2017, and CDP is currently working with the vendor to determine the appropriate software configuration to meet CDP’s needs. The City is targeting December 2017 to go live with the upgraded CAD at the CDP dispatch center, and will then follow with the deployment of silent dispatch to patrol vehicles, one District at a time, in early 2018. The Monitoring Team approves the City’s approach with respect to the CAD upgrade and finds the Plan consistent with the Consent Decree on the subject of CAD.
The Plan Does Not Ensure that CDP Maintain and Improve Its Existing Equipment or Identify New Equipment Needs. The Consent Decree requires that the Plan “ensure that CDP” “properly maintains and seeks to continuously improve upon existing equipment and technology” and “is appropriately identifying equipment needs and seeking to utilize, as appropriate, emerging technologies.”236 The City’s Plan fails to satisfy this requirement. Instead, the Plan sets forth a series of necessary short-term corrective measures – but not a new process for ensuring that such corrective measures are not necessary again in the future.237
235 Id. ¶ 293. 236 Id. ¶ 293(e)–(f). 237 Dkt. 97 at 59.
64

The Monitoring Team has repeatedly recommended to the City and CDP that it engage with outside consultants to help revamp the overall IT governance structure, properly manage and implement significant technology initiatives, and enhance the capacity of the City and CDP to maintain and improve existing equipment and technology.
In an effort to address this concern, the most recent proposed Plan indicates that the “Department of Public Safety has now been rolled into the IT Governance Structure” of the City, which includes the creation of a Project Management Office, the standardization of project documentation and processes, the identification of a “business owner” for each project, and the use of consultants for project management of large initiatives such as the CAD upgrade and the implementation of mobile field based reporting.238
In an effort to address the Decree’s requirements related to identifying equipment needs, maintaining and improving upon existing technology, and utilizing emerging technologies, the City has established the Public Safety Strategic Technology Executive Committee. The Technology Executive Committee, comprised of the Chief of Police, various deputy chiefs, and the City CIO, will develop the CDP IT strategy in conjunction with City IT.239 While the Monitoring Team sees this as a much-needed process to determine the selection and implementation of IT based on the business needs and priorities of CDP, there is still a need to focus on the maintenance and improvements to existing IT.
The City has indicated that processes such as the lifecycle replacement of CDP computers and routine system upgrades will be handled by existing City processes. Yet it is unclear what entity will be responsible for ensuring that all CDP IT, equipment, and resources will be properly maintained.
Nevertheless, the Monitoring Team believes that outside consultants and partners who can assist the City in ensuring a strong and sound IT governance and project management platform will greatly benefit the Division going forward and allow the City to comply more effectively, efficiently, and expeditiously with the Consent Decree’s many requirements relating to equipment, technology, and resources.
The Plan does not yet provide a route for ensuring compliance with paragraph 294, which requires that the Division “actively seek input and feedback from the [Community Police] Commission, patrol officers, and supervisors regarding resource allocation, equipment needs, and technological improvements.” Likewise, it does not currently propose any system, process, or procedure for ensuring compliance with Paragraph 298, which requires that the Division “employ information technology professionals who are trained to conduct crime and intelligence analysis, who are capable of troubleshooting and maintaining
238 Dkt. 125-1 at 35–36. 239 Id. at 38–40

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 66 of 77. PageID #: 2866

technology systems[,] and who can identify and suggest appropriate technological advancements.”
Because the Plan sets forth no process, plan, procedure, or other mechanism to ensure dynamic, strategic planning with respect to law enforcement technology and equipment, it does not yet satisfy the terms of the Consent Decree.
The Plan Does Not Address a Host of Other Provisions of the Consent Decree that Relate to Technology and Equipment. The Plan must also address how the Division will satisfy the other substantive requirements of the Decree.240 For example, CDP must collect data regarding investigatory stops,241 and “calls and incidents involving individuals in crisis,” “develop and implement a single, uniform, reporting system” to meet the Decree’s requirements regarding use of force reporting,242 and implement “a computerized relational database that will be used to collect, maintain, integrate, and retrieve data department-wide and for each officer regarding” a host of specific performance data.243
Because it does not meaningfully engage with technology issues relating to the documentation of crisis events, documentation of stops, investigation and review of force incidents, and administrative investigations, the implementation of a modern early intervention system, and other areas, the current Plan does not yet satisfy paragraph 292 of the Consent Decree.
The Monitoring Team approved the Plan as “appropriate, effective, and consistent with the requirements” of paragraphs 293(b), (c), and (d) of the Consent Decree. It indicated that it could not approve the Plan with respect to paragraphs 292; 293(a), (e), and (f); 294; and 298.
C. Recruitment & Hiring

Paragraph

Compliance Status

300. “CDP will review and revise . . . its recruitment and hiring program to ensure that CDP successfully attracts and hires a diverse group of qualified individuals.”

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

301. “The Mayor will work with the City Council to develop an ordinance to place a Charter Amendment on the ballot that would give the appointing authority greater flexibility in the selection of candidates from the certified eligibility list for the CDP.”

GENERAL COMPLIANCE

240 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 292. 241 Id. ¶¶ 160–75. 242 Id. 243 Id. ¶ 87.

302. “CDP will develop a recruitment policy and a strategic recruitment plan that includes clear goals, objectives, and action steps for attracting qualified applicants from a broad cross-section of the community” and meets certain specific, expressly-listed requirements.

E VA L UAT I O N DEFERRED

303. “The City will implement the recruitment plan E VA LUAT I O N within 60 days of it being approved by the Monitor.” DEFERRED

304. “CDP’s recruitment plan will include specific strategies for attracting a diverse group of applicants,” including officers with various, specific, expressly-listed skills and backgrounds.

E VA L UAT I O N DEFERRED

305. “In developing an implementing its recruitment plan, CDP will consult with the [Community Police] Commission and other community stakeholders on strategies to attract a diverse pool of applicants.”

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

306. “[O]bjective system for hiring and selecting PARTIAL recruits” that “employs reliable and valid selection COMPLIANCE criteria.”

307. “CDP will report annually to the public its re- NONcruiting activities and outcomes,” which will include COMPLIANCE information on various, expressly-listed areas.

308. “[A]ll candidates for sworn personnel positions” will have “psychological and medical examination” and be subject to “drug testing.” Existing officers receive “random drug testing.”

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

309. “CDP will conduct thorough, objective, and timely background investigations of candidates for sworn positions” that cover various, expressly-listed topics.

OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE

310. “CDP will request to review personnel files from candidates’ previous employment and, where possible, will speak with the candidate’s supervisor(s)” and maintain any “salient information . . . in candidate’s file.”

NONCOMPLIANCE

311. “If a candidate has previous law enforcement experience, CDP will complete a thorough, objective, and timely pre-employment investigation” addressing various expressly-identified things.

NONCOMPLIANCE

The Consent Decree requires that the City “develop a recruitment policy and a strategic recruitment plan that includes clear goals, objectives, and action steps for attracting qualified applicants from a broad cross-section of the community, . . . [and] establish[es] and clearly identif[ies] the goals of CDP’s recruitment efforts.”244

The Monitor’s First Semiannual Report reported the City’s initial, draft plan “suggested to the Monitoring Team both a lack of dynamic, outside-the-box thinking about how to attract diverse and qualified officers and a significant lack of clear project management structure.”245 Although an April 11, 2016 update was “somewhat more specific,” a substantial “amount of work [was] still necessary to craft a sufficient, actionable plan for complying with paragraph 304 of the Consent Decree.”246
244 Id. ¶ 302. 245 First Semiannual Report at 59–60. 246 Id. at 60.
65

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 67 of 77. PageID #: 2867

The Court-approved Second-Year Monitoring Plan requires that the City submit a “revised draft Recruitment Policy and Strategic Recruitment Plan” by September 15, 2017. The City has, since April 2016, “implemented some discrete projects related to recruitment and hiring, including the implementation of an on-line application process and securing the services of outside vendors to assist in the testing of prospective recruits.”247 Nevertheless, the Monitoring Team has been consistent in noting that even if the City indicates that it is making reforms to the recruiting and hiring process, those reforms are happening outside of the Consent Decree process currently – and they must be brought into it for the City to be considered in compliance with paragraphs 300 through 311 of the Consent Decree.248 At this time, the City is not in compliance with those paragraphs, and it cannot be until it develops both (a) “a recruitment policy” and (b) “a strategic recruitment plan that includes clear goals, objectives, and action steps.”249
The Monitoring Team has been clear that the Consent Decree requires that the City submit, and the Court approve, a Recruitment and Hiring Plan – and that such a Plan subsequently be substantially and effectively implemented in practice. A discrete assortment of process or platform changes, like providing for on-line applications, is a solid component of a broader strategy and plan but is not a sufficient substitute for such a strategy and plan.
Put simply, the Consent Decree mandates that “[t]he City will implement the recruitment plan within 60 days of it being approved by the Monitor.”250 The Monitor has not approved the current Plan and will not unless it “includes clear goals, objectives, and action steps for attracting qualified applicants from a broad cross-section of the community.”251
D. Performance Evaluations and Promotions

Paragraph

Compliance Status

312. “CDP will ensure that officers who police pro- NONfessionally and effectively are recognized through COMPLIANCE the performance evaluation process” and “are identified and receive appropriate consideration for performance.” Likewise, “poor performance” must be “reflected in officer evaluations.”

313. “CDP will develop and implement fair and EVALUATIO consistent practices to accurately evaluate officer NDEFERRED performance in areas related to integrity, community policing, and critical police functions, on both an ongoing and annual basis.”

247 Dkt. 97 at 61. 248 See id. 249 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 302. 250 Id. ¶ 303. 251 Id. ¶ 302.
66

314–15. CDP will use “a formalized system documenting the annual performance evaluations of each officer by the officer’s direct supervisor,” including an assessment of several expressly-listed areas. “Supervisors will meet with the employee whose performance is being evaluated to discuss the evaluation.”

NONCOMPLIANCE

316. “CDP will hold supervisors of all ranks account- NONable for conducting timely, accurate, and complete COMPLIANCE performance evaluations of their subordinates.”

317. “CDP will develop and implement fair and consistent promotion practices that comport with the requirements of this Agreement and result in the promotion of officers who are effective and professional.”

NONCOMPLIANCE

318. In considering promotion, “appointing author- NONity will consider” specific, expressly-listed “factors.” COMPLIANCE

Neither the First-Year Monitoring Plan nor Second-Year Monitoring Plan provides specific expectations for CDP with respect to reforming its performance evaluation process and system for promoting officers to higher ranks. The Monitor’s prior Semiannual Reports have explained that the reason is that “a number of policies, procedures, systems, and training that will inform changes in evaluations and promotions must still be fully implemented.”252

Specifically, CDP must ensure that its database systems for tracking officer performance are comprehensive, complete, accurate, objective, and fair – covering the scope of information about officer activity, from commendations to misconduct investigations and from high-level, formal supervisory intervention like discipline to low-level, informal supervisory intervention like direct supervisory counseling. The availability of this high-quality information will allow for CDP to more systematically conceive of its evaluation and promotional processes. The Monitoring Team would expect that these areas may be ripe for work at some point in the next twelve to eighteen months.

E. Staffing

Paragraph

Compliance Status

319. “CDP will complete a comprehensive staffing study to assess the appropriate number of sworn and civilian personnel to perform the functions necessary for CDP to fulfill its mission, and satisfy the requirements of the” Consent Decree. / “CDP will develop an effective, comprehensive Staffing Plan that is consistent with its mission, including community and problem-oriented policing, and that will allow CDP to meet the requirements of” the Consent Decree.

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE / EVALUATION DEFERRED

320. Requirements of CDP Staffing Plan.

E VA L UAT I O N DEFERRED

252 Dkt. 97 at 62.

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 68 of 77. PageID #: 2868

321. “The City and CDP will employ best efforts to E VA LUAT ION implement the Staffing Plan over the period of time DEFERRED set forth in the approved plan.”
The Monitoring Team’s Second Semiannual Report summarized the City and CDP’s work to date with respect to the Consent Decree’s various requirements regarding staffing:
CDP submitted to the Monitoring Team a Resource Study and Deployment Proposal on June 17, 2016. The document contained elements both of the Consent-Decree-required “staffing study to assess the appropriate number of sworn and civilian personnel” and the Consent-Decree-required Staffing Plan focused on how deployment should work going forward within the Division . . . 253
However, the requirement of the Consent Decree is for CDP’s staffing study “to assess the appropriate number of sworn and civilian personnel to perform functions necessary for CDP to fulfill its mission, and satisfy the requirements of this Agreement.”254 Indeed, the eventual Staffing Plan must permit the Division to deliver services “consistent with its mission, including community and problem-oriented policing,” and must “allow CDP to meet the requirements of this Agreement.”255
As this report makes clear, much work remains – involving numerous stakeholders and, indeed, as many of Cleveland’s residents who can devote the time to become involved – on creating the required community and problem-oriented policing plan. Likewise, the remainder of this report also makes clear how much substantive work remains on core areas of the Consent Decree – including use of force, search and seizure, supervision, crisis intervention, and the like – that will almost certainly impact the day-to-day structure, operations, and deployment of CDP personnel.
Thus, the Division cannot know at this time – and neither can the Monitoring Team – precisely how many officers CDP requires, or how those officers should be deployed across the Division, to satisfy everything that the Consent Decree requires. The process will know more once there is clarity on how community and problem-oriented policing
253 Dkt. 7-1 ¶¶ 319–20. 254 Id. ¶ 319 (emphasis added). 255 Id. ¶ 320.

will look in Cleveland pursuant to the upcoming community policing plan. By that time, policies related to use of force response and investigation by supervisors will also be more defined, with resource implications for personnel devoted to the Force Investigation Team and Force Review Board more wellknown. At around the same time, it is hoped that new policies related to the consolidated and expanded Internal Affairs function will make similar deployment implications clear.
In short, the CDP’s initial Resource Study and Deployment Proposal was an incredibly useful guide for understanding, at a high level, the Division’s current personnel and the manner in which they are deployed. However, . . . the Study and Proposal was not the ultimate Staffing Plan. Accordingly, this process must, at the appropriate juncture, ensure the development of a Staffing Plan that conforms with paragraphs 319 through 321 of the Consent Decree – and that the City and CDP subsequently will “employ best efforts to implement” over “the period of time set forth in the” future “approved plan.”256
Because the Parties are continuing to work on the types of foundational requirements that may substantially impact how CDP officers, supervisors, command staff, and employees spend their time on a day-to-day basis, a final Staffing Plan simply cannot be finalized at this time. If the City and CDP believe that they could make good-faith, evidence-based estimates on projected impacts of various new processes, policies, or the like, the Monitoring Team is more than pleased to provide feedback and reach a working consensus on temporary staffing levels and deployment schemes. Even absent such a forward-looking, substantive Staffing Plan, however, CDP will need to make changes in staffing to accommodate Consent Decree requirements. The assertion that the Division does not have adequate or sufficient personnel for a given position is not, in a vacuum or without underlying support, adequate grounds for ignoring or bypassing a requirement of the Decree.
256 Id. ¶ 321.
67

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 69 of 77. PageID #: 2869

SUPERVISION

A. First-Line Supervisors

Paragraph

Compliance Status

322. “CDP will ensure that first line supervisors NONprovide close and effective supervision of officers” COMPLIANCE in a number of express, specifically-identified ways.

323. “CDP will develop and implement supervisory training for all new and current supervisors” that is “adequate in quality, quantity, type, and scope, an will include” a number of specific, expressly-listed topics.

NONCOMPLIANCE

324. “Thereafter all sworn supervisors will receive NON-

adequate in-service management training.”

COMPLIANCE

325. “CDP will hold supervisors directly account- NONable for the quality and effectiveness of their super- COMPLIANCE vision, including whether supervisors identify and effectively respond to misconduct and ensure that officers effectively engage with the community.”
Given the important role that front-line supervisors play in guiding and shaping the performance of the officers under their command,257 the Consent Decree outlines a number of critical duties for sergeants.258

An important first step in addressing the supervision-related provisions of the Decree is the Use of Force Training addressed
257 See First Semiannual Report at 62 (quoting Samuel Walker, National Institute of Justice, “Police Accountability: Current Issues and Research Needs” (2007) at 12, available at http://www.ncjrs. gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/218583.pdf.) 258 Dkt. 7-1 ¶¶ 322–25.
68

elsewhere in this report. Supervisors will be among the first recipients of this training – so that patrol officers will have their supervisors available as resources when they proceed through the in-depth training on the new force policies and they will be able “to respond to and manage the scene of most use of force incidents,” as well as “conduct the Division’s administrative inquiry” in low-level force incidents.259
However, the Consent Decree also requires “mandatory supervisory training” specifically for “all new and current supervisors” covering a host of topics, including:
• [T]echniques for effectively guiding and directing officers and promoting effective and constitutional police practices;
• [D]e-escalating conflict; • [E]valuating written reports, including identification
of canned or conclusory language that is not accompanied by specific facts; • [I]nvestigating officer uses of force; • [B]uilding community partnerships and guiding officers on this requirement; • [U]nderstanding supervisory tools such as the Officer Intervention Program and body worn cameras; • [R]esponding to and investigating allegations of officer misconduct; • [E]valuating officer performance; • [C]onsistent disciplinary sanction and non-punitive corrective action; • [M]onitoring use of force to ensure consistency with policies; and • [L]egal updates.260
Thus, although the general use of force being provided to all officers, including supervisors, is important for supervisors and partially complete some of the areas that the Consent Decree specifically requires, it does not address many others.
The Second-Year Monitoring Plan calls for CDP to provide a first draft of a supervisory training program that addresses the requirements of the Consent Decree by June 30, 2017. This might either be (1) a specific curriculum that addresses some, or all, of the above-listed requirements, or (2) a more generalized plan or schedule for providing several training programs for supervisors on the Decree-required content. Regardless, it is likely that satisfying the terms of the Consent Decree will require a multiple-stage training consisting of in-class, electronic, and other instruction – especially given that “sergeants have historically received relatively little training other than on CDP policies and other bureaucratic considerations.”261
259 Dkt. 97 at 63. 260 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 323. 261 First Semiannual Report at 62.

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 70 of 77. PageID #: 2870

B. Officer Intervention Program

Paragraph

Compliance Status

326. CDP “will create a plan to modify its Officer Intervention Program (‘OIP’) to enhance its effectiveness as a management tool to promote supervisory awareness and proactive identification of potentially problematic behavior among officers.

NONCOMPLIANCE

327. “CDP supervisors will regularly use OIP data to NONevaluate the performance of CDP officers across all COMPLIANCE ranks, units, and shifts.”

328. “The OIP will include a computerized relational database that will be used to collect, maintain, integrate, and retrieve data department-wide” in a number of specific, expressly-identified areas.

NONCOMPLIANCE

329. “CDP will threshold levels for each OIP indicator that will trigger a formal review, and the thresholds will allow for peer-group comparisons between officers with similar assignments and duties.”

NONCOMPLIANCE

330–36. Additional express requirements of OIP. NONCOMPLIANCE

As varied components of the Monitoring Team’s work come together and create significant changes throughout CDP, CDP’s receptivity to these transformations suggest that it will soon be timely to address the issues related to the Consent Decree requirement to substantially modify its existing Officer Intervention Program (“OIP”).

This modification requires the CDP to create an effective, department-wide Early Intervention System (“EIS”). The system will serve as a risk assessment tool that will be proactive in helping both officers and their supervisors to address suboptimal or potentially problematic patterns of performance:

An early intervention system builds on the basic principles of personnel management and human resource development that have developed in the private sector. The purpose of the system is to translate officer performance indicators into a formal management tool for identifying officers with potential behavioral problems or issues that would benefit from some form of proactive intervention. Such a system relies on a database that logs information about various elements of an officer’s performance . . . . Supervisors will be required to regularly review this performance data. When an officer reaches a certain, defined threshold in some area of performance, a supervisor will be required to assess an officer’s performance . . . .

If the supervisor determines that some intervention is necessary for an officer, that intervention will take the form of non-disciplinary

corrective action.262
The City and CDP intentionally waited to initiate the work on this process because of the absence of the strong technology infrastructure which is essential to an EIS, as is a broader understanding of the range of intervention initiatives which go beyond those currently offered by the OIP.
As of this writing, it is apparent that the CDP has made several significant strides in areas that bear some relationship to the effective implementation of an EIS. These include: improvements in technology infrastructure, including enhancing the focus and implementation of IAPro; developing a stronger data platform that can manage improvements in data collection methods; an enhanced focus on tracking discipline; a better understanding of the levels of use of force and operations of FIT; and a successful reshaping of the crisis intervention response. Taken together, all converge to provide supervisors with a broader understanding of factors that shape officer performance as well as the tools necessary to respond proactively and to intervene appropriately and in a timely manner.
Accordingly, these changes are setting the stage for CDP to substantially expand the OIP and create the required systematic approach to early intervention that will help supervisors deal with operational and management issues that are not medically based and that require a non-disciplinary, corrective intervention. This expansion will help supervisors identify officers who are at risk of developing problematic performance trends, manage that risk by intervening before the performance becomes intractably problematic, utilize a broader range of intervention strategies to assist officers with affirmative professional development, and assist officers in a non-disciplinary context to perform at a higher level.
C. Body-Worn Cameras

Paragraph

Compliance Status

337. “If CDP chooses to use body worn cameras, CDP will provide clear guidance and training on their use, and will implement protocols for testing equipment and preservation of recordings to foster transparency, increase accountability, and build trust, while protecting the privacy rights of individuals.”

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

338. “Supervisors will review recordings related to any incident involving at least a Level 2 or 3 use of force; injuries to officers; and in conjunction with any other supervisory investigation.”

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

339. “Supervisors will conduct adequate random and directed audits of body worn camera recordings” and “incorporate the knowledge gained from this review into their ongoing evaluation and supervision of officers.”

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

262 Second Semiannual Report at 62.
69

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 71 of 77. PageID #: 2871

340. “Officers will be subject to the disciplinary process for intentional or otherwise unjustified failure to activate body worn cameras in violation of CDP policy.”

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

manuals related to use-of-force investigations; and (3) with respect to provisions related to camera footage being provided to the public, the

As the Monitor explained in the Second Semiannual Report263 and elsewhere,264 CDP has joined numerous other police departments in using body cameras in some capacity. Pursuant to the

Monitor found that these provisions are better suited for a comprehensive CDP transparency policy.269

Consent Decree, “[i]f CDP chooses to use body worn cameras,

CDP will provide clear guidance and training on their use, and

The first issue – requiring officers to deploy cameras consistent

will implement protocols for testing equipment and preserva-

with the CDP’s policies while engaging in secondary employ-

tion of recording to foster transparen-

ment – has not yet been entirely re-

cy, increase accountability, and build It fortunately appears that early concerns about solved. The primary objection the

trust, while protecting the privacy the logistics involved in using body-worn cameras City has raised about imposing such

rights of individuals.”265

during secondary employment have been addressed a requirement is that it would be too

by the technological capabilities of CDP’s latest financially burdensome for the City

Over the course of the first year of camera equipment.

because the City would have to bear

the monitoring plan, as set forth in

the cost of overtime hours required

greater detail in the Second Semi-

for officers to download and tag sec-

annual Report, the Monitoring Team “met with police officers, received input from community organizations such as the Amer-

ondary employment camera footage and ensure cameras are sufficiently charged for police duties.270

ican Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and talked with residents who were knowledgeable about the Division’s prior process for developing the body-worn camera policy . . . [and] circulated a memorandum to the CDP and the City regarding the Division’s Body-Worn Camera (Wearable Camera System) Policy, General Police Order Number 3.2.20.”266 After working on various revisions of that policy with the Parties, the Monitor submitted a Motion Regarding Cleveland Division of Police Proposed Wearable Camera System Policy to the Court on December 19, 2016267 in which it provided its views on the latest version of the draft policy.

At a January 6, 2017 status conference, the Court provided the City with 30 days to provide more details about the potential cost implications of requiring that CDP officers use body cameras during secondary employment that is reasonably related to a law enforcement function. In the period since the January 6 conference, the Monitor has been working with the Parties to identify options to address the City’s financial and logistical concerns about a secondary employment camera requirement and, consequently, the date initially set for the City to report back to the Court has been adjourned at the City’s request.

In that motion, the Monitoring Team advised the Court that it had “concluded that – with three exceptions – the provisions and requirements of the Proposed Policy represent substantial progress toward meeting the Consent Decree’s requirements.”268 The three remaining concerns that the Monitor had with the draft proposed policy were:
(1) that the Monitor could not endorse the refusal to mandate that officers be required to use the cameras and be subject to the Proposed Policy when they are engaging in secondary employment; (2) with respect to provisions related to officers viewing camera footage, that Monitor would defer approval or disapproval pending the City’s subsequent work on policies and

The Monitor has explored a number of ways to address the City’s concerns, including phasing in the requirement; asking that secondary employers bear any additional costs as a condition of CDP approval of new secondary employment requests; and determining the actual cost of adding such a requirement, specifically, the time that will be taken to download and tag stored secondary employment content and recharge cameras. Although pursuing these areas of logistical and technological inquiry with the manufacturer of CDP’s in-car video units has proven challenging at times,271 the Monitoring Team nonetheless consulted with the company to evaluate whether there are technological upgrades or adjustments that can ease the time and logistics of downloading and recharging such as enabling downloading from home computers or recharging in vehicles as opposed to only at docking stations in stationhouses as is currently the case.

263 Dkt. 65 at 64. 264 Dkt. 92. 265 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 337. 266 Dkt. 65 at 63. 267 Dkt. 92. 268 Dkt. 65 at 64.

269 Dkt. 92 at 2-3.
270 Dkt. 96 at 7.
271 Email from Larry Jones II to Vince Valentine, et al re: Meeting with the Cleveland Monitoring Team (Jan. 27, 2017) (“[T[here should be no discussion concerning any City related contracts and/or any of the City related Taser equipment” with “the Cleveland Monitoring Team”).

70

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 72 of 77. PageID #: 2872

Fortunately, it appears that the early representations – that offi-

Consequently, the City proposed rolling out a pilot program in

cers would need, in many cases, to drive across the City from the

which a small group of officers would use cameras on secondary

location of secondary employment to a CDP station in order to

employment in order to evaluate financial and logistical issues

upload and tag video immediately after a secondary shift – about

and how to address them. The Monitor agreed to such a pilot, as

logistics do not match the current technological capabilities of

long as the Parties understood that, ultimately, the policy would

CDP’s equipment. Specifically, now that the Division has updat-

still need to incorporate secondary employment use by all offi-

ed to Taser’s latest, Axon 2 camera system,272 each officer’s body-

cers, and assuming that the Department of Justice did not have

worn camera can capture up to 70 hours – nearly nine full-time

any objections. The City then worked on developing and imple-

shifts – of standard-definition video on each camera unit.273 Vid-

menting this pilot program, which involved discussions with the

eo need not be immediately uploaded because captured video is

union, addressing contract issues, and enlisting volunteers for

retained indefinitely on the body camera unit until uploaded to

the pilot.

cloud-based storage.

Unfortunately, after CDP put out a Divisional Notice to sworn

This means that officers can wait to “tag,” or categorize captured

personnel asking for volunteers for a pilot project, the Cleveland

video for data retention and storage purposes, and upload their

Police Patrolmen’s Association (“CPPA”) wrote a letter to their

video until they are next working a City shift so long as the City

members indicating that “[it] is the OFFICIAL UNION POLI-

provides the time for them to do so. Consequently, CDP policy

CY to refrain from ‘VOLUNTEERING’ for anything with regard

can provide that officers take care of any tagging and uploading

to work.”278 Consequently, CDP received no volunteers for the

of video captured during secondary employment during its next

pilot project.

CDP tour of duty.

The CPPA’s position with respect to officers stepping up and

Of course, the body-worn camera units must be charged. The bat-

pitching in of their own accord to help improve the department

tery for the Taser Axon 2 unit can last for more than 12 hours.274

is unfortunate and dispiriting. Indeed, pilot programs, projects,

The units may be charged via a USB cable and wall charger, the

or studies are a typical “best practice” when contemplating or im-

same USB cable to a computer, or a specialized dock residing in

plementing large-scale initiatives.279 Although the Monitoring

CDP stations.275 “A fully charged camera battery . . . provide[s]

Team understands the CPPA’s concerns about officers being un-

enough power for approximately 12

clear about expectations and facing

hours of normal operation.”276 If the camera is not being used to capture encounters or incidents, the battery may last longer. Fully recharging a completely depleted battery might take up to six hours.277 Although some could say that ensuring charged

The Monitoring Team has significant concerns about how the Division will responsibly and nimply implement a number of reforms geared at providing officers with updated technology, equipment, and resources without being able to structure rigorous pilot projects.

unfair repercussions or discipline as a result, it has significant concerns about how the Division will responsibly and nimbly implement a number of reforms – including City-issued mobile devices for officers; true computer-aided dispatch; a new

camera units might be unduly bur-

staffing plan that permits officers to

densome or impractical, CDP officers working secondary em-

have more time to directly engage with community members,

ployment are already frequently equipped with Division-issued

solve community problems, and receive “credit” from the Divi-

radios and Tasers – both of which require pre- and post-shift

sion for using their time accordingly; and more customizable, re-

charging. If officers can keep their radios and Tasers charged for

al-world training for officers going forward – without the benefit

secondary employment use, ensuring the satisfactory charge of

of having officers able to participate in any pilot projects.

the camera units would hopefully not be unreasonable or unduly

burdensome.

The City has proposed that, in lieu of a structured, volunteer

pilot project, the originally-proposed policy provisions that al-

low but do not require officers to use body-worn cameras on

272 Dkt. 125-1 (noting that all patrol officers have received Axon 2 units as of February 24, 2017, with specialized units “trained and outfitted with Axon 2 Body Cameras” by August 31, 2017). 273 Axon Body 2, https://www.axon.com/products/body-2 (last visited May 4, 2017). 274 Id. 275 TASER Axon Body 2 Camera User Manual at 14, available at https://prismic-io.s3.amazonaws.com/tasr%2F435edc07-dbdf4630-8379-5bd866562b62_axon-body-2-manual-mmu0057. pdf (last visited May 4, 2017). 276 Taser Axon Body 2 Camera User Manual at 14.

278 Letter from Steve Loomis to Cleveland Police Patrolmen’s Association Members, Apr. 25, 2017.
279 See generally Joel Winston, “How the Trump Campaign Built an Identity Database and Used Facebook Ads to Win the Election,” Medium.com (Nov. 18, 2016), https://medium.com/startup-grind/how-the-trump-campaign-built-an-identity-databaseand-used-facebook-ads-to-win-the-election-4ff7d24269ac (describing use of social media in campaigns to “test” certain messages or communications among a smaller group of voters before disseminating them more widely); Shane Zbrodoff, Pilot Projects: Making Innovations and New Concepts Fly (2012) (de-

277 Id.

scribing basics of pilot projects).

71

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 73 of 77. PageID #: 2873

secondary employment be modified to reflect the more-recent understanding that officers can retain secondary video and address tagging and uploading during their next City shift. Chief Williams and CDP command staff have indicated that they hope that this will inspire greater use of the cameras during secondary employment so that the logistics and details of wider use can be assessed in the same type of manner that data from a more limited pilot project would have been used. The City will be filing an explanation of this approach with the Court. In this way, CDP believes that officers electing to use the cameras can serve as a kind of naturalistic pilot that will yield, over time, the same insight and data necessary to make determinations about how to implement the cameras across all secondary employment.
The Monitoring Team is hopeful but not necessarily optimistic that the Division will be able to get a sufficient set of data on the practical logistics of body-worn camera use on secondary employment by utilizing this approach rather than a more traditional pilot project. Nonetheless, the Monitor recommends to the Court that the Division and City be provided until December 31, 2017 to proceed down this path, with monthly updates provided to the Monitoring Team on the number of officers using cameras on secondary shifts and the volume of secondary-employment-related video being uploaded and stored between now and then. At the end of the year, the Parties and Monitor can evaluate whether the initiative could adequately be considered a “pilot project” yielding sufficient information for determining

whether or not the Division should require the use of the cameras on all secondary shifts.

72

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 74 of 77. PageID #: 2874

COMPLIANCE & OUTCOME ASSESSMENTS
A. Outcome Measures
As specifically set forth by the Parties in paragraph 367 of the Consent Decree, the Monitoring Team must conduct qualitative and quantitative assessments to measure whether the agreement has resulted in constitutional policing. The measurements relating to use of force; addressing individuals in crisis; and stop, search and arrest are indeed primary concerns of the Consent Decree. The outcome measures aim to gauge, document and tell the story of reform across the Division and the City of Cleveland over time.
The specific outcome measures to which the United States and Cleveland agreed in the Consent Decree address a host of areas including: use of force; crisis intervention; stops, searches and arrests; bias-free policing and community engagement; recruitment; officer training; officers assistance and support; supervision; civilian complaints; and internal investigations, and discipline. The outcome measures related to these nine areas are broken down into many particular measures and sub-parts. As reported in the initial Baseline Measure Report,280 there are approximately 471 discrete data points on which the Consent Decree requires annual assessment.
In late June 2016, the Monitoring Team submitted a report to the Court that included 2015 baseline measures required by paragraph 367 of the Consent Decree.281 Those measures serve as a baseline reference point for assessing the progress, over time, of the reform efforts instituted by the City and CDP during the Consent Decree.
Since the Baseline Measures Report of June 2016, the Outcome
280 Dkt. 73. 281 Id.

Measurement Team of the Monitoring Team has worked closely with many of the CDP’s subdivisions to create data collection plans, the support compliance with the Consent Decree, and to understand better existing systems and barriers to data collection and use.
The Monitoring Team is currently working on measuring the various outcome measures in terms of 2016 data. Consequently, the forthcoming outcome measurement report will be able to include comparative data with respect to the outcome measures required by the Consent Decree.
The Monitoring Team has conducted other reviews and audits during the most recent reporting period. As summarized elsewhere in this report, a subset of the Monitoring Team has conducted a substantial qualitative assessment of a statistically-significant sample of cases from the Internal Affairs Unit. It has likewise begun to collect and analyze data on the discipline cases. Consistent with the obligations of Paragraph 363, the Monitoring Team has also conducted Community Focus Groups and interviews of arrested detainees during this reporting period.
Collecting and compiling the data required by the Consent Decree remains a challenge. Some of the required data collection points remain difficult or impossible to collect at this time. Infrastructure encumbrances within CDP to the collection of some required data remain. A number of systems for collecting and storing information about various aspects of officer performance remain inadequate, duplicative, and inconsistent – with some simply overly rudimentary and confusing. For instance, Delays in the full implementation of the Law Enforcement Record Management System (LERMS) and backlogs in the review of other administrative reviews have contributed to the difficulty. In particular, the slow pace of review of various types of incidents in CDP’s IA Pro system remains an impediment to the CDP being able to use data for real-time supervision, operations, and risk management.
Thus, problems with the underlying mechanisms for collecting data prevent the production of officer and Division performance information of sufficient quality and integrity to be analyzed or reported here. In the coming year, we will focus more directly on the gaps and work with the leadership at the CDP on using the data in a way that helps manage the department, hold people and units accountable, and keep processes and systems in motion.
B. Consent Decree Survey Requirements
Since the Second Semiannual Report in January 2017, the Monitoring Team selected and engaged providers for two sets of focus groups and the interviews of arrested detainees. The Monitoring Team directly contacted a number of Cleveland-based firms and invited them to respond to a request for proposals (“RFP”). Members of the monitoring team with an expert identified by the City and reviewed and selected firms to conduct focus groups both of (1) Cleveland residents generally, and (2) arrest-
73

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 75 of 77. PageID #: 2875

ed detainees.
As summarized elsewhere in the report, Ideas InFocus, a Cleveland-based consumer and public opinion insights firm, was selected to plan and deliver the community-based focus groups. The community focus groups were conducted during early May 2017 at the offices of Ideas InFocus using contemporary and methodologically rigorous approaches for such research.282 Based on data on use of force incidents, reported crimes, and neighborhood ethnic and demographic information, we determined that six focus groups – one held in Spanish and one limited to young people up to age 26 – would be held. The other four groups draw from neighborhoods selected by the Firm with input from CDP data and the community engagement team. Ideas InFocus used the services of a local professional recruiter and the advice of our Community Engagement Team to recruit Cleveland residents to participate. The focus groups were conducted during the first week of May – two per night on a Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. There was great candor and enthusiasm from the participants. Members of the Monitoring Team observed the process and are very satisfied with the integrity of and the implementation of the process. The Monitoring Team will file Ideas InFocus’ final report with the Court soon.

and enthusiastic participation by the members.
C. Compliance Reviews & Audits
The Consent Decree requires that the Monitoring Team also conduct qualitative reviews, audits, and outcome measures. During this reporting period, the Monitoring Team conducted a formalized assessment of CDP’s Internal Affairs investigations. The results of that assessment are summarized in this report’s discussion of Internal Affairs. Additional, formalized assessments of CDP’s discipline system, use of force, and other issues will be conducted next.

A seasoned team of experts from the Monk School of Public Police at the University of Toronto was selected to conduct the interviews of arrested detainees. Those interviews were completed in late April 2017 and entailed an important and nuanced data collection capable of yielding deep and pragmatic insights. Because of the delicate nature of these interviews, we sought and hired a firm whose leader had extensive experience in human subjects research and in working with this or a similar population. Under the leadership of Dr. Todd Foglesong, the Monk School of Public Policy was hired to do the interviews with arrested detainees. With introductions from Chief Williams’ office, the Monitoring Team met with Jail Commissioner David Carroll and Jail Manager Lisa Scafidi. Both were extraordinarily hospitable and accommodating to the Monitoring Team and the Monk School research team. During the weeks of April 17 and April 24, 2017, with eight days of consecutive interviews, the six-person research team interviewed 53 arrested detainees before their first court appearance.

Results and findings from both focus groups efforts are being prepared and will be submitted to the Court soon. The police officer focus groups remain in the planning stages and are slated to take place during the next reporting period. The Monitoring Team has been in contact with the leaders of the two police officer associations/unions to ensure their understanding and support and are working with the CDP on the logistics and planning. All parties need to participate and support this effort to minimize inconvenience and costs as well as to maximize candor
282 See generally David W. Stewart & Prem N. Shamdasani, Focus Groups: Theory and Practice (3d ed. 2014); Roasline Barbour, Doing Focus Groups (2008); Claudia Puchta & Jonathan Potter, Focus Group Practice (2004).
74

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 76 of 77. PageID #: 2876
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team
Matthew Barge Monitor
Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey (ret.) Deputy Monitor
Chief Timothy Longo (ret.) Director of Implementation
Charles R. See Director of Community Engagement
Christine Cole Director of Outcome Measures
Chief Hassan Aden (ret.) Dr. Modupe Akinola
Chief Joseph Brann (ret.) Brian Center
Dr. Randolph Dupont Maggie Goodrich Ayesha Hardaway
Richard Rosenthal Victor Ruiz
Captain Scott Sargent (ret.) Dr. Ellen Scrivner Sean Smoot Timothy Tramble Monitoring Team
Barry Friedman Ruby Nidiry
Nonny Onyekweli Maria Ponomarenko NYU School of Law Policing Project
Consultants

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 135 Filed: 06/13/17 77 of 77. PageID #: 2877
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on June 13, 2017, I served the foregoing document entitled Notice Submitting Monitoring Team’s Third Semiannual Report via the court’s ECF system to all counsel of record.
/s/ Matthew Barge MATTHEW BARGE

 
 Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 144 Filed: 07/19/17 1 of 32. PageID #: 3084

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

UUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff, vs.
CCITY OF CLEVELAND,
Defendant.

) CASE NO.: 1:15-CV-01046 ) ) ) JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER, JR. ) ) ) CITY OF CLEVELAND’S ) FOURTH STATUS REPORT

I.

Introduction

The City of Cleveland’s fourth semi-annual status report is being provided

pursuant to Paragraph 387 of the Settlement Agreement/Consent Decree, which directs

that “the City will file a status report every six months thereafter while this Agreement is

in effect.” The City’s fourth status report follows its prior filing of the “Third

Semiannual Report” on January 24, 2017. (Dkt. 104). As with its earlier status reports

the City’s fourth report follows the format contained in Section 387:

This report will delineate the steps taken by CDP during the reporting period to comply with this Agreement; CDP’s Assessment of the Status of its progress; plans to correct any problems; and response to concerns raised in the Monitor’s previous semi-annual report.

During this reporting period the City and CDP continued to work in a collaborative

fashion with the Monitor Team, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), the Cleveland

Community Police Commission (“CPC”), and other stakeholders to advance the reforms

that were agreed to in reaching the Settlement Agreement/Consent Decree.

A. Second Year Monitoring Plan

The Court approved a “Second Year Monitoring Plan” (hereafter “Plan”) (Dkt.

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 144 Filed: 07/19/17 2 of 32. PageID #: 3085
123) which was put into place for the period February 1, 2017 to January 31, 2018. As was noted in the Monitor’s recently filed Third Semiannual Report,1 the Plan retained a necessary flexibility that would allow ongoing reform efforts to adapt to changed circumstances and operational realities. (See Dkt. 135, p. 8). The Plan contemplates ongoing review and provides that a modified, updated plan be submitted by August 11, 2017. The Monitor noted in its recent report that “the baton” had been passed “to the City and [CDP] going forward with respect to the fashioning of a project implementation plan.” (Dkt. 135, p. 8) The City and CDP have accepted the passing of the plan implementation “baton,” and are currently finalizing the draft of a proposed modified Plan for the balance of the second monitoring period that takes into account ongoing circumstances and operational realities. The City anticipates following discussion and review of the CDP’s proposed revisions, the Monitor will submit a modified Plan covering the balance of the second year reporting period to the Court. B. Summary Assessments
For the first time the Monitor’s Third Semiannual Report included informal overview “summary assessments” of progress to date for the various sections covered by the Consent Decree.2 With respect to progress, the Monitor’s remarks make clear that to provide “sound project management structure” *** “some elements of the Consent Decree…must be focused on more immediately while others will receive focus further along in the process.” (Dkt. 135, p. 10). The Monitor’s use of the summary assessment
1 Dkt 135, Notice Submitting Monitoring Team’s Third Semiannual Report 2 As the Monitor noted: “The assessments are informal to the extent that not all of them are necessarily informed by the type of exhaustive compliance and outcome measurements that are a critical component of the consent decree…” (Dkt. 135, p. 11).
2

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 144 Filed: 07/19/17 3 of 32. PageID #: 3086

terms “Non-Compliance,” “Evaluation Deferred,” “Partial Compliance,” “Operational
Compliance,” and “General Compliance” were not understood, at this point, to present a
qualitative, informed report card grade regarding effort and accomplishment to date, but,
rather, were more intended to provide the reader with a snapshot of where the focus of
work undertaken to date has been placed:
[A] designation of “Non-Compliance” or “Partial Compliance” does not necessarily or in itself mean that the lack of progress is something that the monitoring team finds problematic under the circumstances. In some instances it does. However, the Monitoring Team has previously pointed out that “even good-faith attempts to do everything that is required under the Consent Decree simultaneously and without sound project management structure would only ensure that little is accomplish[ed] at the level of quality…that the Consent Decree requires.”
(Dkt. 135, p. 10, quoting First Semiannual Report at 16.) The “summary assessments”
should be read within the context of the Monitor’s underlying and detailed descriptive
remarks for an understanding of where effort has been directed to date, where ongoing
efforts continue to be addressed, and where future efforts will be undertaken.

II.

Steps Taken by the Cleveland Division of Police and the City of

Cleveland During the Reporting Period.

As with the City’s previous reports, the activities and milestone events addressed during this reporting period are identified under nine topic areas:

A. Community and Problem-Oriented Policing, B. Use of Force, C. Crisis Intervention, D. Officer Training, E. Accountability F. Equipment and Resources, G. Data Collection and Analysis, H. Bias Free Policing, and I. Compliance and Outcome Assessments and Reporting.

3

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 144 Filed: 07/19/17 4 of 32. PageID #: 3087
A. Community and Problem-Oriented Policing 1. Community and Problem-Oriented Policing Work Plan The Consent Decree requires the development and implementation of a
comprehensive and integrated community and problem-oriented policing (“CPOP”) model to promote and strengthen partnerships within the community, ensure collaborative problem solving, and increase confidence in the CDP. (Dkt. 7-1, Sec. 27). Partnership with the community is a prominent principle of community and problem-oriented policing, and as such is reflected in the CDP’s new Mission Statement:
The mission of the Cleveland Division of Police is to serve as guardians of the Cleveland community by enforcing the law, maintaining order, and protecting the lives, property, and rights of all people, as guided by the Constitution. We shall carry out our duties with a reverence for human life in partnership with members of the community through professionalism, respect, integrity, dedication and excellence in policing. (Dkt. 72). In February the Monitor Team filed a “Motion Recommending Approval of Community Engagement Framework for Community and Problem Oriented Policing Plan and Bias-Free Policing Policy.” (Dkt. 111). The Motion was approved by the Court on March 6, 2017. (Dkt. 113). The Community Engagement Framework establishes an agreed upon “process for coordinating, reviewing, and synthesizing feedback” from the community that “ensures community members have multiple avenues to provide input and promotes community confidence in the Division” as CDP develops its CPOP Plan and new BFP Policy. (Dkt. 111, p.2). The approved Framework provides a calendar that outlines direct and collaborative community engagement efforts to be undertaken. CDP Commander Johnny Johnson heads the Division’s Bureau of Community Policing (“BCP”). Commander Johnson and CDP’s five District Commanders have
4

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 144 Filed: 07/19/17 5 of 32. PageID #: 3088
worked with the Monitor, the DOJ, CPC, and other stakeholders during this fourth reporting period to engage the community and gather input and feedback on CPOP issues as CDP works toward formalizing a community plan that clearly emphasizes the necessary and ongoing partnership between the police and the community being served. In conjunction with the Monitor, the CPC, the DOJ and other stakeholders, the CDP assisted in the preparation of discussion materials and participated in two large Community Roundtable discussions events that were held in March. Community members were engaged in guided discussions with the CDP, the Monitor Team, the DOJ, the CPC and other stakeholders in a forum that allowed for a frank and direct exchange of ideas on a number of issues that involve community interests and values. Commander Johnson and the BCP have also worked during this reporting period to survey CDP officers regarding knowledge and understanding of “community policing.”
In addition to CDP’s direct engagement with the community as a whole through the roundtable discussions, Commander Johnson and CDP’s District Commanders have further worked with the Monitor, the DOJ, the City’s Community Relations Board, and the CPC to address and encourage greater participation of community residents with the five District Policing Committees (“DPC’s”), (formerly known as “Community Relations Committees”) addressed in the Consent Decree. (Dkt. 7-1, see generally ¶¶ 23-26). The Consent Decree provides each of the DPC’s with an expanded role in addressing localized strategies, concerns, and recommendations to the public. Each DPC is to make a presentation to the CPC on these issues, with an officer working with each of the DPC’s then presenting CDP’s assessment of ways to address and barriers to implementation of the DPC identified strategies, concerns, and recommendations
5

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 144 Filed: 07/19/17 6 of 32. PageID #: 3089
CDP is presently finalizing a proposed CPOP Plan. Using the Court approved framework, the CDP believes it is on track to reach an agreed upon CPOP Plan in the second half of the years that fully takes into account the feedback and values of the communities being served.
2. Cleveland Police Commission The CPC lost one of its original co-chairs when Dr. Rhonda Williams resigned, effective May 31, 2017, from the Commission because of an academic career opportunity that will see her relocating from her role as a professor at Case Western Reserve University Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee. “Dr. Rhonda’s” position on the Commission will be filled pursuant to the application process outlined in paragraph 16 of the Consent Decree. The Selection Panel authorized therein will review applications received from the public and will then recommend an individual to be appointed as a replacement for Dr. Rhonda. On June 12, 2017 Mr. Jason Goodrick was hired as the first Executive Director for the CPC. Additionally, Ms. Chinenye Nkemere Thompson has been hired to fill a Community Engagement Coordinator position. The office for the CPC’s executive staff for the CPC has been temporarily located at Burke Lakefront Airport while a more permanent location is located. The CPC has recently elected Rev. Dr. V. Yvonne Conner and Ms. LaToya Logan as the new Commission co-chairs going forward. B. Use of Force —Policies 1. General On January 17, 2017 the Court entered an order that approved with conditions five revised use of force policies that were a major focus of CDP effort during the period of
6

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 144 Filed: 07/19/17 7 of 32. PageID #: 3090
the First Year Monitoring Plan. (Dkt. 101). The Court approved policies included (1) Use of Force—General, (2) Use of Force—Definitions, (3) De-Escalation (4) Use of Force— Intermediate Weapons, and (5) Use of Force—Reporting. The Court noted with its order that “The new policies will become effective upon the Cleveland Division of Police’s successful completion of Use of Force Training.” (Id.) Use of Force Training will be discussed in Section II(D) of this report.
In addition to use of force policies that effect officers in the performance of their enforcement law duties, CDP is also tasked with developing force related policies that address supervisory investigations and review of officer uses of force.
2. Investigation and Review As was addressed in the Monitor’s Third Report, the finalization and anticipated approval of CDP policies addressing the investigation and review of uses of force were scheduled for the second half of the current Monitor Plan. The Monitor’s comments at pages 31-32 of the Third Report concerning progress on force investigation and review policies makes clear that the summary status assessment provided does not reflect on CDP effort or commitment to reform, but rather reflects where the Plan has placed the emphasis to date and where the focus will be in the second half of this period. “The City and CDP have indicated their full commitment to ensuring the full and comprehensive implementation of new structures and processes for reviewing the use of force so that it aligns with the requirements of the Consent Decree and builds from the insights, best practices and lessons learned from other jurisdictions…” (Dkt. 135, p. 32). The level of scrutiny or investigation to be undertaken following an officer’s use of force is related directly to the level and outcome of the force used. In this regard CDP has prepared and submitted drafts of proposed policies that will govern investigations for
7

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 144 Filed: 07/19/17 8 of 32. PageID #: 3091
each of the three levels of force, the creation of a Force Investigation Team (“FIT”), and a
separate policy relating to the creation of a Force Review Board (“FRB”).3 The final
agreed upon language of these separate policies is subject to further discussion and
review. As was noted in the Monitor’s Third Report progress continues and:
[B]y the end of 2017, it is anticipated that CDP will at least have in place the policies, procedures, and mechanisms that will allow it to comprehensively analyze the application of force so that officer training, professional development, and risk management may all be continually enhanced. (Dkt. 132, p. 32).
C. Crisis Intervention
On January 19, 2017 the Monitor filed a “Motion Regarding Cleveland Division
of Police Crisis Intervention Policy and Procedures” recommending the Court approve
the CDP’s proposed Crisis Intervention Policy. (Dkt. 103, Motion). In recommending
approval the Monitor recognized not only the quality of the policy, but also the spirit of
compromise and cooperation with the Community exhibited by CDP in the creation of
the policy:
The Monitoring Team also observes here that the attached crisis intervention policy was developed by a process that allowed for the community to partner closely and directly with CPD. Those discussions were productive, thoughtful, and respectful of all involved. CPD was engaged and considered community suggestions seriously. When some community requests were not able to be met or feedback not able to be addressed, CPD explained the rationale for the decision and attempted to reach a compromise that was acceptable to all those involved. Consequently, it is fair to conclude that not only were the specific substantive requirements of the Consent Decree but also that the City moved closer to upholding its commitments to “provide for civilian participation in and oversight of the police” and “increase transparency.” Dkt. 7-1 at 1. Thus, both the crisis intervention policies
3 A more detailed explanation concerning the requirements of the Consent Decree and the policies under development that address investigation and review, to include the distinctions associated with the three levels of force and the roles of the FIT and FRB was contained in the City’s third status report (Dkt. 104) at pages 7-10.
8

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 144 Filed: 07/19/17 9 of 32. PageID #: 3092
themselves and the collaborative manner by which they were created represent critical milestones for the Division, the City, and the Cleveland community. (Dkt. 103, pp. 12-13). Based on the period of the last six months, the Monitor’s Third Semiannual Report noted: The cooperative relationship established between advocates, healthcare professionals and CDP worked well in developing a consensus policy to address the needs of the individual in crisis without compromising the safety of the officer or the Cleveland community. As a result, the policy presents a new comprehensive strategy for responding to individuals in a behavioral crisis. (Dkt. 135, p. 34).
Further work during the first six months of the Plan involved CDP’s attention to fulfilling the development of the Specialized Crisis Intervention Plan that was agreed to with the Consent Decree ((Dkt. 7-1, ¶ 152). The goal of this intervention plan is to “ensure that a specialized CIT officer is available to respond to all calls and incidents that appear to involve an individual in crisis.” (Id.) A draft Specialized Crisis Intervention Plan was prepared in consultation with the Mental Health Response Advisory Committee (MHRAC)4 as anticipated by the Plan, and was submitted for feedback to the Monitor and DOJ. Feedback was received and the Specialized Crisis Intervention Plan is currently being revised and will be submitted for final review, with anticipated final approval of the plan occurring in August.
Additionally, CDP submitted a draft plan for assessing the fitness of CDP officers to serve as the specialized CIT officer envisioned in the Specialized Crisis Intervention Plan. After receiving feedback the CDP submitted a revised plan for approval on July 17.
4 The MHRAC was established as an advisory Committee to the Department of Public Safety and CDP on behavioral health issues and crisis intervention. The committee is made up of representatives of behavioral health and social service agencies, criminal justice agencies, advocacy groups, community members, and members of CDP.
9

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 144 Filed: 07/19/17 10 of 32. PageID #: 3093
D. Officer Training 1. Use of Force The Consent Decree requires that CDP “provide all current officers use of force
training that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type.”( Dkt. 7-1, ¶ 84). As was noted above, the Court approved Use of Force policies will only become effective once CDP’s officers have successfully completed the training developed for the policies. At the time of the City’s third semi-annual report last January CDP was engaged in the process of working collaboratively with the Monitor and DOJ to finalize the curriculum for the required 16 hours of in-service Use of Force training to be provided to all officers.
On June 5, 2017 the Monitor filed a “Memorandum Submitting Initial Officer Use of Force Training.” (Dkt. 133). The Monitor’s memorandum detailed the nature of the proposed use of force training and found it to be adequate in quality, quantity, and in scope (Id. at pp. 12-13). After viewing a walk-through of the proposed instruction, the Monitor informed the Court:
The Monitoring Team was tremendously impressed by the level of the training demonstrated and the clear commitment of the instructors to the overriding objectives of the Division’s Use of Force Training initiative. This interactive, immersive training is a far distance from the rote “Death by PowerPoint” style that, for some police departments, has served as the default method. Having now reviewed the finalized training curriculum materials, the Monitoring Team believes that the training appropriately takes advantage of new instructional approaches and is geared toward providing officers with practical, day-to-day skills and an ability to practice application of the new force policy in realistic settings. (Id. at p. 12). 2. Crisis Intervention The Consent Decree requires that CDP provide officers with at least eight hours of initial and annual in-service training on responding to individuals in crisis. The training
10

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 144 Filed: 07/19/17 11 of 32. PageID #: 3094
is to be “adequate in quality, quantity, type, and scope, and will include the circumstances in which a specialized CIT officer should be dispatched or consulted and how situations involving individuals in crisis should be addressed if a specialized CIT officer is not immediately available.” (Dkt. 7-1, ¶ 143).
On May 22, 2017 the Monitor filed a “Motion Regarding All-Officer, Eight Hour Crisis Intervention Training” recommending approval of the training plan submitted to meet the requirements of the Consent Decree. The quality of the training plan to be provided is evidenced by the Monitor’s remarks in the motion:
[T]he training that the Division, Advisory Committee, and representatives of the Cleveland community have collaboratively developed represents some of the strongest and best training on basic crisis intervention issues that the Monitoring Team’s experts have seen across the country. The Monitor commends the extraordinary progress and high-quality work product that the Advisory Committee has generated to date. Since the City has submitted a training curriculum that has met both the requirements and intent of the Consent Decree, the Monitoring Team recommends approval of the Curriculum. (Dkt. 129). 3. Training Progress To date CDP has completed eight training sessions addressing the new Use of Force and Crisis Intervention policies that have been attended by 299 officers. While the 24 hours of instruction necessary to complete training on the two topics requires significant instructional and coordination efforts, CDP anticipates that the training as currently scheduled should be finalized on these policies by the end of October. 4. Recruitment and Hiring Much effort has gone into the area of recruiting during the fourth reporting period. On June 22, 2017 the City submitted a draft proposed Safety Forces Recruitment Plan for review by the Monitor and DOJ.
11

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 144 Filed: 07/19/17 12 of 32. PageID #: 3095

In addition to recruiting candidates for CDP, the new plan includes guidelines

associated for the recruitment of candidates for the City’s Division of Fire and Division

of Emergency Medical Services. The proposed plan establishes a permanent Public Safety

Recruitment Team and it incorporates three (3) Programmatic Goals that have been

designed to attract qualified applicants for the City’s safety forces:

1.

Attract and hire a diverse group of qualified individuals that more

closely align with the makeup of the Cleveland communities.

2.

Create and maintain sustained relationships with community

stakeholders to support and enhance recruitment efforts.

3.

Employ the best practices in our hiring process that are effective in

identifying applicants who are familiar with the different

neighborhoods of Cleveland, who possess strategic thinking and

problem-solving skills, emotional maturity, interpersonal skills, and

the ability to collaborate with a diverse cross-section of the

community.

City efforts during the reporting period to attract diverse and qualified applicants have

been proactive. From March to June the recruitment team participated in 15 job fairs and

collected the names of over 1200 interested potential applicants and provided them with

guidance as to the application process. For the first time the City through the efforts of the

public safety recruiting team was a featured employer at the ADAMHS (Alcohol, Drug

Addiction, and Mental Health Services) Behavioral and Human Services Job fair. Radio One in

partnership with the City has initiated a monthly “Guardian of the Land” campaign that utilizes

members of the City’s public safety forces to record their stories of how they became a

public safety employee and the benefits associated with their jobs. The vignettes have

been run on local stations and have been provided to the City’s public information office

to distribute to media outlets. In May Chief Calvin Williams and a diverse group of CDP

officers recorded radio and video spots that encouraged community members to consider

12

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 144 Filed: 07/19/17 13 of 32. PageID #: 3096
a career with the City’s Division of Police. The Chief and other officers described their journeys toward service in law enforcement and how they use their skills to serve the community on a daily basis. In addition to broadcast spots, the City’s recruiters have distributed materials throughout the City, to include areas as diverse as fitness gyms, barbershops, beauty supply shops, laundromats, restaurants, hospitals, clothing stores, cell phone stores, and city recreation centers.
In further engaging with the City’s communities the recruiting team has attended local District Police Committee in all five Districts, handing out informational flyers for distribution to interested persons, answering questions, and collecting information. The City has established a recruiting team Facebook page that has reached almost 8,000 people. The Facebook page provides contact information and allows interactive responses to inquiries. The recruiting team is attempting to use the City Council offices to obtain assistance in getting recruiting information out to their constituents. In June the recruiting team assisted Global Cleveland at a naturalization ceremony for new citizens in further attempting to ensure all members of the local community are aware of opportunities to serve.
Cleveland graduated two classes of new CDP officers from the Police Academy during the fourth reporting period. CDP Police Academy Class No. 136, a class for new recruits, graduated 47 officers. These new officers underwent eight weeks of training in Cleveland and six months of training at the Ohio State Highway Patrol Training Academy. The next basic class for new recruits, Police Academy Class No. 138, begins in August, with 65 recruits having been selected to attend.
13

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 144 Filed: 07/19/17 14 of 32. PageID #: 3097
Police Academy Class No. 137 provided training to 20 lateral transfer officers in the fourth reporting period. This class was conducted for officers who had been accepted to join CDP from their positions with other law enforcement agencies. CDP requires officers who have been accepted as lateral transfers to complete a ten week course of instruction at the CDP’s Police Academy.
Recruiting remains focused on attracting a diverse group of qualified individuals for future hire. The most recent application period for potential new CDP recruits closed on July 15, 2017. The City received close to 1100 applications. Testing for the new pool of applicants is underway and will end on July 31. A statistical review of the applicants shows they identified themselves as Hispanic (10.8%), African-Americans (37.3 %), and White (44.6%); with the balance of applicants identifying themselves as Asian (1%), Pacific Islander (0.1%) , Native American (0.6%), being of two or more races (4.5%), and not specifying a race (1.1%). Female applicants make up approximately 26% of those who submitted applications. E. Accountability
1. Internal Affairs Historically the head of Internal Affairs (“IA”) has been a police officer who serves as the Commander of CDP’s Bureau of Integrity Control. The Consent decree provides going forward that “Internal Affairs will be headed by a qualified civilian who is not a current or former employee of CDP, and who is not a current or retired law enforcement officer.” (Dkt. 7-1, ¶ 178). The application process began during the period of the First Year Monitoring plan. Recruiting efforts were continued into 2017 and remained ongoing during the fourth reporting period. To assist in finding qualified
14

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 144 Filed: 07/19/17 15 of 32. PageID #: 3098
candidates, the City made a request to the Monitor and DOJ that the pool of potential candidates be expanded to allow retired former prosecutors, federal investigators and former officers from police departments other than CDP to be considered for the position. This change has been agreed to and the IA application process has been extended through July. The goal is to begin interviews in the very near future, with the anticipation that the new position be filled in the second half of this year.
The Monitor conducted a quality analysis of IA investigations by reviewing 45 cases from 2015. The CDP received the results of the Monitor’s analysis concurrent with the release of the Monitor’s Third Semiannual Report in June, which discusses the review in detail. While the CDP has questions concerning the weight of factors included in the Monitor’s quality assessments, CDP will continue to work with the Monitor to address areas of concern raised in the review and analysis.5
2. Office of Professional Standards and the Civilian Police Review Board On November 29, 2016 the Monitor filed a motion recommending that the Court approve new manuals for both the Office of Professional Standards (“OPS”) and Cleveland’s Civilian Police Review Board (“PRB”). (Dkt. 86). After some further amendments to the manuals the Court entered an Order on May 6, 2017 approving both the OPS and PRB manuals. (Dkt. 114). The OPS manual outlines the process for interacting with the public, receiving, evaluating, and timely investigating complaints, and making presentations and recommendations to the PRB. The PRB manual details the procedures that will be followed by the PRB in receiving, reviewing and deliberating
5 The Monitor’s analysis concluded that 77 percent of the files reviewed ranged from fair to very good. (Dkt. 135, p. 43).
15

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 144 Filed: 07/19/17 16 of 32. PageID #: 3099
upon OPS investigations and recommendations. A Charter amendment was passed in November, 2016 that increased the size of
the number of the PRB to nine members. Following a designated period for applications, the City Council voted 15-0 at the public meeting on February 6, 2017 to fill one existing vacancy and to appoint the two new members authorized by the Charter Amendment. The three Council appointments brought the size of the CPRB to nine (9) members as now required by the Charter.
As was acknowledged in the City’s third status report, 2017 has presented a challenging year for OPS as it continues to place effort on reducing the backlog of unfinished investigations. In addition to increasing the number of permanent employee investigators in 2016, the City has now hired six (6) temporary investigators to assist in the reduction effort. On May 3, 2017 the Monitor filed a status report that addressed a revised team structure within the OPS for the purpose of reducing the backlog going forward. (Dkt. 126). The City will continue to work with the Monitor and DOJ in addressing the investigation backlog. The City remains committed to ensuring future operations that are in accord with reasonable public expectations and the agreed to language of the Consent Decree. F. Equipment and Resources
1. Equipment and Resources Plan The City and the Monitor continue to address the Consent Decree requirement that the CDP “develop an effective, comprehensive Equipment and Resource Plan that is consistent with its mission and that will allow it to satisfy the requirements of this Agreement.” (Dkt. 7-1, Section 292). The City believes it has presented a substantive
16

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 144 Filed: 07/19/17 17 of 32. PageID #: 3100
Equipment Plan that addresses CDP’s multiple equipment and resource issues within the requirements of the Consent Decree. The City, however, continues to work positively with the Monitor and appreciates the technical advice provided to date. The City continues to exercise “best efforts to implement the Equipment and Resource Plan over the period of time set forth in the approved plan.” (See Dkt.7-1, ¶ 295). Significant accomplishments have occurred during this reporting period.
The electrical systems each of the five District stations were upgraded during the reporting period to provide for the increased bandwidth necessary for the effective use of 105 computers that have now been deployed to the districts as CDP transitions to Field Based Reporting (“FBR”). Field Based Reporting provides CDP officers with real time access to the Law Enforcement Record Management System (LERMS), thereby enabling fast and convenient data entry and support submission. The reduction in paper-based reporting accomplished with FBR will increase efficiency and will assist in the timely submission of reports. The final adjustments to FBR forms and final functional testing of the system are being completed and FBR should go live for all CDP shifts (Platoons A, B, and C) during the second half of 2017.
Initial configuration testing for CDP’s new Computer Aided Dispatch (“CAD”) system was completed during the fourth reporting period. CAD will provide CDP more efficient incident management for call handling by allowing the dispatch of calls to officers through silent transmission to vehicle based computer Mobile Data Terminals instead of radio communication over the airwaves. CAD increases the accuracy of location identification for a specific assignment through the use of Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping, will increase field communication efficiency, and
17

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 144 Filed: 07/19/17 18 of 32. PageID #: 3101
will provide data reporting and analysis. The second half of 2017 will see final configuration and issue resolution as the CAD system goes active. It is currently anticipated that deployment of CAD will be completed by December.
The City’s 2017 CDP vehicle plan included 65 vehicles being ordered. The period of this fourth report saw 35 new marked police passenger cars (zone cars) and 10 marked SUV’s received and configured with required technology upgrades for introduction into the field. The existing fleet was inventoried to determine the number of vehicles that need to be upgraded and equipped with Mobile Data Terminals. Work is ongoing to ensure that the installation of MDT’s in CDP’s existing vehicle fleet is completed by the end of 2017.
2. Body Worn Cameras The CDP’s Body Worn Camera (Wearable camera System) Policy has been approved by the Court in large part (Dkt. 101, Order), with approval not yet achieved regarding the issue of whether officers should be required to wear their cameras while engaged in secondary employment. The City’s policy as drafted encourages such use but does not mandate that cameras be worn by officers during secondary employment. The City previously addressed its concerns with instituting a policy that mandated the use of cameras while an officer is engaged in secondary employment (e.g. a common example is officers providing security in uniform but off-duty at a grocery store) with the Court in January. (Dkt. 96, Response to Monitor’s Motion Regarding Cleveland Division of Police Proposed Wearable Camera System Policy). This element of the City’s wearable camera policy has been the subject of much discussion between the parties and the Monitor. The City is modifying its camera policy to further encourage officers to voluntarily use their cameras while engaged in secondary employment. CDP is expectant
18

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 144 Filed: 07/19/17 19 of 32. PageID #: 3102
that the policy modifications will result in more officers voluntarily using cameras during secondary employment. It is hoped that data generated during the second half of the year concerning the logistics and costs associated with the use of cameras during secondary employment will reasonably inform the ongoing discussions concerning this aspect of the City’s camera policy. G. Data Collection and Analysis
The City reported in its Third Status Report that CDP was believed to be close to filling the Data Collection and Analysis Coordinator position established in the Settlement Agreement. The position was created to coordinate the creation, collection, and maintenance of multiple data and records required by the Decree. This fourth report addresses in detail the current status of ongoing activities to provide the Court and the community with an understanding the myriad ongoing efforts in this important area.
1. Data Collection and Analysis Coordination Team Significant progress has been made in the area of data collection, analysis and reporting since the City’s Third Status Report in January 2017. The Settlement Agreement provides that: CDP will collect and maintain all data and records necessary to accurately evaluate its use of force practices and search and seizure practices and facilitate transparency and, as permitted by law, broad public access to information related to CDP’s decision making and activities. To achieve this outcome, CDP will designate an individual or individuals as the “Data Collection and Analysis Coordinator” (Dkt. 7-1, ¶ 257). This progress has included the hiring of a Data Analyst by the City and entering into a contract with The Begun Center at Case Western Reserve University (Begun Center) to assist with data coordination, analysis and reporting.
19

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 144 Filed: 07/19/17 20 of 32. PageID #: 3103
An exhaustive recruitment effort was completed to identify potential candidates for the Data Collection and Analysis Coordinator (“Data Coordinator”) and the Data Analyst position (Data Analyst). These recruitment efforts included posting both positions on multiple employment websites and retaining an employment headhunting firm. A Data Analyst hired in June 2017 and the Begun Center began work in February 2017. A potential candidate for the Data Coordinator position was interviewed in June 2017 and was offered the position. Unfortunately the candidate withdrew from consideration.
As of June 2017, Mr. Rodney Thomas, a Senior Research Associate from the Begun Center, has been serving as the Acting Data Coordinator (“ADC”) until the City is able to successfully hire a fulltime Data Coordinator. Mr. Thomas has extensive experience managing large state and county wide evaluation projects and is well versed in providing technical assistance to law enforcement agencies and youth-serving agencies around data collection, analysis and reporting. Mr. Thomas is responsible for coordinating the data collection and analysis activities set forth in the Settlement Agreement (Dkt. 7-1, ¶¶259-266). In that role Mr. Thomas is responsible for meeting with CDP, IT and other project staff. Mr. Thomas has been participating in all Compliance Committee meetings, IAPro Trainings, Field-Based Reporting system development meetings, COMPSTAT meetings, Data Planning Committee meetings, and has been providing technical assistance on data collection efforts for all Settlement Agreement data areas. The examples provided below illustrate the progress that has been achieved in activities listed in Settlement Agreement paragraphs 259-266.
20

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 144 Filed: 07/19/17 21 of 32. PageID #: 3104
The Begun Center team also includes Dr. Daniel Flannery (Principal Investigator) and Chase Klingenstein (Research Assistant). Dr. Flannery is the Begun Professor and Director of the Dr. Semi J. and Ruth W. Begun Center for Violence Prevention Research & Education. A licensed clinical psychologist, he previously served as Professor of Criminal Justice Studies and Public Health at Kent State University where he was founding director of the Institute for the Study and Prevention of Violence. Dr. Flannery has extensive experience working with local and federal law enforcement agencies and with juvenile and adult justice systems. As Principal Investigator, Dr. Flannery is responsible for the overall conduct of the project, but especially coordinating law enforcement and justice system data collection strategies, and ensuring that project findings are applicable to policy and practice. He will participate in the preparation of project reports, presentations, and all project related dissemination materials.
2. Technical Assistance on IAPro and Blueteam Documents and Data Collection Systems.
Specifically, the Settlement Agreement provides that: The Data Analysis and Collection Coordinator will ensure the collection and tracking of all documents related to uses of force and allegations of misconduct and related materials, including: a. officers’ use of force reports; b. supervisor’s use of force investigations; c. force investigations by the Force Investigation Team; d. force investigations by the Office of Professional Standards; e. force reviews conducted by the Force Review Board; f. investigations conducted by Internal Affairs; and all supporting documentation and materials, including relevant ECW downloads, supporting audio-visual recordings, including witness and officer interviews, and any relevant camera downloads, including from body worn cameras. (Dkt. 7-1, ¶258).
Progress towards this objective includes the fact that officers’ use of force reports, supervisor’s use of force investigations, force investigations by the Force Investigation Team, force investigations by the Office of Professional Standards, and investigations
21

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 144 Filed: 07/19/17 22 of 32. PageID #: 3105
conducted by Internal Affairs are available in IAPro. As the City’s ADC Mr. Thomas has been trained on IAPro software and is able to access, download and analyze all available Use of Force data and forms in IAPro and Blueteam databases, and he will continue to provide technical assistance to CDP on IAPro and Blueteam documents. Mr. Thomas has not yet accessed Evidence.Com for supporting documentation and materials related to Internal Affairs investigations.
In addition, the Settlement Agreement provides that the “Data Analysis and Collection Coordinator will ensure the creation and maintenance of a reliable and accurate electronic system to track all data derived from force-related documents,…” (Dkt. 7-1, ¶ 259). Progress towards this objective includes the successful populating of numerous data fields in IAPro, with the ADC having the ability to access, download, analyze and report out on the vast majority of these data points. As ADC, Mr. Thomas is now able to access, download and analyze all available Use of Force data in IAPro and Blueteam databases. Mr. Thomas provides ongoing technical assistance on IAPro data collection and data fields. Progress to date also includes the current development of routine Use of Force Data Briefs for key stakeholders such as the CDP Chief of Police, Deputy Chiefs, Commanders, and other police officers.
3. Field-Based Reporting (“FBR”) Technical Assistance. The Settlement Agreement provides that: The Data Collection and Analysis Coordinator will ensure the creation and maintenance of a reliable and accurate electronic system to track data on all vehicle stops, investigatory stops, and searches, whether or not they result in an arrest or issuance of a summons or citation. This system will allow the information to be searched and summarized electronically. Data is not required to be collected for social contacts and encounters that are voluntary and consensual. CDP’s stop and search data collection system will be subject to
22

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 144 Filed: 07/19/17 23 of 32. PageID #: 3106
review and approval by the Monitor and DOJ, and will require officers to document the following: a. the officer’s name and badge number; b. date and time of the stop; c. location of the stop; d. duration of the stop; e. subject(s)’s actual or perceived race, ethnicity, age, and gender; f. if a vehicle stop, the presence and number of any passengers; g. if a vehicle stop, whether the driver or any passenger was required to exit the vehicle, and the reason for doing so; h. reason for the stop, including a brief description of the facts creating reasonable suspicion; i. whether any individual was asked to consent to a search and whether such consent was given; j. whether a pat-down, frisk, or other nonconsensual search was performed on any individual or vehicle, including a brief description of the facts justifying the action; k. a full description of any contraband or evidence seized from any individual or vehicle; and l. disposition of the investigatory stop, including whether a citation or summons was issued to, or an arrest made of any individual, including the charge(s). (¶260).
Progress towards this objective includes the participation of the Acting Data
Coordinator in CAD/MPS database development meetings and conference calls. Mr.
Thomas met multiple times with the software developer and CDP staff to review
individual data fields to be used with the MPS field-based reporting system. Mr. Thomas
is providing ongoing technical assistance and guidance on data field names and values,
and the potential impact on subsequent data management and analysis. Mr. Thomas is
working as part of the project team with the CDP and IT Division staff to provide
technical assistance on issues related to FBR data migration and integration. Mr. Thomas
is providing technical assistance on how to resolve data quality issues potentially
encountered during FBR data migration or integration, as well as collaborate with CDP,
IT and other stakeholders to ensure that FBR data gathered will ultimately translate to
database design with minimal problems.
4. Routine Reporting to Key Stakeholders.
The Settlement Agreement provides that “The Data Analysis and Collection
Coordinator will be responsible for the routine reporting of relevant data to the Chief of
23

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 144 Filed: 07/19/17 24 of 32. PageID #: 3107
Police, FRB, Training Review Committee, OPS, the Commission, and the Police Inspector General.” (Dkt. ¶ 261). Progress towards this objective includes the development of the Consent Decree Data Report Needs Assessment template. This document was created as a mechanism for informing the development of use of force reports for key stakeholders involved with the Settlement Agreement listed above in paragraph 261. The first column of the template contains use of force variables of interest set forth in the Consent Decree. Variables in the second column are grouping variables that will allow for cross-tabulations with variables of interest. After reviewing both types of data, key stakeholders are asked to refer to the Use of Force Report Builder on page 3 of the template.
The purpose of this section is to begin to identify the focus of each report, as well as the frequency and timeframe of analyses. It is recognized that since this is an initial exercise, report content and format may change due to available data and ever changing areas of interest. Key stakeholders are encouraged to add other variables of interest that, perhaps, are not listed in this document. This document is a starting point in the development of useful and targeted reports that will be provided to key stakeholders. After key stakeholders complete the report builder document, the Data Coordinator meets with individual key stakeholders to review and finalize the completed document. The first use of this template is just underway to develop a Use of Force Data Brief for the Chief. It is anticipated that other briefs and reports will be added in the coming year.
5. Annual Assessment of Forms and Data Collection Systems. The Settlement Agreement provides that:
24

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 144 Filed: 07/19/17 25 of 32. PageID #: 3108
The Data Analysis and Collection Coordinator will be responsible for the annual assessment of forms and data collection systems to improve the accuracy and reliability of data collection. This assessment will be provided to the Monitor. (Dkt. 7-1, ¶ 262). Progress towards this objective includes the ongoing participation of the Acting Data Coordinator in all discussions around the appropriate data fields and forms for IAPro and field-based reporting data collection systems. The Acting data Coordinator is involved in the ongoing assessment of all data collection forms related to Community Engagement, MPS Vehicle Form, MPS Person Form and MPS CIT Form and Use of Force. Mr. Thomas will provide an annual assessment of all forms to the Monitor including any major revisions to forms, gaps in data collection for forms, and for all fields in each form.
6. Data Analysis Protocol. The Settlement Agreement provides that: Within 365 days of the Effective Date, the Data Collection and Analysis Coordinator will develop a protocol to accurately analyze the data collected and allow for the assessments required below. This protocol will be subject to the review and approval of the Monitor and DOJ. (Dkt. 7-1, ¶263). Progress towards this objective includes the development of a Data Analysis Protocol by the Acting Data Coordinator. The fourth revision of the Data Analysis Protocol was provided to the Monitor on June 9, 2017. The City received feedback from the Monitor, including DOJ comments, on July 10th, 2017. The Acting Data Coordinator made revisions and returned the revised Data Analysis Protocol back to the Monitors on July 12, 2017. It is anticipated that the Data Analysis Protocol will be finalized shortly and thereafter filed by the Monitor with the Court. 7. Stop, Search and Arrest Data Report. The Settlement Agreement provides that:
25

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 144 Filed: 07/19/17 26 of 32. PageID #: 3109
Within 90 days of development of the protocol, and annually thereafter, CDP will conduct an assessment and issue a report summarizing its investigatory stop, search, and arrest data. The report will identify significant trends in compliance with the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, identify which practices are most effective and efficient in increasing public safety and community confidence in CDP, and the steps taken to correct problems and build on successes. The report will be publicly available. (Dkt. 7-1, ¶264).
Progress towards this objective going forward is dependent on the successful
implementation of the above mentioned FBR data collection systems and the ability of
the Acting Data Coordinator to receive stop, search and arrest data.
8. Year 1 Annual Report.
The Settlement Agreement provides that:
Within 150 days of development of the protocol, and annually thereafter, CDP will conduct an assessment and issue a report of all activities, including use of force, arrests, motor vehicle and investigatory stops, and misconduct complaints alleging discrimination, to determine whether CDP’s activities are applied or administered in a way that discriminates against individuals on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity. This report will be based on data the City is obligated to collect, and is not an independent data collection requirement. CDP’s report will identify which practices are most effective and efficient in increasing public safety and community confidence in CDP, and identify steps taken to correct problems and build on successes. CDP will make this report publicly available. (Dkt. 7-1, ¶ 265).
Progress towards this objective presently includes the Acting Data Coordinator beginning
to outline the Year 1 Annual Report, including identifying what data is available for
analysis related to Settlement Agreement areas such as Use of Force, Training, CIT,
Community Engagement and Recruitment.
9. 2017 CDP Use of Force Report.
The Settlement Agreement provides that:
Within 150 days of the development of the protocol, and annually thereafter,
26

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 144 Filed: 07/19/17 27 of 32. PageID #: 3110
CDP, working with the FRB, will analyze the prior year’s force data, including the force-related data listed above, to determine trends; identify and correct deficiencies revealed by this analysis; and document its findings in a public report. The FRB’s data analysis responsibilities are outlined in paragraph 129. (Dkt. 7-1, ¶ 266). Progress towards this objective includes the successful populating of the Use of Force data fields in IAPro and the ability of the Acting Data Coordinator to access, download, analyze and report out on the vast majority of these data points. Mr. Thomas has been trained on IAPro software and is now able to access, download and analyze all available Use of Force data in IAPro and Blueteam databases.
10. CD Dashboard Data on City/CDP website The Settlement Agreement provides that: To ensure transparency in the implementation of this Agreement, all CDP audits, reports, and outcome analyses related to the implementation of this Agreement will be made publicly available, including at the City and CDP websites, to the extent permitted by law. The Commission will work to make paper copies of these documents available to the community. The Commission also may recommend that CDP make additional documents, data, and reports publicly available. (Dkt. 7-1, ¶ 267). Progress towards this objective includes the initial meeting of the Data Planning Committee consisting of the Chief Information Officer for the City, the Crime Analysis for CDP, the Acting Data Coordinator, the IT Program Coordinator for the City Department of Public Safety, and a Data Analyst for the City Department of Public Safety. This committee is addressing the process for the regular posting of data analysis runs, data briefs, reports, and other relevant documentation on the City/CDP website. When necessary, paper copies of documents will be made available to interested parties. H. Bias Free Policing The CDP had submitted a proposed Bias Free Policing Policy for further
27

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 144 Filed: 07/19/17 28 of 32. PageID #: 3111
discussion and review in June, 2016. The Monitor and DOJ have now both provided feedback. In February, 2017 the Monitor filed a “Motion Recommending Approval of Community Engagement Framework for Community and Problem Oriented Policing Plan and Bias-Free Policing Policy.” (Dkt. 111). As noted above the proposed framework involves extensive community and stakeholder engagement with a final policy envisioned being submitted to the Court for approval in late November. I. Compliance and Outcome Assessments and Reporting
The City’s ability to collect and provide the data required by the Consent Decree is an important element in documenting compliance and allowing for meaningful outcome assessment by the Monitor team. As noted above the City has made great strides during the most recent reporting period to address the mechanisms that will allow the necessary data to be collected, categorized, and assessed. III. Assessment of the Status of Cleveland Division of Police’s Progress
The City has made substantial progress in completing important bedrock requirements associated with the reforms agreed to in the Consent Decree. The final approval of CDP’s Use of Force and Crisis Intervention Policies, along with approval of the training curriculums developed for training all officers is a major milestone in assessing CDP’s progress. The CDP’s hard work in these areas was well recognized in the Monitor’s Third Semiannual Report. Training on these policies has begun and it is anticipated that both policies will be effective by the end of the current calendar year. While the Court’s approval of the final OPS and PRB manuals is a significant step for the future, the City recognizes that reducing the investigation backlog remains a primary and
28

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 144 Filed: 07/19/17 29 of 32. PageID #: 3112
necessary focus going forward to ensure community confidence in the City’s civilian complaint review process.
The CDP’s ongoing work and community engagement efforts in formulating a successful CPOP Plan and bias free policy should ensure both are completed within the framework and time line established by the Monitor and approved by the Court. Much progress has been made in the data collection and analysis area. While the hiring of a full time data analysis coordinator has proven somewhat more difficult than initially anticipated, the City’s current agreement with the Begun Center at Case Western Reserve University and the hard work accomplished by Mr. Thomas as the Acting Data Analysis Coordinator has resulted in substantial progress toward meeting data collection and analysis requirements. IV. Plans to Correct Any Problems
The City continues to work cooperatively with the Monitoring Team and the DOJ on a daily basis. Seeming potential problems have usually been addressed and worked out within the give and take allowed for and designed into the First and Second Year Monitoring Plans.
The City remains focused on substantially reducing the backlog of OPS complaints and working to ensure timely and thorough investigations of civilian complaints are completed. The City has now hired six experienced investigators as temporary employees to assist in this area. The City and the OPS will continue to work with the Monitor Team and the DOJ in accomplishing this necessary goal.
The CDP has experienced difficulty in filling the civilian IA Superintendent
29

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 144 Filed: 07/19/17 30 of 32. PageID #: 3113
position. The agreed upon revised qualifications for the position should prove helpful. Interviews for the position should begin in the near future. V. Response to Concerns Raised in the Monitor’s Semi-Annual Report
The Monitor recommended approval in part of the CDP’s submitted Equipment and Resource Plan. CDP’s Plan reflected a great deal of study, discussion, and followed substantive interactions with the Monitor, DOJ, CPC, and CDP officers. The City continues to work with the Monitor and DOJ in a collaborative fashion to meet the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
The City recognizes data collection is critical to assessing compliance with the Consent Decree. Because of the importance of data in evaluating the CDP within the context of the many performance variables presented in the Consent Decree the City entered into the contract with Case Western Reserve University to ensure there was no delay in establishing the basis for collecting and analyzing data.
As noted above the City has expanded its investigative staff and continues to work with the Monitor and DOJ in a collaborative effort to reduce the existing backlog of investigations.
CDP is presently reviewing the Monitor’s recent review of IA investigatory reports. CDP has been working collaboratively with the Monitor in this area and continues to address those areas where improvements can be made. VI. Conclusion
Major policy milestones in the critical areas of Use of Force and Crisis Intervention have been met, with the necessary officer training in both areas being conducted and scheduled to be completed this year. The City and CDP continue to work with the Monitor,
30

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 144 Filed: 07/19/17 31 of 32. PageID #: 3114
DOJ, CPC, and community members to ensure that the agreed upon reforms addressed in the Consent Decree are achieved.
Respectfully submitted, Barbara A. Langhenry (0038838) Director of Law By: /s/ Gary S. Singletary Gary S. Singletary (0037329) Chief Counsel City of Cleveland 601 Lakeside Avenue, Room 106 Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1077 Tel: (216) 664-2737 Fax: (216) 664-2663 E-mail: gsingletary@city.cleveland.oh.us Counsel for the City of Cleveland
31

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 144 Filed: 07/19/17 32 of 32. PageID #: 3115 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the City of Cleveland’s Fourth Status Report was filed electronically on July 19, 2017. Notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s system. Pursuant to the requirements of the Consent Decree the Monitor Team has been separately delivered a copy of this filing.
/s/ Gary S. Singletary Gary S. Singletary (0037329) Counsel for the City of Cleveland
32

 
 Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 1 of 115. PageID #: 3461

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
vs. CITY OF CLEVELAND
Defendant.

) CASE NO.: 1:15-CV-01046 ) ) ) JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER, JR. ) ) ) NOTICE SUBMITTING MONITORING ) TEAM’S FOURTH SEMIANNUAL ) REPORT

The Cleveland Police Monitoring Team submits its Fourth Semiannual Report.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Matthew Barge MATTHEW BARGE Monitor 234 5th Avenue, Suite 314 New York, New York 10001 Tel: (202) 257-5111 Email: matthewbarge@parc.info

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 2 of 115. PageID #: 3462

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team

Fourth Semiannual Report
January 2018

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 3 of 115. PageID #: 3463
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.

A NOTE FROM THE MONITORING TEAM ...................................................................1

II. A. B.

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE ROLE OF THIS REPORT & THE MONITORING TEAM ...3 The Updated Second-Year Monitoring Plan and Compliance Schedules..........................3 The Purpose and Form of This Report .............................................................................6

III. A. B. C.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND BUILDING TRUST ................................................9 Community Police Commission (“CPC”).........................................................................9 District Policing Committees ........................................................................................11 The Monitoring Team’s Community Engagement & Outreach .......................................13

IV. A. B. C. D.

COMMUNITY & PROBLEM-ORIENTED POLICING.....................................................14 The Community and Problem-Oriented Policing (“CPOP”) Plan....................................16 The Community Engagement Process ...........................................................................17 Status of CPOP Plan.....................................................................................................20 Mission Statement........................................................................................................22

V.

BIAS-FREE POLICING ..................................................................................................23

VI. A. B. C.

USE OF FORCE ............................................................................................................25 Officer Use of Force Principles & Policy.......................................................................25 Officer Use of Force Training .......................................................................................26 Use of Force Reporting, Investigations, and Review ......................................................32

VII. A. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. B. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. C.
VIII.

CRISIS INTERVENTION ..............................................................................................36 Background Information..............................................................................................38 Mental Health Response Advisory Committee .............................................................38 Revising CDP Crisis Intervention Policies and Procedures ............................................38 Crisis Intervention Data...............................................................................................39 Crisis Intervention Training..........................................................................................40 Selection of CIT Officers .............................................................................................40 Current Implementation Status .....................................................................................41 Transition ...................................................................................................................42 MHRAC’s Second Annual Workplan ...........................................................................42 Quality Assurance Subcommittee................................................................................43 Crisis Intervention Plan ...............................................................................................43 CIT Selection Process..................................................................................................44 Training ......................................................................................................................45 Diversion....................................................................................................................46 Community Engagement.............................................................................................47 Data Integration: CDP CAD System ............................................................................47 Conclusion .................................................................................................................47 SEARCH AND SEIZURE...............................................................................................49

i

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 4 of 115. PageID #: 3464
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018

IX. A. 1. 2. B. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. C. 1. 2. 3. 4. D. 1. 2.

ACCOUNTABILITY .....................................................................................................51 Internally Discovered Misconduct ................................................................................52 Status of Compliance - Ongoing Policy Work ..............................................................54 IA Superintendent Recruitment & Hiring......................................................................55 Office of Professional Standards (“OPS”) ......................................................................56 Current State of OPS...................................................................................................60 2014 Cases Assigned for “Supervisory Review” ...........................................................66 OPS Budget and Resourcing .......................................................................................67 City Negotiations with Police Union Regarding OPS Practices......................................68 OPS Annual Report ....................................................................................................69 Public Awareness Plan ................................................................................................70 Training for OPS Investigators .....................................................................................71 Police Review Board (“PRB”)........................................................................................72 PRB Manual ...............................................................................................................72 PRB Training Plan .......................................................................................................73 Documentation of PRB Decision-Making.....................................................................74 Quality of PRB Recommendations & Processes............................................................75 Discipline and Disciplinary Hearings ...........................................................................76 Disciplinary Matrix......................................................................................................77 Current Status of Imposition of Discipline and Disciplinary Findings.............................79

X. A. B. C.

TRANSPARENCY & OVERSIGHT ...................................................................................81 Police Inspector General ..............................................................................................81 Data Collection and Analysis .......................................................................................81 Public Availability of CDP-Related Information ............................................................83

XI. OFFICER ASSISTANCE & SUPPORT ...............................................................................85 A. Training.......................................................................................................................85 1. In-Service Training ......................................................................................................86 2. Academy Training and Field Training Program.............................................................90 B. Equipment & Resources ...............................................................................................91 C. Recruitment & Hiring...................................................................................................95 D. Performance Evaluations and Promotions .....................................................................96 E. Staffing ........................................................................................................................97

XII. A. B. C.

SUPERVISION .............................................................................................................100 First-Line Supervisors .................................................................................................100 Officer Intervention Program......................................................................................101 Body-Worn Cameras..................................................................................................102

XIII. COMPLIANCE & OUTCOME ASSESSMENTS................................................................106 A. Outcome Measures.........................................................................................................106 B. Consent Decree Survey Requirements .............................................................................108 C. Compliance Reviews & Audits ........................................................................................109

ii

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 5 of 115. PageID #: 3465
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
I. A NOTE FROM THE MONITORING TEAM
The Monitoring Team has previously noted that the Consent Decree is not an “on/off” switch – instead, it is a long, comprehensive process requiring diligent, daily efforts at reimagining policing in Cleveland.
The authors of Cleveland’s progress to date are too numerous to mention here, as the process of working toward compliance has been a comprehensive community effort to date. Nevertheless, we thank some individuals in particular for their contributions. First, Mayor Frank Jackson continues to provide steadfast support of police reform that makes Cleveland’s communities safer and their relationship with the police stronger. Chief Calvin Williams has remained critically engaged in his organization’s progress under the Consent Decree – making sometimes difficult decisions to ensure effective, efficient implementation of critical reforms. City Council President Kevin Kelley continues to provide invaluable assistance, support, and critical guidance throughout the reform process, and Public Safety Chair Matt Zone continues to be an invaluable ally in ensuring effective and constitutional policing. U.S. Attorney Justin Herdman has been notably involved in the day-to-day work of reform under the Consent Decree, and the Monitoring Team appreciates his substantial commitment to making policing work for the men and women of Cleveland and the Division of Police.
The Monitoring Team calls out for special mention and thanks Consent Decree Coordinator and Former U.S. Magistrate Judge Greg White. Judge White has provided decades of service to Cleveland, and his present oversight of the Consent Decree process on behalf of the City is a critical, if sometimes thankless, function. All stakeholders benefit from his pragmatism and commitment to duty.
Finally, the Monitoring Team thanks the many members of the community – CPC commissioners, CDP officers, community organizations, and members of the public – who continue to contribute substantively to a new approach to policing in Cleveland. The adoption of new public safety approaches will continue to require the contributions and dedication of all these stakeholders going forward.
* * *
Close readers of this Fourth Semiannual Report will note some changes in formatting and visual style. The Monitoring Team heard the type size of prior reports was uncomfortably small for some. It is optimistic that the changes implemented in the present report will make the report more accessible to all.
* * *
1

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 6 of 115. PageID #: 3466
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
From early on, the Monitoring Team has benefitted from the expertise and counsel of New York University School of Law’s Policing Project, which is currently working on major community and democratic policing projects in Camden, New Jersey; Chicago, Illinois; Nashville, Tennessee; Tampa, Florida; Tucson, Arizona; and other jurisdictions across the country. The Team is pleased that the Policing Project is detailing Brian Chen to the monitoring effort in Cleveland. Until joining the Policing Project in September 2017, Brian worked in the Office of the Mayor of New Orleans, where he managed criminal justice and law enforcement issues. Previously, Brian worked as an Associate at the law firm of Fried Frank in New York where, among other things, he provided support to the firm’s team monitoring the federal consent decree addressing policing in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The Monitoring Team is pleased to have Brian’s expertise available to further assist the City and the Division of Police in the progress toward compliance.
* * * The Cleveland Police Monitoring Team wishes to express our sadness at the death of Valeria Harper, Chief Executive Officer of the Alcohol, Drug and Mental Health Services Board of Cuyahoga County. The Monitoring Team appreciated Ms. Harper’s hard and critical work on behalf of the Mental Health Response Advisory Committee. We knew her as a kind and gentle person who devoted her life to improving services for those in need. Her caring and compassion for individuals and families recovering from mental illness and addictive disorders will be sorely missed. Although her time as CEO of the ADAMHS board was much too short, her leadership and advocacy for change has made Cleveland a stronger community.
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team January 24, 2018
2

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 7 of 115. PageID #: 3467
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
II. AN INTRODUCTION TO THE ROLE OF THIS REPORT & THE MONITORING TEAM
Under the terms of the Consent Decree between the United States and the City of Cleveland (the “City”) (collectively, the “Parties”) involving the Cleveland Division of Police (“CDP,” the “Division of Police,” or the “Division”1), the Court-appointed Monitoring Team must “assess and report” to the Court whether the Decree’s requirements “have been implemented, and whether this implementation is resulting in constitutional and effective policing, professional treatment of individuals, and increased community trust . . . . ”2 This is the Monitoring Team’s fourth semiannual report.3 It addresses the reporting period of July 2017 through January 2018.
The Monitoring Team is an “agent of the Court” that is “subject to the supervision and orders of the Court.”4 The task of the Team is to assess, independently and on behalf of Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr., whether CDP and the City of Cleveland have reached compliance with the various and diverse requirements of the Consent Decree. Thus, as the Monitoring Team has previously outlined, it “is not an employee, contractor, or any other type of agent” of either the City of Cleveland or the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”).5 Instead, it works for the Court.
As part of that charge, the Team assists in facilitating Consent Decree implementation by providing technical assistance and Counsel to the Division of Police and City of Cleveland. Thus, although the ultimate task is to inform the Court and DOJ about the City’s compliance with the Consent Decree, it provides ongoing, substantial assistance geared at ensuring effective, efficient, and expeditious progress.
A. The Updated Second-Year Monitoring Plan and Compliance Schedules
The current, Second-Year Monitoring Plan addresses the period of February 1, 2017 through January 31, 2018.6 Pursuant to that Plan, the Monitoring Team submitted “an updated monitoring plan for the second year” in August 2017 that adjusted various timetables, where necessary, to reflect the actual pace of progress made during the first part of 2017.7
1 The Division’s personnel variably refer to the organization as “CPD” or “CDP.” Because the Consent Decree uses the abbreviation “CDP,” this report primarily uses that abbreviation. 2 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 350. 3 Id. ¶ 375 (requiring semiannual reports). 4 First Semiannual Report at 14. 5 Id. 6 See Dkt. 120. 7 Id. at 7.
3

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 8 of 115. PageID #: 3468
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
The Monitoring Team’s Third Semiannual Report noted that, as Consent Decree implementation proceeds, it will be:
[P]assing the baton to the City and Division going forward with respect to the fashioning of a project implementation plan that will ensure, among other things, that: the Monitor reviews all “CDP policies, procedures, practices, training curricula, and programs developed and implemented under this agreement”; the Department of Justice has the ability to review the same; that the Community Police Commission, police officer organizations, rank-and-file officers, other community stakeholders, and Cleveland residents all have appropriate opportunity to provide input to and feedback on reforms generally and on specific proposed changes to policies, practices, training, and procedures; and that the Court, as always, be in a position to consider reforms of the Consent Decree and order them effective before being implemented within the City or Division.8
Neither this Court nor any member of the public should interpret this as a signifier that the Monitoring Team is stepping back from its active role in ensuring compliance with all terms of the Consent Decree. It is not. Instead, for all of the Consent Decree’s provisions to become effective in practice, across time, the Division of Police needs to have ensured that it has developed the internal capacity to manage the risk of unconstitutional policing and to respond strategically to emerging community and officer needs. Project management capacity is part and parcel of doing so across a large, dynamic institution like CDP. Consequently, transitioning the duties of generating a first draft of the plan for reform in the upcoming year is geared toward ensuring that CDP develops the capacity to implement and maintain reforms well after the Consent Decree is done. The Team will remain active in reviewing CDP’s draft Third-Year Monitoring Plan and ensure that the ultimate plan meaningfully advances progress in the coming year.
The Consent Decree provides that the City and CDP will “hire and retain, or reassign current city employees to form a unit with the skills and abilities necessary to facilitate compliance” with the Decree.9 Among other things, this unit must “coordinate . . . compliance and implementation activities”; facilitate access to information, facilities, and personnel; “ensure that all data, documents and records are maintained as provided in this Agreement”; and assist in assigning implementation and compliance related tasks to CDP personnel.”10
8 Third Semiannual Report at 8. 9 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 385. 10 Id.
4

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 9 of 115. PageID #: 3469
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
Nearly all other jurisdictions that have or are proceeding through federal reform efforts have established dedicated units, with full-time personnel, tasked with guiding the day-to-day project management and substantive work that is at the core of the implementation process. Baltimore, Cincinnati, Los Angeles, New Orleans, Pittsburgh, Seattle, and Washington, D.C. all established units within the police department with staff devoted full-time to Consent Decree implementation.
The City indicates, in good faith, that it has a compliance team, with full-time personnel dedicated to every aspect of compliance and investing significant resources and hours. Indeed, personnel from IT, Finance, Law, Safety, the Public Department, and the Mayor’s Office remain active and dedicated to implementing necessary reforms under the Consent Decree. To be sure, the Monitoring Team has the pleasure of working with this cadre of CDP and City personnel whose responsibilities and work is impacted by or relates directly to significant areas of the Consent Decree. Similarly, the Monitoring Team enjoys a strong working relationship with Judge Greg White (ret.), who tirelessly convenes a cross-functional group of CDP and City employees on at least a bi-weekly basis to discuss the status of Consent Decree implementation and drive progress. Conversation among the Parties and Monitoring Team has focused, over the last several months, on the formation of what the Division has called a “Bureau of Compliance” which would house, among other things, the Inspections Unit, policy, and other functions – but would not introduce individuals expressly dedicated to the day-to-day work of compliance with the terms of the Consent Decree.
However, it is unlikely that any of these things can be a substitute for “form[ing] a unit . . . to facilitate compliance . . . . ”11 The Monitoring Team discussed that none of these things is a substitute for “form[ing] a unit . . . to facilitate compliance” with the City in a meeting in March 2017. 12 Since that time, no progress appears to have been made on “hir[ing] and retain[ing], or reassign[ing] current City employees, to form a unit with the skills and abilities necessary to facilitate compliance . . . . ”13 Instead, CDP command staff and City employees with significant other responsibilities have been forced to substantially shoulder the additional burden of Consent Decree implementation. Despite the dedication and hard work of these individuals, the process of managing organizational change is difficult and complex – and warrants the type of centralized compliance function that a vast majority of other cities who have charted these same waters have used to make progress.
Especially in light of additional City resources that voters made available for Consent Decree reforms as of the start of 2017,14 the City will be substantially aided by assigning current employees full-time,
11 Id. 12 Id. 13 Id. 14 See Peter Krouse, “Cleveland Income-Tax Hike to Take Effect Jan. 1,” Cleveland Plain Dealer (Dec. 30, 2016), http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2016/12/cleveland_income-tax_hike_to_t.html (noting that “income-tax increase was needed to . . . help fund the implementation of a federal consent decree on police use of force”).
5

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 10 of 115. PageID #: 3470
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
and hiring additional civilian personnel, to focus on the type of systemic, fundamental reforms to which the City agreed when it entered into the Consent Decree. The Monitoring Team looks forward to discussing the details of the City coming into compliance with paragraph 385 in the near future so that the pace of progress can be accelerated in 2018.
B. The Purpose and Form of This Report
In its Third Semiannual Report, the Monitoring Team began summarizing the status of the City’s compliance with each paragraph of the Consent Decree. Although providing “a paragraph-byparagraph accounting of the general state of the City’s compliance . . . runs the risk of being an oversimplification,” the Team continues to conclude that these summary characterizations are useful markers for understanding progress over time.15
Thus, each major section of this Fourth Semiannual Report summarizes the Monitoring Team’s generalized conclusions about the status of compliance by describing the state of each area as one of the following:
Non-Compliance. The City or Division has not yet complied with the relevant provision of the Consent Decree. This includes instances in which the City or Division’s work or efforts have begun but cannot yet be certified by the Monitoring Team as compliant with a material component of the requirement.
Evaluation Deferred. This category reflects those limited instances where work in a given area has been intentionally and affirmatively deferred in order to work on other, necessary prerequisites. In these areas, the City or Division could have made more progress in a given area but, for project management reasons, have appropriately focused attention on other areas. Although this still means that the City has a distance to travel to reach General Compliance with the term of the Consent Decree, the intentional and affirmative decision to postpone focus on a given area for project management and implementation purposes is sufficiently different to warrant a separate designation in some cases.
Partial Compliance. The City or Division has made sufficient initial strides or sufficient partial progress toward compliance toward a material number of key components of the provision of the Consent Decree – but has not achieved operational compliance. This includes instances where policies, processes, protocols, trainings, systems, or the like exist on paper but do not exist or function in day-to-day practice.
15 Third Semiannual Report at 9.
6

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 11 of 115. PageID #: 3471
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
It may capture a wide range of compliance states or performance, from the City or Division having taken only very limited steps toward operational compliance to being nearly in operational compliance.
Operational Compliance. The City or Division has made notable progress to technically comply with the requirement and/or policy, process, procedure, protocol, training, system, or other mechanism of the Decree such that it is in existence or practice operationally – but has not yet demonstrated, or not yet been able to demonstrate, meaningful adherence to or effective implementation, including across time, cases, and/or incidents. This includes instances where a given reform is functioning but has not yet been shown, or an insufficient span of time or volume of incidents have transpired, to be effectively implemented in a systemic manner.
General Compliance. The City or Division has complied fully with the requirement and the requirement has been demonstrated to be meaningfully adhered to and/or effectively implemented across time, cases, and/or incidents. This includes instances where it can be shown that the City or Division has effectively complied with a requirement fully and systemically.
The same caveats that applied to the use of these summary categories remain applicable here. First, and most importantly, “Non-Compliance” or “Partial Compliance” does not automatically mean that the City or CDP have not made good-faith efforts or commendable strides toward compliance. It might, instead, signify that initial work has either not yet begun or reached a sufficiently critical point where progress can be considered to have been made.
Second, and relatedly, “Partial Compliance” requires more than taking some limited, initial steps toward compliance with a requirement. It instead requires that the City or Division have made “sufficient, material progress toward compliance” that “has graduated from the stages of initial work to more well-developed and advanced refinement of various reforms.”16
Third, these summary terms do not appear in the Consent Decree. The Team employs them in order to synthesize and summarize the report’s conclusions. Relatedly, compliance with individual paragraphs of the Decree is necessary for the larger, overall “Substantial and Effective Compliance” with the whole of the Consent Decree but it is not the same thing. Ultimately, “Substantial and Effective Compliance” with the Consent Decree will be reached when “the City either has complied with all material requirements of this Agreement, or has achieved sustained and continuing
16 Id. at 10.
7

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 12 of 115. PageID #: 3472
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
improvement in constitutional policing, as demonstrated pursuant to this Agreement’s outcome measures”17 “by a preponderance of the evidence.”18
Fourth, the charts that summarize progress in each area also condense the requirements of each paragraph rather than reprinting the entire Consent Decree in the context of this report. As the Third Semiannual Report noted, “[a]ny imprecision detected or confusion created by these condensed or summarized requirements is unintended and, in any event, can be cured with reference to the original Consent Decree language itself.19 The charts primarily cover paragraphs 14 through 340 of the Consent, but other paragraphs also contain requirements that the City must meet.20
Following the release of our last report, some community members, and CDP members, inquired about the basis for some of our summary conclusions. We reiterate that these overall conclusions do not take the place of the more rigorous quantitative and qualitative assessments, including the yearly outcome assessments that the Monitoring Team conducts:
[T]he Monitoring Team bases its assessments on its current understandings, knowledge, and information gained through ongoing work and discussion with CDP, the Parties, and other stakeholders. The assessments are informal to the extent that not all of them are necessarily informed by the type of exhaustive compliance and outcome measurements that are a critical component of the Consent Decree – and the summary determinations do not take the place of these more structured, systemic analyses. The intent is to provide a bottom line sense of where the Division is on the road to compliance. Ongoing, rigorous quantitative and qualitative assessments will provide a more comprehensive picture as work under the Consent Decree proceeds.21
The Team’s characterizations of progress should ultimately be viewed as a synthesis or bottom-line accounting of the substantive discussions of each major Consent Decree area contained within this report.
17 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 456 (emphasis added). 18 Id. ¶ 397. 19 See generally Dkt. 7-1, available at https://www.justice.gov/crt/case-document/file/908536/download. 20 See Third Semiannual Report at 10. 21 Id. at 11.
8

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 13 of 115. PageID #: 3473
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018

III. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND BUILDING TRUST

Paragraph
14. CDP creation of “formal and informal mechanisms that facilitate ongoing communication between CDP and the many Cleveland communities it serves.”

Status of Compliance PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

A. Community Police Commission (“CPC”)

Paragraph
15. Creation of CPC to make recommendations, work with Cleveland communities to develop recommendations, and “report to the City and community as a whole and to provide transparency” on reforms

Status of Compliance GENERAL COMPLIANCE

16. Establishment of CPC Selection Panel to select CPC Commissioners; composition of CPC; and periodic meetings with Chief of Police to “provide recommendations.” 17(a). “[H]old public meetings across the City, complete an assessment of CDP’s bias-free policing policies, practices, and training, and make recommendations.” 17(b). “[A]ssist as appropriate in . . . development of training related to biasfree policing and cultural competency.” 17(c). “[O]n an ongoing basis, assess CDP’s community activities” and “make recommendations” related to “community engagement” and “community confidence” 17(d). “[O]n an ongoing basis, review CDP’s civilian oversight structure to determine if there are changes it recommends for improving CDP’s accountability and transparency” 17(e). “[P]erform other function[s] as set out in this Agreement.”
18(a). “[R]eview and comment on CDP’s policies and practices related to use of force, search and seizure, and data collection and retention.” 18(b). [R]eview and comment on CDP’s implementation of initiative, programs, and activities that are intended to support reform.” 18(c). “[H]old public meetings to discuss the Monitor’s reports and to receive community feedback concerning CDP’s compliance with this Agreement.” 19. “The City will provide access to all information requested by the Commission related to its mandate, authority, and duties unless it is law enforcement sensitive, legally restricted, or would disclose a personnel action.”

GENERAL COMPLIANCE
GENERAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

9

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 14 of 115. PageID #: 3474
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018

20. CPC “will issue [at least annual] reports,” which “City will post . . . to the City’s website.” 21. “The City will consider and timely respond in writing to the Commission’s recommendations for improvements,” which “will be posted to the City’s website.” 22. CPC budget listed as “separate line item” to ensure “sufficient independence and resources.”

OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE NONCOMPLIANCE
GENERAL COMPLIANCE

Entering its third year of operation, the Cleveland Community Police Commission (“CPC” or “Commission”), charged under the Consent Decree with being the conduit between the Cleveland community and the Consent Decree implementation process, is gaining momentum with the onboarding of dedicated, full-time staff. The Commission now has five full-time staff members, which include its new Executive Director, Jason Goodrick; two Community Engagement Coordinators; a Senior Policy Analyst, Bethany Studenic; and an Administrative Assistant.

This new staff have made immediate strides toward building public awareness of the Commission and deepening community participation in the CPC’s engagement activities. This progress is evident in the CPC’s new website, which is well-designed and routinely updated. The staff has similarly expanded the Commission’s social media activity. This digital presence, combined with traditional outreach methods such as building connections with existing organizational networks and attending routine community gatherings throughout the city, appears to have increased attendance at the Commission’s most recent public meetings.

During this reporting period, the CPC experienced a change in leadership. The former co-chairs, Dr. Rhonda Y. Williams and Mario Clopton-Zymler, separately resigned. Dr. Yvonne Conner and LaToya Logan were chosen by their peers to assume the responsibilities of co-chairs on the Commission. While Mr. Clopton-Zymler remains a Commissioner, Dr. Williams’ resignation left one of the CPC’s ten civilian positions vacant. As required by the Consent Decree, a selection panel worked to identify an individual from a pool of applicants. The Selection Panel, after considering applications and conducting interviews, selected Richard Knoth to fill the vacant Commissioner position. Mr. Knoth has been sworn in and begun serving in this position.

The Monitoring Team commends Dr. Williams and Mr. Clopton-Zymler for shepherding the CPC through its nascent stages and tackling numerous critical challenges. Their commitment, leadership, and administrative contributions were essential to the Commission’s productivity in the absence of a full-time staff.

The Commissioners are currently revising the CPC’s bylaws so that the organization and its members will have clear guidelines on how to govern themselves. The CPC has received feedback from the

10

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 15 of 115. PageID #: 3475
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018

Parties. The Monitoring Team understands that the Commissioners are continuing to discuss the proper scope of the bylaws and will adopt them once finalized.

Among other accomplishments in the reporting period, the CPC coordinated two community roundtables devoted to bias-free policing on the east and west sides of Cleveland. The Commission has created an initial draft of its Community Engagement Assessment Plan and will continue to refine the plan based on the Parties’ feedback. The Commission also promptly gathered community feedback on the Division’s proposed bias-free policing policy and submitted its recommendations to the CDP on October 16, 2017. The CPC currently awaits the completion of additional CDP draft policies so that it can process community feedback and provide its recommendations.

In short order, the new CPC staff has familiarized themselves with the City of Cleveland’s budgeting and accounting processes. As a city entity, the Commission is on a stable path to working collaboratively with city leadership to ensure adherence to the procedural and financial regulations related to the expenditure of public dollars.

Through a collaborative process with the City’s Finance Department, the CPC has leased office space that is centrally located at 3631 Perkins Avenue. The CPC has also, with the help of the City, established a relationship with TV 20 to meet the videography needs of the Commission – which are aimed at furthering outreach with ever-broader and more diverse segments of Cleveland.

The Commission has secured an organizational development consultant, who will assist the CPC in expanding upon its existing strengths and growing its reach and capacity. It appears that both staff and commissioners are energized about what they can achieve now that they are operating near full capacity.

In short, the CPC remains on a positive and productive trajectory – achieving much in the past six months on which it may continue to build, including growing attendance at its public meetings, an active digital presence, a committed and passionate staff, and a track record for meeting its Consent Decree deliverables.

B. District Policing Committees

Paragraph
23. Facilitation of “regular communication and cooperation between CDP and community leaders at the local level,” with District Policing Committees meeting “at minimum, every quarter.” 24. CPC, CDP, and Community Relations Board (“CRB”) will “develop a mechanism to recruit and expand” Committee membership.” CDP “will

Status of Compliance PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

11

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 16 of 115. PageID #: 3476
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018

work with [Community Police] Commission to select officers for each District Policing Committee.” 25. CDP “will work closely with District Policing Committees to identify strategies to address crime and safety issues in their District,” considering and addressing identified priorities. 26. “At least annually, each District Policing Committee will present its identified strategies, concerns, and recommendations” to the CPC, with CDP officer who is Committee member presenting to CPC “CDP’s assessment of ways to address” the recommendations.

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
NONCOMPLIANCE

The Consent Decree requires the City of Cleveland to expand the District Policing Committees (“DPC”s) that work with the Community Relations Board, the Division of Police, and the CPC to “recruit and expand DPC membership,” “identify strategies to address crime and safety issues,” and annually “present its identified strategies, concerns and recommendations” to the CPC.22

The DPCs continue to be a work in progress. A personnel change for the Director of Community Relations has postponed the City’s ability to ensure that each DPC “present its identified strategies, concerns, and recommendations” to the CPC.23 Prior to the change, the City had committed to regularly report the DPCs’ strategies, concerns, and recommendations to the CPC. The City has assured the Monitoring Team that it anticipates meeting these requirements by April 2018 or prior to the Monitor’s next Semiannual Report. Accordingly, the Monitoring Team expects the City to work to ensure that each DPC maintain an open line of communication with the Commission. Collaboration between the District Policing Committees and the CPC is an untapped synergy that promises to better promote effective community and problem-oriented policing in Cleveland.

Although DPC membership has grown modestly, membership needs to reflect the diverse makeup of each District. To this end, in July, the Division provided the Monitoring Team with an “Enhancement Strategy” for the District Policing Committees. The document was an admirable plan to build trust and collaboration between the Division and the many communities of Cleveland. It is clear that the Division values the DPCs and seeks to make them an integral part of its Community and ProblemOriented Policing Plan. Nevertheless, the Division’s “Enhancement Strategy” could benefit from additional detail for many of its proposed strategies. The Monitoring Team will continue to provide technical assistance at the City’s request so that an “Enhancement Strategy” of sufficient quality to conform to the Consent Decree’s requirements may be finalized.

22 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 24-26. 23 Id. ¶ 26.
12

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 17 of 115. PageID #: 3477
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
C. The Monitoring Team’s Community Engagement & Outreach
The Monitor’s Community Engagement Team (the “Engagement Team”) remains committed to strengthening the substantive and comprehensive involvement of Cleveland’s diverse community stakeholders throughout the implementation process of the Consent Decree. For more than two years, the Engagement Team has conducted extensive outreach across the community to ensure that the city’s many ethnic, religious, cultural, professional, and socioeconomic groups and individuals have been able to participate substantively in the reform process. Since implementation of the Decree began, the Engagement Team has conducted or participated in numerous forums and public gatherings to share information about the reform process, receive public feedback on proposed policies and practices of the Division, and listen to citizens’ complaints.
The Engagement Team aims to ensure ongoing visibility and accessibility, so that Cleveland residents can easily express their thoughts, feelings, and lived experiences regarding the Cleveland Division of Police. At the same time, in both formal and informal settings, officers have discussed the reform process, provided individual feedback to the Monitoring Team on proposed CDP policies, and recommended specific topics of discussion, i.e., equipment, working conditions, training, supervision.
In the Third Semiannual Report, the Monitoring Team emphasized that it “remains very interested in those opinions and experiences of persons whose normal daily activities do not provide the time, ability, or impetus to participate directly in the reform process.”24 To that end, the Engagement Team will be continuing to look for ways of increasing the participation of Cleveland residents in the reform process. Over the next reporting period, the Engagement Team will increase the frequency of visits to local barber shops, salons, shopping areas, public housing, and other areas where residents regularly interact. Especially as the Division continues to shape its Community and Problem-Oriented Policing Plan and its Search and Seizure policies, this broader community input will be invaluable in finalizing policies that accurately reflect community values and priorities.
It remains relatively easy for some community residents, leaders, and police officers to dismiss the possibility of policing in Cleveland being more effective, safer, constitutional, and consistent with community values, and the Monitoring Team continues to understand such skepticism. However, perhaps more than any other major-city reform effort to date, all individuals across Cleveland will continue to be able to participate directly and substantively in the transformation of the Division of Police and its relationship with the community. The Engagement Team continues to extend its sincere thanks to the many residents, officers, and public officials of Cleveland who continue to dedicate themselves to the hard work of guiding the implementation process toward successful completion.
24 Third Semiannual Report at 18.
13

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 18 of 115. PageID #: 3478
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018

IV. COMMUNITY & PROBLEM-ORIENTED POLICING

Paragraph

Status of

Compliance

27. Implementation of “comprehensive and integrated community and NON-

problem-oriented policing model” and consultation with CPC regarding the COMPLIANCE

model.

28. Ensuring that “mission statement reflects [the Division’s] commitment to OPERATIONAL

community oriented policing” / “integrat[ing] community and problem- COMPLIANCE /

oriented policing principles into its management, policies and procedures, NON-

recruitment, training, personnel evaluations, resource deployment, tactics, COMPLIANCE

and accountability systems.”

29. Ensuring “that officers are familiar with the geographic areas they serve,” NON-

“engage in problem identification,” and “work proactively . . . to address COMPLIANCE

quality of life issues.”

30. Initial and annual in-service community and problem-oriented policing NON-

training “adequate in quality, quantity, type, and scope” that addresses COMPLIANCE

specifically-identified areas.

31. Maintenance of “collaborative partnerships with a broad spectrum of PARTIAL

community groups,” including CDP meetings with community organizations COMPLIANCE

and District Policing Committees.

32. CDP “meet[ing] with members of the community in each District on a PARTIAL

monthly basis and “solic[itation of] participation from a broad cross-section COMPLIANCE

of community members in each District” to “identify problems and other

areas of concern . . . and discuss responses and solutions.”

33. Development and implementation of “systems to monitor officer NON-

outreach to the community” that CDP “will use . . . to analyze . . . whether COMPLIANCE

officers are partnering with a broad cross-section of community members to

develop and implement cooperative strategies that build mutual respect and

identify and solve problems.”

34. “At least annually, CDP will present the results” of paragraph 33 analysis NON-

“broken out by District in a publicly-available community policing report” COMPLIANCE

that describes problems, solutions, and obstacles. Report provided to

Commission and posted on CDP website.

The Consent Decree requires that the Division develop and implement a “comprehensive and integrated community and problem-oriented policing model” to “promote and strengthen partnerships with the community . . . and increase community confidence in the CDP.”25 This section refers to policing according to this model as “community and problem-oriented policing” or “CPOP.”

25 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 27. 14

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 19 of 115. PageID #: 3479
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
Community policing involves the police and the community working as partners to “co-produce” public safety and neighborhood well-being. The core principle behind community policing is that the police and the community must share jointly in the responsibility for promoting public safety, with each playing an important role.
Although “community policing” often is associated with specific programs or strategies – such as the police participating in athletic leagues or mounting sporadic foot patrol – community policing cannot be implemented as effectively as possible unless it is a fundamental philosophy and vision for doing business that is embraced by the organization as a whole. As countless law enforcement professionals have recognized, community policing principles must inform decision-making at all levels of the agency, including decisions about hiring, deployment, and evaluation.26 A Division-wide commitment to community policing will help promote trust and legitimacy, improve the quality of police-citizen encounters, and address persistent public safety issues in Cleveland communities.
The Decree defines “community and problem-oriented policing” as a “policing philosophy that promotes and relies on collaborative partnerships between law enforcement agencies and the individuals and organizations they serve to develop solutions to problems, increase trust in police, and improve the effectiveness of policing efforts.”27 The Decree also requires the CPC to “assess CDP’s community activities, and make recommendations for additional strategies for CDP[].”28
Specifically, the Consent Decree mandates that CDP implement numerous fundamental reforms related to community policing, including:
● “[E]nsur[ing] that its mission statement reflects its commitment to community oriented policing”29;
● “[E]nsur[ing] that its officers are familiar with the geographic areas they serve . . . and engage in problem identification and solving activities with the community. . . .”30
● “[P]rovid[ing] initial and annual in-service community and problem-oriented policing training,” to include problem-solving with the community, as well as concepts such as leadership and communication; procedural justice; conflict resolution and verbal deescalation; and cultural competency sensitivity training;”31
26 See, e.g., Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), Community Policing: Past, Present, and Future at 4 (2004) (“Community Policing”); Presidential Task Force On 21st Century Policing, Final Report at 43 (2015). 27 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 414 28 Id. ¶ 17. 29 Id. ¶ 28. 30 Id. ¶ 29. 31 Id. ¶ 30.
15

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 20 of 115. PageID #: 3480
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
● “[M]aintain[ing] collaborative relationships with a broad spectrum of community groups”32;
● “[C]ontinu[ing] to meet with members of the community in each District on a monthly basis” and “actively solicit[ing] participation from a broad cross-section of community members in each District”33;
● “[D]eveloping and implementing systems to monitor officer outreach to the community”34; and
● “Analyze” the quality and nature of its, and individual officers’, community policing efforts, “broken out by District, in a publicly available community policing report.”35
As the following sections describe in greater detail, the Division has continued to work closely with the Monitoring Team, the City, and the CPC in the current reporting period to organize and execute a streamlined and coordinated community engagement process around community and problemoriented policing.36 In this first step of the development of the CPOP plan, the Division, working with the Monitoring Team, solicited substantive community input with the goal of incorporating that input into a new CPOP plan. The Parties collaborated to reach as many Cleveland residents as possible and learn what community members would like to see in the Division’s plan. The Monitoring Team analyzed and summarized the broad solicitation of community input in a report provided to the CDP in July 2017 entitled Community and Problem-Oriented Policing: Summary of Community Feedback and Recommendations (“Community Feedback Report”). The Bureau of Community Policing Commander Johnny Johnson was then tasked with drafting the Division’s CPOP plan and incorporating the community feedback. The drafting process continues to proceed in a positive direction.
A. The Community and Problem-Oriented Policing (“CPOP”) Plan
The Third Semiannual Report described in great detail the theory and principles underlying effective community and problem-oriented policing37 that need to be part of the Division’s CPOP plan. While this Report will not reiterate that exhaustive discussion, it is worth highlighting the principles—both the core components as well as the institutional features of community and problem-oriented policing—that were explained in the previous Report. These principles are that: (1) there are three core components of community policing – collaborative problem solving, community engagement around policing policy and practice, and opportunities for officers to get to know their communities;
32 Id. ¶ 31. 33 Id. ¶ 32. 34 Id. ¶ 33. 35 Id. ¶ 33-34. 36 Third Semiannual Report at 20–24. 37 Id.
16

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 21 of 115. PageID #: 3481
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
and (2) there are institutional features that must be incorporated into the CPOP plan in order to implement the plan effectively, including staffing and deployment, recruitment and hiring, officer training, and officer and department evaluation.
B. The Community Engagement Process
As stated above, the stakeholders completed the first phase of the process to develop the CPOP Plan— soliciting and reviewing community input—in the summer of 2017. This collaborative engagement process consisted of at least 18 community meetings between March 2017 and June 2017, which included: two Cleveland-wide roundtables, a CPC meeting, each of the five District Policing Committee’s meetings, a Community Relations Board meeting, meetings with various community groups throughout the city, and partnerships with over 40 community organizations with strong ties to the diverse populations of Cleveland.
The Monitoring Team commends the Division of Police for its strong commitment to this outreach effort. Each District Commander attended every meeting in their districts, and Commander Johnson attended nearly every community event.
At each event, the Monitoring Team provided paper questionnaires for each community member present. The questionnaire could also be completed online, and without attending an event, throughout the engagement process. All in all, more than 1,000 Cleveland community members attended the community meetings, and the Monitoring Team received more than 600 online and paper responses. The Team was tremendously pleased by the thoughtful participation of individuals from across Cleveland’s diverse communities.
The Monitoring Team analyzed and synthesized the community’s responses and notes from the extensive discussions at the meetings, and prepared a 42-page Community Feedback Report, which it provided to the CDP in July 2017.38 The key themes of the Report are summarized below.
38 The Community Feedback Report also incorporated the results of two other engagement mechanisms conducted in the period since the Consent Decree was first implemented, both of which were designed to assess the Cleveland community’s trust and confidence in the CDP and individual perceptions of public safety and policing. These are the Biennial Community Survey (“Biennial Community Survey” or “BCS”) from June 2016 and the Community Focus Groups (“Community Focus Groups” or “CFGs”) from June 2017. The quantitative Biennial Community Survey captured the Cleveland community’s perceptions about safety and policing. The findings reflect the content of telephone interviews conducted by Interviewing Service of America, an independent research firm, between May 4 and May 31, 2016, with a sample of 1,400 adults, 18 years of age or older, living in Cleveland. The qualitative Community Focus Groups research reflect the content of six focus groups consisting of 8 to 11 adults living in six Cleveland neighborhoods—Glenville, Central, Clark-Fulton, Cudell, Puritas-Longmead, and South Broadway. Although neither of these surveys was designed specifically around the CPOP engagement process, they provided important insight into community views of public safety and policing in Cleveland that the CDP should incorporate as it develops its CPOP Plan.
17

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 22 of 115. PageID #: 3482
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
As a general matter, although the Cleveland community is overall critical of the CDP and its relationships and interactions with the public, participants also offered specific ways to improve the relationship – and expressed strong interest in being involved in the efforts to do so.
• Community members believe that a community policing plan should incorporate mechanisms for officers to get to know and understand their communities better. A number of community members participating in the CPOP outreach process believe that CDP officers are often not familiar with local residents and their problems. Although the CDP hosts a number of community engagement events, many respondents have not participated in them.
• Community members would like to see more ways for officers to get to know them personally and more ways to promote more positive interactions between officers and the public. Cleveland residents generally would like officers to use bike patrols or foot patrols as ways for officers to get to know community members better and to promote more positive interactions between officers and the public. Community members also are more interested in seeing the same officers who patrol their neighborhoods at police-community events rather than specialized community policing officers or command officers. In order to better understand the community, Cleveland residents suggested officers receive additional training in cultural awareness and local Cleveland history.
• Community members believe that the CDP and CDP officers are underresourced. Although Cleveland residents expressed a preference for alternatives to motorized patrol, community members noted that CDP does not appear to be adequately staffed to have extensive foot or bike patrols. There also is an understanding by community members that it is difficult for CDP to adequately serve the City of Cleveland due to funding and staffing limitations. CDP officer salary was a frequentlycited challenge for the Division; many community members suggested salaries should be increased—not only to attract the best talent but also to compensate officers for the work expected of them.
• While there are existing formal structures in Cleveland for community members to discuss policing concerns—namely, the DPCs and the CPC—few people are aware of them or comfortable with them. There are five DPCs in Cleveland—one per policing district—with the goal of “facilitat[ing] regular communication and cooperation between CDP and community leaders at the local
18

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 23 of 115. PageID #: 3483
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
level.”39 The CPC was established in 2015 by the Consent Decree and is mandated to “work with the many communities that make up Cleveland for the purpose of developing recommendations for police practices that reflect an understanding of the values and priorities of Cleveland residents.”40 Based on community feedback, however, few Cleveland residents attend either DPC or CPC meetings. Additionally, few residents are aware of the purpose of these groups and whether they are productive.
• Community members expressed trust and confidence in many existing local institutions and organizations, especially Community Development Corporations (CDCs) and block clubs. A number of the questions in the questionnaire asked community members to state who they would turn to in their community for a public safety or community problem or who the CDP should turn to when seeking community input. For a variety of questions, community members suggested the Division work closely with CDCs, block clubs, and other existing local organizations.
• Community members are interested in providing input on CDP policies and training. A substantial majority of community members who provided formal feedback believe it is “very important” for the Division to solicit community input on use of force, crisis intervention training, and bias-free policing policies, as well as on new community outreach programs. Community members also expressed a desire to participate in police training by either talking to recruits or attending a pilot training and providing feedback. With regard to officer and Division evaluation, many community members urged the Division to award community policing awards to officers based on community feedback. Community members also thought resident surveys and focus groups with residents are the most effective ways to evaluate the Division. To this end, it appears that there is broad support for the type of substantive, community-wide deliberation on new police policies, practices, and programs that has been central to the Consent Decree implementation so far to be institutionalized into CDP’s general approach to policing going forward – and well after the Consent Decree concludes.
• Community members would like the CDP’s CPOP Plan to specifically address racial disparities. Many community members expressed a desire for racial equity or diversity officer training. Community members suggested a variety of ideas for topics to incorporate into such training, such as implicit bias, the history of economic and
39 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 23. 40 Id. ¶ 14.
19

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 24 of 115. PageID #: 3484
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
housing bias, and the cultural traditions of new Cleveland immigrants, and they also suggested specific courses CDP officers could take.
• Community members would like the CDP to better utilize social media and technology. A number of community members highlighted what they believe to be CDP’s inadequate online presence in a number of instances. Residents suggested hardto-reach communities could be better contacted through improved social media efforts and a stronger online presence. Community members also suggested using social media to attract applicants from a cross section of the Cleveland community. They also expressed a desire to evaluate officers through a web-based application or platform, which members of the public could use to file complaints or comment on an interaction.
C. Status of CPOP Plan
Since receiving the Community Feedback Report in July 2017, the CDP has been tasked with drafting its CPOP Plan to reflect the principles laid out above about community and problem-oriented policing as well as the community feedback summarized in the July 2017 report. Once the Division prepared a draft of its plan, the Parties were to work together to share CDP’s proposed draft plan and solicit community input, with CDP taking the lead in hosting and presenting the proposed draft plan to the Cleveland community. Based on the schedule set forth in the Second-Year Revised Monitoring Plan, the CDP was to share a draft plan with the other stakeholders by October 13, 2017; and the Monitoring Team, working with the CDP, the CPC, and other stakeholders was to share that draft with the community, and obtain community and stakeholder input, between October 13 and November 10, 2017.41 Following this second round of community input, the CDP was then to revise its draft plan in light of specific feedback and make changes, where appropriate, and provide a final draft plan by December 1, 2017.42
Progress in completing a satisfactory CPOP Plan is somewhat behind this schedule, with the current draft Plan still undergoing revisions. Since the Community Feedback Report was provided to the CDP in July 2017, the CDP has produced three draft plans to the Monitoring Team and DOJ: the first in August; the second, after a round of comments from the Monitoring Team and DOJ, in October; and the third in December. The Division has worked diligently and in good faith on multiple iterations of the CPOP Plan – meeting with the Monitoring Team and Department of Justice and closely considering comments.
41 Dkt. 147-1 at 1-2. 42 Id. at 2.
20

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 25 of 115. PageID #: 3485
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
Nonetheless, more time is necessary to ensure that the Division’s CPOP Plan can be the dynamic, new template and philosophy for minute-to-minute policing in the City of Cleveland going forward that all stakeholders believe it must be.
As noted above, the Decree requires that the CDP develop and implement a “comprehensive and integrated community and problem-oriented policing model.”43 The CPOP Plan is to provide the roadmap for how the Division will operationalize this directive. The Draft Plan lays out the core principles and institutional requirements of a successful community and problem-oriented plan described above well, and also extensively recounts many of the community outreach activities done by the CDP and its Bureau of Community Policing (“BCP”). However, as the Monitoring Team and DOJ both noted in their feedback to the Division, a restatement of general theory and a report on past and current activities do not constitute the type of comprehensive and integrated plan contemplated by the Consent Decree.
For example, the Draft Plan proposes a block of instruction regarding community policing in training, rather than ensuring ongoing infusion of the principles of community policing across all lessons; provides insufficient information on how recruitment will be integrated with community policing principles; and offers insufficient details about what qualities will be the basis for evaluations that will drive a new departmental community-oriented outlook. The Draft Plan also does not yet indicate how the Division will incorporate and address the community input obtained to date or how it plans to continue to engage the community going forward.
The Draft Plan also does not yet fully provide a roadmap for how this new vision of community and problem-oriented policing will be integrated department-wide. Much of the discussion of community outreach, for example, still revolves around specialized bureaus or units such as the BCP or the Community Services Unit or bike patrols in specific districts. The CDP needs to think critically about how to ensure that these discrete units or efforts are not balkanized and seen as the only units within CDP that are responsible for CPOP. CDP must ensure that community and problem-oriented policing is in fact an operative philosophy across the department that fundamentally reorients the relationship between the Division and the residents of Cleveland.
While the Draft Plan contains a number of admirable ideas about how the Division may better engage community residents, a Plan that can be considered in compliance with the Consent Decree must engage with how CPOP principles are reflected across all CDP personnel and activities, including by integrating it into promotion, training, monitoring, and recruitment practices as well as the day-today conduct and mindset of all officers.
43 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 27.
21

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 26 of 115. PageID #: 3486
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
The Monitoring Team and the Department of Justice have provided further comments to the Draft Plan and will work directly with the Division to ensure that a final CPOP Plan can be the dynamic, transformative template for policing in Cleveland for years to come.
D. Mission Statement The Division of Police’s new mission statement has been the subject of instruction and focus during the Division’s recently-completed use of force training, discussed elsewhere in this report. Now that the mission statement has been revised, with community and officer input, and all CDP officers have received specific training on that new statement, it can be considered operationally effective.
22

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 27 of 115. PageID #: 3487
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018

V. BIAS-FREE POLICING

Paragraph
35. Delivery of “police services with the goal of ensuring that they are equitable, respectful, and free of unlawful bias,” among other things. 36. “CDP will integrate bias-free policing principles into its management, policies and procedures, job descriptions, recruitment, training, personnel evaluations, resource deployment, tactics, and accountability systems.” 37. CDP will ensure that it “administer[s] all activities without discrimination” on basis of various protected classes 38. “CDP will develop a bias-free policing policy” incorporating CPC recommendations “that provides clear guidance to officers” 39–40. Bias-free policing and procedural justice training “adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type” covering specific areas 41. Supervisor training on bias-free policing and procedural justice issues covering specific areas 42. Annual in-service training on bias-free policing “adequate in quality, quantity, type, and scope” 43. Analysis of paragraph 265 data (“including use of force, arrests, motor vehicle and investigatory stops, and misconduct complaints alleging discrimination (¶ 265)) 44. Consideration of “bias-free policing and equal protection” principles in hiring, unit assignment, promotion, and performance assessments.

Status of Compliance EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED NONCOMPLIANCE
EVALUATION DEFERRED

Using feedback from the CPC’s Bias-Free Workgroup Roundtables conducted in early 2016, CDP drafted a bias-free policing policy to ensure that the Division’s policing is “equitable, respectful, and free of unlawful bias, in a manner that promotes broad community engagement and confidence in CDP[.]”44

The draft policy was developed with the assistance and input of the Department of Justice, Monitoring Team, and the CPC. Specifically, the Department of Justice provided comments on CDP’s first draft. The CPC provided the Division with written recommendations based on community feedback it received through town hall meetings, online input, research conducted by students at Cleveland Marshall College of Law, and written correspondence from partner organizations. The Monitoring Team and DOJ have also suggested revisions for the draft policy based on best practices and the policies of similarly-situated jurisdictions throughout the country. The Monitoring Team anticipates that the bias-free policing policy will be finalized and submitted to the Court soon.

44 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 35. 23

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 28 of 115. PageID #: 3488
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
Bias-free policing reform within the Cleveland Division of Police also requires all of the Division’s employees to undergo comprehensive training aimed at ensuring that police services are delivered in a manner that is “equitable, respectful, and free of unlawful bias.” 45 These efforts require a training curriculum that accounts for the specific needs of the City of Cleveland and addresses issues related to bias in a thoughtful, nuanced, and pragmatic manner. Additionally, bias-free policing principles must be operationally integrated into CDP’s “management, policies and procedures, job descriptions, recruitment, training, personnel evaluations, resource deployment, tactics, and accountability systems.”46 Although the bias-free policing policy needs to be completed before bias-free policing training can occur, efforts have already been underway in establishing the general training framework. The Division, DOJ, and Monitoring Team have engaged in productive discussions about external vendors that might provide applicable training using an existing curriculum that might be adapted for the specific needs of Cleveland. The City and the Division are currently working on an approach for an outside vendor to design and implement the core components of the Division’s bias-free policing training. These details should be finalized imminently. The Monitoring Team applauds CDP for identifying and engaging with an outside program to provide the required bias-free training. That kind of proactive thinking will continue to be necessary as the Division furthers its active implementation efforts.
45 Id. ¶¶ 35-36. 46 Id. ¶¶ 35-36.
24

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 29 of 115. PageID #: 3489
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018

VI. USE OF FORCE

A. Officer Use of Force Principles & Policy

Paragraph
45. “CDP will revise, develop, and implement force policies, training, supervision, and accountability systems with the goal of ensuring that force” complies with the Constitution, federal law, and the Consent Decree “and that any use of unreasonable force is promptly identified and responded to appropriately.” 46. “The City will implement the terms of this Agreement with the goal of ensuring that use of force by CDP officers . . . will comply” with at least twelve major, listed principles. 47. Division “will ensure that the [use of force] incident is accurately and properly reported, documented, and investigated.” 48. “CDP will track and analyze officers’ uses of force to hold officers accountable for unreasonable uses of force; to guide training and policy; and to identify poor tactics and emerging trends.” 49. Development of use of force policies “that comply with applicable law[,] . . . are adequate to achieve the goals described in paragraph 45,” and “specify that unreasonable use of force will subject officers to the disciplinary process, possible criminal prosecution, and/or possible civil liability.” 50. “CDP’s policies will address the use and deployment of its authorized force techniques, technologies, and weapons.” 51. Weapon-specific policies “will include training and certification requirements that each officer must meet before being permitted to carry and use the authorized weapon.” 52. “No officer will carry any weapon that is not authorized or approved by CDP.” 53. “Prior to the use of any approved weapon, the officer, when possible and appropriate, will communicate to the subject and other officers that the use of weapon is imminent, and allow the subject an opportunity to comply.” 54–83 “CDP will implement policies” for firearms, ECWs (Tasers), and OC (pepper) spray that comply with a host of specific, expressly listed provisions.

Status of Compliance PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE

A well-functioning and effective police department is one that ensures that its officers have a clear sense of what is expected of them when it comes to use of force. Policies must be pragmatic and specific in articulating when officers may and may not use force, and training must provide specific opportunities for officers to practice the application of the policies in situations that might translate to encounters that they have in the real world.

25

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 30 of 115. PageID #: 3490
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018

The Second Semiannual Report described, in detail, the process throughout 2016 of updating the
Division’s officer use of force policy – including the significant role that CDP officers, Cleveland residents, and community organizations played in the formulation of the revised policy.47 The Court approved the new use of force policies, subject to some specific conditions, on January 17, 2017.48

The Division’s work over this reporting period has appropriately rested primarily on ensuring that all officers receive high-quality instruction on the Court-approved use of force policies. Consequently, the compliance status with respect to force policies is unchanged.

The use of force policies will become effective within the Division on January 1, 2018. Starting on that day, CDP officers will be expected to adhere to the new policies on which they have received the indepth, scenario-based training discussed in the next section of this report. At the same time, supervisors will begin to hold officers accountable for performance that does not meet the standards and requirements of the new force policies. Thus, 2018 will represent a critical, new phase of Consent Decree implementation – where the shift of the Division will be from laying the groundwork for new expectations about force to active implementation of those new expectations.

B. Officer Use of Force Training

Paragraph
84. CDP “will provide all current officers use of force training that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type and that includes” a number of specific, expressly-listed elements. 85. CDP “will provide the use of force training described in paragraph 84 to all new officers.” 86. “CDP will provide all officers with annual use of force in-service training that is adequate in quality, quantity, type, and scope.”

Status

of

Compliance

OPERATIONAL

COMPLIANCE

OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE

The existence of policies on paper cannot alone transform a police department. The efficacy of the Division’s new policies on force ultimately depend on officers adhering to their requirements. Consequently, the manner in which the practical significance of the concepts of necessity, proportionality and de-escalation are communicated to the officers who will be called upon to both understand and carry out these important considerations is critical. Training must translate the sometimes-legalistic formalism necessary in the Division’s policies into actionable skills and tactics that officers use on a day-to-day basis on the streets of Cleveland.

47 Dkt. 97 at 27–35. 48 Dkt. 101.
26

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 31 of 115. PageID #: 3491
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
Between May and December 2017, the Division of Police provided all sworn CDP personnel with use of force training on the Division’s new use of force policies (the “2017 Use of Force Training” or “use of force training”). The Consent Decree requires that such training be “adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type” and include instruction, among other things, on:
● Proper use of force decision-making; ● Use of force reporting requirements; ● The Fourth Amendment and related law; ● De-escalation techniques, both verbal and tactical, that empower officers to make arrests
without using force and instruction that disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements, using cover, calling in specialized units, or delaying arrest may be the appropriate response to a situation, even when the use of force would be legally justified; ● Role-playing scenarios and interactive exercises that illustrate proper use of force decision-making, including training on the importance of peer intervention; ● The proper deployment and use of all intermediate weapons or technologies; ● The risks of prolonged or repeated ECW exposure, including that exposure to ECWs for longer than 15 seconds (whether due to multiple applications or continuous cycling) may increase the risk of death or serious physical injury; ● The increased risks ECWs may present to a subject who is pregnant, elderly, a child, frail, has low body mass, or is in medical crisis; ● That when using an ECW the drive stun mode is generally less effective than the probe mode and, when used repeatedly, may exacerbate the situation; and ● Firearms training . . . .49
All sworn CDP personnel needed to receive the 2017 Use of Force Training. CDP identified 1,431 officers as eligible to receive the new use of force training. Of this total, 1,364 officers (or 95% of eligible officers) received and successfully have completed the training. Of the officers not completing the training, 62 officers were unable to complete the training because they were on extended illness, military leave, on restricted duty, or retiring before January 1, 2018. The required use of force training will be scheduled and completed by those officers as they return to fully active status. The Monitoring Team understands that the reasons for non-completion by the remaining five (5) untrained officers are being reviewed.
49 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 84. In addition to initial training on use of force covering the topics listed above, the Division must provide its officers with “annual use of force in-service training that is adequate in quality, quantity, type, and scope” going forward.49 CDP supervisors must also receive specialized training, as discussed elsewhere in this report, relating both to force and broader supervisory skills.
27

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 32 of 115. PageID #: 3492
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
The 2017 Use of Force Training consisted of two days (16 hours) of integrated, interactive scenariobased instruction aimed at giving officers repeated opportunities to apply the new use of force policy provisions in a real-world context. Forty-eight (48) officers completed each two-day training session offered, with nearly all of the training occurring in small groups of approximately twelve (12) officers.
Over the two days, officers proceeded through eight modules of instruction, all of which included either interactive or scenario-based elements. Those modules included instruction on:
• De-escalation; • Contact and cover; • Subject control and handcuffing; • Intermediate weapons; • Decision-making scenarios; • Threat assessment; and • Officer performance assessments (video-based) (two modules).
Day One consisted of a formal introduction of the instructors, safety rules, attendance requirements, and expectations. The class was then divided into smaller groups to maximize safety and facilitate close observation and evaluation of each officer attending the training. The officers then proceeded through four modules of training. Day Two consisted of a substantial review of the four modules learned on Day One, and then proceeded into the four remaining modules.
Importantly, within each module, officers needed to meet certain performance benchmarks in order to be considered as having satisfactorily met the training. Training instructors evaluated how officers applied relevant use of force skills and tactics, used sufficient de-escalation tactics, used necessary and proportional force in a manner consistent with the Division’s policy, complied with specific requirements relating to particular force instruments, and performed in a manner consistent with CDP’s expectations. Each officer in each training was evaluated on a host of specific dimensions, with instructors logging performance. Officers who failed to obtain a sufficient overall score received specific feedback on areas that their performance should improve and were required to proceed through the scenario again. Because role players could act and react in different ways, both to vary the scenario organically and to respond directly to officer performance, this was not simply going through the exercise again in order to obtain a known, identified result. That is, even with knowledge about the scenario, officers needed to think and react dynamically because the contours of the scenario and of a subject’s response in that scenario changed each time that it was run.
The Monitoring Team observed numerous sessions and was impressed not only by the quality of the instructors and curriculum but also by most officers’ positive response. The Department of Justice separately observed a number of training sessions. Role players called upon their experiences as patrol
28

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 33 of 115. PageID #: 3493
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
officers, supervisors, and training specialists to provide real-world situations where officers could practice application of the new force policies in a controlled environment. Training instructors evaluating officer performance provided constructive feedback to officers – offering areas for improvement even when performance was generally sufficient and identifying areas of strength even when officers needed to proceed through the scenario again to attain a sufficient level of performance. Officers generally took the training seriously, engaged thoughtfully with other officers and instructors, and appeared to authentically appreciate the opportunity to practice real-world skills and learn from other police professionals.
The training was not without its challenges and implementation of necessary refinements – but these were by and large handled effectively and professionally by the Division. For instance, in late June, during observation of an intermediate weapon scenario, the officer who was conducting the training – a substitute instructor – reviewed applicable policy material at the start of the module in a manner that was difficult to understand. Attending officers challenged two portions of the use of force policy. One particularly insistent officer asked if the specific prohibition on using the taser in “stun mode” – which causes pain but does not incapacitate the subject as it does in “dart” or “cartridge” mode – meant that officers were now required to shoot someone instead. He dismissed correct representations by the instructor that studies challenged the efficacy of using tasers for pain compliance. Although a Lieutenant present for the training eventually stepped in, this was not before a Sergeant suggested that there was both “good” and “bad” portions of the policy. Subsequent observations of these same modules appeared to address these issues in a manner that did not dismiss or discount the Division’s ownership of its own policies.
The Monitoring Team also observed some of the limitations of scenario-based instruction. Specifically, in one class, students who were judged by evaluating instructors as inappropriately escalating the scenarios needed to go through the scenarios on three separate occasions before performing adequately. Both officers appeared irritated at having to participate in three separate scenarios. However, Training Bureau personnel directly and meaningfully addressed what they characterized as the officers’ unwillingness to accept critique. During these conversations, one of the officers noted that he was having a hard time keeping up with Divisional policy changes and indicated that he would be retiring soon.
This report cites the above instances to describe in a realistic fashion the process of change and adaptation that the Division has needed to embrace in the training and implementation of the new force policies – and to underscore the extent to which the Training Bureau capably addressed challenges and adapted approaches to achieve the overall training objectives, even when faced with what might have been more challenging circumstances. To the Monitoring Team, the preceding observations, including CDP’s response to poorly performing officers, affirms the Division’s commitment to high-quality use of force training.
29

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 34 of 115. PageID #: 3494
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
Perhaps most positive of all, it was not just the Monitoring Team or CDP command staff who were enthusiastic about the use of force training – it was the CDP’s rank and file. The Division’s commitment to receive officer feedback on its 2017 Use of Force Training has greatly impressed the Monitor Team. CDP designed an evaluation form to be completed anonymously by each officer at the conclusion of the in-class training.
The Division is assessing the evaluation responses and will incorporate officers’ feedback into future training curricula to ensure that the training is as effective as possible. While it has yet to decide how it will augment future curricula, CDP compiled and analyzed officer feedback that it received through November 27, 2017 from 1,290 respondents. The initial findings are promising and highlight the strengths of both the training curriculum and the Division’s training instructors.
When asked if the training instructor increased the officer’s “understanding of course material” in each of the eight training “modules,” the majority of respondents answered “Agree” or “Strongly Agree” for each module. In fact, no fewer than 87% of respondents selected “Agree” or “Strongly Agree” for any of the eight modules. Respondents had similar positive assessments when asked if their instructor “encouraged critical engagement with the material[,]” if their instructor “accomplished the learning objective” for each module, and if the scenarios “were realistic and practical[.]”
Overall, 79% of officers agreed or strongly agreed that they found the training to be valuable. One officer commented that the training was “[o]ne of the best in-class services I have attended in my career.” Another stated that the training “made me think differently at how to look at situations that I may have got lazy in[.]”
Similarly, nearly three-quarters (71%) of officers agreed or strongly agreed that they “would welcome more training of this type.” One officer wrote, “I believe that this has been the best in-service training I have had so far. I retained much more information than I have in the past just listening to lectures.” Another said, “I hope all future in-service training is done this way.”
Many comments focused specifically on the quality of the in-class scenario exercises. While a few found some of mock scenarios to be less realistic than they would have liked – feedback that the Division should consider when designing future exercises – many officers nonetheless thought that the scenarios were critical in learning the new Use of Force Policies. One officer wrote, “The scenariobased training engaged us and reminded us of the importance of our tactics.” Another reported, “The format allowed more interaction and role play instead of the traditional model of just reading a GPO and calling it training.”
Officers also remarked on the preparation and dedication of the training instructors. The instructors were “excellent[,]” “outstanding[,]” and “top notch[.]” One officer commented, “The instructors all
30

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 35 of 115. PageID #: 3495
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
took the time to clarify the policy to everyone and it is apparent that they took an extensive amount of time to be able to translate the important lessons into the scenarios we performed[.]” Similarly, another officer said, “It seems to me that all the instructors put a lot of time preparing the lesson plans on these subjects.” Yet another said that the instructors were “[e]xtremely professional and informative” and “were able to break down all the training and policy[.]” The Monitoring Team, based on its observations and monitoring of the use of force training initiative, emphatically agrees.
The feedback from the Division’s affirms the tremendous quality and utility of the 2017 Use of Force Training on CDP’s new force policies. That officers – who, as we saw and like any number of other professionals, can enter mandated training initiatives like this with an understandable lack of enthusiasm – embraced the training, found it valuable, and indicate that they would like to have more of it is a testament to the Division’s progress under the Consent Decree to date. The 2017 training establishes a strong foundation for ongoing, follow-up training provided on an annual basis on additional and in-depth force topics.
All said, the CDP’s sustained and focused efforts to design and implement the 2017 Use of Force Training program has yielded substantial results. From the development of the curriculum to the logistics of providing high-quality training to so many officers, the 2017 Use of Force Training was no small task. The Monitoring Team applauds the Division’s Training Unit for their hard work and dedication – and commends CDP for designing, implementing, and completing a critical element of reform.
As noted above, the completion of the use of force training by all officers has allowed the Division’s new use of force policies to become effective, in the field and on the streets of Cleveland, on January 1, 2018. However realistic and in-depth the 2017 Use of Force Training was, there can be no classroom or simulation that is a substitute for needing to apply the new force policies in the real world. The Monitor expects that officers may make some good-faith errors or mistakes in the first few months that the new force policies are in effect. The new policies represent a significant, new day when it comes to force in Cleveland, and the public should expect that at least some time may be necessary for officers to adapt and adjust to new expectations and requirements. To be clear, the Division must hold officers accountable for policy violations early on in 2018 – but sufficiently systemic adherence to the new policies, like perfect compliance with any new requirements, is unlikely to occur overnight.
In the coming months, the Monitoring Team will be reviewing statistically-significant sets of force incidents on a rolling basis so that it can report – to the Parties, the Court, and the public – how CDP and its officers are doing in fully implementing the new force policies across incidents and time.
31

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 36 of 115. PageID #: 3496
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018

C. Use of Force Reporting, Investigations, and Review

Paragraph
87. “CDP will develop and implement a single, uniform reporting system pursuant to a Use of Force reporting policy” that complies with the force Level categorization set forth in the paragraph. 88. Requiring “[a]ll officers using or observing force” to complete a Use of Force Report including a number of specific features and avoiding “conclusory statements, ‘boilerplate’, or ‘canned’ language.” 89. “Officers will be subject to the disciplinary process for material omissions or misrepresentations in their Use of Force Reports.” 90. “Officers who use or observe force and fail to report it will be subject to the disciplinary process, up to and including termination, regardless of whether the force was reasonable.” 91. Requirement to “notify . . . supervisors . . . as soon as practical following any use of force” and if becoming aware of “an allegation of unreasonable or unreported force by another officer.” 92. “Use of Force Reports will be maintained centrally.”
93. “A supervisor who was involved in a use of force, including by participating in or ordering the force under investigation, will not investigate the incident or review the Use of Force Reports for approval or disapproval.” 94. Setting specific requirements relating to the investigation of low-level, Level 1 force. 95–109. Setting specific requirements relating to the investigation by supervisors and/or CDP chain of command for investigation and review of Level 2 force. 110. “CDP may refer criminal investigations of uses of force to an independent and highly competent agency outside CDP.” 111. Creation and design of dedicated Force Investigation Team (FIT) that “will conduct administrative investigations . . . and criminal investigations” of serious force, “force involving potential criminal conduct,” in-custody deaths, and cases assigned to it by the Chief. 112. Composition of FIT Team.
113. “FIT members will receive FIT-specific training that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type” on a host of specific, expressly-listed topics both initially and annually thereafter. 114. “CDP will identify, assign, and train personnel for the FIT to fulfill the requirements of this Agreement.” 115. Response of FIT to use of force scenes. FIT notification of prosecutor’s office. Notification of designated outside agency to conduct criminal investigation if City elects to use external agency for such investigations.

Status of Compliance OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE NONCOMPLIANCE
NONCOMPLIANCE NONCOMPLIANCE
EVALUATION DEFERRED NONCOMPLIANCE
NONCOMPLIANCE NONCOMPLIANCE
NONCOMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

32

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 37 of 115. PageID #: 3497
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018

116. “CDP will develop and implement polices to ensure that, where an outside agency conducts the criminal investigation, FIT conducts a concurrent and thorough administrative investigation.” 117. Memorandum of understanding required between CDP and outside agency containing specific, expressly-listed provisions. 118. Setting forth various, specific, and expressly-listed responsibilities of FIT during its investigations. 119. Monitor’s duty to annually review any “criminal investigations conducted by the outside agency” to ensure that they “are consistently objective, timely, and comprehensive.” 120. Providing for delay of compelled interview if “case has the potential to proceed criminally” but otherwise requiring that “[n]o other part of the investigation . . . be held in abeyance” unless “specifically authorized by the Chief” in consultation with investigating agency and prosecutor’s office. 121. Requiring completion of preliminary report presented to Chief or Chief’s designee “as soon as possible, but absent exigent circumstances, no later than 24 hours after learning of the use of force.” 122. Completion of investigation within 60 days. Preparation of FIT investigation report. Review of FIT investigative report by head of Internal Affairs who “will approve or disapprove FIT’s recommendations, or request . . . additional investigation.” 123. Revision of FIT manual to ensure “consisten[cy] with the force principles” and several specific, expressly-listed provisions. 124–30. Establishment and operation of Force Review Board “to serve as a quality control mechanism for uses of force and force investigations, and to appraise use of force incidents from a tactics, training, policy, and agency improvement perspective.”

NONCOMPLIANCE
EVALUATION DEFERRED NONCOMPLIANCE EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED
NONCOMPLIANCE
NONCOMPLIANCE NONCOMPLIANCE

Just as officers must have clear expectations set forth in policy on when to use and not use force, the Division must have clear processes and procedures for the administrative investigation and review of force incidents.50 The Monitoring Team’s prior reports have described that “[m]uch of the public feedback regarding the policies on when officers may and may not use force understandably also began to address issues relating to how the Division of Police would respond to, investigate, and review force incidents – affirming that [a]n important goal of the Consent Decree is to ensure that all uses of force administered by CDP officers are, after being promptly and uniformly reported, meaningfully examined and reviewed.”51

50 First Semiannual Report at 36-37; Dkt. 97 at 35-36. 51 Dkt. 97 at 35–36.
33

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 38 of 115. PageID #: 3498
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
The Court-approved Second-Year Revised Monitoring Plan anticipated that finalized policies and manuals relating to the investigation of force incidents would be submitted to the Court by November 15, 2017.52 As the Monitor explained in its Second Semiannual Report:
This includes establishing policies on lower-level force inquiries and, for serious uses of force, policies and protocols for a dedicated Force Investigation Team (“FIT”) that must be specially trained to handle comprehensive and objective administrative reviews of force incidents. After policies are finalized, supervisors will need training on the many new requirements relating to investigating and reviewing force, and the membership of FIT will need to be determined and trained.53
Shortly thereafter, and not later than December 20, 2017,54 policies and a procedural manual were to be finalized for the Division’s eventual Force Review Board (“FRB”), which will “serve as a quality control mechanism for uses of force and force investigations” by “apprais[ing] use of force incidents from a tactics, training, policy, and agency improvement perspective.”55 FRB must also “asses the quality of the investigations it reviews, including whether investigations are objective and comprehensive and recommendations are supported by a preponderance of the evidence.”56 It will “examine . . . data related to use of force . . . to detect any patterns, trends, and training deficiencies . . . . ”57 “During the first significant span of time in which the Board is operating, the Monitoring Team will provide in-depth, active, and real-time technical assistance by participating in meetings of the Board and, where necessary, asking questions or probing unexplored issues if the Board is not otherwise considering material issues that it must under CDP policies and the Consent Decree.”58
The City and CDP have indicated that they are willing to consider and implement new structures and processes for reviewing the use of force so that it aligns with the requirements of the Consent Decree and builds from the insights, best practices, and lessons learned from other jurisdictions that have previously implemented force review boards and other similar mechanisms.59 This means that, because the men and women of the Division are professionals, first and foremost, their performance will be subject to after-action analysis – not on the assumption that they necessarily did anything
52 Dkt. 147-1 at 3. 53 Dkt. 97 at 36. 54 Dkt. 147-1 at 4. 55 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 124. 56 Id. ¶ 128. 57 Id. ¶ 129. 58 Dkt. 97 at 36. 59 See, e.g., District of Columbia Metropolitan Police, General Orders, Use of Force Review Board (Mar. 30, 2016), available at https://go.mpdconline.com/GO/GO_901_09.pdf; New Orleans Police Department Operations Manual, Chapter 1.3.7, Use of Force Review Board (Dec. 6, 2015), available at http://www.nola.gov/getattachment/NOPD/NOPD-ConsentDecree/Chapter-1-3-7-Use-of-Force-Review-Board.pdf/; Philadelphia Police Department, Directive 10.4, Use of Force Review Board (UFRB) (Sep. 18, 2015), available at https://www.phillypolice.com/assets/directives/PPD-Directive-10.4.pdf.
34

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 39 of 115. PageID #: 3499
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
wrong, to uncover trivial policy violations, or to second-guess officers but instead to ensure that the Division generally and involved officers specifically are able to learn and improve from each interaction. This process will require that the Division and its personnel become comfortable with the notion that saying that an officer’s performance should or could have been better during the course of an incident, even where an officer had no other choice than to apply force consistent with policy at the instant that it was applied, is not only possible but vital. After all, even winning teams watch the game tapes to identify what went right, what went wrong, and what can be learned. Over the course of the current reporting period, CDP has worked diligently with DOJ and the Monitoring Team to develop the required policies and procedural manuals. Nevertheless, these policies and manuals continue to be the subject of discussion and revision. This process has taken longer than any stakeholder originally contemplated or desired. The Monitoring Team would be substantially more concerned about the timelines on these important set of interrelated policies if it did not appear, as it does, that the Division and City are proceeding in good faith to work through some challenging issues and meaningfully overhaul existing structures, systems, and processes to ensure compliance with the Consent Decree. As the Monitoring Team has previously indicated, taking more time to get things right the first time may ultimately mean that more time is expended upfront so that less time can be expended on the back end to realize fully the outcomes that the Consent Decree requires. The Monitor anticipates that, by the next Semiannual Report, CDP will at least have in place the policies, procedures, and mechanisms that will allow it to comprehensively analyze the application of force so that officer training, professional development, and risk management may all be continually enhanced.
35

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 40 of 115. PageID #: 3500
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018

VII. CRISIS INTERVENTION

Paragraph
131. “CDP will build upon and improve its Crisis Intervention Program” in furtherance of four specific, expressly-listed goals, which “will provide a forum for effective problem solving regarding the interaction between the criminal justice and mental health system and create a context for sustainable change.” 132. Establishment of Mental Health Response Advisory Committee (the “Advisory Committee”) “to foster relationships and build support between the police, community, and mental health providers and to help identify problems and develop solutions designed to improve outcomes for individuals in crisis.” 133. Composition of Advisory Committee.

Status of Compliance PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE

134. “The Advisory Committee will meet regularly and provide guidance to assist CDP in improving, expanding, and sustaining its Crisis Intervention Program.” 135. Advisory Committee will conduct an annual “analysis of crisis intervention incidents to determine whether CDP has enough specialized CIT officers, whether it is deploying those officers effectively, and whether specialized CIT officers” and communications “are appropriately responding to people in crisis,” and will also “recommend appropriate changes.” 136. “The Advisory Committee’s reports and recommendations will be provided” to CPC, “be publicly available, and will be posted on the City’s website.” 137. CDP will designate a Crisis Intervention Coordinator for specific, expressly-identified purposes. 138. “Coordinator will develop and maintain partnerships with program stakeholders and serve as point of contact” and “resource” for other stakeholders. 139. “Coordinator will participate in the Advisory Committee and on a regular basis solicit feedback from the mental health community and specialized CIT officers, call-takers, and dispatchers regarding the efficacy of CDP’s Crisis Intervention Program.” 140. “Coordinator will be responsible for coordinating implementation of the changes and recommendations made by the Advisory Committee, as appropriate.” 141. “Coordinator will be responsible for ensuring the selection of appropriate candidates for designation as specialized CIT officers” and “to ensure that officers, call-takers, and dispatchers are appropriately responding to CIT-related calls.”

OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
EVALUATION DEFERRED
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

36

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 41 of 115. PageID #: 3501
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018

142. “Coordinator will create ways to recognize and honor specialized CIT officers, call-takers, and dispatchers.” 143. Initial and annual crisis intervention training to all officers and recruits that is “adequate in quality, quantity, type, and scope.” 144. Initial and annual crisis intervention training for dispatchers and calltakers.

EVALUATION DEFERRED OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE

The Consent Decree indicates that the CDP should build and enhance its Crisis Intervention Program with the following goals:

● Assisting individuals in crisis; ● Improving the safety of officer, consumers, family members, and others within the
community; ● Providing the foundation necessary to promote community and statewide solutions to
assist individuals with mental illness; and ● Reducing the need for individuals with mental illness to have further involvement with the
criminal justice system.60

The Consent Decree also requires several types of training related to crisis intervention:

• All officers must receive eight hours of annual training on crisis intervention issues. • New recruits must receive 16 hours of training in the Academy on crisis issues. • CDP dispatchers and call-takers must receive appropriate training on identifying signs of
behavioral crisis. • CDP must provide 40 hours of enhanced training to designated, specialized Crisis
Intervention Team (“CIT”) officers who will be specifically dispatched to the scene of incidents involving individuals experiencing a behavioral crisis.61

A building block for change in the Division’s crisis intervention program was the requirement to develop a forum for effective problem solving regarding the interaction between the criminal justice and the mental health care system as well as creating a context for sustainable change.62 Over the past 24 months, the Mental Health Response Advisory Committee (“MHRAC”) has continued to provide an impressive, effective forum for addressing issues regarding the interaction between the criminal justice system and mental health care. Representatives from the police, social service providers,

60 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 131. 61 Id. ¶ 143-146. 62 See generally Dkt. 7-1 ¶¶ 131-59.
37

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 42 of 115. PageID #: 3502
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
mental health and substance abuse professionals, the judiciary, advocates, and individuals in recovery continue to meet regularly to work on ways to improve services to those in need of care.63
During the current reporting period, the Division has continued to improve its crisis intervention program. CDP, MHRAC, and the MHRAC Training Subcommittee developed an excellent basic training curriculum on behavioral health issues for all officers that was approved by the Court.64 CDP and MHRAC, with assistance from the Alcohol, Drug Addiction, and Mental Health Services Board of Cuyahoga County (“ADAMHS”) and Cleveland area mental health providers, have since successfully trained all officers, as required by the Consent Decree. The Monitor is confident that the new CIT training provides a strong foundation for meaningful, measurable impacts across the Cleveland community.
A. Background Information
1. Mental Health Response Advisory Committee
During the initial phase of the Consent Decree, several key tasks were accomplished that included the formation of the Mental Health Response Advisory Committee, completion of a needs assessment and work plan, and the appointment of Captain James Purcell as the CDP Crisis Intervention Coordinator.
2. Revising CDP Crisis Intervention Policies and Procedures
The second six months of Consent Decree implementation focused on crisis intervention policy development. The MHRAC Policy Subcommittee used results from the community and officer needs assessment meetings to guide them in developing a new CDP Crisis Intervention policy. The new policy presented a comprehensive strategy for responding to individuals in a behavioral crisis. This policy document was presented at several community forums where citizens provided detailed feedback.
In the first six months of 2017, CDP and the MHRAC Policy Subcommittee went beyond what was required by the Consent Decree in establishing a best practice for crisis intervention.65 Although the community-based Advisory Committee is required by the Consent Decree, the MHRAC has been written directly into CDP policy. The crisis intervention policy also addresses issues not included in the specific requirements of the Consent Decree, such as coordination with community resources to
63 Third Semiannual Report at 56. 64 Dkt. 129. 65 See generally Third Semiannual Report at 34-35.
38

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 43 of 115. PageID #: 3503
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
assist those in need and addressing the needs of youth by providing special guidance for officers interacting with them.
The CDP’s extra effort applied not only to the final policy document, but also to the robust process of obtaining meaningful community input. Community members were briefed on the policy. Skilled facilitators helped with small group feedback so that all community members had a chance to discuss their reactions to the new policy. The community attendance was very good, and members of Cleveland media were present at both sessions. The process was remarkable not only for its transparency but also for the atmosphere of community pride that was apparent at each meeting. The Monitoring Team appreciates the commitment that all stakeholders and members of the public who participated exhibited during the process.
The community feedback at public forums led to further substantive changes in the policy. The revisions included a greater emphasis on the concept of respect and dignity, a focus on the importance of building relationships with community and local neighborhoods, a juvenile-specific section in the Crisis Intervention Response Policy, and guidance for the officer for responding to children who are witnesses to an event when police respond to individuals in crisis.
3. Crisis Intervention Data
The Consent Decree agreement requires that CDP track calls that involve individuals in crisis, collecting detailed data. Data will be reported annually and used to identify training needs, trends, successful individual officer performance, necessary changes in strategies, and systemic issues related to crisis intervention response.66
The current reporting system has struggled with completion rates since forms are time-intensive and must be filled out manually by the officers. CDP and the ADAMHS Board have both acknowledged that crisis intervention data collection will need to be improved. This improvement will require a technology-based solution to ensure that reporting requirements do not impede the ability of officers to efficiently and effectively provide law enforcement service.67 Over the past two reporting periods, CDP has taken steps to integrate crisis intervention data with the Division’s CAD system. The Monitoring Team is hopeful that successful technological change will improve the overall completion rate while reducing officers’ workload.
66 Dkt. 7-1 ¶¶ 157–58 67 First Semiannual Report at 42.
39

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 44 of 115. PageID #: 3504
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018

4. Crisis Intervention Training

The Consent Decree requires several types of training related to crisis intervention. First, all officers must receive eight hours of annual training on crisis intervention issues. Second, new recruits must receive 16 hours of training in the Academy on crisis issues. Third, CDP dispatchers and call-takers must receive appropriate training on identifying signs of behavioral crisis. Fourth, CDP must provide 40 hours of enhanced training to designated, specialized Crisis Intervention Team (“CIT”) officers who will be specifically dispatched to the scene of incidents involving individuals experiencing a behavioral crisis.

In the Third Semiannual Monitoring Period, the MHRAC Training Subcommittee and CDP focused on the first year of annual training of all CDP officers. The Committee decided that an emphasis on the quality of instruction and the ability of the training to have a meaningful impact on the officer in training were more valuable than covering a large quantity of topics. The curriculum was the first of yearly trainings in crisis intervention that are part of the Consent Decree, and important specialized topics will be covered as the training progresses. The final eight-hour training curriculum—a product of significant collaboration among CDP, the MHRAC Training Subcommittee, and the community— was approved by the Court.68

5. Selection of CIT Officers

Paragraph
145. “CDP will provide enhanced specialized training in responding to individuals in crisis to certain officers (‘specialized CIT officers’),” who will be “called upon to respond to incidents or calls involving individuals in crisis.” 146–47. Outlining various requirements for the “enhanced training” for specialized CIT officers of “at least 40 hours.” 148. Designation of specialized CIT officers, per specific, expressly-listed requirements. 149. “Supervisors will identify and encourage qualified officers across all shifts and all Districts to serve as specialized officers.” 150. “All Field Training Officers” (“FTO”s) “will receive the enhanced specialized crisis intervention training described in paragraph 146,” though FTOs will “not be designated as a specialized CIT officer” unless they volunteer and have been selected to do so. 151. “Specialized CIT officers who are dispatched to an incident involving an individual in crisis will have primary responsibility for the scene,” with

Status of Compliance EVALUATION DEFERRED
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED

68 Dkt. 129.

40

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 45 of 115. PageID #: 3505
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018

supervisors “seek[ing] the input of a specialized CIT officer . . . where it is reasonable for them to do so.” 152. “[T]he Coordinator will develop an effective specialized crisis intervention plan . . . to ensure that a specialized CIT officer is available to respond to all calls and incidents that appear to involve an individual in crisis” that includes various, specific, expressly-identified requirements. The City “will use its best efforts to ensure that a specialized CIT officer responds to all calls and incidents that appear to involve an individual in crisis.”

EVALUATION DEFERRED

After taking the lead on developing a selection process for officers and completing the formal selection process as part of the Second-Year Monitoring Plan, the CDP has developed a plan for CIT officer selection during the current reporting period. The selection process requires that specialized CIT officers must volunteer for the role, have three years of CDP experience, undergo a CIT Fitness Assessment, complete a written application, obtain supervisory recommendations, undergo a review of the disciplinary file that includes use of force related discipline, and undergo an in-person interview.

B. Current Implementation Status

Paragraph
153. City “will consider” crisis intervention program assessment by Ohio Criminal Justice Coordinating Center of Excellence. 154. CDP “will revise its policies to make clear that a crisis intervention response may be necessary even in situations where there has been an apparent law violation.” 155. CDP “will revise its current crisis intervention policy to ensure that specialized CIT officers have appropriate discretion to direct individuals . . . to the health care system, rather than the judicial system . . . where it is appropriate to do so.” 156. CDP policies and procedures will ensure that “specialized CIT officers . . . must be dispatched to all calls or incidents that appear to involve an individual in crisis.” CDP must “track incident in which a specialized officer was not dispatched to such calls” and “identify any barriers” to ensuring dispatch of specialized CIT officer to such calls. 157. “CDP will track calls and incidents involving individuals in crisis by gathering, at a minimum,” specific, expressly-identified data. 158. Public reporting of paragraph 157 data and provision to Advisory Committee. 159. “CDP will utilize” paragraph 157 data “to identify training needs and develop case studies and teaching scenarios” for training and other expressly-identified systemic purposes.

Status of Compliance OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
EVALUATION DEFERRED
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

41

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 46 of 115. PageID #: 3506
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
1. Transition
MHRAC underwent significant change during the current reporting period, with MHRAC Chair and ADAMHS Board CEO William Denihan announcing his retirement. Mr. Denihan dedicated himself to ensuring that the Decree would, first and foremost, improve the quality of life of Cleveland residents. The Monitoring Team thanks him for his sincere effort to make the Cleveland community a caring and compassionate place for those in crisis – and for his public service to Cleveland across decades.
In the current reporting period, Valeria Harper was appointed CEO to provide direction for the ADAMHS Board and the MHRAC. Ms. Harper took over as Chair of MHRAC and provided strong leadership in working through the issues developed for the MHRAC’s Second Annual Workplan. As the Monitoring Team notes in its introduction to this report, Ms. Harper’s death is a loss for MHRAC, the ADAMHS Board, and the Cleveland community.
2. MHRAC’s Second Annual Workplan
The MHRAC’s Second Annual Workplan (“the MHRAC Workplan”) was designed to support the Second-Year Monitoring Plan and to enhance the Division’s ability to meet the terms of the Consent Decree.69 In order to address deficiencies in resources, knowledge, and infrastructure relating to crisis intervention, the MHRAC Workplan set out an ambitious set of steps. These steps include:
• Development of a Quality Assurance Process; • Completion of the CDP Crisis Plan; • Completion of the CDP CIT Officer Selection Plan; • Revision of the Specialized CIT Officer 40 Hour Curriculum; • Development of diversion alternatives for CDP; • Promotion of public awareness and understanding about CIT Trainings and Officers;
and • Enhancement of relationships between CDP and the community.
The MHRAC Workplan reflects a desire to use the Decree as a springboard for continuing improvements underway in the capacity of both the CDP and the ADAMHS Board’s mental health partners to meet the need of individuals experiencing a behavioral crisis. CDP and the ADAMHS Board have demonstrated their commitment to meeting the needs of the Cleveland community in a number of ways. One concrete example was the CDP’s willingness to work with the Monitoring Team
69 See Mental Health Response Advisory Committee 2nd Year Crisis Intervention Work Plan (Aug. 18, 2017), available at http://adamhscc.org/pdf_adamhscc/en-US/MHRAC%20Second%20Year%20Workplan%202017.pdf.
42

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 47 of 115. PageID #: 3507
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
to provide crisis intervention training for the Office of Professional Standards (“OPS”) investigators. The Monitoring Team applauds this willingness to work with MHRAC on a range of issues that go beyond the specifics of the Consent Decree to improve the overall mental health system in Cleveland. The MHRAC-led cooperative community effort will pay dividends well into the future.
3. Quality Assurance Subcommittee
After reviewing CDP’s changes to its Crisis Intervention Program, the MHRAC decided to address linkages between crisis intervention and treatment. MHRAC subsequently created a Quality Assurance Subcommittee—drawn from the MHRAC Policy and Data Subcommittees, as well as a range of subject matter experts, advocates, and individuals in recovery—to work with the Division.
The Quality Assurance Subcommittee is designed to assess not only the effectiveness of CDP’s CIT policies and Crisis Intervention Plan, but also the gaps in accessing mental health and addiction services. To that end, the subcommittee is tasked with offering specific solutions to issues involving crisis care and follow-up treatment. The Quality Assurance Subcommittee has met several times and is developing strategies to identify issues and review reports on crisis intervention events.
The Monitoring Team appreciates the willingness of the ADAMHS Board and their providers to examine how their own system can provide a better system of care. MHRAC and the ADAMHS Board are leveraging changes in the CDP’s strategy for crisis intervention to further improve the lives of citizens in need of support in dealing with behavioral crisis events – doing what is necessary to ensure that there are no gaps in the continuum of care, which reduces the need for individuals with mental illness to have further involvement with the criminal justice system. This constitutes the type of dynamic, cross-system problem-solving that illustrates the success of the MHRAC in becoming the hub for addressing behavioral health service delivery issues in Cleveland.
4. Crisis Intervention Plan
Under the Decree, the CIT “Coordinator will develop an effective specialized crisis intervention plan . . . to ensure that a specialized CIT officer is available to respond to all calls and incidents that appear to involve an individual in crisis[.]”70 CDP’s Crisis Intervention Plan was developed by CIT Coordinator Captain James Purcell and was informed by an analysis of CDP Crisis calls for service by district. The plan includes:
• Assessment of the number of officers necessary to ensure coverage of all calls for an individual in crisis across all shifts and all Districts;
70 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 152.
43

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 48 of 115. PageID #: 3508
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
• Description of the procedures for identification of any gaps in coverage; • Mechanisms that the Division will use to fill gaps in coverage; • Analysis of barriers to full coverage and possible steps to overcome these barriers; and • Ways to identify officers who may be suitable to be specialized CIT officers.71
Following approval by MHRAC, the Crisis Intervention Plan was submitted to and approved by the Court during the current reporting period.
5. CIT Selection Process
Under the Consent Decree, the CIT Coordinator “will be responsible for the selection of appropriate candidates for designation as specialized CIT officers” and “to ensure that officers, call-takers, and dispatchers are appropriately responding to CIT-related calls.”72 While it is not yet possible to ensure that officers are responding to CIT-related calls since the 40-Hour CIT training is under development, the CIT Coordinator developed a selection plan for specialized CIT officers.73
The selection plan outlines a three-stage process:
• Participation Request • Personnel File Review • Selection Board Interview Participation Request
The Participation Request provides for a systematic set of requirements that include voluntary participation, three years of experience, supervisor recommendations, a history relevant to CIT, and a willingness to handle crisis incidents and divert individuals when feasible.
The Personnel File Review aims to select officers with an impressive CDP record. The review includes an examination of the disciplinary record—including the disposition, nature, and evidence of pattern of behavior—as well as any citizen complaints. The Personnel File Review also considers annual performance evaluations, awards, commendations, and letters that reflect outstanding performance, particularly in CIT-related incidents.
The Selection Board Interview Process is designed to assess motivation, provide insight into an officer’s CIT calls and reports, and offer an opportunity to review discipline, awards, and evaluations.
71 Dkt. 146-2 at 3. 72 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 141. 73 See Dkt. 146-1.
44

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 49 of 115. PageID #: 3509
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
As with the Crisis Intervention Plan, the Selection Plan was reviewed and approved by MHRAC. The final CIT Selection Plan was approved by the Court.
6. Training
Eight-Hour Training for All Officers. In the Third Semiannual Monitoring Period, the MHRAC Training Subcommittee worked with the Division to develop an Eight-Hour Training Curriculum for all officers. This curriculum underwent extensive revisions and contains an impressive set of lesson plans, instructor manuals, and PowerPoint presentations for each of the four courses. DOJ played an instrumental role in shaping this training. The eight-hour curriculum was also reviewed several times by MHRAC and ultimately approved by the Court.74
Once the Eight-Hour Training Curriculum was approved by the Court, CDP began scheduling training for all officers. In order to prepare for the training, CDP, the ADAMHS Board staff, a representative of the Ohio Criminal Justice Coordinating Center for Excellence, representatives from the Department of Justice, and a member of the Monitoring Team with national expertise in crisis intervention collaborated to train both the law enforcement and mental health instructors. An evaluation instrument used in other crisis training work was modified for the Eight-Hour Training given to CDP officers. The Department of Justice and the Monitoring Team observed several training sessions to provide feedback and quality assurance.
The City reported to the Court that, as of November 27, 2017, 1,347 out of 1,435 total CDP officers had received and completed the Eight-Hour Training Curriculum. Further, the City and Division “anticipate[] that all of CDP’s active, eligible officers will have received the required eight hours of crisis intervention training before the end of [2017].”75
The feedback from the Division, DOJ, and the Monitoring Team has been positive and will be used to improve future trainings. While the quantitative assessment data has not yet been compiled and analyzed, much of the qualitative feedback obtained by the CIT Coordinator has been encouraging. Perhaps more importantly, Captain Purcell has reported several case studies to MHRAC, the MHRAC Quality Assurance Subcommittee, and the Monitoring Team that suggest the officers are improving their de-escalation skills and seriously considering the process of diversion. Future, formalized assessments will explore this possibility across time, officers, and incidents.
74 See Dkt. 129. 75 Dkt. 165 at 3.
45

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 50 of 115. PageID #: 3510
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
40-Hour Specialized CIT Training. The Consent Decree indicates that “CDP will provide enhanced specialized training in responding to individuals in crisis to certain officers (‘specialized CIT officers’)” who will be “called upon to respond to incidents or calls involving individuals in crisis.”76
Under the MHRAC Workplan, the Training Subcommittee’s next task is to complete the 40-Hour Specialized CIT Training. To that end, the Training Subcommittee has revised the course outline for the 40-Hour Curriculum. It has also developed templates of the lesson plans, instructor manuals, and PowerPoint presentations needed for each course in the 40-Hour Curriculum.
The CDP and the Training Subcommittee worked with the Department of Justice and the Monitoring Team to obtain informal feedback for both the course outline and the templates of sample courses. The MHRAC Training Subcommittee has completed both tasks and the MHRAC Committee has approved the outline of the 40-Hour Curriculum.
While the CDP and the MHRAC Training Subcommittee face a great deal of work, the 40-Hour Specialized CIT Training is on track to start during the next reporting period. The CDP dispatch training has been developed into a basic outline, and the curriculum will be fully developed once the 40-Hour Curriculum for specialized CIT officers is completed.
7. Diversion
One of the goals of the MHRAC Workplan is to increase alternatives to hospitalization or arrest for the Cleveland community. For that reason, MHRAC is focusing on the development of a receiving facility to provide a bridge between crisis care and community-based recovery programs. ADAMHS Board leadership has started to assess the feasibility of locations that would serve the needs of CDP and the community. This is a complex process that involves considering the impact that a proposed facility might have on its surrounding neighborhood.
The Monitoring Team is optimistic that a dedicated facility that would serve as the entry point for community-based programs would better divert individuals from the hospital or the criminal justice system – and, crucially, provide a dedicated social service site for police to steer individuals, rather than needing to spend repeated time and resources addressing the same individuals with the same problems. A dedicated facility is not the only course of action available when it comes to diversion. However, because high-quality diversion programs are good for officers and subjects, the Monitoring Team looks forward to seeing progress on this front in the next reporting period.
76 Dkt. 7-1 ¶¶ 144–46.
46

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 51 of 115. PageID #: 3511
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
8. Community Engagement
While community awareness of crisis intervention is not a specific requirement of the Decree, the MHRAC Community Engagement Subcommittee is committed to ensuring that community members are well-informed about the CIT Program. This committee has previously developed a resource card for officers to use to refer individuals in crisis to alternative resources. The Community Engagement Subcommittee is now developing a Speakers Bureau and working with the CPC to enhance the MHRAC’s outreach efforts.
9. Data Integration: CDP CAD System
Major changes in the data collection process necessitate a technology-based solution to ensure that reporting requirements do not impede the ability of officers to efficiently and effectively provide law enforcement services. CDP has taken the Crisis Intervention Data form developed with the MHRAC Data Subcommittee and integrated it into proposed changes in the Division’s CAD system. This system will gather incident information seamlessly and decrease the need for CDP officers to enter and re-enter basic data.
C. Conclusion
In the current reporting period, CDP and MHRAC have acted to build the foundation necessary to promote community solutions to the assistance of individuals with mental illness. This foundation will eventually reduce the need for individuals with mental illness to interact with police and the criminal justice system.
The Division’s new CIT policy has been recognized as a national model of crisis intervention.77 Indeed, the Monitoring Team has begun to represent to other jurisdictions that Cleveland’s crisis policies are the best and most-forward looking policies in the country.
This strong start on policy continued with a well-developed crisis intervention in-service curriculum for all CDP officers. The focus on training has continued with the partnership with the MHRAC Training Subcommittee and work on the new 40-Hour CIT Specialist Curriculum. Through this subcommittee, CDP has obtained hours of volunteer assistance from subject matter experts, advocates, and those in recovery. The Monitoring Team applauds the subcommittee members’
77 Ballard, C. and Purcell, J. (2017, August). Cleveland Division of Police; Opportunities to Transform Responses to the Community. Presentation at the CIT International Annual Meeting, Ft. Lauderdale, FL.
47

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 52 of 115. PageID #: 3512
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
willingness to step forward and provide assistance as the Division continues to improve its crisis intervention program. The Monitoring Team commends the CDP and MHRAC on their progress to date. Indeed, the Team believes that the progress that the City has made in the area of crisis intervention is the strongest and most significant of any area of the Consent Decree to date. The collaboration of a diverse group of stakeholders from across the City, a genuine willingness to critically appraise prior practices, and the strategic adoption of new approaches geared at new outcomes are having tangible benefits for individuals in crisis, police officers, social service providers, and Cleveland residents.
48

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 53 of 115. PageID #: 3513
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018

VIII. SEARCH AND SEIZURE

Paragraph
160. “CDP will revise, develop, and implement search and seizure policies that comply with applicable law, . . . include the requirements below,” and conform to expressly-identified principles. 161–65. Policy requirements for officers for stops, searches, and detentions.
166. “Officers will immediately notify a supervisor when effectuating a custodial arrest for obstructing official business, resisting arrest, or assault an officer and no other substantive violation is alleged,” and “the supervisor will respond to the scene.” 167. “Officers will not use ‘canned’ or conclusory language without supporting detail in documents or reports documenting investigatory stops, searches, or arrests.” 168. “Officers will articulate the justification for an investigatory stop, search, or arrest in a specific and clear manner in their reports.” CDP “will train officers” on documenting stops. “Supervisors will review all documentation of investigatory stops, searches, and arrests.” 169. Supervisor will review of “each arrest report by officers under their command,” with supervisors reviewing reports for specific, expresslyidentified deficiencies. 170–72. Supervisory review of investigatory stops, searches, and arrests.
173. Provision of “initial training that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type on investigatory stops, searches, and arrests, including the requirements” of the Consent Decree that “will address the requirements of Fourth Amendment and related law, CDP policies,” and specific, expresslyidentified topics. 174–75. Provision of “annual search and seizure in-service training that is adequate in quality, quantity, type, and scope” incorporating specific, expressly-identified topics.

Status of Compliance EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED

The Consent Decree requires that CDP “revise, develop, and implement” policies on how its officers “conduct all investigatory stops, searches, and arrests with the goal” that such actions comply with the “Constitution, state and federal law.”78 In addition to ensuring that officers enforce these legal requirements, the policies also will prohibit officers from relying on a subject’s “race, ethnicity, gender, and perceived sexual orientation” as a reason to stop, search, or arrest an individual.79

78 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 160. 79 Id. ¶ 161; Dkt. 97 at 42.
49

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 54 of 115. PageID #: 3514
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
The Monitoring Team’s Third Semiannual Report noted that, under the Consent Decree, CDP “[o]fficers will be required to use specific details in reports documenting the events that led to an investigatory stop, search, or arrest” – a change from past practice, where CDP did not systematically capture information about officer performance in this area.80 During this reporting period, the Division has made progress on updating its Computer-Aided Dispatch (“CAD”) platform. It is currently contemplated that, not too long from now, officers will use CAD to provide this information. Because CAD is a platform that the Division uses to log and address a vast array of law enforcement information, logging stops in CAD will allow officers to navigate these reporting requirements in a context with which they are already familiar and, indeed, must already navigate for other purposes.
In June 2017, the Parties and Monitoring Team agreed on a working data template, informed by the requirements of the Consent Decree, that would be captured so that necessary work on the CAD upgrade could continue. The routine capturing of stop data awaits policies on stops, searches, and arrests being finalized and training completed on those new policies and procedures for conducting and logging information about such encounters.
The Court-approved Second-Year Monitoring Plan provided that “the timetable for working on policies relating to stops, searches, and seizures as between September 2017 and March 2018.”81 The Division, Parties, and Monitoring Team have been discussing draft iterations of policies consistent with this timeline. At the same time, the CPC has begun to plan for an in-depth community engagement and outreach effort for the first quarter of 2018 to address final draft policies. As this report describes elsewhere, the Division has also been working on identifying training relating to biasfree policing and search and seizure so that officer training on new expectations for stops, searches, seizures, and arrests does not lag too far behind completion of new policies.
The Monitoring Team anticipates that, by the end of the next reporting period, these policies will have been the subject of sustained community discussion and finalized and training related to them will have begun. Thus, the Monitoring Team notes that the “status of compliance” for the various paragraphs relating to search, seizure, and arrests is, for the current reporting period, “evaluation deferred,” in recognition of the ongoing, collaborative work being undertaken by the Division, Parties, and Monitoring Team on these issues.
80 First Semiannual Report at 44. 81 Third Semiannual Report at 39.
50

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 55 of 115. PageID #: 3515
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018

IX. ACCOUNTABILITY

Paragraph
176. “The City and CDP will ensure that all allegations of officer misconduct, whether internally discovered or alleged by a civilian, are fully, fairly, and efficiently investigated; that all investigative findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence and documented in writing; and that all officers who commit misconduct are held accountable pursuant to a disciplinary system that is fair, consistent, and provides due process.”

Status of Compliance NONCOMPLIANCE

When entering into the Consent Decree, the City of Cleveland agreed that it will:

[E]nsure that all allegations of officer misconduct, whether internally discovered or alleged by a civilian, are fully, fairly, and efficiently investigated; that all investigative findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence and documented in writing; and that all officers who commit misconduct are held accountable pursuant to a disciplinary system that is fair, consistent, and provides due process.82

To do so, the City is needing to make comprehensive changes to a host of distinct but overlapping structures and processes: Internal Affairs (“IA”), which will conduct or oversee all investigations of officer performance initiated by individuals within the Division; the Office of Professional Standards (“OPS”), which conducts all investigations of complaints made by individuals outside the Division; the Citizen Police Review Board (“CPRB” or “PRB”), which reviews all OPS investigations and makes recommendations on adjudication and discipline to the Chief of Police; and the process that the Division and City elect to use for reviewing misconduct investigations and imposing discipline, where appropriate. Whether investigated by IA or OPS, and whether involving the PRB or not, all allegations of officer misconduct proceed through the same system of adjudication and discipline. Together, all of these mechanisms – IA, OPS, PRB, the Chief’s Office, the Public Safety Department – constitute what might be called Cleveland’s “back-end” system of accountability for its officers: the system for addressing problems that have already occurred or misconduct that has previously taken place.

When considering these components together, the accountability system does not seem to be working for anyone. It is not working for civilians, who cannot know whether complaints brought to the City’s attention via OPS will be fairly, comprehensively, and timely investigated. The accountability system is not working for the men and women of the Division of Police who at least believe that discipline is arbitrarily imposed through a system, from the start of an investigation to the

82 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 196.

51

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 56 of 115. PageID #: 3516
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018

hearing of a case on grievance to an arbitrator, that is a game of chance that can be swayed only by “who you know” rather than the propriety of performance under scrutiny. At the same time, CDP command staff and other officials in Cleveland lament that the system makes separation from an officer who has performed inconsistent with the Division’s policies and values too difficult and dayto-day supervision and management of the Division overly complicated.

During this reporting period, some important progress has been made – namely, a revised Disciplinary Matrix, setting out in detail the ramifications that officers can expect for various classes and types of policy violations, has been finalized. The use of this Matrix should enhance the quality of the Division’s process for imposing discipline where warranted.

In the civilian complaint process, far less progress has been made. This Consent Decree ultimately demands outcomes and results. Per the Court’s instructions, the City provided a Plan on December 15, 2017 for how the City might begin to come into compliance with the many provisions of the Consent Decree involving the investigation of civilian complaints about the Division’s performance. This section outlines the enormous progress that must be made for the City to comply with the core provisions of the Consent Decree involving accountability.

A. Internally Discovered Misconduct

Paragraph
177. “Internal Affairs will conduct objective, comprehensive, and timely investigations of all internal allegations,” with “findings . . . based on the preponderance of the evidence standard” that must “be clearly delineated in policies, training, and procedures and accompanied by detailed examples to ensure proper application by investigators.” 178. “Internal Affairs will be headed by a qualified civilian” who “will report directly to the Chief of Police. 179. Qualifications for IA investigators.
180. Initial training for IA investigators “that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type on conducting misconduct investigations” that addresses specific, expressly-identified topics. 181. “[A]nnual training” for IA investigators “that is adequate in quality, quantity, type and scope” 182. “In each investigation, Internal Affairs will collect and consider” all evidence. “[N]o automatic preference for an officer’s statement over a nonofficer’s statement.” No disregard of a “witnesses’ statement solely because of” connection to the complainant or criminal history. IA investigators must “make all reasonable efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements.”

Status of Compliance EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED

52

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 57 of 115. PageID #: 3517
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018

183. IA “will evaluate all relevant police activity and any evidence of potential misconduct uncovered during the course of the investigation.” 184. IA will not consider guilty plea or verdict as “determinative of whether a CDP officer engaged in misconduct” or justification for “discontinuing the investigation.” 185. IA “will complete its administrative investigations within 30 days from the date it learns of the alleged misconduct.” 186–87. IA investigative report requirements.
188. Forwarding of completed IA investigations “to the officers’ supervisors, the Training Review Committee, the Force Review Board, the Officer Intervention Program, and the Data Collection and Analysis Coordinator.” 189. “CDP will require any CDP employee who observes or becomes aware of any” potential misconduct to “report the incident to a supervisor or directly to” IA. 190. “CDP will develop a system that allows officers to confidentially an anonymously report potential misconduct by other officers.” 191. “CDP will expressly prohibit all forms of retaliation, discouragement, intimidation, coercion, or adverse action, against any person, civilian or officer, who reports misconduct, makes a misconduct complaint, or cooperates with an investigation of misconduct.” 192. “Officers who retaliate . . . will be subject to the disciplinary process.”

EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED

“Internal Affairs” (“IA”) is the entity within a police department that investigates potential employee misconduct.83 The Monitoring Team has previously described what IA does in other police departments, which is different from what Cleveland’s Internal Affairs Unit has done in the past.84 Specifically, before the Consent Decree, IA conducted nearly exclusively criminal investigations. Some combination of the Division’s Inspections Unit, IA, and chain of command conducted administrative investigations – that is, investigations of employee performance to determine whether, even if not criminal in severity, police deficiencies warrant the Division’s formal response through discipline or termination.

The Department of Justice’s 2014 investigation concluded that the CDP internal investigation structure did not “adequately investigate and hold officers accountable for misconduct.”85 It
concluded that the CDP’s IA Unit did not conduct thorough and objective investigations of alleged officer misconduct.86

83 See Dkt. 97 at 43-44. 84 First Semiannual Report at 45-56; Second Semiannual Report at 41-42. 85 2014 Findings Letter at 34. 86 Id. at 35-36.

53

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 58 of 115. PageID #: 3518
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
The Monitoring Team’s Third Semiannual Report summarized the results of its independent inquiry into the quality of IA investigations, which were largely consistent with the DOJ’s 2014 findings. Specifically, the Monitoring Team assessed the Division’s IA investigations in light of the provisions of the Consent Decree and generally-accepted law enforcement practices.87 IA investigations were found to be wanting. After consultation with the Division and the DOJ, the Monitoring Team agreed that the most productive way of improving IA investigations in the long term was to ensure that IA is guided by policies and procedures that will bring “best practices” from other police agencies throughout the United States.
Consequently, the Consent Decree required a reformed Internal Affairs function that would have more robust requirements for investigations and that would also serve as a primary engine for the Division’s administrative (non-criminal) investigations, as well as internal and citizen-generated criminal investigations.
1. Status of Compliance - Ongoing Policy Work
The Consent Decree requires CDP and the City to have in place both the mechanisms and defined policies pertaining to the investigation of misconduct that is discovered within the Department. As noted above, the entity within the Division tasked with conducting administrative investigations of allegations of CDP misconduct is the IA unit.
The work of the current reporting period has focused on creating policies and procedures to guide Internal Affairs investigations. Because the Force Investigation Team (“FIT”) is part of the IA structure, the Monitoring Team, the Division, and the Department of Justice have collaborated to finalize the structure of the FIT and how it will relate to the IA and the proposed new Bureau of Compliance (a new bureau from which IA will be structurally and functionally separate).
It is anticipated that the IA policy manual, the FIT manual, a Force Review Board Policy, and additional IA-related policies can be completed by the end of February 2018. These IA-related policies under development include policies which will ensure compliance with paragraphs 189 (reporting of misconduct), 190 (anonymous reporting of complaints), and 191 (prohibition of retaliation) of the Consent Decree. In addition, the IA manual is expected to bring consistency and cooperation between IA and OPS.
Upon completion and implementation of these manuals and policies, the Monitoring Team anticipates that IA personnel will become better aware of Division expectations under the Consent Decree through training and implementation may proceed expeditiously.
87 Third Semiannual Report at 41-46.
54

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 59 of 115. PageID #: 3519
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
Additionally, as reported in our Third Semiannual Report, during the course of the Monitoring Team’s review of Internal Affairs files stemming from a civilian’s complaint about officer conduct, the Monitoring Team encountered two documents which constituted artificial barriers to the submission of complaints. One document was an affidavit advising complainants of potential criminal culpability for making a false allegation against a police officer. The second document was an agreement by the complainant not to pursue their complaint any further.
For the reasons explained in its Third Semiannual Report, the Monitoring Team criticized IA’s regular use of these forms. The Monitoring Team has been informed that IA has discontinued its use of these forms, which represents a positive development in ensuring fair and objective investigations.
2. IA Superintendent Recruitment & Hiring
The Consent Decree provides that “Internal Affairs will be headed by a qualified civilian who is not a current or former employee of CDP, and who is not a current or retired law enforcement officer.”88 This civilian head of IA is to report directly to the Chief of Police. This reorganization of IA—along with a new policy and procedural manual for IA, increased cooperation between IA and OPS, and a new FIT manual—is intended to build a foundation for high-quality, fair, objective, timely, and thorough administrative investigations.
In early February 2016, CDP began the process for the selection of a civilian IA Superintendent. Unfortunately, the Division reported that no suitable candidate could be found. The Division proceeded through multiple rounds of recruiting and interviewing but failed to find a well-qualified, satisfactory candidate. Indeed, given that the individual will be in charge of overseeing a police operation’s own investigations into its personnel, some knowledge and experience of law enforcement operations is necessary to ensure comprehensive investigations – and relatively few individuals have this in-depth knowledge into how police agencies work unless they have served within a police department or worked closely, as a prosecutor or other official, with the police.
All other qualifications equal, however, compliance with the Consent Decree’s specific provisions would be most straightforward and expeditious if the IA Superintendent position is filled by a qualified person who has not previously served as a police officer at the municipal or county level. Given the practical realities, however, the City requested that it be allowed to explore individuals from outside the police department who had some experience as former law enforcement officers – including retired and former prosecutors, federal investigators, and officers from departments other than CDP. The Parties and Monitoring Team agreed that, although the Consent Decree originally contemplated a head of IA with no law enforcement background, expanding the scope of the hiring
88 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 178.
55

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 60 of 115. PageID #: 3520
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018

process to attract individuals who had worked as a law enforcement officer was necessary to try to attract a qualified outsider to the role. The Parties and Monitoring Team further agreed that it would present to the Court requests to modify necessary of the Consent Decree if an otherwise-qualified candidate had former experience as a law enforcement official.

Following another intensive recruitment and interviewing process, the City identified a desired candidate with previous experience as a prosecutor, which could, under some definitions, be considered a “law enforcement officer.” The Parties jointly recommended to the Court that it modify the Consent Decree in order to permit this qualified candidate to assume the responsibilities of the IA Superintendent position.89 The Monitoring Team, having considered the motion, concurs that this limited modification is warranted in this case. Ultimately, it believes that the hiring of a former prosecutor to serve as the IA Superintendent fits within the original intent of the Settlement Agreement; to ensure that Internal Affairs and the FIT are supervised by a person who will provide an informed but independent perspective on the important issues facing IA and the Division and who will have direct access to the Chief of Police and the Division’s command staff. The Team looks forward to an outside professional, skilled in investigations, leading the IA function as it adopts and implements critical new changes required by the Consent Decree in the coming months.

B. Office of Professional Standards (“OPS”)

Paragraph
193. OPS “investigate[s] all civilian complaints it receives, other than those that allege criminal conduct,” which are referred to IA. Excessive force complaints generally retained by OPS. IA investigations referred back to OPS if “determination is made that no criminal conduct occurred.” 194. “The City will ensure that OPS is led by an administrator with the skills, expertise, and experience to effectively manage the intake, tracking, timely, and objective investigation of complaints”; implement PRB training; “assess OPS’s equipment and staffing needs”; and “develop and implement performance standards for OPS.” 195–96. Initial training for OPS investigators “adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type,” including specific, expressly-listed topics. 197. “OPS Investigators will not be current members of the CDP, and no CDP personnel will have any active role in OPS’s operations.” 198. “The City will ensure that the lawyer representing OPS does not have any actual or apparent conflicts of interest.”

Status of Compliance PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
NONCOMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE

89 Dkt. 172. 56

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 61 of 115. PageID #: 3521
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018

199. “OPS will have its own budget, separate from . . . the Department of Public Safety” that “affords sufficient independence and resources, including sufficient staff and training to meet the terms of this Agreement.” 200. Development and implementation of OPS operations manual “made available to the public” that covers specific, expressly-listed topics. 201. Development and implementation of “a program to promote awareness through the Cleveland community about the process for filing complaints with OPS.” 202. “CDP and the City will work with the police unions . . . to allow civilian complaints to be submitted to OPS verbally or in writing; in person, by phone, or on line; by a complainant, someone acting on his or her behalf, or anonymously; and with or without a signature from the complainant,” with all “complaints documented in writing.” 203. “CDP will post and maintain by the intake window at CDP headquarters and all District headquarters a permanent placard describing the civilian complaint process” and containing specific, expressly-listed information. 204. “CDP will provide training that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type to all police personnel, including dispatchers, to properly handle complaint intake, including” with respect to specific, expressly-listed topics. 205. CDP officers “carry complaint forms in their CDP vehicles,” which officers must provide “upon request.” Supervisors will be dispatched to scene when an individual wants to make a complaint, with the supervisor providing a copy of completed complaint form “or a blank form to be completed later by the individual.” 206. “The City and OPS will make complaint forms and other materials outlining the complaint process and OPS’s contact information available at locations” including a number of specific, expressly-listed locations. 207. “OPS’s complaint form will not contain any language that could reasonably be construed as discouraging the filing of a complaint, including warnings about the potential criminal consequences for filing false complaints.” 208. Availability of complaint forms in English and Spanish. “OPS will make every effort to ensure that complainants who speak other languages . . . can file complaints in their preferred language.” 209. “City will ensure that civilian complaints submitted through other existing systems, including the Mayor’s Action Center and the Department Action Center, are immediately forwarded to OPS for investigation.” 210. “OPS will establish a centralized electronic numbering and tracking system for all complaints,” which “will maintain accurate and reliable data regarding the number, nature, and status of all complaints . . . including investigation timeliness and notification of the interim status and final disposition of the complaint.” It “will be used to monitor and maintain appropriate caseloads for OPS investigators.”

EVALUATION DEFERRED
NONCOMPLIANCE EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
NONCOMPLIANCE
EVALUATION DEFERRED
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
EVALUATION DEFERRED

57

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 62 of 115. PageID #: 3522
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018

211. Biased policing tracked as a separate category of complaint that “are captured and tracked appropriately, even if the complainant does not so label the allegation.” 212. “[A]llegations of unlawful investigatory stops, searches, or arrests” tracked as a separate category of complaints. 213. “[A]llegations of excessive use of force” tracked as separate category of complaints. 214. “OPS will conduct regular assessments of the types of complaints being received to identify and assess potential problematic patterns and trends.” 215. “OPS will produce, at least annually, a public report summarizing complaint trends, including” with respect several specific, expresslyidentified areas. 216. Assignment of complaints to Standard and Complex investigatory tracks. 217. Dismissal and/or administrative dismissal of complaint investigations.
218. “OPS will ensure that investigations of complaints are as thorough as necessary to reach reliable and complete findings that are supported by the preponderance of the evidence.” 219. “CDP will ensure that OPS has timely access to all reports related to the incident . . . ,” and authority of OPS “to conduct additional investigation” of civilian complaint when CDP investigation has already taken place relating to the incident. 220. “OPS investigators will attempt to interview each complainant in person” and record the interview. 221. “The Chief will order officers who witnessed or participate in an incident that is the subject of an OPS complaint to cooperate with the OPS investigation,” including by responding to written questions or sitting for an in-person interview. 222. “OPS investigators will have access to any relevant disciplinary information in the record of an officer who is the subject of a current investigation.” 223. “OPS will consider all relevant evidence,” with no preferences for particular witness’s statements, including of officer over a non-officer, or because of connection to complainant or criminal history. “OPS will make all reasonable efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements.” 224. OPS findings categories.
225. “OPS will document in writing the investigation of each complaint, including all investigatory steps taken, and OPS’s findings and conclusions,” which must “be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 226. Items for consideration for OPS findings.

EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED NONCOMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATONAL COMPLIANCE OPERATONAL COMPLAINCE NONCOMPLIANCE
EVALUATION DEFERRED
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
EVALUATON DEFERRED
NONCOMPLIANCE
OPERATONAL COMPLIANCE NONCOMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

58

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 63 of 115. PageID #: 3523
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018

227. “OPS will forward all investigations and its written conclusions to PRB in sufficient time for PRB to consider them no later than the second regularly scheduled PRB meeting following completion of the investigation.” 228. “OPS will send periodic written updates” to the complainant at specific, expressly-identified junctures. 229. “[A] complainant may contact OPS at any time to determine the status of his/her complaint.”

NONCOMPLIANCE
NONCOMPLIANCE EVALUATION DEFERRED

OPS investigates the complaints of civilians and Cleveland residents about Division of Police personnel. The City of Cleveland’s Charter requires OPS to conduct “a full and complete investigation” of all complaints of employee misconduct.90 Currently, the City is not in compliance with the terms of its own charter or with the Consent Decree.

In the First Semiannual Report, the Monitoring Team expressed “disappointment and frustration with the dysfunction and failed legitimacy of the Office of Professional Standards” (“OPS”).91 In the Second Semiannual Report, the Monitoring Team observed the need for the City to “drastically improve[e] the manner in which OPS delivers services to the citizens of Cleveland.”92 In the Third Semiannual Report, the Monitoring Team noted that it had “run out of words to capture the depth and breadth of the progress that needs to be made to cure the current inability of Cleveland residents to have complaints about City employees fairly and fully addressed in a timely manner – and pursuant to its own Charter.”93 The Team has not located any such words in the past six months.

Over the first three months of the current reporting period, the Monitoring Team remained frustrated by OPS’s lack of progress – as well as the increasing likelihood that the systemic failures of OPS in investigating, civilian complaints in a fair, thorough, objective, and timely manner will serve as an anchor that will prevent timely, ultimate compliance with the Consent Decree. Put differently, the OPS-PRB system is lagging far behind progress made in a number of other areas, which threatens to extend the duration of the reform process.

During the middle of the reporting period, the City and CDP made a change in the leadership of OPS. Certainly, any change of leadership presents an opportunity for an organization to get on the right track. However, systemic and long-standing problems that have festered over years still require significant time, energy, and resources to make OPS into a functioning and credible oversight agency.

90 Charter of the City of Cleveland, Section 115-4. 91 Dkt. 97 at 44 (citing First Semiannual Report at 47–48). 92 Id. at 44–45. 93 Third Semiannual Report at 48.
59

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 64 of 115. PageID #: 3524
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
In November, the Director of Public Safety committed to hiring a suitable OPS leader. The Director also instructed the interim leadership of OPS to create, ostensibly for the first time, performance measures for OPS permanent investigators in order to ensure that a solid performance foundation might greet the new OPS Administrator at the time of his/her hire.94
1. Current State of OPS
In the June 2017 Third Semiannual Report, the Monitoring Team reported a continuing unacceptable backlog of investigations and disposition letters of some 383 cases.95 In consultation with the Court over the Summer, the Parties and Monitoring Team agreed to specific milestones for OPS to deliver by the end of the 2017 calendar year, which were filed with the Court on August 30, 2017 and formally approved.96 The milestones were envisioned as reasonable and achievable ways of addressing the large backlog of civilian complaints not fully investigated – but mechanisms that would nonetheless require OPS to enhance its productivity and not continue “business as usual.” The milestones did not “replace, supplant, or amend any obligations under the Consent Decree or the Second-Year Monitoring Plan . . . . [Rather,] the milestones [were] intended to provide specific, measurable guideposts to assist OPS in meeting existing requirements.”97
The benchmark requirements required the OPS to achieve the following goals over the rest of the 2017 calendar year:
• Beginning on September 1, 2017, OPS will make formal, specific representations to the Parties concerning its caseload performance and process via a comprehensive bi-weekly report.98
• By September 15, 2017, OPS would formally identify to the Parties the number of outstanding cases pending administrative dismissal. Subsequently, all cases pending administrative dismissal would be addressed by September 25, 2017. Through the end of 2017, cases that may be resolved through administrative dismissal should be closed via the administrative dismissal process within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt.99
94 The City observes that its “Smart Objectives” program for setting employee performance benchmarks has been in effect for a number of years. Nevertheless, the Monitoring Team is not aware that specific Smart Objectives, or other formal performance benchmarks, have been in place for any OPS personnel at any juncture – and, if there were, these benchmarks were certainly not inspiring the type of performance necessary to ensure timely, fair, thorough, and objective investigations. Indeed, the Monitoring Team’s current understanding is that “Smart Objectives” were put in place for OPS personnel only as of the fourth quarter of calendar year 2017. 95 See Third Semiannual Report at 48-49. 96 See Dkt. 150. 97 Id. at 1. 98 Id. at 2. 99 Id. at 3.
60

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 65 of 115. PageID #: 3525
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
• By September 30, 2017, OPS would complete all pending disposition letters relating to complaints made from 2014 through 2016 (reported at 184 cases).100
• By October 1, 2017, OPS would complete findings letters (letters to the Chief of Police relating to cases sustained by the Police Review Board) for at least half of the identified outstanding cases, i.e. at least eleven cases. Findings letters for all such identified cases were to be completed by November 1, 2017. Going forward, any new findings letters were to be completed within fourteen (14) calendar days of the PRB issuing a finding. The letters were to be sent contemporaneously to the Chief’s Office and the Parties.101
• By December 31, 2017, all remaining investigations of complaints that were made in 2014 and 2015 (reportedly 136) will be completed, amounting to a nearly 50% reduction in the backlog of pre-2016 complaint investigations that presently remain open.102
• By December 31, 2017, OPS will complete 50% of all remaining investigations of complaints that were made in 2017 as of August 30, 2017.103
• For all open investigations, regardless of when initiated, OPS would interview officers where it believes a sustained finding is more likely than not. The Director of Public Safety would facilitate those interviews by issuing a written standard order that OPS could use to direct officers to cooperate with its investigations and participate in such an interview.104
• For all open investigations, an investigation could not be certified as complete unless all identified material witnesses who are not unavailable have been interviewed, or have not responded to three contact attempts.105
• For all open investigations, all investigatory interviews, whether of officers, complainants, or witnesses, will be audio-recorded.106
• The City will promptly ensure that every investigator is provided with a digital recorder and access to video recording capabilities.107
• The City will immediately staff the currently-open full-time clerical position.108 • The City will continue to work with the Parties in evaluating the 2018 budget for OPS,
which will include discussion of hiring a supervisory investigator.109
100 Id. 101 Id. at 4. 102 Id. at 2. 103 Id. at 2-3. 104 Id. at 4 105 Id. at 4-5. 106 Id. at 5. 107 Id. 108 Id. 109 Id.
61

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 66 of 115. PageID #: 3526
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
After consultation with the Court, it was understood that any failure by OPS to achieve these benchmarks would cause the Court to require the City to provide a detailed accounting of why the various milestones were not achieved.
OPS initially struggled to complete a bi-weekly report that met the Monitoring Team’s expectations. It was not until the production of the October 3, 2017 bi-weekly report that OPS started to provide the Monitoring Team with the information necessary to gauge its progress vis-à-vis the required milestones.
On September 28, 2017, four weeks after the filing of the Court-approved milestones, the Monitoring Team was advised that the OPS milestones regarding administrative dismissal and disposition letters had not been met. In addition, the October 4, 2017 bi-weekly report reported 48 cases pending administrative dismissal (although such letters were supposed to have been completed by September 25, 2017) and 216 cases pending disposition letters (although all pending letters were supposed to have been completed by September 30, 2017). The Monitoring Team also noted that the progress being made to complete pending investigations was not proceeding according to the pace necessary to achieve the end-of-year milestones as per the expectation of the Court and the Parties.
As such, on October 6, 2017, the Monitoring Team formally advised the City that the OPS did not appear to be in compliance with the milestone expectations. On October 13, 2017, after consulting with the City, the Monitoring Team reported to the Court as follows:
• In order for OPS to reach the benchmark of completing all investigations initiated in 2014 and 2015 by the end of the 2017 calendar year, the six OPS temporary investigators assigned to the OPS “backlog reduction team” would need to close out 5.1 investigations per investigator per month. According to OPS records, each investigator was actually completing only two investigations per month – far short of what was required to stay on pace with the benchmarking expectations.
• On October 13, 2017, the Monitoring Team identified nine (9) OPS investigations that had been submitted to the Police Review Board for review even though the investigations were not completed according to the requirements of OPS Manual Section 403 (relating to actions necessary before completing an investigation without interviewing a complainant).
• Based on the information provided by OPS, it was highly unlikely that OPS would be able to complete all investigations initiated in 2014 and 2015 by December 31, 2017 per the protocols of the OPS Manual.
• With respect to 2017 cases, there were 128 pending 2017-initiated complaints with a benchmark of completing 50 percent of those cases (64) before the end of the year as of August 22, 2017. The OPS had reported that, as of October 13, 2017, 19 of those
62

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 67 of 115. PageID #: 3527
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
investigations have been completed and approved by the OPS Administrator. As such, the six permanent OPS investigators (assigned to handle 2017 initiated complaints) were completing approximately 2.7 investigations per week per investigator, or 19 investigations over a period of 7 weeks. The Monitoring Team noted that, at this rate, OPS would only complete an additional 30 investigations by the end of the year which would result in the completion of approximately 50 cases. Consequently, OPS was on track to address only three-quarters of the benchmark – which, in itself, only addressed half of the complaints received by OPS as of August 22, 2017 (and necessarily did not include any complaint investigations initiated in the final third of calendar year 2017). • Therefore, it did not appear that OPS would be able to complete the benchmark for 2017 cases by the end of December 2017. • With respect to the administrative dismissals, the August 30 filing required OPS to report the number of pending administrative dismissals by September 15, 2017. All letters relating to those pending administrative dismissals were to be completed by September 25, 2017. OPS reported that it “seriously undercounted the actual volume” of administrative dismissals when it reported 43 pending administrative dismissals to the Monitoring Team on September 15, 2017. In fact, the number of pending administrative dismissals should have been reported as 109. The fact that OPS substantially underreported the number of pending administrative dismissals does not excuse or mitigate its failure to address the administrative dismissals. Moreover, OPS’s lack of certainty about the actual number of pending administrative dismissals was troubling. • The City was required pursuant to the August 30 filing to complete disposition letters for 184 completed cases by September 30, 2017. According to OPS, as of October 10, only 19 of those disposition letters had been completed. OPS informed the Monitoring Team that additional resources had been allocated to address the missed benchmark but did not provide the nature of those additional resources or why those resources were not allocated shortly after the filing of the benchmark memorandum. • With respect to the findings letters, OPS acknowledged that it had failed to contemporaneously send completed findings letters to the Monitoring Team and the DOJ when it submitted them to CDP. OPS’s failure to do so was contrary to the express terms of the August 30 filing, which indicated that “OPS will forward copies of these [findings] letters contemporaneously to the Chief’s Office, Parties, and Monitoring Team.”110
Further, the Monitoring Team conducted a qualitative review of 38 OPS investigations completed between September 1, 2017 and October 13, 2017 and determined that only thirteen (13) of the investigations were completed in accordance with the requirements set forth by the OPS manual and in accordance with investigative best practices. Accordingly, OPS complied with the Court’s and
110 Id. at 4.
63

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 68 of 115. PageID #: 3528
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
Monitor’s expectations in only 38% of its completed investigations. In nine (9) cases, OPS failed to follow its own policies with respect to attempting to make contact with the complainant. In fourteen (14) cases, OPS failed to interview the involved officers as required by the benchmarking order. Of six total witness interviews conducted after September 1, 2017, OPS recorded only one by audio. Accordingly, OPS failed to comply with the requirement that “all investigatory interviews, whether of officers, complainants, or witnesses, will be audio-recorded.”111
The Court convened a hearing regarding OPS’s lack of progress on the Court-approved milestones on November 21, 2017. At the same time as the Monitoring Team requested a hearing on this issue, the Monitoring Team was advised that the OPS Administrator had separated from his employment with OPS.
At the hearing, the Court received a report from the Monitoring Team on OPS’s lack of progress. The Monitoring Team noted that the agreed-upon milestones were rationale, achievable goals based upon legitimate community and police expectations for OPS. The Monitoring Team reported that as of the date of the hearing, there was no reasonable expectation that OPS would reach its goals with respect to completion of 2014-15-initiated investigations before the end of 2017. Similarly, OPS would not be able to complete 50% of the 2017-initiated investigations that had been identified as of August 30, 2017. In fact, the number of pending 2017-initiated OPS investigations had actually increased since the date of the milestone order. The Monitoring Team also noted that over the course of the prior month (October 3, 2017 through November 14, 2017), the total number of open investigations had gone from 385 to 383 – a reduction of only two cases. In addition, over the course of a two and a half-month period, there had been a reduction of pending investigations of only 4.4% (from 401 to 383). At that rate, there was no possibility that the court-ordered milestones for OPS investigations would be achieved.
Additionally, the Monitoring Team reported additional violations of the milestone order:
• Only 28% of interviewed conducted since August 30, 2017 were documented as audiorecorded;
• In 26% of its investigations, OPS failed to comply with its own policies regarding what actions needed to be taken before a complainant could be considered unavailable. In addition, 45% of the investigations submitted to the PRB for its October 2017 meeting were not compliant with OPS policy in that regard;
• In an additional 26% of its investigations, OPS failed to give subject officers the opportunity to be interviewed prior to an OPS investigator recommending sustained findings, a violation of CDP officers’ right to due process;
• OPS had still not provided its investigators with access to video recording capabilities; and
111 Id. at 5.
64

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 69 of 115. PageID #: 3529
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
• OPS had still not staffed a currently-open full-time clerical position which has been vacant since April 2017.
Although the Monitoring Team noted that OPS had eliminated its backlog of disposition letters, administrative dismissal letters, and findings letters, it also noted that:
• The letters were not completed until after the Monitor notified the court of OPS’s noncompliance in this regard;
• In order to complete this task, OPS needed to bring in additional resources, in the form of a CDP Sergeant to complete 186 backlogged disposition letters; and
• 39% of the disposition letters relating to “supervisorial reviews” failed to provide an explanation for the Division’s decision to take no action on the OPS complaint.
At the hearing, the Monitor again expressed significant concerns about the scope of the progress that OPS must still make and the lack of swift action and urgency to date. Indeed, only now is the City setting forth formal expectations (the “Smart Objectives”) for its OPS investigators relating to the conduct of investigations – even though this is a process available to all City managers across departments to set and hold employees accountable for specific performance expectations. Only now is an outside entity being sought for assistance in working through the backlog of incomplete civilian complaint investigations.
At the November hearing, the Court heard from the City and the Director of Public Safety as to the actions being taken to bring OPS into compliance with the Decree. These actions included bringing on a Deputy Safety Director to supervise OPS during its leadership transition and efforts to conduct a national search for a new OPS Administrator. The City also reported on the creation of two new full-time positions at OPS in the form of a Supervising Investigator and a Community Relations Ombudsman. The City acknowledged the need for OPS to perform up to expectations and agreed to create updated milestones to ensure OPS is able to appropriately reduce its backlog of investigations. The Court ordered the City to create, in collaboration with the Monitoring Team and the Department of Justice, updated milestones and expectations by December 15, 2017.
Subsequent to the November 21 court hearing, OPS submitted 14 cases to be reviewed by the PRB on December 9, 2017. DOJ reviewed the cases to determine if the quality of investigations was sufficient. It found that 5 of the cases (35%) were completed with no significant concerns; another 5 (35%) were completed with significant problems that would not be considered acceptable for future consideration; and 4 cases (30%) required additional investigation. Because these cases had been reviewed and approved by OPS after the November 21 court hearing, the lack of improvement was particularly problematic and troubling to the Monitoring Team.
65

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 70 of 115. PageID #: 3530
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
After the November 21 court hearing, OPS appeared to rectify its deficiencies with respect to the lack of access of OPS investigators to video recording capabilities. Effective December 13, 2017, OPS investigators were equipped with, and trained to use, their own Body Worn Cameras. As such, OPS investigators should be conducting video recorded interviews of witnesses and officers, on a regular basis, now and in the future.
On December 15, 2017, the City submitted an updated plan for dealing with the ongoing backlog as ordered by the Court. The City acknowledged that additional staffing for the OPS has been included in the OPS budget for 2018, to include a two news positions: a Supervisory Investigator and a Community Engagement Coordinator. The City has also represented its intent to hire “a qualified private vendor” (or vendors) to complete all OPS investigations initiated in 2015 through 2017 over the course of the 2018 calendar year. The City further indicated its intent to use the current staff of permanent and temporary OPS investigators to keep all complaints received since December 1, 2017 current. Ultimately, only time will tell whether the City’s attempt to address this issue by assigning only current cases to OPS investigators and contracting out backlogged cases will be successful. Nevertheless, the Monitoring Team finds the City’s present willingness to engage outside resources to be an encouraging sign that the underlying dynamics surrounding the investigation of civilian complaint investigations may be changing.
2. 2014 Cases Assigned for “Supervisory Review”
In its Third Semiannual Report, the Monitoring Team noted that there were 96 cases, all initiated in 2014, which had been identified by OPS and PRB in 2016 for “supervisory review” by the CDP. This means that OPS identified cases that it would not handle and instead forwarded them along to the Division’s supervisors to complete and address.
The Court and the public should not mistake what transpired in these cases, or what would transpire going forward, by utilizing “supervisory review.” It entails shifting work and responsibility from one City agency and set of employees within the Department of Public Safety to another – in this case, an agency, the Division of Police, with supervisors who are already overworked and overburdened. “Supervisory review” is an acknowledgement that OPS cannot handle its work and is an increase in supervisor workload. “Supervisory review” takes first-line supervisors off of Cleveland’s streets and prevents them from responding to the scenes of emerging incidents because other City employees and supervisors have failed to do their jobs.
It is possible that the review of comparatively lower-level complaints may be suitable for first-line supervisor inquiry. Other cities, in fact, have established successful processes that incorporate elements of the police department’s supervisors. However, this has become an ongoing responsibility
66

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 71 of 115. PageID #: 3531
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
– not something unceremoniously dumped in supervisor laps in order to clear out cases. There is a substantial difference.
Even when OPS decided to rid itself of cases via “supervisory referral,” it took almost one year for those cases to be completed and disposition letters sent to complainants.112 Of those complaints, one case was referred by CDP to Internal Affairs for further investigation (1%); ten (10%) were reported as closed despite the Division’s inability to identify the involved officers; thirteen (13%) involved employees who had previously resigned or retired; thirty-seven (37%) involved cases where the Division reported that it had “counseled” the involved officers; and thirty-nine (39%) were cases where CDP supervisors determined that “no further action” was warranted.
Unfortunately, the OPS disposition letters in the 39 cases where the Division determined that no further action was warranted failed to explain the rationale behind the Division’s decision-making. Transparency and accountability in oversight requires that complainants be provided an objective and reasonable explanation for the failure of OPS/PRB or CDP to sustain or take action on a complaint. OPS must change its practices to meet reasonable expectations.
3. OPS Budget and Resourcing
As previously reported, the Monitoring Team initially declined to either approve or disapprove of the full OPS budget for 2017, instead providing short-term, provisional approval of the budget through the first quarter of the year. The Monitoring Team was concerned that the proposed OPS budget failed to provide for a permanent solution to OPS resource issues, instead relying substantially on “temporary investigators” to reduce the backlog of cases.
During the first six months of 2016, the City approved the hiring of two new permanent investigators and six new temporary investigators. By the end of April 2017, all investigative positions had been hired. The Monitor reported this as “an encouraging development that gives OPS more resources than it has had during the past several years to both address the backlog of incomplete investigations and ensure that new complaints brought to the office are fully and fairly investigated in a timely manner.”113
The 2018 draft budget submitted by OPS requests that the temporary investigator positions be funded through at least the first half of 2018. In addition, the draft budget includes two new full-time positions: a Community Relations Ombudsman and a Supervising (or Chief) Investigator. The
112 See Third Semiannual Report at 50. 113 Id. at 51-52.
67

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 72 of 115. PageID #: 3532
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
Monitoring Team believes that both positions are essential to the success of the OPS model of oversight.
OPS can benefit substantially from a supervisor with experience and expertise in administrative complaint investigations. Although there are investigators at OPS with a substantial amount of experience, many of the investigative practices used by OPS have been determined by the DOJ investigation and the Monitoring Team to be deficient and not in accord with investigative best practices. Over the years, OPS has appeared to develop a culture of confirmation bias that has led investigators to jump to conclusions due, in part, to what investigators at least perceive lack of cooperation from subject and witness officers and CDP command staff. The hiring of a qualified Supervising Investigator would provide OPS with the opportunity to interrupt what has become an unfortunate cycle of lack of cooperation and lack of information resulting in poor investigations and poor decision-making.
In addition, the hiring of a Community Relations Ombudsman would allow OPS to create a long-term community engagement plan (as required by the Consent Decree) which would assist OPS in becoming a true bridge between the community and the Division.
Unfortunately, administrative support staffing continued to be ineffective over this reporting period. As of the end of October 2017, the position of Chief Clerk continued to go unfilled as the City was unable to provide a backfill appointment due to a temporary long-term vacancy (since April 2017). This position has, however, been posted and, according to the City, will soon be filled, which will constitute important progress. On the positive side, a Private Secretary position for the CPRB was filled in August after a lengthy delay.
4. City Negotiations with Police Union Regarding OPS Practices
As previously reported and identified in the DOJ’s investigation of the CDP, the current, voluntary agreement between the City and the Cleveland Police Patrolmen’s Association (“CPPA”) provides that “[a]ll complaints filed by a citizen against [officers] shall be submitted by the complainant in his or her own handwriting.” The Decree requires that the City “work with the police unions . . . to allow civilian complaints to be submitted to OPS verbally or in writing; in person, by phone, or on[-]line; by a complainant, someone acting on his or her behalf, or anonymous; and with or without a signature . . . . ”114 The Court-approved OPS Manual provides that “[a] signed complaint form is NOT required for any further action to be taken by OPS in an effort to resolve the constituent’s complaint . . . . ”115
114 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 217. 115 Dkt. 86-1 at 9.
68

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 73 of 115. PageID #: 3533
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
As the Monitoring Team has described on numerous occasions, a vast majority of American police departments “take anonymous complaints without exception and permit such complaints to form the basis of disciplinary action.”116 Indeed, “[a]n academic survey from nearly 30 years ago found that some 96 percent of the 101 departments surveyed ‘investigate anonymous complaints, if not as a matter of routine, then if there is any other supportive information.’”117
Not only must the City accept unsigned complaints in order to align with the longstanding practices of most other police departments and to comply with the Consent Decree, but it also must do so given the impermissible exclusion of individuals with physical or cognitive disabilities and mobility impairment from the civilian complaint process in Cleveland. The Monitoring Team has previously noted its “significant concerns” that the handwritten complaint “constitutes an ongoing violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act . . . and the equivalent Ohio state statute.”118
The newly adopted OPS Manual does require OPS to investigate cases submitted without a complainant’s own handwriting; however, unless and until the agreement between the City and the police union is modified, no discipline can be imposed on cases that do not involve a signed complaint. The Monitoring Team has repeatedly stated that it expects “that the City and CPPA work expeditiously to ensure that the provisions of the Consent Decree, generally-accepted practice, and compliance with the ADA and equivalent Ohio state law are harmonized with the CPPA Contract.”119
In late 2017, the City and CPPA reached a tentative agreement on a contract. The City has reported that the proposed contract with the police union included a provision to rectify this deficiency. However, that negotiated contract was not accepted by CPPA’s membership. Currently, final proposals from both the City and CPPA are being reviewed by an arbitrator. The arbitrator will select one of those proposals in the near future, and the selected contract will become effective. The Monitoring Team will report to the Court and the public on whether any provisions of the contract run afoul of the U.S. Constitution; federal, state, and local law; and the Consent Decree.
5. OPS Annual Report
116 Dkt. 86 at 16 (listing departments that accept complaints, including Mesa, Arizona; Bakersfield, California; Los Angeles, California; Long Beach, California; Aurora, Colorado; Miami-Dade, Florida; Jacksonville, Florida; Atlanta, Georgia; Honolulu, Hawaii; Baltimore County, Maryland; Montgomery Country, Maryland; Raleigh, North Carolina; Las Vegas, Nevada; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Tulsa, Oklahoma; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Memphis, Tennessee; Virginia Beach, Virginia, and Washington, D.C). 117 Id. (quoting Paul West, Investigation of Complaints Against the Police: Summary Report of a National Survey, 7 AM. J. POLICE 101 (1988)). 118 104 Stat. 328, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq; O.R.C. § 4112.99; see Dkt. 86 at 16 (noting that “[t]he ADA and its Ohio analogue, apply to the City of Cleveland’s programs and activities, including its interactions with civilians through OPS, and require the City to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures where the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability). 119 Dkt. 86 at 16–17.
69

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 74 of 115. PageID #: 3534
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
Paragraph 215 of the Consent Decree requires OPS to produce an annual report summarizing complaint trends and timeframes for the public. OPS completed its 2016 annual report (the first in five years) and posted it on its website on August 22, 2017. Although OPS did not publish the report within the period required by its Court-approved policy manual, the publication of the report was a positive step towards transparency with respect to OPS complaint handling practices. Unfortunately, OPS did not obtain budgetary approval to print out hard copies of the report until October 2017 and had still not distributed the manual to all identified stakeholders by the end of 2017. While the Monitoring Team certainly understands the many challenges faced by OPS administration during the course of 2017, the Monitoring Team hopes that OPS will be timelier in the completion and distribution of its next annual report.
6. Public Awareness Plan
The Consent Decree requires that “the City and CDP, in consultation with OPS and the CPC, will develop and implement a program to promote awareness throughout the Cleveland community about the process for filing complaints with OPS”120 in order to enhance access to the complaint process. This program is to include a plan to post information about the civilian complaint process,121 a plan to ensure that all CDP officers carry complaint forms in their vehicles,122 a plan to make OPS complaint forms and other materials widely available at public locations,123 and a plan for ensuring that civilian complaints submitted to the City via other existing systems are forwarded to OPS immediately.124
In order to achieve these requirements, the Second-Year Monitoring Plan required that the City and CDP would “submit a First Draft plan for a program to promote awareness of the OPS process and comply with paragraph 201 of the Agreement (the ‘OPS Awareness Plan’)” by April 27, 2017.125
As reported in the Third Semiannual Report, on April 27, 2017, the OPS Administrator submitted a first draft plan that purportedly complied with this requirement of the Second-Year Monitoring Plan but that the Monitoring Team found lacking. Specifically, there did not appear to have been any consultation among the City, CDP, OPS, and the CPC. The draft plan instead appeared to be an attempt by OPS to comply with the requirement without any support or input from any other City entity.
120 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 201. 121 Id. ¶ 203. 122 Id. ¶ 205. 123 Id. ¶ 206. 124 Id. ¶ 209. 125 Dkt. 120-1 at 19.
70

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 75 of 115. PageID #: 3535
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
Shortly after receiving the Monitoring Team’s feedback on the plan, the City advised the Monitoring Team that work had begun on a coordinated approach to this deliverable. However, in mid-October, after recognizing that OPS was not achieving the Court-ordered milestones goals for handling of complaint investigations and dispositions, the Parties and Monitoring Team agreed to postpone further efforts to create a public awareness plan until the OPS program could be shown to be able to satisfy the milestones. In any event, the completion of the public awareness plan would appear to require the hiring of a Community Outreach Ombudsman, which OPS anticipates will occur within the first six months of 2018.
7. Training for OPS Investigators
The Monitoring Team’s qualitative review of OPS investigations confirmed the DOJ investigative findings that OPS investigators had not received the training necessary to systemically conduct thorough and competent investigations. During the course of this reporting period, OPS set out to comply with the Consent Decree’s requirement that initial training for OPS investigators be “adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type.”126
Over the course of the reporting period, the Monitoring Team identified substantial training needs for OPS investigators. The aforementioned qualitative evaluation of OPS investigations identified that OPS investigators were not aware of expectations for compliance with the Consent Decree or the OPS manual and identified a number of systemic investigative deficiencies that needed to be addressed. In addition, it became clear that OPS investigators had never been provided with basic training in best practices in conducting administrative investigations. OPS investigators also appeared to be unaware of Division training and expectations with respect to incidents involving uses of force and the use of body worn cameras.
As of the end of the year, the City appears to be on the road towards correcting these deficiencies. The Monitoring Team provided a full-day training for OPS investigators to discuss expectations for compliance with the Consent Decree and the OPS manual and to make OPS staff aware of systemic investigative deficiencies. In addition, OPS has reported that its investigators had the opportunity to observe CDP training of its officers on the new Use-of-Force policy on December 11 and 12, 2017. The Safety Department has also committed to additional Use-of-Force training for OPS investigators in January 2018 and to conducting a two-day course in “Conducting Administrative Investigations” for OPS investigators in February 2018. Finally, OPS investigators (along with members of the CPRB) received training in December 2017 relating to the use of Body Worn Cameras by Division personnel.
126 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 195-6.
71

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 76 of 115. PageID #: 3536
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018

C. Police Review Board (“PRB”)

Paragraph
230. “Mayor will work with the City Council to develop an ordinance to place a Charter Amendment on the ballot” addressing PRB composition and appointment process. 231. “PRB members will not be current or former members of the CDP.”
232. “PRB will have its own budget,” overseen by OPS Administrator and separate from Department of Public Safety, that “affords sufficient independence and resources.” 233–34. Initial training for PRB members “that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type” and that covers specific, expressly-identified topics. 235. PRB meetings open to the public and posted in advance, with “case presentations and PRB votes” occurring during “open session.” 236. “OPS investigators will attend PRB meetings at which their investigations are being considered and present their findings . . . . ” PRB may “ask the investigator to conduct further investigation” as necessary. 237. “PRB recommended dispositions will be based on a preponderance of the evidence. For each case, PRB shall set forth its conclusion and an explanation of its reasons and supporting evidence in writing, including, when applicable, the justification for departing from OPS’s recommended disposition.” 238. “In cases where PRB is recommending a sustained disposition, in whole or in part, PRB will include a recommendation as to disciplinary or non-disciplinary corrective action.” 239. [Timely] forwarding of PRB recommendations to Chief of Police and Director of Public Safety.

Status of Compliance GENERAL COMPLIANCE
GENERAL COMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
EVALUATON DEFERRED
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

Cleveland’s Police Review Board reviews and analyzes completed OPS investigations. It makes a formal recommendation to the Chief of Police on the ultimate disposition of the case and, as necessary, the discipline that an involved officer should receive.

1. PRB Manual

As previously reported, the Monitoring Team quickly identified that, since the PRB was created by a 1984 City Charter amendment, the Board had originally carried out its duties without a set of established protocols to guide its decision-making.127 The lack of clear processes and procedures

127 Dkt. 97 at 8.

72

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 77 of 115. PageID #: 3537
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
allowed the PRB to fall behind on the timely review and deliberation of cases – failing in its core duties and service to the City of Cleveland. It also made the PRB’s decisions, and subsequent CDP and City decisions based on or related to them, ripe for the objections of grievance arbitrators that the process was not sufficiently fair to involved officers.
Moreover, prior to the adoption of a new PRB manual, the PRB had failed to appropriately document its decision-making processes. With the adoption of the new PRB Manual, effective April 6, 2017, and the hiring of a Private Secretary in August 2017, the Board was finally given the tools to effectively complete that portion of its work.
Since the adoption of the PRB Manual, the Board indicated that it needed to discuss Board-member decision-making in public (as permissible by law). In order to facilitate this more transparent process, the Monitoring Team and the DOJ worked with OPS and the Board to amend the PRB Manual to permit the Board to conduct its deliberations in a public setting (instead of deliberating in a private executive session). The Board voted to adopt the amended policy at its August 16, 2017 meeting. The amended policy was subsequently submitted to the Court for its approval on August 28, 2017.
2. PRB Training Plan
The Second-Year Monitoring Plan required that, by April 1, 2017, a draft training plan have been prepared to ensure that “PRB members will receive initial training that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type and will include various specified areas, including constitutional and other relevant law related to police-citizen encounters; police tactics; investigations of police conduct; bias-free policing; policing individuals in crisis; CDP policies, procedures and disciplinary rules; and community outreach.”128 The training plan for the PRB was required to be completed by June 15, 2017 and implemented by July 1, 2017.
As previously reported, a draft outline of proposed training was provided to the Monitoring Team on April 6, 2017. The outline documented short-term training provided at a full-day training retreat for the PRB on May 13, 2017, as well as future topics to be covered in trainings either before, after, or during regular monthly CPRB meetings. Although the outline provided was not as sufficiently detailed as envisioned in the Second-Year Monitoring Plan, the Monitoring Team agreed to work with OPS to identify training needs on an ongoing basis and identify subject matter experts who can provide an appropriate, ongoing curriculum and training as required by the Consent Decree.
Over the course of the reporting period, a member of the Monitoring Team volunteered to provide training to the Board (which was also attended by OPS investigators) relating to Fourth Amendment
128 Dkt. 120-1 at 20 (quoting Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 233).
73

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 78 of 115. PageID #: 3538
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
issues in policing (specifically relating to federal case law on search and seizure). Additionally, the Monitoring Team identified the need for PRB to receive training on the Division’s use of force training, policies, and expectations for its officers, as well as training on the use and administration of body-worn cameras.
Although training on the use of body-worn cameras was provided to the PRB at its November 2017 meeting, the PRB still has yet to receive training on the CDP’s Use of Force policies and training. Consequently, the PRB has had to review and make recommendations on citizen complaints alleging excessive force without a proper understanding of how officers are trained to use force or how the Division interprets its use of force policies. Until such training is delivered, the PRB will not serve the needs of complainants, officers, and Command Staff who are required to review and consider PRB recommendations as well as they need to under the Consent Decree. The Monitoring Team has advised the Department of Public Safety that it is unlikely that two hours of training in this area will suffice to ensure reliable and informed PRB recommendations. As such, the Safety Department has agreed to evaluate the training provided in January and February and provide additional training as necessary thereafter.
Finally, the Monitoring Team has noted that a new member of the PRB has recently been appointed. The OPS administration must now create a training protocol for this member and future new members to ensure the seamless operation of the PRB going into the future.
3. Documentation of PRB Decision-Making
As previously reported, the PRB has struggled with the timely documentation of the reasoning for its decisions. Although the Board encountered challenges in this regard throughout most of the reporting period, the hiring of a Private Secretary in August 2017 to assist the PRB in the preparation of these disposition letters appears to have had an impact. As of the end of the year, the backlog of PRB disposition and findings letters appeared to have been eliminated. The last OPS bi-weekly report of the year reported the office had completed disposition letters on all cases heard by the PRB at a December 9, 2017 meeting within two weeks. The Monitoring Team consequently expects that the PRB can now contemporaneously prepare disposition letters (letters to complainants documenting non-sustained finings made by the PRB) and findings letters (letters to the CDP documenting sustained findings made by the PRB) for all cases considered in the upcoming year.
The next challenge will be to ensure the accuracy of these letters. In one case, involving sustained findings by the Board, the original findings letter prepared by the OPS incorrectly stated the Board’s position and it took the OPS almost six weeks to correct and re-transmit the letter to the Chief of Police.
74

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 79 of 115. PageID #: 3539
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
4. Quality of PRB Recommendations & Processes
By attending numerous Chief’s Hearings regarding allegations that the PRB recommends as sustained, the Monitoring Team has observed that, in many cases, the Chief has either disagreed with the PRB recommendations or there have been procedural issues that result in a case’s dismissal.
In some instances, the Chief advised the involved officers of his findings before the PRB could decide whether or not to controvert his findings to the Director of Public Safety. In other cases, it was determined that OPS-PRB had no jurisdiction to make recommendations where CDP command had previously informed involved officers of their decisions on complaints prior to the PRB’s review. After the Monitoring Team identified this problem, the Chief agreed to defer his decision-making until the Board is able to review his decisions. In addition, OPS staff are now aware of the circumstances under which OPS-PRB loses jurisdiction over cases that have been previously adjudicated by the CDP. Those cases will now be administratively closed without a referral to the Board for their consideration.
The Monitoring Team has deferred a qualitative analysis of the cases referred by the PRB to the Chief for sustained findings. During the next reporting period, the Monitoring Team plans to conduct such an analysis to inform a training session with the PRB that will help ensure that the PRB’s recommendations have a basis in fact and administrative law and are recognized by CDP command as reliable and defensible.
In the meantime, the Monitoring Team has noted some lack of communication amongst and between the PRB and the Chief’s Office. Although OPS-prepared findings letters to the Chief have dramatically improved over the course of this reporting period, improvements still need to be made to ensure that the Chief (and the involved officers) are fully aware of the PRB’s rationale for recommending sustained findings.
Likewise, although the Chief’s Office is making efforts to explain the rationale for the Chief’s decisionmaking (subsequent to a due-process required “Chief’s Hearing,”), additional focus will be required in the coming months to ensure that the full rationale of the Chief in making decisions is clear on the basis of written documentation. In a number of cases, the PRB has voted to contravene decisions made by the Chief to the Safety Director without a full, comprehensive understanding of the rationale for the Chief’s decisions. In some instances, the PRB has been making these recommendations without consistently reviewing audio recordings or transcripts of Chief’s hearings.
In order to ensure informed recommendations on the part of the PRB subsequent to Chief’s Hearings, the PRB needs to consistently review or be aware of information provided during these hearings and the rationale for the Chief’s decision-making. It is imperative that, during the course of the next
75

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 80 of 115. PageID #: 3540
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018

reporting period, the PRB and the Chief’s Office, with the assistance of the OPS, communicate more effectively and consistently in order to ensure that informed PRB opinions are duly considered by the Chief and that the PRB likewise fully and deliberately considers the rationale for decisions made by the Chief prior to making any referrals to the Safety Director. Further, OPS will need to report on disagreements between the Chief, the PRB, and the Safety Director in its next annual report. The extent to which these communications should be in-person or by means of detailed written correspondence will need to be determined during the next reporting period.

D. Discipline and Disciplinary Hearings

Paragraph
240. “The Chief of CDP will issue a General Police Order that requires officers to (a) cooperate with the Internal Affairs and OPS investigators; and (b) submit all relevant evidence to the investigators such that it is available for consideration by Internal Affairs or PRB.” 241. Disciplinary hearing requirement, with officer given “opportunity to testify” and suspension of hearing if “officer provides new or additional evidence at hearing,” with matter “returned to IA or PRB for consideration.” 242. Written justification by Chief or Director of decision to “not uphold the charges” or “does not impose the recommended discipline or nondisciplinary corrective action” where PRB previously “recommends the initiation of the disciplinary process and recommends a disciplinary level.” 243. “CDP will track the number of instances in which the Chief or the Director of Public Safety rejects, in whole or in part, PRB’s recommended disposition.” 245. “CDP will ensure that discipline for sustained allegations of misconduct comports with due process, and is consistently applied, fair, and based on the nature of the allegation, and that mitigating and aggravating factors are identified and consistently applied and documented.” 246. “CDP will review its current matrix and will seek to amend it” “to ensure consistency” and inclusion of a number of specific, expresslyidentified features. 247. “All disciplinary decisions will be documented in writing.”
248. “CDP will provide its disciplinary matrix to the Commission, the Police Inspector General, and the police unions for comment.” 249. “CDP will work with the unions to allow for sustained disciplinary findings to stay in an officer’s record for ten years.”

Status of Compliance EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED
PARTIALCOMPLIANCE
EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
EVALUATION DEFERRED OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE EVALUATION DEFERRED

76

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 81 of 115. PageID #: 3541
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
1. Disciplinary Matrix
The Consent Decree obligates CDP to “ensure that discipline for sustained allegations of misconduct comports with due process, and is consistently applied, fair, and based on the nature of the allegation, and that mitigating and aggravating factors are identified and consistently applied and documented.”129 To that end, the Division “will review its current disciplinary matrix and will seek to amend it as necessary[.]”130 Specifically, CDP must ensure that the new disciplinary matrix:
• “[E]stablishes a presumptive range of discipline for each type of rule violation;” • “[I]ncreases the presumptive discipline based on an officer’s prior violations of the
same or other rules;” • “[P]rohibits consideration of the officer’s race, gender, national origin, age, ethnicity,
familial relationships, or sexual orientation” as well as “the high (or low) profile nature of the incident;” and • “[P]rovides that CDP will not take only non-disciplinary corrective action in cases in which the disciplinary matrix calls for the imposition of discipline” but may consider non-disciplinary corrective action “in a case where discipline has [already] been imposed.”131
Along with the requirements above, CDP must document all disciplinary decisions in writing and must “work with the unions to allow for sustained disciplinary findings to stay in an officer’s record for ten years.”132
During the reporting period, the Parties finalized a revised Disciplinary Matrix that sets forth the types of discipline that may be imposed with respect to violation of various Division policies. The finalized Disciplinary Matrix was filed with the Court on December 20, 2017 and became effective on January 1, 2018.
Virtually every word in the Disciplinary Matrix was the product of comprehensive discussion and negotiation among the Parties and the Monitor. Reaching a consensus was exacting, with the Department of Justice and Monitoring Team advising and negotiating with the City and CDP through numerous drafts. The Parties devoted particular time and attention to determining what types of misconduct should be included in each Group Violation, the definitions of mitigating and aggravating factors, the definition and use of non-disciplinary action, and the use of the term “presumptive range of corrective action.”
129 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 245. 130 Id. 131 Id. at ¶ 246. 132 Id. at ¶¶ 247, 249.
77

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 82 of 115. PageID #: 3542
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
Along with the views of the DOJ and Monitoring Team, the Disciplinary Matrix reflects the input of other critical stakeholders. OPS and the PRB submitted their comments on April 21, 2017. On August 22, 2017, the CPC held a community meeting for Cleveland residents to share their feedback on a draft of the disciplinary matrix. The CPC subsequently conferred with the Division to provide its comments and insights. Additionally, the Cleveland Police Patrolmen’s Association expressed its concerns in an April 21, 2017 letter to CDP regarding proposed revisions to the disciplinary matrix and recommended additional changes for the Division to consider. While there are conflicting accounts on whether subsequent in-person meetings to address the matrix occurred between CDP and the CPPA, the Division appears to have held internal meetings to review the CPPA’s suggestions.
The Disciplinary Matrix sets forth critical guidelines for the imposition of corrective action within the Cleveland Division of Police. It establishes three categories of violations—Groups I, II, and III—that are ranked sequentially according to the severity of the violation.133 For example, Group I Violations (“conduct that has a negative image on the operations or professional image of the Division”) include a CDP employee’s failure to appear in court, failure to maintain equipment, failure to submit timely reports, and unsatisfactory performance.134 Group III Violations (“conduct that involves a serious abuse or misuse of authority, unethical behavior, or an act that results in an actual or serious and adverse impact on officer of public safety”) include discriminatory policing, firearms violations resulting in death or serious injury, false statements, and violation of training tactics. 135
Each Group Violation has, in accordance with the Consent Decree, “a presumptive range of discipline[.]”136 For example, an officer with his or her first sustained Group I Violation (where mitigating factors outweigh any aggravating factors) faces a presumptive corrective action ranging from non-disciplinary verbal counseling to written reprimand.137 Moreover, the Disciplinary Matrix “increases the presumptive discipline based on an officer’s violation of the same or other rules[.]”138 For instance, whereas an officer’s first Group II Violation with no mitigating factors results in a 7 to 8 day suspension without pay, a second Group II Violation with no mitigating factors results in a 9 to 10 day suspension without pay.139 That type of successive disciplinary increase is consistent across each Group Violation.
Further, the Disciplinary Matrix provides that “[m]itigating or aggravating factors shall be considered and may result in the adjustment of the discipline administered within the disciplinary range of the
133 See Dkt. 170-1 at 2-3. 134 Id. at 2, 6. 135 Id. at 3, 8. 136 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 246(a). 137 Dkt. 170-1 at 8. 138 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 246(b). 139 See Dkt. 170-1 at 9.
78

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 83 of 115. PageID #: 3543
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
Group Violation identified.”140 The definitions for Mitigating and Aggravating Factors are robust— listing numerous circumstances that exemplify each type of factor—and should reduce confusion around the situational and/or behavioral circumstances that may be considered in determining a Division employee’s discipline.141
Moreover, the Disciplinary Matrix states that discipline “shall be decided without consideration to the member’s race, religion, gender, sex, national origin, age, ethnicity, familial relationships or sexual orientation.”142 The new policy also states that discipline “shall be decided without consideration of the high or low profile nature of the incident.”143
Additionally, the Disciplinary Matrix states that “[t]he Division will not accept non-disciplinary corrective action as a substitute for discipline where the disciplinary matrix calls for the imposition of discipline.”144 Nonetheless, “the Division will consider whether non-disciplinary corrective action . . . is appropriate in addition to discipline being imposed.”145
The Consent Decree requires that “[a]ll disciplinary decisions will be documented in writing.”146 Accordingly, the Disciplinary Matrix mandates that “the Case Preparation Officer in the Chief’s Office shall maintain files of all disciplinary actions imposed by the Division.”147 The documentation shall include the date of the incident, the date of the disciplinary action, the violations sustained, and the action taken.148 Disciplinary records “will be maintained in compliance with Ohio Public Records retentions laws.”149
Although the process to revise CDP’s Disciplinary Matrix required substantial time and effort, the Monitor is hopeful that these provisions, put together, will help the Division “ensure that discipline for sustained allegations of misconduct comports with due process, and is consistently applied, fair, and based on the nature of the allegation, and that mitigating and aggravating factors are identified and consistently applied and documented.”150
2. Current Status of Imposition of Discipline and Disciplinary Findings
140 See id. at 4. 141 See id. at 2. 142 Id. at 1. 143 Id. 144 Id. at 11. 145 Id. 146 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 247. 147 Dkt. 170-1 at 11. 148 See id. 149 Id. at 10. 150 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 245.
79

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 84 of 115. PageID #: 3544
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
Because it decided to focus on creating Internal Affairs policies and addressing major OPS deficiencies over the current reporting period, the Monitoring Team has deferred a systemic evaluation of the imposition of discipline and the quality and rationale for findings until next year. Although the Monitoring Team has observed some disciplinary decisions that do not appear to appropriately hold officers to account, it has also seen the appropriate imposition of discipline in some serious cases. A comprehensive evaluation of the imposition of discipline will be conducted upon the implementation of the new disciplinary matrix. The Monitoring Team hopes that the new Disciplinary Matrix will give CDP the tools it needs to ensure fair and accountable discipline in the long-term. This evaluation will also examine the extent to which CDP command staff explains its rationale for disciplinary decisions to its officers and the PRB.
80

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 85 of 115. PageID #: 3545
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018

A. Police Inspector General

X. TRANSPARENCY & OVERSIGHT

Paragraph
250. “The City will hire an individual or individuals with significant experience in law enforcement practices and civil rights law to serve as a Police Inspector General” (“IG”). City must seek CPC’s “input in developing minimum qualifications and experience” for IG. 251. IG work in Office of Mayor but report to Chief of Police.
252. IG “will not be a current or former employee of CDP.”
253–54. Duties and authority of IG.
255. Budget of IG must be “a separate line item” in City budget and “afford[] sufficient independence and resources” to comply with Consent Decree. 256. IG “will have access to all documents and data necessary to perform the above functions, including any raw data.”

Status of Compliance PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED NONCOMPLIANCE

The Consent Decree creates “a new, internal oversight function within the Division – a Police Inspector General.”151 “The IG’s substantial duties include, but are not limited to, review of CDP
policies and practices, auditing, conducting investigations, analyzing data for aggregate and systemic trends, developing specific recommendations for reform, analyzing investigations conducted by OPS to determine if they are adequate, and reviewing imposed discipline.”152 The IG’s reports and recommendations must be made public.153

The Second-Year Monitoring Plan projected that an Inspector General would be hired by December 1, 2017. 154 The City and CDP proceeded diligently to develop a plan for recruiting and spreading information about the IG position on a national scope. Applications have been received and been reviewed, and the interview process is underway – making the hiring of an IG an imminent milestone.

B. Data Collection and Analysis

Paragraph

Status of Compliance

151 First Semiannual Report at 49. 152 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 253. 153 Dkt. 97 at 53 (quoting Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 253) (internal quotations omitted). 154 Dkt. 120-1 at 22.

81

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 86 of 115. PageID #: 3546
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018

257. “CDP will collect and maintain all data and records necessary to accurately evaluate its use of force practices and search and seizure practices and facilitate transparency and, as permitted by law, broad access to information related to CDP’s decision making and activities. To achieve this outcome, CDP will designate an individual or individuals as the ‘Data Collection and Analysis Coordinator.’” 258. Coordinator “will ensure the collection and tracking of all documents related to uses of force and allegations of misconduct and related materials,” including specific, expressly-listed materials and information. 259. Coordinator “will ensure the creation and maintenance of a reliable and accurate electronic system to track all data derived from force-related documents,” including specific, expressly-identified data. 260. Coordinator “will ensure the creation and maintenance of a reliable and accurate electronic system to track data on all vehicle stops, investigatory stops, and searches, whether or not they result in an arrest or issuance of a summons or citation.” The system must conform to a number of specific, expressly-identified requirements. 261. Coordinator must “routine[ly] report[] . . . relevant data to the Chief of Police, FRB, Training Review Committee, OPS, the [Community Police] Commission, and the Police Inspector General.” 262. Coordinator “responsible for the annual assessment of forms and data collection systems to improve the accuracy and reliability of data collection.” 263. Coordinator “will develop a protocol to accurately analyze the data collected and allow for” various outcome measurements, “subject to the review and approval of the Monitor and DOJ.” 264. Annually, “CDP will conduct an assessment and issue a report summarizing its investigatory stop, search, and arrest data” that addresses various specific, expressly-identified topics. 265. Annually, “CDP will conduct an assessment and issue a report of all activities, including use of force, arrests, motor vehicles and investigatory stops, and misconduct complaints alleging discrimination, to determine whether CDP’s activities are applied or administered in a way that discriminates against individuals on the basis of race” or other listed prohibited classes or characteristics, and that addresses various specific, expressly-identified topics. 266. Annual analysis of “prior year’s force” data with FRB.

NONCOMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
EVALUATION DEFERRED NONCOMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED

After an initial search for a Data Collection and Analysis Director yielded no suitable candidates, CDP finalized a two-year consulting arrangement with Dr. Dan Flannery of the Begun Center at Case Western University to serve as an interim Data Collection and Analysis Coordinator.

82

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 87 of 115. PageID #: 3547
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018

Dr. Flannery and his team’s primary activities have continued to include “meetings with key stakeholders, a review of the baseline measures compendium, an initial data scan, a comprehensive data mapping exercise, initial data analysis and quality assurance validation, development of a codebook with all data points, technical assistance on CDP data migration and integration efforts, and preliminary baseline reports for any available data related to use of force, crisis intervention, community engagement, civilian complaints, and stop, search and arrest data.”155

Dr. Flannery’s team continues to convene weekly with key stakeholders at the CDP and monthly with the Monitoring Team. Dr. Flannery and his Team have made strong contributions to date to building the capacity within the Division of police to engage in evidence-based, strategic management of public safety and the Division’s daily performance. In September 2017, a full-time Data Collection and Analysis Coordinator, Rania Issa, Ph.D., began in the position. She will be working closely with Dr. Flannery and his team as efforts continue.

CDP currently enjoys the benefits of having a seasoned crime analyst. Under his supervision, CDP generates useful information about crime and crime data, which is distributed to command staff on a weekly basis. However, urban police departments across the country – especially those dealing with violent crime issues – are decentralizing the data function so that individual districts or precincts have data experts in-house to help set neighborhood-specific crime and public safety priorities and manage officer performance in real-time.156 CDP needs to make a wholesale ramping up and upgrading of its information support functions an integral part of its strategic plans for 2018, as doing so well enhance its ability to respond to public safety issues and to manage itself in the manner that the Consent Decree requires.

C. Public Availability of CDP-Related Information

Paragraph
267. “[A]ll CDP audits, reports, and outcome analyses related to the implementation” of the Consent Decree will be public. 268. “CDP will post its policies and procedures, training plans, community policing initiatives, community meeting schedules, budgets, and internal audit reports on its website.”

Status of Compliance NONCOMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

The Consent Decree requires that “policies and procedures, training plans, community policing initiatives, community meeting schedules, budgets, and internal audit reports – be posted on CDP’s

155 Third Semiannual Report at 57. 156 See, e.g., Stacy St. Clair, “CPD to Launch New Support Centers to Analyze District-Level Shootings,” Chicago Tribune (Oct. 1, 2017), available at http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-chicago-police-strategic-support-
center-20171001-story.html.

83

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 88 of 115. PageID #: 3548
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
website.157 Likewise, “[t]o ensure transparency in the implementation of” the Decree, “all CDP audits, reports, and outcome analyses related to the implementation of this [the Consent Decree] will be made publicly available, including at the City and CDP websites.”158
After initially not being available, the Monitoring Team “commended CDP’s efforts to ensure transparency and access” by posting material related to the Consent Decree on its website.159 The Third Semiannual Report reported that:
The information that the Division posts are documents that have been produced by the Cleveland Police Monitoring Team, and the Cleveland Police Commission, as well as General Police Orders, court filings, and status reports. What is not available, or easy to find, are audits, budgets, and outcome analysis reports. We recommend that the CDP re-double its efforts to post these materials – as well as focus on making it easier for the average user to navigate the website and find the relevant materials.160
The Monitoring Team has not observed any material changes in the availability of these audits, budgets, and outcome reports. It likewise is not aware of efforts to make General Police Orders, divisional notices, and other internal documents articulating the Division’s policies and processes more navigable and accessible. In an era where police departments are increasingly making their policies more easily navigable,161 we look forward to assisting the Division with focusing on efforts geared toward enabling the public to better understand expectations for police officers and public safety services in Cleveland.
157 Dkt. 7-1 at 1; id. ¶ 268. 158 Id. ¶ 267. 159 Third Semiannual Report at 58. 160 Id. 161 See, e.g., Seattle Police Department Manual (online), https://www.seattle.gov/police-manual; Cincinnati Police Department Procedure Manual (online), https://cincinnati-oh.gov/police/department-references/police-departmentprocedure-manual/; Los Angeles Police Department Manual (online), http://www.lapdonline.org/lapd_manual/; Chicago Police Department Directives System (online), http://directives.chicagopolice.org/directives/.
84

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 89 of 115. PageID #: 3549
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018

XI. OFFICER ASSISTANCE & SUPPORT

A. Training

Paragraph
269. “CDP will ensure that officers receive adequate training to understand: (a) how to police effectively and safely in accordance with CDP policy; [and] (b) the requirements of this Agreement, Ohio law, and the Constitution and laws of the United States,” including in the areas of “procedural justice, biasfree policing, and community policing.” 270. “CDP will expand the scope and membership of the Training Review Committee.” 271–72. “[T]he Training Review Committee will develop a written training plan for CDP’s recruit academy, probationary field training, and in-service training” that addresses a host of specific, expressly-identified issues. 273. “The Training Plan and schedule will be implemented once any objections have been resolved” on a yearly basis. 274. “The Training Review Committee will annually review and updated CDP’s training plan” by “conduct[ing] a needs assessment” that addresses a number of specific, expressly-identified data and information on real-world trends, needs, policy, and law. 275. “CDP’s Commander responsible for training” will be in charge of “all CDP training. 276. “CDP will designate a single training coordinator in each District. The Commander responsible for training will establish and maintain communications with each District training coordinator to ensure that all officers complete training as required and that documentation of training is provided to the” training Commander. 277. “CDP will develop recruit academy and in-service curricula that comport with” the Training Plan and Consent Decree requirements. 278. “[T]he training required under this Agreement . . . will be delivered within two years of the Effective Date.” 279. “For all other substantive updates or revisions to policy or procedure, CDP will ensure and document that all relevant CDP personnel have received and read the policy or procedure. Notification of each revision or update will include the rationale for policy changes and the difference between the old and updated policy.” 280. Training Commander reviews all training materials; ensures that they use “a variety of adult learning techniques, scenario-based training, and problem-solving practices”; and “ensure that all curricula, lesson plans, instructor’s qualifications, and testing materials are reviewed by the Training Review Committee.”

Status of Compliance PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE NONCOMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE NONCOMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE EVALUATION DEFERRED PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

85

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 90 of 115. PageID #: 3550
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018

281. “CDP will ensure that instructors are qualified and use only curricula and lesson plans that have been approved by the” Training Commander. 288. “CDP will document all training provided to or received by CDP officers,” with officers “sign[ing] an acknowledgement of attendance or digitally acknowledge[ing] completion of each training course,” which “will be maintained in a format that allows for analysis by training type, training date, training source, and by individual officer name.” 289. “CDP will develop and implement a system that will allow the Training Section to electronically track, maintain, and produce complete and accurate records of current curricula, lesson plans, training delivered, and other training materials in a centralized electronic file system.” 290. “CDP will develop and implement accountability measures . . . to ensure that all officers successfully complete all required training programs in a timely manner.”

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE EVALUATION DEFERRED
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
NONCOMPLIANCE

1. In-Service Training

This report elsewhere discusses in detail the Division’s significant success in designing, implementing, and completing training for all officers on CDP’s new use of force policies and on crisis intervention. Again, the completion of these major training initiatives constitute an important milestone.

Officers have also received training in addition to this force and crisis training during 2017. As the Third Semiannual Report summarized, the Division “must – like all law enforcement agencies in the State of Ohio – provide officers with training that satisfies the annual advanced training requirements of the Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy.”162 Between Consent Decree-required and more generalized state training, CDP officers received the required “40 hours of in-service training annually.”163

In recent months, attention has shifted to identifying the training priorities for 2018. As the Monitoring Team did in its Third Semiannual Report, it is useful here to inventory the types of training that CDP must provide officers between now and the termination of the Consent Decree:

● Annual “use of force in-service training that is adequate in quality, quantity, type, and scope” for “all officers”;164
● Use of force training for supervisors on “conducting use of force investigations; strategies for effectively directing officers to minimize uses of force and to intervene effectively to prevent or stop unreasonable force; and supporting officers who report

162 Third Semiannual Report at 60. 163 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 271(c).
164 Id. ¶ 86.

86

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 91 of 115. PageID #: 3551
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
unreasonable or unreported force, or who are retaliated against for attempting to prevent unreasonable force”;165 ● Community and problem-oriented policing principles for all officers;166 ● Initial training for all officers on bias-free policing;167 ● Initial, supervisor-specific training on bias-free policing;168 ● Annual follow-up “training on bias-free policing that is adequate in quality, quantity, type, and scope”;169 ● Training that “teach[es] proper techniques for unholstering, displaying, pointing, and aiming a firearm, and for determining when it is appropriate to do so”;170 ● “[A]t least 16 hours of firearms training which will include pistol, shotgun, and policy training,” including “night, reduced light, and stress training” for “each firearm they are authorized to use or carry on-duty”;171 ● Annual ECW (taser) certifications that include, among other things, “scenario-based training” with the ECW;172 ● Members of the forthcoming, dedicated Force Investigation Team (“FIT”) with “FITspecific training that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type” and that covers a host of specific areas or issues;173 ● Initial and ongoing training for members of the forthcoming Force Review Board;174 ● Annual training on crisis intervention for all CDP officers;175 ● Training for specialized Crisis Intervention Team officers;176 ● Initial and annual training on search and seizure, CDP’s policies on search and seizure, and the Fourth Amendment;177 ● Initial and annual training for Internal Affairs investigators;178 ● Initial and annual “in-service training that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type, and that addresses management and supervision; community-oriented policing;
165 Id. ¶ 84(l). 166 Id. ¶ 30. 167 Id. ¶¶ 39–40. 168 Id. ¶ 41. 169 Id. ¶ 42. 170 Id. ¶ 55. 171 Id. ¶ 60. 172 Id. ¶ 74. 173 Id. ¶ 113. 174 Id. ¶ 125. 175 Id. 1 ¶ 144. 176 Id. ¶¶ 145–48, 150 177 Id. ¶¶ 173–75. 178 Id. ¶¶ 180–81.
87

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 92 of 115. PageID #: 3552
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
effective problem-solving techniques; and field communication” for Field Training Officers and Field Training Sergeants;179 ● General and ongoing “supervisory training for all new and current supervisors” that is “adequate in quality, quantity, type, and scope” and covers a number of specificallyidentified topics;180 ● All officers with training on the forthcoming, updated Officer Intervention Program (“OIP”);181 and ● All officers with training on using body-worn cameras per the Division’s policy.182
This is a significant volume of training for any organization to conduct while ensuring that it maintains a high level of basic service delivery. However, these expanded training expectations are not a temporary “blip” or an increase confined to an isolated time period within the Division. Instead, they constitute a “new normal” – where the Division strategically and affirmatively identifies its training needs and designs and implements immersive, high-quality training for officers to better enable them to adhere to the expectations of the Division and the Cleveland community.
The recognition that ongoing, in-service training for current officers would be subject to a “new normal” is one of the reasons that the Consent Decree requires the establishment and active engagement of a Training Review Committee. This Committee, which “includes representatives from across the Division, the police officer organizations, and the CPC,” is imagined to be the hub for the Division’s identification of training needs and setting training priorities.183 Under the Consent Decree, and the Court-approved policy establishing the Committee, the Committee is responsible for completing an annual Training Plan identifying what training officers will receive in the upcoming year and to meet regularly to discuss how to integrate lessons learned across the Division into training initiatives.184
The Third Semiannual Report in June 2017 reported that “changes in leadership in the Training Section have frustrated the Division’s efforts to establish the Training Review Committee as the locus of activity with respect to identifying training needs, setting priorities, and determining what training initiatives need to happen when.”185 The Monitoring Team is disappointed that, in the current reporting period, “responsibility for planning for ongoing, in-service training” has unfortunately not been “shared much more broadly and throughout the Division,” via the Committee, “rather than
179 Id. ¶ 285. 180 Id. ¶¶ 323–24. 181 Id. ¶ 336. 182 Id. ¶ 337. 183 Third Semiannual Report at 61. 184 Dkt. 7-1 ¶¶ 270–81. 185 Third Semiannual Report at 61.
88

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 93 of 115. PageID #: 3553
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
residing solely with a historically understaffed Training Section.”186 The Monitoring Team has made repeated, formal requests to receive all communications related to the activities of the Committee. Over the past six months, the Monitoring Team received no such communications – leading it to need to assume that the Committee has not convened. As such, the Monitoring Team changes its summary assessments involving the Training Review Committee to “non-compliance,” with the exception of the requirement involving the Committee’s membership, which is classified as “partial compliance” because the policy doing so is, at least technically, on the books.
The Committee must have an active role not simply because the Consent Decree requires it but because the Training Section needs to have the input and assistance of individuals from across the Division – in setting priorities, developing training, and gauging whether specific training initiatives or measures have, in fact, worked as intended. Plans for the Division to have five recruit classes during 2018 are stretching the Training Section exceptionally thin – and potentially compromising the ability for CDP to do the full scope of training necessary to make sufficient progress on the host of initiatives outlined above. The Monitoring Team has urged that CDP seriously consider devoting significant resources to the Training Section to ensure that it can balance both the critical and extraordinary demands of training up five recruit classes while making sufficient progress on the Consent Decree. The lack of resources may compromise the quality of recruit training and slow the rate of progress of the Consent Decree.
The Monitoring Team affirms here that, “[u]ndoubtedly[,]the scope of the training that the Division will need to provide – and that the City will need to pay for – under the agreement that the City and the United States reached is significant.”187 As it has indicated before, this means “differences in resource allocation” and general “approach[] . . . going forward.”188 The Team puts a finer point on it here: More money, resources, and attention need to be devoted to officer training going forward. Especially in light of the extraordinarily successful use of force and crisis intervention training initiatives completed in 2017, all stakeholders can have expanded confidence that a dollar spent on allowing officers to develop and practice skills readily applicable to the real world is, arguably, the strongest investment that Cleveland may make in enhancing officer satisfaction, expanding community trust, and addressing public safety.
One solid investment that CDP and the City have made recently that provides substantially greater training options for the Division is the implementation of a Learning Management System (“LMS”). Via the LMS platform, officers will be able to complete interactive, electronic training initiatives – with officer learning able to be tested and completion automatically tracked. This represents an important
186 Id. 187 Id. at 61. 188 Id.
89

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 94 of 115. PageID #: 3554
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018

supplement to in-class training that will no doubt prove to be an integral part of numerous training initiatives in the coming year. The active use of the LMS will allow the Division to provide customized training, tailored to the needs of officers and the City, without needing to wait many months to provide in-class instruction to officers. Although there can be no substitute, in some areas, for interactive, scenario-based training, refresher training, follow-up instruction, and smaller instructional modules are ideal for this electronic environment.

Additionally, the LMS will enable the Division to more precisely track what officers have received what training – allowing CDP and the City to have greater assurance that all officers have received the same instruction on performance expectations going forward.

Another important investment that the Division is making in its training function is the addition of eight officers to assist in in-service training in 2018 at the request of the Training Section. These eight additional instructors do not include guest instructors who conduct specific courses (such as on First Aid). These additional resources will be critical in the Division making progress in communicating new expectations to officers about revised policies, and the Monitoring Team commends Chief Williams for proactively prioritizing staffing in this area.

The Parties, CDP, and Monitoring Team have engaged in productive, collaborative discussions about officer training initiatives for the first half of 2018. Although the details are still being worked out, it is currently contemplated that training in the upcoming reporting period will involve follow-up training on use of force and crisis intervention, bias-free policing, and search and seizure.

The Monitoring Team looks forward to working with the Division and the Parties to address what this reorganization and prioritization with respect to officer training entails, especially as training is contemplated for the latter half of 2018.

2. Academy Training and Field Training Program

Paragraph
282. “CDP will revise, as necessary, its field training program for graduates of the police academy to comport with” the Training Plan and Consent Decree. 283. “The field training program will incorporate community and problemoriented policing principles, and problem-based learning methods.” 284. Review and revision of Field Training Officer (“FTO”) “participation policy to establish and implement a program that effectively attracts the best FTO candidates” and “revise eligibility criteria” for FTOs.

Status of Compliance NONCOMPLIANCE
NONCOMPLIANCE NONCOMPLIANCE

90

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 95 of 115. PageID #: 3555
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018

285. New FTOs and Field Training Sergeants must “receive initial and inservice training that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type, and that addresses” a number of specific, expressly-listed topics and conforms to a number of additional features or requirements. 286. “CDP will create a mechanism for recruits to provide confidential feedback regarding the quality of their field training,” and the Division “will document its response, including the rationale behind any responsive action taken or decision to take no action.” 287. “Training Review Committee will, on an annual basis, analyze all aspects of CDP’s FOT program,” “consider emerging national policing practices in this area,” and “recommend, and CDP will institute, appropriate changes to policies, procedures, and training related to its FTO program.”

NONCOMPLIANCE
NONCOMPLIANCE
NONCOMPLIANCE

The “Consent Decree . . . contains certain obligations relating to the training of new officers at the Academy.”189 Likewise, it contains provisions relating to the Division’s field training program, in which recent Academy graduates participate during their early days on the force.190

The Monitoring Team anticipates that attention to both academy and field training programs will be addressed by the Third-Year Monitoring Plan. This will include consideration of whether the use of outside academies – including the Ohio State Patrol’s Columbus-based Academy – is sufficient to comply with the Consent Decree.191
B. Equipment & Resources192

Paragraph
291. “The City will implement” paragraphs regarding equipment and resources in order to allow implementation of the Consent Decree “and to allow officers to perform their jobs safely, effectively, and efficiently.” 292. “CDP will complete a comprehensive equipment and resource study to assess its current needs and priorities,” and it “will develop an effective, comprehensive Equipment and Resource Plan that is consistent with its mission and that will allow it to satisfy the requirements of this Agreement.” 293. “CDP’s Equipment and Resource Plan will provide for necessary equipment including, at least” “an adequate number of computers”; “an adequate number of operable and safe zone cars”; “zone cards with reliable, functioning computers that provide officers with up-to-date technology” including computer-aided dispatch, the records management system, and

Status of Compliance PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

189 Dkt. 97 at 55; Dkt. 7-1 ¶¶ 271, 275, 277. 190 Dkt. 7-1 ¶¶ 282–87. 191 Id. ¶ 55; Third Semiannual Report at 61. 192 This discussion is adapted from Dkt. 125.

91

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 96 of 115. PageID #: 3556
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018

various core law enforcement systems; and “zone cards equipped with firstaid kits.” “This plan also will ensure that CDP properly maintains and seeks to continuously improve upon existing equipment and technology; and is appropriately identifying equipment needs and seeking to utilize, as appropriate, emerging technologies.” 294. “CDP will actively seek input and feedback from the Commission, patrol officers, and supervisors regarding resource allocation, equipment needs, and technological improvements.” 295. “City and CDP” must “us[e] best efforts to implement the Equipment and Resource Plan as required.” 296. “CDP will . . . implement an effective, centralized records management system.” 297. “CDP will utilize a department-wide e-mail system to improve communication and information sharing.” 298. “CDP will employ information technology professionals who are trained to conduct crime and intelligence analysis, who are capable of troubleshooting and maintaining information technology systems and who can identify and suggest appropriate technological advancements.” 299. “CDP will implement an effective employee assistance program that provides officers ready access to the mental health and support resources necessary to facilitate effective and constitutional policing.”

NONCOMPLIANCE
NONCOMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

The City of Cleveland must “develop an effective, comprehensive Equipment and Resource Plan that is consistent with its mission and that will allow it to satisfy the requirements of this Agreement.”193 As the Monitoring Team has summarized on numerous occasions, the Plan must “provide for necessary equipment including, at least . . . an adequate number of computers; an adequate number of operable and safe zone cars; zone cars with reliable, functioning computers that provide officers with up-to-date technology, including” mobile computer-aided dispatch (“CAD”), access to the Division’s records management system (“RMS”), and access to law enforcement databases; and “zone cars equipped with first-aid kits . . . . ”194 It must address how the Division will satisfy the other substantive requirements of the Decree.195 It likewise must “ensure that CDP” both “properly maintains and seeks to continuously improve upon existing equipment and technology” and “is appropriately identifying equipment needs and seeking to utilize, as appropriate, emerging technologies.”196

The Monitoring Team disapproved of the City’s Plan proposed on November 25, 2016 because, among other things, it lacked specificity, failed to address a number of Consent Decree requirements, and failed to identify a clear mechanism for ensuring the overall technology management structures were

193 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 292. 194 Id. ¶ 293. 195 Id. ¶ 292. 196 Id. ¶ 293.

92

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 97 of 115. PageID #: 3557
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
in place that would adequately ensure against the Division falling so substantially behind on the technology front again.197 The Monitor’s Second Semiannual Report in January 2017 explained that the Monitor could not approve the Plan at that time for a number of reasons, including, but not limited to:
Between January 2017 and late April 2017, the City submitted multiple revisions of the Plan in an effort to address the concerns raised by the Monitor. The City submitted a final proposed Plan submitted on April 17, 2017.198 On May 3, 2017, the Monitoring Team approved some elements of the Plan but concluded the Plan to be unsatisfactory with respect to some other elements.
Specifically, the Monitor found the Plan to be in compliance with paragraphs 293(b), (c), and (d) of the Decree involving overdue upgrades to CDP’s Computer-Aided Dispatch (“CAD”) platform and modernizing CDP’s fleet of patrol vehicles (in terms of numbers, condition, and technology house within patrol cars).
It did not approve the Plan with respect to paragraphs 292; 293(a), (e), and (f); 294; and 298 relating, among other things, to Division-based computers; a process for prospectively identifying emerging technology and equipment needs within the Division; the hiring of additional experts; and other issues involving the documentation of crisis events, documentation of stops, investigation and review of force incidents, administrative investigations, the implementation of a modern early intervention system, and other areas.
The City asked the Monitoring Team if it could proceed during the current reporting period to focus on those areas of the Equipment and Resource Plan submitted that the Monitoring Team found acceptable – principally the implementation of the CAD upgrade and field-based reporting to the Division’s learning management system, which will allow all officers to input reports directly from patrol cars rather than returning to the station – rather than continuing to work on subsequent drafts of the Plan. The Monitoring Team agreed that resources were better focused on those efforts at critical implementation junctures in both projects.
Of particular note, the City and CDP have made significant progress in the manner in which police cruisers, and all necessary equipment to provide safe and efficient operations, were ordered, installed, tracked and deployed into police service in 2017. The process that was used prior to 2017 was one that most municipal jurisdictions utilize. It entails ordering the cruisers and all necessary mounts, brackets and equipment separately and assembling the components in various locations as they arrive. This
197 Dkt. 93 at 7; Dkt. 97 at 54-60. 198 Dkt. 125-1.
93

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 98 of 115. PageID #: 3558
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
results in many hands touching and impacting the various stages of completion. It is not hard to see the potential for delays and imprecise installation of critical components.
In Cleveland, several employees from the City’s Office of Radio Communications and the City/CDP vehicle maintenance division critically examined the process that Cleveland was using to outfit new vehicles. They made suggestions that ultimately shaved months off of the time it took to order and receive, outfit and deploy the new police cruisers.
The innovations began with placing orders with Ford Motor Company earlier in the year in order to receive a guaranteed 120-day delivery window. Staff smartly ordered the police cruisers with preinstalled mounts for computers, prisoner barriers, weapon mounts and lights and sirens-this rendered the cruisers approximately 80 percent complete.
Another process change focused on the quantity and location of the vehicles delivered by Ford. In years past, if fifty vehicles were ordered, they would all be delivered to a specified location, and staff would have to drive the cruisers one-by-one to each stage of the installation process. Although typical, the process is inefficient, and unduly exposes the new cruisers to the elements, theft, vandalism etc. In 2017, Brad Handke, of the City’s Office of Radio Communications, examined his responsibility for equipping new cruisers with police radios, vehicle locator technology (AVL) and other critical wiring processes, and recommended changes to the delivery process. Those changes resulted in delivery of new city cruisers in batches of six to eight directly to the installation facility. The cruisers were then outfitted in two days and returned to the maintenance facility, where City staff logged all of the equipment and marked the cruisers (CDP custom striping) in one additional day rendering the cruisers available for delivery to the awaiting precincts.
The bottom line is this: Due to proactive, strategic thinking by CDP and City personnel, a process that had previously taken months was reduced to a matter of days – getting much-needed new equipment out to the Districts and on to the streets of Cleveland. In particular, Mr. Handke and Lt. Ortiz (CDP) were key in changing the process for acquiring, equipping and delivering critical tools for policing, while creating numerous efficiencies and cost savings.
The Monitoring Team continues to await the submission of a satisfactory Equipment and Resource Plan that it, DOJ, and the Court, can approve and against which the Monitoring Team can judge progress and compliance. The process of reimagining vehicle procurement might further guide development of processes to ensure that CDP continues to develop from new technology and improved systems as time goes on.
94

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 99 of 115. PageID #: 3559
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018

C. Recruitment & Hiring

Paragraph
300. “CDP will review and revise . . . its recruitment and hiring program to ensure that CDP successfully attracts and hires a diverse group of qualified individuals.” 301. “The Mayor will work with the City Council to develop an ordinance to place a Charter Amendment on the ballot that would give the appointing authority greater flexibility in the selection of candidates from the certified eligibility list for the CDP.” 302. “CDP will develop a recruitment policy and a strategic recruitment plan that includes clear goals, objectives, and action steps for attracting qualified applicants from a broad cross-section of the community” and meets certain specific, expressly-listed requirements. 303. “The City will implement the recruitment plan within 60 days of it being approved by the Monitor.” 304. “CDP’s recruitment plan will include specific strategies for attracting a diverse group of applicants,” including officers with various, specific, expressly-listed skills and backgrounds. 305. “In developing and implementing its recruitment plan, CDP will consult with the [Community Police] Commission and other community stakeholders on strategies to attract a diverse pool of applicants.” 306. “[O]bjective system for hiring and selecting recruits” that “employs reliable and valid selection criteria.” 307. “CDP will report annually to the public its recruiting activities and outcomes,” which will include information on various, expressly-listed areas. 308. “[A]ll candidates for sworn personnel positions” will have “psychological and medical examination” and be subject to “drug testing.” Existing officers receive “random drug testing.” 309. “CDP will conduct thorough, objective, and timely background investigations of candidates for sworn positions” that cover various, expressly-listed topics. 310. “CDP will request to review personnel files from candidates’ previous employment and, where possible, will speak with the candidate’s supervisor(s)” and maintain any “salient information . . . in candidate’s file.” 311. “If a candidate has previous law enforcement experience, CDP will complete a thorough, objective, and timely pre-employment investigation” addressing various expressly-identified things.

Status of Compliance PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
GENERAL COMPLIANCE
EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE NONCOMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

The Consent Decree requires the City to “develop a recruitment policy and a strategic recruitment plan that includes clear goals, objectives, and action steps for attracting qualified applicants from a

95

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 100 of 115. PageID #: 3560
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018

broad cross-section of the community . . . [and] establish[es] and clearly identif[ies] the goals of CDP’s recruitment efforts.”199

The Court-approved Second-Year Revised Monitoring Plan requires the City to submit a “revised draft Recruitment Policy and Strategic Recruitment Plan” by September 15, 2017.200 The City, through its Department of Public Safety, has collaborated with the Monitoring Team and DOJ for months in an effort to create a recruitment plan that meets the expectations of the Decree. Although the City provided a revised recruitment plan on deadline, the plan itself remains incomplete and below expectations. Among other things, while the recruitment plan documents various City activities that relate broadly to recruitment, those activities need to be connected to clearly articulated goals and a well-defined City strategy.

While the Monitoring Team appreciates the City’s and Division’s ongoing willingness to consider suggestions to improve the plan, the Team believes that the City would benefit from working with an external expert from the Cleveland area who is qualified to offer expertise relating to recruitment. To that end, the Monitoring Team has secured, at no cost to the City, an individual with such expertise and anticipates that the City (working with the outside consultant) will be able to submit a fullyformed recruitment plan by the start of 2018.

Nonetheless, the Monitoring Team remains concerned that the City’s recruitment plan—even if it were by itself of satisfactory quality—is not integrated with the broader reforms that are presently occurring or need to occur within the Division. A new strategic recruitment plan should incorporate, for instance, details on how the CDP will police in a manner that promotes both public safety and trust between the Division and the community, i.e. the Division’s CPOP plan. The Monitoring Team hopes the City’s revised recruitment plan, at a minimum, will account for the ongoing institutional reforms and will consider how they may be relevant in recruiting new applicants to a new police department. It also anticipates that the Recruitment Plan will be connected to the ultimate Staffing Study and/or Staffing Plan to the extent that the Study and Plan indicates precisely how many officers the Division needs to recruit – thereby setting the clear, overall goals for successful recruitment going forward.

D. Performance Evaluations and Promotions

Paragraph
312. “CDP will ensure that officers who police professionally and effectively are recognized through the performance evaluation process” and “are

Status of Compliance NONCOMPLIANCE

199 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 302. 200 Dkt. 147-1 at 6.
96

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 101 of 115. PageID #: 3561
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018

identified and receive appropriate consideration for performance.” Likewise, “poor performance” must be “reflected in officer evaluations.” 313. “CDP will develop and implement fair and consistent practices to accurately evaluate officer performance in areas related to integrity, community policing, and critical police functions, on both an ongoing and annual basis.” 314–15. CDP will use “a formalized system documenting the annual performance evaluations of each officer by the officer’s direct supervisor,” including an assessment of several expressly-listed areas. “Supervisors will meet with the employee whose performance is being evaluated to discuss the evaluation.” 316. “CDP will hold supervisors of all ranks accountable for conducting timely, accurate, and complete performance evaluations of their subordinates.” 317. “CDP will develop and implement fair and consistent promotion practices that comport with the requirements of this Agreement and result in the promotion of officers who are effective and professional.” 318. In considering promotion, “appointing authority will consider” specific, expressly-listed “factors.”

NONCOMPLIANCE
NONCOMPLIANCE
NONCOMPLIANCE NONCOMPLIANCE NONCOMPLIANCE

The Monitor has previously described how “a number of policies, procedures, systems, and training that will inform changes in evaluations and promotions must still be fully implemented”201 and how this has meant that active work in changing CDP’s performance evaluation has not yet commenced. In particular, before the performance evaluation system can be addressed, information and data about officer performance must be certified as “comprehensive, complete, accurate, objective, and fair, covering the [necessary] scope of information about officer activity.”202

The Monitoring Team expects that the Division will be well-positioned to make progress on performance evaluations and promotions in the first half of 2018. This expectation provides a reasonable timetable for commencing work in an area that can serve to greatly enhance professional development opportunities within the Division and provide an important, non-punitive mechanism for employee management.

E. Staffing

Paragraph
319. “CDP will complete a comprehensive staffing study to assess the appropriate number of sworn and civilian personnel to perform the functions

Status of Compliance EVALUATION DEFERRED

201 Dkt. 97 at 62. 202 Third Semiannual Report at 66.

97

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 102 of 115. PageID #: 3562
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018

necessary for CDP to fulfill its mission, and satisfy the requirements of the” Consent Decree. / “CDP will develop an effective, comprehensive Staffing Plan that is consistent with its mission, including community and problemoriented policing, and that will allow CDP to meet the requirements of” the Consent Decree. 320. Requirements of CDP Staffing Plan.
321. “The City and CDP will employ best efforts to implement the Staffing Plan over the period of time set forth in the approved plan.”

EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED

Early on in the process, in the spring of 2016, CDP submitted to the Parties and Monitoring Team a combined Staffing Study and Plan that provided an estimate of staffing levels necessary to do all that the Division must do to ensure safe, effective, and constitutional policing. Although it contained a great deal of useful information, active work in this area was postponed in order for the Division to focus on the Republican National Convention, finalization of use of force policies, and implementation of other core processes and policies that might significantly impact necessary or desired staffing levels.

As the Monitoring Team previously reported, the Division’s June 17, 2016 Resource Study and Deployment Proposal, while a “useful guide for understanding . . . the Division’s current personnel and [deployment methods],” was not a true staffing plan as contemplated in the Consent Decree.203 To that end, CDP committed to first develop a Staffing Study addressing the appropriate number of personnel to perform functions necessary for CDP to fulfill its mission and to satisfy the requirements of the Decree. The CDP will subsequently use the findings from the Staffing Study to construct a Staffing Plan that likewise satisfies the Division’s obligations under the Consent Decree.204

Per the Second-Year Monitoring Plan, the Staffing Study and Plan has received renewed focus during this reporting period. As of December 19, 2017, CDP has maintained that it is finalizing a draft of the Staffing Study that it will submit to the Parties for comment and feedback soon. Due to the breadth and scope of a staffing study for any organization as large as the Division, the Monitoring Team has recommended that CDP consider contracting with an outside firm with expertise in conducting staffing evaluations. A comprehensive staffing study is a significant administrative task, and the Monitoring Team has maintained concerns about whether CDP has the available bandwidth to conduct a Staffing Study of sufficient breadth and quality. Nevertheless, it looks forward to closely reviewing the Study, which will need to incorporate any structural changes that are contemplated or implicated by the Division’s ultimate Community and Problem-Oriented Policing Plan.

203 Second Semiannual Report at 61. 204 Dkt. 120-1 at 21.
98

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 103 of 115. PageID #: 3563
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
Regardless of the outcome of the pending Staffing Study and Staffing Plan, the Monitoring Team has consistently observed that “CDP will need to make changes in staffing to accommodate Consent Decree requirements. The assertion that the Division does not have adequate or sufficient personnel for a given position is not, in a vacuum or without underlying support, adequate grounds for ignoring or bypassing a requirement of the Decree.”205
205 Third Semiannual Report at 67. 99

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 104 of 115. PageID #: 3564
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018

A. First-Line Supervisors

XII. SUPERVISION

Paragraph
322. “CDP will ensure that first line supervisors provide close and effective supervision of officers” in a number of express, specifically-identified ways. 323. “CDP will develop and implement supervisory training for all new and current supervisors” that is “adequate in quality, quantity, type, and scope, and will include” a number of specific, expressly-listed topics. 324. “Thereafter all sworn supervisors will receive adequate in-service management training.” 325. “CDP will hold supervisors directly accountable for the quality and effectiveness of their supervision, including whether supervisors identify and effectively respond to misconduct and ensure that officers effectively engage with the community.”

Status of Compliance NONCOMPLIANCE NONCOMPLIANCE
NONCOMPLIANCE NONCOMPLIANCE

The Consent Decree requires “mandatory supervisory training” for “all new and current supervisors” covering an array of important topics, including:

● [T]echniques for effectively guiding and directing officers and promoting effective and constitutional police practices;
● [D]e-escalating conflict; ● [E]valuating written reports, including identification of canned or conclusory
language that is not accompanied by specific facts; ● [I]nvestigating officer uses of force; ● [B]uilding community partnerships and guiding officers on this requirement; ● [U]nderstanding supervisory tools such as the Officer Intervention Program and body
worn cameras; ● [R]esponding to and investigating allegations of officer misconduct; ● [E]valuating officer performance; ● [C]onsistent disciplinary sanction and non-punitive corrective action; ● [M]onitoring use of force to ensure consistency with policies; and ● [L]egal updates.206

The initial Second-Year Monitoring Plan called for CDP to provide to the Parties and Monitoring Team a first draft of a supervisory training program by June 30, 2017. As of the end of this reporting period, and although work has appeared to center around designing an initial supervisory curriculum,

206 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 323.

100

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 105 of 115. PageID #: 3565
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018

little progress has been made on the design of a curriculum responsive to the Consent Decree’s requirements in this area.

CDP will need to use the first half of 2018 to address substantively the training and professional development needs of its supervisors. However, even when it completes an initial training of sufficient quality, the Third Semiannual Report observed that “it is likely that satisfying the terms of the Consent Decree will require a multiple-stage training consisting of in-class, electronic, and other instruction – especially given that sergeants have historically received relatively little training other than on CDP policies and other bureaucratic considerations.”207

B. Officer Intervention Program

Paragraph
326. CDP “will create a plan to modify its Officer Intervention Program (‘OIP’) to enhance its effectiveness as a management tool to promote supervisory awareness and proactive identification of potentially problematic behavior among officers. 327. “CDP supervisors will regularly use OIP data to evaluate the performance of CDP officers across all ranks, units, and shifts.” 328. “The OIP will include a computerized relational database that will be used to collect, maintain, integrate, and retrieve data department-wide” in a number of specific, expressly-identified areas. 329. “CDP will threshold levels for each OIP indicator that will trigger a formal review, and the thresholds will allow for peer-group comparisons between officers with similar assignments and duties.” 330–36. Additional express requirements of OIP.

Status of Compliance NONCOMPLIANCE
NONCOMPLIANCE NONCOMPLIANCE
NONCOMPLIANCE
NONCOMPLIANCE

The Monitoring Team has supported the City and CDP’s decision to postpone the development of an Early Intervention System (“EIS”), a proactive risk assessment tool that will transform the Division’s current Officer Intervention Program (“OIP”). “The City and CDP intentionally waited to initiate this work in the absence of the strong technology infrastructure which is essential to an EIS, as is a broader understanding of the range of intervention initiatives which go beyond those currently offered by the Division’s OIP.”208

The prior semiannual report inventoried “several significant strides in areas that do bear some relationship to the effective implementation of an EIS,” including improvements in technology, data,

207 Third Semiannual Report at 68 (quoting First Semiannual Report at 62). 208 Third Semiannual Report at 69.

101

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 106 of 115. PageID #: 3566
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018

and crisis intervention response.209 These strides have continued and accelerated during the current reporting period, as the discussions elsewhere in this report about data platform upgrades make clear. Accordingly, it is likely that work on an EIS policy can commence in earnest sometime in 2018.

It must be emphasized here that the EIS that the Consent Decree requires is entirely non-punitive. If an officer’s performance is reviewed in the context of EIS, the most that may happen is for the officer to eventually be paired up training, mentoring, counseling, or coaching that might serve as appropriate professional development resources. Plainly, the purpose of EIS will not be to “ding” or discipline officers – but, rather, to try to identify potentially problematic performance trends before they become bad habits or significant problems.

The Monitoring Team hears from officers that there is a widespread belief that being involved in a use of force or other activity is “bad” because it counts as “ding” against officers in the EIS. CDP’s EIS policy, training, and implementation going forward will need to establish definitively, and over time, that this is not the case. EIS is a mechanism for non-punitive performance management and professional development – not a back door to discipline.

C. Body-Worn Cameras

Paragraph
337. “If CDP chooses to use body worn cameras, CDP will provide clear guidance and training on their use, and will implement protocols for testing equipment and preservation of recordings to foster transparency, increase accountability, and build trust, while protecting the privacy rights of individuals.” 338. “Supervisors will review recordings related to any incident involving at least a Level 2 or 3 use of force; injuries to officers; and in conjunction with any other supervisory investigation.” 339. “Supervisors will conduct adequate random and directed audits of body worn camera recordings” and “incorporate the knowledge gained from this review into their ongoing evaluation and supervision of officers.” 340. “Officers will be subject to the disciplinary process for intentional or otherwise unjustified failure to activate body worn cameras in violation of CDP policy.”

Status of Compliance PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

The Consent Decree indicates that, “if CDP chooses to use body-worn cameras, CDP will provide clear guidance and training on their use, and will implement protocols for testing equipment and preservation of recording to foster transparency, increase accountability, and build trust, while

209 Id.

102

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 107 of 115. PageID #: 3567
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
protecting the privacy rights of individuals.”210 In December 2016, the Monitoring Team approved CDP’s proposed policy on body-worn cameras but outlined three outstanding concerns:211
(1) The policy did not mandate that officers be required to use the cameras and be subject to the Proposed Policy when they are engaging in secondary employment, making the body-worn camera policy the only CDP policies that does not formally apply to officers while they work lawenforcement-related secondary employment jobs. (2) The Monitor would defer approval or disapproval pending the City’s subsequent work on policies and manuals related to use-of-force investigations. (3) The Monitor found that provisions relating to public access to video are better suited for a comprehensive CDP transparency policy.212
The first issue – requiring officers to deploy cameras consistent with the CDP’s policies while engaging in secondary employment – has not yet been entirely resolved. The City initially proposed a pilot program in which a small number of CDP officers would volunteer to use the cameras on secondary employment so that some of the practical considerations could be better gauged. The Cleveland Police Patrolmen’s Association circulated a letter to members indicating that “[it] is the OFFICIAL UNION POLICY to refrain from ‘VOLUNTEERING’ for anything with regard to work.”213 There were no volunteers.
Subsequently, the Parties and Monitoring Team agreed that CDP would try to incentivize volunteers by indicating that no discipline would stem from the use of body-worn cameras during secondary employment and that video could be uploaded and tagged during the employee’s first City shift after working secondary employment. As of December 19, 2017, there has been no video recorded by bodyworn camera tagged or uploaded into Cleveland’s body-worn footage storage system. Thus, Cleveland has not been able to benefit from the type of pilot project structure that is a standard component of most ordinary large-scale institutional process changes.214
210 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 337. 211 Dkt. 92. 212 Id. at 2-3. 213 Letter from Steve Loomis to Cleveland Police Patrolmen’s Association Members, Apr. 25, 2017. 214 See Third Semiannual Report at 71 n.279 (citing Joel Winston, “How the Trump Campaign Built an Identity Database and Used Facebook Ads to Win the Election,” Medimum.com (Nov. 18, 2016), https://medium.com/startup-grind/how-thetrump-campaign-built-an-identity-database-and-used-facebook-ads-to-win-the-election-4ff7d24269ac (describing use of social media in campaigns to “test” certain messages or communications among a smaller group of voters before disseminating them more widely); Shane Zbrodoff, Pilot Projects: Making Innovations and New Concepts Fly (2012) (describing basics of pilot projects).
103

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 108 of 115. PageID #: 3568
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
The primary objection the City has raised about imposing such a requirement is that it would be too financially burdensome for the City because the City would have to bear the cost of overtime hours required for officers to download and tag secondary employment camera footage and ensure cameras are sufficiently charged for police duties.215 However, as the Third Semiannual Report summarized, “[n]ow that the Division has updated to Taser’s latest, Axon 2 camera system, each officer’s body-worn camera can capture up to 70 hours – nearly nine full-time shifts – of standard-definition video on each camera unit.”216 “[B]ecause captured video is retained indefinitely on the body camera unit until uploaded to cloud-based storage,” officers can upload and tag their video at the end of their next City shift – requiring no overtime.217
The Division already strongly regulates secondary employment. Any secondary employment must be expressly approved. Certain types of work are expressly prohibited, and officers cannot engage in secondary employment when on probation, sick leave, extended illness, or suspended from duty. “[T]he Chief of Police or the Director of Public Safety may at any time revoke authorization to work secondary employment based upon the operational needs of the Division.”218 The amount of secondary employment that an officer may work in a given time period is regulated. When secondary employment is within the City of Cleveland, officers can wear the uniform.219 Use of force, civilian complaints, misconduct, and general officer performance may all be investigated as a result of secondary employment performance or activity.
The City and Division may decide, then, that when the Division’s policies indicate that “[t]he rules and regulations of the Division govern its members when engaged in secondary employment,” it means that the rules requiring body cameras also apply. – and recognize that ensuring that officers are adhering to all CDP regulations during secondary employment is an important, substantive use of regularly compensated (non-overtime) officer time.220
An October 2017 investigation into the practices of the “top 100 most populous cities in the country” by the Cleveland Plain Dealer found that, of the 70 that “had body camera policies or intend to roll out policies and programs very soon,” some “42 departments said their officers are required to wear their
215 Dkt. 96 at 7. Separate objections about officers potentially needing to ensure that their camera system was fully charged before their next city shift have also been resolved, as “CDP officers working secondary employment are already frequently equipped with Division-issued radios and Tasers – both of which require pre- and post-shift charging.” Third Semiannual Report at 71. 216 Third Semiannual Report at 71. 217 Id. 218 General Police Order 1.1.25, “Secondary Employment” at 1 (last revised June 29, 2010). 219 See generally General Police Order 1.1.25, “Secondary Employment” at 1 (last revised June 29, 2010). 220 General Police Order 1.1.25, “Secondary Employment” at 1 (last revised June 29, 2010).
104

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 109 of 115. PageID #: 3569
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
cameras during secondary employment shifts.”221 “Two of the largest employers of off-duty officers” – the Cleveland Cavaliers and Playhouse Square – “said they don’t have a problem with officers wearing and using body cameras on their property.”222
To the extent that other departments with this requirement centrally administer such secondary employment, with the department coordinating with employers and paying officers for their secondary work rather than having officers independently deal with employers, which Cleveland currently does not do, that need not necessarily cut against Cleveland not benefitting from cameras on secondary employment. Instead, it merely suggests that centrally administering secondary employment – which the CPPA has advocated and which many other jurisdictions in the region have previously implemented – might be one avenue that would strengthen supervision, confidence, management, and fairness while potentially enhancing the ability of the Division to uniformly apply their rules regarding body cameras.
Finally, the Monitoring Team observes here again, as it has done consistently, that no policy or position by any stakeholder should prevent officers from working secondary employment. The men and women of the CDP are compensated less than peers and colleagues in other jurisdictions. Outside jobs are necessary for many officers and their families to make ends meet.
The Monitoring Team instead only observes that the City can choose to apply the longstanding rules on secondary employment to the area of body cameras by giving officers some time, at the end of their shift, to address any body camera footage from secondary employment – in the same way that the City already gives Division personnel time to ensure adherence to other regulations related to secondary employment, from approval to sick leave auditing. Ultimately, it is simply a question of whether the priority of Cleveland is, as it has been for a majority of large cities across the country, the fair, uniform application of Cleveland’s longstanding, common-sense regulation of secondary employment.
With respect to the other two areas involving body cameras – the viewing of video during some types of investigations and public access to captured video – the Monitoring Team remains confident that work on specific policies in those areas will address the outstanding concerns. Meanwhile, all other substantive provisions of the body camera policy have been approved.

221 Eric Heisig, “Cleveland’s Conundrum: Should the City Require Moonlighting Officers to Wear Body Cameras?,”

Cleveland

Plain

Dealer

(Oct.

26,

2017),

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2017/10/clevelands_conundrum_why_wont.html.

222 Id.

105

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 110 of 115. PageID #: 3570
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
XIII. COMPLIANCE & OUTCOME ASSESSMENTS
A. Outcome Measures
The Consent Decree requires various qualitative and quantitative assessments to measure whether implementation of the agreement is producing safe, effective, and constitutional policing. As the Monitoring Team has previously reported in some detail,223 there are 471 discrete data points on which the Consent Decree requires annual assessment. The relevant data from the calendar year 2016 were collected, analyzed, and reported in the Outcome Measures Report filed with the Court in June 2017 (“2016 Outcome Measures Report”).224 The 2016 Outcome Measures Report compared the 2016 outcome measures to the 2015 baseline measures, as required by Paragraph 367 of the Decree.
As discussed elsewhere in this report, due to difficulty hiring a Data Collection and Analysis Coordinator, the City hired a team from the Begun Center at Case Western Reserve University (the “Case Team”). The Case Team has convened numerous meetings and conversations with members of the Monitoring Team, DOJ, and the City around data collection and analysis. The Case Team has created a data protocol plan which was reviewed and subsequently approved by the Monitoring Team and the Department of Justice. The data protocol plan complies with the requirements of Paragraph 263.
After an exhaustive recruitment process, the City and CDP hired a full-time Data Collection and Analysis Coordinator who began work in September 2017. Rania Issa, Ph.D. has joined meetings, received training, and is becoming increasingly familiar with CDP’s data systems and the specific requirements of the Decree. The Case Team is working closely with Dr. Issa to comply with the requirements of the Consent Decree relating to data collection and analysis.
The Monitoring Team has also worked closely with many of the CDP’s subdivisions to create data collection plans, support compliance with the Consent Decree, and understand barriers to data collection and analysis. Over time, the Monitoring Team expects that the Data Collection and Analysis Coordinator will take on those responsibilities. Presently, the Monitoring Team is working with the Case Team, Dr. Issa, and technology experts from the City’s Information Technology Division (together, the “Data Team”) to identify priorities and achieve compliance with the requirements of the Consent Decree.
Overall, the Monitoring Team has observed improvements in the Division’s collection and analysis of data. The next step is using data as a management tool to improve performance – to use data and the
223 Dkt. 73. 224 Dkt. 142.
106

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 111 of 115. PageID #: 3571
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
analysis of such data to identify trends, priorities, and strategies that the men and women of the Division should implement as they police Cleveland’s neighborhoods.
Over the past several months, the Data Team has focused on improving use of force data in Blue Team and IAPro, the technology platforms in which officers electronically report force, force investigations are managed, and command staff review the investigations. (This process begins in Blue Team, a simpler web-based environment, before that data is extracted into the more complex IAPro software platform.) A large percentage of the use of force reports for 2017 have not been reviewed by the chain of command and moved into IAPro. The Monitoring Team, Division, and the many data experts are working to assemble data on the movement of reports through the chain of command.
This analysis will allow CDP leadership to better understand and communicate to CDP commanders and supervisors the best methods to manage a potentially troubling backlog in the review of use of force cases.
The Division’s delays in reviewing force cases creates a number of potentially serious problems. Officers may be working on the street who have engaged in unacceptable performance or problematic use of force. Second, the failure to act on potential misconduct uncovered during the review of use of force cases creates both financial and managerial liability. Third, even where no misconduct may be present, supervisors and the Division more generally are not benefitting from the host of lessons learned that may be distilled from any use of force incident.
Currently, the data with which the Data Team are working will be organized and reported internally to identify the places—either ranks or individual people—where reports that require review become stuck. Presently, the reports do not appear to be reviewed on a timetable that comports with current policy. The Division does not appear to use the data to hold staff accountable.
Beyond just the use of force area, a strong understanding of technology, policy, policing, and the Decree is integral to the effective collection and analysis of the collected data. Along with the Case Team, City IT, CDP staff, the Monitoring Team is developing systems for routine review and action on the data. The Parties have begun to meet at least monthly with the Monitoring Team to discuss progress with data collection, analysis, and use. There are also more regular meetings at the City level on the collection and use of data. Progress nonetheless remains slow.
The Division will need to use data and evidence to inform the development of its forthcoming Officer Intervention Program (“OIP” or EIS”). Those who understand CDP data must be connected to those who are developing the OIP policy. The Data Team can ensure that the data is collected correctly and communicated with OIP. The Data Team is currently reviewing Paragraph 328 of the Decree to ensure that relevant information is captured in IAPro and therefore processed by the OIP. Similarly,
107

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 112 of 115. PageID #: 3572
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
the Data Team has been asked to establish baselines to better inform thresholds for OIP automatic notification and review. Together, the Monitoring Team, CDP, and the Data Team will discuss these data, proposed thresholds, and the routing of information electronically and automatically to ensure the OIP operates efficiently.
Additionally, the Division’s OIP will likely rely on personnel information that is currently being entered manually across multiple systems. The Monitoring Team hopes that updates to the Kronos System, CDP’s timekeeping software, will alleviate the need for manual updates. The software is expected to be updated in early 2018.
In the next reporting period, the Monitoring Team will focus not only on the next Annual Outcome Measures Report, but also on the requirements set forth in Paragraph 374, which states that at “[t]wo years and six months after the Effective Date, the Monitor will conduct a comprehensive outcome assessment to determine whether and to what extent the outcomes intended by this agreement are being achieved, and whether any modifications to this Agreement are necessary for achievement in light of changed circumstances or unanticipated impact (or lack of impact) of the requirement . . . . This assessment also will address areas of greatest achievement and the requirements that appear to have contributed to this success, as well as areas of greatest concern, including strategies for accelerating Substantial and Effective Compliance.”225
B. Consent Decree Survey Requirements
As described in the Third Semiannual Report, the Monitoring Team worked with the Munk School of Global Affairs at the University of Toronto to interview arrested detainees in April 2017. In October 2017, Dr. Foglesong presented the research findings to the City, CDP, and the Monitoring Team.
The interview subjects, most of whom were recently arrested detainees, discussed their experiences and interactions with police officers (not limited to the most recent arrest) and their opinions and perceptions about police behavior in the community.
Many of the interviewees hoped for interactions with police that are grounded more strongly in dignity and respect. Perhaps somewhat counter-intuitively, they said they wanted to see more police, especially where there are serious crime issues – but that they wanted police to be less aggressive both in language in behavior.
Indeed, the concerns of most interviewees were focused less on police violence and more on the quality of police-citizen interaction. In other words, officer use of force was not the primary concern
225 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 374.
108

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 113 of 115. PageID #: 3573
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fourth Semiannual Report | January 2018
of interviewees. Instead, they tended to discuss profiling and attitudes toward the poor and people of color. The arrested detainees had hope that both the Division’s relationship with the community, as well as the actual safety and well-being of the community, could be improved.226
The Monitoring Team believes that the findings from these interviews can and should inform the development of the Division’s forthcoming CPOP strategy.
In December 2017, the Monitoring Team conducted focus groups of police officers, as the Consent Decree requires. The Division and police officer organizations were fully supportive of this endeavor and indeed facilitated the participation of a random cross-sample of CDP. The Monitoring Team is analyzing insight gained from these sessions and will file a final, public report on its filings with the Court in the coming weeks.
Further, in accordance with Paragraphs 361 through 366, the Monitoring Team will plan and complete the next biennial community survey during the next reporting period.
C. Compliance Reviews & Audits
Over the current reporting period, the Monitoring Team worked on the design and structure various upcoming structured compliance reviews and audits. These reviews and audits are geared toward gauging whether various new policies, practices, procedures, and training have been translated from paper or concept into practice.
Among other compliance audits that the Monitoring Team will conduct in the coming months, the Monitoring Team will begin, on January 1, ongoing evaluation of a randomized sample of use of force cases. Initially, these cases will be assessed to determine whether officers are appropriately complying with the new force policies. As soon as use of force investigation and review policies are finalized, the quality of the investigations will also be assessed. Consequently, the Monitoring Team has been developing a structured instrument for incident review, formed a plan for the sample and a subsample to test inter-rater reliability, and has trained qualified members of the Monitoring Team on the use of Blue Team and IAPro to review the reports remotely.
226 See Dkt. 161-1.
109

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 114 of 115. PageID #: 3574
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team
Matthew Barge Monitor
Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey (ret.) Principal Deputy Monitor Chief Hassan Aden (ret.) Deputy Monitor
Chief Timothy Longo (ret.) Director of Implementation
Charles R. See Director of Community Engagement
Christine Cole Director of Outcome Measures
Dr. Modupe Akinola Chief Joseph Brann (ret.)
Brian Center Dr. Randolph Dupont
Maggie Goodrich Ayesha Hardaway Richard Rosenthal
Victor Ruiz Captain Scott Sargent (ret.)
Dr. Ellen Scrivner Sean Smoot
Timothy Tramble Monitoring Team
Brian Chen Barry Friedman Maria Ponomarenko NYU School of Law Policing Project
Consultants

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 179 Filed: 01/24/18 115 of 115. PageID #: 3575
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on January 24, 2017, I served the foregoing document entitled Notice Submitting Monitoring Team’s Fourth Semiannual Report via the court’s ECF system to all counsel of record.
/s/ Matthew Barge MATTHEW BARGE

 
 Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 190 Filed: 02/09/18 1 of 24. PageID #: 3675

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

UUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff, vs.
CCITY OF CLEVELAND,
Defendant.

) CASE NO.: 1:15-CV-01046 ) ) ) JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER, JR. ) ) ) CITY OF CLEVELAND’S ) FIFTH STATUS REPORT

I.

Introduction

Paragraph 387 of the Settlement Agreement/Consent Decree directs that “the City

will file a status report every six months thereafter while this Agreement is in effect.” The

City of Cleveland (“City”) files its fifth semi-annual status report to provide the Court

with a review of the challenges and accomplishments addressed in the six months following the City of Cleveland’s Fourth Status Report (Dkt. 144).1

A. Updated Second Year Monitoring Plan

The initial “Second Year Monitoring Plan” (Dkt. 120, 123) was updated by way

of a Memorandum filed in August (Dkt. 147) (“Plan”) to reflect the status of the efforts

being undertaken to meet the many goals associated with the Consent Decree. The City’s

1 Section 387 provides:
This report will delineate the steps taken by CDP during the reporting period to comply with this Agreement; CDP’s Assessment of the Status of its progress; plans to correct any problems; and response to concerns raised in the Monitor’s previous semi-annual report.

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 190 Filed: 02/09/18 2 of 24. PageID #: 3676
report addresses the continuing efforts and progress in relation to the Plan that has been made in the past seven months.
B. Monitor’s Summary Assessments The Monitor’s Fourth Semiannual Report makes clear that the various reforms contemplated in the Consent Decree cannot be simultaneously accomplished in all areas at once. As was initiated in the Monitor’s Third Semiannual Report, the recently released Fourth Semiannual Report again conveys through the use of “summary assessments” the Monitor’s (1) evaluation of active, ongoing efforts in relation to the requirements of the Consent decree and (2) where evaluation has been deferred as the result of project management decisions. In this regard the Monitor’s most recent report has continued the use of shorthand assessment signifiers: “Non-Compliance,” “Evaluation Deferred,” “Partial Compliance,” “Operational Compliance,” and “General Compliance” in relation to specific terms of the Consent Decree. While the Monitor, Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the City do not always agree on the status of compliance summarily assessed in the Monitor’s Fourth Semiannual Report, the City continues to work in a cooperative spirit with both the Monitor and DOJ, and remains focused on the goal of achieving substantial and effective compliance with the reforms agreed to in the Consent Decree. It is of note in contemplating progress toward such goal that the Monitor’s most recent report reflects improvement through upgraded compliance measures in fifty-three (53) separate areas where “generalized conclusions about the status of compliance” have been addressed.
2

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 190 Filed: 02/09/18 3 of 24. PageID #: 3677

Moreover, the Monitor’s most recent report reflects seventy-two (72) fewer “noncompliance” summary assessments than were contained in the prior semiannual report.2

II.

Steps Taken by the Cleveland Division of Police and the City of

Cleveland During the Reporting Period.

As with the City’s previous reports, the activities and milestone events addressed during this reporting period are addressed in the following order:

A. Community and Problem-Oriented Policing, B. Use of Force, C. Crisis Intervention, D. Officer Training, E. Accountability F. Equipment and Resources, G. Data Collection and Analysis, H. Bias Free Policing, and I. Compliance and Outcome Assessments and Reporting.

A. Community and Problem-Oriented Policing 1. Community and Problem-Oriented Policing Work Plan Commander Johnny Johnson heads CDP’s Bureau of Community Policing
(“BCP”). The Consent Decree provides that CDP is to develop and implement a comprehensive and integrated community and problem-oriented policing (“CPOP”)

model that will promote and strengthen partnerships within the community, ensure

collaborative problem solving, and increase confidence in the CDP. (Dkt. 7-1, Sec. 27). As was addressed in the City’s Fourth Status Report, the CDP worked directly
with the Monitor, the DOJ, CPC, and other stakeholders in the first half of 2017 to gain

2 This figure would also include assessments formerly categorized as “non-compliant” and now categorized as “evaluation deferred.” This assessment category addresses those areas where attention “has been intentionally and affirmatively deferred in order to work on other, necessary prerequisites.” (Dkt. 179, p.6).

3

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 190 Filed: 02/09/18 4 of 24. PageID #: 3678
input directly from community members concerning what they would like to see in the CPOP Plan. The Monitor commended the CDP “for its strong commitment to this outreach effort” during this period. (Dkt 179, p. 17).
CDP is presently finalizing a proposed CPOP Plan. Using the Court approved framework, the CDP believes it is on track to reach an agreed upon CPOP Plan in the second half of the year that fully takes into account the feedback and values of the communities being served. Commander Johnson and CDP’s District Commanders have further worked with the Monitor, the DOJ, the City’s Community Relations Board, and the CPC to address and encourage greater participation by community residents with the five District Policing Committees (“DPC’s”), (formerly known as “Community Relations Committees”) in the Consent Decree. (Dkt. 7-1, see generally ¶¶ 23-26). The
2. Cleveland Police Commission As noted in the City’s last Status Report, Dr. Rhonda Williams left the CPC at the end of last May. Dr. Rhonda’s vacant position on the Commission was filled pursuant to the application process outlined in paragraph 16 of the Consent Decree. After completing the application and its interview process the Selection Panel selected Richard Knoth to fill the vacant commissioner position. Rev. Dr. V. Yvonne Conner and Ms. LaToya Logan continue to serve as the Commission co-chairs. During this reporting period the CPC completed filling its five full-time staff positions and has moved into its new permanent staff office location at 3631 Perkins Avenue in Cleveland. The CPC staff includes Executive Director Jason Goodrick, Community Engagement Coordinators Chinenye Nkemere Thompson and Vrére Bunkley, Assistant Administrator Rosie Jovic, and Senior Policy Analyst Bethany Studenic. The
4

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 190 Filed: 02/09/18 5 of 24. PageID #: 3679
B. Use of Force —Policies
1. Use of Force
In its prior Status Report, the City identified having received approval for CDP’s
new Use of Force policies. The Court approved policies included (1) Use of Force -
General, (2) Use of Force-Definitions, (3) De-Escalation (4) Use of Force-Intermediate
Weapons, and (5) Use of Force-Reporting. Training on these polices is addressed below
in Section II(D). Following training the policies became effective on January 1, 2018.
2. Investigation and Review
Policies relating to the investigation and review of an officer’s use of force are
related directly to the level and outcome of the force used. Policies that will govern
investigations for each of the three levels of force, the creation of a Force Investigation
Team (“FIT”), and a separate policy relating to the creation of a Force Review Board
(“FRB”) have not been finalized and remain subject to ongoing discussions with the
Monitoring team and the DOJ. The Monitor’s comments in the Fourth Semiannual Report
are instructive:
Over the course of the current reporting period, CDP has worked diligently with DOJ and the Monitoring Team to develop the required policies and procedural manuals. Nevertheless, these policies and manuals continue to be the subject of discussion and revision. This process has taken longer than any stakeholder originally contemplated or desired. The Monitoring Team would be substantially more concerned about the timelines on these important set of interrelated policies if it did not appear, as it does, that the Division and City are proceeding in good faith to work through some challenging issues and meaningfully overhaul existing structures, systems, and processes to ensure compliance with the Consent Decree. As the Monitoring Team has previously indicated, taking more time to get things right the first time may ultimately mean that more time is expended upfront so that less time can be expended on the back end to realize fully the outcomes that the Consent Decree requires.
(Dkt. 179, p. 35). The City believes that consensus between the Parties is close, and that
5

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 190 Filed: 02/09/18 6 of 24. PageID #: 3680
recommended approval by the Monitor in these areas will be achieved in the very near future.
3. Canine Policy On October 30, 2017 the Monitor filed a motion requesting the Court approve the CDP’s new General Police Order (“GPO”) addressing the use of Canines. (Dkt. 159). The language of the new GPO makes clear that the primary use of CDP’s canines is to mitigate risk and remains related to search and detection functions: It is the policy of the Division to use canine teams to mitigate risk and effect efficient police operations in the detection, prevention of crime, and service to the community. The canine teams are very effective resources and should be considered when searching for items, people, illegal drugs or other evidence detection. The policy makes clear that any apprehension of a suspect that involves a canine bite will be reported and investigated as a Level III Use of Force. C. Crisis Intervention Team (“CIT”) On August 11, 2017 the Monitor submitted a memorandum to the Court recommending approval of the CDP’s Specialized Crisis Intervention Plan and the Division’s process for designating and selecting CIT officers (“Selection Process”). (Dkt. 146). The Consent Decree specified that CDP was to establish a Specialized Crisis Intervention Plan, with the expressed goal of ensuring “that a specialized CIT officer is available to respond to all calls and incidents that appear to involve an individual in crisis.” (Dkt. 7-1, ¶ 152). A review of calls for service received citywide in 2016 established that calls involving crisis intervention issues approximated three percent (3%) of all calls. CDP’s Specialized Crisis Intervention Plan conforms to the requirements outlined
6

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 190 Filed: 02/09/18 7 of 24. PageID #: 3681
in the Consent Decree by addressing five specific areas: 1. An assessment of the number of Officers necessary to ensure coverage of all calls for an individual in crisis across all shifts and all Districts. 2. A description of the procedures for identification of any gaps in coverage. 3. The mechanisms that the Division will use to fill gaps in coverage. 4. An analysis of barriers to full coverage and possible steps to overcome these barriers. 5. A list of ways to identify officers who are appropriate to be assessed for suitability to be specialized CIT officers.
The plan presently envisions a minimum of 148 specialized CIT officers being trained as specialized CIT officers to address city-wide coverage of calls involving the need for crisis intervention. Monthly reports will allow for ongoing assessment by CDP as to the effectiveness of coverage and the need for adjustments to the required number as the plan is implemented.
The Selection Process for choosing police officers as specialized CIT officers has been crafted to ensure that volunteers who are committed to the CIT concept and its principles will be selected as specialized CIT officers. The selection process involves (1) an officer volunteering and requesting to participate in the program, (2) review of the applicant officer’s personnel file, and (3) a selection board interview to assess character and suitability for the position. Each selected officer will receive 40 hours of specialized CIT training. The required 40 hour CIT training curriculum for selected officers is not yet finalized and remains under development. D. Officer Training and Recruitment
1. Use of Force The Consent Decree requires that CDP “provide all current officers use of force
7

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 190 Filed: 02/09/18 8 of 24. PageID #: 3682
training that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type.”( Dkt. 7-1, ¶ 84). Before the new use of force policies that were approved by the Court could be implemented it was necessary that all active patrol and supervisory officers be thoroughly trained on them to ensure that officers had a thorough knowledge and understanding of the changes going forward. There were a total of 1,431 officers who would need to be trained on the new policies. A total of 1,364 active officers and supervisors were trained on the new use of force policies by the end of 2017. Of the 67 officers yet to be trained, sixty two (62) members were unavailable for training because of their status, to include extended illness, restricted duty, impending retirement, and extended military leave. Before being returned to full active status officers in such status will receive the use of force training. Five active officers scheduled for training did not complete the training.
The Monitor’s Fourth Semiannual Report provides a cogent overview and detailed observations concerning the two days (sixteen (16) hours) of training that was provided to CDP’s officers on the new policies. (Dkt 179, pp. 27-31). Significant topics covered in the two days of training included: De-escalation, Contact and Cover, Subject Control and Handcuffing, Intermediate Weapons, Decision-making Scenarios, Threat Assessment, and Officer Performance Assessments. The high quality of CDP’s Use of Force training was well recognized by the Monitor Team in its most recent report:
All said, the CDP’s sustained and focused efforts to design and implement the 2017 Use of Force Training program has yielded substantial results. From the development of the curriculum to the logistics of providing high-quality training to so many officers, the 2017 Use of Force Training was no small task. The Monitoring Team applauds the Division’s Training Unit for their hard work and dedication – and commends CDP for designing, implementing, and completing a critical element of reform. (Dkt 179, p. 31).
8

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 190 Filed: 02/09/18 9 of 24. PageID #: 3683
2. Crisis Intervention The Consent Decree requires that all officers be given at least eight hours of initial and annual in-service training on responding to individuals in crisis. The training is to be “adequate in quality, quantity, type, and scope, and will include the circumstances in which a specialized CIT officer should be dispatched or consulted and how situations involving individuals in crisis should be addressed if a specialized CIT officer is not immediately available.” (Dkt. 7-1, ¶ 143). The Eight-Hour Curriculum developed by the CDP and the Mental Health Response Advisory Committee Advisory Committee was reviewed with the Monitor and DOJ and submitted by the Monitor for approval of the Court on May 22, 2017. (Dkt 129). The Monitor, in recommending approval by the Court, described the curriculum as “some of the strongest and best training on basic crisis intervention issues that the Monitoring Team’s experts have seen across the country.” (Dkt. 129). The general goals of the eight hour training included providing officers with (1) a better appreciation and understanding of behavioral disturbances that may be associated with severe mental illness, (2) improved communication and active listening skills, (3) an understanding of the advantages of verbal de-escalation in resolving crisis situations, (4) an understanding of CDP’s Crisis Intervention Team response and individual officer responsibilities in dealing with individuals in crisis, and (5) an overall understanding of CDP’s Crisis Intervention Team program and the goals and policies associated with the program. The eight hours of crisis intervention training was provided to officers within a dedicated three-day block of instruction that also included the sixteen hours of training
9

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 190 Filed: 02/09/18 10 of 24. PageID #: 3684
required by the adopted use of force policies that took effect at the beginning of the year. As with the use of force training, those officers on extended sick leave, extended military training, and restricted duty will receive the training before being returned to active duty status.
3. Recruitment As noted in prior reports, the Consent Decree requires that CDP “develop a recruitment policy and a strategic recruitment plan that includes clear goals, objectives, and action steps for attracting qualified applicants from a broad cross-section of the community.” (Dkt. 7-1, ¶ 302). The Monitor noted “Evaluation Deferred” in the summary analysis relating to compliance with paragraph 302. (Dkt. 179, p. 95). The City continues to work in a cooperative manner with the Monitor Team and the DOJ and anticipates reaching an agreed upon “fully-formed recruitment plan” in early 2018. (Dkt. 179, p. 96). While work on crafting a final formal recruiting policy remained ongoing in the second-half of 2017, the City’s recruiting team continued to engage with the Greater Cleveland community to highlight the positive aspects of public service and career in the Division of Police. The ongoing outreach to the community is broad-based and includes the sophisticated utilization of radio, billboards, and social media, along with direct personal contacts with members of the City’s diverse communities. The City’s recruiting team regularly attends local and regional job fairs and interacts with veteran affairs’ organizations, high schools, colleges, universities, and other public events. Several examples of events attended by recruiters in the past several months include an FBI/Law Enforcement Regional Recruitment Event, Case Western
10

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 190 Filed: 02/09/18 11 of 24. PageID #: 3685
Reserve University’s Career Fair, Cleveland State University’s Safety Fair, and a College and Job Fair conducted at Garret Morgan High School. One example of a creative direct youth based recruiting effort involved Public Safety personnel, Cleveland Browns players and 40 juniors and seniors from area high schools sharing a meal together in October. This event provided students with a positive opportunity to voice their experiences and feelings about the City’s Safety forces. A broader community outreach effort involved the recruiting team’s OIC, Sgt. Charmin Leon, being interviewed in November on Channel 43 to discuss opportunities with the CDP.
In whatever form the efforts are undertaken, the goal of the City’s recruiting efforts remains to attract and hire a diverse number of qualified individuals for public service careers in the Division of Police.
4. Hiring The city has announced a goal of 250 new officers entering the CDP’s ranks in 2018. Police Academy Class No. 138 was commenced in June, 2017 and anticipates graduating 43 new officers in March, 2018. The new officers will have completed eight weeks of local training in Cleveland following six months of training at the Ohio State Highway Patrol Training Academy. It is further anticipated that Police Academy Class No. 139 will graduate several officers who were accepted as lateral transfers to CDP from other law enforcement agencies. Lateral transfer officers complete a ten week training course at the City’s Police Academy before becoming CDP officers. Police Academy Class No. 140 recently started at the Cleveland Police Academy with 69 individuals presently undergoing cadet training. Future Police Academy Class No. 141 with an
11

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 190 Filed: 02/09/18 12 of 24. PageID #: 3686
anticipated enrollment of 70 recruits will begin training at the Tri-C Police Academy in
March. Recruitment activities and testing for future classes remains ongoing.
E. Accountability
The City agrees with the requirements of Paragraph 176 of the Consent decree
which provides the City will:
[E]nsure that all allegations of officer misconduct, whether internally discovered or alleged by a civilian, are fully, fairly, and efficiently investigated; that all investigative findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence and documented in writing; and that all officers who commit misconduct are held accountable pursuant to a disciplinary system that is fair, consistent, and provides due process. (Dkt 7-1, ¶ 176).
The City and CDP continues to work with the Monitor, DOJ, stakeholders, and its
officers to ensure it meets such standard.
The Monitor in addressing the imposition of discipline commented in the most
recent report:
Because it decided to focus on creating Internal Affairs policies and addressing major OPS deficiencies over the current reporting period, the Monitoring Team has deferred a systemic evaluation of the imposition of discipline and the quality and rationale for findings until next year. Although the Monitoring Team has observed some disciplinary decisions that do not appear to appropriately hold officers to account, it has also seen the appropriate imposition of discipline in some serious cases. A comprehensive evaluation of the imposition of discipline will be conducted upon the implementation of the new disciplinary matrix. The Monitoring Team hopes that the new Disciplinary Matrix will give CDP the tools it needs to ensure fair and accountable discipline in the long-term. This evaluation will also examine the extent to which CDP command staff explains its rationale for disciplinary decisions to its officers and the PRB.3
(Dkt. 179, p. 80) (Emphasis added). The observation is representative of ongoing
3 The creation and use of a disciplinary matrix by CDP has been in effect for several years and predates the Consent Decree. CDP’s experience with the matrix well informed the negotiations and ultimate approval of the language in the policy establishing the current matrix as it became effective on January 1, 2018.
12

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 190 Filed: 02/09/18 13 of 24. PageID #: 3687
discussions between the Monitor, CDP, and the City concerning discipline. The City cannot accept the Monitor’s broad unsubstantiated characterizations at
pages 51-52 of the Fourth Semiannual report wherein the Monitor states that “the accountability system does not seem to be working for anyone.” The characterization by the Monitor that follows is incorrect:
The accountability system is not working for the men and women of the Division of Police who at least believe that discipline is arbitrarily imposed through a system, from the start of an investigation to the hearing of a case on grievance to an arbitrator, that is a game of chance that can be swayed only by “who you know” rather than the propriety of performance under scrutiny. (Dkt. 179, pp51-52). This statement is contrary to the above-quoted and more accurate assessment of compliance to date with the Consent Decree’s requirements regarding discipline. It leaves an improper impression and is not supported by fact. Officers are provided due process and investigations undertaken by CDP’s Internal Affairs officers are not predicated in chance, but based on the discovery and review of relevant evidence. Discipline that is ultimately imposed through either the Chief of Police or the Director of Public Safety is not predicated on “who you know.” However anecdotal, the Monitor’s characterization on this issue is incorrect, unfair, and not acceptable. The City and CDP continue to work to meet and exceed the requirements relating to discipline in the Consent Decree and continue to maintain a well-established, cooperative, and professional working relationship with the Monitor Team.
1. Internal Affairs Historically the head of Internal Affairs has been a police officer who serves as the Commander of CDP’s Bureau of Integrity Control. The Consent decree provides going forward that “Internal Affairs will be headed by a qualified civilian who is not a
13

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 190 Filed: 02/09/18 14 of 24. PageID #: 3688
current or former employee of CDP, and who is not a current or retired law enforcement officer.” (Dkt. 7-1, ¶ 178). Because of difficulties in finding a qualified candidate, the City made a request to the Monitor and DOJ that the pool of potential candidates be expanded to allow retired former prosecutors, federal investigators and former officers from police departments other than CDP to be considered for the position. This change was agreed and a joint motion was formally filed requesting that the terms of paragraph 178 be so amended. The Court entered an order granting the requested amendment and the City anticipates finalizing the hiring of a civilian Internal Affairs Superintendent in the immediate future.
2. Office of Professional Standards a. OPS Investigation Backlog
On December 15, 2017 the City filed a “Memorandum Outlining the Plan to Address Completion of Investigations by the Office of Professional Standards in 2018.” (Dkt. 169). The filing of the memorandum followed a hearing with the Court on November 21, 2017 that addressed the lack of substantive progress by OPS in reducing a substantial backlog of unfinished investigations of complaints filed with OPS during the 2015-2017 time period. At the time of the hearing OPS had identified there were 378 such investigations that were unfinished.
The City plan submitted to the Court on December 15, 2017 that contained three primary goals to be achieved:
(1) OPS would remain timely in completing the investigation of complaints received by it on and after December 1, 2017; (2) OPS would remain in compliance with the investigative processes and reporting requirements established in the OPS Operations Manual; and
14

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 190 Filed: 02/09/18 15 of 24. PageID #: 3689
(3) Completion of the identified backlog of unfinished OPS investigations associated with public complaints received in 2015, 2016, and 2017. (Dkt. 169, p. 2). The plan incorporates the use of current OPS investigators to remain timely in completing the investigations of complaints received after December 1, 2017 going forward while contracting with outside investigation resources to complete the existing backlog of unfinished 2015-2017 investigations. The plan provides that until the outside investigation resources are retained and capable of addressing the backlog of investigations that OPS’s existing investigators would continue to work to reduce the 2015-2017 backlog, while ensuring that claims received in 2018 be kept current and timely completed. All investigations are to be accomplished in compliance with the OPS Operations manual.
In seeking to identify an appropriate outside investigation resource to address the backlog of investigations the City released a “Request for Qualifications” (“RFQ”) through which the City invited the submission of qualifications from professional investigation organizations. The time frame established for completing the backlog of unfinished 20152077 investigations was twelve (12) months. The City is in the process of completing the necessary processes involved in identifying a final outside investigation organization meeting the criteria established in the RFQ and anticipates identifying the outside vendor in very short order.
b. OPS Administration While the second half of 2017 presented challenges for OPS in addressing the backlog of unfinished investigations, OPS continued to address other issues that needed resolution in its efforts to meet the terms of the Consent Decree. OPS is currently conducting a nationwide search for an OPS Administrator who has the requisite skills, expertise, and experience to effectively manage the intake,
15

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 190 Filed: 02/09/18 16 of 24. PageID #: 3690
tracking, and objective complaints, while also identifying and implementing appropriate training for OPS investigators and members of the Cleveland Police Review Board. Assistant Safety Director Laura Palinkas is managing the daily operations of OPS during the search period. In addition to searching for a new Administrator, the OPS budget for 2018 provides funding for a new senior investigator position, two additional full-time investigators, and a community engagement coordinator. The daily duties of Assistant Director Palinkas in managing OPS will be reduced as the new Administrator and the new Senior Investigator become fully integrated into the OPS management structure and can assume effective supervisory oversight. The community engagement coordinator will assist in the Community Awareness Plan undertaken by OPS in promoting throughout the Cleveland community a better awareness of OPS and understanding of the process for filing complaints. OPS has distributed to each police district signs and pamphlets in English and Spanish that describe the OPS mission and authority, how to file a complaint, and the complaint process.4
As required in the Consent Decree OPS has committed to ensuring OPS investigators receive continuing training on a broad range of relevant matters. Training has been accomplished using expertise provided by the Monitor team, CDP, and outside sources. Investigators received training during the course of the past year on a variety of topics to include: investigations of complaints, Information Technology (“IT”) , Crisis Intervention and CDP’s CIT policy, the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution,
4 OPS maintains a website at http://www.city.cleveland.oh.us/CityofCleveland/ Home/Government/CityAgencies/PublicSafety/OPS_PoliceReview providing information in both Spanish and Englsih.
16

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 190 Filed: 02/09/18 17 of 24. PageID #: 3691
CDP’s new Use of Force policies, and use of wearable camera systems,5 In January, 2018 the OPS investigators received sixteen hours of additional investigative training at Tri-C, specifically addressing such training within the established requirements of the OPS Operations Manual that was adopted in 2017.
3. Civilian Police Review Board The City Charter was amended in November 2016 to increase the size of the Civilian Police Review Board (“PRB”) from six to nine members. Five members are appointed by the Mayor and four by City Council, with each of the City’s five police districts being represented by at least one member. A new PRB manual was adopted in the first half of 2017. In compliance with the Consent Decree, PRB meetings are open to the public with case presentations to the PRB by OPS taking place in open session. A focus remains on providing PRB members with ongoing training that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope and type for their role reviewing recommendations made by OPS subsequent to the investigations of citizen complaints that have been made against members of CDP. Recent topics of training have included CDP’s new use of force policies, body worn cameras and how they can be utilized by OPS investigators, and the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution. F. Equipment and Resources 1. Equipment and Resources Plan As was addressed in the City’s Fourth Status Report, the Monitor and CDP continue to address the development of “an effective, comprehensive Equipment and
5 All OPS investigators were equipped in the second half of 2017 with body worn cameras to assist them in off premise interviews and investigations.
17

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 190 Filed: 02/09/18 18 of 24. PageID #: 3692
Resource Plan that is consistent with its mission and that will allow it to satisfy the requirements of this Agreement.” (Dkt. 7-1, Section 292). Ongoing discussions with the Monitor and DOJ concerning the City’s Plan will continue over the course of the next reporting period. While a formal Equipment and Resource Plan has yet to be approved by the Monitor, the City continues to make considerable progress toward the implementation of a substantive Equipment Plan that it believes will allow CDP to satisfy the Consent Decree requirements. The City regularly addresses progress with the Monitor on identified tasks, issues, and achievements.
Significant accomplishments in providing officers with equipment need to perform their jobs effectively and efficiently include:
- CDP has completed an assessment of the zone car fleet and graded vehicles as to their condition – poor, fair, or good. A priority during the most recent reporting period was equipping thirty five vehicles that had been identified as fair or good but were lacking mobile data terminals (“MDT”) with such terminals.6
- CDP has established a Vehicle Car Plan which will provide for the scheduled purchase of 65 new vehicles each year for the next five years.
- Technological upgrades have been accomplished for the Computer Aided Dispatch (“CAD”) system that will allow the dispatch of calls to officers through silent transmission via vehicle MDT’s instead of through radio
6 MDT’s ensure that the vehicles are compatible with officer field based reporting body worn cameras, Blue Team, email, and other technological applications.
18

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 190 Filed: 02/09/18 19 of 24. PageID #: 3693
communication over the airwaves. The silent dispatching allowed by the CAD upgrades is scheduled to go live in the first quarter of 2018. - CDP’s Learning Management System (“LMS”) has been established and went live on January 22, 2018. Training for officers is ongoing. LMS allows for remote training and ensures centralized management of training accomplished by officers. The LMS will allow for the transmission of Divisional Notices and General Police orders to individual officers via LMS which officers will have access to through a dedicated web address. - Upgrades to CDP’s Law Enforcement Management System (“LERMS”) have been accomplished. The upgrades have allowed officers to utilize Field Based Reporting (“FBR”) from remote locations through vehicle MDT’s. FBR allows for data and reports to be entered directly into the system without the need for transcription of handwritten reports. In addition to the use of MDT’s, district headquarters have been provided with PC’s that are dedicated for use by officers. It is of note that during January 3,723 FBR’s were entered by Patrol Officers. - In addition to PC’s provided for use by patrol officers in the districts, the City replaced 159 PC’s throughout the Division. The current PC refresh schedule will result in the replacement of an additional 219 computers throughout the Division in 2018. 2. Body Worn Cameras As previously noted the CDP’s Body Worn Camera (Wearable camera System) Policy has been approved by the Court in large part (Dkt. 101, Order). The issue of
19

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 190 Filed: 02/09/18 20 of 24. PageID #: 3694
whether officers should be required to wear the cameras they have been issued while engaged in secondary employment has not been resolved. The City’s policy as drafted encourages officers to use the cameras while engaged in secondary employment but does not mandate that cameras be worn at that time. The issue was addressed with the Court at the January 24, 2018 Status Conference. CDP continues to further evaluate the issues presented with the use of body worn cameras by officers while engaged in secondary employment. G. Data Collection and Analysis
During the past six months, the Cleveland Division of Police (CDP) has made a number of advancements in the area of data collection and analysis specifically in hiring, training and data analyses. In September 2017, CDP hired a full-time Data Analysis and Collection Coordinator, Rania Issa, Ph.D. CDP continues to benefit from working with Case Western Reserve University Begun Center Director Daniel Flannery, Ph.D. and his research team. CDP staff trainers have provided Dr. Issa and the Case research team with training in IAPro and Blueteam (software packages utilized for the collection of data). In addition, CDP staff trainers and the Data Analysis and Collection Coordinator attended the annual IAPro Users’ Conference.
In January 2018, the Data Analysis and Collection Coordinator with the help of the Case research team completed and submitted the first End of Year Use of Force Report to the monitoring team. Beginning in October 2017, use of force COMPSTAT meetings have been held on a monthly basis with members of the CDP and the monitoring team in attendance. COMPSTAT meetings continue to provide important dialogue between CDP and members of the monitoring team on ways to reduce the time it
20

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 190 Filed: 02/09/18 21 of 24. PageID #: 3695
takes to complete use of force investigations. In turn, CDP is working on scheduling a meeting with supervisors, trainers and the Data Analysis and Collection Coordinator for utilizing use of force data to reduce the time it takes to complete use of force investigations. Moving forward, CDP strives to continue collecting and analyzing data for an enhanced understanding of not only trends but also context. H. Bias Free Policing
Paragraph 35 of the Consent Decree establishes that CDP is to “deliver police services with the goal of ensuring that they are equitable, respectful, and free of unlawful bias, in a manner that promotes broad community engagement and confidence in CDP.” (Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 35). On February 2, 2018 the Monitor filed a motion recommending the Court approve the bias-free policy that was submitted for approval by CDP. The proposed policy incorporated as appropriate recommendations received from the CPC and was informed by public input received at public meetings on the topic.
The Monitor recommended Court approval after careful review and determination that the policy “provides sufficiently clear guidelines around, among other things: (1) the Division’s expectations for its members around bias-free policing; (2) the principles of procedural justice in police-civilian interactions; and (3) protocols to report bias-based policing.” (Dkt. 186, p. 1). While further attention and work on the required training curriculum remains ongoing, it is anticipated that the required initial training of officers on the new policy will be completed in 2018. I. Compliance and Outcome Assessments and Reporting
In January CDP issued its first annual use of force report. This first annual use of
21

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 190 Filed: 02/09/18 22 of 24. PageID #: 3696
force report provides comprehensive use of force data and highlights the progress made by CDP. Findings in the report are intended to follow the approved data collection and analysis protocol for all use of force data categories as set forth in the paragraph 259 of the Consent Decree. This initial and succeeding reports will contribute to an improved understanding of Cleveland’s use of force cases, and will contribute to providing the Monitoring Team with use of force information required by the Consent Decree. CDP understands this is only the initial report and much more information, time and effort will be expended going forward to gain a continuing and improved understanding of use of force. III. Assessment of the Status of Cleveland Division of Police’s Progress
As addressed above, it is clear that the City has made significant and sustainable progress toward meeting the reforms agreed to in the Consent Decree. This is further evidenced by the substantive improvements in the Monitor’s summary assessments of applicable Consent Decree provisions. The completion of training for officers in two of the most important areas addressed in the Consent Decree — use of force and crisis intervention, is a major accomplishment, with the new use of force policies going into effect on January 1, 2018. Finalization of a bias free policy that has been recommended for approval by the Monitor further evidences the CDP’s strong commitment to the diverse communities that make up Cleveland. As was discussed in the City’s December 15 Memorandum to the Court and at the recent January 24 status conference, the City remains committed to resolving the OPS backlog issue.
Going forward in 2018, as was noted in the Monitor’s Third and Fourth Semiannual Reports, the City will be directly responsible for the initial “fashioning of the
22

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 190 Filed: 02/09/18 23 of 24. PageID #: 3697
project implementation plan” —the Third Year Monitoring Plan, for the upcoming year. (Dkt. 179, p.4). As the Monitor noted in the Fourth Semiannual Report, “transitioning the duties of generating a first draft of the plan for reform in the upcoming year is geared toward ensuring that CDP develops the capacity to implement and maintain reforms well after the Consent Decree is done.” (Id.) CDP has accepted the responsibility of preparing and submitting an approved Third Year Monitoring Plan and finalization of the plan should be forthcoming shortly. The City appreciates the Monitor’s confidence in this regard and believes the Third Year Monitoring Plan will provide a roadmap in 2018 for continuing the meaningful progress accomplished by the City and CDP to date. IV. Response to Concerns Raised in the Monitor’s Semi-Annual Report
The Monitor has expressed reservations associated with the nature of the team approach developed and utilized by the City to facilitate ongoing compliance with the Consent Decree. (Dkt. 179, pp. 4-6). The City has adopted a team approach that regularly involves the expertise of knowledgeable individuals who cross multiple City departments and divisions. The City believes its multi-disciplinary team approach, with former U.S. Magistrate Judge Greg White’s serving as the Consent Decree Coordinator, has worked well and is in accord with Consent Decree requirements. As with other issues arise, the City continues to evaluate its compliance model going forward, with the ever present goal of ensuring continuing and future compliance with agreed upon reforms is achieved. V. Conclusion
The City and CDP made significant progress in the second half of 2017 toward meeting the reforms that were agreed to in the Consent Decree; and each will continue to work to ensure the goals set for accomplishment in 2018 are timely achieved.
23

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 190 Filed: 02/09/18 24 of 24. PageID #: 3698
Respectfully submitted, Barbara A. Langhenry (0038838) Director of Law By: /s/ Gary S. Singletary Gary S. Singletary (0037329) Chief Counsel, City of Cleveland 601 Lakeside Avenue, Room 106 Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1077 Tel: (216) 664-2737 Fax:(216) 664-2663 E-mail: gsingletary@city.cleveland.oh.us Counsel for the City of Cleveland
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that the City of Cleveland’s Fifth Status Report was filed electronically on February 9, 2018. Notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s system. Pursuant to the requirements of the Consent Decree the Monitor has been electronically delivered a copy of this filing.
/s/ Gary S. Singletary Gary S. Singletary (0037329) Counsel for the City of Cleveland
24

 
 Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 1 of 194. PageID #: 4051

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
vs. CITY OF CLEVELAND
Defendant.

) CASE NO.: 1:15-CV-01046 ) ) ) JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER, JR. ) ) NOTICE SUBMITTING MONITORING ) TEAM’S FIFTH SEMIANNUAL REPORT ) & COMPREHENSIVE RE-ASSESSMENT ) ) )

The Cleveland Police Monitoring Team respectfully submits its Fifth Semiannual Report and Comprehensive Re-Assessment.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Matthew Barge MATTHEW BARGE Monitor 40 Washington Square South New York, New York 10012 Tel: (202) 257-5111 Email: matthew.barge@21cpsolutions.com

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 2 of 194. PageID #: 4052

Cleveland Police Monitoring

Fifth Semiannual Report &
Comprehensive Re-Assessment

Team

August 2018

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 3 of 194. PageID #: 4053
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................1

II. THE ROLE OF THE MONITORING TEAM & THIS REPORT..................................................6

A. The Revised Third-Year Monitoring Plan

6

B. The Purpose and Form of This Report

6

III. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND BUILDING TRUST ......................................................9

A. Community Police Commission (“CPC”)

9

B. District Policing Committees

14

C. Monitoring Team’s Community Engagement and Outreach

16

IV. COMMUNITY & PROBLEM-ORIENTED POLICING ...........................................................23

V. BIAS-FREE POLICING ........................................................................................................32

VI. USE OF FORCE..................................................................................................................39

A. Officer Use of Force Principles & Policy

39

B. Training

46

C. Use of Force Reporting

48

D. Use of Force Investigation and Review

52

VII. CRISIS INTERVENTION .....................................................................................................57

VIII. SEARCH AND SEIZURE .....................................................................................................69

IX. ACCOUNTABILITY............................................................................................................73

A. Internally Discovered Misconduct

74

B. Office of Professional Standards (“OPS”)

80

C. Police Review Board (“PRB”)

94

D. Discipline and Disciplinary Hearings

99

X. TRANSPARENCY AND OVERSIGHT................................................................................103

A. Police Inspector General

103

B. Data Collection and Analysis

105

C. Public Availability of CDP-Related Information

108

XI. OFFICER ASSISTANCE & SUPPORT.................................................................................110

A. Training

110

B. Equipment & Resources

118

C. Recruitment & Hiring

122

D. Performance Evaluations and Promotions

126

E. Staffing

128

XII. SUPERVISION .................................................................................................................131

A. First-Line Supervisors

131

B. Officer Intervention Program

135

i

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 4 of 194. PageID #: 4054
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018

C. Body-Worn Cameras

139

XIII. COMPLIANCE & OUTCOME ASSESSMENTS ...................................................................142

APPENDIX A: Memorandum from ALG Research Re: 2018 Community Survey

APPENDIX B: 2017 Outcome Measures Summary

ii

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 5 of 194. PageID #: 4055
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018

I.

INTRODUCTION

This report of the Cleveland Police Monitoring Team is different in content, and scope, than the four regular, semiannual reports that have preceded it. Under paragraph 374 of the Consent Decree, the Monitoring Team is tasked with “conduc[ting] a comprehensive outcome assessment to determine whether and to what extent the outcomes intended by this Agreement are being achieved . . . . ”1 Among other things, the assessment must “address areas of greatest achievement and the requirements that appear to have contributed to this success, as well as areas of greatest concern, including strategies for accelerating Substantial and Effective Compliance” with the Decree generally.2

This Fifth Semiannual Report and Comprehensive Reassessment therefore is a wide-ranging look at the progress made, efforts currently underway, and work remaining toward the City of Cleveland’s (the “City”) compliance with the Consent Decree involving the Cleveland Division of Police (“CDP,” “CPD,” the “Division of Police,” or the “Division”).3

Overall, the report finds the City and Division of Police having made notable and significant progress in a number of critical areas, including, first and foremost, with respect to use of force. The Division has, to date, revised its policies on officer use of force with community participation and collaboration, designed and completed a comprehensive training curriculum for all officers on those new policies, and, as of January 1, 2018, implemented those policies across Cleveland.

Although the numbers necessarily capture a limited timeframe, the outcomes following the implementation of the new force policies are encouraging: use of force is down even as crime and officer injuries are down. Specifically, and as this report elsewhere discusses in further detail, use of force was down over the first five months of 2018 as compared to the same period in 2017 by nearly 40 percent.4 Meanwhile, crime in Cleveland was down significantly over the same period across almost every category.5 The results of the Decree-required community survey tend to support the proposition that the decrease in crime is indeed related to a lower rate of offense (rather than a lower crime reporting rate). As officers are using force less and crime is down, officers are being injured less frequently under the new force policies – with 65 percent fewer officer injuries occurring in use of force incidents, and 12 percent fewer officer injuries occurring overall, in the first five months of 2018 as compared to 2017.

A reduction in force overall does not, and will not, necessarily establish compliance with the Decree overall or indicate that the Division is using appropriate and lawful force. For one thing, the Division cannot establish constitutional policing by failing to police or refusing to use force where it is reasonable, necessary, and proportional to protect the public, subjects, or officers. For another, the force the Division does use, regardless of how many force incidents it has overall, needs to comply with its policies and the Decree. To that end, the

1 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 374. 2 Id. 3 The Division’s personnel variably refer to the organization as “CPD” or “CDP.” Because the Consent Decree uses the abbreviation “CDP,” this report primarily uses that abbreviation. 4 The 2018 numbers exclude the pointing of a firearm at an individual, which was not low-level reportable force in 2017 as it is now in 2018. To ensure something akin to a uniform, apples-to-apples comparison, this comparison does not include force incidents in which the only force reported was the pointing of a firearm at a person. 5 The evaluation here, discussed later in the report, is with respect to Part I crimes.

1

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 6 of 194. PageID #: 4056
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
Monitoring Team and Parties will be working in the coming months to evaluate force incidents and determine whether officers are indeed complying with the requirements of the new policy. Finally, the CDP has to demonstrate that it has the systems and processes in place to identify officer performance when it comes to force that is inconsistent with policy and take appropriate steps in those instances.
Despite these caveats, the City—and, most importantly, the men and women of the Cleveland Division of Police— should be commended on these encouraging, early signs that the new use of force policies may be leading officers to keep themselves and the community just as, and in fact more, safe even as they use force less overall.
Likewise, the Division has made great strides in its approach to interacting with individuals experiencing behavioral health crises. In collaboration with the Mental Health Response Advisory Committee (“MHRAC”) and with the leadership of the Alcohol, Drug Addiction, and Mental Health Services Board of Cuyahoga County (“ADAMHS”), the City of Cleveland has crafted a set of crisis intervention policies that are beginning to be recognized as some of the strongest and most forward-thinking of any in the country. The Division’s officers are receiving specific training and instruction on various mental and behavioral health issues so that they can respond better and link subjects to appropriate social service responses when necessary. Data to measure outcomes definitively still await comprehensive implementation of the Division’s upgraded Computer-Aided Dispatch (“CAD”) system, slated to be fully implemented around the end of August 2018. Nevertheless, the policy, process, and training progress that the City has made has been significant and commendable.
Further, the City and Division of Police, more than ever before, are partnering with the community to discuss what policing should look like in Cleveland going forward. The City and CDP put in substantial time and effort on crafting comprehensive plans on community and problem-oriented policing, staffing, and the recruitment and hiring of new officers. Those plans were made public in May 2018 and have been the subject of an intensive community engagement effort by the Division.
At the same time, the City and Division have traveled a substantial distance to providing officers with the equipment and technological resources that they need to do their jobs effectively and safely. Since the start of the Consent Decree, a new records management system has been implemented, despite some early challenges. Subsequent roll-outs of a learning management system to provide and track officer training, installation of mobile data computers in all patrol cars slated to be retained by the Division, and implementation of a strategic car replacement plan have all proceeded smoothly and effectively. The Division is slated to have all of its districts up and running on its upgraded Computer-Aided Dispatch platform as of the end of August 2018. Cleveland is also in the process of hiring some 200 additional police officers – which has the promise to ease at least some of the conditions and challenges that officers discussed with the Monitoring Team in its December 2017 officer focus groups.
This report also finds that the Division needs to make substantial progress on many other fronts. To date, much focus has been on the design of new policies, procedures, systems, and structures that comply with the Consent Decree and enable CDP to provide the types of services that it and the community wants. The Division has traveled a good distance on this front. Most of the relevant policies or plans contemplated by the Decree are either being finalized or well on their way to being completed.
2

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 7 of 194. PageID #: 4057
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
As the Monitoring Team has previously observed, however, paper is only relevant when it is put into practice. Once CDP memorializes expectations for officers and the organization going forward, it still has to train officers in those expectations; supervise officers to ensure that they are meeting those expectations; and ensure meaningful implementation and progress across time, incidents, cases, encounters, or officers.
To some extent, the areas that will require the most effort and focus relate less to the responsibilities and duties of front-line patrol personnel and much more to how the Division of Police, as a professional organization, functions, manages its personnel, implements its strategic initiatives, and tracks its performance. Various changes in the Division’s structure when it comes to reviewing officer use of force need to be finalized and implemented – including implementation of protocols of supervisory reviews of low-level force incidents; the selection, training, and activation of the Decree-mandated Force Investigation Team (“FIT”) to investigate serious uses of force; and the full implementation of a Force Review Board (“FRB”) to comprehensively analyze use of force incidents. Similarly, changes in the Division’s internal accountability structure and system, including implementation of various Internal Affairs policies and procedures, need to be implemented and sustained over time. Work remains to ensure that CDP’s disciplinary system is fair, thorough, and timely.
Separately, and still within the Division of Police, policies on search and seizure need to be finalized, officer training designed and conducted, data and information on stop encounters logged over time, and officer compliance with policy and outcomes measured. The Division’s policies and procedures for running its Early Intervention System – a non-disciplinary, non-punitive mechanism for officers at risk of exhibiting problematic performance trends to get counseling, training, or mentoring in an effort to improve professional growth – need to be designed and implemented across the Division. The various plans that have been the subject of community feedback and comment this summer – on Community and Problem-Oriented Policing, Staffing, and Recruitment and Hiring – need to be finalized, approved, and implemented such that the initiatives, benchmarks, milestones, and goals articulated in the plans become reality.
As the Monitoring Team has previously reported to the Court and discusses in this report, CDP also will need to take steps to ensure that its rank-and-file personnel feel heard, included, and valued as the Division continues to make progress and asks, in some cases, for officers to take on additional responsibilities or use their time in different ways than they have in the past. The Team’s focus groups of officers suggested a disconnect between headquarters or senior command staff and patrol officers – with officers left unsure of what they are to do and skeptical of the fairness of various accountability systems.
One of the accountability systems about which both officers and community members appear to remain skeptical is the process for investigating civilian complaints. The Office of Professional Standards (“OPS”) is now led by a new administration, and the Monitoring Team is optimistic that the Office and its personnel can navigate its responsibilities in the manner that it must. At the same time, the City is continuing to need to focus on resolution of the old, backlogged cases that accumulated in past years. The satisfactory resolution of those complaints, along with a better-functioning OPS that can comply with the terms of the Court-approved OPS Manual and Consent Decree requirements, will be necessary to ensure the full, fair, thorough, objective, and timely investigation of civilian complaints.
The Consent Decree “will terminate when the City has been in Substantial and Effective Compliance” with the Decree’s “search and seizure provisions for one year and with all of the remaining provisions for two consecutive
3

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 8 of 194. PageID #: 4058
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
years.”6 “Substantial and Effective Compliance” means that the City either has complied with all material requirements of this Agreement, or has achieved sustained and continuing improvement in constitutional policing, as demonstrated pursuant” to the Decree’s “outcome measures.”7
Thus, after the City has demonstrated Substantial and Effective Compliance, the Division will need to maintain its altitude, across most areas of the Decree, for two continuous years. For search and seizure, compliance will need to be maintained for one year.
With policies on force review, internal investigations, and search and seizure still being finalized; plans on community policing, staffing, and recruitment and hiring needing to be approved and implemented; a host of training initiatives still needing to be designed and given to officers; and significant work remaining in other areas on finalizing policies, systems, and processes, the City has some distance to ensure that all areas of the Decree are in the active implementation mode. Once there, the Division and City have to meet the expectations of the Decree across time, incidents, cases, encounters, and/or officers – not simply in one area or a random assortment of areas but, in fact, “all material requirements” of the Decree. After that, the City has to maintain that level of performance for a two-year period (or a one-year period in the case of search and seizure).
Ultimately, then, this Fifth Semiannual Report and Comprehensive Reassessment finds that the City of Cleveland and its Division of Police have come a long way under the Consent Decree in its initial years. A number of important milestones have been reached, strong policies and training implemented, and major new approaches and systems designed. The Monitoring Team commends the City and CDP for their hard work and focus in getting the Division to where it is today.
Significant work undoubtedly remains. The Monitoring Team is optimistic that, with the continued hard work and focus of all stakeholders, the upcoming reporting period will see many important policies finalized, training programs completed, and major reforms implemented – accelerating the rate of progress toward Substantial and Effective Compliance with the Decree.
The remainder of this report seeks to provide an in-depth accounting of this success that has been realized and the work that CDP and the City will need to conduct in coming months. For each major section of the Consent Decree, the various chapters of this report first begin by providing the summary “status of compliance” for each paragraph of the Decree that the Team has used in prior semiannual reports. The report then provides background on the identified issue and summarizes what the Division and City have accomplished to date in the area.
Next, each report chapter describes where the Division currently stands – in terms of the current state of progress in implementing specific reforms and in more general terms with respect to data, aggregate trends, and overall outcomes. Within these report sections, the Monitoring Team describes and analyzes, where available, the results of the latest, Decree-required “outcome measurements.”8 This includes analysis of the Division’s data, the
6 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 401. 7 Id. 8 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 367. In prior years, the Monitoring Team has provided the Court with a standalone report on outcome assessments. It incorporates the outcome assessment process into the Comprehensive Reassessment process this year to comply with the Decree’s terms. Id. ¶ 374.
4

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 9 of 194. PageID #: 4059
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018 Monitoring Team’s qualitative analyses, the latest community survey conducted in June 2018,9 the results of officer focus groups conducted in late 2017, and other information. A full accounting of relevant quantitative outcome measures is attached to this report as Appendix B.10 Each report chapter then inventories the major areas of progress and implementation tasks that remain to be accomplished for the Division to come into compliance with the various requirements in each major area. Finally, the Monitoring Team observes that this report is long. At times, it is dense. That length and density is necessary, however, in order to describe adequately the details that matter in driving the results—“constitutional and effective policing, professional treatment of individuals, and increased community trust”11—that are at the heart of the Consent Decree.
9 In June 2016, the Monitoring Team provided the Court with a standalone report on the required community survey. It incorporates the survey into its present Comprehensive Reassessment, with the report on the survey results included as Appendix A. 10 Data in Appendix B regarding officer use of force, while generally accurate, come with some caveats due to technical issues relating to the Division’s method of collecting data on use of force in IAPro. The Division primarily measures uses of force at the incident level, with the exception of measuring electronic control weapon uses of force (such as a Taser) at the officer level. There also were duplicate entries in data that was initially provided to the Monitoring Team. Thus the numbers reported in this Fifth Semiannual Report may differ slightly from final, official counts by CDP. 11 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 350.
5

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 10 of 194. PageID #: 4060
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
II. THE ROLE OF THE MONITORING TEAM & THIS REPORT
As with the Monitoring Team’s previous reports, the role of the Monitoring Team and of this report are useful to summarize at the outset. Under the terms of the Consent Decree between the United States and the City of Cleveland (the “City”) (collectively, the “Parties”) involving the Cleveland Division of Police, the Court-appointed Monitoring Team must “assess and report” to the Court whether the Decree’s requirements “have been implemented, and whether this implementation is resulting in constitutional and effective policing, professional treatment of individuals, and increased community trust . . . . ”12 This is the Monitoring Team’s fifth semiannual report.13 It addresses the reporting period of January through July 2018. It is also the Comprehensive ReAssessment required by paragraph 374 of the Decree.14
The Monitoring Team is an “agent of the Court” that is “subject to the supervision and orders of the Court.”15 The task of the Team is to assess, independently and on behalf of Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr., whether CDP and the City of Cleveland have reached compliance with the various and diverse requirements of the Consent Decree. Thus, as the Monitoring Team has previously outlined, it “is not an employee, contractor, or any other type of agent” of either the City of Cleveland or the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”).16 Instead, it works for the Court.
As part of that charge, the Team assists in facilitating Consent Decree implementation by providing technical assistance and Counsel to the Division of Police and City of Cleveland. Although its ultimate task is to inform the Court and DOJ about the City’s compliance with the Consent Decree, the Team provides ongoing assistance geared at ensuring effective, efficient, and expeditious progress.
A. The Revised Third-Year Monitoring Plan
The current, Revised Third-Year Monitoring Plan addresses the period of February 1, 2018 through January 31, 2019.17
B. The Purpose and Form of This Report
In its Third Semiannual Report, the Monitoring Team began summarizing the status of the City’s compliance with each paragraph of the Consent Decree. Although providing “a paragraph-by-paragraph accounting of the general state of the City’s compliance . . . runs the risk of being an over-simplification,” the Team continues to conclude that these summary characterizations are useful markers for understanding progress over time.18
Thus, each major section of this Fifth Semiannual Report and Comprehensive Re-Assessment summarizes the Monitoring Team’s generalized conclusions about the status of compliance by describing the state of each area as one of the following:
12 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 350. 13 Id. ¶ 375 (requiring semiannual reports). 14 Id. ¶ 374 (describing requirements of Comprehensive Re-Assessment). 15 First Semiannual Report at 14. 16 Id. 17 See Dkt. 203. 18 Third Semiannual Report at 9.
6

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 11 of 194. PageID #: 4061
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
Non-Compliance. The City or Division has not yet complied with the relevant provision of the Consent Decree. This includes instances in which the City or Division’s work or efforts have begun but cannot yet be certified by the Monitoring Team as compliant with a material component of the requirement.
Evaluation Deferred. This category reflects those limited instances where work in a given area has been intentionally and affirmatively deferred in order to work on other, necessary prerequisites. In these areas, the City or Division could have made more progress in a given area but, for project management reasons, have appropriately focused attention on other areas. Although this still means that the City has a distance to travel to reach General Compliance with the term of the Consent Decree, the intentional and affirmative decision to postpone focus on a given area for project management and implementation purposes is sufficiently different to warrant a separate designation in some cases.
Partial Compliance. The City or Division has made sufficient initial strides or sufficient partial progress toward compliance toward a material number of key components of the provision of the Consent Decree – but has not achieved operational compliance. This includes instances where policies, processes, protocols, trainings, systems, or the like exist on paper but do not exist or function in day-to-day practice. It may capture a wide range of compliance states or performance, from the City or Division having taken only very limited steps toward operational compliance to being nearly in operational compliance.
Operational Compliance. The City or Division has made notable progress to technically comply with the requirement and/or policy, process, procedure, protocol, training, system, or other mechanism of the Decree such that it is in existence or practice operationally – but has not yet demonstrated, or not yet been able to demonstrate, meaningful adherence to or effective implementation, including across time, cases, and/or incidents. This includes instances where a given reform is functioning but has not yet been shown, or an insufficient span of time or volume of incidents have transpired, to be effectively implemented in a systemic manner.
General Compliance. The City or Division has complied fully with the requirement and the requirement has been demonstrated to be meaningfully adhered to and/or effectively implemented across time, cases, and/or incidents. This includes instances where it can be shown that the City or Division has effectively complied with a requirement fully and systemically.
The same caveats that have previously applied to the use of these summary categories remain applicable. First, “Non-Compliance” or “Partial Compliance” does not automatically mean that the City or CDP have not made good-faith efforts or commendable strides toward compliance. It might, instead, signify that initial work has either not yet begun or reached a sufficiently critical point where progress can be considered to have been made.
Second, “Partial Compliance” requires more than taking some limited, initial steps toward compliance with a requirement. It instead requires that the City or Division have made “sufficient, material progress toward
7

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 12 of 194. PageID #: 4062
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
compliance” that “has graduated from the stages of initial work to more well-developed and advanced refinement of various reforms.”19
Third, these summary terms do not appear in the Consent Decree. The Team employs them in order to synthesize and summarize the report’s conclusions. Relatedly, compliance with individual paragraphs of the Decree is necessary for the larger, overall “Substantial and Effective Compliance” with the whole of the Consent Decree but it is not the same thing. Ultimately, “Substantial and Effective Compliance” with the Consent Decree will be reached when “the City either has complied with all material requirements of this Agreement, or has achieved sustained and continuing improvement in constitutional policing, as demonstrated pursuant to this Agreement’s outcome measures”20 “by a preponderance of the evidence.”21
Fourth, the charts that summarize progress in each area also condense the requirements of each paragraph rather than reprinting the entire Consent Decree in the context of this report. As the Third Semiannual Report noted, “[a]ny imprecision detected or confusion created by these condensed or summarized requirements is unintended and, in any event, can be cured with reference to the original Consent Decree language itself.22 The charts primarily cover paragraphs 14 through 340 of the Consent, but other paragraphs also contain requirements that the City must meet.23
Following the release of the Third Semiannual Report, some community members, and CDP members, inquired about the basis for some of our summary conclusions. We reiterate that these overall “compliance status” conclusions at the start of each chapter do not take the place of the more rigorous quantitative and qualitative assessments of how CPD is performing over time:
[T]he Monitoring Team bases its assessments on its current understandings, knowledge, and information gained through ongoing work and discussion with CDP, the Parties, and other stakeholders. The assessments are informal to the extent that not all of them are necessarily informed by the type of exhaustive compliance and outcome measurements that are a critical component of the Consent Decree – and the summary determinations do not take the place of these more structured, systemic analyses. The intent is to provide a bottom line sense of where the Division is on the road to compliance. Ongoing, rigorous quantitative and qualitative assessments will provide a more comprehensive picture as work under the Consent Decree proceeds.24
The Team’s characterizations of progress should ultimately be viewed as a synthesis or bottom-line accounting of the substantive discussions of each major Consent Decree area contained within this report.
19 Id. at 10. 20 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 456 (emphasis added). 21 Id. ¶ 397. 22 See Dkt. 7-1, available at https://www.justice.gov/crt/case-document/file/908536/download. 23 See Third Semiannual Report at 10. 24 Id. at 11.
8

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 13 of 194. PageID #: 4063
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018

III. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND BUILDING TRUST

Paragraph
14. CDP creation of “formal and informal mechanisms that facilitate ongoing communication between CDP and the many Cleveland communities it serves.”

Status of Compliance PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

A. Community Police Commission (“CPC”)

Paragraph 15. Creation of CPC to make recommendations, work with Cleveland communities to develop recommendations, and “report to the City and community as a whole and to provide transparency” on reforms

Status of Compliance GENERAL COMPLIANCE

16. Establishment of CPC Selection Panel to select CPC Commissioners; composition of CPC; and periodic meetings with Chief of Police to “provide recommendations.” 17(a). “[H]old public meetings across the City, complete an assessment of CDP’s biasfree policing policies, practices, and training, and make recommendations.” 17(b). “[A]ssist as appropriate in . . . development of training related to bias-free policing and cultural competency.” 17(c). “[O]n an ongoing basis, assess CDP’s community activities” and “make recommendations” related to “community engagement” and “community confidence” 17(d). “[O]n an ongoing basis, review CDP’s civilian oversight structure to determine if there are changes it recommends for improving CDP’s accountability and transparency” 17(e). “[P]erform other function[s] as set out in this Agreement.”
18(a). “[R]eview and comment on CDP’s policies and practices related to use of force, search and seizure, and data collection and retention.” 18(b). [R]eview and comment on CDP’s implementation of initiative, programs, and activities that are intended to support reform.” 18(c). “[H]old public meetings to discuss the Monitor’s reports and to receive community feedback concerning CDP’s compliance with this Agreement.” 19. “The City will provide access to all information requested by the Commission related to its mandate, authority, and duties unless it is law enforcement sensitive, legally restricted, or would disclose a personnel action.” 20. CPC “will issue [at least annual] reports,” which the “City will post . . . to the City’s website.” 21. “The City will consider and timely respond in writing to the Commission’s recommendations for improvements,” which “will be posted to the City’s website.” 22. CPC budget listed as “separate line item” to ensure “sufficient independence and resources.”

GENERAL COMPLIANCE GENERAL COMPLIANCE GENERAL COMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE NONCOMPLIANCE GENERAL COMPLIANCE

9

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 14 of 194. PageID #: 4064
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
Background
Community engagement and participation is at the heart of the Consent Decree process. Mindful that policing is a public service, the Decree requires that the public whom the police serve, protect, and represent have the ability to work together with CDP on how policing should look and function in Cleveland going forward.
In its 2014 investigation, the Department of Justice observed “community[] distrust” and “inflamed community perceptions [of the CDP], particularly in the African-American community[.]”25 Accordingly, the Consent Decree seeks to enhance “community engagement and trust” through two, specific “formal mechanisms . . . that facilitate ongoing communication between CDP and the many Cleveland communities it serves.”26 Those two mechanisms are the Cleveland Community Police Commission (“CPC” or “Commission”) and the District Policing Committees (“DPCs”).
The Community Police Commission is a mechanism created through the Decree “to promote public trust and confidence in the CDP” and to “make recommendations to the Chief of Police and the City, including the Mayor and City Council” based on the “values and priorities of Cleveland residents.”27 The CPC is intended to serve as a conduit between the Consent Decree reform process and Cleveland’s diverse communities, and the scope of its charge is far-reaching. Under the Decree, the CPC has the broad authority to “review and comment” on the Division’s “policies and practices related to use of force, search, and seizure, and data collection and retention” as well as any “initiatives, programs, and activities that are intended to support form.”28
What Has Been Accomplished to Date
As with any new organization, the early days of the Commission were accompanied by growing pains. The CPC spent its first months consumed in discussions to determine how it should operate, function, and structure itself in order to best accomplish its Decree-mandated duties. There were productive, spirited debates over the Commission’s proper role. There were also, at times, disagreements among the Commissioners that led to interpersonal conflicts that, from time to time, seemed to distract the group from focusing on substantive issues related to policing.
Despite these growing pains, the Commission accomplished critical early tasks, including gathering community input on CDP’s revised mission statement, the use of force policy, the OPS manual, and job descriptions for the now-hired Inspector General and head of Internal Affairs. The Commission also turned to related areas including recommendations on the Police Review Board manual, recommendations on the initial Equipment and Resource Plan, and the CPC’s first annual report. Meanwhile, in an effort to better organize its workflow, the Commission established several internal governance committees.
To accomplish their substantive charge, individual commissioners took on substantial responsibilities – much more than what could reasonably be expected of a volunteer unit. Staff from other entities, such as the Cleveland Foundation, provided critical assistance in the early days. The first co-chairs, Dr. Rhonda Y. Williams and Mario Clopton-Zymler, shepherded the CPC through its nascent stages and tackled numerous critical challenges. Their
25 DOJ Findings Letter at 8, 49. 26 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 14. 27 Id. at ¶ 15. 28 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶¶ 18(a)-(b).
10

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 15 of 194. PageID #: 4065
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
commitment, leadership, and administrative contributions were essential to the Commission producing timely input from the community to the Consent Decree process in the absence of a full-time staff.
Early on, the CPC learned to be flexible and adaptable in its community engagement efforts in order to attract a broad cross-section of community residents to its meetings. The Commission restructured the format of its meetings with the goal of “fostering a less contentious environment where people of different backgrounds, experiences, and points of view can all feel safe, valued, and comfortable expressing their perspectives.”29
The CPC committees have also engaged community members in ways that are not specific to the Decree. For example, the Commission’s committees sponsored community viewings and discussions of a criminal justicerelated documentary, as well as hosted a Townhall Day of Justice.
It quickly became apparent that, more than anything else, the CPC required a full-time staff to accomplish the dayto-day duties that a volunteer unit could not reasonably be expected to accomplish. The Parties and Consent Decree stakeholders hoped that a full-time staff would reduce the workload of individual commissioners and also establish clear lines of delegation and authority. By 2017, the selection process was underway. After an initial finalist accepted but then decline an officer, the Commission’s current Executive Director was hired and began in June 2017. Around the same time, in light of personnel changes and consistent with a requirement that the CPC adopted for itself to rotate leadership, two new Co-Chairs were appointed.
As it gained a full-time staff and increased capacity, the Commission took on significant endeavors to solicit community input. In summer 2017, the CPC presented policy requirements of then-current disciplinary policies to the public, provided recommendations for a new draft policy on officer discipline to CDP, conducted small group workshops on use of force and the CDP’s required Early Intervention System, and collaborated with other stakeholders to conduct community meetings on community and problem-oriented policing.
The new staff also made some strides toward building public awareness of the Commission and deepening community participation in the CPC’s engagement activities. The staff appropriately recognized that community engagement can mean, at different times, either broad-based citywide involvement or targeted outreach to specific communities. The Commission accordingly sought to tap into existing organizational networks built by other nonprofits, organizations, and city ward clubs; and attending routine community gatherings throughout the city.
The CPC staff familiarized themselves with the City of Cleveland’s budgeting and accounting processes. The CPC leased office space that is centrally located at 3631 Perkins Avenue. The CPC has also, with the help of the City, established a relationship with TV 20 to meet the videography needs of the Commission – which are aimed at furthering outreach with ever-broader and more diverse segments of Cleveland.
29 Second Semiannual Report at 18.
11

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 16 of 194. PageID #: 4066
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
Where the Commission Stands Now
Substantive Accomplishments
During the current reporting period, three new Commissioners, including new leadership of the CPPA and the Black Shield, joined. Based on its observations at CPC meetings, the Monitoring Team has been impressed by the new Commissioners’ level of engagement with members of the public.
The CPC has held community meetings across the city covering a range of topics, including the Division’s training and budget, body-worn cameras for officers on secondary employment, and the Monitoring Team’s previous report. The CPC presented background principles on the Fourth Amendment and police encounters to educate community members on search and seizure principles before the CDP’s policies become available for community input—a wise decision given the intricacies and legalities of the subject. The presentation was well-received by community members.
Staff collaborated with the Commissioners to create comprehensive workplans for soliciting, analyzing, and reporting community input on major Division plans and policies: the Search and Seizure policies and three major, interrelated Plans (CPOP, Staffing, and Recruitment). Engagement on the three Plans is underway, while the Search and Seizure policies are still being drafted. The CPC also secured software that allows them to more efficiently analyze written comments received as community feedback.
The CPC also hosted community meetings for members of the public to meet finalists for City and CDP positions. On March 21, 2018, the CPC held a meeting for the three finalists for the Administrator of the City’s Office of Professional Standards. Community residents and members of the Police Review Board asked the candidates questions about the experience and capability to lead OPS. The CPC summarized the community’s feedback and provided recommendations to the City on community members’ preferences for candidate selection.
Organizational Challenges
While the CPC has seen a number of accomplishments in the current reporting period, it has also endured significant obstacles. In April 2018, the Executive Director was placed on administrative leave following workplace complaints brought by and between various members of the CPC’s full-time staff. The City hired an outside law firm to investigate the situation and the complaints. The investigation found no support for the complaint.
On June 25, 2018, the final of CPC’s full-time staff members resigned – leaving it without a data analysis coordinator, two community engagement coordinators, and an administrative assistant. The Executive Director is the only paid staff member remaining. Thus, the Commission is once again relying substantially on significant volunteer contributions. At the same time, a number of commissioners have resigned, threatening the Commission’s ability to thoughtfully and thoroughly do its work.
The Commission reports that it is continuing to work with an organizational development consultant, which observed CPC operations and interviewed commissioners and staff in early 2018. The consultant shared its findings and recommendations with the CPC and other stakeholders in April 2018. The consultant is attempting to guide the Commission through a structured “rapid results” process to better mobilize the CPC and strengthen
12

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 17 of 194. PageID #: 4067
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018

its organizational structure. The Monitoring Team expects that the Commission will take immediate and full advantage of the consultant’s expertise, especially during this tumultuous time given the abrupt changes in the CPC’s staff.
Meanwhile, the purpose of the Commission is to serve as the conduit between the community and the reform process – and to be the place where Cleveland comes together to talk about the type of police services that it wants and needs. To the extent that employee issues and interpersonal dynamics among staff members, and among commissioners relating to those staff member issues, have distracted CPC from its important charge, the Parties and Monitoring Team – as well as various members of the Cleveland community – have been tremendously disappointed.

Progress and Tasks that Remain
In the short-term, the Commission is due to finish gathering community input on the Division’s plans for CPOP, Staffing, and Recruitment and Hiring on September 28, 2018 (the Parties and Monitoring Team approved an extension to the public feedback period given the complexity and importance of the three Plans). In August, the CPC will begin similar community engagement efforts around the Division’s Search and Seizure policies and DPC Strategy.

Beyond the immediate future, the CPC must take the steps necessary to ensure that it has the sustained organizational capacity to perform its fundamental function: “to promote public trust and confidence in the CDP” and to “make recommendations to the Chief of Police and the City, including the Mayor and City Council” based on the “values and priorities of Cleveland residents.”30
The Monitoring Team will be clear: the CPC is not, and cannot be, the sole vehicle for community participation in policing. Other structures, organizations, and avenues need to be involved in a sustained and ongoing way to ensure that all of Cleveland’s diverse communities are heard on policing issues. As this report details elsewhere, the City and Division of Police have commendably engaged with the community in a comprehensive manner on plans relating to community policing, staffing, and recruitment and hiring – formally involving entities and organizations in structured dialogue on major proposed changes before they are implemented.

At the same time, the Parties created the Commission in the Consent Decree to serve as a focused hub of community conversation about policing. The Commission needs to recommit itself continually to this charge.
It is understandable that commissioners may hold different visions for how the community ought to be involved during the Decree’s implementation. At times, however, such disagreement has threatened to jeopardize the CPC’s long-term credibility.31 Individual commissioners and full-time staff members are, on their own, competent, qualified, and passionate. The Consent Decree certainly does not mandate that CPC staff and commissioners be best friends and work together in conflict-free harmony. Still, to effectuate its mission, the

30 Id. at ¶ 15.

31 See Eric Heisig, Investigation into executive director latest instance of turbulence for Cleveland Community Police Commission,

Cleveland.com

(April

9,

2018),

http://www.cleveland.com/cityhall/index.ssf/2018/04/investigation_into_executive_d.html?%%STOP%%ath=%%eval%20lower%20

$md5_email%%.

13

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 18 of 194. PageID #: 4068
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018

Commission will have to find a way to resolve internal disagreements and focus on the challenging tasks of engaging as much of the community as possible on the vital conversations about how policing will function in Cleveland in the future.

Other communities in cities facing challenges with their police departments lobby for commissions or groups with the kind of charge of Cleveland’s CPC. It can and should be a powerful, long-term platform for substantive, forward-looking discussions. The longer that the Commission is sidetracked by internal challenges, whether disagreements among commissioners or issues among staff members, the more that the CPC risks continuing to lose credibility in quarters of the community and the City that need to be involved and come together to work on highly substantive matters central to the reform process.

As the Monitoring Team has observed previously, the work of representative democracy is hard. In a process where different stakeholders deliberate and negotiate matters of public interest, not everyone will get what they want on every issue. The Commission retains the ability to become the experts and authority on substantive police issues in a way that can bridge divides and lead the community toward productive conversations and debates. To this end, the City and Division, as well as the Consent Decree, have a stake in the Commission’s success and sustainability. The Parties and Monitoring Team will be looking to CPC in the next reporting period to focus its energies and the time that commissioners admirably provide to the venture relentlessly on figuring out how to best involve the widest array of Cleveland residents in substantive conversations about how policing should work in Cleveland going forward.

B. District Policing Committees

Paragraph
23. Facilitation of “regular communication and cooperation between CDP and community leaders at the local level,” with District Policing Committees meeting “at minimum, every quarter.” 24. CPC, CDP, and Community Relations Board (“CRB”) will “develop a mechanism to recruit and expand” Committee membership.” CDP “will work with [Community Police] Commission to select officers for each District Policing Committee.” 25. CDP “will work closely with District Policing Committees to identify strategies to address crime and safety issues in their District,” considering and addressing identified priorities. 26. “At least annually, each District Policing Committee will present its identified strategies, concerns, and recommendations” to the CPC, with CDP officer who is Committee member presenting to CPC “CDP’s assessment of ways to address” the recommendations.”

Status

of

Compliance

PARTIAL

COMPLIANCE

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

NONCOMPLIANCE

Background
The CPC, as noted above, is not and cannot be the only place in the Cleveland community that focuses on policing issues. No single entity, organization, or initiative is likely to reach every corner of the community or attract everyone who may be interested in participating in the conversation. Indeed, the CPC is not the only structure in the Consent Decree focused on involving the community in an ongoing way.

14

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 19 of 194. PageID #: 4069
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
The Decree calls for the expansion – building on existing structures – of five District Policing Committees, or one for each of the five police districts within the city of Cleveland.32 Those Committees, which existed long before the Consent Decree process, must work to “identify strategies to address crime and safety issues in their District.”33
What Has Been Accomplished to Date & Where the DPCs Stand
Until recently, there has been relatively little change in the DPCs’ function since the start of the Consent Decree’s implementation. While some individual DPCs experimented to recruit new audience members to its meetings, there has been relatively little movement on some of the operational changes required by the Consent Decree.
There have been a number of recent, encouraging developments. First, the Division has worked to develop a “DPC Strategy” that will outline new expectations, goals, and visions for CDP’s use of its DPCs. In July 2017, the Division provided the Monitoring Team with a new strategy for the District Policing Committees. The document was an admirable plan geared toward building trust and collaboration between the Division and the many communities of Cleveland. It is clear that the Division values the DPCs and seeks to make them an integral part of its Community and Problem-Oriented Policing Plan.
One significant challenge for the DPCs is that they must expand their audience and membership. In the Monitoring Team’s engagement efforts on community and problem-oriented policing done over the summer of 2017, few people reported being aware of or comfortable with the District Policing Committees. Some community members specifically felt that DPCs functioned to serve the needs of a select few in Cleveland, not all residents of Cleveland.34 While individual DPCs have occasionally taken steps to increase attendance at meetings, attendance needs to reflect the diverse makeup of each District. Even where attendance is high, such as the DPC meetings in the First and Second Districts, the audience does not always reflect the population of the District. The Monitoring Team and Parties will continue to work with the Division on its strategy for strengthening further the DPCs in the coming months.
Second, in the current reporting period, the City and Division have pushed the DPCs to become more active in the ongoing policy engagement initiatives. The Committees have been front and center on discussions about the three plans – CPOP, recruitment, and staffing – that have been the focus of community engagement and feedback over the summer. The Committees have held a series of substantive, well-attended meetings on these issues, and the City has engaged in structure presentations and dialogue to receive attendee feedback. The Monitoring Team is pleased that the City has been recognizing, in a somewhat different or more formal manner than previously in the Consent Decree process, that the DPCs are a powerful vehicle to receive community feedback. This process moves the DPCs substantially closer toward adequately involving the public in discussions of “law enforcement priorities and community policing strategies in their District” as well as “concerns or recommendations about specific CDP policing tactics and initiatives in their District.”35
32 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶¶ 23-24. 33 Id. at ¶ 25. 34 Cleveland Police Monitoring Team, Community & Problem-Oriented Policing: Summary of Community Feedback & Recommendations, July 2017, available at https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/8a5c22_df0cbe2bc67d4e1a8ad3ac9c7098257b.pdf (last visited July 10, 2018). 35 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 25.
15

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 20 of 194. PageID #: 4070
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
The Monitoring Team is aware of some concerns by City stakeholders that the DPCs are being made subservient to the Community Police Commission by virtue of the Consent Decree process. The DPCs are not, by the text of the Decree, meant to serve the CPC; indeed, the two hold separate and complementary roles. The Consent Decree “mandate[s]” the CPC “to make recommendations . . . on policies and practices related to community and problem-oriented policing, bias-free policing, and police transparency” and “to work with the many communities that make up Cleveland for the purpose of developing recommendations for police practices[.]”36 The DPCs, meanwhile, are meant “to facilitate regular communication and cooperation between CDP and community leaders at the local level.”37 Consequently, the Monitoring Team welcomes the City and Division’s willingness to involve the DPCs during the ongoing community input process on major CDP policies.
Progress and Tasks that Remains
DPC Strategy
As described above, work on the DPC Strategy is well underway. Under the Third-Year Monitoring Plan, the City and CDP must revise and submit a draft of the DPC Strategy to the Parties, Monitoring Team, and the CPC, who will in turn provide feedback.38 CDP will incorporate the feedback, as appropriate, into a final draft, which the Monitoring Team will recommend its approval or disapproval by the Court.
DPC and CPC Communication
The Consent Decree requires that “[a]t least annually, each District Policing Committee will present its identified strategies, concerns, and recommendations” to the CPC.39 In 2017, the City reported that a personnel change for the Director of Community Relations had postponed the City’s ability to ensure that each DPC present its strategies and recommendations to the Commission. The DPC Strategy currently being developed will address this deficiency. Collaboration between the District Policing Committees and the CPC remains an untapped synergy that promises to better promote effective community and problem-oriented policing in Cleveland.
C. Monitoring Team’s Community Engagement and Outreach
The Consent Decree “calls for the robust, intensive, substantive[,] and sustained engagement of the community throughout the implementation process.”40 In addition to the formal mechanisms of the CPC and DPCs and the ongoing work of all of the City, Division of Police, and Department of Justice, the Monitoring Team has also sought to gather and listen to the views of Cleveland residents.
The Monitor’s Community Engagement Team has conducted numerous community meetings and made presentations before groups of all kinds, e.g. religious congregations, social clubs, fraternities and sororities, political gatherings, ethnic coalitions, rank-and-file police officers, youth groups, and other populations with the city of Cleveland. The Engagement Team has attended local events and conducted a number of listening sessions with residents so they could share their views with the Monitoring Team and the Parties on critical issues
36 Id. at ¶ 15. 37 Id. at ¶ 24. 38 Dkt. 195-1 at 1. 39 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 26. 40 First Semiannual Report at 21.
16

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 21 of 194. PageID #: 4071
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
mandated for consideration by the Consent Decree. In those conversations, the Team has heard and learned a great deal about the experiences, expectations, values, interests, and concerns that individuals from all walks of life and backgrounds have with respect to law enforcement generally and CDP specifically.
The Monitoring Team’s website, www.clevelandpolicemonitor.com, provides relevant information on the Consent Decree process and postings of events, meetings, and updates to the Monitoring Plan. It contains court filings, memoranda, and both finalized and proposed plans and policies drafted pursuant to the Consent Decree.
The Consent Decree requires that the Monitor conduct methodologically rigorous surveys throughout the implementation process. The purpose of these surveys is to “measure[] . . . public satisfaction with policing, attitudes among police personnel, and the quality of police-citizen encounters.”41 The Decree requires three types of surveys: (1) a survey “of a representative sample of City residents”; (2) a survey of “police personnel”; and (3) a survey of “detained arrestees.”42
The following sections summarize the results of the 2018 resident survey, presented and discussed for the first time here and in Appendix A, and the late-2017 survey of police personnel that was previously filed with the Court in June 2018.43 The Monitoring Team’s report on its Spring 2017 survey of detained arrestees was filed with the Court in the Fall of 2017 and summarized in the Fourth Semiannual Report.44
A. Community Survey
In the current reporting period, the Monitoring Team partnered with a research firm to gauge the prevalence and nature of Cleveland residents’ interaction with the Division of Police. The research was intended to measure residents’ perceptions of how the Division treats people across racial, socioeconomic, and demographic groups. The firm conducted 1,001 live telephone and text-to-web interviews with adults 18 and older in Cleveland who were selected at random, with interviews apportioned geographically, by zip code, based on Census information.
Overall, a majority (62%) of Cleveland respondents rated the CDP positively, and 36% rated the CDP negatively. Most respondents said that they feel safe in their neighborhood (81%) and in the city overall (75%). Still, few respondents (14%) thought the CDP is doing an “excellent” job.
Race was the biggest factor that separated views of the police. While 79% of white respondents and 69% of Latinos rated the CDP as doing a good job, less than half (49%) of African Americans rated the CDP positively. Further, most respondents—regardless of race—believed that the Division did a poor job of treating people of all races and groups equally. Age groups also led to different ratings of the CDP. Residents under 35, especially among African Americans, rated the police the lowest across all age groups.
Regionally, the CDP was rated much more positively on the westside of the city, particularly in the zip codes that correspond to CDP Districts 1 and 2. In Districts 3, 4, and 5, where the population is a majority African American, views of the Division were lower.
41 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 363(a). 42 Id. ¶ 363(b). 43 See Dkt. 204. 44 See Dkt. 161; Dkt. 179 at 108–9.
17

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 22 of 194. PageID #: 4072
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018

African-Americans, or their family or friends, were more likely to report being stopped by CDP officers in a car, or being arrested, than white or Latino adults. Further, African Americans who have been stopped by the police are less likely than other races to believe that they were treated with respect or that they were not detained longer than necessary. They also are more likely to report being the victims of excessive force and being treated differently because of their race.

B.

Officer Survey45

As reported to the Court in June 2018,46 the Monitoring Team conducted focus groups of CDP personnel in December 2017. A total of 78 line officers, detectives, and sergeants participated in a series of focus groups. The participants were selected at random from across all of the Division’s Districts and Platoons. The focus groups were designed around open-ended, structured questions that touched on a range of issues.

Relationships and Engagements with the Community
Officers described a wide range of experiences with community members. Those who described their interactions with the community as positive tended to focus on the strong relationships that they had built over time with residents in their zone. Negative interactions included cussing, spitting, and “mean-mugging” by members of the community. Many officers expressed frustration over what they perceived to be low levels of cooperation from the community, including crime victims.

Many officers felt that they do not currently have sufficient time to engage with residents in a meaningful way or to build authentic relationships with the community. Officers contended that opportunities for engagement are especially diminished when the so-called “minimum car plan” is utilized or there is a major event or incident that spreads officer resources thin.

Officers discussed juveniles as the most challenging population with whom they work. While they were aware of and sensitive to the trauma that some have encountered by having a parent who has been arrested or incarcerated, officers also mentioned the challenge they believe they face from parents telling their children not to speak to the police or that the police will arrest them if they misbehave. Officers discussed a perceived lack of consequences many youth face in schools, at home, or in the legal system as an additional and ongoing frustration.

Some officers, recognizing a need to rebuild and renew the relationships, have taken initiative to develop longterm relationships with youth. However, many expressed frustration over how running from call to call has restricted their opportunities for engaging proactively with youth, or the community more broadly. More so, some officers felt that proactive work was actually being discouraged.

Use of Force
The focus groups revealed a great deal of concern, anxiety, and misinformation related to use of force and, specifically, the corresponding discipline and accountability procedures surrounding the enforcement of the use of force policy. In particular, many officers said that they and their colleagues are hesitant to go “hands-on” with

45 Portions of this discussion are quoted or adapted from Dkt. 204-1 at 4–9. 46 Dkt. 204.

18

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 23 of 194. PageID #: 4073
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
subjects, even when that is necessary to ensure their, or the public’s, safety – because they are never sure about whether a supervisor or investigator will call their use of force as out of policy.
Officers expressed a great deal of confusion surrounding what constitutes force, why certain types of force warranted a BlueTeam report (i.e., a report on the use of force entered into the Division’s use of force computer database), and the consequences of accumulating BlueTeam reports on one’s future and professional development. Indeed, perceptions of the modified use of force policy suggest that some officers may be hesitating before using any force due to confusion about the definition and consequences of using force. This lack of clarity and resulting hesitation to act in the field has made some of the officers that we spoke with uneasy – and concerned about their safety and the quality of backup they may receive.
CDP policy now requires that officers use de-escalation tactics and techniques, when possible, rather than immediately relying on force. Many of the officers conceded that they believe de-escalation is nothing new, but they feared that they are now being expected to de-escalate in situations where it could potentially compromise their safety, the subject’s safety, or public safety more generally. In an effort to follow the policy, some officers felt that supervisors allow or even require overly protracted efforts to de-escalate, which might place officers, the subject, and members of the public in jeopardy.
Some officers highlighted CDP’s pursuit policy – revised prior to the Consent Decree and, to date, not part of the Consent Decree effort – as impeding their ability to engage in some proactive police work. Specifically, officers expressed frustration that the suspects who they try to pull over during a traffic stop may take off – and, without chase, may not ever receive a summons. Officers say that the “no pursuit policy” makes their jobs more difficult, limits their ability to respond to public safety issues, and limits their ability to be a deterrent to criminal activity.
The Monitoring Team, in its collective experience with a variety of police departments, has consistently seen officers experience similar fears and concerns in the early stages of a policy change process, only to have those fears alleviated once they gained a clear understanding of, and experience with, the policies and related practices. In these focus groups, however, the level of confusion and uncertainty is concerning. From the officers’ perspective, the combination of poor communication and training, coupled with overly zealous and poorly communicated disciplinary processes, is creating widespread dysfunction in the field, which clearly is unacceptable.
Additionally, and as this report elsewhere makes clear, some of the concerns that officers expressed – namely, that the use of force policy is making them and the Cleveland community less safe – do not at this early stage seem to be playing out when evaluating the numbers and trends over the first several months that the policy has been effective.
Instead, it appears that a disproportionate amount of the fear and anxiety stems from officers not feeling like they have sufficient clarity with respect to what is expected of them and what will occur if they fall short of those expectations. This suggests that it is less the content of the new policy – which aligns with the existing policy of numerous other law enforcement departments across the country – or how things are playing out on the streets and more ongoing confusion about what supervisors and command staff expect in terms of enforcing the policy.
19

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 24 of 194. PageID #: 4074
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
Discipline and Accountability
The way that accountability measures and discipline are implemented within CDP seems to be a source of great anxiety for almost all of the 78 officers who participated in the focus groups. Officers believe that CDP’s administrators are perpetuating a culture of excessive and inconsistent discipline to make it appear that reform is taking place, as opposed to using discipline to teach and impose thoughtful accountability.
They believed this culture is linked to officers hesitating and questioning themselves in the field. This, they believe, can compromise safety and the willingness of officers to provide backup to their colleagues. There was also a demonstrable lack of clarity among officers about what is expected of them in CDP policy and what the Division’s response will be if policies are violated.
Officers were unclear on the role that Blue Team is playing in disciplinary and/or accountability practices. Additionally, many expressed frustrations with how complaints submitted through the Office of Professional Standards (OPS) are processed, particularly with regard to the many years that it could take to clear or address a complaint. Further, officers reported that there is a lack of clarity regarding interpretations and enforcement of general police orders (GPOs) when they are issued. This makes it difficult for officers to know what the meaning behind the GPO is, and what they must do to be considered compliant with the new order.
Officers reported feeling a particular level of anxiety about, and feel especially vulnerable to supervisors being able to identify and punish them for, minor infractions documented in their own or others’ body camera footage, or through duty sheets. For example, officers had the perception that higher level commanders, in a misguided effort to find something wrong in a use of force review, discipline officers for things like uniform violations, even though such violations are trivial in the context of a use of force analysis.
Supervision and Leadership
Ultimately, many of the officers feel supported by their sergeants and supervisors. However, they believe that most of the discipline is likely coming down from more senior leadership. Many expressed that, in order for real reform to take place, the way that the administration and leadership address discipline, accountability, and supervision issues needs to change. A consistent refrain from officers was that CDP leadership “did not have their back.”
Experience with Consent Decree
While policies are shared via Divisional Notices, detailed instruction and expectations about working with new policies seem to be communicated primarily through informal means. Officers seem to rely on the “grapevine,” rumor mill, or news media to interpret and to provide updates on the Consent Decree. Others reported that documentation is made available through means such as SharePoint and the Division’s website but that it is left up to the officer to read it. Still others stated that some information related to the Consent Decree is communicated from the podium, but that, in general, “you learn about changes when you get in trouble for it.”
20

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 25 of 194. PageID #: 4075
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
Areas for Department Improvement
Focus group participants were given the opportunity to highlight areas for improving the Department. Responses highlighted the urgent need for resources, including renovation of infrastructure, improving the fleet of vehicles and the implementation of new technology, to intangible improvements, including measures to bolster morale, improve recruitment, and improve retention abilities.
One of the areas of greatest concern to all focus group participants was the perception that staffing is so low that the safety of officers and the public has been compromised. Indeed, officers indicated that they were concerned that the level of service that they were able to provide was falling short. It appears that at least the officer perception that the Division is continually shorthanded has served to further diminish morale and contribute to officer stress. Officers say that these circumstances – along with the perceived high rate of discipline, some of the lowest pay in the area, and training for new Academy recruits being held in Columbus at the state Academy rather than in Cleveland – have contributed to the difficulty recruiting and retaining new officers.
General Observations
The officer survey initiative affirmed that work remains on transforming the Division into an organization that works both for officers and the community that they serve. The current culture of CDP has tended to be perceived by officers as one of “leadership through discipline” rather than one of managing through leadership principles – and one of responding to crises rather than affirmatively managing public safety. The efforts to improve working conditions, enhance morale, and improve the job satisfaction of CDP officers requires strong and sustained leadership to drive and communicate changes with efficiency, consistency, and clarity.
The Monitoring Team recognized in its full report to the Court on the focus group results that reform is difficult work. Instituting new policies and procedures can be challenging and frustrating. Changing any organization’s culture can be profoundly challenging and slow, as culture is something that is both informal and the product of years and sometimes generations of experiences and leaders.
The MT recognizes these difficulties – and it believes that CDP’s current leadership is well-equipped to lead the charge on this front. That leadership has the ability to ease many of the growing pains that can accompany changes to the Division’s policies and practices, by looking for formal and informal ways to both support their officers and listen to their concerns. To date, however, a perceived lack of effective communication regarding CDP efforts to change its policies and processes, entrenched morale issues, and an adversarial relationship between line officers and the administration have tended to hamper the Division’s internal transformation. Without more sustained and focused efforts to communicate and receive feedback on new policies and expectations, officers may remain unsure of how to behave in the field.
To be sure, the Division has made some notable strides in some areas clearly important to officers. For example, with in-car computers installed in a vast majority of cars used by patrol officers, officers are seeing and appreciating instantaneous access to technology and better information. Even as officers say they have concerns about the use of force policy, officers appeared to appreciate the Division’s extensive use of force training in 2017 and welcome more and ongoing training and professional development.
21

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 26 of 194. PageID #: 4076
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018 In taking the pulse of police officers in the middle of large-scale reform of a large police organization, it is common to hear concerns, fears, and growing pains as they adapt to constant change. Even when reforms involve the implementation of best practices, new policies, paperwork, and accountability measures can feel overly burdensome early on. Thus, to a certain extent, the negativity, anxiety, and concern expressed by CDP officers in these focus groups at this stage in the process is to be expected. However, the depth of the low morale, the prevalent belief that the Administration is “out to get” officers, and the level of confusion about performance expectations across a host of fronts is a source for significant concern. It suggests that CDP has a lot of work to do to train, communicate with, and support its officers as it continues to adopt policies, processes, and approaches consistent with best contemporary policing practices.
22

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 27 of 194. PageID #: 4077
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018

IV. COMMUNITY & PROBLEM-ORIENTED POLICING

Paragraph 27. Implementation of “comprehensive and integrated community and problemoriented policing model” and consultation with CPC regarding the model.
28. Ensuring that “mission statement reflects [the Division’s] commitment to community oriented policing” / “integrat[ing] community and problem-oriented policing principles into its management, policies and procedures, recruitment, training, personnel evaluations, resource deployment, tactics, and accountability systems.”
29. Ensuring “that officers are familiar with the geographic areas they serve,” “engage in problem identification,” and “work proactively . . . to address quality of life issues.”
30. Initial and annual in-service community and problem-oriented policing training “adequate in quality, quantity, type, and scope” that addresses specifically-identified areas. 31. Maintenance of “collaborative partnerships with a broad spectrum of community groups,” including CDP meetings with community organizations and District Policing Committees. 32. CDP “meet[ing] with members of the community in each District on a monthly basis and “solic[itation of] participation from a broad cross-section of community members in each District” to “identify problems and other areas of concern . . . and discuss responses and solutions.” 33. Development and implementation of “systems to monitor officer outreach to the community” that CDP “will use . . . to analyze . . . whether officers are partnering with a broad cross-section of community members to develop and implement cooperative strategies that build mutual respect and identify and solve problems.” 34. “At least annually, CDP will present the results” of paragraph 33 analysis “broken out by District in a publicly-available community policing report” that describes problems, solutions, and obstacles. Report provided to Commission and posted on CDP website.

Status of Compliance PARTIAL COMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE / PARTIAL COMPLIANCE EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
NONCOMPLIANCE

Background
In its 2014 investigation, the Department of Justice found that, although the Cleveland Division of Police has previously had components of what might be considered community policing, such as separate units that “perform limited community policing functions” and “supervisors instructing patrol officers to . . . walk around the community[,]” those discrete activities were “insufficient to address the disconnect that currently exists between CDP and some members of the community.”47 Altogether, the DOJ found that CDP lacked the “organizational support for community policing activities” necessary to systematically implement community policing across all members of the Division.48

47 DOJ Findings Letter at 50. 48 Id. at 51.
23

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 28 of 194. PageID #: 4078
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
For that reason, the Consent Decree requires that the Division develop and implement a “comprehensive and integrated community and problem-oriented policing model” to “promote and strengthen partnerships with the community . . . and increase community confidence in the CDP.”49 This section refers to policing according to this model as “community and problem-oriented policing,” or “CPOP.”
Although “community policing” often is associated with specific programs or strategies – such as the police participating in athletic leagues or mounting sporadic foot patrol – community policing is much more than scattered programs or isolated initiatives. Instead, it is a fundamental philosophy and vision for doing business that is embraced by the organization as a whole. As countless law enforcement professionals have recognized, community policing principles must inform decision-making at all levels of the agency, including decisions about hiring, deployment, and evaluation.50 A Division-wide commitment to community policing will help promote trust and legitimacy, improve the quality of police-citizen encounters, and address persistent public safety issues in Cleveland communities.
The Decree defines “community and problem-oriented policing” as a “policing philosophy that promotes and relies on collaborative partnerships between law enforcement agencies and the individuals and organizations they serve to develop solutions to problems, increase trust in police, and improve the effectiveness of policing efforts.”51
Specifically, the Consent Decree mandates that CDP take a number of important steps related to community policing, including:
● “[E]nsur[ing] that its mission statement reflects its commitment to community oriented policing”52; ● “[E]nsur[ing] that its officers are familiar with the geographic areas they serve . . . and engage in problem
identification and solving activities with the community. . . .”53 ● “[P]rovid[ing] initial and annual in-service community and problem-oriented policing training,” to
include problem-solving with the community, as well as concepts such as leadership and communication; procedural justice; conflict resolution and verbal de-escalation; and cultural competency sensitivity training;”54 ● “[M]aintain[ing] collaborative relationships with a broad spectrum of community groups”55; ● “[C]ontinu[ing] to meet with members of the community in each District on a monthly basis” and “actively solicit[ing] participation from a broad cross-section of community members in each District”56; ● “[D]eveloping and implementing systems to monitor officer outreach to the community”57; and ● “Analyz[ing]” the quality and nature of its, and individual officers’, community policing efforts, “broken out by District, in a publicly available community policing report.”58
49 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 27. 50 See, e.g., Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), Community Policing: Past, Present, and Future at 4 (2004) (“Community Policing”); Presidential Task Force On 21st Century Policing, Final Report at 43 (2015). 51 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 414 52 Id. ¶ 28. 53 Id. ¶ 29. 54 Id. ¶ 30. 55 Id. ¶ 31. 56 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 32. 57 Id. ¶ 33. 58 Id. ¶¶ 33-34.
24

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 29 of 194. PageID #: 4079
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
In creating a CPOP Plan, CDP must also ensure that related operational and structural changes needed to support community and problem-oriented policing – principally, staffing, recruitment, and hiring – receive appropriate consideration. Separately, the Decree has certain specific requirements for the Division’s staffing and recruitment policies and procedures. But it is worth describing here that, regardless of the Decree’s requirements, the success of the Division’s community and problem-oriented policing will be measured, in part, by its commitment to making larger structural changes concerning the Division’s day-to-day operations:
Staffing and Deployment. The Division must ensure that its staffing and deployment models facilitate long-term police-community familiarity and relationship-building.59 Officers must have sufficient time in their schedules to engage with the community and address public safety problems. The Division must be able to maintain a level of service responding to calls, while making steps that officers are not constantly running around responding to calls.
Recruitment and Hiring. The Division will need to recruit and hire candidates who are service-minded and committed to working in partnership with residents to promote public safety. Officers should be representative of the community and should be familiar with the culture and tradition of the different neighborhoods that they serve. They should also possess strategic thinking and problem-solving skills, emotional maturity, interpersonal skills, and the ability to collaborate with a diverse cross-section of the community.
What Has Been Accomplished
Over the first two and a half years of the Decree’s implementation, the Division has worked closely with the Monitoring Team, the City, and numerous community organizations and stakeholders, including the CPC, to organize and execute a streamlined and coordinated community engagement process around community and problem-oriented policing.60
1. Mission Statement
In the first year of implementation, the first major task was the development of an updated mission statement that “reflects [CDP’s] commitment to community oriented policing.”61 As part of that process, CDP partnered with the CPPA, FOP, and other police officer organizations to publicize an online questionnaire for officers to provide direct input. 133 officers submitted answers. One of the major points from officers, as well as from union leadership, was that the Division mission statement should be short, clear, and concise.
The CPC, likewise, engaged the community through a similar feedback process, yielding more than 120 responses, along with addressing the mission statement in monthly Commission meetings. Community respondents wanted the CDP mission statement to be clear, attainable, and measurable.
59 Lisa M. Graziano, Dennis P. Rosenbaum and Amie M. Schuck, “Building Group Capacity For Problem Solving And PoliceCommunity Partnerships Through Survey Feedback And Training: A Randomized Control Trial Within Chicago’s Community Policing Program,” 10 J. Exp. Criminol. 80 (2014) 60 Third Semiannual Report at 20-24. 61 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 28.
25

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 30 of 194. PageID #: 4080
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
Based on the external feedback as well as internal deliberations, the Parties and the Monitoring Team collaboratively drafted a new CDP Mission Statement that was approved by the Court in July 2016. The new Mission Statement provides new direction for the men and women of the Division and the Cleveland community:
The mission of the Cleveland Division of Police is to serve as guardians of the Cleveland community. Guided by the Constitution, we shall enforce the law, maintain order, and protect the lives, property, and rights of all people. We shall carry out our duties with a reverence for human life and in partnership with members of the community through professionalism, respect, integrity, dedication, and excellence in policing.
Officers were informed of the changes to the mission statement on May 17, 2017 – some time after Court approval – but the Division’s use of force training in late 2017 provided wide-ranging discussion of the Division’s stated mission and values.
2. Community Engagement (Summer 2017)
Following revision of the CDP mission statement, work began on the CDP’s plan to implement community and problem-oriented policing, or CPOP Plan. In this first step of the plan’s development, the Division, working with the Monitoring Team, solicited substantive community input with the goal of incorporating that input into a new CPOP plan. This collaborative engagement process consisted of at least 18 community meetings between March 2017 and June 2017, which included: two Cleveland-wide roundtables, a CPC meeting, each of the five District Policing Committee’s meetings, a Community Relations Board meeting, meetings with various community groups throughout the city, and partnerships with over 40 community organizations with strong ties to the diverse populations of Cleveland.
At each event, the Monitoring Team provided paper questionnaires for each community member present. The questionnaire could also be completed online, and without attending an event, throughout the engagement process. All in all, more than 1,000 Cleveland community members attended the community meetings, and the Monitoring Team received more than 600 online and paper responses. The City, Division, DOJ, and Monitoring Team were all tremendously pleased by the thoughtful participation of individuals from across Cleveland’s diverse communities.
The Monitoring Team analyzed and summarized the broad solicitation of community input in a report provided to the CDP in July 2017 entitled Community and Problem-Oriented Policing: Summary of Community Feedback and Recommendations (“Community Feedback Report”).62 As a general matter, although the Cleveland community is
62 The Community Feedback Report also incorporated the results of two other engagement mechanisms conducted in the period since the Consent Decree was first implemented, both of which were designed to assess the Cleveland community’s trust and confidence in the CDP and individual perceptions of public safety and policing. These are the Biennial Community Survey (“Biennial Community Survey” or “BCS”) from June 2016 and the Community Focus Groups (“Community Focus Groups” or “CFGs”) from June 2017. The quantitative Biennial Community Survey captured the Cleveland community’s perceptions about safety and policing. The findings reflect the content of telephone interviews conducted by Interviewing Service of America, an independent research firm, between May 4 and May 31, 2016, with a sample of 1,400 adults, 18 years of age or older, living in Cleveland. The qualitative Community Focus Groups research reflect the content of six focus groups consisting of 8 to 11 adults living in six Cleveland neighborhoods—Glenville, Central, Clark-Fulton, Cudell, Puritas-Longmead, and South Broadway.
26

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 31 of 194. PageID #: 4081
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
critical of the CDP and its relationships and interactions with the public, participants also offered specific ways to improve the relationship – and expressed strong interest in being involved in the efforts to do so.
3. CPOP Plan Drafting
After receiving the Community Feedback Report in July 2017, the CDP was tasked with drafting a CPOP Plan that would reflect both (1) the principles and requirements set forth in the Consent Decree about community and problem-oriented policing, and (2) the community feedback summarized in the July 2017 report. The Division’s Bureau of Community Policing Commander Johnny Johnson was designated the lead author to draft the Division’s CPOP plan.
Progress in completing a CPOP Plan—one that specifically articulates how the Division will operationally transform itself in order to best support CPOP implementation—has been prolonged. Since the Community Feedback Report was provided to the CDP in July 2017, the CDP produced a series of draft plans to the Monitoring Team and DOJ. The City and CDP engaged a series of productive discussions throughout the Fall of 2017 and Winter of 2018 to refine the CPOP Plan aimed at ensuring that the Plan was concrete, detailed, and sufficiently comprehensive.
In the current reporting period, CDP has worked hard to revise the CPOP Plan and ensure that it lays out the precise steps by which the Division will operationalize the philosophy of community and problem-oriented policing. CDP worked to make sure that the CPOP Plan is developed in lock-step with other major Plans that the Division is concurrently developing that are directly related. Commander Johnson and others within the Division should be commended for their commitment to creating a high-quality plan for submission to the public for substantive input.
The CPOP Plan released to the public for community comment and input in late May 2018 envisions a fundamentally new approach by which the Division of Police will, essentially, conduct business. The Plan directly implicates how officers use their time and how the Division provides personnel with substantially greater opportunity to engage with Cleveland residents and solve community problems. By extension, the CPOP Plan is inextricably linked to the Division’s Staffing and Recruitment and Hiring plans – which, while discussed in other sections of this report, were developed concurrently with the CPOP Plan and released simultaneously to the public for community input.
4. Community Engagement (Summer 2018)
Because the CPOP Plan addresses the way that the Cleveland Division of Police will collaborate with community members to co-produce public safety and strong community relations, it is vital to ensure that the Cleveland community has ample opportunities—at different times in the drafting process—to offer their feedback. For that reason, the current draft of the CPOP Plan is receiving community input in a process led by the Community Police Commission.
Although neither of these surveys was designed specifically around the CPOP engagement process, they provided important insight into community views of public safety and policing in Cleveland that the CDP should incorporate as it develops its CPOP Plan.
27

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 32 of 194. PageID #: 4082
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
The Division and City have taken a lead in engaging with the District Policing Committees and other policing organizations – holding a series of community meetings in which District representatives brief participants on the substance of the CPOP Plan, engage in dialogue, answer questions, and ask participants to complete surveys on their reactions to the plans. Modeled in part after the successful, cross-stakeholder participation on the new use of force policies, the Monitoring Team has been significantly impressed by the quality of the Division’s direct engagement on their plans. It hopes that this current process will become a model for the Division’s community engagement and outreach as it contemplates other strategic initiatives in the years to come.
At the same time, the CPC is implementing a process to obtain comprehensive input from the many diverse communities in Cleveland. This is the second round of community involvement following the initial meetings and roundtables held in summer 2017, before the Plan was even initially drafted. Alongside traditional community meetings and focused town halls, the Commission aims to “meet people where they are” and leverage organizations with existing ties around Cleveland, such as community development corporations and local block clubs. The CPC is targeting outreach to specific populations, including youth (particularly those already involved in the criminal justice system), CDP officers, the homeless, and everyday residents from neighborhoods across Cleveland.
5. Training
There are two types of training related to community policing that the Division will be undertaking in the next reporting period. The first will focus narrowly on the CPOP Plan itself – the new expectations and requirements on how officers are staffed, use their time, and document their community engagement and problem-solving activities. Indeed, like any policy or plan, the CPOP Plan will only be as good as it is translated into actual practice. All CDP personnel – officers, supervisors, dispatchers – need to understand and receive training on the plan.
Currently, specific training on the mechanics of this Plan is slated to be conducted toward the end of 2018. It will likely take advantage of the Division’s recently implemented learning management system (“LMS”), an electronic learning platform.
The second area relates to broader professional skills, expertise, and knowledge. Community policing requires officers to possess a variety of skills, including interpersonal communication and problem-solving skills. Effective community policing also requires officers to become familiar with the history, culture, and traditions of their communities.
Under the Consent Decree, CDP officers must receive training on:
• Community engagement and problem-solving strategies; • Leadership, ethics, and effective communication; • Forming community partnerships; • Procedural justice; • Conflict resolution; and • Cultural competency.63
63 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 30.
28

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 33 of 194. PageID #: 4083
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
During the 2017 Community Engagement period, CDP sought to identify the specific skills and local knowledge that would best serve officers adapt to a new Division-wide model of community policing. Stakeholders specifically asked Cleveland residents to identify: (1) specific aspects of Cleveland history that should be incorporated into officer training; (2) the unique cultures, characteristics, and challenges of Cleveland’s many communities; and (3) strategies for involving residents in developing and implementing training curricula.
CDP provided a draft syllabus of the eight-hour training curricula on general community policing skills (“Community Engagement and Problem-Solving Training”) to the Parties and Monitoring Team in late April 2018. The Parties and Monitoring Team continued to work through additional drafts over the next several months. On July 13, 2018, the Monitoring Team recommended that the Court approve the Community Engagement and Problem-Solving Training. On July 16, 2018, the Division began in-service training, including the newly-approved training.
Where the Division Stands
The sections above report on how the Division and the City are doing in terms of the process that has been selected for coming into compliance with the Decree – where they are in devising the CPOP Plan necessary to satisfy various paragraphs of the Decree, training officers on both the foundational skills related to community policing generally and the CPOP Plan more specifically, and establishing ways for the Division to log and track outreach and problem-solving activity.
When it comes to community policing, there is no single measure or “magic pill” statistic that will indicate whether the CPOP Plan is being meaningfully implemented and whether that Plan, in turn, is meeting the requirements of the Decree. Instead, compliance will be indicated by looking at a host of indicators and factors. One is perhaps the most obvious: Is the Division really, in everyday reality, doing what it committed to do in the CPOP Plan? Beyond this, the Monitoring Team will need to evaluate the quality of various initiatives or programmatic elements, as well as what residents and community organizations report about their experiences over time
As with all of the Consent Decree, however, the proof ultimately is in the proverbial pudding – how the Division and its officers are performing day in and day out. Community partnerships are one key component of the Division’s CPOP plan, and a measure that the Consent Decree requires the Monitoring Team to track and assess each year.64 One would suspect that an organization engaging more with the community would have a greater number of established partnerships with community groups and organizations. As Table 1 shows, in each year since 2015, the Division has reported an increase in the number of formal community partnerships – including a substantial growth between 2016 and 2017 (the most-recent year that this report analyzes for the first time).
Similarly, the number of community partnerships with youth-focused organizations has more than doubled – from 14 reported in 2015 to 30 reported in 2017.
As the Monitoring Team has previously reported, it may well be the case that, especially for 2015 and 2016, the overall numbers – even of those districts that did report numbers – were higher.65 It may also be that the Division is not doing much differently in terms of interacting with organizations but doing a better job at administratively
64 Dkt. 7-1 ¶367(d)(1). 65 Dkt. 142 at 16.
29

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 34 of 194. PageID #: 4084
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018

tracking those relationships. Even if this is the case, this is both necessary for gauging compliance and necessary for an organization in terms of understanding where it has relationships that can be beneficial as it provides services.

Table 1. CDP-Reported Community Partnerships

2015

2016

TOTAL

57

66

District 1

*

13

District 2

10

13

District 3

11

*

District 4

2

28

District 5

14

12

* Data not received.

2017 135 58 13 12 40 12

Progress and Tasks that Remain

1. Finalizing and Submitting the CPOP Plan
By agreement of the Parties and Monitoring Team, and as reflected in the revised Third-Year Monitoring Plan,66 the outreach and feedback period will last until August 2018 to ensure maximum participation across Cleveland’s diverse communities. Following that period, the Division will evaluate the Plan in light of the feedback period and revise the Plan as necessary or appropriate. It is currently anticipated that the CPOP Plan will become effective as of January 1, 2019.

2. Organizational Changes

Unlike other Divisional policies that the Consent Decree process will address, CPOP is more than a set of rules for which officers need to be trained. CPOP is a philosophical change in policing that will affect core components that make up the Cleveland Division of Police. The Division, Parties, and Monitoring Team all understand that successful implementation of CPOP will require integration of “community and problem-oriented policing principles into its management, policies and procedures, recruitment, training, personnel evaluations, resource deployment, tactics, and accountability systems.”67

For example, changes like transforming the Bureau of Community Policing to the Bureau of Community Relations will need to occur. Officers will need to receive specific instruction on new obligations and opportunities under the Plan – including using some portion of their time, identified in the current draft plan as 20 percent, to engage with the community rather than run from call to call. Other elements, if or once made a final part of the completed CPOP Plan, involving the use of civilians to address certain calls for service or handling alarm notifications differently will need to be actively implemented. As noted above, mechanisms for officers to report their interactions and problem-solving activities will need to be finalized, implemented, and used successfully across time.

66 Dkt. 203-1 at 2. 67 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 28.
30

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 35 of 194. PageID #: 4085
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
3. CPOP Training CDP will need to conduct training on the new expectations of the CPOP Plan. It will also need to continue to address the foundational skills related to community policing more generally that the Consent Decree requires, as indicated above. As with other areas of officer training that the Decree requires, the Monitoring Team suggests that the Division and City plan out precisely what mandated training will occur when from now going forward – to ensure that all can be completed as efficiently and effectively as possible.
4. Data Collection and Tracking Under the current draft of the CPOP Plan, officers will be required to enter any CPOP activity into the Division’s CAD system, which is undergoing needed upgrades. Such data will include data on collaborative problem-solving, community outreach, bike and foot patrol frequency, organized community events, and unplanned engagements with the community. Officers will be expected and required to enter such data regularly into CAD. The Division’s Data Collection and Analysis Coordinator will ensure the proper tracking and monitoring of CDP’s activities. The precise implementation of these ideas is still being worked through. The CPOP Plan is, after all, a plan. The Monitoring Team looks forward to assisting the City and CDP to work through any technical data issues in order to ensure that data can be collected, tracked, analyzed, and presented for review to the Monitoring Team and the broader public.
5. Implementation, Compliance Reviews, & Audits As with many of the major Consent Decree areas discussed in this report, the major tasks remaining with respect to community policing entail the transformation of a finalized CPOP Plan from paper into practice. This means that the Division must meaningfully and comprehensively implement the Plan to ensure that the core requirements of the Consent Decree are met – not partially, periodically, or in isolation but comprehensively, across time, and across CDP and its officers’ daily work and interactions with the Cleveland community.
31

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 36 of 194. PageID #: 4086
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018

V. BIAS-FREE POLICING

Paragraph
35. Delivery of “police services with the goal of ensuring that they are equitable, respectful, and free of unlawful bias,” among other things. 36. “CDP will integrate bias-free policing principles into its management, policies and procedures, job descriptions, recruitment, training, personnel evaluations, resource deployment, tactics, and accountability systems.” 37. CDP will ensure that it “administer[s] all activities without discrimination” on basis of various protected classes 38. “CDP will develop a bias-free policing policy” incorporating CPC recommendations “that provides clear guidance to officers” 39–40. Bias-free policing and procedural justice training “adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type” covering specific areas 41. Supervisor training on bias-free policing and procedural justice issues covering specific areas 42. Annual in-service training on bias-free policing “adequate in quality, quantity, type, and scope” 43. Analysis of paragraph 265 data (“including use of force, arrests, motor vehicle and investigatory stops, and misconduct complaints alleging discrimination”) 44. Consideration of “bias-free policing and equal protection” principles in hiring, unit assignment, promotion, and performance assessments.

Status of Compliance PARTIAL COMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

Background
The Consent Decree requires that CDP “deliver police services with the goal of ensuring that they are equitable, respectful, and free of unlawful bias, in a manner that promotes broad community engagement and confidence in CDP.”68

In the course of its 2014 investigation that led to the Consent Decree, the DOJ found that “[m]embers of racial,
ethnic, and language minorities[] expressed public outrage at the way they perceive that their communities are treated by CDP.”69 Further, “many African-Americans reported that they believe CDP officers are verbally and physically aggressive toward them because of their race.”70 The first Consent Decree-required biennial survey of
Cleveland community members in 2016 found “significant racial disparities with respect to approval of and views about CPD.”71

68 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 35. 69 DOJ Findings Letter at 48. 70 Id. at 49. 71 Second Semiannual Report at 23.
32

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 37 of 194. PageID #: 4087
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
It may well be the case that no officer within the Division would describes themselves or their actions as “biased” or discriminatory. Indeed, as articulated in the First Semiannual Report, the Monitoring Team “assumes that, if asked, any police officer currently employed with CPD would say that they want to treat everyone equally.”72
Nevertheless, research on social cognition suggests that everyone—even the most well-intentioned individuals who are expressly committed to treating people with equal dignity and respect—may be vulnerable to automatic assumptions that involuntarily affect decision-making. “Over time, the brain learns to sort people into certain groups (e.g. male or female, young or old) based on combinations of characteristics as well. The problem is when the brain automatically associates certain characteristics with specific groups that are not accurate for all individuals in the group . . . .”73 Research has identified the presence and effects of implicit bias across numerous professions – including lawyers, judges, physicians, teachers, and social service providers.74
Consequently, bias-free policing principles must be operationally integrated into CDP’s “management, policies and procedures, job descriptions, recruitment, training, personnel evaluations, resource deployment, tactics, and accountability systems.”75 The goal is “to ensure policing and law enforcement outcomes that are as free from the effects of all bias to the greatest extent possible.”76
What Has Been Accomplished to Date
1. Initial Community Engagement
Well before drafting began on the Division’s required bias-free policing policy, the Community Police Commission spearheaded a substantial effort to involve the Cleveland community in the drafting process. Between December 2015 and March 2016, the CPC, led by its Bias-Free Policing Work Group, convened twelve town hall meetings across the city to solicit community feedback on bias-free policing. These meetings were designed to gather the concerns and lived experience of Cleveland’s communities of color, faith, LGBTQ, youth, and homeless. The CPC gathered a significant volume of community feedback throughout the process.
Not long after completing the town halls, the Commission completed its Bias-Free Policing Recommendations Report in May 2016 (“May 2016 Recommendations”). The report contained numerous recommendations on CDP’s interactions with citizens of varying backgrounds and demographics, organizational culture, recruitment, training, and reporting.
72 First Semiannual Report at 29. 73 Id. (quoting National Center for State Courts, “Helping Courts Address Implicit Bias: Resources for Education” (2012), http:/www.ncsc.org/~/media/Files/PDF/Topics/Gender%20and%20Racial%20Fairness/IB_report_033012.ashx. 74 See, e.g., “Christine Jolls and Cass R. Sunstein,” “The Law of Implicit Bias,” 94 Cal. L. Rev. 969, 975 n.31 (2006) (“The legal literature on implicit bias is by now enormous”); Theodore Eisenberg and Sheri Lynn Johnson, “Implicit Racial Attitudes of Death Penalty Lawyers,” 53 DePaul L. Rev. 1539, 1553 (2004) (finding implicit bias among defense attorneys); Alexander R. Green, et al, “Implicit Bias Among Physicians and its Prediction of Thrombolysis Decisions for Black and White Patients,” 22 J. of Gen. Internal Med. 1231, 1237 (2007) (“[P]hysicians, like others, may harbor unconscious preferences and stereotypes that influence clinical decisions.”). 75 Id. ¶¶ 35-36. 76 First Semiannual Report at 30.
33

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 38 of 194. PageID #: 4088
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
2. Drafting the Bias-Free Policing Policy
After receiving the Commission’s May 2016 Recommendations, CDP began to draft a new General Police Order to cover bias-free policing principles. Informed by the CPC’s recommendations, the first draft was sent to the Monitoring Team and the Department of Justice on June 3, 2016. The Parties and the Monitoring Team then began revising the draft, negotiating various definitions and provisions in the General Police Order.
3. Subsequent Community Engagement
In August 2017, having made progress on the text of the bias-free policing policy, CDP sent the latest draft of the policy (the “August 2017 Draft Policy”) to the CPC. The CPC held two additional town hall meetings in September for community members to review and discuss the August 2017 Draft Policy. To ensure that CPC feedback was representative of the broader Cleveland community, one meeting was held on the city’s east side, while the other was held on the west side. After completing the two additional town hall meetings, the CPC sent its final set of recommendations for the bias-free policing policy to City representatives (“October 2017 Recommendations”).
A variety of community groups—including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Ohio and Showing Up for Racial Justice (SURJ) Northeast Ohio—voiced their support of the October 2017 Recommendations, in some instances providing additional feedback. After receiving the October 2017 Recommendations, the Division again considered revisions to the bias-free policing policy.
4. Approval of the Bias-Free Policing Policy
The draft policy was developed with the assistance and input of the Department of Justice, Monitoring Team, and the CPC. The Monitoring Team and DOJ suggested revisions for the draft policy based on best practices and the policies of similarly-situated jurisdictions throughout the country, and the CPC’s recommendations were informed by the lived experience of community members throughout Cleveland.
The Court approved CDP’s Bias-Free Policing Policy on March 23, 2018. In its motion to the Court, the Monitoring Team highlighted that the Policy set “critical guidelines for the delivery of police services within the Cleveland Division of Police[,]” with clear prohibitions against “harassing, intimidating or derogatory language” and the determination of “reasonable suspicion or probable cause based upon a demographic category [unless part of an actual and credible suspect description][.]”77
Further, the Policy included protocols for reporting of bias-based policing, which is critical to the Division’s ability to appropriately track, manage, intervene, and ultimately prevent bias-based policing. Under the Policy, CDP members who “engage in, ignore, or condone bias based policing” or who “fail to report observed or alleged bias based policing” shall be subject to discipline.78
77 Dkt. 186 at 5. 78 Id. at 6.
34

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 39 of 194. PageID #: 4089
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
5. 2018 Bias-Free Training
Successful implementation of bias-free policing principles within the Division of Police requires not only a clear policy that prohibits bias-based policing, but training that provides officers with tools and strategies to manage implicit biases and self-correct in moments of potentially biased behavior.
Among other requirements, the Consent Decree mandates that CDP’s bias-free training include:
• “constitutional and other legal requirements relate to equal protection and unlawful discrimination[;]” • “strategies, such as problem-oriented policing, procedural justice, and recognizing implicit bias, to avoid
conduct that may lead to biased policing or the perception of biased policing;” • “historical and cultural systems that perpetuate racial and ethnic profiling;” • “identification of racial or ethnic profiling practices, and police practices that have a disparate impact on
certain demographic categories;” and • “instruction in the data collection protocols required by this Agreement[.]”79
In the current reporting period, CDP began collaborating with the Center for Policing Equity (“CPE”), a research center that has developed and conducted evidence-based procedural justice training in collaboration with other police departments across the country.
CPE’s curriculum is based on the concept of cognitive “traps” in which people can get stuck, without knowing or intending to do so. These “traps,” rooted in implicit or unconscious biases, can cause people to behave in prejudicial or discriminatory ways. After taking the training, officers learn how to recognize the traps, defuse the traps with a set of mental tools to slow situations down, and understand how implicit bias interferes with procedurally just policing.
The Monitoring Team and DOJ were closely involved in the design of CDP’s 2018 Bias-Free Training and provided extensive notes to CDP’s Training Section on what the curriculum should focus on, which modules are the most impactful, and how the training fit within the requirements of the Consent Decree. Chicago Police Department trainers with significant experience designing and conducting CPE’s bias-free curriculum visited the Division in June 2018 to provide technical assistance to CDP trainers.
After working through numerous drafts with the DOJ and Monitoring Team, the Division and City prepared a final draft of the bias-free training curriculum. On July 13, 2018, the Monitoring Team submitted the curriculum to the Court and recommended that the Court approve the 12-hour curriculum in its entirety. On July 16, 2018, the CDP launched its in-service training, including the bias-free training.
Where the Division Stands
One important data point to measure a department’s practice of bias-free policing is the number of civilian complaints regarding police services relating to discrimination. At the time of the Monitoring Team’s 2016 Outcome Measures Assessment, submitted to the Court in June 2017, OPS was unable to disaggregate total complaints received and account for complaints specifically related to alleged discriminatory police misconduct.
79 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 40.
35

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 40 of 194. PageID #: 4090
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
Similarly, for the calendar year 2017, OPS was not able to reliably classify complaints as relating to issues of bias or discrimination. New OPS leadership is taking seriously the need to establish systems, processes, and mechanisms of accountability to ensure that complaints are classified within OPS databases in a fair, reliable, and timely manner.
The results from the Monitoring Team’s 2018 Community Survey, attached to this Report as Appendix A, also help speak to the Division’s practice of bias-free policing. 79% of white respondents and 69% of Latinos rated the CDP as doing a good job, yet less than half (49%) of African Americans rated the CDP positively. Further, most respondents believed that the Division did a poor job of treating people of all races and groups equally. African Americans are more likely to report being stopped by CDP officers in a car, or being arrested, than white or Latino adults. Moreover, African Americans who have been stopped by the police are less likely than other races to believe that they were treated respectfully or that they were not detained longer than necessary. They also are more likely to report being the victims of excessive force and being treated differently because of their race.
Progress and Tasks that Remain
1. Continued Initial Bias-Free Policing Training
The bias-free training required by the Consent Decree addresses a host of topics. The 12-hour 2018 Bias-Free Policing Training, which started on July 16, 2018, is a good start. Still, given the substantial requirements under the Decree, the Monitoring Team anticipates that more training will be required in 2019. Specifically, before the Division can reach substantial and effective compliance, it must have provided training “adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type”80 that gives, first, all officers instruction on:
• Constitutional and other legal requirements related to equal protection and unlawful discrimination, including the requirements of this Agreement;
• Strategies, such as problem-oriented policing, procedural justice, and recognizing implicit bias, to avoid conduct that may lead to biased policing or the perception of biased policing;
• Historical and cultural systems that perpetuate racial and ethnic profiling; • Identification of racial or ethnic profiling practices, and police practices that have a disparate impact on
certain demographic categories; • Self-evaluation strategies to identify racial or ethnic profiling; • District-level cultural competency training regarding the histories and culture of local immigrant and
ethnic communities; • Police and community perspectives related to bias-free policing; • The protection of civil rights as a central part of the police mission and as essential to effective policing; • Instruction in the data collection protocols required by this Agreement; and • Methods, strategies, and techniques to reduce misunderstanding, conflict, and complaints due to
perceived bias or discrimination.81
Additionally, the Division must provide instruction to supervisors on:
80 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 39. 81 Id. at ¶ 40.
36

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 41 of 194. PageID #: 4091
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
• How to identify biased police practices when reviewing investigatory stop, arrest, and use of force data; • How to respond to a complaint of biased police practices, including conducting a preliminary
investigation of the complaint in order to preserve key evidence and potential witnesses; • How to evaluate complaints of improper pedestrian stops for potential biased police practices; and • Engaging the community and developing positive relationships with diverse community groups.82
Upon completion of the above training, the Division must provide annual training, both under the terms of the Consent Decree and the terms of the Court-approved Divisional policy on bias-free policing.
This report elsewhere details the challenges that the Division have cited in complying with the various training requirements of the Consent Decree. To be sure, its efforts on developing and conducting an eight-hour introductory course have been commendable. Nevertheless, the rate of training development and completion will need to speed up if compliance with the bias-free policing provisions of the Consent Decree is to be attained in the near future. It may be helpful for the City and CPD to establish a clear and concrete plan, with the Consent Decree a few months past its halfway point, for completing all the training requirements over the next few years.
2. Integration of Bias-Free Policing Principles
The Decree requires that the Division “integrate bias-free policing principles into its management, policies and procedures, job descriptions, recruitment, training, personnel evaluations, resource deployment, tactics, and accountability systems.”83 Although the Division has made good strides in many of these areas, progress remains in others. With work outstanding on personnel evaluations, management processes, resource deployment, and accountability systems in particular, the process of integrating bias-free policing principles in these areas remains ongoing.
3. The Division’s Collection and Use of Data
While the Consent Decree is ongoing, the Monitoring Team has the duty to assess the Division’s data to ensure that the Consent Decree’s requirements are being carried out in practice. Ultimately, bias-free policing requires not just a well-written policy and evidence-based training but also a robust data infrastructure and command staff’s use of data as a management tool. “To help ensure that police services are delivered in a manner free from bias,” the Consent Decree requires the Division to conduct annual assessments of all police activities, “including use of force, arrests, motor vehicle and investigatory stops, and misconduct complaints alleging discrimination, to determine whether CDP’s activities are applied or administered in a way that discriminates against individuals on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.”84
To date, the Division has produced one report, primarily covering 2017, that addresses data on use of force. Although that report provided aggregate, overall statistics on the race of use of force subjects, it did not yet analyze the extent to which overall force or particular types of force may have been disproportionate by race. Although the Monitoring Team appreciates that the use of force report in 2017 is an initial effort and constitutes a substantial
82 Id. at ¶ 41. 83 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 36. 84 Id. at ¶¶ 43, 265.
37

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 42 of 194. PageID #: 4092
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
stride in the right direction in reporting and analyzing data on officer performance, the level, scope, and type of analyses conducted of the Division’s performance must grow.
Other areas have received little analysis to date or are still awaiting analysis. The topic of arrests was briefly addressed on one page of CDP’s 2017 use of force report. Aggregate statistics were summarized but no meaningful analysis driving at the issue of biased or discriminatory policing was conducted. The topics of motor vehicle and investigatory stops and misconduct complaints alleging discrimination have not yet been the subject of an annual assessment.
The Monitoring Team also observes here that the type of assessment that the Consent Decree requires in each of these areas implicates both a quantitative component (analyzing the overall numbers and numeric trends) and a qualitative component (reviewing and reaching conclusions about the nature of police performance and interactions). In no area, including use of force, has the Division yet reported the results of a qualitative analysis.
The quality of the Division’s assessments will depend on the Division’s progress in improving its data infrastructure and in its personnel management based on data. Strong protocols for data collection, analysis, and reporting are necessary to monitor and assess patterns of bias-based policing. As discussed elsewhere in this report CDP has made some progress in developing its data infrastructure, but not the progress required to comply with the Decree’s data requirements.
4. The City’s Ability to Address Civilian Complaints of Biased Policing
If a Cleveland resident believes that a CDP officer has treated her in a way that is biased, discriminatory, or unfair, the City’s Charter requires that the matter be handled by OPS. Unless and until OPS routinely completes fair, thorough, objective, and timely investigations of civilian complaints, CDP cannot comply with, among other things, paragraphs 36, 43, and 44 – which require evaluation of bias-related violations and officer performance histories with respect to bias-free policing on an individual and systemic level. At the same time, the Monitoring Team cannot certify that the bias-free policing policy is actually effective in practice – such that CDP is in compliance with paragraph 38 of the Consent Decree – unless and until it can be verified that, for instance, “[m]embers who engage in, ignore or condone bias-based policing shall be the subject to discipline.”85 So long as OPS’s challenges prevent CDP from holding officers accountable for verified instances of problematic performance in this area, the bias-free policing policy cannot be certified as being effective in practice. Ultimately, CDP cannot be in compliance with the Consent Decree until OPS is able to conduct competent investigations into allegations of violations of the Division’s bias-free policing policies.
85 Dkt. 186-1 at 4.
38

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 43 of 194. PageID #: 4093
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018

VI. USE OF FORCE

A. Officer Use of Force Principles & Policy

Paragraph 45. “CDP will revise, develop, and implement force policies, training, supervision, and accountability systems with the goal of ensuring that force” complies with the Constitution, federal law, and the Consent Decree “and that any use of unreasonable force is promptly identified and responded to appropriately.” 46. “The City will implement the terms of this Agreement with the goal of ensuring that use of force by CDP officers . . . will comply” with at least twelve major, listed principles. 47. Division “will ensure that the [use of force] incident is accurately and properly reported, documented, and investigated.” 48. “CDP will track and analyze officers’ uses of force to hold officers accountable for unreasonable uses of force; to guide training and policy; and to identify poor tactics and emerging trends.” 49. Development of use of force policies “that comply with applicable law[,] . . . are adequate to achieve the goals described in paragraph 45,” and “specify that unreasonable use of force will subject officers to the disciplinary process, possible criminal prosecution, and/or possible civil liability.” 50. “CDP’s policies will address the use and deployment of its authorized force techniques, technologies, and weapons.” 51. Weapon-specific policies “will include training and certification requirements that each officer must meet before being permitted to carry and use the authorized weapon.” 52. “No officer will carry any weapon that is not authorized or approved by CDP.”
53. “Prior to the use of any approved weapon, the officer, when possible and appropriate, will communicate to the subject and other officers that the use of weapon is imminent, and allow the subject an opportunity to comply.” 54–83 “CDP will implement policies” for firearms, ECWs (Tasers), and OC (pepper) spray that comply with a host of specific, expressly listed provisions.
84. CDP “will provide all current officers use of force training that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type and that includes” a number of specific, expresslylisted elements. 85. CDP “will provide the use of force training described in paragraph 84 to all new officers.” 86. “CDP will provide all officers with annual use of force in-service training that is adequate in quality, quantity, type, and scope.”
87. “CDP will develop and implement a single, uniform reporting system pursuant to a Use of Force reporting policy” that complies with the force Level categorization set forth in the paragraph.

Status of Compliance PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE

39

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 44 of 194. PageID #: 4094
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018

88. Requiring “[a]ll officers using or observing force” to complete a Use of Force Report including a number of specific features and avoiding “conclusory statements, ‘boilerplate’, or ‘canned’ language.” 89. “Officers will be subject to the disciplinary process for material omissions or misrepresentations in their Use of Force Reports.”
90. “Officers who use or observe force and fail to report it will be subject to the disciplinary process, up to and including termination, regardless of whether the force was reasonable.” 91. Requirement to “notify . . . supervisors . . . as soon as practical following any use of force” and if becoming aware of “an allegation of unreasonable or unreported force by another officer.” 92. “Use of Force Reports will be maintained centrally.”

OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

Background
The use of force, including the manner in which officers are trained and how uses of force are documented and investigated, is “at the core of the Consent Decree.”86 Police must have the option to use force. “Policing can be dangerous. At times, officers must use force, including deadly force, to protect lives, including their own.”87

Nevertheless, “the use of force by police should be guided by a respect for human life and human dignity, the need to protect public safety, and the duty to protect individuals from unreasonable seizures under the Fourth Amendment.”88 Therefore, as the Decree is implemented, the Cleveland Division of Police must:
[R]evise, develop, and implement force policies, training, supervision, and accountability systems with the goal of ensuring that force is used in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the requirements of the Agreement and that any use of unreasonable force is promptly identified and responded to appropriately.89

The efficacy and street-level impact of the Division’s new use of force policies ultimately depend on officers adhering to their requirements. Consequently, officers must be properly trained to understand the practical significance of the concepts of necessity, proportionality and de-escalation, and be prepared to put those concepts into practice outside the classroom.
The Consent Decree requires that CDP’s use of force training be “adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type” and include instruction, among other things, on:
● Proper use of force decision-making; ● Use of force reporting requirements; ● The Fourth Amendment and related law;

86 First Semiannual Report at 31. 87 DOJ Findings Letter at 1. 88 Id. 89 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 45.

40

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 45 of 194. PageID #: 4095
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
● De-escalation techniques, both verbal and tactical, that empower officers to make arrests without using force and instruction that disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements, using cover, calling in specialized units, or delaying arrest may be the appropriate response to a situation, even when the use of force would be legally justified;
● Role-playing scenarios and interactive exercises that illustrate proper use of force decision-making, including training on the importance of peer intervention;
● The proper deployment and use of all intermediate weapons or technologies; ● The particular risks and considerations relating to using a Taser; and ● Firearms training . . . .90
High-quality training has been a common thread among community feedback and input on use of force issues. In its March 31, 2016 recommendations that summarized community input, the Community Police Commission specifically requested “updated, state-of-the art training that focuses on de-escalation, decision-making, and accountability[.]”91 Similarly, throughout the Stakeholders’ Collaborative Engagement period that started in September 2016, use of force training was a priority for many Cleveland residents. Even though the meetings and roundtables were designed to gather input on force policies, many people appeared to be at least as interested in force training. “Over half of the groups offered suggestions on how training should be conducted. Several reiterated the importance of scenario-based training and role-playing . . . instead of classic classroom instruction.”92
In addition to policy and training, “[p]roper use of force reporting and review are essential parts of any police department’s efforts to ensure that its officers are using force in a manner that complies with the Constitution and case law. Cleveland police officers do not adequately document force incidents, rendering it quite often impossible to tell how much force they have used and why.”93
Before the Consent Decree went into effect, “[f]orce incidents often [were] not properly reported, documented, investigated, or addressed with corrective measures.”94 In a January 2011 incident, video footage emerged showing multiple officers using excessive force—including kicks to the head—against an unarmed man after he surrendered to officers and was handcuffed and lying prone on the ground. None of the officers reported either using or witnessing a use of force (and consequently, no officers were appropriately disciplined).95
Thus, just as officers must have clear expectations set forth in policy on when to use and not use force, the Division must have clear processes and procedures for the administrative investigation and review of force incidents.96 The accurate and timely reporting of force, including the facts and circumstances that led to the use of force, the actions of the subject to whom force was applied, and the level of force deployed, will assist CDP to ensure that
90 Id. at ¶ 84. In addition to initial training on use of force covering the topics listed above, the Division must provide its officers with “annual use of force in-service training that is adequate in quality, quantity, type, and scope” going forward.90 CDP supervisors must also receive specialized training, as discussed elsewhere in this report, relating both to force and broader supervisory skills. 91 Cleveland Community Police Commission, “Use of Force: Summary Report & Initial Policy Recommendations” at 7-8 (Mar. 31, 2016), available at https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/8a5c22_e948c09e439640e5b28dd937a47f3b51.pdf (last visited Apr. 16, 2018). 92 Second Semiannual Report at 30. 93 DOJ Findings Letter at 29. 94 Id. at 5. 95 Id. at 7. 96 First Semiannual Report at 36-37; Dkt. 97 at 35-36.
41

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 46 of 194. PageID #: 4096
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
use of force decisions are appropriate and that the type of force used comports with the Constitution, state and federal law, and Division policy.
The Decree lays out specific force reporting requirements, including the establishment of a new system of classifying force. Although CDP officers must understand the classification structure in order to effectuate proper reporting and post-incident performance, they do not necessarily need to know anything about the scheme in order to make appropriate decisions about force in the field. The stratification of force into three “levels” triggers a specific administrative response, investigation, and review of a force incident after it occurs.97
• Level One force is the lowest level of force. It is force that is “reasonably expected to cause only transient pain and/or disorientation during its application as a means of gaining compliance . . . but that is not reasonably expected to cause injury, does not result in actual injury, and does not result in a complaint of injury.”98
• Level Two force is force that “causes an injury, could reasonably be expected to cause an injury, or results in a complaint of injury.”99
• Level Three force is force that constitutes “lethal” or “deadly” force. It also includes any level of force which results in death or serious injury, hospital admission, or lack of consciousness. Specific types of Level Three force include neck restraints, canine bites, and more than three applications of an Electronic Control Weapon (i.e. Taser).100
Under the Decree, all officers using or observing force have an affirmative duty to report such force in writing by the completion of their tour of duty.101 This provision underscores the importance of a sufficiently detailed and descriptive narrative that highlights the facts and circumstances which led to the initial police/citizen interaction, as well as those actions which led to the decisions to use force, the level of resistance encountered, and a complete and accurate description of each and every type of force used.102 The Decree also requires that the Division develop and implement a “single, uniform reporting system[.]”103
The proper reporting of force is a clear priority for Cleveland residents as well. The Monitoring Team’s prior reports have described that “[m]uch of the public feedback regarding the policies on when officers may and may not use force understandably also began to address issues relating to how the Division of Police would respond to, investigate, and review force incidents – affirming that [a]n important goal of the Consent Decree is to ensure that all uses of force administered by CDP officers are, after being promptly and uniformly reported, meaningfully examined and reviewed.”104
97 See Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 87. 98 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 87(a). 99 Id. at ¶ 87(b). 100 Id. at ¶ 87(c). 101 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 87(b). 102 Id. at ¶ 88. 103 Id. at ¶ 87. 104 Dkt. 97 at 35–36.
42

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 47 of 194. PageID #: 4097
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
What Has Been Accomplished to Date
A. Use of Force Policy
1. Community Engagement on Use of Force (Spring 2016)
Revision of the Division’s use of force policies started with a substantial effort to gain community feedback on the core principles that ought to be reflected in the Division’s policies. The CPC released and reviewed residents’ responses to a “Use of Force Questionnaire,” hosted a full CPC meeting and town hall, and conducted focus groups with specific stakeholders, including officers, public housing residents, and faith leaders. In doing so, the CPC gathered “the concerns, experiences, values, and issues” of community members “related to the use of force policy . . . from across Cleveland’s diverse communities into a single, written document[.]”105
The Commission provided recommendations to the City and Division that stemmed from and incorporated the community’s input.106 Those recommendations focused on a range of topics including emphasizing “life preservation” in policy and ensuring that the force policies are “aligned with community values and expectations.”107
Meanwhile, the City’s Community Relations Board also fielded an informal feedback survey on use of force issues and collected responses from a total of 1,092 residents. Although the survey’s findings, like the input received from the CPC, were not statistically significant (and not necessarily representative of all Cleveland residents), about a third of survey respondents said the police were fair when using force, and about half of respondents believed that CDP disproportionately uses force against certain groups of people.108
CDP also solicited input from officers on the Division’s existing force policies. CDP partnered with leadership of CPPA, FOP, and other police officer organizations and conducted an “online officer survey, focus group discussions, anonymous written submissions, and a series of meetings with union and officer organization leadership.”109 The CDP found, among other things, that officers did not believe that force types and categories were sufficiently clear in CDP’s current force policies and that they wanted clearer definitions of key terms used in the force policy.110
2. Use of Force Policy Revision Process
After receiving input from the CPC, the City, and from its own officers, the Division began drafting revised policies on how officers may and may not use force. Beginning in March 2016, the Parties met regularly to discuss issues and exchange drafts of the policies. This policy drafting process continued through September 2016, when the Parties and Monitoring Team agreed that the drafts of four policies—a general policy, a definitions policy, a policy
105 Dkt. 43-1 at 8. 106 See Cleveland Community Police Commission, “Use of Force: Summary Report & Initial Policy Recommendations” (Mar. 31, 2016). 107 Cleveland Community Police Commission, “Use of Force: Summary Report & Initial Policy Recommendations” at 7-8 (Mar. 31, 2016), available at https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/8a5c22_e948c09e439640e5b28dd937a47f3b51.pdf (last visited Apr. 16, 2018). 108 See Second Semiannual Report at 26-27. 109 First Semiannual Report at 33. 110 Id.
43

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 48 of 194. PageID #: 4098
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
addressing intermediate weapons, and a policy addressing the duty to de-escalate—were sufficiently far along to bring to the community for feedback.111
3. Stakeholders’ Collaborative Engagement (Fall 2016)
Between September 8 and November 4, 2016, the Parties, Monitoring Team, and CPC collaborated to solicit public input on the proposed new Use of Force policies.
During this time, the Monitoring Team made draft policies available on its website, the CPC’s website, and the City’s website, along with a summary of key policy changes. Organizations and interested members of the public were invited to complete an online feedback form on the Monitoring Team’s website that was designed to get their views on whether the new policies sufficiently address their concerns.
Partnering with the Parties, CDP, and the CPC, the Monitoring Team also coordinated two community roundtables in September 2016 on Cleveland’s east and west sides to engage directly community residents on the proposed force policy. About 200 residents and community leaders attended the two roundtables, including clergy members, officers, public housing residents and staff, and residents from the Hispanic Alliance, the Council on American Islamic Relations, and the LGBT Center of Greater Cleveland.112
The roundtable events included a 20-minute overview presentation by the Monitor of the proposed use of force policies; a question-and-answer session; and an opportunity for small group breakout discussions facilitated by representatives from the City, CDP, DOJ, and Monitoring Team.
Most community discussions at this time revolved around smaller revisions to the draft force policies, and generally indicated that the policies were an important step in the right direction.113 Some community members suggested that officers need to communicate with suspects during an encounter before using force and during deescalation, and that officers need to learn how to de-escalate themselves when they arrive on a scene. Several participants suggested specific techniques that officers could use to de-escalate situations.114
4. Court Approval of New Use of Force Policies
The Court approved the new use of force policies, subject to some specific conditions, on January 17, 2017.115 Five new policies, addressing (1) general use of force principles and expectations; (2) definitions used in various force policies; (3) de-escalation techniques to ensure officer and subject safety; (4) intermediate weapons, such as a Taser, OC Spray, and baton; and (5) reporting of force.
In its motion to the Court, the Monitoring Team highlighted that the General GPO importantly highlights that force can be used only when it is necessary, proportional, and objectively reasonable, and that officers must use
111 Second Semiannual Report at 27. 112 Id. at 28. 113 Eric Heisig, “Residents Offer Input on Proposed Cleveland Police Use-of-Force Policy,” Cleveland.com (Oct. 16, 2016), http://www.cleveland.com/court-justice/index.ssf/2016/09/residents_offer_input_into_pro.html (last visited Apr. 16, 2018). 114 See Second Semiannual Report at 29. 115 Dkt. 101.
44

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 49 of 194. PageID #: 4099
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
strategic de-escalation tactics and strategies when it is safe and feasible to do so.116 “The inclusion of necessity, proportionality, and de-escalation is a notable shift from CPD’s prior force policy.”117 Further, “[b]y requiring all force to be necessary and proportional, the new policy matches community expectations and best practices.”118 The policy also provides specific guidance as to when deadly force may be authorized.
The Division created a specific GPO for intermediate weapons, addressing the use of batons/impact weapons, OC Spray, electronic control weapons (“ECW” or “Tasers”), and the beanbag shotgun. “The new policy sets out clear provisions that apply to all intermediate weapons, regardless of type, including when officers are and are not authorized to use any intermediate weapon.”119 It also includes guidance for the use of each specific intermediate weapon.
Importantly, the Division’s Officer Use of Force Reporting policy “outlines what officers must do to notify supervisors after force has been used, what they must be prepared to do in terms of describing and reporting what happened, and the administrative response from the Division that officers can expect to be followed immediately after a use of force incident.”120
Collectively, the five force policies provide the kind of specific guidance around use of force that CDP previously lacked. The policies incorporate feedback from community members and CDP line officers in order to ensure that they are consistent with both public and officer safety. The policies went through extensive discussions around best practices and represent a modern approach to force and the need to de-escalate situations.
5. Canine Unit Policy
When the Monitoring Team submitted the new force policies to the Court in November 2016, the Team recommended their approval by the Court subject to certain conditions. One of those conditions was that CDP “provide[] to this Court its revised policies, procedures, manuals, and documentation relating to canine deployments . . . .”121
Accordingly, the Parties and Monitoring Team collaborated to revise the policy and procedural manual relating to the Division’s use of its Canine Unit. In October 2017, the Monitoring Team submitted the revised policy and procedural manual to the Court, highlighting that the documents provided sufficient guidance around the deployment of canines; the manner in which any use of force resulting from a canine deployment is supervised, documented, and tracked; and the investigation of canine uses of force.122 The Court approved the canine deployment policies in January 2018.
116 Dkt. 83 at 17. 117 Id. 118 Id. 119 Id. at 26. 120 Id. at 28. 121 Id. at 29-30. 122 Dkt. 159 at 1-2.
45

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 50 of 194. PageID #: 4100
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018

B. Training

1. Development and Successful Implementation of Initial Use of Force Training

Around August 2016, the Division, working closely with the Monitoring Team and Department of Justice, began designing its program for training officers on the new use of force policies (the “2017 Use of Force Training” or “use of force training”). “The Team’s objective was to provide both guidance and technical assistance as to the development and implementation of a cohesive training curriculum that is consistent with the requirements of the Consent Decree and provides the most effective and operationally efficient means by which to ensure that all sworn members of the CDP are rigorously trained and have a working knowledge of the Division’s new use of force policy.”123

Between May and December 2017, the Division of Police provided all sworn CDP personnel with use of force training on the Division’s new use of force policies. All sworn CDP personnel needed to receive the 2017 Use of Force Training. CDP identified 1,431 officers as eligible to receive the new use of force training. The City has certified that all eligible officers have completed the training.

The 2017 Use of Force training began with an initial “pre-load” video presentation that all CDP officers viewed in District roll calls in May and June before they attended in-class training. The roughly ninety-minute video began with a message from Chief Williams that reinforces the importance of the use of force policy provisions. The presentation then provided instruction on the specific provisions of the new force policies.

Once sworn CDP personnel completed the initial “pre-load” presentation, they were required to attend two days (16 hours) of in-class training. Over the two days, officers proceeded through eight modules of instruction, all of which included either interactive or scenario-based elements. Those modules included instruction on:

•

De-escalation;

•

Contact and cover;

•

Subject control and handcuffing;

•

Intermediate weapons;

•

Decision-making scenarios;

•

Threat assessment; and

•

Officer performance assessments (video-based) (two modules).

Day One consisted of a formal introduction of the instructors, safety rules, attendance requirements, and expectations. The class was then divided into smaller groups to maximize safety and facilitate close observation and evaluation of each officer attending the training. The officers then proceeded through four modules of training. Day Two consisted of a substantial review of the four modules learned on Day One, and then proceeded into the four remaining modules.

Importantly, within each module, officers needed to meet certain performance benchmarks in order to be considered as having satisfactorily met the training. Training instructors evaluated how officers applied relevant use of force skills and tactics, used sufficient de-escalation tactics, used necessary and proportional force in a

123 Third Semiannual Report at 28-29.

46

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 51 of 194. PageID #: 4101
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
manner consistent with the Division’s new policy, complied with specific requirements relating to particular force instruments, and performed in a manner consistent with CDP’s expectations. Each officer in each training was evaluated on a host of specific dimensions, with instructors logging performance. Officers who failed to obtain a sufficient overall score received specific feedback on areas that their performance should improve and were required to proceed through the scenario again. Because role players could act and react in different ways, both to vary the scenario organically and to respond directly to officer performance, this was not simply going through the exercise again in order to obtain a known, identified result. That is, even with knowledge about the scenario, officers needed to think and react dynamically because the contours of the scenario and of a subject’s response in that scenario changed each time that it was run.
2. Training Implementation and Quality Review
Although the training was not without initial adjustments,124 the Monitoring Team was substantially impressed by the Division’s commitment to implementing high-quality use of force training and by its ability to capably address challenges in order to achieve the overall training objectives. Role players leveraged their experiences as patrol officers, supervisors, and training specialists to provide real-world situations where officers could apply the new force policies in a controlled environment. Training instructors provided constructive feedback to officers, offering areas for improvement even when performance was generally sufficient and identifying areas of strength even when officers needed to proceed through the scenario again to attain a sufficient level of performance. Officers generally took the training seriously, engaged thoughtfully with other officers and instructors, and appeared to appreciate the opportunity to practice real-world skills and learn from other police professionals.
Perhaps most positive of all, it was not just the Monitoring Team, DOJ, or CDP command staff who were enthusiastic about the use of force training – it was the CDP’s rank-and-file. CDP designed an evaluation form to be completed anonymously by each officer at the conclusion of the in-class training. As described in the Monitoring Team’s Fourth Semiannual Report, the Team was impressed by the feedback that CDP received. Overall, 79% of officers agreed or strongly agreed that they found the training to be valuable. One officer commented that the training was “[o]ne of the best in-class services I have attended in my career.” Another stated that the training “made me think differently at how to look at situations that I may have got lazy in[.]”
Similarly, nearly three-quarters (71%) of officers agreed or strongly agreed that they “would welcome more training of this type.” One officer wrote, “I believe that this has been the best in-service training I have had so far. I retained much more information than I have in the past just listening to lectures.” Another said, “I hope all future in-service training is done this way.”
Many comments focused specifically on the quality of the in-class scenario exercises. One officer wrote, “The scenario-based training engaged us and reminded us of the importance of our tactics.” Another reported, “The format allowed more interaction and role play instead of the traditional model of just reading a GPO and calling it training.”
124 For instance, as described in its Fourth Semiannual Report, the Monitoring Team observed a trainer review the force policy in a manner that was difficult to understand, causing confusion among the attending officers. Attending officers challenged portions of the use of force policy and at times dismissed research underlying the training. A CDP Sergeant said that there were both “good” and “bad” portions of the policy. Subsequent observations of these same modules appeared to address these issues.
47

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 52 of 194. PageID #: 4102
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
Officers also remarked on the preparation and dedication of the training instructors. The instructors were “excellent[,]” “outstanding[,]” and “top notch[.]” One officer commented, “The instructors all took the time to clarify the policy to everyone and it is apparent that they took an extensive amount of time to be able to translate the important lessons into the scenarios we performed[.]”
The 2017 Use of Force Training established a strong foundation for ongoing, follow-up training provided on an annual basis on additional and in-depth force topics. The Division plans to assess the evaluation responses and will incorporate officers’ feedback into upcoming follow-up force training curricula to ensure that the training is as effective as possible.
C. Use of Force Reporting
As described above, the Division’s new use of force policies, approved in January 2017 and effective starting January 1, 2018, include a Use of Force Reporting policy that is consistent with the requirements of the Consent Decree and incorporates community feedback.125 The policy outlines what officers must do to notify supervisors after force has been used, what they must be prepared to do in terms of describing and reporting what happened, and the administrative response from the Division that officers can expect to be followed immediately after a use of force incident.
In conjunction with the new Use of Force Reporting policy, the Division has created a Witness-Officer Narrative Statement, which requires officers who are bystanders or witnesses to the use of force by a fellow CDP officer to provide:
• A detailed account of the incident from the witness-officer’s perspective; • The reason for the initial police presence; • A specific description of the acts that led to the use of force; • The level of force encountered; • A complete and accurate description of every type of force used or observed.
Where the Division Stands
With the implementation of new use of force policies, the completion of the first year of use of force training by all officers, and new policies and procedures for reporting the use of force, the Division’s new use of force policies became effective, in the field and on the streets of Cleveland, on January 1, 2018. The Monitoring Team previously cautioned that “officers may make some good-faith errors or mistakes in the first few months that the new force policies are in effect” and that “sufficiently systemic adherence to the new policies . . . is unlikely to occur overnight.126
As the Division has been tracking use of force incidents in its officer performance data, the Monitoring Team can report early trends with respect to force here. Before discussing these details, the Monitoring Team must emphasize a significant caution: The data reported here are early, capturing five months of data. Points of
125 See Second Semiannual Report at 34. 126 Fourth Semiannual Report at 31.
48

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 53 of 194. PageID #: 4103
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018

comparison between early 2018 and previous departmental performance are imperfect and limited to some relevant extent, as the statistics need to be addressed in various ways to ensure fair, accurate comparisons.

In the first five months that the new use of force policies were effective on the streets of Cleveland, officer use of force was down as compared to the same time period a year earlier. In order to make a fair, “apples to apples” comparison, the numbers in Table 2 for 2018 consider officer use of force other than the pointing of a firearm at an individual – a low-level, reportable Level 1 use of force under the Division’s new policy. Because the Division did not previously track this information in its use of force database in 2017, the 2018 numbers need to be adjusted to exclude pointing a firearm to get a sense of how officer performance has been changing independent of the this change of force definition.

The Monitoring Team notes here that this mode of analysis is not to imply that the tracking of instances where officers have pointed their firearm at an individual is not important. It is. Indeed, it constitutes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment and a use of force, which is why it is reportable as such. However, again, the task here is to gauge, preliminarily, how the Division is doing as compared to the same period previously. Without eliminating from the statistics those instances where officers reported as force in 2018 things that, previously, they were likely doing at a similar rate in 2017 but simply not reporting, little analysis could be conducted.

With the above caveats, the Team is nonetheless thoroughly impressed, then, that the early returns with respect to use of force are overwhelmingly positive. The use of force in Cleveland by CDP officers was down in early 2018 compared to the same period in 2017 – by nearly 40 percent.

Table 2: Use of Force Incidents, January–May: 2018 v. 2017

excluding Level 1: pointing of a firearm at an individual

2017

January

23

February

19

March

22

April

23

May

16

TOTAL (January through May) 103

Source: CDP IAPro Database.

2018 10 10 11 16 16 63

Meanwhile, Part I crimes in Cleveland were down in Cleveland over the same period across nearly every category (with the exception of rape). More specifically, as summarized in Table 3, all UCR Part I crimes—with the exception of rape, a notoriously difficult crime for law enforcement to impact—in 2018-to-date are down compared to 2017, some as much as 46%. Law enforcement tactics are just one of many factors that may or may not explain why crime trends move as they do. But to the extent that some CDP officers have expressed concerns that new use of force policies would contribute to a “soft-on-crime” approach that will allow individuals to more freely commit wanton crime without consequence, that theory is not supported by the initial data.

49

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 54 of 194. PageID #: 4104
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018

Table 3: Part I Crime, January–May: 2018 v. 2017

2017 (Jan. 1 through June 2)

Homicide

50

w/ Firearm

43

no Firearm

7

Rape

208

Robbery

1239

Felonious Assault 1043

Burglary

2546

Theft

5798

Grand Theft MV 1522

Arson

122

Source: CDP Crime Analysis

2018 (Jan. 1 through June 2) 37 31 6 223 942 989 1797 4372 1356 66

Change
–26.0% –27.9% –14.3% + 7.2% –24.0% – 5.2% –29.4% –24.6% –10.9% –45.9%

It appears, then, that – at least initially – officers are using force less without apparent increases in crime. Indeed, force is down at the same time that it appears that crime is down.

It is possible, of course, that numbers on reported crimes may not tell the whole story. Indeed, in places where some communities distrust the police or are otherwise not comfortable reporting when they see or are victims of crime, the formal crime rate statistics may understate, to some material extent, the actual experience of communities with crime. We cannot definitively confirm or reject the possibility that, in Cleveland, crime is down not because less crime is occurring but because fewer people are reporting crime to police. However, the Monitoring Team’s community survey results, discussed elsewhere in this report and in the survey firm’s independent report in Appendix A, suggest that this is unlikely.

For one thing, the survey asked a statistically-significant and representative sample of the Cleveland population, “In general, how safe do you feel in the City of Cleveland?” In the June 2018 survey, 75% said they feel “very” or “somewhat” safe – a slight increase from the 70% who said they felt “very” or “somewhat” safe in 2016. This tends to cut against the possibility that crime rates are not reflecting the experience or reflection of crime – as just as many, if not slightly more, people say they feel safe in Cleveland today as reported two years ago. Then results are similar when people are asked about how safe they feel in their neighborhood – with 81 percent saying that feel “very” or “somewhat” safe in 2018 compared to 78 percent who felt “very” or “somewhat” safe in 2016. Further, when asked more specifically about how they would “rate the job the Cleveland Police are doing controlling crime in your neighborhood,” 60% say the Division is doing an “excellent” or “good” job, a 9% increase from 2016.

Further, and at the same time, officer injuries are down – significantly. Between January 1 and May 31 of
2017, there were 68 officer injuries in use of force incidents. Between January 1 and May 31 of 2018, there were 24 injuries to officers in force incidents.127 This is a decrease of 65 percent. Of course, it is not just whether officers

127 These totals reflect the number of individual officers injured across use of force incidents occurring between January 1, 2018 and May 31, 2018 based on the Division’s relevant officer injury database. It includes instances where the database indicates under injury type that officers “refused treatment,” were “treated and released” but does not specify the particular nature of the injury incurred, or list the name of a hospital to which officers were taken. It is possible that, for each of these categories, officers did not actually incur an injury. However, because this cannot be definitively determined without reviewing hard copy reports and files, the Team
50

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 55 of 194. PageID #: 4105
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
are injured in instances when they use force. Equally important is the extent to which officers are injured across incidents, including those in which they do not use force. Here, too, the numbers show fewer officers injured on the job. Between January 1 and May 31 of 2017, there were 58 officers injured on duty. For the same period of 2018, there were 51 officers injured – a 12 percent reduction.
Consequently, it does not appear that using force less is increasing the risk of officer injury. To the contrary, at the same time that officers are using substantially less force against subjects on the streets of Cleveland, officers are being injured on the job less frequently. And, again, all of this is in turn happening as crime in Cleveland is down and residents report feeling just as, if not slightly more, safe in Cleveland and in their neighborhoods as they did before.
It is too soon, and the available data too limited, to make any definitive conclusions about the impact of the Division’s new force policies and training. Crucially, the Monitoring Team observes here that substantial and effective compliance with the Consent Decree, and general compliance with the use of force provisions of the Decree, does not and cannot depend simply on fewer uses of force alone. Instead, the Decree and the Court-approved policies enacted to comply with it require that force be used when it is necessary, proportional, reasonable, and reasonably available de-escalation attempts have been used – all as part of ensuring that policing in Cleveland keeps the public safe and ensures that officers can likewise do their jobs safely. Thus, it is not the decrease in force alone that is encouraging. Instead, it is the confluence of decreased force, decreased crime, an unchanged to slightly increased sense of safety within the community, and decreased officer injury that are substantial reasons for optimism.
Likewise, the Monitoring Team must caution here that insufficient time has passed for the Team to conclude an exhaustive qualitative assessment of the force that officers have used. Even if officers are using force less often, the force that they do use needs to adhere rigorously to the Division’s new policy. Even in the face of encouraging aggregate numbers, then, the Division will need to ensure – and the Monitoring Team will be auditing – whether officers are complying with law, policy, and the terms of the Consent Decree when they employ force.
Mindful of these important caveats and limitations, the Monitoring Team here commends the men and women of the Division of Police. The statistics cited and analyzed here in a clinical fashion are ultimately the aggregation of the daily decisions that officers have been making on the streets of Cleveland as they respond to crime, problems, and community concerns. Again, although more time will be necessary to understand if the initial trends suggested by the numbers are temporary or more enduring, these preliminary numbers do suggest that, at least for the first critical period in which the force policies have been in effect, the members of the Division of Police are doing their jobs in a different way.
seeks to err on the side of over-inclusion – such that the numbers for one or both years may, in actuality, be higher than the number of officers who actually were injured.
51

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 56 of 194. PageID #: 4106
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018

Progress and Tasks that Remain

1. Ongoing, Annual Use of Force Training

The Division will have to continue to conduct use of force training on an annual basis, updating the curriculum as appropriate to address officer and community feedback, as well as what data reveals about patterns of force within CDP. The Division’s Training Section appears to recognize that it is critical to build upon the initial Use of Force Training rather than let those positive results slide as officers forget critical skills and lessons.

2. Compliance with Policy

As noted previously, and as with many areas of the Consent Decree discussed in this report, the Division remains in the early days of actively implementing new policies designed to comply with the Decree. Again, early indicators are tremendously encouraging. However, more time will be necessary for the new obligations to sink in, for the Division to demonstrate that it is holding officers accountable for deviations from new force expectations, and for the Monitoring Team to independently evaluate whether officers are in fact using force in a manner consistent with the new policies and training.

D. Use of Force Investigation and Review

Paragraph
93. “A supervisor who was involved in a use of force, including by participating in or ordering the force under investigation, will not investigate the incident or review the Use of Force Reports for approval or disapproval.” 94. Setting specific requirements relating to the investigation of low-level, Level 1 force. 95–109. Setting specific requirements relating to the investigation by supervisors and/or CDP chain of command for investigation and review of Level 2 force. 110. “CDP may refer criminal investigations of uses of force to an independent and highly competent agency outside CDP.” 111. Creation and design of dedicated Force Investigation Team (FIT) that “will conduct administrative investigations . . . and criminal investigations” of serious force, “force involving potential criminal conduct,” in-custody deaths, and cases assigned to it by the Chief. 112. Composition of FIT Team.
113. “FIT members will receive FIT-specific training that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type” on a host of specific, expressly-listed topics both initially and annually thereafter. 114. “CDP will identify, assign, and train personnel for the FIT to fulfill the requirements of this Agreement.”

Status of Compliance EVALUATION DEFERRED
NONCOMPLIANCE NONCOMPLIANCE EVALUATION DEFERRED NONCOMPLIANCE
NONCOMPLIANCE NONCOMPLIANCE
NONCOMPLIANCE

52

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 57 of 194. PageID #: 4107
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018

115. Response of FIT to use of force scenes. FIT notification of prosecutor’s office. Notification of designated outside agency to conduct criminal investigation if City elects to use external agency for such investigations. 116. “CDP will develop and implement polices to ensure that, where an outside agency conducts the criminal investigation, FIT conducts a concurrent and thorough administrative investigation.” 117. Memorandum of understanding required between CDP and outside agency containing specific, expressly-listed provisions.
118. Setting forth various, specific, and expressly-listed responsibilities of FIT during its investigations.
119. Monitor’s duty to annually review any “criminal investigations conducted by the outside agency” to ensure that they “are consistently objective, timely, and comprehensive.” 120. Providing for delay of compelled interview if “case has the potential to proceed criminally” but otherwise requiring that “[n]o other part of the investigation . . . be held in abeyance” unless “specifically authorized by the Chief” in consultation with investigating agency and prosecutor’s office. 121. Requiring completion of preliminary report presented to Chief or Chief’s designee “as soon as possible, but absent exigent circumstances, no later than 24 hours after learning of the use of force.” 122. Completion of investigation within 60 days. Preparation of FIT investigation report. Review of FIT investigative report by head of Internal Affairs who “will approve or disapprove FIT’s recommendations, or request . . . additional investigation.” 123. Revision of FIT manual to ensure “consisten[cy] with the force principles” and several specific, expressly-listed provisions.
124–30. Establishment and operation of Force Review Board “to serve as a quality control mechanism for uses of force and force investigations, and to appraise use of force incidents from a tactics, training, policy, and agency improvement perspective.”

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
NONCOMPLIANCE
EVALUATION DEFERRED NONCOMPLIANCE EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED
NONCOMPLIANCE
NONCOMPLIANCE NONCOMPLIANCE

Background
Along with failures by CDP officers to report officer uses of force, CDP had also, before the Consent Decree, not always “adequately review[ed] and investigate[d] officers’ uses of force”128 and in some instances had “speciallytrained investigators who are charged with conducting unbiased reviews of officers’ use of deadly force . . . conduct their investigations with the goal of casting the accused officer in the most positive light possible.”129 Many personnel within the Division believed, erroneously, that all force investigations were Internal Affairs investigations into what had already been determined to be misconduct, rather than “mechanisms . . . to selfmanage and continually improve the quality of its service.”130 All uses of force were reviewed under the same or similar processes, no matter how minimal or serious the use of force, leaving supervisors frustrated as to why they were dedicating so much investigatory time to relatively minor uses of force.131 Altogether, the “CDP’s systemic

128 DOJ Findings Letter at 3. 129 Id. at 5. 130 Second Semiannual Report at 36. 131 Id.

53

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 58 of 194. PageID #: 4108
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
failures” meant it was “not able to timely, properly, and effectively determine how much force its officers are using[.]”132
Consequently, the Consent Decree establishes clear protocols by which the Division must investigate uses of force by the reported level of force. Under a Level One use of force, supervisors are not required to respond to the scene. Unless the supervisor determines the lower-level force to be in violation of Division policy, the subject to whom force was applied makes an allegation of excessive force, or the supervisor determines that the level of force was improperly classified, the investigation will typically be limited to a review of the involved officer’s use of force report.133 Level Two uses of force require a supervisor to respond to the scene and commence a preliminary force inquiry. Such inquiries are to include assessing officer and subject inquiries and ensuring prompt medical assistance, locating and interviewing witnesses, identifying and locating physical or forensic evidence, securing any audio or video evidence that may have captured the incident, and properly evaluating whether the force used was consistent with law and policy.134 If a supervisor’s inquiry at any point indicates “that there may have been misconduct, the supervisor will immediately notify Internal Affairs and Internal Affairs will determine if it should response to the scene and/or conduct or take over the investigation.”135
Level Three uses of force may come under the purview of either CDP’s Force Investigation Team (“FIT Team”) or an independent outside agency. The FIT Team, made up of individuals specially selected for their training and expertise, will receive FIT-specific training to handle comprehensive and objective administrative reviews of force incidents.136
Along with force inquiries, the Decree also requires CDP to craft policies and procedures related to supervisory review of completed force investigations. Part of this process entails the establishment of a Force Review Board (“FRB”). Intended “to serve as a quality control mechanism for uses of force and force investigations,” the FRB will “appraise use of force incidents from a tactics, training, policy, and agency improvement perspective.”137 Specifically, FRB will review all serious uses of force (e.g., FIT investigations), Level 2 investigations involving force-related misconduct, and a random sample of Level 2 investigations that do not involve force-related misconduct.138 FRB must also “assess the quality of the investigations it reviews, including whether investigations are objective and comprehensive and recommendations are supported by a preponderance of the evidence.”139 It will “examine . . . data related to use of force . . . to detect any patterns, trends, and training deficiencies . . . . ”140 The Board will be comprised of personnel from across the Division, who will receive training on “legal updates, updates to CDP’s policies, and CDP training curriculum related to the use of force.”141
132 DOJ Findings Letter at 5. 133 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶¶ 94-95. 134 Id. at ¶¶ 95-97. 135 Id. at ¶ 99. 136 See id. at ¶¶ 111-18. 137 Id. at ¶ 124. 138 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 124. 139 Id. ¶ 128. 140 Id. ¶ 129. 141 Id. at ¶ 124-25.
54

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 59 of 194. PageID #: 4109
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
What Has Been Accomplished
Since December 2016, the Parties have been working on the creation of a comprehensive FIT Manual to guide CDP investigations of Level 3 uses of force. The draft Manual is now in its final stages of development and the manual is expected to be completed and submitted for court approval by the end of Summer 2018. The document has been the subject of extensive discussions and revisions in an attempt to use best practices identified from police departments around the country and apply them to the specific needs of CDP and the communities it serves.
In addition, a supervisory review and investigation policy for Level 1 and 2 uses of force is in the final stages of development and is expected to be submitted for court approval at the same time as the FIT manual. Upon the completion of the FIT manual and the Supervisory Review and Investigation policy, work will continue in earnest to discuss and finalize a policy guiding the work of the CDP's new Force Review Board.
Where the Division Stands
Because the FIT and FRB policies have not yet been implemented, the Monitoring Team is unable to assess any improvements on the quality of force investigations and review.
The Monitoring Team here notes that the Division has continued to have a relatively slow pace of force investigations. Officers enter their use of force reports into Blue Team, the officer input section of IAPro. CDP supervisors in the chain of command review those use of force reports in Blue Team and then forward them along the chain. Over 2016, the Monitoring Team identified that there were a substantial number of use of force cases in Blue Team that had not passed through the levels of review and were, essentially, in a backlog. When the Monitoring Team first requested data on use of force from the Division, it had been aware of a backlog in Blue Team chain of command reviews. As of late 2016, approximately 145 use of force were in a backlog dating to March 2016, raising concerns about the slow pace of force reviews.
However, and encouragingly, the Division has made great strides in 2018 to enhance the timeliness of force investigations and eliminate backlogged force investigations. As of mid-June 2018, only four force investigations from 2017 remained open – with significant majorities of investigations of force incidents occurring in January and February 2018 being closed. This pace, if the Division continues to focus on maintaining it, will substantially assist the Division in ensuring the timely completion of force investigations that the Decree contemplates.
Progress and Tasks that Remain
1. Officer Training and Policy Implementation
With the FIT and FRB manuals anticipated to be completed in the near future, CDP will be able to comprehensively analyze the application of force so that officer training, professional development, and risk management may all be continually enhanced. Going forward, the Division must seriously embrace the responsibility to review officers’ force incidents—“not on the assumption that they necessarily did anything wrong, to uncover trivial policy violations, or to second-guess officers, but instead to ensure that the Division generally and involved officers specifically are able to learn and improve from each interaction. This process will require that the Division and its personnel become comfortable with the notion that saying that an officer’s
55

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 60 of 194. PageID #: 4110
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
performance should or could have been better during the course of an incident, even where an officer had no other choice than to apply force consistent with policy at the instant that it was applied, is not only possible but vital.”142 Before new policies on force investigation and review can become effective, implicated Division personnel will need to receive training on the new expectations. Specifically, the Division’s supervisors will all need training on how to conduct lower-level force investigations and reviews; the new FIT Team will need to receive forceinvestigation-specific instruction; and selected members of the newly-established FRB will likewise need to receive initial training on their duties, responsibilities, and the ways that the Board must conduct its work. The Parties and Monitoring Team have worked through several drafts of a curriculum addressing supervisory training. Over the next reporting period, the Division will need to take significant steps to design and implement these important training initiatives.
2. Operation of FRB As the FRB becomes operational following the finalization of the FRB Manual, the Monitoring Team plans to provide in-depth, active, and real-time technical assistance by participating in meetings of the Board and, where necessary, ask questions or probe unexplored issues if the Board is not otherwise considering material issues that it must under CDP policies and the Consent Decree. The Monitoring Team will also evaluate outcome data for the FRB’s ability to act as “quality control” for the thorough and timely review of force incidents.
3. Compliance & Adherence to New Policies The requirements of supervisors, FIT, FRB, and the Division’s command staff when it comes to the investigation and review of force incidents are significant and critical. The Division, and Monitoring Team, will need to ensure that it is adhering to the new requirements across cases, investigations, and time. Again, short-term or sporadic compliance will be insufficient for the new policies on force investigation and review to be considered effective in practice – and for the Division to reach “general compliance.”
142 Fourth Semiannual Report at 34-35.
56

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 61 of 194. PageID #: 4111
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018

VII. CRISIS INTERVENTION

Paragraph 131. “CDP will build upon and improve its Crisis Intervention Program” in furtherance of four specific, expressly-listed goals, which “will provide a forum for effective problem solving regarding the interaction between the criminal justice and mental health system and create a context for sustainable change.” 132. Establishment of Mental Health Response Advisory Committee (the “Advisory Committee”) “to foster relationships and build support between the police, community, and mental health providers and to help identify problems and develop solutions designed to improve outcomes for individuals in crisis.” 133. Composition of Advisory Committee.
134. “The Advisory Committee will meet regularly and provide guidance to assist CDP in improving, expanding, and sustaining its Crisis Intervention Program.” 135. Advisory Committee will conduct an annual “analysis of crisis intervention incidents to determine whether CDP has enough specialized CIT officers, whether it is deploying those officers effectively, and whether specialized CIT officers” and communications “are appropriately responding to people in crisis,” and will also “recommend appropriate changes.” 136. “The Advisory Committee’s reports and recommendations will be provided” to CPC, “be publicly available, and will be posted on the City’s website.” 137. CDP will designate a Crisis Intervention Coordinator for specific, expresslyidentified purposes. 138. “Coordinator will develop and maintain partnerships with program stakeholders and serve as point of contact” and “resource” for other stakeholders. 139. “Coordinator will participate in the Advisory Committee and on a regular basis solicit feedback from the mental health community and specialized CIT officers, calltakers, and dispatchers regarding the efficacy of CDP’s Crisis Intervention Program.” 140. “Coordinator will be responsible for coordinating implementation of the changes and recommendations made by the Advisory Committee, as appropriate.” 141. “Coordinator will be responsible for ensuring the selection of appropriate candidates for designation as specialized CIT officers” and “to ensure that officers, calltakers, and dispatchers are appropriately responding to CIT-related calls.” 142. “Coordinator will create ways to recognize and honor specialized CIT officers, call-takers, and dispatchers.” 143. Initial and annual crisis intervention training to all officers and recruits that is “adequate in quality, quantity, type, and scope.” 144. Initial and annual crisis intervention training for dispatchers and call-takers.

Status of Compliance PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE EVALUATION DEFERRED
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
EVALUATION DEFERRED OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE

57

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 62 of 194. PageID #: 4112
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
Background
Law enforcement officers are often the first responders to situations involving individuals who are experiencing what is called a “behavioral health crisis” – a term refers to people experiencing mental health, significant substance abuse, or other behavioral health issues. For instance, while individuals with severe mental illness make up only three percent of the U.S. adult population, they are involved in as many as ten percent of emergency calls to police.143 Further, it is estimated that between one-quarter to one-half of all fatal law enforcement encounters involve individuals experiencing mental health issues.144
Across the country, and for some time, there has been concern that police officers need more comprehensive skills, training, and support to be able to identify individuals experiencing behavioral crises and respond in the manner that best ensures the safety of the individual, the general public, and officers. Cleveland was not immune from these issues at the start of the Consent Decree process. The investigation that led to the Decree found that CDP “officers use[d] excessive force against individuals who are in mental health crisis or who may be unable to understand or comply with the officers’ commands[.]”145 This was true even in situations where “officers [were] called to the scene by concerned family members who are only seeking help for their loved ones.”146 “Too often[,] . . . officers handle[d] these difficult situations poorly and end up resorting to unconstitutional force against people in crisis.”147
Recognizing the challenge of crisis intervention and the need for CDP officers to better assist people in crisis, the Consent Decree requires that the Division should build and enhance its Crisis Intervention Program with the goals of:
● Assisting individuals in crisis; ● Improving the safety of officer, consumers, family members, and others within the community; ● Providing the foundation necessary to promote community and statewide solutions to assist
individuals with mental illness; and ● Reducing the need for individuals with mental illness to have further involvement with the criminal
justice system.148
What Has Been Accomplished to Date
1. Establishment of the Mental Health Response Advisory Committee
The Parties and other stakeholders completed several key tasks in the initial months of Consent Decree implementation. The Alcohol, Drug Addiction and Mental Health Services Board of Cuyahoga County (the “ADAMHS Board”), under a memorandum of understanding with the City, formed the Mental Health Response
143 See Doris A. Fuller, et al., Overlooked in the Undercounted: The Role of Mental Illness in Fatal Law Enforcement Encounters, Treatment Advocacy Center (Dec. 2015), http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/storage/documents/overlooked-in-theundercounted.pdf. 144 Id. 145 DOJ Findings Letter at 4. 146 Id. at 53. 147 Id. at 53. 148 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 131.
58

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 63 of 194. PageID #: 4113
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
Advisory Committee (“MHRAC” or “Advisory Committee”). This Advisory Committee, required by the Decree, is a community problem-solving forum that has become the center of the City of Cleveland’s efforts at providing emergency and social services to individuals experiencing behavioral health crises. Representatives from the police, social service providers, mental health and substance abuse professionals, the judiciary, advocates, and individuals in recovery continue to meet regularly to collaborate on ways to improve services to those in need of care.149 Over the course of the Decree’s implementation, the Advisory Committee has provided an impressive, effective forum for addressing issues regarding the interaction between the criminal justice system and mental health care. The group has navigated disagreements and tackled difficult issues – reaching common-sense solutions and aiming for common ground. MHRAC has quickly become a national model for how a community can come together and, across functions and areas of concern, coordinate an effective response to a major public health and public safety issue.
MHRAC began with six standing subcommittees (Executive, Policy, Data, Training, Community Engagement, and Diversion).150 It added a seventh, the Quality Improvement Subcommittee, in 2017, which reflects MHRAC’s increasing focus on improving the delivery of social services to individuals in crisis.
2. Needs Assessment
MHRAC’s first major accomplishment was completing a crisis intervention needs assessment (“Needs Assessment”), evaluating the needs of both the public and CDP officers. The Advisory Committee’s Community Engagement and Policy Subcommittees created an ad hoc Public Safety Task Force, which organized community meetings that were facilitated by MHRAC and CDP officials. It also provided a survey to attendees at community meetings and online, with Spanish language versions made available and special efforts made to reach out to Cleveland’s Spanish-speaking community. MHRAC also worked with the National Alliance of Mental Illness (“NAMI”) of Greater Cleveland to host focus group sessions. CDP surveyed its officers on crisis issues, and a number of police officer organizations provided comments.
The Advisory Committee’s Data Subcommittee analyzed the community-wide and police officer feedback, with a summary of community input presented at MHRAC’s April 2016 general meeting.
The results of the Needs Assessments informed development of the MHRAC’s inaugural Work Plan, a detailed document that identified major tasks, responsible parties, and working timeframes. The Work Plan called for MHRAC to focus on, among other early priorities: revising the Division’s crisis intervention policy; exploring new crisis data collection; revising crisis intervention training curricula; and establishing CDP CIT leadership. The Court approved the Work Plan in May 2016.
149 Third Semiannual Report at 56. 150 First Semiannual Report at 39-40.
59

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 64 of 194. PageID #: 4114
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
3. Appointment of a CDP Crisis Intervention Coordinator
Under the Consent Decree, the CDP must appoint an officer, at the rank of Captain or above, to act as the Division’s Crisis Intervention Coordinator (“CIT Coordinator”) within 180 days of the Decree becoming effective.151 The CIT Coordinator is tasked with the following important duties:
• Developing partnerships with stakeholders; • Participating in the Advisory Committee; • Soliciting feedback from the community and specialized CIT officers and dispatchers; • Coordinating implementation of changes; and • Ensuring the selection of appropriate candidates as specialized CIT officers and creating ways to honor
and recognize specialized CIT officers and dispatchers.152
CDP appointed Captain James Purcell as the CDP’s Crisis Intervention Coordinator. Captain Purcell is a wellrespected officer with experience in the mental health field. As discussed later, he has played an active role in the Division’s crisis intervention success, and his leadership has been crucial to the success of MHRAC and the Division’s efforts in the crisis intervention area.
4. Revising CDP Crisis Intervention Policies and Procedures
The Decree required CDP to work in partnership with MHRAC to revise its policies to clarify that:
• Crisis intervention responses may be necessary even in situations where there has been an apparent law violation;
• CIT officers have appropriate discretion to direct individuals to health care rather than the judicial system; and
• CIT officers must be dispatched to all calls that involve an individual in crisis.153
The work to revise and expand three interdependent CDP policies (Crisis Intervention Program, Crisis Intervention Response, and Crisis Intervention Definitions) began early in the Decree’s implementation and was led by MHRAC’s Policy Subcommittee. As part of revising the Crisis Intervention Policies, the Policy Subcommittee identified four guiding principles:
• Advancing respect, dignity, and safety in all interactions between CDP and citizens; • Safely diverting people with mental illness, the vulnerable, and/or those citizens in crisis from the criminal
justice system where possible to appropriate mental health and substance abuse treatment; • Reducing unnecessary use of force and injury and advancing best practice tactics; and • Managing the stigma associated with mental illness and addiction in police-citizen encounters.154
151 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 137. 152 Id. at ¶¶ 137-42. 153 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶¶ 153-59. 154 ADAMHS Board of Cuyahoga County on behalf of the City of Cleveland Mental Health Response Advisory Committee, City of Cleveland Mental Health Advisory Committee 2015 Report, 1-22 (Jan. 2016).
60

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 65 of 194. PageID #: 4115
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
To assess best practices, the Policy Subcommittee reviewed more than 23 separate crisis intervention policies from across the country. Subcommittee members identified the best features of each policy and worked collaboratively with Division officials to incorporate those features into the revised policies. The MHRAC Policy Subcommittee used the results from the community and officer needs assessment meetings to guide them in developing the revised policies.
Upon completion of a finalized draft policy, the Division and City of Cleveland went to great efforts to obtain meaningful community input. In major community events, members were briefed on the policy. Skilled facilitators helped with small group feedback so that all community members had a chance to discuss their reactions to the new policy. Community turnout was high.
Community feedback was tracked systematically. The MHRAC Policy Subcommittee reviewed all community recommendations and met to discuss the crisis intervention policies in light of the community comments. The community feedback at public forums led to further substantive changes in the policies, including a stronger emphasis on the concept of respect and dignity, a focus on the importance of building relationships with community and local neighborhoods, a juvenile-specific section in the Crisis Intervention Response Policy, and guidance for the officer for responding to children who are witnesses to an event when police respond to individuals in crisis.
In January 2017, after closely reviewing the final policies, the Monitoring Team recommended their approval by the Court. The new policy represents a comprehensive and thoughtful strategy for responding to individuals in a behavioral crisis – one that involves not just the Division but Cleveland’s wider social service fabric. The policies also address issues not included in the specific requirements of the Consent Decree, such as coordination with community resources to assist those in need and addressing the needs of youth by providing special guidance for officers interacting with them. Further, although the community-based Advisory Committee is required by the Consent Decree, MHRAC’s role was written directly into the new CDP policies – helping it ensure that the community will be partnering with the Division on crisis intervention issues for years to come.
The willingness of MHRAC, CDP, and the Parties to go beyond the strict requirements of the Consent Decree to provide the best solutions for the residents of Cleveland has helped to establish the Division’s crisis intervention approach as among the best in the nation.
5. Crisis Intervention Training
The Consent Decree requires several types of training related to crisis intervention. First, all officers must receive at least eight hours of initial training on crisis intervention issues. Second, new recruits must receive 16 hours of training in the Academy on crisis issues. Third, CDP dispatchers and call-takers must receive appropriate training on identifying signs of behavioral crisis. Fourth, CDP must provide 40 hours of enhanced training to designated, specialized Crisis Intervention Team (“CIT”) officers who will be specifically dispatched to the scene of incidents involving individuals experiencing a behavioral crisis.
61

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 66 of 194. PageID #: 4116
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
Academy Training. Since the Consent Decree was first ordered, the Ohio Peace Officer Training Commission issued a new Crisis Intervention training curriculum for Ohio peace officers.155 CDP recruits receive this curriculum as part of Academy Training. The Parties, MHRAC, CDP, and the Monitoring Team agreed that this new training is a reasonable substitute for the Decree-required sixteen hours of Academy Training.
Annual In-Service Training. The Advisory Committee’s Training Subcommittee took the lead to design the CIT curriculum for the minimum of eight hours of annual training for all officers, adapting elements of the academy training curriculum to shape the eight hours of annual training for all officers.
In the Winter and Spring of 2017, the MHRAC Training Subcommittee and CDP focused on the first year of annual training of all CDP officers. The Committee decided that an emphasis on the quality of instruction and the ability of the training to have a meaningful impact on the officer in training were more valuable than covering a large quantity of topics. The final eight-hour training curriculum – a product of significant collaboration among CDP, the MHRAC Training Subcommittee, and the community – was approved by the Court.156
Once the Eight-Hour Training Curriculum was approved by the Court, CDP began scheduling training for all officers. In order to prepare for the training, CDP, the ADAMHS Board staff, a representative of the Ohio Criminal Justice Coordinating Center for Excellence, representatives from the Department of Justice, and a member of the Monitoring Team with national expertise in crisis intervention collaborated to train both the law enforcement and mental health instructors. An evaluation instrument used in other crisis training work was modified for the Eight-Hour Training given to CDP officers. The Department of Justice and the Monitoring Team observed several training sessions to provide feedback and quality assurance. As of late November 2017, all officers eligible to attend the crisis intervention training had completed it.157
In the current reporting period, under MHRAC’s Third-Year Work Plan, the Training Subcommittee has been, among other tasks, developing a second-year curriculum for all CDP officers on crisis intervention issues. The second-year curriculum was submitted to the Court for final approval on July 13, 2018. The Second-Year Crisis Intervention In-Service Training for all CDP officers began on July 16, 2018.
40-Hour Specialized CIT Training. The Consent Decree provides that the Division must “provide enhanced specialized training in responding to individuals in crisis to certain officers (‘specialized CIT officers’)” who will be “called upon to respond to incidents or calls involving individuals in crisis.”158 These specially trained officers functionally become the Division’s experts on handling difficult situations involving individuals experiencing behavioral health crises.
Early on, the Advisory Committee’s Training Subcommittee developed a series of recommendations for the 40 Hours of Enhanced Training for Specialized CIT Officers, which included:
• Focus on patrol officers who volunteer for the training;
155 Ohio Peace Officer Training Commission: Education & Policy Section, Peace Officer Basic Training Crisis Intervention, 1-156 (Jan. 2016). 156 Dkt. 129. 157 Dkt. 165 at 3. 158 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 144-46.
62

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 67 of 194. PageID #: 4117
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
• Use of providers/experts in the field and experienced CIT officers to provide training, including individuals and families of individuals in recovery from serious mental illness;
• New emphasis on the use of de-escalation tactics for responding to individuals experiencing mental health or behavioral health crisis; and
• Adding the use of the commitment process to the legal education component.159
Detailed work on the 40-hour specialized training waited while MHRAC’s Policy Subcommittee finalized the Division’s crisis intervention policy. In 2017, the CDP and the Training Subcommittee worked with the Department of Justice and the Monitoring Team to obtain informal feedback for both the course outline and the templates of sample courses for the 40-hour training. The full MHRAC Committee ultimately approved the outline of the 40-Hour Curriculum.
In the current reporting period, the Training Subcommittee has worked to complete the 40-Hour Curriculum. The Training Subcommittee is working with community faculty who volunteer to provide expert instruction. The faculty and the Training Subcommittee will complete the individual courses. The Training Subcommittee is collaborating with CDP, the City, the Department of Justice, and the Monitoring Team to develop the final draft of the 40-hour curriculum in the Fall of 2018.
Training for Dispatchers and Call Takers. The Training Subcommittee has continued work on the CDP’s existing CIT curriculum for dispatchers and call takers, which focuses on that personnel being able to identify calls for service that may implicate crisis intervention issues and dispatching appropriate resources to the scene of such events. To date, an outline has been developed, and the more specific curriculum will be fully finalized once the 40-Hour Curriculum for specialized CIT officers is completed.
6. Specialized Crisis Intervention Plan
Under the Decree, the CIT Coordinator must “develop an effective specialized crisis intervention plan . . . to ensure that a specialized CIT officer is available to respond to all calls and incidents that appear to involve an individual in crisis[.]”160 To become a specialized CIT officer, a CDP officer must volunteer, have three years of CDP experience, complete a written application, obtain supervisory recommendations, undergo a disciplinary file review, and participate in an in-person interview. Officers with a history of complaints of, or who have been disciplined for, excessive use of force against individuals in crisis will be presumed ineligible to be specialized CIT officers.161
CDP’s Specialized Crisis Intervention Plan was developed by CIT Coordinator Captain James Purcell and was informed by an analysis of CDP Crisis calls for service by district. The plan includes:
• assessment of the number of officers necessary to ensure coverage of all calls for an individual in crisis across all shifts and all Districts;
• description of the procedures for identification of any gaps in coverage; • mechanisms that the Division will use to fill gaps in coverage;
159 First Semiannual Report at 43. 160 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 152. 161 Id. at ¶ 148.
63

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 68 of 194. PageID #: 4118
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018

• analysis of barriers to full coverage and possible steps to overcome these barriers; and • ways to identify officers who may be suitable to be specialized CIT officers.162

Following approval by MHRAC, the Specialized Crisis Intervention Plan was submitted to the Court in August 2017.163 The Court approved the Plan.

7. Selection of Specialized CIT Officers

Paragraph
145. “CDP will provide enhanced specialized training in responding to individuals in crisis to certain officers (‘specialized CIT officers’),” who will be “called upon to respond to incidents or calls involving individuals in crisis.” 146–47. Outlining various requirements for the “enhanced training” for specialized CIT officers of “at least 40 hours.” 148. Designation of specialized CIT officers, per specific, expressly-listed requirements.
149. “Supervisors will identify and encourage qualified officers across all shifts and all Districts to serve as specialized officers.” 150. “All Field Training Officers” (“FTO”s) “will receive the enhanced specialized crisis intervention training described in paragraph 146,” though FTOs will “not be designated as a specialized CIT officer” unless they volunteer and have been selected to do so. 151. “Specialized CIT officers who are dispatched to an incident involving an individual in crisis will have primary responsibility for the scene,” with supervisors “seek[ing] the input of a specialized CIT officer . . . where it is reasonable for them to do so.” 152. “[T]he Coordinator will develop an effective specialized crisis intervention plan . . . to ensure that a specialized CIT officer is available to respond to all calls and incidents that appear to involve an individual in crisis” that includes various, specific, expresslyidentified requirements. The City “will use its best efforts to ensure that a specialized CIT officer responds to all calls and incidents that appear to involve an individual in crisis.”

Status of Compliance PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED

The Consent Decree requires that the CIT Coordinator “will be responsible for the selection of appropriate candidates for designation as specialized CIT officers” and “to ensure that officers, call-takers, and dispatchers are appropriately responding to CIT-related calls.”164 CDP took the lead in developing a selection process for officers as part of the Second-Year Monitoring Plan. CIT Coordinator Captain James Purcell engaged in a series of discussions with MHRAC, the Department of Justice, and the Monitoring Team regarding the appropriate criteria for specialized CIT officer selection.

As a result, the Division has developed a plan for CIT officer selection that has been well-received. The selection plan outlines a three-stage process:

162 Dkt. 146-2 at 3. 163 See Dkt. 146. 164 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 141.

64

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 69 of 194. PageID #: 4119
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
• Participation Request; • Personnel File Review; and • Selection Board Interview Participation Request.
The Participation Request provides for a systematic set of requirements that include voluntary participation, three years of experience, supervisor recommendations, a history relevant to CIT, and a willingness to handle crisis incidents and divert individuals when feasible.
The Personnel File Review aims to select officers with an impressive CDP record. The review includes an examination of the disciplinary record—including the disposition, nature, and evidence of pattern of behavior— as well as any citizen complaints. The Personnel File Review also considers annual performance evaluations, awards, commendations, and letters that reflect outstanding performance, particularly in CIT-related incidents.
The Selection Board Interview Process is designed to assess motivation, provide insight into an officer’s CIT calls and reports, and offer an opportunity to review discipline, awards, and evaluations.
This Selection Plan was reviewed and approved by MHRAC, as well as by the Court in August 2017. The formal selection process will begin this Fall prior to the start of the 40-hour CIT Training.
8. Data Collection
The Division must annually gather and publicly report outcome data for calls and incidents involving individuals in crisis, including:
• Subject’s name, age, gender, race, ethnicity, and address; • Whether the subject was armed, and the type of weapon; • Name and address of individual calling for service; • Reason for the interaction, i.e., suspected criminal conduct or call for assistance; • Name(s) and badge number(s) of the officer(s) on the scene; • Techniques or equipment officers used; and • Disposition of the incident.165
Data will be reported annually and used to identify training needs, trends, successful individual officer performance, necessary changes in strategies, and systemic issues related to crisis intervention response.166
As the Monitoring Team has previously discussed, CDP’s prior reporting system resulted in data that may have been simultaneously over- and under-inclusive. – Information may not have been collected about incidents involving people in crisis when those incidents entailed other enforcement activity. Additionally, information may have been collected about incidents in which the involved subject was not actually in crisis. Further, the manual, pen-and-paper reporting forms – commonly referred to as “stat sheets” – did not have a strong response rate and reported on a narrow range of CDP crisis calls.
165 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 157. 166 Id. ¶¶ 157–58
65

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 70 of 194. PageID #: 4120
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
CDP and the ADAMHS Board agreed that crisis intervention data collection could be improved. The MHRAC’s Data Subcommittee developed a Crisis Intervention data form, and CDP integrated the form into proposed changes in the Division’s Computer-Aided Dispatch (“CAD”) system. Upon successful Division-wide implementation of the new CAD platform, information on CDP interactions with individuals in crisis will be more seamlessly, systematically, and efficiently gathered than before. An electronic system will replace the prior manual process. This will save officers significant time by using pre-populated data fields, eliminating the need to enter and re-enter basic data about the same incident.
9. Quality Improvement Subcommittee
After reviewing CDP’s changes to its Crisis Intervention Program, the MHRAC decided to address linkages between crisis intervention and treatment. MHRAC subsequently created a Quality Improvement Subcommittee – drawn from the MHRAC Policy and Data Subcommittees, as well as a range of subject matter experts, advocates, and individuals in recovery – to work with the Division.
The Quality Improvement Subcommittee is designed to assess not only the effectiveness of CDP’s CIT policies and Crisis Intervention Plan, but also the gaps in accessing mental health and addiction services. To that end, the subcommittee is tasked with offering specific solutions to issues involving crisis care and follow-up treatment.
The Monitoring Team appreciates the willingness of the ADAMHS Board and their providers to examine how their own system can provide a better system of care. MHRAC and the ADAMHS Board are leveraging changes in the CDP’s strategy for crisis intervention to further improve the lives of citizens in need of support in dealing with behavioral crisis events. MHRAC is doing what is necessary to ensure that there are no gaps in the continuum of care, which reduces the need for individuals with mental illness to have further involvement with the criminal justice system. Again, this constitutes the type of dynamic, cross-system problem-solving that illustrates the success of the MHRAC in becoming the hub for addressing behavioral health service delivery issues in Cleveland.
10. Community Engagement
The MHRAC Community Engagement Subcommittee has committed itself to ensuring that community members are well-informed about the CIT Program. This committee has previously developed a resource card for officers to use to refer individuals in crisis to alternative resources. This committee also took on a major role in the initial needs assessment process and provided important linkages with the community throughout the consent decree period. The Community Engagement Subcommittee is now developing a Speakers Bureau and working with the CPC to enhance the MHRAC’s outreach efforts. As the CIT 40-Hour Training is completed, this subcommittee will take on an increasingly larger role in the program’s success.
Where the Division Stands
Crisis intervention was one of the earliest priorities in the Consent Decree’s implementation, and the City of Cleveland has made tremendous progress in this area. Indeed, the Cleveland community can be justifiably proud of its new CIT program.167 As the Monitoring Team reported in its Fourth Semiannual Report, the Division’s
167 Tanisha Anderson's death helped spark needed change in Cleveland police crisis intervention: editorial, Cleveland.com (February 23, 2018), http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2018/02/cleveland_police_has_the_right.html.
66

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 71 of 194. PageID #: 4121
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
new CIT policy has been recognized as a national model of crisis intervention.168 The Monitoring Team will continue to represent to other jurisdictions that Cleveland’s crisis policies are among the best and mostforward looking policies in the country.
In many ways, the progress that the City has made in the area of crisis intervention is the strongest and most significant of any area of the Consent Decree to date. The collaboration of a diverse group of stakeholders from across the City, a genuine willingness to critically appraise prior practices, and the strategic adoption of new approaches geared at new outcomes are having tangible benefits for individuals in crisis, police officers, social service providers, and Cleveland residents. This community collaboration has benefitted from the thoughtful participation of individuals who have embraced the charge to look forward to how the police and community can partner and respond differently in the future to get better results for individuals in crisis, police officers, and the community as a whole.
While the progress to date has been impressive from a qualitative standpoint, and the Parties and stakeholders can be proud of the work to date, the Monitoring Team still awaits full and comprehensive quantitative measures that evince improvements in the outcomes of people in crisis. This is not to say that the changes to date have not had a measurable impact on the streets of Cleveland – only that, because of various issues with data collection and tracking details about the Division’s interactions with individuals in crisis, it has been challenging to date to come up with a reliable, clear set of measures for identifying effects and trends in the crisis intervention area.
As this report elsewhere makes clear, the full implementation of an updated CAD platform promises to allow officers to report more regularly and efficiently will allow a much better sense of where the Division is on the route to fully complying with the various requirements on responding to individuals in crisis.
Progress and Tasks that Remain
1. Ongoing MHRAC Work
As the Cleveland Division of Police moves into the next stages of Consent Decree implementation, the MHRAC’s Diversion Subcommittee will serve an increasingly important role in providing advice and assistance to the Division. The MHRAC Third Annual Workplan provides six goals for the Diversion Subcommittee, which include focusing on utilizing the Crisis Stabilization Unit as a diversion point, identifying diversion points for adolescents, working with the Greater Cleveland Congregations to develop two crisis centers in the county, promoting awareness of new diversion centers, working with behavioral partners to address capacity issues that could impact on timely access to clinical services, and coordinating work with the Veterans Health Administration. These goals are impressive, and completing the tasks involved will have an important impact on those in need of crisis services.
The Community Engagement Subcommittee will continue to strengthen the partnership between the CPD, the ADAMHS Board and the Cleveland community. The subcommittee works to inform the community about the CPD Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) program through implementation of a speakers’ bureau, development of
168 Ballard, C. and Purcell, J. (2017, August). Cleveland Division of Police; Opportunities to Transform Responses to the Community. Presentation at the CIT International Annual Meeting, Ft. Lauderdale, FL.
67

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 72 of 194. PageID #: 4122
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
promotional materials, public forums, the district-specific CPD Community Resource Cards, and a liaison relationship with the Cleveland Police Commission.
2. Data & Compliance Reviews
As with a number of other areas of the Decree, the ability to more comprehensively and smoothly collect and track data depends on the long-awaited upgrade to the Division’s mobile computer-aided dispatch (“CAD”) system. This will ensure that crisis-related data can be input electronically and easily. Future, formalized assessments will need to explore whether officers are improving their de-escalation skills and seriously considering the process of diversion across time, officers, and incidents. Further, CDP will need to publicly report this outcome data annually and provide it to the Advisory Committee.169 Separately, the Monitoring Team will need to analyze data and review a material sample of incidents involving individuals in crisis to certify that officers – across time, incidents, and subjects – are complying with the new crisis intervention policies and the requirements of the Consent Decree.
3. In-Service Training Assessment and Continuous Improvement
CDP and MHRAC have successfully implemented in-service training for all officers. The in-service training will continue on an ongoing annual basis. MHRAC’s Quality Improvement Subcommittee has begun to review training evaluation feedback to identify potential areas of improvement and iteration, which is a good start in a process of continuous quality improvement. As more data becomes available, CDP will need to conduct formalized assessments of the outcome data to “identify training needs and develop case studies and teaching scenarios for crisis intervention training as well as primary and in-service crisis training curriculum[.]”170
4. Dispatcher and Specialized CIT Officer Training
Dispatchers will need to receive comprehensive and thorough training so that all CDP personnel that affect the Division’s crisis responses are prepared and understand the complex issues relating to mental and behavioral health. The final revision of the Dispatch Crisis Intervention Curriculum is scheduled for completion at the end of this year.
The Department is scheduled to complete the Specialized CIT Training in the second half of 2018. As a result, the selection of Specialized CIT Officers will take place this fall. The 40-Hour Training will allow the department to implement a key provision of the Consent Decree.
As the CAD system of information tracking comes online, the completion of the Dispatch and 40-Hour Training will allow the department to move to an important implementation phase that will consolidate the gains made during the first half of the Consent Decree’s implementation. Thus, the latter half of 2018 will play a critical part in allowing CDP to build upon and continue to improve its Crisis Intervention Program.
169 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 158. 170 Id. at ¶ 159.
68

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 73 of 194. PageID #: 4123
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018

VIII. SEARCH AND SEIZURE

Paragraph
160. “CDP will revise, develop, and implement search and seizure policies that comply with applicable law, . . . include the requirements below,” and conform to expresslyidentified principles. 161–65. Policy requirements for officers for stops, searches, and detentions.
166. “Officers will immediately notify a supervisor when effectuating a custodial arrest for obstructing official business, resisting arrest, or assault an officer and no other substantive violation is alleged,” and “the supervisor will respond to the scene.” 167. “Officers will not use ‘canned’ or conclusory language without supporting detail in documents or reports documenting investigatory stops, searches, or arrests.” 168. “Officers will articulate the justification for an investigatory stop, search, or arrest in a specific and clear manner in their reports.” CDP “will train officers” on documenting stops. “Supervisors will review all documentation of investigatory stops, searches, and arrests.” 169. Supervisor will review of “each arrest report by officers under their command,” with supervisors reviewing reports for specific, expressly-identified deficiencies. 170–72. Supervisory review of investigatory stops, searches, and arrests.
173. Provision of “initial training that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type on investigatory stops, searches, and arrests, including the requirements” of the Consent Decree that “will address the requirements of Fourth Amendment and related law, CDP policies,” and specific, expressly-identified topics. 174–75. Provision of “annual search and seizure in-service training that is adequate in quality, quantity, type, and scope” incorporating specific, expressly-identified topics.

Status of Compliance EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED

Background
The Consent Decree requires that CDP “revise, develop, and implement” policies on how its officers “conduct all investigatory stops, searches, and arrests with the goal” that such actions comply with the “Constitution, state and federal law.”171 In addition to ensuring that officers enforce these legal requirements, the policies also will prohibit officers from relying on a subject’s “race, ethnicity, gender, and perceived sexual orientation” as a reason to stop, search, or arrest an individual.172
Under the Decree, CDP officers will be expressly required to inform individuals of their right to decline consent to search (where such agreement is required).173 Moreover, where no underlying crimes are alleged and an individual is arrested solely for a crime related to interactions with police, such as resisting arrest and obstructing

171 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 160. 172 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 161; Dkt. 97 at 42. 173 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 164.
69

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 74 of 194. PageID #: 4124
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
official business, the officer making the arrest is required to notify his or her immediate supervisor so that the superior officer can arrive on scene to assess the situation.174
The Consent Decree also requires CDP officers to use specific details in reports documenting the events that led to an investigatory stop, search, or arrest without the use of “canned or conclusory statements.”175 Immediate supervisors and command staff are tasked with reviewing officer reports in a timely fashion to ensure compliance with applicable laws and CDP policies.176 This review is designed to address any and all violations and deficiencies in the documentation while also authorizing supervisors to recommend corrective and disciplinary action, along with criminal investigation, where appropriate.177
What Has Been Accomplished to Date
1. Stop Data Infrastructure
Early on, the Parties and the Monitoring Team agreed to defer progress on the Division’s Search and Seizure policies in order to prioritize other areas, such as use of force and crisis intervention. As the Team stated in its First Semiannual Report, the decision to defer consideration of the Search and Seizure policies was not meant to “minimiz[e] the importance of issues related to search and seizure to the Cleveland community” but to coordinate progress on these issues with a comprehensive community policing model (the CPOP Plan) to be developed in 2017 and 2018.178 It was later planned, under the Court-approved Second-Year Monitoring Plan, to begin work on stops, searches, and seizures in September 2017, which would include time for substantial community engagement and involvement in the policy drafting process.
Meanwhile, other work was done to upgrade the Division’s data infrastructure so that officers could track all investigatory stops in a manner that does not impose substantial inefficiencies. In June 2017, the Parties and Monitoring Team agreed on a working data template, informed by the requirements of the Consent Decree, that would be captured so that necessary work on the CAD upgrade could continue. The Division, working with the DOJ and Monitoring Team, determined that it would be simplest for officers to capture this data and information that it must on stops in the Division’s upgraded CAD environment. Ensuring the implementation of an area within CAD to log search and seizure information has indeed been part of the CAD rollout that is currently underway. Because CAD is a platform that the Division uses to log and address a vast array of law enforcement information, logging stops in CAD will allow officers to navigate these reporting requirements in a context with which they are already familiar and, indeed, must already navigate for other purposes. CDP will periodically reassess the data template to ensure that all necessary information is being captured.
It is currently contemplated that the Division, once the search-and-seizure-related policies are finalized and approved by the Court and officers receive requisite training on both the new policy and reporting requirements, will be positioned to begin using the new CAD system’s stop data area.
174 Id. at ¶ 166. 175 Id. at ¶ 167. 176 Id. at ¶¶ 168-72. 177 Id. 178 First Semiannual Report at 44.
70

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 75 of 194. PageID #: 4125
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
2. Drafting of Policies
Beginning in Fall of 2017, the Division, Parties, and Monitoring Team have worked through drafts of four related policies: Search & Seizure, Investigative Stops, Probable Cause/Warrantless Arrests, and Miranda Warning and Waiver. As of this writing, the Parties and Monitoring Team continue to collaborate in an effort to refine the policies and align them with legal and Consent Decree requirements. With the Court’s approval, the Parties and Monitoring Team agreed to modify the deadlines of the Revised Third-Year Monitoring Plan and will final drafts to the Parties, Monitoring Team, and CPC by August 15, 2018. At that time, the CPC will obtain and summarize community input.179
3. Community Engagement
In early 2018, the Community Police Commission, led by its Search & Seizure workgroup, began planning for an in-depth community engagement and outreach effort. Because Search & Seizure is a subject area with many legalistic complexities, the CPC made it a priority to inform community members on technical issues to consider before the draft policies became available for public input. This is especially important because search and seizures are directly related to the kinds of everyday enforcement interactions between police and members of the public.
The CPC put together a comprehensive presentation to educate community members on the legal parameters of police encounters, including the Fourth Amendment, voluntary contacts, detention, arrests, and warrantless searches. The March 27 presentation was well-received and shared on the CPC’s website and via social media. Subsequently, the CPC prepared a work plan to comprehensively gather community input on CDP’s upcoming search and seizure policies, ensuring that feedback is representative of Cleveland’s many diverse communities.
During the upcoming 60-day community feedback period, the City will also utilize its District Policing Committees and existing community partnerships to seek input from across Cleveland on the proposed new policies.180
Where the Division Stands
The Division is nearing the end of the policy creation process in the search and seizure area. Because the CDP has not finalized and implemented new policies or training on search and seizure practices, the Division’s search and seizure outcome data cannot be evaluated for outcome assessment purposes. The Monitoring Team is optimistic that data will soon begin to be collected, allowing for the Team to assess compliance with law, policy, and the Consent Decree – as well as real-world outcomes.
Although the Monitoring Team describes the Division’s status as “partial compliance” for the various provisions related to search and seizure, the Team observes that this is because the Division is continuing to work diligently toward finalizing policies and training. Ultimately, there is still some distance to travel, however, before the policies and data systems are in place across Cleveland.
179 Dkt. 203-1 at 14. 180 See Dkt. 195-1 at 14.
71

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 76 of 194. PageID #: 4126
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
Progress and Tasks that Remain 3. Approval of Policies
After the community feedback period, the Division will consider input and make revisions as necessary and appropriate. Once the Parties and Monitoring Team agree that the policies are complete, the Monitoring Team will submit the policies for the Court’s consideration on October 19, 2018. The policies will become effective once all officers have received training on the new expectations that they ultimately contain.
4. Training The Division has begun initial work on developing training relating to search and seizure so that officer training on new expectations for stops, searches, seizures, and arrests does not lag too far behind completion of new policies. Specifically, the Training Section has worked up a scenario-based training on search and seizure that can form the real-world backbone of the eventual training. This forward-thinking planning is encouraging and will enable the eventual search and seizure training, encompassing policy instruction and opportunities for officers to apply the new policies in real-world scenarios, to be launched and completed in comparatively short order. Following the initial in-service training, the Division is required by the Consent Decree to provide annual search and seizure training.
5. Policy Implementation As with many other areas of the Consent Decree, the ultimate signal of success is the adherence of officers – across encounters, stops, and interactions; officers; and time – to the requirements of the law, policy, and the Consent Decree. With respect to stops, the Monitoring Team will need, after all patrol officers receive training and the policies become effective, (1) to evaluate the numbers and trends with respect to who is being stopped, under what circumstances, and what the outcomes of those stops are; and (2) to audit a host of stops themselves to determine if officers both had and articulated sufficient legal grounds for any stop, detention, search, and arrest. This will necessarily include evaluation of whether supervisors are adhering to their requirements under the Division’s final policies and the Decree.
72

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 77 of 194. PageID #: 4127
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018

IX. ACCOUNTABILITY

Paragraph
176. “The City and CDP will ensure that all allegations of officer misconduct, whether internally discovered or alleged by a civilian, are fully, fairly, and efficiently investigated; that all investigative findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence and documented in writing; and that all officers who commit misconduct are held accountable pursuant to a disciplinary system that is fair, consistent, and provides due process.”

Status of Compliance EVALUATION DEFERRED

A good portion of the Parties’ energy in Cleveland’s Consent Decree process so far has been on developing new rules, procedures, and processes for the Division to do its work; reducing those new expectations to new policies and procedural manuals; and coming up with training programs to instruct officers on the new approaches. For as important as establishing clearly defined expectations and reducing them to writing may be, paper is, proverbially, meaningless unless and until the Division ensures that officers are being held accountable for meeting performance expectations.

The Cleveland Division of Police has long suffered from ineffectual accountability systems. Allegations of officer misconduct frequently proceed through what can appear a dizzying set of investigatory mechanisms only to end up unresolved or insufficiently resolved. In its 2014 investigation, the Department of Justice observed that “the Division’s failure to implement effective and rigorous accountability systems” was “[p]rincipal among the systemic deficiencies that . . . resulted in the pattern or practice [of force].”181

Through the Consent Decree, the City of Cleveland agreed that it will:

[E]nsure that all allegations of officer misconduct, whether internally discovered or alleged by a civilian, are fully, fairly, and efficiently investigated; that all investigative findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence and documented in writing; and that all officers who commit misconduct are held accountable pursuant to a disciplinary system that is fair, consistent, and provides due process.182

To do so, the City needed to make comprehensive changes to a host of distinct but overlapping structures and processes: Internal Affairs (“IA”), which will conduct or oversee all investigations of officer performance initiated by individuals within the Division; the Office of Professional Standards (“OPS”), which conducts all investigations of complaints made by individuals outside the Division; the Citizen Police Review Board (“CPRB” or “PRB”), which reviews all OPS investigations and makes recommendations on adjudication and discipline to the Chief of Police; and the process that the Division and City elect to use for reviewing misconduct investigations and imposing discipline, where appropriate. Whether investigated by IA or OPS, and whether involving the PRB or not, all allegations of officer misconduct must be fully, fairly, comprehensively, and timely investigated – and proceed through the same system of adjudication and discipline.

181 DOJ Findings Letter at 4. 182 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 196.
73

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 78 of 194. PageID #: 4128
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018

A. Internally Discovered Misconduct

Paragraph
177. “Internal Affairs will conduct objective, comprehensive, and timely investigations of all internal allegations,” with “findings . . . based on the preponderance of the evidence standard” that must “be clearly delineated in policies, training, and procedures and accompanied by detailed examples to ensure proper application by investigators.” 178. “Internal Affairs will be headed by a qualified civilian” who “will report directly to the Chief of Police. 179. Qualifications for IA investigators.
180. Initial training for IA investigators “that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type on conducting misconduct investigations” that addresses specific, expresslyidentified topics. 181. “[A]nnual training” for IA investigators “that is adequate in quality, quantity, type and scope” 182. “In each investigation, Internal Affairs will collect and consider” all evidence. “[N]o automatic preference for an officer’s statement over a non-officer’s statement.” No disregard of a “witnesses’ statement solely because of” connection to the complainant or criminal history. IA investigators must “make all reasonable efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements.” 183. IA “will evaluate all relevant police activity and any evidence of potential misconduct uncovered during the course of the investigation.” 184. IA will not consider guilty plea or verdict as “determinative of whether a CDP officer engaged in misconduct” or justification for “discontinuing the investigation.” 185. IA “will complete its administrative investigations within 30 days from the date it learns of the alleged misconduct.” 186–87. IA investigative report requirements.
188. Forwarding of completed IA investigations “to the officers’ supervisors, the Training Review Committee, the Force Review Board, the Officer Intervention Program, and the Data Collection and Analysis Coordinator.” 189. “CDP will require any CDP employee who observes or becomes aware of any” potential misconduct to “report the incident to a supervisor or directly to” IA. 190. “CDP will develop a system that allows officers to confidentially an anonymously report potential misconduct by other officers.” 191. “CDP will expressly prohibit all forms of retaliation, discouragement, intimidation, coercion, or adverse action, against any person, civilian or officer, who reports misconduct, makes a misconduct complaint, or cooperates with an investigation of misconduct.” 192. “Officers who retaliate . . . will be subject to the disciplinary process.”

Status of Compliance EVALUATION DEFERRED
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED

74

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 79 of 194. PageID #: 4129
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
Background
The Department of Justice’s 2014 investigation concluded that the Division’s Internal Affairs Unit (“IA”) did not conduct thorough and objective investigations of internal allegations of officer misconduct.183 At that time, what CDP had historically called Internal Affairs was housed within the Division’s Bureau of Integrity Control. The Bureau consisted of two parts: an Inspections Unit and Internal Affairs. By policy, IA had been responsible for conducting primarily criminal investigations of potential officer misconduct and investigating any incidents specifically directed to it by the Chief of Police. The Inspections Unit, meanwhile, was charged with conducting inspections designed to maximize the performance of police personnel by securing compliance with Division rules, regulations, policies, and procedures. Although the full scope of its activities was not exhaustively inventoried in CDP policy, the Monitoring Team understood that Inspections had historically addressed “lowlevel” issues, such as uniform violations, tardiness concerns, or various logbook audit requirements.184 Typically, unless a non-criminal administrative investigation for the potential violation by an officer of the Division’s policy had been specifically referred to IA by the Chief, the investigation occurred elsewhere—whether within the involved officer’s chain of command or, less frequently, by some element (not clearly defined in current CDP policy) within the Inspections Unit.
Consequently, before the Decree became effective, the DOJ had observed members of CDP’s staff “express[] confusion about which [accountability] mechanism is responsible for carrying out which particular duties and why.”185 In the two and a half years since the Team began monitoring implementation of the Decree, the Team has observed that same confusion among Division rank-and-file, particularly regarding the difference between an OPS investigation and an IA investigation. The Team has received “different answers at different times to inquiries about how, if a patrol officer believed that a colleague engaged in possible misconduct, and precisely where that officer should refer the misconduct complaint and what internal entity would be responsible for investigating.”186 The Division’s existing policies failed to clearly explain its internal accountability system’s responsibilities.
Under the Decree, “Internal Affairs will conduct objective, comprehensive, and timely investigations of internal allegations of officer misconduct.”187 The term “misconduct” refers to “any improper conduct by an officer, including an alleged violation of CDP policy, procedure, regulations, orders, or other standards of conduct required of City employees including the improper use of force[,]” with the exception of certain “minor infractions.”188 CDP officers will have an affirmative obligation, under CDP policy, when they “observe[] or become[] aware of any act of misconduct by another employee to report their incident to a supervisor or directly to Internal Affairs.”189 Division policy “will expressly prohibit all forms of retaliation, discouragement, intimidation, coercion, or adverse action, against any person . . . who reports misconduct[.]”190
183 2014 Findings Letter at 34. 184 See First Semiannual Report at 45-46. 185 DOJ Findings Letter at 34. 186 First Semiannual Report at 46. 187 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 177. 188 Id. at ¶ 438 (emphasis added). 189 Id. at ¶ 189. Such reporting may be confidential or anonymous. 190 Id. at ¶ 191.
75

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 80 of 194. PageID #: 4130
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
Thus, although the Decree preserves a clear role for the Inspections Unit—or, more accurately, a dedicated wing of the newly-created Bureau of Compliance, which will address a specifically-identified category of “minor infractions”191—Internal Affairs must be the primary engine for the Division’s administrative (non-criminal) investigations of officer misconduct and, more generally, the main oversight mechanism for ensuring that the Division’s performance standards are being met.
What Has Been Accomplished
1. Initial Drafting of IA Policies
The Consent Decree requires CDP and the City to have in place both the mechanisms and defined policies pertaining to the investigation of misconduct that is discovered within the Department. As noted above, the entity within the Division tasked with conducting administrative investigations of allegations of CDP misconduct is the Internal Affairs Unit.
In November 2016, CDP provided an initial draft of an IA policy manual, and related policies. Although a solid start, the draft required extensive revisions in order to comply with the Consent Decree and to accord with nationally identified best practices. The Parties subsequently agreed to defer work on the IA Manual while the Monitoring Team completed its initial assessment of 2015 Internal Affairs cases, summarized below, and until after a new IA Superintendent could be identified and assist in the process of overhauling how IA works.
2. Monitoring Team’s Assessment of 2015 IA Cases
In order to “gauge the depth and scope of the reforms that must be implemented with respect to IA[,]” the Monitoring Team elected to engage in a substantial qualitative review of prior IA investigations.192 In the Fall of 2016, the Monitoring Team, led by team members with extensive experience in Internal Affairs and the investigation of citizen complaints, assessed the Division’s IA investigations in light of the Decree’s requirements and generally-accepted law enforcement practices.
Team members selected a statistically-significant, random sample of IA cases from 2015, which intentionally “over-sampled” cases involving the use of force (n=45). CDP provided the Monitoring Team with full IA files via a portable hard drive that included video, photos, and all written reports. Team members were divided into random pairs in order to review each investigative file, with the individual pairs varying from case to case.
The assessments were completed in late March 2017. Overall, the Team found that a majority (53%) of the Division’s 2015 investigations were of either fair (33%) or poor (20%) quality. Significant pieces of relevant data were missing from investigative files and the Team was unable to determine whether the files were transmitted with the data inadvertently not included, or if the data never existed.
A comprehensive discussion of the Team’s assessment can be found in its Third Semiannual Report.193 Among the major findings:
191 See Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 438. 192 Third Semiannual Report at 41 (quoting Dkt. 120-1 at 31). 193 Third Semiannual Report at 41-46.
76

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 81 of 194. PageID #: 4131
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
• Civilian complainant interviews had much room for improvement. The Team noted inadequate questioning, inconsistencies that were not adequately addressed, relevant questions left unanswered during the interview, and concerns about the interviewer’s demeanor. Other cases featured questioning by investigators that was incomplete to adequately cover the implicated facts, allegations, and standards.194
• Witnesses making complaints about officer conduct were required to sign a document warning them that making false allegations of peace officer misconduct is a punishable crime under the Ohio Revised Code.
• IA Interviewers inappropriately raised the issue of not pursuing a complaint or prosecution while interviewing civilian complainants, possibly chilling some complainants’ further participation.
• Where CDP employees were interviewed as possible witnesses to an event, they were generally not audio-recorded, video-recorded, or even transcribed.
The Monitoring Team’s assessment of 2015 IA cases were consistent with many of the DOJ’s findings in 2014 and reinforced the need for the Division’s IA function to be substantially overhauled.
3. IA Superintendent Recruitment & Hiring
The Consent Decree provides that “Internal Affairs will be headed by a qualified civilian who is not a current or former employee of CDP, and who is not a current or retired law enforcement officer.”195 This civilian head of IA is to report directly to the Chief of Police. This reorganization of IA—along with a new policy and procedural manual for IA, increased cooperation between IA and OPS, and a new FIT manual—is intended to build a foundation for high-quality, fair, objective, timely, and thorough administrative investigations.
In early February 2016, CDP, with input from the Parties, Monitoring Team, and CPC, began recruitment of a civilian IA Superintendent. By December 2016, no suitable candidate had been identified to serve in the position. Many of the applicants who responded to the Division’s initial recruitment were, indeed, current and former “law enforcement officers,” a term which was taken to include non-police officers who nonetheless had formal authority as an officer of the law, such as a local or federal prosecutor—something expressly prohibited by the terms of the Consent Decree to which DOJ and the City previously agreed.
Subsequently, the Division began a second round of IA Superintendent recruitment in January 2017. By April 2017, potential candidates were being vetted for initial interviews. By the end of April, CDP reported that none of the potential candidates who were vetted were ultimately qualified for the position.
Given the struggles to recruit a suitable candidate and the real need to fill a position with some urgency, the Parties and Monitoring Team agreed to recommend to the Court that it modify the Decree’s requirement and allow former law enforcement officers, including retired and former prosecutors, federal investigators and officers from departments other than the CDP, to be considered for the position.196
In June 2017, after the Court approve the change, the City began advertising a new posting for the IA Superintendent position, this time not expressly precluding a current or former law enforcement officer from
194 Id. at 44. 195 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 178. 196 The court formally approved this modification to the Decree in early 2018.
77

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 82 of 194. PageID #: 4132
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
applying. In February 2018, former federal prosecutor Ronald Bakeman was hired by the City as the new Internal Affairs Unit Superintendent.
The Monitoring Team is hopeful that Mr. Bakeman’s stewardship will help orient Internal Affairs on the right path forward. Since his start, Mr. Bakeman immediately began working with the Parties and the Monitoring Team on finalizing long-awaited documents such as the revised IA Manual, the FIT manual, and other IA-related policies. Mr. Bakeman has also begun work on improving the working relationship between IA and the Office of Professional Standards.
4. Continued Drafting of IA Policies
After the Monitoring Team completed its assessment of 2015 IA cases and while the CDP was searching for a qualified IA Superintendent, the Parties reconvened to create an IA policy manual and revise IA-related policies in order to comply with the Consent Decree’s requirements.
Although it was initially anticipated that the IA policy manual and additional IA-related policies would be completed by the end of February 2018, significant additional work was required. The IA-related policies currently under development include policies which will ensure compliance with paragraphs 189 (reporting of misconduct), 190 (anonymous reporting of complaints), and 191 (prohibition of retaliation) of the Consent Decree. In addition, the IA manual is expected to bring consistency and cooperation between IA and OPS.
The work of the current reporting period has focused on creating policies and procedures to guide Internal Affairs investigations. Because the Force Investigation Team (“FIT Team”) is part of the IA structure, the Monitoring Team, the Division, and the Department of Justice have collaborated to finalize the structure of the FIT Team and how it will relate to IA and the proposed new Bureau of Compliance (a new bureau from which IA will be structurally and functionally separate).
Where Internal Affairs Stands Now
The Monitoring Team intends to give the new Superintendent the opportunity to internally improve IA processes and procedures before conducting qualitative analyses on current IA investigative practices. The Monitoring Team anticipates beginning a subsequent round of qualitative analysis later this year – to evaluate whether 2018 cases appear to represent an improvement to the 2016 evaluation of 2015 cases that the Team previously conducted.
On a host of fronts, the Monitoring Team’s overall summary of the state of compliance at the start of this section is “evaluation deferred” because, although the Division still needs to cover much ground to reach compliance with the particular requirements of the Decree, CPD and the new IA leadership are continuing to make good-faith efforts to finalize policies, procedures, and protocols related to administrative investigations.
78

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 83 of 194. PageID #: 4133
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
Progress and Tasks that Remain
1. Completion & Approval of IA Policies
Significant work remains for the CDP to comply with the Decree’s many IA-related requirements and to align with law enforcement investigatory best practices. Most fundamentally, the Division must complete several IA policies, including the IA Manual, to establish the rules and protocols that will guide IA staff and investigators in all IA investigations going forward.
2. IA Training
Upon completion and implementation of these manuals and policies, the Division must provide initial and annual training to all new and existing personnel “that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type on conducting misconduct investigations.”197 This training must address fundamental topics including:
• “investigative skills, including proper interrogation and interview techniques; gathering and objectively analyzing evidence; and data and case management;
• “the particular challenges of administrative police misconduct investigations, including identifying alleged misconduct that is not clearly stated in the complaint or that becomes apparent during the investigation;
• “properly weighing the credibility of civilian witnesses against officers; • “using objective evidence to resolve inconsistent statements; • “the proper application of the preponderance of the evidence standard; and • “CDP rules and policies, including the requirements of this Agreement, and protocols related to
administrative investigations of alleged officer misconduct.”198
The training will be critical in improving the quality of IA investigations. Monitoring Team members have observed and reviewed many IA investigations. Even after receiving technical assistance, IA investigators have some distance to travel to ensure that all IA investigations are fair, thorough, complete, objective, and timely.
The Monitoring Team expects Mr. Bakeman’s foremost priority, in the immediate future and at least for the remainder of the Consent Decree’s term, will be managing his staff such that IA “will conduct objective, comprehensive, and timely investigations of all internal allegations,” with “findings . . . based on the preponderance of the evidence standard” that must “be clearly delineated in policies, training, and procedures and accompanied by detailed examples to ensure proper application by investigators.”199
3. Compliance with Policies, Protocols, and Procedures
Ultimately, a sufficiently material set of CDP IA investigations – from across time, investigators, and incidents – need to be fair, thorough, objective, and timely in the manner that the Decree requires that the IA policies and Manual likewise mandate. As with many other areas that are the focus of the reform process, sporadically highquality investigations amid generally poor-quality investigations, or occasionally bad investigations among
197 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶¶ 180-81. 198 Id. 199 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 177.
79

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 84 of 194. PageID #: 4134
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018

generally good ones, is not sufficient to establish compliance. Instead, it is the sustained adherence to the high standards of the Decree and policy that will set the occasion for substantial and effective compliance.

B. Office of Professional Standards (“OPS”)

Paragraph
193. OPS “investigate[s] all civilian complaints it receives, other than those that allege criminal conduct,” which are referred to IA. Excessive force complaints generally retained by OPS. IA investigations referred back to OPS if “determination is made that no criminal conduct occurred.” 194. “The City will ensure that OPS is led by an administrator with the skills, expertise, and experience to effectively manage the intake, tracking, timely, and objective investigation of complaints”; implement PRB training; “assess OPS’s equipment and staffing needs”; and “develop and implement performance standards for OPS.” 195–96. Initial training for OPS investigators “adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type,” including specific, expressly-listed topics. 197. “OPS Investigators will not be current members of the CDP, and no CDP personnel will have any active role in OPS’s operations.” 198. “The City will ensure that the lawyer representing OPS does not have any actual or apparent conflicts of interest.” 199. “OPS will have its own budget, separate from . . . the Department of Public Safety” that “affords sufficient independence and resources, including sufficient staff and training to meet the terms of this Agreement.” 200. Development and implementation of OPS operations manual “made available to the public” that covers specific, expressly-listed topics. 201. Development and implementation of “a program to promote awareness through the Cleveland community about the process for filing complaints with OPS.” 202. “CDP and the City will work with the police unions . . . to allow civilian complaints to be submitted to OPS verbally or in writing; in person, by phone, or on line; by a complainant, someone acting on his or her behalf, or anonymously; and with or without a signature from the complainant,” with all “complaints documented in writing.” 203. “CDP will post and maintain by the intake window at CDP headquarters and all District headquarters a permanent placard describing the civilian complaint process” and containing specific, expressly-listed information. 204. “CDP will provide training that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type to all police personnel, including dispatchers, to properly handle complaint intake, including” with respect to specific, expressly-listed topics. 205. CDP officers “carry complaint forms in their CDP vehicles,” which officers must provide “upon request.” Supervisors will be dispatched to scene when an individual wants to make a complaint, with the supervisor providing a copy of completed complaint form “or a blank form to be completed later by the individual.”

Status of Compliance PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE EVALUATION DEFERRED
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE NONCOMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
EVALUATION DEFERRED

80

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 85 of 194. PageID #: 4135
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018

206. “The City and OPS will make complaint forms and other materials outlining the complaint process and OPS’s contact information available at locations” including a number of specific, expressly-listed locations. 207. “OPS’s complaint form will not contain any language that could reasonably be construed as discouraging the filing of a complaint, including warnings about the potential criminal consequences for filing false complaints.” 208. Availability of complaint forms in English and Spanish. “OPS will make every effort to ensure that complainants who speak other languages . . . can file complaints in their preferred language.” 209. “City will ensure that civilian complaints submitted through other existing systems, including the Mayor’s Action Center and the Department Action Center, are immediately forwarded to OPS for investigation.” 210. “OPS will establish a centralized electronic numbering and tracking system for all complaints,” which “will maintain accurate and reliable data regarding the number, nature, and status of all complaints . . . including investigation timeliness and notification of the interim status and final disposition of the complaint.” It “will be used to monitor and maintain appropriate caseloads for OPS investigators.” 211. Biased policing tracked as a separate category of complaint that “are captured and tracked appropriately, even if the complainant does not so label the allegation.” 212. “[A]llegations of unlawful investigatory stops, searches, or arrests” tracked as a separate category of complaints. 213. “[A]llegations of excessive use of force” tracked as separate category of complaints.
214. “OPS will conduct regular assessments of the types of complaints being received to identify and assess potential problematic patterns and trends.” 215. “OPS will produce, at least annually, a public report summarizing complaint trends, including” with respect several specific, expressly-identified areas. 216. Assignment of complaints to Standard and Complex investigatory tracks.
217. Dismissal and/or administrative dismissal of complaint investigations.
218. “OPS will ensure that investigations of complaints are as thorough as necessary to reach reliable and complete findings that are supported by the preponderance of the evidence.” 219. “CDP will ensure that OPS has timely access to all reports related to the incident . . . ,” and authority of OPS “to conduct additional investigation” of civilian complaint when CDP investigation has already taken place relating to the incident. 220. “OPS investigators will attempt to interview each complainant in person” and record the interview. 221. “The Chief will order officers who witnessed or participate in an incident that is the subject of an OPS complaint to cooperate with the OPS investigation,” including by responding to written questions or sitting for an in-person interview. 222. “OPS investigators will have access to any relevant disciplinary information in the record of an officer who is the subject of a current investigation.”

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED NONCOMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
EVALUATION DEFERRED
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
EVALUATION DEFERRED

81

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 86 of 194. PageID #: 4136
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018

223. “OPS will consider all relevant evidence,” with no preferences for particular witness’s statements, including of officer over a non-officer, or because of connection to complainant or criminal history. “OPS will make all reasonable efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements.” 224. OPS findings categories.
225. “OPS will document in writing the investigation of each complaint, including all investigatory steps taken, and OPS’s findings and conclusions,” which must “be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 226. Items for consideration for OPS findings.
227. “OPS will forward all investigations and its written conclusions to PRB in sufficient time for PRB to consider them no later than the second regularly scheduled PRB meeting following completion of the investigation.” 228. “OPS will send periodic written updates” to the complainant at specific, expresslyidentified junctures. 229. “[A] complainant may contact OPS at any time to determine the status of his/her complaint.”

EVALUATION DEFERRED
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE NONCOMPLIANCE
EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED

Background
To properly ensure that officers are held to account for violations of policy and law, police departments need a credible and transparent system for investigating civilian complaints of misconduct. In Cleveland, the Office of Professional Standards (“OPS”) is the civilian-staffed office charged with investigating the complaints of civilians and Cleveland residents about Division of Police personnel. The City Charter requires OPS to conduct “a full and complete investigation” of all citizen complaints of employee misconduct.200

While CDP has policies that articulate OPS’s mission and lay out procedures and protocols for the investigation
of civilian complaints, the DOJ’s 2014 investigation found that “the reality falls far short of the written policies on these matters.”201 DOJ’s review found that “CDP’s investigations are neither timely nor thorough, that civilians
face a variety of barriers to completing the complaint process, and that the system as a whole lacks transparency.”202

Notably, the DOJ’s investigation followed a previous investigation of CDP that occurred ten years earlier in 2004. OPS’s problems then—understaffing, a lack of guidance and resources for investigators, prolonged investigations, poor civilian access to the complaint process—remained in 2014, and in some cases worsened.203 These deficiencies included “impossibly high caseloads for investigators, the inappropriate and premature rejection of civilians’ complaints, substandard investigations, significant delays in completing investigations, and the failure to document and track outcomes.”204

200 Charter of the City of Cleveland, § 115-4. 201 DOJ Findings Letter at 38. 202 Id. at 38. 203 Id. at 39. 204 Id.

82

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 87 of 194. PageID #: 4137
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
What Has Been Accomplished To Date
1. Initial Drafting of the OPS Manual
One of the earliest priorities was the development of a “revised operations manual” that would include, among other things, a mission statement; detailed investigative, report-writing, and evidence collection procedures; procedures “outlining when complaints may be administratively dismissed” and a process for “ensur[ing] that complaints are not prematurely or unnecessarily dismissed”; defined procedures, duties, and practices for the PRB; and the system of “dispositions and outcomes” to be used by OPS and PRB.205
The City provided the Monitoring Team an initial, short draft Manual in early 2016 that was “deficient in every regard.”206 “[T]he draft Manual lacked rigor, contained inaccurate information, failed to address numerous Consent Decree requirements, and omitted a host of material details.”207 Further, it did not reflect clearly-stated requirements found in the Decree. Worse, it failed to impose even the most basic requirements for investigations to be fair, thorough, objective, complete, and timely.
As work continued on the OPS Manual, it became clear to the Parties and the Monitoring Team that, before an effective Manual that codified how OPS would investigate civilian complaints—in a manner that satisfied the Decree’s requirements and conformed with investigatory best practices— could be contemplated, a comprehensive assessment needed to be conducted to determine how OPS was currently functioning, why few cases were investigated, and what specific reforms needed to be expedited to ensure both that new complaints of officer misconduct would be fairly adjudicated and that the backlog of incomplete investigations would be addressed.
2. Monitoring Team’s Organizational Assessment of OPS
In May 2016, Monitoring Team members set out to identify the causes of the deficiencies that have crippled OPS’s efficiency and to provide the technical assistance necessary to overhaul the agency’s day-to-day operations in order to substantially improve OPS’s ability to meet its Charter-defined purpose and deliver services to the satisfaction of the residents of Cleveland.
The Monitoring Team began interviewing OPS staff in order to understand how complaints were received, evaluated, investigated, concluded, and ultimately resolved through the Police Review Board hearing process. During these interviews, investigators expressed frustration at the backlog of cases and concerns about “depleted investigative resources, the absence of clear and consistent guidelines that would establish a uniform framework for investigations, and the difficulty in obtaining timely access to relevant materials that were retained by the CPD or other entities, both private and public.”208 It was clear to the Monitoring Team that “OPS had fallen into a state of dysfunction and ineffectiveness that warrants immediate corrective action.”209
205 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶¶ 199-200. 206 First Semiannual Report at 47. 207 Id. 208 Second Semiannual Report at 44. 209 Id.
83

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 88 of 194. PageID #: 4138
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
3. Completion of Provisional Operations Manual and New Complaint Intake Form
Following its organizational assessment of OPS, the Monitoring Team, working with the City and DOJ and pursuant to a series of working sessions with OPS and Consent Decree stakeholders, assembled a Provisional Operations Manual for OPS, outlining step-by-step guidelines for the intake, investigation, and resolution of citizen complaints. This interim manual was designed to guide the reception of civilian complaints in a systematic manner before the Republican National Convention was held in Cleveland. The Provisional Manual became effective on July 15, 2016.
In tandem with the Provisional Operations Manual, the Monitoring Team developed a new, comprehensive intake form to capture every civilian contact with OPS. Under the new intake form, every contact that OPS had with a constituent, regardless of whether that contact results in a full-blown OPS investigation, can be captured.
4. Completion of Comprehensive New OPS Manual
In the remainder of 2016 and into 2017, the Parties set out to formalize the Provisional Manual into a more detailed, permanent document that not only met the requirements of the Consent Decree, but that “reflects the organizational mission and values of OPS, clearly defines its organizational structure and detailed job functions, identifies and describes with clarity those matters in which the office has investigative authority, and provides a thorough, comprehensive, and rigorous step-by-step review of how complaints of misconduct are accepted, assessed, documented, tracked, investigated, periodically reviewed, concluded, and ultimately forwarded to the Police Review Board for review and adjudication.”210
The OPS Manual, described at length in the Team’s Second Semiannual Report,211 became effective April 6, 2017. Among other things, the OPS Manual now covers, among other things:
1. An enhanced mission and values statement; 2. The types of misconduct complaints over which OPS has jurisdiction; 3. The general intake process; 4. The variety of mechanisms through which civilians may make complaints; 5. Specific instruction to OPS personnel on initiating, planning, conducting, and completing fair and
comprehensive investigations of complaints; 6. Criteria for the “Standard” and “Complex” complaint investigations; and 7. The specific duties and tasks of OPS personnel.212
5. Backlog Reduction Plan
As the Monitoring Team and DOJ’s technical assistance needed to become progressively more expansive, it became apparent that “[t]he foundational deficiencies associated with OPS [were] more significant and more urgent” than the Monitoring Team and Parties had understood in early 2016.213 An initial review found that “a
210 Second Semiannual Report at 45. 211 See Second Semiannual Report at 45-48. 212 Id. 213 First Semiannual Report at 47.
84

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 89 of 194. PageID #: 4139
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
staggering number of OPS cases[,]” including 202 from calendar year 2014 and 225 cases from calendar year 2015, unresolved.214 The Monitoring Team concluded that “[t]he state of OPS is dire.”215
The Monitoring Team requested that OPS prepare a plan to address the backlog of uninvestigated, incomplete, or unresolved complaint investigations. What the Team continually received were “cursory and highly minimalistic documents” that were “patently insufficient in all respects and, in form and content, not serious proposals.”216 To resolve these failures, the Second-Year Monitoring Plan required OPS to submit a detailed plan outlining how it would use available resources to efficiently address the current backlog while also competently addressing incoming complaints.217 Once again, what the Monitoring Team received from OPS was inadequate, providing “no concrete steps to be taken, no specific timelines, and no particular methodologies for reducing the backlog.”218
In the June 2017 Third Semiannual Report, the Monitoring Team reported a continuing unacceptable backlog of investigations and disposition letters of some 383 cases.219 Specifically, OPS internal reports identified a host of foundational issues, with cases closed without notice, not forwarded as appropriate to Internal Affairs, and cases identified for low-level supervisory review left unaddressed but pending for nearly a year.220 “Most troubling” was OPS’s failure to forward cases involving recommendations for “sustained” findings from the PRB to the Chief’s Office so that the Chief might consider the case and issue ultimate findings.221 As the Team described in its Third Semiannual Report, “[t]he message sent to the residents of Cleveland is that even if an allegation of misconduct against a Cleveland police employee is investigated and misconduct is identified, there can be no expectation that action will be taken with respect to that complaint. . . . [T]he failure of the OPS administration to ensure this core function is performed is not acceptable.”222
The DOJ and Monitoring Team took on the task of creating a Backlog Reduction Plan, a framework for OPS to address the serious backlog of investigations. The final plan created two “teams” within the office. The first, the “Ongoing/Expedited Investigation Team,” was tasked with completing all complaint investigations filed after January 1, 2017. This team was also responsible for managing all complaints pending pre-Disciplinary hearings to be conducted by the Chief of Police or Director of Public Safety and administered cases pending CRB hearings and cases pending with CDP’s Internal Affairs.
The second team, the “Backlog Reduction Team,” was responsible for completing all investigations filed prior to January 1, 2017, including those cases pending “supervisory review” with the Division.
Although the Backlog Reduction plan became operational in May 2017, it became clear by the end of the summer of 2017 that without the creation of specific milestones for OPS to deliver by the end of the 2017 calendar year, it was unlikely that sufficient progress would be made during the reporting period.
214 Id. 215 Id. 216 Second Semiannual Report at 47-48. 217 Dkt. 120-1 at 16. 218 Third Semiannual Report at 50. 219 Id. at 48. 220 See id. at 48-49. 221 See id. at 49. 222 Id.
85

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 90 of 194. PageID #: 4140
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
6. Benchmark Requirements and November 2017 Court Hearing
As such, the Parties and Monitoring Team agreed to specific milestones, which were filed with the Court on August 30, 2017 and formally approved.223 The milestones were reasonable and manageable steps towards reducing the backlog of civilian complaints. They were also a valuable exercise by which OPS could learn how to enhance its productivity and change the investigatory procedures that had failed civilians who wished to bring complaints against CDP personnel. The milestones did not “replace, supplant, or amend any obligations under the Consent Decree or the Second-Year Monitoring Plan . . . . [Rather,] the milestones [were] intended to provide specific, measurable guideposts to assist OPS in meeting existing requirements.”224
As outlined more fully in the Fourth Semiannual Report, the milestones required OPS to achieve certain goals over the rest of the 2017 calendar year, including but not limited to:
• By September 30, 2017, OPS would complete all pending disposition letters relating to complaints made from 2014 through 2016.225
• By October 1, 2017, OPS would complete findings letters (letters to the Chief of Police relating to cases sustained by the Police Review Board) for at least half of the identified outstanding cases. Findings letters for all cases were to be completed by November 1, 2017. Going forward, any new findings letters were to be completed within fourteen (14) calendar days of the PRB issuing a finding. The letters were to be sent contemporaneously to the Chief’s Office and the Parties.226
• By December 31, 2017, all remaining investigations of complaints that were made in 2014 and 2015 would be completed, amounting to a nearly 50% reduction in the backlog of pre-2016 complaint investigations that presently remain open.227
• By December 31, 2017, OPS will complete 50% of all remaining investigations of complaints that were made in 2017 as of August 30, 2017.228
• For all open investigations, an investigation could not be certified as complete unless all identified material witnesses who are not unavailable have been interviewed, or have not responded to three contact attempts.229
• For all open investigations, all investigatory interviews, whether of officers, complainants, or witnesses, will be audio-recorded.230
After consultation with the Court, OPS, the Parties, and the Monitoring Team understood that the failure by OPS to achieve these benchmarks would cause the Court to require the City to provide a detailed accounting of why the various milestones were not achieved. By October 6, 2017, the Monitoring Team advised the City and the Court that OPS was not in compliance with the benchmarks. OPS, the Parties, and the Monitoring Team appeared before the Court on November 21, 2017 to discuss OPS’s continuing struggles.
223 See Dkt. 150. 224 Id. at 1. 225 Id. 226 Id. at 4. 227 Id. at 2. 228 Id. at 2-3. 229 Id. at 4-5. 230 Id. at 5.
86

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 91 of 194. PageID #: 4141
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
Since then, in an attempt to bring OPS into compliance, the City took a number of significant steps. On December 15, 2017, the City submitted an updated Backlog Reduction Plan for dealing with the ongoing backlog as ordered by the Court. OPS began recruiting a new OPS Administrator and advertising a new OPS Supervising Investigator position. The City initiated a process aimed at contracting with a third-party firm to eliminate the backlog of OPS investigations received prior to December 1, 2017. OPS investigators were equipped with Body Worn Cameras to ensure video recording of OPS interviews. Finally, the Division began providing CDP training to OPS and the PRB so that investigators could understand the policies and expectations put on officers— primarily in the area of use of force.
7. OPS Staffing and Budgeting
In 2016, the City developed a full OPS budget for 2017. As previously reported, the Monitoring Team initially declined to either approve or disapprove of the full OPS budget for 2017, instead providing short-term, provisional approval of the budget through the first quarter of the year. The Monitoring Team was concerned that the proposed OPS budget failed to provide for a permanent solution to OPS resource issues, instead relying substantially on “temporary investigators” to reduce the backlog of cases.
During the first six months of 2016, the City approved the hiring of two new permanent investigators and six new temporary investigators. By the end of April 2017, all investigative positions had been hired. The Monitor reported this as “an encouraging development that gives OPS more resources than it has had during the past several years to both address the backlog of incomplete investigations and ensure that new complaints brought to the office are fully and fairly investigated in a timely manner.”231
The 2018 budget submitted by OPS requested that the temporary investigator positions be funded through at least the first half of 2018. In addition, the budget includes two new full-time positions: a Community Relations Ombudsman and a Supervising (or Chief) Investigator. As previously reported, the Monitoring Team believes that both positions are essential to the possibility of OPS’s success.
In the current reporting period, a Supervising Investigator has been hired and began work in April 2018. Unfortunately, the hiring of a Community Relations Ombudsman was delayed after an incorrect posting was made by the Civil Service Commission, which required the recruitment process to begin anew.
8. City Negotiations with Police Union Regarding OPS Practices
As previously reported and identified in the DOJ’s investigation of the CDP, the then-current, voluntary agreement between the City and the Cleveland Police Patrolmen’s Association (“CPPA”) provided that “[a]ll complaints filed by a citizen against [officers] shall be submitted by the complainant in his or her own handwriting.” The Decree required that the City “work with the police unions . . . to allow civilian complaints to be submitted to OPS verbally or in writing; in person, by phone, or on[-]line; by a complainant, someone acting on his or her behalf, or anonymous; and with or without a signature . . . . ”232 As such, the Court-approved OPS Manual
231 Id. at 51-52. 232 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 217.
87

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 92 of 194. PageID #: 4142
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
now provides that “[a] signed complaint form is NOT required for any further action to be taken by OPS in an effort to resolve the constituent’s complaint . . . . ”233
The Monitoring expected “the City and CPPA [to] work expeditiously to ensure that the provisions of the Consent Decree, generally-accepted practice, and compliance with the ADA and equivalent Ohio state law are harmonized with the CPPA Contract.”234 In early 2018, after extensive negotiations and arbitration, the City and CPPA reached an agreement on a contract. The Monitoring Team was pleased to report that the contract with the police union included a provision to rectify this deficiency, and that the City is now in “operational compliance” with this specific requirement of the Decree.
9. OPS Annual Report
Paragraph 215 of the Consent Decree requires OPS to produce an annual report summarizing complaint trends and timeframes for the public. OPS completed its 2016 annual report (the first in five years) and posted it on its website on August 22, 2017. Although OPS did not publish the report within the period required by its Courtapproved policy manual, the publication of the report was a positive step towards transparency with respect to OPS complaint handling practices. Unfortunately, OPS did not obtain budgetary approval to print out hard copies of the report until October 2017 and did not distribute the manual to all identified stakeholders until January 2018.
While the Monitoring Team was hopeful that the 2017 annual report would be completed in a timelier fashion (completion of an annual report by the end of the first quarter of the following year is often considered a best practice), continuing struggles within OPS (including the lack of a permanent Administrator and the need for the new Administrator to have input on the content of the report) have resulted in an anticipated date of completion for that report by the end of August 2018. Subsequent annual reports will need to be completed in a timelier manner.
10. Referral of Cases to PRB for Consideration
In addition to the challenges faced by OPS in completing investigations in a timely fashion, there have also been challenges with respect to OPS’s ability to conduct timely reviews of those investigations. Paragraph 227 of the Settlement Agreement requires that the OPS “forward all investigations and its written conclusions to the PRB in sufficient time for PRB to consider them no later than the second regularly scheduled PRB meeting following completion of the investigation.” In the past, the lack of timely reviews of investigations has made it impossible for OPS to comply with this section of the Consent Decree. Starting in June 2018, however, the new OPS Administrator appears to have put new practices into place to better ensure the timely referral of completed investigations to the PRB for their consideration.
11. New OPS Administrator
Since the resignation of the former OPS administrator in late 2017, the City and CDP began recruiting qualified candidates for a new Administrator to lead the Office of Professional Standards through its ongoing reforms. In March 2018, the City identified three final candidates for the position. The finalists participated in a community
233 Dkt. 86-1 at 9. 234 Id. at 16–17.
88

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 93 of 194. PageID #: 4143
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
meeting held by the CPC on March 20, 2018 and answered questions by members of the public. The CPC assessed the community’s comments and provided its recommendations to the City and CDP, ranking the preferred selection of the new Administrator.
On June 4, 2018, Roger Smith started as the new Administrator of OPS. Mr. Smith is a former Executive Agency Counsel and Director of Training for the New York City Civilian Complaint Review Board, the largest investigation-focused civilian oversight of law enforcement agency in the United States. The Monitoring Team looks forward to working with Mr. Smith in his efforts to lead OPS toward compliance with the Consent Decree and meeting the fair expectations of civilians and residents of Cleveland.
Where OPS Stands Now
OPS began 2018 with a reported backlog of 377 cases, including cases received in 2014 (2 cases), 2015 (65 cases), 2016 (132 cases) and 2017 (178 cases). As of the end of May, OPS began the process of turning over 281 of its backlogged cases to a third-party vendor, Hillard Heintze, with the intention that OPS staff focus on the timely completion of cases received after December 1, 2017. Thus, older cases will be handled by the vendor, with OPS focusing on investigations of new complaints.235
As a result of the transfer of the backlogged cases, OPS was able to report a slate of 83 pending cases in mid-April 2018. Although the backlog of case investigations reached a high of 92 in mid-June, aggressive measures reportedly taken by the new OPS Administrator and Senior Investigator appeared to reduce the backlog of more-recent cases by the end of that month. The Monitoring Team is hopeful that the current efforts at backlog reduction will develop into a long-term trend in favor of timely OPS investigations and referrals to the PRB for resolution of complaints.
Meanwhile, an informal but systematic qualitative review of 38 OPS investigations more-recently completed between September 1, 2017 and October 13, 2017 identified significant continuing deficiencies in OPS investigative practices and failures to abide by Monitor and court expectations regarding adherence to the OPS Manual and investigative best practices. Even more recently, the Monitoring Team audited a limited number of cases submitted by OPS for PRB review in early 2018 – and again found significant and fundamental investigative deficiencies.
OPS remains a critical local governmental function that has failed adequately, in the past, to meet its obligations under the City of Cleveland’s Charter and, of course, under the Consent Decree. The Monitoring Team is cautiously optimistic that (1) the thoughtful use of a third-party vendor to address the historical backlog of unresolved complaint investigations, and (2) the establishment of strong, experienced leadership at OPS to implement changes in day-to-day practices on newly-received complaints, will constitute an important turning of the page for the Office.
To this end, one of the outcome assessments that the Consent Decree requires involves evaluation of the numbers and trends with respect to civilian complaints.236 Looking at the overall numbers of civilian complaints received,
235 OPS did retain a few cases initiated in 2015, 2016 and 2017 which were considered relatively close to completion. 236 Dkt. 7-1 ¶367(i)(1).
89

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 94 of 194. PageID #: 4144
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
the trends point in a positive direction – from 294 received in 2015 go 263 in 2016 and 241 in 2017. This is an 18 percent decrease in complaints in 2017 as compared to 2015.
There are any number of plausible explanations for the decrease in complaints. It could be that new policies and training are, in fact, leading CDP officers to perform less often in ways that lead civilians to make complaints about misconduct or poor performance. It could also be that the Division’s implementation of body-worn cameras is leading to better performance by CDP officers. Like in other cities, where the use of body camera technology has been associated with substantial decreases in civilian complaints, in Cleveland, the City indicates that complaints decreased by 40 percent in the first year after body cameras were implemented.237 The cameras may be leading civilians with unsubstantiated allegations to file complaints less frequently, incentivizing officers to perform better, or simply leading officers and civilians alike to behave differently when they know that their actions and words are being recorded.
Results of the 2018 community survey, in which 71 percent of respondents who had experienced a significant interaction with the Cleveland Police in the prior 12 months said that officers treated them with respect during the interaction, might tend to support the interpretation that changes in officer performance – in this case, embracing concepts of procedural justice and focusing more on community problem-solving – are contributing to a lower level of complaints overall.
At the same time, however, the challenges within OPS have been well-known and well-documented, both before the Consent Decree and since implementation began. It is possible that fewer people are filing complaints because they lack confidence that doing so will actually matter. Faced with an Office that still has investigations pending from 2014 in mid-2018, anxious residents would not necessarily be faulted for being wary of going through the time and energy to engage in a process that may not lead to much. Relatedly, residents may be sufficiently skeptical or distrustful of the Division’s discipline system that they assume that, even if a timely and comprehensive investigation affirmed their allegations, the Division may not take sufficient corrective action.
The Monitoring Team’s 2016 community survey gives some credence to the possibility that perceived challenges with how OPS and/or the Division may handle the complaint may be driving trends here. Although an insufficiently large group of individuals who actually filed complaints was interviewed to determine trends with the necessary statistical certainty, that survey nonetheless discussed the experience of 24 respondents who said that they did, in fact, file a complaint. A majority of those respondents said “they were dissatisfied with the experience” of filing a complaint – and, in particular, “a perceived lack of follow-up by the Cleveland Police or the
237 See, e.g., Leila Atassi, “Cleveland Police Body Cameras Reduced Citizen Complaints by 40 Percent, Police Officials Say,” Cleveland.com (Nov. 11, 2015), https://www.cleveland.com/cityhall/index.ssf/2015/11/cleveland_police_body_cameras_1.htm; “Oakland Mayor Says Police Body Cameras Have Cut Use-Of-Force Incidents Significantly in 5 Years,” KPIX (Dec. 17, 2014), http:/sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/12/17/oakland-mayor-says-police-body-cameras-have-cut-use-of-force-incidents-by-60-in-4years-jean-quan-oakland-police-department-opd-officer-involved-shooting/ (reporting decrease in use of force incidents by nearly 75 percent in six years that Oakland Police Department has used body cameras); Tony Perry, “San Diego police body camera report: Fewer complaints, less use of force,” L.A. Times (Mar. 18, 2015), http:/www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-body-cameras20150318-story.html (noting 40.5 percent fall in complaints and 46.5 percent reduction in “personal body” force following adoption of body cameras); Tony Farrar, “Self-Awareness to Being Watched and Socially-Desirable Behavior: A Field Experiment on the Effect of Body-Worn Cameras on Police Use-of-force,” Police Foundation (Mar. 2013), http:/ www.policefoundationlorg/content/body-worn camera (summarizing 50 percent reduction in use of force over a one-year period in Rialto, California).
90

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 95 of 194. PageID #: 4145
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
Office of Professional Standards.”238 As that report noted, “a single interaction has an ‘echo’ effect that shapes the perceptions of many people”239 – such that negative experiences with the complaint process, over time, may lead fewer people to utilize it.
It is hard to know for sure why the numbers of complaints are going down at this time. However, it will become, in the Monitoring Team’s view, much clearer if and when the City of Cleveland can represent to its residents that, if they file a complaint, it will be investigated in a fair, thorough, and timely manner. If and when the Cleveland community has confidence in the complaint investigation process, and brings fewer complaints to the City’s attention, residents can be much more certain that it is, in fact, the day-to-day performance of the men and women of the Division of Police that is improving.
Progress and Tasks that Remain
The road to restore public confidence in the Office of Professional Standards will remain long and challenging. OPS must still address a host of foundational issues. The City and the new OPS Administrator will be required to exert significant time, energy, and resources to make OPS into a functional and credible oversight agency.
The Monitoring Team is pleased that the City has hired a new OPS Administrator who appears to be qualified and experienced in civilian oversight. Nevertheless, and as noted in the Fourth Semiannual Report, the hiring of an experienced, competent Administrator is only the start of a long process of reform necessary to solve the systemic and long-standing problems that have festered within OPS over a period of many years. Next come the real labors.
1. Completing the Backlog of Unclosed Investigations
DOJ and the Monitoring Team have worked continuously and through multiple approaches to address the unclosed investigations received prior to January 1, 2018 that have still not been completed or received a final disposition. As noted previously, the City is working with a third-party firm to complete investigations of these complaints. The Monitoring Team must note here that, to the extent that securing this outside firm requires an additional expenditure of City resources, this is in addition to an expenditure that the City already made on the salaries of personnel who were charged with completing investigations previously but did not. It is unfortunate that deficient performance is compounding the cost of ensuring that the complaints from residents about the Division of Police are adequately addressed.
2. Case Management System/Business Mapping
Much ink has previously been spilled on the backlog of old, unresolved cases within OPS. Even as an outside firm is brought in to address this historical backlog, OPS is still squarely at the first step of trying to implement the requirements of the Consent Decree as codified in the Court-approved OPS Manual. Over the coming months, OPS needs to overhaul the way it does business to ensure that the problems that developed within the Office previously can never happen again. Ultimately, OPS’s ability to complete full investigations and provide them to
238 Dkt. 71-1 at 38–39. 239 Id. at 41.
91

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 96 of 194. PageID #: 4146
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
the PRB in a timely fashion will require leadership from the new OPS Administrator, effective management by the new OPS Supervisory Investigator, and clear and unambiguous direction from the Director of Public Safety.
One major area of focus will need to be day-to-day case management. Proper case management is a basic, foundational management tool for an investigatory agency with OPS’s charge to operate successfully in a city the size of Cleveland. Under the Consent Decree, OPS will “establish a centralized electronic numbering and tracking system . . . [which] will maintain accurate and reliable data regarding the number, nature, and status of all complaints” and which can be used by OPS administration “to monitor and maintain appropriate caseloads for OPS investigators.”240
Previously, OPS had been operating without up-to-date “process maps”— expressly defined procedures for addressing the work flow of investigating civilian complaints on an administrative standpoint. Similarly, OPS lacked an operational “business plan” that outlines the responsibilities of various staff members with respect to the processing of cases. OPS investigators’ work was documented mostly on paper, with “some work inadequately stored on an antiquated and insufficient case management database system” in spite of the availability of IAPro and BlueTeam—common industry platforms that also happen to be the same system that CDP’s IA investigators are using.241
In the first quarter of 2017, the City’s Department of Public Safety took over the administration of the IAPro database. The Monitoring Team began working with OPS to create a migration plan that would document the steps that OPS would need to take to ensure its full use of the capabilities of the IAPro case management system.
In 2018, the Monitoring Team reviewed OPS’s progress towards moving to full use of IAPro. Unfortunately, although OPS had consistently represented over 2017 that it was well-engaged in the migration to IAPro, OPS had been entering only basic data into the new system while still relying on an antiquated “Access” database to prepare its bi-weekly reports, with only minimal data available to appropriately manage its case load. This was particularly disappointing to the Monitoring Team as the City had spent significant funds in 2017 to send a team of OPS personnel to Washington D.C. to observe how the Office of Police Complaints (an agency similar to OPS) used IAPro in the management of their cases. As it turned out, lessons learned from that trip were never implemented by the OPS.
In March 2018, the Monitoring Team met with OPS staff and provided technical assistance in support of the creation of business rules that would clarify roles and responsibilities of OPS staff in the implementation and use of the new case management system. By the end of April 2018, the business rules had finally been completed and OPS staff were reportedly trained in the use of the system. OPS administration, however, has noted that, contrary to expectations, all information relating to cases received after December 1, 2017 has still not been entered into the IAPro data base. Due to the recent resignation of the OPS’s analyst, and the need to redesign the job description for that position, it may be some time before the OPS is able to manage and track all cases assigned to OPS investigators in a comprehensive manner.
240 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 210. 241 Third Semiannual Report at 51.
92

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 97 of 194. PageID #: 4147
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
3. Ongoing Issues with the Quality of OPS Investigations & Training Needs
Under the Consent Decree, OPS investigators will need to receive “initial training that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type” that addresses:
• “[I]nvestigative skills, including proper interrogation and interview techniques; gathering and objectively analyzing evidence; and data and case management;
• “[T]he particular challenges of administrative investigations of police conduct, including identifying conduct warranting investigation that is not clearly stated in the complaint or that becomes apparent during the investigation;
• “[P]roperly weighing the credibility of civilian witnesses against officers; • “[U]sing objective evidence to resolve inconsistent statements; • “[T]he proper application of the preponderance of the evidence standard; and • “CDP rules and policies, including the requirements of this Agreement, and protocols related to
administrative investigations of officer conduct alleged to be improper.”242 • Although OPS investigators had received some training, it was clear that what they have received to date had not been enough to sufficiently improve the quality of OPS investigations. As previously reported, a qualitative review of 38 OPS investigations completed in Fall 2017 found ongoing deficiencies in OPS investigative practices – and failures to abide by the expectations of the Court and Monitoring Team regarding adherence to the OPS Manual and investigative best practices. These deficiencies were brought to the attention of the City and OPS administration, and a training session was provided to OPS investigators to ensure that the deficiencies would be address and improved practices would be implemented.
Additionally, two full-day training sessions in conducting administrative investigations was provided to OPS investigators in February 2018.
In order to verify that investigative practices had been improved, the Monitoring Team reviewed additional cases that had been sustained by the Police Review Board in early 2018. Unfortunately, many of the previously identified deficiencies were being repeated, and the Team identified additional investigative deficiencies. It was particularly disappointing to the Monitoring Team that OPS continued to approve deficient investigations even after receiving technical advice from the Monitoring Team. Supplemental training was provided to OPS investigators and administrators in May 2018 in order to attempt to improve investigative practices and the monitoring team continued to provide technical advice by auditing OPS investigations submitted to the PRB through June 2018.
4. OPS Staff Performance Reviews
In the Fourth Semiannual Report, the Monitoring Team noted that OPS had only recently set forth formal expectations (the “Smart Objectives”) for its OPS investigators relating to the conduct of investigations – even though this was a process available to all City managers across departments to set and hold employees accountable for specific performance expectations.
242 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 195-96.
93

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 98 of 194. PageID #: 4148
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018

Unfortunately, a Monitoring Team review of the documentation provided by OPS relative to the performance review process established problematic practices in that regard. For example, in one case, an investigator who received five out of six scores indicating “improvement needed,” received an overall rating of “successful.” Further, OPS administration was unable to explain score discrepancies and only minimal documentation, if any, was available to support the ratings provided to both permanent and temporary investigators.

It is the Monitoring Team’s expectation that the new OPS Administrator will ensure a robust employee performance review process at OPS to ensure employee adherence to OPS court-approved policies and best practices in investigations based on the training that has been and will continue to be received.

5. Complaint Forms

Under the Consent Decree, the City and OPS “will make complaint forms and other materials outlining the
complaint process and OPS’s contact information available at locations” including a number of specific, expresslylisted locations.243 Further, all CDP officers will “carry complaint forms in their CDP vehicles.”244

While the City and CDP have consistently maintained that they have made complaint forms available at the Decree-enumerated locations, Monitoring Team members have visited the locations and have, on occasion, not found the forms readily available. Similarly, Monitoring Team members have requested CDP officers to procure an OPS complaint form, to which officers sometimes have been unable to provide one from their vehicle. In the coming months, the Monitoring Team will be working on an audit program to ensure the accessibility of complaint forms.

C. Police Review Board (“PRB”)

Paragraph
230. “Mayor will work with the City Council to develop an ordinance to place a Charter Amendment on the ballot” addressing PRB composition and appointment process. 231. “PRB members will not be current or former members of the CDP.”
232. “PRB will have its own budget,” overseen by OPS Administrator and separate from Department of Public Safety, that “affords sufficient independence and resources.” 233–34. Initial training for PRB members “that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type” and that covers specific, expressly-identified topics. 235. PRB meetings open to the public and posted in advance, with “case presentations and PRB votes” occurring during “open session.” 236. “OPS investigators will attend PRB meetings at which their investigations are being considered and present their findings . . . . ” PRB may “ask the investigator to conduct further investigation” as necessary. 237. “PRB recommended dispositions will be based on a preponderance of the evidence. For each case, PRB shall set forth its conclusion and an explanation of its

Status of Compliance GENERAL COMPLIANCE GENERAL COMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
EVALUATION DEFERRED

243 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 206. 244 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 205.

94

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 99 of 194. PageID #: 4149
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018

reasons and supporting evidence in writing, including, when applicable, the justification for departing from OPS’s recommended disposition.” 238. “In cases where PRB is recommending a sustained disposition, in whole or in part, PRB will include a recommendation as to disciplinary or non-disciplinary corrective action.” 239. [Timely] forwarding of PRB recommendations to Chief of Police and Director of Public Safety.

OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

Background
Cleveland’s civilian Police Review Board (“PRB” or “the Board”) reviews and analyzes completed OPS investigations. It makes a formal recommendation to the Chief of Police on the ultimate disposition of the case and, if warranted, the discipline that an involved officer should receive. Given OPS’s many deficiencies, a wellfunctioning PRB will be critical in ensuring that OPS investigations are sound and that the Chief of Police receives a well-informed recommendation on the disposition of OPS cases.
The Department of Justice found in 2014 that the PRB’s “review of [OPS] investigations [was] . . . inadequate.”245 Its reviews were based on incomplete information, as the PRB “inexplicably instructed investigators not to include an officer’s prior complaint and disciplinary history in the investigative file.”246 That failure to consider an officer’s prior conduct “interfere[d] with [the PRB’s] evaluation of the credibility of the current complaint and impede[d] its ability to discern potential patterns of misconduct.”247 Further, the Board’s decisions lacked transparency. Its case files “frequently” lacked final dispositions, and even when dispositions were included, the Board failed to document the rationale supporting its decisions. The problem was most pronounced where the PRB sustained a complaint and recommended discipline. Because PRB members are not involved from the disciplinary conference, it was left to OPS investigators, who play no part in the PRB’s decision-making process, to defend the PRB’s disposition and disciplinary recommendations at Chief’s Hearings. The system was “likely to produce illinformed decisions and unfounded results.”248

The Consent Decree consequently contains a host of requirements relating to the PRB, including that the “PRB will have its own budget[,]” PRB members will receive initial training, PRB meetings will be held open to the public and posted in advance, “OPS investigators will attend PRB meetings at which their investigations are being considered and present their findings[,]” “PRB recommended dispositions will be based on a preponderance of the evidence[,]” and that the PRB will, when recommending sustained disposition, “include a recommendation as to disciplinary or non-disciplinary corrective action.”249

245 DOJ Findings Letter at 41. 246 Id. 247 Id. 248 Id. 249 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶¶ 232-38.
95

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 100 of 194. PageID #: 4150
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
What Has Been Accomplished
1. City Charter Amendment
The Decree required the Mayor to “work with the City Council to develop an ordinance to place a Charter Amendment on the ballot” addressing PRB composition and appointment process.250 Cleveland voters approved the changes to the City Charter on November 8, 2016.
2. PRB Manual
The Monitoring Team quickly identified that the Board had previously been carrying out its duties without a set of established protocols to guide its decision-making.251 The lack of clear processes and procedures allowed the PRB to fall behind on the timely review and deliberation of cases – failing in its core duties and service to the City of Cleveland. It also made the PRB’s decisions, and subsequent CDP and City decisions based on or related to it, subject to the objections of grievance arbitrators that the process was not sufficiently fair to involved officers.
To address this deficiency, the Parties and Monitoring Team spent several months working with the PRB to draft an Operations Manual (“PRB Manual”) to guide its deliberations process. The manual codifies changes made in the November 2016 City Charter Amendment pertaining to PRB composition and appointment. It also provides step-by-step directions for the movement of investigative files from OPS to the PRB, the assignment of cases for Board member review, the structure and agenda for PRB meetings, the means by which investigations are reviewed and discussed in a public forum, the process by which the PRB’s decisions and recommendations are presented, and the public announcement of the Board’s findings and recommendations for consideration by the Chief of Police and Director of Public Safety. The PRB Manual was approved by the Court and made effective on April 6, 2017.
Since the adoption of the PRB Manual, the Monitoring Team and DOJ worked with OPS and the Board to amend the PRB Manual to permit the Board to conduct its deliberations in a public setting (instead of deliberating in a private executive session). The Board voted to adopt the amended policy at its August 16, 2017 meeting. The amended policy was subsequently submitted to the Court for its approval and was approved on March 23, 2018. The policy was subsequently placed in the City Record on May 23, 2018 and became effective on two weeks thereafter.
3. PRB Training
The Consent Decree requires initial training for PRB members “that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type” and that covers specific, expressly-identified topics.252 The PRB’s efforts to design a training plan and curriculum are discussed below.
PRB members have received auxiliary training that does not qualify as the initial training called for in the Decree. As previously reported, a member of the Monitoring Team provided training to the Board (which was also
250 Id. at ¶ 230. 251 Dkt. 97 at 8. 252 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 233-34.
96

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 101 of 194. PageID #: 4151
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
attended by OPS investigators) relating to Fourth Amendment issues in policing (specifically relating to federal case law on search and seizure).
Additionally, the Monitoring Team identified the need for PRB to receive training on the Division’s use of force training, policies, and expectations for its officers, as well as training on the use and administration of body-worn cameras. Training on the use of body-worn cameras was provided to the PRB at its November 2017 meeting. Training on CDP Use of Force policies was provided to the PRB at its monthly meetings from January through May 2018. Additional training on CDP non-lethal and lethal force policies and training is anticipated to be provided to the PRB during subsequent monthly meetings.
The addition of a new member to the PRB required OPS to create a training protocol for this member and future new members to ensure the seamless operation of the PRB going into the future; by the end of the reporting period, OPS had successfully completed a training binder which was subsequently provided to all current members of the PRB as a resource.
4. Documentation of PRB Decision-Making
As previously reported, the PRB has struggled previously with the timely documentation of the rationale for its “sustained” decisions. The Board hired a Private Secretary in August 2017 to assist in the preparation of these disposition letters. By the end of 2017, the Private Secretary’s impact was apparent, as the backlog of PRB disposition and findings letters appeared to have been eliminated. The last OPS bi-weekly report of the year reported the office had completed disposition letters on all cases heard by the PRB at a December 9, 2017 meeting within two weeks. The Monitoring Team consequently expects that the PRB can now contemporaneously prepare disposition letters (letters to complainants documenting non-sustained finings made by the PRB) and findings letters (letters to the CDP documenting sustained findings made by the PRB) for all cases considered in the upcoming year.
Where the PRB Stands
The PRB continues to convene regularly to address cases that it receives from OPS. To this extent, then, the performance of the PRB has to this point been, at least to some relevant extent, at the mercy of OPS. The timeliness of the PRB’s review of cases, and precisely what the PRB is reviewing, depends on how well OPS has effectuated its duties in the investigatory stage. With the ongoing challenges of OPS, then, the PRB – with its Board members acting in good faith and appearing, to the Monitoring Team, to genuinely want to do as good of a job as they can – inherently has been able to proceed only so far. Along those lines, the Monitoring Team has witnessed some frustration from Board members from time to time that it cannot do more or do better, and the Team understands and appreciates this frustration.
As OPS produces more timely and complete investigations to the Board, the Monitoring Team and the Consent Decree process will be in a better position to more systematically and rigorously evaluate PRB’s performance. As with all other reviews or adjudications of officer performance, the Team will be looking to see that the overall process used to consider and analyze incidents is fair, thorough, and objective – and that PRB recommendations are timely made available to the Chief of Police for consideration.
97

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 102 of 194. PageID #: 4152
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
Progress and Tasks that Remain
1. Quality of PRB Recommendations & Processes
By attending numerous pre-disciplinary (so-called “Chief’s Hearings”) regarding officer misconduct allegations that the PRB had previously recommended as sustained, the Monitoring Team has observed that, in many cases, the Chief has either disagreed with the PRB recommendations or there have been procedural issues that result in a case’s dismissal. Over the course of the current reporting period, a qualitative analysis of the cases referred by the PRB to the Chief for sustained findings was conducted and findings were discussed with PRB members. Realistically, however, until OPS investigations can be improved on a systemic basis, the PRB will continue to struggle with ensuring that its recommendations have a basis in fact and administrative law and are recognized by CDP command as reliable and defensible.
As previously reported, the Monitoring Team has noted a lack of adequate communication amongst and between the PRB and the Chief’s Office. In one case, the Chief decided not to impose discipline without conducting a Chief’s hearing and notified the involved officer before the PRB had an opportunity to review the Chief’s decision. As such, even though the PRB disagreed with the decision, there was no opportunity for the PRB to appeal its recommendation to the Director of Safety.
Since that time, the PRB and the Chief have met and agreed that the Chief would attend the PRB meetings on a quarterly basis to enhance communication between the CDP and the PRB. While this was an excellent step forward, there clearly is a need for a formal protocol between the PRB and the Chief’s Office to address systemic communication issues and to ensure that the Chief and the PRB understand each other’s rationale for making recommendations and decisions on complaints. This is anticipated to be another goal for the new OPS Administrator.
2. PRB Training
The Consent Decree requires that PRB members “receive initial training that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type” that includes:
• “[C]onstitutional and other relevant law on police-citizen encounters, including law on the use of force and stops, searches, and arrests;
• “[P]olice tactics; • “[I]nvestigations of police conduct; • “[B]ias-free policing; • “[P]olicing individuals in crisis; • “CDP policies, procedures and disciplinary rules; and • “[C]ommunity outreach.”253 • The training will be conducted by “sources both inside and outside of CDP, in order to ensure the highest quality training on investigative techniques, and CDP policies, procedures, and disciplinary rules.”254
253 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 233. 254 Id. at ¶ 234.
98

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 103 of 194. PageID #: 4153
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018

As previously reported, a draft outline of proposed training was provided to the Monitoring Team on April 6, 2017. The outline documented short-term training provided at a full-day training retreat for the PRB on May 13, 2017, as well as future topics to be covered in trainings either before, after, or during regular monthly CPRB meetings. Although the outline provided was not as sufficiently detailed as envisioned, the Monitoring Team agreed to work with OPS to identify training needs on an ongoing basis and identify subject matter experts who can provide an appropriate, ongoing curriculum and training as required by the Consent Decree.

3. Systemic Compliance

As the preceding discussion indicates, PRB has some distance to travel until it can be certified as adhering across time, cases, and deliberations to the requirements of the Decree and the Court-approved PRB Manual. Again, a significant reason that this scope of work remains is related to the ongoing deficiencies with OPS as, to some extent, PRB can only ever be as good as the quality and nature of the investigations that they review. Ultimately, the Monitoring Team and Court will need to certify that the Board is effectively and meaningfully carrying out its duties in a sufficiently thorough, fair, and timely manner.

D. Discipline and Disciplinary Hearings

Paragraph
240. “The Chief of CDP will issue a General Police Order that requires officers to (a) cooperate with the Internal Affairs and OPS investigators; and (b) submit all relevant evidence to the investigators such that it is available for consideration by Internal Affairs or PRB.” 241. Disciplinary hearing requirement, with officer given “opportunity to testify” and suspension of hearing if “officer provides new or additional evidence at hearing,” with matter “returned to IA or PRB for consideration.” 242. Written justification by Chief or Director of decision to “not uphold the charges” or “does not impose the recommended discipline or non-disciplinary corrective action” where PRB previously “recommends the initiation of the disciplinary process and recommends a disciplinary level.” 243. “CDP will track the number of instances in which the Chief or the Director of Public Safety rejects, in whole or in part, PRB’s recommended disposition.” 245. “CDP will ensure that discipline for sustained allegations of misconduct comports with due process, and is consistently applied, fair, and based on the nature of the allegation, and that mitigating and aggravating factors are identified and consistently applied and documented.” 246. “CDP will review its current matrix and will seek to amend it” “to ensure consistency” and inclusion of a number of specific, expressly-identified features. 247. “All disciplinary decisions will be documented in writing.”
248. “CDP will provide its disciplinary matrix to the Commission, the Police Inspector General, and the police unions for comment.”

Status of Compliance EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED
PARTIALCOMPLIANCE
EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE EVALUATION DEFERRED OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE

99

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 104 of 194. PageID #: 4154
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018

249. “CDP will work with the unions to allow for sustained disciplinary findings to stay EVALUATION

in an officer’s record for ten years.”

DEFERRED

Background
In any organization, it is all but impossible to build a credible accountability system without fair and consistent application of corrective action or discipline. In 2014, the DOJ had found that the imposition of discipline by CDP was “so rare that no more than 51 officers out of a sworn force of 1,500 were disciplined in any fashion in connection with a use of force incident over a three-and-a-half-year period[,]” with most of the 51 officers either being disciplined for minor procedural violations or avoiding consequences altogether because “hearings were not held in time or charges were dismissed for unexplained reasons.”255

This practice and culture—in which CDP employees’ misconduct was frequently divorced from consequences— is addressed by the Consent Decree. It obligates CDP to “ensure that discipline for sustained allegations of misconduct comports with due process, and is consistently applied, fair, and based on the nature of the allegation, and that mitigating and aggravating factors are identified and consistently applied and documented.”256 To that end, the Division “will review its current disciplinary matrix and will seek to amend it as necessary[.]”257 Specifically, CDP must ensure that the new disciplinary matrix:
• “[E]stablishes a presumptive range of discipline for each type of rule violation;” • “[I]ncreases the presumptive discipline based on an officer’s prior violations of the same or other
rules;” • “[P]rohibits consideration of the officer’s race, gender, national origin, age, ethnicity, familial
relationships, or sexual orientation” as well as “the high (or low) profile nature of the incident;” and • “[P]rovides that CDP will not take only non-disciplinary corrective action in cases in which the
disciplinary matrix calls for the imposition of discipline” but may consider non-disciplinary corrective action “in a case where discipline has [already] been imposed.”258

Along with the requirements above, CDP must document all disciplinary decisions in writing and must “work with the unions to allow for sustained disciplinary findings to stay in an officer’s record for ten years.”259

What Has Been Accomplished
Well before the Consent Decree became effective, CDP created a new disciplinary guidance matrix that would improve consistency, fairness, and transparency in the Division’s administration of discipline. That policy, which became effective in May 2015 before the Consent Decree was approved by the Court, promulgated formal disciplinary procedures and outlined classes of discipline that scaled in accordance with different types of violations.

255 DOJ Findings Letter at 5. 256 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 245. 257 Id. 258 Id. at ¶ 246. 259 Id. at ¶¶ 247, 249.

100

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 105 of 194. PageID #: 4155
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
Pursuant to the Decree, Parties and the Monitor set about evaluating and revising the matrix, as necessary, to ensure that it complied with the specific provisions laid out in the Decree. The creation of the new disciplinary matrix also needed to include the input of other critical stakeholders. OPS and the PRB provided their comments on April 21, 2017. Those comments were incorporated into later drafts. On August 22, 2017, the CPC held a community meeting for Cleveland residents to share their feedback on a draft of the disciplinary matrix. The CPC subsequently conferred with the Division to provide its comments and insights. The CPPA also provided input on the disciplinary matrix.
The Disciplinary Matrix was filed with the Court on December 20, 2017 and became effective on January 1, 2018. It establishes presumptive ranges of discipline and mitigating or aggravating factors. Further, it mandates that all discipline will be decided without consideration of a CDP member’s “race, religion, gender, sex, national origin, age, ethnicity, familial relationships or sexual orientation” and that all discipline is documented in writing.260
Where the Division Stands
Since January 1, 2018, the Division has been proceeding to implement the revised, Court-approved Disciplinary Matrix. Since early in the Consent Decree process, the Monitoring Team has been receiving and reviewing notifications of all officer discipline. Since the promulgation of the new Matrix, the Monitoring Team has begun to audit disciplinary decisions along with the underlying investigations that precipitated them in real-time, and it will amplify its focus in this area in the next reporting period. Ultimately, the Division’s system for adjudicating pending misconduct cases and imposing corrective action where warranted needs to adhere to the Decree’s requirements.
The Division will need to focus its attention on the mechanics of the process that it uses between when a misconduct investigation is completed and when a decision as to discipline is ultimately made. “Chief’s Hearings,” which representatives of the Monitoring Team and of DOJ have observed across many different types of cases, are minimally structured, non-uniform, and problematic in their sanctioning of uncontrolled cross-examination by union officials of OPS representatives and others. With a lack of general, uniform standards, different members of CDP command staff conduct the Hearings differently – which has troubling fairness implications.
Indeed, as the Team understands it, the scope of the Hearings goes far beyond what occurs in other jurisdictions across the country and what the law describes – something with which the City of Cleveland should well be familiar, as a dispute involving the Cleveland Board of Education in the 1980s was, in fact, the context in which the Supreme Court developed the applicable legal standards.261 The “Chief’s Hearings” are intended to satisfy legal requirements that the involved employee be afforded an opportunity to hear about the charges against them and respond, if desired, to those charges before a disciplinary decision may be made. The simultaneous lack of protocols on the one hand and use of some procedures, like cross-examining OPS on findings, is inconsistent with why the Loudermill hearings need to take place in the first instance. Officers, once learning of the Division’s actual, initial discipline decision, can and do have many opportunities to cross-examine decision-makers if or when they appeal the decision. Codified procedures should require that officers, and/or their representatives, have an opportunity to explain their side of the story during the Loudermill context.
260 Dkt. 173-1 at 1. 261 Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 534 (1985).
101

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 106 of 194. PageID #: 4156
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
Progress and Tasks that Remain
1. Disciplinary Process Changes
As indicated above, the procedures and processes that the Division uses from the time that a misconduct investigation is complete to when discipline is imposed will need to be addressed to ensure that they are fair, uniform, objective, and timely. The Monitoring Team looks forward to working with the City and Division to craft policies and address the process leading up to a determination of discipline.
2. Sustained Disciplinary Findings
The Decree requires CDP to “work with the unions to allow for sustained disciplinary findings to stay in an officer’s record for ten years.”262 As of March 9, 2018, the City, Division, and CPPA agreed to modify the collective bargaining agreement between the City and CPPA, removing former language that “[v]erbal disciplinary warnings and disciplinary written reprimands shall be removed from a Police Officer’s record after six (6) months, but all other disciplinary actions or penalties will be removed after two (2) years from the date the discipline was administered.”263
The new agreement, reflecting the implementation of the Division’s revised disciplinary matrix, states that “[v]erbal disciplinary warnings and disciplinary written reprimands shall not be used for progressive discipline purposes after one (1) year from the date the discipline was administered, and disciplinary suspensions shall not be used for progressive discipline purposes after three (3) years from the date the discipline was administered.”264
3. Systemic Evaluation of Discipline
Because it decided to focus on creating Internal Affairs policies and addressing major OPS deficiencies during the current reporting period, the Monitoring Team has deferred a systemic evaluation of the imposition of discipline and the quality and rationale for findings until the latter half of 2018. Although the Monitoring Team has observed some disciplinary decisions that do not appear to appropriately hold officers to account, it has also seen the appropriate imposition of discipline in some serious cases. A comprehensive evaluation of the imposition of discipline will be conducted to determine how the Disciplinary Matrix is functioning in practice – to determine whether “[t]he City and CDP” are adequately “ensur[ing] that . . . officers who commit misconduct are held accountable pursuant to a disciplinary system that is fair, consistent, and provides due process.”265

262 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 249.

263

Collective

Bargaining

Agreement

2013-2016,

at

4,

available

at

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_l2VAn8n4jkS3p0VjZ4ZVRnM0U (last visited July 24, 2018).

264

Tentative

Agreements,

March

9,

2018,

at

2

available

at

https://drive.google.com/open?id=13cES4aM7QCMthx6m7mx4Foh4H97UVOGB (last visited July 24, 2018).

265 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 176.

102

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 107 of 194. PageID #: 4157
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018

X. TRANSPARENCY AND OVERSIGHT
Transparency and oversight are essential components of accountability – and therefore essential values of effective, well-functioning law enforcement agencies. CDP, like all police departments, has a responsibility to ensure that incidents are properly reported, documented, investigated, and, where warranted, addressed with fair, prompt, and appropriate remedial measures.
The Consent Decree’s “Transparency and Oversight” section primarily addresses two components. The first addresses the creation of a new Police Inspector General. The other addresses the collection and analysis of data on officer and the Division’s performance.

A. Police Inspector General

Paragraph 250. “The City will hire an individual or individuals with significant experience in law enforcement practices and civil rights law to serve as a Police Inspector General” (“IG”). City must seek CPC’s “input in developing minimum qualifications and experience” for IG. 251. IG work in Office of Mayor but report to Chief of Police.
252. IG “will not be a current or former employee of CDP.”
253–54. Duties and authority of IG.
255. Budget of IG must be “a separate line item” in City budget and “afford[] sufficient independence and resources” to comply with Consent Decree. 256. IG “will have access to all documents and data necessary to perform the above functions, including any raw data.”

Status of Compliance OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE EVALUATION DEFERRED PARTIAL COMPLIANCE EVALUATION DEFERRED

Background
The Consent Decree creates “a new, internal oversight function within the Division – a Police Inspector General” (the “IG”).266 “The IG’s substantial duties include, but are not limited to, review of CDP policies and practices, auditing, conducting investigations, analyzing data for aggregate and systemic trends, developing specific recommendations for reform, analyzing investigations conducted by OPS to determine if they are adequate, and reviewing imposed discipline.”267 The IG’s reports and recommendations must be made public.268 The Decree also requires that the Division consult with the CPC “in developing the minimum qualifications and experience for an Inspector General.”269

266 First Semiannual Report at 49. 267 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 253. 268 Dkt. 97 at 53 (quoting Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 253) (internal quotations omitted). 269 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 250.
103

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 108 of 194. PageID #: 4158
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
What Has Been Accomplished
In the early days of the Consent Decree, the Parties and Monitoring Team decided to focus their efforts on certain core areas, such as the use of force and crisis intervention. In setting priorities, it was decided that the hiring and funding of an Inspector General, while important to the Decree’s long-term success, was not as critical as other priorities in the first year of monitoring. Additionally, as the Monitoring Team noted, “[e]stablishing the position of the Inspector General while significant foundational work is happening . . . risks the position becoming less attractive for qualified applicants – who might believe that the Consent Decree gives them relatively little room to review or audit compliance with policies that are still just being established or written under the oversight of the Court.”270
The City and Division proceeded diligently to develop a plan for recruiting and spreading information about the IG position on a national scope. The Second-Year Monitoring Plan anticipated that an Inspector General would be hired by December 1, 2017. 271 The City began interviewing candidates during the second half of 2017. After no suitable candidate was identified, the Parties and Monitoring Team agreed to set the hiring date by May 31, 2018 in the Third-Year Monitoring Plan.272
Where the Division Stands
In the current reporting period, the City completed the interviewing process and hired a new Inspector General that will provide oversight of the Division of Police. The new IG will start on September 4, 2018.
Progress and Tasks that Remain
The Police Inspector General, with his or her day-to-day responsibility in conducting assessments, reviews, and audits, will be a significant benefit to the Division and the Consent Decree process. The Monitoring Team looks forward to working more closely with the new IG and ensuring open access to CDP documents that are necessary for him to do his job well.
As the Parties know, the IG’s hiring is only the first part of the kind of sustained commitment to effective oversight that is called for by the Consent Decree. Going forward, the Parties and Monitoring Team must also ensure that the Police Inspector General has the resources, budget, and “sufficient independence” to successfully review practices, audit, analyze data, and provide actionable recommendations to the Division of Police.273 Likewise, the work of the Inspector General will need to reflect the rigor and independence that the Consent Decree contemplates. The Monitoring Team will be evaluating the IG’s performance over time to ensure that such standards are being appropriately met.

270 First Semiannual Report at 49. 271 Dkt. 120-1 at 22.
272 Dkt. 195-1 at 12. 273 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 255.

104

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 109 of 194. PageID #: 4159
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018

B. Data Collection and Analysis

Paragraph
257. “CDP will collect and maintain all data and records necessary to accurately evaluate its use of force practices and search and seizure practices and facilitate transparency and, as permitted by law, broad access to information related to CDP’s decision making and activities. To achieve this outcome, CDP will designate an individual or individuals as the ‘Data Collection and Analysis Coordinator.’” 258. Coordinator “will ensure the collection and tracking of all documents related to uses of force and allegations of misconduct and related materials,” including specific, expressly-listed materials and information. 259. Coordinator “will ensure the creation and maintenance of a reliable and accurate electronic system to track all data derived from force-related documents,” including specific, expressly-identified data. 260. Coordinator “will ensure the creation and maintenance of a reliable and accurate electronic system to track data on all vehicle stops, investigatory stops, and searches, whether or not they result in an arrest or issuance of a summons or citation.” The system must conform to a number of specific, expressly-identified requirements. 261. Coordinator must “routine[ly] report[] . . . relevant data to the Chief of Police, FRB, Training Review Committee, OPS, the [Community Police] Commission, and the Police Inspector General.” 262. Coordinator “responsible for the annual assessment of forms and data collection systems to improve the accuracy and reliability of data collection.” 263. Coordinator “will develop a protocol to accurately analyze the data collected and allow for” various outcome measurements, “subject to the review and approval of the Monitor and DOJ.” 264. Annually, “CDP will conduct an assessment and issue a report summarizing its investigatory stop, search, and arrest data” that addresses various specific, expresslyidentified topics. 265. Annually, “CDP will conduct an assessment and issue a report of all activities, including use of force, arrests, motor vehicles and investigatory stops, and misconduct complaints alleging discrimination, to determine whether CDP’s activities are applied or administered in a way that discriminates against individuals on the basis of race” or other listed prohibited classes or characteristics, and that addresses various specific, expressly-identified topics. 266. Annual analysis of “prior year’s force” data with FRB.

Status of Compliance PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
NONCOMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED

Background
The ability to analyze and report data is critical to a well-functioning system of proactive monitoring, accountability, and transparency. The DOJ found in 2014 that CDP previously had been unable to monitor

105

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 110 of 194. PageID #: 4160
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
aggregate use of force data and trends in a manner that might “enable the Division to identify and address emerging problems before they result in significant or widespread harm.”274
To that end, the Consent Decree obligated CDP to hire a Data Collection and Analysis Coordinator (the “Data Coordinator” or “Coordinator”) to help ensure that CDP maintains the required information in a manner that “facilitate[s] transparency and . . . broad public access to information related to CDP’s decision making and activities.”275 The Coordinator is specifically tasked with ensuring the collection and tracking of all information related to uses of force, search and seizure practices, and allegations of misconduct. The Coordinator will create and maintain “a reliable and accurate electronic system to track” use of force-related data and search and seizure information.276
The Coordinator also is “responsible for the routine reporting of relevant data” to various entities within the Division277; conducting annual assessments of both use of force and investigatory stop data278; and analyzing Division practices for potential disproportionate or disparate impacts with respect to “race, ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.”279 These reports must “be made publicly available.”280
What Has Been Accomplished
Finding and hiring a qualified Coordinator was a priority from early on in the Consent Decree’s implementation, and CDP began a search in fall 2016. CDP elected to search for an individual from outside the department to fill the position. The Parties and the Monitoring Team collaborated to develop an appropriate job description, and the job was posted online. That initial search, lasting a number of months, did not produce any qualified candidates for the role.
Consequently, in February 2017, CDP finalized a two-year consulting arrangement with Dr. Dan Flannery of the Begun Center at Case Western Reserve University to serve as an interim Data Collection and Analysis Coordinator and to begin building capacity for when the full-time position would be filled.
Dr. Flannery and his team’s activities, as outlined in the first year of his contract, included “meetings with key stakeholders, a review of the baseline measures compendium, an initial data scan, a comprehensive data mapping exercise, initial data analysis and quality assurance validation, development of a codebook with all data points, technical assistance on CDP data migration and integration efforts, and preliminary baseline reports for any available data related to use of force, crisis intervention, community engagement, civilian complaints, and stop, search and arrest data.”281

274 DOJ Findings Letter at 28. 275 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 257. 276 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶¶ 259-60. 277 Id. at ¶ 261. 278 Id. at ¶¶ 263, 264, 266. 279 Id. at ¶ 265. 280 Id. at ¶ 267. 281 Second Semiannual Report at 57.

106

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 111 of 194. PageID #: 4161
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
In September 2017, the Division hired Rania Issa, Ph.D. as the new full-time Data Collection and Analysis Coordinator. Dr. Issa has worked closely with Dr. Flannery and his team to build the capacity within the Division of Police to engage in evidence-based, strategic management of public safety and the Division’s daily performance.
Where the Division Stands
During the current reporting period, Dr. Issa and Dr. Flannery have continued to meet regularly with CDP leadership. At the meetings, the Coordinator has continued to present thorough analyses of use of force data, including trends on the number of force incidents reported by month, as well as trends on the timeliness of reviews of use of force reports. The analysis can be disaggregated by month and by CDP District, allowing the Division to identify and focus on particular areas of improvement.
Currently, the Parties, Division, and Monitoring Team convene for monthly meetings that address current trends and numbers with respect to the Division’s performance. As time has progressed, the available information has become more detailed, accurate, and comprehensive. The Monitoring Team is pleased with the tangible progress that the Division has made with respect to capturing, aggregating, and analyzing data on officer performance.
Progress and Tasks That Remain
CDP generates useful information about crime and crime data, which is distributed to command staff on a weekly basis. However, urban police departments across the country – especially those dealing with violent crime issues – are decentralizing the data function so that individual districts or precincts have data experts in-house to help set neighborhood-specific crime and public safety priorities and manage officer performance in real-time.282 The Monitoring Team reiterates that “CDP needs to make a wholesale ramping up and upgrading of its information support functions . . . as doing so will enhance its ability to respond to public safety issues and to manage itself in the manner that the Consent Decree requires.”283
In this way, CDP must be able to take the analysis provided by the new Coordinator and Dr. Flannery to inform the Division’s management decisions. The Monitoring Team has been impressed by Dr. Issa and Dr. Flannery’s analyses. It is not yet clear to the Team how the CDP uses and acts on the new information that has been made available to it. In short, the Division has substantial work ahead of it to ensure that the role of data within the Division is not just to be chased down by a consultant and staff member for the purposes of Consent Decree compliance. Instead, data should be at the core of how the Division evaluates community needs, how it polices and organizes its activities, and how it gauges precisely how well it is doing in meeting its strategic goals.
The Third-Year Monitoring Plan anticipates that the Division and the Data Coordinator will draft an assessment report, or topical assessment reports, by January 18, 2019.284 Meanwhile, the Parties and Monitoring Team will be continuing to convene monthly to discuss data trends and ongoing efforts to make information about officer
282 See, e.g., Stacy St. Clair, “CDP to Launch New Support Centers to Analyze District-Level Shootings,” Chicago Tribune (Oct. 1, 2017), available at http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-chicago-police-strategic-support-center-20171001story.html. 283 Fourth Semiannual Report at 83. 284 See Dkt. 195-1 at 14.
107

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 112 of 194. PageID #: 4162
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018

performance more precise, timely, and useful to the Division – both for purposes of the Consent Decree and for management generally.

C. Public Availability of CDP-Related Information

Paragraph
267. “[A]ll CDP audits, reports, and outcome analyses related to the implementation” of the Consent Decree will be public. 268. “CDP will post its policies and procedures, training plans, community policing initiatives, community meeting schedules, budgets, and internal audit reports on its website.”

Status of Compliance NONCOMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

Background
The Consent Decree requires that CDP’s “policies and procedures, training plans, community policing initiatives, community meeting schedules, budgets, and internal audit reports” be posted on CDP’s website.285 Likewise, “[t]o ensure transparency in the implementation of” the Decree, “all CDP audits, reports, and outcome analyses related to the implementation of this [the Consent Decree] will be made publicly available, including at the City and CDP websites.”286

What Has Been Accomplished
Initially, after regularly monitoring the Division’s website, the Monitoring Team concluded in April 2016 that “little to none of the required information that should have been available—including existing CPD policies and procedures, training plans to satisfy state-imposed certification requirements, community meeting schedules, budget materials, and any internal reports—in a finalized form had been posted.”287 At the time, the Team received assurances from the City and CDP that they were working on a mechanism for the Division to be able to more easily post relevant information on its website.

Shortly thereafter, the City and Division posted “extensive new material” to the Division’s website, “with the public now able to view policies, reports, and materials related to the Consent Decree.”288 The City of Cleveland’s website links visitors to the “DOJ Settlement Agreement Data.”289 The information that is posted by the CDP are
documents that have been produced by the Monitoring Team and the Cleveland Community Police Commission, as well as General Police Orders, court filings, and status reports.290

285 Dkt. 7-1 at 1; id. ¶ 268.

286 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 267.

287 First Semiannual Report at 51.

288 Second Semiannual Report at 53.

289

City

of

Cleveland,

Division

of

Police,

Police

Settlement

Agreement,

http://www.city.cleveland.oh.us/CityofCleveland/Home/Government/CityAgencies/PublicSafety/Police/PoliceSettlementAgre

ement (last accessed April 25, 2018).

290 See Third Semiannual Report at 58.

108

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 113 of 194. PageID #: 4163
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
However, “[w]hat is not available, or easy to find, are audits, budgets, and outcome analysis reports.”291 In its Third Semiannual Report, the Monitoring Team “recommend[ed] that the CDP re-double its efforts to post these materials – as well as focus on making it easier for the average user to navigate the website and find the relevant materials.”292
Separately, as this report discusses in the context of body cameras, the Monitoring Team has identified a need for the Division to have a general operating policy with respect to the public availability of the Division’s records and information – addressing not just the release of body camera footage but the transparency and availability of a host of records, information, and data. Departments elsewhere are going to great lengths to collaborate dynamically with their communities to set clear expectations, in advance of an incident occurring or an information request arising, about what it can or will release and what it cannot or will not make available. Knowing what to expect and how to proceed in advance leads to better outcomes for community members and the Division. The Monitoring Team looks forward to the Division making progress on a general policy on the public availability of CDP-related information in the upcoming reporting periods.
Where the Division Stands
Since its last report, the Monitoring Team has not observed any recent material changes, one way or another, in the public availability of audits, budgets, and outcome reports. The Team also is not aware of efforts to make General Police Orders, divisional notices, and other internal documents articulating the Division’s policies and processes more navigable and accessible.
CDP has begun to post some Consent Decree-related documents on its website with some regularity, and the Monitoring Team acknowledges and commends the Division and City. Nevertheless, the Division and City must continue to take steps forward “to transform itself from a department too often fearful of providing information and data to the public to one that quickly, fairly, and transparently provides the community with updates on its activities and performance—whether good, bad, or otherwise.”293 As the Team has previously noted, “[i]n an era where police departments are increasingly making their policies more easily navigable, we look forward to assisting the Division with focusing on efforts geared toward enabling the public to better understand expectations for police officers and public safety services in Cleveland.”294
Progress and Tasks That Remain
As indicated above, the City must make all CDP audits, reports, and outcome analyses related to the implementation of the Consent Decree public. The Division must also establish a general policy for the release or provision of records, data, or information to the public.
291 Id. 292 Id. 293 Second Semiannual Report at 53. 294 Fourth Semiannual Report at 95 (citing Seattle Police Department Manual (online), https://www.seattle.gov/police-manual; Cincinnati Police Department Procedure Manual (online), https://cincinnati-oh.gov/police/department-references/policedepartment-procedure-manual/; Los Angeles Police Department Manual (online), http://www.lapdonline.org/lapd_manual/; Chicago Police Department Directives System (online), http://directives.chicagopolice.org/directives/.
109

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 114 of 194. PageID #: 4164
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018

XI. OFFICER ASSISTANCE & SUPPORT

A. Training

Paragraph 269. “CDP will ensure that officers receive adequate training to understand: (a) how to police effectively and safely in accordance with CDP policy; [and] (b) the requirements of this Agreement, Ohio law, and the Constitution and laws of the United States,” including in the areas of “procedural justice, bias-free policing, and community policing.” 270. “CDP will expand the scope and membership of the Training Review Committee.”
271–72. “[T]he Training Review Committee will develop a written training plan for CDP’s recruit academy, probationary field training, and in-service training” that addresses a host of specific, expressly-identified issues. 273. “The Training Plan and schedule will be implemented once any objections have been resolved” on a yearly basis.
274. “The Training Review Committee will annually review and updated CDP’s training plan” by “conduct[ing] a needs assessment” that addresses a number of specific, expressly-identified data and information on real-world trends, needs, policy, and law. 275. “CDP’s Commander responsible for training” will be in charge of “all CDP training.
276. “CDP will designate a single training coordinator in each District. The Commander responsible for training will establish and maintain communications with each District training coordinator to ensure that all officers complete training as required and that documentation of training is provided to the” training Commander. 277. “CDP will develop recruit academy and in-service curricula that comport with” the Training Plan and Consent Decree requirements.
278. “[T]he training required under this Agreement . . . will be delivered within two years of the Effective Date.”
279. “For all other substantive updates or revisions to policy or procedure, CDP will ensure and document that all relevant CDP personnel have received and read the policy or procedure. Notification of each revision or update will include the rationale for policy changes and the difference between the old and updated policy.” 280. Training Commander reviews all training materials; ensures that they use “a variety of adult learning techniques, scenario-based training, and problem-solving practices”; and “ensure that all curricula, lesson plans, instructor’s qualifications, and testing materials are reviewed by the Training Review Committee.” 281. “CDP will ensure that instructors are qualified and use only curricula and lesson plans that have been approved by the” Training Commander.
288. “CDP will document all training provided to or received by CDP officers,” with officers “sign[ing] an acknowledgement of attendance or digitally acknowledge[ing] completion of each training course,” which “will be maintained in a format that allows

Status of Compliance PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE NONCOMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE NONCOMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE EVALUATION DEFERRED PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE EVALUATION DEFERRED

110

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 115 of 194. PageID #: 4165
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018

for analysis by training type, training date, training source, and by individual officer name.” 289. “CDP will develop and implement a system that will allow the Training Section to electronically track, maintain, and produce complete and accurate records of current curricula, lesson plans, training delivered, and other training materials in a centralized electronic file system.” 290. “CDP will develop and implement accountability measures . . . to ensure that all officers successfully complete all required training programs in a timely manner.”
282. “CDP will revise, as necessary, its field training program for graduates of the police academy to comport with” the Training Plan and Consent Decree.
283. “The field training program will incorporate community and problem-oriented policing principles, and problem-based learning methods.”
284. Review and revision of Field Training Officer (“FTO”) “participation policy to establish and implement a program that effectively attracts the best FTO candidates” and “revise eligibility criteria” for FTOs. 285. New FTOs and Field Training Sergeants must “receive initial and in-service training that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type, and that addresses” a number of specific, expressly-listed topics and conforms to a number of additional features or requirements. 286. “CDP will create a mechanism for recruits to provide confidential feedback regarding the quality of their field training,” and the Division “will document its response, including the rationale behind any responsive action taken or decision to take no action.” 287. “Training Review Committee will, on an annual basis, analyze all aspects of CDP’s FTO program,” “consider emerging national policing practices in this area,” and “recommend, and CDP will institute, appropriate changes to policies, procedures, and training related to its FTO program.”

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE NONCOMPLIANCE NONCOMPLIANCE NONCOMPLIANCE
NONCOMPLIANCE
NONCOMPLIANCE
NONCOMPLIANCE

Background
High-quality training is critical in shaping officer expectations about how they should perform. As the Team described in the First Semiannual Report, “high-quality and robust training throughout an officer’s career is a linchpin to ensuring safe, effective, constitutional, and community-based policing.”295 Training must adequately address the full scope of an officer’s expected duties, the situations they may find themselves in, the techniques they may be called upon to use, and the values that their performance should embody. Indeed, there is widespread agreement that, given the broad mandate and diverse duties assigned to today’s law enforcement officers, “expanded and more effective training” should be an area of focus for many police departments.296
During DOJ’s 2014 investigation, many CDP officers said “they do not receive enough training, especially scenariobased training and training on appropriate techniques to control subjects.”297 CDP did not routinely provide upto-date training on new and revised policies, with no training on revised policies provided until the next, isolated

295 First Semiannual Report at 52. 296 President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Final Report (2015) at 3. 297 DOJ Findings Letter at 44.

111

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 116 of 194. PageID #: 4166
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
week of annual in-service training.298 As policies were introduced or revised, officers “did not understand why [changes were] made or how [they] should be implemented.”299
Thus, the Consent Decree focuses on officer training in two different ways. First, it relies on comprehensive officer training to introduce CDP personnel to new requirements or expectations of Decree-required policies or initiatives – on things like use of force, crisis intervention, and search and seizure. High-quality, immersive training is necessary to have officers understand and feel comfortable with new expectations. Second, the Decree requires a number of changes to the Division’s ongoing, structural capacity to train and educate its officers – focusing on things like the Academy curriculum used for training new personnel, the Field Training Officer program for training and overseeing newly-minted Academy graduates, and a Training Review Committee to set and coordinate training priorities based on the Division’s needs.
Specifically, the Consent Decree, at the start of implementation, required that CDP complete the following training initiatives:
● Annual “use of force in-service training that is adequate in quality, quantity, type, and scope” for “all officers”;300
● Use of force training for supervisors on “conducting use of force investigations; strategies for effectively directing officers to minimize uses of force and to intervene effectively to prevent or stop unreasonable force; and supporting officers who report unreasonable or unreported force, or who are retaliated against for attempting to prevent unreasonable force”;301
● Community and problem-oriented policing principles for all officers;302 ● Initial training for all officers on bias-free policing;303 ● Initial, supervisor-specific training on bias-free policing;304 ● Annual follow-up “training on bias-free policing that is adequate in quality, quantity, type, and
scope”;305 ● Training that “teach[es] proper techniques for unholstering, displaying, pointing, and aiming a
firearm, and for determining when it is appropriate to do so”;306 ● “[A]t least 16 hours of firearms training which will include pistol, shotgun, and policy training,”
including “night, reduced light, and stress training” for “each firearm they are authorized to use or carry on-duty”;307 ● Annual ECW (taser) certifications that include, among other things, “scenario-based training” with the ECW;308

298 See id. 299 Id. 300 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 86. 301 Id. ¶ 84(l). 302 Id. ¶ 30. 303 Id. ¶¶ 39–40. 304 Id. ¶ 41. 305 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 42. 306 Id. ¶ 55. 307 Id. ¶ 60. 308 Id.1 ¶ 74.

112

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 117 of 194. PageID #: 4167
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
● Members of the forthcoming, dedicated Force Investigation Team (“FIT”) with “FIT-specific training that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type” and that covers a host of specific areas or issues;309
● Initial and ongoing training for members of the forthcoming Force Review Board;310 ● Annual training on crisis intervention for all CDP officers;311 ● Training for specialized Crisis Intervention Team officers;312 ● Initial and annual training on search and seizure, CDP’s policies on search and seizure, and the Fourth
Amendment;313 ● Initial and annual training for Internal Affairs investigators;314 ● Initial and annual “in-service training that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type, and that
addresses management and supervision; community-oriented policing; effective problem-solving techniques; and field communication” for Field Training Officers and Field Training Sergeants;315 ● General and ongoing “supervisory training for all new and current supervisors” that is “adequate in quality, quantity, type, and scope” and covers a number of specifically-identified topics;316 ● All officers with training on the forthcoming, updated Officer Intervention Program (“OIP”);317 and ● All officers with training on using body-worn cameras per the Division’s policy.318
This is undoubtedly a much higher volume of training than the Division previously had been accustomed to providing. Some of this training is initial, isolated training to get things “up and running” and may not need to be repeated in the same comprehensive way going forward. However, many other training expectations set by the Decree constitute a “new normal” and the standard against which the Division will need to strategically and affirmatively identify its training needs and design and implement interactive, high-quality training for officers, to better enable them to adhere to the expectations of the Division and the Cleveland community.
The Consent Decree also requires the Division to “develop and implement a system that will allow the Training Section to electronically track, maintain, and produce complete and accurate records of current curricula, lesson plans, training delivered, and other training materials in a centralized electronic file system.”319

309 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 113. 310 Id. ¶ 125. 311 Id. ¶ 144. 312 Id. ¶¶ 145–48, 150 313 Id. ¶¶ 173–75. 314 Dkt. 7-1 ¶¶ 180–81. 315 Id. ¶ 285. 316 Id. ¶¶ 323–24. 317 Id. ¶ 336. 318 Id. ¶ 337. 319 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 289.

113

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 118 of 194. PageID #: 4168
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
What Has Been Accomplished
1. Training Review Committee
By requiring the establishment and active engagement of a Training Review Committee (“TRC” or “the Committee”), the Consent Decree recognizes that ongoing, in-service training for current officers is a critical function for which the Division needs to be strategic and responsive to the needs of its personnel. Specifically, the Decree requires that CDP officers receive no fewer than 40 hours of in-service training annually, with year-toyear training priorities, needs, and commitments established by the Committee.320 The Committee is responsible for completing an annual Training Plan identifying what training officers will receive in the upcoming year and to meet regularly to discuss how to integrate lessons learned across the Division into training initiatives.321
Early in the Decree’s implementation, the Division created a new policy outlining the TRC’s duties and obligations. Responsible for “develop[ing] comprehensive, annual plans relating to the specific training programs that CPD will provide its officers and continually evaluat[ing] the quality of the Division’s training,” the TRC is “comprised of members of the Division’s Training section; designated District-level training coordinators, who serve as a local point of contact about training issues for officers; union representatives; and members of the Community Police Commission.”322 This Committee is imagined to be the hub for the Division’s identification of training needs and setting training priorities.323 The Court approved the new TRC policy in April 2016.
2. 2017 In-Service Training (Use of Force, Crisis Intervention Training)
CDP submitted to the Monitoring Team its 2017 In-Service Training Plan, which was to have outlined the full scope of training programs that officers would receive in the way of ongoing professional training. The Team provided feedback and continued to work with CDP and the Parties to further define and refine the areas of focus for training in the 2017 calendar year.
A significant amount of work in the 2017 In-Service Training Plan focused on the Division’s new use of force policies and on crisis intervention. This report elsewhere discusses in detail the Division’s significant success in designing, implementing, and completing this training for all officers on CDP’s new use of force policies and on crisis intervention. Again, the completion of these major training initiatives constituted a critical milestone, and the Monitoring Team was pleased with the Division’s level of commitment and focus on completing this training.
3. Learning Management System
To fulfill the Decree’s requirement of “a centralized electronic file system”324 to store training materials and track officer training completion, the CDP and the City elected to implement a Learning Management System (“LMS”). As a basic matter, LMS will enable the Division to more precisely track officers’ completion of training – allowing CDP and the City to have greater assurance that all officers have received the same instruction on performance expectations going forward.
320 Id. at ¶ 271. 321 Id. at ¶¶ 270–81. 322 Dkt. 55 at 1. 323 Third Semiannual Report at 61. 324 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 289.
114

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 119 of 194. PageID #: 4169
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
The LMS provides a great deal more in the way of training capabilities, however. Through the platform, officers will be able to complete interactive, electronic training initiatives – with officer learning able to be tested and completion automatically tracked. This represents an important supplement to in-class training that will no doubt prove to be an integral part of numerous training initiatives in the coming year. The active use of the LMS will allow the Division to provide customized training, tailored to the needs of officers and the City, without needing to wait many months to provide in-class instruction to officers. Although there can be no substitute, in some areas, for interactive, scenario-based training, refresher training, follow-up instruction, and smaller instructional modules are ideal for this electronic environment.
The Division developed a policy outlining the scope and proposed use of the CDP’s LMS System, which was approved by the Court on March 23, 2018.325
4. Training Staffing
Another important investment that the Division is making in its training function is the addition of eight officers to assist in in-service training in 2018 at the request of the Training Section.326 These additional resources will be critical to the Division making progress in communicating new expectations to officers about revised policies. The Monitoring Team commends CDP for proactively prioritizing staffing in this area.
Where the Division Stands
During the current reporting period, the Parties, CDP, and Monitoring Team engaged in productive, collaborative discussions about officer training initiatives in 2018. In April 2018, the Division submitted initial drafts of lessons plans covering crisis intervention, bias-free policing, and community engagement and problem-solving skills. Following further revisions and agreement by the Parties, the Monitoring Team submitted the lesson plans for the Court’s approval on July 13, 2018. The Division began its 2018 in-service training on July 16, 2018.
Now that the Learning Management System database is operational, concrete outcome assessment numbers in the area of officer training can now be reported. In 2017, some 1,354 officers received Consent Decree training – which translates to 94 percent of the police force. The 6 percent of officers who did not successfully complete training were almost exclusively officers who were out on extended leave, retired during the time period, or otherwise had some similarly valid justification for not participating in the training. The few officers without such justification are the subject of misconduct investigations.
In training in 2017, officers completed anonymous surveys at the conclusion of required training. Some 87% of officers indicated that their instructors were adequate and increased their understanding of course material. Separately, 87% said that the content of the training was adequate, incorporating scenarios that were practical. Nearly two-thirds (63%) of officers indicated that they would perform differently based on skills and knowledge gained. And, overall, nearly four out of five officers (79%) said that they found the training to be valuable.
325 Dkt. 194. 326 These eight additional instructors do not include guest instructors who conduct specific courses (such as on First Aid).
115

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 120 of 194. PageID #: 4170
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
Although the Monitoring Team does not have numbers from prior years as a point of comparison, it has previously reported on the extremely positive reactions and responses of officers to the Division’s use of force and crisis intervention training initiatives in 2017.327 From a qualitative perspective, the Monitoring Team continues to be encouraged by the Division’s adoption of new, scenario-based training and officer enthusiasm for such programs. So long as the Division and its Training Section continue to invest time, attention, and resources to the development of the other training that the Decree requires in the coming years, the Monitoring Team has no reason to believe that officer training will be an impediment to Substantial and Effective Compliance.
Progress and Tasks that Remain
1. Use of the Training Review Committee
As described above, the Decree contemplates that the center for the Division’s training activities and planning be the Training Review Committee. At the Committee’s first meeting at CDP Headquarters on April 5, 2016, Monitoring Team members were “encouraged by the immediate level of active engagement exhibited by CPD personnel, union representatives, and CPC commissioners.”328
However, over time, the Committee has struggled to launch in earnest. The Monitoring Team’s Third Semiannual Report in June 2017 reported that “changes in leadership in the Training Section have frustrated the Division’s efforts to establish the Training Review Committee as the locus of activity with respect to identifying training needs, setting priorities, and determining what training initiatives need to happen when.”329
The Monitoring Team continues to be disappointed that “responsibility for planning for ongoing, in-service training” has not been “shared much more broadly and throughout the Division,” via the Committee, “rather than residing solely with a historically understaffed Training Section.”330 The Monitoring Team has requested to receive all communications related to the activities of the Committee and kept apprised of its activities. Over the past six months, the Monitoring Team was made aware of one meeting of the Review Committee. Materials distributed and discussed, briefly, in the context of the meeting were not necessarily even the latest versions of various training curricula. Little to no time was spent on discussing upcoming or ongoing training needs, or a strategic approach to various training programs upcoming.
At this point, the Training Review Committee appears to exist only on paper, despite it being the first policy that was completed and approved during the Consent Decree’s implementation. The Monitoring Team has made clear, including elsewhere in this report, that the reduction of various requirements or expectations to paper in the form of a new policy is a foundational step but is, by no means, the end point toward compliance. Policies need to be meaningfully, actively, and comprehensively implemented – across time and in a manner where it becomes clear that they are having an impact in the real world. Having a policy on the books that is ignored or circumvented is not sufficient. The Committee must play an active role not simply because the Consent Decree requires it but because the Training Section needs to have the input and assistance of individuals from across the Division – in

327 Fourth Semiannual Report at 26, 45. 328 First Semiannual Report at 52. 329 Third Semiannual Report at 61. 330 Id.

116

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 121 of 194. PageID #: 4171
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
setting priorities, developing training, and gauging whether specific training initiatives or measures have, in fact, worked as intended.
Consequently, the Monitoring Team changes its summary assessments involving the Training Review Committee to “non-compliance,” with the exception of the requirement involving the Committee’s membership, which is classified as “partial compliance” because the policy doing so is, at least technically, on the books.
2. Training Staffing & Resources
Plans for the Division to have five recruit classes during 2018 continue to risk stretching the Training Section exceptionally thin – and potentially compromising the ability for CDP to do the full scope of training necessary to make sufficient progress on the host of initiatives outlined above. The Monitoring Team has urged that CDP seriously consider devoting additional resources to the Training Section to ensure that it can balance both the critical and extraordinary demands of training up five recruit classes while making sufficient progress on the Consent Decree.
The Monitoring Team reiterates here that, “[u]ndoubtedly[,] the scope of the training that the Division will need to provide – and that the City will need to pay for – under the agreement that the City and the United States reached is significant.”331 As it has indicated before, this means ongoing changes in “resource allocation” and the general “approach[] . . . going forward.”332 Especially in light of the extraordinarily successful use of force and crisis intervention training initiatives completed in 2017, all stakeholders can have expanded confidence that a dollar spent on allowing officers to develop and practice skills readily applicable to the real world is, arguably, the strongest investment that Cleveland may make in enhancing officer satisfaction, expanding community trust, and addressing public safety.
3. Academy Training and Field Training Program
Along with requirements for annual in-service training for existing CDP officers, the “Consent Decree . . . contains certain obligations relating to the training of new officers at the Academy.”333 Likewise, it contains provisions relating to the Division’s field training program, in which recent Academy graduates participate during their early days on the force.334
Given the scope of the in-service training that the Decree requires, the City and Division’s focus for the first half of the Decree’s implementation has been on developing and implementing core training for current CDP officers. New CDP recruits were provided with the completed 2017 use of force training during their Cleveland-specific time with CDP personnel after completing the Ohio State Patrol Academy, and basic training on crisis intervention was addressed through a 16-hour state course at the Patrol Academy, as well.335
New recruits proceeding through the Academy in one of five projected classes in 2018 are back to being trained in Cleveland rather than the Ohio State Patrol Academy. Although the Consent Decree process has not
331 Third Semiannual Report at 61. 332 Id. 333 Dkt. 97 at 55; Dkt. 7-1 ¶¶ 271, 275, 277. 334 Dkt. 7-1 ¶¶ 282–87. 335 Dkt. 97 at 55.
117

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 122 of 194. PageID #: 4172
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018

comprehensively focused on the whole of the new recruit training curriculum, recruits have received and will continue to receive the training on topics like use of force and crisis intervention previously provided to all CDP officers.

B. Equipment & Resources

Paragraph
291. “The City will implement” paragraphs regarding equipment and resources in order to allow implementation of the Consent Decree “and to allow officers to perform their jobs safely, effectively, and efficiently.” 292. “CDP will complete a comprehensive equipment and resource study to assess its current needs and priorities,” and it “will develop an effective, comprehensive Equipment and Resource Plan that is consistent with its mission and that will allow it to satisfy the requirements of this Agreement.” 293. “CDP’s Equipment and Resource Plan will provide for necessary equipment including, at least” “an adequate number of computers”; “an adequate number of operable and safe zone cars”; “zone cards with reliable, functioning computers that provide officers with up-to-date technology” including computer-aided dispatch, the records management system, and various core law enforcement systems; and “zone cards equipped with first-aid kits.” “This plan also will ensure that CDP properly maintains and seeks to continuously improve upon existing equipment and technology; and is appropriately identifying equipment needs and seeking to utilize, as appropriate, emerging technologies.” 294. “CDP will actively seek input and feedback from the Commission, patrol officers, and supervisors regarding resource allocation, equipment needs, and technological improvements.” 295. “City and CDP” must “us[e] best efforts to implement the Equipment and Resource Plan as required.” 296. “CDP will . . . implement an effective, centralized records management system.”
297. “CDP will utilize a department-wide e-mail system to improve communication and information sharing.” 298. “CDP will employ information technology professionals who are trained to conduct crime and intelligence analysis, who are capable of troubleshooting and maintaining information technology systems and who can identify and suggest appropriate technological advancements.” 299. “CDP will implement an effective employee assistance program that provides officers ready access to the mental health and support resources necessary to facilitate effective and constitutional policing.”

Status of Compliance PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
NONCOMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

118

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 123 of 194. PageID #: 4173
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
Background
The DOJ’s 2014 investigation found that CDP officers lacked “the basic equipment, the physical structures, and the technology required to perform their jobs safely and effectively.”336 As an example, officers lacked effective zone car computers or Mobile Data Computers (“MDCs”) to run a license plate during a vehicle stop and consequently relied on their personal cell phones “to talk with their supervisors, to run checks on license pla[t]es and suspects, to find locations, and to take photographs.”337 The investigation noted that the lack of “adequate technology” and “a sufficiently professional workspace” ultimately “is dangerous to the officer, undermines public safety and is unfair.”338
Indeed, when the Monitoring Team began its oversight, it became clear that “many of the areas that the Division must address . . . are basic technology platforms that Cleveland was overdue to address regardless of whether there had been a Consent Decree[.]”339 Thus, many of the technology systems that the Consent Decree process focuses on are things that undoubtedly help the Division to implement the Decree – but most squarely help the Division and its personnel in carrying out their day-to-day policing functions.
To address the Division’s equipment and resource needs, the Consent Decree required CDP to first “complete a comprehensive equipment and resource study to assess its current needs and priorities to perform the functions necessary for CDP to fulfill its mission and satisfy the requirements” of the Decree.340 Subsequent to that study, the City of Cleveland must “develop an effective, comprehensive Equipment and Resource Plan that is consistent with its mission and that will allow it to satisfy the requirements of this Agreement.”341
As the Monitoring Team summarized on numerous occasions, the Plan must “provide for necessary equipment including, at least . . . an adequate number of computers; an adequate number of operable and safe zone cars; zone cars with reliable, functioning computers that provide officers with up-to-date technology, including” mobile computer-aided dispatch (“CAD”), access to the Division’s records management system (“RMS”), and access to law enforcement databases; and “zone cars equipped with first-aid kits . . . . ”342 It must address how the Division will satisfy the other substantive requirements of the Decree.343 It likewise must “ensure that CDP” both “properly maintains and seeks to continuously improve upon existing equipment and technology” and “is appropriately identifying equipment needs and seeking to utilize, as appropriate, emerging technologies.”344
What Has Been Accomplished
On April 21, 2016, CDP completed an initial Equipment & Resource Study to “assess its current needs and priorities to perform the functions necessary for CPD to fulfill its mission and satisfy” the Consent Decree’s

336 DOJ Findings Letter at 54-55. 337 Id. at 56. 338 Id. at 54. 339 First Semiannual Report at 55. 340 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 292. 341 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 292.
342 Id. ¶ 293.
343 Id. ¶ 292.
344 Id. ¶ 293.

119

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 124 of 194. PageID #: 4174
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
obligations.345 The Parties and Monitoring Team agreed that the Monitoring Team and DOJ would closely review the study while the Division and City turned their immediate priorities to the upcoming Republican National Convention. The stakeholders would resume substantive discussions in August 2016.
After reconvening in August and discussing the findings of the Equipment & Resource Study, the City prepared and submitted an Equipment and Resource Plan on November 25, 2016. After reviewing the submitted Plan, the Monitoring Team filed a motion with the Court indicating that the Team could not yet approve the Plan. Based on the Team’s collective experience with technology and equipment initiatives in other major American police departments, the Monitoring Team found that the initial Plan lacked specific deadlines and details about actors responsible for various deliverables, failed to address various of the Decree’s specific requirements about specific technologies, and did not account for interdependencies across projects.346 Details that the Plan did provide around precinct-based computer, the necessary Computer-Aided Dispatch (“CAD”) platform upgrade, and the Division’s patrol cars were inadequate in their scope and detail.347
At a status conference on January 6, 2017, the Court instructed the City to work with the DOJ and Monitoring Team to develop a more detailed and comprehensive Equipment and Resource Plan. Between January 2017 and late April 2017, the City submitted multiple revisions of the Plan in an effort to address the concerns raised by the Monitor. The City submitted a final proposed Plan submitted on April 17, 2017.348
On May 3, 2017, the Monitoring Team approved a number of elements of the Plan but indicated that some elements needed additional work. Specifically, the Monitoring Team approved certain parts of the Plan with respect to paragraphs 293(b), (c), and (d) of the Decree involving overdue upgrades to CDP’s CAD platform and modernizing CDP’s fleet of patrol vehicles (in terms of numbers, condition, and technology housed within patrol cars).
The Team did not approve the Plan with respect to paragraphs 292; 293(a), (e), and (f); 294; and 298. Of greatest importance, the Plan needed to outline a clear process for identifying emerging technology and equipment needs within the Division in the future – so that CDP would never again fall behind in giving officers the tools they need to do their jobs effectively, efficiently, and safely.
After conferring with the Monitoring Team, the City started to implement the parts of the submitted Equipment and Resource Plan that the Team found acceptable—principally, the implementation of the CAD upgrade and field-based reporting to the Division’s learning management system, which will allow all officers to input reports directly from patrol cars rather than returning to the station—rather than immediately continuing to work on subsequent drafts of the Plan. In particular, the City persuasively proposed that it would learn and solidify many important things about its project management approaches for going forward from its experience of working on CAD and field-based reporting. As such, the Parties and Monitoring Team agreed that it would re-visit the Plan after the City was armed with lessons learned from the significant work of implementing CAD and field-based reporting across the Division.

345 Dkt. 43-1 at 48. 346 Second Semiannual Report at 56-58. 347 Id. at 58-59. 348 Dkt. 125-1.

120

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 125 of 194. PageID #: 4175
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
Where the Division Stands
The Division has made notable strides in implementing the equipment, technology, and data systems necessary for contemporary law enforcement. During the current reporting period, the Division reached several important milestones with respect to technology, equipment, and resources. First, the Division successfully completed its “system go-live” of the comprehensive upgrade to its CAD system as of May 15, 2018. Districts are being trained and “rolled over” onto the new platform one at a time, with the last districts – Districts 1 and 5 – slated to be rolled over on August 27, 2018. The implementation of a modern CAD that allows for officers to be strategically and dynamically dispatched via their in-car computers is a notable technological enhancement that will substantially assist the City in better using officer time and resources and to better address public safety concerns.
Unlike the City’s implementation of its records management system (“RMS,” also known as “LERMS”) in the early part of the Consent Decree process, the project management of the CAD rollout has appeared structured, organized, and strategic. As of early July 2018, the Monitoring Team was not aware of major issues, aside from the periodic issues that arise when any organization transitions one of its most fundamental systems to a new platform. Consequently, we commend the individuals within City IT and within the Division for their coordination and commitment to this project implementation. Their performance in this area suggests that Cleveland has turned a corner when it comes to public safety IT project management.
Second, nearly all officers have completed initial training on using the Division’s new Learning Management System (“LMS”), which allows for tracking the completion of officer training and providing training programs electronically. This will allow, as discussed elsewhere, for the Division to train officers without needing to send them to in-class training – greatly expanding the CDP’s training capacity in a cost- and time-effective manner.
Third, other system upgrades have continued to be implemented. An upgrade to CDP’s time-keeping system went live, without significant issues, on June 21, 2018. An upgrade to the Division’s inventory management system is underway and continues on pace as of the end of June 2018.
The City has also made significant improvements to the Division’s inventory of cars, in-car computers (or mobile display terminal or “MDT”), and District computers. Under the City’s Enhanced Capital Vehicle Plan, developed in the context of the Decree-required Equipment and Resources Plan, 225 new marked zone cars will be added over a 5 year period. The City is on track to meet that goal. In 2017, CDP ordered and received 65 new capital vehicles, 45 of which were marked zone cars that were distributed throughout the Districts to replace aging fleet. In 2018, CDP ordered and received 63 new capital vehicles, 45 of which were marked zone cars.
CDP has also completed an assessment of its zone car fleet to identify which cars lacked MDTs. The City purchased 87 MDTs for vehicles in good and fair condition that did not have MDTs. Currently, all front line zone car vehicles in good and fair condition are equipped with MDTs. Vehicles in poor condition will be decommissioned rather than outfitted with new MDTs.
Additionally, the City and Division have made strides to ensure that CDP Districts have up-to-date computers in the Division’s statinos that will make it easier for officers to perform their tasks. All new staff members, new units,
121

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 126 of 194. PageID #: 4176
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018

and promotions receive new computers. Additionally, the City’s PC refresh program replaces PCs that are older than five years. In 2017, the City identified and replaced 159 PCs throughout the Districts. In 2018, the City has identified and placed an order for 219 PCs throughout the Districts. The Division’s next PC refresh cycle will be in 2021.

The City also has implemented a modern, Windows-based Records Management System that, along with CDP’s improvements to MDTs in zone cars, allows officers to complete reports from the field (also known as Field Based Reporting). From September 12, 2017 through July 31 2018, the Division has entered 45,745 reports from the field. Officers would have needed to return to the station to complete all of these reports. Although some of the reports in RMS may still be completed in the station, the substantially higher volume of reports finalized in the field mean that officers are spending more time in the field and on patrol rather than running back and forth to the station for paperwork purposes. That is important progress. It is possible that these efficiencies will continue to provide officers for more time for community engagement and responding to calls for service.

The Division’s officers are beginning to see some of the benefits of these changes, though this will continue to take some time to solidify. In the Monitoring Team’s 2017 focus groups of officers, the state of the Division’s resources stood in stark relief. Officers described stations and vehicles in disrepair. Officers were frustrated by CDP’s lack of modern technology and the need to put pen to paper rather than use modern, electronic systems. In the nottoo-distant past, some older computers were so old that it could take hours to upload footage from body-worn cameras. Thus, the successful adoption and implementation of these modern technological platforms promises to increase the sense among officers that they have the professional tools that they need to do their jobs.

Progress and Tasks that Remain

Under the Third-Year Monitoring Plan, a finalized Equipment & Resources Plan will be submitted to the Court for approval on September 7, 2018.349 Following its approval by the Court, CDP will continue to “us[e] best efforts to implement the Equipment and Resource Plan[.]”350 Ultimately, the Monitoring Team will need to see that all
of the tasks and commitments outlined in the Plan are implemented successfully and that the new platforms are
meaningfully used across time and officers.

C. Recruitment & Hiring

Paragraph
300. “CDP will review and revise . . . its recruitment and hiring program to ensure that CDP successfully attracts and hires a diverse group of qualified individuals.” 301. “The Mayor will work with the City Council to develop an ordinance to place a Charter Amendment on the ballot that would give the appointing authority greater flexibility in the selection of candidates from the certified eligibility list for the CDP.” 302. “CDP will develop a recruitment policy and a strategic recruitment plan that includes clear goals, objectives, and action steps for attracting qualified applicants from

Status of Compliance PARTIAL COMPLIANCE GENERAL COMPLIANCE
EVALUATION DEFERRED

349 Dkt. 195-1 at 12. 350 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 295.

122

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 127 of 194. PageID #: 4177
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018

a broad cross-section of the community” and meets certain specific, expressly-listed requirements. 303. “The City will implement the recruitment plan within 60 days of it being approved by the Monitor.”
304. “CDP’s recruitment plan will include specific strategies for attracting a diverse group of applicants,” including officers with various, specific, expressly-listed skills and backgrounds. 305. “In developing and implementing its recruitment plan, CDP will consult with the [Community Police] Commission and other community stakeholders on strategies to attract a diverse pool of applicants.” 306. “[O]bjective system for hiring and selecting recruits” that “employs reliable and valid selection criteria.”
307. “CDP will report annually to the public its recruiting activities and outcomes,” which will include information on various, expressly-listed areas.
308. “[A]ll candidates for sworn personnel positions” will have “psychological and medical examination” and be subject to “drug testing.” Existing officers receive “random drug testing.” 309. “CDP will conduct thorough, objective, and timely background investigations of candidates for sworn positions” that cover various, expressly-listed topics.
310. “CDP will request to review personnel files from candidates’ previous employment and, where possible, will speak with the candidate’s supervisor(s)” and maintain any “salient information . . . in candidate’s file.” 311. “If a candidate has previous law enforcement experience, CDP will complete a thorough, objective, and timely pre-employment investigation” addressing various expressly-identified things.

EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE NONCOMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

Background
The Consent Decree’s changes to CDP relate primarily to structural and operational overhauls, whether relating to community policing strategies, bias-free principles, training, and so on. But CDP, like any organization, is made up of individual employees whose skills, demeanors, and perspectives ultimately determine the quality of service delivered. Thus, as the City and Division seek to execute a new vision of day-to-day policing in Cleveland, additional numbers of service-minded, community-oriented individuals will be needed to supplement the CDP’s existing force. New officers will need to possess strategic thinking and problem-solving skills, emotional maturity, interpersonal skills, and the ability to collaborate with a diverse cross-section of Cleveland’s communities.

Accordingly, the Consent Decree requires the City to “integrate community and problem-oriented policing principles” into its recruitment practices, and to “develop a recruitment policy and a strategic recruitment plan that includes clear goals, objectives, and action steps for attracting qualified applicants from a broad cross-section of the community . . . [and] establish[es] and clearly identif[ies] the goals of CDP’s recruitment efforts.”351

351 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 302.
123

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 128 of 194. PageID #: 4178
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
What Has Been Accomplished
The development of the City’s Recruitment and Hiring Plan started early in the Consent Decree process. The City provided its first draft of the Recruitment and Hiring Plan on February 16, 2016. This draft was a general outline that lacked specific, measurable, actionable, realistic, and time-bound objectives. The Monitoring Team previously described that this early effort “suggested . . . both a lack of dynamic, outside-the-box thinking about how to attract diverse and qualified officers and a significant lack of a clear project management structure.”352 A revised draft submitted by the City on April 11, 2016 was a modest improvement but still failed to specify strategic objectives; did not indicate precisely how and which community stakeholders would be engaged; and outlined vague plans to measure the success of the overall recruitment initiative.
Given the substantial work that was still required to develop an adequate Plan, particularly with the immediate urgency of the CDP’s preparation for the Republican National Convention, the Parties and Monitoring Team agreed to pause development of the Plan and resume it after the RNC. While the Parties deferred their attention on the Plan, the City proceeded to implement some discrete projects related to recruitment and hiring, including the implementation of an online application process and securing the services of outside vendors to assist in the testing of prospective recruits. These efforts were positive developments.
Following the RNC, the Parties and Monitoring Team resumed drafting of the Recruitment and Hiring Plan. Around that time, the Division shifted its police recruiting efforts from solely within CDP to the City’s Department of Public Safety (“DPS”). Rather than the Division leading the recruiting effort for police specifically, DPS now recruits all of fire, police, EMS, and corrections officers.
DPS started work anew on the Consent Decree requirements related to recruitment and hiring. It collaborated with the Monitoring Team and DOJ for an intensive period in 2017 and into 2018 in an effort to create a recruitment plan that meets the expectations of the Decree. The Monitoring Team was tremendously pleased by the City’s commitment to collaboration and exploration of new approaches in this process.
The City released a proposed final draft Recruitment and Hiring Plan to the public for review, input, comment, and feedback in May 2018. The 60-day period of engagement and input ended on August 10, 2018. The Monitoring Team expects to submit a Final Draft of the Plan to the Court in early September.
Where the Division Stands Now
1. Applicants
Because the City’s recruitment plan is still being completed and was, until just a few days ago, still being reviewed by community members and stakeholders, the Monitoring Team cannot yet definitively compare “before” or “after” outcomes.
Nevertheless, the Monitoring Team has reviewed data that is collected from the City’s Civil Service Commission (“CSC”) and augmented by the Department of Public Safety. The recruitment and exam process changed in 2016
352 First Semiannual Report at 59-60.
124

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 129 of 194. PageID #: 4179
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
to an online registration, application, and testing system called NeoGov, an online software platform for the government and public sector that offers automated screening of candidates to facilitate the hiring process.
Overall applicant numbers provide reason for optimism. In 2017, there were 1,180 applicants for positions as a CDP officer. In absolute terms, this represents a 19% decrease from the 1,459 applicants that the City saw apply in 2016. However, and crucially, the City saw a significant jump – of some 138%, from 151 in 2016 to 359 in 2017 – in qualified applicants, which is the number of those who were hired plus those others whose names were certified and vetted for the Training Academy as indicated by the CSC. Thus, in 2017, the proportion of qualified applicants in the overall pool greatly increased.
At the same time, the number of candidates who failed the initial screening process dramatically decreased in 2017, from 1,294 in 2016 to 821 in 2017 – a 37% drop. This likewise suggests that the quality of applicants coming to the Division in the first place has substantially increased in a short period of time. Although there might be several explanations, the City’s changes to the application process and to its recruitment efforts are likely one of the most plausible explanations for the numbers. The reasons for failing an initial screening (an application being rejected, failing the required agility test, and the like) remained relatively steady in 2017, proportionally speaking, compared to 2016.
Signs in 2016 that the applicant pool was diversifying have slowed somewhat in 2017, in absolute terms. In 2016, there were 518 black applicants, a 27% increase from 2015. Likewise, in 2016, 25% of applicants identified their gender as female, a small (2%) overall increase from 2015. The numbers for 2017 showed some backtracking, however, with 15 percent fewer black applicants and 14 percent fewer Hispanic applicants. There was a small jump in the number of female applicants, from 296 in 2016 to 298 in 2017.
However, these numbers speaking to the diversity of CDP applicants look somewhat different if situated in overall trends. For instance, the number of female applicants was essentially unchanged in overall number in 2017 from 2016 – but the overall number of applicants, as noted above, decreased by 19 percent. Therefore, women were a higher percentage of the applicant pool in 2017 than in 2016 – 25 percent in 2017 compared to 20 percent in 2016. Likewise, black applicants made up about 37 percent of the applicant pool in 2017, compared to 35 percent in 2016.
As CDP saw lower numbers of candidates starting but failing to complete the application process in 2017, all relevant racial, ethnic, and gender groups saw a decreased failure rate by overall numbers. Women represented a slightly higher proportion of failed candidates – 27 percent in 2017 compared to 21 percent in 2016 and 20 percent in 2015, while black applicants represented a slightly lower proportion of failed candidates – close to 42 percent in 2017 compared to 38 percent in 2016 and 31 percent in 2015.
The Consent Decree requires that the City and Monitoring Team analyze the numbers with respect to recruit failures by self-identified disability and the number of applicants with fluency in a language other than English.353 The City is not yet tracking this information and will need to do so soon so that outcomes and progress in these areas can also be considered.
353 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 367(e)(3)–(4).
125

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 130 of 194. PageID #: 4180
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018

2. Recruitment Measures

By most measures, the City increased its overall activity and focus on targeted recruiting activities in 2017 as compared to the prior year. In 2017, 23 billboards advertised CDP recruitment opportunities, compared to 9 in 2016 – more than doubling the number of individual “impressions,” or instances in which individuals saw the advertisements. Although the Division utilized transit station advertisements and digital advertisements less, it used and kept track of social media in a significant and comprehensive new way – with views or likes of various social media platforms numbering more than 714,457.354 The City’s formal recruiting partnerships increased mildly, to 19, in 2017.

As the City finalizes and begins to implement its comprehensive Recruitment and Hiring Plan, the Monitoring Team expects that the volume and frequency of these and many other recruitment activities will expand.

Progress and Tasks that Remain

Following the City’s summer-long efforts to receive and synthesize thoughts of the residents of Cleveland on the adequate and appropriate staffing of their police force, the Division will update the Plan, as appropriate, to ensure that it reflects the feedback and input of members of the public. Under the Third-Year Monitoring Plan, the Recruitment and Hiring Plan will be submitted to the Court on September 7, 2018.355

Following the approval of the Recruitment and Hiring Plan, CDP must “report annually to the public its recruiting activities and outcomes,” including disaggregated data on applicants, interviewees, and selectees, as well as the successes and challenges to recruiting qualified and high-quality applicants.356 The Monitoring Team will continue to gauge progress by analyzing the numbers and trends with respect to applicants and hired recruits, as well as by working with the City to provide ongoing technical assistance on the Plan’s implementation.

D. Performance Evaluations and Promotions

Paragraph
312. “CDP will ensure that officers who police professionally and effectively are recognized through the performance evaluation process” and “are identified and receive appropriate consideration for performance.” Likewise, “poor performance” must be “reflected in officer evaluations.” 313. “CDP will develop and implement fair and consistent practices to accurately evaluate officer performance in areas related to integrity, community policing, and critical police functions, on both an ongoing and annual basis.” 314–15. CDP will use “a formalized system documenting the annual performance evaluations of each officer by the officer’s direct supervisor,” including an assessment of several expressly-listed areas. “Supervisors will meet with the employee whose performance is being evaluated to discuss the evaluation.”

Status of Compliance NONCOMPLIANCE
NONCOMPLIANCE
NONCOMPLIANCE

354 This information was tracked and aggregated for the first time in 2017. 355 Dkt. 195-1 at 7. 356 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 307.

126

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 131 of 194. PageID #: 4181
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018

316. “CDP will hold supervisors of all ranks accountable for conducting timely, accurate, and complete performance evaluations of their subordinates.”
317. “CDP will develop and implement fair and consistent promotion practices that comport with the requirements of this Agreement and result in the promotion of officers who are effective and professional.” 318. In considering promotion, “appointing authority will consider” specific, expresslylisted “factors.”

NONCOMPLIANCE NONCOMPLIANCE
NONCOMPLIANCE

Background
To perform their best and deliver police services at a high level of quality, officers must feel like they are supported in their careers and that their professional development is a priority for the organization. In Cleveland, the Division must address how it evaluates officer performance and must ensure that high-performing officers have access to promotional opportunities. Under the Consent Decree, CDP must “develop and implement fair and consistent practices to accurately evaluate officers” across a number of dimensions, including “integrity, community policing, and critical police functions.”357

What Has Been Accomplished
When the Monitoring Team initially discussed the planned activities of the First-Year Monitoring Plan with the Parties, it was decided that reforms to the Division’s performance evaluations would be addressed at a later juncture. None of the Monitoring Plans to date directly addresses this area because “a number of policies, procedures, systems, and training that will inform changes in evaluations and promotions must still be fully implemented.”358

Specifically, a “formalized system documenting the annual performance evaluations of each” must “include an assessment of[,]” among other things, “community engagement and communication with the public,” “use of community and problem-oriented policing,” “de-escalation strategies,” and “techniques for dealing with individuals in crisis.”359 While some of those areas have reached major milestones over the first half of the Decree’s implementation, progress remains before CDP will be positioned to substantially revise its performance evaluation protocols.

Where the Division Stands
By the express agreement of the Parties and the Monitoring Team, reforms to CDP’s performance evaluations have not begun. For that reason, and through no fault of its own, the City is not yet in compliance with the provisions of this section of the Decree.

357 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 313. 358 Dkt. 97 at 62. 359 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 314.

127

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 132 of 194. PageID #: 4182
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018

Progress and Tasks that Remain
As the Parties finalize major plans and policies such as the CPOP Plan, the Monitoring Team anticipates that the City and CDP will be prepared to turn their attention to officer performance evaluations by the start of 2019. This expectation provides a reasonable timetable for commencing work in an area that can serve to greatly enhance professional development opportunities within the Division and provide an important, non-punitive mechanism for employee management.

E. Staffing

Paragraph
319. “CDP will complete a comprehensive staffing study to assess the appropriate number of sworn and civilian personnel to perform the functions necessary for CDP to fulfill its mission, and satisfy the requirements of the” Consent Decree. / “CDP will develop an effective, comprehensive Staffing Plan that is consistent with its mission, including community and problem-oriented policing, and that will allow CDP to meet the requirements of” the Consent Decree. 320. Requirements of CDP Staffing Plan.
321. “The City and CDP will employ best efforts to implement the Staffing Plan over the period of time set forth in the approved plan.”

Status of Compliance EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED

Background
To distribute and use resources in a way that best protects public safety, ensures officer safety, and promotes a department’s mission and values, law enforcement agencies must be able to strategically distribute personnel based on expected workloads across a city and at various times during the day. Departments need to plan how they will use stretched-thin resources more effectively, balancing basic patrol units with the needs of specialized units and conserving resources with the use of civilians in appropriate administrative desk jobs.360

The Consent Decree contemplates changes to CDP’s approach to staffing, assigning, and deploying its personnel within the city of Cleveland. Under the requirements of the Decree, for example, CDP must:
• Implement a “comprehensive and integrated policing model”361; • Ensure rigorous investigations and reviews of force incidents362; • Ensure that specialized crisis intervention officers “are dispatched to an incident involving an individual
in crisis” and are able to “have primary responsibility for the scene”363;

360 See DOJ Findings Letter at 55. 361 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 27. 362 Id. at ¶¶ 93-130. 363 Id. at ¶ 151.

128

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 133 of 194. PageID #: 4183
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
• Provide supervisors with the ability to “review all documentation of investigatory stops, searches, and arrests”364;
• Ensure that officers can receive the training required by the Decree365; • Provide necessary opportunity for “first line supervisors [to] provide close and effective supervision of
officers”366; • Implement the Early Intervention System367; and • Provide supervisors with the ability to “conduct adequate random and directed audits of body worn
camera recordings.”368
Altogether, these provisions require changes in the way that CDP will deploy its existing personnel and in the overall number of sworn and civilian personnel. To that end, the Consent Decree specifically envisions a Staffing Plan by which the CDP must “address and provide for each of the following:
• “[P]ersonnel deployment to ensure effective community and problem-oriented policing; • “[A] sufficient number of well-trained staff and resources to conduct timely misconduct investigations; • “[T]o the extent feasible, Unity of Command; and • “[A] sufficient number of supervisors.”369
What Has Been Accomplished
On June 17, 2016, CDP submitted to the Parties and Monitoring Team a Resource Study and Deployment Proposal that provided an estimate of staffing levels necessary to do all that the Division must do to ensure safe, effective, and constitutional policing. As the Monitoring Team previously reported, the draft proposal was a “useful guide for understanding, at a high level, the Division’s current personnel and [deployment methods],” but it was not yet a true staffing plan as contemplated in the Consent Decree.370 Reviewing the document, the Monitoring Team was unable to ascertain “precisely how many officers CPD requires, or how those officers should be deployed across the Division, to satisfy everything that the Consent Decree requires.”371
The Parties agreed to postpone active work relating to staffing in order for the Division to focus on the Republican National Convention in 2016, finalize the use of force policies, and implement other core processes and policies that might significantly impact necessary or desired staffing levels.
Following CDP’s major accomplishments relating to use of force and crisis intervention, as well as ongoing work on the Division’s CPOP Plan, the Parties renewed their focus on the Staffing Study and Plan in late 2017, seeking to construct a plan around the appropriate number of personnel that would permit CDP to fulfill its mission and to satisfy the various requirements of the Decree outlined above.

364 Id. at ¶ 168. 365 Id. at ¶ 271. 366 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 322. 367 Id. at ¶ 326-36. 368 Id. at ¶ 339. 369 Id. at ¶ 320. 370 Second Semiannual Report at 61. 371 Id.

129

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 134 of 194. PageID #: 4184
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
Where the Division Stands Now
The Staffing Plan is one of the three interrelated plans – along with the Community and Problem-Oriented Policing Plan and the Recruitment and Hiring Plan – that the City released in late May 2018 for public collaboration and feedback. That comment period ran to August 10, 2018. The Division will refine and revise the Plan further, as appropriate and in light of public input. The Court will receive a finalized Plan in early September.
It is worth confirming here that, aside from the Decree’s obligations and the Parties’ ongoing efforts to complete and approve a Staffing Plan, there is a sense with the Division that CDP needs both more officers and a new approach to better utilizing existing resources. In late 2017, the Monitoring Team conducted focus group sessions with CDP officers.372 In those sessions, many CDP officers were frustrated by organizational staffing decisions that they felt compromised officer and public safety.373 Some officers described working 15 hours straight and that, understandably, the quality of service they could be expected to provide begins to drop. The CPPA has noted a CDP District with “very tired officers who are working 60 to 80 hours a week.”374 The collective feeling of being short-handed diminishes officer morale and increases stress. Thus, as the Division is also working on its Recruitment Plan, the Division can make strategic decisions to make the most efficient use of its existing staff – so that its officers’ quality of life is improved, stress levels are reduced, and officers’ safety is not compromised.
Progress and Tasks that Remain
Under the Third-Year Monitoring Plan, the Staffing Plan will be submitted to the Court for approval on September 7, 2018.375 Following the Plan’s submission, the City and CDP will then need to implement the actions described in the Plan. Major sections of the Decree, not least of all the Division’s efforts to implement community and problem-oriented policing, depend on the Division’s ability to make the fundamental changes that the Monitoring Team anticipates are in the final Staffing Study and Plan.
The implementation of the Staffing Plan will be substantially aided by the projected influx of new officers slated to start with the Division. With the Division on track to complete five Academy classes this year, Cleveland is on track to see an increased number of officers on the streets policing in a different way – armed with new technology and better resources, benefitting from enhanced training, and spending their time solving community problems and engaging with Cleveland residents.
372 Dkt. 204. 373 Id. 374 Kaylee Remington, “Officer shortage in Cleveland's 4th police district raises concern,” Cleveland.com (Apr. 7, 2018), http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2018/04/more_police_needed_in_clevelan.html. 375 Dkt. 195-1 at 13.
130

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 135 of 194. PageID #: 4185
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018

XII. SUPERVISION

A. First-Line Supervisors

Paragraph

Status

of

Compliance

322. “CDP will ensure that first line supervisors provide close and effective supervision PARTIAL

of officers” in a number of express, specifically-identified ways.

COMPLIANCE

323. “CDP will develop and implement supervisory training for all new and current NON-

supervisors” that is “adequate in quality, quantity, type, and scope, and will include” a COMPLIANCE

number of specific, expressly-listed topics.

324. “Thereafter all sworn supervisors will receive adequate in-service management NON-

training.”

COMPLIANCE

325. “CDP will hold supervisors directly accountable for the quality and effectiveness NON-

of their supervision, including whether supervisors identify and effectively respond to COMPLIANCE

misconduct and ensure that officers effectively engage with the community.”

Background
The Consent Decree requires CDP, rather than “essentially leaving [officers] to determine for themselves how to perform their difficult and dangerous jobs” (as the DOJ concluded in its investigation),376 to ensure “close and effective supervision of officers.”377 This includes:
• Responding to, investigating, and documenting force . . . ; • Ensuring that officers are working actively to engage the community with the goal of increasing
public trust; • Monitoring, commanding, and controlling incidents and calls for service; • Reviewing arrest reports for compliance with law and this Agreement; • Identifying training and professional development needs; and • Providing leadership, counseling, redirection, and support to officers as needed.378

Supervisors in turn must be held “directly accountable for the quality and effectiveness of their supervision” of officers in their command.379 Strong, fair, and effective supervision provides real-time, front-line accountability
that shapes officer behavior and drives a department’s performance. Indeed, as the Monitoring Team has
previously observed, “[i]t is an established principle in policing that first-line supervisors – sergeants – play a critical role in directing and controlling the behavior of officers in police-citizen interactions.”380

Some of the Decree’s requirements related to supervision, listed above, address issues like use of force, community engagement, or search and seizure – areas where specific policies, protocols, and training specifically address

376 DOJ Findings Letter at 3. 377 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 322. 378 Id. 379 Id. ¶ 325. 380 Samuel Walker, National Institute of Justice, “Police Accountability: Current Issues and Research Needs” at 12 (2007), available
at http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/218583.pdf.

131

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 136 of 194. PageID #: 4186
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
supervisor responsibilities. Other requirements speak to broader duties of supervisors, such as monitoring and controlling incidents and calls, identifying professional development needs, and providing counseling or support to officers. For both more specific and general supervisor duties, the Consent Decree requires “mandatory supervisory training” for “all new and current supervisors” covering an array of important topics, including:
● [T]echniques for effectively guiding and directing officers and promoting effective and constitutional police practices;
● [D]e-escalating conflict; ● [E]valuating written reports, including identification of canned or conclusory language that is not
accompanied by specific facts; ● [I]nvestigating officer uses of force; ● [B]uilding community partnerships and guiding officers on this requirement; ● [U]nderstanding supervisory tools such as the Officer Intervention Program and body worn
cameras; ● [R]esponding to and investigating allegations of officer misconduct; ● [E]valuating officer performance; ● [C]onsistent disciplinary sanction and non-punitive corrective action; ● [M]onitoring use of force to ensure consistency with policies; and ● [L]egal updates.381
What Has Been Accomplished
The role of supervisors in use of force has been substantially increased through the Division’s revised use of force policies. Supervisors now must “respond to the scene as soon as practical following any use of force.”382 They must review and evaluate all officer use of force reports.383 In use of force investigation policies currently being refined by the Division, and per the Consent Decree, supervisors will soon need to take the lead and accomplish any of a number of specific investigatory tasks to follow up in lower-level uses of force.
Similarly, the approved crisis intervention policies articulate a number of specific supervisor responsibilities. These include tracking and communicating to relevant Division personnel which cars have Specialized CIT officers working in them, responding to the scene of CIT calls when necessary and appropriate, coordinating the provision of additional resources to CIT calls (such as SWAT or the Crisis Negotiation Team), and coordinating the necessary after-incident documentation requirements.384
Meanwhile, the Division has invested some time in designing a supervisor-specific curriculum that would satisfy at least part of the Decree’s requirements. Despite some progress, the curriculum is still being developed, and it is unclear precisely when a finalized training might be conducted.
381 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 323. 382 Officer Use of Force Reporting Policy, Dkt. 83-5 at 1. 383 Id. at 2. 384 Crisis Intervention Team Response Policy, Dkt. 103-3 at 8.
132

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 137 of 194. PageID #: 4187
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
Where the Division Stands
In the current reporting period, the Division has continued to work on a training curriculum specifically for supervisors, with the DOJ and Monitoring Team providing feedback and technical assistance. Work continues, and although the City and Division indicate that they would like to hold and complete the supervisory training, a specific schedule for conducting the supervisor training has not been identified.
With respect to the Decree’s expressly identified outcome measurements, paragraph 367(h) requires the Monitoring Team to evaluate “supervisors’ initial identification of officer violations and performance problems, and the supervisors’ responses to those violations and problems.”385 Currently, there is no systematic way by which the Division tracks instances where supervisors have flagged officer performance as problematic. This is not to say that supervisors are not doing this – they might be. Instead, a supervisor’s identification of deficient performance may be spread across any number of files, reports, investigations, or databases and be contained within free-form, written reports. This makes aggregating data for purposes of the Consent Decree and its outcome measurements difficult. More importantly, however, it makes it substantially more difficult for the Division itself to determine whether supervisors are, in fact, providing adequate supervision.386 In discussions with the Division and Parties about the restructuring of the Internal Affairs (“IA”) function, the Monitoring Team has emphasized the need for IA to become the centralized hub for performance management across the agency. As that restructuring is finalized and fully realized, CDP will need to ensure that instances in which supervisors have identified officer policy violations and performance deficiencies are logged in a systematic, streamlined manner and that the supervisory response to such issues are also logged.
Some other data points do exist with respect to the Division’s current supervision. The Monitoring Team’s Decree-required officer focus groups, conducted in late 2017, identified an ongoing sense among the rank-and-file that the quality and nature of supervision could be strengthened going forward. Many officers and sergeants noted that CDP supervisors “receive little guidance, training, or formal career development opportunities when they are promoted.”387 Officers indicated that the quality of supervisors’ assistance seems to vary, with some supervisors unable to manage line officers or take control of a scene. To the extent that officers who are on the receiving end of supervision believe that supervision should be better and more comprehensive, the Division would appear to have some distance to travel in enhancing the quality of its supervision.
In the next reporting periods, the Monitoring Team will have occasion – through comprehensive reviews of items like use of force, crisis incidents, and the like – to evaluate the performance, across time and incidents, of supervisors and to identify whether supervisors are adhering to policy and Decree requirements.
Progress and Tasks that Remain
1. Supervisor Training & Professional Development
As the Division continues to develop an initial supervisory training of sufficient quality, the Monitoring Team reiterates a prior observation that “it is likely that satisfying the terms of the Consent Decree will require a
385 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 367(h). 386 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 325. 387 Dkt. 204-1 at 30.
133

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 138 of 194. PageID #: 4188
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
multiple-stage training consisting of in-class, electronic, and other instruction – especially given that sergeants have historically received relatively little training other than on CDP policies and other bureaucratic considerations.”388 Again, the Decree covers both specific supervisor requirements – what to do after a use of force incident or complying with supervisor-related provisions of the search and seizure policies – and more general leadership responsibilities – providing officer counseling and support or adequately taking command of an incident upon arrival to a scene. The Monitoring Team anticipates that the Division will learn from the success of other trainings to fashion meaningful supervision training that meets the Decree’s standards.
In addition to minimum training on supervisor responsibilities, CDP needs to develop a clear track for supervisors to develop as professionals. As a general matter, a good patrol officer is one who effectively and appropriately responds in real-time to new situations and information. Officers are in the business of reacting – to something they see on the streets or to a call for service to which they are dispatched. They arrive, assess the scene, and gauge their response or reactions in order to secure a safe and effective outcome. What makes a good officer, however, is not necessarily the same thing as what makes a good supervisor. Supervisors must do more than simply react or respond to what the world throws at them on a given day. Instead, they must think proactively and affirmatively about how to implement the Division’s mission, values, and strategic initiatives on a day-to-day basis – and how to ensure that their officers are performing at the level necessary to keep themselves and Cleveland safe.
In Cleveland, like many other jurisdictions, newly-minted supervisors are provided with minimal training or instruction upon promotion – and this training is usually on policy and granular department processes. Likewise, when supervisors are promoted further up the chain, there is little to no instruction aimed at developing broader leadership and supervisory skills.
The Division has previously indicated a desire and willingness to build a formalized leadership development program and process for its supervisors, perhaps in conjunction with local community partners like universities, businesses, and community organizations. Although they have made some of these resources available in an ad hoc fashion in the past, the development of a comprehensive program will greatly enhance the quality and effectiveness of the Division’s supervision. It may also help the Division retain its best supervisors, who may better identify opportunities for professional and personal growth as a result of a formalized career development pathway.
2. Data and Compliance and Outcome Measures
As indicated above, the Consent Decree requires tracking instances in which supervisors identify problematic performance and supervisors’ responses when such problems are identified. The Division needs to implement a process for systematically tracking this information so that it can monitor, in aggregate, the performance of its supervisors. In the short-term, the Monitoring Team will use such information, as required by the Decree, to gauge compliance and outcomes.
Again, in the coming reporting periods, the Monitoring Team will evaluate and assess supervisor performance in the context of its comprehensive reviews of use of force, crisis intervention, and internal affairs incidents or investigations. The performance of supervisors will be part and parcel of the inquiry in each area.
388 Third Semiannual Report at 68 (quoting First Semiannual Report at 62).
134

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 139 of 194. PageID #: 4189
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018

3. Holding Supervisors Accountable
Departments must empower supervisors to actively guide officers in their day-to-day functions – but also must hold them accountable for doing so. When the Division examines the quality of a patrol officer’s performance, it must comprehensively consider the quality of that officer’s supervision. Did the supervisor take appropriate action? If relevant, was the supervisor on the scene during the performance in question? Should they have been? After some officer performance, did the supervisor take appropriate action? When a supervisor identified potential misconduct or issues with performance, was it addressed in a timely manner and consistent with the Division’s policies? Did supervisors proactively manage the risk of improper or unconstitutional policing?

Thus, CDP will need to develop the capacity and habit of closely evaluating supervisor performance – and hold supervisors accountable when a failure to adequately supervise has been identified.

B. Officer Intervention Program

Paragraph
326. CDP “will create a plan to modify its Officer Intervention Program (‘OIP’) to enhance its effectiveness as a management tool to promote supervisory awareness and proactive identification of potentially problematic behavior among officers. 327. “CDP supervisors will regularly use OIP data to evaluate the performance of CDP officers across all ranks, units, and shifts.” 328. “The OIP will include a computerized relational database that will be used to collect, maintain, integrate, and retrieve data department-wide” in a number of specific, expressly-identified areas. 329. “CDP will set threshold levels for each OIP indicator that will trigger a formal review, and the thresholds will allow for peer-group comparisons between officers with similar assignments and duties.” 330–36. Additional express requirements of OIP.

Status of Compliance EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED

Background
An early intervention system (“EIS”) is a proactive risk assessment tool that provides individualized supervision and support to officers in order to manage risk. An effective EIS relies on a database that logs information on officer activities—such as stops, arrests, uses of force, firearm discharges, and citizen complaints—and allows police departments to identify problematic patterns of behavior by individual officers or groups of officers who may need non-disciplinary intervention and support. As described in the Team’s First Semiannual Report, the concept of an early intervention system is not new, as many groups, including civil rights activists and law enforcement associations alike, “have endorsed the utility of police agencies identifying problematic performance trends early so that supervisors can provide mentoring, training, and other performance interventions.”389

389 First Semiannual Report at 63 (citing U.S. Civil Rights Commission, Who Is Guarding the Guardians? 80 (1989); CALEA Standard 45.1.15 cmt. (4th ed. 2001); International Association of Chiefs of Police, Building Integrity and Reducing Drug Corruption in Police Departments 80 (1989)).

135

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 140 of 194. PageID #: 4190
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
In its pattern-and-practice investigation, the DOJ found that the Division’s prior Officer Intervention Program (“OIP”) was “ineffective and poorly utilized.”390 Contrary to best practices and DOJ’s 2002 recommendations (from an earlier investigation), CDP’s OIP was not mandatory, and officers could choose whether or not to participate.391 In January 2014, CDP drafted a revised policy that provided guidelines for the establishment of a mandatory OIP. The DOJ found that the revised mandatory program “still ha[d] significant failings[,]” because of limited information and untimely notifications that would be ineffective at intervening in patterns of problematic behavior.392
Consequently, the Consent Decree requires that CDP’s existing OIP be comprehensively transformed into an effective “early intervention system.” Specifically, the Decree requires that the Division’s OIP become a broader management tool that will “proactive[ly] identif[y] . . . potentially problematic behavior among officers” and provide non-punitive supervisory intervention in order to “modify officers’ behavior and improve performance” before the performance gradually becomes deep-seated and difficult to resolve.393 The Decree requires “a computerized relational database that will be used to collect, maintain, integrate, and retrieve data departmentwide” on officer performance.394
What Has Been Accomplished
Early in the Decree’s implementation, the Monitoring Team determined that, while the Division’s existing OIP “constitute[d] a good starting point to the extent that it identifies personnel subject to administrative charges, sick time abuse, civilian complaints, use of force incidents, and internal investigations[,]” “the existing program will need to be substantially overhauled to conform to the Consent Decree’s requirements.”395 Under the existing OIP, first-line supervisors do not receive regular and timely information about performance trends for officers under their supervision. Tracking officer performance over time requires a strong memory or intuition, not objective, quantifiable information.396
The Monitoring Team has supported the City and CDP’s decision to postpone the development of an EIS, a proactive risk assessment tool that will transform the Division’s current OIP. “The City and CDP intentionally waited to initiate this work in the absence of the strong technology infrastructure which is essential to an EIS, as is a broader understanding of the range of intervention initiatives which go beyond those currently offered by the Division’s OIP.”397
Where the Division Stands
As agreed, the Parties and Monitoring Team have focused their attention in the current reporting period on other substantive areas of the Decree. To be sure, as the Monitoring Team has described in past semiannual reports,
390 DOJ Findings Letter at 47. 391 Id. 392 Id. 393 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶¶ 326-27. 394 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 328. 395 First Semiannual Report at 63. 396 See id. 397 Third Semiannual Report at 69.
136

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 141 of 194. PageID #: 4191
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
there have been “several significant strides in areas that do bear some relationship to the effective implementation of an EIS,” including improvements in technology, data, and crisis intervention response.398 These improvements include the Division’s use of IAPro (and its related web-based interface, BlueTeam, that will serve as an online “one-stop shop” for information about officer performance in the field); developing a stronger data platform that can manage improvements in data collection methods; an enhanced focus on tracking discipline; and a successful reshaping of the crisis intervention response.399
As of late June 2017, it appears that the Division has made great strides in systematically logging, in IAPro, most of the specific performance data that the Consent Decree requires be a part of the EIS system.400 The Monitoring Team commends CDP and its personnel for its sustained focus in this area. Although a number of various issues will need to be addressed in the coming months, the Monitoring Team is confident that the basic “departmentwide data” that must form the backbone of a high-functioning EIS will soon be in place.401
The Monitoring Team must note here that the EIS appears to be a source of confusion, anxiety, and misunderstanding among the CDP rank and file. In the Monitoring Team’s late-2017 officer focus groups, many officers indicated that, in their understanding, the “[t]otal uses of force in one’s record (regardless of appropriateness) would be used against them.”402 As one CDP member indicated, and as quoted in the Monitoring Team’s full report on the focus groups, there is a sense that “everyone is hearing” that officers could be “fire[d] . . . if you have ten or more BlueTeams”403 – references to entries in the officer performance management database.
To be clear, and as the Monitoring Team has previously emphasized:
BlueTeam information is not currently being used in the context of an early intervention system in which a certain number of uses of force triggers the department to do something. Eventually, an early intervention system will be set up within the Division – but it will be entirely non-punitive, occur outside of the discipline process, and be geared toward career development and counseling rather than adverse employment actions.404
When the Parties turn attention in earnest to the Early Intervention System, “communication and outreach to officers about what the system is and does” – and what it is not and does not do – will be critical.405
Progress and Tasks that Remain
1. Creation of EIS/OIP Plan
There has been much front-end, necessary groundwork laid to ensure that CDP has the necessary data and information infrastructure to implement a robust EIS. As other sections of this report note, given the variable
398 Id. 399 See Third Semiannual Report at 69. 400 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 328. 401 Id. 402 Dkt. 204-1 at 25. 403 Dkt. 204-1 at 26. 404 Id. (emphasis added). 405 Id.
137

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 142 of 194. PageID #: 4192
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
states of CDP data across the host of areas that must be incorporated into the EIS, this has been a significant task. The Monitoring Team again commends the Division and its personnel for its focus and attention to working through the many issues related to systematically capturing high-quality, reliable information on officer performance that might be used in an EIS system.
CDP has not yet formally “create[d] a plan to modify its [OIP]” as required by the Consent Decree.406 The Monitoring Team looks forward to the Division’s plan to formally implement an EIS that satisfies the Decree’s requirements, which is likely to occur in the context of the Fourth-Year Monitoring Plan.
2. Training & Involvement of Supervisors
As the CDP formalizes its EIP plan, supervisors must be required (and should be trained) to regularly review performance data generated by the EIP. When an officer reaches some defined threshold in a performance indicator, a supervisor will be required to assess an officer’s performance to determine whether it may appropriate to intervene and identify and treat any issue that may impacting the officer’s work.
3. Training & Communication with Officers
It is clear that the success of a revamped EIS will substantially hinge on the Division’s communication with its officers. The Team again emphasizes here that the EIS contemplated by the Consent Decree is entirely nonpunitive. If an officer’s performance is reviewed in the context of EIS, the most that may happen is for the officer to eventually be paired with training, mentoring, counseling, or coaching that might serve as appropriate professional development resources. CDP’s EIS policy, training, and implementation going forward will need to establish definitively, and over time, that the purpose of EIS will not be to “ding” or discipline officers. However the Division crafts its plan to implement an EIS, it must properly ensure that all employees understand what an EIS is—a non-punitive system for the benefit of people’s careers and professional growth—and what it is not.
4. Compliance with EIS Plan & Policies
After an EIS plan is developed, relevant policies written and approved, and training for supervisors and officers developed and completed, the EIS will need to be implemented. Once it is, the Monitoring Team will audit and evaluate whether the system is proceeding according to the requirements of policy and the Consent Decree – and whether, ultimately, it appears to be assisting the Division in identifying instances where non-disciplinary action or intervention might enhance the quality of officer performance.
The work that remains in the area of EIS is not insignificant. Again, however, the Division has – especially over the past 12 to 18 months – taken great strides in developing the data and information infrastructure that is the prerequisite for a successful EIS. Given that the work that remains relates more to the development of policies, protocols, and processes, as well as training the Division’s personnel on those new expectations, the Monitoring Team is confident that a new EIS system can be finalized on paper and implemented in the real world for a sufficiently material period that CDP could come into compliance with the EIS-related requirements of the Consent Decree within the next two years or soon thereafter.
406 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 326.
138

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 143 of 194. PageID #: 4193
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018

C. Body-Worn Cameras

Paragraph
337. “If CDP chooses to use body worn cameras, CDP will provide clear guidance and training on their use, and will implement protocols for testing equipment and preservation of recordings to foster transparency, increase accountability, and build trust, while protecting the privacy rights of individuals.” 338. “Supervisors will review recordings related to any incident involving at least a Level 2 or 3 use of force; injuries to officers; and in conjunction with any other supervisory investigation.” 339. “Supervisors will conduct adequate random and directed audits of body worn camera recordings” and “incorporate the knowledge gained from this review into their ongoing evaluation and supervision of officers.” 340. “Officers will be subject to the disciplinary process for intentional or otherwise unjustified failure to activate body worn cameras in violation of CDP policy.”

Status of Compliance PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

Background
The Monitoring Team has previously noted that, as of 2015, more than 6,000 estimated police departments in the United States used body cameras in some capacity.407 The use of body camera technology has been associated with substantial decreases in use of force and civilian complaints.408
The “use of body worn cameras is not required by” the Consent Decree.409 However, “if CDP chooses to use bodyworn cameras, CDP will provide clear guidance and training on their use, and will implement protocols for testing equipment and preservation of recording to foster transparency, increase accountability, and build trust, while protecting the privacy rights of individuals.”410 The Decree also outlines supervisor responsibilities for viewing recorded incidents and “conduct[ing] adequate random and directed audits of body worn camera recordings . . .

407 See Jon Schuppe & Andrew Blankstein, LAPD Skid Row Shooting Brings Focus to Body Camera Technology, NBCNews.com (Mar. 2, 2015); accord Zusha Elinson, Police Use of Body Cameras Raises Questions Over Access to Footage, Wall St. Journal (Apr. 28, 2015), http:/www.wsj.com/articles/police-use-of-body-cameras-raises-questions-over-access-to-footage-1430253877. 408 See, e.g., “Oakland Mayor Says Police Body Cameras Have Cut Use-Of-Force Incidents Significantly in 5 Years,” s (Dec. 17, 2014), http:/sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/12/17/oak- land-mayor-says-police-body-cameras-have-cut-use-of-force-incidents-by-60-in4-years-jean-quan-oakland-police-department-opd-officer-involved-shooting/ (reporting decrease in use of force incidents by nearly 75 percent in six years that Oakland Police Department has used body cameras); Tony Perry, “San Diego police body camera report: Fewer complaints, less use of force,” L.A. Times (Mar. 18, 2015), http:/www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-body-cameras20150318-story.html (noting 40.5 percent fall in complaints and 46.5 percent reduction in “personal body” force following adoption of body cameras); Tony Farrar, “Self-Awareness to Being Watched and Socially-Desirable Behavior: A Field Experiment on the Effect of Body-Worn Cameras on Police Use-of-force,” Police Foundation (Mar. 2013), http:/ www.policefoundationlorg/content/body-worn camera (summarizing 50 percent reduction in use of force over a one-year period in Rialto, California). 409 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 337. 410 Id.
139

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 144 of 194. PageID #: 4194
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
to confirm compliance with CDP policy.”411 CDP must also ensure that officers are “subject to the disciplinary process for intentional or otherwise unjustified failure to activate” cameras in accordance with CDP policy.412
The Division elected to begin using body-worn cameras in 2013. “[I]t has only been since December 1, 2016 – 22 months after [an initial body-worn camera policy was] . . . initially published – that ‘members found to be in violation’ of the camera policy ‘shall be subject to disciplinary action.’”413
What has Been Accomplished
Currently, all patrol officers are equipped with body-worn cameras and are expected, under policy, to use them when working a City shift. Having decided to institute body cameras, and consequently needing to comply with the requirements of the Consent Decree, the Division began to craft a revised body-worn camera policy in mid2015. In doing so, the CDP engaged community organizations, stakeholders, and residents to receive their input. The Monitoring Team also met with police officers, received input from community organizations such as the ACLU and the NAACP, and talked with residents who were knowledgeable about the Division’s prior process for developing the body-worn camera policy. Generally, community representatives seemed to express a positive view of the process that CDP had used to create its initial body-worn camera policy.
Work on the body-worn camera policy paused until October 2016, as the Parties and Monitoring Team focused on the new force policies, crisis intervention policies, the OPS and PRB Manuals, and the City’s preparation for the Republican National Convention in 2016.
In December 2016, after the Parties worked through feedback and revisions of the policy, the Monitoring Team approved the majority of CDP’s proposed policy on body-worn cameras.414 Generally, the policy provided sufficiently clear guidelines on when the cameras should be used and how such video should be reviewed and audited.415
The Monitoring Team’s approval of the body-worn camera policy was subject to three exceptions. The first related to the policy’s exclusion of secondary employment from the policy’s mandates, even though “officers engaged in secondary employment – for example, serving as security at sporting events or in other public venues – are subject to the same rules regarding carrying firearms and wearing their uniforms as they would be when” working on a City-paid shift.416 Especially given that officers working shifts for private employers “are often called upon to exercise their law enforcement responsibilities” and “[t]he public is not able to differentiate between an officer” working a City shift and one engaged in secondary employment,417 it is logistically feasible418 and necessary “to maximize public trust, accountability, and transparency”419 for officers to be able to take advantage of bodyworn cameras while working a secondary employment job.
411 Id. at ¶¶ 338-39. 412 Id. at ¶ 340. 413 Dkt. 92 at 7 (quoting Cleveland Division of Police Divisional Notice No. 16-372 (Dec. 1, 2016)). 414 Dkt. 92. 415 Id. at 9. 416 Id. at 10. 417 Id. at 11. 418 Third Semiannual Report at 71. 419 Dkt. 92 at 15.
140

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 145 of 194. PageID #: 4195
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
To date, a volunteer pilot program – in which officers who volunteered would use cameras on secondary employment to identify any practical implementation issues – failed to develop because no officers volunteered.420 Subsequently, a time period in which officers were not required but instead encouraged to use secondary video – proposed as a kind of “naturalistic pilot project” – failed to yield “insight and data necessary to make determinations about how to implement the cameras across all secondary employment”421 because, as of Winter 2018, no officers had tagged and uploaded video captured on secondary employment to the Division’s systems.
The second exception related to issues about when officers may and may not view captured video. The Monitoring Team declined to approve or disapprove of language included on the policy submitted to the Court pending resolution of “policies and manuals relating to force investigations and internal investigations.”422
The third exception related to the policy’s discussion of how community members might be able to view incidents captured on body-worn cameras, which the Monitoring Team indicated would be “better suited for a more specific, comprehensive policy relating to the transparency of CPD information and data.”423
Where the Division Stands
The Division continues to utilize body-worn cameras, with all patrol officers and specialized units equipped with and trained on using Taser’s latest Axon 2 camera system as of August 21, 2017.424 The body-worn camera policy submitted to the Court on December 19, 2016 has been effective since early 2017. The Monitoring Team continues to find that policy compliant with the Consent Decree with the sole exceptions of the three areas identified above.
Progress and Tasks that Remain
1. Compliance with Policy
The Division and Monitoring Team will need to ensure that the Division is meaningfully holding officers accountable for complying with the various provisions of the body-worn camera policy – not just in isolated incidents, or when other problematic performance brings a certain incident to the Division’s attention, but across time and officers.
A primary mechanism, to date, for the Division to ensure policy compliance has been the “random reviews” of camera footage outlined in the approved body-worn camera policy.425 In particular, sergeants must audit onequarter of officers assigned to them each month, and lieutenants and captains must audit one-quarter of officers under their command one per year, with one-quarter of all reviews completed each quarter. Based on the Monitoring Team’s discussions with supervisors in the field over time, it may be necessary to re-think these provisions, going forward, to ensure a more effective review mechanism that both ensures widespread officer compliance with the policy but does not overly burden supervisors and detract from time they should be spending supervising officers in real time and in person.
420 Third Semiannual Report at 71. 421 Id. at 72. 422 Dkt. 92 at at 16. 423 Id. at 16–17. 424 Dkt. 125-1. 425 Dkt. 92-1 at 7–8, Section IV-A.
141

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 146 of 194. PageID #: 4196
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018 XIII. COMPLIANCE & OUTCOME ASSESSMENTS In prior Semiannual Reports, the Monitoring Team has used the Compliance & Outcome Assessments sections to describe Consent Decree requirements relating to “various qualitative and quantitative assessments to measure whether implementation of the agreement is producing safe, effective, and constitutional policing[,]”426 as well as the Monitoring Team’s ongoing efforts to conduct structured compliance reviews and audits. Here, each section of this Fifth Semiannual Report contains the Team’s assessments of compliance and outcome measures. A full accounting of the 2017 outcome measures is attached to this Report as Appendix B. As implementation of the Consent Decree continues, and as new and revised policies become finalized and move towards real world implementation, the Monitoring Team will continuously assess the Division’s ability to produce safe, effective, and constitutional policing. The Team looks forward to the City and CDP completing necessary data infrastructure improvements, which will allow the Team to review both qualitative and quantitative outcomes to observe how the terms of the Consent Decree—covering community policing, bias-free policing, stops and arrests, crisis intervention, use of force, accountability, and more—are affecting the actual dayto-day operations of the Cleveland Division of Police.
426 Fourth Semiannual Report at 106.
142

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 147 of 194. PageID #: 4197
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
APPENDIX A: Memorandum from ALG Research Re:
2018 Community Survey

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 148 of 194. PageID #: 4198
July 16, 2018
To: Christine Cole / Matthew Barge Fr: Brian Stryker / Pia Nargundkar Re: Key Findings and Recommendations from 2018 Survey
This research was commissioned by the federal monitoring team to assess community perceptions of the Cleveland Division of Police (CDP), gauge the prevalence of community interactions with the police, and understand the nature of those interactions. The research was also intended to measure how Clevelanders perceive the police treat people in various racial, socioeconomic, and demographic groups. This is the second survey of its kind commissioned by the monitoring team, and it follows a similar survey conducted in May 2016 that asked many of the same questions to a similar audience.
Anzalone Liszt Grove Research conducted n=1001 live cellphone/landline telephone and textto-web interviews with adults 18 and older in Cleveland. Respondents were selected at random, with interviews apportioned geographically, by zip code, based on Census information. Care was taken to get a representative number of interviews via cellphone to insure a survey that was representative of the city’s population by race, age, and income. The survey was then weighted to accurately reflect the distribution of the population by various demographic characteristics. This means that the survey’s respondents are 52% African American, 32% white, 10% Hispanic and 6% of other or unspecified races. The expected margin of sampling error is + 3.1% at the 95% confidence level for all adults and higher for subgroups.
Some of the key findings of the survey include:
Key Findings
African Americans have a significantly lower view of Cleveland police than white and Latino adults do. Overall, a majority of Clevelanders rate the Division of Police positively, with 62% saying they do an excellent or good job, and 36% saying they do a not so good or poor job. However, while 79% of white Clevelanders rate the police positively, and 69% of Latinos do, just 49% of African American adults rate the Division of Police positively. This is in-line with findings from 2016.
Most residents believe the police do not treat people of all races and groups equally. Only 44% of people say CDP does a positive job of treating people of all races equally. Specifically, few people think the Division treats African Americans (25%) or Latinos (33%) the same as other members of the community. This belief extends to other groups as well, as only about a third believe the police treat those with mental illness or special needs (38%), young people (35%) or homeless people (30%) the same as everybody else. In the 2016 poll, 37% of residents thought African Americans were treated the same as others and 44% thought that Latinos were, so views on equality have worsened since then.

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 149 of 194. PageID #: 4199
ALG Research | 2
Forty-five percent (45%) of Clevelanders give CDP a negative rating in using the appropriate level of force when stopping, questioning or arresting someone. Additionally, 26% of the respondents say they either were the victims of CDP excessive force in the last year or know someone who was. Among African Americans, 48% give the Division of Police a negative rating, and 32% know someone or were themselves the victims of excessive force.
African-Americans’ experiences back up the public’s perception that CDP treats them worse than others. African Americans, or their family or friends, are more likely to report being stopped by the Cleveland Police in a car (46%), or being arrested (32%), than white (31% car / 16% arrested) or Latino adults (36% car / 22% arrested). Similarly, African Americans who have been stopped are less likely than other races to say they were treated with respect or not detained longer than necessary. They are also more likely to report being the victims of excessive force (32%) and being treated differently because of their race (51%).
Social media and word of mouth help spread negative perceptions of police. After local TV news, social media and word of mouth are the top ways Clevelanders get news on the Division of Police, with social media bypassing word of mouth from 2016. The social-media number is even higher among people who have had a negative interaction with the police in the last year (48%).
Overall Attitudes towards Cleveland Police
Overall, adults see the Cleveland Division of Police positively (62% positive / 36% negative). Few people (14%) think CDP is doing an “excellent” job, while 48% say they are doing a “good” job.
Demographic factors include:
• Race. Race is the biggest factor that separates views of the police, with 79% of white adults rating them positively, including almost a quarter (23%) who think they are doing an excellent job. Meanwhile, 69% of Latinos and less than half of African Americans (49%) think CDP is doing a positive job.
When looking at intense feelings towards the police, we also see stark gender differences that are also influenced by race. White women are more than five times as likely to rate the police as doing an excellent job (26%) than a poor one (5%). African American men on the other hand are more than three times less likely to say the police are doing an excellent job (5%) than a poor job (18%).
• Gender. Both men (59% positive) and women (63%) have positive impressions of the police, with impressions among women higher in particular because white women (84% positive) rate the police better than white men (73%).
• Age. Residents under 35 rate police the lowest of all the age groups (18-34: 53% positive, 35-49: 62% positive, 50-64 69% positive, 65+ 75% positive). This age pattern is less stark among whites, where whites 18-34 rate police similarly positive (74%) as

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 150 of 194. PageID #: 4200 ALG Research | 3

whites over 35 (81%). The gap is bigger among African Americans (18-34: 37%, 35+ 57%). Those poor numbers with young black Clevelanders are worse among men (31% men 18-34) but also low among women (41% women 18-34)
• Region. Regionally, the CDP is rated much more positively in the western part of the city, in the zip codes that roughly correspond to Police Districts 1 (73% positive) and 2 (64%). In the zip codes that roughly constitute Police Districts 3 (59%), 4 (52%), and 5 (59%), where the population is a majority African American, views of the police are lower (52-59% positive).
While overall CDP’s ratings match the Cuyahoga County Sheriff’s Department, which we also tested (63% positive / 26% negative), CDP is slightly more racially polarized than the Sheriff’s Department.

%Positive job rating Overall White Black Latino

Cleveland Police 62% 79% 49% 69%

Cuyahoga Sheriff 63% 76% 54% 73%

Note, the racial differences are not seen in views of the Cleveland Division of Fire, which receives uniformly high ratings among Latinos (92% positive), whites (91% positive), and African Americans (87% positive).

Public Safety

Most Clevelanders say they feel safe in their neighborhood (81%) and in Cleveland overall (75%), though fewer say they feel very safe in their neighborhood (36%) or their city (23%)

• African Americans are less likely to report being safe, with 67% saying they feel safe in the city and 75% in their neighborhood.
• Whites are the most likely to report feeling very safe in their own neighborhood (55% very safe) or in the city (35%) than people of color (27% very safe in neighborhood / 17% city).

A majority of adults overall (62%) and across racial lines say the police are doing a positive job at “serving people in [their] neighborhood,” including 76% of whites, 71% of Latinos and 51% of African Americans.

Views on the police “controlling crime in your neighborhood” are similarly good (60% positive job), although residents across racial lines have less rosy views on the job police are doing controlling crime in Cleveland as a whole (50%). Views are especially low among African Americans, only 38% of whom say the police are doing a good job at controlling crime in Cleveland.

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 151 of 194. PageID #: 4201 ALG Research | 4

%Positive job rating
Overall White Black Latino

Controlling crime in your neighborhood 60% 77% 48% 69%

Controlling crime in Cleveland 50% 68% 38% 62%

If in trouble, most Clevelanders (78%) say they would be likely to ask the police for help, including 44% who say they would be very likely. A 59% majority of whites report being very likely to ask the police for help, higher than the 35% of African Americans and 31% of Latinos who say the same. African Americans report calling the police in the last year at the same rate (17%) as whites (17%) and Latinos (15%). Note, this number does not reflect what percentage of crime victims of each race are calling the police, only the rate at which the groups as a whole call. That is to say, we do not know if the rates are equal because different racial groups experience crime and report it to the police at equal rates, or because, as data outside this poll suggests, African Americans are more likely to experience crime but less likely to report it, thus evening out the percentages. The 21% of Clevelanders who say they are not likely to contact the police are much more African American (65%) than they are white (18%) or Latino (13%).

Discrimination Ratings

A majority of Clevelanders (52%) give CDP a negative job rating1 on “treating all racial and ethnic groups equally,” with over a fifth (22%) saying they do a “poor” job at that. This number is driven by African Americans’ perceptions. Most white adults (61%) and a majority of Latino adults (56%) give the Division of Police a positive job rating of treating all racial and ethnic groups equally, while 65% of African Americans give them a negative job rating on this. In other words, white adults are twice as likely as African Americans (61% vs. 31%) to think the police do a good job at treating everyone equally.

African Americans are also more likely to have intense feelings on the issue of the police treating everyone equally, with almost a third (30%) saying they think CDP does a poor job of treating all racial and ethnic groups equally. That number jumps to 43% among African American millennials.

When whites and Latinos are focused in on specific groups, they tend to agree with African Americans that CDP does not treat people equally. A plurality of Clevelanders overall think the following groups aren’t treated as well as other Clevelanders:

1 For this question, respondents were given the scale of “excellent, good, not-so-good, and poor.” We have combined “excellent” and “good” to equal a positive job rating, and “not-so-good” and “poor” to equal a negative job rating.

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 152 of 194. PageID #: 4202 ALG Research | 5

Perceptions of Treatment of Different Groups by Race of Respondent

People with

% Group is not Treated as Well

African Americans

Latinos

Young people

Homeless

mental

people

illness/special

needs

Residents Overall

68%

55%

54%

53%

48%

White Residents

56%

44%

40%

45%

41%

Black Residents

79%

62%

66%

59%

54%

Latino Residents

52%

59%

44%

54%

45%

Interactions with the Police
Four in ten Clevelanders (40%) have had an interaction with the police in the last year, between being stopped in one’s car, being in an accident or receiving a traffic violation, being questioned at home, being arrested, or calling 911.
Most people report having positive interactions with police—64% of Clevelanders approve of way CDP handled their most significant interaction with police in the last few years. There is a racial disparity between whites (78% approve / 20% disapprove) and African Americans (63% approve / 34% disapprove). Approval is also lower among men (61%) and people under 35 (57%), but among every group large enough to analyze in the poll, most people approve of their interactions with police.
As with other measures, race is a significant factor in the frequency of police interaction. African Americans are more likely to be stopped in their car (28%) than whites (19%) or Latinos (18%). The racial differences are also stark when it comes to the most serious interactions (being questioned at home when you did not call the police or being arrested). African Americans and their family, friends and neighbors are almost twice as likely to have interacted with police in a serious way (42%) than whites (22%) and far more than Latinos (27%). Almost half of African American men (48%) report themselves or their friends experiencing one of these two serious interactions (being questioned at home or being arrested) within the last year, compared to just 18% of white men.
African Americans and Latinos are both twice as likely as white adults to report their interaction with the Division of Police as being negative2 in some manner (29% of African Americans / 29% of Latinos / 15% of whites).
On every measure we asked about, African Americans were less likely than whites to report a positive interaction with the police. The biggest discrepancies were on agreeing that the officer
2 A negative experience is defined as respondents disagreeing with any of the following: the officer answered all of their questions, officer listened to what they had to say, officer kept them informed about what would happen next, officer was polite, officer treated them with respect, officer explained the reason for the stop, officer did not detain them longer than necessary or officer did not use more force than necessary.

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 153 of 194. PageID #: 4203
ALG Research | 6
answered all of their questions (71% white / 54% black), the officer listened to what they had to say (71% white / 55% black), and the officer was polite (76% white / 60% black). However, there were also wide gaps on the more serious perceptions of being detained for an appropriate amount of time (71% white / 57% black) and the officer using an appropriate level of force (67% white / 60% black).
On other issues in this survey, Latino views towards police skewed closer to the more positive views of white Clevelanders than the more negative views of African Americans. The exception appears to be on their satisfaction with their specific interaction with police in the last year. When asked if they approved or disapproved of how CDP handled their own situation, only 45% of Latinos said they approved, compared to 63% of African Americans and 78% of whites.

Effects of Racial Disparities in Treatment

When people believe CDP has treated them poorly, people’s friends, family, and neighbors have heard about it. A clear illustration of this: 20% of Clevelanders report being treated differently because of their race, while 35% report personally knowing someone else who was treated differently because of their race. Ten percent of residents report being victims of excessive force, while 22% of residents say they know someone who was a victim of excessive force.

Experienced racially different treatment (self) Experienced racially different treatment (someone you know) Experienced excessive force (self) Experienced excessive force (someone you know)

All

African-

Adults Americans Latinos

20%

26%

14%

35% 10% 22%

42% 12% 28%

22% 10% 16%

Whites
10% 28% 7% 16%

This chart illustrates how deeply one bad incident can affect a community’s opinions of police. Many more people have heard of someone they know experiencing racial discrimination or excessive force from CPD than have been personally involved. We have all seen viral videos of police interactions gone wrong, but even outside of those select instances that galvanize the nation, stories of negative interactions echo around communities via word of mouth and social media. People’s negative views of police can be driven by stories they’ve heard just as much or more than their own interactions with police. Put another way: while 26% of African Americans report being discriminated against and 12% report being victims of excessive force, over half (51%) say they or someone they know has been a victim of police discrimination and almost a third (32%) say they or someone they know has been a victim of excessive force.

This also shows up in the way people get their information about CDP. The department gets lower overall approval ratings among people who mostly hear about it by social media (51%) or

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 154 of 194. PageID #: 4204
ALG Research | 7
word of mouth (55%) than TV (63%), radio (63%), the Plain Dealer (68%), or other newspapers (64%) online or in print.
Finally, when we asked Clevelanders how CDP handled their most significant interaction with their family, friends, and neighbor, they are more negative (56% approve / 37% disapprove) than they are their own interaction (64% approve / 32% disapprove). This disparity is entirely driven by African Americans: 78% of whites approve of their own interaction and 74% of their friend/family/neighbor’s. However, among African Americans 63% approve of their own interaction while 49% approve of their family/friend/neighbors. That number indicates the positive interactions aren’t being reported or shared within the community, while the negative ones are being told and retold by people who disapprove of the way the police treated them. That repetition via social media and word of mouth is taking a toll on overall perceptions of CPD and of how they treat different groups of people.

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 155 of 194. PageID #: 4205 ALG Research | 8

Appendix A: Toplines

CLEVELAND POLICE SURVEY – 2018

(2018 data listed first, 2016 data, if available, listed second)

June 1-13, 2018

N=1001 adults

Q9. Now, I'm going to ask you about a few public agencies. For each one, please tell me if you think they are doing an excellent, good, not so good, or poor job overall.
2018 2016

Q9A. The Cleveland Division of Police

Excellent

Good

Total Positive

Not so Good (Fair in 2016)

Poor

Total Negative

[VOL] Don't Know

Q9B. The Cleveland Division of Fire

Excellent

Good

Total Positive

Not so Good (Fair in 2016)

Poor

Total Negative

[VOL] Don't Know

Q9C. Cuyahoga County Sheriff's Department

Excellent

Good

Total Positive

Not so Good

Poor

Total Negative

[VOL] Don't Know

Q10. In general, how safe do you feel in the City of Very safe

Cleveland? Do you feel very safe, somewhat safe, not

too safe, or not safe at all?

Somewhat safe

Total safe

Not too safe

Not at all safe

Total not safe

[VOL] Don't know/refused

14% 18%

48% 37%

62% 55%

24% 22%

12% 20%

36% 42%

2%

3%

30% 37%

59% 44%

89% 81%

4%

10%

2%

1%

6%

11%

5%

7%

15%

48%

63%

19%

7%

26%

11%

23% 20%

52% 50%

75% 70%

16% 19%

9%

10%

25% 29%

1%

1%

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 156 of 194. PageID #: 4206 ALG Research | 9

2018

Q11. In general, how safe do you feel in your

Very safe

36%

neighborhood? Do you feel very safe, somewhat safe,

not too safe, or not safe at all?

Somewhat safe

45%

Total safe

81%

Not too safe

13%

Not at all safe

6%

Total not safe

19%

[VOL] Don't know/refused

0%

Q12. If you were in trouble, how likely would you be Very likely

44%

to ask a Cleveland Police officer for help? Would you

be very likely, somewhat likely, not too likely, or not

likely at all?

Somewhat likely

34%

Total likely

78%

Not too likely

13%

Not all likely

8%

Total not likely

21%

[VOL] Don't know/refused

1%

Q13. For each of the following items, please tell me how good of a job you think the Cleveland Division of Police is doing at that item. Are they doing an excellent job, a good job, a not so good job, or a poor job?

Q13A. Treating all racial and ethnic groups equally3 Q13B. Serving people in your neighborhood

Excellent Good Total Positive Not so Good Poor Total Negative [VOL] Don't Know Excellent Good Total Positive Not so Good (Fair in 2016) Poor Total Negative [VOL] Don't Know

11% 32% 44% 30% 22% 52% 5% 16% 46% 62% 24% 11% 35% 3%

2016 38%
40% 78% 13% 8% 22% 0%
20% 37% 57% 18% 17% 34% 9% 22% 33% 55% 26% 16% 42% 3%

3 In 2016, used “Always/sometimes/rarely/never/don’t know/refused.”

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 157 of 194. PageID #: 4207 ALG Research | 10

Q13C. Controlling crime in your neighborhood
Q13D. Controlling crime in Cleveland
Q13E. Using the appropriate level of force when stopping, questioning, or arresting someone4
Q13F. Officer training

Excellent Good Total Positive Not so Good Poor Total Negative [VOL] Don't Know
Excellent Good Total Positive Not so Good (Fair in 2016) Poor Total Negative [VOL] Don't Know Excellent
Good Total Positive Not so Good Poor Total Negative [VOL] Don't Know Excellent Good Total Positive Not so Good Poor Total Negative [VOL] Don't Know

2018 2016

15% 18%

45% 33%

60% 51%

26% 29%

10% 17%

37% 46%

3%

3%

10% 40% 50% 31% 15% 47% 3% 10% 28%

38% 41%

48% 69%

29% 13%

16% 9%

45% 22%

6%

9%

10%

38%

48%

25%

13%

38%

14%

4 In 2016, the question used the scale “almost all the time/most of the time/some of the time/almost never/don’t know/refused.”

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 158 of 194. PageID #: 4208 ALG Research | 11

2018 2016

Q14. Next, I'm going to ask you about a number of groups in the Cleveland community and for each one, please tell me if you think the Cleveland Police treats them the same as other members of the community or not as well.

Q14A. African-Americans Q14B. Hispanics or Latinos Q14C. Young people Q14D. Homeless people Q14E. People with mental illness or special needs

Treats the Same Not as well [VOL] Don't Know Treats the Same Not as well [VOL] Don't Know
Treats the Same Not as well [VOL] Don't Know Treats the Same Not as well [VOL] Don't Know Treats the Same Not as well [VOL] Don't Know

25% 37%

68% 53%

7%

10%

33% 44%

55% 35%

12% 22%

35% 34% 54% 53%

11% 13%

30% 32%

53% 47%

17% 21%

38% 49%

48% 33%

14% 18%

Q15. Now, I am going to read you a list of ways in which some people have interacted with the Cleveland Division of Police. Please tell me if, in the last year, you have interacted with the Cleveland Division of Police in this way, or if you know a close family member, friend, or neighbor who has. [MULTIPLE RESPONSES ACCEPTED FOR 'YES']

Q15A. Been stopped by the Cleveland Police while Yes, self you were in a car
Yes, family/ friend/ neighbor Total Yes No [VOL] Don't Know
Q15B. Been involved in a traffic accident that was Yes, self reported to police, or received a moving violation like a speeding ticket
Yes, family/ friend/ neighbor Total Yes No [VOL] Don't Know

24%
21% 39% 60% 1% 19%
19% 34% 64% 2%

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 159 of 194. PageID #: 4209 ALG Research | 12

Q15C. Been questioned by the Cleveland Police at Yes, self

home, when you did not request them to come to your

home

Yes, family/ friend/ neighbor

Total Yes

No

[VOL] Don't Know

Q15D. Been arrested

Yes, self

Yes, family/ friend/ neighbor

Total Yes

No

[VOL] Don't Know

Q15E. Called 911 or the Cleveland Police to report a Yes, self

crime

Yes, family/ friend/ neighbor

Total Yes

No

[VOL] Don't Know

2018 2016
11%
14% 23% 75% 2% 9% 18% 25% 74% 1% 17%
16% 30% 69% 1%

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 160 of 194. PageID #: 4210 ALG Research | 13

2018 2016
Q16. Still thinking about your most significant interaction with the Cleveland Police in the last 12 months, please tell me whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with each of the following statements as it relates to that specific experience. Or you can tell me it doesn't apply. [ASKED IF 'YES, SELF' IN ANY Q15A-Q15E; N=402]

Q16A. The officers answered all my questions
Q16B. The officers listened to what I had to say
Q16C. The officers kept me informed about what would happen next
Q16D. The officers were polite in how they spoke to me
Q16E. The officers treated me with respect

Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Total Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Total Disagree Don't Know/ Doesn't Apply Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Total Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Total Disagree Don't Know/ Doesn't Apply Strongly Agree
Somewhat Agree Total Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Total Disagree Don't Know/ Doesn't Apply Strongly Agree
Somewhat Agree Total Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Total Disagree Don't Know/ Doesn't Apply Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Total Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Total Disagree Don't Know/ Doesn't Apply

35% 36%

23% 30%

58% 66%

17% 12%

14% 10%

31% 22%

11% 10%

35% 38%

23% 34%

59% 72%

15% 13%

18% 11%

33% 24%

9%

4%

33% 32%

25% 30% 59% 62% 15% 18% 15% 10% 31% 28% 10% 12% 36% 40%

28% 35%

64% 75%

16% 9%

14% 11%

30% 20%

6%

5%

40% 42%

31% 32%

71% 74%

12% 12%

12% 10%

24% 22%

5%

5%

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 161 of 194. PageID #: 4211 ALG Research | 14

Q16F. The officers explained their reason for

Strongly Agree

stopping, questioning, or interacting with me

Somewhat Agree

Total Agree

Somewhat Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Total Disagree

Don't Know/ Doesn't Apply

Q16G. The officers did not detain me for longer than Strongly Agree

was necessary

Somewhat Agree

Total Agree

Somewhat Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Total Disagree

Don't Know/ Doesn't Apply

Q16H. The officers did not use more force than was Strongly Agree

necessary

Somewhat Agree

Total Agree

Somewhat Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Total Disagree

Don't Know/ Doesn't Apply

Q17. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of how Strongly approve

the Cleveland Police handled your situation? [ASKED

IF 'YES, SELF' IN ANY Q15A-Q15E; N=402]

Somewhat approve

Total approve

Somewhat disapprove

Strongly disapprove

Total disapprove

[VOL] Don't Know

2018 2016

42% 28%

25% 33%

68% 62%

15% 8%

8%

6%

23% 14%

9%

24%

40% 29%

21% 27%

61% 57%

15% 7%

9%

4%

24% 11%

15% 31%

39% 28%

23% 30%

62% 58%

11% 8%

7%

3%

18% 11%

20% 31%

30% 46%

34% 23%

64% 69%

16% 14%

16% 15%

32% 29%

4%

3%

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 162 of 194. PageID #: 4212 ALG Research | 15

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 163 of 194. PageID #: 4213 ALG Research | 16

Q18. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of how Strongly approve the Cleveland Police handled this situation with your family, friend, or neighbor? [ASKED IF 'YES, FAMILY/ FRIEND/ NEIGHBOR' IN ANY Q15AQ15E; N=409]
Somewhat approve Total approve Somewhat disapprove Strongly disapprove Total disapprove [VOL] Don't Know
Q19. And to the best of your knowledge, have you or anyone you personally know believe they have been Yes, self treated differently by the Cleveland Police because of their race or ethnicity in the past year?
Yes, someone you know Yes, both Total Yes No [VOL] Don't Know Q20. And to the best of your knowledge, have you or Yes, self anyone you personally know been the victim of excessive force from the Cleveland Police in the past year? Yes, someone you know Yes, both Total Yes No [VOL] Don't Know

2018 2016
19%
37% 56% 18% 19% 37% 7%
7%
22% 13% 42% 56% 3% 4%
16% 6% 26% 71% 2%

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 164 of 194. PageID #: 4214 ALG Research | 17

QUESTIONS FOR CLASSIFICATION PURPOSES

2018 2016

Q21. Sex Q22. Age
Q6/7. Race Self-ID

Male Female 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ [VOL] Refused White African American Hispanic or Latino Asian-American Native American
Other [VOL] Don't Know Refused

48% 47% 52% 51%

33% 33% 15% 15% 4%

32% 32%

52% 52%

10% 10%

1%

1%

1%

NA

2%

2%

2%

3%

Q23. From which of the following places do you hear Local TV news the most information about Cleveland Police? [MULTIPLE RESPONSES ACCEPTED]
Radio

75% 64% 26% 19%

The Cleveland Plain Dealer, online 16% 21% or in print

Other newspapers, online or in 14% 18%

print

Other websites

10% 22%

Word of mouth

35% 38%

Social media

39% 32%

[VOL] Don't know/Refused

1%

5%

Q24. What is the highest level of schooling you've completed?

Grades 1-8 Grades 9-11

0%

5%

5%

17%

High school graduate / GED

46% 31%

Some college / Vocational Training College graduate

27% 28% 16% 10%

Post graduate / Professional School 5%

5%

[VOL] Refused

1%

3%

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 165 of 194. PageID #: 4215 ALG Research | 18

2018 2016

Q25. Which of the following categories best describes Under $10,000

7%

18%

your total household income in 2017 - just stop me

when I get to the right one?

$10,001-$20,000

11% 13%

$20,001-$30,000

12% 16%

$30,001-$40,000

14% 9%

$40,001-$50,000

14% 5%

$50,001-$75,000

11% 6%

$75,001-$100,000

6%

4%

Over $100,000

3%

5%

[VOL] Don't Know/Refused

22% 24%

Q26. Where would you say most of your ancestors Puerto Rico

45%

lived? [ASKED IF 'HISPANIC OR LATINO' IN

Q6/7; N=100]

Ecuador

1%

Mexico

26%

Dominican Republic

8%

Guatemala

2%

El Salvador

2%

Other

3%

[VOL] Don't Know / Refused 13%

Q29. Regions

1 - 44102, 44107, 44111, 44130, 25% 44135

2 - 44109, 44113, 44134, 44144 16%

3 - 44101, 44103, 44106, 44114, 17% 44115, 44127

4 - 44104, 44105, 44120, 44122, 25% 44125, 44128

5 - 44108, 44110, 44112, 44117, 15% 44119, 44121

Other

2%

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 166 of 194. PageID #: 4216 ALG Research | 19

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 167 of 194. PageID #: 4217 ALG Research | 20

OTHER 2016 QUESTIONS (with no trendline)

2. First, when it comes to [INSERT ITEM] do you think they are doing an excellent, good, only fair, or poor job overall? How about [INSERT ITEM], do you think they are doing an excellent, good, only fair, or poor job overall? What about [INSERT ITEM]?

SCALE: 1 Excellent 2 Good 3 Only Fair 4 Poor 9 Don’t know/Refused (Don’t read)
The City of Cleveland’s Department of Public Works (Top 2=69%) 22% Excellent; 47% Good; 20% Fair; 7% Poor; 3% Don’t Know

I’m going to read some statements about the Cleveland Police. For each one, please tell me whether you think the statement is true almost all the time, most of the time, some of the time, or almost never. [ROTATE Q4 –Q7]

3. Cleveland Police officers follow the law.

1 Almost all the time 22% 2 Most of the time 28%

50%

3 Some of the time 33% 4 Almost never 12%

45%

9 Don’t know/Refused (Don’t read) 5%

4. Cleveland Police officers treat people with dignity and respect. (n=1400)

1 Almost all the time 22%

2 Most of the time 26%

48%

3 Some of the time 36%

4 Almost never 13%

49%

9 Don’t know/Refused (Don’t read) 3%

7. Cleveland Police hold officers accountable when misconduct occurs. (n=1400)

1 Almost all of the time 19%

2 Most of the time 19%

38%

3 Some of the time 29%

4 Almost never 26%

55%

9 Don’t know/Refused (Don’t read) 7%

8. How safe do you feel walking the streets of your neighborhood during the daytime? (n=1400)

1 Very Safe 47% 2 Somewhat Safe 36%

83%

3 Not too Safe 8% 4 Not at all Safe 4%

12%

5 I don’t walk in my neighborhood (Don’t read) [SKIP to Q11] 5%

9 Don’t know/refused (Don’t Read) <1%

9. How safe do you feel walking the streets of your neighborhood at night? (n=1400)

1 Very Safe 18%

44%

47%

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 168 of 194. PageID #: 4218 ALG Research | 21

2 Somewhat safe 26% 3 Not too Safe 20% 4 Not at All Safe 27% 5 I don’t walk in my neighborhood at night (Don’t read) 9% 9 Don’t know/refused (Don’t Read) <1%

10. How worried are you that you or someone else in your household will be a victim of crime? (n=1400)

1 Very Worried 22% 2 Somewhat Worried 35%

57%

3 A Little Worried 23% 4 Not at All Worried 19%

42%

9 Don’t know/refused (Don’t Read) 1%

The following questions are about the relationship between the Cleveland Police and your community.

13. Overall, how would you describe the relationship between the Cleveland Division of Police and the

neighborhood where you live? (n=1400)

1 Very Positive 19% 2 Somewhat Positive 48%

67%

3 Somewhat Negative19%

4 Very Negative 8%

27%

9 Don’t Know/Refused (Don’t read) 6%

14. In the last 12 months, how frequently did you see Cleveland Police officers on foot or in a car patrolling in your neighborhood? (READ) (n=1400) 1 At least once a day 35% 2 Several times a week 19% 3 Once or twice a week 21% 4 Less than once a week 13% 5 Never 11% 9 Don’t Know/Refused (Don’t read) 2%

16. Can you count on seeing the same police officers in your neighborhood once or twice a week? (n=1400) 1 Yes 40% 2 No 44% 9 Don’t Know/Refused (Don’t Read) 16%

17. Do you know the names of any of the police officers who work in your neighborhood? (n=1400) 1 Yes 13% 2 No 86% 9 Don’t Know/Refused 1%

15a. In the last 12 months, have there been any community stakeholder meetings in your neighborhood? (n=1400)
1 Yes 23% 2 No [SKIP to Q18] 48% 9 Don’t know [SKIP to Q18] 29%

15b. How many of those meetings have you personally attended? ________ [99 =Don’t know] [DK and 0 times SKIP to Q18] (n=358) One or more 42%; Mean=1.2

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 169 of 194. PageID #: 4219 ALG Research | 22

15c. In the last 12 months, how frequently did you see Cleveland Police officers attend community stakeholder meetings in your neighborhood? (READ) Did they attend… (n=152)
1 Most meetings 31% 2 Some meetings 34% 3 Rarely 12% 4 Never 15% 9 Don’t Know/Refused (Don’t Read) 7%

18. Do you think the Cleveland Police take the time to meet members of your community? (n=1400) 1 Yes 33% 2 No 53% 9 Don’t Know/Refused (Don’t Read)14%

19. Do you think the Cleveland Police have developed relationships with people like you? (n=1400) 1 Yes 37% 2 No 54% 9 Don’t Know/Refused (Don’t Read) 8%

20. How knowledgeable are the Cleveland Police about the background and experiences of people like

you? (n=1400)

1 Very Knowledgeable 14% 2 Somewhat Knowledgeable 37%

51%

3 Not too Knowledgeable 21%

4 Not at All Knowledgeable 19% 40%

9 Don’t Know/Refused (Don’t Read) 9%

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 170 of 194. PageID #: 4220 ALG Research | 23

21. How easy is it for people from your community to give input and make suggestions to the Division of

Police? (n=1400)

1 Very Easy 18% 2 Somewhat Easy 31%

49%

3 Not too Easy 21% 4 Not At All Easy 17%

38%

9 Don’t Know/Refused (Don’t Read) 13%

22. If you were in trouble, how likely would you be to ask a Cleveland Police officer for help? (n=1400)

1 Very Likely 58% 2 Somewhat Likely 22%

80%

3 Not too Likely 11%

4 Not at All Likely 8%

18%

9 Don’t Know/Refused (Don’t read) 2%

23. If you witnessed a crime or knew about a crime that took place, how likely would you be to report it

or to provide information to the Cleveland Police? (n=1400)

1 Very Likely 70% 2 Somewhat Likely 18%

88%

3 Not too Likely 4%

4 Not at All Likely 6%

10%

9 Don’t Know/Refused (Don’t read) 3%

24. I’m going to ask you about a number of groups in the Cleveland community and for each one, please tell me if you think the Cleveland Police treats them the same as other members of the community or not as well. First, when it comes to [INSERT ITEM; RANDOMIZE] do you think the Cleveland Police treat them the same as other members of the community or not as well? How about [NEXT ITEM]? [IF NECESSARY: When it comes to [ITEM] do you think the Cleveland Police treat them the same as other members of the community or not as well?]

a) Muslims 39% Treats the same; 28% Not as well; 32% Don’t know b) Asian-Americans 54% Treats the same;14% Not as well; 32% Don’t know

25. How concerned are you that a family member, a friend, or you will be a victim of excessive force by the Cleveland Police? (n=1400)
1 Very Concerned 27% 2 Somewhat Concerned 24% 51% 3 Not Too Concerned 23%
4 Not At All Concerned 25% 48% 9 Don’t Know/Refused (Don’t read) 2%

26. How concerned are you that a family member, a friend, or you will be a victim of an officer-involved

shooting? (n=1400)

1 Very Concerned 23% 2 Somewhat Concerned 19%

42%

3 Not Too Concerned 22% 4 Not At All Concerned 34% 56%

9 Don’t Know/Refused (Don’t read) 2%

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 171 of 194. PageID #: 4221 ALG Research | 24

I’d like to hear about your experiences with the Cleveland Police and those of your family, friends, and neighbors.
27. In the last 12 months, have you personally had any contact with the Cleveland Police, in-person, over the phone, or in some other way? (n=1400) 1 Yes 39% 2 No [SKIP TO Q36] 60% 9 Don’t know/Refused [SKIP TO Q36] 1%

28. How would you describe the frequency of your contact with the Cleveland Police in the last 12 months? Would you say you have had … [READ LIST] (n=502) 1 Frequent contact 16% 2 Occasional contact 82% 9 Don’t know/Refused (Don’t read) 2%

29. Would you describe these contacts as mostly initiated by you, mostly initiated by the Cleveland Police, or about equal? (n=502) 1 Mostly initiated by me 41% 2 Mostly initiated by the police 20% 3 Equally initiated by me and the police 37% 9 Don’t know/Refused 2%

30. Based on your personal experience, how many of the Cleveland Police officers you encounter treat

you, your friends, and your family members with respect? Would you say…[READ LIST. RECORD

ONE RESPONSE.] (n=502)

1 Almost all officers show respect 38% 2 Most officers show respect 28%

66%

3 About the same show respect as do not show respect 19%

4 Most officers do not show respect 7%

5 Almost none of the officers show respect 6% 13%

9 Don’t know/Refused [DO NOT READ] 1%

31. I’m going to ask you to recall your most significant interaction with the Cleveland Police in the last 12 months. First, was that encounter initiated by you or by the police? (n=502) 1 Initiated by me 57% 2 Initiated by the police 31% 3 Equally initiated 8% 9 Don’t know/Refused 4%

32. Do you know of family, friends, or neighbors who had contact with the Cleveland Police in the last 12 months? (n=1400) 1 Yes 30% 2 No [SKIP to Q38] 67% 9 Don’t know/Refused [SKIP TO Q38] 3%

33. I’m going to ask you to recall what you have heard from family, friends, and neighbors regarding their interaction with the Cleveland Police in the last 12 months. Please tell me whether you strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree with each statement about the Cleveland Police in general based on what you have heard from others. [ROTATE ITEMS a-e]

SCALE

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 172 of 194. PageID #: 4222
ALG Research | 25
1 Strongly Agree 2 Agree 3 Disagree 4 Strongly Disagree 5 Doesn’t apply 9 Don’t know/Refused
ITEMS (n=384) a) Officers listen to what people have to say (Top 2=53%) 19% Strongly Agree; 35% Agree; 27% Disagree; 15% Strongly Disagree; 2% Doesn’t Apply; 2% Don’t know b) Officers answer people’s questions (Top 2= 59%) 21% Strongly Agree; 38% Agree; 22% Disagree; 12% Strongly Disagree; 4% Doesn’t Apply; 3% Don’t know c) Officers keep people informed about what will happen next (Top 2= 54%) 17% Strongly Agree; 37% Agree; 24% Disagree; 12%Strongly Disagree; 4% Doesn’t Apply; 5% Don’t know d) Officers are polite in how they speak to people (Top 2= 52%) 17% Strongly Agree; 35% Agree; 28% Disagree; 17% Strongly Disagree; 1% Doesn’t Apply; 2% Don’t know e) Officers treat people with respect(Top 2= 52%) 19% Strongly Agree; 34% Agree; 28% Disagree; 15% Strongly Disagree; 2% Doesn’t Apply; 2% Don’t know f) Officers explain their reasons for stopping or questioning someone (Top 2= 58%) 18% Strongly Agree; 39% Agree; 21% Disagree; 13% Strongly Disagree; 5% Doesn’t Apply; 4% Don’t know g) Officers do not detain people for longer than necessary (Top 2=42%) 15% Strongly Agree; 27% Agree; 29% Disagree; 16% Strongly Disagree; 7% Doesn’t Apply; 6% Don’t know h) Officers do not use more force than is necessary(Top 2=42%)16% Strongly Agree; 26% Agree; 31% Disagree; 16% Strongly Disagree; 5% Doesn’t Apply; 5% Don’t know
34. In the last 12 months, have you considered filing a complaint with the Cleveland Division of Police for any reason? (n=1400) 1 Yes 8% 2 No [SKIP TO Q43] 90% 9 Don’t know/Refused [SKIP TO Q43] 1%
39. Did you end up filing a formal complaint with the Cleveland Police? (n=103) 1 Yes 24% 2 No [SKIP TO Q42] 76% 9 Don’t Know/Refused (Don’t Read) [SKIP TO Q43] N/A
40. We’re interested in what you think of the process for making complaints about the police or the way that certain police officers have performed. Please tell me whether you strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree with the following statements about your experience. [ROTATE ITEMS] SCALE 1 Strongly Agree 2 Agree 3 Disagree 4 Strongly Disagree 5 Doesn’t Apply 9 Don’t know/Refused
ITEMS (n=24) Unweighted number of cases only.

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 173 of 194. PageID #: 4223 ALG Research | 26

a. When I filed the complaint, I was treated with respect by the officer or staff taking my complaint. (Top 2=11) 1 Strongly Agree; 10 Agree; 7 Disagree; 3 Strongly Disagree; 2 Doesn’t Apply; 1 Don’t Know
b. When I filed the complaint, the officer or staff listened to what I had to say (Top 2= 12) 1 Strongly Agree; 11 Agree; 6 Disagree; 3 Strongly Disagree; 2 Doesn’t Apply; 1 Don’t Know
c. The steps to filing a complaint were easy to understand (Top 2= 11) 3 Strongly Agree; 8 Agree; 9 Disagree; 2 Strongly Disagree; 1 Doesn’t Apply; 1 Don’t Know
d. The officer/staff kept me informed (Top 2=7) 1 Strongly Agree; 6 Agree; 8 Disagree; 5 Strongly Disagree; 2 Doesn’t Apply; 2 Don’t Know
e. The officer/staff followed-up to tell me the outcome of their investigation (Top 2= 6) 3 Strongly Agree; 3 Agree; 9 Disagree; 9 Strongly Disagree; N/A Doesn’t Apply; N/A Don’t know

41. Overall, how satisfied were you with how the Cleveland Police handled your complaint? Were you …

1 Very Satisfied 5 cases 2 Somewhat Satisfied 3 cases

8 cases

3 Somewhat Dissatisfied 5 cases 4 Very Dissatisfied 10 cases

15 cases

9 Don’t Know/Refused

42. [DO NOT ASK IF Q39=YES] Can you briefly tell me why you decided not to file a formal complaint? (DO NOT READ. Check all that apply. Probe: “Any other reason?”] (n=79) 1 Didn’t know how 2 cases 2 It would have taken too much time 7 cases 3 Concerned that there would be a backlash/revenge by the police 13 cases 4 Didn’t think it would make a difference 30 cases 5 Some other reason (specify) 12 cases 9 Don’t know/refused (Don’t Read) 2 cases

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 174 of 194. PageID #: 4224 ALG Research | 27

DEMOGRAPHICS

Finally, I’d like to ask you a few general questions to make sure we have a representative sample. Your answers are anonymous.
43. What year were you born? ______ ______ ______ ______ [Subtract from 2016 to calculate age]
44. [If conducted in ENGLISH, others SKIP] Is English your native language? (n=1400) 1 Yes 93% 2 No 5% 9 Prefer not to answer/refused 2%

. [ASK ONLY IF Q1f = Hispanic/Latino] Do you learn about the Cleveland Police through Spanish-

language media? (n=236)

1 Yes, Often 21%

47%

2 Yes, Sometimes 26%

3 No 48%

9 Don’t know/refused (Don’t read) 4%

48. How many people live in your household? ___________
49. [Asked of cell phones only] Do you have a landline telephone? (n=716) 1 Yes 24% 2 No 73% 9 Refused 4%
50. Asked to landline phones only] Do you have a cell phone? (n=684) 1 Yes 79% 2 No 18% 9 Refused 3%
51. [Asked of everyone] Does your household primarily use cell phones or land line phones? (n=1400)
1 Cell 69% 2 Land Line 24% 9 Refused 7% 10 53. Which of the following do you most identify with? Do you consider yourself to be…
(n=1400) 11 1 Straight 79% 12 2 Gay 2% 13 3 Lesbian 1% 14 4 Bisexual 2% 15 5 Transgendered N/A 16 6 None of the above 7% 17 9 Prefer not to answer (do not read) 9%

55. Note Language (English or Spanish) (n=1400) 96% English; 4% Spanish

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 175 of 194. PageID #: 4225
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Fifth Semiannual Report | August 2018
APPENDIX B: 2017 Outcome Measures Summary

APPENDIX B: 2017 Outcome Measures

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 2201174MeaFsuirlees ads o:f Au0g8ust/120518/18 176 of 194. PageID #: 4226

Baseline Appendix
Line # 1 2
3 4 5
6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30
31
32 33
34 35

Consent Consent Decree Decree Paragraph Section
367 a
367 a. 1
367 a. 1 367 a. 1 367 a. 1
367 a. 1
367 a. 1

% increase or % increase or Compound

decrease decrease annual growth

Included in

from 2015 from 2016 rate (CAGR) from Validated by

Baseline?

2015 Data 2016 Data 2017 Data through

through 2015 through Source

Topic

Name of Measure

(yes/no) Source of Data Collected Collected Collected

2016

2017

2017

(yes/no)

Comments

Use of Force (UOF) - the numbers below may differ slightly from the Division's final UOF numbers, as they may reflect duplicate entries due to the Division's input method

UOF

UoF Charges

yes IAPro

see below see below see below

2015/Baseline: Validational data from CPD captured 349 use

of force cases (based on timing of data request); 2016:

Validational data from CPD captured 318 use of force cases

(based on timing of data request). 2017: 237 use of force

cases identified by CPD, but 242 citizens invoved in UoF

# of UOF charges

350

307

242

-12%

-21%

-12% yes incidents

# of non-UoF charges

38,920

31,968

33,085

-18%

3%

-5% yes 2015: 39,270 charges; 2016: 32275 charges in 2016

UOF

UoF Charges ending in arrests

yes IAPro

see below see below see below

2015 Validational data from CPD captured 289 Arrests with

# UoF ending in arrests

285

243

191

-15%

-21%

-12% yes 609 different charge types

24,371 total arrests in 2015; 19,668 total arrestes in 2016;

Total # of non-UoF ending in arrests

24,086

19,425

18,785

-19%

-3%

-8% yes 18,976 total arrests in 2017

UOF

UoF rates

yes IAPro

see below see below see below

UoF as % of all charges

0.9%

1.0%

0.7%

7%

-24%

-7% yes

UoF arrests as % of all arrests

1.2%

1.2%

1.0%

6%

-19%

-5% yes

% of UoFs ending in arrest

81%

79%

79%

-3%

0%

-1% yes

% of non-UoFs ending in arrest

62%

61%

57%

-2%

-7%

-3% yes

UOF

District

yes IAPro

see below see below see below

District 1

36

29

25

-19%

-14%

-11% yes

District 2

64

57

54

-11%

-5%

-6% yes

District 3

100

114

68

14%

-40%

-12% yes

District 4

85

64

52

-25%

-19%

-15% yes

District 5

61

39

37

-36%

-5%

-15% yes

outside city

4

1

1

-75%

0%

-37% yes

Unknown/NULL

.

3

.

.

.

. yes

These data are for all officers that used force. Multiple force

types used by officers per citizen. 2015 total =1311; 2016

UOF

Force type

yes IAPro

see below see below see below

total=1210; 2017 total=1018

Balance Displacement

76

1

0

-99%

-100%

-100% yes

Body Force/Body Weight

477

176

191

-63%

9%

-26% yes Body force now includes body weight for 2015-2017

Control Hold-Restraint

217

323

225

49%

-30%

1% yes

Control Hold-Takedown

65

124

68

91%

-45%

2% yes

Joint Manipulation

137

159

93

16%

-42%

-12% yes

Tackling/Takedown

142

63

46

-56%

-27%

-31% yes

Taser

44

36

47

-18%

31%

2% yes

Verbal/Physical Gestures

31

0

0

-100%

0%

-100% yes

This category was in other in 2015 and 2016 and has now

Pressure Point/Pressure Point Control

40

151

180

278%

19%

65% yes been broken out for all 3 years

This category was in other in 2015 and 2016 and has now

Push

4

90

83

2150%

-8%

175% yes been broken out for all 3 years

This is a designation created by thte Monitoring Team and

includes several categories with fewer than 25 instances.

Other (1-25 instance each)

48

77

78

60%

1%

18% yes These are not classified as "Other" in IAPro or by the CPD

Unknown/NULL/#N/A

30

10

7

-67%

-30%

-38% yes

These data are for all UoF (2015 total UoF=774; 2016 total

UoF=1110) not arrests (2015 total arrests=285; 2016 total

arrests=244) and not charge types (2015 total charge

UOF

Arrest type

yes IAPro

see below see below see below

types=350; 2016 total charge types=308)

Violence toward Police Officer

7

105

66

1400%

-37%

111% yes

Page 1 of 17

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

367 a. 1

UOF

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

367 a. 1

UOF

53

54

55

56

367 a. 1

UOF

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

367 a. 1

UOF

65

66

67

68

367 a. 1

UOF

69

70

71

367 a. 1

UOF

72

367 a. 1

UOF

73

74

75

76

367 a. 1

UOF

77

78

367 a. 2

UOF

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

367 a. 2

UOF

86

87

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 2201174MeaFsuirlees ads o:f Au0g8ust/120518/18 177 of 194. PageID #: 4227

Violence toward Others Damage to Property Obstructing Justice Crisis Intervention Drugs/Alcohol Cleveland Codified Ord. - Part 6 Miscellaneous offense NULL Other (1-25 instance each) Race Black White Hispanic Asian Other Unknown/NULL Ethnicity Hispanic/Latino Non-Hispanic/Latino Unknown/NULL Age under 20 years 21-29 years 30-39 years 40-49 years 50-59 years 60+ years Unknown/NULL Gender Male Female Unknown/NULL Mental State Mental Crisis Behavioral Crisis Event Medical Condition Drugs / ETOH
Unimpaired/None Detected
Unknown/NULL
Known Medical Condition
Disability

yes IAPro
yes IAPro yes IAPro
yes IAPro yes IAPro no IAPro yes IAPro yes (new) yes (new) yes (new) yes IAPro

158

156

73

57

76

33

207

370

224

40

69

55

47

31

30

84

150

73

18

39

33

84

23

0

72

63

34

see below see below see below

259

219

188

77

69

68

9

12

11

1

1

0

1

3

5

3

3

0

see below see below see below

9

12

11

338

292

261

3

3

0

see below see below see below

64

69

48

134

115

85

68

59

86

38

26

27

18

16

11

11

10

6

17

13

9

see below see below see below

265

223

212

82

82

60

3

2

0

see below see below see below

42

0

0

13

68

119

.

.

.

138

131

223

67

102

150

90

3

23

.

3

1.

.

.

.

-1% 33% 79% 73% -34% 79% 117% -73% -13%
-15% -10% 33%
0% 200%
0%
33% -14%
0%
8% -14% -13% -32% -11%
-9% -24%
-16% 0%
-33%
-100% 423%
. -5%
52%
-97%
.

-53% -57% -39% -20%
-3% -51% -15% -100% -46%
-14% -1% 0%
-100% 67%
-100%
-8% -11% -100%
-30% -26% 46%
4% -31% -40% -31%
-5% -27% -100%
0% 75%
. 70%
47%
667%
-67% .
.

-23% yes -17% yes
3% yes 11% yes -14% yes -5% yes This category was in other in 2015 22% yes This category was in other in 2015 -100% yes This category was in other in 2015 -22% yes
-10% yes -4% yes 7% yes
-100% yes 71% yes
-100% yes
7% yes -8% yes -100% yes
-9% yes -14% yes
8% yes -11% yes -15% yes -18% yes -19% yes
-7% yes -10% yes -100% yes
-100% yes more granular data collected in 2016 and 2017 109% yes more granular data collected in 2016 and 2017
. N/A 17% yes Only drugs and alcohol as noted in IAPro
New item CPD collects that has been added to baseline and 31% yes 2016 but not specified in Consent Decree
New item CPD collects that has been added to baseline and -37% yes 2016 but not specified in Consent Decree
New item CPD collects that has been added to baseline and yes 2016 but not specified in Consent Decree
No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the . N/A future

Injuries # officers injured
# public injuries rate of officer injuries change overall rate of officer injuries change severity rate of subject injuries change overall rate of subject injuries change severity Force complaints
# of force complaints
# of non-force complaints

yes IAPro yes
yes no no no no yes IA

see below see below see below

134

192

212

see below

77

69

98

.

43%

10%

.

.

.

-10%

-76%

.

.

see below see below

43

17

33

73

93

96

Page 2 of 17

43% -10%
. .
-60% 27%

10% 42% -76% N/A
94% 3%

17% yes Public injuries is citizen injuries. This was misreported as 112 in
8% yes baseline, but corrected here. . yes . N/A injury severity is not collected . yes . N/A injury severity is not collected
These data are by officer and not by case; These data are just -8% yes from IA and does not include complaints through OPS
These data are by officer and not by case; These data are just 10% yes from IA and does not include complaints through OPS

88

367 a. 2

UOF

89

90

91

92

93

94

367 a. 2

UOF

95

96

97

367 a. 2

UOF

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

367 a. 2

UOF

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

367 a. 2

UOF

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

367 a.3

ECW usage

127

128

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 2201174MeaFsuirlees ads o:f Au0g8ust/120518/18 178 of 194. PageID #: 4228

disposition of force complaints Substantiated Substantiated Other Administrative Closure Exonerated Open source (in/ext.) force complaints
Internal (CPD)
External (non-CPD/Civilian) force type Balance Displacement Body Force Control Hold-Restraint Control Hold-Takedown Joint Manipulation Tackling/Takedown Taser Verbal/Physical Gestures
Pressure Point/Pressure Point Control
Push Other (1-25 instance each) Unknown/NULL geographic area District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 outside city Unknown/NULL demographics of complainant Black White Hispanic Asian Other Unknown/NULL

yes IA no IA no no yes IA, IAPro
yes IA
yes IA, IAPro

see below see below

see below 0 7 2 . 34
see below

see below

0

0

8

0

0

2

1

0

8

31

see below

.

.

.

see below

. see below
0 8 2 0 1 0 1 0

.

.

see below

0

0

0

15

8

11

3

5

2

13

0

5

0

6

0

0

.

.

15 .

. see below
see below

.

5.

7

10

13

27

5

4

see below see below

2

0

4

0

4

3

4

4

5

4

3

1

3

0

4

0

0

0

10

6

4

see below see below

11

6

12

2

2

5

0

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

10

6

4

0% 14% -100%
. -76%
.
.
0% -100% 300%
N/A 100%
0% -100%
0%
.
. 43% -81%
-100% N/A 0%
-25% -100%
0% -40%
-45% 0% N/A 0% 0%
-40%

0% -100%
N/A -100% 288%
.
.
0% N/A 38% 67% 550% 0% N/A 0%
.
. 30% -20%
N/A -25% 25% -67%
N/A 0% -33%
100% 150% -100%
0% 0% -33%

0% yes -100% yes
0% yes . yes
-3% yes
Incomplete information; no systematic capturing of data . N/A through IA or OPS
Incomplete information; no systematic capturing of data . N/A through IA or OPS
lots of incomplete data (more than half data not present) 0% yes 23% yes 77% yes N/A yes 135% yes N/A yes 82% yes 0% yes
This category was in other in 2015 and 2016 and has now yes been broken out 2017
This category was in other in 2015 and 2016 and has now yes been broken out for 2017 23% yes -47% yes
26% yes N/A yes 8% yes -37% yes 10% yes 0% yes -26% yes
3% yes 36% yes N/A yes
0% yes 0% yes -26% yes

# ECW and changes over time # of ECW # of non-ECW UoF

yes IAPro yes IAPro yes IAPro

44 1267

36 1174

47

-18%

31%

971

-7%

-17%

2% yes -8%

129

changes compared to UOF

130

changes compared to weapon/force instrument

131

132

367 a.4

UOF violating policy

# in violation

133

367 a.4

UOF violating policy

force type

134

Balance Displacement

135

Body Force

136

Control Hold-Restraint

no no
yes Case Office Case Office,
yes IAPro

.

-11%

44%

.

.

.

9

16

6

see below

see below see below

2

0

0

5

0

5

0

7

6

. .
78%
-100% -100%
N/A

N/A .
-63%
0% N/A -14%

In 2015 there were 1311 force types used. In 2016 there were 1210. This number therefore represents the change in non-taser force types between 2015 and 2016 relative to the change in taser force type; same calculation used for 2016 to . yes 2017 . N/A Data are not collected in detail to calculate this value
-13% yes
-100% yes 0% yes N/A yes

Page 3 of 17

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 2201174MeaFsuirlees ads o:f Au0g8ust/120518/18 179 of 194. PageID #: 4229

137

Control Hold-Takedown

138

Joint Manipulation

139

Tackling/Takedown

140

Taser

141

Verbal/Physical Gestures

142

Pressure Point/Pressure Point Control

143

Push

144

Other (1-25 instance each)

145

Unknown/NULL

146

367 a.4

UOF violating policy

geography

147

District 1

148

District 2

149

District 3

150

District 4

151

District 5

152

outside city

153

367 a.4

UOF violating policy

arrest type

154

Violence toward Police Officer

155

Violence toward Others

156

Damage to Property

157

Obstructing Justice

158

Crisis Intervention

159

Drugs/Alcohol

160

Other

161

367 a.4

UOF violating policy

race of subject

162

Black

163

White

164

Hispanic

165

Asian

166

Other

167

Unknown/NULL

168

367 a.4

UOF violating policy

ethnicity of subject

169

Hispanic/Latino

170

Non-Hispanic/Latino

171

Unknown/NULL

172

367 a.4

UOF violating policy

age of subject

173

under 20 years

174

21-29 years

175

30-39 years

176

40-49 years

177

50-59 years

178

60+ years

179

Unknown/NULL

180

367 a.4

UOF violating policy

gender of subject

181

Male

182

Female

183

Unknown/NULL

184

367 a.4

UOF violating policy

condition

Case Office, yes IAPro
Case Office, yes IAPro

0

0

2

2

0

3

0

3

0

0

3

1

1

0

0

.

.

5

.

.

6

2

13

5

2

4

6

see below

see below see below

1

1

0

3

4

0

3

6

2

1

3

3

1

2

1

0

0

0

see below

see below see below

0

2

2

3

2

0

4

0

0

3

5

11

1

1

0

0

2

2

4

12

5

Case Office, yes IAPro

see below

see below see below

6

6

4

1

2

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

1

Case Office, yes IAPro

see below

see below see below

1

1

0

7

10

5

0

0

1

Case Office, yes IAPro

see below

see below see below

3

0

0

2

3

2

0

4

2

2

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

2

1

Case Office, yes IAPro
Case Office, no IAPro

see below

see below see below

8

11

3

0

0

2

0

0

1

see below see below see below

N/A -100%
N/A N/A -100%
. . 550% 100%
0% 33% 100% 200% 100%
0%
N/A -33% -100% 67%
0% N/A 200%
0% 100%
0% 0% N/A 0%
0% 43%
0%
-100% 50% N/A -50% N/A 0%
100%
38% 0% 0%

0% N/A -100% -67% 0%
. . -62% 50%
-100% -100%
-67% 0%
-50% 0%
0% -100%
N/A 120% -100%
0% -58%
-33% -50% -100%
0% -100%
N/A
-100% -50% N/A
N/A -33% -50%
0% -100%
0% -50%
-73% N/A N/A

N/A yes 14% yes N/A yes N/A yes -100% yes
. . 36% yes 44% yes
-100% yes -100% yes
-13% yes 44% yes
0% yes 0% yes
N/A yes -100% yes -100% yes
54% yes -100% yes
N/A yes 8% yes
2015 data mistakenly reported the race of the officer, not of the subject. This has has been corrected in this appendix and in the 2016 report -13% yes 0% yes -100% yes 0% yes 0% yes N/A yes 2015 data mistakenly reported the ethnicity of the officer, not of the subject. This has has been corrected in this appendix and in the 2016 report -100% yes -11% yes N/A 2015 data mistakenly reported the age of the officer, not of the subject. This has has been corrected in this appendix and in the 2016 report -100% yes 0% yes N/A yes -21% yes N/A yes 0% yes 0% yes 2015 data mistakenly reported the gender of the officer, not of the subject. This has has been corrected in this appendix and in the 2016 report -28% yes N/A yes N/A yes

Page 4 of 17

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 2201174MeaFsuirlees ads o:f Au0g8ust/120518/18 180 of 194. PageID #: 4230

185

mental condition

186

medical condition

187

drugs/alcohol

188

Unimpaired

189

Unknown/NULL

190

presence of disability

191

192

367 a. 5

UOF violating policy

# of officers with > 1 UOF violating policy

193

194

367 a. 6

UOF violating policy

force reviews/investigations resulting in

195

policy deficiency

196

training deficiency

197

tactics deficiency

198

367 a. 7

quality of investigations

199

367 a. 7

quality of review

200

367 a. 7

# of investigations returned because incomplete

201

367 b

addressing individuals in crisis

no no no no no no yes Case Office yes IA

.

.

.

.

.

6

4

.

3

1

.

2

1

.

.

0

1

0

see below see below see below

no
no no Chief's Office

5

11

3

2

0

0

2

5

3

in written

. summary

.

in written

. summary

.

.

.

.

N/A N/A N/A
N/A
120% -100% 150%
. . .

-33% -67% -50%
-100%
-73% 0%
-40% . . .

addressing individuals in # calls for service and incidents involving an individual

202

367 b. 1

crisis

in crisis

no CI Unit

10480

7890

8120

-25%

3%

203

Responded to by specialized CIT officer

no

.

.

.

.

.

204

Responded to by other

addressing individuals in

205

367 b. 1

crisis

Direction of individuals in crisis

no

.

.

.

.

.

no

see below see below see below

206

directed to healthcare system

207

directed to judicial system system

208

direction other

209

rate - directed to healthcare system

210

rate - directed to judicial system system

211

rate - direction other

212

addressing individuals in

213

367 b. 2

crisis

# of UOF on ind in crisis

214

type of force used

215

Balance Displacement

216

Body Force

217

Control Hold-Restraint

1009 12
230 81%
1% 18%
14 . . .
166

672

1012

-33%

51%

2

8

-83%

300%

7

0

-97%

-100%

99%

99%

22%

1%

0%

1%

-69%

167%

1%

0%

-94%

-100%

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the . N/A future
No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the . N/A future
Not collected in baseline, collected in 2016 based on 11 N/A yes citizens
Not collected in baseline, collected in 2016 based on 11 N/A yes citizens
Not collected in baseline, collected in 2016 based on 11 N/A yes citizens
No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the . N/A future
0% yes

Examination of data received shows most of the policy deficiencies were administrative/technical (i.e. late forms) and -16% yes not substantive or due to tactics -100% yes 14% yes Random sample selected by Monitoring Team and reviewed to . yes capture the quality of the investigations Random sample selected by Monitoring Team and reviewed to . yes capture the quality of the investigations . no Data has not been received as of June 2017

baseline, 2016, and 2017 aren't comparable. 2017: 812

forms completed (which is 10% of total possible mental health

calls); data from 11/1/16-11/30/17. 2016: 789 forms

completed (which is 10% of total possible mental health calls);

data from 10/1/15-10/31/16. 2015 Baseline: 1048 forms

completed (which is 10% of total possible mental health calls);

-8%

data from 1/1/14-9/30/15

No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the

. N/A future

No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the

. N/A future

SUBJECT DISPOSITION (pink slipped or voluntarily to SVCH, private hospital ER, referred to mental health treatment, handled by EMS); 0 referrals to mental health treatment in 0% yes 2016; 19 referrals in 2015 -13% yes # arrested other, complaint unfounded requiring no police action, subject stabilized; 0 complaint unfounded requiring no police -100% yes action, subject stabilized in 2016; 18 in 2015 7% yes -6% yes -100% yes

. yes 2015 data -"Use of non-deadly force report made"

.

poor data

.

poor data

.

poor data

.

2015 data - "handcuffs"

Page 5 of 17

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 2201174MeaFsuirlees ads o:f Au0g8ust/120518/18 181 of 194. PageID #: 4231

218

Control Hold-Takedown

219

Joint Manipulation

220

Tackling/Takedown

221

Taser

222

Verbal/Physical Gestures

223

Other (1-25 instance each)

224

Unknown/NULL

addressing individuals in

225

367 b. 2

crisis

reason for interaction

226

# subject armed/not armed

227

weapon type

228

resistance offered

229

230

367 c

description of attempts to de-escalate
stop, search, arrest

231

367 c. 1

stop, search, arrest

# of investigatory stop, search, arrest

232

# of investigatory stops

233

# of investigatory searches

234

# of investigory arrrests

235

367 c. 1

stop, search, arrest

% of investigatory stop, search, arrest

236

# investigatory stops/# summons or arrest

237

# investigatory searchess/# summons or arrest

238

367 c. 1

stop, search, arrest

District

239

District 1

240

District 2

241

District 3

242

District 4

243

District 5

244

outside city

245

367 c. 1

stop, search, arrest

Arrest type

246

Violence toward Police Officer

247

Violence toward Others

248

Damage to Property

249

Obstructing Justice

250

Crisis Intervention

251

Drugs/Alcohol

252

Other

253

367 c. 1

stop, search, arrest

Actual or perceived age

254

under 20 years

255

21-29 years

256

30-39 years

257

40-49 years

258

50-59 years

259

60+ years

260

Unknown/NULL

261

367 c. 1

stop, search, arrest

race

262

Black

263

White

264

Hispanic

265

Asian

266

Other

no Compliance no no no no

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

5

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

40

.

.

.

.

186

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

poor data

.

poor data

.

poor data

.

2015 data - "taser stun"

.

poor data

.

2015 data -"other, fired, OC pepper spray"

.

2015 data -"no response reported"

.

.

.

809 CIT calls had averbal de-escalation response from officers

in 2015; 578 calls had averbal de-escalation response from

.

officers in 2016

No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the . N/A future . . .
No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the N/A future . .
No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the N/A future . . . . . .
No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the N/A future . . . . . . .
No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the N/A future . . . . . . .
No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the N/A future . . . . .

Page 6 of 17

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 2201174MeaFsuirlees ads o:f Au0g8ust/120518/18 182 of 194. PageID #: 4232

267

Unknown/NULL

268

367 c. 1

stop, search, arrest

ethnicity

no

269

Hispanic/Latino

270

Non-Hispanic/Latino

271

Unknown/NULL

272

367 c. 1

stop, search, arrest

gender

no

273

Male

274

Female

275

Unknown/NULL

276

documentable reasonable

suspicion to stop and

277

367 c. 2

probable cause search actual or perceived race

no

278

Black

279

White

280

Hispanic

281

Asian

282

Other

283

Unknown/NULL

documentable reasonable

suspicion to stop and

284

367 c. 2

probable cause search actual or perceived ethnicity

no

285

Hispanic/Latino

286

Non-Hispanic/Latino

287

Unknown/NULL

documentable reasonable

suspicion to stop and

288

367 c. 2

probable cause search actual or perceived gender

no

289

Male

290

Female

291

Unknown/NULL

documentable reasonable

suspicion to stop and

292

367 c. 2

probable cause search actual or perceived age

no

293

under 20 years

294

21-29 years

295

30-39 years

296

40-49 years

297

50-59 years

298

60+ years

299

Unknown/NULL

300

searches finding

301

367 c. 3

contraband

# of searches finding contraband

no

searches finding

302

367 c. 3

contraband

# of searches finding contraband by district

no

303

District 1

304

District 2

305

District 3

306

District 4

307

District 5

308

outside city

searches finding

309

367 c. 3

contraband

Arrest type

no

310

Violence toward Police Officer

311

Violence toward Others

312

Damage to Property

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the
N/A future . . .
No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the N/A future . . .
No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the N/A future . . . . . .
No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the N/A future . . .
No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the N/A future . . .
No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the N/A future . . . . . . .
No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the . N/A future
No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the N/A future . . . . . .
No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the N/A future . . .

Page 7 of 17

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 2201174MeaFsuirlees ads o:f Au0g8ust/120518/18 183 of 194. PageID #: 4233

313

Obstructing Justice

314

Crisis Intervention

315

Drugs/Alcohol

316

Other

searches finding

317

367 c. 3

contraband

actual or perceived race

318

Black

319

White

320

Hispanic

321

Asian

322

Other

323

Unknown/NULL

searches finding

324

367 c. 3

contraband

actual or perceived ethnicity

325

Hispanic/Latino

326

Non-Hispanic/Latino

327

Unknown/NULL

searches finding

328

367 c. 3

contraband

actual or perceived gender

329

Male

330

Female

331

Unknown/NULL

searches finding

332

367 c. 3

contraband

actual or perceived age

333

under 20 years

334

21-29 years

335

30-39 years

336

40-49 years

337

50-59 years

338

60+ years

339

Unknown/NULL

340

367 d

bias free policing & community engagement

bias free policing &

341

367 d.1

community engagement # of community partnerships

342

District 1

343

District 2

344

District 3

345

District 4

346

District 5

bias free policing &

347

367 d. 1

community engagement # of community partnerships w/youth

348

District 1

349

District 2

350

District 3

351

District 4

352

District 5

bias free policing &

353

367 d. 1

community engagement variety of community partnerships

354

District 1

355

District 2

356

District 3

357

District 4

358

District 5

no
no no no
District yes Commanders
District yes Commanders
District yes Commanders

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

57

66

135

.

13

58

N/A

346%

10

13

13

30%

0%

11

.

12

N/A

N/A

22

28

40

27%

43%

14

12

12

-14%

0%

14

17

30

50%

-33%

.

3

9

N/A

200%

4

4

4

0%

0%

2

.

2

N/A

N/A

7

9

14

29%

56%

1

1

1

0%

0%

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. . . .
No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the N/A future . . . . . .
No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the N/A future . . .
No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the N/A future . . .
No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the N/A future . . . . . . .

33% yes

N/A

baseline data not received for District 1

9%

3%

2016 data not received for District 3

22%

-5%

represents partnerships specifically with youth, although

0% yes youth may be included in other partnerships

N/A yes baseline data not received for District 1

0% yes

0% yes 2016 data not received for District 3

26% yes

0% yes

N/A

Can be calculated once adequate data for all Districts has been

.

received

Can be calculated once adequate data for all Districts has been

.

received

Can be calculated once adequate data for all Districts has been

.

received

Can be calculated once adequate data for all Districts has been

.

received

Can be calculated once adequate data for all Districts has been

.

received

Page 8 of 17

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 2201174MeaFsuirlees ads o:f Au0g8ust/120518/18 184 of 194. PageID #: 4234

359

bias free policing &

360

367 d.2

community engagement homicide clearance rate

bias free policing &

361

367 d.2

community engagement # of homicides

362

# of homicides solved

363

# of homicides unsolved

bias free policing &

364

367 d.2

community engagement Type of homicide

365

# of domestic violence homicides

366

# of non-domestic violence homicides

bias free policing &

367

367 d.2

community engagement Homicide victims

368

Adult male victims

369

Adult female victims

370

Juvenile male victims

371

Juvenile female victims

372

unknown

373

bias free policing &

374

367 d.3

community engagement # civilian complaints for discrimination

bias free policing &

375

367 d.3

community engagement dispostion of discrimination complaints

bias free policing &

376

367 d.3

community engagement analysis of biennial survey

377

367 e

recruitment measures

378

367 e. 1

recruitment measures applicants

yes Homicide Unit

56%

51%

50%

yes

127

139

130

71

71

65

56

68

65

yes

see below see below see below

12

18

6

115

121

124

yes

see below see below see below

95

110

102

23

18

12

7

7

11

2

2

2

.

.

3

no OPS
no OPS
yes ISA hired
City Hall Civil Service Commission yes (CSC)

.

.

.

.

.

.

1410

1459

1180

-9% 9% 0% 21%
50% 5%
16% -22%
0% 0% N/A
3%

-2% -6% -8% -4%
-67% 2%
-7% -33% 57%
0% N/A
-19%

379

# of qualified recruit applicants

380

# of not qualified recruit applicants

191 1219

151 1308

359

-21%

138%

821

7%

-37%

381

367 e. 1

recruitment measures applicants by race

382

383

384

385

386

387

388

yes White (W)
Black (B) Asian (A) Hispanic (H) Other (O)
AI No Data (.)

see below see below see below

781

693

526

409

518

440

13

11

12

154

148

127

44

85

36

3

4

12

6

0

27

-11% 27% -15% -4% 93% 33% -100%

-24% -15%
9% -14% -58% 200%
N/A

389

367 e. 1

recruitment measures applicants by gender

yes

see below see below see below

390

Males

1120

1163

873

391

Females

290

296

298

392

CPD; City Hall

393

367 e. 2

recruitment measures Where applicants heard of job

no Civil Service see below see below see below

394

City Website

.

40%

54%

395

Friend

.

26%

0%

396

Google or other search

.

19%

3%

397

Other

.

14%

14%

398

Bulletin

.

2%

0%

399

Word of mouth

.

0%

19%

400

Social media

.

0%

6%

401

Article or blog post

.

0%

0%

402

Advertisement

.

0%

4%

4%

-25%

2%

1%

N/A

36%

N/A

-100%

N/A

-85%

N/A

-1%

N/A

-69%

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

-4% yes
1% yes -3% 5%
yes -21%
3%
yes 2% -19% 16% 0% N/A
.
. results are in a separate document from this baseline document

2017 data are from the 2017 test although those hired

-6% yes include applicants from the 2016 list Category captured in data: "Name has been certified.

Candidates are being vetted for the next Academy" (categroy 11) and "hired/currently in the academy" (category 4) or Not

23% -12%

Hired; Left on Eligible List (category 15) These are applicants who failed somewhere in the process

yes

-12% 2%

-3%

-6%

-6%

59%

65%

yes

-8%

1%

yes No data on recruitment activities in baseline N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Page 9 of 17

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 2201174MeaFsuirlees ads o:f Au0g8ust/120518/18 185 of 194. PageID #: 4235

CPD; City Hall

403

367 e. 2

recruitment measures Recruitment Activity

no Civil Service see below see below see below

404

Billboards

.

9

23

405

Billboard Impressions

.

538043 1077439

406

Regional Transit Bus Posters

.

20

0

407

Regional Transit Stations Posters

.

24

22

408

Mobile/digital video banner Ads

.

50000

20000

409

Facebook, Twitter, Instagram Posts

.

8

8

410

Blog posts/Websites

.

60

90

N/A

156%

N/A

100%

N/A

-100%

N/A

-8%

N/A

-60%

N/A

0%

N/A

50%

411

Social MediaViewers/Likes no

.

.

714547

N/A

N/A

412

Social Media Shares no

.

.

1278

N/A

N/A

413

Radio Station Spots

.

4

4

N/A

0%

414

Television

.

0

0

N/A

0%

CPD; City Hall

415

367 e. 2

recruitment measures # of Recruitment Partnerships

no Civil Service

.

17

19

N/A

12%

416

All Races

.

8

15

N/A

88%

417

Black

.

7

3

N/A

-57%

418

Hispanic

.

2

1

N/A

-50%

419

City Hall Civil

Service

420

367 e. 3

recruitment measures # of applicants who failed initial screening

yes Commission

1219

1294

821

6%

-37%

City Hall Civil

Service

421

367 e. 3

recruitment measures reason for failures

yes Commission see below see below see below

422

1- Application Rejected

.

339

282

N/A

-17%

423

2-Failed agility test

166

119

101

-28%

-15%

424

3-No show for the Agility test

85

113

90

33%

-20%

N/A to

N/A to

N/A to reason reason for reason for

425

4-Hired / Currently in the Academy

for failures failures

failures

N/A

N/A

426

5-No response to certification

183

58

0

-68%

-100%

427

6-Passed over

13

8

0

-38%

-100%

yes No data on recruitment activities in baseline

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

New item CPD collects that has been added to 2017 but not

N/A

specified in Consent Decree

New item CPD collects that has been added to 2017 but not

N/A

specified in Consent Decree

N/A

N/A

N/A yes No data on recruitment activities in baseline N/A N/A N/A

Same number as above (# of non-qualified applicants); considered anyone who is NOT hired (category 4) and anyone -12% yes whose name has NOT been certified (category 11)

yes

N/A

Application rejected - Not collected in 2015

-15%

2%

N/A -100%
-100%

The 2017 list reported no one who was passed over, however, the 2016 list was used to hire the 2017 class and 47 were passed over

The 2017 list reported no one who was removed for

background reasons, however, the 2016 list was used to hire

428

7-Removed for background reason(s)

66

39

0

-41%

-100%

-100%

the 2017 class and 6 were removed for background reasons

8 (no show for psych) and 13 (no PHS) are merged in 2016

data; The 2017 list reported no one was a no show, however,

the 2016 list was used to hire the 2017 class and 1 was a no

429

8-No show for the Psychological Exam

1

.

0

N/A

N/A

-100%

show

The 2017 list reported 4 people who were no longer

interested, however, the 2016 list was used to hire the 2017

430

9-No longer interested

19

26

4

37%

-85%

-41%

class and 10 were no longer interested

431

10-Waived

17

102

10

500%

-90%

-16%

N/A to

N/A to

11-Name has been certified. Candidates are being

N/A to reason reason for reason for

432

vetted for the next Academy

for failures failures

failures

N/A

N/A

N/A

433

12-No show for the test

394

263

244

-33%

-7%

-15%

434

13-Did not submit their Personal History Statement

240

4

0

-98%

-100%

-100%

435

14-Failed the test

35

223

90

537%

-60%

37%

City Hall Civil

Service

436

367 e. 3

recruitment measures recruit failures by race

yes Commission see below see below see below

yes

437

White (W) Failures

658

594

323

-10%

-46%

-21%

Page 10 of 17

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 2201174MeaFsuirlees ads o:f Au0g8ust/120518/18 186 of 194. PageID #: 4236

438

Black (B) Failures

375

492

341

31%

-31%

439

Asian (A) Failures

12

9

8

-25%

-11%

440

Hispanic (H) Failures

128

133

90

4%

-32%

441

Other (O) Failures

41

76

32

85%

-58%

442

Native American (AI) Failures

1

4

8

300%

100%

443

No Data (.) Failures

4

0

19

-100%

N/A

City Hall Civil

Service

444

367 e. 3

recruitment measures recruit failures by ethnicity

yes Commission see below see below see below

-3% -13% -11%
-8% 100%
68%
yes

445

Hispanic/Latino (H)

128

133

90

4%

-32%

446

Non-Hispanic/Latino

1091

1161

731

6%

-37%

City Hall Civil

Service

447

367 e. 3

recruitment measures recruit failures by gender

yes Commission see below see below see below

448

Male Failures

971

1032

592

6%

-43%

449

Female Falures

248

277

224

12%

-19%

450

unknown gender

.

.

5

N/A

N/A

City Hall Civil

Service

451

367 e. 3

recruitment measures recruit failures by self identified disability

no Commission

.

.

.

452

City Hall Civil

Service

453

367 e. 4

recruitment measures # of applicants with fluency in other language

no Commission

.

.

.

.

.

454

list of languages spoken by recruits

no

.

.

.

455

City Hall Civil

Service

456

367 e. 5

recruitment measures # of lateral candidates

yes Commission

0

210

94

457

367 e. 5

recruitment measures laterals by race

yes

see below see below see below

458

White (W)

0

116

37

459

Black (B)

0

57

37

460

Asian (A)

0

1

1

461

Hispanic (H)

0

18

7

462

Other (O)

0

17

9

463

AI

0

0

1

464

No Data (.)

0

1

2

465

367 e. 5

recruitment measures ethnicity

yes

see below see below see below

466

Hispanic/Latino

0

18

7

467

Non-Hispanic/Latino

0

192

87

468

367 e. 5

recruitment measures laterals by gender

yes

see below see below see below

469

Male

0

174

74

470

Female

0

35

19

471

unknown

0

0

1

472

367 e. 5

recruitment measures Other information on laterals

yes

see below see below see below

473

laterals with self identified disability

0

0

0

474

list of laterals former agencies

0

39

5

.

.

N/A

-55%

N/A

-68%

N/A

-35%

N/A

0%

N/A

-61%

N/A

-47%

N/A

N/A

N/A

100%

N/A

-61%

N/A

-55%

N/A

-57%

N/A

-46%

0%

N/A

0%

0%

N/A

-87%

475

list of laterals years of service

0

166

12

476

City Hall Civil

Service

477

367 e. 6

recruitment measures applicant qualifications

yes Commission see below see below see below

N/A

-93%

478

# applicants with 2+ years college

yes

455

802

649

76%

-19%

479

# applicants with college degree

yes

240

247

189

3%

-23%

Page 11 of 17

-11% -12%

It is unclear whether this information is captured adequately

yes

-15%

-3%

N/A

unknown not captured in 2015 or 2016

Only have data on veterans; No data collected currently; N/A Needs to be collected in the future

No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the

. N/A future

No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the

.

future

N/A yes The Division did not recruit laterals in 2015

yes The Division did not recruit laterals in 2015

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

yes The Division does not recruit laterals

N/A

N/A

yes The Division does not recruit laterals

N/A

N/A

N/A

yes The Division does not recruit laterals

0%

N/A

represents the number of PDs laterals worked for

represents the number of years in which laterals worked for

N/A

other PDs

yes

This category captures those who attended college for 2+

years, but did not obtain a BA degree (includes those with

13%

associates degrees)

-8%

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 2201174MeaFsuirlees ads o:f Au0g8ust/120518/18 187 of 194. PageID #: 4237

480

# applicants with 2+ years military

no

.

.

.

481

# applicants with 180+ days military

yes (new)

161

89

55

-45%

-38%

482

disabled veterans

yes (new)

14

2

3

-86%

50%

483

City Hall Civil

pass/fail rate in each phase of pre-employment

Service

484

367 e. 7

recruitment measures process

yes Commission see below see below see below

485

2-Failed agility test

86.38%

90.24%

87.70%

4%

-3%

486

3-No show for the Agility test

93.03%

90.73%

89.04%

-2%

-2%

487

4-Hired / Currently in the Academy

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

488

5-No response to certification

84.99%

95.24% 100.00%

12%

5%

489

6-Passed over

98.93%

99.34% 100.00%

0%

1%

490

7-Removed for background reason(s)

94.59%

96.80% 100.00%

2%

3%

491

8-No show for the Psychological Exam

99.92%

N/A 100.00%

N/A

N/A

492

9-No longer interested

98.44%

97.87%

99.51%

-1%

2%

493

10-Waived

98.61%

91.63%

98.78%

-7%

8%

11-Name has been certified. Candidates are being

494

vetted for the next Academy

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

495

12-No show for the test

67.68%

78.42%

70.28%

16%

-10%

496

13-Did not submit their Personal History Statement

80.31%

99.67% 100.00%

24%

0%

497

14-Failed the test

97.13%

81.71%

89.04%

-16%

9%

City Hall Civil

Service

498

367 e. 7

recruitment measures pass/fail rate by race

yes Commission see below see below see below

499

White (W) pass rate

15.75%

14.29%

38.59%

11%

-30%

500

Black (B) pass rate

8.31%

5.02%

22.50%

-14%

-22%

501

Asian (A) pass rate

7.69%

18.18%

33.33%

0%

-1%

502

Hispanic (H) pass rate

16.88%

10.14%

29.13%

0%

-5%

503

Other (O) pass rate

6.82%

10.59%

11.11%

-3%

2%

504

AI pass rate

66.67%

0.00%

33.33%

0%

-1%

505

No Data (.) pass rate

33.33% .

29.63%

0%

-3%

City Hall Civil

Service

506

367 e. 7

recruitment measures pass/fail rate by ethnicity

yes Commission see below see below see below

507

Hispanic/Latino (H) pass rate

16.88%

10.14%

29.13%

0%

0%

508

Non-Hispanic/Latino pass rate

13.14%

11.44%

30.58%

-1%

-87%

City Hall Civil

Service

509

367 e. 7

recruitment measures pass/fail rate by gender

yes Commission see below see below see below

510

Male Pass Rate

13.30%

11.26%

32.19%

-25%

82%

511

Female Pass Rate

14.48%

6.42%

24.83%

-3%

-6%

512

unknown gender pass rate

.

.

.

N/A

N/A

City Hall Civil

Service

513

367 e. 7

recruitment measures pass/fail rate by self identified disability

no Commission

.

.

.

.

.

514

avg length of time to move through each phase of

515

367 e. 8

recruitment measures preemployment

no

.

.

.

.

.

516

avg length of time to process applicants

517

518

367 e. 9

recruitment measures composition of recruit class

yes

519

367 e. 9

recruitment measures Initial Size of recruit class

yes

.

.

.

.

.

see below see below see below

52

62

69

19%

11%

520

Remained

yes (new)

44

51

65

16%

27%

-30% -40%

No data collected currently; only have 180+days; Needs to be collected in the future New item CPD collects that has been added to baseline but not specified in Consent Decree New item CPD collects that has been added to baseline but not specified in Consent Decree; misreported in 2015 (was reported as 1235)

yes pass calculated

1%

pass rate calculated

-1%

pass rate calculated

N/A

pass rate calculated

6%

pass rate calculated

0%

pass rate calculated

2%

pass rate calculated

0%

pass rate calculated; merged with no PHS

0%

pass rate calculated

0%

pass rate calculated

N/A

pass rate calculated

1%

pass rate calculated

8%

pass rate calculated

-3%

pass rate calculated

yes

-8%

pass rate calculated

-12%

pass rate calculated

0%

pass rate calculated

-2%

pass rate calculated

0%

pass rate calculated

0%

pass rate calculated

-1%

pass rate calculated

yes

0%

pass rate calculated

-49%

pass rate calculated

yes

11%

pass rate calculated

-3%

pass rate calculated

N/A

pass rate calculated

No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the

.

future

No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the

.

future

No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the

.

future

yes

10% yes

New item CPD collects that has been added to baseline but

14%

not specified in Consent Decree

Page 12 of 17

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 2201174MeaFsuirlees ads o:f Au0g8ust/120518/18 188 of 194. PageID #: 4238

521

Separated

522

367 e. 9

recruitment measures Separated by Race

yes (new) yes

8

11

4

see below see below see below

38%

-64%

523

Black

yes (new)

2

3

0

50%

-100%

524

White

yes (new)

4

8

4

100%

-50%

525

Hispanic

yes (new)

2

0

0

-100%

N/A

526

Asian

yes (new)

0

0

0

N/A

N/A

527

Other

528

367 e. 9

recruitment measures Separated by Gender

yes (new) yes

0

0

0

N/A

N/A

see below see below see below

529

Male

yes (new)

7

8

4

14%

-50%

530

Female

yes (new)

1

3

0

200%

-100%

Command

531

367 e. 9

recruitment measures composition of recruit classes by race

Staff/ Academy see below see below see below

532

Black

8

10

16

25%

60%

533

White

29

38

51

31%

34%

534

Hispanic

12

2

2

-83%

0%

535

Asian

0

1

0

N/A

-100%

536

Other

3

0

0

-100%

N/A

Command

537

367 e. 9

recruitment measures composition of recruit classes by ethnicity

Staff/ Academy see below see below see below

538

Hispanic/Latino

12

2

2

-83%

0%

539

Non-Hispanic/Latino

40

60

67

50%

12%

Command

540

367 e. 9

recruitment measures composition of recruit classes by gender

Staff/ Academy see below see below see below

541

Male

44

43

54

-2%

26%

542

Female

8

19

15

138%

-21%

composition of recruit classes by self identified

543

disabilty

no

.

.

.

544

367 f. 1 training measures

# of officers provided training pursuant to this

545

367 f. 1

training measures

agreement

no

.

.

1354

N/A

N/A

% of officers provided training pursuant to this

546

367 f. 1

training measures

agreement

no

.

.

94%

N/A

N/A

547

students' evaluations of the adequacy of training in

548

367 f. 2

training measures

type and frequency

no Training

see below see below see below

549

Instructor adequacy

550

Content adequacy

.

.

87%

N/A

N/A

.

.

87%

N/A

N/A

551

Future performance adequacy

.

.

63%

N/A

N/A

552

Overall adequacy

553

modifications or improvements to training resulting

from the review and analysis required by this

554

367 f. 3

training measures

agreement

no

555

prevalence of training deficiencies as refelected by

556

367 f. 4

training measures

problematic incidents or performance trends

no

557

367 g.

officer assistance & support efforts

.

.

79%

N/A

N/A

see written

.

. report

N/A

N/A

see written

.

. report

N/A

N/A

New item CPD collects that has been added to baseline but

-21%

not specified in Consent Decree

yes

New item CPD collects that has been added to baseline but

-100%

not specified in Consent Decree

New item CPD collects that has been added to baseline but

0%

not specified in Consent Decree

New item CPD collects that has been added to baseline but

-100%

not specified in Consent Decree

New item CPD collects that has been added to baseline but

N/A

not specified in Consent Decree

New item CPD collects that has been added to baseline but

N/A

not specified in Consent Decree

yes

New item CPD collects that has been added to baseline but

-17%

not specified in Consent Decree

New item CPD collects that has been added to baseline but

-100%

not specified in Consent Decree

yes 26% 21% -45% N/A -100%

yes -45% 19%

yes

7%

23%

No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the

.

future

No data collected in 2015 or 2016; 2017 includes UoF CIT not

N/A

State Re-Qual

No data collected in 2015 or 2016; 2017 includes UoF CIT not

N/A

State Re-Qual

yes No data collected in 2015 or 2016

instructor increased my understanding of the course material

N/A

(agree and strongly agree)

N/A

scenarios were practical (agree and strongly agree)

I will perform differently basrf on skills and knowledge gained

N/A

(agree and strongly agree)

Overall I found this training to be valuable (agree and strongly

N/A

agree)

No data collected in 2015 or 2016; 2017 includes UoF CIT not

N/A

State Re-Qual. See written report for details

No data collected in 2015 or 2016; 2017 includes UoF CIT not

N/A

State Re-Qual. See written report for details

Page 13 of 17

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 2201174MeaFsuirlees ads o:f Au0g8ust/120518/18 189 of 194. PageID #: 4239

officer assistance &

558

367 g. 1

support efforts

availabilty of officer assistance & support services

officer assistance &

559

367 g. 1

support efforts

use of officer assistance & support services

560

officer assistance &

officer reports of adequacy of officer assistance &

561

367 g. 2

support efforts

support svcs

officer assistance &

survey analysis of adequacy of officer assistance &

562

367 g. 2

support efforts

support svcs

563

367 h.

supervision measures

yes EAP yes EAP
no EAP no EAP

564

367 h.

supervision measures

supervisors initial indentification of officer violations

no

supervisors initial indentification of officer

565

367 h.

supervision measures

performance problems

no

566

367 h.

supervision measures

supervisors response to officer violations

no

567

367 h.

supervision measures

supervisors response to performance problems

no

568

367 i.

civilian complaints & investigations & discipline

see below see below see below

11

209

221

1800%

6%

.

.

92%

N/A

N/A

see written

.

.

report

N/A

N/A

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

yes

2015 baseline data is underreported as the use of service was

172%

not tracked.

No data collected in 2015 or 2016; 2017 includes ratings of N/A yes agree and strongly agree on all items

N/A N/A No data collected in 2015 or 2016

No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the . N/A future
No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the . N/A future
No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the . N/A future
No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the . N/A future

civilian complaints &

569

367 i. 1

investigations & discipline # of complaints

IA, Inspections, yes OPS

294

263

241

-11%

-8%

Of the 294 cases in 2015, only 45 were completed and only 4 -6% yes went through the PRB

civilian complaints &

570

367 i. 1

investigations & discipline increases/decreases related to access

571

IA, Inspections, no OPS

.

.

.

.

.

No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the . N/A future

civilian complaints &

572

367 i. 2

investigations & discipline # sustained by complaint type

573

False Report

574

Harassment

575

Improper Procedure

576

Infraction Notice (UTT/PIN)

577

Lack of Service

578

Not Provided by Complainant

579

Other

580

Physical Abuse/Excessive Force

581

Unprofessional

IA, Inspections, no OPS

2

7

26

250%

271%

135% yes PRB looked at 4 cases in 2015

0

0

0

0%

0%

0%

0

0

3

N/A

N/A

N/A

1

2

12

100%

500%

129%

0

0

1

0%

N/A

N/A

0

1

4

N/A

300%

N/A

0

0

0

0%

0%

0%

0

0

0

0%

0%

0%

0

1

0

N/A

-100%

N/A

1

3

6

200%

100%

82%

civilian complaints &

582

367 i. 2

investigations & discipline # exonerated by complaint type

583

False Report

584

Harassment

585

Improper Procedure

586

Infraction Notice (UTT/PIN)

587

Lack of Service

588

Not Provided by Complainant

589

Other

590

Physical Abuse/Excessive Force

591

Unprofessional

IA, Inspections, no OPS

0

8

61 N/A

663%

0

0

0

0%

0%

0

1

6

N/A

500%

0

3

23

N/A

667%

0

0

1

0%

N/A

0

2

10

N/A

400%

0

0

0

0%

0%

0

0

5

0%

N/A

0

2

4

N/A

100%

0

0

12

0%

N/A

N/A yes 0% N/A N/A N/A N/A 0% N/A N/A N/A

civilian complaints &

592

367 i. 2

investigations & discipline # unfounded by complaint type

593

False Report

594

Harassment

595

Improper Procedure

596

Infraction Notice (UTT/PIN)

597

Lack of Service

IA, Inspections, no OPS

2

13

16

550%

23%

0

0

0

0%

0%

0

1

0

N/A

-100%

1

3

5

200%

67%

0

0

0

0%

N/A

0

2

4

N/A

100%

100% yes 0% N/A
71% N/A N/A

Page 14 of 17

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 2201174MeaFsuirlees ads o:f Au0g8ust/120518/18 190 of 194. PageID #: 4240

598

Not Provided by Complainant

599

Other

600

Physical Abuse/Excessive Force

601

Unprofessional

civilian complaints &

602

367 i. 2

investigations & discipline # not sustained by complaint type

no OPS

603

False Report

604

Harassment

605

Improper Procedure

606

Infraction Notice (UTT/PIN)

607

Lack of Service

608

Not Provided by Complainant

609

Other

610

Physical Abuse/Excessive Force

611

Unprofessional

civilian complaints &

612

367 i. 2

investigations & discipline # of administratively dismissed

no OPS

613

False Report

614

Harassment

615

Improper Procedure

616

Infraction Notice (UTT/PIN)

617

Lack of Service

618

Not Provided by Complainant

619

Other

620

Physical Abuse/Excessive Force

621

Unprofessional

622

Unknown

civilian complaints &

623

367 i. 2

investigations & discipline # of insufficient evidence

no OPS

624

False Report

625

Harassment

626

Improper Procedure

627

Infraction Notice (UTT/PIN)

628

Lack of Service

629

Not Provided by Complainant

630

Other

631

Physical Abuse/Excessive Force

632

Unprofessional

633

civilian complaints &

# of complaint allegations supported by a

634

367 i. 3

investigations & discipline perponderance of the evidence

no OPS

635

civilian complaints &

636

367 i. 4

investigations & discipline average length of time to complete by complaint type yes OPS

637

False Report

638

Harassment

639

Improper Procedure

640

Infraction Notice (UTT/PIN)

641

Lack of Service

642

Not Provided by Complainant

0

0

0

0%

0%

0

0

3

0%

N/A

0

3

2

N/A

-33%

1

4

2

300%

-50%

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

39

90

126

131%

40%

1

0

0

-100%

N/A

4

14

43

250%

207%

9

28

26

211%

-7%

2

4

8

100%

100%

2

13

17

550%

31%

1

0

1

-100%

N/A

2

1

3

-50%

200%

2

4

7

100%

75%

16

23

21

44%

-9%

0

3

0

N/A

-100%

2

33

93

1550%

182%

0

0

0

0%

0%

0

7

24

N/A

243%

0

7

15

N/A

114%

0

0

4

N/A

N/A

1

5

9

400%

80%

0

0

0

N/A

N/A

0

0

4

0%

N/A

0

5

11

N/A

120%

1

9

26

800%

189%

.

.

.

.

.

137

409

232

198%

-43%

293

.

.

N/A

N/A

158

383

171

142%

-55%

134

354

213

164%

-40%

84

303

204

261%

-33%

179

352

193

97%

-45%

105

.

.

N/A

N/A

0%

N/A

N/A

26%

No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the

. yes future

No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the

.

future

No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the

.

future

No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the

.

future

No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the

.

future

No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the

.

future

No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the

.

future

No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the

.

future

No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the

.

future

No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the

.

future

48% yes -100% 121%
42% 59% 104%
0% 14% 52%
9% N/A

260% yes 0% N/A N/A N/A
108% N/A N/A N/A
196%

No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the

.

future

19% yes Average number of days, but depends on completed cases N/A 3% 17% 34% 3% N/A

Page 15 of 17

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 2201174MeaFsuirlees ads o:f Au0g8ust/120518/18 191 of 194. PageID #: 4241

643

Other

644

Physical Abuse/Excessive Force

645

Unprofessional

646

civilian complaints &

647

367 i. 5

investigations & discipline # of officers w/multiple complaints

648

District 1

649

District 2

650

District 3

651

District 4

652

District 5

653

outside city/other units

yes OPS

35

.

231

N/A

N/A

130

730

410

462%

-44%

117

329

203

181%

-38%

34

38

27

12%

-29%

1

1

5

0%

400%

4

4

1

0%

-75%

4

4

6

0%

50%

1

9

8

800%

-11%

5

2

2

-60%

0%

4

5

5

25%

0%

88%

2017 other = property

47%

20%

-7% yes 71% -37% 14% 100% -26%
8%

IA, Inspections,

654

# of officers w/repeated sustained complaints

yes OPS

0

0

0

0%

0%

655

civilian complaints &

656

367 i. 6

investigations & discipline arrests of officers for conduct

yes IA

see below see below see below

657

on duty

1

2

1

100%

-50%

658

off duty

14

11

10

-21%

-9%

659

civilian complaints &

660

367 i. 7

investigations & discipline criminal prosecutions for conduct

yes IA

see below see below see below

661

on duty

1

2

0

100%

-100%

662

off duty

11

10

8

-9%

-20%

663

not prosecuted

2

1

1

-50%

0%

664

open

1

0

2

-100%

N/A

665

civilian complaints &

# of civil suits against the City or CDP for work related

City Law

666

367 i. 8

investigations & discipline conduct

yes Department

8

12

52

50%

333%

667

settled

3

3

42

0%

1300%

668

not yet settled

5

9

10

80%

11%

civilian complaints &

City Law

669

367 i. 8

investigations & discipline nature of the suits

yes Department see below see below see below

670

excessive force (including deadly force)

5

6

2

20%

-67%

671

unlawful search & seizure

1

1

4

0%

300%

672

false arrest

1

2

5

100%

150%

673

discrimination/bias

0

3

0

N/A

-100%

other violation of consitutional rights (e.g., 1st

674

amendment)

1

1

6

0%

500%

675

Harassment

0

0

0

0%

0%

676

improper handling/disposition of property

1

0

3

-100%

N/A

677

contempt of cop

1

0

0

-100%

N/A

678

failure to provide medical assistance

1

1

0

0%

-100%

679

other

0

3

12

N/A

300%

civilian complaints &

City Law

680

367 i. 8

investigations & discipline amount of judgments against

yes Department see below see below see below

681

number of judgments

civilian complaints &

682

367 i. 8

investigations & discipline

23

29

52

26%

79%

City Law

yes Department see below see below see below

683

number of judgments (closed)

22

21

42

-5%

100%

684

number of judgments (active)

civilian complaints &

685

367 i. 8

investigations & discipline

1

8

10

700%

25%

City Law

yes Department see below see below see below

686

amount of judgments (closed)

$ 20,136.82 $ 1,822.16 $ 9,000.00

-91%

394%

Page 16 of 17

0%

yes 0% -11%

yes -100%
-10% -21% 26%

87% yes

141%

As of April 2018

26%

As of April 2018

yes There can be multiple natures of suits for each suit -26% 59% 71%
N/A

82% 0%
44% -100% -100%
N/A

yes

2017 data As of April 2018; 2015 and 2016 data as of June

31%

2017

yes

2017 data As of April 2018; 2015 and 2016 data as of June

24%

2017

2017 data As of April 2018; 2015 and 2016 data as of June

115%

2017

yes

2017 data As of April 2018; 2015 and 2016 data as of June

-24%

2017

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 2201174MeaFsuirlees ads o:f Au0g8ust/120518/18 192 of 194. PageID #: 4242

687

amount of judgments (active)

civilian complaints &

688

367 i. 8

investigations & discipline amount of settlements

689

settled

690

not yet settled

TBD City Law yes Department see below

TBD see below

TBD see below

$ 20,136.82 $ 1,822.16 $ 9,000.00

TBD

TBD

TBD

N/A

N/A

-91% N/A

394% N/A

2017 data As of April 2018; 2015 and 2016 data as of June

N/A

2017

yes

2017 data As of April 2018; 2015 and 2016 data as of June

-24%

2017

2017 data As of April 2018; 2015 and 2016 data as of June

N/A

2017

Page 17 of 17

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 193 of 194. PageID #: 4243
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team
Matthew Barge Monitor
Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey (ret.) Principal Deputy Monitor
Chief Hassan Aden (ret.) Deputy Monitor
Chief Timothy Longo (ret.) Director of Implementation
Charles R. See Director of Community Engagement
Christine Cole Director of Outcome Measures
Dr. Modupe Akinola Chief Joseph Brann (ret.)
Brian Center Dr. Randolph Dupont
Maggie Goodrich Ayesha Hardaway
Ganesha Martin Richard Rosenthal
Victor Ruiz Captain Scott Sargent (ret.)
Dr. Ellen Scrivner Sean Smoot
Timothy Tramble Monitoring Team
Melissa Bretz Monitoring Team Coordinator
Brian Chen Barry Friedman Maria Ponomarenko NYU School of Law Policing Project
Consultants

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 214 Filed: 08/15/18 194 of 194. PageID #: 4244 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on August 15, 2018, I served the foregoing document entitled Notice Submitting Monitoring Team’s Fifth Semiannual Report and Comprehensive Re-Assessment via the court’s ECF system to all counsel of record.
/s/ Matthew Barge MATTHEW BARGE
2

 
 Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 219 Filed: 08/31/18 1 of 21. PageID #: 4257

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

UUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff, vs.
CCITY OF CLEVELAND,
Defendant.

) CASE NO.: 1:15-CV-01046 ) ) ) JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER, JR. ) ) ) CITY OF CLEVELAND’S ) SIXTH STATUS REPORT

I.

Introduction

Paragraph 387 of the Settlement Agreement/Consent Decree directs that the City

is to file a status report every six months thereafter while the Consent Decree is in effect.

This report will delineate the steps taken by CDP during the reporting period to comply with this Agreement; CDP’s Assessment of the Status of its progress; plans to correct any problems; and response to concerns raised in the Monitor’s previous semi-annual report.

The City files its Sixth semi-annual status report for the period following the City’s Fifth

Status Report (Dkt. 144).

A. Third Year Monitoring Plan

The Third Year Monitoring Plan (Dkt. 195-1) was approved by the Court On May

3, 2018. (Dkt. 197). The third-year plan establishes goals, deadlines, and milestones to be

accomplished during the period February 1, 2018 through January 31, 2019. The City’s

report addresses the first six months of this period.

The Third-Year Monitoring Plan addresses ongoing organizational changes within

the Cleveland Division of Police (“CDP”), to include a focus on the finalization of a

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 219 Filed: 08/31/18 2 of 21. PageID #: 4258
comprehensive community and problem-oriented policing program, the CDP staffing plan, the defined plan for recruiting and hiring officers, and CDP’s equipment and resources plan. Much work has been undertaken during the first half of the third year plan period toward addressing these topics along with ongoing attention to new CDP policies and manuals addressing search and seizure, in-service training, the Force Investigation Team (“FIT”), and Internal Affairs.
B. Monitor’s Fifth Semi-annual Report The Monitor Team released its “Fifth Semiannual Report and Comprehensive ReAssessment” on August 15, 2018. The Court conducted a public status conference addressing the Monitor’s report on that same date. The Monitor’s Fifth report was constructed to provide a “wide-ranging look at the progress made, efforts currently underway, and work remaining toward the City of Cleveland’s…compliance with the Consent Decree involving the Cleveland Division of Police…” (Dkt. 214, p. 1). The Monitor’s report recognizes, as was addressed in detail in prior reports, that the City and the CDP have “made notable and significant progress in a number of critical areas , including, first and foremost, with respect to use of force.” (Id.). The Monitor recognizes the hard work and “great strides” made with respect to CDP’s “ interacting with individuals experiencing behavioral health crises.” (Dkt. 214, p. 2). Other areas of progress recognized by the Monitor include the ongoing efforts to partner with the community, to include “crafting comprehensive plans on community and problemoriented policing, staffing, and the recruitment and hiring of new officers.” (Id.) The Monitor’s report also document s the improved technological and equipment resources available to officers. Improvements include a new records management system,
2

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 219 Filed: 08/31/18 3 of 21. PageID #: 4259

the new learning management system, the installation of mobile data computers in patrol cars, the implementation of a strategic car replacement plan, and the full implementation of the upgraded Computer-Aided Dispatch platform. (Id.).

II.

Steps Taken by the Cleveland Division of Police and the City of

Cleveland During the Reporting Period.

The activities and milestone events addressed during this reporting period are

addressed in the following order:

A. Community and Problem-Oriented Policing,

B. Use of Force,

C. Crisis Intervention,

D. Officer Training,

E. Accountability

F. Equipment and Resources,

G. Data Collection and Analysis/ Compliance and Outcome Assessments and

Reporting

H. Bias Free Policing, and

.

A. Community and Problem-Oriented Policing

1. Community and Problem-Oriented Policing Work Plan Paragraph 27 of the Consent Decree provides that “CDP will develop and

implement a comprehensive and integrated community and problem-oriented policing

model.” (Dkt. 7-1, p. 8). The Monitor’s most recent report provides a detailed review of

activities taken by CDP to develop a community and problem-oriented policing (“CPOP”) plan that strengthens CDP’s relationship with the community while continuing its mission of keeping the City’s local communities safe. The Monitor commends the CDP for the “commitment to creating a high-quality plan for submission to the public for

substantive input.” (Dkt. 214, p. 27).

Development of the final CPOP plan has been a collaborative effort with the

3

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 219 Filed: 08/31/18 4 of 21. PageID #: 4260
community from its initial stages. The developed CPOP plan was released by CDP for final review and public input in late May. In June the CDP and the City directly engaged with the community to explain the CPOP Plan by way of a series of well-attended meetings held in the various City police districts. These meetings allowed the CDP command staff an opportunity to explain the developed community policing model and to directly exchange ideas with community members. These community meetings were undertaken with the assistance and support of the City’s long-standing District Policing Committees (“DPC”).
The Community Police Commission (“CPC”) is also in the process of reviewing the CPOP plan and obtaining community input to further ensure City residents have been provided ample opportunity to express their feedback. The City anticipates that CPC final review and input on the proposed CPOP plan will be received in September. CDP will evaluate the received community input for any revisions to the CPOP plan before it is finalized.
All CDP personnel will need to be trained on the policy before it becomes effective. It is presently anticipated that the CPOP Plan will become effective and implemented as of January 1, 2019.
2. Cleveland Police Commission Attorney Richard Knoth was selected to fill a vacant commissioner position in March. Mr. Knoth and Rev. Dr. V. Yvonne Conner were elected by their fellow commissioners to serve as the Commission’s Co-Chairs. The CPC is presently finishing work on gather community input for the City’s
4

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 219 Filed: 08/31/18 5 of 21. PageID #: 4261
CPOP, Staffing, and Recruitment and Hiring Plans. It is anticipated that CPC’s recommendations will be received in September.
Four of the five full-time CPC staff members resigned their positions with the Commission during this reporting period. A thorough investigation of complaints brought between CPC staff members was conducted to determine whether there were any violations of the City’s Human Relations policies and procedures and/or the City’s Civil Service Rules. Following the investigation, the City’s Human Resources Department released a report that concluded that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that any of the five CPC staff members had violated City policies.
Discussions regarding staffing requirements and structure at the CPC going forward remain ongoing and will be further addressed in the next reporting period. B. Use of Force
1. Use of Force As addressed in the City’s prior two status reports, Court approved policies for (1) Use of Force -General, (2) Use of Force-Definitions, (3) De-Escalation (4) Use of ForceIntermediate Weapons, and (5) Use of Force-Reporting last year. These policies became effective for this reporting period following the training of all CDP officers in the second half of 2017. The Monitor’s Fifth Status Report documents that CDP’s use of force when compared to use of force in prior years is down, while crime overall and reports of officer injuries also being down in comparison to recent years. (Dkt. 214, pp. 48-51). 2. Investigation and Review The Consent Decree requires the creation of a Force Investigation Team (“FIT”)
5

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 219 Filed: 08/31/18 6 of 21. PageID #: 4262
under the auspices of CDP’s Internal Affairs for the purpose of conducting administrative reviews of all Level 3 uses of force (Dkt. 7-1, defined at ¶ 87(c)), force involving potential criminal conduct, instances where an individual dies while in or as the result of being in CDP custody, and any uses of force assigned to FIT by the Chief. (Dkt. 7-1, ¶ 111).
Policies that will govern supervisory investigations of Level 1 and 2 uses of force (Dkt. 7-1, defined at ¶ 87(a)and (b)), FIT investigations, and a separate policy relating to the creation of the separate Force Review Board (“FRB”) have been a major topic of interaction between the City, CDP, DOJ, and the Monitor during this reporting period. The policies are very close to being finalized and it is anticipated that agreed upon policies will be filed with the Court early in the next reporting period. C. Crisis Intervention Team (“CIT”)
The Monitor’s Fifth Semiannual report recognizes that “[i]n many ways, the progress that the City has made in the area of crisis intervention is the strongest and most significant of any area of the Consent Decree to date.” (Dkt. 214, p. 67). A significant focus during the most recent reporting period has focused on training.
As was addressed in the City’s prior status report, all CDP officers received eight hours of initial crisis intervention training during the last reporting period within a dedicated three-day block of instruction that also included sixteen hours of training required by the adopted use of force policies that took effect at the beginning of the year.
The Consent Decree further requires that CDP provide annual in-service training to officers on responding to individuals in crisis. (Dkt. 7-1, ¶ 143). CDP worked in collaboration with the Mental Health Response Advisory Committee (“MHRAC”) to develop
6

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 219 Filed: 08/31/18 7 of 21. PageID #: 4263
a four hour block of training would be dedicated to the Crisis Intervention In-service Training in 2018. The developed training curriculum will provide (1) training on CDP’s crisis intervention policy along with new mental health-related programs and (2) instruction that relates to the trauma and stressors that affect officer health and wellness, which can influence an officer’s interaction with the public. On July 13 of this reporting period the Monitor filed a motion seeking approval of CDP’s in service second year crisis intervention curriculum. (Dkt. 208). On August 20 the Court issued an order approving the in-service training curriculum for the current year. (Dkt. 216).
CDP is continuing to work with MHRAC, the Monitor and DOJ to finalize the 40-hour specialized training to be provided to those officers who volunteer and are accepted into CDP’s Specialized CIT Officer program. D. Officer Training and Recruitment
1. Officer Training A significant accomplishment during this reporting period has been CDP’s successful implementation of its new Learning Management System (“LMS”). While recognizing that much training remains hands-on, LMS will allow some training programs to be completed electronically. LMS went live shortly before the beginning of the current reporting period, with the Court approving the policy on March 23, 2018. (Dkt. 194). LMS also allows the CDP to centrally track and keep records of completed officer training. LMS allows for remote training and ensures centralized management of training accomplished by officers. The LMS allows for the transmission of Divisional Notices and General Police orders to individual officers via LMS which officers will have access to through a dedicated web address.
7

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 219 Filed: 08/31/18 8 of 21. PageID #: 4264
The finalization of various new CDP policies was a major focus of CDP during the most recent reporting period. These policies are addressed in this report under the specific topic headings. Training to be accomplished in the next reporting period will address a variety of new policies before they can become effective.
2. Recruitment The Consent Decree requires that CDP “develop a recruitment policy and a strategic recruitment plan that includes clear goals, objectives, and action steps for attracting qualified applicants from a broad cross-section of the community.” (Dkt. 7-1, ¶ 302). The Monitor’s recent report commented most favorably on the quality of the City’s proposed recruiting plan: DPS [City’s “Department of Public Safety”] started work anew on the Consent Decree requirements related to recruitment and hiring. It collaborated with the Monitoring Team and DOJ for an intensive period in 2017 and into 2018 in an effort to create a recruitment plan that meets the expectations of the Decree. The Monitoring Team was tremendously pleased by the City’s commitment to collaboration and exploration of new approaches in this process. The City released a proposed final draft Recruitment and Hiring Plan to the public for review, input, comment, and feedback in May 2018. The 60-day period of engagement and input ended on August 10, 2018. The Monitoring Team expects to submit a Final Draft of the Plan to the Court in early September. (Dkt. 214, p. 124). In addition to finalizing a formal recruiting plan for all elements of the City’s Department of Public Safety, the Department’s Recruiting Team has continued broadbased and innovative outreach to the community, to include continuing utilization of radio, billboards, and social media, along with direct personal interactions with members of the City’s diverse communities. The goal of the City’s recruiting efforts remains to
8

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 219 Filed: 08/31/18 9 of 21. PageID #: 4265
attract and hire, on a continuing basis, a diverse number of qualified individuals for
public service careers in the Divisions of Police, Fire, and Emergency Services. Sergeant
Charmin Leon heads the team. One example of expanding access to the broader
community within the recruiting process, the former $25 fee to take the police
examination has been waived going forward.
Following up the examples of interactions previously addressed in the City’s Fifth
Status Report, recruiting efforts undertaken in the most recent reporting period include:
The recruiting team in partnership with Empowering Youth Exploring Justice (EYOJ) completed filming a video that addresses how young adults and police can improve relationships, while also promoting and recruiting for careers in Public Safety. That video was presented to the Chief of Police and other community leaders on April 30, 2018.
Filming was completed for a Public Safety Recruitment video in July with the post production editing and voice-over work presently being completed. One side benefit of the filming was the direct one-to-one connections made by police officers with the residents in the community during filming. This filming took place right before the first annual City of Cleveland Public Safety Recruitment Fair.
The recruiting team has initiated discussions with Cleveland Clinic’s Department of Sports Medicine regarding workout camps for potential recruits. The recruiting team currently works with potential recruits through conditioning camps that it conducts in various City recreation centers, schools, and clubs. The goal of the camps is to help candidates prepare for the physical agility tests that are a part of the Safety forces hiring process. In partnering with the Cleveland Clinic, the camps will expand to include nutrition information and injury prevention.
The recruiting team has conducted informational sessions throughout Cleveland. Recruiters are able to meet with potential candidates to discuss directly the application process, to include testing, preparing Personal History Statements, the physical agility test, and other key factors for success.
The recruiting team worked in conjunction with the Police Foundation to establish the Public Safety Career Pipeline Summer Program during this reporting period. The 6 week program was designed for juniors and seniors and they were joined along with other area high school students interested in public
9

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 219 Filed: 08/31/18 10 of 21. PageID #: 4266
safety. The program began with 53 students and graduated 50. Twenty four (24) schools from the Eastside, Westside, and suburbs were represented.
The recruiting team has established relationships with varied groups, to include veteran organizations and the Junior Achievement Program. The team conducted workshops with the Junior Achievement program to discuss public safety career options with over 600 students between the ages of 14-18.
Sergeant Leon completed substantive hour-long radio interviews to discuss the ongoing changes being made in the CDP and to emphasize the call for women and minorities to consider applying for positions with the City. Sgt. Leon’s interviews included discussions on WKAZ’s “Good Day with Olivia” (https://youtu.be/OHQThKIIqs8) and WRUR’s “It’s About Justice” with Meryl Johnson. Additionally Sgt. Leon highlighted the “person behind the badge” in a discussion on 107.9.
The recruiting team was involved in establishing a Reverse Ride Along program to involve recruits directly with the communities they will be patrolling. This activity provides a full day where current police recruits meet and are educated by the residents regarding the community, culture and the need for the CDP and the community to partner with one another.
A more recent effort the recruiting team has begun is called “Beauty, Badges and Barbershop Talks” – where the recruiters visit urban barbershops and salons. The discussions allow for the recruiters to hear local community members share heart to heart their experiences with local safety forces, hear first-hand the desires and concerns of residents for their community and their overall perception of law enforcement. At the end of the discussion (1 ½ hours in length), the recruiting team invites the participants and anyone they know or believe would be a good member of the safety forces to apply, providing information regarding the hiring process and benefits that come along with employment.
The Division of Police has now identified a CDP liaison for the LBGTQ community, Commander Deirdre Jones. This partnership will also assist in developing strategies to expand recruiting efforts in the community. . Recruiting broadcast efforts now include i-Heart Radio ( KISS FM- 106.5, WGAR-99.5,Magic 105.7 and WMMS 100.7). This will include on-air commercials, streaming, LIVE interviews with the Mayor, Chief of Police, and safety personnel and digital targeting. i-Heart Radio covers Northeast Ohio and has radio stations in all 50 states.
Continue featuring Guardians of the Land (GOTL) on Radio One stations. Each month, an officer, firefighter, and EMS worker is chosen by the community, a
10

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 219 Filed: 08/31/18 11 of 21. PageID #: 4267
supervisor or picked after receiving an accolade from a community member, as a GOTL. This segment highlights the positive actions of members of the City’s public safety forces, both on the job and in the community. By airing their works via radio, social media, streaming, and banner ads, we hope to highlight the service aspect of the job to better recruit applicants with a likeminded approach. Such efforts are instructive in reinforcing the positive relations between the safety forces and the community.
Working in a cooperative manner with the Monitor Team and the DOJ, the City anticipates the finalization, filing, and approval of its new formal recruitment policy for the Department of Public Safety in the early part of the next six-month reporting period.
3. Hiring As was reported in the City’s Fifth Status Report, the City announced a goal of hiring 250 new officers into the CDP’s ranks in 2018. To meet this goal CDP will have five recruit classes in training this calendar year. Police Academy Class No. 138 graduated 43 new officers in March. Class No. 1401 recently graduated 49 new officers on August 24. Two classes began training in this reporting period: Class No. 141 includes 43 recruits, with Class No. 142 having 47 recruits in training. Both classes are scheduled to graduate in early 2019. The City is scheduled to start two additional CDP recruit classes in the next six month reporting period. E. Accountability Paragraph 196 of the Consent Decree requires that allegations of police misconduct be “fully, fairly and efficiently investigated”, irrespective of whether the allegations are internally discovered or brought by a civilian. (Dkt. 7-1, ¶ 196). 1. Internal Affairs
1 Class 139 involved the training of three lateral transfers into the CDP.
11

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 219 Filed: 08/31/18 12 of 21. PageID #: 4268
Retired Federal Prosecutor Ronald Bakeman was hired as the civilian Superintendent of Internal Affairs in February of this reporting period. As noted in the Monitor’s Fifth Semiannual Report, since his hiring:
Mr. Bakeman immediately began working with the Parties and the Monitoring Team on finalizing long-awaited documents such as the revised IA Manual, the FIT manual, and other IA-related policies. Mr. Bakeman has also begun work on improving the working relationship between IA and the Office of Professional Standards (Dkt. 214, p. 78). The ongoing attempts to finalize the new policy manual for Internal Affairs and the new FIT manual ISee Sec. B.2. above) has been a significant subject of ongoing attention and collaborative work during this reporting period. Much has been accomplished and the City anticipates being in a position to finalize both manuals early in the next reporting period.
2. Office of Professional Standards2 The goal established by the City and OPS for 2018 was to have OPS remain timely in completing the investigation of complaints received on and after December 1, 2017, while simultaneously working with an identified outside investigative contractor, Hillard-Heintz, to eliminate the identified backlog of unfinished OPS investigations associated with public complaints received in 2015, 2016, and 2017. a. Administrative Staff Mr. Roger Smith was appointed as the new OPS Administrator during this reporting period following a nationwide search. Mr. Smith previously served as Executive
2 A separate “Status Report to the Court Re: Office of Professional Standards” was filed with the Court on August 15, 2018. (See Dkt. 215).
12

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 219 Filed: 08/31/18 13 of 21. PageID #: 4269
Agency Counsel for the New York City Civilian Complaint Review Board (“CCRB”) for more than eight years, where he also served as the Director of Training.
Mr. Henry Roney was hired to fill the new Senior Investigator position during the reporting period. Mr. Roney reports to the OPS Administrator and supervises the work of the OPS case investigators. Mr. Roney’s background includes 25 years as a Special Agent with the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) where he retired as the Inspector General.
The new Community Engagement Coordinator position is in the final stages of being filled. The individual appointed to the position will work with the community to keep the community informed on OPS matters.
b. Current OPS Investigations The OPS has a staff of eight permanent investigators and two temporary investigators who are working on current complaints received by OPS. Investigations conducted over the last six months have included the completion of more interviews than previously accomplished. As CDP’s use of its Wearable Camera System(“WCS”) has become prevalent, OPS investigator efforts to secure relevant videos are occurring at earlier points in OPS investigations. Investigative efforts to ensure (1) that all material witnesses are interviewed in each case and (2) that available evidence is systematically obtained, has been a major administrative focus of OPS during this reporting period. Progress in improving the evaluation of evidence and the communication of investigative findings through the use of neutral language in OPS reports has been addressed during this reporting period with the aid of training, practice and interactive supervision. For three of the past six months, OPS investigators have had the assistance
13

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 219 Filed: 08/31/18 14 of 21. PageID #: 4270
of Mr. Roney, an experienced Supervising Investigator, whose role includes the elimination of investigative actions and investigative report content that might suggest preference. Additionally, Mr. Smith, as the new Administrator, has used his experience to initiate staff discussions and one-on-one meetings with investigators to introduce a new investigative report format that has been designed to eliminate needlessly expansive reports. Efforts at improving the quality of investigative reports will continue to be regular and consistent. To improve interviewing practices, weekly staff discussions and drills have also been introduced.
The forwarding of completed investigative files to the PRB has been ably handled by the CPRB’s secretary at the OPS office. As required, investigative files are sent out approximately 10 days before the upcoming PRB meeting. Where investigations are completed less than 10 days before the upcoming meeting, they are sent 10 days before the following month’s meeting. Much progress has been made to ensure such calendar is met and the City disagrees with the assessment of “Non-Compliance” in this area.
As of early OPS had received 151 new complaints during the period beginning December1, 2017 through August 22, 2018. Sixty-two (62) cases remain open, while 89 cases have been completed. A breakdown of the 89 completed cases provides: 58 cases completed as the result of full investigations, 19 cases administratively dismissed, and 12 cases administratively closed. Of the 62 open cases, 52 complaints are being actively investigated, 6 cases are in the process of transfer/ referral to the investigators, and the 4 most recent cases are awaiting initial assignment.
c. Backlog Investigation Plan The Chicago based investigation firm Hillard-Heintze, LLC was selected to
14

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 219 Filed: 08/31/18 15 of 21. PageID #: 4271
complete the backlog of open OPS complaint investigations for the years 2015, 2016, 2017. The initial phase of Hillard Heintze’s work involved a comprehensive preliminary review and assessment of the 282 identified backlogged investigations. The 282 cases were divided among four categories: (1) Intake Only — 17 cases with files reflecting minimal work completed beyond intake (2) Data Collection — 55 cases with files reflecting completed intake materials and some work reflecting necessary data and materials collected, (3) Partial Investigation — 144 cases with files reflecting basic facts concerning allegation are validated in file, with investigatory follow-up concerning some officers and complainants documented; (4) Mostly Completed — 66 cases with files reflecting investigations largely completed.
Based on its initial review, Hillard Heintze concluded that for a majority of the cases the investigations were viewed as being in early stages of development. The company will evaluate the evidence available in each case to determine the effective and efficient use of resources going forward that will be needed to finalize work on each backlogged case. As a determination is made as to what is needed to complete a case, it is anticipated that work on finalizing cases will begin on a rolling basis. 3. Civilian Police Review Board
Civilian Police Review Board (“PRB”) members have continued to receive training during this reporting period to assist in their role of reviewing the completed OPS investigations of citizen complaints against members of CDP.
As the number and quality of completed OPS investigations has increased during this period, the number of cases heard by the PRB and the recommendations made by the
15

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 219 Filed: 08/31/18 16 of 21. PageID #: 4272
Board has increased. The PRB has heard 163 cases in the first eight months of 2018. By comparison the PRB heard 183 cases in the full year of 2017. F. Equipment and Resources
The Consent Decree requires “an effective, comprehensive Equipment and Resource Plan that is consistent with its [CDP’s] mission and that will allow it to satisfy the requirements of this Agreement.” (Dkt. 7-1, Section 292). The Monitor’s Fifth Status Report notes that “[t]he Division has made notable strides in implementing the equipment, technology, and data systems necessary for contemporary law enforcement.” (Dkt. 214, at p. 121). The City has continued through this reporting period to work with the Monitor in finalizing the required “Equipment and Resources Plan.” As noted by the Monitor it is presently anticipated that the Plan will be submitted to the Court for approval on September 8, 2018. (Dkt. 214, p. 122).
Significant equipment related areas addressed during this reporting period include: CDP’s Vehicle Car Plan provides for the scheduled purchase of 65 new vehicles each year for the next five years. CDP ordered 63 new capital Police vehicles, including 45 marked zone cars in this reporting period. All 45 marked cars were ordered with the Technology package that will allow for computer aided dispatch (“CAD”) and field based reporting (FBR). Silent dispatching upgrade of CAD went live in the first quarter of 2018. During the current reporting period CDP has been actively involved in upgrading the CAD system with rollout of the improved CAD system implemented in the five Districts during the June-August period. The upgrade will enhance CDP’s call taking and dispatching abilities. CDP has been moving forward with a MDT refresh cycle. The Division has identified 75 older MDTs for replacement. The refresh cycle will ensure that the Division has appropriate MDTs in the vehicle to run applications and software as they are upgraded.
16

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 219 Filed: 08/31/18 17 of 21. PageID #: 4273
The City replaced 159 PC’s throughout the Division in 2017. During the current reporting period the City has identified an additional 219 computers to be replaced throughout the Division in 2018.
The Field Based Reporting (FBR) project was initiated in November 2016. Prior to FBR all Division of Police Reports were completed on paper and faxed/scanned to Record File Section to be subsequently entered into CDP’s Law Enforcement Records Management System (“LERMS”). FBR allows for data and reports to be entered directly into the system without the intervening need for transcription of handwritten reports as Officers can now complete their reports directly into LERMS using their in-car computers. FBR went live in September 2017 and all Basic Patrol Officers and Supervisors have been trained on FBR. Since September 2017 more than 45,745 reports have been entered via FBR. The ability for officers to input their reports directly into LERMS has eliminated a report backlog that was at one time up to 8,000 reports
CDP and the City’s Information Technology (“IT”) specialists are currently evaluating a LERMS upgrade that is expected to take place in the 4th quarter of 2018.
G. Data Collection and Analysis/ Compliance and Outcome Assessments and Reporting
During the past six months, the Cleveland Division of Police (CDP) has made
numerous advancements in the area of data collection and analysis. First, the End of Year
2017 Use of Force Report was approved by the Monitoring Team and the Department of
Justice and is now available on the City of Cleveland website. Second, the monthly
COMPSTAT meetings which began in October 2017 and are held with the Monitoring
Team and the Department of Justice have expanded beyond Use of Force. COMPSTAT
meetings now also include statistics for the Early Officer Intervention Program, Officer
Injury and Internal Affairs.
The data team is working closely with CDP officials to not only use but also apply
the data being collected by officers. Over the last few months, there have been several
meetings to develop district data briefs, which are going through several iterations before
17

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 219 Filed: 08/31/18 18 of 21. PageID #: 4274
the content and format are finalized. Third, CDP held five meetings across the city to gain community feedback across the Community and Problem Oriented Policing (CPOP), Recruitment and Staffing plans. The data team developed the survey which was disseminated to attendees and was also posted online for those unable to attend. Additionally, CDP is collecting officer feedback on the three plans. Currently, the data team is analyzing the survey results and will be finalizing its report shortly.
The data team is looking forward to the improved data instruments in the areas of CIT, CPOP and investigatory stops. As the Division of Police continues to expand its data collection systems, the data team continues collaborating with staff members to improve the use and quality of the data. H. Bias Free Policing
On February 2, 2018 the Monitor filed a motion recommending the Court approve the CDP’s newly developed bias-free policy after a determination by the Monitor that the policy “provides sufficiently clear guidelines around, among other things: (1) the Division’s expectations for its members around bias-free policing; (2) the principles of procedural justice in police-civilian interactions; and (3) protocols to report bias-based policing.” (Dkt. 186, p. 1). On March 23 of this reporting period the Court entered an order approving the policy. (Dkt. 194).
Training of CDP officers on new policies is required before the policy becomes effective. Work on the bias free training curriculum began in late 2017 and continued into this reporting period. After working with outside training agencies and in collaboration with the DOJ and Monitoring Team, CDP submitted final drafts of two
18

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 219 Filed: 08/31/18 19 of 21. PageID #: 4275
training curricula that addressed mutually supportive policies addressing “Community Engagement and Problem-Solving” and “Bias Free Policing,” which together incorporate 20 hours of training. On July 13 the Monitor filed a motion seeking the Court’s approval of both policies. (Dkt. 207).3 On August 20 the Court issued an order approving both training curricula. (Dkt. 216). III. Assessment of the Status of Cleveland Division of Police’s Progress
The City has continued to make significant and sustainable progress toward meeting the reforms agreed to in the Consent Decree. The Monitor’s Fifth Semiannual Report and Comprehensive Re-Assessment recognizes among its findings :
[T]he City of Cleveland and its Division of Police have come a long way under the Consent Decree in its initial years. A number of important milestones have been reached, strong policies and training implemented, and major new approaches and systems designed. The Monitoring Team commends the City and CDP for their hard work and focus in getting the Division to where it is today. Significant work undoubtedly remains. The Monitoring Team is optimistic that, with the continued hard work and focus of all stakeholders, the upcoming reporting period will see many important policies finalized, training programs completed, and major reforms implemented – accelerating the rate of progress toward Substantial and Effective Compliance with the Decree. (Dkt. 214, p. 4). The City believes that following the approved Third Year Monitoring Plan will provide for continuing the meaningful progress accomplished by the City and CDP to date. IV. Response to Concerns Raised in the Monitor’s Semi-Annual Report
While recognizing improvement and accomplishment, the Monitor continues to express concerns about the performance of OPS. The City continues ongoing efforts to
3 The Monitor’s motion provides a cogent overview of the topics and nature of the
19

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 219 Filed: 08/31/18 20 of 21. PageID #: 4276
improve OPS performance, primarily concerning the quality and timeliness of OPS investigative reports. The long-standing and relevant administrative experience and skills of the new Administrator and the Senior Investigator have brought a measure of confidence that these long-standing concerns are being addressed in a consistent and professional manner. The City anticipates that continued progress and improvement will be documented in the next semi-annual reporting period. V. Conclusion
The City and CDP have continued to make recognizable and documented progress in meeting the reforms that were agreed to in the Consent Decree. The City will continue to work to ensure remaining goals are timely achieved.
Respectfully submitted, Barbara A. Langhenry (0038838) Director of Law By: /s/ Gary S. Singletary Gary S. Singletary (0037329) Chief Counsel, City of Cleveland 601 Lakeside Avenue, Room 106 Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1077 Tel: (216) 664-2737 Fax:(216) 664-2663 E-mail: gsingletary@city.cleveland.oh.us Counsel for the City of Cleveland
training to be provided the officers. 20

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 219 Filed: 08/31/18 21 of 21. PageID #: 4277 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the City of Cleveland’s Sixth Status Report was filed electronically on August 31, 2018. Notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s system. Pursuant to the requirements of the Consent Decree the Monitor has been electronically delivered a copy of this filing.
/s/ Gary S. Singletary Gary S. Singletary (0037329) Counsel for the City of Cleveland
21

 
 Cleveland Police Monitoring Team

Sixth Semiannual Report
March 2019

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.

A NOTE FROM THE MONITORING TEAM

2

II. THE ROLE OF THE MONITORING TEAM & THIS REPORT

4

III. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND BUILDING TRUST

7

A. Community Police Commission (“CPC”)

7

B. District Policing Committees

11

IV. COMMUNITY & PROBLEM-ORIENTED POLICING

14

V. BIAS-FREE POLICING

20

VI. USE OF FORCE

24

A. Officer Use of Force Principles & Policy

24

B. Use of Force Investigation and Review

30

VII. CRISIS INTERVENTION

33

VIII. SEARCH AND SEIZURE

39

IX. ACCOUNTABILITY

42

A. Internally Discovered Misconduct

42

B. Office of Professional Standards (“OPS”)

45

C. Police Review Board (“PRB”)

51

D. Discipline and Disciplinary Hearings

53

X. TRANSPARENCY & OVERSIGHT

56

A. Police Inspector General

56

B. Data Collection and Analysis

57

C. Public Availability of CDP-Related Information

59

XI. OFFICER ASSISTANCE & SUPPORT

61

A. Training

61

B. Equipment & Resources

65

C. Recruitment & Hiring

67

D. Performance Evaluations and Promotions

70

E. Staffing

71

XII. SUPERVISION

74

A. First-Line Supervisors

74

B. Officer Intervention Program

76

C. Body-Worn Cameras

78

XIII. UPCOMING COMPLIANCE & OUTCOME ASSESSMENTS

81

i

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019

I.

A NOTE FROM THE MONITORING TEAM

This Sixth Semiannual Report finds the Cleveland Division of Police and City of Cleveland at an important moment of transition in the Consent Decree process—with important, early outcomes evident; major policy work concluding; and the task of active implementation increasingly occupying the focus of the Division’s efforts.

First, in the Division’s first year under the Court-approved use of force policies, use of force, crime, officer injuries, and subject injuries are all down. Specifically, in 2018, the number of force incidents declined by 29 percent compared to 2017. Meanwhile, Part I crime was down in all major categories but rape. All of this happened even as the number of officer injuries occurring during force incidents decreased by 22 percent and the total number of officers injured overall decreased by nearly 20 percent. And in 2018, 20 percent of subjects were injured during use of force incidents, compared to 37 percent of subjects injured in force incidents in 2017.

This report makes clear that a decrease in force incidents alone does not establish compliance. However often officers use force, it must comply with policy and be appropriately identified and addressed by the Division. Likewise, and although the Team has no reason to believe that force is being under-reported, this Court will need separate sign-off that force is being uniformly and appropriately reported in all instances where it used.

Nevertheless, the overall data available indicate that the implementation of the Decree-required force policies coincided with notable increases in officer and public safety. The Monitoring Team commends the men and women of the Division of Police, who appear to be doing their work differently on a day-to-day-basis and applying the objectives and specific requirements of the new force policies.

At the same time, a number of major plans and initiatives have been finalized. As of February 2019, the Division completed, and the Court has approved, the major, Decree-required plans on community and problemoriented policing, recruitment and hiring, and the operation of the District Policing Committees. A plan on the Division’s staffing is also pending before the Court. These completed plans represent a significant amount of hard work by the Division of Police and input from the Cleveland community. Together, they provide a detailed framework for how policing will evolve over the coming years in Cleveland as the Division and City actively work to implement the vision and objectives that they set forth.

Work continues with respect to basic operating policies in some remaining areas—the most important of which relate to stops, searches, and arrests; the investigation and review of use of force incidents; and the investigation and adjudication of officer misconduct. The Parties and Monitoring Team anticipate that these various policies, operational manuals, and other materials will be completed and submitted to the Court in the upcoming reporting period. At that point, while some additional policy development will be necessary in a few remaining areas (relating, for instance, to the Division’s Early Intervention System), most of the foundational policy development and process refinement work will have been completed.

Thus, this report finds the Division on the cusp of a major turning point. For purposes of continued progress and compliance with the Decree, the task shifts from establishing how the Division and its officers must operate to ensuring that they do, in fact, perform according to the expectations established by the Decree and the various Court-approved policies and plans. This is the point at which paper must be transformed into sustained, ongoing practice—through the completion of training, the day-to-day efforts of the Division’s

2

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019 personnel, and the ongoing work of CDP supervisors and command staff to ensure adherence to new expectations. The Division still has a distance to travel until it is in Substantial and Effective Compliance with the whole of the Decree. The words of policies and plans will need to be translated into action across time and interactions on the streets of Cleveland. Sustained focus and work will remain critical. Indeed, some other jurisdictions that have ultimately complied with similar settlement agreements have sometimes found this stage of ongoing, systemic implementation and compliance to be the most challenging. Nevertheless, this Report finds the City and Division of Police arriving at a noteworthy and critical milestone that is the culmination of substantial work and community input and participation. The remainder of the report details the progress made and measured in the past six months, the key areas of progress that remain, and where the Parties will focus in the next reporting period.
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team March 5, 2019
3

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019
II. THE ROLE OF THE MONITORING TEAM & THIS REPORT
As with the Monitoring Team’s previous reports, the role of the Monitoring Team and of this report are useful to summarize at the outset. Under the terms of the Consent Decree between the United States and the City of Cleveland (the “City”) (collectively, the “Parties”) involving the Cleveland Division of Police, the Court-appointed Monitoring Team must “assess and report” to the Court whether the Decree’s requirements “have been implemented, and whether this implementation is resulting in constitutional and effective policing, professional treatment of individuals, and increased community trust . . . . ”1 This is the Monitoring Team’s sixth semiannual report.2 It addresses the reporting period of July 2018 through February 2019.
The Monitoring Team is an “agent of the Court” that is “subject to the supervision and orders of the Court.”3 The role of the Team is to assess, independently and on behalf of Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr., whether CDP and the City of Cleveland have reached compliance with the various and diverse requirements of the Consent Decree. Thus, as the Monitoring Team has previously outlined, it “is not an employee, contractor, or any other type of agent” of either the City of Cleveland or the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”).4 Instead, it works for the Court.
As part of that charge, the Team assists in facilitating Consent Decree implementation by providing technical assistance and Counsel to the Division of Police and City of Cleveland. Although its ultimate task is to inform the Court and DOJ about the City’s compliance with the Consent Decree, the Team provides ongoing assistance geared at ensuring effective, efficient, and expeditious progress.
A. The Fourth-Year Monitoring Plan
The upcoming Fourth-Year Monitoring Plan principally addresses the period of February 1, 2019 through January 31, 2020, with a handful of dates past January 31, 2020.5
B. The Purpose and Form of This Report
In its Third Semiannual Report, the Monitoring Team began summarizing the status of the City’s compliance with each paragraph of the Consent Decree. Although providing “a paragraph-by-paragraph accounting of the general state of the City’s compliance . . . runs the risk of being an over-simplification,” these summary characterizations remain useful markers for understanding progress over time.6
Thus, each major section of this Sixth Semiannual Report summarizes the Monitoring Team’s generalized conclusions about the status of compliance by describing the state of each area as one of the following:
1 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 350, available at https://www.justice.gov/crt/case-document/file/908536/download. 2 Id. at ¶ 375 (requiring semiannual reports). 3 First Semiannual Report at 14. 4 Id. 5 The Monitoring Team anticipates that the Fourth-Year Monitoring Plan will be filed with the Court shortly after the submission of this Report. 6 Third Semiannual Report at 9.
4

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019
Non-Compliance. The City or Division has not yet complied with the relevant provision of the Consent Decree. This includes instances in which the City or Division’s work or efforts have begun but cannot yet be certified by the Monitoring Team as compliant with a material component of the requirement.
Evaluation Deferred. This category reflects those limited instances where work in a given area has been intentionally and affirmatively deferred in order to work on other, necessary prerequisites. In these areas, the City or Division could have made more progress in a given area but, for project management reasons, have appropriately focused attention on other areas. Although this still means that the City has a distance to travel to reach General Compliance with the term of the Consent Decree, the intentional and affirmative decision to postpone focus on a given area for project management and implementation purposes is sufficiently different to warrant a separate designation in some cases.
Partial Compliance. The City or Division has made sufficient initial strides or sufficient partial progress toward compliance toward a material number of key components of the provision of the Consent Decree—but has not achieved operational compliance. This includes instances where policies, processes, protocols, trainings, systems, or the like exist on paper but do not exist or function in day-to-day practice. It may capture a wide range of compliance states or performance, from the City or Division having taken only very limited steps toward operational compliance to being nearly in operational compliance.
Operational Compliance. The City or Division has made notable progress to technically comply with the requirement and/or policy, process, procedure, protocol, training, system, or other mechanism of the Decree such that it is in existence or practice operationally—but has not yet demonstrated, or not yet been able to demonstrate, meaningful adherence to or effective implementation, including across time, cases, and/or incidents. This includes instances where a given reform is functioning but has not yet been shown, or an insufficient span of time or volume of incidents have transpired, to be effectively implemented in a systemic manner.
General Compliance. The City or Division has complied fully with the requirement and the requirement has been demonstrated to be meaningfully adhered to and/or effectively implemented across time, cases, and/or incidents. This includes instances where it can be shown that the City or Division has effectively complied with a requirement fully and systemically.
The same caveats that have previously applied to the use of these summary categories remain applicable. First, “Non-Compliance” or “Partial Compliance” do not automatically mean that the City or CDP have not made goodfaith efforts or commendable strides toward compliance. It might, instead, signify that initial work has either not yet begun or reached a sufficiently critical point where progress can be considered to have been made.
Second, “Partial Compliance” requires more than taking some limited, initial steps toward compliance with a requirement. It instead requires that the City or Division have made “sufficient, material progress toward
5

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019
compliance” that “has graduated from the stages of initial work to more well-developed and advanced refinement of various reforms.”7
Third, these summary terms do not appear in the Consent Decree. The Team employs them in order to synthesize and summarize the report’s conclusions. Relatedly, compliance with individual paragraphs of the Decree is necessary for the larger, overall “Substantial and Effective Compliance” with the whole of the Consent Decree but it is not the same thing. Ultimately, “Substantial and Effective Compliance” with the Consent Decree will be reached when “the City either has complied with all material requirements of this Agreement, or has achieved sustained and continuing improvement in constitutional policing, as demonstrated pursuant to this Agreement’s outcome measures,”8 “by a preponderance of the evidence.”9
Fourth, the charts that summarize progress in each area also condense the requirements of each paragraph rather than reprinting the entire Consent Decree in the context of this report. Any imprecision detected or confusion created by these condensed or summarized requirements is unintended and, in any event, can be cured with reference to the original Consent Decree language itself.10 The charts primarily cover paragraphs 14 through 340 of the Consent, but other paragraphs also contain requirements that the City must meet.11
Following the release of the Third Semiannual Report, some community members, and CDP members, inquired about the basis for some of our summary conclusions. We reiterate that these overall “compliance status” conclusions at the start of each chapter do not replace the more rigorous quantitative and qualitative assessments of how CPD is performing over time:
[T]he Monitoring Team bases its assessments on its current understandings, knowledge, and information gained through ongoing work and discussion with CDP, the Parties, and other stakeholders. The assessments are informal to the extent that not all of them are necessarily informed by the type of exhaustive compliance and outcome measurements that are a critical component of the Consent Decree—and the summary determinations do not take the place of these more structured, systemic analyses. The intent is to provide a bottom-line sense of where the Division is on the road to compliance. Ongoing, rigorous quantitative and qualitative assessments will provide a more comprehensive picture as work under the Consent Decree proceeds.12
The Team’s characterizations of progress should ultimately be viewed as a synthesis or bottom-line accounting of the substantive discussions of each major Consent Decree area contained within this report.
7 Third Semiannual Report at 10. 8 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 456 (emphasis added). 9 Id. at ¶ 397. 10 See id. 11 See Third Semiannual Report at 10. 12 Id. at 11.
6

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019

III. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND BUILDING TRUST

Paragraph
14. CDP creation of “formal and informal mechanisms that facilitate ongoing communication between CDP and the many Cleveland communities it serves.”

Status of Compliance PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

A. Community Police Commission (“CPC”)

Paragraph 15. Creation of CPC to make recommendations, work with Cleveland communities to develop recommendations, and “report to the City and community as a whole and to provide transparency” on reforms

Status of Compliance GENERAL COMPLIANCE

16. Establishment of CPC Selection Panel to select CPC Commissioners; composition of CPC; and periodic meetings with Chief of Police to “provide recommendations.” 17(a). “[H]old public meetings across the City, complete an assessment of CDP’s biasfree policing policies, practices, and training, and make recommendations.” 17(b). “[A]ssist as appropriate in . . . development of training related to bias-free policing and cultural competency.” 17(c). “[O]n an ongoing basis, assess CDP’s community activities” and “make recommendations” related to “community engagement” and “community confidence” 17(d). “[O]n an ongoing basis, review CDP’s civilian oversight structure to determine if there are changes it recommends for improving CDP’s accountability and transparency” 17(e). “[P]erform other function[s] as set out in this Agreement.”
18(a). “[R]eview and comment on CDP’s policies and practices related to use of force, search and seizure, and data collection and retention.” 18(b). [R]eview and comment on CDP’s implementation of initiative, programs, and activities that are intended to support reform.” 18(c). “[H]old public meetings to discuss the Monitor’s reports and to receive community feedback concerning CDP’s compliance with this Agreement.” 19. “The City will provide access to all information requested by the Commission related to its mandate, authority, and duties unless it is law enforcement sensitive, legally restricted, or would disclose a personnel action.” 20. CPC “will issue [at least annual] reports,” which the “City will post . . . to the City’s website.” 21. “The City will consider and timely respond in writing to the Commission’s recommendations for improvements,” which “will be posted to the City’s website.” 22. CPC budget listed as “separate line item” to ensure “sufficient independence and resources.”

GENERAL COMPLIANCE GENERAL COMPLIANCE GENERAL COMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE NONCOMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE GENERAL COMPLIANCE

7

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019
Background
The Community Police Commission (“CPC” or “Commission”) is a mechanism created through the Consent Decree “to promote public trust and confidence in the CDP” and to “make recommendations to the Chief of Police and the City, including the Mayor and City Council” based on the “values and priorities of Cleveland residents.”13 The CPC is intended to serve as a conduit between the Consent Decree reform process and Cleveland’s diverse communities, and the scope of its charge is far-reaching. Under the Decree, the Commission has the broad authority to “review and comment” on the Division’s “policies and practices related to use of force, search, and seizure, and data collection and retention” as well as any “initiatives, programs, and activities that are intended to support reform.”14
Where the Commission Stands Now
Community Policing, Staffing, and Recruitment & Hiring Plans
During the current reporting period, the CPC facilitated a substantial community input period for three major and interrelated CDP plans: the Community and Problem-Oriented Policing (“CPOP”) Plan, the Recruitment and Hiring Plan, and the Staffing Plan. The CPC’s engagement on these Plans, as well as its concurrent engagement on the Division’s revised Search and Seizure policies, was arguably the largest and most significant of the Commission’s numerous contributions to ensure that Cleveland residents are able to shape the ongoing implementation of the federal Consent Decree.
The Commission received drafts of the CPOP and related Plans on May 15, 2018. After the CPC and other community groups requested additional time, the Parties and Monitoring Team, in a motion to the Court, agreed to extend the close of the public input period from August 10, 2018 to September 28, 2018 given the Plans’ complexity and the importance in having community values reflected in these Plans in particular.15 The Commission thus had more than four months for planning and executing a strategy for gathering Cleveland residents’ opinions and feedback.
The Commission’s comments were thoughtful and helpful. They were based on research, analysis, broad-based engagement, and stakeholder-specific outreach. The preparation and work to gather, synthesize, and report on the Cleveland community’s thoughts and concerns were commendable.
In parallel with the City’s own survey, the CPC created a separate tool to gauge residents’ opinions on the documents. The Commission ultimately received 268 completed surveys by the time it submitted its final report. In addition to hosting Commission meetings where attendees could openly discuss and comment on the substance of the three Plans, the Commission’s CPOP Working Group worked with stakeholders to gather their input on the Plans.
13 Dkt. 7-1. at ¶ 15. 14 Id. at ¶¶ 18(a)-(b). 15 Dkt. 209.
8

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019
The CPC returned an initial report of CPOP recommendations on August 10, 2018 (the original closing date of the public comment period) to the Parties and Monitoring Team. On September 28, 2018, the Commission provided its second and final report of CPOP recommendations, building on the initial August 10 set of recommendations. The final report drew its conclusions from quantitative data collected from the completed surveys as well as from qualitative comments by community members and groups. Subsequently, Commissioners met with representatives of CDP, DOJ, the City, and the Monitoring Team to discuss the recommendations and how they might be incorporated in the final version of the three plans.
Search and Seizure Policies
During the current reporting period, the Commission also facilitated public input on the CDP’s revised Search and Seizure policies, which address police encounters and stops—a fundamental type of police interaction with residents. The Commission’s Search and Seizure work group was led by Commissioner Gordon Friedman. It also benefitted from the involvement of subject matter experts from legal academia and legal advocacy groups.
In February 2018, well before drafts of the Search and Seizure policies were prepared, CPC staff conducted an educational campaign to highlights general considerations for community members. Because case law around stops, arrests, and the Fourth Amendment is notoriously complicated, the CPC elected to teach residents basic components of constitutional law and highlight specific policy choices that departments have made across the country to meeting attendees on March 27, 2018. A video of the presentation was posted on the CPC’s website for those unable to attend.16
Once policy drafts were available on August 15, 2018, the Search and Seizure Work Group began its substantive engagement on the policies. They facilitated discussions with community members at the CPC’s September and October meetings. On October 27, the CPC also hosted a separate Search and Seizure Policy Forum at Cuyahoga Community College’s Jerry Sue Thornton Center.
CPC shared its final report on Search and Seizure policy recommendations to the City on November 14, with support from key stakeholder groups such as the ACLU of Ohio, the Cleveland Branch of the NAACP, and the Legal Aid Society of Cleveland. Subsequently, CPC representatives met with the Division, DOJ, and Monitoring Team to detail their recommendations, share their origins and rationale, and discuss their potential feasibility. The Parties and Monitoring Team anticipate that the Search and Seizure policies will be finalized in the upcoming reporting period.
Ongoing Organizational Challenges
Since its creation, the Commission has regularly put forward strong work product—distilling community comment and making a number of well-informed, substantive recommendations—despite serious and ongoing organizational challenges. As reported in the Fifth Semiannual Report, the CPC has undergone significant staffing changes after a series of employment allegations among various staff members. Since the prior Semiannual Report, an attorney hired by the City, in consultation with the Commission, to conduct an investigation into
16 Cleveland Community Police Commission, “Police Encounters or Search and Seizure,” https://www.clecpc.org/search-seizure-18 (last visited Jan. 25, 2019).
9

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019
various allegations relating to the CPC’s Executive Director, concluded that none of the accusations rose to the level of violating City policies. Not long afterward, all staff members aside from the Executive Director resigned.
Along with the full-time staff, there also has been substantial change in the volunteer commissioners. Richard Knoth, who was sworn in as a Commissioner on December 21, 2017, became one of the CPC’s two co-chairs in June 2018 alongside Reverend Dr. Yvonne Conner. In July, two commissioners, Amanda King and Dylan Sellers, resigned from the Commission. There are now two vacancies in the commission. The City has taken appropriate steps to re-empanel the Decree-required Selection Committee to fill those vacancies in early 2019. Because the Consent Decree limits the terms of service of commissioners to a four-year term,17 the Commission and City have begun contemplating how to address the upcoming vacancies created by the expiration of commissioner terms in September 2019.
SAI, an organizational consultant hired by the City to review the Commission’s operations and assist the CPC by creating a “roadmap” forward, completed a final report during the current reporting period. In its December 11, 2018 report, SAI catalogued many organizational challenges plaguing the CPC. Those findings included that the working relationships between and among the Commission’s volunteer commissioners and full-time staff continue to be difficult – reflecting personality conflicts, unclear lines of authority, and suboptimal leadership and management. These kinds of strains make the substantive work of the CPC’s Decree-mandated charge—already a significant and involved commitment—that much more difficult.
Progress and Tasks that Remain
Having successfully completed a substantial public comment period for a host of major CDP plans and policies, the CPC finds itself at a crossroads, both in terms of fulfilling its substantive charge and ensuring the staffing and organizational structure necessary to provide the originally-contemplated forum for bringing people of varying backgrounds, views, and opinions together to talk about what policing in Cleveland should look like going forward.
The creation of policies and plans mandated by the Decree are coming to a conclusion, and most of the core policies are slated to be completed in the upcoming reporting period. Now that those opportunities are naturally coming to a close, it will be an open question—one that the CPC must resolve for itself—as to how it plans to fulfill its mandate to “make recommendations . . . on policies and practices related to community and problemoriented policing, bias-free policing, and police transparency” and “to work with the many communities that make up Cleveland” to develop police practices recommendations.18 As this report elsewhere makes clear, the creation of policies or plans ultimately amounts to a written statement of intent by the Division and City about how it wants to police. Now that CDP has committed itself to a certain set of expectations, the Commission will need to determine how it can best “leverage the experience and expertise of the people of Cleveland . . . to ensure that CDP recognizes and operates in a manner consistent with cooperative community understanding and engagement.”19
17 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 16. 18 Id. at ¶ 15. 19 Id.
10

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019

More than that, the Commission must continue to attempt to restore public confidence in itself as an institution that facilitates community input on policing issues. As the Monitoring Team reported in its Fifth Semiannual Report, “the Commission will have to find a way to resolve internal disagreements and focus on the challenging tasks of engaging as much of the community as possible on the vital conversations about how policing will function in Cleveland in the future.”20 That entails ensuring a professional, respectful working relationship among the Commissioners and between the volunteer Commission and the full-time staff.

To that end, Commissioners have indicated that the CPC has begun to implement some of the recommendations in SAI’s December report, such as the expedited hiring of new staff and the implementation of weekly calls between the Executive Director and the two co-Chairs. The Monitoring Team is hopeful that the CPC’s actions will help to ensure that it has the sustained organizational capacity to perform its fundamental function: “to promote public trust and confidence in the CDP” and to “make recommendations to the Chief of Police and the City, including the Mayor and City Council” based on the “values and priorities of Cleveland residents.”21
B. District Policing Committees

Paragraph
23. Facilitation of “regular communication and cooperation between CDP and community leaders at the local level,” with District Policing Committees meeting “at minimum, every quarter.” 24. CPC, CDP, and Community Relations Board (“CRB”) will “develop a mechanism to recruit and expand” Committee membership.” CDP “will work with [Community Police] Commission to select officers for each District Policing Committee.” 25. CDP “will work closely with District Policing Committees to identify strategies to address crime and safety issues in their District,” considering and addressing identified priorities. 26. “At least annually, each District Policing Committee will present its identified strategies, concerns, and recommendations” to the CPC, with CDP officer who is Committee member presenting to CPC “CDP’s assessment of ways to address” the recommendations.”

Status of Compliance PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
NONCOMPLIANCE

Background

The Decree calls for the expansion—building on existing structures—of five District Policing Committees, or one for each of the five police districts within the city of Cleveland.22 Those Committees, which existed long before
the Consent Decree process, must work to “identify strategies to address crime and safety issues in their District.”23 This is all the more critical given that few Cleveland residents surveyed by the Monitoring Team
reported being aware of or comfortable with the District Policing Committees. Some community members

20 Fifth Semiannual Report at 14. 21 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 15. 22 Id. at ¶¶ 23-24. 23 Id. at ¶ 25.

11

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019
specifically felt that DPCs functioned to serve the needs of a select few in Cleveland, not all residents of Cleveland.24
Where the DPCs Stand
In the current reporting period, the Parties and Monitoring Team finalized a DPC Plan that details the Division’s plans to enhance and expand the DPCs so that they are better attended, better facilitated, and ultimately reflect the true makeup of a given CDP police district. The Monitoring Team submitted the DPC Plan for the Court’s approval on February 14, 2019.25 The Court approved the Plan on February 20, 2019.26
As before (when they were known as District Community Relations Committees), DPCs will hold monthly meetings that are open to all to “communicate about topics such as crime statistics, strategies to address problems, upcoming events and initiatives, CDP policy and practices, and any matter that may arise.”27
Consistent with the Division’s shift to an organizational philosophy of community and problem-oriented policing, “District Commanders will use the DPC meetings as opportunities to identify, assess and collaboratively solve problems in their District.”28 Further, “[t]he DPCs will assess the Division’s overall performance and its CPOP activities by surveying community members.”29
Under the approved Plan, each District’s DPC is to be co-chaired by the District Commander and a civilian resident. They will be supported by each District’s three Community Engagement Officers (“CEOs”), who are not responsible for patrol and do not respond to calls for service. Accordingly, the DPC Plan assigns them responsibilities such as participating in their respective DPC, seeking partnerships from a cross-section of the community, assisting with collaborative problem-solving initiatives, attending community meetings, and bridging officers with community members.30
To expand the DPCs’ audience and membership, as called for by the Decree, the DPC Plan contemplates a number of activities, including use of an “asset map” to identify community groups and associations that are currently not involved with DPCs; intentional outreach to communities such as youth, homeless, and LGBTQ; and participation in events hosted by communities. Further, the Plan acknowledges that “DPCs must also account for community members that may be unable or unwilling to participate in monthly meetings.”31 To do so, the DPCs regularly will, among other things, add new discussion items to the agenda that are requested by community members; move

24 Cleveland Police Monitoring Team, Community & Problem-Oriented Policing: Summary of Community Feedback

&

Recommendations,

July

2017,

available

at

https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/8a5c22_df0cbe2bc67d4e1a8ad3ac9c7098257b.pdf (last visited February 28, 2019).

25 Dkt. 235.

26 Dkt. 238.

27 Dkt. 235-1 at 3.

28 Id. at 4.

29 Id.

30 Id. at 6-7.

31 Id. at 10.

12

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019 the meeting time and/or location to increase accessibility and focus on different areas’ concerns; and ask residents about other reasons for the lack of participation and modify meetings where possible to address those concerns.32 The DPC Plan also contemplates that the District Commanders, CEOs, CRB District representatives DPC cochairs, and the Bureau of Community Policing Commander will meet bi-annually to discuss strategies to increase participation at each DPC and their effectiveness.33 Progress and Tasks that Remains Selection of DPC Officers Under Paragraph 24 of the Consent Decree, each DPC will include “at least one CDP officer from that District” and the Division will work with the CPC “to select officers for each District Policing Committee.”34 As the DPC Plan is implemented, the Division and CPC will need to collaborate to identify and select appropriate officers. Implementation of the DPC Plan As described above, the Parties have completed a long process to design a new DPC Plan that outlines a number of important organizational changes. Going forward, the Monitoring Team will be attending DPC meetings regularly to assess whether the Division has implemented the contemplated changes. More than that, the Team will be looking to see if the changes, upon implementation, are having a positive impact on the attendance and participation at DPC meetings.
32 Id. 33 Id. at 13. 34 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 24.
13

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019

IV. COMMUNITY & PROBLEM-ORIENTED POLICING

Paragraph 27. Implementation of “comprehensive and integrated community and problemoriented policing model” and consultation with CPC regarding the model. 28. Ensuring that “mission statement reflects [the Division’s] commitment to community oriented policing” / “integrat[ing] community and problem-oriented policing principles into its management, policies and procedures, recruitment, training, personnel evaluations, resource deployment, tactics, and accountability systems.”
29. Ensuring “that officers are familiar with the geographic areas they serve,” “engage in problem identification,” and “work proactively . . . to address quality of life issues.” 30. Initial and annual in-service community and problem-oriented policing training “adequate in quality, quantity, type, and scope” that addresses specifically-identified areas. 31. Maintenance of “collaborative partnerships with a broad spectrum of community groups,” including CDP meetings with community organizations and District Policing Committees. 32. CDP “meet[ing] with members of the community in each District on a monthly basis and “solic[itation of] participation from a broad cross-section of community members in each District” to “identify problems and other areas of concern . . . and discuss responses and solutions.” 33. Development and implementation of “systems to monitor officer outreach to the community” that CDP “will use . . . to analyze . . . whether officers are partnering with a broad cross-section of community members to develop and implement cooperative strategies that build mutual respect and identify and solve problems.” 34. “At least annually, CDP will present the results” of paragraph 33 analysis “broken out by District in a publicly-available community policing report” that describes problems, solutions, and obstacles. Report provided to Commission and posted on CDP website.

Status of Compliance PARTIAL COMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE / PARTIAL COMPLIANCE EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
NONCOMPLIANCE

Background

The Consent Decree requires that the Division develop and implement a “comprehensive and integrated community and problem-oriented policing model” to “promote and strengthen partnerships with the community . . . and increase community confidence in the CDP.”35 This section refers to policing according to this model as “community and problem-oriented policing,” or “CPOP.”

The Decree defines “community and problem-oriented policing” as a “policing philosophy that promotes and
relies on collaborative partnerships between law enforcement agencies and the individuals and organizations they serve to develop solutions to problems, increase trust in police, and improve the effectiveness of policing efforts.”36

35 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 27. 36 Id. at ¶ 414.

14

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019
As countless law enforcement agencies have recognized, community policing principles must inform decisionmaking at all levels of the agency, including decisions about hiring, deployment, and evaluation.37 Community policing is not an extra activity. It is not simply community engagement. It is not an unconnected array of programs or initiatives. Instead, it is an overriding philosophy of policing that recognizes that the legitimacy of the police and the effectiveness of law enforcement operations ultimately derive from the communities that the police serve.
A Division-wide commitment to community policing will help promote trust and legitimacy, improve the quality of police-citizen encounters, and address persistent public safety issues in Cleveland communities. Critically, CDP must ensure that related operational and structural changes needed to support community and problem-oriented policing—principally, staffing and recruitment—receive appropriate consideration.
Where the Division Stands
CPOP Plan Finalization
Drafts of the CPOP Plan, along with related Plans on Staffing and Recruitment and Hiring, were available for public feedback throughout the summer and early fall of 2018. As described earlier in more detail, the CPC played a significant role in taking the draft Plans to the public for comment and critique. The CPC’s completed report highlighted community members’ concerns about the importance of CPOP training and questions about officers’ ability to implement SARA, a problem-solving methodology described below.
The City also did a commendable job in engaging the community for their input on the Plans. Through the District Policing Committees and other policing organizations, the City and Division held a series of productive and wellstructured community meetings in which District representatives briefed participants on the substance of the CPOP Plan, answered questions, and asked participants to complete surveys on their reactions to the plans.
After reviewing the CPC’s report and considering and implementing changes as appropriate, the Parties and Monitoring Team completed a final CPOP Plan on February 5, 2019. The Monitoring Team submitted the final Plan for the Court’s approval on February 14, 2019.38 The Court approved the Plan on February 20, 2019.39
As the Monitoring Team has previously summarized, the approved Plan defines CPOP as “an organizational strategy that promotes community partnerships and problem-solving techniques to proactively address the immediate conditions that give rise to public safety issues such as crime, social disorder, and fear of crime. CPOP is the responsibility of all members of the CDP beginning with the Chief through the chain of command to every officer.”40 The Plan appropriately situates CPOP not as a standalone program or set of initiatives, but rather as
37 See, e.g., Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), Community Policing: Past, Present, and Future at 4 (2004) (“Community Policing”); Presidential Task Force On 21st Century Policing, Final Report at 43 (2015). 38 Dkt. 234. 39 Dkt. 237. 40 Dkt. 234-1 at 6.
15

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019
part and parcel “of how the Division recruits and hires, allocate[s] resources, trains, promote[s], and evaluate[s] officers and the Division, and collects data.”41
Under the CPOP Plan, officers will collaborate actively and affirmatively with Cleveland residents to address public safety issues and the conditions that lead to crime. Specifically, patrol officers assigned to CDP’s neighborhood districts will be expected to spend at least 20% of their time engaging community members to address public safety concerns. This might include participating on bike and foot patrols, attending community meetings, or creating and implementing action plans with residents to address their issues. This 20% requirement is an intended average across time, not a mandate that officers across all assignments spend that amount of each and every shift on engagement. The expectations may change according to where and when an officer works, as well as the types of situations that an officer needs to address.
The Plan also outlines how the Division will utilize “SARA,” a well-known problem-oriented policing model that stands for Scanning-Analysis-Response-Assessment, as its cornerstone for training and encouraging officers to collaborate with community residents on public safety problems. Under SARA, CDP officers are expected to “scan” for problems; “analyze” the conditions of the problems and understand what factors are contributing to it; “respond” by taking steps to solve the problem; and “assess” the outcome later to see if the problem in fact was resolved or only displaced. Officers are expected to work with community members to discover problems, find out how residents would like problems to be solved, and then follow up with residents to see if the problem has been resolved in the eyes of the community.
It is essential, as the Team has heard from Cleveland residents consistently, for patrol officers to remain in neighborhoods if they are to build meaningful relationships and attempt to establish new connections with community members and groups. To that end, the Plan stresses “zone integrity,” or an officer’s “ownership and accountability of assigned zones in a District.”42 To help promote zone integrity, CDP patrol staffing and deployment will be changed to a “workload-based” model for assigning personnel (discussed in more detail in the Officer Assistance & Support Section of this Report).
The Plan also appropriately acknowledges the importance of the Division’s recruitment and hiring in being able to effectuate CPOP. “The Division strives to hire individuals who represent a cross-section of the Cleveland community who are dedicated to policing according to the CPOP model. The CDP’s Public Safety Recruitment Team (PSRT) recruits service-minded individuals who reflect the demographics and ideals of the Cleveland community. They will seek to recruit candidates who exhibit critical problem-solving skills and the ability to communicate with a cross-section of the city.”43 The CDP’s Recruitment and Hiring Plan, discussed in this Report’s Officer Assistance & Support Section, contains more details on the Division’s plans to adjust its recruitment activities and priorities.
Under the CPOP Plan, each CDP District will create a District Neighborhood Awareness Training for officers in the District that will include information about the residents’ demographics, cultural information about the
41 Id. at 2. 42 Id. at 19. 43 Id. at 21.
16

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019
demographic, relevant historical events, and suggestions to improve police/community relations from the perspective of both community members and officers.44
The Division’s CPOP Plan also includes ways that CDP will seek to measure success in its ability to effectuate CPOP and establish new, stronger relationships with Cleveland residents. Under the Plan, the Division’s Data Collection and Analysis Coordinator (“Data Coordinator”) “will ensure that the data is collected and tracked.”45 Data will include “community outreach, engagement, bike and foot patrol frequency, organized/planned events and unplanned engagements” and will be input into the Division’s Computer Aided Dispatch (“CAD”) system.46 The Data Coordinator will “extrapolate data associated with CPOP activities including the frequency and type of actions taken, and broken down by District. Supervisors will use this information during the annual performance evaluations.”47 In addition to the Division’s internal collection of data, “[c]ommunity surveys will be conducted to measure public satisfaction with policing,” including “officer and Division performance regarding community partnerships and CPOP activities.”48
To incorporate collected data into management decisions, the CPOP Plan calls for CDP to create a CPOP Review Committee, consisting of the Commander of the Bureau of Community Relations, CDP’s Compliance team, and the Data Coordinator. The Committee will meet quarterly to review all community engagement data, identify gaps in the expectations that patrol officers’ commit 20% of their time to engagement, review community surveys, and create a biannual report of the findings and recommendations for improvement.49
Community Engagement and Problem Solving Training
Community policing requires officers to use a variety of skills, including interpersonal communication and problem-solving skills. Effective community policing also requires officers to be familiar with the history, culture, and traditions of their communities. Under the Consent Decree, CDP officers must therefore receive training on:
• Community engagement and problem-solving strategies; • Leadership, ethics, and effective communication; • Forming community partnerships; • Procedural justice; • Conflict resolution; and • Cultural competency.50
The Parties and Monitoring Team collaborated to design a Community Engagement and Problem-Solving (“CEPS”) curriculum throughout the first half of 2018. On July 13, 2018, the Monitoring Team recommended that the Court approve the CEPS Training. On July 16, 2018, the Division began in-service training, including the
44 Id. at 28-29. 45 Id. at 32. 46 Id. 47 Id. 48 Id. 49 Id. at 32-33. 50 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 30.
17

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019
newly-approved training. By the end of 2018, 98% of eligible CDP members had completed the CEPS Training. During the training, the Division’s Training Section learned a number of important lessons that the Monitoring Team and Parties hope will improve its ability to deliver high-quality training going forward, discussed in more detail in the Officer Assistance & Support Section of this Report.
Progress and Tasks that Remain
Organizational Changes
Now that the CPOP Plan has been completed and approved by the Court, the Monitoring Team here reiterates a point that is singularly vital to CPOP: “CPOP is more than a set of rules for which officers need to be trained. CPOP is a philosophical change in policing that will affect core components that make up the Cleveland Division of Police.”51
The Monitoring Team previously noted to the Court that it approved the Plan for what it is: a forward-looking vision of what community and problem-oriented policing can and will be in the Cleveland Division of Police. As described, the CPOP Plan outlines significant changes, like an expectation that 20% of officers’ time be committed to community engagement and problem-solving. The CPOP and Staffing Plans jointly contemplate ways to free up patrol officers’ time, such as implementing alternative crime reporting services, changing the incidents that do not require an officer’s immediate response, and requiring a “verified” response to burglary or residential alarms. The CPOP Plan also contemplates changes to the way CDP conducts performance evaluations to ensure that officers are evaluated based on their use of CPOP practices.
Because the CPOP Plan “is not, and was never intended to be, a project management plan in the traditional sense, . . . the task of the Division in the coming months will be to translate the large commitments and major elements of the Plan into smaller steps and milestones that can be substantially and effectively implemented.”52 The Plan does not include specific timelines and details on, as the Decree mandates, the integration of “community and problem-oriented policing principles into its management, policies and procedures, recruitment, training, personnel evaluations, resource deployment, tactics, and accountability systems.”53 The Monitoring Team looks forward to seeing a precise roadmap for how these contemplated CPOP changes will occur.
Training
The Division is currently preparing a 2019 in-service CEPS Training that reinforces core concepts from the 2018 training, such as the SARA problem-solving model, while also instructing officers on the now-approved CPOP Plan itself—the new expectations and requirements on how officers are staffed, use their time, and document their community engagement and problem-solving activities. All CDP personnel—officers, supervisors, dispatchers— need to understand and receive training on the Plan. The Monitoring Team and DOJ have been assisting the Division with the curriculum of this training. The Division has indicated that the Training Section learned certain lessons from the 2018 CEPS Training and that it is working to address them in the upcoming 2019 training.
51 Fifth Semiannual Report at 30. 52 Dkt. 234 at 9-10. 53 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 28.
18

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019 Data Collection and Tracking Under the approved CPOP Plan, officers will be required to enter any CPOP activity into an electronic database system. Such data will include data on collaborative problem-solving, community outreach, bike and foot patrol frequency, organized community events, and unplanned engagements with the community. Officers will be expected and required to enter such data regularly into a database. The Division’s Data Collection and Analysis Coordinator will ensure the proper tracking and monitoring of CDP’s activities. All of this is required by Paragraphs 32 through 34 of the Decree. The Division is continuing to work through how the data tracking elements of CPOP will be implemented. Even the approved CPOP Plan contains only a broad vision for collection of data. The Monitoring Team looks forward to assisting the City and CDP to work through any technical data issues in order to ensure that data can be collected, tracked, analyzed, and presented for review to the Monitoring Team and the Cleveland public.
19

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019

V. BIAS-FREE POLICING

Paragraph
35. Delivery of “police services with the goal of ensuring that they are equitable, respectful, and free of unlawful bias,” among other things. 36. “CDP will integrate bias-free policing principles into its management, policies and procedures, job descriptions, recruitment, training, personnel evaluations, resource deployment, tactics, and accountability systems.” 37. CDP will ensure that it “administer[s] all activities without discrimination” on basis of various protected classes 38. “CDP will develop a bias-free policing policy” incorporating CPC recommendations “that provides clear guidance to officers” 39–40. Bias-free policing and procedural justice training “adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type” covering specific areas 41. Supervisor training on bias-free policing and procedural justice issues covering specific areas 42. Annual in-service training on bias-free policing “adequate in quality, quantity, type, and scope” 43. Analysis of paragraph 265 data (“including use of force, arrests, motor vehicle and investigatory stops, and misconduct complaints alleging discrimination”) 44. Consideration of “bias-free policing and equal protection” principles in hiring, unit assignment, promotion, and performance assessments.

Status of Compliance PARTIAL COMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

Background

The Consent Decree requires that CDP “deliver police services with the goal of ensuring that they are equitable, respectful, and free of unlawful bias, in a manner that promotes broad community engagement and confidence in CDP.”54 Bias-free policing principles must be operationally integrated into CDP’s “management, policies and procedures, job descriptions, recruitment, training, personnel evaluations, resource deployment, tactics, and accountability systems.”55 The goal is “to ensure policing and law enforcement outcomes that are as free from the effects of all bias to the greatest extent possible.”56
Where the Division Stands

The Court approved CDP’s Bias-Free Policing Policy on March 23, 2018. In its motion to the Court, the Monitoring Team highlighted that the Policy set “critical guidelines for the delivery of police services within the Cleveland Division of Police[,]” with clear prohibitions against “harassing, intimidating or derogatory language” and the determination of “reasonable suspicion or probable cause based upon a demographic category [unless part

54 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 35. 55 Id. ¶ 35-36. 56 First Semiannual Report at 30.

20

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019
of an actual and credible suspect description][.]”57 This policy also underwent two separate rounds of substantial public comment, facilitated by the CPC, involving numerous town hall meetings across the city.
Not long after the Division’s new Bias-Free Policing policy was approved by the Court, the Parties and Monitoring Team turned to the Division’s in-service training on procedural justice and bias-free policing principles. As the Monitoring Team described in its Fifth Semiannual Report, “[s]uccessful implementation of bias-free policing principles within the Division of Police requires not only a clear policy that prohibits bias-based policing, but training that provides officers with tools and strategies to manage implicit biases and self-correct in moments of potentially biased behavior.”
The Division began working with the Center for Policing Equity (“CPE”), a research center that has developed and conducted evidence-based trainings on procedural justice in policing for law enforcement agencies across the country, to design an eight-hour training to promote bias-free policing. The Division ultimately took CPE’s curriculum as a starting point from which to tailor a training specific to Cleveland. The Monitoring Team worked with the Parties to ensure that the curriculum addressed a host of the Consent Decree’s most critical requirements.
After working through numerous drafts of the curricula, the Monitoring Team requested that the Court approve the training on July 13, 2018. Training began on July 16, 2018. By the end of 2018, 98% of eligible CDP members had completed the Bias-Free Training. As with the 2018 CEPS Training, the Division’s Training Section learned a number of important lessons about its capabilities that will improve its ability to deliver high-quality training going forward.
Progress and Tasks that Remain
Bias-Free Policing Training
As the Division makes plans for conducting different and improved training in 2019, “adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type,”58 it must provide sufficient instruction on a host of critical topics:
• Constitutional and other legal requirements related to equal protection and unlawful discrimination, including the requirements of this Agreement;
• Strategies, such as problem-oriented policing, procedural justice, and recognizing implicit bias, to avoid conduct that may lead to biased policing or the perception of biased policing;
• Historical and cultural systems that perpetuate racial and ethnic profiling; • Identification of racial or ethnic profiling practices, and police practices that have a disparate impact on
certain demographic categories; • Self-evaluation strategies to identify racial or ethnic profiling; • District-level cultural competency training regarding the histories and culture of local immigrant and
ethnic communities; • Police and community perspectives related to bias-free policing;
57 Dkt. 186 at 5. 58 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 39.
21

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019
• The protection of civil rights as a central part of the police mission and as essential to effective policing; • Instruction in the data collection protocols required by this Agreement; and • Methods, strategies, and techniques to reduce misunderstanding, conflict, and complaints due to
perceived bias or discrimination.59
The Division must also provide specific instruction to supervisors on:
• How to identify biased police practices when reviewing investigatory stop, arrest, and use of force data; • How to respond to a complaint of biased police practices, including conducting a preliminary
investigation of the complaint in order to preserve key evidence and potential witnesses; • How to evaluate complaints of improper pedestrian stops for potential biased police practices; and • Engaging the community and developing positive relationships with diverse community groups.60
As the Monitoring Team suggested in its Fifth Semiannual Report, “[i]t may be helpful for the City and CPD to establish a clear and concrete plan, with the Consent Decree a few months past its halfway point, for completing all the training requirements over the next few years.”61 The Team reiterates that suggestion here.
Integration of Bias-Free Policing Principles
The Decree requires that the Division “integrate bias-free policing principles into its management, policies and procedures, job descriptions, recruitment, training, personnel evaluations, resource deployment, tactics, and accountability systems.”62 The Monitoring Team expects that the Division will be well-positioned to push ongoing work on personnel evaluations, management processes, resource deployment, and accountability systems to ensure that the process of integrating bias-free policing principles continues.
The Division’s Collection, Analysis, and Proactive Uses of Data
Ultimately, bias-free policing requires not just a well-written policy and high-quality training but a robust data infrastructure and command staff’s use of data as a management tool. “To help ensure that police services are delivered in a manner free from bias,” the Consent Decree requires the Division to conduct annual assessments of all police activities, “including use of force, arrests, motor vehicle and investigatory stops, and misconduct complaints alleging discrimination, to determine whether CDP’s activities are applied or administered in a way that discriminates against individuals on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.”63 The Division still has some distance to travel with respect to its ability to analyze data, produce reports, and conduct quantitative and qualitative assessments on subjects such as arrests, motor vehicle and investigatory stops, and misconduct complaints alleging discrimination—all policing practices where it is critical to assess the presence of biased or discriminatory policing. This must be done in assessments both quantitative (analyzing
59 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 40. 60 Id. at ¶ 41. 61 Fifth Semiannual Report at 37. 62 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 36. 63 Id. at ¶¶ 43, 265.
22

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019 aggregate numbers to determine trends and patterns) and qualitative (driving conclusions from the analysis about the nature of police performance and interactions). In short, the Division must collect information, affirmatively and proactively analyze the data, and respond, as appropriate, to trends or issues identified. The quality of the Division’s assessments will depend on the Division’s progress in improving its data and information infrastructure and in its ability to manage itself based on lessons and insights derived from such data. Strong protocols for data collection, analysis, and reporting are necessary to monitor and assess patterns of biasbased policing. As discussed elsewhere in this report, CDP has made progress in developing its data infrastructure, but not yet the kind of progress required to comply with the Decree’s data requirements. Ultimately, the Monitoring Team doubts that it could certify, one way or another, to the Court whether the Division’s policies on bias-free and nondiscriminatory policing are actually in effect across the Division or whether they exist merely on paper unless and until the Division rigorously inventories the performance of its officers in interactions with Cleveland residents during stops, searches, and arrests. The Decree requires that this data be collected, reported, and analyzed not simply as an academic exercise or because it might be interesting. Instead, it is required because, without accurate and comprehensive information, the actual level and quality of the Division of Police’s performance cannot be determined.
23

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019

VI. USE OF FORCE

A. Officer Use of Force Principles & Policy

Paragraph 45. “CDP will revise, develop, and implement force policies, training, supervision, and accountability systems with the goal of ensuring that force” complies with the Constitution, federal law, and the Consent Decree “and that any use of unreasonable force is promptly identified and responded to appropriately.” 46. “The City will implement the terms of this Agreement with the goal of ensuring that use of force by CDP officers . . . will comply” with at least twelve major, listed principles. 47. Division “will ensure that the [use of force] incident is accurately and properly reported, documented, and investigated.” 48. “CDP will track and analyze officers’ uses of force to hold officers accountable for unreasonable uses of force; to guide training and policy; and to identify poor tactics and emerging trends.” 49. Development of use of force policies “that comply with applicable law[,] . . . are adequate to achieve the goals described in paragraph 45,” and “specify that unreasonable use of force will subject officers to the disciplinary process, possible criminal prosecution, and/or possible civil liability.” 50. “CDP’s policies will address the use and deployment of its authorized force techniques, technologies, and weapons.” 51. Weapon-specific policies “will include training and certification requirements that each officer must meet before being permitted to carry and use the authorized weapon.” 52. “No officer will carry any weapon that is not authorized or approved by CDP.”
53. “Prior to the use of any approved weapon, the officer, when possible and appropriate, will communicate to the subject and other officers that the use of weapon is imminent, and allow the subject an opportunity to comply.” 54–83 “CDP will implement policies” for firearms, ECWs (Tasers), and OC (pepper) spray that comply with a host of specific, expressly listed provisions. 84. CDP “will provide all current officers use of force training that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type and that includes” a number of specific, expresslylisted elements. 85. CDP “will provide the use of force training described in paragraph 84 to all new officers.” 86. “CDP will provide all officers with annual use of force in-service training that is adequate in quality, quantity, type, and scope.” 87. “CDP will develop and implement a single, uniform reporting system pursuant to a Use of Force reporting policy” that complies with the force Level categorization set forth in the paragraph.

Status of Compliance PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE

24

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019

88. Requiring “[a]ll officers using or observing force” to complete a Use of Force Report including a number of specific features and avoiding “conclusory statements, ‘boilerplate’, or ‘canned’ language.” 89. “Officers will be subject to the disciplinary process for material omissions or misrepresentations in their Use of Force Reports.” 90. “Officers who use or observe force and fail to report it will be subject to the disciplinary process, up to and including termination, regardless of whether the force was reasonable.” 91. Requirement to “notify . . . supervisors . . . as soon as practical following any use of force” and if becoming aware of “an allegation of unreasonable or unreported force by another officer.” 92. “Use of Force Reports will be maintained centrally.”

OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE

Background

As the Monitoring Team has emphasized in past Semiannual Reports, the use of force, including the manner in which officers are trained and how uses of force are documented and investigated, is “at the core of the Consent Decree.”64 It is fitting, then, to discuss in comparatively greater detail the various requirements imposed by the Consent Decree and the progress made by the Division with respect to force policies and training.

Under the Decree, the Cleveland Division of Police must:

[R]evise, develop, and implement force policies, training, supervision, and accountability systems with the goal of ensuring that force is used in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the requirements of the Agreement and that any use of unreasonable force is promptly identified and responded to appropriately.65
The Court approved the new use of force policies, subject to some specific conditions, on January 17, 2017.66 Five new policies, addressing (1) general use of force principles and expectations; (2) definitions used in various force policies; (3) de-escalation techniques to ensure officer and subject safety; (4) intermediate weapons, such as a Taser, oleoresin capsicum (OC) spray, and baton; and (5) reporting of force. The policies had undergone substantial rounds of broad-based public comment, facilitated by the City, Community Police Commission, Department of Justice, and the Monitoring Team.

The Consent Decree also requires that CDP’s use of force training be “adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type” and include instruction, among other things, on:

● Proper use of force decision-making; ● Use of force reporting requirements;

64 First Semiannual Report at 31. 65 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 45. 66 Dkt. 101.

25

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019
● The Fourth Amendment and related law; ● De-escalation techniques, both verbal and tactical, that empower officers to make arrests without
using force and instruction that disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements, using cover, calling in specialized units, or delaying arrest may be the appropriate response to a situation, even when the use of force would be legally justified; ● Role-playing scenarios and interactive exercises that illustrate proper use of force decision-making, including training on the importance of peer intervention; ● The proper deployment and use of all intermediate weapons or technologies; ● The particular risks and considerations relating to using a Taser; and ● Firearms training.67
Between May and December 2017, the Division of Police provided all sworn CDP personnel with use of force training on the Division’s new use of force policies. The training was developed through close collaboration with the Monitoring Team and Department of Justice. The City has certified that all eligible officers completed the training in 2017. Feedback from CDP officers, the DOJ, and the Monitoring Team made clear that the 2017 Use of Force Training established a strong foundation for ongoing, follow-up training provided on an annual basis on additional and in-depth force topics.
In addition to policy and training, the Division must have clear processes and procedures for the administrative investigation and review of force incidents.68 The Decree lays out specific force reporting requirements, including the establishment of a new system of classifying force:
• Level One force is the lowest level of force. It is force that is “reasonably expected to cause only transient pain and/or disorientation during its application as a means of gaining compliance . . . but that is not reasonably expected to cause injury, does not result in actual injury, and does not result in a complaint of injury.”69
• Level Two force is force that “causes an injury, could reasonably be expected to cause an injury, or results in a complaint of injury.”70
• Level Three force is force that constitutes “lethal” or “deadly” force. It also includes any level of force which results in death or serious injury, hospital admission, or lack of consciousness. Specific types of Level Three force include neck restraints, canine bites, and more than three applications of an Electronic Control Weapon (i.e. Taser).71
67 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 84. In addition to initial training on use of force covering the topics listed above, the Division must provide its officers with “annual use of force in-service training that is adequate in quality, quantity, type, and scope” going forward. CDP supervisors must also receive specialized training, as discussed elsewhere in this report, relating both to force and broader supervisory skills. 68 First Semiannual Report at 36-37; Dkt. 97 at 35-36. 69 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 87(a). 70 Id. at ¶ 87(b). 71 Id. at ¶ 87(c).
26

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019

Under the Decree, all officers using or observing force have an affirmative duty to report such force in writing by the completion of their tour of duty.72 The Consent Decree also requires that the Division develop and implement a “single, uniform reporting system.”73

Where the Division Stands

With the finalization of new use of force policies, the completion of the first year of use of force training by all officers, and new policies and procedures for reporting the use of force, the Division’s new use of force policies became effective, in the field and on the streets of Cleveland, on January 1, 2018. The Monitoring Team previously cautioned that “officers may make some good-faith errors or mistakes in the first few months that the new force policies are in effect” and that “sufficiently systemic adherence to the new policies . . . is unlikely to occur overnight.74

Table 1: Use of Force Trends: 2018 v. 2017, excluding Level 1: pointing of a firearm at an individual75

2017

2018

January

23

10

February

19

9

March

22

8

April

24

16

May

16

14

June

23

18

July

12

15

August

18

11

September

25

21

October

17

19

November

16

11

December

22

16

TOTAL

237

168

In the first full year that the new use of force policies were effective on the streets of Cleveland, officer use of force was down substantially compared to the prior year. In order to make a fair, “apples to apples” comparison, and as the Monitoring Team did in its prior semiannual report, the numbers in Table 1 for 2018 consider officer use of force other than the pointing of a firearm at an individual – a low-level, reportable Level 1 use of force under the Division’s new policy. Because the Division did not previously track this information in its use of force database

72 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 87(b). 73 Id. at ¶ 87. 74 Fourth Semiannual Report at 31. 75 The figures in Table 1 differ slightly from the use of force incidents reported on page 49 of the Monitoring Team’s
Fifth Semiannual Report. This discrepancy can be attributed to a variety of minor and infrequent scenarios,
including reclassification of incidents as they proceed through chain of command review and the incorrect
inputting of a single use of force incident by multiple officers (leading to an incident being counted more than
once).

27

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019

in 2017, the 2018 numbers need to be adjusted to exclude pointing a firearm to get a sense of how officer performance has been changing independent of the this change of force definition.

With the above caveats, the Team is tremendously impressed by the overall trends with respect to force in the first year of the new force policies. The use of force in Cleveland by CDP officers was down in 2018 compared to 2017—by 29%.

A 29% reduction in force incidents is no small achievement. The Monitoring Team applauds the Division’s work to revise force policies. It applauds the Training Section’s hard work on constructing and conducting high-quality officer training on force that incorporated new approaches and methods. Most of all, it applauds the men and women of the Division of Police who are charged with carrying out the policy while ensuring the public’s, and their own, safety. The data of the first year of the Division’s new approach to use of force suggest that officers are using force differently than in the past.

This significant drop in use of force has occurred at the same time that crime in Cleveland has dropped. As Table 2 details, Part I crime in Cleveland—with the exception of rape by a known assailant, a notoriously difficult crime for law enforcement to impact—was down in 2018 from 2017 across all major categories except rape.

Table 2: Part I Crime: 2018 v. 2017

2017

Homicide

130

Rape

550

Robbery

3026

Felonious Assault

2816

Burglary

6268

Theft

14611

Grand Theft MV

3561

Arson

292

2018 124 584 2269 2550 4943 10767 3150 174

Change –4.6% +6.2% –25.0% –9.5% –21.1% –26.3% –11.5% –40.4%

These numbers, reflecting a year’s worth of the day-to-day work of the Division and its officers, help to establish that the Division’s new use of force policies and approach are not leading to an increase in crime. Instead, officers are using less force at the same time Cleveland experiences less crime. This is clear, substantial, and positive progress.

Further, force and crime are down at the same time that officer injuries are down—both in terms of fewer officers getting injured in use of force incidents and fewer officers getting injured on the job overall. Specifically, there was a nearly 22 percent decrease in officer injuries in use of force incidents in 2018 and an approximately 20 percent decrease in officer injuries overall.

Table 3: Officer Injuries: 2018 v. 2017

2017

Officer Injuries in Force Incidents 55

Total Officer Injuries

161

2018 43 129

Change -21.8% -19.9%

28

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019
This indicates, quite encouragingly, that officers are not less safe as a result of the revised force policies.
Not only are fewer officers getting injured, but fewer subjects are getting injured during use of force incidents. In 2017, 37 percent of subjects were injured in some manner, from relatively low-level complaints of injuries alone to more significant physical injuries, during an incident where officers applied force. In 2018, 20 percent of subjects were injured during force incidents.
Thus, the implementation of the use of force policies in 2018 marked a year when the public, officers, and even the subjects of use of force in Cleveland were, in aggregate, safer than they were in the preceding year.
The Monitoring Team has previously observed that substantial and effective compliance with the Consent Decree, and general compliance with the use of force provisions of the Decree, does not and cannot depend simply on fewer uses of force alone. Instead, the Decree and the Court-approved policies enacted to comply with it require that force be used only when doing so is necessary, proportional, reasonable, and reasonably available deescalation attempts have been used. For instance, if the reduced number of use of force incidents all failed to comply with the new force policies, the Division would not be in compliance with the Decree, even if the overall number of force incidents were lower. At the same time, it likewise would be unacceptable if officers only rarely used force and did so consistent with policy, but officer and public safety were being compromised.
Thus, the reduction in reported force incidents in 2018 is encouraging and commendable. The Monitoring Team has begun a comprehensive review of use of force incidents that occurred in 2018 to evaluate whether those instances where officers used force were compliant with the Division’s policy. To the extent that the Monitoring Team identifies in this study that officers are performing according to standards and the requirements of the Decree, it may be possible that the Division’s performance for 2018 can be certified as being in General Compliance. The Monitoring Team will update the Court on its findings in the next reporting period.
Progress and Tasks that Remain
Ongoing, Annual Use of Force Training
The Division must continue to conduct use of force training on an annual basis, updating the curriculum as appropriate to address officer and community feedback, as well as what data reveals about patterns of force within CDP. The Division’s Training Section currently is developing a use of force in-service training curriculum for all CDP officers scheduled to begin on March 4, 2019. It is contemplated that the training will build off the successful 2017 effort with additional skill-building and scenario-based instruction.
Compliance with Policy
As noted in prior Semiannual Reports, the Division remains in the early days of actively implementing new force policies designed to comply with the Decree. Early indicators for 2018 were encouraging. However, more time will be necessary for the new obligations to sink in and for the Division to demonstrate that it is holding officers accountable for deviations from new force expectations.
29

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019

Ultimately, even if officers are using force less often, the force that they do use needs to adhere rigorously to the Division’s new policy. Although the numbers and quantitative trends across the first year are encouraging, the Division must consistently ensure—and the Monitoring Team will be auditing—that officers who do use force are complying with law, policy, and the terms of the Decree.

A key component of ensuring compliance with policy is the Division’s ability to rigorously investigate and review use of force incidents—so that good performance can be commended and deficient performance corrected.

B. Use of Force Investigation and Review

Paragraph
93. “A supervisor who was involved in a use of force, including by participating in or ordering the force under investigation, will not investigate the incident or review the Use of Force Reports for approval or disapproval.” 94. Setting specific requirements relating to the investigation of low-level, Level 1 force. 95–109. Setting specific requirements relating to the investigation by supervisors and/or CDP chain of command for investigation and review of Level 2 force. 110. “CDP may refer criminal investigations of uses of force to an independent and highly competent agency outside CDP.” 111. Creation and design of dedicated Force Investigation Team (FIT) that “will conduct administrative investigations . . . and criminal investigations” of serious force, “force involving potential criminal conduct,” in-custody deaths, and cases assigned to it by the Chief. 112. Composition of FIT Team.
113. “FIT members will receive FIT-specific training that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type” on a host of specific, expressly-listed topics both initially and annually thereafter. 114. “CDP will identify, assign, and train personnel for the FIT to fulfill the requirements of this Agreement.” 115. Response of FIT to use of force scenes. FIT notification of prosecutor’s office. Notification of designated outside agency to conduct criminal investigation if City elects to use external agency for such investigations. 116. “CDP will develop and implement polices to ensure that, where an outside agency conducts the criminal investigation, FIT conducts a concurrent and thorough administrative investigation.” 117. Memorandum of understanding required between CDP and outside agency containing specific, expressly-listed provisions. 118. Setting forth various, specific, and expressly-listed responsibilities of FIT during its investigations.

Status of Compliance EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED

30

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019

119. Monitor’s duty to annually review any “criminal investigations conducted by the outside agency” to ensure that they “are consistently objective, timely, and comprehensive.” 120. Providing for delay of compelled interview if “case has the potential to proceed criminally” but otherwise requiring that “[n]o other part of the investigation . . . be held in abeyance” unless “specifically authorized by the Chief” in consultation with investigating agency and prosecutor’s office. 121. Requiring completion of preliminary report presented to Chief or Chief’s designee “as soon as possible, but absent exigent circumstances, no later than 24 hours after learning of the use of force.” 122. Completion of investigation within 60 days. Preparation of FIT investigation report. Review of FIT investigative report by head of Internal Affairs who “will approve or disapprove FIT’s recommendations, or request . . . additional investigation.” 123. Revision of FIT manual to ensure “consisten[cy] with the force principles” and several specific, expressly-listed provisions. 124–30. Establishment and operation of Force Review Board “to serve as a quality control mechanism for uses of force and force investigations, and to appraise use of force incidents from a tactics, training, policy, and agency improvement perspective.”

EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED

Background

The Consent Decree establishes clear protocols by which the Division must investigate uses of force by the reported level of force. Under a Level One use of force, the investigation will typically be limited to a review of the involved officer’s use of force report.76 Level Two uses of force require a supervisor to respond to the scene and commence a preliminary force inquiry. If the supervisor’s inquiry at any point indicates “that there may have been misconduct, the supervisor will immediately notify Internal Affairs and Internal Affairs will determine if it should respond to the scene and/or conduct or take over the investigation.”77 Level Three uses of force, the most serious incidents, may come under the purview of either CDP’s Force Investigation Team (“FIT Team”) or an independent outside agency.

Along with force inquiries, the Decree also requires CDP to craft policies and procedures related to supervisory review of completed force investigations. Part of this process entails the establishment of a Force Review Board (“FRB”) that will “appraise use of force incidents from a tactics, training, policy, and agency improvement perspective.”78
Where the Division Stands

In the current reporting period, the Parties and Monitoring Team have continued to revise three important documents that will collectively set expectations and protocols for the Division’s review and investigation of uses of force: (1) the Use of Force Supervisory Review Policy; (2) the Force Investigation Team Manual; and (3) the

76 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 124. 77 Id. 78 Id.

31

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019
FRB Policy. The Monitoring Team anticipates that these policies will be completed and ready for the Court’s approval early in the upcoming reporting period. Progress and Tasks that Remain Officer Training and Policy Implementation Once the FIT and FRB manuals are completed and approved by the Court, CDP will be able to comprehensively analyze the application of force so that officer training, professional development, and risk management may all be continually enhanced. To do so effectively, implicated Division personnel will need to receive training on the new expectations. Specifically, the Division’s supervisors will all need training on how to conduct lower-level force investigations and reviews; the new FIT Team will need to receive force-investigation-specific instruction; and selected members of the newly-established FRB will likewise need to receive initial training on their duties, responsibilities, and the ways that the Board must conduct its work. The Parties and Monitoring Team have worked through several drafts of a curriculum addressing supervisory training. Over the next reporting period, the Division will need to take significant steps to design and implement these important training initiatives. Operation of FRB Following the approval of policies and the training of Board members on their duties and responsibilities, the Board will begin to convene. The Monitoring Team will be closely auditing the Board’s first year of operations to assess the Board’s ability to effectively review force investigations. Compliance & Adherence to New Policies The requirements of supervisors, FIT, FRB, and the Division’s command staff when it comes to the investigation and review of force incidents are significant and critical. The Division, and Monitoring Team, will need to ensure that it is adhering to the new requirements across cases, investigations, and time. Again, short-term or sporadic compliance will be insufficient for the new policies on force investigation and review to be considered effective in practice—and for the Division to reach “general compliance.”
32

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019

VII. CRISIS INTERVENTION

Paragraph 131. “CDP will build upon and improve its Crisis Intervention Program” in furtherance of four specific, expressly-listed goals, which “will provide a forum for effective problem solving regarding the interaction between the criminal justice and mental health system and create a context for sustainable change.” 132. Establishment of Mental Health Response Advisory Committee (the “Advisory Committee”) “to foster relationships and build support between the police, community, and mental health providers and to help identify problems and develop solutions designed to improve outcomes for individuals in crisis.” 133. Composition of Advisory Committee.

Status of Compliance PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
GENERAL COMPLIANCE
GENERAL COMPLIANCE

134. “The Advisory Committee will meet regularly and provide guidance to assist CDP GENERAL

in improving, expanding, and sustaining its Crisis Intervention Program.”

COMPLIANCE

135. Advisory Committee will conduct an annual “analysis of crisis intervention incidents to determine whether CDP has enough specialized CIT officers, whether it is deploying those officers effectively, and whether specialized CIT officers” and communications “are appropriately responding to people in crisis,” and will also “recommend appropriate changes.”

EVALUATION DEFERRED

136. “The Advisory Committee’s reports and recommendations will be provided” to GENERAL

CPC, “be publicly available, and will be posted on the City’s website.”

COMPLIANCE

137. CDP will designate a Crisis Intervention Coordinator for specific, expressly- GENERAL

identified purposes.

COMPLIANCE

138. “Coordinator will develop and maintain partnerships with program stakeholders OPERATIONAL

and serve as point of contact” and “resource” for other stakeholders.

COMPLIANCE

139. “Coordinator will participate in the Advisory Committee and on a regular basis solicit feedback from the mental health community and specialized CIT officers, calltakers, and dispatchers regarding the efficacy of CDP’s Crisis Intervention Program.” 140. “Coordinator will be responsible for coordinating implementation of the changes and recommendations made by the Advisory Committee, as appropriate.”

GENERAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE

141. “Coordinator will be responsible for ensuring the selection of appropriate PARTIAL candidates for designation as specialized CIT officers” and “to ensure that officers, call- COMPLIANCE takers, and dispatchers are appropriately responding to CIT-related calls.”

142. “Coordinator will create ways to recognize and honor specialized CIT officers, EVALUATION

call-takers, and dispatchers.”

DEFERRED

143. Initial and annual crisis intervention training to all officers and recruits that is OPERATIONAL

“adequate in quality, quantity, type, and scope.”

COMPLIANCE

144. Initial and annual crisis intervention training for dispatchers and call-takers.

OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE

145. “CDP will provide enhanced specialized training in responding to individuals in PARTIAL crisis to certain officers (‘specialized CIT officers’),” who will be “called upon to COMPLIANCE respond to incidents or calls involving individuals in crisis.”

33

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019

146–47. Outlining various requirements for the “enhanced training” for specialized CIT officers of “at least 40 hours.” 148. Designation of specialized CIT officers, per specific, expressly-listed requirements. 149. “Supervisors will identify and encourage qualified officers across all shifts and all Districts to serve as specialized officers.” 150. “All Field Training Officers” (“FTO”s) “will receive the enhanced specialized crisis intervention training described in paragraph 146,” though FTOs will “not be designated as a specialized CIT officer” unless they volunteer and have been selected to do so. 151. “Specialized CIT officers who are dispatched to an incident involving an individual in crisis will have primary responsibility for the scene,” with supervisors “seek[ing] the input of a specialized CIT officer . . . where it is reasonable for them to do so.” 152. “[T]he Coordinator will develop an effective specialized crisis intervention plan . . . to ensure that a specialized CIT officer is available to respond to all calls and incidents that appear to involve an individual in crisis” that includes various, specific, expresslyidentified requirements. The City “will use its best efforts to ensure that a specialized CIT officer responds to all calls and incidents that appear to involve an individual in crisis.”

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED

Background

The Consent Decree requires the Division to build and enhance its Crisis Intervention Program with the goals of:

● Assisting individuals in crisis; ● Improving the safety of officer, consumers, family members, and others within the community; ● Providing the foundation necessary to promote community and statewide solutions to assist
individuals with mental illness; and ● Reducing the need for individuals with mental illness to have further involvement with the criminal
justice system.79
Where the Division Stands

As the Team noted in its Fifth Semiannual Report, “the progress that the City has made in the area of crisis intervention is [arguably] the strongest and most significant of any area of the Consent Decree to date.”80 This significant progress has continued in the current reporting period. The Monitoring Team has been pleased to see the Mental Health Response Advisory Committee (“MHRAC”)—the community problem-solving forum made up of representatives from the police, social service providers, mental health and substance abuse professionals, the judiciary, advocates, and individuals in recovery—continue to collaborate on ways to improve services to

79 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 131. 80 Fifth Semiannual Report at 67.
34

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019
those in need of care.81 MHRAC and CDP also built upon a successful Crisis Intervention Training in 2017 with a high-quality follow-up training for all CDP officers.
MHRAC Quality Improvement Subcommittee
To address linkages between crisis intervention and treatment, MHRAC in early 2018 created a Quality Improvement Subcommittee—drawn from the MHRAC Policy and Data Subcommittees, as well as a range of subject matter experts, advocates, and individuals in recovery—to work with the Division.
In the current reporting period, the Quality Improvement Subcommittee, with technical support from the Alcohol, Drug Addiction, and Mental Health Services (“ADAMHS”) Board of Cuyahoga County, has met regularly and worked to assess not only the effectiveness of CDP’s CIT policies and Crisis Intervention Plan, but also the gaps in accessing mental health and addiction services. Committee members designed a data template to analyze how the CDP’s crisis intervention data can be used to identify necessary ongoing treatment services by providers who work with the ADAMHS Board. Because the work on this template relates to the ongoing upgrades to the Division’s CAD system, the outcome data is preliminary and based on sampling strategies which limits the ability to draw definitive conclusions. Still, the Subcommittee’s work to develop the data template underscores MHRAC’s commitment to identify underserved populations, individuals in need of innovative support, and indices that can provide an outcome measure of time to service.
2018 In-Service Training
The Second-Year Crisis Intervention In-Service Training (“Second-Year CIT Training” or “2018 CIT Training”) curriculum for all CDP officers was submitted to the Court for final approval on July 13, 2018. The training began on July 16, 2018. Both the lead crisis intervention expert for the Monitoring Team and the Training Committee representative from the Department of Justice noted that the Division and MHRAC took strong ownership of the 2018 CIT Training. As of the end of the year, CDP reported that 98% of officers eligible to attend the crisis intervention training had completed it.
The training builds on the successful 2017 Crisis Intervention First-Year Training by providing a refresher on principles of the initial training, but also by providing specific guidance for officers to resolve mental health crises, including by not arresting the subject and instead referring to an appropriate mental health agency; transporting the subject voluntarily to a hospital or crisis center; transporting the subject involuntarily to a hospital or crisis center; and arresting the individual when appropriate. The Second-Year CIT Training also addresses how trauma can impact law enforcement officers, the symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder on officers, and how to access resources for help within the Division and in the Cleveland community. The specific topics for this curriculum were informed by a survey completed by officers after the 2017 Crisis Intervention Training.
Officer feedback for the 2018 CIT Training was positive. Of roughly 1100 CDP officers who completed the evaluation ratings, nearly eighty percent (79.4%) agreed or strongly agreed that the instructor accomplished the learning objectives for the course. Just under seventy percent of all officers (69.6%) agreed or strongly agreed that
35

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019
the 2018 CIT Training enhanced their understanding of the course material. Almost eighty percent of the officers (79.4%) agreed or strongly agreed that the instructor encouraged critical engagement with the material. Just under four percent (3.6%) disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement. Qualitatively, the Division’s CIT Coordinator, Captain James Purcell, observed strong officer engagement with the training.
Representatives of the Department of Justice attended sessions of the 2018 CIT Training and reported positive observations. DOJ noted that the classes generated productive discussion of the issues and that the officers were actively engaged in question-and-answer sessions. The Monitoring Team members reported similar positive feedback.
Altogether, the Monitoring Team applauds MHRAC and the Division’s hard work to prepare and conduct continued high-quality officer training on principles of crisis intervention and mental and behavioral health— consistent subjects of interest for Cleveland residents engaged in the Division’s ongoing reforms.
Specialized Training
In the current reporting period, the MHRAC Training Subcommittee collaborated with CDP, the City, the Department of Justice, and the Monitoring Team to develop the final draft of the 40-Hour Specialized CIT Curriculum.
The 40-hour curriculum represents a significant amount of work, covering 11 major content areas. Additionally, trainees will participate in three types of direct experiences which include: (1) on-site interactions with individuals with lived experiences who are recovering from mental illness and substance abuse, (2) in-depth scenarios based on CDP crisis intervention calls, and (3) realistic simulations of symptoms related to mental illness such as hearing voices while attempting to accomplish simple commands. Volunteer faculty have provided a lesson plan, an instructor’s manual, and a set of PowerPoint slides with video where appropriate. As of February 2019, the curriculum is in the final stages of editing and approval by the Training Subcommittee and MHRAC as a whole. A start date for the training of the Specialized CIT Officers is anticipated late in the first quarter of 2019.
Community Engagement
MHRAC’s Community Engagement Subcommittee has continued to work to ensure that community members are well-informed about the Division’s CIT Program. In the current reporting period, the subcommittee has prepared an early 2019 community update on the Division’s progress in improving crisis intervention services. Previous community education efforts have required a great deal of planning and technical assistance from both the Department of Justice and the Monitoring Team. This time, the community update has been planned and will be executed independently. The Monitoring Team is pleased to see that MHRAC is taking ownership of the principles of the Consent Decree in an effort to ensure a continued positive impact well past the Decree’s formal timeframe.
Progress and Tasks that Remain
MHRAC Diversion Subcommittee
36

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019
As the Cleveland Division of Police completes the 40-hour Training for Specialized Crisis Intervention Officers, the MHRAC’s Diversion Subcommittee will serve an important role in providing assistance to the Division. The MHRAC Third Annual Work Plan provides six goals for the Diversion Subcommittee: utilizing the Crisis Stabilization Unit as a diversion point, identifying diversion points for adolescents, exploring the need for two crisis centers in the county, promoting awareness of new diversion options, working with behavioral partners to address capacity issues, and coordinating work with the Veterans Health Administration. These goals involve a number of funding and community issues that will take additional time to resolve. However, it is clear that the ADAMHS Board and CDP are committed to having the MHRAC Diversion Subcommittee complete the tasks involved which will have an important impact on those in need of crisis services. The Diversion Subcommittee has been meeting regularly and is demonstrating new energy in tackling this ambitious agenda.
Data & Compliance Reviews
As with a number of other areas of the Decree, the ability to more comprehensively and smoothly collect and track data depends on the Division’s new electronic system for inputting crisis-related data. This will ensure that crisisrelated data can be input electronically and easily. Future, formalized assessments will need to explore whether officers are improving their de-escalation skills and seriously considering the process of diversion across time, officers, and incidents. Further, CDP will need to publicly report this outcome data annually and provide it to the Advisory Committee.82
Separately, the Monitoring Team will need to analyze data and review a material sample of incidents involving individuals in crisis to certify that officers—across time, incidents, and subjects—are complying with the new crisis intervention policies and the requirements of the Consent Decree. As discussed earlier, while the initial efforts from the MHRAC Quality Improvement subcommittee are encouraging, the completion of a system for logging information and data about CDP interactions with individuals in crisis remains a critical factor in assessing compliance. At the current juncture, the type of analysis necessary to certify compliance with a host of requirements related to crisis intervention consequently cannot be undertaken.
In-Service Training Assessment and Continuous Improvement
CDP and MHRAC have successfully implemented two years of in-service training for all officers. MHRAC’s Quality Improvement Subcommittee has begun to review training evaluation feedback to identify potential areas of improvement and iteration, which is a good start in a process of continuous quality improvement. As more data becomes available, CDP will need to conduct formalized assessments of the outcome data to “identify training needs and develop case studies and teaching scenarios for crisis intervention training as well as primary and inservice crisis training curriculum[.]”83
Selection of Specialized CIT Officers
The Division’s Specialized CIT Officer Selection Plan, which outlines a three-stage process of a participation request, personnel file review, and selection board interview, was reviewed and approved by MHRAC, as well as
82 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 158. 83 Id. at ¶ 159.
37

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019
by the Court, in August 2017. Although the Selection Plan itself is complete, the actual selection process has been rescheduled pending the completion of the new 40-Hour specialized curriculum. The Team anticipates that the selection process will be completed by the end of the first quarter. Dispatcher CIT Officer Training Dispatchers will need to receive additional comprehensive and thorough training so that all CDP personnel that affect the Division’s crisis responses are prepared and understand the complex issues relating to mental and behavioral health. The Training Subcommittee has continued work on the CDP’s existing CIT curriculum for dispatchers and call takers, which focuses on personnel being able to identify calls for service that may implicate crisis intervention issues and dispatching appropriate resources to the scene of such events. To date, an outline has been developed, and the more specific curriculum will be fully finalized once the 40-Hour Curriculum for specialized CIT officers is completed. The final revision of the Dispatch Crisis Intervention Curriculum is scheduled for completion by mid-2019. Academy Training Following the Consent Decree’s approval and implementation by the Court, the Ohio Peace Officer Training Commission issued a new Crisis Intervention training curriculum for Ohio peace officers.84 CDP recruits received this curriculum as part of Academy Training. The Parties, MHRAC, CDP, and the Monitoring Team had agreed that this new training is a reasonable substitute for the Decree-required sixteen hours of Academy Training. Now that new recruits proceeding through the Academy are back to being trained in Cleveland rather than the Ohio State Patrol Academy, MHRAC will work with CDP to assure the Ohio Peace Officer Training Commission Crisis Intervention training remains a viable part of patrol officer training.
84 Ohio Peace Officer Training Commission: Education & Policy Section, Peace Officer Basic Training Crisis Intervention, 1-156 (Jan. 2016).
38

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019

VIII. SEARCH AND SEIZURE

Paragraph
160. “CDP will revise, develop, and implement search and seizure policies that comply with applicable law, . . . include the requirements below,” and conform to expresslyidentified principles. 161–65. Policy requirements for officers for stops, searches, and detentions.
166. “Officers will immediately notify a supervisor when effectuating a custodial arrest for obstructing official business, resisting arrest, or assault an officer and no other substantive violation is alleged,” and “the supervisor will respond to the scene.” 167. “Officers will not use ‘canned’ or conclusory language without supporting detail in documents or reports documenting investigatory stops, searches, or arrests.” 168. “Officers will articulate the justification for an investigatory stop, search, or arrest in a specific and clear manner in their reports.” CDP “will train officers” on documenting stops. “Supervisors will review all documentation of investigatory stops, searches, and arrests.” 169. Supervisor will review of “each arrest report by officers under their command,” with supervisors reviewing reports for specific, expressly-identified deficiencies. 170–72. Supervisory review of investigatory stops, searches, and arrests.
173. Provision of “initial training that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type on investigatory stops, searches, and arrests, including the requirements” of the Consent Decree that “will address the requirements of Fourth Amendment and related law, CDP policies,” and specific, expressly-identified topics. 174–75. Provision of “annual search and seizure in-service training that is adequate in quality, quantity, type, and scope” incorporating specific, expressly-identified topics.

Status of Compliance PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED

Background

The Consent Decree requires that CDP “revise, develop, and implement” policies on how its officers “conduct all
investigatory stops, searches, and arrests with the goal” that such actions comply with the “Constitution, state and federal law.”85 In addition to ensuring that officers enforce these legal requirements, the policies also will prohibit
officers from relying on a subject’s “race, ethnicity, gender, and perceived sexual orientation” as a reason to stop, search, or arrest an individual.86

The Consent Decree requires that CDP officers use specific details in reports documenting the events that led to an investigatory stop, search, or arrest without the use of “canned or conclusory statements.”87 Immediate

85 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 160. 86 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 161; Dkt. 97 at 42. 87 Id. at ¶ 167.

39

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019
supervisors and command staff are tasked with reviewing officer reports in a timely fashion to ensure compliance with applicable laws and CDP policies.88 This review is designed to address violations and deficiencies in the documentation while also authorizing supervisors to recommend corrective and disciplinary action, along with criminal investigation, where appropriate.89
Where the Division Stands
On August 15, 2018, the Parties and Monitoring Team completed drafts of five related policies: Search & Seizure, Investigative Stops, Probable Cause/Warrantless Arrests, Strip and Body Cavity Searches, and Miranda Warning and Waiver. These drafts were then shared with the Cleveland community for their comment. This was a major milestone in a lengthy process that began in the fall of 2017.
Once the draft policies became available, the Community Police Commission, led by its Search and Seizure Work Group, gathered public feedback on the draft policies. The CPC shared its final report on Search and Seizure policy recommendations to the City on November 14, with support from key stakeholder groups, including the ACLU of Ohio, the Cleveland Branch of the NAACP, and the Legal Aid Society of Cleveland. The CPC’s substantial efforts are described in more detail earlier in the Community Engagement section of this Report.
The City also gathered community feedback separate from the CPC, utilizing CDP’s District Policing Committees and other partnerships, which yielded some valuable feedback and insight.
Following the close of the community input period on November 14, 2018, the Division has been working to finalize the five draft policies, incorporating public comments as appropriate into the final policies. The Team anticipates that the policies will be completed and prepared for the Court’s approval early in the upcoming reporting period.
The Division’s Training Section has also worked to prepare early drafts of a curriculum for Search and Seizure training that will guide officers through new expectations for stops, searches, seizures, and arrests. This training will be part of the Division’s 2019 in-service training. The City, Division, DOJ, and Monitoring Team will continue to work together to finalize training for all officers on the new policies.
Progress and Tasks that Remain
Approval of Policies
As described above, the Team anticipates that the process of finalizing the five related Search and Seizure policies will conclude shortly and that the policies will be submitted to the Court early in the next reporting period.
88 Id. at ¶¶ 168-72. 89 Id.
40

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019 Training The Monitoring Team and DOJ will continue to work with the Division to ensure that training on the revised Search and Seizure policies is high-quality, engaging, informative, and appropriately grounded in realistic scenarios. Policy Implementation After all patrol officers receive training and the policies become effective, the Monitoring Team will (1) evaluate the numbers and trends with respect to who is being stopped, under what circumstances, and what the outcomes of those stops are; and (2) audit a host of stops themselves to determine if officers both articulated and had in fact sufficient legal grounds for any stop, detention, search, or arrest. This will include evaluation of whether supervisors are adhering to their requirements under the Division’s final policies and the Decree.
41

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019

IX. ACCOUNTABILITY

Paragraph
176. “The City and CDP will ensure that all allegations of officer misconduct, whether internally discovered or alleged by a civilian, are fully, fairly, and efficiently investigated; that all investigative findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence and documented in writing; and that all officers who commit misconduct are held accountable pursuant to a disciplinary system that is fair, consistent, and provides due process.”

Status of Compliance EVALUATION DEFERRED

A. Internally Discovered Misconduct

Paragraph
177. “Internal Affairs will conduct objective, comprehensive, and timely investigations of all internal allegations,” with “findings . . . based on the preponderance of the evidence standard” that must “be clearly delineated in policies, training, and procedures and accompanied by detailed examples to ensure proper application by investigators.” 178. “Internal Affairs will be headed by a qualified civilian” who “will report directly to the Chief of Police. 179. Qualifications for IA investigators.
180. Initial training for IA investigators “that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type on conducting misconduct investigations” that addresses specific, expresslyidentified topics. 181. “[A]nnual training” for IA investigators “that is adequate in quality, quantity, type and scope” 182. “In each investigation, Internal Affairs will collect and consider” all evidence. “[N]o automatic preference for an officer’s statement over a non-officer’s statement.” No disregard of a “witnesses’ statement solely because of” connection to the complainant or criminal history. IA investigators must “make all reasonable efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements.” 183. IA “will evaluate all relevant police activity and any evidence of potential misconduct uncovered during the course of the investigation.” 184. IA will not consider guilty plea or verdict as “determinative of whether a CDP officer engaged in misconduct” or justification for “discontinuing the investigation.” 185. IA “will complete its administrative investigations within 30 days from the date it learns of the alleged misconduct.” 186–87. IA investigative report requirements.

Status of Compliance EVALUATION DEFERRED
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE EVALUATION DEFERRED GENERAL COMPLIANCE
EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED

42

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019

188. Forwarding of completed IA investigations “to the officers’ supervisors, the Training Review Committee, the Force Review Board, the Officer Intervention Program, and the Data Collection and Analysis Coordinator.” 189. “CDP will require any CDP employee who observes or becomes aware of any” potential misconduct to “report the incident to a supervisor or directly to” IA. 190. “CDP will develop a system that allows officers to confidentially and anonymously report potential misconduct by other officers.” 191. “CDP will expressly prohibit all forms of retaliation, discouragement, intimidation, coercion, or adverse action, against any person, civilian or officer, who reports misconduct, makes a misconduct complaint, or cooperates with an investigation of misconduct.” 192. “Officers who retaliate . . . will be subject to the disciplinary process.”

EVALUATION DEFERRED
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE

Background

Under the Consent Decree, the CDP’s Internal Affairs (“IA”) unit “will conduct objective, comprehensive, and timely investigations of internal allegations of officer misconduct.”90 CDP have an affirmative obligation, under
CDP policy, when they “observe[] or become[] aware of any act of misconduct by another employee to report their incident to a supervisor or directly to Internal Affairs.”91 Division policy “will expressly prohibit all forms of
retaliation, discouragement, intimidation, coercion, or adverse action, against any person . . . who reports misconduct[.]”92

The IA-related provisions are among the most urgent and pressing of the Decree’s requirements. The inadequacy of IA investigations was no surprise. An analysis of 2015 IA investigations conducted by the Monitoring Team reaffirmed the problems with IA’s performance.93 A majority of the Division’s 2015 investigations were of either fair or poor quality, with significant pieces of relevant data missing from investigative files. Internal Affairs must be the primary engine for the Division’s administrative (non-criminal) investigations of officer misconduct and, more generally, the main oversight mechanism for ensuring that the Division’s performance standards are being met.

Where Internal Affairs Stands Now

The work of the current reporting period has focused on finalizing the policies and procedures to guide Internal Affairs investigations. Prior to the Consent Decree, IA did not have in place the types of rigorous, codified procedures for conducting its investigations and performing its duties that analogous units in similarly-situated departments have.

90 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 177. 91 Id. at ¶ 189. Such reporting may be confidential or anonymous. 92 Id. at ¶ 191. 93 Fifth Semiannual Report at 76-77.
43

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019
The Parties are drafting several IA policies, including the IA Manual and other IA-related policies, that will establish the rules and protocols that will guide IA staff and investigators in all IA investigations going forward. The Monitoring Team anticipates that these policies will be completed and submitted for the Court’s approval in the upcoming reporting period.
Along with finalizing the IA policies, IA Superintendent Bakeman began working on training and staffing Internal Affairs to ensure a solid foundation for Settlement Agreement compliant investigations in the future. The Decree requires that the Division provide initial and annual training to all new and existing personnel “that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type on conducting misconduct investigations.”94 This training must address fundamental topics including:
• “[I]nvestigative skills, including proper interrogation and interview techniques; gathering and objectively analyzing evidence; and data and case management”;
• “[T]he particular challenges of administrative police misconduct investigations, including identifying alleged misconduct that is not clearly stated in the complaint or that becomes apparent during the investigation”;
• “[P]roperly weighing the credibility of civilian witnesses against officers”; • “[U]sing objective evidence to resolve inconsistent statements”; • “[T]he proper application of the preponderance of the evidence standard”; and • “CDP rules and policies, including the requirements of this Agreement, and protocols related to
administrative investigations of alleged officer misconduct.”95
The first step in conducting the necessary initial training took place in November 2018 with an Internal Affairs investigative training conducted by an outside vendor and attended by current Internal Affairs staff as well as select CDP officers anticipating future assignment to Internal Affairs. The Monitoring Team and DOJ representatives attended the training and were pleased to see that attendees were well engaged. The training inspired lively classroom discussions about case scenarios, techniques, legal issues, and the complexities of these types of investigations. The Monitoring Team was impressed by the curriculum and the expertise of the trainers. Informal feedback from CDP officers, detectives, supervisors, and commanders who attended the class praised the training.
The Monitoring Team still needs to give the new Superintendent the opportunity to internally improve IA processes and procedures before conducting qualitative analyses on current IA investigative practices. The Monitoring Team anticipates beginning a subsequent round of qualitative analysis in the latter part of 2019 to evaluate whether investigations conducted in the first two quarters of the year appear to represent an improvement to the 2016 evaluation of 2015 cases that the Team previously conducted.
Progress and Tasks that Remain
94 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶¶ 180-81. 95 Id.
44

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019

Staffing

As the Monitoring Team has indicated in prior Reports, Internal Affairs is woefully understaffed. No sustainable improvements will be possible until IA receives both the quality and quantity of investigative Sergeants necessary to ensure timely and competent investigations of internal misconduct. The Division’s Staffing Plan primarily, and largely appropriately, focuses on patrol staffing considerations. CDP will need to ensure that it subsequently addresses the specific staffing needs of various specialized units, including IA.

Ensuring Investigative Integrity for Cases Investigated Outside of Internal Affairs

Some recent internal investigations have continued to take place outside of Internal Affairs. The Division will need to work over the course of the next reporting period to identify how to best achieve compliance with Consent Decree requirements around reasonable discipline and on competent underlying investigations in this regard. It will be helpful in this regard for the Division to delineate all City entities that handle issues relating to CDP member conduct (such as the City’s Human Resources or the Department of Public Safety’s Accident Investigation Unit), so that their functions can be coordinated and integrated with the Division’s IA function.

Compliance with Policies, Protocols, and Procedures

As with many other areas that are the focus of the reform process, sporadically high-quality investigations amid generally poor-quality investigations, or occasionally bad investigations among generally good ones, is not sufficient to establish compliance. Instead, it is the sustained adherence to the high standards of the Decree and policy that will set the occasion for substantial and effective compliance. As the Monitoring Team has previously outlined, it will accordingly conduct systematic audits to ensure that IA investigations—across time, investigators, and incidents—comply with the requirements of the Decree.

B. Office of Professional Standards (“OPS”)

Paragraph 193. OPS “investigate[s] all civilian complaints it receives, other than those that allege criminal conduct,” which are referred to IA. Excessive force complaints generally retained by OPS. IA investigations referred back to OPS if “determination is made that no criminal conduct occurred.” 194. “The City will ensure that OPS is led by an administrator with the skills, expertise, and experience to effectively manage the intake, tracking, timely, and objective investigation of complaints”; implement PRB training; “assess OPS’s equipment and staffing needs”; and “develop and implement performance standards for OPS.” 195–96. Initial training for OPS investigators “adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type,” including specific, expressly-listed topics. 197. “OPS Investigators will not be current members of the CDP, and no CDP personnel will have any active role in OPS’s operations.” 198. “The City will ensure that the lawyer representing OPS does not have any actual or apparent conflicts of interest.”

Status of Compliance OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE

45

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019

199. “OPS will have its own budget, separate from . . . the Department of Public Safety” that “affords sufficient independence and resources, including sufficient staff and training to meet the terms of this Agreement.” 200. Development and implementation of OPS operations manual “made available to the public” that covers specific, expressly-listed topics. 201. Development and implementation of “a program to promote awareness through the Cleveland community about the process for filing complaints with OPS.” 202. “CDP and the City will work with the police unions . . . to allow civilian complaints to be submitted to OPS verbally or in writing; in person, by phone, or on line; by a complainant, someone acting on his or her behalf, or anonymously; and with or without a signature from the complainant,” with all “complaints documented in writing.” 203. “CDP will post and maintain by the intake window at CDP headquarters and all District headquarters a permanent placard describing the civilian complaint process” and containing specific, expressly-listed information. 204. “CDP will provide training that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type to all police personnel, including dispatchers, to properly handle complaint intake, including” with respect to specific, expressly-listed topics. 205. CDP officers “carry complaint forms in their CDP vehicles,” which officers must provide “upon request.” Supervisors will be dispatched to scene when an individual wants to make a complaint, with the supervisor providing a copy of completed complaint form “or a blank form to be completed later by the individual.” 206. “The City and OPS will make complaint forms and other materials outlining the complaint process and OPS’s contact information available at locations” including a number of specific, expressly-listed locations. 207. “OPS’s complaint form will not contain any language that could reasonably be construed as discouraging the filing of a complaint, including warnings about the potential criminal consequences for filing false complaints.” 208. Availability of complaint forms in English and Spanish. “OPS will make every effort to ensure that complainants who speak other languages . . . can file complaints in their preferred language.” 209. “City will ensure that civilian complaints submitted through other existing systems, including the Mayor’s Action Center and the Department Action Center, are immediately forwarded to OPS for investigation.” 210. “OPS will establish a centralized electronic numbering and tracking system for all complaints,” which “will maintain accurate and reliable data regarding the number, nature, and status of all complaints . . . including investigation timeliness and notification of the interim status and final disposition of the complaint.” It “will be used to monitor and maintain appropriate caseloads for OPS investigators.” 211. Biased policing tracked as a separate category of complaint that “are captured and tracked appropriately, even if the complainant does not so label the allegation.” 212. “[A]llegations of unlawful investigatory stops, searches, or arrests” tracked as a separate category of complaints.

OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE EVALUATION DEFERRED OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
EVALUATION DEFERRED
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED

46

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019

213. “[A]llegations of excessive use of force” tracked as separate category of complaints.
214. “OPS will conduct regular assessments of the types of complaints being received to identify and assess potential problematic patterns and trends.” 215. “OPS will produce, at least annually, a public report summarizing complaint trends, including” with respect several specific, expressly-identified areas. 216. Assignment of complaints to Standard and Complex investigatory tracks.
217. Dismissal and/or administrative dismissal of complaint investigations.
218. “OPS will ensure that investigations of complaints are as thorough as necessary to reach reliable and complete findings that are supported by the preponderance of the evidence.” 219. “CDP will ensure that OPS has timely access to all reports related to the incident . . . ,” and authority of OPS “to conduct additional investigation” of civilian complaint when CDP investigation has already taken place relating to the incident. 220. “OPS investigators will attempt to interview each complainant in person” and record the interview. 221. “The Chief will order officers who witnessed or participate in an incident that is the subject of an OPS complaint to cooperate with the OPS investigation,” including by responding to written questions or sitting for an in-person interview. 222. “OPS investigators will have access to any relevant disciplinary information in the record of an officer who is the subject of a current investigation.” 223. “OPS will consider all relevant evidence,” with no preferences for particular witness’s statements, including of officer over a non-officer, or because of connection to complainant or criminal history. “OPS will make all reasonable efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements.” 224. OPS findings categories.
225. “OPS will document in writing the investigation of each complaint, including all investigatory steps taken, and OPS’s findings and conclusions,” which must “be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 226. Items for consideration for OPS findings.
227. “OPS will forward all investigations and its written conclusions to PRB in sufficient time for PRB to consider them no later than the second regularly scheduled PRB meeting following completion of the investigation.” 228. “OPS will send periodic written updates” to the complainant at specific, expresslyidentified junctures. 229. “[A] complainant may contact OPS at any time to determine the status of his/her complaint.”

EVALUATION DEFERRED NONCOMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
EVALUATION DEFERRED
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED

47

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019
Background
To properly ensure that officers are held to account for violations of policy and law, police departments need a credible and transparent system for investigating civilian complaints of misconduct. In Cleveland, the Office of Professional Standards (“OPS”) is the civilian-staffed office charged with investigating the complaints of civilians about Division of Police personnel. The City Charter requires OPS to conduct “a full and complete investigation” of all citizen complaints of employee misconduct.96
The Consent Decree has a number of requirements—such as hiring a qualified and experienced OPS Administrator, ensuring high-quality training for investigators, establishing a separate budget for OPS, and promoting awareness throughout Cleveland about the availability of civilian complaint forms—all designed to ensure that OPS can conduct thorough and competent investigations of civilian complaints and reach findings that are supported by the preponderance of evidence.97
Where OPS Stands Now
OPS has completed a number of major milestones, including developing a new OPS Operations Manual with detailed procedures for investigations, report writing, and evidence collection. The City also hired Mr. Roger Smith as the new OPS Administrator in June 2018.
The City’s hiring of Hillard Heintze has helped to reduce the backlog of uninvestigated or partially investigated civilian complaints, which was at a reported backlog of 377 cases as of the start of 2018, to approximately 75 cases. This has been a serious undertaking, and the Monitoring Team is pleased that significant progress is being made. The Team is hopeful that the current efforts at backlog reduction will develop into a long-term trend in favor of timely OPS investigations and referrals to the Police Review Board for resolution of complaints.
In the past, the lack of timely reviews of investigations has made it impossible for OPS to comply with Paragraph 227 of the Consent Decree, which requires OPS to “forward all investigations and its written conclusions to the PRB in sufficient time for PRB to consider them no later than the second regularly scheduled PRB meeting following completion of the investigation.” Starting in June 2018, however, the new OPS Administrator put new practices into place to better ensure the timely referral of completed investigations to the PRB for their consideration. The Team has observed that OPS is now completing findings letters upon the completion of PRB hearings in a generally timely manner. That is an encouraging development.
Now that OPS has experienced leadership to implement changes in day-to-day practices on newly-received complaints, the Monitoring Team has seen some improvements in the quality of OPS investigative practices. OPS still needs to make additional progress to address some fundamental investigative deficiencies.
96 Charter of the City of Cleveland, § 115-4. 97 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶¶ 193-229.
48

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019
Staffing
OPS has staffed up considerably in the past year, most significantly with a new Administrator and Supervising Investigator working to improve OPS’s investigative procedures. OPS has worked to fill three significant vacancies for Research Analyst, General Manager, and Community Outreach Coordinator. Recently, offers for the both the Research Analyst and Community Outreach positions were accepted by the final candidates. The General Manager position is also in advanced discussions with a final candidate. These hires will be critical to OPS’s sustained reform and ultimate compliance with the Consent Decree.
In part due to understaffing in OPS and the many competing demands on existing OPS personnel, the Monitoring Team and the Parties agreed that the completion date for the 2018 Annual Report, summarizing complaint trends and timeframes for the public and required under Paragraph 215 of the Decree, will be extended to April 30, 2019. The Monitoring Team anticipates that the next Annual Report will contain more substantive information relating the work conducted by OPS and the PRB than in previous reports and has recommended that OPS present its next report to the City Council’s Public Safety Committee in public session.
Progress and Tasks that Remain
OPS has made commendable progress to improve its practices since the Consent Decree monitoring began in October 2015. Given the host of foundational issues that it faced, however, OPS must still address a number of challenges. The City and OPS Administrator will need to continue to exert significant time, energy, and resources to make OPS into a functional and credible oversight agency.
Completing the Backlog of Open Investigations
First, the City will need to fully address and adjudicate the previously-unclosed investigations received prior to January 1, 2018 that have still not been completed or received a final disposition. The Team is pleased, as described earlier, that aggressive measures reportedly taken by the new OPS Administrator and Senior Investigator have reduced the ongoing caseload to a respectable average of 75 cases. When divided between the current staff of nine OPS investigators, the overall caseload appears to be reasonable and would appear to support timely and competent investigations of future complaints made to the OPS.
Case Management System/Business Mapping
As the Monitoring Team has stated before, proper case management is a basic, foundational management tool for an investigatory agency with OPS’s charge to operate successfully in a city the size of Cleveland. Under the Consent Decree, OPS will “establish a centralized electronic numbering and tracking system . . . [which] will maintain accurate and reliable data regarding the number, nature, and status of all complaints” and which can be used by OPS administration “to monitor and maintain appropriate caseloads for OPS investigators.”98
The Monitoring Team looks forward to the hiring of a new OPS Management Analyst (anticipated to occur in the first quarter of 2019), which will allow OPS to take full advantage of IAPro as its case management software.
98 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 210.
49

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019
Ongoing Issues of the Quality of OPS Investigations & Training Needs
Under the Consent Decree, OPS investigators need to receive “initial training that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type” that addresses:
• “[I]nvestigative skills, including proper interrogation and interview techniques; gathering and objectively analyzing evidence; and data and case management;
• “[T]he particular challenges of administrative investigations of police conduct, including identifying conduct warranting investigation that is not clearly stated in the complaint or that becomes apparent during the investigation;
• “[P]roperly weighing the credibility of civilian witnesses against officers; • “[U]sing objective evidence to resolve inconsistent statements; • “[T]he proper application of the preponderance of the evidence standard; and • “CDP rules and policies, including the requirements of this Agreement, and protocols related to
administrative investigations of officer conduct alleged to be improper.”99 • Early in the Decree’s implementation, OPS provided some training to its investigators. But given the deficiencies that the Team has continued to observe and has noted in the past, it was clear that what they had received had not been enough to sufficiently improve the quality of OPS investigations.
Since his hiring as the OPS Administrator, Mr. Smith has conducted weekly in-house training sessions for OPS investigators. The positive response from OPS staff has been noteworthy. The Monitoring Team intends to conduct qualitative evaluations of OPS investigations over the course of the next two reporting periods and is hopeful that significant improvements will be noted. Ultimately, the proof of the efficacy and sufficiency of training conducted to date will be in the quality and integrity of OPS’s investigations.
OPS Staff Performance Reviews
In the Fourth Semiannual Report, the Monitoring Team noted that OPS had then only recently set forth formal expectations (the “Smart Objectives”) for its investigators relating to the conduct of investigations—even though this was a process available to all City managers across departments to set and hold employees accountable for specific performance expectations. Unfortunately, a Monitoring Team review of the documentation provided by OPS relative to the performance review process revealed problematic practices, with major discrepancies between scores and overall performance reviews, with minimal documentation, if any, available to support the ratings provided to both permanent and temporary investigators.
It has been the Monitoring Team’s expectation that the new OPS Administrator will ensure a robust employee performance review process at OPS to ensure employee adherence to OPS Court-approved policies and best practices in investigations based on the training that has been and will continue to be received. Thus far, Mr. Smith has reported conducting ongoing performance reviews. The Monitoring Team looks forward to seeing substantive, written performance reviews coming out of OPS in the next reporting period.
99 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 195-96.
50

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019

Complaint Forms

Under the Consent Decree, the City and OPS “will make complaint forms and other materials outlining the
complaint process and OPS’s contact information available at locations” including a number of specific, expresslylisted locations.100 Further, all CDP officers will “carry complaint forms in their CDP vehicles.”101

While the City and CDP have consistently maintained that they have made complaint forms available at the Decree-enumerated locations, Monitoring Team members have visited the locations and have, on occasion, not found the forms readily available. Similarly, Monitoring Team members have requested CDP officers to procure an OPS complaint form, to which officers sometimes have been unable to provide one from their vehicle. The Monitoring Team has begun working on an audit program to assess, among other things, the accessibility of complaint forms in vehicles and at CDP District stations. A recent, informal audit in January 2019 indicated that several District stations had OPS complaint forms in both English and Spanish available in the lobby as well as a poster explaining the complaint process.
C. Police Review Board (“PRB”)

Paragraph
230. “Mayor will work with the City Council to develop an ordinance to place a Charter Amendment on the ballot” addressing PRB composition and appointment process. 231. “PRB members will not be current or former members of the CDP.”
232. “PRB will have its own budget,” overseen by OPS Administrator and separate from Department of Public Safety, that “affords sufficient independence and resources.” 233–34. Initial training for PRB members “that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type” and that covers specific, expressly-identified topics. 235. PRB meetings open to the public and posted in advance, with “case presentations and PRB votes” occurring during “open session.” 236. “OPS investigators will attend PRB meetings at which their investigations are being considered and present their findings . . . . ” PRB may “ask the investigator to conduct further investigation” as necessary. 237. “PRB recommended dispositions will be based on a preponderance of the evidence. For each case, PRB shall set forth its conclusion and an explanation of its reasons and supporting evidence in writing, including, when applicable, the justification for departing from OPS’s recommended disposition.” 238. “In cases where PRB is recommending a sustained disposition, in whole or in part, PRB will include a recommendation as to disciplinary or non-disciplinary corrective action.”

Status of Compliance GENERAL COMPLIANCE GENERAL COMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
EVALUATION DEFERRED
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE

100 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 206. 101 Id. at ¶ 205.
51

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019

239. [Timely] forwarding of PRB recommendations to Chief of Police and Director of OPERATIONAL

Public Safety.

COMPLIANCE

Background

Cleveland’s civilian Police Review Board (“PRB” or “the Board”) reviews and analyzes completed OPS investigations. It makes a formal recommendation to the Chief of Police on the ultimate disposition of the case and, if warranted, the discipline that an involved officer should receive. A well-functioning PRB is critical to ensuring that OPS investigations are sound and that the Chief of Police receives a well-informed recommendation on the disposition of OPS cases.

The Consent Decree has many requirements relating to the PRB, including that the “PRB will have its own budget[,]” PRB members will receive initial training, PRB meetings will be held open to the public and posted in advance, “OPS investigators will attend PRB meetings at which their investigations are being considered and present their findings[,]” “PRB recommended dispositions will be based on a preponderance of the evidence[,]” and that the PRB will, when recommending sustained disposition, “include a recommendation as to disciplinary or non-disciplinary corrective action.”102

Where the PRB Stands

Since the adoption of the PRB Operations Manual in 2017, which codified changes made in the November 2016 City Charter Amendment, and the subsequent adoption of an amendment to permit the PRB to have public meetings, the PRB continues to convene regularly to address cases that it receives from OPS. However, the performance of the PRB has largely been at the mercy of OPS. The timeliness of the PRB’s review of cases, and precisely what the PRB is reviewing, depends on how well OPS has effectuated its duties in the investigatory stage.

PRB members have, in the past, received auxiliary training that did not qualify as the initial training called for in the Decree. As the PRB has taken on new members, OPS has had to create a training protocol for new members to ensure the seamless operation of the PRB going forward; by the end of the last reporting period, OPS had successfully completed a training binder which was subsequently provided to all current members of the PRB as a resource. OPS Administrator Smith also included PRB members in OPS investigator training that took place in December 2018. The inclusion of PRB members in this type of training was a positive step forward in ensuring adequacy of PRB reviews now and in the future.

On January 8, 2019, one of the PRB’s members resigned from the Board. The City has initiated the selection process for filling the Board vacancy and expects that the selection and appointment will be finalized in early March 2019.

102 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶¶ 232-38. 52

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019

Progress and Tasks that Remain

Quality of PRB Recommendations & Processes

The Monitoring Team has observed several cases in which the Chief disagreed with PRB recommendations without providing a robust written rationale. The Team has similarly noted what appear to be largely ad hoc communications between the Chief and the Board, usually through the OPS Administrator. The OPS/PRB program would benefit from a formal, written protocol between the PRB and the Chief’s Office to address systemic communication issues and to ensure that the Chief and PRB understand each other’s rationale for making recommendations and decisions on complaints.
Documentation of PRB Decision-Making

The PRB has previously struggled with the timely documentation of the rationale for its decisions. In the current reporting period, OPS reported that PRB disposition letters (letters to complainants documenting non-sustained finings made by the PRB) and findings letters (letters to the CDP documenting sustained findings made by the PRB) have, on the whole, been prepared in a timely fashion. The Monitoring Team has also noted an improvement in the quality of findings letters. In the upcoming year, the Monitoring Team will be reviewing the quality of the disposition letters to ensure that complainants are being provided sufficient information to fully understand PRB findings closing their complaints with no further action to be taken.
Systemic Compliance

Previous Monitoring Team observations of the PRB indicated that the Board had some distance to travel until it could be certified as adhering across time, cases, and deliberations to the requirements of the Decree and the Court-approved PRB Manual. Again, a significant reason that this scope of work remains is related to the ongoing deficiencies with OPS as, to some extent, PRB can only ever be as good as the quality and nature of the investigations that they receive.

After giving OPS more time to improve the quality of its investigations, the Monitoring Team will, once again, monitor and review the work of the PRB to ensure that improved investigations are also resulting in improved reviews and recommendations to the Chief. Ultimately, before the performance of OPS and PRB can be found to be in compliance with the Consent Decree, the Monitoring Team and Court will need to certify that the Board is effectively and meaningfully carrying out its duties in a sufficiently thorough, fair, and timely manner.
D. Discipline and Disciplinary Hearings

Paragraph
240. “The Chief of CDP will issue a General Police Order that requires officers to (a) cooperate with the Internal Affairs and OPS investigators; and (b) submit all relevant evidence to the investigators such that it is available for consideration by Internal Affairs or PRB.”

Status of Compliance OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE

53

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019

241. Disciplinary hearing requirement, with officer given “opportunity to testify” and suspension of hearing if “officer provides new or additional evidence at hearing,” with matter “returned to IA or PRB for consideration.” 242. Written justification by Chief or Director of decision to “not uphold the charges” or “does not impose the recommended discipline or non-disciplinary corrective action” where PRB previously “recommends the initiation of the disciplinary process and recommends a disciplinary level.” 243. “CDP will track the number of instances in which the Chief or the Director of Public Safety rejects, in whole or in part, PRB’s recommended disposition.” 245. “CDP will ensure that discipline for sustained allegations of misconduct comports with due process, and is consistently applied, fair, and based on the nature of the allegation, and that mitigating and aggravating factors are identified and consistently applied and documented.” 246. “CDP will review its current matrix and will seek to amend it” “to ensure consistency” and inclusion of a number of specific, expressly-identified features. 247. “All disciplinary decisions will be documented in writing.”
248. “CDP will provide its disciplinary matrix to the Commission, the Police Inspector General, and the police unions for comment.” 249. “CDP will work with the unions to allow for sustained disciplinary findings to stay in an officer’s record for ten years.”

EVALUATION DEFERRED
NONCOMPLIANCE
NONCOMPLIANCE EVALUATION DEFERRED
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE NONCOMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

Background

The Consent Decree requires that CDP “ensure that discipline for sustained allegations of misconduct comports
with due process, and is consistently applied, fair, and based on the nature of the allegation, and that mitigating and aggravating factors are identified and consistently applied and documented.”103 To that end, the Division “will review its current disciplinary matrix and will seek to amend it as necessary[.]”104 Specifically, CDP must ensure
that the new disciplinary matrix:

• “[E]stablishes a presumptive range of discipline for each type of rule violation;” • “[I]ncreases the presumptive discipline based on an officer’s prior violations of the same or other
rules;” • “[P]rohibits consideration of the officer’s race, gender, national origin, age, ethnicity, familial
relationships, or sexual orientation” as well as “the high (or low) profile nature of the incident;” and • “[P]rovides that CDP will not take only non-disciplinary corrective action in cases in which the
disciplinary matrix calls for the imposition of discipline” but may consider non-disciplinary corrective action “in a case where discipline has [already] been imposed.”105

103 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 245. 104 Id. 105 Id. at ¶ 246.
54

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019
Where the Division Stands Since January 1, 2018, the Division has been operating according to the revised, Court-approved Disciplinary Matrix that establishes presumptive ranges of discipline and mitigating or aggravating factors. Since the promulgation of the new Matrix, the Monitoring Team has begun to audit disciplinary decisions along with the underlying investigations that precipitated them in real-time. The Parties and Team have begun to discuss various areas that require improvement with respect to the discipline process and will focus on these issues in the coming reporting period. Progress and Tasks that Remain Disciplinary Process Changes The procedures and processes that the Division uses from the time a misconduct investigation is completed to when discipline is imposed will need to be addressed to ensure that they are fair, uniform, objective, and timely. In December 2018, the Division provided the DOJ and Monitoring Team with a substantive draft of guidelines for the conduct of “Chief’s Hearings.” While additional discussions need to take place regarding the content of the guidelines, the creation of this draft is an excellent step forward in ensuring systemic compliance with paragraph 245 of the Consent Decree. Relationship of Disciplinary Process to Voluntary City/Police Union Agreements The Consent Decree requires the Division to “work with the unions to allow for sustained disciplinary findings to stay in an officer’s record for ten years.”106 The City raised the issue with the police unions in recent bargaining and accepted that sustained disciplinary findings would remain in an officer’s record for less than ten years. The City has indicated that it will revisit the matter in future negotiations. Systemic Evaluation of Discipline A comprehensive evaluation of the imposition of discipline will need to be conducted to determine how the Disciplinary Matrix is functioning in practice and to “ensure that . . . officers who commit misconduct are held accountable pursuant to a disciplinary system that is fair, consistent, and provides due process.”107
106 Id. at ¶ 249. 107 Id. at ¶ at ¶ 176.
55

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019

X. TRANSPARENCY & OVERSIGHT

A. Police Inspector General

Paragraph 250. “The City will hire an individual or individuals with significant experience in law enforcement practices and civil rights law to serve as a Police Inspector General” (“IG”). City must seek CPC’s “input in developing minimum qualifications and experience” for IG. 251. IG work in Office of Mayor but report to Chief of Police.
252. IG “will not be a current or former employee of CDP.”
253–54. Duties and authority of IG.
255. Budget of IG must be “a separate line item” in City budget and “afford[] sufficient independence and resources” to comply with Consent Decree. 256. IG “will have access to all documents and data necessary to perform the above functions, including any raw data.”

Status of Compliance EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED PARTIAL COMPLIANCE EVALUATION DEFERRED

Background

The Consent Decree creates a new, internal oversight function within the Division—a Police Inspector General (the “IG”). “The IG’s substantial duties include, but are not limited to, review of CDP policies and practices, auditing, conducting investigations, analyzing data for aggregate and systemic trends, developing specific recommendations for reform, analyzing investigations conducted by OPS to determine if they are adequate, and reviewing imposed discipline.”108 The IG’s reports and recommendations must be made public.109

Where the Division Stands

In the current reporting period, and after a lengthy process to recruit and spread information about the Inspector General position on a national scale, the City completed the interviewing process and selected a final candidate to become the Division’s new IG. The hiring of the candidate, through no fault of the City, ultimately did not work out. This constituted a major setback, though through no apparent fault of the City. The City reposted the Inspector General position, which closed February 22, 2019.

Progress and Tasks that Remain

Once hired, the Police Inspector General, with his or her day-to-day responsibility in conducting assessments, reviews, and audits, will be a significant benefit to the Division and the Consent Decree process. Again, the Team understands that the recent delays in hiring the Inspector General were largely out of the City’s hands. It

108 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 253. 109 Dkt. 97 at 53 (quoting Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 253) (internal quotations omitted).

56

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019

continues to look forward to the IG’s hiring, which will be an important milestone in effectuating the kind of oversight called for by the Decree.

Once the IG is hired, the Parties and Monitoring Team must also ensure that the Police Inspector General has the resources, budget, and “sufficient independence” to successfully review practices, audit, analyze data, and provide actionable recommendations to the Division of Police.110 Likewise, the work of the Inspector General will need to reflect the rigor and independence that the Consent Decree contemplates. To that end, the Monitoring Team will be evaluating his or her performance over time to ensure that such standards are being appropriately met. The ultimate goal is for the institutionalized IG to take on a role of independent auditor with respect to the Division’s overall performance, systems, and processes—sustaining and driving change long after CDP has reached substantial and effective compliance with the particular provisions of the Consent Decree.

B. Data Collection and Analysis

Paragraph
257. “CDP will collect and maintain all data and records necessary to accurately evaluate its use of force practices and search and seizure practices and facilitate transparency and, as permitted by law, broad access to information related to CDP’s decision making and activities. To achieve this outcome, CDP will designate an individual or individuals as the ‘Data Collection and Analysis Coordinator.’” 258. Coordinator “will ensure the collection and tracking of all documents related to uses of force and allegations of misconduct and related materials,” including specific, expressly-listed materials and information. 259. Coordinator “will ensure the creation and maintenance of a reliable and accurate electronic system to track all data derived from force-related documents,” including specific, expressly-identified data. 260. Coordinator “will ensure the creation and maintenance of a reliable and accurate electronic system to track data on all vehicle stops, investigatory stops, and searches, whether or not they result in an arrest or issuance of a summons or citation.” The system must conform to a number of specific, expressly-identified requirements. 261. Coordinator must “routine[ly] report[] . . . relevant data to the Chief of Police, FRB, Training Review Committee, OPS, the [Community Police] Commission, and the Police Inspector General.” 262. Coordinator “responsible for the annual assessment of forms and data collection systems to improve the accuracy and reliability of data collection.” 263. Coordinator “will develop a protocol to accurately analyze the data collected and allow for” various outcome measurements, “subject to the review and approval of the Monitor and DOJ.” 264. Annually, “CDP will conduct an assessment and issue a report summarizing its investigatory stop, search, and arrest data” that addresses various specific, expresslyidentified topics.

Status of Compliance PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
EVALUATION DEFERRED

110 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 255.

57

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019

265. Annually, “CDP will conduct an assessment and issue a report of all activities, including use of force, arrests, motor vehicles and investigatory stops, and misconduct complaints alleging discrimination, to determine whether CDP’s activities are applied or administered in a way that discriminates against individuals on the basis of race” or other listed prohibited classes or characteristics, and that addresses various specific, expressly-identified topics. 266. Annual analysis of “prior year’s force” data with FRB.

EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED

Background

The Consent Decree requires that the Division collect, use, and report data on its activities and performance in a more modern and comprehensive fashion. To effectuate this, the Decree requires that CDP hire a Data Collection and Analysis Coordinator (the “Data Coordinator” or “Coordinator”) to help ensure that CDP maintains the required information in a manner that “facilitate[s] transparency and . . . broad public access to information related to CDP’s decision making and activities.”111 The Coordinator is specifically tasked with ensuring the collection and tracking of all information related to uses of force, search and seizure practices, and allegations of misconduct. The Coordinator will create and maintain “a reliable and accurate electronic system to track” use of force-related data and search and seizure information.112

The Coordinator also is “responsible for the routine reporting of relevant data” to various entities within the Division113; conducting annual assessments of both use of force and investigatory stop data114; and analyzing
Division practices for potential disproportionate or disparate impacts with respect to “race, ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.”115 These reports must “be made publicly available.”116

Where the Division Stands

During the current reporting period, Dr. Rania Issa, the Data Coordinator, has continued to meet regularly with CDP leadership—presenting thorough analyses of use of force data, including trends on the number of force incidents reported by month, as well as trends on the timeliness of reviews of use of force reports. The analysis can be disaggregated by month and by CDP District, allowing the Division to identify and focus on particular areas of improvement.

Other information about officer misconduct investigations conducted by IA is substantially more robust, detailed, and up-to-date now than in the past. This allows for enhanced accountability and the ability of IA to manage itself more efficiently and effectively.

111 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 257. 112 Id. at ¶¶ 259-60. 113 Id. at ¶ 261. 114 Id. at ¶¶ 263, 264, 266. 115 Id. at ¶ 265. 116 Id. at ¶ 267.
58

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019

Progress and Tasks That Remain
For as much progress as CDP has made in its ability to collect and analyze data in some areas, there are two substantial tasks that remain in the area of information and data. The first is successfully establishing and implementing mechanisms for the collection of critical data on stops, searches, and arrests; crisis intervention; and community policing. As this report discusses elsewhere, the Division originally contemplated using the Computer-Aided Dispatch (“CAD”) system for logging such information. However, for a variety of technical reasons, the City is now needing to consider other database platforms.
The collection of this data—on stops, crisis incidents, and community policing—is essential for gauging the success of new policies and programs and evaluating ultimate compliance with the Consent Decree. With efforts still focusing on determining the system that will be used, it will take some time before personnel can be trained on using the selected electronic platform, information can be collected in real-time, and aggregate data analyzed. Until such data can be evaluated for a sufficiently material period of time, the Division will not be able to demonstrate as definitively as it must that its performance complies with its various policies, plans, and initiatives.
The second major task with respect to data is for CDP to regularly incorporate the analysis provided by the new Coordinator into its day-to-day management decisions. It remains unclear to the Monitoring Team how the CDP uses and acts on data beyond crime and offense statistics. The Team looks forward to the Division continuing to commit to a culture of objective, data-informed decision-making in its ability to meet community needs, inform how it polices and organizes its activities, and gauge precisely how well it is doing to meet its strategic goals.
C. Public Availability of CDP-Related Information

Paragraph
267. “[A]ll CDP audits, reports, and outcome analyses related to the implementation” of the Consent Decree will be public. 268. “CDP will post its policies and procedures, training plans, community policing initiatives, community meeting schedules, budgets, and internal audit reports on its website.”

Status of Compliance NONCOMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

Background

The Consent Decree requires that CDP’s “policies and procedures, training plans, community policing initiatives, community meeting schedules, budgets, and internal audit reports” be posted on CDP’s website.117 Likewise, “[t]o
ensure transparency in the implementation of” the Decree, “all CDP audits, reports, and outcome analyses related
to the implementation of this [the Consent Decree] will be made publicly available, including at the City and CDP websites.”118

Where the Division Stands

117 Dkt. 7-1 at 1; id. ¶ 268. 118 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 267.

59

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019
Over the last several reporting periods, the Monitoring Team has not observed any recent material changes, one way or another, in the public availability of audits, budgets, and outcome reports. The City has expressed that it plans to make General Police Orders, divisional notices, and other internal documents articulating the Division’s policies and processes more navigable and accessible. Because CDP has posted some Consent Decree-related documents on its website with some regularity, the Monitoring Team concludes that the Division is in “Partial Compliance” with the Decree’s requirements under Paragraph 268. Still, to reach full and Substantial Compliance with the Decree, the Division will need to bolster its commitment to provide the community with regular and transparent updates on its activities and performance. Progress and Tasks That Remain As indicated above, the City must make all CDP audits, reports, and outcome analyses related to the implementation of the Consent Decree public. Additionally, the Division must also establish a general policy for the release or provision of records, data, or information to the public. Police departments elsewhere are going to great lengths to collaborate dynamically with their communities to set clear expectations, in advance of an incident occurring or an information request arising, about what it can or will release and what it cannot or will not make available. Knowing what to expect and how to proceed in advance leads to better outcomes for community members and the Division. Having information about how the police do their work also helps the community better understand the unique challenges of law enforcement professionals. The Monitoring Team looks forward to the Division making progress on a general policy on the public availability of CDP-related information in the upcoming reporting periods.
60

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019

XI. OFFICER ASSISTANCE & SUPPORT

A. Training

Paragraph 269. “CDP will ensure that officers receive adequate training to understand: (a) how to police effectively and safely in accordance with CDP policy; [and] (b) the requirements of this Agreement, Ohio law, and the Constitution and laws of the United States,” including in the areas of “procedural justice, bias-free policing, and community policing.” 270. “CDP will expand the scope and membership of the Training Review Committee.” 271–72. “[T]he Training Review Committee will develop a written training plan for CDP’s recruit academy, probationary field training, and in-service training” that addresses a host of specific, expressly-identified issues. 273. “The Training Plan and schedule will be implemented once any objections have been resolved” on a yearly basis. 274. “The Training Review Committee will annually review and updated CDP’s training plan” by “conduct[ing] a needs assessment” that addresses a number of specific, expressly-identified data and information on real-world trends, needs, policy, and law. 275. “CDP’s Commander responsible for training” will be in charge of “all CDP training. 276. “CDP will designate a single training coordinator in each District. The Commander responsible for training will establish and maintain communications with each District training coordinator to ensure that all officers complete training as required and that documentation of training is provided to the” training Commander. 277. “CDP will develop recruit academy and in-service curricula that comport with” the Training Plan and Consent Decree requirements. 278. “[T]he training required under this Agreement . . . will be delivered within two years of the Effective Date.” 279. “For all other substantive updates or revisions to policy or procedure, CDP will ensure and document that all relevant CDP personnel have received and read the policy or procedure. Notification of each revision or update will include the rationale for policy changes and the difference between the old and updated policy.” 280. Training Commander reviews all training materials; ensures that they use “a variety of adult learning techniques, scenario-based training, and problem-solving practices”; and “ensure that all curricula, lesson plans, instructor’s qualifications, and testing materials are reviewed by the Training Review Committee.” 281. “CDP will ensure that instructors are qualified and use only curricula and lesson plans that have been approved by the” Training Commander. 282. “CDP will revise, as necessary, its field training program for graduates of the police academy to comport with” the Training Plan and Consent Decree.

Status of Compliance PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE NONCOMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE NONCOMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE EVALUATION DEFERRED PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE EVALUATION DEFERRED

61

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019

283. “The field training program will incorporate community and problem-oriented policing principles, and problem-based learning methods.” 284. Review and revision of Field Training Officer (“FTO”) “participation policy to establish and implement a program that effectively attracts the best FTO candidates” and “revise eligibility criteria” for FTOs. 285. New FTOs and Field Training Sergeants must “receive initial and in-service training that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type, and that addresses” a number of specific, expressly-listed topics and conforms to a number of additional features or requirements. 286. “CDP will create a mechanism for recruits to provide confidential feedback regarding the quality of their field training,” and the Division “will document its response, including the rationale behind any responsive action taken or decision to take no action.” 287. “Training Review Committee will, on an annual basis, analyze all aspects of CDP’s FTO program,” “consider emerging national policing practices in this area,” and “recommend, and CDP will institute, appropriate changes to policies, procedures, and training related to its FTO program.” 288. “CDP will document all training provided to or received by CDP officers,” with officers “sign[ing] an acknowledgement of attendance or digitally acknowledge[ing] completion of each training course,” which “will be maintained in a format that allows for analysis by training type, training date, training source, and by individual officer name.” 289. “CDP will develop and implement a system that will allow the Training Section to electronically track, maintain, and produce complete and accurate records of current curricula, lesson plans, training delivered, and other training materials in a centralized electronic file system.” 290. “CDP will develop and implement accountability measures . . . to ensure that all officers successfully complete all required training programs in a timely manner.”

EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

Background

Alongside new policies and improved accountability mechanisms, organizational change and the setting of new expectations comes from high-quality officer training. For that reason, training is a major focus of the Consent Decree. The Decree mandates comprehensive officer training to introduce CDP personnel to the many new requirements and expectations of Decree-required policies or initiatives—on things like use of force, crisis intervention, and search and seizure. High-quality, immersive training is necessary to have officers understand and feel comfortable with new expectations. To facilitate this substantial training, the Decree requires a number of changes to the Division’s ongoing, structural capacity to train and educate its officers—focusing on things like the Academy curriculum used for training new personnel, the Field Training Officer program for training and overseeing newly-minted Academy graduates, and a Training Review Committee to set and coordinate training priorities based on the Division’s needs.

62

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019
Before the Consent Decree process, Cleveland’s ongoing professional development of its officers was minimal and largely pro forma. It consisted of various Ohio state requirements, standard re-qualifications or recertifications with various equipment and force instruments, and an assortment of scattered topics that did not align with strategic objectives or issues raised and lessons learned through real-world officer experience. Consequently, successful implementation of the Consent Decree requires the Division to adjust to a “new normal”—namely, the adoption of a new volume, quality, and conception of ongoing officer training consistent with the practices of numerous other urban police departments across the country. This adjustment is still very much a work-in-progress.
Where the Division Stands
During the current reporting period, the Division’s Training Section launched three major training initiatives in its 2018 in-service training: (1) a Community Engagement and Problem-Solving (“CEPS”) training, (2) a training on Bias-Free Policing, and (3) the Second-Year Crisis Intervention Training.
Notwithstanding the Training Section’s good faith efforts, the Decree envisions the use of a Training Review Committee (“TRC”) in the development and ongoing assessment of CDP training. Under the Decree, the TRC is to include, alongside the Division’s Training Section, District training coordinators, union representatives, and members of the Community Police Commission.119 The TRC “will annually review and update CDP’s training plan” by “conduct[ing] a needs assessment” that considers “trends in misconduct complaints; problematic uses of force; analysis of officer safety issues; input from members at all levels of CDP; input from members of the community, including community concerns; court decisions’ research reflecting the latest in law enforcement trends; individual District needs; and any changes to Ohio or federal law, and to CDP policy.”120 The active and ongoing engagement of the TRC helps to ensure that in-service training for current officers is strategic and responsive to the emerging needs of CDP personnel and Cleveland residents. In short, the TRC was imagined to strategically quarterback and manage the Division’s training efforts.
Although the CDP’s Training Review Committee was formally created early in the Decree’s implementation and officially put into place with a Court-approved policy in April 2016, the TRC’s actual operations remain at best suboptimal. At worst, they are non-existent. The Monitoring Team’s Third Semiannual Report in June 2017 reported that “changes in leadership in the Training Section have frustrated the Division’s efforts to establish the Training Review Committee as the locus of activity with respect to identifying training needs, setting priorities, and determining what training initiatives need to happen when.”121
It appears to the Monitoring Team that the TRC has played little to no meaningful role in reviewing or developing a training plan. As the Team described in its Fifth Semiannual Report:
[T]he Training Review Committee appears to exist only on paper, despite it being the first policy that was completed and approved during the Consent Decree’s implementation. . . . The Committee must play an active role not simply because the Consent Decree requires it but
119 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 270. 120 Id. at ¶ 271. 121 Third Semiannual Report at 61.
63

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019
because the Training Section needs to have the input and assistance of individuals from across the Division—in setting priorities, developing training, and gauging whether specific training initiatives or measures have, in fact, worked as intended.122
Progress and Tasks that Remain
Substantial and Effective Compliance with Training Review Committee Requirements
Practically speaking, the Training Review Committee exists only theoretically—on paper, not in practice. As described above, the Decree contemplates a TRC that is the functional center for the Division’s training activities and planning. Although the Division appears to dismiss the TRC as one of a number of needless bureaucratic exercises codified in the Consent Decree, all of the departments in which the Monitoring Team’s members with sworn experience have either worked or led have had some analogous structure.
The Monitoring Team looks forward to the Division finally taking the necessary steps to reengage the TRC, particularly as it develops its training plan for 2019 in-service training.
Training Staffing & Resources
Notwithstanding the need to reengage the TRC, CDP’s Training Section must be properly staffed in order to meet the substantial scope of training mandated by the Consent Decree. One crucial element that stacked the deck against the 2018 training on community engagement and bias-free policing was the lack of dedicated, high-quality instructors. Rather than pull from a pool of experienced trainers, the Division relied on representatives with comparatively minimal experience—all for trainings in subjects that can be notoriously demanding for training staff to conduct.
Elsewhere in this Report, the Monitoring Team notes that it largely approves of the City’s staffing plan for the Division with respect to its treatment of patrol operations overall. With respect to the staffing of specialized units—like Training—the Parties and Monitoring Team agree that future discussion and refinement will be necessary to identify, in the long run, what the appropriate levels should be.
The Monitoring Team has previously urged that CDP consider devoting additional resources to the Training Section to ensure that it can balance both the critical and extraordinary demands of training up five recruit classes—not a requirement of the Consent Decree but a practical reality in light of officer attrition rates and the City’s public commitments—while making sufficient progress on the Consent Decree.
Academy Training and Field Training Program
Along with requirements for annual in-service training for existing CDP officers, the “Consent Decree . . . contains certain obligations relating to the training of new officers at the Academy.”123 Likewise, it contains provisions
122 Fifth Semiannual Report at 116. 123 Dkt. 97 at 55; Dkt. 7-1 ¶¶ 271, 275, 277.
64

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019

relating to the Division’s field training program, in which recent Academy graduates participate during their early days on the force.124

Given the scope of in-service training that the Decree requires, the City and Division’s focus for the first half of the Decree’s implementation has been on developing and implementing core training for current CDP officers. As the Division turns to academy and field training, especially now that new recruits are back to being trained in Cleveland, CDP will need to “review and revise” its academy and field training programs such that they are meeting the requirements of the Decree.125

The Monitoring Team will be very clear here: the training being offered to new recruits in the Academy and to new officers via the Field Training Program has not yet been worked on by the Consent Decree and will need to be comprehensively evaluated and revised, as necessary, in order for the Division to reach substantial and effective compliance with the Consent Decree. It must also be noted that it is not just the revision of curriculum that is necessary: it is the verified, meaningful implementation through high-quality instruction on that curriculum in the Academy that will be necessary for compliance.

B. Equipment & Resources

Paragraph
291. “The City will implement” paragraphs regarding equipment and resources in order to allow implementation of the Consent Decree “and to allow officers to perform their jobs safely, effectively, and efficiently.” 292. “CDP will complete a comprehensive equipment and resource study to assess its current needs and priorities,” and it “will develop an effective, comprehensive Equipment and Resource Plan that is consistent with its mission and that will allow it to satisfy the requirements of this Agreement.” 293. “CDP’s Equipment and Resource Plan will provide for necessary equipment including, at least” “an adequate number of computers”; “an adequate number of operable and safe zone cars”; “zone cards with reliable, functioning computers that provide officers with up-to-date technology” including computer-aided dispatch, the records management system, and various core law enforcement systems; and “zone cards equipped with first-aid kits.” “This plan also will ensure that CDP properly maintains and seeks to continuously improve upon existing equipment and technology; and is appropriately identifying equipment needs and seeking to utilize, as appropriate, emerging technologies.” 294. “CDP will actively seek input and feedback from the Commission, patrol officers, and supervisors regarding resource allocation, equipment needs, and technological improvements.” 295. “City and CDP” must “us[e] best efforts to implement the Equipment and Resource Plan as required.”

Status

of

Compliance

PARTIAL

COMPLIANCE

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

124 Dkt. 7-1 ¶¶ 282–87. 125 Id.

65

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019

296. “CDP will . . . implement an effective, centralized records management system.”
297. “CDP will utilize a department-wide e-mail system to improve communication and information sharing.” 298. “CDP will employ information technology professionals who are trained to conduct crime and intelligence analysis, who are capable of troubleshooting and maintaining information technology systems and who can identify and suggest appropriate technological advancements.” 299. “CDP will implement an effective employee assistance program that provides officers ready access to the mental health and support resources necessary to facilitate effective and constitutional policing.”

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

Background

To address the Division’s equipment and resource needs, the Consent Decree requires the City of Cleveland to “develop an effective, comprehensive Equipment and Resource Plan that is consistent with its mission and that will allow it to satisfy the requirements of this Agreement.”126 The Plan must “provide for necessary equipment including, at least . . . an adequate number of computers; an adequate number of operable and safe zone cars; zone cars with reliable, functioning computers that provide officers with up-to-date technology, including” mobile computer-aided dispatch (“CAD”), access to the Division’s records management system (“RMS”), and access to law enforcement databases; and “zone cars equipped with first-aid kits . . . . ”127 It must address how the Division will satisfy the other substantive requirements of the Decree.128 It likewise must “ensure that CDP” both “properly maintains and seeks to continuously improve upon existing equipment and technology” and “is appropriately identifying equipment needs and seeking to utilize, as appropriate, emerging technologies.”129

Where the Division Stands

During the current reporting period, the City of Cleveland and CDP reached several important milestones with respect to technology, equipment, and resources. Previously, the City had developed an Equipment and Resource Plan in 2017 (the “2017 Plan”). The Monitoring Team approved some portions of the Plan, particularly those involving overdue upgrades to CDP’s CAD platform and modernizing CDP’s fleet of patrol vehicles, but declined to approve the 2017 Plan with respect to paragraphs 292; 293(a), (e), and (f); 294; and 298. Of greatest importance, the Plan needed to outline a clear process for identifying emerging technology and equipment needs within the Division in the future.

In October 2018, the City completed a subsequent Equipment and Resource Plan (“2018 Plan”) that further outlined the Division’s strategic goals to strengthen its equipment and information technology platforms in a manner that will enhance CDP’s ability to promote officer and public safety. Critically, the 2018 Plan focuses on the mechanisms that will ensure that CDP remains up-to-date with respect to emerging technology and

126 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 292. 127 Id. ¶ 293. 128 Id. ¶ 292. 129 Id. ¶ 293.

66

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019

equipment. For example, the 2018 Plan includes, among other things, an IT governance strategy that holds staff accountable for upgrading and maintaining applications, systems, and technology. It also establishes an oversight committee to continually identify and implement new technologies and IT investments. On November 2, 2018, in a motion to the Court, the Monitoring Team concluded that “the 2018 Plan, when and only when taken together with the previously-approved portions of the 2017 Plan, constitutes a complete and satisfactory Equipment and Resource Plan that meets the terms of the Consent Decree.”130

The completion of the Equipment and Resource Plan is an extremely positive milestone for which the City, and especially its IT staff, should be commended. It establishes a meaningful foundation for the hard work already being conducted toward modernizing the Division of Police and a specific playbook for technological upgrades still necessary.

Progress and Tasks that Remain

In the coming reporting period and over the remainder of the Consent Decree’s term, the Monitoring Team plans to conduct systemic assessments to evaluate whether the City’s reported upgrades to equipment and technology, as well as the steps outlined in the 2018 Equipment and Resource Plan, are occurring as contemplated and whether the changes are, in fact, improving the day-to-day operations of CDP staff. It remains critical that officers have access to modern, well-maintained, and up-to-date technological platforms so that they have the tools they need to do their jobs safely and effectively.

C. Recruitment & Hiring

Paragraph 300. “CDP will review and revise . . . its recruitment and hiring program to ensure that CDP successfully attracts and hires a diverse group of qualified individuals.” 301. “The Mayor will work with the City Council to develop an ordinance to place a Charter Amendment on the ballot that would give the appointing authority greater flexibility in the selection of candidates from the certified eligibility list for the CDP.” 302. “CDP will develop a recruitment policy and a strategic recruitment plan that includes clear goals, objectives, and action steps for attracting qualified applicants from a broad cross-section of the community” and meets certain specific, expressly-listed requirements. 303. “The City will implement the recruitment plan within 60 days of it being approved by the Monitor.” 304. “CDP’s recruitment plan will include specific strategies for attracting a diverse group of applicants,” including officers with various, specific, expressly-listed skills and backgrounds. 305. “In developing and implementing its recruitment plan, CDP will consult with the [Community Police] Commission and other community stakeholders on strategies to attract a diverse pool of applicants.”

Status of Compliance PARTIAL COMPLIANCE GENERAL COMPLIANCE
EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

130 Dkt. 226 at 6.

67

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019

306. “[O]bjective system for hiring and selecting recruits” that “employs reliable and valid selection criteria.” 307. “CDP will report annually to the public its recruiting activities and outcomes,” which will include information on various, expressly-listed areas. 308. “[A]ll candidates for sworn personnel positions” will have “psychological and medical examination” and be subject to “drug testing.” Existing officers receive “random drug testing.” 309. “CDP will conduct thorough, objective, and timely background investigations of candidates for sworn positions” that cover various, expressly-listed topics. 310. “CDP will request to review personnel files from candidates’ previous employment and, where possible, will speak with the candidate’s supervisor(s)” and maintain any “salient information . . . in candidate’s file.” 311. “If a candidate has previous law enforcement experience, CDP will complete a thorough, objective, and timely pre-employment investigation” addressing various expressly-identified things.

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE EVALUATION DEFERRED GENERAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE

Background

The Consent Decree requires the City to “integrate community and problem-oriented policing principles” into its recruitment practices, and to “develop a recruitment policy and a strategic recruitment plan that includes clear goals, objectives, and action steps for attracting qualified applicants from a broad cross-section of the community . . . [and] establish[es] and clearly identif[ies] the goals of CDP’s recruitment efforts.”131

Where the Division Stands Now

After holding five academy classes for recruits in 2018, the Division welcomed an academy class of 51 new police recruits on January 28, 2019. The Division’s goal is to hire an additional 100 officers in the first quarter of 2019.

The City released a proposed Recruitment and Hiring Plan to the public for review and feedback in May 2018. The period of engagement and input, originally scheduled for August 10, 2018, was extended to September 28 following requests by several community groups for additional time. The CPC provided its comments on September 28, together with its feedback regarding the CPOP Plan, highlighting community feedback such as educational requirements and the recruitment of individuals with social work degrees.

The Parties and Monitoring Team worked to consider and incorporate the community’s concerns into the final
Recruitment and Hiring Plan as appropriate. On February 14, 2019, the Monitoring Team submitted the Plan for the Court’s approval.132 The Court approved the Plan on February 20, 2019.133

The final Plan has three primary objectives: (1) “[i]ncrease staffing levels to effectively implement [the Division’s] Community and Problem-Oriented Policing Plan (CPOP)”; (2) “[a]ttract and hire a diverse group of qualified

131 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 302. 132 Dkt. 236. 133 Dkt. 239.

68

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019
applicants from a broad cross-section of the community”; and (3) “[c]reate and maintain partnerships with community stakeholders to enhance recruitment efforts.”134
As part of the Plan’s development, the City created a Public Safety Recruitment Team (“PSRT”) consisting of two police officers, one firefighter, one emergency medical technician, and a CDP Sergeant who serves as the Officerin-Charge. The Officer-in-Charge reports directly to the Assistant Director of Public Safety and leads the management and implementation of the Recruitment and Hiring Plan. PSRT team members are required to receive training on effective recruitment techniques, including ways to increase diversity in law enforcement.135 PSRT members have already attended law enforcement recruitment conferences to enhance their understanding of recruitment best practices.
The Recruitment and Hiring Plan appropriately understands that the Division’s new philosophical charge is to institute CPOP at all levels. To that end, the PSRT is specifically charged to “[i]dentify those individuals most suited with the ability to integrate the CPOP principles in the discharging of their duties.”136
The Recruitment and Hiring Plan includes specific steps to recruit a diverse pool of applicants, including the establishment of a Hiring Process Review Committee that reviews “every aspect of the hiring process” including “applications, entry level testing, interviews, and selection process” as well as “medical and psychological testing and all aspects of training” to ensure that “minorities and women” are not being “excluded during the hiring process by unfair standards that [do] not correlate with their ability to do the job.”137
The Plan also documents steps that the PSRT has already taken since 2018 to minimize unnecessary barriers for potential applicants, such as waiving the $25 fee for the entry-level exam, offering a second chance at the physical agility test, assigning four additional officers to conduct background investigations to shorten the wait time after an applicant’s interview, and raising the pay of recruits in the Academy from $10.50 to $15/hour.138
Under the final Plan, the Director of Public Safety will analyze “data obtained through stakeholder outreach, the annual report from the PSRT, the statistical information gathered by the City’s online application service provider, NEOGOV, the testing consultant[,] and [the CDP’s Data Collection and Analysis Coordinator]” to assess “if the recruitment strategy has resulted in attracting sufficient candidates to staff CDP at levels necessary for CPOP.”139
Progress and Tasks that Remain
Following the Court’s approval of the Recruitment and Hiring Plan, CDP must “report annually to the public its recruiting activities and outcomes,” including disaggregated data on applicants, interviewees, and selectees, as well as the successes and challenges to recruiting qualified and high-quality applicants.140 The Monitoring Team will
134 Dkt. 236-1 at 7. 135 Id. at 13-14. 136 Id. at 15. 137 Id. at 17. 138 Id. at 19. 139 Id. at 6. 140 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 307.
69

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019

continue to gauge progress by analyzing the numbers and trends with respect to applicants and hired recruits, as well as by working with the City to provide ongoing technical assistance on the Plan’s implementation.
D. Performance Evaluations and Promotions

Paragraph
312. “CDP will ensure that officers who police professionally and effectively are recognized through the performance evaluation process” and “are identified and receive appropriate consideration for performance.” Likewise, “poor performance” must be “reflected in officer evaluations.” 313. “CDP will develop and implement fair and consistent practices to accurately evaluate officer performance in areas related to integrity, community policing, and critical police functions, on both an ongoing and annual basis.” 314–15. CDP will use “a formalized system documenting the annual performance evaluations of each officer by the officer’s direct supervisor,” including an assessment of several expressly-listed areas. “Supervisors will meet with the employee whose performance is being evaluated to discuss the evaluation.” 316. “CDP will hold supervisors of all ranks accountable for conducting timely, accurate, and complete performance evaluations of their subordinates.” 317. “CDP will develop and implement fair and consistent promotion practices that comport with the requirements of this Agreement and result in the promotion of officers who are effective and professional.” 318. In considering promotion, “appointing authority will consider” specific, expresslylisted “factors.”

Status of Compliance EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED

Background

CDP must address how it evaluates officer performance and must ensure that high-performing officers have access to promotional opportunities. Under the Consent Decree, CDP must “develop and implement fair and consistent practices to accurately evaluate officers” across a number of dimensions, including ‘integrity, community policing, and critical police functions.’”141

Where the Division Stands

By the express agreement of the Parties and the Monitoring Team, CDP has not begun reforms to CDP’s performance evaluations given the importance of first addressing policies and plans such as use of force, community and problem-oriented policing, crisis intervention, and bias-free policing. For that reason, and through no fault of its own, the City is not yet in compliance with the provisions of this section of the Decree.

141 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 313. 70

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019

Progress and Tasks that Remain

Now that the Parties have completed major plans and policies such as the CPOP Plan, the City and CDP need to turn their attention to officer performance evaluations in 2019. This work, which must align with the new expectations that have been set by new and Court-approved policies and plans, will greatly enhance professional development opportunities within the Division and provide an important, non-punitive mechanism for employee management.

E. Staffing

Paragraph
319. “CDP will complete a comprehensive staffing study to assess the appropriate number of sworn and civilian personnel to perform the functions necessary for CDP to fulfill its mission, and satisfy the requirements of the” Consent Decree. / “CDP will develop an effective, comprehensive Staffing Plan that is consistent with its mission, including community and problem-oriented policing, and that will allow CDP to meet the requirements of” the Consent Decree. 320. Requirements of CDP Staffing Plan.
321. “The City and CDP will employ best efforts to implement the Staffing Plan over the period of time set forth in the approved plan.”

Status of Compliance EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED

Background

The Consent Decree contemplates changes to CDP’s approach to staffing, assigning, and deploying its personnel within the city of Cleveland. Under the requirements of the Decree, for example, CDP must:
• Implement a “comprehensive and integrated policing model”142; • Ensure rigorous investigations and reviews of force incidents143; • Ensure that specialized crisis intervention officers “are dispatched to an incident involving an individual
in crisis” and are able to “have primary responsibility for the scene”144; • Provide supervisors with the ability to “review all documentation of investigatory stops, searches, and
arrests”145; • Ensure that officers can receive the training required by the Decree146; • Provide necessary opportunity for “first line supervisors [to] provide close and effective supervision of
officers”147;

142 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 27. 143 Id. at ¶¶ 93-130. 144 Id. at ¶ 151. 145 Id. at ¶ 168. 146 Id. at ¶ 271. 147 Id. at ¶ 322.

71

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019
• Implement the Early Intervention System148; and • Provide supervisors with the ability to “conduct adequate random and directed audits of body worn
camera recordings.”149
Altogether, these provisions require changes in the way that CDP will deploy its existing personnel and in the overall number of sworn and civilian personnel. To that end, the Consent Decree specifically envisions a Staffing Plan by which the CDP must “address and provide for each of the following:
• “[P]ersonnel deployment to ensure effective community and problem-oriented policing; • “[A] sufficient number of well-trained staff and resources to conduct timely misconduct investigations; • “[T]o the extent feasible, Unity of Command; and • “[A] sufficient number of supervisors.”150
Where the Division Stands Now
In the current reporting period, the Division, working with the Department of Justice and Monitoring Team, completed the Decree-mandated Staffing Plan. A draft of the Staffing Plan was released in late May 2018 for public collaboration and feedback. The public comment period ran to September 28, 2018, following an agreed-upon extension from August 10. The CPC provided its comments on September 28, along with its comments on the two related CDP plans.
The Parties and Monitoring Team worked to incorporate the community feedback into the Staffing Plan as appropriate. On February 21, 2019, the Monitoring Team recommended that the Court approve the Staffing Plan.151
Under the Plan, CDP will adjust staffing of its Patrol Section based on a “workload-based model” that estimates future staffing needs and deployment strategies by modeling current police activity. To do so, CDP analyzed past citizen-initiated calls for service by location, time, type, officer time spent, and priority code.152 Critically, the Staffing Plan allocates 20% of officers’ time to community engagement and collaborative problem-solving, in line with the Division’s new CPOP expectations.153 The Plan also addresses ways for CDP to manage demand for police services. For example, CDP responded to 23,659 residential and business alarms in 2015—of which 98% were false. Under the Staffing Plan, the Division will look to “control and reduce the frequency of false alarms through legislation and increasing the capacity of the Web-based Crime Reporting [an online reporting system CDP currently uses for certain no-suspect or minor crime reports for which officers need not physically respond to the scene][.]”154
148 Id. at ¶ 326-36. 149 Id. at ¶ 339. 150 Id. at ¶ 320. 151 Dkt. 240. 152 Dkt. 240-1 at 20-29. 153 Id. at 33. 154 Id. at 44.
72

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019 Progress and Tasks that Remain Major sections of the Decree, not least of all the Division’s efforts to implement community and problem-oriented policing, depend on the Division’s ability to make the operational changes contemplated in the approved Staffing Plan. The Monitoring Team looks forward to working with the Division and City of Cleveland to ensure that implementation of the Plan proceeds so that the Division is appropriately staffed to promote public and officer safety.
73

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019

XII. SUPERVISION A. First-Line Supervisors

Paragraph
322. “CDP will ensure that first line supervisors provide close and effective supervision of officers” in a number of express, specifically-identified ways. 323. “CDP will develop and implement supervisory training for all new and current supervisors” that is “adequate in quality, quantity, type, and scope, and will include” a number of specific, expressly-listed topics. 324. “Thereafter all sworn supervisors will receive adequate in-service management training.” 325. “CDP will hold supervisors directly accountable for the quality and effectiveness of their supervision, including whether supervisors identify and effectively respond to misconduct and ensure that officers effectively engage with the community.”

Status of Compliance PARTIAL COMPLIANCE EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED

Background
The Consent Decree requires CDP to ensure “close and effective supervision of officers.”155 Supervisors must be held “directly accountable for the quality and effectiveness of their supervision” of officers in their command.156

In addition to various new policies aimed at more clearly and specifically defining the various roles and duties of supervisors, the Consent Decree requires supervisory training for “all new and current supervisors” covering an array of important topics, including:

● Techniques for effectively guiding and directing officers and promoting effective and constitutional police practices;
● De-escalating conflict; ● Evaluating written reports, including identification of canned or conclusory language that is not
accompanied by specific facts; ● Investigating officer uses of force; ● Building community partnerships and guiding officers on this requirement; ● Understanding supervisory tools such as the Officer Intervention Program and body worn cameras; ● Responding to and investigating allegations of officer misconduct; ● Evaluating officer performance; ● Consistent disciplinary sanction and non-punitive corrective action; ● Monitoring use of force to ensure consistency with policies; and ● Legal updates.157

155 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 322. 156 Id. ¶ 325. 157 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 323.

74

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019
Where the Division Stands
In the current reporting period, the Division completed a revised Use of Force Supervisory Review Policy that defines expectations and responsibilities for supervisors to investigate lower-level uses of force. The policy outlines how supervisors responding to the scene of a use of force will conduct investigations and how supervisors further up the chain of command will review completed investigations to ensure they are thorough, complete, and supported by the preponderance of the evidence. It provides a strong foundation for the rigorous and objective review of force incidents geared toward the Division continually learning and innovating—so that officers are safer, outcomes are consistent with law and policy, and the community receives the quality of public safety services that it needs. In light of the new policies, the Division has been working on a training curriculum to instruct new and current supervisors on the new protocols established in the policy.
Separately, the Division has developed a supervisor training curriculum that covers principles of effective supervision in policing, including how to effectively counsel officers and correct poorly written reports. The training also covers the Division’s new progressive disciplinary matrix and newly-formalized philosophy of community and problem-oriented policing. The Monitoring Team submitted the curriculum for the Court’s approval on February 28, 2019.158
Progress and Tasks that Remain
Continuing Professional Development
As the Division is set to launch supervisor training in the coming months, the Monitoring Team here reiterates that CDP needs to develop a clear track for supervisors to develop as professionals. Supervisors must be able to think proactively and affirmatively about how to implement the Division’s mission, values, and strategic initiatives on a day-to-day basis—and how to ensure that their officers are performing at the level necessary to keep themselves and Cleveland safe.
The initial training on departmental policies and leadership skills outlined above, and occurring in the upcoming months, is a good and critical start. However, this represents only one training initiative. As many police departments across the country have increasingly recognized, the skills that make someone a good police officer— in terms of handling unfolding incidents or responding to rapidly evolving situations—is not always consistent with the skills necessary to be a good police manager—such as overseeing employees, implementing and executing on the organization’s strategic goals, and the like. As with other professions, law enforcement increasingly recognizes that good leaders are more often made rather than born, and that even individuals with strong leadership skills can benefit from developing them further.
Consequently, the Monitoring Team looks forward to the development of a formalized leadership development program that will greatly enhance the quality and effectiveness of the Division’s supervision. It may also help the Division retain its best supervisors, who may better identify opportunities for professional and personal growth as a result of a formalized career development pathway. The Division has previously indicated a desire and willingness to build such a comprehensive program for its supervisors, perhaps in conjunction with local
158 Dkt. 243.
75

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019

community partners like universities, businesses, and community organizations. The Monitoring Team looks forward to CDP’s plans to create such a program.

Data and Compliance and Outcome Measures

As indicated above, the Consent Decree requires that CDP rigorously track instances in which supervisors identify problematic performance and log supervisors’ responses when such problems are identified. The Division still needs to implement a process for systematically tracking this information so that it can monitor, in aggregate, the performance of its supervisors. In the short-term, the Monitoring Team will use such information, as required by the Decree, to assist the Court in gauging compliance and outcomes. In the long-term, CDP and the City need this information to understand how the organization, as a whole, is performing.

In the coming reporting periods, the Monitoring Team will evaluate and assess supervisor performance in the context of its comprehensive reviews of use of force, crisis intervention, and Internal Affairs incidents or investigations.
B. Officer Intervention Program

Paragraph
326. CDP “will create a plan to modify its Officer Intervention Program (‘OIP’) to enhance its effectiveness as a management tool to promote supervisory awareness and proactive identification of potentially problematic behavior among officers. 327. “CDP supervisors will regularly use OIP data to evaluate the performance of CDP officers across all ranks, units, and shifts.” 328. “The OIP will include a computerized relational database that will be used to collect, maintain, integrate, and retrieve data department-wide” in a number of specific, expressly-identified areas. 329. “CDP will set threshold levels for each OIP indicator that will trigger a formal review, and the thresholds will allow for peer-group comparisons between officers with similar assignments and duties.” 330–36. Additional express requirements of OIP.

Status of Compliance EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED

Background

The Consent Decree requires that CDP’s existing Officer Intervention Program be comprehensively transformed into an effective “early intervention system.” As the Monitoring Team has previously outlined, an early intervention system (“EIS”) is a proactive risk assessment tool that provides individualized supervision and support to officers in order to manage risk. An effective EIS relies on a database that logs information on officer activities—such as stops, arrests, uses of force, firearm discharges, and citizen complaints—and allows police departments to identify problematic patterns of behavior by individual officers or groups of officers who may need non-disciplinary intervention and support. It also may flag issues such as operating a vehicle under the influence.

76

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019
Specifically, the Decree requires that the Division’s OIP become a broader management tool that will “proactive[ly] identif[y] . . . potentially problematic behavior among officers” and provide non-punitive supervisory intervention in order to “modify officers’ behavior and improve performance” before the performance gradually becomes deep-seated and difficult to resolve.159 The Decree requires the implementation and use of “a computerized relational database that will be used to collect, maintain, integrate, and retrieve data department-wide” on officer performance.160
Where the Division Stands
Since early on in the implementation of the Consent Decree, the Monitoring Team has supported the City and CDP’s decision to postpone the development of an EIS while the City makes the information technology upgrades that are essential to an EIS. Those upgrades have since included improvements to the Division’s use of IAPro (and its related web-based interface, BlueTeam, that will serve as an online “one-stop shop” for information about officer performance in the field); developing a stronger data platform that can manage improvements in data collection methods; an enhanced focus on tracking discipline; and a successful reshaping of the crisis intervention response.161
In the current reporting period, the Parties and Monitoring Team have begun the first steps of planning to develop an EIS that meets the requirements of the Consent Decree. The Fourth-Year Monitoring Plan contemplates initial work on implementing the type of early intervention process and infrastructure—informed by the broader and more reliable data being logged in the Division’s IAPro and other data systems—that the Decree requires. The transition of some of the Division’s existing work in the employee assistance area to the Early Intervention System required by the Decree promises to provide CDP and its personnel with an additional professional development opportunity—especially as, contrary to the impression of some personnel currently, the Decree-required process is a non-disciplinary process aimed at enhancing an officer’s performance and skills so that minor issues do not become significant problems in the future.
Progress and Tasks that Remain
Creation of EIS Plan
As described above, the City and Division plan to draft an EIS Plan in the upcoming reporting period. The Monitoring Team looks forward to working with the Division to develop a plan that satisfies the Decree’s requirements.
Training & Involvement of Supervisors
As the CDP formalizes its EIP plan, supervisors must be required (and should be trained) to regularly review performance data generated by the EIP. When an officer reaches some defined threshold in a performance
159 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶¶ 326-27. 160 Id. at ¶ 328. 161 See Third Semiannual Report at 69.
77

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019

indicator, a supervisor will be required to assess an officer’s performance to determine whether it may appropriate to intervene and identify and treat any issue that may impacting the officer’s work.

Training & Communication with Officers

It is clear that the success of a revamped EIS will substantially hinge on the Division’s communication with its officers. As the Parties turn their attention to the Early Intervention System, communication and outreach to officers about what the system is and does—and what it is not and does not do—will be critical. The EIS contemplated by the Consent Decree is entirely non-punitive. If an officer’s performance is reviewed in the context of EIS, the most that may happen is for the officer to eventually be paired with training, mentoring, counseling, or coaching that might serve as appropriate professional development resources.

CDP’s EIS plan, policies, training, and implementation going forward will need to establish definitively that the purpose of EIS will not be to find new ways to discipline officers. Again, however the Division ultimately crafts its plan to implement an EIS, it must properly ensure that all employees understand what an EIS is—a nonpunitive system for the benefit of people’s careers and professional growth—and what it is not.
Compliance with EIS Plan & Policies

After an EIS plan is developed, relevant policies written and approved, and training for supervisors and officers developed and completed, the EIS will need to be implemented. Once it is and has been actively running for a material period of time, the Monitoring Team will need to audit and evaluate whether the system is proceeding according to the requirements of policy and the Consent Decree—and whether, ultimately, it appears to be assisting the Division in identifying instances where non-disciplinary action or intervention might enhance the quality of officer performance.
C. Body-Worn Cameras

Paragraph
337. “If CDP chooses to use body worn cameras, CDP will provide clear guidance and training on their use, and will implement protocols for testing equipment and preservation of recordings to foster transparency, increase accountability, and build trust, while protecting the privacy rights of individuals.” 338. “Supervisors will review recordings related to any incident involving at least a Level 2 or 3 use of force; injuries to officers; and in conjunction with any other supervisory investigation.” 339. “Supervisors will conduct adequate random and directed audits of body worn camera recordings” and “incorporate the knowledge gained from this review into their ongoing evaluation and supervision of officers.” 340. “Officers will be subject to the disciplinary process for intentional or otherwise unjustified failure to activate body worn cameras in violation of CDP policy.”

Status of Compliance PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

78

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019
Background
Although the “use of body worn cameras is not required by” the Consent Decree, the Decree does contain requirements if CDP decides to institute body cameras. 162 In 2013, the Division elected to begin using body-worn cameras. In doing so, CDP was required to “provide clear guidance and training on their use, and . . . implement protocols for testing equipment and preservation of recording to foster transparency, increase accountability, and build trust, while protecting the privacy rights of individuals.”163 The Decree also outlines supervisor responsibilities for viewing recorded incidents and “conduct[ing] adequate random and directed audits of body worn camera recordings . . . to confirm compliance with CDP policy.”164 CDP must also ensure that officers are “subject to the disciplinary process for intentional or otherwise unjustified failure to activate” cameras in accordance with CDP policy.165
Currently, all CDP patrol officers are equipped with and trained on Taser’s Axon 2 camera system and are expected, under policy, to use them when working a City shift.
Where the Division Stands
In the current reporting period, the Parties and Monitoring Team have not actively worked on issues relating to body-worn cameras. The Division and its officers continue to use them to capture incidents and interactions.
Progress and Tasks that Remain
Compliance with Policy
The Monitoring Team will need to ensure that the Division is meaningfully holding officers accountable for complying with the various provisions of the body-worn camera policy—not just in isolated incidents, or when other problematic performance brings a certain incident to the Division’s attention, but across time and officers.
Especially as the Parties and Monitoring Team have discussed issues related to staffing and supervision, it is clear that mandates related to first-line supervisors watching body-worn camera footage may be taking supervisors away from responding to incidents on the street, where they could more proactively and affirmatively shape the performance of officers under the command. As discussed in the prior Semiannual Report, the City and Division may still wish to reconsider the “random reviews” of camera footage outlined in the approved body-worn camera policy166 in favor of a more effective review mechanism that both ensures widespread officer compliance with the policy but does not overly burden supervisors and detract from time they should be spending supervising officers.167
162 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 337. 163 Id. at ¶ 337. 164 Id. at ¶¶ 338-39. 165 Id. at ¶ 340. 166 Dkt. 92-1 at 7-8, Section IV-A. 167 Fifth Semiannual Report at 141.
79

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019 General Policy for the Release of CDP Information The Monitoring Team has previously expressed reservations about how community members, under CDP’s new policy, are able to view incidents captured on body-worn cameras.168 The Team again encourages the City and CDP to establish a general policy for the release or provision of records, data, or information—including the footage of body-worn cameras—to the public. For as much as body-worn cameras are associated with transparency and accountability in the national policing discourse, they can only achieve their desired purpose if appropriate protocols are in place that establish when and how the public is able to access such information.
168 See Dkt. 92 at 16-17; Fifth Semiannual Report at 141. 80

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Sixth Semiannual Report | March 2019 XIII. UPCOMING COMPLIANCE & OUTCOME ASSESSMENTS The preceding sections have summarized some of the overall aggregate data available that bears on compliance with topics such as use of force. In the upcoming reporting period, the Monitoring Team’s structured compliance reviews and audits—both qualitative and quantitative—will intensify. In June 2019, the next year of comprehensive outcome assessment data will be available. Likewise, as new and revised policies become finalized and move towards real world implementation, the Monitoring Team will continuously assess the Division’s ability to produce safe, effective, and constitutional policing. The Team looks forward to the City and CDP completing necessary data infrastructure improvements, which will allow the Team to review both qualitative and quantitative outcomes to observe how the terms of the Consent Decree—covering community policing, bias-free policing, stops and arrests, crisis intervention, use of force, accountability, and more—are affecting the actual day-to-day operations of the Cleveland Division of Police.
81

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team
Matthew Barge Monitor
Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey (ret.) Principal Deputy Monitor
Chief Hassan Aden (ret.) Deputy Monitor
Chief Timothy Longo (ret.) Director of Implementation
Charles R. See Director of Community Engagement
Christine Cole Director of Outcome Measures
Dr. Modupe Akinola Chief Joseph Brann (ret.)
Brian Center Dr. Randolph Dupont
Maggie Goodrich Ayesha Hardaway
Ganesha Martin Richard Rosenthal
Victor Ruiz Captain Scott Sargent (ret.)
Dr. Ellen Scrivner Sean Smoot
Timothy Tramble Monitoring Team
Brian Chen Barry Friedman Maria Ponomarenko NYU School of Law Policing Project
Consultants

 
 Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 254 Filed: 04/08/19 1 of 31. PageID #: 5052

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

UUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CCITY OF CLEVELAND,

D

Defendant.

) CASE NO.: 1:15-CV-01046 ) ) ) JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER, JR. ) ) ) ) CITY OF CLEVELAND’S ) SEVENTH STATUS REPORT

I.

Introduction

The Settlement Agreement/Consent Decree entered in this matter provides that the

City is to file a semi-annual status report. Paragraph 387 of the Consent Decree

establishes:

This report will delineate the steps taken by CDP during the reporting period to comply with this Agreement; CDP’s Assessment of the Status of its progress; plans to correct any problems; and response to concerns raised in the Monitor’s previous semi-annual report.

The City files its Seventh Status Report.

A. Third Year Monitoring Plan

This report primarily addresses the activities undertaken during the second half of

the Third Year Monitoring Plan (Dkt. 195-1), which was approved by the Court on May

3, 2018. (Dkt. 197). Important activities undertaken during the second half of the Third-Year

Monitoring Plan included finalization and court-approval of a comprehensive Community and

Problem-Oriented Policing Plan (“CPOP”), CDP’s staffing plan, CDP’s equipment and resources

plan, the Department of Public Safety’s recruiting and hiring plan, and the District Policing

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 254 Filed: 04/08/19 2 of 31. PageID #: 5053
Committee Plan. Significant effort was also undertaken during this period to complete separate CDP policies addressing “search and seizure” and officer in-service training, which should be finalized shortly. CDP is very close to finalizing new operating manuals for CDP’s Force Investigation Team (“FIT”) and office of Internal Affairs.
B. Monitor’s Sixth Semi-annual Report The Monitor Team released its “Sixth Semiannual Report and Comprehensive ReAssessment” on March 5, 2019 recognizing that “a number of major plans and initiatives have been finalized.” (Sixth Report, Dkt. 246, p. 2). The Monitor’s Sixth report reviews and details the progress made by the City during the second half of the third year monitoring plan. Filing of the Monitor’s most recent report coincided with a public status conference conducted by Judge Oliver that focused on the Consent Decree related accomplishments to date; while also allowing for discussion on future activities under the new Fourth Year Monitoring Plan. In discussing the CDP’s continuing hard work and progress toward full compliance with the Consent Decree, the Monitor recognizes that CDP is now “on the cusp of a major turning point.” (Sixth Report, Dkt. 246, p. 2). This characterization arises from a recognition that “most of the foundational policy development and process refinement work” will soon be completed, with the focus now transitioning “from establishing how the Division and its officers must operate to ensuring that they do, in fact, perform according to the expectations established in the Decree and the various Court-approved policies and plans.” (Id). In other words, going into the fourth year monitoring plan “the task of active implementation [will be] increasingly occupying the focus of the Division’s efforts.” (Id.).
2

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 254 Filed: 04/08/19 3 of 31. PageID #: 5054

The Monitor’s Sixth Report clearly “finds the City and Division of Police arriving at a noteworthy and critical milestone that is the culmination of the substantial work and community input and participation.” (Id. at p.3).

II.

Steps Taken by the Cleveland Division of Police and the City of

Cleveland During the Reporting Period.

As with the City’s previous reports, the activities and milestone events addressed during this reporting period are discussed in the City’s Seventh Status Report in the

following order:
A. Community and Problem-Oriented Policing, B. Use of Force, C. Crisis Intervention, D. Officer Training, E. Accountability F. Equipment and Resources, G. Data Collection and Analysis/ Compliance and Outcome Assessments and
Reporting H. Bias Free Policing, and I. Compliance and Outcome Assessments and Reporting. .

A. Community and Problem-Oriented Policing 1. Cleveland Community Police Commission (“CPC”)
The Monitor’s Sixth Semi-Annual Report provides the reader with a detailed and nuanced look at the role of the CPC in the Consent Decree process and activities that the

Commission undertook in the last half of the third year monitoring plan. (Id. at pp. 7-11).

a. CPC Review of CDP Policies The Consent Decree provides that the CPC is to “make recommendations for additional strategies for the CDP to consider to increase community engagement with and community confidence in CDP.” (Dkt. 7-1, ¶ 17(c). The Monitor notes particularly that during the reporting period “the CPC facilitated a substantial community input period for

3

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 254 Filed: 04/08/19 4 of 31. PageID #: 5055
three major and interrelated CDP plans: the Community and Problem-Oriented Policing (“CPOP”) Plan, the Recruitment and Hiring Plan, and the Staffing Plan.” (Dkt. 246 at p. 8).
Additionally, the Consent Decree provides the CPC with authority to “review and comment on CDP‘s policies and practices related to …search and seizure…” (Dkt.7-1, at para. 18(a). The CPC actively undertook to ‘review and comment” as the CDP worked to finalize new Division-wide “Search and Seizure” related policies. After engaging with outside legal resources and community stakeholders, the CPC provided the City and CDP with comments and recommendations that addressed the proposed new policies. Representatives from the City and CDP, the Monitor Team and DOJ, met on two occasions with CPC representatives and individuals associated with the different legal and community stakeholder groups that had assisted the CPC in preparing its Search and Seizure policy recommendations. These meetings involved direct, give and take discussions that allowed for a considered exchange of ideas between those in attendance. Following the discussions the CDP incorporated a number of the proposed recommendations. The Search and Seizure policies are close to being finalized and the City anticipates the policies will be filed for approval of the Court in the immediate near future.
b. CPC Organization The Consent Decree provides that “[v]acancies within the original four year term will be filled in the same fashion as the original appointments.” ((Dkt. 7-1, at para. 16). In July two of the original appointed commissioners, Amanda King and Dylan Sellers, resigned from the Commission. As was done following the departure of three other
4

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 254 Filed: 04/08/19 5 of 31. PageID #: 5056
Commissioners, the Selection Panel established pursuant to the Consent Decree was reconvened to review applications, conduct interviews, and recommend replacements for appointment to the CPC. As a result of the Selection Panel’s work Tiffany Artis and Christopher Brown were selected for appointment to finish the remaining terms for the two positions...
In December the CPC received a consulting report from Strategic Applications International (“SAI”). SAI, in its role as an organizational consultant, provided the Commission with a variety of administrative and operational recommendations, characterized by SAI as a “roadmap,” for the Commission as work relating to the Consent Decree transitions into the activities outlined in the Fourth Year Monitor Plan. 2. Community and Problem-Oriented Policing Work Plan
By way of background and as noted in the Monitor’s most recent report: The Consent Decree requires that the Division develop and implement a “comprehensive and integrated community and problem-oriented policing model” to “promote and strengthen partnerships with the community . . . and increase community confidence in the CDP.” This section refers to policing according to this model as “community and problem-oriented policing,” or “CPOP.” (Dkt. 246, at p. 14) The CDP’s Bureau of Community Policing Commander Johnny Johnson was tasked with drafting a CPOP Plan that incorporated community feedback. An initial draft of the CPOP Plan was initially released for community input back in May 2018. During the last half of 2018 efforts were undertaken to ensure the various communities in Cleveland had a voice in helping to shape what would be contained in the final Plan.
CDP coordinated a series of well attended public meetings through coordination with the City’s long-standing District Policing Committees to discuss with members of
5

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 254 Filed: 04/08/19 6 of 31. PageID #: 5057
the community the substance of the proposed CPOP Plan and to receive direct feedback from residents in each of the five CDP Districts. The CPC also undertook efforts to receive community feedback on the Plan and provided recommendations for CDP review in late September.
After receiving input from the community, CDP participated in meetings and discussions with representatives from the Monitor Team, DOJ, and CPC to ensure the adoption of a CPOP Plan that incorporated community ideas and feedback. CDP completed and presented a final CPOP Plan in early February, 2019. On February 14, 2019 the Monitor filed a motion with the Court recommending that the new CPOP Plan be approved. (Dkt. 234). In describing the Plan, the Monitor concluded:
”The CPOP Plan is an important, much-needed document that sets out necessary organizational changes and new expectations for all CDP members. It was the subject of substantial community engagement. It is a strong foundation about which the Division and community can be proud.” (Id. at p. 9). The Court issued an Order approving the submitted Plan on February 20, 2019.
a. The CPOP Plan The basic community partnership, problem solving philosophy, and commitment underlying the importance of CPOP is found in the opening paragraph of the Executive Summary of the Plan: Police cannot produce a safe community by their efforts alone. Partnerships and relationship building are tantamount to safe neighborhoods. The Community and Problem-Oriented Policing Plan or CPOP is an organizational strategy that promotes community partnerships and problem-solving techniques to proactively address the immediate conditions that give rise to public safety issues such as crime, social disorder, and fear of crime. It is the responsibility of all members of the Cleveland Division of Police (CDP) beginning with the Chief thru the chain of command to every officer. All officers are responsible for
6

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 254 Filed: 04/08/19 7 of 31. PageID #: 5058
engaging in community and problem-oriented policing without regard to where they are assigned. It is not the sole responsibility of any single bureau or unit. (Dkt. 234-1, at p. 2). The CPOP Plan is a comprehensive and collaborative effort that has been designed (1) to increase participation from a cross section of the community in each of the five District Policing Committees, (2) to build community confidence and trust, (3) to continuously engage the community in its policing policies and procedures, and (4) to increase the positive public perceptions of the CDP. Parallel with the development of the CPOP Plan, CDP also created an aggressive Recruitment Plan, and completed a Staffing Study to better address efficiency and gaps. The CPOP Plan, the Recruitment Plan, and the Staffing Study take into account the goal of enhanced community engagement, while ensuring ongoing public safety. In reaching these community goals the CPOP Plan creates expectations for all officers and supervisors.
All officers are required to incorporate CPOP principles in their daily duties, to strengthen relationships while also building engagement opportunities between CDP and the communities being served, to actively participate in community meetings and events, to incorporate bias-free and procedural justice principles into their interactions with citizens, and to proactively learn about and engage the communities where they are assigned.
CDP supervisors are required to: support and guide officers about CPOP, ensure Patrol officers devote at least 20 % of their workdays to community engagement opportunities, recognize officers who excel in using CPOP principles while remediating those that do not, ensure officers actively participate in community meetings and events,
7

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 254 Filed: 04/08/19 8 of 31. PageID #: 5059
and ensure that officers incorporate CPOP, Bias-Free, and Procedural Justice Principles during their interactions with members of the community.
i. SARA Model Collaborative engagement of CDP officers with the community to better address local safety conditions is a hallmark of the new CPOP Plan. One model adopted with the Plan to provide better engagement with the community in addressing public safety is referred to with the acronym SARA. SARA stands for Scanning, Analysis, Response, and Assessment. SARA assists officers in looking at encountered problems beyond the immediacy of a single call for service and completion of a report. Rather, the SARA model encourages a deeper probe into what is behind recurring circumstances and provides officers with an enhanced approach to interacting with members of the community in attempting to resolve the underlying condition that is causing a problem. The first step in the SARA model — Scanning, refers to the identification of problems and the potential consequences associated with the identified problem. After the initial recognition comes the Analysis, which refers to identifying and understanding the conditions and elements of the perceived problem, and identifying relevant data and available resources. Response refers to what steps are undertaken to solve a problem, while Assessment involves an evaluation of the strategy that was used in resolving the problem. It is contemplated that SARA will result in enhanced collaborative problem solving. Officers will input problem-solving data into the CDP’s Computer Aided Dispatch (“CAD”) system.1 In tackling a particular problem using the SARA model
1 CAD is the Division’s computer program that is designed and employed to assist dispatchers to assign calls for service. The program will also be used to store SARA data.
8

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 254 Filed: 04/08/19 9 of 31. PageID #: 5060
officers will develop where feasible a “work plan” in collaboration with community members.
ii. 20% of Workday Committed to Community Engagement Under the CPOP Plan patrol officers will be required to dedicate a portion of their day to performing CPOP activities. The goal is to have officers spending dedicated time engaging in problem solving while developing relationships in the community being served. Officers will be expected to spend on the average 20 % of their time on CPOP activities. Examples of Ways to meet this goal include the use of bike/foot patrols, officer attendance at community meetings, meetings with business leaders, and creating action plans with community members to address their concerns. Community engagement also results from impromptu informal interactions with community members, such as engaging in casual conversations, making random community visits, playing ball with neighborhood children, and other non-enforcement related interactions.
iii. Officer Wellness and Increased Officer Efficiency The CPOP Plan takes into account the recognition that healthy officers are generally more safe, productive, compassionate, and responsive to the community being served. The Plan identifies CDP’s ongoing commitment to assisting officers maintain their mental, emotional, physical, social, and spiritual ‘well-being.” The CDP has created “District Business Cards” to increase accessibility and promote engagement. These cards can be used to provide follow-up information to citizens in connection with calls for service, and they can also be used simply to help officers build relationships with citizens they interact with during engagement activities.
9

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 254 Filed: 04/08/19 10 of 31. PageID #: 5061
The CPOP Plan takes into account that alleviating the workload of frontline officers will assist in making the Division more efficient while fully protecting public safety. By this the Plan envisions freeing officers from certain non-emergency tasks so that they have more time to focus on their immediate duties and to provide the officers with more time to directly engage with the community. One way that the City has attempted to reduce having officers run from one call for service to the next is through implementation of an Online Crime Reporting System referred to as “Coplogic.” This system is intended to allow community members to complete reports online for certain incidents such as petty theft, bicycle theft, property damage, and lost property without having to confer directly with an officer on scene.
3. District Policing Committees Local organizations now referred to as District Policing Committees (“DPC”) have long been established in each of the five CDP Districts. Prior to the Consent Decree the DPC’s had been known as “District Community Relations Committees.” In this guise, the DPC’s had been in existence since 1974 and had worked closely with both the CDP and the City’s Community Relations Board (“CRB”). An ongoing role of the DPC’s is to “to facilitate communication and cooperation between CDP and community leaders at the local level.” (Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 23). During the period of the Third Year Monitoring Plan the CDP successfully completed its work on a “District Policing Committee Plan” (“DPC Plan”). An important goal in the development of the plan was to ensure the DPC’s going forward were a continuing and effective voice in facilitating the CDP’s commitment to Community and Problem Oriented Policing.” After working with the Monitor and DOJ, the CDP
10

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 254 Filed: 04/08/19 11 of 31. PageID #: 5062

completed a first draft of the new DPC Plan in May, 2018. The Plan was then released

for public review and input, with work on the final DPC Plan being completed in late

January. The DPC’s are an integral element of the CDP’s new CPOP Plan. The new DPC

Plan acknowledges that:

DPCs are an essential part of the Division’s CPOP plan because they are one of the tools at the Division’s disposal for engaging the community and conducting problem-solving. District Commanders will use the DPC meetings as opportunities to identify, assess and collaboratively solve problems in their District. They will also use the sessions to solicit input on the Divisions policies and procedures. The DPCs will assess the Divisions overall performance and its CPOP activities by surveying community members. Officers will use the DPCs as an opportunity to know better and understand the members of the community that they patrol and create relationships and partnerships.

DPCs will be a crucial component for CDP Officers to act as “guardian of the community.” One of the important aspects of the “guardian” mission is to understand the communities within the city. To fulfill this mission, officers must engage the community outside of a typical law enforcement action and have a basic knowledge of the communities in their assigned area. The DPCs will be one of the many methods that officers will use to engage and learn about the community. (Dkt. 235-1, pp. 4-5)

The Monitor submitted the DPC Plan to the Court for approval on February 14,

2019. (Dkt. 235). On February 20, 2019 the Court issued an order approving the DPC

Plan, concluding that it “meets the terms of the Consent Decree.” (Dkt. 238, Order).

B. Use of Force

1.

Use of Force Policies

As was addressed in previous City reports, one of the major early focuses of the

CDP in complying with the agreed upon terms of the Consent Decree was the revision

and development of the Division’s use of force policies. In January 2017 the Court

approved five new "use of force" policies that addressed: (1) Use of Force -General, (2)

Use of Force-Definitions, (3) De-Escalation (4) Use of Force-Intermediate Weapons, and

11

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 254 Filed: 04/08/19 12 of 31. PageID #: 5063
(5) Use of Force-Reporting. (Dkt. 101). These policies became effective in January 2018 following the training of all CDP officers in the second half of 2017. It is of note in discussing the impact of the new policies, that the Monitor’s Fifth Status Report had documented that CDP’s use of force when compared to use of force in prior years was down, while crime overall and reports of officer injuries were down in comparison to recent years. (Dkt. 214, pp. 48-51).
The Monitor’s Sixth Status Report reviewed trends regarding CDP use of force using data gathered for the 2018 calendar year.2 The Monitor noted that CDP officer use of force was down by 29 % in 2018 when compared to 2017. The Monitor further noted:
A 29% reduction in force incidents is no small achievement. The Monitoring Team applauds the Division’s work to revise force policies. It applauds the Training Section’s hard work on constructing and conducting high-quality officer training on force that incorporated new approaches and methods. Most of all, it applauds the men and women of the Division of Police who are charged with carrying out the policy while ensuring the public’s, and their own, safety. The data of the first year of the Division’s new approach to use of force suggest that officers are using force differently than in the past. (Dkt. 246, p. 28). The City understands the Monitor is presently reviewing the 2018 use of force incidents to determine whether the 2018 use of force data reflects that CDP was in “General Compliance” with the compliance standards established in the Consent decree. The Consent Decree establishes that the Monitor is to conduct reviews or audits as necessary “to determine whether the City and CDP have complied with the requirements of this Agreement.” (Dkt. 7-1, ¶ 360). Given the approval of the policies
2 One caveat in comparing the 2018 reported use of force statistics to previous years was a change to what would constitute a reportable use of force under the new policies beginning in 2018. Unlike previous years, in 2018 the “pointing of a firearm” at an individual would constitute a low Level 1 use of force under the new policies. In comparing 2018 to 2017 use of force data, the Monitor in constructing an “apples to
12

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 254 Filed: 04/08/19 13 of 31. PageID #: 5064
and the completion of training, the final element associated with the Monitor’s compliance review is defined in the Consent Decree as whether the City and CDP “are carrying out the requirement in actual practice.” (Id.). The specific measurement standards to be used by the Monitor for its “use of force” compliance review are found in the Consent Decree. (Dkt. 7-1, ¶ 367 “Outcome Measurements” at (a)(1)-(7)). 2. Investigation and Review
The Consent Decree addresses the creation of two new entities within the CDP relating to the Division’s internal investigation and review of officer uses of force. A Force Investigation Team (“FIT”) under the auspices of CDP’s Internal Affairs is to be established for the purpose of conducting administrative reviews of all Level 3 (the most serious) uses of force, force involving potential criminal conduct, instances where an individual dies while in or as the result of being in CDP custody, and any uses of force assigned to FIT by the Chief. (Dkt. 7-1, ¶ 111). Additionally, the City is to create a Force Review Board (“FRB”). The Chief will chair the FRB which is envisioned in the Consent Decree to serve “as a quality control mechanism for uses of force and force investigations, and to appraise use of force incidents from a tactics, training, policy, and agency improvement perspective.” (Dkt. 7-1, ¶ 124).
Final work on the separate, new CDP policies that will govern FIT investigations, the creation and activities of the FRB, and address supervisory investigations of Level 1 and 2 uses of force has been underway in the current reporting period. As was noted by the Monitor in its recent Sixth Report:
apples” comparison did not include pointing a firearm within the comparative data. (Dkt. 246, p. 27).
13

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 254 Filed: 04/08/19 14 of 31. PageID #: 5065
In the current reporting period, the Parties and Monitoring Team have continued to revise three important documents that will collectively set expectations and protocols for the Division’s review and investigation of uses of force: (1) the Use of Force Supervisory Review Policy; (2) the Force Investigation Team Manual; and (3) the FRB Policy. The Monitoring Team anticipates that these policies will be completed and ready for the Court’s approval early in the upcoming reporting period.
(Dkt. 246, pp. 31-32). The City anticipates that the three new policies will be finalized
shortly for filing with the Court.
C. Crisis Intervention
The Monitor’s Sixth Report documents that the City has made much substantive
and continued progress during the period of the Consent Decree in addressing Crisis
Intervention issues.
As the Team noted in its Fifth Semiannual Report, “the progress that the City has made in the area of crisis intervention is [arguably] the strongest and most significant of any area of the Consent Decree to date.”80 This significant progress has continued in the current reporting period. The Monitoring Team has been pleased to see the Mental Health Response Advisory Committee (“MHRAC”)—the community problem-solving forum made up of representatives from the police, social service providers, mental health and substance abuse professionals, the judiciary, advocates, and individuals in recovery—continue to collaborate on ways to improve services to those in need of care.81 MHRAC and CDP also built upon a successful Crisis Intervention Training in 2017 with a high-quality follow-up training for all CDP officers.
(Dkt. 246, pp. 34-35).
The Consent Decree establishes that all CDP officers are to receive annual crisis
intervention training. (Dkt. 7-1, ¶ 143). The 2018 annual in-service training was
accomplished in the second half of 2018. Almost all officers who were eligible for the
training (98%) successfully completed the eight hours of Crisis Intervention training. In
addition to further training on the principles of crisis intervention, the second year
training also focused on how trauma can affect officers in the course of performing their
14

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 254 Filed: 04/08/19 15 of 31. PageID #: 5066
duties and the resources that were available to officers for help. Internal surveys measuring Officer responses to the 2018 Crisis Intervention training were exceedingly positive and reflective of strong officer interest and engagement.
The Consent Decree required that the City and CDP develop a Mental Health Response Advisory Committee (“MHRAC”) for the purpose of foster[ing] relationships and build[ing] support between the police, the community, and mental health providers and to help identify problems and develop solutions designed to improve outcomes for individuals in crisis.” (Dkt 7-1, ¶ 132). A was noted by the Monitor, MHRAC has established a Quality Improvement Subcommittee that during 2018 worked to design “a data template to analyze how the CDP’s crisis intervention data can be used to identify necessary ongoing treatment services by providers who work with the ADAMHS Board.” (Dkt. 246, p. 35).
The Consent Decree establishes that CDP is to provide enhanced specialized training in responding to individuals in crisis to certain officers who will be identified as “specialized CIT officers.” (Dkt. 7-1, ¶ 145). CDP, in collaboration with MHRAC, DOJ, and the Monitoring Team, have worked during the reporting period that just ended to finalize the 40-Hour curriculum to be used for such training. The curriculum should be completed and ready for final review and approval shortly. The process for the selection of officers to receive the specialized CIT officer training will go forward in the next reporting period. D. Officer Training and Recruitment 1. Officer Training
In addition to the use of force and crisis intervention in-service training discussed
15

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 254 Filed: 04/08/19 16 of 31. PageID #: 5067
above, CDP also began initial in-service CPOP related training of officers in the second half of 2018. This training was undertaken pursuant to a Community Engagement and Problem-Solving (“CEPS”) curriculum that was developed in the first-half of 2018. This initial CEPS training involved instruction on the SARA problem-solving model that forms a key element of the new CPOP community engagement strategy. As with the crisis intervention training, fully 98% of eligible officers had received the CEPS training by the end of the year.
Utilizing the experience gained from the initial 2018 CEPS training, CDP is in the process of providing the 2019 in-service CEPS training. As the Monitor noted, the 2019 training will reinforce “core concepts from the 2018 training, such as the SARA problemsolving model, while also instructing officers on the now-approved CPOP Plan itself— the new expectations and requirements on how officers are staffed, use their time, and document their community engagement and problem-solving activities. (Dkt. 246, p. 18).
The Consent Decree also requires that personnel assigned to Internal Affairs receive initial and annual training that “is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type in conducting misconduct investigations.” (Dkt. 7-1, ¶¶ 180-181). This training was undertaken in November 2018, with the Monitor noting:
“The training inspired lively classroom discussions about case scenarios, techniques, legal issues, and the complexities of these types of investigations. The Monitoring Team was impressed by the curriculum and the expertise of the trainers. Informal feedback from CDP officers, detectives, supervisors, and commanders who attended the class praised the training.” (Dkt. 246, p.44). 2. Recruitment
The Consent Decree requires that CDP “develop a recruitment policy and a
16

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 254 Filed: 04/08/19 17 of 31. PageID #: 5068
strategic recruitment plan that includes clear goals, objectives, and action steps for attracting qualified applicants from a broad cross-section of the community.” (Dkt. 7-1, ¶ 302). The CDP has been engaged from the beginning of the Consent Decree in establishing a recruiting plan that will “ensure that CDP successfully attracts and hires a diverse group of qualified individuals.” (Id. at ¶ 300). The Consent Decree identifies the diverse group of applicants being sought as those “who are familiar with the different neighborhoods of Cleveland, who possess strategic thinking and problem solving skills, emotional maturity, interpersonal skills, and the ability to collaborate with a diverse cross-section of the community.” (Id. at ¶ 304).
a. Recruitment and Hiring Plan Working in a cooperative manner with the Monitor Team and the DOJ, the City released a draft Recruitment and Hiring Plan for public review and feedback in May 2018. After taking into account community feedback that was received in the last reporting period, a final version of the Recruitment and Hiring Plan was completed. On February 14, 2019 the Monitor filed the Plan and requested Court approval. (Dkt. 236). The Court approved the Recruitment and Hiring Plan on February 20, 2019. (Dkt. 239). The Recruitment and Hiring Plan establishes: The City of Cleveland’s primary goal is to implement a recruitment plan that ensures we attract the best candidates from a cross section of the community to reflect the diverse make up of our city and adequately staff our divisions to provide the best service to our citizens. To accomplish this, we must recruit not only qualified individuals but those who exhibit an understanding and familiarity with the neighborhoods that are uniquely Cleveland. (DKT. 236-1, p. 7). In meeting this primary goal, the Recruitment and Hiring Plan identifies three (3) programmatic goals to attract qualified recruits:
17

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 254 Filed: 04/08/19 18 of 31. PageID #: 5069
1. Increase staffing levels to effectively implement our Community and Problem Oriented Policing plan (CPOP). 2. Attract and hire a diverse group of qualified applicants from a broad crosssection of the community. 3. Create and maintain partnerships with community stakeholders to enhance recruitment efforts. (Id., p. 7).
b. Public Safety Recruitment Team To maximize the efficiency of its recruitment efforts for all safety forces (Police, Fire, and EMS) under the new Recruitment and Hiring Plan, the City established a combined Public Safety Recruitment Team (“PSRT”) in the Department of Public Safety. CDP Sergeant Charmin Leon serves as the Officer-in-Charge (“OIC”) for the PSRT, which also includes two CDP officers, one firefighter, and one EMT. In meeting the goals set with the Consent Decree the PSRT is very active in the community. The PSRT has consistently worked to increase the public’s confidence in the CDP through its efforts to highlight the positive aspects of policing as a career, while ensuring residents are informed of ongoing accomplishments of individual officers and their contributions to the community. The PSRT communicates with the community through the use of radio, billboards, and other social media, in addition to attending meetings and directly interacting with individual community members throughout the City. The City’s previous status report (Dkt. 219) provided a detailed list of actions that described the numerous and varied efforts of the PSRT which remain ongoing. One particularly successful community initiative undertaken by the PSRT involves a program called “Beauty, Badges and Barbershop Talks.” On a regular basis
18

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 254 Filed: 04/08/19 19 of 31. PageID #: 5070
the PSRT members schedule visits to urban barbershops and salons. Through relaxed and open discussions with the PSRT, community members can share their experiences with the CDP; discuss their expectations concerning the role of the CDP in the community, while also hearing about the CDP’s commitment to the community through programs such as the newly approved CPOP Plan.
The PSRT continued its innovative and dynamic recruiting activities throughout the most recent reporting period, while also working to achieve finalization of the CDP’s newly approved Recruitment and Hiring Plan. 3. Hiring
Two CDP recruit classes are currently in training: Police Academy Classes 143 and 144. Three recruit classes that started their training in 2018 graduated 136 new patrol officers in the most recent period covered by this report. Police Academy Class 140 graduated 49 new patrol officers on August 24, 2018; Police Academy Class 141 graduated 37 new officers on January 18, 2019, with Police Academy Class 142 graduating 47 new patrol officers on February 8, 2019.
CDP continues its efforts to recruit officers that “reflect the diverse make up of our city.” It is notable that the percentage of minority and women recruits increased from 31 % in the recently graduated Police Academy Class 140 to 61% in the current Police Academy Class 143. E. Accountability
Paragraph 196 of the Consent Decree requires that allegations of police misconduct be “fully, fairly and efficiently investigated”, irrespective of whether the allegations are internally discovered or brought by a civilian. (Dkt. 7-1, ¶ 196).
19

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 254 Filed: 04/08/19 20 of 31. PageID #: 5071
1. Internal Affairs Retired Federal Prosecutor Ronald Bakeman has now served as the civilian
Superintendent of Internal Affairs for a little over one year. Much work has been focused on pursuant to ensuring requirements established in the Consent Decree are incorporated into a revised IA Manual, the preparation of a manual for the newly created FIT, and other revised policies relating to IA investigations. The City believes, after a period of continuous review, discussion, and negotiation with both the Monitor and DOJ during the most recent reporting period, that CDP’s work on the revised IA Manual, the new FIT Manual, and IA policies is largely completed. As was noted in the Monitor’s Sixth Report in discussing IA’s work in this respect, “[t]he Monitoring Team anticipates that these policies will be completed and submitted for the Court’s approval in the upcoming reporting period.” (DKT. 246, p. 44). 2. Discipline
CDP addressed with the Monitor the issue of officer discipline during the most recent completed reporting period, and continues to work with the Monitor and the DOJ to better ensure “that discipline for sustained allegations of misconduct comports with due process, and is consistently applied, [and] fair…” as required by the Consent Decree. (See Dkt. 7-1, ¶ 245). CDP has operated with a revised Court approved Disciplinary Matrix since January, 2018. One specific area addressed in this reporting period was the creation of written guidelines for the conduct of officer discipline hearings conducted by the Chief. After substantive ongoing discussions, CDP provided the DOJ and Monitoring Team with what is characterized by the Monitor as “a substantive draft of guidelines for the conduct of ‘Chief’s Hearings’.” (Dkt 246, p. 55). While the draft guidelines remain
20

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 254 Filed: 04/08/19 21 of 31. PageID #: 5072
subject to further review and discussion the City agrees with the Monitor’s assessment that the proposed guidelines are “an excellent step forward in ensuring systematic compliance with paragraph 245 of the Consent Decree.” (Id.).
While understanding that the compliance summaries “do not automatically mean that the City or CDP have not made good faith efforts or commendable strides toward compliance” (Dkt. 246, p.5), the City disagrees with the Monitor’s assessment of “noncompliance” with regard to paragraphs 242, 243, and 247 of the Consent decree.
Paragraph 242 of the Consent Decree basically requires that the Chief provide the Civilian Police Review Board with a written justification when the Chief does not uphold the CPRB’s recommended charges or does not impose the discipline or non-disciplinary corrective action that has been recommended by the CPRB. While there have been and continues to be fair discussion on this issue between the Monitor and CDP, the City’s position is that the Chief’s disagreements with CPRB recommendations have been documented in writings to the CPRB that provide requisite justification for the Chief’s decision. The City understands that CDP and the Monitor have differences of opinion concerning the degree of detail required by paragraph 242 and the topic continues to be addressed. Paragraph 243 of the Consent Decree requires that CDP tracks the number of instances the Chief departs from the CPRB’s recommended discipline disposition. CDP has tracked such instances in Excel format, and is undertaking to alternatively track such instances in IA Pro. Such Chief departures are further noted in the bi-weekly reports now being produced by OPS. The City also disagrees with the Monitor’s assessment that it does not document disciplinary decisions in writing as required by paragraph 247 of the Consent Decree.
21

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 254 Filed: 04/08/19 22 of 31. PageID #: 5073
3. Office of Professional Standards3 The Office of Professional Standards is responsible for receiving and investigating
non-criminal complaints filed by members of the public against sworn and non-sworn Cleveland Division of Police employees. Following its investigations, OPS makes findings and recommends action to the Civilian Police Review Board (“CPRB”). A primary goal established by the City and OPS going into 2018 was to have OPS remain timely in completing the investigation of complaints received on and after December 1, 2017, while having an outside investigative contractor address an identified backlog of unfinished OPS investigations remaining from complaints made by the public to OPS in 2015, 2016, and through November, 2017.
a. 2018 OPS Investigations OPS received 227 complaints in 2018. This represents a reduction of six percent (6 %) from the 241 complaints received by OPS in 2017, and a reduction of fourteen percent (14%) from the 263 complaints received in 2016. Of the 227 complaints received in 2018, 181 have now been closed, with 37 of the 2018 complaints remaining currently active. Of the 2018 cases that have been closed, 101 received a full investigation, 65 were administratively dismissed, with the remaining 15 being administratively closed.4
3 A separate report, “City of Cleveland’s Status Report Re: Office of Professional Standards,” was filed with the Court on March 4, 2019. (See Dkt. 245). The report herein updates the prior statistics related to the status of OPS complaints received in 2018. 4 An “administrative dismissal” occurs when (a) a complaint is made against an individual who is not a CDP employee; (b) allegations have been made against a CDP employee who cannot be identified despite the best efforts of the OPS investigators; (c) when the allegations are of a civil nature and only address an employee’s off-duty conduct; and (d) when the allegations only concern the receipt of a traffic or parking citation, with no other allegations being made. An “administrative closure” occurs when
22

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 254 Filed: 04/08/19 23 of 31. PageID #: 5074
In fourteen of the 2018 cases, it appeared that potential criminal conduct was alleged. OPS does not investigate criminal conduct and the fourteen OPS files were forwarded to Internal Affairs to conduct a thorough investigation.5 Nine of these referrals remain open.
b. Administrative Staff As was noted in the City’s prior status report, a new OPS Administrator, Mr. Roger Smith, and an OPS Supervisory Investigator, Mr. Henry Roney, were hired by the City in the first half of 2018. The Monitor’s Sixth Report notes regarding their time with OPS that “[n]ow that OPS has experienced leadership to implement changes in day-today practices on newly-received complaints, the Monitoring Team has seen some improvements in the quality of OPS investigative practices.” (Dkt. 246, P. 48). OPS maintains a current staff of eight permanent investigators and one temporary hire investigator. These investigators are tasked with investigating and staying current on complaints received by OPS on and after December 1, 2017. The OPS Administrator conducts weekly training classes for the investigators to assist in the continued improvement of investigations being undertaken. OPS has now filled three positions that the Monitor characterizes as being
(a) a new complaint against a CDP employee contains the same allegations that were made in a previous complaint received by OPS or, (b) a new complaint filed with OPS against a CDP employee is determined by OPS to raise new, but similar allegations in an already existing case involving the same CDP employee. 5 During an OPS investigation, if facts suggest that criminal conduct may have occurred, a copy of the file is forwarded to IA so that the unit can conduct a thorough investigation of the officer’s conduct. OPS investigation is stayed pending completion of the IA investigation. Regardless of the IA investigatory results, the case will be returned to OPS to conclude its separate investigation of the non-criminal conduct or administrative violations.
23

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 254 Filed: 04/08/19 24 of 31. PageID #: 5075
“critical” to sustained reform going forward. Spyridon Kodellas was hired to fill the vacant Research Analyst position and started with OPS on February 19, 2019. The vacant general manager position was filled with the hire of George Coulter. Mr. Coulter began his duties with OPS on March 4, 2019. Natasha Stewart has been hired to fill the Community Engagement Coordinator position and she will start with the agency on May 6, 2019.
c. Backlog Investigation Plan In early 2018 the City first contracted with Hillard Heintze LLC for the purpose of addressing the existing backlog of OPS investigations that accrued during the period 2015November, 2017. This was accomplished to allow OPS to focus its efforts on remaining current with its investigation and completion of complaints received on and after December, 2017. A total of 281 backlogged investigations were provided for Hillard Heintze’s review. Hillard Heintze’s work to complete the existing backlog was planned to be undertaken in three separate contractual phases. Phase One, involved Hillard Heintze conducting a comprehensive review and assessment of the 281 backlogged complaints remaining from the 2015-20171 time period. This first phase was addressed in the City’s August 2018 Status Report to the Court. (Dkt.215). The Phase Two period involved Hillard Heintze evaluating each of the backlogged cases it had received to determine case by case whether sufficient evidence actually existed that would warrant further investigation. The nature of the evaluative work to be accomplished in Phase Two was generally addressed in the City’s December 2018 Status Report. (Dkt. 228). Phase Two was completed by Hillard Heintze during the reporting period addressed in this report.
24

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 254 Filed: 04/08/19 25 of 31. PageID #: 5076
Hillard Heintze’s Phase Two work resulted in the closure of 137 files where sufficient evidence did not exist to proceed further, the completion of backlogged investigations for files that had been almost completed when the files were received by Hillard Heintze, and the establishment of an investigatory road map to be used where the Phase Two review had established that there was sufficient evidence for proceeding. Hillard Heintze completed its Phase Two work in January, 2019. As a result of the Phase Two review and work, 137 cases were closed for lack of evidence or were completed and returned to OPS. Of this number, 23 of the cases involved completed investigations that were returned to OPS and heard by the Cleveland Police Review Board (“CPRB”) at its February 12, 2019 meeting. At the completion of Phase Two, Hillard Heintze had identified 144 backlogged cases that remained for its further investigation and completion.
Hillard Heintze is now in the process of beginning its work to complete the investigations on the remaining 144 backlogged complaints. Investigations to be completed by Hillard Heintze in Phase Three will include interviews, obtaining the locally sourced evidence that was identified in Phase Two, and, completion of all investigative steps that are necessary to close an OPS handled investigation. Hillard Heintze investigators will be present and on the ground in Cleveland to conduct the necessary investigative work. Office space has been provided to Hillard Heintze at the same building location where OPS is housed. During Phase Three OPS will continue to retain final approval authority for each of the investigations undertaken by Hillard Heintze. 3. Civilian Police Review Board
The CPRB reviews misconduct complaints investigated by OPS and makes recommendations for resolution to the Chief of Police. Upon making its decisions, the CPRB submits its findings and recommendations to the Chief of Police and notifies the
25

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 254 Filed: 04/08/19 26 of 31. PageID #: 5077
complainant of the disposition. The CPRB lost two of its members in 2018 – one when an appointed term expired and one as the result of a board member’s resignation. The two vacant positions have been filled with the appointment of Ms. Ashley Mostella and Mr. Kenneth J. Mountcastle, with their terms expiring on August 8, 2022. A third resignation occurred in January of this year. Interviews of interested applicants have been conducted and it is anticipated that the remaining vacant position will be filled in the immediate future. Members of the CPRB receive training to assist them in their role of reviewing the completed OPS investigations. The PRB heard 225 cases in 2018. By comparison the PRB heard 183 cases in the full year of 2017. F. Equipment and Resources and Staffing 1. Equipment and Resources
The Consent Decree requires “an effective, comprehensive Equipment and Resource Plan that is consistent with its [CDP’s] mission and that will allow it to satisfy the requirements of this Agreement.” (Dkt. 7-1, Section 292). On November 2, 2018, the Monitor filed a motion informing the Court that “the 2018 [Equipment and Resources] Plan, when and only when taken together with the previously-approved portions of the 2017 Plan, constitutes a complete and satisfactory Equipment and Resource Plan that meets the terms of the Consent Decree.” (Dkt. 226). On November 18, 2018 the Court approved the Plan.
“The completion of the Equipment and Resource Plan is an extremely positive milestone for which the City, and especially its IT staff, should be commended. It establishes a meaningful foundation for the hard work already being conducted toward
26

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 254 Filed: 04/08/19 27 of 31. PageID #: 5078
modernizing the Division of Police and a specific playbook for technological upgrades still necessary.” (Dkt. 246, p. 67) 2. Staffing
The CDP finalized and released for comment in May 2018 the “Cleveland Division of Police Staffing Report,” with public comments having been received in September 2018. CDP worked with the Monitor and DOJ to incorporate appropriate public input while ensuring the finalization of a staffing plan that was based on a “workload-based model.” The Plan was drafted to take into account CDP’s commitment to CPOP and community engagement, and was filed with the Court for approval by the Monitor on February 21, 2019. (Dkt. 240). G. Data Collection and Analysis/ Compliance and Outcome Assessments and
Reporting During the past six months, the Cleveland Division of Police (CDP) has made numerous advancements in the area of data collection and analysis. First, the End of Year 2017 Use of Force Report was approved by the Monitoring Team and the Department of Justice and is now available on the City of Cleveland website. Second, the monthly COMPSTAT meetings which began in October 2017 and are held with the Monitoring Team and the Department of Justice have expanded beyond Use of Force. COMPSTAT meetings now also include statistics for the Early Officer Intervention Program, Officer Injury and Internal Affairs. The data team is working closely with CDP officials to not only use but also apply the data being collected by officers. Over the last few months, there have been several meetings to develop district data briefs, which are going through several iterations before
27

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 254 Filed: 04/08/19 28 of 31. PageID #: 5079
the content and format are finalized. Third, CDP held five meetings across the city to gain community feedback across the Community and Problem Oriented Policing (CPOP), Recruitment and Staffing plans. The data team developed the survey which was disseminated to attendees and was also posted online for those unable to attend. Additionally, CDP is collecting officer feedback on the three plans. Currently, the data team is analyzing the survey results and will be finalizing its report shortly.
The data team is looking forward to the improved data instruments in the areas of CIT, CPOP and investigatory stops. As the Division of Police continues to expand its data collection systems, the data team continues collaborating with staff members to improve the use and quality of the data. H. Bias Free Policing
The Consent Decree requires that CDP “deliver police services with the goal of ensuring that they are equitable, respectful, and free of unlawful bias, in a manner that promotes broad community engagement and confidence in CDP. (Dkt. 7-1, 35). The CDP’s new Bias Free Policing Policy was approved in March 2018. The focus during the most reporting period has involved providing bias-free training to all officers based on a curriculum that had been developed with the Center for Policing Equity in the previous reporting period. The new curricula was approved in July. By the end of the year 98% of eligible CDP members had completed the Bias-Free Training. The CDP learned some important lessons during the instruction phase and will work to incorporate needed improvements in the upcoming year. I. Compliance and Outcome Assessments and Reporting.
The City believes the Monitor’s most recent Sixth Report evidences the
28

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 254 Filed: 04/08/19 29 of 31. PageID #: 5080
continuing progress being made by the CDP to become fully compliant with the reforms agreed upon with the Consent Decree. As the policies adopted to date become fully trained upon and implemented, the focus for measuring assessment and documenting compliance will be placed on ensuring the collection of valid performance data. III. Assessment of the Status of Cleveland Division of Police’s Progress
As detailed in the Monitor’s Sixth Report, the City has continued to make significant and sustainable progress toward meeting the reforms agreed to in the Consent Decree. Of note during the most recent reporting period was the finalization and completion of the City’s CPOP Plan, Recruiting and Hiring Plan, and District Policing Committee Plan, and the documented improvements made by OPS. Such progress is expected to continue as the City and CDP meet the goals established with the Fourth Year Monitoring Plan. IV. Response to Concerns Raised in the Monitor’s Semi-Annual Report
The Monitor’s most recent report allows that “CDP has made progress in developing its data infrastructure, but not yet the kind of progress required to comply with the Decree’s data requirements.” (Dkt. 246, p. 23). As major new CDP plans and policies have been approved and put into place, the City continues to work with the Monitor and outside providers to ensure a responsive data infrastructure that can reliably collect and document the relevant data required for the structured compliance reviews and audits required in the Consent Decree. Facilitating and improving data collection constitutes a major emphasis as the City enters the Fourth Year Monitoring Plan.
The Monitor’s Report indicated that Because CDP posts some Consent Decreerelated documents on its website with some regularity the Monitoring Team concludes
29

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 254 Filed: 04/08/19 30 of 31. PageID #: 5081
that the Division is in “Partial Compliance” with the Decree’s requirements under Paragraph 268.” (Dkt. 246, p. 60). CDP is currently taking steps to become fully compliant by enhancing the disclosure of Consent Decree related information to the public. CDP has worked with the City’s IT office to improve its website. Upcoming changes to better facilitate public access to information concerning the Consent Decree include:
- A new website framework and webpage to improve the end user(s) experience; - Reorganization of documents as displayed to improve user navigation on the site; - Improved organization of the documents as placed on the site to maximize user
understanding of Consent Decree requirements and CDP accomplishments; - Clear and permanent place holders for items mandated (CDP Audits, reports, and
outcome analyses). - Improved search capabilities being added to allow users to find specifically sought
items. The framework for the website upgrades has been completed and is currently in the testing phase. After testing has established the new website framework is reliable and stable, the new webpage will be introduced for public use. V. Conclusion
That the City remains committed to achieving the reforms contained in the Consent Decree is well documented by the work undertaken by the CDP in the most recent reporting period. Most of the major new policies and plans required by the Consent Decree are now either in place or soon to be finalized. The completion and approval of both the Division’s new Community and Problem Oriented Policing Plan and the Department of Public Safety’s Recruiting and Hiring Plan are milestone accomplishments as the City enters the Fourth Year Monitoring Plan.
30

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 254 Filed: 04/08/19 31 of 31. PageID #: 5082
Respectfully submitted, Barbara A. Langhenry (0038838) Director of Law By: /s/ Gary S. Singletary Gary S. Singletary (0037329) Chief Counsel City of Cleveland 601 Lakeside Avenue, Room 106 Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1077 Tel: (216) 664-2737 Fax:(216) 664-2663 E-mail: gsingletary@city.cleveland.oh.us Counsel for the City of Cleveland
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that the City of Cleveland’s Seventh Status Report was filed electronically on April 8, 2019. Notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s system. Pursuant to the requirements of the Consent Decree the Monitor has been electronically delivered a copy of this filing.
/s/ Gary S. Singletary Gary S. Singletary (0037329) Counsel for the City of Cleveland
31

 
 Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 1 of 104. PageID #: 6134

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
vs. CITY OF CLEVELAND
Defendant.

) CASE NO.: 1:15-CV-01046 ) ) ) JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER, JR. ) ) NOTICE SUBMITTING MONITORING ) TEAM’S SEVENTH SEMIANNUAL ) REPORT ) ) )

The Cleveland Police Monitoring Team respectfully submits its Seventh Semiannual Report.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Hassan Aden HASSAN ADEN Monitor The Aden Group LLC 8022 Fairfax Road Alexandria, VA 22308 Tel: (571) 274-7821 Email: aden@theadengroup.com

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 2 of 104. PageID #: 6135

Cleveland Police Monitoring Team

Seventh Semiannual Report
September 2019

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 3 of 104. PageID #: 6136
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. A NOTE FROM THE MONITORING TEAM

1

II. THE ROLE OF THE MONITORING TEAM & THIS REPORT

4

III. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND BUILDING TRUST

8

A. Community Police Commission (“CPC”)

8

B. District Policing Committees

11

IV. COMMUNITY & PROBLEM-ORIENTED POLICING

13

V. BIAS-FREE POLICING

18

VI. USE OF FORCE

21

A. Officer Use of Force Principles & Policy

21

B. Use of Force Training

26

C. Use of Force Investigation and Review

27

VII. CRISIS INTERVENTION

31

VIII. SEARCH AND SEIZURE

37

IX. ACCOUNTABILITY

41

A. Internally Discovered Misconduct

41

B. Office of Professional Standards (“OPS”)

44

C. Police Review Board (“PRB”)

51

D. Discipline and Disciplinary Hearings

53

X. TRANSPARENCY & OVERSIGHT

56

A. Police Inspector General

56

B. Data Collection and Analysis

57

C. Public Availability of CDP-Related Information

59

XI. OFFICER ASSISTANCE & SUPPORT

61

A. Training

61

B. Equipment & Resources

65

C. Recruitment & Hiring

67

D. Performance Evaluations and Promotions

68

E. Staffing

70

XII. SUPERVISION

72

A. First-Line Supervisors

72

B. Officer Intervention Program

74

C. Body-Worn Cameras

76

XIII. COMPLIANCE & OUTCOME ASSESSMENTS

78

i

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 4 of 104. PageID #: 6137
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019

I.

A NOTE FROM THE MONITORING TEAM

This Seventh Semiannual Report focuses on ongoing progress of the Cleveland Division of Police (“CDP”) under the Consent Decree. It reports not only on the continued development of critical policies and procedures for the Division under the Consent Decree but also on the delivery of several important trainings – including Use of Force, Community Engagement and Problem-Solving (“CEPS”), Bias-Free Policing, Crisis Intervention, and Search and Seizure – aimed at translating those policies into practice. It also addresses the creation of critical partnerships within the community and City for ensuring that the Division is expanding its capacity to be inclusive and transparent with its activities, engaging constructively with stake-holders, and remaining accountable to the communities of Cleveland.

Through partnerships, the Division is delivering high-quality training. Effective training to new policies is a key ingredient to ensure that the Division’s officers clearly understand the revised policies and expectations that the Decree requires. Such trainings, backed by firm, but fair, and even-handed accountability systems providing correction when officers do not follow policy, will lead the Division further towards consistent application of Consent Decree requirements in practice.

The Community and Problem-Oriented Policing Policy and associated training provide guidance and structure to promote officer direct engagement with community – including talking with community members about any public safety problems, conducting outreach to a particular group, and identifying and solving problems in ways other than enforcement or arrest. The CPOP policy encourages interaction at the officer level, while the implementation of the recently court-approved District Committee Plan codifies clear mechanisms for the community identifying and addressing public safety concerns at the District level in partnership with the police.

The Division’s partnership with the Mental Health Response Advisory Committee (“MHRAC”) and its Training Committee has led to development of the third-year Crisis Intervention Training, the Specialized CIT, and CIT training for call-takers, dispatchers, and supervisors. Tapping into the expertise and experience of community advocates, individuals with lived experience, and mental health, substance abuse, and developmental service providers ensures that CDP is providing relevant and effective training in this critical area.

The Division has also continued to work with the Community Police Commission, considering the group’s feedback on required Search and Seizure training. Similarly, the Monitoring Team welcomed the Division’s decision to include City Prosecutors in the Search and Seizure training, which allows a real-time legal perspective as officers grapple with what can admittedly be difficult concepts.

As the Division continues to draw on external experience for policy development, delivery of training, and setting policing priorities, the Monitoring Team hopes to see ever-increasing openness to new ideas, approaches, and community engagement at all levels of the Division.

Additionally, while the training programs delivered to date have been high-quality, there is evident strain on the capacity of the training unit to independently generate training curriculums of the quality and volume required moving forward. The Monitoring Team believes this is not for lack of purpose but simply a result of the training unit trying to do too much with too few resources. The Monitoring Team looks forward to collaborating with the Division to ensure the training unit has what it needs to drive a holistic training program – one consistent with the Consent Decree and, even more importantly, one that can be sustained long after the Decree has concluded.

1

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 5 of 104. PageID #: 6138
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019
Use of force, crime, officer injuries, and subject injuries remain down. In 2019, the number of force incidents declined by 32 percent compared to 2017 year to date. While this was a slight increase over 2018 (up 15 percent YTD), the overall trend remains down. Meanwhile, Part I crime was stable or down in all major categories but rape. Officer injuries during uses of force have dropped 65 percent since 2017; and down 48 percent since 2018. And, as the Monitoring Team has previously reported, since 2017, subject injuries have also trended down.
These metrics continue to suggest that officers are effectively implementing the new use of force policies on a daily basis, with no compromise with respect to crime or increased officer safety concerns. However, the Consent Decree requires that, whenever force is used, it comply with CDP’s new use of force policies and be appropriately investigated and reviewed by the Division. The development of three key policies during this review period – (1) the Use of Force Supervisory Review Policy; (2) the Force Investigation Team Manual; and (3) the Force Review Board Policy – will allow the Division, once they are approved by the Court, to critically self-assess use of force.
More robust data systems are required in order to assess the state of the Division. As the Division moves from policy development, through training, and toward sustained implementation of new requirements across a material span of time and formal assessment of its progress, the Division must devote significant energy to ensuring data-collection in all areas of police service, particularly “use of force, arrests, motor vehicle and investigatory stops, and misconduct complaints alleging discrimination, to determine whether CDP’s activities are applied or administered in a way that discriminates against individuals on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.”1
The Division has made notable progress on developing the data collection and analytic systems needed to understand operational realities and track officer activities. Nevertheless, continued focus on developing the connected infrastructure for all subject areas is required if the Division is to become a dynamic, learning organization – monitoring and proactively applying data and information to drive better performance and continuing improvement into the future. Indeed, without the necessary information and data, the Parties and Monitoring Team will be unable to effectively conduct audits and assessments of the Division’s progress.
Progress continues in the development of accountability systems. The Division created an Investigative Structure Matrix to map the agencies and units that investigate officer conduct and worked to develop an Internal Affairs policy and manual, which should be submitted for Court review in the next reporting period. The Division also amended the Disciplinary Matrix to clarify that dishonesty carries a presumption of termination.
The Office of Professional Standards added much-needed staff, including an Administrator, Supervising Investigator, Research Analyst, and General Manager. OPS also continued to address its significant backlog of cases, which the Monitoring Team expects to be eliminated by end of September 2019. The City hired a Police Inspector General, and the Monitoring Team looks forward to collaborating with him as he gets up to speed in his new role.
Overall, while progress continues in the area of accountability, work remains as these systems mature and evolve to work together. At every level of review, it is critical that the accountability and disciplinary systems are coherent, fair, and transparent – with every decisionmaker owning and explaining the reasoning behind their decisions as to whether officers are adhering to the Division’s expectations.
1 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 265, available at https://www.justice.gov/crt/case-document/file/908536/download.
2

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 6 of 104. PageID #: 6139
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019 In sum, this Report continues to find substantial progress with the Division’s implementation of the Consent Decree requirements. The available data suggests that the men and women of the Division are engaging meaningfully with the new policies and trainings as they do their work on a daily basis. However, the City and the Division still have a ways to travel before in-depth quantitative and qualitative assessments to measure full and effective compliance with the Consent Decree will be possible.
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team September 16, 2019
3

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 7 of 104. PageID #: 6140
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019
II. THE ROLE OF THE MONITORING TEAM & THIS REPORT
As with the Monitoring Team’s previous reports, the role of the Monitoring Team and of this report are useful to summarize at the outset. Under the terms of the Consent Decree between the United States and the City of Cleveland (the “City”) (collectively, the “Parties”) involving the Cleveland Division of Police, the Court-appointed Monitoring Team must “assess and report” to the Court whether the Decree’s requirements “have been implemented, and whether this implementation is resulting in constitutional and effective policing, professional treatment of individuals, and increased community trust . . . . ”2 This is the Monitoring Team’s seventh semiannual report.3 It addresses the reporting period of March through August 2019.
The Monitoring Team is an “agent of the Court” that is “subject to the supervision and orders of the Court.”4 The role of the Team is to assess, independently and on behalf of Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr., whether CDP and the City of Cleveland have reached compliance with the various and diverse requirements of the Consent Decree. Thus, as the Monitoring Team has previously outlined, it “is not an employee, contractor, or any other type of agent” of either the City of Cleveland or the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”).5 Instead, it works for the Court.
As part of that charge, the Team assists in facilitating Consent Decree implementation by providing technical assistance and Counsel to the Division of Police and City of Cleveland. Although its ultimate task is to inform the Court and DOJ about the City’s compliance with the Consent Decree, the Team provides ongoing assistance geared at ensuring effective, efficient, and expeditious progress.
A. The Fourth Year Monitoring Plan
The Fourth Year Monitoring Plan principally addresses the period of February 1, 2019 through January 31, 2020, with a handful of dates past January 31, 2020.6
B. The Purpose and Form of This Report
In its Third Semiannual Report, the Monitoring Team began summarizing the status of the City’s compliance with each paragraph of the Consent Decree. Although providing “a paragraph-by-paragraph accounting of the general state of the City’s compliance . . . runs the risk of being an over-simplification,” these summary characterizations remain useful markers for understanding progress over time.7
Thus, each major section of this Seventh Semiannual Report summarizes the Monitoring Team’s generalized conclusions about the status of compliance by describing the state of each area as one of the following:
2 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 350. 3 Id. at ¶ 375 (requiring semiannual reports). 4 First Semiannual Report at 14. 5 Id. 6 Dkt. 249. 7 Third Semiannual Report at 9.
4

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 8 of 104. PageID #: 6141
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019
Non-Compliance. The City or Division has not yet complied with the relevant provision of the Consent Decree. This includes instances in which the City or Division’s work or efforts have begun but cannot yet be certified by the Monitoring Team as compliant with a material component of the requirement.
Evaluation Deferred. This category reflects those limited instances where work in a given area has been intentionally and affirmatively deferred in order to work on other, necessary prerequisites. In these areas, the City or Division could have made more progress in a given area but, for project management reasons, have appropriately focused attention on other areas. Although this still means that the City has a distance to travel to reach General Compliance with the term of the Consent Decree, the intentional and affirmative decision to postpone focus on a given area for project management and implementation purposes is sufficiently different to warrant a separate designation in some cases.
Partial Compliance. The City or Division has made sufficient initial strides or sufficient partial progress toward compliance toward a material number of key components of the provision of the Consent Decree—but has not achieved operational compliance. This includes instances where policies, processes, protocols, trainings, systems, or the like exist on paper but do not exist or function in day-to-day practice. It may capture a wide range of compliance states or performance, from the City or Division having taken only very limited steps toward operational compliance to being nearly in operational compliance.
Operational Compliance. The City or Division has made notable progress to technically comply with the requirement and/or policy, process, procedure, protocol, training, system, or other mechanism of the Decree such that it is in existence or practice operationally—but has not yet demonstrated, or not yet been able to demonstrate, meaningful adherence to or effective implementation, including across time, cases, and/or incidents. This includes instances where a given reform is functioning but has not yet been shown, or an insufficient span of time or volume of incidents have transpired, to be effectively implemented in a systemic manner.
General Compliance. The City or Division has complied fully with the requirement and the requirement has been demonstrated to be meaningfully adhered to and/or effectively implemented across time, cases, and/or incidents. This includes instances where it can be shown that the City or Division has effectively complied with a requirement fully and systemically.
The same caveats that have previously applied to the use of these summary categories remain applicable. First, “Non-Compliance” or “Partial Compliance” do not automatically mean that the City or CDP have not made goodfaith efforts or commendable strides toward compliance. It might, instead, signify that initial work has either not yet begun or reached a sufficiently critical point where progress can be considered to have been made.
Second, “Partial Compliance” requires more than taking some limited, initial steps toward compliance with a requirement. It instead requires that the City or Division have made “sufficient, material progress toward
5

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 9 of 104. PageID #: 6142
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019
compliance” that “has graduated from the stages of initial work to more well-developed and advanced refinement of various reforms.”8
Third, these summary terms do not appear in the Consent Decree. The Team employs them in order to synthesize and summarize the report’s conclusions. Relatedly, compliance with individual paragraphs of the Decree is necessary for the larger, overall “Substantial and Effective Compliance” with the whole of the Consent Decree but it is not the same thing. Ultimately, “Substantial and Effective Compliance” with the Consent Decree will be reached when “the City either has complied with all material requirements of this Agreement, or has achieved sustained and continuing improvement in constitutional policing, as demonstrated pursuant to this Agreement’s outcome measures,”9 “by a preponderance of the evidence.”10
Fourth, the charts that summarize progress in each area also condense the requirements of each paragraph rather than reprinting the entire Consent Decree in the context of this report. Any imprecision detected or confusion created by these condensed or summarized requirements is unintended and, in any event, can be cured with reference to the original Consent Decree language itself.11 The charts primarily cover paragraphs 14 through 340 of the Consent, but other paragraphs also contain requirements that the City must meet.12
Following the release of the Third Semiannual Report, some community members, and CDP members, inquired about the basis for some of our summary conclusions. We reiterate that these overall “compliance status” conclusions at the start of each chapter do not replace the more rigorous quantitative and qualitative assessments of how CPD is performing over time:
[T]he Monitoring Team bases its assessments on its current understandings, knowledge, and information gained through ongoing work and discussion with CDP, the Parties, and other stakeholders. The assessments are informal to the extent that not all of them are necessarily informed by the type of exhaustive compliance and outcome measurements that are a critical component of the Consent Decree—and the summary determinations do not take the place of these more structured, systemic analyses. The intent is to provide a bottom-line sense of where the Division is on the road to compliance. Ongoing, rigorous quantitative and qualitative assessments will provide a more comprehensive picture as work under the Consent Decree proceeds.13
The Team’s characterizations of progress should ultimately be viewed as a synthesis or bottom-line accounting of the substantive discussions of each major Consent Decree area contained within this report.
Finally, the Monitoring Team notes that the City of Cleveland’s implementation of the Consent Decree—and the various subprojects comprising it—is a substantial task. Many areas of the Decree require significantly more time than one reporting period for the City to achieve—and for the Monitoring Team to report on—major
8 Third Semiannual Report at 10. 9 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 456 (emphasis added). 10 Id. at ¶ 397. 11 See id. 12 See Third Semiannual Report at 10. 13 Id. at 11.
6

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 10 of 104. PageID #: 6143
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019 breakthroughs of progress. Accordingly, the Team’s semiannual reports, including this current report, reprint content from prior semiannual reports in instances where there has not been enough material progress to warrant an update. In such cases, the Monitoring Team has elected to not cite to prior semiannual reports in the interest of readability.
7

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 11 of 104. PageID #: 6144
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019
III. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND BUILDING TRUST

Paragraph
14. CDP creation of “formal and informal mechanisms that facilitate ongoing communication between CDP and the many Cleveland communities it serves.”

Status of Compliance PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

A. Community Police Commission (“CPC”)

Paragraph

Status of

Compliance

15. Creation of CPC to make recommendations, work with Cleveland communities to GENERAL

develop recommendations, and “report to the City and community as a whole and to COMPLIANCE

provide transparency” on reforms

16. Establishment of CPC Selection Panel to select CPC Commissioners; composition GENERAL

of CPC; and periodic meetings with Chief of Police to “provide recommendations.” COMPLIANCE

17(a). “[H]old public meetings across the City, complete an assessment of CDP’s bias- GENERAL

free policing policies, practices, and training, and make recommendations.”

COMPLIANCE

17(b). “[A]ssist as appropriate in . . . development of training related to bias-free GENERAL

policing and cultural competency.”

COMPLIANCE

17(c). “[O]n an ongoing basis, assess CDP’s community activities” and “make PARTIAL

recommendations” related to “community engagement” and “community confidence” COMPLIANCE

17(d). “[O]n an ongoing basis, review CDP’s civilian oversight structure to determine PARTIAL

if there are changes it recommends for improving CDP’s accountability and COMPLIANCE

transparency”

17(e). “[P]erform other function[s] as set out in this Agreement.”

PARTIAL

COMPLIANCE

18(a). “[R]eview and comment on CDP’s policies and practices related to use of force, PARTIAL

search and seizure, and data collection and retention.”

COMPLIANCE

18(b). [R]eview and comment on CDP’s implementation of initiative, programs, and PARTIAL

activities that are intended to support reform.”

COMPLIANCE

18(c). “[H]old public meetings to discuss the Monitor’s reports and to receive OPERATIONAL

community feedback concerning CDP’s compliance with this Agreement.”

COMPLIANCE

19. “The City will provide access to all information requested by the Commission PARTIAL

related to its mandate, authority, and duties unless it is law enforcement sensitive, COMPLIANCE

legally restricted, or would disclose a personnel action.”

20. CPC “will issue [at least annual] reports,” which the “City will post . . . to the City’s OPERATIONAL

website.”

COMPLIANCE

21. “The City will consider and timely respond in writing to the Commission’s PARTIAL

recommendations for improvements,” which “will be posted to the City’s website.” COMPLIANCE

8

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 12 of 104. PageID #: 6145
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019

22. CPC budget listed as “separate line item” to ensure “sufficient independence and GENERAL

resources.”

COMPLIANCE

Background

The Community Police Commission (“CPC” or “Commission”) is the mechanism created through the Consent Decree “to promote public trust and confidence in the CDP” and to “make recommendations to the Chief of Police and the City, including the Mayor and City Council” based on the “values and priorities of Cleveland residents.”14 The Commission is intended to serve as a conduit between the Consent Decree reform process and Cleveland’s diverse communities, and the scope of its charge is far-reaching. CPC has the authority to “review and comment” on the Division’s “policies and practices related to use of force, search, and seizure, and data collection and retention,” as well as any “initiatives, programs, and activities that are intended to support reform.”15
Where the Commission Stands Now

Full-Time Staff

During the current reporting period, the CPC completed three new full-time staff hires: a Senior Policy Analyst, a Community Engagement Coordinator, and an Assistant Administrator. The Monitoring Team is pleased to see that the Commission has onboarded new staff following staff departures in 2018. As the Monitoring Team has observed since the beginning of the process, the presence of full-time staff to help the all-volunteer Commission conduct its work better positions the Commission to live up to its important Decree mandate.
Change in Commissioner Leadership

On May 28, Sergeant Richard Jackson of the Black Shield Association and LaToya Logan were elected as CPC CoChairs. The two Co-Chairs will lead the Commission through September 2019, when the original four-year terms expire for all currently-serving Commissioners. The Monitoring Team has confidence that Mr. Jackson and Ms. Logan will assist the Commission in carrying out the important, substantive duties that the Consent Decree requires.
Search and Seizure

The Commission’s Search and Seizure work group initially provided generally high-quality, substantive, and wellsupported recommendations on the Division’s draft Search and Seizure policies to the Parties in November 2018. The CPC continued to be engaged in ongoing discussions with the Parties as the Division finalized its revisions of the policies, which were approved by the Court on May 16, 2019.16 Although not all of the CPC’s recommendations were incorporated into the final policies submitted by the Division and ultimately approved by the Court, the Monitoring Team is satisfied that all areas of CPC feedback were discussed thoughtfully and considered carefully. As with the its earlier involvement on other policies, such as use of force, the Commission’s
14 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 15. 15 Id. at ¶¶ 18(a)-(b). 16 Dkt. 261.

9

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 13 of 104. PageID #: 6146
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019
contributions to the Search and Seizure policy development process resulted in stronger policies. The Monitoring Team commends the work of the CPC’s Search and Seizure work group for its dedication and willingness to engage in a series of productive discussions directly with the Division on substantive issues in this area.
Following the focus on the Search and Seizure policies, the Commission reviewed drafts of the Search and Seizure training curricula and provided formal feedback in early June 2019. The feedback on the training was likewise constructive and helpful, including discussion of the training content and the method of delivery. A major component of officer training, the Search and Seizure training will directly influence when, how, and under what circumstances CDP officers detain individuals and conduct investigatory stops. Here, too, the Monitoring Team is pleased that the Commission and City have worked collaboratively on such an important training initiative that directly affects how CDP officers interact with members of the public.
New CPC Initiatives
The Commission has initiated conversations with the Parties and Monitoring Team about new activities aimed at ensuring that the community continues to be involved in the ongoing implementation of the Decree’s reforms. The CPC has discussed hiring a short-term consultant to evaluate ongoing training initiatives. It also has begun early discussions around CDP’s accountability mechanisms aimed at ensuring that officers and members of the public are able to efficiently resolve citizen complaints.
The Monitoring Team will continue to be involved in these discussions and is pleased to see that the Commission, at a moment when the Consent Decree’s implementation evolves from creating policies on paper to the Division and City executing all of the organizational and cultural changes that the policies require, is exploring ways that it can best contribute and serve as the community’s voice during this process.
Progress and Tasks that Remain
Commissioner Transition
The Consent Decree limits the terms of service of commissioners to four years.17 Accordingly, the initial commissioner terms expire in September 2019. The Commission and City have been proactively addressing the upcoming vacancies. In May 2019, the City took steps to re-empanel the Decree-required selection panel, made up of faith-based organizations, civil rights advocates, the business/philanthropic community, and advocacy organizations, among others, to fill those vacancies. The panel will accept applications from the community to serve on the Commission from July 15 to August 30. It will ultimately make recommendations to fill ten Commission seats by September 15.
17 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 16.
10

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 14 of 104. PageID #: 6147
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019
B. District Policing Committees

Paragraph

Status of

Compliance

23. Facilitation of “regular communication and cooperation between CDP and PARTIAL

community leaders at the local level,” with District Policing Committees meeting “at COMPLIANCE

minimum, every quarter.”

24. CPC, CDP, and Community Relations Board (“CRB”) will “develop a mechanism PARTIAL

to recruit and expand” Committee membership.” CDP “will work with [Community COMPLIANCE

Police] Commission to select officers for each District Policing Committee.”

25. CDP “will work closely with District Policing Committees to identify strategies to PARTIAL

address crime and safety issues in their District,” considering and addressing identified COMPLIANCE

priorities.

26. “At least annually, each District Policing Committee will present its identified NON-

strategies, concerns, and recommendations” to the CPC, with CDP officer who is COMPLIANCE

Committee member presenting to CPC “CDP’s assessment of ways to address” the

recommendations.”

Background

The Decree calls for the expansion—building on existing structures—of five District Policing Committees, or one for each of the five police districts within the city of Cleveland.18 Those Committees, which existed long before the Consent Decree process, must work to “identify strategies to address crime and safety issues in their District.”19
Where the DPCs Stand

The DPC Plan, which sets forth the CDP’s strategy to modify and improve the five DPCs to meet the terms of the Consent Decree, was approved by the Court on February 20, 2019.20 This Plan lays out the contemplated steps that the Division will take to expand the attendance of the District Policing Committees and ensure that they are working well with community members to identify and resolve public safety problems. Such steps include empowering Community Engagement Officers (“CEOs”), a set of officers who have no patrol duties and can focus their efforts on engaging the community, to take a lead in the DPCs and implementing strategies for ensuring that underrepresented communities are invited and present at the meetings.
It is too soon yet to formally assess the progress of the DPC Plan implementation. Still, the Team has directly observed, and heard anecdotally from Cleveland residents, that the DPCs have been inconsistent—with some DPCs improving but others seeing little to no difference. Some DPCs continue to use their former name, the

18 Id. at ¶¶ 23-24. 19 Id. at ¶ 25. 20 Dkt. 238.

11

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 15 of 104. PageID #: 6148
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019
District Community Relations Committee, from before the Consent Decree mandated their name change. One DPC meeting featured no set agenda, while meetings in other Districts featured a set agenda.
These anecdotes are no substitute for hard evidence on how the DPCs have made progress. Each DPC must submit a written annual report describing recommendations to address crime. Under the DPC Plan, the first report was due “by the end of the first quarter of 2019.” The Monitoring Team has not seen such a report. The Team expects that the DPCs will have prepared a thorough and comprehensive report by the end of 2019.
The DPC Plan also contemplates that the District Commanders, CEOs, CRB District representatives DPC cochairs, and the Bureau of Community Policing Commander will meet bi-annually to discuss strategies to increase participation at each DPC and their effectiveness.21 CDP has expressed to the Monitoring Team that such meetings have or are being scheduled. The Team looks forward to seeing the outcomes and activities of such meetings.
Progress and Tasks that Remains
Survey of Participation
As described in the Division’s DPC Plan, in order to expand participation in the DPCs to include a cross-section of community members, each DPC must identify and reach out to community members who do not attend DPC meetings. Under the DPC Plan, each DPC will survey existing attendees to determine any gaps in attendee representation, and the DPC co-chairs will then attempt to reach out to underrepresented groups and organizations to encourage their participation. To the Monitoring Team’s understanding, this has yet to occur.
DPC Auditing
Going forward, and as noted previously, the Monitoring Team will be attending DPC meetings regularly going forward to assess whether the Division has implemented the DPC Plan’s contemplated changes. More than that, the Team will be looking to see if the changes, upon implementation, are having a positive impact on the attendance and participation at DPC meetings – and are better allowing community residents to have a say in identifying and resolving neighborhood public safety issues.
Annual Report
As described above, the DPC Plan contemplates that each DPC will create an annual report summarizing problemsolving strategies and recommendations, as well as ways to implementing the identified strategies. The Team looks forward to seeing these reports on an annual basis, to assess whether the DPCs have been able to successfully collaborate with residents, working in tandem with residents to identify the problem, design a solution, and assess the efficacy. As mandated by the Decree, the DPCs will need to submit these annual reports to the Community Police Commission.22
21 Id. at 13. 22 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 26.
12

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 16 of 104. PageID #: 6149
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019
IV. COMMUNITY & PROBLEM-ORIENTED POLICING

Paragraph

Status of

Compliance

27. Implementation of “comprehensive and integrated community and problem- PARTIAL

oriented policing model” and consultation with CPC regarding the model.

COMPLIANCE

28. Ensuring that “mission statement reflects [the Division’s] commitment to OPERATIONAL

community oriented policing” / “integrat[ing] community and problem-oriented COMPLIANCE /

policing principles into its management, policies and procedures, recruitment, training, PARTIAL

personnel evaluations, resource deployment, tactics, and accountability systems.”

COMPLIANCE

29. Ensuring “that officers are familiar with the geographic areas they serve,” “engage EVALUATION

in problem identification,” and “work proactively . . . to address quality of life issues.” DEFERRED

30. Initial and annual in-service community and problem-oriented policing training PARTIAL

“adequate in quality, quantity, type, and scope” that addresses specifically-identified COMPLIANCE

areas.

31. Maintenance of “collaborative partnerships with a broad spectrum of community PARTIAL

groups,” including CDP meetings with community organizations and District Policing COMPLIANCE

Committees.

32. CDP “meet[ing] with members of the community in each District on a monthly PARTIAL

basis and “solic[itation of] participation from a broad cross-section of community COMPLIANCE

members in each District” to “identify problems and other areas of concern . . . and

discuss responses and solutions.”

33. Development and implementation of “systems to monitor officer outreach to the PARTIAL

community” that CDP “will use . . . to analyze . . . whether officers are partnering with a COMPLIANCE

broad cross-section of community members to develop and implement cooperative

strategies that build mutual respect and identify and solve problems.”

34. “At least annually, CDP will present the results” of paragraph 33 analysis “broken NON-

out by District in a publicly-available community policing report” that describes COMPLIANCE

problems, solutions, and obstacles. Report provided to Commission and posted on

CDP website.

Background

The Consent Decree requires that the Division develop and implement a “comprehensive and integrated community and problem-oriented policing model” to “promote and strengthen partnerships with the community . . . and increase community confidence in the CDP.”23 The Decree refers to policing according to this model as “community and problem-oriented policing,” or “CPOP.”

23 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 27. 13

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 17 of 104. PageID #: 6150
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019
“Community and problem-oriented policing” is defined as a “policing philosophy that promotes and relies on collaborative partnerships between law enforcement agencies and the individuals and organizations they serve to develop solutions to problems, increase trust in police, and improve the effectiveness of policing efforts.”24 A Division-wide commitment to community policing helps promote trust and legitimacy, improve the quality of police-citizen encounters, and address persistent public safety issues in Cleveland communities. CDP must ensure that related operational and structural changes needed to support community and problem-oriented policing— principally, staffing and recruitment—receive appropriate consideration.
Where the Division Stands
CPOP Plan Implementation
As the Monitoring Team has previously noted, the CDP’s Court-approved CPOP Plan “situates CPOP not as a standalone program or set of initiatives, but rather part and parcel of how the Division recruits and hires, allocates resources, trains, promotes, and evaluates officers and the Division, and collects data.”25 It is a milestone undertaking.
In the current reporting period, the Division has taken important initial steps to better position itself toward executing the Plan in a way that successfully restructures and reorients the Division towards community and problem-oriented policing. Work this important and far-reaching cannot be accomplished in a matter of six months. The Division will need to continue and advance its efforts toward implementing the CPOP Plan in the manner that the Decree requires.
Training
The Division began its second year of Community Engagement and Problem-Solving (“CEPS”) Training on March 4, 2019. The eight-hour curriculum was approved by the Court on April 23, 2019.26
The eight-hour 2019 Community Engagement and Problem-Solving Training built on the initial CEPS training provided in 2018, introducing new officer expectations and responsibilities that are part of the Division’s CPOP Plan. The training introduced to officers the CDP’s goal that patrol officers commit 20% of their time to community engagement and provided examples of community engagement activities that will count toward this 20% goal, such as bike and foot patrols, spending time talking with community members about any public safety problems, conducting outreach to a particular group, and identifying and solving problems in ways other than enforcement or arrest. The training also discussed activities that would not constitute CPOP activity, such as brief casual encounters or interactions that would ordinarily occur during a response to a call for service or during an investigation. The training noted that officers would receive additional, in-depth instruction on the 20% goal following the completion of a new departmental policy on community policing, as required by the Courtapproved CPOP Plan.
24 Id. at ¶ 414. 25 Dkt. 246 at 14-15 (internal quotation marks omitted). 26 Dkt. 257.
14

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 18 of 104. PageID #: 6151
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019
The CEPS Training also includes instruction on communication and behavioral skills that officers will use to positively engage community members and build community partnerships. Officers are provided with guidance to form partnerships with, among others, community organizations, youth, religious and ethnic communities, the homeless, and mental health organizations.
The CEPS Training also dedicates substantial time to the “SARA” model, a methodology that officers are expected to use to identify and address community problems. Short for “scanning-analysis-response-assessment,” the SARA model gives specific direction for officers to tackle what can seem like an ambiguous or difficult-toimplement creed of “problem-solving.” The training includes a substantial role-playing scenario that touches upon public safety problems such as vacant buildings, a pattern of burglaries, and environmental elements affecting the issue.
More than just the curriculum, the delivery of the training was well-received. A number of Monitoring Team members observed the training and assessed that it was conducted in a manner that was consistent with the curriculum and adult learning guidelines. The training built on lessons learned from the Division’s 2018 CEPS Training, utilizing instructors who were appropriately selected.
As of August 8, 2019, 1,330 officers (or 98.9% of officers not on extended illness leave or on restricted duty status) completed the 2019 CEPS Training.
CPOP Policy
In the current reporting period, as a first step towards implementing the CPOP Plan, the Division finalized a policy memorializing the expectations for all CDP members that were only initially and broadly outlined in the CPOP Plan. The policy was submitted to the Court on August 2, 2019.27 The CPC contributed to the development of this CPOP Policy, offering feedback and recommendations that the City considered in its development.
The CPOP Policy makes clear officers’ expectations to actively collaborate with Cleveland residents to address public safety issues and the conditions that lead to crime. Specifically, patrol officers assigned to CDP’s neighborhood districts “are expected to spend an average of 20% of their time engaging with community members to build relationships, partnerships, and trust, and collaboratively solve community concerns.”28 The policy also includes examples of formal and informal activities that count as CPOP activities, such as bike and foot patrols, participating in community events and meetings, checking in with community organizations about problems they have encountered, and “identifying and solving problems in ways other than arrest, such as connecting community members to services that provide assistance such as mental health and homeless services[.]”29
A key component of the Division’s commitment to community engagement will be in its ability to effectively create and strengthen active partnerships with community stakeholders. Under the CPOP Policy, officers “shall form partnerships with all communities” including community organizations, community development
27 Dkt. 273. 28 Dkt. 273-1 at 2. 29 Id. at 3-4.
15

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 19 of 104. PageID #: 6152
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019
corporations, youth advocates, LGBTQ individuals, religious and ethnic communities, block clubs, the homeless community, and community members with mental illness or other behavioral health issues.30
Under the CPOP Policy, officers will not be subject to discipline “based solely on their inability to meet CPOP expectations. However, meeting or not meeting expectations about engaging in community engagement and problem-solving activities shall be used in the evaluation process in determining promotions, assignments, and evaluations.”31
Supervisors will have significant responsibilities under the CPOP Policy to ensure that line officers are taking seriously the duty to engage with Cleveland residents in a positive manner, providing guidance to officers, commending officers who excel at positively engaging the community, and remediating those who are not effectively implementing CPOP.
Progress and Tasks that Remain
1. 20% Goal for Community Engagement
In the upcoming reporting period, the Division plans to conduct additional, in-depth officer training that formally instructs officers on the goal that 20% of patrol officers’ time is dedicated to engaging the community. As CDP officers are trained on it and the data systems go live to record officers’ activity, the Division will have started to operationalize the core expectation that patrol officers make good faith efforts to engage with community members and residents for 20% of their day.
2. Data Collection Training
Under the approved CPOP Plan and Policy, officers will be required to enter any CPOP activity into an electronic database system. The Division’s new CPOP Policy outlines the data collection protocols in greater detail. The next step now is for CDP to train all members to understand their individual responsibilities to input data timely and regularly. This will include data on collaborative problem-solving, community outreach, bike and foot patrol frequency, organized community events, and unplanned engagements with the community. Officers will be expected and required to enter such data regularly into the database. The Division’s Data Collection and Analysis Coordinator will ensure the proper tracking and monitoring of CDP’s activities. All of this is required by Paragraphs 32 through 34 of the Decree.
It should also be noted, however, that the data tracking is far more than just a compliance tracking or accountability mechanism. It is also hoped that systematically logging information about community contacts will help to establish even more robust, long-term community networks and relationships between CDP and the residents that it serves.
In the upcoming reporting period, CDP intends to have trained all CDP officers on the data collection through inperson instruction.
30 Id. at 4-5. 31 Id. at 7-8.
16

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 20 of 104. PageID #: 6153
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019
3. CPOP Review Committee
A critical component of the Division’s ability to improve upon its CPOP efforts, the CPOP Review Committee will need to be developed and inaugurated by the Division. The CPOP Review Committee is made up of the BCR Commander, the CDP’s Compliance Team, and the Data Coordinator.32 Once constituted, the committee will take on important responsibilities in the Division’s ability to execute the CPOP Plan. Among other things, the Review Committee will need to meet quarterly, review all community engagement and problem-solving data, identify gaps in officers’ ability to meet the 20% expectation, and create a biannual report of the findings and recommendations for improvement.33
4. CPOP in Evaluations and Promotions
In the upcoming reporting period, CDP intends to identify specific ways of incorporating CPOP principles into its evaluations and promotions – helping to ensure that those who assume supervisory and leadership roles best exemplify the Division’s commitment to community engagement and collaborative problem-solving. This will be significant to the Division’s overall ability to meet CPOP expectations by helping to ensure that leadership meets the Division’s mission statement and guiding principles and that rank officers are appropriately supervised in realtime to prioritize community engagement as part of their core day-to-day functions.
5. Verified Alarm Response
CDP has stated that it intends to determine the feasibility of the “Verified Alarm” response and increasing incidents that can be reported online. The CDP’s Court-approved Staffing Plan discussed the substantial amount of time that the Division spends on responding to false alarms. To take back that time and allocate it to more impactful uses, such as allowing officers to meet their goal of spending 20% of their time engaging positively with the community, CDP has committed to exploring a “Verified Alarm” response that can ensure that only certain alarms require an on-scene response from CDP officers. Residential alarms have high false alarm rates resulting from human error. Verified alarm programs help homeowners to become more aware of how their alarms operate and result in lower false alarm rates. The resulting decrease in alarm calls ends up freeing up officers’ time to work on community policing activities and more quickly address emergency calls.
6. Annual Community Policing Report
The Decree requires that the Division prepare a public community policing report that identifies community policing problems, solutions, and obstacles. To date, the Division has not been in a position to generate the type of comprehensive report that the Decree contemplates. Another part of the implementation of the CPOP Plan will be establishing a process for completing this important public accountability document and beginning to comply with the Decree’s annual obligations.
32 Id. at 32-33. 33 Id. At 33.
17

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 21 of 104. PageID #: 6154
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019

V. BIAS-FREE POLICING

Paragraph

Status of

Compliance

35. Delivery of “police services with the goal of ensuring that they are equitable, PARTIAL

respectful, and free of unlawful bias,” among other things.

COMPLIANCE

36. “CDP will integrate bias-free policing principles into its management, policies and PARTIAL

procedures, job descriptions, recruitment, training, personnel evaluations, resource COMPLIANCE

deployment, tactics, and accountability systems.”

37. CDP will ensure that it “administer[s] all activities without discrimination” on basis PARTIAL

of various protected classes

COMPLIANCE

38. “CDP will develop a bias-free policing policy” incorporating CPC OPERATIONAL

recommendations “that provides clear guidance to officers”

COMPLIANCE

39–40. Bias-free policing and procedural justice training “adequate in quality, quantity, PARTIAL

scope, and type” covering specific areas

COMPLIANCE

41. Supervisor training on bias-free policing and procedural justice issues covering EVALUATION

specific areas

DEFERRED

42. Annual in-service training on bias-free policing “adequate in quality, quantity, type, EVALUATION

and scope”

DEFERRED

43. Analysis of paragraph 265 data (“including use of force, arrests, motor vehicle and EVALUATION

investigatory stops, and misconduct complaints alleging discrimination”)

DEFERRED

44. Consideration of “bias-free policing and equal protection” principles in hiring, unit PARTIAL

assignment, promotion, and performance assessments.

COMPLIANCE

Background

The Consent Decree requires that CDP “deliver police services with the goal of ensuring that they are equitable, respectful, and free of unlawful bias, in a manner that promotes broad community engagement and confidence in CDP.”34 Bias-free policing principles must be operationally integrated into CDP’s “management, policies and procedures, job descriptions, recruitment, training, personnel evaluations, resource deployment, tactics, and accountability systems.”35 The goal is “to ensure policing and law enforcement outcomes that are as free from the effects of all bias to the greatest extent possible.”36
Where the Division Stands

During the current reporting period, the Division began its second year of required Bias-Free Policing Training. The four-hour 2019 Bias-Free Policing Training builds on prior training from 2018. It seeks to provide guidance
34 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 35. 35 Id. ¶ 35-36. 36 First Semiannual Report at 30.

18

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 22 of 104. PageID #: 6155
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019
for CDP officers on better understanding how implicit bias operates, the ways in which biased policing obstructs the goals of procedural justice and legitimacy, and how officers can minimize the occurrence of biased policing by identifying and managing moments where decision-making may be susceptible to errors attributable to implicit bias. The training curriculum was approved by the Court on July 29, 2019.37
As with all Decree-related training initiatives, the Monitoring Team will attend sessions of the 2019 Bias-Free Policing Training to ensure that instructors are actively encouraging officers to engage in critical implicit bias concepts and to approach day-to-day policing in ways that minimize the effects of implicit bias—all in a manner that can be certified to the Court as “adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type[.]”38
Progress and Tasks that Remain
Integration of Bias-Free Policing Principles
The Decree requires the Division to “integrate bias-free policing principles into its management, policies and procedures, job descriptions, recruitment, training, personnel evaluations, resource deployment, tactics, and accountability systems.”39 With the approval of the Bias-Free Policing Policy more than one year ago, CDP is wellpositioned to accelerate ongoing work on personnel evaluations, management processes, resource deployment, and accountability systems to ensure that the process of integrating bias-free policing principles continues in a timely fashion and across the Division’s functions.
District Neighborhood Trainings
CDP is in the process of developing District Neighborhood Trainings to provide officers with guidance as to some of the unique cultural characteristics of neighborhoods and communities within each district. This effort aligns with the Decree’s requirement that “CDP will ensure that officers are familiar with the geographic areas they serve, including their assets, challenges, problems, business, residential and demographic profiles, and community groups and leaders[.]” This will allow officers to “engage in problem identification and solving activities…regarding the community’s priorities.” CDP must continue to revise and finalize these trainings.
The Division’s Collection, Analysis, and Proactive Uses of Data
The Consent Decree requires that the Division conduct annual assessments of all police activities, “including use of force, arrests, motor vehicle and investigatory stops, and misconduct complaints alleging discrimination, to determine whether CDP’s activities are applied or administered in a way that discriminates against individuals on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.”40
37 Dkt. 272. 38 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶¶ 39-40. 39 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 36. 40 Id. at ¶¶ 43, 265.
19

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 23 of 104. PageID #: 6156
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019 CDP must make progress on developing its data and information infrastructure and in its ability to manage itself based on lessons and insights derived from such data. The Division ultimately will need to be able to analyze data, produce reports, and conduct quantitative and qualitative assessments on subjects such as arrests, motor vehicle and investigatory stops, and misconduct complaints alleging discrimination—all policing practices where it is critical to assess the presence of biased or discriminatory policing. As discussed elsewhere in this report, while CDP has made progress to develop the infrastructure necessary for tracking and analyzing the Division’s performance in this area, much more progress is needed to comply with the Decree’s requirements on the collection, analysis, and proactive use of data.
20

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 24 of 104. PageID #: 6157
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019

VI. USE OF FORCE

A. Officer Use of Force Principles & Policy

Paragraph

Status of

Compliance

45. “CDP will revise, develop, and implement force policies, training, supervision, and PARTIAL

accountability systems with the goal of ensuring that force” complies with the COMPLIANCE

Constitution, federal law, and the Consent Decree “and that any use of unreasonable

force is promptly identified and responded to appropriately.”

46. “The City will implement the terms of this Agreement with the goal of ensuring PARTIAL

that use of force by CDP officers . . . will comply” with at least twelve major, listed COMPLIANCE

principles.

47. Division “will ensure that the [use of force] incident is accurately and properly PARTIAL

reported, documented, and investigated.”

COMPLIANCE

48. “CDP will track and analyze officers’ uses of force to hold officers accountable for PARTIAL

unreasonable uses of force; to guide training and policy; and to identify poor tactics COMPLIANCE

and emerging trends.”

49. Development of use of force policies “that comply with applicable law[,] . . . are OPERATIONAL

adequate to achieve the goals described in paragraph 45,” and “specify that COMPLIANCE

unreasonable use of force will subject officers to the disciplinary process, possible

criminal prosecution, and/or possible civil liability.”

50. “CDP’s policies will address the use and deployment of its authorized force OPERATIONAL

techniques, technologies, and weapons.”

COMPLIANCE

51. Weapon-specific policies “will include training and certification requirements that OPERATIONAL

each officer must meet before being permitted to carry and use the authorized COMPLIANCE

weapon.”

52. “No officer will carry any weapon that is not authorized or approved by CDP.” OPERATIONAL

COMPLIANCE

53. “Prior to the use of any approved weapon, the officer, when possible and OPERATIONAL

appropriate, will communicate to the subject and other officers that the use of weapon COMPLIANCE

is imminent, and allow the subject an opportunity to comply.”

54–83 “CDP will implement policies” for firearms, ECWs (Tasers), and OC (pepper) OPERATIONAL

spray that comply with a host of specific, expressly listed provisions.

COMPLIANCE

84. CDP “will provide all current officers use of force training that is adequate in OPERATIONAL

quality, quantity, scope, and type and that includes” a number of specific, expressly- COMPLIANCE

listed elements.

85. CDP “will provide the use of force training described in paragraph 84 to all new OPERATIONAL

officers.”

COMPLIANCE

21

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 25 of 104. PageID #: 6158
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019

86. “CDP will provide all officers with annual use of force in-service training that is OPERATIONAL

adequate in quality, quantity, type, and scope.”

COMPLIANCE

87. “CDP will develop and implement a single, uniform reporting system pursuant to OPERATIONAL

a Use of Force reporting policy” that complies with the force Level categorization set COMPLIANCE

forth in the paragraph.

88. Requiring “[a]ll officers using or observing force” to complete a Use of Force OPERATIONAL

Report including a number of specific features and avoiding “conclusory statements, COMPLIANCE

‘boilerplate’, or ‘canned’ language.”

89. “Officers will be subject to the disciplinary process for material omissions or OPERATIONAL

misrepresentations in their Use of Force Reports.”

COMPLIANCE

90. “Officers who use or observe force and fail to report it will be subject to the OPERATIONAL

disciplinary process, up to and including termination, regardless of whether the force COMPLIANCE

was reasonable.”

91. Requirement to “notify . . . supervisors . . . as soon as practical following any use of OPERATIONAL

force” and if becoming aware of “an allegation of unreasonable or unreported force by COMPLIANCE

another officer.”

92. “Use of Force Reports will be maintained centrally.”

OPERATIONAL

COMPLIANCE

Background

Under the Consent Decree, the Cleveland Division of Police must:

[R]evise, develop, and implement force policies, training, supervision, and accountability systems with the goal of ensuring that force is used in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the requirements of the Agreement and that any use of unreasonable force is promptly identified and responded to appropriately.41
The Court approved CDP’s new use of force policies, subject to some specific conditions, on January 17, 2017.42 These five new policies address: (1) general use of force principles and expectations; (2) definitions used in various force policies; (3) de-escalation techniques to ensure officer and subject safety; (4) intermediate weapons, such as a Taser, oleoresin capsicum (OC) spray, and baton; and (5) reporting of force. The policies were the subject of substantial rounds of public comment across the Cleveland community, facilitated by the City, Community Police Commission, Department of Justice, and the Monitoring Team.
The Consent Decree also requires that CDP’s training on use of force be “adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type” and include instruction, among other things, on:

• Proper use of force decision-making;
41 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 45. 42 Dkt. 101.

22

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 26 of 104. PageID #: 6159
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019
• Use of force reporting requirements; • The Fourth Amendment and related law; • De-escalation techniques, both verbal and tactical, that empower officers to make arrests
without using force and instruction that disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements, using cover, calling in specialized units, or delaying arrest may be the appropriate response to a situation, even when the use of force would be legally justified; • Role-playing scenarios and interactive exercises that illustrate proper use of force decisionmaking, including training on the importance of peer intervention; • The proper deployment and use of all intermediate weapons or technologies; • The particular risks and considerations relating to using a Taser; and • Firearms training.43
In 2017, the Division of Police provided all sworn personnel with training on the new use of force policies. The 2017 Use of Force Training established a strong foundation for ongoing, follow-up training that is required to be provided on an annual basis on additional and in-depth force topics.
Beyond policy and training with respect to using force, the Division must have clear processes and procedures for the administrative investigation and review of force incidents.44 The Decree lays out specific force reporting requirements, including the establishment of a new system of classifying force, which the Monitoring Team has described in previous reports:
• Level One force is the lowest level of force. It is force that is “reasonably expected to cause only transient pain and/or disorientation during its application as a means of gaining compliance . . . but that is not reasonably expected to cause injury, does not result in actual injury, and does not result in a complaint of injury.”45
• Level Two force is force that “causes an injury, could reasonably be expected to cause an injury, or results in a complaint of injury.”46
• Level Three force is force that constitutes “lethal” or “deadly” force. It also includes any level of force which results in death or serious injury, hospital admission, or lack of consciousness. Specific types of Level Three force include neck restraints, canine bites, and more than three applications of an Electronic Control Weapon (i.e. Taser).47
43 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 84. In addition to initial training on use of force covering the topics listed above, the Division must provide its officers with “annual use of force in-service training that is adequate in quality, quantity, type, and scope” going forward. CDP supervisors must also receive specialized training, as discussed elsewhere in this report, relating both to force and broader supervisory skills. 44 First Semiannual Report at 36-37; Dkt. 97 at 35-36. 45 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 87(a). 46 Id. at ¶ 87(b). 47 Id. at ¶ 87(c).
23

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 27 of 104. PageID #: 6160
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019

Under the Decree, all officers using or observing force have an affirmative duty to report such force in writing by the completion of their tour of duty.48 To do so, the Division has needed to develop and implement a “single, uniform reporting system[.]”49
Where the Division Stands

Use of Force Trends

Data from the first half of 2019 finds the Division of Police continuing to use force less than before the Decreerequired use of force policies and training were implemented. This continues to occur even as crime, across most major categories, is down and officer injuries are likewise down.

In the first six months of 2019, there were 86 use of force incidents. (As with previous reports, for the sake of consistency with prior years’ data, this number excludes incidents where the only force that an officer used was the pointing of a firearm at an individual.) That represents a 32 percent reduction compared to the first six months of 2017—the last comparable time period before all officers completed in-service training on the Division’s revised Use of Force policies. Although use of force was up slightly in 2019 compared to 2018, by 11 incidents or about 15 percent, the 32 percent reduction in force from 2017 remains significant.

Table 1:

Use of Force Trends: January through June, 2017-2019, excluding Level 1: pointing of a firearm at an individual

January February March April May June TOTAL

2017 23 19 22 24 16 23
127

2018 10 9 8 16 14 18 75

2019 10 9 17 16 16 18 86

These reduced counts of uses of force occurred at the same time that Cleveland generally saw fewer reported major crimes. As Table 2 details, through the first six months of 2019, there were fewer Part I crimes in 2019 than in 2017 across all categories with the exception of rape. There also were fewer Part I crimes in 2019 compared to 2018 in all categories but rape and burglary. CDP should study, including outreach to sexual assault advocacy organizations, whether the increase in rape reporting is due to an increase in occurrences or rather an increase in reporting, which could be an indicator of increased community confidence.

48 Id. at ¶ 87(b). 49 Id. at ¶ 87.
24

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 28 of 104. PageID #: 6161
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019

Table 2:

Part I Crime: January through June, 2017-2019

Homicide Rape Robbery Felonious Assault Burglary Theft Grand Theft MV Arson

2017 56
244 1451 1298 3094 6941 1745
149

2018 54
274 1145 1230 2196 5228 1569
79

2019 47
283 929 1215 2204 4745 1381
73

At the same time that officers are using force less and crime is generally down in Cleveland, the data suggests that officers are substantially safer on the job now than they were before the new use of force policies and training went into effect. As detailed in Table 3, the first six months of 2019 saw significant reductions in the number of CDP officers who sustained an injury. This is an important metric as officer safety must not be sacrificed during the reform process. Successful reform efforts in other jurisdictions have shown that officer injuries should decline as dynamic incidents are stabilized through crisis intervention and de-escalation initiatives. As such, the decrease in officer injuries is promising and may suggest that CDP’s new approaches to use of force are paying off.

Specifically, during incidents where officers used force, 19 officers sustained an injury in the first half of 2019— down from 36 in the first half of 2018 and 54 in the first half of 2017. This is a 65 percent reduction comparing 2019 with 2017.

Table 3:

Officer Injuries: January through June, 2017-201950

Use of Force Incidents in which > 1 officer was injured Total Officer Injuries

2017 54
167

2018 36
138

2019 19
87

Another important metric for evaluation is the proportion of overall use of force incidents in which an officer is injured. Halfway through 2017, 43% of force incidents resulted in an injury to at least one officer. Halfway through 2019, 22% of force incidents resulted in an injury to at least one officer. Indeed, overall officer injuries—regardless of whether they occurred during a use of force incident or in another context—also continued to fall. In 2019, there were 48 percent fewer officer injuries than in 2017 and 38 percent fewer injuries than in 2018.

50 Due to minor changes in data accounting, the numbers in Table 3 for 2017 and 2018 differ slightly from those reported in the Monitoring Team’s Sixth Semiannual Report. Because they are so minor, the changes did not affect, in one way or another, the Monitoring Team’s conclusions around CDP’s use of force trends.

25

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 29 of 104. PageID #: 6162
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019
As the Monitoring Team has noted previously, the numbers alone do not establish, on their own, whether the Division is in compliance with the terms of the Decree that address use of force. The Decree does not expressly mandate that CDP use less force but that, when CDP uses force, it is constitutional and lawful. To that end, the Team will be conducting in-depth substantive reviews of use of force incidents to determine whether, when CDP officers use force, they are doing so in a manner that complies with the Division’s new policies, the terms of the Consent Decree, and the law. At the same time, the Division still must implement a host of systems and practices relating to the review and investigation of use of force incidents to ensure appropriate internal oversight of force. Nevertheless, the overall trends remain an encouraging sign that CDP’s new Use of Force policies and training are having a positive impact on the streets, and forwarding the goals of improved safety for both CDP officers and the residents of Cleveland.
B. Use of Force Training
The 2019 annual Use of Force Training began on March 4, 2019. The curriculum, developed by the Division’s Training Section in consultation with the Department of Justice and Monitoring Team, was approved by the Court on April 23, 2019.51
The 2019 training built upon the Division’s prior Use of Force Training in 2017, which was well-received by CDP officers and by observers from the Monitoring Team and Department of Justice.52 During the recent training, officers were expected to apply what they learned from the 2017 training to new scenarios, refreshing students on appropriate tactics and de-escalation strategies.
Like the earlier training, the scenarios in the 2019 training were interactive and dynamic, reflecting a variety of real-world situations in which officers may find themselves dealing with unpredictable subjects. The scenarios were well-designed and required officers to engage critically with concepts such as the proportionality, reasonableness, and necessity of using force. The scenarios also tested officers’ ability to use appropriate communication styles and other tactical methods to de-escalate a subject, consistent with CDP policy, such that an officer use of force may be avoided entirely.
In addition to interactive scenarios and traditional classroom instruction, the Use of Force Training included videos for students to watch and review, analyzing the appropriateness of the officer response, noting moments where officers could have de-escalated the situation, and identifying proper reporting requirements.
CDP needs to keep developing its training delivery, including engaging high-ranked officers, reducing reliance on reading PowerPoint slides, ensuring working technology, and not shying away from concluding that officers in the video scenarios used excessive force or employed escalating tactics. As discussed below, an on-going and significant investment in training capacity by the City will be required as this process moves forward.
As of August 8, 2019, 1,330 officers (or 98.9% of officers not on extended illness leave or restricted duty status) completed the required 2019 Use of Force training.
51 Dkt. 257. 52 Officer in-service training in 2018 did not include instruction on general Use of Force policies or tactics but did instruct officers on Division- and OPOTA-approved usage of firearms, Tasers, and ASP batons.
26

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 30 of 104. PageID #: 6163
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019

Progress and Tasks that Remain

1. Ongoing, Annual Use of Force Training

Throughout the Consent Decree process, the Division must continue to conduct use of force training on an annual basis, updating the curriculum as appropriate to address officer and community feedback, as well as what data reveals about patterns of force within CDP.
2. Monitoring Team Audits

As noted above, notwithstanding the positive trend indications from 2018 and the first half of 2019, it is not simply that officers must use less force quantitatively—it is that the force that they do use needs to adhere rigorously to the Division’s new policy. Therefore, although the numbers and quantitative trends with respect to the use of force have been encouraging since early 2018, the Monitoring Team will be auditing the Division’s use of force data, reports, investigations, and body-worn camera footage to ensure that those officers who do use force are complying with law, policy, and the terms of the Decree.
In the most recent reporting period, the Monitoring Team has engaged in substantial discussions with the Parties about the methodological approach that the Team might use to evaluate use of force incidents. This has occurred at the same time that the Team has worked with the City to address a number of logistical issues with respect to file access and review process. With the Parties recently in agreement on the approach, the Team anticipates conducting the audit in earnest in the upcoming reporting period.
C. Use of Force Investigation and Review

Paragraph

Status

of

Compliance

93. “A supervisor who was involved in a use of force, including by participating in or EVALUATION

ordering the force under investigation, will not investigate the incident or review the DEFERRED

Use of Force Reports for approval or disapproval.”

94. Setting specific requirements relating to the investigation of low-level, Level 1 PARTIAL

force.

COMPLIANCE

95–109. Setting specific requirements relating to the investigation by supervisors PARTIAL

and/or CDP chain of command for investigation and review of Level 2 force.

COMPLIANCE

110. “CDP may refer criminal investigations of uses of force to an independent and PARTIAL

highly competent agency outside CDP.”

COMPLIANCE

111. Creation and design of dedicated Force Investigation Team (FIT) that “will PARTIAL

conduct administrative investigations . . . and criminal investigations” of serious force, COMPLIANCE

“force involving potential criminal conduct,” in-custody deaths, and cases assigned to

it by the Chief.

27

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 31 of 104. PageID #: 6164
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019

112. Composition of FIT Team.

PARTIAL

COMPLIANCE

113. “FIT members will receive FIT-specific training that is adequate in quality, EVALUATION

quantity, scope, and type” on a host of specific, expressly-listed topics both initially and DEFERRED

annually thereafter.

114. “CDP will identify, assign, and train personnel for the FIT to fulfill the EVALUATION

requirements of this Agreement.”

DEFERRED

115. Response of FIT to use of force scenes. FIT notification of prosecutor’s office. EVALUATION

Notification of designated outside agency to conduct criminal investigation if City DEFERRED

elects to use external agency for such investigations.

116. “CDP will develop and implement polices to ensure that, where an outside agency PARTIAL

conducts the criminal investigation, FIT conducts a concurrent and thorough COMPLIANCE

administrative investigation.”

117. Memorandum of understanding required between CDP and outside agency OPERATIONAL

containing specific, expressly-listed provisions.

COMPLIANCE

118. Setting forth various, specific, and expressly-listed responsibilities of FIT during PARTIAL

its investigations.

COMPLIANCE

119. Monitor’s duty to annually review any “criminal investigations conducted by the EVALUATION

outside agency” to ensure that they “are consistently objective, timely, and DEFERRED

comprehensive.”

120. Providing for delay of compelled interview if “case has the potential to proceed PARTIAL

criminally” but otherwise requiring that “[n]o other part of the investigation . . . be held COMPLIANCE

in abeyance” unless “specifically authorized by the Chief” in consultation with

investigating agency and prosecutor’s office.

121. Requiring completion of preliminary report presented to Chief or Chief’s designee PARTIAL

“as soon as possible, but absent exigent circumstances, no later than 24 hours after COMPLIANCE

learning of the use of force.”

122. Completion of investigation within 60 days. Preparation of FIT investigation EVALUATION

report. Review of FIT investigative report by head of Internal Affairs who “will DEFERRED

approve or disapprove FIT’s recommendations, or request . . . additional investigation.”

123. Revision of FIT manual to ensure “consisten[cy] with the force principles” and PARTIAL

several specific, expressly-listed provisions.

COMPLIANCE

124–30. Establishment and operation of Force Review Board “to serve as a quality PARTIAL

control mechanism for uses of force and force investigations, and to appraise use of COMPLIANCE

force incidents from a tactics, training, policy, and agency improvement perspective.”

Background

The Consent Decree establishes clear protocols by which the Division must investigate uses of force by the reported level of force. For a Level One use of force, the investigation will typically be limited to a review of the

28

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 32 of 104. PageID #: 6165
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019
involved officer’s use of force report.53 Level Two uses of force require a supervisor to respond to the scene and commence a preliminary force inquiry. If the supervisor’s inquiry at any point indicates “that there may have been misconduct, the supervisor will immediately notify Internal Affairs and Internal Affairs will determine if it should respond to the scene and/or conduct or take over the investigation.”54 Level Three uses of force, the most serious incidents, may come under the purview of either CDP’s Force Investigation Team (“FIT Team”) or an independent outside agency.
Along with force inquiries, the Decree requires CDP to craft policies and procedures related to supervisory review of completed force investigations. Part of this process entails the establishment of a Force Review Board (“FRB”) that will “appraise use of force incidents from a tactics, training, policy, and agency improvement perspective.”55
Where the Division Stands
In the current reporting period, the Division worked to finalize three important documents that will collectively set expectations and protocols for the Division’s review and investigation of uses of force: (1) the Use of Force Supervisory Review Policy; (2) the Force Investigation Team Manual; and (3) the Force Review Board Policy. The Monitoring Team expects that these policies will be ready to be submitted for the Court’s approval early in the upcoming reporting period.
Progress and Tasks that Remain
1. Officer Training and Policy Implementation
Once the FIT and FRB manuals are completed and approved by the Court, CDP will be able to comprehensively analyze the application of force so that officer training, professional development, and risk management may all be continually enhanced. To do so effectively, relevant Division personnel will need to receive training on the new expectations. Specifically, CDP supervisors will need training on how to conduct lower-level force investigations and reviews; the new FIT Team will need to receive force-investigation-specific instruction; and selected members of the newly-established FRB will likewise need to receive initial training on their duties, responsibilities, and the ways that the Board must conduct its work.
2. Operation of FRB
Following the approval of policies and the training of Board members on their duties and responsibilities, the Board will begin to convene. The Monitoring Team will be auditing the Board’s first year of operations to assess the Board’s ability to fully, fairly, and effectively review force investigations.
53 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 124. 54 Id. 55 Id.
29

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 33 of 104. PageID #: 6166
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019 3. Compliance & Adherence to New Policies Finally, it is critical that CDP supervisors, command staff, FIT, and the FRB are adhering to the requirements across cases, investigations, and time. As in all areas of the Consent Decrees, compliance must be sustained, beyond mere short-term or sporadic adherence, for the new policies on force investigation and review to be considered effective in practice.
30

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 34 of 104. PageID #: 6167
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019

VII. CRISIS INTERVENTION

Paragraph

Status of

Compliance

131. “CDP will build upon and improve its Crisis Intervention Program” in furtherance PARTIAL

of four specific, expressly-listed goals, which “will provide a forum for effective COMPLIANCE

problem solving regarding the interaction between the criminal justice and mental

health system and create a context for sustainable change.”

132. Establishment of Mental Health Response Advisory Committee (the “Advisory GENERAL

Committee”) “to foster relationships and build support between the police, COMPLIANCE

community, and mental health providers and to help identify problems and develop

solutions designed to improve outcomes for individuals in crisis.”

133. Composition of Advisory Committee.

GENERAL

COMPLIANCE

134. “The Advisory Committee will meet regularly and provide guidance to assist CDP GENERAL

in improving, expanding, and sustaining its Crisis Intervention Program.”

COMPLIANCE

135. Advisory Committee will conduct an annual “analysis of crisis intervention EVALUATION

incidents to determine whether CDP has enough specialized CIT officers, whether it DEFERRED

is deploying those officers effectively, and whether specialized CIT officers” and

communications “are appropriately responding to people in crisis,” and will also

“recommend appropriate changes.”

136. “The Advisory Committee’s reports and recommendations will be provided” to GENERAL

CPC, “be publicly available, and will be posted on the City’s website.”

COMPLIANCE

137. CDP will designate a Crisis Intervention Coordinator for specific, expressly- GENERAL

identified purposes.

COMPLIANCE

138. “Coordinator will develop and maintain partnerships with program stakeholders GENERAL

and serve as point of contact” and “resource” for other stakeholders.

COMPLIANCE

139. “Coordinator will participate in the Advisory Committee and on a regular basis GENERAL

solicit feedback from the mental health community and specialized CIT officers, call- COMPLIANCE

takers, and dispatchers regarding the efficacy of CDP’s Crisis Intervention Program.”

140. “Coordinator will be responsible for coordinating implementation of the changes OPERATIONAL

and recommendations made by the Advisory Committee, as appropriate.”

COMPLIANCE

141. “Coordinator will be responsible for ensuring the selection of appropriate PARTIAL

candidates for designation as specialized CIT officers” and “to ensure that officers, call- COMPLIANCE

takers, and dispatchers are appropriately responding to CIT-related calls.”

142. “Coordinator will create ways to recognize and honor specialized CIT officers, EVALUATION

call-takers, and dispatchers.”

DEFERRED

143. Initial and annual crisis intervention training to all officers and recruits that is OPERATIONAL

“adequate in quality, quantity, type, and scope.”

COMPLIANCE

31

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 35 of 104. PageID #: 6168
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019

144. Initial and annual crisis intervention training for dispatchers and call-takers.

OPERATIONAL

COMPLIANCE

145. “CDP will provide enhanced specialized training in responding to individuals in PARTIAL

crisis to certain officers (‘specialized CIT officers’),” who will be “called upon to COMPLIANCE

respond to incidents or calls involving individuals in crisis.”

146–47. Outlining various requirements for the “enhanced training” for specialized PARTIAL

CIT officers of “at least 40 hours.”

COMPLIANCE

148. Designation of specialized CIT officers, per specific, expressly-listed EVALUATION

requirements.

DEFERRED

149. “Supervisors will identify and encourage qualified officers across all shifts and all EVALUATION

Districts to serve as specialized officers.”

DEFERRED

150. “All Field Training Officers” (“FTO”s) “will receive the enhanced specialized crisis EVALUATION

intervention training described in paragraph 146,” though FTOs will “not be DEFERRED

designated as a specialized CIT officer” unless they volunteer and have been selected

to do so.

151. “Specialized CIT officers who are dispatched to an incident involving an individual EVALUATION

in crisis will have primary responsibility for the scene,” with supervisors “seek[ing] the DEFERRED

input of a specialized CIT officer . . . where it is reasonable for them to do so.”

152. “[T]he Coordinator will develop an effective specialized crisis intervention plan . EVALUATION

. . to ensure that a specialized CIT officer is available to respond to all calls and incidents DEFERRED

that appear to involve an individual in crisis” that includes various, specific, expressly-

identified requirements. The City “will use its best efforts to ensure that a specialized

CIT officer responds to all calls and incidents that appear to involve an individual in

crisis.”

Background

The Consent Decree requires the Division to build and enhance its Crisis Intervention Program, which addresses how the Division interacts with individuals experiencing behavioral crises, with the goals of:
• Assisting individuals in crisis; • Improving the safety of officers, consumers, family members, and others within the
community; • Providing the foundation necessary to promote community and statewide solutions to
assist individuals with mental illness; and • Reducing the need for individuals with mental illness to have further involvement with the
criminal justice system.56

56 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 131. 32

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 36 of 104. PageID #: 6169
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019
Where the Division Stands
During the current reporting period, the City and CDP have continued to work productively with the Mental Health Response Advisory Committee (“MHRAC”)—the community problem-solving forum including representatives from the Division, social service providers, mental health and substance abuse professionals, the judiciary, advocates, and individuals in recovery with lived experience—to collaborate on ways to improve services to those in need of care.
Curriculum Development and Training
In the current reporting period, MHRAC’s Training Subcommittee spearheaded a number of significant initiatives relating to crisis intervention training. The Training Subcommittee includes CDP members, community advocates such as the National Alliance on Mental Illness (“NAMI”), individuals with lived experience, and mental health, substance abuse, and developmental service providers. Under the current leadership of Shannon Jerse of St. Vincent Hospital and with important contributions from past chairs Dr. Richard Cirillo of the Cuyahoga County Board of Developmental Disabilities, and Kyle Miller of the Sisters of Charity Health System, a wide variety of local experts volunteered significant time and effort in the development of the training curricula.
Karen Kearney with Mental Health & Addiction Advocacy Coalition is chair of the Community Engagement Subcommittee and Christina Kalnicki with CareSource is chair of Diversion.
The Training Subcommittee finished curriculum work on three major training initiatives: (1) the Third-Year Crisis Intervention In-Service Training (“Third-Year CIT Training”); (2) the Specialized Crisis Intervention Team Officer Training (“Specialized CIT Training”); and (3) the Call-Takers, Dispatchers, and Supervisors Training (“Telecommunicator Training”).
Third-Year Crisis Intervention In-Service Training
The Third-Year Crisis Intervention In-Service Training curriculum for all CDP officers was approved by the Court on July 8, 2019.57 The four-hour Training Curriculum consists of a comprehensive overview of how adverse experiences impact brain development and behavior involving youth, along with strategies for successful crisis intervention. The curriculum also includes instruction on a new program developed by the Alcohol, Drug Addiction and Mental Health Services Board (“ADAMHS Board”) called CIT Plus, which provides CDP officers with a broader range of disposition options when attempting to help individuals in crisis.
The Training Subcommittee and the ADAMHS Board worked with Gabriella Celeste of the Schubert Center for Child Studies at Case Western Reserve University to obtain the training without cost to the City from Strategies for Youth, a national organization devoted to improving police/youth interactions. Strategies for Youth CEO Lisa Thurau worked with the Training Subcommittee to ensure the workshop was customized to the needs of the Cleveland community and provided a train-the-trainer workshop for local area experts. These local mental health and substance abuse professions committed significant blocks of time to assisting CDP. Their time is
57 Dkt. 264.
33

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 37 of 104. PageID #: 6170
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019
paying significant dividends to the City of Cleveland in the form of a stronger connection between the police and the Cleveland system of care for those in need.
A Policy Update module of the training reviews policy and procedures for CDP officers including guidance on emergency hospitalization as well as the form used for tracking crisis event outcomes. Importantly, this module also guides officers on a new CDP/ADAMHS pilot project called CIT Plus. This project makes use of both mental health professionals and peer support specialists, expanding the range of disposition options available to the officer.
The training began on July 29, 2019.
Specialized Training
In addition to requiring annual crisis intervention in-service for all CDP officers, the Consent Decree requires the Division to “provide enhanced specialized training in responding to individuals in crisis to certain officers” known as Specialized CIT Officers. These officers will remain in the patrol division and will maintain their standard patrol duties, except when called upon to respond to certain incidents involving individuals in crisis.58 While such intensive training would be unrealistic and unfeasible for all CDP officers to undergo, receiving such detailed training will allow these specialized officers to be particularly well-equipped to respond appropriately to individuals undergoing a behavioral health crisis.
In the current reporting period, the MHRAC Training Subcommittee collaborated with CDP, the City, the Department of Justice, and the Monitoring Team to develop a curriculum for the 40-hour Specialized Crisis Intervention Team Officer Training. Specialized CIT officers taking the training will participate in three types of direct experiences which include: (1) on-site interactions with individuals with lived experiences who are recovering from mental illness and substance abuse; (2) in-depth scenarios based on CDP crisis intervention calls; and (3) realistic simulations of symptoms related to mental illness and substance abuse.
The Specialized CIT Curriculum was approved by the Court on July 22, 2019.59 The training is anticipated to begin during the final quarter of 2019.
Dispatcher, Call Taker and Supervisor Training
The Training Subcommittee has continued work on a CIT curriculum for dispatchers and call takers, which focuses on personnel being able to identify calls for service that may relate to crisis events and dispatching appropriate resources to the scene. The curriculum is being revised to include a range of topics such as an introduction to basic mental illness and substance abuse, strategies for intervening during a crisis event during a 911 call, scenario-based applications of the lecture material, and the impact of vicarious trauma. Volunteer consultants with experience at state-level dispatch training were also engaged in the curriculum development process.
58 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 145-46. 59 Dkt. 270.
34

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 38 of 104. PageID #: 6171
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019
Community Engagement Subcommittee
MHRAC’s Community Engagement Subcommittee has continued to broaden its mission and impact. Overall, the committee continues to work hard to engage the Cleveland community across an impressive range of offerings. The subcommittee is maintaining CDP Officer resource cards, which provide officers a concise guide to Cleveland-area social services and programs. These cards are customized for each CDP District. The Community Engagement Subcommittee is now examining strategies to create an electronic version of the card that can be updated on an ongoing basis. The subcommittee has not limited itself to electronic versions of the card but instead has worked with the ADAMHS Board to share content developed around the Division’s CIT initiatives on their social media platforms.
MHRAC’s Community Engagement Subcommittee also has taken a strong interest in alerting the public about when to call 911 in the event of a mental health crisis. The subcommittee has worked with CDP and the ADAMHS Board to develop a training seminar in the area which is now available as part of the ADAMHS Board workshop offerings. The Community Engagement Subcommittee also has worked with the City, CDP, and the ADAMHS Board to present status updates on MHRAC to the Community Police Commission.
MHRAC Diversion Subcommittee
The Monitoring Team’s prior semiannual report observed that, as the Cleveland Division of Police completes the 40-hour Training for Specialized Crisis Intervention Officers, the MHRAC’s Diversion Subcommittee will serve an important role in assisting the Division.60 The committee has been examining diversion options both in Ohio and throughout the nation. They are taking on the role of interfacing with Cuyahoga County on diversion efforts in the broader Cleveland area. Additionally, the Diversion Subcommittee reported that the Crisis Stabilization Unit has capacity to provide respite crisis services to both the 1st and 2nd Districts. This builds on a pilot program developed last year.
Further, the City of Cleveland, CDP, and the ADAMHS Board have obtained funding for a new pilot project to involve peer counselors to assist with referring individuals in crisis to appropriate resources. The Diversion Subcommittee similarly has been examining opportunities for pre-arrest diversion when a crisis call comes into the 911 system. This strategy is part of a national interest in involving 911 and Emergency Medical Services (“EMS”) in the diversion process.
Progress and Tasks that Remain
Selection of Specialized CIT Officers
With the 40-hour curriculum for the Division’s Specialized CIT Officers now completed and approved by the Court, the Division will next need to turn to recruiting and selecting officers who will serve as the inaugural set of Specialized CIT Officers. To do so, the Division has completed a Selection Plan, which outlines a three-stage process of a participation request, personnel file review, and selection board interview. CDP has worked with the
60 Sixth Semiannual Report at 37.
35

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 39 of 104. PageID #: 6172
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019
Monitoring Team to further refine the selection plan and develop an ongoing strategy. The Monitoring Team anticipates that the initial selection process will be underway by the fall of this year.
Academy Training
Following the Consent Decree’s approval by the Court, the Ohio Peace Officer Training Commission issued a new Crisis Intervention training curriculum for Ohio peace officers.61 CDP recruits received this curriculum as part of Academy Training. The Parties, MHRAC, CDP, and the Monitoring Team had agreed that this new training was a reasonable substitute for the Decree-required sixteen hours of Academy Training. Recently, new recruits proceeding through the Academy are back to being trained in Cleveland rather than the Ohio State Patrol Academy. MHRAC’s Training Subcommittee will need to formally review the Academy Training and report to the Parties, the Monitoring Team, and the Court on whether the Ohio Peace Officer Training Commission Crisis Intervention Curriculum remains a meaningful and satisfactory part of patrol officer training.
Data & Compliance Reviews
As discussed in previous reports, the ability to more comprehensively and effectively collect and track information on how officers are interacting with individuals in crisis depends on the Division’s new electronic system for inputting crisis-related data. CDP indicates that it is close to reaching the goal of an electronic data entry system. To ensure that crisis-related data can be input easily, CDP has worked to make sure the data form developed by the MHRAC Data Subcommittee will be available as the system comes online.
After data is gathered by CDP officers for a material period of time, various stakeholders must conduct formalized assessments to explore whether officers are improving their de-escalation skills and seriously considering the process of diversion across time, officers, and incidents. First and foremost, CDP will need to publicly report and analyze this outcome data annually and provide it to the Advisory Committee.62
The MHRAC’s Quality Improvement Subcommittee, which is designed to continuously improve the Division’s crisis intervention program and related training initiatives, also will benefit from the availability of high-quality data on crisis events. As data becomes available, CDP and MHRAC will need to work together to conduct formalized assessments of the outcome data to “identify training needs and develop case studies and teaching scenarios for crisis intervention training as well as primary and in-service crisis training curriculum[.]”63
Separately, the Monitoring Team will need to analyze data and review a material sample of incidents involving individuals in crisis to certify that officers—across time, incidents, and subjects—are complying with the new crisis intervention policies and the requirements of the Consent Decree.
61 Ohio Peace Officer Training Commission: Education & Policy Section, Peace Officer Basic Training Crisis Intervention, 1-156 (Jan. 2016). 62 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 158. 63 Id. at ¶ 159.
36

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 40 of 104. PageID #: 6173
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019

VIII. SEARCH AND SEIZURE

Paragraph

Status of

Compliance

160. “CDP will revise, develop, and implement search and seizure policies that comply PARTIAL

with applicable law, . . . include the requirements below,” and conform to expressly- COMPLIANCE

identified principles.

161–65. Policy requirements for officers for stops, searches, and detentions.

PARTIAL

COMPLIANCE

166. “Officers will immediately notify a supervisor when effectuating a custodial arrest EVALUATION

for obstructing official business, resisting arrest, or assault on an officer and no other DEFERRED

substantive violation is alleged,” and “the supervisor will respond to the scene.”

167. “Officers will not use ‘canned’ or conclusory language without supporting detail in EVALUATION

documents or reports documenting investigatory stops, searches, or arrests.”

DEFERRED

168. “Officers will articulate the justification for an investigatory stop, search, or arrest EVALUATION

in a specific and clear manner in their reports.” CDP “will train officers” on DEFERRED

documenting stops. “Supervisors will review all documentation of investigatory stops,

searches, and arrests.”

169. Supervisor will review of “each arrest report by officers under their command,” EVALUATION

with supervisors reviewing reports for specific, expressly-identified deficiencies.

DEFERRED

170–72. Supervisory review of investigatory stops, searches, and arrests.

EVALUATION

DEFERRED

173. Provision of “initial training that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type EVALUATION

on investigatory stops, searches, and arrests, including the requirements” of the DEFERRED

Consent Decree that “will address the requirements of Fourth Amendment and related

law, CDP policies,” and specific, expressly-identified topics.

174–75. Provision of “annual search and seizure in-service training that is adequate in EVALUATION

quality, quantity, type, and scope” incorporating specific, expressly-identified topics. DEFERRED

Background

The Consent Decree requires that CDP “revise, develop, and implement” policies on how its officers “conduct all
investigatory stops, searches, and arrests with the goal” that such actions comply with the “Constitution, state and federal law.”64 In addition to ensuring that officers adhere to these legal requirements, the policies also must
prohibit officers from relying on a subject’s “race, ethnicity, gender, and perceived sexual orientation” as a reason to stop, search, or arrest an individual.65

64 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 160. 65 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 161; Dkt. 97 at 42.
37

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 41 of 104. PageID #: 6174
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019
The Consent Decree requires that CDP officers use specific details in reports documenting the events that led to an investigatory stop, search, or arrest without the use of “canned or conclusory statements.”66 Immediate supervisors and command staff are tasked with reviewing officer reports in a timely fashion to ensure compliance with applicable laws and CDP policies.67 This review is designed to address violations and deficiencies in the documentation while also authorizing supervisors to recommend corrective and disciplinary action, along with criminal investigation, where appropriate.68
Where the Division Stands
Approval of Search and Seizure Policies
In the current reporting period, CDP, working with the Department of Justice and Monitoring Team, completed five related policies: (1) Search & Seizure; (2) Investigatory Stops; (3) Probable Cause/Warrantless Arrests; (4) Strip and Body Cavity Searches; and (5) Miranda Warning and Waiver. As described in the Team’s last semiannual report, these policies received substantial community feedback facilitated by both the Community Police Commission’s Search and Seizure workgroup and the City’s additional efforts to solicit public input.
Among other areas, the revised policies lay out definitions and CDP procedures around reasonable suspicion— the standard to detain an individual—and probable cause—the standard to arrest an individual in the absence of a warrant. These standards are notoriously vague in the law, and the revised policies attempt to provide clear guidance to officers.
Under the revised policies, officers must use accurate and specific descriptive language to articulate the justification for any search or seizure in their reports. The articulation of reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause must be specific, clear, and based on information not influenced by bias or prejudice. Further, CDP officers cannot use information the officer knows or reasonably suspects to be materially false, incorrect, or unreliable. Officers also may not, when articulating the justification for a search or seizure, use “canned” or conclusory language without supporting detail.
When conducting an investigatory stop, or a “Terry” stop, CDP officers must articulate the specific facts and circumstances in support of the officer’s determination that reasonable suspicion or probable cause was present and identified. In establishing reasonable suspicion or probable cause, CDP officers may consider demographic characteristics of an individual if and only if the characteristics are part of an actual and credible description of a specific suspect in an investigation that includes other identifying factors. Additionally, officers cannot rely exclusively on an individual’s presence in a high crime area as the basis for an investigatory stop.
CDP’s revised policies also make clear the violations that permit an officer to make a warrantless arrest (with requisite probable cause). To do so, officers must have probable cause that (1) a subject has committed or is committing a felony offense; (2) a subject has committed or is committing certain misdemeanor offenses, such as
66 Id. at ¶ 167. 67 Id. at ¶¶ 168-72. 68 Id.
38

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 42 of 104. PageID #: 6175
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019
an offense of violence, criminal child enticement, aggravated trespass, theft, and others; or (3) a subject, from the officer’s own observations, has committed or is committing any other misdemeanor offense.
The completion of these policies related to stops, searches, and arrests marked an important initial milestone in the Consent Decree’s implementation, providing critical guidance for officers engaging in police-citizen encounters. The Court approved the policies on May 16, 2019.69
Progress and Tasks that Remain
Training
Around the same time as the Search and Seizure policies were being drafted, the Division began designing a training curriculum to provide all officers with a detailed understanding of the new expectations and protocols contained within the approved, new search and seizure policies. The Monitoring Team and DOJ are continuing to work with the Division to ensure that the training is high-quality, engaging, informative, impactful, and appropriately grounded in realistic scenarios.
As flagged in other areas of this report, the limited resources of the training unit (who appear to continue to do a lot with a little) caused significant delays in the development of the Search and Seizure curriculum. With high level of engagement by the Monitoring Team, the Department of Justice, and additional technical assistance from national experts, the Search and Seizure training has now begun. Initial reviews of the training by the Monitoring Team have been very positive. CPD partnered with the City Prosecutor’s Office, which is proving prosecutors to address detailed questions from officers in real time during the training. This collaboration brings other City resources involved in the criminal justice system to ensure consistent application of law and builds valuable relationships between CPD officers and the prosecutors. Additionally, the CPD instructors observed “owned” the material and presented complex search and seizure issues effectively, both in the classroom and during the scenario-based sessions. As search and seizure is a core of constitutional policing, the successful delivery of this training is reassuring. Nonetheless, if CPD is going to continue to deliver training of the quality and consistency that is the “new normal,” the training unit needs to be enhanced to avoid further reliance on external technical assistance.
Policy Implementation & Assessment
After all patrol officers receive training, the policies will need to “go live” in the field. After a material period of time during which the policies are in effect, the Monitoring Team must (1) evaluate the numbers and trends with respect to who is being stopped, under what circumstances, and what the outcomes of those stops are; and (2) audit a host of stops themselves to determine if officers both articulated and had in fact sufficient legal grounds for any stop, detention, search, or arrest. This will include evaluation of whether supervisors are adhering to their requirements under the Division’s Court-approved policies and the Decree. In order for the Monitoring Team to be able to gauge whether the Division is complying with the terms of the Decree and the various provisions of the approved search and seizure policies, CDP will need to be rigorously tracking stop encounters in a robust and comprehensive data collection system. It remains to be seen whether the data collection systems – those in place
69 Dkt. 261.
39

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 43 of 104. PageID #: 6176
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019 and those in development – will be capable of collecting and analyzing the requite data on search, seizure, and arrest.
40

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 44 of 104. PageID #: 6177
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019

IX. ACCOUNTABILITY

Paragraph
176. “The City and CDP will ensure that all allegations of officer misconduct, whether internally discovered or alleged by a civilian, are fully, fairly, and efficiently investigated; that all investigative findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence and documented in writing; and that all officers who commit misconduct are held accountable pursuant to a disciplinary system that is fair, consistent, and provides due process.”

Status of Compliance EVALUATION DEFERRED

A. Internally Discovered Misconduct

Paragraph

Status of

Compliance

177. “Internal Affairs will conduct objective, comprehensive, and timely investigations EVALUATION

of all internal allegations,” with “findings . . . based on the preponderance of the DEFERRED

evidence standard” that must “be clearly delineated in policies, training, and procedures

and accompanied by detailed examples to ensure proper application by investigators.”

178. “Internal Affairs will be headed by a qualified civilian” who “will report directly to OPERATIONAL

the Chief of Police.

COMPLIANCE

179. Qualifications for IA investigators.

EVALUATION

DEFERRED

180. Initial training for IA investigators “that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and GENERAL

type on conducting misconduct investigations” that addresses specific, expressly- COMPLIANCE

identified topics.

181. “[A]nnual training” for IA investigators “that is adequate in quality, quantity, type PARTIAL

and scope”

COMPLIANCE

182. “In each investigation, Internal Affairs will collect and consider” all evidence. EVALUATION

“[N]o automatic preference for an officer’s statement over a non-officer’s statement.” DEFERRED

No disregard of a “witnesses’ statement solely because of” connection to the

complainant or criminal history. IA investigators must “make all reasonable efforts to

resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements.”

183. IA “will evaluate all relevant police activity and any evidence of potential EVALUATION

misconduct uncovered during the course of the investigation.”

DEFERRED

184. IA will not consider guilty plea or verdict as “determinative of whether a CDP EVALUATION

officer engaged in misconduct” or justification for “discontinuing the investigation.” DEFERRED

185. IA “will complete its administrative investigations within 30 days from the date it EVALUATION

learns of the alleged misconduct.”

DEFERRED

41

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 45 of 104. PageID #: 6178
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019

186–87. IA investigative report requirements.

EVALUATION

DEFERRED

188. Forwarding of completed IA investigations “to the officers’ supervisors, the EVALUATION

Training Review Committee, the Force Review Board, the Officer Intervention DEFERRED

Program, and the Data Collection and Analysis Coordinator.”

189. “CDP will require any CDP employee who observes or becomes aware of any” OPERATIONAL

potential misconduct to “report the incident to a supervisor or directly to” IA.

COMPLIANCE

190. “CDP will develop a system that allows officers to confidentially and anonymously OPERATIONAL

report potential misconduct by other officers.”

COMPLIANCE

191. “CDP will expressly prohibit all forms of retaliation, discouragement, intimidation, OPERATIONAL

coercion, or adverse action, against any person, civilian or officer, who reports COMPLIANCE

misconduct, makes a misconduct complaint, or cooperates with an investigation of

misconduct.”

192. “Officers who retaliate . . . will be subject to the disciplinary process.”

OPERATIONAL

COMPLIANCE

Background

To comply with the terms of the Consent Decree, the CDP’s Internal Affairs (“IA”) unit must “conduct objective, comprehensive, and timely investigations of internal allegations of officer misconduct.”70 CDP members have an affirmative obligation when they “observe[] or become[] aware of any act of misconduct by another employee to report their incident to a supervisor or directly to Internal Affairs.”71 Division policy “will expressly prohibit all forms of retaliation, discouragement, intimidation, coercion, or adverse action, against any person . . . who reports misconduct[.]”72 Ultimately, Internal Affairs must be the primary engine for the Division’s administrative (noncriminal) investigations of officer misconduct and, more generally, the main oversight mechanism for ensuring that the Division’s performance standards are being met.
Where Internal Affairs Stands Now

Over the past six months, work with respect to Internal Affairs has focused on finalizing the policies and procedures to guide IA investigations. Prior to the Consent Decree, IA did not have in place the types of rigorous, codified procedures for conducting its investigations and performing its duties that analogous units in similarlysituated departments have. Crafting those procedures, as well as codifying a clear understanding of where IA sits within the Division’s structure and how it relates to other entities within the Division that review officer performance, has required significant time and effort on the part of CDP and the City.

70 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 177. 71 Id. at ¶ 189. Such reporting may be confidential or anonymous. 72 Id. at ¶ 191.
42

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 46 of 104. PageID #: 6179
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019
The Parties are now finalizing the drafting of IA-related policies and a Manual to guide IA investigative practices and processes. The Team anticipates that policies will be ready to be submitted for the Court’s approval early in the upcoming reporting period.
Investigative Structure Matrix
The Monitoring Team has previously identified internal investigations taking place outside of Internal Affairs. In the current reporting period, CDP created an Investigative Structure Matrix to identify all agencies and units in the City that conduct specialized investigations that may involve police personnel (outside of the Internal Affairs and Inspections Unit processes covered by the IA Manual). The creation of this matrix is intended to assist the Division to achieve compliance with Consent Decree requirements around reasonable discipline and underlying investigations conducted outside the normal IA process. This will help to ensure that the functions of all City entities that handle issues relating to CDP member conduct (such as the City’s Human Resources or the Department of Public Safety’s Accident Investigation Unit) can be coordinated and integrated with the Division’s Internal Affairs. Part of the Monitoring Team’s evaluation process going forward will be aimed at verifying whether IA is addressing all misconduct investigations or whether cases that should be addressed by IA are, for whatever reason, being inappropriately addressed by other Division or City entities.
Tasks and Progress that Remain
Staffing
As the Monitoring Team has consistently reported, Internal Affairs remains understaffed. It is doubtful that sustained progress will ultimately be possible unless and until IA receives both the quality and quantity of investigative Sergeants necessary to ensure timely, high-quality investigations of internal misconduct.
The Division’s Staffing Plan primarily, and largely appropriately, focuses on patrol staffing considerations. The Monitoring Team, and Court, approved that Staffing Plan on the understanding that discussion of non-patrol staffing would occur soon thereafter. Now is the time for CDP to ensure that it subsequently addresses the specific staffing needs of its various specialized units, including IA.
Implementation & Assessment
With the policies relating to misconduct investigations now completed, the Monitoring Team must now necessarily give CDP’s civilian IA Superintendent the opportunity to internally improve IA processes and implement new procedures before conducting qualitative analyses on current IA investigative practices. The Monitoring Team continues to anticipate beginning a subsequent round of qualitative analysis in the latter part of 2019 to evaluate whether investigations conducted in the first two quarters of the year appear to represent an improvement to a 2016 evaluation of 2015 cases that the Team previously conducted. As the Monitoring Team has previously noted, sporadically high-quality investigations amid generally poor-quality investigations, or occasionally bad investigations among generally good ones, are not sufficient to establish compliance. Instead, it is the sustained adherence to the high standards of the Decree and policy that will set the occasion for substantial and effective compliance.
43

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 47 of 104. PageID #: 6180
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019

B. Office of Professional Standards (“OPS”)

Paragraph
193. OPS “investigate[s] all civilian complaints it receives, other than those that allege criminal conduct,” which are referred to IA. Excessive force complaints generally retained by OPS. IA investigations referred back to OPS if “determination is made that no criminal conduct occurred.” 194. “The City will ensure that OPS is led by an administrator with the skills, expertise, and experience to effectively manage the intake, tracking, timely, and objective investigation of complaints”; implement PRB training; “assess OPS’s equipment and staffing needs”; and “develop and implement performance standards for OPS.” 195–96. Initial training for OPS investigators “adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type,” including specific, expressly-listed topics. 197. “OPS Investigators will not be current members of the CDP, and no CDP personnel will have any active role in OPS’s operations.” 198. “The City will ensure that the lawyer representing OPS does not have any actual or apparent conflicts of interest.” 199. “OPS will have its own budget, separate from . . . the Department of Public Safety” that “affords sufficient independence and resources, including sufficient staff and training to meet the terms of this Agreement.” 200. Development and implementation of OPS operations manual “made available to the public” that covers specific, expressly-listed topics. 201. Development and implementation of “a program to promote awareness through the Cleveland community about the process for filing complaints with OPS.” 202. “CDP and the City will work with the police unions . . . to allow civilian complaints to be submitted to OPS verbally or in writing; in person, by phone, or on line; by a complainant, someone acting on his or her behalf, or anonymously; and with or without a signature from the complainant,” with all “complaints documented in writing.” 203. CDP will post and maintain by the intake window at CDP headquarters and all District headquarters a permanent placard describing the civilian complaint process” and containing specific, expressly-listed information. 204. “CDP will provide training that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type to all police personnel, including dispatchers, to properly handle complaint intake, including” with respect to specific, expressly-listed topics. 205. CDP officers “carry complaint forms in their CDP vehicles,” which officers must provide “upon request.” Supervisors will be dispatched to scene when an individual wants to make a complaint, with the supervisor providing a copy of completed complaint form “or a blank form to be completed later by the individual.”

Status of Compliance OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE EVALUATION DEFERRED OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
EVALUATION DEFERRED

44

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 48 of 104. PageID #: 6181
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019

206. “The City and OPS will make complaint forms and other materials outlining the OPERATIONAL

complaint process and OPS’s contact information available at locations” including a COMPLIANCE

number of specific, expressly-listed locations.

207. “OPS’s complaint form will not contain any language that could reasonably be GENERAL

construed as discouraging the filing of a complaint, including warnings about the COMPLIANCE

potential criminal consequences for filing false complaints.”

208. Availability of complaint forms in English and Spanish. “OPS will make every OPERATIONAL

effort to ensure that complainants who speak other languages . . . can file complaints in COMPLIANCE

their preferred language.”

209. “City will ensure that civilian complaints submitted through other existing systems, OPERATIONAL

including the Mayor’s Action Center and the Department Action Center, are COMPLIANCE

immediately forwarded to OPS for investigation.”

210. “OPS will establish a centralized electronic numbering and tracking system for all EVALUATON

complaints,” which “will maintain accurate and reliable data regarding the number, DEFERRED

nature, and status of all complaints . . . including investigation timeliness and notification

of the interim status and final disposition of the complaint.” It “will be used to monitor

and maintain appropriate caseloads for OPS investigators.”

211. Biased policing tracked as a separate category of complaint that “are captured and EVALUATION

tracked appropriately, even if the complainant does not so label the allegation.”

DEFERRED

212. “[A]llegations of unlawful investigatory stops, searches, or arrests” tracked as a EVALUATION

separate category of complaints.

DEFERRED

213. “[A]llegations of excessive use of force” tracked as separate category of complaints. EVALUATION

DEFERRED

214. “OPS will conduct regular assessments of the types of complaints being received to PARTIAL-

identify and assess potential problematic patterns and trends.”

COMPLIANCE

215. “OPS will produce, at least annually, a public report summarizing complaint trends, PARTIAL

including” with respect several specific, expressly-identified areas.

COMPLIANCE

216. Assignment of complaints to Standard and Complex investigatory tracks.

OPERATIONAL

COMPLIANCE

217. Dismissal and/or administrative dismissal of complaint investigations.

OPERATIONAL

COMPLIANCE

218. “OPS will ensure that investigations of complaints are as thorough as necessary to PARTIAL

reach reliable and complete findings that are supported by the preponderance of the COMPLIANCE

evidence.”

219. “CDP will ensure that OPS has timely access to all reports related to the incident . . EVALUATION

. ,” and authority of OPS “to conduct additional investigation” of civilian complaint DEFERRED

when CDP investigation has already taken place relating to the incident.

220. “OPS investigators will attempt to interview each complainant in person” and OPERATIONAL

record the interview.

COMPLIANCE

45

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 49 of 104. PageID #: 6182
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019

221. “The Chief will order officers who witnessed or participate in an incident that is the subject of an OPS complaint to cooperate with the OPS investigation,” including by responding to written questions or sitting for an in-person interview. 222. “OPS investigators will have access to any relevant disciplinary information in the record of an officer who is the subject of a current investigation.” 223. “OPS will consider all relevant evidence,” with no preferences for particular witness’s statements, including of officer over a non-officer, or because of connection to complainant or criminal history. “OPS will make all reasonable efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements.” 224. OPS findings categories.
225. “OPS will document in writing the investigation of each complaint, including all investigatory steps taken, and OPS’s findings and conclusions,” which must “be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 226. Items for consideration for OPS findings.
227. “OPS will forward all investigations and its written conclusions to PRB in sufficient time for PRB to consider them no later than the second regularly scheduled PRB meeting following completion of the investigation.” 228. “OPS will send periodic written updates” to the complainant at specific, expresslyidentified junctures. 229. “[A] complainant may contact OPS at any time to determine the status of his/her complaint.”

OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED

Background

The Office of Professional Standards (“OPS”) is the civilian-staffed office charged with investigating the
complaints of civilians about Division of Police personnel. Cleveland’s City Charter requires OPS to conduct “a full and complete investigation” of all citizen complaints of employee misconduct.73

As the Monitoring Team has regularly summarized, the Consent Decree includes a number of requirements— such as hiring a qualified and experienced OPS Administrator, ensuring high-quality training for investigators, establishing a separate budget for OPS, and promoting awareness throughout Cleveland about the availability of civilian complaint forms—all designed to ensure that OPS can conduct thorough and competent investigations of civilian complaints and reach findings that are supported by the preponderance of evidence.74

73 Charter of the City of Cleveland, § 115-4. 74 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶¶ 193-229.
46

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 50 of 104. PageID #: 6183
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019
Where OPS Stands Now
In the current reporting period, Hillard Heintze—an outside firm hired by the City to address the backlog of uninvestigated or partially-investigated civilian complaints, which totaled 377 cases as of the start of 2018—has worked to reduce the backlog. As detailed further below, the backlog of pre-December 1, 2017 cases has been reduced by approximately 51 percent. The goal is for OPS to have an ongoing average of 75 cases, i.e. for the office to be handling 75 cases at any one time. The Monitoring Team is pleased by the progress that the City, through Hillard Heintze, has made with regards to the backlog of civilian complaints. The City anticipates that Hillard Heintze will have completed the backlog by the end of September 2019.
This has been a serious undertaking, and the Monitoring Team is pleased that significant progress is being made and that the current number of investigations being conducted appears to be sustainable given current OPS staffing. The Team continues to be hopeful that the current efforts at backlog reduction will develop into a longterm trend in favor of timely OPS investigations and referrals to the Police Review Board for prompt resolution of complaints.
While the Monitoring Team has seen improvements in the quality of OPS investigative practices, OPS still needs to make additional progress to address some fundamental investigative deficiencies. In the current reporting period, the Monitoring Team has been concerned that, in some cases, a desire for the timely completion of case investigations might have negatively impacted the quality of the work in some instances. The Monitoring Team has been providing continuing feedback to the OPS administration in an effort to ensure that OPS has the capacity to appropriately balance the need for both timely and competent investigations.
Staffing
Since 2018, OPS has staffed up considerably, with a new Administrator, Supervising Investigator, Research Analyst, and General Manager. The hiring of a Community Engagement Coordinator suffered a setback when the final candidate was unable to start on a date acceptable to OPS administration. As such, the position was reposted and closed on June 29, 2019. The City is currently reviewing applications. Until that position is filled by a competent staff member, the OPS will be unlikely to comply with Consent Decree requirements that relate to community engagement and outreach to internal and external stakeholders.
Annual Report
The 2018 Annual OPS Report, summarizing complaint trends and timeframes for the public and required under Paragraph 215 of the Decree, was completed and presented to the City Council’s Public Safety Committee in public session as recommended by the Monitoring Team. With the hiring of the OPS’s new Research Analyst, the Monitoring Team looks forward to a robust 2019 Annual Report to be delivered in early 2020.
OPS Policy Reviews
Pursuant to Paragraph 214 of the Consent Decree, OPS is required to “conduct regular assessments of the types of complaints being received to identify and assess potential problematic patterns and trends.” In the current
47

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 51 of 104. PageID #: 6184
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019
reporting period, OPS has indeed worked to identify patterns and emerging trends in CDP practices, programs, and policies. Upon identification of a problematic trend or pattern, OPS works with the Police Review Board to write a policy recommendation to the Chief of Police, in the form of a memo from the OPS Administrator to the Chief.
Starting in 2018, OPS began to track the implementation history of these recommendations by the CDP. Although there have been delays in responses received from CDP, OPS is reporting that they are now periodically receiving responses to some of the recommendations and OPS will publicly report on its recommendations and CDP responses. The Monitoring Team looks forward to seeing OPS-Police Review Board follow-up on these recommendations which have the potential of reducing the risk of future complaints and assisting the CDP in providing improved police services over the long term.
Progress and Tasks that Remain
1. Completing the Backlog of Open Investigations
The City will need to continue to fully address and adjudicate the previously-unclosed investigations received prior to December 1, 2017 that have still not been completed or received a final disposition. According to OPS, the backlog of investigations received prior to December 1, 2017 has been reduced from 281 cases—when Hillard Heinz began its assignment and review of OPS cases in September 2018—to 144 cases as of June 12, 2019, a reduction of the caseload by 51%.
Meanwhile, aggressive measures reportedly taken by the new OPS Administrator and Senior Investigator have reduced the continuing ongoing caseload to an average of 75 cases. When divided between the current staff of nine OPS investigators, the overall caseload appears to be reasonable.
2. Case Management System/Business Mapping
As the Monitoring Team has stated previously, proper case management is a basic, foundational management tool for an investigatory agency with OPS’s charge to operate successfully in a city the size of Cleveland. Under the Consent Decree, OPS must “establish a centralized electronic numbering and tracking system . . . [which] will maintain accurate and reliable data regarding the number, nature, and status of all complaints” and which can be used by OPS administration “to monitor and maintain appropriate caseloads for OPS investigators.”75
Since the start of the Consent Decree, OPS and the City have indicated that they intend to fulfill this requirement of the Decree by having OPS use IAPro as its case management software – the same platform that IA investigators within the Division use to conduct their investigations. OPS has struggled to fully adopt the system, relying on home-grown database solutions rather than merging its business practices with the IAPro platform.
75 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 210.
48

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 52 of 104. PageID #: 6185
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019
With the hiring of a new OPS Management Analyst in the first quarter of 2019, OPS is now well-positioned to fully utilize IAPro. The Monitoring Team has and will continue to assess whether OPS is effectively using IAPro to its full capacity.
3. OPS Staff Performance Reviews
As described in the Monitoring Team’s last semiannual report, the OPS Administrator must ensure a robust employee performance review process at OPS to ensure employee adherence to OPS Court-approved policies and best practices in investigations. Thus far, the Administrator has reported that he and OPS supervisors continue to conduct ongoing, but informal, performance reviews in conjunction with training of OPS investigators.
Although substantive, written performance reviews were not performed in the last reporting period, as was anticipated, the Monitoring Team will be deferring its evaluation of this area of OPS compliance until the OPS is fully staffed and the OPS Administrator has the time and resources to conduct formal, substantive written performance reviews.
4. Complaint Forms
Under the Consent Decree, the City and OPS “will make complaint forms and other materials outlining the complaint process and OPS’s contact information available at locations” including “the websites of CDP, OPS and the City of Cleveland” as well as a number of other specific, expressly-listed locations.76 Further, all CDP officers will “carry complaint forms in their CDP vehicles.”77
While the City and CDP have maintained that they have made complaint forms available at the Decreeenumerated locations, the Monitoring Team has not yet had the opportunity to conduct a formal audit to assess, among other things, the accessibility of complaint forms in vehicles and at CDP District stations. The OPS also reports that it will need to expand the number of locations where complaint forms are available and that such efforts will take place upon the hiring of a Community Engagement Coordinator. It is also anticipated that, at that time, OPS will be able to begin to comply with Paragraph 201 of the Consent Decree which requires the development and implementation of “a program to promote awareness through the Cleveland community about the process for filing complaints with OPS.”78
Although the Monitoring Team has assessed that OPS is in “Operational Compliance” with respect to making complaint forms available on its website, the Monitoring Team is concerned that OPS has not yet made it possible for members of the public to file complaints or commendations online. Instead, a complainant must print out a hard-copy complaint form, fill it out, and then mail or fax the form to OPS. Alternatively, a complainant can make a complaint by phone or in-person.
76 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 206. 77 Id. at ¶ 205. 78 Id. at ¶ 201.
49

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 53 of 104. PageID #: 6186
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019

The Monitoring Team has previously noted that many cities provide community members with the ability to file their complaints online.79 The Monitoring Team understands that while OPS has approached the City’s Division of Information Technology Services to create this functionality, they have been informed that it will take between 12 and 18 months for the filing of police complaints to be available on the City’s OPS website. The Monitoring Team strongly encourages the City to find a way to implement this functionality in an expeditious fashion, as OPS appears to be one of a minority of oversight organizations of its type in the country that do not offer community members the opportunity to file police complaints online.80
Separately, and to its credit, OPS has been attempting to increase the functionality of its website to allow complainants to track the progress of their complaints online within the first months of the upcoming reporting period. The Monitoring Team is hopeful that OPS will be able to add this functionality to its complaints in a timely fashion.
5. Timeliness of OPS Case Adjudications
Over the course of the Consent Decree’s implementation, the Monitoring Team has expressed concerns regarding the timeliness of final adjudication of sustained findings recommended by the Police Review Board (“PRB”) on OPS investigations. While there have been significant improvements and cases are now being appropriately tracked by OPS, the Monitoring Team remains concerned about the amount of time it takes for the CDP’s Case Preparation Unit to schedule pre-disciplinary hearings on OPS cases where the PRB has recommended sustained findings
As of the end of the current reporting period, OPS reported that for nineteen (19) cases where pre-disciplinary hearings had been scheduled, in only one case did it take less than four weeks for a hearing to be scheduled upon receipt of a “findings letter” from the PRB. For the remaining cases, it took anywhere from six (6) to fourteen (14) weeks for a hearing to be scheduled, with an average delay of more than 8.5 weeks from the date PRB findings letter are delivered to the Chief’s Office to the date of the pre-disciplinary hearing. In two additional cases, even

79 See, e.g., Portland, Oregon, Independent Police Review Division, https://www.portlandoregon.gov/ipr/52031;

Denver, Colorado, Office of the Independent Monitor, https://www.denvergov.org/content/denvergov/en/office-

of-the-independent-monitor/commendations-complaints/online-complaint-commendation-form.html; New

York City, Citizen Complaint Review Board, https://www1.nyc.gov/site/ccrb/complaints/file-online.page,

Washington D.C. Office of Police Complaints, https://dcforms.dc.gov/webform/office-police-complaints-online-

complaint-form; New Orleans Independent Police Monitor, http://nolaipm.gov/file-a-complaint/; and San

Francisco Department of Police Accountability, https://policecomplaints.sfgov.org/.

80 The OPS program can be classified as an “investigation-focused” model of citizen oversight and is one of 34 such

programs identified by a recent evaluation of civilian oversight programs in the United States. Of the five

jurisdictions identified as having “investigation-focused” agencies listed in the report (San Francisco, Washington

D.C., New York City, San Diego County and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania), only one, San Diego County, also requires

complainants to print out a complaint form and then email, fax or mail the form as part of the process of filing a

complaint. De Angelis, Rosenthal & Buchner (2017) Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement – Assessing the

Evidence,

pp.

24-27,

located

at,

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/nacole/pages/161/attachments/original/1481727974/NACOLE_Accessin

gtheEvidence_Final.pdf?1481727974.

50

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 54 of 104. PageID #: 6187
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019

though PRB findings letters had been submitted to the Chief’s Office on March 5, 2019, the pre-disciplinary hearings remained unscheduled as of the end of the reporting period, representing a delay of almost four months for each case.
Timeliness in the handling of public complaints against the police and in the imposition of discipline on these complaints is an essential component of police accountability. The Monitoring Team is recommending that the City consider possible alternative processes that could potentially improve the timeliness of these pre-disciplinary hearings, to include dedicating additional resources to this area until improvements can be made.
C. Police Review Board (“PRB”)

Paragraph

Status of

Compliance

230. “Mayor will work with the City Council to develop an ordinance to place a Charter GENERAL

Amendment on the ballot” addressing PRB composition and appointment process. COMPLIANCE

231. “PRB members will not be current or former members of the CDP.”

GENERAL

COMPLIANCE

232. “PRB will have its own budget,” overseen by OPS Administrator and separate from OPERATIONAL

Department of Public Safety, that “affords sufficient independence and resources.” COMPLIANCE

233–34. Initial training for PRB members “that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, PARTIAL

and type” and that covers specific, expressly-identified topics.

COMPLIANCE

235. PRB meetings open to the public and posted in advance, with “case presentations OPERATIONAL

and PRB votes” occurring during “open session.”

COMPLIANCE

236. “OPS investigators will attend PRB meetings at which their investigations are PARTIAL

being considered and present their findings . . . . ” PRB may “ask the investigator to COMPLIANCE

conduct further investigation” as necessary.

237. “PRB recommended dispositions will be based on a preponderance of the EVALUATION

evidence. For each case, PRB shall set forth its conclusion and an explanation of its DEFERRED

reasons and supporting evidence in writing, including, when applicable, the

justification for departing from OPS’s recommended disposition.”

238. “In cases where PRB is recommending a sustained disposition, in whole or in part, OPERATIONAL

PRB will include a recommendation as to disciplinary or non-disciplinary corrective COMPLIANCE

action.”

239. [Timely] forwarding of PRB recommendations to Chief of Police and Director of OPERATIONAL

Public Safety.

COMPLIANCE

Background

Cleveland’s civilian Police Review Board (“PRB” or “the Board”) reviews and analyzes completed OPS investigations. It makes a formal recommendation to the Chief of Police on the ultimate disposition of the case and, if warranted, the discipline that an involved officer should receive. A well-functioning PRB remains critical

51

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 55 of 104. PageID #: 6188
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019
to ensuring that OPS investigations are sound and that the Chief of Police receives a well-informed recommendation on the disposition of OPS cases.
The Consent Decree includes many requirements relating to the PRB, including that the “PRB will have its own budget[,]” PRB members will receive initial training, PRB meetings will be held open to the public and posted in advance, “OPS investigators will attend PRB meetings at which their investigations are being considered and present their findings[,]” “PRB recommended dispositions will be based on a preponderance of the evidence[,]” and that the PRB will, when recommending sustained disposition, “include a recommendation as to disciplinary or non-disciplinary corrective action.”81
Where the PRB Stands
Since the adoption of the PRB Operations Manual in 2017, the PRB has convened regularly to address cases that it receives from OPS. During this time, the performance of the PRB has largely been out of the Board’s hands. The timeliness of the PRB’s review of cases, and precisely what the PRB is reviewing, depends on how well OPS has effectuated its duties in the investigatory stage.
Now that OPS has had more time and additional staff to improve the quality of its investigations, the Monitoring Team will be more closely evaluating the work of the PRB to ensure that OPS’s improved investigations are benefiting the Board’s ability to review investigations and make recommendations to the Chief. Ultimately, before the performance of both OPS and PRB can be found to be in compliance with the Consent Decree, the Board must be found to be effectively and meaningfully carrying out its duties in a sufficiently thorough, fair, and timely manner.
Documentation of PRB Decision-Making
The PRB previously struggled with the timely documentation of the rationale for its decisions. In the prior reporting period, OPS reported that PRB disposition letters (letters to complainants documenting non-sustained finings made by the PRB) and findings letters (letters to the CDP documenting sustained findings made by the PRB) have, on the whole, been prepared in a timely fashion. The Monitoring Team too noted an improvement in the quality of findings letters.
However, during the current reporting period, the Monitoring Team learned that OPS had not been notifying officers of the resolution of complaints against them that resulted in PRB findings of “insufficient evidence,” “exonerated,” or “unfounded.” To the credit of OPS’ administrators, this procedural oversight was identified internally and brought to the attention of the Monitoring Team upon discovery. OPS has advised it will work to correct this deficiency and will provide notice to officers in future cases and is coming up with a plan to deal with past cases where notice was not given. The Monitoring Team plans to review the quality of the disposition letters to ensure that complainants and officers are being provided sufficient information to fully understand PRB findings closing their complaints with no further action to be taken.
81 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶¶ 232-38.
52

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 56 of 104. PageID #: 6189
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019

Progress and Tasks that Remain

1. Quality of PRB Recommendations & Processes

The Monitoring Team has observed several cases in which the Chief disagreed with PRB recommendations without providing a robust written rationale. As previously reported, the Monitoring Team believes that the OPS/PRB program would benefit from a formal protocol between the PRB and the Chief’s Office to help to ensure that the Chief and PRB understand each other’s rationale for making recommendations and decisions on complaints. In the absence of such a protocol, the Monitoring Team will continue to monitor communications between the Chief and the PRB and will address issues or concerns as they are identified.
2. Implementation & Assessment

As noted above, with the quality and timeliness of OPS investigations improving, PRB is in a better position to adhere rigorously to the PRB Manual. The Monitoring Team, in turn, will need to assess the Board’s performance.
D. Discipline and Disciplinary Hearings

Paragraph

Status of

Compliance

240. “The Chief of CDP will issue a General Police Order that requires officers to (a) GENERAL

cooperate with the Internal Affairs and OPS investigators; and (b) submit all relevant COMPLIANCE

evidence to the investigators such that it is available for consideration by Internal

Affairs or PRB.”

241. Disciplinary hearing requirement, with officer given “opportunity to testify” and EVALUATION

suspension of hearing if “officer provides new or additional evidence at hearing,” with DEFERRED

matter “returned to IA or PRB for consideration.”

242. Written justification by Chief or Director of decision to “not uphold the charges” PARTIAL

or “does not impose the recommended discipline or non-disciplinary corrective action” COMPLIANCE

where PRB previously “recommends the initiation of the disciplinary process and

recommends a disciplinary level.”

243. “CDP will track the number of instances in which the Chief or the Director of OPERATIONAL

Public Safety rejects, in whole or in part, PRB’s recommended disposition.”

COMPLIANCE

245. “CDP will ensure that discipline for sustained allegations of misconduct comports EVALUATION

with due process, and is consistently applied, fair, and based on the nature of the DEFERRED

allegation, and that mitigating and aggravating factors are identified and consistently

applied and documented.”

246. “CDP will review its current matrix and will seek to amend it” “to ensure OPERATIONAL

consistency” and inclusion of a number of specific, expressly-identified features.

COMPLIANCE

247. “All disciplinary decisions will be documented in writing.”

PARTIAL

COMPLIANCE

53

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 57 of 104. PageID #: 6190
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019

248. “CDP will provide its disciplinary matrix to the Commission, the Police Inspector OPERATIONAL

General, and the police unions for comment.”

COMPLIANCE

249. “CDP will work with the unions to allow for sustained disciplinary findings to stay PARTIAL

in an officer’s record for ten years.”

COMPLIANCE

Background

The Consent Decree requires that CDP “ensure that discipline for sustained allegations of misconduct comports with due process, and is consistently applied, fair, and based on the nature of the allegation, and that mitigating and aggravating factors are identified and consistently applied and documented.”82

As one foundational element of that process of ensuring fair and consistent discipline, the Division has needed to “review its current disciplinary matrix and will seek to amend it as necessary[.]”83 Specifically, CDP must ensure that the new disciplinary matrix:
• “[E]stablishes a presumptive range of discipline for each type of rule violation;” • “[I]ncreases the presumptive discipline based on an officer’s prior violations of the same
or other rules;” • “[P]rohibits consideration of the officer’s race, gender, national origin, age, ethnicity,
familial relationships, or sexual orientation” as well as “the high (or low) profile nature of the incident;” and • “[P]rovides that CDP will not take only non-disciplinary corrective action in cases in which the disciplinary matrix calls for the imposition of discipline” but may consider nondisciplinary corrective action “in a case where discipline has [already] been imposed.”84
Where the Division Stands

Since January 1, 2018, the Division has been operating according to a revised, Court-approved Disciplinary Matrix that establishes presumptive ranges of discipline and mitigating or aggravating factors. Since the promulgation of that new Matrix, the Monitoring Team has begun to audit disciplinary decisions along with the underlying investigations that precipitated them in real-time. The Parties and Team have begun to discuss various areas that require improvement with respect to the discipline process and will focus on these issues in the coming reporting period.
In the current reporting period, the Division completed amendments to the Disciplinary Matrix, specifically relating to integrity-related violations of CDP policy. Per Consent Decree requirements, a draft of the Amended Disciplinary Matrix was shared with the police unions and Community Police Commission for their input. Under the new Matrix, dishonesty now joins false report, false statement, and untruthfulness as Group III violations (the

82 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 245. 83 Id. 84 Id. at ¶ 246.

54

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 58 of 104. PageID #: 6191
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019
most severe of violations). Additionally, all four offenses now carry a presumption of termination. The Court approved the Amended Disciplinary Matrix on August 27, 2019.85 At the conclusion of the reporting period, the CDP Case Preparation Unit has established that it has been tracking the number of instances in which the Chief or the Director of Public Safety rejects, in whole or in part, PRB’s recommended dispositions, in compliance with paragraph 243. The Monitoring Team looks forward to the OPS being able to access and use this data to publicly report on patterns in this regard in its next annual report. Progress and Tasks that Remain Relationship of Disciplinary Process to Voluntary City/Police Union Agreements The Consent Decree requires the Division to “work with the unions to allow for sustained disciplinary findings to stay in an officer’s record for ten years.”86 The City raised the issue with the police unions in recent bargaining and accepted that sustained disciplinary findings would remain in an officer’s record for less than ten years. The City has indicated that it will revisit the matter in future negotiations. Systemic Evaluation of Discipline A comprehensive evaluation of the imposition of discipline by the Department of Public Safety is in progress. Future evaluations will include decisions made by the Chief of Police and need to be conducted to determine how the Disciplinary Matrix is functioning in practice and to “ensure that . . . officers who commit misconduct are held accountable pursuant to a disciplinary system that is fair, consistent, and provides due process.”
85 Dkt. 277. 86 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 249.
55

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 59 of 104. PageID #: 6192
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019

X. TRANSPARENCY & OVERSIGHT

A. Police Inspector General

Paragraph

Status of

Compliance

250. “The City will hire an individual or individuals with significant experience in law EVALUATION

enforcement practices and civil rights law to serve as a Police Inspector General” DEFERRED

(“IG”). City must seek CPC’s “input in developing minimum qualifications and

experience” for IG.

251. IG work in Office of Mayor but report to Chief of Police.

EVALUATION

DEFERRED

252. IG “will not be a current or former employee of CDP.”

EVALUATION

DEFERRED

253–54. Duties and authority of IG.

EVALUATION

DEFERRED

255. Budget of IG must be “a separate line item” in City budget and “afford[] sufficient PARTIAL

independence and resources” to comply with Consent Decree.

COMPLIANCE

256. IG “will have access to all documents and data necessary to perform the above EVALUATION

functions, including any raw data.”

DEFERRED

Background

The Consent Decree creates a new, internal oversight function within the Division—a Police Inspector General (the “IG”). The IG must have the authority to review CDP policies and practices, conduct audits and investigations, analyze data for aggregate and systemic trends, develop recommendations for reform, and analyze investigations conducted, and review imposed discipline. The IG’s reports and recommendations must be made public.87
Where the Division Stands

In the current reporting period, the City worked to finalize the hiring of the Inspector General position after an unexpected setback that resulted in the City being unable to hire the prior finalist. A job posting was reposted on the City’s website and closed on February 22, 2019. After reviewing applications, the City began interviewing final candidates in June, and in August hired Christopher Viland as the first Inspector General. The Monitoring Team looks forward to engaging with the IG as he begins his work in Cleveland.

87 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 253. 56

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 60 of 104. PageID #: 6193
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019

Progress and Tasks that Remain

Once hired, the Police Inspector General, with his day-to-day responsibility to conduct various assessments, reviews, and audits, will be a significant benefit to the Division and the Consent Decree process. The Monitoring Team looks forward to the IG’s hiring, which will be an important milestone in effectuating the kind of ongoing oversight called for by the Decree.
Once the IG is hired, the Parties and Monitoring Team must also ensure that the Police Inspector General has the resources, budget, and “sufficient independence” to successfully review practices, audit, analyze data, and provide actionable recommendations to the Division of Police.88 Likewise, the work of the Inspector General must reflect the rigor and independence that the Consent Decree contemplates. To that end, to ensure that the IG’s performance is consistent with the Consent Decree, the Monitoring Team will be evaluating the performance of the IG over time to ensure that such standards are being appropriately met. The ultimate goal is for the institutionalized IG to take on a role of independent auditor with respect to the Division’s overall performance, systems, and processes—sustaining and driving change long after CDP has reached substantial and effective compliance with the particular provisions of the Consent Decree.
B. Data Collection and Analysis

Paragraph

Status of

Compliance

257. “CDP will collect and maintain all data and records necessary to accurately PARTIAL

evaluate its use of force practices and search and seizure practices and facilitate COMPLIANCE

transparency and, as permitted by law, broad access to information related to CDP’s

decision making and activities. To achieve this outcome, CDP will designate an

individual or individuals as the ‘Data Collection and Analysis Coordinator.’”

258. Coordinator “will ensure the collection and tracking of all documents related to PARTIAL

uses of force and allegations of misconduct and related materials,” including specific, COMPLIANCE

expressly-listed materials and information.

259. Coordinator “will ensure the creation and maintenance of a reliable and accurate PARTIAL

electronic system to track all data derived from force-related documents,” including COMPLIANCE

specific, expressly-identified data.

260. Coordinator “will ensure the creation and maintenance of a reliable and accurate PARTIAL

electronic system to track data on all vehicle stops, investigatory stops, and searches, COMPLIANCE

whether or not they result in an arrest or issuance of a summons or citation.” The

system must conform to a number of specific, expressly-identified requirements.

261. Coordinator must “routine[ly] report[] . . . relevant data to the Chief of Police, PARTIAL

FRB, Training Review Committee, OPS, the [Community Police] Commission, and the COMPLIANCE

Police Inspector General.”

88 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 255.

57

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 61 of 104. PageID #: 6194
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019

262. Coordinator “responsible for the annual assessment of forms and data collection PARTIAL

systems to improve the accuracy and reliability of data collection.”

COMPLIANCE

263. Coordinator “will develop a protocol to accurately analyze the data collected and OPERATIONAL

allow for” various outcome measurements, “subject to the review and approval of the COMPLIANCE

Monitor and DOJ.”

264. Annually, “CDP will conduct an assessment and issue a report summarizing its EVALUATION

investigatory stop, search, and arrest data” that addresses various specific, expressly- DEFERRED

identified topics.

265. Annually, “CDP will conduct an assessment and issue a report of all activities, EVALUATION

including use of force, arrests, motor vehicles and investigatory stops, and misconduct DEFERRED

complaints alleging discrimination, to determine whether CDP’s activities are applied

or administered in a way that discriminates against individuals on the basis of race” or

other listed prohibited classes or characteristics, and that addresses various specific,

expressly-identified topics.

266. Annual analysis of “prior year’s force” data with FRB.

EVALUATION

DEFERRED

Background

The Consent Decree requires that the Division collect, use, and report data on its activities and performance in a modern and comprehensive fashion. To effectuate this, the Decree required CDP to hire a Data Collection and Analysis Coordinator (the “Data Coordinator” or “Coordinator”) to help ensure that CDP maintains the required information in a manner that “facilitate[s] transparency and . . . broad public access to information related to CDP’s decision making and activities.”89 The Coordinator is specifically tasked with ensuring the collection and tracking of all information related to uses of force, search and seizure practices, and allegations of misconduct. The Coordinator must create and maintain “a reliable and accurate electronic system to track” use of force-related data and search and seizure information.90

The Coordinator also is “responsible for the routine reporting of relevant data” to various entities within the Division91; conducting annual assessments of both use of force and investigatory stop data92; and analyzing
Division practices for potential disproportionate or disparate impacts with respect to “race, ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.”93 These reports must “be made publicly available.”94

89 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 257. 90 Id. at ¶¶ 259-60. 91 Id. at ¶ 261. 92 Id. at ¶¶ 263, 264, 266. 93 Id. at ¶ 265. 94 Id. at ¶ 267.
58

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 62 of 104. PageID #: 6195
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019

Where the Division Stands

During the current reporting period, CDP’s Data Coordinator has continued to meet regularly with CDP leadership to present analyses of use of force data, including trends on the number of force incidents reported by month, as well as trends on the timeliness of reviews of use of force reports. The analysis can be disaggregated by month and by CDP District, allowing the Division to identify and focus on particular areas of improvement.
Progress and Tasks That Remain

As the Monitoring Team previously observed in prior reports, for as much progress as CDP has made in its ability to collect and analyze data in some areas, there are a number of critical tasks that remain.
The first is establishing and implementing mechanisms to collect data on stops, searches, and arrests; crisis intervention; and community policing. The collection of this data is essential—and overdue—for gauging the success of new policies and programs and evaluating ultimate compliance with the Consent Decree.
In the current reporting period, the Division has continued to work with the City’s IT personnel to finalize the use of an appropriate data system, including creating initial data entry forms and scheduling system testing and end user training. Still, it will take some time before all CDP members are trained on using the selected electronic platform, information can be collected in real-time, and aggregate data analyzed. Until such data can be evaluated for a sufficiently material period of time, the Division will not be able to demonstrate that its performance complies with its various policies, plans, and initiatives.
The second major task with respect to data is for CDP to regularly incorporate analysis provided by the new Coordinator into its day-to-day management decisions. The Team remains unclear on how CDP uses and acts on data beyond crime and offense statistics. To meet the terms of the Decree, and to match the efforts of leading law enforcement agencies across the country, the Division will need to commit to a culture of data-informed decisionmaking to guide how it polices and organizes its activities and to gauge precisely how well it is doing to meet its strategic goals.
C. Public Availability of CDP-Related Information

Paragraph

Status of

Compliance

267. “[A]ll CDP audits, reports, and outcome analyses related to the implementation” NON-

of the Consent Decree will be public.

COMPLIANCE

268. “CDP will post its policies and procedures, training plans, community policing PARTIAL

initiatives, community meeting schedules, budgets, and internal audit reports on its COMPLIANCE

website.”

59

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 63 of 104. PageID #: 6196
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019
Background The Consent Decree requires that CDP’s “policies and procedures, training plans, community policing initiatives, community meeting schedules, budgets, and internal audit reports” be posted on CDP’s website.95 Likewise, “[t]o ensure transparency in the implementation of” the Decree, “all CDP audits, reports, and outcome analyses related to the implementation of this [the Consent Decree] will be made publicly available, including at the City and CDP websites.”96 Where the Division Stands In the current reporting period, the City has made modest changes to its website, including reorganizing available content by their relevant Consent Decree section to be more user-friendly for interested members of the public. Progress and Tasks That Remain As indicated above, the City must make all CDP audits, reports, and outcome analyses related to the implementation of the Consent Decree public. Separately, while not expressly required by the terms of the Consent Decree, the Division should establish a general policy for the discretionary release or provision of non-sensitive records, data, or information to the public. Notwithstanding specific state and local provisions on the release of information, it is increasingly becoming the norm for police departments to open themselves up to the public, setting clear expectations, in advance of an incident occurring or an information request arising, about what it can or will release and what it cannot or will not make available. Knowing what to expect and how to proceed in advance leads to better outcomes for community members and the Division. Having information about how the police do their work also helps the community better understand the unique challenges of law enforcement professionals.
95 Dkt. 7-1 at 1; id. ¶ 268. 96 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 267.
60

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 64 of 104. PageID #: 6197
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019

XI. OFFICER ASSISTANCE & SUPPORT

A. Training

Paragraph

Status of

Compliance

269. “CDP will ensure that officers receive adequate training to understand: (a) how PARTIAL

to police effectively and safely in accordance with CDP policy; [and] (b) the COMPLIANCE

requirements of this Agreement, Ohio law, and the Constitution and laws of the United

States,” including in the areas of “procedural justice, bias-free policing, and community

policing.”

270. “CDP will expand the scope and membership of the Training Review PARTIAL

Committee.”

COMPLIANCE

271–72. “[T]he Training Review Committee will develop a written training plan for NON-

CDP’s recruit academy, probationary field training, and in-service training” that COMPLIANCE

addresses a host of specific, expressly-identified issues.

273. “The Training Plan and schedule will be implemented once any objections have PARTIAL

been resolved” on a yearly basis.

COMPLIANCE

274. “The Training Review Committee will annually review and updated CDP’s NON-

training plan” by “conduct[ing] a needs assessment” that addresses a number of COMPLIANCE

specific, expressly-identified data and information on real-world trends, needs, policy,

and law.

275. “CDP’s Commander responsible for training” will be in charge of “all CDP PARTIAL

training.

COMPLIANCE

276. “CDP will designate a single training coordinator in each District. The PARTIAL

Commander responsible for training will establish and maintain communications with COMPLIANCE

each District training coordinator to ensure that all officers complete training as

required and that documentation of training is provided to the” training Commander.

277. “CDP will develop recruit academy and in-service curricula that comport with” PARTIAL

the Training Plan and Consent Decree requirements.

COMPLIANCE

278. “[T]he training required under this Agreement . . . will be delivered within two EVALUATION

years of the Effective Date.”

DEFERRED

279. “For all other substantive updates or revisions to policy or procedure, CDP will PARTIAL

ensure and document that all relevant CDP personnel have received and read the COMPLIANCE

policy or procedure. Notification of each revision or update will include the rationale

for policy changes and the difference between the old and updated policy.”

280. Training Commander reviews all training materials; ensures that they use “a PARTIAL

variety of adult learning techniques, scenario-based training, and problem-solving COMPLIANCE

61

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 65 of 104. PageID #: 6198
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019

practices”; and “ensure that all curricula, lesson plans, instructor’s qualifications, and

testing materials are reviewed by the Training Review Committee.”

281. “CDP will ensure that instructors are qualified and use only curricula and lesson PARTIAL

plans that have been approved by the” Training Commander.

COMPLIANCE

282. “CDP will revise, as necessary, its field training program for graduates of the police EVALUATION

academy to comport with” the Training Plan and Consent Decree.

DEFERRED

283. “The field training program will incorporate community and problem-oriented EVALUATION

policing principles, and problem-based learning methods.”

DEFERRED

284. Review and revision of Field Training Officer (“FTO”) “participation policy to EVALUATION

establish and implement a program that effectively attracts the best FTO candidates” DEFERRED

and “revise eligibility criteria” for FTOs.

285. New FTOs and Field Training Sergeants must “receive initial and in-service EVALUATION

training that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type, and that addresses” a DEFERRED

number of specific, expressly-listed topics and conforms to a number of additional

features or requirements.

286. “CDP will create a mechanism for recruits to provide confidential feedback EVALUATION

regarding the quality of their field training,” and the Division “will document its DEFERRED

response, including the rationale behind any responsive action taken or decision to

take no action.”

287. “Training Review Committee will, on an annual basis, analyze all aspects of CDP’s EVALUATION

FTO program,” “consider emerging national policing practices in this area,” and DEFERRED

“recommend, and CDP will institute, appropriate changes to policies, procedures, and

training related to its FTO program.”

288. “CDP will document all training provided to or received by CDP officers,” with EVALUATION

officers “sign[ing] an acknowledgement of attendance or digitally acknowledge[ing] DEFERRED

completion of each training course,” which “will be maintained in a format that allows

for analysis by training type, training date, training source, and by individual officer

name.”

289. “CDP will develop and implement a system that will allow the Training Section OPERATIONAL

to electronically track, maintain, and produce complete and accurate records of COMPLIANCE

current curricula, lesson plans, training delivered, and other training materials in a

centralized electronic file system.”

290. “CDP will develop and implement accountability measures . . . to ensure that all PARTIAL

officers successfully complete all required training programs in a timely manner.”

COMPLIANCE

Background

The Consent Decree mandates comprehensive officer training that instructs CDP personnel on the many new requirements and expectations of Decree-required policies or initiatives.

62

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 66 of 104. PageID #: 6199
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019
To facilitate this substantial training, the Decree requires significant changes to CDP’s structural capacity to train and educate its officers. It is not simply that the Division must deliver high-quality training on new policies. The Division must build the internal capacity and leadership such that training can be developed, delivered, audited, and iteratively improved, in close consultation with a Training Review Committee (“TRC”) that increases the set of eyes assessing CDP training. This adjustment is still very much a work-in-progress.
Where the Division Stands
During the current reporting period, and as detailed elsewhere in this report, the Division’s Training Section launched a number of important training initiatives in its 2019 in-service training: Use of Force, Community Engagement and Problem-Solving (“CEPS”), Bias-Free Policing, Crisis Intervention, and Search and Seizure. Creation of these training curriculum required high levels of technical assistance from the Monitoring Team, DOJ, and for search and seizure, independent consultants. As set forth below, enhancing the capacity of the training unit is paramount to continued success.
Nevertheless, the Decree envisions more than a Training Section within CDP that can capably develop and deliver officer training. It mandates the use of a Training Review Committee in the development and ongoing assessment of CDP training. The TRC is designed to be the functional center for the Division’s training activities and planning. Under the Decree, the TRC is to include, alongside the Division’s Training Section, District training coordinators, union representatives, and members of the Community Police Commission.97 The TRC “will annually review and update CDP’s training plan” by “conduct[ing] a needs assessment” that considers “trends in misconduct complaints; problematic uses of force; analysis of officer safety issues; input from members at all levels of CDP; input from members of the community, including community concerns; court decisions’ research reflecting the latest in law enforcement trends; individual District needs; and any changes to Ohio or federal law, and to CDP policy.”98 The active and ongoing engagement of the TRC helps to ensure that in-service training for current officers is responsive to the emerging needs of CDP personnel and Cleveland residents. In short, the TRC was imagined to strategically quarterback and manage the Division’s training efforts.
Although the CDP’s Training Review Committee was formally created early in the Decree’s implementation and officially put into place with a Court-approved policy in April 2016, the TRC’s actual operations have, until recently, remained mostly dormant.
In the current reporting period, the Division has made some efforts to reengage the TRC. On May 22, 2019, the TRC convened to review drafts of training plans, discuss feedback for then-ongoing training initiatives, and propose topics for CDP’s 2020 in-service training. While one meeting does not begin to meet the terms of the Consent Decree, it is the Monitoring Team’s expectation that the TRC will be increasingly involved and reenergized as the focus of the Decree’s implementation shifts from creating policies to delivering high-quality officer training.
97 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 270. 98 Id. at ¶ 271.
63

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 67 of 104. PageID #: 6200
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019
Progress and Tasks that Remain
Substantial and Effective Compliance with Training Review Committee Requirements
While the Division has taken initial steps to reengage the Training Review Committee, the Division must ensure that the committee is actively involved in the creation of training plans, audits of training initiatives, and assessments of gaps for future areas of training instruction. The TRC must be an active player, working affirmatively with the Division’s Training Section, to drive forward new training initiatives and iteratively improve on lessons learned.
Training Staffing & Resources
Notwithstanding the need to reengage the TRC, CDP’s Training Section must be properly staffed in order to meet the substantial scope of training mandated by the Consent Decree. The Monitoring Team has previously urged CDP to devote additional resources to the Training Section to ensure that it can balance both the critical and extraordinary demands of training five recruit classes—not a requirement of the Consent Decree but a practical reality in light of officer attrition rates and the City’s public commitments—while making sufficient progress on the Consent Decree. This may also include securing the full-time expertise of non-sworn personnel to serve as curriculum development professionals within the Training Section. Developing the capacity of the Training Section will require the support of the City, both in concept and with budget. The training levels established during the Consent Decree process are not anomalies—they are the new normal and the City and CDP need to ensure that the Training Section is equipped to develop and deliver high-quality trainings into the future.
Academy Training and Field Training Program
Along with requirements for annual in-service training for existing CDP officers, the “Consent Decree . . . contains certain obligations relating to the training of new officers at the Academy.”99 Likewise, it addresses the Division’s field training program, in which recent Academy graduates participate during their early days on the force.100
As the Monitoring Team has previously summarized, the City and Division have to date focused on developing and implementing core training for current CDP officers. Nevertheless, CDP will need to “review and revise” its academy and field training programs such that they are meeting the requirements of the Decree.101 This necessarily entails a comprehensive, top-to-bottom review of all training curricula and programs. Subsequently, the Monitoring Team must ensure that instruction, as delivered, conforms to the curricula, and that the field training program is proceeding according to Decree-required expectations.
99 Dkt. 97 at 55; Dkt. 7-1 ¶¶ 271, 275, 277. 100 Dkt. 7-1 ¶¶ 282–87. 101 Id.
64

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 68 of 104. PageID #: 6201
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019

B. Equipment & Resources

Paragraph

Status of

Compliance

291. “The City will implement” paragraphs regarding equipment and resources in order PARTIAL

to allow implementation of the Consent Decree “and to allow officers to perform their COMPLIANCE

jobs safely, effectively, and efficiently.”

292. “CDP will complete a comprehensive equipment and resource study to assess its OPERATIONAL

current needs and priorities,” and it “will develop an effective, comprehensive COMPLIANCE

Equipment and Resource Plan that is consistent with its mission and that will allow it

to satisfy the requirements of this Agreement.”

293. “CDP’s Equipment and Resource Plan will provide for necessary equipment OPERATIONAL

including, at least” “an adequate number of computers”; “an adequate number of COMPLIANCE

operable and safe zone cars”; “zone cards with reliable, functioning computers that

provide officers with up-to-date technology” including computer-aided dispatch, the

records management system, and various core law enforcement systems; and “zone

cards equipped with first-aid kits.” “This plan also will ensure that CDP properly

maintains and seeks to continuously improve upon existing equipment and technology;

and is appropriately identifying equipment needs and seeking to utilize, as appropriate,

emerging technologies.”

294. “CDP will actively seek input and feedback from the Commission, patrol officers, OPERATIONAL

and supervisors regarding resource allocation, equipment needs, and technological COMPLIANCE

improvements.”

295. “City and CDP” must “us[e] best efforts to implement the Equipment and OPERATIONAL

Resource Plan as required.”

COMPLIANCE

296. “CDP will . . . implement an effective, centralized records management system.” OPERATIONAL

COMPLIANCE

297. “CDP will utilize a department-wide e-mail system to improve communication OPERATIONAL

and information sharing.”

COMPLIANCE

298. “CDP will employ information technology professionals who are trained to OPERATIONAL

conduct crime and intelligence analysis, who are capable of troubleshooting and COMPLIANCE

maintaining information technology systems and who can identify and suggest

appropriate technological advancements.”

299. “CDP will implement an effective employee assistance program that provides PARTIAL

officers ready access to the mental health and support resources necessary to facilitate COMPLIANCE

effective and constitutional policing.”

65

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 69 of 104. PageID #: 6202
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019
Background
The Consent Decree requires the City of Cleveland to “develop an effective, comprehensive Equipment and Resource Plan that is consistent with its mission and that will allow it to satisfy the requirements of this Agreement.”102 The Plan must “provide for necessary equipment including, at least . . . an adequate number of computers; an adequate number of operable and safe zone cars; zone cars with reliable, functioning computers that provide officers with up-to-date technology, including” mobile computer-aided dispatch (“CAD”), access to the Division’s records management system (“RMS”), and access to law enforcement databases; and “zone cars equipped with first-aid kits . . . . ”103 It must address how the Division will satisfy the other substantive requirements of the Decree.104 It likewise must “ensure that CDP” both “properly maintains and seeks to continuously improve upon existing equipment and technology” and “is appropriately identifying equipment needs and seeking to utilize, as appropriate, emerging technologies.”105
Where the Division Stands
In the prior reporting period, the City completed its Equipment and Resource Plan, which outlines various upgrades to ensure that the Division of Police has the tools necessary to provide high-quality public safety services, engage meaningfully with the community, and implement the requirements of the Consent Decree.
In the current reporting period, the City’s Information Technology (“IT”) team has stated that it has been working to refresh the Division’s PC inventory, ordering and deploying 120 new PCs to be deployed through the Division. It also states that it is working to order additional modems and mobile data computers. In the near future, CDP’s Law Enforcement Records Management System (“LERMS”) will be upgraded to a more up-to-date version.
Progress and Tasks that Remain
Given the relatively recent completion of the Equipment and Resource Plan and the scope of changes contemplated in the Plan, the Division and the City’s IT staff will need additional time for the changes to manifest in ways that tangibly improve officer productivity and safety.
Since the Court’s approval of the Equipment and Resource Plan, the Monitoring Team has taken occasional visits to CDP District stations to observe and assess how stations are equipped with, among other things, computers, IT networking, zone cars, and mobile technology. Yet the Team must conduct assessments—in a systemic manner, assessing the entirety of all CDP’s equipment across time and different locations—to be able to evaluate whether the City’s reported upgrades to equipment and technology, as well as the specific steps outlined in the Equipment and Resource Plan, are occurring as contemplated and whether the changes are, in fact, improving the day-to-day operations of CDP staff.
102 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 292. 103 Id. ¶ 293. 104 Id. ¶ 292. 105 Id. ¶ 293.
66

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 70 of 104. PageID #: 6203
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019

The Monitoring Team will systematically audit the Division’s progress in enhancing its equipment, IT infrastructure, and resources in the coming months.
C. Recruitment & Hiring

Paragraph

Status of

Compliance

300. “CDP will review and revise . . . its recruitment and hiring program to ensure that PARTIAL

CDP successfully attracts and hires a diverse group of qualified individuals.”

COMPLIANCE

301. “The Mayor will work with the City Council to develop an ordinance to place a GENERAL

Charter Amendment on the ballot that would give the appointing authority greater COMPLIANCE

flexibility in the selection of candidates from the certified eligibility list for the CDP.”

302. “CDP will develop a recruitment policy and a strategic recruitment plan that OPERATIONAL

includes clear goals, objectives, and action steps for attracting qualified applicants from COMPLIANCE

a broad cross-section of the community” and meets certain specific, expressly-listed

requirements.

303. “The City will implement the recruitment plan within 60 days of it being approved EVALUATION

by the Monitor.”

DEFERRED

304. “CDP’s recruitment plan will include specific strategies for attracting a diverse PARTIAL

group of applicants,” including officers with various, specific, expressly-listed skills and COMPLIANCE

backgrounds.

305. “In developing and implementing its recruitment plan, CDP will consult with the PARTIAL

[Community Police] Commission and other community stakeholders on strategies to COMPLIANCE

attract a diverse pool of applicants.”

306. “[O]bjective system for hiring and selecting recruits” that “employs reliable and PARTIAL

valid selection criteria.”

COMPLIANCE

307. “CDP will report annually to the public its recruiting activities and outcomes,” EVALUATION

which will include information on various, expressly-listed areas.

DEFERRED

308. “[A]ll candidates for sworn personnel positions” will have “psychological and GENERAL

medical examination” and be subject to “drug testing.” Existing officers receive COMPLIANCE

“random drug testing.”

309. “CDP will conduct thorough, objective, and timely background investigations of PARTIAL

candidates for sworn positions” that cover various, expressly-listed topics.

COMPLIANCE

310. “CDP will request to review personnel files from candidates’ previous OPERATIONAL

employment and, where possible, will speak with the candidate’s supervisor(s)” and COMPLIANCE

maintain any “salient information . . . in candidate’s file.”

311. “If a candidate has previous law enforcement experience, CDP will complete a EVALUATION

thorough, objective, and timely pre-employment investigation” addressing various DEFFERED

expressly-identified things.

67

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 71 of 104. PageID #: 6204
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019

Background

The Consent Decree requires the City to “integrate community and problem-oriented policing principles” into its recruitment practices, and to “develop a recruitment policy and a strategic recruitment plan that includes clear goals, objectives, and action steps for attracting qualified applicants from a broad cross-section of the community . . . [and] establish[es] and clearly identif[ies] the goals of CDP’s recruitment efforts.”106
Where the Division Stands Now

In the prior reporting period, the Division completed its Recruitment and Hiring Plan, which incorporates feedback from the Department of Justice, Monitoring Team, and the expressed concerns of the Cleveland public. The Plan was approved by the Court on February 20, 2019.107
Since then, the Monitoring Team has not actively assessed CDP’s progress on implementing the Recruitment and Hiring Plan. Indeed, CDP will need more time before it can meaningfully report on how it is accomplishing the stated goals of the Court-approved Plan. As described below, as the CDP reports on its recruiting activities and outcomes, the Team will be positioned to say how far the CDP has come—or still needs to go—to meeting the terms of the Decree.
Progress and Tasks that Remain

Following the Court’s approval of the Recruitment and Hiring Plan, CDP must “report annually to the public its recruiting activities and outcomes,” including disaggregated data on applicants, interviewees, and selectees, as well as the successes and challenges to recruiting qualified and high-quality applicants.108 The Monitoring Team will continue to gauge progress by analyzing the numbers and trends with respect to applicants and hired recruits, as well as by working with the City to provide ongoing technical assistance on the Plan’s implementation.
D. Performance Evaluations and Promotions

Paragraph
312. “CDP will ensure that officers who police professionally and effectively are recognized through the performance evaluation process” and “are identified and receive appropriate consideration for performance.” Likewise, “poor performance” must be “reflected in officer evaluations.” 313. “CDP will develop and implement fair and consistent practices to accurately evaluate officer performance in areas related to integrity, community policing, and critical police functions, on both an ongoing and annual basis.”

Statusof Compliance EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED

106 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 302. 107 Dkt. 239. 108 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 307.

68

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 72 of 104. PageID #: 6205
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019

314–15. CDP will use “a formalized system documenting the annual performance EVALUATION

evaluations of each officer by the officer’s direct supervisor,” including an assessment DEFERRED

of several expressly-listed areas. “Supervisors will meet with the employee whose

performance is being evaluated to discuss the evaluation.”

316. “CDP will hold supervisors of all ranks accountable for conducting timely, EVALUATION

accurate, and complete performance evaluations of their subordinates.”

DEFERRED

317. “CDP will develop and implement fair and consistent promotion practices that EVALUATION

comport with the requirements of this Agreement and result in the promotion of DEFERRED

officers who are effective and professional.”

318. In considering promotion, “appointing authority will consider” specific, expressly- EVALUATION

listed “factors.”

DEFERRED

Background

CDP must address how it evaluates officer performance and must ensure that high-performing officers have access to promotional opportunities. Under the Consent Decree, CDP must “develop and implement fair and consistent practices to accurately evaluate officers” across a number of dimensions, including ‘integrity, community policing, and critical police functions.’”109
Where the Division Stands

In the current reporting period, CDP began early work to create a policy on performance evaluations. This policy will be critical in the Division’s ability to implement major policies and plans such as use of force, community and problem-oriented policing, crisis intervention, and bias-free policing. The Monitoring Team and Department of Justice will work with CDP in the coming reporting period to finalize a policy that satisfies the requirements of the Consent Decree.

Progress and Tasks that Remain

Under the Fourth Year Monitoring Plan, CDP will incorporate community and problem-oriented policing principles into its promotions and evaluations by the end of 2019. This work, which must align with the new expectations that have been set by Court-approved policies and plans, will greatly enhance professional development opportunities within the Division and provide an important, non-punitive mechanism for employee management. As described above, early work on this initiative, through a Division policy on performance evaluations, has begun.

109 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 313. 69

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 73 of 104. PageID #: 6206
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019

E. Staffing

Paragraph

Status of

Compliance

319. “CDP will complete a comprehensive staffing study to assess the appropriate OPERATIONAL

number of sworn and civilian personnel to perform the functions necessary for CDP to COMPLIANCE

fulfill its mission, and satisfy the requirements of the” Consent Decree. / “CDP will

develop an effective, comprehensive Staffing Plan that is consistent with its mission,

including community and problem-oriented policing, and that will allow CDP to meet

the requirements of” the Consent Decree.

320. Requirements of CDP Staffing Plan.

EVALUATION

DEFERRED

321. “The City and CDP will employ best efforts to implement the Staffing Plan over EVALUATION

the period of time set forth in the approved plan.”

DEFERRED

Background

The Consent Decree contemplates changes to CDP’s approach to staffing, assigning, and deploying its personnel within the city of Cleveland. Under the requirements of the Decree, for example, CDP must:
• Implement a “comprehensive and integrated policing model”110; • Ensure rigorous investigations and reviews of force incidents111; • Ensure that specialized crisis intervention officers “are dispatched to an incident involving
an individual in crisis” and are able to “have primary responsibility for the scene”112; • Provide supervisors with the ability to “review all documentation of investigatory stops,
searches, and arrests”113; • Ensure that officers can receive the training required by the Decree114; • Provide necessary opportunity for “first line supervisors [to] provide close and effective
supervision of officers”115; • Implement the Early Intervention System116; and • Provide supervisors with the ability to “conduct adequate random and directed audits of
body worn camera recordings.”117

110 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 27. 111 Id. at ¶¶ 93-130. 112 Id. at ¶ 151. 113 Id. at ¶ 168. 114 Id. at ¶ 271. 115 Id. at ¶ 322. 116 Id. at ¶ 326-36. 117 Id. at ¶ 339.
70

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 74 of 104. PageID #: 6207
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019
These provisions require changes in the way that CDP will deploy its existing personnel and in the overall number of sworn and civilian personnel. To that end, the Consent Decree specifically envisions a Staffing Plan by which the CDP must “address and provide for each of the following”:
• “[P]ersonnel deployment to ensure effective community and problem-oriented policing; • “[A] sufficient number of well-trained staff and resources to conduct timely misconduct
investigations; • “[T]o the extent feasible, Unity of Command; and • “[A] sufficient number of supervisors.”118 Where the Division Stands Now In the prior reporting period, the Division completed the Decree-mandated Staffing Plan after working with the Department of Justice and Monitoring Team and considering public feedback solicited by the Community Police Commission. Since then, the Monitoring Team has not actively assessed CDP’s progress on implementing the Staffing Plan. CDP will need more time to internally assess, prepare, and execute before it can report on how it is accomplishing the stated goals of the Court-approved Plan. Progress and Tasks that Remain The Monitoring Team has previously observed that major requirements of the Decree, such as the implementation of CDP’s new community and problem-oriented policing paradigm, are directly linked to the Division’s ability to make the operational changes contemplated in the approved Staffing Plan. The Division’s efforts on this front will need to continue in order for Decree-required policies, procedures, and plans to be fully and effectively implemented.
118 Id. at ¶ 320.
71

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 75 of 104. PageID #: 6208
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019

XII. SUPERVISION

A. First-Line Supervisors

Paragraph
322. “CDP will ensure that first line supervisors provide close and effective supervision of officers” in a number of express, specifically-identified ways. 323. “CDP will develop and implement supervisory training for all new and current supervisors” that is “adequate in quality, quantity, type, and scope, and will include” a number of specific, expressly-listed topics. 324. “Thereafter all sworn supervisors will receive adequate in-service management training.” 325. “CDP will hold supervisors directly accountable for the quality and effectiveness of their supervision, including whether supervisors identify and effectively respond to misconduct and ensure that officers effectively engage with the community.”

Status of Compliance PARTIAL COMPLIANCE EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED

Background

The Consent Decree requires CDP to ensure “close and effective supervision of officers.”119 Supervisors must be held “directly accountable for the quality and effectiveness of their supervision” of officers in their command.120

In addition to new policies more clearly and specifically defining the various roles and duties of supervisors, the Consent Decree requires supervisory training for “all new and current supervisors” covering an array of important topics, including:

• Techniques for effectively guiding and directing officers and promoting effective and constitutional police practices;
• De-escalating conflict; • Evaluating written reports, including identification of canned or conclusory language that is
not accompanied by specific facts; • Investigating officer uses of force; • Building community partnerships and guiding officers on this requirement; • Understanding supervisory tools such as the Officer Intervention Program and body worn
cameras; • Responding to and investigating allegations of officer misconduct; • Evaluating officer performance; • Consistent disciplinary sanction and non-punitive corrective action; • Monitoring use of force to ensure consistency with policies; and

119 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 322. 120 Id. ¶ 325.

72

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 76 of 104. PageID #: 6209
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019
• Legal updates.121
Where the Division Stands
Supervisor Training
In the current reporting period, the Court approved the Division’s basic Supervisor training curriculum on March 7, 2019.122 Scheduled to launch alongside other Decree-required supervisory training in the upcoming reporting period, the four-hour training includes both general leadership skills that would be valuable for any manager or supervisor, as well as CDP-specific subjects including how to promote community engagement, the CDP’s current Early Intervention System, body-worn cameras, and the Division’s progressive disciplinary matrix.
Critically, given the Division’s formal commitment to a philosophy of community and problem-oriented policing, the Supervisor Training encourages supervisors to ensure that officers understand their roles and responsibilities as part of the Division’s commitment to CPOP. Supervisors are expected to show their commitment to CPOP, model community engagement by personally engaging with community members, emphasize that frontline officers are the key component of CPOP, and publicly commend officers who have demonstrated exceptional ability to work collaboratively with members of the public.
The Curriculum also instructs supervisors on how to de-escalate situations before a use of force may be necessary, including by arriving on scene and acting as a mediator, demonstrating compassion to defuse a tense situation, and calling for specialized Crisis Intervention Team officers where the incident may involve a behavioral health crisis.
Progress and Tasks that Remain
Continuing Professional Development
In the upcoming reporting period, the Team anticipates that CDP will be positioned to launch a number of important supervisory training initiatives, including its general supervisory skills curriculum described above. Further, the Monitoring Team reiterates that CDP needs to develop a clear track for supervisors to develop as professionals. Supervisors must be able to think proactively and affirmatively about how to implement the Division’s mission, values, and strategic initiatives on a day-to-day basis—and how to ensure that their officers are performing at the level necessary to keep themselves and Cleveland safe.
The supervisor training on departmental policies and leadership skills that will begin in the upcoming reporting period represents only one preliminary training initiative. As the Monitoring Team has previously noted, the skills that make someone a good police officer—in terms of handling unfolding incidents or responding to rapidly evolving situations—is not always consistent with the skills necessary to be a good police manager—such as overseeing employees, implementing and executing on the organization’s strategic goals, and the like. As with other professions, law enforcement increasingly recognizes that good leaders are more often made rather than born, and that even individuals with strong leadership skills can benefit from developing them further. The
121 Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 323. 122 Dkt. 248.
73

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 77 of 104. PageID #: 6210
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019

Division has previously signaled an interest in developing a formal leadership development program, and the Monitoring Team looks forward to working with CDP to make this a reality.
Data and Compliance and Outcome Measures

As indicated above, the Consent Decree requires that CDP rigorously track instances in which supervisors identify problematic performance and log supervisors’ responses when such problems are identified. The Division needs to implement a process for systematically tracking this information so that it can evaluate, in aggregate, the performance of its supervisors. Separately, the Monitoring Team’s evaluations of use of force and Internal Affairs incidents will touch on supervisor performance in those areas.
B. Officer Intervention Program

Paragraph
326. CDP “will create a plan to modify its Officer Intervention Program (‘OIP’) to enhance its effectiveness as a management tool to promote supervisory awareness and proactive identification of potentially problematic behavior among officers. 327. “CDP supervisors will regularly use OIP data to evaluate the performance of CDP officers across all ranks, units, and shifts.” 328. “The OIP will include a computerized relational database that will be used to collect, maintain, integrate, and retrieve data department-wide” in a number of specific, expressly-identified areas. 329. “CDP will set threshold levels for each OIP indicator that will trigger a formal review, and the thresholds will allow for peer-group comparisons between officers with similar assignments and duties.” 330–36. Additional express requirements of OIP.

Status of Compliance EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED
EVALUATION DEFERRED

Background

The Consent Decree requires that CDP’s existing Officer Intervention Program be comprehensively transformed into an effective “early intervention system.” An early intervention system (“EIS”) is a proactive risk assessment tool that provides individualized supervision and support to officers in order to manage risk. An effective EIS relies on a database that logs information on officer activities—such as stops, arrests, uses of force, firearm discharges, and citizen complaints—and allows police departments to identify problematic patterns of behavior by individual officers or groups of officers who may need non-disciplinary intervention and support. It also may flag issues such as operating a vehicle under the influence.
The Consent Decree requires that the Division’s OIP become a broader management tool that will “proactive[ly] identif[y] . . . potentially problematic behavior among officers” and provide non-punitive supervisory intervention in order to “modify officers’ behavior and improve performance” before the performance gradually becomes deep-

74

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 78 of 104. PageID #: 6211
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019
seated and difficult to resolve.123 The Decree requires the implementation and use of “a computerized relational database that will be used to collect, maintain, integrate, and retrieve data department-wide” on officer performance.124 Where the Division Stands
The Fourth Year Monitoring Plan contemplates initial work on implementing the type of early intervention process and infrastructure—informed by the broader and more reliable data being logged in the Division’s IAPro and other data systems—occurring later in the monitoring year.
Progress and Tasks that Remain
Creation of EIS Plan
The City and Division plan to draft an EIS Plan in the upcoming reporting period. The Monitoring Team looks forward to working with the Division to develop a plan that satisfies the Decree’s requirements.
Training & Involvement of Supervisors
As the CDP formalizes its EIP plan, supervisors will be required to regularly review performance data generated by the EIP. When an officer reaches a defined threshold in a performance indicator, a supervisor will be required to assess an officer’s performance to determine whether it may appropriate to intervene and identify and treat any issue that may impacting the officer’s work.
Training & Communication with Officers
Officers will need to understand what the new EIS is, what it is not, and how it differs from the analogous system that the Division has had in place for a number of years. Consequently, CDP will need to develop a meaningful training initiative.
Compliance with EIS Plan & Policies
After relevant policies are written and approved, and training for supervisors and officers developed and completed, the EIS will need to be implemented for a material span of time. Thereafter, the Consent Decree requires that the Monitoring Team assess whether the system is proceeding according to the requirements of policy and the Consent Decree—and whether, ultimately, it appears to be assisting the Division in identifying instances where non-disciplinary action or intervention might enhance the quality of officer performance.
123 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶¶ 326-27. 124 Id. at ¶ 328.
75

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 79 of 104. PageID #: 6212
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019

C. Body-Worn Cameras

Paragraph
337. “If CDP chooses to use body worn cameras, CDP will provide clear guidance and training on their use, and will implement protocols for testing equipment and preservation of recordings to foster transparency, increase accountability, and build trust, while protecting the privacy rights of individuals.” 338. “Supervisors will review recordings related to any incident involving at least a Level 2 or 3 use of force; injuries to officers; and in conjunction with any other supervisory investigation.” 339. “Supervisors will conduct adequate random and directed audits of body worn camera recordings” and “incorporate the knowledge gained from this review into their ongoing evaluation and supervision of officers.” 340. “Officers will be subject to the disciplinary process for intentional or otherwise unjustified failure to activate body worn cameras in violation of CDP policy.”

Status of Compliance PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE

Background

Although the “use of body worn cameras is not required by” the Consent Decree, the Decree does contain requirements if CDP decides to institute body cameras. 125 In 2013, the Division began using body-worn cameras. Having elected to do so, CDP is required by the Decree to “provide clear guidance and training on their use, and . . . implement protocols for testing equipment and preservation of recording to foster transparency, increase accountability, and build trust, while protecting the privacy rights of individuals.”126 The Decree also outlines supervisor responsibilities for viewing recorded incidents and “conduct[ing] adequate random and directed audits of body worn camera recordings . . . to confirm compliance with CDP policy.”127 CDP must also ensure that officers are “subject to the disciplinary process for intentional or otherwise unjustified failure to activate” cameras in accordance with CDP policy.128
Currently, all CDP patrol officers are equipped with and trained on Axon’s Body 2 camera system and are expected, under policy, to use them when working a City shift.
Where the Division Stands

In the current reporting period, the Parties and Monitoring Team have not actively worked on issues relating to body-worn cameras. The Division and its officers continue to use them to capture incidents and interactions.

125 Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 337. 126 Id. at ¶ 337. 127 Id. at ¶¶ 338-39. 128 Id. at ¶ 340.
76

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 80 of 104. PageID #: 6213
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019 Progress and Tasks that Remain Compliance with Policy Going forward, the Monitoring Team will still need to ensure that the Division is meaningfully holding officers accountable for complying with the various provisions of the body-worn camera policy—not just in isolated incidents, or when other problematic performance brings a certain incident to the Division’s attention, but across time and officers. General Policy for the Release of CDP Information The Monitoring Team has previously predicated approval of the Body-Worn Camera policies on the understanding that the City and CDP will establish a general policy for the release of records, data, and information—including but not limited to body-worn camera footage—to the public. The Monitoring Team looks forward to working with the Division on establishing these protocols to enhance transparency and accountability.
77

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 81 of 104. PageID #: 6214
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team | Seventh Semiannual Report | September 2019 XIII. COMPLIANCE & OUTCOME ASSESSMENTS A full accounting of 2018 outcome measures is attached to this Report as Exhibit A.
78

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 82 of 104. PageID #: 6215
Cleveland Police Monitoring Team
Hassan Aden Monitor
Brian Maxey Deputy Monitor Ayesha Hardaway Deputy Monitor Charles R. See Director of Community Engagement Christine Cole Director of Outcome Measures Dr. Modupe Akinola Matthew Barge Chief Joseph Brann (ret.)
Brian Center Dr. Randolph Dupont
Maggie Goodrich Chief Timothy Longo (ret.) Commissioner Chuck Ramsey (ret.)
Richard Rosenthal Victor Ruiz
Captain Scott Sargent (ret.) Dr. Ellen Scrivner Sean Smoot Timothy Tramble Monitoring Team
Brian Chen Barry Friedman NYU School of Law Policing Project
Consultants

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 83 of 104. PageID #: 6216
EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT A: 2018 Outcome Measures

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 84 of 104. PageID #: 6217 2018 Measures as of Sept 2019

Baseline Appendix
Line #
1 2

Consent Decree Paragraph

Consent Decree Section

367 a

367 a. 1

Topic

Name of Measure

Use of Force (UOF)

UOF

UoF Charges

Included in Baseline? (yes/no)

Source of Data

2015 Data Collected

2016 Data Collected

2017 Data Collected

2018 Data Collected

% increase % increase % increase

or

or

or

Compound

decrease decrease decrease annual growth

from 2015 from 2016 from 2017 rate (CAGR)

through through through from 2015

2016

2017

2018 through 2018

Validated by Source (yes/no)

yes IAPro

see below see below see below see below

Comments

3

4

5

367 a. 1

UOF

6

7

8

367 a. 1

UOF

9

10

11

12

13

367 a. 1

UOF

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

367 a. 1

UOF

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

# of UOF charges # of non-UoF charges UoF Charges ending in arrests
# UoF ending in arrests

yes IAPro

350

307

242

380

38,920

31,968

33,085

26,707

see below see below see below see below

285

243

191

296

-12% -18%
-15%

-21% 3%
-21%

57% -19%
55%

Total # of non-UoF ending in arrests

UoF rates

yes IAPro

UoF as % of all charges

UoF arrests as % of all arrests

% of UoFs ending in arrest

% of non-UoFs ending in arrest

District

yes IAPro

District 1

District 2

District 3

District 4

District 5

outside city

Unknown/NULL

24,086

19,425

18,785

15,319

see below see below see below see below

0.9%

1.0%

0.7%

1.4%

1.2%

1.2%

1.0%

1.9%

81%

79%

79%

78%

62%

61%

57%

57%

see below see below see below see below

36

29

25

34

64

57

54

82

100

114

68

69

85

64

52

87

61

39

37

103

4

1

1

5

.

3

5

0

-19%
7% 6% -3% -2%
-19% -11% 14% -25% -36% -75%
.

-3%
-24% -19%
0% -7%
-14% -5%
-40% -19%
-5% 0% 67%

-18%
93% 88% -1%
1%
36% 52%
1% 67% 178% 400% -100%

Force type Balance Displacement Body Force/Body Weight Control Hold-Restraint Control Hold-Takedown De-Escalation Firearm Point Joint Manipulation Tackling/Takedown

yes IAPro

see below see below see below see below

76

1

0

0

477

176

191

64

217

323

225

66

65

124

68

39

.

.

.

104 .

.

.

.

191 .

137

159

93

36

142

63

46

43

-99% -63% 49% 91%
. . 16% -56%

-100% 9%
-30% -45%
-42% -27%

0% -66% -71% -43%
. . -61% -7%

2015/Baseline: Validational data from CPD captured 349 use of force cases (based on timing of data request); 2016: Validational data from CPD captured 318 use of force cases (based on timing of data request). 2017: 237 use of force cases identified by CPD, but 242 citizens involved in UoF incidents. 2018: 338 use of force cases identified by CPD, but 380 2% yes citizens involved in UoF incidents -9% yes 2015: 39,270 charges; 2016: 32275 charges
2015 Validational data from CPD captured 289 Arrests 1% yes with 609 different charge types
24,371 total arrests in 2015; 19,668 total arrests in 2016; 18,976 total arrests in 2017; 15,615 total -11% yes arrests in 2018
12% yes 13% yes -1% yes -2% yes
-1% yes 6% yes -9% yes 1% yes 14% yes 6% yes
. yes These data are for all officers that used force. Multiple force types used by officers per citizen. 2015 total =1311; 2016 total=1210; 2017 total=1018; 2018 total=645
-100% yes -39% yes Body force now includes body weight for 2015-2017 -26% yes -12% yes . yes This category was new in 2018 . yes This category was new in 2018 -28% yes -26% yes

Page 1 of 20

30 31 32 33
34 35

36

367 a. 1

UOF

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

367 a. 1

UOF

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

367 a. 1

UOF

55

56

57

58

367 a. 1

UOF

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

367 a. 1

UOF

67

68

69

70

367 a. 1

UOF

71

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 85 of 104. PageID #: 6218 2018 Measures as of Sept 2019

Taser
Verbal/Physical Gestures Pressure Point/Pressure Point Control
Push

44

36

47

31

0

0

40

151

180

4

90

83

27

-18%

0 -100%

68

278%

36 2150%

31% 0% 19% -8%

-43% 0%
-62% -57%

Other (1-25 instance each) Unknown/NULL/#N/A

48

77

78

41

60%

1%

-47%

30

10

7

0

-67%

-30% -100%

Arrest type Violence toward Police Officer Violence toward Others Damage to Property Obstructing Justice Crisis Intervention Drugs/Alcohol Cleveland Codified Ord. - Part 6 Miscellaneous offense NULL Other (1-25 instance each) Race Black White Hispanic Asian Other Unknown/NULL Ethnicity Hispanic/Latino Non-Hispanic/Latino Unknown/NULL
Age 17 and under (juveniles) 18-29 years 30-39 years 40-49 years 50-59 years 60+ years Unknown/NULL Gender Male Female Unknown/NULL Mental State Mental Crisis

yes IAPro yes IAPro yes IAPro

see below see below see below see below

7

105

66

34

158

156

73

107

57

76

33

83

207

370

224

220

40

69

55

29

47

31

30

39

84

150

73

64

18

39

33

45

84

23

0

0

72

63

34

43

see below see below see below see below

259

219

188

302

77

69

68

49

9

12

11

18

1

1

0

1

1

3

5

4

3

3

0

6

see below see below see below see below

9

12

11

18

338

292

261

362

3

3

0

0

1400% -1% 33% 79% 73%
-34% 79% 117% -73% -13%
-15% -10% 33%
0% 200%
0%
33% -14%
0%

-37% -53% -57% -39% -20%
-3% -51% -15% -100% -46%
-14% -1% 0%
-100% 67%
-100%
-8% -11% -100%

-48% 47% 152% -2% -47% 30% -12% 36%
0% 26%
61% -28% 64%
N/A -20%
N/A
64% 39%
0%

yes IAPro
yes IAPro yes IAPro

see below see below see below see below

31

36

16

28

166

148

117

167

68

59

86

96

39

26

27

42

18

16

11

27

11

10

6

2

17

13

9

6

see below see below see below see below

265

223

212

338

82

82

60

42

3

2

0

-12

see below see below see below see below

42

0

0

0

Page 2 of 20

16% -11% -13% -32% -11%
-9% -24%
-16% 0%
-33%
-100%

-56% -21% 46%
4% -31% -40% -31%
-5% -27% -100%
0%

75% 43% 12% 56% 145% -67% -33%
59% -30%
N/A
N/A

Note: Taser includes when the taser was displayed or used. From 2019 onwards, this number will only -11% yes include when the taser is used Might now be captured in de-escalation category -100% yes which is new in 2018 This category was in other in 2015 and 2016 and has 14% yes now been broken out for all 3 years This category was in other in 2015 and 2016 and has 73% yes now been broken out for all 3 years This is a designation created by the Monitoring Team and includes several categories with fewer than 25 instances. These are not classified as "Other" in IAPro -4% yes or by the CPD -100% yes
These data are for all UoF (2015 total UoF=774; 2016 total UoF=1110) not arrests (2015 total arrests=285; 2016 total arrests=244) and not charge types (2015 total charge types=350; 2016 total charge types=308) 48% yes -9% yes 10% yes 2% yes -8% yes -5% yes -7% yes This category was in other in 2015 26% yes This category was in other in 2015 -100% yes This category was in other in 2015 -12% yes
4% yes -11% yes 19% yes
0% yes 41% yes 19% yes
19% yes 2% yes
-100% yes For 2018, the categories have been changed to 17 and under (vs. under 21); then 18-29 (vs. 21-29); The data from 2015-2017 have been updated to reflect this change
-3% yes 0% yes 9% yes 2% yes 11% yes -35% yes -23% yes
6% yes -15% yes #NUM! yes
-100% yes more granular data collected in 2016 and 2017

72 73 74

75

76

77

78

79

80

367 a. 2

UOF

81

82

83

367 a. 2

UOF

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

367 a. 2

UOF

96

97

98

367 a. 2

UOF

99

100

101

102

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 86 of 104. PageID #: 6219 2018 Measures as of Sept 2019

Behavioral Crisis Event Medical Condition Drugs / ETOH

no IAPro yes IAPro

13

68

119

82

423%

75%

-31%

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

138

131

223

184

-5%

70%

-17%

Unimpaired/None Detected

yes (new)

67

102

150

309

52%

47%

106%

Unknown/NULL

yes (new)

90

3

23

24

-97%

667%

4%

Known Medical Condition Visible Physical Disability
Officer injuries

yes (new) yes (new)
yes IAPro

.

3

1

3

.

.

.

5

see below see below see below see below

.

-67%

200%

.

.

.

58% .
7%
47%
-28%
. .

yes more granular data collected in 2016 and 2017 .
yes Only drugs and alcohol as noted in IAPro
New item CPD collects that has been added to baseline yes and 2016 but not specified in Consent Decree
New item CPD collects that has been added to baseline yes and 2016 but not specified in Consent Decree
New item CPD collects that has been added to baseline yes and 2016 but not specified in Consent Decree yes New item CPD now collects

# officers injured

yes

rate of officer injuries change overall

no

Officer injuries severity

yes IAPro

No Injuries

Abrasion

Bodily Fluid/Exposure

Bruise

Hospital

Laceration

Refused Treatment

Soft Tissue Damage

Sprain/Strain/Twist

Treated & Released

Other/.

Public/subject injuries

yes IAPro

# public/subject injuries overall Public/Subject injuries severity No Injuries Abrasion Behavioral Crisis Complaint

yes no yes IAPro

134

192

212

58

43%

10%

-73%

see below

.

-30%

-9%

266%

.

.

.

640

.

.

.

532

.

.

.

18

.

.

.

9

.

.

.

7

.

.

.

22

.

.

.

6

.

.

.

6

.

.

.

9

.

.

.

7

.

.

.

13

.

.

.

11

see below see below see below

77

69

98

.

-10%

-76%

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Page 3 of 20

75 23% 663 242
36 28 21

. . . . . . . . . . . . .
-10% . . . . . .

-76% . . . . . . . . . . . .
42% N/A
. . . . .

N/A . . . . . . . . . . . .
-23% N/A . . . . .

-19%
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
-1% . . . . . .

2018: Officers are advised to select “yes” to injury and/or hospitalization if at least 1 involved officer was injured and/or hospitalized. Therefore, 2018 data represent the number incidents in which at least 1 officer was injured and/or hospitalized. Officer injury is defined as the number of officers who were injured AND filled out an injury packet (31 officers) as well as those who did not fill out an injury packet but selected an injury type (12 officers) under the officer condition variable. CPD is moving away from capturing officer injury at the incident level and have advised officers to select “yes” to injury and/or hospitalization only in regards themselves. This means 2018 is not apples to apples with prior years and therefore % increases and yes CAGR in 2018 are not an accurate reflection of changes This represents the year over year rate of change. This number was incorrectly calculated for 2015-2018 and yes has now been updated . New category added in 2018 . New category added in 2018 . New category added in 2018 . New category added in 2018 . New category added in 2018 . New category added in 2018 . New category added in 2018 . New category added in 2018 . New category added in 2018 . New category added in 2018 . New category added in 2018 . New category added in 2018
Public injuries is citizen injuries. This was yes misreported as 112 in baseline, but corrected here. yes
. New category added in 2018 . New category added in 2018 . New category added in 2018 . New category added in 2018 . New category added in 2018

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

367 a. 2

UOF

114

115

116

367 a. 2

UOF

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

367 a. 2

UOF

124

125

126

367 a. 2

UOF

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

367 a. 2

UOF

143

144

145

146

147

148

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 87 of 104. PageID #: 6220 2018 Measures as of Sept 2019

EMS

.

.

.

77

.

.

.

Hospital

.

.

.

95

.

.

.

Laceration

.

.

.

14

.

.

.

Pre-Existing Medical Condition

.

.

.

11

.

.

.

Puncture

.

.

.

13

.

.

.

Refused Medical Treatment

.

.

.

12

.

.

.

Self-Inflicted/Self-Induced

.

.

.

15

.

.

.

Treated & Released

.

.

.

44

.

.

.

None Identified

.

.

.

34

.

.

.

Other/.

.

.

.

21

.

.

.

Force complaints

yes IA

see below see below see below see below

# of force complaints

43

17

33

33

-60%

94%

0%

# of non-force complaints disposition of force complaints Substantiated/Sustained Not Sustained Administrative Closure Exonerated/Within Policy Unfounded Open source (in/ext.) force complaints

yes IA no IA

73 see below see below
7 0 2 . 0 34 see below see below

93 see below
8 0 0 1 0 8
see below

96

119

see below

0

3

0

3

2

1

0

3

0

1

31

22

see below

27%
14% 0%
-100% .
0% -76%

3%
-100% 0% N/A
-100% 0%
288%

24%
N/A N/A -50% 0% N/A -29%

Internal (CPD)

no

.

.

.

33

.

.

External (non-CPD/Civilian)
force type Balance Displacement Body Force Control Hold-Restraint Control Hold-Takedown De-Escalation Firearm Point Firearm Joint Manipulation Tackling/Takedown Taser Verbal/Physical Gestures Pressure Point/Pressure Point Control
Push Other (1-25 instance each) Unknown/NULL geographic area District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 outside city

no

.

.

.

0

.

yes IA, IAPro see below see below see below see below

0

0

0

0

0%

8

0

15

4 -100%

2

8

11

6

300%

0

3

5

3

N/A

.

.

.

8

.

.

.

.

2

.

.

.

.

1

.

1

2

13

2

100%

0

0

5

4

0%

1

0

6

4 -100%

0

0

0

0

0%

.

.

15

5

.

yes IA

.

.

5

7

10

13

27

5

4

2

0

4

0

4

3

4

4

5

4

3

1

3

0

4

0

0

0

5

.

7

43%

0

-81%

0 -100%

6

N/A

7

0%

2

-25%

1 -100%

0

0%

Page 4 of 20

.

0% N/A 38% 67%
. . . 550% N/A N/A 0%
.
. 30% -20%
N/A -25% 25% -67%
N/A 0%

0% -73% -45% -40%
. . . -85% -20% -33% 0%
-67%
0% -46% -100%
-100% 100%
40% 100% -75%
0%

. . . . . . . . . .
-6%
13%
-19% N/A
-16% .
N/A -10%
.
.
0% -16% 32%
N/A . .
19% N/A 41% N/A
.
. 0% -100%
-100% N/A 15%
-16% -24%
N/A

. New category added in 2018 . New category added in 2018 . New category added in 2018 . New category added in 2018 . New category added in 2018 . New category added in 2018 . New category added in 2018 . New category added in 2018 . New category added in 2018 . New category added in 2018
These data are by officer and not by case; These data are just from IA and does not include complaints yes through OPS These data are by officer and not by case; These data are just from IA and does not include complaints yes through OPS
yes Includes category "Sustained Other" from 2015 yes This category was not in the 2015-2017 data yes yes yes This category was not in the 2015-2017 data yes
New data captured in 2018; prior to 2018 Incomplete information; no systematic capturing of data through yes IA or OPS New data captured in 2018; prior to 2018 Incomplete information; no systematic capturing of data through yes IA or OPS lots of incomplete data (more than half data not present) from 2015-2017 yes yes yes yes yes This category was new in 2018 yes This category was new in 2018 yes This category was new in 2018 yes yes yes yes This category was in other in 2015 and 2016 and has yes now been broken out 2017 This category was in other in 2015 and 2016 and has yes now been broken out for 2017 yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes

149

150

367 a. 2

UOF

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

367 a.3

ECW usage

159 160

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 88 of 104. PageID #: 6221 2018 Measures as of Sept 2019

Unknown/NULL demographics of complainant Black White Hispanic Asian Other Unknown/NULL

yes IA, IAPro

10

6

4

0

-40%

-33% -100%

11

6

12

11

-45%

100%

-8%

2

2

5

3

0%

150%

-40%

0

3

0

1

N/A -100%

N/A

0

0

0

0

0%

0%

0%

0

0

0

0

0%

0%

0%

10

6

4

1

-40%

-33%

-75%

# ECW and changes over time

yes IAPro

# of ECW # of non-ECW UoF

yes IAPro yes IAPro

44

36

47

27

-18%

31%

-43%

1267

1174

971

688

-7%

-17%

-29%

-100% yes
0% yes 11% yes N/A yes N/A yes N/A yes -44% yes
Note: Taser includes when the taser was displayed or used. From 2019 onwards, this number will only -11% yes include when the taser is used -14% yes

In 2015 there were 1311 force types used. In 2016

there were 1210. This number therefore represents

the change in non-taser force types between 2015 and

2016 relative to the change in taser force type; same

161

changes compared to UOF

no

.

-11%

44%

-33%

.

N/A

-174%

. yes calculation used for 2016 to 2017

changes compared to weapon/force

162

instrument

no

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. N/A Data are not collected in detail to calculate this value

163

164

367 a.4

UOF violating policy # in violation

yes Case Office

9

16

6

6

78%

-63%

0%

-10% yes

Case Office,

165

367 a.4

UOF violating policy force type

yes IAPro

see below see below see below see below

166

Balance Displacement

2

0

0

0 -100%

0%

0%

-100% yes

167

Body Force

5

0

5

4 -100%

N/A

-20%

-5% yes

168

Control Hold-Restraint

0

7

6

2

N/A

-14%

-67%

N/A yes

169

Control Hold-Takedown

0

0

2

3

N/A

0%

50%

N/A yes

170

Joint Manipulation

2

0

3

4 -100%

N/A

33%

19% yes

171

Tackling/Takedown

0

3

0

0

N/A -100%

0%

0% yes

172

Taser

0

3

1

0

N/A

-67% -100%

0% yes

173

Verbal/Physical Gestures

1

0

0

0 -100%

0%

N/A

-100% yes

174

Control

.

.

5

1

.

.

-80%

. yes

175

Push

.

.

6

0

.

. -100%

. yes

176

Other (1-25 instance each)

2

13

5

4

550%

-62%

-20%

19% yes

177

Unknown/NULL

2

4

6

2

100%

50%

-67%

0% yes

Case Office,

178

367 a.4

UOF violating policy geography

yes IAPro

see below see below see below see below

denotes district where incident occurred

179

District 1

1

1

0

2

0% -100%

N/A

19% yes

180

District 2

3

4

0

2

33% -100%

N/A

-10% yes

181

District 3

3

6

2

1

100%

-67%

-50%

-24% yes

182

District 4

1

3

3

1

200%

0%

-67%

0% yes

183

District 5

1

2

1

0

100%

-50% -100%

-100% yes

184

outside city

0

0

0

0

0%

0%

0%

N/A yes

Case Office,

185

367 a.4

UOF violating policy arrest type

yes IAPro

see below see below see below see below

186

Violence toward Police Officer

0

2

2

0

N/A

0% -100%

N/A yes

187

Violence toward Others

3

2

0

0

-33% -100%

0%

-100% yes

188

Damage to Property

4

0

0

0 -100%

0%

0%

-100% yes

189

Obstructing Justice

3

5

11

7

67%

120%

-36%

24% yes

190

Crisis Intervention

1

1

0

0

0% -100%

0%

-100% yes

191

Drugs/Alcohol

0

2

2

1

N/A

0%

-50%

N/A yes

192

Other

4

12

5

9

200%

-58%

80%

22% yes

Page 5 of 20

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 89 of 104. PageID #: 6222 2018 Measures as of Sept 2019

2015 data mistakenly reported the race of the officer,

Case Office,

not of the subject. This has been corrected in this

193

367 a.4

UOF violating policy race of subject

yes IAPro

see below see below see below see below

appendix and in the 2016 report

194

Black

6

6

4

5

0%

-33%

25%

-4% yes

195

White

1

2

1

1

100%

-50%

0%

0% yes

196

Hispanic

1

1

0

0

0% -100%

N/A

-100% yes

197

Asian

0

0

0

0

0%

0%

N/A

N/A yes

198

Other

0

2

0

0

N/A -100%

0%

N/A yes

199

Unknown/NULL

0

0

1

6

0%

N/A

500%

N/A yes

2015 data mistakenly reported the ethnicity of the

Case Office,

officer, not of the subject. This has been corrected in

200

367 a.4

UOF violating policy ethnicity of subject

yes IAPro

see below see below see below see below

this appendix and in the 2016 report

201

Hispanic/Latino

1

1

0

0

0% -100%

0%

-100% yes

202

Non-Hispanic/Latino

7

10

5

6

43%

-50%

20%

-4% yes

203

Unknown/NULL

0

0

1

0

0%

N/A -100%

N/A

2015 data mistakenly reported the age of the officer,

Case Office,

not of the subject. This has been corrected in this

204

367 a.4

UOF violating policy age of subject

yes IAPro

see below see below see below see below

appendix and in the 2016 report

205

under 20 years

3

0

0

1 -100%

N/A

N/A

-24% yes

206

21-29 years

2

3

2

3

50%

-33%

50%

11% yes

207

30-39 years

0

4

2

2

N/A

-50%

0%

N/A yes

208

40-49 years

2

1

1

0

-50%

0% -100%

-100% yes

209

50-59 years

0

1

0

0

N/A -100%

N/A

N/A yes

210

60+ years

0

0

0

0

0%

0%

0%

N/A yes

211

Unknown/NULL

1

2

1

0

100%

-50% -100%

-100% yes

2015 data mistakenly reported the gender of the

Case Office,

officer, not of the subject. This has been corrected in

212

367 a.4

UOF violating policy gender of subject

yes IAPro

see below see below see below see below

this appendix and in the 2016 report

213

Male

8

11

3

5

38%

-73%

67%

-11% yes

214

Female

0

0

2

1

0%

N/A

-50%

N/A yes

215

Unknown/NULL

0

0

1

0

0%

N/A -100%

0% yes

Case Office,

216

367 a.4

UOF violating policy condition

no IAPro

No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in

217

mental condition

no

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. N/A the future

No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in

218

medical condition

no

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. N/A the future

Not collected in baseline, collected in 2016 based on

219

drugs/alcohol

no

.

6

4

3

.

-33%

-25%

. yes 11 citizens

Not collected in baseline, collected in 2016 based on

220

Unimpaired

no

.

3

1

3

.

-67%

200%

. yes 11 citizens

Not collected in baseline, collected in 2016 based on

221

Unknown/NULL

no

.

2

1

0

.

-50% -100%

. yes 11 citizens

No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in

222

presence of disability

no

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. N/A the future

223

# of officers with > 1 UOF violating

224

367 a. 5

UOF violating policy policy

yes Case Office

0

1

0

0

N/A -100%

0%

N/A yes

225

force reviews/investigations

226

367 a. 6

UOF violating policy resulting in

yes IA

see below see below see below see below

Examination of data received shows most of the policy

deficiencies were administrative/technical (i.e. late

227

policy deficiency

5

11

3

1

120%

-73%

-67%

-33% yes forms) and not substantive or due to tactics

228

training deficiency

2

0

0

0 -100%

0%

0%

-100% yes

229

tactics deficiency

2

5

3

3

150%

-40%

0%

11% yes

230

pending

0

0

0

2

0%

0%

N/A

N/A yes

Page 6 of 20

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 90 of 104. PageID #: 6223 2018 Measures as of Sept 2019

in written

231

367 a. 7

quality of

investigations

no

. summary

.

.

.

.

.

in written

232

367 a. 7

quality of

review

no

. summary

.

.

.

.

.

# of investigations returned because

233

367 a. 7

quality of

incomplete

no Chief's Office

.

.

.

.

.

.

234

367 b

addressing individuals in crisis

addressing individuals # calls for service and incidents

235

367 b. 1

in crisis

involving an individual in crisis

no CI Unit

Responded to by specialized CIT

236

officer

no

10480 .

7890 .

8120 .

13460 .

-25% .

3%

66%

.

.

237

Responded to by other

no

addressing individuals

238

367 b. 1

in crisis

Direction of individuals in crisis

no

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

see below see below see below see below

239

directed to healthcare system

240

directed to judicial system

241

direction other

242

rate - directed to healthcare system

243

rate - directed to judicial system

244

rate - direction other

245

addressing individuals

246

367 b. 2

in crisis

# of UOF on individuals in crisis

247

type of force used

248

Balance Displacement

249

Body Force

250

Control Hold-Restraint

251

Control Hold-Takedown

252

Joint Manipulation

253

Tackling/Takedown

254

Taser

255

Verbal/Physical Gestures

256

Other (1-25 instance each)

257

Unknown/NULL

addressing individuals

258

367 b. 2

in crisis

reason for interaction

259

# subject armed/not armed

260

weapon type

261

resistance offered

1009 12
230 81%
1% 18%
14 . . .
166 . . . 5 .
40 186
. . .

672

1012

1489

-33%

51%

47%

2

8

7

-83%

300%

-13%

7 99%
0% 1%
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .

0

0

-97% -100%

0%

99%

100%

22%

1%

0%

1%

0%

-69%

167%

-40%

0%

0%

-94% -100%

0%

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Random sample selected by Monitoring Team and . yes reviewed to capture the quality of the investigations
Random sample selected by Monitoring Team and . yes reviewed to capture the quality of the investigations
. no Data has not been received as of June 2017

baseline, 2016, 2017, and 2018 aren't comparable.

2018: 1346 forms completed (reported quarterly)

which is presumed to represent 10% of possible calls.

2017: 812 forms completed (which is 10% of total

possible mental health calls); data from 11/1/16-

11/30/17. 2016: 789 forms completed (which is 10%

of total possible mental health calls); data from

10/1/15-10/31/16. 2015 Baseline: 1048 forms

completed (which is 10% of total possible mental

6%

health calls); data from 1/1/14-9/30/15

No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in

. N/A the future

No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in

. N/A the future

SUBJECT DISPOSITION (pink slipped or voluntarily to SVCH, private hospital ER, referred to mental health treatment, handled by EMS); 0 referrals to mental 10% yes health treatment in 2016; 19 referrals in 2015 -13% yes # arrested
other, complaint unfounded requiring no police action, subject stabilized; 0 complaint unfounded requiring no -100% yes police action, subject stabilized in 2016; 18 in 2015 5% yes -16% yes -100% yes

.

2015 data -"Use of non-deadly force report made"

.

poor data

.

poor data

.

poor data

.

2015 data - "handcuffs"

.

poor data

.

poor data

.

poor data

.

2015 data - "taser stun"

.

poor data

.

2015 data -"other, fired, OC pepper spray"

.

2015 data -"no response reported"

. . .

Page 7 of 20

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 91 of 104. PageID #: 6224 2018 Measures as of Sept 2019

description of attempts to de-

262

escalate

263

367 c

stop, search, arrest

# of investigatory stop, search,

264

367 c. 1

stop, search, arrest arrest

no Compliance

265

# of investigatory stops

266

# of investigatory searches

267

# of investigatory arrests

% of investigatory stop, search,

268

367 c. 1

stop, search, arrest arrest

# investigatory stops/# summons or

269

arrest

# investigatory searches/#

270

summons or arrest

271

367 c. 1

stop, search, arrest District

no

272

District 1

273

District 2

274

District 3

275

District 4

276

District 5

277

outside city

278

367 c. 1

stop, search, arrest Arrest type

no

279

Violence toward Police Officer

280

Violence toward Others

281

Damage to Property

282

Obstructing Justice

283

Crisis Intervention

284

Drugs/Alcohol

285

Other

286

367 c. 1

stop, search, arrest Actual or perceived age

no

287

17 and under (juveniles)

288

18-29 years

289

30-39 years

290

40-49 years

291

50-59 years

292

60+ years

293

Unknown/NULL

294

367 c. 1

stop, search, arrest race

no

295

Black

296

White

297

Hispanic

298

Asian

299

Other

300

Unknown/NULL

301

367 c. 1

stop, search, arrest ethnicity

no

302

Hispanic/Latino

303

Non-Hispanic/Latino

304

Unknown/NULL

305

367 c. 1

stop, search, arrest gender

no

306

Male

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Page 8 of 20

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

809 CIT calls had a verbal de-escalation response from

officers in 2015; 578 calls had a verbal de-escalation

.

response from officers in 2016

No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in . N/A the future . . .
No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in N/A the future
.
. No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in
N/A the future . . . . . .
No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in N/A the future . . . . . . .
No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in N/A the future . . . . . . .
No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in N/A the future . . . . . .
No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in N/A the future . . .
No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in N/A the future .

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 92 of 104. PageID #: 6225 2018 Measures as of Sept 2019

307

Female

308

Unknown/NULL

309

documentable

reasonable suspicion to

stop and probable

310

367 c. 2

cause search

actual or perceived race

no

311

Black

312

White

313

Hispanic

314

Asian

315

Other

316

Unknown/NULL

documentable

reasonable suspicion to

stop and probable

317

367 c. 2

cause search

actual or perceived ethnicity

no

318

Hispanic/Latino

319

Non-Hispanic/Latino

320

Unknown/NULL

documentable

reasonable suspicion to

stop and probable

321

367 c. 2

cause search

actual or perceived gender

no

322

Male

323

Female

324

Unknown/NULL

documentable

reasonable suspicion to

stop and probable

325

367 c. 2

cause search

actual or perceived age

no

326

17 and under (juveniles)

327

18-29 years

328

30-39 years

329

40-49 years

330

50-59 years

331

60+ years

332

Unknown/NULL

333

searches finding

334

367 c. 3

contraband

# of searches finding contraband

no

searches finding

# of searches finding contraband by

335

367 c. 3

contraband

district

no

336

District 1

337

District 2

338

District 3

339

District 4

340

District 5

341

outside city

searches finding

342

367 c. 3

contraband

Arrest type

no

343

Violence toward Police Officer

344

Violence toward Others

345

Damage to Property

346

Obstructing Justice

347

Crisis Intervention

348

Drugs/Alcohol

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Page 9 of 20

. .
No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in N/A the future . . . . . .
No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in N/A the future . . .
No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in N/A the future . . .
No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in N/A the future . . . . . . .
No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the future No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in N/A the future . . . . . . No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in N/A the future . . . . . .

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 93 of 104. PageID #: 6226 2018 Measures as of Sept 2019

349

Other

.

searches finding

350

367 c. 3

contraband

actual or perceived race

no

351

Black

.

352

White

.

353

Hispanic

.

354

Asian

.

355

Other

.

356

Unknown/NULL

.

searches finding

357

367 c. 3

contraband

actual or perceived ethnicity

no

358

Hispanic/Latino

.

359

Non-Hispanic/Latino

.

360

Unknown/NULL

.

searches finding

361

367 c. 3

contraband

actual or perceived gender

no

.

362

Male

.

363

Female

.

364

Unknown/NULL

.

searches finding

365

367 c. 3

contraband

actual or perceived age

no

366

17 and under (juveniles)

.

367

18-29 years

.

368

30-39 years

.

369

40-49 years

.

370

50-59 years

.

371

60+ years

.

372

Unknown/NULL

.

373

367 d

bias free policing & community engagement

bias free policing &

community

District

374

367 d.1

engagement

# of community partnerships

yes Commanders

57

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

66

135

133

16%

105%

-1%

375

District 1

.

13

58

32

.

346%

-45%

376

District 2

10

13

13

13

30%

0%

0%

377

District 3

11

.

12

13

.

.

8%

378

District 4

22

28

40

58

27%

43%

45%

379

District 5

14

12

12

17

-14%

0%

42%

bias free policing &

community

# of community partnerships

District

380

367 d. 1

engagement

w/youth

yes Commanders

14

17

30

57

50%

-33%

90%

381

District 1

382

District 2

383

District 3

384

District 4

385

District 5

bias free policing &

community

District

386

367 d. 1

engagement

variety of community partnerships

yes Commanders

387

District 1

388

District 2

.

3

9

4

4

4

2

.

2

7

9

14

1

1

1

.

.

.

.

.

.

Page 10 of 20

14

.

200%

56%

9

0%

0%

125%

2

.

.

0%

19

29%

56%

36%

13

0%

0% 1200%

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in
N/A the future . . . . . .
No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in N/A the future . . .
No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in N/A the future . . .
No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in N/A the future . . . . . . .

24% baseline data not received for District 1; 2017 data for District 1 overestimated. Included one-off events that
. yes were not necessarily partnerships 7% yes 4% yes 2016 data not received for District 3 27% yes 5% yes

represents partnerships specifically with youth,

42%

although youth may be included in other partnerships

baseline data not received for District 1; 2017 data for

District 1 overestimated. Included one-off events that

. yes were not necessarily partnerships

22% yes

0% yes 2016 data not received for District 3

28% yes

90% yes

Can be calculated once adequate data for all Districts

.

. has been received

Can be calculated once adequate data for all Districts

.

. has been received

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 94 of 104. PageID #: 6227 2018 Measures as of Sept 2019

389

District 3

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

390

District 4

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

391

District 5

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

392

bias free policing &

community

Homicide

393

367 d.2

engagement

homicide clearance rate

yes Unit

56%

51%

50%

52%

-9%

-2%

3%

bias free policing &

community

394

367 d.2

engagement

# of homicides

yes

127

139

130

120

9%

-6%

-8%

395

# of homicides solved

71

71

65

62

0%

-8%

-5%

396

# of homicides unsolved

56

68

65

58

21%

-4%

-11%

bias free policing &

community

397

367 d.2

engagement

Type of homicide

yes

see below see below see below see below

398

# of domestic violence homicides

399

# of non-domestic violence

bias free policing &

homicides

12

18

6

6

50%

-67%

0%

115

121

124

114

5%

2%

-8%

community

400

367 d.2

engagement

Homicide victims

yes

see below see below see below see below

401

Adult male victims

95

110

102

88

16%

-7%

-14%

402

Adult female victims

23

18

12

18

-22%

-33%

50%

403

Juvenile male victims

7

7

11

5

0%

57%

-55%

404

Juvenile female victims

2

2

2

2

0%

0%

0%

405

unknown

.

.

3

7

.

N/A

133%

406

bias free policing &

community

# civilian complaints for

407

367 d.3

engagement

discrimination

no OPS

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

bias free policing &

community

disposition of discrimination

408

367 d.3

engagement

complaints

no OPS

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

bias free policing &

community

409

367 d.3

engagement

analysis of biennial survey

yes ISA hired

410

367 e

recruitment measures

411

367 e. 1

recruitment measures applicants

City Hall Civil Service Commission yes (CSC)

1410

1459

1180

2260

3%

-19%

92%

412

# of qualified recruit applicants

413

# of not qualified recruit applicants

414

367 e. 1

recruitment measures applicants by race

yes

415

White (W)

416

Black (B)

417

Asian (A)

418

Hispanic (H)

191

151

359

492

1219

1308

821

1768

see below see below see below see below

781

693

526

984

409

518

440

891

13

11

12

23

154

148

127

204

Page 11 of 20

-21%
7%
-11% 27% -15% -4%

138%
-37%
-24% -15%
9% -14%

37%
115%
87% 103%
92% 61%

Can be calculated once adequate data for all Districts

.

. has been received

Can be calculated once adequate data for all Districts

.

. has been received

Can be calculated once adequate data for all Districts

.

. has been received

-2% yes
-1% yes -3% yes 1% yes

-16% yes 0% yes

-2% yes -6% yes -8% yes 0% yes
. yes

.
.
results are in a separate document
2018 data are only from tests taken in 2018 and includes officers with start dates in 2019; 2017 data are from the 2017 test although those hired include 13% yes applicants from the 2016 list Category captured in data: "Name has been certified. Candidates are being vetted for the next Academy" (category 11) and "hired/currently in the academy" (category 4) or Not Hired; Left on Eligible List (category 15); declined offer (16); received offer but 27% yes deferred (17) These are applicants who failed somewhere in the 10% yes process
6% yes 21% yes 15% yes
7% yes

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 95 of 104. PageID #: 6228 2018 Measures as of Sept 2019

419

Other (O)

44

85

36

139

93%

-58%

286%

33% yes

420

AI

3

4

12

6

33%

200%

-50%

19% yes

421

No Data (.)

6

0

27

13 -100%

N/A

-52%

21% yes

422

367 e. 1

recruitment measures applicants by gender

yes

423

Males

424

Females

425

Unknown

see below see below see below see below

1120

1163

873

1621

290

296

298

629

0

0

9

10

4%

-25%

86%

2%

1%

111%

0%

N/A

11%

10% yes 21% yes N/A

426

Civil Service

427

367 e. 2

recruitment measures Where applicants heard of job

no Commission see below see below see below see below

428

City Website

.

40%

54%

52%

429

Friend

.

26%

0%

0%

430

Google or other search

.

19%

3%

0%

431

Other

.

14%

14%

17%

.

36%

-3%

. -100%

0%

.

-85% -100%

.

-1%

24%

yes No data on recruitment activities in baseline . yes . yes . yes . yes

432

Bulletin

.

2%

0%

4%

.

-69%

702%

. yes

433

Word of mouth

.

0%

19%

16%

.

N/A

-15%

. yes

434

Social media

.

0%

6%

6%

.

N/A

3%

. yes

435

Article or blog post

.

0%

0%

0%

.

0%

0%

. yes

436

Advertisement

.

0%

4%

4%

.

N/A

10%

. yes

437

367 e. 2

recruitment measures Recruitment Activity

Civil Service no Commission see below see below see below

yes No data on recruitment activities in baseline

438

Billboards

.

9

23

0

.

156% -100%

. yes

439

Billboard Impressions

.

538043

1077439

0

.

100% -100%

. yes

440

Regional Transit Bus Posters

.

20

0

0

. -100%

0%

. yes

441

Regional Transit Stations Posters

.

24

22

0

.

-8% -100%

. yes

442

Mobile/digital video banner Ads

.

50000

20000

200000

.

-60%

900%

. yes

443

Facebook, Twitter, Instagram Posts

.

8

8

20

.

0%

150%

. yes

444

Blog posts/Websites

.

60

90

260

.

50%

189%

. yes

New item CPD collects that has been added to 2017

445

Social Media Viewers/Likes no

.

.

714547

117925

.

.

-83%

. yes but not specified in Consent Decree

New item CPD collects that has been added to 2017

446

Social Media Shares no

.

.

1278

.

.

.

.

. yes but not specified in Consent Decree

447

Radio Station Spots

.

4

4

7

.

0%

75%

. yes

448

Television

.

0

0

1

.

0%

N/A

. yes

Civil Service

449

367 e. 2

recruitment measures # of Recruitment Partnerships

no Commission

450

All Races

451

Black

.

17

19

44

.

12%

132%

.

8

15

32

.

88%

113%

.

7

3

9

.

-57%

200%

. yes No data on recruitment activities in baseline . yes . yes

452

Hispanic

.

2

1

2

.

-50%

100%

. yes

453

Other

.

.

.

1

.

.

.

. yes New category added (Arab American)in 2018

454

Same number as above (# of non-qualified applicants);

City Hall Civil

considered anyone who is NOT hired (category 4) and

# of applicants who failed initial

Service

anyone whose name has NOT been certified (category

455

367 e. 3

recruitment measures screening

yes Commission

1219

1294

821

1768

6%

-37%

115%

10% yes 11)

City Hall Civil

Service

456

367 e. 3

recruitment measures reason for failures

yes Commission see below see below see below see below

457

1- Application Rejected

.

339

282

390

.

-17%

38%

. yes Application rejected - Not collected in 2015

458

2-Failed agility test

166

119

101

100

-28%

-15%

-1%

-12% yes

459

3-No show for the Agility test

85

113

90

165

33%

-20%

83%

18% yes

N/A to

reason for N/A to reason N/A to reason N/A to reason

460

4-Hired / Currently in the Academy

failures

for failures for failures for failures

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A yes

461

5-No response to certification

183

58

0

90

-68% -100%

N/A

-16% yes

Page 12 of 20

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 96 of 104. PageID #: 6229 2018 Measures as of Sept 2019

The 2017 list reported no one who was passed over,

however, the 2016 list was used to hire the 2017 class

462

6-Passed over

13

8

0

108

-38%

-100%

N/A

70% yes and 47 were passed over

The 2017 list reported no one who was removed for

background reasons, however, the 2016 list was used

7-Removed for background

to hire the 2017 class and 6 were removed for

463

reason(s)

66

39

0

15

-41%

-100%

N/A

-31% yes background reasons

8 (no show for psych) and 13 (no PHS) are merged in

2016 data; The 2017 list reported no one was a no

8-No show for the Psychological

show, however, the 2016 list was used to hire the

464

Exam

1

.

0

4

.

.

N/A

41% yes 2017 class and 1 was a no show

The 2017 list reported 4 people who were no longer

interested, however, the 2016 list was used to hire the

465

9-No longer interested

19

26

4

62

37%

-85% 1450%

34% yes 2017 class and 10 were no longer interested

466

10-Waived

17

102

10

61

500%

-90%

510%

38% yes

11-Name has been certified.

N/A to

Candidates are being vetted for the

reason for N/A to reason N/A to reason N/A to reason

467

next Academy

failures

for failures for failures for failures

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A yes

468

12-No show for the test

394

263

244

566

-33%

-7%

132%

9% yes

13-Did not submit their Personal

469

History Statement

240

4

0

0

-98% -100%

0%

-100% yes

470

14-Failed the test

35

223

90

194

537%

-60%

116%

53% yes

City Hall Civil

Service

471

367 e. 3

recruitment measures recruit failures by race

yes Commission see below see below see below see below

472

White (W) Failures

658

594

323

742

-10%

-46%

130%

3% yes

473

Black (B) Failures

375

492

341

733

31%

-31%

115%

18% yes

474

Asian (A) Failures

12

9

8

17

-25%

-11%

113%

9% yes

475

Hispanic (H) Failures

128

133

90

159

4%

-32%

77%

6% yes

476

Other (O) Failures

41

76

32

106

85%

-58%

231%

27% yes

477

Native American (AI) Failures

1

4

8

3

300%

100%

-63%

32% yes

478

No Data (.) Failures

4

0

19

8 -100%

N/A

-58%

19% yes

City Hall Civil

Service

479

367 e. 3

recruitment measures recruit failures by ethnicity

yes Commission see below see below see below see below

It is unclear whether this information is captured

480

Hispanic/Latino (H)

128

133

90

159

4%

-32%

77%

6% yes adequately

481

Non-Hispanic/Latino

1091

1161

731

1609

6%

-37%

120%

10% yes

City Hall Civil

Service

482

367 e. 3

recruitment measures recruit failures by gender

yes Commission see below see below see below see below

483

Male Failures

971

1032

592

1274

6%

-43%

115%

7% yes

484

Female Failures

248

277

224

489

12%

-19%

118%

18% yes

485

unknown gender

.

.

5

5

.

.

0%

. yes unknown not captured in 2015 or 2016

City Hall Civil

recruit failures by self identified

Service

Only have data on veterans; No data collected

486

disability

no Commission

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. N/A currently; Needs to be collected in the future

487

City Hall Civil

# of applicants with fluency in other

Service

No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in

488

367 e. 4

recruitment measures language

no Commission

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. N/A the future

No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in

489

list of languages spoken by recruits

no

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. N/A the future

490

City Hall Civil

Service

491

367 e. 5

recruitment measures # of lateral candidates

yes Commission

0

210

94

0

N/A

-55%

-100%

N/A yes The Division did not recruit laterals in 2015 or 2018

492

367 e. 5

recruitment measures laterals by race

yes

see below see below see below see below

yes The Division did not recruit laterals in 2015 or 2018

Page 13 of 20

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 97 of 104. PageID #: 6230 2018 Measures as of Sept 2019

493

White (W)

0

116

37

0

N/A

-68% -100%

0% yes

494

Black (B)

0

57

37

0

N/A

-35% -100%

0% yes

495

Asian (A)

0

1

1

0

N/A

0% -100%

0% yes

496

Hispanic (H)

0

18

7

0

N/A

-61% -100%

0% yes

497

Other (O)

0

17

9

0

N/A

-47% -100%

0% yes

498

AI

0

0

1

0

N/A

N/A -100%

0% yes

499

No Data (.)

0

1

2

0

N/A

100% -100%

0% yes

500

367 e. 5

recruitment measures ethnicity

yes

see below see below see below see below

yes The Division did not recruit laterals in 2015 or 2018

501

Hispanic/Latino

0

18

7

0

N/A

-61% -100%

0% yes

502

Non-Hispanic/Latino

0

192

87

0

N/A

-55% -100%

0% yes

503

367 e. 5

recruitment measures laterals by gender

yes

see below see below see below see below

The Division did not recruit laterals in 2015 or 2018

504

Male

0

174

74

0

N/A

-57% -100%

0% yes

505

Female

0

35

19

0

N/A

-46% -100%

0% yes

506

unknown

0

0

1

0

0%

N/A -100%

0% yes

507

367 e. 5

recruitment measures Other information on laterals

yes

see below see below see below see below

The Division did not recruit laterals in 2015 or 2018

508

laterals with self identified disability

0

0

0

0

0%

0%

0%

0% yes

509

list of laterals former agencies

0

39

5

0

N/A

-87% -100%

0% yes represents the number of PDs laterals worked for

represents the number of years in which laterals

510

list of laterals years of service

0

166

12

0

N/A

-93% -100%

0% yes worked for other PDs

511

City Hall Civil

Service

512

367 e. 6

recruitment measures applicant qualifications

yes

Commission see below see below see below see below

This category captures those who attended college for

2+ years, but did not obtain a BA degree (includes

513

# applicants with 2+ years college

yes

455

802

649

1172

76%

-19%

81%

27% yes those with associates degrees)

514

# applicants with college degree

yes

240

247

189

370

3%

-23%

96%

11% yes

No data collected currently; only have 180+days;

515

# applicants with 2+ years military

no

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. yes Needs to be collected in the future

New item CPD collects that has been added to baseline

516

# applicants with 180+ days military yes (new)

161

89

55

91

-45%

-38%

65%

-13% yes but not specified in Consent Decree

New item CPD collects that has been added to baseline

but not specified in Consent Decree; misreported in

517

disabled veterans

yes (new)

14

2

3

2

-86%

50%

-33%

-39% yes 2015 (was reported as 1235)

518

City Hall Civil

pass/fail rate in each phase of pre-

Service

519

367 e. 7

recruitment measures employment process

yes Commission see below see below see below see below

pass calculated

520

2-Failed agility test

86.38%

90.24%

87.70%

94.34%

4%

-3%

8%

2% yes pass rate calculated

521

3-No show for the Agility test

93.03%

90.73%

89.04%

90.67%

-2%

-2%

2%

-1% yes pass rate calculated

522

4-Hired / Currently in the Academy

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A yes pass rate calculated

523

5-No response to certification

84.99%

95.24%

100.00%

94.91%

12%

5%

-5%

3% yes pass rate calculated

524

6-Passed over

98.93%

99.34%

100.00%

93.89%

0%

1%

-6%

-1% yes pass rate calculated

525

7-Removed for background

94.59%

96.80%

100.00%

99.15%

2%

3%

-1%

1% yes pass rate calculated

526

8-No show for the Psychological

99.92%

N/A

100.00%

99.77%

N/A

N/A

0%

0% yes pass rate calculated; merged with no PHS

527

9-No longer interested

98.44%

97.87%

99.51%

96.49%

-1%

2%

-3%

0% yes pass rate calculated

528

10-Waived

98.61%

91.63%

98.78%

96.55%

-7%

8%

-2%

-1% yes pass rate calculated

Candidates are being vetted for the

529

next Academy

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A yes pass rate calculated

530

12-No show for the test

67.68%

78.42%

70.28%

67.99%

16%

-10%

-3%

0% yes pass rate calculated

13-Did not submit their Personal

531

History Statement

80.31%

99.67%

100.00%

100.00%

24%

0%

0%

6% yes pass rate calculated

532

14-Failed the test

97.13%

81.71%

89.04%

89.03%

-16%

9%

0%

-2% yes pass rate calculated

City Hall Civil

Service

533

367 e. 7

recruitment measures pass/fail rate by race

yes Commission see below see below see below see below

534

White (W) pass rate

15.75%

14.29%

38.59%

24.59%

-9%

170%

-36%

12% yes pass rate calculated

535

Black (B) pass rate

8.31%

5.02%

22.50%

17.73%

-40%

348%

-21%

21% yes pass rate calculated

Page 14 of 20

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 98 of 104. PageID #: 6231 2018 Measures as of Sept 2019

536

Asian (A) pass rate

7.69%

18.18%

33.33%

26.09%

136%

83%

-22%

537

Hispanic (H) pass rate

16.88%

10.14%

29.13%

22.06%

-40%

187%

-24%

538

Other (O) pass rate

6.82%

10.59%

11.11%

23.74%

55%

5%

114%

539

AI pass rate

66.67%

0.00%

33.33%

50.00% -100%

N/A

50%

540

No Data (.) pass rate

33.33%

.

29.63%

38.46%

.

.

30%

City Hall Civil

Service

541

367 e. 7

recruitment measures pass/fail rate by ethnicity

yes Commission see below see below see below see below

542

Hispanic/Latino (H) pass rate

16.88%

10.14%

29.13%

22.06%

-40%

187%

-24%

543

Non-Hispanic/Latino pass rate

13.14%

11.44%

30.58%

30.10%

-13%

167%

-2%

City Hall Civil

Service

544

367 e. 7

recruitment measures pass/fail rate by gender

yes Commission see below see below see below see below

545

Male Pass Rate

13.30%

11.26%

32.19%

21.41%

-15%

186%

-33%

546

Female Pass Rate

14.48%

6.42%

24.83%

22.26%

-56%

287%

-10%

547

unknown gender pass rate

.

.

44.44%

50.00%

.

.

13%

City Hall Civil

pass/fail rate by self identified

Service

548

367 e. 7

recruitment measures disability

no Commission

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

549

avg length of time to move through

550

367 e. 8

recruitment measures each phase of preemployment

no

.

.

.

.

.

.

avg length of time to process

551

applicants

.

.

.

.

.

.

552

553

367 e. 9

recruitment measures composition of recruit class

yes

see below see below see below see below

554

367 e. 9

recruitment measures Initial Size of recruit class

yes

52

62

69

153

19%

11%

122%

555

Remained

yes (new)

44

51

65

140

16%

27%

115%

556

Separated

557

367 e. 9

recruitment measures Separated by Race

yes (new) yes

8

11

4

13

see below see below see below see below

38%

-64%

225%

558

Black

yes (new)

2

3

0

3

50%

-100%

N/A

559

White

yes (new)

4

8

4

8

100%

-50%

100%

560

Hispanic

yes (new)

2

0

0

2

-100%

0%

N/A

561

Asian

yes (new)

0

0

0

0

0%

0%

0%

562

Other

563

367 e. 9

recruitment measures Separated by Gender

yes (new) yes

0

0

0

0

0%

0%

0%

see below see below see below see below

564

Male

yes (new)

7

8

4

9

14%

-50%

125%

565

Female

yes (new)

1

3

0

4

200%

-100%

N/A

Command

composition of recruit classes by

Staff/

566

367 e. 9

recruitment measures race

Academy see below see below see below see below

567

Black

8

10

16

40

25%

60%

150%

568

White

29

38

51

89

31%

34%

75%

Page 15 of 20

36% yes pass rate calculated 7% yes pass rate calculated
37% yes pass rate calculated -7% yes pass rate calculated 4% yes pass rate calculated

7% yes pass rate calculated 23% yes pass rate calculated

13% 11%
.
.
. .

yes pass rate calculated yes pass rate calculated yes pass rate calculated
No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in N/A the future
No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in . the future
No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in . the future

2018 excludes names that were on the list given for 2017 report's recruit Class 140; All recruit class numbers reflect the number of officers hired based on the test taken that year even if the hire date is in the following year. So 2018 numbers reflect officers who took the police exam in 2018 even though their start 31% yes date may not have been until 2019 New item CPD collects that has been added to baseline 34% yes but not specified in Consent Decree New item CPD collects that has been added to baseline 13% yes but not specified in Consent Decree
New item CPD collects that has been added to baseline 11% yes but not specified in Consent Decree
New item CPD collects that has been added to baseline 19% yes but not specified in Consent Decree
New item CPD collects that has been added to baseline 0% yes but not specified in Consent Decree
New item CPD collects that has been added to baseline 0% yes but not specified in Consent Decree
New item CPD collects that has been added to baseline 0% yes but not specified in Consent Decree
New item CPD collects that has been added to baseline 6% yes but not specified in Consent Decree
New item CPD collects that has been added to baseline 41% yes but not specified in Consent Decree

50% yes 32% yes

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 99 of 104. PageID #: 6232 2018 Measures as of Sept 2019

569

Hispanic

12

2

2

8

-83%

0%

300%

570

Asian

0

1

0

0

N/A

-100%

0%

571

Other

3

0

0

3

-100%

0%

N/A

Command

composition of recruit classes by

Staff/

572

367 e. 9

recruitment measures ethnicity

Academy see below see below see below

573

Hispanic/Latino

12

2

2

8

-83%

0%

300%

574

Non-Hispanic/Latino

40

60

67

132

50%

12%

97%

Command

composition of recruit classes by

Staff/

575

367 e. 9

recruitment measures gender

Academy see below see below see below see below

576

Male

44

43

54

106

-2%

26%

96%

577

Female

8

19

15

34

138%

-21%

127%

composition of recruit classes by self

578

identified disability

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

579

367 f. 1 training measures

# of officers provided training

580

367 f. 1

training measures

pursuant to this agreement

no

.

.

1354

1363

.

.

1%

% of officers provided training

581

367 f. 1

training measures

pursuant to this agreement

no

.

.

94%

96%

.

.

2%

582

adequacy of training in type and

583

367 f. 2

training measures

frequency

no

Training

see below see below see below see below

584

Instructor adequacy

.

.

87%

.

.

.

.

585

Content adequacy

.

.

87%

.

.

.

.

586

Future performance adequacy

.

.

63%

.

.

.

.

587

Overall adequacy

588

training resulting from the review

and analysis required by this

589

367 f. 3

training measures

agreement

no

590

prevalence of training deficiencies

as reflected by problematic incidents

591

367 f. 4

training measures

or performance trends

no

592

367 g.

officer assistance & support efforts

officer assistance & availability of officer assistance &

593

367 g. 1

support efforts

support services

yes EAP

officer assistance & use of officer assistance & support

594

367 g. 1

support efforts

services

yes EAP

595

officer assistance & officer reports of adequacy of officer

596

367 g. 2

support efforts

assistance & support svcs

no EAP

officer assistance & survey analysis of adequacy of

597

367 g. 2

support efforts

officer assistance & support svcs

no EAP

598

367 h.

supervision measures

supervisors initial identification of

599

367 h.

supervision measures officer violations

no

supervisors initial identification of

600

367 h.

supervision measures officer performance problems

no

supervisors response to officer

601

367 h.

supervision measures violations

no

.

.

79%

.

.

see written see written

.

. report

report

.

see written see written

.

. report

report

.

see below see below see below see below

11

209

221

241

1800%

.

.

.

.

92%

78%

.

see written see written

report

report

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

6%

9%

.

-15%

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Page 16 of 20

-10% yes

0% yes

0% yes

yes

-10% yes 35% yes

25% yes 44% yes
No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in . N/A the future
No data collected in 2015 or 2016; 2017 includes UoF . yes CIT not State Re-Qual
No data collected in 2015 or 2016; 2017 includes UoF . yes CIT not State Re-Qual
yes No data collected in 2015, 2016, or 2018 2017: instructor increased my understanding of the
. yes course material (agree and strongly agree) 2017:scenarios were practical (agree and strongly
. yes agree) 2017: I will perform differently based on skills and
. yes knowledge gained (agree and strongly agree) 2017: Overall I found this training to be valuable
. yes (agree and strongly agree)
No data collected in 2015, 2016, or 2018; 2017 includes UoF CIT not State Re-Qual. See written report . yes for details
No data collected in 2015, 2016, or 2018; 2017 includes UoF CIT not State Re-Qual. See written report . yes for details

2015 baseline data is underreported as the use of 116% yes service was not tracked.
No data collected in 2015 or 2016; 2017 includes . yes ratings of agree and strongly agree on all items
. N/A No data collected in 2015 or 2016
No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in . N/A the future
No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in . N/A the future
No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in . N/A the future

602

367 h.

603

367 i.

604

367 i. 1

605

367 i. 1

606

607

367 i. 2

608

609

610

611

612

613

614

615

616

617

618

367 i. 2

619

620

621

622

623

624

625

626

627

628

629

367 i. 2

630

631

632

633

634

635

636

637

638

639

640

367 i. 2

641

642

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 100 of 104. PageID #: 6233 2018 Measures as of Sept 2019

supervisors response to

supervision measures performance problems

no

civilian complaints & investigations & discipline

civilian complaints & investigations & discipline

# of complaints

IA, Inspections, yes OPS

civilian complaints & investigations & discipline

increases/decreases related to access

IA, Inspections, no OPS

.

.

.

294

263

241

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

227

-11%

-8%

-6%

.

.

.

.

civilian complaints & investigations & discipline
civilian complaints & investigations & discipline
civilian complaints & investigations & discipline
civilian complaints & investigations & discipline

# sustained by complaint type False Report Harassment Improper Procedure Infraction Notice (UTT/PIN) Lack of Service Not Provided by Complainant Other Physical Abuse/Excessive Force Unprofessional Biased Policing
# exonerated by complaint type False Report Harassment Improper Procedure Infraction Notice (UTT/PIN) Lack of Service Not Provided by Complainant Other Physical Abuse/Excessive Force Unprofessional Biased Policing
# unfounded by complaint type False Report Harassment Improper Procedure Infraction Notice (UTT/PIN) Lack of Service Not Provided by Complainant Other Physical Abuse/Excessive Force Unprofessional Biased Policing
# not sustained by complaint type

False Report

Harassment

IA, Inspections, no OPS
IA, Inspections, no OPS
IA, Inspections, no OPS
no OPS

2

7

26

0

0

0

0

0

3

1

2

12

0

0

1

0

1

4

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

3

6

N/A

N/A

N/A

0

8

61

0

0

0

0

1

6

0

3

23

0

0

1

0

2

10

0

0

0

0

0

5

0

2

4

0

0

12

N/A

N/A

N/A

2

13

16

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

3

5

0

0

0

0

2

4

0

0

0

0

0

3

0

3

2

1

4

2

N/A

N/A

N/A

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Page 17 of 20

110

250%

271%

323%

0

0%

0%

0%

1

0%

N/A

-67%

16

100%

500%

33%

0

0%

N/A

-100%

22

N/A

300%

450%

0

0%

0%

0%

2

0%

0%

N/A

0

N/A

-100%

0%

68

200%

100% 1033%

1

N/A

N/A

N/A

220 N/A

0

0%

12

N/A

93

N/A

0

0%

53

N/A

0

0%

14

0%

11

N/A

34

0%

3

N/A

663% 0%
500% 667%
N/A 400%
0% N/A 100% N/A N/A

261% 0%
100% 304% -100% 430%
0% 180% 175% 183%
N/A

159

550%

23%

894%

0

0%

0%

0%

8

N/A

-100%

N/A

12

200%

67%

140%

0

0%

N/A

0%

42

N/A

100%

950%

0

0%

0%

0%

10

0%

N/A

233%

12

N/A

-33%

500%

62

300%

-50% 3000%

13

N/A

N/A

N/A

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in . N/A the future

-6%
.
172% 0% 0%
100% 0% N/A 0% N/A 0%
187% N/A
N/A 0% N/A N/A 0% N/A 0% N/A N/A N/A N/A
199% 0% N/A
86% 0% N/A 0% N/A N/A
181% N/A
.
.
.

Of the 294 cases in 2015, only 45 were completed and yes only 4 went through the PRB
No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in N/A the future
PRB looked at 4 cases in 2015; 2018 represents number of allegations not complaints; no apples to apples with 2015-2017 so percent change and CAGR yes not included yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Other includes missing property in 2018 yes yes yes New Category added in 2018 2018 represents number of allegations not complaints; no apples to apples with 2015-2017 so yes percent change and CARG not included yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Other includes missing property in 2018 yes yes yes New Category added in 2018 2018 represents number of allegations not complaints; no apples to apples with 2015-2017 so yes percent change and CARG not included yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Other includes missing property in 2018 yes yes yes New Category added in 2018
No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the future No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the future No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the future

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 101 of 104. PageID #: 6234 2018 Measures as of Sept 2019

643

Improper Procedure

644

Infraction Notice (UTT/PIN)

645

Lack of Service

646

Not Provided by Complainant

647

Other

648

Physical Abuse/Excessive Force

649

Unprofessional

civilian complaints &

investigations &

650

367 i. 2

discipline

# of administratively dismissed

no OPS

651

False Report

652

Harassment

653

Improper Procedure

654

Infraction Notice (UTT/PIN)

655

Lack of Service

656

Not Provided by Complainant

657

Other

658

Physical Abuse/Excessive Force

659

Unprofessional

660

Unknown

civilian complaints &

investigations &

661

367 i. 2

discipline

# of insufficient evidence

no OPS

662

False Report

663

Harassment

664

Improper Procedure

665

Infraction Notice (UTT/PIN)

666

Lack of Service

667

Not Provided by Complainant

668

Other

669

Physical Abuse/Excessive Force

670

Unprofessional

671

civilian complaints &

investigations &

# of complaint allegations supported

672

367 i. 3

discipline

by a preponderance of the evidence

no OPS

673

civilian complaints &

investigations &

average length of time to complete

674

367 i. 4

discipline

by complaint type

yes OPS

675

False Report

676

Harassment

677

Improper Procedure

678

Infraction Notice (UTT/PIN)

679

Lack of Service

680

Not Provided by Complainant

681

Other

682

Physical Abuse/Excessive Force

683

Unprofessional

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in

.

the future

No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in

.

the future

No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in

.

the future

No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in

.

the future

No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in

.

the future

No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in

.

the future

No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in

.

the future

39

90

126

58

131%

40%

-54%

10% yes

1

0

0

0

-100%

N/A

0%

-100% yes

4

14

43

15

250%

207%

-65%

39% yes

9

28

26

7

211%

-7%

-73%

-6% yes

2

4

8

0

100%

100%

-100%

-100% yes

2

13

17

14

550%

31%

-18%

63% yes

1

0

1

0

-100%

N/A

-100%

-100% yes

Other includes missing property and no jurisdiction in

2

1

3

4

-50%

200%

33%

19% yes 2018

2

4

7

2

100%

75%

-71%

0% yes

16

23

21

16

44%

-9%

-24%

0% yes

0

3

0

0

N/A

-100%

0%

0% yes

2018 represents number of allegations not

complaints; no apples to apples with 2015-2017 so

2

33

93

108 1550%

182%

16%

171% yes percent change and CARG not included

0

0

0

0

0%

0%

0%

0% yes

0

7

24

7

N/A

243%

-71%

N/A yes

0

7

15

11

N/A

114%

-27%

N/A yes

0

0

4

0

N/A

N/A

-100%

0% yes

1

5

9

12

400%

80%

33%

86% yes

0

0

0

0

0%

0%

0%

0% yes

0

0

4

3

0%

N/A

-25%

N/A yes Other includes missing property in 2018

0

5

11

14

N/A

120%

27%

N/A yes

1

9

26

49

800%

189%

88%

165% yes

.

.

.

.

.

No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in

.

the future

Average number of days, but depends on completed

137

409

232

75

198%

-43%

-68%

-14% yes cases

293

.

.

.

.

.

.

. yes

158

383

171

61

142%

-55%

-64%

-21% yes

134

354

213

115

164%

-40%

-46%

-4% yes

84

303

204

.

261%

-33%

.

. yes

179

352

193

88

97%

-45%

-54%

-16% yes

105

.

.

.

.

.

.

. yes

35

.

231

20

.

.

-91%

-13% yes 2017 and 2018 other = missing property

130

730

410

96

462%

-44%

-77%

-7% yes

117

329

203

70

181%

-38%

-66%

-12% yes

Page 18 of 20

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 102 of 104. PageID #: 6235 2018 Measures as of Sept 2019

684

civilian complaints &

investigations &

685

367 i. 5

discipline

# of officers w/multiple complaints

yes OPS

34

38

27

10

12%

-29%

-63%

-26% yes

686

District 1

1

1

5

0

0%

400%

-100%

-100% yes

687

District 2

4

4

1

1

0%

-75%

0%

-29% yes

688

District 3

4

4

6

2

0%

50%

-67%

-16% yes

689

District 4

1

9

8

3

800%

-11%

-63%

32% yes

690

District 5

5

2

2

1

-60%

0%

-50%

-33% yes

691

outside city/other units

4

5

5

3

25%

0%

-40%

-7% yes

IA,

# of officers w/repeated sustained

Inspections,

692

complaints

yes OPS

0

0

0

0

0%

0%

0%

0% yes

693

civilian complaints &

investigations &

694

367 i. 6

discipline

arrests of officers for conduct

yes IA

see below see below see below see below

695

on duty

1

2

1

0

100%

-50%

-100%

-100% yes

696

off duty

14

11

10

19

-21%

-9%

90%

8% yes

697

civilian complaints &

investigations &

698

367 i. 7

discipline

criminal prosecutions for conduct

yes IA

see below see below see below see below

699

on duty

1

2

0

0

100%

-100%

0%

-100% yes

700

off duty

11

10

8

18

-9%

-20%

125%

13% yes

701

not prosecuted

2

1

1

0

-50%

0%

-100%

-100% yes

702

open

1

0

2

1

-100%

N/A

-50%

0% yes

703

civilian complaints &

investigations &

# of civil suits against the City or

City Law

704

367 i. 8

discipline

CDP for work related conduct

yes Department

8

12

52

35

50%

333%

-33%

45% yes

705

settled

3

3

42

6

0% 1300%

-86%

19% yes As of April 2018

706

not yet settled

5

9

10

29

80%

11%

190%

55% yes As of April 2018

civilian complaints &

investigations &

City Law

707

367 i. 8

discipline

nature of the suits

yes Department see below see below see below see below

There can be multiple natures of suits for each suit

708

force)

5

6

2

3

20%

-67%

50%

-12% yes

709

unlawful search & seizure

1

1

4

3

0%

300%

-25%

32% yes

710

false arrest

1

2

5

3

100%

150%

-40%

32% yes

711

discrimination/bias

0

3

0

2

N/A

-100%

N/A

N/A yes

other violation of constitutional

712

rights (e.g., 1st amendment)

1

1

6

7

0%

500%

17%

63% yes

713

Harassment

0

0

0

0

0%

0%

0%

0% yes

improper handling/disposition of

714

property

1

0

3

6

-100%

N/A

100%

57% yes

715

contempt of cop

1

0

0

0

-100%

0%

0%

-100% yes

716

failure to provide medical assistance

1

1

0

1

0%

-100%

N/A

0% yes

717

other

0

3

12

25

N/A

300%

108%

N/A yes

civilian complaints &

investigations &

City Law

718

367 i. 8

discipline

amount of judgments against

yes Department see below see below see below see below

2018 data as of March 2019; 2017 data As of April

719

number of judgments

23

29

52

35

26%

79%

-33%

11% yes 2018; 2015 and 2016 data as of June 2017

civilian complaints &

investigations &

City Law

720

367 i. 8

discipline

yes Department see below see below see below see below

Page 19 of 20

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 103 of 104. PageID #: 6236 2018 Measures as of Sept 2019

721

number of judgments (closed)

722

number of judgments (active)

civilian complaints &

investigations &

723

367 i. 8

discipline

724

amount of judgments (closed)

725

amount of judgments (active)

civilian complaints &

investigations &

726

367 i. 8

discipline

amount of settlements

727

settled

728

not yet settled

22

21

42

6

1

8

10

29

City Law yes Department see below see below see below see below

$ 20,136.82 $ 1,822.16 $ 9,000.00 $

-

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

City Law yes Department see below see below see below see below

$ 20,136.82 $ 1,822.16 $ 9,000.00 $

-

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

-5% 700%
-91% N/A
-91% N/A

100% 25%

-86% 190%

394% N/A

-100% N/A

394% N/A

-100% N/A

2018 data as of March 2019; 2017 data As of April -28% yes 2018; 2015 and 2016 data as of June 2017
2018 data as of March 2019; 2017 data As of April 132% yes 2018; 2015 and 2016 data as of June 2017
2018 data as of March 2019; 2017 data As of April -100% yes 2018; 2015 and 2016 data as of June 2017
2018 data as of March 2019; 2017 data As of April N/A yes 2018; 2015 and 2016 data as of June 2017
2018 data as of March 2019; 2017 data As of April -100% yes 2018; 2015 and 2016 data as of June 2017
2018 data as of March 2019; 2017 data As of April N/A yes 2018; 2015 and 2016 data as of June 2017

Page 20 of 20

Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 280 Filed: 09/16/19 104 of 104. PageID #: 6237
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on September 16, 2019, I served the foregoing document entitled Notice Submitting Monitoring Team’s Seventh Semiannual Report via the court’s ECF system to all counsel of record.
/s/ Ayesha Bell Hardaway AYESHA BELL HARDAWAY

 
 Investigation of the Cleveland Division of Police
United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division
United States Attorney’s Office Northern District of Ohio December 4, 2014

Executive Summary
The Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has completed its civil pattern or practice investigation of the Cleveland Division of Police (“CDP” or “Division”). We have concluded that we have reasonable cause to believe that CDP engages in a pattern or practice of using excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Our investigation under the Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141 focused on allegations of excessive force by CDP officers. We have determined that structural and systemic deficiencies and practices—including insufficient accountability, inadequate training and equipment, ineffective policies, and inadequate engagement with the community— contribute to CDP’s use of unreasonable force. For these reasons, and because this is the second time in the last ten years that the DOJ has investigated and found the need for reforms at CDP, we believe that comprehensive reform can only be assured with outside verification in the form of a federal consent decree which includes an independent monitor.
The release of this findings letter marks the end of a civil investigation that began in March 2013, following a series of highly publicized incidents that suggested critical flaws exist in CDP’s use of force policies, procedures, and practices, including CDP’s ability and willingness to properly assess officers’ uses of force and hold officers accountable for their actions. These incidents also revealed a rift between CDP and certain segments of the communities it serves. Numerous leaders and organizations in Cleveland called on us to open an independent investigation into CDP, including a member of the U.S. Congress, leaders of several different religious communities, civil rights and community groups, and the Mayor of Cleveland. Our investigation found that the concerns about these events raised by many community members and civic leaders are well-founded.
Our investigation did not focus only on highly publicized use of force incidents. Instead, our review examined nearly 600 use of force incidents that occurred between 2010 and 2013, including incidents involving the use of lethal and less lethal force. We closely analyzed these incidents, using use of force reports and other documents and evidence provided by CDP, and applied the relevant legal standards to determine whether CDP’s use of force was legally justified. In addition, our evaluation of CDP’s use of force was informed by many other sources, including: witness interviews and the participation of hundreds of individuals in community town hall meetings; interviews with the Division’s officers, supervisors, and command staff; input from other stakeholders in the City, including elected representatives of the patrol officer and management unions, the Office of Professional Standards, the Civilian Police Review Board, members of religious communities, and other community leaders; Division policies, procedures and training materials; and analysis provided by expert police consultants DOJ retained to assist with this investigation.
We recognize the challenges faced by officers in Cleveland and in communities across the nation every day. Policing can be dangerous. At times, officers must use force, including deadly force, to protect lives, including their own. The use of force by police should be guided by a respect for human life and human dignity, the need to protect public safety, and the duty to protect individuals from unreasonable seizures under the Fourth Amendment. A significant
2

amount of the force used by CDP officers falls short of these standards. Although CDP has taken some steps to improve the Division’s use of force policies and procedures, these initiatives, by themselves, have been insufficient.
Like most police departments the Department of Justice has investigated, the majority of the force used by CDP officers is reasonable and not in violation of the Constitution. In addition, the vast majority of CDP officers are seeking to serve the public as best they can under dangerous and difficult conditions. These officers deserve the community’s respect and gratitude. However, based on our review, we nevertheless have determined that we have reasonable cause to believe that CDP engages in a pattern or practice of using unreasonable force in violation of the Fourth Amendment.1 We have concluded that these incidents of excessive force are rooted in common structural deficiencies. CDP’s pattern or practice of excessive force is both reflected by and stems from its failure to adequately review and investigate officers’ uses of force; fully and objectively investigate all allegations of police misconduct; identify and respond to patterns of at-risk behavior; provide its officers with the support, training, supervision, and equipment needed to allow them to do their jobs safely and effectively; adopt and enforce appropriate policies; and implement effective community policing strategies at all levels of CDP.
The pattern or practice of unreasonable force we identified is reflected in CDP’s use of both deadly and less lethal force.2 For example, we found incidents of CDP officers firing their guns at people who do not pose an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury to officers or others and using guns in a careless and dangerous manner, including hitting people on the head with their guns, in circumstances where deadly force is not justified. Officers also use less lethal force that is out of proportion to the resistance encountered and officers too often escalate incidents with citizens instead of using effective and accepted tactics to deescalate tension. By way of example, we reviewed incidents where officers used Tasers,3 oleoresin capsicum spray (“OC Spray”), or punched people who were already subdued, including people in handcuffs. Many of these people could have been controlled with a lesser application of force. At times, such force appears to have been applied as punishment for the person’s earlier verbal or physical resistance to an officer’s command, and was not based on a current threat posed by the person. This retaliatory use of force is not legally justified. Our review also revealed that officers use excessive force against individuals who are in mental health crisis or who may be unable to understand or comply with officers’ commands, including incidents in which the police are
1 Our findings, however, do not mean that any individual officers have acted with criminal intent, a wholly different and higher legal standard that is beyond the scope of this investigation.
2 For purposes of this summary, “less lethal force” means a force application not intended or expected to cause death or serious injury and which is commonly understood to have less potential for causing death or serious injury than conventional, more lethal police tactics. Nonetheless, use of less lethal force can result in death or serious injury.
3 The division uses the Taser brand of electronic control weapons and refers to them in its policies as “Tasers.” Throughout this summary, we will refer to these electronic control weapons as Tasers.
3

called to help provide service involving such an individual who is not suspected of having committed any crime at all.
In addition to the pattern or practice of excessive force, we found that CDP officers commit tactical errors that endanger both themselves and others in the Cleveland community and, in some instances, may result in constitutional violations. They too often fire their weapons in a manner and in circumstances that place innocent bystanders in danger. Too often they accidentally fire their weapons, sometimes fortuitously hitting nothing and other times shooting people and seriously injuring them. CDP officers too often use dangerous and poor tactics to try to gain control of suspects, which results in the application of additional force or places others in danger. Critically, officers do not make effective use of de-escalation techniques, too often instead escalating encounters and employing force when it may not be needed and could be avoided. While these tactical errors may not always result in constitutional violations, they place officers, suspects, and other members of the Cleveland community at risk, and, as set forth below, officers are not reliably retrained or disciplined for such conduct, leading to its repetition.
Principal among the systemic deficiencies that have resulted in the pattern or practice we found is the Division’s failure to implement effective and rigorous accountability systems. Force incidents often are not properly reported, documented, investigated, or addressed with corrective measures. Even limiting a review to the records actually generated by CDP, supervisors throughout the chain of command endorse questionable and sometimes unlawful conduct by officers. We reviewed supervisory investigations of officers’ use of force that appear to be designed from the outset to justify the officers’ actions. Deeply troubling to us was that some of the specially-trained investigators who are charged with conducting unbiased reviews of officers’ use of deadly force actually admitted to us that they conduct their investigations with the goal of casting the accused officer in the most positive light possible. This admitted bias appears deeply rooted, cuts at the heart of the accountability system at CDP, and is emblematic of the types of practice that justify our finding.
Another critical flaw we discovered is that many of the investigators in CDP’s Internal Affairs Unit advised us that they will only find that an officer violated Division policy if the evidence against the officer proves beyond a reasonable doubt that an officer engaged in misconduct—an unreasonably high standard reserved for criminal prosecutions and inappropriate in this context. This standard apparently has been applied, whether formally or informally, for years to countless numbers of these investigations and further supports the finding that the accountability systems regarding use of force at CDP are structurally flawed.
It should not be surprising then, that we found that CDP disciplines its officers for improper uses of force at an unreasonably low frequency. For uses of force during the time period we examined, only six CDP officers were suspended for any period of time for improper uses of force. Discipline is so rare that even CDP claims that no more than 51 officers out of a sworn force of 1,500 were disciplined in any fashion in connection with a use of force incident over a three-and-a-half year period from 2010 until early May, 2014. However, when we examined CDP’s discipline numbers further, it was apparent that in most of those 51 cases, the actual discipline imposed was for procedural violations such as failing to file a report, charges were dismissed or deemed unfounded, or the disciplinary process was suspended due to pending civil claims. A finding of excessive force by CDP’s internal disciplinary system is exceedingly
4

rare. A member of the Office of Professional Standards, which, among other duties, has been charged with investigating use of deadly force incidents, stated that the office has not formally reviewed a deadly force incident since 2012. CDP’s systemic failures are such that the Division is not able to timely, properly, and effectively determine how much force its officers are using, and under what circumstances, whether the force was reasonable and if not, what discipline, change in policy, training or other action is appropriate. Instead, they are too often working in a reactive crisis mode, responding to the latest highly publicized event.
The current pattern or practice of constitutional violations is even more troubling because we identified many of these structural deficiencies more than ten years ago during our previous investigation of CDP’s use of force. In 2002, we provided initial observations regarding CDP’s use of force and accountability systems and, in 2004, we recommended that the Division make changes to address some of the deficiencies we identified. CDP entered into an agreement with the Department of Justice, but that agreement was not enforced by a court and did not involve an independent monitor to assess its implementation. The agreement did require CDP to make a variety of changes, including revising its use of force policy and establishing new procedures for reviewing officer-involved shootings. In 2005, we found that Cleveland had abided by that agreement and it was terminated. It is clear, however, that despite these measures, many of the policy and practice reforms that were initiated in response to the 2004 memorandum agreement were either not fully implemented or, if implemented, were not maintained over time. It is critical that the City and the Division now take more rigorous measures to identify, address, and prevent excessive force to protect the public and to build the community’s trust. We believe that a consent decree and an independent monitor are necessary to ensure that reforms are successfully implemented and sustainable.
Finally, CDP’s failure to ensure that its officers do not use excessive force, or are held accountable if they do, interferes with its ability to gain the trust of and work with the communities whose cooperation the Division most needs to enforce the law, ensure officer safety, and prevent crime. Instead of working with Cleveland’s communities to understand their needs and concerns and to set crime-fighting priorities and strategies consistent with those needs, CDP too often polices in a way that contributes to community distrust and a lack of respect for officers—even the many officers who are doing their jobs effectively. That is unfair to those good officers, but it is a factual reality that CDP, whose mission is to serve the community, must work in partnership with that community in order to change. While CDP’s leadership does participate in programmatic efforts to connect with the community, especially at higher levels, and also recently adopted a new community policing initiative, the Division must undergo a cultural shift at all levels – down to the patrol officer -- to change an “us-against-them” mentality we too often observed and to truly integrate and inculcate community oriented policing principles into the daily work and management of the Division.
Although we did not investigate CDP’s search, seizure, and arrest practices, our force review revealed concerns in those areas as well. The documents we reviewed to determine the lawfulness of CDP’s force practices often also described stops, searches, and arrests by officers that appear to have been unsupported, at least in the pertinent reports. Where bases for detentions and searches were articulated, officers used canned or boilerplate language. Supervisors routinely approved these inadequate reports without seeking additional information. Given the possibility that CDP’s practices in this regard violate the Constitution and the near
5

certainty that they breed more distrust in the community, we are asking that the Division work with us to address these concerns as well.
We also found that CDP does not consistently provide its officers with all of the basic support, training, equipment and infrastructure they require to effectively and constitutionally police the community. Over time, this further erodes the morale of the police force and can contribute to diminished professionalism when officers face difficult situations. While we acknowledge that Cleveland in general, and CDP in particular, face significant budget constraints, we believe both that limited resources can be more efficiently used and that the City must invest more in its police force. As much as any building, public works project, stadium, or infrastructure, having effective, professional and constitutional policing is key to the success and vitality of any American city, including Cleveland.
We recognize that the Division has started to implement some reforms to address concerns raised by the Department of Justice, the community, and others, but much more is needed. The failure to swiftly take even more remedial action places residents at risk of excessive force and further alienates the Division from the communities it serves. Making constitutional policing a core Division value, and building systems of real accountability that carry out that value, will support the vast majority of CDP officers who strive to and do uphold their oaths to protect and serve the City of Cleveland. This will foster trust with the community, allowing all CDP officers to perform their jobs more safely and effectively.
6

 
 Investigación de la División De Policía De Cleveland
Departamento de Justicia de los Estados Unidos División de los Derechos Civiles
Fiscalía Federal de los Estados Unidos Distrito Del Norte de Ohio
4 de Deciembre, 2014

Resumen Ejecutivo
El Departamento de Justicia (“DOJ” por sus siglas en Inglés) ha completado su investigación de con respect a las prácticas de la División de Policía de Cleveland (“CDP” por sus siglas en Inglés, o “División”) Nosotros hemos concluido que tenemos causas razonables para creer que el CDP se involucra en un patrón o practica el uso de fuerza excesiva en violación de la Cuarta Enmienda de la Constitución de los Estados Unidos. Nuestra investigación bajo el Acta de Crímenes Violentos y la Fuerza de Ley de 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141 se enfocó en alegaciones de fuerza excesiva por parte de oficiales del CDP. Nosotros hemos determinado que las deficiencias y prácticas estructurales y sistémicas- incluyendo insuficiencia en tomar responsabilidad, entrenamiento y equipo inadecuado, pólizas ineficaces, e involucración inadecuada con la comunidad- contribuyen al uso de fuerza irrazonable de parte del CDP. Por estas razones, y porque es la segunda vez en los últimos diez años que el DOJ ha investigado y encontrado la necesidad de hacer reformas en el CDP, nosotros creemos que un cambio integral puede ser asegurada solamente con verificación externa en la forma de un decreto de consentimiento federal el cual incluye a un monitor independiente.
La publicacion de esta carta de hallazgos marca el final de una investigación civil que comenzó en Marzo del 2013, después de una serie de incidentes altamente publicados que sugerían la existencia de fallas críticas en las pólizas, procedimientos, y prácticas del usodefuerza del CDP, incluyendo la habilidad del CDP y deseo de evaluar la manera apropiada el uso de fuerza de los oficiales y hacerlos responsables por sus acciones. Estos incidentes también revelaron una falla entre el CDP y ciertos segmentos de la comunidad a la cual sirve. Numerosos líderes y organizaciones en Cleveland nos llamaron para abrir una investigación independiente del CDP, incluyendo a un miembro del Congreso de los Estados Unidos, líderes de varias comunidades religiosas diferentes, grupos de derechos civiles y comunitarios, y el Alcalde de Cleveland. Nuestra investigación encontró que las preocupaciones suscitadas por estos eventos y por muchos de los miembros de la comunidad y líderes civiles estaban bien fundadas.
Nuestra investigación no se enfocó solamente en incidentes altamente publicados de usode-fuerza. En vez, nuestra evaluación examinó casi 600 incidentes del uso de fuerza que ocurrieron entre el 2010 y el 2013, incluyendo incidentes involucrando el uso de fuerza letal y menos letal. Nosotros analizamos de manera detallada esos incidentes, usando reportes de uso de fuerza y otros documentos y evidencia provista por CDP, y aplicadas a estándares legales relevantes para determinar si el uso de fuerza de CDP fue justificado legalmente. Además, nuestra evaluación de uso de fuerza del CDP fue informado por muchas otras fuentes incluyendo: entrevistas de testigos y la participación de cientos de individuos en las reuniones de cabildo abierto; entrevistas con oficiales, supervisores, y personal de comando del CDP;
2

comentarios de otras partes interesadas de la Ciudad, incluyendo representantes elegidos de las uniones de oficiales de patrulla y manejo, la Oficina de Estándares Profesionales, la Junta Civil de Evaluación de Policía, miembros de comunidades religiosas, y otros líderes comunitarios: Pólizas, procedimientos y materiales de entrenamiento del CDP; y análisis provistos por consultores expertos de policía DOJ contratados para ayudar con esta investigación.
Nosotros reconocemos los retos enfrentados por los oficiales en Cleveland y en las comunidades a través de la nación cada día. La vigilancia puede ser peligrosa. En momentos, los oficiales deben usar fuerza, incluyendo fuerza letal, para proteger vidas, incluyendo la de ellos mismos. El uso de fuerza por parte de la policía debe ser guiada por el respeto a la vida humana y a la dignidad humana, la necesidad de proteger la seguridad pública, y el deber de proteger a individuos de detenciones irrazonables bajo la Cuarta Enmienda. Una cantidad de fuerza significativa usada por oficiales del CDP queda por debajo de estos estándares. A pesar de que el CDP ha tomado algunos pasos para mejorar pólizas y procedimientos del uso de fuerza del CDP, estas iniciativas por ellas mismas, han sido insuficientes.
Como la mayoría de los departamentos de policía, el Departamento de Justicia ha investigado, la mayoría del uso de fuerza usada por oficiales del CDP ha sido razonable y no está en violación con la Constitución. Además, la gran mayoría de oficiales del CDP está buscando el servir al público de la mejor manera que ellos pueden bajo condiciones peligrosas y difíciles. Estos oficiales merecen el respeto y gratitud de la comunidad. No obstante, basados en nuestra evaluación, nosotros hemos determinado en todas formas que tenemos suficiente causa razonable para creer que el CDP se involucra en un patrón o practica el uso de fuerza irrazonable en violación de la Cuarta Enmienda.1 Nosotros hemos concluido que estos incidentes de fuerza excesiva tienen raíz en deficiencias estructurales comunes. El patrón o practica del uso de fuerza excesiva del CDP esta tanto reflejada en como proveniente de su falla en evaluar e investigar de manera adecuada el uso de fuerza de los oficiales; el investigar de manera completa y objetiva todas las alegaciones de mala conducta policial; identificar y responder a patrones de comportamiento a-riesgo; proveer a sus oficiales con el apoyo, entrenamiento, supervisión, y equipo necesario para permitirles hacer su trabajo de manera segura y efectiva; adoptar o reforzar pólizas apropiadas; e implementar estrategias efectivas de vigilancia comunitaria a todos los niveles del CDP.
El patrón o práctica de fuerza irrazonable que nosotros identificamos está reflejada en el uso tanto de fuerza letal como de fuerza menos letal de parte del CDP.2 Por ejemplo, nosotros
1 Nuestros hallazgos, sin embargo, no significan que ningún oficial individual ha actuado con intención criminal, un estándar legal completamente diferente y más alto que esta por fuera de la visión de esta investigación. 2 Para propósitos de este resumen, “fuerza menos letal” significa la aplicación de fuerza sin intención o expectativa de causar muerte o lesión seria y la cual es comúnmente entendida a tener menos potencial para causar muerte o lesión seria que tácticas policiales convencionales, más letales. Sin embargo, el uso de fuerza menos letal puede resultar en muerte o lesión seria.
3

encontramos incidentes de oficiales del CDP que disparando sus armas a personas quienes no poseen un riesgo inmediato de muerte o lesión corporal seria a oficiales o a otros, y usando sus armas de manera irresponsable y peligrosa, incluyendo pegándole a las personas en la cabeza con sus armas, en circunstancias donde la fuerza letal no está justificada. Los oficiales también usaron fuerza menos letal que está fuera de proporción con la resistencia encontrada; los oficiales también escalaron frecuentemente incidentes con ciudadanos en vez de usar tácticas efectivas y aceptadas para reducir la tensión. Como manera de ejemplo, nosotros evaluamos incidentes donde los oficiales usaron armas electrónicas como el Taser,3 spray de oleorresina capsicum (“Spray OC”), o golpeando a personas quienes ya estaban sometidas, incluyendo a personas esposadas. Muchas de estas personas pudieron haber sido controladas con una aplicación menor de fuerza. En momentos, esta fuerza parece ser aplicada como castigo por la resistencia verbal o física ante de fuerza menor un oficial en comando, y no basada en una amenaza actual presentada por la persona. Este uso de fuerza de represalia no está justificado legalmente. Nuestra revisión también reveló que los oficiales usan fuerza excesiva en contra de individuos quienes están en crisis de salud mental y quienes puede que no sean capaces de entender o cumplir con comandos de un oficial, incluyendo incidentes en los cuales la policía son llamados para ayudar a proveer servicios incluyendo a un individuo el cual no se le sospecha que haya cometido ningún crimen en absolute.
Además del patrón o prácticas del uso de fuerza excesiva, nosotros encontramos que los oficiales de CDP cometen errores tácticos que ponen en peligro tanto a ellos mismos como a otros en la comunidad de Cleveland y, en algunas instancias, pueden resultar en violaciones constitucionales. Ellos muy frecuentemente disparan sus armas en una manera y en unas circunstancias en las cuales pone a espectadores inocentes en peligro. Muy frecuentemente ellos accidentalmente disparan sus armas, algunas veces sin impactar nada de manera fortuita y otras veces disparando a las personas y lesionándolas seriamente. Los oficiales del CDP usan muy frecuentemente tácticas peligrosas e inferiores para tratar de ganar control de los sospechosos, lo cual resulta en aplicación de fuerza adicional o pone a otros en peligro. Críticamente, los oficiales no usan de manera efectiva técnicas de disminución, y muy frecuentemente, al contrario, escalando los encuentros y aplicando fuerza cuando esta puede que no sea necesitada y que podía haber sido evitada. Mientras que estos errores tácticos no siempre resultan en violaciones constitucionales, estas colocan a los oficiales, sospechosos, y otros miembros de la comunidad de Cleveland a riesgo, y, como se establece abajo, los oficiales no son re-entrenados o disciplinados de manera confiable por dichas conductas, lo cual lleva a su repetición.
El principio entre las deficiencias sistémicas que han resultado en el patrón o práctica que nosotros hayamos es la falla por parte del CDP de implementar sistemas de responsabilidad efectivos y rigorosos. Los incidentes de fuerza muy frecuentemente no son reportados,
3 La División usa armas de control electrónico de marca Taser y se refiere a ellas en sus pólizas como “Tasers”. A través de este resumen, nosotros vamos a referir a estas armas de control electrónicas como Tasers.
4

documentados, investigados, o atendidos de manera apropiada con medidas de corrección. Aun limitando una evaluación de los expedientes actualmente generados por el CDP, los supervisores por medio de la cadena de comando endosan conductas cuestionables y algunas veces ilegales de parte de sus oficiales. Nosotros hemos evaluado investigaciones de supervisión del uso de fuerza de oficiales que parecen ser designadas desde el principio para justificar las acciones de los oficiales. Es profundamente preocupante para nosotros el que algunos de los investigadores especialmente entrenados quienes están encargados con conducir evaluaciones imparciales del uso de fuerza de los oficiales actualmente nos admitieron que ellos condujeron sus investigaciones con el objetivo de mostrar al oficial acusado de la manera más positiva posible. Esta parcialidad admitida parece tener raíces muy profundas, y corta al centro del sistema de responsabilidad del CDP, y es emblemático de los tipos de práctica que justifican nuestros hallazgos.
Otra falla critica que nosotros descubrimos es que muchas investigadores de la Unidad de Asuntos Internos del CDP nos avisaban que ellos solamente encontrarían que un oficial violó la póliza de la División si la evidencia en contra del oficial prueba, mas allá de duda razonable, que un oficial está involucrado en mala conducta- un estándar irrazonablemente alto reservado para procesos criminales y es inapropiado en este contexto. Este estándar aparentemente ha sido aplicado, ya sea de manera formal o informal, por años a números incalculables de estas investigaciones y apoya aún más los hallazgos de que el sistema de responsabilidad con relación del uso de fuerza del CDP esta defectuoso.
No debe ser sorprendente, entonces, que nosotros encontremos que el CDP disciplina a sus oficiales de manera irrazonablemente con baja en frecuencia por el uso de fuerza inapropiado. Por usos de fuerza durante el periodo de tiempo que nosotros hemos examinado, solamente seis oficiales del CDP fueron suspendidos por un periodo de tiempo por el uso de fuerza inapropiado. La disciplina es tan rara que aun el CDP dice que no más de 51 oficiales de un total de la fuerza juramentada de 1,500 fueron disciplinados de alguna manera en conexión con incidentes de uso de fuerza durante un periodo de tres años y medio desde el 2010 hasta el comienzo de Mayo, 2014. Sin embargo, cuando nosotros examinamos los números de disciplina del CDP más profundamente, fue aparente que en la mayoría de esos 51 casos, la disciplina actual impuesta fue por violaciones de procedimiento tales como el no entregar un reporte, cargos que fueron sobreseídos o considerados sin fundamento, o el proceso disciplinario fue suspendido debido a reclamos civiles pendientes. Un hallazgo de fuerza excesiva por el sistema disciplinario interno del CDP es extremadamente raro. Un miembro de la Oficina de Estándares Profesionales, el cual, entre otras responsabilidades, ha sido encargado con la investigación de incidentes con uso de fuerza letal, declaró que la oficina no ha evaluado de manera formal ningún incidente de fuerza letal desde el 2012. Las fallas sistémicas del CDP son tales que no puede determinar de manera oportuna, apropiada y efectiva cuánta fuerza están usando los oficiales, y bajo cuales circunstancias, ya sea que la fuerza era razonable, y si no, cual disciplina,
5

cambio en póliza, entrenamiento, u otra acción es apropiada. En vez, ellos están trabajando muy frecuentemente en un modo de crisis reactivo, respondiendo al último evento altamente publicado.
El patrón actual de práctica de violaciones constitucionales es aún más preocupante porque nosotros identificamos muchas de estas deficiencias estructurales hace más de diez años durante nuestra investigación anterior del uso de fuerza del CDP. En el 2002, nosotros proveímos observaciones iniciales con relación al uso de fuerza del CDP y sistemas de responsabilidad, y en el 2004, nosotros recomendamos que hiciera cambios para tratar algunas de las deficiencias que nosotros identificamos. El CDP entró en un acuerdo con el Departamento de Justicia, pero ese arreglo privado no fue reforzado por una corte y no involucró a un monitor independiente para evaluar su implementación. El acuerdo requería que el CDP hiciera varios cambios, incluyendo el revisar su uso de la póliza de fuerza y establecer nuevos procedimientos para evaluar balaceras con oficiales involucrados. En el 2005, nosotros encontramos que Cleveland había cumplido con este acuerdo y este fue terminado. Es muy claro, sin embargo, que aún con estas medidas, muchas de las reformas de póliza y práctica que fueron iniciadas en respuesta al acuerdo del memorando del 2004, no fueron completamente implementados, o, si fueron implementadas, no se mantuvieron con el pasar del tiempo. Es crítico que la Ciudad y el CDP tomen ahora medidas más rigorosas para identificar, encarar y prevenir fuerza excesiva para proteger al público y edificar la confianza de la comunidad. Nosotros creemos que el Decreto de Consentimiento y un monitor independiente son necesarios para asegurar que las reformas sean exitosamente implementadas y sostenidas.
Finalmente, la falla del CDP en asegurar que sus oficiales no usen fuerza excesiva, o sean encontrados responsables si lo han hecho, interfiere con su habilidad de ganar la confianza de trabajar con las comunidades cuya cooperación es muy necesaria para que imponga la ley, asegure la seguridad de los oficiales, y prevenga crimen. En vez de trabajar con las comunidades de Cleveland para entender sus necesidades y preocupaciones y para establecer prioridades y estrategias consistentes con esas necesidades para combatir crimen, el CDP patrulla muy frecuentemente de una manera en que contribuye a que la comunidad no confíe en ni tenga respeto por los oficiales- aún a los muchos oficiales quienes están haciendo su trabajo de manera efectiva. Esto es injusto para aquellos buenos oficiales, pero es una realidad factual que el CDP, cuya misión es la de servir a la comunidad, debe trabajar en associación con la comunidad para poder cambiar. Mientras que el liderazgo del CDP participa en esfuerzos programáticos para conectarse con la comunidad, especialmente a niveles altos, y también adoptaron recientemente una iniciativa de vigilancia comunitaria, el CDP debe someterse a un cambio cultural a todos los niveles- desde el oficial de patrulla- para cambiar la mentalidad “nosotros-en-contra-de-ellos” que nosotros hemos observado muy seguido y verdaderamente integrar e inculcar principios de vigilancia orientadas a la comunidad en su trabajo diario y para el manejo del CDP.
6

A pesar de que nosotros no investigamos las prácticas del CDP de inspección, confiscación, y arresto, nuestra revisión de fuerza reveló preocupaciones en esas áreas también. Los documentos que nosotros evaluamos para determinar la legalidad de las prácticas de fuerza del CDP frecuentemente también describen detenciones, inspecciones y arrestos por medio de oficiales que parecen haber sido sin sustento, por lo menos en los reportes pertinentes. Donde las bases para estas detenciones e inspecciones eran articuladas, los oficiales usaron lenguaje prefabricado y cliché. Los supervisores aprobaron de manera rutinaria estos reportes inadecuados sin buscar información adicional. Dada la posibilidad de que las practicas del CDP en este tema violan la Constitución y la casi certeza de que ellas crean más falta de confianza en la comunidad, nosotros estamos pidiendo que trabaje con nosotros para tratar estas preocupaciones también.
Nosotros también encontramos que el CDP no provee de manera consistente a sus oficiales con el apoyo, entrenamiento, equipo e infraestructura básicos que ellos requieren para vigilar la comunidad efectiva y constitucionalmente. Con el paso del tiempo, esto corroe más la moral de la fuerza policial puede contribuir a la disminución de profesionalismo cuando los oficiales enfrentan situaciones difíciles. Mientras que nosotros reconocemos que Cleveland en general, el CDP en particular, enfrenta restricciones significativas del presupuesto, nosotros creemos que ambos recursos limitados pueden ser usados de manera más eficiente y que la Ciudad debe invertir más en su fuerza policial. Así como cualquier edificio, proyecto de trabajo público, estadio o infraestructura, teniendo vigilancia efectiva, profesional y constitucional es clave para el éxito y la vitalidad de una ciudad Americana, incluyendo Cleveland.
Nosotros reconocemos que el CDP ha comenzado a implementar reformas para encarar las preocupaciones resaltadas por el Departamento de Justicia, la comunidad, y otros, pero se necesita mucho más. La falla en tomar aún más acciones remediales pone a los residentes a riesgo de fuerza excesiva y aliena a la División de la comunidad a la cual sirve. El hacer vigilancia constitucional es un valor central de la División, y edificar sistemas de responsabilidad reales para llevar a cabo este valor, va a apoyar a la mayoría de oficiales del CDP quienes buscan, y mantienen sus juramentos de, proteger y servir a la Ciudad de Cleveland. Esto va a impulsar la confianza con la comunidad, permitiéndoles a los oficiales del CDP a realizar su trabajo de manera más segura y efectiva.
7

 
 Investigation of the Cleveland Division of Police
United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division
United States Attorney’s Office Northern District of Ohio December 4, 2014

U.S. Department of Justice ___________________________________________________________________________
The Honorable Frank G. Jackson Mayor City of Cleveland Cleveland City Hall 601 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44114
Dear Mayor Jackson:
The Department of Justice has completed its civil pattern or practice investigation of the Cleveland Division of Police (“CDP” or “the Division”). We have concluded that we have reasonable cause to believe that CDP engages in a pattern or practice of the use of excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. We have determined that structural and systemic deficiencies and practices—including insufficient accountability, inadequate training, ineffective policies, and inadequate engagement with the community—contribute to the use of unreasonable force.
Our investigation under the Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141 (“Section 14141”) focused on allegations of excessive force by CDP officers. Section 14141 makes it unlawful for government entities, such as the City of Cleveland and CDP, to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers that deprives individuals of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. The investigation was conducted jointly by the Civil Rights Division and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Ohio. This letter is separate from, and does not address, any criminal investigation that may be conducted by the Department of Justice.1
We opened our investigation after a series of incidents of potential excessive force revealed a rift between CDP and certain segments of the communities it serves. An investigation into one of those incidents by the Ohio Attorney General concluded that the incident was the result of a “systemic failure” by CDP. Numerous leaders and organizations in Cleveland called on us to open an investigation into CDP, including a member of the U.S. Congress, leaders of several different religious communities, civil rights and community groups, and ultimately you, Mayor Jackson. Our investigation found that the concerns raised by community members, civic leaders, and other law enforcement agencies are well-founded.
We recognize the challenges faced by officers in Cleveland and in communities across the nation every day. Policing can be dangerous. At times, officers must use force, including deadly force, to protect lives, including their own. The use of force by police should be guided by a respect for human life and human dignity, the need to protect public safety, and the duty to protect individuals from unreasonable seizures under the Fourth Amendment. A significant amount of the force used by CDP officers falls short of these standards. Although CDP has taken some steps to improve the Division’s use of force policies and procedures, these initiatives, by themselves, have been insufficient. The need for sustainable reform is highlighted by the fact
1 Please note that this letter is a public document and will be posted on the Civil Rights Division’s and the United States Attorney’s Office’s websites.

that just over a decade ago the Department of Justice completed its first investigation of the Cleveland Division of Police. That investigation raised concerns and resulted in recommendations that are starkly similar to the findings in this letter. The voluntary reforms undertaken at that time did not create the systems of accountability necessary to ensure a longterm remedy to these issues.
Throughout our investigation, CDP’s leadership has been receptive to our preliminary feedback and technical assistance. We also received cooperation from the patrol officers and supervisors we met, which we value greatly. We recognize that the men and women of CDP want to do their jobs effectively and appropriately. They are trying to do a tough job as best they can. CDP’s officers serve the public at great risk. They are working under quite difficult circumstances and we appreciate their willingness to serve. However, as outlined in this letter, more work is necessary to ensure that officers have the proper guidance, training, support, supervision, and oversight to carry out their law enforcement responsibilities safely and in accordance with individuals’ constitutional rights. We appreciate your expressed willingness to embrace many of the changes we have highlighted in our conversations with CDP during this investigation. We will continue to work collaboratively with you, the Division’s leadership, and other stakeholders to develop sustainable reforms that will resolve our findings. The Statement of Principles that we agreed to on December 2, 2014, is a critical first step in moving toward reform, and we applaud the City’s willingness to make its intent to collaborate with us explicit. However, if we cannot reach an appropriate resolution, Section 14141 authorizes the Department of Justice to file a civil lawsuit to “eliminate the pattern or practice” of police misconduct. 42 U.S.C. § 14141.
We thank the members of Cleveland’s diverse communities for bringing relevant information to our attention and for sharing their experiences with us. We are encouraged by the many individuals who took an active interest in our investigation and who offered thoughtful recommendations, including community advocates, religious leaders, and members of CDP’s patrol officer and management unions. We appreciate those individuals who came forward to provide information about specific encounters with CDP, even when recounting those events was difficult. We also thank the officers who shared information about the many challenges they face. We know that many residents care deeply about preventing the types of incidents described in this letter even as they have a genuine interest in supporting the men and women of CDP who uphold their oaths and work to protect the people of Cleveland.
We appreciate the cooperation and professionalism that you, CDP, and other city officials have displayed during our investigation. We received invaluable assistance from the Division’s leadership, and officers. Based on this cooperation, we are optimistic that we will be able to work with the City and CDP to address our findings. We are encouraged that, just two days ago, we agreed to a Joint Statement of Principles to guide our negotiations to remedy the constitutional violations we found. Together, by promoting constitutional policing, we will make CDP more effective and will help build the community’s trust in the Division.
2

I. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Our investigation concluded that there is reasonable cause to believe that CDP engages in a pattern or practice of using unreasonable force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. That pattern manifested in a range of ways, including:
• The unnecessary and excessive use of deadly force, including shootings and head strikes with impact weapons;
• The unnecessary, excessive or retaliatory use of less lethal force including tasers, chemical spray and fists;
• Excessive force against persons who are mentally ill or in crisis, including in cases where the officers were called exclusively for a welfare check; and
• The employment of poor and dangerous tactics that place officers in situations where avoidable force becomes inevitable and places officers and civilians at unnecessary risk.
Officers may be required to use force during the course of their duties. However, the Constitution requires that officers use only that amount of force that is reasonable under the circumstances. We found that CDP officers too often use unnecessary and unreasonable force in violation of the Constitution. Supervisors tolerate this behavior and, in some cases, endorse it. Officers report that they receive little supervision, guidance, and support from the Division, essentially leaving them to determine for themselves how to perform their difficult and dangerous jobs. The result is policing that is sometimes chaotic and dangerous; interferes with CDP’s ability to effectively fight crime; compromises officer safety; and frequently deprives individuals of their constitutional rights. Based on our investigation, we find that the Division engages in a pattern or practice of using excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Like most police departments the Department of Justice has investigated, the majority of the force used by CDP officers is reasonable and not in violation of the Constitution. Nonetheless, we found that CDP officers engage in excessive force far too often, and that the use of excessive force by CDP officers is neither isolated, nor sporadic. In fact, as we indicated when we met with the City in October 2014, determining whether a pattern or practice of the unreasonable use of force exists was not a close case. Thus, even if people have differing views regarding the propriety of any single incident, it would not change the ultimate conclusion that there is a broader pattern or practice of unreasonable force. Our findings, however, do not mean that any individual officers have acted with criminal intent, a wholly different and higher legal standard that is beyond the scope of this letter and this investigation.
We have concluded that these incidents of excessive force are rooted in common structural deficiencies. CDP’s pattern or practice of excessive force is both reflected by and stems from its failure to adequately review and investigate officers’ uses of force; fully and objectively investigate all allegations of misconduct; identify and respond to patterns of at-risk behavior; provide its officers with the support, training, supervision, and equipment needed to
3

allow them to do their jobs safely and effectively; adopt and enforce appropriate policies; and implement effective community policing strategies at all levels of CDP.
The pattern or practice of unreasonable force we identified is reflected in CDP’s use of both deadly and less lethal force.2 For example, we found incidents of CDP officers firing their guns at people who do not pose an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury to officers or others and using guns in a careless and dangerous manner, including hitting people on the head with their guns, in circumstances where deadly force is not justified. Officers also use less lethal force that is significantly out of proportion to the resistance encountered and officers too often escalate incidents with citizens instead of using effective and accepted tactics to de-escalate tension. We reviewed incidents where officers used Tasers,3 oleoresin capsicum spray (“OC Spray”), or punched people who were already subdued, including people in handcuffs. Many of these people could have been controlled with a lesser application of force. At times, this force appears to have been applied as punishment for the person’s earlier verbal or physical resistance to an officer’s command, and is not based on a current threat posed by the person. This retaliatory use of force is not legally justified. Our review also revealed that officers use excessive force against individuals who are in mental health crisis or who may be unable to understand or comply with officers’ commands, including when the individual is not suspected of having committed any crime at all.
In addition to the pattern or practice of excessive force, we found that CDP officers commit tactical errors that endanger both themselves and others in the Cleveland community and, in some instances, may result in constitutional violations. They too often fire their weapons in a manner and in circumstances that place innocent bystanders in danger; and accidentally fire them, sometimes fortuitously hitting nothing and other times shooting people and seriously injuring them. CDP officers too often use dangerous and poor tactics to try to gain control of suspects, which results in the application of additional force or places others in danger. Critically, officers do not make effective use of de-escalation techniques, too often instead escalating encounters and employing force when it may not be needed and could be avoided. While these tactical errors may not always result in constitutional violations, they place officers, suspects, and other members of the Cleveland community at risk.
Principal among the systemic deficiencies that have resulted in the pattern or practice we found is the Division’s failure to implement effective and rigorous accountability systems. The fact that we find that there are systemic failures in CDP, however, should not be interpreted as inconsistent with holding officers accountable in any particular incident. Individual CDP officers also bear responsibility for their own actions once afforded due process of law. Any
2 For purposes of this letter, “less lethal force” means a force application not intended or expected to cause death or serious injury and which is commonly understood to have less potential for causing death or serious injury than conventional, more lethal police tactics. Nonetheless, use of less lethal force can result in death or serious injury.
3 The division uses the Taser brand of electronic control weapons and refers to them in its policies as “Tasers.” Throughout this report, we will refer to these electronic control weapons as Tasers.
4

effort to force a decision between systemic problems and individual accountability is nothing more than an effort to set up a false choice between two important aspects of the same broader issues that exist at CDP. Force incidents often are not properly reported, documented, investigated, or addressed with corrective measures. Supervisors throughout the chain of command endorse questionable and sometimes unlawful conduct by officers. We reviewed supervisory investigations of officers’ use of force that appear to be designed from the outset to justify the officers’ actions. Deeply troubling to us was that some of the specially-trained investigators who are charged with conducting unbiased reviews of officers’ use of deadly force admitted to us that they conduct their investigations with the goal of casting the accused officer in the most positive light possible. This admitted bias appears deeply rooted, cuts at the heart of the accountability system at CDP, and is emblematic of the type of practice that justifies a finding under Section 14141.
Another critical flaw we discovered is that many of the investigators in CDP’s Internal Affairs Unit advised us that they will only find that an officer violated Division policy if the evidence against the officer proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that an officer engaged in misconduct—an unreasonably high standard reserved for criminal prosecutions and inappropriate in this context. This standard apparently has been applied, formally or informally, for years to these investigations and further supports the finding that the accountability systems regarding use of force at CDP are structurally flawed. In actuality, we found that during the time period we reviewed that officers were only suspended for any period of time on approximately six occasions for using improper force. Discipline is so rare that no more than 51 officers out of a sworn force of 1,500 were disciplined in any fashion in connection with a use of force incident over a three-and-a half-year period. However, when we examined CDP’s discipline numbers further, it was apparent that in most of those 51 cases the actual discipline imposed was for procedural violations such as failing to file a report, charges were dismissed or deemed unfounded, or the disciplinary process was suspended due to pending civil claims. A finding of excessive force by CDP’s internal disciplinary system is exceedingly rare. A member of the Office of Professional Standards (or “OPS”), which, among other duties, has been charged with investigating use of deadly force incidents, stated that the office has not reviewed a deadly force incident since 2012. CDP’s systemic failures are such that the Division is not able to timely, properly, and effectively determine how much force its officers are using, and under what circumstances, whether the force was reasonable and if not, what discipline, change in policy or training or other action is appropriate.
The current pattern or practice of constitutional violations is even more troubling because we identified many of these structural deficiencies more than ten years ago during our previous investigation of CDP’s use of force. In 2002, we provided initial observations regarding CDP’s use of force and accountability systems and, in 2004, we recommended that the Division make changes to address some of the deficiencies we identified. CDP entered into an agreement with us, but that agreement was not enforced by a court and did not involve an independent monitor to assess its implementation. The agreement did require CDP to make a variety of changes, including revising its use of force policy and establishing new procedures for reviewing officerinvolved shootings. In 2005, we found that Cleveland had abided by that agreement and it was terminated. It is clear, however, that despite these measures, many of the policy and practice reforms that were initiated in response to our 2004 memorandum agreement were either not fully implemented or, if implemented, were not maintained over time. It is critical that the City and
5

the Division now take more rigorous measures to identify, address, and prevent excessive force to protect the public and to build the community’s trust. We believe that a consent decree and an independent monitor are necessary to ensure that reforms are successfully implemented and sustainable. We are encouraged that the City also recognizes that these measures are essential to sustainable reform in the Joint Statement of Principles.
Finally, CDP’s failure to ensure that its officers do not use excessive force and are held accountable if they do, interferes with its ability to work with the communities whose cooperation the Division most needs to enforce the law, ensure officer safety, and prevent crime. Instead of working with Cleveland’s communities to understand their needs and concerns and to set crime-fighting priorities and strategies consistent with those needs, CDP too often polices in a way that contributes to community distrust and a lack of respect for officers – even the many officers who are doing their jobs effectively. For example, we observed a large sign hanging in the vehicle bay of a district station identifying it as a “forward operating base,” a military term for a small, secured outpost used to support tactical operations in a war zone. This characterization reinforces the view held by some—both inside and outside the Division—that CDP is an occupying force instead of a true partner and resource in the community it serves. While CDP’s leadership recently adopted a new community policing initiative, the Division must undergo a cultural shift at all levels to change an “us-against-them” mentality we too often observed and to truly integrate and inculcate community oriented policing principles into the daily work and management of the Division.
Although we did not investigate CDP’s search, seizure, and arrest practices, our force review revealed concerns we would be remiss not to address. The documents we reviewed to determine the lawfulness of CDP’s force practices often described stops, searches, and arrests by officers that appear to have been unsupported. Notwithstanding the limited nature of this review, what we saw suggests that some CDP officers violate individuals’ Fourth Amendment rights by subjecting them to stops, frisks, and full searches without the requisite level of suspicion. Individuals were detained on suspicion of having committed a crime, with no articulation or an inadequate articulation in CDP’s own records of the basis for the officer’s suspicion. Individuals were searched “for officer safety” without any articulation of a reason to fear for officer safety. Where bases for detentions and searches were articulated, officers used canned or boilerplate language. Supervisors routinely approved these inadequate reports without seeking additional information from the officers about the circumstances that justified the encounter that ultimately concluded with a use of force. Given the possibility that CDP’s practices in this regard violate the Constitution and the near certainty that they breed more distrust in the community, we have asked that the Division work with us to address these concerns as well, and we appreciate your commitment in the Joint Statement of Principles to address these issues.
We recognize that the Division has started to implement some reforms to address concerns raised by the Department of Justice, the community and others, but much more is needed. As the City recognized in entering into the Joint Statement of Principles, the failure to take even more remedial action places residents at risk of excessive force and further alienates the Division from the communities it serves. We believe the City’s commitment to an Agreement with us that will be entered as a consent order in federal court is crucial to making these remedies effective. Making constitutional policing a core Division value, and building systems of real accountability that carry out that value, will support the vast majority of CDP
6

officers who strive to and do uphold their oaths to protect and serve the City of Cleveland. This will foster trust with the community, allowing all CDP officers to perform their jobs more safely and effectively.
II. BACKGROUND
The Department began this investigation in March 2013 in the wake of serious allegations that CDP officers use excessive force, and that the Division fails to identify, correct, and hold officers accountable for using force in violation of the Constitution. Several incidents eroded community confidence and suggested there were serious flaws in CDP’s use of force practices, including the Division’s ability and willingness to hold officers accountable for unlawful, improper, or unsafe conduct. In January 2011, a police helicopter video emerged showing that, earlier that month, officers used excessive force against an unarmed man who had led police on a chase. The force—which included kicks to his head—was used after the man had surrendered to officers and was handcuffed and prone on the ground. None of the officers involved had written a report as to either using or witnessing any force at all, and no officers were appropriately disciplined for failing to report the use of force. In addition, even after the incident received significant attention and the man was prosecuted for his flight, none of the many police officers on the scene identified the officers who had used force that night. As a result, the officers who improperly used force could not be held accountable for their conduct.
In March 2011, the Cleveland Plain Dealer began an analysis of CDP’s use of force and, over the next several months, ran a series of articles that described significant problems with CDP’s force practices, based on a review of publicly available data. The Plain Dealer reported that CDP officers often engaged in force that appeared to be excessive and in violation of policy; that CDP failed to identify excessive force incidents; failed to conduct adequate supervisory reviews of force incidents; and failed to adequately discipline a small group of officers who were involved in a disproportionate number of use of force incidents, many of which appear to have been unreasonable.4 The Plain Dealer also reported that, between October 2005 and March 2011, CDP officers used Tasers 969 times, all but five of which the Division deemed justified and appropriate (a 99.5% clearance rate which one police expert said “strains credibility”). The
4 See, e.g., Henry J. Gomez, Six Cleveland Police Officers Accused of Brutality Have Used Force on 39 Suspects Since 2009, Clev. Plain Dealer, May 22, 2011, available at http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/05/cleveland_police_officers_accu.html; see also Gabriel Baird, Two Cleveland Police Officers Charged with Assault are Among Department’s Most Prolific Users of Force, Clev. Plain Dealer, Mar. 27, 2011, available at http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/03/cleveland_police_officers_kevi.html; Gabriel Baird and Henry J. Gomez, Cleveland Police Chief McGrath Overlooked Conflicting Statements in Use of Force Investigations, Clev. Plain Dealer, June 5, 2011, available at http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/06/cleveland_police_chief_michael_3.html. This material is included not because we are adopting the findings in these reports, but because they do provide appropriate background as to the community-CDP relationship.
7

Plain Dealer analyzed similar CDP force data in 2007 and found that supervisors reviewed 4,427 uses of force over four years and justified the force in every single case.5
On November 29, 2012, over 100 Cleveland police officers engaged in a high speed chase, in violation of CDP policies, and fatally shot two unarmed civilians. The incident inflamed community perceptions, particularly in the African-American community, that CDP is a department out of control and that its officers routinely engage in brutality. The incident began when Timothy Russell and his passenger Malissa Williams drove past the Justice Center in downtown Cleveland, at which point officers and witnesses outside the Justice Center heard what they believed to be a shot fired from the car. It now appears that what they actually heard was the car backfiring. A massive chase ensued, involving at least 62 police vehicles, some of which were unmarked, and more than 100 patrol officers, supervisors, and dispatchers—about 37 percent of the CDP personnel on duty in the City. The pursuit lasted about 25 minutes, at times reaching speeds of more than 100 miles per hour. During the chase, some of the confusing and contradictory radio traffic incorrectly indicated that the occupants of the car may be armed and may be firing from the car. Other radio traffic did not support that conclusion. No supervisor asserted control over the chase, and some even participated. CDP now admits that the manner in which the chase occurred was not in accordance with established CDP policies. The chase finally ended outside the City’s borders, in an East Cleveland school parking lot, with CDP vehicles located in front of and behind Mr. Russell’s car. In circumstances that are still being disputed in court, thirteen CDP officers ultimately fired 137 shots at the car, killing both its occupants. Mr. Russell and Ms. Williams each suffered more than 20 gunshot wounds. The officers, who were firing on the car from all sides, reported believing that they were being fired at by the suspects. It now appears that those shots were being fired by fellow officers.
The Office of the Ohio Attorney General and its Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation and Identification (“BCI”) conducted an investigation of the incident, at the conclusion of which BCI issued a report that raised serious questions about CDP’s policies, training, supervision, communication, and technology.6 In an accompanying statement, the Ohio Attorney General, Mike DeWine, said it was a “miracle” that no law enforcement officer was killed during the incident and added, “Our two month investigation reveals that we are dealing with a systemic failure in the Cleveland Police Department. Command failed. Communications failed. The System failed.”7 On December 27, 2012, Cleveland’s mayor publicly requested that the Civil
5 Gabriel Baird and Henry J. Gomez, Cleveland Police Boast Near-Spotless Taser Record, but Experts Question Credibility of the Numbers, Clev. Plain Dealer, July 20, 2011, available at http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/07/cleveland_police_boast_near-sp.html.
6 OHIO BUREAU OF CRIMINAL IDENTIFICATION & INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTOR’S SUMMARY (Feb. 5, 2013), available at http://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/bcishootingreport.
7 Statement, Ohio Att’y Gen. Mike DeWine, Officer-Involved Shooting of Timothy Russell and Malissa Williams (Feb. 5, 2013), available at http://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Files/Briefing-Room/News-Releases/Cleveland-OfficerInvolved-Shooting-Investigation/Officer-Involved-Shooting-Statement-Morning-02-05.aspx. Again, these findings are not being cited because we adopt them in this letter, but because they
8

Rights Division of the Department of Justice review CDP’s use of force policies.8 Subsequently, six CDP officers were indicted for their actions on November 29, 2012. The City recently agreed to pay $3 million to settle a civil lawsuit filed by the families of Mr. Russell and Ms. Williams.9
In conducting our investigation, we did not assess whether the officers involved in this incident violated the law. This matter is subject to an ongoing criminal prosecution and this findings letter is not intended to interfere with that process in any manner. Nor did we find predication to investigate whether CDP’s practices discriminate against minority groups or otherwise deprive individuals of the protections provided by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. We include the November 29, 2012 incident here to describe the serious allegations facing the Division when we began our investigation and the community distrust that CDP must grapple with in ensuring it provides effective and constitutional policing services to all segments of the Cleveland community. We also note that many of the concerns regarding policies, training, supervision, accountability, and equipment that were implicated by that incident were confirmed during our investigation, as set out below. Thus, our investigation revealed a clear pattern or practice of use of excessive force by officers without specific consideration of the November 29, 2012 incident.
III. METHODOLOGY
Our evaluation of CDP’s use of force was informed by many sources, including: (1) witness interviews and hundreds of individuals participating in community town hall meetings; (2) the Division’s officers, supervisors, and command staff; (3) other stakeholders in the City, including elected representatives of the patrol officer and management unions, the Office of Professional Standards and the Civilian Police Review Board, members of religious communities, and other community leaders; (4) Division documents, including reports documenting officers’ use of deadly and less lethal force and materials associated with those reports; (5) Division policies, procedures and training materials, and (6) analysis provided by our expert police consultants.
Throughout our investigation, we sought information relevant to the Division’s use of force and worked to gain a comprehensive understanding of the Division, including its leadership, systems of accountability, operations, and community engagement. We conducted
constitute important background from another significant source that provided background for this investigation.
8 Leila Atassi, Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson Seeks Outside Review of All Future Use of Deadly Force Cases, Clev. Plain Dealer, Dec. 27, 2012, available at http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2012/12/cleveland_mayor_frank_jackson_5.html.
9 John Caniglia, Judge Approve Settlement Reached with Families of Timothy Russell, Malissa Williams Over Deadly Police Chase and Shooting, Clev. Plain Dealer, Nov. 18, 2014, available at http://www.cleveland.com/courtjustice/index.ssf/2014/11/judge_approves_settlement_reac.html.
9

multi-day onsite tours in Cleveland in March 2013, April 2013, June 2013, December 2013, February 2014, and July 2014. Collectively during these investigative tours, we met with command staff, most of the district commanders, officers of various ranks and leadership, and officers within the Internal Affairs Unit, among others. We accompanied officers and supervisors in their zone cars during various shifts and in every district.10 The Division briefed us on changes to its policies and practices. We met with representatives from the officers’ and supervisors’ unions. In addition to these onsite tours, which involved representatives from both the United States Attorney’s Office and the Civil Rights Division, the United States Attorney’s Office maintained a steady presence in Cleveland, attending community group meetings and visiting the districts to speak with officers and supervisors.
We also sought to learn more from individuals and groups who had direct interactions with the Division, and whom CDP is sworn to protect. We held multiple community town hall meetings in different regions of the City. During each of our onsite tours in Cleveland, we met with individuals who were willing to talk to us about their experiences with the police. In addition, we conducted three visits to Cleveland, in September 2013, May 2014, and October 2014 focused solely on talking to members of the community. We heard community members’ concerns through outreach at community events, recreation centers, local businesses, and public housing units. We met with religious leaders, community activists, and representatives from several organizations that provide services to Clevelanders who are homeless or have a mental illness. We interviewed individuals who had either witnessed or been subjected to force by CDP officers. We verified these accounts where possible by reviewing available documentary, photographic, and video support, as well as Division records.
We were aided in our review by several expert police consultants who have significant experience in constitutional and best-practices policing, including reducing improper uses of force, ensuring officer safety and accountability, and promoting respectful police interactions with the community. Some of these consultants, who have worked for decades in police positions ranging from patrol officer to Chief, joined us during our onsite tours of the Division, participated in one or more of our town hall meetings, conducted interviews with civilians and officers, and accompanied officers and supervisors in their zone cars. The experience and knowledge of these nationally-recognized law enforcement experts has helped to inform our findings.
We reviewed an extensive volume of documents provided to us by the Division, including nearly 600 reports and investigations of officers’ uses of force covering a three-year period. We reviewed more than 500 Use of Less Lethal Force Reports for uses of force that occurred between January 2012 and July 2013 and approximately 60 reports produced by the Division’s Use of Deadly Force Investigation Team (“UDFIT”) between 2010 and 2013, including every deadly force incident that occurred between January 2012 and April 2013. We closely analyzed these documents and applied the relevant legal standards to determine whether the Division’s use of force was legally justified. Our review of individual use of force reports and investigations, along with our consultants’ opinions on these documents, informed our investigation into whether a pattern or practice of excessive force exists.
10 CDP refers to its patrol cars as “zone cars.”
10

To evaluate the causes of, and the factors contributing to, the use of unreasonable force, we reviewed internal and external CDP documents addressing a variety of operational issues, including policies and procedures, training, and investigations. For example, our conclusions about CDP’s supervision and accountability systems are based on interviews of relevant staff, a review of policies and procedures, approximately 50 Internal Affairs investigations, more than 100 civilian complaint investigations, spreadsheets tracking outcomes of civilian complaints, and spreadsheets tracking disciplinary actions. This represented all of the 2012 and 2013 Internal Affairs investigations provided by CDP and a sample of the civilian complaints filed in 2012 and 2013.
We note that CDP’s inability to produce key documents raises serious concerns regarding deficiencies in the Division’s systems for tracking and reviewing use of force and accountabilityrelated documents. These documents are necessary to assess whether officers are using force appropriately, to hold officers accountable for unreasonable uses of force, and to gauge the need for additional training, tactical reviews, or policy changes. CDP did not, for example, produce deadly force investigations that occurred after April of 2013 despite multiple requests. CDP was not able to produce some 2012 use of less lethal force reports until more than a year after our initial request for documents and failed to provide a justification for this delay. CDP reported that there were dozens of additional Internal Affairs investigations conducted during the time period we reviewed, but failed to provide these documents despite multiple requests. CDP was also unable to provide final dispositions for every civilian complaint, including complaints filed two years ago. Similarly, to date CDP has not been able to provide Taser firing histories which we requested over five months ago.
These are fundamental documents and pieces of information that should be readily accessible to CDP’s leadership to inform decision-making. Instead, it appears that, at best, CDP is too often operating with incomplete or inaccurate information about its force practices. While we understand that CDP leadership may have informal ways to gather more information, a modern police force of CDP’s size must have more formalized and structured mechanisms in place. CDP’s inability to track the location of critical force-related documents is itself evidence of fundamental breakdowns in its systems and suggests that any internal analysis or calculation of CDP’s use of force is likely incomplete and inaccurate. It also suggests that CDP does not accept that they are accountable for documenting and explaining their decisions in such matters to civilian leadership, the City, and the community as a whole.
Not only is CDP unable to track important force-related information, but it also appears that CDP’s information is incomplete because some uses of force may not have been reported. CDP recently asserted in our meetings with them that total arrests involving a use of force have declined over the past eight years, as have the percentage of arrests which involve a use of force. CDP also asserted that Taser use declined significantly from 2009 to 2013. However, our review of a sample of 2012 arrest records for persons charged with resisting arrest suggests that some uses of force are not being reported.11 For the months of February, June and August 2012, there
11 Persons who are resisting arrest and are charged with that offense have almost always engaged in behavior which would be met with some use of force by the officers involved.
11

were 111 resisting arrest incidents, and for seven of these – over six percent – CDP acknowledges that no use of force report can be located. Furthermore, in all but one of these seven incidents, the arrest reports describe police action that constitutes force as defined by CDP policy, and the remaining one strongly suggests that reportable force was used. In the face of such underreporting, CDP’s determination that uses of force have declined is not wholly reliable. The inability to produce Taser firing histories compounds our concerns about the reliability of the data and undermines the assertion that Taser uses have declined.
IV. FINDINGS
We have reasonable cause to believe that CDP engages in a pattern or practice of using unconstitutional force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Our review revealed that Cleveland police officers use unnecessary and unreasonable force in violation of the Constitution at a significant rate, and in a manner that is extremely dangerous to officers, victims of crimes, and innocent bystanders. This pattern of unreasonable force manifests itself in CDP’s use of deadly force, use of less lethal force, including Tasers, and use of force against restrained people and people in crisis.
A pattern or practice may be found where incidents of violations are repeated and not isolated instances. Int’l Bd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 336 n.l6 (1977) (noting that the phrase “pattern or practice” “was not intended as a term of art,” but should be interpreted according to its usual meaning “consistent with the understanding of the identical words” used in other federal civil rights statutes). Courts interpreting the terms in similar statutes have established that statistical evidence is not required. Catlett v. Mo. Highway & Transp. Comm’n, 828 F.2d 1260, 1265 (8th Cir. 1987) (interpreting “pattern or practice” in the Title VII context). A court does not need a specific number of incidents to find a pattern or practice, and it does not need to find a set number of incidents or acts. See United States v. W. Peachtree Tenth Corp., 437 F.2d 221, 227 (5th Cir. 1971) (“The number of [violations] . . . is not determinative. . . . In any event, no mathematical formula is workable, nor was any intended. Each case must turn on its own facts.”). Although a specific number of incidents and statistical evidence is not required, our review found that CDP officers use unnecessary and unreasonable force in violation of the Constitution a significant percentage of the time that they use force.
A. CDP officers engage in a pattern or practice of unconstitutional force.
Our review revealed that Cleveland police officers violate basic constitutional precepts in their use of deadly and less lethal force at a rate that is highly significant. Claims that officers have used excessive force during an arrest or detention are governed by the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness standard. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 394 (1989). “Determining whether the force used to effect a particular seizure is ‘reasonable’ under the Fourth Amendment requires a careful balancing of the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against the countervailing governmental interests at stake.” Id. at 396 (internal quotations and citations omitted). The reasonableness of a particular use of force is based on the totality of the circumstances and “must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” Id. As the Sixth Circuit has stated:
12

The Court has identified three factors that lower courts should consider in determining the reasonableness of force used: (1) the severity of the crime at issue; (2) whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to the safety of the police officers or others; and (3) whether the suspect actively resisted arrest or attempted to evade arrest by flight. These factors are not an exhaustive list, as the ultimate inquiry is “whether the totality of the circumstances justifies a particular sort of seizure.”
Baker v. City of Hamilton, Ohio, 471 F.3d 601, 606-07 (6th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted).
The most significant and “intrusive” use of force is the use of deadly force, which can result in the taking of human life, “frustrat[ing] the interest of . . . society . . . in judicial determination of guilt and punishment.” Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 9 (1985). Use of deadly force (whether or not it actually causes a death) is permissible only when an officer has probable cause to believe that a suspect poses an immediate threat of serious physical harm to the officer or another person. Id. at 11. A police officer may not use deadly force against an unarmed and otherwise non-dangerous subject, see Garner, 471 U.S. at 11, and the use of deadly force is not justified in every situation involving an armed subject. Graham, 490 U.S. at 386. The Sixth Circuit has recognized that “even when a suspect has a weapon, but the officer has no reasonable belief that the suspect poses a danger of serious physical harm to him or others, deadly force is not justified.” Bouggess v. Mattingly, 482 F.3d 886, 896 (6th Cir. 2007) (emphasis in original). In order to justify the use of deadly force, an officer’s “sense of serious danger about a particular confrontation” must be both “particularized and supported.” Id. at 891. In making our determination under Section 14141 it is not necessary to show that there is a pattern or practice of intentional or criminal misconduct by individual officers in their unreasonable use of force, and we make no such finding in this letter.
We determined that, as part of the pattern or practice of excessive force, officers fire their guns in circumstances where the use of deadly force is not justified, including against unarmed or fleeing suspects who do not pose a threat of serious harm to officers or others. We also discovered incidents in which CDP officers draw their firearms and even point them at suspects too readily and in circumstances in which it is inappropriate. In part as a result of this dangerous practice, which is both inappropriate and tactically unsound, officers strike people on the head with their guns in circumstances that do not justify deadly force. CDP officers use less lethal force—including Tasers, OC Spray, and strikes to a suspect’s body—against individuals who pose little, if any, threat, or who offer minimal resistance, including those who are handcuffed, already on the ground, or otherwise subdued. CDP officers too hastily resort to using Tasers, often in a manner that results in excessive force and demonstrates a pervasive use of poor and dangerous tactics. CDP officers also use Tasers and other forms of less lethal force against individuals with mental illness or under the influence of drugs or alcohol or who have a medical condition affection their cognitive abilities, or who may be unable to comply with officers’ demands. Collectively, these practices make up a pattern or practice of constitutional violations.
13

1. CDP officers shoot at people who do not pose an imminent threat of serious bodily harm or death to the officers or others.
In reaching our conclusion that CDP engages in a pattern or practice of excessive force, we identified several cases in which officers shot or shot at people who did not pose an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury to officers or others. An incident from 2013 in which a sergeant shot at a victim as he ran from a house where he was being held against his will is just one illustration of this problem.12 “Anthony”13 was being held against his will inside a house by armed assailants. When officers arrived on scene, they had information that two armed assailants were holding several people inside the home. After officers surrounded the house, Anthony escaped from his captors and ran from the house, wearing only boxer shorts. An officer ordered Anthony to stop, but Anthony continued to run toward the officers. One sergeant fired two shots at him, missing. According to the sergeant, when Anthony escaped from the house, the sergeant believed Anthony had a weapon because he elevated his arm and pointed his hand toward the sergeant. No other officers at the scene reported seeing Anthony point anything at the sergeant.
The sergeant’s use of deadly force was unreasonable. It is only by fortune that he did not kill the crime victim in this incident. The sergeant had no reasonable belief that Anthony posed an immediate danger. The man fleeing the home was wearing only boxer shorts, making it extremely unlikely that he was one of the hostage takers. In a situation where people are being held against their will in a home, a reasonable police officer ought to expect that someone fleeing the home may be a victim. Police also ought to expect that a scared, fleeing victim may run towards the police and, in his confusion and fear, not immediately respond to officer commands. A reasonable officer in these circumstances should not have shot at Anthony.14
Another incident from 2012 in which an officer shot a man who was lawfully armed and appeared to be cooperating with the officers’ orders further illustrates this problem. Two officers
12 Throughout this letter, we will provide two or three examples that illustrate each of the problems that we found during our investigation. These examples are far from an exhaustive list of the incidents that we found that violate the Constitution. Indeed, these examples only comprise a small subset of the total number of incidents that we found problematic and upon which we base our conclusions.
13 We use pseudonyms for individuals who were the subject of force with CDP officers to protect against disclosing personally-identifying information. We also do not identify CDP personnel by name, as the purpose of these illustrations is not to assess individual liability but to support and illustrate the findings of a pattern or practice.
14 This incident is a perfect example of the fact that this letter is not making judgments about individual officers’ intent while using even unreasonable force. Obviously, the officer here did not intend to shoot a victim in this case. That does not change the fact, however, that under all of the circumstances of this case, firing at the victim was not reasonable and therefore violated the Constitution. In other words, simply saying that an officer’s or a Department’s actions are not criminal, does not mean that no Constitutional problem exists.
14

observed “Brian” walking with an open container of beer. When officers asked Brian to stop, he initially refused and walked to a nearby porch, set down his beer and then, according to the resulting report, turned towards the officers’ zone car in a manner that indicated he was going to speak with them. The first officer reportedly saw a gun in Brian’s waistband, yelled “gun,” and pointed his service weapon at Brian. The second officer reported that, in response, Brian raised his hands above his head and informed the officers that he had a concealed handgun license. The second officer moved behind Brian to begin to handcuff him. According to this officer’s report, Brian then lowered his hands “a bit” below ear level. Then, the first officer fired a shot that struck Brian in the abdomen. According to reports, Brian’s injuries were significant enough that he required immediate lifesaving measures. While the officer who fired the shot alleged that Brian had reached for his weapon, that account conflicts with the statement provided by the officer’s partner and the eight civilian witnesses who were on or near the porch at the time Brian was shot, none of whom reported seeing Brian reach for his gun. Numerous witnesses reported that Brian was attempting to cooperate with officers and began lowering his hands in response to an officer’s order that he place his hands behind his back.
The officer’s use of deadly force in these circumstances was unreasonable. The Sixth Circuit has recognized that a suspect’s “mere possession of a weapon is not enough to satisfy [an officer’s] burden” of establishing that the use of deadly force was reasonable. See Bouggess, 482 F.3d at 896. The shooting officer’s partner and all of the civilian witnesses confirmed that Brian informed the officers that he had a handgun license. Brian took the precise steps advised by the Ohio Attorney General’s Office when a person carrying a concealed handgun is stopped for law enforcement purposes.15 The weight of the evidence suggests that Brian was attempting to comply with officers’ orders and did not pose an imminent threat of serious bodily harm to the officers or others, and the officer should not have fired his weapon.16
We also reviewed incidents where CDP officers shot at people who were fleeing in vehicles as the vehicle was moving away from the officer and the suspects’ flights did not pose a threat of serious bodily harm to anyone, rendering the use of deadly force at that point unreasonable. Shooting at a fleeing suspect violates the Constitution when the fleeing suspect does not pose a threat of serious bodily harm to the officer or others. In the Sixth Circuit, “it has been clearly established . . . for the last twenty years that a criminal suspect ‘ha[s] a right not to be shot unless he [is] perceived to pose a threat to the pursuing officers or to others during flight.’” Sample v. Bailey, 409 F.3d 689, 699 (6th Cir. 2005) (citing Robinson v. Bibb, 840 F.2d
15 See OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATT’Y GEN., OHIO’S CONCEALED CARRY LAWS AND LICENSE APPLICATION, at 14 (rev. April 7, 2014), available at http://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Files/Publications/Publications-for-LawEnforcement/Concealed-Carry-Publications/2011-Concealed-Carry-Laws-Manual.aspx (“If a person is stopped for a law enforcement purpose and is carrying a concealed handgun as a CCW licensee . . . he shall promptly inform the law enforcement officer that he is carrying a concealed handgun.”).
16 On June 10, 2014, the City of Cleveland settled a lawsuit Brian filed alleging that CDP resorted to excessive force in this incident. We note that certain of the lawsuits that the City has settled involving allegations of excessive force were settled on confidential terms. The use of this practice, which diminishes transparency, merits serious review in such cases going forward.
15

349, 351 (6th Cir. 1988)); cf. Plumhoff v. Rickard, 527 U.S. ___ , 134 S. Ct. 2012, 2021 (2014) (finding officers’ use of deadly force against fleeing suspect reasonable where suspect engaged in “outrageously reckless driving,” leading officers on a chase that exceeded 100 miles per hour and passing more than two dozen vehicles, several of which were forced to alter course); Hocker v. Pikeville City Police Dep’t, 738 F.3d 150, 152, 158 (6th Cir. 2013) (finding police officers’ use of deadly force reasonable where officers shot an intoxicated suspect, whom the court found to be a continuing threat, after he led the officers on a seven-mile, high-speed chase at night, then reversed his vehicle, slamming into an officer’s patrol car and moving it thirty feet while an officer was temporarily trapped inside). In the words of the Supreme Court, “[i]t is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape.” Garner at 11.
Shooting at vehicles creates an unreasonable risk unless such a real and articulable threat exists. First, it is difficult to shoot at a moving car with accuracy. Missed shots can hit bystanders or others in the vehicle. Second, if the driver is disabled by the shot, the vehicle may become unguided, making it potentially more dangerous. The dangers of this practice are recognized in Division policy, in fact. The problem is, however, that the restrictions created by this policy are not consistently enforced. Both the May 2007 and the March 2013 CDP Use of Force policies state, “Firing at or from a moving vehicle is rarely effective and presents extreme danger to innocent persons….”17 In its 2013 review of CDP’s use of force policies and practices, the Police Executive Research Forum (“PERF”)18 recommended that CDP policy be changed to prohibit the discharge of firearms at or from a moving vehicle unless deadly physical force is being used against the police officer or another person present, by means other than the moving vehicle.19 In making this recommendation, PERF noted that shooting at a moving vehicle is dangerous because “it does not result in a stopped vehicle—it simply raises the chances of danger from an uncontrolled vehicle.”20 We commend CDP for adopting PERF’s recommendation regarding shooting at moving vehicles in its most recent Use of Force policy, which was revised in August 2014.21 However, it is too soon to determine whether CDP’s actual practices will also change in light of the new policy. CDP’s Use of Force policies revised in
17 CDP General Police Order (“GPO”) 2.1.01, Use of Force, §VI.D.5 (rev. March 22, 2013) and §IV.E (rev. May 7, 2007).
18 CDP retained PERF to conduct a review of the Division’s policies and some of its practices related to its use of force. PERF’s assessment included a review of CDP’s training, supervision and management, less lethal force reporting, early intervention system, and post-traumatic stress aftercare. At the conclusion of that study, in August 2013, PERF issued a report that described its conclusion and made recommendations regarding managing the use of force in CDP, most of which CDP agreed to implement.
19 On August 23, 2013, CDP issued Divisional Notice 13-342, which revised its Use of Force policy in accordance with PERF’s recommendations.
20 PERF, USE OF FORCE POLICY AND PRACTICES STUDY FOR CLEVELAND DIVISION OF POLICE, at 6 (August 2013) [hereinafter “2013 PERF Report”].
21 GPO 2.1.01, Use of Force, §VI.D (rev. Aug. 8, 2014).
16

May 2007 and March 2013 both prohibited officers from shooting at vehicles that were no longer a threat, yet we found that officers nonetheless have done so.
In an incident from 2010, an officer shot a fleeing individual. There, officers had responded to a home because a woman reported that her ex-boyfriend was outside calling her and making threats. As officers were arresting the suspect (“Charles”), “David,” who had been sitting in the passenger seat of the car in which he had arrived with Charles, started the car as if to leave. An officer approached the car, pointed his gun at David, and ordered him to turn the car off. According to the officer, David then cut the wheels to the left and sped off so that the vehicle brushed against the officer, pushing him backwards. In response, the officer reported, he fired one round at the driver as he drove off, striking him in the back of the shoulder. Again, while the officer might well have been in danger when the car was next to him, the initial threat posed by David to the officer had ended by the time the officer shot at David, and the officer did not articulate any basis for believing that David was a threat to anyone else. Under these circumstances, the officer’s use of deadly force was unreasonable.22
These incidents are examples of precisely the type of deadly force prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. See Smith v. Cupp, 430 F.3d 766, 773-74 (6th Cir. 2005) (officer violated the Fourth Amendment when he shot at a suspect fleeing in a stolen police cruiser because the officer fired his weapon “after the police cruiser was past” and the potential danger to the public from the suspect’s driving off “was not so grave as to justify the use of deadly force”); Sigley v. City of Parma Heights, 437 F.3d 527, 537 (6th Cir. 2006) (officer was not entitled to qualified immunity for shooting a suspect fleeing in a vehicle where he “sh[ot] [the suspect] in the back when he did not pose an immediate threat to other officers”). We found many additional deadly force incidents that violated the Fourth Amendment in our review. These shootings also violated the CDP policy in place at the time, which prohibited shooting at vehicles that no longer pose an imminent threat.23
22 David filed a lawsuit against the officer alleging, among other things, excessive force and false arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. On Feb. 13, 2013, the court denied the officer’s motion for summary judgment in regards to these claims and in regards to the officer’s qualified immunity claim, noting that the officer offered “improbable testimony” that the vehicle pushed against the officer and that the officer “never explain[ed] how the [vehicle] moved sideways into him. . . .” CA No. 1:12-CV-01920 (02/13/13 Opinion & Order, dkt. # 16, at 11. The case settled on March 1, 2013.
23 CDP’s Use of Force policy in place at the time, dated May 7, 2007, stated, “Officers shall NOT fire at a vehicle that is no longer an imminent threat.” CDP’s current policy prohibits officers from discharging their firearms at a moving vehicle unless deadly force is being used against the officer or another person by means other than the vehicle.
17

2. CDP officers hit people in the head with their guns in situations where the use of deadly force is not justified.
In our review of CDP’s use of force, we also found that CDP officers use their guns to strike people in the head in circumstances where the use of deadly force is not justified. Striking someone in the head with an impact weapon is deadly force, as CDP’s own policies recognize.24 Our review of deadly force investigations revealed that CDP officers have hit suspects in the head with their pistols in circumstances that do not warrant deadly force. This practice is partially a result of tactical errors where officers drawn their firearms at inappropriate times. In these circumstances, when officers ultimately engage physically with suspects, they do so while holding a firearm. This is an extremely dangerous practice, increasing the risk of an accidental discharge—which has happened on more than one occasion involving CDP officers—and the risk that a suspect will gain control of the weapon. It also limits the less-lethal options an officer has available to bring an actively resisting subject under control because one of his hands is occupied holding the firearm.
In an incident from 2012 that illustrates this problem, an officer’s gun discharged when he struck a suspect in the head with it. The officer, who was off-duty and dressed in civilian clothes, observed what he believed to be a drug transaction take place involving two vehicles and about six suspects. The officer approached them without calling for backup and told them to leave. When “Eric” got out of one of the cars, the officer drew his handgun, pointed it at Eric, and ordered Eric to the ground, identifying himself as a CDP officer but not showing a badge. A witness reported that she saw a man, later identified as the officer, holding a gun to Eric’s face while Eric asked repeatedly for the officer to show his badge and expressed disbelief that he was an officer. One of the occupants of the car later told police that he thought they were being robbed. The officer then began wrestling with Eric with his gun still drawn. During the struggle, the officer struck Eric in the head with the weapon, at which time the weapon discharged. Eric then broke free from the officer and ran away. The officer reported that he did not know whether the bullet struck Eric, but that Eric was bleeding from the face as he ran away. The extent of Eric’s injuries is unclear based on the documents CDP provided.
This use of deadly force was not reasonable and was quite dangerous for the arrestee, the officer, and the public. An officer’s use of deadly force is not justified where a suspect physically resists arrest but poses no imminent danger of serious physical harm to the officer or another. See Bouggess, 482 F.3d at 891 (“It cannot reasonably be contended that physically resisting arrest, without evidence of the employment or drawing of a deadly weapon, and without evidence of any intention on the suspect’s part to seriously harm the officer, could constitute probable cause that the suspect poses an imminent danger of serious physical harm to the officer or to others.”). Additionally, the officer’s actions could reasonably be predicted to escalate the situation because he engaged with Eric while off-duty without any means to identify himself as a
24 GPO 2.1.01, Use of Force (rev. Aug. 8, 2014), at 2 (defining deadly force as “any action likely to cause d eath or serious physical injury” including “head strikes with any hard object”); GPO 2.1.01, Use of Force (rev. March 22, 2013), at 2 (also defining deadly force as “any action likely to cause death or serious physical injury,” including “head strikes with . . . any hard object.”); GPO 2.1.01, Use of Force (rev. May 7, 2007), at 2 (“Deadly force includes . . . head strikes with an ASP baton or any hard object.”).
18

police officer and without communicating with 911 or dispatch for back up. Moreover, the officer’s decision to physically engage with the suspect while holding his gun was dangerous. Barring extremely rare circumstances, an officer should never do this. This officer could have killed this suspect with his blow, and he also risked shooting the suspect, himself, or innocent bystanders.
Another example of this dangerous and unlawful practice is an incident from 2011 in which an officer struck an unarmed man in the head with his gun after the man had committed a minor, nonviolent offense. “Fred” had tried to shoplift a bottle of wine and a can of beer from a supermarket. The officer, who was working secondary employment at the supermarket, ordered Fred to stop as he was exiting the store. Instead of stopping, Fred ran. The officer followed him and, even though he did not claim to have seen a weapon, approached Fred with his gun drawn and ordered him to the ground. Fred said, “Shoot me.” The officer again ordered Fred to the ground, and Fred again said, “Shoot me.” As the officer stepped toward Fred, Fred moved toward the officer. The officer then hit Fred on the left side of his head with his gun, forced him to the ground, and handcuffed him. The strike to Fred’s head resulted in a laceration that required four staples to close. Again, this use of deadly force against a man who was not armed, had committed a minor offense, and who presented only a minimal threat to the officer was unreasonable and dangerous.
While officers are sometimes required to use force during the course of their duties, they are always required to do so within the constitutional parameters of the Fourth Amendment. Far too often, however, Cleveland police officers use deadly force where they do not have probable cause to believe anyone is in immediate, serious danger. In some instances, their use of deadly force places themselves and others in serious danger. This unjustified use of deadly force violates the Constitution and poses unacceptable risks to the Cleveland community.
3. CDP officers use less lethal force that is disproportionate to the resistance or threat encountered.
Our review of CDP’s use of force also found that, in instances in which it is reasonable for officers to resort to some level of force in response to an individual’s actions, CDP officers too frequently resort to a type of force that is unreasonable in light of the resistance or threat encountered. Force, including less lethal force, is excessive if the level of force used is disproportionate to the resistance or threat encountered. Ciminillo v. Streicher, 434 F.3d 461, 469 (6th Cir. 2006) (“[I]n this Circuit, it was clearly established that individuals had a general right to be free from unreasonable use of non-lethal force.”). CDP officers use less lethal force—including Tasers, OC Spray, and strikes to a suspect’s body—against individuals who pose little, if any, threat, or who offer minimal resistance, including those who are handcuffed, already on the ground, or otherwise subdued. CDP officers too hastily resort to using Tasers, and they do so in a manner that results in excessive force a significant percentage of the time and demonstrates a pervasive use of poor and dangerous tactics. CDP officers also use Tasers and other forms of less lethal force against individuals with mental illness or impaired faculties, or who may be unable to comply with officers’ demands.
19

a. Head and body strikes.
CDP officers also use less lethal force on people who are handcuffed or otherwise subdued and pose little or no threat to officers. This practice contravenes well-settled law. See Champion v. Outlook Nashville, Inc., 380 F.3d 893, 902 (6th Cir. 2004) (The Sixth Circuit has “consistently held that various types of force applied after the subduing of a suspect are unreasonable and a violation of a clearly established right.”). One egregious incident in which officers resorted to an excessive amount of force, mentioned briefly in the Background section of this letter, occurred in January 2011. On the day in question, officers apprehended Edward Henderson after he fled from the police in a vehicle, leading officers on a chase that lasted about six minutes. Mr. Henderson then pulled over, exited his van, and sat on a highway guardrail. When CDP officers approached, Mr. Henderson walked into a group of trees. As one officer approached with his service weapon drawn, Mr. Henderson responded to commands to lay prone on the ground and spread his arms and legs. Infrared video from a CDP helicopter involved in the pursuit shows numerous officers approaching Mr. Henderson, including one with a gun drawn. The helicopter officer comments, “Looks like they got the male in custody.” After Mr. Henderson was restrained, prone on his stomach, officers began kicking Mr. Henderson, and other officers appear to be striking him as well. Mr. Henderson was subsequently brought to the hospital with a broken orbital bone. The force officers used in this incident against an unarmed man, prone on the ground and surrounded by CDP officers, was unnecessary and excessive.
In another incident, an officer punched a handcuffed 13 year-old boy in the face several times. Officers had arrested the juvenile for shoplifting. While “Harold” was handcuffed in the zone car, he began to kick the door and kicked an officer in the leg. In response, the 300 pound, 6’4” tall officer entered the car and sat on the legs of the 150 pound, 5’8” tall handcuffed boy. Harold was pushing against the officer with his legs, but was handcuffed and posed no threat to the officer. Nevertheless, the officer continued to sit on Harold and punched him in the face three to four times until he was “stunned/dazed” and had a bloody nose. In considering the reasonableness of an officer’s use of force, courts “must . . . consider the size and stature of the parties involved.” Solomon v. Auburn Hills Police Dep't, 389 F.3d 167, 174 (6th Cir. 2004) (finding that a 120 pound, 5’5” tall woman posed “no immediate threat” to the safety of officers who weighed between 230 and 250 pounds and stood at least 5’8” tall). Moreover, this unreasonable use of force appears to have been designed to punish the boy rather than to control him. The Fourth Amendment does not permit force to be used for punishment. See, e.g., Baker v. City of Hamilton, 471 F.3d 601, 607 (6th Cir. 2006) (finding that officer used “unjustified and gratuitous” force when he struck a suspect in the knee because “the purpose of this hit was not to subdue . . . but rather to punish him”); Bultema v. Benzie County, 146 F. App’x 28, 37-38 (6th Cir. 2005) (unpublished) (“[R]egardless of what the suspect may have done to the police officer prior to the arrest, the police officer is constitutionally prohibited from exacting retribution once the suspect has been subdued.”).
b. Tasers and OC Spray.
Our review also found that CDP officers use their Tasers and OC Spray inappropriately. Tasers are a valuable tool for law enforcement, but they are also a weapon that exerts a significant amount of force on the person and cannot be used without adequate justification for such a high level of force. One court described the effect of a Taser on a person this way: “The
20

impact is as powerful as it is swift. The electrical impulse instantly overrides the victim’s central nervous system, paralyzing the muscles throughout the body, rendering the target limp and helpless. . . . The tasered person also experiences an excruciating pain that radiates throughout the body.” Bryan v. McPherson, 590 F.3d 767, 773 (9th Cir. 2009). CDP officers, however, do not treat their Tasers as weapons which deliver such a high level of force. We found, for example, that officers use Tasers as a weapon of first resort instead of employing lower level force options. We reviewed incidents where officers immediately resorted to the Taser despite the presence of other officers who could help contain the individual using lower levels of force, or where de-escalation techniques might have proved more effective than using force. We also found that officers tase people who are handcuffed and that, in some cases, multiple officers deployed Tasers simultaneously or a single officer deployed a Taser multiple times when only a single use was justified.
Additionally, CDP officers misuse the so-called “drive stun mode” of their Tasers. A Taser may be used in two different ways—either by discharging the pair of darts, which remain connected to the main unit by a conductive wire, or by applying the Taser directly to a person’s body while pulling the trigger. In the first method, an electrical circuit is complete that temporarily incapacitates a subject. The second method, called drive stun mode, inflicts pain as a compliance measure without incapacitating the subject. The practice of using Tasers in drive stun mode as a pain compliance tactic should be reserved for situations where other less painful tactics cannot be used and, in fact, may have limited effectiveness because, when used repeatedly, it may even exacerbate the situation by inducing anger in the subject.25 In its August 2013 report to CDP, PERF recommended that CDP discourage the use of drive stun as a pain compliance tactic, and CDP agreed to do so. PERF also recommended that CDP permit officers to use drive stun only to supplement the probe mode to complete the circuit or as a countermeasure to gain a safe distance between an officer and a subject, but CDP declined to do so, without explanation.26 In practice, we found that CDP officers frequently use the Taser in drive stun mode.
In one incident that illustrates CDP’s inappropriate use of Tasers, an officer used his Taser to drive stun a 127-pound juvenile twice as two officers held him on the ground. Officers believed that “Ivan” matched the description of a possible fleeing suspect wanted for harassing store customers and stealing. Officers chased Ivan on foot, caught up to him, and tackled him. The officers alleged that the 127-pound juvenile “continued to resist” as they both held him on ground, prompting one of the officers to deploy his Taser twice in the juvenile’s back in drive stun mode, even though both officers were holding him down. In this incident, the use of the Taser in any mode was unreasonable. There were two officers present and the juvenile was already on the ground and could have been controlled using lesser force.
In another instance from 2013, officers tased a handcuffed, fleeing prisoner, and then drive stunned him twice after having lost control of him while placing him in the back of a zone car. When officers initially confronted the individual, “Jason,” he falsely identified himself, so
25 PERF & Community Oriented Policing Services (“COPS”), 2011 Electronic Control Weapon Guidelines, at 14 (March 2011) [hereinafter “2011 ECW Guidelines”].
26 2013 PERF Report, at 9.
21

they decided to arrest him for “falsification.” They placed him in handcuffs and patted him down for weapons. Finding none, they attempted to place him in the back of the zone car. While they were doing so, the handcuffed Jason somehow managed to escape from the two officers and began running in the middle of the street. The officers gave chase and, when Jason did not comply with commands to stop, one officer attempted to tase him “to stop the male from causing himself severe injuries from falling or being struck.” This rationale offered by the officer should have been sufficient on its own for CDP to find this use of force unjustified, as suspects normally fall after being tased. Justifying the use of a Taser to stop a feeling, handcuffed person from falling is simply not credible. See, e.g., Bryan, 590 F.3d at 773 (officer’s use of Taser caused the subject to fall face-first onto asphalt, shattering four front teeth and causing facial contusions). Jason continued running, but according to the officers, he eventually tripped and fell to the ground. When the officers caught up to him, they attempted to hold Jason down, but the handcuffed Jason “continued to resist and not comply” with orders. Despite the fact that there were two officers present, the officers drive-stunned Jason twice while he was handcuffed and on the ground. This use of force was unreasonable. The suspect was already on the ground and was in handcuffs. The decision to drive stun him twice appears to have been made more to punish Jason for running rather than to gain control of him, which could have been accomplished with less force, if any. See Baker, 471 F.3d at 607; Bultema, 146 F. App’x at 37-38. In addition to problems with the tasings, the fact that two officers completely lost control of a handcuffed suspect is concerning. This incident of tasing a person who was already handcuffed, a practice that on its face is quite hard to justify, was not the only time we saw it occur. And each and every time we saw officers write that they had tased a handcuffed suspect, the use of force was approved up the chain of command.
Officers also have unnecessarily and unreasonably used OC spray against handcuffed people. A particularly troubling incident occurred in February 2013, when CDP officers placed a so-called “spit sock” on a mentally ill suspect, “Kent,” then sprayed OC spray over the spit sock while Kent was handcuffed and in the back of a zone car. Officers apparently then forced him to continue wearing the spit sock. The incident began when officers responded to a male who called 911 and threatened to “blow up the government,” among other threats. Numerous zone cars responded to Kent’s home. Officers placed Kent in handcuffs and, because he was spitting on them, they placed a spit sock, a hood which helps prevent the transfer of diseases from spitting, over his head. They then placed him in a zone car. Kent began to kick at the rear windows of the zone car, and a sergeant opened the door and ordered Kent to stop. Kent tried to spit on the sergeant and began kicking the window again. The sergeant then sprayed OC spray in the man’s face, over the spit sock. CDP records reflect that Kent was not immediately decontaminated, but rather was transported and not decontaminated until he arrived at the hospital. The use of OC spray was unnecessary. Moreover, spraying Kent through a spit sock, then requiring him to wear it, is cruel and amounts to unnecessary punishment. Yet, this tactic was not even questioned by the chain of command.
4. CDP officers use unreasonable force, including Tasers, against individuals with mental illness, individuals in medical crisis, and individuals with impaired faculties.
Another aspect of the pattern we found is that CDP officers too often use unreasonable force against individuals with mental illness, individuals in medical crisis, and individuals with
22

impaired faculties who may be unable to comply with officers’ demands or who may respond to officers erratically for reasons beyond their control. We recognize the challenges that people with mental illness, especially people in mental health crisis, pose to the delivery of police services. It is critical that CDP practices, particularly use of force practices, adequately take into account the population of people with mental illnesses CDP officers encounter and serve. The law requires officers to consider suspects’ diminished capacity in assessing the appropriate level of force to use. See Champion v. Outlook Nashville, Inc., 380 F.3d 893, 904 (6th Cir. 2004) (assessing reasonableness of force used on autistic detainee, finding, “[t]he diminished capacity of an unarmed detainee must be taken into account when assessing the amount of force exerted.”); see also Sheehan v. City of San Francisco, 743 F.3d 1211, 1231-33 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding that Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act applies to arrests). In Martin v. City of Broadview Heights, 712 F.3d 951, 954-55 (6th Cir. 2013), a mentally unstable 19-year-old, who was naked and “speaking quickly and nonsensically” died after officers repeatedly struck him in his face, back, and ribs; handcuffed him; and continued to restrain him face-down against the ground. The Sixth Circuit held that officers violated clearly established law when they failed to take into account that the arrestee was unarmed and “exhibited conspicuous signs that he was mentally unstable.” Id. at 962. The Court found that the Fourth Amendment required the officers “to de-escalate the situation and adjust the application of force downward,” and that “the officers ignored Martin’s diminished mental state and used excessive force to control him.” Id.
CDP officers, especially the majority who are not specially trained on this issue, do not use appropriate techniques or de-escalate encounters with individuals with mental illness or impaired faculties to prevent the use of force and, when force is used, officers do not adjust the application of force to account for the person’s mental illness. In many of the incidents we reviewed, officers’ interactions with individuals with mental illness were precipitated by calls for assistance from concerned family members or civilians, and did not involve any allegations that a crime had been committed. The Sixth Circuit has recognized that “the fact that a plaintiff [alleging excessive force] . . . ha[s] committed no crime clearly weigh[s] against a finding of reasonableness.” Ciminillo, 434 F.3d at 467.
We reviewed one incident where—in response to a request for assistance—a CDP officer tased a suicidal, deaf man who committed no crime, posed minimal risk to officers and may not have understood officers’ commands. “Larry’s” mother had requested CDP’s assistance because her son, who has bipolar disorder and communicates through sign language, was holding broken glass against his neck and threatening suicide. When officers arrived, Larry went into the bathroom and sat on the edge of a half-filled tub. The officers followed and, without confirming that Larry could communicate through notes, wrote him a note saying that he needed to go to the hospital. Larry waved his hands “aggressively,” which the officers interpreted as refusal. One of the officers then grabbed Larry’s arm. Larry pulled back, “struggling” with the officer. The other officer then yelled “Taser” and pointed his finger at his Taser. Larry continued to struggle, so the officer tased Larry in his chest. This use of force was unreasonable. As an initial matter, Larry may not have understood officers’ commands. But even more importantly, Larry was not a threat to officers—he simply was pulling away from an officer, refusing to leave the bathroom, and he was not suspected of any crime. Officers should have attempted additional crisis intervention techniques instead of resorting to force against this suicidal male.
23

In another incident involving the use of a Taser against a person in crisis, a CDP officer tased a man, despite the fact that he was suffering a medical emergency and was strapped onto a gurney in the back of an ambulance, because he was verbally threatening officers. Two officers had been flagged down because the man was having seizures and, at the time, was lying on the sidewalk. When the officers spoke with “Mark,” he told them that he suffers from grand mal seizures and that he had been drinking. Officers called EMS and, while waiting for EMS to arrive, observed Mark have at least four more seizures. When EMS arrived, officers assisted him into the ambulance, where he was strapped onto a gurney. Once strapped down, Mark became angry and threatened to punch one of the officers and one of the medics. He then tried to unstrap himself from the gurney and balled his fist, stating that he would prefer to walk home. One of the officers then unholstered his Taser, told Mark to calm down, and threatened three times to tase him. Mark continued to try to stand up while threatening to beat the officer. The officer then drive stunned Mark on his top left shoulder. Mark had committed no crime, was strapped down and was in the midst of a medical crisis. His repeated seizures may also have left him confused and disoriented. Indeed, there is no indication that Mark could carry out his threat against the officers, particularly when he was strapped to the gurney. The officers’ decision to tase him under these circumstances was unreasonable and may have been counterproductive. See 2011 ECW Guidelines, at 14 (Using a Taser “to achieve pain compliance may have limited effectiveness and, when used repeatedly, may even exacerbate the situation by inducing rage in the subject”).
We found several problems with officers’ use of force on people who show obvious signs that they are under the influence of phencyclidine (“PCP”) that resulted in constitutional violations, including many instances in which CDP officers unreasonably deployed their Tasers multiple times. These are highly volatile and dangerous situations. Based on our review of force reports, these encounters appear to be very common in Cleveland. Despite their prevalence, CDP fails to adequately address and train its officers to effectively respond to these volatile situations.27 We have seen these ill-prepared officers respond by using excessive force against these individuals, placing themselves and others in danger. In one such instance, officers deployed their Tasers 12 times against a man who was in the street, naked, and high on PCP, including eight times in drive stun mode. In another incident, officers repeatedly tased a handcuffed man who was high on PCP, again using the drive stun mode. The goal in addressing a dangerous situation should be to use the amount of force needed to protect the officer and the public, not to continually inflict pain on a suspect who is unable to rationally comply with police commands.
27 As the PERF guidelines on Tasers note, “there is a higher risk of sudden death in subjects under the influence of drugs and/or exhibiting symptoms associated with excited delirium.” The guidelines also note that multiple applications of a Taser or simultaneous applications by more than one Taser may result in fatal or other serious outcomes. Indeed, the PERF guidelines go on to state that “exposure to the Taser for longer than 15 seconds (whether due to multiple applications or continuous cycling) may increase the risk of death or serious injury.”
24

B. CDP officers commit tactical errors that endanger the Cleveland Community and reduce officer safety as well.
We found that CDP officers commit tactical errors that endanger themselves and other members of the community and may result in the use of excessive force. They too often carelessly and accidentally fire their weapons, at times seriously injuring people who were not a serious threat to officers and placing bystanders at unwarranted risk of serious injury and death. We also found that CDP officers too often fail to de-escalate confrontations and instead engage in questionable and dangerous tactics which place them in danger or result in their use of force that may not have been necessary. While these tactical errors may not always result in constitutional violations, they do at times, and moreover they place officers, suspects, and other members of the Cleveland community at risk. Especially in light of the broader pattern and practice we have observed, these incidents are legally significant.
1. CDP officers carelessly fire their weapons, placing themselves, subjects, and bystanders at unwarranted risk of serious injury or death.
We reviewed incidents in which officers carelessly or accidentally fired their weapons, at times critically injuring people, in instances where it may not have been appropriate to have drawn their firearms at all. An officer’s decision to reach into a man’s vehicle while the officer had his gun drawn and in his hand resulted in the officer shooting the man in the chest. “Nathan” had tried to make a right turn from the center lane, cutting off and almost colliding with a car that was proceeding straight through the intersection. It was 2:30 in the morning, and the area was crowded with pedestrians who had emptied out of the local bars and restaurants. Nathan was unable to complete the right turn because the street was blocked off, but by this time there were pedestrians crossing behind his vehicle, such that he could not back up into his lane. Consequently, he was stuck in the middle of the intersection, blocking traffic. At this point, an officer approached Nathan’s vehicle with his gun drawn. The records of the incident provide no written basis to explain why he drew his gun, which is in itself a troubling fact. In his videotaped statement, the officer merely said he felt “uneasy” because he could not see Nathan’s hands. With his gun pointed at Nathan, the officer ordered Nathan to turn off his ignition and to show the officer his hands. The officer claims Nathan did not obey these commands and that he had his right hand down where the officer could not see it. Nathan claims that he had his hands up and was afraid to move them because the officer was pointing his gun at him. When Nathan did not comply, the officer himself attempted to turn off the vehicle. To do so, he leaned his entire upper body into the car and, with his right hand, attempted to turn off the car. Meanwhile, his gun was in his left hand, pointed at Nathan, and his finger was on the trigger. He claims that he then felt force on his hand “like [Nathan] was trying to grab my weapon.” The gun discharged, striking Nathan, who had been stopped originally for a potentially unlawful left turn, once in the chest.
This shooting resulted from poor tactics by the officer – both in pulling and pointing his gun and reaching into the car. These tactics resulted in an unnecessary and unreasonable use of force which, at the very least, resulted from the officer having made the dangerous choice to reach into a vehicle while holding his weapon. CDP’s current use of force policy, which was in place at the time of this incident, prohibits officers from reaching into vehicles at all, let alone with their gun in their hands, because it is “extremely dangerous and can result in the officer
25

being dragged by the vehicle.”28 It is hard to believe that the officer would have made the decision to lean into the car to try to turn off the ignition if he really thought Nathan might be armed or reaching for a weapon. His decision to reach in with his gun in his hand, with his finger on the trigger, is even more difficult to explain and, in this instance, resulted in the shooting of an unarmed man who had been involved only in a minor traffic incident.
We reviewed incidents where officers accidentally shot their guns while pursuing suspects. In one instance, an officer’s decision to draw his gun while trying to apprehend an unarmed hit-and-run suspect resulted in him accidentally shooting the man in the neck. The man was critically injured. One pattern we have observed is that CDP officers do not consider carefully enough their actions in drawing their weapons and pointing them at suspects, actions which may be necessary in some circumstances but which should be far from routine and fundamentally change the tenor of a police-civilian encounter.
We found that officers sometimes draw, point and/or fire their weapons without considering their environment, or the potential harm to bystanders or nearby residents. Officers do not adequately consider the potential destination of rounds fired especially if, as often happens, they miss their intended targets. In an incident from 2011 officers fired 24 rounds in a residential neighborhood, striking nearby houses and vehicles. Officers had responded to a scene where “Oscar” had allegedly shot his girlfriend and threatened to shoot officers, a very serious and dangerous situation. Nine officers arrived to find Oscar on the porch, waving a gun, and at times putting it to his head. Apparently suicidal, Oscar repeatedly told officers to shoot him. Officers approached with weapons drawn, telling Oscar to drop the gun. Oscar refused and began walking down the street, telling officers they would have to kill him. Officers followed. Oscar again put the gun to his head and then pointed it at officers. In response, five officers fired a total of 24 rounds. Three of the five officers fired more than six rounds each. By the time CDP officers stopped firing, six rounds had struck nearby residences; eleven rounds struck a pickup truck parked along a curb; two other rounds struck a second nearby parked pickup; and one round struck the passenger side pillar of an automobile parked along the curb. Oscar ended up in critical condition with gunshot wounds to his right buttocks, right calf, right foot, and left hip.
While we are not concluding that this response represents an application of unreasonable force, this incident illustrates several tactical errors that resulted in too many officers firing too many shots, placing residents of a neighborhood at risk of serious injury. CDP officers failed to follow basic, generally accepted techniques for responding to an armed suspect threatening suicide. For example, although there were nine officers on the scene, it appears that no one person was commanding or controlling the scene. A supervisor or the first-responding officer should have designated various locations from which the officers could seek cover and contain the movement of the suspect. No negotiator was called to the scene. Instead, the officers responding to the scene were unsupervised and grouped together with little or no cover. As a result of these poor tactics, officers placed themselves in harm’s way and increased the likelihood that multiple officers would fire their weapons in response to a threat by the suspect. In this instance, the first CDP officer who opened fire appeared justified in doing so because the suspect pointed his weapon at officers. Other officers reported they fired their weapons because
28 GPO 2.1.01, Use of Force, §VI.D.4 (rev. March 22, 2013).
26

they thought the suspect was firing at them. He was not—the suspect’s gun was later determined to be inoperable. A police force must be trained to deal with situations in which officers are firing their weapons and take efforts to ensure that officers are firing in response to suspect fire and not in response to fire from other officers. While no residents were inadvertently struck by the errant rounds, the actions CDP officers took in response to Oscars’ actions created a scenario in which they unnecessarily subjected neighborhood inhabitants and one another to a heightened risk of death or serious injury.
2. CDP officers use other dangerous and poor tactics, placing members of the Cleveland community at risk.
We also found additional instances in which CDP officers used inappropriate and dangerous tactics that resulted in uses of force that may have been avoidable. We reviewed instances in which officers used force when they should have de-escalated the situation and used a lower level of force, or perhaps avoided the need to use force at all. This is especially true, and troublesome, in the instances described above in which officers used force against people who were in a mental health crisis. But we observed this troubling pattern in other contexts as well, especially where police officers essentially lost their patience with people who were not cooperating or who were verbally abusive to officers.
We also found other instances of poor and dangerous tactics that may have resulted in constitutional violations or other dangerous situations. When handcuffing or searching a suspect, for example, we found incidents in which Cleveland police officers lost control of the suspect, requiring the officers to use force that would not have been necessary had they used sound tactics in the first place that would have enabled them to maintain control. In one incident that illustrates this problem, officers lost control of a suspect during a pat down, used force to gain control of him, and then failed to locate a loaded gun on the suspect before placing him in the zone car and transporting him to jail. In May 2013, two officers approached “Paul” because he looked “suspicious” and might have been urinating in front of a store. After approaching Paul, an officer patted him down “for officer’s safety.” During the pat down, an officer located a kitchen knife. The officer then informed Paul that he was under arrest. Paul tried to pull away, but the officer’s finger got caught in Paul’s clothing, breaking the officer’s finger. The other officer on scene then stepped in and “tackled” Paul, who was “actively resisting.” Once Paul and the officer were on the ground, the officer punched Paul several times, including in his forehead, in the back of his head, and in the middle of his back. The officer who punched Paul did not write a report, and so it is impossible to tell how many times he punched Paul in the head, or the level of resistance he was encountering that he felt necessitated this use of force. The officers reported to the supervisor the conclusory, boilerplate statement that Paul was “actively resisting.” The first officer then assisted in the struggle and the two were able to get Paul handcuffed. After transporting Paul to the Central Prison Unit for booking, the officers found a loaded gun in Paul’s coat pocket.
Aside from the fact that the officer only used the boilerplate “actively resisting” language in the CDP report, it is troubling that officers lost control of a suspect while they were patting him down. This incident is not discussed because we are making a finding that the officer used too much force, but rather because it is impossible to tell from the record whether the amount of force used was appropriate or not and because the written record demonstrates that the officers’
27

tactical errors exacerbated a very dangerous situation. Similarly, in the incident discussed above, involving “Jason,” a handcuffed suspect escaped while officers were placing him in the zone car. To protect the community, officers must be able consistently to conduct basic police functions without losing control of suspects. Moreover, their loss of control of Paul and Jason required them to use greater force against these suspects, which otherwise may not have been necessary. Last, in Paul’s case it obviously is extremely troubling that officers placed an armed man in the back of their zone car because they failed to find the loaded gun when they finally were able to complete the pat down.
Police officers are charged with the ultimate responsibility of protecting the public and keeping the peace—and they may employ the use of force, including deadly force, to do so. However, any use of force must be within the confines of the Fourth Amendment, and we have reasonable cause to believe that CDP officers engage in a pattern or practice of resorting to unreasonable amounts of force when encountering subjects. As discussed further below, the reasons underlying CDP’s pattern of unreasonable force vary from its inadequate accountability systems to its failure to embrace and incorporate the concepts of community policing at all levels of CDP.
C. Systemic Deficiencies Cause or Contribute to the Excessive Use of Force.
Police departments have the ability and responsibility to detect and take steps to prevent the use of unreasonable force by their officers. The components of an effective use of force accountability system are well known. Police departments must ensure appropriate training in how and when to use force, and provide the supervision necessary for sufficient oversight of officers’ use of force. Departments must also provide their officers clear, consistent policies on when and how to use and report force. Departments must implement systems to ensure that force is consistently reported and investigated thoroughly and fairly, using consistent standards and without regard to improper external factors or biases. The force investigation serves as the basis for reviewing the force incident to determine whether the officer acted both lawfully and consistently with departmental policy, as well as to determine whether the incident raises policy, training, tactical, or equipment concerns that need to be addressed for officer and civilian safety. Use of force aggregate data and trends should be monitored to enable the Division to identify and address emerging problems before they result in significant or widespread harm. CDP fails in all of these areas, and this has created an environment that permits constitutional violations. It has also created an atmosphere within CDP in which there is little confidence in the fairness of the disciplinary process — a lack of confidence which extends from the rank and file all the way to the highest levels of the Division and City leadership. Along with police practitioners, courts have long acknowledged that deficiencies in systems and operations can unequivocally lead or contribute to constitutional violations.29
29 In City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989), the Supreme Court held a municipality liable for failing to adequately train its law enforcement officers, recognizing that a law enforcement agency’s practices and decision-making can cause constitutional harm. Id. at 387.
28

1. CDP Does Not Ensure that Officers Adequately Report the Force they Use.
A good accountability system begins with an appropriate record of the facts of an incident. That record is far too often lacking at CDP. To help ensure that misconduct and unsafe tactics are identified and can be prevented in the future, the facts of every use of force beyond unresisted handcuffing must be documented accurately and then reviewed fairly and thoroughly. Proper use of force reporting and review are essential parts of any police department’s efforts to ensure that its officers are using force in a manner that complies with the Constitution and case law. Cleveland police officers do not adequately document force incidents, rendering it quite often impossible to tell how much force they have used and why.
Until recently, when a use of force incident occurred, each officer at the scene was not required to write a report documenting the incident. Instead, in the case of less lethal force, one officer (not even necessarily the one who applied the force) would typically write a report intended to summarize the actions and observations of every officer on scene. These summary reports made it impossible to discern whose account of events was being reported, making it difficult to hold any one officer accountable for his or her actions. Because only one officer was required to sign the report, there was no indication that the other named officers agreed with or even saw the description of events set forth in the report. Moreover, the officer writing the less lethal force report frequently was not the officer who used the force. At the time of our investigation, this practice was consistent with CDP policy.30
CDP’s use of force reports also suffer from additional deficiencies. Officers’ reports repeatedly do not adequately convey the force they have used or why, and CDP therefore has no way of evaluating whether its officers are using force that is excessive, against policy, or that implicates tactical, training, or equipment concerns. Officers use canned or boilerplate language that does not describe with sufficient particularity the type of force they used. They say, for example, that they “employed a takedown maneuver” or that they “took [the subject] to the ground” or even “escorted [the subject] to the ground.” This language does not adequately describe the level and type of force used for a supervisor to review and ensure that the force was within constitutional limits. Officers also commonly are unclear regarding exactly how they used a Taser — i.e., whether darts were deployed or whether drive stun was used. In some instances, when officers employ a Taser, they will use it multiple times without justifying each successive use. Officers also fail to adequately describe the level of the threat, if any, posed by those against whom force was used. They justify their use of force with non-specific language about subjects’ actions such as “continued to resist” or “took an aggressive stance.” And they frequently justify force by expressing a fear that a subject had a weapon without articulating any basis for that fear.
30 The most recent Use of Force policy, made effective in August 2014, states that supervisors investigating force incidents must require all officers at the scene of an incident to complete a narrative describing “any actions of the member and what the member observed and heard.” GPO 2.1.01, Use of Force (rev. Aug. 8, 2014), at 10. We commend the Division for making this change after our informal discussions with CDP’s leadership. As discussed later in this letter, however, it is not yet clear that this policy revision has been adequately implemented.
29

These deficiencies in officers’ report writing and other shortcomings regarding use of force reporting are due, at least in part, to inadequacies in CDP’s policies. Officers are giving to their supervisors precisely what is required of them, and supervisors are not requiring enough. In short, there is a boilerplate culture when it comes to use of force reporting. Though CDP has revised and improved its force and related policies, the current policies still provide insufficient guidance to officers on how to report force and what information the reports must contain. There is no requirement, for example, that officers describe with specificity the force they used, or the resistance they encountered. Instead, officers are directed to fill out the “action response continuum” section of the Division’s “Use of Less Lethal Force Report.”31 This section of the form contains a series of check boxes, with descriptions such as “other deadly force,” “wrestling/pushing member,” “striking,” and “punching.” The policies also contain no prohibition on using conclusory or boilerplate language to describe an officer’s or suspect’s actions. Additionally, CDP policy does not consider pointing a firearm at someone to be a use of force, and therefore officers are not required to report when they have done so. These shortcomings in CDP’s policies inhibit supervisors’ ability to review force and ensure that it is within constitutional limits.
In addition to inadequate policy guidance, we are also concerned that policies, as they exist, are not being followed a significant amount of the time. For example, it appears that force sometimes is not being reported at all, despite CDP policy that requires officers to report any force beyond unresisted handcuffing. During our interviews, officers and command staff alike evinced a poor understanding of when force must be reported. One commander stated that he does not believe a shove to be a use of force. Officers also told us that far from punishing an officer who failed to report a use of force, some supervisors discourage officers from reporting force. The policy requires that, when officers use force, they are to notify a supervisor, who is to come to the scene and, in the case of less lethal force, conduct a full investigation. Officers told us that some supervisors express annoyance that they have been called to the scene and have to perform the work necessary to conduct a use of force investigation. Officers reported to us that they sometimes do not call supervisors to the scene of a use of force (and do not otherwise report it) for fear of getting on the wrong side of their supervisor. Officers also told us that some supervisors, upon arriving on scene and assessing the force, instruct officers not to report it, especially where the person upon whom force was used did not receive any injuries.
Finally, none of the approximately 10 officers who participated in or witnessed the use of force against Edward Henderson, described above, filed the required written use of force report or otherwise documented that they had used or witnessed any force against Mr. Henderson. This is despite the fact that Henderson was taken to the hospital with a broken orbital bone and that numerous other officers were on the scene. In other words, officers did not report the force knowing that anyone who conducted an even cursory review of the situation would be able to determine that some force was used. Of course, documenting the incident would likely have required an officer to state the identity of those officers who applied the force in writing, something that has not occurred to this day. This example of an excessive use of force only came
31 This form formerly was called a “Use of Non-Deadly Force Report.” The division’s decision to change the name of this form is consistent with best practices and we commend the division for having made this change.
30

to light when the video of the incident surfaced. To date, no officers have identified any of the officers who used force in this incident, and no officers have been disciplined for failing to report this incident.32
2. Supervisory Investigations of Force are Inadequate.
Compounding the problem of inadequate reporting, supervisors conduct insufficient reviews of officers’ uses of less lethal force. They make little effort to determine the level of force that was used and whether it was justified. In some cases, supervisors take steps to justify a use of force that, on its face, was unreasonable. Of the hundreds of force incidents we reviewed, supervisors almost never found the force to be unreasonable. That is a record that is simply not credible even in the very best police department. Supervisors also fail to identify and rectify tactical deficiencies that place officers, suspects, and the community at serious risk of harm. In short, the Division is not identifying and preventing unlawful force committed by its officers.
Pursuant to CDP policy, whenever an officer uses force, the officer is to immediately notify a supervisor—typically a sergeant—who is to respond to the scene. In the case of less lethal force, the supervisor is to conduct an “objective, impartial, and complete investigation” of the use of force, by taking action that includes interviewing all witnesses, reviewing all known videos and audio evidence, and checking the officers’ reports for accuracy and completeness. GPO 2.1.01, Use of Force, §V.E (rev. Aug. 8, 2014). After completing the investigation, the supervisor is required to write a synopsis of the event, including an evaluation of whether the force used was appropriate and in compliance with CDP policy. The complete investigation packet is then to be sent up the chain of command to a deputy chief, with approvals and appropriate recommendations required at each level.
In practice, these supervisory investigations are cursory and too often appear to be designed from the outset to justify officers’ actions. The supervisory synopses often fail to identify necessary information that is missing in the initial officers’ reports, and not only do these inadequate reports not result in discipline, but supervisors all the way up the chain of command sign off on these deficient reports. Often, the language included in the supervisor’s synopsis is simply a repetition of the language included in the officer’s report that itself is facially insufficient. The hundreds of less lethal force reports we reviewed were almost entirely devoid of any analysis by anyone in the chain of command regarding whether the force was reasonable. Instead, they simply state that use of force was within Division guidelines. It is almost as if the goal of the chain of command in many incidents is not to create a complete record of the incident that can be subjected to internal and external review, instead of the opposite.
32 Although we have been advised that four officers involved in this incident spent some time on administrative leave without pay, they were not formally disciplined. In addition, CDP did not discipline an additional half dozen officers who witnessed the use of force but failed to report it and failed to identify which officers kicked Mr. Henderson. The City, nevertheless, paid a substantial settlement in a civil suit brought based on this incident.
31

More specifically, supervisors fail to reconcile or to follow up on key facts or discrepancies between officers’, witnesses’, and suspects’ accounts, or discrepancies between the force described and injuries sustained by subjects, or any other available evidence. Supervisors have even failed to hold officers accountable after discovering that officers misreported the force they used. In one incident, in which an officer apparently choked “Gwendolyn,” a woman who was handcuffed to a chair, the officer had written in his report that a fellow officer had “attempted to grab the offender in the chest area.” After reviewing security camera footage of the incident, however, the supervisor wrote that the officer had grabbed the subject “by the front of the neck.” The supervisor did not take any action or follow up in any way on the fact that the officers had mischaracterized the force they used. Instead, the supervisor approved this use of force and did not feel the need to express any opinion regarding the fact that the officer was minimizing the extent of the incident. The captain who reviewed the investigative packet took no issue with the force used, the different characterizations of the force, or the numerous other deficiencies in the investigation. Instead, he approved the use of force, noting that “although [he] would not normally condone grabbing a handcuffed prisoner by the neck,” the limited space in the room and Gwendolyn’s attempt to kick the officer justified the officer’s use of force. Supervisors’ failure to follow up on discrepancies in force reporting undermines CDP’s accountability systems and allows unreasonable force to continue.
Indeed, supervisors’ analyses of use of force incidents is superficial at best and, at its worst, appears to be designed to justify their subordinates’ unreasonable use of force. The incident in which the officer punched the handcuffed 13 year-old in the face three to four times illustrates this problem. There, the officer weighed twice what the handcuffed boy weighed, and there was at least one other officer present who could have helped control him. The supervisor who reviewed the incident noted the size difference, the presence of other officers, and the fact that the boy was handcuffed, yet nevertheless found that this clearly excessive and punitive use of force was “arguably the best response.” He justified the face punches because the boy had kicked the officer and attempted to escape the zone car. The supervisor failed to even consider that the punches might have been retaliatory (perhaps because the officer was angry) and unnecessary to secure the boy. He said that, while “at first review” other tactics such as joint manipulation, assistance from other officers, pressure point control, and other tactics might have been considered, to do so would be to view the incident with the benefit of hindsight and therefore inappropriate. This abdication of supervisory responsibility allows unreasonable uses of force to continue unchecked.
In addition to failing to identify and address excessive uses of force, supervisors fail to identify officers who have used poor or dangerous tactics, or who have broken Division rules relating to use of force, and may be in need of additional training or other corrective action. For example, we saw instances in which officers enlisted the assistance of passersby or bystanders to help gain control of and handcuff a suspect. While it is laudable for the public to seek to help the police, this practice of actively seeking public intervention is extremely dangerous and unprofessional—the person could easily be injured, or could interfere with or undermine the officer’s efforts or, worse, attempt to hurt the officer or reach for the officer’s weapon. Or, the person might use excessive force or tactics that violate the law or CDP policy. In none of these instances did a supervisor note that this practice was inappropriate or recommend training or counseling to discourage it. Moreover, some CDP officers justify the use of unreasonable force against handcuffed or restrained people by asserting that they have lost control of suspects. The
32

use of force against handcuffed suspects should always be subjected to great scrutiny because it generally is unnecessary. Instead, we found instead that this practice is tolerated – that it is effectively presumed that each time an officer applies force to a handcuffed person that it is one of the rare cases when it was necessary —and, as a result, the practice is tacitly authorized by the Division.
In our review of these investigations, we saw no accountability for supervisors who conducted inadequate less lethal force investigations. In almost all instances, these inadequate reports and investigations were approved all the way up the chain of command with no comment. We saw very few instances in which supervisors up the chain of command conducted any analysis to determine if the use of force was Constitutional and within the established guidelines of CDP. By tolerating supervisors’ failures to investigate uses of force, CDP misses the opportunity to correct dangerous behavior, and instead sends the message that there is little institutional oversight or concern about officers’ use of force.
On a systemic, Division-wide level, our review of CDP policies and practices revealed that CDP does not examine and analyze force reports to detect common patterns and trends regarding officers’ uses of force. Such analyses would help CDP identify disproportionate types of force, which can implicate a need for policy revisions as well as an adjustment to the supervisory review process. As discussed more thoroughly in this letter’s section on Training, these analyses can also help pinpoint important topics for training or re-training.
As discussed in more detail later, one root cause of these deficiencies in supervisor review of use of force is a lack of experienced, well-supported, well-trained supervisors. Supervisors also reported that their workloads are simply unmanageable. Sergeants told us that “it’s the worst job in the department” and “the work never stops,” noting that they might be responsible for five less lethal force investigations during one shift in addition to various other duties. Sergeants also reported that they are isolated from others who have similar positions in different parts of the City, which could be an important source of training and support, and there are too few lieutenants to provide needed guidance and support. For instance, some sergeants reported that they may only see the Lieutenant assigned to their platoon once each week. More broadly, supervisors appeared to have difficulty balancing their responsibility to effectively lead, manage, and hold officers accountable. The level of discomfort with these responsibilities is an indication that CDP is not providing supervisors with the training, guidance, resources, or support required to perform their jobs effectively. Many of these individuals enter the force wanting to excel at their work and serve the public, but they report that their enthusiasm and morale is quickly sapped by a structure that does not provide them with the tools they need to succeed in their jobs.
3. CDP’s Internal Review Mechanisms are Inadequate.
Inadequacies in CDP’s internal investigation and review mechanisms also contribute to the pattern or practice of unreasonable force that we identified. CDP has several components that share responsibility for investigating officers’ alleged violations of criminal law or Division policy and holding officers accountable if violations are found: the Use of Deadly Force Investigation team, the Office of Professional Standards, the Internal Affairs Unit, and the Inspection Unit. CDP has several policies and manuals that attempt to define the varying
33

responsibilities of these components, but we found that the division of labor was unclear, allowing violations of Division policies to slip between the cracks. Moreover, some responsibilities conferred to particular components by policy are not fulfilled in practice. For example, CDP policy dictates that the Office of Professional Standards, which is primarily responsible for investigating civilian complaints, and the Internal Affairs Unit both investigate an officer’s use of deadly force to determine if the officer violated Division policy.33 In practice, the Office of Professional Standards apparently has not conducted a proper investigation of an officer’s use of deadly force since 2012.
During interviews, some members of CDP's staff expressed confusion about which component is responsible for carrying out which particular duties and why. Even with full access to CDP’s staff, policies, and procedures, we found the Division’s accountability systems to be difficult to navigate; it is unlikely that civilians seeking information on how a particular complaint or investigation will be handled will find a clear answer. Moreover, the lack of clarity regarding who is responsible for what interferes with competent investigations and consistent and fair adjudication of discipline.
a. CDP Fails to Adequately Investigate and Hold Officers Accountable for Misconduct.
Our review found that several of CDP’s systems for investigating and holding officers accountable for the use of excessive force are flawed, including Internal Affairs, the Use of Deadly Force Investigation Team, and the Tactical Review Committee. In some cases, these flaws prevented the Division from holding officers accountable for serious misconduct. The deficiencies were apparent in both the quality of the investigations and the outcome of those investigations. The quality of the investigations is compromised by investigators’ apparent bias in favor of clearing the officer instead of objectively pursuing all of the available facts – a bias that more than one investigator actually admitted to our team. Many investigations also lacked key documents and appeared incomplete, further undermining their quality. And CDP’s improper use of Garrity warnings may severely interfere with investigations and prosecutions of criminal misconduct by officers.34
33 See, e.g., OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, PROCEDURAL MANUAL, at 1.3 (undated) [hereinafter “OPS Manual”]; STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE MANUAL: THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE INVESTIGATION TEAM, at 13 (rev. March 27, 2013) [hereinafter “UDFIT Manual”].
34 Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967), prohibits a police department from compelling an employee, through the threat of termination, to provide incriminating statements and then subsequently using those statements in a criminal prosecution.
34

i. The Internal Affairs Unit and the Use of Deadly Force Investigation Team do not conduct thorough and objective investigations of alleged officer misconduct.
CDP’s Internal Affairs Unit is responsible for providing guidance to supervisors regarding officers’ alleged involvement in criminal activity and “investigat[ing] all incidents as directed by the Chief of Police.”35 Internal Affairs also investigates any allegation that a CDP officer violated Division policy, unless the allegation arose out of the use of deadly force. Deadly force investigations are conducted by the Division’s Use of Deadly Force Investigation Team (“UDFIT”). The UDFIT team does not determine whether the use of deadly force violated criminal law or Division policy, however. It only investigates the incident. Internal Affairs then reviews the UDFIT file and conducts any additional investigation necessary to determine if the officer violated Division policies. CDP’s chain of command also reviews the UDFIT file, and it is forwarded to the Prosecutor’s Office for review.
While the investigations conducted by the UDFIT team are more thorough than less lethal force investigations, we observed deficiencies in how detectives approached uses of deadly force that were not clearly justified. The reviews appeared to be biased in favor of clearing the officer as opposed to gaining a full and objective understanding of the incident. During officer interviews, for example, detectives asked leading questions, failed to ask important follow-up questions, and failed to resolve inconsistencies. In some instances, investigators failed to take basic investigatory steps. These failures resulted in determinations in favor of the officer that may not have been justified had an adequate investigation been conducted. Indeed, during our interviews with UDFIT investigators, one UDFIT investigator told us that he assumed the officer’s use of force was reasonable in 98 percent of the cases. Other UDFIT investigators told us that they intentionally cast an officer in the best light possible when investigating the officer’s use of deadly force.
Similarly, our review of Internal Affairs (or “IA”) investigations found they frequently lacked key documents, such as transcripts or comprehensive summaries of officer interviews. The quality of investigations, including deadly force investigations, is further compromised by the investigators’ failure to ask key questions and take important investigatory steps. Even more troubling, however, is that multiple IA investigators are applying an inappropriate standard of proof when conducting administrative investigations. When we specifically asked several IA investigators what standard they applied, they struggled to find an answer before deciding on “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Only one IA investigator responded with the less stringent—and appropriate—“preponderance of the evidence” standard. That raises the probability that for years the great majority of IA investigations have been using a “beyond a reasonable doubt” criminal law standard. These failures fundamentally undermine CDP’s ability to hold officers accountable. Indeed, we reviewed investigations where it was clear that CDP should have taken swift action to address an officer’s conduct but failed to do so. For example, Internal Affairs reviewed the 2013 incident in which an officer shot at a victim as he ran from the house where he was being held against his will. Internal Affairs determined that there were no violations of Division policy and recommended that the investigation be closed without further action. This is an unacceptable outcome. This case almost resulted in tragedy, and it arose from circumstances
35 GPO 1.3.16, Integrity Control Section Call-Up Teams, §I.D (rev. October 14, 2009).
35

that are likely to repeat themselves. At a minimum, Internal Affairs should have recognized the need for remedial training.
In another incident discussed earlier, an off-duty officer without any means of identifying himself as an officer inappropriately approached a group of suspects without backup and struck a civilian in the head with his service weapon during a struggle. The officer’s use of force in this incident was excessive and he demonstrated poor tactical decisions that placed him and others in danger. Internal Affairs determined that the officer’s actions were justified and that no further action should be taken. In addition to failing to recommend further action, in both of the above examples, the officers were referred to in the files by investigators as the “victim,” despite the fact that the officers had used excessive force, in one instance against a crime victim the officer had come to rescue.
ii. CDP applies Garrity protections too broadly.
CDP applies Garrity protections too broadly, potentially compromising criminal prosecutions of officers who have committed acts of criminal misconduct. Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967) prohibits a police department from compelling an employee, through the threat of termination, to provide self-incriminating statements and then subsequently using those statements in a criminal prosecution. However, departments can and should give officers the opportunity to provide voluntary statements. Officers may be willing to give statements without being compelled to do so. Indeed, in many instances, an officer’s willingness to provide a statement at the outset of the investigation allows the investigation to proceed more quickly, expeditiously resolves questions of officer misconduct, and identify opportunities to improve tactical and scenario-based training.
CDP has not developed an appropriately nuanced approach when providing Garrity warnings and protections to officers’ statements regarding their uses of force. It is our understanding that the county prosecutor determines whether officers will receive Garrity protections regarding the use of deadly force. Although the prosecutor should be consulted and precautions should be taken to make sure the criminal investigation is not tainted, in all use of force incidents CDP should make an independent determination of when and whether to issue Garrity warnings in order to ensure that it meets its obligation to administratively investigate potential violations of CDP’s policies in a timely manner. Even more importantly, however, CDP’s current practice, as mandated by its Internal Affairs manual, is to provide Garrity warnings and protections for all statements made in administrative investigations. In at least some of these instances, however, officers may not be entitled to Garrity protections. For Garrity to apply, the officer must have wanted to invoke his or her Fifth Amendment rights, but was prevented from doing so by the threat of termination. These circumstances will not be present in all administrative investigations. As a result of CDP’s current practices, officers’ statements cannot be used in a criminal case even though officers may have been willing to provide statements without being compelled to do so, or may not have been entitled to Garrity protections at all. This overly-broad invocation of Garrity may result in the exclusion of important evidence from an investigation, including exculpatory evidence that would clear the officer. Moreover, while CDP’s procedures note that “[e]very measure shall be taken to ensure that a one-way fire wall will exist between concurrent criminal and administrative investigations” to prevent the compelled statement or any information derived from that
36

statement from being used in the criminal investigation, CDP’s policies do not outline how this should occur.36 This failure may result in tainted criminal prosecutions.
Internal Affairs also fails to adequately investigate civilian complaints that officers used excessive force. Per policy, when the Office of Professional Standards receives a civilian complaint that it determines includes allegations of criminal misconduct, including excessive force, it is to refer the case to Internal Affairs for investigation. As discussed in the following section, investigations of misconduct referred to Internal Affairs through the civilian complaint process were routinely substandard—they are often limited to an interview of the complainant and the collection of basic documents. Internal Affairs failed to take additional necessary steps to investigate these allegations.
iii. CDP does not implement appropriate corrective measures.
Finally, our review of CDP’s practices for implementing corrective measures, including discipline against individual officers and changes in tactics or training, revealed several troubling practices. For example, we found instances where an investigation was complete and administrative charges were brought, but the case remained “pending” for an unreasonably lengthy period. In some cases, the reason for the delay was unclear and in other cases the reason for the delay was clear, but not legitimate. We reviewed one instance, for example, where CDP delayed its disciplinary process because of a pending civil case. According to OPS records, the Police Review Board sustained the complaint but, nearly four years later, the case continues to be listed as “pending” in documents tracking CDP’ s disciplinary decisions. A pending civil case is not a valid reason for delaying CDP’s internal disciplinary processes. It can be many years before a civil lawsuit is fully resolved. This practice prevents the Division from swiftly holding officers accountable and sends a message to other officers that they need not fear discipline for their actions.
Also of concern is CDP’s threshold for determining that officers have been held accountable for serious misconduct. For example, CDP reported to us that from 2010 through early May 2014, 51 officers had been disciplined related to uses of force. Our review of the particular incidents to which CDP referred showed that discipline for the majority of cases involved either procedural infractions such as failure to submit a timely report, or instances where officers actually suffered no consequences because hearings were not held in time or charges were dismissed for other unexplained reasons. CDP’s portrayal of these cases as officers being disciplined in connection with use of force indicates a problematic view of what constitutes holding officers accountable.
Similarly, as part of its deadly force review process, CDP has established a Tactical Review Committee that is responsible for “review[ing] relevant documents, confer[ring] with appropriate technical experts, and decid[ing] recommendations on training, tactics, and equipment issues,” but this committee is not being appropriately utilized.37 CDP policy states that the Tactical Review Committee is to review all deadly force incidents once any criminal,
36 See UDFIT manual. 37 UDFIT Manual at 14.
37

UDFIT, and administrative reviews are complete, yet it appears that, in practice, tactical reviews do not always occur. Though we requested all documents regarding all reviews completed by the Tactical Review Committee between January 1, 2010 and June 28, 2013, we received only 15 reviews from that time period. CDP provided none from 2010 and 2013, and only seven from 2011 and eight from 2012. For context, CDP officers were involved in 23 use of deadly force incidents in 2011 and 22 use of deadly force incidents in 2012. We understand the Tactical Review Committee does not necessarily review a use of deadly force incident during the same calendar year in which the use of force took place, particularly if the incident took place late in the year. Nevertheless, these delays in the review process are unacceptable and allow failures in policy, training, and tactics to continue, potentially resulting in the further use of excessive force due to the same deficiency. We found that eight of the 15 deadly force incidents reviewed were not reviewed until at least a year had passed; four additional incidents were not reviewed until three or four years had passed. Two of the incidents reviewed in 2012 occurred in 2008, and two other incidents reviewed in 2012 occurred in 2009. The utility of these reviews, three to four years after the incident occurred, is greatly diminished.
Even when these reviews are completed, however, many of them are inadequate. Reviewers devoted no more than a single page to many incidents and failed to identify basic failures in training and tactics. Tactical reviews should examine every aspect of a call from dispatch to disposition, and reviewing officers should offer substantive commentary and analysis. Yet many reviewing officers do no more than write “Reviewed” on the form. In three of the tactical reviews, training was recommended, but we did not see any evidence that the recommendations were adopted. We also note that CDP has no equivalent process to review less lethal force incidents, even if the less lethal force resulted in serious injuries. Because of these failures, the Tactical Review Committee does not perform its intended function and undermines CDP’s ability to identify and address deficiencies that are resulting in the use of excessive force.
b. CDP Fails to Adequately Investigate Civilian Complaints of Officer Misconduct.
An effective and transparent system for investigating civilian complaints of misconduct is a critical element of a police department’s accountability system to prevent the use of excessive force. The Charter of the City of Cleveland requires OPS to conduct “a full and complete investigation” of each complaint of police misconduct filed by a civilian.38 CDP’s policies recognize that, in order to ensure that officers “serve the community in a[n] . . . accountable manner,” there should be “a readily accessible process” to submit complaints of misconduct.39 CDP’s investigations of these complaints should be “timely and thorough” to both “protect citizens from police misconduct and members from complaints that are retaliatory, manipulative or simply misunderstanding of police protocol.” Id. But is apparent that the reality falls far short of the written policies on these matters. Our review revealed that CDP’s investigations are neither timely nor thorough, that civilians face a variety of barriers to completing the complaint process, and that the system as a whole lacks transparency. As a result, CDP falls woefully short of meeting its obligation to ensure officer accountability and promote community trust.
38 Charter of the City of Cleveland, § 115-4, Investigation and Disposition of Complaints.
39 GPO 1.3.15, Investigations of Police Misconduct, at 1 rev. September 10, 2007).
38

During our previous investigation of CDP, completed in 2004, we noted significant concerns regarding the civilian complaint process. We concluded that OPS was understaffed; investigators were not provided with the guidance and resources necessary to do their jobs effectively; investigations were untimely; civilians’ access to the complaint process was limited; and some complaints that should have been investigated were not. More than ten years later, these problems remain and, in some cases, have worsened. Current deficiencies in the complaint process include impossibly high caseloads for investigators, the inappropriate and premature rejection of civilians’ complaints, substandard investigations, significant delays in completing investigations, and the failure to document and track outcomes.
We discovered a troubling pattern of OPS inappropriately rejecting complaints that may have warranted an investigation. Specifically, CDP policy permits complaints to be “administratively withdrawn” in limited circumstances.40 For example, the OPS administrator has the authority to administratively withdraw “[c]omplaints regarding citizens receiving Uniformed Traffic Tickets (UTT),” but only “if the complaint is based entirely on the belief that the citizen did not deserve the UTT . . . because they did not violate the law.”41 Despite this strict limitation, we reviewed examples of OPS withdrawing complaints that alleged that an officer engaged in misconduct. The alleged misconduct occurred during the issuance of a ticket, but the complaint was not “based entirely on the belief that the citizen did not deserve the UTT.” Instead, it alleged that the officer violated the law or Division policy. These complaints should have been investigated.
In other instances, OPS inappropriately closed or administratively withdrew civilians’ complaints solely for “lack of response” or “lack of cooperation.” OPS’s manual only permits administrative withdrawal on this basis where there is no other information on which to base an investigation. 42 In addition, investigators must first have made diligent efforts to reach the complainant. In practice, however, OPS routinely closes cases after little effort to reach the complainant and despite other information upon which to base an investigation. When complainants “fail to cooperate” with an investigation, CDP should continue the investigation when it has enough information to do so, because CDP has an independent interest in ferreting out misconduct by its officers. Indeed, it has an obligation to do so. Complainants may seek to withdraw complaints or fail to continue to cooperate for reasons wholly unrelated to the merits of their complaints. Moreover, a policy of discontinuing investigations where complainants fail to cooperate may result in subtle or overt efforts by investigators or officers to discourage complainants from proceeding.
When a civilian’s complaint is accepted for investigation, investigations are frequently delayed and substandard. OPS does not have sufficient investigative staff to investigate complaints in a timely and thorough manner. Some investigators reported that, while they would prefer to conduct more comprehensive investigations, their staggering caseloads make it
40 OPS Manual §8.0.
41 See OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS/CIVILIAN POLICE REVIEW BOARD, ANNUAL REPORT, at 13 (2011) [hereinafter “2011 OPS Annual Report”].
42 OPS Manual §8.0
39

impossible to take even some basic investigative steps such as seeking out witnesses or visiting the scene of the alleged misconduct. Underscoring the dire need for additional OPS investigators, our recent review revealed that, on average, complaints take six months to complete, which is far longer than is appropriate. We saw many complaints that took more than a year to resolve—a delay that is unreasonable both to the civilian looking for resolution and the officers who bear the burden of recalling the details of the incident. OPS staff reported that, due to the sheer volume, “We just can’t touch some complaints.” For dozens of complaints, we saw no record they were ever resolved, indicating that the complaints simply fell through the cracks—an unacceptable outcome in a functioning civilian complaint process.
OPS investigations are also frequently substandard. The OPS Manual provides little guidance on the steps that should be taken in order to conduct a thorough investigation, leaving officers to their own devices and resulting in investigations that are inconsistent in content and quality. The investigations we reviewed consistently lacked basic follow up, such as going to the scene and seeking out witnesses. Even when a complaint alleges that an officer engaged in serious misconduct, the entire investigative file may consist only of officer statements, the complainant’s signed form and recorded interview, and little, if any, additional documentation. Pursuant to policy, OPS investigators do not interview the involved officer unless the officer requests an oral interview in lieu of a written response.43 As a result, OPS investigators must rely on written questions and answers to probe the validity of a civilian’s complaint, to assess inconsistencies in police reports, or to evaluate the officer’s credibility in recounting his or her version of events. Therefore, an effective investigative interview of an officer is impossible. This undermines the investigative process. Additionally, in many of the OPS files we reviewed, it was not clear whether an investigation ever took place or whether the complaint was ever resolved.
CDP’s complaint intake process makes it difficult for complainants to successfully make complaints in the first instance. In 2002, we asked that CDP “work with the appropriate union officials to permit the CDP to investigate all citizen complaints, whether signed and written in the complainant’s handwriting or not.”44 However, pursuant to CDP policy, the Division still does not investigate all of the complaints it receives—only those that are signed by the complainant. Thus, CDP will not accept anonymous or third-party complaints.45 This process, which appears to be a result of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the City and the officer’s union, appears to be designed to make it difficult for victims of police misconduct to
43 GPO 1.3.15, Investigations of Police Misconduct, §IV (rev. September 10, 2007).
44 Letter from the Chief of the Special Litigation Section to the Director of the City of Cleveland Law Department, at 8 (July 23, 2002) [hereinafter “2002 DOJ letter”).
45 See GPO 1.3.15, Investigations of Police Misconduct, §I.C; Office of Professional Standards, Department of Public Safety Procedure Manual 3.4.
45 GPO 1.3.15, Investigation of Police Misconduct, § III.A; Office of Professional Standards, Department of Public Safety Procedure Manual 3.4.
40

successfully make complaints.46 The City must work with the unions to ensure that it is able to investigate all complaints, including from anonymous and third party complainants, whether signed or unsigned.
Once OPS completes its investigation of a complaint, the civilian Police Review Board reviews it and reaches a disposition. The Board’s review of these investigations is likewise inadequate. First, the Board’s review is based on inadequate information. Investigators are not invited to attend meetings and, as a result, Board members have no opportunity to discuss cases with the investigators who are the most familiar with them. Additionally, the Board has inexplicably instructed investigators not to include an officer’s prior complaint and disciplinary history in the investigative file. The Board’s failure to assess an officer’s prior conduct interferes with its evaluation of the credibility of the current complaint and impedes its ability to discern potential patterns of misconduct.
Second, the Board’s decisions lack transparency, which, in turn, undermines accountability. The Board’s case files frequently lack final dispositions and, when dispositions are included, there is no evidence of the Board’s rationale supporting its decisions. The problems inherent in this practice are demonstrated when the Board sustains a complaint and recommends discipline. The Board members play no role in any disciplinary conference. Rather, OPS investigators, who were excluded from the Board’s decision-making process, are required to defend the Board’s disposition and disciplinary recommendations at the Chief’s conferences. Neither the Chief nor the investigators have the benefit of knowing the Board’s rationale. The Board’s failure to justify its decisions in writing makes the civilian review process less transparent, places an unnecessary burden on investigators, and increases the likelihood that the Board’s decisions will be overturned. Moreover, when the Board’s recommendations are overturned, complainants are not informed of this fact, further reducing the transparency of the process. This system is likely to produce ill-informed decisions and unfounded results.
Finally, the Police Review Board and OPS are not fulfilling their obligation to review deadly force incidents. Under the City Charter, the Police Review Board has immense power to review deadly force incidents.47 The Board may issue subpoenas, compel witnesses, and order that relevant documents be produced. Moreover, the OPS Manual requires OPS and the Board to review deadly force investigations and requires that the OPS Administrator be called to the scene following a use of deadly force.48 After reviewing a use of deadly force investigation, the Board has the authority to hold a public hearing on the incident or recommend a change in police procedure.49 The Use of Deadly Force Investigation Team’s manual further permits OPS to
46 See Collective Bargaining Agreement between the City of Cleveland and the Cleveland Police Patrolmen’s Association, Article VIII Bill of Rights, 12(m).
47 Charter of the City of Cleveland, ch. 25, § 115-3, Powers and Duties of Board.
48 OPS Manual §4.1-4.3.
49 OPS Manual §4.4.
41

decide that an officer should be charged with violating Division policy or receive reinstruction or training.50
In practice, Board members and OPS staff reported that they have little involvement in the review of deadly force incidents. The Board has not reviewed an UDFIT investigation since early 2012. This failure undermines community confidence. If the Board and OPS were to appropriately utilize their authority, they could serve as the community’s eyes and ears during deadly force investigations, increasing the transparency of the process, and giving voice to the community’s concerns by shaping CDP policy and ensuring that any officer who uses deadly force without justification is held accountable and that those who are justified benefit from the community’s confidence that the review process was fair and effective.
CDP’s civilian complaint system, as a whole, is disorganized and ineffective. CDP was only able to produce a fraction of the case files we requested, and the files produced were often incomplete and lacked basic information about dispositions and outcomes. CDP does not have systems in place to track its performance or decision-making regarding civilian complaints. CDP should have such tracking ability, including the types of complaints it receives, against which officers, and whether those complaints were sustained, unfounded, administratively withdrawn, or closed for other reasons, and what, if any, discipline resulted. CDP should also have mechanisms in place to accurately collect, analyze, and report the critical information that can be derived from civilian complaints, such as areas where additional officer training may be necessary. In addition, CDP has no systems in place to track the performance of OPS and the Police Review Board. While the OPS Manual requires that OPS issue periodic reports and statistical analyses, we found no evidence that this occurs. OPS has not produced an Annual Report that we were shown in three years.51 Given these deficiencies, and others detailed above, CDP’s complaint process has little legitimacy in a City that would benefit greatly from an effective system for addressing the community’s concerns regarding its police force.
4. CDP Officers are Inadequately Supported and Trained.
Our review of reports and investigations of officers’ use of force, both deadly and less lethal, revealed that CDP officers lack some of the basic support, skills, and knowledge required to safely and effectively respond to situations that commonly arise in law enforcement encounters. We saw evidence that officers do not know how to safely and effectively control subjects. In some cases, officers reported that they lost control of handcuffed subjects and in many instances officers were unable to handcuff a subject, at times resulting in the application of significant force, or in the enlisting of a passerby to help gain control of the subject. We also saw officers’ over-reliance on Tasers, and a propensity to too readily draw and even point their firearms, which may be a result of officers’ lack of confidence that they will be able to control a situation. Officers also sometimes do not appear to know how to safely handle firearms. We saw too many incidents in which officers accidentally shot someone, either because they fired their guns accidentally, or because they shot the wrong person. In additional incidents, it was pure luck that officers did not accidentally shoot a suspect, a bystander, or another officer. CDP
50 UDFIT Manual at 13.
51 2011 OPS Annual Report.
42

needs to ensure that its officers are properly trained; that the training is reinforced through ongoing training and instruction; and that officers are consistently held accountable for failing to abide by their training. Its failure to do so has contributed to the pattern or practice of excessive force that we identified and has placed officers and the community in danger.
CDP does not have effective mechanisms in place to ensure that its officers have received training that is adequate in its content, quality, and quantity. It is critical for a major city police department the size of Cleveland’s to have in place ways to evaluate and analyze its training, and to build and revise training programs based on an objective review of trends identified in force reports, civilian complaints, and disciplinary proceedings, as well as changes in the law and emerging issues in the field. CDP lacks many of these mechanisms.
CDP provides its recruit classes with more than the minimum number of hours required by the state, and the number of hours it provides is similar to other departments of its size. However, CDP has not engaged in enough analysis to determine whether the number of hours overall and the content of the training it provides are sufficient for its recruits, or whether the content of the training has been absorbed by the recruits by examining their behavior once they leave the academy. CDP does not devote enough time to some important use of force topics. For example, CDP does not devote enough time to teaching its recruits about its use of force policies. Many officers told us that they do not understand the use of force policies. In its August 2013 report, PERF noted that CDP was only providing four hours of classroom instruction to recruits regarding the basis and legal background of its use of force policies, and that civil liability was also included in this single four-hour block. As stated above, civil liability is a wholly different concept than following CDP policies, and it too often seems to drive the basic review of a use of force incident at CDP. It appears that, since the report was issued, CDP has added an additional four-hour class regarding constitutional issues and CDP use of force policies. If true, one day may still be insufficient for a topic as important as use of force policies.
CDP also has not conducted sufficient analysis to determine whether its in-service training is sufficient or appropriate. Based on our review, not enough in-service training hours are devoted to use of force topics. CDP does have an in-service Training Review Committee that reviews the curriculum and lesson plans for in-service training programs. The committee also develops training topics and is tasked with ensuring that training complies with relevant laws and policies. However, there appears to be little hard analysis behind the committee’s methods—members have no data analysis or any other tool with which to analyze training needs. The committee does review use of force investigations and determines whether training topics can be gleaned from those incidents. However, as described below, these measures are insufficient.
CDP should regularly be examining and analyzing force reports to identify deficiencies in training. Currently, the Division does not engage in any analysis of force reports to discover trends, including whether the reports indicate there may be a department-wide issue in a particular area. Indeed, when we asked CDP to provide us with all less lethal force reports for a given time period, it was not able to produce them in a coherent or organized fashion. It is clear that CDP itself has not attempted to analyze these reports to discover on its own the trends we identified during our review. For example, during our review of deadly force investigations, we discovered that many officers do not safely handle their firearms, and they make poor decisions
43

as to whether it is appropriate or safe to fire them. In more than one incident we reviewed, including the November 29, 2012, shooting deaths of Ms. Williams and Mr. Russell, officers justified having fired their guns on the stated belief that the suspect was firing at them when in fact the gunfire was coming from other officers. We also saw instances in which officers shot someone and claimed that the shooting was accidental. Alarming trends such as these should be identified by the Division and then training should be evaluated to ensure that, in the future, officers have received training sufficient in content and quality to correct these obvious deficiencies.
We also discovered that officers do not effectively de-escalate situations, either because they do not know how, or because they do not have an adequate understanding of the importance of de-escalating encounters before resorting to force whenever possible. They also are sometimes unable to safely and effectively control subjects, resulting in dangerous situations and situations in which officers resort to more force than would have been required had the officer been well-trained. Many officers told us they believe they do not receive enough training, especially scenario-based training and training on appropriate techniques to control subjects. That should change.
CDP also does not provide sufficient and current training on new and revised policies. When a policy is revised, even significantly so, officers are advised of that change in roll-call. Officers informed us that no training accompanies that advisement—the new or revised policy simply is distributed to officers and read aloud. The officer in charge of the training division informed us that no training on that revised policy will occur until the next in-service training, which may be many months away. During our investigation, we observed the inadequacies of this practice with regard to two policies that recently had been revised. CDP recently changed its vehicle pursuit policy to, among other things, limit the crimes for which officers may pursue suspects. This change is important, and in line with national best practices. Officers, however, expressed that they did not understand why the change was made or how it should be implemented. They also expressed their feelings that it was simply an inappropriate overreaction to the November 29, 2012, pursuit and would interfere with their ability to do their jobs effectively. We observed a similar reaction to the Division’s decision in response to our recommendation, and consistent with national best practices, to require all officers who observe or use force to write their own report documenting what they saw and did. Again, officers did not understand why the change was made, how it should be implemented, or how it would benefit them. If officers had received formal, coherent training on these policy revisions, including how they will benefit officers and increase safety, their reactions may have been more positive. Moreover, this training would have allowed CDP to ensure that all officers understand the policies and could be held accountable for abiding by them.
CDP also fails to ensure that officers abide by their training and that the practices taught in the academy reflect the actual practices of the Division. For example, we reviewed CDP’s curriculum for its training regarding report writing and found that it appropriately instructs officers to avoid police jargon and canned, inexact phrases such as “furtive movement,” “suspicious activity,” and “suspect resisted.” However, we consistently found these phrases and similar ones throughout officers’ reports, and these reports were accepted and even endorsed by supervisors. We also saw frequent instances in which officers clearly violated CDP policy, and these violations were neither identified nor corrected by supervisors. And, in most of the
44

instances of excessive force we identified, supervisors all the way up the chain of command approved the use of force as appropriate. Regardless of what officers learn in the academy or inservice training, in the field officers learn that policy violations, unsafe practices, and— ultimately—excessive force are all acceptable to CDP when supervisors fail to hold officers accountable to the policies and training that are in place.
5. CDP’s Use of Force Policy is Still Deficient.
Deficiencies in CDP’s use of force policy also contribute to the pattern or practice of excessive force that we found. The use of force policy has changed, but the policy in place at the time of our investigation was confusing, at times conflicted with the law, and did not provide sufficient guidance to officers. Indeed, many officers reported to us that they did not understand the policy and, more generally, did not understand what level of force they were permitted to use under what circumstances. In August 2014, the Division revised its use of force policy to provide additional guidance to officers as to when and how officers may use force. We are encouraged by the Division’s efforts to revise the policy and its stated commitment to reform. We still have some concerns about the revised policy, however, as well as the Division’s implementation of this and other significant policy changes.
The revised policy remains confusing about when officers may use various levels of force and appears to authorize some of the excessive force we found in our review. For example, the “action response” continuum, which officers are to fill out as part of their less lethal force report, includes an actual check box for hitting someone on the head with a firearm. As an initial matter, it is unclear why a less lethal force report includes a section for deadly force options. It is also unclear why CDP appears to be categorizing hitting someone with a gun as a conventional response when force is needed. This is uniformly understood to be a dangerous practice that should never be permitted except in very unusual and exigent circumstances in which the use of deadly force is authorized; yet, it was a practice we saw CDP officers engaging in too frequently. Additionally, the policy’s definition of “Actively Resistant/Self-Destructive Behavior” includes a warning that officers are to be “particularly vigilant of persons presenting cues of an imminent attack” and, as an example of such a cue, lists “yawning with outstretched arms” and “glancing around, assessing the environment.” Officers cannot meaningfully apply this definition, given that the policy appears to authorize significant force, including the use of Tasers, against people because they are yawning with outstretched arms or are glancing around, but do not pose an immediate threat. The policy’s definition of “Actively Resistant/Self-Destructive Behavior” also includes the action of ingesting narcotics, and thus indicates that an appropriate response may include the use of the Taser. Tasing someone who is trying to destroy evidence by swallowing it can cause the person to choke and die.
The revised force policy also lacks sufficient guidance as to how force should be reported. It does not require specificity in officers’ descriptions of the force used and resistance encountered. Instead, it directs officers to describe the force and resistance by checking boxes in the “Action Response section” on the related form. There is no requirement in the policy that an additional explanation of each of these actions be included in a narrative. The revised force policy still does not include the pointing of a firearm at a person in the definition of force, and does not require officers to report having pointed a firearm at a person. The dangers inherent in such a policy choice have played themselves out in Cleveland—officers draw and/or point their
45

firearms too quickly, perhaps because they do not think of it as something that must be justified by the circumstances they are facing. As we have seen, officers’ decisions to draw their firearms have resulted in unnecessary escalations of force, accidental discharges, and dangerous hands-on encounters with suspects while officers are holding their guns. Another consequence of failing to include this action as a reportable use of force is that supervisors do not even know that it has occurred unless it resulted in the use of force or occurred in conjunction with other types of force. Even in these instances, investigators do not investigate the propriety of the officer’s decision to have drawn the gun in the first place and instead make conclusory statements about it being done “for officer safety.” As a result, no one in CDP knows how often officers are pointing their firearms or under what circumstances, and the Division is unable to identify and rectify training and tactical concerns that this behavior may raise.
This is an example of how a policy decision has enormous ramifications for CDP’s ability to engage in effective community policing. When officers point their guns at people without proper justification, even if the encounter does not progress any further, it can be a traumatic event for the citizen. Done enough, communities can come to feel as if they are under siege. Then, instead of seeing the police as an agency that is there to protect them and their communities, they come to see officers as a force that is there to control them through fear. This mentality fosters distrust of the police, reduces cooperation, and interferes with CDP’s ability to fight crime while ensuring officer safety.
Officers also reported that official policy does not reflect the practices of the Division, in part because they do not have the technology or equipment to follow policy. A near-universal refrain from officers was that the policies are used to discipline officers when a significant event comes to light, even where the officer’s actions reflected the practice of the entire Division and instructions from supervisors. In other words, officers believe that high publicity events are treated differently in terms of discipline by CDP than uses of force that no one is watching. If true, that would also tend to erode community confidence in the police. Although officers do not want to be disciplined, of course, they are more willing to accept consequences when they believe that the result, whether they agree with it or not, is not influenced by external factors but is driven wholly by the facts, the law, and policies that govern their actions.
CDP has expressed a willingness to revise its policies, and has proactively sought input from the Department of Justice and others as to how its policies should be revised. The Division also has quickly responded to suggestions regarding deficiencies in its policies. That is laudable, however, its response has not always been effective. For example, we raised with CDP our concern that not all officers who use or witness force are required to report it. CDP agreed to begin requiring officers to write these reports. While we are encouraged by the Division’s response to that feedback, the implementation of this change was carried out haphazardly. Though CDP has now changed its policy to require all officers at the scene of a use of force to write a narrative describing the incident, initially, a deputy chief simply sent an email to the command staff informing them that, effective immediately, all officers on the scene of a less lethal force incident are each to complete a memorandum, to be included in the investigative file, detailing their actions. Officers informed us that they were told of the change in roll-call, but received no explanation of the reasoning behind the change, nor did they receive any training on what it meant or how to implement it. They expressed confusion over what it meant and why it was being required.
46

Officers told us that they view that process as typical of the way policy changes are implemented at CDP, and they expressed frustration over not knowing exactly what policies and procedures are currently in effect. According to officers, policy changes are usually communicated to officers through “Divisional Notices,” with no explanation or training. Moreover, the changes are not reflected in the official policy manual and there is no indication, even in the electronic version of the manual, that a Divisional Notice was issued that changed the requirements of a particular policy. Consequently, officers are confused as to which policies are in effect and have no way of knowing if they are referencing current CDP policy when looking to the manual for guidance as to their actions. Additionally, CDP has no way of holding officers accountable for failing to adhere to policy changes that have been implemented where it is unclear which policy currently is in effect.
6. CDP’s Early Intervention System is Inadequate.
CDP does not use an adequate early intervention system to help identify risky and problematic trends in officer behavior before a pattern or practice of misconduct arises, such as the pattern or practice of excessive force that we found here. An early intervention system is a tool used by police departments to provide individualized supervision and support to officers and to manage risk. Specifically, an early intervention system is one or more databases that track various officer activities, including uses of force, civilian complaints, stops, and arrests. An effective early intervention system both tracks this activity and allows the department to analyze patterns of behavior by individual officers or groups of officers to identify those who might be in need of support or intervention from the department. An early intervention system is not a mechanism for imposing discipline. Instead, the goal of an early intervention system is to manage the potential risk to officers, the department, and the community by taking corrective action and providing officers with resources—such as counseling, training, additional supervision, or monitoring, and action plans for modifying future behavior—before serious problems occur.
CDP’s early intervention system is ineffective and poorly utilized. Until very recently, it was voluntary and officers identified for inclusion in the program could choose whether or not to participate. This is contrary to national standards and our 2002 recommendation that CDP make participation mandatory. In January of 2014, CDP drafted a revised policy and reported that it is transitioning to a mandatory early intervention program.52 This is an important and necessary improvement. CDP also reported that it is in the process of securing software that will allow the Division to electronically link data from various components that provide information about officers’ activities, including the Internal Affairs Unit and the Office of Professional Standards. It is too early to assess whether CDP will be able to effectively integrate their data analysis through this new software.
However, the system CDP intends to implement still has significant failings. It will not be effective in disrupting problematic patterns of behavior before they occur because the indicators CDP tracks are too limited and those that are tracked may not provide timely information. CDP’s draft policy regarding its revised early intervention program appropriately
52 GPO 1.1.20, Early Intervention Program (EIP), (January 28, 2014 draft).
47

states that the intent of the program is to “intervene before discipline is required. It is designed to prevent inappropriate conduct which may, without intervention, rise to a level where discipline becomes necessary.”53 We found, however, that the substantive provisions of the policy and CDP’s practices fall short of this goal. Some of the indicators tracked in the current system only provide information that is untimely and based on past events. Moreover, there are additional factors that CDP’s early intervention system should be tracking, including criminal allegations and civil claims against officers, in order to provide a more complete picture of officers’ activities and potential need for intervention.
Finally, although CDP is tracking some relevant performance indicators, it is not clear when those indicators trigger an assessment of whether intervention is required. Although the revised policy refers to “pre-determined thresholds,” such thresholds have not been determined. A precise threshold should be standardized for all officers and incorporated into CDP’s policy.
7. CDP Is Not Engaging in Community Policing Effectively at All Levels of the Division.
We began our investigation in the aftermath of a series of high profile incidents that contributed to and highlighted an enormous amount of distrust between CDP and certain communities it serves. Members of racial, ethnic, and language minorities, expressed public outrage at the way they perceive that their communities are treated by CDP. Reports of the enormous amount of force that culminated in the fatal shooting of two unarmed AfricanAmericans in East Cleveland on November 29, 2012; the revelation that officers were caught on tape kicking an African-American man in the head, who was handcuffed, prone on the ground, and appeared to have surrendered, and then did not report having used any force; and claims by a Latino family that officers chased and forcibly handcuffed their teenage son who has Down syndrome while looking for robbery suspects who did not resemble the boy, all had brought to the fore the distrust that had been percolating between the police and the community for years. This level of distrust between the police and the community interferes with CDP’s ability to work with the various communities it serves to effectively fight crime and ensure the safety of the people of Cleveland.
A police department dedicated to community policing not only reactively responds to calls for service but also proactively works with the community to create safer, more secure neighborhoods by identifying and addressing the root causes of crime.54 In so doing, the community and the police department together promote greater public safety. This type of police-community partnership is desperately needed in Cleveland. Recently, CDP put into place a new community policing philosophy, including a mission statement and an emphasis on community engagement, professionalism, and respect; has created new community policing
53 GPO 1.1.20, Early Intervention Program (EIP), at 1 (January 28, 2014 draft).
54 ROBERT CHAPMAN & MATTHEW SCHEIDER, COPS, COMMUNITY POLICING FOR MAYORS: A MUNICIPAL SERVICE MODEL FOR POLICING AND BEYOND, at 1 (undated); GAYLE FISHERSTEWART, COPS, COMMUNITY POLICING EXPLAINED: A GUIDE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, at 6 (undated).
48

goals that include initiating neighborhood improvement plans and working with community groups to create a safer city; and has launched new community policing training. While these initiatives are encouraging, it is far too early to determine their thoroughness, effectiveness, or success. At this point, we can only assess CDP’s community policing efforts based on those policies, training, and tactics in place throughout the course of our investigation.
During our investigation, we found that CDP’s method of policing contributes to the community’s distrust of and lack of respect for officers—officers escalate situations instead of diffusing them and using them as an opportunity to build trust and rapport; officers draw their service weapons on people who are suspected of minor crimes or who do not otherwise pose a threat; and officers use force against people in mental health crisis after family members have called the police in a desperate plea for assistance. Any attempt CDP makes to establish and maintain a positive and beneficial relationship with the community is potentially also undermined by the frequency with which officers appear to stop and search people without meeting the requisite threshold of reasonable suspicion or probable cause. As noted previously in the Summary section of this letter, it appears preliminarily that officers often subject people to stops and searches without the requisite level of suspicion.55 In addition, despite the fact that we are making no finding regarding racial profiling, we must report that when we interviewed members of the community about their experiences with the police, many African-Americans reported that they believe CDP officers are verbally and physically aggressive toward them because of their race. We also found that, when community members attempt to file complaints about mistreatment at the hands of CDP officers, they are met with barriers and resistance.
Given this backdrop, a comprehensive community policing strategy must be a central component of any police reform in Cleveland. An effective community policing strategy enables law enforcement agencies and the individuals and organizations they serve to develop solutions to problems and increase trust in the police. Community policing involves building partnerships between law enforcement and the people and organizations within its jurisdiction; engaging in problem-solving through proactive measures; and managing the police agency to support community partnerships and community problem-solving.56 And it translates to all ranks, sectors and units of a police department.
55 We note as an example that the field reports and other documents associated with the incident involving Paul did not cite any justification for the pat-down of individual the officers suspected of urinating in public. To justify a pat-down of an individual, an officer must have “reason to believe that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual.” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27 (1968); Bennett v. City of Eastpointe, 410 F.3d 810, 822-823 (6th Cir. 2005) (“A lawful stop does not necessarily carry with it the authority to conduct a pat-down search.”). If there was such a justification, it should have been in the officer’s report, a failure that is far too common in the records that we reviewed.
56 COPS, COMMUNITY POLICING DEFINED, at 1 (undated); DREW DIAMOND & DEIRDRE MEID WEISS, ADVANCING COMMUNITY POLICING THROUGH COMMUNITY GOVERNANCE: A FRAMEWORK DOCUMENT, at 4 (2009).
49

In recent years, and throughout the course of our investigation, CDP’s concept of community policing has been implemented only superficially. CDP does participate in many programs that are aimed at building relationships with the community to enhance the services it provides. It has a community policing unit. It participates in multidisciplinary efforts, like STANCE57 and through the Cleveland Rape Crisis Center, to reach out to community members and groups. Its commanders host and attend community meetings to hear citizen complaints. It participates in federal/state/local task forces that encourage data driven policing and cooperative law enforcement. These efforts are to be praised and recognized. They should, we believe, be continued and enhanced. But these programmatic efforts are not enough. True community policing, discussed herein, must encompass a philosophy of how individual officers interact with and view the communities that they police each and every day. It is about more than attending meetings; it is about how officers talk to and act towards the people they encounter every day. That ethos needs significant improvement throughout CDP.
During our tours, we additionally observed that neither command staff nor line officers were able to accurately or uniformly describe what community policing is or how CDP implements a community policing model. Our review revealed in addition to the programmatic aspects of community policing, that CDP’s community policing strategy, at least until recently, has consisted of three elements: a Bureau of Community Policing and district Community Service Units that perform limited community policing functions; supervisors instructing patrol officers to get out of their zone cars and walk around the community while providing little additional guidance or training; and monthly CDP-sponsored community meetings that do not appear to attract the members of the community who have the most strained relationships with the police. This model is insufficient to address the disconnect that currently exists between CDP and some members of the community. CDP’s failure to implement a proactive, positive relationship with all of the communities it serves in order to address community concerns and issues has created an environment in which CDP officers will likely have to resort to force more often than they would otherwise.
In a well-run community policing program, the concepts that underpin community policing would permeate all aspects and functions of the police department. CDP lacks many comprehensive strategies that make a community policing program effective. The Bureau of Community Policing consists of one section to which 18 individuals, 16 of whom are officers, are assigned. According to documents provided by CDP, their duties include assisting patrol officers with traffic control; running crime prevention programs in schools and elsewhere; acting as crossing guards at schools; teaching students about substance abuse and gang violence; and recruiting new officers to the force. Yet, we also learned that in recent years CDP has greatly reduced its involvement in key programs in the Cleveland Municipal School System. CDP should ensure that its community policing efforts are comprehensive, and focus on schools and children in addition to neighborhoods in order to build trust. According to an assignment posting provided by CDP, the officers assigned to the Community Services Units within the districts are charged with focusing on quality of life issues by attending community meetings, addressing drug activity, responding to the District Commander’s crime initiatives, and performing riot and
57 STANCE is part of a comprehensive prevention, reentry and enforcement effort to help prevent gang problems across the nation. See http://www.safercleveland.org/stance.html.
50

crowd control functions.58 While some of these functions assigned to the Bureau of Community Policing and the Community Service Units are part of community policing, they are only a small part of an effective community policing model. Indeed, several Community Services Unit officers we spoke with told us that they did not consider the functions they performed to be community policing. Those officers said they spend much of their time addressing burglaries, traffic, and drug problems
Many district commanders, as well as former Chief McGrath, told us that supervisors tell patrol officers to get out of their zone cars, walk around, and get to know residents and store owners. Although we observed that some officers were engaged in thoughtful and effective community policing strategies, we found that there is no organizational support for community policing activities. Instead, they are ad hoc and officer specific. One officer with whom we spent time during a ride-along greeted many residents by name and stopped to speak with some of them. Children in the neighborhood called out to him and waved as he drove by. The officer told us, however, that he got to know members of the community due to his own interest in doing so and that such actions were not mandated by command staff. He does it because like many officers in CDP he cares, but not because it is required as part of his job. A sergeant we spoke with in the same district confirmed that the officer was acting entirely on his own initiative with no encouragement from command staff. But personal dedication and commitment, even if present in a large number of good and honest CDP officers, is not a modern strategy for an organization of the size and importance of CDP. For instance, one district commander we spoke with affirmatively stated that his patrol officers are not held accountable for community policing and are trained solely to answer radio calls in order to “put out fires and move the problem” because, he said, “that is what police do.” Several officers we rode with stated that they got out of their zone cars or initiated contact with civilians only when responding to calls. Officers also indicated that they were too busy responding to calls to take time to do anything else, such as walking through neighborhoods or business districts.
Deficiencies in CDP’s community policing efforts are, to a certain extent, not surprising. Even with the advent of CDP’s new community policing philosophy, we are aware of no CDP policies regarding community policing. We have seen no formal, systemic community policing plan to ensure officers are interacting with civilians; and we have seen no efforts to analyze those interactions and to use the information gained to improve CDP’s ability to fight crime. In addition, performance evaluations of officers do not include a community policing component.
We also saw evidence that some officers hold views that are incompatible with community policing principles, and that this attitude is tolerated and encouraged by at least some members of command staff. A former actual Commander of community policing for CDP told us that he believes the culture within CDP is antithetical to a community policing mentality and that officer training instills in officers an “us-against-them” mentality. During an interview with one district commander, he referred to his district as a “forward operating base,” and we later observed a large sign hanging in the vehicle bay of that district station identifying it as such. Such metaphors have no place in a community-oriented police department. While a stray
58 CDP Inter-office correspondence, Anticipated Assignment to the Community Services Unit (undated); CDP Intra-District Assignment Posing, Anticipated Assignment Community Services Unit (December 1, 2011).
51

comment here or there would not itself be worthy of report, leadership and messaging do matter, especially in light of the other findings and observations set forth in this letter.
CDP policy59 places responsibility for establishing community policing strategies for the Division with the Deputy Chief of Field Operations. Nonetheless, Chief Williams, who at the time was Deputy Chief of Field Operations, told us that CDP has no Division-wide community policing strategy and instead relies on district commanders to establish community policing plans. Many district commanders told us that they have an excellent relationship with those they police, citing, for example, their monthly meetings with community members. We attended several of these meetings, and indeed, those in attendance evinced respect and appreciation for CDP. However, as set forth above, these meetings are not a strategy for every day community policing and they attract a small number of people who reflect only a fraction of the communities CDP serves. Citizens need to know not only the “brass,” but they need a trusting relationship with the patrol officers who are in their communities every single day. Many Cleveland residents fear and mistrust CDP and feel that they are in an adversarial relationship with the Division. Although it is harder to accomplish, more needs to be done to try to involve the members of the community who have a less favorable view of CDP.
On another occasion, a commander noted that he had tried to address crime outside of the usual responses to calls for service by contacting the law department and a City councilperson about ways to address the theft of scrap metal, which is a primary problem in his district. Such actions can be an important part of community policing, as a successful community policing strategy depends on cooperation between the police department and other government entities within the city. However, this commander’s personal efforts again appear to be an exception to CDP’s overall policing strategy, which relies very little on communication and proactive daily partnerships with those they police.
CDP has taken some initial steps to establish an effective community policing approach to interacting with the people of Cleveland and proactively addressing crime. Holding community meetings, encouraging officers to get to know residents, working with the city council and other government entities, and other strategies are all basic building blocks of an effective community policing framework. But much more must be done. CDP must target the communities where distrust of the police is most pervasive. Community meetings must entail a broader representation of community members and must dig deeper into how those members can work with officers to prevent crime. In addition, community policing principles must be formalized and inculcated into the culture of the Division. Underpinning all of CDP’s efforts must be a community-oriented philosophy that positions community members and groups as partners in an effort to proactively problem-solve together.
8. CDP’s Approach to Individuals in Crisis Is Underdeveloped.
CDP’s crisis intervention policies and practices are underdeveloped, and CDP has not yet fully integrated these practices into its response to individuals in crisis, resulting in the use of unreasonable force against these individuals. When individuals experience a mental health crisis, law enforcement officers often are the first responders. In many of these situations,
59 GPO 1.2.01, Organizational Structure, §IV. (Rev. Dec. 30, 2011).
52

officers have been called to the scene by concerned family members who are only seeking help for their loved ones. Frequently, these individuals in crisis have not committed any crime. Too often in Cleveland, however, officers handle these difficult situations poorly and end up resorting to unconstitutional force against people in crisis. Although CDP has invested in improving its response to people in crisis over the last few years, critical work still remains to ensure that officers’ interactions with people in crisis are appropriate.
CDP contracts with Cuyahoga County’s Alcohol, Drug Addiction, and Mental Health Services (“ADAMHS”) to provide some of its officers with crisis intervention training. Once officers have completed this 40-hour block of training, CDP designates them as crisis intervention team (“CIT”) officers. Many officers describe this training as the best and most effective training they have ever received while at CDP. The problem, however, is that frequently these trained officers are not the people responding to calls of people in crisis in real time. That needs to change. Currently, at the beginning of each shift, supervisors are to inform dispatchers which zone cars have CIT officers so that dispatchers may assign CIT officers to assist with calls involving individuals experiencing a mental health crisis. However, CDP policy only requires dispatchers to “attempt” to dispatch a CIT officer to a call involving a person in mental health crisis. If CIT officers are already on other assignments, dispatchers are allowed to send only non-CIT officers.60 Partly as a result of this practice, officers who have not received CIT training are dispatched to handle calls involving individuals in crisis. We saw no evidence that CDP’s staffing plan or car plan attempts to ensure that there is adequate CIT coverage or that CIT officers are assigned to shifts with a greater need for their skills.
As discussed above, we reviewed force reports in which officers responded to a call, often from a family member, to assist with an individual in mental health crisis, and the officers used excessive force to control the situation. Had officers used proper de-escalation techniques, it is possible these situations could have been resolved without resorting to force. In many of the problematic incidents we reviewed in which officers used excessive force against a person in crisis, no CIT officer was on scene. The presence of a properly trained CIT officer might have improved the safety of the person in crisis, the person’s family, and the officers present.
CDP must change its policies and procedures to require CIT officers to respond to every incident involving an individual in known mental health crisis, even if a non-CIT officer who is first on scene must immediately begin addressing the situation. CDP must also ensure that enough officers respond to these calls. CDP’s policy currently requires two officers to respond to calls involving individuals with mental illness.61 According to the documentation provided by CDP, however, it is common for only one CDP officer to respond to such a call. To ensure that CIT officers are always available in all parts of the city to respond whenever an encounter with someone in mental health crisis occurs, CDP needs to conduct an analysis to determine whether it currently has enough CIT officers and whether it is deploying those officers effectively, and then correct any discovered deficiencies.
60 GPO 3.2.17, Crisis Intervention Officers, at 1 (effective October 27, 2004).
61 Id.
53

In addition to ensuring that it has a sufficient number of CIT officers, CDP must also ensure that its personnel, including its officers and dispatchers, are adequately trained. When choosing which officers will attend CIT training, CDP should select only those officers who have volunteered for the training. All other patrol officers must be given basic training to ensure that they have a general working knowledge of how to respond to and assist individuals who are mentally ill. This will allow patrol officers both to recognize when someone might be experiencing a mental health crisis so that the officer may request the assistance of a CIT officer, and to safely and effectively handle the situation until that CIT officer arrives. Currently, CDP recruits are not receiving sufficient basic mental health training, and it does not appear that CDP has offered any in-service mental health training since at least 2010. CDP’s training also must emphasize to all officers that they are to employ verbal de-escalation techniques whenever practicable as a first resort when encountering individuals experiencing a mental health crisis, regardless of whether the individual is violating or has violated the law. CDP policy currently limits the definition of “crisis” in the mental health context to situations when there is no law violation.62 CDP must expand this definition.
Finally, CDP should establish at least one CDP officer to act as a mental health liaison to facilitate communication between CDP and members of the mental health community. A police department can best serve and respond to individuals with mental illness when it has strong partnerships with mental health professionals, advocacy organizations, and others in the mental health community. CDP needs to involve these partners when creating and revising CDP policies, procedures, and training regimens related to crisis intervention. CDP should also solicit feedback from the mental health community on a regular basis regarding the efficacy of its CIT program. The CIT coordinator can establish and facilitate these relationships and should be available at all times as a resource for families, advocates, caregivers, and others in the mental health community.
One cannot overstate the importance of a robust CIT program. A well-trained cadre of CIT officers, together with patrol officers armed with a basic understanding of mental illness and how it can affect individuals, would provide the proper foundation CDP needs to effectively assist individuals with mental illness. A fully implemented CIT program also would improve the safety of officers as well as individuals with mental illness and their family members. A comprehensive crisis intervention program requires CDP to partner effectively with advocates, service providers, and families in the mental health community to ensure officers are appropriately assisting individuals experiencing mental health crises. While we recognize that CDP has taken significant steps to interact more appropriately with individuals with mental illness, it is imperative that CDP take additional measures to ensure that officers encountering people with mental illness consistently do so in a manner that respects their constitutional rights and provides them with the assistance they need.
9. CDP Equipment, Technology, and Staff Planning are Inadequate.
CDP’s failure to appropriately allocate resources—including staffing and equipment— contributes to the pattern or practice of unconstitutional force. In addition, Cleveland police officers are not given the basic equipment, the physical structures, and the technology required to
62 GPO 6.1.01, Crisis Intervention Report, at 1 (effective March 1, 2002).
54

perform their jobs safely and effectively. We found that patrol officers are sent out to perform dangerous jobs without the ability to effectively communicate with the Division or with each other. Consequently, all too often they are placed in a position where they do not have the ability to learn basic information about the civilians with whom they interact. Asking officers to perform their duties without adequate technology, an appropriate staffing plan, a sufficiently professional workspace, or routine and functioning equipment is dangerous to the officer, undermines public safety and is unfair. It also cannot help but drain officer morale and diminish their patience in dealing with the members of the public they encounter.
We recognize that City budgets are severely constrained and that police departments around the country must make difficult decisions about where they will allocate resources at the expense of other needs of the department. We realize that these financial realities have become worse in recent years and that Cleveland has been particularly hard hit. We do not underestimate the difficulty the City and the Division finds itself in, and we recognize that Division leadership struggles with these decisions and their potential ramifications for the hard working men and women of the Cleveland Division of Police. However, the City must provide adequate resources to allow for constitutional and effective policing. As much as any building, stadium, or other public works project, a well-run, professional and constitutional police presence is the foundation of a healthy city in our democracy. Moreover, the City and the Division must work together to ensure that limited resources are allocated thoughtfully and effectively.
An effective police force needs a staffing plan that distributes personnel based on the expected workload at various times during the day. The plan must be systematically designed to use resources effectively, balancing personnel between specialized units, taking advantage of officers with particular skills, and conserving resources by civilianizing certain positions. An effective staffing plan could also help alleviate some of the Division’s budget problems. For example, many jobs that could be performed by civilians are currently occupied by sworn officers. These include administrative desk jobs and crime scene technicians.63
As described above, we found that field supervisors are failing in some of the most fundamental aspects of their responsibilities—reviewing and investigating the uses of force of the officers under their command, and correcting dangerous tactical choices that place the officer and others at risk. The number of officers a sergeant supervises—the sergeant’s “span of control”—is a critical factor affecting the adequacy of supervision. Any span of control should take into account the level of activity and type of units being supervised. Additionally, law enforcement agencies such as CDP should deploy its staff to ensure “unity of command,” a system in which officers report consistently to one sergeant, and, in most cases, officers and their supervisors have the same days off and the same schedules. That system is meant to ensure that supervisors know their subordinates’ strengths and weaknesses, allowing them to better direct their work. CDP does not employ a unity of command structure and, because it has not conducted an adequate staffing study, it does not know whether its span of control is appropriate.
63 We recognize that using civilians in these positions has been a sensitive issue in the past, resulting in litigation and a settlement agreement. Nevertheless, a comprehensive review of CDP’s staffing plan should consider the advantages of using civilians in some jobs through the process outlined in that settlement agreement.
55

An appropriate staffing analysis would allow the Division to know whether it needs more sergeants, or whether to deploy staff differently in order to allow for unity of command and a thoughtful span of control.
While CDP has taken some steps to improve the equipment it provides to officers—for example, it has provided officers with new portable radios relatively recently—other basic equipment is either outdated or nonexistent. For instance, officers lack effective zone car computers, called Mobile Data Computers (“MDCs”), which allow them to effectively access the computer-aided dispatch (“CAD”) system. MDCs are essential tools for effective policing and for officer safety. When officers conduct a vehicle stop, officer safety requires that they run the license plate through the computer prior to approaching the vehicle to determine information about the vehicle and its likely driver—for example, whether the vehicle was stolen or involved in a crime, or whether its registered owner is wanted for a crime or has outstanding warrants. Not all of CDP’s zone cars have computers and, of those that do, the computers do not all reliably work. Even the MDCs that do work properly do not give officers access to CAD or CDP’s Records Management System. CAD includes vital information such as the nature of the call, whether anyone involved is armed, whether shots were fired, how many officers currently are on scene, a description of any suspects, direction of flight, and more. As a consequence, when officers make stops, they often cannot use their computers to obtain this critical information. Leadership reported that officers can request this information through dispatch. In reality, however, this solution is impractical. Officers reported that it takes far too long for officers to receive this type of information through dispatch. Moreover, the radio channel frequently is being used for more pressing and emergent situations, and officers are reluctant to intrude with these types of requests for basic information. One officer who does not have an MDC told us that she will not make traffic stops after dark because, without easily being able to run the license plate, she considers such situations to be too dangerous.
In part because they do not have functioning computers and access to the information in the CAD system, officers use their personal cell phones to communicate when in the field, to talk with their supervisors, to run checks on license places and suspects, to find locations, and to take photographs. The pervasive use of personal cell phones is problematic, particularly because CDP lacks any policy covering this subject. For example, when officers send text messages and take photographs, they potentially are creating evidence, and CDP has no protocol in place for how such evidence will be handled, preserved, or disclosed to prosecutors and defense attorneys. Nor is there any protocol for how this potentially important information will be transmitted to CDP’s databases. It also interferes with CDP’s ability to hold officers accountable for their actions, because it is impossible to discern what information officers had and when they had it.
The condition of officers’ equipment and facilities also makes it difficult for them to comply with some policies and contributes to low officer morale. There are not enough computers at the district stations for officers to be able to easily write their reports, including use of force reports, in a timely manner. At the Fourth District, for example, there was until recently only one computer for all patrol officers. A second computer was added just before our April 2014 visit. Another serious equipment problem facing CDP officers is the condition of the force’s vehicle fleet. Officers in all Districts stated that most of the cars are old and in poor repair. Many are out of service, or “bad ordered,” at any given time, meaning that there are insufficient cars available to fully staff shifts. Because of the poor condition of CDP’s vehicles,
56

officers told us that some of them carry auto repair equipment and other maintenance materials which they have purchased at their own expense. These problems undermine CDP’s ability to have sufficient supervisory review and places officers at risk.
Again, we acknowledge and understand the difficult financial strain on the City and the Division. However, the City must allocate its resources in a way that allows for constitutional policing. The City recently has chosen to spend a significant amount of money on body-worn cameras for some CDP officers. Body-worn cameras are an emerging technology that will likely be a very effective law enforcement tool and we applaud that decision. However, many officers do not even have working computers in their cars. There are many pressing concerns facing the Division, and a failure to thoughtfully assess the Division’s needs and prioritize effectively affects officers’ and supervisors’ ability to do their jobs and erodes morale.
57

v. CONCLUSION

We recognize that many Cleveland officers have pursued their profession in order to effect positive change within the City and they make great sacrifices to do dangerous work. All of the residents of the City of Cleveland should recognize that as well. Respect and trust must go both ways. As the Sixth Circuit has noted, police officers are charged with the ultimate responsibility ofprotecting the public and keeping the peace-and they may employ the use of force, including deadly force, to do so. See Hayes v. }';lemphis Police Dep 't, 634 F.2d 350, 352 (6th Cir. 1980). However, any use of force must be within the confines of the Fourth Amendment, and we have found that CDP engages in a pattem or practice of using umeasonable amounts of force in violation of the Constitution. While CDP has taken initial steps to implement new policies and procedures designed to remedy some of the deficiencies described in this letter, it is imperative that the City and the Division now take more rigorous measures to identify, address, and prevent excessive force to protect the public and to rebuild the community's trust. To that end, we believe the only effective mechanism to address these significant problems is to reach a consent decree that provides for a monitor to oversee the implementation of systemic refom1 in the CDP. The City's agreement, as reflected in the Joint Statement of Principles, is a critical step on the path to refonn.

We share your desire to ensure that the City of Cleveland has an effective, accountable police depatiment that controls crime, ensures respect for the Constitution, and earns the trust of the public it is charged with protecting. Recent events have galvat1ized many in the commlmity to join the public discourse over the future of the Clevelat1d Division of Police and its relationship with the community. We look forward to working with you, the Division, and the community to address our findings and to restore public trust and promote constitutional policing in Cleveland.
Sincerely,

~~~

Vanita Gupta

Acting Assistant Attorney General

Civil Rights Division

Departme

.

Steven M. Dette ac United States Attomey Northem District of Ohio

58

 
 Joint SCatement of Principles by T he United State, DC[lalimcnt of .Justice and the City of C leveland
Regarding the Cleveland Division or Po li ce
The United States and th e. City of Cleveland (collectively, "the Partie,,"), commi t to work together to develop a framework to reform cCl1ain use of force aiid search and seil.llre prnctkes, (IS well as training, supervision and accolmtability mechanisms of the Cleveland. Division of Police ("CDP"). The Patiies have agreed to begiLl negotiatiollS with the intention ofl'eaching a court-enforceable setUement agrecmellt ("Consent Decree" or ,.Agreemenf') between the United States Department (If .Tustice
("Depaltment") and the City of Cleveland which Decree, a~ one of its terms, will incLnde
a provision for an (lutside independent monitor to enslire continued compliance with the terllls oHhe Decree. The Partie.. recogni l.e the urgency of this matte r and seek to
complete negotiatiollS expeditiously. Any agreement reached will build on measures already undertakell by CDP and be informed by input ff[)m the diverse CQmmlUlilies that
make liP Cleveland, including Cleveland's police officcrs.
The Department conducted its investigation purslIant to the Violent Crime Control
and Law Enforcement Act ofl994, 42 V.S.C. § 14141. The Ci ty requested that this
investigation occur. The investigation concluded that there is reasonable cause to believe that CDP engages in a pattern 01' practice of using excessive force in violation of the Fourlh Amendment and also identiued serious concerns about certain search and seizure practices. While tbe City doe~ Dot concede tilat there is a pattem or practice of constitutiona l violations, it agrees that the DepaIlment's Andings raise issues of importance to the City aud the community and is committed to addressing the issues raised by the investigation_
The Parties are committed to enslIl'ing that police practices not only reflect c(lnstitutional principles, hut the val lieS llf the communities served by CDP. To ensure community input in the process, in the coming weeks the Pariies wi II seek recommelltialions and suggcstiollll from community stakeholde.!s in developing n
comprehensi ve and effective plml tilT COP. 'Il1e Parties also agree that it is critical to
seek tbe input of CI)P offi.ce\'~ and their representatives in developing an appropriate
agreement. 111e successful implementation and sustainability of refonus \\~ II require the
active participation of, and input trom, the Cleveland commutlity.
An independent monitor will be selected to assist in determining whether tbe
Agreement is being implemented and whctbcr the goals of the Agreement have been achieved.. While negotiati(lns are pending, the Pmt ies intend to issue a Request for lnformation to solicit responses from potential candidales who may be interested in serving as an independent monitor. The Request for InfOI111ation will describe the quali6cations and experience required for the position and will be distributed nationall y. The Request for Information is intended to assist the Palties in identifying qualified candidates who will provide objective, C<J~(-errective, and thorQu.gh assessments of tile·
compliance with Ule Agreement. 1ile Agreement will ~'Pecify the selcctioll and
appointment process ror the independent monitor. The Chief of COP, who is Hnswerab le

to the Director of Public Safety and tile Mayor of Cleveland, will always retain full aUlhority to rull the Division in accordance witillaw.
The Agreement will include objective outcome measures, to be negotiated by tbe I'artie~, to assist in detennining whether COP's policies and practices are resulting in more effective and constitutional policing. The outcome measures will assi,t in assessing the -progress toward compliance with the tenns orllle Agreement and, therefore, the elld of some 01' all of its terms.
The Patties agree to seek to have the Agreement approved by and entered as a COllsent order in the U.S. District Court for the Norlhem District of Ohio, where venue is proper.
The Patti.es recoguiz.e that the process of refOlm is complex and will require sustained eftort Reform will not occur overnight and will reqtlire clear goals and objectives. To this end, the Parties commit to work coUahoratively and earnestly and with necessary urgency. The Parties agree to work to implement the Agreement for as long as necessary to ensure that they have achieved thei r goals for sustainable refoml.
This .Toint Slatement ofPlinciples is not intended (0 limit or expand rhe right of auy person or entity seeking relief 01' pursuing legal action against the City, CDP, or any officer or employee tbereof, [or their conduct or the conduct of CDI' o.fficers. No person or entity is or is intended to be a third-party beneficiary of this Joint Statement for the purposes of allY civil, criminal, or administrative actioll. Thls S'laCement does oOllimit or restrict the Department. of )ustice's ability to initiate a civil action under 42 U.S .C. § 14141, to conduct allY investigation or bring any criminal charge, or to seek otl,ler enforcem.ent action to pmtect tile rights, privileges, or immunities of individuals that are secured or protected by the Constitutional' laws oftbe United Slates. This Statement does oot constitute an admission for purposes of liability or otherwise by the City of Cleveland.
Agreed to this 2V'!f day of DtCM1W. 20l4.
~
Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights DivisiOn
~ Steveo M. Detlelhach United States Attomey 1\orlhcm District of Ohio
2

 
 ______________________________________________________________________________

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CRT

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2014

(202) 514-2007

WWW.JUSTICE.GOV

TTY (866) 544-5309

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY OF CLEVELAND AGREE TO REFORM DIVISION OF POLICE AFTER FINDING A PATTERN OR PRACTICE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE

WASHINGTON – Attorney General Eric Holder announced today that the Justice Department’s civil rights investigation into the use of force by the Cleveland Division of Police has found a pattern or practice of unreasonable and unnecessary use of force. To address these findings the Justice Department and the city of Cleveland have signed a statement of principles committing them to develop a court enforceable consent decree that will include a requirement for an independent monitor who will oversee and ensure necessary reforms.

“Accountability and legitimacy are essential for communities to trust their police departments, and for there to be genuine collaboration between police and the citizens they serve,” said Attorney General Eric Holder. “Although the issues in Cleveland are complex, and the problems longstanding, we have seen in city after city where we have been engaged that meaningful change is possible. There are real, practical and concrete measures that can be taken to ensure not only that police services are delivered in a constitutional manner, but that promote public safety, officer safety, confidence and collaboration, transparency, and legitimacy.”

The investigation, launched in March, 2013, assessed use of force practices of the Cleveland Division of Police following a number of high profile use of force incidents and requests from the community and local government to investigate the division. The investigation concluded that there is reasonable cause to believe that Cleveland police officers engage in a pattern or practice of unreasonable and in some cases unnecessary force in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. That pattern or practice includes:

 The unnecessary and excessive use of deadly force, including shootings and head strikes with impact weapons;

 The unnecessary, excessive or retaliatory use of less lethal force including Tasers, chemical spray and fists;

 Excessive force against persons who are mentally ill or in crisis, including in cases where the officers were called exclusively for a welfare check; and

 The employment of poor and dangerous tactics that place officers in situations where avoidable force becomes inevitable.
After determining that a pattern or practice of unconstitutional conduct exists, the investigation assessed the causes for the pattern and developed recommended remedial action. The investigation concluded that Cleveland officers are not provided with adequate training, policy guidance, support, and supervision. Additionally, systems of review that would identify problems and correct institutional weaknesses and provide individual accountability are seriously deficient. The investigation found that division fails to:
 Adequately review and investigate officers’ uses of force;
 Fully and objectively investigate all allegations of misconduct;
 Identify and respond to patterns of at-risk behavior;
 Provide its officers with the support, training, supervision, and equipment needed to allow them to do their jobs safely and effectively;
 Adopt and enforce appropriate policies; and
 Implement effective community policing strategies.
The investigation also found that this pattern of excessive force has eroded public confidence in the police. The trust between the Cleveland Division of Police and many of the communities it serves is broken. As a result, public safety suffers and the job of delivering police services is more difficult and more dangerous. Throughout the investigation, the Department of Justice provided its observations and concerns to the city, and in response, the division has begun to implement a number of remedial measures, however much more work is needed. This afternoon Attorney General Eric Holder, Acting Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta and U.S. Attorney Steven Dettelbach will host a joint meeting with community leaders, law enforcement officials and elected officials to discuss how to improve their working relationship and address the problems and challenges identified by the Department of Justice.
“We look forward to working together with the city of Cleveland, members of the Cleveland community and Cleveland police officers to address the deficiencies that have led to this pattern of unnecessary and excessive force,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Gupta. “Together, we can build confidence in the division that will ensure compliance with the Constitution, improve public safety and make the job of delivering police services safer and more effective.”
“Our independent investigation, conducted at the request of the Mayor and others, revealed troubling patterns of the use of force in the Cleveland Division of Police,” said U.S. Attorney Dettelbach. “We applaud the division and the city for beginning to implement necessary reforms and are pleased that the city has entered into a statement of principles agreeing to negotiate a consent decree with outside monitoring that will guide the development of a

sustainable blueprint for reform. It will take a joint effort by all stakeholders to ensure that this critical initiative is a success.”
The investigation was conducted jointly by the Civil Rights Division’s Special Litigation Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Ohio. The investigation involved an in-depth review of thousands of pages of documents, including written policies and procedures, training materials, and internal reports, data, video footage and investigative files. Department of Justice attorneys and investigators also conducted interviews with officers, supervisors and command staff, and city officials; and spoke with hundreds of community members and local advocates. This investigation was separate from any criminal investigation of any specific incident of alleged misconduct.
###
14-XXX
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, PLEASE USE THE CONTACTS IN THE MESSAGE OR CALL THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS AT 202-5142007.

 
 REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
INDEPENDENT MONITOR Negotiated Court Enforceable Settlement Agreement
Regarding the Cleveland Division of Police March 26, 2015
I. DESCRIPTION
The United States and the City of Cleveland (“City”) currently are in negotiations to work toward a court-enforceable settlement agreement (“Consent Decree” or “Agreement”) to address findings issued by the United States on December 4, 2014. The parties have publicly announced that they will jointly select an independent monitor to assess and report to the parties and the Court whether the requirements of the negotiated Agreement are being fully implemented.
The United States Department of Justice, through the Civil Rights Division’s Special Litigation Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Ohio, and the City of Cleveland (collectively, the “Parties”) are seeking interested individuals, firms, or organizations to serve as the Independent Monitor (“Monitor”), either as the lead Monitor or as a subject-matter expert on the Monitor’s team.
The Monitor and his or her team will assist the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (“Court”), the Parties, and the Cleveland community in assessing the implementation of the Agreement in an independent and transparent manner. Once selected by agreement of the Parties and appointed by the Court, the Monitor and his or her team will assess implementation, provide technical assistance, and issue public reports on the City’s compliance with the Agreement.
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ONLY. This Request is issued solely for information and planning purposes. It does not constitute a Request for Proposal (“RFP”) or a promise to issue an RFP in the future. This Request is not part of, and shall not be governed by, any formal municipal, state, or federal procurement process. Further, this Request does not commit the Parties to select an individual, firm, or organization to serve as the Monitor or a member of the Monitor’s team. The Parties may seek and solicit information regarding interested parties through means other than this Request. Responders are advised that the Parties will not pay for any information or administrative costs incurred in response to this Request; all costs associated with responding to this Request will be solely at the interested party’s expense. Not responding to this Request does not preclude participation in any future RFP, if any is issued, nor does it eliminate an individual, firm, or organization from being considered to serve as the Monitor or a member of the Monitor’s team.

II. BACKGROUND
On December 4, 2014, the Department of Justice announced its findings resulting from a civil investigation it conducted into use of force by the Cleveland Division of Police (“CDP”). The investigation was conducted pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141. The Department of Justice concluded that it had reasonable cause to believe that CDP engages in a pattern or practice of unreasonable use of force. The City does not agree with the Department’s findings concerning a pattern or practice of unreasonable use of force by the CDP. Nevertheless, the City and CDP cooperated in the investigation, and the Parties have agreed to work collaboratively in an effort to craft an Agreement that will ensure constitutional policing. The Parties affirmed their commitment to reaching an Agreement in a Statement of Principles signed on December 2, 2014 and to selecting an independent monitor to assist in assessing compliance with the terms of the Agreement being negotiated by the parties.
The Agreement will be submitted to the United States District Court in the Northern District of Ohio for approval and entry as an order. It is anticipated that the Court will issue an Order that will include steps to implement, monitor, and enforce such Agreement negotiated by the Parties.
The Findings Letter and Statement of Principles, and other related documents, can be found on the following webpage: http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/findsettle.php.
III. MONITOR’S DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The Agreement will provide for a Monitor to assist the Court, the Parties, and the Cleveland community in assessing and assisting the City’s compliance with the terms of the anticipated Agreement. The Agreement will specify the duties and responsibilities of the Monitor, who will be subject to the supervision and orders of the Court. For the purposes of this Request for Information, you should assume that the scope of the Agreement anticipated between the parties will focus on issues related to the subject areas described in the Unites States’ Findings Letter.
The Monitor will provide objective, cost-effective, and thorough assessments of whether the terms of the anticipated Agreement are being met, and whether implementation of the Agreement is resulting in constitutional policing by the CDP and increased community trust of CDP. The Monitor also will assist in compliance by offering technical assistance, issuing recommendations, and preparing public reports on the Agreement’s implementation. The Monitor will not replace or assume the role and duties of the City or CDP, including the Chief of Police, or any other City official. The Chief of the CDP will always retain full authority to run the Division of Police in accordance with the laws of Cleveland.
2

IV. QUALIFICATIONS
Experience in the following areas may be useful, although lack of experience in any particular area will not disqualify a candidate.
• law enforcement practices including use of force and force investigations, community policing, crisis intervention and de-escalation techniques, training, and search and seizure practices;
• experience evaluating, developing, or implementing processes for supervisors and managers to oversee accountability in a large organization;
• experience managing or overseeing law enforcement personnel;
• monitoring, auditing, investigating, or otherwise reviewing performance of organizations;
• evaluating organizational change and institutional reform, including applying qualitative and quantitative analyses to assess progress and performance;
• experience monitoring and ensuring compliance with settlement agreements, consent decrees, or court orders;
• working with government agencies, municipalities, collective bargaining units, elected officials, civilian oversight bodies, and community members interested in policing issues;
• engaging with diverse community stakeholders to promote civic participation, strategic partnerships, and community policing;
• mediation and dispute resolution;
• use of technology and information systems to support and enhance law enforcement;
• appearing in court as a judge, monitor, counsel, or expert witness, or providing other types of testimony;
• providing formal and informal feedback, technical assistance, training, and guidance to law enforcement agencies;
• experience reviewing policies, procedures, manuals, and other administrative orders or directives, and training programs related to law enforcement practices; and
• experience with municipal budgetary and fiscal issues.
3

V. REQUESTED INFORMATION
The Parties request that interested individuals, firms, or organizations submit information to assist the Parties in identifying potential candidates to serve as Monitor or as subject-matter experts on the Monitor’s team. Interested individuals or firms may provide a resume and a letter of interest describing their current or recent experience relevant to the qualifications described above. Please describe any areas of expertise in which you may want to retain additional staff. If you know any specific individuals or entities, including subcontractors and consultants, who will assist the interested party in fulfilling the duties and responsibilities of the Monitor, please include a brief summary of each team member’s relevant background or experience and attach a resume. If the identities of the individuals or entities that would assist in performing the monitoring function are unknown at the present time, please state the areas of expertise that will be sought and the process that will be used to obtain the necessary services and assistance. If you have performed similar services as part of a team before, you can describe the nature and qualifications of the team members employed.
As the Parties negotiate toward an Agreement, the Parties will likely request supplemental information, including references, proposed methodologies, and budget estimates. The Parties will provide additional information on the scope of the anticipated Agreement at that time. Candidates considered for Monitor or as a subject-matter expert on the Monitor’s team will be required to disclose all actual and potential conflicts of interest.
VI. INFORMATION RESPONSE AS A PUBLIC RECORD
Under the laws of the State of Ohio, all parts of the information response, other than trade secret or proprietary information, may be considered a public record which, if properly requested, the City must make available to the requester for inspection and copying. Additionally, the Parties may choose to share all or some of the submissions with the public. Therefore, to protect trade secret or proprietary information, the Responder should clearly mark each portion of each page—but only that portion of each page—of its information response that contains that information. The City will notify the Responder if such information in its information response is requested, and will make every attempt to protect trade secret or proprietary information by citing to the applicable exemption in Ohio’s Public Records Laws. Blanket marking of the entire information response as “proprietary” or “trade secret” is not acceptable and will not protect the entire response unless each part of the entire response is in fact trade secret or proprietary information. The City is not obligated to protect information that is obviously not a trade secret, obviously not proprietary, and obviously public, even if labeled as such. Upon submission of an information response that contains clearly marked trade secret or proprietary information, the Responder is agreeing to defend and indemnify the City against any lawsuit or claim that the City improperly withheld a public record based upon the Responder marking it as a trade secret or proprietary information.
4

Letters of interest should be submitted as soon as possible in electronic format (preferably pdf) to the Parties as follows:

For the United States Department of Justice:

Carole S. Rendon First Assistant U.S. Attorney U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Ohio 801 West Superior Avenue Suite 400 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 Carole.Rendon@usdoj.gov

Rashida J. Ogletree Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20530 Rashida.Ogletree@usdoj.gov

For the City of Cleveland:

Barbara A. Langhenry Director of Law City of Cleveland Department of Law 601 Lakeside Avenue. Suite 106 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Blanghenry@city.cleveland.oh.us

5

 
 Baughman,Cat03,Termed
U.S. District Court Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:15−cv−01046−SO

United States of America v. City of Cleveland Assigned to: Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question
Plaintiff United States of America

Date Filed: 05/26/2015 Date Terminated: 06/12/2015 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff
represented by Amy Senier U.S. Department of Justice − Civil Rights 601 D Street, NW Washington, DC 20579 202−616−2216 Fax: 202−514−6903 Email: amy.senier@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carole S. Rendon_AUSA Former U.S. Attorney Northern District of Ohio Email: bridget.brennan@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 06/13/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Emily A. Gunston U.S. Department of Justice − Civil Rights − Washington 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 202−305−3203 Fax: 202−514−6903 Email: emily.gunston@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 03/05/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
F. Nicole Porter U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 202−616−3119 Fax: 202−514−6903 Email: nicole.porter@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Heather Tonsing Volosin Office of the U.S. Attorney − Cleveland Northern District of Ohio Ste. 400 801 Superior Avenue, W Cleveland, OH 44113 216−622−3797 Fax: 216−522−4982 Email: Heather.Tonsing.Volosin@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin E. Herdman Office of the U.S. Attorney − Cleveland Northern District of Ohio

V. Defendant City of Cleveland

Ste. 400 801 Superior Avenue, W Cleveland, OH 44113 216−622−3601 Fax: 216−522−7545 Email: Justin.Herdman@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle L. Heyer Office of the U.S. Attorney − Cleveland Northern District of Ohio Ste. 400 801 Superior Avenue, W Cleveland, OH 44113 216−622−3686 Fax: 216−522−2404 Email: michelle.heyer@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rashida J. Ogletree U.S. Department of Justice − Civil Rights − Washington 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 202−305−3712 Email: rashida.ogletree@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 05/22/2019
Sharon Brett U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, DC 20530 202−353−1091 Fax: 202−514−4883 Email: sharon.brett@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 03/05/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven M. Dettelbach_AUSA Former U.S. Attorney Northern District of Ohio Email: chelsea.rice@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 06/13/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
T. Jackson Morse U.S. Department of Justice − Civil Rights − Washington 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 202−305−4039 Email: jack.morse@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 03/05/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Barbara A. Langhenry City of Cleveland Department of Law Ste. 106 601 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, OH 44114

Movant NAACP, Cleveland Branch TERMINATED: 10/06/2015
Movant Collaborative for a Safe, Fair and Just Cleveland TERMINATED: 10/06/2015

216−664−2800 Fax: 216−664−2663 Email: blanghenry@city.cleveland.oh.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gary S. Singletary City of Cleveland Department of Law Ste. 106 601 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, OH 44114 216−664−2737 Fax: 216−664−2663 Email: GSingletary@city.cleveland.oh.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph F. Scott Scott & Winters 490 Caxton Bldg. 812 Huron Road, E Cleveland, OH 44115 216−650−3318 Fax: 216−350−6313 Email: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James L. Hardiman Ste. 3101−D 3615 Superior Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113 216−431−7811 Fax: 216−431−7644 Email: attyjhard@aol.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael L. Nelson , Sr. Ste. 1055 55 Public Square Cleveland, OH 44113 216−432−2510 Fax: 216−696−0679 Email: mnelson@mln−associates.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Subodh Chandra Chandra Law Firm Ste. 400 1265 West Sixth Street Cleveland, OH 44113 216−578−1700 Fax: 216−578−1800 Email: Subodh.Chandra@chandralaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James L. Hardiman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Subodh Chandra (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant National Lawyers Guild, Ohio Chapter TERMINATED: 10/06/2015
Interested Party ACLU of Ohio Foundation, Inc.
Interested Party Cleveland Police Commission
Monitor Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC) TERMINATED: 10/12/2018

represented by Gordon S. Friedman Friedman & Gilbert Ste. 1900 50 Public Square Cleveland, OH 44113−2205 216−241−1430 Fax: 216−621−0427 Email: gorlaw@f−glaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jacqueline C. Greene Friedman & Gilbert Ste. 1900 50 Public Square Cleveland, OH 44113 216−241−1430 Fax: 216−621−0427 Email: jgreene@f−glaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Subodh Chandra (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Terry H. Gilbert Friedman & Gilbert Ste. 1900 50 Public Square Cleveland, OH 44113 216−241−1430 Fax: 216−621−0427 Email: tgilbert@f−glaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Freda J. Levenson ACLU of Ohio 4506 Chester Avenue Cleveland, OH 44103 614/586−1959 Fax: 216−472−2210 Email: flevenson@acluohio.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Richard M. Knoth Baker & Hostetler − Cleveland Ste. 2000 127 Public Square Cleveland, OH 44114 216−621−0200 Fax: 216−696−0740 Email: rknoth@bakerlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Matthew D. Barge Forward Consulting & Legal Services Attn: Policing Project/Nicole Bernardo Ste. 302 40 Washington Square, S

Monitor Matthew Barge TERMINATED: 07/17/2019
Monitor Hassan Aden

New York, NY 10012 202−257−5111 Email: matthew.barge@21cpsolutions.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Matthew D. Barge (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Hassan Aden The Aden Group, LLC 8022 Fairfax Rd. Alexandria, VA 22308 571−274−7821 PRO SE
Ayesha B. Hardaway Aden Group 23850 Hazelmere Road Shaker Heights, OH 44122 216−789−4534 Fax: 216−368−5137 Email: ayesha.hardaway@case.edu LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew D. Barge (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 05/26/2015
05/26/2015 05/26/2015
05/26/2015 05/26/2015
05/26/2015 05/27/2015
06/12/2015

# Docket Text
1 Complaint against City of Cleveland. Filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Findings Letter, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet) (Dettelbach, Steven) (Entered: 05/26/2015)
Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr assigned to case. (C,BA) (Entered: 05/26/2015)
Random Assignment of Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 3.1. In the event of a referral, case will be assigned to Magistrate Judge William H. Baughman. (C,BA) (Entered: 05/26/2015)
2 Magistrate Consent Form issued. No summons provided, no summons issued. (C,BA) (Entered: 05/26/2015)
3 Joint Motion and Memorandum for Entry of Consent Decree filed by Plaintiff United States of America. Related document(s) 1 . (Attachments: # 1 Settlement Agreement, # 2 Findings Letter)(Rendon, Carole) (Entered: 05/26/2015)
4 Proposed Order filed by United States of America. Related document(s) 3 , 1 . (Rendon, Carole) (Entered: 05/26/2015)
5 Order scheduling a status conference on 6/12/2015, at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 19A before Judge Solomon Oliver Jr., (re 3 ) Joint Motion and Memorandum for Entry of Consent Decree filed by United States of America. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 5/27/2015. (D,M) (Entered: 05/27/2015)
6 Joint Motion to Substitute Page 28 of Consent Decree filed by Plaintiff United States of America. Related document(s) 3 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Revised Consent Decree, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Errata Sheet)(Rendon, Carole) (Entered: 06/12/2015)

06/12/2015
06/12/2015 06/12/2015 06/12/2015 06/12/2015 06/21/2015
06/29/2015
06/29/2015 06/29/2015 06/29/2015 07/06/2015 07/06/2015

Minutes of proceedings [non−document] before Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. Motion Hearing held on 6/12/2015, re Joint Motion and Memorandum for Entry of Consent Decree. Present in courtroom representing United States of America, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Carole Rendon, Heather Tonsing Volosin, and Michelle Heyer; Attorneys from the U.S. Department of Justice, Emily Gunston, Rashida Ogletree and Jack Morse. Attorneys present representing the City of Cleveland, Gary Singletary and Joseph Scott. (Court Reporter: Shirle Perkins.)Time: 2 hours 15 minutes.Related document(s) 3 . (D,M) (Entered: 06/12/2015)
Order [non−document] granting Joint Motion to Substitute Page 28 of the Consent Decree (Related Doc # 6 ). Approved by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 6/11/2015.(D,M) (Entered: 06/12/2015)
7 Order granting Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Decree (Related Doc # 3 ). Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 6/12/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Decree)(D,M) (Entered: 06/12/2015)
8 Expedited Non−Appeal Transcript Order Form for proceedings held on June 12, 2015 before Judge Oliver, re Motion Hearing,,. Court Reporter: Shirle Perkins. Requested completion date: Expedited in Part filed by United States of America. (Rendon, Carole) (Entered: 06/12/2015)
9 Order. The court approved the Consent Decree of the parties for the reasons stated on the open record and with the understandings referenced thereon. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 6/12/2015. (D,M) (Entered: 06/12/2015)
10 Transcript of Judge's Closing Remarks in the Status Conference held on June 12, 2015 before Judge Solomon Oliver. To obtain a bound copy of this transcript please contact court reporter Shirle Perkins at 216−357−7106. [10 pages] Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties requesting that privacy information be redacted must file a notice of intent to redact with the court by 6/29/2015. Redaction Request due 7/13/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/22/2015. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/21/2015. Related document(s) 8 . (P,Sh) (Entered: 06/21/2015)
11 Motion for leave Instanter to submit the attached brief of Amici Curiae The Cleveland Branch of The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP); Collaborative for a Safe, Fair, and Just Cleveland; and the Ohio Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild regarding concerns about the parties settlement agreement. filed by NAACP, Cleveland Branch, Collaborative for a Safe, Fair and Just Cleveland, National Lawyers Guild, Ohio Chapter. Related document(s) 3 , 7 , 1 , 9 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. 1: [Proposed] Brief of Amici Curiae The Cleveland Branch of The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP); Collaborative for a Safe, Fair, and Just Cleveland; and the Ohio Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild regarding concerns about the parties settlement agreement. , # 2 Exhibit Ex. 1A: Ex A − Schubert Center for Child Studies at Case Western Reserve University Letter to Department of Justice)(Chandra, Subodh) Modified text to remove caps on 6/29/2015 (M, S). (Entered: 06/29/2015)
12 Attorney Appearance by Terry H. Gilbert filed by on behalf of National Lawyers Guild, Ohio Chapter. (Gilbert, Terry) (Entered: 06/29/2015)
13 Attorney Appearance by Jacqueline C. Greene filed by on behalf of National Lawyers Guild, Ohio Chapter. (Greene, Jacqueline) (Entered: 06/29/2015)
14 Attorney Appearance by Gordon S. Friedman filed by on behalf of Collaborative for a Safe, Fair and Just Cleveland. (Friedman, Gordon) (Entered: 06/29/2015)
15 Attorney Appearance by James L. Hardiman filed by on behalf of Collaborative for a Safe, Fair and Just Cleveland, NAACP, Cleveland Branch. Related document(s) 11 .(Hardiman, James) (Entered: 07/06/2015)
16 Supplemental Exhibit in Support of Proposed Brief of Amici Curiae (ECF No. # 11−1) filed by Collaborative for a Safe, Fair and Just Cleveland, NAACP, Cleveland Branch, National Lawyers Guild, Ohio Chapter. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Letter from Judge LaDoris H. Cordell (Ret.), Independent Police Auditor, dated July 2, 2015)Related document(s) 11 .(Gilbert, Terry) Modified on 7/7/2015 (S,SR). (Entered:

07/06/2015
07/08/2015
07/08/2015
07/16/2015
09/09/2015 09/11/2015 09/24/2015 09/25/2015 10/01/2015 10/01/2015 10/06/2015 11/20/2015 11/25/2015 11/25/2015

07/06/2015)
17 Supplement Certificate of Service to 16 Supplemental Exhibit in Support of Proposed Brief of Amici Curiae, filed by Collaborative for a Safe, Fair and Just Cleveland, NAACP, Cleveland Branch, National Lawyers Guild, Ohio Chapter. Related document(s) 16 . (Gilbert, Terry) Modified and attorney notified regarding case captions on 7/7/2015 (S,SR). (Entered: 07/06/2015)
18 Response to 11 Motion for leave Instanter to submit the attached brief of Amici Curiae The Cleveland Branch of The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP); Collaborative for a Safe, Fair, and Just Cleveland; and the Ohio Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild regarding concerns about the parties settlement agreement. filed by United States of America. (Heyer, Michelle) Modified text to remove caps on 7/9/2015 (M, S). (Entered: 07/08/2015)
19 Response to 11 Motion for leave Instanter to submit the attached brief of Amici Curiae The Cleveland Branch of The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP); Collaborative for a Safe, Fair, and Just Cleveland; and the Ohio Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild regarding concerns about the parties settlement agreement. filed by City of Cleveland. (Singletary, Gary) Modified text to remove caps on 7/9/2015 (M, S). (Entered: 07/08/2015)
20 Reply to response to 11 Motion for leave Instanter to submit the attached brief of Amici Curiae The Cleveland Branch of The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP); Collaborative for a Safe, Fair, and Just Cleveland; and the Ohio Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild regarding concerns about the parties settlement agreement filed by Collaborative for a Safe, Fair and Just Cleveland, NAACP, Cleveland Branch, National Lawyers Guild, Ohio Chapter. (Related documents 18 , 19 )(Hardiman, James) Modified text/added docket entry relationships on 7/17/2015 (M, S). (Entered: 07/16/2015)
21 Joint Motion for extension of Date to Select Monitor until 9/24/2015 filed by Plaintiff United States of America. (Heyer, Michelle) (Entered: 09/09/2015)
Order [non−document] granting 21 Joint Motion to Extend Date for Selection of Monitor until 9/24/2015. Approved by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 9/11/2015.(D,M) (Entered: 09/11/2015)
22 Joint Motion for extension of Date to Select Monitor until 10/1/2015 filed by Plaintiff United States of America. (Heyer, Michelle) (Entered: 09/24/2015)
23 Marginal Entry Order granting 22 Joint Motion for Extension of Date for Selection of Monitor by one week. Approved by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 9/25/2015.(D,M) (Entered: 09/25/2015)
24 Joint Motion to Approve Selection of Monitor filed by Plaintiff United States of America. Related document(s) 7 , 23 , 22 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Organizational Chart)(Rendon, Carole) (Entered: 10/01/2015)
25 Order granting Joint Motion to Approve Selection of Monitor (Related Doc # 24 ). The court approves the Parties' selection of Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC), to serve as Independent Monitor under the Settlement Agreement. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 10/1/2015.(D,M) (Entered: 10/01/2015)
26 Order denying Motion for leave Instanter (Related Doc # 11 ). Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 10/6/2015.(D,M) (Entered: 10/06/2015)
27 Joint Notice Identifying Additions to Monitoring Team filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Adding to Monitor Team, # 2 Exhibit A. Goodrich Resume, # 3 Exhibit B. Ruiz Resume)(Morse, T.) (Entered: 11/20/2015)
28 Order regarding additions to Monitoring Team (re 27 ). Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 11/25/2015. (D,M) (Entered: 11/25/2015)
29 Order of Deposit. The court hereby orders the City of Cleveland to deposit into the Court Registry, as needed, payment for costs incurred by the Monitor. Each month, for a period of five (5) years, the Monitor will submit statements to the court, with copies to the United States of America and the City of Cleveland, detailing all expenses the

12/01/2015
12/07/2015
12/07/2015 12/08/2015
12/08/2015
12/08/2015
12/09/2015 12/17/2015 12/17/2015
12/22/2015 12/23/2015 12/23/2015 01/08/2016

Monitor incurred during the prior month. The Parties will promptly communicate, via email to the Monitor, whether they approve of the expenses. The Monitor will, thereafter, forward the statements and the approval of the Parties, and/or their exceptions, to the court via the courts clerk. The court will review all statements and, if and when satisfied that they reflect a fair and accurate accounting, order the clerk to make payments to the Monitor. The Monitor will make the monthly statements available to the public within a reasonable period after the clerk has dispersed funds. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 11/25/2015. (D,M) (Entered: 11/25/2015)
30 Joint Motion Modifying Settlement Agreement filed by Plaintiff United States of America. Related document(s) 7 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit CCPC Letter to Parties, # 2 Exhibit Modified Page 6 of Agreement, # 3 Exhibit Modified Page 65 of Agreement)(Morse, T.) (Entered: 12/01/2015)
31 Order having reviewed the statements provided by the Monitor and received approval from the Parties, the Clerk shall disperse funds in the amount of $103,024.89 to the Monitor for services rendered and related costs incurred during the month of October, 2015. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 12/7/2015. (D,M) (Entered: 12/07/2015)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $103,024.89 received on 12/03/2015. (G,P) (Entered: 12/07/2015)
32 Order clarifying previous Order of Disbursement (re 31 ) directing the Clerk to disburse funds to the Monitor, the court hereby indicates that Matthew Barge is the Monitor and the person to whom the funds should be disbursed. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 12/8/2015. (D,M) (Entered: 12/08/2015)
33 Order granting Joint Motion Modifying Settlement Agreement (Related Doc # 30 ). The court agrees that the proposed modified pages, as described therein, should be added to the Settlement Agreement. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 12/8/2015.(D,M) (Entered: 12/08/2015)
35 Status Conference Order/Minutes of Telephone Conference held on 12/8/2015, regarding the status of pending litigation that might have some bearing on matters related to the Consent Decree. Time: 20 minutes. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 12/8/2015. (D,M) (Entered: 12/10/2015)
34 First Status Report of City of Cleveland filed by All Defendants. (Singletary, Gary) (Entered: 12/09/2015)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $103,024.89 disbursed on 12/15/2015. (G,P) (Entered: 12/17/2015)
36 Order of Disbursement. The court, having reviewed the statements provided by the Monitor and received approval from the Parties, hereby orders the Clerk to disperse funds in the amount of $94,275.95 to the Monitor, Matthew Barge, for services rendered and related costs incurred during the month of November, 2015. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 12/17/2015. (D,M) (Entered: 12/18/2015)
37 Order that the court will hold a status conference on the record with counsel for the parties and the Monitor on 1/28/16 at 2:00 p.m. Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 12/22/2015. (M,V) (Entered: 12/22/2015)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $94,275.95 received on 12/22/2015. (G,P) (Entered: 12/23/2015)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $94,275.95 disbursed on 12/22/2015. (G,P) (Entered: 12/23/2015)
38 Order. At the Status Conference set for 1/28/2016, counsel for the parties, and the Monitor, shall be prepared to discuss the following: 1) The general status of the case, including the accomplishment of milestones under the Consent Decree. If milestones have not been timely met, explain why and offer a plan for their accomplishment. 2) Any impediments or surprises that have been encountered thus far. 3) The status of the Community Police Commission and its operations thus far. 4) The proposed First−Year Monitoring Plan and any feedback received to date. 5) Any other matters requiring the courts attention or assistance. All parties, counsel for the parties, and the Monitor shall be in attendance. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 1/8/2016.

01/27/2016 01/27/2016 01/28/2016 01/29/2016
02/01/2016 02/04/2016 02/04/2016 02/04/2016 02/16/2016 02/22/2016 02/23/2016 03/08/2016 03/16/2016

(D,M) (Entered: 01/08/2016)
39 Order of disbursement of funds by the Clerk, in the amount of $67,600.03 to the Monitor, Matthew Barge, for services rendered and related costs incurred during the month of December, 2015. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 1/27/2016. (D,M) (Entered: 01/27/2016)
40 Joint Motion for Order Approving Substitution of Deputy Monitor filed by Plaintiff United States of America. (Heyer, Michelle) (Entered: 01/27/2016)
41 Order granting the Parties' Joint Motion (Related Doc # 40 ) seeking approval of the substitution of Commissioner Ramsey to replace Chief Wray. The court finds the reasons advanced by the Parties for such substitution to be well taken and hereby approves Commissioner Ramsey as Deputy Monitor. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 1/28/2016. (D,M) (Entered: 01/28/2016)
42 Status Conference Order/Minutes of proceedings before Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. Status Conference held on 1/28/2016, on the record. The Monitor briefly discussed the requested addition of Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey (Ret.) as Deputy Monitor. The parties then discussed the progress made, to date, under the Consent Decree. The parties also emphasized the collaborative working relationships established among stakeholders, as well as the steps taken to foster community involvement in the Consent Decree process. Counsel for the City of Cleveland also briefly updated the court on the resolution of litigation, in both state and federal court, related to the training of police academy recruits. The Monitor then highlighted the anticipated milestones to be reached under the First−Year Monitoring Plan, which was developed in coordination with the parties and the community−at−large. Finally, the court indicated that it would remain actively involved in the Consent Decree process and anticipated holding similar status conferences in the future. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr., on 1/29/2016. (Court Reporter: Shirle Perkins.)Time: 1 hr 20 min. (D,M) (Entered: 01/29/2016)
43 Motion for Approval of First−Year Monitoring Plan filed by Monitor Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A. First−Year Monitoring Plan)(Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 02/01/2016)
44 Order: This court, having considered the Plan and the terms of the Consent Decree entered into by the Parties, hereby approves the Monitors Motion for Approval of First−Year Monitoring Plan (ECF No. 43 ) and incorporates its terms herein. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 2/4/2016.(S,SR) (Entered: 02/04/2016)
45 Attorney Appearance by F. Nicole Porter filed by on behalf of United States of America. (Porter, F.) (Entered: 02/04/2016)
46 Joint Motion Modifying Settlement Agreement filed by Plaintiff United States of America. Related document(s) 7 , 44 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Chart of Revised Settlement Agreement Timelines)(Morse, T.) (Entered: 02/04/2016)
47 Joint Motion to Modify Settlement Agreement filed by Plaintiff United States of America. Related document(s) 7 , 46 , 44 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Updated Chart of Revised Agreement Deadlines, # 2 Exhibit Redlined Chart of Revised Agreement Deadlines)(Morse, T.) (Entered: 02/16/2016)
48 Order granting the City of Cleveland and the United States of America's Amended Joint Motion Modifying Certain Timelines within the Settlement Agreement (Related Doc # 47 ). The court agrees that the proposed modified dates, as described in Exhibit 1 to the Motion, should be incorporated into the Settlement Agreement. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 2/22/2016. (D,M) (Entered: 02/23/2016)
Order [non−document] denying as moot Motion for Order (Related Doc # 46 ). Approved by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 2/22/2016.(D,M) (Entered: 02/23/2016)
49 Order of disbursement of funds in the amount of $80,197.50 to the Monitor, Matthew Barge, for services rendered and related costs incurred during the month of January, 2016. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 3/8/2016. (D,M) (Entered: 03/08/2016)
50 Motion for Approval of Biennial Community Survey and Baseline Assessment Measurement Plans filed by Monitor Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC).

03/17/2016 03/24/2016 03/24/2016 03/25/2016
03/30/2016 04/11/2016 04/19/2016 04/21/2016 04/26/2016 04/26/2016
05/05/2016 05/09/2016 05/09/2016
05/19/2016 06/02/2016 06/02/2016

(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Biennial Community Survey Plan, # 2 Exhibit B Baseline Assessment Measurement Plan)(Barge, Matthew) Modified exhibit text on 3/16/2016 (G,CA). (Entered: 03/16/2016)
51 Motion for Approval of Changes to Certain First−Year Monitoring Deadlines filed by Monitor Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 03/17/2016)
52 Order granting the Monitor Matthew Barge's Memorandum Submitting Baseline Assessment and Community Survey Plans (Related Doc # 50 ). Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 3/23/2016.(D,M) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
53 Order granting the Monitor Matthew Barge's Motion for Approval of Changes to Certain First−Year Monitoring Plan Deadlines (Related Doc # 51 ). Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr., on 3/23/2016.(D,M) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
54 Order of disbursement. The court, having reviewed the statements provided by the Monitor and received approval from the Parties, orders the Clerk to disperse funds in the amount of $59,772.28 to the Monitor, Matthew Barge, for services rendered and related costs incurred during the month of February, 2016. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 3/25/2016. (D,M) (Entered: 03/25/2016)
55 Motion for Approval of Training Review Committee Policy filed by Monitor Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A. Training Review Committee Policy)(Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 03/30/2016)
56 Memorandum Regarding Status of IAPro Implementation Work Plan filed by Monitor Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). Related document 43 . (Barge, Matthew) Modified text/term motion/add link on 4/12/2016 (M, S). (Entered: 04/11/2016)
57 Order granting Monitor Matthew Barge's Motion for Approval of Training Review Committee Policy (Related Doc # 55 ). Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 4/18/2016.(D,M) (Entered: 04/19/2016)
58 Motion for Approval of Changes to Certain First−Year Monitoring Deadlines filed by Monitor Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 04/21/2016)
59 Order granting Monitor Matthew Barge's Motion for Approval of Changes to Certain First−Year Monitoring Plan Deadlines (Related Doc # 58 ). Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 4/26/2016. (D,M) (Entered: 04/26/2016)
60 Order of Disbursement of funds in the amount of $129,538.71 to the Monitor, Matthew Barge, for services rendered and related costs incurred during them month of March, 2016. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 4/26/2016. (D,M) (Entered: 04/26/2016)
61 Memorandum Regarding Certain OPS Manual Deadlines filed by Monitor Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Barge, Matthew) Modified text/term motion on 5/10/2016 (M, S). (Entered: 05/05/2016)
62 Attorney Appearance by Amy Senier filed by on behalf of United States of America. (Senier, Amy) (Entered: 05/09/2016)
63 Motion to Approve Crisis Intervention Work Plan and Incorporate Deadlines into First−Year Monitoring Plan filed by Monitor Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A. Crisis Intervention Work Plan)(Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 05/09/2016)
64 Order granting Motion to Approve Crisis Intervention Work Plan and Incorporate Deadlines into First−Year Monitoring Plan (Related Doc # 63 ). Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 5/18/2016.(D,M) (Entered: 05/19/2016)
65 Memorandum Submitting First Semiannual Report filed by Monitor Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Barge, Matthew) Modified text/term motion on 6/2/2016 (M, S). (Entered: 06/02/2016)
66 Status Conference Order held on 6/1/2016. The court will hold a Status Conference on the record on 6/14/2016, at 3:00 PM in Chambers 19A before Judge Solomon

06/10/2016 06/13/2016
06/13/2016 06/17/2016 06/23/2016 06/24/2016
06/24/2016 07/12/2016 07/12/2016 07/12/2016
07/29/2016

Oliver Jr., regarding Monitor Matthew Barge's Semiannual Report. The parties, counsel for the parties, and the Monitor shall be in attendance. Counsel for the parties and the Monitor shall be prepared to discuss progress to date under the Consent Decree, as well as any outstanding issues. Time: 1 hour 10 minutes. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 6/2/2016. (D,M) (Entered: 06/02/2016)
67 Order of Disbursement. The Clerk is ordered to disperse funds in the amount of $99,174.87 to the Monitor, Matthew Barge, for services rendered and related costs incurred during the month of April, 2016. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr., on 6/10/2016. (D,M) (Entered: 06/10/2016)
68 Status Conference Order. Counsel for the parties, and the Monitor, shall, at the status conference scheduled on 6/14/2016, be prepared to discuss the following: Progress made on the Use of Force Policy; Status of equipment and/or resource issues; Status of the Office of Professional Standards; Positive and/or negative effect of the Republican National Convention; Update on Community Police Commission composition, leadership, and staffing; Progress made on Crisis Intervention Program; Anticipated role of the Inspector General;Any other matters requiring the courts attention or assistance. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 6/13/2016. (D,M) (Entered: 06/13/2016)
69 Second Status Report of City of Cleveland filed by All Defendants. (Singletary, Gary) (Entered: 06/13/2016)
70 Order of Disbursement. The Clerk is ordered to disperse funds in the amount of $51,000.00 to the Monitor, Matthew Barge, for services rendered and related costs incurred by Interviewing Service of America, LLC, the firm selected to conduct the Biennial Community Survey. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr., on 6/16/2016. (D,M) (Entered: 06/17/2016)
71 Memorandum Submitting Biennial Community Survey Report filed by Monitor Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Attachments: # 1Exhibit A: ISA Report on Biennial Community Survey)(Barge, Matthew) Modified text/termed motion on 6/23/2016 (M, S). (Entered: 06/23/2016)
72 Motion Recommending Approval of New Cleveland Division of Police Mission Statement filed by Monitor Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A. Proposed New CPD Mission Statement, # 2 Exhibit B. CPD GPO 1.1.01, # 3 Exhibit C. CPD GPO 1.1.02, # 4 Exhibit D. CPD Officer Feedback on Mission Statement, # 5 Exhibit E. CCPC Mission Statement Primer)(Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 06/24/2016)
73 Memorandum Providing Baseline Assessment Report filed by Monitor Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A. Outcome Measurement Baseline Assessment Inventory)(Barge, Matthew) Modified text/termed motion on 6/24/2016 (M, S). (Entered: 06/24/2016)
74 Order granting Monitor Matthew Barge's Motion Recommending Approval of a New Cleveland Division of Police Mission Statement (Related Doc # 72 ). Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 7/12/2016. (D,M) (Entered: 07/12/2016)
75 Order of Disbursement. The court, having reviewed the statements provided by the Monitor and received approval from the Parties, orders the Clerk to disperse funds in the amount of $59,936.24 to the Monitor, Matthew Barge, for services rendered and related costs incurred during the month of May, 2016. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 7/12/2016. (D,M) (Entered: 07/12/2016)
76 Order of Disbursement. The court, having reviewed the statements provided by the Monitor and received approval from the City of Cleveland, orders the Clerk to disperse funds in the amount of $51,740.00 to the Monitor, Matthew Barge, for services rendered and related costs incurred by Interviewing Service of America, LLC, the firm selected to conduct the Biennial Community Survey. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 7/12/2016. (D,M) (Entered: 07/12/2016)
77 Order of Disbursement. The court, having reviewed the statements provided by the Monitor and received approval from the Parties, the Clerk is ordered to disperse funds in the amount of $89,967.38 to the Monitor, Matthew Barge, for services rendered and

09/12/2016
09/14/2016 09/14/2016 09/30/2016 10/04/2016
10/24/2016 11/01/2016 11/08/2016 11/09/2016 11/15/2016 11/16/2016
11/18/2016 11/28/2016 11/29/2016

related costs incurred during the month of June, 2016. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 7/29/2016. (D,M) Modified text on 7/29/2016 (M, S). (Entered: 07/29/2016)
78 Order of Disbursement. The court, having reviewed the statements provided by the Monitor and received approval from the Parties, hereby orders the Clerk to disperse funds in the amount of $22,843.50 to the Monitor, Matthew Barge, for services rendered and related costs incurred during the month of July, 2016. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 9/12/2016. (D,M) (Entered: 09/12/2016)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $22,843.50 received on 08/23/2016. (G,P) (Entered: 09/14/2016)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $22,843.50 disbursed on 09/14/2016. (G,P) (Entered: 09/14/2016)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $89,538.74 received on 09.29.16. (G,P) (Entered: 09/30/2016)
79 Order of Disbursement. The Court, having reviewed the statements provided by the Monitor and received approval from the Parties, hereby Orders the Clerk to disperse funds in the amount of $89,538.74 to the Monitor Matthew Barge, for services rendered and related costs incurred during the month of August, 2016. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 10/4/2016. (D,M) Modified text on 10/4/2016 (M, S). (Entered: 10/04/2016)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $89,538.74 disbursed on 10/6/2016. (G,P) (Entered: 10/24/2016)
80 Memorandum Submitting Updated First−Year Monitoring Plan filed by Monitor Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A. Updated First−Year Monitoring Plan)(Barge, Matthew) Modified text /termed motion on 11/1/2016 (M, S). (Entered: 11/01/2016)
81 Notice Regarding Consensus Budget for the Second Year of Monitoring filed by Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A. Second−Year Monitoring Budget)(Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 11/08/2016)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $88,616.98 received via wire on 11/3/2016. (G,P) (Entered: 11/09/2016)
82 Order of Disbursement of funds in the amount of $88,616.98 to the Monitor, Matthew Barge, for services rendered and related costs incurred during the month of September 2016. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 11/14/2016. (D,M) (Entered: 11/15/2016)
83 Motion Recommending Approval of Revised Use of Force Policies of the Cleveland Division of Police filed by Monitor Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A. Use of Force General Policy, # 2 Exhibit B. Use of Force Definitions Policy, # 3 Exhibit C. De−Escalation Policy, # 4 Exhibit D. Use of Force Intermediate Weapons Policy, # 5 Exhibit E. Use of Force Reporting Policy, # 6 Exhibit F. CPC/CWRU Use of Force Recommendations, # 7 Exhibit G. Community Roundtable Feedback, # 8 Exhibit H. Prior CPD Use of Force Policy, # 9 Exhibit I. CPC/CWRU Use of Force Reporting Recommendations)(Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 11/16/2016)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $88,616.98 disbursed on 11/17/2016. (G,P) (Entered: 11/18/2016)
84 Notice Regarding Training Documentation Plan filed by Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 11/28/2016)
85 Order scheduling a Status Conference on the record on 12/12/2016, at 11:00 AM in Chambers 19A before Judge Solomon Oliver Jr. The parties, counsel for the parties, and the Monitor shall be in attendance and prepared to discuss: 1) The revised City of Cleveland Use of Force Policy; 2) Suggested changes to the First−Year Monitoring Plan; 3) The current composition, leadership and staffing of the Community Police Commission; and 4) Any other matters requiring the court's attention or assistance.

11/29/2016 11/30/2016 12/05/2016 12/05/2016
12/07/2016 12/08/2016 12/12/2016 12/13/2016 12/15/2016 12/19/2016 12/19/2016
12/26/2016 12/28/2016 01/05/2017 01/10/2017

Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 11/28/2016. (D,M) (Entered: 11/29/2016)
86 Motion Recommending Approval of Office of Professional Standards and Police Review Board Manuals filed by Monitor Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A. OPS Manual, # 2 Exhibit B. PRB Manual, # 3 Exhibit C. Initial CPC Recommendations re: OPS/PRB)(Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 11/29/2016)
87 Motion Recommending Approval of Select Proposed 2017 Budgets filed by Monitor Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A. CPC Budget, # 2 Exhibit B. OPS Budget, # 3 Exhibit C. PRB Budget)(Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 11/30/2016)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $156,310.71 received on 12/01/2016. (G,P) (Entered: 12/05/2016)
88 Supplement Exhibits to 83 Motion Recommending Approval of Revised Use of Force Policies of the Cleveland Division of Police filed by Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). Related document(s) 83 . (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Substituted Exhibit B. Use of Force Definitions Policy # 2 Supplement Substituted Exhibit C. De−Escalation Policy, # 3 Supplement Substituted Exhibit E. Use of Force Reporting Policy)(Barge, Matthew) Modified to add exhibit descriptions on 12/6/2016 (M, S). Notified filer that document contains no case caption and signature block on 12/6/2016 (M, S). (Entered: 12/05/2016)
89 Order of Disbursement of funds in the amount of $156,310.71 to the Monitor, Matthew Barge, for services rendered and related costs incurred during the month of October, 2016. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 12/6/2016. (D,M) Modified signature date on 12/7/2016 (M, S). (Entered: 12/07/2016)
90 Order. Status Conference reset for 1/6/2017, at 3:00 PM in Courtroom 19A before Judge Solomon Oliver Jr. The court extends an invitation to the co−chairs of the Community Police Commission to attend the hearing. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 12/8/2016. (D,M) (Entered: 12/08/2016)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $156,310.71 disbursed on 12/09/2016. (G,P) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
91 Order of Disbursement of funds in the amount of $121,905.65 to the Monitor, Matthew Barge, for services rendered and related costs incurred during the month of November 2016. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 12/13/2016. (D,M) (Entered: 12/13/2016)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $121,905.65 disbursed on 12/15/2016. (G,P) (Entered: 12/15/2016)
92 Motion Regarding Cleveland Division of Police Proposed Wearable Camera System Policy filed by Monitor Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A. Proposed Body−Worn Camera Policy)(Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 12/19/2016)
93 Motion Regarding Cleveland Division of Police Equipment & Resource Plan filed by Monitor Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A. City of Cleveland Equipment & Resource Plan, # 2 Exhibit B. CPD Equipment & Research Study, # 3 Exhibit C. CPC Feedback on Equipment & Resource Plan)(Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 12/19/2016)
94 Notice Regarding Officer Use of Force Training filed by Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 12/26/2016)
95 Response to 93 Motion Regarding Cleveland Division of Police Equipment & Resource Plan filed by City of Cleveland. (Singletary, Gary) (Entered: 12/28/2016)
96 Response to 92 Motion Regarding Cleveland Division of Police Proposed Wearable Camera System Policy filed by City of Cleveland. (Singletary, Gary) (Entered: 01/05/2017)
97 Notice Submitting Monitoring Team's Second Semiannual Report filed by Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Barge, Matthew) Modified text on 1/11/2017 (M, S). (Entered: 01/10/2017)

01/11/2017 01/12/2017 01/17/2017 01/17/2017
01/17/2017 01/19/2017 01/24/2017 01/26/2017
01/27/2017 02/06/2017

98 Non−Appeal Transcript Order Form for proceedings held on January 6, 2017 before Judge Chief Solomon Oliver Jr., Court Reporter: George Staiduhar. Requested completion date: January 30, 2017 filed by United States of America. (Volosin, Heather) (Entered: 01/11/2017)
99 Notice Regarding In−Service Instructor Training Policy filed by Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 01/12/2017)
100 Non−Appeal Transcript Order Form for proceedings held on 01/06/17 before Judge Chief Solomon Oliver Jr., Court Reporter: George Staiduhar. Requested completion date: 01/30/17 filed by ACLU of Ohio Foundation, Inc.. (Levenson, Freda) Modified text/requested completion date on 1/17/2017 (M, S). (Entered: 01/17/2017)
101 Status Conference Order/Minutes of proceedings before Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. Status Conference held on 1/6/2017. After hearing from the Monitor and the Parties, the court granted 83 Motion Recommending Approval of Revised Use of Force Policies of the Cleveland Division of Police, with conditions specified. The new policies will become effective upon the Cleveland Division of Police's successful completion of Use of Force Training. The court delayed ruling on 86 Motion Recommending Approval of Office of Professional Standards and Police Review Board Manuals, as the Parties indicated that there were minor technical issues that needed to be addressed prior to approval. The court granted 87 Motion Recommending Approval of Select Proposed 2017 Budgets, thereby approving the 2017 budgets for the Community Police Commission and the Police Review Board and the first quarter of 2017 budget for the Office of Professional Standards. The court granted in part and denied in part 92 the Monitor's Motion Regarding Cleveland Division of Police Proposed Wearable Camera System Policy. The court granted 93 the Motion Regarding Cleveland Division of Police Equipment & Resource Plan. Additionally, the court briefly addressed concerns raised by the Community Police Commission regarding its membership and progress, urging it to consult with the Monitor and the Parties, and adopt clear, comprehensive bylaws. (Court Reporter: George Staiduhar.) Time: 2 hours 15 minutes.Related document(s) 86 , 93 , 83 , 87 , 92 . Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr., on 1/17/2017. (D,M) (Entered: 01/17/2017)
102 Order. The court, having fully considered the Memorandum (re 80 ), approves the Updated First−Year Monitoring Plan. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 1/17/2017. (D,M) (Entered: 01/17/2017)
103 Motion Regarding Cleveland Division of Police Crisis Intervention Policy and Procedures filed by Monitor Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A. Crisis Intervention Team Definitions., # 2 Exhibit B. Crisis Intervention Team Program Policy, # 3 Exhibit C. Crisis Intervention Team Response Policy)(Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 01/19/2017)
104 Third Status Report filed by City of Cleveland. Related document(s) 7 .(Singletary, Gary) (Entered: 01/24/2017)
105 Transcript of Status Conference held on January 6th, 2017 before Chief Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. To obtain a bound copy of this transcript please contact court reporter George J. Staiduhar at (216) 357−7128. [83 pages] Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties requesting that privacy information be redacted must file a notice of intent to redact with the court by 2/2/2017. Redaction Request due 2/16/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/27/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/26/2017. Related document(s) 100 , 98 . (S,G) (Entered: 01/26/2017)
106 Motion Resubmitting Office of Professional Standards and Police Review Board Manuals filed by Monitor Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A. Finalized OPS Manual, # 2 Exhibit B. Finalized PRB Manual)(Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 01/27/2017)
107 Notice Regarding Status of City of Cleveland Body−Worn Camera Filing filed by Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Barge, Matthew) Modified event type on 2/7/2017 (M, S). (Entered: 02/06/2017)

02/07/2017 02/08/2017
02/08/2017
02/10/2017 02/14/2017 02/17/2017 02/22/2017 02/28/2017 03/06/2017 03/06/2017 03/06/2017
03/06/2017 03/07/2017

Order [non−document] granting 107 Request for Extension of Time Until 3/6/2017, for the City to file any additional information with the Court. Approved by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 2/7/2017.(D,M) (Entered: 02/07/2017)
108 FILING ERROR: Improperly captioned. Refiled as document 109 . Supplement to 106 Motion Resubmitting Office of Professional Standards and Police Review Board Manuals, 86 Motion Recommending Approval of Office of Professional Standards and Police Review Board Manuals filed by Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). Related document(s) 106 , 86 . (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Exhibit A − Revised OPS Manual # 2 Supplement Exhibit B − Revised PRB Manual)(Barge, Matthew) Modified exhibit text/Notified filer that document contains no case caption and signature block on 2/8/2017 (M, S). Modified to mark error/regenerated nef on 2/8/2017 (M, S). (Entered: 02/08/2017)
109 Supplement to 106 Motion Resubmitting Office of Professional Standards and Police Review Board Manuals, 86 Motion Recommending Approval of Office of Professional Standards and Police Review Board Manuals filed by Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). Related document(s) 106 , 86 . (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Exhibit A− Revised OPS Manual, # 2 Supplement Exhibit B− Revised OPS Manual)(Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 02/08/2017)
110 Order of Disbursement of funds in the amount of $138,088.74, to the Monitor, Matthew Barge, for services rendered and related costs incurred during the month of December, 2016. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 2/9/2017. (D,M) (Entered: 02/10/2017)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $138,088.74 disbursed on 02/14/2017. (K,Ve) (Entered: 02/15/2017)
111 Motion recommending approval of community engagement framework for community and problem−oriented policing plan and bias−free policing policy filed by Monitor Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A− Community Engagement Framwork)(Barge, Matthew) Modified text on 2/17/2017 (M, S). (Entered: 02/17/2017)
112 Order of Disbursement of funds in the amount of $128,735.36 to the Monitor, Matthew Barge, for services rendered and related costs incurred during the month of January, 2017. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 2/22/2017. (W,CM) (Entered: 02/23/2017)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $128,735.36 disbursed on 02/27/2017. (G,P) (Entered: 02/28/2017)
113 Order granting Monitor Matthew Barge's Motion Recommending Approval of Community Engagement Framework for Community and Problem−Oriented Policing Plan and Bias−Free Policing Policy (Related Doc # 111 ) and approves the Community Engagement Framework (Related Doc # [111−1]). Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 3/6/2017. (D,M) (Entered: 03/06/2017)
114 Order granting Monitor Matthew Barge's Motion Resubmitting Office of Professional Standards and Police Review Board Manuals (Related Doc # 106 ) and approves both the Office of Professional Standards Manual (Related Doc #[106−1]) and the Police Review Board Manual (Related Doc # [106−2]). Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 3/6/2017.(D,M) (Entered: 03/06/2017)
115 Order granting the Monitor Matthew Barge's Motion Regarding Cleveland Division of Police Crisis Intervention Policy and Procedures (Related Doc # 103 ) and approves the attached policies and procedures (Related Doc # [103−1−3]), ordering them fully effective upon the successful completion by all officers of basic training on the policies and crisis intervention issues. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 3/6/2017.(D,M) (Entered: 03/06/2017)
116 Notice Regarding Status of City Body Worn Camera Filing filed by Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 03/06/2017)
117 Filing of the Cleveland Community Police Commission's First Annual Report filed by City of Cleveland. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Cleveland Community Police Commission's First Annual Report)(Singletary, Gary) (Entered: 03/07/2017)

03/09/2017
03/13/2017 03/14/2017 03/31/2017 04/03/2017
04/05/2017 04/17/2017 04/20/2017
04/27/2017 05/02/2017 05/03/2017 05/03/2017
05/04/2017
05/05/2017 05/05/2017
05/15/2017 05/22/2017

118 Order amending court's Order of March 6, 2017 (re 114 ), granting Monitor's Motion Resubmitting Office of Professional Standards and Police Review Board Manuals (ECF No. 106) and approves both the Office of Professional Standards Manual (ECF No. 109−1) and the Police Review Board Manual (ECF No. 109−2). Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 3/9/2017. (D,M) (Entered: 03/09/2017)
119 Notice Regarding Status of Body−Worn Camera Policy filed by Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 03/13/2017)
120 Motion Submitting Second−Year Monitoring Plan filed by Monitor Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A. Second−Year Monitoring Plan)(Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 03/14/2017)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $140,512.40 received on 03/28/2017. (K,Ve) (Entered: 03/31/2017)
121 Order of Disbursement of funds in the amount of $140,512.40 to the Monitor, Matthew Barge, for services rendered and related costs incurred during the month of February, 2017. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 4/3/2017. (D,M) (Entered: 04/03/2017)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $140,512.40 disbursed on 04/05/2017. (G,P) (Entered: 04/05/2017)
122 Notice Regarding In−Service Training Instructor Policy filed by Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A. In−Service Training Instructor Policy)(Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 04/17/2017)
123 Order granting Monitor's Motion Submitting Second−Year Monitoring Plan (Related Doc # 120 ) and incorporates the terms of the Second−Year Plan (Related Doc # [120−1]) herein. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 4/20/2017.(D,M) (Entered: 04/20/2017)
124 Notice Regarding Various Monitoring Plan Deadlines filed by Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 04/27/2017)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $129,037.47 received on 04/27/2017. (K,Ve) (Entered: 05/02/2017)
125 Memorandum Submitting Equipment and Resource Plan filed by Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A. Equipment and Resource Plan)(Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 05/03/2017)
126 Status Report Regarding Backlog Elimination Plan Submitted by the Office of Professional Standards filed by Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A. OPS Backlog Reduction Plan, # 2 Exhibit B. OPS Preliminary Resource Allocation Plan)(Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 05/03/2017)
127 Order of Disbursement of funds in the amount of $129,037.47 to the Monitor, Matthew Barge, for services rendered and related costs incurred during the month of March, 2017. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 5/3/2017. (D,M) (Entered: 05/04/2017)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $129,037.47 disbursed on 05/04/2017. (G,P) (Entered: 05/05/2017)
128 Notice to the Court Concerning the City of Cleveland's Pilot Program Efforts to Address Use of Wearable Cameras During Secondary Employment filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Wearable Camera Pilot Program − Operational Outline, # 2 Exhibit B Wearable Camera System (WCS) Pilot Program−Secondary Employment)Related document(s) 119 .(Singletary, Gary) Modified text on 5/8/2017 (P,WL). (Entered: 05/05/2017)
IMPORTANT: Notice [non−document] of Status Conference set for 6/13/2017, at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 19A before Judge Solomon Oliver Jr. (D,M) (Entered: 05/15/2017)
129 Motion Regarding All−Officer, Eight−Hour Crisis Intervention Training filed by Monitor Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A.

06/01/2017
06/02/2017
06/02/2017
06/05/2017 06/06/2017 06/07/2017 06/12/2017 06/13/2017 06/13/2017 06/13/2017 06/15/2017
06/16/2017 06/17/2017

CIT Policy Program Power Point, # 2 Exhibit B. CIT Policy Program GPO Lesson Plan, # 3 Exhibit C. CIT Policy Program GPO Instructors' Manual, # 4 Exhibit D. CIT Policy Officer Response Power Point, # 5 Exhibit E. CIT Policy Officer Response Lesson Plan, # 6 Exhibit F. CIT Policy Officer Response Instructors' Manual, # 7 Exhibit G. Overview of Mental Illness PowerPoint, # 8 Exhibit H. Overview of Mental Illness Lesson Plan, # 9 Exhibit I. Overview of Mental Illness Instructors' Manual, # 10 Exhibit J. Communicating and Active Listening Power Point, # 11 Exhibit K. Communicating and Active Listening Lesson Plan, # 12 Exhibit L. Communicating and Active Listening Instructors' Manual, # 13 Exhibit M. Command and Control Paradox Power Point, # 14 Exhibit N. Command and Control Paradox Lesson Plan, # 15 Exhibit O. Command and Control Instructors' Manual)(Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 05/22/2017)
130 FILING ERROR − Counsel to re−file with Exhibit corrected, also not a Motion. Motion Approval of Initial Officer Use Of Force Training filed by Monitor Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum Submitting Initial Officer Use Of Force Training)(Barge, Matthew) Modified as filing error on 6/5/2017 (P,WL). (Entered: 06/01/2017)
131 Order of Disbursement of funds in the amount of $107,474.65 to the Monitor, Matthew Barge, for services rendered and related costs incurred during the month of April, 2017. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 6/2/2017. (D,M) (Entered: 06/02/2017)
132 Order of Disbursement of funds in the amount of $37,500.00 to the Monitor, Matthew Barge, for services rendered and related costs incurred by Ideas in Focus, the firm selected by the Monitor to assess the perceptions of the Cleveland community through "Community Focus Groups." Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 5/31/2017. (D,M) (Entered: 06/02/2017)
133 Memorandum Submitting Initial Officer Use Of Force Training filed by Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit CPD Use of Force Training Plan)(Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 06/05/2017)
134 Order Status Conference set for 6/13/2017 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 19A before Judge Solomon Oliver Jr.. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 6/6/2017. (W,CM) (Entered: 06/06/2017)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $107,474.65 disbursed on 06/06/2017. (G,P) (Entered: 06/07/2017)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $37,500.00 received on 06/08/2017. (K,Ve) (Entered: 06/12/2017)
135 Notice Submitting Monitoring Team's Third Semiannual Report filed by Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 06/13/2017)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $37,500.00 disbursed on 06/13/2017. (G,P) (Entered: 06/13/2017)
136 Notice of Termination of Counsel filed by United States of America. (Volosin, Heather) (Entered: 06/13/2017)
137 Status Conference Order/Minutes of proceedings before Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. Status Conference held on 6/13/2017. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr., on 6/15/2017. (Court Reporter: Sarah Nageotte.)Time: 3 hours. (D,M) (Entered: 06/15/2017)
138 Expedite Non−Appeal Transcript Order Form for proceedings held on 6/13/2017 before Judge Oliver, Court Reporter: Sarah Nagoette. Requested completion date: 6/16/2017 filed by United States of America. (Volosin, Heather) (Entered: 06/16/2017)
139 Transcript of Status Conference Proceedings held on 6/13/2017 before District Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. To obtain a copy of this transcript please contact court reporter Sarah Nageotte at (216) 357−7186 or email Sarah_Nageotte@ohnd.uscourts.gov. [69 pages] Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties requesting that privacy

06/20/2017
06/26/2017
06/26/2017 06/27/2017 06/30/2017 07/07/2017 07/12/2017 07/19/2017 07/21/2017
07/31/2017 08/01/2017
08/11/2017 08/11/2017
08/11/2017 08/18/2017 08/28/2017

information be redacted must file a notice of intent to redact with the court by 6/26/2017. Redaction Request due 7/10/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/18/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/15/2017. Related document(s) 138 . (N,SE) (Entered: 06/17/2017)
140 Order of Disbursement of funds in the amount of $12,500.00, to the Monitor, Matthew Barge, for services rendered and related costs incurred by Ideas in Focus, the firm selected by the Monitor to assess the perceptions of the Cleveland Community through "Community Focus Groups." Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 6/19/2017. (D,M) (Entered: 06/20/2017)
141 Order of Disbursement of funds in the amount of $126,541.59 to the Monitor, Matthew Barge, for services rendered and related costs incurred during the month of May, 2017. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 6/26/2017. (D,M) (Entered: 06/26/2017)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $139,041.59 received on 06/22/2017 from the City of Cleveland via Fedwire. (K,Ve) (Entered: 06/26/2017)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $139,041.59 disbursed on 06/27/2017. (G,P) (Entered: 06/27/2017)
142 Memorandum Regarding 2016 Outcome Measures filed by Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A. Summary of 2016 Data)(Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 06/30/2017)
143 Memorandum Submitting Community Focus Groups Report filed by Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A. Ideas In Focus Community Focus Groups Report)(Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 07/07/2017)
IMPORTANT: Notice [non−document] of Telephone Conference set for 7/17/2017, at 4:30 PM with the Monitor, Matthew Barge and Judge Solomon Oliver Jr. (D,M) (Entered: 07/12/2017)
144 Fourth Status Report of City of Cleveland filed by All Defendants. (Singletary, Gary) (Entered: 07/19/2017)
145 Order of Disbursement. The court, having reviewed the statement provided by the Monitor, hereby orders the Clerk to disperse funds in the amount of $29,713.89 to the Monitor, Matthew Barge, for the completion of the first and second milestones of research titled Arrested Suspects Study in Cleveland and conducted by Professors Todd Foglesong and Ron Levi of the University of Toronto. Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 7/21/17. (G,CA) (Entered: 07/21/2017)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $29,713.89 received on 07/27/2017 from the City of Cleveland via Fedwire. (K,Ve) (Entered: 07/31/2017)
146 Memorandum Recommending Approval Of CIT Selection and Specialized Crisis Intervention Plan filed by Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A. Crisis Intervention Selection, # 2 Exhibit B. CIT Specialized Crisis Intervention Plan)(Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 08/01/2017)
147 Memorandum Submitting Revised Second−Year Monitoring Plan filed by Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A. Revised Second−Year Monitoring Plan)(Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 08/11/2017)
148 Order of Disbursement of funds from the Court Registry in the amount of $117,642.30 to the Monitor, Matthew Barge, for services rendered and related costs incurred during the month of June, 2017. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 8/10/2017. (R,Sh) (Entered: 08/11/2017)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $29,713.89 disbursed on 08/09/2017. (K,Ve) (Entered: 08/11/2017)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $117,642.30 received on 08/08/2017. (K,Ve) (Entered: 08/18/2017)
149 Memorandum Submitting Mental Health Response Advisory Committee Work Plan & Police Review Board Manual Amendments filed by Police Assessment Resource

08/30/2017 09/05/2017 09/20/2017 10/05/2017
10/16/2017 10/18/2017 10/18/2017 10/18/2017 10/20/2017
10/23/2017 10/23/2017
10/24/2017 10/25/2017 10/27/2017

Center (PARC). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A. MHRAC Work Plan, # 2 Exhibit B. Amended PRB Manual, Redline Version, # 3 Exhibit C. Amended PRB Manual, Changes Incorporated)(Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 08/28/2017)
150 Memorandum Setting Specific Milestones for Office of Professional Standards filed by Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 08/30/2017)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $117,642.30 disbursed on 08/23/2017. (K,Ve) (Entered: 09/05/2017)
151 Order of Disbursement of funds from the Court Registry in the amount of $82,708.79 to the Monitor, Matthew Barge, for services rendered and related costs incurred during the month of July 2017. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 9/20/2017. (R,Sh) (Entered: 09/20/2017)
152 Order of Disbursement of funds from the Court Registry in the amount of 16,667.00 to Monitor, Matthew Barge, for services rendered and related costs incurred by Marketing Solutions, the firm selected by the Monitor to conduct qualitative research consulting services among Cleveland Division of Police officers. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 10/5/2017. (R,Sh) (Entered: 10/05/2017)
153 Order of Disbursement of funds from the Court Registry in the amount of $113,935.25 to the Monitor, Matthew Barge, for services rendered and related costs incurred during the month of August, 2017. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 10/16/2017. (R,Sh) (Entered: 10/16/2017)
154 Motion (Request) for Hearing Regarding Office of Professional Standards (OPS) filed by Monitor Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Barge, Matthew) Modified text/event on 10/18/2017 (M, S). (Entered: 10/18/2017)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $82,708.79 submitted for disbursement on 10/06/2017. (K,Ve) (Entered: 10/18/2017)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $130,602.25 received via Fed Wire on 10/10/2017. (K,Ve) (Entered: 10/18/2017)
155 NULL AND VOID per Amended Order of Disbursement (Doc. No. 157 Order of Disbursement of funds from the Court Registry in the amount of $8,600.00 to the Monitor, Matthew Barge, for services rendered and related costs incurred by Marketing Solutions, the firm selected by the Monitor to conduct a discussion group project. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 10/20/2017. (R,Sh) Modified text and regenerated NEF on 10/25/2017 (R,Sh). (Entered: 10/20/2017)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $16,667.00 processed for disbursement on 10/23/2017. (K,Ve) (Entered: 10/23/2017)
156 Order granting the Monitor's request for a hearing (Related Doc # 154 ) with hearing to be held on 11/21/2017 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 17A. The court anticipates hearing from the Monitoring Team and the Parties in respect to progress made in regard to the Milestones set for the Office of Professional Standards ("OPS") (ECF No. 150). The court especially requests the presence of those responsible for managing OPS, including Director of Public Safety Michael McGrath and OPS Administrator Damon Scott, and anticipates possible testimony from them. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 10/23/2017.(R,Sh) (Entered: 10/23/2017)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $113,935.25 processed for disbursement on 10/24/2017. (K,Ve) (Entered: 10/24/2017)
157 AMENDED Order of Disbursement of funds from the Court Registry in the amount of $8500.00, superseding the Order of October 20, 2017 (ECF No. 155 ). The court's prior Order shall be null and void. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 10/25/2017. (R,Sh) (Entered: 10/25/2017)
158 Attorney Appearance by Sharon Brett filed by on behalf of United States of America. (Brett, Sharon) (Entered: 10/27/2017)

10/30/2017 11/01/2017 11/06/2017 11/09/2017 11/13/2017 11/15/2017 11/22/2017
11/22/2017 11/27/2017 11/28/2017 12/05/2017
12/08/2017 12/13/2017
12/15/2017

159 Motion for Approval of Canine Deployment Policy filed by Monitor Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Use of Canine Unit General Police Order, # 2 Exhibit Canine Unit Procedural Manual)(Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 10/30/2017)
160 Attorney Appearance by Justin E. Herdman filed by on behalf of United States of America. (Herdman, Justin) (Entered: 11/01/2017)
161 Motion (Memorandum) Regarding Biennial Community Survey of Detained Arrestees filed by Monitor Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Report on Detained Arrestees)(Barge, Matthew) Modified text on 1/16/2018 (R,Sh). (Entered: 11/06/2017)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $8,500.00 received on 11/02/2017. (K,Ve) (Entered: 11/09/2017)
162 Status Report City of Cleveland's Report on Use of Force Training filed by All Defendants. (Singletary, Gary) (Entered: 11/13/2017)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $8,500.00 submitted for disbursement on 11/14/2017. (K,Ve) (Entered: 11/15/2017)
163 Order of Hearing held on 11/21/2017 regarding the backlog of complaint investigations at the Cleveland Office of Professional Standards (OPS). The court heard from the Monitor and counsel for the parties in the within case. As a result of the hearing, the parties will confer and create a new revised plan by December 15, 2017, for eliminating the OPS backlog. Should the City have difficulty complying with the revised plan, the court will likely hold a hearing to determine what remedial action, if any, should be ordered. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 11/21/2017. Time: 1 hour 30 minutes (R,Sh) (Entered: 11/22/2017)
164 Order of Disbursement of funds from the Court Registry in the amount of $95,881.96 to the Monitor, Matthew Barge, for services rendered and related costs incurred during the month of September, 2017. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 11/21/2017. (R,Sh) (Entered: 11/22/2017)
165 City of Cleveland's Report on Officer Crisis Intervention Training filed by All Defendants. (Singletary, Gary) (Entered: 11/27/2017)
166 Non−Appeal Transcript Order Form for proceedings held on 11/21/2017 before Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr., Court Reporter: Donnalee Cotone. Requested completion date: 12/28/2017 filed by United States of America. (Volosin, Heather) (Entered: 11/28/2017)
167 Order. The Court will hold a Status Conference on the record with counsel for the parties, regarding Monitor Matthew Barge's Semiannual Report on 1/24/2018 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 17A before Judge Solomon Oliver Jr. The parties, counsel for the parties, and the Monitor shall be in attendance. Counsel for the parties and the Monitor shall be prepared to discuss progress to date under the Consent Decree, as well as any outstanding issues. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 12/4/2017. (R,Sh) (Entered: 12/05/2017)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $95,881.96 submitted for disbursement on 12/07/2017. (K,Ve) (Entered: 12/08/2017)
168 Transcript of Status Conference Proceedings held on 11−21−17 before Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr.. To obtain a bound copy of this transcript please contact court reporter Donnalee Cotone, RMR, CRR, CRC at 216−357−7078. [45 pages] Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties requesting that privacy information be redacted must file a notice of intent to redact with the court by 12/20/2017. Redaction Request due 1/3/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/15/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/13/2018. Related document(s) 166 . (C,Do) (Entered: 12/13/2017)
169 Memorandum Outlining the Plan to Address Completion of Investigations by the Office of Professional Standards in 2018 filed by City of Cleveland. (Singletary, Gary)

12/19/2017 12/20/2017 12/20/2017 12/21/2017 12/27/2017 01/10/2018 01/18/2018 01/19/2018 01/22/2018 01/22/2018
01/22/2018 01/24/2018 01/24/2018
01/24/2018
01/24/2018

Modified text on 12/18/2017 (M, S). (Entered: 12/15/2017)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $109,286.67 received on 12/12/2017 via Fedwire. (K,Ve) (Entered: 12/19/2017)
170 Motion regarding Cleveland Division of Police Disciplinary Matrix filed by Monitor Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − General Police Order 1.1.11, # 2 Exhibit B − Group Violation Chart)(Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 12/20/2017)
171 Order of Disbursement of funds from the Court Registry in the amount of $109,286.67 to Monitor, Matthew Barge, for services rendered and related costs incurred during the month of October, 2017. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 12/19/2017. (R,Sh) (Entered: 12/20/2017)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $109,286.67 submitted for disbursement on 12/21/2017. (K,Ve) (Entered: 12/21/2017)
172 Joint Motion to Modify Paragraph 178 of the Settlement Agreement filed by Plaintiff United States of America. (Senier, Amy) (Entered: 12/27/2017)
173 Amended Motion Regarding Cleveland Division of Police Disciplinary Matrix filed by Monitor Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). Related document(s) 170 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − General Police Order 1.1.11, # 2 Exhibit B − Group Violation Chart)(Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 01/10/2018)
174 Response to 172 Joint Motion to Modify Paragraph 178 of the Settlement Agreement filed by Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 01/18/2018)
175 Status Conference Order. Counsel for the parties, and the Monitor, shall, at the status conference scheduled on January 24, 2018, shall be prepared to discuss the topics herein stated. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 1/18/2018. (R,Sh) (Entered: 01/19/2018)
176 Motion to stay Jan. 24 Status Conference filed by Plaintiff United States of America. (Morse, T. − s/ by Rashida Ogletree) Modified text on 1/22/2018 (M, S). (Entered: 01/22/2018)
177 Order denying Plaintiff's Motion to stay the January 24, 2018 Status Conference in Light of Lapse of Appropriations. (Related Doc # 176 ). The court is confident that, on this one occasion, the Office of the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio will coordinate with the Civil Rights Division in a manner sufficient to articulate the Plaintiffs position before the court.Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 1/22/2018.(R,Sh) (Entered: 01/22/2018)
178 Order approving the Parties' Joint Motion to Modify Paragraph 178 of the Settlement Agreement (Related Doc # 172 ). Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 1/19/2018.(R,Sh) (Entered: 01/22/2018)
179 Notice Submitting Monitoring Team's Fourth Semiannual Report filed by Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 01/24/2018)
180 Order. Having considered the Revised Second−Year Plan and the terms of the Consent Decree entered into by the Parties, hereby approves the Monitors Revised Second−Year Monitoring Plan (ECF No. 147), and incorporates the terms of the Second−Year Plan (ECF No. 147−1) herein. Related document 147 . Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 1/23/2018. (R,Sh) (Entered: 01/24/2018)
181 Order. The court hereby grants the Monitor's Proposed Submission (ECF No.159), and orders the proposed revised Use of Canine Unit General Police Order 3.2.10 (ECF No. 159−1) and Canine Unit Procedural Manual (ECF No. 159−2), effective immediately. Related document 159 . Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 1/24/2018. (R,Sh) (Entered: 01/24/2018)
182 Order. The court hereby grants the Monitor's Amended Submission Regarding Cleveland Division of Police Disciplinary Matrix (ECF No. 173), and orders the proposed revised Disciplinary Guidance General Police Order1.1.11 (ECF No. 173−1) and Group Violation Chart (ECF No. 173−2), effective immediately. In light of the

01/24/2018 01/25/2018 01/25/2018 01/25/2018
02/02/2018 02/02/2018 02/02/2018 02/02/2018 02/03/2018
02/09/2018 02/12/2018 02/20/2018 03/08/2018

Amended Submission, the court denies the Monitor's Amended Submission Regarding Cleveland Division of Police Disciplinary Matrix (ECF No. 170), as moot. Related documents 173 , 170 . Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 1/24/2018. (R,Sh) (Entered: 01/24/2018)
183 Order. The court hereby grants the Monitor's Proposed Submission (ECF No. 129) and orders the Eight−Hour Crisis Intervention Training Curriculum, effective immediately. Related document 129 . Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 1/24/2018. (R,Sh) (Entered: 01/24/2018)
184 Non−Appeal Transcript Order Form for proceedings held on 01/24/2018 before Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr., Court Reporter: Sarah Nageotte. Requested completion date: 02/24/2018 filed by United States of America. (Volosin, Heather) (Entered: 01/25/2018)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $103,515.03 received via Fedwire on 01/16/2018. (K,Ve) (Entered: 01/25/2018)
185 Order of Status Conference held on 1/24/2018. At the conference, the Monitor and the parties discussed the Monitors Fourth Semiannual Report (ECF No. 179), including the challenges faced by the City of Cleveland in implementing the reforms called for by the Consent Decree, as well as areas of progress. The parties were encouraged to bring challenges to the Courts attention as they arise. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 1/25/2018. Time: 2 hours(R,Sh) (Entered: 01/25/2018)
186 Motion to Approve Cleveland Division of Police Bias−Free Policing Policy filed by Monitor Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − General Police Order 1.07.08)(Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 02/02/2018)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $78,584.07 received on 01/30/2018, via Fedwire. (K,Ve) (Entered: 02/02/2018)
187 Order of Disbursement of funds from the Court Registry in the amount of $103,515.03 to the Monitor, Matthew Barge, for services rendered and related costs incurred during the month of November, 2017. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 2/2/2018. (R,Sh) (Entered: 02/02/2018)
188 Order of Disbursement of funds from the Court Registry in the amount of $78,584.07 to the Monitor, Matthew Barge, for services rendered and related costs incurred during the month of December, 2017. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 2/2/2018. (R,Sh) (Entered: 02/02/2018)
189 Transcript of Status Conference Proceedings held on 1/24/2018 before District Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. To obtain a copy of this transcript please contact court reporter Sarah Nageotte at (216) 357−7186 or email Sarah_Nageotte@ohnd.uscourts.gov. [72 pages] Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties requesting that privacy information be redacted must file a notice of intent to redact with the court by 2/12/2018. Redaction Request due 2/26/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/6/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/4/2018. Related document(s) 184 . (N,SE) (Entered: 02/03/2018)
190 Fifth Status Report filed by City of Cleveland. (Singletary, Gary) (Entered: 02/09/2018)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $103,515.03 submitted for disbursement on 02/09/2018. (K,Ve) (Entered: 02/12/2018)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $78,584.07 submitted for disbursement on 02/16/2018. (K,Ve) (Entered: 02/20/2018)
191 Motion to Approve Cleveland Division of Police Learning Management System filed by Monitor Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Learning Management System General Police Order)(Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 03/08/2018)

03/12/2018 03/15/2018 03/20/2018 03/23/2018
03/23/2018
03/30/2018 04/05/2018 04/06/2018 04/11/2018 05/03/2018 05/07/2018 05/18/2018 05/21/2018 05/25/2018
05/31/2018

Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $97,664.73 received on 03/08/2018 via Fedwire. (K,Ve) (Entered: 03/12/2018)
192 Order of Disbursement of funds from the Court Registry in the amount of $97,664.73 to the monitor, Matthew Barge, for services rendered and related costs incurred during the month of January, 2018. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 3/14/2018. (R,Sh) (Entered: 03/15/2018)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $97,664.73 submitted for disbursement on 03/20/2018. (K,Ve) (Entered: 03/20/2018)
193 Order. Currently pending before the court in the above−captioned case is Monitor Matthew Barge's (Monitor) Memorandum Submitting Mental Health Response Advisory Committee Work Plan & Police Review Board Manual Amendments (Memorandum) (ECF No. 149). Pursuant to the recommendation of the Monitor that the court approve the Mental Health Response Advisory Committee Work Plan (Work Plan) and the amendments to the Police Review Board Manual (Manual), the court hereby approves the Work Plan and said amendments to the Manual, and orders them effective immediately. Related document 149 . Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 3/23/2018. (R,Sh) (Entered: 03/23/2018)
194 Order approving the Monitor's Motion to Approve Cleveland Division of Police Bias−Free Policing Policy (Related Doc # 186 ) and Motion to Approve Cleveland Division of Police Learning Management System (Related Doc # 191 ). The court hereby approves said policies and orders them effective immediately. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 3/23/2018. (R,Sh) (Entered: 03/23/2018)
195 Motion to Approve Third−Year Monitoring Plan filed by Monitor Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Third−Year Monitoring Plan)(Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 03/30/2018)
196 Order of Disbursement of funds from the Court Registry in the amount of $75,988.21 to the Monitor, Matthew Barge, for services rendered and related costs incurred during the month of February, 2018. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 4/4/2018. (R,Sh) Modified text on 4/5/2018 (M, S). (Entered: 04/05/2018)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $75,988.21 received on 04/03/2018. via FEDWIRE. (K,Ve) (Entered: 04/06/2018)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $75,988.21 submitted for disbursement on 04/10/2018. (K,Ve) (Entered: 04/11/2018)
197 Order Approving Third−Year Monitoring Plan. The Third−Year Monitoring Plan is effective immediately. Related document 195 . Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 5/3/2018. (R,Sh) (Entered: 05/03/2018)
198 Motion to Approve Cleveland Division of Police In−Service Training Instructor Selection Policy filed by Monitor Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Division Training Instructor Selection)(Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 05/07/2018)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $86,116.73 received on 05/10/2018 via Fedwire. (K,Ve) (Entered: 05/18/2018)
199 Order of Disbursement of funds from the Court Registry in the amount of $86,116.73 to Matthew Barge, for services rendered and related costs incurred during the month of March, 2018. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 5/21/2018. (R,Sh) (Entered: 05/21/2018)
200 Order granting Monitor Matthew Barge's Motion to Approve Cleveland Division of Police In−Service Training Instructor Selection Policy (Related Doc # 198 ). Pursuant to the recommendation of the Monitor that the court approve the Proposed Policy, the court hereby approves said policy and orders it effective immediately. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 5/25/2018.(R,Sh) (Entered: 05/25/2018)
201 Order. The court will hold a Status Conference with counsel for the parties on 8/15/2018 at 12:00 PM in Courtroom 17A before Judge Solomon Oliver Jr. regarding Monitor Matthew Barge's Semiannual Report. The parties, counsel for the parties, and the Monitor shall be in attendance. Counsel for the parties and the Monitor shall be

06/18/2018 06/19/2018 06/20/2018 06/21/2018 06/26/2018 06/29/2018 07/02/2018 07/10/2018
07/13/2018
07/13/2018
07/17/2018 08/02/2018 08/07/2018 08/09/2018
08/13/2018 08/14/2018

prepared to discuss progress to date under the Consent Decree, as well as any other outstanding issues. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 5/31/2018. (R,Sh) (Entered: 05/31/2018)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $88,125.00 received on 06/05/2018 via Fedwire. (K,Ve) (Entered: 06/18/2018)
202 Order of Disbursement of funds from the Court Registry in the amount of $88,125.00. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 6/18/2018. (R,Sh) (Entered: 06/19/2018)
203 Motion to Approve Revised Third−Year Monitoring Plan filed by Monitor Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Revised Third−Year Monitoring Plan)(Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 06/20/2018)
204 Motion Submitting Officer Focus Groups Report filed by Monitor Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Officer Focus Groups Report)(Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 06/21/2018)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $88,125.00 submitted for disbursement on 06/22/2018. (K,Ve) (Entered: 06/26/2018)
205 Attorney Appearance by Richard M. Knoth filed by on behalf of Cleveland Police Commission . (Knoth, Richard) Modified filer on 7/2/2018 (M, S). (Entered: 06/29/2018)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $19,809.30 received on 06/19/2018 via Fedwire. (K,Ve) (Entered: 07/02/2018)
206 Order of Disbursement of funds from the Court Registry in the amount of $93,534.13 to the Monitor, Matthew Barge, for services rendered and related costs incurred during the month of May, 2018. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 7/9/2018. (R,Sh) (Entered: 07/10/2018)
207 Motion to Approve Cleveland Division of Police Proposed Community Engagement and Problem−Solving Training and Bias−Free Policing Training Curricula filed by Monitor Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Community Engagement and Problem−Solving Training Curriculum, # 2 Exhibit B − Bias−Free Policing Training Curriculum)(Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 07/13/2018)
208 Motion to Approve Cleveland Division of Police Proposed Second−Year Crisis Intervention In−Service Training Curriculum filed by Monitor Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Second−Year Crisis Intervention Training Curriculum)(Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 07/13/2018)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $93,534.13 received on 07/3/2018 were submitted for disbursement on 07/16/2018. (K,Ve) (Entered: 07/17/2018)
209 Notice Regarding Extension of Deadlines in the Revised Third−Year Monitoring Plan filed by Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 08/02/2018)
210 Notice Regarding Extension of District Policing Committee Strategy Deadlines filed by Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 08/07/2018)
211 Order of Disbursement of funds from the Court Registry in the amount of $19,809.30 to the Monitor, Matthew Barge, for services rendered and related costs incurred by the University of Toronto, an entity selected by the Monitor to conduct research on experiences and perceptions of policing in Cleveland. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 8/9/2018. (R,Sh) (Entered: 08/09/2018)
212 Joint Motion for Order approving Matthew Barge's direct appointment as Independent Monitor filed by Plaintiff United States of America. Related document(s) 25 . (Volosin, Heather) (Entered: 08/13/2018)
213 Status Conference Order. Counsel for the parties, and the Monitor, shall be prepared to discuss the items stated within at the 8/15/2018 Status Conference. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 8/14/2018. (R,Sh) (Entered: 08/14/2018)

08/15/2018 08/15/2018 08/20/2018
08/20/2018 08/21/2018 08/21/2018 08/24/2018 08/28/2018 08/31/2018 08/31/2018 09/04/2018 09/11/2018 09/24/2018

214 Notice Submitting Monitoring Team's Fifth Semiannual Report and Comprehensive Re−Assessment filed by Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 08/15/2018)
215 Status Report to the Court Re: Office of Professional Standards filed by All Defendants. (Singletary, Gary) (Entered: 08/15/2018)
216 Minute Order of Status Conference held on 8/15/2018. The court recognized the work of the parties toward implementation of the Consent Decree, and encouraged the parties to bring challenges to the court's attention as they arise. The court granted the following motions: the Monitor's Motion to Approve Revised Third Year Plan (ECF No. 203 ); the Monitor's Motion Submitting Officer Focus Groups Report (ECF No. 204 ); the Monitor's Motion to Approve Cleveland Division of Police Proposed Community Engagement and Problem−Solving Policing Training and Bias−Free Policing Training Curricula (ECF No. 207 ); and the Monitor's Motion to Approve Cleveland Division of Police Proposed Second Year−Crisis Intervention In−Service Training Curriculum (ECF No. 208 ). The court hereby orders the Revised Third−Year Monitoring Plan (ECF No. 203−1), the Community Engagement and Problem−Solving Training Curriculum (ECF No. 207−1), the Bias−Free Policing Training Curriculum (ECF No. [207−2]), and Second−Year Crisis Intervention Training Curriculum (ECF No. 208−1), effective immediately. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 8/20/2018. Related documents 203 , 204 , 207 , 208 Time: 2 hours (R,Sh) (Entered: 08/20/2018)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $19,809.30 submitted for disbursement on 08/20/2018. (K,Ve) (Entered: 08/20/2018)
217 Non−Appeal Transcript Order Form for proceedings held on 08/15/2018 before Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr., Court Reporter: Susan Trischan. Requested completion date: 09/20/2018 filed by United States of America. (Volosin, Heather) (Entered: 08/21/2018)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $80,230.08 received on 08/14/2018 via Fedwire. (K,Ve) (Entered: 08/21/2018)
218 Order of Disbursement of funds from the Court Registry in the amount of $80,230.08 to the Monitor, Matthew Barge, for services rendered and related costs incurred during the month of June, 2018. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 8/24/2018. (R,Sh) (Entered: 08/24/2018)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $80,230.08 submitted for disbursement on 08/27/18. (K,Ve) (Entered: 08/28/2018)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $42,170.32 received on 08/28/2018 via Fedwire. (K,Ve) (Entered: 08/31/2018)
219 Sixth Status Report filed by City of Cleveland . (Singletary, Gary) (Entered: 08/31/2018)
220 Order of Disbursement of funds from the Court Registry in the amount of $42,170.32 to the Monitor, Matthew Barge, for services rendered and related costs incurred during the month of July, 2018. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 9/4/2018. (R,Sh) (Entered: 09/04/2018)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $42,170.32 submitted for disbursement on 09/10/2018. (K,Ve) (Entered: 09/11/2018)
221 Transcript of Status Conference held on August 15, 2018 before Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. To obtain a bound copy of this transcript please contact court reporter Sue Trischan at 216−357−7087. [74 pages] Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties requesting that privacy information be redacted must file a notice of intent to redact with the court by 10/1/2018. Redaction Request due 10/15/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/25/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/24/2018. (T,S) (Entered: 09/24/2018)

10/05/2018
10/10/2018 10/12/2018
10/12/2018
10/18/2018 10/29/2018 10/30/2018
10/30/2018 11/02/2018
11/05/2018 11/07/2018 11/08/2018 12/03/2018 12/04/2018
12/11/2018 12/11/2018 12/18/2018 01/11/2019

222 Order of Disbursement of funds from the Court Registry in the amount of $48,000.00 to the Monitor, Matthew Barge, for services and costs related to the June, 2018 Cleveland Police Survey. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 10/5/2018. (R,Sh) (Entered: 10/05/2018)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $97,456.55 received on 10/09/2018 via FEDWIRE. (K,Ve) (Entered: 10/10/2018)
223 Order granting the Parties' Motion for Order Appointing Monitor (Related Doc # 212 ). The court hereby approves the Parties' request for Mr. Barge's direct appointment as Independent Monitor, in place of PARC, pursuant to Paragraph 353 of the Settlement Agreement. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 10/12/2018.(R,Sh) (Entered: 10/12/2018)
224 Order of Disbursement of funds from the Court Registry in the amount of $97,456.55 to the Monitor, Matthew Barge, for services rendered and related costs incurred during the month of August, 2018. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 10/12/2018. (R,Sh) (Entered: 10/12/2018)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $48,000.00 received on 10/11/2018 via FEDWIRE. (K,Ve) (Entered: 10/18/2018)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $97,456.55 submitted for disbursement on 10/23/2018. (K,Ve) (Entered: 10/29/2018)
225 Order of Disbursement of funds from the Court Registry in the amount of $57,732.50 to the Monitor, Matthew Barge, for services rendered and related costs incurred during the month of September, 2018. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 10/30/2018. (R,Sh) (Entered: 10/30/2018)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $57,732.50 received on 10/23/2018 via FedWire. (K,Ve) (Entered: 10/30/2018)
226 Motion to Approve Cleveland Division of Police Equipment and Resource Plan filed by Monitor Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − 2018 Equipment and Resource Plan, # 2 Exhibit B − 2017 Equipment and Resource Plan)(Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 11/02/2018)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $48,000.00 submitted for disbursement on 11/02/2018. (K,Ve) (Entered: 11/05/2018)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $57,732.50 submitted for disbursement on 11/06/2018. (K,Ve) (Entered: 11/07/2018)
227 Order granting Monitor's Motion to Approve Cleveland Division of Police Equipment and Resource Plan (Related Doc # 226 ). Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 11/7/2018.(W,CM) (Entered: 11/08/2018)
228 Status Report to the Court Re: Office of Professional Standards filed by All Defendants. (Singletary, Gary) (Entered: 12/03/2018)
229 Order of Disbursement of funds from the Court Registry in the amount of $76,900.65 to the Monitor, Matthew Barge, for services rendered and related costs incurred during the month of October, 2018. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 12/4/2018. (R,Sh) (Entered: 12/04/2018)
230 Notice Regarding Extension of Deadlines in the Revised Third−Year Monitoring Plan filed by Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Revised Third−Year Monitoring Plan)(Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 12/11/2018)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $76,900.65 received on 12/04/2018 via Fedwire. (K,Ve) (Entered: 12/11/2018)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $76,900.65 submitted for disbursement on 12/13/2018. (K,Ve) (Entered: 12/18/2018)
231 Order of Disbursement of funds from the Court Registry in the amount of $47,305.04 to the Monitor, Matthew Barge, for services rendered and related costs incurred during the month of November, 2018. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 1/11/2019. (R,Sh) (Entered: 01/11/2019)

01/18/2019 01/22/2019 01/28/2019
01/29/2019 01/29/2019 02/08/2019 02/14/2019 02/14/2019 02/14/2019 02/20/2019
02/20/2019
02/20/2019
02/21/2019 02/21/2019 02/22/2019 02/25/2019

Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $47,305.04 received on 01/15/2019 via Fedwire. (K,Ve) (Entered: 01/18/2019)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $47,305.04 submitted for disbursement on 01/22/2019. (K,Ve) (Entered: 01/22/2019)
232 Order of Status Conference to be held on 3/5/2019 at 01:00 PM in Courtroom 17A before Judge Solomon Oliver Jr. The parties, counsel for the parties, and the Monitor shall be in attendance. Counsel for the parties and the Monitor shall be prepared to discuss progress to date under the Consent Decree, as well as any outstanding issues. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 1/28/2019. (R,Sh) (Entered: 01/28/2019)
233 Order of Disbursement of funds from the Court Registry in the amount of $47,320.13 to the Monitor, Matthew Barge, for services rendered and related costs incurred during the month of December, 2018. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 1/29/2019. (R,Sh) (Entered: 01/29/2019)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $47,320.13 received on 01/24/2019 via Fedwire. (K,Ve) (Entered: 01/29/2019)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $47,320.13 submitted for disbursement on 02/08/2019. (K,Ve) (Entered: 02/08/2019)
234 Motion to Approve Cleveland Division of Police Community and Problem−Oriented Policing Plan filed by Monitor Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − CPOP Plan)(Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 02/14/2019)
235 Motion to Approve Cleveland Division of Police District Policing Committee Plan filed by Monitor Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − DPC Plan)(Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 02/14/2019)
236 Motion to Approve Cleveland Division of Police Recruitment and Hiring Plan filed by Monitor Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Recruitment Plan)(Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 02/14/2019)
237 Order granting Monitor Matthew Barge's Motion to Approve Cleveland Division of Police Community and Problem−Oriented Police Plan (Related Doc # 234 ). The court hereby approves said plan, which meets the terms of the Consent Decree. The court orders said plan to be effective immediately. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 2/20/2019.(R,Sh) (Entered: 02/20/2019)
238 Order granting Monitor Matthew Barge's Motion to Approve Cleveland Division of Police District Policing Committee Plan (Related Doc # 235 ). The court hereby approves said plan, which meets the terms of the Consent Decree. The court orders said plan to be effective immediately. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 2/20/2019.(R,Sh) (Entered: 02/20/2019)
239 Order granting Monitor Matthew Barge's Motion to Approve Cleveland Division of Police Recruitment and Hiring Plan (Related Doc # 236 ). The court hereby approves said plan, which meets the terms of the Consent Decree. The court orders the plan to be effective immediately. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 2/20/2019.(R,Sh) Modified text on 2/20/2019 (M,S). (Entered: 02/20/2019)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $71,142.43 received on 02/19/2019 via Fedwire. (K,Ve) (Entered: 02/21/2019)
240 Motion to Approve Cleveland Division of Police Staffing Plan filed by Monitor Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Staffing Plan)(Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 02/21/2019)
241 Order of Disbursement of funds from the Court Registry in the amount of $71,142.43 to the Monitor, Matthew Barge, for services rendered and related costs incurred during the month of January 2019. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 2/22/2019. (R,Sh) (Entered: 02/22/2019)
242 Order granting Monitor Matthew Barge's Motion to Approve Cleveland Division of Police Staffing Plan (Related Doc # 240 ). The court finds that the Staffing Plan meets the requirements of the Consent Decree with respect to its primary scope of patrol and core investigative functions. Accordingly, the court orders said plan to be effective

02/28/2019 02/28/2019
03/04/2019 03/05/2019 03/05/2019 03/06/2019 03/07/2019 03/07/2019
03/18/2019 03/22/2019 03/25/2019 03/26/2019
04/01/2019

immediately. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 2/25/2019.(R,Sh) (Entered: 02/25/2019)
243 Motion to Approve Cleveland Division of Police Supervisor Training Curriculum filed by Monitor Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Supervisor Training Curriculum)(Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 02/28/2019)
244 Status Conference Order. Counsel for the parties, and the Monitor, shall, at the status conference scheduled for March 5, 2019, be prepared to:1. Discuss the Monitor's Sixth Semiannual Report. 2. Discuss the current status of the processing of conduct complaints. 3. Discuss the current functioning of the Community Police Commission. 4. Discuss data regarding the use of force, and use of force policies and theirimplementation. 5. Discuss recently approved policies and plans: Community and Problem−OrientedPolice Plan (ECF No. 234), District Policing Committee Plan (ECF No. 235),Recruitment and Hiring Plan (ECF No. 236), and Staffing Plan (ECF No. 240). 6. Discuss the goals and priorities for the coming year. 7. Discuss any other matters requiring the court's attention or assistance. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 2/28/2019. (R,Sh) (Entered: 02/28/2019)
245 Status Report Re: Office of Professional Standards filed by All Defendants. (Singletary, Gary) (Entered: 03/04/2019)
246 Notice Submitting Monitoring Team's Sixth Semiannual Report filed by Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 03/05/2019)
265 Minute Order of Status Conference held on 3/5/2019. The court recognized the work of the parties toward implementation of the Consent Decree and encouraged the parties to bring challenges to the court's attention as they arise. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 3/5/2019. Time: 2 hours (R,Sh) (Entered: 07/11/2019)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $71,142.43 submitted for disbursement on 03/06/2019. (K,Ve) (Entered: 03/06/2019)
247 Non−Appeal Transcript Order Form for proceedings held on 03/05/2019 before Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr., Court Reporter: Sarah Nageotte. Requested completion date: 04/06/2019 filed by United States of America. (Volosin, Heather) (Entered: 03/07/2019)
248 Order granting the Monitor's Motion for order to Approve the Cleveland Division of Police Supervisor Training Curriculum (Related Doc # 243 ). The court finds that the Supervisor Training Curriculum meets the requirements of the Consent Decree. Accordingly, the court orders said Training Curriculum to be effective immediately. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 3/7/2019.(R,Sh) (Entered: 03/07/2019)
249 Motion to Approve Fourth Year Monitoring Plan filed by Monitor Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Fourth Year Monitoring Plan)(Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 03/18/2019)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $65,122.61 received on 03/21/2019 via Fedwire. (K,Ve) (Entered: 03/22/2019)
250 Order of Disbursement of funds from the Court Registry in the amount of $65,122.61 to the Monitor, Matthew Barge, for services rendered and related costs incurred during the month of February 2019. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 3/25/2019. (R,Sh) (Entered: 03/25/2019)
251 Order approving the Monitor's Fourth−Year Monitoring Plan (Related Doc # 249 ). The court finds that the Fourth−Year Monitoring Plan complies with therequirements of the Consent Decree and orders the Fourth−Year Monitoring Plan effective immediately. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 3/26/2019.(R,Sh) (Entered: 03/26/2019)
252 Transcript of Status Conference Proceedings held on 3/5/2019 before District Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. To obtain a copy of this transcript please contact court reporter Sarah Nageotte at (216) 357−7186 or email Sarah_Nageotte@ohnd.uscourts.gov. [67 pages] Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties requesting that privacy

04/03/2019 04/04/2019
04/08/2019 04/12/2019 04/15/2019 04/23/2019
05/03/2019 05/09/2019 05/10/2019
05/16/2019
05/21/2019 05/30/2019 06/05/2019

information be redacted must file a notice of intent to redact with the court by 4/8/2019. Redaction Request due 4/22/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/2/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/1/2019. Related document(s) 247 . (N,SE) (Entered: 04/01/2019)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $65,122.61 submitted for disbursement on 04/03/2019. (K,Ve) (Entered: 04/03/2019)
253 Motion to Approve 2019 Use of Force and Community Engagement and Problem−Solving Training Curricula filed by Monitor Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − 2019 Use of Force Training Curriculum, # 2 Exhibit B − 2019 CEPS Training Curriculum)(Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 04/04/2019)
254 Seventh Status Report of the City of Cleveland filed by All Defendants. (Singletary, Gary) (Entered: 04/08/2019)
255 Motion to Approve Revised Use of Force Policies filed by Monitor Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Definitions, # 2 Exhibit B − General, # 3 Exhibit C − Intermediate Weapons, # 4 Exhibit D − Reporting)(Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 04/12/2019)
256 Order granting Monitor Matthew Barge's Motion to Approve Cleveland Division of Police Revised Use of Force Policies, which meet the terms of the Consent Decree. The court orders said policies to be effective immediately (Related Doc # 255 ). Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 4/15/2019.(R,Sh) (Entered: 04/15/2019)
257 Order [non−document] granting Monitor Matthew Barge's Motion to Approve Cleveland Division of Police's 2019 Use of Force Training and 2019 Community Engagement and Problem−Solving Training Curricula (Related Doc # 253 ). The court hereby approves said curricula, which meets the terms of the Consent Decree. The court orders said curricula to be effective immediately. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 4/23/2019.(R,Sh) (Entered: 04/23/2019)
258 Order of Disbursement of funds from the Court Registry in the amount of $75,787.23 to the Monitor, Matthew Barge, for services rendered and related costs incurred during the month of March 2019. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 5/3/2019. (R,Sh) (Entered: 05/03/2019)
259 Notice of Termination of Counsel Rashida Ogletree filed by United States of America. (Porter, F.) Wrong event used, modified on 5/17/2019 (W,CM). (Entered: 05/09/2019)
260 Motion to Approve Search and Seizure Policies filed by Monitor Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Search and Seizure Policy, # 2 Exhibit B − Investigatory Stops Policy, # 3 Exhibit C − Probable Cause Policy, # 4 Exhibit D − Strip Searches & Body Cavity Searches Policy, # 5 Exhibit E − Miranda Warning Policy)(Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 05/10/2019)
261 Order granting Monitor Matthew Barge's Motion to Approve Cleveland Division of Police Search and Seizure Policies (Related Doc # 260 ). Pursuant to the recommendation of the Monitor that the court approve theCleveland Division of Police Search and Seizure Policies, the court hereby approves said policies, which meet the terms of the Consent Decree. Accordingly, the court orders said policies to be effective immediately. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 5/16/2019.(R,Sh) (Entered: 05/16/2019)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $75,787.23 submitted for disbursement on 5/21/2019. (S,NM) (Entered: 05/21/2019)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of 71874.85 received on 05/28/2019 via Fedwire. (G,SA) (Entered: 05/30/2019)
262 Order of Disbursement of funds from the Court Registry in the amount of $71,874.85 to the Monitor, Matthew Barge, for services rendered and related costs incurred during the month of April 2019. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 6/5/2019. (R,Sh) (Entered: 06/05/2019)

06/11/2019 06/28/2019 07/08/2019 07/17/2019 07/17/2019
07/17/2019 07/18/2019 07/19/2019
07/19/2019 07/22/2019 07/23/2019

Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $71,874.85 submitted for disbursement on 06/11/2019. (K,Ve) (Entered: 06/11/2019)
263 Motion to Approve Third−Year Crisis Intervention In−Service Training Curriculum filed by Monitor Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Recognizing and Responding Effectively to Traumatized Youth, # 2 Exhibit B − Policy Update)(Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 06/28/2019)
264 Order. Pursuant to the recommendation of the Monitor that the court approve the Cleveland Division of Police's Proposed Training Curriculum, the court hereby approves said curriculum, which meet the terms of the Consent Decree. Accordingly, the court orders said curriculum to be effective immediately. (Related Doc # 263 ). Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 7/8/2019.(R,Sh) (Entered: 07/08/2019)
266 Joint Motion Regarding Restructuring of Monitoring Team and Appointment of Hassan Aden as Independent Monitor filed by Plaintiff United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A −Resume of Hassan M. Aden, # 2 Proposed Order)(Heyer, Michelle) (Entered: 07/17/2019)
267 Order approving the Parties' Joint Motion Regarding Restructuring ofthe Monitoring Team and Appointment of Hassan Aden as Independent Monitor. The court finds that Mr. Aden is well−qualified to serve as Monitor. In addition, Mr. Aden's appointment assures continuity and lessens the possibility that momentum will be lost as a result of the transition. The court therefore hereby approves the Parties' Joint Motion Regarding Restructuring of the Monitoring Team and Appointment of Hassan Aden as Independent Monitor pursuant to Paragraph 353 of the Settlement Agreement. (Related Doc # 266 ). Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 7/17/2019.(R,Sh) (Entered: 07/17/2019)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $65,338.55 received on 7/2/19 via Fedwire. (S,NM) (Entered: 07/17/2019)
268 Order of Disbursement of funds from the Court Registry in the amount of $65,338.55 to the Monitor, Matthew Barge, for services rendered and related costs incurred during the month of May 2019. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 7/18/2019. (R,Sh) (Entered: 07/18/2019)
269 Motion to Approve Specialized Crisis Intervention Team Officer Training Curriculum filed by Monitor Hassan Aden. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Schedules, # 2 Exhibit B − Active Listening, # 3 Exhibit C − Adults with Mental Illness, # 4 Exhibit D − Alcohol Drug Addiction and Dual Disorders, # 5 Exhibit E − Community Support Worker Site Visit Objectives, # 6 Exhibit F − Community Support Worker Ride Along Program Descriptions, # 7 Exhibit G − Crisis Intervention for Elderly Adults, # 8 Exhibit H − Emergency Services Panel Course Material, # 9 Exhibit I − Hearing Voices Exercise, # 10 Exhibit J − Homeless Services Panel, # 11 Exhibit K − Introduction and Opening Remarks, # 12 Exhibit L − LGBTQ 101, # 13 Exhibit M − Mental Health Law, # 14 Exhibit N − Working with Families and Peers, # 15 Exhibit O − Principles of Communication and De−Escalation, # 16 Exhibit P − Question Persuade and Refer Suicide Intervention, # 17 Exhibit Q − Role of the CIT Officer, # 18 Exhibit R − Seasons of Hope Consumer Drop in Center, # 19 Exhibit S − Site Visits at Consumer Facilities, # 20 Exhibit T − Experience with PTSD, # 21 Exhibit U − Trauma Informed Care, # 22 Exhibit V − Understanding Developmental Disabilities, # 23 Exhibit W − Veterans Issues, # 24 Exhibit X − Youth and Adolescents Mental Health Issues, # 25 Exhibit Y − Loss Model Scenarios, # 26 Exhibit Z − Scenario Simulation Descriptions)(Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 07/19/2019)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $65,338.55 submitted for disbursement on 07/19/2019. (K,Ve) (Entered: 07/19/2019)
270 Order approving Monitor Hassan Aden's Motion to Approve Cleveland Division of Police's proposed curriculum for its enhanced specialized training in response to individuals in crisis. (Related Doc # 269 ). The court orders said curriculum to be effective immediately. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 7/19/2019.(R,Sh) (Entered: 07/22/2019)
271 Motion to Approve 2019 Bias−Free Policing Training Curriculum filed by Monitor Hassan Aden. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − 2019 Bias−Free Policing Training Curriculum)(Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 07/23/2019)

07/29/2019
08/02/2019 08/06/2019
08/08/2019 08/14/2019
08/20/2019 08/27/2019
08/28/2019 09/09/2019 09/09/2019 09/10/2019 09/12/2019 09/16/2019 09/16/2019
09/17/2019 09/18/2019

272 Order granting Monitor Hassan Aden's Motion to Approve Cleveland Division of Police's proposed curriculum for its 2019 Bias−Free Policing Training (Related Doc # 271 ). The court hereby approves said curriculum, which meet the terms of the Consent Decree. The court orders said curriculum to be effective immediately. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 7/29/2019.(R,Sh) (Entered: 07/29/2019)
273 Motion to Approve Community and Problem−Oriented Policing Policy filed by Monitor Hassan Aden. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − CPOP Policy)(Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 08/02/2019)
274 Order approving the Monitor's Motion to Approve Cleveland Division of Police's Community and Problem−Oriented Policing Policy (Related Doc # 273 ), which meets the terms of the Consent Decree. Accordingly, the court orders said policy to be effective immediately. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 8/6/2019.(R,Sh) (Entered: 08/06/2019)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $83,491.55 received on 8/6/19 via Fedwire. (S,NM) (Entered: 08/08/2019)
275 Order of Disbursement of funds from the Court Registry in the amount of $83,491.55 to the Monitor, Matthew Barge, for services rendered and related costs incurred during the month of June 2019. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 8/13/2019. (R,Sh) (Entered: 08/14/2019)
276 Motion to Approve Amended Disciplinary Matrix filed by Monitor Hassan Aden. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Amended Disciplinary Matrix, # 2 Exhibit B − Table of Discipline)(Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 08/20/2019)
277 Order regarding Monitor Hassan Aden's Motion to Approve Cleveland Division of Police's proposed Amended Disciplinary Guidance Policy (Related Doc # 276 ). The court hereby approves said policy, which meets the terms of the Consent Decree. Accordingly, the court orders said policy to be effective immediately.Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 8/27/2019.(R,Sh) (R,Sh). (Entered: 08/27/2019)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $83,491.55 submitted for disbursement on 08/22/2019. (K,Ve) (Entered: 08/28/2019)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $75,962.10 received on 9/5/2019 via Fedwire. (S,NM) (Entered: 09/09/2019)
278 Status Report of City of Cleveland re: Office of Professional Standards filed by All Defendants. (Singletary, Gary) (Entered: 09/09/2019)
279 Order. Counsel for the parties, and the Monitor, shall be prepared to discuss the within at the Status Conference scheduled for 9/16/2019. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 9/9/2019. (R,Sh) Modified on 9/12/2019 (R,Sh). (Entered: 09/10/2019)
IMPORTANT: Notice [non−document] re 279 Order of Status Conference set for 9/16/2019 at 03:00 PM in Courtroom 17A before Judge Solomon Oliver Jr. Related document(s) 279 . (R,Sh) (Entered: 09/12/2019)
280 Notice Submitting Monitoring Team's Seventh Semiannual Report filed by Hassan Aden. (Barge, Matthew − s/Hassan Adan) Modified on 10/2/2019 (D,TM). (Entered: 09/16/2019)
281 Order of Disbursement of funds from the Court Registry in the amount of $75,962.10 to the Monitor, Hassan Aden, for services rendered and related costs incurred during the month of July 2019. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 9/16/2019. (R,Sh) (Entered: 09/16/2019)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $75,962.10 submitted for disbursement on 09/17/2019. (K,Ve) (Entered: 09/17/2019)
282 Non−Appeal Transcript Order Form for proceedings held on 09/16/2019 before Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr., Court Reporter: Heidi Geizer. Requested completion date: 10/18/2019 filed by United States of America. (Volosin, Heather) (Entered: 09/18/2019)

09/27/2019 10/02/2019
10/08/2019
10/09/2019 10/09/2019
10/09/2019 10/16/2019 10/28/2019 10/28/2019 10/30/2019 11/04/2019
11/06/2019 11/13/2019 11/15/2019 11/15/2019

283 Motion to Approve Search and Seizure Training Curriculum filed by Monitor Hassan Aden. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Introduction, # 2 Exhibit B − Module 1, # 3 Exhibit C − Module 2, # 4 Exhibit D − Module 3)(Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 09/27/2019)
284 Order granting Monitor Hassan Aden's Motion to Approve Cleveland division of Police's Search and Seizure Training Curriculum (Related Doc # 283 ). The court hereby approves said curriculum, which meets the terms of theConsent Decree. Accordingly, the court orders said curriculum to be effective immediately. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 10/1/2019.(R,Sh) (Entered: 10/02/2019)
285 Transcript of Status Conference proceedings held on 9/16/2019 before District Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. To obtain a copy of this transcript please contact court reporter Heidi Blueskye Geizer at 216−357−7092. [42 pages] Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties requesting that privacy information be redacted must file a notice of intent to redact with the court by 10/15/2019. Redaction Request due 10/29/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/8/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/6/2020. Related document(s) 282 . (G,He) (Entered: 10/08/2019)
286 Order of Disbursement of funds from the Court Registry in the amount of $81,490.78 to the Monitor, Hassan Aden, for services rendered and related costs incurred during the month of August 2019. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 10/9/2019. (R,Sh) (Entered: 10/09/2019)
287 Minute Order of Status Conference held on 9/16/2019 regarding the Monitor's Seventh Semiannual Report. The court recognized the work of the parties toward implementation of the Consent Decree and encouraged the parties to bring challenges to the court's attention as they arise. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 10/9/2019. Time: 1 hour (R,Sh) (Entered: 10/09/2019)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $81,490.78 received on 10/01/2019 via Fedwire. (K,Ve) (Entered: 10/09/2019)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $81,490.78 submitted for disbursement on 10/16/2019. (K,Ve) (Entered: 10/16/2019)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $37,311.24 received on 10/22/2019 via Fedwire. (K,Ve) (Entered: 10/28/2019)
288 Order of Disbursement of funds from the Court Registry in the amount of $37,311.24 to the Monitor, Hassan Aden, for services rendered and related costs incurred during the month of September 2019. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 10/28/2019. (R,Sh) (Entered: 10/28/2019)
289 Notice Submitting Updated Fourth−Year Monitoring Plan filed by Hassan Aden. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Updated Fourth Year Monitoring Plan)(Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 10/30/2019)
290 Notice submitting internal affairs manual and related policies filed by Hassan Aden. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Internal Affairs Manual, # 2 Exhibit B − Retaliation Prohibited, # 3 Exhibit C − Internal Complaints of Misconduct, # 4 Exhibit D − Public Complaints of Misconduct, # 5 Exhibit E − Accountability Structure Matrix Chart)(Barge, Matthew − s/ by Hassan Aden) (Entered: 11/04/2019)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $37,311.24 submitted for disbursement on 11/05/2019. (K,Ve) (Entered: 11/06/2019)
291 Eighth Status Report of City of Cleveland filed by All Defendants. (Singletary, Gary) (Entered: 11/13/2019)
292 Order. The court, having fully considered the proposed changes, hereby approves the Updated Fourth−Year Monitoring Plan. Related document 289 . Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 11/15/2019. (R,Sh) (Entered: 11/15/2019)
293 Order of Hearing regarding 290 Notice of the Monitor. A hearing is set for 11/26/2019 at 04:00 PM in Courtroom 17A before Judge Solomon Oliver Jr. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 11/15/2019. (R,Sh) (Entered: 11/15/2019)

11/26/2019 12/03/2019 12/04/2019
12/06/2019 12/09/2019
12/17/2019
12/18/2019 01/07/2020 01/17/2020
01/23/2020
01/30/2020
01/31/2020 02/04/2020 02/26/2020 03/03/2020
03/06/2020 03/23/2020

IMPORTANT: Notice [non−document]. The hearing previously set for 11/26/2019 has been canceled and will be rescheduled for a date and time convenient in the near future. Related document(s) 293 . (R,Sh) (Entered: 11/26/2019)
IMPORTANT: Notice [non−document] that the Hearing regarding the Notice of the Monitor 290 has been RESET for 12/10/2019 at 01:00 PM in Courtroom 17A before Judge Solomon Oliver Jr. (R,Sh) (Entered: 12/03/2019)
294 Order of Disbursement of funds from the Court Registry in the amount of $45,822.31 to the Monitor, Hassan Aden, for services rendered and related costs incurred during the month of October 2019. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 12/4/2019. (R,Sh) (Entered: 12/04/2019)
295 Notice Submitting Updated Internal Affairs Manual filed by Hassan Aden. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Updated Internal Affairs Manual) Related document(s) 290 .(Barge, Matthew) (Entered: 12/06/2019)
296 Order. In light of the revisions in the Updated IA Manual, it is no longer necessary for the court to hear from the parties or the Monitor on this matter. Accordingly, the hearing scheduled for December 10, 2019, at 1:00 p.m. is hereby cancelled. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 12/9/2019. (R,Sh) (Entered: 12/09/2019)
297 Order of Disbursement of funds from the Court Registry in the amount of $40,445.84 to the Monitor, Hassan Aden, for services rendered and related costs incurred during the month of November 2019. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 12/17/2019. (R,Sh) (Entered: 12/17/2019)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $45,822.31 submitted for disbursement on 12/12/2019. (K,Ve) (Entered: 12/18/2019)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $40,445.84 submitted for disbursement on 01/06/2020. (K,Ve) (Entered: 01/07/2020)
298 Notice Submitting Updated Search and Seizure Policies filed by Hassan Aden. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Search and Seizure, # 2 Exhibit Investigatory Stops, # 3 Exhibit Probable Cause/Warrantless Arrests, # 4 Exhibit Strip Searches & Body Cavity Searches, # 5 Exhibit Miranda Warning and Waiver)Related document(s) 260 .(Barge, Matthew) Modified text on 2/19/2020 (S,SR). (Entered: 01/17/2020)
299 Order Approving the Monitor's Cleveland Division of Police's Updated Search and Seizure Policies, which meet the terms of the Consent Decree. Accordingly, the court orders said policies to be effective immediately. Related document 298 . Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 1/23/2020. (R,Sh) (Entered: 01/23/2020)
300 Order of Disbursement of funds from the Court Registry in the amount of $53,065.96, to the Monitor, Hassan Aden, for services rendered and related costs incurred during the month of December 2019. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 1/30/2020. (R,Sh) (Entered: 01/30/2020)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $53,065.96 received on 01/28/2020 via Fedwire. (K,Ve) (Entered: 01/31/2020)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $53,065.96 submitted for disbursement on 02/04/2020. (K,Ve) (Entered: 02/04/2020)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $47,053.00 received on 02/25/2020 via Fedwire. (K,Ve) (Entered: 02/26/2020)
301 Order of Disbursement of funds from the Court Registry in the amount of $47,053.00 to the Monitor, Hassan Aden, for services rendered ad related costs incurred during the month of January 2020. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 3/3/2020. (R,Sh) (Entered: 03/03/2020)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $47,053.00 submitted for disbursement on 03/05/2020. (K,Ve) (Entered: 03/06/2020)
302 Notice Regarding Flexibility in Fourth Year Monitoring Plan Deadlines filed by Hassan Aden. (Hardaway, Ayesha) (Entered: 03/23/2020)

03/25/2020
03/30/2020 04/13/2020 04/16/2020 04/20/2020 04/22/2020 04/22/2020 04/24/2020 05/01/2020 05/01/2020 05/07/2020

303 Notice Submitting Telecommunicators Eight−Hour Crisis Intervention Training Curriculum filed by Hassan Aden. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit CDP Telecommunicator Lesson Plan, # 2 Exhibit Cleveland Division of Police Telecommunicator Instructor Manual, # 3 Exhibit Cleveland Division of Police Telecommunicator PowerPoint Slides, # 4 Exhibit Cleveland Division of Police Telecommunicator Handout Mental Health Facts, # 5 Exhibit Cleveland Division of Police Telecommunicator Handout Mindstorm Video Questionnaire, # 6 Exhibit Cleveland Division of Police Telecommunicator Handout Depression Symptoms, # 7 Exhibit Cleveland Division of Police Telecommunicator Handout Ohio Facts, # 8 Exhibit Cleveland Division of Police Telecommunicator Handout Suicide Ideation)(Hardaway, Ayesha − s/ by Hassan Aden) Modified on 3/26/2020 (W,CM). (Entered: 03/25/2020)
304 Order. Pursuant to the Monitor's recommendation, the court approves the Curriculum, which meets the terms of the Consent Decree. Accordingly, the court orders said Curriculum to be effectiveimmediately. Related Document 303 . Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 3/30/2020. (R,Sh) (Entered: 03/30/2020)
305 Order of Disbursement of funds from the Court Registry in the amount of 68,985.11, to the Monitor, Hassan Aden, for services rendered and related costs incurred during the month of February 2020. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 4/13/2020. (R,Sh) (Entered: 04/13/2020)
306 Order. For the purposes of this matter only, the court authorizes Ayesha B. Hardaway, who is both a member of the Monitoring Team and admitted to practice in the Northern District, to file documents that bear the signature of the Monitor Hassan Aden.Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 4/16/2020. (R,Sh) (Entered: 04/16/2020)
307 Notice Regarding Proposed Postponement of Biennial Community Survey Due to Covid−19 Pandemic filed by Hassan Aden. (Hardaway, Ayesha) (Entered: 04/20/2020)
308 Order that the court finds it appropriate to delay the next Biennial Community Survey, which was supposed to take place in the Spring of 2020. The Monitoring Team shall, in consultation with the Parties, develop a modifiedschedule for the next survey and submit the updated plan to the court within forty−five (45) days from the date of this Order. Related document 307 . Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 4/22/2020. (R,Sh) (Entered: 04/22/2020)
309 Notice Submitting Supervisory Review Policy, Force Investigation Team Manual & GPO, and a Related Memorandum of Understanding Between the Cleveland Division of Police and the Cuyahoga County Sheriff's Department filed by Hassan Aden. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Supervisory Review & Investigations, # 2 Exhibit B − FIT Manual, # 3 Exhibit C − FIT Policy, # 4 Exhibit D − Sheriff MOU)(Hardaway, Ayesha) (Entered: 04/22/2020)
310 Order of Disbursement of funds from the Court Registry in the amount of $26,938.54 to the Monitor, Hassan Aden, for services rendered and costs incurred for research titled "Arrested Suspects Study in Cleveland" conducted by Professors Todd Foglesong and Ron Levi of the University of Toronto.Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 4/24/2020. (R,Sh) (Entered: 04/24/2020)
311 Order. Currently pending before the court is Monitor Hassan Aden's Notice submitting four related documents. Pursuant to the Monitor's recommendation, and with no objections from the Parties, the court approves the Policies, which meet the terms of the Consent Decree. Accordingly, the court orders said Policies to be effective immediately. Related 309 .Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 4/30/2020. (R,Sh) (Entered: 05/01/2020)
312 Order of Disbursement of funds from the Court Registry in the amount of $51,332.50 to the Monitor, Hassan Aden, for services rendered and related costs incurred during the month of March 2020.Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 4/30/2020. (R,Sh) (Entered: 05/01/2020)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $68,985.11 approved for disbursement on 05/07/20 for Fedwire received 3/31/20. (K,Ve) (Entered: 05/07/2020)

05/07/2020 05/08/2020 06/01/2020 06/08/2020 06/16/2020 06/17/2020 06/17/2020
06/18/2020 06/22/2020

Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $51,332.50 received on 04/28/2020 via Fedwire. (K,Ve) (Entered: 05/07/2020)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $51,332.50 approved for disbursement on 05/08/20. (K,Ve) (Entered: 05/08/2020)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $26,938.54 received on 05/26/2020 via Fedwire. (K,Ve) (Entered: 06/01/2020)
313 Order of Disbursement of funds in the amount of $52,100.60 to the Monitor, Hassan Aden, for services rendered and related costs incurred during the month of April 2020. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 6/8/2020. (S,SR) (Entered: 06/08/2020)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $26,938.54 processed for disbursement on 06/15/2020. (K,Ve) (Entered: 06/16/2020)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $52,100.60 received on 06/03/2020 via Fedwire. (K,Ve) (Entered: 06/17/2020)
314 Notice Submitting Force Review Board Policy, Checklist, and Force Review Board Training Curriculum and Power Point filed by Hassan Aden. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Force Review Board Policy, # 2 Exhibit B − Force Review Board Checklist, # 3 Exhibit C − Force Review Board Training Curriculum, # 4 Exhibit D − Force Review Board PowerPoint)(Hardaway, Ayesha) (Entered: 06/17/2020)
315 Notice Regarding Ninth Semi−Annual Report filed by Hassan Aden. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Memorandum to CDP Re Protests with Document Request)(Hardaway, Ayesha) (Entered: 06/18/2020)
Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $52,100.60 submitted for disbursement (check issuance) on 06/17/2020. (K,Ve) (Entered: 06/22/2020)