FINAL REPORT OF

MAY 2015
Recommended citation:

President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. 2015. Final Report of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. Washington, DC: Office 

of Community Oriented Policing Services.

Published 2015
i

CONTENTS

 From the Co-Chairs

i i i

 FROM THE CO-CHAIRS 

We wish to thank President Barack Obama for giving us the honor and privilege of leading his Task Force 

on 21st Century Policing. The task force was created to strengthen community policing and trust among 

law enforcement officers and the communities they serve—especially in light of recent events around 

the country that have underscored the need for and importance of lasting collaborative relationships 

between local police and the public. We found engaging with law enforcement officials, technical advisors, youth and community leaders, and nongovernmental organizations through a transparent public 

process to be both enlightening and rewarding, and we again thank the President for this honor.

Given the urgency of these issues, the President gave the task force an initial 90 days to identify best 

policing practices and offer recommendations on how those practices can promote effective crime 

reduction while building public trust. In this short period, the task force conducted seven public listening sessions across the country and received testimony and recommendations from a wide range of 

community and faith leaders, law enforcement officers, academics, and others to ensure its recommendations would be informed by a diverse range of voices. Such a remarkable achievement could not have 

been accomplished without the tremendous assistance provided by the U.S. Department of Justice’s 

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office), led by Director Ronald L. Davis, who also 

served as the executive director of the task force. We thank Director Davis for his leadership, as well as his 

chief of staff, Melanca Clark, and the COPS Office team that supported the operation and administration 

of the task force. 

We also wish to extend our appreciation to the COPS Office’s extremely capable logistical and technical 

assistance provider, Strategic Applications International (SAI), led by James and Colleen Copple. In addition to logistical support, SAI digested the voluminous information received from testifying witnesses 

and the public in record time and helped facilitate the task force’s deliberations on recommendations for 

the President. We are also grateful for the thoughtful assistance of Darrel Stephens and Stephen Rickman, our technical advisors.

Most important, we would especially like to thank the hundreds of community members, law enforcement officers and executives, associations and stakeholders, researchers and academics, and civic 

leaders nationwide who stepped forward to support the efforts of the task force and to lend their 

experience and expertise during the development of the recommendations contained in this report. 

The passion and commitment shared by all to building strong relationships between law enforcement 

and communities became a continual source of inspiration and encouragement to the task force. 

The dedication of our fellow task force members and their commitment to the process of arriving at 

consensus around these recommendations is also worth acknowledging. The task force members 

brought diverse perspectives to the table and were able to come together to engage in meaningful 

dialogue on emotionally charged issues in a respectful and effective manner. We believe the type of 

constructive dialogue we have engaged in should serve as an example of the type of dialogue that 

must occur in communities throughout the nation.
F i n a l R e p o r t o f t h e P r e s i d e n t ’ s T a s k F o r c e o n 2 1 s t C e n t u r y P o l i c i n g

i v

While much work remains to be done to address many longstanding issues and challenges—not only 

within the field of law enforcement but also within the broader criminal justice system—this experience 

has demonstrated to us that Americans are, by nature, problem solvers. It is our hope that the recommendations included here will meaningfully contribute to our nation’s efforts to increase trust between 

law enforcement and the communities they protect and serve.

Charles H. Ramsey Laurie O. Robinson

Co-Chair Co-Chair
v

President Barack Obama joins members of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing for a group photo in the Oval Office, March 2, 2015.

OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE PHOTO BY PETE SOUZA

MEMBERS OF THE TASK FORCE

Co-Chairs

Charles Ramsey, Commissioner, Philadelphia Police Department 

Laurie Robinson, Professor, George Mason University

Members

Cedric L. Alexander, Deputy Chief Operating Officer for Public Safety, DeKalb County, Georgia

Jose Lopez, Lead Organizer, Make the Road New York

Tracey L. Meares, Walton Hale Hamilton Professor of Law, Yale Law School 

Brittany N. Packnett, Executive Director, Teach For America, St. Louis, Missouri

Susan Lee Rahr, Executive Director, Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission

Constance Rice, Co-Director, Advancement Project

Sean Michael Smoot, Director and Chief Counsel, Police Benevolent & Protective Association of Illinois

Bryan Stevenson, Founder and Executive Director, Equal Justice Initiative

Roberto Villaseñor, Chief of Police, Tucson Police Department
PHOTO: BRANDON TRAMEL
v i i

TASK FORCE STAFF

The U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, led by Director Ronald 

L. Davis, provided administrative services, funds, facilities, staff, equipment, and other support services as 

necessary for the task force to carry out its mission:

Executive Director Ronald L. Davis

Chief of Staff Melanca Clark

Communications Director Silas Darden (Office of Justice Programs)

General Counsel Charlotte Grzebien

External Affairs Liaison Danielle Ouellette

External Affairs Liaison Sheryl Thomas

Legislative Liaison Shannon Long

Project Manager Deborah Spence

Senior Policy Advisor Katherine McQuay

Site Manager Laurel Matthews

Special Assistant Michael Franko

Special Assistant Jennifer Rosenberger

Writer Janice Delaney (Office of Justice Programs)

Writer Faye Elkins

Strategic Applications International (SAI):

1

 James Copple, Colleen Copple, Jessica Drake, 

Jason Drake, Steven Minson, Letitia Harmon, Anthony Coulson, Mike McCormack, Shawnee 

Bigelow, Monica Palacio, and Adrienne Semidey

Technical Advisors: Stephen Rickman and Darrel Stephens

Consultant Research Assistants: Jan Hudson, Yasemin Irvin-Erickson, Katie Jares, Erin Kearns, 

Belen Lowrey, and Kristina Lugo

1. SAI provided technical and logistical support through a cooperative agreement with the COPS Office.

i x

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The task force received support from other components of the U.S. Department of Justice, including the 

Office of Justice Programs, led by Assistant Attorney General Karol Mason, and the Civil Rights Division, 

led by Acting Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta.

The following individuals from across the U.S. Department of Justice also assisted the task force in its 

work: Eric Agner, Amin Aminfar, Pete Brien, Pamela Cammarata, Erin Canning, Ed Chung, Caitlin Currie, 

Shanetta Cutlar, Melissa Fox, Shirlethia Franklin, Ann Hamilton, Najla Haywood, Esteban Hernandez, 

Natalie Hopewell, Arthur Gary, Tammie Gregg, Richard Hughes, Valerie Jordan, Mark Kappelhoff, John 

Kim, Kevin Lewis, Robert Listenbee, Cynthia Pappas, Scott Pestridge, Channing Phillips, Melissa Randolph, 

Margaret Richardson, Janice Rodgers, Elizabeth Simpson, Jonathan Smith, Brandon Tramel, Donte Turner, 

and Miriam Vogel. 
F i n a l R e p o r t o f t h e P r e s i d e n t ’ s T a s k F o r c e o n 2 1 s t C e n t u r y P o l i c i n g

Cincinnati Police Chief Jeffrey Blackwell welcomes the task force to the University of Cincinnati, January 30, 2015. PHOTO: DEBORAH SPENCE
1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Trust between law enforcement agencies and 

the people they protect and serve is essential in a 

democracy. It is key to the stability of our communities, the integrity of our criminal justice system, and 

the safe and effective delivery of policing services. 

In light of recent events that have exposed rifts 

in the relationships between local police and the 

communities they protect and serve, on December 18, 2014, President Barack Obama signed an 

executive order establishing the Task Force on 21st 

Century Policing. The President charged the task 

force with identifying best practices and offering 

recommendations on how policing practices can 

promote effective crime reduction while building 

public trust. 

This executive summary provides an overview 

of the recommendations of the task force, which 

met seven times in January and February of 2015. 

These listening sessions, held in Washington, D.C.; 

Phoenix, Arizona; and Cincinnati, Ohio, brought 

the 11 members of the task force together with 

more than 100 individuals from diverse stakeholder 

groups—law enforcement officers and executives, 

community members, civic leaders, advocates, 

researchers, academics, and others—in addition to 

many others who submitted written testimony to 

study the problems from all perspectives.

The task force recommendations, each with action 

items, are organized around six main topic areas or 

“pillars:” Building Trust and Legitimacy, Policy and 

Oversight, Technology and Social Media, Community Policing and Crime Reduction, Officer Training 

and Education, and Officer Safety and Wellness. 

The task force also offered two overarching recommendations: the President should support the 

creation of a National Crime and Justice Task Force 

to examine all areas of criminal justice and propose reforms; as a corollary to this effort, the task 

force also recommends that the President support 

programs that take a comprehensive and inclusive 

look at community-based initiatives addressing 

core issues such as poverty, education, and health 

and safety.

Pillar One: Building Trust 

and Legitimacy

Building trust and nurturing legitimacy on both 

sides of the police/citizen divide is the foundational principle underlying the nature of relations 

between law enforcement agencies and the 

communities they serve. Decades of research 

and practice support the premise that people are 

more likely to obey the law when they believe that 

those who are enforcing it have authority that is 

perceived as legitimate by those subject to the 

authority. The public confers legitimacy only on 

those whom they believe are acting in procedurally just ways. In addition, law enforcement cannot 

build community trust if it is seen as an occupying 

force coming in from outside to impose control on 

the community. Pillar one seeks to provide focused 

recommendations on building this relationship. 

Law enforcement culture should embrace a guardian—rather than a warrior—mindset to build trust 

and legitimacy both within agencies and with 

the public. Toward that end, law enforcement 

agencies should adopt procedural justice as the 

guiding principle for internal and external policies 

and practices to guide their interactions with rank 

and file officers and with the citizens they serve. 

Law enforcement agencies should also establish 

a culture of transparency and accountability to 

build public trust and legitimacy. This is critical to 

ensuring decision making is understood and in 

accord with stated policy.
F i n a l R e p o r t o f t h e P r e s i d e n t ’ s T a s k F o r c e o n 2 1 s t C e n t u r y P o l i c i n g

2

Law enforcement agencies should also proactively 

promote public trust by initiating positive nonenforcement activities to engage communities 

that typically have high rates of investigative and 

enforcement involvement with government agencies. Law enforcement agencies should also track 

and analyze the level of trust communities have in 

police just as they measure changes in crime. This 

can be accomplished through consistent annual 

community surveys. Finally, law enforcement 

agencies should strive to create a workforce that 

encompasses a broad range of diversity including 

race, gender, language, life experience, and cultural background to improve understanding and 

effectiveness in dealing with all communities. 

Pillar Two: Policy and Oversight

Pillar two emphasizes that if police are to carry out 

their responsibilities according to established policies, those policies must reflect community values. 

Law enforcement agencies should collaborate with 

community members, especially in communities 

and neighborhoods disproportionately affected 

by crime, to develop policies and strategies for 

deploying resources that aim to reduce crime by 

improving relationships, increasing community 

engagement, and fostering cooperation. 

To achieve this end, law enforcement agencies 

should have clear and comprehensive policies on 

the use of force (including training on the importance of de-escalation), mass demonstrations 

(including the appropriate use of equipment, 

particularly rifles and armored personnel carriers), 

consent before searches, gender identification, 

racial profiling, and performance measures—

among others such as external and independent 

investigations and prosecutions of officer-involved 

shootings and other use of force situations and 

in-custody deaths. These policies should also include provisions for the collection of demographic 

data on all parties involved. All policies and 

aggregate data should be made publicly available 

to ensure transparency. 

To ensure policies are maintained and current, 

law enforcement agencies are encouraged to 

periodically review policies and procedures, 

conduct nonpunitive peer reviews of critical 

incidents separate from criminal and administrative investigations, and establish civilian oversight 

mechanisms with their communities. 

Finally, to assist law enforcement and the community achieve the elements of pillar two, the 

U.S. Department of Justice, through the Office 

of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS 

Office) and Office of Justice Programs (OJP), should 

provide technical assistance and incentive funding 

to jurisdictions with small police agencies that take 

steps toward interagency collaboration, shared 

services, and regional training. They should also 

partner with the International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training 

(IADLEST) to expand its National Decertification 

Index to serve as the National Register of Decertified Officers with the goal of covering all agencies 

within the United States and its territories.

Pillar Three: Technology & 

Social Media

The use of technology can improve policing practices and build community trust and legitimacy, but its 

implementation must be built on a defined policy 

framework with its purposes and goals clearly delineated. Implementing new technologies can give 

police departments an opportunity to fully engage 

and educate communities in a dialogue about their 

expectations for transparency, accountability, and 

privacy. But technology changes quickly in terms 

of new hardware, software, and other options. Law 

enforcement agencies and leaders need to be able 
3

E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y

to identify, assess, and evaluate new technology 

for adoption and do so in ways that improve their 

effectiveness, efficiency, and evolution without 

infringing on individual rights. 

Pillar three guides the implementation, use, and 

evaluation of technology and social media by law 

enforcement agencies. To build a solid foundation 

for law enforcement agencies in this field, the U.S. 

Department of Justice, in consultation with the 

law enforcement field, should establish national 

standards for the research and development of 

new technology including auditory, visual, and biometric data, “less than lethal” technology, and the 

development of segregated radio spectrum such 

as FirstNet. These standards should also address 

compatibility, interoperability, and implementation 

needs both within local law enforcement agencies 

and across agencies and jurisdictions and should 

maintain civil and human rights protections. Law 

enforcement implementation of technology 

should be designed considering local needs and 

aligned with these national standards. Finally, 

law enforcement agencies should adopt model 

policies and best practices for technology-based 

community engagement that increases community trust and access. 

Pillar Four: Community Policing & 

Crime Reduction

Pillar four focuses on the importance of community policing as a guiding philosophy for all 

stakeholders. Community policing emphasizes 

working with neighborhood residents to coproduce public safety. Law enforcement agencies 

should, therefore, work with community residents 

to identify problems and collaborate on implementing solutions that produce meaningful results 

for the community. Specifically, law enforcement 

agencies should develop and adopt policies and 

strategies that reinforce the importance of community engagement in managing public safety. 

Law enforcement agencies should also engage in 

multidisciplinary, community team approaches for 

planning, implementing, and responding to crisis 

situations with complex causal factors. 

Communities should support a culture and 

practice of policing that reflects the values of 

protection and promotion of the dignity of all—

especially the most vulnerable, such as children 

and youth most at risk for crime or violence. Law 

enforcement agencies should avoid using law 

enforcement tactics that unnecessarily stigmatize 

youth and marginalize their participation in schools 

(where law enforcement officers should have limited involvement in discipline) and communities. In 

addition, communities need to affirm and recognize the voices of youth in community decision 

making, facilitate youth participation in research 

and problem solving, and develop and fund youth 

leadership training and life skills through positive 

youth/police collaboration and interactions.

Pillar Five: Training & Education

As 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. Today’s line 

officers and leaders must be trained and capable 

to address a wide variety of challenges including 

international terrorism, evolving technologies, 

rising immigration, changing laws, new cultural 

mores, and a growing mental health crisis. 

Pillar five focuses on the training and education 

needs of law enforcement. To ensure the high 

quality and effectiveness of training and education, law enforcement agencies should engage 

community members, particularly those with special expertise, in the training process and provide 

leadership training to all personnel throughout 

their careers. 
F i n a l R e p o r t o f t h e P r e s i d e n t ’ s T a s k F o r c e o n 2 1 s t C e n t u r y P o l i c i n g

4

To further assist the training and educational 

needs of law enforcement, the Federal Government should support the development of 

partnerships with training facilities across the 

country to promote consistent standards for high 

quality training and establish training innovation 

hubs involving universities and police academies. 

A national postgraduate institute of policing for 

senior executives should be created with a standardized curriculum preparing participants to lead 

agencies in the 21st century. 

One specific method of increasing the quality of 

training would be to ensure that Peace Officer 

and Standards Training (POST) boards include 

mandatory Crisis Intervention Training (CIT), which 

equips officers to deal with individuals in crisis or 

living with mental disabilities, as part of both basic 

recruit and in-service officer training—as well as 

instruction in disease of addiction, implicit bias 

and cultural responsiveness, policing in a democratic society, procedural justice, and effective 

social interaction and tactical skills. 

Pillar Six: Officer Wellness & Safety

The wellness and safety of law enforcement 

officers is critical not only for the officers, their 

colleagues, and their agencies but also to public 

safety. Pillar six emphasizes the support and proper implementation of officer wellness and safety as 

a multi-partner effort. 

The U.S. Department of Justice should enhance 

and further promote its multi-faceted officer safety 

and wellness initiative. Two specific strategies 

recommended for the U.S. Department of Justice 

include (1) encouraging and assisting departments 

in the implementation of scientifically supported 

shift lengths by law enforcement and (2) expanding efforts to collect and analyze data not only on 

officer deaths but also on injuries and “near misses.” 

Law enforcement agencies should also promote 

wellness and safety at every level of the organization. For instance, every law enforcement officer 

should be provided with individual tactical first aid 

kits and training as well as anti-ballistic vests. In 

addition, law enforcement agencies should adopt 

policies that require officers to wear seat belts and 

bullet-proof vests and provide training to raise 

awareness of the consequences of failure to do so. 

Internal procedural justice principles should be adopted for all internal policies and interactions. The 

Federal Government should develop programs 

to provide financial support for law enforcement 

officers to continue to pursue educational opportunities. Finally, Congress should develop and 

enact peer review error management legislation.

Implementation Recommendations 

The administration, through policies and practices 

already in place, can start right now to move 

forward on the recommendations contained in 

this report. The President should direct all federal 

law enforcement agencies to implement the task 

force recommendations to the extent practicable, and the U.S. Department of Justice should 

explore public-private partnership opportunities 

with foundations to advance implementation of 

the recommendations. Finally, the COPS Office 

and OJP should take a series of targeted actions 

to assist the law enforcement field in addressing 

current and future challenges. 

Conclusion

The members of the Task Force on 21st Century 

Policing are convinced that the concrete recommendations contained in this publication will 

bring long-term improvements to the ways in 

which law enforcement agencies interact with and 

bring positive change to their communities. 
5

INTRODUCTION

“When any part of the American family does not feel like it is being 

treated fairly, that’s a problem for all of us.”

—President Barack Obama

Trust between law enforcement agencies and 

the people they protect and serve is essential 

in a democracy. It is key to the stability of our 

communities, the integrity of our criminal justice 

system, and the safe and effective delivery of 

policing services.

In light of the recent events that have exposed 

rifts in the relationships between local police and 

the communities they protect and serve, on December 18, 2014, President Barack Obama signed 

Executive Order 13684 establishing the Task Force 

on 21st Century Policing. 

In establishing the task force, the President spoke 

of the distrust that exists between too many 

police departments and too many communities—the sense that in a country where our basic 

principle is equality under the law, too many 

individuals, particularly young people of color, do 

not feel as if they are being treated fairly.

“When any part of the American family does not 

feel like it is being treated fairly, that’s a problem 

for all of us,” said the President. “It’s not just a 

problem for some. It’s not just a problem for a 

particular community or a particular demographic

It means that we are not as strong as a country 

as we can be. And when applied to the criminal 

justice system, it means we’re not as effective in 

fighting crime as we could be.”

These remarks underpin the philosophical 

foundation for the Task Force on 21st Century 

Policing: to build trust between citizens and their 

peace officers so that all components of a community are treating one another fairly and justly 

and are invested in maintaining public safety in 

an atmosphere of mutual respect. Decades of 

research and practice tell us that the public cares 

as much about how police interact with them as 

they care about the outcomes that legal actions 

produce. People are more likely to obey the law 

when they believe those who are enforcing it 

have the right—the legitimate authority—to tell 

them what to do.2

 Building trust and legitimacy, 

therefore, is not just a policing issue. It involves all 

components of the criminal justice system and 

is inextricably bound to bedrock issues affecting 

the community such as poverty, education, and 

public health.

The mission of the task force was to examine ways 

of fostering strong, collaborative relationships 

between local law enforcement and the communities they protect and to make recommendations 

to the President on ways policing practices can 

promote effective crime reduction while building . public trust. The President selected members of 

the task force based on their ability to contribute 

to its mission because of their relevant perspective, experience, or subject matter expertise 

in policing, law enforcement and community 

relations, civil rights, and civil liberties.

2. T.R. Tyler, Why People Obey the Law (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 

1990); M.S. Frazer, The Impact of the Community Court Model on Defendant 

Perceptions of Fairness: A Case Study at the Red Hook Community Justice Center (New 

York: Center for Court Innovation, 2006).
F i n a l R e p o r t o f t h e P r e s i d e n t ’ s T a s k F o r c e o n 2 1 s t C e n t u r y P o l i c i n g

6

The task force was given 90 days to conduct 

hearings, review the research, and make recommendations to the President, so its focus was 

sharp and necessarily limited. It concentrated 

on defining the cross-cutting issues affecting 

police-community interactions, questioning 

the contemporary relevance and truth about 

long-held assumptions regarding the nature and 

methods of policing, and identifying the areas 

where research is needed to highlight examples 

of evidence-based policing practices compatible 

with present realities. 

To fulfill this mission, the task force convened seven listening sessions to hear testimony—including 

recommendations for action—from government 

officials; law enforcement officers; academic experts; technical advisors; leaders from established 

nongovernmental organizations, including grassroots movements; and any other members of the 

public who wished to comment. The listening 

sessions were held in Washington, D.C., January 13; 

Cincinnati, Ohio, January 30–31; Phoenix, Arizona, 

February 13–14; and again in Washington, D.C., 

February 23–24. Other forms of outreach included 

a number of White House listening sessions to 

engage other constituencies, such as people with 

disabilities, the LGBTQ community, and members 

of the armed forces, as well as careful study of 

scholarly articles, research reports, and written 

contributions from informed experts in various 

fields relevant to the task force’s mission.

Each of the seven public listening sessions addressed a specific aspect of policing and 

police-community relations, although crosscutting issues and concerns made their appearance at every session. At the first session, Building 

Trust and Legitimacy, the topic of procedural 

justice was discussed as a foundational necessity 

in building public trust. Subject matter experts 

also testified as to the meaning of “community policing” in its historical and contemporary contexts, 

defining the difference between implicit bias and 

racial discrimination—two concepts at the heart 

of perceived difficulties between police and the 

people. Witnesses from community organizations 

stressed the need for more police involvement in 

community affairs as an essential component of 

their crime fighting duties. Police officers gave the 

beat cop’s perspective on protecting people who 

do not respect their authority, and three big-city 

mayors told of endemic budgetary obstacles to 

addressing policing challenges. 

The session on Policy and Oversight again brought 

witnesses from diverse police forces (both chiefs 

and union representatives), from law and academia, 

and from established civil rights organizations and 

grass-root groups. They discussed use of force from 

the point of view of both research and policy and 

internal and external oversight; explained how they 

prepare for and handle mass demonstrations; and 

pondered culture and diversity in law enforcement. 

Witnesses filled the third session, on Technology 

and Social Media, with testimony on the use of 

body-worn cameras and other technologies from 

the angles of research and legal considerations, 

as well as the intricacies of implementing new 

technologies in the face of privacy issues. They 

discussed the ever-expanding ubiquity of social 

media and its power to work both for and against 

policing practice and public safety.

The Community Policing and Crime Reduction listening session considered current research on the 

effectiveness of community policing on bringing 

down crime, as well as building up public trust. 

Task force members heard detailed descriptions 

of the methods used by chiefs in cities of varying 

sizes to implement effective community policing 

in their jurisdictions over a number of years. They 

also heard from a panel of young people about 

their encounters with the criminal justice system 
7

I n t r o d u c t i o n

and the lasting effects of positive interactions 

with police through structured programs as well 

as individual relationships. The fifth listening 

session considered Training and Education in law 

enforcement over an officer’s entire career—from 

recruitment through basic training to in-service 

training—and the support, education, and 

training of supervisors, leaders, and managers. 

Finally, the panel on Officer Safety and Wellness

considered the spectrum of mental and physical 

health issues faced by police officers from the 

day-to-day stress of the job, its likely effect on an 

officer’s physical health, and the need for mental 

health screening to traffic accidents, burnout, 

suicide, and how better to manage these issues to 

determine the length of an officer’s career.

A listening session on the Future of Community Policing concluded the task force’s public sessions and 

was followed by the deliberations leading to the 

recommendations that follow on ways to research, 

improve, support, and implement policies and 

procedures for effective policing in the 21st century.

Many excellent and specific suggestions emerged 

from these listening sessions on all facets of policing in the 21st century, but many questions arose 

as well. Paramount among them was how to bring 

unity of purpose and consensus on best practices 

to a nation with 18,000 separate law enforcement 

agencies and a strong history of a preference for 

local control of local issues. It became very clear 

that it is time for a comprehensive and multifaceted examination of all the interrelated parts of the 

criminal justice system and a focused investigation 

into how poverty, lack of education, mental health, 

and other social conditions cause or intersect with 

criminal behavior. We propose two overarching 

recommendations that will seek the answers to 

these questions.

0.1 Overarching recOmmendatiOn:

The President should support and provide 

funding for the creation of a National Crime 

and Justice Task Force to review and evaluate 

all components of the criminal justice system 

for the purpose of making recommendations 

to the country on comprehensive criminal 

justice reform.

Several witnesses at the task force’s listening 

sessions pointed to the fact that police represent 

the “face” of the criminal justice system to the 

public. Yet police are obviously not responsible for 

laws or incarceration policies that many citizens 

find unfair. This misassociation leads us to call for a 

broader examination of such issues as drug policy, 

sentencing and incarceration, which are beyond 

the scope of a review of police practices. 

This is not a new idea. 

In the 1967 President’s Commission on Law 

Enforcement and Administration of Justice report, 

The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society, one of the 

major findings stated, “Officials of the criminal 

justice system . . . must re-examine what they do. 

They must be honest about the system’s shortcomings with the public and with themselves.”3

3. The President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of 

Justice, The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society (Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office, 1967), 15, https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/42.pdf.

The need to establish a formal structure to take a 

continuous look at criminal justice reform in the 

context of broad societal issues has never faded 

from public consciousness. When former Senator 

Jim Webb (D-VA) introduced legislation to create 

the National Criminal Justice Commission in 2009, 

a number of very diverse organizations from the 

Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Fraternal Order 

of Police, the National Sheriffs Association, and the 

National District Attorneys Association to Human 

Rights Watch, the American Civil Liberties Union, 
F i n a l R e p o r t o f t h e P r e s i d e n t ’ s T a s k F o r c e o n 2 1 s t C e n t u r y P o l i c i n g

8

and the National Association for the Advancement 

of Colored People all supported it. This legislation 

would have authorized a national criminal justice 

commission to conduct a comprehensive review 

of the criminal justice system by a bipartisan panel 

of stakeholders, policymakers, and experts that 

would make thoughtful, evidence-based recommendations for reform. The bill received strong 

bipartisan support and passed the House but 

never received a final vote.

More recently, a number of witnesses raised the 

idea of a national commission at the task force’s 

listening sessions—notably Richard Beary, president of the International Association of Chiefs of 

Police (IACP), who said,

For over 20 years, the IACP has called for the 

creation of a National Commission on Criminal 

Justice to develop across-the-board improvements 

to the criminal justice system in order to address 

current challenges and to increase the efficiency 

and effectiveness of the entire criminal justice 

community. A deep dive into community-police 

relations is only one part of this puzzle. We must 

explore other aspects of the criminal justice system 

that need to be revamped and further contribute to 

today’s challenges.4

4. Listening Session on Building Trust and Legitimacy (oral testimony of Richard 

Beary, president, IACP, for the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, 

Washington, DC, January 13–14, 2015).

And Jeremy Travis, president of John Jay 

College of Criminal Justice, added, in the final 

listening session,

You said it is time to look at the criminal justice 

system, and actually I would broaden the scope. We 

have this question of how to reintegrate into our 

society those who have caused harms . . . . It is not 

just the system but these big, democratic, societal 

questions that go to government functions and how 

we deal with conflict as well.5

A panel of community voices with Allie Bones, Renaldo Fowler, Keeshan Harley, Andrea Ritchie, and Linda Sarsour, Phoenix, February 14, 2015.

PHOTO: DEBORAH SPENCE

0.2 Overarching recOmmendatiOn:

The President should promote programs 

that take a comprehensive and inclusive look 

at community-based initiatives that address 

the core issues of poverty, education, health, 

and safety. 

As is evident from many of the recommendations 

in this report, the justice system alone cannot 

solve many of the underlying conditions that give 

rise to crime. It will be through partnerships across 

sectors and at every level of government that we 

will find the effective and legitimate long-term 

solutions to ensuring public safety. 

5. Listening Session on the Future of Community Policing (oral testimony of 

Jeremy Travis, president, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, for the President’s Task 

Force on 21st Century Policing, Washington, DC, January 24, 2015).
9

PILLAR 1 . BUILDING TRUST & LEGITIMACY

People are more likely to obey the law when they believe that those 

who are enforcing it have the legitimate authority to tell them what 

to do . . . . The public confers legitimacy only on those they believe 

are acting in procedurally just ways.

Figure 1. Confidence in police to protect them from violent crime, U.S. Whites vs. non-Whites

Source: Justin McCarthy, “Nonwhites Less Likely” (see note 6). 

Copyright © 2014 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. The content is used with permission; however, Gallup retains all rights of republication.

Building trust and nurturing legitimacy on both 

sides of the police-citizen divide is not only the first 

pillar of this task force’s report but also the foundational principle underlying this inquiry into the 

nature of relations between law enforcement and 

the communities they serve. Since the 1990s, policing has become more effective, better equipped, 

and better organized to tackle crime. Despite this, 

Gallup polls show the public’s confidence in police 

work has remained flat, and among some populations of color, confidence has declined.6

6. Justin McCarthy, “Nonwhites Less Likely to Feel Police Protect and Serve 

Them,” Gallup: Politics, November 17, 2014, http://www.gallup.com/poll/179468/

nonwhites-less-likely-feel-police-protect-serve.aspx.

This decline is in addition to the fact that nonWhites have always had less confidence in law 

enforcement than Whites, likely because “the 

poor and people of color have felt the greatest 

impact of mass incarceration,” such that for “too 

many poor citizens and people of color, arrest 

and imprisonment have become an inevitable 

and seemingly unavoidable part of the American 

experience.”7

7. Bryan Stevenson, “Confronting Mass Imprisonment and Restoring Fairness to 

Collateral Review of Criminal Cases,” Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review

41 (Summer 2006): 339–367.

Decades of research and practice 

support the premise that people are more likely to 

obey the law when they believe that those 
F i n a l R e p o r t o f t h e P r e s i d e n t ’ s T a s k F o r c e o n 2 1 s t C e n t u r y P o l i c i n g

1 0

who are enforcing it have the legitimate authority 

to tell them what to do. But the public confers 

legitimacy only on those they believe are acting in 

procedurally just ways. 

Procedurally just behavior is based on four central 

principles: 

1. Treating people with dignity and respect

2. Giving individuals “voice” during encounters

3. Being neutral and transparent in 

decision making

4. Conveying trustworthy motives8

Research demonstrates that these principles lead 

to relationships in which the community trusts 

that officers are honest, unbiased, benevolent, and 

lawful. The community therefore feels obligated to 

follow the law and the dictates of legal authorities 

and is more willing to cooperate with and engage 

those authorities because it believes that it shares a 

common set of interests and values with the police.9

There are both internal and external aspects to 

procedural justice in policing agencies. Internal 

procedural justice refers to practices within an 

agency and the relationships officers have with 

their colleagues and leaders. Research on internal 

procedural justice tells us that officers who feel 

respected by their supervisors and peers are more 

likely to accept departmental policies, understand 

decisions, and comply with them voluntarily.10

8. Lorraine Mazerolle, Sarah Bennett, Jacqueline Davis, Elise Sargeant, 

and Matthew Manning, “Legitimacy in Policing: A Systematic Review,” The 

Campbell Collection Library of Systematic Reviews 9 (Oslo, Norway: The Campbell 

Collaboration, 2013).

9. Tom Tyler, Jonathon Jackson, and Ben Bradford, “Procedural Justice and 

Cooperation,” in Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice, eds. Gerben 

Bruinsma and David Weisburd (New York: Springer, 2014), 4011–4024.

10. Nicole Haas et al., “Explaining Officer Compliance: The Importance of 

Procedural Justice and Trust inside a Police Organization,” Criminology and 

Criminal Justice (January 2015), doi: 10.1177/1748895814566288; COPS Office, 

“Comprehensive Law Enforcement Review: Procedural Justice and Legitimacy,” 

accessed February 28, 2015, http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/taskforce/ 

Procedural-Justice-and-Legitimacy-LE-Review-Summary.pdf.

It 

follows that officers who feel respected by their 

organizations are more likely to bring this respect 

into their interactions with the people they serve.

External procedural justice focuses on the ways 

officers and other legal authorities interact with 

the public and how the characteristics of those interactions shape the public’s trust of the police. It 

is important to understand that a key component 

of external procedural justice—the practice of fair 

and impartial policing—is built on understanding 

and acknowledging human biases,11 both explicit 

and implicit. 

All human beings have biases or prejudices as 

a result of their experiences, and these biases 

influence how they might react when dealing 

with unfamiliar people or situations. An explicit 

bias is a conscious bias about certain populations 

based upon race, gender, socioeconomic status, 

sexual orientation, or other attributes.12 Common 

sense shows that explicit bias is incredibly damaging to police-community relations, and there is 

a growing body of research evidence that shows 

that implicit bias—the biases people are not even 

aware they have—is harmful as well. 

Witness Jennifer Eberhardt said,

Bias is not limited to so-called “bad people.” And 

it certainly is not limited to police officers. The 

problem is a widespread one that arises from history, 

from culture, and from racial inequalities that still 

pervade our society and are especially salient in the 

context of criminal justice.13

11. Lorie Fridell, “This is Not Your Grandparents’ Prejudice: The Implications of 

the Modern Science of Bias for Police Training,” Translational Criminology (Fall 

2013):10–11.

12. Susan Fiske, “Are We Born Racist?” Greater Good (Summer 2008):14–17.

13. Listening Session on Building Trust and Legitimacy (oral testimony of Jennifer 

Eberhardt for the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Washington, DC, 

January 13, 2015).
1 1

P i l l a r 1 . B u i l d i n g T r u s t & L e g i t i m a c y

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.

The first witnesses at the task force sessions on 

the first pillar also directly addressed the need for 

a change in the culture in which police do their 

work: the use of disrespectful language and the 

implicit biases that lead officers to rely upon race 

in the context of stop and frisk. They addressed 

the need for police officers to find how much they 

have in common with the people they serve—

not the lines of authority they may perceive to 

separate them—and to continue with enduring 

programs proven successful over many years.

Several speakers stressed the continuing need 

for civilian oversight and urged more research 

into proving ways it can be most effective. And 

many spoke to the complicated issue of diversity 

in recruiting, especially Sherrilyn Ifill, who said of 

youth in poor communities,

By the time you are 17, you have been stopped 

and frisked a dozen times. That does not make that 

17-year-old want to become a police officer . . . . 

The challenge is to transform the idea of policing in 

communities among young people into something 

they see as honorable. They have to see people 

at local events, as the person who lives across the 

street, not someone who comes in and knows 

nothing about my community.14

The task force’s specific recommendations that 

follow offer practical ways agencies can act to 

promote legitimacy. 

14. Listening Session on Building Trust and Legitimacy (oral testimony 

of Sherrilyn Ifill, president and director-counsel, NAACP Legal Defense and 

Educational Fund, Inc., for the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, 

Washington, DC, January 13, 2015); “Statement by the NAACP Legal Defense 

and Educational Fund, Inc.” (written testimony submitted for listening session at 

Washington, DC, January 13, 2015). 

1.1 recOmmendatiOn: Law enforcement 

culture should embrace a guardian mindset to 

build public trust and legitimacy. Toward that 

end, police and sheriffs’ departments should 

adopt procedural justice as the guiding principle 

for internal and external policies and practices to 

guide their interactions with the citizens they serve.

How officers define their role will set the tone 

for the community. As Plato wrote, “In a republic 

that honors the core of democracy—the greatest amount of power is given to those called 

Guardians. Only those with the most impeccable 

character are chosen to bear the responsibility of 

protecting the democracy.” 

Law enforcement cannot build community trust 

if it is seen as an occupying force coming in from 

outside to rule and control the community. 

As task force member Susan Rahr wrote,

In 2012, we began asking the question, “Why are we 

training police officers like soldiers?” Although police 

officers wear uniforms and carry weapons, the similarity 

ends there. The missions and rules of engagement 

are completely different. The soldier’s mission is that 

of a warrior: to conquer. The rules of engagement are 

decided before the battle. The police officer’s mission is 

that of a guardian: to protect. The rules of engagement 

evolve as the incident unfolds. Soldiers must follow 

orders. Police officers must make independent 

decisions. Soldiers come into communities as an 

outside, occupying force. Guardians are members of 

the community, protecting from within.15

15. Sue Rahr, “Transforming the Culture of Policing from Warriors to Guardians 

in Washington State,” International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement 

Standards and Training Newsletter 25, no. 4 (2014): 3–4; see also Sue Rahr and 

Stephen K. Rice, “From Warriors to Guardians: Recommitting American Police 

Culture to Democratic Ideals,” New Perspectives in Policing Bulletin (Washington, 

DC: National Institute of Justice, 2015), NCJ 248654, http://www.hks.harvard.edu/

content/download/76023/1708385/version/1/file/WarriorstoGuardians.pdf. 

There’s an old saying, “Organizational culture 

eats policy for lunch.” Any law enforcement 
F i n a l R e p o r t o f t h e P r e s i d e n t ’ s T a s k F o r c e o n 2 1 s t C e n t u r y P o l i c i n g

1 2

organization can make great rules and policies 

that emphasize the guardian role, but if policies 

conflict with the existing culture, they will not be 

institutionalized and behavior will not change. In 

police work, the vast majority of an officer’s work is 

done independently outside the immediate oversight of a supervisor. But consistent enforcement 

of rules that conflict with a military-style culture, 

where obedience to the chain of command is the 

norm, is nearly impossible. Behavior is more likely 

to conform to culture than rules. 

The culture of policing is also important to the 

proper exercise of officer discretion and use of 

authority, as task force member Tracey Meares has 

written.16 The values and ethics of the agency will 

guide officers in their decision-making process; 

they cannot simply rely on rules and policy to act 

in encounters with the public. Good policing is 

more than just complying with the law. Sometimes actions are perfectly permitted by policy, 

but that does not always mean an officer should 

take those actions. Adopting procedural justice 

as the guiding principle for internal and external 

policies and practices can be the underpinning 

of a change in culture and should contribute to 

building trust and confidence in the community. 

1.2 recOmmendatiOn: Law enforcement 

agencies should acknowledge the role of 

policing in past and present injustice and 

discrimination and how it is a hurdle to the 

promotion of community trust. 

At one listening session, a panel of police chiefs 

described what they had been doing in recent 

years to recognize and own their history and to 

change the culture within both their police forces 

and their communities. 

16. Tracey L. Meares, “Rightful Policing,” New Perspectives in Policing Bulletin

(Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, 2015), NCJ 248411, 

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/content/download/74084/1679313/

version/4/file/RightfulPolicing.pdf.

Baltimore Police Commissioner Anthony Batts 

described the process in his city:

The process started with the commissioning of a 

study to evaluate the police department and the 

community’s views of the agency . . . . The review 

uncovered broken policies, outdated procedures, 

outmoded technology, and operating norms that 

put officers at odds with the community they are 

meant to serve. It was clear that dramatic and 

dynamic change was needed.17

Ultimately, the Baltimore police created the 

Professional Standards and Accountability Bureau, 

tasked with rooting out corruption, holding officers accountable, and implementing national best 

practices for polices and training. New department 

heads were appointed and a use of force review 

structure based on the Las Vegas model was 

implemented. “These were critical infrastructure 

changes centered on the need to improve the internal systems that would build accountability and 

transparency, inside and outside the organization,” 

noted Commissioner Batts.18

1.2.1 Action Item: The U.S. Department of 

Justice should develop and disseminate case studies 

that provide examples where past injustices were 

publicly acknowledged by law enforcement agencies in a manner to help build community trust.

1.3 Recommendation: Law enforcement 

agencies should establish a culture of 

transparency and accountability in order to 

build public trust and legitimacy. This will help 

ensure decision making is understood and in 

accord with stated policy. 

17. Listening Session on Community Policing and Crime Reduction: Building 

Community Policing Organizations (oral testimony of Anthony Batts, commissioner, 

Baltimore Police Department, for the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, 

Phoenix, AZ, February 13, 2015).

18. Ibid.
1 3

P i l l a r 1 . B u i l d i n g T r u s t & L e g i t i m a c y

1.3.1 Action Item: To embrace a culture of 

transparency, law enforcement agencies should 

make all department policies available for public 

review and regularly post on the department’s 

website information about stops, summonses, arrests, reported crime, and other law enforcement 

data aggregated by demographics. 

1.3.2 Action Item: When serious incidents 

occur, including those involving alleged police 

misconduct, agencies should communicate 

with citizens and the media swiftly, openly, 

and neutrally, respecting areas where the law 

requires confidentiality.

One way to promote neutrality is to ensure that 

agencies and their members do not release background information on involved parties. While a 

great deal of information is often publicly available, this information should not be proactively 

distributed by law enforcement.

Figure 2. Community members’ confidence in their police officers

Note: Survey conducted August 20–24, 2014. Voluntary responses of “None” and “Don’t know/Refused” not shown. Blacks and Whites include only non-Hispanics. 

Hispanics are of any race.

Source: Jens Manuel Krogstad, “Latino Confidence in Local Police Lower than among Whites,” Pew Research Center, August 28, 2014, 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/08/28/latino-confidence-in-local-police-lower-than-among-whites/.
F i n a l R e p o r t o f t h e P r e s i d e n t ’ s T a s k F o r c e o n 2 1 s t C e n t u r y P o l i c i n g

1 4

1.4 recOmmendatiOn: Law enforcement 

agencies should promote legitimacy internally 

within the organization by applying the 

principles of procedural justice.

Organizational culture created through employee 

interaction with management can be linked to 

officers’ interaction with citizens. When an agency 

creates an environment that promotes internal 

procedural justice, it encourages its officers to 

demonstrate external procedural justice. And just 

as employees are more likely to take direction 

from management when they believe management’s authority is legitimate, citizens are more 

likely to cooperate with the police when they 

believe the officers’ authority is legitimate. 

Internal procedural justice begins with the clear 

articulation of organizational core values and 

the transparent creation and fair application 

of an organization’s policies, protocols, and 

decision-making processes. If the workforce is 

actively involved in policy development, workers 

are more likely to use these same principles of 

external procedural justice in their interactions 

with the community. Even though the approach 

to implementing procedural justice is “top down,” 

the method should include all employees to best 

reach a shared vision and mission. Research shows 

that agencies should also use tools that encourage employee and supervisor collaboration and 

foster strong relationships between supervisors 

and employees. A more effective agency will result 

from a real partnership between the chief and the 

staff and a shared approach to public safety.19

1.4.1 Action Item: In order to achieve 

internal legitimacy, law enforcement agencies should involve employees in the process 

of developing policies and procedures. 

19. Tim Richardson (senior legislative liaison, Fraternal Order of Police), in 

discussion with Ajima Olaghere (research assistant, COPS Office, Washington, DC), 

October 2014.

For example, internal department surveys should 

ask officers what they think of policing strategies 

in terms of enhancing or hurting their ability to 

connect with the public. Sometimes the leadership is out of step with their rank and file, and 

a survey like this can be a diagnostic tool—a 

benchmark against which leadership can measure 

its effectiveness and ability to create a work environment where officers feel safe to discuss their 

feelings about certain aspects of the job. 

1.4.2 Action Item: Law enforcement agency 

leadership should examine opportunities to incorporate procedural justice into the internal discipline 

process, placing additional importance on values 

adherence rather than adherence to rules. Union 

leadership should be partners in this process. 

1.5 recOmmendatiOn: Law enforcement 

agencies should proactively promote public 

trust by initiating positive nonenforcement 

activities to engage communities that 

typically have high rates of investigative and 

enforcement involvement with government 

agencies. 

In communities that have high numbers of interactions with authorities for a variety of reasons, 

police should actively create opportunities for 

interactions that are positive and not related to 

investigation or enforcement action. Witness 

Laura Murphy, for example, pointed out that when 

law enforcement targets people of color for the 

isolated actions of a few, it tags an entire community as lawless when in actuality 95 percent 

are law abiding.20

20. Listening Session on Building Trust and Legitimacy (oral testimony of Laura 

Murphy to the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Washington, DC, 

January 13, 2015).

This becomes a self-reinforcing 

concept. Another witness, Carmen Perez, provided 

an example of police engaging with citizens in 

another way:
1 5

P i l l a r 1 . B u i l d i n g T r u s t & L e g i t i m a c y

In the community [where] I grew up in southern 

California, Oxnard, we had the Police Athletic League. 

A lot of officers in our communities would volunteer 

and coach at the police activities league. That 

became our alternative from violence, from gangs 

and things like that. That allows for police officers 

to really build and provide a space to build trusting 

relationships. No longer was that such and such over 

there but it was Coach Flores or Coach Brown.21

In recent years, agencies across the county have 

begun to institutionalize community trust building 

endeavors. They have done this through programs 

such as Coffee with a Cop (and Sweet Tea with the 

Chief ), Cops and Clergy, Citizens on Patrol Mobile, 

Students Talking It Over with Police, and the West 

Side Story Project. Joint community and law dialogues and truth telling, as well as community and 

law enforcement training in procedural justice and 

bias, are also occurring nationally. Some agencies 

are even using training, dialogues, and workshops 

to take steps towards racial reconciliation. 

Agencies engaging in these efforts to build relationships often experience beneficial results.22

Communities are often more willing to assist law 

enforcement when agencies need help during investigations. And when critical incidents occur, those 

agencies already have key allies who can help with 

information messaging and mitigating challenges.

1.5.1 actiOn item: In order to achieve 

external legitimacy, law enforcement agencies 

should involve the community in the process of developing and evaluating policies and procedures.

21. Listening Session on Building Trust and Legitimacy—Community 

Representatives: Building Community Policing Organizations (oral testimony of 

Carmen Perez, executive director, The Gathering for Justice, for the President’s Task 

Force on 21st Century Policing, Washington, DC, January 13, 2015).

22. Constance Rice and Susan K. Lee, Relationship-Based Policing: Achieving 

Safety in Watts (Los Angeles: The Advancement Project, February 2015), 

http://67.20.108.158/sites/default/files/imce/President%27s%20Task%20

Force%20CSP%20Policy%20Brief%20FINAL%2002-27-15.pdf.

1.5.2 actiOn item: Law enforcement agencies should institute residency incentive programs 

such as Resident Officer Programs.

Resident Officer Programs are arrangements 

where law enforcement officers are provided 

housing in public housing neighborhoods as 

long as they fulfill public safety duties within 

the neighborhood that have been agreed to 

between the housing authority and the law 

enforcement agency. 

1.5.3 actiOn item: Law enforcement agencies should create opportunities in schools and 

communities for positive nonenforcement interactions with police. Agencies should also publicize 

the beneficial outcomes and images of positive, 

trust-building partnerships and initiatives. 

For example, Michael Reynolds, a member of the 

Youth and Law Enforcement panel at the Listening 

Session on Community Policing and Crime Reduction, told the moving story of a police officer who 

saw him shivering on the street when he was six 

years old, took him to a store, and bought him a 

coat. Despite many negative encounters with police since then, the decency and kindness of that 

officer continue to favorably impact Mr. Reynolds’ 

feelings towards the police.23

23. Listening Session on Community Policing and Crime Reduction: Youth and 

Law Enforcement (oral testimony of Michael Reynolds, co-president, Youth Power 

Movement, for the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Phoenix, AZ, 

February 13, 2015).

1.5.4 Action Item: Use of physical control 

equipment and techniques against vulnerable 

populations—including children, elderly persons, 

pregnant women, people with physical and mental disabilities, limited English proficiency, and 

others—can undermine public trust and should 

be used as a last resort. Law enforcement agencies 
F i n a l R e p o r t o f t h e P r e s i d e n t ’ s T a s k F o r c e o n 2 1 s t C e n t u r y P o l i c i n g

1 6

should carefully consider and review their policies 

towards these populations and adopt policies if 

none are in place.

1.6 recOmmendatiOn: Law enforcement 

agencies should consider the potential 

damage to public trust when implementing 

crime fighting strategies. 

Crime reduction is not self-justifying. Overly 

aggressive law enforcement strategies can potentially harm communities and do lasting damage to 

public trust, as numerous witnesses over multiple 

listening sessions observed. 

1.6.1 actiOn item: Research conducted 

to evaluate the effectiveness of crime fighting 

strategies should specifically look at the potential 

for collateral damage of any given strategy on 

community trust and legitimacy.

1.7 recOmmendatiOn: Law enforcement 

agencies should track the level of trust in 

police by their communities just as they 

measure changes in crime. Annual community 

surveys, ideally standardized across 

jurisdictions and with accepted sampling 

protocols, can measure how policing in that 

community affects public trust. 

Trust in institutions can only be achieved if the 

public can verify what they are being told about 

a product or service, who is responsible for the 

quality of the product or service, and what will be 

done to correct any problems. To operate effectively, law enforcement agencies must maintain 

public trust by having a transparent, credible 

system of accountability.

Agencies should partner with local universities 

to conduct surveys by ZIP code, for example, to 

measure the effectiveness of specific policing 

strategies, assess any negative impact they have 

on a community’s view of police, and gain the 

community’s input. 

1.7.1 Action Item: The Federal Government should develop survey tools and 

instructions for use of such a model to prevent 

local departments from incurring the expense and 

to allow for consistency across jurisdictions. 

A model such as the National Institute of 

Justice-funded National Police Research Platform 

could be developed and deployed to conduct 

such surveys. This platform seeks to advance the 

science and practice of policing in the United 

States by introducing a new system of measurement and feedback that captures organizational 

excellence both inside and outside the walls of 

the agency. The platform is managed by a team 

of leading police scholars from seven universities supported by the operational expertise of a 

respected national advisory board. 

1.8 recOmmendatiOn: Law enforcement 

agencies should strive to create a workforce 

that contains a broad range of diversity 

including race, gender, language, life 

experience, and cultural background to 

improve understanding and effectiveness in 

dealing with all communities. 

Many agencies have long appreciated the critical 

importance of hiring officers who reflect the 

communities they serve and also have a high 

level of procedural justice competency. Achieving 

diversity in entry level recruiting is important, 

but achieving systematic and comprehensive 

diversification throughout each segment of the 
1 7

P i l l a r 1 . B u i l d i n g T r u s t & L e g i t i m a c y

department is the ultimate goal. It is also important to recognize that diversity means not only 

race and gender but also the genuine diversity 

of identity, experience, and background that has 

been found to help improve the culture of police 

departments and build greater trust and legitimacy with all segments of the population. 

A critical factor in managing bias is seeking 

candidates who are likely to police in an unbiased 

manner.24 Since people are less likely to have biases 

against groups with which they have had positive 

experiences, police departments should seek candidates who have had positive interactions with 

people of various cultures and backgrounds.25

1.8.1 Action Item: The Federal Government 

should create a Law Enforcement Diversity Initiative 

designed to help communities diversify law enforcement departments to reflect the demographics 

of the community. 

24. Lorie Fridell, “Racially Biased Policing: The Law Enforcement Response to the 

Implicit Black-Crime Association,” in Racial Divide: Racial and Ethnic Bias in the 

Criminal Justice System, eds. Michael J. Lynch, E. Britt Patterson, and Kristina K. 

Childs (Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, 2008), 51.

25. Ibid., 51–52.

Task force members, along with Executive Director Ronald L. Davis, listen to testimony, Washington, D.C., February 23, 2015.

1.8.2 actiOn item: The department 

overseeing this initiative should help localities 

learn best practices for recruitment, training, 

and outreach to improve the diversity as well as 

the cultural and linguistic responsiveness of law 

enforcement agencies. 

National and local affinity police organizations 

could be formally included in this effort. This 

program should also evaluate and assess diversity 

among law enforcement agencies around the 

country and issue public reports on national trends. 

1.8.3 actiOn item: Successful law enforcement agencies should be highlighted and 

celebrated and those with less diversity should be 

offered technical assistance to facilitate change. 

Law enforcement agencies must be continuously 

creative with recruitment efforts and employ the 

public, business, and civic communities to help.

1.8.4 actiOn item: Discretionary federal 

funding for law enforcement programs could be influenced by that department’s efforts to improve their 

diversity and cultural and linguistic responsiveness.

PHOTO: BRANDON TRAMEL
F i n a l R e p o r t o f t h e P r e s i d e n t ’ s T a s k F o r c e o n 2 1 s t C e n t u r y P o l i c i n g

1 8

1.8.5 Action Item: Law enforcement 

agencies should be encouraged to explore more 

flexible staffing models. 

As is common in the nursing profession, offering 

flexible schedules can help officers achieve better 

work-life balance that attracts candidates and 

encourages retention, particularly for officers with 

sole responsibility for the care of family members.

1.9 recOmmendatiOn: Law enforcement 

agencies should build relationships based 

on trust with immigrant communities. This is 

central to overall public safety.

Immigrants often fear approaching police officers when they are victims of and witnesses to 

crimes and when local police are entangled with 

federal immigration enforcement. At all levels of 

government, it is important that laws, policies, 

and practices not hinder the ability of local law 

enforcement to build the strong relationships necessary to public safety and community well-being. 

It is the view of this task force that whenever possible, state and local law enforcement should not be 

involved in immigration enforcement.

1.9.1 actiOn item: Decouple federal immigration enforcement from routine local policing 

for civil enforcement and nonserious crime. 

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security should 

terminate the use of the state and local criminal 

justice system, including through detention, 

notification, and transfer requests, to enforce civil 

immigration laws against civil and nonserious 

criminal offenders.26

26. Listening Session on Building Trust and Legitimacy: Civil Rights/Civil Liberties 

(oral testimony of Maria Teresa Kumar, president and CEO, Voto Latino, for the 

President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Washington, DC, January 13, 2015).

In 2011, the Major Cities Chiefs Association 

recommended nine points to Congress and the 

President on this issue, noting that “immigration 

is a federal policy issue between the U.S. government and other countries, not local or state 

entities and other countries. Any immigration 

enforcement laws or practices should be nationally based, consistent, and federally funded.”27

1.9.2 Action Item: Law enforcement 

agencies should ensure reasonable and equitable 

language access for all persons who have encounters 

with police or who enter the criminal justice system.28

1.9.3 Action Item: The U.S. Department 

of Justice should not include civil immigration 

information in the FBI’s National Crime Information Center database.29

The National Crime Information Center (NCIC) 

database is an electronic clearinghouse that law 

enforcement officers can access in the field. It 

contains data submitted by agencies across the 

country aimed at helping officers identify people, 

property, and criminal histories. At one time, NCIC 

also included civil immigration detainers (nonmandatory temporary hold requests issued by a federal 

immigration officer), although the FBI has indicated 

that the practice of accepting this information was 

discontinued and that the information does not 

currently exist in the database. The U.S. Department 

of Justice should ensure that this remains the case.

27. “Major Cities Chiefs Association Immigration Position October 2011,” accessed 

February 26, 2015, http://majorcitieschiefs.com/pdf/news/immigration_

position112811.pdf.

28. Listening Session on Building Trust and Legitimacy (written testimony of 

Nicholas Turner, president and director, Vera Institute of Justice, for the President’s 

Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Washington, DC, January 13, 2015). 

29. Listening Session on Community Policing and Crime Reduction (written 

testimony of Javier Valdes, executive director, Make the Road New York, for the 

President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Phoenix, AZ, February 13–14, 2015). 
1 9

PILLAR 2 . POLICY & OVERSIGHT

Citizens have a constitutional right to freedom of expression, including the 

right to peacefully demonstrate.

The issues addressed in the first pillar of this report, 

building trust and legitimacy between law enforcement agencies and the communities they serve, 

underlie all questions of law enforcement policy 

and community oversight. If police are to carry 

out their responsibilities according to established 

policies, these policies must be reflective of 

community values and not lead to practices that 

result in disparate impacts on various segments 

of the community. They also need to be clearly 

articulated to the community and implemented 

transparently so police will have credibility with 

residents and the people can have faith that their 

guardians are always acting in their best interests. 

Paramount among the policies of law enforcement 

organizations are those controlling use of force. 

Not only should there be policies for deadly and 

nondeadly uses of force but a clearly stated “sanctity of life” philosophy must also be in the forefront 

of every officer’s mind. This way of thinking should 

be accompanied by rigorous practical ongoing 

training in an atmosphere of nonjudgmental and 

safe sharing of views with fellow officers about 

how they behaved in use of force situations. At 

one listening session, Geoffrey Alpert described 

Officer-Created Jeopardy Training, in which officers 

who had been in situations where mistakes were 

made or force was used came to explain their 

decision making to other officers. Some explained 

what they did right and how potentially violent 

situations were resolved without violence. Other 

officers told what they did wrong, why they made 

mistakes, what information was missing or misinterpreted, and how they could have improved their 

behavior and response to suspects.30

Data collection, supervision, and accountability 

are also part of a comprehensive systemic approach to keeping everyone safe and protecting 

the rights of all involved during police encounters. 

Members of the Division of Policing of the American Society of Criminology recently wrote, “While 

the United States presently employs a broad 

array of social and economic indicators in order 

to gauge the overall ‘health’ of the nation, it has a 

much more limited set of indicators concerning 

the behavior of the police and the quality of 

law enforcement.”31

That body noted that Section 210402 of the 

Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 

1994 requires the U.S. Attorney General to “acquire 

data about the use of excessive force by law 

enforcement officers” and to “publish an annual 

summary of the data acquired under this section.”32

30. Listening Session on Policy and Oversight: Use of Force Research and Policies 

(oral testimony of Geoffrey Alpert, professor, University of South Carolina, for the 

President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Cincinnati, OH, January 30, 2015). 

31. “Recommendations to the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing,” 

Listening Session on Training and Education (written testimony of Anthony Braga 

et al., Ad Hoc Committee to the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, 

Division of Policing, American Society of Criminology, February 13–14, 2015). 

32. Ibid.

But the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has never 

been allocated the funds necessary to undertake 

the serious and sustained program of research and 

development to fulfill this mandate. Expanded 

research and data collection are also necessary 

to knowing what works and what does not work, 

which policing practices are effective and which 
F i n a l R e p o r t o f t h e P r e s i d e n t ’ s T a s k F o r c e o n 2 1 s t C e n t u r y P o l i c i n g

2 0

ones have unintended consequences. Greater 

acceptance of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s 

(FBI) National Incident-Based Reporting 

System could also benefit policing practice 

and research endeavors.

Mass demonstrations, for example, are occasions 

where evidence-based practices successfully applied can make the difference between a peaceful 

demonstration and a riot. Citizens have a constitutional right to freedom of expression, including 

the right to peacefully demonstrate. There are 

strong examples of proactive and positive communication and engagement strategies that can 

protect constitutional rights of demonstrators and 

the safety of citizens and the police.33

33. Listening Session on Policy and Oversight: Mass Demonstrations (oral 

testimony of Garry McCarthy, chief of police, Chicago Police Department, for the 

President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Cincinnati, OH, January 31, 2015); 

Listening Session on Policy and Oversight: Mass Demonstrations (oral testimony of 

Rodney Monroe, chief of police, Charlotte-Mecklenberg [NC] Police Department, for 

the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Cincinnati, OH, January 30, 2015).

2.1 recOmmendatiOn: Law enforcement 

agencies should collaborate with community 

members to develop policies and strategies 

in communities and neighborhoods 

disproportionately affected by crime for 

deploying resources that aim to reduce crime 

by improving relationships, greater community 

engagement, and cooperation. 

The development of a service model process that 

focuses on the root causes of crime should include 

the community members themselves because 

what works in one neighborhood might not be 

equally successful in every other one. Larger departments could commit resources and personnel 

to areas of high poverty, limited services, and at-risk 

or vulnerable populations through creating priority 

units with specialized training and added status 

and pay. Chief Charlie Beck of the Los 

Angeles Police Department (LAPD) described the 

LAPD’s Community Safety Partnership, in which 

officers engage the community and build trust 

where it is needed most, in the public housing 

projects in Watts. The department has assigned 45 

officers to serve for five years at three housing projects in Watts and at an additional housing project 

in East Los Angeles. Through a partnership with the 

Advancement Project and the Housing Authority 

of the City of Los Angeles, the program involves 

officers going into the housing developments with 

the intent not to make arrests but to create partnerships, create relationships, hear the community, 

and see what they need—and then work together 

to make those things happen.34 The work in Watts 

has been documented in an Advancement Project 

report presented to the task force.35

2.1.1 Action Item: The Federal 

Government should incentivize this collaboration 

through a variety of programs that focus on public 

health, education, mental health, and other 

programs not traditionally part of the criminal 

justice system.

2.2 recOmmendatiOn: Law enforcement 

agencies should have comprehensive policies 

on the use of force that include training, 

investigations, prosecutions, data collection, 

and information sharing. These policies must 

be clear, concise, and openly available for 

public inspection. 

2.2.1 Action Item: Law enforcement 

agency policies for training on use of force should 

emphasize de-escalation and alternatives to arrest 

or summons in situations where appropriate.

34. Listening Session on Policy and Oversight: Civilian Oversight (oral testimony 

of Charlie Beck, chief, Los Angeles Police Department, for the President’s Task Force 

on 21st Century Policing, Cincinnati, OH, January 30, 2015). 

35. Rice and Lee, Relationship-Based Policing (see note 22).
2 1

P i l l a r 2 . P o l i c y & O v e r s i g h t

As Chuck Wexler noted in his testimony,

In traditional police culture, officers are taught never 

to back down from a confrontation, but instead to 

run toward the dangerous situation that everyone 

else is running away from. However, sometimes the 

best tactic for dealing with a minor confrontation 

is to step back, call for assistance, de-escalate, and 

perhaps plan a different enforcement action that can 

be taken more safely later.36

Policies should also include, at a minimum, annual 

training that includes shoot/don’t shoot scenarios 

and the use of less than lethal technologies.

36. Listening Session on Policy and Oversight: Use of Force Investigations and 

Oversight (oral testimony of Chuck Wexler, executive director, Police Executive 

Research Forum, for the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Cincinnati, 

OH, January 30, 2015). 

2.2.2 Action Item: These policies should 

also mandate external and independent criminal 

investigations in cases of police use of force resulting in death, officer-involved shootings resulting 

in injury or death, or in-custody deaths. 

One way this can be accomplished is by the 

creation of multi-agency force investigation task 

forces comprising state and local investigators. 

Other ways to structure this investigative process 

include referring to neighboring jurisdictions or to 

the next higher levels of government (many smaller departments may already have state agencies 

handle investigations), but in order to restore and 

maintain trust, this independence is crucial. 

In written testimony to the task force, James 

Palmer of the Wisconsin Professional Police Association offered an example in that state’s statutes 

requiring that agency written policies “require an 

investigation that is conducted by at least two 

investigators . . . neither of whom is employed by 

a law enforcement agency that employs a 

law enforcement officer involved in the officerinvolved death.”37 Furthermore, in order to establish and maintain internal legitimacy and 

procedural justice, these investigations should 

be performed by law enforcement agencies with 

adequate training, knowledge, and experience 

investigating police use of force. 

37. Listening Session on Policy and Oversight (written testimony of James 

Palmer, executive director, Wisconsin Professional Police Association, for the 

President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Cincinnati, OH, January 30–31, 

2015). 

2.2.3 Action Item: The task force encourages policies that mandate the use of external and 

independent prosecutors in cases of police use of 

force resulting in death, officer-involved shootings 

resulting in injury or death, or in-custody deaths.

Strong systems and policies that encourage use 

of an independent prosecutor for reviewing 

police uses of force and for prosecution in cases of 

inappropriate deadly force and in-custody death 

will demonstrate the transparency to the public 

that can lead to mutual trust between community 

and law enforcement. 

2.2.4 Action Item: Policies on use of force 

should also require agencies to collect, maintain, 

and report data to the Federal Government on 

all officer-involved shootings, whether fatal or 

nonfatal, as well as any in-custody death. 

In-custody deaths are not only deaths in a prison 

or jail but also deaths that occur in the process 

of an arrest. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) 

implemented the Arrest Related Deaths data 

collection in 2003 as part of requirements set forth 

in the Deaths in Custody Reporting Act of 
F i n a l R e p o r t o f t h e P r e s i d e n t ’ s T a s k F o r c e o n 2 1 s t C e n t u r y P o l i c i n g

2 2

2000 and reenacted in 2014. Although states 

receiving grants under the Edward Byrne Memorial 

Justice Assistance Grant Program are required to 

provide this data to BJS, the Arrest Related Deaths 

data collection is a voluntary reporting program 

for law enforcement agencies. Access to this data 

is important to gain a national picture of police use 

of force as well as to incentivize the systematic and 

transparent collection and analysis of use of force 

incident data at the local level. The agencyreported data should include information on the 

circumstances of the use of force, as well as the 

race, gender, and age of the decedents. Agency 

data should be reported to the U.S. Department of 

Justice through the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting 

System or an expansion of collections managed 

by the BJS. 

2.2.5 Action Item: Policies on use of force 

should clearly state what types of information 

will be released, when, and in what situation, to 

maintain transparency. 

This should also include procedures on the release 

of a summary statement regarding the circumstances of the incident by the department as soon 

as possible and within 24 hours. The intent of this 

directive should be to share as much information 

as possible without compromising the integrity of 

the investigation or anyone’s rights.

2.2.6 Action Item: Law enforcement agencies should establish a Serious Incident Review 

Board comprising sworn staff and community 

members to review cases involving officerinvolved shootings and other serious incidents 

that have the potential to damage community 

trust or confidence in the agency. The purpose of 

this board should be to identify any administrative, supervisory, training, tactical, or policy issues 

that need to be addressed.

2.3 recOmmendatiOn: Law 

enforcement agencies are encouraged to 

implement nonpunitive peer review of 

critical incidents separate from criminal 

and administrative investigations. 

These reviews, sometimes known as “near miss” 

or “sentinel event” reviews, focus on the improvement of practices and policy. Such reviews already 

exist in medicine, aviation, and other industries. 

According to the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), 

a sentinel event in criminal justice would include 

wrongful convictions but also “near miss” acquittals and dismissals of cases that at earlier points 

seemed solid; cold cases that stayed cold too long; 

wrongful releases of dangerous or factually guilty 

criminals or of vulnerable arrestees with mental 

disabilities; and failures to prevent domestic 

violence within at-risk families. 

Sentinel events can include episodes that are 

within policy but disastrous in terms of community relations, whether or not everyone agrees 

that the event should be classified as an error. In 

fact, anything that stakeholders agree can cause 

widespread or viral attention could be considered 

a sentinel event.38

38. James M. Doyle, “Learning from Error in the Criminal Justice System: Sentinel 

Event Reviews,” Mending Justice: Sentinel Event Reviews (Special Report from the 

National Institute of Justice, September 2014): 3–20.

What distinguishes sentinel event reviews from 

other kinds of internal investigations of apparent 

errors is that they are nonadversarial. As task force 

member Sean Smoot has written,

For sentinel event reviews to be effective and 

practical, they must be cooperative efforts that 

afford the types of protections provided in the 

medical context, where state and federal laws 

protect the privacy of participants and prevent the 

disclosure of information to anyone outside of the 

sentinel event review . . . . Unless the sentinel event 
2 3

P i l l a r 2 . P o l i c y & O v e r s i g h t

process is honest and trustworthy, with adequate 

legal protections—including use immunity, 

privacy, confidentiality, and nondisclosure, for 

example—police officers, who have the very best 

information about how things really work and what 

really happened, will not be motivated to fully 

participate. The sentinel event review approach will 

have a better chance of success if departments can 

abandon the process of adversarial/punitive-based 

discipline, adopting instead “education-based” 

disciplinary procedures and policies.39

2.4 Recommendation: Law enforcement 

agencies are encouraged to adopt 

identification procedures that implement 

scientifically supported practices that 

eliminate or minimize presenter bias 

or influence. 

39. Sean Smoot “Punishment-Based vs. Education-Based Discipline: A 

Surmountable Challenge?” in Mending Justice: Sentinel Event Reviews (Special 

Report from the National Institute of Justice, September 2014): 48–50.

A recent study by the National Academy of 

Sciences, Identifying the Culprit: Assessing Eyewitness 

Identification, studied the important role played 

by eyewitnesses in criminal cases, noting that 

research on factors affecting the accuracy of 

eyewitness identification procedures has given an 

increasingly clear picture of how identifications are 

made and, more important, an improved understanding of the limits on vision and memory that 

can lead to failure of identification.40 Many factors, 

including external conditions and the witness’s 

emotional state and biases, influence what a 

witness sees or thinks she sees. Memories can 

be forgotten, reconstructed, updated, and 

distorted. Meanwhile, policies governing law 

enforcement procedures for conducting and 

recording identifications are not standard, and 

policies and practices to address the issue of 

misidentification vary widely. 

40. Samuel R. Gross et al., “Rate of False Conviction of Criminal Defendants who 

are Sentenced to Death,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the 

United States of America 111, no. 20 (2014): 7230–7235. http://www.pnas.org/

content/111/20/7230.full.pdf+html.

Barbara O’Connor, President of the National Association of Women Law Enforcement Executives, speaks during a panel on diversity in law enforcement, 

Cincinnati, January 30, 2015. PHOTO: DEBORAH SPENCE
F i n a l R e p o r t o f t h e P r e s i d e n t ’ s T a s k F o r c e o n 2 1 s t C e n t u r y P o l i c i n g

2 4

2.5 recOmmendatiOn: All federal, state, 

local, and tribal law enforcement agencies 

should report and make available to the 

public census data regarding the composition 

of their departments including race, gender, 

age, and other relevant demographic data. 

While the BJS collects information on many 

aspects of police activities, there is no single data 

collection instrument that yields the information 

requested in this recommendation. Demographic 

data should be collected and made available to 

the public so communities can assess the diversity of their departments and do so in a national 

context. This data will also be important to better 

understand the impact of diversity on the functioning of departments. Malik Aziz, National Chair 

of the National Black Police Association (NBPA), 

reminded the task force that the NBPA not only 

urges all departments to meet the demographics 

of the community in which they serve by maintaining a plan of action to recruit and retain police 

officers of color but also has called for the DOJ to 

collect the annual demographic statistics from 

the 18,000 police agencies across the nation. “It is 

not enough to mandate diversity,” he stated, “but 

it becomes necessary to diversify command ranks 

in departments that have historically failed to develop and/or promote qualified and credentialed 

officers to executive and command ranks.”41

41. Listening Session on Policy and Oversight: Law Enforcement Culture and 

Diversity (oral testimony of Malik Aziz, chairman, National Black Police Association, 

for the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Cincinnati, OH, January 30, 

2015).

2.5.1 Action Item: The Bureau of Justice 

Statistics should add additional demographic 

questions to the Law Enforcement Management 

and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) survey in 

order to meet the intent of this recommendation. 

2.6 recOmmendatiOn: Law enforcement 

agencies should be encouraged to collect, 

maintain, and analyze demographic data 

on all detentions (stops, frisks, searches, 

summons, and arrests). This data should be 

disaggregated by school and non-school 

contacts. 

The BJS periodically conducts the Police-Public 

Contact Survey, a supplement to the National 

Crime Victimization Survey. The most recent 

survey, released in 2013, asked a nationally 

representative sample of U.S. residents age 16 

or older about experiences with police during 

the prior 12 months.42 But these surveys do not 

reflect what is happening every day at the local 

level when police interact with members of the 

communities they serve. More research and tools 

along the lines of Lorie Fridell’s 2004 publication, 

By the Numbers: A Guide for Analyzing Race Data 

From Vehicle Stops—to help local agencies collect 

and analyze their data, understand the importance 

of context to the analysis and reporting process, 

and establish benchmarks resulting from their 

findings—would improve understanding and lead 

to evidence-based policies. 

42. Lynn Langton and Matthew Durose, Police Behavior during Traffic and Street 

Stops, 2011, Special Report (Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs Bureau of 

Justice Statistics, 2013), NCJ 242937; Matthew Durose and Lynn Langton, Requests 

for Police Assistance, 2011, Special Report (Washington, DC: Office of Justice 

Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2013), NCJ 242938.
2 5

P i l l a r 2 . P o l i c y & O v e r s i g h t

2.6.1 Action Item: The Federal Government could further incentivize universities 

and other organizations to partner with police 

departments to collect data and develop knowledge about analysis and benchmarks as well as 

to develop tools and templates that help departments manage data collection and analysis.

2.7 recOmmendatiOn: Law enforcement 

agencies should create policies and 

procedures for policing mass demonstrations 

that employ a continuum of managed tactical 

resources that are designed to minimize the 

appearance of a military operation and avoid 

using provocative tactics and equipment that 

undermine civilian trust. 

Policies should emphasize protection of the First 

Amendment rights of demonstrators and effective 

ways of communicating with them. Superintendent Garry McCarthy of the Chicago Police 

Department detailed his police force training and 

operations in advance of the 2012 NATO Summit 

at the height of the “Occupy” movement. The 

department was determined not to turn what it 

knew would be a mass demonstration into a riot. 

Police officers refreshed “perishable” skills, such 

as engaging in respectful conversations with 

demonstrators, avoiding confrontation, and using 

“extraction techniques” not only on the minority 

of demonstrators who were behaving unlawfully 

(throwing rocks, etc.) but also on officers who 

were becoming visibly upset and at risk of losing 

their composure and professional demeanor.43

43. Listening Session on Policy and Oversight (oral testimony of Garry McCarthy, 

Chicago Police Department, to the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, 

Cincinnati, OH, January 30, 2015).

2.7.1 Action Item: Law enforcement agency policies should address procedures 

for implementing a layered response to mass 

demonstrations that prioritize de-escalation 

and a guardian mindset. 

These policies could include plans to minimize 

confrontation by using “soft look” uniforms, having 

officers remove riot gear as soon as practical, 

and maintaining open postures. “When officers 

line up in a military formation while wearing full 

protective gear, their visual appearance may have 

a dramatic influence on how the crowd perceives 

them and how the event ends.”44

2.7.2 Action Item: The Federal Government should create a mechanism for investigating 

complaints and issuing sanctions regarding the 

inappropriate use of equipment and tactics during 

mass demonstrations.

There has been substantial media attention in 

recent months surrounding the police use of 

military equipment at events where members of 

the public are exercising their First Amendment 

rights. This has led to the creation of the President’s Interagency Law Enforcement Equipment 

Working Group. 

That group has been tasked by the Executive 

Order 13688 of January 16, 2015 with a number of 

issues, including ensuring that law enforcement 

agencies adopt organizational and operational 

practices and standards that prevent the misuse 

or abuse of controlled equipment and ensuring 

compliance with civil rights requirements resulting 

from receipt of federal financial assistance.

44. Listening Session on Policy and Oversight (written testimony of Edward 

Maguire, American University, for the President’s Task Force on 21st Century 

Policing, Cincinnati, OH, January 30, 2015).
F i n a l R e p o r t o f t h e P r e s i d e n t ’ s T a s k F o r c e o n 2 1 s t C e n t u r y P o l i c i n g

2 6

2.8 recOmmendatiOn: Some form 

of civilian oversight of law enforcement is 

important in order to strengthen trust with 

the community. Every community should 

define the appropriate form and structure 

of civilian oversight to meet the needs of 

that community.

Many, but not all, state and local agencies operate 

with the oversight or input of civilian police boards 

or commissions. Part of the process of assessing 

the need and desire for new or additional civilian 

oversight should include input from and collaboration with police employees because the people to 

be overseen should be part of the process that will 

oversee them. This guarantees that the principles 

of internal procedural justice are in place to benefit 

both the police and the community they serve.

We must examine civilian oversight in the communities where it operates and determine which 

models are successful in promoting police and 

community understanding. There are important arguments for having civilian oversight even though 

we lack strong research evidence that it works. 

Therefore we urge action on further research, 

based on the guiding principle of procedural justice, to find evidence-based practices to implement 

successful civilian oversight mechanisms.

As noted by witness Brian Buchner at the Policy 

and Oversight Listening Session on January 30,

Citizen review is not an advocate for the community 

or for the police. This impartiality allows oversight to 

bring stakeholders together to work collaboratively 

and proactively to help make policing more effective 

and responsive to the community. Civilian oversight 

alone is not sufficient to gain legitimacy; without 

it, however, it is difficult, if not impossible, for the 

police to maintain the public’s trust.45

45. Listening Session on Policy and Oversight (oral testimony of Brian Buchner, 

president, National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement, for the 

President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Cincinnati, OH, January 30, 2015).

2.8.1 Action Item: The U.S. Department of 

Justice, through its research arm, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), should expand its research 

agenda to include civilian oversight.

NIJ recently announced its research priorities in 

policing for FY 2015, which include such topics as 

police use of force, body-worn cameras, and procedural justice. While proposals related to research on 

police oversight might fit into several of these topical areas, police oversight is not highlighted by NIJ 

in any of them. NIJ should specifically invite research 

into civilian oversight and its impact on and relationship to policing in one or more of these areas. 

2.8.2 Action Item: The U.S. Department of 

Justice’s Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services (COPS Office) should provide technical 

assistance and collect best practices from existing 

civilian oversight efforts and be prepared to help 

cities create this structure, potentially with some 

matching grants and funding.

2.9 recOmmendatiOn: Law enforcement 

agencies and municipalities should refrain 

from practices requiring officers to issue a 

predetermined number of tickets, citations, 

arrests, or summonses, or to initiate 

investigative contacts with citizens for reasons 

not directly related to improving public safety, 

such as generating revenue. 

Productivity expectations can be effective 

performance management tools. But testimony 

from Laura Murphy, Director of the Washington 

Legislative Office of the American Civil Liberties 

Union, identifies some of the negative effects 

of these practices:

One only needs to paint a quick picture of the state 

of policing to understand the dire need for reform. 

First, there are local and federal incentives that 
2 7

P i l l a r 2 . P o l i c y & O v e r s i g h t

instigate arrests. At the local level, cities across the 

country generate much of their revenue through 

court fines and fees, with those who can’t pay 

subject to arrest and jail time. These debtors’ prisons 

are found in cities like Ferguson, where the number 

of arrest warrants in 2013—33,000—exceeded its 

population of 21,000. Most of the warrants were for 

driving violations.46

2.10 recOmmendatiOn: Law 

enforcement officers should be required 

to seek consent before a search and explain 

that a person has the right to refuse consent 

when there is no warrant or probable 

cause. Furthermore, officers should ideally 

obtain written acknowledgement that 

they have sought consent to a search 

in these circumstances. 

46. Listening Session on Trust and Legitimacy (oral testimony of Laura Murphy, 

director of the Washington Legislative Office, American Civil Liberties Union, for 

the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Washington, DC, January 13, 

2015); Joseph Shapiro, “In Ferguson, Court Fines and Fees Fuel Anger,” NPR.com, 

last updated August 25, 2014, http://www.npr.org/2014/08/25/343143937/

in-ferguson-court-fines-and-fees-fuel-anger; In For A Penny: The Rise of 

America’s Debtors’ Prisons (New York: American Civil Liberties Union, 2010), 

http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/InForAPenny_web.pdf. 

2.11 recOmmendatiOn: Law 

enforcement agencies should adopt policies 

requiring officers to identify themselves 

by their full name, rank, and command (as 

applicable) and provide that information in 

writing to individuals they have stopped. In 

addition, policies should require officers to 

state the reason for the stop and the reason 

for the search if one is conducted.

2.11.1 Action Item: One example of how 

to do this is for law enforcement officers to carry 

business cards containing their name, rank, command, and contact information that would enable 

individuals to offer suggestions or commendations or to file complaints with the appropriate 

individual, office, or board. These cards would be 

easily distributed in all encounters.

Co-chair Laurie Robinson asks a panelist a question, Phoenix, February 13, 2015. PHOTO: DEBORAH SPENCE

2.12 Recommendation: Law 

enforcement agencies should establish search 

and seizure procedures related to LGBTQ and 

transgender populations and adopt as policy 

the recommendation from the President’s 
F i n a l R e p o r t o f t h e P r e s i d e n t ’ s T a s k F o r c e o n 2 1 s t C e n t u r y P o l i c i n g

2 8

Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS (PACHA) to 

cease using the possession of condoms as the 

sole evidence of vice. 

2.13 recOmmendatiOn: Law 

enforcement agencies should adopt and 

enforce policies prohibiting profiling and 

discrimination based on race, ethnicity, 

national origin, religion, age, gender, gender 

identity/expression, sexual orientation, 

immigration status, disability, housing status, 

occupation, or language fluency.

The task force heard from a number of witnesses 

about the importance of protecting the safety and 

dignity of all people. Andrea Ritchie noted that

gender and sexuality-specific forms of racial profiling 

and discriminatory policing [include] . . . . Failure to 

respect individuals’ gender identity and expression 

when addressing members of the public and 

during arrest processing, searches, and placement 

in police custody.47

47. Listening Session on Training and Education (oral testimony of Andrea Ritchie, 

founder of Streetwise and Safe, for the President’s Task Force on 21st Century 

Policing, Phoenix, AZ, February 14, 2015).

Invasive searches should never be used for the 

sole purpose of determining gender identity, and 

an individual’s gender identity should be respected in lock-ups and holding cells to the extent that 

the facility allows for gender segregation. And 

witness Linda Sarsour spoke to how

an issue plaguing and deeply impacting ArabAmerican and American Muslim communities across 

the country is racial and religious profiling by local, 

state, and federal law enforcement. We have learned 

through investigative reports, Freedom of Information 

Act (FOIA) requests, and lawsuits that agencies target 

communities by religion and national origin.48

2.13.1 Action Item: The Bureau of Justice 

Statistics should add questions concerning 

sexual harassment of and misconduct toward 

community members, and in particular LGBTQ 

and gender-nonconforming people, by law 

enforcement officers to the Police Public 

Contact Survey. 

2.13.2 Action Item: The Centers for 

Disease Control should add questions concerning 

sexual harassment of and misconduct toward 

community members, and in particular LGBTQ and 

gender-nonconforming people, by law enforcement officers to the National Intimate Partner and 

Sexual Violence Survey.

2.13.3 Action Item: The U.S. Department 

of Justice should promote and disseminate 

guidance to federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies on documenting, preventing, and 

addressing sexual harassment and misconduct by 

local law enforcement agents, consistent with the 

recommendations of the International Association 

of Chiefs of Police.49

2.14 recOmmendatiOn: The U.S. 

Department of Justice, through the Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services and 

Office of Justice Programs, should provide 

technical assistance and incentive funding to 

jurisdictions with small police agencies that 

take steps towards shared services, regional 

training, and consolidation.

48. Listening Session on Training and Education (oral testimony of Linda Sarsour, 

Advocacy And Civic Engagement coordinator for the National Network for Arab 

American Communities, for the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, 

Phoenix, AZ, February 14, 2015).

49. IACP, Addressing Sexual Offenses and Misconduct by Law Enforcement: 

Executive Guide (Alexandria, VA: International Association of Chiefs of Police, 2011).
2 9

P i l l a r 2 . P o l i c y & O v e r s i g h t

Half of all law enforcement agencies in the United 

States have fewer than ten officers, and nearly 

three-quarters have fewer than 25 officers.50 Lawrence Sherman noted in his testimony that “so many 

problems of organizational quality control are made 

worse by the tiny size of most local police agencies 

. . . less than 1 percent of 17,985 U.S. police agencies 

meet the English minimum of 1,000 employees or 

more.”51 These small forces often lack the resources 

for training and equipment accessible to larger 

departments and often are prevented by municipal 

boundaries and local custom from combining 

forces with neighboring agencies. Funding and 

technical assistance can give smaller agencies the 

incentive to share policies and practices and give 

them access to a wider variety of training, equipment, and communications technology than they 

could acquire on their own. 

50. Brian A. Reaves, Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, 2008,

Bulletin (Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics, 

2011), NCJ 233982. 

51. Listening Session on the Future of Community Policing (oral testimony of 

Lawrence Sherman, Cambridge University, for the President’s Task Force on 21st 

Century Policing, Washington, DC, February 24, 2015).

Table 1. Full-time state and local law enforcement employees, by size of agency, 2008 

Size of agency Number of agencies Total number of full-time employees

All agencies 17,985 1,133,915

1,000 or more officers 83 326,197

500–999 89 94,168

250–499 237 133,024

100–249 778 174,505

500–99 1,300 136,390

25–49 2,402 124,492

10–24 4,300 98,563

5–9 3,446 32,493

2–4 3,225 11,498

0–1 2,125 2,585

Source: Brian A. Reaves, “State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies” (see note 50).

2.15 recOmmendatiOn: The U.S. 

Department of Justice, through the Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services, should 

partner with the International Association 

of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards 

and Training (IADLEST) to expand its National 

Decertification Index to serve as the National 

Register of Decertified Officers with the goal 

of covering all agencies within the United 

States and its territories.

The National Decertification Index is an aggregation of information that allows hiring agencies to 

identify officers who have had their license or certification revoked for misconduct. It was designed 

as an answer to the problem “wherein a police 

officer is discharged for improper conduct and 

loses his/her certification in that state . . . [only to 

relocate] to another state and hire on with another 

police department.”52

52. “National Decertification Index—FAQs,” accessed February 27, 2015, 

https://www.iadlest.org/Portals/0/Files/NDI/FAQ/ndi_faq.html.

Peace Officer Standards and 
F i n a l R e p o r t o f t h e P r e s i d e n t ’ s T a s k F o r c e o n 2 1 s t C e n t u r y P o l i c i n g

3 0

Training (POST) boards can record administrative 

actions taken against certified police and correctional officers. Currently the criteria for reporting 

an action on an officer is determined by each 

POST independently, as is the granting of readonly access to hiring departments to use as part 

of their pre-hire screening process. Expanding this 

system to ensure national and standardized reporting would assist in ensuring that officers who 

have lost their certification for misconduct are not 

easily hired in other jurisdictions. A national register would effectively treat “police professionals the 

way states’ licensing laws treat other professionals. 

If anything, the need for such a system is even 

more important for law enforcement, as officers 

have the power to make arrests, perform searches, 

and use deadly force.”53

53. Roger L. Goldman, “Police Officer Decertification: Promoting Police 

Professionalism through State Licensing and the National Decertification Index,”

Police Chief 81 (November 2014): 40–42, http://www.policechiefmagazine.

org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=3538&issue_

id=112014.

Bill Schrier of the Office of the Chief Information Officer for the state of Washington used PowerPoint to demonstrate how agencies 

can use Twitter for engagement, Cincinnati, January 31, 2015. PHOTO: DEBORAH SPENCE
3 1

P I L L A R 3 . T E C H N O LO G Y & S O C I A L 

MEDIA

Implementing new technologies can give police departments an 

opportunity to fully engage and educate communities in a dialogue 

about their expectations for transparency, accountability, and privacy.

We live in a time when technology and its many 

uses are advancing far more quickly than are 

policies and laws. “Technology” available to law 

enforcement today includes everything from 

body-worn cameras (BWC) to unmanned aircraft to 

social media and a myriad of products in between. 

The use of technology can improve policing practices and build community trust and legitimacy, 

but its implementation must be built on a defined 

policy framework with its purposes and goals 

clearly delineated. Implementing new technologies 

can give police departments an opportunity to fully 

engage and educate communities in a dialogue 

about their expectations for transparency, accountability, and privacy. But technology changes quickly 

in terms of new hardware, software, and other 

options. Law enforcement agencies and leaders 

need to be able to identify, assess, and evaluate 

new technology for adoption and do so in ways 

that improve their effectiveness, efficiency, and 

evolution without infringing on individual rights.

Thus, despite (and because of) the centrality of 

technology in policing, law enforcement agencies 

face major challenges including determining the 

effects of implementing various technologies; 

identifying costs and benefits; examining unintended consequences; and exploring the best practices 

by which technology can be evaluated, acquired, 

maintained, and managed. Addressing these technology challenges by using research, accumulated 

knowledge, and practical experiences can help 

agencies reach their goals,54 but law enforcement 

agencies and personnel also need to recognize that 

technology is only a tool for doing their jobs: just 

because you have access to technology does not 

necessarily mean you should always use it.55

54. Elizabeth Groff and Tom McEwen, Identifying and Measuring the Effects 

of Information Technologies on Law Enforcement Agencies: The Making Officer 

Redeployment Effective Program (Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services, 2008), http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/Publications/e08084156-IT.pdf; 

Christopher S. Koper, Cynthia Lum, James J. Willis, Daniel J. Woods, and Julie 

Hibdon, Realizing the Potential of Technology in Policing: A Multi-Site Study of the 

Social, Organizational, and Behavioral Aspects of Implementing Police Technologies 

(Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, 2015), http://cebcp.org/wpcontent/evidence-based-policing/ImpactTechnologyFinalReport.

55. IACP Technology Policy Framework (Alexandria, VA: International Association 

of Chiefs of Police, 2014), http://www.theiacp.org/Portals/0/documents/pdfs/

IACP%20Technology%20Policy%20Framework%20January%202014%20Final.pdf.

BWCs are a case in point. An increasing number of 

law enforcement agencies are adopting BWC programs as a means to improve evidence collection, 

to strengthen officer performance and accountability, and to enhance agency transparency. By 

documenting encounters between police and the 

public, BWCs can also be used to investigate and 

resolve complaints about officer-involved incidents. 

Jim Bueermann, retired chief of the Redlands 

(California) Police Department and President of 

the Police Foundation, told the task force about 

a seminal piece of research that demonstrated a 

positive impact of BWCs in policing. The researchers used the gold standard of research models, a 

randomized control trial, in which the people 
F i n a l R e p o r t o f t h e P r e s i d e n t ’ s T a s k F o r c e o n 2 1 s t C e n t u r y P o l i c i n g

3 2

being studied are randomly assigned either to 

a control group that does not receive the treatment being studied or to a treatment group that 

does. The results of this 12-month study strongly 

suggest that the use of BWCs by the police can 

significantly reduce both officer use of force and 

complaints against officers. The study found that 

the officers wearing the cameras had 87.5 percent 

fewer incidents of use of force and 59 percent 

fewer complaints than the officers not wearing 

the cameras. One of the important findings of the 

study was the impact BWCs might have on the 

self-awareness of officers and citizens alike. 

When police officers are acutely aware that their 

behavior is being monitored (because they turn 

on the cameras) and when officers tell citizens 

that the cameras are recording their behavior, 

everyone behaves better. The results of this 

study strongly suggest that this increase in selfawareness contributes to more positive outcomes 

in police-citizen interaction.56

56. Listening Session on Technology and Social Media: Body Cameras-Research 

and Legal Considerations (oral testimony of Jim Bueermann, president, Police 

Foundation, for the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Cincinnati, OH, 

January 31, 2015); Ariel Barak, William A. Farrar, and Alex Sutherland, “The Effect 

of Police Body-Worn Cameras on Use of Force and Citizens’ Complaints Against the 

Police: A Randomized Controlled Trial,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 2014. 

But other considerations make the issue of BWCs 

more complex. A 2014 Police Executive Research 

Forum (PERF) publication, funded by the Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office), reporting on extensive research exploring the 

policy and implementation questions surrounding 

BWCs noted:

Although body-worn cameras can offer many 

benefits, they also raise serious questions about how 

technology is changing the relationship between 

police and the community. Body-worn cameras 

not only create concerns about the public’s privacy 

rights but also can affect how officers relate 

to people in the community, the community’s 

perception of the police, and expectations about 

how police agencies should share information with 

the public.57

Now that agencies operate in a world in which 

anyone with a cell phone camera can record 

video footage of a police encounter, BWCs help 

police departments ensure that events are also 

captured from an officer’s perspective.58 But when 

the public does not believe its privacy is being 

protected by law enforcement, a breakdown in 

community trust can occur. Agencies need to 

consider ways to involve the public in discussions 

related to the protection of their privacy and civil 

liberties prior to implementing new technology, 

as well work with the public and other partners in 

the justice system to develop appropriate policies 

and procedures for use.

Another technology relatively new to law 

enforcement is social media. Social media is a 

communication tool the police can use to engage 

the community on issues of importance to both 

and to gauge community sentiment regarding 

agency policies and practices. Social media can 

also help police identify the potential nature and 

location of gang and other criminal or disorderly 

activity such as spontaneous crowd gatherings.59

57. Lindsay Miller and Jessica Toliver, Implementing a Body-Worn Camera 

Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned (Washington, DC: Office 

of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2014), vii, http://ric-zai-inc.com/

Publications/cops-p296-pub.pdf.

58. Ibid., 1. 

59. Police Executive Research Forum, Social Media and Tactical Considerations for 

Law Enforcement (Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 

2013), http://ric-zai-inc.com/Publications/cops-p261-pub.pdf.

The Boston Police Department (BPD), for example, 

has long embraced both community policing and 

the use of social media. The department put its 

experience to good and highly visible use in April 

2013 during the rapidly developing investigation 

that followed the deadly explosion of two bombs 

at the finish line of the Boston Marathon. The 
3 3

P i l l a r 3 . T e c h n o l o g y & S o c i a l M e d i a

BPD successfully used Twitter to keep the public 

informed about the status of the investigation, to 

calm nerves and request assistance, to correct mistaken information reported by the press, and to 

ask for public restraint in the tweeting of information from police scanners. This demonstrated the 

level of trust and interaction that a department 

and a community can attain online.60

While technology is crucial to law enforcement, 

it is never a panacea. Its acquisition and use can 

have unintended consequences for both the 

organization and the community it serves, which 

may limit its potential. Thus, agencies need clearly 

defined policies related to implementation of 

technology, and must pay close attention to 

community concerns about its use.

60. Edward F. Davis III, Alejandro A. Alves, and David Alan Sklansky, 

“Social Media and Police Leadership: Lessons from Boston,” New Perspectives 

in Policing (Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, March 2014), 

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/content/download/67536/1242954/version/1/file/

SocialMediaandPoliceLeadership-03-14.pdf.

3.1 recOmmendatiOn: The U.S. 

Department of Justice, in consultation with 

the law enforcement field, should broaden the 

efforts of the National Institute of Justice to 

establish national standards for the research 

and development of new technology. These 

standards should also address compatibility 

and interoperability needs both within law 

enforcement agencies and across agencies 

and jurisdictions and maintain civil and human 

rights protections. 

The lack of consistent standards leads to a constantly spiraling increase in technology costs. Law 

enforcement often has to invest in new layers of 

technology to enable their systems to operate with 

different systems and sometimes must also make 

expensive modifications or additions to legacy 

systems to support interoperability with newer 

technology. And these costs do not include the 

additional funds needed for training. Agencies are 

often unprepared for the unintended consequences that may accompany the acquisition of new 

technologies. Implementation of new technologies 

can cause disruptions to daily routines, lack of 

buy-in, and lack of understanding of the purpose 

and appropriate uses of the technologies. It also 

often raises questions regarding how the new 

technologies will impact the officer’s expectations, 

discretion, decision making, and accountability.61

Inconsistent or nonexistent standards also lead 

to isolated and fractured information systems 

that cannot effectively manage, store, analyze, or 

share their data with other systems. As a result, 

much information is lost or unavailable—which 

allows vital information to go unused and have 

no impact on crime reduction efforts. As one 

witness noted, the development of mature crime 

analysis and CompStat processes allows law 

enforcement to effectively develop policy and 

deploy resources for crime prevention, but there is 

a lack of uniformity in data collection throughout 

law enforcement, and only patchwork methods 

of near real-time information sharing exist.62 These 

problems are especially critical in light of the 

threats from terrorism and cybercrime. 

61. Koper et al., Potential of Technology in Policing (see note 54). 

62. Listening Session on Technology and Social Media (oral testimony of Elliot 

Cohen, Maryland State Police, for the President’s Task Force on 21st Century 

Policing, Cincinnati, OH, January 31, 2015).
F i n a l R e p o r t o f t h e P r e s i d e n t ’ s T a s k F o r c e o n 2 1 s t C e n t u r y P o l i c i n g

3 4

3.1.1 actiOn item: The Federal Government should support the development and 

delivery of training to help law enforcement 

agencies learn, acquire, and implement technology tools and tactics that are consistent with the 

best practices of 21st century policing. 

3.1.2 actiOn item: As part of national standards, the issue of technology’s impact on privacy 

concerns should be addressed in accordance with 

protections provided by constitutional law. 

Though all constitutional guidelines must be 

maintained in the performance of law enforcement duties, the legal framework (warrants, etc.) 

should continue to protect law enforcement 

access to data obtained from cell phones, social 

media, GPS, and other sources, allowing officers to 

detect, prevent, or respond to crime.

3.1.3 actiOn item: Law enforcement 

agencies should deploy smart technology that is 

designed to prevent the tampering with or manipulating of evidence in violation of policy.

All of the task force listening sessions were streamed live and can still be viewed at the task force website. PHOTO: DEBORAH SPENCE

3.2 Recommendation: The 

implementation of appropriate technology by 

law enforcement agencies should be designed 

considering local needs and aligned with 

national standards. 
3 5

P i l l a r 3 . T e c h n o l o g y & S o c i a l M e d i a

While standards should be created for development and research of technology at the national 

level, implementation of developed technologies 

should remain a local decision to address the 

needs and resources of the community.

In addition to the expense of acquiring technology, 

implementation and training also requires funds, 

as well as time, personnel, and physical capacity. 

A case in point is the Phoenix Police Department’s 

adoption of BWCs mentioned by witness Michael 

White, who said that the real costs came on the 

back end for managing the vast amount of data 

generated by the cameras. He quoted the Chief 

of the Phoenix Police Department as saying that 

it would cost their department $3.5 million to not 

only outfit all of their officers with the cameras but 

also successfully manage the program. 

3.2.1 Action Item: Law enforcement agencies should encourage public engagement and 

collaboration, including the use of community 

advisory bodies, when developing a policy for the 

use of a new technology. 

Local residents will be more accepting of and 

respond more positively to technology when they 

have been informed of new developments and 

their input has been encouraged. How police use 

technology and how they share that information 

with the public is critical. Task force witness Jim 

Bueermann, president of the Police Foundation, 

addressed this issue, noting that concerns about 

BWCs include potential compromises to the privacy of both officers and citizens, who are reluctant 

to speak to police if they think they are being 

recorded. And as the task force co-chair, Charles 

Ramsey, noted, “Just having the conversation can 

increase trust and legitimacy and help departments make better decisions.”

3.2.2 Action Item: Law enforcement agencies should include an evaluation or assessment 

process to gauge the effectiveness of any new 

technology, soliciting input from all levels of the 

agency, from line officer to leadership, as well as 

assessment from members of the community.63

Witnesses suggested that law enforcement 

agencies create an advisory group when adopting 

a new technology.64 Ideally, it would include line 

officers, union representatives, and members from 

other departmental units, such as research and 

planning, technology, and internal affairs. External 

stakeholders, such as representatives from the 

prosecutor’s office, the defense bar, advocacy 

groups, and citizens should also be included, giving each group the opportunity to ask questions, 

express their concerns, and offer suggestions on 

policy and training. 

3.2.3 Action Item: Law enforcement 

agencies should adopt the use of new technologies that will help them better serve people with 

special needs or disabilities.

63. Sharon Stolting, Shawn Barrett, and David Kurz, Best Practices Guide for 

Acquisition of New Technology (Alexandria, VA: International Association of Chiefs of 

Police, n.d.), http://www.theiacp.org/portals/0/pdfs/BP-NewTechnology.pdf. 

64. Listening Session on Technology and Social Media: Body Cameras—Research 

and Legal Considerations (oral testimony of Michael White, professor, Arizona State 

University, for the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Cincinnati, OH, 

January 31, 2015).

3.3 Recommendation: The U.S. 

Department of Justice should develop 

best practices that can be adopted by state 

legislative bodies to govern the acquisition, 

use, retention, and dissemination of 

auditory, visual, and biometric data by 

law enforcement.
F i n a l R e p o r t o f t h e P r e s i d e n t ’ s T a s k F o r c e o n 2 1 s t C e n t u r y P o l i c i n g

3 6

These model policies and practices should at 

minimum address technology usage and data 

and evidence acquisition and retention, as well as 

privacy issues, accountability and discipline. They 

must also consider the impact of data collection 

and use on public trust and police legitimacy.

3.3.1 Action Item: As part of the process 

for developing best practices, the U.S. Department 

of Justice should consult with civil rights and civil 

liberties organizations, as well as law enforcement 

research groups and other experts, concerning 

the constitutional issues that can arise as a result 

of the use of new technologies. 

3.3.2 Action Item: The U.S. Department 

of Justice should create toolkits for the most 

effective and constitutional use of multiple 

forms of innovative technology that will provide 

state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies 

with a one-stop clearinghouse of information 

and resources. 

3.3.3 Action Item: Law enforcement 

agencies should review and consider the Bureau 

of Justice Assistance’s (BJA) Body Worn Camera 

Toolkit to assist in implementing BWCs. 

A Body-Worn Camera Expert Panel of law enforcement leaders, recognized practitioners, national 

policy leaders, and community advocates convened a two-day workshop in February, 2015 to 

develop a toolkit and provide guidance and model 

policy for law enforcement agencies implementing 

BWC programs. Subject matter experts contributed 

ideas and content for the proposed toolkit while a 

panel composed of privacy and victim advocates 

contributed ideas and content for the toolkit to 

broaden input and ensure transparency.

3.4 recOmmendatiOn: Federal, state, 

local, and tribal legislative bodies should be 

encouraged to update public record laws. 

The quickly evolving nature of new technologies 

that collect video, audio, information, and biometric data on members of the community can cause 

unforeseen consequences. Public record laws, 

which allow public access to information held by 

government agencies, including law enforcement, 

should be modified to protect the privacy of 

the individuals whose records they hold and to 

maintain the trust of the community.

Issues such as the accessibility of video captured 

through dashboard or body-worn cameras are 

especially complex. So too are the officer use of 

force events that will be captured by video camera 

systems and then broadcast by local media outlets. 

Use of force, even when lawful and appropriate, 

can negatively influence public perception and 

trust of police. Sean Smoot, task force member, addressed this by recalling the shooting of a Flagstaff, 

Arizona, police officer whose death was recorded 

by his BWC. Responding to public record requests 

by local media, the police department released 

the graphic footage, which was then shown on 

local TV and also on YouTube.65 This illustration also 

raises questions concerning the recording of police 

interactions with minors and the appropriateness 

of releasing those videos for public view given their 

inability to give informed consent for distribution. 

65. Listening Session on Technology and Social Media(Sean Smoot, task force 

member, for the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Cincinnati, OH, 

January 31, 2015).

3.5 Recommendation: Law enforcement 

agencies should adopt model policies 

and best practices for technology-based 

community engagement that increases 

community trust and access. 
3 7

P i l l a r 3 . T e c h n o l o g y & S o c i a l M e d i a

These policies and practices should at a minimum 

increase transparency and accessibility, provide 

access to information (crime statistics, current 

calls for service), allow for public posting of policy 

and procedures, and enable access and usage for 

persons with disabilities. They should also address 

issues surrounding the use of new and social 

media, encouraging the use of social media as a 

means of community interaction and relationship 

building, which can result in stronger law enforcement. As witness Elliot Cohen noted, 

We have seen social media support policing efforts 

in gathering intelligence during active assailant 

incidents: the Columbia Mall shooting and the 

Boston Marathon bombing. Social media allowed for 

a greater volume of information to be collected in an 

electronic format, both audibly and visually.66

66. Listening Session on Technology and Social Media: Technology Policy (oral 

testimony of Elliot Cohen, lieutenant, Maryland State Police, for the President’s Task 

Force on 21st Century Policing, Cincinnati, OH, January 31, 2015).

But to engage the community, social media must 

be responsive and current. Said Bill Schrier, “Regularly refresh the content to maintain and engage 

the audience, post content rapidly during incidents to dispel rumors, and use it for engagement, 

not just public information.”67 False or incorrect 

statements made via social media, mainstream 

media, and other means of technology deeply 

harm trust and legitimacy and can only be overcome with targeted and continuing community 

engagement and repeated positive interaction. 

Agencies need to unequivocally discourage falsities by underlining how harmful they are and how 

difficult they are to overcome. 

Agencies should also develop policies and practices on social media use that consider individual 

officer expression, professional representation, 

truthful communication, and other concerns that 

can impact trust and legitimacy.

Table 2. What types of social media does your agency currently use, and what types of 

social media do you plan to begin using within the next 2 to 5 years?

Social media type Percent of responding agencies 

currently using

Percent of responding agencies planning to begin using in 2 to 5 years

Agency website 100 —

Facebook 82 14

Twitter 69 18

YouTube 48 20

LinkedIn 34 20

Note: PERF, with the support of the COPS Office and Target Corporation, disseminated a “Future of Policing” survey in 2012 to more than 500 police agencies; nearly 

200 responded.

Source: Police Executive Research Forum, Future Trends in Policing (Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2014), 

http://ric-zai-inc.com/Publications/cops-p282-pub.pdf.

3.6 Recommendation: The Federal 

Government should support the development 

of new “less than lethal” technology to help 

control combative suspects. 

The fatal shootings in Ferguson, Cleveland, and 

elsewhere have put the consequences of use of 

force front and center in the national news. 

67. Listening Session on Technology and Social Media: Technology Policy (oral 

testimony of Bill Schrier, senior policy advisor, Office of the Chief Information 

Officer, State of Washington, for the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, 

Cincinnati, OH, January 31, 2015).
F i n a l R e p o r t o f t h e P r e s i d e n t ’ s T a s k F o r c e o n 2 1 s t C e n t u r y P o l i c i n g

3 8

Policies and procedures must change, but so 

should the weaponry. New technologies such as 

conductive energy devices (CED) have been developed and may be used and evaluated to decrease 

the number of fatal police interventions. Studies of 

CEDs have shown them to be effective at reducing 

both officer and civilian injuries. For example, in 

one study that compared seven law enforcement 

agencies that use CEDs with six agencies that do 

not, researchers found a 70 percent decrease in 

officer injuries and a 40 percent decrease in suspect injures.68

68. Bruce Taylor et al., Comparing Safety Outcomes in Police Use-Of-Force Cases 

for Law Enforcement Agencies That Have Deployed Conducted Energy Devices and 

A Matched Comparison Group That Have Not: A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation

(Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum, 2009), https://www.ncjrs.

gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/237965.pdf; John M. MacDonald, Robert J. Kaminski, 

and Michael R. Smith, “The Effect of Less-Lethal Weapons on Injuries in Police Useof-Force Events,” American Journal of Public Health 99, no. 12 (2009) 2268–2274, 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2775771/pdf/2268.pdf; Bruce G. 

But new technologies should still be 

subject to the appropriate use of force continuum 

restrictions. And Vincent Talucci made the point in 

his testimony that over-reliance on technological 

weapons can also be dangerous.69

3.6.1 Action Item: Relevant federal agencies, including the U.S. Departments of Defense 

and Justice, should expand their efforts to study 

the development and use of new less than lethal 

technologies and evaluate their impact on public 

safety, reducing lethal violence against citizens, 

constitutionality, and officer safety. 

Taylor and Daniel J. Woods, “Injuries to Officers and Suspects in Police Use-ofForce Cases: A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation,” Police Quarterly 13, no. 3 (2010): 

260–289, http://pqx.sagepub.com/content/13/3/260.full.pdf.

69. Listening Session on Technology and Social Media (oral testimony of Vincent 

Talucci, International Association of Chiefs of Police, for the President’s Task Force on 

21st Century Policing, Cincinnati, OH, January 31, 2015).

Rev. Jeff Brown speaks on restoring trust between police and communities, Phoenix, February 13, 2015. PHOTO: DEBORAH SPENCE
3 9

P i l l a r 3 . T e c h n o l o g y & S o c i a l M e d i a

3.7 Recommendation: The Federal 

Government should make the development 

and building of segregated radio spectrum 

and increased bandwidth by FirstNet 

for exclusive use by local, state, tribal, 

and federal public safety agencies a 

top priority.70

70. Listening Session on Technology and Social Media: Technology Policy (oral 

testimony of Bill Schrier, senior policy advisor, Office of the Chief Information 

Officer, State of Washington, for the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, 

Cincinnati, OH, January 31, 2015).

A national public safety broadband network 

which creates bandwidth for the exclusive use of 

law enforcement, the First Responder Network 

(FirstNet) is considered a game-changing public 

safety project, which would allow instantaneous 

communication in even the most remote areas 

whenever a disaster or incident occurs. It can also 

support many other technologies, including video 

transmission from BWCs.
F i n a l R e p o r t o f t h e P r e s i d e n t ’ s T a s k F o r c e o n 2 1 s t C e n t u r y P o l i c i n g

4 0

President Barack Obama delivers remarks to the press following a meeting with members of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing in the 

Roosevelt Room of the White House, March 2, 2015. OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE PHOTO BY CHUCK KENNEDY
4 1

P I L L A R 4 . C O M M U N I T Y P O L I C I N G 

& CRIME REDUCTION

Community policing requires the active building of positive relationships with members of the community.

Community policing is a philosophy that promotes 

organizational strategies that support the 

systematic use of 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.71

Over the past few decades, rates of both violent 

and property crime have dropped dramatically 

across the United States.72 However, some communities and segments of the population have not 

benefited from the decrease as much as others, and 

some not at all.73 Though law enforcement must 

concentrate their efforts in these neighborhoods 

to maintain public safety, sometimes those specific 

efforts arouse resentment in the neighborhoods 

the police are striving to protect. 

Police interventions must be implemented with 

strong policies and training in place, rooted in an 

understanding of procedural justice. Indeed, without that, police interventions can easily devolve 

into racial profiling, excessive use of force, and 

other practices that disregard civil rights, causing 

negative reactions from people living in already 

challenged communities.

71. Community Policing Defined (Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services, 2014), http://ric-zai-inc.com/Publications/cops-p157-pub.pdf.

72. “Crime Statistics for 2013 Released: Decrease in Violent Crimes and Property 

Crimes,” Federal Bureau of Investigation, last modified November 10, 2014, 

http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2014/november/crime-statistics-for-2013-

released/crime-statistics-for-2013-released.

73. Listening Session on Community Policing and Crime Reduction: Building 

Community Policing Organizations (oral testimony of Chris Magnus, chief, 

Richmond [CA] Police Department, for the President’s Task Force on 21st Century 

Policing, Phoenix, AZ, February 13, 2015).

Yet mutual trust and cooperation, two key 

elements of community policing, are vital to 

protecting residents of these communities from 

the crime that plagues them. Community policing 

combines a focus on intervention and prevention 

through problem solving with building collaborative partnerships between law enforcement 

agencies and schools, social services, and other 

stakeholders. In this way, community policing not 

only improves public safety but also enhances 

social connectivity and economic strength, which 

increases community resilience to crime. And, as 

noted by one speaker, it improves job satisfaction 

for line officers, too.

In his testimony to the task force, Camden County, 

New Jersey, Police Chief J. Scott Thomson noted 

that community policing starts on the street 

corner, with respectful interaction between a 

police officer and a local resident, a discussion that 

need not be related to a criminal matter.74 In fact, 

it is important that not all interactions be based on 

emergency calls or crime investigations. 

74. Listening Session on Community Policing and Crime Reduction: Using 

Community Policing to Reduce Crime (oral testimony of J. Scott Thomson, chief, 

Camden County [NJ] Police Department, for the President’s Task Force on 21st 

Century Policing, Phoenix, AZ, February 13, 2015).

Another aspect of community policing that was 

discussed in the listening session on this topic is 

the premise that officers enforce the law with the 

people not just on the people. In reflecting this 

belief, some commented on the negative 
F i n a l R e p o r t o f t h e P r e s i d e n t ’ s T a s k F o r c e o n 2 1 s t C e n t u r y P o l i c i n g

4 2

results of zero tolerance policies, which mete out 

automatic and predetermined actions by officers 

regardless of extenuating circumstances.

Community policing requires the active building 

of positive relationships with members of the 

community—on an agency as well as on a personal basis. This can be done through assigning 

officers to geographic areas on a consistent basis, 

so that through the continuity of assignment they 

have the opportunity to know the members of 

the community. It can also be aided by the use 

of programs such as Eagle County, Colorado’s 

Law Enforcement Immigrant Advisory Committee, which the police department formed with 

Catholic Charities to help the local immigrant 

community.75 This type of policing also requires 

participation in community organizations, local 

meetings and public service activities.

To be most effective, community policing also 

requires collaborative partnerships with agencies 

beyond law enforcement, such as Philadelphia’s 

successful Police Diversion Program described 

by Kevin Bethel, Deputy Commissioner of Patrol 

Operations in the Philadelphia Police Department 

in his testimony to the task force.76 This partnership with the Philadelphia Department of Human 

Services, the school district, the District Attorney’s 

office, Family Court, and other stakeholders significantly reduced the number of arrests of minority 

youths for minor offenses.

75. Listening Session on Community Policing and Crime Reduction: Building 

Community Policing Organizations (oral testimony of Chris Magnus, chief, 

Richmond [CA] Police Department, for the President’s Task Force on 21st Century 

Policing, Phoenix, AZ, February 13, 2015).

76. Listening Session on Community Policing and Crime Reduction: Using 

Community Policing to Reduce Crime (oral testimony of Kevin Bethel, deputy police 

commissioner, Philadelphia Police Department, for the President’s Task Force on 

21st Century Policing, Phoenix, AZ, February 13, 2015). 

Problem solving, another key element of community policing, is critical to prevention. And 

problems must be solved in partnership with the 

community in order to effectively address chronic 

crime and disorder problems. As Office of Community Oriented Policing Services Director Ronald 

L. Davis has said, “We need to teach new recruits 

that law enforcement is more than just cuffing 

‘perps’—it’s understanding why people do what 

they do.”77

In summary, law enforcement’s obligation is not 

only to reduce crime but also to do so fairly while 

protecting the rights of citizens. Any prevention 

strategy that unintentionally violates civil rights, 

compromises police legitimacy, or undermines 

trust is counterproductive from both ethical and 

cost-benefit perspectives. Ignoring these considerations can have both financial costs (e.g., lawsuits) 

and social costs (e.g., loss of public support). 

It must also be stressed that the absence of crime 

is not the final goal of law enforcement. Rather, it 

is the promotion and protection of public safety 

while respecting the dignity and rights of all. And 

public safety and well-being cannot be attained 

without the community’s belief that their wellbeing is at the heart of all law enforcement activities. It is critical to help community members see 

police as allies rather than as an occupying force 

and to work in concert with other community 

stakeholders to create more economically and 

socially stable neighborhoods. 

77. Faye Elkins, “Five COPS Office Directors Look Back and Think Forward at the 

20th Anniversary Celebration,” Community Policing Dispatch 8, no. 1 (January 

12, 2014), http://cops.usdoj.gov/html/dispatch/01-2015/cops_office_20th_

anniversary.asp.

4.1 Recommendation: Law enforcement 

agencies should develop and adopt policies 

and strategies that reinforce the importance 

of community engagement in managing 

public safety.
4 3

P i l l a r 4 . C o m m u n i t y P o l i c i n g & C r i m e R e d u c t i o n

Community policing is not just about the relationship between individual officers and individual 

neighborhood residents. It is also about the relationship between law enforcement leaders and 

leaders of key institutions in a community, such as 

churches, businesses, and schools, supporting the 

community’s own process to define prevention 

and reach goals. 

Law enforcement agencies cannot ensure the safety 

of communities alone but should seek to contribute 

to the strengthening of neighborhood capacity to 

prevent and reduce crime through informal social 

control. More than a century of research shows 

that informal social control is a much more powerful 

mechanism for crime control and reduction than is 

formal punishment. And perhaps the best evidence 

for the preventive power of informal social control 

may be the millions of unguarded opportunities to 

commit crime that are passed up each day.78

78. Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Felson, “Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: 

A Routine Activities Approach,” American Sociological Review 44 (August 1979): 

588–607.

79. Tracey Meares, “Praying for Community Policing,” California Law Review 90 

(2002): 1593–1634, http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/518/.

4.1.1 Action Item: Law enforcement agencies should consider adopting preferences for 

seeking “least harm” resolutions, such as diversion 

programs or warnings and citations in lieu of 

arrest for minor infractions. 

4.2 recOmmendatiOn: Community 

policing should be infused throughout the 

culture and organizational structure of law 

enforcement agencies.

Community policing must be a way of doing 

business by an entire police force, not just a 

specialized unit of that force.79 The task force heard 

testimony from Police Chief J. Scott Thomson of 

Camden County, New Jersey, who noted:

Community policing cannot be a program, unit, 

strategy or tactic. It must be the core principle that 

lies at the foundation of a police department’s 

culture. The only way to significantly reduce fear, 

crime, and disorder and then sustain these gains is 

to leverage the greatest force multiplier: the people 

of the community.80

This message was closely echoed by Chris Magnus, the police chief in Richmond, California. To 

build a more effective partnership with residents 

and transform culture within the police department as well as in the community, the Richmond 

police made sure that all officers, not just a 

select few, were doing community policing and 

neighborhood problem solving. Every officer is 

expected to get to know the residents, businesses, 

community groups, churches, and schools on their 

beat and work with them to identify and address 

public safety challenges, including quality of life 

issues such as blight. Officers remain in the same 

beat or district for several years or more—which 

builds familiarity and trust.81

Testimony from a number of witnesses also made 

clear that hiring, training, evaluating, and promoting officers based on their ability and track record 

in community engagement—not just traditional 

measures of policing such as arrests, tickets, or 

tactical skills—is an equally important component 

of the successful infusion of community policing 

throughout an organization. 

80. Listening Session on Community Policing and Crime Reduction: Using 

Community Policing to Reduce Crime (oral testimony of J. Scott Thomson, chief, 

Camden County [NJ] Police Department, for the President’s Task Force on 21st 

Century Policing, Phoenix, AZ, February 13, 2015).

81. Listening Session on Community Policing and Crime Reduction: Building 

Community Policing Organizations (oral testimony of Chris Magnus, chief, 

Richmond [CA] Police Department, for the President’s Task Force on 21st Century 

Policing, Phoenix, AZ, February 13, 2015).
F i n a l R e p o r t o f t h e P r e s i d e n t ’ s T a s k F o r c e o n 2 1 s t C e n t u r y P o l i c i n g

4 4

4.2.1 Action Item: Law enforcement 

agencies should evaluate officers on their efforts 

to engage members of the community and the 

partnerships they build. Making this part of 

the performance evaluation process places an 

increased value on developing partnerships.

4.2.2 Action Item: Law enforcement 

agencies should evaluate their patrol deployment 

practices to allow sufficient time for patrol officers 

to participate in problem solving and community 

engagement activities.

4.2.3 Action Item: The U.S. Department 

of Justice and other public and private entities 

should support research into the factors that 

have led to dramatic successes in crime reduction 

in some communities through the infusion of 

non-discriminatory policing and to determine 

replicable factors that could be used to guide law 

enforcement agencies in other communities.

4.3 recOmmendatiOn: Law enforcement 

agencies should engage in multidisciplinary, 

community team approaches for planning, 

implementing, and responding to crisis 

situations with complex causal factors. 

Collaborative approaches that engage professionals from across systems have emerged as model 

practices for addressing community problems 

that are not resolvable by the police alone. These 

team approaches call upon law enforcement 

agencies, service providers, and community 

support networks to work together to provide the 

right resources for the situation and foster sustainable change. Multiple witnesses before the task 

force spoke of departments coordinating mental 

health response teams that include mental health 

professionals, social workers, crisis counselors, and 

other professionals making decisions alongside 

the police regarding planning, implementing, and 

responding to mental health crisis situations. But 

this model is applicable to a number of community problems that regularly involve a police 

response, including homelessness, substance 

abuse, domestic violence, human trafficking, 

and child abuse. Ultimately, the idea is for 

officers to be trained and equipped to make 

use of existing community resources in the 

diffusion of crisis situations. 

4.3.1 Action Item: The U.S. Department of 

Justice should collaborate with others to develop 

and disseminate baseline models of this crisis 

intervention team approach that can be adapted 

to local contexts.

4.3.2 Action Item: Communities should 

look to involve peer support counselors as part 

of multidisciplinary teams when appropriate. 

Persons who have experienced the same trauma 

can provide both insight to the first responders 

and immediate support to individuals in crisis.

4.3.3 Action Item: Communities should be 

encouraged to evaluate the efficacy of these crisis 

intervention team approaches and hold agency 

leaders accountable for outcomes. 

4.4 recOmmendatiOn: Communities 

should support a culture and practice of 

policing that reflects the values of protection 

and promotion of the dignity of all, especially 

the most vulnerable. 

The task force heard many different ways of 

describing a positive culture of policing. David 

Kennedy suggested there could be a Hippocratic 
4 5

P i l l a r 4 . C o m m u n i t y P o l i c i n g & C r i m e R e d u c t i o n

Oath for Policing: First, Do No Harm.82 Law enforcement officers’ goal should be to avoid use 

of force if at all possible, even when it is allowed 

by law and by policy. Terms such as fair and 

impartial policing, rightful policing, constitutional 

policing, neighborhood policing, procedural justice,

and implicit bias training all address changing the 

culture of policing. Respectful language; thoughtful and intentional dialogue about the perception 

and reality of profiling and the mass incarceration 

of minorities; and consistent involvement, both 

formal and informal, in community events all help 

ensure that relationships of trust between police 

and community will be built. The vision of policing 

in the 21st century should be that of officers as 

guardians of human and constitutional rights.

82. Listening Session on Community Policing and Crime Reduction: Using 

Community Policing to Reduce Crime (oral testimony of David Kennedy, professor, 

John Jay College of Criminal Justice, for the President’s Task Force on 21st Century 

Policing, Phoenix, AZ, February 13, 2015).

4.4.1 Action Item: Because offensive or 

harsh language can escalate a minor situation, 

law enforcement agencies should underscore the 

importance of language used and adopt 

policies directing officers to speak to individuals 

with respect.

4.4.2 Action Item: Law enforcement 

agencies should develop programs that create opportunities for patrol officers to regularly interact 

with neighborhood residents, faith leaders, and 

business leaders.

Chief Edward Flynn of the Milwaukee Police Department, Phoenix, February 14, 2015. PHOTO: DEBORAH SPENCE

4.5 recOmmendatiOn: Community 

policing emphasizes working with 

neighborhood residents to co-produce public 

safety. Law enforcement agencies should 

work with community residents to identify 

problems and collaborate on implementing 

solutions that produce meaningful results for 

the community. 

As Delores Jones Brown testified, “Neighborhood 

policing provides an opportunity for police 

departments to do things with residents in the 

co-production of public safety rather than doing 
F i n a l R e p o r t o f t h e P r e s i d e n t ’ s T a s k F o r c e o n 2 1 s t C e n t u r y P o l i c i n g

4 6

things to or for them.”83 Community policing is not 

just about the behavior and tactics of police; it is 

also about the civic engagement and capacity 

of communities to improve their own neighborhoods, their quality of life, and their sense of safety 

and well-being. Members of communities are key 

partners in creating public safety, so communities 

and police need mechanisms to engage with each 

other in consistent and meaningful ways. One 

model for formalizing this engagement is through 

a civilian governance system such as is found in 

Los Angeles. As Chief Charlie Beck explained in 

testimony to the task force,

The Los Angeles Police Department is formally 

governed by the Board of Police Commissioners, 

a five-person civilian body with each member 

appointed by the mayor. The commission has formal 

authority to hire the chief of police, to set broad policy 

for the department, and to hold the LAPD and its 

chief accountable to the people.84

83. Listening Session on Community Policing and Crime Reduction: Community 

Policing and Crime Prevention Research (oral testimony of Delores Jones Brown, 

professor, Department of Law, Police Science & Criminal Justice Administration, 

John Jay College of Criminal Justice, for the President’s Task Force on 21st Century 

Policing, Phoenix, AZ, February 13, 2015).

84. Listening Session on Policy and Oversight: Civilian Oversight (oral testimony 

of Charles Beck, chief, Los Angeles Police Department, for the President’s Task Force 

on 21st Century Policing, Cincinnati, OH, January 30, 2015). 

Community policing, therefore, is concerned with 

changing the way in which citizens respond to 

police in more constructive and proactive ways. 

If officers feel unsafe and threatened, their ability 

to operate in an open and shared dialogue with 

community is inhibited. On the other hand, the 

police have the responsibility to understand the 

culture, history, and quality of life issues of the 

entire community—youth, elders, faith communities, special populations—and to educate the 

community, including its children, on the role and 

function of police and ways the community can 

protect itself, be part of solving problems, and 

prevent crime. Community and police jointly share 

the responsibility for civil dialogue and interaction. 

4.5.1 Action Item: Law enforcement agencies should schedule regular forums and meetings 

where all community members can interact with 

police and help influence programs and policy.

4.5.2 Action Item: Law enforcement agencies should engage youth and communities in joint 

training with law enforcement, citizen academies, 

ride-alongs, problem solving teams, community 

action teams, and quality of life teams.

4.5.3 Action Item: Law enforcement agencies should establish formal community/citizen 

advisory committees to assist in developing crime 

prevention strategies and agency policies as well 

as provide input on policing issues. 

Larger agencies should establish multiple committees to ensure they inform all levels of the 

organization. The makeup of these committees 

should reflect the demographics of the community or neighborhood being served.

4.5.4 Action Item: Law enforcement agencies should adopt community policing strategies 

that support and work in concert with economic 

development efforts within communities. 

As several witnesses, including Bill Geller, testified, 

public safety and the economic health of communities go hand in hand.85

85. Listening Session on Community Policing and Crime Reduction: Community 

Policing and Crime Prevention Research (oral testimony of Bill Geller, director, Geller 

& Associates, for the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Phoenix, AZ, 

February 13, 2015). 

 It is therefore important 
4 7

P i l l a r 4 . C o m m u n i t y P o l i c i n g & C r i m e R e d u c t i o n

for agencies to work with local, state, and federal 

partners on projects devoted to enhancing the 

economic health of the communities in which 

departments are located.

4.6 recOmmendatiOn: Communities 

should adopt policies and programs that 

address the needs of children and youth 

most at risk for crime or violence and reduce 

aggressive law enforcement tactics that 

stigmatize youth and marginalize their 

participation in schools and communities. 

The past decade has seen an explosion of 

knowledge about adolescent development and 

the neurological underpinnings of adolescent 

behavior. Much has also been learned about 

the pathways by which adolescents become 

delinquent, the effectiveness of prevention and 

treatment programs, and the long-term effects 

of transferring youths to the adult system and 

confining them in harsh conditions. These findings 

have raised doubts about a series of policies and 

practices of “zero tolerance” that have contributed 

to increasing the school-to-prison pipeline by 

criminalizing the behaviors of children as young 

as kindergarten age. Noncriminal offenses can 

escalate to criminal charges when officers are 

not trained in child and adolescent development 

and are unable to recognize and manage a child’s 

emotional, intellectual, and physical development 

issues. School district policies and practices that 

push students out of schools and into the juvenile 

justice system cause great harm and do no good.

One witness told the task force a stunning story 

about what happened to him one day when he 

was a high school freshman:

As I walked down the hall, one of the police officers 

employed in the school noticed I did not have my 

identification badge with me. Before I could explain 

why I did not have my badge, I was escorted to the 

office and suspended for an entire week. I had to 

leave the school premises immediately. Walking to 

the bus stop, a different police officer pulled me over 

and demanded to know why I was not in school. As 

I tried to explain, I was thrown into the back of the 

police car. They drove back to my school to see if I was 

telling the truth, and I was left waiting in the car for 

over two hours. When they came back, they told me 

I was in fact suspended, but because the school did 

not provide me with the proper forms, my guardian 

and I both had to pay tickets for me being off of 

school property. The tickets together were 600 dollars, 

and I had a court date for each one. Was forgetting 

my ID worth missing school? Me being kicked out of 

school did not solve or help anything. I was at home 

alone watching Jerry Springer, doing nothing.86

4.6.1 Action Item: Education and 

criminal justice agencies at all levels of 

government should work together to reform 

policies and procedures that push children into 

the juvenile justice system.87

86. Listening Session on Community Policing and Crime Prevention (oral 

testimony of Michael Reynolds for the President’s Task Force on 21st Century 

Policing, Phoenix, AZ, February 13, 2015).

87. For more information about such policies and procedures, see the U.S. 

Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division and U.S. Department of Education’s 

Office for Civil Rights, “Joint ‘Dear Colleague’ Letter,” last updated February 4, 2014, 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201401-title-vi.html.
F i n a l R e p o r t o f t h e P r e s i d e n t ’ s T a s k F o r c e o n 2 1 s t C e n t u r y P o l i c i n g

4 8

4.6.2 Action Item: In order to keep youth 

in school and to keep them from criminal and violent behavior, law enforcement agencies should 

work with schools to encourage the creation of 

alternatives to student suspensions and expulsion 

through restorative justice, diversion, counseling, 

and family interventions. 

4.6.3 Action Item: Law enforcement agencies should work with schools to encourage the 

use of alternative strategies that involve youth in 

decision making, such as restorative justice, youth 

courts, and peer interventions. 

The Federal Government could incentivize schools 

to adopt this practice by tying federal funding to 

schools implementing restorative justice practices.

4.6.4 Action Item: Law enforcement 

agencies should work with schools to adopt an 

instructional approach to discipline that uses 

interventions or disciplinary consequences to help 

students develop new behavior skills and positive 

strategies to avoid conflict, redirect energy, and 

refocus on learning.

4.6.5 Action Item: Law enforcement 

agencies should work with schools to develop and 

monitor school discipline policies with input and 

collaboration from school personnel, students, 

families, and community members. These policies 

should prohibit the use of corporal punishment 

and electronic control devices.

4.6.6 Action Item: Law enforcement 

agencies should work with schools to create a 

continuum of developmentally appropriate and 

proportional consequences for addressing ongoing and escalating student misbehavior after all 

appropriate interventions have been attempted.

4.6.7 Action Item: Law enforcement 

agencies should work with communities to play 

a role in programs and procedures to reintegrate 

juveniles back into their communities as they 

leave the juvenile justice system. 

Although this recommendation—and therefore 

its action items—specifically focuses on juveniles, 

this task force believes that law enforcement 

agencies should also work with communities to 

play a role in re-entry programs for adults leaving 

prisons and jails.

4.6.8 Action Item: Law enforcement agencies and schools should establish memoranda of 

agreement for the placement of School Resource 

Officers that limit police involvement in student 

discipline.

Such agreements could include provisions for 

special training for School Resource Officers to 

help them better understand and deal with issues 

involving youth.

4.6.9 Action Item: The Federal Government should assess and evaluate zero tolerance 

strategies and examine the role of reasonable 

discretion when dealing with adolescents in 

consideration of their stages of maturation 

or development. 
4 9

P i l l a r 4 . C o m m u n i t y P o l i c i n g & C r i m e R e d u c t i o n

Task force executive director Ronald L. Davis and co-chairs Laurie Robinson and Charles Ramsey, Washington, D.C., February 23, 2015.

PHOTO: DEBORAH SPENCE

4.7 recOmmendatiOn: Communities 

need to affirm and recognize the 

voices of youth in community decision 

making, facilitate youth-led research and 

problem solving, and develop and fund 

youth leadership training and life skills 

through positive youth/police collaboration 

and interactions.

Youth face unique challenges when encountering 

the criminal justice system. Law enforcement 

contacts for apparent infractions create trauma 

and fear in children and disillusionment in youth, 

but proactive and positive youth interactions with 

police create the opportunity for coaching, mentoring, and diversion into constructive alternative 

activities. Moving testimony from a panel of young 

people allowed the task force members to hear 

how officers can lead youth out of the conditions 

that keep them in the juvenile justice system and 

into self-awareness and self-help.

Phoenix native Jose Gonzales, 21, first went to jail 

at age nine and had a chaotic childhood, but in 

turning his life towards a productive and healthy 

future, he vividly remembers one officer who 

made a difference:

Needless to say, I have had a fair amount of 

interaction with law enforcement in my youth. Some 

has been very positive. Like the time that a School 

Resource Officer got me involved in an after school 

club. Officer Bill D. helped me stop being a bad 

kid and assisted with after school activities. He 

sought me out to be a part of a club that included 

all sorts of youth—athletes, academics—and 

helped me gain confidence in reaching out to 

other social circles beyond my troubled community. 

The important idea I’d like to convey is that approach 

is everything.88

88. Listening Session on Community Policing and Crime Reduction: Youth and 

Law Enforcement (oral testimony of Jose Gonzales for the President’s Task Force on 

21st Century Policing, Phoenix, AZ, February 13, 2015).
F i n a l R e p o r t o f t h e P r e s i d e n t ’ s T a s k F o r c e o n 2 1 s t C e n t u r y P o l i c i n g

5 0

4.7.1 Action Item: Communities and law 

enforcement agencies should restore and build 

trust between youth and police by creating programs and projects for positive, consistent, and 

persistent interaction between youth and police. 

4.7.2 Action Item: Communities 

should develop community- and school-based 

evidence-based programs that mitigate punitive 

and authoritarian solutions to teen problems.
5 1

PILLAR 5 . TRAINING & EDUCATION

Hiring officers who reflect the community they serve is important not 

only to external relations but also to increasing understanding within 

the agency.

As our nation becomes more pluralistic and the 

scope of law enforcement’s responsibilities expands, the need for more and better training has 

become critical. Today’s line officers and leaders 

must meet a wide variety of challenges including 

international terrorism, evolving technologies, 

rising immigration, changing laws, new cultural 

mores, and a growing mental health crisis. All 

states and territories and the District of Columbia 

should establish standards for hiring, training, 

and education.

The skills and knowledge required to effectively 

deal with these issues requires a higher level of 

education as well as extensive and ongoing training in specific disciplines. The task force discussed 

these needs in depth, making recommendations 

for basic recruit and in-service training, as well as 

leadership development in a wide variety of areas:

y Community policing and problem-solving 

principles 

y Interpersonal and communication skills

y Bias awareness

y Scenario-based, situational decision making

y Crisis intervention

y Procedural justice and impartial policing

y Trauma and victim services

y Mental health issues 

y Analytical research and technology 

y Languages and cultural responsiveness

Many who spoke before the task force recommended that law enforcement partner with 

academic institutions; organizations such as the 

International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), 

the Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCCA), the 

National Organization of Black Law Enforcement 

Executives (NOBLE), and the Police Executive 

Research Forum (PERF); and other sources 

of appropriate training. Establishing fellowships 

and exchange programs with other agencies was 

also suggested. 

Other witnesses spoke about the police education now offered by universities, noting that 

undergraduate criminal justice and criminology 

programs provide a serviceable foundation but 

that short courses of mixed quality and even 

some graduate university degree programs do 

not come close to addressing the needs of 

21st-century law enforcement. 

In addition to discussion of training programs 

and educational expectations, witnesses at the 

listening session made clear that new approaches 

to recruitment, hiring, evaluation, and promotion 

are also essential to developing a more highly 

educated workforce with the character traits and 

social skills that enable effective policing and 

positive community relationships.

To build a police force capable of dealing with the 

complexity of the 21st century, it is imperative 

that agencies place value on both educational 

achievements and socialization skills when making 

hiring decisions. Hiring officers who reflect the 
F i n a l R e p o r t o f t h e P r e s i d e n t ’ s T a s k F o r c e o n 2 1 s t C e n t u r y P o l i c i n g

5 2

community they serve is also important not only 

to external relations but also to increasing understanding within the agency. On the other hand, 

task force member Constance Rice described the 

best line officer she knew—White, but better at 

relating to the African-American community than 

his Black colleagues. Her recommendation was to 

look for the character traits that support fairness, 

compassion, and cultural sensitivity.89

The need for understanding, tolerance, and 

sensitivity to African Americans, Latinos, recent 

immigrants, Muslims, and the LGBTQ community 

was discussed at length at the listening session, 

with witnesses giving examples of unacceptable 

behavior in law enforcement’s dealings with all 

of these groups. Participants also discussed the 

need to move towards practices that respect all 

members of the community equally and away 

from policing tactics that can unintentionally lead 

to excessive enforcement against minorities. 

Witnesses noted that officers need to develop the 

skills and knowledge necessary in the fight against 

terrorism by gaining an understanding of the links 

between normal criminal activity and terrorism, 

for example. What is more, this training must be 

ongoing, as threats and procedures for combatting terrorism evolve. 

The need for realistic, scenario-based training to 

better manage interactions and minimize using 

force was discussed by a number of witnesses. 

Others focused more on content than delivery: 

Dennis Rosenbaum suggested putting procedural justice at the center of training, not on the 

89. Listening Session on Training and Education (Constance Rice, task force 

member, for the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Phoenix, AZ, 

February 14, 2015).

fringes.90 Ronal Serpas recommended training on 

the effects of violence not only on the community 

and individual victims but also on police officers 

themselves, noting that exposure to violence can 

make individuals more prone to violent behavior.91

And witnesses Bruce Lipman and David Friedman 

both spoke about providing officers with historical 

perspectives of policing to provide context as to 

why some communities have negative feelings 

toward the police and improve understanding of 

the role of the police in a democratic society.92

Though today’s law enforcement professionals 

are highly trained and highly skilled operationally, 

they must develop specialized knowledge and understanding that enable fair and procedurally just 

policing and allow them to meet a wide variety 

of new challenges and expectations. Tactical skills 

are important, but attitude, tolerance, and interpersonal skills are equally so. And to be effective 

in an ever-changing world, training must continue 

throughout an officer’s career.

The goal is not only effective, efficient policing but 

also procedural justice and fairness. Following are 

the task force’s recommendations for implementing career-long education and training practices 

for law enforcement in the 21st century. 

90. Listening Session on Community Policing and Crime Reduction: Community 

Policing and Crime Prevention Research (oral testimony of Dennis Rosenbaum, 

professor, University of Illinois at Chicago, for the President’s Task Force on 21st 

Century Policing, Phoenix, AZ, February 13, 2015).

91. Listening Session on Training and Education: Special Training on Building Trust 

(oral testimony of Ronal Serpas, advisory board member, Cure Violence Chicago, for 

the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Phoenix, AZ, February 14, 2015).

92. Listening Session on Training and Education: Special Training on Building Trust 

(oral testimony of David C. Friedman, director of National Law Enforcement Initiatives, 

Anti-Defamation League, for the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Phoenix, 

AZ, February 14, 2015); Listening Session on Training and Education: Special Training 

on Building Trust (oral testimony of Bruce Lipman, Procedural Justice Training, for the 

President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Phoenix, AZ, February 14, 2015).

To be effective in an ever-changing world, training must continue 

throughout an officer’s career.
5 3

P i l l a r 5 . T r a i n i n g & E d u c a t i o n

Task force members Jose Lopez and Brittany Packnett listen to testimony, Phoenix, February 14, 2015. PHOTO: DEBORAH SPENCE

5.1 recOmmendatiOn: The Federal 

Government should support the development 

of partnerships with training facilities across 

the country to promote consistent standards 

for high quality training and establish training 

innovation hubs. 

A starting point for changing the culture of policing is to change the culture of training academies. 

The designation of certain training academies as 

federally supported regional “training innovation 

hubs” could act as leverage points for changing 

training culture while taking into consideration 

regional variations. Federal funding would be a 

powerful incentive to these designated academies 

to conduct the necessary research to develop and 

implement the highest quality curricula focused 

on the needs of 21st century American policing, 

along with cutting-edge delivery modalities.

5.1.1 Action Item: The training innovation 

hubs should develop replicable model programs 

that use adult-based learning and scenario-based 

training in a training environment modeled less 

like boot camp. Through these programs the hubs 

would influence nationwide curricula, as well as 

instructional methodology. 

5.1.2 Action Item: The training innovation 

hubs should establish partnerships with academic 

institutions to develop rigorous training practices, 

evaluation, and the development of curricula 

based on evidence-based practices. 

5.1.3 Action Item: The Department of 

Justice should build a stronger relationship with 

the International Association of Directors of Law 
F i n a l R e p o r t o f t h e P r e s i d e n t ’ s T a s k F o r c e o n 2 1 s t C e n t u r y P o l i c i n g

5 4

Enforcement (IADLEST) in order to leverage their 

network with state boards and commissions of 

Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST). 

The POSTs are critical to the development and 

implementation of statewide training standards 

and the certification of instructors and training 

courses, as well as integral to facilitating communication, coordination, and influence with the 

more than 650 police academies across the nation. 

This relationship would also serve as a pipeline for 

disseminating information and creating discussion 

around best practices. 

5.2 recOmmendatiOn: Law enforcement 

agencies should engage community members 

in the training process. 

Not only can agencies make important contributions to the design and implementation of 

training that reflects the needs and character of 

their communities but it is also important for police training to be as transparent as possible. This 

will result in both a better informed public and a 

better informed officer. 

Where appropriate and through managed programs, the community would

y learn about and evaluate the existing training 

within departments;

y provide input into shaping that some training 

content and delivery;

y in some cases, participate in training alongside 

officers.

5.2.1 Action Item: The U.S. Department of 

Justice should conduct research to develop and 

disseminate a toolkit on how law enforcement 

agencies and training programs can integrate 

community members into this training process.

5.3 recOmmendatiOn: Law enforcement 

agencies should provide leadership training 

to all personnel throughout their careers. 

Standards and programs need to be established 

for every level of leadership from the first line to 

middle management to executive leadership. If 

there is good leadership and procedural justice 

within the agency, the officers are more likely to 

behave according to those standards in the community. As Chief Edward Flynn of the Milwaukee 

Police Department noted, “Flexible, dynamic, insightful, ethical leaders are needed to develop the 

informal social control and social capital required 

for a civil society to flourish.”93 One example of 

leadership training is Leading Police Organizations, 

a program developed by the IACP and modeled 

after the West Point Leadership Program, which 

offers training for all levels of agency management in programs based on a behavioral science 

approach to leading people groups, change, and 

organizations, focusing on the concept of “every 

officer a leader.”

93. Listening Session on Training and Education (oral testimony of Edward Flynn, 

chief, Milwaukee Police Department, for the President’s Task Force on 21st Century 

Policing, Phoenix, AZ, February 14, 2015).

5.3.1 Action Item: Recognizing that 

strong, capable leadership is required to create 

cultural transformation, the U.S. Department of 

Justice should invest in developing learning goals 

and model curricula/training for each level of 

leadership.

This training should focus on organizational 

procedural justice, community policing, police 

accountability, teaching, coaching, mentoring, and 

communicating with the media and the public. 

Chief Kim Jacobs noted this in her testimony 

discussing current issues with training on reviewing investigations of police actions and prepare 

comprehensive reports for all stakeholders, 
5 5

P i l l a r 5 . T r a i n i n g & E d u c a t i o n

including the media and citizens.94 These standards 

should also influence requirements for promotion 

and continuing/ongoing education should also be 

required to maintain leadership positions. 

94. Listening Session on Training and Education (oral testimony of Kim Jacobs, 

chief, Columbus [OH] Division of Police, for the President’s Task Force on 21st 

Century Policing, Phoenix, AZ, February 14, 2015).

5.3.2 Action Item: The Federal Government should encourage and support partnerships 

between law enforcement and academic 

institutions to support a culture that values 

ongoing education and the integration of 

current research into the development of 

training, policies, and practices. 

5.3.3 Action Item: The U.S. Department 

of Justice should support and encourage 

cross-discipline leadership training. 

This can be within the criminal justice system 

but also across governments, nonprofits, and the 

private sector, including social services, legal aid, 

businesses, community corrections, education, 

the courts, mental health organizations, civic and 

religious organizations, and others. When people 

come together from different disciplines and 

backgrounds, there is a cross-fertilization of ideas 

that often leads to better solutions. Furthermore, 

by interacting with a more diverse group of professionals, police can establish a valuable network 

of contacts whose knowledge and skills differ from 

but complement their own. This opportunity does 

exist for front-line staff on a variety of specialized 

topics but also needs to happen at decision/policy 

maker levels. For example, the National Alliance 

for Drug Endangered Children is an especially 

appropriate model for the value of cross-discipline 

training. Their written testimony to the task force 

explains how their training approach focuses on 

the formation of community partnerships that 

engage law enforcement and professionals 

from multiple disciplines to collaboratively 

identify and protect drug endangered children 

and their families.95

5.4 recOmmendatiOn: The U.S. 

Department of Justice should develop, 

in partnership with institutions of higher 

education, a national postgraduate institute 

of policing for senior executives with a 

standardized curriculum preparing them to 

lead agencies in the 21st century.

To advance American law enforcement, we must 

advance its leadership. To that end, the task force 

recommends the establishment of a top quality 

graduate institute of policing to provide ongoing leadership training, education, and research 

programs which will enhance the quality of law 

enforcement culture, knowledge, skills, practices 

and policies. Modeled after the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, this institute 

will be staffed with subject matter experts and 

instructors drawn from the nation’s top educational institutions, who will focus on the real world 

problems that challenge today’s and tomorrow’s 

law enforcement, teaching practical skills and providing the most current information for improving 

policing services throughout the nation. This 

institute could even, as witness Lawrence Sherman proposed, “admit qualified applicants to a 

three-month residential course for potential police 

executives, concluding in an assessment center 

and examination that would certify qualified graduates to serve as chief police executives anywhere 

in the United States.”96

95. Listening Session on Training and Education (written testimony of the 

National Alliance for Drug Endangered Children for the President’s Task Force on 

21st Century Policing, Phoenix, AZ, February 14, 2015).

96. Listening Session on The Future of Community Policing (oral testimony of 

Lawrence Sherman, Wolfson Professor of Criminology, University of Cambridge, and 

Distinguished University Professor, University of Maryland, for the President’s Task 

Force on 21st Century Policing, Washington, DC, February 24, 2015).
F i n a l R e p o r t o f t h e P r e s i d e n t ’ s T a s k F o r c e o n 2 1 s t C e n t u r y P o l i c i n g

5 6

5.5 recOmmendatiOn: The U.S. 

Department of Justice should instruct the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation to modify 

the curriculum of the National Academy at 

Quantico to include prominent coverage of 

the topical areas addressed in this report. 

In addition, the COPS Office and the Office 

of Justice Programs should work with law 

enforcement professional organizations to 

encourage modification of their curricula in a 

similar fashion.97

The Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services (COPS Office) and the Office of Justice 

Programs (OJP) should work with the law enforcement professional organizations to encourage 

modification of their curricula—for example, the 

Senior Management Institute for Police run by 

PERF and the Police Executive Leadership Institute 

managed by the Major Cities Chiefs Association.

5.6 recOmmendatiOn: POSTs should 

make Crisis Intervention Training (CIT) 

a part of both basic recruit and in-service 

officer training. 

Crisis intervention training (CIT) was developed in 

Memphis, Tennessee, in 1988 and has been shown 

to improve police ability to recognize symptoms 

of a mental health crisis, enhance their confidence 

in addressing such an emergency, and reduce 

inaccurate beliefs about mental illness.98

97. Listening Session on Training and Education: Supervisory, Leadership and 

Management Training (oral testimony of Kimberly Jacobs, chief, Columbus [OH] 

Division of Police, for the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Phoenix, AZ, 

February 14, 2015); Listening Session on Training and Education (e-mail of Annie 

McKee, senior fellow, University of Pennsylvania, for the President’s Task Force on 

21st Century Policing, Phoenix, AZ, February 13–14, 2015); Listening Session on 

Training and Education (written testimony of Anthony Braga et al. for the President’s 

Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Phoenix, AZ, February 13–14, 2015).

98. Natalie Bonfine, Christian Ritter, and Mark R. Munetz, “Police Officer 

Perceptions of the Impact of Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) Programs,” International 

Journal of Law and Psychiatry 37, no. 4 (July–August 2014): 341–350, 

doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2014.02.004.

It has 

been found that after completing CIT orientation, 

officers felt encouraged to interact with people 

suffering a mental health crisis and to delay their 

“rush to resolution.”99 Dr. Randolph Dupont, Chair 

of the Department of Criminology and Criminal 

Justice at the University of Memphis, spoke 

to the task force about the effectiveness 

of the Memphis Crisis Intervention Team (CIT), 

which stresses verbal intervention and other 

de-escalation techniques. 

Noting that empathy training is an important 

component, Dr. Dupont said the Memphis CIT 

includes personal interaction between officers and 

individuals with mental health problems. Officers 

who had contact with these individuals felt more 

comfortable with them, and hospital mental 

health staff who participated with the officers 

had more positive views of law enforcement. CIT 

also provides a unique opportunity to develop 

cross-disciplinary training and partnerships. 

99. Kelly E. Canada, Beth Angell, and Amy C. Watson, “Crisis Intervention Teams in 

Chicago: Successes on the Ground,” Journal of Police Crisis Negotiations 10, no. 1–2 

(2010), 86–100, doi:10.1080/15332581003792070.

5.6.1 Action Item: Because of the importance of this issue, Congress should appropriate 

funds to help support law enforcement crisis 

intervention training.

5.7 recOmmendatiOn: POSTs should 

ensure that basic officer training includes 

lessons to improve social interaction as well as 

tactical skills. 

These include topics such as critical thinking, 

social intelligence, implicit bias, fair and impartial 

policing, historical trauma, and other topics that 

address capacity to build trust and legitimacy in 

diverse communities and offer better skills for 

gaining compliance without the use of physical 
5 7

P i l l a r 5 . T r a i n i n g & E d u c a t i o n

force. Basic recruit training must also include tactical and operations training on lethal and nonlethal 

use of force with an emphasis on de-escalation 

and tactical retreat skills. 

Task force member Bryan Stevenson asks a panelist a question, Phoenix, February 13, 2015. PHOTO: DEBORAH SPENCE

5.8 recOmmendatiOn: POSTs should 

ensure that basic recruit and in-service officer 

training include curriculum on the disease of 

addiction. 

It is important that officers be able to recognize 

the signs of addiction and respond accordingly 

when they are interacting with people who may 

be impaired as a result of their addiction. Science 

has demonstrated that addiction is a disease 

of the brain—a disease that can be prevented 

and treated and from which people can recover. 

The growing understanding of this science has 

led to a number of law enforcement agencies 

equipping officers with overdose-reversal drugs 

such as naloxone and the passage of legislation in 

many states that shield any person from civil and 

criminal liability if they administer naloxone.

The Obama Administration’s drug policy reflects 

this understanding and emphasizes access to 

treatment over incarceration, pursuing “smart on 

crime” rather than “tough on crime” approaches to 

drug-related offenses, and support for early health 

interventions designed to break the cycle of drug 

use, crime, incarceration, and re-arrest.100

100. A Drug Policy for the 21st Century, July 2014, accessed February 27, 2015, 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/drugpolicyreform.

And the 

relationship between incarceration and addiction 

is a significant one. A 2004 survey by the U.S. 
F i n a l R e p o r t o f t h e P r e s i d e n t ’ s T a s k F o r c e o n 2 1 s t C e n t u r y P o l i c i n g

5 8

Department of Justice estimated that about 70 

percent of state and 64 percent of federal prisoners regularly used drugs prior to incarceration.101

5.9 recOmmendatiOn: POSTs should 

ensure both basic recruit and in-service 

training incorporates content around 

recognizing and confronting implicit bias and 

cultural responsiveness. 

As the nation becomes more diverse, it will become 

increasingly important that police officers be 

sensitive to and tolerant of differences. It is vital that 

law enforcement provide training that recognizes 

the unique needs and characteristics of minority 

communities, whether they are victims or witnesses 

of crimes, subjects of stops, or criminal suspects. 

Keeshan Harley, a young Black man, testified that 

he estimates that he’s been stopped and frisked 

more than 100 times and that he felt that the 

problem is not just a few individual bad apples, 

but the systemic way policing treats certain 

communities—including low-income and young 

people, African Americans, LGBTQ people, the 

homeless, immigrants, and people with psychiatric 

disabilities. In so doing, police have produced 

communities of alienation and resentment.102

101. C. Mumola and J.C. Karberg, Drug Use and Dependence, State and Federal 

Prisoners, 2004 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice 

Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2007), http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/

pdf/dudsfp04.pdf.

102. Listening Session on Training and Education: Voices in the Community (oral 

testimony of Keeshan Harley, member, Communities United for Police Reform, 

for the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Phoenix, AZ, February 

14, 2015); see also Tracey L. Meares, “Programming Errors: Understanding the 

Constitutionality of Stop-and-Frisk as a Program, Not an Incident,” University of 

Chicago Law Review (forthcoming).

He is 

arguably not alone in his opinions, given that 

research has shown that “of those involved in traffic and street stops, a smaller percentage of Blacks 

than Whites believed the police behaved properly 

during the stop.”103

And in a 2012 survey of LGBTQ/HIV contact with 

police, 25 percent of respondents with any recent 

police contact reported at least one type of 

misconduct or harassment, such as being accused 

of an offense they did not commit, verbal assault, 

being arrested for an offense they did not commit, 

sexual harassment, physical assault, or sexual 

assault.104

5.9.1 Action Item: Law enforcement 

agencies should implement ongoing, top down 

training for all officers in cultural diversity and 

related topics that can build trust and legitimacy 

in diverse communities. This should be accomplished with the assistance of advocacy groups 

that represent the viewpoints of communities that 

have traditionally had adversarial relationships 

with law enforcement. 

5.9.2 Action Item: Law enforcement agencies should implement training for officers that 

covers policies for interactions with the LGBTQ 

population, including issues such as determining 

gender identity for arrest placement, the Muslim, 

Arab, and South Asian communities, and immigrant or non-English speaking groups, as well as 

reinforcing policies for the prevention of sexual 

misconduct and harassment. 

103. Langton and Durose, Traffic and Street Stops, 2011 (see note 42).

104. Listening Session on Policy and Oversight (written testimony of Lambda 

Legal for the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Cincinnati, OH, January 

30–31, 2015); Lambda Legal, Protected and Served? Survey of LGBT/HIV Contact 

with Police, Courts, Prisons, and Security, 2014, accessed February 28, 2015, http://

www.lambdalegal.org/protected-and-served.
5 9

P i l l a r 5 . T r a i n i n g & E d u c a t i o n

5.10 recOmmendatiOn: POSTs should 

require both basic recruit and in-service 

training on policing in a democratic society. 

Police officers are granted a great deal of authority, 

and it is therefore important that they receive training on the constitutional basis of and the proper 

use of that power and authority. Particular focus 

should be placed on ensuring that Terry stops105

are conducted within constitutional guidelines.

5.11 recOmmendatiOn: The Federal 

Government, as well as state and local 

agencies, should encourage and incentivize 

higher education for law enforcement officers. 

While many believe that a higher level of required education could raise the quality of officer 

performance, law enforcement also benefits from 

a diverse range of officers who bring their cultures, languages, and life experiences to policing. 

105. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). 

Offering entry level opportunities to recruits 

without a college degree can be combined with 

the provision of means to obtain higher education 

throughout their career, thereby ensuring the 

benefits of a diverse staff with a well-educated 

police force and an active learning culture. Current 

student loan programs allow repayment based on 

income, and some already provide tuition debt 

forgiveness after 120 months of service in the 

government or nonprofit sector. 

5.11.1 Action Item: The Federal Government should create a loan repayment and 

forgiveness incentive program specifically for 

policing. 

This could be modeled on similar programs that 

already exist for government service and other 

fields or the reinstitution of funding for programs 

such as the 1960s and 70s Law Enforcement 

Education Program. 

Table 3. College degree requirements for full-time instructors in state and local law enforcement training academies, by type of operating agency, 2006 

Primary operating agency Total percentage of academies with a minimum 

educational requirement that 

included a college degree

Percentage of academies 

requiring a 4-year degree

Percent of academies 

requiring a 2-year degree

All types 19 11 8

State Peace Officer Standards 

and Training

13 13 0

State police 11 7 5

Sheriff’s office 2 0 2

County police 5 0 5

Municipal police 7 4 3

College/university 35 22 13

Multiagency 15 2 13

Other types 8 8 0

Source: Brian A. Reaves, State and Local Law Enforcement Training Academies, 2006,Special Report (Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2009), 

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/slleta06.pdf.
F i n a l R e p o r t o f t h e P r e s i d e n t ’ s T a s k F o r c e o n 2 1 s t C e n t u r y P o l i c i n g

6 0

5.12 recOmmendatiOn: The Federal 

Government should support research into 

the development of technology that 

enhances scenario-based training, 

social interaction skills, and enables 

the dissemination of interactive distance 

learning for law enforcement. 

This will lead to new modalities that enhance the 

effectiveness of the learning experience, reduce 

instructional costs, and ensure the broad dissemination of training through platforms that do not 

require time away from agencies. 

This would be especially helpful for smaller and 

more rural departments who cannot spare the 

time for their officers to participate in residential/

in-person training programs. Present day 

technologies should also be employed more 

often—web-based learning, behavior evaluations 

through body worn camera videos, software programs for independent learning, scenario-based 

instruction through videos, and other methods. 

This can also increase access to evidence-based 

research and other sources of knowledge.

5.13 recOmmendatiOn: The U.S. 

Department of Justice should support 

the development and implementation of 

improved Field Training Officer programs. 

This is critical in terms of changing officer culture. 

Field Training Officers impart the organizational 

culture to the newest members. The most common current program, known as the San Jose 

Model, is more than 40 years old and is not based 

on current research knowledge of adult learning 

modalities. In many ways it even conflicts with 

innovative training strategies that encourage 

problem-based learning and support organizational procedural justice. 

5.13.1 Action Item: The U.S. Department 

of Justice should support the development of 

broad Field Training Program standards and 

training strategies that address changing police 

culture and organizational procedural justice 

issues that agencies can adopt and customize to 

local needs. 

A potential model for this is the Police Training 

Officer program developed by the COPS Office in 

collaboration with PERF and the Reno (Nevada) 

Police Department. This problem-based learning 

strategy used adult learning theory and problem 

solving tools to encourage new officers to 

think with a proactive mindset, enabling the 

identification of and solution to problems 

within their communities.

5.13.2 Action Item: The U.S. Department 

of Justice should provide funding to incentivize 

agencies to update their Field Training Programs 

in accordance with the new standards. 
6 1

P I L L A R 6 . O F F I C E R W E L L N E S S & 

SAFETY

The wellness and safety of law enforcement officers is critical not 

only to themselves, their colleagues, and their agencies but also to 

public safety.

Most law enforcement officers walk into risky 

situations and encounter tragedy on a regular basis. 

Some, such as the police who responded to the 

carnage of Sandy Hook Elementary School, witness 

horror that stays with them for the rest of their lives. 

Others are physically injured in carrying out their duties, sometimes needlessly, through mistakes made 

in high stress situations. The recent notable deaths 

of officers are stark reminders of the risk officers face. 

As a result, physical, mental, and emotional injuries 

plague many law enforcement agencies.

However, a large proportion of officer injuries and 

deaths are not the result of interaction with criminal offenders but the outcome of poor physical 

health due to poor nutrition, lack of exercise, sleep 

deprivation, and substance abuse. Yet these causes are often overlooked or given scant attention. 

Many other injuries and fatalities are the result of 

vehicular accidents.

The wellness and safety of law enforcement 

officers is critical not only to themselves, their 

colleagues, and their agencies but also to public 

safety. An officer whose capabilities, judgment, 

and behavior are adversely affected by poor 

physical or psychological health not only may be 

of little use to the community he or she serves but 

also may be a danger to the community and to 

other officers. As task force member Tracey Meares 

observed, “Hurt people can hurt people.”106

106. Listening Session on Officer Safety and Wellness (comment of Tracey 

Meares, task force member, for the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, 

Washington, DC, February 23, 2015).

Commenting on the irony of law enforcement’s 

lack of services and practices to support wellness 

and safety, Dr. Laurence Miller observed in his 

testimony that supervisors would not allow an officer to go on patrol with a deficiently maintained 

vehicle, an un-serviced duty weapon, or a malfunctioning radio—but pay little attention to the 

maintenance of what is all officers’ most valuable 

resource: their brains.107

Officer suicide is also a problem: a national study 

using data of the National Occupational Mortality 

Surveillance found that police died from suicide 

2.4 times as often as from homicides. And though 

depression resulting from traumatic experiences 

is often the cause, routine work and life stressors—serving hostile communities, working long 

shifts, lack of family or departmental support—are 

frequent motivators too. 

In this pillar, the task force focused on many of 

the issues that impact and are impacted by officer 

wellness and safety, focusing on strategies in 

several areas: physical, mental, and emotional 

health; vehicular accidents; officer suicide; shootings and assaults; and the partnerships with social 

services, unions, and other organizations that can 

support solutions. 

107. Listening Session on Officer Safety and Wellness (oral testimony of Laurence 

Miller, psychologist, for the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, 

Washington, DC, February 23, 2015).
F i n a l R e p o r t o f t h e P r e s i d e n t ’ s T a s k F o r c e o n 2 1 s t C e n t u r y P o l i c i n g

6 2

Physical injuries and death in the line of duty, 

while declining, are still too high. According to 

estimates of U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, more 

than 100,000 law enforcement professionals 

are injured in the line of duty each year. Many 

are the result of assaults, which underscores 

the need for body armor, but most are due to 

vehicular accidents. 

To protect against assaults, Orange County (Florida) Sheriff Jerry Demings talked about immersing 

new officers in simulation training that realistically 

depicts what they are going to face in the real 

world. “I subscribe to an edict that there is no substitute for training and experience . . . deaths and 

injuries can be prevented through training that is 

both realistic and repetitive.”108

But to design effective training first requires collecting substantially more information about the 

nature of injuries sustained by officers on the job. 

Dr. Alexander Eastman’s testimony noted that the 

field of emergency medicine involves the analysis 

of vast amounts of data with regard to injuries in 

order to improve prevention as well as treatment.

In order to make the job of policing more safe, a 

nationwide repository for [law enforcement officer] 

injuries sustained is desperately needed. A robust 

database of this nature, analyzed by medical providers 

and scientists involved in law enforcement, would 

allow for recommendations in tactics, training, 

equipment, medical care and even policies/procedures 

that are grounded in that interface between scientific 

evidence, best medical practice, and sound policing.109

108. Listening Session on Officer Safety and Wellness: Officer Safety (oral 

testimony of Jerry Demings, sheriff, Orange County, FL, for the President’s Task Force 

on 21st Century Policing, Washington, DC, February 23, 2015). 

109. Listening Session on Officer Safety and Wellness: Officer Safety (oral 

testimony of Dr. Alexander Eastman, lieutenant and deputy medical director, 

Dallas Police Department, for the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, 

Washington, DC, February 23, 2015). 

Poor nutrition and fitness are also serious threats, as 

is sleep deprivation. Many errors in judgment can 

be traced to fatigue, which also makes it harder to 

connect with people and control emotions. But administrative changes such as reducing work shifts 

can improve officer’s feelings of well-being, and 

the implementation of mental health strategies 

can lessen the impact of the stress and trauma. 

However, the most important factor to consider when discussing wellness and safety is the 

culture of law enforcement, which needs to be 

transformed. Support for wellness and safety 

should permeate all practices and be expressed 

through changes in procedures, requirements, 

attitudes, and behaviors. An agency work environment in which officers do not feel they are 

respected, supported, or treated fairly is one of 

the most common sources of stress. And research 

indicates that officers who feel respected by their 

supervisors are more likely to accept and voluntarily comply with departmental policies. This 

transformation should also overturn the tradition 

of silence on psychological problems, encouraging officers to seek help without concern about 

negative consequences. 

Partnerships are another crucial element. An agency cannot successfully tackle these issues without 

partners such as industrial hygienists, chaplains, 

unions, and mental health providers. But no 

program can succeed without buy-in from agency 

leadership as well as the rank and file.

The “bulletproof cop” does not exist. The officers 

who protect us must also be protected—against 

incapacitating physical, mental, and emotional 

health problems as well as against the hazards of 

their job. Their wellness and safety are crucial for 

them, their colleagues, and their agencies, as well 

as the well-being of the communities they serve.
6 3

P i l l a r 6 . O ff i c e r W e l l n e s s & S a f e t y

6.1 recOmmendatiOn: The U.S. 

Department of Justice should enhance and 

further promote its multi-faceted officer 

safety and wellness initiative. 

As noted by all task force members during the listening session, officer wellness and safety supports 

public safety. Officers who are mentally or physically 

incapacitated cannot serve their communities 

adequately and can be a danger to the people they 

serve, to their fellow officers, and to themselves. 

6.1.1 Action Item: Congress should establish and fund a national “Blue Alert” warning system. 

Leveraging the current Amber Alert program used 

to locate abducted children, the Blue Alert would 

enlist the help of the public in finding suspects 

after a law enforcement officer is killed in the line 

of duty. Some similar state systems do exist, but 

there are large gaps; a national system is needed. 

In addition to aiding the apprehension of suspects, 

it would send a message about the importance of 

protecting law enforcement from undue harm.

6.1.2 Action Item: The U.S. Department of 

Justice, in partnership with the U.S. Department 

of Health and Human Services, should establish a 

task force to study mental health issues unique to 

officers and recommend tailored treatments. 

Law enforcement officers are subject to more 

stress than the general population owing to the 

nature of their jobs. In addition to working with 

difficult—even hostile—individuals, responding 

to tragic events, and sometimes coming under fire 

themselves, they suffer from the effects of everyday 

stressors—the most acute of which often come 

from their agencies, because of confusing messages 

or non-supportive management; and their families, 

who do not fully understand the pressures the officers face on the job. And as witness Laurence Miller 

said, “When both work and family relations fray, the 

individual’s coping abilities can be stretched to the 

limit, resulting in alcohol abuse, domestic violence, 

overaggressive policing, even suicide.”110

110. Listening Session on Officer Safety and Wellness (oral testimony of Laurence 

Miller, psychologist, for the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, 

Washington, DC, February 23, 2015).

Elliot Cohen of the Maryland State Police speaks about technology usage while Madhu Grewal of the Constitution Project waits her turn to testify, 

Cincinnati, January 31, 2015. PHOTO: DEBORAH SPENCE
F i n a l R e p o r t o f t h e P r e s i d e n t ’ s T a s k F o r c e o n 2 1 s t C e n t u r y P o l i c i n g

6 4

To add to the problems of those suffering from 

psychological distress, law enforcement culture 

has not historically supported efforts to treat or 

even acknowledged mental health problems, 

which are usually seen as a sign of “weakness.” 

The challenges and treatments of mental health 

issues should therefore be viewed within the 

context of law enforcement’s unique culture and 

working environment.

This task force should also look to establish a national toll-free mental health hotline specifically for 

police officers. This would be a fast, easy, and confidential way for officers to get advice whenever they 

needed to; and because they would be anonymous, 

officers would be more likely to take advantage of 

this resource. Since nobody understands the challenges an officer faces like another officer, it should 

be peer driven—anonymously connecting callers 

to officers who are not in the same agency and who 

could refer the caller to professional help if needed. 

An advisory board should be formed to guide the 

creation of this hotline service.

6.1.3 Action Item: The Federal Government should support the continuing research into 

the efficacy of an annual mental health check for 

officers, as well as fitness, resilience, and nutrition. 

Currently, most mental health checks are ordered 

as interventions for anger management or substance abuse and are ordered reactively after an 

incident. Mental health checks need to be more 

frequent to prevent problems. Because officers are 

exposed to a wide range of stressors on a continuous basis as part of their daily routines, mental and 

physical health check-ups should be conducted 

on an ongoing basis. Furthermore, officer nutrition 

and fitness issues change with time, varying widely from those of the new academy graduate 

to those of the veteran who has spent the last five 

years sitting in a squad car. Many health problems—notably cardiac issues—are cumulative.

6.1.4 Action Item: Pension plans should 

recognize fitness for duty examinations as definitive 

evidence of valid duty or non-duty related disability. 

Officers who have been injured in the line of 

duty can exist in limbo, without pay, unable to 

work but also unable to get benefits because 

the “fitness for duty” examinations given by their 

agencies are not recognized as valid proof of 

disability. And since officers, as public servants, 

cannot receive social security, they can end up in 

a precarious financial state.

6.1.5 Action Item: Public Safety Officer 

Benefits (PSOB) should be provided to survivors of 

officers killed while working, regardless of whether the officer used safety equipment (seatbelt or 

anti-ballistic vest) or if officer death was the result 

of suicide attributed to a current diagnosis of 

duty-related mental illness, including but not 

limited to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Families should not be penalized because an officer died in the line of duty but was not wearing a 

seat belt or body armor. Though these precautions 

are very important and strongly encouraged, there 

are occasions when officers can be more effective 

without them.111

111. Listening Session on Officer Safety and Wellness: Voices from the Field (oral 

testimony of William Johnson, executive director, National Association of Police 

Organizations, for the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Washington, 

DC, February 23, 2015). 

A couple of situations were mentioned by task 

force member Sean Smoot, who described the 

efforts of an officer who took off his seat belt to 

tend to the injuries of a victim in the back of the 

car as his partner sped to the hospital. Another 
6 5

P i l l a r 6 . O ff i c e r W e l l n e s s & S a f e t y

scenario he mentioned was the rescue of a drowning woman by an officer who shed his heavy 

body armor to go into the water. Charles Ramsey, 

task force co-chair, also noted that these types 

of situations could be further mitigated by the 

invention of seatbelts that officers could quickly 

release without getting tangled on their belts, 

badges, and radios, as well as body armor that is 

lighter and more comfortable.

6.2 recOmmendatiOn: Law enforcement 

agencies should promote safety and wellness 

at every level of the organization. 

Safety and wellness issues affect all law enforcement professionals, regardless of their 

management status, duty, or tenure. Moreover, 

line officers are more likely to adopt procedures 

or change practices if they are advised to do so 

by managers who also model the behavior they 

encourage. According to witness David Orr, buy-in 

from the leaders as well as the rank and file is 

essential to the success of any program.112

6.2.1 Action Item: Though the Federal Government can support many of the 

programs and best practices identified by the 

U.S. Department of Justice initiative described in 

recommendation 6.1, the ultimate responsibility 

lies with each agency. 

112. Listening Session on Officer Safety and Wellness (oral testimony of David Orr, 

sergeant, Norwalk [CT] Police Department, to the President’s Task Force on 21st 

Century Policing, Washington, DC, February 23, 2015).

Though legislation and funding from the Federal 

Government is necessary in some cases, most of 

the policies, programs, and practices recommended 

by the task force can and should be implemented 

at the local level. It is understood, however, that 

there are no “one size fits all” solutions and that 

implementation will vary according to agency size, 

location, resources, and other factors. 

6.3 recOmmendatiOn: The U.S. 

Department of Justice should encourage and 

assist departments in the implementation of 

scientifically supported shift lengths by law 

enforcement. 

It has been established by significant bodies of 

research that long shifts can not only cause fatigue, stress, and decreased ability to concentrate 

but also lead to other more serious consequences.113 Fatigue and stress undermine not only the 

immune system but also the ability to work at full 

capacity, make decisions, and maintain emotional 

equilibrium. Though long shifts are understandable in the case of emergencies, as a standard 

practice they can lead to poor morale, poor job 

performance, irritability, and errors in judgment 

that can have serious, even deadly, consequences. 

6.3.1 Action Item: The U.S. Department of 

Justice should fund additional research into the 

efficacy of limiting the total number of hours an 

officer should work within a 24–48-hour period, 

including special findings on the maximum number of hours an officer should work in a high risk 

or high stress environment (e.g., public demonstrations or emergency situations). 

113. Bryan Vila, Tired Cops: The Importance of Managing Police Fatigue, 

(Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum, 2000); Mora L. Fiedler, 

Officer Safety and Wellness: An Overview of the Issues (Washington, DC: Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services, 2011), 4, http://cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/OSWG/

e091120401-OSWGReport.pdf.
F i n a l R e p o r t o f t h e P r e s i d e n t ’ s T a s k F o r c e o n 2 1 s t C e n t u r y P o l i c i n g

6 6

Christina Brown of Black Lives Matter Cincinnati speaks about mass demonstrations while Superintendent Garry McCarthy of the Chicago Police 

Department looks on, Cincinnati, January 30, 2015. PHOTO: DEBORAH SPENCE

6.4 recOmmendatiOn: Every law 

enforcement officer should be provided with 

individual tactical first aid kits and training as 

well as anti-ballistic vests. 

Task force witness Dr. Alexander Eastman, who is 

a trauma surgeon as well as a law enforcement 

professional, noted that tactical first aid kits would 

significantly reduce the loss of both officer and 

civilian lives due to blood loss. Already available 

to members of the military engaged in combat 

missions, these kits are designed to save lives by 

controlling hemorrhaging. They contain tourniquets, an Olaes modular bandage, and QuikClot 

gauze and would be provided along with training in 

hemorrhage control. Dr. Eastman estimated that the 

kits could cost less than $50 each and require about 

two hours of training, which could be provided 

through officers who have completed “train the 

trainer” programs.114

114. Listening Session on Officer Safety and Wellness: Officer Safety (oral testimony 

of Dr. Alexander Eastman, lieutenant and deputy medical director, Dallas Police 

Department, for the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Washington, 

DC, February 23, 2015).

This would be a national adoption of the Hartford 

Consensus, which calls for agencies to adopt hemorrhage control as a core law enforcement skill and 

to integrate rescue/emergency medical services 

personnel into community-wide active shooter 

preparedness and training. These activities 

would complement the current “Save Our 

Own” law enforcement-based hemorrhage 

control programs.115

To further reduce officer deaths, the task force also 

strongly recommends the provision of body armor 

to all officers with replacements when necessary. 

115. M. Jacobs Lenworth, Jr., “Joint Committee to Create a National Policy to 

Enhance Survivability from Mass Casualty Shooting Events: Hartford Consensus II,” 

Journal of the American College of Surgeons 218, no. 3 (March 2014): 476–478.

6.4.1 Action Item: Congress should 

authorize funding for the distribution of law 

enforcement individual tactical first aid kits.

6.4.2 Action Item: Congress should 

reauthorize and expand the Bulletproof Vest 

Partnership (BVP) program. 

Created by statute in 1998, this program is a 

unique U.S. Department of Justice initiative 

designed to provide a critical resource to state and 

local law enforcement. Based on data collected 

and recorded by Bureau of Justice Assistance staff, 
6 7

P i l l a r 6 . O ff i c e r W e l l n e s s & S a f e t y

in FY 2012 protective vests were directly attributed 

to saving the lives of at least 33 law enforcement 

and corrections officers. 

6.5 recOmmendatiOn: The U.S. 

Department of Justice should expand efforts 

to collect and analyze data not only on officer 

deaths but also on injuries and “near misses.” 

Another recommendation mentioned by multiple 

witnesses is the establishment of a nationwide 

repository of data on law enforcement injuries, 

deaths, and near misses. Though the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation (FBI) does maintain a 

database of information pertinent to police 

procedures on officers killed in the line of duty, it 

does not contain the medical details that could 

be analyzed by medical providers and scientists to 

improve medical care, tactics, training, equipment, 

and procedures that would prevent or reduce 

injuries and save lives. The Police Foundation, with 

the support of a number of other law enforcement organizations, launched an online Law 

Enforcement Near Miss Reporting System in late 

2014, but it is limited in its ability to systematically 

analyze national trends in this important data by 

its voluntary nature.116

6.6 recOmmendatiOn: Law enforcement 

agencies should adopt policies that require 

officers to wear seat belts and bullet-proof 

vests and provide training to raise awareness 

of the consequences of failure to do so. 

According to task force witness Craig Floyd, traffic 

accidents have been the number one cause of 

officer fatalities in recent years, and nearly half of 

those officers were not wearing seat belts.117

116. Deborah L. Spence, “One on One with LEO Near Miss,” Community Policing 

Dispatch 8, no. 2 (February 2015), http://cops.usdoj.gov/html/dispatch/02-2015/

leo_near_miss.asp.

117. Listening Session on Officer Safety and Wellness (oral testimony of Craig 

Floyd, National Law Enforcement Officer Memorial Foundation, for the President’s 

He 

suggests in-car cameras and seat belt sensors 

to encourage use along with aggressive safety 

campaigns. Some witnesses endorsed mandatory 

seat belt policies as well. 

The Prince George’s County (Maryland) Arrive Alive 

Campaign initiated by task force witness Chief 

Mark Magraw to promote 100 percent seat belt 

usage relied on incentives and peer pressure for 

success. The message was, “it is not just about you, 

it is also about your family and your department.”118

There were also many calls for mandatory 

requirements that all officers wear soft body 

armor any time they are going to be engaging 

in enforcement activities, uniformed or not. It 

was also suggested that law enforcement 

agencies be required to provide these for 

all commissioned personnel.

6.7 recOmmendatiOn: Congress 

should develop and enact peer review error 

management legislation. 

The task force recommends that Congress enact 

legislation similar to the Healthcare Quality 

Improvement Act of 1986119 that would support 

the development of an effective peer review error 

management system for law enforcement similar 

to what exists in medicine. 

Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Washington, DC, February 23, 2015).

118. Listening Session on Officer Safety and Wellness (oral testimony of Mark 

Magraw, chief, Prince Georges County [MD] Police Department, for the President’s 

Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Washington, DC, February 23, 2015).

119. The Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986 (HCQIA), 42 USC §11101 

et seq., sets out standards for professional review actions. If a professional review 

body meets these standards, then neither the professional review body nor any 

person acting as a member or staff to the body will be liable in damages under 

most federal or state laws with respect to the action. For more information, see 

“Medical Peer Review,” American Medical Association, accessed February 28, 2015, 

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/legal-topics/medicalpeer-review.page.

A robust but nonpunitive peer review error management program—in 

which law enforcement officers could openly and 

frankly discuss their own or others’ mistakes or 
F i n a l R e p o r t o f t h e P r e s i d e n t ’ s T a s k F o r c e o n 2 1 s t C e n t u r y P o l i c i n g

6 8

near misses without fear of legal repercussions—

would go a long way toward reducing injuries and 

fatalities by improving tactics, policies, and procedures. Protecting peer review error management 

findings from being used in legal discovery would 

enable the widespread adoption of this program 

by law enforcement. 

The Near Miss anonymous reporting system developed by the Police Foundation in Washington, 

D.C., currently collects anonymous data that can 

be very helpful in learning from and preventing 

mistakes, fatalities, and injuries—but a program 

that enabled peer review of errors would provide 

even more valuable perspectives and solutions.

6.8 recOmmendatiOn: The U.S. 

Department of Transportation should 

provide technical assistance opportunities for 

departments to explore the use of vehicles 

equipped with vehicle collision prevention 

“smart car” technology that will reduce the 

number of accidents. 

Given that the FBI’s 2003 to 2012 Law Enforcement 

Officers Killed in Action report showed that 

49 percent of officer fatalities were a result of 

vehicle-related accidents, the need for protective 

devices cannot be understated. New technologies 

such as vehicle collision prevention systems should 

be explored. 

Figure 3. Total law enforcement fatalities from 1964–2014

Source: “126 Law Enforcement Fatalities Nationwide in 2014,” Preliminary 2014 Law Enforcement Officer Fatalities Report (Washington, DC: National Law 

Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, December 2014), http://www.nleomf.org/assets/pdfs/reports/Preliminary-2014-Officer-Fatalities-Report.pdf.
6 9

IMPLEMENTATION

The members of the President’s Task Force on 

21st Century Policing are convinced that these 59 

concrete recommendations for research, action, 

and further study will bring long-term improvements to the ways in which law enforcement 

agencies interact with and bring positive change 

to their communities. But we also recognize that 

the Administration, through policies and practices 

already in place, can start right now to move 

forward on the bedrock recommendations in this 

report. Accordingly, we propose the following 

items for immediate action.

7.1 Recommendation: The President 

should direct all federal law enforcement 

agencies to review the recommendations 

made by the Task Force on 21st Century 

Policing and, to the extent practicable, to 

adopt those that can be implemented at the 

federal level.

7.2 Recommendation: The U.S. 

Department of Justice should explore 

public-private partnership opportunities, 

starting by convening a meeting with local, 

regional, and national foundations to discuss 

the proposals for reform described in this 

report and seeking their engagement and 

support in advancing implementation of 

these recommendations.

7.3 Recommendation: The U.S. 

Department of Justice should charge its 

Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services (COPS Office) with assisting the law 

enforcement field in addressing current and 

future challenges. 

For recommendation 7.3, the COPS Office should 

consider taking actions including but not limited 

to the following:

y Create a National Policing Practices and 

Accountability Division within the COPS Office.

y Establish national benchmarks and best 

practices for federal, state, local, and tribal 

police departments.

y Provide technical assistance and funding to 

national, state, local, and tribal accreditation 

bodies that evaluate policing practices.

y Recommend additional benchmarks 

and best practices for state training and 

standards boards.

y Provide technical assistance and funding 

to state training boards to help them meet 

national benchmarks and best practices in 

training methodologies and content.

y Prioritize grant funding to departments 

meeting benchmarks.

y Support departments through an expansion of 

the COPS Office Collaborative Reform Initiative.

y Collaborate with universities, the Office of 

Justice Programs and its bureaus (Bureau of 

Justice Assistance [BJA], Bureau of Justice 

Statistics [BJS], National Institute of Justice 

[NIJ], and Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention [OJJDP]), and others 

to review research and literature in order 

to inform law enforcement agencies about 

evidence-based practices and to identify areas 

of police operations where additional research 

is needed.

y Collaborate with the BJS to

 establish a central repository for data 

concerning police use of force resulting 

in death, as well as in-custody deaths, 

and disseminate this data for use by both 

community and police;
F i n a l R e p o r t o f t h e P r e s i d e n t ’ s T a s k F o r c e o n 2 1 s t C e n t u r y P o l i c i n g

7 0

y Collaborate with the NIJ and the BJS to publish 

an annual report on the “State of Policing” in 

the United States.

y Provide support to national police 

leadership associations and national rank 

and file organizations to encourage them to 

implement task force recommendations.

y Work with the U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security to ensure that community 

policing tactics in state, local, and tribal law 

enforcement agencies are incorporated into 

their role in homeland security.

PHOTO: BRANDON TRAMEL
7 1

A P P E N D I X A . P U B L I C L I S T E N I N G 

SESSIONS & WITNESSES

The President’s Task Force on 21st Century 

Policing hosted multiple public listening sessions 

to gain broad input and expertise from stakeholders. The information collected in these meetings 

informed and advised the task force in developing 

its recommendations.

Listening Session 1. Building 

Trust & Legitimacy

Washington, D.C., January 13, 2015

Panel One: Subject Matter Experts

Jennifer Eberhardt, Associate Professor of Psychology, 

Stanford University

Charles Ogletree, Jesse Climenko Professor of Law, Harvard 

Law School

Tom Tyler, Macklin Fleming Professor of Law and Professor of 

Psychology, Yale Law School

Samuel Walker, Emeritus Professor of Criminal Justice, University 

of Nebraska Omaha

Panel Two: Community Representatives

Carmen Perez, Executive Director, The Gathering for Justice

Jim St. Germain, Co-Founder, Preparing Leaders of 

Tomorrow, Inc.

Jim Winkler, President and General Secretary, National 

Council of Churches of Christ in the USA

Panel Three: Law Enforcement 

Organizations

Richard Beary, President, International Association of Chiefs 

of Police

Chuck Canterbury, National President, Fraternal Order of Police

Andrew Peralta, National President, National Latino Peace 

Officers Association

Richard Stanek, Immediate Past President, Major County 

Sheriffs’ Association

Panel Four: Civil Rights / Civil Liberties

Sherrilyn Ifill, President and Director-Counsel, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Legal Defense and 

Educational Fund

Maria Teresa Kumar, President and CEO, Voto Latino

Laura Murphy, Director, Washington Legislative Office, American 

Civil Liberties Union

Vikrant Reddy, Senior Policy Analyst, Texas Public Policy Foundation Center for Effective Justice

Panel Five: Mayors

Kevin Johnson, Sacramento

Michael Nutter, Philadelphia

Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, Baltimore

Listening Session 2. Policy 

& Oversight

Cincinnati, Ohio, January 30, 2015

Panel One: Use of Force Research and 

Policies

Geoffrey Alpert, Professor, University of South Carolina

Mick McHale, President, National Association of 

Police Organizations

Harold Medlock, Chief, Fayetteville (North Carolina) 

Police Department

Rashad Robinson, Executive Director, Color of Change

Panel Two: Use of Force Investigations 

and Oversight

Sim Gill, District Attorney, Salt Lake County, Utah

Jay McDonald, President, Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio

Kirk Primas, Assistant Sheriff, Las Vegas Metropolitan 

Police Department

Chuck Wexler, Executive Director, Police Executive Research Forum
F i n a l R e p o r t o f t h e P r e s i d e n t ’ s T a s k F o r c e o n 2 1 s t C e n t u r y P o l i c i n g

7 2

Panel Three: Civilian Oversight

Charlie Beck, Chief, Los Angeles Police Department

Brian Buchner, President, National Association for Civilian 

Oversight of Law Enforcement

Darius Charney, Senior Staff Attorney, Center for 

Constitutional Rights

Panel Four: Mass Demonstrations

Christina Brown, Founding Organizer, Black Lives 

Matter: Cincinnati

Garry McCarthy, Superintendent, Chicago Police Department

Rodney Monroe, Chief, Charlotte-Mecklenburg (North Carolina) 

Police Department

Sean Whent, Chief, Oakland (California) Police Department

Panel Five: Law Enforcement Culture 

and Diversity

Malik Aziz, National Chairman, National Black Police Association

Hayley Gorenberg, Deputy Legal Director, Lambda Legal

Kathy Harrell, President, Fraternal Order of Police, Queen City 

Lodge #69, Cincinnati, Ohio

Barbara O’Connor, President, National Association of Women 

Law Enforcement Executives

Listening Session 3. Technology 

& Social Media

Cincinnati, Ohio, January 31, 2015

Panel One: Body Cameras—Research 

and Legal Considerations

Jim Bueermann, President, Police Foundation

Scott Greenwood, Attorney

Tracie Keesee, Co-Founder and Director of Research Partnerships, 

Center for Policing Equity

Bill Lewinski, Founder and Director, Force Science Institute

Michael White, Professor, School of Criminology and Criminal 

Justice, Arizona State University

Panel Two: Body Cameras—Implementation

Johanna Miller, Advocacy Director, New York Civil Liberties Union

Ken Miller, Chief, Greenville (South Carolina) Police Department

Kenton Rainey, Chief, Bay Area Rapid Transit, San Francisco

Richard Van Houten, Sergeant, Fort Worth (Texas) Police 

Officers Association

Panel Three: Technology Policy

Eliot Cohen, Lieutenant, Maryland State Police

Madhu Grewal, Policy Counsel, The Constitution Project

Bill Schrier, Senior Policy Advisor, Office of the Chief Information 

Officer, State of Washington

Vincent Talucci, Executive Director / Chief Executive Officer, 

International Association of Chiefs of Police

Panel Four: Social Media, Community 

Digital Engagement and Collaboration

Hassan Aden, Director, Research and Programs, International 

Association of Chiefs of Police

DeRay McKesson, This is the Movement

Steve Spiker, Research and Technology Director, Urban 

Strategies Council

Lauri Stevens, Founder and Principal Consultant, 

LAwS Communications

Listening Session 4. Community 

Policing & Crime Reduction

Phoenix, Arizona, February 13, 2015

Panel One: Community Policing and 

Crime Prevention Research

Bill Geller, Director, Geller & Associates

Dr. Delores Jones-Brown, Professor, John Jay College of 

Criminal Justice, City University of New York 

Dr. Dennis Rosenbaum, Professor, University of Illinois 

at Chicago

Dr. Wesley G. Skogan, Professor, Northwestern University

Panel Two: Building Community 

Policing Organizations

Anthony Batts, Police Commissioner, Baltimore 

Police Department

Jeffrey Blackwell, Chief, Cincinnati (Ohio) Police Department

Chris Magnus, Chief, Richmond (California) Police Department

Patrick Melvin, Chief, Salt River Police Department (Salt River 

Pima-Maricopa Indian Community)
7 3

A p p e n d i x A

Panel Three: Using Community Policing 

to Reduce Crime

Kevin Bethel, Deputy Police Commissioner, Philadelphia 

Police Department

Melissa Jones, Senior Program Officer, Boston’s Local Initiatives 

Support Corporation

David Kennedy, Professor, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 

City University of New York

J. Scott Thomson, Chief, Camden County (New Jersey) 

Police Department

George Turner, Chief, Atlanta Police Department

Panel Four: Using Community Policing 

to Restore Trust

Rev. Jeff Brown, Rebuilding Every City Around Peace

Dwayne Crawford, Executive Director, National Organization of 

Black Law Enforcement Executives

Justin Hansford, Assistant Professor of Law, Saint Louis 

University School of Law

Cecil Smith, Chief, Sanford (Florida) Police Department

Panel Five: Youth and Law Enforcement

Delilah Coleman, Member, Navajo Nation (Senior at Flagstaff 

High School)

Jose Gonzales, Alumnus, Foster Care and Crossover Youth

Jamecia Luckey, Youth Conference Committee Member, Cocoa 

(Florida) Police Athletic League

Nicholas Peart, Staff Member, The Brotherhood-Sister Sol (Class 

Member, Floyd, et al. v. City of New York, et al.)

Michael Reynolds, Co-President, Youth Power Movement

Listening Session 5. Training 

& Education

Phoenix, Arizona, February 14, 2015

Panel One: Basic Recruit Academy

Arlen Ciechanowski, President, International Association of 

Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training

William J. Johnson, Executive Director, National Association of 

Police Organizations

Benjamin B. Tucker, First Deputy Commissioner, New York City 

Police Department

Dr. Steven Winegar, Coordinator, Public Safety Leadership 

Development, Oregon Department of Public Safety Standards 

and Training

Panel Two: In-Service Training

Dr. Scott Decker, Professor, Arizona State University

Aaron Danielson, President, Public Safety Employee Association/

AFSCME Local 803, Fairbanks, Alaska

Dr. Cheryl May, Director, Criminal Justice Institute and National 

Center for Rural Law Enforcement

John Ortolano, President, Arizona Fraternal Order of Police

Gary Schofield, Deputy Chief, Las Vegas Metropolitan 

Police Department

Panel Three: Supervisory, Leadership 

and Management Training

Edward Flynn, Chief, Milwaukee (Wisconsin) Police Department

Sandra Hutchens, Sheriff, Orange County (California) 

Sheriff’s Department

Kimberly Jacobs, Chief, Columbus (Ohio) Division of Police

John Layton, Sheriff, Marion County (Indiana) Sheriff’s Office

Dr. Ellen Scrivner, Executive Fellow, Police Foundation

Panel Four: Voices in the Community

Allie Bones, MSW, Chief Executive Officer, Arizona Coalition to End 

Sexual and Domestic Violence

Renaldo Fowler, Senior Staff Advocate, Arizona Center for 

Disability Law

Keeshan Harley, Member, Communities United for Police Reform

Andrea Ritchie, Senior Policy Counsel, Streetwise and Safe

Linda Sarsour, Executive Director, Arab American Association of 

New York

Panel Five: Special Training on Building 

Trust

Lt. Sandra Brown (retired), Principal Trainer, Fair and 

Impartial Policing

Dr. Randolph Dupont, Professor and Clinical Psychologist, 

University of Memphis

David C. Friedman, Regional Director of National Law 

Enforcement Initiatives, Anti-Defamation League

Lt. Bruce Lipman (retired), Procedural Justice /Police Legitimacy 

Training

Dr. Ronal Serpas, Advisory Board Member, Cure Violence Chicago
F i n a l R e p o r t o f t h e P r e s i d e n t ’ s T a s k F o r c e o n 2 1 s t C e n t u r y P o l i c i n g

7 4

Listening Session 6. Officer Safety 

& Wellness

Washington, D.C., February 23, 2015

Panel One: Officer Wellness

Dr. Laurence Miller, Clinical Forensic Psychologist and Law 

Enforcement Educator

David Orr, Sergeant, Norwalk (Connecticut) Police Department

Dr. Sandra Ramey, Assistant Professor, University of Iowa 

College of Nursing

Dr. John Violanti, Research Professor, State University of New 

York Buffalo

Yost Zakhary, Public Safety Director, City of Woodway, Texas

Panel Two: Officer Safety

Jane Castor, Chief, Tampa (Florida) Police Department

Jerry L. Demings, Sheriff, Orange County (Florida) Sheriff’s Office

Dr. Alexander L. Eastman, Lieutenant and Deputy Medical 

Director, Dallas Police Department

Craig W. Floyd, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, National 

Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund

Panel Three: Voices from the Field

Dianne Bernhard, Executive Director, Concerns of 

Police Survivors

Robert Bryant, Chief, Penobscot Nation

Chuck Canterbury, National President, Fraternal Order of Police

William J. Johnson, Executive Director, National Association of 

Police Organizations

Jonathan Thompson, Executive Director, National 

Sheriffs’ Association

Panel Four: Labor/Management 

Relations

Dr. Chuck Wexler, Executive Director, Police Executive 

Research Forum

Karen Freeman-Wilson, Mayor, Gary, Indiana

Mark Magaw, Chief, Prince George’s County (Maryland) 

Police Department

James Pasco, Executive Director, Fraternal Order of Police

Dustin Smith, President, Sacramento (California) Police 

Officers Association

Listening Session 7. Future of 

Community Policing

Washington, D.C., February 24, 2015

Panel: Future of Community Policing

Dr. Phillip Goff, Professor, University of California, Los Angeles

Jim McDonnell, Sheriff, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department

Dr. Daniel Nagin, Teresa and H. John Heinz III Professor of Public 

Policy, Carnegie Mellon University

Dr. Lawrence Sherman, Director of the Institute of Criminology 

of the University of Cambridge, United Kingdom

Jeremy Travis, President, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City 

University of New York
7 5

A P P E N D I X B . I N D I V I D UA L S 

& O R G A N I Z AT I O N S T H AT 

SUBMITTED WRITTEN TESTIMONY

In addition to receiving testimony from those 

individuals that appeared as witnesses during public 

listening sessions, the President’s Task Force on 21st 

Century Policing accepted written testimony from 

any individual or organization to ensure that its information gathering efforts included as many people 

and perspectives as possible. The task force thanks 

the individuals and organizations who submitted 

written testimony for their time and expertise.

This list reflects organizational affiliation at the time 

of testimony submission and may not represent 

submitters’ current positions.

Individuals

Robert Abraham, Chair, Gang Resistance Education & Training 

(GREAT) National Policy Board

Phillip Agnew, Executive Director, Dream Defenders

Kilolo Ajanaku, National Executive Director, World Conference of 

Mayors’ Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. American Dream Initiative

Barbara Attard, Past President, National Association for Civilian 

Oversight of Law Enforcement

Paul Babeu, Vice President, Arizona Sheriffs Association

Monifa Bandele, Communities United for Police Reform

Dante Barry, Executive Director, Million Hoodies

David Bayley, Distinguished Professor Emeritus, University 

of Albany

Michael Bell, Lt. Colonel (retired), United States Air Force

Michael Berkow, Chief, Savannah (Georgia) Police Department

Greg Berman and Emily Gold LaGratta, Center for 

Court Innovation

Angela Glover Blackwell, Founder and CEO, PolicyLink

Mark Bowman, Assistant Professor of Justice Studies, 

Methodist University

Eli Briggs, Director of Government Affairs, National Association of 

County and City Health Officials (NACCHO)

Cherie Brown, Executive Director, National Coalition 

Building Institute

Steven Brown, Journalist / Public Relations Consultant

Chris Calabrese, Senior Policy Director, Center for Democracy 

and Technology—with Jake Laperruque, Fellow on Privacy, 

Surveillance, and Security

Melanie Campbell, President and CEO, National Coalition on 

Black Civic Participation

Mo Canady, Executive Director, National Association of School 

Resource Officers (NASRO)

Hugh Carter Donahue, Adjunct Professor, Department of 

History, Rowan University

Anthony Chapa, President, Hispanic American Police Command 

Officers Association

Lorig Charkoudian, Executive Director, Community 

Mediation Maryland

Ralph Clark, President and CEO, SST Inc.

Faye Coffield CJ Federal Task Force

The Hon. LaDoris Cordell, Office of the Independent Police 

Auditor, San Jose, California

Jill Corson Lake, Director of Global Advising, Parsons The New 

School for Design

David Couper, Chief of Police (retired), Madison (Wisconsin) 

Police Department

Madeline deLone, Executive Director, The Innocence Project—

with Marvin Anderson, Board Member

Jimmie Dotson, Police Chief (retired), Houston Independent 

School District / GeoDD GeoPolicing Team

Ronnie Dunn, Professor, Cleveland State University

Lauren-Brooke Eisen and Nicole Fortier – Counsel, 

Justice Program, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law

Christian Ellis, CEO, Alternative Ballistics

Jeffrey Fagan, Professor of Law, Columbia Law School
F i n a l R e p o r t o f t h e P r e s i d e n t ’ s T a s k F o r c e o n 2 1 s t C e n t u r y P o l i c i n g

7 6

Mai Fernandez, Executive Director, National Center for Victims 

of Crime

Johnny Ford, Founder, Alabama Conference of Black Mayors and 

Mayor, Tuskegee, Alabama

Lisa Foster, Director, Access to Justice Initiative, U.S. Department 

of Justice

Neill Franklin, Executive Director, Law Enforcement 

Against Prohibition

S. Gabrielle Frey, Interim Executive Director, National Association 

of Community Mediation

Lorie Fridell, Associate Professor of Criminology, University of 

South Florida

Allen Frimpong, Activist--Malcolm X Grassroots Movement: 

New York’s Self Defensive Campaign

Ethan Garcia, Youth Specialist, Identity Inc.

Michael Gennaco, Principal, OIR Group

Al Gerhardstein, Civil Rights Attorney

James Gierach, Executive Board Vice Chairman, Law Enforcement 

Against Prohibition

Fred Ginyard, Organizing Director, Fabulous Independent 

Educated Radical for Community Empowerment (FIERCE)

Mark Gissiner, Past President, International Association for Civilian 

Oversight of Law Enforcement

Becca Gomby, SDR Academy

Rev. Aaron Graham, Lead Pastor, The District Church

Fatima Graves, Vice President, National Women’s Law Center—

with Lara S. Kaufmann, Senior Counsel and Director of 

Education Policy for At-Risk Students

Virgil Green, Chairman, Future America National Crime 

Solution Commission

Sheldon Greenberg, Professor, School of Education, Division of 

Public Safety Leadership, The Johns Hopkins University

Robert Haas, Police Commissioner, Cambridge (Massachusetts) 

Police Department

David Harris, Distinguished Faculty Scholar and Professor of Law 

Associates Dean for Research, University of Pittsburgh School of Law

W. Craig Hartley, Executive Director, CALEA

Steven Hawkins, Executive Director, Amnesty International USA

Louis Hayes, The Virtus Group, Inc.

Wade Henderson, President and CEO, The Leadership Conference 

on Civil and Human Rights—with Nancy Zirkin, Executive 

Vice President

Maulin Chris Herring, Trainer/Consultant, Public Safety

Sandy Holman, Director, The Culture CO-OP

Zachary Horn and Kent Halverson, Aptima, Inc.—

with Rebecca Damari and Aubrey Logan-Terry, 

Georgetown University

Tanya Clay House, Director of Public Policy, Lawyers’ Committee 

for Civil Rights Under Law

Susan Hutson, Office of the Independent Police Monitor, 

New Orleans

Ingram Janaye, Executive Director, National Action Network

Melanie Jeffers

Megan Johnston, Executive Director, Northern Virginia 

Mediation Service

Nola Joyce, Deputy Commissioner, Philadelphia Police Department

Keith Kauffman, Captain, Hawthorne (California) 

Police Department

Gwendolyn Puryear Keita, Executive Director, American 

Psychological Association, Public Interest Directorate

Stanley Knee, Chief, Austin (Texas) Police Department

Laura Kunard, Senior Research Scientist, CNA Corporation

David Kurz, Chief, Durham (New Hampshire) Police Department

Deborah Lauter, Director of Civil Rights, Anti-Defamation 

League—with Michael Lieberman, Washington Counsel

Cynthia Lum and Christopher Koper, George Mason 

University, Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy

Bruce Lumpkins

Edward Maguire, Professor of Justice, Law & Criminology, 

American University

Baron Marquis, Member, Riverside Church, New York

Travis Martinez, Lieutenant, Redlands (California) 

Police Department

Mike Masterson, Chief, Boise (Idaho) Police Department

Andrew Mazzara, Executive Director, International Law 

Enforcement Forum—with Colin Burrows QMP (U.K.), ILEF 

Advisory Board Chair

R. Paul McCauley, Past President, Academy of Criminal 

Justice Sciences
7 7

A p p e n d i x B

V. Michael McKenzie

Harvey McMurray, Chair, Department of Criminal Justice, North 

Carolina Central University

Pamela Meanes, President, National Bar Association

Doug Mellis, President, Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association—with Brian Kyes, President, Massachusetts Major City 

Chiefs Association

Seth Miller, President, The Innocence Network

Charlene Moe, Program Coordinator, Center for Public Safety 

and Justice, Institute of Government and Public Affairs, University 

of Illinois

Marc Morial, CEO, National Urban League

Richard Myers, Chief, Newport News (Virginia) Police Department

Toye Nash, Sergeant, Phoenix Police Department

Rebecca Neri and Anthony Berryman – UCLA 

Improvement by Design Research Group

Chuck Noerenberg, President, National Alliance for Drug 

Endangered Children

Newell Normand, Sheriff, Jefferson Parish (Louisiana) Sherriff’s 

Office—submitted with Adrian Garcia, Sheriff, Harris County 

(Texas) Sheriff’s Office; David Mahoney, Sheriff, Dane County 

(Wisconsin) Sheriff’s Office; Anthony Normore, Ph.D., Criminal Justice Commission for Credible Leadership Development; and 

Mitch Javidi, Ph.D., International Academy of Public Safety

Gbadegesin Olubukola, St. Louis University

Patrice O’Neill, CEO/Executive Producer, Not In Our Town

Jim Palmer, Executive Director, Wisconsin Professional 

Police Association

Julie Parker, Media Relations Division Director, Prince George’s 

County (Maryland) Police Department

George Patterson, Associate Professor, City University 

of New York

David Perry, President, International Association of Campus Law 

Enforcement Administrators (IACLEA)

Megan Price, Director, Insight Conflict Resolution Program, School 

for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, George Mason University

Sue Quinn, Past President, National Association for Civilian 

Oversight of Law Enforcement

Tess Raser, Teacher, Brooklyn, New York

Darakshan Raja, Program Manager, Washington Peace Center

Sir Desmond Rea and Robin Masefield, Northern Ireland 

Policing Board

Nuno Rocha

Edwin Roessler, Jr., Chief, Fairfax County (Virginia) 

Police Department

Jeffrey Rojek, University of Texas at El Paso

Iris Roley, Black United Front of Cincinnati

Julia Ryan, Community Safety Initiative Director, LISC

Robert Samuels, Former Acting Director, DOJ Executive Office for 

Weed and Seed

Kami Chavis Simmons, Professor of Law and Director of the 

Criminal Justice Program, Wake Forest University School of Law

Russell Skiba, Professor and Director, Equity Project at 

Indiana University

Ronald Sloan, President, Association of State Criminal 

Investigative Agencies

Samuel Somers, Jr., Chief, Sacramento Police Department

Brett Stoudt, Morris Justice Project and Professor, John Jay College 

of Criminal Justice

“Think Tank Johnny”

Don Tijerina, President, Hispanic American Police Command 

Officers Association

Nicholas Turner, President and Director, Vera Institute of Justice

James Unnever, Professor of Criminology, University of 

South Florida

Javier Valdes, Executive Director, Make the Road New York

Kim Vansell, Director, National Center for Campus Public Safety

Nina Vinik, Program Director, Gun Violence Prevention, 

The Joyce Foundation

Vincent Warren, Executive Director, Center for 

Constitutional Rights

Barbara Weinstein, Associate Director, Religious Action Center 

of Reform Judaism

Jenny Yang, Chair, U.S. Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission
F i n a l R e p o r t o f t h e P r e s i d e n t ’ s T a s k F o r c e o n 2 1 s t C e n t u r y P o l i c i n g

7 8

Organizations

American Friends Service Committee

American Society of Criminology, Division of Policing, Ad Hoc Committee to the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing (Anthony 

Braga, Rod K. Brunson, Gary Cordner, Lorie Fridell, Matthew 

Hickman, Cynthia Lum, Stephen D. Mastrofski, Jack McDevitt, Dennis 

P. Rosenbaum, Wesley G. Skogan, and William Terrill)

Brooklyn Defender Services

The Bronx Defenders 

Center for Popular Democracy

Civil Rights Coalition on Police Reform

CNA Corporation (George Fachner, Michael D. White, James R. Coldren, 

Jr., and James K. Stewart)

Color of Change

Dignity in Schools Campaign

Ethics Bureau at Yale (Lawrence Fox, Supervising Lawyer)

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

Harvard Kennedy School (John F. Kennedy School of Government)

Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights

Immigrant Defense Project

International Association for Human Values (IAHV) / Works of 

Wonder International

Latino Justice

Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law (including A. Phillip 

Randolph Institute, Black Youth Vote, Empowerment Movement, 

Hip Hop Caucus, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, 

Muslim Advocates, National Association for the Advancement 

of Colored People [NAACP], NAACP Legal Defense Fund, National 

Coalition on Black Civic Participation, National Council of 

Churches of Christ in the USA, PICO National Network, and 

Rainbow PUSH Coalition)

Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC)

Major County Sheriffs’ Association

Make the Road New York 

National Action Network (NAN)

National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement

National Association of Counties

National Association of Police Organizations

National Association of Women Law Enforcement Executives

National Collaborative for Health Equity, Dellums Commission

National Day Laborer Organizing Network

National Immigration Law Center 

National Fraternal Order of Police

National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE)

National Sheriffs’ Association

New Sanctuary Coalition of New York

Northern Manhattan Coalition for Immigrant Rights

Northwest Immigrant Rights Project

PICO National Network

Public Science Project 

Santa Fe College and the Santa Fe College Police Department, 

Gainesville, Florida

Southern Poverty Law Center 

Streetwise & Safe

Team Kids

Works of Wonder International
7 9

A P P E N D I X C . E X E C U T I V E O R D E R 

13684 OF DECEMBER 18, 2014

By the authority vested in me as President by the 

Constitution and the laws of the United States of 

America, and in order to identify the best means 

to provide an effective partnership between law 

enforcement and local communities that reduces 

crime and increases trust, it is hereby ordered 

as follows:

Section 1. Establishment. There is established a 

President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing 

(Task Force).

Sec. 2. Membership. (a) The Task Force shall be 

composed of not more than eleven members 

appointed by the President. The members shall 

include distinguished individuals with relevant 

experience or subject-matter expertise in law 

enforcement, civil rights, and civil liberties.

(b) The President shall designate two members of 

the Task Force to serve as Co-Chairs.

Sec. 3. Mission. (a) The Task Force shall, consistent 

with applicable law, identify best practices 

and otherwise make recommendations to 

the President on how policing practices can 

promote effective crime reduction while 

building public trust.

(b) The Task Force shall be solely advisory and shall 

submit a report to the President by March 2, 2015.

Sec. 4. Administration. (a) The Task Force shall hold 

public meetings and engage with Federal, State, 

tribal, and local officials, technical advisors, and 

nongovernmental organizations, among others, as 

necessary to carry out its mission.

(b) The Director of the Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services shall serve as Executive 

Director of the Task Force and shall, as directed by 

the Co-Chairs, convene regular meetings of the 

Task Force and supervise its work.

(c) In carrying out its mission, the Task Force shall 

be informed by, and shall strive to avoid duplicating, the efforts of other governmental entities.

(d) The Department of Justice shall provide 

administrative services, funds, facilities, staff, 

equipment, and other support services as may be 

necessary for the Task Force to carry out its mission 

to the extent permitted by law and subject to the 

availability of appropriations.

(e) Members of the Task Force shall serve without 

any additional compensation for their work on the 

Task Force, but shall be allowed travel expenses, 

including per diem, to the extent permitted by law 

for persons serving intermittently in the Government service (5 U.S.C.5701-5707).

Sec. 5. Termination. The Task Force shall terminate 

30 days after the President requests a final report 

from the Task Force.

Sec. 6. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order 

shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to a department, 

agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of 

Management and Budget relating to budgetary, 

administrative, or legislative proposals. 
F i n a l R e p o r t o f t h e P r e s i d e n t ’ s T a s k F o r c e o n 2 1 s t C e n t u r y P o l i c i n g

8 0

(b) This order is not intended to, and does not, 

create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party 

against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, 

or any other person.

(c) Insofar as the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 

as amended (5 U.S.C. App.) (the “Act”) may apply 

to the Task Force, any functions of the President 

under the Act, except for those in section 6 of the 

Act, shall be performed by the Attorney General.

THE WHITE HOUSE,

December 18, 2014.
8 1

A P P E N D I X D . TA S K F O R C E 

M E M B E R S’ B I O G R A P H I E S

Co-Chairs

Charles Ramsey

Charles Ramsey is the commissioner of the 

Philadelphia Police Department (PPD), a position 

he has held since 2008. Since 2010, he has served 

as president of the Major Cities Chiefs Association 

and the Police Executive Research Forum. Commissioner Ramsey began his law enforcement career 

in 1968 as a cadet with the Chicago Police Department (CPD). Over the next 30 years, he held various 

positions with the CPD, including commander of 

the Narcotics Division, deputy chief of the Patrol 

Division, and deputy superintendent, a role he held 

from 1994 to 1998. In 1998, he was named chief of 

the Metropolitan Police Department of the District 

of Columbia (MPDC), where he served until early 

2007. In 2007, Commissioner Ramsey served on 

the Independent Commission on Security Forces 

of Iraq, leading a review of the Iraqi Police Force. 

In addition to his current role at the PPD, he also 

serves as a member of the Homeland Security 

Advisory Council. Commissioner Ramsey received a 

BS and MS from Lewis University.

Laurie Robinson

Laurie Robinson is the Clarence J. Robinson 

Professor of Criminology, Law and Society at 

George Mason University, a position she has 

held since 2012. She served as assistant attorney 

general for the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) in 

the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) from 2009 

to 2012. Prior to that, Ms. Robinson served as the 

Principal deputy assistant attorney general for 

OJP and acting assistant attorney general for OJP. 

Previously, she was a member of the Obama-Biden 

Transition Team. From 2003 to 2009, Ms. Robinson 

was the director of the Master of Science Program 

in Criminology at the University of Pennsylvania. 

From 1993 to 2000, she served her first term as 

assistant attorney general for OJP. Before joining 

DOJ, Ms. Robinson spent over 20 years with the 

American Bar Association, serving as assistant staff 

director of the Criminal Justice Section from 1972 

to 1979, director of the Criminal Justice Section 

from 1979 to 1993, and director of the Professional 

Services Division from 1986 to 1993. She is a senior 

fellow at the George Mason University Center for 

Evidence-Based Crime Policy and serves as cochair of the Research Advisory Committee for the 

International Association of Chiefs of Police. She 

also serves on the board of trustees of the Vera 

Institute of Justice. Ms. Robinson received a BA 

from Brown University.
F i n a l R e p o r t o f t h e P r e s i d e n t ’ s T a s k F o r c e o n 2 1 s t C e n t u r y P o l i c i n g

8 2

Members

Cedric L. Alexander

Cedric L. Alexander is the deputy chief operating 

officer for Public Safety in DeKalb County, Georgia, 

a position he has held since late 2013. Dr. Alexander is also the national president of the National 

Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives. 

In 2013, he served as chief of police for the DeKalb 

County Police Department. Prior to this, Dr. Alexander served as federal security director for the 

Transportation Security Administration (TSA) at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport from 2007 to 

2013. And from 2006 to 2007, he was deputy commissioner of the New York State Division of Criminal 

Justice Services. From 2005 to 2006, Dr. Alexander 

was chief of the Rochester (New York) Police 

Department (RPD), where he previously served as 

deputy chief of police from 2002 to 2005. Before 

joining RPD, Dr. Alexander was a faculty member 

in the Department of Psychiatry at the University 

of Rochester Medical Center from 1998 to 2002. 

He began his career as a deputy sheriff in Florida 

from 1977 to 1981, before joining the Miami-Dade 

Police Department, where he was as an officer and 

detective from 1981 to 1992. He received a BA and 

MS from St. Thomas University in Miami, Florida, 

and a PsyD from Wright State University.

Jose Lopez

Jose Lopez is currently the lead organizer at Make 

the Road New York (MRNY), a Brooklyn-based 

non-profit community organization focused on 

civil rights, education reform, and combating 

poverty. He became lead organizer of MRNY in 

2013. Mr. Lopez began his career in 2000 as youth 

organizer with Make the Road by Walking, which 

later merged with the Latin American Integration 

Center to form MRNY in 2007. He continued to 

serve as youth organizer with MRNY until 2009 

when he became senior organizer. Since 2011, 

Mr. Lopez has represented MRNY on the steering 

committee of Communities United for Police 

Reform, a New York City organization advocating 

for law enforcement reform. From 2001 to 2004, 

he was an active contributor to the Radio Rookies 

Project, an initiative of New York Public Radio. He 

received a BA from Hofstra University.

Tracey L. Meares

Tracey Meares is the Walton Hale Hamilton 

Professor of Law at Yale Law School, a position she 

has held since 2007. From 2009 to 2011, she also 

served as deputy dean of Yale Law School. Before 

joining the faculty at Yale, she served as a professor at the University of Chicago Law School from 

1995 to 2007. She has served on the Committee 

on Law and Justice, a National Research Council 

Standing Committee of the National Academy 

of Sciences. She was appointed by Attorney 

General Eric Holder to serve on the inaugural U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs 

Science Advisory Board. She also currently serves 

on the board of directors of the Joyce Foundation. 

Ms. Meares began her legal career as a law clerk 

for Judge Harlington Wood, Jr. of the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. She later served 

as a trial attorney in the Antitrust Division at the 

U.S. Department of Justice. Ms. Meares received a 

BS from the University of Illinois and a JD from the 

University of Chicago Law School.

Brittany N. Packnett

Brittany Packnett is currently executive director of 

Teach For America in St. Louis, Missouri, a position 

she has held since 2012. From 2010 to 2012, she 

was a director on the Government Affairs Team at 

Teach For America. Ms. Packnett was a legislative 

assistant for the U.S. House of Representatives 

from 2009 to 2010. From 2007 to 2009, she was a 

third grade teacher in Southeast Washington, D.C., 

as a member of the Teach For America Corps. Ms. 

Packnett has volunteered as executive director 
8 3

A p p e n d i x D

of Dream Girls DMV, a mentoring program for 

young girls, and was the founding co-chair of The 

Collective-DC, a regional organization for Teach For 

America alumni of color. She currently serves on 

the board of New City School, the COCA (Center of 

Creative Arts) Associate Board, the Urban League of 

Metro St. Louis Education Committee, and the John 

Burroughs School Board Diversity Committee. Ms. 

Packnett received a BA from Washington University 

in St. Louis and an MA from American University.

Susan Lee Rahr

Susan Rahr is executive director of the Washington 

State Criminal Justice Training Commission, a 

position she has held since 2012. From 2005 to 

2012, she served as the first female sheriff in King 

County, Washington. Ms. Rahr spent over 30 years 

as a law enforcement officer, beginning as a patrol 

officer and undercover narcotics officer. While 

serving with the King County Sheriff’s Office, she 

held various positions including serving as the 

commander of the Internal Investigations and 

Gang Units; commander of the Special Investigations Section; and police chief of Shoreline, 

Washington. Ms. Rahr received a BA from Washington State University. She has served as a member 

of the National Institute of Justice and Harvard 

Kennedy School Executive Session on Policing 

and Public Safety; president of the Washington 

State Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, 

and an executive board member of the National 

Sheriffs’ Association.

Constance Rice

Constance Rice is a civil rights attorney and 

co-director of the Advancement Project, an 

organization she co-founded in 1999. In 2003, Ms. 

Rice was selected to lead the Blue Ribbon Rampart Review Panel, which investigated the largest 

police corruption scandal in Los Angeles Police 

Department history. In 1991, Ms. Rice joined the 

NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and 

she became co-director of the Los Angeles office 

in 1996. She was previously an associate at Morrison & Foerster and began her legal career as a law 

clerk to Judge Damon J. Keith of the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Ms. Rice received a BA 

from Harvard College and a JD from the New York 

University School of Law.

Sean Michael Smoot

Sean Smoot is currently director and chief counsel 

for the Police Benevolent & Protective Association 

of Illinois (PB&PA) and the Police Benevolent Labor 

Committee (PBLC), positions he has held since 

2000. He began his career with PB&PA and PBLC 

as a staff attorney in 1995, before becoming chief 

counsel of both organizations in 1997. Since 2001, 

Mr. Smoot has served as the treasurer of the National Association of Police Organizations and has 

served on the Advisory Committee for the National Law Enforcement Officers’ Rights Center since 

1996. From 2008 to 2009, he was a policy advisor 

to the Obama-Biden Transition Project on public 

safety and state and local police issues and was 

a member of the National Institute of Justice and 

Harvard Kennedy School of Government Executive 

Session on Policing and Public Safety from 2008 

to 2011. Mr. Smoot served as police commissioner 

of Leland Grove, Illinois, from 1998 to 2008. He 

received a BS from Illinois State University and a JD 

from Southern Illinois University School of Law.
F i n a l R e p o r t o f t h e P r e s i d e n t ’ s T a s k F o r c e o n 2 1 s t C e n t u r y P o l i c i n g

8 4

Bryan Stevenson

Bryan Stevenson is founder and executive director 

of the Equal Justice Initiative (EJI), a private, nonprofit organization headquartered in Montgomery, 

Alabama. In addition to directing the EJI since 

1989, he is a clinical professor at New York University School of Law. He previously has served as 

a visiting professor of law at the University of Michigan School of Law. Mr. Stevenson has received 

the American Bar Association’s Wisdom Award 

for public service, the ACLU’s National Medal 

of Liberty, and the MacArthur Foundation 

“Genius” Award Prize. Mr. Stevenson received a 

BA from Eastern College (now Eastern University), 

a JD from Harvard Law School, and an MPP from 

the John F. Kennedy School of Government at 

Harvard University.

Roberto Villaseñor

Roberto Villaseñor is chief of police for the Tucson 

(Arizona) Police Department (TPD), a position he 

has held since 2009. He joined the TPD in 1980 

and has served as officer, sergeant, lieutenant, and 

captain and as assistant chief from 2000 to 2009. 

Chief Villaseñor was named Officer of the Year 

for the TPD in 1996 and has been awarded the 

TPD Medal of Merit three times. He also received 

the TPD Medal of Distinguished Service. Chief 

Villaseñor is the incoming president of the Arizona 

Association of Chiefs of Police and a board member of the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF). 

He received a BS from Park University and a MEd 

from Northern Arizona University.
8 5

A P P E N D I X E . R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S 

AND ACTIONS

0.1 Overarching recOmmendatiOn: 

The President should support and provide 

funding for the creation of a National Crime 

and Justice Task Force to review and evaluate 

all components of the criminal justice system 

for the purpose of making recommendations 

to the country on comprehensive criminal 

justice reform.

0.2 Overarching recOmmendatiOn: 

The President should promote programs that 

take a comprehensive and inclusive look at 

community-based initiatives that address 

the core issues of poverty, education, health, 

and safety.

1.1 recOmmendatiOn: Law enforcement 

culture should embrace a guardian mindset to 

build public trust and legitimacy. Toward that 

end, police and sheriffs’ departments should 

adopt procedural justice as the guiding 

principle for internal and external policies and 

practices to guide their interactions with the 

citizens they serve.

1.2 recOmmendatiOn: Law enforcement 

agencies should acknowledge the role of 

policing in past and present injustice and 

discrimination and how it is a hurdle to the 

promotion of community trust.

1.2.1 actiOn item: The U.S. Department of 

Justice should develop and disseminate case studies 

that provide examples where past injustices were 

publicly acknowledged by law enforcement agencies in a manner to help build community trust.

1.3 recOmmendatiOn: Law enforcement 

agencies should establish a culture of 

transparency and accountability in order to 

build public trust and legitimacy. This will help 

ensure decision making is understood and in 

accord with stated policy.

1.3.1 actiOn item: To embrace a culture of 

transparency, law enforcement agencies should 

make all department policies available for public 

review and regularly post on the department’s 

website information about stops, summonses, arrests, reported crime, and other law enforcement 

data aggregated by demographics.

1.3.2 actiOn item: When serious incidents 

occur, including those involving alleged police 

misconduct, agencies should communicate 

with citizens and the media swiftly, openly, and 

neutrally, respecting areas where the law requires 

confidentiality.

1.4 recOmmendatiOn: Law enforcement 

agencies should promote legitimacy internally 

within the organization by applying the 

principles of procedural justice.

1.4.1 actiOn item: In order to achieve 

internal legitimacy, law enforcement agencies 

should involve employees in the process of 

developing policies and procedures.

1.4.2 actiOn item: Law enforcement 

agency leadership should examine 

opportunities to incorporate procedural justice 

into the internal discipline process, placing 
F i n a l R e p o r t o f t h e P r e s i d e n t ’ s T a s k F o r c e o n 2 1 s t C e n t u r y P o l i c i n g

8 6

additional importance on values adherence 

rather than adherence to rules. Union 

leadership should be partners in this process.

1.5 recOmmendatiOn: Law enforcement 

agencies should proactively promote public 

trust by initiating positive nonenforcement 

activities to engage communities that 

typically have high rates of investigative and 

enforcement involvement with government 

agencies.

1.5.1 actiOn item: In order to achieve 

external legitimacy, law enforcement agencies 

should involve the community in the process of 

developing and evaluating policies and procedures.

1.5.2 actiOn item: Law enforcement agencies should institute residency incentive programs 

such as Resident Officer Programs.

1.5.3 actiOn item: Law enforcement agencies should create opportunities in schools and 

communities for positive nonenforcement interactions with police. Agencies should also publicize 

the beneficial outcomes and images of positive, 

trust-building partnerships and initiatives.

1.5.4 actiOn item: Use of physical control 

equipment and techniques against vulnerable 

populations—including children, elderly persons, 

pregnant women, people with physical and mental disabilities, limited English proficiency, and 

others—can undermine public trust and should 

be used as a last resort. Law enforcement agencies 

should carefully consider and review their policies 

towards these populations and adopt policies if 

none are in place.

1.6 recOmmendatiOn: Law enforcement 

agencies should consider the potential 

damage to public trust when implementing 

crime fighting strategies.

1.6.1 actiOn item: Research conducted 

to evaluate the effectiveness of crime fighting 

strategies should specifically look at the potential 

for collateral damage of any given strategy on 

community trust and legitimacy.

1.7 recOmmendatiOn: Law enforcement 

agencies should track the level of trust in 

police by their communities just as they 

measure changes in crime. Annual community 

surveys, ideally standardized across 

jurisdictions and with accepted sampling 

protocols, can measure how policing in that 

community affects public trust.

1.7.1 actiOn item: The Federal Government should develop survey tools and 

instructions for use of such a model to prevent 

local departments from incurring the expense and 

to allow for consistency across jurisdictions.

1.8 recOmmendatiOn: Law enforcement 

agencies should strive to create a workforce 

that contains a broad range of diversity 

including race, gender, language, life 

experience, and cultural background to 

improve understanding and effectiveness in 

dealing with all communities.

1.8.1 actiOn item: The Federal Government should create a Law Enforcement Diversity 

Initiative designed to help communities diversify 

law enforcement departments to reflect the 

demographics of the community.
8 7

A p p e n d i x E

1.8.2 actiOn item: The department 

overseeing this initiative should help localities 

learn best practices for recruitment, training, 

and outreach to improve the diversity as well as 

the cultural and linguistic responsiveness of law 

enforcement agencies.

1.8.3 actiOn item: Successful law enforcement agencies should be highlighted and 

celebrated and those with less diversity should be 

offered technical assistance to facilitate change.

1.8.4 actiOn item: Discretionary federal 

funding for law enforcement programs could 

be influenced by that department’s efforts to 

improve their diversity and cultural and linguistic 

responsiveness.

1.8.5 actiOn item: Law enforcement 

agencies should be encouraged to explore more 

flexible staffing models.

1.9 recOmmendatiOn: Law enforcement 

agencies should build relationships based 

on trust with immigrant communities. This is 

central to overall public safety.

1.9.1 actiOn item: Decouple federal immigration enforcement from routine local policing 

for civil enforcement and nonserious crime.

1.9.2 actiOn item: Law enforcement 

agencies should ensure reasonable and 

equitable language access for all persons who 

have encounters with police or who enter the 

criminal justice system.

1.9.3 actiOn item: The U.S. Department 

of Justice should not include civil immigration 

information in the FBI’s National Crime Information Center database.

2.1 recOmmendatiOn: Law enforcement 

agencies should collaborate with community 

members to develop policies and strategies 

in communities and neighborhoods 

disproportionately affected by crime for 

deploying resources that aim to reduce 

crime by improving relationships, greater 

community engagement, and cooperation.

2.1.1 actiOn item: The Federal Government should incentivize this collaboration 

through a variety of programs that focus on public 

health, education, mental health, and other 

programs not traditionally part of the criminal 

justice system.

2.2 recOmmendatiOn: Law enforcement 

agencies should have comprehensive policies 

on the use of force that include training, 

investigations, prosecutions, data collection, 

and information sharing. These policies must 

be clear, concise, and openly available for 

public inspection.

2.2.1 actiOn item: Law enforcement 

agency policies for training on use of force should 

emphasize de-escalation and alternatives to arrest 

or summons in situations where appropriate.

2.2.2 actiOn item: These policies should 

also mandate external and independent criminal 

investigations in cases of police use of force resulting in death, officer-involved shootings resulting 

in injury or death, or in-custody deaths.
F i n a l R e p o r t o f t h e P r e s i d e n t ’ s T a s k F o r c e o n 2 1 s t C e n t u r y P o l i c i n g

8 8

2.2.3 actiOn item: The task force encourages policies that mandate the use of external and 

independent prosecutors in cases of police use of 

force resulting in death, officer-involved shootings 

resulting in injury or death, or in-custody deaths.

2.2.4 actiOn item: Policies on use of force 

should also require agencies to collect, maintain, 

and report data to the Federal Government on 

all officer-involved shootings, whether fatal or 

nonfatal, as well as any in-custody death.

2.2.5 actiOn item: Policies on use of force 

should clearly state what types of information 

will be released, when, and in what situation, to 

maintain transparency.

2.2.6 actiOn item: Law enforcement agencies should establish a Serious Incident Review 

Board comprising sworn staff and community 

members to review cases involving officerinvolved shootings and other serious incidents 

that have the potential to damage community 

trust or confidence in the agency. The purpose of 

this board should be to identify any administrative, supervisory, training, tactical, or policy issues 

that need to be addressed.

2.3 recOmmendatiOn: Law enforcement 

agencies are encouraged to implement 

nonpunitive peer review of critical incidents 

separate from criminal and administrative 

investigations.

2.4 recOmmendatiOn: Law enforcement 

agencies are encouraged to adopt 

identification procedures that implement 

scientifically supported practices that eliminate 

or minimize presenter bias or influence.

2.5 recOmmendatiOn: All federal, state, 

local, and tribal law enforcement agencies 

should report and make available to the 

public census data regarding the composition 

of their departments including race, gender, 

age, and other relevant demographic data.

2.5.1 actiOn item: The Bureau of Justice 

Statistics should add additional demographic 

questions to the Law Enforcement Management 

and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) survey in 

order to meet the intent of this recommendation.

2.6 recOmmendatiOn: Law enforcement 

agencies should be encouraged to collect, 

maintain, and analyze demographic 

data on all detentions (stops, frisks, 

searches, summons, and arrests). This 

data should be disaggregated by school 

and non-school contacts.

2.6.1 actiOn item: The Federal Government could further incentivize universities 

and other organizations to partner with police 

departments to collect data and develop knowledge about analysis and benchmarks as well as 

to develop tools and templates that help departments manage data collection and analysis.

2.7 recOmmendatiOn: Law enforcement 

agencies should create policies and 

procedures for policing mass demonstrations 

that employ a continuum of managed tactical 

resources that are designed to minimize the 

appearance of a military operation and avoid 

using provocative tactics and equipment that 

undermine civilian trust.
8 9

A p p e n d i x E

2.7.1 actiOn item: Law enforcement 

agency policies should address procedures 

for implementing a layered response to mass 

demonstrations that prioritize de-escalation and a 

guardian mindset.

2.7.2 actiOn item: The Federal Government should create a mechanism for investigating 

complaints and issuing sanctions regarding the 

inappropriate use of equipment and tactics during 

mass demonstrations.

2.8 recOmmendatiOn: Some form 

of civilian oversight of law enforcement is 

important in order to strengthen trust with 

the community. Every community should 

define the appropriate form and structure of 

civilian oversight to meet the needs of that 

community.

2.8.1 actiOn item: The U.S. Department of 

Justice, through its research arm, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), should expand its research 

agenda to include civilian oversight.

2.8.2 actiOn item: The U.S. Department 

of Justice’s Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services (COPS Office) should provide technical 

assistance and collect best practices from existing 

civilian oversight efforts and be prepared to help 

cities create this structure, potentially with some 

matching grants and funding.

2.9 recOmmendatiOn: Law enforcement 

agencies and municipalities should refrain 

from practices requiring officers to issue 

a predetermined number of tickets, citations, 

arrests, or summonses, or to initiate 

investigative contacts with citizens for reasons 

not directly related to improving public safety, 

such as generating revenue.

2.10 recOmmendatiOn: Law 

enforcement officers should be required to 

seek consent before a search and explain 

that a person has the right to refuse consent 

when there is no warrant or probable 

cause. Furthermore, officers should ideally 

obtain written acknowledgement that they 

have sought consent to a search in these 

circumstances.

2.11 recOmmendatiOn: Law 

enforcement agencies should adopt policies 

requiring officers to identify themselves 

by their full name, rank, and command (as 

applicable) and provide that information in 

writing to individuals they have stopped. In 

addition, policies should require officers to 

state the reason for the stop and the reason 

for the search if one is conducted.

2.11.1 actiOn item: One example of how 

to do this is for law enforcement officers to carry 

business cards containing their name, rank, command, and contact information that would enable 

individuals to offer suggestions or commendations or to file complaints with the appropriate 

individual, office, or board. These cards would be 

easily distributed in all encounters.

2.12 recOmmendatiOn: Law 

enforcement agencies should establish search 

and seizure procedures related to LGBTQ and 

transgender populations and adopt as policy 

the recommendation from the President’s 

Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS (PACHA) to 

cease using the possession of condoms as the 

sole evidence of vice. 
F i n a l R e p o r t o f t h e P r e s i d e n t ’ s T a s k F o r c e o n 2 1 s t C e n t u r y P o l i c i n g

9 0

2.13 recOmmendatiOn: Law 

enforcement agencies should adopt and 

enforce policies prohibiting profiling and 

discrimination based on race, ethnicity, 

national origin, religion, age, gender, gender 

identity/expression, sexual orientation, 

immigration status, disability, housing status, 

occupation, or language fluency.

2.13.1 actiOn item: The Bureau of 

Justice Statistics should add questions concerning 

sexual harassment of and misconduct toward 

community members, and in particular LGBTQ and 

gender-nonconforming people, by law enforcement officers to the Police Public Contact Survey.

2.13.2 actiOn item: The Centers for 

Disease Control should add questions concerning 

sexual harassment of and misconduct toward 

community members, and in particular LGBTQ and 

gender-nonconforming people, by law enforcement officers to the National Intimate Partner and 

Sexual Violence Survey.

2.13.3 actiOn item: The U.S. Department of 

Justice should promote and disseminate guidance 

to federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies 

on documenting, preventing, and addressing sexual 

harassment and misconduct by local law enforcement agents, consistent with the recommendations 

of the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

2.14 recOmmendatiOn: The U.S. 

Department of Justice, through the Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services and 

Office of Justice Programs, should provide 

technical assistance and incentive funding to 

jurisdictions with small police agencies that 

take steps towards shared services, regional 

training, and consolidation.

2.15 recOmmendatiOn: The U.S. 

Department of Justice, through the Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services, should 

partner with the International Association 

of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards 

and Training (IADLEST) to expand its National 

Decertification Index to serve as the National 

Register of Decertified Officers with the goal 

of covering all agencies within the United 

States and its territories.

3.1 recOmmendatiOn: The U.S. 

Department of Justice, in consultation with 

the law enforcement field, should broaden the 

efforts of the National Institute of Justice to 

establish national standards for the research 

and development of new technology. These 

standards should also address compatibility 

and interoperability needs both within law 

enforcement agencies and across agencies 

and jurisdictions and maintain civil and 

human rights protections.

3.1.1 actiOn item: The Federal Government should support the development and 

delivery of training to help law enforcement 

agencies learn, acquire, and implement technology tools and tactics that are consistent with the 

best practices of 21st century policing.

3.1.2 actiOn item: As part of national standards, the issue of technology’s impact on privacy 

concerns should be addressed in accordance with 

protections provided by constitutional law.

3.1.3 actiOn item: Law enforcement 

agencies should deploy smart technology that is 

designed to prevent the tampering with or manipulating of evidence in violation of policy.
9 1

A p p e n d i x E

3.2 recOmmendatiOn: 

The implementation of appropriate 

technology by law enforcement agencies 

should be designed considering local needs 

and aligned with national standards.

3.2.1 actiOn item: Law enforcement agencies should encourage public engagement and 

collaboration, including the use of community 

advisory bodies, when developing a policy for the 

use of a new technology.

3.2.2 actiOn item: Law enforcement agencies should include an evaluation or assessment 

process to gauge the effectiveness of any new 

technology, soliciting input from all levels of the 

agency, from line officer to leadership, as well as 

assessment from members of the community.

3.2.3 actiOn item: Law enforcement 

agencies should adopt the use of new technologies that will help them better serve people with 

special needs or disabilities.

3.3 recOmmendatiOn: The U.S. 

Department of Justice should develop 

best practices that can be adopted by 

state legislative bodies to govern the 

acquisition, use, retention, and dissemination 

of auditory, visual, and biometric data by 

law enforcement.

3.3.1 actiOn item: As part of the process 

for developing best practices, the U.S. Department 

of Justice should consult with civil rights and civil 

liberties organizations, as well as law enforcement 

research groups and other experts, concerning 

the constitutional issues that can arise as a result 

of the use of new technologies.

3.3.2 actiOn item: The U.S. Department of 

Justice should create toolkits for the most effective 

and constitutional use of multiple forms of innovative technology that will provide state, local, and 

tribal law enforcement agencies with a one-stop 

clearinghouse of information and resources.

3.3.3 actiOn item: Law enforcement 

agencies should review and consider the Bureau 

of Justice Assistance’s (BJA) Body Worn Camera 

Toolkit to assist in implementing BWCs.

3.4 recOmmendatiOn: Federal, state, 

local, and tribal legislative bodies should be 

encouraged to update public record laws.

3.5 recOmmendatiOn: Law enforcement 

agencies should adopt model policies 

and best practices for technology-based 

community engagement that increases 

community trust and access.

3.6 recOmmendatiOn: The Federal 

Government should support the development 

of new “less than lethal” technology to help 

control combative suspects.

3.6.1 actiOn item: Relevant federal agencies, including the U.S. Departments of Defense 

and Justice, should expand their efforts to study 

the development and use of new less than lethal 

technologies and evaluate their impact on public 

safety, reducing lethal violence against citizens, 

constitutionality, and officer safety.

3.7 recOmmendatiOn: The Federal 

Government should make the development 

and building of segregated radio spectrum 
F i n a l R e p o r t o f t h e P r e s i d e n t ’ s T a s k F o r c e o n 2 1 s t C e n t u r y P o l i c i n g

9 2

and increased bandwidth by FirstNet for 

exclusive use by local, state, tribal, and federal 

public safety agencies a top priority.

4.1 recOmmendatiOn: Law enforcement 

agencies should develop and adopt policies 

and strategies that reinforce the importance 

of community engagement in managing 

public safety.

4.1.1 actiOn item: Law enforcement 

agencies should consider adopting preferences 

for seeking “least harm” resolutions, such as diversion programs or warnings and citations in lieu of 

arrest for minor infractions.

4.2 recOmmendatiOn: Community 

policing should be infused throughout the 

culture and organizational structure of law 

enforcement agencies.

4.2.1 actiOn item: Law enforcement 

agencies should evaluate officers on their efforts 

to engage members of the community and the 

partnerships they build. Making this part of 

the performance evaluation process places an 

increased value on developing partnerships.

4.2.2 actiOn item: Law enforcement 

agencies should evaluate their patrol deployment 

practices to allow sufficient time for patrol officers 

to participate in problem solving and community 

engagement activities.

4.2.3 actiOn item: The U.S. Department 

of Justice and other public and private entities 

should support research into the factors that have 

led to dramatic successes in crime reduction in 

some communities through the infusion of 

non-discriminatory policing and to determine 

replicable factors that could be used to guide law 

enforcement agencies in other communities.

4.3 recOmmendatiOn: Law enforcement 

agencies should engage in multidisciplinary, 

community team approaches for planning, 

implementing, and responding to crisis 

situations with complex causal factors.

4.3.1 actiOn item: The U.S. Department of 

Justice should collaborate with others to develop 

and disseminate baseline models of this crisis 

intervention team approach that can be adapted 

to local contexts.

4.3.2 actiOn item: Communities should 

look to involve peer support counselors as part 

of multidisciplinary teams when appropriate. 

Persons who have experienced the same trauma 

can provide both insight to the first responders 

and immediate support to individuals in crisis.

4.3.3 actiOn item: Communities should be 

encouraged to evaluate the efficacy of these crisis 

intervention team approaches and hold agency 

leaders accountable for outcomes.

4.4 recOmmendatiOn: Communities 

should support a culture and practice of 

policing that reflects the values of protection 

and promotion of the dignity of all, especially 

the most vulnerable.

4.4.1 actiOn item: Because offensive or 

harsh language can escalate a minor situation, 

law enforcement agencies should underscore the 

importance of language used and adopt policies directing officers to speak to individuals with respect.
9 3

A p p e n d i x E

4.4.2 actiOn item: Law enforcement 

agencies should develop programs that create opportunities for patrol officers to regularly interact 

with neighborhood residents, faith leaders, and 

business leaders.

4.5 recOmmendatiOn: Community 

policing emphasizes working with 

neighborhood residents to co-produce public 

safety. Law enforcement agencies should 

work with community residents to identify 

problems and collaborate on implementing 

solutions that produce meaningful results for 

the community.

4.5.1 actiOn item: Law enforcement agencies should schedule regular forums and meetings 

where all community members can interact with 

police and help influence programs and policy.

4.5.2 actiOn item: Law enforcement 

agencies should engage youth and communities 

in joint training with law enforcement, citizen 

academies, ride-alongs, problem solving teams, 

community action teams, and quality of life 

teams.

4.5.3 actiOn item: Law enforcement agencies should establish formal community/citizen 

advisory committees to assist in developing crime 

prevention strategies and agency policies as well 

as provide input on policing issues.

4.5.4 actiOn item: Law enforcement agencies should adopt community policing strategies 

that support and work in concert with economic 

development efforts within communities.

4.6 recOmmendatiOn: Communities 

should adopt policies and programs that 

address the needs of children and youth 

most at risk for crime or violence and reduce 

aggressive law enforcement tactics that 

stigmatize youth and marginalize their 

participation in schools and communities.

4.6.1 actiOn item: Education and criminal 

justice agencies at all levels of government should 

work together to reform policies and procedures 

that push children into the juvenile justice system.

4.6.2 actiOn item: In order to keep youth 

in school and to keep them from criminal and violent behavior, law enforcement agencies should 

work with schools to encourage the creation of 

alternatives to student suspensions and expulsion 

through restorative justice, diversion, counseling, 

and family interventions.

4.6.3 actiOn item: Law enforcement agencies should work with schools to encourage the 

use of alternative strategies that involve youth in 

decision making, such as restorative justice, youth 

courts, and peer interventions.

4.6.4 actiOn item: Law enforcement 

agencies should work with schools to adopt an 

instructional approach to discipline that uses 

interventions or disciplinary consequences to help 

students develop new behavior skills and positive 

strategies to avoid conflict, redirect energy, and 

refocus on learning.

4.6.5 actiOn item: Law enforcement 

agencies should work with schools to develop and 

monitor school discipline policies with input and 

collaboration from school personnel, students, 
F i n a l R e p o r t o f t h e P r e s i d e n t ’ s T a s k F o r c e o n 2 1 s t C e n t u r y P o l i c i n g

9 4

families, and community members. These policies 

should prohibit the use of corporal punishment 

and electronic control devices.

4.6.6 actiOn item: Law enforcement 

agencies should work with schools to create a 

continuum of developmentally appropriate and 

proportional consequences for addressing ongoing and escalating student misbehavior after all 

appropriate interventions have been attempted.

4.6.7 actiOn item: Law enforcement 

agencies should work with communities to play 

a role in programs and procedures to reintegrate 

juveniles back into their communities as they 

leave the juvenile justice system.

4.6.8 actiOn item: Law enforcement agencies and schools should establish memoranda of 

agreement for the placement of School Resource 

Officers that limit police involvement in student 

discipline.

4.6.9 actiOn item: The Federal Government should assess and evaluate zero tolerance 

strategies and examine the role of reasonable 

discretion when dealing with adolescents in 

consideration of their stages of maturation or 

development.

4.7 recOmmendatiOn: Communities 

need to affirm and recognize the voices 

of youth in community decision making, 

facilitate youth-led research and problem 

solving, and develop and fund youth 

leadership training and life skills 

through positive youth/police 

collaboration and interactions.

4.7.1 actiOn item: Communities and law 

enforcement agencies should restore and build 

trust between youth and police by creating programs and projects for positive, consistent, and 

persistent interaction between youth and police.

4.7.2 actiOn item: Communities should 

develop community- and school-based 

evidence-based programs that mitigate punitive 

and authoritarian solutions to teen problems.

5.1 recOmmendatiOn: The Federal 

Government should support the development 

of partnerships with training facilities across 

the country to promote consistent standards 

for high quality training and establish training 

innovation hubs.

5.1.1 actiOn item: The training innovation 

hubs should develop replicable model programs 

that use adult-based learning and scenario-based 

training in a training environment modeled less 

like boot camp. Through these programs the hubs 

would influence nationwide curricula, as well as 

instructional methodology.

5.1.2 actiOn item: The training innovation 

hubs should establish partnerships with academic 

institutions to develop rigorous training practices, 

evaluation, and the development of curricula 

based on evidence-based practices.

5.1.3 actiOn item: The Department of 

Justice should build a stronger relationship with 

the International Association of Directors of Law 

Enforcement (IADLEST) in order to leverage their 

network with state boards and commissions of 

Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST).
9 5

A p p e n d i x E

5.2 recOmmendatiOn: Law enforcement 

agencies should engage community members 

in the training process.

5.2.1 actiOn item: The U.S. Department of 

Justice should conduct research to develop and 

disseminate a toolkit on how law enforcement 

agencies and training programs can integrate 

community members into this training process.

5.3 recOmmendatiOn: Law enforcement 

agencies should provide leadership training 

to all personnel throughout their careers.

5.3.1 actiOn item: Recognizing that strong, 

capable leadership is required to create cultural 

transformation, the U.S. Department of Justice 

should invest in developing learning goals and 

model curricula/training for each level of leadership.

5.3.2 actiOn item: The Federal Government 

should encourage and support partnerships between law enforcement and academic institutions 

to support a culture that values ongoing education 

and the integration of current research into the 

development of training, policies, and practices.

5.3.3 actiOn item: The U.S. Department 

of Justice should support and encourage 

cross-discipline leadership training.

5.4 recOmmendatiOn: The U.S. 

Department of Justice should develop, 

in partnership with institutions of higher 

education, a national postgraduate institute 

of policing for senior executives with a 

standardized curriculum preparing them to 

lead agencies in the 21st century.

5.5 recOmmendatiOn: The U.S. 

Department of Justice should instruct the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation to modify the 

curriculum of the National Academy at Quantico 

to include prominent coverage of the topical 

areas addressed in this report. In addition, the 

COPS Office and the Office of Justice Programs 

should work with law enforcement professional 

organizations to encourage modification of 

their curricula in a similar fashion.

5.6 recOmmendatiOn: POSTs should 

make Crisis Intervention Training (CIT) a part of 

both basic recruit and in-service officer training.

5.6.1 actiOn item: Because of the importance of this issue, Congress should appropriate 

funds to help support law enforcement crisis 

intervention training.

5.7 recOmmendatiOn: POSTs should 

ensure that basic officer training includes 

lessons to improve social interaction as well as 

tactical skills.

5.8 recOmmendatiOn: POSTs should 

ensure that basic recruit and in-service officer 

training include curriculum on the disease of 

addiction.

5.9 recOmmendatiOn: POSTs should 

ensure both basic recruit and in-service 

training incorporates content around 

recognizing and confronting implicit bias and 

cultural responsiveness.

5.9.1 actiOn item: Law enforcement 

agencies should implement ongoing, top down 

training for all officers in cultural diversity and 
F i n a l R e p o r t o f t h e P r e s i d e n t ’ s T a s k F o r c e o n 2 1 s t C e n t u r y P o l i c i n g

9 6

related topics that can build trust and legitimacy 

in diverse communities. This should be accomplished with the assistance of advocacy groups 

that represent the viewpoints of communities that 

have traditionally had adversarial relationships 

with law enforcement.

5.9.2 actiOn item: Law enforcement agencies should implement training for officers that 

covers policies for interactions with the LGBTQ 

population, including issues such as determining 

gender identity for arrest placement, the Muslim, 

Arab, and South Asian communities, and immigrant or non-English speaking groups, as well as 

reinforcing policies for the prevention of sexual 

misconduct and harassment.

5.10 recOmmendatiOn: POSTs should 

require both basic recruit and in-service 

training on policing in a democratic society.

5.11 recOmmendatiOn: The Federal 

Government, as well as state and local 

agencies, should encourage and incentivize 

higher education for law enforcement officers.

5.11.1 actiOn item: The Federal Government should create a loan repayment and 

forgiveness incentive program specifically for 

policing.

5.12 recOmmendatiOn: The Federal 

Government should support research into the 

development of technology that enhances 

scenario-based training, social interaction 

skills, and enables the dissemination 

of interactive distance learning for law 

enforcement.

5.13 recOmmendatiOn: The U.S. 

Department of Justice should support 

the development and implementation of 

improved Field Training Officer programs.

5.13.1 actiOn item: The U.S. Department 

of Justice should support the development of 

broad Field Training Program standards and 

training strategies that address changing police 

culture and organizational procedural justice 

issues that agencies can adopt and customize to 

local needs.

5.13.2 actiOn item: The U.S. Department 

of Justice should provide funding to incentivize 

agencies to update their Field Training Programs 

in accordance with the new standards.

6.1 recOmmendatiOn: The U.S. 

Department of Justice should enhance and 

further promote its multi-faceted officer 

safety and wellness initiative.

6.1.1 actiOn item: Congress should 

establish and fund a national “Blue Alert” warning 

system.

6.1.2 actiOn item: The U.S. Department of 

Justice, in partnership with the U.S. Department 

of Health and Human Services, should establish a 

task force to study mental health issues unique to 

officers and recommend tailored treatments.

6.1.3 actiOn item: The Federal Government should support the continuing research into 

the efficacy of an annual mental health check for 

officers, as well as fitness, resilience, and nutrition.
9 7

A p p e n d i x E

6.1.4 actiOn item: Pension plans should 

recognize fitness for duty examinations as definitive evidence of valid duty or non-duty related 

disability.

6.1.5 actiOn item: Public Safety Officer 

Benefits (PSOB) should be provided to survivors of 

officers killed while working, regardless of whether the officer used safety equipment (seatbelt or 

anti-ballistic vest) or if officer death was the result 

of suicide attributed to a current diagnosis of 

duty-related mental illness, including but not 

limited to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

6.2 recOmmendatiOn: Law enforcement 

agencies should promote safety and wellness 

at every level of the organization.

6.2.1 actiOn item: Though the Federal Government can support many of the 

programs and best practices identified by the 

U.S. Department of Justice initiative described in 

recommendation 6.1, the ultimate responsibility 

lies with each agency.

6.3 recOmmendatiOn: The U.S. 

Department of Justice should encourage and 

assist departments in the implementation of 

scientifically supported shift lengths by law 

enforcement.

6.3.1 actiOn item: The U.S. Department of 

Justice should fund additional research into the 

efficacy of limiting the total number of hours an 

officer should work within a 24–48-hour period, 

including special findings on the maximum number of hours an officer should work in a high risk 

or high stress environment (e.g., public demonstrations or emergency situations).

6.4 recOmmendatiOn: Every law 

enforcement officer should be provided with 

individual tactical first aid kits and training as 

well as anti-ballistic vests.

6.4.1 actiOn item: Congress should 

authorize funding for the distribution of law 

enforcement individual tactical first aid kits.

6.4.2 actiOn item: Congress should 

reauthorize and expand the Bulletproof Vest 

Partnership (BVP) program.

6.5 recOmmendatiOn: The U.S. 

Department of Justice should expand efforts 

to collect and analyze data not only on officer 

deaths but also on injuries and “near misses.”

6.6 recOmmendatiOn: Law enforcement 

agencies should adopt policies that require 

officers to wear seat belts and bullet-proof 

vests and provide training to raise awareness 

of the consequences of failure to do so.

6.7 recOmmendatiOn: Congress 

should develop and enact peer review error 

management legislation.

6.8 recOmmendatiOn: The U.S. 

Department of Transportation should 

provide technical assistance opportunities for 

departments to explore the use of vehicles 

equipped with vehicle collision prevention 

“smart car” technology that will reduce the 

number of accidents.
F i n a l R e p o r t o f t h e P r e s i d e n t ’ s T a s k F o r c e o n 2 1 s t C e n t u r y P o l i c i n g

9 8

7.1 recOmmendatiOn: The President 

should direct all federal law enforcement 

agencies to review the recommendations 

made by the Task Force on 21st Century 

Policing and, to the extent practicable, to 

adopt those that can be implemented at the 

federal level.

7.2 recOmmendatiOn: The U.S. 

Department of Justice should explore publicprivate partnership opportunities, starting by 

convening a meeting with local, regional, and 

national foundations to discuss the proposals 

for reform described in this report and seeking 

their engagement and support in advancing 

implementation of these recommendations.

7.3 recOmmendatiOn: The U.S. 

Department of Justice should charge its 

Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services (COPS Office) with assisting the law 

enforcement field in addressing current and 

future challenges.

For recommendation 7.3, the COPS Office 

should consider taking actions including but 

not limited to the following:

y Create a National Policing Practices and 

Accountability Division within the COPS Office.

y Establish national benchmarks and best 

practices for federal, state, local, and tribal 

police departments.

y Provide technical assistance and funding to 

national, state, local, and tribal accreditation 

bodies that evaluate policing practices.

y Recommend additional benchmarks 

and best practices for state training and 

standards boards.

y Provide technical assistance and funding 

to state training boards to help them meet 

national benchmarks and best practices in 

training methodologies and content.

y Prioritize grant funding to departments 

meeting benchmarks.

y Support departments through an expansion of 

the COPS Office Collaborative Reform Initiative.

y Collaborate with universities, the Office of 

Justice Programs and its bureaus (Bureau of 

Justice Assistance [BJA], Bureau of Justice 

Statistics [BJS], National Institute of Justice 

[NIJ], and Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention [OJJDP]), and others 

to review research and literature in order 

to inform law enforcement agencies about 

evidence-based practices and to identify areas 

of police operations where additional research 

is needed.

y Collaborate with the BJS to

 establish a central repository for data 

concerning police use of force resulting 

in death, as well as in-custody deaths, 

and disseminate this data for use by both 

community and police;

 provide local agencies with technical 

assistance and a template to conduct 

local citizen satisfaction surveys;
9 9

A p p e n d i x E

 compile annual citizen satisfaction 

surveys based on the submission of 

voluntary local surveys, develop a 

national level survey as well as surveys 

for use by local agencies and by small 

geographic units, and develop questions 

to be added to the National Crime 

Victimization Survey relating to citizen 

satisfaction with police agencies and 

public trust.

y Collaborate with the BJS and others to 

develop a template of broader indicators of 

performance for police departments beyond 

crime rates alone that could comprise a 

Uniform Justice Report.

y Collaborate with the NIJ and the BJS to publish 

an annual report on the “State of Policing” in 

the United States.

y Provide support to national police 

leadership associations and national rank 

and file organizations to encourage them to 

implement task force recommendations.

y Work with the U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security to ensure that community 

policing tactics in state, local, and tribal law 

enforcement agencies are incorporated into 

their role in homeland security.


“ When any part of the American family does not feel like it is being treated fairly, 

that’s a problem for all of us. It means that we are not as strong as a country as 

we can be. And when applied to the criminal justice system, it means we’re not as 

effective in fighting crime as we could be.” 

—President Barack Obama

These remarks underpin the mission of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing: to identify 

ways to build trust between citizens and their law enforcement officers so that all components of a community treat one another fairly and justly and are invested in maintaining public safety in an atmosphere 

of mutual respect.

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

145 N Street NE

Washington, DC 20530

To obtain details on COPS Office programs,

call the COPS Office Response Center at 800-421-6770.

Visit the COPS Office online at www.cops.usdoj.gov. e011522679

Published 2015