TECHNOLOGY USED TO SEARCH FOR PROBLEM COPS

Police agencies are using technology to identify problem cops before they really screw up

It sounds good, but I’ll bet that this technology will run smack dab against the ‘meet and confer’ demands of police unions. That is probably why of 748 ‘alerts’ found by LAPD during a four months period, only 10 officers (1.3 percent) were required to take retraining.

‘EARLY WARNING SYSTEMS’ AIM TO ID TROUBLED POLICE OFFICERS
Police departments across the U.S. are using technology to try to identify problem officers before their misbehavior harms innocent people, embarrasses their employer, or invites a costly lawsuit, from citizens or the federal government

By Tami Abdollah

Associated Press
September 7, 2014

Police departments across the U.S. are using technology to try to identify problem officers before their misbehavior harms innocent people, embarrasses their employer or invites a costly lawsuit from citizens or from the federal government.

While such “early warning systems” are often treated as a cure-all, experts say, little research exists on their effectiveness or if they’re even being properly used.

Over the last decade, such systems have become the gold standard in accountability policing through a computerized system used by at least 39 percent of law enforcement agencies, according to the most recent data from the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics.

The issue of police-community relations was thrust into the spotlight recently after an officer fatally shot Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo. Since then, departments have held public forums to build trust with residents, and some are testing cameras mounted to officers to monitor their interactions with the public.

The aim is to avoid cases where the first evidence of a troubled officer is a YouTube video showing him or her excessively beating a suspect. Such incidents stoke public fears about police and can result in huge monetary settlements for the department.

The systems track factors such as how often officers are involved in shootings, get complaints, use sick days and get into car accidents. When they hit a specific threshold, they’re supposed to be flagged and supervisors notified so appropriate training or counseling can be assigned.

The Los Angeles Police Department agreed to set up a $33 million early warning system after the so-called Rampart scandal in the late 1990s, in which the elite Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums (CRASH) anti-gang unit was found to have beaten and framed suspected gang members. The system was implemented in 2007.

But the LAPD’s inspector general found in a recent review that the system was seemingly ineffective in identifying officers who ultimately were fired. The report looked at 748 “alerts” over a four-month period and found the agency took little action in the majority of cases and only required training for 1.3 percent of them — or 10 alerts.

Sam Walker, a University of Nebraska at Omaha professor emeritus and expert on such systems, said he was troubled by the LAPD’s response to the report and concerned that a follow-up study would be used to discredit the system a year after emerging from federal oversight.

“These are not predictive devices,” he said. “Is the failure in the system itself, or is the failure in how the department managed the system? If they did such a small amount of retraining, did they ignore lots of training needs and fail to do it?”

Maggie Goodrich, chief information officer for the LAPD, defended the technology before the department’s civilian oversight board but said a deeper analysis of its impacts is necessary. “How do you prove a negative?” she asked. “What we can’t capture with this system is how many times have we stopped somebody from engaging in behavior.”

For rank-and-file officers, there’s concern someone could be flagged merely because, for example, they work in a high-crime area where they are more likely to use their weapon or physical force. Some systems attempt to correct for such factors by comparing officers with their direct peers, and managers are supposed to account for differences in assignments.

“Their concern is the concern that the public has about Big Brother,” said Tyler Izen, president of the L.A. Police Protective League, the union representing LAPD officers. “If you’re watching over me and there’s a setup matrix that is going to tell you that I’m bad, people are always skeptical of things like that.”

The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department is on the verge of entering into a federal consent decree for its mismanagement of jails. And a Justice Department investigation concluded last year found deputies discriminated against blacks and Latinos by utilizing unconstitutional stops, searches, seizures and excessive force.

The Sheriff’s Department has an early warning system. “Our diagnostic systems were fine,” said the Sheriff’s Department Chief of Detectives Bill McSweeney, who advised his agency on its creation. “Our managerial and supervision response was not fine. It’s that simple.”

Experts say such an early warning system can be another powerful tool to help officers do their jobs and improve relations, but it is only as good as the people and departments using it.

“It’s not a guarantee that you will catch all of those officers that are struggling,” said Jim Bueermann of the Police Foundation, the country’s oldest nonpartisan police research nonprofit. “These systems are designed to give you a forewarning of problems — and then you have to do something.”